Knowledge Management Revisited: An Empirical Test on the Discussion Group within the Social Media

Knowledge Management Revisited: An Empirical Test on the Discussion Group within the Social Media Mustafa Sagsan 1 and Erdem Kirkbesoglu 2 1 Near East University, Nicosia, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus 2 Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey msagsan@gmail.com erdemk@baskent.edu.tr Abstract: Although knowledge management emerged during 1990s as a new and young interdisciplinary field, it is criticized by some executives and scholars in the social media and in the literature nowadays. This paper aims at reviewing the future of knowledge management by considering both the discussions that are initiated by the executives, who are the member of Knowledge Management Experts discussion group in the social media and the critiques which are made by the scholars. The scenario of discussion has been started in the title of If the term knowledge management could get a do-over what would you call the discipline? in the group and 295 opinions/comments were collected with different titles and organizations of the members. In order to understand the future of knowledge management within the frame of this discussion group/forum, the members discourses were analyzed by considering their title and the map was drawn regarding to understanding the perception of knowledge management as a discipline in this study. In order to categorize data from the discussion group, the theoretical background of the paper rely on the knowledge management paradigms which was developed by Sagsan s (2009) study that is called humanist paradigm, inter/intra organizational paradigm, technological paradigm and socio-technical paradigm. The results indicate that most of the participants support strongly the term of knowledge management as a discipline and science and they believe that KM do not need to be labeled as well as they agree with KM is a discipline or science one hand, and there is a gap between academics/educators and practitioners in terms of knowledge management education on the other. Keywords: Knowledge management perception, knowledge management discussions, knowledge management practitioners, knowledge management paradigms, social media. 1. Introduction The study aims at drawing a comprehensive knowledge management conceptual framework from the knowledge management experts point of view. Although knowledge management discipline/science is well perceived/understood by many scholars at the academic level, why business people/practitioners; who are dealing with data, information and knowledge activities in their organizations; need to reinvestigate or discuss it in the social media? How are we supposed to evaluate their knowledge management perceptions? What are the fundamental roots of knowledge management misconceptions from the perspective of knowledge management practitioners? These questions should be answered for decreasing the perception of uncertainty in the knowledge management discipline by determining as paradigms. In order to understand the perception of knowledge management discipline or science from the knowledge management practitioners point of view, a discussion group/forum in the name of Knowledge Management Experts, which was organized in the LinkedIn.com in December 2009, was selected. The discussion s title was If the term knowledge management could get a do-over what would you call the discipline? and the scenario was You are now the King of KM and you have the power to call the discipline that promotes an integrated approach to identifying, retrieving, evaluating, and sharing an expertise s tacit and explicit assets to meet mission objectives (or insert one of hundreds of KM definitions here) to something new. Would you keep the knowledge management or would you change it to something better? If so, what would that be and why?. It was created by Art Schlussel. Over three months, 295 comments were posted by approximately 75 KM Experts members who developed approximately 40 different names for knowledge management. Within the 15 pages of comments are interesting commentary, insight, advice, lively discussion, useful links, and information that could be and should be used to create new knowledge by the readers (Schlussel, 2010, Online http://www.slideshare.net/artschlussel/if-the-term-km-could-get-a-doover, 15/03/2010). Discourse and content analysis techniques based on qualitative research methodology were used in this study in order to understand the perception of knowledge management discipline through these 295 comments which were made by knowledge managers/practitioners in the business world. During the analysis stage, we will firstly try to locate each of the common comments in the suitable 836

paradigms which were created by Sagsan s (2009) study and focused on determining the new offered term/label instead of knowledge management of these discourses for defining the knowledge management discipline or science accurately. 2. Theoretical Background of KM Paradigms The theoretical background of this study is based entirely on Sagsan s (2009) knowledge management paradigms. Only few studies have directly focused on the discipline or education of knowledge management in terms of paradigm in the literature (Ives, Torrey and Gordon, 1998, Koenig, 1999; Sattar and Higgins, 2001; Dalkir, 2005, Stankosky, 2005, Sagsan, 2007, Gloet and Berrell, 2003) but emerging knowledge as a discipline or science with regard to different epistemological dimensions reviews (Boer, Van Baalen and Kumar, 2002; Dueck, 2001; Martensson, 2000) the processes of knowledge especially knowledge creation in organizations (Gioa and Pitre, 1990; Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Levinthal and March, 1993; Crossan, Lane and White, 1999;). These epistemological dimensions which are based on creating knowledge can be grouped into three perspectives: (a) knowledge as a residing in individuals minds means cognitive perspective, (b) knowledge, as a social constructed perspective, (c) knowledge, as an object perspective. Most of the scholars on knowledge management create the commonsense that knowledge management could be evaluated interdisciplinary perspectives and it is a new and young discipline. For instance Dalkir (2005) argues that the nature of knowledge management discipline can be seen as interdisciplinary and these related disciplines are database technologies, collaborative technologies, organizational science, electronic performance support systems, document and information management, decision support systems, library and information sciences, web technologies, artificial intelligence, technical writing, cognitive science and help desk systems. Jennex and Croasdell (2007) are investigated the knowledge management by considering Kuhn s (1970) criteria in terms of being a discipline; Gloet and Berrell (2003) stated that two main information technology and humanist paradigms should be considered for managing knowledge in organizations. According to Schwarts (2007: 26), there are four layers that help in establishing and advancing the discipline of knowledge management that are called technology science, organization & management science, social science and philosophy. Sveiby (1996, 2001) indicates that two important tracks should be considered at two levels of managing knowledge: organizational and individual. The first track is based on information technology, the second track is based on people, and knowledge can be evaluated as a process. Sagsan (2007) argues that knowledge management discipline should be evaluated from interdisciplinary perspectives, which are based on communication science, library and information science, business and administration sciences and technology science. Stankosky (2005) details these sciences as multi-discipline branch or theory such as communication theories, system theory, organizational psychology, strategic planning, decision support systems, data mining, system analysis, total quality management, database design and management and theories of management and organization. Peachey, Hall and Cegielski (2007) are summarized the topics of knowledge management by giving the top-tiers journals from 2000 to 2005 as focusing on the processes of knowledge such as the construct of transfer, creation, storage/retrieval, application and roles/skills. For Koenig (1999: 26-28), some important topics such as information technologies and applications, common culture and change agent, business and economy should be included in a program which is based on knowledge management discipline. These topics are given in some universities undergraduate and graduate program as courses, especially in information science, computer technology and business administration departments (Sattar and Higgins, 2001: 3). According to Hazlett, McAdam and Gallagher (2005) knowledge management has revealed two paradigms: information systems and management but there is little evidence of synergy and convergence due to dichotomy. Chris and Lee (2005) describe knowledge management as an interdisciplinary area that encapsulates processes and techniques for the creation, collection, classification, distribution, evaluation and reuse of instructional knowledge before designing master and postgraduate program based on both discipline, not a technology and sciences such as management, information technology, engineering, social work, health care and libraries. Grossman (2007) current study summarizes the statistics about knowledge management undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate degree programs by giving some universities name and the doctoral dissertations, which were written of the last decades. Finally, some scholars (Ives, Torrey and Gordon; 1998: 273; Sagsan, 2007) state that the foundation for the discipline of knowledge management were laid by experiences acquired from practices and particularly thanks to the training and on-the-job practices provided by consulting firms abroad. 837

