Knowledge management approaches that public administrations are actually using (part 1): A framework of KM criteria

Public administration¹ encompasses the execution, oversight, and management of government policies and the management of public affairs. It involves the organization, operation, and strategic coordination of bureaucratic structures in the public sector.

Public administration organizations are turning to organizational knowledge management (KM) to a deal with a dynamic and some­times overwhelming knowledge landscape. However, in introducing a new discussion paper² for Deutsches Forschungsinstitut für öffentliche Verwaltung (National Institute for Public Administration Germany), Stella Hill alerts that:

KM in public administrations remains a concept that often is either abstract, or used as a buzzword, reducing it to isolated practices such as offboarding or document storage. Consequently, it becomes hard to pinpoint when KM is genuinely being implemented.

In response, Hill establishes criteria that can define good practices for holistic KM in public administrations through an examination of case studies from around the world. This provides a framework for effective KM implementation.

Probst and colleagues³ eight building blocks of KM are used as a foundation for the comparative analysis of the case studies. Given significant overlaps, these blocks are then aggregated into five elements of KM, as shown in Figure 1. Hill advises that the reason for using Probst and colleagues’ building blocks is that other popular theoretical work focuses on subprocesses of KM or on the knowledge resource, whereas Probst and colleagues consider KM as a holistic concept.

The case studies come from two sources. Firstly, a systematic literature review⁴ of KM case studies in academic journals, as shown in Table 1. These sources are scientifically val­idated, but may hold administrations to difficult standards given budgetary and time con­straints, and can suffer from bias in samples and other variables. Secondly, Google was employed to find information on KM initiatives in OECD countries’ bureaucracies, which contributed a further 36 cases studies across 18 countries and regions, in addition to those listed in Table 1. Such sources are often self-descriptions or concept papers, so can suffer from desirability bias as administrations aim to portray themselves favourably.

Hill’s analysis involved six steps:

1. All the sources were reviewed and any information related to how KM is practised within the case study organisations was highlighted as quotations.
2. The quotations were grouped under recurring and relevant keywords
3. The keywords were summarised and condensed into codes which capture the essence of a group of keywords.
4. Referred to as theme development, this step is where the KM criteria were derived.
5. The criteria were assigned to the elements of knowledge identification, acquisition, distribution, preservation, and application, as derived from Probst and colleagues’ work.
6. The KM criteria, grouped under these vari­ous concepts, were integrated into a conceptual model with strong practical relevance.

Framework of KM criteria for public administrations

The results of Hill’s analysis are shown in Table 2, and summaries of the explanations and examples for each criteria will be presented in the upcoming part 2 of this two-part series. Hill advises that public administrations can use this framework of KM criteria as guidance and inspiration, while tailoring their focus on certain criteria to suit their specific needs and constraints.

Hill notes that the especially large number of codes in the “In­formation Management” criterion is likely because, for both administrations and re­searchers, information management is the most tangible aspect of KM. Hardware, soft­ware, and technology are much easier to implement and identify than cultural aspects or long-term strategies. Leadership support was also frequently cited as a key aspect of successful KM. Hill cautions that while the importance of this factor is not disputed, it is worth noting that many researchers interviewed leadership figures, who may have overstated their role due to self-serving bias. Having an individual or a team offi­cially responsible for KM is also common.

Table 2. Deduced criteria and codes, with frequency of individual case examples
(source: Hill, 2025).

Next part: (part 2): Explanations and examples of KM criteria.

Header image source: RDNE Stock project on Pexels.

References: