K & IM Refer Spring 2018

Journal of the Knowledge and Information Management Group (CILIP) 34 (1), Spring 2018

Table of Contents

Taking the Knowledge & Information Management SIG into 2018 and Beyond

Denise Carter, Chair K&IM 

Equipping Today’s Knowledge & Information Manager for Tomorrow: Mastering the 8 Critical ‘ates’ and the Role of a “Knowledgeur”

Paul Corney, K&IM Ambassador

 Libraries in Outer Space and Other Stories: Government Knowledge and Information Management Conference 2018

Francesca Emmett, International Relations and Commercial Manager / Head, Crown Copyright and Licensing Hub, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service

What Progress on Knowledge Management Systems – Requirements (BS ISO 30401)

Dion Lindsay, Real Knowledge Management DLC Ltd.

 Sustainable Knowledge Management: The Role of Knowledge Management Audits

Divyata Sohal1, Gillian Ragsdell1, Donald Hislop1, Peter Brown2

1Loughborough University, 2English Institute of Sport

 Why and How RealKM Magazine is Supporting Evidence-Based Knowledge Management

Bruce Boyes, Editor and Lead Writer, RealKM Magazine

 Knowledge Management on Extreme Teams

Helen Edwards, Editor K&IM Refer 

Northern Ireland Official Publications Collection at Queen’s University

Norma Menabney, NIOPA

 Update and News from SCOOP

Steven Hartshorne, Secretary, SCOOP


Want to go to the 2018 CILIP Conference?

The K&IM Bursary call is OPEN!

The CILIP Conference is returning to Brighton this July, with a fantastic line-up of keynote speakers, thought provoking seminars and essential workshops. Meet like-minded colleagues and make new connections for two days of knowledge sharing, discussion, debate, and networking opportunities. The conference aims to leave you feeling inspired and passionate about the work that we do as professionals. To keep up to date on conference developments, follow @ CILIPConf18 and #CILIPConf18 and visit the website cilipconference.org.uk. You can also register for the conference. Don’t worry – if you receive a bursary place, CILIP will refund you.

The Knowledge and Information Management (K&IM) SIG is delighted to be able to offer a CILIP Conference bursary place, which includes:

• attendance at the conference

• hotel accommodation

• a contribution to travel expenses

• a K&IM Committee member available to support you at the conference

• an opportunity to tweet on behalf of the SIG

• an opportunity to write for the SIG’s journal, K&IM Refer.

Applications will close on 13 April 2018.

Details and application form available at K&IM website

The K & IM Awards 2018

The 2018 K & IM Awards will include new categories, and we are planning an exciting event linked to our Awards evening.

More details will be coming soon.  Watch this space for news as it happens.

 K & IM Refer: the journal of the Knowledge and Information Management Group of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP), is published three times a year and distributed free to members of the Group.

Editor: Helen Edwards

Editorial team: Ruth Hayes

Cover Design: Denise Carter

Contact: Helen Edwards 07989 565739; hogedwards@gmail.com

Copyright © The contributors and the K & IM SIG 2017

Online edition https://referisg.wordpress.com

 ISSN: 0144-2384



Taking the Knowledge & Information Management SIG into 2018 and Beyond

Denise Carter, Chair K&IM

The Knowledge & Information Management Special Interest Group (K&IM) moved from a transition to full committee at the beginning of 2018.

Many thanks and grateful appreciation go to David Smith for his chairmanship of the transition committee, and to the members of that committee who have now stepped back – Ruth Carlyle, Sandra Ward, Sue Silcocks, and Karen McFarlane who acted as our CILIP advisor. Without their hard work and dedication in putting the right building blocks in place, we would not be able to move forward now.

Our call for nominations at the end of 2017 for new committee members was extremely successful, and those of us who continued from the transition committee have been very happy to welcome new members with fantastic backgrounds and experience in the knowledge management and information management areas. We are also a truly international committee, with members from Belgium, Portugal, Switzerland and China. The full list of committee members is at the end of this article, but I would urge you to visit our K&IM pages on the CILIP site and take a look at their biographies.

K&IM currently has nearly 1,800 members, and we are thrilled that so many CILIP members have shown an interest in the knowledge management and information management fields.

So the committee is in place, what should we be doing?

In January 2018, the new committee, and some specially invited guests, held an intensive workshop to work through what we felt our strategic direction should be and what were the key aims and objectives we wanted to hit over the next 2-3 years.

What we decided on the day is only a high-level starting point, and there is much work for us to do to add the detail and take our ideas from the drawing board and make them a reality.

You can see on the cover of this issue of K&IM Refer the output of our meeting in an illustrative infographic. In the February issue of Information Professional, the K&IM Matters column outlined the key takeaways from our workshop. I’ve detailed those again a little further on the article.

The 2018 K&IM Business Plan

Our workshop and subsequent e-mail discussions on the outputs all fed into our business plan for 2018.

The core offer of our business plan is the same as for all SIGs, as identified and agreed by all the Member Network in 2017:

  • To identify and meet the needs for local members, providing support for members in their CPD throughout their career.
  • To support members undertaking professional registration.
  • To develop a sense of community amongst members in the region.
  • To support membership recruitment and retention.

Our extended offer to our K&IM member is:

  • KM and IM content via our publications
    • K&IM Refer – published 3 times per year
    • Regular K&IM Matters column in Information Professional
    • New weekly KM and IM newsletter delivered via twitter and e-mail
  • One bursary place offered to CILIP Annual Conference
    • 2-day conference fees plus hotel expenses for one person – by application
  • K&IM Reference Awards; K&IM Walford Award; Information Manager of the Year
  • KM and IM relevant training & events, held either by K&IM, or in collaboration with other SIGs.

The priority areas we want to focus on have been identified as:

Accreditation: Working with CILIP to produce an action plan to implement an accreditation process for a) KM courses; b) individuals to add KM or IM accreditation.

Increase new membership from outside CILIP: Liaising with other bodies and external groups we must find ways to increase the visibility of the KM and IM offering both of this SIG and CILIP.

Supporting re-publication of Information as an Asset (Hawley Report): On publication of the report, work to ensure that the report is disseminated and fully described to members and to the wider K&IM community. The original Hawley report (named after chair of the committee that wrote it) recommended that senior executives treat information as an asset in the same way as an organisation’s building and estate, brand and intellectual property. This remains as relevant now as it did when the report was first published 20 years ago.

Understanding the needs of our current members and potential new members: Conduct a survey to understand the current and ongoing training and education needs for our members and the wider K&IM community

Increasing KM and IM content delivery: Find innovative ways to produce more content, including case-studies.

These are the business areas the committee will try to drive forward in 2018

2018 and beyond – what did we identify as our strategic goals for the next 3 years?

We really want to deliver very real and tangible benefits to those of you who have already joined us, but also reach out to others both within CILIP and a huge potential audience that sits outside of CILIP.

In February’s Information Professional, we identified those key areas that the committee are thinking about, and I thought it worth repeating them here. We would love to hear whether you agree or disagree, or if you think there is something critical we are missing.

Understanding our customers, our potential customers, and who are our competitors?

  • We want to develop personas to understand our current and potential customers better so we can deliver what you really need.
  • Everyone has a limited budget and time: we want to understand which other organisations people are joining, why they represent better value for them, and then see what we can do to get them to join us!

Getting the right recognition for Knowledge Management (KM) and Information Management (IM)

  • High on our agenda is working with CILIP on accreditation for KM and IM courses as well as looking at certification for individuals to promote KM and IM skills acquisition.
  • We would like to improve the recognition from the wider community – bringing KM and IM to the attention of international, national and local influencers.
  • Helping our members get better recognition from their employers.

Putting ourselves on the map as the “go to” experts for KM and IM

  • Ensuring that our members can access expertise on KM and IM topics.
  • Enabling our members to develop and build on current or new expertise in KM and IM topic

Developing relevant and trusted content

  • We would like to develop content that is relevant to you at each stage of your career, and that helps you solve problems you are facing or helps you to progress.

Creating a powerful network for our members

  • With CILIP’s new social link platform, we have the potential to build strong communities that can share knowledge and experiences.
  • We will be organising more events, both face-to-face and virtual, where you will also have the chance to develop your network.
  • It is important to us that we are the connection between you and CILIP, and that we build an effective two-way communication between CILIP and KM and IM practitioners.

Maintaining our awareness that we are operating in a global world

  • Many of our K&IM members are based outside the UK, including four of our K&IM committee members. So we truly recognise that we are operating in a global environment.
  • We would like to forge global alliances as well as ensuring we always give an international perspective to our activities.

If you think we have missed something vital or just want to add your particular support to an area please do get in touch. Either e-mail me as the Chair, or better still, use CILIP’s new social link platform to start a conversation. Contact details below.

What is important to us is that we reflect our member interests fully. In March, we sent out an e-survey, and I hope that you took the opportunity to share your views via that platform, but we are happy to hear from our members any time.

Contact: chair.kandim@cilip.org.uk

Follow us on twitter @CILIPKIM

Website: www.cilip.org.uk/kim

 Your 2018 K&IM Committee

Denise Carter Chair
Stephen Phillips Vice-Chair
Andrew Hutchinson Treasurer
Anne Fraser Honorary Secretary
Amanda Duffy Minutes Secretary & K&IM Awards Lead
Nicky Whitsed Marketing & Communication Working Group Lead
Helen Edwards Journal Editor
Ivan Donadello Training & Events Working Group Lead
Bruce Boyes Web Editor
Paul Corney K&IM Ambassador
Ceri Hughes K&IM Ambassador
Francesca Emmett Network/Outreach Lead (joint)
Mairéad Smith Network/Outreach Lead (joint)
Dion Lindsay East of England Representative
David Baynes London & South East Representative
Andy Zelinger SCOOP Representative

Equipping Today’s Knowledge & Information Manager for Tomorrow: Mastering the 8 Critical ‘ates’ and the Role of a “Knowledgeur”

Paul Corney, K&IM Ambassador


This article suggests that to thrive in a period of rapid technological development and the impending arrival of industry standards, today’s Knowledge & Information Manager will need to develop a mix of soft and technological skills allied to a proactive ‘can do’ style.


Knowledgeur, ISO KM Standards, Artificial Intelligence, Navigating the Minefield: A Practical KM Companion. Knowledge Management Matters: Words of Wisdom from Leading KM Practitioners, CILIP, American Society for Quality

 In July 2016, I was invited to address CILIP’s annual conference in Brighton, a short ride along the coast on one of the most scenic bus routes from my UK home in Eastbourne. My topic ‘The changing KM landscape, the future of KM and our role in it as KM professionals’.

I recalled as I was travelling that 22 years previous while working in an investment bank in the City, I had taken over the running of a unit that came to be called “Business Intelligence”. My challenge then was to change the mindset of a group formerly known as Library & Information Services, to get them to become proactive and to recognise their key role in the front-line delivery of client services, if only they’d seize the opportunity! Back then the term “Knowledge Management” was not part of the lexicon of organisational speak but business development was and being seen as part of the revenue generation process, a failsafe way of changing organisational perceptions.

Fast forward 20 years and a quick glance at salary scales reveal that a Director of Knowledge Management will be remunerated in excess of £100k. A more junior Knowledge Management Officer is likely to be paid £60k+.

Taken from a Google search by the author in November 2017

Yet it is unlikely the Head of Library & Information Services will be remunerated as handsomely as their KM counterparts. Yet KM jobs rarely specify a requirement for academic qualifications in Knowledge Management (absent from a set of universally recognised accreditations) but most Library roles ask for MSc in Library & Information Management. So why is there a difference in remuneration?

Take a look at the task list a Legal Knowledge Management Officer is expected to perform. I’ve highlighted some of the phrases that leap out as differentiators:

  • The Knowledge Management Officer is responsible for capturing, developing, sharing, and effectively using organisational knowledge. This role is fundamental to continuous improvement in sales excellence and bidding in order to drive an increase in the bidding success rate across …..
  • By storing and sharing information effectively (e.g. case studies, exemplar responses, previously developed value propositions) and through the production of best practice processes, templates, how to guides and checklists, the Knowledge Management Officer will help … to win work more efficiently by enabling those involved in bidding opportunities small or large to harness the experience of other

 Navigating the Minefield: A Practical KM Companion

Last year the American Society for Quality (ASQ) published a book I had co-authored with Patricia L Eng. It has received a number of nice accolades from peers and readers.

Paul & Patricia handing over the book to CILIP Chair Karen Macfarlane

When Patricia and I sat down to make sense of the material we’d gathered from nearly 40 hours of interviews with leading practitioners in the KM world a few thoughts struck us:

  • Effective KM is dependent on good communication and engaged people.
  • KM requires a different skill set than that usually found in Library & Information Managers.
  • KM thrives where there is a proactive mindset; it needs someone with the ability to make correlations between seemingly unrelated pieces of information.
  • Great KM usually emerges from within the business.

Arise ‘The Knowledgeur’

In Navigating the Minefield we suggest tomorrow’s Knowledge & Information Manager will need to have the facilitation and social skills that make them the ‘go to’ person in an organisation. They need to be someone who makes and nurtures connections.

Here’s my definition of that person I now call a ‘Knowledgeur’:

‘A Knowledge & Information Manager (Knowledgeur) is someone who makes use of his/her/others’ knowledge in one activity or market and applies it for beneficial use in another.

Originally inward facing the role is becoming more outward facing with the rise of communities and the subsequent need to collaborate outside of the organisation.’

Skills (8 ‘ates’) of a ‘Knowledgeur’

Here’s what I think you will need to do to if you are to perform this role:

  1. Investigate: Are you putting out a burning fire / solving an immediate business need / addressing a risk (Operational KM) or is this driven by the vision from the top consistent with the organisation’s business direction (Strategic KM)?
  2. Navigate: Work out / Map the critical knowledge areas of your organisation and create a directory of the organisation’s knowledge assets.
  3. Negotiate: Agree the scope of your role with your sponsors and be tough negotiating what success will look like and how it’s measured.
  4. Facilitate: So much of what a KM Manager does involves facilitation. You will become a hub knowing who to approach if you don’t know yourself. You will have to facilitate connections, meetings, interactions, events and communities. This requires resilience, a lot of social skills and a real understanding of cultural nuances.
  5. Collaborate: You are in alliance with business areas and occasionally external suppliers or partners. You have to be capable of virtual cross border collaboration.
  6. Communicate: Senior KM’er’s tell you to devote 30% of your time to communicating what you do and getting feedback – it’s not just about broadcasting. Have your KM Elevator pitch always with you. Let all your stakeholders know what you are doing and why.
  7. Curate: So much of what passes for Knowledge Management is about creating and storing content and making it available for reuse. It’s more than the role formerly undertaken by Information Professionals and Librarians, here we are talking about being a custodian of organisational knowledge and organisational knowledge bases.
  8. Celebrate: The role can be a lonely one as reporting lines and sponsors change, yours is a cost not revenue line and the initial burst of enthusiasm fades. Collect stories, be prepared to acknowledge contributions and celebrate successes.

The certification conundrum

Contained in the ‘Surprises and Admiration’ Chapter of Navigating the Minefield we note:… there is no recognised industry body promulgating KM setting universally agreed qualification or certification criteria that employers find acceptable for entry and advancement.” Instead global KM’ers are attracted to training programmes run by private organisations in order to demonstrate knowledge through external certification. Experience is gained on the job and there have been few mentors or coaches to help a newbie KM’er take their first steps.

Today with the advent of CILIP’s Certified Knowledge Manager Accreditation that’s changing. Now Knowledge & Information Managers from Beijing to Boston can acquire a recognised qualification from an independent body through either self-certification which is subject to independent assessment or via accredited higher educational establishments.

And finally

The Knowledgeur’s role will inevitably evolve. In the 18 months since I first coined the phrase and thought about the 8 ‘ates’, the spectre of artificial intelligence and machine learning looms large and with the imminent release of a set of KM Standards by the International Standards Organisation (ISO) today’s Knowledgeur is facing a complex future.

It is clear that to be effective, Knowledgeurs will need a mix of soft and technical skills as well as a good working knowledge of their business.

If I were embarking on a career in KIM today, I’d be honing these skills.

Slide taken from Masterclass run at International Islamic University of Malaysia Kuala Lumpur in November 2017

If you found this of interest Eric Hunter (Director of Knowledge & Innovation for US based law firm Bradford and Barthel) and I will be running a Masterclass on this very topic on Monday 14th May in London ahead of Ark Group’s annual KM Summit.

About the author

Paul J. Corney came to knowledge management while working in the City of London in the mid-1990s. He is the founder of knowledge et al, a UK-based KM consultancy and the former Managing Partner of Sparknow LLP.

He has worked across a variety of sectors in the Americas, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, helping clients to identify and make use of the knowledge that resides inside their organisations. He has led many challenging knowledge management and learning assignments, often cross-cultural, working with a range of global organisations such as Islamic / Asian / Caribbean Development Banks and the UK’s HM Revenue & Customs.

He completed a large project with a major industrial and engineering company in Iran, helping them to audit, assess and improve their KM practices, and develop and implement a KM strategy.

Paul is an experienced practitioner, presenter, masterclass leader and lecturer; he chairs international KM conferences, is a visiting lecturer on knowledge and innovation management at the University of Brighton, and has published numerous articles one of which was featured in Making Knowledge Management Work for Your Organization published by Ark Group in 2012.

His latest books are: Navigating the Minefield: A Practical KM Companion published in May 2017 by the American Society for Quality co-authored with Patricia Eng and Knowledge Management Matters: Words of Wisdom from Leading Practitioners a co-authored book published February 2018.

Paul is a member of the British Standards Institute KM Standards Committee working on the development of a set of ISO KM Standards.


K & IM Refer 34 (1), Spring 2018




Libraries in Outer Space and Other Stories: Government Knowledge and Information Management Conference 2018

Francesca Emmett, International Relations and Commercial Manager / Head, Crown Copyright and Licensing Hub, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service

On the 15th of March 2018 BEIS was host to the annual Government Knowledge and Information Management Conference. The event was given justice by the superb attendance of colleagues from most Government Departments. Knowledge and Information Management (hereafter K&IM) isn’t the prerogative of any specific sector: if there are people, there will be knowledge and the need to manage it. So there I was, at 9:45 sharp for registration and coffee, a time not only met by most participants, but surpassed by a large contingent of early birds, offering ample opportunity for stall browsing: (naturally) CILIP[1], the Information and Records Management Society[2] – assertively guarding their Bulletins (“Just one each, please!….ONE bulletin EACH person, NOT ONE of EACH ISSUE!”) – and the Archives and Records Association[3].

