the world bank world bank operations evaluation department

THE WORLD BANK W O R L D B A N K O P E R A T I O N S E V A L U A T I O N D E P A R T M E N T

Sharing KnowledgeInnovations and Remaining Challenges

An OED Evaluation

Sharing Knowledge:Innovations and Rem

aining Challenges

™xHSKIMBy357125zv":;:=:":#ISBN : 0-8213-5712-3

THE WORLD BANK

1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433 USATel: 202 473 1000Fax: 202 477 6391www.worldbank.org

TH

EW

OR

LD

BA

NK

OPERATIONS EVALUATION DEPARTMENT

ENHANCING DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS THROUGH EXCELLENCE AND INDEPENDENCE IN EVALUATION

The Operations Evaluation Department (OED) is an independent unit within the World Bank; it

reports directly to the Bank’s Board of Executive Directors. OED assesses what works, and what does

not; how a borrower plans to run and maintain a project; and the lasting contribution of the Bank to a

country’s overall development. The goals of evaluation are to learn from experience, to provide an

objective basis for assessing the results of the Bank’s work, and to provide accountability in the achieve-

ment of its objectives. It also improves Bank work by identifying and disseminating the lessons learned

from experience and by framing recommendations drawn from evaluation findings.

S H A R I N G K N O W L E D G EINNOVATIONS AND REMAINING CHALLENGES

A N O E D E VA L U AT I O N


CATHERINE GWIN

2003THE WORLD BANK

WASHINGTON, D.C.http://www.worldbank.org/oed

© 2003 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433Telephone 202-473-1000Internet www.worldbank.orgE-mail [email protected]

All rights reserved.

1 2 3 4 05 04 03

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflectthe views of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.

The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors,denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of theWorld Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

Rights and PermissionsThe material in this work is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permissionmay be a violation of applicable law. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grantpermission promptly.

For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information tothe Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, www.copyright.com.

All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail [email protected].

Cover photos: World Bank Photo Library.

ISBN 0-8213-5712-3eISBN 0-8213-5713-1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data has been applied for.

iii

Acknowledgments viiForeword ixAbbreviations and Acronyms xiExecutive Summary xiii

1. Introduction 1

Knowledge Initiative Launch 1Evaluation Design 2

2. A Highly Relevant Strategy 5

Discerning the Bank’s Knowledge Strategy 5The Strategy’s Strengths 6The Strategy’s Design Shortcomings 7

3. Internal Knowledge Sharing to Improve Bank Operations 9

Expanding Network and Regional Knowledge Sharing among Staff 9Thematic Groups 10Advisory Services 14Expanded Use of Bank Internal and External Web Sites 16Linking to Learning and Research 17Remaining Challenges 17

4. Sharing Knowledge with Clients and Partners 19

Regional Approaches to Leveraging Knowledge for Development 19Increasing the Knowledge Dimensions of Country Programs and Projects 20Effectiveness of Bank Knowledge Sharing with Clients 22Development and Integration of Global Knowledge Initiatives 23Integrating Knowledge Sharing 32

5. The Supporting Institutional Infrastructure 33

Resources and Governance 33Technology 36People 37Summing up 37

CO N T E N TS

iv | S H A R I N G K N O W L E D G E

6. Conclusions and Recommendations 39

Endnotes 95

Bibliography 101

Annexes

Annex A: Knowledge-Sharing Chronology (1996-02) 41Annex B: Inventory of Bank Knowledge-Sharing Activities 43Annex C: Lessons from the Literature on Knowledge Management 45Annex D: Evaluation Framework for Knowledge-Sharing Programs and Activities:

Criteria, Inidicators and Evidence 49Annex E: Methodology Note 51Annex F: Examples of Comparator Knowledge Initiatives 55Annex G: Client Survey Report 59Annex H: Management Response to the OED Review Sharing Knowledge:

Innovations and Remaining Challenges 81Annex I: Chairman’s Summary: Committee on Development Effectiveness 91

Boxes

Box 3.1: A Consultative Process for Validating Content 11Box 3.2: Task Teams Welcome Direct Support of Project Implementation by

Thematic Groups 12Box 3.3: There Is No Shared Practice for Budgeting, Programming, and

Reporting of Thematic Group Actions 13Box 3.4: Free and Fee-Based Access to Knowledge Through Rapid Response 14Box 3.5: Targeting Web Content to Intended Audiences Poses Challenges 17Box 4.1: A Continuous Learning Framework Provides for Exchange among

Project Teams 20Box 4.2: Shifting the Emphasis from Lending to Knowledge 21Box 4.3: GDLN Programming Links City Officials 27Box 4.4: GDN Major Activities since 1999 31Box 5.1: Conditions for the Effective Use of Shared Knowledge 37

Tables

Table 2.1: Stylized Results Chain for Knowledge Sharing 8Table 4.1: Location of Global Knowledge Initiatives 25Table 4.2: World Bank Lending for GDLN Distance Learning Centers 27Table 4.3: Mixed GDLN Trends, FY01–mid FY03 28

Figures

Figure 2.1: Increasingly Favorable Staff Views on Access to Knowledge 6Figure 2.2: Clients and Experts Give Bank Knowledge High Ratings on Quality

and Relevance 7Figure 3.1: Thematic Group Activities Provide More Indirect than Direct

Support to Operations 11

C O N T E N T S | v

Figure 3.2: External Requests Dominate Advisory Services 15Figure 3.3: Most Requests Are for Publications and Data 15Figure 4.1: Shared Knowledge Is Well Focused, but Not Well Adapted or

Disseminated 22Figure 4.2: Where Clients Would Like the Bank to Do Better 24Figure 4.3: GDN Expenses by Core Activities (FY02) 30Figure 5.1: Bankwide Expenditures on Knowledge Management Rose

through the Strategic Compact Period 34Figure 5.2: Network Expenditures on Knowledge Management Exceed

those of the Regions 34Figure 5.3: The Majority of FY02 Expenditures Were for General

Knowledge Management Activities 34

This report was prepared by a team led byCatherine Gwin. Other team members were

Deepa Chakrapani, Diana Corbin, JudithHahn, and Zamir Islamshah, with additionalinput provided by Bozena Krupa and GeorgiaWallen. The team received support fromParveen Moses and Annisa Cline-Thomas.Background papers were provided by DavidBevan, Jeffrey Cummings, David Goldwyn,Kenneth King, and Simon McGrath, ElizabethKleemeier and Keith Stallard, Alex Romis-zowski, Louise Walker and colleagues, andMaureen Woodall. David Shirley providedexpert advice on the design of the client surveyand prepared the survey report, based on inter-views conducted by Katarzyna Furman, AzizulIslam, Tausi Kida, Peter Knight, and B. B.Niang.

The evaluation has benefited from discussions,comments, and assistance from numerous peo-ple. Special thanks are due to the many gov-ernment officials and civil society representa-tives interviewed in Bangladesh, Brazil,Poland, Senegal, and Tanzania. The reportalso benefited from extensive consultationswith Bank staff, notably Kevin Cleaver, BasilKavalsky, Bruno Laporte, and Klaus Tilmes, aswell as others too numerous to acknowledgeby name. In addition, comments and guidancefrom external advisers are gratefully acknowl-edged, namely, Joseph Abbey, Keith Bezanson,Dorothy Leonard, and Zainal A. M. Yusof.

OED is grateful to the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for financial assistance tosupport a number of activities, including theconduct of the country surveys, specialistreviews of Bank knowledge products, and aclient workshop. OED also thanks the SwissAgency for Development Cooperation for itssupport of client and expert participation inthe evaluation workshop. Finally, the evalua-tion team is grateful to the participants at its knowledge evaluation workshop, held inWashington, D.C., in November 2002, fortheir time and input.

The review was completed under the guidanceof Victoria Elliott, manager, OEDCM.

The study was published in OED’s Partner-ships and Knowledge Group, under the direction of Osvaldo Feinstein, by the Communications and Publications staff of the Knowledge Management Unit, includingPatrick Grasso, lead knowledge managementofficer; Vivian Jackson, publications officer;Caroline McEuen, writer/editor; and JuicyQureishi-Huq, publications assistant.

Director-General, Operations Evaluation: Gregory K. Ingram

Director, Operations Evaluation Department (Acting): Nils Fostvedt

Manager, Corporate Evaluation and Methods: Victoria Elliott

Task Manager: Catherine Gwin

vii

AC K N O W L E D G M E N TS

The World Bank’s commitment in 1996 tobecome a global knowledge bank proposed

broad-ranging internal and external changesaimed at expanding the sharing of knowledgeamong staff, clients, and partners. While thetransfer of knowledge and information hadalways been a dimension of the Bank’s role,the knowledge initiative sought to broaden thescope and raise the profile of this function.The purpose was to improve the quality ofBank operations and enhance the capacity ofclient countries to achieve development goals.Over the period FY97-02, the Bank has spentsome $220 million on corporate, network, andRegional knowledge sharing activities, andover $60 million on its three main globalknowledge initiatives.

Key Findings

Overall, this review finds that the Bank hasmade good progress in establishing the toolsand activities to support its initiative, but ithas not established adequate business process-es and management responsibilities for achiev-ing the strategic intent of making knowledgesharing a way of doing business and empow-ering clients. In the six years of the initiative,the Bank has substantially upgraded its infor-mation management system, initiated a widevariety of new activities for the aggregationand sharing of knowledge, and fostered amore open, knowledge-sharing culture withinits staff. These steps, taken together, have pro-vided staff, clients, and partners faster and eas-

ier access to Bank and other developmentknowledge.

Improved access does not, however, guaran-tee that the shared knowledge will be adopted,adapted, and applied. For that to happen,knowledge sharing has to be embedded inwork processes. And, so far, the Bank’s newactivities have not been well integrated intocore lending and nonlending processes.

Two management shortfalls account inlarge part for this evaluation finding of weakintegration of knowledge sharing with othercore business processes. First, although high-level leadership has stimulated innovations inBank knowledge services, management hasnot adequately defined the roles and respon-sibilities of corporate, network, and Regionalunits for making knowledge sharing a way ofdoing business. Nor, according to staff, has itestablished adequate incentives for incorpo-rating knowledge sharing into operationalprocesses. Second, in contrast to good prac-tice in other organizations and other process-es of the Bank, there is no systematic moni-toring and evaluation of knowledge sharingprograms and activities.

Recommendations

To more fully realize the knowledge initiative’spotential to contribute to the scaling up ofeffective Bank interventions and enhance thecapacity of clients to achieve developmentgoals, this review recommends that the Banktake three sets of actions:

ix

FO R E WO R D

1. Management should exercise more strategicdirection and oversight over the Bank’sknowledge processes. For this, managementshould: define clear responsibilities andaccountabilities of corporate, network, andRegional units for integrating knowledgesharing into the Bank’s core businessprocesses; ensure that incentives are alignedwith responsibilities, especially at the taskmanager level; and establish a strategicapproach to the Bank’s role in existing andany new global knowledge initiatives.

2. Network and Regional units should tightlylink their knowledge-sharing activities tolending and nonlending processes. For

example, networks should set clear objec-tives for anchor, thematic group, and advi-sory services direct support of operationalteams; and Regional and country unitsshould make explicit the knowledge objec-tives and strategies of Country AssistanceStrategies and projects.

3. Vice-presidential units should set moni-torable outcome objectives and supportingperformance indicators for their respectiveknowledge-sharing programs and activities,and they should agree, Bankwide, on pro-cedures to be established for monitoringand evaluating Bank knowledge-sharingprograms and activities.

x | S H A R I N G K N O W L E D G E

Gregory K. IngramDirector-General, Operations Evaluation

xi

AAA Analytical and advisory services

AFR Africa Region

APQC American Productivity and Quality Center

AROE Annual Report of Operations Evaluation

AUDI Arab Urban Development Institute

CAE Country Assistance Evaluation

CAS Country Assistance Strategy

CDF Comprehensive Development Framework

DEC Development Economics

DLC Distance Learning Center

EAP East Asia & Pacific Region

ECA Europe & Central Asia Region

ENV Environment Department

ESSD Environmentally & Socially Sustainable Development Network

ESW Economic and sector work

FKIS Financial Sector Knowledge Information Service

FPSI Financial and Private Sector Investment Network

GDLN Global Development Learning Network

GDN Global Development Network

IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank)

ICT Information and communication technology

IDA International Development Association

ISG Information Solutions Group

IT Information technology

LCR Latin America & the Caribbean Region

LICUS Low-Income Countries Under Stress

LIL Learning and Innovation Loan

MAC Marco de Aprendizaje Continuo

MNA Middle East & North Africa Regional Office

NGO Nongovernmental organization

OCS Operational Core Services

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OED Operations Evaluation Department

A B B R E V I AT I O N S A N D AC R O NYM S

xii | S H A R I N G K N O W L E D G E

OPE Overall Performance Evaluation

PAD Project Appraisal Document

PREM Poverty Reduction & Economic Management Network

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

QAE Quality at entry

QAG Quality Assurance Group

RRU Rapid Response Unit

SAR South Asia Region

TRS Time Recording System

WBI World Bank Institute

In 1996, the World Bank made a commitmentto become a global knowledge bank. The

Bank’s stated intention was to develop aworld-class knowledge management systemand to improve and expand the sharing ofdevelopment knowledge with clients and part-ners. The objectives of this commitment wereto improve the quality of Bank operations andenhance the capacity of clients to achievedevelopment results.

Since FY97, the Bank has spent someUS$220 million for corporate, network, andRegional knowledge-sharing activities andmore than US$60 million for its three mainglobal knowledge initiatives, the DevelopmentGateway, the Global Development LearningNetwork (GDLN), and the Global Develop-ment Network (GDN). These programs andactivities have sparked a lot of innovation,with potentially significant benefits for thescaling up of effective Bank interventions andfor empowering clients to improve develop-ment outcomes. But new knowledge-sharingprograms and activities need to be much bet-ter integrated into the Bank’s core businessprocesses to achieve the initiative’s broadobjectives. For this, senior management mustprovide greater strategic direction and over-sight to corporate, network, and Regionalunits.

Evaluation Scope

The knowledge initiative aims to expandknowledge sharing as a way of doing busi-ness—not a separate line of business. It alsoproposes, appropriately, a comprehensivestrategy to bring about both internal and

external changes. This evaluation examinesthe relevance of that strategy and the institu-tional infrastructure put in place to implementit. It also reviews the effectiveness of the strat-egy’s three main areas of innovation:

• Network and Regional internal knowledge-sharing activities among Bank staff

• Regional and country external knowledgesharing with clients

• The three Bank-supported global knowl-edge initiatives that have the broadestknowledge-sharing scope are: The Develop-ment Gateway, The Global DevelopmentLearning Network, and the Global Devel-opment Network.

Summary Findings

The Bank’s commitment to a comprehensiveknowledge initiative was timely and appropriate

The transfer of knowledge and informationhas always been a dimension of the Bank’srole. And clients, partners, and the interna-tional community at large have long seen theBank as a main source of high-quality devel-opment analysis and expertise. The 1996knowledge initiative raises the profile of thisaspect of the Bank’s role, in order to foster thechanges inside and outside, the Bank needed toleverage knowledge for development moreeffectively.

The initiative, which was responsive in1996 to rapid changes in information technol-ogy, has become increasingly relevant in theintervening years to changes in internationaldevelopment practices and the Bank’s own

xiii

E X E C U T I V E S U M MA RY

agenda. Both those changes have put increasedemphasis on ownership, partnership, andresults—all processes heavily dependent onsharing knowledge.

Bank knowledge has become faster and easier to access

The Bank has made good progress since 1996in providing staff, clients, and partners withfaster access to Bank knowledge and expertise.This improvement has been the result ofactions in five areas: (1) substantial upgradesin the Bank’s information management systemand global connectivity; (2) more systematiccollection of Bank information and lessons ofexperience, and their active dissemination tostaff, clients, and partners; (3) greater interac-tion among staff across the institution andwith clients, around shared work areas; (4)innovations in collaborative analytical workand peer-to-peer exchanges across client coun-tries; and (5) leveraging of technology forglobal knowledge sharing. Both staff andclients report that they value the improvedaccessibility and timeliness of Bank knowledgeand information. This view emerges clearlyfrom a succession of Bank staff surveys under-taken since 1997 and a five-country client sur-vey conducted for this review.

But weak links to operations limit the effectiveness of the new knowledge-sharingactivities

So far, the Bank’s new activities consist prima-rily of knowledge aggregation and sharing—processes that by themselves do not guaranteethat the shared knowledge will be adopted,adapted, and applied. For that to happen,knowledge sharing has to be embedded inwork processes. But, for the most part, thenew activities have not been tightly linked tothe Bank’s core lending and nonlending tasks.As a result, staff and clients do not view thenew knowledge-sharing programs and activi-ties as sufficiently relevant to their operationalwork.

The main internal innovations for improv-ed knowledge sharing—thematic groups, advi-sory services, and expanded Web site use—are

not well integrated with operational activities.

• The 80 thematic groups are useful for net-working, learning about cutting-edge stud-ies and experiences, and finding experts onparticular operational matters, but they donot provide enough direct support to taskteams.

• The Bank’s 24 advisory services aim toenhance Bank operations, but more thanhalf of the requests serviced come from out-side the Bank, and more than half seek helpin finding publications or statistics readilyavailable elsewhere. Far less of the adviceprovided focuses on supporting operationalwork than was originally envisioned.

• While the Bank’s Web sites have become amuch-used resource, current usage suggeststhat the Bank needs to do more to tailor itsWeb-based content to its multiple audi-ences. Internally, staff find that the Intranethas not provided enough detailed informa-tion relevant to core work processes andpractices, and internationally, people inclient countries still account for only some10-20 percent of the total use of the publicsite.

There are strong examples of external knowl-edge-sharing innovations in Bank lending andnonlending activities. But, on the whole,knowledge sharing is not being well integratedinto country programs and projects. Fewcountry programs contain explicit knowledgeobjectives and strategies as summarized inrecent country assistance strategies (CASs),and most of those programs are in countrieswhere Bank lending is limited by country per-formance or need. For most countries wherelending dominates the Bank’s program,knowledge sharing is not yet being treated as astrategic activity. Moreover, only one-third ofoperational staff interviewed for this evalua-tion think that the initiative has changed theway projects are designed and supervised;slightly less than one-third think that the ini-tiative has increased support for knowledgecapacity building in operations.

Progress in launching the three globalknowledge initiatives reviewed—the Develop-

xiv | S H A R I N G K N O W L E D G E

ment Gateway, GDLN, and GDN—has beenrapid, and the Bank’s leadership has mobilizedthe participation of partners. It is too soon tosee evidence of the contributions of these pro-grams to actual development results. But sofar the programs have not met four majorchallenges that must be surmounted to ensuretheir success: (1) ensuring their continuingutility in a rapidly changing technological anddevelopment environment; (2) achievingfinancial sustainability; (3) consolidating gov-ernance and oversight arrangements; and (4)defining and managing the Bank’s evolvingrole as each program matures. Also, the threeprograms are only beginning to be integratedinto Bank country programs and projects asways of leveraging Bank and other develop-ment knowledge in support of developmentobjectives.

As a result of these weaknesses in reach,content management, and operational linkage,the new knowledge-sharing activities and pro-grams have had limited impact on Bank clientcountries. Improvements in client access toBank knowledge can be ascribed primarily toincreased use of the Internet and e-mail.Clients also view staff as less arrogant andmore open to collaboration and knowledgesharing. Still, dissemination of the Bank’sknowledge remains inadequate at the countrylevel, beyond central government personneland a narrow circle of other individuals. Moreuse of local expertise is needed to align theBank’s knowledge with country conditions.Knowledge capacity building and capacity uti-lization are, therefore, key to the successfulleveraging of knowledge for development. Butclients find the Bank more effective in sup-porting individual training than in helping tobuild sustainable institutional capacity foracquiring and using knowledge.

Inadequate oversight and incentives aremajor impediments

High-level leadership in the Bank has stimulat-ed implementation of the knowledge initiative.But there have been three main shortcomingsin the institutional infrastructure put in placeto support programs and activities. First, man-

agement has not adequately defined the rolesand responsibilities of corporate, network, andRegional units for making knowledge sharing away of doing business and embedding it in corelending and nonlending processes. Second, insharp contrast to practices of industry leaders,knowledge sharing is largely unmonitoredwithin the Bank, and self- and independentevaluation of knowledge-sharing activities ismuch less systematic than for other Bankprocesses. Third, despite the introduction ofknowledge sharing in the Bank’s mission state-ment and in staff performance evaluations,staff continue to feel that they lack the incen-tives needed to make knowledge sharing a rou-tine part of their work.

Conclusions

Overall, the Bank has made more progress inestablishing the architecture to support itsknowledge initiative than in creating the gov-ernance arrangements and work processes forcarrying it out. As a result, the strategic intentof making knowledge sharing a way of doingbusiness has been only partly realized—aprocess that in other leading knowledge man-agement organizations has tended to take fromthree to five years. The Bank, now entering theseventh year of the knowledge initiative, needsto move deliberately to embed knowledgesharing in its core operational processes byproviding more direct support to task teamsand more knowledge capacity enhancementfor clients, and it needs to manage its knowl-edge services for results.

Recommendations

To realize more fully the knowledge initiative’spotential to enhance Bank operations andempower clients to meet their developmentgoals, three sets of actions are needed:

1. Management should exercise more strategicdirection and oversight over the Bank’sknowledge processes. To accomplish this,management should: define clear responsi-bilities and accountabilities of corporate,network, and Regional units for integrating

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y | xv

knowledge sharing into the Bank’s core busi-ness processes; ensure that incentives arealigned with responsibilities, especially at thetask-manager level; and establish a strategicapproach to the Bank’s role in existing andany new global knowledge initiatives.

2. Network and Regional units should tightlylink their knowledge-sharing activities tolending and nonlending processes. Toachieve this, networks should set clearobjectives for anchor, thematic group, andadvisory service support of operational

teams; and Regional and country unitsshould make explicit the knowledge objec-tives and strategies of Country AssistanceStrategies (CASs) and projects.

3. Vice-presidential units should set outcomeobjectives and supporting performanceindicators for their respective knowledge-sharing programs and activities, and theyshould agree, Bankwide, on procedures tobe established for monitoring and evaluat-ing Bank knowledge-sharing programs andactivities.

xvi | S H A R I N G K N O W L E D G E

Knowledge Initiative Launch

In his Annual Meetings address of October1996, Bank President James Wolfensohnemphasized that development knowledge is aglobal public good that belongs to everyone—and from which everyone should thereforebenefit. He also highlighted the potential ofnew information technology to dramaticallyincrease the reach of development knowledge,and he noted that realizing this potentialwould require a “partnership for creating andsharing knowledge, and making it a majordriver of development.” Citing the WorldBank’s unique breadth of development experi-ence, Mr. Wolfensohn proposed that the Bankcommit to investing in the necessary systems,in Washington and worldwide, to enhance itsability to gather development information andexperience and share it with clients—“tobecome, in effect, the Knowledge Bank”(Wolfensohn 1996).

The Bank moved quickly over the next sev-eral years to implement this knowledge initia-tive.1 The initiative was included as one of fourpillars in the Bank’s 1997 Strategic Compactfor operational renewal and reform. Knowl-edge management and sharing became an inte-

gral part of the newly created thematic Net-works, the Overall Performance Evaluation(OPE) for staff, and the Bank’s first formalmission statement. By the beginning of 1999,the Bank had also taken steps to upgrade itsinformation management system, introduce avariety of new Network and Regional knowl-edge-sharing tools and activities, and designseveral global knowledge partnerships.

As a result, the Bank is now recognized as aleading knowledge management institution.2

Its knowledge initiative also provides a modelfor expanded knowledge-sharing activities inother international development agencies(King and McGrath 2002). Monitoring andevaluation processes have not kept pace withleading industry practices. Increasingly,knowledge management leaders are institutingmetrics for measuring the value added of theirknowledge-sharing programs. Despite calls forthe Bank to do the same, it has not yet comeup with a relevant framework and measuresfor assessing performance and ensuringaccountability of knowledge-sharing programsand activities.

The purpose of this evaluation is to begin toaddress this deficit by reviewing the Bank’s

1

1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N

In 1996, the Bank made a commitment to expand the sharing of development knowledge

among staff and with clients and other development partners. The purpose was twofold: to

improve the quality of Bank operations and to enhance the capacity of developing countries to

meet development goals. This review assesses the relevance of this knowledge initiative as well

as the effectiveness of new knowledge-sharing activities and global knowledge programs

undertaken to implement it. The review also examines the institutional infrastructure that has

been built over the past six years to support the initiative.

knowledge initiative and recommending waysto strengthen its programs and assess theireffectiveness on an ongoing basis.3

Evaluation Design

Scope. Initially, the objective of the Bank’sknowledge initiative was described as buildinga world-class “knowledge management” sys-tem that would enable greater knowledgesharing among staff and with clients and part-ners. Soon after its launch, the terminologychanged: “knowledge sharing” replaced“knowledge management” as the phrase usedin the Bank to refer to the initiative’s strategyand programs. Knowledge sharing is, there-fore, the term used in this review, except whenreferring specifically to the enabling informa-tion management systems and budget expendi-tures, which are coded as knowledge manage-ment.4 Bank documents identify “knowledgesharing” as one element in a cycle of knowl-edge creation, sharing, and use. They alsodescribe the knowledge-sharing process as:

The systematic capture of knowledgefrom research and experience; organization and storage of knowledgeand information for easy access; and transfer/dissemination of knowl-edge, often as a two-way exchange.

Early Bank documents emphasized that theknowledge initiative was not a new line ofbusiness for the institution, but instead animproved way of doing business, designed tohelp countries and the wider internationaldevelopment community leverage knowledgein support of development results. Implemen-tation has therefore involved all Bank units—corporate, network, and Regional. Thisreview, as the first evaluation of the imple-mentation process, focuses on the programsand activities introduced by the sector/themat-ic Networks (which have primary responsibil-ity for development knowledge sharing amongstaff) and the Regions (which have primaryresponsibility for the Bank’s external knowl-edge sharing with clients). The review alsoexamines the three global knowledge pro-

grams initiated by the Bank with the broadestprogram scope—the Development Gateway,the Global Development Learning Network(GDLN), and the Global Development Net-work (GDN).5

Framework. In the absence of a framework andmetrics for assessing the Bank’s knowledge-sharing programs and activities, OED proposedan evaluation framework and discussed its fea-tures with management. To inform the designof the framework, OED consulted a number ofexperts in the field and commissioned a reviewof the knowledge management literature.6 Theliterature indicates that successful knowledge-sharing programs require:

• A well-articulated knowledge strategy thatis tightly aligned with an organization’sbusiness strategy and clients’ needs.

• Programs and activities that are linked tocore business processes and practices anddriven by expressed knowledge needs ofstaff and clients—whether for tacit knowl-edge that resides in the mind or for codifiedknowledge documented on paper. Such pro-grams and activities must be recognizedsources of accessible, cutting-edge, opera-tionally relevant knowledge that reachesintended clients and audiences.

• Supporting institutional infrastructurebased on an integrated approach in threeessential areas: technology, people, andprocesses.7

The evaluation framework created for thisreview uses these characteristics of strategicalignment, quality of shared knowledge, acces-sibility, and operational usefulness to measurethe Bank’s knowledge initiative against thestandard OED evaluation criteria of relevance,efficacy, and efficiency. In doing so, the evalu-ation framework poses three sets of questions:

• Relevance of the Bank’s knowledge-sharingstrategy: Is the knowledge-sharing strategyaligned with client needs and the Bank’spoverty reduction mission? Does the Bankhave a comparative advantage in advancingthe knowledge-sharing objective?

2 | S H A R I N G K N O W L E D G E

• Efficacy and efficiency of the Bank’s pro-grams and activities: Are activities designedto achieve the strategic objective? Do theyhave clearly defined outcome objectivesaligned with the Bank’s core business priori-ties? Do they make quality knowledge moreaccessible to intended clients in ways that areuseful for improving development results?Do they, or are they likely to, achieve theirintended outcomes? To what extent havethey, or are they likely to, capture and shareknowledge in cost-effective ways?

• Adequacy of the Bank’s supporting institu-tional infrastructure: Has the Bank put inplace the governance processes, skills, andincentives as well as the technologicalcapacity needed to implement the knowl-edge initiative successfully? And has it doneso using the least resources necessary?8

Approaches. In making its assessment, thereview uses several approaches:

• Review of the literature on knowledge man-agement and transfer

• Desk reviews of relevant Bank policy andstrategy documents and program reports

• Surveys of 15 network advisory servicesand 28 thematic group leaders

• Structured interviews of 25 task team mem-bers to obtain information on the actual useof various knowledge-sharing activities inimproving the design and implementationof Bank-supported programs, and the

extent of knowledge capacity building as anexplicit project objective

• More than 30 additional interviews withBank management and staff

• Expert reviews of the degree of innovation,quality, and relevance of the Bank’s knowl-edge and knowledge-sharing efforts in fourissue areas—education, power, water, andpublic expenditure management

• Reviews of the GDLN and the Develop-ment Gateway

• Most important, a survey of the views ofofficials, academics, nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs), journalists, and rep-resentatives from the private sector in fiveclient countries on which Bank knowledgeservices have proved most useful in theirdevelopment efforts.9

The relatively heavy reliance on surveys andinterviews reflects a current weakness in all ofthe Bank’s knowledge-sharing programs andactivities—the dearth of monitoring andreporting of inputs and outputs, and self-assessment of outcomes against intendedmeasurable objectives. Indeed, a main findingof this report, as discussed in Chapter 5, is thelow evaluability of the overall initiative and itscomponent programs. This necessarily limitsthe ability of this review to make judgmentsabout the accomplishments of the knowledgeinitiative. It also leads to the report’s recom-mendation that strengthening monitoring andevaluation should be a priority.

I N T R O D U C T I O N | 3

Discerning the Bank’s Knowledge Strategy

Since the launch of the knowledge initiativethe Bank has produced no overarching docu-ment outlining how the initiative’s objectiveswill be achieved. There has, however, been asuccession of strategic documents andprogress reports. This review considers thesedocuments as providing an informal statementof the Bank’s knowledge-sharing strategy.10

The initial strategic statement, incorporatedin the 1997 Strategic Compact, called for“retooling the Bank’s knowledge base.” Themain elements of the plan were to:

• Develop an institutionwide “world-classknowledge management system” to collect,synthesize, and disseminate knowledge andmake it more readily accessible to staff,clients, and partners.

• Establish thematic networks that wouldbuild help desks and knowledge databases.

• Expand the client capacity-building workof Economic Development Institute (nowthe World Bank Institute, WBI).

• Change the culture of the institution toencourage a more open, team-based learn-ing environment.

As outlined in the Strategic Compact,implementation of the initiative was to bephased, with a preliminary focus on improvingthe effectiveness of staff, and the eventual goalof meeting the needs of both internal andexternal users of Bank knowledge. The intend-ed knowledge-sharing improvements wereexpected to produce four outcomes to supportbetter-quality Bank operations and improveon-the-ground development results, including:

• Faster access to relevant developmentknowledge and information by staff,clients, and partners

• Greater diffusion of best practice fromBank-supported and other operations

• Expanded reach of Bank knowledge servic-es to multiple stakeholders

• Enhanced client capacity for knowledge use.

Subsequent strategic documents have grad-ually shifted the focus from building the

5

2 . A H I G H LY R E L E VA N T S T R AT E G Y

The Bank’s knowledge strategy is innovative, broad ranging, and responsive to challenges fac-

ing client countries, the wider development community, and the Bank itself. It builds on one of

the Bank's widely regarded areas of comparative advantage—its global knowledge of devel-

opment issues and experiences. And the strategy is much welcomed in client countries.

But shortcomings in the strategy’s design pose challenges to achieving the goals of improv-

ing operational quality and empowering clients to acquire and use knowledge more effective-

ly. In particular, the strategy does not adequately link knowledge-sharing programs and activ-

ities to core lending and nonlending processes. Nor does it encourage the Bank to adapt its

knowledge services continually as technology and the development environment change.

Bank’s internal knowledge capture and dis-semination capacities to expanding knowledgesharing with clients and other developmentpartners. And, since 2000, the focus hasincluded building client capacity to acquireand use knowledge effectively. In October2001, these three goals were pulled together ina presentation that responded to a Boardrequest for the Bank to clarify the KnowledgeBank strategy in an effort to serve client andoperational needs better.

The Strategy’s Strengths

The knowledge strategy responds to chal-lenges facing developing countries, the inter-national development community, and theBank.11 It aims to reduce developing countries’risk of falling behind in the information tech-

nology revolution and to use that revolution toaccelerate development outcomes. It supportsdevelopment changes that put increasedemphasis on ownership, partnership, andresults—all processes that place a high premi-um on the exchange of ideas and information.The strategy also reinforces the Bank’s owncommitment to do a better job of learningfrom experience in order to improve opera-tional quality. And it responds directly to staffcomments that they could not readily accessthe knowledge required to do their work (Seefigure 2.1, which reports on views from aseries of staff surveys that begins in 1997).

The knowledge strategy also builds on theBank’s widely acknowledged comparativeadvantage as a source of development knowl-edge. A broad range of stakeholders in clientcountries, both inside and outside government,holds this view; and they identify leveragingknowledge for development as an importantdimension of Bank assistance. Developmentexperts who conducted reviews for this reportshare the view that the technical quality ofBank knowledge is high (figure 2.2).

But both clients and experts distinguishbetween the unquestioned technical soundnessof the Bank’s shared knowledge and its morelimited qualities of objectivity and applicabili-ty to country circumstances (See Chapter 4 fora fuller discussion of these issues).

Overall, the Bank’s knowledge strategy is aninnovative and appropriately broad expansionof existing Bank knowledge services. Althoughthe transfer of knowledge has always been akey component of the Bank’s service to itsclients, the strategy raises the knowledge-shar-ing profile of the Bank’s overall role. It there-fore envisions both internal changes—for col-lecting knowledge and connecting staff—andexternal changes—entailing innovations in theknowledge dimensions of Bank operations andthe initiation of global knowledge partnershipprograms. The strategy also highlights the needfor change in the Bank’s culture as well as itstechnology infrastructure.

Since being introduced, the initiative hasreceived continued high-level attention. Presi-dent Wolfensohn has repeatedly emphasized


FIGURE 2.1. Increasingly Favorable Staff Views on Access to Knowledge

0

20

40

60

80

100

1997

Access to adequate knowledge and information

1999 2002

% F

avor

able

Encouragement to be innovative

Source: Bank staff surveys, 1997, 1999, 2002.

the importance of knowledge for developmentand encouraged rapid progress in the imple-mentation of new programs and activities.Knowledge sharing and capacity building havebeen addressed in each Strategic Forum since2000. And expenditures of Bank budget andtrust fund resources for programs and activi-ties—coded as “knowledge management”—have totaled US$220 million from FY97through FY02.12 In addition, the Bank hasexpended some US$63 million for the threeglobal knowledge initiatives covered in thisreview. Taken together, the three characteris-tics—responsiveness to development chal-lenges, grounding in Bank comparative advan-tage, and level of innovation and appropriatescope—make the knowledge-sharing strategyhighly relevant.

The Strategy’s Design Shortcomings

Despite these positive features, the strategy hastwo major design shortcomings that present

challenges to achieving its goals. First, thestrategy has not provided an adequate plan foraccomplishing the quick transition it envisionsfrom building and championing new knowl-edge-sharing tools to mainstreaming knowl-edge sharing as a way of doing business. Theexperience of other organizations suggests thatsuccessful knowledge-sharing programs arebuilt over three to five years, and proceed instages, from initial advocacy to eventual insti-tutionalization. A successful transformationrequires a plan for building new knowledge-sharing tools and activities, creating awarenessof their value for key business objectives andintegrating the knowledge processes into corebusiness practices. Although a 1999 progressreport on the Bank’s knowledge initiative rec-ommended that the Bank develop such a plan,the recommendation was not carried out(Prusak 1999). While the Bank has introducednew knowledge-sharing tools and activities, ithas not set out objectives for integratingknowledge sharing into core business process-

A H I G H L Y R E L E V A N T S T R A T E G Y | 7

Source: Thirty Bank Client-Feedback Surveys (FY99–02); OED Five-Country Client Survey; OED Expert SectorKnowledge Reviews.

FIGURE 2.2. Clients and Experts Give Bank Knowledge High Ratings on Quality and Relevance

Quality Relevance Quality RelevanceBest practiceknowledge

Client View Expert View

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.80 4.815.04 5.10

5.25

es. Moreover, though the Bank began to giveincreased attention to external knowledge-sharing tasks by 2000, no specific, time-boundobjectives have been set for this second phaseof the initiative. Nor has the Bank spelled outthe external knowledge-sharing roles of theRegions, networks, and the WBI.

The second shortcoming is the lack of amechanism to benchmark effectiveness andmake adjustments. Specifically, the knowledgestrategy does not contain a way to check onprogress against explicit, monitorable objec-tives and to alter course as needed. Nor does itcontain a way to ensure continuing relevancein a rapidly changing technology environ-

ment—and in an increasingly crowded field ofdevelopment knowledge.13 The underlyingassumption seems to be that once knowledge-sharing tools and activities are established andstaff become active users, knowledge sharingwill be built into operations in more systemat-ic ways that will enhance clients use of knowl-edge in achieving development goals. Thisassumption is built on an implicit chain ofresults (portrayed in table 2.1). But withoutmeasurable objectives associated with specificbusiness processes, the contribution of individ-ual programs and activities to intended resultscannot be made explicit, and the activities’effectiveness assessed.


TABLE 2.1. Stylized Results Chain for Knowledge Sharing

Inputs Outputs Outcomes: Intermediate Outcomes: Longer term Impact

Transformation of World Bank Capture, organization, and Improvements in quality Enhanced client capacity Improved into Knowledge Bank sharing of knowledge of Bank operations to acquire and use poverty results

• People/culture change • Collection and synthesis • Efficiency through faster • Expanded access to • Technology • Storage and maintenance access global knowledge and • Knowledge processes • Dissemination and • Greater diffusion of best information• Leadership and support ready access practices • Cross-country connection• Relevant knowledge • Connectivity among peers • Expanded reach to to experts and peers

multiple stakeholders

Expanding Network and Regional Knowledge Sharing among Staff

This chapter reviews the evolution of internalknowledge-sharing activities and assesses thecontribution of three major new activities—thematic groups, advisory services, andexpanded use of the Internet and Intranet—tooperational effectiveness. In general, theBank’s internal knowledge-sharing activitiesaim to improve operational effectiveness byharnessing existing knowledge, disseminatingit broadly, and supporting staff in incorporat-ing lessons and good practices into the designand supervision of operations.

Under the Bank’s matrix management struc-ture, the task of improving the aggregation andsharing of development knowledge has fallenlargely to the new network/sector boards,which have a knowledge management mandateas one of their five core functions. Working onthe assumption that a great deal of knowledgeexisted, but in forms that made it difficult fortask teams to access, the networks’ initialefforts focused on gathering the Bank’s existingformal, codified knowledge and disseminatingit as new knowledge products or as Web site

content in a mostly supply-driven way. Thiswork generated sector and regional and coun-try repositories of existing, codified knowledgeand newly packaged knowledge (in formatssuch as toolkits, briefs, and newsletters). It alsoled to a major increase in online distribution ofdevelopment knowledge and information.

It was quickly recognized, however, that thenew knowledge repositories were not wellsuited to the exchange of the tacit knowledgeabout operational experiences that staff car-ried in their heads. Additional processes werecreated—such as network-led training events,thematic groups, and advisory services—topromote the exchange of expertise. By the endof 1999, these activities and expanded use ofthe Bank’s Internet and Intranet were main-streamed across networks as key knowledge-sharing vehicles.

The Regions also developed internal knowl-edge-sharing tools and activities—although inthe absence of a mandate defining the Regions’internal knowledge-sharing responsibilities,their scope has varied. And since 2000, theRegions have increasingly focused on extend-ing their knowledge-sharing activities to the

9

3 . I N T E R N A L K N O W L E D G E S H A R I N G TO

I M P R O V E B A N K O P E R AT I O N S

Since the 1996 launch of the knowledge-sharing initiative, new or improved tools and activities

have been created to capture and share development knowledge. Staff now have easier access

to knowledge relevant to their work. But there are still three challenges to improving the oper-

ational effectiveness of the Bank’s internal knowledge-sharing activities: linking more directly

to core operational work; capturing lessons learned and good practices more systematically;

and strengthening content management to ensure the quality and operational relevance of

distributed knowledge.

transfer and brokering of knowledge withclients (as discussed in the next chapter).

As a result of the new internal knowledge-sharing efforts and the enabling informationtechnology, staff access to Bank informationhas been considerably improved. This findingis illustrated in the increasingly “favorable”responses in successive Bank staff surveys (Seefigure 2.1).

But there are two aspects of the networkand Regional efforts to improve internalknowledge sharing that limit their overall rele-vance and effectiveness. First, while Bank oper-ations are increasingly multisectoral inapproach, the bulk of knowledge capture andsharing is organized by network and sector. Ininterviews conducted for this review, staffnoted that the “silo” structure of the internalknowledge-sharing function does not meet theneeds of multisectoral operational work. Sec-ond, there is inadequate coordination betweennetwork knowledge-sharing activities andcountry and project teams. Few network inter-nal knowledge-sharing activities are embeddeddirectly in core work processes. More activitiesare focused on providing access to knowledgeand expertise than on ensuring that knowledgeis shared in ways that promote its adaptationand use—for example, by enhancing activeteam-based knowledge sharing. Also, activitieshave done more to push out knowledge thanpull it in—thus missing out on opportunities torefresh the Bank’s knowledge through ongoingfield experience, reduce reinvention of thewheel, and scale up successful programs. As aresult, internal knowledge-sharing activities arenot sufficiently relevant to the day-to-day oper-ational work of frontline staff. This finding isdiscussed below in respect to three key knowl-edge-sharing vehicles: thematic groups, adviso-ry services, and expanded use of Bank internaland external Web sites.

Thematic Groups

The Bank’s thematic groups (known outsidethe Bank as communities of practice) wereestablished to enhance the transfer of tacitknowledge among staff working on sharedproblems (such as decentralization, early

childhood education, or urban poverty) and togather and disseminate relevant knowledge.14

Currently there are some 80 thematic groups,down from a peak of 125 in 1999. The peaknumber came in response to the 1998 intro-duction of designated budget resources for anygroup with a workable plan, and the declinefollowed the scaling back of resources at theend of the Strategic Compact.15

Groups carry out a common array of activ-ities, although the funding they receive and theemphasis they put on the diverse activitiesvary. Figure 3.1 lists main activities as identi-fied by thematic group coordinators surveyedby OED. Groups range in size from 25 to 200.Membership is voluntary and open to all staff,and some groups have a small number ofexternal members. Group leadership is alsovoluntary; in most cases, limited time is allo-cated for coordinating group activities.16

In general, staff find thematic groups usefulto their work. This finding comes from a vari-ety of thematic group surveys conducted since1999.17 Staff identify brown bag lunches andother face-to-face events as useful ways to net-work, learn about cutting-edge studies andexperiences, and find out who has expertise onparticular operational matters. Thematicgroup Web sites are also fairly well regarded assources of readily accessible sector or themat-ic information, related Bank knowledge, and,in many cases, links to external knowledgeand expertise. But staff report that thematicgroups tend to be less effective in ensuring thequality of distributed knowledge, engagingnonheadquarters staff, and providing directsupport to task teams.

Staff views on the value of thematic groups’published materials—papers, notes, and toolk-its—are mixed. This appears to reflect, in part,shortcomings in quality control that affect allanchor knowledge products. For example,there are no routine practices for validatinglessons learned and promising practices. Onlya third of 15 recently surveyed network andRegional units report having lessons learnedor good practice validation processes in place.And only one of these units reports having aprocess for regularly eliminating outdated les-sons or good practice cases; four units report


that their materials have no time limits.18 Thisundercuts the ability of Network knowledgeactivities, including those of thematic groups,to serve as reliable sources of communityknowledge. A notable example of good vali-dation practice is described in box 3.1.

While the size of thematic group member-ship suggests substantial reach, the number ofactive participants—one of the key success fac-tors of communities of practice—tells a differ-ent story. A little less than a third of thematicgroup members responding to a 1999Bankwide survey described their participationas active, and the percentage remained rough-ly the same (30-35 percent) in subsequentyears. Of those who are active, a still smallernumber actually contribute to sharing commu-nity knowledge. Moreover, headquarters staffmake up the bulk of active members.19 The-matic group coordinators consider this level ofstaff participation too low for the groups toserve as highly interactive communities that

I N T E R N A L K N O W L E D G E S H A R I N G T O I M P R O V E B A N K O P E R A T I O N S | 11

FIGURE 3.1. Thematic Group Activities Provide More Indirect than Direct Support to Operations

Source: OED thematic group survey.

Workshops

Web sites

Publications

Training

Quality activities

Partnerships

Support to task teams

Other

20 2510 150 5

Act

ivit

ies

Number of groups

BOX 3.1:

A Consultative Process for Validating Content

The Administrative and Civil Service Reform ThematicGroup has developed a consultative method for assuringthe quality of new materials for its Web site. Supportedby a partnership among leading organizations in civilservice strategy and management, the Web site aims toprovide users with access to key principles and currentresearch issues. Quality control for the site is the respon-sibility of the World Bank, in collaboration with desig-nated staff in partner organizations. When new materialis being considered for inclusion on the site, Bank staffask other partners as well as thematic group members tocomment on its quality and relevance. Staff with relevantexpertise are asked to validate the material’s quality.Strong objection from any partner prevents posting of thematerial.


contribute significantly to solving workprocess problems or scaling up successes. As aresult, the systematic capture and sharing oftacit knowledge remains the thematic groups’biggest challenge. As explained by one groupcoordinator:

We would like to make a more lively andengaged community that will actively con-tribute knowledge. We are doing okay withexplicit knowledge, but need to do more withtacit knowledge, especially capturing it fromall Regions and drawing on the rich experi-ence of the field. This is not being done sys-tematically right now. Either there is a veryformal but isolated instance of a product, forexample, a PREM Note, or there is a veryinformal exchange over e-mail that is notrecorded. [OED thematic group survey.]

External knowledge management studiesshow that while tacit knowledge accounts forabout 80 percent of the knowledge sought byoperational staff, it makes up only 10-20 per-cent of knowledge shared. For effective cap-ture and sharing of tacit knowledge, organiza-tions need to rely more on peer-to-peerexchanges, iterative knowledge sharing, andteam learning than on knowledge briefs, one-shot conferences or videoconferences, andelectronic discussion spaces. The challenge isto provide support for team-based, iterative,and face-to-face knowledge sharing. This sup-port is needed on an ongoing basis in all stagesof an operation, including design and imple-mentation, and in the capture as well as thetransfer of operational experience (APQC2000b).

Even though staff value the networking andprofessional development opportunities pro-vided by membership in thematic groups, mostdo not see the groups as sufficiently relevant today-to-day operational work (OED survey ofthematic group coordinators, 2001). Typically,groups provide more indirect than direct sup-port to task teams (as indicated in figure 3.1),although when teams are directly supported—through such activities as on-demand peerreviews of projects, support for project work-shops, or help in locating expertise—the prac-tice receives strong staff support (see box 3.2).

Thus, the most frequent recommendationmade by staff is that thematic groups shouldincrease the operational relevance of theiractivities:

• A 2000 thematic group self-assessmenthighlighted that groups provided only lim-ited operational support.

• Staff feedback from a 2001 Human Devel-opment Network survey emphasized thatgroups should strive to meet the real-timedemands of task managers and makestronger linkages between knowledge man-agement and lending operations.

• More than half of the respondents to a2002 survey by the Poverty Reduction andEconomic Management (PREM) Networkindicated that thematic groups didn’t meet,or only partly met, staff operational needs.

Increased networking among staff facilitat-ed by thematic groups has been enabled by theBank’s enhanced communications technolo-


BOX 3.2.

Task Teams Welcome Direct Supportof Project Implementation by The-matic Groups

The Community-Based Rural Devel-opment Thematic Group, which aimsto ensure that best practices informongoing operations, holds field-basedworkshops for task teams and clientsworking on community-based ruraldevelopment projects. With inputfrom strong practitioners (identifiedby the Quality Assurance Group ashaving outstanding performance), the-matic group members help workshopparticipants address operationalissues. Client feedback indicates thatlessons learned in workshops help toexpedite ongoing project implementa-tion. Task teams underwrite workshopcosts out of their own project funds.

Source: OED interviews.

gy—especially the Web-based and e-mail con-nections discussed below. But other institution-al supports needed for effective thematic groupactivities are limited. In particular, the support,management direction, and monitoring ofmany thematic groups fall short of leadingpractice. Over the last three to five years, lead-ing industry practice has moved from simplyenabling communities of practice to exchangeideas to more purposeful interactions thatinclude regular accounting of activities andoutcomes. The Bank has not made this shift.

After an initial phase in which the Bank “leta thousand flowers bloom,” the end of theStrategic Compact budget “hit knowledgemanagement in general and thematic groups inparticular like a ton of bricks” in the words ofone interviewee. The resulting consolidationof thematic groups in 2002 and 2003 wasprobably inevitable and not in itself a prob-lem. But the resulting configuration of groupsappears to reflect diverse enabling environ-ments, and not a deliberate matching of the-matic groups to the Bank’s evolving businessstrategy. For example, each of the threedepartments in the Environmentally & Social-ly Sustainable Development (ESSD) Networkhas taken a different approach to the role ofthematic groups. The Environment Depart-ment (ENV), an important area for the Bank,has decided not to support thematic groupsand, instead, to carry out knowledge-sharingactivities through seven anchor thematicteams. The Agriculture and Rural Develop-ment Department, after a significant drop in2001-02 in thematic group participation andbudget, has committed to a reinvigoration ofgroups in 2003; and the Social DevelopmentDepartment has differentiated between fourformal groups managed by anchor staff andfive informal groups that receive less support.While both formal and informal communitiesof practice also exist within other organiza-tions—with clear differences in objectives,modes of operation, and extent of manage-ment support—there is no comparable strate-gic clarity about the purpose, functions, andlevel of support of thematic groups across theBank. On the one hand, it is assumed that the-

matic groups will contribute significantly toimproving the quality and effectiveness ofBank operation. On the otherhand, they arenot necessarily held accountable for achievingspecific business goals or provided with corre-sponding resources and incentives.

Budgeting, programming, and reportingvary considerably across groups, and there hasbeen no attempt to agree on performance stan-dards (see box 3.3). The public sector themat-ic groups are among the few that use fundingguidelines and a transparent mechanism toestablish strategic focus and accountability.On the whole, thematic groups have not beenexpected to pursue explicit outcome objec-tives, monitor outputs against those objectives,and assess and report on results. In addition,staff point to a lack of management support, interms of time and incentives, as a major con-straint to thematic group participation.20 Thereis, in other words, a significant mismatchbetween perceived roles of thematic groupsand actual management support and perform-ance requirements. A representative view ofthematic group coordinators is that: “Themat-


BOX 3.3.

There Is No Shared Practice for Budgeting, Programming,and Reporting of Thematic Group Actions

Among the 28 thematic groups surveyed by OED:

• There is a clear association between a thematic group’s sec-tor and whether it receives budget resources, but there is noclear link between the type of activities undertaken and theprovision of budget resources.

• While half of the thematic groups receive direct allocationsof budget resources and prepare work programs, onlythree-quarters of those funded prepare formal work pro-grams detailing deliverables and expenditures for whichthey can be held accountable.

• For the most part, reporting is limited to inputs and out-puts. Only 2 of the 28 groups reported specific indicatorsof progress toward stated outcome objectives.


ic groups either need to be drastically re-thought or re-sourced—Or else the Bank needsto drop the pretense that they are doing morethan they are doing now”(OED thematicgroup survey). Inadequate management sup-port and oversight, a shortcoming that cutsacross not just thematic groups but the entireknowledge initiative, is discussed in moredetail in Chapter 5.

Advisory Services

The Bank’s advisory services (sometimes calledhelp desks) are low-cost mechanisms designedto serve as one-stop shops for access to Bankinformation and expertise. By the end of 2002,there were 24 advisory services: 3 Regionalservices and the rest at the corporate, network,or sector level.

All advisory services operate on a smallscale. Out of 15 services surveyed for thisreview, the 12 that reported the size of theirstaff had an average of 1.5 full-time-equivalentstaff (and some had additional short-term con-sultant or intern time).21 The nine services thatprovided annual budget figures for FY02reported budgets in a range of US$20,000 toUS$173,000, for an average of US$87,000(taking out one outlier that operates on a dis-tinctly different basis, asdescribed in box 3.4).22 Mostadvisory services cite contribut-ing to internal quality and effi-ciency gains as their primaryobjective and identify Bank net-work and Regional staff astheir primary clients. A majori-ty of advisory services alsoidentify designated externalgroups as either primary or sec-ondary clients.

While their main activity isto respond to queries, manyservices also produce andmaintain knowledge databasesand Web sites that provide fre-quently requested information.Some advisory services alsoproduce proactive products

BOX 3.4:

Free and Fee-Based Access to Knowledge ThroughRapid Response

The goal of the Rapid Response Unit (RRU) is toimprove public policy design and implementation onprivatization and investment climate issues by provid-ing clients with access to the Bank’s knowledgeresources and expert advice. For the general public,free services include access to a database of papers,case studies, and Web sites; a forum for discussing pol-icy issues; and a monthly electronic newsletter. Fee-based services, in the form of small advisory transac-tions that require up to five days to complete, areoffered to Bank member governments, NGOs, andmultilateral institutions.

and services, such as weekly topical e-mailupdates. Most try to respond to all querieswithin 48 hours, an exception being the finan-cial sector service (FKIS), which provides in-depth responses only to selected queries. Andat least one advisory service—RapidResponse—provides both free and fee-basedservices related to private sector investment toa targeted external audience (see box 3.4). Allservices track incoming requests and virtuallyall have experienced increases in the numberof requests received for at least an initial twoto three years of operation. The increases sug-gest that the advisory services are helping tomake Bank information more readily accessi-ble.

The nature and origin of requests indicate,however, that the advisory services play a dif-ferent role from that intended—of more limit-ed contribution to Bank operational effective-ness. Staff report that they find advisoryservices useful primarily in meeting requestsfor information on document references, avail-able experts, and specific data—as opposed torequests for more synthesis or in-depth pres-entation of substantive knowledge supportiveof operational work.23 Furthermore, an exter-nal review of all advisory services requests andresponses (29,000) in FY00-01 shows that


over half (58 percent) of the requests camefrom outside the Bank (Fonseca 2003). Ofthose external users, 43 percent were from sixdeveloped countries. And a large majority (83percent) of all those making requests wereone-time users (though some services had dis-

tinctly higher rates of repeat users than oth-ers). In addition, just over half the queriessought help in finding publications and statis-tical data that are readily available elsewhere(see figures 3.2 and 3.3 for summary data onthe origin and type of requests).


FIGURE 3.2.External Requests Dominate Advisory Services

Source: Fonseca 2003.

Other 2%

NGOs 1%

Headquarters staff use 40%

Field staffuse 2%

Developmentorganizations 12%

Students 14%

Private sector 14%

General public 15%

FIGURE 3.3. Most Requests Are for Publications and Data

Source: Fonseca 2003.

Other 20%

Bank work on country specific topic 3%

Identification of Bank staff by project, topic, country 4%

Bibliographic information 6%

Bank policies, programs, and

training 7%

Solution to aspecific problem 7%

Bank’s publicationsand documents37%

Statistical data15%

Bank users 42% Outside users

58%

These numbers suggest that even thoughthe advisory services were created as a newknowledge-sharing structure, the majority ofqueries might have been handled by previous-ly existing structures, such as Bank libraries,or by expanded use of Web sites. The advisoryservices have provided only a limited amountof operationally focused, synthesized knowl-edge. While they do not cost much, it shouldbe understood that they serve more as referralthan as advisory services. In addition, theyserve a wider range of audiences and purposesthan is intended by their primary objective ofenhancing operational effectiveness.

Expanded Use of Bank Internal and External Web Sites

Since 1994, when the Bank launched its Web-based Intranet and Internet services, BankWeb sites have become a much used resource,both across the Bank and globally.24 In addi-tion, feedback—from inside and outside theBank—indicates that some 90 percent of allusers of the Bank’s public site find it useful totheir work. These aggregate usage statisticsconfirm the value of the Bank Web sites as anessential tool of the Bank’s knowledge initia-tive.25 Nevertheless, disaggregated patterns ofinternal and external use of the Web sitesreveal shortfalls in reach, content quality, and,operational usefulness.

Bank staff are regular and heavy users ofthe Intranet—more for information aboutBank transactional services (such as requestsfor badges) than for development knowledge,which is mostly published on the external site,or work process information related to opera-tional tasks. This is one explanation for fieldstaff accounting for a smaller proportion ofIntranet usage (10 percent) than their propor-tion of total staff (30 percent) (World Bank2002b, p. 38). According to staff, the Intranetdoes not provide enough detailed informationrelevant to core work processes and practices.A typical staff survey response is:

The data on the Web sites are the kinds ofinformation that are easily available to all—

it does not reflect the degree of detail neces-sary for operational work. For example, inprivatization of railways, what kinds ofsocial mitigation measures worked? Whowas affected? What happened to unemploy-ment? (OED task team survey and ProjectAppraisal Document [PAD] review.)

Staff also say that it takes too long to findwhat they want. This is due, in large part, tomany units having established their own Website structures instead of using more standard-ized, Bankwide frameworks for knowledgeaggregation and dissemination.

The Bank’s external Web sites now reach700,000 users a month from a wide variety ofaudiences, including Bank staff, developmentspecialists, and the general international devel-opment community.26 Bank staff are especiallyheavy users of the external Web sites, account-ing for less than 2 percent of all users but 16.5percent of the amount of material requested.Although developing country use has grownby as much as 300 percent over the 2000-02period, residents from all developing countriescombined account for some 10-20 percent oftotal usage, while those from the United Statesaccount for about 25 percent.

It is hard to say how effective the externalWeb sites are in serving priority audiencesbecause much of the Web-based material isnot designed, segmented, or tracked for dis-tinct user groups, though several particularclient areas exist (for example, for journalists,bond investors, NGOs and civil society, andchildren). The current usage numbers are areminder of the continuing digital divide as alimitation on the Web as a means of reachingdeveloping country audiences. Current usagehas also led external experts to recommendthat the Bank “improve its audience focus andunderstanding of audience needs and inter-ests, with a particular emphasis on externalusers” (World Bank 2002b). This improve-ment will require the Bank to better tailor itsWeb-based content to its multiple audiences.Box 3.5 illustrates the dilemma of using theBank’s external Web sites for both the distri-bution of state-of-the art knowledge andclient capacity building.


These findings suggest that the Bank is notadequately managing its Web content. TheBank’s Information Solutions Group (ISG) hasrecently assessed the external Web sites of allBank departments and provided advice to eachdepartment on how to improve the structure,labeling, and presentation of their Web-postedmaterials. The purpose of these content assess-ments is to increase both the quality of theindividual Web sites and consistency acrosssites. But left unaddressed are the broaderissues of knowledge needs assessment, qualitycontrol, and audience focus.27 The Environ-mental Department has done a more searchingassessment (based on both an external reviewand an electronic client feedback survey) thatexamined these broader issues. The outcomewas a plan to consolidate and redesign theENV Web sites and establish guidelines, stan-dards, and responsibilities for maintainingindividual Web sites. The plan also envisions along-term Web strategy, defined in coordina-tion with the other departments in the net-work, which aims at distinct purposes:strengthening operational work, aligningactivities to sector strategies, and serving abroad international audience. Yet, as empha-

sized in the ENV Web assess-ment, if its Web strategy is tobe effective it needs to be setwithin an overall strategy fornetwork knowledge sharing.That overall strategy is, howev-er, still a work in progress inESSD; and, in other networks,no such strategy building hasbeen attempted.

Linking to Learning andResearch

On the whole, knowledge-shar-ing activities are not closelylinked to the Bank’s learningprograms. Although knowl-edge staff play a role in thedesign of learning events andcourses, overall coordination insetting priorities and planning

programs is closely linked in only some net-work and Regional sector departments. Arecent effort under the Learning Frameworkhas piloted a team-based learning process thathas generated considerable interest amongoperational staff. This pilot effort may offernew ways of providing active knowledge shar-ing that both links closely with staff learningprocesses and increases support of task teams.But on a broader scale, there is a need to bet-ter integrate knowledge and learning processesacross the institution.

Nor is there sufficient linkage with theBank’s research program. A recent PREM-Development Economics (DEC)-WBI initiativeis a deliberate attempt to strengthen linkagesacross knowledge creation, sharing, and learn-ing, and to connect directly to the knowledgeneeds of country teams. But it is too early toassess its impact on either the quality of oper-ations or the enhancement of knowledge shar-ing with clients.

Remaining Challenges

It is difficult to assess the costs and benefits ofthe Bank’s efforts to improve knowledge shar-


BOX 3.5:

Targeting Web Content to Intended AudiencesPoses Challenges

World Bank staff and local researchers jointly pro-duced several papers on power sector reform, with theaim of building local research interest and capacity.This material was subsequently posted on the Bank’sexternal Web site and earned the praise of targetedlocal audiences. But an expert review of the papersfound shortcomings in their quality and broad appli-cability. Even though the papers were relevant forcapacity-building purposes, posting them on the BankWeb site without a clear indication of their purposeobliged users to determine their utility. The exampleillustrates the need for the Bank’s Web sites to do moreto guide users to materials relevant to their needs.

Source: OED expert review and follow-up interviews with staff.

ing among staff because the inputs and out-puts are not adequately monitored andreported. Assessing impact on operationaleffectiveness is even more difficult becausethere are no well-defined, monitorable, andtime-bound intermediate outcome goals andaccompanying performance indicators. Forexample, internal knowledge-sharing activi-ties have not set distinct goals and related per-formance indicators for such varied knowl-edge-sharing objectives as individual skillbuilding, team-based support and problemsolving, or sector or institution-wide knowl-edge building. This shortcoming is discussedfurther in Chapter 5.

The quality of Bank lending and nonlend-ing operations has improved since the intro-duction of the knowledge-sharing initiative,with sustained improvement in most qualityindicators for the project portfolio and eco-nomic and sector work (ESW) since 1997.28

Obviously many factors have fostered theseimprovements, making it impossible to showdirect causality between knowledge sharingand improvements in the quality of opera-tions. It seems reasonable to conclude that theheightened efforts to harness and share Bankknowledge and experience have been a con-tributing factor. But in the absence of clearoutcome objectives and systematic monitoring

of outputs, it is difficult to measure the extentof the contribution or value for money.Improvements in operational quality can beachieved by upgrading skills of individualstaff, improving how teams work together,building up the knowledge base of profession-al groups, or making innovations in institu-tional policies or practices. The objective ofany knowledge-sharing activity needs to beexpressly linked to one of these four ways ofimproving quality.

Overall, the record of the Bank’s efforts toimprove knowledge sharing among staff sug-gests the need for three specific improvements.First, knowledge-sharing activities need to domore to make knowledge accessible to staff inways directly supportive of core work process-es—for example, by increasing direct supportof task teams by network and thematicgroups; rethinking the role and mode of oper-ation of advisory services; and makingIntranet information more readily useful tooperations. Second, network and Regionalsector departments need to manage contentmore actively to ensure the quality, intendedreach, and operational relevance of distributedknowledge. Third, networks and Regions needto work together to achieve more systematiccapture, feedback, and sharing of lessonslearned and good practice.


Regional Approaches to Leveraging Knowledge for Development

The aim of expanding knowledge sharing withclients and partners has involved primarilytwo sets of activities: Bank activities at theRegional and country levels and the Bank’ssupport for several global knowledge initia-tives.29 This chapter reviews the extent towhich the Regional and country activities haveintensified the Bank’s knowledge interfacewith its clients and explores the start-up ofthree global knowledge initiatives and theirintegration into Bank operations.

Since 2000, the Region’s knowledge-sharingactivities have increasingly shifted their focusfrom knowledge sharing among their staff to amore outward orientation. This has involvedextending the reach of their internal knowl-edge-sharing tools and activities—for example,Regional and country Web sites, newsletters,

and databases—to client audiences. In addi-tion, Regional units have designed new knowl-edge-sharing activities aimed at strengtheningthe Bank’s exchange of knowledge with clientsin the context of country programs and proj-ects. For example, the Africa Region (AFR) hasdeveloped a debriefing program that aims tocapture and distribute combined tacit knowl-edge of Bank staff, clients, and partners. TheLatin American & Caribbean (LCR) Regionhas introduced a highly interactive “continuouslearning framework” as a way to leverageknowledge better through client and stafflearning (described in box 4.1). The MiddleEast & North Africa (MNA) Region is pilotinga new ESW programmatic instrument forcountries that do not borrow from the Bank,but seek advisory services, training, or diagnos-tic work. And the Europe & Central Asia(ECA) and East Asia & Pacific (EAP) Regionshave concentrated on regionwide knowledge-

19

4 . S H A R I N G K N O W L E D G E W I T H

C L I E N TS A N D PA R T N E R S

While the transfer of knowledge to clients and the wider international development communi-

ty has always been part of the Bank’s role, the knowledge initiative aims to expand this func-

tion through innovation in the knowledge dimensions of country programs and projects and

Bank support of global knowledge initiatives.

These efforts, particularly over the last two years, are providing an increasing number of

promising practices. Still, improvements in leveraging knowledge for development have not

been mainstreamed across country programs. And operational staff are only gradually coming

to see themselves as knowledge brokers and to view knowledge sharing as a core part of their

work. The result is that while client access to Bank knowledge and information has improved,

weaknesses remain in the Bank’s in-country knowledge dissemination, adaptation of global

knowledge to local circumstances, and support for strengthening of client institutional capac-

ity to acquire and use knowledge.

sharing programs focused on helping countriesimprove their competitiveness in the globalknowledge economy.

While the reflection of different Regionalconditions in these initiatives gives the pro-grams broad strategic relevance, the Bank’sknowledge initiative must have impact at thecountry level if it is to contribute to greaterdevelopment effectiveness. For this, knowledgesharing as a way of doing business needs to besystematically embedded in Country AssistanceStrategies (CASs) and projects, so that relevantknowledge gets to those who need it, at theright time and in a useful form; and, whereneeded, sustainable capacity is created foracquiring and using knowledge. Furthermore,systematic feedback of operational experienceis necessary to build country and Bank capaci-ty to adjust, scale up, and innovate.

Increasing the Knowledge Dimensions ofCountry Programs and Projects

To assess the efficacy and efficiency of knowl-edge initiative integration into CASs, thisreview examined all 60 CASs (or CAS

progress reports) presented to the Board inFY02 and in the first three-quarters of FY03to determine the extent to which the CASs setout a strategic approach to knowledge.Although all 60 CASs identify areas of knowl-edge generation and policy dialogue, only 20percent treat the transfer of knowledge as astrategic objective. Most of the CASs that doso, propose a significant shift in the focus ofthe Bank’s program from lending to knowl-edge services. This is true for middle-incomecountries such as Brazil, China (see box 4.2),and Thailand, as well as a number of MiddleEastern countries where International Bankfor Reconstruction & Development financingis not in high demand. It is also true in Low-Income Countries Under Stress (LICUS)clients, such as Yemen, where financing is lim-ited by weak country performance. But formost countries where lending still dominatesthe Bank’s program, knowledge is not yetbeing treated as a strategic tool.

A random sample of 21 (10 percent) of theprojects approved in FY01 was also examined,and 19 project task managers and additionaltask team members were interviewed to deter-mine the impact of the Bank’s knowledge ini-tiative on how knowledge was being built intooperations.30 Virtually all projects included ele-ments (or, in investment projects, components)focused on building client knowledge capacity(OED task team survey and PAD review). Andmost projects revealed the use of a wide vari-ety of knowledge transfer vehicles to reach dif-ferent client groups. In discussing these com-ponents, staff emphasized that knowledgetransfer had always been part of Bank opera-tions. But most staff did not describe the activ-ities as part of an overall project knowledge-sharing framework aimed at creating conditions for generating, acquiring, and usingknowledge (Fonseca 2003). Nor did most staffreport that they had changed the way theywork as a result of the Bank’s knowledge ini-tiative. Rather, some two-thirds (64 percent)of the sample of task members interviewedreported that they do not think the Bank’sknowledge initiative and related new tools andactivities have changed the way projects are


BOX 4.1:

A Continuous Learning Framework Provides forExchange among Project Teams

The Continuous Learning Framework, or Marco deAprendizaje Continuo (MAC), is an LCR collabora-tive process designed to improve implementation ofongoing projects by sharing expertise among practi-tioners. MACs bring together key practitioners to per-form such tasks as producing a detailed assessment ofproject implementation, conducting a technical assess-ment mission, or presenting a technical workshop. AMAC can take place during project preparation,supervision, or implementation. Initiated at therequest of governments, MAC exchanges require onlylimited funding from the Bank, mainly in the form ofstaff time to participate in MAC meetings.

Source: LCR documentation.

being designed and implemented. While theysee efficiency gains from new knowledge-shar-ing tools, they do not see a fundamentalchange in the way staff are operating. Lack oftime and adequate incentives were the mostfrequent reasons given for this response. Nonetheless, there are examples from allRegions of specific efforts to build knowledgeinto operations in new ways.

• Making ESW a process, not just a product.There are recent examples in Regions ofdesigning ESW to engage clients in morefully generating analytical reports, includ-ing the collection and analysis of data andin disseminating and debating the reports.31

One example, the 2003 Guatemala PovertyAssessment, has been designed as a multi-year program of analytical work and tech-nical assistance and has involved the estab-lishment of long-term working relationswith in-country organizations. Regionalstaff note that this collaborative process hashelped improve the realism of the study’sanalysis and the relevance of its recommen-dations.

• Building structured institutional relations.In several countries, Bank teams areattempting to provide sustainable knowl-edge sharing and transfer by establishing

long-term partnerships with national orlocal institutes. The MNA Region, forexample, has established such a relationshipwith the Arab Urban Development Institute(AUDI), a Regional organization thatbrings together mayors and governmentofficials from more than 400 towns andcities. MNA has worked with AUDI todevelop the institute’s help desk and Website on urban development and to organizethe Children and Cities Conference held inDecember 2002.

• Expanding peer-to-peer knowledge sharing.Practitioners from Bank-supported projectsin one country are increasingly being usedfor knowledge sharing with peers in othercountries. For example, the 2002 ThailandCAS proposes to help Thai experts dissemi-nate lessons from Thailand’s social invest-ment fund and land titling programs tothose working on similar projects in Cam-bodia and the Lao People’s DemocraticRepublic.

• Brokering knowledge to support reforms.Some country teams have employed a bat-tery of knowledge-sharing mechanisms,including study tours, videoconferences,and cross-country dialogue to build clientownership of sectorwide reforms. To helpbuild understanding and informed dialogue

for a major reform in Eritrea’stelecommunications sector, forexample, the Eritrea Telecom-munications technical assis-tance project made it possiblefor Eritrean officials to observeinformation technology appli-cations in the Andhra PradeshState in India and in SiliconValley in the United States. TheBank also maintained intensivedialogue with officials throughthe regular use of videoconfer-ences. Eritrean officials praisedthe adaptation of knowledge totheir country’s circumstancesand the utility of the knowl-edge made available to them.

S H A R I N G K N O W L E D G E W I T H C L I E N T S A N D P A R T N E R S | 21

BOX 4.2:

Shifting the Emphasis from Lending to Knowledge

As stated in the China CAS 2002: “Operationally, theprogram would be shaped by factors reflecting thechanging nature of the relationship between Chinaand the World Bank Group. In particular (a) the grow-ing importance of the Bank’s advisory services relativeto lending in the coming years. . . and (b) the potentialgains to both sides, with China positioned not only toreceive the Bank Group's assistance, but also share les-sons of its successful experiences more broadly andcontribute to the thinking on global developmentissues.”

Source: World Bank 2002a, p 30.

The CAS and project findings indicate thatthe Bank’s knowledge-sharing initiative is notyet well integrated into CAS objectives oroperations, although the number of examplesof promising practice is growing.32 Clientviews of current knowledge services confirmthis finding.

Effectiveness of Bank Knowledge Sharingwith Clients

A key element in assessing the effectiveness ofthe Bank’s external knowledge sharing isclients’ perceptions of the quality, reach, andusefulness of the Bank’s knowledge initiativeand knowledge services. For this evaluation, afive-country survey of some 120 influentialpersons (from government, NGOs, the media,and the private sector) was conducted throughface-to-face interviews. Although the survey’smain findings, together with those from a fol-low-up workshop, show strong support forthe Bank’s knowledge initiative, they alsoidentify persistent weaknesses in the Bank’sdelivery of its knowledge services, which amajority of clients urge the Bank to improve.

Overall, clients interviewed affirm the

importance of leveraging knowledge for devel-opment, and most commend the Bank’s effortsto intensify the knowledge dimensions ofcountry programs. A majority of the respon-dents to OED’s survey (as well as participantsin the follow-up workshop) agree that theBank is moving in the right direction.33 Specif-ically, they cite improvements in the accessibil-ity and timeliness of Bank information andidentify the Internet as the biggest contributorto this progress. In addition, they note thatstaff have become less arrogant and more opento collaboration and knowledge sharing.

As reported in Chapter 1, clients rate high-ly the technical soundness of the Bank’sknowledge initiative. But the views of surveyrespondents are less positive on reach andapplicability in individual country circum-stances. Moreover, while they value the Bank’srole in the transfer of knowledge, they wouldlike the Bank to do more to help build knowl-edge capacity within their countries (see fig-ures 4.1 and 4.2).

Inadequate dissemination of the Bank’s knowl-edge at the country level is the area respon-dents most commonly cite as needing improve-


Figure 4.1: Shared Knowledge Is Well Focused, but Not Well Adapted or Disseminated

Source: OED client survey.

Focusinginformation

Strengtheningcapacity

Providinglinks

Incorporatinglocal knowledge

Disseminatinginformation

Stronglyagree

Stronglydisagree

0

1

2

3

4

5

4.444.24

4.01 3.96 3.89

ment. Beyond central government personneland a narrow circle of other well-informed per-sons, the reach of Bank knowledge is said to belimited. Two contributing factors that clientscited frequently are that Bank information iseasily accessible only by computer, and is notavailable in local languages.34 Clients indicatethat there is also a “government bias” in dis-seminating information.35 Stakeholders fromPoland and Senegal suggest, however, that gov-ernments have the primary responsibility fordisseminating Bank information and making itaccessible on a countrywide basis. These stake-holders maintain that the absence of govern-ment motivation to disseminate knowledge is asignificant part of the distribution problem.

Adaptation of global knowledge to countrycontexts is a second area clients view as weak.The majority of survey respondents say thatthe Bank presents “ready-made” solutionsthat are not adapted to individual country cir-cumstances. They argue that the Bank is reluc-tant to consider alternatives to the models andsolutions that it outlines in policy advice anddocumentation. Most respondents suggestthat increased use of local expertise as well asmore local involvement in generating knowl-edge would improve the alignment of Bankknowledge with country circumstances.36 Sev-eral stakeholders also note that adapting glob-al knowledge to country circumstances is easi-er when there is acknowledged indigenouscapacity for doing so. Therefore, respondentsfrom Brazil, for example, see the adaptation ofglobal knowledge as a responsibility of theirofficials.

Capacity building—individual and institution-al—is viewed as essential. But clients perceivethe Bank as more effective in supporting indi-vidual training (through study tours, work-shops, and other forms of project-related train-ing) than in helping to build sustainableinstitutional capacity for acquiring and usingknowledge. They therefore emphasize that anenhanced focus on institutional capacity build-ing would be catalytic—contributing toimproved client-country ability to adapt anduse Bank information, as well as to increase

accessibility and credibility of Bank informa-tion through collaboration with national insti-tutes. One respondent’s view is representative:“We cannot place reliance on the Bank forever.The local institutions have to be assisted inexpanding their capacity. This will require a lotmore from the Bank in the area of transferringskills and knowledge at the institutionallevel.”37 But some respondents also stress theneed for greater government ownership of thisprocess, noting that their governments under-emphasize project components related tocapacity building.

In offering views on how to make improve-ments, clients interviewed urge the Bank toaccelerate changes in the knowledge dimen-sions of project design and implementation,and to reduce the variation in the emphasis onknowledge work among Bank task managers.To achieve these changes, clients suggest that astrategy for knowledge dissemination andcapacity building be clearly defined in projectplans. As figure 4.2 illustrates, clients give par-ticular emphasis to enhanced efforts by theBank to incorporate local knowledge and col-laborate with local experts, strengthen institu-tional capacity, and expand in-country knowl-edge dissemination.

Development and Integration of Global Knowledge Initiatives

In addition to its other knowledge-relatedefforts, the Bank has designed and launchedseveral global knowledge initiatives. Theseprograms aim to expand knowledge sharingand help client countries build their capacitiesfor acquiring and applying knowledge relevantto their core development goals.38 A recentmanagement-commissioned report reviewedthe Bank’s overall handling of this “portfolio”of knowledge initiatives. The report, whichexamined the degree of innovation and rele-vance of the initiatives to Knowledge Bankobjectives, made several recommendations forimprovement that are now under managementconsideration.39 The review here of the globalknowledge initiatives has a somewhat narrow-er focus: It examines the start-up and likely


long-term effectiveness of each of the threeglobal initiatives with the broadest knowl-edge-sharing scope. They are the DevelopmentGateway, the GDLN, and GDN (see also OED2002b, forthcoming).

While the initiatives each have unique pro-gram features, they share three characteristics:they are multicountry in scope; they aim toexpand knowledge sharing both within andacross countries and to build client capacity;and they rely on partnerships for programactivities and funding. In 2001, responsibilityfor two of the initiatives—the DevelopmentGateway and GDN—was transferred to inde-pendent governing bodies, although the Bankremains involved. The GDLN is still adminis-tered as a department of WBI and led by theBank (see table 4.1 for country locations ofeach initiative).

The Bank has had two objectives in pro-moting these initiatives: to expand the avail-ability of development knowledge as a globalpublic good and to improve its own effective-ness by incorporating these initiatives incountry operations. Progress in achieving thefirst objective is discussed in the followingsummaries of the initiatives. Progress on thesecond objective is considered in a single sec-tion, as an issue that cuts across all three ini-tiatives.

The Development Gateway

The Development Gateway is an Internet por-tal on development issues, through which userscan access studies and information, exchangeservices, and collaborate on new strategies andprograms (Walker 2003). Its business planidentifies four categories of beneficiaries: gov-ernments, the private sector, civil society organ-izations, and donor organizations. Since itsinception in 1999, the Development Gatewayhas launched four portal-based knowledgeservices—Knowledge/Topics, DgMarketplace,AiDA, and Country Gateway. In addition, theDevelopment Gateway has supported the start-up of 44 country-based Gateways. It has alsodeveloped an open-source technology platformand applications for the management andexchange of knowledge and information relat-ed to its core services. All four of the Develop-ment Gateways’ knowledge services havebecome fully operational in a short period oftime and show evidence of reaching intendedbeneficiaries. They vary, however, in the degreeof value they add. Brief reviews of each knowl-edge service follow.

Knowledge/Topics assembles and publishesWeb content on some 30 development issues,including e-government, HIV/AIDS, theknowledge economy, and the link between


FIGURE 4.2: Where Clients Would Like the Bank to Do Better

Focus on clients’ knowledge needs

Provide knowledge in ways that strengthen individ-ual capacity

Provide links to international expertise and knowledge

Incorporate local knowledge & collaborate withlocal expertise

Provide knowledge in ways that strengthen institutional capacity

Disseminate knowledge to people who need itmost in country

Low

Hig

h

Sufficient More

Clie

nt

view

s of

Ban

k ef

fect

iven

ess

Client demand for more Bank emphasisSource: OED client survey.

trade and development. As of June 30, 2003,there were some 24,000 registered users, withthe site receiving about 93,000 visitors month-ly (the Bank’s Internet site, after nearly 10 yearsof existence, has more than 600,000 uniquevisitors monthly). Content is contributed byroughly 130 organizations, and content editorsfrom inside and outside the Bank manage eachtopic area. Many topic areas also have adviso-ry committees that bring diverse perspectives tothe aggregation of material.40

This approach has delivered credible andhigh-quality content. Although some outsidegroups continue to object to what they view asthe role of the Bank in “filtering” global dis-semination of development knowledge,41 thecontroversy that accompanied early plans forthe Development Gateway has declined as theGateway has widened the site’s base of con-tributors, editors, and advisers. Nevertheless,in the context of a landscape crowded withother knowledge aggregators that have a spe-cific topical, regional, or audience focus,42

Knowledge/Topics lacks strategic uniqueness.43

It has difficulty differentiating its offeringsfrom those of other development portals andin directing its limited resources to distinguishits value, and will need to sharpen its focus toincrease its usefulness.

DgMarketplace, which offers procurementlistings from the World Bank and other devel-opment agencies, provides value to buyers bymaking the tender process more competitive,

and to sellers by providing ready access toinformation on business opportunities. Whilemuch of the information on DgMarketplace isavailable elsewhere, it is unique in its aim toexpand opportunities for nontraditional bid-ders, particularly small and medium-size enter-prises in developing countries. Having recentlybegun to charge a fee for some of its services,the market will provide feedback on who isactually served and the value of the servicesprovided.

AiDA, a unique service in the developmentcommunity, publishes a comprehensive direc-tory, in searchable form, of data on WorldBank, other multilateral, and all Organizationfor Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD)–member bilateral projects. Whilethere are other sources of project information,there is no comparator that aggregates infor-mation on the same scale. Also, by promotingstandardized reporting of development proj-ects and providing an easy mechanism for con-tributing data, the program encouragesexpanded participation and use.

The Country Gateway is a centralized serv-ice that provides advisory services, technicalsupport, and help in mobilizing funds for theestablishment of country-based knowledgeportals that are operated as independentorganizations. The 44 individual CountryGateways, now at varying stages of develop-ment, aim to support country-level knowledgeaggregation and dialogue, improve access to


TABLE 4.1: Location of Global Knowledge Initiatives (by number of country-level entities per Region as of June 30, 2003)

Region GDLNa Development Gateway GDN

Africa 9 6 1East Asia and Pacific 11 4 1Europe and Central Asia 11 15 2b

Latin America and the Caribbean 14 13 1Middle East and North Africa 3 2 1South Asia 3 4 1Europe and North America 10 1 3Total 61 44 10

a. These numbers of GDLN-affiliated centers were provided by WBI’s GDLN division, and differ from listings provided by several Regions. See

footnote 48 for an explanation of the discrepancies.

b. While in each Bank Region GDN has established a partnership with one institution that implements programs regionwide, Europe and Cen-

tral Asia are treated as two Regional areas.

skills and resources, and facilitate cooperationand partnerships at the local level.44 Some haveformed partnerships and or other forms of col-laboration with local comparators early intheir start-up, and have thereby been able tocomplement local efforts rather than competewith them. Still, as the Internet becomes morepervasive and information technology devel-ops in these countries, the Country Gatewayswill have to continue to evolve and differenti-ate their services. In addition, their financialsustainability beyond an initial period of seedfinancing is currently being tested. Whilefinancial requirements over time are likely torequire Country Gateways to make tradeoffsbetween commercial and development objec-tives, it is too early to gauge the impact ofthose decisions on the role that the CountryGateways will play in meeting the Develop-ment Gateway’s overall development knowl-edge–sharing objective.

The Bank has provided a total of US$15.5million for the start-up of the DevelopmentGateway, of which US$7 million was spentbefore its transfer to the Development Gate-way Foundation in 2001. Following thattransfer, the Bank, as a member of the boardof the foundation, agreed to provide an addi-tional US$5 million over the next three yearsthrough its Development Grants Facility. Also,in FY01-FY02, the Bank provided someUS$3.5 million in grants through infoDev45 forthe Country Gateway program. It now oper-ates the Development Gateway through a serv-ice agreement with the foundation that coststhe foundation US$6 million (none of whichcan come from the funds provided to the foun-dation from the Development Grant Facility).

The creation of the Development GatewayFoundation as an independent, not-for-profitorganization has attracted more than US$70million in additional funding and has forged anumber of strategic partnerships. But both gov-ernance and funding arrangements pose issuesfor three reasons. First, while the Bank hasbeen crucial to the mobilization of support forthe Development Gateway, its role in the gov-ernance of the foundation, through control ofthe positions of president and treasurer, as well

as of three seats on an 18-member board, hasfueled criticisms of undue influence. Second, allbut one member on the current board arefinancial contributors. This composition haslimited board service by representatives fromthe strategic partnership organizations whoseprogram involvement is valuable. But new gov-ernance arrangements that would encompasspartnership organization involvement wouldnot help advance the third issue: establishing afinancial strategy and attracting the funds toensure continuity of programs over time. Atpresent there is no endowment to generateincome, and the existing three-year drawdownof most donors’ funds ends in 2004.

Moreover, both the Bank and the founda-tion have to resolve how to manage the Bank’sfuture role as a Development Gateway partner.For Bank programs to derive benefit from theDevelopment Gateway, the Bank has more todo to integrate the innovation and learningprovided by the Development Gateway into itsown operations. At the same time, the Devel-opment Gateway must strike a balancebetween serving as an effective instrument ofthe Bank’s own operational activities and dis-tancing itself from the Bank in order to con-solidate its credibility and encourage inclusivepartnership and participation across the devel-opment community. Ensuring that the Devel-opment Gateway activities are demand drivenat the country and global levels is essential tomanaging this relationship over time.

The Global Development Learning Network

The GDLN is a partnership of mostly inde-pendent Distance Learning Centers (DLCs),funders, and content providers that supportknowledge sharing and learning through dis-tance learning courses, seminars, and cross-country dialogues among decisionmakersdealing with development issues of commonconcern (Romiszowski 2003). The core idea isthat of a network linking DLCs around theglobe that deliver programs in languages andformats consistent with the information andskill needs of targeted audiences, and that areoperated independently under various busi-ness models and by different agencies or insti-


tutions in each country. The DLCs affiliatedwith the GDLN have the technology to runinteractive knowledge-sharing and learningevents through a combination of videoconfer-encing across several sites, e-mail or Web-based discussions, and face-to-face or self-study instruction. This multimedia capacity isthe GDLN’s particular value. Examples of aGDLN global dialogue program and a train-ing course are provided in box 4.3.

Since the formal launch of the GDLN inJune 2000, 61 DLCs have become fully func-tioning affiliates of the network.46 While thisexpansion represents a rapid start-up of theinitiative, this review finds a lack of precisionin the monitoring and reporting of GDLNactivities and related Bank expenditures. Thereview also finds a substantial disparity acrosscountries in the nature of the Bank’s supportfor centers, and the absence of a clearly artic-ulated strategy for fostering the sustainabilityof individual centers and the GDLN as a glob-al network.

Total spending by the Bank for its supportof the GDLN’s start-up has been estimated bythe Bank’s GDLN team to be on the order ofUS$30-$45 million since June 2000.47 Thisamount includes the actual administrativebudget of WBI’s GDLN division, along withcosts incurred by the Regions and by ISG insupport of GDLN, which are only estimated.

Centers in African countries and a fewother countries are financed differently fromcenters elsewhere. As shown in table 4.2, theBank has lent a total of US$23 million in Inter-national Development Association (IDA) cred-its for the start-up DLCs in 11 poor countries.This financing covers initial capital costs and adeclining share of operating costs over four-to-five years (estimated in the case of the Africancenters to be about US$300,000-$400,000).An additional two countries have receivedIBRD financing for GDLN DLCs. No equiva-lent financial obligations to the Bank havebeen incurred by other GDLN DLCs. SixDLCs in China, Brazil, Mongolia, Nicaragua,Timor Leste, and Vietnam, which have beenco-located in Bank offices, have been financedout of the Bank’s capital budget and, in the

case of Vietnam, additional donor grants.DLCs in other countries have received grantsfrom various bilateral and multilateral agen-cies, or financed by a local agency out ofrecurrent costs, usually for limited upgradingor use of existing facilities.

While the Bank’s efforts over three yearshave led to growth in the network of DLCsand involvement of external partners, the sus-tainability of the global network of DLCs isnot yet assured. As shown in table 4.3, theamount of programming shows fairly modestgrowth as measured both in participant train-ing days and number of sessions. For the inde-


BOX 4.3:

GDLN Programming Links City Officials

East Asia: A total of 64 City Development Strategies were pre-pared in China, Indonesia, Mongolia, the Philippines, Thai-land, and Vietnam. GDLN facilities provided access to techni-cal expertise, funding, and city-to-city knowledge sharingwithin and across countries.Latin America: A course on open and participatory municipalgovernance was delivered in partnership with Mexico and Spainto 60 sites in the region.

Source: GDLN documentation.

TABLE 4.2: World Bank Lending for GDLN Distance Learning Centers(as of June 30, 2003)

Source/country US$ millions

IDA creditsBenin (LIL) 1.8Côte d’Ivoire (LIL) 2.0Ethiopia (LIL) 4.9Ghana (part of larger project) 1.6Mauritania (LIL) 3.3Senegal (LIL) 2.1Tanzania (part of larger project) 1.8Uganda (part of larger project) 2.7Bolivia (part of larger project) 0.7(est’d)Sri Lanka (LIL) 2.0Total IDA credits 22.9IBRD loansDominican Republic 3.4Thailand (part of larger project) 1.1Total IBRD loans 4.5

Note: LIL = Learning and Innovation Loan.

pendent DLCs that currently rely heavily onGDLN programming, facility utilization ratesremain, on average, below that required forfinancial sustainability.48 And this low level ofutilization has called into question the busi-ness strategy on which those DLCs have basedtheir planning.49

Experience shows that DLCs must operateat 50-60 percent capacity to break even. Atpresent, the GDLN centers average rates of10-20 percent, although some are at 40 per-cent or more. To achieve a break-even level ofutilization, many centers are looking to com-bine GDLN decisionmaker dialogues (themain focus of the original GDLN strategy) andinteractive learning events involving courseofferings geared to broader audiences (whoself-pay or are subsidized). This approach hasdeveloped in response to expectations thatdecisionmaker dialogues are unlikely toaccount for more than a small percentage of acenter’s utilization capacity and that there ispotential demand (based in some countries onactual needs assessments) for core skills train-ing for lower-level officials and representativesfrom the private sector or civil society.

To reach sustainable levels of operation fol-lowing this approach, a large volume of con-tent will be required.50 Moreover, because thevalue added of GDLN facilities lies in theirinteractive capabilities, a structured contentthat relies on interaction among participants isrequired to make full use of the DLCs. But lit-tle development content in that format exists.So far, the Bank has been the main source—either directly, in the form of courses and

events organized by the Bank, or indirectly, bystimulating other content providers. But thereis no clear plan in place for generating the vol-ume of content needed for meeting the risingdemand of a growing network. If it is to comefrom the Bank, more resources will berequired.

Ultimately, the centers need to generate andmarket their own programs, but few are cur-rently able to do so. In Latin America, GDLNhas built on existing university or other dis-tance learning facilities and experience. Cen-ters that have chosen to affiliate with theGDLN to expand their offerings tend to gen-erate content themselves or obtain it fromother organizations in their countries.51 Theyare also largely independent of the GDLN forrevenue and for connectivity, and have increas-ingly strengthened Regional interactions. Butin countries with less established distancelearning capacities and less-developed infor-mation technology (IT) capacities, the man-agement skills and revenue-generating marketsdo not yet exist. These weaknesses endangerthe GDLN’s network-scale effect and its glob-al knowledge-sharing function.

The Bank’s GDLN team has proposed thatthe network become a vehicle for the sizableamount of capacity-building assistance cur-rently provided by donors. This assistancecould benefit from the interactive capacities ofGDLN facilities and be a ready-made sourceof programming on a level sufficient to meetthe DLCs’ sustainability gap. Demand for suchuse of GDLN centers would, however, have tobe generated through a considerable market-ing effort, since it is not yet widespread.

Moreover, questions remain about GDLNgovernance and the future of the Bank’s multi-ple roles in the network. At present, centersare affiliated with the GDLN through individ-ual memoranda of understanding. There is nocouncil or advisory body of partners to pro-vide overall strategic guidance and oversightof the network, no GDLN mechanism forquality assurance of content and program pro-vision, and no process for evaluating the per-formance of any of the partners of the GDLN.

Broadly stated, the Bank’s role has been to


TABLE 4.3: Mixed GDLN Trends, FY01-midFY03

Output FY01 FY02 mid-FY03Activities (total) 273 259 142WBI 184 155 52Bank 46 35 12External partners 43 69 78Participant training daysa 90,580 111,300 45,680DLCs 26 37 4

a. Estimate based on experience of courses of 5 days with 25 participants.

Source: GDLN data provided by staff.

create the global network of affiliated centers,assist new centers in the start-up of operations,and facilitate program interactions among allcenters in the network. Yet no one unit withinthe Bank has been assigned responsibility foroversight and management of GDLN, qualityassurance, and accounting for GDLN financialand operational data. Nor are GDLN-relatedactivities well coordinated among relevantBank units. GDLN Services, which is a unit ofWBI, has responsibility for the administrationof the network, but the extent of its responsi-bilities in relation to other units in the Bankand in relation to affiliated DLCs is not welldefined. ISG provides technical support andconnectivity to DLCs, but these arrangementsare not fully transparent. The Regions pro-mote and, in some cases, finance the establish-ment and affiliation of DLCs, but coordina-tion with GDLN services in fostering thebusiness development and financial sustain-ability of individual centers is inadequate.Although a draft business plan states that theBank has a commitment, if implicit, to alsogenerate the input—that is, to gather togetherthe experts, practitioners, and trainers neces-sary to organize and deliver knowledge shar-ing activities in numbers and types sufficientfor the DLCs to raise enough revenue—thenature and extent of that commitment havenot been made explicit.

The Global Development Network (GDN)

The World Bank launched GDN in December1999 at a first annual conference in Bonn. In2001 it was incorporated as an independent,not-for-profit organization based in Washing-ton, D.C., and its relocation to a developingcountry is now proposed for 2004.

Initiated in the World Bank’s DevelopmentEconomics Vice Presidency, GDN has receivedstrong support from both the Vice Presidencyand from Bank President James Wolfensohn.Since 1999, the Bank has provided a total ofUS$18.3 million to GDN. This representedalmost all initial GDN funding, and in FY02accounted for US$5.2 million, or some 58 per-cent of total GDN financing (composed of aDevelopment Grant Facility allocation of

US$4.7 million and an additional US$500,000from the Bank’s administrative budget). Mr.Wolfensohn has also pledged that the Bank willunderwrite up to US$1.8 million of GDN’sannual administrative costs through 2006.

GDN’s stated objectives are to support thegeneration and sharing of knowledge fordevelopment; strengthen the capacity ofresearch and policy institutions in developingcountries and transition economies to under-take high-quality, policy-relevant research; andhelp bridge the gap between the developmentof ideas and their practical implementation. Inadvancing these objectives, GDN mobilizesand provides funding to seven regionalresearch networks52 for research grants to indi-viduals and institutions, allocated throughregional research competitions.

Each of these networks has its own man-agement structure and program agenda, isgoverned by an independent board, andobtains funding from a variety of sources. Allseven existed prior to the establishment ofGDN, and except for the Latin American andEastern European networks, were previouslysupported by the Bank’s Research SupportBudget. GDN’s interactions with these inde-pendent research networks focuses on sup-porting research in individual countries withinthe Regions; fostering collaboration amongcountries within the Regions; promotingexchange on such issues as research methods,quality control, and research findings; andensuring a focus on policy impact. Regionalhubs in Europe, North America, and Japanhave also been established to complementdeveloping country networks, and a fourthnetwork is being formed in the South PacificRegion.

In FY02, this core Regional research sup-port function accounted for 32 percent ofGDN’s annual activities expenses of US$6.8million (see figure 4.3).

The other 68 percent of annual expendi-tures were for GDN’s additional global activi-ties, which entail: an annual Global Develop-ment Conference, of which there have beenfour since 1999; global research projects; othercollaborative programs; and electronic knowl-


Source: Financial Performance—Report of Independent Auditors, September 13, 2002.

AnnualConference 20%

Regionalresearchcompetitions32%

Other collaborativeprograms 20%

GDNet 11%

Global researchprojects 8%

Global awards 9%

edge-sharing tools—a monthly e-mail newslet-ter, online discussions, and a Web site(GDNet) (see box 4.4 for further detail onthese activities).

