According to Flor (2018), KM4D and conventional private sector KM can be differentiated in terms of purpose, considerations, sharing parameters, and thrust. Conventional private sector KM is economic in nature with a goal towards wealth production with the use of intellectual assets. KM4D is oriented towards development goals such as MDG and SDGs. Conventional private sector KM is primarily concerned with efficiently managing intellectual assets including its security and accountability. KM4D is concerned with the synergistic nature of knowledge and considers it as non-proprietary and a free commodity to be shared. Conventional private sector KM can only be shared within the corporate organization and usually other partner companies sign an NDA to receive access to KM. Conventional private sector KM also thrusts toward internal knowledge sharing. KM4D extends beyond organizational borders and reaches out to sectoral stakeholders as it thrusts towards external knowledge sharing.

Flor (2018) also discussed the difference in content, levels of utilization, and functionalities for conventional private sector KM and KM4D. To add to this resource, I would like to add two differences: methodologies and challenges. In terms of methodology, conventional private sector KM uses a more structured and technology-driven approach such as repositories, intranets, and knowledge databases that emphasizes on codification and systemization for each of access and reuse. KM4D, on the other hand employs participatory and inclusive approaches of methodology such as communication of Practice (CoP), participatory action research (PAR), and storytelling. These aim to capture tacit and experiential knowledge that is crucial for development projects. Nevertheless, Cummings et al. (2019) explores the possibility of a systemic conceptualization of KM4D while linking it to the SDGs and suggesting a future for knowledge brokering that emphasizes greater collaboration between organizational and societal actors. In terms of challenges, conventional private sector KM are concerned with knowledge silos, employee turnover leading to loss of tacit knowledge, and the rapid pace of technological change that can render existing knowledge obsolete. On the other hand, KM4D is challenged with linguistic diversity, cultural barriers, low levels of literacy, and limited access to technology. The knowledge also risks its sustainability when external support ends.

References: Cummings, S., Kiwanuka, S., Gillman, H., & Regeer, B. (2019). The future of knowledge brokering: perspectives from a generational framework of knowledge management for international development. Information Development, 35(5), 781-794.

Flor, A. G. (2018). Knowledge management for development (KM4D). In Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Fourth Edition (pp. 5077-5084). IGI Global.

Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) and conventional private sector Knowledge Management (KM) both focus on the creation, sharing, and utilization of knowledge, but they differ in their objectives, scope, stakeholders, and application (Flor, 2019).

KM4D aims to improve development outcomes and contribute to sustainable change in low and middle-income countries. It focuses on addressing development challenges such as poverty, inequality, and sustainability. Conventional private sector KM, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with improving organizational efficiency, competitiveness, and innovation. It aims to leverage knowledge to create value, enhance performance, and achieve business goals.

KM4D often involves a broader scope, addressing complex, system-level challenges that require multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder approaches. It considers social, economic, and environmental dimensions and promotes the integration of local and indigenous knowledge. Private sector KM, meanwhile, is typically more focused on specific organizational processes, systems, and capabilities. It emphasizes the management of explicit and tacit knowledge within the organization to support decision-making, learning, and innovation.

KM4D involves a wide range of stakeholders, including governments, non-governmental organizations, communities, donors, and researchers. It emphasizes participatory approaches, capacity building, and empowerment of local stakeholders. Private sector KM primarily involves internal stakeholders (employees, management, shareholders) but can also include external stakeholders like customers, suppliers, and partners. It focuses on creating a knowledge-sharing culture, promoting collaboration, and enhancing knowledge-based capabilities.

KM4D often involves working in complex, dynamic, and uncertain contexts. It requires adaptive, flexible, and context-specific approaches. It emphasizes learning, innovation, and systemic change. Conventional private sector KM, on the other hand, often involves more structured and systematic processes, including knowledge creation, capture, storage, sharing, and application. It utilizes various tools, technologies, and practices such as databases, intranets, knowledge repositories, communities of practice, and knowledge mapping.

While both KM4D and private sector KM focus on managing knowledge, they differ in their objectives, scope, stakeholders, and application. KM4D is more oriented towards development goals, broader systemic challenges, diverse stakeholders, and adaptive learning, while private sector KM is more focused on business objectives, organizational processes, and structured knowledge management practices.

References:

Akude, J.E. (2014). Knowledge for Development: A Literature Review and an Evolving Research Agenda. http://dnb.d-nb.de

Flor, A.G. (2019). KM4D Casebook: Sectoral and Thematic Knowledge Management at the National, Regional, and Global Levels. UP Open University

Knowledge management was developed to harness intellectual capital of employees of private companies so that their tacit knowledge (knowledge stored inside their heads as opposed to explicit knowledge, or documented and shared knowledge) can be documented and can be of use to the company or institution. These tacit-turned explicit knowledge are usually stored instead of disseminated, to be seen only by those with proper clearance. This can be anywhere from employee onboarding to CEO-level confidential.

Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D), though derived from KM, seeks to harness tacit knowledge in order to spread it. KM in the development sector seeks to document tacit knowledge from different sectors in order to make them available to a wider audience. They may also be documented as a way to preserve them, as in the case of cultural traditions, or to highlight them as legitimate sources of information, as in the case of indigenous farming practices, for example. KM4D may also be used to document best practices within a certain community just in case it can be adapted by other communities to further their development goals.

Sources:

Flor, A. G. (2018). Knowledge management for development (KM4D). In Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Fourth Edition (pp. 5077-5084). IGI Global.

Principles for Knowledge Management for Development – lessons from innovation. (2015, November 9). KM On a Dollar a Day. https://kmonadollaraday.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/principles-for-knowledge-management-for-development-lessons-from-innovation/

My apologies, I didn't paste the entire entry. Here it is:

Knowledge Management (KM) differs from Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) in terms of intent.

Knowledge management was developed to harness intellectual capital of employees of private companies so that their tacit knowledge (knowledge stored inside their heads as opposed to explicit knowledge, or documented and shared knowledge) can be documented and can be of use to the company or institution. These tacit-turned explicit knowledge are usually stored instead of disseminated, to be seen only by those with proper clearance. This can be anywhere from employee onboarding to CEO-level confidential.

Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D), though derived from KM, seeks to harness tacit knowledge in order to spread it. KM in the development sector seeks to document tacit knowledge from different sectors in order to make them available to a wider audience. They may also be documented as a way to preserve them, as in the case of cultural traditions, or to highlight them as legitimate sources of information, as in the case of indigenous farming practices, for example. KM4D may also be used to document best practices within a certain community just in case it can be adapted by other communities to further their development goals.

Sources:

Flor, A. G. (2018). Knowledge management for development (KM4D). In Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Fourth Edition (pp. 5077-5084). IGI Global.

Principles for Knowledge Management for Development – lessons from innovation. (2015, November 9). KM On a Dollar a Day. https://kmonadollaraday.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/principles-for-knowledge-management-for-development-lessons-from-innovation/

Knowledge Management for Development, or KM4D is a specific approach to knowledge management that focuses on applying the practices in the context of international development work (Olobia, 2022). Conventional private sector KM, or Knowledge Management (KM) in a for-profit context, is all about capturing, storing, and strategically utilizing an organization's knowledge base to gain a competitive advantage (Shehabat, 2020).

According to (Flor, 2018) KM4D considers intellectual capital as a manageable asset but it is leveraged not to increase profit but to further the development agenda. KM4D is founded on knowledge science and knowledge economics. It is applied within the development context and targeted at the achievement of national, regional, or global development goals. Hence, (Flor, 2018) differentiates conventional KM from KM4D in terms of the following: purpose; considerations; thrust; levels of utilization; system functionalities and applications; and system content.

The purpose of conventional KM is economic in nature, specifically the creation of wealth using intellectual assets. It may be said that the purpose of KM is to enhance a company’s ability to conduct its core business. KM4D owing to its origins in the international development assistance sector has always been linked to development goals such as the Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs.

In terms of primary considerations, conventional KM guards intellectual assets closely and is geared at managing these assets efficiently. Whereas, KM4D believes in the synergistic or non-zero-sum nature of knowledge.

In the concept of sharing parameters, conventional KM in knowledge sharing and reuse is encouraged freely within the corporate organization but rarely outside it. In KM4D, the parameters of knowledge sharing and reuse extend beyond the organization to all sectoral stakeholders. The thrust of conventional KM is internal knowledge sharing. The thrust of KM4D is external knowledge sharing.

In the design and utilization of systems, conventional KM systems content tends to be in demand driven determined by organizational requirements. The content of KM4D systems is supply-driven affirmative action is taken to supply knowledge and information needs of stakeholders. Conventional KM systems are primarily for corporate use of a going concern. On the other hand, KM4D systems may be designed for use at the project level, the agency level, and even the sectoral or thematic level. Traditionally, users of KM systems are communities of practice or CoPs. Users of KM4D systems involve communities of interest (CoIs) and communities of champions (CoCs). Lastly, KM4D systems go beyond conventional messaging and collaboration, file sharing, content management, and search functionalities but extend to online learning.

However, to elaborate further the focus, goals, methods and tools, and challenges of KM4D from conventional private sector KM. KM4D is primarily concerned with applying knowledge management practices in the context of international development work. It is focused on sharing knowledge and expertise to achieve positive social change in areas like poverty reduction, public health, or environmental sustainability. Conventional KM focuses on managing knowledge within a for-profit organization to improve efficiency, innovation, and competitive advantage. The internal knowledge benefits the organization, leading to increased efficiency, innovation, and improved decision-making.

KM4D aims to share knowledge, emphasizes collaboration, and capacity building among development organizations, stakeholders (governments, NGOs, communities), and communities to achieve positive social change. Conventional KM aims to effectively capture, store, and leverage organizational knowledge to empower employees and gain a strategic edge in the market.

KM4D methods and tools often emphasize participatory approaches like online platforms, community forums, workshops, and training programs to bridge knowledge gaps. Conventional KM leverages a wider range of tools like knowledge repositories, data analytics, and intellectual property management systems. The specific methods depend on the industry and goals. The knowledge repositories are centralized databases or systems to store and access critical information; data analytics utilizing data to identify trends, patterns, and opportunities for improvement; and intellectual property management protecting the organization's confidential knowledge and innovations.

KM4D faces challenges like limited resources, knowledge gaps between stakeholders, and ensuring accessibility of knowledge in developing contexts. Conventional KM deals with issues like information overload, knowledge silos within organizations, and protecting sensitive corporate knowledge.

KM4D is crucial for achieving positive social change in developing countries. Therefore, KM4D plays a critical role in breaking down knowledge silos, fostering collaboration, and empowering communities to achieve sustainable development goals. Conventional KM is critical for organizations to thrive in today's competitive business landscape. Therefore, conventional KM is an essential strategy for organizations to leverage their intellectual capital, empower their workforce, and stay ahead of the competition.

The field of KM4D is constantly evolving, research has the potential to significantly improve knowledge sharing, collaboration, and capacity building within development communities. This can ultimately lead to more sustainable and equitable solutions for the challenges faced by developing countries. KM4D research holds immense potential to empower communities, address complex challenges, and achieve lasting social change.

The field of conventional KM continues to evolve, the research and innovation have promising areas for future exploration in leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), knowledge management in the evolving workplace, and the future of knowledge work. Hence, the future of conventional KM is brimming with exciting possibilities. Research will be crucial for developing KM strategies that empower organizations to thrive in the dynamic business landscape.

References:

Flor, A. G. (2018). Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D).

Olobia, L.P. (December, 2022). Information and Knowledge Management for Development. Retrieved From: https://typeset.io/papers/information-and-knowledge-management-for-development-2wpswli4

Shehabat, I. (May, 2020). The Role of Knowledge Management in Organizational Performance and Gaining Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Retrieved From: https://typeset.io/papers/the-role-of-knowledge-management-in-organizational-5amn5pt68i

Howard, J. et al. (September, 2022). Lessons Learned from K4D Learning Journeys: A Practical Approach for Supporting Learning in Development Organizations. Retrieved From: https://typeset.io/papers/lessons-learned-from-k4d-learning-journeys-a-practical-ixfabgyi

Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) and its counterpart in the application for the private sector can significantly vary in purpose, stakeholders, and implementation (Flor, 2005). KM4D aims at leveraging knowledge to foster sustainable development, focusing on societal betterment across diverse communities. On the other hand, private sector KM has a particular focus on its internal stakeholders. Therefore, the use of KM in the private sector is to enhance organizational efficiency and profitability (Choo, 2003).

Furthermore, KM4D is open-source because it has a mission to address global challenges and, therefore, can offer a path to providing solutions to global challenges such as poverty, health, and education (Haggie & Kingston, 2003). On the contrary, KM for private sectors is safeguarding their knowledge because they treat it as an “Intellectual Property” and “Knowledge Capital” which are vital to maintaining a competitive advantage.

In a nutshell, the goals of KM4D extend beyond organizational boundaries as it aims to contribute to improving living conditions and societal welfare concerning the public. The case is the opposite for the Private Sector’s KM it is used as a tool to boost business potential and profitability. This fundamental difference in objectives illustrates the distinct paths KM takes in development versus corporate settings.

References:

Choo, Chun. (2003). Perspectives on Managing Knowledge in Organizations. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly. 37. 205-220. 10.1300/J104v37n01_14.

Flor, Alexander G. (2005). “Knowledge Management"

Haggie, K & Kingston, John. (2003). Choosing Your Knowledge Management Strategy. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice. 51.

“Knowledge management was intended as a tool for the private sector, a means to increase an organization’s IQ, as Bill Gates (1999) puts it. Soon after its introduction to the corporate world, however, it was embraced by both the government sector and the international development assistance community owing to the fact that governments and international agencies are, by nature, knowledge organizations” (Flor, 2018). Thus, Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) is fundamentally rooted in the private sector KM.

According to Flor (2018 & 2019), conventional private sector KM and KM4D can be differentiated by their purpose, considerations, thrust, levels of utilization, system functionalities and applications, and system content. Private sector KM is profit-oriented, while KM4D is development-oriented. The private sector KM aims to capture and manage its intellectual capital for the benefit of the organization through effective and efficient use among employees to cater to the needs of clients. Hence, it is demand-driven and for corporate use.

On the other hand, KM4D values intellectual capital for the welfare of the common good as “it is applied within the development context and targeted at the achievement of national, regional or global development goals”—with development projects or sectoral and thematic applications for food security/agriculture, climate change, ecosystem/environment, indigenous people, education, and disaster management, among others. KM4D is said to be supply-driven since it intends not merely to contribute to the learning needs of the stakeholders but also to address or respond to societal problems by optimizing suitable KM technologies. The conventional private sector KM secures its intellectual capital by providing access only to authorized users (internal), while KM4D allows open sharing and use of knowledge resources that “extend beyond the organization to all sectoral stakeholders”—external.

References:

Flor, A. G. (2018). Knowledge management for development (KM4D). In Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Fourth Edition (pp. 5077-5084). IGI Global. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346566554_KM4D_Casebook_Sectoral_and_Thematic_Knowledge_Management_at_the_National_Regional_and_Global_Levels/citations

Flor, A. (2019). KM4D Casebook: Sectoral and Thematic Knowledge Management at the National, Regional, and Global Levels. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346566554_KM4D_Casebook_Sectoral_and_Thematic_Knowledge_Management_at_the_National_Regional_and_Global_Levels [accessed Apr 14 2024].

To answer this question, I harken back to the synchronous class in which Dr. A. Flor provided a diagram comparing and contrasting the difference and overlaps between Conventional KM and KM4D.

My personal reading of the two sub-fields is this: While both sub-fields are rooted in Knowledge Management techniques and borrow from the same well-spring of a theoretical tradition, KM4D views knowledge as a resource for a social good and sees it not as a commodity that merely belongs to one organization but to various stakeholders, while conventional Knowledge Management primarily sees it as an asset for the organization and its interests.

The goal of Conventional Knowledge Management, as Kumar & Kumar (2015) puts it is: managing an organization's knowledge through a structured and organized process that includes acquiring, organizing, maintaining, utilizing, sharing, and refreshing both the implicit and explicit knowledge of employees to improve organizational performance and generate value. KM4D builds on this, but rather than looking at this from the vantage point of the “greater organization” - the society and the addressing the SDGs by working with various stakeholders and development agencies. The KM4D practitioner work with the same tools of the conventional KM practitioner but works with various organizations (be they private, non-governmental, or governmental) within a synergistic teleology.

Work Cited:

Kumar, A. A., & Kumar, U. (February 2015). KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: A REVIEW. The ICFAI Foundation for Higher Education Hyderabad, Osmania University. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280490126_KNOWLEDGE_MANAGEMENT_A_REVIEW

In knowledge management, two distinct yet interconnected paradigms emerge, Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) and conventional private sector Knowledge Management (KM). These two streams, while sharing commonalities in their pursuit of leveraging knowledge assets, diverge significantly in their focus, methodologies, and underlying motivations.

KM4D goes with a noble purpose, the empowerment of communities and regions through knowledge sharing, collaboration, and learning. In developing countries, where socio-economic challenges abound, KM4D is a beacon of hope, aiming to foster sustainable development, alleviate poverty, and promote social progress. Its stakeholders encompass government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community groups, academia, and international development organizations. Collaboration among these disparate actors is desirable and essential, forming the bedrock of KM4D initiatives.

On the other hand, conventional private sector KM operates within the confines of commercial enterprises, driven by profitability, innovation, and competitive advantage. Here, the focus shifts inward, as organizations strive to enhance operational efficiency, product/service quality, and bottom-line performance. While external collaborations may occur, the primary stakeholders are internal: employees, managers, and shareholders. The metrics of success are clear-cut, revolving around financial performance, market share, and customer satisfaction.

KM4D differs from conventional private sector KM in one distinct way: intent.

For whilst conventional private sector KM's intent is to systematize the collection, storage, sharing and utilization of knowledge in an efficient and effective way, the overall aim is to do so not just to improve systems and processes, but to maximize profits. In the readings shared, for example, a Japanese company studied how food was being prepared traditionally so that they could replicate the same production in an efficient and effective way, and thus be able to sell, and earn from, the said product. My impression of conventional private sector KM is it has a more traditional, capitalist bent, in that whatever knowledge is collected, stored and shared are done so in order to encourage innovation and efficiency, which are done so that a company would have a competitive advantage against other companies. Hence, products such as Coca Cola and its formula, and Google's algorithm, are trade secrets, guarded vehemently and not to be shared haphazardly, lest the companies lose their competitive advantage over others and thus lose money. And while capitalism may have brought economic growth and prosperity to many countries, it has also been criticized for its overemphasis on profit motive, market economy, competition and limited government intervention, and as such, KM's use for capitalist purposes may also mean it may inadvertently has contributed or is contributing to social issues arising from capitalism's faults such as exploitation, income inequality, environmental degradation and social fragmentation.

On the other hand, whilst KM4D also aims to gather, store, share and utilize knowledge, it is doing so with no capitalist intent. In civil society, for example, non-government organizations and/or development organizations, aim to use KM4D for sustainability, conservation and preservation (of culture, the environment, etc.). For example, in the development NGO I was working with in the Cordillera region, part of the work we did was collaborate with indigenous groups in gathering and preserving indigenous knowledge (rites, rituals, superstitions, beliefs, practices, customs, traditions, stories, prayers, etc. for planting season, harvest season, etc.) in written form so that they may be preserved for future generations, with the awareness and acceptance that such indigenous knowledge carries with it the key to also preserving the environment, as rites and rituals, customs and practices may carry with it instructions on how to take care of nature, of the land and so on. As the resource-rich Cordilleras has struggled with environmental issues due to continued exploitation, it has become important that indigenous knowledge be preserved and passed down, since the kind of practices indigenous people possess seem much more sustainable and carry with it an awareness that the resources in a community are owned communally and not to be exploited or profited from.

I believe this is key difference between conventional KM and KM4D.

Knowledge Management (KM) serves various purposes across different sectors. In the private sector, the primary objective of KM is to enhance productivity and profitability. Companies, especially in technology, use KM strategies to refine research and development, streamline production, and expedite product launches to gain a competitive edge.

In sectors like non-profit religious missionary organizations, Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) aims at fostering social, educational, and spiritual growth. KM strategies in these contexts focus on spreading useful information and practices that enhance the efficacy of missionary activities and encourage community involvement. Unlike the private sector, the focus here is on empowerment and service rather than financial metrics.

The methods of implementing KM vary significantly between these contexts. In business environments, KM often incorporates sophisticated IT solutions like artificial intelligence for data analysis, corporate intranets for communication, and complex databases for knowledge storage and retrieval, with success typically measured by financial returns such as ROI or efficiency improvements.

In missionary contexts, such as religious missionary congregation, KM may involve more participatory and culturally resonant methods like storytelling and workshops. These approaches facilitate the exchange of theological insights and missionary experiences across diverse cultures, with success gauged by the impact on community development and the broadening of spiritual and educational programs.

Challenges also differ between sectors. The private sector grapples with issues like data management and intellectual property, whereas missionary groups face challenges related to maintaining cultural sensitivity and operating with limited resources. In essence, while private sector KM focuses on internal economic gains, KM in missionary and non-profit sectors is directed towards external community empowerment and sustainability.

KM vs. KM4D: Differentiation via Analogy

Aside from the differences between conventional Knowledge Management/KM and Knowledge Management for Development/KM4D cited by Dr. Alexander G. Flor (2018), I wish to illustrate those differences through analogies. Before I cite those analogies, allow me to present a gist of Flor’s prototypology of conventional KM and KM4D. KM is aimed at gaining private profits while KM4D supports the Sustainable Development Goals. Furthermore, KM4D strives for synergy while KM is more concerned about security and accountability. In KM, demand-driven knowledge is shared internally within the organization while KM4D shares supply-driven knowledge with all development stakeholders.

My way of differentiating KM and KM4D is through the use of analogies. The first analogy I can present is KM can be a Private Garden while KM4D can be a Community Garden. A private garden, representing KM, is focused on managing resources such as water, soil, plants, and fertilizer efficiently to generate personal profits. A community garden, representing KM4D, has multiple stakeholders collaborating to grow food, share gardening skills, and address food security and sustainability concerns together.

The second analogy is having Exclusive Clubs as against having Public Community Centers. Exclusive Clubs, representing KM, grant members access to specialized resources, networking opportunities, and knowledge tailored for specific activities. Public Community Centers, representing KM4D, offer inclusive programs, services, and knowledge-sharing platforms to address society’s issues and foster community development.

The third analogy is Private Healthcare Systems versus Public Health Initiatives. Private Healthcare Systems, representing KM, focus on individual patient care, management of medical records, and optimizing healthcare delivery within a clinic or hospital. Public Health Initiatives, representing KM4D, try to improve community health through preventive measures, health education, and collaboration among healthcare providers, government agencies, and non-government organizations.

In other words, conventional KM can be related to Adam Smith’s Rational Choice Theory which proposed that a person makes decisions or takes actions based on rational choice expected to result in favor of one’s self-interest (Master Class, 2022). This is reflected in the profit-oriented nature of conventional KM. On the other hand, KM4D can be aligned with Jeremy Bentham’s concept of the greater good for a greater number of people (Veenhoven, 2010). KM4D manifests this characteristic as it pursues social development goals.

References:

Flor, A.G. (2018). Knowledge management for development (KM4D). Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Fourth Edition. IGI Global

Master Class (2022). How rational choice theory works. Master Class. Retrieved April 22, 2024 {https://www.masterclass.com/articles/rational-choice-theory}

Veenhoven, R. (2010). Greater happiness for a greater number: Is that possible and desirable?. Springer Link. Retrieved April 22, 2024 {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-010-9204-z}

Both Knowledge Management (KM) and Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) consider intellectual capital as an asset but differ in how such it is leveraged.

Conventional private sector knowledge management (KM) has its main purpose is centered around storing, using, and sharing knowledge either internally or externally or both in the case of technical documentation for products. In the private sector KM, specifically in technical documentation, the company invests in tools and resources to develop and manage knowledge. In this area, formatting, accuracy, and consistency are the most important aspects.

On the other hand, Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) is linked to development goals and is founded on knowledge science and knowledge economics.

KM’s purpose is more economic in nature, where organizations use intellectual capital to create wealth or profit. KM4D’s purpose is more towards development goals, where intellectual capital is leveraged to pursue such goals.

While both leverage intellectual capital, KM is applied and practiced in organizations to provide better services to its stakeholders while KM4D is geared towards assisting with the development of sectors and communities.

But, since KM4D stemmed from KM, looking at the first generation of KM4D which is ICT-based, it is very similar to KM, where knowledge is seen as a commodity. And the second-generation which is organization-based is practice that is becoming more popular in organizations that value (and sell) knowledge to its stakeholders. In fact, some organizations seek the services of experts to perform audits on contents and knowledge base.

