Anti-Corruption Knowledge
Management
State of Play and Proposals for Change
Bryane Michael, Linacre College
Background

Knowledge has become the key input in
many donor projects
K

a
Knowledge is everywhere, yet not organised
A Brief Primer on KM 4 AC
Knowledge management represents a concept in which an organisation
consciously and comprehensively gathers, organises, shares and analyses its
knowledge in terms of resources, documents and people skills” (Asian
Development Bank, 2004).
Tacit Knowledge
Codified Knowledge
Double Loop Learning
learning to do
anti-corruption
learning how to learn
how to do anti-corruption
Some Examples of KM 4 AC
A Who’s Who of Experts
A database of projects and reflections about them
Stable collection of practitioners
who interact and work repeatedly
Persons and organisations portrayed in this slide fall under the “famous people”
provision of copyright and the academic nature of this presentation constitutes “fair use.”
How to Know if Project is KM 4 AC?
Figure 3: Methodology for Identifying an Anti-Corruption KM System
Need driven
Mostly done
Existing
anti-corruption
information
NEEDS
Existing
anti-corruption
information
“out there”
Donors’
Existing Knowledge
Management (KM)
Systems
Capital
Labour
Knowledge
computers
software
procedures
organisational structures
Use of KM in project
design and implementation
anti-corruption “production function”
The AC
Programmes
Which Donors Were Assessed?
Organisations Assessed for Anti-Corruption Activities
Organisation
Number
of
Projects
Main
Info.
Source
Utsein
Group
Norad
DfID
Netherlands
SIDA
CIDA
GTZ
5
4
6
6
4
3
U4
U4
U4
SIDA
CIDA
U4
Non-Utstein
World Bank
IMF
USAID
OECD
PwC
TI
Soros
2
3
4
3
2
4
3
WB
IMF
USAID
OECD
PwC
TI
Soros
Totals
49
Geographical focus*
EA
SSA
LAC
2
1
2
3
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1st
2nd
2
1
5
6
4
2
3
3
1
0
0
1
3
0
1
4
3
0
3
3
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
18
34
13
Other
1
5
4**
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
7
Type of project
15
2
9
* See donor appendices for more information on specific projects.
** Two countries in Eastern Europe and 2 in the Middle East
Notes: Regions correspond to the World Bank classification. Types of projects correspond to Michael
(2004) and Michael and Langseth (2002).
other
2
2
How Were They Assessed?

Internet assessment only


Assessment used to gain subjective perception of
donors KM4AC




Reflects KM perspective that knowledge is useful only if available
no census or even sampling
reflects Bayesian methods
scope at expense of depth in order to arrive at qualitatively rather
than quantitatively significant results
No universal model or methodology
used

instead see if donor had own
Scoring Scale
1 Excellent Projects are good (as defined below). Sstaff time and resources for learning from
and making better anti-corruption projects. These are “learning anti-corruption projects”.
2 Good Projects are fair (as defined below) plus
Attempts to use stakeholder group knowledge
3 Fair
Adequate (as defined below) plus
System of anti-corruption project evaluation used
Training of staff and external partners about anti-corruption.
4 Adequate
Clearly defined objectives, target groups, and implementation methods
Explicit or Implicit model or intellectual framework
Uses concrete cases.
Possible risks and inadequacies in current knowledge identified.
Assertions can be falsified.
5 Needs improvement
Cursory discussion of project’s pros and cons
Rudimentary organisational structure for AC
Based heavily on “accepted wisdom”
6 Poor
Little mention of anti-corruption measures
No apparent model governing discussion.
Discussion focuses on abstraction
No organisational structure apparent.
Non Utstein Donors tend to do better KM4AC
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
Utstein Group Non-Utstein Group
os
So
r
TI
F
U
SA
ID
O
EC
D
Pw
C
IM
D
h e fID
rla
nd
s
SI
D
A
C
ID
A
G
W
or TZ
ld
Ba
nk
N
et
ad
0%
N
or
Percent of assessed projects scoring
excellent or good
KM4AC Scores for Donor Projects
A KM Perspective on Various Needs
Assessment Approaches
Speed dating
approach
Survey
Approach
little knowledge
used or developed
some knowledge
use and
development
Internet
Survey
Own-Reasons
Approach
Long-term
relationship
Knowledge with
unknown spill-overs
some
knowledge
used
Figure 3: Methodology for Identifying an Anti-Corruption KM System
club-good type
knowledge developed
and used
Need driven
Mostly done
Existing
anti-corruption
information
NEEDS
Donors’
Existing Knowledge
Management (KM)
Systems
Capital
Labour
Knowledge
In an KM4AC ecosystem, all approaches should be used --- correctly
Existing
anti-corruption
information
“out there”
computers
software
procedures
organisational structures
Use of KM in project
design and implementation
anti-corruption “production function”
The AC
Programmes
KM Related Problems with Needs
Assessment





Inadequate reporting
Definition of AC
Needs displacement
Meta-knowledge
Aggregation problem
A KM Perspective on Various Needs
Assessment Approaches
Hail Mary
approach
Search
Approach
little knowledge
used or developed
some knowledge
use and
development
Partnership
Approach
Own Track
Approach
Long-term
relationship
Knowledge with
unknown spill-overs
some
knowledge
used
Figure 3: Methodology for Identifying an Anti-Corruption KM System
club-good type
knowledge developed
and used
Need driven
Mostly done
Existing
anti-corruption
information
NEEDS
Donors’
Existing Knowledge
Management (KM)
Systems
Capital
Labour
Knowledge
In an KM4AC ecosystem, all approaches should be used --- correctly
Existing
anti-corruption
information
“out there”
computers
software
procedures
organisational structures
Use of KM in project
design and implementation
anti-corruption “production function”
The AC
Programmes
Problems making a vade mecum
Overload
Not Enough Cross-linking
Lack of Yellow Pages
Extraction Problems
Info-mediation
Project Assessment Difficulties

Type A – reflects
evaluator’s own
knowledge



where is true target?
Type B – reflects
reporting bias of
organisation
Type C – aggregation
problems

how does project
contribute to group
knowledge?
Problems with Scoring Scale
Type C – aggregation problems. May relate to specificity, relevance and
fit
Type B – reflects reporting bias of organisation
Type A – perspectives can be universalistic, state-centric, CSO-centric
or crtical
Managing Knowledge
Key Principles from Nonaka and Tackeuchi (1995)

Knowledge should address the level of needs



Global – general or technical points
Local – very specific needs or those affected by
specific interests
Knowledge should be produced at lowest
cost


High economies of scale – standard report,
standard teaching programmes.
Low economies of scale – specific advice for local
programme in a new subject area.
The Optimal Allocation of KM4AC?
Type of Knowledge
Specificity of anti-corruption needs
Global
Local
Codified
Principles or disciplinebased models
World Bank, OECD.
Best practices and “local
knowledge”
DfID, USAID.
Tacit
Discipline-specific knowhow
(technical applied
knowledge)
Transparency International
Personalised training
SIDA, GTZ, NORAD
Source: Michael and Langseth (2002). CIDA could not be included due to lack of
information.
Some Examples of KM Allocations
KM4AC seems enforced by
committee structure
World
Bank
project
OECD
project
committee
KM4AC seems infused in the
organisational culture
Bilateral donor
U4
Bilateral donor
U4 appears to act as
knowledge-intermediary
(economies of scale?)
Organisational form determinant role in KM4AC!
Conclusions and Next Steps




Donors must make and manage anticorruption knowledge if they hope to have
impact
KM occurs within the organisation and
between them
Groups like U4 will need to figure out where
they can best add value in this ecosystem
Further diagnostic testing required
EXTRA ISSUES (1)
Q: Why did you choose the model you did?
A: It is an industry classic. Other models exist based on core
competencies and IT management, but they were not as
good.
Q: Why didn’t you do a sample or go anywhere?
A: Knowledge is useful only if it is findable. The whole
purpose of the exercise is to is how accessable knowledge
is to “average” AC practitioner
Q: Isn’t “knowledge” a highly contentious issue – one
which sociologists would take serious issue with?
A: Yes. We treat knowledge as the managerial literature we
use treats it. We are positivistic and de gustibus non est
disputandum.
EXTRA ISSUES (2)
Q: You claim that donors should not select a universal model and
then advocate Michael and Langseth (2002). Why?
A: The model is a first start based on corporate KM. Donors should
understand the principles behind this report rather than follow models
slavishly.
Q: How accurate are you assessments?
A: They do not claim to measure the actual KM systems of the donors.
They do, however, represent our best estimates based on available
information.
Q: So the World Bank is a great KM4AC organisation and CIDA is
awful, right?
A: No. Simply based on the available information, the World Bank appears
to us to be much better at KM4AC than CIDA. If CIDA’s KM4AC
practices are good, they should increase the ease by which this
information is available.
EXTRA ISSUES (3)
Q: What should all donors do?
A: Donors working on anti-corruption should
1. Give staff time to think, write and teach about what they have
learnt.
2. Work on making useful knowledge rather than simply
organising glitzy conferences.
3. Avoid simply storing information and think about their work
together.
Q: What should U4 do?
A: It is muddling through. It should either empower a consolidator
like U4 to learn and teach, or each donor should develop its own
knowledge competencies. Right now, most are hedging and
doing neither.
EXTRA ISSUES (4)
Q: How will you practice what you preach?
A: We will disseminate this information in a
separate peer-reviewed academic article and
create a web page for KM4AC. Extensive
audio-visual materials will be made available.
We will try to disseminate the results at
international conferences...mostly focusing
on next steps instead of these subjective
numerical estimates.