1

Final Report on resources on Knowledge Management and Sharing in support of Policy processes in agriculture and other sectors

By:

Wenny W.S. Ho

For the Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA)

November 2015

2

Executive Summary

As per its strategic plan 2011-2015, CTA is committed to assisting ACP regions in supporting

policy processes on agricultural and rural development. Those efforts are managed through

the PMI programme of the Centre. CTA also supports relevant organisations to strengthen

methodologies, skills and tools to improve their KM activities. The ability of the ACP

institutions to combine these policy and KM efforts can ensure greater collective impact of

CTAs activities on the ground. This report explores KM methods skills and tools that are

more adapted to supporting policy processes. It consist of:

1. an exploratory phase on existing and documented resources on knowledge

management in support of policy processes in agriculture and other sectors;

2. a phase to ground the findings in the current implementation of policy processes

supported by CTA1; and

3. a phase to elaborate CTA-specific suggestions and recommendations for KM in

support of policy processes.

This report presents the findings of the first, exploratory phase, and lays the foundation for

the second phase of grounding the findings in policy processes supported by CTA. A policy

process is defined as: “The way policy reforms are planned, designed, implemented and

evaluated”. However, policy processes are not sharply delimited processes with static

boundaries and progressing through fixed stages. Although policy processes are perceived by

some as ‘complex and windy’, different emphases can be distinguished. These emphases

result in stages that cannot be clearly demarcated because they typically overlap, or flow

from one into another. The following five stages are discerned in a policy process:

1. agenda setting;

2. analysis;

3. decision-making;

4. implementation;

5. monitoring and evaluation

Information is explained as tangible data consisting of hard numbers and facts, independent

from context and easily transferable. Knowledge is then defined as contextualized and

interpreted information. In this report, the focus is placed on Knowledge Management (KM)

and Knowledge Sharing (KS). Knowledge Management is defined as encompassing any

processes and practices concerned with the creation, acquisition, capture, sharing and use of

knowledge, skills and expertise whether these are explicitly labelled as ‘KM’ or not. In

contrast to information sharing, Knowledge Sharing understood here as creating learning

processes, occurs when people are genuinely interested in helping one another develop new

capacities for action. As such, it forms an important part of Knowledge Management.

1 Specifically regarding Climate Smart Agriculture; Food and Nutrition Security; Regional Trade; and possibly

Value Chain Development

3

While there are numerous definitions of KM, the number of approaches and instruments

and tools is even greater. These are presented and discussed in chapter one. The literature

search regarding KM approaches and tools in support of policy suggests that many of these

have been developed first for businesses or companies. Only later have they been adopted

or adapted for policy processes. Even when policy processes are presented as the central

focus, KM approaches and tools are not developed specifically or exclusively for policy

processes. Yet, both from a KM and from a policy process lens, there are areas where KM

and policy processes converge and synergize around a purpose. These purpose-oriented

areas deserve further development, for which a holistic perspective on and systems

approach to KM in support of policy processes is required to further strengthen their

synergies.

A first step to achieve this is to look at the lessons already learned from reviews of general

KM approaches and tools. One key lesson learned from evaluations of KM approaches across

different sectors is that KM approaches and instruments need to contribute to an

organisation’s mission. For that, they need to closely relate to the organisation’s core

business processes. Similarly, KM approaches and instruments should support policy

processes based on an intimate connection with the main policy stages that are

distinguished in this report. For each stage, a short description of typical KM approaches is

given, followed by an annotated presentation of KM resources and tools.

Major trends in policy making are sketched and their implications for KM in support of policy

processes are offered. The report concludes with an overview of KM approaches and tools

that are already in use in policy processes supported by CTA. Propositions are put forward

how KM support for policy processes can further be enhanced, especially given the trends

described earlier in the report.

4

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 2

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1. Working definitions ..................................................................................................................... 6

1.2. Scope of the study: boundary setting and assumptions .............................................................. 7

2. KM approaches and instruments for different stages in policy processes ....................................... 11

2.1 Agenda Setting ............................................................................................................................ 12

2.1.1 Information .................................................................................................................... 12

2.1.2 Research ........................................................................................................................ 13

2.1.3 Knowledge Integration: systems-based tools for agenda setting ................................. 14

2.2 Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 14

2.3 Decision making (Defining objectives & options) ................................................................. 16

2.4 Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 20

2.5 Monitoring & Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 21

3. KM in support of Policy processes: three issues of importance ................................................ 23

3.1 Political dimensions of policy processes .................................................................................... 24

3.2 Power relations and local voices in policy processes ............................................................... 24

3.3 Emerging trends in policy processes ........................................................................................ 25

4. KM services and products ............................................................................................................... 27

ANNEX : ................................................................................................................................................. 29

