townley.p65 44 College & Research Libraries January 2001 Knowledge Management and Academic Libraries Charles T. Townley The emerging field of knowledge management offers academic libraries the opportunity to improve effectiveness, both for themselves and their parent institutions. This article summarizes knowledge management theory. Current applications in academic libraries and higher education are described. Similarities and differences between knowledge man­ agement and academic library practices are discussed. Issues needing resolution are presented. or the past twenty years, aca­ demic libraries have generated increasing amounts of informa­ tion about their operations. Yet, like higher education and industry, librar­ ies rarely use this operational information to create or apply organizational knowl­ edge. Instead, they excuse themselves by saying they are so committed to provid­ ing services that there is no time to use this growing body of information to increase organizational effectiveness. In fact, librar­ ies do not consider organizational knowl­ edge as a resource in its own right as they do personnel, collections, or facilities. Li­ brarians do not manage knowledge about their organizations as they manage their other resources. They do not structure their organizations to use organizational knowl­ edge. They do not apply organizational knowledge to improve services or the transmission of scholarly information. For example, libraries, retail stores, and Web sites all generate exact records of use as a by-product of their automated systems; but unlike Amazon.com, few librarians consciously create and then use knowl­ edge from that information to improve or­ ganizational effectiveness. Nor do libraries lead their institutions in managing their knowledge. Universi­ ties also create vast arrays of information about their operations, yet frequently do not organize or interpret them. Few or­ ganizational resources are dedicated to the creation and application of knowledge to organizational problems. Any informa­ tion apparatus is crude and ineffective by library standards. The emerging field of knowledge man­ agement offers academic libraries the op­ portunity to create knowledge to improve organizational effectiveness, for both themselves and their institutions. This ar­ ticle is intended to summarize the dynamic field of knowledge management and to describe how it can be used to make aca­ demic libraries more effective both inside the library and throughout the institution. What Is Knowledge Management? Colleges, universities, and their libraries are social organizations where workers transform resources for use by consum- Charles T. Townley is a Professor in the New Mexico State University Library; e-mail: ctownley@lib.nmsu.edu. 44 mailto:ctownley@lib.nmsu.edu http:Amazon.com Knowledge Management and Academic Libraries 45 ers through the functions of teaching, re­ search, and service. Also created is a growing amount of transactional infor­ mation in databases, knowledge embed­ ded in processes and documentation as well as explicit and implicit knowledge in the heads of the workers. As the pace of change increases and people change jobs more frequently, information and knowledge that used to be concentrated in one person or process increasingly is being held by multifunctional teams with limited life spans, operating with rapidly changing systems and environments. Change is the order of the day. Knowl­ edge loss becomes epidemic. Increases in organizational information and change have created a great need to manage knowledge to ensure effectiveness. And in higher education, librarians can play a key role in the knowledge management process.1 Knowledge management may be defined as the set of processes that create and share knowledge across an organization to optimize the use of judgment in the attainment of mission and goals. What, then, is knowledge manage­ ment? Knowledge management may be defined as the set of processes that create and share knowledge across an organi­ zation to optimize the use of judgment in the attainment of mission and goals. It is an emerging discipline developing on the interstices of organizational psychology, library and information science, econom­ ics, and computer science. It involves cap­ turing an organization’s goal-related knowledge as well as knowledge of its products, customers, competition, and processes, and then sharing that knowl­ edge with the appr opriate people throughout the organization. Further, knowledge management seeks to support communities of practice in creating and using knowledge. Finally, it accepts the notion that knowledge transmission is primarily a human activity. Thus, knowl­ edge management is the art of creating value from an organization’s knowledge assets.2 Knowledge management has emerged over the past ten years as organizations have striven to increase their effective­ ness. Organizations with large knowl­ edge assets have led the effort, including businesses such as IBM, Dow Chemical, and Microsoft and consulting groups such as McKinsey and Arthur Anderson.3 As Lew Platt, CEO of Hewlett-Packard said, “ If Hewlett-Packard knew what Hewlett-Packard knows, we would be three times more profitable.” In the United States, expenditures on knowl­ edge management efforts are expected to reach $200 billion in 2000. Knowledge management also is becoming known in public organizations. The first conference on knowledge management in the public sector was held in the spring of 2000 and drew more than a thousand participants, including a small group of academic li­ brarians and faculty. Higher education institutions are beginning to adopt the idea of managing their organizational knowledge assets.4 Independently, librarians have devel­ oped and applied many knowledge man­ agement principles in the provision of academic library services. Reference, cata­ loging, and other library services are de­ signed to encourage the use of scholarly information and thus increase the amount of academic knowledge used in higher education. Questions in a reference inter­ view and the points of access in a catalog both are intended to reinforce the ways that scholars work to create new academic knowledge. However, libraries have done little to use organizational information to create knowledge that can be used to im­ prove the functionality of library and higher education processes. In many ways, knowledge management incorpo­ rates principles that academic librarians have developed and used with scholarly information for many years. It then ap­ plies these principles and others to orga­ nizational information in ways that cre­ ate new knowledge to improve organi­ zational effectiveness.5 46 College & Research Libraries January 2001 Knowledge management emphasizes the human side of knowledge. Knowl­ edge is created in the human brain, and only the right organizational climate can persuade people to share it. Knowledge management is most effective in learning communities with shared vision and practice, line-of-sight relationships, and a sense of community characterized by empathy and trust. Knowledge is treated as a product in its own right.6 Much em­ phasis is placed on achieving selectivity and quality to avoid drowning in the growing seas of organizational data. Tra­ ditional and new technologies are applied selectively to strategically important projects in order to achieve organizational objectives. Speed also is important given the need for increased responsiveness and shorter cycle times. Training and support for the adoption of new knowledge and behaviors are perhaps the most important and costly part of any knowledge man­ agement application. In large organiza­ tions, knowledge management tends to be diverse, discrete, and decentralized.7 In Knowledge in Organizations, Lawrence Prusak outlines six environ­ mental issues that are forcing organiza­ tions to focus on knowledge.8 First, an accelerating world means rapid knowl­ edge decay and the need to create new knowledge more quickly. Knowledge must be managed consciously if workers are to learn fast enough for an organiza­ tion to remain competitive. Second, smart products, such as selective dissemination of information services, offer knowledge as part of the product. Such knowledge must be current if it is to contribute to the product’s value. Third, globalization is creating distributed systems of produc­ tion. And as more teaching and research take place away from the “main” campus and as libraries outsource more scholarly information and services, more effort must be made to ensure needed access to, and sharing of, knowledge. Fourth, turn­ over is increasing throughout academia. Knowledge that used to be embedded in one person for a career now leaves as in­ dividuals change jobs with greater fre­ quency. The coming retirement of large numbers of academics who began careers in the 1960s will create a knowledge defi­ cit situation in academia similar to the corporate downsizing that took place in the 1990s. Fifth, virtual operations require more embedded knowledge to work ef­ fectively. A prospective student trying to enroll at 10:00 p.m. is more likely to en­ roll elsewhere than call back in the morn­ ing to ask a number of questions the sys­ tem cannot answer. Finally, knowledge begets knowledge. As systems become more knowledgeable and interactive, new opportunities to use new knowledge proactively are generated. In sum, knowl­ edge is a key asset of any organization, one that now can be added to the classic assets of facilities, labor, and capital. Al­ though higher education has long held scholarship as an asset, it now also must recognize the value of organizational knowledge applied to organizational pro­ cesses and services. Given these parameters and needs, it is clear that knowledge management has a significant future in academic libraries and the academic institutions they serve. It is a growing management technique for orga­ nizations. It is beginning to enter public- sector and higher education organizations. Through knowledge management, librar­ ies have an opportunity to collaborate with other units to increase both their effective­ ness and that of higher education. Knowledge Management in Academic Library Operations Knowledge management is being used to improve library operations. Special librar­ ies have taken the lead, but some appli­ cations now are taking place in other li­ braries. This section addresses how organizational knowledge can be created and used in internal academic library operations. The discussion of these fac­ tors can be expanded for use throughout institutions of higher education. From a theoretical point of view, know­ ing can be considered as a pyramid. All knowing begins at the bottom of the pyra­ mid with data and unfiltered facts. When Knowledge Management and Academic Libraries 47 context is added, in the case of libraries through cataloging or metadata, data be­ come information. When inference is added, often through public services such as reference, information becomes intel­ ligence. Intelligence combined with cer­ titude becomes knowledge. And at the top, knowledge combined with synthe­ sis becomes wisdom. Libraries have ex­ celled at creating scholarly information and intelligence from data, but they have tended not to create knowledge from in­ telligence. Moreover, they have not been as successful in generating organizational knowledge to achieve library goals. Knowledge management is one way to develop and apply the organizational knowledge needed to improve library operations and, ultimately, library effec­ tiveness. It also enables libraries to gen­ erate organizational knowledge for higher education institutions.9 Organizational knowledge can be di­ vided into two groups, depending on its centrality to the organization and its ac­ ceptability to workers. Core knowledge is composed of structures that explain broad propositions that are widely held in the organization. Peripheral knowledge sup­ ports core knowledge by addressing sub­ components and does not require wide­ spread understanding or consensus. In libraries, beliefs of intellectual freedom are widely held. On the other hand, knowledge of authority files is far more likely to be supported in a cataloging de­ partment than in a reference department. Over time, organizational knowledge be­ comes more complex and interrelated. Although this may improve the short- term quality of scholarly information pro­ vided on any specific operation, it also makes change more difficult for library organizations. And this can have a nega­ tive long-term organizational outcome in a time of rapid environmental change.10 Frequently, the key to change is the effective use of informal networks in the organization. David Krackhardt and Jef­ frey R. Hanson have identified three kinds of informal networks that can be used to effect change. The advice network identifies the leading players on whom others depend. The trust network identi­ fies the relationships used for political maneuvering and crisis support. And the communication network reveals patterns of communication throughout the organiza­ tion. Effective library managers will de­ velop skills in using each kind of network to collect and transfer organizational knowledge.11 A Typology of Organizational Knowledge Rob Cross and Lloyd Baird have identi­ fied five kinds of knowledge in organi­ zations.12 The most important is the knowledge embedded in the minds of workers. This tacit and explicit knowl­ edge is gained through everyday experi­ ence on the job. It is shared most com­ monly in social interactions with other workers. This knowledge can be withheld on a whim, and it can leave the organiza­ tion with the worker. We all can recall times when the absence of an individual has arrested an organizational initiative in its tracks. Second, organizational knowledge is explicit and tacit knowledge shared in work groups. As with individuals, this knowledge is subject to loss with the elimination or restructuring of a work group. At one point during corporate downsizing, for example, one of the Big Three automakers had eliminated so many employees that management found it lacked the knowledge required to de­ sign a new car and bring it into produc­ tion. People had to be brought back onto the payroll, now as expensive consultants, to get new designs out the door. Third, organizations can create knowl­ edge repositories composed of explicit knowledge that has been documented and organized for access. Often these are called data warehouses or data malls. Fre­ quently, they resemble libraries or ar­ chives in some respects. The knowledge is collected and organized in some sym­ bolic form, such as a catalog or a bibliog­ raphy. Authorized users may access the knowledge. To continue the saga of the http:zations.12 http:knowledge.11 http:change.10 48 College & Research Libraries January 2001 automaker, a “big book” of auto design was created with all the knowledge con­ sidered critical for designing and produc­ ing a new-model vehicle. By document­ ing this knowledge, the automaker is less susceptible to loss of knowledge through downsizing or turnover. However, knowledge repositories also have limita­ tions. They can include only a fraction of the most important data to an organiza­ tion. Unless updated constantly, reposi­ tories quickly go out of date. In addition, they always will be consulted second, af­ ter colleagues and coworkers. Sometimes the fact that organizational processes themselves contain a great deal of embedded knowledge is overlooked. This is the fourth type of organizational knowledge. The way that work is orga­ nized and carried out incorporates a great deal of knowledge. For example, current cataloging practice is based on the knowl­ edge that OCLC can provide acceptable cataloging information for more than 90 percent of the items that a typical aca­ demic library adds to its collection. This one piece of knowledge has been embed­ ded in the radical redesign of cataloging operations in recent years. Finally, knowledge is embedded in products and services. Academic librar­ ies focus on delivering scholarly informa­ tion and support services. In the past, this involved printed, and sometimes re­ corded, media almost exclusively. Like IBM ignoring the emerging personal com­ puter market in the 1980s, libraries risk losing their role as the primary academic information provider if they do not ad­ dress the knowledge that most users are requesting electronic formats in the pro­ vision of resources and services. The collection, processing, and dis­ semination of organizational knowledge will seem familiar to most librarians. Fre­ quently, it mimics the process that aca­ demic libraries use to process scholarly knowledge. Good selection is paramount. In the case of organizational knowledge, librarians need to select and use the knowledge that is most critical to achiev­ ing library goals. For example, if a library is committed to increasing the effective­ ness of its internet portal and catalog, it would need to create knowledge from usage data, including user behavior such as databases accessed, failure rates, per­ sistence rates, and so forth. The library then can benchmark against other librar­ ies to identify areas of comparative strength and weakness. In addition, it can collect best practices to share with staff and users to generate more effective (de­ sired) use. On the other hand, some knowledge, such as hour or day of use or major, might be considered less important for reaching goals and not be included in the knowledge system.13 Organization of knowledge also is criti­ cal for improving library operations. Knowledge must be structured in ways that are intuitive for the intended com­ munity of practice. Knowledge that is in­ tuitive for catalogers may not be imme­ diately intuitive for an archivist or refer­ ence librarian, and vice versa. Implicit knowledge must be divided into broad groups of similar knowledge with excel­ lent transferal capability. Explicit knowl­ edge must use structured subject descrip­ tors to maintain order and accessibility. Descriptors are dynamic and must be updated constantly to represent changes in the field. Librarians excel at this type of work. Organizing library operational knowledge needs only the organizational will and resources to occur.14 Librarians are learning to be proactive in their delivery of scholarly knowledge and will need to use many of the same techniques to share operational knowl­ edge within the library. Commitment, training, and support are key factors in the transfer of knowledge. If library per­ sonnel are not committed to achieving li­ brary goals, or if they are not well trained in the use of organizational knowledge, it is likely that efforts to manage knowl­ edge will fail. Both are necessary prereq­ uisites. Should a selector, for example, fail to be familiar with or use available knowl­ edge about collection use or implicit knowledge about faculty interests and goals in making access and selection de­ http:occur.14 http:system.13 Knowledge Management and Academic Libraries 49 cisions, it is unlikely that the library will have the information that meets scholars’ needs. For this purpose, the person re­ sponsible for collection development needs to ensure that appropriate knowl­ edge and the opportunities to learn it are available to each selector. Continuing sup­ port also is important. Librarians need to be encouraged and rewarded constantly for applying useful knowledge to achieve organizational goals. The intent of this area is to expand and support the use of knowledge-based judgments to achieve library goals. Finally, as with all management pro­ cesses, knowledge management efforts need to be evaluated and updated. Knowledge that improves effectiveness needs to be identified and supported. Other knowledge needs to be revised or eliminated. In the dynamic world of aca­ demic libraries, no library will succeed for very long when it is not managing its most valuable resource, its knowledge, as effectively as possible. Knowledge Management Processes Drawing on a survey of thirty-one knowl­ edge management projects, Thomas H. Davenport, David W. De Long, and Michael C. Beers identified four types, each of which focuses on a broad objec­ tive: (1) to create knowledge repositories; (2) to improve knowledge access; (3) to enhance the knowledge environment; and (4) to manage knowledge as an as­ set.15 The following subsections describe how each of these types of projects can be applied in academic libraries. Create Knowledge Repositories Librarians are familiar with knowledge repositories. In terms of library opera­ tional information, most integrated li­ brary systems contain a component in­ tended to provide useful information about library operation and user activity. This kind of information can be used to create explicit organizational knowledge, to inform services, to guide operations, and to measure goal attainment. Data about new monographs, for example, are created routinely when these items are added to the collection. These data could be combined with circulation data and online reviews to create notices for dis­ tribution to prospective readers. Or, us­ age data from an electronic reserve ser­ vice could be aggregated and sent to the instructor in time to modify class activi­ ties to take advantage of what has been used. In each of these cases, data that are collected routinely as part of the opera­ tion of the integrated library system can be used to create and share knowledge that contributes to the improvement of teaching and research. By creating knowl­ edge from existing data, libraries add value to integrated library systems. External knowledge repositories also can be used to achieve organizational objectives. Several years ago, faculty in the College of Engineering at New Mexico State University adopted the goal of quality, rather than quantity, in schol­ arly publishing. Working with the library, faculty used information from the Insti­ tute for Scientific Information and other resources as tools for determining where to publish their scholarly research. The result has been that the School of Electri­ cal Engineering ranked in the top ten for publication impact this year as measured by the Institute of Scientific Information.16 Improve Knowledge Access A second type of knowledge manage­ ment project is one that improves access to and transfer of organizational knowl­ edge. This often takes place by creating expert networks where individuals with desired expertise are organized formally into a network and put into contact with others, creating a community of interest. An example might be a network of sub­ ject specialists, perhaps from several in­ stitutions, who come together to share experiences and learn from each other. Another method is to create yellow pages, classifying individuals by differ­ ent areas of expertise into a logical whole. Internal cross-training and ex­ change with other organizations also are used. http:Information.16 50 College & Research Libraries January 2001 The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has created a vir­ tual library to complement and reinforce existing library services and to encourage increased knowledge transfer. The virtual library emphasizes services that are pro­ active, such as selective dissemination of information and document delivery. In addition, research consultants combine tacit knowledge drawn from working directly on research teams with knowl­ edge of the virtual library to identify and transfer useful research information di­ rectly to users. The result is more highly focused provision of appropriate schol­ arly information in formats and at times convenient to the users.17 Often technological innovations can enhance the knowledge process. Lotus Notes and Intranets are popular in pri­ vate organizations; electronic mail and hosted listservs are popular in public organizations. British Petroleum has had great success in using videoconferencing to speed up repairs by eliminating repair crew travel.18 The library at New Mexico State University approached e-mail as a strategic knowledge resource in the early 1990s. The result has been the creation and application of organizational knowledge to optimize the effectiveness of e-mail in organizational activities.19 Enhance the Knowledge Environment Enhancing the knowledge environment is the third type of knowledge manage­ ment process. It focuses on creating an environment that encourages the creation and transfer of knowledge. If the tacit knowledge about users held by a refer­ ence librarian could be shared with sys­ tems personnel, for example, a more ef­ fective library home page would result. To create an environment supporting this kind of knowledge, management must generate meaningful contacts among the staff, provide resources and incentives, and praise progress. The NIST virtual li­ brary also can serve as a useful example for enhancing knowledge environments. In addition to providing an integrated li­ brary system and connectivity to other electronic resources, it supports the Elec­ tronic Information and Publications Pro­ grams as the access portal for the NIST publication database and for delivering electronic documents for the entire orga­ nization. Both the library and the elec­ tronic publication program benefit from this cooperative environment. The library gains additional information resources of high internal value, and the electronic program does not have to support the distribution of the information. Manage Knowledge as an Asset Managing knowledge as an asset is the last type of knowledge management project and perhaps the least familiar to librarians. Although some companies audit their in­ tellectual resources internally each year, libraries tend to simply list their physical holdings and easily quantifiable activities, assuming that each item or activity mea­ sured is equally valuable and goal related. Some firms manage their intellectual capi­ tal to achieve maximum return, something most librarians have not considered. What would happen if librarians began to man­ age the library’s assets explicitly to achieve maximum return? How would libraries value the operations knowledge in the heads of library workers? How should li­ braries value the knowledge embedded in their processes and products? How should they value the growing amount of information to which they have elec­ tronic access? It is no longer enough for library leaders to make intuitive deci­ sions. To achieve quality, commitment, and acceptability, these decisions must be based on organizational knowledge and made collaboratively. The cross-organiza­ tional committee systems developed by the Kao and Sharp Corporations in Japan provide a way to create and manage or­ ganizational knowledge. In both compa­ nies, opportunities for innovation are pre­ sented on a regular basis, reallocation of resources is argued, and decisions are made to support the promising initiatives on a temporary, but corporation-wide, basis. After evaluation, the best initiatives are implemented.20 http:implemented.20 http:activities.19 http:travel.18 http:users.17 Knowledge Management and Academic Libraries 51 The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and the Big Twelve Plus Research Library Consortium both have projects intended to manage scholarly informa­ tion as an asset. In these collaboratives, libraries are directly cosponsoring the publication of journals in high-cost fields of scholarship. In so doing, they are work­ ing with authors and publishers to achieve reduced costs and improve the quality of scholarly information. In time, operational information will be used to create knowledge on the effectiveness of these efforts to manage scholarly infor­ mation as an asset. Librarians can use knowledge management as a way to expand the library’s role to areas such as administration or support services, where libraries have had little impact in the past. In summary, knowledge management is being introduced into academic librar­ ies. It is most likely to be addressed by libraries that have strategic goals, involve their users, work as learning organiza­ tions, recognize technology as a func­ tional tool, and are organized in cross- functional teams. Internally, knowledge management is one more tool for design­ ing effective library service. In addition, it can lead to a larger role for libraries in the broader academic community. Larger Role for Academic Libraries In the corporate community, special li­ braries have been involved in knowledge management from its beginnings. Librar­ ies, along with computer centers, research units, personnel, and business offices, provide the leadership for corporate ef­ forts. Librarians, such as Trish Foy, Laurence Prusak, and Paul Vassallo, have assumed leadership roles. In the same way, academic librarians can benefit their institutions, their librar­ ies, and themselves by undertaking a campuswide role in managing organiza­ tional knowledge. They can use knowl­ edge management as a way to expand the library’s role to areas such as administra­ tion or support services, where libraries have had little impact in the past. More­ over, they can develop cross-functional teams with units such as computing, in­ structional technology, institutional plan­ ning, and personnel to create collabora­ tive organizations that have major insti­ tutional missions and responsibilities. Higher education is in the midst of major change as accountability, technol­ ogy, faculty aging, distance education, and many other pressures come to bear. Knowledge management offers an oppor­ tunity to manage some of these issues and achieve institutional goals by using orga­ nizational knowledge. Libraries can bring specific skills in the selection and organi­ zation of knowledge, training, and user support to cross-functional teams. By doing so, they can create increased inter­ est and support for their other missions. In the apocryphal words of the old sage, it is a risk that most libraries cannot af­ ford not to take.21 Many universities have developed data warehouses or, more often, data malls made up of disparate collections of unrelated op­ erational data—culled from elsewhere and compiled together in one massive database with common searchware. Many data ware­ houses focus only on those data elements required for reporting to state and national agencies and tend to ignore anything else, including data that could lead to knowledge about achieving organizational goals. Usu­ ally, the searchware is so complex that only a few people know how to use it. There is no training or support. In short, most ware­ houses and malls are not very useful. Aca­ demic libraries could add a great deal of value to data warehouses by undertaking needs assessments to find out what kinds and forms of knowledge would be helpful to administrative and academic personnel in achieving organizational goals. Librarians could structure the database and search al­ gorithms to create useful information and intelligence in appropriate areas. In addi­ tion, they could distribute that information and intelligence in a form the user finds meaningful for achieving objectives. Finally, 52 College & Research Libraries January 2001 they could train and support use of the data warehouse. These are all skills for which li­ brarians are recognized in the academic community. Supporting data warehouses would only expand traditional library ac­ tivities to a new set of information. It also would bring the library in much closer con­ tact with operational units such as the com­ puter center, legislative affairs, and institu­ tional research, as well as senior academic administrators, creating two new groups of library users on campus—administration and support services. The costs of a project for a comprehensive data warehouse would be significant. But broken into goal-related components related to university goals, the costs can be controlled and the benefits dem­ onstrated. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory Li­ brary, in collaboration with systems, records, and information units, has devel­ oped an organization-wide effort to im­ prove access to strategic knowledge, the second type of knowledge management.22 It is built upon six goals: (1) universal ac­ cess (users have easy access); (2) collabo­ rative environment (with users and tools); (3) transparency (fluid movement of knowledge and work); (4) integration (use of flexible interfaces to meet unique needs); (5) intelligent tools for leveraging knowledge; and (6) computing as a tool (modeling and simulation are integral to the service). Currently, the library is de­ veloping a Virtual Proposal Support Cen­ ter as a pilot project to demonstrate how these goals can be attained. This center will improve access to knowledge about grants and proposals of interest to Oak Ridge. It will pull together several data­ bases into a single searching algorithm, maintain a list of experts available to sup­ port a proposal, and provide access to other proposals and lessons learned. Moreover, it will include similar knowl­ edge from collaborating institutions. Fi­ nally, it is intended to provide one-stop shopping for scientists putting together increasingly complex and multidisciplinary proposals in a distrib­ uted environment. The center relates to Oak Ridge Laboratory goals to increase the amount and diversity of science be­ ing conducted and to build collaborative relationships. The Oak Ridge Library believes that the successful implementation of any knowledge management project involves six requirements. First, the laboratory management must foster knowledge sharing and collaboration within the or­ ganization, something new for an orga­ nization that used to pride itself on indi­ viduals doing classified work. Second, leadership support must be present at all levels of the organization. Third, strong collaboration must exist between comput­ ing and library organizations. Fourth, li­ brarians must develop new skills and new ways of working. And time, persistence, experimentation, and flexibility are re­ quired of all participants in the pilot project. Finally, all administrators must demonstrate proactive leadership.23 The University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center is establishing an envi­ ronment more conducive for knowledge creation, transfer, and use. It has estab­ lished a campuswide Advisory Council for Knowledge Management and Infor­ mation Technology. With representation from all major providers and users, this council is charged to envision the future for knowledge and technology within the center. It is to identify knowledge needs in traditional areas such as curriculum, research, and patient care, as well as ar­ eas new to most libraries such as admin­ istrative services, public access, and train­ ing. The council will meet monthly and advise the directors of the library, com­ puting, and instructional technology units. The intent is to develop integrated responses to knowledge needs that will result in the attainment of university goals. As one of four major committees at the center, its broad charge will give the council the opportunity to support knowledge development throughout the organization. Its diverse membership will ensure organizational support. The li­ brary, computing, and instructional tech­ nology units will provide the staff to test and implement council initiatives.24 http:initiatives.24 http:leadership.23 http:management.22 Knowledge Management and Academic Libraries 53 Finally, the NIST Office of Information Services now is responsible for the man­ agement of knowledge throughout the institute. In addition to organizing and accessing both scholarly and organiza­ tional information and providing elec­ tronic support, it is involved in the cre­ ation of knowledge, including the admin­ istration of editorial boards and publica­ tions. This combination of libraries, infor­ mation technology, and publishing has resulted in a knowledge unit able to man­ age the knowledge assets of the organi­ zation very effectively. Although these are only beginnings, they give an indication of the ability of knowledge management to expand the role of libraries within the academic in­ stitution. The rewards for libraries include enhanced goal attainment, increased vis­ ibility and standing within the institution, strengthened partnerships with adminis­ trative and service units, and better fund­ ing opportunities. The rewards for insti­ tutions of higher education include in­ creased goal attainment, increased com­ petitiveness, and more cost-effective knowledge services. For consumers, knowledge management will mean more knowledge that can be obtained more quickly and that is more closely related to achieving work-related goals. Similarities and Differences In some important ways, knowledge management is merely putting a new name to things that librarians have done for centuries. It is primarily a social, not a technological, technique. The service function and good relations with users, which are the keys to successful librarianship, also are central to knowl­ edge management. The instructional function of libraries is an essential com­ ponent of knowledge management. The emphasis on meeting user needs as de­ fined by users also is shared.25 The selec­ tion, organization, and weeding of knowl­ edge are necessary prerequisites to the successful operation of both services. Commitment to staff training is an impor­ tant part of both knowledge management and library services. Library functions will be at the heart of a knowledge-based organization. And a knowledge-based organization such as an institution of higher education will insist on effective library and knowledge services. Moreover, there are differences between knowledge management and the practices of most academic libraries. First, knowledge management is almost entirely goal ori­ ented. If the academic goal changes, knowl­ edge management will change rapidly to address the new goal. On the other hand, academic libraries tend to provide services as long as they are used. Second, knowl­ edge management tends to be much more proactive in terms of users. It is more will­ ing to initiate a dialog than libraries have been in the past. Third, libraries tradition­ ally try to be everything to everybody, whereas knowledge management tends to be very focused and selective. Fourth, knowledge management is committed to the time value of knowledge, a concept un­ known in academic libraries until recently. Finally, knowledge management is out­ comes based, whereas libraries are people based. These differences, though at times profound, need not be overwhelming. As libraries adopt more aspects of the learning organization, and as knowledge manage­ ment learns more about organizing and supporting knowledge, it is likely that the differences will begin to blur. Issues Knowledge management does present several significant professional issues to librarians. Perhaps the most profound is in the area of proactivity and confidenti­ ality. Librarians tend to resist being pro­ active, particularly if it means that any in­ formation about a user might become public. Circulation records are destroyed routinely. Librarians are reluctant to ask a person how he or she plans to use the information they make available. They decline to determine institutional affilia­ tion before committing significant re­ sources to answering a question. Knowl­ edge management would capture and use all this information. It would use circula­ http:shared.25 54 College & Research Libraries January 2001 tion records to let an individual know whether a book or article in an area he or she uses frequently is available. Knowl­ edge management can use the context of use to refer more scholarly knowledge to the user or to put the user in contact with another person who needs his or her skill or shares his or her interests. It would use institutional affiliation to both protect sen­ sitive information and build alliances. For libraries, knowledge management raises important issues of intellectual freedom that must be addressed. Academic librarians, like faculty, are not very accountable for their time or re­ sources used. It is assumed that as indi­ vidual professionals, librarians know best how to manage their time and resources. They may go days or weeks without con­ sidering how they are contributing to or­ ganizational goals. Given the traditional paucity of library support and the vast quantities they organize, librarians tend to sacrifice speed in their operations. Until recently, they tended to do all their work in like-minded groups. Knowledge man­ agement, on the other hand, is based on assumptions of strategic planning, the time value of information, and cross-func­ tional teams. If librarians are to function as key players in knowledge manage­ ment, some accommodation will have to occur on these functional issues. Finally, librarians as individuals usu­ ally seek the security of a stable organi­ zation. They look to the library to guide and support their development as indi­ viduals. Knowledge management orga­ nizations tend to be more individually based, reflecting the general trend toward organizational autonomy recently de­ scribed by Peter Drucker.27 To be success­ ful collaborators, librarians will need to take a more independent and self-di­ rected approach to their work within knowledge organizations. Summary Knowledge management is a new field drawing on several disciplines, including library and information science. Devel­ oped in corporate America, it is beginning to reach public service and educational institutions. Higher education and aca­ demic libraries can use knowledge man­ agement to achieve organizational goals. Knowledge management can be incor­ porated into many library operations to improve effectiveness. In addition, it of­ fers the opportunity to expand the role of libraries in the academic community and to result in strengthened relationships with related units, inside and outside the university. As a social phenomenon, knowledge management is both similar to and dif­ ferent from academic libraries. Librarians and knowledge management workers must address several issues before they can work together effectively, but the op­ portunities suggested by their collabora­ tion are great. Notes 1. Blaise Cronin, “Information Professionals in the Information Age,” International Informa­ tion and Library Review 30 ( Mar. 1998): 37—50; Michael E. D. Keonig, “Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management,” IFLA Journal 22 (1996): 299–301; Ikujiro Nonaka, “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation,” Organizational Science 5 (Feb. 1994): 14–37; Gifford Pinchot and Elizabeth Pinchot, “The Intelligent Organization,” in The Infinite Resource: Creating and Lead­ ing the Knowledge Enterprise, ed. William E. Halal (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998): 191–212. 2. Thomas J. Beckman, “The Current State of Knowledge Management,” in Knowledge Man­ agement Handbook, ed. Jay Liebowitz (Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Pr., 1999): 1–22; Rolf Blumentritt and Ron Johnston, “Toward a Strategy for Knowledge Management,” Technology Analysis and Strate­ gic Management 11 (Sept. 1999): 287–300; Thomas H. Davenport, David W. De Long, and Michael C. Beers, “Successful Knowledge Management Projects,” Sloan Management Review 39 (winter 1998): 43–78; Michael Kull and Kumar S. Nochur, The State of Knowledge Management in the Public Sector (Washington, D.C.: Foundation for Electronic Government, 2000), 18–22. 3. Dorothy Leonard and Susaan Straus, “Putting Your Company’s Whole Brain to Work,” in Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Business School Pr., 1998): 109–36; William H. Starbuck, “Learning by Knowledge-Intensive Firms,” Journal of http:Drucker.27 Knowledge Management and Academic Libraries 55 Management Studies 29 (Nov. 1992): 713–40. 4. Foundation for Electronic Government, Knowledge Management Conference Proceedings (Washington, D.C.: Foundation for Electronic Government, 2000). 5. Lucy Marshall, “Facilitating Knowledge Management and Knowledge Sharing : New Op­ portunities for Information Professionals,” Online 21 (Sept./Oct. 1997): 92–98; Paul Vassallo, “The Knowledge Continuum—Organizing for Research and Scholarly Communication,” Internet Re­ search: Electronic Applications and Policy 9 (1999): 232–42. 6. Davenport, De Long, and Beers, “Successful Knowledge Management Projects.” 7. Richard Y. Wang, Yang W. Lee, Leo L. Pipino, and Diane M. Strong, “Manage Your Infor­ mation as a Product,” Sloan Management Review 39 (summer 1998): 95–105. 8. Laurence Prusak, “Introduction to Knowledge in Organizations,” in Knowledge in Organi­ zations, ed. Laurence Prusak (Boston: Butterworth, 1997): ix–xv. 9. Michael J. Earl, “Knowledge as Strategy: Reflections on Skandia International and Shorko Films,” in Knowledge in Organizations, ed. Laurence Prusak (Boston: Butterworth, 1997): 1–15. 10. Marjorie A. Lyles and Charles R. Schwenk, “Top Management, Strategy, and Organiza­ tional Structures,” Journal of Management Studies 29 (Mar. 1992): 155–74. 11. David Krackhardt and Jeffrey R. Hanson, “Informal Networks: The Company,” Harvard Business Review 74 (July–Aug. 1993): 104–11. 12. Rob Cross and Lloyd Baird, “Technology Is Not Enough: Improving Performance by Build­ ing Organizational Memory,” Sloan Management Review 41 (spring 2000): 69–78. 13. Bart Harloe and John M.Budd, “Collection Development and Scholarly Communication in the Era of Electronic Access,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 20 (May 1994): 83–87. 14. Marina M. Mann, Richard L. Rudman, Thomas A. Jenckes, and Barbara C. McNurlin, “EPRINET: Leveraging Knowledge in the Electric Utility Industry,” in Knowledge in Organiza­ tions, ed. Laurance Prusak (Boston: Butterworth, 1997): 73–97. 15. Davenport, De Long, and Beers, “Successful Knowledge Management Projects.” 16. New Mexico State University, “Klipsch School of Electrical Engineering in Top 10,” 10 Feb. 1999, press release. 17. Vassallo, “The Knowledge Continuum.” 18. Steven E. Prokesch, “Unleashing the Power of Learning: An Interview with British Petroleum’s John Browne,” Harvard Business Review 75 (Sept.–Oct. 1997): 147–68. 19. Blaine Goss, Kenneth Hacker, Valerie Horton, and Charles T. Townley, “Developing Guide­ lines for Electronic Mail Use in Academic Libraries,” Communications Studies and Research 35 (July 1997): 246–65. 20. Nonaka, “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation.” 21. Richard N. Katz and Associates, ed., Dancing with the Devil: Information Technology and the New Competition in Higher Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999); Filipe Santos, Manuel V. Heitor, and Joao Caraca, “Organizational Challenges for the University,” Higher Education Man­ agement 10 (Nov. 1998): 87–107. 22. Barbara Ashdown, Kathy Smith, and Deborah York, “Development of a Strategy for Man­ aging Organizational Knowledge,” in Knowledge Management Conference Proceedings (Washing­ ton, D.C.: Foundation for Electronic Government, 2000): 208–23. 23. University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, “HSC Advisory Council for Knowl­ edge Management and Information Technology,” 31 Mar. 2000, press release. 24. Vassallo, “The Knowledge Continuum.” 25. Peter Drucker, “Managing Oneself,” Harvard Business Review 77 (Mar.–Apr. 1999): 65–74.