John Maloney has posted a great rant on Caterpillar’s recently awarded patent for communities of practice. The patent abstract states:
A method is provided for establishing a community of practice including a plurality of users, one or more experts, and one or more community of practice managers. A need for a community of practice is identified. The roles and responsibilities of participants in the community of practice are identified. One or more goals are identified for the community of practice based on the identified need. A plurality of the participants in the community of practice collaborate to achieve the identified goals.
Maloney correctly argues that the concept of a community of practice (CoP) was created 40 years ago. He’s also correct in questioning Caterpillar’s definition of a community. But misses the key point of the patent application. Caterpillar isn’t laying claim to the concept of a CoP, but the method of establishing a CoP.
Still, I have to admire his find of another excellent KM tool…
Apparatus for Kicking the User’s Buttocks
I think I can find a good use for this.
I use a 2-ply, tufted paper for this activity. I know, TMI.
I use a 2-ply, tufted paper for this activity. I know, TMI.
Thanks for the comments. I see the second patent was of more interest to people than the first. Maybe it’s because we can all think of some excellent, practical applications? 🙂
FWIW, I allude to the fact that Caterpillar’s definition of “community” is askew. Maloney elaborates on this a bit, but for those who don’t know, Caterpillar has literally thousands of so-called communities. A thousand are probably inactive.
What they call a community is oftentimes really just an ad hoc workspace for a small team to collaborate in; more of a team room, really.
True, healthy communities take on a life of their own. People can come and go and the community continues on. That doesn’t mean that the community can go rudderless without ill effect, but it does mean that a certain amount of flux in the makeup of that community is natural.
For me, the bottom-line is that there is a significant difference between a community and a team.
Thanks for the comments. I see the second patent was of more interest to people than the first. Maybe it’s because we can all think of some excellent, practical applications? 🙂
FWIW, I allude to the fact that Caterpillar’s definition of “community” is askew. Maloney elaborates on this a bit, but for those who don’t know, Caterpillar has literally thousands of so-called communities. A thousand are probably inactive.
What they call a community is oftentimes really just an ad hoc workspace for a small team to collaborate in; more of a team room, really.
True, healthy communities take on a life of their own. People can come and go and the community continues on. That doesn’t mean that the community can go rudderless without ill effect, but it does mean that a certain amount of flux in the makeup of that community is natural.
For me, the bottom-line is that there is a significant difference between a community and a team.