ABSTRACT
Knowledge is resented as the asset that will drive the emerging economic environment, relying on what we know about what we do, rather than on any more tangible assets such as raw materials or even finances. Jashapara (2004) presents the different elements that make up knowledge management (KM) as a tree with its roots in anthropology, sociology, economics, human resource (HR), management science, computer science and so on. The centrality of organisational learning is emphasised when knowledge is presented or defined in a specific way. When it is defined as a specific entity and aligned with a more instrumental or positivist perspective then the technologies associated with KM systems can be ascribed more significance. This view can be countered by a perspective more sympathetic to social constructionism, where knowledge is less regarded as a discrete entity and more akin to a process a learning process.
