Community Sites Architecture #CoP #information-architecture


Neil Olonoff
 

All, 

I have been asked to provide information about communities (CoPs) to our Information Architecture folks that will inform them how to best structure community spaces in SharePoint 2010. 

Most of my thinking about CoPs has to do with personal interaction, facilitation, and such. I haven't thought much about the "information architecture" of a CoP space. 

I wonder if any of you have any tips on this issue. 

thanks in advance ....

Neil 


Neil Olonoff 



Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

I’m well along on developing a knowledge services architecture but I haven’t gotten to the CoP part yet, so I would also be interested.  In return, I could share what I’ve done for collaboration and negotiation as part of chapter on KM for humanitarian NGOs.

 

Al Simard

 

 


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Neil Olonoff
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 7:04 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Community Sites Architecture

 

 

All, 

 

I have been asked to provide information about communities (CoPs) to our Information Architecture folks that will inform them how to best structure community spaces in SharePoint 2010. 

 

Most of my thinking about CoPs has to do with personal interaction, facilitation, and such. I haven't thought much about the "information architecture" of a CoP space. 

 

I wonder if any of you have any tips on this issue. 

 

thanks in advance ....

 

Neil 


Neil Olonoff 


Nancy Dixon
 

Neil,
In my experience each community needs the flexibility to organize their information in the way that fits the type of knowledge they are discussing. As the community meets to discusses topics and answer each other's questions, they began to identify knowledge that they would like to make available to everyone. I remember one software community that was most interested in cataloging pieces of code, pre-developed components, that could be re-used. Engineers often want their technical specification organized like a spreadsheet. Company command first organized their information by type, eg. lessons learned, tools, etc. and after a few years reorganized it by the tasks that every commander has to do, e.g. physical training, safety, leadership. I would encourage that the choice of information architecture be left to each specific community.

Nancy

--- In sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com, Neil Olonoff <olonoff@...> wrote:

All,

I have been asked to provide information about communities (CoPs) to our
Information Architecture folks that will inform them how to best structure
community spaces in SharePoint 2010.

Most of my thinking about CoPs has to do with personal interaction,
facilitation, and such. I haven't thought much about the "information
architecture" of a CoP space.

I wonder if any of you have any tips on this issue.

thanks in advance ....

Neil


Neil Olonoff


Lee Romero
 

Neil - Are you thinking of the space of an individual community?  Or the information architecture of a whole group of communities?  I think they are very different answers.

Regards
Lee


On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Neil Olonoff <olonoff@...> wrote:


All, 

I have been asked to provide information about communities (CoPs) to our Information Architecture folks that will inform them how to best structure community spaces in SharePoint 2010. 

Most of my thinking about CoPs has to do with personal interaction, facilitation, and such. I haven't thought much about the "information architecture" of a CoP space. 

I wonder if any of you have any tips on this issue. 

thanks in advance ....

Neil 


Neil Olonoff 



Neil Olonoff
 

Lee 

Great question and I hadn't deeply considered it at all. I guess the answer has to be both. Certainly the interaction of communities (boundary spanning, cross fertilization, etc.) contributes to their success. 

Thanks for the insight. 

Neil 



Neil Olonoff 




On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Lee Romero <pekadad@...> wrote:
 

Neil - Are you thinking of the space of an individual community?  Or the information architecture of a whole group of communities?  I think they are very different answers.


Regards
Lee


On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Neil Olonoff <olonoff@...> wrote:


All, 

I have been asked to provide information about communities (CoPs) to our Information Architecture folks that will inform them how to best structure community spaces in SharePoint 2010. 

Most of my thinking about CoPs has to do with personal interaction, facilitation, and such. I haven't thought much about the "information architecture" of a CoP space. 

I wonder if any of you have any tips on this issue. 

thanks in advance ....

Neil 


Neil Olonoff 




Dave Simmons
 

Hi, Neil,

Generically, I would aim for groupware that can form subgroups or new outgrowth groups, allow folks to post docs and comment on them, allow for multiple threads of conversations, be moderated, allow for voting on either docs or comments, and have individual profiles with credentials and or personal contact info.

Higher level CoP stuff may include conferencing, calendaring, an online reference library, and FAQ resource. 

I am building this list based on CoPS I have been involved with over the last decade.  I am sure it is incomplete, but may be a start.

