This chapter examines the role and development of Communities of Practice (CoPs) within government, focusing on their capacity to integrate strategic foresight and anticipatory practices that prepare public sector organisations for future challenges. Drawing on insights from the LIMinal project and a survey of government foresight communities, the chapter reviews relevant literature and introduces a model that outlines the core functions of CoPs—such as direction and leadership, vision and goals, community engagement, distinctive initiatives, collaboration and outreach, and communication and feedback loops. Furthermore, it provides targeted recommendations for establishing and strengthening such communities in varied national contexts.
Building Anticipatory Capacity with Strategic Foresight in Government
Lessons from Lithuania, Italy, and Malta
Abstract
This chapter explores the role and development of Communities of Practice (CoPs) in government, specifically focusing on their capacity to implement foresight and anticipatory practices to prepare governments for future challenges. CoPs are defined as networks of professionals who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis. This chapter was informed by the LIMinal project and a survey of government strategic foresight communities. Section 7.1 examines the general concept of CoPs in government settings, reviewing the existing literature to underscore their significance in enhancing collaborative learning and innovation. It introduces a model for understanding how CoPs operate with and contribute to governmental networks. Section 7.2 narrows the focus to CoPs specifically designed for anticipation and strategic foresight. It details the core functions necessary for these CoPs to be effective, which include direction and leadership, vision and goals, community engagement, distinctive initiatives, collaboration and outreach, and communication and feedback loops. Each function is explored to illustrate how CoPs can enhance their strategic impact and encourage a proactive approach to governance. Section 7.3 describes findings from a global survey of communities of practice and Section 7.4 identifies core functions of such communities. Section 7.5 suggests and framework and targeted recommendations for establishing and enhancing CoPs focused on foresight and anticipation in various national contexts, with specific strategies outlined for Italy, Malta, and Lithuania. These recommendations are tailored to the unique governmental and societal context of each country, proposing methods for integrating CoPs into existing structures and highlighting potential benefits and challenges. CoPs, through structured support and strategic development, can empower governments around the globe to become more future-ready. By leveraging collective expertise and encouraging an environment of continuous learning and anticipation, CoPs can significantly contribute to more resilient and adaptive public sector organisations.
7.1.1. Definitions and literature landscape of Communities of Practice (CoPs)
This subsection addresses the literature review, which outlines definitions and the literature landscape, contextualises the relationship between knowledge management and communities of practice, and informs conceptual differences regarding communities of practice, networks, knowledge centres, and types of knowledge.
Communities of practice (CoPs) are groups of people or entities with a common interest, specific challenges, or a passion for a particular topic and that enhance their understanding and expertise in that domain through continuous interaction (Wenger, Arnold McDermott and Snyder, 2002[1]). As social learning systems, members collaborate to tackle challenges, exchange ideas, set standards, build tools, and connect with peers and stakeholders (Snyder, Wenger-Trayner and Briggs, 2003[2]). They serve purposes such as encouraging knowledge sharing, promoting the adoption of novel or best practices, and facilitating co-operation. Communities can counterbalance the slow-moving, often hierarchical structures in governments, improve collective intelligence, and build the long-term practical wisdom of an organisation. The concept was initially introduced to study self-organised and organic processes, with Lave and Wenger (1991[3]) framing it within the context of social learning, particularly through apprenticeship. Brown and Duguid (1991[4]) later expanded on this perspective by examining how knowledge is improvised within interstitial groups that emerge independently of formal management structures. Over time, academic work on CoPs also evolved towards a more formalised, managerialist stance, as reflected in later studies (Cox, 2005[5]; Roberts, 2006[6]; Li et al., 2009[7]). However, other scholarly works define CoPs as a more institutionalised, hands-on approach (Wenger, 2000[8]; Saint-Onge and Wallace, 2003[9]), observing that organisations are crucial in sponsoring and facilitating the emergence, development, and continuation of their activities to reach their full benefit and value (Bourhis, Dubé and Jacob, 2005[10]; Pemberton, 2007[11]). Organisations that thrive in rapidly evolving environments typically adopt management models that prioritise knowledge and innovation as fundamental components (Saint-Onge and Wallace, 2003[9]).
CoPs are crucial components of organisational learning strategies and are seen as cornerstones of knowledge management (Pemberton, 2007[11]). As noted by Mládková (2023[12]), certain organisations go beyond conventional management models by actively creating conditions and integrating communities of practice as part of management strategies. This approach has been shown to enhance an organisation’s flexibility, innovation, and competitiveness, while facilitating the shift towards management principles rooted in self-management and a strong sense of belonging. Research in communities and networks has gained significant attention in social learning and management topics (Roberts, 2006[6]). However, specific research in the public sector remains an emerging area. Initially, studies focused on the private sector (Kulkarni, Stough and Haynes, 2000[13]), but recent scholars have shifted to their value and effectiveness in government settings (Lai et al., 2006[14]; Smith, 2016[15]).
Research focused on communities in the public sector have been demonstrated to enhance learning, performance policymaking, and intergovernmental co-ordination (Smith, 2016[15]; Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[16]), as well as to understand the design journey of communities of practice in the public sector (Catana, 2020[17]; Williquet et al., 2021[18]). This paper contributes to the nascent literature in CoPs in the public sector, with a specific focus on strategic foresight and anticipation. Although CoPs’ conceptual frameworks have been developed for specific policy domains, such as education and health policy (Moule, 2006[19]; Bertone et al., 2013[20]; Jakovljevic, Buckley and Bushney, 2013[21]; Mortier, 2020[22]), a transversal conceptual framework for CoPs in the public sector has not yet taken hold. Examining anticipation and strategic foresight communities in government has been limited to broad recommendations to strengthen foresight capacity, with in-depth exploration remaining largely untapped (Wilkinson, 2017[23]; Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[16]; Monteiro and Dal Borgo, 2023[24]).
7.1.2. Knowledge management and communities of practice
Effective knowledge creation and management depend on organisational structures, culture, and a clear purpose that supports these processes in a given context. Over time, organisational knowledge creation theory has evolved to include key concepts such as knowledge conversion process, organisational assets and enablers, knowledge vision, and the enabling environment. More recently, research has also emphasised knowledge leadership, practices, and dialogues (Jafari and Rezaeenour, 2010[25]).
These developments have contributed to a more systematic approach to knowledge management, introducing four core activities that help organisations manage and maintain their knowledge-based competencies: creating knowledge, sharing knowledge, protecting knowledge, and discarding obsolete knowledge (Ichijo and Nonaka, 2007[26]). Encouraging these activities is essential for effective knowledge creation and management in an organisation.
Scholars have identified key functions that support a structured approach to knowledge management in organisations. These include: creating a shared knowledge vision, managing and facilitating conversations, mobilising knowledge activists, creating a supportive environment, and integrating local knowledge into broader organisational strategies (Krogh and Nonaka, 2000[27]). CoPs contribute to this process by enabling a collaborative space for knowledge exchange and creation and becoming an integral part of the organisational system that co-ordinates and drives action.
However, the activities described in the literature are oriented towards the entire organisational knowledge system, and applying them within smaller groups, such as CoPs in the public sector, can be more complex. Unlike private sector organisations, public institutions face distinct challenges in managing knowledge. As noted by McNabb (2007[28]), the ways in which public organisations interact with their environment, respond to stakeholders, and structure internal processes differ from the way private entities do so.
Public sector organisations operate under political mandates, face more external formal controls and specifications of their actions, are more constrained in their choices and procedures, require the approval of a wide variety of stakeholders, and are less able to apply incentives for staff performance. These factors affect the enabling environment for knowledge management and influence how specific strategies, such as building CoPs, are developed and implemented in government settings.
7.1.3. Conceptual differences
Communities and networks are related but distinct concepts that are often used interchangeably. Networks, such as innovation networks, are loosely affiliated groups focusing on professional interests and conventional knowledge exchange. On the other hand, CoPs, both formal and informal, prioritise experiential learning through shared hands-on domains (Snyder, Wenger-Trayner and Briggs, 2003[2]). They emphasise shared commitment and practical knowledge exchange, distinguishing them from institutionalised knowledge units or centres (Wang, 2002[29]) (see Box 7.1 for definitions).
A Community of Practice (CoP) is a group of people or entities, whether formal or informal, characterised by collaborative, hands-on, and peer-to-peer activities designed to enhance its members’ skills and to manage its practice-driven knowledge resources in a specific domain (Snyder, Wenger-Trayner and Briggs, 2003[2]).
A network is a formal or informal collection of individuals and organisations who come together across organisational, spatial, and disciplinary boundaries to promote a body of knowledge (Pugh and Prusak, 2013[30]).
A knowledge centre refers to an institutionalised function for managing and developing knowledge resources (Wang, 2002[29]).
Source: OPSI, based on cited references.
CoPs, networks, and knowledge centres are differentiated by their approaches to knowledge. As noted in Catana et al. (2020[17]), while knowledge centres deliberately co-create, discover, and integrate formal knowledge, CoPs collaborate, share, and offer peer support, acting as knowledge transmission mediums for hands-on practice. Complementarily, networks connect and explore knowledge opportunities between knowledge centres, CoPs, and the broader landscape (see Box 7.2 for more details). By intentionally developing support mechanisms among these groups, governments can enhance a tailored knowledge strategy, helping communities bridge organisational boundaries and increase collective expertise, skills, and trust among practitioners, and amplifying the effectiveness of knowledge creation efforts.
Knowledge centres, CoPs, and networks have different roles and working modes. The European Commission, for example, has many knowledge centres, CoPs, and networks that collaborate, each with specific interactions and stakeholders’ patterns. The table below shows how CoPs act as a bridge between networks and knowledge centres, identifying and disseminating relevant, applicable knowledge. Meanwhile, knowledge centres serve to structure, synthesise, and underpin this knowledge in an accessible, formal and expert manner, and networks offer moderated opportunities for both communities of practice and knowledge centres, to explore new knowledge angles.
7.1.4. Organisational benefits
At times where the rapid pace of change and innovation is an imperative, CoPs can help governments handle such challenges as supporting continuous learning needs, developing strategic capabilities, and bridging across silos.
1. Supporting continuous learning: Technological developments have increased access to new knowledge, but the nuanced understanding required to apply it effectively in specific contexts is not always forthcoming. This can be exacerbated in the public sector, where policy and service delivery experience often have a unique contextual and even monopolistic character. Occasional expert input is valuable, but the primary strength of communities lies in practitioners addressing both tacit and explicit aspects of learning by networking, enriching their understanding, and enhancing performance (Catana, 2020[17]). Communities empower practitioners by giving them the freedom to take charge as they learn, offering a direct link between knowledge acquisition and practical application (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023[31]).
2. Developing strategic capabilities: By directly involving relevant practitioners, communities can leverage experiences, translating learning into actionable practices that empower their members to make a difference in their organisational roles. However, government organisations trying to develop strategic capabilities can be constrained by political cycles or a lack of workforce incentives (e.g. career development and salary incentives). Learning shared by communities combines into one social learning process both the professional development of members and continuous development of organisational capability (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023[31]) (see Box 7.3).
3. Bridging across silos: Unrestricted by public sector formal structures, communities facilitate connections among practitioners across organisational and geographic boundaries, creating social bridges that transcend silos among units and projects. In large organisations, for example governments wrestling with the centralisation/decentralisation dilemma, communities offer a middle ground by encouraging learning partnerships instead of imposing uniformity (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023[31]). This flexibility allows members to adapt ideas to their specific context, promoting synergy without the rigidity associated with centralised structures. By encouraging effective collaboration, communities can reduce duplication, allowing for early and broad input in the policy cycle, and enhancing strategic alignment. This will ultimately improve the efficiency and quality of public sector work.
When considering the value of CoPs in organisations, it is useful to think along two dimensions, as summarised in the following figure.
Short-term and long-term value. The focus on practice means that members solve immediate problems and learn immediately relevant skills. But over time, these communities also build capabilities that have long-term effects.
Value to organisations and to members. The challenges that CoPs address and the capability they build increase organisational success. But a community depends on personal engagement; it will only reach its full potential if members find value in it for themselves.
Source: (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023[31]).
The following section introduces the OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) Communities of Practice Conceptual Framework for Foresight Communities, which analyses communities in government by layers of ecosystem and organisational functions. To understand and enhance the way governments intentionally cultivate knowledge management in their policy and administrative structures, OPSI has developed a conceptual framework that analyses one such mechanism. Building on existing research and practice, the framework examines CoPs as components of the wider policy and knowledge ecosystem. It also studies how they internally operate, function, and evolve in governmental bodies. As shown in Figure 7.2, the framework explores CoPs through the dual lenses of ecosystem and organisational core functions.
Building on existing research and practice at both the system and organisational levels of the public sector, the OECD developed a conceptual framework that examines strategic foresight CoPs in government in two dimensions:
Ecosystem refers to the broader context in which communities operate with the government. This encompasses the relationships and dynamics from other communities, the policy and knowledge ecosystem, and broader networks.
Core functions are the essential and fundamental activities communities perform to facilitate their purpose in the public sector. They represent the primary organisational aspects necessary for communities to thrive in the ecosystem. The core functions include: Direction and Leadership, Vision and Goals, Community Engagement, Community Initiatives, Collaboration and Outreach, and Communication and Feedback Loops.
7.2.1. Ecosystem
Ecosystem refers to the broader context in government within which communities operate. CoPs in government co-exist with a variety of actors in the broader policymaking and steering system, inside and outside government. Various scholars have highlighted the relational nature of communities as part of a broader knowledge ecosystem (Snyder, Wenger-Trayner and Briggs, 2003[2]; Riel and Polin, 2004[32]; Williquet et al., 2021[18]). Individuals, groups, systems, and institutions collaborate in the creation and dissemination of knowledge and learning in government. This layer encompasses the relationships and dynamics from other communities, the policy and knowledge ecosystem, and broader networks.
Other communities
As explained by Riel and Polin (2004[32]), while COPs are typically centred around improving and adopting practices, other types of communities of learning may have a different but complementary focus. The authors emphasise the existence of three types of learning communities: 1) task-oriented communities that resemble teams or project groups, where individuals are structured around a specific task and collaborate closely for a designated duration to create an outcome; 2) practice-oriented communities where the emphasis lies on continuously enhancing and adopting practices and tools to bolster the effective operation of the activity system; and 3) knowledge-focused communities (also known as “strategic communities” (Pemberton, 2007[11]) rely on the intentional and formal generation of knowledge about the practice, without a specific emphasis on adoption.
Communities often integrate a combination of characteristics from one another, transit between these types, and complement each other. Their dynamic nature allows for mixed forms to emerge, where communities may, for instance, have mixed forms of task- and practice-oriented communities, where the group serves specific organisational project goals, and also shares an identity, practices, and tools. Communities can also shift between types over time. They may begin as practice-oriented groups and evolve into knowledge-focused communities, as members decide to create intentional and formal knowledge on the practice. Alternatively, knowledge-focused communities can provide essential resources and insights to both task-oriented and practice-oriented communities, enriching their understanding and facilitating their growth.
Policy and knowledge ecosystem
Communities of practice, as formal or informal structures for knowledge-sharing, interact with formal units, departments, or institutional actors that are directly involved in the policy and service delivery cycle (Snyder, Wenger-Trayner and Briggs, 2003[2]). In this context, government departments and agencies, international organisations, research institutions, think tanks, and experts collaborate to create, disseminate, and apply knowledge for policy and service development. Communities play a crucial role by facilitating practical insights and lessons learned in the field that often transcend the confines of formal organisational boundaries and inform evidence-based policy decisions (Snyder, Wenger-Trayner and Briggs, 2003[2]; Williquet et al., 2021[18]). These relationships ensure that the knowledge generated by the practice is incorporated into the policy cycle and allows policymakers to provide guidance and support for communities.
Broader Networks
Communities also interact with broader networks in formal and informal partnerships, forums, and working groups of different actors, from international organisations to industry associations or civil society groups. As noted by Catana et al. (2020[17]), these networks often have weak governance formalities and low official sponsorship. However, they can help communities develop knowledge opportunities and remain connected to the principal actors in a given domain, offering a community increased visibility.
7.2.2. Core functions
“Core functions” are essential and fundamental activities that communities perform to advance their purpose in the public sector. Following the lead of diverse scholars in knowledge management and communities of practice in the public sector, and practical experience in the creation and development of communities in public sector innovation and anticipation, the conceptual model studies the set of core functions that guide the development of communities of practice in government settings. Tailored to the context, these functions are based on the communities’ needs and aim to illuminate different governance mechanisms to support communities in government.
While they were initially conceived of as independent and loosely governed, today’s sustained communities often operate in a well-defined but adaptable organisational structure that promotes accountability and effective management oversight (McDermott and Archibald, 2010[33]). Several scholars in CoPs and networks demonstrate that while some groups may share common features, certain structuring characteristics, such as orientation, stages of the community development, or organisational culture within which they operate, make them unique. Public sector groups vary substantially from those in the private sector. Some core functions in public sector groups can be described as follows:
Clear direction and leadership: A well-defined purpose, mandate, and strategy is required to establish effective leadership and functionality. CoPs’ purposes can vary on specific typologies determined by the shared domain or field of interest. However, a general typology has been explored in previous assessments on CoPs. Catana (2020[17]) suggests that CoPs can be seen as falling into three distinct typologies: hubs, platforms, and service. 1) A “hub” refers to a community that connects people with knowledge content, where the primary purpose is to offer information on the topic of practice; 2) a “platform” refers to groups where members work on producing new knowledge, discussing and collaborating around the topic of practice; and as for 3) “service”, a community provides a service, and the priority is to deliver value and co-operate with the rest of the organisation in achieving its goals (see Box 7.4 for more details).
The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) developed an assessment study of about 20 internal communities of practice (CoPs), identifying three basic community types:
Hub: CoPs that connect people with knowledge content; the primary value is to inform the organisation around the topic of practice.
Platform: CoPs where members collaborate to produce new knowledge; the primary value is discussion and collaboration around the topic of practice.
Service: CoPs that provide a service; the primary value is to deliver value and co-operate with the rest of the organisation in achieving its goals.
This typology represents a progression of CoP types. CoPs typically begin life as hubs, then progress to platforms, and mature into services. This can be seen as an evolution of value over time, although it should be noted that hubs and platforms offer value in their own right. They are not necessarily destined to evolve into the higher-value types, although the potential for this could always be explored. This reinforces the idea that in a community, what matters more than having knowledge is securing access to knowledge (Sloman and Fernbach, 2017[34]).
Source: (Catana, 2020[17]).
Whether starting or redefining a community purpose, defining a group’s key orientation is a major decision that is often arrived at collectively by members and stakeholders. As noted in Iaquinto, Ison and Faggian (2011[35]), the articulation of purposeful design in agreement with key stakeholders, such as managers or directors, was found to protect Australian public sector communities from vulnerability to structural, institutional, or other changes imposed by the upper levels of an organisation’s hierarchy. While reaching such agreement requires significant effort, collaborating on co-design was identified as a way of defining useful boundaries for community action (Iaquinto, Ison and Faggian, 2011[35]).
Organisational environments conducive to successful CoPs depend on strategic and operational roles in the group (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023[31]). Strategic roles often involve senior leaders and directors who carefully and purposefully connect CoPs to organisational objectives, resources, and structures in the form of sponsorship or advice (see Box 7.5). Operational roles involve the core lead team that helps the group to achieve its full potential, leading and steering the community, while sometimes convening or engaging with others to convene (Pemberton, 2007[11]). Leaders often emerge from the group members, as the result of elections or by appointment. The operational leadership role is vital in orchestrating purposeful design but also in developing a unique community engagement. Certain communities, often with institutional support, may have a dedicated team to steer and develop this core function.