While GDN is still a program in formation,external views and ongoing evaluation pointto a number of issues confronting its rele-vance, long-term sustainability, and relation-ship to the World Bank. GDN used a broadlyparticipatory, Web-based, consultation processin establishing its governance structure. Theprocess led to the creation of a 17-membergoverning board composed of 10 individualsselected from each of the 10 participatingregional networks; one individual selectedfrom each of the three international economic,political science, and sociology associations;two at-large; and one each from the WorldBank and the UNDP. Nonetheless, GDN is stillseen by some “as a child of the World Bank”(Stone 2003, pp. 43-61). A possible reason forthis is that initial legwork for establishingGDN was carried out by a member of theBank’s staff, who later retired from the Bankto become GDN’s director.

A number of donors and some in the inter-national research community further criticize

what they view as GDN’s “loyalty” to toonarrow a set of ideas and institutes it knows(Stone 2003). One specific criticism, of theGDN’s exclusive focus on economics, led to adecision of the Board in 2002 to encourageregional networks to adopt a more multidisci-plinary orientation to future research funding.The speed at which GDN would move to a broader social science focus remains a heav-ily debated issue, with officials of the region-al networks, which were deliberately createdto strengthen economic research, voicing concern that they were not consulted on thisdecision.

In 2001, GDN management commissioneda study of the regional research competitionsin six networks (and an independent DGF-required evaluation is scheduled for FY04).The study concluded that GDN regional hubsgrant research awards in a competitive man-ner and that research has been of high qualityand policy-relevant, with the “potential tocontribute to development.” The reviewnoted that transparency could be enhanced byproviding detailed selection criteria, with eachcall for proposals and competition improvedby making grants available to “researchersfrom countries with weak economics scholar-ship”; and capacity-building impact could beincreased through addition of a training andmentoring program for researchers. It alsosuggested that steps should be taken toimprove the impact of research.

Both that study and interviews of a largenumber of actors involved in GDN, conductedas part of an ongoing case study of GDN, pro-vide insights into a global program that is in aformative period. The case study, which is partof phase 2 of OED’s review of World Bankglobal programs (World Bank forthcoming), isexploring questions of GDN’s relevance andeffectiveness, such as the program’s relation-ship and value added vis-à-vis other regionalresearch organizations; its prospects for long-term sustainability; and its relationship withthe World Bank and the Bank’s role in pro-gram oversight within the context of GDN’s“spin-off” from the Bank.53


FIGURE 4.3: GDN Expenses by Core Activities (FY02)

Crosscutting Issues

Although still at early stages of implementa-tion, all three initiatives—the DevelopmentGateway, the Global Development LearningNetwork, and the Global Development Net-work—have demonstrated that they canenhance knowledge sharing and client capaci-ty to acquire and use knowledge. Progress inthe initial implementation of each initiativehas been quite rapid, and the Bank’s weight inthe international development community hasbeen significant in mobilizing the participationof partners.

But four major challenges remain to be metto ensure the long-term sustainability and dis-tinct program value of each of the initiatives:

• The utility of each program—at the coun-try, Regional, and global levels—needs clar-ification and continual review in a rapidlychanging technology and developmentenvironment.

• The financial sustainability of each pro-gram and the independent, country/Region-al components of each program need to besecured.

• Consolidation of each program’s gover-nance arrangements is needed to ensure

effective strategic direction and oversight,commensurate with available resources.

• As the initiatives mature, they and the Bankneed to define and better manage the Bank’sevolving roles and responsibilities.

Early experience suggests that integration ofthe Development Gateway and GDLN into theBank’s country programs can facilitate the dis-semination of knowledge and iterative knowl-edge sharing that is important for program-matic lending, participatory ESW, and povertyreduction strategy paper (PRSP) and CASpreparations aimed at building country owner-ship of development strategies and processes.These processes require cost-effective means ofholding dialogues, exchanging good practices,and involving multiple stakeholders—and forall of these operational activities, the globalknowledge initiatives can provide useful plat-forms. In addition, the research capacity build-ing supported through GDN potentially rein-forces the greater collaboration and use oflocal expertise that clients and internationalexperts have recommended.

Anecdotal evidence from LCR indicates fur-ther that events involving stakeholders in sim-ilar Bank (or other donor) projects across


BOX 4.4:

GDN Major Activities since 1999

• Regional Research Competitions—Some US$13 million has been allocated to fund justover 400 projects.

• Annual Development Conferences—the fourth conference, held in Cairo in early 2003,was attended by some 500 participants from 95 countries.

• Global Research Project—Explaining Growth project, near completion, has twooverview volumes and seven regional volumes. Two new projects are BridgingResearch and Policy, and Understanding Reform.

• GDN’s Web site provides a monthly electronic newsletter to some 11,000 subscribers,access to some 2,000 researcher and organization profiles, and just over 6,000 publi-cations.

• Other collaborative projects (with the World Bank, U.S.-based National Institutes ofHealth, and scholarship program with IMF).

countries that are carried out in conjunctionwith existing knowledge networks and useInformation and Communication Technology(ICT) capacity in order to sustain and deependialogue have more impact on clients thanreal-time GDLN learning activities conductedas stand-alone events with little follow-up.There is also some experience to suggest that,given the complementary nature of the initia-tives, the reach and efficiency of knowledge-sharing and capacity-building activities can beextended by joint undertakings (for example,of country-based GDLN and DevelopmentGateway organizations) built around Bankprojects and knowledge networks within andacross countries. For example, LCR hasorganized collaboration between the GDLNand the Development Gateway, with supportfrom an internationally respected NGO, thathas fostered problem solving among dispersedand marginal groups of indigenous peopleacross the Region.

Despite their promise, use of these capaci-ties in operations has, however, been very lim-ited, for the following four reasons:

• Many country-based partner institutionsare not yet fully established (especiallyCountry Gateways and DLCs still in theirplanning or implementation phases).

• Use of ICT for development “has not pene-trated the agenda of Regional Bank staff”(Walker 2003).

• Clear articulation of country knowledgedemands is essential to move the initiativesfrom a supply-driven to a demand-drivenmode. With a clear handle on demand,country staff should be in a position toidentify the right instrument to build intoprograms and relevant units (WBI, net-works) and capacity (GDLN, DevelopmentGateway, thematic groups) to mobilize inmeeting the demand.

• But Bank processes, resource allocations,and electronic systems are not yet in placeto make this response to country demand as

seamless as possible. In interviews, someoperational staff emphasized that bureau-cratic and funding hurdles to the use ofthese capacities (notably GDLN) are a dis-incentive.

For each of the initiatives, as well as for theindependently owned country partner organi-zations, there is the further complication that“involvement with the Bank may pose trade-offs,” given civil society organizations’ con-cerns about the directive nature of the Bank’srole (Walker 2003). While the examples citedabove indicate that such concerns need notdiscourage partnerships, this view reinforcesthe importance of consolidating governancearrangements and management processes toeffectively address the Bank’s evolving role ineach initiative.

Integrating Knowledge Sharing

From the outset, the knowledge initiative envi-sioned a rapid transition from building a betterknowledge management system to expandingknowledge sharing with clients and partners.This transition remains incomplete.

Knowledge sharing is increasingly becom-ing a way of doing business, as indicated bythe growing number of innovations in theBank’s interactions with clients. But mostCASs still do not make explicit what theirknowledge objectives are, or how they pro-pose to help countries leverage knowledge toachieve overall development objectives. Theknowledge dimensions of operations are onlygradually intensifying, and project teams onlygradually enhancing their role as knowledgebrokers. Moreover, the three global knowl-edge initiatives reviewed, which have startedup quickly, face issues of financial sustainabil-ity, governance, and unclear partnership rolesand responsibilities. As a result, the impact ofthe initiative—as perceived by clients—is stilllimited, although much welcomed and seen asmoving in the right direction.


Experience from a broad array of institutionsoutside of the Bank shows that, to be effective,a knowledge-sharing system needs to be tight-ly linked to the institution’s core businessstrategy. It also needs to take an integratedapproach to technology, people, and process-es. This chapter examines the adequacy andefficiency of Bank performance in establishingthese core institutional support elements.

Resources and Governance

Resources. Bank expenditures on knowledgesharing programs and activities over theFY97-02 period total just under US$220 mil-lion in combined budget and trust fundsresources.54 For the three years the StrategicCompact was in place (FY98-00), knowledgemanagement budget expenditures (exclusiveof trust funds) averaged about 3.4 percent oftotal direct expenditures, declining to an aver-age of about 2.4 percent in FY01 and FY02.Network knowledge expenditures over theperiod have been more than double those ofthe Regions (exclusive of those incorporated

within project budgets).55 Figures 5.1, 5.2, and5.3 provide further elaboration.

Governance approach. From the outset, theBank has taken the stance that knowledgesharing is not a line of business, but a way ofdoing business, for which all units haveresponsibility. This decentralized approach tothe governance of the knowledge-sharingprocess has allowed for considerable programinnovation. But the approach has been accom-panied by two governance shortcomings: alack of clearly defined roles and responsibilitiesand an absence of systematic monitoring andevaluation. These shortcomings account inlarge part for the unevenness in the pace ofknowledge-related change across the institu-tion and for the weak linkage between knowl-edge sharing and other core business processes.

Roles and responsibilities. At the corporatelevel, a senior-level Knowledge and LearningCouncil met regularly from 1998 to 2000, butits focus was on allocating centrally providedresources for staff learning. The council neverfunctioned as a significant governance mecha-

33

5 . T H E S U P P O R T I N G

I N S T I T U T I O N A L I N F R A S T R U C T U R E

Over the past six years, the Bank has built up its information technology system; fostered a

more open, knowledge-sharing culture for itself; and established new knowledge and learning

staff positions at various levels across the institution. But it has not established adequate

governance arrangements, nor adequate processes and incentives for institutionalizing

knowledge sharing as a way of doing business. A main conclusion of this review is that these

management shortfalls account in large part for the evaluation findings of uneven progress in

the implementation of the initiative, and for its limited impact thus far on the Bank’s service to

its clients.


FIGURE 5.3:The Majority of FY02 Expenditures Were for General Knowledge Management Activities

FIGURE 5.1: Bankwide Expenditures on Knowledge Management Rosethrough the Strategic Compact Period

FIGURE 5.2: Network Expenditures on Knowledge Management Exceed those of the Regions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02

Tota

l exp

end

itur

es ($

mill

ion

)

Trust Funds

Bank Budget

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02

Tota

l exp

end

itur

es ($

mill

ion

)

Regions

Networks

Source: SAP/Business Warehouse (BW).

General KnowledgeMgmt 65%

Knowledge Mgmt TA 5%

Thematic Groups 19%

Knowledge Mgmt Systems Dev 0%

Knowledge Mgmt Regional Support 5%

Advisory Systems 5%

Maintain Databases 1%

nism for knowledge sharing, and there hasbeen limited corporate-level strategic directionand oversight. From the start of the knowledgeinitiative, there has been a small coordinatingunit that has served to promote the buildup oftools and activities and their mainstreamingacross the institution. This role as the champi-on of knowledge sharing is different from themonitoring and standard-setting role playedby other Bank units responsible for fully main-streamed activities—for example, unitsresponsible for leveraging safeguards or assur-ing financial accountability.

Responsibility for the networks’ knowl-edge-sharing function rests with the sectorboards, which have provided minimal direc-tion and oversight.56 At best, knowledge-shar-ing strategies at the network or sector depart-ment level have been implicit, not explicit.Knowledge management activities are neitherexecuted in the most efficient, cost effectiveway, nor do they achieve their full potential,largely because there is a lack of managementand coordination. In such a decentralized system, each group has a different perspec-tive, different methodologies, and uses differ-ent tools, which can lead to duplication ofeffort.

Although the Regions’ knowledge-sharingresponsibilities are largely client oriented, pol-icy guidelines have not been established forinserting knowledge-sharing strategies intoCASs, analytical and advisory services (AAA),or lending operations. In the absence of both,clear guidelines on what’s expected at Region-al and country levels and measurable Region-al and country objectives, there is no way toknow if goals are being achieved. Moreover,the respective roles of the Regions, networks,and WBI in enhancing external knowledgesharing have not been spelled out or systemat-ically coordinated.

Since 2002, management has taken steps torevise organizational responsibilities forknowledge sharing. WBI has been tasked withthe catalytic role of ensuring effective integra-tion of Network and Regional efforts, andwith becoming the locus for strategic directionfor the Bank’s knowledge agenda. In addition,

a steering committee has been created at thevice-presidential level to provide corporateguidance and oversight of the knowledge strat-egy’s implementation. A new staff-level steer-ing committee will foster coordination amongactivities and bring issues to the vice presi-dents. Despite these organizational measures,explicit clarification of roles and accountabili-ties is still lacking. And without clear roles andresponsibilities, objectives needed for monitor-ing and evaluation are not likely to be welldefined.

Monitoring. In contrast to good practice inother organizations, knowledge sharingremains a largely unmonitored process at theBank. The task force that reviewed the knowl-edge initiative’s progress in 1999 emphasizedthe need to devise a system of metrics thatwould track future progress (Prusak 1999).While subsequent management documentshave repeatedly made a commitment to carryout this recommendation, the evaluability ofall new knowledge-sharing programs andactivities remains limited—beyond its broadstatement of goals, the Bank has not set moni-torable and time-bound goals at the corporateor vice-presidential levels. As noted above, themost recent (2001) strategic framework for theknowledge initiative emphasized three broadlydirectional objectives—improving the qualityof operations through internal knowledgesharing; expanding knowledge sharing withclients and partners; and enhancing clientcapacity to acquire and use knowledge effec-tively. But the framework did not set specificoutcome objectives, intermediate targets, ormilestones. Networks do not have commonstandards or procedures for tracking, report-ing, and monitoring the progress of programsand activities. Nor have Regions developed asystematic way to track knowledge-sharingactivities undertaken as part of country lend-ing and nonlending operations within existingoperational reporting.57

Evaluation. Self-evaluation of knowledge-sharing activities is much less systematic thanself-evaluation of other Bank work (OED2003b). The one-off assessments of specific

T H E S U P P O R T I N G I N S T I T U T I O N A L I N F R A S T R U C T U R E | 35

tools and activities, such as review of Bankinternal and external Web sites and networkand sector staff feedback surveys, do not maketheir assessments against stated outcomeobjectives nor allow for comparisons overtime or across units. For example, they do notask comparable questions about usefulness ofactivities. Existing self-evaluation frameworksand procedures at the country and project lev-els also do not adequately address knowledge-sharing processes. Nor do OED’s independentcountry assistance and project evaluations;most fail to look beyond the quality of under-lying AAA work to the adequacy of knowl-edge-sharing processes and their impact onBank programs.

Outside the Bank, most organizations withleading knowledge management systems intro-duce performance indicators not in the earlystages of implementing their systems, but aspart of a second stage. Even though the Bankhas progressed beyond the tool-building earlystage to the second stage of institutionalizingknowledge-sharing activities, it lags in moni-toring and evaluation—not only in compari-son to other public and private enterprise lead-ers, but also in relation to practice typical ofother areas of innovation in the Bank (forexample, the Comprehensive DevelopmentFramework [CDF] and PRSP)—and indeed, toits own knowledge initiative plans.

Technology

From the start, the knowledge initiative hasincluded a heavy emphasis on the Bank’s infor-mation technology, with the dual aims ofimproving Bankwide connectivity and speed-ing access to Bank information by staff clientsand the wider development community. The1997 Strategic Compact envisioned an IT sys-tem that would replace what had become anti-quated systems—for example, no shareddrives, a plethora of fragmented applications,and inadequate connectivity between head-quarters and country offices.

Many improvements have been made. TheBank now has a high-speed global networkwith standardized applications in about 100

sites; a consolidated store of quantitative busi-ness data; and electronic capture and storageof qualitative data, with 24/7 access and cus-tomer support. People both inside and outsidethe Bank now have faster access to institution-al information and geographically broaderconnectivity.

But these discrete improvements do notadd up to a fully articulated strategy for meet-ing the Bank’s core business objectives, andthere is need for additional technologyimprovements in support of the Bank’s opera-tional work. Information technology (IT) staffneed to work with operational staff toenhance knowledge capture and sharingthrough the Bank’s internal and external Web,the Development Gateway, or other means.ISG’s strategic framework for FY03-05,which focuses on this issue, includes as maincomponents e-business partnerships to facili-tate knowledge sharing with clients and ITimprovements in support of internal businesssimplification.58

Before moving forward, however, thereshould be a comprehensive external evaluationof how well the initial strategy and its achieve-ments are aligned with core business needs andprocesses. The ISG’s FY03-05 strategy extendsthe steps taken so far and addresses outstand-ing issues from the current strategy; yet therehas been no validation of the overall strategicchoices of the past. Most ongoing data track-ing and surveys are at the level of individualinitiatives such as e-mail, videoconferencing,and discussion spaces, but they do not assessthe effectiveness of the components takentogether, in contributing to staff needs for col-laborative tools and the Bank’s overall mis-sion. Before launching into new technologyapplications or other improvements, it wouldbe useful to consider to what extent all toolscurrently available have actually promotedbetter team-based work practices andincreased efficiency. Given that ISG is nowmoving to a new set of objectives, this wouldseem to be an opportune moment for such anoverarching assessment.

The ultimate effectiveness of intended tech-nological improvements does not depend on


the information systems, however, but on bet-ter content management. The quality, timeli-ness, and tailoring of knowledge and informa-tion on the Web were discussed above inChapter 3. In addition, there is need for agree-ment across the institution on common poli-cies and practices for managing distributedcontent. Questions to be answered include,“What kinds of operational (lending and non-lending) information will be posted on theIntranet?” And “How will Web-based knowl-edge be validated, how often will it be updat-ed, and how and when will it be archived?”The point is not to standardize the content butto clarify processes for disseminating andmaintaining it. For this, corporatewideprocesses for ensuring higher-quality contentmanagement are needed.

People

The initiators of the Bank’s knowledge initia-tive emphasized that the key to improvedknowledge sharing was to change the internalculture of the Bank.59 This emphasis reflectedthe widely expressed view, seen in the knowl-edge management literature, that while tech-nology is an important enabler, people’sbehaviors are what make for effective knowl-edge sharing and use. As a result, several stepswere taken to create a work environment inwhich staff would be encouraged to shareknowledge routinely. Positions of knowledgecoordinator and information analyst were cre-ated in networks and Regions, with responsi-bilities for developing and championing newtools and activities. Knowledge sharing wasmade part of the Bank’s performance evalua-tion criteria for all staff in 1998, and incorpo-rated into the Bank’s first formal mission state-ment in 1999.

Although staff feel a greater openness in theBank,60 the changes in culture have not beenenough to create the incentives and other con-ditions required for staff to contribute to thecapture, exchange, and application of opera-tionally relevant knowledge and experience.Two out of three task team managers inter-viewed for this review indicated that adequate

incentives do not exist for supporting theknowledge initiative, and 60 percent of thoserespondents pointed to time constraints as themajor barrier. Because knowledge-sharing pro-grams are informal—that is, not given taskdesignations for the Time Recording System(TRS)—staff participation in internal knowl-edge-sharing activities is voluntary. It carriesno explicit expectations for actively contribut-ing to the exchange of knowledge before, dur-ing, or after operations. Moreover, it is notenough for organizations to simply facilitatethe collection and sharing of knowledge. Anoutside study of Bank knowledge sharing,described in box 5.1, emphasizes the impor-tance of creating conditions—specifically,team autonomy, appropriate workload, and acombination of “cosmopolitan and local”team composition—in order to empowerteams to apply and feed back operationalknowledge.

Summing up

The Bank has made more progress in establish-ing the architecture to support its knowledgeinitiative than in creating the governancearrangements and work processes for carryingit out. As a result, the strategic intent of mak-

T H E S U P P O R T I N G I N S T I T U T I O N A L I N F R A S T R U C T U R E | 37

BOX 5.1:

Conditions for the Effective Use of Shared Knowledge

An in-depth study of Bank project preparation and supervisionshows that “accessing shared knowledge does not necessarilyimprove the quality of projects. Instead, the three conditions ofteam autonomy, workload, and team composition moderatedthe effects of distributed knowledge on team performance. . . .More autonomy enables teams to overcome political pressuresexerted by those who provide the knowledge. Lower overloadenables teams to manage the time demands involved in usingdistributed knowledge without incurring excessive opportunitycosts. And [the combination of] cosmopolitan and local teammembers enable teams to interpret knowledge that they accessmore appropriately.”

Source: Haas 2002.

ing knowledge sharing a way of doing businesshas been only partly realized. What remains tobe done is to clarify roles and responsibilities;develop stronger linkages among the threeknowledge processes of research, knowledge

sharing, and learning, and between knowledge-sharing activities’ core operational processes ofCAS preparation, lending, and nonlendingservices; and establish frameworks for moni-toring and evaluation.


The Bank did the right thing in committingitself to a major knowledge initiative. The

rationale—to improve development outcomesby fully exploiting both the revolution ininformation technology and the Bank’s com-parative advantage as a source of developmentknowledge—is highly relevant to changingclient needs, international development prac-tices, and Bank interactions with its clients.

Since the start of the initiative in 1996, theBank has moved quickly to upgrade its infor-mation technology capacities, establish newknowledge-sharing programs and activities,launch several global knowledge partnershipprograms, and create a more open and knowl-edge-sharing organizational culture. Bothstaff and clients have gained faster and easieraccess to knowledge and information as aresult.

While the fundamental thrust of the knowl-edge initiative is on target, there are two short-comings that, if left unaddressed, will preventthe initiative from achieving its purpose ofenhancing client use of knowledge to achievedevelopment goals.

The first is the failure to take the strategy’sknowledge aggregation and general dissemina-tion phase to the next level—providing directsupport for task teams in their operationalwork. Or, in other words, to institutionalizethe knowledge strategy by applying its toolsdirectly to the Bank’s core business processes.Three changes are needed to move to thishigher level: network knowledge-sharingactivities (especially those of thematic groupsand advisory services) need to devote moretime and attention to working with frontlinestaff in support of lending and nonlending

services; operational teams need to do more tocapture and feed back more systematically les-sons and good practices from on-the-groundwork; and Bankwide efforts need to be madeto improve content management of distributedknowledge to ensure quality, timeliness, and—most important—operational relevance.

The second shortcoming is the failure of theRegional units, country teams, and task man-agers to develop a more strategic approach tothe knowledge dimensions of the Bank’s serv-ice to its clients. Knowledge strategies shouldbe made more explicit in CASs and operations,and task teams should be given the explicitresponsibility and accompanying incentivesfor implementing the strategic objectives. Thissystematic integration of knowledge intocountry programs and projects includes theincorporation of the global knowledge initia-tives, which needs to occur not as an end initself but as an enhancement to CAS or projectobjectives aimed at building clients’ capacitiesto acquire and use knowledge effectively. Sofar, no specific objectives or timetables havebeen set regarding this second—externalknowledge-sharing—phase of the Bank’sknowledge initiative. Nor has effective coordi-nation in implementing the knowledge initia-tive become routine among corporate, net-work, and Regional units.

Greater strategic direction by senior man-agement across the Bank is needed to guidethis mainstreaming of the knowledge initiativeand to ensure that individual programs andactivities, which are the responsibilities of thevarious units, cohere in a way that achieves theBank’s intention to make knowledge sharing away of doing business.

39

6 . CO N C LU S I O N S A N D R E CO M M E N DAT I O N S

To realize more fully the knowledge initia-tive’s potential to enhance the operations ofthe Bank and empower clients to meet theirdevelopment goals, this review recommendsthree sets of actions:

• While recognizing that all units across theBank have responsibilities for makingknowledge sharing a way of doing business,management should exercise greater strate-gic direction and oversight over the institu-tion’s knowledge processes. More specifi-cally, management should:

– Define clear responsibilities and account-abilities of corporate, network, andRegional units for integrating knowledgesharing into the Bank’s core businessprocesses and better integrating knowl-edge and learning programs.

– Ensure that incentives are aligned withresponsibilities, especially at the taskmanager level.

– The proposed Global Programs andPartnerships Council should articulate astrategic approach to the Bank’s role inexisting and in any new global knowl-edge initiatives, and the Bank shouldprepare and institute a long-term planfor the GDLN—including a financialplan as well as clarification of the Bank’sforward involvement and the responsi-bilities of different Bank units for man-aging that involvement and the integra-tion of the GDLN into Bank countryprograms.

• Network and Regional knowledge-sharingactivities should tightly link to core busi-ness processes and move beyond knowledgeaggregation and access to increased focuson knowledge adoption, adaptation, anduse. For example:

– Networks should set clear objectives foranchor, thematic group, and advisoryservice support of operational teams.

– Regional and country units should makeexplicit the knowledge objectives ofCASs and projects and the strategies tobe used in leveraging knowledge in sup-port of the achievement of overall devel-opment goals.

– Networks and Regions should strength-en their respective responsibilities in thecapture, validation, and application oflessons learned and good practices.

• Frameworks should be established for mon-itoring and evaluating network, Regional/country, and global knowledge-sharing pro-grams and activities. This involves:

– Setting outcome objectives and support-ing indicators (baselines, monitorabletargets, and benchmarks of progress).

– Defining procedures, roles, and responsi-bilities for monitoring progress and eval-uating achievements against the statedobjectives.

– Also, depending on the outcome of itsongoing baseline assessment of the per-formance of sector boards, the QualityAssurance Group (QAG) should contin-ue to review at appropriate intervals thequality of the networks’ knowledge shar-ing. OED country assistance, sector andthematic, and project evaluations shouldlook beyond the quality of underlyinganalytical work to the adequacy of theknowledge transfer processes and theirimpact on the development effectivenessof Bank-supported programs. And boththe Quality Assurance Group and OEDshould build client feedback into theirassessments.


41

A N N E X A . K N O W L E D G E - S H A R I N G C H R O N O LO G Y( 1 9 9 6 – 0 2 )

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Strategy President’s Strategic World Development Knowledge Strategic Knowledge-milestones Annual Meeting Compact Report focuses on management Forum sharing framework

speech features focuses on knowledge for included in identifies proposed“Knowledge retooling development World Bank knowledgeBank” knowledge mission sharing as key

base statement action area

Individual Thematic groups & 100 thematic groups Global Global Developmentprograms & advisory services and 16 advisory Development Development Gateway launchedactivities launched services established: Network Learning

4 of 6 Regions have launched Networkdatabases and launchedknowledge-sharing activities

Institutional infrastructure

Governance Networks established Knowledge Knowledge Strategic Compact VPwith knowledge and learning management assessment of Knowledgemanagement council unit moved progress; knowledge Steeringmandate; knowledge established from ISG to management unit Committeemanagement unit Operational moved to World establishedestablished in Core Services Bank InstituteInformation Solution Group

Technology External Web Field offices Intranetsite posted linked to global revamped;

communications Lotus Notes system launched

People/ Budget for Knowledge sharingresources knowledge becomes indicator in

management staff Overall allocated Performance

Evaluations

(Activities in italics are included in the evalu-ation)

Regional/Country Activities

Publications, newsletters, and Web sitesDatabasesKnowledge events (conferences, workshops,

continuous learning events)Country global knowledge initiativesKnowledge-sharing components of

CAS/PRSP processes and country operations

Network/Sector Activities

Thematic groups

Publications, newsletters, and Web sitesDatabasesNetworking and knowledge-sharing events(Brown bag lunches, workshops)Direct support to task teams (informaladvice, peer reviews)

Advisory services/Help desks

Request responseKnowledge aggregationDirect support of task teams, Network/sectormanagement

Anchors

Publications, newsletters, and Web sitesDatabasesDirect support to task teamsKnowledge events (sector weeks, other)Knowledge partnerships

A N N E X B. I N V E N TO RY O F B A N K K N O W L E D G E -S H A R I N G AC T I V I T I E S

Global Knowledge Initiatives

Development GatewayGlobal Development Learning NetworkGlobal Development NetworkInfodevWorldLinksAfrican Virtual University

Corporate

OEDDECWBIWorld Bank Internet, databases,

public informationPublication sales and disseminationWorld Bank libraries

43

Knowledge management was just emerging asa major organizational strategy when the Bankannounced its knowledge initiative in 1996.Many corporations and a number of largepublic organizations had recently established,or were in the process of establishing, knowl-edge management programs based on the viewthat organizations needed to be smarter, faster,more innovative, and more agile in the emerg-ing global knowledge economy.

Since then, a substantial literature has builtup that documents experiences in implement-ing knowledge management programs. Inaddition, there has been a growing body ofresearch on the determinants of successfulknowledge transfer. Five key messages fromthat literature provided useful insights forOED’s evaluation of the implementation of theBank’s knowledge-sharing initiative.

Knowledge sharing is a process, not a line of business

Much of the early practice and writing onmanaging knowledge focused on explicitknowledge—“knowledge one can see anddocument”—and on how to capture, organ-ize, and disseminate it. The core aim wasdefined as “knowing what we know, captur-ing and organizing it, and using it to producereturns” (Stewart 1997, p. 112). Knowledgewas understood as a substance to be engi-neered—produced, catalogued, warehoused,and shipped. And knowledge managementwas seen as an activity that could be assignedto a designated few in an organization thatwould be responsible for “decanting the

human capital into the structural capital of anorganization” (Skyme 2000, p. 4).

Over the past 10 years, experience withknowledge management programs has led to ashift away from this view of knowledge as anentity that exists independent of people or con-text and that can be moved about and manip-ulated for organizational advantage. The coreconcept is increasingly seen as “a process foroptimizing the effective application of intellec-tual capital to achieve organizational objec-tives” (U.S. Department of the Navy 2001, p.7). Greater attention is being paid to tacitknowledge and how it can be effectivelyshared. Also, studies have shown that pro-grams cannot assume that the transfer ofknowledge will come automatically withknowledge sharing. Rather, tools and activitiesneed to make sure that what is shared can beadopted, adapted, and used. With the changein thinking has come a change in terminolo-gy—with the designation knowledge sharingtending to replace knowledge management.

Organizations have begun, therefore, toreframe the way they approach the practice ofknowledge sharing, the key change being amove away from building knowledge reposito-ries to integrating knowledge sharing into corebusiness processes. In other words, knowledge-sharing programs are being focused squarelyon the core processes of an organization, withthose processes taken as the target points forapplying knowledge-sharing tools and activi-ties. And the purpose is being defined asempowering process managers with the meansto achieve performance objectives by embed-ding knowledge-sharing tools and capacities

45

A N N E X C . L E S S O N S F R O M T H E L I T E R AT U R E O N K N O W L E D G E MA N AG E M E N T

into their work processes and practices. This,in turn, requires that knowledge-sharing pro-grams be built on a clear view of the points inthe business processes where knowledge can beleveraged for greatest value. With this changeto a more integrated or operational approach,knowledge sharing is increasingly being seennot as a function of an organization but as acompetency of its people.

Success lies in the application—not just the aggregation and sharing—of knowledge

Studies that deal with what makes for the suc-cessful transfer of knowledge emphasize thatknowledge has to be “internalized” if it is tobe used effectively. While it can be disseminat-ed globally at great speed, it has to be adaptedlocally by “incumbent firms” or the “localdoers of development.” And that adaptationhas been shown to involve active, extendedlearning rather than simple communicationprocesses.

A survey of the literature indicates that theextent to which knowledge is effectively trans-ferred, absorbed, and applied depends on howwell knowledge-sharing efforts handle threedimensions of the knowledge-sharing process:

1. Accurate assessment of the type of knowl-edge that is needed—whether explicit ortacit and whether embedded in tools, rou-tines, or networks of people

2. The appropriateness of the arrangements—or rules of engagement—by which theknowledge is exchanged: in particular, theextent of agreement on the goals of theknowledge exchange, differences in capaci-ties of the parties involved and how thosedifferences are taken into account, andunderstanding of the circumstances inwhich the knowledge sharing takes place

3. The applicability of the knowledge-sharingactivities to the kind of knowledge neededand the context within which it isexchanged (Cummings 2002).

Implementation of knowledge-sharing initiatives requires a planned transition fromadvocacy to institutionalization, and typical-ly occurs over a period of about three years

In a benchmarking study of how variousorganizations (including the World Bank) haveimplemented knowledge-sharing programs,the American Productivity and Quality Centeridentified five stages that organizations typi-cally go through, and the key steps in each ofthose stages (APQC 2000a). The progressionis illustrated in the following diagram.

One of the overarching findings from thatstudy was that the most successful efforts haveinvolved a plan for how to transition frombuilding new knowledge-sharing tools andactivities and creating awareness of their valuefor core business processes to actually embed-


STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4 STAGE 5

• Advocate • Explore and experiment • Pilot • Develop organization- • Integrate strategy into• Establish cross-functional group • Measure results wide strategy management process

and oversight body • Identify roles and • Shift implementation from• Outline objectives responsibilities KM team to operational staff

• Establish measures, formal • Codify expected outcomesbudgeting, and reporting • Monitor value to the

organization

Design and Launch KM Initiatives Expand and SupportGet Started Develop Strategy Institutionalize KM

ding knowledge sharing into those processesthroughout the organization. While experi-ence has shown that this transition tends notto be strictly linear, the evolution from “advo-cacy to institutionalization” in many reportedcases has taken some three to five years.

Communities of practice can play a varietyof roles within organizations, but all need todemonstrate value and be accountable

Increasingly, private and public sector organi-zations are providing resources, time, and col-laborative tools to formal and informal net-works of workers—often called communitiesof practice—to increase the sharing of lessonslearned and experience. While the value ofthese communities to organizations was ini-tially taken largely on faith, expectationsabout their roles and scrutiny of their per-formance have tended to increase commensu-rate with organizations’ investments of stafftime and funding for community activities.

Over the past decade, at least three differenttypes of communities have emerged withinlarge organizations. The first is communitiesof interest, which are groups of individualswith a common interest that may or may notrelate to their day-to-day work, but that shareideals and communicate or collaborate. Thesecond is communities of practice, which aregroups of individuals who share a commonwork practice over time. These groups tend tocut across traditional organizational bound-aries and enable individuals to acquire newknowledge or new skills at an accelerated rate.For the most part, they build and apply thesame practices, and negotiate which methodswork best and when they are most useful.They are guardians of competence in thatpractice within an organization and they helpeach other to develop the competence to con-tribute individually within their business units.The third is intentional communities of prac-tice, which are groups with some specific busi-ness goal that the community is collectivelyaccountable to deliver and which have a fixedlifespan—until what they are aiming for hasbeen delivered.

While all may exist in an organization at thesame time, recent studies of practitioner com-munities emphasize the importance of clearlydifferentiating among their potential contribu-tions to organizational objectives and the waysthey will, therefore, be managed, supported,and assessed. In at least one corporation, thisevolution toward more rigorous expectationsof the role and performance of communitieshas led to the establishment of general guide-lines and “community charters.” Typically, acharter explains what type of community hasbeen formed and why; identifies how the com-munity will support long-term business objec-tives; states what the primary and secondaryobjectives of the community are and howprogress toward those objectives will be meas-ured; outlines what the principle activities willbe for achieving the objectives; and indicatesthe expected benefits of those activities foreach category of community participant.

Although early efforts to monitor commu-nity performance attempted only to measureactivities (for example, by counting Web sitehits, attendance at meetings, and responses toe-mail queries), a more recent approach startsfrom the proposition that communities typi-cally aim to help individual members,strengthen the practices of a community (orother business units or teams), and buildbroader organizational capacity. The assess-ment framework is, therefore, built on exam-ining outcomes and value added in terms ofwhich of these objectives a specific communityaims to achieve and the relevance of its statedobjective(s) to specified measures of businessperformance (Fontaine and Millen 2002;McDermott 2002).

Effective knowledge-sharing programsrequire comprehensive approaches to content management

To be effective, knowledge-sharing programsneed to ensure that the knowledge and infor-mation that are made available are not onlyeasily accessible but also readily applicable.For this, programs need to take an active andcomprehensive approach to managing their

A N N E X C | 47

content, putting knowledge or informationtogether in such a way that it can be immedi-ately adapted and used.

Although many knowledge managementprograms, in their early phases, have tended toview this process of content management in anarrow, technological perspective of onlinepresentation and navigation, experience hasshown that more is needed if the right knowl-edge is going to get to the right place in theright time to contribute to intended outcomes.Specifically, knowledge-sharing programsneed to encompass processes for assuringquality, freshness, and applicability of distrib-uted knowledge, with the aim of ensuring theavailability of operationally relevant knowl-edge and information at the point and time ofneed. This entails processes of content assess-ment, or identification of knowledge gaps;content aggregation, including the validationand packaging of knowledge and informationin ways that best enable their adaptation andcustomization to specific users’ needs; andcontent maintenance, based on clear indica-

tions of who is responsible for keeping knowl-edge and information up to date and at whatintervals, taking into account that informationloses value over time and storage is not cheap.

Corresponding criteria that some organiza-tions now use for assessing the effectiveness bywhich they aggregate, store, and disseminatetheir knowledge are:

• Relevance: systematic, ongoing knowledgeassessment and inventory of knowledgeassets

• Accuracy: determined by peer validation,not on an ad hoc basis, but anchored in theregular workflow of staff

• Access: based on ability of intended users toobtain the knowledge or information theyneed to make decisions or complete tasksrelevant to their work

• Currency: judged according to policies andprocedures for retiring and archiving out-of-date content and for maintaining a deepunderstanding of users’ changing knowl-edge needs.


Criteria Indicators (illustrative) Evidence (illustrative)

Relevance • Programs and activities anchored in corporate and • Knowledge-sharing strategic objectives, country priorities including client and audience, well defined

• Programs and activities built on Bank comparative and linked to corporate, sector and thematic, advantage country assistance strategies, and core

• Institutional support aligned with knowledge- business processessharing strategy

Quality and timeliness of • Aggregated knowledge is tailored and timed to client • Staff, client, expert reviews and surveysknowledge products and needs, clearly presented, technically sound, and state-of- • Bank content management processesservices the-art

Accessibility and reach of • Intended users/clients have ready access to up-to- • Dissemination tracking, usability testing, tacit and codified knowledge date knowledge and expertise needed to do their jobs usage monitoring of published and on-line

knowledge and information and knowledge services

• Staff, client participation in knowledge-sharing events

• Staff, client feedback surveys, focus groups, reviews

Utility • Knowledge products and knowledge-sharing activities • Knowledge strategy articulated in CAS/Povertyincorporated into core business processes Reduction Strategy Paper and operations

• Shared knowledge adapted and applied by clients in • Knowledge products and activities built intopolicies, programs, and institutional developments staff and client (team) learning activities

• Lessons learned and good practices captured and • Staff and client feedback surveysfeedback to Bank and client • Program and activity self-assessments

• QAG and OED assessments of knowledge-sharing process in country programs, and lending and nonlending services

Likely impact • Bank and client knowledge bases and capacities • Ongoing knowledge assessmentsenhanced • Self-, independent assessments of program

• Targeted improvements in Bank portfolio performance and activity outcomes relative to stated • Interim and longer-term development objectives objectives

achieved

Cost effectiveness • Programs and activities carried out without more • Tracking and benchmarking of the costs resources than necessary to achieve objectives of programs or activities

Source: OED 2002a.

49

A N N E X D. E VA LUAT I O N F R A M E W O R K FO R K N O W L E D G E - S H A R I N G P R O G R A M S A N D AC T I V I T I E S : C R I T E R I A , I N D I C ATO R S , A N D E V I D E N C E

The evaluation framework used by this review in assessing the Bank’s expanded internal and external knowledge-sharing activities is summarized in the following table.

This note describes the approach followed foreach of the evaluation surveys and back-ground reviews undertaken for the knowl-edge-sharing evaluation. The reliance on sur-veys, which is greater than usual in OEDevaluations, reflects in part the scarcity ofreporting, monitoring, and self-assessmentthat currently characterizes the individualknowledge-sharing programs and activities.

Client Survey and Workshop

A survey was conducted to seek client viewson the relevance, quality, and usefulness ofBank knowledge-sharing efforts. A total of121 individuals participated in survey inter-views—in roughly equal numbers from each offive countries—over the period June-Septem-ber 2002. Participants were from government,the private sector, research and academia,NGOs, and media. The countries wereBangladesh, Brazil, Poland, Senegal, and Tan-zania.

Each survey respondent participated in anin-person interview conducted by a residentexpert commissioned by OED. Interviewswere based on a common guideline preparedby OED with the help of an external surveyexpert. The guideline included open-ended,qualitative questions and quantitative ques-tions that asked respondents to rate specificattributes of Bank knowledge products andservices. Verbatim reports from all interviewsprovided the input for a synthesis report pre-pared by the external consultant to OED.Aggregate quantitative ratings presented in thesynthesis report were based on unweightedaverages of responses. A possible source of

bias is that the interviewers were identifiedand a list of interviewees constructed with thehelp of country offices. But this bias is miti-gated by OED’s role in the final selection ofthe interviewers, specification of categories ofinterviewees, and final selection of names fromlists provided, as well as by the preparation ofthe interview protocol and synthesis report byan outside consultant.

A follow-up workshop was held at Bankheadquarters, November 25-26, 2002, todeepen understanding of the results obtainedfrom the client survey and to seek recommen-dations on ways to strengthen the Bank’sknowledge products and services. Participantsincluded nine survey participants and fourexternal experts, as well as OED and otherWorld Bank staff.

Advisory Services Survey

OED and the World Bank Institute conducteda joint survey of 19 Bank advisory services/ help desks in February-March 2002 to obtaininformation on their activities, outputs, andoutcomes. Fifteen services responded, for aresponse rate of 75 percent (see list of respon-dents below).

The e-mail–based survey covered five maintopics: (1) descriptive information (such asobjectives, reporting structure, resources, serv-ices, client definition, and operating princi-ples); (2) number, sources, and nature ofqueries; (3) areas of growing demand andexpansion plans; (4) quality assurance proce-dures; and (5) challenges.

Analyses of the responses were separatelyprepared by OED and WBI and compared,

51

A N N E X E. M E T H O D O LO G Y N OT E

and a report of survey findings was presentedand discussed at a retreat of Advisory Servicesin March 2002.

The participating Advisory Services were:Data Help Desk, Education Advisory Service,Energy Help Desk, ESSD Advisory Service,Web Feedback, Financial Sector Knowledgeand Information Service, OED Help Desk,OPCPS Advisory Service, PREM Advisory Ser-vice, Rapid Response Unit (Private SectorAdvisory Service), Safeguard Policies HelpDesk, Social Protection Advisory Service,Transport Help Desk, Urban Help Desk, andWater Help Desk.

Thematic Group Survey

OED surveyed 28 thematic groups, one-thirdof the Bank’s FY02 total, in May-June 2002(see list below). Participating groups wereselected for the survey by means of a stratifiedrandom sample. The sample was drawn fromstrata representing each Bank sector, with thenumber of thematic groups selected from asector reflecting its proportion of the Bank’stotal number, with no sector having less thanone group selected.

The survey was conducted by means ofstructured interviews with the thematic groupcoordinators of all 28 groups, based on a com-mon interview protocol. The interviews, whichlasted approximately 45 minutes, covered fourmain topics: (1) descriptive information (suchas date of origin, size and composition of mem-bership, objectives); (2) activities and theireffectiveness; (3) management processes forprogramming, budgeting, reporting, and deter-mining group knowledge needs; and (4) proce-dures for monitoring and evaluation. Informa-tion from the surveys was supplemented bymaterials provided by thematic group coordi-nators or sector managers, or available on theWeb sites of individual groups.

A draft synthesis of survey findings was dis-tributed to all survey participants for com-ment.

The participating thematic groups were:Biodiversity; Child Labor; Civic Engagement;Coastal and Marine Resource Management;

Community-Based Rural Development; DebtMarkets; Disability; Early Child Development;E-Government; Gender and Rural Develop-ment; Growth; Involuntary Settlement; Nutri-tion; Payment Systems; Population and Repro-ductive Health; Ports, Rails, Aviation andLogistics; Poverty Impact Analysis, Monitor-ing and Evaluation; Private Delivery of PublicServices; Public Expenditure Management;Quality of Fiscal Adjustment; Rural Microfi-nance and Small and Medium-Size Enterpris-es; Rural Private Sector, Markets, Finance andInfrastructure; Rural Water and Sanitation;School Health; Secondary Education; SocialAnalysis and Policy; Urban Economics andDevelopment Strategy; and Urban Environ-ment.

Staff User Survey

OED conducted an interview survey of a sam-ple of Bank operational staff to elicit informa-tion on how staff obtain information needed todo their jobs and how lessons from experienceare built into and captured from operations.The staff surveyed were selected from the taskteams of a random sample of 21 projects (18investment and 3 adjustment) approved inFY01, representing 10 percent of the totalapprovals of that year. A total of 30 staff weresurveyed, including the task manager of eachof 19 projects and a second team member inhalf of all investment projects. In addition, theAppraisal Documents or the Memorandumand Recommendations of the President werereviewed for information on the knowledgedimensions of the respective projects.

A common protocol was used for the inter-views and document review that addresses asfour sets of questions: (1) sources of informa-tion used in the design of the projects (Bankand external analysis and documentation,databases, thematic groups, advisory services,Web sites, peer reviews, informal contacts); (2)knowledge-sharing activities undertaken in thecourse of project implementation; (3) knowl-edge capacity-building components of proj-ects; and (4) views on overall improvements inBank knowledge sharing, utility of different


knowledge-sharing activities, and adequacy ofincentives for staff participation.

A draft synthesis of survey findings was dis-tributed to all survey participants for com-ment.

Expert Reviews

External experts commissioned by OEDreviewed the quality, relevance, and innova-tiveness of the Bank’s shared knowledge infour issue areas: power sector reform, primaryand secondary education, public expendituremanagement, and rural and urban water sup-ply. Two criteria were used in selecting theissues: (1) diversity across sectors and themesand (2) extensive Bank involvement across awide range of both IBRD and IDA countries.Three of the four experts have served as con-sultants to the Bank, but none has been a Bankemployee.

The materials reviewed, selected by OED inconsultation with the relevant sector units ofthe Bank, included research and analyticalreports, country-specific economic and sectorwork, and supporting materials for major con-ferences or workshops in each field. Theexperts were also asked to review the qualityand accessibility of material on related WorldBank Web sites. In addition, they were askedto look at a sample of projects to determinehow adequately projects were building in cut-ting-edge knowledge.

The experts were asked to use a commonset of six criteria in making their evaluations.These were (1) relevance: was the material rel-evant to clients’ needs? (2) comprehensiveness:was the material appropriately comprehensivein its treatment of the subject matter? (3) levelof knowledge: did the material provide clientswith the best and most up-to-date knowledgeon the issue? (4) clarity: were the ideas andrecommendations in the materials stated clear-ly? (5) objectivity: did the materials presentinformation in an objective manner (indicat-ing, where pertinent, existing differences ofviewpoint)? and (6) practicality: did the mate-rials provide information of practical useful-ness to decisionmakers?

Each item reviewed was rated separately asinput into an overall synthesis assessment.Draft reviews were shared with Bank staff andrevised to take account of their comments.

Consultant Reviews of the DevelopmentGateway and the Global Development Learn-ing Network

Independent consultants were commissionedby OED to prepare desk reviews of the designand start-up of the two knowledge initiatives.The reviews, conducted within limited consul-tancy periods of three weeks, were based onexamination of program documents, inter-views with relevant Bank staff, and selectedtelephone interviews with partners in eachprogram.

Using standard OED evaluation criteria(relevance, efficacy, and efficiency), each pro-gram was reviewed in terms of its: (1) clarity ofobjective and the importance of the objectiveto achieving the Bank’s overall mission; (2)early evidence of extent to which it is likely toachieve its intended objectives; and (3) thecost-effectiveness of the program as an instru-ment for knowledge sharing and the sustain-ability of the program, given the existing busi-ness model and the level of support currentlybeing provided.

Specifically, the review of the DevelopmentGateway covered the four Gateway services(Knowledge/Topics, AiDA, dgMarket, and theCountry Gateways), the integration of the pro-gram into Bank operations, the governance ofthe program, and the role of the Bank. Con-sultants for this review were staff of an inde-pendent knowledge and an information servic-es consulting firm in Canada. The consultantswere previously part of a team that had pre-pared a report for the Bank on the manage-ment of its portfolio of global knowledge pro-grams.

The GDLN review, which covered the pro-gram’s affiliated Distance Learning Centers,central GDLN Services, and integration of theprogram into Bank operations, was conductedby a distance learning expert on the teachingstaff of Syracuse University Training Systems

A N N E X E | 53

Institute and staff of a technology and trainingsystems institute in Brazil. The reviewer hasworked as a consultant on Bank educationprojects.

Draft reviews were shared with each pro-gram’s core Bank staff and revised to takeaccount of their comments.


A N N E X F. E XA M P L E S O F CO M PA R ATO R K N O W L E D G E I N I T I AT I V E S

Mission/ objectives Activities/ services Governance/ funding Stakeholders Key programs

British Council • To connect people • Link UK schools with • Incorporated as a • Funding partner: UK • Montageworldwide with partner schools in charity in the UK, Foreign and Common- • Windows on the learning opportunities developing countries operates as an wealth Office World school-and creative ideas • Provide venue for executive nondepart- • Program partner: linking databasefrom the UK, and to shared curriculum mental public body World Bank • Knowledge andbuild lasting relation- development for • Overseen by a board Learning Centers ships between the teachers of trustees ProjectUK and other countries • Provide Internet access, • UK Foreign and Com- • Global Library and

• To leverage UK distance learning, monwealth Office Information experiences for global videoconferencing provides annual grant; Networkdevelopment facilities additional funding

• Development priorities: • Maintain global net- from UK government education, arts, science, work of libraries and agencies, international governance, information information resource bodies, private sector; sharing centers approx. 40% revenue

(£170M) from selling services

Virtual Colombo • To create opportunities • Teacher education, • Joint initiative of • Target audience: edu- • Teacher trainingPlan (AusAID) to improve education including 200 scholar- AusAID and the cators, students, • Content

and access to knowledge ships for trainee World Bank policy-makers, developmentacross the developing teachers • $1.5 billion partnership; researchers • Teacher scholarshipworld for everything • Plan to establish eight Australian government • Partners: IBRD (GDLN, • Distance Learning from primary school multipurpose IT pledged AUS$400 M— Gateway), Australian Centersteacher training to ad- teacher training $38 M to teacher train- universities, Australian vanced courses for centers ing, $22M to improve Ministry of Foreign policymakers • Extend access to access to knowledge, Affairs (Australian

• Use Australian expertise information in under- $10M for Development government sponsor)to deliver distance served regions and Gateways, $18M to • Target countries: Asia education programs contribute to policy promote policy Pacific, Africa (12

development development countries targeted)

Bellanet • International initiative • Serves as a vehicle for • Budget is approximate- • Target audience: • IDML (markup

working with the devel- governments and dev- ly US$1.5M donors, development language initiative)

opment community to elopment agencies to • International nonprofit agencies, end • WAVE Web-

increase collaboration cooperatively experi- initiative governed by beneficiaries browsing through

and provide advice and ment with ICT a steering committee • Funding partners: e-mail

assistance on effective initiatives representing several CIDA, Danish Interna- • Global Knowledge

use of ICTs • Monitors and supports donor institutions and tional Development Partnership (GKP)

• Development priori- technology innovations hosted by IRDC Assistance, IRDC, Virtual Activities

ties: Capacity building, with applications for • Functions as a Swedish International • iTrain Online

technology enablement development secretariat with Development Cooper-

• Provides hosting and 10 full-time staff ation Agency, UNDP,

online workspace Rockefeller &

applications for more MacArthur

than 20 organizations Foundations

55


Leland Initiative (USAID) • 5-year effort to extend • Work with governments • Budget is US$15M over • Target audience: • Leland subinitia-Internet connectivity to design a national 5 years African governments tives: Leland to 20+ African countries, gateway; define an e- • USAID and host benefit from readiness School-to-School building on existing readiness strategy; and country sign an MOU assessments and connectivity capacity procure, partner, and for collaboration and implementation program

• Objectives: enabling implement connectivity codevelopment of a coordination • Other USAID policy environment; solutions plan of action • End beneficiaries and initiatives includesustainable supply of • Hopes to train 5,000 country telecommun- the Global Internet services; regulatory staff over ication providers Technology enhanced Internet use the next 3 years benefit from increased Networkfor sustainable • Leland School-to- connectivitydevelopment School Program focuses

on connectivity for education

Imfundo (DFID) • DFID initiative to create • Resource Bank to assist • Budget is £7 million • Target audience: DFID • Other programs and manage ICT partner- governments and staff over 5 years country staff, govern- from DFID include ships for education in to access resources and • Initiative is an integral ments and policy- “Significance of ICTAfrica expertise from the part of DFID’s Africa makers for Reducing

• A resource for DFID’s private sector Division • Three categories of Poverty” study and country offices to identi- • Knowledge Bank, • DFID created compre- partners: “Building Digital fy and broker private focused on sharing hensive ethical guide- –Resource Bank Opportunities”sector partnerships DFID experiences with lines for partnerships partners (private sector initiative

• DFID launched 13 ICT education initiatives and requires shared suppliers)programs in 2001 with and identifying and understanding and –Liaison partners budgets over £100,000; addressing gaps in MOU (shared objectives)39 have been launched applied research or –Local delivery in total since 1998 analysis partners

Markle Foundation • Foundation devoted • Programs: Policy for a • A private not-for-profit • Target audience: NGOs, • Global Digital entirely to the develop- Networked Society; philanthropy and development agencies, Opportunity ment of ICTs, taking a Interactive Media for grant-making organi- policymakers, donors Programleadership role in Children, Information zation, at times actively • GDOP partners: broad- • Digital Opportunityestablishing and main- Technologies for manages ongoing based memberships Summittaining partnerships Better Health projects including approx. 50 • Founding partner,

• Commitment to use • Sample investments: • Foundation has US$200 private and public Global Network capital funds in order Joint project with million in assets; plan sector organizations Readiness & to increase impact of Oxygen Media, PBS to invest US$100 • Grant recipients and Resource InitiativeICT investments curriculum-based million over 3-5 years their beneficiaries

• Priorities: health, Internet project; • Opportunity Fund: children, policy for a Chinese Academy of Grants have ranged networked society, Social Sciences from US$1,000 to public engagement US$3.5 million

UN Development • UN’s principal provider • Acts as a coordinating • Governed by a 36- • Target audience: • ICT for Develop-Programme (UNDP) of development advice mechanism at the member executive governments and ment Programme

and grant support global level (DOI, board, representing policymakers, end to increase • ICT for Development Dotforce) both developing and beneficiaries awareness and

agenda is focused on • Partners to provide developed countries • Initiative partners: pilot telecentersstimulating the enabl- country-level assistance • Voluntarily funded Bellanet, Cisco, Markle • WIDE platform ing environment, acting in defining ICT strate- organization Foundation, IBM for south-south as a catalyst for the gies, as well as to • US$2.2 billion in total cooperationapplication of ICT, inno- support programs resources from OECD • UN Volunteers vating new projects to donors, multilateral UNITeS (United leverage ICT partners or program nations Information

country governments Technology Service)

• NetAid (see below)• SDNP



Netaid (Cisco, UNDP) • To mobilize direct • Provides transaction • NetAid Foundation • Target audience: • NetAid World support to local develop- marketplace for functions as an donors, development Schoolhousement projects to fight donations (individual independent nonprofit agencies, end • Launched with a extreme poverty and or corporate) to directly company, based in NY beneficiaries high-profile rock provide a connection support local develop- • Overseen by a board • Delivery partners: concertbetween (nontradition- ment organizations of directors Cisco, UNDP joint al) donors and delivery • Evaluates and monitors • Majority of core ventureorganizations project quality and operating and develop- • Also: UN Volunteers,

accountability ment costs are funded UNICEF, CARE, Save • “Dollar in=dollar out” by original partners the Children, Inter-

donation policy (Cisco, UNDP) national Rescue Committee

Global Information • To foster private sector • Provide a vehicle for • An independent, non- • Target audience: • GIIC AfricaInfrastructure leadership and private- participation for the governmental initiative private sector • GIIC AsiaCommission (GIIC) public sector coopera- private sector and a involving leaders from (particularly IT),

tion in the development discussion forum for a developing as well as policymakers, of information networks range of international industrialized countries donorsand services to advance organizations • 11-member board of • Members: 50 CEOs global economic • Develop a research directors sets overall and presidents of growth, education agenda on information direction, including major international and quality of life infrastructure and budget for operations; corporations, policy-

• Development priorities: hold consultative Managing Director is makers, and academics global electronic meetings on regional responsible for imple- from around the worldcommerce, GII develop- infrastructure issues mentingment, education

Source: Digital 4Sight 2002.

A N N E X F | 57

Background

This report summarizes the findings from afive-country client survey conducted by theOperations Evaluation Department (OED) ofthe World Bank in mid-2002. The survey,which was part of a broad-ranging OED eval-uation of World Bank knowledge productsand services, examines clients’ views on thequality and usefulness of knowledge and infor-mation provided by the Bank. The five partic-ipating countries were Bangladesh, Brazil,Poland, Senegal, and Tanzania.

A. Objectives

The aim of the survey was to gain understand-ing of how diverse constituencies view the rel-evance, accessibility, and applicability ofdevelopment knowledge and expertise that theWorld Bank has helped them to acquire anduse, and the impact that exchange of knowl-edge has had on their work. The survey exam-ined the following questions:

• The current use of World Bank informationand advice, and how it is obtained

• Overall views on the quality and applicabil-ity of information and analysis provided bythe Bank

• The effectiveness of different modes ofexchanging knowledge supported by theBank, including not only written reportsand advisory services, but also training andexchanges across countries

• The key factors that contribute to or inhib-it effective knowledge sharing

• The perceived impact of Bank knowledgeproducts and services.

B. Methodology

A total of 121 individuals participated in sur-vey interviews, in roughly equal numbers fromeach of the five countries. They included repre-sentatives from government, the private sector,research and academic communities, NGOs,and media—all with significant developmentexpertise and familiarity with the World Bank.

Each survey respondent participated in anin-person interview conducted by individualsfrom within the respective country. Interviewswere based on a common guideline preparedby OED, which included open-ended, qualita-tive questions and quantitative questions thatasked respondents to rate specific attributes ofBank knowledge products and services. Verba-tim reports from all interviews have providedthe input for this synthesis report. Table G.1presents the number of respondents by coun-try, profession, and sector.

Summary of Main Findings

The majority of respondents from all coun-tries, professions, and sectors spoke favorablyof the World Bank information that they use intheir work. In spite of their generally positiveassessment of Bank information overall, how-ever, respondents were critical of specificaspects of Bank information and delivery (forexample, adaptation to local circumstances,dissemination, collaboration, and support forinstitutional capacity building). Predictably,respondents’ overall views of and previousexperience with the Bank played an importantrole in their assessment and use of Bank infor-mation.

A N N E X G . C L I E N T S U R V E Y R E P O R T

Perspectives on World Bank Knowledge Products and Services:

Findings from a Five-Country Survey

Prepared by David Shirley, Consultant

November 12, 2002

59

Main findings included:

• Tension between Technical Soundness andApplicability to Local Circumstances. Themajority of respondents from all countries,professions, and sectors agreed that theinformation provided by the World Bank isof unquestionably high quality—as long asquality is defined strictly in terms of techni-cal soundness and sophistication. Whendiscussing the quality of Bank information,however, respondents were often critical ofthe Bank’s ability to provide informationthat is realistic in light of local circum-stances and responsive to local needs. Manyinsisted that technical soundness is mean-ingless apart from applicability to the localcontext. Figure G.2 indicates the degree towhich respondents were more critical of therealism of Bank information in light of localcircumstances than of other specific attrib-utes of Bank information (“relevance,”“timeliness,” and “technical soundness”)and the quality of the information overall.

• Frustration with the Bank’s Failure to Con-sider Alternative Perspectives. The majorityof respondents complained that the Bank istoo narrowly focused in the analyses and“best practices” that it presents, with littleor no attention to alternative perspectives.Many respondents expressed frustrationabout the Bank’s insistence that its modelsand solutions represent the only viableapproach to solving economic and socialproblems in their country. Several respon-dents complained that the Bank’s insistencethat its approach is the only correctapproach generates mistrust and suspicion

of the Bank and substantially decreasesreceptivity to Bank information overall.

• Poor Record in Dissemination. Virtually allrespondents criticized the Bank’s weaknessin disseminating information to peoplewho need it. The majority of respondentsblamed the Bank’s poor dissemination onits traditional practice of communicatingprimarily or exclusively with governmentofficials. Governments lack either the insti-tutional capacity to disseminate informa-tion throughout the country or fail to shareit with other groups that could benefitfrom it. Respondents agreed that, in orderto optimize the impact of its informationon a countrywide level, the Bank mustabandon its “top-down,” government-focused approach to information dissemi-nation and be more proactive in its effortsto reach previously underserved individu-als and groups.

• Mixed Reviews on Collaboration. Respon-dents’ views diverged about the degree towhich the Bank collaborates—or fails tocollaborate—with local expertise in theircountries. A substantial number of respon-dents criticized the Bank’s poor record ofcollaboration, along with its condescensiontoward their own knowledge and experi-ence. A comparable number of respondentsspoke favorably of the Bank’s collaborationand use of local expertise within their coun-tries. Many respondents—even some ofthose who were highly critical of the Bank’spoor record in the past—observed that theBank’s level of collaboration has improvedin recent years.

TABLE G.1: Number of Respondents

By Country By Profession By Sector

Bangladesh 23 Academic 22 Econ./General 85

Brazil 27 Government 69 Education 13

Poland 25 Media 9 Power 13

Senegal 25 NGO 7 Water 10

Tanzania 21 Private Sector 11

Other 3


• Distinction between Analytical and Institu-tional Capacity Enhancement. Respondentswere also divided in their assessment of theBank’s contributions to analytical and insti-tutional capacity in their countries, as wellas the importance of Bank efforts in theseareas in the future. Many credited the Bankwith having made substantial contributionsto their personal analytical capacities, butviewed the Bank’s contributions to institu-tional capacity as negligible, particularlyoutside governmental institutions.

• Overall Perception of Positive Change. Themajority of respondents, including manywho were openly critical of Bank informa-tion overall, described positive changes inthe Bank’s recent knowledge products andservices. Respondents named a variety offactors (for example, increased transparen-cy, increased reliance on the Internet,increased collaboration with and use oflocal expertise, overall shift in focus from alending to a knowledge institution) thathave contributed to this change. Virtuallyall respondents, however, agreed that theBank still has a long way to go in meetingtheir information needs.

Use and Acquisition of Bank Information

A. Wide variety of information used

Respondents described a wide variety of Bankinformation that they use in their work, includ-ing:

• Annual reports (for example, the WorldDevelopment Report and appendices)

• Procedural guidelines (for example, creditagreement, procurement, donor coordina-tion, employment, and so forth)

• Sector-specific reports and analyses• Policy briefs and discussions• Specific Bank reports and publications (for

example, “Taming the Leviathan,” “GlobalEconomic Prospects and the DevelopingCountries”)

• Information and analyses available exclu-sively through the Bank Web site (for exam-

ple, sector-specific expert analyses, compar-ative data from the World Bank Institute,and so forth).

B. Varied access to Bank information

Reading formal publications (ranging fromannual reports to sector-specific and compara-tive analyses) was by far the most commonmethod of gaining access to Bank information.The majority of respondents also identified avariety of other, often interrelated methodsthrough which they actively pursued the Bankinformation used in their work (depending ontheir availability). The following is a list of themost commonly used sources of Bank infor-mation in order of frequency of mention:

• Bank publications (studies, reports, surveys,comparative analyses)

• Bank Web sites• Direct contact with Bank staff (interactions

with task managers, advisory consultations)• Attending Bank training events (work-

shops, seminars, conferences, study tours)• Visiting Bank facilities (country office,

library, resource center, teleconference cen-ter, sales outlet).

C. Growing impact of the Internet

The majority of respondents reported that theincreased availability of Bank informationonline through the Bank Web site has dra-matically improved the overall availability,relevance, and timeliness of Bank informa-tion. Overall, respondents praised the poten-tial of the Internet, both in providing a morecomprehensive body of information and inenhancing their capacity to compare and inte-grate information from related areas and sec-tors. A number of respondents worried, how-ever, about the potentially negative impact ofthe Bank’s increasing emphasis on onlineproducts and services, including the potentialfor:

• Decline in the availability and responsive-ness of Bank personnel

• Decline in the quality of print publications• Neglect of populations who currently lack

A N N E X G | 61

easy access or are not responsive to newdigital technology.

D. Timely Bank response to specific requests

Respondents reported an extensive list ofreports and other information that they hadrecently requested from the Bank for use intheir work. Of those respondents who hadmade specific requests to the Bank, an over-whelming majority reported that they receivedthe information in a timely and helpful manner.

