Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP
INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND MANAGEMENT
Dissertation
CONNECTING M&E SYSTEMS WITH
ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT A Comparative Analysis of Development Agencies
Paola SUNTAXI
Master of Development Evaluation and Management
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Nathalie Holvoet
Academic Year 2012-2013
UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP
INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND MANAGEMENT
Dissertation
CONNECTING M&E SYSTEMS WITH
ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT A Comparative Analysis of Development Agencies
Paola SUNTAXI
Master of Development Evaluation and Management
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Nathalie Holvoet
Academic Year 2012-2013
i
PREFACE
Developing a knowledge-sharing and learning culture implies a change in the way
organizations conduct their daily activities. For most of the organizations this represents a
continual challenge that demands the involvement and active participation of all their
members. To achieve meaningful and sustainable changes it is important to gain a better
sense of how learning and knowledge-sharing are already shaping the organizations. But
most importantly, organizations need to have a clear vision of where they want to be and
an accurate picture of where they are now. This study aims to develop a framework that
will help organizations to explore their key knowledge resources and sub-systems, as well
as to recognize their existing strengths and weaknesses. Conducting this exercise
effectively is an essential prerequisite to the design and the implementation of any
Knowledge Management initiative.
This research will present findings about how Monitoring and Evaluation systems
are used as essential knowledge management tools to improve the intervention designs and
the organizational performance. The findings are based on document reviews and semi-
structured interviews with officers from four leading development assistance agencies;
from whose contributions I hope to gain interesting ideas for the participating agencies.
This study constantly inspired me to investigate and learn more about how
incentives, institutional arrangements and the human agency have a positive or negative
impact in the transfer and use of knowledge. I found that understanding the interaction and
finding the balance among these three factors are crucial not only for development
agencies but also for public and private institutions.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is dedicated to my father, Carlos Fabián, who showed me the
importance of education and continuous passionate learning not only to become a better
professional but to become a better human being.
I would like to acknowledge the invaluable suggestions and guidelines that I
received from my supervisor, Nathalie Holvoet. Thanks for all your comments and
invaluable lessons. I would also like to thank to the Belgian Technical Cooperation who
gave me the opportunity to conduct this research, provide me the facilities to interview key
actors and help me to structure my ideas and findings.
I am deeply indebted to all of the officers who gave me substantial time when I
talked with them or helped with documents, reports, and archival materials. But above all,
thanks for their vividly interest in this study. I have benefited greatly from the interaction
with highly-trained staff of some of the world’s leading development assistance agencies:
the Belgian Technical Cooperation (BTC), the French Agency for Development (AFD),
the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) and the German
Society for International Cooperation (GIZ).
I would also like to acknowledge the unfailing support that I have received from
my friends including Silvia González, Diana Méndez, Renata Nunes, Lisa Popelier,
Nguyen Thanh Van, Alexander Johmann, and Christopher Permain. Thank you guys for all
your help and for constantly cheering me up in this journey.
Finally, thanks to Esteban Mendieta Jara. You have always inspired me to become
better and challenge myself.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. vi
ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................... vii
TERMINOLOGY USE IN THIS STUDY ............................................................. viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... ix
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1.
1.1. CONTEXT .................................................................................................. 1
1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT ......................................................................... 1
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ......................................................................... 3
1.4. OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................. 3
1.5. METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW ............................................................... 3
1.6. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 4
1.7. STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION ................................................. 5
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................ 6 CHAPTER 2.
2.1. DATA, INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE........................................ 6
2.2. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ............................................................. 7
2.2.1. Knowledge Creation ............................................................................ 8
2.2.2. Knowledge Storage/Retrieval .............................................................. 9
2.2.3. Knowledge Transfer/Sharing ............................................................... 9
2.2.4. Knowledge Application ....................................................................... 9
2.3. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND CRITICAL
SUCCESS FACTORS ................................................................................................. 10
2.3.5. Budgeting for KM ............................................................................. 11
2.3.6. Processes and Subsystems ................................................................. 11
2.3.7. Technology ........................................................................................ 14
2.3.8. People ................................................................................................ 15
THE RESEARCH FRAMEWORK ........................................... 19 CHAPTER 3.
3.1. INSTITUTIONAL AND KM FRAMEWORK BRICOLAGE ................ 19
3.2. M&E FOR KM FRAMEWORK .............................................................. 22
3.2.1. Validity Issues ................................................................................... 24
M&E FOR KM: TESTING THE FRAMEWORK AT BTC ..... 25 CHAPTER 4.
4.1. THE ACTION ARENA COMPONENT .................................................. 25
4.1.1. Knowledge Creation .......................................................................... 26
iv
4.1.2. Selecting and Storing Knowledge ..................................................... 29
4.1.3. Knowledge Transfer – Knowledge Sharing ...................................... 30
4.1.4. Knowledge Application ..................................................................... 34
4.2. THE KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES COMPONENT .............................. 35
4.2.1. People – Participants’ Knowledge ..................................................... 35
4.2.2. Technology – Physical Characteristics .............................................. 38
4.2.3. Processes – Rules –In-Use ................................................................. 44
4.2.4. Processes – Culture ............................................................................ 51
4.3. THE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT INFLUENCE COMPONENT.. 53
4.3.1. Managerial Influences ....................................................................... 54
4.3.2. Resources Influences ......................................................................... 57
4.3.3. External Knowledge Sources............................................................. 57
4.3.4. Environmental Influences .................................................................. 58
4.4. DOES BTC LEARN?................................................................................ 59
KM PRACTICES IN DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES: CASE CHAPTER 5.
STUDY FINDINGS 63
5.1. SELECTION OF THE CASE STUDIES.................................................. 63
5.2. THE ACTION ARENA COMPONENT ................................................. 64
5.3. THE KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES COMPONENT .............................. 71
5.4. THE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT INFLUENCES COMPONENT 75
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 78 CHAPTER 6.
6.1. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 78
6.2. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 80
6.3. FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................................................. 81
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 83
APPENDIX 1: LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INTERVIEWEES ................ 89
APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW GUIDE ..................................................................... 90
APPENDIX 3: BTC INTERVIEWS HIGHLIGHTS .............................................. 91
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1. Research Methods .................................................................................... 4
Table 4.1. BTC Knowledge Creation Mechanisms Identified in the Interviews .... 27
Table 4.2. BTC Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms Identified in the Interviews...... 31
Table 4.3. Website for KM Checklist ..................................................................... 42
Table 4.4. BTC Incentive Analysis ......................................................................... 49
Table 4.5. Summary Matrix BTC Institutional Analysis ........................................ 60
Table 5.1. Selected Development Agencies at Glance ............................................ 64
Table 5.2. Findings in the Action Arena Component.............................................. 65
Table 5.3. Findings in the Knowledge Resources Component ............................... 72
Table 5.4. Findings in the Knowledge Management Influences Component ......... 76
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Examples of Tacit and Explicit Knowledge ........................................... 7
Figure 2.2. KM Process – Spiral View ..................................................................... 8
Figure 2.3. IT tools for KM .................................................................................... 14
Figure 2.4. Knowledge Management Pillars ........................................................ 17
Figure 3.1. Institutional Analysis and Development Framework ........................... 20
Figure 3.2. KM Three Fold Framework ................................................................. 21
Figure 3.3. M&E for KM Framework .................................................................... 23
Figure 4.1. The Action Arena Component ............................................................. 26
Figure 4.2. MoRe Results Reports .......................................................................... 29
Figure 4.3. Communities of Practice ...................................................................... 33
Figure 4.4. Knowledge Resources Component ...................................................... 35
Figure 4.5. Country Teams Structure ..................................................................... 38
Figure 4.6. BTC Strategic Map .............................................................................. 45
Figure 4.7. MoRe Results System Design .............................................................. 46
Figure 6.1. Knowledge Management Pillars Adjusted Version ............................. 78
Figure 6.2. Main Conclusions ................................................................................. 80
vii
ACRONYMS
Term Description
AFD The French Agency for Development
BMZ The Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and
Development
BTC The Belgian Technical Cooperation
DEVAL The Independent Evaluation Institute
DGD Directorate-General for Development Cooperation
DO Organizational Department
EFQM European Foundation for Quality Management
ERP Enterprise Resource Planning
EST Sectoral and Thematic Expertise
GIZ German Society for International Cooperation
HQ Headquarters
IAD Institutional Analysis and Development
ICT Information, Communication and Technology
IDRC International Development Research Center
IT Information Technology
KM Knowledge Management
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MoRe Monitoring and Review
NGOs Non-governmental Organizations
OM Organizational Memory
OPS Operations
PIT Project Information Tool
ROI Return on Investment
RR Resident Representative
SC Steering Committee
SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
TFF Technical and Financial Files
TSE Technical and Sectorial Expertise
UNICEF The United Nations Children's Fund
USAID The United States Agency for International Development
WB The World Bank
viii
TERMINOLOGY USE IN THIS STUDY
Term Description
Knowledge
A product of human reflection, values, contextual information and
experience. Knowledge is produced only if the information is analyzed,
synthesized and used for good judgment and taking decisions (Alavi and
Leidner, 2001; Tiwana, 1999).
Knowledge
Management (KM)
Any processes and practices concerned with the creation, acquisition,
capture, sharing and use of knowledge, skills and expertise whether these
are explicitly labeled as KM or not (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Ferguson et
al., 2008)
KM Systems
Information systems developed to support and enhance the organizational
knowledge processes of knowledge creation, storage, transfer/sharing and
application (Alavi and Leidner, 2001)
KM Strategy
Organization’s strategic plan, investments, or choices to enable and enhance
its KM system or KM initiatives. It also helps to define which knowledge is
relevant and which is not (IDRC and CRDI, 2011).
KM framework
Descriptive framework or “soft” standard, which aims to provide
organizations and KM practitioners with a guiding framework and
methodology, which can be tailored and implemented according to business
needs (Ferguson et al., 2008).
KM Team People who are tacitly involved KM processes and who are able to actively
support KM implementation (Holsapple and Joshi, 2002)
M&E for KM
framework
A knowledge management framework that aims to highlight how M&E
outcomes can help to shift the organization towards a learning organization.
Capitalization
A process consisting in the acquisition, gathering, organization and analysis
of information about a given experience, with a view to drawing lessons
from them and sharing these by using different media and formats.
Learning Organization
An organization that creates a culture that encourages and supports
continuous employee learning, critical thinking, and risk taking with new
ideas, allow mistakes, and value employee contributions. It learns from
experience and experiment, and disseminates the new knowledge
throughout the organization for incorporation into day-to-day activities.
ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A range of studies and policy papers have pointed out that the impact of aid
initiatives could be much enhanced if donor agencies and their counterparts devoted more
attention to evidence-based results and to organizational learning. Consequently, many
organizations have been successful in implementing M&E systems to prove accountability
by producing thoughtful evaluations and lessons learned. However, the integration of this
knowledge into daily activities remains difficult. As a result, the question how international
development agencies can make sense of past experiences in order to improve future
performance, still remains unanswered and with it, the enigma of how building effective
and sustainable knowledge and learning systems.
In the last years, the concept of Knowledge Management (KM) has been introduced
in the development sector with the main aim of getting the right knowledge, in the right
place, at the right time to influence the design of new interventions and boost the
organizational performance. To achieve this, organizations need to produce high-quality
data and the right flow of information. Therefore, it was expected a solid link between KM
and M&E. Nonetheless, the literature that links directly M&E and KM is at best embryonic
and there is not an academic KM framework that considers M&E systems as a potential
tool to transform institutions into learning organizations.
This study aims to develop a framework that illustrates how M&E systems can help
to improve the institutional arrangements that (re)create and maintain KM practices. The
creation of such framework has as main objectives (1) to identify the KM elements already
in place at different levels in the organization, (2) to help to understand how the
organization produces and uses knowledge and to what extent and, (3) to show the
pathway to align the existing KM elements with a KM strategy to avoid the misuse of
resources, duplicity of activities, loss of organizational memory, and at the same time
increase the accountability and performance of the organization.
In order to test the validity of this new framework (M&E for KM), this research
used case studies of four development agencies to identify and analyze how they are using
their M&E systems as inputs for Knowledge Management practices, and the degree to
which their institutional arrangements impact on these KM practices. The Belgian
Technical Cooperation was the first agency in which the M&E for KM framework was
x
applied. This exercise leads to identify their KM weaknesses and strengths as well as to
enlist some opportunities for improvement identified by BTC staff. Then, the framework
was applied to the French Agency for Development (AFD); the Swedish International
Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA); and the German Society for International
Cooperation (GIZ) in order to corroborate the construction matching and to build a
comparative matrix that captured KM good practices as well as to identify the factors that
create an enabling environment for learning.
It was expected that People, Process and Technology constitute the main pillars of
any KM strategy or initiative. However, the research findings lead to understand that these
pillars need to be supported by incentives, proper sponsorship, time for reflection and the
ability to disseminate knowledge throughout the organization.
Based on the findings and conclusions from this study, some recommendations can
be drawn upon: first, there should be an explicit interest of top managers in KM activities
previous the implementation of a KM strategy. Second, the M&E department should be
supported by specific resources to conduct strategic and corporate evaluations. Third, the
role of a KM administrator is necessary in order to align and harmonize all the KM
initiatives and resources of the organization. Fourth, a solid incentive system should
consider the institutional arrangements and the organizational goals to achieve towards
KM.
1
INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1.
1.1. CONTEXT
In the last 15 years international agreements such as the MDGs, the Paris
Declaration, Accra and Busan have moved the focus from inputs-activities to development
results. Thus, a range of studies and policy papers have pointed out that the impact of aid
initiatives could be much enhanced if donor agencies and their counterparts devoted more
attention to organizational learning (Krohwinkel-Karlsson, 2007). This has led to a
continual change and adaptation of the development sector towards results, lessons learned
and accountability. Many organizations have been successful in implementing M&E
systems at the intervention level by producing valuable information and lessons learned.
However, the integration of this ‘learning’ to higher levels remains difficult. As a result,
the question how international development agencies can make sense of past experiences
in order to improve future performance still remains unanswered and with it the enigma of
how building effective and sustainable knowledge and learning systems.
1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Currently, information is one of the most important strategic assets in any
organization (Truls, 2002). As Drucker (1995) had predicted, knowledge has become the
key economic resource and the dominant source of competitive advantage for
organizations. Thus, a growing body of literature has analyzed different models and
philosophies about knowledge production, validation and transferability. The main aim is
to find out means that encourage the creation and transformation of theories, institutions,
or services that go hand in hand with globalize societies and new technologies (Dalkir,
2005). However, multiple studies have shown that the term knowledge is not easy to
define1 and the link between information and how to use it still remains as a black box
process that at times fails to go beyond performance indicators and financial tracking
(Morey, 2001). Just a few organizations have started to develop a Knowledge Management
(KM) orientation to avoid the misuse of resources and the duplication of basic tasks
(IDRC-CRDI, 2011; Mertins et al., 2003; UNICEF ROSA, 2008).
1 Today there are numerous descriptions and classifications of knowledge. Romhardt in Mertins et
al. (2003) found 40 dichotomies of knowledge like explicit versus implicit, individual versus
collective. In the same line the classification or categorization of knowledge presents multiple
approaches that depend on the field of research or even of the particular view of the researcher.
2
Failure to integrate knowledge and learning into normal working practices;
complicated M&E systems; lack of training or time; insufficient demand; information that
is not well tailored; meaningless knowledge production; but most importantly the fact that
users do not perceive the personal benefits of continuous learning are some of the factors
that have eroded the transfer of knowledge and the explicit use of lessons learned (Ifijeh,
2011; Mackay, 2006). Surpassing these and other barriers should be one of the
organizational strategies to ensure a continued learning and knowledge sharing.
It is expected that M&E systems play a key role in any organizational strategy.
These systems provide context and judicious evaluation findings that serve the evidence-
based decision-making. However, it is widely recognized that the investment and efforts to
produce high-quality evaluation reports are not enough to ensure the use of evaluation
findings and scale up this information/knowledge into the organization daily activities
(Kusek and Rist, 2004; Lopez-Acevedo et al., 2010). Notably, there are differing views
about how the key concepts of ‘knowledge’ and ‘learning’ from past experiences should be
understood, and how both relate to the performance in the organization (Kusek and Rist,
2004; Lopez-Acevedo et al., 2010; Morey, 2001). In other words, KM and M&E suffer
from weak connections that (re)produce pervasive errors in the management of information
as well as a slow learning process that can lead (1) to inhibit the creation, storage and use
of knowledge and (2) to hamper the organizational performance. Consequently, it cannot
be denied that the alignment between M&E and KM can help to development agencies to
increase their effectiveness and performance with fewer resources while simultaneously
demonstrating greater accountability and transparency in their processes (Alavi and
Leidner, 2001; Riege and Lindsay, 2006). Yet, the literature that links directly M&E and
KM is at best embryonic and there is not an academic KM framework that considers M&E
systems as a potential tool to transform institutions into learning organizations. For this
reason, developing a framework that illustrates how M&E systems can help to improve the
institutional arrangements that (re)create and maintain KM practices becomes highly
relevant. The creation of such framework would (1) lead to identifying the KM elements
already in place at different levels in the organization (2) help to understand how the
organization produces and uses knowledge and to what extent and (3) show the pathway to
align the existing KM elements with a KM strategy to avoid the misuse of resources,
duplicity of activities, loss of organizational memory, and at the same time increase the
accountability and performance of the organization.
3
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The following research questions will be considered in this dissertation:
- Which are the critical factors/institutional arrangements that determine a solid
Knowledge Management strategy? How do knowledge activities link to existing core
functions of the organizations?
- Do the selected development agencies use their M&E systems as inputs for Knowledge
Management? To what extent? What for?
- How the selected development agencies promote organizational learning? Is learning
effectively integrated into the M&E systems?
- How can the link between M&E systems and KM be strengthened?
1.4. OBJECTIVES
General
- Analyze and compare the M&E systems and KM practices in place in the selected
development agencies with the aim to identify the best practices and give
recommendations.
Specific
- Review different theories, frameworks and approaches available in the literature
related to KM and M&E systems.
- Build a framework that links directly M&E systems with KM.
- Scan the KM tools and M&E systems in place in the selected development agencies.
- Identify the critical factors that constitute a solid KM strategy (Best Practices).
- Understand how to scale up the information produced by M&E systems to promote
organizational culture change.
- Provide to the Belgian Technical Cooperation (BTC) recommendations to improve its
KM practices.
1.5. METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
This study aims to develop and apply a new framework that links M&E with KM.
The development of the new framework demands a robust literature review and the
analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of different academic frameworks. Once the
framework is designed, it will be tested in the Belgian Technical Cooperation, then if
necessary the design will be readjust. Finally, the KM best practices shall be identified
4
following this new framework in other development agencies. Consequently, primary data
will be collected through semi-structured interviews with key actors in the selected
development agencies. These series of interviews (face-to-face and Skype) were
conducted, during July and August 2013, (see Appendix 1). Across all the cases,
qualitative data from informants complements, or is complemented by the findings of
desk-based research, and supplemented by readings of policy documents provided by the
studied organizations. Table 1.1., describes the methods that will be used in this qualitative
study and gives an overview of the steps followed behind the final conclusions.
Table 1.1. Research Methods
Method Purpose
Desktop literature review
Chapter 2. Background information about different theories and
models for KM.
Selection of the KM elements to be analyzed in the author’s
framework
Framework construction
Chapter 3. Analysis of strengths and weaknesses of academic
frameworks
Construction of a framework that includes M&E systems as an
important element for KM
BTC Institutional Analysis based
on semi-structured Interviews
with key actors at BTC
Chapter 4. Identification of individually perceived behavioral
rules in BTC different departments and identification of KM
practices
Structured identification and classification of rules-in-use and
action arena elements
KM practices comparison Matrix
based on semi-structured
interviews in the selected
development agencies
Chapter 5. Identification and comparison of the KM practices in
the selected agencies.
1.6. LIMITATIONS
There is little consensus on how to define Knowledge Management and the
activities related to this concept. As such, the definition and activities analyzed in this
study might not suit the particular vision of each agency. However, it is believed that this
study serves as a benchmarking exercise that helps to identify good KM practices in their
specific context, regardless of definition.
Another limitation relates to the academic literature that links M&E systems with
KM strategies or KM systems. Although the link between these two elements might seem
straightforward, there is not an academic framework that considers M&E systems as
potential tool for KM improvement. As such, this new framework might have not
5
considered particular KM elements produced by other units than the M&E, Operations,
Communication, Technology (IT), and Expert departments. Furthermore, I recognize that
this exploratory study did not consider specific KM elements produce in the field by the
interaction with the ultimate beneficiaries of the interventions. This particular knowledge is
essential to improve the design of future programs; however, due to time constraints this
element was not explored. Another important KM influence not considered is the politic
dialogue and specific interests of high-level mandated bodies. This is particularly
important for all the development agencies because these organisms set the rules of the
game and the priorities for the development sector. Both knowledge produce by the
intervention beneficiaries and influence of high-level mandated bodies should be
considered for future research.
Finally, due to time constraints the information provided by the interviewees in the
different organizations could not be cross-checked with a second round of interviews. This
exercise might be particularly important to confirm the findings of this study.
1.7. STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION
This dissertation will be divided into four further chapters. Chapter two will present
an overview of the key processes and critical success factors for Knowledge Management.
These elements will serve as inputs to build a new framework that links M&E with KM.
Chapter 3, will present the process behind the creation of this new framework. Then, in
Chapter 4, the framework will be tested in the Belgian Technical Cooperation (BTC) in
order to identify its KM resources and practices. Following the same line, Chapter 5 will
present the main findings related to KM resources and practices in other development
agencies. Finally, Chapter will present the conclusions and recommendations of this study.
6
LITERATURE REVIEW CHAPTER 2.
“Knowledge is like fine wine. The researcher brews it, the scientific paper bottles
it, the peer review tastes it, the journal sticks a label on it, and archive systems store it
carefully in a cellar. Splendid! Just one small problem: wine is only useful when somebody
drinks it.”
(IDRC- CRDI, 2011: 2)
It is not the purpose of this paper to compare in depth the theories of different
knowledge models and Knowledge Management frameworks; rather I will present some
basic notions about Knowledge, Knowledge Management and its linkage with M&E
systems. Thereby, I will establish the underlying concepts that can be applied in the design
of the institutional analysis framework for Knowledge Management and later in the study
of the selected Development Agencies.
2.1. DATA, INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE
There is no general consensus on the boundaries of these terms; however, in this
study we will conceive data as raw or unedited descriptions or observations about a set of
particular and objective facts (Tiwana, 1999), and information as patterns that individuals
find or imbue in data (De Long and Fahey, 2000). In the most basic form, knowledge is
information that (1) we can write down (explicitly) and (2) what we know in our heads
(tacitly) (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). Figure 2.1., presents some of the examples and
characteristics of these two types of knowledge. In a more complex view, knowledge is a
product of human reflection, values, contextual information and experience. It originates
and is applied in the minds of ‘knowers’. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not
only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices,
language, stories, norms and tools (De Long and Fahey, 2000; Tiwana, 1999). To put it
simply, data is essential but is inadequate in producing information unless it is collected,
organized and summarized. Similarly, information is essential but it cannot produce
knowledge unless it is analyzed, combined properly and used for good judgment (decision-
making).
7
Figure 2.1. Examples of Tacit and Explicit Knowledge
Source: Jillinda et al. (2000)2
2.2. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Organizations tend to believe that having collected a lot of data means that
subsequent decisions will be good, accurate, objective, and rational. However, collecting
too much data often makes it even more difficult to make sense of it and produce
knowledge (Tiwana, 1999). Knowledge Management (KM) encompasses activities
surrounding the integration of knowledge from different sources in different forms and the
development of ways to join together both tacit and explicit knowledge3 (Latham et al.,
2011). In other words, KM is about creating, identifying, capturing, and sharing
knowledge. It is about getting “the right knowledge, in the right place, at the right time to
influence an action or a decision” (IDRC-CRDI, 2011:8). The effective management of
knowledge is being recognized as a vehicle through which organizations can address their
need for innovation and improve their business4 performance (Alavi and Leidner, 2001).
To do so, organizations need to decide on both strategic knowledge management areas and
how much effort, time and financial resources they are willing to invest (UNICEF ROSA,
2008).
2 Knowledge originates in individuals, but it is embodied in teams and organizations, as shown in
Figure 2.1. But also it is embedded in work processes, and it exists in all core functions of an
organization as well as in its systems and infrastructure (Jillinda et al., 2000) 3 The initial key to knowledge creation thus lies in mobilization and conversion of this tacit
knowledge into a form of explicit knowledge 4 Understand ‘business’ as the activities that an organization executes in order to maintain its
operations, not only to obtain revenues.
