I’ve been posing a few awkward questions on the actKM list of late – questions which refuse to be placated and are at the heart of the black art of knowledge management. Elsewhere I have said I am uncomfortable with the term knowledge management, because no-one can actually define in a consistent way what it means. The problem is so bad that every book, academic paper, or popular magazine on the subject feels the need to define the term. Worse still once defined few authors actually stick to their definition!

My exchanges on the actKM list have challenged people to define what they mean by “pure KM” and what makes something “pure KM”. Other questions have challenged the comment “there seems to be less of a KM focus” by asking the author to define what they mean by KM. Now in both cases the authors appear to be privileging the people component and soft methods like narrative over the technology and process components. In fairness they acknowledge the need for the other elements, but my point is they privilege the people component and define knowledge management, albeit implicitly, around the people dimension. This is a trend I am observing in a number of quarters. If knowledge management is moving to exclusively privilege the people component then what distinguishes the discipline from human resource management or even management in general? At the moment I can’t help but feel knowledge management is akin to alchemy!

The Holy Grail seems to be to make absolutely everyone happy in the workplace! Managers, unless of course they are knowledge managers, are a sinister bunch with hidden agendas that can only be revealed by playing games, telling stories, and ascribing an archetype to them. These managers are self interested and only interested in profit maximization. Why do we begin with this premise? My experience suggests managers are almost exclusively well intentioned. I can’t think of one manager who starts the day with the intent to make someone’s day difficult! I know a few black leaders , but even they are the exception rather than the norm.

I accept that people are important and that they matter. But I believe management goes well beyond managing the people element. For me knowledge management is about balancing people, processes, technology, and content resources to meet organisational objectives. It differs little, if at all, from the overarching discipline of management. Increasingly I think knowledge management is just a euphemism for management, where the real objective is about improving productivity for the collective good – convince me otherwise!

Regards Graham