In his 2005 article Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, Siemens outlined a new way of thinking about learning based on the recent advances in information technology. He argues that this new theory, connectivism, supersedes previous learning theories, including behaviourism, cognitivism, and contructivism. In this post, I am seeking to further my understanding of this new theory, examine its limitations, and consider its relevance to both classroom teaching as well as knowledge management practices within organizations.

Defining Connectivism

Siemens argues that the explosion of information available on the Internet, the pace of technological, organizational, and professional change, and the vast number of online connections that can be made between individuals and groups via social media (including colleagues, friends, organizations, corporations, associations, institutions, professional communities, informal communities, etc.), have fundamentally altered the nature of how we should think about knowledge. In the past, the knowledge required for professional competence changed little over the lifespan of one’s career. A doctor or engineer could develop their skills at university, and continue to apply those same principles until they retired. Today, the pace of change is so rapid that continued competence requires ongoing learning (and unlearning), and the exposure to vast amounts of knowledge over a lifetime. In fact, the amount of knowledge required can no longer be contained within the mind of a single individual, and instead, according to connectivism, is now better stored and processed through technology. Knowledge today exists in web sites, databases, video archives, and thousands of other information repositories, both public (on the Internet) and private (within organizational intranets). Smaller amounts of knowledge are also stored within the minds of different people. One person will have tacit knowledge that differs from another person, but if they are connected to one another and able to interact, that knowledge can be shared. This sharing can take place through face-to-face interactions, but is also possible through online tools such as Twitter, Skype, Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+, and many more. As a result, vast amounts of knowledge are available to anyone with access to the network, the ability to navigate it effectively, and possessing a wide range of connections to knowledgeable people. For connectivists, the network itself (as the foundation for all current and future learning and knowledge) is more important than the knowledge that flows through it (which likely will be quickly outdated and irrelevant).

In the article, Siemens outlines the fundamental principles of connectivism:

• Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
• Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
• Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
• Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known.
• Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
• Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
• Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.
• Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting
  reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision (p. 4).

For Siemens, connectivism is a significant departure from previous learning theories because it sees learning occurring outside of the individual, within the network:

Even social constructivist views, which hold that learning is a socially enacted process, promotes the principality of the individual (and her/his physical presence – i.e., brain-based) in learning. These theories do not address learning that occurs outside of people (i.e., learning that is stored and manipulated by technology). They also fail to describe how learning happens within organizations (p. 2).

From this perspective, connectivism can be seen as bringing a unique perspective to learning theory, as well as posing interesting (and challenging) epistemological questions, such as the very meaning of knowledge and learning.

For connectivists, the starting point is always the individual learner (Siemens, 2005). The path to gaining knowledge comes through an individual, possibly with the assistance of others, establishing their own personal knowledge network of relevant information resources (e.g., valuable web sites, academic or professional journals, conferences, etc.) and information connections. These connections may consist of relationships with knowledgeable co-workers or professional colleagues, but also online Communities of Practice, mediated through web-based discussion forums, LinkedIn groups, or Twitter communities. As the individual’s personal knowledge network (PKN, sometimes referred to as a Personal Learning Network or Personal Learning Environment) matures and expands, the quality of the learning will also grow, making it increasingly valuable over time. An effective personal knowledge network can provide access to new ideas, innovations, successful experiments, failed results, and, if constructed with diversity in mind, contrary opinions that can be cause for reflection, re-consideration, and personal growth.

Jarche (n.d.) describes the development of a personal knowledge network as an ongoing process of 1) seeking new information and connections, 2) making sense of the new information encountered through integration with existing knowledge, reflection, writing, and enhancing the new knowledge, and finally, 3) sharing the results of the seeking and sense-making back to others in the network. This can serve as an effective starting point for anyone interested in establishing their own PKN, or for those responsible for facilitating a connectivist learning experience for others.

As connectivism gains in influence, such as through the special issue of The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning recently dedicated to it (Anderson, 2011), others have begun to explore the theory further. In the issue, Kop (2011) draws attention to three important limitations of connectivism, including the ongoing need for critical literacies and the power relations on the network. To be effective, connectivism will need to explain how to best support critical thinking within the network and also challenge the unequal power relations that will inevitably appear. Second, the level of learner autonomy is another important issue. In an ideal world, adult learners are self-directed (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2005). Unfortunately, years of disempowering education in schools, colleges, and universities has often robbed adults of the ability to be self-directed, and in some cases has made them fearful of it. Connectivism is based upon the active participation of self-directed learners and therefore, explaining how this can be nurtured within dependent individuals will be an important part of its future iteration. Third, the level of presence is an important factor for connectivism:

There is a high level of presence when a participant in an online activity experiences the activity as if it were taking place in real life, without the mediation of the computer. Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) argued that deep and meaningful learning results if three forms of presence play a role in education: “cognitive presence,” which ensures a certain level of depth in the educational process; “social presence”; and, in a formal educational environment, “teacher presence.” In PLE-based connectivist learning, the teacher would not necessarily be present, but one could argue that there are knowledgeable others on the Web who would take on that teacher role to a certain extent. For people to take an active, participative, and critical role in connectivist learning, they need communication and collaboration with and feedback from others, the same as in classroom-based learning (n.p.).

For Kop, all three of these issues can be mitigated through greater social interaction within a connectivist framework. For those responsible for facilitating connectivist networks, building in regular synchronous online events can be especially important to foster an important sense of community and presence among the members of the network. These could include web-based presentations, discussions, or debates as well as learner participation through question and answer sessions or other forms of online dialogue. In this way, critical new ideas can be introduced and discussed. Facilitators, as well as other learners, can also guide the less self-directed along a path to greater empowerment through demonstrated behaviour as well as mentoring or coaching. These are all important omissions from Siemen’s article, but can be accommodated within a connectivist context. As connectivism matures, and more people contribute their experiences and critiques to its core concepts, it will undoubtedly strengthen as a foundational learning theory.

Applications in the Classroom

In addition to being a theory to support self-directed learners pursuing their own informal learning, connectivism can also be used as a foundational theory to support formal learning experiences. Examples of this include the Change MOOC 2011 course offered by Siemens, Cormier, and Downes (2011) and ECI831 by Couros (2011) at the University of Regina. In both examples, the courses were completely online, and based on each student developing her or his own personal knowledge network, using open education resources freely available on the Internet (seeking), student blogs (for sense-making), and Twitter and Delicious (or Diigo) for building connections and sharing resources and reflections. Each course unit had little or no assigned readings, as students were expected to find resources of relevance to their personal learning goals, share what they found with the class, and blog about their reflections on what they drew from them. Students were also expected to post comments to one another’s blog posts to create a discussion around core concepts relevant to the course. Each week also included a guest speaker in a synchronous online classroom, speaking on a topic of importance for the general theme of the course, and ideally drawing students into discussions and activities (such as collaboratively writing or drawing on a shared whiteboard). This synchronous classroom, though less convenient for participants in other time zones, was critical for developing the effective social interactions identified by Kop that reduce a lack of presence (the instructors, guest speakers, and other students were all present in real time and were all actively engaged). These examples also involved instructors acting as facilitators, guiding students with little experience with self-direction toward becoming more responsible for their own learning goals. The active involvement of instructors and guest speakers, as well as other students, also ensured that critical thinking was taking place, and that challenging ideas and concepts were being introduced. Finally, the potential for unequal power relations was at least partially offset by students having a significant amount of autonomy over what they chose to learn, and over how they chose to approach the graded assignments. One of the most challenging elements of any formal education situation is the issue of grades. This traditionally imposes a relationship of unequal power between the student and the instructor, with the instructor typically having almost dictatorial power over the evaluation process. In ECI831, students evaluated their own assignments, reflecting on their strengths, opportunities for improvement, and assigning what they believed to be a fair grade. The instructor reviewed these self-evaluations, added additional comments, recognition of successes, and suggestions for improvement, and either accepted the suggested grade or engaged the student in a dialogue about a different grade. Although the instructor retained the ultimate power (and responsibility) for the final grade, this method of dialogue and engagement goes as far as possible within a contemporary, formal education environment to reduce this power imbalance, based upon a connectivist perspective of student autonomy, responsibility, and empowerment. Drawing in some element of peer evaluation could be a useful addition to this process, inviting students to review each other’s work, either openly or blindly. This would diffuse the power relationship further, as well as introducing students to the critical function of peer review in academic evaluations and increasingly, in the workforce, through the growing implementation of 360-degree assessments (Walker & Smither, 1999).

Widespread adoption of connectivist approaches to formal learning will inevitably face resistance. Perhaps the most controversial aspects are its insistence that the network is more important than the content, that knowledge is a process rather than an artifact, and that knowledge can reside in appliances or other people, and be retrieved as needed rather than incorporated into an individual’s memory. For many students and instructors, the focus of a course is the content and learning that content (and securing it as an artifact within one’s own memory, which Freire (1970) called the “banking” approach to education) is seen as the core reason for taking or teaching the course. Instructors are experts in their content areas and are very attached to what they know and the value of their knowledge. Accepting the fact that the content being taught will soon be outdated and that the development of a strong network for future learning (which will be necessary to remain up-to-date) is difficult to accept. Past practice was that knowledge lasted a lifetime, but the rapid pace of change has disrupted this faster than many people, both instructors and students, can adapt to.

Applications in Knowledge Management

As mentioned by Siemens (2005), connectivism is unique among major learning theories for addressing how learning can happen outside of the minds of individuals and within communities or organizations. This can make it an important theory for advancing knowledge management. In much the same way as the connectivist classroom discussed previously, a connectivist knowledge management strategy would also be based upon a foundation of individual personal knowledge networks, which would then become interconnected with other personal knowledge networks, both within and outside of the organization. Each employee would be engaged in a process of seeking (finding relevant information to perform their current tasks and introduce new ideas and innovations), sense-making (reflect on the value of the new information encountered and discuss its application to their work), and sharing (suggesting valuable resources, contacts, and ideas to other members of the organization). As in the connectivist classroom, the role of a facilitator (the knowledge manager) would be critical to the success of the program, guiding less self-directed individuals toward taking responsibility for their learning, introducing critical thinking and new ideas and connections, encouraging writing and commenting, challenging power imbalances that could arise between management and employees, and ensuring a sense of presence and social interaction through the organization of synchronous learning events, such as guest speakers or webinars. As each member of the organization developed their personal knowledge network, they would narrate their work through public writing (on a blog or wiki) to reveal what they learned and provide a record of their thoughts and actions, useful for current conversations and future reference. Knowledge sharing is an important component of this strategy as well, with each individual sharing not only their own reflections and experiences, but also pointing others toward relevant information sources and other contacts to include in their personal knowledge networks.

Developing this kind of connectivist knowledge management strategy can be an important step toward leveraging the power of informal learning in the workplace and the development of a learning organization. According to Jay Cross (2007), much of the classroom training that happens in the workplace is largely ineffective, and more informal approaches, such as those developed through personal learning networks, are significantly more useful in enhancing employee performance. Peter Senge (2001) describes a learning organization as one that is constant seeking new opportunities for growth and knowledge, and that recognizes the interconnectedness of the workplace and the wider world. A connectivist approach to knowledge management supports the development of learning organizations and the leveraging of informal learning for organizational success.

One of the challenges of developing this kind of connectivist knowledge management strategy would be for individuals to find the time to do this kind of seeking, sense-making, and sharing. People are increasingly feeling overwhelmed at work, and introducing a significant new set of knowledge management tasks could lead to resistance. For this strategy to succeed, there would certainly need to be solid support from senior management, both in terms of understanding the goals of the connectivist knowledge management strategy and management’s active participation in the seeking, sense-making, and sharing process, but also in reallocating resources to allow everyone time to participate. All tasks would need to be reviewed and some eliminated to free up time for engaging in this thoughtful and creative work. There will inevitably be costs for this as the “network of personal knowledge networks” gets established, but once operational, will add significant value through more rapid learning, greater employee engagement, higher productivity, and the
introduction of new ideas and sources of innovation and improvement.

Siemen’s theory of connectivism, first articulated in his article, Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, provides a new way of thinking about knowledge and learning in the context of emerging information technology and rapid change. Knowledge should no longer be considered a stable artifact to be passed from one person to another, but instead should be viewed as a process, always changing and growing. The pace of change is so rapid today that no one person can store all of the knowledge required for their professional competence, and instead must offload much of it to technology and others, as part of a personal knowledge network, available for retrieval and access at the point of need. Developing such personal knowledge networks is important for both classroom learning as well as knowledge management within organizations. These networks often require facilitation however, either through a supportive instructor or knowledge manager. If left unsupported, some networks will thrive while others will fail. With support, however, many will succeed and help individuals achieve their goals in the classroom or at work. A network of personal knowledge networks can also form the foundation for the development of learning organizations, able to rapidly adjust to changing environments and thrive in conditions of uncertainty. A connectivist knowledge management strategy can be an important tool in ensuring the ongoing sustainability of organizations in the modern world.

 

References

Couros, A. (2011). ECI831. Retrieved from: http://eci831.ca/

Cross, J. (2007). Informal learning: Rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and performance. San Francisco: Pfeiffer/Wiley.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.

Jarche, H. (n.d.). Personal knowledge management. Retrieved from: http://www.jarche.com/key-posts/personal-knowledge-management/

Knowles, M., Holton, E. F., III, Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 12(3), 19-38. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/882/1823

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 2 (1). Retrieved from: http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm

Siemens, G., Cormier, D., & Downes, S. (2011). Change MOOC. Retrived from: http://change.mooc.ca/about.htm

Siemens, G. & Conole, G. (2011). Editorial. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 12(3), 19-38. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/994/1820

Walker, A., & Smither, J.W. (1999). A five-year study of upward feedback: What managers do with their results matters. Personnel Psychology, 52(2), 393–423.

Knowledge Management: Libraries and Librarians Taking Up the Challenge (Hobohm, 2004) is a collection of papers based on presentations made at the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) conferences between 1997 and 2002. The first section, “Political and Ethical Implications” provides some theoretical and philosophical foundations. The second section, “Issues and Instruments”, looks at the practical application of knowledge management in libraries as well as some of the skills required for librarians to successfully take up this role. Finally, “Case Studies” includes some real world examples of knowledge management in libraries. My goal in examining this volume is to increase my understanding of how librarians have typically been involved in knowledge management, and where they are looking to go. Although over eight years old now, it is still the best collection available on knowledge management thinking in libraries today. In that time, public libraries and academic libraries have begun the transition away from the traditional warehouse model to a more dynamic, knowledge network model. Corporate libraries have been slower to take up this challenge, but could benefit from reflecting on the progress these other library sectors have made to ensure their ongoing relevance to their organizations.

Librarians and Knowledge Management

Librarians have traditionally approached knowledge management as an exercise in the collecting, cataloguing, and indexing of explicit knowledge, either generated within the organization, such as reports, memos, minutes, etc. or acquired from external sources, including journal article databases, external reports, government information, etc. Librarians then make the knowledge searchable, providing access using a variety of methods, including paper-based filing systems or online databases, offer training in effective search techniques, and answer reference questions regarding the knowledge that makes up the library’s collection (Srikantaiah, 2000; Riccio, 2011). Corporate librarians are also frequently asked to develop “current awareness” reports, pulling together related explicit knowledge on a particular topic, and making it available to executives or company teams.

In their introductory article, “Blowing Up the Corporate Library”, Davenport and Prusak (2004), argue that this is no longer good enough for the current knowledge management needs of most businesses. While these traditional tasks have been, and in many cases continue to be important, they are no longer satisfactory to meet the changing knowledge needs of corporations:

Corporate libraries in the USA have largely been left behind by the information revolution. They have performed relatively narrow functions, mainly associated with identifying and acquiring information, and have not become integrated into the major organizational processes for managing information. Most of them operate on obsolete storage-based models of information management. They have little influence and their employees are often in dead-end careers (Davenport & Prusak, 2004, p. 12).

Despite these problems, Davenport and Prusak argue that corporate libraries have a potentially critical role to play in the success of organizations. First, corporate libraries must understand the strategic goals of the organization. They must move beyond focusing on the library’s internal needs, and instead prioritize the needs of the wider organization. Only by speaking the language of business will librarians gain credibility and influence. Second, corporate librarians must get out from behind the reference desk, stop simply reacting to information requests, and actively seek out information needs throughout the organization. Finally, librarians must move from the outdated information warehouse model to being overseers of a multi-media knowledge network that draws in a wide variety of relevant and high-quality knowledge sources or nodes. Perhaps most significantly, the authors see the need to expand the understanding of knowledge sources from being only in books and electronic resources, but also to be people themselves. “The librarians or information managers in tomorrow’s organizations must realize that people, not printed or electronic sources, are the most valuable information asset in any organization” (Davenport & Prusak, 2004, p. 16). By seeing both documents (explicit knowledge) and people (tacit knowledge) as key knowledge assets, librarians can build on their traditional expertise as information organizers and managers to develop their emerging skills as connectors of people to knowledge. This conception of knowledge management as a social process reflects the work of Figallo and Rhine’s Building the Knowledge Management Network (2002), and recognizes the importance of knowledge as a process rather than as a static artifact.

In “Change of Paradigm in Knowledge Management – Framework for the Collaborative Production and Exchange of Knowledge” (2004), Kuhlen extends this argument further, stating that not only should librarians abandon the warehouse model for a networked model, but should also see knowledge management as communication management, again recognizing the importance of people as knowledge sources and the value of facilitating communication between them:

The paradigm shift in the understanding of knowledge management (towards communications) has come about because knowledge and information are no longer considered as being simply there. Information is not just the result of a particular distribution or retrieval process, using and applying existing knowledge to new problems, but is also the result of communication processes (p. 21).

As a result, knowledge can less be seen as being produced by a single author working alone, and is instead increasingly recognized as a collaborative process, involving multiple knowledge sources, building upon past experiences and research, and collectively creating new ideas and understanding. Kuhlen argues that these kinds of social knowledge networks can take place remotely through tools such as online forums and Communities of Practice, but do require coordination and management. Taking a leadership role in planning, establishing, organizing, facilitating, archiving, and evaluating social knowledge exchanges can become an entirely new role for corporate librarians that can help them regain their relevance in a rapidly changing knowledge and information landscapes.

The importance of communications as part of knowledge management is further emphasized by Wagner-Döbler (2004) in “Tacit Knowledge, Knowledge Management, Library Science – No Bridge Between?”, where he argues that codifying tacit knowledge often results in a significant loss of important contextual details, making it much less valuable for future reuse. Instead, he suggests alternative methods of capturing tacit knowledge, such as conversations, storytelling, and observations. These can all become techniques available to librarians as social knowledge managers to increase the value of the knowledge that exists within the people of any organization, reflecting the existence of knowledge as a process rather than as an artifact.

A further illustration of a knowledge management technique available to the corporate librarian is the information audit, described by Henczel (2004) in “The Information Audit as a First Step Toward Effective Knowledge Management”. An information audit is a tool to “identify strategically significant information resources, … [and] to identify those tasks and activities that create knowledge and those that rely on the transfer of knowledge from other areas of the organization” (p. 92). It includes seven steps: planning, data collection, data analysis, data evaluation, communicating recommendations, implementing recommendations, and the information audit as a continuum (making it an ongoing process).

Conducting an information audit provides an improved level of understanding of how the tasks and activities performed by the business unit, sections, and departments of the organization create knowledge and what the level of strategic significance of that knowledge may be. It has also provides a ‘map’ of existing formal and informal information transfer and communication channels and networks within the organization and between the organization and its external environment (p. 104).

Henczel extends the information audit to also include a knowledge audit, which consists of identifying the people involved in knowledge creation, transfer, and sharing, as well as any political or cultural issues that support or inhibit knowledge flows. This is an important extension of the traditional corporate role in the knowledge management process.

Unfortunately, Wormell (2004) argues that a gap exists between the skills required for modern knowledge management and what is currently being taught in library and information studies master’s degree programs.

Through several dialogues and studies, it has been identified that the industry and public sector are demanding a cadre of information professionals with knowledge and skills in technology, management, and inter-personal skills to effectively lead organizational integration and process reengineering activities…. Here a gap has been identified between the expected qualifications and what the applicants actually had in their bags (p. 112-113).

Filling this gap is of utmost importance to corporate libraries. With the traditional role of the corporate library rapidly changing with the advance of emerging technologies, an abundance of digital information, and new understandings of social knowledge processes, new librarians must be graduating with the skills and abilities to meet the challenges of the future (the knowledge network model) rather than just the ability to solve the problems of yesterday (the warehouse model). A more contemporary study of the current state of knowledge management education within Library and Information Studies programs would be a valuable source of information to measure whether progress has been made in this area. Evidence does exist however, in the changing practices of other kinds of librarianship, such as within academic and public libraries, which signifies progress in this direction.

Adapting to the Knowledge Network Model

According to Chaudhry and Higgins (2004), the skills required for librarians to adapt to the knowledge network model include having a broader strategic perspective of the overall organizational goals, leveraging information technology, understanding knowledge sources and flows, developing organizational “knowledge literacy”, and supporting the facilitation of knowledge communities and teams. Although these skills may be seen as lacking within Wormell’s (2004) study of corporate libraries, evidence of these emerging abilities is visible within both academic and public libraries.

These libraries recognized early on that their value was under threat from the changes brought about by the rapid growth of the Internet, and that the “Googlization of Everything” (Vaidhyanathan, 2011) threatened their continuing existence (Thompson, 1983). As a result, many librarians saw the need for fundamental changes in what it meant to be a librarian.

One important change was to recognize that libraries are more than warehouses of books and other information objects. This warehousing model has a long and proud history stretching at least as far back as the Ancient Library at Alexandria, and has played a critical role in preserving knowledge from generation to generation, from culture to culture. Letting go of this tradition has not been easy, but both public and academic libraries have come to recognize that, while some special collections will continue to need careful curation and preservation, the vast majority of the library collection has moved online. For the first time in human history, information is no longer scarce, but is available in abundance. Corporate libraries must also embrace this model, expanding their vision from a focus on knowledge as tangible, explicit artifacts, into an appreciation of the strategic value of the tacit knowledge that resides with the organization’s people.

The changing nature of cataloguing and indexing has also been an important challenge for academic and public librarians. In the past, every information object that was brought into the collection needed to be manually catalogued by the librarian. This allowed for the materials to be later discovered and used for future research. Today, most physical information objects coming into the library arrive pre-catalogued, and electronic resources are searchable in ways that previous generations of librarians could never have imaged. Some initial effort went into trying to catalogue everything on the Internet, but this was soon given up as an impossibility. Instead, Google and other automated indexing tools have made the discovery of billions of online resources possible. Corporate libraries need to change their focus from the detailed description of explicit knowledge to incorporating networked knowledge, both explicit and tacit, into the library. While automated tools will never provide the level of descriptive detail as a professional, manual indexer or cataloguer, the need for the level of detail is no longer required for adequate discovery.

With fundamental concept of the library as an information warehouse, carefully collected and described by the librarian, becoming a thing of the past, it rapidly became apparent that new definitions of librarianship were required. One important move in this direction was to embrace information technology rather than reject it. The value of the Internet and digital collections were unmistakable, and librarians have made it part of their new mission to ensure that access remains open and that evaluation of quality continues. As the technology platforms advance from the simple Web 1.0 static pages of information to interactive Web 2.0 online communities of knowledge exchanges, public and academic librarians continue to embrace the changes and find new ways to incorporate the technology into their core mandate of access, freedom, and knowledge sharing (Courtney, 2007; Kroski, 2008). Corporate libraries must follow this example, learning the value of social media for connecting people to information and knowledge sources, whether those are books, electronic resources, or other people.

Public and academic librarians have also been quicker to transform their spaces from book warehouses into knowledge and learning spaces. Many university libraries today include a large “learning commons”, filled with computers, tables, and comfortable chairs. These spaces, often reclaimed from bookshelves, are designed to facilitate collaborative learning between students, as well as providing students with ready access to resources (both print and electronic), learning technologies, librarian assistance, and other services, such as writing centres or counseling support (Schader, 2008). Public libraries are also transforming their spaces, reducing the size of their print collection, and focusing on the development of public spaces (often the only truly free indoor public space in a city) for learning, communication, and civic dialogue, leading to increased social capital development in the community (Vårheim, Steinmo, & Ide, 2008; Hill, 2009). Corporate libraries would do well to follow this example in transforming themselves from warehouses into networked knowledge spaces. Establishing the corporate library as the place to go for the conversations, storytelling, and observations described by Wagner-Dobler (2004), could be a critical step in re-establishing the core relevance of corporate librarians and their work to the organization.

Academic and public libraries have also embraced their instructional role. While most library users continue to be self-directed learners, librarians are also developing extensive training programs in multiple kinds of literacies, including technological literacy and information literacy (Eisenberg, Lowe, Spitzer & Spitzer, 2004). The programs support library users in becoming stronger independent learners, and help them make even better use of the library’s resources. By facilitating this kind of knowledge development, academic and public libraries are placing themselves at the heart of community learning. Corporate libraries could also benefit from establishing learning programs within their organizations, helping people better understand the ever-changing knowledge resources that are available, and how to better connect with others in a networked knowledge environment.

Public and academic librarians have also begun to understand the importance of getting outside of the walls of the library too, and have adopted an “embedded librarian” approach to working with their communities. This is very similar to Davenport and Prusak’s (2004) call to “blow up the library” by expanding beyond its immediate confines. This involves going directly to the library users, pro-actively seeking them out and asking what their information and knowledge requirements are, rather than passively waiting for them to come to the library (Hamilton, 2012; Miller & Pellen, 2005). This can include working directly with a faculty member at a university in the design of information literacy into the curriculum or going to meetings of community groups to discover what they need from the library (McCook, 2000). This kind of outreach, as part of the information and knowledge audit outlined by Henczel (2004), is an important technique to increase the visibility and importance of the corporate library as a key participant in the organizational knowledge network.

Related to this deeper understanding of the needs of the communities that they serve, public and academic librarians have also begun to better understand the needs of their funders, including library boards, city councils, or university administration. Librarians now understand the importance of aligning the library’s goals and objectives with the strategic plans of their parent organization (McNichol, 2005; Lown & Davis, 2009). In much the same way, corporate libraries too must better understand the business needs of their organizations, and ensure that the library’s goals and objectives are closely matched with the strategic plan of the parent company. Corporate libraries must be prepared to demonstrate their value to the company, not just in vague or qualitative terms, but with firm, quantitative numbers that provide clear evidence of financial value and return on investment.

