See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265864864

PUBLIC SECTOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT:

A GENERIC FRAMEWORK

Article January 2009

CITATIONS READS

5 851

2 authors:

Dr. Abdullah Kammani Hema Date

Taif University NITIE-National Institute of Industrial Enginee
27 PUBLICATIONS 123 CITATIONS 24 PUBLICATIONS 217 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Knowledge Infrastructure for KM Capability View project

Public and Private Sector Knowledge Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr. Abdullah Kammani on 22 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ABDULLAH
Research Fellow
Email: abdullah@nitie.edu, abdullah.km@gmail.com
Tel: 0091-9819848754

HEMA DATE
Associate Professor
Email: hemadate@nitie.edu, hema_date@yahoo.com
Tel: 0091-9833088977

National Institute of Industrial Engineering,

JANUARY - JUNE 2009 VOL.3 NO.1

Mumbai.
Tel: 0091-22-28573371, Fax: 0091-22-28573251,

PUBLIC SECTOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: A GENERIC FRAMEWORK

ABSTRACT

Knowledge Management (KM) is an inevitable approach in the governance of contemporary organisations

and enterprises. The advent of Information Communication Technology (ICT) has brought new opportunities
and challenges in sharing, integrating, representing and disseminating knowledge. To remain at the forefront 1
public sector also needs to have a KM Capability that will store, organise, share, utilise create and integrate
their unmatched knowledge resources. A review of the knowledge management literature reveals many different
definitions and perspectives on knowledge and knowledge management. Here, we provide an overview of some
of this discourse along with descriptions of KM related concepts that can be used to guide KM initiatives in Public
Sector. Finally a novel Public Sector KM model is tentatively suggested to act as a useful guide for further research
and organisational application in public sector. This model takes a holistic approach to socially and technologically
constructed KM, assuming the need for both participatory and profitable KM.

Keywords: Knowledge Management, Information Communication Technology, Public Sector