CoPs thrive when seamlessly integrated into the formal structure of an organisation, with their work supported, voices heard, and value recognised. As noted by Wenger-Trayner et al. (2023[31]), sponsorship in CoPs involves exercising the influence of hierarchical positions but differs from traditional management roles. It emphasises engagement and dialogue over control, serving to channel resources and attention. It also provides a two-way connection with the formal organisational hierarchy, while acknowledging the unique, non-traditional nature of CoPs in organisational structures. Senior managers and directors play a crucial role in this integration through sponsorship, which can take four main forms:
Initiative Sponsor: Typically provided by high-level executives or leadership teams, initiative sponsorship aims to legitimise the importance of cultivating CoPs in alignment with strategic priorities. It ensures widespread appreciation of the value of community participation and leadership, shaping an environment conducive to sustained learning and reflection.
Domain Sponsor: Line managers serving as domain sponsors appreciate the strategic significance of a community’s domain. Responsible for results, they actively engage with the community, listening to members’ questions and suggestions, and conveying relevant insights to other organisational actors. Importantly, domain sponsors do not seek control but contribute to the community’s development.
Local Sponsor: In complex organisational contexts, local managers for specific geographies or policy units provide support for CoPs. They can encourage and recognise local participation in broader community initiatives, enhancing the integration of these communities into diverse organisational settings.
Individual Sponsor: For specific members, direct supervisors may serve as individual sponsors, ensuring that their time and efforts in the community are acknowledged as valuable contributions to their overall work. This form of sponsorship recognises the importance of aligning individual efforts with community engagement.
Source: (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023[31]).
Shared vision and goals: A common vision and objectives that everyone in the community embraces, driving involvement and commitment. As noted by Ichijo and Nonaka (Ichijo and Nonaka, 2007[26]), a vision indicates the justification criteria for knowledge sharing and creation, which needs to be clearly articulated and shared among the groups’ members. A collective vision and goals act as driving principles, informing community members of the areas where knowledge development should be pursued, and what competencies and resources of the group should be used to accomplish these. When community members formulate the goals, they increase engagement and accountability in the group and better understanding of the value of their own community (see Box 7.6 for more details).
Collaboratively establishing community goals and strategic objectives is a pivotal aspect of knowledge management initiatives. As Collison (2014[36]) notes, a commonly employed framework for organising these activities revolves around the dichotomy of “Collect or Connect”. The “collect” dimension often involves knowledge management that is closely associated with document and information management, featuring tools like shared folders, intranets, and knowledge assets. Conversely, the “connect” dimension involves networks, communities, social networking, and knowledge-sharing avenues, like brown bag meetings and coffee trials. However, knowledge sharing goes beyond mere collection and connection and involves learning from experience, distilling existing knowledge, interpreting patterns, collaborative efforts, and building on each other’s ideas.
Collison (2014[36]) proposes three questions to guide communities in building a shared vision and goals around the three drivers: collect, connect, create:
Collect: What knowledge can we collect – what can we each bring to the table?
Connect: Which sub-topics and specific questions can we discuss together, where a conversation is more appropriate than formal information sharing?
Create: What are the areas and challenges where we could collaborate and create new knowledge (products, guides, recommendations, processes)?
Source: (Collison, 2014[36]; Catana, 2020[17]).
CoPs engage in diverse and mixed types of knowledge as a central focus of their visions and goals. As shown in Table 7.1, Sheng-cheng Lin and Fu-ren Lin (2006[37]) posit five types of knowledge, implicit and explicit. Implicit knowledge includes 1) content knowledge, which codifies structures and contents of a specific domain, and 2) manipulation knowledge, knowledge generated by applying a particular content knowledge. Explicit knowledge includes 3) exercise knowledge, which refers to in-real world situations where gaps and learning occur thanks to applying explicit knowledge; 4) conviction knowledge, where personal beliefs or values are embodied in the knowledge; or 5) context knowledge, which refers to knowledge of context around the domain.
Unique community engagement: A special community experience that enhances members’ trust and sense of belonging. An inclusive and welcoming environment, active collaboration, and recognising and rewarding contributions can cultivate a vibrant and engaged community.
A community’s success hinges on its ability to create an environment where members feel valued, respected, and encouraged to participate fully. This entails recognising and appreciating the diverse perspectives, experiences, and backgrounds that members bring to the community, defining principles, and enforcing norms of conduct that promote an inclusive, hierarchy-free, and safe environment. Leadership and community management teams (see Box 7.7) can provide onboarding support to create opportunities for new members to connect with others and make them feel valued as contributors. Some communities are managed organically, since collaborators usually have other job duties, but others have sufficient resources to establish dedicated roles of community engagement.
“Community management” has become an essential component of many organisations’ operations, The European Commission and the United Nations’ communities incorporate the term in job descriptions (Catana, 2020[17]). McDermott and Archibald (2010[33]) found that community leaders dedicate from half a day to one day a week to community management. The study also showed that organisations that systematically train their community leaders in community management enhanced the community’s value. As noted by Catana (2020[17]), a community manager’s tasks can include:
Promoting the growth of the community and introducing and managing elements of community structure, such as documents, taxonomy, knowledge mapping, and events
Inviting and encouraging different levels of participation, because members of a community will sustain different levels of interest
Creating and maintaining activity for the community (initiating discussions, meetings, video conferences, web activities, informal lunches, workshops, etc.)
Welcoming newcomers, enlisting their participation, establishing community relationships and promoting contributions
Curating content, including for topical events, popular discussions, interviews, and passing on inspiring stories
Drawing up an annual review of the CoP they manage.
Source: (Catana, 2020[17]).
Communities thrive on active collaboration among members, facilitating knowledge sharing, problem solving, and innovation. This involves creating opportunities for members to interact frequently in formal and informal settings, establishing initiatives for members to share their expertise, experiences, and best practices, encouraging members to work together to identify and address common challenges, and leveraging collective knowledge to find solutions. Promoting active collaboration creates a space where ideas are welcomed and explored, encouraging members to think outside the box and creating synergies among them.
Acknowledging and appreciating the contributions of members is crucial for maintaining motivation and engagement. This includes setting up formal recognition mechanisms such as certificates, awards, or public acknowledgements; encouraging members to express informal appreciation; highlighting achievements of individuals or groups; and offering incentives or opportunities for members’ development. Tailoring such strategies to their specific domain, communities can develop unique engagement that increases members’ trust and sense of belonging.
Distinctive initiatives: Purposeful learning and exploration activity can offer members practical skills and knowledge for public value creation. Such initiatives can be crafted to go beyond general discussions and theoretical frameworks to provide tangible, practical skills and knowledge that members can apply directly in their roles. The aim is to create public value by helping practitioners to foresee potential challenges and opportunities in their sectors and to innovate proactively. Such initiatives might include tailored workshops, scenario-planning sessions, and collaborative projects that simulate real-world challenges. These are designed to harness the collective expertise and diverse perspectives in the community, enhancing each member’s ability to realise strategic changes. Such structured yet creative activities give members insight into future trends and emerging issues and also develop collective, tested methodologies for dealing with ambiguity and uncertainty in decision making. A hands-on approach will ensure that the foresight and innovation skills acquired are both relevant and immediately applicable, promoting a culture of continuous learning and adaptive strategy.
Constant collaboration and outreach: Continual engagement with partners and broader networks will help detect emerging developments and reveal opportunities to inform public policy. This function focuses on maintaining continuous interaction with a broad range of partners and external networks and enhancing a community’s capacity for early detection of emerging trends and signals of change. Actively engaging with stakeholders from various sectors, including government bodies, academia, industry experts, and civil society, will access more insight and perspectives. This extensive network is invaluable for uncovering opportunities that can significantly shape or disrupt policy approaches. Through regular workshops, joint research initiatives, and shared platforms for dialogue, the community not only stays at the forefront of relevant developments but also encourages a proactive approach to policymaking. These collaborations ensure that the policies developed are responsive to the community’s needs and are grounded in a comprehensive understanding of potential future scenarios. The outreach efforts extend the government community’s influence and effectiveness, helping it to serve as a critical bridge between dynamic external environments and strategic policy responses.
Effective communication and feedback loops: This involves dedicated efforts to connect and inform, increasing community cohesion and raising awareness in wider circles. It ensures clear, continuous, and productive communication, not only in the community but also with external audiences, including established knowledge management functions in organisations and evidence-informed policymaking circles. Using communication tools like newsletters, webinars, interactive forums, and social media, the community keeps its members well-informed and actively engaged on topics including its own governance and direction. Notably, such platforms provide robust feedback mechanisms, facilitating the exchange of ideas, insights, and constructive critique. Feedback is crucial for refining approaches and integrating community output with organisational knowledge systems and policymaking. Open lines of communication increase a sense of cohesion and shared purpose among members of the community, enhancing their collective capacity for strategic thinking and action. Effective communication also broadens the community’s influence, raising public awareness of its goals and achievements, attracting new insights, and promoting collaboration that enhances the community’s impact on public policy and practice.
Using the OPSI Communities of Practice Conceptual Framework, the following section explores the six core functions of government-led communities of practice for anticipation and strategic foresight, including: Direction and Leadership, Vision and Goals, Community Engagement, Community Initiatives, Collaboration and Outreach, and Communication and Feedback Loops. The findings were drawn using a quantitative and qualitative methodology, incorporating both primary and secondary sources (see Box 7.8).
The report employed a quantitative and qualitative research methodology drawing on primary and secondary sources. Primary sources involved the methods of data collection and mapping, a survey, and interviews, while secondary sources included academic and grey literature reviews. The data collection and analysis by research method are described as follows:
Data collection and mapping: A structured data collection and mapping process was carried out to identify 51 networks and communities in anticipation, foresight, and future-related topics. This dataset was analysed using descriptive statistical analysis. The limited sample size restricts assuming statistical significance.
Survey: A mixed-method survey was conducted, focusing on the 51 previously identified networks and communities as the sample. Using a snowball sampling method, a total of 20 responses were gathered. The dataset was analysed using qualitative content analysis and descriptive statistical analysis. The limited sample size restricts assuming statistical significance.
Interviews: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with policymakers, civil servants, academics, and researchers in Lithuania, Italy, and Malta. The interviews provided insights into the existing communities and networks in these countries.
Literature review: A traditional academic and grey literature review analysis was undertaken using keywords including network, communities, communities of practice, communities of learning, communities of knowledge, working groups, foresight, strategic foresight, policy foresight, anticipation, anticipatory policymaking, and anticipatory governance.
Source: OECD.
Communities and networks can support anticipatory policymaking to address emerging and long-term policy issues (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[16]). Government anticipation empowers the public sector by using ecosystem approaches to act on emerging future scenarios consistently (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[16]). Thinking focused on the present yields biased solutions, even with diverse stakeholder involvement (OECD, 2023[38]). As an integrated network of entities, processes, and methods, governments can collectively engage with early signals, upcoming trends, and a variety of scenarios. CoPs, as part of this ecosystem and as knowledge management strategies, can systematically inform policy and strategic action, aligning with long-term goals amidst emerging uncertainties.
Lithuania, Italy, and Malta currently lack a government-led foresight community with the core functions outlined in the OECD-OPSI Conceptual Framework for Foresight Communities ( (OECD, 2021[39]); (OPSI Interviews, 2023)). However, various public, academic, and third-sector organisations are spearheading efforts to establish foresight-related networks. During LT2050, the government of Lithuania developed a project-based community to envision Lithuania’s progress, and engagement could be extended to strengthen foresight capacity and futures culture even though the project has ended. In Malta, which has only a nascent foresight community, other government networks have the potential to integrate foresight into current critical policy development and implementation efforts (see Box 7.9).
Italy
Italy has third-sector and academic networks for future studies and strategic foresight. In academia, communities include the Association of Italian Futurists at the University of Trento, which promotes knowledge and dissemination of futures studies, including a registry of future professionals working in Italy (Association of Italian Futurists, 2023[40]). The Hey Futures Network is a group of graduates from the University of Trento’s Master of Social Foresight programme, which supports consulting organisations in topics such as change management, risk management, and multi-generational management (Hey Futures, 2023[41]).
The Futura Network, in the civil society sector, is led by the Italian Alliance for Sustainable Development, and promotes discussion of Italy’s future, bringing together researchers and experts in different fields. Areas of interest include AI and the human-machine relationship, food and agriculture, demography, migration and ageing, and geopolitics (Futura Network, 2023). The Italian Institute for the Future, a non-profit organisation for research and training, aims to encourage a culture of anticipation and disseminates themes in futures studies, including megatrends and scenario development to its members (Italian Institute for the Future, 2023[42]). The Italy Node, part of the Millennium Project, aims to develop futures thinking and contribute to futures studies in Italy through projects, courses, communication, networking, and research.
Malta
Malta has only nascent foresight and anticipation communities, both inside or outside government (OPSI Interviews, 2023). However, adjacent networks in the government have the potential to incorporate future-related issues, for example the government’s co-ordinating system for Sustainable Development (SD) policy. No foresight and anticipation communities exist in the country either inside or outside government, but the government already co-ordinates a network on two levels. The first level is composed of designated highest officials in each ministry (i.e. the Permanent Secretaries) as SD Co-ordinators, and at the second level, Sustainable Development Focal Points have been set up in every government department, agency, or entity. Focal Points are Directors responsible for Policy Development and Programme Implementation, along with heads of each government agency or entity. Incorporating foresight and anticipation thematic as part of the current system activities has the potential to give future-oriented policy coherence to the current sustainable development efforts. Previous OECD assessment at the Maltese Public Administration has indicated the need to avoid fragmentation and ensure that the right stakeholders are mobilised for the country’s vision to 2050 (OECD, 2021[43]).
As part of the Maltese Sustainable Development Strategy, the Maltese government has two advisory bodies informing decision makers of the potential impact of key policy decisions on sustainable development. The Sustainable Development Network, co-ordinated by the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Enterprise (MESD), convenes public and private actors periodically to share information on progress in sustainable development and the 2030 Agenda in Malta (OECD, 2021[43]). The Guardians of Future Generations also aims to safeguard intergenerational and intragenerational sustainable development in Malta (Government of Malta, 2023[44]). Both networks have the potential to engage with foresight and future-related issues, create a concrete agenda for this purpose, and further clarify the mechanisms and resources to accomplish their futures advisory function.
Lithuania
Lithuania does not at present have standing foresight or futures-related communities either inside or outside government (OPSI Interviews, 2023). However, as in Malta, adjacent communities in government could potentially incorporate an anticipation approach. Under the Law on Strategic Governance, LT2050 set out a vision for progress, the direction of development required to implement it, and the impact of indicators that show the desired changes in the social, economic, and environmental conditions of the country (Government of Lithuania, 2022[45]). The strategy is prepared by the Government Chancellery in co-operation with the Seimas’ Committee for the Future (Parliament), the Government Strategic Analysis Centre (STRATA), and Vilnius University. Through a stakeholder engagement process, the strategy convenes a project-based community of policymakers, civil servants, academics, businesses, professional associations, NGOs, civil society groups, and citizens, with a special focus on youth ( (Government of Lithuania, 2022[45]); OPSI Interviews, 2023)). As a critical dimension for strategy development, this community engages in futures-related activity including horizon scanning, scenario development, and strategy formulation on a temporary basis (OPSI Interviews, 2023).
The government could increase synergy with this strategy at two levels. First, by developing a government-led community of practice among organisations leading the strategy’s implementation. Civil servants and professionals involved could extend learning and experiences from the strategy to other critical government projects. Second, in alignment with the provisions for public engagement in the implementation of LT2050, the Lithuanian government could develop a decentralised strategy for futures literacy in government while sustaining engagement in futures-related topics beyond government. The State Progress Council, supported by the Office of the Government and the Office of the Seimas Committee for the Future, already plays a role in strengthening public dialogue on Lithuania’s long-term vision, ensuring ongoing discussions and broad participation in futures-oriented policymaking (Office of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, 2024[46]).
Source: OECD.
In the scope of this study, the OECD has conducted community mapping research, identifying over 50 communities of practice involved in anticipation and foresight in various sectors, jurisdictions, and geographies. Of these communities, 71% are overseen by governmental bodies or international organisations (some partnered with academia and private sector organisations), 24% by a third-sector organisation, and 6% by academia. Of the mapped communities, 65% have an international, regional, or cross-country membership focus, and only 35% a national focus. Geographies of mapped communities included (by rank) Europe, North America, Asia, Oceania, South America, and the Middle East (see Figure 7.3 for more details).
Note: N= 51.
Source: OECD.
The prevalence of these communities, dealing with diverse futures and specialised subjects, indicates the need for further understanding of the inner workings of networks and communities, and their impact on improving anticipatory capacity and practices in the public sector. With this in mind, the OECD surveyed the identified communities and networks in anticipation, and its findings are presented in the following section.
This section outlines some common practices and resources on increasing social capital, collaborative learning, and proactive policymaking. Using the OPSI Communities of Practice Conceptual Framework, it reviews each organisational function, gathering evidence from the OPSI survey in anticipation communities (“the survey”) and offering instances of government-led communities for anticipation and foresight.
Communities of practice are as diverse as the situations that give rise to them. Their diversity is manifested in the combination of six core functions that determine each community’s effectiveness and make it unique. These functions represent the primary organisational aspects necessary for communities to thrive in the ecosystem. Core functions include Direction and Leadership, Vision and Goals, Community Engagement, Community Initiatives, Collaboration and Outreach, and Communication and Feedback Loops. These often evolve and change and are defined and sustained by member participation.
Anticipation communities (Figure 7.4) all noted the importance of the six organisational functions. Unique Community Engagement had the highest rating, closest to “top priority in the community”. This includes community experience, which enhances members’ trust and sense of belonging with the group. Three other core functions followed: Shared Vision and Goals, the common vision and objectives of the community, driving involvement and commitment; Distinctive Initiatives, representing purposeful learning and exploration activity and output that offer members practical skills and knowledge for public value creation; and Effective Communication and Feedback Loops, efforts to connect and inform, increase community cohesion and raise public awareness.
Note: Q9. How important is each of the following organisational features for the success of the community or network? Please rate each option from 1 to 5, considering 1 as “not a priority in the community”, 3 as "important for the community”, and 5 as a “top priority in the community” (Matrix/Rating Scale).
Source: OECD.
7.4.1. Direction and Leadership
The direction and leadership function involves establishing a well-defined purpose and mandate that establishes effective leadership and functionality. Acting as a foundational structure for all other functions, mandates provide a clear understanding of the community’s background, objectives, membership, and the established mechanisms to fulfil its purpose. This clarity and alignment are crucial, especially as the community leadership may evolve and adapt over time, requiring a flexible yet focused approach.
Communities need a strong and central sense of purpose shaped by their domain, membership, and shared practices (Wenger, 1998[47]). The domain includes the focal issue, from general to specific topics, and the sense of belonging in the subject. As indicated in Figure 7.5, the survey found that 53% of anticipation communities focus on general domains, while 47% address specific themes. Future-related communities tackle general topics such as strategic foresight and futures literacy, while sector-specific communities address policy domains, for example agriculture, climate change, and national security. Foresight has far less visibility, since many communities are still acquiring an understanding of the discipline. Membership commits to these domains, building relationships and a sense of belonging. As noted in Figure 7.4, a majority of communities (67%) maintain a closed membership structure. Access is limited to foresight or policy-specific practitioners or organisations, to participants from dedicated training programmes, government officials from specific departments or jurisdictions, or individuals with specific appointed profiles. Conversely, open membership communities (33%) offer unrestricted access, some of them international and others limited to specific geographic regions. Most of these communities engage with a relatively small number of members, those with “11-99 members” being the majority of those reported in the survey (73%). Few communities engage with larger groups of members in the anticipation realm, and those of “100-500 people” accounted for only 27% of anticipation communities. Anticipation and foresight are niche disciplines in government, demanding a high level of methodological expertise and close involvement with evidence. However, through its members, each community enriches its collective practice by sharing a set of tools, methods, and skills. These elements forge a distinct community identity.
Note: Q6. What are the key topics of interest of this community or network? (Open text answer). Q7. Who is eligible and invited to participate in the community or network? (e.g. unrestricted access, government officials, foresight practitioners) (Open text answer). Q5. Around how many people regularly participate in the community? (Multiple Choice: Fewer than 10, 11-99 people, 100-500 people, More than 500 people).
Source: OECD.
The OECD has categorised five distinct purposes of anticipatory and foresight communities (see summary in Table 7.2). The typology strives to define the communities’ primary objectives, but many engage in activities addressing multiple purposes, whether linked or unrelated to broader institutional or governmental goals. Among communities aligned with broader institutional objectives, certain organisations have developed two or more communities, each catering to distinct purposes and memberships. These categories include:
Knowledge sharing and sensemaking: These communities of practice provide a platform for members to share knowledge and develop sensemaking in government anticipation. Sensemaking involves how people gather information, interpret it, and make sense of the world around them, especially in complex and uncertain situations. This understanding guides their actions, decisions, and strategies, making it critical for an anticipatory capacity.
The Sandbox Network, part of Singapore’s Centre for Strategic Futures (CSF), gathers staff level officers involved in general and specific domains of futures and strategic planning work from various parts of the Singapore government. The engagement is closed to institutional actors, exclusive for futures-related officials. Among their practices, the community shares ongoing projects, evaluates ideas, and examines areas for potential collaboration. To create further futures literacy, the CSF organises such activities as “Futures Conversations”, bringing together officers and leaders in government to discuss the latest trends, strategic issues, and key developments and their implications for Singapore (Singapore’s Centre for Strategic Futures, 2023[48]).
Knowledge creation through stakeholder engagement: Other communities of practice support knowledge creation through stakeholder engagement on specific futures work. They provide a space for dialogue, problem-solving and collaboration between policymakers, practitioners, and external stakeholders such as academia, civil society, and industry representatives. They can benefit from the proximity and access to “lead users” and those close to the issues, revealing trends and value shifts that may not be detected through traditional means. They can also facilitate opportunity spotting and serve as early-warning networks.
The Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology (MIGHT) develops governmental, industrial, and academic synergies, conducting research on business opportunities to accelerate the use of high technology for sustainable economic growth in specific mobility domains, such as aerospace, rail, and shipping. Whether engagement is open or closed depends on the activity. The community’s practices include foresight studies and engagement activities with key government ministries and agencies, public listed companies, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), universities, research institutions, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and multinational corporations (MNCs) (Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology, 2023[49]).
Network building and partnership: These communities encourage the development of networks and partnerships among stakeholders involved in government anticipation. They enable the exchange of information, expertise, and resources, enhancing the capacity to anticipate and respond to future challenges. Some communities built on this purpose provide collaboration and joint research opportunities, strengthening the collective capabilities for anticipation. More unconventional and cross-disciplinary networks and partnerships can promote serendipitous exchanges and offer a safe space to test non-traditional ideas.
The OECD Government Foresight Community brings together experienced public sector strategic foresight practitioners from countries and international organisations worldwide. The community aims to strengthen foresight capacities by drawing on collective experience and bringing combined future insights to bear on critical general and specific issues. Among domains, they address the governance of foresight, methodologies and applications, scenarios and thematic projects, and trends and foresight reports. Community engagement is achieved through closed institutional representation and is by invitation only. Practices aim to exchange information and content on the latest foresight developments in government policymaking in annual meetings and conferences (OECD, 2021[50]).
Professional development and capability building: In this case, communities cultivate continuous learning and professional development. Through active participation, policymakers and practitioners have opportunities to enhance specific skills and competencies for government anticipation. This learning contributes to members’ professional growth and the overall improvement of futures work. This is sometimes supported through e-learning platforms, courses, programmes, mentoring, certifications, and peer exchange.
Finland’s National Foresight Network, co-ordinated by the Prime Minister’s Office and the Finnish Innovation Fund SITRA, brings together Finnish foresight data producers in general and specific domains. The community engagement is open to anyone interested in the domain of foresight and futures research. Practices aim to encourage using future-oriented information and futures perspectives in decision making, through such activities as a digital platform, blog posts, podcasts, training sessions, and foresight tools (Finland’s National Foresight Network, 2023[51]).
Advising or review: Some communities can be tapped to provide unofficial reviews of policies or plans with a future-oriented lens, such as advising the National Recovery and Resilience Plan activities. This can be a much less formal review than work done by legislative review committees, such as futures reviews, while still being quite influential.
Japan’s National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) aims to bring perspectives on the future of society and cutting-edge science and technology to STI policies as a specific domain. A closed community engagement of 2 000 experts in science and technology, the NISTEP identifies promising scientific and technological advances emerging through foresight workshops, practices, and trend analysis (Japan’s Institute of Science and Technology Policy, 2023[52]).
As noted in Figure 7.6, nearly all communities identify with the first four purposes identified, “Knowledge sharing and sensemaking” being the most developed by anticipation communities (93%). “Knowledge creation and stakeholder management” (87%), “Professional development and capacity building” (80%), “Network building and partnership” (80%) are also highly developed by most of the anticipation communities. In contrast, the purpose least explored by communities is “Advising or Reviewing of policies or plans using a future-oriented approach” (40%).
Source: OECD.
Once the purpose is defined, governing elements such as the community mandate serve as a guide for setting the basis of the community. Establishing a community of practice involves several key steps. First, it is crucial to take stock of the situation to understand the current context and needs. Next, integrating participants' motivations and expectations helps to align goals and create a sense of shared purpose. Setting shared rules of engagement ensures clear communication and collaboration. Supporting the practical application of tools provides participants with meaningful results and reinforces learning. Finally, gathering retrospective insights and prospective cues from the fourth session onwards helps to continuously improve the community's effectiveness and relevance (see Box 7.11 for an example in Ireland).
In the form of mission charters or terms of references, CoPs can be formally established and well-defined, organically defined, or ad hoc to contextual-based circumstances. Often, mandates result from collaborative discussions and input and are convened by the group’s leadership and agreed upon by its members. Some communities may lack a formal mandate, operating more spontaneously without specific, predefined settings. The degree of formality and participation in creating the mandate are commonly linked to the context of the community.
In the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the United Nations (UN) created the Informal High-Level Committee on Programmes (HLCP) Strategic Foresight Network for foresight experts and practitioners in the UN system. Its aim was to promote and support foresight capacity across the UN, increase cross-agency and system-wide collaboration, and inform the HLCP’s analytical work. Led and co-ordinated by UNESCO, the succinct community’s terms of reference addressed four sections: 1) background, 2) objectives and scope (short and long-term), 3) foreseen activities and expected results, 4) membership, structure, and functioning (UN System Chief Executives Board for Co-ordination, 2023[53]). As part of the natural evolution of communities, the HLCP approved UNESCO’s proposal for a gradual transition towards a more open United Nations Foresight Community of Practice, operating alongside three other similar communities on innovation, data, and behavioural science (UN System Chief Executives Board for Co-ordination, 2023[54]).
From January to June 2023, the OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) worked closely with Ireland’s Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery, and Reform on designing and piloting a strategic foresight community of practice in the Irish public service. The goal was to explore the potential value and define the basic features of such a community of practice, including practical arrangements to encourage community building around strategic foresight in the public sector.
The initiative was structured around five major steps relevant to community-building purposes, which framed and provided a sense of direction to the activities. Rather than being a strict cascading plan, the OPSI approach offered an opportunity to adapt and tweak the process based on gathered feedback and the application of community-building benchmarks at each step. OPSI and the Irish government organised virtual interactive sessions and invited participants to engage asynchronously in-between through digital channels. These sessions were also used to seed strategic foresight methods and knowledge, and to build capacity among members (e.g. inviting international experts to address specific strategic foresight topics or techniques, such as horizon scanning, back-casting, megatrends and scenarios). The five major steps can be described as follows:
Step 1: Take stock of the situation. A crowd-sourcing exercise provided an initial diagnostic assessment of Ireland’s position on its strategic foresight challenges and opportunities. This helped identify areas of expertise, good practices, and ongoing initiatives that the community of practice can tap into. The session also revealed critical challenges and gaps in the use of strategic foresight in the Irish public service, including administrative silos, the immediacy of short-term and medium-term planning, and gaps in skill sets and expertise.
Step 2: Integrate participants’ motivations and expectations. Participants identified possible areas of interest for applying strategic foresight in Ireland. The digital transition and emerging technologies; demographic challenges; and education and skills emerged as the top three priorities. These insights were instrumental in shaping a shared vision for the community of practice.
Step 3: Set shared rules of engagement. During the third session, participants defined the seven most important principles to guide its practices. They also shared their preferences for the types of activities organised within the community of practice, including “sharing tools and methodological guidance”, “sharing knowledge, experience, and good practices”, and “applying methods and tools together”. Finally, participants collectively defined the practical aspects of their desired ways of work, such as aiming for 90-minute sessions.
Step 4: Support the practical application of tools – and provide meaningful results. At the fourth session, participants engaged in an initial application of an Emerging Risks Radar, identifying and characterising the likelihood of the emerging risks associated with possible scenarios for the future of Ireland. This sped-up version of the exercise was used to demonstrate the feasibility and value of the activity of the community of practice and to use this tangible output to raise its legitimacy and visibility among sponsors.
Step 5: Gather retrospective insights and prospective cues. The final session gathered feedback from participants to evaluate this approach to community building. The session was also used to collect their expectations and gauge their willingness to play specific roles (such as “collaborator”, “ambassador”, “problem-solver”, “data gatherer”) on behalf of the community of practice in the future.
This experimental process gave Ireland valuable insights and the first tangible results of this approach. In the end, the process led to the definition of a minimum viable community (MVC), an early version of a community of practice that illuminates its requirements and potential outcomes.
Source: OECD.
7.4.2. Vision and Goals
This core function entails crafting a shared vision, objectives, and strategy that everyone in the community embraces, which can help drive involvement and commitment. While some communities may formulate an overarching vision with a single goal, others may outline multiple objectives suited to their focus areas. Depending on the mandate, these goals may align with broader governmental goals or operate independently. The strategy typically outlines the institutional scope and membership focus, and delves into funding models, among other aspects (see Figure 7.7).
Source: OECD.
The institutional scope outlines the community’s target audience and the extent of collaboration and co-ordination involved, varying from intra-agency or departmental initiatives to inter-agency, regional, national, cross-governmental, or international efforts. Membership focus pertains to specific criteria for community participation – ranging from an open model that allows anyone interested in the topic to join and contribute to a closed model that restricts participation to individuals meeting defined qualifications or requirements. Additionally, designated membership involves appointing individuals by relevant authorities or due to a specific job function. Furthermore, the funding model represents the revenue structure supporting the community’s operations. Communities officially led by governments pertain to government budgets or technical co-operation, while non-governmental communities secure funding through members’ contributions, grants, sponsors, or other sources.
The UK’s Government Office for Science (GO-Science) assists civil servants in thinking about the future with training, advisory services, networks, reports on specific issues and a technology horizon-scanning service (Government of the United Kingdom, 2023[55]). Communities of practice are used to achieve foresight objectives. As part of institutional strategy, they support three cross-government networks, each with unique institutional scope and membership criteria. The “Heads of Horizon Scanning Network” involves public servants with a responsibility or interest in futures, foresight, horizon scanning, and strategy. The “EmTech Community of Interest” is a platform for government technology teams to collaborate, network, and share insight and projects on technology policy. Lastly, the “Knowledge Mobiliser Network” gives civil servants access to diverse, high-quality expertise in science and technology in industry and academia, to underpin policymaking.
Some common patterns can be observed in communities with the same purpose. Communities engaged in Advising or Review of policies or plans are less common and specify conditions that are not common for all other communities. But as noted in Figure 7.8, nearly all these Advising or Review communities also engage in a wide range of other activities, suggesting that the other activities are foundational, whereas Advising or Review is an advanced activity. Almost all have key governance elements, such as terms of reference, a charter, or mission document; a dedicated support team; and a majority have political or governmental endorsements.
Source: OECD.
7.4.3. Community Engagement
The community engagement function refers to developing a special experience that enhances members’ trust and sense of belonging. This refers to the mix of identity, values, and methods to deliver to the current and future members and stakeholders. A community can have a specific and defined community engagement proposal or a more organic promise that is not predefined and adapts to changing dynamics. Both can emerge and evolve naturally based on their members’ and stakeholders’ needs and interests.
The Salzburg Global Public Sector Strategy Network equips governments to tackle complex challenges through improved foresight, innovation, and implementation. Co-created with global senior leaders, the community has built its identity as a mutual support coalition of frontrunners in digital, financial, and societal disruption realms, promoting effective public leadership and strategic communication (Salzburg Global, 2023[56]). As for its values, the community offers public sector leaders the opportunity to meet on equal terms with world-class peers from different jurisdictions and to have frank conversations with top cross-sectoral innovators. As to its methods, the community offers a dynamic platform for practical co-operation and impact, using its convening power to connect governments and innovators, leading the way to take advantage of new opportunities and meet future challenges. Members work together informally to expand cross-border exchanges, including exclusive virtual webinars among members, physical site visits, and year-round networking and thought leadership (Salzburg Global, 2023[56]).
7.4.4. Community Initiatives
The community initiatives’ role is to develop purposeful exploration and learning activity and offer members practical skills and knowledge for public value creation. The initiatives include programmes, activities, events, or actions that the community arranges to achieve its goals and engage its members. The range of activity varies, both in frequency and mode of interaction, including webinars, workshops, peer mentoring, collaborative projects, networking events, and digital forums.
Led by the National Security College’s Futures Hub from Australia, the Strategic Futures Network is a collaborative community of around 25 members representing state and federal government foresight teams (ANZOG, 2022[57]; OECD, 2021[58]). The government and the academic community have distinct and specific activities for their domain in national security: policy options forums that produce insights on long-term policy challenges in a secure environment; scanning workshops that identify trends and signals and discuss their meaning for policy issues; scenario development for agencies and departments testing policies and plans; games and structured futures activities to improve futures literacy; specialised advice to help build futures best practices across government; and the facilitation of reports and research to support connecting agencies with leading researchers (Australia’s National Security College, 2023[59]).
Determining the frequency and interaction modes is vital for community engagement. Some communities schedule activities regularly, on an annual, semi-annual, or monthly basis, while others adopt a flexible approach based on specific needs and opportunities. Some employ a mixed approach, with consistent intervals for certain activities and a flexible basis for others. Likewise, interaction modes vary. Synchronous interaction modes involve online, in person, or hybrid real-time interactions, while asynchronous activities allow members to engage at their convenience. Most communities adopt a blended approach.
The results of these efforts may focus on the process, outputs, or outcomes, depending on the community activities (see Figure 7.9). Communities that emphasise process results focus on the quality of interactions and discussions in the community, valuing the engagement and exchange of ideas. Output-focused communities focus on tangible deliverables, such as reports, publications, policy recommendations, guidelines, or toolkits. Meanwhile, outcome-driven communities prioritise specific effects in their domain, aiming for changes or improvements in practices or policies. Some communities systematically evaluate these results, while others do so sporadically, adapting to their unique context.
Most communities engage in methods and practices related to compiling Megatrends, Development of Scenarios or Scenario Planning, and Horizon Scanning, followed by Visioning, Quantitative modelling, and Delphi study. The least explored methods include causally layered analysis, back-casting, wind-tunnelling, and stress-testing.
Source: OECD.
7.4.5. Collaboration and Outreach
The collaboration and outreach function involves continuous engagement with partners and broader networks to detect signals and uncover opportunities to inform public policy. On the one hand, it refers to the commitment of its members to working together. This helps cultivate a sense of identity and belonging. Outreach refers to engaging with external partners on defined goals and emerging opportunities. This expands the community’s reach, impact, and influence. Most communities’ members actively collaborate with each other, other communities, broader networks and government departments and agencies, to increase the influence and effectiveness of a community of practice.
The EU-wide Foresight Network, led by the European Commission, develops synergies that draw on public administration foresight capabilities, bringing together intelligence and foresight expertise from all Member States and the European Commission for strategic exchanges and co-operation on forward-looking issues relevant to Europe’s future (European Commission, 2023[60]). These include crucial topics such as open strategic autonomy, resilience, and the capacity to achieve green, digital and fair transitions. The collaboration unfolds at two critical levels. First, each Member State designates a “Minister for the Future” as a representative, convening regularly to discuss strategic priorities, progress, and critical future-oriented matters. Secondly, a cadre of senior officials from national administrations forms a dynamic network, intensifying preparations for ministerial meetings, tracking outcomes, and encouraging co-operation in dedicated working groups (European Commission, 2023[60]).
7.4.6. Communication and Feedback Loops
The communication and feedback loops’ function aims to develop efforts to connect and inform, increasing community cohesion and raising awareness in wider circles. Communities develop communications to single or multiple audiences. Communities with a single-user approach focus on speaking to their current or future members through single or multiple channels. Communities with a broader audience try to reach a more comprehensive range of stakeholders beyond their core membership, possibly to increase the visibility of the community’s work. Communities with mixed-oriented communications strike a balance between user-oriented and broader audience approaches, sometimes targeting specific channels to each audience. Feedback loops in communities of practice are essential for promoting continuous learning, growth, and improvement.
Feedback loops allow for continuous, iterative feedback among a community’s members and stakeholders. They may include surveys for collecting input and experiences; sessions to analyse and reflect on different perspectives; action plans to integrate and adapt; monitoring and evaluating activities; and sessions to close the feedback cycle. Such loops are essential for the community’s learning and improvement cycle, allowing members to share insights, experiences, and information that can be used to refine initiatives, practices, and results.
In 2005, the US Congress established the role of Director of National Intelligence to create an oversight and strategic body to facilitate collaboration in the 18 organisations of the intelligence community (IC) (US Intelligence Community, 2023[61]). The IC’s mission is to collect, analyse, and deliver foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information to US leaders to inform decision making, using various techniques of anticipation and foresight (US Intelligence Community, 2023[61]). Along with communications dedicated to the community members, their audiences include the president, policymakers, and senior Cabinet officials who receive daily or near-daily intelligence briefings (US Intelligence Community, 2023[62]). The IC collaborates regularly to inform these audiences through the President’s Daily Brief, the National Intelligence Estimates, the National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends, and so on (US Intelligence Community, 2023[62]). While much of the IC work is classified, the community also releases information through declassified documents, public statements, and a database dedicated to researchers, academics, policy advocates, and everyday citizens (US Intelligence Community, 2023[63]).
Based on case research, survey data, and project work through the LIMinal project with Lithuania, Italy, and Malta, the OECD recommends the following for setting up and maintaining communities of practice that support strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation in governments.
Communities of practice are complex systems (OECD, 2017[64]) that resist simplistic definitions. Rather than assuming the existence of ready-made solutions or “one best way” to build communities of practice, the focus should be on strategies that adopt a systemic lens to highlight adaptation, self-organisation, feedback loops, or emergence as critical features of community-building.
The OECD framework provides a detailed understanding of how communities operate and evolve in the broader public sector. It can be used to analyse and set up the ecosystem and functions of a community of practice for anticipation and strategic foresight.
Ecosystem: The ecosystem of these communities encompasses the dynamic interactions and relationships of actors in the public sector, including other communities, policy units, and broader networks. This layer highlights how communities of practice coexist with and enhance the policy and knowledge ecosystem through collaboration and knowledge-sharing with governmental and non-governmental entities.
Core Functions: The core functions of these communities are vital for their effectiveness and include direction and leadership, vision and goals, community engagement, distinctive initiatives, collaboration and outreach, and communication and feedback loops. These help communities integrate into the organisational fabric of the public sector, guiding their development and ensuring that they contribute significantly to public value creation.
Direction and Leadership: Establish clear leadership and a strategic direction to align the community’s efforts with organisational goals.
Vision and Goals: Encourage a shared vision and objectives that drive member involvement and commitment.
Community Engagement: Enhance trust and sense of belonging through active collaboration and recognition of contributions, promoting a vibrant community life.
Distinctive Initiatives: Implement practical activities that provide members with skills and insights to proactively address future challenges and opportunities.
Collaboration and Outreach: Engage continuously with a broad array of partners, to stay abreast of emerging trends and influence policymaking effectively.
Communication and Feedback Loops: Maintain open channels of communication within and outside the community to increase cohesion and strategic alignment with broader policy and knowledge management functions.
This framework not only clarifies the structural and functional aspects of communities of practice but highlights their potential to adapt and evolve in complex governmental ecosystems, supporting innovative and anticipatory approaches to public administration.
OECD highlights a set of key takeaways that may be useful for establishing and growing a community of practice where there is little or only nascent activity:
Promote awareness of contextual resources, barriers, and enablers. A community of practice does not emerge in a vacuum. Awareness of the context is important for navigating threats and seizing opportunities. When the community itself takes this on, participants help to align its purpose with their priorities, building on their collective intelligence, socialising the results of the diagnostic, and promoting a more realistic problem-solving attitude.
Summon enthusiasts – and not just experts. A community of practice is not an expert- based community. Membership should be open to newcomers and support “legitimate peripheral participation”, as defined by Jean Lave and Étienne Wenger, to increase involvement in the activities.
Ensure that pre-set guidelines are balanced with self-determination. Requirements, boundaries, and frames of action must be made transparent to participants from the onset. Participants must have the chance to express their needs and expectations regarding engagement and to define the rules of the game, including the direction and pace of activities.
Demonstrate value from an early stage. Modest as its results can be, a community of practice is not a discussion group but an action-based platform. Even in the early phases, communities of practice must be driven by relevant purposes, demonstrate their usefulness, and provide meaningful contributions.
Ensure an inclusive space for all participants. Typically, communities of practice are segmented, not homogeneous. The diversity of their members is both an asset and a challenge. Questions of access and participation are thus crucial. Participants should be able and incentivised to participate at distinct levels of engagement, playing their preferred roles.
Establish a co-ordination team: Assign a dedicated team to oversee and manage the CoP. The team should organise meetings, handle logistical requirements, and gather feedback from community members.
Set clear programme schedules: Renew and communicate a clear programme for the CoP at regular intervals (e.g. every six months). The programme should outline planned activities, expected outcomes, and align with collective milestones and goals.
Engage CoP members in planning: Encourage members to suggest topics and contribute to the programme’s design. Adopt a mix of top-down and bottom-up approaches to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive strategy.
Practice what is preached: Encourage the CoP to adopt ongoing horizon-scanning efforts to spot emerging trends and challenges and opportunities for applying this anticipatory intelligence. Collaborate with other networks or groups to leverage insights and identify opportunities for innovation.
Open and diversified membership: Encourage new members to join the community and commit to its guiding principles and charter for conduct. Actively seek diversity in membership, possibly through targeted recruitment campaigns.
Consistent event scheduling: Plan regular events, ensuring a mix of online and in-person meetings. Consider establishing a fixed, recurring schedule for events to facilitate planning and participation.
Flexible organisational structure: Ensure the CoP has a clear internal structure with defined roles. Encourage member participation in various formats, such as plenary sessions, thematic groups, or task forces. Enable decentralised activities where appropriate to reduce the workload on the co-ordination team.
Share relevant case studies: Create avenues for members to share local and international examples relevant to the CoP’s focus. Develop tools or platforms for continuous collection and sharing of these examples.
Create a dedicated CoP space: Develop a digital platform for members to share experiences, resources, and case studies. This platform can also serve as an online hub for best practices, resources, and collaborative tools.
Assess and demonstrate value: Regularly evaluate the contributions and benefits of the CoP to its wider context or sector. Communicate the value generated by the CoP to stakeholders and the broader community. Identify opportunities to demonstrate to managers the value generated in exchange for time spent on CoP activities.
Maintain open lines of communication: Provide members with consistent channels to communicate with the co-ordination team. Use member feedback as a mechanism for evaluation and future planning.
Encourage demand and use: Stimulate interest in the products or outcomes of the CoP. Discuss and plan for cross-community outputs and resources.
Address barriers: Regularly and proactively review and address any barriers to the effective functioning of the CoP, including violations of the charter of conduct. Implement measures to overcome the challenges identified.
Evaluate and connect: Systematically assess the effectiveness and application of the CoP’s methodologies. Engage with international peers or similar communities to share knowledge and improve practices.
7.5.1. Considerations for Lithuania
Lithuania has taken important steps towards developing a government-led foresight community, with LT2050 provisions assigning leadership responsibilities to the State Progress Council and its Secretariat. These provisions include public engagement mechanisms and a vision for sustaining foresight discussions. However, to institutionalise foresight as a systemic function, a fully developed foresight CoP, as outlined in the OECD-OPSI framework, would require clearer foresight dedicated roles, structured knowledge management, and capacity-building initiatives that extend beyond public engagement. Three primary suggestions can be noted:
Identify focused anticipatory communities for continuation of LT2050 implementation
Leverage the existing provisions for community building and assigned responsibilities that were established to incorporate strategic foresight practice into the implementation of Lithuania 2050 and dissemination of foresight capacity across government.
Identify ongoing projects to drive participation in the community and provide resources to fund operation of the community (collaboration space, invited speakers, analysis, refreshments, etc).
Align with institutional, academic, and private sector partners
Encourage collaboration and engagement with existing anticipatory communities in Lithuania, such as those involved in strategic foresight from academia, the private sector, and government advisory networks. An important emerging player is the network of Science and Innovation Advisers in the Ministries, funded and co-ordinated by the Research Council of Lithuania in connection with the Office of the Government. This network could serve as a key interface between research, innovation policy, and foresight-driven policymaking.
Map the ecosystem of actors in the public sector, academia, and the private sector who currently contribute or could contribute to a systemic approach to anticipation in Lithuania.
Integrate strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation as a topic in existing evidence-informed policymaking communities.
Build links with the Committee for the Future
The Committee for the Future is charged with bringing a futures perspective into Parliament. There is an opportunity to build links between civil servants and Parliament in discussing futures-oriented topics, whether LT2050 or otherwise, that could serve as a platform for engagement in a community of practice for foresight.
7.5.2. Considerations for Italy
In January 2025, Italy’s National School of Administration, the Scuola Nazionale dell’ Amministrazione (SNA) has launched a CoP on Strategic Foresight, as part of the 20 communities of practice of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) supported by the European Commission.
This community brings together representatives from various ministries and regions, and the initiative has been highly valued by its participants. The community is driven by the following goals:
Connecting: Bringing together individuals with experience in various forms of strategic foresight, both within public administrations and beyond, while encouraging connections among a diverse range of stakeholders (academics, state-owned companies, private sector professionals).
Sharing: Exchanging experiences to deepen understanding of methodologies, practices, and best practices in the field.
Sustaining: Ensuring that valuable experiences are not lost, creating ongoing opportunities for exchange, organising regular meetings, and hosting tailored events.
Promoting: Supporting the dissemination of foresight practices, developing tools for legitimisation, and evaluating the role of international organisations and other countries in advancing these approaches.
For an effective implementation of the activities of the CoP, SNA could consider these steps:
Align the community purpose with SNA’s institutional objectives
Review the SNA’s strategic goals and institutional objectives that would benefit from developing an anticipation community and identify how this can contribute to these objectives effectively.
Encourage collaboration and engagement with existing anticipatory communities in Italy’s third sector and academia, to enrich perspectives and co-create a well-defined purpose and mandate.
Enhance SNA’s organisational capacity to support the community
Conduct a self-assessment of the current organisational capabilities in the SNA to support the establishment and growth of communities in the six core functions of the OECD-OPSI framework.
Identify the areas of improvement, resources, expertise, and technological support required for thriving communities’ initiatives.
Develop a capacity-building action plan that includes training programmes and knowledge sharing between communities, to enhance the SNA’s ability to nurture and sustain communities.
7.5.3. Considerations for Malta
Malta does not have a government-led foresight community, but the government is interested in building up a structure to support anticipation. Three primary suggestions can be identified:
Framework and formalisation and integration with existing networks
Leverage the existing Sustainable Development (SD) co-ordination system by incorporating foresight themes into the roles of the Permanent Secretaries and SD Focal Points.
Explicitly define and include foresight responsibilities in job descriptions for the SD Co-ordinators and Focal Points, to ensure the systematic incorporation of anticipatory practices.
Capacity building, communication, and strategy development
In co-ordination with the Policy Development and Programme Implementation Directorate, develop a foresight strategy that aligns with national long-term goals and policy projects and identify a key role for a formal community of practice that links ministries.
Build upon emerging practices and pilot cases in the Ministry for Education, Sport, Youth, Research and Innovation as well as the Ministry for Social Policy and Children’s Rights, to highlight practices that have been applied with success in Malta. Consider involving key actors as active members in the CoP.
Set up and promote platforms for internal and external stakeholder collaboration to develop foresight-related insights and strategies. Use effective communication strategies in the community to maintain engagement, employing digital platforms for broader outreach and feedback loops.