Knowledge Management: Libraries and Librarians Taking Up the Challenge (Hobohm, 2004) presented a series of papers reflecting contemporary thinking on knowledge management and libraries. The most important theme that emerged from these papers was the need to re-evaluate the role of the corporate library under the changing information and technological circumstances of the Twenty First century. This includes moving from a warehouse model to a network model, which incorporates the changing nature of knowledge resources (such as moving from print to electronic) as well as recognizing the value of human communication and interaction as a critical knowledge source for organizations. In addition, the call for “blowing up the library”, meaning to expand its presence beyond the library walls is another important theme. Both of these recommendations have already adopted by many progressive public and academic libraries, and their lessons learned are available in the extensive reflective reports in the professional literature. Corporate libraries would benefit from reviewing these experiences and incorporating them into their own organizations and their own professional practice. The warehouse is an out-dated model for today’s libraries, and the network model provides a vision that can deliver value to user communities seeking knowledge as well as to ensuring the ongoing vitality of libraries and librarianship.

 

References

Chaudhry, A. S., & Higgins, S. E. (2004). Education for Knowledge Management – A Spectrum Approach. Ifla Publications, 108, 127-136.

Courtney, N. (2007). Library 2.0 and beyond: Innovative technologies and tomorrow’s user. Westport, Conn: Libraries Unlimited.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2004). “Blow Up The Corporate Library”. Ifla Publications, 108, 11-20.

Eisenberg, M., Lowe, C. A., Spitzer, K. L., & Spitzer, K. L. (2004). Information literacy: Essential skills for the information age. Westport, Conn: Libraries Unlimited.

Figallo, C., & Rhine, N. (2002). Building the knowledge management network: Best practices, tools, and techniques for putting conversation to work. New York: John Wiley.

Hamilton, B. (2012). Embedded librarianship: Tools and practices. Chicago, Ill: ALA TechSource.

Henczel, S. (2004). The Information Audit as a First Step Towards Effective Knowledge Management. Ifla Publications, 108, 91-106.

Hill, C. (2009). Inside, outside, and online: Building your library community. Chicago: American Library Association.

Hobohm, H.-C. (2004). Knowledge management: Libraries and librarians taking up the challenge. München: K.G. Saur.

Kroski, E. (2008). Web 2.0 for librarians and information professionals. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.

Kuhlen, R. (2004). Change of Paradigm in Knowledge Management Framework for the Collaborative Production and Exchange of Knowledge. Ifla Publications, 108, 21-38.

Lown, C. and Davis, H. (2009). Are You Worth It? What Return on Investment Can and Can’t Tell You About Your Library. Retrieved from: http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2009/are-you-worth-it-what-return-on-investment/

McCook, K. P. (2000). A place at the table: Participating in community building. Chicago: American Library Association.

McNicol, S. (2005). The challenges of strategic planning in academic libraries. New Library World 106 (11/12), 496 – 509.

Miller, W., & Pellen, R. M. (2005). Libraries within their institutions: Creative collaborations. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Information Press.

Riccio, H. M. (2011). Librarians and knowledge management: Everything old is new again. AALL Spectrum 15 (7), 24 – 26.

Schader, B. (2008). Learning commons: Evolution and collaborative essentials. Oxford: Chandos.

Srikantaiah, T.K., Koenig, M.E.D. (2000). Knowledge management for the information professional. Medford, NJ: Information today.

Thompson, J. (1983). The end of libraries. Electronic Library 1 (4), 245 – 255.

Vaidhyanathan, S. (2011). The Googlization of everything: (and why we should worry). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Vårheim, A., Steinmo, S., Ide, E. (2008) Do libraries matter? Public libraries and the creation of social capital. Journal of documentation 64 (6), 877 – 892.

Wagner-Dobler, R. (2004). Tacit Knowledge, Knowledge Management, Library Science – No Bridge Between?. Ifla Publications, 108, 39-46.

Wormell, I. (2004). Skills and Competencies Required to Work With Knowledge Management. Ifla Publications, 108, 107-114.