“Whenever I need a document, I give aphone call saying that I need such ele-ment, and generally I receive it the sameday.” [Government respondent fromSenegal]

E. Additional information needs

Respondents identified several areas in whichthey would like to receive additional informa-tion from the Bank, including:

• Additional reports and analyses on sector-specific information

• Assistance in tracking changes (for exam-ple, trends, evaluations of programs andstrategies, and so forth) over time

• Ability to correlate information on relatedtopics (for example, women and poverty).

Other respondents, however, complainedabout the overabundance of information thatthey receive from the Bank and othersources—and the lack of adequate guidelines,summaries, or search tools with which toquickly identify the information that they needto do their work.

“I just can’t digest everything thatcomes into my office. Maybe five percent.” [Government respondent from Brazil]

Overall Assessment

The majority of respondents praised the qual-ity of Bank information overall, with many

describing the unrivaled comprehensivenessand sophistication of Bank information mate-rials and expertise.

“The Bank is the institution which weaddress when we need some kind ofinformation or advice. Don’t underesti-mate this fact. If you really need anexpert on a certain issue related todevelopment, the WB is where you go.”[Government respondent from Brazil]

The three figures below illustrate respon-dents’ overall assessment of Bank informationaccording to country, professional, and sectoraffiliation.

Assessment of Quality of Bank Information

The majority of respondents from all coun-tries, professions, and sectors praised the qual-ity of Bank information, expressed in terms of“relevance,” “timeliness,” and “technicalsoundness.”

“In terms of quality, the reports arealways 100 percent—well founded,detailed, focused, always concernedwith consistency, always the best quali-ty.” [Government representative fromBrazil]

“The technical soundness of WorldBank information is unquestionable.”[Journalist from Tanzania]

A. Technical soundness commended

As shown in figure G.4, aggregate ratings forthe attributes of relevance, timeliness, andtechnical soundness were substantially higherthan the overall rating, with technical sound-ness receiving the highest rating of all (4.82,compared to 4.81 for relevance, 4.6 for timeli-ness, and 4.34 for the overall assessment).

Respondents repeatedly used the followinginterrelated factors to describe the quality ofWorld Bank information:


A N N E X G | 63

FIGURE G.1: Overall, the Bank Effectively Meets Client Knowledge Needs (by Country)

Senegal Brazil Tanzania Poland Bangladesh

Stronglyagree

Stronglydisagree 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.63 4.594.32 4.13 4.00

FIGURE G.2: Overall, the Bank Effectively Meets Client Knowledge Needs (by Profession)

Government Academic Media Private Sector NGO

Stronglyagree

Stronglydisagree 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.52 4.304.00

3.64 3.50

FIGURE G.3: Overall, the Bank Effectively Meets Client Knowledge Needs (by Sector)

Power Economy/General Water Education

Stronglyagree

Stronglydisagree 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

5.00

4.28 4.25 4.08

• Comprehensiveness• Detail• Expertise (including the knowledge and

expertise displayed by Bank team leadersand staff in their direct interactions withrespondents)

• Consistency and reliability• Theoretical soundness• Analytical strength.

B. Inadequate attention to local circumstances

In contrast, respondents criticized the qualityof Bank information when it was expressed interms of the degree to which Bank informationis “realistic in the light of local circum-stances.” Respondents rated the “realism” ofBank information in relation to local circum-stances substantially lower than the effective-ness of Bank information overall (figure G.4).

“It’s one thing for the presentation tobe theoretically sound, but it cannot beconsidered “best practice” until it istested for relevance, implementability,and benefit to people on the ground.”[Government respondent fromBangladesh]

“What happens is that these “best practices” come to us as norms; they

become guidelines. They could bring avery positive effect, but also a negativeone. If I’m in Brazil, living with Brazil-ian reality, implementing projects, and I observe that there’s not a correctvision of the situation, then I begin toquestion this best practice. Is it reallytrue that this “best practice” is theexact, correct, and real vision?” [Government respondent from Brazil]

C. Different views among respondent groups

The different respondent groups were remark-ably consistent in their assessments of eachattribute of the Bank’s information, with thefollowing exceptions:

• Respondents from Bangladesh were lesslikely to rate Bank information as “techni-cally sound” than were other respondents(4.18 compared to 4.82 overall),

• Respondents from Bangladesh and NGOrespondents were less likely to regard Bankinformation as “realistic in the light of localcircumstances” than were other respon-dents (2.82 and 2.17 respectively, comparedto 3.63 overall),

• Private sector respondents were muchmore critical of the “timeliness” withwhich Bank information is provided than


FIGURE G.4: The Bank provides information that is:

Focusinginformation


Providinglinks

Incorporatinglocal

knowledge


Stronglyagree

Stronglydisagree 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.82 4.81 4.604.34

3.63

were other respondents (3.40 compared to4.60 overall).

Failure to Consider Alternative Perspectives

The majority of respondents described theBank as narrowly focused in the analyses and“best practices” that it presents, with little orno attention to alternative perspectives.Respondents tended to evaluate the Bank’sapproach differently, depending on their coun-try affiliation.

A. Majority/minority views

The majority of respondents were critical ofthe Bank’s unwillingness to consider alterna-tive perspectives in providing models and solu-tions. For many respondents, the Bank’s nar-row focus reveals its bias in favor ofmacroeconomic solutions and general inflexi-bility in considering local circumstances—aswell as its condescension toward the experi-ence and expertise of country institutions andpersonnel. By failing to present alternative per-spectives, they believe the Bank precludesaccess to potentially useful models and solu-tions that fail to conform to its overall devel-opment objectives.

“My general impression is that theBank presents information and perspec-tives that support its own policy agen-da.” [Government respondent fromBangladesh]

“The Bank often ignores potentiallyuseful solutions from other parts of theworld which were not sponsored orsupported by the Bank (for example,rural electrification in Morocco).”[Journalist from Senegal]

For a number of respondents in Brazil andPoland, however, the Bank’s singular orienta-tion to models and solutions represents a con-structive approach to sharing information—and one that is consistent with the Bank’slegitimate objectives in their countries. Thelegitimate role of the Bank, argue these

respondents, is to make the best case possiblefor models and solutions that conform to itspromarket approach to economic and socialdevelopment. It is the responsibility of endusers to adapt the information and modelsprovided by the Bank to local circumstancesand local needs.

“[The Bank’s solutions] are not alwaysappropriate, but they always make youthink. Even if a given idea wouldn’twork in Polish circumstances, it makesyou think; it’s a kind of fertilizer.”[Government respondent from Poland]

“I think [adapting the information tolocal needs] is our task. If you want tohave a good adaptation to fit specificBrazilian conditions, this is somethingthat we have to do.” [Governmentrespondent from Brazil]

B. Presumption of correctness

Still, both respondent groups criticized theBank’s insistence that the models and solutionsit provides represent the only viable approachto solving economic and social problems intheir countries. For a majority of respondents,this insistence that the Bank’s way is the onlyway underlies most reports, strategic models,and policy analyses. Many respondents fromPoland and Brazil, however, described theBank’s singular approach as a typical andunderstandable characteristic of internationallending and knowledge institutions—and onethat does not ultimately undermine the infor-mation’s usefulness.

C. Varying degree of flexibility by topic

Many respondents reported that the Bank’sflexibility in considering alternative approach-es tends to vary according to topic. Forinstance, the Bank was described as flexible inits treatment of international trade and global-ization, but utterly inflexible in its treatment ofresettlement, the environment, and poverty indeveloping countries.

A N N E X G | 65

D. Distinction between Bank publicationsand personnel

In discussing the Bank’s willingness to consid-er alternative perspectives, a substantial num-ber of respondents distinguished between theinformation provided through Bank publica-tions (both in print and digital) and the infor-mation presented directly by Bank personnel.Respondents were inconsistent, however, intheir evaluation of these respective resources.Some respondents described Bank personnelas more open and less doctrinaire than officialBank publications, while others complainedabout imperious pronouncements of staffmembers who were out of touch with the lessrigid and dogmatic approach of the Bank’srecently published materials. There was nodiscernible correlation, however, betweenrespondents’ perceptions in this area andcountry, professional, or sector affiliation.

Effectiveness of Bank Knowledge Sharing

Generally speaking, respondents were morecritical of the Bank’s performance in deliveringinformation than they were with the general

quality of Bank information. Overall, respon-dents provided similar assessments of theWorld Bank’s performance in deliveringknowledge and information to users in theircountries, along with the importance ofincreased effectiveness in the future.

As figure G.5 illustrates, respondents weremost critical of the Bank’s performance in theareas of dissemination, incorporation of localknowledge and collaboration, and providinglinks to counterparts in other countries.Respondents spoke more positively of theBank’s performance in focusing knowledgewhere it is most needed and strengthening ana-lytical capacity. Still, respondents stressed theneed for improvements in all of these aspectsof Bank knowledge sharing.

Consistent with their overall assessment ofBank information, respondents from Bangla-desh and NGO respondents were consistentlymore critical of the Bank’s performance ineach area.

• NGO respondents were most critical of theBank’s weaknesses in providing “links toinformation from other countries” (3.17,compared to 4.01 overall).


FIGURE G.5: The Bank does an effective job of:

Focusinginformation


Providinglinks

Incorporatinglocal

knowledge


Stronglyagree

Stronglydisagree 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.444.24 4.01 3.96 3.89

• Respondents from Bangladesh were mostcritical of the Bank’s efforts to “incorporatelocal knowledge” (3.13, compared to 3.96overall).

The following sections provide detailedviews on four of these dimensions of Bankknowledge sharing: dissemination, collabora-tion, providing links, and capacity enhance-ment.

A. Poor record on dissemination

Virtually all respondents were critical of theBank's weaknesses in disseminating the infor-mation that it provides to people throughoutthe countries who need it most.

“No, it doesn’t [do enough to dissemi-nate its information]. That’s for sure.”[Academic respondent from Poland]

“The Bank communicates very poorlywith the public; in fact it doesn’t com-municate with the public.” [Journalistfrom Brazil]

Figure G.6 illustrates respondents’ assess-ments of the Bank’s dissemination in theircountries.

The majority of respondents blamed theBank’s poor record in disseminating informa-tion on the institution’s traditional practice ofcommunicating primarily or exclusively withgovernment officials. In far too many cases,they said governments lack the institutionalcapacity to disseminate information through-out the country or in some cases deliberatelywithhold it from those who could benefitfrom it.

“In order to have a transfer of knowl-edge between more capable and lesscapable, it’s necessary to have interac-tion. It’s the opposite of water – if youhave a big tank and a small tank, thenyou have a difference of pressure andwater flows. But in order to haveknowledge flow, the difference can’t betoo high, too big.” [Governmentrespondent from Brazil]

“Information should be made accessibleat ALL levels. It is currently accessibleat only the highest levels.” [Governmentrespondent from Tanzania]

In addition to the Bank’s excessive relianceon the government as an information conduit,

A N N E X G | 67

FIGURE G.6: The Bank does an effective job of disseminating information:

Poland Senegal Tanzania Brazil Bangladesh Overall

Stronglyagree

Stronglydisagree 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.15 4.11 3.95 3.92

3.23

3.89

respondents repeatedly identified a litany offactors that currently inhibit the Bank’s infor-mation dissemination, including:

• Excessive reliance on the Internet in coun-tries and regions where the majority of peo-ple still lack easy access to the Internet

• Lack of transparency and open discussionswith stakeholders

• Lack of proactive educational initiatives(for example, workshops, seminars, andpublic forums) with the general public

• Lack of adequate translations• Overcentralization and the lack of distribu-

tion and sales venues on the local level• Lack of adequate mailing and distribution

lists• Lack of comprehensive listings and year-

end summaries of information provided bythe Bank

• Poor dissemination of Bank information tolibraries and universities

• Lack of collaboration with the national andlocal media

• Absence of proactivity and motivation onthe receiving end

• Excessive costs (including any cost at all inless developed countries such as Senegaland Bangladesh).

“If you are concerned with reducinginfant mortality and [increasing] watersupply/sanitation, but you don’t dissem-inate these works [on the topics] in Portuguese, you will not reach a broadaudience.” [Government respondentfrom Brazil]

“First of all, it should prepare a soundmailing list of people and institutionsand send them relevant information reg-ularly. This is such a simple thing butthey don’t do this.” [Academic respon-dent from Poland]

“But this is sometimes OUR problem;we do not always exploit the informa-tion that we do receive.” [Governmentrespondent from Senegal]

“Few people realize that the Bank has awealth of information [because] fewpeople have access to the Internet withwhich to access the Bank’s Web site.”[Academic respondent from Tanzania]

Poor dissemination to the general public isseen by many respondents as the root of pop-ular misperceptions and mistrust of the Bankand its objectives and programs.

“Most people associate the Bank withprivatization and with the poor resultsachieved by privatization practices inBrazil. That makes things difficult. Sothe Bank should work to change thatview, and the way to do this is throughmore communication.” [Governmentrespondent in Brazil]

Respondents identified several ways inwhich the Bank might enhance its ability toprovide information throughout their coun-tries, including:

• Abandon the current “top-down,” govern-ment-focused approach to dissemination(assuming that government officials willforward information to individuals andgroups throughout the country).

• Work with government, academic, media,NGO and private sector representatives toidentify exhaustive lists (for example,postal, e-mail, and institutional) of the peo-ple who could benefit from Bank informa-tion.

• Publish and distribute periodic (annual,biyearly, quarterly) listings and summariesof newly available Bank information.

• Provide more translations of Bank informa-tion.

• Work collaboratively with the media totranslate important information into lan-guage that is accessible to the general pub-lic.

• Provide information to schools, universi-ties, and libraries, with links to curriculawhere possible.


• Actively support the development ofregional information relays throughout thecountry (for example, local documentationand resource centers).

• Provide clearer links to or suggestions forapplicability at the national or local level.

B. Mixed views on collaboration

Respondents often differed in their evaluationof the degree to which the Bank collaborates—or fails to collaborate—with local expertise intheir countries.

A substantial number of respondents—rep-resenting all countries, professions, and inter-est sectors—were highly critical of the Bank’spoor record of collaboration and resentful ofits implications about their own knowledgeand experience.

“Some Bank experts are biased, basedon their experiences of what hasworked elsewhere in the world, with little attention to local needs or ideas.”[Government respondent from Tanzania]

However, a comparable number of respon-dents—again representing the full range ofcountries, professions, and interest sectorsincluded in the study—spoke favorably of theBank’s collaboration and use of local expertisewithin their countries.

“Yes, it does, and I think that it's quitegood. The World Bank applies or basesitself on the knowledge of our experts.”[Government respondent from Poland]

These contrasting views of Bank collabora-tion seem to be substantially informed by therespondents’ direct, first-hand experience, orlack of experience, with the Bank. Respon-dents who have had positive first-hand experi-ences with the Bank tend to speak favorably ofthe Bank’s practices in their country.

“When I was making the Invitation toTender for the Local Electrification

Plan Studies, I had even asked the Bankto propose [an outside] consulting firm,but it refused, insisting it was myresponsibility. They were completelyopen to the fact that a local consultingfirm was the successful bidder.” [NGOleader from Senegal]

Conversely, respondents who feel as if theyhave been snubbed or ignored in the past aremore likely to speak critically of the Bank.

“We know this country, we know theenterprises, we have a contribution [tomake] for the economy, and for thiskind of relationship. Not to consider[our contribution] as at least a firstapproximation, I think is a loss.”[Government respondent from

Brazil]

Many respondents indicated that Bank col-laboration needs to expand beyond the hiringof local staff and consultants. Generally speak-ing, respondents were more likely to speakfavorably—and provide positive anecdotes—of the Bank’s hiring practices on the local level(both in its use of consultants and its staffingof country offices) than of the institution’swillingness to collaborate on other levels.Many respondents complained about theBank’s reluctance to listen and respond to localexpertise on the policy, project implementa-tion, and educational levels. Additionally,respondents suggested that the effectiveness,accessibility, and credibility of Bank informa-tion and training could be strengthenedthrough active collaborations with nationaland local institutions, including:

• Academic institutions• NGOs• Libraries and learning centers.

“Its interaction with local expertsthrough dialogues on various policyprescriptions is almost nil.”[Government respondent fromBangladesh]

A N N E X G | 69

“Yes, the Bank does a good job ofrecruitment in the country office and inconsulting assignments, but to whatextent local perspectives are incorporat-ed in development programs, it is diffi-cult to tell.” [Government respondentfrom Poland]

Respondents who criticized the Bank’s poorrecord of collaboration were quick to name avariety of international institutions whose cur-rent level of collaboration exceeds that of theBank, such as:

• United Nations Development Programme• The European Union• Asian Development Bank• Bilateral aid agencies (for example, France,

United States).

Many respondents—even some of thosewho were highly critical of the Bank’s poorrecord in the past—indicated that the Bankhas begun to improve its efforts to collaboratein their countries. All agreed, however, thatthere is still plenty of room to do more. Somerespondents viewed the Bank’s willingness tocollaborate skeptically, however—as a resultof bowing to pressure and competition at thelocal level, rather than internal policy changeson the institutional level.

C. Providing links to other countries

Respondents as a group had inconsistentassessments of the Bank’s ability to provideuseful links with other countries. During thequalitative portion of the interview, themajority of respondents described the Bank’sunrivaled position as a source of comparativeinformation and expertise, and its ability toprovide useful examples and solutions fromother countries. Several respondents fromPoland and Brazil also described the Bank’srole in providing examples and expertise fromtheir own country to users in other countries.

“No other organization provides somuch comparative information from somany different settings.” [Governmentrespondent from Bangladesh]

“For instance, Chilean insurance solutions have been recommended toPoland. Now Polish solutions are beingrecommended to other countries. Thus,they encourage the flow of good ideas,like for example the way of assessinginflation in Brazil or Chile. The Bankrecommends solutions to differentcountries and if their governmentsaccept those solutions, then they canonly benefit.” [Government respondentfrom Poland]

In the quantitative evaluations, however,respondents provided comparatively low rat-ings (4.01, compared to 4.34 for Bank informa-tion overall) for the Bank’s ability to providelinks to other countries. This apparent contra-diction may be linked to respondents’ criticismsof the Bank’s failure to present alternativeapproaches in presenting examples and solu-tions (described above). For many respondents,the usefulness of the Bank’s expansive reper-toire of comparative examples and expertise iscompromised by the Bank’s tendency to present“best practices” and comparatives as the onlyvalid way of confronting a problem.

“[The Bank’s comparative recommen-dations] should come to us as advice,rather than as compulsion.” [Government respondent from Poland]

Respondents provided the following sug-gestions for increasing the usefulness of theinternational linkages and comparative infor-mation provided by the Bank:

• A less dogmatic style of presenting compar-ative examples and solutions (includingopen forums for discussing and criticizingBank solutions)

• Increased opportunities for travel to andexchange with other countries (throughwhich local representatives can make theirown assessments and comparisons)

• A more proactive role for local users inadapting and testing the validity of com-parative recommendations provided by theBank.


D. Analytical vs. institutional capacity

Respondents also disagreed in their assess-ments of the World Bank’s contributions toanalytical and institutional capacity in theircountries, as well as the importance of Bankefforts in these areas in the future.

Many respondents drew a sharp distinctionbetween Bank support for analytical and insti-tutional capacity enhancement. Generallyspeaking, respondents were much more likelyto applaud the Bank’s contributions to localanalytical capacity and knowledge than theBank’s efforts to strengthen actual institutionalcapacity.

“Yes, on the level of analytical insightsand techniques; no, on the institutionallevel, where the Bank doesn’t gobeyond project frameworks.” [Government respondent fromBangladesh]

“The World Bank provides excellenttraining [on the analytical level]. Theworkshops (on rural sanitation) allowedus to bring together small, very welltrained groups to advance on conceptu-al matters, on strategies for carrying outcertain actions. The reports are able tosystematize a set of important reflec-tions.” [Government respondent fromBrazil]

A substantial number of respondents com-plained about the Bank’s heavy concentrationon the capacity enhancement of governmentofficials and institutions. Many who spokepositively of the Bank’s current efforts incapacity enhancement cautioned that the Bankcontinues to place too much emphasis on thetraining and support of government officialsand institutions. More emphasis should beplaced on training and advisory support tostrengthen capacity on the local level andacross a wider range of institutions.

“Yes, progress is definitely being madethrough the work of the DistanceLearning Center, but training should be

provided to representatives of otherinstitutions, not just the state.” [NGO leader from Senegal]

“They should also provide training toteachers and public servants—not justeconomists and managers— using television, the Internet, and othermedia.” [Government respondent fromBrazil]

However, many respondents warned thateven the most aggressive initiatives by theBank may fall short of the existing need, giventhe absence of local staff and infrastructure tobenefit from the Bank’s contributions.

“Yes [they do what they can], but toooften there is a dearth of local capacityto make use of the Bank’s contribu-tion.” [Government respondent fromBangladesh]

Respondents consistently identified train-ing as a critical area for strengthening analyt-ical and institutional capacity. Specific inno-vations in training suggested by respondentsincluded:

• More use of e-learning for training andretraining

• Short-term exchange programs with theBank

• Increased opportunities for attending work-shops and seminars sponsored outside thecountry

• Increased training opportunities for NGOleaders, journalists, academics, and othernongovernmental personnel (includingtrain-the-trainer workshops)

• Collaborating with other institutions tosponsor public awareness-building seminars(to encourage reliance on the private sector,instead of the state, in achieving social andeconomic goals)

• Shifting the focus of training from main-stream economics to areas of more criticalconcern locally (for example, the environ-ment, nonprofit economy, and institutionaleconomics)

A N N E X G | 71

• Specialized training events (in databases,policy formulation, elaboration and plan-ning, and so forth)

• Longer training periods (at least every two-three months, in addition to the three-fourevents now used).

Impact of World Bank Information

The majority of respondents acknowledged anongoing impact of World Bank information intheir work. Many struggled to identify the spe-cific area (or areas) in which Bank informationhad been most useful, however, suggesting thattheir interaction with the Bank over time hadinfluenced their work in ways that were subtleand difficult to describe.

The most commonly cited impact by farwas that of increased individual capacity.Overall, respondents were most likely toacknowledge the ways in which Bank infor-mation had enhanced their individual analyti-cal skills and capacity, and the increased con-fidence and effectiveness that Bank data andanalytical models bring to their work.

“It’s definitely had an impact on mywork, especially in the area of analysis,but it’s extremely difficult to measure[how and in response to what WorldBank input] I’ve changed.” [Academicrespondent from Tanzania]

“The quality of statistical informationprovided by the Bank allows me to domy work much more efficiently than inthe past.” [Government respondentfrom Senegal]

Respondents provided the following exam-ples of ways in which Bank information hasincreased their individual analytical skills andcapacity:

• Help in identifying specific analyticalresources (for example, using Bank reportsto identify rate of returns on investments)

• Assistance in defining and identifying spe-cific populations (for example, the poor,underserved rural populations, and soforth)

• Assistance in developing indicators for eval-uation of the performance of the nationalinformation system (through direct dia-logue with Bank staff)

• Development of simulation models (forexample, for anticipating the impact ofshock on the terms of trade)

• Assistance in the development of bench-marks for evaluating projects and institu-tional progress.

Respondents also described other areas inwhich Bank information has had an impact ontheir work, including:

• Specific operational procedures and know-how (for example, completing surveys anddesigning terms of reference)

• Changing views on both the policy andoperational levels (for example, towardroad management and financing, institu-tional setup, contracting methods, andproject financing)

• Enhancement of institutional capacity (forexample, organizing and systematizinginformation systems, computerizinglibraries and information facilities, develop-ing Web sites, and so forth)

• Broad innovations in policy and infrastruc-ture development (for example, decentraliz-ing and modernizing urban transportationin Brazil and achieving universal schoolingin underpopulated areas of Senegal).

“Revamping its information/documen-tation into a systematic documentarynetwork [has been a tremendousimprovement].” [Academic respondentfrom Senegal]

“The World Bank was the pioneer onthe idea that it’s not enough to buildnew infrastructure; it’s necessary tohave the social and institutional apparatus to operate this infrastructurein a sustainable way. This led to newlaws, new institutions, a new way todeal with water supply and water quality problems.” [Government respondent from Brazil]


Key Emerging Issues

Three overarching issues emerge from thesefindings as needing the greatest attention.

1. Adapting global knowledge to local circumstances

As described above, the findings reveal awidespread ambivalence toward World Bankinformation—with respondents struggling tobalance their appreciation of the technicalsoundness of Bank information with theirfrustrations regarding the Bank’s record inadapting its knowledge to local circum-stances.

Respondents repeatedly identified a widevariety of factors that inhibit the usefulnessand applicability of the Bank’s informationand analysis.

• Overgeneralization• Exclusive focus on macro—to the exclusion

of micro—economic issues• Single-mindedness and selectivity in pre-

senting models and strategies• Lack of understanding and adaptation to

the needs and concerns of local circum-stances

• Emphasis on extremes (in the presentationand evaluation of solutions).

“[The Bank’s presentation] is too generalized to be useful. Like otherinternational bodies, the Bank usesstandardized, stereotyped methods tosolve specific problems.”[NGO leader from Senegal]

“[The Bank places too much emphasison showing] something that has gonebadly wrong, or something which wasvery successful. For one country tolearn from another, there has to be areflection in the middle.” [Governmentrespondent from Brazil]

For some respondents, the Bank needs to doa better job of adapting global knowledge to

local circumstances, whereas for others, adap-tation is a job for countries themselves.

2. Expanding dissemination and dialogue

Dissemination was by far the most commonlymentioned area in which the Bank mustimprove its knowledge services. Respondentsidentified numerous ways in which the Bankmight enhance its ability to provide informa-tion and analyses throughout their countries,including:

• Abandon the current top-down, govern-ment-focused approach to dissemination,which assumes that government officialswill disseminate information to individualsand groups throughout the country.

• Work with government, academic, media,NGO, and private sector representatives to identify wider lists of people and groups who could benefit from Bank infor-mation.

• Publish and distribute periodic (quarterly,annual, biannual) listings and summaries ofnewly available country- and sector-rele-vant knowledge products.

• Provide more local language translations ofBank information and analyses.

• Work collaboratively with the media totranslate important information into lan-guage accessible to the general public.

• Provide information to schools, universities,and libraries, with links to curricula wherepossible.

• Actively support the development of region-al information relays within countries (forexample, local documentation and resourcecenters).

Respondents also suggested that receptivityto and use of Bank information in their coun-tries would be dramatically enhanced by moreopportunities for open, critical discussions ofBank information and the format and contextin which it is provided. This could be achievedboth through public seminars and discussiongroups sponsored by the Bank itself andthrough the external monitoring and evalua-

A N N E X G | 73

tion of Bank information and activities on thenational level.

“[The Bank should identify and] payrepresentatives from nongovernmentalorganizations to conduct regular moni-toring and criticism of the Bank. The other day in the workshop with the Bank I mentioned that, in theNetherlands, they pay people all overthe world to criticize them. This wouldbe a good experience for the WorldBank, to add some resources so thatinstitutions like Rede Brazil can continue to monitor and criticize theBank, recognizing that the most important information is about what iswrong.” [NGO leader from Brazil]

3. Capacity enhancement

Many respondents urged the Bank to placemore emphasis on enhancing the capacity ofclients to acquire and use knowledge andinformation—especially in the area of institu-tional capacity.

Specific suggestions included: more andbetter on-the-job training; linkages with coun-terparts from other countries; and more activeinstitutional collaboration in the generationand sharing of knowledge. Many respon-dents, however, did not expect the Bank toplay as important a role in this area as otherinternational organizations already moreinvested in support for capacity building.Most agreed that considerable dialogue isneeded between the Bank and end users intheir countries before real progress can bemade in this area.

Country-Specific Findings

A. Bangladesh: Key Findings

• Highly Critical of Bank Information.Respondents from Bangladesh were morecritical of Bank information than wereother country respondents included in thestudy (a 4.00 rating, compared to a 4.34rating by respondents overall). Respon-dents from Bangladesh were also more crit-

ical of the ability of Bank information todeliver specific benefits (technical sound-ness, relevance, realism in light of local cir-cumstances, timeliness).

• Limited Access to and Use of the Internet.The availability of the information provid-ed through the Bank Web site has had littleeffect in Bangladesh. The most commonway of accessing Bank information inBangladesh continues to be through hardcopies. The present generation of seniorofficials and researchers exhibit limitedexposure and receptivity to the use of elec-tronic media in their work.

• Negligible Impact of Bank Information onRespondents’ Work. Consistent with thenegative attitudes expressed toward Bankinformation overall, respondents fromBangladesh reported the lowest level ofimpact of any of the country respondentgroups. The majority of respondentsreported either that information from theBank has had no discernible impact on theirwork or that they were unable to identifythe precise ways in which Bank informationhas helped them.

• Specific Limitations to Country OfficeFacilities. A number of respondents werecritical of the limited resources available atthe Bank’s country office in Bangladesh.Though the office’s library is accessibleduring weekdays to anyone wishing to useit, the resource is poorly advertised andfew people outside the government areaware of its availability. The library pro-vides a broad variety of Bank and non-Bank resources—all in English. There isonly one computer terminal with onlinelinks in the entire facility.

B. Brazil: Key Findings

• Comparatively Favorable Assessment ofBank Information. Respondents fromBrazil provided comparatively favorableevaluations of both the Bank’s overall mis-sion in their country and the informationthat it provides for use in their work (a 4.59rating for the effectiveness of Bank infor-mation, compared to a 4.34 rating forrespondents overall).


• Less Need for Improvement in Bank Infor-mation Delivery. Respondents from Brazilwere less likely than were respondents fromother countries to indicate the need forimproved effectiveness in all areas of theBank’s information delivery. For instance,Brazilian respondents provided a 4.33 needrating for “strengthening institutional andanalytical capacity,” compared to 5.16 forrespondents overall.

• Importance of a Region-Specific Approach.The lack of adequate regional studies andanalyses emerged as a key theme amongBrazilian respondents, given the size andcomplexity of the country, in comparison toother countries served by the Bank. As onerespondent explained: “With all respect forCosta Rica, you can’t treat Brazil like CostaRica. You have to be much more regional-ized. If poverty is concentrated in the north-

A N N E X G | 75


Focusingon needed

areas

Links to other

countries

Enhancingcapacity

Disseminating Incorporatinglocal

knowledge

Stronglyagree

Stronglydisagree 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.003.50 3.48 3.33 3.13


Relevant Timely Technicallysound

Effective overall

Realistic

Stronglyagree

Stronglydisagree 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.57 4.454.18 4.00

2.82

Bangladesh: Assessments of Bank Information and Delivery

east of Brazil, you need to have studies ofprivate economic sectors, state by state, withthis information.”

• Specific Problems with Bank Dissemina-tion. While Brazilian respondents alsoexpressed less concern than did otherrespondents about Bank dissemination(4.44, compared to 5.10 overall), they werenevertheless consistently critical of theBank’s poor dissemination policies in sev-eral specific areas, particularly: the absence

of communications on a regional basis infavor of a centralized, government-focusedapproach to information sharing; and theconspicuous absence of adequate transla-tions of documents and reports (bothonline and in print) into Portuguese andSpanish.

C. Poland: Key Findings

• Critical of Bank Information Overall.Respondents from Poland were more criti-



Enhancingcapacity

Focusingon needed

areas

Links to other

countries


knowledge

Stronglyagree

Stronglydisagree 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.644.38 4.31

3.92 3.85


Technicallysound

Relevant Effective overall

Timely Realistic

Stronglyagree

Stronglydisagree 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

5.19 5.11

4.59 4.443.89

Brazil: Assessments of Bank Information and Delivery

cal of Bank information overall than wereother respondents (a 4.13 effectiveness rat-ing for Bank information, compared to4.34 for respondents overall).

• Comparatively Low Assessment of BankInformation Delivery. Consistent with theircritical views of Bank information overall,Polish respondents also provided compara-tively low need ratings in the areas of “dis-semination” (4.67, compared to 5.10 over-all), “incorporating local knowledge” (4.52,compared to 5.10 overall), and “providinglinks to information from other countries”(4.15, compared to 4.94 overall).

• Perceptions of Improvement. In spite oftheir comparatively low rating of Bankinformation overall, the majority of Polishrespondents reported positive change in theways that they seek and receive informationfrom the Bank. Most respondents werehighly appreciative of the Bank Web siteand the increased role of the Internet as away to access information about the Bank’sactivities, both in Poland and in other coun-tries. A number of Polish respondents alsodescribed the increased responsiveness ofthe Bank mission in Warsaw in providinginformation.