their organisations, managers must seek to identify,

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Today, we are in an era characterised by constant
change and complex systems or processes, where
knowledge centric activities or knowledge based
activities are becoming the primary source of sustainable
competitive advantage. In this view, knowledge is
considered as a key resource that must be managed
for continues improvement of business to succeed
and stay ahead in todays highly competitive global
markets. In other words, in order to add real value to
manage and leverage the companys knowledge base.
The advent of Information Communication Technology
has brought new opportunities and challenges in
sharing, integrating, representing and disseminating
knowledge. Thus knowledge management become an
emerging discipline which aims to leverage know-
hows across the entire organisation, for improving
decision making, and increasing innovation. A primary
objective of the KM approach is to facilitate effective
and efficient knowledge-sharing among employees [9,
12, 40, and 56]. Companies across all sectors recognise
 that effective KM plays a critical role in their future
success. Few organisations, however, have tackled
KM as effectively as they should. Parlby [47] found
that many organisations still face serious problems
in managing knowledge, such as: the difficulty of
capturing tacit knowledge, lack of KM policies, lack
of methods for mapping knowledge, and knowledge
overload (the collection of overwhelming quantities
of knowledge for its own sake). Although there is not
a universally accepted definition of knowledge and
KM, many organisations are eager to implement KM
PUBLIC SEC TOR IC T MANAGEMENT REVIEW
systems on the assumption that the result will be
increased organisational effectiveness, efficiency and
competitiveness [21, 54]. Many claim that knowledge
is the most important source of competitive advantage
and sustained superior organisational performance
[22, 59].
2.0 KNOWLEDGE
What is knowledge? That is the most frequent asked
question by knowledge enthusiasts. The discussion
about knowledge has a very long tradition. More than 2
thousands years ago, Socrates asked the same question
of his students, What is knowledge? Why do we have
to know what Knowledge is? Platos Theaetetus [48].
Human civilisations have been preserving and passing
2 knowledge from generation to generation for a better
understanding of the past and therefore, the future. In
todays dynamic and complex business environment,
the thirst for knowledge has increased even more and
the scope and content of knowledge have changed
dramatically, often spreading outside the organisation.
Knowledge has become a critical resource and an
essential element for any business activity that supports
the strategy of enterprise private or public. Garavelli
[17] points out that this concept is not new, and can be
seen in the work of Nelson and Winter [39]. Therefore,
below I am setting forth some of the contribution done
by different authors from time to time, on the definition
Tacit Knowledge
Knowledge of experience (body skills)
Simultaneous knowledge (here and now)
Analog knowledge (practice)
Table 1: Types of Knowledge; Source: Nonaka & Takeuchi, [41]
of knowledge inside organisation, in chronological
order. Polanyi, [49] coined the term tacit and divided
knowledge into tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge
based on the degree of expression and says We know
more than we can tell [50]. Maybe Polanyis [51]
distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge is
the fundamental contribution. Tacit knowledge is the
knowledge embedded in peoples mind, usually easy to
observe but hard to formalise and to communicate to
others. Other examples of classification are provided by
Faulkner [14], who defined five knowledge categories,
namely tacit or explicit; observable or not; simple or
complex; elementary or systemic, and general or
context-specific. Nonaka & Takeuchi [41] defined tacit
knowledge as a kind of personal characteristic that is
too abstract to transfer or even express using words.
Moreover they suggest the following types of knowledge
(See Table 1).
Tsoukas [62] gives an explanation for corporate
knowledge which is a combination of tacit and explicit
knowledge, and call it as implicit knowledge [3]. To
understand knowledge management, one must first
grasp the true essence of knowledge. One of the better
definitions of knowledge is: a fluid mix of framed
experience, values, contextual information, and expert
insight that provides a framework for evaluating and
incorporating new experiences and information. It
originates and is applied in the minds of experts. In
organisations, it often becomes embedded not only in
documents or repositories but also in organisational
routines, processes, practices, and norms. [9] This
definition contains the key elements of context,
relationships, new knowledge and organisational
aspects and it hints at the distinction between tacit
knowledge (knowledge in peoples heads) and the
explicit knowledge that is codified and stored within
organisational structures showing that knowledge
is more than information. These authors add that,
knowledge is the result of intelligent information
Explicit Knowledge
Knowledge of rationality (mind)
Sequential knowledge (there and then)
Digital knowledge (theory)
processing, since it is defined as an epistemological
framework originating in the mind. They provide an
explanation of the difference between data, information,
and knowledge. Beckman [3], identifies three stages of
accessibility: tacit, implicit, and explicit: a) Tacit (human
mind, organisation) - accessible indirectly only with
difficulty through knowledge elicitation and observation
of behavior; b) Implicit (human mind, organisation)
- accessible through querying and discussion, but
informal knowledge must first be located and then
communicated. c) Explicit (document, computer)
readily accessible, as well as documented into formal
knowledge sources that are often well-organised.
3.0 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Knowledge Management is a challenge for a number of
reasons. KM does not appear to possess the qualities of a
discipline. If anything, KM qualifies as an emerging field
of study. Those involved in this emerging field of KM are
still vexed today by the lack of a single, comprehensive
definition, an authoritative body of knowledge, proven
theories, and a generalised conceptual framework.
Academics and practitioners have not been able to
stabilise the phenomenon of KM enough to make sense
of what it is and what it comprises [60]. There is a
substantial feeling that KM is a significant phenomenon
affecting everything and everyone with which it comes
into contact [5]. Furthermore others argue that
knowledge management is closely related to concepts
such as organisational learning, organisational memory,
information management, and collaborative work [53].
Within a literature review of knowledge management,
Scarbrough, Swan, [52] defines knowledge management
as any process or practice of creating, acquiring,
capturing, sharing and using knowledge, wherever
it resides, to enhance learning and performance in
organisations. Hedlund [19] suggests that knowledge
management addresses the generation, representation,
storage, transfer, transformation, application,
embedding, and protecting of organisational knowledge.
Such definitions, while encompassing many aspects of
process around knowledge management, imply an
essentially objectivist view of the subject. Even more
emphasis on technology within knowledge management
may be found in writings by technology vendors. Others
counter such views arguing knowledge is also concerned
with the establishment of an environment and culture in
which knowledge can evolve [9]. Sveiby [61], however,
highlights that human approaches to knowledge sharing
can be slow and are often unconscious. He argues that
we must find new innovative ways such as interactive-
media rather than rely on information to efficiently
transfer knowledge [61]. Often ICT and KM are thought
to be one and the same. Rather, ICT acts as a vessel
for retaining, retrieving and recycling of knowledge,
while knowledge creation requires a human element
to compile, analyse, and forward the knowledge. An
acceptable definition of knowledge management
should encompass the concept of knowledge and the
valuation associated with intellectual assets, thus a
well-formulated comprehensive definition can be stated
as below. Knowledge Management is the deliberate
and systematic coordination of People, Processes,
JANUARY - JUNE 2009 VOL.3 NO.1
Technology and their Knowledge in order to produce
sustainable competitive advantage or long-term high
performance for the organisation. The process of
coordination is achieved through the convergence
of personal, group, and enterprise with a series of
Knowledge Process and different Knowledge Activities.
Knowledge Process comprises of a cycle or steps which
includes sharing, utilising, creating and retention of
knowledge resources and assets within an individual
and organisation typically deal with tacit dimension
of knowledge, where as Knowledge Activity is highly
defined and structured, and does not have any cycle time
or hierarchy or criteria involved and can be initiated any
time when there is a need to store, represent, discover,
or disseminate new knowledge from or to the existing
3
knowledge portal or knowledge repository. Knowledge
process or activities in an organisation are enabled
with support of ICT. Effective knowledge management
programs are inextricably linked with the organisations
goals, objectives and processes they are implemented
to meet identified business requirements. Although
knowledge is now considered the most important asset
of an organisation, many initiatives being undertaken
to develop and exploit organisational knowledge are
not explicitly linked to or framed by the organisations
business strategy [68].
4.0 KNOWLEDGE ORGANISATION
If knowledge is to become a valuable organisation
asset it must be accessible, developed and used [9].
Knowledge management was born out of this desire to
improve the knowledge organisation. Organisations that
fully understand the overall benefits of KM in terms of
the extra productivity, competitiveness, efficiency and
synergy created by its adoption, have no hesitation in
gradually embracing the key fundamental knowledge-
sharing practices, wide-collaboration activities and
active cooperation with their various branches of
operations. It is only in this way that the traits of the
 future knowledge organisation can fully bloom. Most
companies in one way or another have embraced the
notion that to operate effectively in todays economy, it
is necessary to become a knowledge-based organisation
[69]. But few truly understand what that means or how
to carry out the changes required to bring it about In
short, the focus on products or services as a means of
categorizing companies or defining the knowledge-based
organisation leads to a distorted image [69]. Products
and services are only what are visible or tangible to
customerstheyre the tip of the iceberg. But like the
PUBLIC SEC TOR IC T MANAGEMENT REVIEW
iceberg, most of what enables a company to produce
anything lies below the surface, hidden within the so-
called invisible assets of the organisation its knowledge
about what it does, how it does it, and why [25]. Nonaka
and Takeuchi [41] define knowledge-organisation as an
ability of a firm to adapt to the changing environment
by creating new knowledge, disseminating it effectively
and embodying this knowledge into practice. According
to these authors, the sole business of a knowledge-
creating company is continuous innovation [42, 43].
5.0 KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY
In order to understand knowledge management,
it is necessary to see the subject within the broader
context of the enormous changes taking place in the
global economic framework itself [63, 37]. Forefather
4
of neo-classical economics, Alfred Marshall was one of
the earliest authors to state explicitly the importance of
knowledge within economic affairs: Capital consists in
a great part of knowledge and organisation knowledge
is our most powerful engine of production [32].
However, as pointed out by Nonaka and Takeuchi [41],
neo-classical economists were concerned only with the
utilisation of existing knowledge, not with the creation
of new knowledge. Drucker, [13] commenting on the
manufacturing, service and information sectors said:
We are entering (or have entered) the knowledge
society in which the basic economic resource is
knowledgeand where the knowledge worker will play
a central role. Through his insightful vision, Drucker
furnished all nations with a foretaste of the emerging
knowledge economy and the foundation for a new
measure of productivity. Horton [23], a KM expert and
organisational learning pundit, proposed a very simple
definition, stating A knowledge economy is one where
success depends more on knowledge than on labour
and capital. It is the unique knowledge or knowledge
strategy of the company that is most important in
determining its success. Konana and Balasubramanian
[28] gives the following definition for a knowledge
economy: A knowledge economy is one that relies
intensively on human skills and creativity, the utilisation
of human intellectual capital supported by life-long
learning and adaptation, the creative exploitation of
existing knowledge, and extensive creation of new
knowledge through research and development. In The
Economics of Knowledge Foray [15] suggested that the
global shifts in investments and activities associated
with knowledge-intensive firms were causing radical
economic shifts. Changes in ICT are the key to these
shifts; as computers grew exponentially in speed,
reduction in cost, availability of their uses changed.
Organisations were, for the first time, able to quickly
capture, codify and disseminate huge amounts of
information across the globe. The rapid increase in ICT
within the workplace required new skills and flexibility
on the part of the employee. Organisations began to
see that they needed to coordinate knowledge and
technology in a new way. This meant helping employees
to respond to changes in work culture, adapt to
technology advancement enabling adequate sharing of
knowledge which will lead to quick learning, improved
decision making, advance in innovation and creativity,
thus increase productivity and become a Knowledge
Organisation.
6.0 RATIONALE FOR PUBLIC SECTOR KM
With initiatives like e-governance, online knowledge
portal and ICT policy, public sector agencies now have
to manage their knowledge more effectively. Public
sector organisations recruit the best brains to play
their role in execution of their important processes thus
caucusing in to an unmatchable knowledge resource
available in a particular demographic location. Because
of this nonpareil strength the public sector has a unique
role in promoting the sharing, creating, integrating,
and dissemination of knowledge resources available in
its context. This role includes: 1) providing knowledge
not traditionally provided by private firms; 2) ensuring
education and knowledge for all; 3) constructing
Knowledge Kiosks; and, 4) modulating large-scale
promotion of intellectual property rights. The rationale
for knowledge in government context can also be
understood by examining governments structure
and functions [36]. The following four characteristics
of government can be said to drive knowledge
management needs; (a) knowledge is an inimitable
resource of the government; effective government
rests on effective acquisition and dissemination of
knowledge; (b) government is a distributed enterprise
therefore similar knowledge requirements are spread
across states and local governments; (c) frequent
transfers of knowledge workers across government
departments cause problems of knowledge drain;
and (d) need for anticipatory governments which
learn from past experience, understand the present
scenario, anticipate future threats and opportunities.
People are now more used to dealing with governments
using a wide variety of channels (including online
channels), hence governments need to continuously
re-evaluate their service delivery programs in order
to meet the challenges of it governance [36]. Robert
Neilson [38] conducted two brainstorming sessions
at the Information Resources Management College
of the National Defense University in Washington DC
to look at the importance of knowledge management
in organisations and its key roles. Both public and
private sector participants nominated similar reasons
for pursuing knowledge management. These included
the need to: attract and retain human capital; foster
social capital; create and use structural capital; share
best practices and processes (combined with innovative
practices); and collaborate with others. Importantly, all
participants agreed that knowledge management needed
to be linked to business goals or mission objectives.
The public sector representatives looked to knowledge
management initiatives to provide a foundation for
electronic government. The key drivers for knowledge
management in public sector are to provide an excellent
ICT infrastructure base to enable citizens and customers
to access their knowledge needs and to establish a
network of knowledgeable citizen or employees who
can add value to each other. There is still relatively little
information concerning the differences between public
100
Private
90 Public
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 1 Benefits from systematic knowledge management, Source: McAdams & Reid [33]
and private sector knowledge management initiatives
[67]. This is unfortunate as it is important to design
such initiatives specifically for use in a government
context, as there are differences in terms of legislation
and regulations, politics, culture and overall aims [67].
While it is true that KM in private organisations is
culture driven the level of accountability and regulation
is considerably stricter in public sector organisations.
In private sector KM is little proactive. McAdams and
Reid [33] conducted research and focus groups to
compare public and private sector perceptions and use
of knowledge management and found that public sector
JANUARY - JUNE 2009 VOL.3 NO.1
knowledge management was more developed as a
management philosophy. Figure 1 shows that the four
main perceived benefits from knowledge management
were improved quality, efficiency, management learning
and reduced costs [33]. An important difference (apart
from the obvious difference in increased sales) was
that the public sector relied more on people-based
knowledge methods such as informal discussion groups,
forums and workshops. These are compelling reasons for
introducing and maintaining knowledge management in
the public sector, but successful implementation requires
consideration of the parameters and requirements
unique to the public sector [67]. To succeed in this
attempt to implement KM in public sector necessitates
the development of a generic KM framework [8].
5
7.0 PUBLIC SECTOR KM: A GENERIC
FRAMEWORK
A unique ethos of the public service is that it provides
a core set of values and a validation mechanism not
1 = Improved efficiency
2 = Increased sales
3 = New products & services
4 = Improved products & services
5 = Reduced operating costs
6 = Improved management learning
7 = Improved quality
8 = Cycle time reduction
9 = Time to market improvement
9
 related to profit, that benefits KM [57]. Dave Snowden
adds on to say that I have never understood the desire
to copy the private sector in KM (or other fields for that
matter). The value systems are different and so should
the measurement systems. Ive seen far too many
examples around the world of the public sector adopting
a fad several years after the private sector has moved
on, and adopt whatever the consultants say the private
sector did (the reality is always very different) in
some blind attempt to ape so called best practice. For
example, according to one participant Maddaloni [30]
PUBLIC SEC TOR IC T MANAGEMENT REVIEW
the public sector has been slow in adopting knowledge
management due to: a) lack of awareness of KM;
b) difficulty in building the collaborative forum in a
situation of hierarchical structure; c) resistant to change
in knowledge sharing culture; d) lack of a perception of
individual benefit (Whats in it for me?, Why should
I share what I know? and Knowledge considered
as power); e) lack of public private partnership.
Sometimes the lack of sharing critical knowledge is due
to the nature of public sector functions. Any knowledge
management framework for public agencies will need to
take into account the public sector focus which may not
completely match that of the private sector. Therefore
we suggest a completely new dimension for public
sector KM as shown below (see Figure 2)
6 Public sector organisational context is different
from that of its private counterpart. The former is
driven by a set policy and politics in alliance with its
bureaucratic culture; whereas the private sector is
mostly driven by its strategy, structure and culture.
Knowledge management in the public sector is more
about public service, not all about profit generation
unlike the private sector. It may be possible that public
sector employees may also have values and motives
that are different from private sector employees. Some
research on the values of public sector employees has
shown that they are more selfless and that they have a
commitment to social development and the pursuit of
the public interest [46]. This may explain why specific
Public Sector KM
Organisational
Parameter PROCESS
Figure 2: Public Sector KM: A Generic Model
knowledge management programmes need to be
designed for the public sector rather than adopted from
private sector models [67]. Woodford also posits that
traditional and conservative cultures in some areas of
the public sector were considered a prime barrier to
successful implementation. Figure 3 below showcases
the expanded pattern of the proposed public sector
KM. Here we highlight the importance of three major
parameters or requirements of public sector KM which
can act both as an enabler or inhibitor viz., policy,
culture and politics, and four main perceived benefits
like quality, efficiency, learning and innovation.
7.1 Policy
Public sector is imbibed with rules, policies, process,
procedures, hierarchy of reporting, relationships,
incentive systems and departmental boundaries that
organise tasks within the organisation. The policy
within an organisation also has multiple dimensions.
The formal organisational policy within an organisation
may encourage or inhibit interactions among workers,
a practice seen as vital in the effective management
of knowledge [44]. The policy must be flexible to
encourage these interactions as well as give the firm the
flexibility to adapt to an ever-changing environment.
In addition the organisation also need a policy which
would encourage knowledge creation and sharing
activities like identify flexible boundaries, high powered
incentives, non-bureaucratic decision making, moderate
hierarchies and an innovative and entrepreneurial
culture as required attributes for highly flexible and
responsive knowledge intensive organisation.
7.2 Culture
Organisational culture is increasingly recognised as a
major barrier for leveraging intellectual assets [10].
In the KM context, culture has been defined as the
shared values, beliefs, and practices of the people
in the organisation. It is also often seen as the key
inhibitor of effective knowledge sharing [10, 34]
KM Perceived
Outcome
 Public Sector KM

