Page 15 -

xiv Foreword

Probably, both propositions are true, depending perhaps on the type and nature of
the organization.
So, returning to the fi rst question about KM being widely accepted within today ’ s
organizations, the jury is still out. It may be simply an awareness issue in order to
show the value-added benefi ts of KM initiatives. Or it may be that KM was the “ man-
agement fad of the day ” and we are ready to move on. I believe that KM can have
tremendous value to organizations by stimulating creativity and innovation, building
the institutional memory of the fi rm, enabling agility and adaptability, promoting a
sense of community and belonging, improving organizational internal and external
effectiveness, and contributing toward succession planning and workforce develop-
ment. KM should be one of the key pillars underpinning a human capital strategy for
the organization. As with anything else, some organizations are leaders and some are
laggards. Those who recognize the importance of KM to the organization ’ s overarching
vision, mission, and strategy should hopefully be in the winning side of the equation
in the years ahead.
Let us now address the second question posed, “ is KM a lasting fi eld? ” In other
words, does KM have endurance to stand on its own in the forthcoming years? This
relates back to whether KM is more an art than a science. KM is certainly both, and
as the KM fi eld has developed over the years, an active KM community of both prac-
titioners and researchers has emerged. There are already well over ten international
journals specifi cally devoted to knowledge management. Worldwide KM conferences
abound, and individuals can take university coursework in knowledge management,
as well as being certifi ed in knowledge management by KM-related professional societ-
ies and other organizations. There are funded research projects in knowledge manage-
ment worldwide, both from basic and applied perspectives. In addition, there are
many KM-related communities of practice established worldwide. So certainly there
is an active group of practitioners and researchers who are trying to put more rigor
behind KM to accentuate the “ science ” over the “ art ” in order to give the KM fi eld
lasting legs.
On the other hand, there is the “ art ” side of KM. Like many fi elds that draw from
a multidisciplinary approach, especially from the social sciences, there is art along
with the science. Whether KM contributes to “ return on vision ” versus “ return on
investment ” indicates some of the diffi culty in quantifying KM returns. There certainly
is a “ touchy-feely ” side to KM, but there is a sound methodological perspective to KM,
too.
Here again, the jury is still out on whether the KM fi eld will last. So what needs to
be done? This is where textbooks such as Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice