I received a comment today from Donna Maurer, who said:

“Everything you do under the heading of ‘knowledge management’ is similar to a lot of things I do as an ‘information architect/interaction designer/user-centred designer'”

She then went on to say that she tries to avoid having a title, as it only causes confusion for her clients. Instead, she just explains we she does, and how it’s useful.

I couldn’t agree more. This highlights one of our key challenges as a field: our identity.

This is a two-edged sword:

• Many people now avoid using terms like “knowledge management” or “information architecture”, as they are often not understood. Worse, they may be perceived as “buzzwords” or “trendy labels”, thus devaluing the skills and experience of the person in question.
• Without a name and identity, how are we to market ourselves? Potential clients need to be able to say “I need the services of an {x}”, and be able to easily find such a person.

I think all of this has been brought into sharp focus with the downturn of the IT market. Hopefully, though, when we come out the other side of this slow patch, it will have given us an opportunity to clarify our identity and role in the marketplace.

Perhaps the answer is:

• consistent terminology
• less hype
• more professionlism
• educating clients
• more business focus

Your thoughts?