Knowledge
Management Efficiency
Policy
ICT
Innovation
Culture
Knowledge
Work Learning
Politics
People
Quality

JANUARY - JUNE 2009 VOL.3 NO.1

Parameter Process Outcome

Figure 3: Expanded pattern of Public Sector KM

Public sector culture continues to remain aligned with
traditional bureaucratic models [67]. In addition, recent
research suggests that public sector organisations
are fundamentally different from private sector
organisations on a number of dimensions including the
diversity of their goals, access to resources, and the
nature of organisational constraints [46]. De Long &
Fahey [10] postulate various characteristics that shape
social interaction (see Figure 4).
According to Maddaloni [30] organisations without
a direct challenge or competition are not motivated
to create more efficient processes, and public sector
organisations do not always permit utilisation of skills.
It is possible that Maddaloni is correct that the culture
in the public sector, with processes aligned with a
fairly rigid hierarchy, leaves little room for innovation
or individual knowledge initiatives. Certainly this issue
was of concern to public sector agency representatives 7

Discussability of Sensitive Matters

Senior Managers Approachability

Frequency of Interaction

Collective Responsibility for Problem Context Behaviour

Solving
for Social that leverages
Orientation to Existing Knowledge Interaction Knowledge
and Expertise

Knowledge Sharing Vs Accumulation

Teaching

Learning from Mistakes

Figure 4: Cultural characteristics that shape social interaction, Source: De Long & Fahey [10]
 at a recent actkm forum where it was argued that
the public sector has traditionally been considered
desolate to knowledge sharing and innovation. The
view was that unlike the private sector, the public sector
is characterised by asymmetric incentives that punish
unsuccessful innovations much more severely than
they reward successful ones and this is exacerbated
by the lack of venture capital to seed creative problem
solving. While KM aficionados agree that knowledge
sharing is also an essential part of successful knowledge
management implementation, it is often poorly
PUBLIC SEC TOR IC T MANAGEMENT REVIEW
practiced in the more traditional areas in the public
sector. As Chiem [7] noted, in the private sector, where
the bottom line determines success, sharing can be
encouraged and rewarded financially, but in the public
sector (constrained by budgetary regulations) this is
Private Sector
Institutional
Improves sales and profit
goals
Competitive reason such as
Restrictions on
safeguarding trade secrets and
information
business strategies
Operational efficiency, sales
Aim of sharing growth, cost saving, innovation and
bottom line profits
8
Formal tied to job performance
Motive for
evaluation; repercussions for under
Sharing
achievers
Table 2: Incentives for sharing knowledge, Chiem [7]
not always possible. Some aspects of employment in
the private and public sectors are different enough that
managers should take them into account when trying to
motivate people to share knowledge [7] (See Table 2).
7.3 Politics
The material to date in this section has assumed that
individuals in communities-of-practice want to share
their knowledge and expertise with others in the
community, and that the issue is how to achieve this in
an effective way. However, writers such as Foucault [16]
have noted the inseparability of knowledge and power
in the sense that what we know affects how influential
we are, and, vice versa, our status affects whether
what we know is considered important. The implication
of this for knowledge sharing is that there may be
some good reasons why individuals may not wish to
participate, or may modify some aspects of their sense-
giving activities, for reasons related to organisational
politics [64]. There is an irony here, since an attempt
at knowledge-sharing with others is only valuable
if ones views differ from that of the other parties in
the exchange, since one learns nothing from a total
homogeneity of views. Nevertheless, people are aware
of power-knowledge relations as part of organisational
life, and take action accordingly [64].
8.0 PUBLIC SECTOR KM PROCESS
The public sector provides strategic advice to government
on key issues affecting the economy, administration,
promoting standards, and defense service provisions,
Public Sector
Fulfil mission of social service
National security, privacy, regulatory and
political concern
Decrease bureaucratic barriers, public
frustration and employee dissatisfaction
Less often tied to performance evaluation;
more often with grass-roots origin
which involves coordination of various knowledge
resources like knowledgeable people and ICT aided
knowledge repository, thus calls for a seamless KM
capability framework. However, the literature and case
study reviews reveal that the focus on KM in the public
sector is limiting with its reliance on explicit knowledge.
The tacit aspect (and knowledge management generally)
has been overlooked to date. This leads to the aim to
highlight the value placed on people, knowledge work
and ICT as the process involved in public sector KM. As
in Figure 3 the public sector KM is proposed to involve
the three major dimensions of ICT, knowledge work and
people. Similar KM issues continue to be a focus for
many public sector projects across the globe.
8.1 Knowledge Work
Tacit knowledge is a kind of expertise that is not
editable and this knowledge is obtained through
informal learning behavior and a sequence process [24]
whereas explicit knowledge can be editable, archived,
discovered, disseminated and visualised. Knowledge
work can be defined as a work which involves sharing,
creating, utilising, retaining tacit knowledge and
archiving, discovering, disseminating and visualising
explicit knowledge. It is the kind of work where the
organisation adopts a knowledge based approach, of
creating value and gaining competitive advantage.
Maier et al. [31] defines knowledge work as one that
creates, translates or applies new knowledge. Meso, et
al. [35] says that knowledge work entails the creation,
transfer, codification, search, discovery, storage and
use of knowledge in the effort to develop the desirable
IS solution. They add to say that any problem solving
activity, software development activity is a knowledge
work activity. Specific knowledge work helps focus
the organisation on acquiring, storing and utilising
knowledge for such things as problem solving, dynamic
learning, decision making [5], strategic planning and
innovation. It also protects intellectual assets from
decay, adds to firm intelligence, provides increased
flexibility and enhances existing organisational business
processes. There are a lot of discussions on this issue
in the literature surveyed, the most cited work being
that of Nonaka & Takeuchi [41]. They focused on
the dynamics of knowledge activities and suggested
that the four major activities of KM are socialisation,
externalisation, combination and internalisation (see
Figure 5). They theorise that interactions between
(Conceptual K)
ON
Articulate ideas,
TI
experience into
A
IS
formal models &
AL
embed into the
RN
system.
EXTE
Tacit
(Sympathised K)
Share experiences,
N
IO
ideas, & opinions
AT
IS
AL
I how to use them.
SOC
Figure 5: The Knowledge Spiral, Source: Nonaka & Takeuchi, [41]
these kinds of knowledge might lead to the creation
of new knowledge. The combination of the two
categories makes it possible to conceptualise four
conversion patterns: externalisation (tacit to explicit),
combination, internalisation (explicit to tacit), and
socialisation (SECI). Each of the four conversion modes
can be understood as processes of self-transcendence.
However, this SECI model serves only as an outline for
knowledge creation and the idea of self-transcendence
is quite abstract. Despite its seminal contribution, this
list of activities seems to be too conceptual and even
philosophical to be used in actual practice. Heretofore,
JANUARY - JUNE 2009 VOL.3 NO.1
a number of researchers have attempted to classify the
major activities of KM. Among these the most recently
seen work may well be that of Park, & Kim,[45] based
on their review of the literature that they conducted,
and suggest major knowledge work as: acquisition,
organisation, utilisation, disposition and sharing.
8.2 People
The workforce in the public sector is the largest carrier
of knowledge. These are people who are employed
in various processes, products and practices. They
represent the best of many nations. Public sector
employees are recruited through a rigorous process
of screening and filtering against various competent
standards. They are well trained and qualified people. So 9
to make them share their knowledge, foster innovation
and bring about quality and efficiency in their work calls
for a dedicated classification of roles and responsibilities
among them. These classifications are subjected to the
COM
Explict BI (Systemic K)
NA
T Reformulate formal
IO
models and data,
convert it into codes
Explicit
INTE
(Operational K)
RN
Convert models and
AL
formulas into tacit
IS
TI
ON skills; learn/teach
Tacit
 portfolios of the organisation. Woodford [67] comes up
with 3 main classification viz., chief knowledge officer,
knowledge activist, and knowledge worker. Therefore
when developing public sector KM, we will need to
consider who will be tasked with implementing them
and who will need to work with them on a daily basis.
Implementation is likely to be the responsibility of the
chief knowledge officer (CKO) in the organisation or
the equivalent (e.g., knowledge manager) [67].
8.3 Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO)
PUBLIC SEC TOR IC T MANAGEMENT REVIEW
communities of practice; (3) providing leadership and
strategy; and (4) using incentives and rewards.
8.4 Knowledge Activist
Krogh et al. [29] prefer to talk of knowledge
activists people who are responsible for energising
and connecting knowledge creation throughout the
organisation. Knowledge activism is seen as not
restricted to a particular role or area within the
organisation, but instead can be situated in an existing
area, or taken on as a special assignment. While

