Joseph Firestone recently published a paper titled “On doing knowledge management” in the March 2008 issue of Knowledge Management Research and Practice . Joe says:

“A curious, but perhaps not unusual problem besets knowledge management (KM). It is the problem of lack of agreement about what it is, and consequently about its effects, its successes, its failures, and its future” (p. 13).

Recently Ray Sims published a blog-post titled “43 knowledge management definitions - and counting ”. Ray’s position is:

“For many years I’ve been saying that I didn’t like the term “knowledge management” as (a) it was fundamentally an oxymoron, (b) there was no consensus within the industry as to what the term meant, and (c) in many companies the term carries negative connotations due to a perceived lack of value from earlier so-called knowledge management efforts and/or belief that knowledge management was a fad that we have moved on past or has been absorbed into other disciplines”.

Now Joe’s journal article and Ray’s blog-post are both very interesting and express sentiments I have had for some time, and have expressed elsewhere on this site – see for example, “Is Knowledge Management Just a Euphemism for Management?”, and “Knowledge Management Is Still A Dirty Phrase ”, and “Black Art Definitions ”.

Coincidently I had dinner with Dave Snowden last week and attended one his public lectures. Dave is great public speaker and an even better conversationalist, although at times I find his position to be a bit absolutist, but I digress. One of the topics that came up was "What is the future of knowledge management?”. Dave’s position is clear, - see “Where Goeth KM? ” - ; he believes that knowledge management is in its dying days.

When I bring Joe’s journal article, Ray’s blog-post, and David’s public comments and blog-post together, I am immediately reminded of a book by Frederick Hilmer and Lex Donaldson titled “Management Redeemed: Debunking the Fads that Undermine Corporate Performance ”. The book was published in 1996 so by some standards it is a little dated, but I think its central thesis is timeless. Hilmer and Donalson argue that firms require “well-educated, well-paid managers, in sufficient numbers to tackle ever-increasing demands.” They suggest hierarchy is a necessary prerequisite, and that analysis and reflection are essential for corporate success. They argue substituting dogma, platitudes, homilies and fads for lasting professional management practice leads to organisational failure. Finally they argue that fads are symptomatic “of a more fundamental problem – the loss of respect for management and professional managers”. I agree all these points.

Knowledge management is problematic precisely because it is full of dogma, platitudes, homilies, and quick fixes. It is problematic because no-one, including so-called practitioners, can agree on what it actually is. It is problematic because too often “practitioners” begin with the premise that managers are a sinister self-interested bunch with hidden agendas, usually around profit maximization and corporate down-sizing, which can only be revealed by playing games, telling stories, and ascribing an archetype to them!

It’s no wonder knowledge management as a discipline is dying. It’s no wonder managers are sceptical about knowledge management. I agree with Joe Firestone that definitions matter. Until we can accurately define our discipline, we cannot talk about its effects, its successes, its failures, and its future. Meanwhile I think managers can be excused if they ignore knowledge management. Perhaps plain old-fashioned management is redeemed?

Regards Graham