Dave

On Nov 30, 2012 1:10 PM, "Neil Olonoff" <olonoff@...> wrote:
 

Lee 


Great question and I hadn't deeply considered it at all. I guess the answer has to be both. Certainly the interaction of communities (boundary spanning, cross fertilization, etc.) contributes to their success. 

Thanks for the insight. 

Neil 



Neil Olonoff 




On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Lee Romero <pekadad@...> wrote:
 

Neil - Are you thinking of the space of an individual community?  Or the information architecture of a whole group of communities?  I think they are very different answers.


Regards
Lee


On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Neil Olonoff <olonoff@...> wrote:


All, 

I have been asked to provide information about communities (CoPs) to our Information Architecture folks that will inform them how to best structure community spaces in SharePoint 2010. 

Most of my thinking about CoPs has to do with personal interaction, facilitation, and such. I haven't thought much about the "information architecture" of a CoP space. 

I wonder if any of you have any tips on this issue. 

thanks in advance ....

Neil 


Neil Olonoff 




Karla Phlypo
 

I have had a great deal of experience with CoP and was wondering if you have a corporate taxonomy that can be use to formalize the groups and be use to establish the architecture? Does your organization have a product or service process?  If so, it would be beneficial to consider aligning the two.

Kind regards,
Karla Phlypo PhD ABD


On Nov 30, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Dave Simmons <videnguy@...> wrote:

 

Hi, Neil,

Generically, I would aim for groupware that can form subgroups or new outgrowth groups, allow folks to post docs and comment on them, allow for multiple threads of conversations, be moderated, allow for voting on either docs or comments, and have individual profiles with credentials and or personal contact info.

Higher level CoP stuff may include conferencing, calendaring, an online reference library, and FAQ resource. 

I am building this list based on CoPS I have been involved with over the last decade.  I am sure it is incomplete, but may be a start.

Dave

On Nov 30, 2012 1:10 PM, "Neil Olonoff" <olonoff@...> wrote:
 

Lee 


Great question and I hadn't deeply considered it at all. I guess the answer has to be both. Certainly the interaction of communities (boundary spanning, cross fertilization, etc.) contributes to their success. 

Thanks for the insight. 

Neil 



Neil Olonoff 




On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Lee Romero <pekadad@...> wrote:
 

Neil - Are you thinking of the space of an individual community?  Or the information architecture of a whole group of communities?  I think they are very different answers.


Regards
Lee


On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Neil Olonoff <olonoff@...> wrote:


All, 

I have been asked to provide information about communities (CoPs) to our Information Architecture folks that will inform them how to best structure community spaces in SharePoint 2010. 

Most of my thinking about CoPs has to do with personal interaction, facilitation, and such. I haven't thought much about the "information architecture" of a CoP space. 

I wonder if any of you have any tips on this issue. 

thanks in advance ....

Neil 


Neil Olonoff 




Bill Dixon
 

At EY the labeling of our communities - which is a precursor to our taxonomy mimics organizational structure. We are a heavily matrixed organization so that concept presents itself differently by sector, competency and geography. It can get confusing if you are accustomed to thinking about a hierarchical taxonomy when in fact there are multiple facets involved.

BD
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

From: Kp_primary <karla.s.phlypo@...>
Sender: sikmleaders@...
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:26:49 -0500
To: sikmleaders@...<sikmleaders@...>
ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Community Sites Architecture

 

I have had a great deal of experience with CoP and was wondering if you have a corporate taxonomy that can be use to formalize the groups and be use to establish the architecture? Does your organization have a product or service process?  If so, it would be beneficial to consider aligning the two.

Kind regards,
Karla Phlypo PhD ABD


On Nov 30, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Dave Simmons <videnguy@...> wrote:

 

Hi, Neil,

Generically, I would aim for groupware that can form subgroups or new outgrowth groups, allow folks to post docs and comment on them, allow for multiple threads of conversations, be moderated, allow for voting on either docs or comments, and have individual profiles with credentials and or personal contact info.

Higher level CoP stuff may include conferencing, calendaring, an online reference library, and FAQ resource. 

I am building this list based on CoPS I have been involved with over the last decade.  I am sure it is incomplete, but may be a start.

Dave

On Nov 30, 2012 1:10 PM, "Neil Olonoff" <olonoff@...> wrote:
 

Lee 


Great question and I hadn't deeply considered it at all. I guess the answer has to be both. Certainly the interaction of communities (boundary spanning, cross fertilization, etc.) contributes to their success. 

Thanks for the insight. 

Neil 



Neil Olonoff 




On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Lee Romero <pekadad@...> wrote:
 

Neil - Are you thinking of the space of an individual community?  Or the information architecture of a whole group of communities?  I think they are very different answers.


Regards
Lee


On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Neil Olonoff <olonoff@...> wrote:


All, 

I have been asked to provide information about communities (CoPs) to our Information Architecture folks that will inform them how to best structure community spaces in SharePoint 2010. 

Most of my thinking about CoPs has to do with personal interaction, facilitation, and such. I haven't thought much about the "information architecture" of a CoP space. 

I wonder if any of you have any tips on this issue. 

thanks in advance ....

Neil 


Neil Olonoff 




Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
 

Neil,

As other people have noted, there's different ways of answering this question.

1. The first is the features of a generic online community space. I would look at your existing CoP activities and see how they align with the feature list that SP 2010 offers (& this will vary with the version of SP that your organisation has acquired).

2. The second is the way that multiple communities are managed overall. I reckon the main thing here is getting a sense of the lifecycle of your communities & what that means for managing the sites. One issue with SP (same as Lotus Notes before it) is site proliferation, duplication, etc.

I would note that:
- SP 2010 doesn't shoot the lights out in terms of rich, intuitive conversational spaces for CoPs. It is strong on the management of MS Office docs however (if that's what ppl want to do).
- Other vendors have created products that are more fun to use & that integrate with SP. Microsoft even bought one of them recently (Yammer).

Cheers,

Matt

On Nov 30, 2012, at 11:03 PM, Neil Olonoff <olonoff@...> wrote:

 

All, 


I have been asked to provide information about communities (CoPs) to our Information Architecture folks that will inform them how to best structure community spaces in SharePoint 2010. 

Most of my thinking about CoPs has to do with personal interaction, facilitation, and such. I haven't thought much about the "information architecture" of a CoP space. 

I wonder if any of you have any tips on this issue. 

thanks in advance ....

Neil 


Neil Olonoff 



Jeff Stemke
 

Neil: I've had quite a bit of experience designing CoP sites in SharePoint and other tools. We all know about connect vs. collect, with finding others to ask questions or get quick advice being probably the most important collaborative capability.

Here are common business requirements relating to the information architecture:
  • Member profiles: containing skills, an overview of experience (within the CoP's domain), contact information and a picture (nice to have). You are not trying to replicate some sort of corporate expertise directory. But these are often highly structured and inflexible. You have complete freedom in the CoP and can quickly react to new skills.
  • Skills: I often configure the skills as a multiple choice list. In asking members to select one or more skills, the idea is to choose skills that you are willing to answer questions about, not a laundry list. The skills also become part of the CoP's taxonomy for document libraries and discussion lists.
  • Librarys: each CoP will have different types of content. It is a good idea to survey the members to find out what they need to do their work and categories that make sense for them or store and find information. I like the idea of separate libraries for process documentation (including tools, templates and example work product), lessons learned, etc. Since the content often requires different metadata, this makes design a lot easier (especially in SharePoint).
  • Discussions: obvious, but not well implemented in SharePoint compared to other tools. I haven't looked recently at third party webparts.
  • Meetings: a good CoP incorporates face-to-face or virtual meetings in addition to shared documents. I've used the Meeting site to organize the schedule, but kept and presentations or other documents in one of the primary libraries.
  • Other Social Media: Wikis may be more effective than document libraries for organizing some content. This is particularly true when you are asking the members to capture new knowledge rather than share content they've already created in their normal work. Blogs offer a nice way to communicate "what's new" to the community and other interested parties.
  • Recognition: you want something, a list perhaps on the home page, that shares success stories and highlights member contributions.
What am I missing?
 
Jeff Stemke




Dave Simmons
 

Great job, Jeff!

The only thing I would add is a 'what's new' feature on the CoP site that shows what has been changed/added.  This feature has some architectural design needs and frequently falls off the table when putting it together.  However, I believe that it would be highly valued by the busy membership.