• Self-Criticism. Respondents from Polandwere much more likely than were othercountry respondents to speak critically—and pessimistically—of their own country’srole in the perceived failure to access Bankinformation, contribute local knowledge toBank reports and analyses, and work col-laboratively on Bank-sponsored projects. Asone respondent explained: “There is thisEnglish saying that you can take a horse tothe water but you can’t make it drink. Thisis a huge problem in Poland. The WorldBank should make more effort to get closerto various communities in Poland. But ifthose communities are not willing toabsorb, it is not going to work.”

D. Senegal: Key Findings

• Comparatively High Rating of Bank Infor-mation Overall. Respondents from Senegalwere somewhat more likely than were othercountry respondents to speak favorably of

Bank objectives and Bank information intheir country. Senegalese respondents pro-vided the highest general rating of the effec-tiveness of Bank information (4.63, com-pared to 4.34 overall), and also providedmoderate or high ratings to each of the ben-efits and attributes of Bank informationexamined by the research.

• Comparatively High Need for ImprovedBank Effectiveness. Senegalese respondentsalso provided the highest need ratings forimproving the effectiveness of Bank infor-mation in the future in relation to everyattribute included in the study, with a par-ticular emphasis on “incorporating localknowledge” and “strengthening capacity”(5.96 and 5.92, respectively on a 6.0 scale).

• Perceptions of Improvement. Respondentsfrom Senegal were more likely than wereother respondents to speak of positivechange in the way the Bank provides infor-mation in their country—and to providespecific illustrations of improvements madeby the Bank. These included: increasedavailability of the Bank Web site; increasedtraining (for example, restitution and vali-dation seminars); videotape conferencesand teleconferencing; upgrades at theBank’s Documentation Center; and theBank’s ongoing collaboration with the Dis-tance Learning Center.

• Self-Criticism. Along with Polish respon-dents, Senegalese respondents were muchmore likely than were other country respon-dents to speak critically of their own failureto identify and use available Bank informa-tion and expertise in an effective manner,including the failure of government officesto share information with one another. Anumber of respondents described the needto increase proactivity as a two-waystreet—a responsibility that must be accept-ed both by the Bank (in its strategies for dis-semination and collaboration) and end-users in Senegal (in taking the initiative toidentify and exploit existing resources).

E. Tanzania: Key Findings

• Moderate Assessment of Bank Informationand Benefits. Respondents from Tanzania

A N N E X G | 77


represented the most moderate group intheir attitudes toward the information pro-vided by the Bank. Tanzanian respondentsprovided ratings that were virtually identi-cal to the average ratings overall—in theirevaluations of both the general effectivenessof Bank information and the specific infor-mation benefits examined by the study.

• Divided Assessment of the Internet. Formany government respondents, the BankWeb site provides a significant improve-

ment in the availability and timeliness ofinformation from the Bank. Outside of the government, however—and evenamong several government respondents—the impact of the Internet was perceived aslimited almost exclusively to the govern-mental level. Some feared that the Bank’sincreasing reliance on the Internet mightactually be reducing the amount of infor-mation available to those without Internetaccess.


Focusingon needed

areas

Incorporatinglocal

knowledge

Enhancingcapacity

Disseminating Links to other

countries

Stronglyagree

Stronglydisagree 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.65 4.44 4.33 4.153.82


Technicallysound

Relevant Timely Effective overall

Realistic

Stronglyagree

Stronglydisagree 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.984.72 4.58

4.133.93

Poland: Assessments of Bank Information and Delivery

• Divided in Perceptions of Change. Manygovernment respondents praised theBank’s increased responsiveness, the avail-ability of more and better informationthrough the Internet and a more collabo-rative, knowledge-oriented approach fromthe Bank overall. Other respondentsviewed these changes with suspicion—arguing either that the recent improve-ments in Bank information were cosmeticand nonsubstantive or aimed at increasing

the Bank’s control on developmental policy.

• Comparative Benefits of Bank Informa-tion. Respondents from Tanzania weremore likely than were other respondents to criticize shortcomings of Bank informa-tion in relation to the comparative benefitsprovided by other international institu-tions. Organizations whose informationservices compared favorably to the Bank’sincluded: UNDP, KFW, and EU (more

A N N E X G | 79


Focusingon needed

areas

Incorporatinglocal

knowledge

Enhancingcapacity

Disseminating Links to other

countries

Stronglyagree

Stronglydisagree 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.944.61 4.50

4.11 4.05


Timely Technicallysound

Relevant Effective overall

Realistic

Stronglyagree

Stronglydisagree 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

5.00 4.83 4.78 4.63

3.77

Senegal: Assessments of Bank Information and Delivery

effective collaboration at the local level);CIDA (more effective capacity building);

and the UN (more open to alternateapproaches).



Links to other

countries

Focusingon needed

areas

Enhancingcapacity


knowledge

Stronglyagree

Stronglydisagree 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.35 4.30 4.20 3.95 3.90


Technicallysound

Relevant Timely Effective overall

Realistic

Stronglyagree

Stronglydisagree 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.84 4.844.56 4.32

3.65

Tanzania: Assessments of Bank Information and Delivery

I. INTRODUCTION

World Bank Management welcomes the Oper-ations Evaluation Department (OED) reviewof the knowledge initiative, and it commendsOED for completing an ambitious and diffi-cult analysis. As OED notes, the Bank hasmade enormous progress since 1996 and isnow recognized as a leading knowledge man-agement institution. It really has no peersamong public sector institutions supportingdeveloping countries. Management also recog-nizes that the knowledge initiative involves alarge and complex array of specific activitiesand broader issues, such as organizational cul-ture, that make it a challenge to evaluate. Notsurprisingly, in spite of the progress to date,more can be done to strengthen the Bank’sknowledge sharing initiative. Management isworking to strengthen the strategic directionof its knowledge work and to incorporate itmore explicitly into operations. The reviewwill contribute to this effort.

II. OED FINDINGS

This review assesses the relevance of theBank’s knowledge initiative as well as theeffectiveness of new knowledge-sharing activi-ties and global knowledge programs undertak-en to implement the initiative. The review alsoexamines the supporting institutional infra-structure that has been built over the past sixyears. The methodology used for this evalua-tion was wide in scope, including surveys ofAdvisory Services (ASs) and Thematic Groups(TGs), structured interviews with 25 task teammembers and 30 additional interviews, expertreviews, and a survey of stakeholder views

from five client countries. In the design stage,OED decided not to look at the activities ofthe World Bank Institute (WBI). While thatdecision was probably necessary to narrow thescope of the work, it means that the reviewdoes not examine the critical work of WBI insupporting the strengthening of knowledgetransfer systems in borrowing countries, anarea where WBI has taken and will continue totake a lead role.

Conclusions. The review concludes that theBank’s efforts to improve development out-comes, by fully exploiting both the revolutionin information technology and the Bank’scomparative advantage as a source and aggre-gator of development knowledge, are highlyrelevant to client needs, international develop-ment practices, and Bank interactions with itsclients. It concludes that the Bank has madegood progress in establishing the tools andactivities to support the knowledge initiative.However, the review notes two areas where theBank could improve its support to developingcountries. First, the Bank could do more toapply its knowledge-sharing tools directly tothe Bank’s core business processes (direct sup-port for task teams in their operational work).Second, according to the review, Regionalunits, country teams and task managers couldusefully develop a more strategic approach tothe knowledge dimensions of the Bank’s serv-ice to its clients (notably, CASs could be moreexplicit about knowledge strategies).

Recommendations. The review recommendsthat Senior Management provide greaterstrategic direction and oversight. The review

81

A N N E X H . MA N AG E M E N T R E S P O N S E TO T H E O E D R E V I E W S H A R I N G K N O W L E D G E : I N N O VAT I O N S A N D R E MA I N I N G C H A L L E N G E S

also recommends that Network and Regionalknowledge-sharing initiatives be closely linkedto core business processes, and that they movebeyond knowledge aggregation and access toincreased focus on knowledge adoption, adap-tation, and use. Finally, the review recom-mends the establishment of frameworks formonitoring and evaluation of Network,Regional/country, and global knowledge-shar-ing programs and activities.

III. MANAGEMENT COMMENTS

This section sets out Management commentson the Bank’s knowledge-sharing strategy, itsinstitutional infrastructure, and on internaland external knowledge sharing. (The last twoare linked—sharing knowledge internally haslittle value unless this knowledge is passed onto clients and partners.)

A. The Bank’s Knowledge Strategy

The review describes the Bank’s knowledge-sharing strategy as innovative, broad ranging,and responsive to the challenges of develop-ment. It also identifies areas where the initia-tive could be strengthened. Managementagrees that the Bank’s global knowledge andits ability to facilitate the sharing of knowl-edge among its clients and partners have enor-mous potential in enhancing developmentimpact and welcomes OED’s evidence ofmajor progress in a relatively short time, whilealso recognizing that achieving the full poten-tial of this initiative will require continuedManagement attention.

The Strategy’s Continuing Evolution. Man-agement agrees that the Bank’s strategy hasevolved, from an initial focus on enhancing theBank’s internal knowledge capture and dis-semination capacities, to expanding knowl-edge sharing with clients and other develop-ment partners. This evolution has been largelydriven internally: the Bank has been a pioneerin public sector knowledge management, andit has had few models or examples to follow orfrom which to learn. Management notes thatto maximize overall impact, the strategy it is

implementing combines the three objectivesoutlined in a progress report made to an infor-mal meeting of Executive Directors in October2001: improved internal knowledge sharing;greater sharing of knowledge between clientsand partners; and enhanced client capacity forknowledge use.

The Strategy’s Strengths. Management agreeswith the review’s assessment of the knowledgestrategy’s strengths, which emphasize engagingstaff, clients, and partners to learn from eachother, with the overarching goal of improvingour work in poverty reduction. Although pos-itive ratings from outside experts and organi-zations are important, the favorable ratingsstaff offer on their access to knowledgerequired to do their work are equally impor-tant. As the OED report notes, almost 90 per-cent of staff concluded in the 2002 staff surveythat they have access to adequate knowledgeand information to do their work, a sharpincrease from 1997 (OED 2003a). It is note-worthy that the Strategic Compact Assess-ment, acknowledged by Executive Directors tobe very thorough and frank, concluded thatthe main knowledge-sharing elements hadbeen implemented.

A More Open Organization. Managementalso wants to highlight a major benefit of theknowledge strategy not emphasized by thereview, that of helping to make the Bank a sig-nificantly more open and transparent organi-zation. This transformation has been influ-enced by a number of knowledge-sharingprograms launched by the Networks, Regions,the WBI, and others. These programs provideBank clients and partners access to a wealth ofknowledge resources, and encourage them toprovide substantive comments and suggestionson specific Bank policies, strategies, and docu-ments, as well as other development topics.They have also fostered greater participationby key clients and partners, resulting in animproved environment for operational work inthe Bank’s client countries. The underlyingpremise is that the Bank does not possess amonopoly on knowledge. In this light, and as


the review notes, its knowledge-sharing strate-gy supports development changes that putsincreased emphasis on ownership, partnership,and results—all processes that place a premi-um on the exchange of ideas and information.

Further Strengthening the Design of the Strat-egy. Management agrees that the Bank canusefully put more emphasis on better integrat-ing knowledge sharing in the Bank’s core busi-ness processes, and as noted above this is partof the Management agenda going forward.However, integrating knowledge-sharing pro-grams into Bank operational work has beenonly one part of the overall strategy. Anotherkey element has been sharing knowledge withexternal clients, civil society organizations,and the public at large, notably in the contextof global public goods (and knowledge itself isa global public good) and, in particular, pro-viding a unique platform for that knowledgesharing. Management also recognizes the needto put into place specific and time-boundobjectives for its knowledge-sharing activitiesin a manner consistent with its other activities.However, institutionalizing a comprehensiveknowledge sharing strategy generally takeslonger than the 3-to-5 year period cited by thereview. Most knowledge sharing initiativeshave been launched in the private sector,where they are usually easier to implement andmeasure because of clearer incentives, concreteoutputs, and measurable contributions to thebottom-line in terms of speed to market orreduction in cost of production or delivery.Although there are lessons to be drawn fromprivate sector companies, there is a limitedbody of experience of public institutions thatmeasure the impact of knowledge sharing interms that go beyond financial metrics.

B. Internal Knowledge Sharing to ImproveBank Operations

The Bank has made great strides in internalknowledge sharing, notably through ThematicGroups, Advisory Services, and Web sites.However, even more can be done, includingstrengthening linkages among knowledge,learning, and research.

Thematic Groups. Management welcomes thereview’s comments on Thematic Groups, andit agrees that they comprise an extremely het-erogeneous group with regard to funding,membership, and functions. It also concurswith OED’s assessment regarding the value ofstronger systems to validate lessons learnedand good practices. Management also agreesthat there are a variety of budgeting, program-ming, and reporting models and more stan-dardization, based on best practice, could be inorder. In addition, TGs have a challenge tobetter engage staff outside the Washingtonoffice (including through enhanced use of tech-nology) and to provide more direct support totask teams where there is demand. However,the indirect support offered by TGs to taskteams should not be underestimated. Most TGleaders see “support to operations” as theirmost important objective. Management notesthat, even though institutional incentives foroperating TGs have declined since the end ofthe Strategic Compact, nearly 80 still exist andmany are very active and productive. In fact,the review cites examples of TGs that havedemonstrated real success. The review alsostates that only about one-third of TG mem-bers describe their participation as active.Judged by most research on communities ofpractice, this level of participation would beconsidered high, particularly when participa-tion is voluntary. Further, the review does notmention other communities of practice, bothinternal and client-focused, that are not classi-fied as TGs. Some of these are communities ofpractice facilitated and supported by WBI(including Knowledge for Development, Com-munity Empowerment, and Social Inclusion).These groups have been instrumental in link-ing hundreds of practitioners in developingcountries. (As noted above, for good reason,the OED review limited itself to knowledgesharing activities outside those supported byWBI.)

Advisory Services. The report states that themajority of Advisory Service (AS) “queriesmight have been handled by previously exist-ing structures,” and that ASs “serve a wider

A N N E X H | 83

range of audiences and purposes than isintended by their primary objective of enhanc-ing operational effectiveness.” Managementagrees that the Bank should continue efforts todirect clients to Web sites to meet their basicinformation needs rather than make use ofvaluable AS time, and that efforts should bemade to encourage staff and clients to makeuse of ASs to find answers to substantive prob-lems. However, the role that ASs can beexpected to play in support of operationalwork should not be exaggerated, and the valueand cost effectiveness of ASs as informationintermediaries for a broader clientele shouldnot be underestimated. Efforts to enhance theeffectiveness and efficiency of ASs are underway—WBI regularly convenes meetings of anAdvisory Service Community (comprised ofAS staff from across the Bank), and a UnifiedCase Management system that will speed thedelivery of responses and significantly improvereporting capabilities is being developed. Anext step will be to develop standards to mon-itor AS performance and evaluate their contri-bution. Supported by Management, these col-lective efforts should also begin to addresssome misperceptions as to the value and pur-pose of ASs, making it clear that their purposeis to go beyond a limited referral service and toserve as “integrators” for the Bank’s knowl-edge communities.

Internal and External Web sites. There havebeen huge leaps in the use of the web by staffand clients over the past few years (from 2 mil-lion page views in 1998 to 18 million in 2002)and in efforts to research and respond to userdemands. Management is working to steadilyimprove web content for both internal andexternal audiences, including better targeting,with positive results. For example, the Bankrecently launched an Arabic version of theexternal Web site, to complement English,Spanish, French, and Russian versions. TheWorld Bank external Web site in Spanish wasnamed site of the year for 2002 in the eco-nomic and business category by Yahoo’s Span-ish service. Fifteen country Web sites (includ-ing India and Japan) offer information in

languages other than English. The Bank’sintranet for staff use was a 2002 IntranetDesign Winner in the Nielson Norman Groupcontest. Going forward, further strengtheningof the “management” element of content man-agement (notably work processes and editori-al value-added) remains a priority. Since thelaunch of the Internet Services Program inApril 2001, implementation of a new ContentManagement System has begun, and a signifi-cant number of Intranet, and a smaller numberof external Web sites, have been migrated to amore robust web publishing platform. A nextstep is to design work processes that enhancethe capture and dissemination of demand-driven content. An important step towardenhanced support for operational work is thepiloting of “role-based portals,” including aplanned Knowledge and Learning Portal, aswell as portals for Executive Directors, clients,and project teams, that will allow users to“pull” content that they need for their day-to-day work rather than having it “pushed” tothem by web content suppliers. Managementwould like to note, however, that since the ini-tiation of the knowledge-sharing initiative, theWeb has become an absolutely critical com-munications and operational tool for theBank, and that it has already transformed theway Bank staff work.

Linking Knowledge Sharing and Learning.Management agrees that the links betweenknowledge sharing and learning activitiescould be strengthened in the Regions and Net-works, and that although several units aremaking important efforts to coordinate thetwo dimensions, more can be done. The inte-gration of these two functions is being ledjointly by the Director of WBI’s GlobalKnowledge and Learning Pillar and the ChiefLearning Officer, who has a dual reporting lineto the Vice President for Human Resources(HR) and the WBI Vice President.

Linking Knowledge Sharing and Research.Management also agrees that it is too early toassess the impact on the quality of operationsof efforts to link the Bank’s research and


knowledge-sharing activities, but the new rela-tionship between WBI, Development Econom-ics (DEC), and Poverty Reduction and Eco-nomic Management (PREM) appearspromising. This initiative spans policy,research, and country-level capacity enhance-ment services, and aims to ensure moreresponsive and effective upstream contribu-tions to key country tasks based on a compre-hensive view of country needs. Collaborationhas also been extended in the form of a jointDEC/PREM/WBI trade department. Areas ofintense collaboration are being extended topoverty and governance.

C. Sharing Knowledge with Clients andPartners

In addition to the responses that Managementoffers below regarding the specific pointsraised in the review on this topic, it is worthnoting again that the OED review, for goodreason, did not cover the activities of the WBI.Therefore, there was no specific attention tothe activities of the WBI in sharing knowledgewith clients and partners and coordinatingknowledge-sharing activities across the Bank.

Enhancing the Effectiveness of Bank Knowl-edge Sharing with Clients. Management com-mends the OED for its efforts to survey clientperceptions and agrees with the conclusionsthat emerged from this effort. The most recentImplementation Forum for Bank Managementdrew similar conclusions regarding the criticalimportance of local institutional capacity forthe long-term effectiveness of developmentassistance. As a result, WBI has been asked totake the lead in supporting the scaling-up ofcapacity enhancement efforts across the Bank.This will ensure that the best available toolsare put to use, lessons learned are incorporat-ed into project design, and the impact of theseefforts is monitored and strengthened overtime. In cooperation with country teams andother appropriate Bank units, WBI’s newRegional and Country Pillar has begun todevelop more comprehensive and focusedcapacity enhancement strategies for prioritycountries, which draw on medium-term part-

nerships with local institutions to leveragelocal and global knowledge and establish thebasis for long-term institutional development.It is important to note that almost half of allBank Economic and Sector Work (ESW) isdone jointly with client countries, providing animportant basis for linking global and localknowledge, and that the trend is toward evenmore joint ESW.

Development and Integration of GlobalKnowledge Initiatives. Management wel-comes the review’s comments on three of theBank’s innovative global knowledge initia-tives. Although the Global DevelopmentLearning Network (GDLN), Global Develop-ment Network (GDN), and the Global Devel-opment Gateway are key initiatives, it isimportant to note that they represent only apart of the broad spectrum of global knowl-edge initiatives the Bank has initiated and sup-ported.

Global Development Gateway. Managementnotes the importance of the creation throughthe Gateway of new and unique Internet serv-ices for the development community. In theearly days of its inception, there was muchdebate concerning the Bank’s possible domi-nation of development content on the Inter-net. While this issue and several others havebeen successfully resolved, some issuesremain, especially with regard to the inde-pendence of the new Development GatewayFoundation, given the Bank’s prominent rolein its governance mechanisms. Equally criticalis the issue of financial sustainability. Both theCountry Gateways, which have been createdwith significant funding from the Bank, andthe central Development Gateway team, havelimited time horizons for their current fundingstreams, so it is important that long-termfunding be secured. Securing this funding willdepend heavily on demonstrating to potentialsponsors the important value added of theDevelopment Gateway’s services in a dynamicglobal technology market. The Bank will needto ensure that the Development Gatewayserves staff and clients even more effectively,

A N N E X H | 85

without exercising undue influence over itsgovernance structures. In that regard, therecent addition of the Country Analytic Website (CAW) to the Gateway and the workunderway on a harmonization Web site forthe Gateway are important expansions. Awide set of development partners created theCAW to facilitate coordination and coopera-tion among countries and donors with thegoal of improving development impact andcost-effectiveness for both capacity buildingand knowledge sharing. The goal of the inter-active harmonization Web site will be to pro-vide development practitioners ready accessto the emerging stock of good practices on aidharmonization at the donor and country lev-els. Facilitating access to information across arange of subject areas will support harmo-nization efforts by identifying projects whereresources are being shared and alignment ofpolicies are taking place.

GDLN. Management agrees that GDLN’smajor strength is in its multimedia capacity to“deliver programs in languages and formatsconsistent with the information and skill needsof targeted audiences.” Another strength is itsability to reduce the amount of travel for staffand clients, with major cost savings. In somecases, such as the events of September 11,2001 and the recent SARS outbreak in EastAsia, the network of Distance Learning Cen-ters has allowed projects and events to proceeddespite travel restrictions. The power of thisvirtual convening format is compelling.Although demand for its services hasincreased, GDLN faces a number of chal-lenges, in terms of utilization, governance,quality assurance, and financial stability. Aneffort is already under way to address theseissues. Discussions have already been held atthe Vice Presidential-level Knowledge SteeringCommittee and with Managing Directors, andterms of reference have been issued for anexternal consultant to make recommendationson the strategy and business model for GDLN.Moreover, in spring FY04 there will be a con-sultative meeting held with the participatingDistance Learning Centers.

GDN. Considerable progress has been madein establishing the credentials of GDN as anentity that is fully independent from the WorldBank. However, it may take some time formany of those familiar with the GDN to over-come their tendency to think of it as a WorldBank unit. The decision by GDN’s multina-tional, multidisciplinary, governing body torelocate the GDN Secretariat to India isexpected to change perceptions about GDN’sindependence. Management is also aware ofdonor concerns regarding GDN’s position asan intermediary funding channel between theregional networks and themselves. However,since its launch, the GDN has made a consid-erable effort to consult on a regular basis withdonors to match GDN offerings with the inter-ests of individual donors. Lastly, the signifi-cant contributions from developing countrygovernments are a good indication that theGDN is responding to client demand.

Cross-Cutting Issues. Management agrees thatthe future directions of the three global knowl-edge initiatives referred to in the reviewrequire careful attention, notwithstanding theearly accomplishments of the initiatives.Working with local partners that are institu-tionally and financially independent whileincreasing Bank staff awareness of these toolsfor use in support of Bank operational work isa sensitive task, one that requires diligentattention by Management and active aware-ness on the part of Development Gateway,GDLN, and GDN staff.

D. Supporting Institutional Infrastructure

Work is under way to strengthen the supportfor knowledge-sharing activities, including thegovernance structure, monitoring and evalua-tion, and technology.

Resources and Governance. The governanceof the knowledge initiative has evolved alongwith the strategy. The Vice Presidential-levelKnowledge Steering Committee was estab-lished to fulfill this role, with WBI acting asthe Secretariat. In addition, WBI holds regularmeetings of a committee of key knowledge


actors from across the Bank to discuss issuesrelating to knowledge sharing and to makerecommendations on these issues as they moveto the Knowledge Steering Committee fordecision.

Monitoring and Evaluation. Clearly anotherimportant focus of reinvigorated Bankwideguidance and coordination mechanisms willbe monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Therehave been notable efforts to track knowledgeactivities effectively, and there is much to learnfrom these efforts. However, they have beencarried out in a nonstandard, highly decentral-ized way within Networks, Regions, and otherBank units. This has made it difficult to assessimpact across the institution as a whole. Therecent initiative to evaluate Sector Board per-formance, notably with regard to knowledgesharing efforts, by the Quality AssuranceGroup (QAG) is a positive development andwill contribute to increased performance byknowledge communities. Recognizing theneed for appropriate metrics to assist the Bankto put in place a sound evaluation mechanismfor knowledge sharing, WBI participated withthe American Productivity and Quality Centerin a recent Knowledge Management Measure-ment Benchmarking Study. This allowed theBank to learn from the experience of globalleaders in the field, and it will be followed upby intensive work with key actors across theBank to devise an M&E strategy to addresssome of the issues highlighted in the OEDreview.

Technology. Management agrees that improve-ments have been achieved in broadening geo-graphical connectivity and accelerating accessto institutional information, for people insideand outside the Bank. There have been manyother improvements, including the develop-ment and mainstreaming of e-learning plat-forms, collaboration workspaces, e-discussionapplications, and video services, to name just afew. Although collaboration between informa-tion technology staff and operational staff canbe strengthened, and the use of specific toolsanalyzed under the M&E work cited above,

much collaboration is already taking place:many information technology staff are nowlocated in the Regions, working closely withoperational staff. In addition to the positivechanges made in the area of content manage-ment noted above, the ongoing development ofa Knowledge and Learning Portal will alsoimprove standards for Web content, withoutimposing undue costs and constraints.

People. Management concurs that peoples’behaviors are the most important part of effec-tive knowledge sharing and use. It should be noted that the link between improvedknowledge sharing and a change in the Bank’sinternal culture is not causal; instead, they gohand-in-hand. Knowledge-sharing tools andapproaches can affect organizational culture,but the culture must be conducive to main-streaming knowledge sharing. As the reviewstates, several steps have been taken to culti-vate a knowledge-sharing environment. Mostimportantly, staff are evaluated on their con-tribution to learning and knowledge sharingand managers are evaluated on their success increating an environment conducive to learningand knowledge sharing. Other steps, includingthe creation of knowledge management jobprofiles by HR, have followed. However, chal-lenges remain that largely reflect the informalnature of the knowledge-sharing program.Management acknowledges this issue, and itwill examine specific measures to furtherencourage contributions to the knowledge ini-tiative in ways that do not add to the net bur-den on operational staff.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Bank Management is fully committed toimproving development outcomes by exploit-ing both the revolution in information tech-nology and the Bank’s comparative advantageas a source and aggregator of developmentknowledge. Management welcomes OED’sfinding that the Bank has made good progresssince 1996 in providing staff, clients, and part-ners with faster access to Bank knowledge andexpertise and that this progress is recognized

A N N E X H | 87

by both Bank staff and client countries. It rec-ognizes the difficulty of taking the knowledgestrategy to the next level in terms of enhancingthe knowledge dimensions of the Bank’s serv-ice to its clients and has taken on this chal-lenge. At the same time, Bank Managementrealizes that it takes more than seven years toeffectuate the changes in organizational cul-ture, processes, and practices that will fullymainstream knowledge sharing.

Recent Steps. A number of very significantsteps has been taken recently to improve theimplementation of the knowledge strategy.First, WBI has been given an explicit mandateto support and champion the implementationof the Knowledge and Learning Bank. TheVice Presidential-level Knowledge Steering

Committee, facilitated by WBI, provides amechanism to better coordinate policies andprograms across the Bank. Second, QAG hasstarted to assess the performance of SectorBoards with regard to their core functions,including knowledge management and learn-ing. These assessments provide an excellentmechanism to monitor and improve the quali-ty of knowledge work performed by ThematicGroups. Third, there is a concrete focus onbringing together the staff learning and knowl-edge-sharing agendas of the Bank. This isreflected in the joint areas of responsibility ofthe Chief Learning Officer (CLO) and WBI’sDirector of Global Knowledge and Learning.Management will rely on these mechanisms toaddress the recommendations of the OEDReview.


Summary of OED Recommendations with Management’s Response

OED Recommendation Management Response

1. While recognizing that all units across the Bank have Management agrees that greater strategic direction and oversight should be exercised responsibilities for making knowledge sharing a way over the Bank’s knowledge processes. To undertake these and other functionsof doing business, management should exercise greater recommended in this review, the role of the VP-level Knowledge Steering Committee willstrategic direction and oversight over the institution’s be strengthened in FY04. The Committee has been active throughout FY03, reviewingknowledge processes. issues ranging from the business model for GDLN to the role of knowledge products and

services in the context of current and future lending scenarios. By fourth quarter FY04More specifically, management should: the VP Knowledge Committee will have defined a strategy for implementation.

Define clear responsibilities and accountabilities of Management agrees on the fundamental need to define responsibilities and Corporate, Network, and Regional units for integrating accountabilities across all Bank units with the goal of more fully integrating knowledgeknowledge sharing into the Bank’s core business processes sharing into the Bank’s core business. The recent creation of Knowledge Management and better integrating knowledge and learning programs. job profiles by HR will aid in this effort. WBI, in cooperation with HR and the CLO, will also

continue to play a lead role in integrating knowledge and learning programs. The development in FY04 of a Knowledge and Learning Portal is intended to help address this challenge.

Ensure that incentives are aligned with responsibilities, Management notes that including knowledge sharing as a key aspect of staff and especially at the task manager level. manager evaluations has had a positive impact on incentives. Management agrees that

incentives for participating actively in knowledge sharing can be further improved. The VP-level Knowledge Steering Committee will review this issue.

The proposed Partnership Council should articulate a Management notes that the role of the new Global Programs and Partnership Councilstrategic approach to the Bank’s role in existing and any (GPPC) will apply chiefly to knowledge initiatives created with external partners. In suchnew global knowledge initiatives; and the Bank should cases, the GPPC will rely on the referral of issues from the VP-level Knowledge Steeringprepare and institute a long-term plan for the GDLN— Committee. The formulation of a long-term plan for GDLN is already under way. Terms including a financial plan as well as clarification of the of reference have been issued for a consultant to develop a strategic plan and a businessBank’s forward involvement and the responsibilities of model that would address the sustainability of GDLN, and the Bank’s future role, and adifferent Bank units for managing that involvement and potential exit strategy.the integration of the GDLN into Bank country programs.

2. Network and Regional knowledge-sharing activities Management agrees that the Bank should focus more on knowledge adoption, adaptation,should tightly link to core business processes, and move and application. Specifically, efforts will be made to further mainstream existing best beyond knowledge aggregation and access to increased practices, which seek to better integrate global knowledge to local conditions (includingfocus on knowledge adoption, adaptation, and use. indigenous knowledge, participatory ESW—which is rapidly becoming the standard, and

communities of practice). This issue will be on the work program of the VP-level For example: Knowledge Steering Committee in FY04.

Networks should set clear objectives for anchor, thematic Management agrees that Networks should play a more active role in setting clear group, and advisory services support of operational teams. objectives for supporting operational teams. The results of the upcoming QAG

assessment of Sector Board performance will be reviewed to determine ways in which the lessons learned and methodology can be utilized by Networks.

Regional and country units should make explicit the Management agrees that more work should be done to make explicit the role of knowledge objectives of CASs and projects, and the knowledge in specific activities as well as in the Bank’s overall development goals. As astrategies to be used in leveraging knowledge in support part of its capacity enhancement efforts, WBI will work to identify the knowledge of the achievement of overall development goals. components of CASs and projects in cooperation with Regional units. However, no new

requirements will be imposed on staff for this purpose and efforts will be made to ensure that this work is client-driven and not imposed by the Bank.

Network and Regions should strengthen their respective Management agrees that the Networks and Regions should coordinate their responsibilities in the capture, validation, and application knowledge-sharing responsibilities more effectively and scale up successful programs. of lessons learned and good practices. The VP-level Knowledge Steering Committee will provide guidance in this area.

A N N E X H | 89

OED Recommendation Management Response

3. Frameworks should be established for monitoring Management agrees that monitoring and evaluation frameworks should be an integral and evaluating Network, Regional/country, and global part of knowledge-sharing activities across the board. In FY04, WBI will initiate a process knowledge sharing programs and activities. of developing a Bankwide framework for measuring the impact of knowledge-sharing

activities drawing on good practices from other organizations, and engaging stakeholders This involves: from across the Bank. An evaluation framework will be completed by fourth quarter of

FY04 with the first steps toward implementation starting in FY05.

