elearnspace blog has pointed us towards a lengthy article titled “”Understanding knowledge management and information management: the need for an empirical perspective”"
One can claim that the ontological and epistemological aspects of knowledge are still so ill-defined and poorly understood that KM cannot be an emergent discipline. And, indeed, although the concepts of tacit and explicit knowledge, knowledge sharing and knowledge technologies are often used, they are not clearly defined. However, the question remains why large private and public organizations bother to use unclear terminologies? Why do they want to be associated with an ill-defined field? The IM community cannot continue to claim that it has addressed for years the same issues addressed now by KM experts. Dismissing KM as simply a management fad could be a missed opportunity to understand how knowledge is developed, gained and used in organizations, and ultimately in society. New labels can be misleading but they can also force some reflections. The aim of this article is simply to suggest that there is a need to examine why there is such an interest for KM in both the academic, business communities, and governments.
This is an informative article which no doubt will become essential background reading for the field. I am intrigued by the focus on tacit and explicit knowledge, in fact strong definitions in general. What seems to be missing is recognition of the individual’s effort and approach to knowledge sharing. Processes and supporting technologies are enablers not drivers. I have found that building trust and care for one another does encourage knowledge sharing. This is believe is a fundamental differentiator between information management and knowledge management.
