What Practitioners (Should) Want and Expect: A Personal Perspective

  • Helen HasanEmail author
Part of the Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning book series (IAKM, volume 1)


Knowledge Management (KM) practice can be of great benefit to organisations whose current, and anticipated future, environments are complex and uncertain. Among KM researchers and practitioners there are differing views of what KM is, and what KMers do, however, all agree that KM is rarely easy, dealing with change, risk and complex issues in diverse contexts. This chapter attempts to speculate on what practitioners expect and want with respect to KM for the future. This speculation is based on the author’s understanding of what KM has been and how it is currently practiced. Since a thorough understanding of the past and present of KM is beyond the scope of this chapter, a summary is presented from the author’s interpretation of her substantial personal experience of KM. This experience comes from KM as practiced in the field of Information Systems and from the author’s participation for over 5 years in the development of the Australian KM Standard. In order to speculate on the future of KM, the opinions of experienced and respected KM practitioners have been canvassed. It is clear that in the future, as in the past and present, KM practice will need to reconcile the various diversities and dichotomies of programs that leverage organisational knowledge for a productive and sustainable future.


Knowledge Management Social Network Analysis Organisational Learning Knowledge Repository Final Standard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. AGIMO. (2004). Knowledge management better practice checklist. Available from
  2. AS5037(Int-2003). (2003). Interim Australian standard knowledge management. Sydney: Australia.Google Scholar
  3. AS5037-2005. (2005). Australian standard knowledge management. Sydney: Australia.Google Scholar
  4. Burford, S., & Ferguson, S. (2011). The adoption of knowledge management standards and frameworks in the Australian government sector. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 12(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  5. Earl, M. J., & Scott, I. A. (1999). What is a chief knowledge officer? Sloan Management Review, 40(2), 29–38.Google Scholar
  6. Hasan, H., & Gould, E. (2001). Support for the sense making activity of managers. DSS Journal, Special Issue on Knowledge Management, 31(3), 71–86.Google Scholar
  7. Hasan, H., & Pfaff, C. (2012). An activity-theory analysis of corporate wikis. Journal of IT and People, 25(4), 423–437.Google Scholar
  8. Hasan, H., Meloche, J., Pfaff, C., Qi, Y., & Willis, D. (2009). Co-creating corporate knowledge with a wiki. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. HB189–2004. (2004). Knowledge management terminology and reading list – An Australian guide. Sydney: Standards Australia.Google Scholar
  10. HB275–2001. (2001). Knowledge management: A framework for succeeding in the knowledge era. Sydney: Australia.Google Scholar
  11. Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2005). A complexity approach to co-creating an innovative environment. World Futures, 62(3), 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pfaff, C., & Hasan, H. (2011). Wiki-based knowledge management systems for more democratic organizations. Journal of Computing Information Systems, 52(2), 73–82.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian Health Services Research InstituteUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations