I read the preliminary results from KMO and this is how they conclude in the
end “The KMO survey reports that 65
percent of active knowledge managers do not hold a qualification related to KM.
Of that 65 percent, only 18 percent claimed to be working towards a KM-related
qualification. And of that 18 percent, 69 percent are working towards a
postgraduate academic qualification, and 17 percent are working towards a KM
accreditation certificate. These findings perhaps indicate continuing
immaturity in the KM field”.
While I am eager to read the complete report which they plan to release in early 2012, I feel the immaturity of the KM field is not directly related to ‘KM qualified’ of ‘KM Certified’ professionals. My hypotheses are as follows:
KM by Choice or Chance?
The parts of the preliminary results may be true but I think the bigger problem is that KM practitioners today, in quite some cases, are into KM not by choice but by chance. As this aspect has a direct impact on any profession – if you have chosen a field of interest or forced to choose an area – KM most likely is not where it should have been today.
Evolutionary & Voluntary Nature of KM Engagements
In addition, IMHO, the immaturity is also because of 2 other dynamic factors in which KM is: (1) the evolutionary nature of the KM field (2) the voluntary nature of KM engagements in most of the organizations. While both are directly and primarily linked to ‘people’ this field continues to evolve (& mature) with time at its own pace, as KM practitioners continue to discover how people (or what makes them) innovate or what makes them share what they know etc. And it is a proven fact that humans love to share not by force but when they feel like sharing, when are motivated, when they are passionate about something and when they have the sense of self-satisfaction to give that anything else in the world.
Lack of Executive Buy-in
Next comes lack of buy-in from the executives, which is also linked to maturity of KM. It is important to note that most of the KM conferences today are still around theories of KM. There is very little talk about ‘how’ they have applied KM philosophies & ‘what’ made the turn around – improved productivity, greater quality, shorter learning curve etc. Aren’t business leaders looking for such outcomes? Why should they adopt KM into their strategic functions unless they have seen their KM function directly impacting their bottom-line? If KM community doesn’t show the value who else will? And how can the value be shown if we continue to talk largely about theories?
As for the caption, it is true that we have come far in terms of what we know, similarly it is also true that humans are still discovering and wondering how much they don’t know (about S&T) as they tread deeper. The more they have explored science, no matter how much qualified they are (docs, postdocs, noble laureates etc.); multiply by 100s of them, the more humans have felt their ignorance towards how much is yet to be discovered – so can we call other fields of study mature despite having qualified professional in each field of study?