8
In the literature we can find several models, frameworks and theories that try to
explain the key elements of a robust KM system (as seen: Alavi, M. and Leidner, 2001;
Dalkir, 2005; Koenig and Srikantaih, 2007; Maciejovsky and Budescu, 2013; Marquardt,
1996; Riege and Lindsay, 2006). For this study I have chosen the Knowledge Systems
approach developed by Alavi and Leidner (2001) because it depicts organizations as social
knowledge systems in which KM consists of an interactive and continuous set of processes
and practices embedded in individuals, groups and physical structures. Knowledge
Systems (re)produce four knowledge process, creation, storage, transfer and application,
(see Figure 2.2). Understanding, each of these processes is crucial for this study because it
helps us to recognize the macro processes of any KM system and the underlying elements
to produce institutional changes.
Figure 2.2. KM Process – Spiral View
Source: Adapted by the author from Alavi and Leidner5 (2001)
2.2.1. Knowledge Creation
It involves developing new content within the organization’s tacit and explicit
knowledge. Through social and collaborative processes as well as individual’s cognitive
processes (e.g., reflection), knowledge is created, shared, improved and justified in
organizational settings. Since this process needs the interaction among different
department staff, it might be useful to consider the conditions and environment that
5 Figure 2.2. represents the KM process developed by Alavi and Leidner (2001). Personally, I
interpret this process as a spiral flow that crosses all the organization and it is interconnected with
external factors.
KNOWLEDGE STORAGE
KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
KNOWLEDGE APPLICATION
KNOWLEDGE CREATION
Individual and Collective Explicit
Knowledge
Summation of the individual and group knowledge process
Collective Practices and Culture
Individual Tacit Knowledge
Meetings, Trainings, Groupware and Communication
Technologies
9
facilitate knowledge creations (e.g., meeting spaces, dialogue rounds, collaboration
activities, cyber sharing) (Alavi and Leidner, 2001).
2.2.2. Knowledge Storage/Retrieval
Organizational Memory (OM) is a key aspect of each KM process. It includes
knowledge residing in various components forms, including written documentation,
databases, experts and staff knowledge, procedure manuals, and tacit knowledge acquire in
networks. Thus, IT plays an important role in the enhancement, sharing and expansion of
the organizational knowledge. In addition OM helps in storing and reapplying feasible
solutions in the form of standards and procedures, which in turn reduce the waste of
organizational resources when replicating previous work. However, this positive
characteristic could also have a negative influence if there is an individual decision making
bias or consistent organizational cultures that resist change (Alavi and Leidner, 2001;
IDRC, 2011).
2.2.3. Knowledge Transfer/Sharing
Knowledge transfer occurs at various levels, between individuals, from individuals
to explicit sources, from individuals to groups, between groups, across groups and from the
group to the organization. An important process of KM in the organization setting is the
transfer of knowledge to locations where it is needed and can be used. However, this is a
complex process that requires information flows and communication processes (Alavi and
Leidner, 2001; Jillinda et al., 2000).
2.2.4. Knowledge Application
The aim of the KM process is the application of the knowledge rather than the
knowledge itself. Often, KM fails to be used not because it has not been understood but
because the knowledge worker is not convinced that this new best practice or that the
lesson learned represents any significant improvement over the way he or she is already
working (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; EIGE, 2011). Hence, the KM strategy is the pivotal
factor in achieving an effective KM. The KM strategy looks to strengthen the KM flow of
the organization, not only by avoiding the technocratic replication of the best practices
without reflection but also by improving procedures, reacting to changes (needs) and
connecting individuals to groups of action (IDRC, 2011).
Traditionally the implementation of KM was regarded as a technical exercise. It is
only in recent years that practitioners have begun to focus their attention on the softer
10
issues such as capacity building and organizational networks for an effective KM
implementation (IDRC and CRDI, 2011; Mertins et al., 2003). Consequently,
organizations have begun searching for better management practices to achieve this. This
has led to the concept of an initiative called Knowledge Management strategy.
2.3. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.”
Benjamin Franklin
Developing a KM strategy is not an easy task because it involves understanding
how people with different backgrounds create, share and disseminate their knowledge
(Tiwana, 1999). There is not a universal rule or successful strategy that fits to all the
organizations. Rather, it is a complex and thoughtful exercise that requires the analysis of
the organization’s own assets, needs, mandate, values, mission, and goals (Alavi and
Leidner, 2001; IDRC and CRDI, 2011). The main goal of any KM strategy is to transform
information into knowledge which involves making comparisons, thinking about
consequences and connections, and engaging in conversations with others (IDRC, 2011).
The starting points are the following self-assessment questions:
- Where are we now? What type of knowledge do we produce? Do we store this
knowledge? What outputs have we created? How do we use this knowledge? How do
we share this knowledge? How do we currently manage our knowledge? How do our
organization’s culture and systems either serve or hinder sound KM practices?
- Where do we want to be? In five years’ time, how will a sound KM strategy change
our organization? How will we know when we have a sound KM system? How will we
measure the value of our efforts?
- How do we get there? What specific tools and practices will we use? How will we
motivate people to change their practices?
By reflecting on these questions, we can understand the organization’s current KM
position and harvest some building blocks for a future KM strategy. Yet, this is only the
first step to initiate the identification and understanding of the KM elements present in the
organization. Given the importance of KM objectives and their high failure rate,
understanding the underlying success factors is critical. Thus, the next section is dedicated
11
to exploring those factors and specifying some important components to consider in the
case study.
2.3.5. Budgeting for KM
Designing a KM strategy depends on the resources (human, financial,
technological) and the type of knowledge we want to capture and share. Adequate finance
and good financial management practice are required for the day-to-day implementation of
KM policies. A budget charts the course of future action for knowledge management
activities (Ifijeh, 2011; Marks, 2004). Hence, it is important to consider the following
features of a good budget plan for Knowledge Management:
1. A financial plan should contain programs or projects for managing knowledge.
2. A fixed period, which is usually one year.
3. Estimated incomes and expenditure of KM personal, materials and equipment.
4. An authority that collects and incurs expenditure once it is approved.
5. Inclusion of all the financial activities around knowledge management in the given
organization.
When all costs and benefits can be determined, or at least estimated with a fair
degree of confidence, the calculation of ROI6 for a knowledge management system is no
different than the calculation of ROI for any project that a company undertakes (Marks,
2004). Many firms fail in knowledge management endeavors, because they are unwilling
to invest time in developing the knowledge when they do not know how to measure the
benefits (Marks, 2004).
2.3.6. Processes and Subsystems
A successful KM strategy requires changes in the organization’s culture and
behavior. At the heart of this change, we should recognize the centrality of processes and
how the organization must improve its means for creating, capturing, sharing and using
information (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; IDRC, 2011). These activities are captured in the
KM macro processes presented in the last section. But at the same time these macro
processes foster sub-systems that (re)produce knowledge. Data collection, data analysis,
adjustment of operational interventions (or organizational culture), M&E systems and
6 Return on investment (ROI) is the concept of an investment of some resource yielding a benefit
to the investor. As a performance measure, it is used to evaluate the efficiency of an investment or
to compare the efficiency of a number of different investments. In purely economic terms, it is one
way of considering profits in relation to capital invested. (Investopedia)
12
integral communication7 are crucial sub-systems not only to increase the business
performance, but also to act as tools for accountability at different levels.
M&E subsystem for KM. M&E systems are a key critical factor, which determines
the success or failure of a KM implementation and use. During many years, scholars have
highlighted the importance of M&E systems as a learning tool; not only for project designs
but also to improve the organizational performance. (Bedi et al., 2006; Kusek, 2004;
Simister and Smith, 2010). Generally-speaking, M&E sub-systems are focused on tracking
project activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts. At the initial stages, M&E are often
oriented towards stakeholder reporting and financial control. However a good M&E should
be more comprehensive than this, and should facilitate learning while monitoring and
evaluating projects8 (Kusek, 2004).
Defining M&E as a subset of KM and learning (and not the other way around) is a
novel construct (UNICEF ROSA, 2008). At best we can find some embryonic literature
that directly links M&E systems objectives and products with KM. However, from the
literature about M&E systems and KM, we can infer that: (1) M&E for KM should foster
the participation of project stakeholders in the design of the system and the processes for
data collection and analysis. This active participation builds local ownership and capacity
and ensures that the system is grounded in reality (Mackay, 2007). (2) M&E for KM will
not be effective without a set of managerial practices that creates a supportive
organizational culture for information sharing, learning and performance driven decision
making9. Figure 2.3., presents some managerial practices that should be taken into account
when linking M&E systems with KM strategy. (3) KM would also be ineffective without
high quality, broad based flows of data and information that provide contextualized
evidence for decisions and improve the organizational performance (Kusek, 2004; Mackay,
2007; Mertins et al., 2003). (4) Setting up M&E systems based only on easily measurable
7 Integral communication is a holistic, multidimensional exchange. Integral communicators use
inclusive approaches and language that evolve out of a clear understanding of their audience, so
gaining that understanding is a first priority. 8 For this study, the design and implementation of a KM strategy should be seen as an institutional
project. By doing this, we can build a direct link between M&E systems and KM. 9 M&E for KM should consist of a performance measurement system (i.e. on activities, outputs,
outcomes, quality), adapted financial management cycles (budgeting, accounting, auditing,
reviewing and evaluating), reporting mechanisms and status of performance information (degree of
public availability, annual reports, budgets reports, corporate plans) mechanisms to use
performance information (performance budgeting and performance-related pay), and results-
oriented management support techniques (risk management, benchmarking and contestability)
(Mertins et al., 2003; OECD, 1997)
13
IDEAS & ATTITUDES
Shared Values & Principles
Opinion Culture
Collective Identity (group and organizational)
Shared Vision and Aspirations (i.e., image of desired future and future achievement)
Common Language (terminology, concepts, body language such as gestures, symbols)
Shared Assumptions, Core Beliefs, and Mindsets (ideology/world view/philosophies,
classification schemes, identify blind-spots, habits of thinking,)
Group Bonds of Trust (social capital)
Common Knowledge (shared semantic understanding and how-to)
Workplace Lore (oral histories, insider jokes, open secrets)
BEHAVIORS
Social Regulation (informal rules of the game)
Observance of the Past (failures, best practices, organization memory)
Informal Group Routines and Habits (including embedded skills, meetings, procedures)
Group Dynamics (informal group boundaries, elites, alliances, informal roles, social and
group status)
OBJECT ORIENTATIONS
Atmosphere created by Physical Work Environment
Create opportunities to build knowledge that can be disseminated widely to build capacity of
a wide range of stakeholders engaged in adaptation beyond the scope of the project.
MasterM&E SUBSYSTEM FOR KM
Management of information in all media and forms as a strategic organizational resource.
A M&E subsystem designed to meet information needs of project and all stakeholders.
Tracking of both intended and unintended impacts of project activities.
An appropriate level of rigor in methods (sampling, data collection, analysis, etc.).
Processes that enable different groups to feel safe and say what they really think.
Build
Promote
quantitative indicators has perhaps been one of the key reasons for the failure of M&E
systems to be operationalized or to contribute useful information for the management of
development initiatives. Quantitative indicators can often tell what is happening, but fail
to answer the question ‘why?’ The ‘why’ question is fundamental if appropriate
improvements are to be identified and implemented. To understand why certain changes
are and are not occurring requires a level of critical analysis that depends upon qualitative
information and well facilitated dialogue (Woodhill, 2005).
Figure 2.3. Managerial Components to Link M&E systems with KM strategy
Source: the Author based on Kusek (2004) and Stoyko (2009)
To sum up, M&E for KM is the collection of processes and management tools that
organizations should use to gather, analyze and channel information (tacit and explicit
information) into its decision making cycle. This means developing an organizational
culture or operating an environment that supports the codification of different types of
knowledge for others to use to make better decisions based on best practices, lessons
learned and opportunities.
14
2.3.7. Technology
First, a solid KM strategy should be supported by technology. Without a solid IT
infrastructure, an organization cannot optimally enable its employees to share and expand
knowledge (Koenig and Srikantaih, 2007; Ortakaya, 2007). The availability of an
organization’s web page, emails, intranet, archives, libraries, statistics software, and
document management are proving to be very useful in certain areas (see Figure 2.3., for
more IT tools). However, many important problems still exist even with high tech tools.
Therefore, the main aim of any IT for KM should be to provide opportunities for learning,
communicating and the storage of information in a useful way.
Figure 2.3. IT tools for KM
Source: Adapted by the author from Ortakaya (2007)
Web Pages for KM. Currently, one of the most basic IT tools in any organization
are web pages. According to Milton et al. (1999) websites are a tool for KM when they
include a logical web structure that eases the navigation and aids the effective knowledge
transfer to the reader. The design should accommodate many different needs (the web will
be used by both experts and novices) and states clearly the mission, vision or at least the
objectives of the organization. Therefore, websites must support multiple viewpoints;
usually a process viewpoint, an outcome viewpoint and a project viewpoint. This can be
achieved by multiple navigation routes through the site, and a careful structuring of the text
on each page. For instance, each main activity of the organization should be described on a
separate page and each of those ‘activity pages’ will conform to a standard structure:
publications promoted by the organization; process manuals; linkages with other internal
15
and external online resources, and so on (Johnson, 2011). In other words, designers should
bear in mind that the organization website will become a guide for employees to explore
documents, past experiences and history of the organization. It will also serve as a
reference source for stakeholders, but most importantly it will serve as a powerful
mechanism for accountability and transparency.
To summarize, we can state that the best way of applying IT to KM is usually
through the combination of two factors: (1) the awareness of the limits of information
technology, and of the fact that any IT deployment will not achieve much, if it is not
accompanied by a sustainable cultural change toward knowledge values; and (2) IT should
be expressly designed with a KM vision; mainly facilitating the search, connecting people
and expanding knowledge10
(Borghoff and Pareschi, 1997; Ortakaya, 2007). IT tools are
just a part of the story, organizational culture and practices are equally relevant. It follows
that IT should be implemented with the objective to promote KM, not only from the
perspective of knowledge storage.
2.3.8. People
Until now, we have seen that processes, budgets and technology are critical factors
for a KM strategy. However, the main engine of any KM strategy is the organization’s
staff. People need to be recognized as the core element for KM success. The staff holds
substantial amounts of information and expertise as well as promoting sustainable changes.
Therefore, they need to be encouraged to share it in order to (1) increase the performance
of the business and (2) avoid that they keep strategic information/knowledge for
themselves when they leave the organization (Maciejovsky and Budescu, 2013; Latham et
al., 2011).
Any KM strategy should guarantee that project staff, administrative personnel and
partners understand the importance of good information and knowledge management
practices. It should clearly assign roles and responsibilities for information and knowledge
management processes and activities at appropriate levels. Finally, a KM strategy should
promote spaces and opportunities for cross-learning and reflection on adaptation among
staff, participants and partners, to convert information to knowledge (Stoyko, 2009).
10
Technology should be available to support knowledge sharing and keep the organizational
memory adequately stored, but this does not mean that people will automatically give it up (IDRC,
2011; IDRC and CRDI, 2011). According to Scarbrough et al. (1999) KM does not equal
technology and installing Information Technology (IT) does not equal implementing KM.
16
Knowledge Administrators. In any form of KM, it is important to consider the
presence of a Knowledge Administrator or at least someone of the staff who is responsible
to identify the organization’s explicit and tacit knowledge and, after interpreting the
valuable information, makes it explicit to help knowledge participants (key users). Besides,
Knowledge Administrators combine internal and external knowledge (knowledge taken
from outside the organization’s resources) to create a successful combination of
information helping the organization to make improved decisions and increase the
performance (Desai, 2011). Thereby, the role will demand and monitor the knowledge
sharing, track progress, budgets, workloads, and schedules of KM activities as well as
recognizing the shortcomings of the KM strategy (Koenig and Srikantaih, 2007; Tiwana,
1999). Along with a KM champion a steering committee is also important. The
involvement of top stakeholders will provide guidance, direction and support to the KM
strategy.
KM Team. Having the best KM strategy still does not guarantee a successful
management of knowledge. Success comes from KM strategy implementation and cultural
embodiment by both knowledge workers and employees who will ultimately use it. This
relationship is complex and often highly problematic. For that reason, selecting the right
combination of team members to lead the knowledge management project is a critical step
(Tiwana, 1999). There is not a specific formula to build a KM; however, some of the
following characteristics should be considered (IDRC and CRDI, 2011; Tiwana, 1999):
- KM team members must be drawn from different functional areas and departments
of the organization. Yet, an external consultant should be considered for feedback.
- They should have different areas of specialization and backgrounds.
- They must have had sufficient experience within the organization.
- They must have the required competencies that truly represent the concerns of the
department or the functional area that he/she represents.
- They should have the appropriate time to work and promote KM initiatives in
his/her department.
- They must believe that KM is important for the organization and must have a clear
vision of what improved knowledge flows can and should do for his/her
department.
17
Depending on the size of the organization, a KM team will be usually composed by
a Knowledge Administrator/Leader and representatives of the Communication, Finance,
Human Resources, IT, and M&E departments. Without taking into account the role that
people play in generating and sharing knowledge, KM strategies are likely to fail.
Therefore, it is important to explore the humans behind the organizations and programs;
how their knowledge and skills could be exploited to reproduce robust KM and M&E
systems as well as identify what matters to measure and disseminate.
Figure 2.4. Knowledge Management Pillars
Source: Adapted by the author from Koenig and Srikantaih, (2007)
and IDRC (2011)
Chapter 2 was dedicated to identifying and explaining the critical factors for KM.
Analyzing different models helped me to construct a holistic view about KM elements.
Also, the literature review provided me tools to conduct a more in depth analysis.
Although, this chapter might seem extended (there are more than 3 million of resources
related to this topic), in my view, it was important to amalgamate different elements of KM
before starting the fieldwork. Having clarity about key KM elements and how they
interact provides the first building block to initiate the analysis of the BTC’s KM
performance and the identification of KM sub-systems. In brief conclusion, this chapter
The KM Strategy: Legs, Flows, Process
PEOPLE(Organizational culture, behaivours, skills)
PROCESS(Km Macro process and
subsystems)
TECHNOLOGY(IT Tools)
Budgeting(Resources)
18
has identified processes, budget, technology and people11
as the main pillars to implement
KM in any organization (Figure 2.4.). Hence, a KM strategy must integrate these three
factors in order to create an effective information flow that promotes organizational
changes and leads to the improvement of the business performance.
11
As is highlighted in Figure 2.4., people and their behaviors are one of the principal KM strategy
legs. For example, Westerners tend to inculcate individualism and choice, while East Asians are
oriented toward group relations and obligations. “The individualistic or independent nature of
Western society seems consistent with the Western focus on particular objects in isolation from
their context, and with Westerners’ belief that they can know the rules governing objects, and
therefore, can control the objects’ behavior. By contrast, the collective or interdependent nature of
Asian society is consistent with Asians’ broad, contextual view of the world, and their belief that
events are highly complex and determined by many factors” (Nisbett in the WBI, 2007: 64).
Therefore, we do not have to assume that all people reason and think the same way, the cultural
context do matter.
19
THE RESEARCH FRAMEWORK CHAPTER 3.
In order to conduct an institutional analysis, one needs to know what institutions
are, how and why they are crafted and sustained, and what consequences they generate in
diverse settings. This exercise is a continuous challenge because it requires researchers
know enough about the structure of a situation and select the appropriate assumptions
about human behavior that fit the type of situation under analysis (Ostrom, 2005).
Understanding anything is a process of learning: what it does, how and why it
works, how to create or modify it, and eventually how to convey that knowledge to others.
Thus, institutional analyses are relevant not only to identify institutional weaknesses and
strengths but also to learn how institutions affect the incentives confronting individuals and
their resultant behavior. However, trying to develop a framework that captures the
complexity and interaction of all the elements involved in KM falls beyond the scope of
this research. Power relations, individual’s agency, country culture, habits, and knowledge
sharing dilemmas12
are some of the underlying layers that directly affect any KM structure.
However, analyzing these root causes behind the inadequate functioning or the low
performance of any Knowledge System is the next step for a future research. In this paper,
I will focus on the visible layers of KM. Those factors that can be straightforwardly
identified and compare among the selected development agencies. Hence, I have
developed a descriptive framework that will provide the guidelines to identify classes of
knowledge resources, basic activities for manipulating them, and factors influencing KM
processes.
3.1. INSTITUTIONAL AND KM FRAMEWORK BRICOLAGE
In the absence of a comprehensive framework that links M&E systems directly
with KM, I decided to conduct a comparative analysis of some frameworks that consider
institutional arrangements and processes as core factors for KM. However, most of these
frameworks do not consider M&E systems as potential organizational drivers of change.
Hence, I decided to take one of the most prominent institutional analysis frameworks
12
The most common knowledge sharing dilemma is opportunism. This deceitful behavior intended
to improve one’s own welfare at the expense of others may take many forms, from inconsequential,
perhaps unconscious, shirking to a carefully calculated effort to defraud others with whom one is
engaged in ongoing relationships (Ostrom, 2011).
20
(IAD) and combine it with a solid KM framework (KM threefold framework) which
considers People, Processes and Technology as critical factors of success.
The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework is a diagnostic tool
that can be used to investigate any broad subject where humans repeatedly interact within
rules and norms that guide their choice of strategies and behaviors (Hess and Ostrom,
2005), see Figure 3.1. This framework allows us to analyze dynamic situations where
individuals develop new norms, new rules, and new physical technologies to cope with
new situations. It also permits to identify the broader community of information producers
and users.
Figure 3.1. Institutional Analysis and Development Framework
Source: Hess and Ostrom (2005)
From the IAD framework, I select the Physical Characteristics and the Rules-in-
Use to try to understand the nature of the knowledge resources being shared. By looking at
the physical constraints, and the relevant rules-in-use, we can have a first picture of the
KM elements in place in the organization. The other element considered as relevant is the
Action Arena which will be at the heart of the analysis. The analysis of the Action Arena is
Physical Characteristics =
IdeasArtifactsFacilities
Attributes of the Community =
UsersProviders
Policy Makers
Rules-in-Use =Constitutional
ManagerialOperational
ACTION ARENA
Action Situations
Actors
Patterns of Interactions
Outcomes
Evaluative Criteria
21
particularly useful when (1) analyzing specific problems or processes for institutional
change and/or (2) detecting the challenges in aligning resources to achieving a goal.
Although the IAD framework is academically relevant, it was not specifically
designed to analyze KM elements. For this reason, I decided to use the KM Three Fold
framework developed by Holsapple and Joshi (2002). This KM framework provides a
complementary vision for the IAD framework by distinguishing three components:
knowledge resources, knowledge manipulation activities and the influences that impact the
organization’s KM. These components will allow us to (1) analyze the influence of the
participants’ knowledge in the KM activities; (2) identify the KM processes and (3)
explore the external and internal influences that might affect any KM practice. Figure 3.2.,
presents the Three Fold framework which have been already tested and validated by
Holsapple and Joshi (2011) through surveys and interviews with 112 research practitioners
organization officers.
Figure 3.2. KM Three Fold Framework
Source: Holsapple and Joshi (2002)
22
3.2. M&E FOR KM FRAMEWORK
M&E for KM is the result of a combination of the IAD and the KM Three Fold
frameworks. It consists of three layers of analysis. Each layer contains KM elements that
influence the performance of the whole KM system. In other words, each layer represents a
space where People, Processes and Technology interact with different purposes and scopes
in the (re)production of knowledge activities.
The first layer is the Action Arena component. It is in this layer that knowledge
manipulation activities take place. These are elementary processes that an organization
performs to transform and use its knowledge resources. The second layer is the knowledge
resources component. This represents the organization’s reservoir of knowledge. Tacit and
explicit knowledge is embedded in usable representations (e.g., participants’ knowledge,
physical characteristics, rules-in-use, and culture) that influence the actors and situations in
the Action Arena. These representations draw distinctions between data, information and
knowledge and lead to identify some critical KM elements to create an enabling
environment for learning. The Action Arena and the Knowledge Resources components
are directly shaped by the people, the technology and the processes inside the organization.
These three elements are the main pillars of any KM system and constitute crucial drivers
of change. The third layer is the KM influences component. The study of influences can
help to detect factors that when left untreated can lead to malfunction of the organizational
processes and damage the overall performance. Figure 3.3., shows the three layers and the
elements considered in each component. As Ostrom and Holsapple and Joshi’s
frameworks, M&E for KM does not have a specific order to analyze these three layers. The
order of analysis will depend on the research needs of the KM practitioners. Since each
organization is different, the researcher should focus his/her analysis on that layer that
presents more challenges for the organization. This layer can be recognized through
interviews with knowledge producers and users or senior managers.
The importance of M&E systems has been highlighted in each layer. In the Action
Arena, M&E acts as a mechanism of knowledge creation and storage through reports and
evaluations. In the Knowledge Resource Component, M&E is seen as part of the rules-in-
use. The main focus in this layer is to understand how M&E is mainstreamed in the day-to-
day activities of the organization. At the KM influences component, the E (evaluation) of
M&E is seen as the metric and mechanism that show how the information of past
experiences is being used to influence the KM process.
23
Figure 3.3. M&E for KM Framework
Source: The author
1. Action Arena component → Identifying and explaining the activities involved in
manipulating the knowledge resources.
2. Knowledge Resources component →Characterizing knowledge resources that need
to be managed or aligned to promote an enabling environment for learning.
3. KM Influences component → Recognizing factors that influence the conduct of
knowledge management system.
Each of the elements presented in bullets in Figure 3.3., will be theoretically
explained and then applied to BTC’s institutional analysis in Chapter 4. This should help to
the reader to associate the theoretical concepts with the field application. However, the
reader should bear in mind that the framework created by the author only represents a
starting point for gaining a deeper understanding of some important KM elements and their
influence on the organization’s performance. However, the interactions and impact of these
Managerial Influences• Coordination• Leadership• M&E: E for KM
Resources Influences• Budgeting for KM• Human Resources
Environmental Influences• Governmental • Political• Competitors
External Knowledge Sources• Networks• Seminars and academia
Action Arena: Actors +
Situations• Knowledge Creation• Selecting /Storage
Knowledge• Knowledge Transfer
• Knowledge Application
PROCESSES
PEOPLE TECHNOLOGY
Rules-in-use• Strategy•M&E systems• Incentives and Time
Participants' Knowledge•Management Skills• KM Team
Physical Characteristics• Physical environment• Artifacts and facilities• Web page
Culture• Purpose, values, norms• Initiatives or ideas
M&E
M&E
M&E
24
KM elements between each other and with other systems (e.g., finance, human resources,
logistics, operations) will not be analyzed due to time constraints.
3.2.1. Validity Issues
In the words of Shadish et al. (2001), the design choices for any new framework or
approach have multiple consequences for validity; we cannot always anticipate all of them
because every solution to a problem tends to create new problems. In this study, validity is
related to the degree to which the developed framework demonstrates M&E and KM
reality. Validating these two notions is quite challenging because they try to capture
subjective elements: knowledge use and cross-organizational M&E implementation.
Furthermore, these elements are influenced by a range of factors that are hard to control,
such as international pressure, socioeconomic phenomena and personal interests.
Aside from the factors mentioned above, it was my purpose that the framework
captures the interaction between M&E and KM. As claimed by Subrahmanian (2006),
creativity is necessary to interlink pathways that may help to establish cause-effect
relationships. Hence, my principal concern, at this creative stage, was to enhance the
construct validity (understanding constructs and assessing them). Consequently, I tried to
cover as many papers about M&E and KM as possible. Understanding the evolution of
these two social constructs, and the processes and actors behind their implementation
helped me to select and classify the elements in each layer. Then, analyzing the critical
factors of success of KM guided me to discover which elements of the KM process could
help to tackle the KM challenges (selection of instances).
Finally, in line with the objectives of this paper, I developed interview questions
that connect knowledge creation with the operational side of M&E (matching constructs),
see Appendix 2 for the interview guides. Yet, I acknowledge that this work is exploratory
in nature and it was not possible to consider all the elements at the operational level,
especially those related to knowledge and information produced by beneficiaries of the
intervention. This is an important element that should be taken into account in a future
study. I decided to rather focus on those elements that came to the forefront in the literature
review, and that more specifically stressed that M&E and KM performance are directly
embedded in institutional arrangements and will be reflected in the design and outcomes of
the programs.
25
M&E FOR KM: TESTING THE CHAPTER 4.FRAMEWORK AT BTC
“BTC is a rich organization, we have a lot of intelligent people who have different
personalities and visions; they fight for their argumentations and ideas. This makes a
challenge to work together, but this is also a strength, a sign of the organization’s vitality”
BTC OPS Officer
The Belgian Technical Cooperation (BTC) was founded in 1999 with the vision to
provide aid for development and technical assistance on behalf of the Government of
Belgium. BTC aims to achieve sustainable human development by fighting poverty and
strengthening democracy and the constitutional state. Currently, BTC executes direct
bilateral cooperation with 18 partner countries. The main action areas are: Education,
Health, Agriculture, Water and Sanitation and Governance. Its interventions are mainly
financed by the Belgian state, and in some cases by other donors (countries or
organizations). Currently, there are about 200 ongoing interventions in Africa, Asia and
South America. BTC has 17 country offices which support the implementation of these
interventions. This study, however, will focus on the analysis of the institutional
arrangements at BTC’s Headquarters (HQ), located in Brussels.
For the purpose of this research, key actors in the departments that produce and use
information related to BTC’s core business were identified. These departments are
Operations (OPS), Sectoral and Thematic Expertise (EST), Organizational Development
(DO), Communication and ICT. An interview synthesis with the most relevant points and
findings can be found in Appendix 3. It is important to highlight that the M&E department
is part of DO, and it was the subdivision which supported me the most with information
and guidelines for this research.
4.1. THE ACTION ARENA COMPONENT
The Action Arena consists of participants making decisions within a situation
affected by external (KM influences component) and internal (Knowledge resources
component) factors that will then result in varying interactions and outcomes (Hess and
Ostrom, 2005). In this section, I will analyze the essential knowledge processes (creation,
storage, transfer/sharing and application) for the BTC, see Figure 4.1. In the Action Arena,
these processes interact with each other in a spiral flow that, if well manipulated can lead
to (re)produce a learning organization. The manipulation of these KM processes depends
26
on the participants’ knowledge manipulation skills13
, on how these participants’ skills are
deployed by a variety of factors, such as culture, incentives, strategy, available artifacts,
financial resources and the expected roles of the participants themselves.
Figure 4.1. The Action Arena Component
4.1.1. Knowledge Creation
The knowledge of an organization can be divided into (1) explicit knowledge which
is already expressed and codified in documentary forms, and (2) tacit, implicit or diffuse
knowledge including unwritten knowledge and know-how transmitted by words and
embedded in the officers’ mind. Thus, the process of knowledge creation involves
developing new content14
within the organization’s tacit and explicit knowledge. This new
knowledge is created and justified in organizational settings through social and
collaborative processes such as meeting spaces, dialogue rounds, collaboration activities,
cyber sharing, conferences, and individual’s cognitive processes such as reflection and
experimentation.
During the interviews, I was able to identify sources of explicit knowledge. Most of
the BTC officers agreed that intervention design documents (called Technical and
Financial Files (TFF), M&E reports, Backstopping Missions15
and Capitalization are the
main mechanisms that capture the creation of new knowledge into explicit sources.
13
Knowledge manipulation skills refers to the ability to apply one’s knowledge effectively and
readily to execution and performance (Holsapple and Joshi, 2011) 14
The creation of new content involves creating, developing, analyzing, constructing, synthesizing,
refining, and/or assembling knowledge from existing knowledge. 15
Backstopping missions consist of one or more experts who participate at the formulation stage or
have the expertise to analyze programs and later go to the field in order to monitor the progress of
the intervention (BTC, 2013).
Action Arena: Actors +
Situations• Knowledge Creation• Selecting /Storage
Knowledge• Knowledge Transfer
• Knowledge Application
M&E
27
Meanwhile, tacit knowledge is mainly created in informal meetings, conversations, formal
work meetings, emails and interaction with academia experts. Table 4.1., presents an
overview of the principal knowledge creation mechanisms as well as a summary of some
of the officers’ main comments about these artifacts and knowledge interchange spaces.
Table 4.1. BTC Knowledge Creation Mechanisms Identified in the Interviews
Knowledge
creation
mechanisms
Officers’ comments/Principal Findings
Explicit Knowledge
Intervention
Documents
The intervention TFFs is one of the most important artifacts where the terms of
reference, strategic orientation, resources and implementation modalities are
systematically captured. In order to produce these crucial guidelines, experienced staff
uses their own knowledge, gets in touch with colleagues, looks for other intervention
documents and reflects on the strategies to achieve the desired results. The creation of
the initial intervention documents is a demanding practice in which cross-department
actors should interact, reflect and learn. However, the majority of the officers pointed
out that due to their workload this exercise rarely conducted in a methodical manner.
Thus, communication flows and cross-departmental interaction should be reinforced
and considered as an important practice.
M&E reports
MoRe Results is BTC’s monitoring and evaluation system. This system produces
valuable intervention reports, at different stages. All BTC programs are monitored by
the intervention teams who are also in charge of producing the final evaluation report. I
will explore this point in greater detail in the next section, due to the importance of the
system.
Evaluation
Management
Response
system
Once a final results monitoring is completed and checked by the OPS department, the
recommendations and lessons produced by the intervention team are discussed in a
Steering Committee (SC). The commitments to improve the intervention performance
are recorded in SC minutes that will serve as a follow up document. This exercise is
expected to become an important learning practice, where staff reflects on what works,
what does not, and why. However, BTC officers state that it is necessary an IT tool that
assists them to follow up the commitments agreed in these SC meetings. They also
pointed out that currently the lessons learned are barely the main focus of this exercise.
Backstopping
Missions
This practice is seen as an important space where staff from the HQ interacts with field
staff and beneficiaries. Backstopping missions allow creating knowledge based on
technical experience and field performance. Although this practice is institutionalized,
due to resource and time constraints, these missions are not conducted for all the
interventions. Moreover, the knowledge acquired during the visits is not formally
transmitted to other HQ officers.
Table continues…
28
Capitalization
Program
This is a new KM initiative. The aim is to analyze a number of interventions and
reflect on lessons or stories that can be capitalized upon to trigger the learning
process. Most of the officers have expectations about the results of this initiative
because they will have access to well synthesized stories and lessons learned, and not
only to information in a pre-established format (M&E reports). However, this
program has still some gaps with respect to the scope, type of information and
resources that will be selected and used. It was highlighted that the quality of the
capitalization documents should be improved. Moreover, there should be a more
reflective process to define those who are responsible, the audience, the use and the
artifacts (e.g., paper, videos, podcasts) to be produced. Without a clear horizon the
risk is that this initiative will produce information that is not well tailored and in non-
attractive formats that will not be used by the staff or other stakeholders.
Tacit Knowledge
Meetings
All officers agreed that there are a lot of informal meetings where they interact and
learn from other colleagues. However, the knowledge transferred in these informal
interactions often do not cross department barriers Moreover, there is no a formal
space where people from different departments can take time to reflect about future
needs or problems, where they can present the work they are doing, think about how
to improve BTC aid effectiveness or just share new experiences.. Most of the officers
agreed that it is important to have a specific weekly or monthly meeting to produce
knowledge, learn from other colleagues, and share the problems they are facing.
External Spaces
for acquiring
knowledge
Learning from scientific seminars, development conferences and practices from other
agencies is perceived as an important exercise to keep individual and organizational
knowledge updated. However, this is not an institutionalized practice and it currently
depends on the initiatives taken by each staff member to build networks or find
spaces/platforms for learning. There should be incentives or mechanisms provided by
BTC to train and keep the staff updated with new practices, techniques or
methodologies. The importance of learning from external sources was mentioned as
KM element that needs to be improved.
MoRe Results as a knowledge creation mechanism. In this sub-section, I will
focus specifically on how the artifacts16
produced by M&E systems are being created and
used to promote the spiral knowledge process. There are three different reports produce by
the intervention teams which are directly linked with KM: Baselines, Results Monitoring
and Final Monitoring (see Figure 4.2.). Each report has a specific function and help to
build a systematic evaluation report. M&E reports are created in formal meetings where
the intervention teams reflect on the performance, problems, solutions and outcomes of the
programs. In order to draft the final monitoring report, the intervention team should think
about lessons learned, success and failure factors17
. This exercise, if well managed, can be
seen as an important learning catalyzer not only for the intervention team but also for HQ
staff.
16
Artifacts: one of many kinds of tangible byproducts produced during any stage of KM cycle.
They are means to capture tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge (Holsapple and Joshi, 2011) 17
Interview with M&E junior officer, 3 July 2013
29
Figure 4.2. MoRe Results Reports
Source: BTC (2013a)
Although, the implementation of this M&E system could be considered as a new
process, the progress made was rated as good by the majority of interviewees. Most of
them acknowledged that the M&E reports can be a valuable source of information when
formulating new interventions or collecting information about interventions and
country/sectors contexts. Moreover, this system is seen as an enabler to transform tacit
knowledge into artifacts (e.g,. reports and reviews) and to disciple officers to communicate
results18
. However, not all of BTC staff recognized MoRe Results as a potential KM tool.
There are reports that lack basic quality standards, these hampers the credibility of the
results. Furthermore, strategic evaluations such as sectoral or country evaluations are not
being produced19
, although they are considered in the design of the MoRe Results system
(see Figure 4.7.). Strategic evaluations represent a significant knowledge gap; BTC officers
did express the urgent need to produce this information. However, the limited M&E
personnel (only two M&E officers) might be one of the main limiting factors. From these
problems we can deduce that MoRe Results still needs a capacity building process to be
reinforced and improved, as well as more resources to create strategic M&E reports.
4.1.2. Selecting and Storing Knowledge
Once the information is created and codified into artifacts (e.g., reports), it is time
to enclose it in knowledge repositories. Databases are knowledge repository tools that form
18
Interview with Communication senior officer, 8 August 2013 19
Interview with OPS senior officer, 4 July 2013
30
the basis of the organizational memory; well managed, they can retrieve vast quantities of
business intelligence and store previous intervention information which can be used to
form the basis for future predictions or intervention designs. Thus, IT plays an important
role in the enhancement, sharing and expansion of organizational knowledge. These
technologies should contribute to the effective codification, storage and classification of
knowledge while also focusing on other important KM aspects such as the quality,
quantity, accessibility and selection of the information being stored.
BTC officers acknowledged that currently IT tools are one of the weakest points at
the organization. Their database does not allow conducting a smart search of artifacts and
it is a time-consuming task. Officers often require the help of other colleagues to find the
information they are looking for. The person currently in charge of the ICT department
pointed out that BTC’s IT tools do not help to learn, produce feedback, or assist the
organization’s management. With or without IT tools, BTC still has to face a key KM
problem, i.e., the deficiency of synthesis and processed information20
. Most of the officers
agreed that there is a substantial production of information. However, there is an
embryonic culture of synthesis and thinking ahead about information priorities and needs.
Selecting the information to produce and proceed is a key element to boost the quality of
artifacts and improve KM performance. Not all the information produced is strategic to
BTC’s core business. Some of the officers stressed the need for a strategy or spaces where
BTC staff can select information priorities, reflect on how this information will be used
and decide which format is the most preferred2122
. Without this prior reflection exercise the
storage of information would hardly become a strategic tool.
4.1.3. Knowledge Transfer – Knowledge Sharing23
Knowledge sharing is the methodical replication of the expertise, wisdom, and tacit
knowledge of key participants into the heads and hands of their coworkers. It is a
fundamental part of KM because it is the process that distributes and makes knowledge
accessible and usable within the organization (Tiwana, 1999). It includes both (1) explicit
knowledge, such as steps in processes that might appear in a written procedure and
documents of previous interventions; plus (2) tacit knowledge such as what to look for,
20
Interview with M&E expert officer, 3 July 2013 21
Interview with OPS expert related to the Capitalization program, 4 July 2013 22
Interview with OPS senior officer, 4 July 2013 23
Within the frame of reference, both knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer are used and
discussed interchangeably.
31
who to contact, when to ask for help or field expertise. Knowledge transfer occurs at
various levels, between individuals, from individuals to explicit sources, from individuals
to groups, between groups, across groups and from the group to the organization. Thus, it
requires solid information flows and explicit communication processes (Alavi and Leidner,
2001; Jillinda et al., 2000).
Identifying the major knowledge sharing mechanisms at BTC was a challenge. Not
only because all the information flows and spaces to interchange ideas and information
cannot be identified in a single round of interviews, but also because often the same
officers are not aware of all the knowledge sharing processes that they perform on a daily
basis. Table 4.2., provides an overview of important knowledge sharing mechanisms24
that
were mentioned by at least two officers.
Table 4.2. BTC Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms Identified in the Interviews
Knowledge Sharing
Mechanisms Officer Comments/ Principal Comments
Database
Feeding BTC databases is an explicit knowledge sharing process in which staff
contributes their ideas, information, and expertise in a database through digital
artifacts (e.g. M&E reports, processes, guidelines, formats, blogs). However, as I
pointed out in section 4.1.2., these databases still need to be made more user
friendly to become support tools for BTC’s KM.
Country Teams
This is one of the most important formal knowledge sharing mechanism in which
staff from different departments interacts and learns. Yet, country teams still need
to work more as a real KM team. I will discuss this problem in detail in section
4.2.1 (Participants’ Knowledge - KM Teams)
Backstopping
Missions
This formal mechanism is the space where staff from HQ interacts with field staff.
When more than two officers go to these missions, there is an opportunity for
mentoring practices and peer to peer exchange. Nonetheless, this practice is not
performed in a systematic manner and lessons learned are being missed. I will
discuss this problem in greater detail in section 4.2.1 (Participants’ Knowledge -
KM Teams)
Informal Interactions
Informal interactions were identified as an important knowledge exchange
mechanism. Conversations, meetings, intranet comments, and email exchange are
essential communication lines for creating an atmosphere in which people share
knowledge and where interpersonal trust in teams is strengthened.
End of contract
debriefings
Once a project is at the closing stage, BTC conducts exit interviews/ debriefings25
with its international technical experts. This practice aims to capture important
24
Bartol and Srivastava (2002) identify four major mechanisms for individuals to share their
knowledge in organizations: first, contribution of knowledge to organizational databases; second,
sharing knowledge in formal interactions within or across teams or work units; third, sharing
knowledge in informal interactions among individuals; and fourth, sharing knowledge within
communities of practice, which are voluntary forums of employees around a topic of interest. 25
A debriefing session is a semi-structured process conducted once an activity is completed. A
facilitator makes a series of progressive questions that let (1) reflect on what happened; (2) give
Table continues…
32
knowledge produced during the whole intervention. However, end of contract
debriefings are not yet targeted and are not systematic.
TSE sessions / sector
days
In an ad hoc manner, BTC’s EST experts may organize a TSE session. These are
informal sessions, organized during lunchtime, during which an expert presents a
particular topic of interest. BTC also organizes sector days during which experts
(field, HQ and external) share knowledge. Most of the officers acknowledged that
TSE sessions are valuable learning spaces and could be organized more often.
There are numerous knowledge sharing mechanisms in place at BTC. Information
and knowledge should flow through these systems to create a culture for knowledge
exchange. However, most of the officers highlighted the lack of a knowledge sharing
culture and pointed out that colleagues still work independently without asking for formal
cross-department interactions. This behavior might lead to knowledge losses if experts
retire before having transferred their critical knowledge to the next generation or to other
colleagues262728
. Additionally, non-cooperative work might lead to (1) high load-leveling
for a workforce’s experienced experts (employee burnout and no space for
experimentation); (2) attrition of new employees who are not systematically given a chance
to learn and be challenged; and (3) work stress towards individual department results.
There was not enough evidence that BTC systematically disseminate its evaluation
reports to different departments and external stakeholders. Dissemination is one of the key
factors to assure the use of information. Another important knowledge dissemination
mechanism is the Communities of Practice29
(McDermott, 2000). BTC does not foster
communities of practice with officers from different departments; most of the time these
communities are formed inside the same departments. The of these spaces could help BTC
to (1) link people with common interests who do not have regular day-to-day contact; (2)
create a virtual space where groups of people, share tacit knowledge, collaborate directly
and teach each other; (3) encourage community members to develop a shared way or
collective intelligence of doing things, set common practices, and develop a greater sense
of common purpose; and (4) serve as a vehicle to develop mentoring relationships between
important insights with the aim of that project towards the future, and (3) link the challenge with
the actions and the future. http://www.debriefing.com/ 26
Interview with Communication senior officer, 8 August 2013 27
Interview with OPS senior officer, 04 July 2013 28
Interview with M&E junior officer, 03 July 2013 29
Communities of practice are voluntary forums of employees around a topic of interest. The group
can evolve naturally because of the members' common interest in a particular domain or area, or it
can be created specifically with the goal of gaining knowledge related to their field. It is through
the process of sharing information and experiences with the group that the members learn from
each other, and have an opportunity to develop themselves personally and professionally.
http://www.ewenger.com/theory/
33
Community of practice leader
Member department A
Member department B
Member department C
Member department D
Domain A
Domain B
Domain C
Domain D
Domain E
Domain F
Domain G
Domain H
Virtual platformEvaluative process
junior employees and experts (Creech, 2012; McDermott, 2000; Tiwana, 1999; WBI,
2007).
Figure 4.3. Communities of Practice
Source: The author
Figure 4.3., presents a scheme showing how individuals from different departments
interact in one or more communities of practice of their interest. Membership in these
communities should be voluntary. In Figure 4.3., we see that an expert should act as the
community of practice leader, and this position should be recognized as an honor by staff
members (McDermott, 2000). In a nutshell, if this practice is adopted by BTC, there should
be a reflection and evaluative process behind the creation of the domains (e.g., agriculture,
health, education, evaluation); the selection of leaders for each community; the choice of
IT platform (virtual platform); and most importantly the incentives behind the creation and
maintenance of these communities.
34
4.1.4. Knowledge Application
The other knowledge processes would not have a ‘raison d'être’ without the
knowledge application process. Applying knowledge is the act of using existing knowledge
to generate new knowledge and/or produce organizational outputs that serve to increase or
maintain the organization’s performance. Knowledge application depends on the
characteristics of the individuals who seek to apply or use knowledge. Often, new
knowledge fails to be used not because it has not been understood; rather, because the
knowledge worker is not convinced that this new knowledge, best practice or lesson
learned represents a significant improvement over the way he or she is already working
(Alavi and Leidner, 2001; EIGE, 2011).
At BTC, there are mainly two instances where knowledge is explicitly applied, (1)
the formulation of policy recommendations to the Directorate-General for Development
Cooperation (DGD), BTC’s main donor, for programming of country programs and (2) the
formulation of new interventions. Currently, M&E and backstopping reports are being
used to gather information about past experiences and country settings. However, a large
part of the intervention design and policy recommendation relies on experts’ own
knowledge and experience in the field, including their own backstopping missions. This
modus operandi has proved to be effective in recent years because BTC has been
internationally recognized as an effective technical implementation agency. Furthermore,
BTC staff is recognized as highly trained professionals committed to development issues.
Yet, due to the continuous demand of stakeholders to show evidence-based results and to
increase aid effectiveness, BTC should aim transforming itself into a learning
organization30
. For instance, most of the officers stated that the formulation of new
interventions should rely on cross department knowledge, monitoring information and
evaluative knowledge. To achieve this, it is important to align the critical KM elements in
the organization in order to build an enabling environment for learning and knowledge
exchange. In the next section, I will explore and analyze BTC’s KM elements in order to
identify some critical KM elements. This exercise will help us to understand the linkages
of KM with the three main pillars, People, Technology and Processes.
30
Interview with EST senior officer, 03 July 2013
35
4.2. THE KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES COMPONENT
Figure 4.4. Knowledge Resources Component
4.2.1. People – Participants’ Knowledge
People. The staff at BTC is a heterogeneous group. People from different
backgrounds, nationalities, cultures, and languages work together implementing programs
and executing administrative functions. Heterogeneous groups need to invest more time
finding consensus, implementing new rules of the game or building common standards
(Poteete and Ostrom, 2004). From a KM perspective, heterogeneous groups can hamper
the knowledge sharing process if sub-groups with particular interests keep information for
themselves in order to maintain their influential position. Yet, heterogeneous groups can
constantly enrich creativity and insert innovative know-how techniques into the
organization (Hess and Ostrom 2005). From the interviews, it can be inferred that BTC’s
heterogeneous staff is a compilation of vital sub-groups who fight for their arguments and
ideas. Thus, finding consensus might consume numerous working hours. Likewise, the
implementation of new ideas might not always be executed as initially planned, due to the
rich diversity of profiles (individual interpretation and vision). This can be seen as a
strength if the resulting implementation is better than the one initially planned. However,
the presence of strong subgroups also hampers organizational change towards KM.
PROCESSES
PEOPLE TECHNOLOGY
Rules-in-use• Strategy•M&E systems• Incentives and Time
Participants' Knowledge•Management Skills• KM Team
Physical Characteristics• Physical environment• Artifacts and facilities• Web page
Culture• Purpose, values, norms• Initiatives or ideas
M&E
36
Participants’ knowledge refers to (1) the expertise and skills of the employees in
decision-making positions and (2) how this knowledge is being used to formulate,
implement and evaluate programs and projects. At BTC, intervention teams are recognized
as the main producers of information; meanwhile, EST, OPS, DO, Finance and
Communication are recognized as strategic producers and users of information in the HQ.
These departments affect how information is produced, synthesized and disseminated.
During the interviews, it was acknowledged that critical departments (OPS, EST and DO)
do not work as close as they should to formulate, follow-up and evaluate BTC’s
interventions in a holistic manner. It can be inferred that communication lines 31
need to be
more fluid and flexible. It might be that the current horizontal linkages or the incentive
structure does not provide adequate structure and opportunities for coordinating staff from
different units.
