9/13/2009 Journal of Knowledge Management P…

Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 9, No. 4, December 2008

Toward A Knowledge Management Body Of Knowledge (KMBOK): A

Philosophical Discourse In KM Concepts And Ideas

Donovan A. McFarlane, The Donovan Society LLC

ABSTRACT:

Theories of cognition and meta-theoretical frameworks provide important areas for exploring some of the
theoretical underpinnings of knowledge management practice. Two areas of theory are explored as potential
fruitful for incorporation to knowledge management theory and practice. Extended cognition, based
predominantly on the work of Andy Clark, is presented as relevant to KM, and social constructionism is
developed as similarly relevant. Connections between extended cognition and social constructionism are
developed, with implications for KM identified and briefly explored. Existing KM theory is compared, with
particular emphasis on the work of John Nosek’s ‘group cognition’.

Keywords: Knowledge management, Meta-theory, Extended cognition, Social constructionism, Andy

Clark, John Nosek

1. The Need For Clarification And Directionality

Ikujiro Nonaka is credited as having developed the idea of “knowledge management” in a 1991 Harvard
Business Review article. The field of knowledge management has enjoyed a luxury that most disciplinary
studies and branches of management science and practice have not had the privilege to embrace. It has
developed in an era where all the positive driving forces are in place to enrich and support its rationale,
theories, ideas, and philosophy. At the same time, this rapid development without having suffered the heavy
scrutiny and criticisms that other branches of studies have undergone has created some rich bases for
debates and thoughts, especially in the philosophy of knowledge management practices and ideas as they are
used in developing practical frameworks for organizational systems, processes, and structures.

Furthermore, the exponential growing interests and development of ideas in project management occurring
simultaneously with knowledge management as an increasingly merging field has brought about reasonable
considerations as to relevance and precedence in organizational leadership process: Is knowledge
management part of the project management process or is project management part of the knowledge
management process? The author of this paper finds these two branches of management to be overlapping in
their ideas and applicability to modern industry: project management requires managing knowledge, and
knowledge management is essentially what the project management process entails, whether it is managing
what Bohlander and Snell (2007) call human capital – teams and individuals, or managing systematic
structures, processes, and ideas, what Ichijo and Nonaka (2007) call knowledge management, or simply
leading through expert power.

According to Clark (2004), what we call knowledge management today is mainly based upon the ideas of
the "spiral process" theory of knowledge creation. This idea was put forward by Nonaka and Takeuchi
(1995) who believe that knowledge creation is based upon a spiral movement between explicit and tacit
knowledge. Tacit knowledge includes both conceptual and sensory information, in addition to images that are
used to make sense of something (Clark, 2004). According to Noble (1996), tacit knowledge refers to
knowledge that is intuitive, bodily, interpretive, ambiguous, nonlinear and difficult to reduce to a scientific
equation, while explicit knowledge describes knowledge that is formal, unambiguous, systematic, falsifiable
and scientific. According to Stillwell (2008), tacit knowledge is characterized by “analogue” qualities –
http://www.tlainc.com/articl167.htm 1/10
9/13/2009 Journal of Knowledge Management P…
parallel processing of continuous complex variables, while explicit knowledge shows the discrete
discontinuities characteristic of “digital” processing as explained by Nonaka, 1994. While much of the
meanings of tacit and explicit knowledge have been deliberated and settled by various scholars and authors,
there are still philosophical issues and pragmatic questions when it comes down to really describing
knowledge management in consideration of the theories of knowledge and definition of what we call
“knowledge” as have plagued philosophers and epistemologists alike over several centuries. This can be
reiterated in the concepts of information and knowledge economies as deliberated below by the author of
this paper. However, Stillwell (2008) clarifies Nonaka’s aim: “For Nonaka, what matters is the practice, the
doing, the embodiment of knowledge. An organization can amplify and crystallize individuals’ tacit
knowledge in a process that allows them to experience deeper understanding. Nonaka holds that it is
important to explore the potential that knowledge holds. His spiral process describes disciplined practices
that make tacit knowledge independent and available to restructure the organizational knowledge context.”
(p. 19).

Knowledge Management Body Of Knowledge (KMBOK)

Today’s organizations are actively engaged in the creation of knowledge as a value-adding process, and this
process requires managing created knowledge through effective project management process. Thus, implying
a mastery of what Bohlander and Snell (2007) call the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK).
According to Haas School of Business Dean, William A. Hasler, "Creating and disseminating knowledge is
critically important to a firm's long-term productivity. The best competitors are firms that are most adept in
diffusing the key knowledge of their employees throughout the organization.” (Haas School of Business,
1997; p. 1). The important question here is: How are firms able to create and disseminate knowledge if they
are not able to fully comprehend and map out what can astutely be called a “Knowledge Management Body
of Knowledge (KMBOK)?” Furthermore, what constitutes a KMBOK, and how does this change overtime
with internal and external factors impacting organizational performance, growth, and success? In addition,
those actively espousing ideas and propounding practices and theories in the field of knowledge management
must reflect carefully on the idea of competitive knowledge, core knowledge competence, distinctive
knowledge competence, and how the firm or organization should approach developing and identifying these
as core pull and push factors in their quest for competitive advantage. McFarlane (2008) conceptualizes this
idea in the following way: “The knowledge worker is the core factor in organizational knowledge flow, and
organizational knowledge flow helps determine the degree to which leaders and managers can effectively
mold knowledge inputs into harnessing a collaborative strategy for developing competitive advantage.” (p.
1). Thus, answers surrounding these questions seem to rest on how organizations uniquely structure
themselves around the knowledge worker, and the degree of knowledge possessed by knowledge workers
that determine and influence organizational capability.

While the idea of knowledge management body of knowledge (KMBOK) is a great and plausible one, a
burning question is: What are the criteria or requirements for formulating or establishing such a body of
knowledge within modern and emerging organization frameworks via global platforms? The answer is best
developed by making reference to knowledge management’s most closely related sister-field: project
management and its body of knowledge. The project management body of knowledge (PMBOK)
formulates the entire integrative framework of skills, tools, and knowledge that managers need to effectively
and efficiently achieve project goals and objectives in order to accomplish organizational mission. The
project management body of knowledge (PMBOK) has been described by Gray and Larson (2008), and
Mentz, King, Thong, Leo, and Mataev (2005) as consisting of integration management, scope management,
time management, cost management, quality management, human resources management, communication
management, risk management, and procurement management. Mentz, et al (2008), also describe the
project management body of knowledge (PMBOK) as the Project Management Treatise of Protocol
(PMTOP), which they define as “the sum of knowledge within the profession of project management, which
is generally accepted” (p. 9). Furthermore, they explain that by “generally accepted” means that the

http://www.tlainc.com/articl167.htm 2/10
9/13/2009 Journal of Knowledge Management P…
knowledge and practices described are applicable to most projects most of the time, and that there is
widespread consensus about their value and usefulness in the project management process. Thus, we should
examine the idea of knowledge management body of knowledge (KMBOK) from this perspective,
especially as far as “generally accepted” principles come into play.

There needs to be scholarly propositions, debates, and then acceptance and conformance regarding what
fundamentally constitutes KMBOK. From an examination of the PMBOK, it will become evident that all the
nine knowledge areas of project management seem highly likely applicable to knowledge management in all
its facets. Thus, integration management, scope management, time management, cost management, quality
management, human resources management, communication management, risk management, and
procurement management are all plausible components of a KMBOK. However, this is where an issue of
inter-and-overlapping connections is readily recognized. Project management and knowledge management
are interconnected in both theoretical and practical ways that the same bodies of knowledge are equally
emphasized and utilized in process. Thus, the idea that a project manager is really a knowledge manager –
managing human capital along with other productive inputs and information becomes concretized within
extant literature. According to the founder of knowledge management Ikujiro Nonaka, “"If companies could
become more aware of the process themselves, it could become the management paradigm of the next
century.” However, it will take more than awareness for knowledge management to become the management
paradigm of the next century given the revolving questions and issues emerging and evident in philosophical
discourse here undertaken.

The KMBOK Model: Modeling Knowledge Management

Figure 1 below represents the Knowledge Management Body of Knowledge (KMBOK) as visualized by
Professor Donovan A. McFarlane. In this model, professor McFarlane takes an integrative-systems
approach towards the development of the Knowledge Management Body of Knowledge (KMBOK). Two
essential processes are relevant for organizational survival in today’s volatile and hypercompetitive
marketplace and marketspace: organizational learning and competitive intelligence. These two processes or
core and distinctive processes, as governed and determined by the nature and structures of organization,
among other factors, are the result of effective grasp of knowledge – its development, dissemination, and
effective leadership for value creation within organizations. In order to accomplish these and develop
competitive advantage and market leadership, organizations must have unique knowledge systems
knowledge (KSK) which can only be gained from possessing relevant knowledge, management,
communication, computer and other support systems that coordinate information, knowledge, and learning;
(intelligence collectively) across organizational units, processes, and structural platforms.

Knowledge systems are the core requirements for organizing, controlling, and collaborating across systems
of people, structures, and processes (organizational system, structure, & process knowledge – OSSPK) in
order to develop organizational capability through establishing and having grasp of valuable project
management body of knowledge (PMBOK), while determining the type of leadership and managerial
knowledge (LMK) required to effectively guide the organization, accomplish its mission and goals, while
meeting macroenvironmental and microenvironmental challenges to secure opportunities for growth, survival,
competitive advantage, and market leadership. The Knowledge Management Body of Knowledge Model
thus communicates the relevant requirements for competing in a global economy driven by information and
knowledge. The KMBOK combines leadership, organizational, managerial, communications and information
systems knowledge to create effective knowledge systems for overall organizational leadership. How
organizations utilize knowledge systems to promote organizational learning and adaptability, and acquire
competence intelligence will determine their success in dealing with the many issues and challenges they face
in the global economy, thereby affecting contemporary strategies and future survival.

http://www.tlainc.com/articl167.htm 3/10
9/13/2009 Journal of Knowledge Management P…

http://www.tlainc.com/articl167.htm 4/10
9/13/2009 Journal of Knowledge Management P…

Figure 1: The Knowledge Management Body of Knowledge (KMBOK)

Knowledge Economy Versus Information Economy

By far, the most convincing arguments and illustrations that bring to light the ideas of knowledge and
information economies are found in the works of Laudon and Laudon (2004), propounding the idea of the
digital firm, information highway, and service-based and information-led economy brought about by a
transformation in technology and business processes. Laudon and Laudon have been a phenomenal team in
charting the development of the new economy via knowledge and information systems. This approach has
been further accredited by the works of Mujtaba and McFarlane, 2007; McFarlane, Britt, Weinstein, and

http://www.tlainc.com/articl167.htm 5/10
9/13/2009 Journal of Knowledge Management P…
Johnson, 2007; Johnson and Weinstein, 2004; and Bohlander and Snell, 2007. The idea of the knowledge
economy is centered on one firm proposition: human capital, intellect, and knowledge are essential in order
to understand the core of knowledge management functions within organizations (Afiouni, 2007; Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995, Marsick & Watkins, 1999; and Edvinnson & Malone, 1997; McFarlane, 2008).

When we consider that the idea of a knowledge economy centers mainly around the idea there are
knowledge workers, then the idea of knowledge versus information should emerge, since we must consider
the degree to which we can applicably justify referring to the economy as collectively one built around the
knowledge worker. The question then is, how many of us are truly knowledge workers? According to
Garavan, Morely, Gunnigle, & Collins (2001) organizations today are about adding value, and the integration
of knowledge workers into knowledge management systems as an approach to management is what adds
value to organizations. Thus, recognizing that human capital is the core of any knowledge-based enterprise
(Bontis, 1999; 2001; and Serenko, Bontis, & Hardie, 2007) is the only viable means for characterizing
organizations, and hence the economies in which they operate as knowledge systems or economies.
Knowledge is what drives productivity and value, and hence the old adage: “Knowledge is Power.” It can be
argued that knowledge is the power driving the modern global economy as a consequence of the roles of
technology, communications, information, and education.

Given the idea that we are living in a knowledge economy, we must now ask a very important question: Are
we truly living in a knowledge economy, or are we still in the information economy era? The answer to this
question will vary depending on individuals’ perspectives, as well as the degree to which we conceptualize
the idea of knowledge as distinguished from information. According to McFarlane (2008), the term
“knowledge economy” should be used carefully and with profound philosophical refrain, since the American
economy, as well as many others truly display information availability rather than knowledge. This he argues
makes such economies more of what could be called an “information economy” “or what Laudon and
Laudon (2004), and Johnson and Weinstein (2004) describe as a “service-based and information-led
economy” than an economy characterized by a full workforce or people of knowledge” (p. 1).

McFarlane (2008) argues that while we have unprecedented amount of information available as a civilization
and society, only a small percentage of our labor force or individuals can be described as having or
possessing real knowledge. While McFarlane did not define “real knowledge” he seems to be making
references comparable to what knowledge management guru and founder Ikujiro Nonaka describes when he
states, “The West has emphasized explicit knowledge. By contrast, tacit knowledge is an Eastern concept.
[The] Japanese have always emphasized their oneness in nature” (Entovation.com, 2008; p. 1). In addition,
McFarlane seems to be implying the role of value-creating versus non-value creating ideas. Perhaps the best
way to describe today’s economy from a human capital perspective is as a “Transitioning Economy” one
caught between information and knowledge; an “information-knowledge” economy. Perhaps the clarification
can be best settled by what Nonaka states in an interview with Scharmer (2000), when asked: “What is the
difference between information creation and knowledge creation?” Nonaka responds by stating that, “In
simple terms, information is the flow, and knowledge is the stock. Information is the flow of a message, while
knowledge is created by accumulating information. Thus, information is a necessary medium or material for
eliciting and constructing knowledge” (Scharmer, 2000; pp. 24-25). Nonaka further argues that another
difference is that information is something passive while knowledge is proactive. This can also be seen in
Nonaka’s contention that, “Knowledge is alive because it changes continuously…transferred through human
interaction” (Nonaka, 1994).

Knowledge Management Leadership

Given that there is yet agreement among knowledge management scholars on what definitively and
adequately constitutes generally accepted knowledge management principles (GAKMP) or a knowledge
management body of knowledge (KMBOK), we can argue that knowledge management leadership is at the
crossroads in its development and directionality. What constitutes effective knowledge management
http://www.tlainc.com/articl167.htm 6/10
9/13/2009 Journal of Knowledge Management P…
leadership becomes an important subject for those exploring that aspect of the field. According to Lakshman
(2007), the long tradition of leadership theory and research has not addressed the role of leaders in managing
information and knowledge, despite their importance to organizations, especially in the 21st century where
organizations are information-and-knowledge-driven entities. This perspective is supported by Davenport,
De Long, and Beers, 1998, and Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney, 1999. However, recently, several scholars
have undertaken the task; for example, Bell De Tienne, Dyer, Hoopes, and Harris, 2004; Bryant, 2003;
Lakshman, 2005; Politis, 2001; Viitala, 2004; Lakshman, 2007; and McFarlane, 2008. Despite the
recognition of a need for knowledge management leadership approach, the literature is far from being
decisive as to a best practice method emerging out of the extant research done so far. In fact, the growing
literature has stress the lack of leadership support as a problem in knowledge management, thus making it a
field for exploration and deliberation in the literature. Lakshman (2007) has suggested a grounded theory
approach toward organizational knowledge leadership, while McFarlane (2008) stresses a leadership roles
and organizational capability approach in knowledge and knowledge worker management.

According to Lakshman (2007) and Bell De Tienne (2004) leadership has been identified as a key variable
in the relationship between knowledge management and organizational effectiveness by researchers.
Similarly, McFarlane (2008) contends that, “effective leadership is a salient requirement in organizations
where the knowledge worker is the key to developing as well as unlocking the sources and potential for
sustainable competitive advantage in the knowledge economy” (p. 1). Hansen, et al (1999) believe that
strategic consideration is an important facet of knowledge management leadership in organizations.
Lakshman (2007) argues that the role of leaders in information and knowledge management in organizations
must be established around two important factors: technology and social networks. McFarlane (2008)
argues that knowledge management requires a new category of leaders known as “knowledge leaders”
whose very duties and responsibilities are to develop a system of participative knowledge sharing in
attempting to solve organizational problems, accomplish mission and vision, critical tasks, and manage
effectively and survive crises and change” (p. 1). McFarlane (2008) sees knowledge leadership as originating
with the knowledge worker intake consideration; thus a beginning process for knowledge leadership is in the
recruitment and hiring of appropriately suitable workers regarding their knowledge offerings as critical to
organizational needs. He states this in more implicit terms: “organizational leaders and managers must manage
as knowledge leaders, they must be aware of the relationship between knowledge and those who possess it”
(McFarlane, 2008; p. 1). He further supports this perspective by arguing that knowledge leaders must strive
to effectively align compensation and reward systems, as well as organizational strategies and tasks with
knowledge workers’ needs. The needs of knowledge workers and the ability of organizational leaders to
recognize and fulfill these needs will determine leadership effectiveness applied to a more demanding and
strategically vital group of workers or employees in the 21st century. Knowledge drives organizational
progress and survival amidst change and competition. Figure 1 has provided us with some of the salient
factors relevant to defining and developing a leadership platform for effective knowledge management across
organizations.

Conclusion

Knowledge management is a strategic imperative for 21st century organizations whose success revolve
around effectively developing knowledge systems capable of increasing organizational learning, flexibility, and
adaptability, while providing competitive intelligence for strategy formulation and implementation to deal with
problems and challenges, and crises and change in the global business environment. Organizations must
carefully configure their structures, systems, and processes around an organized framework or body of
tested and successful knowledge: guidelines and practices which will enhance their capabilities in all contexts.
The KMBOK Model carefully maps out required systems and tools that organizations can use as a checklist
to examine the expanse and complexity of their current knowledge frameworks. Knowledge frameworks will
vary according to organizational requirements and also the capability of its current knowledge workers and
knowledge managers-leaders; their ability to develop a realistic and practical knowledge management system
http://www.tlainc.com/articl167.htm 7/10
9/13/2009 Journal of Knowledge Management P…
for organizational growth and survival. Knowledge is the key to organizational transformation and survival in
the globally competitive arena.

References

Afiouni, F. (2007). Human resources management and knowledge management: A road map toward
improving organizational performance. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge; Sep 2007;
11, 2; Retrieved February 4, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global Database, St. Thomas University Electronic
Library Database.

Bell De Tienne, K., Dyer, G., Hoopes, C., & Harris, S. (2004). Toward a model of effective knowledge
management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 26-43.

Bohlander, G. & Snell, S. (2007). Managing human resources, 14th edition. Mason, Ohio: Thomson-
Southwestern.

Bontis, N. (1999). Managing organizational knowledge by diagnosing intellectual capital: Framing and
advancing the state of the field. International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 18, Nos. 5-8; pp.
433-462.

Bontis, N. (2001). Assessing knowledge assets: A review of the models used to measure intellectual capital.
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 41-60.

Bryant, S.E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing, and
exploiting organizational knowledge, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 9, no. 4; p. 32.

Clark, D. (2004). Ikujiro Nonaka & Hirotaka Takeuk - The knowledge spiral – 1995. Retrieved May 7,
2008, from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_knowledge/nonaka.html

Davenport, T.H., De Long, D.W., & Beers, M.C. (1998). Successful knowledge management projects.
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 43-57.

Edvinnson, L., & Malone, M. (1997). Intellectual capital. Cambridge. MA: Harvard Business School Press.

First-Ever "Knowledge Professorship" Created. Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley.
Retrieved May 7, 2008, from http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/groups/pubs/articles/nonaka.html

Garavan, T.N., Morely, M., Gunnigle, P., & Collins, E. (2001). Human capital accumulation: The role of
human resource development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25, pp. 48-68.

Gray, C.F., & Larson, E.W. (2008). Project management: The managerial process, 4e. Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 106-118.

Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I., Eds. (2007). Knowledge creation and management: New challenges for managers.
New York, NY: Oxford University press.

Ikujiro. Entovation.com. Retrieved May 7, 2008, from http://www.entovation.com/kleadmap/nonaka.htm

Johnson, W.C., & Weinstein, A. (2004). Superior customer value in the new economy: concepts and cases,
Second Edition. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, LLC.

http://www.tlainc.com/articl167.htm 8/10
9/13/2009 Journal of Knowledge Management P…
Lakshman, C. (2007). Organizational knowledge leadership: A grounded theory approach. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2007; pp. 51-75.

Lakshman, C. (2005). Top executive knowledge leadership: Managing knowledge to lead change at General
Electric. Journal of Change Management, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 429-446.

Laudon, K.C., and Laudon, J.P. (2004). Management information systems: Managing the digital firm, 8th
Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Marsick, V.J., & Watkins, K. (1999). Envisioning new organizations for learning in D. Bowd & J. Garrick,
Understanding Learning at Work. London: Routledge.

McFarlane, D.A. (2008). Effectively managing the 21st century knowledge worker. Journal of Knowledge
Management Practice, Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2008. Retrieved May 7, 2008, from
http://www.tlainc.com/articl150.htm

McFarlane, D., Britt, M.M., Weinstein, A., & Johnson, W.C. (2007). Managing e-service quality and
customer relationships in the new economy. Conference Proceedings for Society of Marketing Advances:
San Antonio, Texas.

Mentz, G., King, B., Thong, C., Leo, D., & Mataev, M. (2005). Project Management Guide, Executive
Study Manual. American Academy of Project Management & International Project Management
Commission. Retrieved March 27, 2008, from
http://www.projectmanagementcertification.org/managernotes/_printable.html

Mujtaba, B.G., & McFarlane, D.A. (2007). Competitive advantage and market organizations in the 21st
century: Market driving or market driven. Chapter in Handbook of globalization, governance, and public
administration by Ali Farazmand, and Jack Pinkowski (Eds.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Noble, B.P. (1996). "The Knowledge-Creating Company" by Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi,
Book Review. Retrieved May 7, 2008, from http://www.strategy-business.com/press/16635507/8592

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create
the dynamics of innovation. Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5:1
February pp. 14-37.

Politis, J.D. (2001). The relationship of various leadership styles to knowledge management, Leadership and
Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp. 354-364.

Scharmer, C.O. (2000). Conversations with Ikujiro Nonaka. Reflections, Volume 2, Number 2. pp. 24 –
31. Retrieved May 7, 2008, from http://www.ottoscharmer.com/PDFs/Nonaka_interview.pdf

Serenko, A., Bontis, N., & Hardie, T. (2007). Organizational size and knowledge flow: A proposed
theoretical link. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2007; pp. 1469-1930.

Stillwell, W.D. Tacit knowledge and the work of Ikujiro Nonaka: Adaptations of Polanyi in a business
context. Retrieved May 8, 2008, from
http://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/TAD%20WEB%20ARCHIVE/TAD30-1/TAD30-1-pg19-
23-pdf.pdf

Viitala, R. (2004). Towards knowledge leadership. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal,

http://www.tlainc.com/articl167.htm 9/10
9/13/2009 Journal of Knowledge Management P…
Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 528-544.

About the Author

Dr. Donovan A. McFarlane is the Founder and Chancellor of THE DONOVAN SOCIETY LLC
(www.TheDonovanSociety.org), an academic-intellectual organization in which he holds the titles of
Professor Hermes Trismegistus and Preceptor General. He currently works as an Adjunct Professor in
Business Studies at City College – Fort Lauderdale, University Tutor in Business & Multidisciplinary Studies,
Lynn University, Florida, and has published in various peer-reviewed journals and books.

Contact: Dr. Donovan A. McFarlane, Professor Hermes Trismegistus, THE DONOVAN SOCIETY LLC;
Email: don_anthoni@yahoo.com; Website: www.thedonovansociety.org

http://www.tlainc.com/articl167.htm 10/10