Setting outcome objectives and supporting indicators Management agrees that the Bank should establish specific outcome objectives and (baselines, monitorable targets, and benchmarks of supporting indicators. These will be explored through the above mentioned progress). measurement framework.

Defining procedures, roles and responsibilities for Management agrees that it is imperative to clearly define roles and responsibilities inmonitoring progress and evaluating achievements against monitoring and evaluating progress in achieving knowledge-sharing goals. These will be the stated objectives. explored through the above mentioned measurement framework.

Also, depending on the outcome of its ongoing baseline As outlined above, Management notes that QAG will review its experience with Sectorassessment of the performance of sector boards, QAG Board reviews; Management will formulate its work program in this area based onshould continue to review at appropriate intervals the that review.quality of the Networks’ knowledge sharing. OED country assistance, sector/thematic, and project evaluations should look beyond the quality of underlying analytical work to the adequacy of the knowledge transfer processes and their impact on the development effectiveness of Bank-supported programs. And both QAG and OED should build client feedback into their assessments.


Main Findings of the Report. This evaluationassesses the relevance and effectiveness of theBank’s Knowledge Initiative (KI), launched byPresident Wolfensohn in 1996. The KI com-mitted the Bank to become a knowledge bankthat would work to enhance its ability to learnfrom its own experience in development, aswell as that of others and utilize this knowl-edge to improve the quality of Bank operationsas well as sharing the information and experi-ence directly with clients. The OED evaluationfinds that the Bank’s commitment to a knowl-edge initiative was timely and appropriate. Thestrategy responded to challenges facing thedeveloping countries in trying to reduce theinformation technology gap. The Bank is nowrecognized as a leading knowledge-manage-ment institution. Knowledge is easier to access.Good progress has been made in establishingthe internal architecture to support the Bankknowledge initiative but more needs to be doneto make the initiative more operationally relevant and to strengthen the governancearrangements and work processes for its imple-mentation. The evaluation makes three recom-mendations for management’s consideration:

• That management exercise more strategicdirection and oversight over the Bank’sknowledge processes

• That networks and regions strengthen thelink between knowledge sharing activitiesand non-lending activities

• That the Bank establish frameworks formonitoring and evaluating Bank knowledgeprograms and activities.

There is broad agreement between OEDand Management on the scope and focus ofthe recommendations, including with respectto the need for more fully integrating knowl-edge sharing into the Bank’s core business,including strengthening strategic directionand oversight, and monitoring and evalua-tion.

Main Outcomes of the Committee’s Discus-sion. The committee welcomed the thought-provoking report and reiterated the impor-tance of the subject, not only because it is oneof the four priorities identified in the Strate-gic Compact but also because of its intrinsicsalience for all of the Bank’s business. Thecommittee noted the complexity of the topicand the challenges in evaluating knowledgefunctions, and generally felt that OED haddone a commendable job. The committeealso noted the progress that had been madeby management but also acknowledged thatmuch remained to be done, especially withregard to developing a monitoring and evalu-ation framework to specifically includeknowledge work in CASs, and get a betterunderstanding of what the Bank is accom-plishing with its capacity building work. Thecommittee was overall supportive of the rec-ommendations. It noted the need to revisitthe issue of global public programs (GPPs)separately. It asked that management informit of progress in the knowledge initiative inabout two years time. CODE will issue areport to the Board on its discussion of thereport.

A N N E X I . C H A I R MA N ’S S U M MA RY: CO M M I T T E E O N D E V E LO PM E N T E F F E C T I V E N E S S

91

Among the issues discussed were the following:

OED recommendations and managementresponse. Several members noted that theManagement Response alluded to severalrecent initiatives and ongoing programs in theBank, especially the role of the WBI in coordi-nating knowledge activities in the Bank—which had not been assessed in the OEDreview. Management noted that WBI supportsand champions the Knowledge Bank but thatimplementation of knowledge managementand knowledge sharing is at the level of theregions and networks. In crafting the manage-ment response, based on comments and inputfrom the relevant VPUs, WBI was reflecting itsrecently assumed role as the Knowledge BankSecretariat. OED noted that at the time theevaluation was launched WBI did not have theoverarching responsibility it has today formany of the learning initiatives.

Strategic Directions and oversight of BankKnowledge processes within the Bank. Thecommittee felt that there were more questionsraised than answers provided by the OEDreport and the Management Response, espe-cially as regards going forward and whatimprovements could be reasonably expectedwithin the short- to medium-term. Memberswould have liked to see a more concrete, time-bound response with proposals from manage-ment on what the Bank wanted to achieve inthe immediate- to medium-term and how thiscould be implemented and monitored in apragmatic way, within a decentralized matrixsystem. The committee noted that main-streaming knowledge management “as a wayof doing business” would require full manage-ment commitment at all levels to addressincentive and organizational culture issues.Management noted that it had already under-taken a number of actions, which respondedto the OED recommendations, including:establishing a Vice Presidential-level SteeringCommittee, chaired by the Managing Directorin charge of Human Development, comprisingthe Regions, Networks, Information and Tech-nology Services (ISG), and WBI to focus on

implementation issues; undertaking experi-mentation on support to clients to makeknowledge more operationally effective; andensuring that knowledge issues are more sys-tematically addressed in the CAS.

Strengthening the link between the Bank’sknowledge activities and core operationalprocesses. The committee urged managementto do more to integrate knowledge productsstrategically into the routine core business ofthe Bank at the country level and wanted tounderstand better the role of Sector Boardsand Networks in this regard. They underlinedthe need to be less-top down, more demanddriven and relevant at the country-level, moresupportive of south-south learning and to bal-ance a focus on knowledge sharing with afocus on knowledge creation. One speakerproposed that the present arrangements forknowledge sharing be revamped with cleardefinitions of institutional roles and responsi-bilities to ensure more accountability. Man-agement noted that it has taken a number ofsteps to ensure that the knowledge created isdemand-responsive, based on local knowledgeand relevant to client needs, as have othergroups such as the Global Development Net-work (GDN). For example, the GDN fundsproposals generated from local researchers. Insome cases, clients pay for knowledge services.WBI already supports south-south learningprograms, notably in connection with PRSPs.

Need for a M&E framework and the demon-stration of value for money. The committeeunderlined that after seven years it was imper-ative that the initiative put in place a function-ing monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frame-work, including QAG reviews of knowledgecontent in quality reviews. Speakers cautionedagainst complacency about the Bank’s compe-tence and urged the Bank to draw on bestpractice examples from private sector knowl-edge management services. Managementinformed the committee that for the past fouryears the Bank had received high ratings fromexternal evaluators on its practices in the areaof knowledge management. It also noted in its


Response that, as a leading knowledge institu-tion in the international development arena,there is a limit to the experience of other insti-tutions that the Bank can draw on, notably formeasuring the impact of knowledge sharing.The committee noted that it would be impor-tant to hold knowledge products fullyaccountable in the CASs and to address issuesof cost-benefit with regard to various elementsof knowledge sharing (e.g. research, capacitybuilding, and training). Management notedthat QAG was already in the process of evalu-ating Sector Board performance, including inthe area of knowledge sharing. QAG is alsoworking with WBI to improve its project qual-ity at entry evaluations with respect to knowl-edge sharing. In addition, WBI participatedwith the American Productivity and QualityCenter in a recent Knowledge ManagementMeasurement Benchmarking Study, allowingthe Bank to learn from the experience of glob-al private sector and public sector leaders inthe field and will be working intensively withkey actors across the Bank to devise an appro-priate M&E strategy for knowledge sharingactivities. Based on this ongoing work, anevaluation framework is planned for comple-tion by the end of the FY with the initial stepstoward implementation in FY05.

Long-term plans for the global knowledge pro-grams. The committee raised questions aboutthe future plans and issues of sustainabilityrelated to the Development Gateway, GlobalDevelopment Learning Network (GDLN) and

the Global Development Network (GDN).Some suggested exploring the causes of under-utilization of the GDLN while others empha-sized the need to avoid duplication and pro-posed an exit strategy be developed for theDevelopment Gateway to free-up resources ofthe DGF for other uses. Management notedthat the Development Gateway was now underthe direction of the independent DevelopmentGateway Foundation and was no longerhoused within the Bank. The new CEO of theFoundation will make a presentation to Execu-tive Directors on the Foundation’s businessplan on October 23, 2003. Managementinformed the committee that a number ofactions have already been taken to address theissues raised in the report, including establish-ing the GDN in Cairo and New Delhi as aninternational organization. It informed thecommittee that the majority of the GDLN cen-ters were performing well, but some have juststarted their activities and still need to developa viable business model. Management notedthat a consultant has been hired to review theGDLN system and make recommendations ona strategy and business model. Managementalso noted that it was exploring how to addressthe issue of rationalization of user fees for itsservices across regions. The committee willhave an opportunity to discuss issues related toGPP when OED submits its review of GPPs inthis fiscal year.

Pietro VeglioActing Chairman

A N N E X I | 93

Chapter 1

1. See Annex A for a detailed chronology of the implementation of the knowledge bank initiative from 1996through 2002.

2. For three consecutive years beginning in 2000, the Bank was recognized as one of the top 20 “Most AdmiredKnowledge Enterprises,” all but one of the other 19 being private sector corporations. Awards are made byan international panel of corporate executives and knowledge management experts, based on an enterprise’sknowledge culture, knowledge leaders, knowledge-based products and solutions, intellectual capital, collab-orative knowledge sharing, organizational learning, focus on customer knowledge, and transformation ofknowledge into shareholder value.

3. This was one of 10 main recommendations of an external advisory panel enlisted by the Bank to reviewprogress on implementing the knowledge initiative. Prusak (2001) identified the need for “meaningful met-rics to evaluate progress, keep knowledge activities focused on the bottom line, and enable the developmentof criteria to guide future investments.” Also, since 2001, the Operations Evaluation Department (OED)Annual Reports on Operations Evaluation have highlighted the absence of adequate monitoring and evalu-ation in this area. See, for example, OED 2003b.

4. The shift in terminology coincided with the move of the Bankwide knowledge-sharing coordinating unit outof the Information Solutions Group (ISG) to the former Operational Core Services (OCS), both changesreflecting a broadening of emphasis from information technology tools to direct interactions among practi-tioners as a central feature in the implementation of the knowledge initiative.

5. See Annex B for an inventory of the Bank’s main knowledge-sharing activities, with an indication of the net-work, Regional, and global programs and activities that are the specific focus of this review.

6. Cummings 2002, a background paper to this study, available on request. Additional advice was provided byGabriele McLaughlin, Director, National Knowledge Practice, Xerox Connect, Inc; and advice sought fromDorothy Leonard, Harvard Business School, a leading scholar on the application of knowledge in public andprivate enterprise.

7. A fuller discussion of these lessons drawn from the literature is presented in Annex C.

8. See Annex D for a more detailed outline of the indicators used in this assessment.

9. Annex E provides a more detailed description of the evaluation methodology.

Chapter 2

10. Key documents are World Bank 2002/2001/2000; 2001b; 1997.

11. Those challenges are the focus of the 1998/99 World Development Report on knowledge for develop-ment (World Bank 1998a). In its concluding Part Three, on policy priorities, there is a discussion of whatinternational institutions and developing country governments can do to “close knowledge gaps andovercome information problems” inhibiting the achievement of countries’ development goals.

12. See Chapter 5 for more detail on these expenditures.

13. See Annex F for a description of a sample of players in the knowledge for development field.

E N D N OT E S

95

Chapter 3

14. Experience shows that, to be effective, communities of practice need to foster a high level of interac-tion among members on an ongoing basis. Though they may form out of informal work groups thatbegin by simply exchanging ideas, those that endure tend to evolve toward more purposeful interac-tions and more rigorous expectations and accounting of outcomes. See Annex C for further discus-sion of lessons from studies on communities of practice.

15. In FY02, total expenditures amounted to some US$8 million, of which some US$7 million was from Bank budget and close to US$1 million from trust funds (See Chapter 5 for a moredetailed description of budget expenditures).

16. Fifteen of 23 respondents indicated that they spend 1-5 staff weeks per year on thematic group coor-dination. Others who reported spending more time did not distinguish between thematic group coor-dination and anchor knowledge-sharing work (OED survey of thematic group coordinators, 2002).

17. While these surveys have response rates ranging from 12-60 percent and do not ask identical ques-tions, some findings emerge with enough similarity and frequency to allow for certain broad obser-vations to be made about the efficacy of activities, supplemented by more qualitative evidence frominterviews with staff. Bank thematic group and broader network knowledge management surveys,including: Financial and Private Sector Investment Network; Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network 1999; the-matic group member survey, September 2000; Human Development Network Education Sector Sur-vey March 2001; Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network KM Survey, January2002; Governance and Public Sector Reform, thematic groups survey, 2002.

18. These findings are from an OED survey conducted separately from this review. See OED 2003a.

19. Though some 11 of 28 thematic group leaders surveyed for this review report recent efforts toengage field staff more, these efforts are largely intermittent—involving workshops held in fieldoffices, videoconferences, and thematic group meetings during learning weeks (OED thematic groupsurvey).

20. In response to the various thematic group surveys that have been conducted in the last few years,including the one conducted for this review, staff specifically cite three factors as constraints to theirparticipation: (1) thematic group budget cuts of the last three years; (2) participation on their owntime, not as part of their Time Recording System (TRS); and (3) lack of recognition of thematicgroup work in Overall Performance Evaluations.

21. Joint OED/WBI survey of 15 advisory services/help desks, March 2002, with 12 of 15 participatingservices responding to question on staff size.

22. Bankwide, the total expenditure for all advisory services in FY02 was US$2.2 million, as indicated inthe data presented in Chapter 5.

23. OED task team survey and Project Appraisal Document review of a sample of projects; Bank sur-veys; OED thematic group survey.

24. This section covers Web use for internal and external knowledge sharing because the Bank’s externalsite is important for both and there are crosscutting issues of audience focus and content manage-ment that pertain to both the internal and external sites. Most of the section draws on data fromForum One Communications (World Bank 2003b, 2002b).

25. In the last five years, the Bank has also increased the use of e-mail newsletters as a vehicle for dis-semination of information, knowledge, and ideas. According to the Forum One report (World Bank2003b), by mid-FY03, the Bank had 50 e-mail newsletters with some 90,000 subscribers, at least 20percent in developing countries. Many of these are maintained by thematic groups and network orRegional knowledge coordinators as a way to create communities of practice around the world relat-ed to a specific development issue. No evaluation of their impact was made as a part of this review.The growth in the number of subscribers as well as the specificity of their subject matter suggest thatthey are an important additional vehicle for Bank knowledge dissemination. And, as the Forum One


report indicates, e-mail newsletters serve as a method of disseminating World Bank resources espe-cially to audiences who have limited Internet access.

26. Available in English, French, Russian, and Spanish, the external sites are used with far more frequen-cy than the external Web sites of the International Monetary Fund and other multilateral develop-ment banks, though surpassed by those of the United Nations and European Union (World Bank2003b, 2002b).

27. See Annex C for further discussion of the requirements of effective content management.

28. The Quality Assurance Group reported improvements in quality at entry from 82 percent satisfacto-ry in FY96 to 94 percent satisfactory in FY01 and a drop in FY02 to 86 percent satisfactory. Qualityof supervision increased from 63 percent in FY96 to 89 percent in FY02. The Quality AssuranceGroup’s quality ratings on ESW also showed steady improvement, from 72 percent satisfactory inFY96 to 94 percent satisfactory in FY02 (World Bank 2003e, table 3.4, p. 1).

Chapter 4

29. Outside the scope of this review, various country programs have also given increased attention tohelping countries build up their information and communication technology (ICT) capabilities andbecome more competitive in the global knowledge economy. This growing knowledge-economy workinvolves both analytical work and lending that aims to increase the capacity of countries to acquireand use knowledge effectively.

30. See Annex E for a description of the methodology used in this review and interview survey.

31. Based on regular Quality Assurance Group reviews of samples of ESW, this type of highly participa-tory ESW increased from about 30 percent in FY00 to nearly 45 percent in FY02.

32. This same point is made by implication in the Strategy Update Paper for FY03-05 (World Bank2003c), which emphasizes the need for more integrated packages of knowledge and lending in coun-try programs.

33. See Annex G of this study. Survey included 121 respondents from 5 countries: Bangladesh, Brazil,Poland, Senegal, and Tanzania; and OED Workshop on Leveraging Knowledge for Development. SeeAnnex G for the summary report of the five-country client survey. A summary report of the work-shop is available on request.

34. The issue of translation has been recently addressed in a management proposal for a World BankGroup translation framework, discussed by the Board on July 3, 2003 (World Bank 2003f).

35. This same point is highlighted in the recent OED Brazil Country Assistance Evaluation (OED 2003c),which notes that the government sees an important role for the Bank “in informing society aboutlong-term structural issues, their potential solutions, and the trade-offs involved. To play this roleeffectively, however, the Bank must make a greater effort to disseminate its work among the severalpotential audiences and to the population at large.”

36. While in-country respondents may have vested interests in this issue, it should be noted that interna-tional experts participating in the OED workshop emphasized the same point, noting that knowledgeis local and contextual, and needs to be actively absorbed to be used effectively.

37. Tanzanian academic respondent to OED client survey. Respondents’ views regarding the weaknessesin dissemination, adaptation, and institutional capacity building are consistent with findings fromacross the Bank’s 30 client- feedback surveys conducted over FY99-02.

38. See Annex B, which includes a list of the Bank’s six global knowledge initiatives.

39. Currently under review are recommendations to: (1) establish a “gated decision process” for Bankinnovation and development of ICT and knowledge initiatives; (2) concentrate on the Bank’s role asa “content aggregator;” and (3) create an innovation fund to support new start-ups. See Digital4Sight 2002.

E N D N O T E S | 97

40. OED staff participated in the design of the Development Gateway, and two OED staff currentlyserve as guides for the Aid Effectiveness topic section, which involves review and approval of materi-al submitted for publication, development of policies and guidelines for what will be covered in thesection, and work to stimulate interest in and use of the material by development practitioners andresearchers.

41. One of the most vocal critics of the Bank’s role in the Development Gateway has been the Bretton Woods Project <brettonwoodsproject.org>

42. For example, Eldis, an online gateway managed by the Institute of Development Studies, offers con-tent for the research and academic communities; and OneWorld, an independent Web portal, hascreated a global communications network for NGOs and has found an innovative means of address-ing inequalities in Internet access by partnering to provide local radio programming.

43. It has been most effective when a topic has a well-defined application or purpose (as in the case ofthe Afghanistan Reconstruction Gateway) or has created an interactive community.

44. A strong feature of the start-up of the Country Gateways has been the transparent and phasedapproach by which they have been supported. This has involved an open call for proposals forsmall-scale grant funding, and seed financing provided through a two-stage planning and implemen-tation process. The approach contrasts with the nontransparent approach to establishing GDLN-affiliated centers, which has involved the Bank in direct negotiations rather than an open proposalprocess.

45. InfoDev, which receives World Bank funding from the Development Grant Facility, is a global pro-gram that provides grants and technical assistance to encourage policies that increase connectivityand to support innovative use of ICTs for development at global, Regional, national, and local levels.

46. This number, provided by WBI’s GDLN division, excludes four centers listed in information submit-ted to OED by Regional units (one each in AFR, EAP, ECA, and South Asia [SAR]). The discrepan-cy appears to derive from the absence of a common definition of what constitutes a GDLN center.Differences in definition relate to issues of whether a center should achieve a number of successfulactivities and have a minimum number of activities per year before being regarded as a full GDLNcenter.

47. This figure was provided to OED in the third quarter of FY03 by the Bank’s GDLN team.

48. Though programmed events declined in number from approximately 273 in FY01 to 259 in FY02,they were at a level of 142 by mid-FY03, indicating an upward turn. Moreover, despite fewer dis-crete events in FY02, they involved multiple sessions and, therefore, an estimated increase in numberof participant training days. Yet the latter trend appears to have reversed in the first part of FY03.

49. This is the finding of the background report on GDLN prepared for this evaluation and it is a mainpoint in a GDLN presentation (World Bank 2003a).

50. If DLC use were scheduled at 50 percent maximum use (that is, sustainability level according to thecurrent business model), an estimated sixfold increase in the number of events fielded in FY02 wouldbe needed in FY03 (World Bank 2003a, p. 18).

51. An innovative approach to supporting them is the LCR Content Development Fund. With resourcesfrom the Spanish government, this fund finances content development from sources of expertise inthe Region.

52. Africa Economic Research Consortium (AERC), Center for Economic Research and Graduate Edu-cation (CERGE-EI), East Asian Development Network (EADN), Economic Education and ResearchConsortium (EERC), Economic Research Forum-Middle East and North Africa (ERF), Latin Ameri-can and Caribbean Economic Association (LACEA), and South Asian Network of Economic Insti-tutes (SANEI).

53. This summary provides preliminary observations from a GDN review being conducted as part ofOED’s evaluation of the Bank’s global programs.


Chapter 5

54. Expenditures cited in this report are based on data from the Bank’s Business Warehouse RM 2.3-2.6and 5.1 (Supervision) and (Lending) reports. These figures retroactively incorporate budget reformchanges made in FY02 to include direct costs only, and the FY03 changes in business process coding,which alter the way knowledge management expenditures are reported. Comparator data from abenchmarking study conducted by the American Productivity and Quality Center suggest that thelevel of dedicated staffing for knowledge-sharing activities in the Bank is about twice that of the otherbest practice organizations (APQC 2002a, Annex B-1). A different set of comparators cited in earlyBank documentation for the knowledge initiative reported staff levels similar to or larger than theBank’s current level, but the basis of selection of this second set of comparators was not indicated.

55. Not included in these numbers are the Bank’s substantial investment in its information and commu-nication systems that support the knowledge-sharing activities as well as other Bank processes. Overthe period FY00-02 alone, total ICT expenditures amounted to just over US$183 million, of whichinformation and communication technology accounted for some US$111 million.

56. The Quality Assurance Group is currently carrying out a first assessment of sector boards and theircontribution to the quality of Bank operations, including the contribution of their knowledge man-agement function, which may lead to movement toward certain common standards, but none cur-rently exist as benchmarks for the assessment.

57. An attempt to develop and use knowledge flags as a way to accomplish this tracking has stalledbecause of lack of agreement on how to devise a system that serves the purposes of enhancing per-formance but that is not excessively onerous.

58. In July the Bank launched a Web-based application for project teams, the “Project Portal,” to facili-tate team efforts to access and create documents. In particular, the Project Concept Note (PCN) andProject Appraisal Document will be launched in Microsoft Word, so document sharing and editingwill be easier.

59. As stated in a 1998 paper explaining the concept of the Knowledge Bank: “While communicationswill be facilitated by electronic means, the knowledge management system is about people, not aboutmachines. The challenge is to harness the technology to link people together and to leverage itsimpact for development…. The technology is the relatively easy part…. The more difficult part of theKnowledge Bank will be the necessary organizational culture shift away from an individualistic modeof working and storing knowledge, towards a sharing team-based mode of work.” See World Bank1998c, pp. 3-4).

60. See figure 2.1 in Chapter 2.

E N D N O T E S | 99

Background Papers prepared for the evaluation, signified by an asterisk*, are available fromOED on request.

APQC (American Productivity and Quality Center). 2002a. “Building and Sustaining Communities ofPractice.” Houston, TX.

———. 2002b. “Retaining Valuable Knowledge: Proactive Strategies to Deal with a Shifting WorkForce.” Houston, TX.

———. 2000a. “Successfully Implementing Knowledge Management.” Houston, TX.

———. 2000b. “Sharing Best Practices in Knowledge Management.” Houston, TX.

Bair, J., and R. Hunter. 1998. “Introducing the KM Project Viability Assessment.” Gartner GroupResearch Note. Stamford, CT.

*Bevan, David. 2002. “Public Expenditure Management.” OED Background Paper, Washington, D.C.

Bezanson, Keith, and D. Stone. 2003. “Linking Research, Monitoring and Advocacy or Research andPolicy Makers: Are they Worlds Apart or Worlds Together?” Presented at the Global Policy Workshopon the Development Impact of Rich Countries’ Policies, Cairo, 16-17 January 2003.

Carayannis, Elias G., and Bruno Laporte. 2002. “By Decree or By Choice? A Case Study, ImplementingKnowledge Management and Sharing at the Education Sector of the World Bank.” WBI WorkingPapers, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Collison, V., and Geoff Parcell. 2002. Learning to Fly: Practical Lessons from One of the World’s Lead-ing Knowledge Companies. Oxford, U.K.: Capstone.

*Cummings, Jeffrey. 2002. “Knowledge Sharing: A Review of the Literature.” OED Background Paper,Washington, D.C.

Davenport, T. H., and John Glaser. 2002. “Just-in-Time Delivery Comes to Knowledge Management.”Harvard Business Review, July:107-11.

Davenport, T. H., and Morten T. Hansen. 2002. Knowledge Management at Anderson Consulting.Watertown, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Davenport, T. H., and Gilbert Probst. 2000. Knowledge Management Case Book. London: John Wiley &Sons.

Davenport, T. H., and Larry Prusak. 1998. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What TheyKnow. Watertown, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Davenport, T. H., D.W. De Long, and Michael C. Beers. 1998. “Successful Knowledge Management Pro-jects.” Sloan Management Review: 43-47.

Digital 4Sight. 2002. “Using Technology to Scale Up the World Bank’s Impact.” Toronto.

Dixon, Nancy, 2000. Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know.Watertown, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Ellerman, David, Stephen Denning, and Nagy Hanna. 2001. “Active Learning and Development Assis-tance.” Journal of Knowledge Management 5 (2): 171-79.

101

B I B L I O G R A P HY

Ellis, M. Sheldon, and Melissie Rumizen. 2002. “The Evolution of KM at Buckman Laboratories.”Knowledge Management Review 5 (1): 12-15.

Fonseca, Flavia. 2003. “The Effect of an Integrated Knowledge Management Architecture on Organiza-tional Performance and Impact: The Case of the World Bank.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Mary-land, Washington, D.C.

Fontaine, Michael A., and David R. Millen. 2002. “Understanding the Value of Communities of Practice:A Look at Both Sides of the Cost/Benefit Equation.” IBM Institute for Knowledge-Based Organiza-tions, Armonk, N.Y.

*Goldwyn, David L. 2002. “Power Sector Reform Review.” OED Background Paper, Washington, D.C.

Haas, Martine. 2002. “Acting on What Others Know: Distributed Knowledge and Team Performance.”Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Hansen, Morten, Nitin Nohria, and Thomas Tierney. 1999. “What’s Your Strategy for Managing Knowl-edge?” Harvard Business Review, March.

*King, Kenneth, and Simon McGrath. 2002. “Knowledge Sharing in Development Agencies: Lessonsfrom Four Cases.” OED Background Paper, Washington, D.C.

*Kleemeier, Elizabeth, and Keith Stallard. 2002. “Water Supply Sector.” OED Background Paper, Wash-ington, D.C.

Lev, Baruch. 2001. Intangibles: Management, Measurement, and Reporting. Washington, D.C: BrookingsInstitution.

McDermott, Richard. 2002. “Measuring the Impact of Communities.” Knowledge Management Review5 (2) 26-29.

Morey, Daryl, Mark Maybury, and Bhavani Thuraisingham, eds. 2000. Knowledge Management: Classicand Contemporary Works. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

OED (Operations Evaluation Department). Forthcoming. “The World Bank’s Approach to Global Pro-grams: An Independent Evaluation—Phase II.” Washington, D.C.

———. 2003a. “Lessons and Best Practices at the World Bank: A Survey Examining Formulation, Valida-tion, and Utilization Processes.” Washington, D.C.

———. 2003b. Annual Report on Operations Evaluation. Washington, D.C.

———. 2003c. Brazil Country Assistance Evaluation. Washington, D.C.

———. 2002a. “An Evaluation Framework for the Bank’s Knowledge-Sharing Process: An InterimReport of the OED Review.” Washington, D.C.

———. 2002b. “The World Bank’s Approach to Global Programs: An Independent Evaluation—PhaseI.” Washington, D.C.

Prusak, Larry. 1999. “Action Review of Knowledge Management: Report and Recommendations.” IBMInstitute for Knowledge Management, Armonk, NY.

*Romiszowski, Alex. 2003. “The Global Development Learning Network: A Review of the First TwoYears of Operation.” OED Background Paper, Washington, D.C.

Roos, Johan, J. Roos, N.C. Dragonetti, and L. Edvinsson. 1998. Intellectual Capital: Navigating theNew Business Landscape. New York: New York University Press.

Seeley, Charles P. 2002. “Igniting Knowledge in Your Business Processes: How to Connect KnowledgeActivities with Your Business Processes.” Knowledge Management Review 5 (4): 171-79.

Skyme, David. 2000. Cited in Knowledge Management: Classic and Contemporary Works, D. Morey andothers, eds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stone, Diane. 2003. “The ‘Knowledge Bank’ and the Global Development Network.” Global Gover-nance (9) 43-61.

———, ed. 2000. Banking on Knowledge: The Genesis of the Global Development Network. London:Routledge.


Stewart, Thomas. 1997. Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. New York: Doubleday.

U.S. Department of the Navy. 2001. Metrics Guide for Knowledge Management Initiatives. www.don-imit.navy.mil

*Walker, Louise, Heidi Hay, and Helen Walsh. 2003. “Start-Up of the Development Gateway.” OEDBackground Paper, Washington, D.C.

Wolfensohn, James D. 1996. “People and Development,” Annual Meetings Address, October 1, Washing-ton, D.C.

*Woodall, Maureen. 2002.“Primary and Secondary Education.” OED Background Paper, Washington,D.C.

World Bank. 2003a. “The World Bank’s Commitment to GDLN: From Start-up Towards Consolidation.”GDLN, Washington, D.C.

———. 2003b. Forum One Communications. World Bank Web in Review 2002: Overview of Usage ofOnline Services. Washington, D.C.

———. 2003c. “Strategy Update Paper for FY03-05: Implementing the World Bank’s Strategic Frame-work.” Washington, D.C.

———. 2003d. “Medium-Term IT Strategy for the Bank.” Information Solutions Group. Washington,D.C.

———. 2003e. Annual Report on Portfolio Performance: Fiscal Year 2002. Quality Assurance Group.Washington, D.C.

———. 2003f. “A Document Translation Framework for the World Bank Group.” Washington, D.C.

———. 2002, 2001, 2000, 1997. “Strategic Framework.” ESSD,Washington, D.C.

———. 2002a. China Country Assistance Strategy 2002. Washington, D.C.

———. 2002b. Forum One Communications: World Bank Web in Review: Overview of the Status andUsage of Online Services. Washington, D.C.

———. 2001a. “Assessment of the Strategic Compact.” World Bank External Relations Department,Washington, D.C.

———. 2001b. “Management’s Assessment of the Strategic Compact,” 3 (3) Washington, D.C.

———. 1998a. World Development Report 1998/99: Knowledge for Development. New York: OxfordUniversity Press for the World Bank.

———. 1998b. The Knowledge Bank. Washington, D.C.

———. 1997. The Strategic Compact: Reviewing the Bank’s Effectiveness to Fight Poverty. Washington,D.C.

———. Various years. Bank Staff Survey, 1997, 1999, 2002. Washington, D.C.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y | 103


ENHANCING DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS THROUGH EXCELLENCE AND INDEPENDENCE IN EVALUATION

The Operations Evaluation Department (OED) is an independent unit within the World Bank; it

reports directly to the Bank’s Board of Executive Directors. OED assesses what works, and what does

not; how a borrower plans to run and maintain a project; and the lasting contribution of the Bank to a

country’s overall development. The goals of evaluation are to learn from experience, to provide an

objective basis for assessing the results of the Bank’s work, and to provide accountability in the achieve-

ment of its objectives. It also improves Bank work by identifying and disseminating the lessons learned

from experience and by framing recommendations drawn from evaluation findings.

THE WORLD BANK W O R L D B A N K O P E R A T I O N S E V A L U A T I O N D E P A R T M E N T

Sharing KnowledgeInnovations and Remaining Challenges

An OED Evaluation

Sharing Knowledge:Innovations and Rem

aining Challenges

™xHSKIMBy357125zv":;:=:":#ISBN : 0-8213-5712-3

THE WORLD BANK

1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433 USATel: 202 473 1000Fax: 202 477 6391www.worldbank.org

TH

EW

OR

LD

BA

NK