Information & Knowledge

What are we managing –knowledge or information?

Shashi Prabha SinghDepartment of Library & Information Science, University of Delhi, Delhi, India

Abstract

Purpose – A good amount of literature has appeared on knowledge management, wherein, by andlarge, the concepts of information and knowledge are being used in an overlapping manner, as areinformation management and knowledge management. There seems to be a conceptual confusion as towhat libraries are managing – information or knowledge? This paper proposes to examine this issue.

Design/methodology/approach – Based on a literature survey and the author’s own teachingexperience, the article tries to provide an answer to this simple but at the same time complex question.The subject scope is self-explanatory as it deals with two basic aspects, i.e. IM and KM.

Findings – Based on certain characteristics, efforts have been made to produce a clear distinctionbetween IM and KM. These findings are also presented in tabular form.

Practical implications – Today, KM has become an important activity in all organizations,particularly in the corporate sector. As a result, intangible assets are playing the role of key driversand technology is a key enabler. To be successful in the emerging knowledge economy, new processes,skills, and techniques that help to generate, manage and handle new knowledge need to be developedand practised adequately by information specialists.

Originality/value – The paper provides a crystallization of ideas to avoid any confusion amongstudents and LIS professionals.

Keywords Information management, Knowledge management, Tacit knowledge, Explicit knowledge,Information science

Paper type Literature review

IntroductionEver since the dawn of civilization, Indian society has been in transition, in whichknowledge and innovation have played significant role. Agrarian and industrialrevolutions played a major role in developing agrarian and industrial societies. Latercame an era of information revolution, leading to the emergence of the informationsociety. During this period, there was a manifold increase in information generationactivities, and now it is the turn of a technological revolution, which has resulted in theemergence of the knowledge-based society. Knowledge society and knowledgemanagement are the buzzwords of the twenty-first century, where convergence ofcommunication technologies, computer technology and digital technology are the mainpartners. This technological explosion has resulted in the emergence of new breeds ofresources, forcing us to shift from tangible goods to intangible goods. Due to all thesedevelopments, information and knowledge-based activities are dominating andbringing a change in focus towards knowledge management. However, the line ofdemarcation between information and knowledge management is still very blurred. Asa result, both of these terms are being used interchangeably. This situation is posing aserious question for library professionals, i.e. what are we managing, information orknowledge? To answer this question, we will need to define these basic concepts again.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0305-5728.htm

What are wemanaging?

169

VINE: The journal of information andknowledge management systems

Vol. 37 No. 2, 2007pp. 169-179

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0305-5728

DOI 10.1108/03055720710759946

www.emeraldinsight.com/0305-5728.htm

InformationThe literature reveals an established hierarchical relationship among data, informationand knowledge. Data can be defined easily as “raw” facts, which can be expressed interms of numbers, symbols, text, images or voice, etc., representing quantities, actionsand objects. But it is difficult to define knowledge and distinguish it from information.Data becomes “information” when it is put into some context. Information reducesuncertainty or changes one’s state of mind. Saint-Onge (2002) defines information as“organized data”. For Drucker (2001), information means “data endowed withrelevance and purpose”. Gordon et al. (1984) added the dimension of the recipient to thedefinition, which states information to be “the data that has been processed into a formthat is meaningful to the recipient”. Although, it is such a commonly used word, havingso many definitions, it is still difficult to find a clear distinction between informationand knowledge. In the words of Fox (1983):

Information seems to be everywhere. We talk of its being encoded in the genes [. . .]disseminated by media of communication [. . .] exchanged in conversation [every day] [. . .]contained in all sorts of things [. . .] Libraries are overflowing with it, institutions are boggeddown by it, and people are overloaded with it [. . .] [yet] no one seems to know exactly whatinformation is.

In this definition, if the term information is replaced with knowledge, probably it wouldlook as if knowledge is being defined. Probably this confusion is there because“information” and “knowledge” are being used in an overlapping manner.

KnowledgeDefining knowledge is really difficult, as it incorporates many intangibles such asexperience, intuition, judgement, skill and lessons learned, which have the potential toimprove actions (Henczel, 2001). Knowledge is a cognitive state of mind, achieved withthe coupling of understanding and cognition. It has often been referred to as codifiedand documented knowledge like patents, databases, manuals, reports, procedures andwhite papers, etc. Many authors have identified these sources under explicitknowledge, and referred to them as information. Most of the definitions available invarious dictionaries are philosophical in nature. According to Davenport and Prusak(1998):

. . . knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expertinsight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences andinformation. It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organizations, it oftenbecomes embedded not only in documents but also in organizational routines, processes,practices and norms.

According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), “knowledge is a true and justified belief”.Machlup (1983), in his definition, tried to make a distinction between information andknowledge when he stated that “information is acquired by being told, whereasknowledge can be acquired by thinking”. He further states that information implies“transfer”, whereas knowledge is a “state” (“knowing”). For Hayes (1993), “Knowledgeis internal; it cannot be received but must be internally created”. Al-Hawamdeh (2003),gave another interesting explanation: “knowledge is knowledge till it resides in theminds of people; once it is outside the human mind, it is information”. It can be personal

VINE37,2

170

or collective. To add further clarity, knowledge has been categorized into two types,outlined below.

Explicit knowledgeExplicit knowledge can be easily expressed, articulated or encoded (codified), gathered,organized, transferred or shared with others through social interaction. Examples ofsuch knowledge are trade secrets, standards, patents, manuals, online database,drawings, photographs, etc. The ability to organize and manage explicit knowledgehas a great impact on the other types of knowledge that are normally complex andassociated with people. Sullivan (1998) discusses an organization’s explicit knowledgethat takes the form of intellectual assets, which he defines as:

. . . the codified, tangible, or physical descriptions of specific knowledge to which a companycan assert ownership rights. Any piece of knowledge that becomes defined, usually by beingwritten down or entered into a computer qualifies as an intellectual asset and can beprotected. Intellectual assets are the source of innovations that the firm commercializes.

Explicit knowledge, being available in the public domain, has also been called publicknowledge or information.

Tacit knowledge (implicit knowledge)Tacit knowledge is personal, embedded in the minds of people. It is intuitive,contextual, linked to experience and memories, and is difficult to formalize, documentand communicate. Such knowledge is difficult to identify, quantify and convert intoreal value, unless a structured approach is not adopted to manage such knowledge. It issomething that we do possess unconsciously and most of the time we are not aware ofits existence. Such knowledge is self-acquired through experience, reading, learning,training and interaction. It is different from the knowledge available in written records,as it is hidden in minds and processes in the form of expertise, skills and competencies,normally gained through experience, socialization and interaction with theenvironment (Al-Hawamdeh, 2003). It also involves all those processes associatedwith the identification, sharing and creation of the knowledge. An example of tacitknowledge at work would be the reference librarian who on the basis of his/herexperience can tell from where to find the best explanation of “conservation andpreservation” or “lexicography”. Tacit knowledge is very important in theorganizational context, where it is embedded in the systems, processes, tools andtechniques that people create by utilizing their experience gained over a long period oftime. In corporate sector, it has to be gathered and preserved for furthering theorganization’s objectives, otherwise a great deal of such knowledge is lost when peopleleave the organization in search of better job opportunities due to lack of “on the job”incentives.

Conceptual confusion between IM and KMLibraries and information centers are the reservoirs of information/knowledge which isacquired, processed and organized to be used for posterity in all times to come. Formany scholars there is not much difference between information and knowledge, sothey have used both these terms in an overlapping manner. In the changingperspective, with the convergence of communication technologies and digitaltechnologies, new breeds of resources like internet resources, e-resources, websites,


171

etc., are emerging and forcing us to have a clear explanation of informationmanagement (IM) and knowledge management (KM). This requires that both of theseconcepts must be defined more precisely. Practically speaking, IM deals with theretrieval of recorded/documented (explicit) knowledge or information only, whereasKM is a process through which organizations generate value from their intellectualcapital or knowledge-based assets:

Knowledge management (KM) encompasses both the management of information and themanagement of people. However, knowledge cannot be managed directly – only theinformation about the knowledge possessed by the people in organizations can be managed(Streatfield and Wilson, 1999).

