Knowledge Management Strategy at a regional political level - guidance from the WHO

In 2006, the World Health Organisation published a regional KM strategy for Health in Africa. This suggested approach for developing a regional KM strategy could potentially be used in other political contexts.

Image under CC licence from pxhere
created by Mohamed Hasan

Knowledge Management is not just for industry or for individual organisations; it is also of value politically and regionally. The concept of the Knowledge Economy, for example, is recognition that knowledge is an asset to countries and to regions.

To date, there seems to be no consistent view for how KM can be applied at a country economy level, and many governments focus less on KM and more on promoting research in order to support a knowledge economy. Even the World Bank seems to miss KM as a pillar for a knowledge economy. 

However if we move away from finance and into the realm of Health, there is a much clearer view of how KM can help governments and regions perform better. 

The WHO strategy linked in the header does just that, and sets out a set of steps whereby KM can be improved in countries and regions. The result should be better performance in knowledge-based work; including health, but also including other knowledge work - the sort of work that supports a knowledge economy. 

The steps proposed by the WHO are as follows. My commentary is provided in bold. 

Priority interventions 

Advocacy. Knowledge Management for health should be promoted by policy-makers at the highest level of government and by international and regional development partners. This should apply to other contexts as well. Eg in a knowledge economy, economic KM should be promoted by policy makers. In a safety context - safety KM. etc,

Data and evidence generation. A situation analysis of KM at regional and country levels through surveys and special studies should be performed and regularly updated. Such analyses should generate evidence; identify best practices; consider explicit, tacit, community-based and traditional knowledge; and locate available expertise. This can also be done in other contexts. 

Development of policies and plans. Country-specific policies and plans should be developed for further progress in KM and to ensure that KM is embedded across the health system, including all programmes and projects.  This can also be done in other contexts. If a country or a region has plans to develop a knowledge economy, then this needs to be set into policy. We see this to some extent in the Science, Technology and Innovation policy in the UAE, and similar innovation policies in the Middle East. 

Setting of standards and norms. Appropriate norms, standards and regulations are the key for sustainable progress in KM, especially in e-Health and telemedicine. They should be based on the best international practices and adapted to the national context. Now we have ISO 30401:2018, the setting of standards and norms for KM will be much easier.  

Capacity-building. Capacity concerns three main components of KM: people’s skills and behaviour, managerial processes and technologies. The key approaches to be implemented include training and continuing education, staff incentives, institutional mechanisms and effective use of ICT infrastructure. This is definitely needed.

Fostering partnerships and mobilizing appropriate resources. The global momentum in favour of Knowledge Management and Information Technology development created by the WSIS and other international and regional initiatives should be actively used for building strong partnerships at country and regional levels, and for mobilizing adequate resources for KM. 

Effective knowledge generation, sharing and application. Countries and all stakeholders should foster Knowledge Management across health systems for health development and equitable health outcomes. KM, including learning, sharing and application, should be an integral part of the managerial culture in health sectors and systems. Special attention should be given to health and health-related tacit, traditional and oral knowledge, particularly in rural areas. This includes extensive use of mechanisms such as communities of practice and ICT-assisted tools. KM should be strongly associated with health information systems, health research and human resources development. And of course all of this is true of other contexts, not just health. 

In previous blog posts on the knowledge economy I have already suggested training and the application of standards, and also suggest that knowledge-related tax breaks and government advisors would be useful as well. 

If countries and regions are serious about knowledge as a resource to drive a knowledge economy, then then the 7 suggestions above from the WHO can be used as a blueprint for policy makers.

How can governments support a knowledge economy?

Governments know all about supporting traditional economies. So why are they so poor at supporting the knowledge economy?

Image from wikimedia commons
by 401(K) 2012, CC licence

A "knowledge economy" is a focus for many many governments in the developed world. A knowledge economy is one "where distinctive know-how is vital to competitive services and products", and where knowledge is the resource from which economic value is delivered.  Governments like the idea of a knowledge economy, because it delivers high value without the need for natural resources like oil, farm land, minerals or tourism, and relies instead on intellectual assets.

So why do governments have such a difficult time understanding how to support the knowledge economy?

I think partly it is because they do not understand knowledge and how it drives value, they do not understand Knowledge Management (the public sector is behind the curve in adopting KM, and most governments see it either as a synonym for library science, or an issue solvable through the use of technology alone), and they have not yet looked long and hard about how other economies are supported, in order to take those lessons and apply them to the knowledge economy.

The UK Government, for example, sees the knowledge economy as intrinsically tied to higher education. They measure the economy partly by measuring high-tech industries and university places, and support it partly by funding higher education and partly through what they call "Knowledge Transfer" but which really is the encouragement of commercialisation of University research.

