When, almost a decade ago, Fergal McGrath wrote his editorial for the first issue of this journal he considered a collection of papers that considered both the theory and practice of knowledge management on the basis that it would encourage a better understanding of one of the focal issues of the time. As I write this editorial I can’t help but feel that the focus, particularly at a managerial level, has dissipated somewhat. There are, I am sure, many reasons for this, not the least of which may be the current economic climate. Perhaps knowledge management remains shrouded in both promise and suspicion as authors continue to rationalise the theory in their effort to expand the practice – an assessment evident in the collection of papers presented in this issue of the journal.

This issue opens with a lively dialogue from Edwards that reflects on the failure, in practice, to understand that the effective implementation of knowledge management depends on equal consideration being given to three aspects – people, processes and technology – and not just one, or one and a little of another. While processes and technology are important, the people aspect is probably more so because we are generally a funny bunch. It is not unheard of for knowledge management implementations to fail because people are not prepared to share their knowledge. The impact of this trait is examined through the published literature on cooperative and competitive knowledge sharing by Ghobadi and D’Ambra. It would seem from their findings that the failure to share is not a one‑way street…it is bi‑directional insofar as people generally are not always willing to modify their thinking based on the experiences of others.

In considering the sharing of knowledge at a practical level, Lech suggests that the key to determining the knowledge sharing process is to decide whether the new knowledge is additive or substitutive. Sharing of the latter is more difficult to achieve as, using information gathered from field studies, it requires at least 25% more effort on the part of the knowledge owner to effect the transfer. Discussion of the challenge of knowledge sharing is continued by Ling. She also identifies the reluctance, both intentional and unintentional, of knowledge owners to share their knowledge with others, particularly organisations. Her research suggests that trust and solidarity are the main precursors for knowledge sharing and the extent to which they are demanded depends on the culture of the organisation.

Culture also features when Neuweg and Fothe consider the need for organisations to explicate and formalise knowledge. Their concern is that insufficient thought is given to understanding the optimal level of explication, which they suggest should be based, among other things, on organisational culture. Of course, any progress on this front requires a clear grasp of the need for, and role of, knowledge management by managers themselves. It would seem from the last paper in this issue that this is ambiguous at best in Iranian banks. Rasoulinezhad attributes cultural issues to this state of affairs, the most important of which is the reluctance to share knowledge with others.

Are human beings really that worried about sharing knowledge with others? The authors in this issue seem to think so and it may well be another significant reason for the apparent loss of focus in knowledge management practice in organisations. What do you think? I look forward to theoretical and practical contributions on this vexed question in the months ahead.

Geoff Turner

December 2011