Knowledge management, librarianship, and turf wars: who really manages information?

Citation

Evans, G.E. (2010), "Knowledge management, librarianship, and turf wars: who really manages information?", Library Management, Vol. 31 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/lm.2010.01531caf.001

Knowledge management, librarianship, and turf wars: who really manages information?

Article Type: Case Study From: Library Management, Volume 31, Issue 3

Elsewhere in this issue is an article that suggests there are mixed views about the relationship, if any, between knowledge management (KM) and librarianship. For some individuals, KM is just one more buzz word or fad that will fade in time. Certainly management literature contains a host of passing fads and buzz words. Buzz words and fads, as their names suggest, do not have “long legs” – at least in terms of how long they remain active. A fad that lasts five years in management is relatively long lived. What generally happens with such ideas is they come from consultants or a theorist and when put to operational tests may do some good, but turn out not to be the silver bullet proponents suggested and occasionally are total flops. Another fate for fads is they turn out to be something of the Emperor’s New Clothes – nothing there for all practical purposes.

In the case KM, it is hard to believe it is just a passing fancy of a few people when it has been around for 30 plus years. One factor in the debate of whether librarians or some other group is best able/skilled to manage information is that KM has developed from a variety of disciplines. As Kimiz Dalkir (2005) noted in the opening chapter of his monograph on KM, when discussing its evolution he suggested that such diverse subject areas as the following have played role:

Organizational science, cognitive science, linguistics, information technologies, information and library science, technical writing and journalism, anthropology, sociology, education and training, storytelling and communication studies, collaborative technologies and groupware, as well as intranets, extranets, portals, and other web technologies (Kimiz Dalkir, 2005, p. 6).

Each area has contributed in some way to the concept. However, with a definition such as Dalkir’s “knowledge management incorporates both the capturing and storing of the knowledge perspective, together with the valuing of intellectual assets” (Dalkir, 2005, p. 3), it is not surprising that various professions claim KM is their turf.

With a concept that has been around for so long why the uncertainty about its value? Many of the factors relating to that issue are illustrated in I. V. Malhan and Shivarama Roa K’s edited volume, Perspectives on Knowledge Management (Scarecrow Press, 2008). The editors gathered essays from 28 individuals from various backgrounds who are involved in KM. The book makes it clear there have been successful as well as unsuccessful efforts to put KM into practice. Given that KM focuses on both formal and informal organizational information, plus attempting to address issues such as how information is made available and transferred, as well as who and how employees obtain, assess, and use information/knowledge, it is not surprising different professionals have differing views of what KM is and who should be the controlling group.

From the library perspective, perhaps it has been a function of so many changes taking place in the library’s operating environment that kept KM from rising higher on the horizon despite its rather long history. For many librarians, at least in the USA, it may be something similar to the situation that Joseph Branin (2009, p. 104) described in relation to himself in an editorial: “I had not read Townley’s article on knowledge management before Martell alerted me to it. I would have benefited from reading it sooner”. He went on to discuss the issue of information outside the formal scholarly literature. “It is true our special collections librarians and archivists have paid attention to more unique and ephemeral material, but there is so much more ‘explicit’ and even more ‘tacit’ knowledge coming from our faculty and students that escape our attention. The field of knowledge management provides a useful perspective and tools for addressing this broader range of librarian responsibilities” (Branin, 2009, p. 104). Although Branin’s focus was the academic environment, his point that librarians all too often have a narrow view of what information/knowledge to gather, organize, and preserve is well taken.

Another factor that has slowed librarians’ interest in KM is that it arose in the corporate sector and only moved into other areas relatively recently. As a result, there is some perception that, in terms of libraries, it is only relevant to special/corporate libraries. Neelameghan’s (2007) article regarding KM and school libraries suggests that some people take a much broader view of KM potential spheres of operating environments. Helen Boelens’ (2007) essay “Knowledge management in secondary schools and the role of the school librarian” is another example. Hazeri et al. (2007, p. 169) make the point:

To become key stakeholders in knowledge management, LIS professionals need to move out from their familiar operational environments and demonstrate their relevance by pursuing emerging opportunities in knowledge management. For this to happen, these LIS professionals must understand the wider value of their own skills and exploit their potential applications in a knowledge management environment. This will require not only enhanced self-knowledge, but also an understanding of how LIS skills can be applied in new and often commercial context.

What are some of the basics you should know about KM, assuming there is some thought that it would be worth exploring for your organization? The following material assumes you generally accept the notion that KM is about managing the process of creation/identification, accumulation, and application/use of information/knowledge (tacit and explicit) within an organization. Some of the following ideas are far from unique to KM, which is yet another factor in why some librarians see KM as refurbished librarianship or perhaps information management.

• •

  Understanding your organizational environment and how to monitor the changes in that environment is an essential foundation on which to build a KM program.

• •

  To achieve success you must master the issues of communication – listening effectively, selecting the best medium for the messages you send, being careful to avoid message overload, and expressing thoughts clearly and as jargon free as possible and with an eye to recognizing any potential cultural language pitfalls.

• •

  Understand the challenges that reside in trying to effectively handle tacit knowledge/information. We are reasonably good when it comes to handling explicit information, but when comes to what is inside of peoples’ minds you have a difficult time in determining what the knowledge is much less codifying it.

• •

  Understand the issues related to breaking down organizational “silos/chimneys” – units not communicating with one another – and gaining acceptance of the idea that sharing information/knowledge can give the organization a competitive advantage.

• •

  Understand that organizational tacit knowledge is a valuable intellectual capital resource and tapping that resource may be critical at times.

• •

  Understand the differences between creativity and innovation and their importance in long-term organizational survival. Also, be aware of the role tacit knowledge plays in both areas.

• •

  Understand that ICT, while a vital element in having a successful KM program, is just a variety of essential tools – it is the success or failure on the people side that ultimately will make the difference.

• •

  Understand that while there are some “cookbook” aspects to KM, at the end of the day the program must be tailored to the unique components of the organization and its personnel.

In summary, KM is not new nor a fad; it is more than remodeled information management or librarianship; it is in fact a new growing discipline. The references and the suggested readings below provide some starting points for gaining a full understanding of the KM.

G. Edward Evans