The above summary shows that culture and management issues play dominant role in KM implementation. There are also studies on barriers to KM implementation. Stankosky (2005) quotes an international survey (1996) from Ernst & Young showing the barriers as shown below in brief, in descending importance.

Organizational Culture - 80%
Lack of Ownership - 64%
Information Technology - 55%
Non-Standardized Processes - 53%
Organizational Structure - 54%
Top Management Commitment - 46%
Rewards / Recognition - 46%

Other studies show the pitfalls or mistakes of KM. They are also related much to management or culture issues, for example:

• Treating KM as a "nice to have / OK not to have" initiative
  
• Inability to focus on the vital areas of business goals
  
• Building up a large repository without relevance to business goals
  
• No measurement of KM plans
  
• Lack of robust process for knowledge sharing – leaving it to chance
  
• Staff unwilling to share or "copy"
  
• Knowledge champions do not have time
  
• Heavy reliance on technology
  
• Treating KM as replacement for people
  
• Unwillingness to invest in KM specialists / CKO
  
• "Build it and they will come" strategy
  
• Belief in "technology can replace face-to-face"
  
• Emphasis on first creating a learning culture.
  

(Hariharan & Cellular, 2005; Dixon, 2000)

The above summary of factors is by no means exhaustive, and I do not intend to elaborate them in detail here, given limited space. I will discuss in school context, why culture and management issues are critical for knowledge management planning and implementation.

First, in planning, the school needs to know what knowledge management can bring to school. Although EMB (2004) has mentioned that in enriching digital resources for schools, knowledge management strategies will be adopted to facilitate the usage and sharing of resources and experiences, KM may seem a fresh term to many schools. My boss said he did not know much what it is; it seems to be a new discipline. Other teachers admitted that they have no idea of what it is. In business field, a senior HR director of Reebok told me they do not consider KM as a top priority, while a professional accountant hinted that KM is just another management fad... So what does KM practically mean to school teachers, though they are transferring to students knowledge daily?

Schools are facing tides of reform. I will not scare teachers away by elaborating on the principles of KM, or the big things it will achieve. To get teachers' buy-in, I would rather choose the term "knowledge sharing / sharing experience". First, the term is not new and easy to understand. Second, schools have been talking about sharing teaching experience and resources for years. Third, the term "experience sharing" focuses on 'tacit knowledge' which is more difficult to disseminate – but most valuable.

Thus, in planning it is most essential to get a working definition for knowledge management (Prusak & Fahey, 1998). In school we can put the emphasis on knowledge sharing, in the rationale of Hong Kong EMB (2004).

Some schools have an intranet which facilitates communication, collaboration and resource management. Teachers get used to send email and circular to each other. A lot of documents (explicit knowledge) are also placed on network storage. They do not always use collaboration tools for sharing and creating teaching materials. They do not use it because the sharing culture is not well nurtured. Unlike the business field, it seems teachers get used to complete their tasks/duties alone – they are mainly the one who controls the classroom; to mark assignments; to set test papers; to conduct activities. School have yet to foster 'communities of practice' to let them share. One would say such CoP may itself flourish, and requires no central planning. However, if the senior management does not encourage this or lead by example, there is little chance for its development.

One thinks that IT can facilitate KM. To some extent it is true. Teachers do not always use it for sharing not because they are reluctant to use IT, rather it is because often what they need to share is not easy to document (make it explicit). The sharing rather requires a human relationship to facilitate understanding and knowledge transfer (McDermott, 1999). Even when the sharers / receivers try to document, they find it takes them too much time.

School leaders have to take the lead in knowledge sharing. They may not have an open mind to innovation and change. Some do not encourage much discussion and sharing of school issues. Other senior staff are also engaged in their departmental administrative work with little communication with ordinary teachers (who do their own work). From another perspective, such school structure is focused on maximizing departmental accomplishments that staff may unconsciously hoard knowledge flow (O'Dell & Grayson, 1998). I suppose school heads / leaders should foster a culture of common focus and mission to which everyone contributes. They can plan by learning from Fullan (2001) who puts forward a coherent framework for leadership stressing moral purpose, understanding change, relationship building and knowledge sharing. This takes quite a process, with first getting staff commitment.

Start small. Do not aim it too high at this stage. In school, subject departments can be developed into communities of practice / knowledge communities. Subject teachers have the same curriculum goals and it is natural for them to share their experience. Perhaps they have been doing this for some time, but without KM strategies. IT can enable their sharing anywhere, though face-to-face contacts are necessary. (Dixon, 2000).

Knowledge sharing champions may arise from functional / subject leaders / IT team, supported by school head (the CKO). They may use a blend of IT and face-to-face collaboration to practise what they cherish, bridge knowledge gaps, re-use knowledge and more importantly to nurture an atmosphere of trust (without which sharing is difficult). When time comes, different CoPs can share with each other and find common knowledge essential to school goals. Hopefully, a learning culture will gradually grow.

Last, Hariharan & Cellular (2005) mentions "The four pillars of KM" as follows:
 Leadership, people & culture
 Relevance to business
 Measurement of KM
 KM processes & technology

Incidentally, Stankosky (2005, p.5-6) also advocates "The four pillars" as the "DNA of knowledge management" as follows:
 Leadership / management
 Organization
 Learning
 Technology

Both authors place heavy emphasis on management, culture and leadership issues. IT also plays its part in KM, as technology can efficiently deal with lots of information and data. For teachers, IT also plays the role of enabler and catalyst of knowledge sharing (Rollett, 2003).

Reference

Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2003). Knowledge management, cultivating knowledge professionals. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.

Chin, P. (2005). Knowledge sharing: the facts and the myths. Retrieved July 13, 2005, from http://www.intranetjournal.com/articles/200502/ij_02_08_05a.html.

Dixon, N.M. (2000). Common knowledge : how companies thrive by sharing what they know. Boston, Mass. : Harvard Business School Press.

Education and Manpower Bureau. (2004). Empowering learning and teaching with information technology. Hong Kong.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Handzic, M. (2004). Knowledge management through the technology glass. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

Hariharan, A. & Cellular, B. (2005). Critical success factors for knowledge management. KM Review, 8(2), 16-19.

Hasanali, F. (2002). The Critical Success Factors of Knowledge Management. Retrieved July 18, 2005, from http://www.apqc.org/portal/apqc/ksn.

McDermott, R. (1999). Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge management. California Management Review, 41( 4), 103-118.

O'Dell, C. & Grayson, J. (1998). If only we knew what we know: Identification and transfer of internal best practices. California Management Review, 40(3), 154-175.

Park, H., Ribiere, V. & Schulte, W. (2004). Critical attributes of organizational culture that promote knowledge management technology implementation success. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 106-117.

Prusak, L. & Fahey, L. (1998). The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management. California Management Review, 40(3), 265-277.

Rollett, H. (2003). Knowledge management, process and technologies. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Stankosky M. (Ed.) (2005). Creating the discipline of knowledge management, Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.