"Knowledge management" as described in the question appears to relate the term to the tool of storing, accessing, sharing or dissemination of information or "knowhow". This the premise where I will based my comments on.

The tool and processes around the earlier versions of the era of information (or "knowledge") is clearly past its prime. This is largely because new ways or more efficient ways of disseminating 

I have been teaching a KM course in our graduate program for many years in distance education format to students who are often working full time at corporations in the New York area.  During the first week I ask the students two questions about whether KM is a passing fad and is KM really new. The numerous definitions of KM have some vagueness and overlap with definitions that better describe existing processes in information management. Students have said they believe information management is a term that has run its course in the eyes and minds of consumers. The phrase information management has become too interchangeable with the phrase data storage and it does not rest comfortably in the minds of consumers. As we look at corporations who have recently changed their definition of information management to knowledge management, we notice that the trending use of the phrase increases correlative to the use of data storage management. Thus, I believe this argument and concept of replacement marketing carries a lot of weight. Regardless to this fact, I feel as though knowledge management is here to stay, and not some passing fad. Software and technology advancements have never made it this easy to track and store information/knowledge for past reflection or future use and in that form it is hugely important as an company asset. The value of this knowledge is without a doubt reusable as an asset. However, I do find the concept of tacit knowledge being readily shared and valuable a bit difficult to appreciate. Tacit knowledge is largely intangible and inherent and as a result it is not easily explained or taught. Additionally, competitive and upward employees are rather unlikely to want to share their secrets to success with the masses in the workplace. I do not doubt that knowledge management has supplemented information systems yet I also believe through an evolving manner of application it will differentiate itself greatly over time. 

At this time I believe though it undervalues the large evolutionary leaps in terms of its earliest implementations. While KM as a practice and theory did not fully exist as a organizational function and/or word until the 80's, evidence of its origins and historical contributory make-up can be seen as early as the 1930's in the workings of Wells, who sought for the organization and clarification of ideas and knowledge. In the 1964, Peter Drucker coined the phrase knowledge which gave great importance to input at the employee level, in the 90's Peter Senge focused on companies becoming learning organizations and the fifth element that emphasized the advantages of learning from past experiences. This period gave way to pioneering studies of knowledge implementation and diffusion in the workplace, until in the early 2000's when colleges/universities began implementing KM programs. So, in a sense knowledge management is nothing new.

However, I would disagree that KM has been a complete and well understood topic with the proper tools in order to best implement itself as a process on a large scale until very recently, maybe even the last 5-8 years. As better software platforms develop and the opportunities for us all to share, seek and find knowledge with greater ease occur, it is likely that we are going to experience a far greater understanding and implementation of KM in organizations. When you factor in the fact that KM as a higher level study has existed for less than two decades, I think the subject is still in the early stages of its development.  

Article Structuring Innovation in the Knowledge Management Platform:...

Article Aligning Knowledge Management Drivers with Business Strategy...

Article Challenges and Opportunities in Implementing a Knowledge Man...

Article Trends in Corporate Knowledge Asset Protection

Conference Paper KM at SMEs: Observations and Recommendations from Managers a...

How Would You Motivate Interest in Knowledge Management?, a short blog that followed through on this question, is now available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313397160_How_Would_You_Motivate_Interest_in_Knowledge_Management.

Research How Would You Motivate Interest in Knowledge Management?

An intriguing question. In my opinion, knowledge management has large future development prospects, much larger than in the past. This is related to the development of advanced data processing technologies typical of the current, fourth industrial revolution, Industry 4.0. The current technological revolution described as Industry 4.0 is determined by the development of the following advanced information processing technologies: Big Data database technologies, cloud computing, machine learning, Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, Business Intelligence and other advanced data mining technologies. ICT information technology technologies, technologies for advanced processing of large data sets stored in Big Data database systems, processed using Business Intelligence analytical platforms, access to the analytical system through smartphones and other devices The Internet of Things finds more and more applications in various industries, economies and also in the use of various online information services for citizens. Therefore, these rapidly growing knowledge resources will require new, computerized knowledge management tools. The importance of knowledge management will therefore increase, however, it will require the use of increasingly ICT information technology, Internet and advanced data management and processing. Industry 4.0. I wrote on this topic publications regarding the use of modern Big Data database systems and Business Intelligence analytical platforms.

