The Australian Library Journal
volume 50 issue 3

Library and information professionals and knowledge management: conceptions, challenges and conflicts

The level of interest suggests that knowledge management needs to be taken seriously as an issue for information professionals and for the fields of librarianship and information science. Knowledge management is perceived to offer a substantial enhancement of the role of the information professional. However, the confusion, variations and concerns expressed indicate that knowledge management is a difficult area still requiring significant exploration and development. The definition of the area is still very open and in some ways quite problematic. There is an understandable desire for this to be resolved. A recognised definition provides people with a more substantive base to explain the concept and to argue for its adoption. It enables them to establish their identity with respect to a specific concept, program or set of tools. Further, the current lack of status of many information professions, and the pervasive uncertainty in many industries suggest substantial reasons for developing a more coherent and strategically relevant professional identity. However, the breadth of approaches represented just by this group of information professionals suggests commonality may be difficult to achieve within the profession, let alone outside.

Manuscript received March 2001

This is a refereed article

Introduction
The growing awareness and value of knowledge in its various forms has been recognised in recent years in an emerging discourse known as knowledge management. (Quinn, 1992; Wiig, 1993; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Amidon, 1997; Sieloff, 1999; and Hansen et al, 1999). It has seen knowledge as embedded in the experiences, skills, wisdom and capabilities of people, as well as in the processes, routines and the tangible artefacts produced in an organisation. It is a discourse that has captured the attention of scholars, consultants, information providers, software developers, and personnel at all levels of the corporate sector. It is a diffuse and complex debate, providing not only multiple perspectives of what constitutes knowledge management, but also different underpinning assumptions about its nature, contextualisation, role, and indeed, the meanings of its constituent terms 'knowledge' and 'management'. For the most part, there is little explication of theoretical rationale or conceptual exploration of what 'knowledge' actually is, and indeed, how it relates to or differs from 'information', let alone an explication of the relationship, if any, between information management and knowledge management. Further, the dynamics of knowledge management is predominantly overlooked. These dynamics involve what or who it actually is that is being managed and how it is perceived within an organisation, its processes, and how this management relates to the structure and culture of the organisation and the roles of people within the organisation, including library and information professionals.

The knowledge management discourse has also captured the attention of professionals working in the library and information sector, and in recent years a body of literature has emerged that explicitly addresses knowledge management from the perspective primarily of librarians, with particular attention given to its definition, dimensions, processes, and benefits to the organisation (Broadbent, 1997; Southon & Todd, 1999; Todd, 1999a, 199b, 1999c, 1999d; Nicholson, 1997; and Tanner, 1999). While small in comparison with the groundswell of knowledge management literature, this literature carries a key assumption that library and information professionals have an important role to play in knowledge management and, if anything, serves to 'stake a claim' in the knowledge management territory, in part, as a vehicle for enhancing the professional image and role of the information professional.

Definitions of knowledge management have generally been quite diverse, but have in common an emphasis on the distinctiveness from information management. Broadbent, defined it as 'a form of expertise management which draws out tacit knowledge, making it accessible for specific purposes to improve the performance of organisations; about how the organisation's 'know-how' should be structured, organised, located and utilised to provide the most effective action at that point in time' (Broadbent, 1997: 6, 7). She emphasises 'working with the intangible knowings of people'. Similarly, DiMattia & Oder (1997) maintain this theme, but introduce a technical component: 'blending a company's internal and external information and turning it into actionable knowledge via a technology platform. [It] must involve capturing the internal knowledge generated by a firm - its best thinking on products, customers, competitors, and processes - and sharing it' (1997: 3). Nicholson, manager of The One Umbrella group, a large career placement service for the information and library sector across Australia, provides a more corporate context, seeing knowledge management as an 'opportunity to maximise the return on investment in information and communication technology; to leverage the intellectual capital locked up in key staff; to learn from and benefit from sharing information, processes, best practices, skills and competencies; to exploit the wealth of information in corporate records, reports, databases' (Nicholson, 1997: 2). Common to these definitions is the tendency to objectify knowledge - treating it as a 'thing' that can be captured, organised and made available. In contrast, Todd (1999a, b, c, d) takes a more dynamic approach, involving 'the synergies of organisational and personal practices that effectively tap into, organise and utilise people's competencies, experiences, expertises, skills, talents, thoughts, ideas, intuitions, commitments, innovations, practices and imaginations, and which integrate these as part of the information resources of an organisation to achieve its goals' (Todd, 1999a: 43). He posits knowledge management as an holistic management practice that enables individuals in organisations to interact with, utilise and add value to all the information, knowledge and wisdom that an organisation possesses. Southon (2000) proposes a more organisational approach, arguing that knowledge management is about 'conceptualising the organisation as an integrated information/knowledge system, and the management of the organisation for the effective use of that information and knowledge'. Thus management is more of the organisation than of the knowledge per se.

This brief overview serves to highlight the diversity of knowledge management perspectives that are emerging within the library and information sector. While this diversity may be valuable, it also leads to confusion, and on the part of some, a dismissive, if not sceptical approach to the ideas. If information professionals are to be supported in responding to the challenge of knowledge management, then it is important to understand what concepts they have of knowledge management, how these concepts are interpreted and what their reactions are, and how this understanding might be developed to effectively respond to the knowledge management challenge. This is the central focus of the research reported in this paper.

Research aims
This research, conducted between September 1999 and February 2000, sought to identify the perceptions of knowledge management held by library and information professionals in Australia. It specifically aimed to:

1. establish levels of awareness of the term 'knowledge management';
   
   
2. identify the perceptions of knowledge management, and its relation to information management;
   
   
3. identify the perception of the institutional understanding of, and responses, to knowledge management;
   
   
4. identify key skills and understandings that are considered to be required in undertaking knowledge management; and
   
   
5. identify key elements in the information profession's response to the challenge of knowledge management, and in particular the type of support that might be required in order for the profession to realise its perceived role and potential within the knowledge management arena.

This paper addresses the first three aims related to the information professionals' perception of knowledge management, while a subsequent paper (in publication) examines the perceptions of core knowledge and skills required and the key educational implications.

It is acknowledged that this research represents a snapshot in time, describing a moment in a rapidly changing and dynamic arena, from the perspective of a limited sample of library and information professionals. It is principally descriptive in nature, seeking to identify key conceptions. However, in charting the emerging perceptions of a complex discourse, it provides a rich insight into the challenges, conflicts and needs of the library and information sector as it engages with knowledge management concepts. In addition, it provides a substantive benchmark for the emerging arena, and some research directions for exploring the field.

Participants
Fifty-six library and information professionals participated in the study. The participants were non-randomly selected through a voluntary participation process. Information professionals were invited to take part in the following ways. One-hundred-and-sixty senior librarians and information workers were identified through a public mailing list provided by the State Library of New South Wales and additional participants were sought through electronic broadcast messages on a range of sector listservs and discussion groups, including the knowledge management electronic discussion group operated by the Department of Information Studies, at the University of Technology, Sydney. Of the fifty-four participants, twenty-eight were library professionals from the public sector, nine were other information professionals in government, three were in educational libraries, four in legal services and nine in other commercial sectors. The average reported professional experience in the library and information sector was 16.5 years. The majority of participants had formal undergraduate or graduate qualifications in librarianship, information studies or records management.

Data collection
Data were collected in two ways. First, the participants were mailed a four-page questionnaire that posed both ten-point Likert scale and open questions addressing the issues shown below. The questionnaire was accompanied by a letter which emphasised the uncertain nature of the topic, and requested participants to respond on the basis of their current understanding. No definitions of knowledge, knowledge management or information management were provided. There was some overlap in the questions which enabled the concepts to be approached from different perspectives. For instance, the concept of knowledge, while not specifically defined, is implicit in several of the questions. Ten information professionals agreed to pilot the questionnaire, resulting in a number of changes chiefly to improve clarity of the questions. The questionnaire was mailed out in September 1999. The topics addressed were as follows:

Views of knowledge management and related topics

• Levels of awareness and understanding of knowledge management (Likert scale).
• Difference between information and knowledge (open-ended question).
• Significance of this difference (Likert scale).
• Characteristics of knowledge management and information management (open-ended question).
• Significance of difference (Likert scale).
• General views of knowledge management (open-ended question).

Organisational aspects of knowledge management.

• Organisational understanding of knowledge management (Likert scale).
• Level of activity in knowledge management (Likert scale).
• Types of activity (open-ended question).

Professional Issues

• Effect on information professional (Likert scale).

Demographic data

• Information on position, sector, professional qualification and years of work as professionals.

The second means of collecting data was through two focus groups, (with six and eight participants respectively), drawn from participants who expressed their willingness to take part in the groups. These groups took place in February and March 2000 at the University of Technology, Sydney. Focus group participants were provided with a brief description of key perceptions and trends emerging out of the questionnaire, and these served as a basis for in-depth probing of the ideas, patterns and issues raised, and to elaborate on the preliminary analysis of the questionnaire data.

Data analysis
The Likert scale data were tabulated and analysed with the SPSS program using both Pearson and Spearman's correlations. Qualitative data were categorised into thematic groups. This was initially undertaken independently by the researchers to establish inter-judge reliability. The focus group discussions were audio recorded and transcribed, and the qualitative analysis package, Nud*ist was used in analysing and coding the data and establishing the conceptual categorisations that emerged. There were two stages of data analysis: categorising the data in each of the survey questions (as outlined in the tables) and in drawing from the various tables and the focus group sessions the key findings.

Findings
Awareness and understanding of knowledge management
The responses to the Likert scale measure of awareness of knowledge management, as shown in Figure 1, were well spread, with many more choosing 'none' than 'extensive'.

Figure 1. Plots and correlation of awareness and understanding responses
However, the greatest concentration was towards the high end (6-8), indicating that the concept was reasonably familiar to most participants. The responses to 'Understanding of knowledge management' showed a similar distribution, with perhaps a slight shift to the lower end. Both had a bimodal distribution and a significant correlation between them (Person Correlation Coeff = .83), indicating that there might be two groups. This division was not evident from the scattergram, however, which suggests that the distinction may be artefactual. Correlation analysis also indicated that people with greater understanding of knowledge management tended to have less years of experience and be in the private sector.

The qualitative data indicate the existence of a broad range of perceptions of knowledge management. These differences led to a lively debate in the focus groups. Participants acknowledged that it is a difficult and confusing term:

Vague term which is causing considerable confusion. Not well researched or explored theoretically. In danger of being another management mantra.

I also believe KM will fade away in favour of enhanced information management.