In order to focus on the discipline of knowledge management, we should understand the fundamental paradigms of this discipline. These can be grouped as four paradigms: organizational, humanist, socio-technical and technological (Sagsan, 2009: 629). Each of these paradigms reflects its own school of thought about managing information objectively and managing knowledge as subjectively. In addition, these paradigms allow us to assess knowledge management as a discipline or science and to put forward misunderstandings about the argument of knowledge management is pre-science. Like Burrell and Morgan s sociological paradigms in the field of organizational theories (Burrell and Morgan, 1979, Morgan, 1980), Figure-1 enable us to determine which paradigms can obviously based on which theories about managing knowledge in organizations. Explicit KNOWLEDGE Tacit Intra/Inter Organizational Paradigm (Management & Organization Science, Business and Administrative Science, Economy Science) 4th intersection field Humanist Paradigm (Cognitive Science, Psychology, individual learning ) S U B J E C T I V E 1 st intersection field Comprehensive KM Discipline 3rd intersection field O B J E C T I V E Technological Paradigm (Computer Science, Technology Science, Engineering Science, System Theory) 2nd intersection field Socio-technical Paradigm (Communication Science, Sociology, Library and Information Science) Structured INFORMATION Semi-structured Figure 1: The Paradigms of Knowledge Management Discipline Source: Sagsan, M. (2009). Knowledge Management Discipline: Test for an Undergraduate Program in Turkey Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 7 (5): 627 636. [Available online] at http://www.ejkm.com/volume-7/v7-5/sagsan.pdf As considering the Figure 1, knowledge management discipline can obviously be seen as interdisciplinary perspectives. The paradigms include basic sciences, which created knowledge management discipline and reflect a network of school of thought, differentiated approach and perspective but sharing common fundamental assumptions about the nature of information and knowledge with different scholars. Technological paradigm is based on the important assumptions related to technological advancements which have crucial role concerning with providing, sharing and disseminating structured information in the system. Socio technical paradigm is based upon unstructured or semi structured information. Inter / Intra organizational paradigm emphasizes how explicit knowledge is socially created by workers and collaboratively diffused in/inters organizations. These organizations should be understood here, as knowledge creating companies which is firstly used by Nonaka (1991) and the paradigm should focus on both explicit and tacit knowledge. Knowledge is processed by many activities such as creating, sharing, structuring, using and auditing in organizations objectively. As we consider k-hierarchy here, information is transformed into knowledge and objectivity is stated instead of subjectivity. Humanist paradigm is predicated upon a 838

view of humanity as a potentially dominating force. It is tied to a cognitive process of human being, which is defined by soft sciences and level of abstraction. Thus, the paradigm is certainly subjective and focused on the tacit form of knowledge. The knowledge here is created individually and appears through human information processing that emphasizes the cognitive models. There is inter-paradigms connectivity in this model. These four paradigms have tightly coupled relations that enable us to assess it in interdisciplinary perspective. The sciences, which belong to the knowledge management discipline or education based on these four paradigms, are not limited here. One paradigm s tenets may be influenced from the others thought patterns. Thus, it is possible to say that, the transitions between the paradigms reveal interdisciplinary fields which can be named as shared values in the same ideology. 1st intersection field addressed technological and organizational paradigms that essentially produce structured information and create explicit knowledge as an object. 1st intersection field is embedded in the technological and organizational system. 2nd intersection field is associated with technological and socio technical paradigm which are focused on structured and semi structured information. 3rd intersection field includes humanist and socio-technical paradigms, which produce both unstructured and semi structured information, and creates tacit knowledge. These two paradigms attempt to combine human activities and technical system in terms of socially constructed environment. Despite the fact that, information is an object, it can be easily structured by the technical system. In addition, information is formed in unstructured or semi structured, because it is a subject and ready for interpretation or structuring. Knowledge should be realized at the 4th intersection field. It contains explicit knowledge as an object, which is created by organizations in the organizational paradigm; and the tacit dimension of knowledge purely creates by individuals to perform tasks through their experiences in the humanist paradigm. Specific knowledge management courses are occurred by this intersection field. 3. Empirical test based on KM practitioners This theoretical model based on knowledge management paradigms was empirically tested by considering the perception of practitioners point of view who are dealing with information and knowledge in the social media. The data could be better analyzed by using the discourse and content analysis techniques. 3.1 Qualitative methodology Qualitative methodology based on discourse and content analysis techniques could provide us opportunity to analyze 295 comments, because this methodology gives us much more data through deeper understanding and sense making analyzing (Van Maanen, 1979: 520). At the stage of collecting data, meanings which were created by the participants were tried to categorize at the titles based on the participants position and suggested terms instead of knowledge management. Discourse analysis allows actors to determine their hidden under feelings and explanations in the context of their points of view (Phillips and Hardy; 2002: 60). The below questions were asked in order to find out more reasonable answers to questions such as what are the most important texts for analyzing, which texts are important that create by strong actors, how can we benefit from the selected texts (Phillips and Hardy; 2002: 75). In this study, the first question helps us to find a suitable text to analyze. For instance, 295 comments with participants titles and suggested term indicate the text of the study called discussion forum in the title of 3.2. All the participants can be evaluated as actors during our analyzing process and discussions that were located at the end of the study include our comments. Assertions, actors, voices, arguments and ideologies should come up during the analysis of discourses. The representations, identities, and relationships in the text are so important (Philips and Hardy, 2002: 58-59). As a result, some techniques could be used for discourse analysis such as metaphor that allows us to understand the representations of symbols (Manning, 1979) and storytelling which are based on the experiments of actors (Boje, 1991: 107-110). For this reason, the topics that were aggrandized by commenter for knowledge management, deep and surface meanings of the comments, interpretations, and perception levels of participants about knowledge management discipline were considered. Also, in our empirical study, intertextuality between the 295 comments and the representations concerning with the suggested terms instead of knowledge management were analyzed in the context of knowledge management paradigms. 839

About the methodological aspect of the study, collecting data from the social media is not only new approach but also might be interesting for the further studies and make an advantage to retrieve current data. This type of collecting data could be sampled dealing with improving the qualitative studies. 3.2 The discussion forum Before analyzing the details of these debates, five fundamental headlines/items were determined in the text such as participant s (1) name and surname, (2) organizational position/title, (3) name of the organization, (4) suggested term instead of knowledge management, (5) justifications. Then the relationships between the headlines were tried to determine in the context of knowledge management discipline based on the paradigms about what could or couldn t be said. The headlines number 1 and 3 were not explained here due to the ethical issues but headlines 2, 4 and 5 were analyzed. According to Schlussel s final report (2010), some of the findings indicate that 15 web pages were presented, 75 participants made 295 comments. Our findings differ from the report that 44 new terms/labels were suggested instead of knowledge management discipline in relation to title of participants. The frequencies of terms used and participants title are shown orderly in Table 1 which enables us to better understand the following subtitles of the paper such as integrating the four paradigms of knowledge management with the labels and discourses that includes 3.2.1., 3.2.2., 3.2.3., 3.2.4. and 3.2.5. sections. As we can see in Table 1., there are 44 different labels instead of the term Knowledge Management which was suggested 8 times, Intellectual Capital Management was offered 4 times and 2 for Knowledge Resource Planning. As Table-1, 41 different labels were used only once. The participants who suggested knowledge management label (supporter) have different positions in their organizations that are directly related to learning organizations, communications & knowledge studies such as Trainer & Researcher, Knowledge Integrator, Knowledge Manager, Industry & Market Coach, IT Product Quality Manager, Connecting People-Sharing Knowledge-Discovering Possibilities & Realizing Potential, and Enterprise Learning & Knowledge Awareness Services for Organizations. The participants who recommended related to system theory are working on data and information (we meant the technological aspect of KM) in the title of Information Systems Manager, Information Analyst and Program Manager. The participants who are owners, founders or have positioned at the top usually work on knowledge, networking and wisdom strategy of the firm based on knowledge hierarchy. The aim of this study is not put forward the agreement or disagreement level of knowledge management discipline or to determine the supporter or antagonist; instead of this, we are trying to understand the knowledge management perceptions or understandings from the perspectives of practitioners/experts who are dealing with data, information and knowledge activities in their organizations with different titles. Thus, we need to locate these 44 labels in terms of four knowledge management paradigms with participants discourses. 3.2.1 The Labels and Discourses based on Technological Paradigm Some of the discourses such as. blogs are useful for sharing knowledge activities ;. KM is a type of technology that is still progressing with 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 version ;. KM is directly related to tools that we have to use ;. Technology is one of the factors which can assist in better managing it or directing the right information at the right time to the right people ;. KM covers system because it gives KM a feel of science, called principals, procedures, and it is an art you can add your vision are directly related to this paradigm. The labels which could be classified here and suggested by experts are Content Management, Continuous Process Improvement, Information Systems Management, Intelligence Networking, Knowledge Systems Management, Knowledge Networks and Innovation, Leveraging Knowledge, Decision Making, Knowledge Management 3.0, Workforce Transformation Systems and Smart Workplace Transformation. Admittedly, the labels that classified here are not only related to technological paradigm but emphasize the others partially. In sum, the discourses belong this paradigm argue that, knowledge management is a tool and processes of knowledge such as creating, sharing and structuring, could not be succeeded without taking into consideration of knowledge systems. 840

3.2.2 The Labels and Discourses based on Socio-technical Paradigm Communication studies, Library and Information Science and diffusion of knowledge at the societal level are playing crucial role in this paradigm. The discourses such as. to me KM is more about conversation and interaction ;. the primary tools of KM are dialogue based ;. KM is about connecting people to people ;. One of the most important aspect of KM is communication, transparency, awareness within a unit and across units ;. secondly we facilitate collaboration to share what we know ;. KM is about learning and it has the power to connect people to people and empowers them to establish new valuable relationships to better themselves ;. because it covers knowledge preservation, regeneration, sharing and creation could be collected here. The labels which could be classified in this paradigm are Learning Networks and Innovation, Learning Environment Facilitation, Collaborative Solutions, Community Management, Action Science and Knowledge Culture Management, Knowledge Building, Knowledge Lifecycle Management and Knowledge Resource Planning. The paradigm focuses on processing knowledge in the context of library and information science as well as the aspect of knowledge communication process at the organizational and societal level. Table 1: Labels, Positions and Frequency of Use of Participants Items Number Suggested New Term (Labels) Organizational title (Position) 1 ACTION SCIENCE CEO 1 2 APPLIED KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Project Manager 1 3 BUSINESS PROBLEM SOLUTIONS KM Consultants and Educator 1 4 BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION? 1 Frequency of Use 5 COLLABORATIVE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Asst. Manager; Managing Director 2 6 COLLABORATIVE SOLUTIONS CEO & Consulting Principal 1 7 COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE Vice President and CSO 1 8 COMMON SENSE KM Advisor 1 9 COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT Program Manager 1 10 CONTENT MANAGEMENT Program Manager 1 11 CONTINUOUS PROCESS IMPROVEMENT Coordinator 1 12 ENCODING INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL Managing Director 1 13 EXPERT MANAGEMENT Entrepreneur 1 14 EXPERTISE MANAGEMENT Owner 1 15 GOOD STAF PRINCIPLES KM Advisor 1 16 INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT Information Analyst 1 17 INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT Program Manager; Geophysicists, Intellectual Capitalist, Industry & Market Coach 4 18 INTELLECTUAL CAPITALISM Intellectual Capitalist 1 19 INTELLEIGENCE NETWORKING 1 20 KNOWLEDGE ASSETS MANAGEMENT Managing Director 1 21 KNOWLEDGE BASED MANAGEMENT Trainer and researcher 1 22 KNOWLEDGE BUILDING Senior Partner 1 23 KNOWLEDGE CULTURE MANAGEMENT Head of Knowledge Management 1 24 KNOWLEDGE LEADERSHIP Culture Explorer 1 25 KNOWLEDGE ORIENTED LEADERSHIP Recruiter and Knowledge Manager 1 26 KNOWLEDGE LEVERAGING MANAGEMENT Information Systems Manager 1 27 KNOWLEDGE LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT Founder & CEO 1 28 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Trainer & Researcher, Knowledge Integrator, Knowledge Manager, Industry & Market Coach, IT Product Quality Manager, Connecting People Sharing Knowledge Discovering Possibilities & 8 Realizing Potential, Enterprise Learning & Knowledge Awareness Services for Organizations 29 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 3.0 Knowledge Manager 1 30 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Executive 1 31 KNOWLEDGE MOBILIZATION Senior Partner 1 32 KNOWLEDGE NETWORKING 1 33 KNOWLEDGE PERPETUATION Managing Director 1 34 KNOWLEDGE RESOURCE PLANING Consulting Professionals, Senior Analyst 2 35 KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT Information Analyst 1 36 KNOWLEDGE ORIENTED MANAGEMENT Trainer & Researcher, 1 37 LEARNING ENVIRONMENT FACILITATION Knowledge Manager 1 38 LEARNING NETWORKS AND INNOVATION Coordinator 1 841

39 LEVERAGING KNOWLEDGE Information Systems Manager 1 40 ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Engineer 1 41 SENSE MAKING AND DECISION MAKING Coordinator 1 42 SMART WORKING 1 43 WORKFORCE TRANSFORMATION SYSTEMS Founder & CEO 1 44 SMART WORKPLACE TRANSFORMATION Founder & CEO 1 3.2.3 The Labels and Discourses based on Organizational Paradigm One of the most important paradigms emerges at the organizational/inter-organizational level, because KM is also a business model which creates added value to organizations.. KM couldn t be a discipline without business applications as well as its education direct us how we can do KM on the other ;. KM is not about managing knowledge, it is about managing an organization, with knowledge as your focus. We need management technique to change our culture in the direction of KM strategies in our organization ;. We solve business problem through the lens of knowledge ;. KM is a part of organizational intelligence and it must be a source of competitive advantage to the firms ;. KM as a set of actions and support practices used in order to coordinate and integrate policies and processes of organizational knowledge ;. my focus on enterprise learning depends on organization discourses can be considered here. Business Problem Solutions, Business Transformation, Knowledge Leadership, and Organizational Knowledge Management labels could be categorized here. This paradigm s discourses emphasize heavily business models and processes such as customer management, human resources management, supply chain management, etc., with regards to knowledge. 3.2.4 The Labels and Discourses based on Humanist Paradigm This paradigm should be separated from the others, because no knowledge activity could be performed without person. We should focus on the ability, skills, experiments, values, attitudes, and the representations of symbols of workers for stimulating knowledge usage and creation in the organizations.. knowledge does not exist without the person (expert) ;. KM is related to know how and it is the source of innovation and regeneration; ability, skills and expertise is embedded in human brains ;. KM to me is "Practical Wisdom" because without it you certainly will not master anything ;. Firstly we should understand the people what they know. The labels such as Common Sense, Knowledge Mobilization, Expert Management, and Knowledge Assets Management could be grouped here. As a result, humanist paradigm is a source of knowledge management discipline. 3.2.5 The Labels and Discourses based on Four Paradigms There are some comprehensive knowledge management definitions which could be evaluated in four paradigms. For example,. KM is a set of intentional practices, processes, principals, and methodologies designed to support continuous generation of new knowledge (innovation) by inculcating into the work flow of an organization, a cycle (or culture of continuous learning?) of iterative improvement, culminating in a level of organizational intelligence (or intrinsic) which leads to increased performance by allowing organizations to be agile, adaptive and innovative in the face of ever changing market (external) forces ;. KM is not about a science but more about a culture ;. KM as a discipline, " a set of processes, practices, and platforms organizations create to facilitate capturing of and creation of (re)usable knowledge as well as make knowledge keepers meet knowledge seekers ;. two reason can be considered to be named as knowledge leadership. First, people should be inspired to share knowledge rather than be instructed. Second, through an effective knowledge leadership the entire organization can achieve a competitive and comparative advantage and. KM is not only about knowledge, it is about information + knowledge (tacit, explicit, know how, experiences and expertise). All 44 labels can be evaluated based on four paradigms in the context of knowledge management discipline. The discourses contain individual and organizational learning, knowledge management life cycle modeling and knowledge hierarchy that based on four paradigms in the literature. In addition, these paradigms enable us to create common sense in the frame of comprehensive knowledge management discipline or science. Practically, they allow us to understand how participants create meanings and symbols in their minds about knowledge management applications. 842