However to be successful, the knowledge economy requires knowledge management, just as the farming economy needs land management, and the fisheries economy needs fisheries management, and the forestry economy needs forestry management.

Where an economy is based upon a resource, the government should play a key role in ensuring that resource is well managed, in order to generate value for the economy.

Knowledge management ensures management of the critical knowledge resource, by ensuring that knowledge is efficiently and effectively created, discussed, developed, codified (where needed), retained, applied and continuously improved. Knowledge management is the difference between hoping an economy will arise if we have enough higher education, and giving companies the awareness and tools to ensure that an economy arises and is sustainable.

So how does a government currently support a resource-based economy such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries and tourism, and how can that be translated to the Knowledge economy?

1. The government educates. In every resource-based economy (with the current exception of the knowledge economy) the government plays a key role in educating the key players in how to manage the key resource on behalf of the economy as a whole. Whether this is managing land, managing fish stocks, managing forests or hotels or seaside towns, the government understands that good management is key to a healthy economy, and so provides awareness, training and skills development. This is not yet the case with the knowledge economy, as the government does not yet seem to fully grasp good knowledge management and how it protects the knowledge resource.


 
2. The government sets standards. In every economy (with the current exception of the knowledge economy) the government sets standards - marketing standards and labelling requirements for fisheries, standards for agricultural produce and organic farming, star ratings for hotels and "standards for responsible tourism". Now we have a set of standards - ISO 30401:2018; the ISO management systems standard for KM - and the government can and should be promoting this as a requisite for all knowledge-based industries. This move alone would go a long way towards building the knowledge economy. 



 
3. The government offers tax breaks and incentives. For example, agricultural fuel ("red diesel") is free from tax. Governments can financially incentive the tourism sector through low-interest loans, or provide free advertising, and can provide grants for forestry management programs. They do not yet provide incentives for KM development. They could do this if they chose - they could provide tax breaks for investment in KM technology (so long as this doesn't lead people to think that technology is all you need), could provide grants for the development of KM strategies. or could subsidise the development of KM skills.


 
4. The government provides specialist advisors.  Fisheries management advisors, regional tourism advisors, "Farming Advice Service" accredited advisors and so on. Where are the Knowledge Management advisors? There aren't any, because governments generally do not yet understand knowledge management, and do not yet understand the key message, highlighted above and repeated here - Where an economy is based upon a resource (in this case, knowledge), the government should play a key role in ensuring that resource is well managed, in order to generate value for the economy.
 

The first government that realises this, and that takes the 4 actions listed above. will be the next winner in the Knowledge Economy race.

How knowledge management can support a knowledge economy

It seems every country around the world wants to be a Knowledge Economy. Yet why do so few of them seem to want to invest in Knowledge Management?

A knowledge economy is one where  knowledge resources such as know-how and expertise are as critical as other economic resources. It is seen as an alternative to a manufacturing economy, or an industrial economy. A British definition is that a Knowledge Economy is "where distinctive know-how is vital to competitive services and products".

According to the World Bank, a country needs four “pillars” to compete in the knowledge economy:

1.  an educated and skilled population
2. information technology infrastructure 
3. a regime that encourages technology and entrepreneurship
4. a tightly knit network of public and private research organisations ("innovation system"

Do you see the missing 5th pillar? The 5th pillar is Knowledge Management.

A key concept of the knowledge economy is that knowledge can be treated as both a business product, and a productive asset. For a knowledge economy to work, this productive asset needs to be treated carefully, nurtured and grown. In other words the Knowledge needs to be Managed.

Yet few governments seem to have grasped this fact; the Gulf states being notable exceptions. Even the World Bank does not seem to see KM as the 5th pillar, and a search of their flagship publication finds no mention of KM, other than as a tag for the book. They seem not to realise that if an economy is to be based on an asset, then the role of the government is to ensure that asset is well managed. They see knowledge as an issue for individuals rather than for organisations; to be managed by training individuals rather than by enabling organisations to learn.

The role of KM

There is definitely a role for Knowledge Management in the knowledge economy, and one which government can and should promote. At Knoco, we see the government has doing 4 things to promote KM in service of the knowledge economy.

1. The government educates. In every resource-based economy (with the current exception of the knowledge economy) the government plays a key role in educating the key players in how to manage the key resource on behalf of the economy as a whole. Whether this is managing land, managing fish stocks, managing forests or hotels or seaside towns, the government understands that good management is key to a healthy economy, and so provides awareness, training and skills development. This is not yet the case with the knowledge economy, as the government does not yet seem to fully grasp good knowledge management and how it protects the knowledge resource.


 
2. The government sets standards. Today, in every economy (with the exception of the knowledge economy) the government sets standards; marketing standards and labelling requirements for fisheries, standards for agricultural produce and organic farming, star ratings for hotels and "standards for responsible tourism". If a government wants a thriving knowledge economy, then this is exactly what they need to develop, and here ISO 30401:2018 may be a help.

 
3. The government offers tax breaks and incentives. For example, agricultural fuel ("red diesel") is free from tax. Governments can financially incentive the tourism sector through low-interest loans, or provide free advertising, and can provide grants for forestry management programs. They do not yet provide incentives for KM development. They could  do this if they chose - they could provide tax breaks for investment in KM technology (so long as this doesn't lead people to think that technology is all you need), or even better could provide grants for the development of KM strategies.


 
4. The government provides specialist advisors.  Fisheries management advisors, regional tourism advisors, "Farming Advice Service" accredited advisors and so on. Where are the Knowledge Management advisors? There aren't any, because governments generally do not yet understand knowledge management, and do not yet understand the key message, highlighted above and repeated here - Where an economy is based upon a resource (in this case, knowledge), the government should play a key role in ensuring that resource is well managed, in order to generate value for the economy.
 

If a government wants a knowledge economy - an economy based on the asset of knowledge - then they need to ensure that asset is properly managed, and provide the understanding and support for the Knowledge Management that safeguards the economy. 

How government should support the knowledge economy

Governments know all about supporting traditional economies. They should use this support as a model for supporting the knowledge economy. However so far they have not realised this fact.

Photo credit: Got Credit

The knowledge economy is a focus for many many governments in the developed world. A knowledge economy is one "where distinctive know-how is vital to competitive services and products", and where knowledge is the resource from which economic value is delivered.  Governments like the idea of a knowledge economy, because it delivers high value without the need for natural resources like oil, farm land, minerals or tourism.

So why do governments have such a difficult time understanding how to support the knowledge economy?

I think partly it is because they do not understand knowledge and how it drives value, they do not understand Knowledge Management (the public sector is way behind the curve in adopting KM, and most governments see it either as a synonym for library science, or an issue solvable through the use of technology alone), and they have not yet looked long and hard about how other economies are supported, in order to take those lessons and apply them to the knowledge economy.

The UK Government, for example, sees the knowledge economy as intrinsically tied to higher education. They measure the economy partly by measuring high-tech industries and university places, and support it partly by funding higher education and partly through what they call "Knowledge Transfer" but which really is the encouragement of commercialisation of University research.

However to be successful, the knowledge economy requires knowledge management, just as the farming economy needs land management, and the fisheries economy needs fisheries management, and the forestry economy needs forestry management.

Where an economy is based upon a resource, the government should play a key role in ensuring that resource is well managed, in order to generate value for the economy.

Knowledge management ensures management of the critical knowledge resource, by ensuring that knowledge is efficiently and effectively created, discussed, developed, codified (where needed), retained, applied and continuously improved. Knowledge management is the difference between hoping an economy will arise if we have enough higher education, and giving companies the awareness and tools to ensure that an economy arises and is sustainable.

So how does a government currently support a resource-based economy such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries and tourism, and how can that be translated to the Knowledge economy?

1. The government educates. In every resource-based economy (with the current exception of the knowledge economy) the government plays a key role in educating the key players in how to manage the key resource on behalf of the economy as a whole. Whether this is managing land, managing fish stocks, managing forests or hotels or seaside towns, the government understands that good management is key to a healthy economy, and so provides awareness, training and skills development. This is not yet the case with the knowledge economy, as the government does not yet seem to fully grasp good knowledge management and how it protects the knowledge resource.


 
2. The government sets standards. In every economy (with the current exception of the knowledge economy) the government sets standards - marketing standards and labelling requirements for fisheries, standards for agricultural produce and organic farming, star ratings for hotels and "standards for responsible tourism". There are of course no official standards yet for Knowledge Management, but if a government wants a thriving knowledge economy, then this is exactly what they need to develop, together with knowledge management accreditation. Luckily KM  standards is something both ISO and the British Standards Institute are working on (I am a member of the BSI committee).



 
3. The government offers tax breaks and incentives. For example, agricultural fuel ("red diesel") is free from tax. Governments can financially incentive the tourism sector through low-interest loans, or provide free advertising, and can provide grants for forestry management programs. They do not yet provide incentives for KM development. They could  do this if they chose - they could provide tax breaks for investment in KM technology (so long as this doesn't lead people to think that technology is all you need), or even better could provide grants for the development of KM strategies.


