to remember

the issue of the relationship between knowledge management (KM) and librarianship has received considerable attention. Some proponents are currently promoting KM as the way forward, While others stubbornly declare that KM is simply old librarianship in new clothing. In this, they would sometimes seem to believe that if the library and information profession rejects the notions, concepts, language and practice of KM it will go away.
KM is, in conceptual terms a paradigm, and in professional terms, a collection of strategies and practices that has arisen in response to the needs of organizations, businesses, communities and governments in the knowledge-based society of the twenty-first century.
While accepting a considerable degree of fuzziness exists around "KM" as different stakeholder groups seek to make it their own, and integrate it with their disciplinary knowledge bases and professional practices, this article takes a provocative position on the relationship between librarianship and KM.
There is a general agreement that knowledge is:
... a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experience and information (Davenport and Prusak, 1998, p. 5).
Knowledge is differentiated from data, and information. Data are raw facts, which when organized become information, whereas knowledge is meaningful information (Bhatt, 2001). Knowledge can be broadly grouped into individual and organizational knowledge. Individual knowledge resides in an individual mind. Organizational knowledge, on the other hand, is knowledge that is formed through interactions between technologies, techniques and people. A common classification of organizational knowledge (Nonaka, 1991) is into explicit knowledge, which can be documented and shared, and implicit or tacit knowledge, which resides in the minds, cultures, and experiences within the organization.
KM is concerned with the exploitation and development of the knowledge assets of an organization with a view to furthering the organization's objectives (Davenport et al., 1998).
There are a number of models of KM. For example, the information processing model of KM focuses on the processes related to acquiring, codifying, distributing and utilizing knowledge, and privileges explicit knowledge and the processes associated with translating implicit knowledge into explicit knowledge (e.g. Liebowitz, 1999).
The human centric model of KM focuses on the social aspects that facilitate knowledge creation and sharing (e.g. Davis, 1998); here the goal is to understand how social interactions support the transfer of tacit knowledge, and lead to the creation of new knowledge.
Models that emphasize the social construction of knowledge share common ground with work on learning organizations and organizational learning .
The role of KM is to facilitate communication between members of the organization through tools such as e-mail, intranets, groupware, and discussion boards. This approach is preferred in knowledge-intensive industries such as consulting, insurance, and software.
KM in the public sector
Although the early work on KM focused on business organizations, there is a developing body of thinking around the relevance of KM in the public sector, and societal contexts. Within this context, KM can be applied at a number of different levels:
in shaping global societies and economies;
in public administrations (PAs); and
in specific public sector organizations (PA), such as the police, and universities.
the rationale for KM is basically the same: to leverage the value-generation capacity of individual, groups, and organizations as a whole. KM process and methods are generic to all kinds of organization, while KM tools and techniques can be specific.
KM goals are generally to improve the effectiveness and sustainability of any enterprise, be that enterprise a business, a part of society, a country, or a single individual. He suggests that the KM objectives for PAs might focus on the provision of:
Effective PA services and functions, through the utilization of knowledge in both management decision-making and in enhancing service delivery.
A stable, just, orderly and secure society, in which citizens are facilitated to engage in public debates and policy formation, and to participate in processes to conceptualize, plan, decide, and implement public actions, to observe society policies, and to provide support for the administration.
An acceptable level of quality of life, particularly through building, maintaining and leveraging commercial and public intellectual capital.
A prosperous society by developing its citizens to become competent knowledge workers and its business and organizations to be competitive.
The growing literature on e-government, whether or not it explicitly uses the concept of KM, tends to subscribe to the above four areas.
the paradigm shift from librarianship to KM is one of scale and perspective. KM is integral and integrated into effective organizations, communities and societies, and the success of KM depends on the contribution of all of the members of the knowledge community. KM involves everyone.
there are roles for knowledge professionals. Taking Carillo's model as a point of departure it is possible to conceive three main roles for knowledge professionals:
(1) managing knowledge repositories;
(2) facilitating knowledge flow and communication; and
(3) leveraging value generation capacity.
These three main roles suggest a range of activities that will contribute to KM:
(1) Managing knowledge repositories. This involves: evaluation, filtering, signposting, structuring, facilitating access, packaging and presenting knowledge. These are all processes that have traditionally been at the heart of librarianship. There has been considerable evolution of the technological tools that support these processes in recent years, and librarians, and information and knowledge professionals have developed their skills in the management of both printed sources and electronic sources, in support of the development of hybrid libraries. Important tasks have been, and will continue to be integration and differentiation. Knowledge users need seamless access to knowledge repositories whether those repositories be in print form, electronic form, or in the form of other people or communities. On the other hand, they need to be able to differentiate between knowledge and information sources in terms of their appropriateness for purpose, authority, impartiality and timeliness. This role appears to be a natural evolution, but does its contextualisation alongside the other two roles add new meaning to "managing knowledge repositories"?
(2) Facilitating knowledge flow. This is perhaps a re-emergence of the concept of the invisible gatekeeper proposed by early writers in information sciences, when exploring scientific communication. One of the important aspects of the role of facilitator is that the facilitator is a pivotal member of the networks associated with a knowledge community. This position can be achieved by virtue of seniority, or special knowledge in the area, but it can also be developed through an explicit role in building knowledge networks. Thus a facilitator of knowledge flow may: act as a network hub or a virtual community manager; build and maintain expert databases; have network knowledge ("know who knows"); and, encourage and manage contributions to knowledge repositories. In general, facilitating knowledge flow has both technological and social aspects embracing both of ensuring the availability of tools, and user training to ensure that users find tools easy to use. They need to remove the barriers to knowledge sharing, and create systems and cultures that embed knowledge sharing seamlessly into normal working life. Knowledge workers also need support in joining knowledge communities; this support needs to cover the various different activities in which knowledge communities might engage in either virtual or real worlds, such as getting acquainted, understanding the community norms and cultures, meeting, and traversing national cultural and language barriers.
(3) Leveraging value generation capacity. This integrates all of the roles and activities discussed in the previous two paragraphs, but places particular emphasis on context. In addition to roles in the development of knowledge repositories, and knowledge flow, in a way that promotes value generation, this family of KM requires knowledge professionals to take an active role in helping others to develop behaviour, actions and cultures that optimize value generation. This is associated with a realistic vision of the organization and its resources and processes and their alignment with marketplace. Since, this model of KM is inherently integrative and strategic, it is unlikely to be achieved through limited scale KM projects alone, and is likely to embrace the organisation's ability to make sense of itself and its context. In addition to any specific KM function, teams working on business processes, market scanning, and management information and forecasting are likely to be integral to the delivery of this model of KM.
Knowledge sharing always needs rewards, whether these are in terms of recognition, career advancement, social acceptance, absence of penalties or monetary rewards. The challenge is to encourage knowledge sharing amongst professionals for whom their knowledge defines their professional expertise and worth.
The paradigm of KM presents a unique opportunity to focus on the developing role of information and knowledge professionals.