Knowledge management and Information management

Abstract

The article compares and contrasts knowledge management (KM) and records and information management (RIM). The primary, traditional interest of RIM has been in managing physical records and records series within organizations. In contrast, KM interest is in context even to the level of an individual document. Physical media and records series are of little importance in a KM universe because useful information assets are not confined to records or records series. Because it limits its own frame of reference records management is by definition unable to supply information from unstructured and external sources. RIM, for example concerns itself with efficiency while KM focuses on effectiveness in meeting the organization's objectives. Thus, records management services appear to some manager as something all-too-easily outsourced while KM is perceived as vitally improving the value of staff which is central to the organization's purpose. KM involves efforts to change corporate culture and instill a desire to share knowledge rather than hoard it. RIM programs like libraries and archives pursue a passive service orientation. There are roles for RIM professionals to play in KM initiatives. A KM function similar to RIM professionals in another guise is the knowledge inventory or knowledge audit. Cost reduction and productivity are themes certainly familiar to RIM practitioners and they are KM goals as well.