Table 1.

Key documents identified by the literature review, focusing on elements and propositions relevant for the assessment of transnational CoPs in health policy

Authors	Year of publication	Reference	Sector of reference	Main dimension of focus	Key elements, findings and propositions
	FRAMEWORKS FOR ASSESSING CoPs’ PERFORMANCE
Schenkel et al.	2000	[26]	Management	Performance of CoPs	Social network analysis.
McDermott	2002	[27]	Business	Return On Investment (ROI)	Pyramidal framework, which starts from ‘activities’ at the base and moves upwards to ‘outputs’, ‘value’ and ‘business results’.
Wenger et al.	2002	[5]	Business/Management	ROI	Simple method for calculating an approximate ROI value.
Arora et al.	2002	[28]	Business	Performance of CoPs/ROI	Balanced scorecards.
Millen & Fontaine	2003	[29]	Business	Performance of CoPs/ROI	Causal model for community interactions and benefits, which categorizes benefits into ‘individual/personal’, ‘community’ and ‘organizational’.
Lee et al.	2005	[30]	Business/Management	KM performance/ROI	Complex, formalized method to calculate ROI for KM activities.
Helms et al.	2007	[31]	Management	Performance of CoPs/ROI	Knowledge network analysis.
Scarso et al.	2009	[24]	Business/Management	Success factors/ROI	Identifies two external influences (the organization’s own knowledge strategy and the context) and four internal/constitution characteristics of CoPs (organizational, cognitive, economic and technological dimensions) to explain the CoPs success (applied to the case of a multinational oil company).
Braithwaite et al.	2009	[32]	Health	Performance of CoPs	Protocol presenting a methodology for the “development, design, testing, refinement, simulation and application of an evaluation framework for communities of practice and social-professional networks”.
Wenger et al.	2011	[33]	Education	Assessing ‘value creation’	A very detailed, comprehensive guide for promoting and assessing ‘value creation’ (a performance measure of the level of learning enabled) for CoPs and networks in the education sector. Includes a conceptual framework and practical methods and tools.
Ranmuthugala et al.	2011	[34]	Health	Performance/role of CoPs	A second study protocol (following Braithwaite et al. 2009) proposing ‘realist evaluation’ combined with ‘social network analysis’ as a tool for the development of such a framework. Both protocols focus mainly on the application of CoPs to healthcare activities, specifically in Australia.
ADB	2011	[35]	Development	Evaluation of KM strategies	Use of the DAC Criteria for Evaluating Development Assistance as a tool for assessing KM strategies. The DAC criteria are relevance, effectiveness, efficacy, sustainability and impact.
	LIMITATIONS OF CoPS
LeBaron	2000	[36]	Education	Limitation of CoPs	Cultural and social values of collaboration vs. individual success.
Yanow	2004	[37]	Management	Limitations of CoPs/Hierarchies	Role of local vs. expert knowledge; distinction between horizontal, geographic periphery and a vertical, hierarchical periphery.
Roberts	2006	[38]	Management	Limitation of CoPs	Power structures and hierarchies; time needed to evolve and mature; resistance to change.
Kerno	2008	[39]	Management	Limitation of CoPs	Time constraints; organizational hierarchies; regional culture.
	ELEMENTS FOR THE SUCCESS OF CoPs
Johnson	2001	[40]	Education	Early research on virtual CoPs’ characteristics	Different levels of expertise; fluidity of knowledge flows (vs. withdrawal/attrition); community knowledge greater than individual knowledge; environment of safety and trust.
Sveiby & Simons	2002	[41]	Management	Trust	Collaborative climate is one of the major factors influencing effectiveness of knowledge management.
Levin et al.	2004	[42]	Management	Trust	Trust as essential for knowledge sharing.
Wenger et al.	2005	[43]	Management	Use of ICT	Contribution of technologies to CoPs; new tools and challenges in the use of ICT; description of technologies the CoPs use to “create a sense of togetherness over time and across distances”.
Bourhis et al.	2005	[25]	Management	Leadership	Role of the community leaders and coach to respond to challenges in a way adapted to the CoP characteristics (presenting empirical case studies).
Cargill	2006	[44]	Management	Leadership	Role of leaders and leadership issues.
Ardichvili et al.	2006	[45]	Management	Culture	Cultural influences and potential cultural barriers in knowledge sharing and participation.
Usoro et al.	2007	[46]	Management	Trust	Trust as predictor of knowledge sharing behaviours. Trust is analysed across three dimensions: perceived competence, integrity and benevolence of the CoP.
Kraut & Resnick	2011	[47]	Management	Use of ICT	Possible designs improving the success of online communities.