Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE)

Knowledge Management: Semantic Drift or Conceptual Shift?

Author(s): Elisabeth Davenport and Blaise Cronin
Source: Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Fall, 2000), pp.
294-306
Published by: Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40324047
Accessed: 13-12-2015 07:56 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal of Education for Library and Information Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:56:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A
KnowledgeManagement
Semantic Drift
or Conceptual Shift?
ElisabethDavenportand BlaiseCronin

This paperoffers an explorationofknowledgemanagement (KM),a conceptonlypar-

tiallyunderstoodin domainsthatuse the term.Threesuch domainsare described:
libraryand information science(LIS),businessadministration,
and organizationtheo-
ry.In the first(KMl), KM is predominantly seen as "informationmanagement" by
anothername(semanticdrift); in thesecond(KM2),it appearstobe brought on board
as an antidoteto excessivefocuson processat theexpenseofhumanexpertise;the
third(KM3) articulatesa majorconceptualshift,presenting as adaptive
organizations
entitiesthatco-evolvewitha givenenvironment. Whatdistinguishes KMl, KM2,and
KM3?KMl and KM2 maybe distinguished fromKM3 byan over-emphasis on codifi-
cation,and a myopiawithregardtohumanexpertise, tacitknowledge,sociallearning,
trust,and intuition.
KM2 and KM3 (in contrast to KMl) focuson theinternalas much
as the external(reflexivity)and on the criticalimportanceof relationshipsand
exchange(reciprocity).The authorssuggestthattensionswillarisein anyorganization
committed to KM wheredifferent domainshave different understandings. KM is a
complexand multidimensional conceptthatrequiresdiverseinsights.

The conferencethemeof "understand- the second domain- KM in the context

ing complexknowledge-based environ-
ments"offersa timelyopportunity to
exploretheconceptofknowledgeman-
agement (KM). Though considerable
academicand professional attentionhas
been focused on this area in the past
decade,theconceptis notyetstable:the
term appears to be used differently
acrossdomainswitheach claimingthat
its partial understandingrepresentsa
definitivearticulationof the concept.
We exploreKM in the contextof three
domainsthathave interestsin the area,
namely,libraryand information science
and organiza-
(LIS), processengineering,
tionaltheory.In the firstof these- KM
in theLIS contextor"KMl"- KM is pre-
dominantlyseen as "information man-
agement"(management of internaland
externalpublications)by anothername.
Hencethe"semanticdrift" in thetitle.In
ofbusinessprocessesor "KM2"- KM is
seen as management ofknow-how. This
perspectiveemphasizes processes and
activities,witha strongfocuson repre-
sentations("ontologies") of activities
and capabilities.In thethirddomainof
organizationaltheoryor "KM3," KM
denotesa majorconceptualshift,from
knowledgeas a resource,to knowledge
as a capability,a readinessto respond
that allows organizationsto co-evolve
effectively with a given environment.
Fromthisperspective, whatis managed
is not a resourcebut the contextin
which such readinessis manifest.The
contextmay be seen as a space where
the tacitand explicitknowledgeof all
membersoftheorganization interact.
The firsttwoKM positionspresent-
ed above are to some extentstereotypi-
cal. Thoughthereis innovativeworkin

294 Volume4L Number4

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:56:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Knowledge Management 295

About the Authors

ElisabethDavenportis Professor,Napier UniversityBusiness School,

Edinburgh, UK. Blaise Croninis RudyProfessorof Information
Science
and Dean, School ofLibraryand Information
Science,IndianaUniversity.
This paperwas presentedat theALISE 2000 AnnualConference.

each domainwhich attemptsto take a on theinformation societyand informa-

more holistic approach than our
descriptionsimply (one that may be
alignedwith KM3), KMl and KM2 do
capturestancesthatare manifest in cur-
rentliterature.A "KM triad"framework
based on thesepositionsis a handytool,
however,forexploringthetensionsthat
arise in any organizationcommittedto
KM wheredifferent domainshave dif-
ferentunderstandings.As the case
studysectionindicates,the framework
may be used to identifyturfstruggles
and resistance,and to contributeto
mutual understandingamong interac-
torsin theKM space.
"KMl": KM Is Information
Management by Another Name
Withinthe LIS community, KM is sim-
ply a case of new wine in old bottles,
and the facileadoptionof the termby
management consultantsis deridedfor
thisreason.1The tendencytobe compla-
centwhenfacedwithKM conceptsmay
be attributedto a numberof factors.
Firstly,a conflationof KM with "the
organizationof knowledge,"the tradi-
tionallabel forthecodingand classifica-
tion of recorded material ("content")
embeddedin artifacts, structures,sys-
tems,and repositories,
something reified
that we have, accumulate, and use.
Secondly,the perceptionthat "knowl-
edge workers"need "intermediaries" to
supporttheirworkby "managing"(or
organizing) appropriate content.
Supportforthesepointsofview maybe
foundin theseminalscholarlyliterature
tion economywhich foregrounded the
transformational significanceoftheoret-
ical knowledge,abstractreasoning,and
symbolicprocessing.2
The KMl positionis articulatedin a
spectrumof publicationsthatincludes
professional bulletinsand academicarti-
cles. Attheirmostsimplistic, statements
combinemyopiawithterritoriality.3 The
authorof a recentInformation Outlook
columnwrites:"As we all know,if we
are going to manage knowledge,we
musthave a thoroughunderstanding of
thebestpracticesfororganizing and dis-
seminatingit. Who knowsbest how to
accomplishthis?Look in themirror. . .
theproblemis ... thepeople who make
thedecisionon knowledgemanagement
do notgetit."4The semanticdriftclaim
is amply supportedin this, and in a
more recent American Society for
Information Science (ASIS) panel pro-
posal: "Despite all the buzz and hype
surrounding knowledgemanagement, in
the real world it doesn't seem to have
movedmuchbeyondLibrary101. . . ."5
Thatbusinessmanagersdo not endorse
thispositionis, as DiMattiaadmitsin a
recent InformationOutlook editorial,
"disturbing."6Her suggestionthatwhat
is requiredis bettercommunicationis
somewhat jejune. Others perceive a
more serious issue of domain conflict:
LIS processesare invisibleto manyin
thebusinessworld,because LIS profes-
sionalsdo notunderstand how business
value is perceivedand created.7Klobas,
in a comprehensivereview of the at
timesinconsistent positionof LIS, ana-
lyzes the world of KM in termsof turf

Fall 2000

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:56:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
296 Journalof EducationforLibrary
and Information
strugglesbetweeninformation manage-
ment(IM), information technology, (IT)
and business management.8While
acknowledgingthe "considerableskill
and experiencein knowledgemanage-
ment"of the LIS profession,she notes
thatIT specialistshave takenthelead in
developingframeworks and structures
for the management of networked
resources,and concludesthat"thereis
littleevidence that librariansare well
placed totakeadvantageofthisopportu-
nityto contribute to organizational suc-
cess. Instead, graduates of business
schools . . . particularly those with an
informationsystemsbackground,are
politicallywell placed to play signifi-
cant knowledgemanagementroles in
thenew millennium."
Klobas, like others,distinguishes
"coreskills"(highlyrelevantto KM but,
she says,no longertheprerogative ofLIS
professionals)fromthe librarianrole.
She draws on an earlier study by
Broadbent, whichalso attempts to clari-
fythe positionof LIS professionalsin
the emerging KM field. KM, says
Broadbent, representsa "quantumshift"
to "expertise-centeredmanagement,"
focusingon using human expertisefor
business advantage. She describes
knowledgeworkas performed byprofes-
sional or technicalworkerswith high
levels of skills and expertise.Not all
libraryand information specialistswill
"If
qualify: your work can be substan-
tiallyroutinized,thenyou'rean admin-
istrative worker, not a knowledge
worker.If you describewhatyou do as
organizingthingsforothersto access,
you come close to beingan administra-
tive worker,ratherthan a knowledge
worker."In additionto misidentifying
thestatusofroutinecodifying work,and
neglecting innovation and creativity,
manyLIS professionals, saysBroadbent,
fail to targettheir effortstoward the
"specificorganizationalobjectivesthat
providegreatervalue to clientsand cus-
Volume4L Number4
This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:56:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Science
tomers."BroadbentconcludesthatKM
is "notownedby any one professionor
industry. But if librariansand informa-
tionspecialistswanttobe keyplayersin
the emergingknowledgemanagement
phenomenon,theyneed to understand
the perspectivesof the otherplayers."9
This is echoed in theexecutivesumma-
ryoftherecentTFPL surveyofKM and
theLIS profession:"Thoughit is appar-
entthatinformation management is very
muchpartoftheKM environment, it is
only one part and only trulyeffective
when applied withan understanding of
thefullKM picture."10
As we suggestabove, the "funda-
mentalist"KMl position shows only
partialunderstanding; much of whatis
important is notacknowledgedas "true
KM," because it belongsto disciplinary
areas (technology,business manage-
ment)thatare dismissedas being out-
side the LIS purview.Proponentsof
KMl committen ofFaheyand Prusak's
"eleven deadliest sins of knowledge
management" (see table I).11Wherethe
KMl positionprevails,valuableknowl-
edge assets may be overlooked,and
more thoughtfulanalysts advocate a
broadeningofthefieldofvision.
"KM2": KM Is the Management of
"Know-How"- Process and
Process Ontologies
The process-engineering model has a
strongsystemsorientation, and its role
in KM is important. We would argue,
however,thatan overlynarrowadher-
ence to process engineering,whether
businessprocessengineering or knowl-
edge process engineering,is myopic.
Though capable of producinginnova-
tion,the processapproachdoes not do
justice to "the applicationof people's
competencies,skills, talents,thoughts,
ideas, intuitions,
commitments, motiva-
tions,and imaginations," in short,the
 Knowledge Management 297

Table 1
Eleven Deadly Sins of KM14

1. Notdevelopinga working definition

of knowledge
KM1
2. Emphasizing knowledgestockto the detriment of knowledgeflow
KM1
3.Viewingknowledgeas existing predominantlyoutsidethe heads of individuals
KM1KM2
4. Notunderstanding thata fundamental, intermediatepurposeof managingknowledgeisto create
sharedcontext
KM1KM2
5. Payinglittleheed to the roleand importanceoftacitknowledge
KM1KM2
6. Disentanglingknowledgefromitsuses
KM1
7. Downplayingthinkingand reasoning
8. Focusingon the past and the presentand noton the future
KM1
9. Failingto recognizethe importanceofexperimentation
KM1KM2
10. Substituting technologicalcontact forhumaninterface
KM1KM2
11. Seekingto develop directmeasuresof knowledge
KM1KM2

realmoftacitknowledge.12 The empha- focusof thismodel is asset valuation -

sis in processengineering is on the dis-
coveryand extractionof value when
existingprocesses and resources are
anatomizedand recompiled.In termsof
KM, each individualbecomesresponsi-
ble for managingthe knowledgethat
enables the successfulimplementation
of the processesthathe or she engages
with:"middlemanagement," orKM at a
meta-level, is redundant.13
At a conceptuallevel,processmod-
eling is intendedto identifyand form
creativelinksacrossorganizational divi-
sions: representation and mappingare
key components. The underlying
assumptionis thatusefulinsightscan be
garneredand innovationfosteredby
using a varietyof sophisticatedtech-
niques (e.g.,data mining,yieldmanage-
mentsoftware, processhandbooks,and
recommender The principal
systems).15
making visible value that is latent or
hidden,and New GrowthTheoryaffords
a supportivetheoretical framework.16
In its most reductionistform(we
call this KM2.1), KM2 can be counter-
productive,as it restrictsthe scope for
innovationin an organization to whatis
formally coded as a process.17Whatis of
relevanceto this paper is what we call
KM2.2,knowledgeprocessengineering,
whichmanyanalystssee as a redressing
oftheimbalance(ofcodifiedand uncod-
ified resources) created by KM2.1.18
KM2.2 attemptsto compensatefor at
least two negativeeffects.Firstly,the
representation of organizational activity
("the workplace") purely in termsof
processcan lead to the loss of essential
componentsof organizationalmemory
and accountability.19 Grint,Case, and
Willcockssuggestthat"by scapegoating

Fall 2000

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:56:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
298 Journalof EducationforLibrary
and Information
a collectiveorganizational past and rec-
ommendingcollectiveamnesia,propo-
nentsof BPR make available collective
absolution."20Secondly, the business
process re-engineering (BPR) approach
is notconduciveto flexibleco-evolution
withthe environment - it takestimeto
turnprocessesaround.
KM2.2 recognizes that valuable
insightsand linksacrossprocessesand
resourcesaremadebyhumans,who can
contextualizeand efficiently assess the
potentialofnovelrelationships. Scheer,
who has proposed that "knowledge
processre-design"shouldbe introduced
as a businessmethodon a parwiththose
thatexistforBPRand software engineer-
ing, describesknowledgeas "informa-
tion in a specific context, which
providesvalue and enablestheownerto
do something.The rightuse of knowl-
edge has alwaysbeen an important pre-
requisitefora successfulbusiness.Every
companyprocures,creates,stores,dis-
tributesand uses knowledge,although
these knowledgeprocessingactivities
are notnecessarilymanagedexplicitly."
He concludesthat"itis desirableto inte-
gratemethodsand tools forknowledge
mappingwiththoseforbusinessprocess
modeling, i.e., by linking required
knowledgeto activitiesin a business
process."21A group at Edinburghhas
produced an "enterpriseontology"to
linkprocesses,tasks,people,competen-
cies, and information sources.22At a
local level of projectmanagement,or
teamwork, theontologycan be reconfig-
uredas a "knowledgeassetroadmap;"as
a set of distributedrepresentations for
multiperspective modeling; and as a set
of skills and capabilitiesontologies.23
The KM2.2 perspectiveis notincompat-
ible withLIS workon extendedontolo-
gies and thesauri:forsuch designersof
thesauri,enterpriseontologiesand other
knowledgeengineering modelsare sim-
ply an extended application area for
existing tools- another example of
Volume4L Number4
This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:56:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Science
semanticdrift.24 ThoughKM2.2 offers a
more comprehensiveapproach to KM
thanKMl, itcan be indictedon errors3,
4, 5 and 9, 10, 11 on Faheyand Prusak's
inventory (see tableI).25
"KM3": KM Optimizes the
Conditions forAdaptive
Co-evolution
The stuffofKMl and KM2.2 is codified
knowledge (part of an organization's
"structuralcapital");each is incomplete,
as uncodifiedor tacitknowledgeis not
takeninto account.Thereis a growing
recognition amonganalyststhatthekey
to KM is the interplayof tacit and
explicit knowledge,and the primary
task of managersis the conversionof
"human capital" into "structuralcapi-
tal."26Nonaka and his colleagueshave
developeda methodologicalframework
forthis, which stressesknowingover
knowledge,and processes of creation
and exchangeover product.27 Nonaka's
expositionof the managementof "ba,"
the space where"knowing"happens,is
a comprehensiveexpressionof KM3,
which describesa continuousinterplay
in organizations ofcodifiedand uncodi-
fied knowledge, private and public
knowledgethat feeds the incremental
conversion of tacit to explicit, and
explicitto tacit.
We suggestthatKM3 is a keyframe-
workforknowledgemanagersand one
thatLIS professionalsshould take seri-
ously.The "humancapital" conceptis
bypassed in KMl and KM2 (both of
which,as suggestedabove,have affini-
tieswithexistingLIS approaches)and is
handled in those frameworks by the
term"user."In manycases ofLIS design,
"users"havebeendecoupledfromstruc-
tureand processin LIS, on theone hand
aggregated and decontextualized to the
point of being extraneousto products
thattheyare then "trained"to use; on
 Knowledge Management
the otherhand, describedat a level of
local detail thatmakes designidiosyn-
cratic.This phenomenonof "userslost"
has been describedby Saracevicas the
"missinglink."28Thereis, of course,a
growingrecognitionthat contextand
activityanalysisare necessaryto effec-
tivedesign:theneed fora diverseoper-
ating frameworkfor the support of
knowledgework is the foundationof
recentworkon "information ecologies,"
articulated byDavenportin thebusiness
literature,and by, for instance,Nardi
and O'Day in the LIS domain.29Such
approaches,we suggest,are tentative
versionsofKM3- KM as thecreationof
contextsand "spaces" that prime an
organizationfor effectiveaction. The
"ecology" concept captures several
important featuresofKM3: thedynamic
natureof context,the co-evolutionof
organizationand environment, and the
joint developmentof tacitand explicit
knowledgein communitiesof practice.
The last pointis important: KM is local
practice, recognizing boundaries
and the
ofthelocalitymaybe a criticalfactorfor
success. We have touched on these
issues in an earlierALISE conference
presentation.30
Nonaka's work has influenceda
number of KM analysts, including
Broadbent.31 Recently,Lymanhas sug-
gested that "ba" mayinspirethosewho
design"learningspaces" based on digi-
tal libraryinfrastructure.32 Two case
studies, presented at the 1999 ASIS
annual meeting,can be interpreted as
realizationsof KM3. The firstdescribes
the developmentof a corporateintranet
using "empathicdesign" principlesin
Schlumberger; the second contraststra-
ditionalIM methodsand KM approach-
es (KM1and KM3 in ourterminology) in
the design of a knowledgespace for
countycourtworkin Texas.33A recent
presentation describesthe development
of a comprehensive"KM3" intranetin
KPMG- thetaskoflinkingimplicitand
Fall 2000
This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:56:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
299
KM3
explicitprovedto be formidable.34
cannotbe indictedin termsofFaheyand
Prusak'sinventoryofdeadliestsins.35
The Positions in Context
We indicateabove thatthereis nothing
fundamentally new in our reviews of
each of the threeKM positions:Sveiby
and Fahey and Prusak,among others,
offerKM taxonomies.36 Whatis interest-
is
ing exploration of the tensionthat
ariseswhenone ormorecompeteforthe
positionofthemain "knowledge"para-
digmin an organization.We believethat
the KM triad framework, because it
exposessuchtensions,can contribute to
"understanding the changingnatureof
the complexknowledge-based environ-
mentin whichwe live and work."The
frameworkis rudimentaryand there
may be otherdimensions("knowledge
managementas politicaleconomy,"for
example) that are underplayedin the
threemodels.In thesectionsthatfollow,
we offerthreesectoralscenarios,which
illustratethe expositorypowers of the
KM triadframework.
Sectoral Scenario One:
The Campus and KM
KM is a wayofunderstanding and order-
ing organizationalactivityin the inter-
ests of organizationalviability.When
contextchanges,new paradigmsforKM
may be expected.We suggestthatcur-
rentshiftsin academiclearningenviron-
ments,which are co-evolvingwith an
emergingdigital libraryinfrastructure,
can be interpreted in termsof the KM
triad.These trendsmay throwlighton
the shiftingrolesand responsibilitiesof
stakeholders.We have reviewed else-
wheretheissuesthatarisewhendifferent
academicparadigmsare in conflictand,
morerecently, issues thatarise forboth
research and "teachingand learning"
300 Journalof EducationforLibrary
and Information
fromthe practiceof KM in academe.37
Herethefocusis on thesecond,specifi-
callyon distancelearning.
Historically,universitieshave been
quintessential "KM3" organizations,
where students and faculty jointly
engagedin a process of enlightenment
("learning"),oscillatingbetweenexplic-
it codifiedknowledgeand apprentice-
ship in face-to-facecontactwithtutors.
As Steinerstates:"A worthwhile univer-
sity or college is quite simplyone in
which the studentis broughtinto per-
sonal contactwith,is made vulnerable
to, the aura and the threatof the first-
class. In the mostdirectsense,thisis a
matterof proximity,sight and hear-
ing."38This model is being challenged
by mass marketdemand foropen and
distributed learningsystems,character-
ized by a decoupling of contentand
process (design, production,delivery,
assessment, distribution,franchising,
etc.). In this environment, the role of
those who engage in KMl (accredited
information professionals)is to ensure
access to the institution's codified
recordedknowledge,represented by the
libraryand other "knowledgebases"
thatsupportremote(perpetual)learning.
The role of those who engagein KM2
(academicadministrators akinto middle
managersin thecorporateenvironment)
is to managethe "processes"of course
production and delivery,
and ensurethat
theyareseparatedfromtheKM3 faculty,
whose task is to see thatknowledgeis
"transferred" through thecurriculum.39
In campus-centric institutions,
KMl and KM2 ("structuralcapital")
representmajor investments,increas-
inglyto the detriment of "humancapi-
tal" development.The shiftin distance
education discourse from "teacher"
(one who sharesexpertor tacitknowl-
edge) to "learner"is indicativeofgrow-
ingcommodification, wherethestudent
is construedas a customer, and learning
as consumption.Rapidly developing
Volume41, Number4
This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:56:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Science
technology has intensified the
process/commodification approach,
and radical distance and distributed
learningmodelsare emerging in a num-
ber of institutions.40The emphasison
unbundlingand repurposingmay be
compared with re-engineering initia-
tives in other sectors, which have,
inevitably,led to the downsizing of
middlemanagement. Thereis a parallel
in proposalsin someofthemoreradical
distance learninginitiativesthat pub-
lishers like HarcourtGeneral (www.
harcourt.com)will delivercustomized
materialdirectto students.Despite the
growingemphasison "processand pro-
duction,"thereis also muchexperimen-
tation underway to constructonline
learning environmentsthat stimulate
social learningand replicatethe defin-
ing features of classical (KM3) Ivy
League institutions.41
Proposalsto dislodgemajor stake-
holders- KMl librarians and KM2 facul-
ty- have caused disquiet among the
groupsconcerned.Facultywanttoknow
who will undertakethe migrationof
tacit to explicitknowledge(writingof
papers,designingofcoursesthatwork);
librarianswantto knowwhowill under-
take the articulationworkthatensures
that individual needs are supported.
Managersof infrastructure (KM2) want
to knowto whomtheyowe allegianceif
theirrole is reducedto thatof conduit.
And "learners"wantto knowhow per-
sonal contact will be achieved, and
whetherthe transfer of implicitknowl-
edge gained in discussionwith faculty
and otherstudentscan be achievedby
othermeans- the skillfuluse of group-
ware, listservs,and othertechnologies
thatsupportvirtualinteraction. Several
projectsin the UK e-lib programhave
addressed these issues: Dugdale, for
example,describesan implementation
thatattempts to combinetheinterests of
KMl and KM2 in an electronicreserve
collection.42
 Knowledge Management
Such questionsare addressedregu-
larly in digital libraryand distance
learningfora.A 1999 UKOLN confer-
ence coveredtheroleofthebroker;KMl
specialistsmayfindthemselvesworking
withmetadataratherthanotherservices
that can be deliveredby a range of
agents.43The positionofKM2 managers
was also discussedand the securingof
open access to learningservices in a
worldwherecommercialprovisionpre-
vails.44And, as indicatedabove, KM3
and theprovisionof spaces whereface-
to-faceand peer-to-peer learning(tacit-
to-tacit)can happen in a world where
virtualcommunities (premisedon KM2)
may predominate.45 It is not yet clear
whetherthe communitiesof practice
that may benefitfromKM3 must lie
withina certainrangeofsizes: the dan-
gers of misjudgingthe boundaries of
jurisdictionare amply describedin an
analysis of informationpolitics by
Davenport, Eccles,and Prusak.46
Sectoral Scenario Two: KM Conflictsin
Health Care
Healthcareaffords a richsetofscenarios
where identifiableKM positions con-
tributeto tensionsin management.To
demonstrate the usefulnessof the KM
triad, we present a scenario where
health care is construedas a learning
relationship:patient and professional
worktogether to ensurean optimalout-
come (whateverthatmaybe in different
setsofcircumstances) fromtheirinterac-
tion.Historically,(comparetheprevious
scenario)the relationshipbetweenpro-
fessionaland patienthas been deeply
personal(to theextentofformalprotec-
tion underthe Hippocraticoath),lead-
ing a jointlyagreed approach to the
restoration,as faras possible,of well-
being, based on mutualunderstanding
and trust.As in the previouscase, the
emergence ofa massmarkethas led to a
separationof "knowledge"and "learn-
Fall 2000
This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:56:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
301
ingprocess,"withthelatter,as in some
formsof highereducation,transformed
intoa passive"recipient"role.The corn-
modificationof health care has pro-
duced a three-way"knowledge"split
betweenKMl, the codified,published,
medical/clinicalscientific"knowledge
base"; KM2,the"managedcare"knowl-
edge that assesses procedures and
throughputwithin the parametersof
constrainedresources; and KM3, the
residual "learningprocess"thatallows
"patients" to master their healing
process, currentlyleft largely in the
hands of the nursingprofession.The
adoptionofsupplyand demandmodels
of health care has led to a focus on
processand procedure,which has gen-
eratedits own KM2 formsofknowledge
("healthcaremanagement").
Each of these,at times,may be in
conflict withtheothers.To illustratethis
we draw on a case studyby Davenport
on the establishment of clinical guide-
lines in Scotland.(This was presented,
fromthe perspectiveof the politics of
classification, at last year's ASIS
ResearchWorkshop.47) In
Classification
Scotland,guidelinesendorsedby gov-
ernmenthealth services are prepared
and disseminated by the Scottish
Intercollegiate Guidelines Network
(SIGN),whichengagescommittees' rep-
resentativesfromKMl, KM2, and KM3
who jointlydesignaffordable and effec-
tive interventionsin differentareas of
healthcare.The guidelineswereinitial-
ly received with reservationsby the
nursingand midwifery community, and
a small case study undertaken in
Edinburghrevealed deep-rooteddisso-
nance between clinical and nursing
knowledge,with a convictionon the
nurses'partthattheimportanceoftheir
role as mediatorsbetweenimplicitand
explicit knowledge ("nursing knowl-
edge")was notadequatelyrecognizedin
the designof the guidelines.The back-
groundto,and implicationsof,a compa-
302 Journalof EducationforLibrary
and Information
Science

