New dilemma: KM is to put company or employee's benefit first?

      Continue the previouo discussion, Whost benefit should be put first in  KM , the company's or the employee's?
      In an ideal status, it's should be employee, because employee are the most valuable asset of company. Once the employee get benefit from company, the company will benefit from employee, in this way, we can max. the benefit. Vice vesa,  even company can get benefit from KM but it won't be a long term one  since employee's lost will transfer to company sooner or later.
      But on the other hand, how can a company be confident enought that the benefited employee can only benefit the company itself but not the competitor?
   
 

New dilemma: KM is to put company or employee's benefit first?

      Continue the previouo discuss, Whost benefit should be put first in a KM system, the company's or the employee's?
      In an ideal status, it's should be employee, because employee is the most valuable asset of company. Once the employee get benefit from company, the company will benefit from employee, in this way, we can max. the benefit. Vice vesa,  even company can get benefit from KM but it won't be a long term since employee's lost will transfer to company sooner or later.
      But on the other hand, how can a company be confident enought that the benefited employee can only benefit the company itself but not the competitor?
   
 

Mopsos - The dilemma of KM programs

Mopsos - The dilemma of KM programs
I agree that we can't swings the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. But for the dilemma of a and b, are they really dilemma? Can we find a way to both benefit a and b?
(a) fully mobilize the energy of the organization's human resources towards achievement of the organization's performance objectives
(b) at the same time, so organize the work, work environment, the communications system, and the relationships of people, that individuals need for self worth, growth, and satisfaction are sigificantly met at work.
Look at google, their culture can settle down both side perfectly.

Also I don't agree the last statement:organizations must see the longer term enculturation benefit, which usually builds on explicit knowledge and categorizing.

Why organizations must build explicit knowledge and categorizing? Is here a general sense that there are always employee turnover that organizations must build sth to avoid knowlege lost one some guys left the organization made you make the conclusion. Yes, I agree that this is important. But this in only one half of knowledge management. The other part is that how to have new comer and all membmer learn to use the stored knowledge. This is two steps must by done by km, but not option1 and option2, you can select1 and throw 2 away or select 2 and throw 1 away.

Google is the biggest KM company

Google Co-op
Except co-op, google also provide google groups
For both products, google claim that they want to help each others to share knowledge and experience.

And for Google itself, it's the most poluar tools for people to find useful information(or knowledge ) for themselves.

And based on above facts, in some degree, we can make a conclusion that now Google is already the biggest KM company. The only difference is that google provide tools for individuals, but others provide tools for cooperation. But, none can't say that google tools can't be used in company, which means, if google want, he can act a role in KM market.