On Dec 1, 2012 11:14 AM, "Jeff Stemke" <jstemke@...> wrote:
 

Neil: I've had quite a bit of experience designing CoP sites in SharePoint and other tools. We all know about connect vs. collect, with finding others to ask questions or get quick advice being probably the most important collaborative capability.


Here are common business requirements relating to the information architecture:
  • Member profiles: containing skills, an overview of experience (within the CoP's domain), contact information and a picture (nice to have). You are not trying to replicate some sort of corporate expertise directory. But these are often highly structured and inflexible. You have complete freedom in the CoP and can quickly react to new skills.
  • Skills: I often configure the skills as a multiple choice list. In asking members to select one or more skills, the idea is to choose skills that you are willing to answer questions about, not a laundry list. The skills also become part of the CoP's taxonomy for document libraries and discussion lists.
  • Librarys: each CoP will have different types of content. It is a good idea to survey the members to find out what they need to do their work and categories that make sense for them or store and find information. I like the idea of separate libraries for process documentation (including tools, templates and example work product), lessons learned, etc. Since the content often requires different metadata, this makes design a lot easier (especially in SharePoint).
  • Discussions: obvious, but not well implemented in SharePoint compared to other tools. I haven't looked recently at third party webparts.
  • Meetings: a good CoP incorporates face-to-face or virtual meetings in addition to shared documents. I've used the Meeting site to organize the schedule, but kept and presentations or other documents in one of the primary libraries.
  • Other Social Media: Wikis may be more effective than document libraries for organizing some content. This is particularly true when you are asking the members to capture new knowledge rather than share content they've already created in their normal work. Blogs offer a nice way to communicate "what's new" to the community and other interested parties.
  • Recognition: you want something, a list perhaps on the home page, that shares success stories and highlights member contributions.
What am I missing?
 
Jeff Stemke




plessons@...
 

Hi Neil,

You have some great learnings available in the US on this topic through your National Cooperative Extension system and www.extension.org organisation

http://create.extension.org/CoP%20Handbook

http://create.extension.org/node/2123

In conceiving infrastructures for CoPs on a systematic basis, over time, I think it will be shown it will be important to create an inter-related knowledge space - one drawing upon social media collaborations and anecdotal knowledge sharing and another focusing on evidential knowledge spaces. A dynamic relationship should of course exist in the use of these different types of infrastructures because knowledge emerges and evolves over time.

I was invited to submit a paper up for peer review about this type of topic (a first attempt to test these ideas amongst KMers in a formal sense) at the moment in a relevant journal. I am going to be interested to see what sort of peer reviewed response I will get from this type of case study. The journey of the way CoPs aqcquire, apply, create and disseminate knowledge in the context of multi-jurisdictional collaborations has a very long way to run in my opinion.

Richard V

 


-


Cory Banks
 

Neil,

Totally agree with Nancy. Forget about an overall architecture (you can get back to that later), focus ont he language and topics that are important to the discipline of the network.

We sit down with the specific community and look at how they currently organised things (shared folders, corporate library, team & role structures), do some card sorting with the members and use the structure for managed metadata/site columns/content types/keywords/synonyms and every other possible way you can tag/classify/signify content in SharePoint.

Once you have given the individual community a platform, should you then look at connections and overlaps with terms and definitions in other communities.

Cory

Thanks

Cory Banks



On 2 December 2012 06:54, <plessons@...> wrote:
 

Hi Neil,

You have some great learnings available in the US on this topic through your National Cooperative Extension system and www.extension.org organisation

http://create.extension.org/CoP%20Handbook

http://create.extension.org/node/2123

In conceiving infrastructures for CoPs on a systematic basis, over time, I think it will be shown it will be important to create an inter-related knowledge space - one drawing upon social media collaborations and anecdotal knowledge sharing and another focusing on evidential knowledge spaces. A dynamic relationship should of course exist in the use of these different types of infrastructures because knowledge emerges and evolves over time.

I was invited to submit a paper up for peer review about this type of topic (a first attempt to test these ideas amongst KMers in a formal sense) at the moment in a relevant journal. I am going to be interested to see what sort of peer reviewed response I will get from this type of case study. The journey of the way CoPs aqcquire, apply, create and disseminate knowledge in the context of multi-jurisdictional collaborations has a very long way to run in my opinion.

