Hi Lee-

My earlier comment was specifically related to the use of the buzzword in
RIM to attempt to re-brand it into something 'technically sexier'.  I
understood/understand the concept of KM and what it relates to and oddly
enough, remember having lengthy Friday afternoon discussions with my buddy
David Gaynon when we were colleagues about what it was and how it was being
promoted/sold to the RIM community as the greatest thing since sliced bread
at the time.  I supported that it WAS something different and aligned with
the concept of RIM, not that it was trying to replace it.  David seemed to
think it was an attempt to change what RIM was called (imagine THAT! ).

I agree that KM concept/practices are still being used in library services
and to a degree in the studies and application of taxonomy and
classification.

As for whether KM has a place under the IG umbrella, it well might, given
the size of this new uber-umbrella.  But as Patrick Cunningham
appropriately said yesterday, part of the problem with IG is as time goes
along, it seems as if everyone thinks everything belongs under its
ever-growing umbrella... and like many other projects, if you fail to
control scope creep, it gets out of hand and loses sight of its original
objectives. Attempting to be all things to all people frequently results in
something being nothing to anyone.

This has been an interesting discussion, a lot of differing viewpoints, a
few zealots on both sides of the issue and a few centrists as well.  In
many ways, I sort of see this as another example of "Saxe's Parable", which
I have raised to describe a few things here in the past.
http://goo.gl/MyOlF

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Part of what has been so disconcerting about the whole issue to me is "Who
asked for it?" and even if the answer to this was clear, the larger
question remains "What was it they were attempting to resolve?"  For me, it
was more like someone created something they wanted to market to others to
solve what they perceived as a problem.. the inability to "sex-up RIM"
enough to make it attractive to C-Level executives or something similar.

Like I said, I "get" the whole governance thing... I just don't buy into
the re-branding or creation of a whole new set of principles instead of
fine tuning what existed.

Larry
[log in to unmask]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Nemchek, Lee
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> To correct a misperception regarding knowledge management, KM hasn't gone
> away as many have put forth in this thread. KM is alive and well in the
> library services sector, most especially in special libraries (corporate,
> commercial, institutional).  Just because there isn't much discussion about
> KM in RIM circles doesn't mean that it isn't an embedded specialization in
> other information arenas, and, as such, KM properly falls under the
> information governance umbrella, alongside RIM.
>
> --Lee
>
-- 
*Lawrence J. Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972*

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]