The multi-faceted nature of KM has resulted in its adoption across a spectrum of disciplines, with competing claims to ownership. This is hardly unexpected in view of the importance of knowledge to so many professions. The multidisciplinary character of the subject, along with multiple perspectives on it, have resulted in a wide diversity in the design and implementation of KM programs within LIS education (See for example Chaudhry and Higgins, 2003; Hawamdeh et al, 2004). This perhaps to some extent can be justified by the fact that knowledge management is context-dependent. To demonstrate the case-specific nature of KM solutions, Todd and Southon (2000) argue that the diversity of approaches reported from successful KM initiatives
indicates that generic solutions are unlikely to be successful and that there is a need to evolve approaches to suit each particular situation. Emphasising the intimate relations between knowledge and knowledge processes and the nature of the organization, its function, its culture, its structure and position in the market, Southon et al (2002) argued that these aspects had to be considered when developing models or theoretical frameworks of knowledge management. This recommendation mirrored the view of Amos and Chance (2001, P.51), who observed that “The very nature of knowledge suggests that knowledge management is unique for every organization, and this will consequently be reflected in the future role of the professional”. Accordingly Lank (2004) called for the course designers of the UK Open University (OU) MBA programme, to teach in practice not theory, and encourage people to develop knowledge processes that work for their organisations and the people within them. The flavour of the KM curriculum therefore, will be different from one place to another depending upon the setting or context with, for instance, one perhaps emphasizing a historical framework and others human factors/personnel, software, or industry context (Ruth, Theobald & Frizzell 1999).
The different educational needs of students in each domain is also a justification for such diversity. The need for flexibility in KM education is evident from Todd and Southon’s (2001) assertion that “Institutions which are preparing people for roles in [ KM] will need to be very flexible in the way that they act, to best match the needs of the students with the opportunities of the marketplace, and the demands of the specific organisations in which they are working”. As Widén-Wulff et al. (2005, P.122) observed “The unclear framework of the field of KM lies in the fact that it is connected to several other disciplines…It is complicated to define the topic clearly and the contents of the education also vary, depending on which faculty or school the programme is situated within”. Discussing the content of European LIS curricula based on the results of a questionnaire survey, Lorring (2007) points to KM as a fairly diffuse and ambiguous subject area that may be taught as a field integrated with other subject areas. He further notes that “Course offerings in this field in the various LIS schools include a broad range of very heterogeneous sub-themes, which are more or less taught within the realm of other identified course areas”(Lorring 2007, P.4) .
Not of course, that such diversity in program content has emerged only with the rise to importance of knowledge management. A lack of consensus on the wider area of the LIS core curriculum has been well documented in the published literature. For example, Koenig (1983) reported disagreement among information specialists, managers and educators about the relative importance of courses and concluded that there was no necessary core in the field. Similarly, White & Paris (1985), found no consensus among practitioners in different types of libraries as to the content of the core curriculum. However, this problem could well turn out to be more acute when it comes to knowledge management education, and the identification of the main elements for inclusion in the LIS curriculum.
In an attempt to identify skills for knowledge working, The British Standards Institution (BSI) consulted over 70 organisations during 2004. One of the main conclusions of this study was that while KM approaches must be organisation- specific, there was some common ground in overall approaches, and popular tools and techniques (Abell, Angela & Wingar 2005). This implies that although the design and implementation of KM programs should be in accordance with the needs of specific cases, there are some common core areas in the KM curriculum. Although to date there are only a few signs of the emergence of a collaborative/coherent holistic approach, even within the parameters of specific disciplines such as LIS, there is growing recognition within the literature that, whatever the educational context, a broadly-based and holistic approach is essential, and for that an amalgamation of subject areas with an appropriate level of concentration is required (Todd, RJ & Southon 2001). To find the right level of focus is of course, a challenging issue. The breadth of what should be incorporated into KM has been identified by Koenig (1999) as a challenging issue in the design of KM educational programs. The difficulty of determining the intellectual territory to be covered by any viable and practical KM course has been mentioned by Brogan et al. (2001) as a factor that has caused educators to see KM as an unbounded universe and just too hard, with the consequence that very few universities offer courses in this discipline area.
On reviewing KM-related courses, another major problem highlighted within the literature is that of confusion between information management and knowledge management, which has sometimes led to the use of the terms interchangeably. Sutton
and his colleagues (2002) point out that course material for KM programs is based upon an ambiguous framework of information that is ubiquitous, vague, and sometimes a repackaging of existing discipline material. They consider this to be a fundamental issue of KM education that needs further investigation. According to Todd and Southon (2001, P.315) “In the published literature, there is a sense that knowledge management is not the same as information management, and while there are understandings and skills that appear to overlap, the implication is that the formal education and training programs for knowledge management need to be responsive to this”. The need to make a clear distinction between KM and IM within the LIS discipline has also been stressed by Hawamdeh (2005, P.1201):
“It is clear that there are significant overlaps, in the theories relating to the information and knowledge domains. It is important to understand these overlaps and distinguish the differences that will help in developing a new and relevant knowledge management curriculum, rather than just re-naming the existing information management programs”.
This ambiguity of course, may have originated from, the world of practice in KM and because in many instances, enterprises or consultants attach the KM label to their IM functions. As Dunn and Hackney (2000, P.270) noted “A consideration of what is being presented as KM notes its remarkable similarity to the traditional features of IM redressed in appearance, but perhaps not the ideal starting point to get us to the desired destination”. The authors identify this as a critical issue for KM education, adding that “KM issues remain largely ambiguous or misunderstood with different organisational responses in evidence. Practice is as varied as organisations’ definitions” (Dunn & Hackney 2000, P.273). Adapting the work of Prusak (2000), they identified four types of KM activities and argued that these generic strategies would be applicable in the teaching of KM. They further emphasised that “By segmenting the KM issue against differing strategic intentions our curricula might develop a clearer perspective on the real contribution of KM” (Dunn & Hackney 2000, P.274). Their specified KM activities were as follows:
1- Knowledge replication: which is concerned with conducting operations in precisely the same way within organizations, such as hotel or restaurant chains, wherever they are located world wide.
2- Knowledge diffusion or leveragability: which is the most prevalent KM practice, and is about knowing what we know, and using it.
3- Knowledge innovation: which is concerned with predicting what comes next; eg new products or services.
4- Knowledge commercialisation: which is about knowing what the organisation can sell, i.e. consultancy, products and services.