Knowledge Management (KM) and Knowledge Management System (KMS) success is an issue needing to be explored. The Knowledge Management Foundations workshop held at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-39) in January 2006 discussed this issue and reached agreement that it is important for the credibility of the KM discipline that we be able to define KM success. Additionally, from the perspective of KM academics and practitioners, identifying the factors, constructs, and variables that define KM success is crucial to understanding how these initiatives and systems should be designed and implemented. A study was designed to attempt to reach consensus on a definition of KM and KMS success. Three rounds were conducted. The first round was an expert panel used to generate a survey on KM and KMS success. The second round surveyed KM academics, students, and practitioners on their support for the survey. Little consensus was reached in this round and it was noted that their were some distinct differences between academics and practitioners as to what constitutes KM and KMS success. The results of this round were used to generate a composite KM success definition with an associated group of success measures. The third round found support for this set of measures. This paper presents these survey results and discusses the differences in perspective between those that are doing and those that are thinking KM. As can be suspected, practitioners were more focused on success measures that looked at firm specific measurable impacts on organizational productivity and/or effectiveness. KM academics also considered these measures but were more focused on generalized measures. While both perspectives are expected, they also illustrate the differences between doing and thinking and the need for both and for KM experts who can integrate both perspectives. Practitioners, the doers, should focus on making their firms successful. However, it is up to the academics, the thinkers, to generalize doer success into terms others can understand and use. These different perspectives lead to some conflict between the doers and the thinkers, conflicts that ultimately lead to the need for a third group, the integrators. The integrators are those that blend the two perspectives into actionable theory. KM is a action discipline, meaning it must be applied to have value. It is the final purpose of this paper to emphasize that while doers and thinkers are necessary, we must also create this third group of integrators for KM to remain a viable, actionable discipline.