Page 176 -

Knowledge Sharing and Communities of Practice 159

Box 5.8
A vignette: Tragedy of the commons

Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as
many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work satisfactorily
for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man
and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day
of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a
reality and logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy. As a rational being, each
herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. “ What is the utility to me of adding one more animal
to my herd? ” Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional
animal, the positive utility is nearly +1. The negative impact is the additional overgrazing
created by one animal. However all the herdsmen share the effect of overgrazing: the
negative utility for any particular herdsman being only a fraction of – 1. The only sensible
course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd — and another, and so forth.
But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons.
Therein lies the tragedy.

or on the Internet. What is important is that there is a place for real-time exchange
and asynchronous discussion, and that this interaction leaves behind tangible
archives — the social capital and intellectual capital created by the community. All
communities thus need shared cultural objects, a means of sharing them and a means
of storing them.
In other words, networks form because people need one another to reach common
goals. Mutual help, assistance, and reciprocity are common to all functioning net-
works. Another important characteristics is that these networks are not only self-
organizing but self-regulating. For example, no one “ decrees ” that a community will
exist (although many organizations have made this mistake). It is not a top-down
formal organization as a task force or project team would be. There is no one person
“ in charge ” of the community, although there may be founding members. Similarly,
if someone is in it only for himself or herself, the other members will quickly realize
this. This is illustrated by Hardin ’ s (1968) tragedy of the commons scenario.
There are many types of CoPs and they are typically defi ned as a function of some
common focal points such as:

• A profession such as engineering, law, or medicine
• A work-related function or process such as production, distribution, marking, sales,
or customer service