It might be that in the future, the KM that is practiced in corporate organizations will evolve to KM4D not in how knowledge is leveraged, but with how the concepts and features are related.

References:

Cummings, S., Kiwanuka, S. N., Gillman, H., & Regeer, B. (2018c). The future of knowledge brokering: perspectives from a generational framework of knowledge management for international development. Information Development, 35(5), 781–794. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666918800174

Flor, A. G. (2018). Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D). In IGI Global eBooks (pp. 5077–5084). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2255-3.ch440

Knowledge management for development (KM4D) and traditional private sector knowledge management (KM) are designed to serve very different purposes and operate in different contexts. According to Alexander G. Flor (2018), KM4D aims to improve development outcomes by addressing broad social, economic, and environmental challenges and promoting innovation, learning, accountability, and transparency. In contrast, conventional KM in the private sector focuses on improving business performance, increasing operational efficiency, and improving profitability, with a strong emphasis on maintaining competitive advantage.

KM4D involves a wide range of stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations, government agencies, civil society groups, and local communities. Flor notes that this approach requires collaborative efforts and participatory methods to ensure inclusive knowledge creation and sharing. Traditional KM, on the other hand, is primarily aimed at internal stakeholders such as employees and management, and focuses on optimizing internal processes and information flows to directly benefit the business.

In terms of tools and methods, KM4D often uses technologies that are adaptable to low-resource settings, reflecting the infrastructural limitations of many development contexts. This includes offline capabilities and mobile technologies that provide broad access despite constraints. On the other hand, conventional KM uses advanced technological tools such as intranets and document management systems, which are designed to streamline the flow of information within an organization to maximize internal efficiency and knowledge sharing.

In terms of ethics and values, KM4D places a strong emphasis on the equitable distribution of knowledge and the empowerment of marginalized communities, ensuring that interventions do not exacerbate existing inequalities. This ethical stance, as highlighted by Flor, contrasts with private sector KM, which is more focused on compliance, protection of proprietary information, and alignment with corporate governance standards and business interests.

Finally, the measurement of success also differs significantly between the two. KM4D evaluates its impact based on improvements in community well-being, sustainability, and enhanced capacity, often using long-term development indicators. In contrast, success in conventional KM is measured by more immediate and quantifiable business outcomes, such as financial performance, market competitiveness, and operational efficiency. These differences underscore the unique roles and objectives of KM4D and conventional KM within their respective domains, as elaborated by Flor.

References:

Flor, A.G. (2019). KM4D Casebook: Sectoral and Thematic Knowledge Management at the National, Regional, and Global Levels. UP Open University

Flor, A. G. (2018). Knowledge management for development (KM4D). In Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Fourth Edition (pp. 5077-5084). IGI Global.

Conventional knowledge management (KM) in the private sector differs from knowledge for development (KM4D) in its economic views of the knowledge it can acquire over time. KM considers intellectual capital as a resource that could potentially derive profit from it, thus, it views KM as its competitive edge, one that could help them achieve their profit-driven organizational goals. Meanwhile, KM4D views knowledge as a resource for the community, open to be utilized by whoever needs it because its main goal is not just to leverage to increase profit but for the development goals of a much greater community. Sharing of knowledge for everyone's gain is its objective as opposed to the conventional KM that keeps it to its advantage and use. Thus, in KM its primary concern is the security of its data so that others may not have access to it is put in its place as a means of protection. In KM4D, it leaves itself open for easy access for those in the same communities of practice, interest, or champions.

I find this distinction between KM and KM4D so much like the case/issue of Alexandra Elbakyan, the founder Sci-Hub, a website that gives access to journals that do not have open access. Elbakyan asserts that knowledge should be given free to those who want to use it. As a consequence of her advocacies that relate to KM4D, she faced numerous cases filed by some affected publishing companies. With this issue, the theoretical distinction between KM and KM4D became a real-life issue rather than just a theoretical debate in the academic landscape.

Source:

Flor, A. G. (2018). Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D). In IGI Global eBooks (pp. 5077–5084). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2255-3.ch440

Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) and conventional private sector knowledge management differ in their focus, context, and objectives. In terms of context and purpose, conventional private sector KM is primarily practiced within corporate organizations. It aims to enhance efficiency, productivity, and profitability. Its focus is on internal processes, best practices, and organizational learning. Moreover, conventional private sector KM is driven by business goals and competitive advantage. Whereas KM4D is applied in the context of international development, including governments and development agencies. KM4D seeks to address social, economic, and environmental challenges. Its emphasis is on knowledge sharing, capacity building, and sustainable development. KM4D is driven by the goal of improving lives and promoting equity.

In terms of stakeholders and collaboration, conventional private sector KM primarily involves employees, managers, and business units. Collaboration is often limited to internal teams. Whereas KM4D engages a diverse range of stakeholders, including communities, researchers, NGOs, and policy-makers. KM4D encourages cross-sectoral collaboration and partnerships.

As to the knowledge domains, conventional private sector KM focuses on tacit knowledge, process documentation, and intellectual property. KM is often centered around technology, innovation, and market trends. KM4D on the other hand, encompasses a broader spectrum, including traditional knowledge, local practices, and indigenous wisdom. KM4D addresses healthcare, education, environmental conservation, and social justice.

Finally, as regards metrics and evaluation, conventional private sector KM measures success through efficiency gains and revenue growth. In KM, quantitative metrics prevail while in KM4D, qualitative and participatory approaches are common. KM4D evaluates impact based on societal change, poverty reduction, and sustainable development goals.

Although both KM approaches involve managing knowledge, KM4D extends beyond profit-driven motives to foster positive change on a global scale.

Sources:

Boyes, B. (2018). Moving towards a fifth generation of knowledge management for development. Retrieved from https://realkm.com/2018/10/11/moving-towards-a-fifth-generation-of-km4d/

Flor, A.G. (2019). Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345602593_Knowledge_Management_for_Development_KM4D

An Addendum to the Prototypology of Conventional KM and KM4D

In the published Prototypology of Conventional KM and KM4D, the two forms of KM were differentiated in terms of 'purpose', 'considerations', 'thrust', 'levels of utilization', 'system functionalities and applications', and 'system content'. I wish to add a new point for comparison: 'scope'.

KM4D is a continuously growing field, and we are now in its fifth generation, as Sarah Cummings and colleagues proposed. One identifying concept of the said generation would be its emphasis on cross-domain knowledge integration. By highlighting such, the scope of knowledge that KM4D now involves would be starkly different from what concerns conventional private-sector KM.

It can be stated that the 'scope' of conventional private-sector KM is exclusive or overlooks only knowledge that concerns and is relevant to the organization. This makes their perspective limited and, to an extent, out of touch with the bigger picture of the world. On the other hand, the 'scope' of KM4D is inclusive or accommodating of cross-domain knowledge as all knowledge is considered relevant to development and, therefore, worth noting. It does not discriminate on who the source of knowledge is as it believes that knowledge management should take up a more endogenous approach to development. This makes KM4D more responsive to situational complexities and social context.

By looking into the 'scope' of conventional KM and KM4D, we can see that the latter is more extensive and open as a knowledge system. Therefore, KM4D provides an exhaustive view of the bigger picture. This means it is a field that must be approached from a macro rather than a micro perspective.

Analyzing the scope of conventional KM alongside KM4D highlights the latter's expansive and inclusive nature as a knowledge framework. As a result, KM4D provides a thorough grasp of the overarching context, primarily in its focus, scope, and objectives.

Drawing from readings across the semester, it becomes evident that private sector KM primarily revolves around maximizing organizational efficiency, nurturing innovation, and enhancing competitiveness to fulfill business goals and generate profits. In contrast, KM4D is committed to utilizing knowledge as a catalyst for sustainable development, promoting social advancement, and mitigating poverty, especially within developing nations and marginalized communities.

Moreover, while private sector KM typically engages employees, customers, and stakeholders within a particular organization or industry, KM4D encompasses a wider array of stakeholders. These include governments, NGOs, international agencies, local communities, researchers, and grassroots organizations. KM4D places a strong emphasis on fostering collaboration and knowledge sharing across diverse sectors and disciplines.

Regarding knowledge sources, private sector KM typically focuses on proprietary information, best practices, market trends, and intellectual property pertinent to the organization's products or services. Conversely, KM4D draws from a broader spectrum of knowledge sources, encompassing traditional and indigenous knowledge, community-based practices, scientific research, and insights gleaned from development projects. It acknowledges the significance of local knowledge and context-specific solutions in tackling development challenges.

Furthermore, while private sector KM generally aids decision-making within organizations to enhance resource allocation, decision quality, and strategic initiatives, KM4D extends its support to decision-making across multiple tiers, ranging from local community development endeavors to national policy formulation.

In summary, although both private sector KM and KM4D entail knowledge management to attain distinct goals, their differing emphases, stakeholders, knowledge origins, decision-making methods set them apart. KM4D specifically underscores the use of knowledge as a means to foster inclusive and sustainable development, particularly within underserved and vulnerable

communities.

Flor, A.G. (2019). Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345602593_Knowledge_Management_for_Development_KM4D

As I wrote in one of my blogs for Comm 350, I believe the main distinction between conventional KM and KM4D lies in the audience. The needs of the audience dictate the KM approach required to yield tangible and measurable success. In comparative tables or prototypologies offered on the subject, the audience or stakeholder is typically assumed, when, in fact, it is the defining dimension that determines the necessary approach.

The audience determines the following factors:

Corporate KM vs KM4D

Audience

Organization members vs Communities of interest, practice, champions

Purpose

Development in both

Bottom line vs Community through stated sustainable development goals

Flow of information

Restricted vs Unrestricted

Thrust

Knowledge sharing

Organization vs Knowledge sharing among stakeholders

System applications

Messaging and collaboration

File sharing

Documents/content management

Search

Online learning

As you can see in the revised table below from Flor’s (2018) Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) chapter in the Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, my belief is that most if not all factors remain fundamentally the same, only adapted to the needs of the audience. The overarching purpose is development, split between profit and sustainable development goals. The thrust is knowledge sharing, only distinguished by restricted flow (within the organization) and unrestricted (across many groups of stakeholders as well as the public). Applications are becoming mirrored across the two areas of practice. For example, online learning is becoming an important functionality of knowledge management in the corporate arena, both for newly-onboarded employees and long-time staff looking to maintain their proficiencies in rapidly evolving fields such as information technology and software development.

References

Flor, A.G. (2018). Knowledge management for development (KM4D). Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Fourth Edition. IGI Global

Knowledge Management (KM) is a management approach that considers mainly the objectives of an organization, especially a business organization. The idea is to generate, share, maintain and enrich knowledge within the organization to ensure its competitiveness and profitability. Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) focuses on the facilitation and application of knowledge, with the aim of development of some sectors of the society.

To make a clearer distinction, the primary differences between KM4D and regular private sector KM are as follows:

1. Objectives: While conventional corporate knowledge management (KM) in the commercial sector aims to boost organizational effectiveness and competitiveness, KM4D promotes development initiatives and enhances the lives of marginalized and underprivileged target groups.

2. Scope: KM4D focuses on the use of ICTs for development in a larger context, whereas traditional private sector KM is more concerned with the management and exchange of information within businesses.

3. Approach: While KM in the commercial sector is usually more hierarchical and focused on managing knowledge inside the company, KM4D often integrates a more cooperative and participatory approach that involves numerous communities and stakeholders.

References:

Mohajan, Haradhan Kumar (January 2017) The Impact of Knowledge Management Models for the Development of Organizations. Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques 2017, Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages: 12-33

Cummings, S., B.J. Regeer, W.W.S. Ho and M.B.M. Zweekhorst. 2013. Proposing a fifth generation of knowledge management for development: investigating convergence between knowledge management for development and transdisciplinary research. Knowledge Management for Development Journal 9(2): 10-36

One of the key roles of Information Technology in Knowledge Management is to help organizations capture, organize, and store various forms of knowledge, including documents, databases, multimedia files, and more. This enables efficient archiving and retrieval of knowledge assets. Knowledge management also plays a role in the innovation process of technology-oriented organizations. It helps in simplifying operations, improving decision-making, and enhancing performance. By managing knowledge, organizations can multiply their productivity, services, and advancement in the industry.

Meanwhile, KM4D is an organizational strategy that heavily relies on KM practices for development both locally and internationally. The following are the identified characteristics as development knowledge system or development ecology:

Multiple Knowledges and multi-sector processes. Due to complex societal problems affecting individuals and institutions, multiple perspectives are the key to finding holistic solutions. This includes multiple knowledges coming from various sectors as in the case of community of practice, networking, collaborative discussions, and many other platforms for knowledge generation. The necessity of such process determines complex, variable, and differing points of views that make knowledge a growing process.

Development of knowledge commons. Fifth generation KM4D views knowledge that is shared by all rather than limited to specialized practitioners among others, that hinder the flow of knowledge for developmental pursuits. The theory of digital commons ensures knowledge as a public resource considered at improving social conditions in the attainment of development.

Role of knowledge in endogenous development. The core of this principle asserts that knowledge resides endogenously or internally in communities, that assists endogenous development. Indeed, indigenous, and local knowledge as a cultural emblem is a sacred expression of authentic experience that is relevant in finding solutions to problems that reside locally. Despite all the global efforts, many individuals consider the need for localized thinking that develops contextualized knowledge should not be challenged. This argument is related to the concept of implicit knowledge that resides in the head. Endogenous knowledge is an example of a community of implicit knowledge that community people often use in their poverty alleviation efforts that many of us fail to listen.

Emergence and complexity. Systems thinking emphasizes interrelationship among different parts of a system all functioning in an integrated, holistic manner. But this relationship is non-linear, meaning the sum of all the parts of a system does not make it a system but a higher property emerges from simple aggregation. In relation to knowledge, it assumes that knowledge within a system is dynamic, emergent, and highly adaptive rather than understood as static. This emergent property makes knowledge instilled with capabilities for generation and transformation in finding solutions to various development issues.

Sharing the information about this in the link below: https://www.getguru.com/reference/knowledge-management-information-technology#:~:text=Knowledge%20management%20is%20fundamental%20to,ensuring%20security%20and%20regulatory%20compliance.

Other Reference:

Leoncio P. Olobia. Information Management and Knowledge Management, ICT4D and KM4D: Arguments and Reflections.

KM and KM4D

Purpose

Conventional Knowledge Management (KM) is basically geared towards economic motives, intellectual capacities are utilized to produce more profit. On this sense the focus of information sharing is just within the organization. It can also be added that the more unique the information is , the more it is becoming an asset and so it is kept within the organization to manipulate wealth creation.

On the other hand, KM4D owing to its origins in the international development assistance sector has always been linked to development goals (Flor, 2018). With this the goal of knowledge management is to globally share information and data to achieve parallel growth.

Knowledge Ownership

Conventional KM safeguards intellectual assets closely and is geared at managing these assets efficiently. Thus, intellectual property, security of and accountability for these assets figure prominently in its list of considerations (Flor, 2018). This can be easily observed through company rivalry and as easy as how Apple keeps iOS somehow ahead by offering Apple A16 Bionic processor plus unique features of their products that will eventually make their customers ‘advanced’ and can be at the high-end status versus Samsung’s Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 that offers user-friendly interface and a somehow capable of bringing more AI features.

With KM4D, it believes in the synergistic or non-zero-sum nature of knowledge. Hence, knowledge is non-proprietary and is considered as a free commodity to be shared openly (Flor, 2018). On this note, knowledge ownership is not anymore considered for it is termed as ‘for everyone’. KM4D can be likened to the functioning of the internet. It operates without ownership, requiring individuals to just establish their own receptors to gain access. Somehow, internet and KM4D started the same, KM4D from privately owned KM ‘s and internet as US owned ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network).

Knowledge Sharing

For KM, knowledge sharing, and reuse is encouraged freely within the corporate organization but rarely outside it (Flor, 2018). As KM of private sectors were commonly into profit, knowledge means wealth and growth hence, it is imperative and understandable that they keep knowledge just within the walls of their organization.

In KM4D, the parameters of knowledge sharing, and reuse extend beyond the organization to all sectoral stakeholders (Flor, 2018). Since the goal of KM4D is for sustainable global development, it is within their thrust to make knowledge sharing external. With this, everyone will progress and will eventually sustain a more productive living environment. As Ferreira (20029) quipped, KM4Dev has been growing around the idea that knowledge can contribute to the development of poor countries and groups in a disadvantaged situation. This idea has a great potential, because knowledge is the meta-resource of all resources.

References:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/samsung-galaxy-s24-vs-iphone-15/

https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit07/internet07_02.phtml

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/18716340903201470

Based on my understanding, Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) can be differentiated primarily from conventional private sector KM based on its purpose, where the former is geared towards leveraging intellectual capital to further the development goals rather than increasing profit.

KM4D can also be differentiated based on considerations, thrust, levels of utilization, system functionalities and applications, and system content. KM4D believes knowledge is free, that it is meant to be shared externally, and that content is supply-driven for all levels, whereas for the conventional KM, knowledge is meant to be managed efficiently, shared internally, and driven by demand. Most importantly, KM4D goes beyond the traditional functionalities of messaging and collaboration, file sharing, and content management as it also extends to online learning.

To illustrate this, here is a table differentiating the four dimensions of knowledge management from conventional private sector knowledge management (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).

Reference:

Alavi, M. & Ledger, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961

Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) and conventional private sector Knowledge Management (KM) share similarities in their fundamental principles and objectives, but they also have distinct characteristics that set them apart. KM4D focuses on leveraging knowledge management practices to support development initiatives and improve outcomes in areas such as poverty reduction, healthcare, education, and sustainable development (UNESCO, 2005). Its primary purpose is to facilitate knowledge sharing and learning among diverse stakeholders, including governments, NGOs, civil society organizations, and communities, to address complex development challenges (Nedeva et al., 2011). Conversely, conventional private sector KM primarily aims to enhance organizational performance, innovation, and competitiveness within businesses or corporations (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). It focuses on optimizing internal processes, capturing and sharing organizational knowledge, and fostering a culture of continuous learning to drive business success and achieve strategic objectives (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).

In terms of stakeholder diversity, KM4D involves a wide range of stakeholders, including government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), international development agencies, academic institutions, communities, and grassroots organizations (Nedeva et al., 2011). Collaboration and knowledge exchange between these stakeholders are essential for addressing development issues effectively. Conversely, conventional private sector KM typically revolves around knowledge sharing and collaboration within a single organization or corporate entity (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). While partnerships with external entities may occur, the primary focus is on internal knowledge management processes and practices to improve organizational efficiency and effectiveness.

Furthermore, KM4D operates within the context of international development and sustainable development goals, with a focus on addressing socio-economic, environmental, and humanitarian challenges in developing countries and regions (UNESCO, 2005). It considers the unique cultural, social, and economic contexts of target communities and emphasizes participatory approaches to knowledge sharing and capacity building (Nedeva et al., 2011). In contrast, conventional private sector KM operates within the context of a competitive business environment, with a primary focus on maximizing profitability, market share, and shareholder value (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). It often involves implementing technology-driven solutions, process optimization, and knowledge capture to improve business performance and gain a competitive edge in the market.

When it comes to measuring success, KM4D typically evaluates the extent to which knowledge management practices contribute to positive development outcomes, such as poverty reduction, improved healthcare access, increased educational opportunities, and environmental sustainability (UNESCO, 2005). Key performance indicators (KPIs) may include changes in social indicators, stakeholder satisfaction, and the adoption of innovative solutions (Nedeva et al., 2011). Conversely, success in conventional private sector KM is often measured by tangible business outcomes, such as increased productivity, cost savings, revenue growth, improved customer satisfaction, and innovation (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). KPIs may include metrics related to knowledge sharing, employee engagement, process efficiency, and return on investment (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).

In summary, while both KM4D and conventional private sector KM share common principles of knowledge sharing and learning, they differ in their focus, stakeholders, context, and measurement of success. KM4D places a greater emphasis on addressing development challenges through collaborative knowledge management practices, whereas conventional private sector KM focuses on enhancing organizational performance and competitiveness within a business context.

In the realm of knowledge management, it is crucial to differentiate between Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) and traditional private sector Knowledge Management (KM) to grasp their goals, methods, and effects. This distinction highlights the strategies used to influence knowledge for advancement and business achievements.

KM4D differs from private sector knowledge management in its goals, scope, and contextual considerations. While private sector KM often focuses on improving efficiency, innovation, and profitability KM4D expands its objectives to tackle socio economic issues and foster inclusive growth across various settings. Flor (2018) suggests that KM4D encompasses a range of knowledge resources and stakeholders emphasizing approaches, community involvement and knowledge creation together to achieve substantial development outcomes. Conversely private sector KM mainly centers on knowledge assets and market driven motivations with the aim of enhancing procedures and generating profits through innovation and competitive edge.

Furthermore, Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) represents a paradigm shift from conventional private sector Knowledge Management (KM), emphasizing broader societal impacts and sustainable development outcomes. Unlike private sector KM, which typically focuses on enhancing organizational efficiency and competitiveness, KM4D extends its scope to address complex socio-economic challenges and promote inclusive growth in diverse contexts. Alexander Flor's framework for KM4D underscores this distinction, highlighting the need for knowledge management practices that prioritize equity, collaboration, and empowerment. In the private sector, KM often revolves around internal knowledge assets, aiming to improve operational processes and drive profit through innovation and market advantage. In contrast, KM4D encompasses a broader spectrum of knowledge sources and stakeholders, emphasizing the importance of participatory approaches, community engagement, and knowledge co-creation to achieve meaningful development impact. While private sector KM prioritizes proprietary knowledge protection and commercialization strategies, KM4D places greater emphasis on knowledge democratization, sustainability, and social justice. Flor's framework for KM4D encapsulates a comprehensive approach to utilizing knowledge as a catalyst for sustainable socio-economic progress, integrating insights from diverse disciplines such as development studies, sociology, and participatory approaches. By embracing principles of knowledge democratization, collaboration, and adaptive management, KM4D endeavors to create an enabling environment where diverse stakeholders can co-create knowledge, innovate solutions, and drive positive change.

Therefore, between Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) and traditional private sector Knowledge Management highlights the varying goals and methods used to utilize knowledge for advancement and business prosperity. By acknowledging the aims and contextual factors of each method professionals and scholars can appropriately customize knowledge management approaches to meet the requirements and focuses of their specific fields. As emphasized by academics such as Alexander Flor grasping these differences is crucial, for managing knowledge challenges and achieving results in a range of environments.

References:

Flor, A. G. (2012). Knowledge Management for Development: Domains, Strategies, and Technologies for Developing Countries. IGI Global.

Flor, A. G. (2018). Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D). In Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Fourth Edition. IGI Global.

Leveraging my robust agribusiness experience, allow me to juxtapose KM from the lens of a private multinational (MNC) agribusiness corporation utilizing social marketing strategies alongside operating a parallel foundation organization using a yin-yang approach. Using (Flor’s), 2018 Prototypology of Conventional KM versus KM4D Differentiation Table that you can see above, a private corporation’s motivation for managing knowledge is to outperform competition via human intellectual capital to gain significant market share for continuous sales growth and progressive profitability as discussed in its purpose and considerations. Having said this, the firm is also cognizant of the realities of agriculture’s challenges that it will need to participate in the development of the sector to contribute to global food security. From the KM4D perspective, there is reliance on social capital: the relationship networks to integrate knowledge with farmer knowledge and stakeholder knowledge for increased farm productivity and sustainability.

Sharing parameters from a private company’s operations would entail collaborative meetings, workshops, and conferences with a thrust of sharing knowledge internally to build its culture as a learning organization (Senge,1990). This is motivated by the goal of creating the firm’s sustainable competitive advantage driven by requirements of the organization that lead to knowledge base systems like strategic marketing plans, trade secrets such as bio-technology research and development product pipeline, and long-term strategic plans. On the other hand, sharing parameters from the KM4D lens is consultative and participatory in approach and involves agriculture development multi-stakeholders in an outward motion by assimilation of global agriculture technology scientific expertise with sectoral knowledge. This is inspired by the goal of equipping stakeholders with a primary focus on the farmers as development beneficiaries to build capabilities and technical agronomy competencies.

KM4D content such as learning modules on integrated crop solutions, seed care, crop protection management, managing post-harvest losses, and mechanization using education methodologies such as field demonstrations, model farms, experience centers, and Agri-Academes build a venue for closer knowledge sharing among the farmer groups, LGU Agriculture Extension workers and MNC Agronomist by way of knowledge partnership.

