|
Quiet moments
sometimes breed honest reflection. When nursing these moments and honestly
trying to think as KM professionals our reflection (Despres & Chauvel)
sometimes points to that big contextual question we ask colleagues from time
to time: Is there a future for KM or is it morphing into something else?
This is a non-trivial issue for obvious reasons: it strikes down to the
foundations of a young academic / professional community, while making a
very interesting appeal to the sociology of knowledge.
KM could be mirroring
George Odiorne’s 1960’s MBO movement to come-and-go at relative light speed
in management – or – it could be taking the Tavistock OD turn to firmly
install a scientific sub-domain complete with new methods, perspectives,
body of knowledge and related. In the world of practical reality MBO has
been reduced through absorption to a half-dozen explicative lines in
management textbooks while OD has developed libraries of knowledge. And
wither the field of KM?
There may be some
hints in this issue. Herein Delany & O’Donnell explore the continuity
management (CM) of intellectual capital, replacement strategy, knowledge
transfer to successors and related in a large Irish organization. All met
with difficulties that are reportedly cultural in nature.
Westelius &
Mårtensson suggest that successful KM initiatives can lead to problems.
Their case study points to problems experienced by a consulting firm when
its KM program achieved objectives but led to unforeseen, undesired
consequences
Mahesh & Suresh
examine how technology adds value to KM solutions by focusing on a context’s
knowledge attributes. The suggestion is that KM solution
effectiveness can be enhanced by managing knowledge attributes, system
requirements and contextual differences.
John Politis examines
the relationship between leadership dimensions and creativity /
innovation. His findings suggest that transformational and transactional
leadership behaviors are generally supportive of creativity and thus
innovation, with transformational leadership being preferred.
There is a call to
arms lurking in the above - launched by the question, “What’s new?”
These contributions have been selected for publication through a peer review
process and editorial oversight. They are respectable and sound. The issue
is otherwise framed:
§
Does KM add anything of value to the idea of
continuity management that HR / human capital management do not?
§
Are OD professionals surprised when an
organizational initiative (KM or otherwise) leads to unforeseen, undesired
consequences?
§
Is the integrated management of knowledge
attributes, system requirements and contextual differences most properly
classed as KM or IS/IT?
§
Have we not already crossed the bridge as
concerns transformational leadership and creativity?
It is true that
paradigms evolve rather than erupt nowadays. Usually, a community’s fringe
elements will muster the support they need to convince onlookers that a
different perspective / formulation / construction of things will improve
matters held dear to all. The field nudges one way or another and Khunian
revolutions remain an experience-distant concept. The alternative is to
import received truth from other fields and cobble together a new mosaic.
And wither the field
of KM? If this world is passing from one Age to another and KM be the
standard bearer, it can be considered high time indeed that a distinctive
body of knowledge is brought into focus. Or is this useless polemic? Or are
we simply an example of that case study in frustration and elusion, the
multidisciplinary field? Your feedback is solicited on this matter and
look for a special issue on the subject in 2005. |
