Talk:Knowledge management

message: Per a request by Extra999, all talk prior to 2009 has been archived, with Archive 4 representing the most recent archive. 
OLD NOTE: Please note that the Archive 3 may have discussions of value regarding capitalisation issues, journal citations, and other issues relevant to this article. This was getting to be a long discussion and so I archived the less-than-recent discussions that seemed less-than-relevant to editing the article now, while trying to keep those discussions that were either relevant or important for new readers/editors to get up to speed on the history of this article. I, for one, found that all the back-and-forth dialogue made my head spin... Harvey the rabbit (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hmmm,... this whole Knowledge Management field seems to me like a dubious discipline ... at best.  Is this really a bonafide field, or just a commercialisation of "Military Intelligence" procedures?
I mean to say is the essence of this whole article not already contained in the Classified Information article?  This whole Knowledge Management thingy seems redudant, if you ask me.  ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting perspective @ArmchairVexillologistDonLives -- and I apologize in the delay in responding. I think several practitioners in the Knowledge Management field would not consider themselves aware of or familiar with Military Intelligence or Classified Information. It could be that similar concepts from both fields informed each other, how to categorize, tag, and compartmentalize information. However there are several more scholarly works published on the topic of Knowledge Management vs. Classified Information? Would be interested in what others think? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this really a bonafide field, or just a commercialisation of "Military Intelligence" procedures? 

message: I have seen many articles and books about KM that talk about the reasons and methods for Knowledge Management and there are many failed KM initiatives out there. Why haven't we discussed limitations/barriers/disadvantages of KM? I added Barriers to start looking at negative side of KM (Jorjani (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: I agree to Jorjani's previous comment and added information about challenges in introducing knowledge management in practice. Somebody might look more on possible disadvantages. If you have any suggestions about my chapter, please feel free to comment! (Spitfire5000 (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that material is that it really relates to knowledge databases and the sources really do not support making the broad general statements implied.  They relate to specific technologies.  The broader distinction between two types is controversial to say the least.  ----Snowded TALK 19:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your feedback! However I'm convinced that this passage is a very important one. The article is not about challenges that are coinced with KM.  This is exactly why a high percentage of KM project fails: because noone is conscious of the high complexity of introducing KM. I revised the material: now, the statements are more generalized and abstracted. I'm looking forward to feedback! (Spitfire5000 (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then make the case here, don't simply reinsert the text.  You cannot use the article as a vehicle for your opinions.  Get an article published in one of the journals.  To insert material here we would need much better sourcing that represents various views.  ----Snowded TALK 00:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, so I copy the excerpt here for getting improved before added to the article. Spitfire5000 (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to list as people can look in the history of the article itself.   I don't know of any authoritative material on what is needed.  I know of a few articles (you listed a couple) where the normal reasons - senior management commitment etc. are listed but those can as easily apply to any initiative.  By choosing which reasons to give, and some of them had no references, you are engaging in original research and/or synthesis neither of which are allowed.  I've written and spoken on reasons for failure, based on some reputation and experience, but I wouldn't include that material as its not the result of a proper comprehensive review.  In particular I don't think there is anything special about KM (as it was implemented) that is worthy of attention in this respect.  Find some sources and we can look at it. ----Snowded TALK 10:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I support the premise that not all KM is good. Frank Land has published some academic articles (see: "The darker side of knowledge management", The Software Practitioner 14, no. 5, 2004. among others). I encourage others to find journal articles that can support this inquiry since any technology is amoral, how humans use it determines whether it is good or bad. Harvey the rabbit (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is KM all good? 

message: This That article is about knowledge management, including the purported definition of knowledge. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting proposal @Qwertyus To what end would the merger be helpful? This is already a long article. Also, rather than have an article on Defining Knowledge where you discuss the philosophy of defining knowledge -- wouldn't it be better to have the article on knowledge discuss potential definitions? You could then link from that article to here and back. I'd be interested in what others think? There's certainly no end to the different philosophies and definitions on knowledge. Hope this helps! Harvey the rabbit (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Knowledge and epistemology both cover it----Snowded TALK 21:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Defining Knowledge is not an article about the definition of knowledge. It has a section called that, but it's really an article about knowledge management. I think it should either go or be merged somewhere, but I find it hard to assess its value since I don't know much about knowledge management. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, my apologies.  It looks like an essay.   I can't see a lot of any particular merit, but happy to do the merge if people buy into it (as I do know something' ----Snowded TALK 14:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

text: @Harvey the rabbit, I think we have a misunderstanding. The article Defining Knowledge, which I did not write, is actually an essay about knowledge management with a misleading title. Please take a quick look at it. I think it should go, but I'm hesitant to nominate it for outright deletion as there might be information worth saving by transferal to this article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, now I understand you better. It's not that you're proposing to merge this article with Defining Knowledge (which is how I interpreted you first post), rather you're proposing to merge any salvageable parts of Defining Knowledge with Knowledge management? Up until your clarification, the direction of the merge was less-than-clear. I have to say I agree with @Snowded that I can't see a lot of any particular merit to the article, and in fact there appear to be some inaccuracies in my opinion as someone like @Snowded who's tracked the field for a while. To be honest, it uses secondary sources vs. primary ones, e.g., "Alavi (2000) as quoted in Turban (2011)..." (go ahead an quote Alavi directly then?) which troubles me. If others spot salvageable pieces, go ahead. Otherwise, maybe paste it to this talk page for now as an archive? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, "Proposed merge with Defining Knowledge" was the script-generated title of this section. I've just nominated the other article for speedy deletion. If that fails, I'll sign it up for AfD. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger of parts of [[Defining Knowledge]] with [[Knowledge management]] 

message: There are currently a bunch of red links in the See Also section. I think most (possibly all) of them are questionable as to whether they need to be here even if there were articles written but since there aren't articles I'm going to delete the red links per wp:write the article first  --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pruning out red links in See Also section 

message: This is currently a dead link. I think this reference is used several times. I found the original content using the WayBack Machine, it's one of the tools I mentioned in a previous comment. Here it is: http://web.archive.org/web/20070319233812/http://www.unc.edu/~sunnyliu/inls258/Introduction_to_Knowledge_Management.html  I'm going to update the reference as soon as I get the chance. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and for eliminating the commercial link.   There are constant attempts to insert them! ----Snowded TALK 09:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference number 2: Intro to KM 

message: The last sentence in the intro is: "It is seen as an enabler of organisational learning and a more concrete mechanism than the previous abstract research. " I can't make any sense of the last part: "a more concrete mechanism than the previous abstract research" how is KM "more concrete" and what is the previous thing it's more concrete than? Unless someone can come up with a coherent explanation I'm going to delete the last part of the sentence. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Intro text 

message: This sentence: "Knowledge management systems can thus be categorized as falling into one or more of the following groups: Groupware, document management systems, expert systems, semantic networks, relational and object oriented databases, simulation tools, and artificial intelligence" really makes no sense and is not an accurate classification of KM technologies. This sentence mixes all sorts of technologies that are at different levels of the application stack. "relational and OO databases" are an underlying technology not a KM technology. No one who knows what they are talking about says "we are rolling out this OODB to give us KM capabilities" They may build things on top of an OO (or relational) DB but the DB itself is not KM technoliogy and the same is true for "expert systems". "simulation tools" is just hopelessly vague, is this talking about learning simulation, stochastic modeling of work processes, or what? And similar criticisms apply to Semantic Net, AI, etc. I'm going to revise this section but just thought I would document this problem ahead of time, I'm not sure how much time I'll have to work on this and in case I forget want to at least document what I think is a major issue. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited this section and also moved it from under the Research section to be a second level section by itself.  --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technologies section 

message: Just wanted to document I reverted the recent change to the intro by Bafuentes for the following reasons: I thought the text that was there before was a more standardized version of how KM is described. I've read the text that was used as a reference (the reference that Bafuentes deleted with that edit) and it strongly supports the old text. The text that Bafuentes wrote in it's place wasn't a common way to defined KM and also the reference was in Spanish. Foreign language references are sometimes acceptable but not when there are very strong English references available which there are in this case. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We get a lot of single purpose one time editors on the article who simply arrive to promote an article or author.   I suspect this is one and support your reversal ----Snowded TALK 06:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I reverted changed by Bafuentes 

message: A while back when I was actively editing this article I asked the reference desk if someone could find a copy of a Gartner tech report on selecting KM vendors. It took them a while but to my surprise someone found it. I'm not sure if I'm going to still use it, I probably will at a minimum add this as a reference somewhere but in the mean time, in case others want to take a look, I thought I would post it here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6-htvTzV2mxNmo0VTJxQTc5aUE/edit  --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This Gartner paper link is no longer valid. SamHahn (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gartner paper on KM Selection 

message: is there any good example of KM? Suman Gharti Magar (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not our affair, we simply reflect the sources.   ----Snowded TALK 17:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  knowledge management  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Knowledge management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://iakm.kent.edu/programs/information-use/iu-curriculum.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Knowledge management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unc.edu/~sunnyliu/inls258/Introduction_to_Knowledge_Management.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just made an edit to the KM definition to "Knowledge Management is the process of creating, sharing, using and managing the knowledge and information of an organization.". The previous definition is NOT in the cited reference (Saving IT's Soul: Human Centered Information Management). I do not have any major issues with the definition; however, it is not in the HBR article cited nor could I find it any other article.  The proposed definition comes from our word frequency analysis of 100 KM definitions.  The new definition is quite similar to the previous one "Knowledge management (KM) is the process of capturing, developing, sharing, and effectively using organizational knowledge."  To see more about the origin of the definition, please see www.johngirard.net/km/  I suspect some folks will have a better definition and I accept that; however, we must correct the error of having a definition that is not in the cited article (or elsewhere).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johngirard (talk • contribs) 16:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  KM Definition 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Knowledge management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325181330/http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/W/W01/W01-1605.pdf to http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/W/W01/W01-1605.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114083603/http://www.crito.uci.edu/noah/HOIT/HOIT%20Papers/TeacherBridge.pdf to http://www.crito.uci.edu/noah/HOIT/HOIT%20Papers/TeacherBridge.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130424071228/http://www.cs.umd.edu/~golbeck/LBSC690/SemanticWeb.html to http://www.cs.umd.edu/~golbeck/LBSC690/SemanticWeb.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Knowledge management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217030521/http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume2No1/nanjappa.pdf to http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume2No1/nanjappa.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Knowledge management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crito.uci.edu/noah/HOIT/HOIT%20Papers/TeacherBridge.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926151723/http://www.business.mcmaster.ca/mktg/nbontis//ic/publications/KPMSerenkoBontis.pdf to http://www.business.mcmaster.ca/mktg/nbontis//ic/publications/KPMSerenkoBontis.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Such as knowledge sharing- knowledge retention is a topic with importance to many organizations and scieties. A seperate page has been proposed, but one editor has redirected the term to this page, on the one hand leaving no body of knowledge on that topic in the separate page, and on the other hand preventing it from being expanded on this page as it is non propotional. On behalf of the KMGN, practiciconers worldwide who are trying to make knowledge management more accessible to publc, I am calling to approve a separate non re-directed page for knowledge retention.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morialevy (talk • contribs) 04:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'draft' article which you created, and which I redirected was in Wikipedia terms a Coatrack article and largely dependent on a source of which you were an author (that relationship being undeclared).  The welcome note I placed on your page contains advice on how to edit here (which includes signing all comments) and I suggest you read it.  KMGN is a small self appointed group of, in the main, knowledge management consultants and what you want to do is worthy but Wikipedia is not the place to develop a KM guide or manual - a lot have been published and are referenced here and in related articles.  This is an encylopedia and reflects a balanced summary of what has been published.  My suggestion, after you contacted me off line, was to focus on improving and expanding this article.  You made a start on that and the substance of what you inserted I left in place. That is how wikipedia works - it is an open collaborative effort not a vehicle for a self-appointed group, however well intentioned, to create a primary publication.  Add or amend material based on third party material and work with other editors and be a part of the community!   -----Snowded TALK 04:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

text: I love the ambition of the claims about the status of your group and I know many of the players - some are only peripherally attached to you.  There are other consortia, certification programmes and communities involved.  Sorry but I don't think that you have the "largest cover worldwide" in the field and the fact you make the claim here is problematic as you get no authority within Wikipedia from the claim. You have to learn to work within wikipedia policy and you are not getting any great UNDO, you are getting your ideas modified or moved.  If you want to be collaborative you are going to have to learn to collaborate - and sign your comments.  Please go and read the welcome notice and if necessary ask for assistance -----Snowded TALK 10:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Knowledge Retention

message: Metrics should be set to monitor the knowledge management efficiency and ensure that the goals set will be achieved. The aim is to assess the value the knowledge management provides for business. Costs related to knowledge management are easy to measure. The benefits of KM are intangible and can be measured in the long-term. The investment payback time and return might be difficult to estimate.Dalkir, Kimiz (2011). Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. MIT Press. Ripee (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: One articles view - others disagree -----Snowded TALK 17:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knowledge Management Metrics