As part of my new role in KM at my company, I’ve been trying to develop a Community of Practice for one of the company’s strategic initiatives. I wrote about our first meeting back in January, so to continue here are the results of our second meeting, held this week. Though the audience was smaller, due to the time selected and members vacations’, the meeting itself was a small success. This CoP consists of members from North America, Europe and Australia. So there is no time that is best for everyone. Our first meeting was North America and Europe friendly. This second meeting was North America and Australia friendly. So most of the European members were not able to join, thus less attendance. At least I hope the timing was the reason and not lack of interest. Like the first meeting this was conducted via WebEx. Unlike the first meeting, there was a one PowerPoint with the meeting’s agenda and I acted as more meeting facilitator (think ToastMaster), and did little formal speaking. The agenda was simply:
- Introduction of new members
- Progress update on some of the knowledge assets that members were working on
- Review of items in the Donation Box
- Discussion on 3 topics
There were 2 new members, the total now stands around 16 participants from the 3 continents. So I had them introduce themselves to the group.
Part of the CoP goals are to create recommended practice (not best practice, since there is no such thing) guides. There was limited success updating an existing guide and members provided technical review of the content. A new guide is also in the works and some members are creating the content, and others have volunteered to review. Hopefully a reviewable version will be completed prior to the next meeting. This was the extent of the progress update.
The Donation Box review simply looked at the contents of the Donation Box and asked the member who submitted something to talk about it. The Donation Box is a simple file repository that members can upload any document they have created that they think is worthy of additional review and that the content should be shared. I can’t take credit for the name, but I thought it was a great name for what it was.
Prior to the meeting I had discussed with a couple members about topics they could talk about and generate group discussion on. So during the discussion section it was simply a matter of handing over the ‘floor’ to each member to lead the discussion. While the discussion did not solve all of the issues touched on, it was detailed, collegial and open. Several follow-up items came out of the discussion and hopefully will lead to some solutions.
Lastly the call was recorded so that those who did not attend could listen to the playback. I provided a time index so members could skip to the section they wanted too. In listening to the playback I did find I need to speak up more on the calls so I am better heard (sigh, one of my personal improvement goals). Also it is possible to track the amount of times the recording is played back so I will report on that in the future.