Top-level support
Ensure that the community has strong backing from the Office of the Prime Minister, with the Policy Development and Programme Implementation Directorate playing a central co-ordinating role. A statement of purpose from the Office of the Prime Minister would be beneficial, as would allocating resources to support the operation of the community.
Set up mechanisms to allow for continuous evaluation of the community’s effectiveness in integrating foresight into policymaking, adjusting as necessary based on feedback and outcomes. Consider making this part of an annual report to the Office of the Prime Minister, not as a formal evaluation or audit to justify continued resources, but as an opportunity to flag emergent topics and to show how foresight can help with high-level decision making.
References
[57] ANZOG (2022), Building foresight capability: A curated conversation between jurisdictions, Australia and New Zealand School of Government.
[40] Association of Italian Futurists (2023), AFI Association, AFI, https://www.futuristitaliani.it/associazione/.
[59] Australia’s National Security College (2023), Futures Hub. National Security College; The Australian National University, https://nsc.anu.edu.au/nsc-futures-hub.
[20] Bertone, M. et al. (2013), “Assessing communities of practice in health policy: a conceptual framework as a first step towards empirical research”, Health Research Policy and Systems, Vol. 11/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-11-39.
[10] Bourhis, A., L. Dubé and R. Jacob (2005), “The Success of Virtual Communities of Practice: The Leadership Factor”, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3/1.
[4] Brown, J. and P. Duguid (1991), “Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation”, Organization Science, Vol. 2/1, pp. 40-57, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.40.
[17] Catana, C. (2020), “Working Through Communities”, in Science for Policy Handbook, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-822596-7.00007-3.
[36] Collison, C. (2014), “When Collect and Connect is not enough...”, Knowledgeable Ltd. , 10 November, https://www.chriscollison.com/blog/2014/11/10/when-collect-and-connect-is-not-enough.
[5] Cox, A. (2005), “What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 31/6, pp. 527-540, https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551505057016.
[60] European Commission (2023), “Strategic foresight”, European Commission, https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/strategic-foresight_en.
[51] Finland’s National Foresight Network (2023), Kansallinen ennakointiverkosto (KEV), Futura Network website, https://futuranetwork.eu/.
[45] Government of Lithuania (2022), State Development Strategy “Lithuania 2050”: Preparation Methodology, Government of Lithuania, https://www.lrs.lt/sip/getFile3?p_fid=83423.
[44] Government of Malta (2023), Guardian of Future Generations, Government of Malta, https://sustainabledevelopment.gov.mt/guardian-of-future-generations/.
[55] Government of the United Kingdom (2023), “Futures, Foresight and Emerging Technologies”, GOV.UK, https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/futures-and-foresight.
[41] Hey Futures (2023), Network, https://heyfutures.com/network-futuristi/.
[35] Iaquinto, B., R. Ison and R. Faggian (2011), “Creating communities of practice: scoping purposeful design”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15/1, pp. 4-21, https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111108666.
[26] Ichijo, K. and I. Nonaka (2007), Knowledge Creation and Management: New Challenges for Managers, Oxford University Press, New York.
[42] Italian Institute for the Future (2023), About – Italian Institute for the Future, Italian Institute for the Future, https://www.instituteforthefuture.it/the-institute-about/?lang=en.
[25] Jafari, M. and J. Rezaeenour (2010), Evolution of Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory: A brief review.
[21] Jakovljevic, M., S. Buckley and M. Bushney (2013), Forming Communities of practice in Higher Education: A theoretical perspective, https://uir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/14634.
[52] Japan’s Institute of Science and Technology Policy (2023), Science and Technology Foresight and Science and Technology Trends, National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, https://www.nistep.go.jp/en/?page_id=56.
[27] Krogh, G. and I. Nonaka (2000), Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195126167.001.0001.
[13] Kulkarni, R., R. Stough and K. Haynes (2000), “Towards Modeling of Communities of Practice (CoPs)”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 64/1, pp. 71-83, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0040-1625(99)00071-2.
[14] Lai, K. et al. (2006), Literature Review and Synthesis: Online Communities of Practice, Ministry of Education, New Zealand, https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/schooling/5795.
[3] Lave, J. and E. Wenger (1991), Situated Learning, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511815355.
[7] Li, L. et al. (2009), “Evolution of Wenger’s concept of community of practice”, Implementation Science, Vol. 4/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-11.
[49] Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology (2023), MIGHT, Members, https://might.org.my/membership/.
[33] McDermott, R. and D. Archibald (2010), “Harnessing your staff’s informal networks”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 88/3, pp. 82-89.
[28] McNabb, D. (2007), Knowledge Management in the Public Sector: A Blueprint for Innovation in Government, Routledge, New York.
[12] Mládková, L. (2023), “The community of practice-based management model”, European Management Journal, Vol. 41/4, pp. 540-549, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.01.008.
[24] Monteiro, B. and R. Dal Borgo (2023), “Supporting decision making with strategic foresight: An emerging framework for proactive and prospective governments.”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 63, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d78c791-en.
[22] Mortier, K. (2020), “Communities of Practice: a Conceptual Framework for Inclusion of Students with Significant Disabilities”, International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 24/3, pp. 329-340, https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1461261.
[19] Moule, P. (2006), “Developing the Communities of Practice”, Framework for OnLine Learning, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1099371.pdf.
[38] OECD (2023), The Public Governance of Anticipatory Innovation Ecosystems in Latvia: Exploring Applications in Key Sectors, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/83170d2e-en.
[58] OECD (2021), “Foresight and Anticipatory Governance in Practice: Lessons in effective foresight institutionalisation”, Strategic Foresight Unit, Office of the Secretary-General, (unpublished).
[39] OECD (2021), Italy Governance Scan for Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://web-archive.oecd.org/2021-11-03/614046-italy-governance-scan-pcsd.pdf.
[43] OECD (2021), Malta Institutional Scan of the Existing Sustainable Development Governance Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[50] OECD (2021), OECD Government Foresight Community: Annual Meeting Report 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/strategic-foresight/ourwork/GlobalForesightReport2021.pdf.
[64] OECD (2017), Systems Approaches to Public Sector Challenges: Working with Change, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264279865-en.
[46] Office of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (2024), “State Progress Strategy. Lithuania’s Vision for the Future ‘Lithuania 2050”, https://www.lrs.lt/sip/getFile3?p_fid=83423.
[11] Pemberton, J. (2007), “Communities of Practice – One size fits all?”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 14/1, pp. 5-7.
[30] Pugh, K. and L. Prusak (2013), “Designing Effective Knowledge Networks”, MIT Sloan Management Review, https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/designing-effective-knowledge-networks/ (accessed on 15 May 2024).
[32] Riel, M. and L. Polin (2004), “Online Learning Communities”, in Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511805080.006.
[6] Roberts, J. (2006), “Limits to Communities of Practice”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43/3, pp. 623-639, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00618.x.
[9] Saint-Onge, H. and D. Wallace (2003), Leveraging communities of practice for strategic advantage, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, Massachusetts.
[56] Salzburg Global (2023), “Public Sector Strategy Network”, https://www.salzburgglobal.org/multi-year- series/public-sector-strategy-network/pageId/8982.
[37] Sheng-cheng Lin and Fu-ren Lin (2006), “Towards an Ecological Perspective on the Evolution of Online Communities of Practice”, Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’06), pp. 134a-134a, https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2006.493.
[48] Singapore’s Centre for Strategic Futures (2023), “Our Approach”, https://www.csf.gov.sg/our-work/our-approach/.
[34] Sloman, S. and P. Fernbach (2017), The Knowledge Illusion: The myth of individual thought and the power of collective wisdom, Pan Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.
[15] Smith, A. (2016), “Knowledge by Association: Communities of Practice in Public Management”, Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 40/3, pp. 655-689, https://doi.org/10.1177/073491491604000309.
[2] Snyder, W., E. Wenger-Trayner and X. Briggs (2003), “Communities of practice in government: Leveraging knowledge for performance”, The Public Manager 32.
[16] Tõnurist, P. and A. Hanson (2020), “Anticipatory innovation governance: Shaping the future through proactive policy making”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 44, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cce14d80-en.
[54] UN System Chief Executives Board for Co-ordination (2023), Foresight Network (2020-2023), United Nations – CEB, https://unsceb.org/foresight-network-2020-2023.
[53] UN System Chief Executives Board for Co-ordination (2023), Foresight Network (2020-2023), United Nations – Terms of References, https://unsceb.org/sites/default/files/2023- 01/Informal%20HLCP%20Strategic%20Foresight%20Network%20TORs.pdf.
[62] US Intelligence Community (2023), INTEL – How the IC Works, https://www.intelligence.gov/how-the-ic-works.
[63] US Intelligence Community (2023), INTEL – Intel Vault, https://www.intelligence.gov/intel-vault.
[61] US Intelligence Community (2023), INTEL – Mission, https://www.intelligence.gov/mission.
[29] Wang, S. (2002), Knowledge Management, Emerald Publishing Ltd, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/londonschoolecons/detail.action?docID=232275.
[8] Wenger, E. (2000), “Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems”, Organization, Vol. 7/2, pp. 225-246, https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072002.
[47] Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (first edition), Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511803932.
[1] Wenger, E., R. Arnold McDermott and W. Snyder (2002), Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge, Harvard Business Press, https://books.google.fr/books/about/Cultivating_Communities_of_Practice.html?id=m1xZuNq9RygC&redir_esc=y.
[31] Wenger-Trayner, E. et al. (2023), Communities of practice within and across organizations: A guidebook, Social Learning Lab.
[23] Wilkinson, A. (2017), Strategic Foresight Primer, European Political Strategy Centre, https://cor.europa.eu/Documents/Migrated/Events/EPSC_strategic_foresight_primer.pdf.
[18] Williquet, F. et al. (2021), “The communities of practice playbook: A playbook to collectively run and develop communities of practice”, Publications Office of the European Union, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/443810.