This conceptual paper aims to initiate a discussion and raise awareness about some of the misinterpretations of Knowledge Management (KM) that we have observed in recent conferences and academic papers. We contend that continuing to ignore these misconceptions might jeopardize the future of KM within the emerging Super Smart Society. Method: The essay begins with an introduction that outlines the problem and its extent. The second section examines significant misuses and misinterpretations of KM in the literature. For each theme, the essay critiques the inappropriate application of KM and offers clarifications to distinguish its true nature. The themes discussed include: KM is not synonymous with innovation; KM is distinct from dynamic capabilities; and KM is not merely an extension of organizational learning. The third section revisits the origins of KM, exploring how seminal scholars originally conceptualized it—shifting the perspective from a Newtonian framework to one that embraces uncertainty through people and practices. The human-centred nature of KM is emphasized, particularly in relation to how individuals address knowledge uncertainties and absences. The essay concludes by reflecting on the future of KM within the paradigm of Society 5.0. Outcome and Contribution: The essay highlights numerous instances in which more established fields tend to overshadow knowledge management (KM)—a persistent trend. Old habits die hard, and KM appears increasingly isolated within the strategy literature, particularly in the post-1995 era. A pervasive industrial mindset continues to frame KM as a positivistic tool, despite warnings from seminal scholars. Considering the emerging human-centred paradigm, this essay seeks to reassert KM’s centrality as a standalone field within Strategic Management. By revisiting KM’s origins and clarifying its distinct identity in relation to adjacent disciplines, the essay contributes to a deeper understanding of the field and its evolving role within the context of Society 5.0.
Khadir et al. (Fri,) studied this question.