Time to gather in the main hall. The large screen in the background invited us to join the Government K&IM Profession website (https://khub.net/group/government-knowledge-and-information-management-profession) a reminder of the mind behind the conference and MC for the day: David Smith (GKIM Head of Profession and CILIP associate), who opened the plenary session. The Government KIM Conference strives to address topical issues, David announced as he introduced the first speakers: Cabinet Office Glyn Jones and Ian Cross, Better Information for Better Government (BI4BG) Strategy leads. The Strategy, based on Sir Alex Allan’s 2017 BI4BG report, aims at assisting civil servants with the daunting task of preserving public records for posterity. Ensuring compliance with the 20-year rule[4] requires a mixture of leadership, technology and cultural fixes. The vehicle? A cross-government coalition of KIM experts, aligning effort with investment, including the potential for rolling secondments (short and long term) to optimise best practice. The strength of the Glyn and Ian double-act was the ability to shift from the strategic to the granular. They called for a smarter move to digital offers to use computing powers more efficiently, for example to extract meaning from piles (in fact, 2 petabites!) of Government data, equivalent to a tower of printed information so high that, with roots in London, it would fall in India if toppled. The metaphor struck a chord with the audience. Similarly, we all gravely nodded at the mention of applying KIM best practice to email filing and disposing, or to the management of research reports.

The second speaker, Diane Murgatroyd (Head of Knowledge Resources, Foreign and Commonwealth Office – FCO), presented on “Libraries in outer space – the changing nature of information delivery in government”, a tantalising title that appropriately refers to the increasing role of digital solutions at the expense of paper-based resources. Have FCO librarians and information managers entirely disposed of journals and books? Not exactly, but investment in collections is only targeted to those who really need it and request it. The role of librarians is still invaluable, even when increasingly carried out through digital means. I liked the catchy FCO #askalibrarian – after all, that’s exactly what I did when approaching our own Ministry of Justice Library and Information colleagues recently. All I did was to…ask a librarian, and a long list of journal articles on access to public records in the UK and overseas was delivered to my inbox, probably from outer space.

The morning programme concluded with the first Break Out sessions of the day. We had the luxury to choose 2 x 25 minutes sessions out of 6:

  1. Data Analytics – David Canning
  2. Electronic Records – Marcia Jackson
  3. Office 365 – Alpesh Samani and Kanif Majeed
  4. IAR (Information Asset Register) Update – Philip Humphries and Matt Beavis
  5. Knowledge Management Maturity Model (KMMM) – Simon March and Stew MacLeod
  6. Innovation space – tour by Tom Meecham and Steve Lee

I attended the IAR session first. Philip Humphries and Matt Beavis are part of a cross-government task and finish group supporting colleagues responsible for creating and maintaining an IAR on behalf of their organisations. First thinking pause: there is a distinction between responsibility and accountability, with the IAR owner (accountability) working closely with an IAR manager (responsibility) who provides the technical (IT) expertise. The group felt that clearer guidance on roles would be helpful. I for starters would see not one, not two but three roles. Let me quickly digress by means of an example. I am the Table of Assets owner that holds information and products covered by Crown Copyright that HMPPS is content to make available for re-use on licence (in 2010 HMPPS gained a Delegation of Authority from the Keeper of Public Records at The National Archives, TNA, to make its information available for re-use on own terms and conditions). I gather policy leads around the table a few times per year to update the Table. For our purposes therefore policy leads carry out the role of IA managers, responsible for the integrity, value and “re-usability” of information. A third and separate role is that of our technical experts, currently working with us on a home made IT product called the Customer Relationship Manager (CRM), that helps me track the journey of requests for re-use of information/material from the point of request to re-use. The IT solution for listing our assets (again, from a Crown Copyright re-use perspective) is an Excel spreadsheet. Granted, our table of Assets does not hold all of HMPPS’ assets – it’s smaller than an IAR, but it nevertheless requires the same due diligence and joint effort of an IAR, including clarity of roles and responsibilities.

We wrestled with an even more fundamental aspect, namely the definition of an IAR. I learned that there is a useful definition on the Cabinet Office website (paraphrasing, and hence not accurate, it’s “something defined and of value in its own right”). Equally helpful is the TNA publication of practical case studies of what it is NOT an information asset. As for the format and content of an IAR, again TNA holds a useful template with columns suggested for Critical, High and Standard information. But how to link this with the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) requirements? Should there be a separate questionnaire on GDPR readiness, or an additional column with that information at hand? A participant helpfully shared a resource adopted by the Department for Education (DfE): the Information Audit Questionnaire linked with the IAR for ease of review.

We also discussed how granular an IAR needs to be. Clearly there are resource issues here that determine the complexity of an IAR, and sometimes less is more. More critical than the size of content is that staff are clear about roles, allowing to delegate ownership where there is better understanding on the information held. Equally critical is technical support to run the Register. What about a helping hand? TNA used to deliver IAR training, but this stopped under financial pressure. We left the session wondering whether there should be something in Civil Service Learning. Our leads may already be on the case as I type.

Still buzzing with ideas on asset registers, off I went to my second break-out session of the morning, Knowledge Management Maturity Model in Government (KMMM). It’s confession time, because I missed the boat here. The clue is in the title: maturity implies that the model was created, tested and is ready for roll out within Departments whilst I was otherwise engaged. I’m lucky that at least I can get involved during implementation time. The model, in its essence, is based on a few principles, some drawing from Boiset (1998), Social learning cycle:

  1. Leaders actively promote, champion and embed KM cultures and practices
  2. Knowledge seeking and sharing is continually practised at all levels of the organisation
  3. KM successes and benefits are identified, rewarded and celebrated
  4. Lessons identified are used to drive continuous improvement
  5. KM techniques are current, accessible and effectively applied (discover adopt/discover adapt)
  6. Knowledge seeking and sharing is embedded in business processes, corporate functions and supporting systems

In practice, this can work by creating a small team that is proactively engaged in optimising KM and that works through champions on mainstreaming awareness and best practice.

Minutes into the session we found ourselves returning to the fundamentals and debating what the definition of KM is. Some purists distinguish between knowledge (tacit) and information (written), our leads told us, but the group was more comfortable with a fluid definition. It was exciting to hear that there are workshops planned with expertise and knowhow at hand on capturing knowledge and transferring it to the new generations (ironically offering KM on KM!), and piloting a community of practices masterclasses. We were encouraged to take a good look at ourselves: what can I do to raise KM on the agenda, and where do I sit as a KM professional? I thought of my membership of the CILIP K&IM SIG and GIG, and of taking time out of a busy job to attend this thought-provoking conference and felt reassured that at least I am heading in the right direction.

