Stay up-to-date on everything KM - Subscribe to KMWorld NewsLinks and more today.

January 15, 2018

By Michael E. D. Koenig Professor and former and founding dean of the College of Information and
Computer Science at Long Island University

What Is

What is KM? Knowledge Management Explained

The classic one-line definition of Knowledge Management was offered up by Tom Davenport early
on (Davenport, 1994): “Knowledge Management is the process of capturing, distributing, and
effectively using knowledge.” Probably no better or more succinct single-line definition has appeared
since.

However, Knowledge Management can best and most quickly be explained by recapping its origins.
Later in this article, its stages of development will also be recapped.

The Origins of KM

The concept and the terminology of KM sprouted within the management consulting community.
When the Internet arose, those organizations quickly realized that an intranet, an in-house subset of
the Internet, was a wonderful tool with which to make information accessible and to share it among
the geographically dispersed units of their organizations. Not surprisingly, they quickly realized that
in building tools and techniques such as dashboards, expertise locators, and best practice (lessons
learned) databases, they had acquired an expertise which was in effect a new product that they
could market to other organizations, particularly to organizations which were large, complex, and
dispersed. However, a new product needs a name, and the name that emerged was Knowledge
Management. The term apparently was first used in its current context at McKinsey in 1987 for an
internal study on their information handling and utilization (McInerney and Koenig, 2011). KM went
public, as it were, at a conference in Boston in 1993 organized by Ernst and Young (Prusak 1999).
Note that Davenport was at E&Y when he wrote the definition above.

Those consulting organizations quickly disseminated the principles and the techniques of KM to
other organizations, to professional associations, and to disciplines. The timing was propitious, as
the enthusiasm for intellectual capital (see below) in the 1980s, had primed the pump for the
recognition of information and knowledge as essential assets for any organization.

What is KM trying to accomplish?

Rich, Deep, and Open Communication

First, KM can very fruitfully be seen as the undertaking to replicate, indeed to create, the
information environment known to be conducive to successful R&D—rich, deep, and open
communication and information access—and to deploy it broadly across the firm. It is almost trite
now to observe that we are in the post-industrial information age and that we are all information
workers. Furthermore, the researcher is, after all, the quintessential information worker. Peter
Drucker once commented that the product of the pharmaceutical industry wasn’t pills, it was
information. The research domain, and in particular the pharmaceutical industry, has been studied in
depth with a focus on identifying the organizational and cultural environmental aspects that lead to
successful research (Koenig, 1990, 1992). The salient aspect that emerges with overwhelming
importance is that of rich, deep, and open communications, not only within the firm, but also with
the outside world. The logical conclusion, then, is to attempt to apply those same successful
environmental aspects to knowledge workers at large, and that is precisely what KM attempts to do.

Situational Awareness

Second, Situational Awareness is a term only recently, beginning in 2015, used in the context of KM.
The term, however, long precedes KM. It first gained some prominence in the cold war era when
studies were commissioned by all of the major potential belligerents to try to identify what
characteristics made a good fighter pilot. The costs of training a fighter pilot were huge, and if the
appropriate characteristics leading to success could be identified, that training could be directed to
the most appropriate candidates, and of those trained the most appropriate could be selected for
front-line assignment. However, the only solid conclusion of those studies was that the salient
characteristic of a good fighter pilot was excellent “situational awareness.” The problem was that no
good predictive test for situational awareness could be developed.

The phrase then retreated into relative obscurity until it was resuscitated by Jeff Cooper, a firearms
guru, and others in the context of self-defense. How do you defend and protect yourself? The first
step is to be alert and to establish good situational awareness. From there the phrase entered the
KM vocabulary. The role of KM is to create the capability for the organization to establish excellent
situational awareness and consequently to make the right decisions.

A new definition of KM

A few years after the Davenport definition, the Gartner Group created another definition of KM,
which has become the most frequently cited one (Duhon, 1998), and it is given below:

"Knowledge management is a discipline that promotes an integrated approach to identifying,

capturing, evaluating, retrieving, and sharing all of an enterprise's information assets. These assets
may include databases, documents, policies, procedures, and previously un-captured expertise and
experience in individual workers."

The one real lacuna of this definition is that it, too, is specifically limited to an organization’s own
information and knowledge assets. KM as conceived now, and this expansion arrived early on,
includes relevant information assets from wherever relevant. Note, however, the breadth implied
for KM by calling it a “discipline.”
Both definitions share a very organizational and corporate orientation. KM, historically at least, was
primarily about managing the knowledge of and in organizations. Rather quickly, however, the
concept of KM became much broader than that.

A graphic map of Knowledge Management

What is still probably the best graphic to try to set forth what constitutes KM, is the graphic
developed by IBM for the use of their own KM consultants. It is based upon the distinction between
collecting stuff (content) and connecting people. The presentation here includes some minor
modifications, but the captivating C, E, and H mnemonics are entirely IBM's:

Graphic Map of KM

COLLECTING (STUFF) &

CODIFICATION

CONNECTING (PEOPLE) &

PERSONALIZATION

DIRECTED

INFORMATION & KNOWLEDGE

SEARCH

EXPLOIT

Databases, external & internal

Content Architecture

Information Service Support (training required)

data mining best practices / lessons learned/after action analysis

(HARVEST)

community & learning

directories, "yellow pages" (expertise locators)

findings & facilitating tools, groupware

response teams
(HARNESS)

SERENDIPITY &

BROWSING

EXPLORE

Cultural support

current awareness profiles and databases

selection of items for alerting purposes / push

data mining best practices

(HUNTING)

Cultural support

spaces - libraries & lounges (literal & virtual), cultural support, groupware

travel & meeting attendance

(HYPOTHESIZE)

From: Tom Short, Senior consultant, Knowledge Management, IBM Global Services

(Note however the comments below under “Tacit.”)

OK, what does KM actually consist of?

In short, what are the operational components of a KM system? This is, in a way, the most
straightforward way of explaining what KM is—to delineate what the operational components are
that constitute what people have in mind when they talk about a KM system.

(1) Content Management

So what is involved in KM? The most obvious is the making of the organization's data and
information available to the members of the organization through dashboards, portals, and with the
use of content management systems. Content Management, sometimes known as Enterprise
Content Management, is the most immediate and obvious part of KM. For a wonderful graphic
snapshot of the content management domain go to realstorygroup.com and look at their Content
Technology Vendor Map. This aspect of KM might be described as Librarianship 101, putting your
organization’s information and data up online, plus selected external information, and providing the
capability to seamlessly shift to searching, more or less, the entire web. The term most often used
for this is Enterprise Search. This is now not just a stream within the annual KMWorld Conference,
but has become an overlapping conference in its own right. See the comments below under the
“Third Stage of KM” section.

(2) Expertise Location

Since knowledge resides in people, often the best way to acquire the expertise that you need is to
talk with an expert. Locating the right expert with the knowledge that you need, though, can be a
problem, particularly if, for example, the expert is in another country. The basic function of an
expertise locator system is straightforward: it is to identify and locate those persons within an
organization who have expertise in a particular area. These systems are now commonly known as
expertise location systems. In the early days of KM the term ‘Yellow Pages” was commonly used,
but now that term is fast disappearing from our common vocabulary, and expertise location is, in
any case, rather more precise.

There are typically three sources from which to supply data for an expertise locator system: (1)
employee resumes, (2) employee self-identification of areas of expertise (typically by being
requested to fill out a form online), and (3) algorithmic analysis of electronic communications from
and to the employee. The latter approach is typically based on email traffic but can include other
social networking communications such as Twitter, Facebook, and Linkedin. Several commercial
software packages to match queries with expertise are available. Most of them have load-balancing
schemes so as not to overload any particular expert. Typically such systems rank the degree of
presumed expertise and will shift a query down the expertise ranking when the higher choices
appear to be overloaded. Such systems also often have a feature by which the requester can flag the
request as a priority, and the system can then match high priority to high expertise rank.