rabie claim have been amplyanalyzed democracies,and theperceivedremote-

byBowkerand his colleaguesin thecon- ness of electedrepresentatives and the
in
textof classificationof interventions executiveswho implementtheirdeci-
NorthAmerica,whichdemonstrates that sions. A numberof local authoritiesin
thetacitknowledgeofnursescan be sys- Scotland have developed inclusive
tematicallylost where KMl and KM2 development and theScottish
strategies,
interestspredominate.48 Parliamentwas premisedon the idea
As in the case of highereducation, that comparable citizen participation
theWebaffords an extensionofpeer-to- mustbe a feature ofpolicymakingin the
peerlearning,as patientsexchangecase new institution.The researchteam is
histories,evaluationsof "professional" workingcloselywithan umbrellabody,
treatments, home remedies,and emo- the SCVO (The Scottish Council for
tionalsupport.The extenttowhichsuch VoluntaryOrganizations),to establish
informalexchangeswill be assimilated waysin whichdiversegroupsofcitizens
into "KM3" environmentsfor health maybothaccess and be accessedbysys-
careis notyetclear.Questionsofauthor- temsthatmusthandlemultiplesources
ity and trustare in many cases unre- in multiple modalities at distributed
solved, but they undoubtedly allow locations.ProjectA focuseson metadata
groupsto oscillatebetweenexplicitand and the use of MARC data (a "KMl"
implicit knowledge,and derive new legacy systemin many of the sources
strategiesforcopingand survival. involved) and RDF data in affording
flexibledescriptionsthatcaptureKM2
process detailsthatwill allow governors
Sectoral Scenario Three: KM and
and citizensto assemblecustomizedsets
Government Policy Making
of materialto supportpracticalpolicy
The thirdcase study,whileacknowledg- makingat a numberofdifferent levels.
ingthetensionsthataredescribedin the In ProjectB, we wish to explorethe
previous two, describes a project in potentialof a digitalinfrastructure in
Edinburghwhich is attempting to see participativepolicymaking.We propose
whereKMl and KM2 approachesmight to model the activitiesand interestsof
be deployed in the developmentof a parliamentand citizenbodies in micro
KM3 representation ofgovernment. The "enterprise ontologies"thatare derived
case involvestheroleofinformation and fromactivityanalysismodels ("KM2")
communicationtechnologies(ICTs) in enriched with resource descriptions
the recently established Scottish ("KMl") and capability descriptions
Parliamentand presentsthe workof a ("KM2"). The ontologieswill be used as
small researchteam seeking ways of a tool kit forinteractiondesignwhere
mutuallyengaginggovernment depart- groupsare involvedin policymaking.If
mentsand citizengroupsin thegenera- jointpolicymakingis seen as a case of
tion of policies that are perceived as "temporary organization,"thenKM tech-
pertinent by citizens,and thatinvolvea niques and be
analysesmay pertinent.50
more inclusive consultation process We wish to test:(1) the potentialof an
than polling or electronicvoting.49In intranetas a space thatallows project
thissection,we explorethepotentialof managers/policy makersto takea "KM3"
theKM triadas a toolthatmayimprove approach(comparableto the "empathic
interactiondesign.The workdescribed design"projectdescribedabove);and (2)
here is in the proposalstageonly.The the outcome of such an approach in
background to theprojectis theincreas- termsof: (a) innovativepolicy making;
ing disaffectionof voters in western and (b) perceptions ofinvolvement.51

