This study explores the knowledge management promotion and organizationalchange strategies pioneered by Knowledge Ecology based Human, Knowledge,Resources, Environment and Technology (HKRET) program of the Consortium ofHumanitarian Agencies in Sri Lanka. The program seeks to model a way of doingknowledge management promotion through knowledge ecology development.Conceptually, the model was meant to draw together a number of knowledgemanaging stakeholders operating at various levels of the organization to undergo thesame program to promote knowledge management. The program participants, whoincluded Knowledge Managers, Information Officers, Information Analysts, ContentWriters, Web Developers, System Designers and Developers, District Officers, andMembers of the top Management teams, were to enrol as teams. They would work onknowledge managing tasks that were both academic and practical in nature, with anemphasis on experiential learning that leads to the collection of information onhumanitarian issues and concerns in Sri Lanka and to collate, analyze, share and storeto use by district and community networks of partners, develop teams or forums andcommunities of practice, as well as the protection and implementation of rules andpolicies on the development plans of Humanitarian issues.Informed by this conceptual position, the study was structured by two underlyingquestions. First, whether the HKRET was re-inventing knowledge managementpromotion beyond the traditional concepts of knowledge management towards one thatis inclusive of other knowledge management components. Second, how the knowledgeecology promotes knowledge management as a vehicle for organizational change canbe carried out. Therefore, the research process was guided by a multi-paradigmperspective which drew heavily on the empirical orientations. This led to the craftingof research methods that looked for data that would assist in to understand of what washappening in the program, as well as what power dynamics were at play and with whatconsequences for innovation. The evidence emanating from the study suggests a number of possibilities forconsideration by future knowledge management promotion program designers. First,the HKRET program delivery design shows what can be done to draw participantsfrom various levels of the knowledge management processes, humans, knowledge,resources, environment and technology for knowledge management together in a modethat mobilizes them for a change. Second, how components of the knowledge ecologyare separating different levels of the knowledge management hierarchy and statusconsciousness may disappear gradually as people are brought together to work on tasksof mutual concern. Third, after a year of engagement with HKRET ideas and approach,the participants of the program appeared to have started a journey ofself-transformation of knowledge towards becoming qualitatively different people whosaw themselves as teams capable of tackling knowledge management and managingknowledge and promotion problems in their departments or units and workingcommunities at the end. These participants had begun to forge working networks, butthe extent to which these could be characterized as knowledge ecologies andcommunities of practice remains a question to explore. Fourth, that the currentknowledge management accreditation policies and practices do not accommodateinnovative knowledge management approaches of the kind that the HKRET isdeveloping. In this regard, the HKRET experienced difficulties in coming up with anassessment policy and practices which meet the academic as well as the practicaldevelopmental concerns of the program. Fifth, program instrumentalities and mandatesthat are put in place do not, in themselves, bring about change. The actual changecomes about through the actions of knowledge ecology components that capable ofnavigating between structural enablers and constraints.