Know ways in knowledge management

Purpose ââ"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ The purpose of this paper is partly to complete Earlââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s framework, but more importantly to seek out the limits of what can be known and what cannot be known by each of the schools in his taxonomy, by addressing the absent epistemological foundation of what is being managed in his seven schools of knowledge management. Design/methodology/approach ââ"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ For each of the seven schools, the paper explores three related issues: the role of knowledge management systems in mediating between individual knowers and the community that needs to know; the context of Earlââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s knowledge management schools in terms of their focus on process and problems; and the consequences of the processes for identifying and validating knowledge. Findings ââ"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ Earlââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s framework survives this examination of its knowledge basis, suggesting that it is more robust, and captures more differences, than originally claimed. However, revelations about what can and cannot be known in each school suggest that knowledge management cannot be ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"doneââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ until users and designers have greater sensitivity to the epistemological plasticity of what they purport to manage. Originality/value ââ"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ The paperââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s value lies in the re-direction of knowledge management it suggests ââ"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ a re-direction away from technical solutions and towards examination of the epistemological and philosophical problems which are the chief reason for the continuing disappointment with knowledge management in many quarters.