And my response to Madhukar's post:

So Madhukar,

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the
organization's KM needs should be tied to it's learning processes
and it would make sense like that.

If that is so, where does the framework of organizational processes
fit in (apart from the Perf Mgmt framework that you talked about)?

Does one build a structure and system after diagnosing the
organization's knowledge needs ? How does one ensure that this
system does not become counter productive and hinders knowledge
sharing.

How does the formal organization system recognise the informal
knowledge sharing that goes on in the company, e.g. between a new
joinee and an old achiever, between a mentor and a mentee in
different departments ? Should an organization try to "interfere" in
this human processes by acknowledging them , or will doing so
subvert them ?

What about IT needs? If KM is all about content and connections,
where does the IT diagnosis come in after the Knowledge diagnosis ?

Where structurally does the ownership of KM lie ? In this egroup
Sethu had mentioned that it should lie with the owner of the
learning processes, ie. the organization's learning and development
division, while others have argued that the ownership should lie
with either an independent structure called the KM department , and
others have said that it should lie with the top management.

The reason, in my view is that, KM is looked upon by the senior
management with the mental model of "extracting" while
training/learning/OD initiatives have the mental models of "giving"
the employees..

Is that the reason why KM is given more strategic importance than
training in the top management's eyes ??

Warm regards,
Gautam