Never heard of term. Can guess what it means. Sounds a new jargon.

For me, I see it as something that has always been there, it is now labelled.

Knowledge management is a term with many meanings.

It is not clearly defined or understood by those who use it.

Perceptions of knowledge management?
Participants were asked to write a concise summary of their views of knowledge management, and to indicate the characteristics of knowledge management and information management respectively. Considerable diversity of viewpoint was evident. While some of the interpretations of knowledge management were quite broad, recognising the greater scope of the concept of knowledge, incorporating tacit, implicit, skills and experience, as well as cultural and organisational issues, for the most part, knowledge management was closely related to information, technology, processes or organisations. Table 1 identified the six predominant perspectives of knowledge management that emerged in the study.

Individual knowledge

• Capture of tacit and explicit knowledge, used created and shared to leverage further knowledge which (if managed accurately) will be returned to the knowledge base. This knowledge is the intellectual capital investment of an organisation and is used for decision-making and subsequent action.
• The capture of knowledge, as distinct from information. This higher level of the continuum - data, information, knowledge, and wisdom - has an emphasis on internal understanding.
• Managing the fruits of human experience and expertise that a person has.
• Preservation of a person's intellectual property and 'know how' despite the passage of people.

Collective knowing in organisational context

• Knowledge management to me is being able to bring the information together into something more useful.
• If I put it round another way, if our organisation had good knowledge management it would actually have information put together in a way that made sense, in a way that made it more useful, that highlighted areas of expertise in the organisation, that enabled people to know what was going on around the organisation.
• The process by which knowledge resides within an organisation and is harnessed and used for the organisation's competitive advantage. It includes information held in documents and reports, and in people's heads.

Technology use

• Technology enabling people and processes for the capture, processing, and publishing of knowledge for leveraging and reuse.
• Knowledge management is the use of information and systems to give statistical trends, make financial forecasts, in short it makes information more useful for organisations.
• All encompassing system of organising the knowledge of the organisation, with extensive use of computer applications.

Technical processes

• Management of processes and devices to organise and utilise information, so that the knowledge of an individual or organisation can grow.
• An intellectual process identifying 'information' of value as could be value added to add to the ability of an organisation to perform to its maximum potential in an economical and efficient way.
• Where information is tailored to meet the specific information requirements of an individual or group ... the way it is aggregated and presented may be very different for different individuals or groups even in the one organisation.
• Attempts to manipulate / make use of information resources that exist in other forms to provide new products, new information, increase accessibility and meet a variety of information needs.

Broad, strategic perspective

• I see knowledge management as a combination of the corporate plan, cultural milieu, information management, technology, change management and collective experience all being used to manage and access intellectual capital.
• Encompasses a broad range of perspectives and a process which involves various people in an organisation. This means collaboration and sharing and covering ideas for managing the process of managing and organisation effectiveness.

Problematic

• Vague term which is causing considerable confusion. Not well researched or explored theoretically. In danger of being another management mantra.
• For me, I see it as something that has always been there, it is now labelled.
• Until we can effectively manage our written/graphical corporate information, we are a long way from managing what we think. If we have our written information managed, we are two thirds of the way towards managing our knowledge. I also believe KM will fade away in favour of enhance information management.
• Trying to manage knowledge seems like a step up from info. management and has connotations of a totalitarian state - Directing knowledge to who and where you want it for your own ends.
• This is a library. Our role is not to synthesise information into knowledge, but to order, classify and arrange information so that others may 'create' knowledge.
• The problem is in defining knowledge as distinct from information. When does knowledge become information? When does information become knowledge? Are we talking about expert systems? If so they're old news.

Table 1 Views on Knowledge Management
The predominant perspective centred on the cognitive state of the individual, and the recognition that an individual has a wealth of accumulated knowing, wisdom, experiences, skills, competencies, residing within the mind. The second most popular viewpoint of knowledge management focused on the value of the collective knowing integrated into the organisational infrastructure. The emphasis was not so much on the individual knowing and its characteristics, although this was fundamental, but the consolidation and incorporation of an individual's knowing into the existing information bank of the organisation - a group or collective focus, that gave emphasis to linkages to ensure maximum flow of this knowledge. The third view of knowledge management focused on the use of technology. While there was no explication of specific technologies or knowledge management softwares, there was a sense that knowledge management centred not only on the use of technology to enhance the organisation, access, flow and uses of information in the organisation, but indeed to undertake more sophisticated computerised information analysis, akin to notions of data mining. The fourth most predominant view of knowledge management focused on technical processes related to tangible information documents: their collection, aggregation, organisation, control and retrieval. The emphasis here is not on the 'what' of knowledge management, but the 'how'.

In analysing the range of viewpoints of how library and information professionals perceive knowledge management, two important aspects emerge. Firstly, the views tend to be fragmented, focusing on explicit pieces of the whole - such as technology, the knowledge or information objects, or specific information management processes - rather than portraying a more holistic, encompassing notion of knowledge management as commonly portrayed in the substantive literature to date. Secondly, the views of knowledge management were often seen in isolation to other functions, processes, divisions and personnel in the organisation. There were only few exceptions to this fragmented view, where knowledge management was conceptualised more holistically as an organisational-wide strategy.

Emerging out of these perspectives were also several important viewpoints about the nature of knowledge management. These were perceptions that knowledge management was:

1. a renaming of information management. Participants gave examples of librarians moving into knowledge management positions with little change in role, and information technology being called knowledge management systems. For example:

   'I also believe KM will fade away in favour of enhanced information management.'

2. an extension of information management. Participants asserted that they were able to use their basic information management skills to develop the knowledge management role to provide better targeted and more integrated information services.
   
   
3. a very broad program of which information management was only a part. It was perceived by some participants that information professionals would be unlikely to have the skills and standing for a knowledge management position (partly because of their traditionally low status), but could be important contributors to knowledge management programs.

   'I get the impression that the role of the information professional is basically managing the information in the context where they understand how people are using knowledge.'

4. A poorly defined and problematic phenomenon. Some participants saw knowledge management as rather faddish, subject to diverse interpretations and likely to change form or disappear in the future. It was 'much more difficult to do than information management', and might even be 'a futile attempt' with sinister implications:

   'connotations of a totalitarian state - Directing knowledge to who and where you want it for your own ends.'

These variations reflect great uncertainty as to the general nature of the field, and suggest that there would be a wide range of interpretations of its meaning and how they should respond to it. While some sought better definitions, others were not so concerned, likening it to a 'butterfly on a board - it you pin it down too precisely you will lose it'.

Perceptions of knowledge management and its relation to information management
The questionnaire and focus groups sought to identify the characteristics of knowledge management and information management, and to indicate what the significant differences were between the two concepts. While some of the participants saw knowledge management simply as 'information management in new robes' or 'enhanced information management' or 'information management given a sexy label', the majority of participants were able to articulate key differences between knowledge management and information management. Indeed, differences, rather than commonalities were presented. Some saw the question of articulating the characteristics of knowledge management and information management as confronting: 'I am totally thrown by this question and need something even an example on which to base my answer. The next bit makes me feel like I am in an exam and out of my depth - too hard'. The differences identified fall into seven major categories, and are summarised in Table 2. The bullet points in each conceptual grouping are examples of specific characteristics explicitly stated by participants.

Table 2 Key differences between information management and knowledge management
The characteristics of knowledge management contrasted substantially with the characteristics of information management. This was immediately evident in the choice of terms participants used to describe the key characteristics. Information management was described with largely technical, service-oriented terms such as organising information, processes and systems, access to and provision of information, retrieval - an 'organisational doing' construct. On the other hand, knowledge management was described in terms of people-centred characteristics: sharing, understanding, intellectual capital, enabling people, interacting, using - in essence, an 'organisational being' construct. Overall, There was very little reference to analysis or other content processing, client interests or organisational perspectives when discussing information management.

Particularly noteworthy is the perception that knowledge management is seen as distinct from information management. This separation may have been a consequence of the way that the question was posed; however, the clear articulation of the differences suggested that information management and knowledge management were entirely different practices.

There was a consistent perception that information management, unlike knowledge management, is a well defined, achievable technical process. It deals with 'hard copy or digital sources'. It is 'system based' with defined steps of 'acquisition, storage and access' with the purpose of 'making information available'. It is based in a specific department, particularly a library, and is considered 'do-able'. This appears to be a narrowly defined concept, with little or no consideration of the context in which it is provided, its overall objectives or the contribution that it makes.

On the other hand, knowledge management is perceived by participants as complex, and involving difficult organisational issues. These include:

1. An holistic view of the organisation where one is dealing with 'organisational experience' and 'knowledge of customers, markets and processes' and 'organisational co-ordination':

   'Encompasses a broad range of perspectives and a process which involves various people in an organisation. This means collaboration and sharing and converging ideas for managing the process of managing and organisation effectiveness').

   The need for such a view was expressed in the focus group:

   'We are not very big, but it surprises me how many people can have no knowledge of what another group of people does and yet what that other group of people is doing may be impacting on them, and if they actually got together they could sort it out and do things better.'

2. Human and social processes. Knowledge management was 'based on people and relationships', 'exchange of understanding' and a 'culture of sharing knowledge', incentives and the use of power.

   'Information has always been power - it is a real competitive edge. It is something that they have to overcome and it won't happen quickly especially in these areas where they have held things close to their chest.'

   'essentially knowledge management is about managing relationships with people, and I think you can look at it as an organisation it is managing relationships with your internal people- your human resources.'

3. Value.There was considerable interest in the value of knowledge to both users and the wider organisation. People mentioned the 'ability of an organisation to perform to its maximum potential' or 'to gain some type of advantage or competitive edge'. This places it far beyond a mere technical process. Another problem was that information was seen to be not valued, whereas knowledge was more so.

   'The problem is, in the library, information is free, people say it is free, the Internet is free, but knowledge is not, knowledge is power. As soon as you say knowledge it has a different connotation so it would be interesting if you change that.'

4. Sophisticated information processing. Knowledge management involved more sophisticated information processing including 'knowing how to make link/connections between disparate sources' and 'being able to bring the information together into something more useful'.
   
   
5. Technology is important, but problematic. Despite the emphasis that many gave to cognition and human interaction, technology played an important role, and for some technology was the central element:

   'Technology enabling people and processes for the capture, processing, and publishing of knowledge for leveraging and reuse.' (table 3)

   'I work in a technology industry and yes, interestingly enough, when I talk to people and mention knowledge management they immediately think of databases and data warehousing, data mining and so on.'

