A knowledge-based approach to government efficiency (part 1): Requirements, scope, and systems thinking

In our February RealKM Magazine article¹ “USAID and the new burning of the books in digital and ideological epistemicide. A call to action” we reported on the impacts of US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts to aid agency USAID and issued a call to action to save knowledge resources before they were completely lost.

A number of responses to our article countered that governments have a right and indeed responsibility to address inefficiencies in administration, particularly if they had committed to do so before being elected. However, as we wrote in our replies, this was never in question if there was an knowledge-based case supporting the need for efficiencies. What we were criticizing was the way in which efficiencies were being decided and pursued.

Some responses also criticized the political nature of our USAID article, saying that politics has no relationship with knowledge management (KM) in organizations. However, KM has long been about more than just organizational KM, and RealKM Magazine covers all aspects of KM. KM for sustainable development (KM4SD) began² more than 25 years ago, originally being called KM for development (KM4D). KM4SD is necessarily political as it deals with the international development and aid activities of world governments, such as the work of USAID. The newly emerging area of societal KM³ has also been identified as necessarily political. As with our USAID article, this new follow-on series also has necessary political dimensions.

Requirements, systems thinking, and lessons learned

So, what constitutes a knowledge-based approach to government efficiency? In an article⁴ in LinkedIn Pulse, Bill Kaplan writes that for government efficiency programs to effectively and safely achieve their goals, they need to involve:

• A rigorous and transparent requirements definition process – When cost-cutting measures are implemented without a rigorous requirements definition process, the risk of unintended consequences increases.
• A systems thinking approach – Understanding the broader interdependencies and long-term effects of decisions is essential for sustainable government operational efficiency and effectiveness.
• Enhanced accountability and oversight – The effectiveness of cost-cutting measures should be monitored and publicly reported to ensure they achieve intended outcomes without degrading services, with lessons learned capture to drive continuous improvement.

This is very sound advice that can be readily supported by evidence. For example:

• Requirements definition – The Project Management Institute (PMI) knowledge base includes references emphasizing the need for rigorous and transparent requirements definition, such as the paper⁵ “Effective requirements management.”
• Systems thinking – The Government of the UK has developed⁶ an introductory systems thinking toolkit for civil servants, stating that it is applicable to all civil servants delivering good policy making, enabling them to intelligently explore and leveraging parts of the system to achieve goals.
• Lessons learned – Dennis Pearce’s RealKM Magazine Lessons Learned Life Cycle⁷ article series is supported by extensive lists of references.

Project scope: A necessary step before requirements

However, another essential step is also needed before requirements are defined, and which informs the requirements. As set out^8,9 in both research findings and PMI’s A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), this step involves the development of the project scope.

For example, an Australian river recovery program that I managed¹⁰ was preceded by an independently conducted multi-criteria analysis (MCA) of potential component projects for the program. The MCA identified only 7 of 15 proposed projects as having sufficient cost-benefit value to be worthy of implementation, so those were taken forward as the program scope, and the others rejected. Requirements for the 7 selected projects were then rigorously defined in a 129-page program funding deed that I administered. The program exceeded its objectives and was delivered on time and under budget, winning two major awards.

Similarly, to look an example related directly to government efficiency, Australia’s federal opposition leader had vowed to make large public service cuts if successful in the recent national election. Such populist proposals can be electorally appealing, particularly to people who are suffering economically¹¹.

But the expert head of Australia’s longstanding and highly respected Productivity Commission, who is leading an investigation¹² into government efficiency, warned¹³ that such cuts would achieve little in savings, and potentially actually work against the best outcomes by sacrificing the expert knowledge needed to implement effective reforms. Analysis also found the claims of public service growth on which the proposed cuts were based to be misleading¹⁴. When population growth is taken into account, the size of the Australian public service remains far smaller than it was 20 years ago.

Results of neglecting requirements, scope, and systems thinking

On top of the devastating impacts of the USAID cuts on knowledge and knowledge holders reported in our February article¹⁵, the warnings above of little real gain from such cuts together with the effects of significant interdependencies with other parts of the system are unsurprisingly starting to be clearly seen in the US.

The nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model reports¹⁶ that:

it is now clear that DOGE has failed to materially reduce government spending and deficits. Our real-time federal budget tracker of revenue and spending indicates that spending in 2025 exceeds that in 2024 by amounts that cannot be explained by inflation or one-time payouts to separated government workers.

More recently, Elon Musk, architect of the DOGE cuts, has slammed US President Donald Trump for the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), which Musk contends will cause a massive rise in national debt that will completely wipe out any savings that could be achieved by DOGE:

I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore.

This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.

Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 3, 2025

Musk’s claims in this regard are supported by four independent policy organizations, all of which estimate¹⁷ that the OBBB would send the national debt soaring to more than $50 trillion.

Next part (part 2): Lessons learned – slow or fast?

Header image source: fauxels on Pexels.

References: