Recent thinking in |knowledge management (KM) divides knowledge into two types: explicit and tacit. Explicit knowledge is generally thought of as information, which the folks at IBM (et al) have been managing for years. The other pile of knowledge, (the tacit stuff) is what sits inside peoples heads, that even they are unable to express clearly through language.
When I think of KM, I tend to gravitate to the art of trying to manage that tacit knowledge. That is the vast untapped resource that the corporations are trying to tap into to increase their stock prices. But the fact remains that it is still very much an art as opposed to a science. How can one manage that which cannot be expressed?
Maybe the number crunchers and the stock watchers are just jerking our collective chains. Maybe they invented this thing called tacit knowledge to artificially inflate the assumed knowledge asset value of their corporate populations. Why not? Stock prices among NetGens and DotComs are pretty well entirely based on perception of value as opposed to assets, revenues and profits.
So there is your definition: Knowledge Management is an artificial construct invented by stock manipulators to artificially inflate stock value by persuading the populace that there is tremendous value in the gray matter of their employees.
What knowledge worker would not want to believe that not only is what he/she knows he/she knows valuable and important, but even the stuff he/she doesn't know he/she knows. Ya know?