In late 2009 a discussion was posted on the LinkedIn Knowledge Management Experts group that asked the question:
If the term "KM" could get a do-over what would you call the discipline?
This sparked a lively discussion with 295 comments submitted by approximately 75 KM professionals. This paper provides a fascinating look at the discussion, the "new" KM terms, useful KM links, and the results of a survey discussing the future of KM.
Enjoy!
Art
MONA 98765-12871 CALL GIRLS IN LUDHIANA LUDHIANA CALL GIRL
If the term KM could get a do-over
1. If the term “KM” could get a do-over what
would you call the discipline?
A summary of the LinkedIn Knowledge Management Experts
Group Discussion
By Art Schlussel, KM Consultant
artschlussel@gmail.com
East Berlin, Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Art Schlussel Page 1 3/11/2010
2. Overview
In December 2009 I posted this question on the Knowledge Management Experts
discussion forum:
If the term “KM” could get a do-over what would you call the discipline?
You are now the King of KM and you have the power to call the discipline that promotes
an integrated approach to identifying, retrieving, evaluating, and sharing an enterprise’s
tacit and explicit knowledge assets to meet mission objectives (or insert one of hundreds
of “KM” definitions here) to something new. Would you keep the name “knowledge
management” or would you change it to something better? If so, what would that be
and why?
Over 3 months, 295 comments were posted by approximately 75 KM Experts members
who developed approximately 40 different names for KM. Within the 15 web pages of
comments are interesting commentary, insight, advice, lively discussion, useful links,
and information that could be and should be used to create new knowledge by the
reader.
At first, my inclination was to perform analysis on the content and write a white paper
on the outcome and experience. After much contemplation I have decided to take a
different approach. Instead of providing you my bia s and interpretations, I have decided
to leave that up to you. This paper simply provides you the information you need to
perform your own analysis, do your own research, and learn from the experience.
Included in this paper are:
• 15 web pages of comments
• List of alternate KM names
• A list of participants including (where listed) nam e, title, and links they posted to
the comments
• The results of a survey that was conducted to wrap-up the discussion
I will provide you a little information:
• The vast majority of participants would keep the name “knowledge
management”
• These names ranked high as possible replacements (with variations on the
themes):
o Intellectual Capital Management
o Knowledge Collaboration
o Organizational Intelligence
Art Schlussel Page 2 3/11/2010
3. • KM participants for the most part divided the discipline and their leanings in
these areas:
o Collaboration, sharing, and networking
o Search, discovery, and collection
o Knowledge creation and innovation
What did I take away from this experience?
• There is a large community of folks who practice KM whether they hold an
official title of “KM” something or not.
• People have strong opinions on the subject, and are happy to share their
thoughts, knowledge, and wisdom.
• As a community we still cannot agree on a single KM definition, and perhaps that
is for the best.
• The discipline of KM is vast and covers a variety of subject matter areas ranging
from ontology to IT to sense-making to social networking. One person cannot be
an expert in all areas, so perhaps it is better to focus on the area that you enjoy.
• As a community we still need to do a better job at defining KM in terms that
leaders and executives can understand and translate to improvement and ROI.
• There are folks out there doing great things in the discipline who are willing to
share their knowledge and expertise across all boundaries.
• I have new found colleagues all across the world who I can call upon for their
insights and opinions.
I want to thank everyone who participated in this discussion. Some provided great
insight in just one comment; others helped to drive the discussion. A special thanks to
Joris Claeys, John Tropea, and Nick Milton who together provided approximately 90
comments during the three months of activity. Much can be learned by reading your
discussion points.
I benefited greatly by this experience and knowledge transfer. I hope you find this useful
and enlightening.
Best regards,
Art
Art Schlussel Page 3 3/11/2010