Hi Harold.
Very interesting point about the communities of practice that sometimes block knowledge to evolve, because they do not have the courage to open the clan to fresh ideas, challengers that are going to attack the existing foundations, or simply the fact that people will like to seat on a normalized, stable environment and do not want to make knowledge evolve, until it turns into a crystal.

It's challenging these days to measure the type of knowledge that is being played. I do not mean the framework, I mean HOW do you measure based on facts, that for example most of the knowledge is abstract (it can be applied in a broad sense to a multitude of challenges) or concrete (persons built solutions on demand).

Today, due to complexity of business processes (some are still very structured, but others are loosely structured due to social collaboration) its getting difficult to understand how people use, develop, share and reuse knowledge, even using a pattern based approach. My experience, using process mining technology is helping to find those patterns, but it's an exploratory journey and this is the reason it's challenging.

The trick is to align network structure, knowledge type and processes design approach. I'm making some reflections in this post http://ultrabpm.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/social-network-analysis-part-two/ but the act of helping companies based on facts rather on listening to stories, that most of time have bias and assumptions is still a quest.