This issue of EJKM presents articles that discuss cognitive theory in relation to knowledge sharing (Bircham‑Connolly, Corner & Bowden pp1‑10) and community formation / membership (Bonifacio & Zini, pp11‑22), leadership in relation to virtual communities of practice (Bourhis, Dubé & Jacob,pp 23‑44) and the development of intellectual capital (Müller & Raich, pp35‑44), a multiple perspectives approach to knowledge and its management (Nathan Nifco, pp45‑52), and media effectiveness in relation to storytelling as a KM technology (Joanna Sinclair, pp53‑64).

These topics are robust and ambitions and denote increasing sophistication of the field. We would like to turn your attention to a somewhat more fundamental issue, however: How can one determine the value of KM in a company? Metrics and measurements are at the heart of this issue and despite a decade of work it is surprisingly hard to provide a simple answer.

Even a brief review shows a disturbing variety of opinions and approaches in the literature. Academic treatments assemble (a) a loose set of economic indicators around the concept of “intellectual capital” and its measurement; (b) a set of effectiveness / efficiency approaches that are largely borrowed from the IS domain; or (c) a cluster that cobbles together ideas from the strategy, organizational, cognitive systems and systems engineering disciplines. The practice literature provides (d) anecdotal evidence (cases); (e) activity‑based measures of results (clicks); (f) intermediate measures of effectiveness (time savings); and (g) a large set of “soft” methodologies, and stories, that rely heavily on the perception of users and proponents.

Is it possible to extract a valid and reliable set of measures from these bodies of work? Hopefully so, because the future of KM will turn significantly on its ability to demonstrate value‑added to businesses and organizations. There are at least four issues in play:

1. Survival of the field. This issue is rooted in a sociology of knowledge. KM may well have moved from an introductory phase to a second, third or later stage but unless it can demonstrate concrete results, the sociology of knowledge would anticipates its demise … most probably by folding into the next “good idea” on the business horizon.

2. Intellectual development of the field. This issue is rooted in theory development. A field of intellectual endeavor is constrained to the extent it lacks the problem sets, methodologies and techniques that assess its outcomes, and distinguish it from competing fields. KM is so constrained because its assessment technology is either insufficient or borrowed from other, more established domains.

3. Perceived value of the field. This issue is rooted in resource dependency and/or “no‑nonsense business” perspectives. A field of practice in our universe commands resources and enjoys rewards to the extent it is perceived as providing economic advantage. Determining the nature and extent of such advantage is therefore essential, and economic affairs privilege quantified measures. KM is deficient in this regard, struggling with the difficulty of separating activity‑based accomplishments from hard outcomes (intermediate, moderating and dependent variables).

4. Establishment of a profession. This issue is rooted in professionalization. Professions are characterized by a practice‑based body of knowledge, norms, standards, governing bodies and competency sets that distinguish their offer from other professions. Assuming one exists, the KM profession is young and struggling for legitimacy. This profession will stagnate to the extent its practitioners recite “lessons learned,” utilize soft measures and point to intermediate or activity‑based results. Our field of practice has a clear need for demonstrable results that repose on technologies and assessment methodologies it can claim as its own.

But alas I have said enough about these issues. I trust you will find this issue interesting and stimulating and challenging.