“Knowledge management” (KM) has become the buzzword to describe virtually every software package and hardware configuration used in a group setting. All this hype about KM is rather confusing because there is no universal definition of KM. Many businesses are using the phrase “managed business intelligence” to describe KM in their organizations.

We all know Lotus Notes/Domino and Microsoft Exchange have been touted as premier KM solutions. Now, Microsoft is trying to get word out that its Windows 2000 and Active Directory will be the Mark McGwire of KM, ready to break all records in human collaboration. It seems every solution or technology, whether it focuses on data mining, video conferencing, Web serving, document handling, or imaging, is claiming to be a major tool for creating, managing, and sharing knowledge. Companies from Xerox to Seagate are claiming a share of the KM market.

One thing is certain: KM is spawning a whole new classification of workers. New positions in KM now include the following:

• Knowledge and innovation professionals
• Knowledge catalogers, researchers, and media specialists
• Knowledge and competitive intelligence professionals
• Knowledge academicians, theorists, and visionaries These are a few of the new breed of KM professionals whose jobs are seemingly redefined daily. The aim of all these new KM experts is to provide average workers (knowledge consumers) with the knowledge to do their jobs more effectively. If you listen to industry analysts, it seems we are more ignorant than knowledgeable, however. Why else would we need to create a whole new industry based on imparting knowledge to seasoned IT professionals, many of whom have been active in this industry for years?

Apparently, we have all been floundering around in pure ignorance, using strictly trial-and-error methods to provide our employers with the most understandable information in a timely fashion. By the same token, you could surmise that, before groupware, IT professionals never could figure out how to effectively collaborate on important projects and develop knowledge from the information they were sharing.

Most enterprise KM and groupware solutions are quite expensive and usually require many consultants to install the software and hardware and teach employees how to use these knowledge-producing solutions. Then, it’s time for the KM facilitator to take

over like some religious guru, directing a group of over-taxed executives on how to relax so they won’t develop heart disease.

There is obviously serious potential for enhancing collaboration between workers by effectively using time-tested tools like Lotus Notes, Microsoft Exchange, and NetWare products. However, expansion of the meaning of KM to include copiers, fax machines, mobile phones, and anything related to the Web is doing more harm than good. For instance, in Knowledge Management Magazine (www.kmmag.com), probably the most influential magazine dedicated to KM strategies, dozens of advertisements offer software solutions that produce the best “business intelligence,” others offer “customer management,” some tout a blueprint for “enterprise architecture,” and yet others claim
“document management” will bring KM to your enterprise. These solutions can be valuable, but do they really produce knowledge? Any information processing technology is only as good as its effect on the bottom line. If an IT solution increases corporate profits and customer satisfaction, I don’t care how you define it: It’s doing the job. This brings us back to the problem of the definition of knowledge, which, of course, is integral to defining KM. Information is not knowledge, but knowledge contains information. Education is the key to all knowledge creation and worker collaboration. Unfortunately, my feeling is that most Fortune 500 companies would rather invest in technology and industry consultants than employee education. The real key to success is to train people to share their knowledge, whether around the coffeepot or in some well-designed groupware application.

One major problem with the average corporate philosophy concerning KM (which most executives don’t want to admit) is that knowledge is created from the bottom up, not the top down. The vice president of sales wants to think he can read a bunch of reports and spreadsheets and come up with a strategic plan for company expansion. In reality, it’s the salespeople on the road or on the phone who often best understand the needs of customers and, therefore, the road to corporate success. The salespeople can use sales patterns, company inventories, and, most important, their own intuition to convert information into knowledge. Sharing that knowledge with fellow workers, whether customer service reps or executives, is the most important aspect of KM. But unless the VP has an open mind when listening to a salesperson, this knowledge will remain trapped at the lower levels, never reaching the corporate boardroom.

This dynamic is slowly changing, very slowly in comparison to the technology that can supposedly produce knowledge from raw information.

Business collaboration and knowledge creation have to be based upon cooperation between workers at all levels of the enterprise. The best document handling solution, the best business intelligence software, the best of everything can’t replace the knowledge inherent in every hard-working, loyal employee a company has. The real solution to KM is the sharing of information between individuals, not KM experts or software.