 
4. The government provides specialist advisors.  Fisheries management advisors, regional tourism advisors, "Farming Advice Service" accredited advisors and so on. Where are the Knowledge Management advisors? There aren't any, because governments generally do not yet understand knowledge management, and do not yet understand the key message, highlighted above and repeated here - Where an economy is based upon a resource (in this case, knowledge), the government should play a key role in ensuring that resource is well managed, in order to generate value for the economy.
 

The first government that realises this, will be the next winner in the Knowledge Economy race.

Knowledge Economies and Knowledge Management

---

It seems every country around the world wants to be a Knowledge Economy. Yet none of them seem to want to invest in Knowledge Management. Duh?

A knowledge economy is one where  knowledge resources such as know-how and expertise are as critical as other economic resources. It is seen as an alternative to a manufacturing economy, or an industrial economy. A British definition is that a Knowledge Economy is "where distinctive know-how is vital to competitive services and products".

Many countries are struggling with what this means. The UK Government sees the knowledge economy as closely tied to higher education. They measure the economy partly by measuring high-tech industries and university places, and support it partly by funding higher education, partly in using local or regional government to set up "knowledge cities" or "knowledge centres" (local sites for housing start-ups), and partly through what they call "Knowledge Transfer" but which really is the encouragement of commercialisation of University research.

However there is a big issue which these governments have not yet grasped.

A key concept of the knowledge economy is that knowledge can be treated as both a business product, and a productive asset. For a knowledge economy to work, this productive asset needs to be treated carefully, nurtured and grown. In other words the Knowledge needs to be Managed.

Yet few if any governments seem to have grasped this fact, despite encouragement from bodies such as the World Bank (see item 5 here). They seem not to realise that is an economy is to be based on an asset, then the role of the government is to ensure that asset is well managed.

There is definitely a role for Knowledge Management in the knowledge economy, and one which government can and should promote. At Knoco, we see this as having three components.

1. The first is the most important. Any government seeking to develop a knowledge economy needs to support business in knowledge management. They need to provide a definition of what good knowledge management means, and need to provide education for companies on “learning how to learn”. In future, if the Knowledge Economy is to develop, companies need to be helped to become learning organisations. They need to learn how to learn at a pragmatic level, and this needs support from the government.
2. Secondly there needs to be a focus on critical knowledge topics, and development of topic-specific knowledge clusters and knowledge cities rather than just “high tech” clusters. This is already happening; for example the biosciences cluster around Cambridge England.
3. A Government-facilitated regional approach to deliberate, strategic and facilitated networking. we know that networks are where knowledge is shared and built, and the government should encourage people out from their four walls and into face-to-face networking space, through workshops, symposia, thinktanks, World cafes and so on - anything that is not "death by PowerPoint, nor limited to 140 characters.

As I said above, if you want a knowledge economy - an economy based on the asset of knowledge - then you need to ensure that asset is properly managed, and provide the understanding and the expectation that means that companies can do effective KM.

Salaries for Knowledge Manager roles

---

I did some quick research the other day on "Glassdoor" - the salary comparison site.

Here's a histogram of the salaries of the 40 "Knowledge Manager jobs I found

Median salary is about $70,000, but more interesting is the spread - from a minor pittance working an a charity, to over 140k working for a consultancy.

I think this spread shows that "Knowledge Manager" is a poorly defined job, just as "Knowledge Management" is a poorly defined term. You could be a knowledge manager and earn $40k, you could be a knowledge manager and earn $140k - it all depends on what you mean by knowledge manager!

KM jobs, what are they looking for?

---

"Knowledge Management" is a poorly defined term, so when you see a job advertisement for "Knowledge Manager", just what exactly are they looking for? What is that job likely to entail?

I did a quick survey of the last 25 job vacancies I have seen that were labelled "KM" or "Knowledge manager", and found the following

• 20% were looking for work in strategic KM - looking to develop or promote the sharing and re-use of knowledge for business benefit - the sort of work I like to do
• 20% were looking for portal designers and technicians.
• 16% were looking for content management or content publishing
• 12% were looking for sales people to sell KM software
• 8% were looking for people to provide CoP support

then the rest were looking for

• a web designer
• a SharePoint technician
• a person to support collaborative technology
• a taxonomist
• a data miner
• a role which said "Knowledge Management" on the email, "Knowledge and information management" on the job description title, and looked to be 100% IM from the description itself.

So there's still a real spread out there. It pays to read the job description carefully - I know of more than one example of a knowledge manager thinking they knew what job they were going for, and finding it to be radically different in practice.