Richard V

 


-



Stan Garfield
 

There have been some great comments in this thread. Here are a few more ideas.

1. Give communities names which help potential members understand what each community is about. Try to use easily recognizable, universal, industry-standard topics, and avoid redundant and overly-narrow communities.

2. Maintain a master community directory where users can find and access all available communities. Include tags for each community which describe what it is about, including the types listed below. Allow the directory to be filtered, sorted, and searched.

3. Offer a community template for community sites, which can be used as is, or which can be modified to meet the specific needs of each community. The template should include the key tools most communities will want to us (see below for a suggested set).

See the Communities Manifesto for additional details: http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddj598qm_44fx54rbg5 

Types can be used for describing communities, creating a community directory, and helping users readily navigate to the communities which interest them.  There are five categories which can be used to describe and organize communities: TRAIL - Topic, Role, Audience, Industry, Location

  1. Topic (e.g., Enterprise Applications, Cloud Computing)
  2. Role (e.g., Project Management, Software Development)
  3. Audience (e.g., Recruits, Women)
  4. Industry (e.g., Manufacturing, Telecommunications) or Client (e.g., European Union, US Federal Government)
  5. Location (e.g., US, UK)

Tools should support member interaction.  There are five key tools for communities: SCENT - Site, Calendar, Events, News, Threads
 
  1. Site: home page - for reaching new members and sharing information with current ones
  2. Calendar: of community events - for promoting interaction
  3. Events: meetings, conference calls, webinars - for interacting personally
  4. News: newsletter or blog - for ongoing communications and publicity
  5. Threads: threaded discussion board - for interacting virtually


Arthur Shelley
 

Good discussion folks,
Agree with the overall sentiment that community sites are about "community" - a place the stimulates conversation & interaction between people (OK some processes that are supported by tools can make the interactions more effective & efficient, but these are the icing, not the cakes).

Few things I found interesting to include in profiles:
Languages spoken (very useful if a peer can assist in a translation)

Projects worked on (especially if you have fairly unique names for projects, so often insights across projects are invaluable).

External interests and photo(s) of the person in their social context (because people are social and knowing someone has a connection with you helps to build relationships. Such insights can accelerate trust development, which increases knowledge flow/transfer). 

I know some people balk at the last one (and is optional of course). However, in my experience it makes a significant difference (and many people these days share so much more in more public places now anyway, sharing inside the fire amongst a small group of peers gives more benefits for so little cost/risk). It is also a preemptive investment in trust.

I understand and respect privacy implications AND also know most people will not share with people they don't know. This helps reduce the barriers.

Arthur
Tweeting as Metaphorage

On 02/12/2012, at 4:48, Dave Simmons <videnguy@...> wrote:

 

Great job, Jeff!

The only thing I would add is a 'what's new' feature on the CoP site that shows what has been changed/added.  This feature has some architectural design needs and frequently falls off the table when putting it together.  However, I believe that it would be highly valued by the busy membership.

On Dec 1, 2012 11:14 AM, "Jeff Stemke" <jstemke@...> wrote:
 

Neil: I've had quite a bit of experience designing CoP sites in SharePoint and other tools. We all know about connect vs. collect, with finding others to ask questions or get quick advice being probably the most important collaborative capability.


Here are common business requirements relating to the information architecture:
  • Member profiles: containing skills, an overview of experience (within the CoP's domain), contact information and a picture (nice to have). You are not trying to replicate some sort of corporate expertise directory. But these are often highly structured and inflexible. You have complete freedom in the CoP and can quickly react to new skills.
  • Skills: I often configure the skills as a multiple choice list. In asking members to select one or more skills, the idea is to choose skills that you are willing to answer questions about, not a laundry list. The skills also become part of the CoP's taxonomy for document libraries and discussion lists.
  • Librarys: each CoP will have different types of content. It is a good idea to survey the members to find out what they need to do their work and categories that make sense for them or store and find information. I like the idea of separate libraries for process documentation (including tools, templates and example work product), lessons learned, etc. Since the content often requires different metadata, this makes design a lot easier (especially in SharePoint).
  • Discussions: obvious, but not well implemented in SharePoint compared to other tools. I haven't looked recently at third party webparts.
  • Meetings: a good CoP incorporates face-to-face or virtual meetings in addition to shared documents. I've used the Meeting site to organize the schedule, but kept and presentations or other documents in one of the primary libraries.
  • Other Social Media: Wikis may be more effective than document libraries for organizing some content. This is particularly true when you are asking the members to capture new knowledge rather than share content they've already created in their normal work. Blogs offer a nice way to communicate "what's new" to the community and other interested parties.
  • Recognition: you want something, a list perhaps on the home page, that shares success stories and highlights member contributions.
What am I missing?
 
