2 Responses

  1. avatar
    William S. Kaplan at |

    Following up on Bruce’s definition of KM…”Broadly defined, knowledge management (KM) refers to a deliberate and consistent effort to improve the utilization, transfer and creation of knowledge in organizations.” One should ask “for what” or “so what.”

    KM as described above has an intended outcome which from my perspective is to “continually improve performance (mission accomplishment) at the individual, team, and organization level through a continually improving ability to capture, adapt, transfer, and reuse the critical and relevant knowledge of the organization.Otherwise, why would an organization invest time and resources in KM and why would an individual in the organization invest their time and effort using “KM” concepts and practices as part of the way they accomplish their work?

    Part of the challenge (to understanding the value of KM) is enabling a broader understanding of “Why KM?” in the context of the business & operational environment of the organization. Need both.

    Reply
  2. avatar
    David.J Williams at |

    Quite right Bill. Unless you have a shared understanding why you are doing it, where is the value and the return. Although I am loathe to get into a discussion on definitions, I use: ‘the management processes through which organizations increase the value they generate from their intellectual capital’.

    While the framework provides food for thought, I think it is a bit too broad brush and as a result, has gaps. For example, where is the engineering or legal focus? Despite that, it is important to have multiple views on a topic in order to understand it better. Thanks for the article Andre.

    Reply

Leave a Reply