Download Presentation - Ahlia University

WASD BAHRAIN 2017
Digital revolution, smart cities
and performance improvement:
Towards a sustainable knowledge-based
inclusive development
The role of KM in achieving Efficiency, Effectiveness
& Value for Money in the Public Sector
Professor John Adams
British University in Egypt
Smart cities will require smart public sector organisations to manage them.
The real question is How do we get from where we are to this?
I will start with where I think we actually are in 2017
Peter F. Drucker (1909-2005), often referred to as the ‘father’ of modern management
theory, consistently argued that public-sector organisations are “big rather than strong”,
“flabby”, “cost a great deal” and “do not achieve much.” (Drucker, 1992). Government is
concerned with procedure and has no choice but to be bureaucratic.
Drucker also argued (1995) that for government officials, at all levels, loyalty is more
important than performance because the structure of public sector organisations (PSO’s)
protects them from the ‘discipline’ of the ‘market’ – getting ‘things’ done efficiently and
effectively. As a result, all PSO’s are vehemently resistant to change. Finally he
concluded that government should restrict itself to governing but not doing (see
Drucker, 1992, 1995; Leung & Adams, 2010).
Some have argued (see Chobanyan & Emblemsvag, 2005) that this view of PSO’s has
now become the settled opinion of the general public in many countries and has now
manifested itself into a general backlash against the ‘accepted’ order.
So, where are we in 2017?
• Rapid and increasing rejection of ‘big’ government and the rise of ‘populism’ in the
USA, Britain, Europe, S. America, S.E. Asia and other regions of the world.
• The rejection of ‘globalisation’ in many parts of the world, even by politicians, and the
consequent rise of nationalism in some countries in Europe, MENA & elsewhere.
In short, the general public no longer has the same level of trust in government and its
agencies that was present until quite recently.
Many PSO’s (and governments) are now more keenly aware than ever that this trend
needs to be reversed, and quickly. And that they need to be seen to be working FOR the
public and not for themselves, as argued by Gordon Tullock 40 years before Drucker, but
from an economic perspective (see Tullock, 1976).
Can this trend be reversed?
In my view, by reasserting the importance of achieving Value for Money by PSO’s,
because it is the gap between what the public get and what they are ‘promised’ that
goes to the centre of the decline in trust. An alignment of VFM principles with
Knowledge Management has the potential to do this. What does VFM mean?
UK National Audit
Office, 2016.
The processes component of the VFM framework is where KM can have a major impact
in terms of embedded systems to retain and enhance organisational knowledge to enable
the PSO’s purpose and objective to be fully understood by all employees. This must include:
SMART* service level agreements within and between the PSO’s departments and as the
social contract between the PSO and the public.
Rules and regulations that are consistent and predictable and understood by all.
A PMS that is focused on achieving PSO objectives, not just imposing them on staff.
A system that rewards achievement and not simply loyalty or seniority.
* Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic and Time-based.
The potential impact of integrating VFM and KM can be conceptualised in terms of the
likely
benefits this can bring to PSO’s – these are:






Consistency
Comparability
Clarity
Controllability
Comprehensiveness
Boundedness
- between PSO departments and PSO’s (eg SLA’s)
- of departments and PSO’s (efficiency index)
- of objectives at all levels
- absence of ‘sub-cultures’ in PSO’s (V & H Trust)
- all PSO functions systemised (effectiveness index)
- not ‘stepping on others PSO toes’
The issue of Trust within PSO’s
If Drucker , Tullock (and others) are correct then the existence of ‘sub-cultures’ within a
PSO is a major threat to both VFM and KM because they will act deliberately to undermine
both.
This is the combination of the twin problems of (1) Vertical & Horizontal Trust and (2) the
classic Principal-Agent problem*.
*This part will be included in the paper at a later date
VFM & KM possible IF
Sub-cultures are eliminated
But trust in superiors
Trust within PSO’s
+V
VFM & KM functionality
assured (extremely rare)
No trust between staff at the same level
-H
+H
Distrust in superiors
Trust between staff at the same level
Totally Dysfunctional
VFM & KM impossible
-V
VFM & KM possible IF
heirarchy move to inclusiveness &
transparency
The PSO’s ‘knowledge’ is embedded in its staff, especially senior staff. However when staff
leave or transfer, the organisational knowledge is depleted unless it is transferred to younger
staff and to new recruits. This is a key element of KM and requires the following:
Succession planning for senior staff
Continuous training for all staff
Intensive training for new staff (professionalised & certificated)
Continuous job rotation (but medium, not short term)
Continuous reinforcement of the PSO’s Purpose, its Objectives, its SLA’s & VFM
These are difficult requirements but if implemented could reverse the negative trends
identified earlier and generate real benefits for the PSO and, more importantly, for the public.
VFM
Efficiency
&
Effectiveness
VFM
The PSO becomes more
efficient & effective at
successive time periods
after a short period of
knowledge depletion if and
only if the requirements
are actually implemented.
VFM
KM
KM
KM
Time
SHOKRAN