More reading that tells me I am doing the wrong thing. :-)
Abstract: Examines critically the origins and basis of 'knowledge management', its components and its development as a field of consultancy practice. Problems in the distinction between 'knowledge' and 'information' are explored, as well as Polanyi's concept of 'tacit knowing'. The concept is examined in the journal literature, the Web sites of consultancy companies, and in the presentation of business schools. The conclusion is reached that 'knowledge management' is an umbrella term for a variety of organizational activities, none of which are concerned with the management of knowledge. Those activities that are not concerned with the management of information are concerned with the management of work practices, in the expectation that changes in such areas as communication practice will enable information sharing.
Essentially, Wilson argues that the information technology view of "knowledge management" makes it just another fad. Admittedly, the technology has been pushed heavily in the literature and by the "search-and-replace marketers." This is where people get annoyed with KM's lack of focus and the tendency to fall back into information management.
What this article misses is the aspect of the KM world that gets me buzzing. KM is about how we use, create, transform, record that stuff that we need to operate our businesses and manage our daily activities. I am much more interested in the process behind what we are doing. Sure, I like the technology, but it's much more interesting to be operating with intention.
I comment because this article keeps popping up in my aggregator. I'd rather have my thoughts recorded, rather than viewing it and thinking "I should respond." There are about a dozen links to it on Technorati.