Should knowledge management in organizations be rebranded?

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to examine the relevance of the term “knowledge management” (KM) in the organizational context, and deliberates whether there is a need for rebranding of this field. It also enriches the understanding regarding the appropriateness of the term “KM,” which was chosen to represent the discipline. Design/methodology/approach This study adopted a qualitative research methodology, and a case study approach was followed by conducting 19 semi-structured in-depth interviews with international KM experts working in a global consulting firm. The data were analyzed using a thematic analysis method based on the grounded theory approach. Findings The findings provide empirical evidence that attempts are being made to move away from the label “KM” in certain knowledge-intensive organizations. This study sheds light on the challenges associated with this term, which leads some to believe that the name of the discipline needs to change. Originality/value The present pioneering research contributes to empirical knowledge through investigation of an unexplored scientific field. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, for the first time, its uniqueness can be established by the fact that the opinions of KM professionals are being heard regarding the “KM” label, as well as the need for a rebranding of this discipline in the organizational context. From a practical and strategic perspective, this study suggests that the research community and practitioners pay attention to attempts to shift away from the existing title identified in organizational practice.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.