You can never have too much knowledge. (2009). Information Outlook, 13(8). P.10-13

The article “You can never have too much knowledge” by Larry Prusak discusses the future of information in businesses, libraries in general and special libraries in specific. Prusak who was interviewed by Information Outlook in 2009 is a consultant for organisations on knowledge and learning. The purpose of writing this review is to examine the author’s view, the issues that are discussed, to explore the strengths and weaknesses of the article and to recommend improvements.

The main point that I believe that Prusak tries to make is on the difference between information and knowledge. He describes this as “knowledge is what a ‘knower’ knows, whereas information is represented knowledge” (Prusak, 2009, p.). Other points discussed include the idea that there can be too much information but there can never be too much knowledge. In addition to this Prusak makes the argument that the cost of an information transaction has dropped resulting in information professionals needing to become knowledge professionals to stay relevant in their chosen field. Prusak continues by stating that for an information centre to become a knowledge centre there needs to be a focus on finding people who know things rather than on finding documents. The article goes on to explain that people learn from one another through interaction and stories and that the librarian needs to encourage this. Prusak ends the interview by expounding his belief that organisations are better off connecting people than capturing material and that the real advantage lies in using knowledge more innovatively.

In order to consider whether or not Prusak was able to make his point effectively the strengths and weaknesses of the article need to be discussed. This article has many strengths, some of which include the informal language and structure of the interview format, which allows for the easy reading of this article. This article is also written in a manner that makes it very easy for someone who has little to no knowledge about the subject to understand. When examining the difference between information and knowledge Prusak uses simple metaphors to explain his point of view.

However this article also has several shortcomings that detract from the information provided. These include a lack of evidence to support the arguments that Prusak makes. The author does not refer to any statistics, data or additional articles, and while his thoughts and opinions are still valid, supporting references are valuable in any article. Due to the interview format Prusak did not expound on certain points that could have benefitted from a more thorough discussion. When considering the idea that there can be too much information Prusak could have touched on the librarian’s role in providing this information and what their responsibility is in refining the information into knowledge. Another area that could have elaborated on is what special librarians can do to be seen as essential in their communities. Prusak provides only three ideas and does not go into detail, nor provide any case studies or references as evidence.

In conclusion, while I agree with the main points raised in this article, the lack of evidence such as references and case studies detracts from the reliability. Other articles, such as “What are we managing – knowledge or information?” by Shashi Prahba Singh also provide an overview of information and knowledge management as well as going into further detail and using evidence; making them the preferred reference.

REFERENCES
• Singh, S.P. (2007). What are we managing : knowledge or information? Vine : the journal of information & knowledge management systems. 37(2) p169-179.