The need is to preach the concept more as a discipline which combines tech and Non-tech initiatives, which should focus on process integration and above all KM technologies need to improve on usability rather than more feature richness, else failure rates of KM initiatives will keep rising but tech companies will surely make their bucks!

I would argue that words phrases like “concept map” or words like “ontology” are not everyday parlance for the average business executive — and I really doubt they ever will be. I think you’re right on the money when you say that these are academic words that have little relevance to your ordinary business stakeholder, whose primary concern is “how is an ontology going to make/save us money?”.

To be useful, knowledge management needs to be innovative, but also be something that people can relate too — a discipline that speaks to an already-existing part of people’s understanding and vocabularies. As with the growth of any discipline, sub-specializations develop (each with their own vocabularies and methods), yet the key is to strike a balance between specificity and clarity. Simply put, let’s not call things something new just for the sake of wowing someone with a new word.

Thanks again for your comment and for stopping by.

I believe one reason for the decline of the term “knowledge management” might be because now there are more specialized term such as “ontologies”, “concept maps”, etc. However, one can definitely argue that these terms are too specialized and used only within academia and not by mainstream news publishers. My feeling the importance of “knowledge management” has only increased by the terminology has changed or even became too specialized. And then there is classic philosophical problem with defining knowledge .
Good blog, enjoyed reading..

- Sue.