Knowledge Management LO29157

From: Phillip Capper (
Date: 09/09/02

Replying to LO29151 --

What Alan seems to be saying is that standards end up being about the
building and maintenance of power, not about the building and maintenance
of added economic value. He also seems to be saying that participative
democracy involves subjegation to the interests of powerful lobby groups
that may or may not share the objectives that the standards seek to

Mark's point was that the Australian definition of KM is flawed, even
irresponsible. As a close student of the KM field, and a frequent sweeper
up of other people's KM project disasters, I agree with him. Alan responds
by saying that the Australian process is as good as it gets, and that it
is heavily influenced by employer associations. Where does all that leave
any hope for progress in the KM field?

My answer to my own rhetorical question is that it leaves it doomed to the
fate of faddism. A good idea, well researched and proven to be effective
in test conditions, becomes fatally diluted by the influence of vested
interest, and the early records of success are swamped by increasing
reports of failure. And so the tragedy of the fad is played out once again
and managers go off in search of the next silver bullet to glom on to and
then to corrupt.

Phillip Capper,
Centre for Research on Work, Education and Business Ltd. (WEB Research),
Level 13
114 The Terrace
(PO Box 2855)
New Zealand

Ph: +64 4 499 8140
Fx: +64 4 499 8395
Mb: +64 021 519 741


"Phillip Capper" <>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>

"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.