The terminology debate has been part of Knowledge Management since Knowledge Management began, with many companies and individuals preferring not to use the term. I have been an unapologetic supporter of the term "Knowledge Management", and much prefer it to proposed alternatives such as Knowledge Sharing, for a whole number of reasons.
Therefore I was pleasantly surprised to find this 2008 blog post by no less a heavyweight than Tom Davenport, who has the same view. I quote a couple of extracts
"I do have a problem with overly simplistic characterizations of knowledge management, and management more generally. .... The term "management" is apparently a synonym for "command and control," and we know that's bad. "Command and control" is top-down, mean and nasty, and headed for extinction; "sharing" is bottom-up, nice and friendly, and the wave of the future. Maybe the Yale School of Management, for example, should become the Yale School of Sharing"
....if your organization really cares about creating, distributing (I'm sorry--"sharing"), and applying knowledge, you need to manage it. The last time I checked, "management" of knowledge could include some relatively structured, "here's the knowledge we really need to do our jobs right" approaches, as well as some more emergent, Enterprise 2.0-oriented ones. If you only do the former, your knowledge workers will probably feel a bit stifled; if you only do the latter, things will probably feel a bit chaotic".So, I am with Tom on this one. People who object to the term Knowledge Management are often objecting to the term management itself, and seeing it as a synonym for "command and control". However, as Tom concludes, "The world of management is much more subtle and multi-faceted, and any synonyms for it should reflect that complexity".
Stereotyping Management as "Scary Command and Control" is as daft as stereotyping Sharing as "Cute Fluffy and Cuddly".