Thus, KM aims at collecting and distributing knowledge – both explicit and tacit.However, to add more clarity on these aspects, further explanations are provided belowon IM and KM.

Information management (IM)Information management is an interdisciplinary field that focuses on information as aresource, with greater emphasis on the acquisition and management of externalinformation and to some extent the management of internal records and otherdocuments. Library professionals have been doing IM for a long time, so they are wellaware of different tools and techniques of information management. They identify,select, classify, index and abstract the useful information available in books, journals,patents and databases, etc., to make it accessible in standardized forms, to its targetaudience. IM mainly deals with managing documented and explicit knowledge (i.e.information), which can be easily transferred or shared within or outside theorganization. For information managers, accuracy, efficiency, timeliness and veracityare the central concerns. Thus, information management is a prerequisite of – but onlypart of – knowledge management.

Knowledge management (KM)The term KM was first used by Wiig in 1986, when he wrote one of his first books onthe topic, Knowledge Management Foundations, published in 1993 (Beckman, 1999).The concept of KM has received considerable attention in recent years. It implies theprocess of transforming information and intellectual assets into enduring value. KM isorganization-specific, where the basic concern is the exploitation and development oforganizational knowledge assets to further the organization’s objectives (Davenportand Prusak, 1998). KM is not about better things, knowing how to do things better.Various authorities have defined this concept. Dimttia and Oder (2001) state that KM isabout excavating and organizing knowledge in order to develop a more efficient andprofitable organization. In the words of Dubey (2003):

. . . knowledge management is the process of capturing organizational collective expertisewherever it resides in databases, on paper, or in people’s head and distributing it to whereverit can help produce the biggest payoffs.

According to Wiig (1999), “KM is a systematic, explicit and deliberate building,renewal, and application of knowledge to maximize an organization’sknowledge-related effectiveness and returns from its knowledge assets”. According

VINE37,2

172

to Sveiby (2001), it is the art of creating value from an organization’s intangible assets.Sveiby (2001) adds a new explanation which states that it consists of two tracks:

(1) the IT track (management of information) that involves development ofinformation management system; and

(2) the people-track (management of people) involving people development,training, learning and managing competencies.

For De Long and Fahey (2000), the purpose of KM is to enhance organizationalperformance by explicitly designing and implementing tools, processes, systems,structures, and cultures to improve the creation, sharing and use of different types ofknowledge (human, social, structural) that are critical for decision-making. Accordingto Al-Hawamdeh (2003), KM involves the management of explicit knowledge orinformation as well as tacit/implicit knowledge, which means KM includes both – i.e.IM as well as KM. It requires turning personal knowledge into corporate knowledgethat can be widely shared. According to Broadbent (1998):

. . . in general, knowledge management rests on two foundations: utilizing and exploiting theorganization’s information; and second, the application of people’s competencies, skills,talents, thoughts, ideas, intuitions, commitments, motivations and imaginations.

In the words of Al-Hawamdeh (2003), apart from explicit knowledge (information), KMincludes “know-how”, “who-know” (customer capacity) and tacit knowledge. While“know-how” and “who-know” can be captured and documented as information, tacitknowledge in the form of skill and competencies can only be transferred throughsocialization and interaction. Townley (2001) defined KM as “the set of processes thatcreate and share knowledge across the organization to optimize the judgement in theattainment of missions and goals”. Thus, KM is about enhancing the use oforganizational knowledge through sound practices of information management andorganization learning to gain competitive advantage in decision-making.

