One measure of the influence of a decipline is to track the “Formal Communications” or published works is that discipline [Koenig, M., 2005, Ponzi, L., 2004]. Ponzi observed that “Knowledge management is one emerging discipline taht remains strong and does not appear to be fading” [Ponzi, L., 2004, p. 9]. Almost certainly underestimates the size of the KM literatur. in the early years of KM, it was probably a very safe a ssumtion that almost all KM articles would have the is no longer a safe assumption. The significance of the KM growth pattern becomes much more apparent when one compares it with the pattern of other major business enthusiasms of recent years. The difference is dramatic, Quality Cirles, Business Process Engineering, and Total Quality Management all show an almost identical pattern of approximatly five years of dramatic, exponential, growth, then they peak and fail off to near nothing almost as quickly.
The number of scholarly papers and dissertations devoted to KM demonstrates that there has been and continues to be a scholalry interest in knowledge management even if that research has taken a small downturn. An examinition of the types of research being conducted shows that over the years subject matter of KM studies has changed somewhat from emphasis on technological systems to focus on communication and interaction among people.
The terminology has changed as well. Although “Knowledge Management” may have been commonly used in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, scholars have adopted terms as “Knowledge Sharing”, “Comminities of Practice”, and “Learning Organization” as knowledge management processes became more mainstream in organitation. As the twenty-first century has progressed, searches on “Knowledge Management” have revelated that scholarly works on knowledge sharing have increasingly been combined with research on social networking and social media.
An interesting obeservation is that there was a vey brief spurt of articles about KM in journals devoted to education, but that interest soon wanted. This is likely a function of the fact that KM, as mentioned previously has a very coporatist and organizational emphasis, while for most academic principals, the faculty, their commitment to their field, their descipline and sub-descipline, their “invisible college” comes first. their commitment to their nomilan home institution is quite
Knowledge Management (KM) Process in Organization that was writen by Claire R. McInerney and Michael E.D. Koenig