I like the description of PKM or PKS as a “theme”. Yes, the responsibility is on the individual, because I don’t see it getting permanently adopted any other way. However, the organization can collect, collate and redistribute what is shared by individuals. It can also help by providing tools and coaching on PKM. The organization’s role moves from being directive to facilitative.

Perhaps not all employees are knowledge workers, but I think it’s a very wide net today. For instance, Barry Schwartz shows the practical wisdom (social knowledge) required of the janitor in the workplace, during this TED Talk (@ 1:15):

http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html

Here’s an example of informal knowledge sharing amongst folks not usually considered knowledge workers:

http://www.greenchameleon.com/gc/blog_detail/a_simple_knowledge_sharing_ritual/

Thanks for engaging in the conversation here and getting me to think deeper about this area.

The statement that we should all move away from central repositories is too big a stretch to me. It implies that the repository is evil when in actual fact most of the problems come from poor implementation and poor design from a solution perspective not the technology itself. There is, of course, the rather naive thought that if you dump stuff in a repository you have fixed your KM problem. Patently an absurd assumption, but it prevails.

There are many ways in which central infrastructure can actually facilitate the PKM views you have expressed. It is a matter of design and intent. I also shudder to think of the detrimental outcomes and risks that arise from storing everything of value on a personal hard drive (whatever that actually means in these days of increased mobility) rather than “allowing” an organization to have viable ways of protecting its assets while facilitating their being shared. It is hard to enable discovery or sharing that independently arises from personal work requirements when the content is tucked away on somebody else’s hard drive. That is what appears to have been advocated.

The theme of PKM is very powerful. I say “theme” because I would suggest a slightly different way of thinking about it. KM is broken because it is very often about throwing bucket loads of stuff into a repository. This tends to remove all responsibility of meaningful sharing from the individual and does not necessarily give them really useful tools with which to share and add value. What you have suggested for PKM, however, could be equally broken because it puts *all* the responsibility on the individual and this is generally not sustainable. It can also make it difficult to support multiple conversations and sharing when you add the constraints of enterprise IT management. Always an issue.

The thing that really resonates well is the opportunity for an individual to take part of the responsibility in the flow and sharing of knowledge for personal and Community of Practice benefits. It supports informal learning and organizational learning in meaningful ways. We should also be mindful that not all learners are ‘knowledge workers’ and they do not necessarily have the same work practices. Knowledge sharing and informal learning often has to live side-by-side with requirements for highly regulated activities that are required of businesses in certain sectors. PKM is likely to be of more value if implemented well and for the right reasons. (Notwithstanding the fact that knowledge needs to be internalized to be actionable.)

I hope I have not misinterpreted the post but have responded (hopefully usefully) based on how it read to me.