A REVISED THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE ROLE OF COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE IN LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING WITHIN A GEOGRAPHICALLY DISPERSED ORGANIZATION IN AN EMERGING ECONOMY IN LATIN AMERICA Matthias Paus A thesis submitted to the University of Gloucestershire in accordance with the requirements of the degree of Doctorate in Business Administration (DBA) April 2015 Abstract This thesis is about communities of practice [hereafter: CoPs], learning and knowledge sharing within the geographically dispersed organization Komatsu in Chile, which is an emerging economy in Latin America. Chile is characterised by a unique cultural and macroeconomic context and thus particularly suitable to broaden the scope about CoP theory. The research questions revolve around the forms that CoPs take within this context as-well-as their contribution to learning and knowledge sharing. The literature review sheds light on the aspects of learning, knowledge sharing and CoPs in a comprehensive manner. It suggests that it is unsuitable to think of a single CoP that spans across geographically dispersed organizations, but rather to consider multiple interconnected CoPs. The boundary processes constitute the pivotal aspect in fostering learning and knowledge sharing among them. This exploratory case study about shovel maintenance within Komatsu Chile, conducted within the social constructionism paradigm, provides evidence that CoPs are organised within a hierarchically-structured network. Extending beyond the premise that CoPs are bound together by shared practice (Brown & Duguid, 1991, 2001b), the research puts forward the argument that CoP Glue, (meaning a reified abstraction, known and accepted throughout the network of CoPs) constitutes the mechanism that holds them together. As part of the revised theoretical framework, it is advocated that CoP Alterity, along the dimensions of practice, domain and community (Wenger, 2011), is the aspect according to which CoPs can be differentiated. This revised theory opens up an interesting field of future academic enquiry. From a practitioner perspective the research has generated interesting findings and suggestions, which ought to be considered by those wishing to enhance learning and knowledge sharing within geographically dispersed organizations. I Declaration I declare that the work in this thesis was carried out in accordance with the regulations of the University of Gloucestershire and is original except where indicated by specific reference in the text. No part of the thesis has been submitted as part of any other academic award. The thesis has not been presented to any other education institution in the United Kingdom or overseas. Any views expressed in the thesis are those of the author and in no way represent those of the University. Signed: Date: April 23rd, 2015 II Acknowledgements The journey from starting the DBA to finalising this thesis would not have been possible without the support from so many people that I am deeply indebted to. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr John Laurence for the valuable advice, guidance and above all inspiration to carry out this intense research project. I would also like to thank my second supervisor Dr Michael Fass, for the thoughtful and constructive conversations we shared. I am also grateful for the support from the University of Gloucestershire’s German Office, particularly Daniela Sommer. I would like to thank everybody at Komatsu who supported me throughout this research project. I am especially grateful to all the participants of the fieldwork and all those who provided me with interesting insights and made this such an enjoyable process. I would also like to particularly express my gratitude to Luis Ocampo for his support and inspiration. The ‘Action Learning Set’ that we formed in the first week of the DBA program has been a fundamental cornerstone throughout this process. We were strangers at the beginning and have now become friends. In a moment where I was about to give up Martin Hommerich told me that he would be the first to “buy” a copy of my final thesis. Back then it seemed so far away, but he seeded an invaluable and inspiring vision in me. I will hold you to your words now Martin! I am also utterly grateful to the other members Ulrike Zädow, René Dalewski and last but not least Sven Gerritsen, for the numerous Skype conferences and chats we had throughout the last year. III Picture 1: Shovel maintenance team Chuquicamata. My family is everything to me! I am so thankful to my mother Ulrike and my father Hans- Georg (17/10/1952 - 26/11/2014), who recently passed away after a brief but heavy illness. I am also eternally indebted to my siblings Michael and Karoline, as-well-as to my uncle Christian. Last but not least, I am so thankful to my wife Pía and daughter Antonia (who was born during the DBA) for their support, patience and understanding when I was working on this thesis through long days and nights over the last few years. I love you very much! This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Ulrike and Hans-Georg. IV Table of Contents Abstract....................................................................................................................................... I Declaration ................................................................................................................................. II Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................III Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... V List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ X List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ XI Chapter 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Research Questions ................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Research Aim and Objectives .................................................................................. 5 1.4 Research Motivation and Significance ...................................................................... 5 1.5 Structure of the Dissertation ..................................................................................... 7 Chapter 2 Literature review.............................................................................................. 9 2.1 Learning ..................................................................................................................10 2.1.1 Experience ...........................................................................................................11 2.1.2 Disruptions ...........................................................................................................13 2.1.3 Learning spaces ..................................................................................................14 2.1.4 Learning outcomes ..............................................................................................15 2.1.5 Learning as a process ..........................................................................................17 2.1.5.1 Transformative learning ................................................................................ 17 2.1.5.2 Double-loop learning..................................................................................... 18 2.1.6 Social learning theory ..........................................................................................20 2.2 Knowledge Sharing .................................................................................................22 2.2.1 Knowledge definition ............................................................................................23 2.2.1.1 Tacit versus explicit knowledge .................................................................... 24 V 2.2.1.2 Social versus individual knowledge ............................................................... 26 2.2.2 Routines ..............................................................................................................29 2.2.3 Knowledge flows ..................................................................................................31 2.3 Communities of Practice ..........................................................................................34 2.3.1 Dimensions of CoPs ............................................................................................36 2.3.1.1 Community ................................................................................................... 36 2.3.1.2 Domain ......................................................................................................... 40 2.3.1.3 Practice ........................................................................................................ 42 2.3.2 CoPs within an organizationally dispersed context ...............................................45 2.3.2.1 Networks of practice ..................................................................................... 45 2.3.2.2 Boundary processes ....................................................................................