Firstly, sorry its's taken so long for a response - catching up on emails and postings after a manic week.
This has been an interesting response, thank you. I understand where you are coming from, in so far as this possibly being a fruitless debate. Where I disagree is that we appear to have lost the field to technology - research I am conducting at the moment is pointing towards 91% of social media references to KM being linked to technology based intervention. This figure is repeated in the job market and seems to suggest a problem that needs to be addressed. I also agree that the term 'KM' has become embedded, but it is also misleading organisations and that, for me, is where the problem lies.
I've just come through a six month collaboration with one MNC who were convinced that KM would mean a technology revamp - their perception being that was how you 'did' KM.
That's what prompted us to write the SKRD article and focus our research on finding out what people perceived KM to actually be about versus what it should be about. This is where I've got the 91% figure and the research behind it will be available soon. If this is accepted as true then we as practitioners have some pretty serious obstacles to overcome. So, do we re-focus the field or swim upstream and fight the technology tide?
That's where I feel it is better to establish new ground and surrender KM to technology, which appears to be the case whether we like it or not.
Thanks again for the responses, both on this bord and via email. The conversation is really stimulating and there are some really good points of view coming through.