Myth No. 9: Knowledge management applies only within an organization.
No single enterprise has a monopoly on knowledge. Some of the most valuable knowledge, in fact, can come from a company's suppliers and customers. But extending internal knowledge-management programs to external sources can be difficult, given such impediments as physical distance and incompatible IT infrastructures.

Texaco is taking steps to extend its knowledge-management programs to its suppliers. For example, the company is planning to add employees of Schlumberger Ltd., which supplies the oil company with a range of oil-field services and production technology, to its "Yellow Pages" profile directory. So if a Texaco manager is seeking expertise in, say, a particular type of drilling equipment, that search will no longer be limited to Texaco employees.

While most executives--even those on the leading edge of knowledge management--applaud efforts to extend knowledge-management initiatives to suppliers and customers, they agree that such initiatives are largely in the embryonic stages.

Myth No. 10: Knowledge management needs a chief knowledge officer.
Very few people--even those with knowledge in their titles--have overall responsibility for all knowledge-management efforts within their company. And while the most successful knowledge-management initiatives have sponsorship from top management, most IT managers don't see the need for a chief knowledge officer.

"Some of the most successful firms I know in knowledge management don't have a chief knowledge officer," says Prusak. "And some of those who do are not so successful."

One problem with appointing a chief knowledge officer is that, by definition, knowledge management encompasses broad areas of an enterprise--from IT to human resources to top management--and putting one person "in charge" of knowledge management is difficult, if not impossible.

At Dow, for example, Allen oversees knowledge management as it relates to the chemical company's IT organization. But he has counterparts in Dow's human-resource, intellectual-asset management, and strategic-development operations. "I'm not a CKO, and in general we don't believe we need to have one at a very high level," he says.

Scient's Kalish, who does hold the title of chief knowledge officer, oversees a specific knowledge-management operation of 30 technologists, knowledge services personnel, and trainers.

For some, the title of chief knowledge officer is a problem because it suggests that someone controls a company's intellectual assets and is in charge of distributing knowledge. "It's the use of knowledge that's important, rather than the supply side," says GM's Noble. "Chief knowledge officer smacks of the supply side."

Companies that create a chief knowledge officer post often don't instill the job with the kind of authority it needs, says John Ladley, president of the Knowledge Interspace consulting firm. And doing so, he says, might not even be possible: "To be effective on a global basis, a CKO would have to be as powerful as a CEO."

What knowledge-management initiatives need, as with any corporate project, is sponsorship from one or more executives who can make things happen. Wagoner appears to have taken on that role at GM, for example. What determines the eventual success or failure of a knowledge-management effort, Prusak says, "is the passion and the brains of whomever is sponsoring it."

return to page 1, 2, 3, 4