While private corporations build a learning organization through cross-functional teams, and committees and encourage best-practice sharing per functional department through ICTs like MS Teams channels, chatgroups, and corporate intranet Learning and Development Training Modules to build organizational capabilities as a competitive differentiation strategy, the KM4D perspective does not thrive on competition but on knowledge altruism for development. In contrast, the levels of utilization and functionalities from the KM4D viewpoint are not inwardly directed like the private sector but externally driven (Flor,2018) with varied geographical levels and development themes. Sectoral Themes such as program development for financial literacy among debt-tied farmers or digital farming solutions for aging farmers in various crop segments represent knowledge systems mobilized through enablers such as farmer mobile applications, E-Agriculture Digital Farming solutions (Flor & Flor, 2019) as well as ICT modernization and digital connectivity of local agriculture schools from a foundation’s corporate social responsibility standpoint.

In summary, a conventional private sector KM system’s goal for organizational performance is driven by profit-centric ambitions while KM4D’s overall mission is to improve a target sector’s performance, and long-term viability through selfless knowledge-sharing as in the case of sustainable agriculture.

REFERENCES :

Flor, Alexander, 2018. Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D).Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Fourth Edition, IGI Global. USA

Flor, Alexander and Flor, Benjamina Paula, 2019. ICT4D Information and Communication Technology for Development: Global Perspectives, Asian Initiatives

Senge, Peter M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday.

Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture

https://www.syngentafoundation.org/

United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals

https://sdgs.un.org/goals

Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) opines knowledge as a catalyst for competitiveness, productivity, people’s welfare, environmental sustainability, and effective governance, thus, promoting both economic and social advancement. On the one hand, Knowledge Management (KM) from the lens of the conventional private sector, is viewed as a tool in developing, storing, retrieving, and sharing information and expertise within an organization to achieve its competitive advantage in the marketplace. What is binding between the two lies on their common aim to effectively handle and utilize knowledge, which Liebmann (1988) refers to as intellectual capital. However, their disparity is caused by their differing contexts and objectives.

As regards focus, KM4D accentuates external knowledge sharing and generation to provide solutions on societal issues confronting the people, more specifically the vulnerable and marginalized groups, thereby enhancing their quality of life. This means that the long-term goal of KM4D is collaboration and empowerment for communities, organizations, and individuals by bolstering their ability to obtain, generate, and utilize knowledge for sustainable development. Whereas conventional KM centers on employing knowledge assets (internal knowledge sharing) to advance decision-making, operational efficiency, and innovation (improved products, services, and processes), in order to maximize profits and achieve leadership in the highly competitive business landscape.

KM4D prioritizes the use of pro-people approaches (synergy) based on the bottom-up framework, encompassing emancipatory communication, built-in community based and culture-oriented mechanisms, and concientization strategies, among others. These participatory and inclusive approaches to knowledge sharing and co-creation promotes collaboration, and thus advocates for tailored-fit solutions – one that considers specific contexts and integrates indigenous knowledge. Alternatively, conventional KM’s leaning is on its exact dependence on technology-centric approaches (security and accountability), i.e., knowledge databases, expert systems, and collaborative tools to facilitate knowledge exchange and learning.

Additionally, Flor (2024) mentions that while KM4D, as regards levels of utilization hinges on personal, agency, sectoral, and thematic levels; and among CoPs, communities of interests (CoIs), and communities of champions (CoCs), where advocacy and policy would come in; conventional KM adheres to organizational level and communities of practice (CoPS) only. Content-wise, KM4D is supply driven while conventional KM is demand driven. The message is arguably clear, KM4D does not cater to the felt need as the needs come out as determined by the sustainable development goals. Although KM4D and conventional KM share the same system functionalities/applications, i.e., messaging and collaboration, file sharing, documents/content management, and search KM4D also adheres to “online learning” which unfortunately is non-existent in the conventional KM.

In consideration of the foregoing, then it can be implied that while KM4D’s success indicator can be attributed to improved well-being of people and their social and physical environment; then KM accounts on organizational monetary achievement and market share.

Literature Cited:

Flor, A.G. (2018). Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Fourth Edition.

Flor, A.G. (2019). KM4D Casebook: Sectoral and Thematic Knowledge Management at the National, Regional, and Global Levels. UP Open University.

Flor, A.G. (2024, March 16). Lecture on the Goals of Knowledge Management. COMM 350 - Information and Knowledge Management. University of the Philippines Open University.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: The Seabury Press.

Librero, F. and Canonizado, F.M. (2000). Environmental Advocacy. Diliman: UP Open University.

Melkote, S.R. & Steeves, H. L. (2015). Communication for Development – Theory and Practice for Empowerment & Social Justice. (Revised & Updated Edition). Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd.

Ongkiko, I.V.C. & Flor, A.G. (2006). Introduction to Development Communication. University of the Philippines Open University and Southeast Asian Minsters of Education Organization (SEAMEO) Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture, p113.

World Bank Institute (WBI) Development Studies. (2007). Building Knowledge Economies. Advanced Strategies for Development.Washington, D.C., USA

Knowledge Management, or KM, prefigures the broader Knowledge Management for Development or, KM4D, in terms of their purpose, content, thrust etc. Apparently, as corporations and organizations, embedded as they are within the capitalist system, became more complex, the thrust to store and manage knowledge in the 20th century became more compelling than previous periods. Likewise, the advancement of ICTs ushered the era of KM. In due time, KM’s strategy and perspective were challenged and transformed to make it more responsive to larger systems like communities and countries, and, thus, an enlarged KM became KM4D.

Let me then reflect their distinctions and differences. In conventional KM, the concern is increasing its bottomline from a corporate standpoint; in short, knowledge sharing is more profit-driven if it is a corporation (recall the issues in the rally called ‘Occupy Wall Street’ in 2011). On the other hand, the KM4D directs its purpose in furthering development goals because it considers the borderless, open nature of knowledge which, in effect, treats it as a free commodity. This thus finds resonance, to cite an instance, in the United Nation’s (UN) adoption of KM4D to advance the eight (8) Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the subsequent seventeen (17) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In addition to this difference in purpose, there is the aspect of utilization, meaning - who or what types of groups use KM or KM4D.

When a network of people with similar persuasions banded together for the advancement of their interests or certain communities adopted KM strategies, they came to be known in KM parlance as communities of interests (CoI) and communities of practice (CoP), respectively. But in KM4D, since, this favors altruism and adopts the affirmative action principle, it not only accommodated CoI and CoP, but also facilitated the advancement of communities of champions (CoC). How does this take place in lived world? Apparently, this is much felt in the dealing with the problem and solution process. Hence, the progression from people of same interests (CoI) to groups who adopted KM via CoP, solutions to problems were through technological means using KM’s sharing and reuse strategy. But to become CoC, as KM4D’s ‘warriors’, they must transcend technology in favor of advocacy and synergy through policy implementation in dealing with society’s problems in whatever levels.

Conventional private sector knowledge management (KM) and Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) similarly treat intellectual capital as a manageable asset in a digital environment through the application of information and communication technology (ICT) but differs in purpose, sharing parameters, thrusts, considerations, system content, levels of utilization, and system functionalities and applications, as described in Flor’s (2018) prototype distinguishing conventional and KM and KM4D [1].

Conventional KM targets range from economic, business, and organizational goals including organizational outcomes, capacities, and profit, while KM4D pursues the broader, more comprehensive development agenda, and as such has targeted from the millennial to sustainable development goals, as well as regional, national, and sub-national/local, sectoral and thematic development concerns and objectives stemming from or contributing to the attainment of the global goals. While the former mainly works on capturing, sharing, and reusing knowledge internal to the organization and hence capitalizes on intellectual property, security and accountability; the latter involves external knowledge sharing as it holds knowledge as free assets that are openly shared to all relevant stakeholders. With KM4D’s broader purpose, KM4D spans a bigger constituency in society including development program/project holders, beneficiaries, partners, communities, advocates, and practitioners from government, civil society, private sectors, various demographics and development requirements, as well as multi-sectoral, transdisciplinary background. Content for conventional private sector KM is driven by organization’s internal demands and requirements while for KM4D, ‘affirmative action is taken to supply knowledge and information needs of the broad constituency of development stakeholders. As for design and utilization, conventional KM is for organizational and relevant communities of practice (CoP), while KM4D is designed to be used at the personal, project or program, agency/organizational, sectoral and thematic levels as well as among what KM literature referred to as communities of interest, practice, and champions or social network with common interest in a concern/problem, or common practices or solutions, or shared development advocacies and mobilization actions. KM4D mirrors similar system functionalities and applications as in conventional KM, but significantly adds online learning, with the latter’s thrust on external knowledge sharing that extends to different relevant stakeholders.

A reflection point on this distinction between private sector KM and KM4D is in case the entity, whether private or development sectors, demonstrate a combination of organizational outcomes. This may allow an opportunity to blur the distinction or for a KM strategy with a mix of internal and external knowledge management, as well as electronic and non-electronic knowledge network as indicated in some case studies [2]. For instance, private corporations that primarily aims for profits from product and services but engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) focusing on development interventions for or in partnership with communities or sectors. Or the case of advocacy or civil society organizations that primarily serve communities and other development partners but also pursue enterprise development. Hence, there are private sector organizations engaged in tripartite partnerships, or advocacy organizations that have internal knowledge management referring to organization’s internal practices but are also involved in synergistic development interventions. The organization’s vision on kind of knowledge that would be most valuable to their intended audience/users that would optimize the organizational goals [3]. The same layers of distinction will be valuable too in developing the entities’ KM strategy components, combining the various features, applications, content, thrusts, considerations for knowledge sharing that refer to the user and type of knowledge. Given this, the user and type of knowledge shared and utilized and the entity that uses which knowledge are become a key consideration in the mix of KM strategy, which reinforces that the user is a central element in KM.

References:

[1] Flor, A. G. (2018). Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D).

In Mehdi Khosrow-Pour, ed. Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, 4th ed. Hershey, PA: HGH Academic Publishers

[2] Flor, A. G. (2019). KM4D Casebook: Sectoral and Thematic Knowledge

Management at the the National, Regional and Global Levels. Los Banos: UPOU FICS

[3] Chun Wei Choo. (2003). Perspectives on Managing Knowledge in Organizations. Cataloguing and Classification Quarterly, Special Issue on “Knowledge Organization and Classification in International Information Retrieval”.

In corporate knowledge management, knowledge is often regarded as a commodity—an asset that can be used to achieve organizational goals. Companies invest in sophisticated knowledge management systems paired with high-tech security measures to optimize efficiency and dominate the market to generate profit. On the other hand, in the landscape of KM4D, where knowledge isn't merely a commodity but drives social change and human development.

Unlike in corporate KM, where knowledge is often confined and controlled, KM4D thrives and champions collaboration, inclusivity, and diversity. In this sphere, knowledge is freely shared among stakeholders such as academia, government, civil society, and marginalized communities, promoting a culture of learning and growth.

As my classmates rightly pointed out, traditional KM and KM4D adhere to similar principles and processes; however, the key difference lies in their purpose. In traditional corporate KM, knowledge is seen "currency", whereas in KM4D, knowledge serves a powerful catalyst for development.

References:

Flor, A. G. (2018). Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D). In IGI Global eBooks (pp. 5077–5084). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2255-3.ch440

KM4D differs from conventional private sector KM in three ways– goals, orientation, and contexts.

Goals. Both KM4D and the conventional private sector KM uses intellectual capital as a manageable asset to help achieve their goals. However, the main difference centers on how they use intellectual capital. KM4D banks on intellectual capital to achieve development agenda while the traditional KM uses intellectual capital mainly for profit.

Orientation. Conventional private sector KM is business oriented while KM4D is development and public sector oriented. Davenport (1996) explains the business orientation of KM through the corporate model. The purpose of the model is to highlight information sharing and reuse as the core processes in the conventional KM. On the other hand, Flor (2005) emphasizes that in the context of rural development, KM goes beyond knowledge sharing and reuse. Its development orientation relates to how we apply KM in public health, which drives advocacy, knowledge sharing, equity.

Contexts. Moreover, another defining element that differentiates KM4D from the conventional KM is the contexts to where they operate. Referring to Flor’s (2019) discussion, the conventional KM commonly functions in an environment with ample digital resources and easy access to infrastructures. However, KM4D is developed and applied in a setting that commonly faces resource challenges, mostly in public sectors.

Hence, although mostly similar in processes (how they capture, store, and manage knowledge), KM4D and conventional KM have varying goals characterized by their orientations and contexts. For public health, KM4D is the best fit.

References:

Davenport, T. H. (1996). Some principles of knowledge management. Strategy & Business, 1(2), 34-40.

Flor, A. G. (2019). KM4D Casebook: Sectoral and Thematic Knowledge Management at the National, Regional, and Global Levels.

Flor, A. G. (2018). Knowledge management for development (KM4D). In Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Fourth Edition (pp. 5077-5084). IGI Global.

Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) and conventional private sector Knowledge Management (KM) both share similarities and differences.

Initially, Knowledge Management (KM)’s goal lies in profits through intellectual assets, giving premium to such to benefit the companies. Hence, these assets are treated with great consideration. In sharing knowledge, employees are free to share and reuse it within the organization. For instance, our company has a KM system which we call “Blue Binder”. This can be accessed through Google Drive and is only shared with employees of the company. The data such as schedules, how-to’s, best practices of the company, vision, and mission, as well as other structured information, may not be necessarily shared with people outside the organization thus the internal knowledge sharing mechanism. KM zeroes in mainly being beneficial to the company in terms of concern and not on a sectoral level.

On the other hand, Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D)’s goal is to be of assistance at an international level to fulfill the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) formerly, Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). KM4D supports the notion that “knowledge is a free commodity” and should be shared with everyone. A case in point will be educational exchange programs within schools from different countries. Currently, I am an educator leading an exchange program that promotes cross-cultural partnerships within US schools and Philippines schools, teachers and students can benchmark lessons, book resources, language learning, and English language communication - both tacit and explicit knowledge are shared within an educational context. Under KM4D’s development goals, this enforces “SDG 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”. In this program, our learners meet online and share about their culture, economic status, agricultural life, and city life, as well as other information that can be shared at everyone’s disposal.

In conclusion, KM and KM4D systems provide tons of differences with execution, goals, and considerations in terms of use. However, we cannot discount the fact that both systems provide novel ways to utilize the system depending on the needs of the stakeholders and other important considerations.

Reference:

Flor, A. G. (2018). Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D).

KM4D (Knowledge Management for Development) is oriented towards socio-economic development. It focuses on collaborative processes where the primary goal is the equitable creation and distribution of knowledge to foster development in line with the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. KM4D is generally driven by values of inclusivity, sharing, and community benefit. In contrast, Conventional Private Sector KM is primarily for the entity's business goals (i.e. value for stakeholders, i.e. profit). KM practices in this sector are more centered on innovation for profit, protecting assets, driving down costs, and achieving strategic business objectives.

In the private sector and within organizations, KM is done to maximize the value of the organization. For example, expert employees share what they know (tacit knowledge) through mentoring or documentation, so that a company can leverage it to produce better results for its benefit.

In the public sector on the other hand, KM is done to further development goals. While the definition of development can vary, it is generally understood to be for the common good, for the community and society as a whole. With that in mind, knowledge that benefits society can be shared to the public.

Because it differs in its objective, how KM is done through its tools, mechanisms, and systems may also differ. However, its basic elements are the same: tacit and explicit knowledge, and its use and re-use.

I shall anchor my answer to this question on my experience as an instructor at a state university in Mindanao.

In terms of focus, a KM4D perspective in a state school prioritizes knowledge management efforts that contribute directly to the development goals of the region or community, where an SUC is located, and even to the SDGs. This could include initiatives of the SUC focused on poverty alleviation, sustainable development, environmental conservation, and social equity. A private sector KM perspective primarily aims to enhance organizational performance, profitability, knowledge sharing, and utilization within a business context.

As regards scope, KM4D in an SUC context includes a broad range of knowledge domains—healthcare, agriculture, governance, etc.—to achieve developmental goals. It may even include indigenous knowledge systems and practices in its development efforts, recognizing and valuing the unique knowledge and perspectives of indigenous communities in addressing local challenges. Conventional private sector KM, on the other hand, focuses on managing organizational knowledge related to products, services, market trends, and other business-specific domains.

Lastly, KM4D in a state university involves a broader range of stakeholders: government agencies, non-profit organizations, local communities, and indigenous groups; while private sector KM primarily revolves around internal stakeholders such as employees, managers, and shareholders, enhancing the organization's competitive advantage rather than addressing broader societal issues.