116 Bartczak and England
Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written
No one was more frustrated, however, than Adkins. After almost a year of working
with AeroCorp and waiting patiently for a strategic vision and plan he could really use
to press forward, what he had now was a cultural and technical needs assessment, some
recommendations for transitioning AFMC into a knowledge-sharing organization, and
a road map (or methodology) for doing so that was too unfamiliar and complicated for
him or others to practically implement. And faced with the impending budget cut, it did
not appear that AeroCorp would have the opportunity to make needed changes. Adkins
knew, however, as the AFKM program lead he was still responsible for the strategic
direction and success of the AFKM program. He was unsure exactly what to do next, but
he knew the responsibility for a solution was his alone. He began to ponder the facts and
options. Would he ever get a document from AeroCorp that would provide a KM strategy
and vision for AFMC? Had he made a mistake in outsourcing AFKM strategy develop-
ment? If not, would there be time and money for AeroCorp to prepare something that was
more practical? What parts of the needs assessments and strategic plan were usable? In
absence of a clear KM strategy for AFMC, what was the right direction for his AFKM
Team to take? How did the AFKM effort now fit (technically and conceptually) into the
evolving AF-level KM approach? Would his AFKM program and Team survive? At this
point, Adkins had no good answers. The only thing he knew for sure was that there had
been and would continue to be many challenges in bringing KM to AFMC, but it was he,
if anyone, who still had the opportunity to make it a reality.
REFERENCES
AFKM Home Page. (2001). Information Page. Retrieved August 7, 2001, from https://
afkm.wpafb.af.mil/ASPs/Tabs/Entry_Subject.asp [only accessible from .mil do-
mains]Figure 6. AeroCorp’s proposed KM blueprint (IDEF model)