The interviewees also acknowledged that knowledge resources are affected by the
departure of participants. Most of the officers agreed that BTC loses learning opportunities
in the field when a good performer leaves the organization, because of the limited time to
interact with this person and learn their know-how. Good performers are early identified at
the implementation stage; however, it is only at the closing stages that formal knowledge
sharing mechanisms (e.g. M&E reports and debriefing sessions) are activated to capture
the information and knowledge that this good performer tacitly holds32
. At the closing
stage, learning opportunities are diminished due to the heavy workload entailed by the
closure of a program. When referring to the HQ staff, it is perceived that at the formulation
stage past experiences from BTC’s own programs are not being used in a systematic way.
In fact, past experiences should be the primary knowledge resource; yet, BTC mainly relies
on the personal experience of the experts when designing an intervention. The ideas,
information and assumptions behind an intervention design are not being cross checked
with other departments to increase collective knowledge and set common practices. As a
result, when an expert leaves, his/her knowledge about a specific country or thematic
settings tends to get lost.
Management skills. Management skills refer to the ability to make decisions and
lead subordinates within an organization. These skills can be observed in day-today
31
Communication lines are considered as knowledge transfer mechanisms. The most common are
meetings and face-to-face conversations. 32
Interview with OPS expert officer related to the Capitalization Program, 04 July 2013
37
activities, i.e., how the head officer directs and interacts with his/her team or how
effectively senior managers communicate strategic plans to middle managers. BTC’s
management skills are captured in the business and operational plans, the organization’s
process map, and M&E guidelines. Likewise, managerial skills can be observed at the
Board of Directors, Middle Managers and Steering Committees (SC) meetings which
constitute important management mechanisms that support the steering and follow-up on
the organization’s performance and programs. Yet, BTC is considered as a centralized
organization. Intervention staff can take decisions about program activities, measures and
corrective actions at the program level. However, BTC HQ takes critical decisions about
logic frameworks, human and financial resources. This means that top-down decisions
might take longer to be implemented.
Finally, management skills are also influenced by external factors because most aid
agencies are tied to different States. Therefore, they are inevitably heavily influenced by
political considerations. This factor will be explored in the KM Influence component (see
section 4.3.4.)
KM Teams. A KM team is a group of people who are able to actively support KM
activities. And more importantly, because budgets are often low, they need to have the
skills and competencies necessary to assume this new function and combine it with their
daily work in the organization. BTC has two pseudo33
KM teams known as ‘country
teams’ and ‘backstopping missions’. Both teams work at the field level and interact with
country offices and stakeholders. On the one hand, country teams constitute one of the
action axes in the organization. Staff from different HQ departments acts as consultants for
the Resident Representative (RR). The RR is in charge of overseeing the performance of
each program and taking action when required, see Figure 4.5. This KM element aims to
improve the quality of the interventions and reports, avoid the production of repetitive
information, and foster fluid communication lines between country offices and the HQ.
However, country teams need to be strengthened and work as a real KM team in order to
produce strategic information about country settings, stakeholder profiles, services
available, past experiences (success and failures) and future intervention needs. This
essential information is produced in an ad hoc manner in reports without a reflective and
synthesizing process behind it.
33
Pseudo teams: a work team that works together without focusing on collective performance. Its
members do not want to take the risks needed to become a knowledge team. They do not have the
incentives to achieve a common purpose or performance goals. changingwinds.wordpress.com
38
Figure 4.5. Country Teams Structure
Source: BTC (2013b)
On the other hand, backstopping missions consist of one or more experts who go
out in the field in order to monitor and support the interventions and to exchange
information and experiences. This KM element attempts to provide a space where HQ staff
interacts and learns from the intervention team and vice versa. The interviewees agreed
that the backstopping missions are an important KM element to produce mentoring
practices for junior BTC members and to exchange ideas with experts from other
departments. However, this exercise depends on the resources available (time, people and
budget). The lack of resources affects the effectiveness of both teams by limiting the
interaction with field level partners. Thus, experiences learned in the field by the HQ are
not being systematically capitalized and disseminated. Finally, there is no evidence of a
formal KM leader or team at the HQ who is responsible of promoting the production,
synthesis and dissemination of lessons learned, best practices, failures, new models, and
other valuable knowledge.
4.2.2. Technology – Physical Characteristics
Technology. The importance of IT tools was strongly highlighted in section 2.3., of
my theoretical review. At BTC, interviewees agreed that technology is one of the weakest
pillars in the organization. The Information, communication and technology (ICT)
department is in charge of providing technical support and maintenance to technological
infrastructures. However, this department does not yet provide the technology to support
the management of the organization and facilitates communication among departments and
39
country offices34
. Consequently, BTC has embarked on a major IT initiative that will
include a new ERP35
system and an integrated project management tool (see section
4.1.2.). This long-term initiative will need a number of years to fully materialize and be
integrated as a KM element.
Physical characteristics represent the physical nature and available technology that
determines the limitations and possibilities of a particular commons36
. The physical nature
or environment is an important and often forgotten influencing factor on people towards
KM37
. Adequate work places and spaces for meetings are necessary factors to support the
interaction among cross-department staff. It is important to bear in mind that people need
time to plan and reflect; they need physical, social and mental spaces to listen and be
creative. At BTC, there are plenty of spaces for informal and formal meetings. Brochures
and other communication publications about BTC activities can be found throughout the
building, showing a communication culture towards results. The physical distribution of
the departments also makes face-to-face interaction easy. All departments have their own
work spaces; most of the heads of office share common and nearby spaces with their
teams. This distribution tends to facilitate the communication between the head and the
team. Similarly, the size and distribution of the building makes it easier to move from one
point to another. Nonetheless, during the interviews, it was pointed out that BTC staff does
not know what their peers are doing, which projects they are involved in, and which goals
they are pursuing. This represents then a cultural problem, not a matter of physical barriers.
As pointed out in Chapter 2, technology is, at best, an enabler to turn data into
information. Yet, it is only through people that information is interpreted and turned into
knowledge. The transformation of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge is known as
34
Interview with Senior officer related to the ERP initiative, 04 July 2013 35
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems integrate internal and external management of
information across an entire organization—embracing finance/accounting, production, service,
customer relationship management, etc. ERP systems (1) automate activities with an integrated
software application; (2) facilitate information flow between all business functions inside the
organization, and (3) manage connections to outside stakeholders. 36
Commons should be understood a set of assets accessible to all members of the organization 37
Successful organizations such as Apple and Google have long understood the importance of
physical environment and have put emphasis on its creation within their organizations. They see
the critical value of placing time and effort into designing a physical environment that supports
behaviors aligned with and towards their vision as an organization. Some development agencies
(e.g. WB, UNESCO, UNICEF) have gained many valuable leadership lessons from business
counterparts (e.g. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Facebook); yet most of
them lag behind in their ability to create physical environments that are changing and morphing
towards a vision of a 21st century learning organization (Donoghue, 2006).
40
artifacts38
and the ways that these artifacts are shared are known as facilities. Artifacts are
discreet, observable, and nameable representations of ideas. At BTC, there are a range of
knowledge-based artifacts such as TFFs, archival databases, back stopping reports, SC
minutes, Mid-term reviews, Management reviews and M&E reports. However, a
systematic process of synthesis is not yet carried out before uploading and sharing these
artifacts in the database. This KM problem was already identified in the Action Arena.
Facilities. At BTC, facilities include IT platforms such as Internet, Intranet, web
page, the Q-platform, and the project information tool (PIT). Yet, these elements require
addtional strategic alignment to assist the full range of BTC operational activities. For
instance, the Q-platform and PIT holds BTC’s institutional memory in its archival and
records. However, this information is fragmented because sector reviews are missing,
country reports do not capture strategic information, and the quality of the documents is
not checked. To achieve full potential, BTC needs to ensure that information is properly
stored and easily retrieved for KM purposes, and not only as a digital library. Most of the
officers expressed the need to improve the database search engine with visuals, helpful
filters and key words. As a result, BTC has decided to develop its own ERP system. Over a
one year period, the structure, users profile and feedback procedures have been redesigned
by a team dedicated to conducting multiple interviews, synthetize needs and imagine the
connections between the HQ and country office users39
. Although, the implementation of
this ambitious IT tool will only start next year, it is expected that it will help to find
information in a cost-effective way and facilitate the communication among departments.
The last important element to analyze in this section is the organization’s Web
Page. The design and structure of a solid web page for a non-profit organization should
consider a series of elements ranging from the technical to the visual. Likewise, legal
issues should be taken into account. Organizations that use taxpayer funds are tied to the
legislation of their home countries, which dictates the degree of accessibility to the
organization’s documents (document transparency) and publication media. BTC should
reflect more on the audience and the impact of publishing that publishing or not their
reports will have. Besides, the staff in charge of deciding whether or not a document is
published should bear in mind that external users are not free riders. In fact, when external
users browse, search, read, download or print out BTC’s reports, the quality of these
38 Artifacts are enablers to organize data into information 39
Interview with Senior officer related to the ERP initiative, 04 July 2013
41
documents is enhanced. Moreover, BTC’s results are widely disseminated and the
accountability function is accomplished.
In Table 4.3., I have developed a checklist that considers some basic technical and
design elements of a user-friendly website (Johnson, 2011; Kabigting, 2012; Tanriverdi,
2005). Additionally, I explored the official websites of international development
organizations such as the WB, UNICEF, IDRC, and USAID. By doing this, I tried to find
common elements that support or promote knowledge sharing and learning.
From the checklist we can conclude that BTC’s web page has a solid and useful
design. However, more KM elements, such as lessons learned, material dedicated to
promote knowledge sharing, wikis, as well as a better classification of resources could be
considered as future improvements. However, these and other KM elements might not
promote a knowledge sharing culture if they are not accompanied by incentives such as
public recognition or awards to best storytellers, bloggers, and researchers.
42
Table 4.3. Website for KM Checklist
General Overview To be
improved Satisfactory Evidence/Comments
Clear description of Mission, Vision and
Values? X
The tab 'About BTC' should be located at the top and its presentation can be improved
with visuals.
Is there a clear description of what BTC
does? Is there a clear description of the
services the organization provides?
X
There should be a specific 'What we do' tab. It is not clear which services or 'products' the
organization provides. There should be a section with a brief description of the different
intervention modalities and services provided by BTC.
Description of places where BTC works?
X The map and the list of countries are useful for a quick overview of the multiple partner
countries.
Staff Pages? X
It is important to present the human face behind BTC to the external public. By doing this
the staff tends to feel they are part of the corporate image. Moreover, officers can use this
page to share comments, update ongoing projects and achievements; at the same time,
they can be contacted or challenged by external users (e.g., development practitioners,
experts, researchers).
Concise but complete information about
the organization’s background (history)? X
A short presentation of some of past successful experiences is important to better
understand the organization.
Easy language use?
X The language used is simple and direct.
Use of Visuals?
X
Visuals are good. Pictures convey messages. The design is clean and not overloaded with
pictures. However, it seems that 'Work for BTC' is one of the principal points in the home
page.
Use of Multimedia?
X While there are few multimedia elements in the web page, these convey life stories of
beneficiaries.
News and Events Section? X
There is only one news section, and it is not automatically classified by topic or by month.
Looking for a specific news item can be time consuming. An events section could help to
disseminate the activities that are being executed at HQ and in country offices, and
promote external forums.
Information for Donors/Stakeholders? X
There is no specific section for BTC’s donors/stakeholders with information tailored for
this key audience.
Technical Issues YES NO Evidence/Comments
Website can be opened in different
devices? X
43
Easy navigation? X
Linkages to other social networks? X
Linkages to other partner web pages?
X
BTC is in contact with different partners (e.g., academia, donors, and other agencies). The
creation of a network tab gives the opportunity to open new connections and interact with
different agencies.
Contact Information X
Date of the information last revised
given? X
Most of the elements presented in the website have a publication date. However, dates
when the website or articles are updated should be also presented.
Knowledge Management Function YES NO Evidence/Comments
A specific section for knowledge or
learning? X
A knowledge section gives a good impression about the commitment of the organization
towards KM. BTC publication section should provide more artifacts to highlight the
importance of knowledge sharing.
Use of statistics to monitor the most read
and downloaded resources? X
BTC has a system to track the statistics of the most read and downloaded documents.
However, this information is not being used as a KM element.
Are there wikis or notes incorporated in
the web page? X
Quick notes allow the staff to share important comments or interesting findings. This
promotes a culture of knowledge sharing.
Photos and stories of people who are
affected by interventions? X
Images combined with stories have a bigger impact when conveying activities and results.
Best practices or lessons learned
highlighted? X Highlighting positive experiences gives an incentive for knowledge sharing.
Stories or reflections written by the Staff? X
BTC’s blog gives the staff a space to share ideas and experiences. Also, experts’ opinions
and expertise can be capitalized. An incentive to promote this practice even more could be
organized, with an award for the blogger with the largest number of visitors (incentive for
knowledge sharing).
Resources section classified by type of
resource? X
BTC could classify resources by types in order to help users to find the material they are
looking for faster.
Use of multimedia to convey lessons
learned? X
Through short movies, staff can convey stories of success or failure. The use of
multimedia elements helps to visualize activities and results. Multimedia can be also used
to record debriefing sessions and capitalize on experts’ tacit knowledge.
Complaints section? Online surveys? X
This is an important source of information about what is wrong in the organization. Online
surveys can be useful to identify user needs and gather their suggestions.
44
4.2.3. Processes – Rules –In-Use
Processes. Learning from past experiences is how organizations structure their
ordinary organizational operations and execute the design, monitoring, evaluation,
implementation and modification of their organizational infrastructure. Processes help to avoid
unnecessary work duplication, expensive reinvention, repeated mistakes, but most
importantly, processes structure the organization’s participants. Thus, processes can be
considered as rules-in-use because they shape what a participant in a certain position must,
must not, or may do in a particular action situation. Nonetheless, processes might stay written
down in sophisticated manuals, procedures, or contracts and still not be executed by the
participants. This represents a KM problem because of (1) a feeling of low process ownership
and/or (2) inappropriate incentives.
BTC has a rich database with manuals and procedures for different departments. There
are mainly three types of processes to support BTC quality management: (1) Core processes:
the processes that directly concern the mission of BTC and the realization of the services it
provides. (2) Management processes: the processes related to management activities, including
those that concern measurement, analysis and continuous improvement. (3) Support processes:
the processes that provide the necessary resources (BTC Intranet, 2013). Furthermore, since
2010, BTC is ISO 9001:2008 certified. BTC officers acknowledged that there are plenty of
administrative and operational processes that are being executed on a daily basis. However,
there is not a specific process related to KM or established indicators that can track the
creation or use of knowledge resources.
Strategy. The strategy is the rules-in-use at the highest level. It is knowledge about
what to do in order to achieve the organizational purpose in an effective manner (e.g., plans
for using an organization’s infrastructure, knowledge artifacts, and participants’ knowledge).
At BTC, there is a clear strategy tailored from the managerial to the operational levels laid out
in the Business Plan. The main organizational objectives are synthesized in the Strategic Map,
see Figure 4.6. From this we can deduce that there have already been explicit initiatives
towards KM at different levels. In fact, People, Processes and Technology are seen as strategic
assets by BTC. (1) People are considered in the Talent Management; (2) KM Processes in the
Capitalization and Knowledge Sharing block, and (3) Technology in the Adequate ICT block.
These three pillars are seen as enablers to achieve the organizational objectives. Although,
45
there is a solid base to shift towards a learning organization, various interviewees also hinted
at the fact that the organization has been disconcerted by reinventing solutions and repeating
mistakes because they could not systematically identify or transfer best practices and
experiential knowledge from one location to another or from one program to another40
.
Furthermore, knowledge sharing is not yet an institutionalized practice; even though, this
concept is frequently mentioned in the Business Plan41
. This hints at the fact that (1) some
structural processes should focus on knowledge creation and sharing and/or (2) a strong leader
should give a boost to existing KM elements.
Figure 4.6. BTC Strategic Map
Source: BTC (2013a)
M&E System as rules-in-use. MoRe Results is a powerful rule-in-use at BTC. It aims
to monitor and evaluate outputs and outcomes and serves three purposes: steering,
accountability and learning. Regarding the learning function, MoRe Results guidelines
explicitly show its learning commitment through the statement “M&E enables to build
knowledge on what works, what doesn’t and why, so that lessons can be learned and used in
other development processes” (BTC, 2013a:6). Thus, we can infer that this system was
developed with a solid KM vision and the aim to strengthen communication lines between HQ
40
Interview with OPS senior officer, 04 July 2013 41
Interview with M&E expert officer, 03 July 2013
46
Staff and country offices. Figure 4.7., shows MoRe results design, its scope and the principal
artifacts produced. It is clear that the spiral flow of knowledge and the main KM elements
(people, processes and technology) are part of the system.
Figure 4.7. MoRe Results System Design
Source: BTC (2013a)
During the interviews, it was perceived that the spiral flow is not moving upward in the
organization in an intelligible way. There is a lot of information that is being produced but not
being processed to trigger the learning and knowledge process. BTC officers expressed the
need to build a clear and shared vision about information needs and priorities in order to
improve the quality of the M&E reports. Besides, they stated that the quantitative indicators
in the M&E reports are important and can often tell what is happening but fail to answer the
question why42
. Therefore, the Capitalization program is an important initiative to gather
complementary information that allows officers to access to strategic qualitative evidence.
Reflecting on the ‘why’ question based on quantitative and qualitative information is
fundamental, if appropriate improvements are to be identified and implemented.
42
Interview with EST senior officer, 03 July 2013
47
Furthermore, not all the departments link MoRe results with a primary information
source when designing new interventions or policy recommendations. Some of the
interviewees did not see M&E activities as important tools to measure and improve
performance in their departments. This seems contradictory to the design and explicit purpose
of MoRe results which aims at the systematic improvement of the intervention strategy, as
well as, at improving learning by all actors involved in the country offices and HQ (BTC,
2013b). In other words, we could say that M&E is not yet mainstreamed in the organization.
Consequently, most of the staff relates MoRe results to the production of intervention reports,
but not to organizational performance and institutional change. These last two concepts are
key to transform MoRe results into a KM tool (see section 2.3.2., M&E subsystems for KM)
“There is only one way under high heaven to get anybody to do anything. And that is
by making the other person want to do it.”
Dale Carnegie
Incentives and Time. Incentives are something that motivates an individual to perform
an action. To build a solid KM system, it is crucial to understand the incentives that
participants face and how these motivations lead to productive outcomes. We have to bear in
mind that knowledge sharing cannot be mandatory. As Ostrom (2005) pointed out, due to the
limitations of our human nature, people have a strong knowledge-hoarding propensity; why
would anyone want to share his/her knowledge if that knowledge is what provides his/her job
security? This negative propensity hampers any KM initiative. Hence, one of the first steps is
to find a reward system that overcomes this negative behavior by providing an irresistible
incentive to share (Tiwana, 1999).
BTC officers who worked in the field highlighted that the lack of incentives obstructs
knowledge sharing by experts. Currently, there is no an award system that promotes
knowledge sharing. Rather, due to the economic situation, people keep information as a safety
mechanism to assure their job positions or for job promotions. This was identified as one of
the major barriers to transform BTC into a learning organization4344
. Moreover, due to limited
43
Interview with OPS expert related to the Capitalization program, 04 July 2013 44
Interview with Senior officer related to the ERP initiative, 04 July 2013
48
human resources45
, officers recognized that they have limited time to perform knowledge
activities. As one OPS officer puts it, “We are focused on implementing programs and
performing activities that show results. Activities related to knowledge creation and sharing
are performed when implementing activities are concluded; it is something you do when you
have a little spare time”. From this we can conclude that time to produce KM activities is
limited; in fact, knowledge tasks are seen as non-productive activities that take time away
from actual work time.
Trying to develop an award system that triggers knowledge sharing is not an easy task.
At best most organizations can only discover the patterns of predominant incentives because
each organization’s culture and individuals’ preferences determine whether an award system is
feasible or not (Ostrom 2005; Tiwana, 1999). The interviewees were asked which incentives
they find important to trigger the knowledge sharing process. Table 4.4., summarizes some of
their perceptions and ideas about these incentives. This has been complemented with some
academic notions from Cannon and Edmondson (2004); Ostrom (2005) and Ostrom et al.
(2001). From Table 4.4., we can highlight that (1) BTC staff, being task focused, does not
have the available time, even if they wanted to share the knowledge they possess. (2) In order
to put in place any effective M&E system such as MoRe Results, it is important to take a
careful look at the incentive structures at all levels. For instance, MoRe Results outcomes
cannot trigger learning and build constructive improvements without an incentive structure
and culture that reward innovation and openness about failure. (3) KM activities should be
included in personnel performance evaluation. (4) Top managers should stress the importance
of KM activities and learning from failure. The board of directors and the head offices of
BTC should be aware that their attitudes and actions encourage or limit a transparent
knowledge sharing culture. Even though senior staff may not be actively involved in learning
processes, they nevertheless, directly or indirectly, communicate ‘what is expected’ of staff
members. In the words of Cannon and Edmondson (2004) and Ostrom (2005), leaders should
internalize the idea that bringing in performance measures and incentives that reward
knowledge sharing can strengthen the benefits of KM throughout the organization.
45
The development sector faces a crisis and budgets have been reduced. As a result, BTC has to deal
with limited staff due to budget cut.
49
I Findings Staff’s Comments about Incentives Suggestions
Ind
ivid
ual
ince
nti
ves
In order to motivate
individuals to learn, they
should feel that their
activities are important for
the success of the
intervention or of any other
institutional project.
It is essential to recognize or reward the staff who
has contributed to the design, technical advice, and
successful implementation of activities that have
shown a positive impact.
Use of career advance criteria based on past participation in programs
that have proven to be sustainable. Organizational knowledge
objectives should be tied to personal rewards such as compensation
and promotion.
Give feedback to employees with performance problems in a positive
way, and not through negative reports or bad scoring. Create
opportunities for mentoring practices.
Job descriptions should state that staff must perform KM activities.
Personnel evaluations should consider how much time staff dedicates
to producing or share knowledge.
Intervention evaluations should capture the effort or insights of staff
members involved in an intervention. Evaluations should also
consider KM activities as mandatory elements to be reported. Then,
individuals might tend to see KM activities as productive activities.
Money incentives are not the
only ones that should be
considered in an award
system.
Public recognition is a powerful incentive.
Recognition includes actions such as thanking
employees, praising contributions, presenting
employees with a certificate of achievement, or
announcing accomplishments at meetings.
Privileges such as free time, flexible schedules, access to seminars
and improvements in the working environment are mentioned as
effective low investment incentives. However, public recognition for
team work was highlighted as the most important incentive.
Org
an
izati
on
al
Ince
nti
ves
Specific resources for KM
represent a critical success
factor.
There should be a specific budget, time and human
resources dedicated to knowledge activities. If BTC
staff perceives that knowledge activities are
important, we will start to produce them.
A KM leader or a KM team should be selected and recognized as
positive influences. Moreover, there should be a compulsory time
where different teams meet, discuss new ideas and present what they
are doing to other teams. Finally, KM activities should have their
own budget in order to demonstrate their impact and provide an
evidence base to justify the investment.
Communication barriers
between HQ officers and
staff that leave or shift to a
new intervention (country
offices) hamper the
knowledge sharing process.
Going out in the field is seen a highly desired
activity (e.g. Backstopping missions). There is a
strong effort to orient staff to observe activities in
the field but not an intelligible capture and
dissemination of these field experiences when staff
returns.
Sharing quick notes with the most relevant points or findings from
Backstopping missions should be institutionalized. These notes
should be immediately disseminated via email, the intranet or the
website once a Backstopping mission is over.
Reward or public recognition to notes that are most read.
Debriefing sessions with RR should be done before the intervention
is finished (3 months in advance). Multimedia elements could be
used to record and make debriefings more dynamic.
Table 4.4. BTC Incentive Analysis
50
Promote knowledge sharing
through web based spaces.
BTC blog and website is a solid KM element; it
should be supported by incentives.
Intranets are important web spaces for
communication and knowledge exchange. These
web based communication lines should be
reinforced with the country offices.
Reward bloggers and authors with the most read articles or
publications (use of statistics).
ICT should allow real time communication between HQ and country
offices; therefore, media such as Skype, phone calls, intranets, and
group emails should be actively promoted.
Communities of practice are necessary to build internal networks that
boost knowledge accessibility and promote thematic learning.
Staff contracts and hiring
system should be analyzed at
BTC.
Too many temporary contracts can inhibit staff
from absorbing detailed knowledge about the
setting in which interventions are being
implemented.
Officers highlighted that staff with field experience
leaves BTC because they find better opportunities
in the market (avoid high rates of staff turnover).
Try to reduce amount of temporary staff or consultants who are
linked with core business processes. If consultants are necessary, (1)
try to capitalize on their experience (e.g., debriefing sessions,
thematic seminars for the staff) and (2) promote continual interaction
with staff from different departments.
Human Resources department should analyze labor trends in
development and the private sector (professional ladders). If BTC
differs from the market try to modify it. If not, based on evidence
show that BTC offers good career opportunities to the staff.
Highlight career opportunities at BTC and its advantages in the
Business plan and the Human Resources policy.
Prevent loss of institutional
memory and permeate
knowledge of older members
to younger staff.
At BTC, there are two staff generations, the older
ones who maintain strong ideological convictions
and possess wide experience working on
development issues; and the younger ones who
appear more pragmatic, flexible and eager to look
for growth opportunities.
Prepare BTC for future retiring process or
personnel budget cut.
Force interactions between staff generations through country teams,
back stopping missions or communities of practice. These practices
are seen as the most effective knowledge sharing mechanisms. It was
highlighted that teams should not be a fixed group; they should be
formed by cross department personnel and rotate.
Learning from failures
should not be punished.
Analyze factors that lead to failure, but not the
people responsible for the failure. Employees are
quick to figure out which behaviors are rewarded
and which are not and act accordingly.
Create spaces where staff can openly talk about and analyze failures.
This process should be led by a skilled facilitator who can ensure
learning-oriented discussions. Senior management officers should
communicate that it is impossible to live without failing at some
point. CEOs should not present themselves as perfectionists. Instead,
they should create an environment in which they and the staff are
open to putting aside their self-protective defenses and respond
instead with curiosity and a desire to learn from failure.
Avoid negative attitude
towards failure.
Analyze failures with a multidisciplinary group of
people. Organizational incentives, policies,
procedures and structures should not discourage
learn from failure and experimenting with new
ideas.
51
4.2.4. Processes – Culture
Culture. In the previous section, processes were defined as rules-in-use, but when
processes become a routine, then we can say that they are part of the organizational culture.
Culture is the result of a complex learning process that is influenced by the society’s culture,
the organizational leaders’ behaviors and the social units in the organization. This learning
process includes sharing experiences that lead to shared assumptions, norms and beliefs. In
order to build an organizational culture it is necessary to have a history of shared experiences
(successes and failures) and leaders that permeate these experiences (knowledge) throughout
the organization (Schein, 2004). As in any other process, we have to be aware that any
institutional change towards KM is a difficult, time-consuming, and highly anxiety-provoking
exercise that will require a strong leader and a solid team to support it (Holsapple and Joshi,
2011; Ostrom 2005).
Behaviors, values, beliefs, norms, unwritten rules and tangible signs of organization
staff behaviors are all part of the organization’s cultural and knowledge resource. This
resource exists independently of the presence of any particular participants’ knowledge; yet it
influences participants’ use of knowledge. Analyzing the organizational culture requires a
prudent time to observe the behavior of the staff and how they interact to produce results. Due
to time constraints, I could not explore BTC’s culture in depth. However, from the interviews I
can highlight some elements related to the organizational culture that were mentioned by more
than two officers.
BTC’s organizational culture is changing towards a result-based culture. In the last two
years, important emphasis has been given to the mechanisms that produce solid evidence for
donors (e.g. DGD) and top managers4647
. Therefore, positive behavioral change is commonly
measured by ‘hard facts’ such as the allocation and use of resources; whereas cognitive change
that involves assessing personal attitudes, processes, information flows, management support,
feedback and reward systems are not yet considered as part of the culture. It was pointed out
that an M&E culture is not the strongest point in Belgian governmental processes; this is also
reflected within BTC’s culture where the M&E department is one of the most recent and
smallest departments.
46
Interview with M&E expert officer, 03 July 2013 47
Interview with Communication senior officer, 08 August 2013
52
The interviewees also acknowledged that there is an incipient culture towards
knowledge training, and that there is no a clear leader in charge of promoting the practice of
KM activities. Nonetheless, BTC is a dynamic organization that has included the positive
needs of public recognition and continuous improvement into its culture. These characteristics
have made most of BTC’s interventions effective, promoting continued organizational
improvements and boosting institutional growth.
Purpose. Purpose is the reason for which an organization exists. It indicates an
organization’s mission, vision, objectives and goals. These elements strongly influence the
other knowledge resources that an organization has or needs to have (Holsapple and Joshi,
2011). BTC has a clear purpose that is detailed in the Business Plan and publicly conveyed in
its website. For the purposes of this analysis, we will have a quick overview of BTC’s raison
d'être: “We contribute structurally to the change processes that are necessary to build a fair
world. To meet this challenge we continuously search for innovative and effective solutions.
We commit to supporting the initiatives of our partners by supplying high-quality services and
by efficiently using the resources made available to us.” (BTC Business Plan, 2013:6). We see
that there is a KM element mentioned in the statement “search for innovative and effective
solutions”. However KM elements are not reflected in the organization’s values
(Commitment, Respect, Sense of Responsibility and Integrity) or in the operational plan.
Knowledge is seen as a pillar at BTC. Yet, there is not enough explicit emphasis on the
importance of knowledge activities in management documents. As we have highlighted in this
study, there should be an explicit message that knowledge activities are critical success factors
for BTC. Phrases such learning organization, knowledge exchange, teamwork, learning from
failures, best practices, capacity building should be part of the basic common language in the
organization’s artifacts.
Initiatives and Ideas. Space for innovation and creativity is part of the culture and
shows institutional maturity. In most organizations, participants cannot determine whether or
not something is ‘true’ or ‘valid’ unless they subject their ideas or proposals to intensive
debate; only those ideas that survive such debate are worth acting on, and only ideas that
survive scrutiny will be implemented (Schein, 2004). Hence, space for creativity and
respectful discussion is crucial in any organization committed to innovation or learning. On
the basis of the interviews we can derive that there is, space for innovation, because many
53
initiatives are taking place simultaneously within the organization. These initiatives include
inter alia: strengthening MoRe results with the release of new guidelines; a capitalization
program that will aim at increasing organizational memory through the collection of
intervention stories; and one of the most ambitious initiatives is the development of the ERP
system that will support the organization’s management. Yet, BTC’s incentive system does
not do enough to encourage a systematic use of new approaches or experimentation in the
project cycle.
Finally, from this analysis, it is evident that BTC staff has many ideas on how to solve
BTC KM problems or improve the organization’s performance. However, these ideas need to
be openly shared and discussed in order to build a common need and provoke institutional
changes.
4.3. THE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT INFLUENCE COMPONENT
Figure 4.8. KM Influence Component
Managerial Influences• Coordination• Leadership• M&E: E for KM
Resources Influences• Budgeting for KM• Human Resources
Environmental Influences• Governmental • Political• Competitors
External Knowledge Sources• Networks• Seminars and academia
54
4.3.1. Managerial Influences
Managerial influences derive from organizational participants responsible for
administering core operations. Management activities have a significant impact on KM
processes by limiting or motivating the creation and use of KM resources. In sections 4.2.3
and 4.2.4., some managerial instruments such as Purpose and Strategy were already explored.
From this analysis, we can infer that managerial decisions and guidelines have a powerful
influence at BTC’s organizational culture and day-today operations.
There are two important managerial bodies at BTC. The Board of Directors, who
determines the strategy of BTC upon proposals made by the executive manager and approves
the Business Plan on a yearly basis (BTC, 2012a). The Management Committee, whose main
objective is to follow managerial guidelines and carry out the Business Plan. This managerial
body is in direct contact with BTC staff; therefore, they represent important decision makers
that can come up with actions to assure adequate organization performance. During the
interviews with BTC officers, it was highlighted that Board Directors and Middle Managers
should actively encourage and stimulate knowledge sharing in the organization because while
boards are responsible for the overall strategy, staff members must be able to carry out the
strategic plan, and working in cooperation with one another.
Leadership. In today’s knowledge-based economy a successful leader will be one who
can effectively manage both organizational knowledge resources and the associated
knowledge manipulation skills. He or she creates conditions that allow participants to readily
exercise and cultivate their knowledge manipulation skills, to contribute their own individual
knowledge resources to the organization’s pool of participant knowledge, and to have easy
access to relevant knowledge resources (Holsapple and Joshi, 2002).
BTC officers agreed that a specific KM responsible or leader is required to ensure that
KM initiatives are embedded in the organization’s formal processes and to introduce
incentives that ensure the staff is willing to perform these new processes. Interviewees agreed
that KM initiatives should not be treated as ‘add on’ or isolated activities without a clear
purpose and leader; rather, they should have a clear specification of learning output targets and
receive the support of senior and middle managers, especially of the Board of Directors.
Management buy-in is critical to KM success because it ensures time, budget and human
55
resources, but more importantly encourages the knowledge and learning culture into the whole
organization (Krohwinkel-Karlsson, 2007).
Naming a KM administrator and/or KM team is one of the first actions that BTC could
undertake in order to speed up organizational changes towards KM. This leader should be
actively supported and trained in his/her roles as: communicator, facilitator of learning,
investigator/ researcher, decision-maker, coach and agent of change. He/she should oversee
how much control each participant has and how much information they have about critical
situations or processes; reflect if all actors are equally informed and take actions; create spaces
for joint discussions between departments and field staff; and look out for long term solutions
within acceptable costs and benefits.
Coordination. It aims to harmonize activities in an organization by ensuring that
proper resources are brought to bear at appropriate times and that staff adequately relates to
each other as activities unfold (e.g., alignment of participants’ knowledge with strategies,
diffusion of knowledge among participants) (Holsapple and Joshi, 2002). A good coordination
defines the organization’s approach to problem solving, decision making, experimentation and
organizational learning.
During the interviews with BTC officers, it was perceived that coordination between
departments needs to be strengthened. Some officers pointed out that colleagues work in
isolation and that the information used in a new project is not cross-checked with other
coworkers. Managing dependencies in a knowledge-based organization includes (1) linking
reward structures to sharing processes, (2) establishing clear communication channels for
knowledge sharing and (3) constructing programs to encourage learning (Holsapple and Joshi,
2002; Ostrom, 2005). Interviews and documents have sufficient evidence to state that BTC is
systematically performing these key coordination activities. This may be due to the absence of
a KM leader responsible for aligning staff and KM systems. However, MoRe Results has
been successful in aligning efforts to in produce information at the HQ and country offices.
M&E: E for KM. Monitoring is an important KM element that keeps a check on the
use of resources. When a good monitoring is performed organizations can improve their
knowledge of use of resources, identify where they deviated from plans, and know how cost-
56
effective their operations are (Rist and Stame, 2006). Yet, it is through evaluations that results
are proven real and effective. Evaluation has always been about learning, about how to be
accountable and transparent, and how to learn from experience. However, there is a great deal
of evidence on non-use of evaluations or evaluations coming too late to the decision making
process. Organizations cannot no longer afford the luxury of waiting for individual evaluation
studies or impact evaluations that can easily take more than one year. “Decisions will be made
when they have to be made. If the evaluation findings are available when the decisions need to
be made, all to the good. If they are not, the decisions still get taken” (Rist and Stame,
2006:6). Thus, M&E systems need to provide to officers with knowledge that is useful and
timely in managing and guiding organization resources and interventions.
At BTC, MoRe Results have proven to be a solid monitoring tool that linked to the
financial tracking of resources. Moreover, the creation of robust intervention designs and
Baselines have helped to monitor most of the interventions in an effective manner and to
identify those struggling to achieve the desired results. Monitoring information is used on a
daily basis at different levels. However, transforming this information into critical and
strategic evaluations that serve for policy advice and new intervention designs seems to be the
missing puzzle piece at BTC.
A great number of formal evaluations are being produced every year at BTC.
Important information is gathered and lessons learned are identified in the majority of reports.
However, the officers pointed out that the abundance and overload of information make it hard
for an individual to process and synthesize all this information, but most importantly it makes
it difficult to find the specific knowledge from past experiences to solve emergent problems.
BTC is missing a great number of learning opportunities because there is no clear vision of
which information is crucial and what the future information needs for the core departments
are. The goal is not to know the future; rather, it is to know what projections of the future
could inform managers about strategies and actions. With this I do not mean that each project
should not produce a robust final evaluation, this is a key element; rather, I try to highlight that
officers from EST, OPS, DO (M&E) and Communication should agree on the time, the
strategic evaluations and the indicators (qualitative or quantitative) that should be produced
every year to improve performance and the decision making process within the organization.
57
Finally, BTC should consider conducting organization performance evaluations. This
strategic exercise might help to identify opportunities to improve BTC institutional
arrangements and monitor the effectiveness of the knowledge resources. Besides, if BTC
decided to carry out specific KM activities, it is important to consider smart KM
measurements. These measurements will provide the evidence to demonstrate the impact of
KM activities; help to justify future investments as well as to identify which approaches are
more effective to create an enabling environment for learning. Nonetheless, officers should
bear in mind that even though strategic evaluations and evaluative knowledge are produced, if
BTC staff does not find a space to reflect as a team on the information created, all their efforts
will be futile.
4.3.2. Resources Influences
Resources affect the way in which KM is conducted in an organization. Financial
resources could put a ceiling on the capital expended on knowledge manipulation activities
and limit the training or hiring of staff responsible to facilitate and improve the knowledge
manipulation activities in the organization.
BTC officers expressed that there is no exclusive budget to perform KM activities.
This might be one of the principle obstacles to align all the KM elements in the organization.
Currently, resources are allocated to those activities that top managers consider important in
order to show results and prove accountability (i.e. activities that lead to future funding).
Senior officers pointed out that to finance a KM strategy or knowledge initiatives, knowledge
and communication activities should be part of the project cycle. This could lead to building
more valuable lessons learned, recommendations or communication material. Besides, if KM
activities are included in the intervention design, BTC staff will start to perform them. The
staff tends to act on tasks that are valuable for the organization and for their individual
performance evaluation.
4.3.3. External Knowledge Sources
It is important to understand that organizations today can hardly learn and innovate in
isolation. Internal sources have the most important influence on the performance of an
organization (e.g., continuous improvement, internal education, and training programs).
However, in house learning alone is not sufficient for generating changes. Organizations need
58
to supplement internal knowledge with knowledge acquired outside. They mainly need to
secure links with other agencies (networks) and research institutions (e.g., universities,
experts, professors) to secure the inflow of new ideas and approaches. This new knowledge
will eventually lead to innovations, increase aid effectiveness or provoke a cultural change
(Ostrom, 2005; Tiwana, 1999).
BTC fosters a complex network with other development agencies. Trough common
interventions (e.g., budget support, sectoral interventions in common partner countries) BTC
has created a great number of knowledge exchange opportunities and has been able to identify
good practices in other development agencies. Additionally, the EST department maintains a
close link with the academia. Experts also participate and attend scientific and thematic
seminars where new methodologies or results from other agencies are discussed. By doing
this, BTC keeps its knowledge resources up to date. However, most of this knowledge is not
capitalized or disseminated in a systematic way. As a result, only certain members of the staff
tacitly hold this strategic and innovative knowledge (asymmetric information). Then, when
they leave the organization most of this valuable know-how gets lost. During the interviews,
officers stressed the need to have more TSE sessions or at least online tools to share and
discuss scientific documents about new approaches or methodologies (communities of
practice).
4.3.4. Environmental Influences
Aside from internal factors (resource and managerial influences), entities outside an
organization also affect how it conducts KM. The environment determines or constrains what
knowledge resources should or can be acquired, as well as what knowledge manipulation
skills are available (via a labor pool or available technology). Regarding development
agencies, we have to bear in mind that most of them are tied to their governments. Therefore,
they are inevitably heavily influenced by political considerations that can shape their policies
far more effectively than any notions of learning or knowledge.
BTC officers highlighted that the development sector is in crisis. In the last three years,
there has been a substantial reduction in the financial resources. This has affected BTC’s
operations by limiting expenditure on human resources and activities not directly linked with
the implementation of interventions (e.g., capacity building, impact evaluations, backstopping
59
missions and communication activities). Therefore, we can infer that the political decisions of
the Belgian State and political interest in partner governments do have an impact on BTC’s
operations. Therefore, the political environment and international aid-related policies should
be considered before any KM strategy is put in place at BTC.
4.4. DOES BTC LEARN?
BTC institutional analysis led me to discover a vast number of KM elements, actors
and subsystems that coexist and interact at different levels. The detailed analysis of the Action
Arena, the Knowledge Resources and the KM influences served to make a quick diagnosis of
current KM problems. Furthermore, it allowed me to identify possible solutions based on the
experience of BTC staff. However, the question ‘Does BTC learn?’ is still vaguely answered.
Thus, it is important to go through the most important findings of this chapter to provide a
structured answer to this question. Table 4.5., presents a summary matrix with the most
important KM elements and findings of the BTC institutional analysis.
60
Table 4.5. Summary Matrix BTC Institutional Analysis
KM
ELEMENTS STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES - OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT
ACTION ARENA COMPONENT
Knowledge
Creation
- Detailed Technical and Financial Intervention Files TFFs
- Well-defined guidelines and production of Monitoring reports
- Targeted Backstopping Missions
- Well-structured Evaluation Management Response System
- Formal work meetings
- Informal meetings
- Start to produce strategic evaluations (e.g., sectoral and country evaluations)
- Provide short and clear executive summaries for all reports
- Define clear guidelines and objectives for Capitalization Program
- Institutionalize compulsory time in which different teams share knowledge,
present ongoing activities and find solutions to problems
- Strengthen communication flow and interaction between different departments
- Motivate learning in external networks or learning platforms
Selecting/
Storage
Knowledge
- Mandatory digitalization and storage of all documents in
organization's database
- Document management system
- Create an explicit process to identify and select critical information
- Define a person responsible of uploading and checking quality of documents
- Design user friendly database with visuals and smart filters
Knowledge
Transfer
- Interaction in country teams and backstopping missions
- Informal face-to-face and email interactions with cross-department
experts
- Publication of blogs, reflection papers and detailed manuals
- TSE sessions/sector days
- Consider the creation of communities of practice
- Conduct systematic and targeted end of contract debriefings
- Use quick notes or wikis to share important findings or lessons learned
- Promote mentoring practices
- Improve dissemination of M&E reports
Knowledge
Application
- Solid monitoring system useful for decision making
- Continued design of processes and initiatives to improve
organizational performance
- Require that formulation of new interventions and policy recommendations be
based on cross-department knowledge, monitoring information and evaluative
knowledge
KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES COMPONENT
Participants'
knowledge
- Highly qualified staff with different backgrounds and field
experience
- Need for continual improvement
- Solid management skills
- Clear strategic and operative plans
- Well-structured management mechanisms to support the steering
and follow-up of the intervention and organizational performance
-DO and M&E staff committed to provide guidelines for the
continual improvement of MoRe Results and the organizational
performance
- Coordinate efforts of core departments to formulate, follow-up and produce
tailored information
- Build a shared vision a shared vision of KM and/or find consensus about
critical KM activities
- Structure country and backstopping teams to act as real KM teams
- Consider the role of a KM leader or responsible person to align KM resources
61
Physical
Characteristics
- Adequate work places and spaces for meetings
- Communication material throughout the building
- Facilities: IT platforms (Internet, Intranet, web page, the Q-
platform and the project information tool (PIT))
- Web page with a solid and useful design
- Ensure that information is properly stored and easily retrieved for KM
purposes, not only as a digital library.
- Design IT tools that assist management and communication of core
departments (e.g., ERP system initiative, wikis)
- Include KM elements on the website and present BTC team to external users
Rules-in-use
- Clear processes to support BTC quality management
- ISO 9001:2008 certification
- Solid Business Plan and Strategic Map with KM elements
- M&E reports and evaluation recommendations are discussed at
different levels. SC accepts/rejects its implications
- MoRe Results system promotes a culture of communicating reports
and thinking about lessons learned
- Vast production and use of manuals, guidelines, formats and
procedures for different departments
- Institutionalize spaces to reflect on information priorities and future needs
- Consider the inclusion of KM and communication activities in the project cycle
- Strength a decentralized structure to facilitate decision making process
- Build a specific KM process that leads to coordination and harmonization of all
KM systems in the organization
- Track the creation and use of knowledge resources in order to show the impact
of KM activities and justify future investment
- Take into account performance of KM activities in staff evaluations
- Include the performance of KM tasks in job descriptions
- Create an award or incentive system that promotes knowledge sharing,
innovation and learning from failure
Culture
- Results-based culture
- Dynamic organization with a positive need for public recognition
and proven continued improvement
- Continued execution of new initiatives to improve the
organizational performance
- Staff willing to provide solutions to organizational problems
- MoRe Results guidelines promote team meetings to reflect about
problems, actions and results
- Promote an active culture towards knowledge training and practice of KM
activities.
- Integrate explicit KM elements in Mission, Vision, and Values
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT INFLUENCES COMPONENT
Managerial
Influence
- Consolidated Management bodies
- Close monitoring and rapid identification of programs that struggles
to achieve desired results
- Support from top and middle managers to the role of KM leader and KM
activities
- Consider the production of organizational performance evaluations
Resources
Influence -Effective tracking of intervention disbursements - Lack of a KM strategy; therefore, no specific budget for KM activities
- Design a system that tracks cost-benefits of KM activities
External
Knowledge
Resources
- Complex networks with other development agencies for experience
sharing
- Promote more TSE sessions and strengthen organizational networks with other
agencies and academia.
Environmental
Influences
- Political decisions of the Belgian State and political interests in partner
governments do have an impact on BTC’s operations
62
BTC deals with different types of knowledge created by different actors at different
levels and in different geographic settings. This wealth of knowledge has been accumulated
over 10 years of experience supporting development and poverty reduction programs.
Consequently, BTC has developed a great number of mechanisms to maintain and improve its
organizational memory. For instance, MoRe Results, Backstopping Missions and Country
teams represent key KM elements already in place in the organization. Additionally, the
presence of well-structured managerial and operational plans demonstrates a solid results-
oriented culture. Thus, we can infer that BTC staff is one of the most important strategic assets
in the organization. These highly qualified employees possess valuable field experience and
academic training, as well as a constant need for improvement. However, most of this
knowledge remains tacit. It has not been systematically captured, codified, and disseminated.
As a result, the acquisition and exchange of knowledge tend to remain fragmented. Besides,
existing IT tools do not provide the means to boost the learning and management of BTC’s
critical activities. Hence, BTC needs to (1) create better institutional incentives and spaces for
reflection and learning; (2) enhance integration and horizontal linkages between departments;
(3) provide specific resources for KM activities and, most centrally, (4) improve all efforts to
‘embed learning’ in all the activities from strategy to intervention and program evaluations.
The overall conclusion is therefore that learning does take place at BTC, but not to the extent
that is possible or desirable. BTC officers have already identified these KM problems and
figured out feasible solutions. However, the workload and resources constraints seem to be
some of the major barriers to transform BTC into a learning organization.
63
KM PRACTICES IN DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 5.AGENCIES: CASE STUDY FINDINGS
The design of the M&E for KM framework was based on the need to contribute to the
little empirical evidence and the dearth of academic frameworks available; with the intention
of directly linking Monitoring and Evaluations systems with Knowledge Management
practices. In order to contribute to filling the gap, this study used case studies of four
development agencies to identify and analyze how they are using their M&E systems as inputs
for Knowledge Management practices and the degree to which their institutional arrangements
impact on these KM practices. The Belgian Technical Cooperation was the first agency in
which the M&E for KM framework was applied. In chapter 4, BTC’s KM elements and
practices were analyzed and classified in terms of strengths or weaknesses according to the
opinions and perceptions of the staff interviewed. In this chapter, I will conduct the same
exercise for the French Agency for Development (AFD); the Swedish International
Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) and the German Society for International
Cooperation (GIZ). The framework is applied on the selected development agencies in an
attempt to gain a better understanding of the impact of the KM resources on the institutional
arrangements; and identifying the critical factors that determine a solid KM strategy and test
the design of the M&E for KM framework.
5.1. SELECTION OF THE CASE STUDIES
The three cases were deliberately selected by the BTC on the basis of the similar
implementation model, the diverging management culture, but most importantly due to the
notable KM practices performed in these three agencies. As expected this might have an
influence on the organizational performance and commitment to become learning
organizations. The AFD was chosen to explore how the management model impacts its M&E
system and KM practices. The SIDA was then selected because of its trajectory as leading
development agency. Finally, the GIZ was chosen due to its similar management model with
BTC. Table 5.1., gives a brief overview about the size and fields of work of the selected
agencies. As the case selection did not follow a random sampling logic, the findings and
recommendations cannot be generalized to the entire population of development agencies
64
(Shadish et al., 2001). Furthermore, because of the different organizational structures and time
constraints, the scope of the study was mainly limited to the M&E departments. Consequently,
the focus of this comparative analysis is on the production of monitoring reports and
evaluations, and their later use as a KM tool. This restricted scope of the study increases the
internal validity and allow to testing the appropriacy of the matching constructs developed in
Chapter 3 (see, section 3.2.1., Validity Issues). The scope also limits the external validity of
my research findings and recommendations.
Table 5.1. Selected Development Agencies at Glance
BTC AFD SIDA GIZ
Number of employees
198 working in Brussels,
and 1127 employees
seconded abroad
1742 employees
through the world
more than 700
employees located in
3 offices in Sweden
3,241 working in Germany and
1,887 employees seconded
abroad
Number of country offices
17 70 33 90
Number of employees in the M&E department
2 people 9 people 8 people 20 people
Presence of a KM department or unit
No Yes No Yes
Fields of work
Agriculture & rural
development; climate &
environment;
decentralization;
education; gender
equality; governance;
health care; HIV &
AIDS; social and
solidarity economy;
water & sanitation
Agriculture; local
authorities; water &
sanitation; education;
business & finance;
environment;
infrastructures &
energy; health;
capacity building
Democracy, equality
& human rights;
economic
development;
knowledge, health &
social development;
sustainable
development; peace
and security
Economic development &
employment promotion;
governance & democracy;
security, reconstruction, peace
building & civil conflict
transformation; food security,
health & basic education;
environmental protection,
resource conservation & climate
change mitigation.
5.2. THE ACTION ARENA COMPONENT
As was expected from the framework design (see section 3.1., Institutional and KM
framework Bricolage), the analysis of the Action Arena lead to identifying the main
knowledge creation and transfer mechanisms and provides some insight into how the selected
agencies are using their M&E reports for their core activities (KM practices). Table 5.2.,
presents a summary of the most important highlights about the Action Arena components.
65
ACTION ARENA COMPONENT
AFD SIDA GIZ
Kn
ow
led
ge
Cre
atio
n
Strengths
Detailed financial, operational and risk analysis of each project
and program
Production of decentralized and strategic evaluations (e.g.,
sectoral and regional evaluations)
Provision of summary reports for all the documents (e.g. M&E
reports, sector investigation, reviews)
Well-structured Management Respond system
Continual revision and innovation of the instruments of
evaluation
High motivation to participate and prepare international
seminaries and conferences to present and discuss what AFD is
doing, what they have learned as well as expand their networks
OPS and Evaluation departments decide which information is
going to be capitalized, usually the information that help to
show results is capitalized. Formats as videos, written stories
with photos, and other visuals are used. Failures are also being
capitalized and published
Continual learning from the academia and other agencies
Weaknesses - Opportunities for Improvement
There is not yet a compilation or synthesis of lesson learned by
sector or by countries
The quality of the M&E reports should be improved
Strengths
Evolution from large production of information and reports to
production of information for management and decision
making
Production of decentralized and strategic evaluations (e.g.,
sectoral and regional evaluations)
The Contribution Management system (IT tool) ensures the
production of information for monitoring, evaluation and
dialogue in a synthesized format
Management Respond and Recommendation tracking systems
are included in the Contribution Management tool
Production of Conclusion on performance reports at the end of
the year. This report synthesizes the results and risk analysis.
This information serves a direct input for the SIDA Annual
report and Donor report
Promotion of courses, workshops and thematic training
programs to provoke a continual learning of the Staff
Weaknesses - Opportunities for Improvement
Some program officers feel that reports for the Contribution
Management System requires more effort and represent a
heavy workload
Capitalization documents are not produced in a systematic
manner
Need of more narrative experiences that help SIDA to capture
and understand the needs and priorities of the beneficiaries of
the projects
Need of more time to learn from external sources
Strengths
Production of decentralized and central evaluations
accompanied by summary reports
Production of synthesis reports that summarize central
evaluation lessons learned
Production of corporate strategic evaluations (e.g.,
evaluation of internal management instruments,
evaluations of mechanism to scaling up)
Each evaluation should be accompanied by a fact
sheet (2 pages with the main findings of the
evaluation)
Management Respond system for decentralized and
central evaluations
Knowledge Management workshop with cross-
department teams to reflect on how to improve and
align KM systems
Capitalization is presented in evaluation reports as
part of the lessons learned
Active promotion of eLearning courses and trainings
Weaknesses - Opportunities for Improvement
There is not a shared vision of KM, it is an issue to
discuss on KM workshops
The quality of the decentralized evaluations is a
problem because the validity of the results is
questioned
Sel
ecti
ng
/Sto
rag
e
Kn
ow
led
ge
Strengths
The KM department is in charge to classify and organize AFD
database
Core departments discuss together which are the main topics of
interest prior the production of strategic evaluations and terms
of reference for M&E reports
Weaknesses - Opportunities for Improvement
AFD staff need a specific time to reflect on future information
needs, synthetize critical information and produce lessons
learned reports by sectors
Strengths
Document Management system where all the documents are
uploaded
Contribution Management templates designed to produce
tailored information for different audiences. These templates
help to think ahead about the critical information to show
results and capture lessons learned
Weaknesses - Opportunities for Improvement
Database that integrate financial reports
Strengths
Document Management system with filters and
categories
Each department define their information priorities
Weaknesses - Opportunities for Improvement
A database that integrate and classify all the
documents (e.g., financial, decentralize and central
evaluations) by sectors or thematic areas
Table 5.2. Findings in the Action Arena Component
66
ACTION ARENA COMPONENT
AFD SIDA GIZ
Kn
ow
ledg
e T
ran
sfer
Strengths A vast number of formal meetings and committees to define working
areas or establish guidelines
Continued support and advice to local agencies to improve the
evaluations quality
Systematic edition, publication, dissemination and promotion of all the
research documents and evaluations produced by the different AFD
departments to the staff and external stakeholders (e.g., donors,
academia, NGOs)
Continued research and acquisition of academic documents and policy
papers related to the working areas or expertise of each AFD department
Use of wikis to share information
Weaknesses - Opportunities for Improvement Need for better targeted debriefing sessions
Need for targeted mentoring practices
Strength the communication lines with local agencies
Better defined backstopping missions
Need for interaction between experts from different departments
(communities of practice)
Strengths Weekly team meetings in each department where officers present
and discuss activities and progress made
Rotative committees with participants from different departments
Well-structured Communities of Practice with established leaders
by topic
Annual trainings and workshops with all the resident
representatives in the HQ
Use of wikis to share specific information or definition of terms
Weaknesses - Opportunities for Improvement
Need for more spaces to interact and discuss with people from
different departments and get familiar with the activities or projects
that they perform
Need for interaction among junior and senior officers (mentoring
practices)
Strengths Presence of communities of practice
The Human Resources Development program promotes
the exchange between different departments for periods
of two weeks
After an evaluation is carried out, department
representatives meet in a 'learning coffee'. In this space,
they comment on the evaluation findings and they are
asked to draw conclusions and agreements for their
own departments
The agreements discussed on the 'learning cafes' are
disseminated and further analyzed in each department
Evaluations findings, news, events and GIZ activities
are disseminated through the Intranet Newspaper
A KM wiki base initiative to share definitions,
highlights, and important information
Weaknesses - Opportunities for Improvement
Define objectives and goals to be achieved by the
communities of practice
Kn
ow
ledg
e A
pp
lica
tio
n
Strengths Evaluation reports and evaluation recommendations are used by OPS
department in the formulation of new interventions and discuss
development paths
Cross department teams actively comment on the results of any strategic
evaluation
Active collaboration between OPS and the M&E department to produce
strategic evaluations
Program completion reports provide analyses and indicators that serve as
inputs for the Annual Report on Results and Impact
Evaluation of the local agencies' M&E systems is included in the risk
analysis
Weaknesses - Opportunities for Improvement Lack of a recommendation tracking system
A need for improving AFD monitoring system
Not enough time to learn, experiment and innovate
A continued challenge to use evaluations. 'We do not if OPS or other
departments are systematically using the evaluations'
Strengths
The M&E decentralized reports are used to follow-up the
performance of ongoing projects. Evaluations are used to structure
activities and standards for the sectors. Contribution Management
reports are used to obtain information for institutional management
and provide evidence to communicate results
Contribution Management Completion reports oblige to the
program officers to report results, lessons learned and review all
the documents produced during the implementation
The local agencies' M&E systems are assessed prior to the
implementation stage
Cross-department interaction in the formulation of a new project,
also continued consultation with the communities of practice
Weaknesses - Opportunities for Improvement
The Contribution Management Rule is still in the early stage of
implementation, there are still improvements to be done and that
the officers used effectively this new tool
Time is the biggest constraint for interaction and learning and
speed up the implementation of new initiatives
Not enough time to experiment and innovate
Still a challenge to use the board thematic evaluations into the day-
to-day operations
Strengths Decentralized evaluations use to produce lessons
learned
Central evaluations are used to assist the decision
making, set new standards in the thematic area,
influence the design of the interventions and improve
the organizational performance
Weaknesses - Opportunities for Improvement
The formulation of new interventions still relies on
experts' experience and their network to formulate new
projects
Need for spaces to read, compare and discuss
evaluation findings of other agencies in order to
produce better project formulations
The workload is a constraint to knowledge exchange
and learning
There are barriers such as personal or organizational
interests that hamper the effective use of evaluations
into the day-to-day operations
The lack of resources constraint the experimentation
and funding of pilot programs
67
The creation of data and information derived from programs and projects is strongly
embedded in the institutional arrangements of all the agencies. All the interviewed officers
agreed that their M&E systems are key mechanisms to gather data and produce information in
the decision making process. However, the design and effectiveness of these systems differ
from one organization to another. BTC, AFD, SIDA and GIZ produce decentralized and
central/strategic evaluations. The aim of the first ones is to provide information about the
performance each program and give recommendations. They are carried out by external
consultants to maintain the independence factor. Yet, program and OPS officers have a direct
participation in the production of these evaluations. Meanwhile, central evaluations are
produced by the M&E departments in the HQ. The aim of these reports is to provide profound
insights about the lessons learned during the implementation of sectoral programs or evaluate
the progresses made in specific thematic areas. BTC has not yet conducted these central or
strategic evaluations due to resource constraints. However, the production of these evaluations
is already considered in the design of the MoRe Results (see Figure 4.7., page 46). GIZ also
conducts corporate strategic evaluations which look to provide information about the
organizational performance and opportunities for improvement48
. These evaluations constitute
a further step to transform GIZ’s M&E system into a real KM tool (see section 2.3.2., M&E
subsystem for KM).
Regarding the quality of the monitoring reports and the decentralized evaluations, it
was acknowledged that there is still much room for improvement. Although the continued
efforts to train program officers and provide M&E technical assistance, the quality of the
M&E reports still depend on (1) the quality of the central governments’ M&E systems which
influences the quality of the data, (2) the availability of well-trained professionals in the
partner countries to conduct evaluations and (3) the capacity and ‘agency’ (incentives) of the
program officers to analyze, reflect and write good reports4950
. The lack of quality hampers the
validity of the results, lead to take wrong decisions and/or to draw sloppy lessons learned48
.
Therefore, capacity building programs with local agencies continue as part of AFD, SIDA and
GIZ’s Agendas.
48
Interview with GIZ M&E department expert officer, 23 August 2013 49
Interview with SIDA M&E department expert related to the central evaluations, 20 August 2013 50
Interview with AFD Evaluation department expert officer, 02 August 2013
68
Another interesting finding is the institutionalized production of synthesis, fact sheets
or summary reports in AFD, SIDA and GIZ. “We are aware that our colleagues do not have
time to read extended reports, sometimes even ourselves do not have time to read all the
reports produced. Therefore, we have the commitment to providing good and sharp syntheses
that capture the most important points and lessons learned” (AFD officer). Officers from the
three agencies highlighted that one of the major impediments to reading and absorbing M&E
reports is time. Long reports exacerbate this problem. The process of synthesis and
compilation of critical information often leads to new insights and knowledge that the
individual reports cannot provide (GIZ officer). Along with the production of syntheses, the
process of selecting information was identified as a critical factor that boosts the quality of the
reports and produces tailored and meaningful information. The selection process performed by
AFD is interesting in that the Evaluation department produces strategic evaluations in
coordination with the OPS department. This demand-driven process boosts the use of these
evaluations as well as promoting the participation of the different officers in the creation of the
final report (AFD officer). Following this last argument, SIDA and GIZ officers also pointed
out that the process of creating a new strategic evaluation constitutes in itself a space for
learning. Officers from different departments actively interact and comment while the draft of
the evaluation is being prepared (learning catalyzer).
AFD, SIDA and GIZ have similar processes to select their strategic or central
evaluations. High-level Committees discuss and approve the strategic evaluations to be
performed during the year. Yet, AFD previously discusses the topics and areas of interest with
the OPS department and work together to propose the evaluation plan to the Committee51
.
Meanwhile, at SIDA and GIZ the evaluation topics are directly selected and approved by the
Committee.
Another important knowledge creation mechanism is the Management of Response
System. This system allows the registering the recommendations, actions and commitments
established after an evaluation report is released. The four agencies have in place these
systems. Yet, SIDA have gone a step further by implementing a Recommendation Tracking
system that allows to follow-up in a systematic way the commitments made in the
Management of Response system. Both systems are part of the Contribution Management
51
Interview with GIZ M&E department expert officer, 23 August 2013
69
system. This system will be described in detail in the next section (see Table 5.3., Physical
Characteristics).
From the literature we know that the systematic gathering of qualitative and
quantitative information is essential to answer the ‘why’ questions (see section 2.3.2., M&E
subsystem for KM). Hence, Capitalization programs provide strategic qualitative evidence to
draw lessons based on a given experience. AFD has a well-structured capitalization program
which is demand-driven by the OPS department. Meanwhile, SIDA and GIZ include ad hoc
capitalization experiences in their evaluations and annual reports under the format of lessons
learned or short stories.
Informal and formal face-to-face interactions are considered as the most important
spaces for learning. However, too many meetings tend to restrict the time of the staff to
perform key activities. Hence, it is important that the heads of the office find a balance, plan
carefully and set in advance the time and objectives of team meetings52
. All the officers
highlighted that informal discussions with friends and colleagues are the most frequent form
of knowledge sharing. Meanwhile, semi-structured virtual spaces such as Communities of
Practice were identified as beneficial internal networks by SIDA and GIZ officers. SIDA and
GIZ have well-defined communities of practice for their strategic areas. The thematic advisor
or focal point of each community is recognized as a highly trained expert (honorary position)
who is responsible to guide, give answers, propose topics and foment the interaction among
the community members. “When I face a challenge in a project, I rely on the thematic advisor
or I access to the resources in the support pages. Likewise, if I want to learn about a new
topic; I just have to follow the thematic group and I can join to the discussions” (SIDA junior
officer). This finding goes in line with the benefits stated by Creech (2012) and McDermott
(2000) (see Figure 4.3. Communities of Practice, page 33). There was no evidence of
communities of practice at AFD and BTC.
When the officers were asked about mentoring practices, I was surprised that none of
organizations perform this practice in a systematic manner. However, the majority of officers
acknowledged that this practice is necessary because a lot of valuable knowledge, knowledge
from experience, is getting lost from one generation to another. Furthermore, junior officers
52
Interview with BTC OPS senior officer, 4 July 2013
70
need to be assisted to develop all their potential. Ad hoc mentoring practices are being
performed in day-to-day activities, team meetings, informal conversations and communities of
practices. This is better transmitted in the words of SIDA junior officer “Who better than your
colleagues to help you in learning new skills? Every day, I learn from them by asking and
observing what they do, and how they do it. For me this is the most effective way of learning”.
Regarding the drain brain problem, all of the agencies comment that they try to capture
experts’ knowledge through team work, project documents and evaluation reports. Meanwhile,
the expertise and knowledge of external consultants try to be captured through close
interactions between consultants, program officers and HQ staff. BTC, additionally conduct
debriefing sessions with the aim to capture valuable information about the intervention.
Databases are used as basic IT tools to store and classify all the artifacts produced by
all the organizations. This point will be described in more detail in the next section
(Knowledge Resources Component – Physical characteristics).
Finally, as with BTC; AFD, SIDA and GIZ use their M&E reports with two main
objectives, (1) influence the design of new interventions and (2) provoke an informed
discussion to formulate policy recommendations. Beyond that, GIZ is producing strategic
corporate evaluations to provide information that allows the improvement of its institutional
arrangements and improves on its management techniques. From the interviews, we can infer
that monitoring reports are being used on a daily basis to follow-up the performance of the
programs; meanwhile, evaluations are being used to influence the performance of core
activities. However, the effective use of M&E reports and evaluations is not as simple as it
looks. BTC, AFD and GIZ officers highlighted that design of new interventions still relies on
the knowledge and field experience of experts and their networks. Moreover, they do not yet
have a tool that allows the deduction, in a systematic way, to what extend M&E reports and
evaluations are being used. “We can only make sure that evaluations are available; but we
don’t know to what extent they are being used or if they are actually being used” (AFD
officer). To face this problem AFD and GIZ have considered reformulating their evaluation
policies. This point will be developed in detail in section 5.4. (The Knowledge Management
Influence Component)
71
BTC, AFD, SIDA and GIZ officers pointed out that the effective use of M&E reports
clearly depends on staff having the time to read and discuss these reports in the face of
multiple and conflicting pressures. Another factor highlighted by AFD, GIZ and SIDA officers
is that sometimes evaluations arrive at a time that they are no longer relevant. AFD and GIZ
officers agree that sometimes recommendations are not well-developed or supported. For
instance, recommendations of some decentralized evaluations are made without an
understanding of the context in which they will be considered and they are not sufficiently
operational to be used. However, the strongest source of support for using evaluations is
personal incentives. This is a key point because it highlights that in order to get staff interested
in becoming familiar with and using an evaluation it is important to recognize and respond to
their needs on a fairly personal basis. This finding goes in line with the ideas from Ostrom
(2005) and Tiwana (1999) presented in the section 4.2.3. (Incentives and Time, page 47).
5.3. THE KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES COMPONENT
The analysis of the second layer looked to identify some critical KM elements that lead
to create the enabling environment for learning (see section 3.2., Framework Design). These
elements are classified by participants’ knowledge, physical characteristics, rules-in-use, and
culture. As with the Action Arena, the analysis of the Knowledge Resources component leads
to identify the KM strengths and weaknesses. Conducting this exercise can build the basis for
a future KM strategy by providing answers to the question ‘where are we now?’, as it was
stated in the theoretical framework (see section 2.3., Knowledge Management Strategy). Table
5.3., presents a summary of the most important Knowledge Resources identified by the
interviewees. Moreover, it tries to capture the most important rules-in-use that have a direct
impact on the use of M&E reports. Because of the different organizational settings, it was not
easy to establish a straightforward comparison; rather the following matrix provides a brief
view of the institutional arrangements which were perceived as strength or weak points
(opportunities for improvement) by the officers.
72
KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES COMPONENT
AFD SIDA GIZ
Par
tici
pan
ts' k
no
wle
dg
e
Strengths
AFD staff has the continuing need to show scientific and
robust results
Participants are aware of the importance of knowledge
activities
M&E department puts strong effort to make information
available for OPS
Need for continued learning from other agencies
Weaknesses - Opportunities for Improvement
Lack of explicit mechanisms to avoid the brain drain
Not enough evidence of a KM administrator or KM teams
Not shared vision of what is KM
Strengths
The presence of a KM administrator and a cross-department KM team in charge to
implement and improve the Contribution Management System
Presence of an Evidence Group in charge to analyze the broad thematic evaluations
produced by SIDA and other agencies, to translate the recommendations into feasible
operational actions and to follow up the implementation of these recommendations in the
organization (act as a KM team). Members are chosen by the head of the departments.
Staff's expertise and knowledge try to be captured through project appraisal documents
Weaknesses - Opportunities for Improvement
High internal drain brain (staff change to different job positions)
Provide specific training on results-based management to HQ and country offices in
order to share a same language and vision
Staff dedicates a lot of time to deliver results but not to reflect on how we are doing these
activities
Established clearly the goals to be achieved by the Evidence Group
Not shared vision which activities are critical for KM
Strengths
30% of the staff change during one year.
This means that on average each 3 years
there is a complete new staff at GIZ (drain
brain).Therefore the organization is aware
of the importance of KM in all the
operations.
Weaknesses - Opportunities for
Improvement There are a lot of initiatives in different
departments to improve GIZ KM. However,
these initiatives are not aligned, they do not share the same vision (need of a KM leader)
Ph
ysi
cal
Ch
arac
teri
stic
s
Strengths Adequate work places and spaces for meetings and
conferences.
AFD physical and online library
IT tools are recognized as a key factor for KM
The databases are classified by type of document, sector,
country and authors (e.g., production of collections)
New intelligent browser (Watch AFD) tailored to AFD's
users’ needs
The website is used as an online library where all the AFD
documents can be easily accessed by the public
Well-designed website that communicates AFD activities,
and present current projects. The 'Publication' tab facilitates
the access to reports and research documents.
The official website has some KM elements. Vast use of
visuals and the human face of the staff is presented in an
attractive manner
Weaknesses - Opportunities for Improvement
A need for a specific evaluation database with smart filters
The distribution of the building and the offices does not
facilitate the contact with other departments
No specific tab for KM elements in the website
Strengths Adequate work places and spaces for meetings and conferences
Contribution Management System (ERP) provides the parameters that oblige to
synthesize and reflect on the information produced during the project cycle
All the information on the project cycle is systematically classified in the system. This
allows to use smart filters to know how many projects are performed in a specific
country or sector, as well as classify and compare project by stages
The Contribution management system was designed considering the different setups of
the country offices (e.g., human and technology resources available) and the different
perspectives of the users (e.g., program officer, manager, director, committee, and donor)
Intranet pages with specific information to support the different activities of the
organization
Well-organized website that communicates SIDA work fields and ongoing projects
Use of user surveys to evaluate the quality of the website and to find elements to
improve
Specific database with SIDA evaluations available to the public
Weaknesses - Opportunities for Improvement
Not all the critical information is captured by the Contribution Management system
because it was difficult to integrate the perspectives and needs of the different users in a
single tool
The distribution of the building and the offices does not facilitate the contact with other
departments
A 'Publications' tab in the main website could facilitate the search of documents
No a specific tab for KM elements on the website
Strengths A complete document management system
where all the documents produced by GIZ
are stored and classified by thematic areas
Solid evaluation database
A search engine that assists the research of
documents
User friendly Intranet with a lot of
documents that help with the learning
process
Well-designed website that communicates
GIZ goals, objectives and services
Explicit tabs (microsite) dedicated to KM
activities and promotion of learning (E-
Academy)
The human face of the organization is
presented in the different microsites
Active use of newsletters
Weaknesses - Opportunities for
Improvement
Evaluations should be included in the
thematic database and not be set apart
The database should have smart filters and
a user friendly design
Table 5.3. Findings in the Knowledge Resources Component
73
KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES COMPONENT
AFD SIDA GIZ
Ru
les-
in-u
se
Strengths AFD has developed a system of internal controls and external audits to
monitor, measure and mitigate the risk exposure, mapping credit, market,
operational and other risks
The M&E unit is part of the Research Department which has had an impact
on the department goals
Every year the M&E department must present a list of strategic evaluations to
be conducted during the year. This list is discussed with the OPS department
who also request and/or approve these evaluations
An Evaluation Committee reviews the annual evaluation program and gives
advice to the Evaluation department about the critical areas to work
The Communication department work with the KM department to define
dissemination guidelines and ensure the production of quality information in
a provocative manner
The KM department keeps records of the most read documents, this statistic
is sent to the authors to motivate them
It is mandatory that external consultants keep a close link with OPS officers
to try to maintain the consultants' knowledge into the organization
Officers perceive that the AFD offers job security and benefits
Staff see in AFD a place to build their careers
Weaknesses - Opportunities for Improvement Not clear incentives for learning and internal knowledge sharing
It is necessary to align and harmonize the different KM systems in the
organization
Low rate of personnel turnover
Strengths
There is an explicit process to follow-up the implementation and
assure the continued improvement of the Contribution
Management System
A Core Committee is in charge to review the strategic interventions
and discuss about opportunities for improvement. Members must
review different reports and lessons learned from the Contribution
System
A Process committee with cross department members who discuss
and analyze the core organizational processes and approve its
changes
Learning achievements are taken into account during the results
contract dialogue (feedback on individual performance)
The review of past experiences and evaluations is mandatory prior
the formulation of a new project. This review must be included in
the preparation documents of any project
SIDA is perceived as a good employer that offer benefits
Weaknesses - Opportunities for Improvement
The evaluation process is not yet integrated in the Contribution
Management System
There is not yet a clear evaluation criteria for the Contribution
Management system
Not clear incentives for learning and knowledge sharing
The way SIDA is organized (not geographically) hampers the
communication and collaboration among country offices
Strengths Previous the creation of DEval (Independent Evaluation
Institute), central evaluations used to be approved by top
managers and the Federal Ministry for Economic
Cooperation and Development (BMZ). Two sectors were
chosen every year according to the German government
guidelines.
