Knowledge Professionals International (KPI)

Wouldn't Knowledge Professionals International indicate that this is an organization about knowledge management?

We have a division that is about KM, but the Association as a whole is more than just that.  And would we then be unattractive to those who are librarians but don't see themselves as knowledge managers? 

At the very least, knowledge should be somewhere in the name;  librarians & information professionals are all knowledge brokers, if not knowledge managers (though perhaps not in the strict KM sense of the term). 

To broker only in information is to be a cataloger, a clerk, or a purchasing agent;  what we add in value as librarians & info pros is the ability to match information to the need, creating knowledge (some would say intelligence).

I'd argue that all librarians should be knowledge managers or knowledge professionals of some sort. 

Since the beginning, libraries existed not just to store information, but to share it and match people to their information need (however it is met - by a person or by words), creating widespread knowledge, whether it's in communities, schools, or companies.  It just so happened that for a long time, it was in print, but now that we're digital, the raison d'etre is the same.  Whether it's in managing collections, reference desk, Competitive Intelligence, taxonomies or custom research, we're ultimately in the business of facilitating, creating, and sharing knowledge.

(one could argue that information is the same thing, but that's too easily confused with IT and using the term "knowledge" shows that we don't just reorganize information, we add value to it...)

Why do so many people think that 'knowledge' and 'library' are mutually exclusive?  I'm sticking with my view that librarians were the original knowledge managers.  Both 'library' and 'KM' seem to produce a negative emotional reaction in certain (and probably different) segments of our community - why can't we be both?  Does it have to be either/or?

Agreed on all points; I think it can be both/and (and maybe should be - would help the transition).

(Admittedly, with as varied a constitutency, it's certainly a challenge to find a name that covers all but is also broadly accurate.... or we'd have come up with one by now!)

My concern is that we are starting down a path where we conform to whatever concept is in vogue at the moment.  At what point will we decide that KM is just so passe' that it needs to be changed as well.  It's true that librarians have long been the guardians of knowledge AND information, but I think it is incumbent upon us to educate the hand that feeds us rather than acquiescing to the latest terminology fad.  I fear that caving in on this name/branding point will put us in with the rest.  Rather than conforming to what they think we should be, perhaps we should teach them what it means to do what we do and that we go far beyond hair buns and knee highs.  Of course, my biggest concern is that as long as there are people who are willing to take "librarian" positions for very little pay because they really don't need the income (read - they have a spouse to support them)  then we will forever be at the mercy of low salaries.

We must stand up as practitioners and teach our constituents what we do and why we do it the way we do.  We need to show them our value rather than simply changing our name.  If we fall into the rut of a name change, then we're just going to have to repaint the wagon every-so-often to keep things looking fresh.  I'm a librarian and proud of it.  I've spent countless hours preaching the gospel of information and I'm feeling a little sold out by my professional organization and my peers who seem to see it as easier to change the name than to change the mindset.

From experience, I can tell you that the average stakeholder finds the word "knowledge" to be rather elusive. The whole problem with the current name is that it conveys a misunderstanding of who we are and what we do based upon old assumptions about the library profession. I think the last thing we want to do is get into another one that can fall out of favor and be misconstrued again. Simple, intuitive, easy is what we need. Don't get me wrong, I've been doing KM for the better part of a decade at this point, but that word scares people!

And, of course, when it comes to KM, Larry Prusak, one of the guys sometimes credited with inventing the discipline, has since renounced the phrase:

JD: I have heard you say that you and Tom Davenport wish you could take this term "knowledge management" back.

LP: Yes. It is really working with knowledge. You can't manage knowledge, per se. It is not a thing that is manageable. You can't manage love or honor or patriotism or piety. It is clearly working with knowledge, but the words got out there and there it is.
Source: "Keeping Good Company: A Conversation with Larry Prusak" http://www.sla.org/content/Shop/Information/infoonline/2001/may01/prusak.cfm

A piece of knowledge practically unknown to all is that the phrase was in use a quite considerable time before Prusak and Davenport began promoting it. See Nicholas L. Henry, "Knowledge management: a new concern for public administration," Public Administration Review. v.34, May/June, 1974, p.184+ and James D. Carroll and Nicholas Henry "Symposium on knowledge management," Public Administration Review, v.35, November/December, 1975, p.567+

Just an observation - it seems like there is this divide between those for whom library / librarian is a very good fit (given the current lay impressions), and those for whom it is detrimental - ultimately it depends on the impressions of execs that pay our salary.  I'd be curious to see if that divides along lines, such as academic versus medical, medical versus corporate, etc.  For example, corporate libraries which have the word "library" have lower utilization than those without that name (2004 study).  I doubt that's the case in academia.  Might we have a fundamental difference based on current business models?  (If so, it lends more credence to using a common value driver for a name...)