Jeff Stemke




Bill Dixon
 

If the cost of entry into any community is too high few will enter.

It is important to remember the upswing of "bring your own device" (byod) to work and mobile computing are relatively new. We should be careful to not discount technology acceptance and selection as key success factors.

Our traditional infrastructures serve some audiences very well but may not serve audiences exercising new-found self determination (and community definition) at all. We miss great opportunities for collaboration and knowledge sharing by thinking too myopically.

BD
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

From: Arthur Shelley <arthur@...>
Sender: sikmleaders@...
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:39:36 +1100
To: sikmleaders@...<sikmleaders@...>
ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Community Sites Architecture

 

Good discussion folks,
Agree with the overall sentiment that community sites are about "community" - a place the stimulates conversation & interaction between people (OK some processes that are supported by tools can make the interactions more effective & efficient, but these are the icing, not the cakes).

Few things I found interesting to include in profiles:
Languages spoken (very useful if a peer can assist in a translation)

Projects worked on (especially if you have fairly unique names for projects, so often insights across projects are invaluable).

External interests and photo(s) of the person in their social context (because people are social and knowing someone has a connection with you helps to build relationships. Such insights can accelerate trust development, which increases knowledge flow/transfer). 

I know some people balk at the last one (and is optional of course). However, in my experience it makes a significant difference (and many people these days share so much more in more public places now anyway, sharing inside the fire amongst a small group of peers gives more benefits for so little cost/risk). It is also a preemptive investment in trust.

I understand and respect privacy implications AND also know most people will not share with people they don't know. This helps reduce the barriers.

Arthur
Tweeting as Metaphorage

On 02/12/2012, at 4:48, Dave Simmons <videnguy@...> wrote:

 

Great job, Jeff!

The only thing I would add is a 'what's new' feature on the CoP site that shows what has been changed/added.  This feature has some architectural design needs and frequently falls off the table when putting it together.  However, I believe that it would be highly valued by the busy membership.

On Dec 1, 2012 11:14 AM, "Jeff Stemke" <jstemke@...> wrote:
 

Neil: I've had quite a bit of experience designing CoP sites in SharePoint and other tools. We all know about connect vs. collect, with finding others to ask questions or get quick advice being probably the most important collaborative capability.


Here are common business requirements relating to the information architecture:
  • Member profiles: containing skills, an overview of experience (within the CoP's domain), contact information and a picture (nice to have). You are not trying to replicate some sort of corporate expertise directory. But these are often highly structured and inflexible. You have complete freedom in the CoP and can quickly react to new skills.
  • Skills: I often configure the skills as a multiple choice list. In asking members to select one or more skills, the idea is to choose skills that you are willing to answer questions about, not a laundry list. The skills also become part of the CoP's taxonomy for document libraries and discussion lists.
  • Librarys: each CoP will have different types of content. It is a good idea to survey the members to find out what they need to do their work and categories that make sense for them or store and find information. I like the idea of separate libraries for process documentation (including tools, templates and example work product), lessons learned, etc. Since the content often requires different metadata, this makes design a lot easier (especially in SharePoint).
  • Discussions: obvious, but not well implemented in SharePoint compared to other tools. I haven't looked recently at third party webparts.
  • Meetings: a good CoP incorporates face-to-face or virtual meetings in addition to shared documents. I've used the Meeting site to organize the schedule, but kept and presentations or other documents in one of the primary libraries.
  • Other Social Media: Wikis may be more effective than document libraries for organizing some content. This is particularly true when you are asking the members to capture new knowledge rather than share content they've already created in their normal work. Blogs offer a nice way to communicate "what's new" to the community and other interested parties.
  • Recognition: you want something, a list perhaps on the home page, that shares success stories and highlights member contributions.
What am I missing?
 
Jeff Stemke