After a finger food networking lunch we were back into plenary mode. Tim Hayward, member of the CILIP GIG, grabbed our attention with a passionate rally for nominations to the Government Information Group Awards (see more on

https://www.cilip.org.uk/members/group_content_view.asp?group=201301&id=689981 , and whilst there, why not look at the K&IM SIG awards/bursary https://www.cilip.org.uk/members/group_content_view.asp?group=200663&id=679016 and the other CILIP prestigious awards https://www.cilip.org.uk/page/Awards ?)

Time for the final plenary of the day, presented by Judith Jones (ICO’s Parliamentary and Government Affairs Department) and her aptly titled presentation on “GDPR – what should you have done and what should you do now?” To Judith goes the record for the highest number of words spoken per minute, a tough one for note takers who, like me, are still coming to terms with the imminence of the GDPR’s entry into force (May 2018). Panic aside, I came out of the session by being reminded that the ICO staff are human beings, just like me and you. Putting irony aside, let me clarify the statement: the ICO has teeth and can bite, for instance with hefty fines for breaching reporting requirements (72 hours) where individuals’ rights and freedoms have been placed at high risk. But the ICO is also there to assist and advise, within capacity. Again the point of clarity of roles and responsibilities was drilled into the audience, especially the issue of controller versus processors, or joint controllers. Do we know who’s doing what? Ignorance is no excuse for failure to meet legislative requirements. The point of being “reasonable” was also welcome, such as in the case of adopting a different approach to different types of data, even where “owned” by the same person, prompting a few conversations on retention schedules and deletions after Judith stepped off the podium.

More tea and coffee revived us in readiness for the final Break Out sessions (again the choice of two out of six). I took my custom to Data Analytics, run by David Canning and Liv Greenstreet.

Analytics refers to choosing the right tools to make the right decision when faced with live data in the business, undoubtedly a 20-year rule issue. Practical considerations may include the effects of a policy line to destroy all .jpg files – pictures, we know, but what about Powerpoint material? – Also interesting was a conversation about the procurement of e-discovery software to, as the name suggests, discover the value of information and bring it together paving the way for spring cleaning of all data pre-2010, again as an example. I enjoyed the gentle “dig” at policy colleagues: “you can’t rely on businesses to tell you what they’ve got!” And yet the burden is on businesses (policy leads, to use HMPPS semantics) for greater efficiency. The default position should be to destroy data after seven years unless business says otherwise. The date of information is relevant, but not the only consideration. It is wise to take events into account as well, elections for instance. If our role is to preserve the records of our Administrations for posterity, the significance of the date of elections for KIM is massive, although Parliament’s cycles are also subdivided into financial years. Best practice is therefore to adopt an approach that links the two: the timeline is determined by elections, filled in by data that is filed in financial years. Note to self: to adopt the discipline to save files with a date.

Last but not least I took part in Marcia Jackson’s session on Electronic Records. This was a truly interactive session at which colleagues shared their experience of policy and digital solutions. The issue of what to meaningfully do with emails was rated high risk, with a range of “command and control measures” supported by IAR leads to change behaviour (“in our organisation anything older than 3 months is automatically destroyed unless moved to dedicated archive space!”) A summary of this session is problematic. Changing behaviour is complicated and it entails more than digital solutions. It is down to each Government Department’s courage to be assertive when it comes to discipline in digital record management. I know this very well: left to my own devices, I would keep everything!

Time for David Smith’s closing remarks and my train back home, already counting the months until the Government KIM Profession Conference of 2019. The verdict? A thought-provoking and informative event to trigger best practice in KIM in Government, and –why not? – beyond.

[1] The main CILIP stall was minded by Emma Wood and Gary Allman, and the CILIP Government Information Group stall was hosted by Tim Heyward.

[2] Stall hosted by Paul Duller and Sarah Norman.

[3] Stall hosted by Chris Sheridan.

[4] For the 20-year rule see The National Archives at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/our-role/plans-policies-performance-and-projects/our-projects/20-year-rule/


K & IM Refer 34 (1), Spring 2018

What Progress on Knowledge Management Systems – Requirements (BS ISO 30401)

Dion Lindsay, Real Knowledge Management DLC Ltd.

This article was commissioned to appear in this issue to coincide with the publication of BS ISO 30401. As many readers will know, the publication of the completed standard has been put back until early 2019. But as part of the work of the national standards organisations, a draft was available on the BSI website for public consultation from November 2017 to January 2018.

That release gave the knowledge management community time to assess what difference the full standard might make to the discipline, as well as submit comments on the BSI’s interactive pages. A grand total of 244 comments was received by the 16 January deadline! CILIP’s comments were garnered from some of its Special Interest Groups and submitted by its Policy section.

The story behind the standard’s development as far as it can be gleaned from public sources is an entertaining one, and the draft gives a very clear idea of the context in which ISO place Knowledge Management and the principles by which it would like to see KM operate. Naturally this raises questions about the value of the standard when it is published, and what might happen next.

 The story so far

The story of the standard is both interesting in itself and illustrates how standards development can work in the context of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the national standards bodies.

  1. The only published ISO standard that refers to knowledge management already is ISO 9001:2015 Quality management systems – Requirements[1]. Clause 7.1.6 makes the management of organisational knowledge a requirement for establishing a QMS, and even outlines a 4 step process to do so, but without defining organisational knowledge. So it was likely that moves would be afoot to define and illuminate knowledge management.
  2. And so in 2015 an ISO working group (WG6) was formed under the care of ISO’s Technical Committee TC260. TC260 is chaired by Dr Ron McKinley, a USA expert in human resource management particularly in the health services field, with secretariat support from ANSI. WG6’s remit is to develop the first ever international standard devoted to knowledge management, and its structural relationship with TC260 is significant: the Technical Committee’s responsibility is for human resource management, which from the start placed the nascent draft firmly in a human systems context, rather than for example one of IT technical standards work.
  3. The membership of WG6 was soon formed, under the chairmanship of Moria Levy, a leading KM specialist in Israel, with members nominated by national standardisation bodies including Ron Young of Knowledge Associates, based in the UK.
  4. The text completed by WG6 was registered as draft international standard ISO/DIS in late July 2017) and was referred to national standardisation bodies for comments, which is how it came to be available for comments on interactive pages of British Standards Institution’s website from 27 November to 16th
  5. By now the BSI had created its own KM “mirror” committee, with a membership representing many aspects of KM interests in the UK (CILIP is represented by a Trustee for example). I understand it will be busy this year resolving the comments and reporting back to ISO. Timings always seem subject to change with BSI plans, probably because of the logistical difficulties of keeping pace with the other national standards bodies (ISO has a membership of 161!) and the necessarily complex structures within the ISO. However the BSI standards development page for BS ISO 40301 is currently showing
  • 20th August as the comment resolution start date
  • 23rd October as approval start date
  • 17th January 2019 as publication date.