(3) Lessons Learned

Lessons Learned databases are databases that attempt to capture and make accessible knowledge,
typically “how to do it” knowledge, that has been operationally obtained and normally would not
have been explicitly captured. In the KM context, the emphasis is upon capturing knowledge
embedded in personal expertise and making it explicit. The lessons learned concept or practice is
one that might be described as having been birthed by KM, as there is very little in the way of a
direct antecedent. Early in the KM movement, the phrase most often used was "best practices," but
that phrase was soon replaced with "lessons learned." The reasons were that "lessons learned" was
a broader and more inclusive term and because "best practice" seemed too restrictive and could be
interpreted as meaning there was only one best practice in a situation. What might be a best
practice in North American culture, for example, might well not be a best practice in another culture.
The major international consulting firms were very aware of this and led the movement to substitute
the new more appropriate term. "Lessons Learned" became the most common hallmark phrase of
early KM development.
 The idea of capturing expertise, particularly hard-won expertise, is not a new idea. One antecedent
to KM that we have all seen portrayed was the World War II debriefing of pilots after a mission.
Gathering military intelligence was the primary purpose, but a clear and recognized secondary
purpose was to identify lessons learned, though they were not so named, to pass on to other pilots
and instructors. Similarly, the U. S. Navy Submarine Service, after a very embarrassing and lengthy
experience of torpedoes that failed to detonate on target, and an even more embarrassing failure to
follow up on consistent reports by submarine captains of torpedo detonation failure, instituted a
mandatory system of widely disseminated "Captain's Patrol Reports." The intent, of course, was to
avoid any such fiasco in the future. The Captain's Patrol Reports, however, were very clearly
designed to encourage analytical reporting, with reasoned analyses of the reasons for operational
failure and success. It was emphasized that a key purpose of the report was both to make
recommendations about strategy for senior officers to mull over, and recommendations about
tactics for other skippers and submariners to take advantage of (McInerney and Koenig, 2011).

The military has become an avid proponent of the lessons learned concept. The phrase the military
uses is "After Action Reports." The concept is very simple: make sure that what has been learned
from experience is passed on, and don't rely on the participant to make a report. There will almost
always be too many things immediately demanding that person's attention after an action. There
must be a system whereby someone, typically someone in KM, is assigned the responsibility to do
the debriefing, to separate the wheat from the chaff, to create the report, and then to ensure that
the lessons learned are captured and disseminated. The experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria
have made this process almost automatic in the military.

The concept is by no means limited to the military. Larry Prusak (2004) maintains that in the
corporate world the most common cause of KM implementation failure is that so often the project
team is disbanded and the team members almost immediately reassigned elsewhere before there is
any debriefing or after-action report assembled. Any organization where work is often centered on
projects or teams needs to pay very close attention to this issue and set up an after-action
mechanism with clearly delineated responsibility for its implementation.

A particularly instructive example of a "lesson learned" is one recounted by Mark Mazzie (2003), a
well known KM consultant. The story comes from his experience in the KM department at Wyeth
Pharmaceuticals. Wyeth had recently introduced a new pharmaceutical agent intended primarily for
pediatric use. Wyeth expected it to be a notable success because, unlike its morning, noon, and
night competitors, it needed to be administered only once a day, and that would make it much
easier for the caregiver to ensure that the child followed the drug regimen, and it would be less
onerous for the child. Sales of the drug commenced well but soon flagged. One sales rep (what the
pharmaceutical industry used to call detail men), however, by chatting with her customers,
discovered the reason for the disappointing sales and also recognized the solution. The problem was
that kids objected strenuously to the taste of the drug, and caregivers were reporting to prescribing
physicians that they couldn't get their kid to continue taking the drug, so the old stand-by would be
substituted. The simple solution was orange juice, a swig of which quite effectively masked the
offensive taste. If the sales rep were to explain to the physician that the therapy should be conveyed
to the caregiver as the pill and a glass of orange juice taken simultaneously at breakfast, then there
was no dissatisfaction and sales were fine.

The obvious question that arises is what is there to encourage the sales rep to share this knowledge?
The sales rep is compensated based on salary (small), and bonus (large). If she shares the knowledge,
she jeopardizes the size of her bonus, which is based on her comparative performance.

This raises the issue, discussed below, that KM is much more than content management. It extends
to how does one structures the organizational culture to facilitate and encourage knowledge
sharing, and that extends to how one structures the organization’s compensation scheme.

The implementation of a lessons learned system is complex both politically and operationally. Many
of the questions surrounding such a system are difficult to answer. Are employees free to submit to
the system un-vetted? Who, if anyone, is to decide what constitutes a worthwhile lesson learned?
Most successful lessons learned implementations have concluded that such a system needs to be
monitored and that there needs to be a vetting and approval mechanism for items that are posted
as lessons learned.

