Talk:Knowledge management

Untitled

Per a request by Extra999, all talk prior to 2009 has been archived, with Archive 4 representing the most recent archive.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)

Is this really a bonafide field, or just a commercialisation of "Military Intelligence" procedures?

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)

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)

Knowledge management has been taught in military academies around the world since the 1600's at least. It is presumptions that it did not exist prior to 1991 when an academic specialisation seems to be trying to set a partitioned subject to further commercialise what has been a well recognise requirement in situations where there is a large amount of continually changing data, scenarios and events that need to be assimilated, assessed, correlated and a range of possibilities given to the decision maker in quick time. The thing that has changed is the processing power, the increase in bandwidth and the subsequent ability to correlate all data ... You can disseminate at a later stage. KM is not new. The modern problem nowadays is the ability of the user, manager to apply action, reaction and processed or considered thought ... Lack of training in thinking around best use of knowledge and traning of people in applying process and being able to get rid of the chaff produced by too much knowledge and the need for relevant knowledge to situation or task. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.14.199 (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Is KM all good?

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))

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))

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)

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))

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)

Okay, so I copy the excerpt here for getting improved before added to the article. Spitfire5000 (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Proposed merger of parts of Defining Knowledge with Knowledge management

This That article is about knowledge management, including the purported definition of knowledge. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

Knowledge and epistemology both cover it----Snowded ^TALK 21:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Pruning out red links in See Also section

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)

Philosophical Definition of Knowledge and Knowledge Management

The definition of knowledge in the Knowledge article as "justified true belief", -- not only Plato uses this definition, but so do most in the tradition of philosophy. Charles Sanders Peirce, the founder of pragmatism, used this definition and argued that knowledge is what, in the long run, the community of scientific enquirers agrees upon. This definition is particularly important for the theory and practice of knowledge management where cmmunities of practice are understood as the locus of knowledge and bodies of knowledge. I made an edit to cover some of these points, with reference to reputable sources, but it was deleted without any explanation. I believe the "definition" of knowledge management in this article -- the one by Davenport -- is really a definition of information management. If knowledge is a "belief", then you cannot "store" it or "capture" it. His definition might apply to organizational knowledge, which I presume is the corporate knowledge of organizations, but is not adequate for scientific bodies of knowledge or the common sense that underlies the community of practice. There is a good amount of literature making this point, none of which is included in this article. I made some edits to make these points and they were removed without any explanation. Does this make any sense to others?

BrianOrr2020 (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Talking about Plato and defining what knowledge is from a philosophic perspective, while very interesting, is not appropriate for this article. Those are philosophic issues, this is about a process and the software to support that process in large organizations such as corporations or the military. If you want to talk about philosophic issues, you should look at articles such as epistemology or Knowledge (philosophy). --MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems with the current article is the definition of knowledge management. Davenport's definition is really a definition of information management. The second reference is to a link that does not work, but I presume it is from a description of some course. Philosophers have been talking about knowledge for centuries so it makes some sense to at least look at their definition of knowledge for any discussion of knowledge management. <[[Kenneth Megill}} Thinking for a Living. The Coming Age of Knowledge Work. Second Edition. Berlin: K.G. Saur/deGruyter (2013)</ref>.

BrianOrr2020 (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Using numbers because this is a long comment and want to break it up: 1) On the dead links there are tools you can use to find archived versions of dead links. Are you familiar with them? If not and you are interested let me know and I'll put some useful links. You can find archived sites and fix dead links. In my experience it's often not worth the trouble, half the time the links are so dated or just weren't very good to begin with but it's worth checking. 2) I think the opening sentence is consistent with my view of what KM is: "the process of capturing, developing, sharing, and effectively using organisational knowledge" I would add something about "re-using" in my experience that is always one of the buzz words that people use and that justifies the expense: why spend resources reinventing work products if you can just use better technology to find and adapt old ones. Also, I would want to add something about technology in the definition. You can talk about KM in the abstract but in my experience no one did that until there were tools like Lotus Notes that were geared toward it. Also, I don't agree that the Chief Knowledge Officer is such a big deal. I can see why it's worth mentioning but the current article almost makes it sounds like KM started when people started having CKOs. That's not my experience at all. Most clients didn't bother with a CKO because the people who could do that job would rather be CTO or CIO, CKO was kind of a dead end, but again that's all anecdotal and original research based on my experience. 3) I disagree about the philosophic stuff. To me the fact that philosophers have been arguing over this for thousands of years is a great reason NOT to add it. It's a huge potential black hole and is really IMO irrelevant to KM as it's practiced in the business world. This is a potential issue with a lot of AI related articles, they touch on some very interesting philosophical issues but the philosophical stuff is in my experience virtually never really relevant to business applications. If you do want to say more about that part of the topic my suggestion is to make sure to keep it in a section on "theoretical issues" or "philosophical issues" and make sure it's well referenced and to the point, about KM not about philosophy of knowledge in general which belongs in the epistemology article. 4) One more suggestion have you read Peter Drucker's book Post Capitalist Society? It's one of those management consulting books that frankly I think are mostly BS but when I was working in the 90's it was hugely influential on making people appreciate KM and it's one of the few books like that that I read and didn't feel like I had wasted my time after. I recommend checking it out if you have the time and interest. That is more the direction I would go, more on the business reasons, the technology enablers, etc. Not saying that is what you should do of course, just being up front about where my interests are. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Megill is not an authority on KM while Davenport is. While general conversation can be useful we need concrete proposals for change backed up by sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I did make some suggested change and used Megill as a source. His book on knowledge management has had two editions by the oldest academic publisher in Germany. Are you saying that his work cannot e used as any reference?

I did make some specific changes which you undid and only said they were "opinion". I would be interested in your view of the overall quality of the article. Does anything which we have said in this discussion make sense to you?

You suggested that I take this discussion to the Talk page and I found MadScientists responses to be useful. I would like to find a way to have a discussion about these issues. Do you have any suggestions how to do that?

Megill is not in Davenport's league as an authority on knowledge management and I think he is more about knowledge than KM. It can be used as a reference where appropriate, but to define the subject you need a source more central to the field. Otherwise your changes were opinion, such as the rather naive assumption that philosophers accept 'justified true belief' when they don't. Even if so this article is not about the philosophical definition of knowledge. Come up with some sourced changes and we can look at it ----Snowded ^TALK 16:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Knowledge Management In Asia

The article only makes reference to the United States. Actually, knowledge management is probably more developed in Asia. For many years Singapore has had a vibrant society for knowledge management with an >[www.ikms.org/|annual conference] . There is another association in Kong. Knowledge management courses are taught in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Thailand, Australia and other places, I am sure. The governments in Asia, including China, are actively promoting the development of a Knowledge Society. None of this is mentioned in the article. I added a reference to the Singapore conference and it was removed without explanation. I think a balanced view of knowledge management should include more than library schools and ex-library schools in the United States

BrianOrr2020 (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about KM in Asia but from what I do know I think your general point is probably correct. I've worked at various times for and in clients in Japan and Korea and while none of those projects were KM they were AI and KM came up and from what I saw the interest and level of support tended to be greater in both places than in most US clients. However, just because I agree doesn't mean it's appropriate to change the article. What I just said is anecdotal and if I were to edit based on my experience and opinions that would be wp:original research If you want to edit the article to include statements like that you need to find some good source, a book or magazine article for example, that supports it. Neither of those web links are good enough. One is just a link to the home page of a KM organization and another just links to an overview presentation on KM. You would need to find some specific refs that explicitly say things like "KM has greater support in Asia". --MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course the two links are not sufficient evidence, but plenty can be found. What surprised me about the current article was how it only spoke of things in the United States and then only a very narrow view of what happened in the United States. The references in the article are very weak and my impression is that most of them are links to web sites -- some I tried do not work. I would like to collaborate with some other folks to re-write the entire article to reflect the reality. Would you be interested in working on this? I am fairly new to editing in Wikipedia and am not sure how best to get such a discussion going. On the particular question about knowledge management in Asia, let me find some more sources. I know there has been a degree program in Hong Kong for more than a decade. The Singapore group has been very active. Patrick Lambe is one of the leaders in that group who has written a lot -- look at Knowledge This is the web site for the consulting group he heads that just turned ten years old. A lot of his focus in on taxonomy, Any objective article on knowledge management should have a major section on taxonomy. Part of the problem is that there are several different directions and traditions in knowledge management. The current article only has one rather narrow cut of what is a much more complex field. I think the definition of knowledge and knowledge management is a key issue -- which I will speak about in a reply to your other post. Thanks for your comments.

BrianOrr2020 (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure no problem. I'll keep watching the page and if you want to brainstorm on things feel free to put a note on the talk page or on my talk page. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Umm, the Singapore group may be active around Patrick ( I know him well) but if you look at KM Asia as a conference it is collapsing due to lack of interest. Hong Poly U where I had a visiting chair has a KM programme but its not major compared with say George Washington or most British Management Schools. The biggest KM event with the most participants is in Washington every November. As far as I can see the statement that the current article is narrow is false, it mentions several different schools of thought all of them properly referenced. Most of the comments above are original research or synthesis. If you want to make a statement about relative take-up then you have to find a reliable THIRD PARTY source which says it, you can't just decide in on the basis of primary sources or the activity of consultants selling their services. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

We could all probably give our opinion about the various schools and programs. Exchanging opinions is not helpful to our process. Do you think there should be something about the Asian and British programs? If so, what should be said?

Thanks for your views and interest. I just think a much broader view of knowledge management is needed to be fair and balanced BrianOrr2020 (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Find properly sourced material and suggest a concrete edit and we can discuss. The talk page is not for discussing the subject. I did you the courtesy of responding to your 'opinion' so try not to look a gift horse in the mouth. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference number 2: Intro to KM

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) Done--MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and for eliminating the commercial link. There are constant attempts to insert them! ----Snowded ^TALK 09:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Question about Intro text

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)

Technologies section

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)

I edited this section and also moved it from under the Research section to be a second level section by itself.  Done --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Why I reverted changed by Bafuentes

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)

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)

Gartner paper on KM Selection

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)

This Gartner paper link is no longer valid. SamHahn (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

knowledge management

is there any good example of KM? Suman Gharti Magar (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Not our affair, we simply reflect the sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

KM Definition

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Knowledge Retention

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)

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)

a. The draft suggested is mainly not dependended on my work. I was one of the references, but only one. b. As recommended a personal page including disclosure was added, before writing these comments. Based on this page and common accepted research editors can indeed be sure there is no conflict. c. No one here is suggesting to write a KM manual, rather an encyclopedia page addressed to the public, what this page is not now! d. KMGN is not a small self appointed group. My country, as south Africa and other countries did not appoint themselves, rather they were offerred to request to join, their creditials were examined and they were added. Today, KMGN has the largest cover worldwide in the discipline of Knowledge Management. This team of bringing the future to KM, which also includes those you have met, has members from Hong Kong, South Africa, Thailand, USA, India and Israel. We want to proceed in turning this and other pages to public useful pages (not a KM guide). That is why we wish to join the great collabirative effort named WIKIPEDIA. We are still waiting for the collaboration, not only for "UNDO" rejecting almost every suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morialevy (talk • contribs) 09:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

Knowledge Management Metrics

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. Ripee (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

One articles view - others disagree -----Snowded ^TALK 17:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

References