What was in the draft (ISO/DIS 30401)?

The draft is still available, but not free of charge on the BSI website. It can be found on the ISO website priced CHF 58.00 at https://www.iso.org/standard/68683.html .

Here are some personal reactions to the content:

  1. It is tempting to nitpick, but I think that would be to miss the point. Knowledge Management is a discipline where only the obvious finds common agreement, but where a lot of value lies in insights based on careful observation in situations which do not obtain universally. It is clearly an achievement to have got so far with international agreement to produce a 19 page statement on KM principles and contexts, and it seems to have been achieved by taking a stand-back position where the document does not try to tell us what is required of a successful KM system, but rather how to assess for ourselves what will work in our own workplaces. This does make the experienced IM/KM professionals’ eyes glaze over until they realise…
  2. That not all senior managers will have heard the common sense of the draft before. Its value to practising knowledge managers is likely to be that it provides authority for what they’ve been saying all along. The requirements of the title are based on 8 guiding principles, ranging from the anodyne “culture is critical to the effectiveness of Knowledge Management” to the provocative “Knowledge is not managed directly…” and the startlingly well-put “People create their own knowledge by their own understanding of the input they receive”.
  3. It’s alarming that “all the requirements of this international standard are applicable to any organisation, regardless of its type or size, or the products and services it provides” (Draft section 1. Scope). This seems to be required of most, if not all ISO standards, but makes the reader lower his/her expectations. It’s not necessarily ominous – but it is clear that it limits the excitement of any statements the draft can make within its scope of requirements for an effective knowledge management system.
  4. The definitions list (section 2) has 30 entries, and they are a great checklist, even if one can’t sign up to all the content. The emphasis on measurement, which shouldn’t be a surprise in a formal standard, is still a bit disconcerting. It defines “performance” for example as “measurable result”, which makes me worry a bit for the future of the kind of collaborative environment which KM is concerned with but in which innovative outcomes cannot always be traced back to specific conversations.
  5. I’m really glad to see “managing invalid knowledge” highlighted as a requirement of a KM system – too much knowledge management seems to ignore the question of how to verify “knowledge” and how to deal with it.
  6. In short the overall shape of the draft provides more of a reference document than something joined up which might be a good, or provocative read. Still, its main headings of scope, definitions, then organising the requirements of a KM system under Context of the organisation, Leadership, Planning, Support, Operation, Performance evaluation, and Improvement, provide a clear structure and the style of writing discourages turning it into the source for a box ticking exercise.
  7. When the full standard comes out, don’t overlook the 3 annexes! They are: The knowledge spectrum-knowledge inner boundaries; Boundaries between knowledge management and adjacent disciplines, and Knowledge management culture. They provide a gentle counter to the sometimes necessary sterility of the main text, and a thought provoking view of the context for our discipline.

What difference will the standard make?

This question is hard to answer yet: understandably most potential commentators have chosen to wait until the standard is published next year before going into print. Perhaps the best thing to do in the gap is to ask more questions and look out for the answers. Here are my three:

  1. Will the standard be useful beyond the manufacturing or heavily regulated environments where formal standards seem most appropriate? I think it will – if only just. For those that can afford it (probably around £160 for organisations who aren’t BSI members), it may well provide both authority for action and a source of ideas.
  2. Will there be a rush to include the standard in processes for external auditing and certification of enterprises? I don’t on balance think so: it’s possibly the subject for another discussion, but it’s not always obvious how to determine whether the requirements are measurable, or how to define levels of compliance.
  3. Will the standard drive the development of the profession? Perhaps it will contribute, rather than drive. It may have a role to play in the professionalisation/certification of knowledge management roles, or the design and certification of courses. The standard, judging by the draft, will be more a starting point than a destination.

[1] https://www.iso.org/standard/62085.html

 K & IM Refer 34 (1), Spring 2018





Sustainable Knowledge Management: The Role of Knowledge Management Audits

Divyata Sohal1, Gillian Ragsdell1, Donald Hislop1, Peter Brown21Loughborough University, 2English Institute of Sport

Organisational interest in knowledge management has grown due to its promise of delivering strategic competitive advantage. However, the decision to implement knowledge management is often followed by the uncertainty of how to do it and where to begin (Earl, 2001). A prominent line of inquiry emphasises knowledge audits as a critical first step in implementing knowledge management in organisations (e.g., Liebowitz, 2000; Burnett, et al 2004, 2013; Perez-Soltero, et al, 2006). Knowledge audits are instrumental in understanding the organisational context and identifying specific changes or improvements that can be made in an organisation’s culture, business processes and technological infrastructure to leverage its knowledge for competitive advantage (Burnett et al 2004). A series of methodologies and case studies has been presented in the literature discussing the application of knowledge audits in practice (e.g., Burnett, et al 2004, 2013; Perez-Soltero, et al, 2006; Cheung, et al 2007). Here, the focus is predominantly centred on a systematic assessment of the organisation’s knowledge resources, that is, what knowledge is available, what is needed and how it is being created, captured, stored and shared. Knowledge audits thus involve a gap analysis between the organisation’s current and ideal knowledge capability, resulting in recommendations for specific knowledge management solutions.

A review of the wider knowledge management literature, and indeed the practice of knowledge management in the real world, suggests that this approach may be too simplistic. Despite apparent implications for changes in the organisation’s culture and business processes, the existing knowledge audit case studies fail to include a comprehensive discussion on how audit findings can lead to the successful design and implementation of integrated knowledge management initiatives, aligned to the organisation’s core strategy. An integrated knowledge management effort is warranted, owing to the complexity inherent in the field. Specifically, effective knowledge management would benefit from a complex interplay of organisational culture, structure, technology, people and knowledge resources (Bhatt, 2001; Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal, 2001; Gold et al 2001; du Plessis, 2007). Moreover, successful knowledge management implementation is likely to involve carefully navigating through various strategic, cultural, human and political issues posing as potential hindrances and enablers in the organisation’s context (Dufour and Steine, 2007). This suggests that knowledge audits, as a critical first step towards knowledge management implementation, should also be conducted as an integrated and holistic process. Such an approach should include a study of the wider critical success factors, in addition to highlighting the knowledge management needs and gaps in the organisation’s knowledge capability. Subsequently, the audit would then extend to include the design of integrated knowledge management efforts and suitable provisions for their implementation.

