Value Creation in Communities of Practice – further insights

I first wrote about the Value Creation Framework when I attended last year’s BEtreat in Grass Valley, California (2011) – see Value Creation in Communities of Practice

This year (Academic BEtreat 2012 ) the value creation framework has again been a topic for discussion, with the added advantage of having a few participants who are using it or planning to use it.  It was a useful discussion, which has further informed my thinking and practice; I am currently working on a project in which we are using the value creation framework to inform our approach to knowledge management in a third sector organization.

The key points for me were:

There has been a tendency (at least in my mind) to confuse value creation with evaluation. The term evaluation is not helpful in this context as it brings with it notions of assessment. I say this despite the fact that both the words ‘evaluation’ and ‘assessment’ are used on the Wenger-Trayner website.

The focus of the value creation framework on storytelling and indicators of value creation (a matrix of indicators and stories) is designed to explore what counts as value in a community of practice. The matrix is the key element of the framework.

Value Creation Matrix

(click on the image to enlarge)

Whilst some quantitative data is collected through the use of the value creation framework (e.g. website statistics as an indicator of immediate value in Cycle 1), much of the framework focuses on collecting qualitative data though story telling in answer to questions such as ‘What activities have you participated in and how has this participation changed your practice?’ or ‘What were the key things that happened that made a difference?’ Stories answer the ‘so what’ question.

My perception is that the process of collecting stories is not that easy to manage, unless it is part of a research project and the stories can be collated and analysed by a research assistant. Analysing stories is a skilled job and begs the question of who will do this in an organization without a researcher.

A number of stories will be needed to validate value creation at a collective level and this will generate a lot of data. It will also require a lot of ‘man hours’, since the story collection process will ideally involve 3 people – the person telling the story, the person responsible for drawing the story out, and the recorder. Value can of course be collected at the individual level, but this is unlikely to impress stakeholders and funders. We need to convince stakeholders and funders and maybe even the senior management team that story telling is not just ‘qualitative fluff’. The value creation matrix combines qualitative and quantitative data with causality trails between indicators. The only people who know and understand the causality links are the storytellers themselves. Thinking of stories as causal trails is more likely to lead to rigorous analysis of the stories.

Stories can also be about ‘lack of value’ and these will be just as valuable.

The value creation framework can be used both prospectively and retrospectively. It’s the negotiation of indicators of value creation in each cycle that is important. These indicators may be emergent and come through in the process of telling a story, e.g. an emerging indicator in Cycle 5 might be the renegotiation of what is viewed as success (an aspirational story), which might happen in an appraisal or performance review process. This would help to shift the appraisal process from being a vertical one to being a transversal one (see Etienne and Beverly Wenger-Trayner’s slide – ‘Vertical and Horizontal Accountability – the need for transversality’ – in my last blog post about Social Learning Capability

Negotiation of indicators is critical to the success of the value creation process. In the negotiation of indicators stakeholders should clarify why an indicator is important.

Examples of indicators

(click on the image to enlarge)

 The following two stories illustrate why the negotiation of indicators is important and how inappropriate use of indicators can be misleading.

  1. Surgeons in New York were graded on the mortality rate of patients – but knowing this, surgeons would aim to achieve a high grade by turning away patients they couldn’t save.
  2. Russian shoe-makers were graded on the number of shoes they could make out of the least amount of leather. They responded by focusing on making Size 5 shoes which led to a shortage in larger sizes.

The value creation framework should be adapted to suit different communities of practice. Indicators of value creation may be unique to the community.

The framework should hopefully become a tool for reflection both at the individual and collective level – a dynamic tool for reflecting on learning capability and optimizing learning.

The number of case studies of how the value creation framework is being used appears to be increasing. The next challenge will be to prove to funders and stakeholders, through the analysis of the stories/data, that the time spent in applying the value creation framework has been well spent.

12 thoughts on “Value Creation in Communities of Practice – further insights

  1. roy August 10, 2012 / 9:14 am

    Interesting post. I think the difference between value and indicators is crucial. Value for me resides in a community, and is the product of a conversation – which is most often ongoing – you can take snapshots of it, but it moves on.
    The function of indicators, in general, is that they end conversations, and transcribe the value within a community into an indicator that is ‘objective’, and can be used by anyone else to evaluate performance.

    Value is for an internal conversation, indicators are for external consumption?

  2. jennymackness August 12, 2012 / 7:50 am

    Hi Roy – thanks for your interesting comment. I have looked again at the value creation framework – http://wenger-trayner.com/resources/publications/evaluation-framework/ – to see what the authors say about the relationship between indicators and value.

    They see value creation stories and indicators as two complementary types of data…’stories substantiate indicators, give them life, and make them more meaningful by connecting them into more extensive processes of value creation.’ (p.37)

    So the authors focus on complementarity rather than difference and see the matrix of indicators and stories (p.39) as the critical tool – where the accumulated evidence of the value created by a community or network can be represented.

  3. Roy Williams August 12, 2012 / 3:16 pm

    Hi Jenny, I love the authors optimism, and the ideal of complimentarily. Does this have a place in political discourse, or in the business discourse of quarterly results, though, where ‘fast and simple’ communication trumps ‘slow and thoughtful’?

    Convenience data is like convenience food – tempting but not good for you, no? (see: http://roys-discourse-typologies.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=student+charter)

    Or … where is the social space to create discourses of complimentarily?

  4. Greg Troxell June 14, 2014 / 3:30 pm

    Jenny thank you for this post. I’m intrigued by the BEtreat. I appreciate your advocacy and articulation of this framework. In my work with individuals and groups I also found it helpful to create a shared set of words that expressed and indicated people’s emotional alignment and motivational priorities. I created the emotivational spectrum to help with this and I suspect that it will complement your own work and projects. I welcome your comments and any further dialog about this subject, including your own development of communities of practice and values.

  5. Greg Troxell June 14, 2014 / 4:11 pm

    Jenny
    I appreciate your insights and articulation of this framework. I’m intrigued the the BEtreat but I’ve not been able to attend as of yet. In my own work with individuals and groups I’ve found that people also benefit from the framework of a common language from which they can appreciate the feelings and motivational priorities of one another. In 2010 this resulted in the development of what I called the “Emotivational Spectrum” which I use with folks to help them explore and articulate that which is important to them, their feelings, cultivate understanding, mutual respect, and collaboration. I’d welcome further conversation about values, and nurturing communities of practice.

    Greg Troxell | @gtroxell
    gtroxell.com/services/the-emotivational-spectrum/

  6. jennymackness June 19, 2014 / 4:57 pm

    Thank you Greg for your comments. As I mention in this post, the value creation framework focuses on collecting stories as a measure of value of a community of practice – and these stories are elicited through the negotiation of indicators and vice versa.

    It’s been a while since I have written or thought about this, so I can recommend that you read the Value Creation Framework (if you haven’t already) – http://wenger-trayner.com/resources/publications/evaluation-framework/ – and maybe consider attending one of Etienne and Bev Wenger Trayner’s BEtreats – http://wenger-trayner.com/betreat/ .

    I have attended the Academic BEtreats both face-to-face and online. If you are interested it would be worth contacting Etienne and Bev to discuss which is the best BEtreat for you.

    I have also written other posts about the Value Creation Framework and BEtreats – which, if you are interested, you will be able to find by searching this blog.

    Hope this helps,

    Jenny

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s