OPS and Evaluation department work together to define the
questions and areas of interest for the sectoral evaluations
The department agreements discussed in the 'leanings cafes'
are presented in the Regular Operation Meeting where top
managers and head of the offices decide upon the
implementation plan
Learning improvements are taken into account in the
supervision meetings where supervisors give feedback about
the individual performance and employability
Weaknesses - Opportunities for Improvement
Although all the decentralized evaluations are carried out by
external consultants, lessons from failure are rarely captured
GIZ's KM strategy need to be people driven. The
implementation plan should be reviewed and adapted
considering the workload of different departments
Cu
ltu
re
AFD strives to adopt the best practices for all its work; therefore, the use of
effectiveness and solid M&E principles are embedded in their culture
The staff is committed to communicating and share results internally and
externally
Each 3 or 4 years, AFD officers have to change their job positions. They can
go to the field or change to another HQ department. This is seen as positive
practice because officers can challenge themselves and build internal
networks
There is a clear policy to publish all the M&E reports, even those that
acknowledge failure. Only documents with low quality are not published
AFD is aware that the information they produced is useful for students and
other development practitioners; therefore, they maintain a close links with
the academia and well-known sectoral experts
Opportunities for Improvement Consider to mention explicitly AFD commitment to adopt the best practices,
produce knowledge and promote learning in the organization's vision,
mission, values and strategic plan
Result-based culture
A strong commitment to take decisions based on knowledge
information
A decentralized structure for the decision making with financial
thresholds (e.g., only decisions that imply big amounts of money
are taken in the HQ)
Processes designed to promote teamwork and discussion on
relevant topics
Explicit acknowledgement that failures are not responsibility of
individuals
All the information produced by SIDA is published by Law. Yet, if
a report refers to political or sensitive issues is treated as classified
Opportunities for Improvement
Consider to include explicit KM elements in the strategic plan
(e.g., mission, vision, values)
Need to prioritize learning in the country officers and in the HQ
High quality and effectiveness are the two most important
features
The quality of GIZ services is assured through the European
Foundation for Quality Management EFQM model
Due to the high turnover rate, GIZ is aware that they cannot
rely on individual knowledge. Therefore, GIZ constantly
designs systems to store, review and transfer knowledge
GIZ recognizes the importance of learning from failure, this
is openly communicated to all the departments and external
consultants
Evaluations are partly published (e.g., executive report). This
practice avoids that consultants or program officers do not
report failures; however, complete reports are available
under request
Opportunities for Improvement
Consider to include explicit KM elements in the strategic
plan (e.g., mission, vision, values)
74
People are one of the main pillars to build a sustainable KM strategy. Furthermore,
they are a critical success factor for any KM practice (see figure 2.4., page 17). This statement
was reconfirmed during the interviews. A highly-trained body of staff is the common factor in
all the development agencies. Juniors, experts and senior officers interact during routine
activities and common projects. However, SIDA has in place a strategic group that acts as a
real KM team. This group was created based on the need to follow-up the implementation and
find opportunities for improvement of the Contribution Management System. However, it is
too early to appreciate the real contribution of this team to SIDA. Another interesting finding
is that all of the agencies try to minimize the drain brain impact by capturing the information
and knowledge that an officer holds through the production of reports. GIZ puts special
emphasis on this practice due to its high turnover rate. This high rate is not seen as a
weakness, rather it is perceived as a factor that allows maintaining GIZ’s flexibility and leads
to more emphasis on knowledge sharing practices. Finally, in line with the insights of the
theoretical review, all officers acknowledged that there is not a shared vision about the extents
of, and the main activities of KM. This might hamper the alignment and harmonization of all
the KM elements because each unit can interpret in this own way which are the primary
activities to perform. Aware of this, GIZ is performing KM workshops to define a common
vision and try to align all the KM elements in the organization.
The use of databases is a common practice in all the agencies. All the officers agreed
that the design of these tools should be more user-friendly and should integrate smart filters to
facilitate the search of specific documents. AFD has recently acquired a new tool called AFD
WATCH. This powerful search engine aims to assist each officer in their individual search of
academic and policy information that includes the database of other agencies. GIZ and BTC
have initiated the ambitious implementation of ERP systems. BTC is in the design phase,
whilst SIDA is already progressing to a second version of its Contribution of Management
System. This system looks to integrate reports that retrieve information to consolidate all the
aspects of the project management. However, it is still too early to have evidence of the
positive or negative impact of this tool53
.
The rules-in-use as expected differ from one organization to another; yet in all them,
they have a direct impact on the organizational performance. For the purpose of this study, I
53
Interview with SIDA M&E expert related to the Contribution Management system, 20 August 2013
75
will mainly focus on the rules-in-use related to the M&E systems. AFD and GIZ put special
emphasis on the coordinated work between the OPS and the Evaluation department to produce
tailored information. The approval of annual evaluation plans by high level committees is
mandatory for AFD, SIDA and GIZ. However, SIDA has already considered the inclusion of
past evaluations in a Contribution Management report. Additionally, a Core Committee is in
charge to analyze strategic evaluations and identify opportunities for SIDA institutional
improvement. At GIZ, learning cafes are the spaces where evaluations are discussed and
implementation plans are drafted. Later, these implementation plans are approved in high level
meetings. The rules-in-use can only guide to perform certain actions but they cannot warranty
the effective use and/or integration of the evaluation findings and recommendations into the
day-to-day activities. This point was already discussed in the last section where adequate time
and incentives were highlighted as one of the major barriers to use effectively M&E reports.
From the theoretical review, we know that society’s culture does affect the institutional
arrangements and the management model of the organizations (see section 4.2.4. Process-
Culture). This management model is somewhat evident in the strategic plan of each
organization. From the analysis of the published strategic plans and the interviews, I could
state that the current tendency is towards a result-based culture that uses M&E systems as
mechanisms to gather robust evidence in order to prove results that assure future funding.
Within this framework the different agencies shape their activities and set their priorities.
5.4. THE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT INFLUENCES COMPONENT
The analysis of the third layer guided me to identify those factors when left untreated
can hamper the organizational processes and damage the overall performance. These elements
can be associated with opportunities and threats. Although the main focus of this chapter is the
analysis of the Action Arena and the Knowledge Resources component, during the interviews
I could identify some direct influences for KM practices in the selected development agencies.
However, I could not categorize these elements as opportunities or threats due to the lack of
more contextual information about the settings in which each organization currently works.
Nonetheless, Table 5.4., presents some of the KM influences identified during the interviews.
76
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT INFLUENCES COMPONENT
AFD SIDA GIZ
Man
ager
ial
Infl
uen
ce
Leadership is crucial for any KM initiative. A
considerable change was perceived in the
production of KM activities when the department
chief ended his term.
In 2014, the AFD Evaluation Policy will be
launched with the support of top managers. In this
document, the M&E operational plan and goals
will be presented to all the departments. One of the
principal changes is that all new project documents
must include a review of evaluations and
experiences from the past interventions. They
should also include a synthesis of the
recommendations done in past evaluations and
actions to avoid the repetition of the same
mistakes.
Top managers strongly support the implementation of the
Contribution Management System and are periodically informed
about the initiatives and the results achieved by the organization
Top managers communicate the importance of learning and the
communication of results based on evidence
Use of the perspective of the poor as foundation. SIDA has the
conviction that the poor can take themselves out of poverty given
the right conditions. Therefore, all their projects integrate this
vision and work to obtain this goal
Top managers and the head of each department will agree on the
strategic evaluations to be conducted during the year (New
initiative)
Three years ago the reorganization of SIDA did have an impact
on the production and use of information, and on the creation of
new departments and committees
GIZ's position is to maintain the flexibility of the
organization. Therefore, experts are not hired permanently
in order to maintain the influx of new experts in different
thematic areas
The M&E policy will be reviewed this year. The main focus
will be to institutionalize learning. Consequently, the
practice of reviewing other agencies' evaluations will be
included. Also, there will be a new platform where all the
discussions about the evaluation findings and
implementation agreements will be stored to follow-up
Although KM is recognized as important; GIZ’s priority is
to show results. Therefore KM activities are performed
when financial and operational activities are completed
Res
ou
rces
Infl
uen
ce There is a specific budget for the publication and
dissemination of AFD information as well as for
the preparation of seminars
There is not a specific KM strategy neither an
exclusive budget for KM activities
There is not an explicit KM strategy. However, the new
Contribution Management system is seen as the basis to produce
in a near future a KM strategy
Due to resource constraints the M&E department cannot dedicate
time and officers to coordinate and harmonize the production of
decentralize evaluations
Ex
tern
al
Kn
ow
led
ge
Res
ou
rces
Active work and interaction with other
development agencies to learn from them
AFD works closely with French and international
universities and researchers to enhance debate and
forward-looking thinking about development
Interaction with other development agencies to learn from the
strengths and weaknesses of their systems
Active use of other agencies’ thematic evaluations
GIZ gives importance to the institutional knowledge
sharing. Therefore, GIZ staff has the opportunity to carry on
professional practices in worldwide organizations such as
the WB or other associated organizations
En
vir
on
men
tal
Infl
uen
ces
Agreements, commitments and guidelines
established in worldwide conferences do have an
influence on AFD operations and working areas
The Swedish government demands to see results; therefore, SIDA
structure is shaped to show results
SIDA must follow guidelines of the Swedish government. The
new Aid platform will define the focus of the Sweden aid and
cooperation sector for the next years. These guidelines limit the
creation and/or finalization of new strategic plans
Political conflicts in the partner countries have affected SIDA
operations
The BMZ used to approve and provide the funds to conduct
central evaluations. In 2012, the Independent Evaluation
Institute DEval owned by the Federal Government is in
charge to conduct evaluations, performance reviews and
impact analyses of German development cooperation
activities. Therefore, GIZ can concentrate on producing
corporate strategic evaluations
Table 5.4. Findings in the Knowledge Management Influences Component
77
The main finding in this layer is that leadership is crucial for the success of any KM
practice. Top managers set the priorities, approve and give feedback on structural plans that
lead to organizational changes. At AFD, the new Evaluation Policy requires the support of top
and middle managers in order to be permeated in the designs of new programs. Similarly, in
GIZ the new M&E policy will require the support of managers who play a key role in setting
this new policy as a priority on the agenda. Meanwhile, at BTC the support of top managers
will be crucial for the implementation of their new ERP. This tool will change the way core
activities are currently being performed and reported; therefore, managers have the
responsibility to maintain a high level of motivation on the Staff who will face this challenge.
Proof of this is the implementation of the Contribution Management System at SIDA. The
support of the Board of Directors and managers was essential for its fast implementation and
continuous flow of resources. Following this argument, I could observe that the role of a
leader is important to assure resources for any KM initiative, not only ambitious projects. If
leaders do not buy-in a KM initiative or project, then resources will be rarely allocated in these
activities.
Finally, the role of a Knowledge Administrator seems to be the common necessity in
all the agencies. Most of the officers acknowledged that their KM resources are neither
aligned nor harmonized under a shared vision or set of goals. KM requires an appreciation of
the fact that neither culture nor technology can independently provide a strong KM solution.
The alignment of all KM resources and initiatives is crucial to transform organizations into
real learning organisms.
78
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CHAPTER 6.
“In the end, we are all engaged in the business of development because we believe that
we can actually have a better world. And we are only going to achieve that if we actually
invest in analyzing what works and what doesn’t work and taking time to actually share the
experiences, the knowledge, the data, and the analysis gather in the field. This is absolutely
critical not only to the Agency and to the work that we are doing, but to the people that we
ultimately serve”
OPS Officer
6.1. CONCLUSIONS
Knowledge Management is never an end in itself; rather it should support the main
objectives of the organization through an efficient and effective exchange of high quality
knowledge. As stated in the theoretical framework People, Process and Technology constitute
the main pillars of any KM strategy or initiative (see Figure 2.4., Knowledge Management
Pillars, page 17). However, these pillars need to be supported by incentives, proper
sponsorship, time for reflection and the ability to disseminate knowledge throughout the
organization. Figure 6.1., shows the Knowledge Managements pillars and the support
elements that should be considered previous the implementation of any KM practice.
Figure 6.1. Knowledge Management Pillars Adjusted Version
The KM Strategy: Legs, Flows, Process
PEOPLE(Organizational culture, behaivours, skills)
PROCESS(Km Macro process and
subsystems)
TECHNOLOGY(IT Tools)
Budgeting(Resources)
Top Managers Support
IncentivesTIME
79
The common finding across the case studies is that the concern for learning is already
embedded in the subconscious of the staff and organizations are taking action to perform solid
KM practices. Nonetheless, there is not yet a shared vision about what KM means and which
are the main activities related to this model. This might hinder the alignment and
harmonization of the organization’s KM elements because each department can set its own
particular priorities. Therefore workshops are necessary to establish a common vision.
In general, M&E systems play two distinct roles in the selected development
organizations: providing accountability for achieving results, and promoting learning from
past experiences. These roles most often are seen as complementary. Likewise, evaluations are
seen as a powerful tool to set sectoral standards; to find lessons learned that influence the
design of new interventions; to provoke informed discussions about the future paths; and in its
most advanced forms to produce sustainable institutional changes. However, the knowledge
produced by these evaluations is not systematically integrated into the day-to-day activities
due to time constraints, not effective incentives and/or not well tailored and contextual
information or recommendations.
KM activities should not compete with other core activities; rather they should
be considered as part of the productive activities. To achieve this, activities such as making
KM part of the job description; evaluating KM contributions during the performance reviews;
and recognizing participants who proactively take on KM initiatives should be considered in
the incentive systems.
Finally, Figure 6.2., presents the most important findings of this research. It is
important to highlight that the KM good practices should be analyzed in context and
considering the institutional arrangements behind each practice.
80
Figure 6.2. Main Conclusions
6.2. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings and conclusions from this study, I can present some
recommendations for the BTC. First, there should be an explicit interest of top managers in
KM activities previous the implementation of a KM strategy. Then, top and middle managers
should build legitimacy, or assist prioritization of knowledge and learning with core activities.
Second, the M&E department should be supported by more human and financial resources to
conduct strategic and corporate evaluations. Third, the role of a KM administrator is
necessary in order to align and harmonize all the KM initiatives that BTC is currently
performing (e.g., capitalization program, ERP, MoRe Results). Fourth, the current incentive
What triggers the actual use of M&E reports
• Time
• Better Quality
• Reports Summary
• Better Dissemination
• Better Recommendations
• More Accessible (User-friendly database)
• Clear relevance to work
Enabling Environment for learning
• Top Managers buy-in
• Time
• Clear incentives
• Physical and/or virtual spaces for interaction with other colleagues
• User-friendly databases and smart search engines
• Common projects with colleagues from different departments
• Learning activities part of the staff evaluation
What triggers the KM process
• It is important to have a common understanding of KM, what activities and the scope of this concept
• Have a responsible or champion to follow-up KM activities
• Promote continuous informal meetings, these are valuable learning spaces. Lunch seminars, staff meetings, and coffee break discussions all provide a forum for learning
• KM and communication activities should be included in the project cycle
• KM activities should be included in evaluation reports
KM Good Practices
•Specific process to select core information
•Production of Strategic and corporate evaluations
•Compilation of lessons learned
•M&E annual plan
•Backstopping Missions
•Communities of practice
•Close contact between OPS and Evaluation department to produce strategic evaluations
•Close contact between OPS, Communication and M&E department to think about the results they want to communicate
•Mandatory inclusion of past evaluation reviews, recommendations and lessons learned in the program technical and operational documents
•Use of evaluation reports produced by other agencies
•Active promotion of learning activities
81
system should be redefined considering the institutional arrangements and the organizational
goals to achieve towards KM.
Additionally, the quality of the MoRe Results evaluations should be improved by
taking the following steps:
- Develop guidelines to ensure that report recommendations are clear and fact-based
- Provide short, clear executive summaries for all reports
- Develop short, non-technical briefs for all reports to make the results more widely
accessible
- Provide targeted briefings to those units, particularly country offices, involved in the
evaluations by arranging debriefing session on the findings of relevant evaluations as part
of regularly-scheduled unit staff meetings
- Emphasize dissemination as a key part of the work of the M&E department by adding
time for dissemination activities as a standard evaluation activity
- Explore additional channels for communication, such as external networks, social media,
and podcasts, to better target and disseminated messages
- Improve the ‘visuability’ of reports
- Promoting evaluation use by highlighting ‘success stories’ of good use in other
development agencies
6.3. FUTURE RESEARCH
This study was based on the need of creating a framework that shows M&E systems as
a key tool for any KM strategy or initiative. The new framework merged the institutional
perspective of Hess and Ostrom (2005) and the KM perspective Holsapple and Joshi (2002) to
allow identifying the critical KM resources and processes. After gathering information in the
different agencies, I could state that the framework helped me to structure my research and led
me to identify common issues and good KM practices. However, the design needs to be
improved, for future research, considering the knowledge produce during the interaction of
officers with the ultimate beneficiaries of the programs. Furthermore, while applying the
framework I realized that strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) can be
certainly identified. Therefore, the SWOT concept should be considered prior the design of the
82
interview guides. Nonetheless, this new framework could be used to ensure that knowledge
audits are more robust and serve as the basis for any KM strategy.
Due to time constraints it was not possible to interview officers in similar positions in
each agency. This hampered in certain extend the triangulation of Knowledge Resources
findings at the four agencies. Therefore, a second round of questions will be a necessary
element to improve the validity of the findings.
The use of surveys will help to validate the design of this new framework and will also
allow gathering new insights about incentives and other factors that make M&E reports
actually being used. The surveys should focus on gathering information about the following
issues:
- How officers understand the concept of KM
- Identify which KM mechanisms officers recognize as crucial for their activities
- Establish how they gather information from the ultimate beneficiaries
- Factors that help and hinder the use of knowledge - Incentives
- How respondents can be helped in order to make greater use of evaluation
knowledge
- The extent to which respondents involved in the evaluation process
- Understanding the benefits of a specific evaluation experience
- Examples of influential evaluations
83
REFERENCES
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001) “Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge
Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues”, MIS Quarterly, 25 (1):
107-136.
Bartol, K.M. and Srivastava, A. (2002) “Encouraging Knowledge Sharing: The Role of
Organizational Reward Systems”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9 (1): 64-
76.
Bedi, T., Coudouel, A., Cox, M., Goldstein, M. and Thornton, N. (2006) Beyond the Numbers.
Understanding the Institutions for Monitoring Poverty Reduction Strategies, Washington,
D.C., World Bank Publications.
Bode, R., Victoria, P.A. and Arévalo Valencia, D.P. (2008) “Knowledge management and
communication to address information access and power asymmetries for resource-poor
producers in value chains”, Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 4 (1): 5-20.
Borghoff, U.M. and Pareschi, R. (1997) “Information Technology for Knowledge
Management”, Journal of Universal Computer Science, 3 (8): 835-842.
BTC (2012a) “BTC Annual Report 2011”,
http://www.btcctb.org/files/web/publication/Annual%20Report%202011.pdf (last consulted:
August 22, 2013).
BTC (2012b) “Technical & Financial File: Institutional Strengthening and Capacity
Development of EWSA Electricity Utility: Rwanda”, Project Documentation, Belgian
Development Agency, Brussels. Estos toca buscar donde estan
BTC (2013a) “M&E and Knowledge Management”, Presentation, Belgian Development
Agency, Brussels.
BTC (2013b) “MoRe Results, Part I: Monitoring & Evaluation: Approach and System”,
Handbook, Belgian Development Agency, Brussels.
BTC (2013c) “MoRe Results, Part II: More Results at the Intervention Level”, Handbook,
Belgian Development Agency, Brussels.
BTC (2013d) “BTC Business Plan 2014”, Belgian Development Agency, Brussels.
84
BTC (2013e) “Belgian Development Agency”, Presentation/Overview, Belgian Development
Agency, Brussels. Estos toca buscar donde estan
Cannon, M.D. and Edmondson, A.C. (2004) “Failing to learn and learning to fail
(intelligently): How great organizations put failure to work to improve and innovate”, HBS
Working Paper, 4 (53).
Creech, H. (2012) “Knowledge platforms and local level knowledge sharing”, Paper,
International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Dalkir, K. (2005) Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice, Oxford, Elsevier.
De Long, D.W. and Fahey, L. (2000) “Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge
management”, The Academy of Management Executive, 14 (4): 113-127.
Desai, H. (2011) The Role of Knowledge Management in Google Inc.,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60203118/The-Role-of-Knowledge-Management-in-Google-Inc
(last consulted: July 29, 2013).
Donoghue, A. (2006) Google dodges knowledge management question,
http://www.zdnet.com/google-dodges-knowledge-management-question-3039255519/ (last
consulted: July 24, 2013).
Drucker, P.F. (1995) Managing in Time of Great Change, New York: Truman Talley Books.
Ferguson, J.E., Mchombu, K. and Cummings, S. (2008) “Meta-review and scoping study of
the management of knowledge for development”, IKM Working Paper, 1.
FRAO/WARF (2009) Capitalization and Enhancement of the Experiences of Development
Projects and Programmes: Methodological Guide,
http://www.fidafrique.net/IMG/pdf/CAPITALIZATION_FIDAfrique_EN.pdf (last consulted:
July 18, 2013).
Ifijeh, G. (2011) “Budgeting for knowledge management in organizations”, Chinese
Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 32.
Hess, C. and Ostrom, E. (2005) “A Framework for Analyzing the Knowledge Commons: a
chapter from Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: from Theory to Practice” Library and
Librarians' Publication, 21.
85
Holsapple, C.W. and Joshi, K.D. (2011) “An investigation of factors that influence the
management of knowledge in organizations”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9:
235-261.
Holsapple, C.W. and Joshi, K.D. (2002) “Knowledge Management: A Threefold Framework”,
The Information Society: An International Journal, 18 (1): 47-64.
IDRC (2011) Knowledge Management, http://web.idrc.ca/uploads/user-
S/1226604770112265956261Chapter_3%5B1%5D.pdf (last consulted: May 21, 2013).
IDRC and CRDI (2011) “Knowledge Translation and Management”, in: Bennett, G. and
Nasreen, J. (eds.) The knowledge Translation Toolkit Bridging the Know-Do Gap: a resource
for researchers, India, Sage, 1-46.
IFAD (2007) Knowledge Management: Strategy, http://www.ifad.org/pub/policy/km/e.pdf
(last consulted: July 16, 2013).
Johnson, J. (2011) 10 Rock Solid Website Layout Examples,
http://designshack.net/articles/layouts/10-rock-solid-website-layout-examples/ (last consulted:
August 8, 2013).
Kabigting, I. (2012) 6 Key Elements to a Good Website,
http://www.webs.com/blog/2012/02/28/6-key-elements-to-a-good-website/ (last consulted:
August 6, 2013).
Koenig, M.E.D. and Kanti Srikantaiah, T. (eds.) (2007) Knowledge Management Lessons
Learned: What Works and What Doesn’t, New Jersey, The American Society for Information
and Technology.
Krohwinkel-Karlsson, A. (2007) “Knowledge and Learning in Aid Organizations – A
literature review with suggestions for further studies”, Swedish Agency for Development
Evaluation Working Paper, 2007 (1).
Kusek, J.Z. and Rist, R.C. (2004) Ten steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation
System. A handbook for Development Practitioners, Washington, D.C., World Bank.
Latham, G., Ford, R., and Tzabbar, D. (2012) Enhancing Employee and Organizational
Performance through Coaching Based on Mystery Shopper Feedback: A Quasi-Experimental
Study”, Human Resource Management, 51 (2): 213-230.
86
Lopez-Acevedo, G., Rivera, K., Lima, L., and Hwang, H. (2010) Fifth Conference of the Latin
America and The Caribbean Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Network, Washington, D.C.,
The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Maciejovsky, B. and Budescu, D. (2013) Markets as a Structural Solution to Knowledge-
Sharing Dilemmas”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120: 154-167.
Mackay, K. (2006) “Institutionalization of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems to Improve
Sector Management”, Evaluation Capacity Development Working Paper, 15.
Mackay, K. (2007) How to Build M&E Systems to Support Better Government, Washington
D.C., The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Marks, M.R. (2004) “Measuring the Return on Investment of Knowledge Management
Projects”, Perspectives in Business, 1: 37-40.
Marquardt, M.J. (1996) Building the Learning Organization: A Systems Approach to Quantum
Improvement, New York City, McGraw-Hill.
McDermott, R. (2000) Knowing in Community: 10 Critical Success Factors in Building
Communities of Practice, http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/knowing.shtml
(last consulted: August 16, 2013).
Mertins, K., Heisig, P. and Vorbeck, J. (eds.) (2003) Knowledge Management: Concepts and
Best Practices, Berlin/Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag.
Milton, N., Shadbolt, N., Cottam, H. and Hammersley, M. (1999) “Towards a knowledge
technology for knowledge management”, Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 51: 615-641.
Morey, D. (2001) “High-speed knowledge management: integrating operations theory and
knowledge management for rapid results”, Journal of Knowledge Management, 5 (4): 322-328
OECD (1997) In Search of Results: Performance Management Practices, Paris, Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Ortakaya, F. (2007) Knowledge Management IT Systems,
http://de.slideshare.net/ortakayafaruk/knowledge-management-information-technology-
systems (last consulted: July 23, 2013).