How long do items stay in the system? Who decides when an item is no longer salient and timely?
Most successful lessons learned systems have an active weeding or stratification process. Without a
clearly designed process for weeding, the proportion of new and crisp items inevitably declines, the
system begins to look stale, and usage and utility falls. Deletion, of course, is not necessarily loss and
destruction. Using carefully designed stratification principles, items removed from the foreground
can be archived and moved to the background but still made available. However, this procedure
needs to be in place before things start to look stale, and a good taxonomically based retrieval
system needs to be created.

These questions need to be carefully thought out and resolved, and the mechanisms designed and
put in place, before a lessons-learned system is launched. Inattention can easily lead to failure and
the creation of a bad reputation that will tar subsequent efforts.

(4) Communities of Practice (CoPs)

CoPs are groups of individuals with shared interests that come together in person or virtually to tell
stories, to share and discuss problems and opportunities, discuss best practices, and talk over
lessons learned (Wenger, 1998; Wenger & Snyder, 1999). Communities of practice emphasize, build
upon, and take advantage of the social nature of learning within or across organizations. In small
organizations, conversations around the water cooler are often taken for granted, but in larger,
geographically distributed organizations, the water cooler needs to become virtual. Similarly,
organizations find that when workers relinquish a dedicated company office to work online from
home or on the road, the natural knowledge sharing that occurs in social spaces needs to be
replicated virtually. In the context of KM, CoPs are generally understood to mean electronically
linked communities. Electronic linkage is not essential, of course, but since KM arose in the
consulting community from the awareness of the potential of intranets to link geographically
dispersed organizations, this orientation is understandable.

A classic example of the deployment of CoPs comes from the World Bank. When James Wolfensohn
became president in 1995, he focused on the World Bank's role in disseminating knowledge about
development; he was known to say that the principal product of the World Bank was not loans, but
rather the creation of knowledge about how to accomplish development. Consequently, he
encouraged the development of CoPs and made that a focus of his attention. One World Bank CoP,
for example, was about road construction and maintenance in arid countries and conditions. That
CoP was encouraged to include and seek out not only participants and employees from the World
Bank and its sponsored projects and from the country where the relevant project was being
implemented, but also experts from elsewhere who had expertise in building roads in arid
conditions, such as, for example, staff from the Australian Road Research Board and the Arizona
Department of Highways. This is also a good example of the point that despite the fact that KM
developed first in a very for-profit corporate context, it is applicable far more broadly, such as in the
context of government and civil society.

The organization and maintenance of CoPs is not a simple or an easy task to undertake. As Durham
(2004) points out, there are several key roles to be filled. She describes the key roles as manager,
moderator, and thought leader. They need not necessarily be three separate people, but in some
cases they will need to be. Some questions that need to be thought about and resolved are:

Who fills the various roles of: manager, moderator, and thought leader?

How is the CoP managed, and who will fill the management role?

Who will have overall responsibility for coordinating and overseeing the various CoPs?

Who looks for new members or suggests that the CoP may have outlived its usefulness?

Who reviews the CoP for activity?

Are postings open or does someone vet or edit the postings?

How is the CoP kept fresh and vital?

When and how (under what rules) are items removed?

How are those items archived?

How are the CoP files made retrievable? How do CoP leaders coordinate with the enterprise
search/taxonomy function?

Another way to view KM is to look at the stages of KM’s Development

First Stage of KM: Information Technology

KM was initially driven primarily by IT, information technology, and the desire to put that new
technology, the Internet, to work and see what it was capable of. That first stage has been described
using a horse breeding metaphor as “by the internet out of intellectual capital,” the sire and the
dam. The concept of intellectual capital, the notion that not just physical resources, capital, and
manpower, but also intellectual capital (knowledge) fueled growth and development, provided the
justification, the framework, and the seed. The availability of the internet provided the tool. As
described above, the management consulting community jumped at the new capabilities provided
by the Internet, using it first for themselves, realizing that if they shared knowledge across their
organization more effectively they could avoid reinventing the wheel, underbid their competitors,
and make more profit. The central point is that the first stage of KM was about how to deploy that
new technology to accomplish more effective use of information and knowledge.

The first stage might be described as the “If only Texas Instruments knew what Texas Instruments
knew” stage, to revisit a much quoted KM mantra. The hallmark phrase of Stage 1 was first “best
practices,” later replaced by the more politic “lessons learned.”

Second Stage of KM: HR and Corporate Culture

Within a few years the second stage of KM emerged when it became apparent that simply deploying
new technology was not sufficient to effectively enable information and knowledge sharing. It
became obvious that human and cultural dimensions needed to be incorporated. The second stage
can be described as the “‘If you build it they will come’ is a fallacy” stage. In other words, there was
the recognition that “If you build it they will come” is a recipe that can easily lead to quick and
embarrassing failure if human factors are not sufficiently taken into account.

It became clear that KM implementation would involve changes in the corporate culture, in many
cases rather significant changes. Consider the case above of the new pediatric medicine and the
discovery of the efficacy of adding orange juice to the recipe. Pharmaceutical sales reps are
compensated primarily not by salary, but by bonuses based on sales results. What is in it for that
sales rep to share her new discovery when the most likely result is that next year her bonus would
be substantially reduced? The changes needed in corporate culture to facilitate and encourage
information and knowledge sharing can be major and profound. KM therefore extends far beyond
just structuring information and knowledge and making it more accessible. In particular, the
organizational culture needs to be examined in terms of how it rewards information and knowledge
sharing. In many cases the examination will reveal that the culture needs to be modified and
enriched. Often this will involve examining and modifying how the compensation scheme rewards
information and knowledge sharing.

This implies a role for KM that very few information professionals have had to be involved with in
the past. The implication is clear that KM leaders should be involved in the decision making process
for designing the organization’s compensation policy, a process that is very sensitive politically and
fraught with difficulty.

A major component of this second stage was the design of easy-to-use and user-friendly systems.
The metaphor that was used was that the interface, the Desktop Interface, should appear almost
intuitively obvious, like the dashboard of an automobile. (This was of course before the proliferation
of chips in automobiles and the advent of user manuals that were inches thick.) Human factors
design became an important component of KM.

As this recognition of the importance of human factors unfolded, two major themes from the
business literature were brought into the KM domain. The first of these was Senge’s work on the
learning organization (Senge, Peter M., 1990 The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the
Learning Organization.) The second was Nonaka’s work on “tacit” knowledge and how to discover
and cultivate it (Nonaka, Ikujiro & Takeuchi, Hirotaka, 1995 The Knowledge-Creating Company: How
Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation.) Both were not only about the human
factors of KM implementation and use; they were also about knowledge creation as well as
knowledge sharing and communication. The hallmark phrase of Stage 2 was “communities of
practice,” CoPs. A good indicator of the shift from the first to the second stage of KM is that for the
1998 Conference Board conference on KM, there was, for the first time, a noticeable contingent of
attendees from HR, human resource departments. By the next year, 1999, HR was the largest single
group, displacing IT attendees from first place.

Third Stage of KM: Taxonomy and Content Management

The third stage developed from the awareness of the importance of content, and in particular the
awareness of the importance of the retrievability of that content, and therefore the importance of
the arrangement, description, and the syndetic structure of that content. Since a good alternative
description for the second stage of KM is the “it’s no good if they don’t use it” stage, then in that
vein, perhaps the best description for the third stage is the “it’s no good if they try to use it but can’t
find it” stage. Another bellwether is that TFPL’s report of their October 2001 CKO (Chief Knowledge
Officer) Summit reported that for the first time taxonomies emerged as a topic, and it emerged full
blown as a major topic (TFPL, 2001 Knowledge Strategies – Corporate Strategies.) The hallmark
phrases emerging for the third stage are content management (or enterprise content management)
and taxonomies. At the KMWorld 2000 Conference, a track on Content Management appeared for
the first time, and by the 2001 KMWorld Conference, Content Management had become the
dominant track. In 2006, KMWorld added a two-day workshop entitled Taxonomy Boot Camp, which
not only still continues today, and is a day longer, but has also expanded to international locations.
The hallmark terms for the third stage of KM are taxonomy and content.

The third stage continues today and is expanding. A major theme now is “data analytics” and
“machine learning” for “enterprise search.” The crux is to be able to effectively manage and retrieve
your data without maintaining a stable full of taxonomists. A good recent example derives from Rolls
Royce’s sale of a subsidiary company. The buyer was entitled to voluminous files of company
records, but how was Rolls Royce to separate those from other records with valuable proprietary
data that was not part of the sale, and that Rolls Royce wanted to maintain as proprietary
knowledge, amidst a sea of structured and unstructured data? The answer was a major project to
taxonomize, organize, index, and retrieve massive amounts of data and records. Data analytics and
machine learning were powerful tools to help accomplish this, but notice the word “help.” Those
tools will not replace the need for good and intelligent human guidance, training, and oversight.
The author is reminded of an occurrence some years ago at Mitre Corporation, a very information
driven organization, before the term KM was even bruited about, when the organization wanted to
create an expertise location “file/database.” A senior Vice President’s first thought was that just
putting the employee’s resumes online would suffice. A short demonstration convinced him
otherwise. One sample search was for employees with expertise in “Defense Logistics,” a topic
relevant to an RFP that Mitre was bidding on. The clincher was a resume containing neither word,
but with the phase “battlefield re-supply.”

A good idea is to browse the KMWorld website (kmworld.com) for current reports, “white papers,”
webinars, etc. on topics such as “text analytics” or “big data” or “cognitive computing.”

Yet one more definition/description

The late 20th Century, extending into the 21st Century, was characterized by an almost continuous
stream of information and knowledge-related topics and enthusiasms.

Below is a list of those enthusiasms, in roughly chronological order, with the earlier at the top of the
list. In some cases, where it is today not so obvious from the name, there is a brief description of
what the topic or the enthusiasm consisted of.

Minimization of Unallocated Cost—the thesis that for optimal decision making costs should be
accurately allocated to products, and as data processing became an ever more important and larger
component of an organization’s expenses, it was usually treated as G&A, General and Administrative
expenses, and a lower and lower proportion of organizational budgets were clearly allocated to their
products, and decision making was suffering.

I.T. and Productivity

Data Driven System Design—the thesis that the basis of good system design was not the classic if-
then-else flow chart, but was based on the charting of procedures and information flow within the
organization, and only then came the if-then-else detailed analysis. This drove a dramatically
increased recognition of the importance of data and information in systems design and in an
organization’s operations in general.

Decision Analysis—the addition to the basic systems analysis construct that there is often an
unrecognized and unanalyzed option in any decision situation—i.e., to go back and deploy some
resources to get better information, and then return and consequently have a better chance of
making the optimal decision. Further, one can, in principle, compare the cost of better information
with the expected value of a better decision.

Information Systems Stage Hypotheses--there was a profusion of stage hypotheses in the late 1970s
and early 1980s: by Nolan, Rockart, Marchand, Gibson & Jackson, Koenig, and Zachman. All had
ramifications for, and were for the most part publicized for, the implementation and management
of I.T.
Managing the Archipelago (of Information Services--the thesis that for primarily historical reasons
the information handling responsibilities in an organization are usually administratively scattered like
the islands in an archipelago, and that this creates severe administrative and managerial problems,
and that only very senior management is in a position to get a handle on the problem, and that it
needs to very consciously address the issue.

I.T. as Competitive Advantage

Management Information Systems (MIS) to Decision Support Systems (DSS)--the recognition that the
disenchantment with MIS was caused primarily by its focus solely on internal information. and that
most management decisions depended more on external information, and that DSSs needed to
address the issue of access to external information and knowledge.

Enterprise-Wide Information Analysis—this was IBM’s mantra for promotion to their customers’
senior management that, to be successful, an organization 1) had to define what its enterprise really
consisted of, and determine what business it was really in; 2) then it had to analyze and define what
decisions it had to make correctly to be successful in that enterprise; 3) then it had to analyze what
information it needed to make those decisions correctly, and obtain and process that information.

Information Resource Management—the concept that information was not only a resource, but was
also often a product. The Paperwork Reduction Act mandated that all government agencies appoint
a senior administrator in charge of Information Resource Management.

I.T. and Organizational Structure

Total Quality Management (TQM) and Benchmarking

Competitive Intelligence (CI)

I.T. and the Shift from Hierarchies to Markets--the that better I.T. inevitably shifts the optimal
effectiveness trade-off point toward the market end of the central planning to market economy
spectrum.

