This resource has been drawn from discussions in the General Forum of the Australian Flexible Learning Community during the period July 2002 to December 2004. Many thanks to all who contributed.

This interesting question was not the beginning of the discussion. The beginning was a posting introducing the document…

“Designing for an online community of practice: a checklist” [which] was commissioned as a result of the Framework's 2003 Resource Review Project recommendation to develop the 2001 NET*Working presentation “Designing for a Viable Online Professional Development Community” by Robby Weatherley and Rose Grozdanic.

The brief was to:

• develop a checklist/guide with greater emphasis on the definition and functioning of an online community
• expand the success indicators in the document to include examples of evidence of success
• develop the following issues: pedagogical issues relating to designing for the online environment, monitoring community content and standards, assessing the success of an online community.

Almost immediately there was a reaction to the idea of a ‘checklist’ for something that most contributors thought of as a organic social organism.

I would worry about calling anything in relation to online communities (CoP or not) a "checklist". It sounds all a little formulaic and, we all know that communities (like children and child rearing) just don't follow any manual. In my research into 14 online Communities of practice, I have preferred the terms ‘conditions’ or ‘considerations’ - these are things you can encourage but not make happen. People actually make the community but there are some conditions that give community a higher chance of developing.

Also, in community building there is a much work to be done in sustaining the community as there is in start up - a checklist might imply that you can sit back and rest after you put this list of things in place. It is not without some thought that people like Wenger and Seely Brown, Schlager use gardening metaphors

…sorry to rant but it seems important to me that we not deny the messiness that is community building.

That being said, the focus then turned to the following.

I did note the paragraph: "One interesting and little explored indicator of success is that the community actually makes itself redundant. Sustainable relationships have formed and no longer need the online space to meet, professional development goals have been met, participants have set up their own forums elsewhere, or the platform is superseded by more sophisticated models of communal communication. It is rare to see this considered in the inception of communities of practice but it should be – nothing lasts forever and initiatives launched into the fast-moving online environment are more transitory than ever. This is especially true in a climate where online development funding is almost always provided for a fixed term and people are up against ever increasing demands on their professional and personal time."

I'm not convinced. It reads like putting a good spin on closing down programs and funding. Of course that always happens, and in general people and ideas survive, but I'm not convinced that the rapidity of communication exchange in an online environment necessarily equates with regarding online environments as ‘transient’.

Knowing the Australian Flexible Learning Community site was soon to close, some members related the idea contained in the quoted paragraph to the Community and voiced their displeasure.

It used to be fashionable to knock down old buildings and replace them with shiny new ones with air-conditioning and always closed windows- and then we realised that we were destroying our valuable heritage, and old buildings were refurbished and valued for their uniqueness. Closing down the AFLC seems a bit like a misguided slum clearance project- not a ‘success indicator’ at all.

and this

I'm actually very fond of online communities of practice as a way of supporting learning, professional practice, innovation and system change...just not in favour of suggestions that as they change they therefore become redundant. I don't think that this one (AFLC) in particular is redundant, although maybe not sustainable without the considerable funding that has supported it thus far.

Very clear concern was expressed over the idea that closing down online CoP's may be thought of as a ‘success factor’. It raised questions about how sustainability could be achieved and the suggestion that the terminology of ‘sustainability’ needs to be reviewed.

A member asked whether…

…any community could be truly sustainable without some sort of ‘trade’ or relationship with other communities?

Prompting this response.

You raise a good point in relationship to "sustainability". I ask one question, other than base hosting costs and occasional system/site administration, should a community require funding to ensure its sustainability, or should the community through its contribution be the determining factor?

My personal belief is that it should be sustained through contribution, and if the contributions fall away, then the community becomes another ghost.

A similar analogy is within our rural communities - some are still vibrant, some struggle and others have become ghost towns through a change in the environment - however influenced. Every community that becomes a ghost town, people move on to integrate into a new community, probably sustaining that community a little longer. Is it just growth and maturity?

So on one side the ‘survival of the fittest’ view was forming and on the other…

While I have some sympathy with the theory of natural growth and evolution of communities I'm also aware that a ‘survival of the fittest’ approach in practice can be very destructive for a wider humane society. I think that ‘community goods’, social capital or whatever you want to call it can and should be supported as part of the infrastructure that we are entitled to.

On and offline communities should be supported if they are regarded worthwhile in the bigger picture. This (AFLC) is not just a self-selected community - it was deliberately set up to build and maintain great flexibility and responsiveness in the VET sector. If that is still a goal then, it should be supported. Perhaps the vision has changed? There are critical tipping points and decisions that are made by governments everyday that mean the growth or demise of communities. This is particularly relevant for rural communities. After a certain point the community is unsustainable - but there are opportunities for intervention eg funding major works, transferring workers to regions, improving infrastructure etc. If the community is valuable don't close down the hospital, railway, bridge, school etc so that everyone moves away to other more populated places...if it is not, let it die, but don't expect that there will be a fire fighting team next time you need one. I'd like to see some bureaucracies have a go at being ‘sustainable’.

Ouch!

The argument wasn’t over. There was still strong support for online communities to be more than a funded space. This view strongly supported the idea that if it was a true ‘community’ it would contribute to it’s own survival.

I agree with you in supporting communities, particularly within regional areas - whether physical or on-line. There does come a point however when we have reached the life expectancy of any given group. I am also of the opinion that support should have some delineated boundaries and achievable goals.

Imagine an online community where there is little activity say one or two contributions per month and a number of viewers to that post. Are they just passing through as a curiosity factor or is the material of benefit - and to whom? What about a face-2-face situation – what’s the cut-off for a f2f class? What contribution level is required before the class is cancelled for economic reasons? Should we view on-line communities any differently?

There are costs involved in maintaining any on-line site… So if a community doesn’t contribute in any significant way for a period of time (eg six months) isn’t that a reason to either migrate the remnant community into another or close it down. Surely the lack of activity can be interpreted as lack of desire by members to "keep it alive"?

So in the end there was some concession of ground.

Maybe you are right - nothing like a threat to bring a resurgence of activity in any community. Will be interesting to see what happens next. I question the measurement of ‘communities’ along narrow economic and short term lines- but that is a whole other discussion.