Ostrom, E., Gibson, C., Shivakumar, S. and Andersson, K. (2001) Aid, Incentives, and
Sustainability, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University
87
Ostrom, E. (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton, Princeton University
Press.
Ostrom, E. (2011) “Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework”,
The Policy Studies Journal, 39 (1): 7-27.
Poteete, A.R. and Ostrom, E. (2004) “Heterogeneity, Group Size and Collective Action: The
Role of Institutions in Forest Management”, Development and Change, 35 (3): 435-461.
Riege, A. and Lindsay, N. (2006) “Knowledge management in the public sector: stakeholder
partnerships in the public policy development”, Journal of Knowledge Management, 10 (3):
24-39.
Rist, R.C. and Stame, N. (eds.) (2006) From Studies to Streams: Managing Evaluative
Systems, New Brunswick, New Jersey, Transaction Publishers.
Scarbrough, H., Swan, J. and Preston, J. (1999) Knowledge Management: A Literature
Review, London, Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development.
Schein, E.H. (2004), Organizational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (2001) Chapters 2&3 in: Experimental and
quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference, Boston, Houghton Mifflin: 37-
94.
SIDA (2005) Sida’s Learning: Sida’s approach to learning,
http://www.sida.se/Publications/Import/pdf/sv/Sidas-Learning_1020.pdf (last consulted: July
10, 2013).
Simister, N. and Smith, R. (2010) “Monitoring and Evaluating Capacity Building: Is it really
that difficult?”, International Training and Research Center Praxis Paper, 23.
Subrahmanian, R. (2006) Mainstreaming Gender for Better Girls' Education: Policy and
Institutional Issues, Kathmandu, United Nations Children’s Fund.
Stoyko, P. (2009) “Organizational Culture and the Management of Organizational Memory”,
in: Girard, J.P. (ed.) (2009) Building Organizational Memories: Will You Know What You
Knew?, Hershey/London, IGI Global, 1-17.
Talisayon, S.D. (2009) “Monitoring and Evaluation in Knowledge Management for
Development”, IKM Working Paper, 3.
88
Tanriverdi, H. (2005) “Information Technology Relatedness, Knowledge Management
Capability, and Performance of Multibusiness Firms”, MIS Quarterly, 29 (2): 311-334.
Tiwana, A. (1999) The Knowledge Management Toolkit, Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall.
Truls, E. (2002) “Entrepreneurial Capital: The Emerging Venture's Most Important Asset and
Competitive Advantage”, Journal of Business Venturing, 17 (3): 275-290.
UNICEF ROSA (2008) Learning from KM Experiences: Report of Information and
Knowledge Management, http://www.unicef.org/rosa/Learning_from_KM_Experiences.pdf (last
consulted: May 3, 2013).
USAID (2011) Assessing Knowledge Management and M&E Systems in Development,
http://microlinks.kdid.org/sites/microlinks/files/resource/files/Assessing_Knowledge_Manage
ment.pdf (last consulted: July 13, 2013).
USAID (2012) A Discovery Report on Learning in USAID/Washington,
http://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/Discovery%20Report_Final022513
.pdf (last consulted: July 18, 2013).
WBI (2007) Building Knowledge Economies: Advanced Strategies for Development,
Washington D.C., The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Woodhill, J. (2005) “M&E as learning: Rethinking the dominant paradigm”, in: De Graaff, J.,
Cameron, J. and Sombatpanit, S. (eds.) Monitoring and Evaluation of Soil Conservation and
Watershed Development ProjectsWorld Association Of Soil And Water Conservation, Enfield,
Science Publishers.
World Bank (2013) World Development Indicators 2013, Washington D.C., The International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
89
APPENDIX 1: LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INTERVIEWEES
Name of the organization Officers interviewed Date of the interview
Belgian Technical
Cooperation (BTC)
Junior officer M&E department
Expert officer M&E department
Senior officer EST department
Senior officer OPS department
Senior officer Communication department
OPS expert officer related to the
Capitalization program
Senior officer related to the ERP initiative
July 3th and 4
th
August 8th
French Agency for
Development (AFD)
Expert officer Evaluation Department
Expert officer Knowledge Management
Department
August 2th
Swedish International
Development Cooperation
Agency (SIDA)
Junior officer OPS department
Senior officer Evaluation department
Expert officer Evaluation department related
to decentralized evaluations
Expert officer Evaluation department related
to central evaluations
Expert officer related to the Contribution
Management system
August 19th and 20
th
German Society for
International Cooperation
(GIZ)
Expert officer M&E department August 23
th
(Skype)
90
APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW GUIDE
GENERAL QUESTIONS FOR ALL THE INTERVIEWEES
Objective:
Identify the language use about M&E and KM in the organization.
Detect the common understanding about knowledge needs and people involved in the
knowledge creation and dissemination processes.
Obtain a scan of the KM elements in place in the organization.
Understand the rules in use to create, transfer and use information/knowledge.
Questions:
1. Which are the main information producers users for you in the organization?
2. Which are the principal KM elements in place in the organization?
3. Do you feel that these elements/systems are aligned and harmonized?
4. Could you explain how M&E reports are produced? How are they use and
disseminate?
5. How do you see the link between M&E and capitalization? Are failures being
capitalized?
6. How do you incorporate learning and knowledge into the day-to-day activities?
7. Have you ever had meetings or spaces where you discuss about past experiences,
review ongoing projects or analyze future information needs?
8. What does mean knowledge management and organizational learning for you?
9. Is there a clear KM strategy in the organization?
10. Can you identify a person or department that is committed to Knowledge creation,
transferability and use?
11. How do you avoid the drain brain in the organization? Mentoring practices?
12. How much time do you dedicate to perform knowledge activities?
13. Which are the incentives that you sense to share information?
14. Which information is important to keep for you when a person leaves the organization?
Can you give some examples?
15. Do you think there are spaces for creativity and experimentation?
16. Which barriers or obstacles you find the most difficult to surpass to become a learning
organization?
17. How would you rate the support of top managers to promote organizational changes?
18. Which mechanism do you use to access to information? How much time does it take
you to find the information you need?
91
APPENDIX 3: BTC INTERVIEWS HIGHLIGHTS
RESEARCH
TOPICS
INTERVIEWEE
DO Department/M&E EST Department Expert Formulation/Capitalization Program
Knowledge
Management
meaning
KM is about how experience learning
produce in different departments get
synthetized and stay in the mind of people. It involves an informed reflection to take
actions in the future.
KM is a huge container that includes many elements such as people, culture,
technology, experience, skills. Yet, KM
is essentially whatever makes the organization run as effectively as
possible; therefore is a necessary
practice in any organization.
KM is about how we are do things and if we are doing these
things properly. All the mechanisms that produce useful
knowledge should be put together (align) to produce an effective KM that servers to the formulation and
implementation cycle of any intervention.
Main
Information
users and
producers
Users and producers: EST and OPS
department
Producers: Formulation and intervention team
Users: Donors
In the capitalization program EST, OPS, Communication
and DO departments who should work together because capitalization is going to capture information that serves to
all those departments.
Project Managers (user)
Which
information is
important?
Information that is related to policy. When
donors (DGD) determine in which areas we will focus (e.g. health sector), we need to
know what generalizations can be useful and having a common position about some
points. Each 4-5 years, it is determined
what we will do in the sector, so we have time to reflect and find robust
generalizations.
Expertise within the organization is really important.
Information about control and information triggers learning; but be
careful not to mix control and leaning
because it can lead to produce or draw wrong conclusions.
The information that is produced at project level which help
to formulate projects and give policy advice.
What makes
that knowledge
is used?
When we have to give advice related to a
policy, we look for lessons learned or when
they need to formulate a new project.
We use knowledge when we have to design a new
intervention, then we look what we have been doing in the sector, in the country and start to look for the advice of
different colleagues.
KM elements in
place
Peer to peer interchange
Meetings but the information shared is not explicitly captured.
We have a lot of activities related to
knowledge. But the main focus is not produce and kept that knowledge in the
organization.
Steering and technical committees are the 'spaces' where BTC absorb knowledge about
the partner country (close collaboration).
Backstopping Missions.
We produce good Logic Frameworks for the interventions base in our experience.
We have evidence of outstanding
implementation models recognize by other international partners.
Experts available for policy dialogue.
Backstopping Missions: experts that participate in the formulation stage, go
to the field to monitor and see the
progress of the intervention. By doing this, they can give alerts or insights
about what they see to the Intervention
Team. Debriefing Sessions once the
interventions is finished.
Evaluation reports.
Backstopping Missions.
We will start with some important initiatives for KM: ERP and Capitalization.
Organizational
culture/barriers
for KM
We don't have time to share information.
There are some spaces where we meet but this is not formal practice and what we
discuss in those meetings stays in our
minds, not in documents neither is captured in a formal way.
The development sector is in crisis. We have the pressure to finish all the
documents related to the formality of the
interventions. Our time is mostly occupied by the elaboration of new files
which are necessary to continue
receiving support. As a consequence, our time is limited to do more
backstopping, to reflect on lessons
learned, and to produce sector reviews. Our Expert department is very strong.
Specially our Health experts are
externally recognized as a solid team.
There is not a shared vision about what is/implies KM and Capitalization.
We are mainly concerned about implementation activities;
therefore, we don’t take time to reflect on what we have been doing, how we do it and ways to improve our
interventions.
The quality of the documents is not standardized, this is a very important issue because we lost information and time
with bad reports. At the field, we should make sure that we
have people who produce good quality documents. Different departments do not interact continuously in order
to share knowledge and experience.
We should promote the participation of different members of the staff and avoid to listen to the same voices always.
Inject new ideas to the way we work is important.
Power relations are very marked in the organization. We don't have yet the maturity to recognize, accept and
learn from our failures. Failures are kept as a secret, not as something to disseminate and learn from them.
92
IT tools
characteristics Data base of reports
IT tools are a weak point at BTC.
We have plenty of IT tools, but if the information is not shared then it doesn't matter to have the most sophisticated
IT tools. It is a matter of organizational culture to profit of
the IT tools. IT tools are not a key factor unless there are a culture of
knowledge sharing behind.
MoRe Results
(M&E)
MoRe Results is a key system to produce
information which is oriented to produce better reports, identify lessons learned, and
assure the accountability to our
stakeholders. MoRe results produces a common language
(common standards); therefore it applies
rigid formats to assure a common base for the reports.
GAP: best practices
MoRe Results help to follow up interventions, it is a mechanism of
control.
It encourages people to communicate the results trough reports, but we need
more that numbers and indicators, we
need stories to really understand our interventions.
Capitalization and MoRe Results will work together, the DO
department is involved in the process. Evaluations produced by MoRe results will be use as input for
capitalization program.
Capitalization
Program
Capitalization will help us to write
stories and go beyond the numbers.
We will take a number of interventions and observe what
lessons or stories can be capitalized to trigger the learning
process. Capitalization is focus on lessons that guide us to build new
processes and approaches, also that allow us to reflect about
what we are doing and where we are going. The program will be concerned about producing high
quality documents and other materials that help us to learn
about the interventions. Failures will also be recorded, but in a smart way that do not
compromise our image as development agency.
The outcomes of the program will be targeted for the donors, other agencies and our staff.
KM problems
We loss opportunities to learn. OPS and
EST know a project is doing well but they miss the opportunity to capture the
knowledge.
When a person leaves the organization the information and knowledge he/she knows is
gone, we loss the opportunity to hear his/her
ideas and know what he/she was doing.
The development sector is currently in
crisis. The payment of the Staff is a problem so we have limited people and
we have to be able to define good and
smart projects with the resources we have.
We miss a part in our action field,
society should be also involved, because we work with private and public sector,
yet this is not the case, we do involve
society only in an informal manner.
We don’t have clear country and cross countries trajectories
of our interventions; even though, we are the biggest
development agency in Belgium, we are not able to respond
which interventions will be needed in the future and in
which environment we act. We have not institutionalized spaces for learning and
sharing information. We don’t have so much interaction
between departments. People do not interact after an intervention is concluded. People at the field and those in
Brussels should analyze what they learned and failures, but
we don't. At the formulation stage, past experiences from BTC
projects are not being used in a systematic way; we rely on
the experience of the designers, what they know, what they have done before, but not in our own information.
When a person leaves, we don't have an institutionalized
practice that let us absorb the knowledge this person knows.
Missed
Opportunities
to learn
Teams with similar interventions in different
countries should meet to exchange experiences, this exercise should lead by the
EST department.
EST department is in contact with the scientific part, universities, seminars. There,
they have a continue space for learning new
approaches, techniques and models. This knowledge should be shared.
We hire a lot of consultants or experts,
but they leave with their expertise and
we miss the chance to absorb that knowledge.
Currently, we put more responsibilities for BTC at the formulation stage in
order to learn.
It is difficult to create a system that compare different interventions and
draw conclusions or generalizations
from all our interventions because each country has its own context.
We do not exploit the information we produce to draw
lessons at sectorial, country or cross country level. We mainly focus on lessons at project level because the demand
for information that help to formulate new interventions is very strong.
The intervention teams share knowledge in the field when
they work together but not in a systematic manner. This practice should be institutionalized. Teams should present
their findings to different departments.
Good intervention managers are early recognized in the Head Quarters, but we miss the opportunity to learn how
they work because we are too busy to go to the field and
interact with these good project managers.
93
How should
KM work
There is not a demand for all the
information produce by BTC, so why spend
resources transforming or synthetizing all the information. We should look the other
way around; so when a policy is release, we
should have a mechanism that allow us to find evidence and answers (Pyramid of
information).
With a KM system, we should produce good M&E reports and think in advance about
possible problems and how to react.
We should reflect in advance by sectors what challenges we have ahead and what we
have to do about it.
We should have a block of information about the recipient countries.
Have the enabling environment to promote
knowledge sharing.
We should reflect about what does mean
development cooperation. What is the
value added of our interventions. In each different country how we make the
difference.
High interaction between people and experts.
Information available for policy
dialogue. A KM system should be flexible, it
should allow us to enrich our knowledge
about different contexts. We should have as many different
expert profiles as possible.
Common thinking about how to development programs should work.
Incentivize to create flexible
frameworks for the interventions.
We should have time to share information and reflect about
lessons of the past.
Country teams should be formed by people of different
departments with different visions who spend time together learning from each other and then rotate these people in
other teams. Permeate the information and knowledge by
country teams. Capitalization, lessons learned and evaluations should be
presented in informal debriefings.
Positive experiences should be shared in the Head Quarters trough meetings or any other mechanisms where we can
show the positive results to our colleagues.
A group people should interact and face the same problems together, then find solutions, and act. By doing this positive
experiences stays at different departments and we promote a
culture for learning. Colleagues of the specialized areas should shared their
information, present synthesis of their work. We should
have an space to contest their knowledge and learn from them.
Space for
creativity and
innovation
In the formulation stage of the project yes, but in the controlling stage no.
In the formulation stage we can apply any tool, as long as we obtain results.
What expect to
see in other
agencies
What mechanisms are used in other agencies
to promote knowledge sharing/ transfer? What is the enabling environment to
promote knowledge sharing?
How the engage in policy dialogue.
How other agencies balance soft and hard tools to facilitate
information use and learning. What is the importance they give to facilitate that people
meet.
Do they invest in high IT tools, libraries, wikis? Do they communicate good and bad things about their
interventions?
Which are their IT tools?
What kind of information they put online, which is the
judgment they use to release their information to the public? How do they integrate the information they produce in
different units to produce a common knowledge?
Is it a specific position in charge of knowledge management? Who is responsible to manage the knowledge
production and dissemination in the organization? Is it a
team who promotes knowledge sharing or only a person? How much time do they dedicated to knowledge activities?
94
RESEARCH
TOPICS
INTERVIEWEE
OPS Department IT tools
Knowledge
Management
meaning
Knowledge Management is related to information how is produce and who has
access to this information. Information is a tool for progress, it is a tool for
growth but information also could be seen as tool for power. The vision of
information for power management has to change in order to build a KM
system. KM is about a culture in which we all share our knowledge, we all
learn and we all growth.
KM should have an element of ICT awareness
and work in an integrated way. We should know
what information we have but currently we don't.
We don’t even know how many reports we have.
KM should help us to know what we know, what
we need to know and what we need to do.
However, ICT is not the key to solve all our
problems; nonetheless without ICT we cannot
solve any problem efficiently.
Main
Information
users and
producers
Users and Producers: OPS, EST, DO, Finance.
EST in the formulation stage should use the information of past experiences.
OPS can give a vision that is more closer to the field.
DO a more technical view related to evaluation.
Users and producers: Intervention team, Steering
committees, Finance Department.
Which
information is
important?
The practical field knowledge of the environment where the intervention is
being implemented. What services and facilities are available to construct
infrastructures, to capacitate people and access to the beneficiaries.
Finance information.
Performance/control information.
What makes
that knowledge
is used?
We don't use the information due to time pressure.
We don't capitalize lessons learned because we perceive that this activity does
not add any value to our work. We use information when it is quick, informal
and is deliver in real time.
We use information when is easy accessible.
IT tools
characteristics
Currently, our IT tools are a 'pain in the neck'. It is one of the weakest points at
BTC. The design of the data base and the searcher is unfriendly. The next IT
development should listen to the users. Our ICT department was perceived as
technology maintenance department for long time. We should recognize all the
potential that this department have to help us to communicate better and search
faster the information. But for this the ICT department needs people who are
capable to understand our business.
The are some initiatives in charge of the Communication department to
improve the web page design, we can already see the changes.
IT department should allow us to use tools that are available for free in the
market to share information and innovate by ourselves (e.g. Google calendar,
wikis)
BTC IT tools do not help to learn, do not produce
a real time feedback.
IT tools do not support the management of the
organization.
Data is not correctly organized and the
departments ask to produce same data in different
formats.
MoRe Results
(M&E)
The reports produce by MoRe Results are a very important source of
information, not only because of the information you find in the report, but
also due to the information, indicators, analysis that you don’t find in the
report. The black hole information is an useful indicator because it gives you
clues of what is going wrong or is missions in the intervention.
The DO department should make sure that people at the recipient country
understand the logic behind the report formats. They should make sure that
people has a sense of emergency, if they realize that something is wrong, they
can give alerts and act.
MoRe Results triggers the production of
indicators and these indicators should be
collected and stored by IT tools.
The evaluation methodology used by MoRe
results should be considered in any IT tool.
95
KM elements in
place
Mid Term review and Final evaluation processes.
Q platform.
Budget, Results and Evaluation Reports and we will start with Country
Reports.
PIT Project Information Tool which is a data base where you can find all the
documents related to the intervention and 'minutes' produced in different
Steering Committees. From this month this information will be in charge of
the head office in order to filter and improve the quality of the documents
uploaded in PIT.
Management Reviews which are in charge of the DO department, These
reviews look to follow up the managerial guidelines and the business plan of
the organization.
Evaluation Reports.
Q platform
Organizational
culture/barriers
for KM
Nowadays the sector is in crisis, DGD is cutting the budget for activities that
do not show results on the field. This situation lets little space for learning and
interact with other colleagues and agencies.
Board Directors and Middle Management should actively encourage and
stimulate the knowledge sharing in the organization. However, there is a
barrier for the dialogue with the directors and the Staff.
We don't have an exercise where EST, OPS and Do department reflect on what
am I doing, why I am doing that and whether or not we are aligned with the
vision of BTC. We should have this exercise at least twice per year.
There are walls between departments, we should collaborate with each other
but the communication and the knowledge sharing do not surpass those
department walls.
We don't know what the other colleagues are doing, so when we receive new
information we don't know who might be interested about it or working in a
field related to that new information.
In our organizational cultural we lack the willing to share information because
information tend to be as a tool of power, not only at BTC, this is a general
problem in development organizations.
The obvious lines of communication between departments and country
representatives (RR) are blocked. Some decisions are centralized and taken
without considering the opinion of the Resident Manager.
We don't recognize the value of investing resources and time in Knowledge.
We have valuable people who struggle to write reports, they are very good in
the field but not so accurate communicate the activities and the results. This is
a problem because we lose information and produce low quality reports.
The budget for IT is restricted, we have to cope
with the budget we have.
IT should be recognized as an important tool to
increase performance, currently it is not.
We don’t have people that work specifically on
ICT tools.
We lack a strong management culture where we
decide on strategies and we immediately start to
work on it.
Capitalization
Program
We have an external partner that will help us with the capitalization of lessons
learned. It is an important program because we do need to have in a synthetize
way the record of our past experiences.
Not consider a ICT tool yet.
96
KM problems
Currently we don’t have time to share with colleagues and talk about what we
are doing.
Lessons learned are not stored properly, each manager should take time to
synthetize the lessons learned in the intervention. Currently, the information is
not synthetized. At the end of each intervention a short email with the most
important lessons or results should be communicated to the Head Quarters.
This exercise should be institutionalized in order to start a culture for sharing.
We should have a compendium of lessons learned by sectors.
We do formulate good programs but some of them do not match with the
reality in the field because we have to face a lot of regulations that limit our
action. So we should think about this regulations in advance, at the
formulation stage, so we can design better programs.
The information of past projects is not used sufficiently.
We are mainly concerned about activities that show we are implementing
programs, we are eager to show results. Therefore, any activity that is not
related to the implementation is secondary. As a result, Producing knowledge
is secondary.
We should recognize our failures and admit we did something wrong, because
failures are an important source of knowledge. For this we don't have to point
out who was responsible of the failure, rather, we should analyze processes or
factors of the failure, not the people behind the failure. This is still missed at
BTC.
Our budget is limited to develop technology that
allow us to organize the information and improve
the communication in three different continents.
Missed
Opportunities
to learn
At the formulation stage an expert designs an intervention but his/her
knowledge is not cross checked with other people from different departments.
We should try to do often this exercise to learn from the experience of our
colleagues and enrich the design of the interventions. When it is not possible to
execute this exercise at the formulation stage; we should at least have a
meeting to cross check the references about the reality of the country (social,
economic, political environment). By doing this we can have a common
knowledge about the recipient country.
We don't reflect together about the stakeholders environment of each
intervention, each department have a piece of the puzzle, we need to put all
together to have the picture of the stakeholders, beneficiaries, and politics
behind the intervention.
Country teams should start to work properly and systematically. They should
know in detail what is happening in the countries and we should speak the
same language.
Evaluation Committees should be integrated with members of different
departments (OPS, Finance, Communication, EST) in order to evaluate the
different stages of the intervention and find out the good and bad practices in
critical and respectful way.
At the end of a contract, the technical assistant (at the recipient country) comes
to the Head Quarters and maintain short meetings with colleagues of different
departments. The technical assistance presents the activities, outputs and
outcomes. However, we don't have time to go in an in depth analysis an extract
valuable information from these meetings. Moreover, the visit of the technical
assistant to the Head Quarters is not an institutionalized practice, there are
some assistants that leaves and a lot of information is gone.
During many years IT tools has not been seen as
important tool at BTC. The first step to change
the organizational culture towards KM is to
recognize IT tools plays a main role.
97
How should
KM work
Produce capitalization with people of different departments and then present
the results to different teams.
We should have a space to share knowledge and think about solutions.
Everyone should share quick notes about what they are doing, or lessons
learned in the field in an informal way (e.g. few lines email). Start a culture of
sharing and communicating experiences, avoid long meetings. We should
profit of the intranets and emails to share quick insights about what we
consider important. Avoid long reports. Quick notes are proven to be useful.
If something, a new approach, methodology, or lessons are very important, we
should call to a meeting and disseminate this new knowledge in the
organization.
Promote the recognition for team building and team play. Discourage
competition into the organization.
We do exchange experiences with other agencies but this information is not
disseminate. We should have formal meetings where we present formally new
practices but this has to be incentivized from the top managers.
KM should integrate data for finance,
accountability and learning.
IT tools for KM should be user friendly.
IT for KM should have a document manager
system that help to people to find answers in
documents.
IT tools should be a platform that help the
knowledge sharing in real time.
Space for
creativity and
innovation
There is not much space for the creativity and innovation due to time
constraints. We don’t have time to imagine or reflect what we can do better,
learn from experience of other agencies and try to apply to new approaches to
our interventions. We are focused on implementing and performing activates
that show results.
Due to our envelope, we cannot experiment with new frameworks because
creating something new demands resources.
The leader of ICT should be creative enough to
deal with the challenges of any ICT
implementation process. He/she should know
how the organization works and maintain a
constant dialogue with the users.
What expect to
see in other
agencies
Do they practice backstopping? Back Missions?
Is information a tool for power or a tool for progress? How the other agencies
perceive the importance of sharing information?
Are Boarder Directors or General Managers promoters of a KM culture? Do
they recognize the importance of KM? Is there a formal policy or department
in charge of KM?
Do they actively invest in Knowledge?
How do they incorporate learning and knowledge sharing into the day-to-day
activities?
Which is the mechanism use for capitalizing lesson learned and best practices?
Is this practice institutionalized?
Which incentives they use to promote learning and team work?
Do they have competition for resources with other development agencies? If
yes this competition has worked in favor of KM?
