OCs started to appear with the growth of the Internet in the mid 90s. Since then it has been seen as a very popular phenomenon among researchers, and has been studied from different disciplines and backgrounds including education, business, health, and psychology. Subsequently, the concept has been recognised as a multi-disciplinary subject, and therefore throughout the literature it has become known under different terms such as ‘online communities’ (Preece, 2000, Preece, 2001, Preece et al., 2003), ‘virtual communities’ (Hagel and Armstrong, 1997, Ridings et al., 2002), ‘virtual groups’ (Ahuja and Galvin, 2003), ‘online discussion forums’ (Lau, 2007), ‘online discussion groups’ (Welser et al., 2007), ‘virtual discussion groups’ (Oren et al., 2002), ‘web-based discussion groups/boards’
(Bernier and Bowen, 2004, Lee et al., 2006), ‘online social networks’ (Garton et al., 1997), ‘electronic communities’ (Wasko and Faraj, 2000, Wasko and Faraj, 2005), ‘computer-mediated communities’ (Wang and Fesenmaier, 2004), ‘online knowledge sharing communities’ (Ardichvili et al., 2006), ‘virtual knowledge sharing communities’ (Ardichvili et al., 2003), and so forth. A thorough examination of the definitions of all these terms revealed that they all can be described as one phenomenon and that is mostly known as ‘online communities’
(OCs”). For that reason, the term ‘online communities’ is used throughout this study for any of these phrases or any phenomena that meet OC definitions. The next section reviews various definitions for OCs.
13 2.2.1 Online Community Definitions
As with the earlier diverse terms, OC has also been described with different definitions throughout the literature (Rheingold, 1993, Stockdale and Borovicka, 2006). It could mean different things to different people. According to Rheingold (1993), an OC is a group of people who exchange ideas and words through computer mediated tools such as bulletin and discussion boards. Ahuja and Galvin (2003) described OCs as virtual groups of people with common purpose using electronic communication. Likewise, Lin (2007) briefly described OCs as groups of people with common interests/practices communicating over the Internet for some duration. Hew (2009) defines the term as virtual social spaces that enable individuals to come together to give/receive information or provide/seek support or to form relationship. Knowledge management scholars have also proposed a very short definition for the concept, describing it as a group of people who use a computer network to interact with each other (Cothrel and Williams, 1999).
Reflecting on the above definitions, one could argue that they are very limited and not satisfactory as they mainly illustrate OCs as a communication tool.
However, OC scholars have identified various OC elements, which can be included in the OC definition to provide much richer meaning to the phenomenon.
For example, Jones (1997) identifies interactivity, communicators, sustained membership, and virtual space, as four main criterions for OC. Similarly, Information Systems (IS) research has identified social structure, interaction, and ongoing interactivity as important elements of OCs (Butler, 2001). In addition,
‘geographical’ and ‘time zone’ have also been identified as OC characteristics, and therefore they have been included in OC definitions. Bishop (2001) describes OCs as groups of people collaborating through networked technologies (e.g. the Internet) regardless of time and geographical barriers. Consistent with Bishop’s definitions, past researchers have also defined the concept as geographically dispersed groups communicating through mediated communications (Ahuja and Carley, 1998, Ahuja and Carley, 1999). In a cross-sectional study Kardaras et al.
(2003) defined OCs as groups of individuals sharing the same interest communicating with each other using the Internet without the need to be in the
14
same place, have pysical interaction, or belong to the same ethnic group.
Similarly, Barnatt (1998) describes an OC as a representation of a group of people with a common bond, but not necessarily with a common geographic location.
Thus, based on these deffintions, communicating regardless of time and geographical differences are two main characteristics that separate OCs from conventional (face-to-face) communities. In addition, invisible communication and low cost interaction have also been seen as separating factors between OCs and traditional communities (Lin, 2007).
Moreover, several OC scholars have attempted to provide much richer definitions for OCs by including more OC aspects. For example, Riding et al.
(2002) posit that OCs are “groups of people with common interests and practices that communicate regularly and for some duration in an organised way over the Internet through a common location or a mechanism”. According to Porter (2004) an OC is “an aggregation of individuals or business partners who interact around a shared interest, where the interaction is at least partially supported and/or mediated by technology and guided by some protocols or norms”. In their study DeSanctis et al. (2003) have been more specific about the OC technologies, since they expressed it as internet based forums where people join to discuss topics of mutual interests. Subsequently, any chat systems, bulletin boards, and discussion boards are also regarded as OCs. Koh and Kim (2004) viewed an OC as “a group of people with common interests or goals, interacting for knowledge (or information), sharing predominantly in cyberspace”. A similar view is articulated by Lin (2008) who described an OC as a cyberspace having various internet-based communication tools such as chatting and messaging boards to facilitate social interaction among their members, who share interests, establish relationships, make fantasies, and make transactions. Following these definitions, it could be seen that OC also covers social networking sites that enable people with similar interests to communicate regularly over a communication medium. In further supporting this, Chiu et al. (2006) posit that, “Virtual communities are online social networks in which people with common interests, goals, or practices interact to share information and knowledge, and engage in social interactions”.
15
Similarly, Lu and Yang (2011) have described the concept as online social networks enabling individuals to engage in knowledge and information sharing and social interaction.
Although most OC types only enable interaction between people online, some OCs enable their members to interact online and offline. Most of the interaction within an OC takes place in discussion forums where members post questions, information and knowledge whilst viewing other members’ contributions (Koh et al., 2007). These activities can also take place in physical events of OCs. Hence, the physical environment can also be seen as another element of OCs. For example, experts (e.g. Preece 2000) who attempted to identify attributes of OCs at first did not recognise physical aspect of OCs, yet this was identified as an attribute in a later study by the same author (Preece et al., 2003). Preece (2000) argued that four elements constitute an OC namely: 1) people who interact socially to achieve their desire, 2) a shared purpose such as need, interest or information, 3) policies such as rules, protocols, or law to guide the people, 4) and communication technologies such as discussion boards to support the interaction of the members. In a later study the same authors have reported more attributes in an attempt to provide a succinct definition for the concept (Preece et al., 2003).
They referred to ‘OC’ as to having different attributes such as physical as well as virtual environment, a common purpose, a software environment, members, duration and life cycle, culture of members, and governance. Similar attributes such as people with similar interests, social interaction, space and location, common obligation and responsibilities and computer technology, have also been identified by several other researchers (Maloney-Krichmar and Preece, 2002, de Souza and Preece, 2004, Stockdale and Borovicka, 2006, Yu-Wei et al., 2006).
Similarly to these prior researchers, Damsgaard (2002) identified six attributes for OCs: shared goals, interaction and strong ties between the members, shared activities, support between members, shared convention, language or protocol.
Similarly, Kim (2000) reports five attributes: place, community members, community leaders, and online/offline events. Balasubramanian and Mahajan (2001) reported four main OC attributes namely: people, electronic medium,
16
interaction, and interest. From a business perspective, Lin and Lee (2006) have recognized two main attributes of OCs namely: people (e.g. buyer and sellers) and technology (e.g. chartroom, discussion board or website). Further to these attributes Porter, (2004) identified a profit model as another attribute of OCs.
To sum up, reviewing the current stream of literature on OC definition, helped to reach a conclusion that OC is a complex phenomenon and therefore its definition and classification can vary and change from one study context to another or from one researcher’s view to another’s. Researchers have reported several attributes of OCs, and theses can also vary from one community type to another. Hence, as most scholars state, it would be difficult to make a standard definition for OCs (Stockdale and Borovicka, 2006). Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 summarise the currently discussed OC definitions and attributes. Based on an evaluation of the reported definitions along with the identified OC attributes, one might suggest that several elements such as people, purpose, technology, participation, and policies are the key aspects of OCs and they need to be included when defining an OC. Accordingly, this study define an OC as:
“a virtual place consisting of a group of people from different physical locations with a shared purpose or interest governed by policies, who have already established some level of participation regardless of time through a
communication technology”
17
Table 2-1: A Summary of OC Definitions
Authors Definition Authors Definition
Rheingold, 1993, Riding et al., 2002, Ahuja and Galvin, 2003, Lin, 2007
A groups of people with common purpose who exchange ideas and words through computer mediated tools such as bulletin/
discussion boards for some duration
Hew, 2009 Virtual social spaces enabling individuals to come together to give/receive information or provide seek support or to form relationship.
Porter, 2004 “an aggregation of individuals or business partners who interact around a shared interest, where the interaction is at least partially supported and/or mediated by technology and guided by some protocols or norms”
Lin, 2008, Koh and Kim, 2004
A cyberspace having various Internet-based
communication tools such as chatting and messaging boards that facilitate social interaction among their members, who share interests, establish relationships,
A group of people/ individuals who use a computer network/ Internet based forums/
internet to interact with each other without the need to be in the same place, or have physical interaction, or belong to the same ethnic group.
