This is a very interesting and complex post. I find myself simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing with some of the points that are made. There are some issues that could be debated on semantic grounds but I will try to avoid those because they are often less valuable, except there is value in stating that people do use words differently and that corporate execs may use terms they don't fully understand to communicate a theme rather than a specific meaning.

The statement that we should all move away from central repositories is too big a stretch to me. It implies that the repository is evil when in actual fact most of the problems come from poor implementation and poor design from a solution perspective not the technology itself. There is, of course, the rather naive thought that if you dump stuff in a repository you have fixed your KM problem. Patently an absurd assumption, but it prevails.

There are many ways in which central infrastructure can actually facilitate the PKM views you have expressed. It is a matter of design and intent. I also shudder to think of the detrimental outcomes and risks that arise from storing everything of value on a personal hard drive (whatever that actually means in these days of increased mobility) rather than "allowing" an organization to have viable ways of protecting its assets while facilitating their being shared. It is hard to enable discovery or sharing that independently arises from personal work requirements when the content is tucked away on somebody else's hard drive. That is what appears to have been advocated.

The theme of PKM is very powerful. I say "theme" because I would suggest a slightly different way of thinking about it. KM is broken because it is very often about throwing bucket loads of stuff into a repository. This tends to remove all responsibility of meaningful sharing from the individual and does not necessarily give them really useful tools with which to share and add value. What you have suggested for PKM, however, could be equally broken because it puts *all* the responsibility on the individual and this is generally not sustainable. It can also make it difficult to support multiple conversations and sharing when you add the constraints of enterprise IT management. Always an issue.

The thing that really resonates well is the opportunity for an individual to take part of the responsibility in the flow and sharing of knowledge for personal and Community of Practice benefits. It supports informal learning and organizational learning in meaningful ways. We should also be mindful that not all learners are 'knowledge workers' and they do not necessarily have the same work practices. Knowledge sharing and informal learning often has to live side-by-side with requirements for highly regulated activities that are required of businesses in certain sectors. PKM is likely to be of more value if implemented well and for the right reasons. (Notwithstanding the fact that knowledge needs to be internalized to be actionable.)

I hope I have not misinterpreted the post but have responded (hopefully usefully) based on how it read to me.