The problem of the misconceptualisation of knowledge management systems (KMS)

As David Gurteen alerts¹ in his Conversational Leadership blook (blog-book), the term “knowledge management system (KMS)” often misleads, and ends up being used to incorrectly describe technology systems such as SharePoint² that are actually managing information rather than knowledge.

As Dr David Williams writes in a 2016 RealKM Magazine article³, the differences between an information management system (IMS) and knowledge management system (KMS) are that:

an information management system aims to manage the structural capital of an organisation. This includes information, data, records and evidence. Electronic document and records management, content management, digital asset management and intranets are examples of information management systems.

In a KM system, the subject being managed is the social and intellectual capital of people associated with the organisation. KM systems should include tools, techniques and strategies tailored to specific business requirements. These may include techniques such as sense making, use of narrative, mentoring, communities of practice, knowledge cafes, creative thinking and after action reviews.

The arrival of artificial intelligence (AI) is potentially exacerbating the IMS-KMS misconception problem because AI researchers and practitioners who are largely unfamiliar with the field of knowledge management (KM) are using the term “knowledge management system (KMS)” to refer to what are actually AI-powered information management systems. For example, both of the research papers that I summarised in the recent RealKM Magazine articles on GraphRAG⁴ and data governance practices for using RAG⁵ inappropriately use “knowledge management system (KMS)” to describe what are actually information management systems (IMS). I made sure to not continue this misconception in my summaries of the papers.

The extent of the IMS-KMS misconceptualisation problem

To further understand the extent of the IMS-KMS misconceptualisation problem, Boniface Kimwere from the School of Business at KCA University has carried out a systematic review⁶ to assess how knowledge management has been conceptualised in Kenya. Systematic reviews⁷ produce a reliable knowledge base through accumulating findings from a range of studies. The systematic review was carried out using the PRISMA guidelines⁸, and the findings have been published in the Regional Journal of Information and Knowledge Management.

Kimwere’s review asked two questions:

1. How has knowledge management been conceptualised in Kenya?
2. Is the KM conceptualisation techno-centric or people-centric?

The findings are that of the 13 studies analysed, just one had a people-centric conceptualisation of KM, with the remaining 12 having a techno-centric conceptualisation. Kimwere warns that this imbalance risks weakening KM’s strategic relevance in Kenya and limiting its practical impact. What Kimwere has found in Kenya is likely to be reflected worldwide.

One of the risks of the techno-centric focus in Kenya is to Afropolitanism, which emphasises cultural authenticity and also hybrid knowledge forms. However, rather than advance cultural integration, indigenous knowledge frameworks, and participatory processes, Kenyan scholars have adopted Western, technology-driven KM approaches. The focus on techno-centric over people-centric conceptualisation in the Kenyan context is also evident in the adoption of quantitative methods, with fewer studies adopting qualitative approaches to understand KM and its potential challenges in operationalisation in the Kenyan context.

Recommendations for change

From the review findings, Kimwere makes the following recommendations:

1. Organisations need to shift their major focus from techno-centric to people-centric KM approaches. In this context, information systems and repositories should support, rather than replace, interpersonal knowledge processes. Ideally, this would include investing in trust-building practices (formal and informal), recognition mechanisms, and collaborative structures that reinforce the relational foundations of knowledge sharing.
2. The review underscores the essence of qualitative methods, such as interviews, case studies, and ethnographies, for capturing nuanced insights into how workers create, share, and interpret knowledge in real contexts. As the review shows, the dominance of quantitative designs in these studies could have overlooked the emotions, lived experiences, and tacit knowledge, which are central to a knowledge-based view and Afropolitanism perspectives.
3. Practitioners must continuously align KM initiatives with corporate culture, employee incentives, and leadership behaviour to ensure sustainability and long-term strategic impact.

Header image: SharePoint is not a knowledge management system (KMS). Source: created by Bruce Boyes with images from Ho Lam Ng on Pixabay and Wikimedia Commons.

References: