There seems to be no clear definition of Knowledge management that we all agree upon, yet. Papers by Nonaka et. The practioner world, often with motives of selling their products, have been trying to label this as a technical factor. Knowledge management, even more so than its notoriously political cousin Data warehousing, relies on soft areas such as team work and culture and strong clear executive leadership for its success.
Motivation is ruled by the soft areas whereas technology rules the ability.
Well I let me to send to the full list of ISWorld a opinion about KM and a strong critize that our field of study. About KM and other important issues like SQA, it seem that IS people always we arrived late. The references on KM of Nonaka 95 or Davenport 98 are not the most recently. The classic paper of Nonaka was published in HBR in 91. A classic example of a bad strategy and the corrections is the Xerox PARC, since in the 70's were developed key technologies but the majority were deployed by other business.