The Map Is Not The Territory

I have seen quite a lot of KM technology maps - of differing levels of detail & complexity.

Why do we need a KM technology map? Well, the obvious answer is that there's a lot of tech out there. Some of which claims to be KM-related and some of which is used in KM initiatives (N.B. these sets overlap but are not identical). So how do we make sense of this morass of software? With a map that tells you - this piece of software is good for this thing. Simple.

Now, there are some risks involved in doing this. Here are some that come to mind:
1. Any map represents a particular construct of KM. And such contructs should be specific to certain organisations and certain contexts. You actually need to map the tech against local models of how KM operates. A generic map may be a trap.
2. The tech itself is changing dynamically so the map is always out of date.
3. The tech in a particular area may not work with a specific group depending on context. E.g. I am doing a project with some telesales people at the moment and these people have been selected for their conversational ability and relationship-building skills - but not necessarily their reading comprehension. So visual eLearning without a verbal, interactive component is unsatisfying for these people.

I think the construction of the map is the interesting thing for most organisations, not necessarily the output.