A specific knowledge management audit methodology is proposed to address these gaps in the theoretical and practical study of knowledge audits (Figure 1). Some key principles of the methodology include:

  • Emphasis on the researcher’s embeddedness in the context, working in collaboration with the knowledge manager over a sustained period, as opposed to the snapshot evaluation evident in most KA case studies, to enable a holistic exploration of multiple factors in the context.
  • Emphasis on an iterative approach to data collection and analysis to progressively develop an understanding of the context as well as improve the practice of knowledge management. Specifically, phases of data collection, reflection and action were conducted in a cyclical manner in collaboration with the knowledge manager to facilitate improvements in learning and practice of knowledge management.
  • Emphasis on the holistic inquiry of multiple factors in the organisation’s context to facilitate the integration of knowledge management efforts in the organisation’s core operations and enhance their success and sustainability.


Figure 1: Knowledge management audit methodology

Figure 1 illustrates the various phases in the methodology that embodied these key principles. The model depicts the iterative cycles of data collection, analysis and the following actions to progressively develop a holistic understanding of the context and improve the practice of knowledge management in the organisation. The methodology allowed for sufficient flexibility to evolve in response to the dynamic organisational context and the researcher’s critical reflections. As a result, it will be further modified in light of the lessons learnt from the experiences gained in the case study organisation.

The methodology was implemented at a UK high-performance sport institute, with the aim of understanding the organisation’s needs and informing the practice of knowledge management. The embeddedness of the researcher as well as the iterative approach were instrumental in highlighting the structural complexity of the organisation, and various strategic and political issues in the wider high-performance system that proved to be the most significant barriers to effective knowledge management. The collaborative relationship with the knowledge manager was crucial in informing the strategic focus of knowledge management for the institute, as well as the design of various knowledge management solutions to address specific organisational needs. Finally, application of knowledge management concepts, specific to the sport context, were identified, which could have implications for developing the practice of knowledge management in sport.

It is evident in the knowledge management literature that there is no one recipe for success, and no single way to manage an organisation’s knowledge. What is needed is a careful study of the specific organisational context to inform knowledge management efforts rooted in the organisational needs and aligned to their wider business strategy. Such a needs analysis is expected to enhance the success and sustainability of the knowledge management efforts.


Becerra-Fernandez, I., Sabherwal, R. (2001) “Organizational Knowledge Management: A Contingency Perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol 18, No. 1, pp 23-55

Bhatt, G.D. (2001) “Knowledge Management in Organizations: Examining the Interaction Between Technologies, Techniques, and People”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol 5, No. 1, pp 68-75.

Burnett, S., Illingworth, L. and Webster, L. (2004) “Knowledge Auditing and Mapping: A Pragmatic Approach”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol 11, No. 1, pp 25-37.

Burnett, S., Williams, D. and Illingworth, L. (2013) “Reconsidering the Knowledge Audit Process: Methodological Revisions in Practice”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol 20, No. 3, pp 141-153.

Cheung, C.F., Li, M.L., Shel, W.Y., Lee, W.B. and Tsang, T.S. (2007) “A Systematic Approach for Knowledge Auditing: A Case Study in Transportation Sector”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol 11, No. 4, pp 140-158.

Du Plessis, M. (2007) “The role of knowledge management in innovation”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol 11, No. 4, pp.20-29, https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710762684Dufour and Steine, 2007

Earl, M. (2001) “Knowledge Management Strategies: Toward a Taxonomy, Journal of Management Information Systems”, Vol 18, No.1, pp.215-233, DOI: 10.1080/07421222.2001.11045670

Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001) “Knowledge Management: An Organizational Capabilities Perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol 18, No. 1, pp.185-214, DOI: 10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669

Liebowitz, J., Rubenstein-Montano, B., McCaw, D., Buchwalter, J., Browning, C., Butler, N. and Rebeck, K. (2000) “The Knowledge Audit”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol 7, No. 1, pp 3-10.

Perez-Soltero, A., Barcelo-Valenzuela, M., Sanchez-Schmitz, G., Martin-Rubio, F. and Palma-Mendez, J.T. (2006) “Knowledge Audit Methodology with Emphasis on Core Processes”, European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, July, 1- 10.


K & IM Refer 34 (1), Spring 2018



Why and How RealKM Magazine is Supporting Evidence-Based Knowledge Management

Bruce Boyes, Editor and Lead Writer, RealKM Magazine

In recent weeks, the Australian public has been hit with headlines like “NSW’s $2 billion new trains are too wide to get through tunnels” [i] and “Queensland Rail facing legal action because its new $4.4bn trains are basically illegal” [ii].

Revelations like these are nothing new. Every single day we hear about or have to deal with organisations that have wasted millions or even billions of dollars due to missing knowledge, bad knowledge, communications breakdowns, or failures in quality control. And these knowledge management (KM) failures not only cause the mega-blunders we see in the news, they also impact on every aspect of our lives. We grit our teeth at the organisations that somehow fail to grasp the basics of customer service. We shake our heads in disbelief at the bureaucracies that bury us in layers of red tape in pursuit of some obscure process that no-one seems to understand.

Clearly, we need better KM. But is that all we need? How do we know what works? What doesn’t? Why it works? Why not? Can we generalise the results we see across organisational sizes and structures, across cultures, across time? Or are they relevant only in their original context?

Being able to answer these questions in a sound way is what motivated Australian information executive Stephen Bounds to establish RealKM Magazine www.realkm.com in mid-2015.

 Moving from opinion-based to evidence-based decisions

All too often we make our life and work decisions based solely on our opinions. But we and the people in our families, workplaces, and communities can pay a high price for this approach to decision-making. In an article in The Oxford Review, David Wilkinson gives a heartbreaking example of the devastating effects of opinion-based decisions[iii]:

“LuAnn was a 13 year old student in North Carolina who was displaying extreme learned helplessness … When the researchers investigated her background and home-life [they] found a number of issue which appeared to lead to this state. The first of which was that from an early age, if she wet the bed her mother would punish her by spanking her. Her mother believed that the bed wetting behaviour was actually attention seeking behaviour and needed to be punished in order to stop it.

 From the mother’s point of view this all made sense and led to the decision to spank LuAnn for wetting the bed from an early age. In fact this decision only made the situation worse.

 This is how a world view or set of beliefs lead to actions which appear to be very logical from that system of thinking. This is an example of opinion-based decision-making.”

 He goes on to discuss the role of confirmation bias in opinion-based decision-making: “Once we have a belief about something our brains starts to actively filter for evidence that our belief is correct … This is the issue with opinion-based decisions. The moment we make up our mind that something is a certain way our brains start to look for the evidence to confirm it. The problem is at the same time it also neatly discards any evidence to the contrary. In effect, a belief quickly becomes reality as we gather more and more evidence that the belief is true.”

Wilkinson then advises that the counter to opinion-based decision-making is evidence-based decision-making: “Evidence-based decisions … are of an entirely different nature. They are based on a research foundation. This is to say that they are based on testing not confirming evidence.”

However, decision-making that is based on little or no evidence is unfortunately widespread in organisations and government agencies. We’ve discussed a number of examples in RealKM Magazine articles, including Net Promoter Score[iv], nudge management[v], predictive algorithms[vi], team building events[vii], and the use of social network sites in the workplace[viii].

Is KM any better? As Stephen Bounds alerts[ix], as do others[x], the KM discipline has a mixed track record in regard to evidence-based decision-making. This means that KM is now falling behind the overall field of management[xi] and also other management disciplines such as HR[xii].

Clearly, to have better KM, we need to make better evidence-based decisions in KM.

 How RealKM Magazine can help you with evidence-based KM

Since its establishment, RealKM Magazine has cemented a vital role in the international KM landscape, becoming a key go-to evidence resource for people working in the KM discipline and the managers and leaders of organisations.


RealKM Magazine can help you to:

  • understand the what, why, and how of evidence-based KM
  • access the evidence you need to make better evidence-based decisions in KM.

The RealKM Magazine article titled “The disastrous effects of opinion-based decisions, and how knowledge management can be better evidence-based” provides a good grounding in the fundamentals of evidence-based KM. It can be accessed at www.realkm.com/2018/02/16/the-disastrous-effects-of-opinion-based-decisions-and-how-knowledge-management-can-be-better-evidence-based.

Once you’ve gained an understanding of the essentials of evidence-based KM, you can visit www.realkm.com to access a wide range of evidence-based articles to use in your work. These include:

  • Special series on key topics from notable authors
  • Feature articles synthesising a range of research and information on thought-provoking topics
  • Articles discussing the findings of recent KM research.

The articles are published across six categories:

  • Brain power. Articles backed by sound research on individual and collective thinking and behaviour (both of the human and artificially intelligent kind), or that describe a real and specific case scenario.
  • Systems thinking. Articles backed by sound research on organisations and social systems (including complexity theory, organisational change, and culture), or that describe a real and specific case scenario.
  • ABCs of KM. Introductory/explainer articles on accepted knowledge management practice.
  • In the News. Articles relaying factual current affairs information that does not directly or indirectly endorse a particular conclusion.
  • Opinion. Editorial pieces and articles endorsing a particular conclusion or course of action without evidence of sound research being supplied.
  • Tools and techniques. Descriptions and/or reviews of tools and techniques that support knowledge management outcomes.

Access to RealKM Magazine articles is free, and you can subscribe to the RealKM Weekly Wrap email newsletter, or follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn, or Facebook.


Bruce Boyes (bruce@bruceboyes.info) is Editor and Lead Writer of RealKM Magazine (www.realkm.com) and a teacher at Shanxi University in northern China.


[i] Brook, B. (2018). NSW’s $2 billion new trains are too wide to get through tunnels. News Limited. http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/nsws-2-billion-new-trains-are-too-wide-to-get-through-tunnels/news-story/47bd2ee36f43cd3cdd2819078feb6011

[ii] Brook, B. (2018). Queensland Rail facing legal action because its new $4.4bn trains are basically illegal. News Limited. http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/design/queensland-rail-facing-legal-action-because-its-new-44bn-trains-are-basically-illegal/news-story/6a5bff8cf7706833b0eb41d6f81d06d2

[iii] Wilkinson, D. (2017). The devastating effects of opinion-based decisions. The Oxford Review. https://www.oxford-review.com/opinion-based-decisions/

[iv] Bounds, S. (2018). YABI (yet another bad KPI) – the problems with Net Promoter Score. RealKM Magazine. http://realkm.com/2018/01/10/yabi-yet-another-bad-kpi-the-problems-with-net-promoter-score/

[v] Boyes, B. (2017). Is “nudge management” the new scientific management approach? RealKM Magazine. http://realkm.com/2017/06/16/is-nudge-management-the-new-scientific-management-approach/

[vi] Gal, U. (2018). Predictive algorithms are no better at telling the future than a crystal ball. RealKM Magazine. http://realkm.com/2018/02/13/predictive-algorithms-are-no-better-at-telling-the-future-than-a-crystal-ball/

[vii] Gaskell, A. (2017). Are team building events great or awful? RealKM Magazine. http://realkm.com/2017/09/28/are-team-building-events-great-or-awful/

[viii] Boyes, B. (2017). Is the use of social network sites in the workplace really a negative? RealKM Magazine. http://realkm.com/2017/07/28/is-the-use-of-social-network-sites-in-the-workplace-really-a-negative/

[ix] Bounds, S. (2016). Critical Eye: Evidence of the importance of curation. RealKM Magazine. http://realkm.com/2016/07/28/critical-eye-evidence-of-the-importance-of-curation/

[x] Lambe, P. (2009). Is KM a Pseudoscience? Green Chameleon. http://greenchameleon.com/gc/blog_detail/is_km_a_pseudoscience/

[xi] CEBMa (undated). Welcome to the Center for Evidence-Based Management (CEBMa). https://www.cebma.org/

[xii] Boyes, B. (2017). Moving towards better evidence-based decisions in HR. RealKM Magazine. realkm.com/2017/12/08/moving-towards-better-evidence-based-decisions-in-hr/


K & IM Refer 34 (1), Spring 2018