The article quotes me and fellow SLAW contributor Dominic Jaar, but what I like about the article are the viewpoints from others in the industry and the wide range of tips and advice on best practices.
What I find with knowledge management is that there is usually never a single approach or method and varies a fair bit depending on the type of organization, its culture and staffing.
In fact, there has been lots of discussion in the past several years as to whether knowledge management is dead or not.
I prefer to think it is alive, but evolving, with many in legal knowledge management increasingly getting involved with the other "management" aspects of law practice, including risk management, project management and client management.
With knowledge management, however, I have often wondered if it is perhaps time to describe knowledge management in better terms (particularly since it seems slightly oxymoronic to think about "managing" knowledge – can you manage knowledge?). At the SLA conference this year in Philadelphia colleague Katharine Thompson attended a workshop by Guy St. Claire and others of SMR-Knowledge.com where there was discussion on using the "Knowledge Services" as better describing what we do (especially since we are in a service industry). I find "Knowledge Services" to somehow seem fresher than "Knowledge Management."
How important is the name or description of what we do?
In part because I came to knowledge management through law practice as a lawyer, researcher and law librarian, what I feel most strongly about in Luigi's article is the notion of "integrated" services – that it is best to not distinguish between library, legal research, precedents, training and the other aspects of information and knowledge management. It truly should be a one-stop shop for information, whether from internal memos or precedents or from external databases or other sources.