Kjm/Internet Access KM / Internet

KJM/Internet Access

KM / Internet Access

While much of what has been discussed in the area of knowledge management seems to be repetitious, there are still some interesting areas. One of the things that I still have not tired of is how Wilson's analysis in 2002 and Harsh's analysis in 2009 can be so different on what constitutes knowledge management and whether it is still even a valid term. With that in mind, I would be happy to continue studying the psychological aspects of what really makes up knowledge management and whether it has relevancy to the IT field today. Obviously, many researchers think it is still very relevant or it would no longer be taught. The fact that people are writing papers on it - both in journals and in college classes - shows that knowledge management is not a term that has died away or that is seen as archaic. What makes up knowledge management, though, may be changing somewhat as business and society both grow and evolve toward a different future.

Information technology is changing, too, because there is simply much more to the industry than there was in the past. The part that knowledge management plays in that industry appears to still be significant, but what about the future? Will Wilson eventually win out? It is impossible to say what will actually happen, but knowledge management could be used to make some predictions about its own future. How knowledge management could be used to forecast the future of knowledge management would be something that I would be particularly interested in, because it seems like both a technical and philosophical merger that would be unique. In the meantime, I still enjoy learning about knowledge management. While some of the information is getting repetitious, I believe that there may be information I have not yet acquired in regards to IT. If I "tune out" now, I may miss that information - and who knows that that might mean for my future as an IT professional? It is simply not worth the risk to disengage now.

After reading both the press release and the article on Internet access and use at work, my original conclusion that the numbers must be overly inflated is still something I want to stand by. I do not feel it is realistic to assume that "cyberslacking" is costing the country $178 billion dollars. How much time would every employee have to spend on the computer, playing around and not working, to really add up to that kind of a dollar amount? While the calculations that can be done seem to show the results as being correct, the ZDNet article sheds light on why the number still is not realistic. First, the original calculations failed to distinguish between full-time and part-time employees. If one only works part-time, that changes the dynamics of the number of hours off of which the calculations were made. Of course, that is highly significant to the bottom line and the $178 billion number.