Lifewide, lifelong comprehensive approach to knowledge management education – emerging standards
| Pages | 467-489 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-12-2016-0068 |
| Published date | 13 November 2017 |
| Date | 13 November 2017 |
| Author | Denise A.D. Bedford,Marion Georgieff,Johel Brown-Grant |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Knowledge management,Knowledge management systems |
Lifewide, lifelong
comprehensive approach
to knowledge management
education –emerging standards
Denise A.D. Bedford
Department of Communication Culture and Technology, Georgetown University,
Washington, DC, USA
Marion Georgieff
United States Secret Service, Washington, DC, USA, and
Johel Brown-Grant
United States Postal Service, Washington, DC, USA
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this study is to propose a framework for developing standards for knowledge
management educationprograms from primary through tertiary levels. The lack of standardsfor knowledge
management education is a significant challenge for the advancement of the field, for the sustainability of
institutionalprograms, the future competencies of knowledge workersand the effective growth of knowledge
organizations.
Design/methodology/approach –The research adopts and adapts the framework and methodology
used to establish educationalstandards in computer science. The frameworkis presented as a focal point for
discussion across the profession. Nine strandsare derived from historical treatment of the discipline. Seven
levels of learningare identified. Learning goals and objectivesare developed for each level.
Findings –The research suggests that a lifelong learning model is definable for the field of knowledge
management, just as it has been for other disciplines. The progressive learning model may produce high
school graduateswho are better prepared for knowledge work, a larger population of knowledge practitioners
and professionals prepared to support and lead knowledge organizations and increased quantities and
improved quality of knowledgemanagement research. Finally, the progressivelearning model may generate
a new and increaseddemand for lifelong learning opportunities in the field of knowledgemanagement.
Research limitations/implications –The research is intended as a focal point for discussion and
review by knowledge management professionalsand particularly educators around the globe. The research
representsan important stage of development, but adoptionis the final stage of this research.
Originality/value –While this research draws upon established theories and practices in the field, and
learningframeworks from other domains, the context and the researchresults are unique.
Keywords Lifelong learning, Knowledge management education,
Knowledge management goals and objectives, Knowledge management strands, Progressive learning models
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Standards for knowledge managementeducation are critical to the long-term sustainability
and growth of the field. No profession can exist without an educational and learning
foundation. Standards for knowledge management education should provide a context
Knowledge
management
education
467
Received6 December 2016
Revised18 February 2017
23April 2017
Accepted24 April 2017
VINEJournal of Information and
KnowledgeManagement Systems
Vol.47 No. 4, 2017
pp. 467-489
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2059-5891
DOI 10.1108/VJIKMS-12-2016-0068
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2059-5891.htm
against which individuals can define a career development path, and a context against
which to grow intellectual capital and strategically manage their knowledge management
competencies. In addition, standards can assist academic and learning organizations to
develop and administer curricula and courses which are financially sustainable, achieve
academically high standards and meet market demands. The lack of standards for
knowledge management education is a significant challenge for the advancement of the
field, for the sustainability of institutional programs, the future competencies of knowledge
workers and the effective growth of knowledge organizations. The purpose of this research
is to provide a foundation upon which to design standards for knowledge management
programs.
According to the International Organization for Standardization, standards ought to
“[...] be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit
for their purpose (ISO, 2017).”Forknowledge management, it ought to be no less that:
[...] a standard is a document, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body, that
provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their
results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context (International
Electrotechnical Commission, 2017).
Standards support interoperability,compatibility with other goods, services and procedures
(Borraz, 2007;Nickerson and Muehlen, 2006). Standards may also set a level of
predictability, reliabilityand quality. When well formed, standardscan contribute to market
development and stability,mitigate market fragmentation and facilitate market entry.
There are two basic types of standards–de jure and de facto.De jure standards establish
technical specifications for goods, services or processes. De jure standards result from
consensus and provide producers with information that is useful for designing new and
future products. Where there is significant differentiation that results not in innovative
markets, but in market failures, de jure standards can be a stabilizing force. De facto
standards are generally the result of market processes, where a dominant product or
producer captures the market. In this case, the propertiesof the market dominating product
become the accepted standard. The legitimacy of standards derives from their theoretical
and practical rationality. The standards development process is one that engages all
stakeholders –current and future. Where the goal of standards is quality assurance and
predictability, standards may also involve regulation, testing, inspection and certification.
When most people think of standards, they think of technology, of product safety or
interchangeable parts. Standards for education programs are fundamental to our education
systems, though they are less obvious than technical or product standards. The research
described in this paper explores theestablishment of standards for knowledge management
education and the challengesinvolved in that process.
Regardless of their focus, standards share four characteristics (Egyedi, 1996). First,rely
on achieving a consensus among all stakeholders. Second, they represent work carried out
among those stakeholders. Third, they are based on theoretical and practical data and
information. And, finally, their use is voluntary. Each of these characteristics presents
challenges for establishingknowledge management education standards.
First, interested stakeholders include the professional education associations, the
faculty, academic administrators, students and the businesses that hire those students. A
logical place to find these stakeholders would be the professional associations that
support the field. However, there is no single professional association to which we can
look to find these stakeholders. In addition, education approaches and methods vary
across nations. Any standard must speak to general principles and frameworks and be
VJIKMS
47,4
468
To continue reading
Request your trial