4. Discussions and conclusion Mustafa Sagsan and Erdem Kirkbesoglu In the light of these discourses and labels, different perspectives related to knowledge management discipline and applications were determined in this study. Every label provides opportunity for both improving the knowledge management understanding in the business world and academia and describing the border of knowledge management field. The topics that were not commented by participants are knowledge mapping, organizational learning, library and information science which are based partially on knowledge management discipline and science. Most of the participants support strongly the term of knowledge management as a discipline and science and they believe that KM do not need to be labeled as well as they agree with KM is a discipline or science. For instance,. it is not important what we call it; I think the important thing is what we are doing ;. to me KM is fine, and changing it at this point would not serve any useful purpose ;. need for entity or discipline to instill this. The more it becomes embedded, the more KM as an entity dissolves. My worry about KM is, it is not just about technology, and not only capturing and object and tagging it into a database. We had mentoring, stories, apprenticeship as a way to transfer knowledge ;. school of thought should be leveraged to use this (KM) term ;. it is not necessary to move away this term because it is a new field and no needs to change it ;. there is ambiguity both KM discipline and qualification of people who work this field, so nowadays KM is ok! ;. KM is matured in its core purpose ;. KM is a label, it is not meant to be descriptive but as most of people argue that it is a science ;. KM does not need a new label but as a number of people have pointed out, what it needs is a better and deeper understanding of just what KM does ;. the art and science of managing collectivity, capability, creativity and contents to improve effectiveness ;. KM has morphed into a substantial discipline that is taken more seriously than ever before ;. I do believe KM has matured science. Our findings strongly indicate that there is a gap between academics/educators and practitioners in terms of knowledge management education. In other words, the reason of misunderstanding of knowledge management discipline is the lack of perception about the details of the discipline or science. For this reason, the common points which are located / based on four knowledge management paradigms can be summarized. There is no holistic approach about understanding the discipline of knowledge management in the world. Each participant suggests a new term as his own frame of reference. Thus, neologisms are very popular and there are no common perceptions / understandings in the frame of offering a new term in this Forum. For instance, when we use the term of Knowledge Management Systems, it is well known by the academics that it refers to technological paradigm of knowledge management in the literature. In order to fill the gap about misunderstanding knowledge management among academics and scholars, it is needed to spread knowledge management education both in the academics with graduate and undergraduate programs and in the professional discussions groups with seminars. There are also big differences among the participants based on their education, experiences and the level of understandings/perceptions about knowledge management. In order to fill this gap, it could be apparently seen in the Forum that, the participants who are educators/academics frequently tend to use metaphors in order to simplify the complex terms for the others who are practitioners. For instance. KM as a central heating system ; If knowledge is organic then KM is gardening.. may be KM profession is akin to being a medical doctor. My brain is my database are the most important metaphors in the Forum. When considering the deep meanings of these discourses in the Forum, it can be said that most of the participants agree with knowledge management is a new and interdisciplinary science and no need to be labeled. According to participants, the most important process of knowledge is sharing that provides us to collaborate with knowledge in organizations. This finding could be evaluated in our Knowledge Management Paradigms Model (Figure-1) that socio-technical and humanist paradigms play crucial role in applying KM strategies in the organization. Culture leverages the implications of knowledge transformation based on Humanist paradigm in the context of Knowledge Leadership. In conclusion, different participants have different frame of reference about the perceptions and understandings levels of knowledge management discipline, education and applications. In other words, there is no strong consensus on the terminology of KM from the knowledge management practitioners point of view in the Forum. To maintain an agreement on knowledge management 843

terminology, two suggestions should be considered. First is related to participants who could be educated through KM Extended Seminar Program in the light of KM theoretical background. The second task is required Undergraduate Education Curriculum that should be designed theoretically based on knowledge management discipline/science. References Boer, N., Van Baalen, P.J. and Kumar, K. (2002). An activity theory approach for studying the situatedness of knowledge sharing, Proceedings of the 35 th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, USA. Boje, D.M. (1991). The Storytelling Organization: a study of story performance in an Office-Supply Firm, Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 36(March):106-124. Bukowitz, W., and William, R. (2000). The knowledge management fieldbook. London: Prentice Hall. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Heinemann, 1979, 1-37. Capar, B. (2003), Bilgi Yönetimi: Nasıl Bir İnsangücü?, 2 nd National Knowledge, Economy and Management Congress Published Papers In 421-432.ss., Kocaeli University, Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences, İzmit, Turkey. Chris, D. and Lee, W. (2005). A discipline, not a technology; knowledge management can help a company gain insight and understanding, South China Morning Post. Hong Kong, Apr. 9, 2005. pg. 8. Crossan, M. M. ; Lane, H.W. & White, R.E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 522-537. Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Dueck, G. (2001). Views of knowledge are human views, IBM Systems Journal, 40(4): 885-888. Gioa, D. A. and Pitre, E. (1990). Multi paradigm perspectives on theory building, Academy of Management Review, 15 (1): 584-602. Gloet, M. and Berrell, M. (2003). The dual paradigm nature of knowledge management: implications for achieving quality outcomes in human resource management, Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1): 78-89. Grossman, M. (2007). The emergining academic discipline of knowledge management, Journal of Information Systems Education, 18 (1): 31-38. Ives, W. Torrey, B. ve Gordon, C. (1998), Knowledge Management: an emerging discipline with a long history, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.1, No:4: 269 274. Jennex, M.E. and Croasdell, D. (2007). Knowledge management as a discipline, (Ed. Murray E. Jennex), in Knowledge Management in Modern Organization, in 10-17pp., Hershey, London: Idea Group publishing. Koenig, M. E. D. (1999), Education Knowledge Management, Information Services and Use, Vol.19: 17-31. Kuhn, T.S. (1970, 1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago press. Kuhn, T.S. (1977). Second thought on paradigms. In T.S. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension (293-319), Chicago: The University of Chicago press. Levinthal, D. A. & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning, Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95-112. Manning, P.K. (1979). Metaphors of the Field: varieties of organizational discourse. Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 24(4): 660-671. Martensson, M. (2000). A critical review of knowledge management as a management tool, Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(3): 204-216. Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory, Administrative Science Quarterly, 605-622. Nonaka, I. (1991). Knowledge creating company, Harvard Business Review, November-December, 96-104. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Science, 5(1): 14-37. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation, New York, Oxford: Oxford University press. O dell, C.; Grayson, C. J. and Essaides, N. (2003), Ne Bildiğimizi Bir Bilseydik, Dışbank, Rota, İstanbul. Peachey, T; Hall, D. and Cegielski, C. (2007). Knowledge management research: Are we seeing the whole picture, (Ed. Murray E. Jennex), in Knowledge Management in Modern Organization, in 30-49 pp., Hershey, London: Idea Group publishing. Phillips, H. and Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes Of Social Construction. London: Sage Publication. Sagsan, M. (2007). Knowledge management from application to discipline: a field study, Amme İdaresi Dergisi,, 40 (4): 103-131. Sagsan, M. (2009). Knowledge Management Discipline: Test for an Undergraduate Program in Turkey Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 7 (5): 627 636. [Available online] at http://www.ejkm.com/volume-7/v7-5/sagsan.pdf Sattar, A. and Higgins, S. E. (2001), Perspectives on education for knowledge management, 67th IFLA Council and General Conference, 16-25 August, 1-9. Schlussel, A. (2010). If the term knowledge management could get a do-over what would you call the discipline: A summary of the LinkedIn Knowledge Management Experts Group Discussion?, [Online at http://www.slideshare.net/artschlussel/if-the-term-km-could-get-a-doover, 15/03/2010]. 844

Copyright of Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management is the property of Academic Conferences, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.