Social networking sites in which people with common interests, goals, or practices interact to share information and knowledge, and engage in social interactions
Lu and Yang, 2011 Online social networks enabling individuals to engage in knowledge and information sharing and social interaction.
This study “a virtual place consisting of a group of people from different physical locations with a shared purpose or interest governed by policies, who have already established some level of participation regardless of time through a communication
technology”
18
Table 2-2 : A Summary of OC Attributes
Attributes Articles
Community purpose/ Interest/ Shared goals Kim, 2000, Balasubramanian and Mahajan,2001, Damsgaard, 2002, Ridings et al., 2002, DeSanctis et al., 2003, Preece et al., 2003, Koh and Kim, 2004, Porter, 2004, Lee, 2006, Lin, 2008
Technology/ Virtual space/ Electronic medium/
Space and Location
Jones, 1997, Kim, 2000, Preece, 2000, Balasubramanian and Mahajan,2000, Maloney-Krichmar and Preece, 2002, Ridings et al., 2002, DeSanctis et al., 2003, de Souza, 2004, Preece et al., 2003, de Souza, 2004, Koh and Kim, 2004, Porter, 2004, Lee, 2006, Stockdale and Borovicka, 2006, Yu-Wei et al., 2006, Lin, 2008
People/ Communicators Jones, 1997, Kim, 2000, Preece, 2000, Balasubramanian and Mahajan,2000, Maloney-Krichmar and Preece, 2002, Ridings et al., 2002, DeSanctis et al., 2003, Preece et al., 2003, de Souza, 2004, Koh and Kim, 2004, Porter, 2004, Lee, 2006, Stockdale and Borovicka, 2006, Yu-Wei et al., 2006, Lin, 2008 Interactivity/ Interaction / Participation Jones, 1997, Preece, 2000, Balasubramanian and Mahajan,2000, Damsgaard, 2002, Maloney-Krichmar
and Preece, 2002, Ridings et al., 2002, DeSanctis et al., 2003, Preece et al., 2003, de Souza, 2004, Koh and Kim, 2004, Porter, 2004, Lee, 2006, Stockdale and Borovicka, 2006, Yu-Wei et al., 2006, Lin, 2008
Community norms /policies/ Governance/ Culture of members/ Shared language or protocol/ Common obligation
Preece, 2000, Maloney-Krichmar and Preece, 2002, Ridings et al., 2002, Damsgaard, 2002, DeSanctis et al., 2003, Preece et al., 2003, de Souza, 2004, Koh and Kim, 2004, Porter, 2004, Stockdale and Borovicka, 2006, Wei et al., 2006, Lin, 2008
Invisibility/ Low cost interaction/ Sustained membership
Jones, 1997, Lin, 2007
Physical and virtual/ Online/offline events Kim, 2000, Preece et al., 2003 Duration life cycle/ Community leaders Preece et al., 2003
19 2.2.2 Online Community Classification
Numerous classification schemas are found with regards to OCs. The current literature shows that there is lack of a standard typology or classification for OCs.
The present taxonomies proposed are based on different attributes of OCs:
community purpose or members’ needs, types of people involved in the community, and technologies (Hagel and Armstrong, 1997, Lazar & Preece, 1998, Stanoevska-Slabeva and Schmid, 2001, Plant, 2004). According to Lazar and Preece (1998) OCs can be classified based on four characteristics: purpose (e.g.
goals and activities), supporting software (e.g. technology), relationship to physical communities, and boundedness (e.g. people, location, and social relationship). Based on OC purpose, Hagel and Armstrong (1997) classified OCs into four types namely communities of: interest, transaction, fantasy, and relation.
This has been seen as the most cited classification in the existing literature (Wang and Fesenmaier, 2003, Wang and Fesenmaier, 2004, Porter, 2004). Communities of interest are created by people with shared interest, passion, and expertise in various areas. In these types of community people come together online to exchange information on a topic of common interest. Communities of transaction are formed between business partners, companies and end customers. In these types of OCs members exchange information to facilitate economic exchanges.
Communities of fantasy are created by people with common hobbies or fantasies.
Finally, Communities of relations are formed by groups of people with common stories or life experiences. In these types of OCs people exchange information on their stories and try to learn from other people with similar experiences.
