Many practitioners and scholars make a significant effort to differentiate conventional knowledge management from KM4D. The objectives (bottom line versus development), considerations (internal versus external), perspectives on the nature of knowledge (zero-sum versus non-zero-sum), and functional motivations (supply versus demand) all differ. However, they are fundamentally the same practice with just one difference – the audience.

It is the audience that dictates everything else – the primary switch that determines the rest of the process. As with everything communication-based, KM exhibits fluidity around the solid framework of the audience. It is not so much a difference in paradigm as much as a distinct flavor of KM, an audience-based operationalization of the exact same concept.

Every human intervention is based on need. The only relevant question is whose?

Let’s explore this supposition a little bit more.

What is the difference between corporate KM and KM for Development (KM4D)?

When we say that the goals change, is that because one is fundamentally rooted in development instead of profit, or because the measure of development in the audience is different? Isn’t the profit dimension (along with all the efficiencies required to achieve it) just another kind of development goal? Similarly, when we talk about KM4D being externally targeted for the knowledge it produces, are we making a correct assumption? Does that mean that the agency involved in documenting and sharing knowledge is not also an important beneficiary of KM4D?

Furthermore, are we sharing outside of a target audience, or is the net of stakeholders just that much larger that it looks like an externally motivated undertaking? Wouldn’t the difference be in the nature of knowledge sharing itself – restricted in corporate knowledge management versus unrestricted in KM4D?

In the supply versus demand debate concerning the content, are we certain that such a distinction needs to be made in the first place, and that it is an accurate representation of the knowledge that springs from each KM approach? My view is that every human intervention is based on need. The only relevant question is whose needs are we prioritizing?

Is KM4D demand-driven or supply-driven?

Conventional KM focuses on the economic interests of a corporation. KM4D works toward the socio-economic needs of its target communities. The contents of each KM system must still answer a specific need, except in KM4D, the needs are identified by the agencies leading the development projects rather than the audiences, and “supplying” knowledge that meets those needs accordingly. This is not necessarily a matter of supply versus demand, but a deputization of external agencies to identify current needs and anticipate future ones for the communities they serve. It is rather a question of explicit or implicit demand.