Miguel Cornejo Castro just put up a nice draft of a piece discussing the perspectives of knowledge management, and the tools employed within each. In particular, the paper talks about KM as primary being in support of three objectives: Processes (where specific sets of information are needed in certain form, over and over again), Projects (where certain types of information are generally accessed to accomplish analysis toward varying ends) and Capabilities (as in enablement of knowledge discovery or one-off type access to material as needed).

In support of all three types of KM objectives are the types of tools we’ve all become familiar with – blogs, wikis, forums, directories, document/cms. The dynamic highlighted by the Miguel is the different ways that these tools are employed across the three objectives, and the different parties who use them, their reasons, and who the administrator is for each, within each objective perspective.

All of that is interesting – but really build up to the point that not all of the participants and perspectives (or any of them perhaps) will be in alignment in terms of purpose (see Integration and Emergence section of Miguel’s paper ), required functionality…, and thus the need for system itself to be emergent. This is a good substantiation of the case I was trying to make earlier in Planning for the Unknown… – not just with respect to semantic tools being able to accommodate the emergent nature, but in their addressing the interoperability needs as well. Further, the interoperability that is required is not just between toolsets, but between instances of utilization of a particular tool (such as one department’s use of a wiki being leveragable by other departmental wikis within the organization or network.