Volume41, Number4

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:56:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Knowledge Management
Conclusions
Underlying each ofthecase studiesis a
commoninfrastructure - theInternetand
its abilityto makevisibleand available
whatwas formerly held to be tacitand
implicit knowledge. Such affordance
offers opportunitiesto avoid themyopia
traditional adherenceto
produced by
one or anotherKM approach.As in the
worldof e-commerce, actorsin each of
the scenariosoutlinedabove can now
workwithstakeholders in new ways,a
developmentof particularimportance
wherethe "customer,""patient,""citi-
zen," or "user"' is concerned.In addi-
tion,the Web offersnew opportunities
for visualizingprocesses and profiles,
recordingand coding the tacit side of
KM3,and accelerating theconversionof
human to structuralcapital, which
underlies Nonaka's knowledgespiral.
We concludewithsomethoughts on the
implications forLIS education.
1. As KM represents a radicalconcep-
tual shift,it has a place in the LIS
curriculum. Itis nota conceptthatis
pertinentto all elementsofthecur-
riculum. As Broadbentindicates,
routineworkto supportaccessis not
whatKM is about,and codingand
are onlypart
processrepresentation
ofwhatit is about.52
2. KM is a concept that can corral
recentapproachesto analyzingcon-
textand activities,and "brand"an
extendedtoolkit,e.g.,ontologycon-
struction,activityanalysis,interac-
tion design,genreanalysis,as we
haveimpliedpreviously.53
3. KM can formalize theassemblageof
teams whose cur-
interdisciplinary
ricular focus is the creationand
management of context,not merely
resources.
4. In evolutionaryterms, we have
moved frominformation manage-
ment(KM1) to informatizing (KM2)
to information ethologies(KM3).
Fall 2000
This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:56:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
303
References and Notes
1. J.Rowley,"Ownersof the Knowledge,"
LibraryAssociationRecord,101, no. 8
(1999): 475; R. Schwarzwalder,"Lib-
rarians as Knowledge Management
Agents," Econtent 22, no. 4 (1999):
63-65; D. Streatfield and T. D. Wilson,
"Deconstructing'Knowledge Manage-
ment,'" Aslib Proceedings51, no. 3
(1999): 67-71.
2. D. Bell, The Comingof Post Industrial
Society:A Venture in Social Forecasting
(New York: Basic Books, 1973); F.
Machlup, Knowledge: Its Creations,
Distributionand EconomicSignificance,
vol. 3 of The EconomicsofInformation
and Human Capital (Princeton,N.J.:
PrincetonUniv.Pr.,1984); M. U. Porat,
The InformationEconomy:Definition
and Measurement(Washington,D.C.:
U.S. Department of Telecommuni-
cations,Officeof Telecommunications,
1977).
3. See, for example, S. DiMattia,
"KnowledgeManagement:Hope, Hype
orHarbinger?" Library Journal122 (Sept.
1997): 33-35.
4. J. Crosby,"The Missing Link," Infor-
mationOutlook(Sept.1999):42.
5. K. Liberman,"KnowledgeManagement
or Library101: Is Therea Difference?"
(SIG MGT),in ASIS '99: Proceedingsof
the62ndASIS AnnualMeeting,Vol.36,
Knowledge: Creations, Organization,
and Use, ed. L. Woods (Medford,N.J.:
Information Todav,Inc.,1999),850.
6. S. Di Mattia,"Value Has Many Faces:
Communication Is theKey,"Information
Outlook,(Sept.1999): 5.
7. S. Corali,KnowledgeManagement:Are
We in the Knowledge Management
Business? Online. Available: www.
ariadne.ac.uk/issuel8/knowledge-mgt/
AccessedFebruary3, 1999.
8. J.Klobas,"Information ServicesforNew
Millennium Organizations:Librarians
and Knowledge Management," in
Libraries for the New Millennium:
ImplicationsforManagers,ed D. Raitt
(London:Library Assn.,1997),39-64.
9. M. Broadbent,"The Phenomenonof
KnowledgeManagement:WhatDoes It
Mean to the Information Profession?"
InformationOutlook(May1998): 23-26.
304 Journalof EducationforLibrary
and Information
10. TFPL Ltd. Skills for Knowledge
Management (London: TFPL, 1999).
Online. Available:www.lic.gov.uk/pub-
lications/executivesummaries/kmskills. Reengineering,
html.AccessedJuly7, 1999.
11. L. Fahey and L. Prusak,"The Eleven
Deadliest Sins of Knowledge
Management,"CaliforniaManagement
Review40, no. 3 (spring1998): 265-75.
12. Broadbent, "The Phenomenon of
KnowledgeManagement," 24.
13. K. Grint,P. Case, and L. Willcocks,
"Business Process Reengineering
Reappraised; The Politics and Tech-
nologyofForgetting," in W.Orlikowskiet
al., Information
Technology and Changes
in Organizational Work (London:
Chapmanand Hall,1995),40-61.
14. Faheyand Prusak,"TheElevenDeadliest
Sins ofKnowledgeManagement."
15. K. C. Laudon and J. P. Laudon,
ManagementInformation Systems,6th
ed. (Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice
Hall, 1999); T.W.Malone et al., "Tools
forInventingOrganizations:Toward a
HandbookofOrganizational Processes,"
ManagementScience 45, no. 3 (1999):
425-43; K. Crowston,"EvolvingNovel
Organizational Forms." Online.
Available: http://ccs.mit.edu/papers/
CCSWP185.html. Accessed July 26,
1996; A. W. Scheer,"BusinessProcess
Reengineering and Knowledge
Management,"Proceedingsof ISI 98
(Prague,1998),2-16.
16. P. Romer."Innovation: The NewPumpof
Growth."Blueprint:Ideas for a New
Century, winter 1999. Available:
www.ndol.org/blueprint/winter98/
thesolution3.html.AccessedOctober30,
2000.
17. Grint,Case, and Willcocks,"Business
ProcessReengineering Reappraised;"H.
Willmottand E. Wray-Bliss,"Process
Reengineering, Information Technology
and theTrasformation ofAccountability;
the Remaindering of the Human
Resource?" in W. Orlikowski, G.
Walsham,M.R. Jones,and J.I.DeGross,
Information Technology and Changesin
Organizational Work(London:Chapman
and Hall, 1995),62, 68.
18. Broadbent, "The Phenomenon of
KnowledgeManagement."
Volume41, Number4
This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:56:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Science
19. Grint,Case, and Willcocks,"Business
Process ReengineeringReappraised";
Willmott and Wray-Bliss, "Process
Information Technology
and the Transformation of Account-
ability"
20. Grint,Case, and Willcocks,"Business
ProcessReengineering Reappraised,"53.
21. Scheer,"BusinessProcessReengineering
and KnowledgeManagement," 5-11.
22. M. Uschold et al., "The Enterprise
Ontology," Knowledge Engineering
Review13,no.l (1999): 31-89.
23. A. Macintosh,I. Filby, and A. Tate,
"Knowledge Asset Road Maps," in
Proceedingsof the 2nd International
Conferenceon Practical Aspects of
Knowledge Management (PAKM98)
(Basle, October 29-30, 1998), ed. U.
Reimer;J.Kingstonand A. Macintosh,
"Knowledge Management through
Multi-perspectiveModeling:Represent-
ing and DistributingOrganizational
Memory,in KnowledgeBased Systems
JournalSpecial Issue (Jan./Feb. 2000)
(in press);A. Macintosh,and J.Stader,
"Knowing Who Knows What- Skills
and CapabilityOntologies,"in Inter-
national Symposium on the Man-
agement of Industrialand Corporate
Knowledge,ISMICK99 Pre-proceedings
(Rotterdam:School of Managementof
Erasmus, University of Rotterdam,
1999).
24. B. Vickery,"Ontologies,"Journalof
Information Science 23, no. 4 (1997):
277-86; D. Soergel, "Design of an
Integrated Information Structure
Interface,"A UnifiedFrameworkfor
Indexingand Searchingin Database,
Expert, InformationRetrieval, and
HypermediaSystems(Internalpublica-
tion,CollegeofLibraryand Information
Services,Univ. of Maryland,1998); D.
Soergel,"The Rise of Ontologiesor the
Re-invention of Classification,"
Journal
oftheAmericanSocietyforInformation
Science50, no. 12 (1999): 1119-20.
25. Faheyand Prusak,"TheElevenDeadliest
Sins ofKnowledgeManagement."
26. L. Edvinsson,"DevelopingIntellectual
Capital at Skandia," Long Range
Planning 30(3) (1997): 366-73; D.
Skyrmeand D. Amidon,"NewMeasures
 Knowledge Management
ofSuccess,"JournalofBusinessStrategy
(Jan./Feb.1998): 2-24; T.A. Stewart,
IntellectualCapital:The New Wealthof
Organizations(New York: Currency/
Doubleday,1997).
27. I. Nonakaetal., TheKnowledgeCreating
Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation
(Oxford: Oxford Univ. Pr., 1995); I.
Nonakaand N. Konno,"The Conceptof
'Ba': Building a Foundation for
Knowledge Creation," California
ManagementReview40, no. 3 (1998):
40-54.
28. T. Saracevic,"UsersLost:Reflections on
the Past, Future, and Limits of
Information Science, Summaryof the
Saltón AwardLecture,SIGIR 1997," in
Proceedings of the 20th Annual
International ACM SIGIRConference on
Research and Development in
Information Retrieval,
Philadelphia,July
1997, N. Belkinet al. eds. (New York:
ACM,1997),1-2.
29. T. H. Davenport,Information Ecology:
Mastering the Information and
Knowledge Environment (Oxford:
OxfordUniv.Pr.,1997); B. Nardiand V.
O'Day, InformationEcologies: Using
Technologywith Heart (Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Pr.,1999).
30. E. Davenportand B. Cronin, "Some
Thoughtson 'JustforYou' Servicein the
ContextofDomainExpertise," Journalof
Educationfor Libraryand Information
Science39 no. 4 (1998): 264-74.
31. Broadbent, "The Phenomenon of
KnowledgeManagement."
32. P. Lyman,"DesigningLibrariesto Be
Learning Communities:Towards an
Ecology of Places for Learning,"in
Information Landscapesfora Learning
Society:Networking and the Futureof
Libraries3, S. Criddle,L. Dempsey,and
R. Heseltineeds. (London:Library Assn.,
1999),75-87.
33. C. Vishik,A. Farquhar,and R. Smith,
"EnterpriseInformation Space: User's
View, Developer's View, and Market
Approach,"in ASIS '99: Proceedingsof
the62ndASIS AnnualMeeting,vol. 36,
Knowledge:Creation,Organizationand
Use, ed. L. Woods (Medford, N.J.:
Information TodayInc.,1999),587-603;
Fall 2000
This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:56:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
305
S. Erdelez and P. Doty, "Adapting
Knowledge Management to a
Heterogeneous InformationEnviron-
ment:A Case Study of CountyJudges
and Clerksin Rural Texas Courts,"in
ASIS '99: Proceedingsofthe62ndASIS
Annual Meeting,Vol. 36, Knowledge:
Creation,Organizationand Use, ed. L.
Woods (Medford, N.J.: Information
TodayInc.,1999),135-45.
34. E. Hyams, "1999 ISI Lecture Report:
TurningKnowledgeintoValue,"Inform
(Nov.1999): 3-4.
35. Fahey and Prusak, "The Eleven
Deadliest Sins of Knowledge
Management."
36. Fahey and Prusak, "The Eleven
Deadliest Sins of KnowledgeManage-
ment"; K. E. Sveiby, The New
OrganizationalWealth: Managingand
Measuring Knowledge Based Assets
(San Francisco,Calif.: Berett-Koehler,
1997).
37. B. Croninand E. Davenport,"Conflicts
of Jurisdiction: Academic,Professional
and EpistemologicalNormsin Library
and InformationScience," Libri 46
(1996): 1-15; B. Cronin and E.
Davenport,"KnowledgeManagement in
Higher Education," in Knowledge
Management and the Information
Revolution, ed. G. Bernbom (San
Francisco,Calif.:JosseyBass, 2000), in
press.
38. G. Steiner,Errata:An Examined Life
(New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Pr.,
1998),47.
39. M.G. Dolence and D.M. Norris,
TransformingHigher Education: A
VisionforLearningin the21st Century
(Ann Arbor,Mich.: SocietyforCollege
and University Planning,1995).
40. T. H. Davenport,R. G. Eccles, and L.
Prusak, "InformationPolitics," Sloan
ManagementReview 34, no. 1 (1992),
53-65.
41. T. Woody,"Ivy Online," The Industry
Standard(Nov. 1, 1999): 106, 110, 113,
115, 119, 123, 125, 130, 132.
42. C. Dugdale,"Cooperation, Coordination
and Cultural Change for Effective
Information Managementin the Hybrid
Academic Library," in ASIS '99:
Proceedingsof the 62nd ASIS Annual
306 Journalof EducationforLibrary Science
and Information

