5 findings from 100 KM Jobs in 10 Months (June, 2016 edition)
This is a follow-up to the July 2015 edition of this research, where over the last 10 months I have been tracking Knowledge Management jobs to see if the field is shifting or remaining stagnant.
I again looked at 100 Knowledge Management jobs that have been advertised on job sites in the UK, Australia, United States, Canada, India, Singapore and Republic or Ireland over a ten month period.
The headlines suggest that, once again, the KM world is exactly where it always has been:
- 88 of 100 jobs (88%) were IT based or IT-centric, requiring specific IT experience (e.g. Sharepoint) and skills as a pre-requisite (note: this relates to IT as a focus of the role and not the ability to use, for example, Microsoft Office suite). [+4% on last year]
- Only 3 of 100 (3%) required a specific Knowledge Management qualification and even here the qualification could be substituted for experience – the vast majority required an undergraduate degree/work experience (work experience/qualifications generally being either professional (having worked in a specific field (e.g. law) or IT-based). [-3% on last year]
- Zero of 100 (0%) required experience of formulating HR practice to improve knowledge acquisition, sharing, use and creation. [-1% on last year]
- 89 of 100 (89%) specifically mentioned “content creation” or similar terminology. [-2% on last year]
- Only 6 of 100 (6%) specifically mentioned partnership approaches (e.g. learning/training and development or Human Resources). [-8% on last year]
- Knowledge Management still doesn’t appear to be moving away from its information-based roots.
- KM practice is still driven by content and “hard” knowledge as a primary objective.
- Knowledge Management seems to remain the domain of specialists who operate in silos. The problem is that these “specialists” appear to be focused on information and not knowledge.
- Finally, the requirement for KM generalists (integrated KM) is still very much the exception and certainly not the rule.
The bottom line?
- KM still largely remains the domain of information “specialists”, when organisations really need “integrators” or “generalists.”
- The field is not changing, which is significant, given the changes to the way in which organisations are being asked to report on value creation (see www.theiirc.org)