According to Adams (2001), CKOs are designers
and architects who knit together the information in
databases, legacy applications, file cabinets, intranets,
and employees informal knowledge. One of their roles
involves creating workspaces that allow employees to
share ideas in an environment of trust. The required
CKO skill set is: (a) business acumen (involving a keen
understanding of business strategy); (b) visionary zeal
(requiring energy for new and potentially risky ventures
and an ability to clearly communicate the vision); (c)
interpersonal skills (personal skills including the ability
there is a case for managers taking on the role due
to their skills in motivation and coordination, anyone
in the organisation is able to take on this role. There
are said to be 6 main aims of knowledge activism: a)
initiating and focusing knowledge creation; b) reducing
the time and cost necessary for knowledge creation;
c) leveraging knowledge creation initiatives throughout
the corporation; d) improving the conditions of those
engaged in knowledge creation by relating their
activities to the companys bigger picture; e) preparing
participants in knowledge creation for new tasks; and

Knowledge Catalyst Knowledge Coordinator Knowledge Merchant

Historic understanding of the company's
Motivational skills
development
10 Narrative skills: Detect, formulate, and tell stories
Interpersonal skills: Respected
of knowledge creation
Intervention skills: Improve group dynamics Cartographical and visual skills: Develop and
and relationships maintain shared maps of cooperation
Ambassador for the company's
knowledge vision
Skills in strategic tools and analysis
Broad understanding of the companys
strategy process

Analytical skills: Help the group to develop a Analytical skills: Draw connections between
Motivational skills and to sell ideas
charter of their tasks and responsibilities knowledge creation initiatives

Broad social network inside and outside the Broad social network within and outside the Unconventional thinking and visionary
company company skills

Operational understanding of the business,

key products, and markets
Table 3: Ideal Knowledge Activist: a skill profile, Source: Krogh et al. [29]

to negotiate and obtain cooperation through influence
and persuasion and high credibility); (d) technical
knowledge (concerning knowledge management
systems and architecture at a broad level). Neilson
[38] noted that CKOs in the public sector play a
different role than Chief Information Officers (CIOs).
While CIOs focus on physical computer and network
assets, CKOs focus on an integrated set of activities
that address organisational behaviours, processes, and
technologies. As such, the CKOs role involves: (1)
creating a knowledge-sharing culture; (2) championing
f) including the perspective of micro communities in
the larger debate on organisational transformation
[67]. A knowledge activist must meet these aims by
taking on 3 primary roles catalyst, coordinator, and
merchant of foresight [29]. The table above highlights
the skillprofile for a knowledge activist (or team of
activists).
8.5 Knowledge Workers
According to Brown [6], the globalisation of work and
advances in technology have changed the workforce
so that we now have knowledge workers who can
think, work with ideas, and make decisions and
who are sometimes identified by their professional
specialty. Knowledge workers can also be described
by their characteristics (i.e., people who can analyse,
synthesise, and evaluate information and use it to
solve problems). A third way of describing knowledge
workers is by their skills and abilitiespeople who are
highly educated, creative, computer literate, and have
portable skills. The role of a knowledge worker is to
use their intellect to convert their ideas into products,
services, or processes [6]. Knowledge workers are
[27] sees several business environment factors as
driving forces for the new uses of ICT: industry de-
regulation, to which we could add market de-regulation
and changes in organisational structures and roles,
e.g., team (or process) organisation; frequent mergers
and acquisitions; and the outsourcing and geographic
spread of organisations [26, 27]. On the other hand,
many changes in business organisations were either
directly caused, or speeded up, by technology changes.
In the beginning of the 90s, computer networks began
to enable radically new ways to organise business
operations, work and the intra- and inter-organisational

JANUARY - JUNE 2009 VOL.3 NO.1

able to work collaboratively with and learn from each
other; they are willing to take risks, expecting to learn
from their mistakes rather than be criticised for them
and are continually learning, aware that knowledge has
a limited shelf life [6].
8.9 Information Communication Technology for
Knowledge Management
ICT has become a key business enabler and a
competitive factor for organisations. The central role
of ICT and its strategic use was recognised early [58],
but only in the past decade this has become reality in
business organisations to a larger extent. There might
be different perceptions of what the mandates of IS, IT
or business strategy are [18], but the merging of these
is inevitable due to recent developments. Johansen
supply chains. The deep impact of ICT in the strategies
and operations of enterprises has been indisputably
pointed out [20, 55, and 65]. Organisations require
comprehensive KM through the leveraging ICT. It is
evident that the activity of storing data or information
is completely different from the problem of extracting,
transferring and creating knowledge. Therefore KM
can involve a broad range of knowledge processes
or activities; each of them can require substantially
different technologies [11]. Furthermore, firms deal
with knowledge in different forms, which may require
different technological infrastructure to be handled
[66]. As a result, it is apparent that any technology
innovation should be suitable for a particular kind of
knowledge process or activity [1]. This study identifies
five major categories of technology innovation enabling
11

Knowledge I N
U Services E
N
S T
T Knowledge Repository
E Collaboration W
E O
R System
G R
R K
Learning A
I I
System T
N N
I F
T
Expert O R Knowledge
E
System N A Base
R S
F T
L
A Discovery R
A U
C System Y C
E
E T
Publication R U
R
System E