Meeting,vol. 36, Knowledge:Creation, American Society of Information

Organizationand Use, ed. L. Woods
(Medford,N.J.:Information Today Inc.,
1999),123-34.
43. L. Dempsey,"TheLibrary, theCatalogue,
the Broker,"in Information Landscapes
fora LearningSociety:Networking and
theFutureofLibraries3, S. Criddleetal.
eds. (London and Bath: Library
Assn./UKOLN, 1999),3-23.
44. Dempsey,"The Library,the Catalogue,
the Broker";C. Lynch,"Civilizingthe
Information Ecology: Views of
Information Landscapes fora Learning
Society,"in InformationLandscapesfor
a LearningSociety:Networking and the
Futureof Libraries3, S. Criddleet al.
eds. (London: Library Assn., 1999),
257-67.
45. Lyman, "Designing Libraries to Be
LearningCommunities."
46. Davenport,Eccles, and Prusak,"Infor-
mationPolitics."
47. E. Davenport, TranslatingTexts into
Care: ClassificationIssues Raised by
Evidence-Based Practice in the UK
Health Service,"in Proceedingsof the
9th ASÍS SIG/CR Classification
ResearchWorkshop, October25, 1998,
ed. E. Jacob (Silver Spring, Md.:
Science): 53-70.
48. G. Bowker, Lest We Remember:
Organizational Forgettingand the
Production of Knowledge. Online.
Available:http://weber.ucsd.edu/~gbowk-
er/forget.html (accessed November
1999); G. Bowkerand S. L. Star,How
Things (actor-net)Work: Classification,
Magic and the Ubiquityof Standards.
Online.Available:http://weber.ucsd.edu/
-gbowker/actnet.html (accessed Novem-
ber1999).
49. L. Beddie, ICTs and the Scottish
Parliament, Professorial Lecture,Napier
University,Edinburgh, May 1999.
50. D. Meyerson, K. Weick,andR.K.Kramer,
"SwiftTrustand Temporary Groups,"in
Trustin Organizations, eds. R. K. Kramer
and T. R. Tyler(London: Sage, 1996),
166-95.
51. L. Lievrouw,"InformationResources
and Democracy: Understandingthe
Paradox," Journal of the American
SocietyforInformation Science4, no. 6
(1994): 350-57.
52. Broadbent, "The Phenomenon of
KnowledgeManagement."
53. Davenportand Lronin, borne1noughts
on 'JustforYou' Service."

Volume41, Number4

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:56:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions