Recently a colleague who had just came back from KM Asia 2005 shared with us that the trend is shifting from managing continuity to discontinuity. What my colleague meant was, organizations spent and invest quite a lot on infrastructure for IM and KM which in the end becomes a routine process of coding, capturing and storing knowledge. But, how much of these knowledge are really useful for the organisation ultimately? How do we know the quality of our tacit knowledge? What is the real value of building KM tools based on yesterday's information? To me both have its merit. In order to have KM happening in any organization IM (Information Management) has to be there first. When they talked about capturing, coding and storing to me they are talking more of IM rather then KM perse and there is a very thin line separating these two now. I believe this is still the struggle in most organizations. The questions asked are valid and what we need to do as part of mitigation is to do an information audit. A lot of what we collect and keep are, what I called as, ‘just in case information’.
At the KM Asia John Seeley Brown and Prusak also talked about intellectual and social capital where managing knowledge flow is even more crucial