Figure 6: ICT infrastructure for KM: An integrated framework. Source: Abdullah and Date,[1]
 knowledge management viz., network infrastructure,
knowledge repository, knowledge services, integration
layer and user interface (See Figure 6).
9.0 CONCLUSION
KM research and practice explores the development and
use of ICT to facilitate sharing, learning, integration and
application of individual and collective knowledge. This
paper identifies important variables and relationships
from the point of view of KM and the public sector. It
also identifies relationships between the organisational
PUBLIC SEC TOR IC T MANAGEMENT REVIEW
parameters which enable or inhibit public sector KM
and their perceived benefits for effective functioning of
public sector organisation. This study discloses public
sector KM concerns like people, knowledge work and
ICT involved in KM initiative. Significant knowledge
management issues within the public sector organisation
that reduce their overall performance are (1) expertise
(tacit knowledge) not shared effectively within the
organisation; (2) documents or explicit (codified)
knowledge not managed effectively; (3) knowledge
management roles were uncoordinated. The study
also found that unlike its private sector counterparts,
public sector organisations did not extend knowledge
management along with their strategies. This study
would recommend the public sector to introduce a full
12 time knowledge manager in a senior role, which would
facilitate, promote and popularise KM with respect to tacit
and explicit knowledge. It is hoped that this manager
will be able to better integrate knowledge management
initiatives within and external to the organisation.
While there is some commonality between the public
and private sectors in terms of knowledge management
for example the enthusiasm involved in building up the
initiative, building up of ICT framework, identifying best
practices, knowledge experts, etc., there are, at the
same time, also some important differences, stringent
regulatory policy around KM, which need to be avoided
for an effective public sector KM.
REFERENCES
1. Abdullah and Date, H., (2008), Technology
Innovation for KM, A Unified View. Proceedings of
Second International Conference on Technology and
Innovation for KM, At NPC New Delhi.
2. Adams, K. C. (2001), Peak performance: CKOs
contribute to organisational success through
effective knowledge leadership, Intelligent KM,
Online October 2001 at http://www.intelligentkm.
com/011024/416feat1_1.shtml
3. Beckman, T., (1998), Knowledge management: a
technical review. GWU Working Paper.
4. Blackler, F., (1995). Knowledge, Knowledge Work
and Organisations: An Overview and Interpretation.
Organisation Studies 16(6): 1021-1046.
5. Bouthillier, F. and Shearer, K. (2002), Understanding
knowledge management and information
management: the need for an empirical perspective.
Information Research, 8(1), paper no. 141. Retrieved
September 5, 2006, from http://InformationR.net/
ir/8-1/paper141.html
6. Brown, B. L. (1999), Knowledge workers, Trends &
Issues Alert number 4, Center on Education and
Training for Employment, Ohio State University
7. Chiem, P. X. (2001), Knowledge management
in the public sector: Government employees
also need incentives to share what they know,
Destination crm online article September 27 2001,
http://www.destinationcrm.com/articles/default.
asp?ArticleID=1843
8. Cong, X., and Pandya, K.V., (2003), Issues of
Knowledge Management in the Public Sector,
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol
1. Issue 2, pp. 25-32
9. Davenport, T.H., Prusak, L., (1998), Working
Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston.
10. De Long, D.W., and Fahey, L., (2000), Diagnosing
cultural barriers to knowledge management,
Academy of Management Executives. Vol. 14. No.
4, pp. 113 127
11. Demarest, M., (1997), Understanding knowledge
management. Long Range Planning vol. 30, pp.
374384.
12. Desouza, K.C., (2003), Strategic contributions of
game rooms to knowledge management: some
preliminary insights, Information & Management
41, pp. 6374.
13. Drucker, P.F., (1993), Post Capitalist Society. Harper
Business, New York.
14. Faulkner, W., (1994), Conceptualizing knowledge
used in innovation a 2nd look at the science
technology distinction and industrial innovation.
Science, Technology and Human Values 19 (4),
425 458.
15. Foray, D., (2004), Economics of knowledge.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Foucault, M., (1977), Two lectures. In Power/
Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings
19721977, ed. C. Gordon. Pantheon Books, New
York.
17. Garavelli, A.C., Gorgoglione, M., Scozzi, B., (2002),
Managing knowledge transfer by knowledge
technologies. Technovation 22, 269279.
18. Hackney, R, Burn, J and Dhillon, G., (2000)
Challenging Assumptions for Strategic Information
Systems Planning: Theoretical Perspectives.
Communications of the Association for Information
Systems. Volume 3, Article 9. AIS.
19. Hedlund, G., (1994). A Model of Knowledge
Management and the N-form Corporation. Strategic
Management Journal 15: 73-90.
20. Henderson, J. C. and Venkatraman, N., (1993).
Strategic alignment: Leveraging information
technology for transforming organisations. In:
IBM Systems Journal, Vol 38 No 2-3, 472-484.
International Business Machines 1999.
21. Hendriks, P.H.J., Vriens, D.J., (1999), Knowledge-
based systems and knowledge management:
friends or foes? Information & Management 35 (2),
pp. 113125.
22. Holsapple, C.W., Joshi, K.D., (2002), Knowledge
manipulation activities: results of a Delphi study,
Information & Management 39 (6), pp. 477490.
23. Horton, W. (2001). Knowledge management: A
practical, evolutionary approach. Boulder, CO:
William Horton Consulting.
24. Howells, J., (1996), Tacit knowledge, innovation
and technology transfer. Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management 8 (2), 91 106.
25. Itami. H., (1987), Mobilizing Invisible Assets
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press.
26. Ives, B and Jarvenpaa S., (2002), Applications of
Global Information Technology: Key Issues for
Management. MIS Quarterly, Volume 15 Issue 1, p
33.
27. Johansen, R., (1988), Computer Support for
Business Teams. The Free Press, MacMillan, Inc..
28. Konana and Balasubramanian, (2001), India as a
Knowledge Economy: Aspirations versus Reality.
McCombs School of Business, UT-Austin
29. Krogh, G. V., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000), Enabling
knowledge creation, Oxford University Press, New
York
30. Maddaloni, Ciro (2002), We should push for KM in
public sector Knowledge Board Forum topic KM in
the public sector,16 October 2002 (GMT), Available
at URL http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/
forum.cgi?forum=1&topic=22&comment=305
Accessed 13 March 2003
31. Maier R, Hadrich T, Peinl R, (2005). Enterprise
Knowledge Infrastructure. Springer, Germany.
32. Marshall, A., (1965), Principles of Economics.
Macmillan, London.
33. McAdams, R., & Reid, R, (2000), A comparison of
public and private perceptions and use of knowledge
management, Journal of European Industrial
Training 24, 6 pp317-329
34. McDermott, R. & ODell, C. (2001), Overcoming
cultural barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of
Knowledge Management, v5 (1), Kempston
JANUARY - JUNE 2009 VOL.3 NO.1
35. Meso, P., Madey, G., Troutt, M.D., Liegle, J., (2006).
The knowledge management efficacy of matching
information systems development methodologies
with application characteristicsan experimental
study; The Journal of Systems and Software (79)
1528.
36. Misra, D.C., Hariharan, R. & Khaneja, M. (2003),
E-knowledge management framework for
government organisations, Information Systems
Management, Spring
37. Neef, D., (1999), Making the case for knowledge
management: the bigger picture. Management
Decision 37(1): 72-78.
38. Neilson, R. (2000), Knowledge management: a
catalyst for electronic government, online at www.
kmadvantage.com/docs/leadership_articles/ KM_ 13
and_the_Role_of_the_CKO.pdf Accessed 13 March
2003
39. Nelson, R., Winter, S., (1982). An Evolutionary
Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University
Press, London.
40. Nonaka, I., Reinmoeller, P., Senoo, D., (1998),
Management focus: the ART of knowledge systems
to capitalize on market knowledge, European
Management Journal 16 (6), pp. 673684.
41. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H., (1995). The Knowledge
Creating Company. Harvard Business Press,
Boston.
42. Nonaka, I., (1991). The Knowledge Creating
Company. Harvard Business Review (November-
December): 2-9.
43. Nonaka, I., R. Toyama, et al. (2000). SECI, Ba and
Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge
Creation. Long Range Planning 33: 5-34.
44. ODell, C., & Grayson, C. J. (1998). If Only We
Knew What We Know: Identification and transfer of
internal best Practices. NY: The Free Press.
45. Park, Y., Kim, S., (2006). Knowledge management
system for fourth generation R&D: KNOWVATION.
Technovation (26) 595602.
 46. Parker, R & Bradley, L. (2000), Organisational culture 60. Sutton. M., (2007). Accepting Knowledge
in the public sector: evidence from six organisations, Management into the LIS fold: an interdisciplinary
International Journal of Public Sector Management; approach, Library Student Journal, McGill University,
Volume 13; No. 2 Canada