Business Process Re-Engineering

Core Competencies

Data Warehousing and Data Mining (more recently known as Big Data)

E-Business

Intellectual Capital

Knowledge Management

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)—the not very obvious name for the idea of integrating all your
business’s I.T. operations under one software suite.

Customer Relationship Management (CRM)

Supply Chain Management (SCM)

Enterprise Content Management (ECM)

The list is impressively long, and all these topics and enthusiasms are related to the management of
information and knowledge, or the management of information processing functions. It would be
very hard to come up with a very much shorter list of management topics and enthusiasms of the
same era that were not related to the management of information and knowledge or to the
management of information processing functions.

If the list is so long, and they have so major a theme in common, has there not been some
recognition that all these trees constitute a forest? Well, there was (Koenig, 2000), and it was called
“information driven management,” the name put forward for the “forest” at the time , but it
received comparatively little exposure or momentum.

One interesting way to look at KM is that, in fact, KM has expanded to become and is now the
recognition of that forest of trees (McInerney and Koenig, 2011), that KM is a much better and more
recognized name than “information driven management.” It is interesting that this stream of trees,
to mix metaphors, has dwindled dramatically since the appearance of KM as an important topic. It
can further be argued that the typical new topic or enthusiasm, the cloud and big data for example,
can be seen as emerging from within KM.

Other KM Issues

Tacit Knowledge

The KM community uses the term “tacit knowledge” to mean what is not “explicit knowledge,” and
in that usage what is usually meant by “tacit” is implicit knowledge, that which is not explicit or
formally captured in some fashion, most obviously the knowledge in people’s heads. A more useful
and nuanced categorization is explicit, implicit, and tacit. There is indeed tacit knowledge which only
resides in someone’s head. Nonaka uses the story of the tacit knowledge that was necessary to
develop a home bread maker. To understand what was needed to design a machine to knead dough
properly, it was necessary for the engineers to work with bread makers to get the feel for how the
dough needed to be manipulated.

But frankly the extent of knowledge that is truly tacit, like how to get up on water skis, that overlaps
with the interests of KM systems is rather small. What is often very extensive is the amount of
implicit information that could have been made explicit, but has not been. That it has not been is
usually not a failure, but usually simply a cost-effective decision, usually taken unconsciously, that it
is not worth the effort. The danger lies in assuming that explicit information is addressed by
“collecting” and tacit information by “connecting,” and not examining whether there is potentially
important implicit information that could and should be made explicit. The after action comments
above under Lessons Learned illustrate this important point.

Knowledge Retention and Retirees

One long standing KM issue is the need to retain the knowledge of retirees. The fact that the baby
boomer bulge is now reaching retirement age is making this issue increasingly important. KM
techniques are very relevant to this issue. The most obvious technique is the application of the
lessons learned idea—just treat the retiree’s career as a long project that is coming to its end and
create an after action report, a massive data dump. This idea seems straightforward enough, and
debriefing the retiree and those with whom he works closely about what issues they perceive as
likely to surface or that could possibly arise is obvious common sense. But only in special cases is the
full data dump approach likely to be very useful. When a current employee has a knowledge need, is
he or she likely to look for the information, and if so how likely is it that the employee’s search
request will map onto the information in the retiree’s data dump?

Much more likely to be useful is to keep the retiree involved, maintaining him or her in the CoPs,
involved in the discussions concerning current issues, and findable through expertise locator
systems. The real utility is likely to be found not directly in the information that the retiree leaves
behind, but in new knowledge created by the interaction of the retiree with current employees. The
retiree, in response to a current issue says "it occurs to me that ..." and elicits a response something
like “yes, the situation is somewhat similar , but here ...,” a discussion unfolds, the retiree
contributes some of the needed expertise, and a solution is generated. The solution arises partially
from the retiree’s knowledge, but more from the interaction.

The Scope of KM

Another major development is the expansion of KM beyond the 20th century vision of KM as the
organization’s knowledge as described in the Gartner Group definition of KM. Increasingly KM is
seen as ideally encompassing the whole bandwidth of information and knowledge likely to be useful
to an organization, including knowledge external to the organization—knowledge emanating from
vendors, suppliers, customers, etc., and knowledge originating in the scientific and scholarly
community, the traditional domain of the library world. Looked at in this light, KM extends into
environmental scanning and competitive intelligence.

The additional definition of KM above, “Yet One More Definition of KM,” the forest of the trees, also
makes the case that the definition of KM is now very broad.

Is KM here to stay?

The answer certainly appears to be yes. The most compelling analysis is the bibliometric one, simply
counting the number of articles in the business literature and comparing that to other business
enthusiasms. Most business enthusiasms grow rapidly and reach a peak after about five years, and
then decline almost as rapidly as they grew.

Below are the graphs for three hot management topics (or fads) of recent years:

Quality Circles, 1977-1986 - Source: Abrahamson ,1996

Quality Circles, 1977-1986

Source: Abrahamson ,1996

Total Quality Management, 1990-2001 - Source: Ponzi & Koenig, 2002

Total Quality Management, 1990-2001

Source: Ponzi & Koenig, 2002

Business Process Reengineering, 1990-2001 - Source: Ponzi & Koenig, 2002

Business Process Reengineering, 1990-2001

Source: Ponzi & Koenig, 2002

KM looks dramatically different:

A articles in the business literature with the phrase “Knowledge Management” in the title.

This graph charts the number of articles in the business literature with the phrase “Knowledge
Management” in the title.

If we chart the number of articles in the business literature with the phrase “Knowledge
Management” or the abbreviation “KM” in the title, we get the chart below, with an order of
magnitude more literature:

KM Growth 2001-2011

It does indeed look as though KM is no mere enthusiasm; KM is here to stay.

References

Abrahamson, E. & Fairchild, G. (1999). Management fashion: lifecycles, triggers, and collective
learning processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 708-740.

Davenport, Thomas H. (1994), Saving IT's Soul: Human Centered Information Management. Harvard
Business Review, March-April, 72 (2)pp. 119-131. Duhon, Bryant (1998), It's All in our Heads. Inform,
September, 12 (8).
Durham, Mary. (2004). Three Critical Roles for Knowledge Management Workspaces. In M.E.D.
Koenig & T. K. Srikantaiah (Eds.), Knowledge Management: Lessons Learned: What Works and What
Doesn't. (pp. 23-36). Medford NJ: Information Today, for The American Society for Information
Science and Technology.

Koenig, M.E.D. (1990) Information Services and Downstream Productivity. In Martha E. Williams
(Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology: Volume 25, (pp. 55-56). New York, NY:
Elsevier Science Publishers for the American Society for Information Science.

Koenig, M.E.D. (1992). The Information Environment and the Productivity of Research. In H. Collier
(Ed.), Recent Advances in Chemical Information, (pp. 133-143). London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
Mazzie, Mark. (2003). Personal Communication.

Koenig, M, E. D. (2000), The Evolution of Knowledge Management, in T. K. Srikantaiah and M. E. D.

Koenig, Knowledge Management for the Information Professional. (pp. 23-26), Medford N.J.,
Information Today, for the American Society for Information Science.

McInerney, Claire, and Koenig, Michael E. D., (2011), Knowledge Management (KM) Processes in
Organizations: Theoretical Foundations and Practice, Morgan and Claypool.

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ponzi, Leonard., & Koenig, M.E.D. (2002). Knowledge Management: Another Management Fad?"
Information Research, 8(1). Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper145.html

Ponzi, L., & Koenig, M.E.D. (2002). Knowledge Management: Another Management Fad?",
Information Research, 8(1). Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper145.html

Prusak, Larry. (1999). Where did Knowledge Management Come From?. Knowledge Directions, 1(1),
90-96. Prusak, Larry. (2004). Personal Communication.

Senge, Peter M.. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. New
York, NY: Doubleday Currency.

Wenger, Etienne C. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, Etienne C. & Snyder, W. M. (1999). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier.
Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139-145.

About the Author

Michael E.D. Koenig, Ph.D, is the author or co-author of a number of books on KM, including
Knowledge Management in Practice (www.infotoday.com), and numerous articles on the subject of
KM. He is Professor Emeritus at Long Island University and is the former and founding dean of the
College of Information and Computer Science. In 2015 he received the Award of Merit from the
Association for Information Science and Technology, the association’s highest award.

https://www.kmworld.com/About/What_is_Knowledge_Management