Knowledge Management (KM) is a continuous and systematic process in which knowledge is transferred from the lowest level where it is generated to the processing centre of the organization so that it can be utilized to bring about beneficial changes to the organization. For this process to become effective with maximum returns, it should be a systematic and deliberate building up and application of knowledge. So KM in this organizational concept involves four steps: (a) A process by which knowledge assets are identified; (b) Development of assets through renewal and analysis; (c) Capturing the relevant details and preservation of the same; and (d) Sharing of thus processed knowledge, thereby assisting the process of usage. When an organization improves its efficiency and innovation through the process of KM, it acquires a non-replicable advantage over its competitors. But in order to do this effectively, the knowledge component has to be quantified and priced .So for a knowledge economy to function, it becomes imperative to measure the performance of a KM system. This paper focuses on this dilemma and tries to come out with parameters in the service scenario to monitor knowledge growth which in many cases is difficult to quantify.

Towards the end of 1980s Knowledge Management (KM) emerged as the aftereffect of the realization that the combined knowledge of all the processes in a company was under threat in the changing environment and it would directly affect its competitive ability. So preparing for the future loss of staff starts with the premise that a company needs to re-think and encourage knowledge transfer within the company.

The original focus was on the private sector and the non-tangible assets of a company. Skandia became the first company to acknowledge this change by creating a post of Director of Intellectual Capital in 1991. Literature on KM began to appear during the 1990s (Wiig, 1997). The federal government of US and public organizations such as the military branches began to pursue KM a few years later.

Rubenstien et al. (2001) speak about certain indicators which show that a KM system is much needed: The factors to be taken into consideration are: if a majority of employees are advanced in age, nonexistence of a mentoring system, financial constraints for extensive training, absence of informal gathering and knowledge sharing, employee attrition, Absence of a process or system to capture knowledge, lack of interdepartmental coordination and communication, wastage of time in duplication of research. These eight factors primarily indicate the need for a KM system.

Even if a company decides to install a KM system, then also we have to look at different factors in the process so that the knowledge growth due to the implementation of the KM system can be effectively monitored.

Knowledge Management Journal, Knowledge Dimensions, Knowledge Growth, Service Sector, Knowledge Management (KM), The Financial Express, Public Sector banks, Old Private Sector Banks, New Private Sector Banks and Foreign
Banks.