1. On Positioning Knowledge Management
As an emerging discipline, the organizational position of knowledge management (KM) varies
widely from one organization to another. Further, because KM must function within the context
of an organization’s mandate and infrastructure, one size cannot fit all. Even the definitions of
knowledge and knowledge management must be tailored to an organizational context. Indeed,
the questions of placement and positioning are among the more vexing problems faced by
contemporary knowledge managers. Current practices for KM positioning are reviewed from
two perspectives – function and hierarchy.
Functional Position
A review of the literature found a number of functional placements for knowledge management
within organizational infrastructures. Some common examples are summarized below.
Information Technology A common approach has been to place KM within the information
technology (IT) function. The logic is that KM is just another IT application, so it should belong
under the auspices of the CIO. Because the IT community views KM as a way to expand their
domain and market products, many “KM” systems and tools have been developed by consultants
or IT groups and implemented by organizations only to have them fail because they focus on the
technology rather than the needs and wants of people.
Information management Alternatively, KM is sometimes placed under information
management (IM). After all, IM appears similar to KM, so why not simply extrapolate an
existing function? Indeed, capturing, organizing, storing, and providing access to content is
common to both functions. However, IM emphasizes “documents,” albeit in the multimedia,
broadest sense of the word. Their focus is on transactions, such as numbers of documents stored
and exchanged. Although IM is an enabler of KM, it is limited to preserving and sharing explicit
knowledge; it does not address the more valuable aspects of tacit knowledge.
Science and Technology Knowledge management has sometimes been placed under research
and development. Such placements would seem to be logical in that creating knowledge is an
essential precursor to KM. Further, the concepts and complexities of KM tend to be more
readily understood by S&T groups. However, KM functions within S&T programs tend to focus
on the needs of S&T, not those of the organization. Further, much of the knowledge needed to
run an organization does not originate in S&T programs. Although a capacity to create
knowledge is crucial to the sustainability of a knowledge organization, it is only the starting
point for KM.
Human Resources Another option has been to position KM under human resources. After all,
people are the carriers of tacit knowledge and they embody the agency’s capacity to create new
knowledge. Although widespread discussions of the critical importance of “human capital”
should have caused HR to embrace KM, this has generally not been the case. Human resources
continues to focus on HR-related transactions, such as pay, staffing, and discipline, rarely
venturing beyond their traditional tasks. Even responsibility for training individuals – a
precursor to KM – is not sufficient. There are important differences between training and

2. learning, and between individual, group, and organizational learning. Although people are
central to knowledge management, they are also only one aspect.
Finance Another option has been to place KM under finance. The dramatic spread between the
market and book values of service companies should be attributable to the value added by
knowledge, or intellectual capital. In this environment, however, KM functions have tended to
focus on audit and evaluation – that is descriptive measurement. They tend to defer to other
functions within an organization for the production and management of intellectual capital. As
previously, although program evaluation is important, it is only one aspect of KM.
Corporate Services Knowledge management has sometimes been positioned within corporate
services. This has the important advantage of enabling a broader range of KM approaches and
processes than any of the previous placements. However, corporate services tend to focus on
those aspects of KM that support organizational management rather than client service.
Consequently, even this placement is inadequate to capture the fullness of knowledge
management’s potential contribution to the PSTP.
Ultimately, there is no “right answer” for positioning a Knowledge Agenda. Knowledge
management is a relatively new discipline. Consequently, its placement within organizational
infrastructures varies widely. All functional placements for KM found in the literature have
strengths and weaknesses that limit the contribution of KM to less than its full potential.
3.2 Hierarchical position
Interviews were conducted with selected federal departments and private-sector companies to
learn how other organizations were currently putting KM principles into practice. Participants
were selected based on good KM practices as recognized by the American Productivity and
Quality Center, participation in the Interdepartmental Knowledge Management Forum, or
participation in the Conference Board of Canada - Knowledge Strategy Exchange Network.
Organizational positions for KM were classified into three groups, based on senior KM
responsibility and reporting relationships (high - direct report to executive; medium - 1 layer to
executive; and low - 2 or more layers to the executive).
Some trends emerged from the interviews. All global organizations position knowledge
management at high to medium importance, based on proximity to the executive level. There is
a consensus that it is impossible to run a competitive global organization without enterprise-level
knowledge management. National organizations tend to position KM in the middle, with one
intermediate step between knowledge management and the executive level. This level enables
program-scale KM activities. Government departments and provincial organizations tend to
position KM lower in the organizational hierarchy, with two or more reporting levels between
KM and the executive level. This level limits KM to project-scale activities and deliverables.
The ideal position for a Knowledge Agenda would be under a Chief Knowledge Officer, who is
a member of an organization’s Executive Committee. This would represent an enterprise-level
approach – a high-level position. A Chief Knowledge Officer would be responsible for all

3. aspects of knowledge management. Ideally, a CKO would also bridge the functional and
executive levels by ensuring that the organization’s business strategy is directly supported by
knowledge management and that the needs of knowledge management are represented at the
executive level.
There are both positive and negative implications of appointing a CKO at the outset. An
advantage would be that someone at the executive level could lead and promote the development
and implementation of the necessary KM activities much more rapidly than would be possible
from below. Another advantage is that sustained executive support maximizes the chances for
success regardless of shifting organizational priorities. A disadvantage would be that initially, a
CKO would have appropriate authority but no infrastructure, processes, or expertise in place to
provide support for fulfilling the responsibilities of a CKO. Another disadvantage is that rapid
development may not create the robust infrastructure or cultural change that will be necessary for
becomming a knowledge organization and a knowledge center.
Alternatively, a senior manager could be appointed as an advisory member of the executive
committee. This would represent a mid-level programmatic approach. The duties would be
similar to those of the high-level position, except that only selected aspects of knowledge
management would be addressed. Advantages are that it represents less of a “culture shock”
than a CKO, and it would facilitate notable progress on knowledge management. The
disadvantage is that it would weaken the bridging role between the executive and functional
levels.
Finally, an organization could begin by appointing a knowledge management director or
manager, who reports to a senior manager. This represents a small, project-scale approach.
Advantages are that it provides adequate authority to begin planning and developing KM at a
project scale, it minimizes the risk of technical failure, and it enables an organization to learn as
it goes while evolving from a solid foundation. Disadvantages are that only limited aspects of
knowledge management would be addressed, it will take notably longer to develop the program,
and it increases the risk of falling victim to evolving organizational priorities.
As with functional position, there is no “right” answer to the hierarchical position for knowledge
management. There are advantages and disadvantages to a top-down enterprise approach, a
bottom-up project approach, and a middle-out program approach. The choice hinges on the
degree of executive-level support, organizational readiness for culture change, and available
resources. All three approaches can succeed if their plans are designed to maximize the benefits
and minimize the risks of the chosen path.
Albert Simard
September 15, 2007