Key differences between IM and KMIn the above sections, various authorities have defined IM and KM. Many moredefinitions could have been added, but without adding much to their clear distinction.Authorities like Al-Hawamdeh (2003) and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) have used theterm “explicit knowledge” almost synonymously to information. They agree thatknowledge is a much more complex concept as compared to information. However,based on the definitions and explanations given above, efforts have been made to showdifferences between the two in Table I where explicit knowledge and information havebeen used synonymously.

Need for knowledge management initiativesToday, KM has become an important activity in all fast-moving organizations,particularly in the corporate sector. As a result, there is a universally recognized shiftin the value placed on intangible assets and the vital role such assets are playing in thefast-moving knowledge economy of developed as well as of developing countries. Tobe successful in the emerging knowledge economy, individuals and organizations needto accept and adapt to this dynamic environment where intangible assets play the roleof key drivers. New processes and skills that help to generate new knowledge, sharing


173

of existing experiences and know-how and the efficient utilization of existing assetsneed to be developed adequately. Today, we are witnessing a paradigm shift in theways that business is being done: every organization is different, and there is notemplate that can be uniformly applied to all, not even to companies operating in thesame sector. They all have different objectives, different strategies, approaches andinitiatives. Due to these diversities, collaboration and cooperation have become theorder of the day to enable organizations to share and utilize the knowledge andexpertise of their partners. Under these circumstances, modern communicationtechnologies act as great facilitators to improve and accelerate the flow of informationand knowledge.

Knowledge management in the electronic eraToday in libraries, technology is playing a big role in KM as it provides an excellentopportunity to disseminate and share knowledge. We all agree that technology, as an

Information management Knowledge management

IM deals with explicit knowledge available inbooks, journals, patents and databases, etc. It isbasically concerned with the objectives – like howthe order is routed, who has authority to executeit, with whom the order should be placed, etc.

KM deals with tacit knowledge that resides in theindividual’s mind. KM takes a more holistic viewlike gathering lessons learned, benchmarking theprocess for best practices, gathering commonproblems and solutions, etc.

In IM, timeliness, accuracy, veracity, speed, cost,security, efficiency, space, storage, retrieval,delivery and manipulation of data andinformation are the issues of central concern

In KM creation, innovation, learning,understanding and validation are the core issues.It is basically concerned with critical thinking,sharing of experiences, failures, and best practices

IM is concerned with managing the structuredand formalized information, which can be easilyidentified, organized and distributed

KM basically deals with unstructured, informaland hidden knowledge which cannot be easilyidentified, extracted or managed as it resides inone’s mind

Information is managed to be used by individualand institutional users

Knowledge is managed to support individual andgroup learning

IM is usually not concerned with the actualprocess of knowledge creation or innovation

KM is concerned with the actual process ofknowledge creation, innovation, sharing and itsutilization for increasing communication amongpeople and within the organization

IM plays a significant role in libraries andinformation centers in focusing on plans andactivities, related to the control of and access tothe available records

The concept of KM has primarily emerged fromthe corporate sector, where it plays a significantrole in enhancing the creation and utilization ofcorporate knowledge

IM uses well developed devices and tools for itsorganization, like classification, cataloguing, listof subject headings and thesaurus, etc.

KM is poorly organized as tacit knowledge isdifficult to identify and extract

In IM, the emphasis is on external and publishedinformation/knowledge

In KM, the emphasis is on internal (tacit)knowledge residing in the individual’s mind.Thus, here the “human element” is much moreimportant as it plays a key role as the creator,carrier, conveyor, and sharer of knowledge

Information management processes are quitesimple but IT support can be quite helpful

KM processes of creation, sharing and codificationof the individual’s/corporate knowledge are quitecomplex, and IT accelerates these processes

Table I.Key differences betweenIM and KM

VINE37,2

174

enabler, has opened new opportunities for gathering information and providingmultiple ways through which vast amounts of knowledge can be shared easily andquickly anywhere, any time. However, everyone agrees that technology is a keyenabler in KM, but is not KM in itself. It is a facilitator to provide faster access toknowledge or to share/transfer it among individuals. The application of IT hasenhanced the scope of knowledge, the speed of its acquisition, and the ability to store,access, manipulate and use it in a variety of ways at a much reduced cost. Itsapplication has provided the ability to improve communication between people andstimulate cooperation and collaboration. Advances in ICTs, the evolution of theinternet/intranets/extranets, and increasing speed of information andknowledge-based activities have given new meaning to knowledge-sharingactivities in all kinds of organizations around the world (Luen and Al-Hawamdeh,2001). In addition, identified expert networks are great facilitators of knowledgecreation and innovation. There is no doubt that IT is an asset to knowledgemanagement at such a dynamic time when knowledge knows no bounds, andexchange and sharing have become essential components of the corporate knowledgeculture. Tools like e-mail, intranets, groupware, and discussion boards are playingvery significant role in the instant transfer and sharing of knowledge amongindividuals and organizations.

Knowledge-based assets and problemsThe economy of any country is directly related to its knowledge-based assets,where survival is directly related to the creation and conservation of knowledge.But, due to the lack of a sharing culture and facilitation, the best processes andpractices of an organization are not captured in the organization’s knowledge pool.The dictum “our people are our main asset” is a familiar statement thatemphasizes the value of people in an organization, and highlights the importanceof knowledge that resides in the minds of people. E-mail, groupware, chat andinstant messaging are helping to disseminate tacit knowledge, but identifying tacitknowledge in the first place is a serious problem for most organizations (Sachan,2002). Moreover, tacit knowledge available in an individual’s mind is also lost if itis not captured in a timely fashion or if knowledge workers leave the organizationdue to lack of job satisfaction, promotional avenues or any other reason. However,according to Grant (2000), the basic problem with such assets is that “whatknowledge management offers to us is insight into aspects of management that wehave failed to understand properly because of our failure to consider the natureand characteristics of knowledge”.

Information professionals as knowledge managersTraditionally, the role of an information professional was to manage and provideaccess to written or recorded information available in publications, documents,audio-visual materials, and so on. This required management of the organization’sexplicit knowledge. The focus was primarily limited to information acquisition,processing, retrieval and dissemination, but that does not mean that informationprofessionals were not associated with KM or contributed to knowledge-sharingactivities in the past. They were responsible for managing information and knowledge,but in a different way. Now, in the information- and knowledge-based society,


175

information professionals are expected to be more dynamic and competent to deal withthe influx of information and to manage organizational information resources andintellectual assets. They can certainly play an important role in promoting theknowledge creation process by facilitating knowledge sharing and providing access toknowledge resources as and when they are needed. For this, information professionalsneed to develop highly dynamic knowledge management skills and strategies. Theyshould have a clear understanding of various knowledge management processes suchas knowledge creation, capture, retention, transfer and sharing, in addition to havingthe analytical ability to identify and leverage existing knowledge. Shanhong (2000)tried to define the role of KM in libraries, and according to him:

. human resource management is the core of knowledge management in libraries;

. the objectives of knowledge management in libraries is to promote knowledgeinnovation;

. information technology is a tool for knowledge management in libraries; and

. KM improves customer services and efficiency by streamlining the responsetime.

Skills and competencies for knowledge professionalsIn the current technological environment, libraries are passing through a challengingphase, which is posing serious threats to LIS professionals. Therefore, they need toinvent and adopt innovative ways to survive in this dynamic and competitiveenvironment. LIS professionals should equip themselves with new skills andcompetencies to remain relevant in the mainstream of the twenty-first century,particularly when users are imbibing the ability to access internet resourcesthemselves to find their information without entering the four walls of the library. Thisrequires LIS professionals to pay greater attention to updating their skills to becompetent to handle the emerging tools and techniques. In addition, they mustrecognize that best results can be achieved by focusing on people-to-people interaction,working in a multidisciplinary team, and sharing knowledge and experience to achievethe best collective results. This can result in the creation of a cordial environment(formal or informal) and regular communication with other colleagues within the groupto learn new things. LIS professionals should develop themselves in such a way thatthey can contribute to organizational productivity and profits. This will bring themrecognition as active and strategic partners of the organization. For this, they musthave strong background in information management skills, skills related to goodcommunication, and an understanding of human behavior and cognitive science. Theymust update regularly to stay competitive in any information-intensive and highlydynamic market. Meeting users’ expectations should be the goal. Technological changehas ushered in a great many challenges for librarians to face, which require continuousefforts on their part to enhance their abilities to learn, adapt and change by acquiringnew skills and competencies. Those who ignore the need to change cannot survive inthis constantly changing environment.

LIS education and KMA change in the role of information professionals from gatekeeper to content manger isa clear indication of the transition. As a result, many LIS schools around the world

VINE37,2

176

have started to run knowledge management programs to meet the demands of themarket. Knowledge management is multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary in nature;therefore, KM education should involve people from different schools such as business,management, and communication, etc. This would provide them with an opportunityto come together and share their experiences and views on this emerging area. In thechanging scenario, LIS curricula should be designed so that they essentially equipprofessionals with the best possible range of mixed skills and competencies to assisttheir users in locating, filtering, and synthesizing information available anywhere andin any form. Today, there is a greater need to pay serious attention to developinformation- and knowledge-sharing skills and ensure that information and knowledgecaptured is utilized and translated into new products and services. Thus, in order tosurvive and thrive in an increasingly competitive educational marketplace, it hasbecome essential to re-examine the approach to LIS education by taking into accountchanges in technology and the shift towards a knowledge economy (Milner, 1998). It isalso necessary that knowledge professionals should be distinguished from knowledgeworkers in terms of their role and competencies. While a knowledge worker is anyonein the organization who deals with knowledge-intensive work, a knowledgeprofessional is someone who can act as a bridge between knowledge workers anddecisions-makers. He or she has the necessary skills and competencies to enable themto deal with organizational knowledge and promote knowledge management practiceswithin the organization (Al-Hawamdeh, 2003).

ConclusionToday, knowledge has become the most important asset or resource, which unlikeinformation or data, is not easily identified, understood, classified, shared or measured.It is invisible, intangible and difficult to imitate. Expanding the knowledge base withinan organization is not the same as expanding its information base, which is routine andmuch easier. The world is becoming more and more competitive, and as a result everyorganization is realizing the importance of information- and knowledge-sharingactivities. However, the emergence of communication technologies, digitaltechnologies, and electronic resources such as the internet, the worldwide web andgateways, has been instrumental in making the concept of knowledge managementmore popular; however, the nature of knowledge management is likely to beever-changing. Indeed, knowledge management in different organizations may servedifferent organizational purposes. There is no doubt that information professionalsneed to develop the capabilities to survive in a knowledge-based society, but at thesame time, organizations also need to increase investment and put more effort intoensuring that the information and knowledge available in databases, patents, tradesecrets or in the minds of people is fully utilized and translated into products andservices that give value to the organization. LIS schools in Western countries havebeen quite proactive in their approach towards KM. As a result, they have alreadystarted knowledge management programs to educate and train LIS professionals.However, in India some LIS schools are also paying attention in this regard, but it ishigh time that all-round attention was given so as to make the LIS workforce morecapable and competent to meet the challenges of this competitive world.


177

References

Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2003), Knowledge Management, Chandos Publishing, Oxford, p. 18.

Beckman, T.J. (1999), “The current state of knowledge management”, in Liebowitz, J. (Ed.),Knowledge Management Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 11-122.

Broadbent, M. (1998), “The phenomenon of knowledge management: what does it mean to theinformation profession?”, Information Outlook, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 23-6.

Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage WhatThey Know, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 5.

De Long, D.W. and Fahey, L. (2000), “Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management”,Academy of Management Executives, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 113-27.

Dimttia, S. and Oder, N. (2001), “Knowledge management: hope, hype or harbinger?”, LibraryJournal, Vol. 122 No. 15, pp. 33-5.

Drucker, P. (2001), Management Challenges for the 21st Century, Harper Business Press, NewYork, NY.

Dubey, Y.P. (2003), “New challenges in information management and e-learning in the age ofglobalization: issues and opportunities”, Library Herald, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 82-9.

Fox, C.J. (1983), Information and Misinformation, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, p. 3.

Gordon, B., Davis, M. and Olson, H. (1984), Management Information Systems: ConceptualFoundations, Structure and Development, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Grant, R. (2000), “Shift in the world economy: the drivers of knowledge management inknowledge horizon”, in Despres, C. and Chauvel, D. (Eds), Knowledge Horizons,Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA, p. 39.

Hayes, R. (1993), “Measurement of information”, Information Processing &Management, Vol. 29,pp. 1-11.

Henczel, S. (2001), “The information audit as a first step towards effective knowledgemanagement”, Information Outlook, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 48-62.

Luen, T.W. and Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2001), “Knowledge management in the public sector:principles and practices in police work”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 27, pp. 311-18.

Machlup, F. (1983), “Semantic quirks in studies of information”, in Machlup, F. andMansfield, U. (Eds), The Study of Information: Interdisciplinary Messages, Wiley,New York, NY, pp. 644-72.

Milner, E. (1998), “The train is now leaving . . . the challenges of educating informationprofessionals for the twenty-first century”, Business Information Review, Vol. 15 No. 4,pp. 243-7.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese CompaniesCreate the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, p. 58.

Sachan, D. (2002), “Knowledge management: challenges for the informationprofessionals/librarians”, paper presented at the MANLIBNET 4th Annual NationalConvention, National Institute of Financial Management, Faridabad, April 3-5.

Saint-Onge, H. (2002), “Linking knowledge to strategy”, paper presented at the StrategicPlanning for KM Conference, Toronto, May 28-29.

Shanhong, T. (2000), “Knowledge management in libraries in 21st century”, Proceedings of the66th IFLA Council and General Conference, Jerusalem, 13-18 August, available at: www.ifla.org/IV/ifla66/papers/057-110e.htm

Streatfield, D. and Wilson, T.D. (1999), “Deconstructing knowledge management”, ASLIBProceedings, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 67-72.

VINE37,2

178

Sullivan, P.H. (Ed.) (1998), Profiting from Intellectual Capital, Wiley, New York, NY, p. 23.

Sveiby, K.E. (2001), “What is knowledge management?”, available at: www.sveiby.com/article/knowledgemanagement.html (accessed 28 June 2002).

Townley, C.T. (2001), “Knowledge management and academic libraries”, College and ResearchLibraries, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 44-5.

Wiig, K.M. (1999), “What future knowledge management users may expect?”, Journal ofKnowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 155-65.

Further reading

Polanyi, M. (1997), in Prusak, L. (Ed.), The Tacit Dimension, Knowledge in Organizations,Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA.

About the author

Shashi Prabha Singh started her career with Delhi University Library in 1978and served there for almost ten years. She worked as Serials Librarian for threeyears just before joining as Lecturer in the Department of Library &Information Science, University of Delhi in 1987. Dr Singh became an AssociateProfessor in 1995 and worked as head of the Department during 1998-2001. Shebegan a second tenure of the headship in December 2004. During the period ofher headship, remarkable changes have been made in the department, such as

curriculum revision of the BLISc and MLISc courses and the recommencement of theDepartment’s journal, Journal of Library & Information Science. Dr Singh has published twobooks, Research Methods in Social Science and Special Libraries in the Electronic Environment,and has written over 50 articles for both national and international journals and conferenceproceedings. Shashi Prabha Singh can be contacted at: [email protected]


179

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documents

Information & Knowledge