47. Parlby, D., (2000), Knowledge Management Research 61. Sveiby, K. E., (1996), Transfer of Knowledge and
Report 2000, http://www.kpmg.co.uk/services / the Information Processing Professions. European
manage /pubs/km2000.html, 2000. Management Journal 14(4): 379-388.

48. Plato, (426-367), BC. Plato on Knowledge in the
Theaetetus., http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/
plato-theaetetus/
PUBLIC SEC TOR IC T MANAGEMENT REVIEW
62. Tsoukas, H., (1996). The firm as a distributed
knowledge system: the constructionist approach.
Strategic Management Journal 17, 11 25 Winter
Special Issue on Knowledge and the Firm.

49. Polanyi, M., (1958), The Tacit Dimension. ME Sharp

Inc, New York. Porter, M.E., 1990. Competitive
Advantage: Creating and Sustaining
50. Polanyi, M., (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Routledge
and Keagan Paul, London.
51. Polanyi, M., (1967). The Tacit Dimension. Anchor,
New York. Prahalad, C.K., Hamel, G., 1990. The core
competence of the corporation. Harvard Business
Review 68 (3), 7991.
52. Scarbrough, H., J. Swan, et al. (1999). Knowledge
Management: A literature review. London, Institute
of Personnel and Development.
53. Schultze, U., (1998). Investigating the Contradictions
in Knowledge Management. IFIP WG8.2 & WG8.6
Joint Working Conference on Information Systems:
14 Current Issues and Future Changes, Helsinki,
Finland, Omnipress, Wisconsin, USA.
54. Schultze, U., Leidner, D.E., (2002), Studying
knowledge management in information systems
research: discourses and theoretic assumptions,
MIS Quarterly 26 (3), pp. 213242.
55. Seltsikas, P: Managing Global Information Strategy:
Xerox (2000), In: ICIS 2000. Proceedings of
the Twenty-First International Conference on
Information Systems 791-806. Association for
Information Systems,
63. Venters, W., (2002). Literature review for C-Sand:
Knowledge Management. http://www.c-sand.org/
Documents.htm, UK.
64. Walsham, G., (2001). Knowledge Management:
The Benefits and Limitations of Computer Systems,
European Management Journal Vol. 19, No. 6, pp.
599608.
65. Ward J and Peppard, J, (2002) Strategic Planning
for Information systems, third edition. John Willey
& Sons Ltd.
66. Whitehill, M., (1997). Knowledge-based strategy
to deliver sustained competitive advantage. Long
Range Planning 30, 621-627.
67. Woodford, C., (2003). Public Sector Knowledge
Management: Taking Responsibility A report
prepared by Adept KM for a Federal Government
Agency
68. Zack, M.H., (1999), Managing codified knowledge.
Sloan Management Review 40 (4), 4558.
69. Zack, M.H., (2003), Rethinking the Knowledge-
Based Organisation, Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 67-71.

56. Shin, M., (2004), A framework for evaluating

economics of knowledge management systems
Information & Management 42, 179196

57. Snowden, D. (2002), Unique characteristics of the

public sector and KM, Tuesday, 13 August 2002
17:14 PM at act-km@yahoogroups.com

58. Somogyi, E K and Galliers, R D, (1987) Strategic

Information Systems Management: Towards
Strategic Information Systems. Gordon & Breach
Science Publishers.

59. Spender, J.C., Grant, R., (1996), Knowledge and the

firm: overview, Strategic Management Journal 17,
winter issue, pp. 59.

View publication stats