I have puzzled for some time over the seemingly intractable nature of knowledge management, the confusions it is perpetually susceptible to, and its apparent inability to progress. I have also wondered at its ability to survive with such a disappointing performance.
This month I have a lead article in the Journal of Knowledge Management entitled “The Unacknowledged Parentage of Knowledge Management”, exploring the pre-history of KM, going back to the 1960s (you didn’t know it was that old, did you?). I have tried to show that a lot of the theoretical foundations (not to mention half a century of practical experience) of KM already exist, but are not exploited within the discipline – KM does not practice what it preaches, it does not sustain collective memory of its own discipline, and it does not share insights with adjacent and related disciplines.
If you don’t have access to the JKM, but would like to see a copy of the article, drop me a note in the comments to this post, or drop me an email. Your comments and feedback would be appreciated!
23 Comments so far
Page 1 of 1 pages
Comment Guidelines: Basic XHTML is allowed (<strong>, <em>, <a>) Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically generated. URLs are automatically converted into links.