KM log2

PART I

Artical: What is knowledge management?

1. Concepts are best defined from how people use them.
2. IT-Track KM (management of information) :

• computer and information science
• Knowledge = object

People-Track KM (management of information) :

• philosophy, psychology, sociology......
• Knowledge = Processes

3. Because of their different origins, the two tracks use different language in their dialogues and thus tend to confuse each other when they meet.

4. Anyone can buy a new KM software, but very few have the ability to create sustainable creative organisations.

Part II:

The opinion of IT Track and People Track is come from this article.

IT-Track KM means that the organization focus on computer and information science, and knowledge can be handled by information system. And People-Track KM is that the organization concern about education or training of employees. Learning is the most essencial thing.

The author dislike the notion "KM" personally. He uesed "Knowledge Perspective" or "to be Knowledge Focused" to instead KM. And he seems tended to People Track.

After describing these two tracks, the author started to introduce some companies which take effect on KM.

PART III:

This Week's Topic is : Definition of KM

• In the opinion of Karl, KM includes two tracks.
• In the opinion of Prusak, KM is intergraded by intellectural and practice antecedents.

PART IV:

This week, I learn the development background of KM from Prasuk, and two tracks of KM from Karl. Especially the tracks, it tell difference from two tracks to tell us KM is not only IT but People.

Regarding to the presenter, I very agree her opinion in her conclusion. She said that "you must know what you want to get from knowledge management, and then you can get something from it." As I mentioned in course, companies is too relay on IT to run KM succesfully, especially in Esten countries. They don't really understand the goal of KM, and just set up a lot of system. Then waiting something comes effort automatically. They don't realize that the profit of KM is almost hardly being etimated.

In the conclusion of Prasuk's article, he wanted to see KM would be internalized in organizations, but it is pity that we are still on the origin. We don't make KM into slogan like re-engineer, and we also don't make it into nature. We can't predict what KM will be after 10 years, but we still want to see KM can be naturalized.