What type of organizational structure is ideal for KM initiatives to succeed?

This is without a doubt a difficult question to answer and all sorts of different views exist on the topic. George Vagenas (2008) wrote a clear blog post outlining the traditional hierarchical structure of KM in organizations including the positions of Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO), Knowledge Managers, Knowledge Workers and the Subject Matter Experts.

Others argue that due to the goal of a flat and decentralized KM where all are encouraged to participate, this hierarchical structure has got to go. Instead the role of CKO ought to be more horizontal by acting as an internal consultant that coordinates and supports other managers in their duties.

Last month, David Snowden (2009) posted an interesting blog post with his views on why the position of CKO is a bad idea. He believes that by appointing a CKO, the rest of the organization takes a step back and no longer sees KM as their responsibility.

Instead, Snowden proposes several alternatives to the CKO position including making it a rotating 6-month position in order to keep connected to the real needs of the business or having a panel of international KM experts give their guidance to the CEO throughout the year.

Whatever the correct organizational structure may be, no one can really deny that some sort of leadership must take place in order for KM initiatives to succeed. Even the flattest companies still have senior management positions after all.  I’m curious as to what you think about the role of CKO. Is it necessary?

~Sarah