The Main Findings of the Study
The article “Participation in Intra-Firm Communities of Practice: A Case Study from the Automotive Industry” identifies the major incentives that can encourage more engineers to share their experiences in intra-firm communities of practice (CoPs). To begin with, top managers “should foster the concept of communities of practice (CoPs)” (Wolf, Spath, and Haefliger 36). Such CoPs can promote the idea of knowledge-creation. A number of incentives can be used to support the performance of many engineers in intra-firm CoPs.
Every engineer should focus on the best outcomes and standards. When different communities of practice (CoPs) are performing effectively, more employees will be willing to double their efforts. They will also participate in every decision-making process. Many engineers also want to work in organizations that support their personal needs. They should also be ready to create the most acceptable standards. The authors explain why “managers should ensure their employees are assigned to various communities of practice and projects” (Wolf et al. 22).
The article goes further to identify new incentives that can be used to motivate many employees. Some of these remedies include “provision of bonuses associated knowledge-contributions, team building activities, sequential processes detailing various steps of knowledge transfer, and promoting informal socializing opportunities” (Wolf et al. 35). The above incentives will ensure more engineers form the best communities of practice. This approach will ensure every employee is willing to improve his or her efforts. The practice will eventually produce the best goals. The targeted CoPs should, therefore, create better personal networks and foster new discussions.
These communities of practice will ensure more engineers become innovative. The “identified chicken and egg relationships have the potential to produce the best goals” (Wolf et al. 35). The targeted benefits include continued collaborations and improved performances. The perceived benefits include “building strong networks, participation in different decision-making processes, and knowledge-exchange” (Wolf et al. 35). Managers should, therefore, use these incentives in order to motivate their employees.
A Critical Look at the Study
The concepts presented in this article are applicable to many industries. According to the authors, business organizations should embrace the power of communities of practice (CoPs). Such CoPs have the potential to motivate many engineers. The incentives described in the article empower more employees to share their skills in intra-firm CoPs. The authors have also used a powerful study approach in order to get the best findings. Organizational managers should use the above incentives in order to produce better performing CoPs. This achievement will encourage more engineers and employees to focus on the best goals (Knowles, Holton, and Swanson 47). They will also engage in various decision-making processes. Such workers will also focus on targeted organizational standards and goals.
Managers should “influence the cost-benefit calculus of different CoP members” (Wolf et al. 22). Engineers should also embrace these findings in order to become good innovators. This study is objective because it identifies powerful practices that can produce the best results. The article also identifies new practices that can improve the performance of such CoPs. The authors have also highlighted powerful practices that can support the goals of many companies. Managers can use the patterns presented in the study “to identify the major barriers affecting community work” (Wolf et al. 36). In conclusion, I will read more articles in order to become innovative.
Works Cited
Knowles, Malcolm, Elwood Holton and Richard Swanson. The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development. London: Elsevier Incorporation, 2005. Print.
Wolf, Patricia, Sebastian Spath and Stefan Haefliger. “Participation in Intra-firm Communities of Practice: A Case Study from the Automotive Industry.” Journal of Knowledge Management 15.1 (2011): 22-39. Print.