In their study Stanoevska-Slabeva and Schmid (2001) have also identified four OC typologies namely: discussion communities, tasks and goals oriented communities, virtual world, and hybrid communities. Discussion community focuses on exchange of information on a defined topic. These types of OC also cover community of relations defined by Hagel and Armstrong (1997). Topic-oriented OCs are based on certain defined topics such as sports or a specific product. It also covers communities of practice which are formed in organisations
20
around certain topics. With tasks and goal-oriented communities members tend to participate in the community towards achieving a common goal. These types of OC can cover communities of transaction, online learning communities, and design communities such as open source communities. A community of virtual worlds is formed around virtual worlds and games. These types of OCs also include communities of fantasy defined by Hagel and Armstrong (1997). Hybrid communities include several interrelated communities. For example a discussion community and a task and goal-oriented community could coexist in one OC platform.
More classification schema are reported in the literature. For example, in their study DeSanctis et al. (2003) compared 40 OCs, and summarised them into three types namely: community of information kiosks where these types of community are relatively small and discussions are not moderated or organised by a leader;
community of association where in most cases the participants know one another;
and finally community of practice, commensurate with a description given by Wenger (1998, 2000). According to Wenger (1998) a community of practice is a group of people with common concerns, problems or interests who come together online to fulfil both individuals and group goals. Erat et al. (2006) divide this type of OC into two sub-categories: ‘internal communities’ which include only members of a firm or an organisation, and ‘external communities’ which include any types of external stakeholders. In addition, Erat et al. (2006) further divide external communities into three types: customer cross-border communities that consist of a group of employees and customers, private customer communities which consist of a group of customers only, and business customer communities.
Based on geographic location and the relationship between the OC members, Koh and Kim (2004) also classify OCs into ‘geographic community’ and
‘relational community’. Most of the OCs fall under ‘relational community’, since OC members are not physically bounded together. In a different way and based on the content of OCs, Jin et al. (2010) identify two types of OC namely: member initiated communities that are managed by their members, and organisation
21
sponsored communities that are sponsored by either commercial or non-commercial firms.
To sum up, the above classification schemas for OC provides evidence supporting that there is no universally agreed way to classify OCs, and therefore there is not a standard typology for OCs. Following this, one might suggest that OCs can also be classified based on the disciplines they originated from. For example, Online Business Community (OBC) can be seen as one typology for OCs belonging to the business discipline. Marketing literature reports that OBCs can be classified into two types: Consumer (B2C) and Business-to-Business (B2B) (Hagel and Armstrong, 1997, Rohm and Swaminathanl, 2004).
B2B communities can also be divided into two sub-categories. The first type is known as B2B e-commerce, which bring buyers and sellers together for transaction purposes (Schubert and Ginsburg, 2000, Perry et al., 2002, Boeck et al., 2009). Hence, the main activities of these types of OBCs involve buying and selling products and services (Deeter-Schmelz and Kennedy, 2004, Rohm et al., 2004). The second type can be called B2B relations, which referred to B2B OBCs in this study. They enable businesses to share knowledge and information with each other, to give/receive support, and to form relationships. In Section 2.2.1, it was shown that some OCs also have offline communities. Accordingly, B2B OBCs can also be divided into two types, online only, and online and offline. First online only B2B OBCs are concerned with communities that operate entirely online. An example of this type of community includes the UK Business Forum (www.ukbusinessforum.co.uk). On the other hand online and offline B2B OBCs are concerned with communities that are virtual and conventional. In this category B2B OBCs are developed based on an offline community. An example of this type of community includes the Cambridge Network (www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk).
The new typology proposed in this section was validated in a preliminary study that involves reviewing almost seventy B2B OBCs (see Appendix A). Table 2-3 shows a summary of the revised OC typologies.
22
Table 2-3: A Summary of OC Typologies
Typology Article Typology Article
Communities of interest
Relational communities Koh and Kim, 2004
Member initiated communities
Organisation sponsored communities Jin et al., 2010
Online business communities
23
Figure 2-1: A Typology for Online Business Communities (OBCs)
2.3 B2B OBCs
The preceding sections revealed that there is not a standard definition or typology for OCs. In fact it was discovered that OC means different things to different people, and therefore it has been used with different definitions.
However, evaluating the current definitions in the literature revealed that five OC attributes need to be considered when defining an OC type. Following this, a typology was proposed for OBCs. Based on identified attributes along with the introduced OBC typology proposed in the earlier section, this thesis defines a B2B OBC as:
“a virtual place consisting of a group of people (business owners and managers) from different physical locations with a shared purpose or interest (provide/seek support and expertise, share information and knowledge, discuss business related issues, and forming business relationships) governed by policies(community rules and regulations), who have already established some level of participation (posted questions, replied to others’ questions, and established contacts) regardless of time through a communication technology (discussion boards, chatting system, or website)”