   In the focus groups there was a much greater caution based on experiences in information management. While participants recognised the importance of information technology they saw it as quite problematic, often obscuring the essential role of information:

   'A lot [of programs] have been spectacularly unsuccessful because they have relied on the IT to develop information products'

   Participants indicated that it was important for information professionals to be competent in using the technology, both in meeting the expectations of users and being able to deal effectively with IT staff. However, they felt it was necessary to avoid the common perception of knowledge management as being essentially about technology, as has tended to be the case with information.

   'If linguistically you examine information it is invariably with another word, whereas knowledge more often stands on its own. If you do it linguistically you will find that it is information technology.'

   The responses to the questions of information and knowledge and their management carried with them an implicit concept of management as largely instrumental:

   'Capture of tacit and explicit knowledge, used created and shared to leverage further knowledge which (if managed accurately) will be returned to the knowledge base. This knowledge is the intellectual capital investment of an organisation and is used for decision making and subsequent action.' (table 3)

In the case of information, management was largely related to the artefacts or the systems involved. With knowledge, the situation was a little more complex. Management involved both information management, albeit a little more sophisticated than in the case of information, and the management of people, particularly in their sharing cultures. These concepts of management were associated with management of both technology and human resources. However, there was little reference to the overall management of the organisation, and in particular, the role of senior management. Management, then, was seen as being largely restricted to dealing with information and knowledge as entities

Conceptions of information and knowledge
The above distinctions between knowledge management and information management have at their roots quite different conceptions of what information and knowledge are. A range of perceptions emerged, as reflected in Table 3. Information and knowledge were seen to differ in terms of their form, the nature of their content, their significance and their use. The bullet points in each conceptual grouping are examples of specific characteristics explicitly stated by participants.

Participants commonly perceived information as being like an object, or a physical phenomenon, arising from processed data and representing facts. It is tangible, recorded and packaged in some way, and in discrete elements. It is used to inform. It was described as 'tangible', 'hard copy', 'concrete', and 'recorded in some form'. It arose from data, and through processing was structured and organised in some way to give it meaning and relevance. Participants described this as 'human transformation of data', 'data given context or meaning', 'discrete bits of data which have been manipulated'. It was perceived as factual and authoritative messages, capable of being verified, for example 'factual information gathered without particular application', 'authoritative sources'. Thus in the main, information stands on its own as an independent object which is subject to manipulation.

Participants perceived knowledge to be derived from pre-existing information. It was information that was 'internalised', 'absorbed and synthesised', 'collated and collected', or 'interpreted'. Some made reference to the hierarchy of data, information, knowledge and wisdom, with the suggestion that it is a one-way progression.

'Basically, data [is] in documents and you perceive certain of those to be relevant and that is information, you apply those perceptions and that is knowledge and you get enough of those applications and you call yourself wise.'

Such an interpretation implies that knowledge management is a natural progression from data and information management.

As indicated in Table 3, knowledge was perceived to involve cognitive processes. For example, participants highlighted 'the human transformation of information with context'; 'these sources put together and interpreted to reveal knowledge useful for one's organisation'; 'synthesis of information from various sources and applied to a problem'. Rather than an object, knowledge was a 'capacity' associated with experience and expertise and 'resided in a person's head'. It was more context-dependent and holistic. It 'related to some context or aim' or was 'gathered with a particular application or philosophical view'. Thus knowledge is seen to be more of a process, engaging more with people, their perceptions and objectives, and is more integrative.

Table 3 Key differences between the concepts of information and knowledge

Perceptions of institutional understanding of and responses to knowledge management
Participants indicated that they felt that there was, in general, poor understanding of concept of knowledge management within their organisations as indicated in Figure 2. The median response was 3 (out of 10).

Figure 2. Level of understanding and level of activity in organisations
Despite the lack of understanding of knowledge management, participants reported a significantly higher level of activity (median response 4.5), as shown in Figure 2. They were able to identify a considerable number of processes that they considered to be knowledge management activities, although these were not necessarily identified as such within their organisations. Six major categories of institutional activities were identified. These are shown in Table 4. There were approximately two items quoted per participant.

Creating an infrastructure

• Establishing a knowledge management team
• Looking at tools that will help users locate pieces of knowledge regardless of format
• Developing and maintaining a policy manual and associated procedures
• Recruitment of KM consultant
• Purchase of KM software
• Writing policy documents that include knowledge management

Establishing integrated systems and networks to share knowledge

• Organisation linked to national and global knowledge network
• Research tracking system
• Intranet development
• Development of full-text searching for organisation's internal file
• Precedents and opinions database established
• Intranet to link company sources of information together
• Attempts to streamline related IT projects in the company and provide an interface
• Creation of a staff 'yellow pages' showing expertise and skills
• Setting up QM system which documents particular ways of doing certain options based on past experiences
• E-mail sharing

Fostering organisational participation and sharing of ideas

• Reporting on conferences attended
• Brainstorming meetings to solve issues
• Selective and directional use of internet resources
• Involvement of managing partners in precedent development
• Social activities
• Collaborative approach to ideas generation and problem solving
• Sharing of best practices in company forums

Developing Information Skills

• Teaching information literacy skills, search strategies and record keeping skills
• Empowering individuals to search for information
• Providing training courses to staff
• Developing understanding of the various sectors of the company
• Making staff aware of resources available

Information analysis

• Analysis of relevant census data
• Analysis of statistics
• After action reviews
• Using data collected in client records to monitor trends
• Analysis of how clients approach software systems

Information capture and consolidation

• Establishing a system for staff to notarise documents
• Thought mapping
• Mapping work flows
• Guidance notes attached to documents which capture senior expertise
• Leverage of best practices across geographies
• Business process documentation
• Gathering information about how people do things

Organisation-wide or Strategic Initiatives

• Preparation of a corporate plan which articulates KM processes
• Involvement of information staff in development of strategic plan
• Involvement of key library staff in development of strategic plans with other senior Council Staff. Such including an understanding of operations of various sectors of Council working documents. The meanings behind them not just receiving of them. This with a view to a better overall management plan production and content for organisations.

Table 4. Knowledge management activities
As shown in Table 4, there are a significant number of knowledge management activities being undertaken, ranging from specific, local and small scale initiatives, to a few wide-ranging, organisation-wide programs, intranets, work flows, taxonomy development, cultural change initiatives, developing knowledge management networks, and leveraging best practices across geographic boundaries. There is evidence that some attention is also being given to enhancing the conditions in which knowledge is generated, shared and used. There is also a perception that knowledge management initiatives work effectively when supported with a technology base. However, the study provided little evidence that knowledge management activities were situated within the broader mission and objectives of the organisation, linked to organisational goals, and mainstreamed into the wider culture and practices of the organisation, or providing a framework for the implementation of strategies for organisational development, learning and sustainability. In essence, there was little conceptualisation of the organisation as a holistic knowledge organisation; rather, knowledge management was seen as an attachment, something that librarians and information professionals ought to be doing from their domain of practice. In other words, there was the perception that knowledge management was a service of the library, owned and controlled by it, something it offered to the wider organisation, rather than something owned by the whole organisation - indeed, an add-on to the organisation, rather than something perceived to be integral and fundamental to it. This is very much an atomistic view of knowledge management.

Some spectific patterns stand out. Quite a number of the knowledge management initiatives identified went little beyond traditional information management activities. Most activities could be considered as natural parts of records management, information management, and data capture and analysis. Examples were enhanced record and document searching features on library databases and catalogues, use of standardised formats for outgoing faxes, letters and memorandums across departments, developing and maintaining a policy manual and associated procedures for filing and cataloguing, and use of the library catalogue. Some people did not consider such activities to be knowledge management.

'I consider all our efforts to be information management activities - we're having enough problems doing that, without trying to take the next step to knowledge management.'

Few of the participants related their activities to the broader mission and objectives of the organisation, or mainstreamed them into its wider culture and practices. In addition to the majority of information-based activities, there was only a small number of broader projects involved which went beyond that which was normally involved in information services.

'Involvement of key library staff in development of strategic plans with other senior council staff. Such including an understanding of operations of various sectors of Council working documents'.

There was controversy concerning the appropriate organisational level for knowledge management initiatives, particularly in the focus groups. While all participants recognised that knowledge management had organisation-wide implications, some felt it was necessary to start small and hope that the idea filtered outwards. Others felt that it had to be supported and resourced from the top, especially as it affected business processes and could take a long time to be established.

'You don't get anything to happen unless there is that drive from the top. One of the things we can better do as information professionals is lobby to get resources to do it properly and that is going to come from senior management.'

Significant differences were found between the participants from the public and private sectors in the coded data. In the private sector there was a greater perceived level of personal awareness and understanding as well as in the organisational understanding. Interestingly, the assessment of the level of KM activity was not significantly different, although the private sector activities appeared more sophisticated. Another significant correlation indicated that work experience in the private sector was significantly shorter.

Discussion
The level of interest suggests that knowledge management needs to be taken seriously as a professional issue for information professionals and for the fields of librarianship and information science. Knowledge management is perceived to offer a substantial enhancement of the role of the information professional. However, the confusion, variations and concerns expressed indicate that knowledge management is a difficult area still requiring significant exploration and development. The definition of the area is still very open and in some ways quite problematic. There is an understandable desire for this to be resolved. A recognised definition provides people with a more substantive base to explain the concept and to argue for its adoption. It enables them to establish their identity with respect to a specific concept, program or set of tools. Further, the current lack of status of many information professions, and the pervasive uncertainty in many industries suggest substantial reasons for developing a more coherent and strategically relevant professional identity. However, the breadth of approaches represented just by this group of information professionals suggests commonality may be difficult to achieve within the profession, let alone outside.

The difference in interpretation between information and knowledge management provided an interesting contrast in perspective. In many respects the view of information management represented the traditional view - that is, that of a provider of physical artefacts of knowledge. The focus was on the technical processes of gathering and organising information to enable access, with little engagement with what is done with that information or the overall impact of the service on the organisation. The view of knowledge management, on the other hand, involved processing of the information and adapting it to the needs of the user in the light of overall organisational objectives. This more strategic view is similar to that being promoted as the ideal for modern information services (Goulding et al, 1999). Thus we find that for these participants, information management is seen in very narrow instrumental terms which is consistent with the low esteem that they complain of, whereas knowledge management appears to challenge many of them to think more broadly, contextually and strategically, in terms that are more likely advance their roles in the organisation, while staying within the information framework. A smaller number did extend their thinking to the cognitive and social domains, which are some of the distinctive characteristics of knowledge management. It seems, then, that knowledge management is providing the information management professional an opportunity to rejuvenate its view of its profession, but that many have a long way to go before they engage effectively with the full scope of knowledge management concepts.

The role of technology was controversial. While its value was accepted, there was a significant difference between those who saw technology at the centre of knowledge management, and those being cautious about its role - insisting that it retains a strictly supportive position. The first is consistent with dominant industry developments where knowledge management has been characterised by a wealth of technology often referred to as 'KM systems.' There is also a strong reaction to this development, with much comment on the lack of success of such approaches (Malhotra, 2000). There seems to be considerable justification, therefore, in the desire to keep technology in a supportive rather than a leadership role. This will be difficult given the strong commercial power of the technology industries, their traditional dominance of information management and the power of technology experts in many organisations (Davenport, 1994). It will be a difficult, but essential task for information professionals to contribute their skills and understanding of information and knowledge processes and roles to enable organisations to appreciate the role that technology is able to play.

The concept of management was also pertinent. The use of the term by the participants in the study suggests that management is principally about technical activities performed on or towards 'definable objects'. Yet, organisations themselves are hardly 'definable objects', and in many ways exhibit similarly problematic, ephemeral and socially defined characteristics as knowledge itself does. Thus the word 'management' in the organisational setting allows for a much broader interpretation than that which dominates here. Greater care needs to be taken to appreciate the nuances of the word, and to avoid confusion of the term as applied in different circumstances. It is possible that some of the more sophisticated concepts of management which better appreciate of the complexities of effective organisational management as expressed by some of the modern writers (Handy, 1993; Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1995) may be of value.

It is quite understandable that many professionals were interested in the potential of knowledge management raising the status of the profession within their organisation. However, this approach presents a dilemma. The endeavour to raise status has within it a potential conflict with their organisation and its culture which currently holds them in low esteem. However, success in knowledge management requires co-operative engagement with these elements. Thus if professional status becomes the primary objective, there is a risk in placing information professionals at odds with other players, thus subverting the basis of their knowledge management programs. Alternately, if contribution to organisational effectiveness is the objective, it is easier to work together. This, however, requires perceptive understanding, and the confidence that recognition will flow from that success.

Professional standing also relates to the way that information professionals can project their understanding and skills within their organisations. With the low understanding of knowledge management here reported, information professionals have a major task in raising the understanding of the topic within the organisation. There is a need to go beyond eliciting support from senior management for knowledge management programs, to enabling management to incorporate concepts of knowledge more effectively into their whole management process. They have a vital role, for instance, in promoting effective culture and co-ordination.

The Australian Library Journal has highlighted the need for this educational role:

'So why is it that the management of knowledge is not yet a primary concern in the minds of the managers in such a context [of government and specialised information agencies]. How is it that the need for thesauri, a classification, indexing ... remains unchallenged?' (Editorial 2000).

The explanation for this has been given in the TFPL report (TFPL 1999):

'The impact of information science skills in KM environments has been hampered by their traditional application to external information, the perceived lack of business understanding amongst information professionals, the diverse range of information related activities with a corporate environment, and a lack of visibility of the discipline itself.'

However, to achieve this, as Butler (2000), amongst others, have pointed out, information professionals will need to demonstrate their relevance to organisational goals, which will require broad understanding of the organisation, its clients and the role of information and knowledge in achieving success. It will also require strong educational and promotional skills. While some of these attitudes are emerging in the discussion of knowledge management, the lack of them associated with information management suggests that this is a new development. A recent UK study (Goulding et al, 1999) of the employment of Information and Library School graduates identified 'commitment to organisational goals' as the quality most lacking amongst librarians. This is also supported by the findings of Davenport and Cronin (2000) who found that much information science literature places knowledge management essentially within traditional information science frameworks, with little extension to the conceptual and organisational dimensions.

There are benefits in developing a more sophisticated understanding of the role of knowledge and the supporting information in that it will highlight the central role of information professionals within the organisation of knowledge, information and the supporting professionals. Information professionals will, however, require a strategic view of the organisation and the ability to work co-operatively with a range of other professionals with whom they are potentially in conflict. There are many other professions that may lay claim to knowledge management in different respects - including those engaged in information technology, artificial intelligence, human resources and organisational and cognitive studies. Prospects of 'turf warfare' would be very destructive to all involved and to the overall understanding of the subject. Such conflict could be resolved, however, if participants saw themselves as contributing to knowledge management rather than owning it as such. This leaves open the roles of the respective parties and their relative status. It also leaves open such questions as the definition of knowledge, information and their differences. It should be noted that while definitions have been contentious within information management, even extending to the definition of information itself, the profession has still been able to develop. Information has in fact seen management by a diverse range of people, with many working independently for their own purposes. Although there have been centres of information management (for example, libraries, records centres, and data bases), these have been most effective when they have worked in close collaboration with the working practices of people throughout the organisation, not seeking to control information, but supporting the effective management of certain types of information and supporting the management practices of others.

The differences between public and private sectors are significant, with the suggestion that the private sector is driven by younger, more aware staff, adapting to the needs of their organisation to optimise their performance. There is potential for bias being generated by the selection process (private sector members had generally previously identified themselves as being interested in knowledge management). It is also possible that the public sector is lacking the same organisational imperatives that the private sector has. To an extent, public libraries are addressing the needs of individuals, rather than a clearly identifiable organisational or community objectives. There is an opportunity, perhaps, for a community-based knowledge management perspective with an objective of engaging knowledge within the community to the overall benefit of the community.

Research implications
It is clear that there will be many uncertainties in the way that knowledge management develops and information professionals engage with it. There is scope for investigating such questions as:

1. What are the approaches that information professionals have taken to initiate successful knowledge management projects?
   
   
2. What are the different knowledge management related techniques and technologies that emerge, and what are the approaches required to ensure that they serve the organisation effectively?
   
   
3. What are management approaches and understanding of knowledge management, and what role can information professionals play in assisting management to better develop their understanding?
   
   
4. What approaches are organisations taking to evaluate the impact of their knowledge management programs and to establish the appropriate level and nature of their activities?
   
   
5. What industries are most appropriate for knowledge management initiatives, and what roles can information professionals most effectively play - wether internally or as external consultants?

In order for such questions to be addressed there needs to be a close engagement between the information profession and academic institutions so that the research is both relevant and valid.

Conclusion
Knowledge management presents a major shift in focus regarding the development and use of knowledge and information in increasing the effectiveness of any organisation. It presents an opportunity for information professionals to make themselves relevant to their parent organisations in a much more vital way than has generally been the case. It also presents a major challenge to information professionals to engage with issues that have not generally been regarded as their task, either by themselves, or by those for whom they work. It is clear that the phenomenon implies a broader and more organisationally directed thinking on the part of information professionals if they are to engage successfully in this area. Flexibility will be essential as the field and its contexts evolve over the next few years. Maintaining effectiveness and credibility under these circumstances will require very broad skills, engagement with the environment in which they are working and an ability to learn rapidly from all sources, especially from their colleagues in the organisation at large. It will also require effective research to enable the profession to understand how it is developing in these areas and how to best progress. These issues represent major educational and professional challenges which will be explored further in a subsequent paper.

References
Amidon, Debra M (1997). Innovation strategy for the knowledge economy: The Ken awakening. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Bartlett, C & Ghoshal, S (1995). Changing the role of the top management: Beyond systems to people. Harvard Business Review. May-June, 132-142.

Broadbent, M (1997). The emerging phenomenon of knowledge management. The Australian Library Journal. February, 6-24.

Butler, Y (2000). Knowledge management, if only you knew what you knew, Australian Library Journal February, 31.

Davenport E. and Cronin B (2000). Knowledge management: Semantic drift or conceptual shift. ALISE 2000 - Annual Conference of the American Library and Information Science, San Antonio, Texas, January 11-14.

Davenport, T (1994). Saving IT's soul: Human-centered information management. Harvard Business Review. March-April, 119-131.

DiMattia, S and Oder, (1997). Knowledge management: Hope, hype, or harbinger? Library Journal. 122(15), 133-134.

Editorial (2000), Knowledge what? Australian Library Journal May 2000.

Goulding, A, Bromham, B, Hannabuss, S and Cramer, D, (1999). Supply and demand: the workforce needs of library and information services and personal qualities of new professionals. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 31(4), 212.

Handy C (1993). Understanding Organisations. Penguin.

Hansen, M T, N Nohria, and T Tierney (1999). 'What's your strategy for managing knowledge?' Harvard Business Review 77(2):106-16.

Malhotra, Y (2000) 'Knowledge management for e-business performance: advancing information strategy to 'internet time'' Information Strategy: The Executive's Journal 16(4), 5-16.

Nicholson, M (1997). The remaking of librarians in the knowledge era: skills to meet future requirements. Library Locums. Occasional Paper.

Nonaka, I and Takeuchi H (1995). The knowledge-creating company, how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Quinn, J B (1992). Intelligent enterprise: A knowledge and service based paradigm for industry. New York: The Free Press.

Sieloff, C G (1999). ''If only HP knew what HP knows': the roots of knowledge management at Hewlett-Packard.' Journal of Knowledge Management 3(1).

Southon (2000) http://www.uts.edu.au/fac/hss/Departments/DIS/km/introduct.htm#Defn, November 2000.

Southon, G and Todd, R (1999). 'Knowledge management: Education for the knowledge age' Education for Library and Information Services: Australia, 16 (3) Dec pp21-30.

Tanner (1999) Emergent professional roles: knowledge management in schools. In: Bytes, books and bollards by the bay: Information management for the third millennium. 16th Biennial Conference of the Australian School Library Association. Richmond, Vic: School Library Association of Victoria, pp 324-335.

TFPL (1999). 'Skills for knowledge management: building a knowledge economy'. London: TFPL.

Todd, R (1999a) 'Knowledge management: 1 background and key concepts' Scan. 18(1), 42-46.

Todd, R (1999b) 'Knowledge management: 2 processes and practices' Scan. 18(2), 39-43.

Todd, R (1999c) 'Knowledge management 3: ideas, technologies, and resources' Scan 18(3) 34-36.

Todd, R (1999d) 'Knowledge management 4: towards a community of learning' Scan. 18(4).

Wiig, K (1993). Knowledge management foundations. Arlington, Tx: Schema Press.

Dr Ross J Todd is Visiting Associate Professor School of Communication, Library and Information Studies at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 4 Huntington Street, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901 US, e-mail rtodd@scils.rutgers.edu.nospam (please remove '.nospam' from address)