According to Dariusz Prokopowicz 'knowledge management' (KM) has large future development prospects. I do agree. His focus is on ICT -database technologies, cloud computing, AI (Artificial Intelligence), IoT (Internet of Things) and the like- what I would call explicit knowledge. A distinction made of knowledge is: tacit/personal knowledge (Polanyi) and explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is tangible, is codified, while tacit knowledge is intangible, and imbedded in the individual. Jeffrey W. Alstete also thinks that knowledge management has a future and he focuses more on tacit knowledge. I also agree with him. Both, explicit as well as tacit knowledge, have an important role to play.

I think it is also better to make a distinction in their management aspect in: explicit knowledge management and tacit knowledge management. Explicit knowledge management deals then with the management of the physical aspects of knowledge, codified knowledge, in e.g. books, in the cloud and the technology around it, the hard and software. Tacit knowledge management then is the management of the knowledge embedded in people, the personal knowledge, the 'know how'. Nonaka and Takeuchi in their approach focus more on the tacit part. And I think Matthieu Weggeman (Technical University of Eindhoven, The Netherlands) in his book written in Dutch 'Kennismanagement' (sic Knowledge management) makes a wonderful contribution to the understanding by formulating an equation for knowledge as follows: K=f(I*E*V*A) and translated into English it is K=f(I*E*S*A), where K stands for (Knowledge), I (Information), E (Experience) and A (Attitude). The I component in the equation is the explicit aspect of knowledge and is concerned with hardware and software and the technology around it. The ESA component is the tacit aspect of knowledge, embedded in the individual. By formulating it in this way, you can externalize it, enrich it, transfer it, manipulate it actually.

In an internship program that is running for years now at the Technology University Delft, we are coaching students mainly in the ESA-part. It is much easier to deal with when you put it in an equation and describe the different aspects well. In the coaching of students in that internship program, International Entrepreneurship and Development, we came to the conclusion that more aspects are in play, and that if you want to develop the ability to achieve results you need more than knowledge (IESA). Because culture plays an important role and so does the enabling environment. We modified the knowledge component into IESA, where the A stands for algorithm and culture consists of value, attitude and belief (VAB). The enabling environment is defined as SI (social institutions). So the equation for Capacity then is: f(IESA)(VAB)(SI). In an article Article Capacities, Development and Responsible Innovation

In the knowledge society and the information age knowing how to manage the explicit as well as the tacit component is is important and especially the tacit part because with it you create the explicit part of it. In the future KM will stay very relevant.

Dear Olivier Serrat , it is a wonderful question you have put forward. KM is becoming more important than ever, because of the ever increasing importance of technology and tools to produce knowledge and the changes it brings with it, and the rapid obsoleteness of tacit knowledge (know how). Because of the changes we have to learn how to do new things, e.g. coding. Our old ways are out of order, outdated. At a certain point I think being illiterate in e.g. coding will have the same ramifications as being illiterate now (reading and writing). That goes for individuals but also for companies/organizations.

The requirement to keep learning on all levels, it's almost mandatory, because of the changes in demanded know how, requires also a different attitude (part of tacit knowledge). Insights in explicit knowledge management and tacit knowledge management and how to merge them will be one of the highly demanded quality of organization if they want to survive. Because it is the tacit knowledge that is producing the explicit knowledge and the expliciet knowledge on its turn is forcing us to change and learn, acquire new know how, we have to focus on both and understand them from a holistic perspective, as one system consisting of sub systems dependent on each other.

The assertion that IT (explicit component) has killed KM is not correct, I think. IT (e.g. big data, AI, robotics) is part of the knowledge component, only it belongs to the explicit part of it, and forces the acquisition of knew 'know how' and the management of it. Tacit knowledge management is different from human resources though.

But not only explicit knowledge is forcing us to acquire new 'know how', there are also other forces in play and we have to detect them and focus on them too.