Knowledge Management: Art or Science?

Scott Adam's view of Knowledge Management. This comic was written in 1998 - at a time where many IT firms are hawking their wares as KM tools - so understandably, there is a heavy dose of cynicism here.

Though I am in this field, I can understand perfectly why people have this notion of Knowledge Managers as snake oil salesman. One of my friends point out to me (and rightly, I might add) that KM is a discipline that tries to lay a claim on everything.

But try as I might, I do not see how KM can be be clearly delineated into specific practices. My thoughts on this? In my first post, I had endorsed my former lecturer's definition of KM. For me it's that simple - if it works, that's the type of KM that your organisation needs.

An article by my friend on the debate of whether management is an art of science gave me insights into how KM should be perceived. KM is a SKILL. Like all skills, it has to be cultivated. One does not become an expert overnight. Ian Thorpe had to overcome a chlorine allergy in order to swim in his first race, but he subsequently went on to win 5 Olympic gold medals.

That means organisations must not be afraid to dust themselves off & get up on their feet again if they stumble & fall while implementing their KM projects. If not, how will they ever learn or polish their KM skills?