knowquestion :: Stephen Bounds

Knowledge Management is a strange discipline, riddled with conflict and contradiction. At present there are two main schools of KM:

• the empiricists, who expound idealised KM practices without needing to ground them in theoretical reasoning
• the theorists, who see KM as the psychological and sociological search for a Grand Unified Theory around organizational dynamics and individual behaviors

Within these broad schools we have subgroups such as the Cynefinists. the technologists, the 2.0ists, and the system architects.

Most of prominant voices within KM are both charismatic and cocksure, glibly making sweeping pronouncements about the "true way" to organisational nirvana. True, there are a few voices of caution but by and large KM talks big. This is partly due to KM's continuing struggle for acceptance and relevance in the mainstream of business thinking.

With controlled scientific experimentation in KM being difficult or impossible (who wants to risk real businesses and jobs for a theory, after all?) it is easy for snake oil merchants to thrive next to more credible voices. In many ways, the debate around KM closely resembles the debate on climate change.

Generally the ones making real progress are the ones who talk about it the least. (Sidebar: actKM has gone very quiet of late. Could that mean everyone on the list is busy making KM work??) I believe their secret to success is in being change agents in ways that the organisation is ready for, rather than trying to enforce idealised outcomes that the employees don't want. It's not glamorous work, but real and lasting improvements are being achieved through the application of sound KM principles.

To sum up:

• Volume is still being mistaken for authority within KM schools of thought
• More focus needs to be placed on critical evaluation of KM assertions while recognising the difficulty of obtaining incontrovertible evidence
• KM is achieving the most when it doesn't claim to have all the answers
• KM practitioners need to distinguish between the possible (in the abstract) and the achievable (in a real situation)