Lucas McDonnell collects and presents 51 pieces of the knowledge management puzzle, i.e. specific applications, instruments, approaches and tools. If the list makes one thing clear, it is that knowledge management has roots in many (heterogenous) disciplines, which makes it hard for practitioners to get a grip on it. But is it really important to get to the “true meaning” of knowledge management, when we know that the term is already “worn and torn”?
So I think that avoiding this naming and definition quarrel is of prime importance for all proponents of Enterprise 2.0, i.e. leveraging web 2.0 principles, methods and tools in the enterprise to improve collaboration and knowledge work. Still, I wouldn’t call this complexity and diversity of the KM field a misery alone – it would only be one, if one weren’t able to translate advanced concepts into pragmatic doing and projects.