5

1. Introduction

The CTA Strategic plan 2011-2015 refers to addressing three strategic goals, one of which is

supporting policy processes in ACP regions. As example, the CAADP being implemented

across the African continent by partners of CTA requires the development of knowledge,

information and skills to respond to issues and challenges encountered during

implementation. The recently developed CAADP results framework refers to the reliance on

high quality analysis and knowledge products, documentation of successes, experiences and

lessons learnt being shared in order to feed the policy dialogue among implementing

partners. This synergizes with another strategic goal of the CTA, which is to strengthen

capacity of ACP institutions in knowledge management. The ability of the ACP institutions to

combine these policy and KM efforts can ensure greater collective impact of CTAs activities

on the ground.

This report presents a study on KM methods skills and tools that are more adapted to

supporting policy processes. The study consisted of:

1. a phase on existing and documented resources on knowledge management in

support of policy processes in agriculture and other sectors;

2. a phase to ground the findings in the current policy processes supported by CTA2

(through desk research on CTA's policy-making processes and if necessary key

interviews with staff) to map their distinguishing characteristics and the existing use

of KM;

3. a phase to elaborate CTA-specific suggestions and recommendations for KM in

support of policy processes:

a. analyse potential areas for improvement in applying KM techniques and tools

to support policy processes, to strengthen inclusive knowledge and evidence-

based policy processes and multi-stakeholder decision-making;

b. Identify and annotate existing learning resources that are relevant to the

areas identified above, and compile a list of web-based resources that can

serve as a reference base for KM in policy processes which could also be

promoted by CTA among ACP institutions;

c. Based on the above analysis, develop proposals for the development of

additional learning resources that can fill gaps identified.

This report presents the findings of the first, exploratory phase consisting of research on

existing and documented resources on knowledge management in support of policy

processes in agriculture and other sectors.

2 Specifically regarding Climate Smart Agriculture; Food and Nutrition Security; Regional Trade; and possibly

Value Chain Development

6

Policy processes are not sharply delimited processes with fixed and static boundaries.

Rather, they share fuzzy boundaries with other processes that feed into change and

innovation, ranging from bureaucratic and public administration processes to bargaining and

conflict resolution. In consequence, defining and delimiting knowledge management and

knowledge sharing in support of policy processes may suffer from the same overlap.

In the first chapter definitions and descriptions are given to provide easier handling of the

broad topic of KM in support of policy processes. This framework of definitions and concepts

are then used to unpack policy processes. In this way, a better fit and fruitful relationship

with KM approaches and tools is achieved which is detailed in the second chapter. In the

third and closing chapter, some observations will be made about trends and innovations in

policy processes which may require further attention for the development or identification

of KM techniques to accompany such trends.

1.1. Working definitions

For this report, the following working definition is used to describe and delimit a policy

process: “The way policy reforms are planned, designed, implemented and evaluated”

(©FAO 2009 Resources for policy making).3 By deliberately leaving open the how, what and

who, the definition encompasses also aspects and stages that are conventionally not

included in formal policy processes, such as, various forms of more informal citizen

consultations.

Policy making has traditionally been viewed as a linear, top-down approach with two distinct

phases: formulation and implementation. This approach has been criticized for many years,

based on the argument that policy development is an open, dynamic, and highly political

process, which involves multiple actors and negotiations.4 Several organisations involved in

policy processes propose that for various reasons “policy processes are complex and messy”. 5 While in general this may be true, still different emphases can be distinguished. These

result in stages in one and the same policy process that cannot always be clearly demarcated

because they typically flow from one stage over into another.

Different sources distinguish different stages, for example, by differentiating stages per

objective. This may result in the stages of communication/information dissemination,

sharing, learning, policy-making, policy change, and policy implementation and monitoring.

For public policy processes in the USA, a multi-stage cycle is proposed with “six stages that

overlap each other, with additional mini-stages, in a process that never really ends”.6 The six

3 http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/541/making-sense_policy_processes_169en.pdf Accessed 10

th May 2014

4 http://www.gsdrc.org/go/topic-guides/political-systems/policy-processes. Accessed 10

th May 2014

5 Dubois O. and U.P. Ciamarra, FAO, 2009 : http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/541/making-

sense_policy_processes_169en.pdf Accessed 10th

May 2014 6 http://www.laits.utexas.edu/gov310/PEP/policy/ Accessed 10

th May 2014

7

stages are: problem identification; agenda setting; policy making including policy

formulation; budgeting; implementation; and, evaluation.

Information is here explained as tangible data consisting of hard numbers and facts,

independent from context and easily transferable. Knowledge is then defined as

contextualized and interpreted information (Hjorth (2003. In: Hordijk, M. and I. Baud, 2006).

This study focuses on two knowledge areas: Knowledge Management (KM) and Knowledge

Sharing (KS). A simple definition of the role of KM is “getting the right knowledge to the

right person at the right time”. 7 However, the central concept of ‘Use’ is left out this way.

Therefore, in this paper, a working definition is used of Knowledge Management as

encompassing any processes and practices concerned with the creation, acquisition, capture,

sharing and use of knowledge, skills and expertise whether these are explicitly labelled as

‘KM’ or not (Swan et al., 1999. In: Ferguson et al. 2008:8),

Knowledge Sharing is an elusive concept which is used according to one’s purpose. At times

it is used to point out the dissemination of information, other times, it is described as

working intensively together. For example, Peter Senge states that:

“Sharing knowledge is not about giving people something, or getting something from

them. That is only valid for information sharing. Sharing knowledge occurs when

people are genuinely interested in helping one another develop new capacities for

action; it is about creating learning processes.”8

In the same vein, David Gurteen states that “knowledge sharing is not just about giving, but

fundamentally, it is about being more open in your way of work and in your relationships

with other people”.

In this report, knowledge sharing is interpreted in this second manner and follows the

description given by Peter Senge. As a consequence, here Knowledge Sharing understood to

be an important part of Knowledge Management (KM).

Taking into account the fact that numerous definitions of KM exist, the range of approaches

and instruments and tools is still baffling. However, it is important to see that despite

different names, there is a great degree of overlap in approaches and tools.

1.2. Scope of the study: boundary setting and assumptions

An exploratory search of available literature regarding KM approaches and tools and

mechanisms in support of policy covering different sectors including agriculture, health and

education resulted in a number of conclusions. Firstly, ‘pure’ KM approaches, mechanisms

7 http://www.knowledge-management-tools.net/#ixzz35Y4y3oMd Accessed 10

th May 2014

8 http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/knowledge-sharing Accessed 2nd June 2014.

8

and tools in support of policy do not exist . Many have in a first instance been developed for

businesses or companies, and only later been adopted for policy processes. In consequence,

various resources that appear to contain relevant resources on KM approaches and tools for

policy processes are primarily oriented towards businesses (e.g. ‘KM for performance and

growth’), and therefore, implicitly or explicitly, are oriented by a profit-making aim. An

example is the Henley Forum (previously known as Henley KM Forum), developed by an

university-based business school.9 Other resources that present approaches and tools

considered to be useful for policy processes have been developed by private companies.

One example concerns decision-making tools.10 Although KM is no silos and tools and

approaches developed for one purpose can also be used in other ways, it is important to be

aware of, for example, implicit assumptions underlying the design of an approach or a tool.

Secondly, knowledge of any kind or origin has to have a special format when entering the

political sphere including political action.11 It is said that knowledge contents which are

foreign to operating rules of policy processes cannot be handled. Especially in policy-making,

knowledge has to present a special plausibility, a focus on “what works” (Cibele & al., 2010)

to enhance its chance to impact on policies decisions and solutions. As a consequence,

special provisions may be required to make knowledge suitable for policy processes.

Thirdly, oftentimes, even when policy processes are presented as the central focus of KM

approaches and tools, these are not developed specifically or exclusively for policy

processes. Several sites presented as focused on policy processes, propose general KM

approaches and tools that were sometimes slightly adapted to or organized for policy

purposes.

An example is:

http://www.kmbestpractices.com/uploads/5/2/7/0/5270671/idea_knowledge_management_tools_

and_techniques.pdf (accessed 17th June 2014).

This site focused on supporting local government organizes its portfolio of KM resources in three blocks,

each with corresponding tools and techniques:

1. connecting people to information and knowledge (case study, rapid evidence review (RER),

knowledge banks, IDeA knowledge)

2. connecting people to people (communities of practice (CoP), peer assist, knowledge café,

knowledge marketplace)

3. organisation improvement (gone well/not gone well, after action review (AAR), retrospective

review, knowledge exchange

Although one of the appendixes lists online services for local government, none of the KM tools and

techniques described on this site are exclusively for policy processes.

9 http://www.henley.reading.ac.uk/research/research-centres/the-henley-forum-for-organisational-learning-and-

knowledge-strategies/ Accessed 1st June 2014. 10

http://www.knowledge-management-tools.net/knowledge-management-tools.html#ixzz33ZGMn4f0 accessed 2nd June

2014. 11

http://www.knowandpol.eu/Knowledge-as-practice.html?rub_id=255 MAYR Katharina, NASSEHI Armin, VON DER

HAGEN Alma Accessed 3rd

June 2014.

9

Fourthly, the literature search points to several well-established policy areas that despite

being intimately associated, are not explicitly pointed out as KM related. In consequence,

although these areas do receive a fair degree of consideration within the policy realm, they

do not automatically benefit from insights gained in KM, or the other way around.

From a KM angle, certain policy-related areas so far did received (some) attention from KM

experts and practitioners. These policy areas relate to the following categories of KM

products and services:

knowledge (through M&E and evidence creation) for advocacy and policy campaigns;

knowledge to feed into policy processes as information or evidence (evidence-based

policy making) with research often taken as knowledge production, that is producing

information for policy development e.g. through mapping and statistics or through

Policy briefings toolkit.

Example: http://www.policy.manchester.ac.uk/resources/briefingtoolkit/

Knowledge for monitoring and learning to create evidence and to judge policy

impact. Although there is an overlap with the first category, the purpose with which

the knowledge is produced differs.

Examples of resources:

o http://www.policy.manchester.ac.uk/resources/

o E.g. “Sir Humphrey and the professors: what does Whitehall want from academics, April 2014

http://www.policy.manchester.ac.uk/media/projects/policymanchester/1008_Policy@Man

chester_Senior_Civil_Servants_Survey_v4%281%29.pdf

knowledge and innovation co-creation especially as an aspect of changing

governance arrangements. This is an emerging theme in KM that demands more

attention.12

From a knowledge lens then, the emphasis is on producing KM products and services for a

certain use: for advocacy and campaigns, to strengthen (evidence-based) policy-making, for

learning, for co-creation.

From a policy lens, the following policy areas are closely related to KM:

policy and regulatory research and analysis

government research and analysis

policy impact analysis

12

http://journal.km4dev.org/index.php/km4dj/article/view/170/224

10

policy and regulatory intelligence, often resulting in briefings

policy development and implementation

These policy areas can be said to correspond to three (sub-)categories of demands for KM

results (products and services).

1. Research and analysis is intended to contribute to forecasting, that is, to foresee,

understand and assess strategic responses to complex public policy, regulatory and

reputational challenges. Oftentimes, this is achieved through capturing and

understanding the factors, stakeholders and possible outcomes that drive a policy or

regulatory process. Therefore, different types of intelligence can be said to form the

first category of KM product or service.

2. With regard to policy development and implementation, a second category is the

demand for composite KM products and services that combine a deep knowledge of

a sector with a knowledge about how best to assess and successfully manage political

and regulatory risk , and to navigate the evolving political climate. This second

category of KM results therefore consist of different types of evidence of, for

example, what works.

3. This second category of ‘knowing the terrain’ including how to navigate in relation to

risks is closely related to the third category of demand, that is, for knowledge about

‘how are we doing’. This third category consists of types to understand the policy

impacts.

These categories of KM results (products and services ) for policy processes can be

schematically presented as follows (see figure 1):

Figure 1: categories of KM products and services already in demand for policy processes.

In summary, from both a policy process and from a KM lens, there are areas of policy

types of intelligence

types of impacts

types of evidence

11

processes where the two already intersect through a need for KM products and services. The three categories of KM products and services already in demand for policy processes can be described as follows:

input for research and analysis (types of intelligence);

knowledge about what will work (types of evidence);

knowledge about how we are doing and what has been achieved (types of impact). These can be used to various ends, such as in advocacy and campaigns, to strengthen (evidence-based) policy-making, for learning, and for co-creation.

Describing or explicating the above-mentioned policy areas as KM areas generates

opportunities to enhance the synergy between KM and policy processes. For example, policy

processes can benefit from insights and lessons learnt in KM about how best to design

analytical exercises, or what principles to use to make these into inclusive multi-stakeholder

knowledge creation activities.

One key lesson learned from evaluations of KM approaches across different sectors is that

KM approaches and instruments need to contribute to an organisation’s mission. For that,

they need to intimately related to the organisation’s core business processes. Similarly, KM

approaches and instruments should support policy processes based on an intimate

connection with the main policy stages, namely:

1. agenda setting;

2. analysis;

3. decision-making;

4. implementation;

5. monitoring and evaluation

Therefore, the next chapter adopts the above set of stages and addresses the KM

approaches and instruments for each stage of a policy process.

2. KM approaches and instruments for different stages in policy processes

The previous chapter described the various concepts and established a method of presenting

how KM can support policy processes. While it is recognized that a policy process is ‘messy

and complex’, five stages were distinguished. In this chapter we have a closer look at these

five stages and the KM resources that may support a policy process at a particular stage. For

each stage, first the KM approach is described, that is, the specific focus and the guiding

12

philosophy. This then is followed by a short overview of KM tools that can be used

particularly during that stage. Where available and useful, examples are presented of tools.

2.1 Agenda Setting

Generally, agenda setting can be called a first stage in a policy process. Depending on the

design and aim, agenda setting can take on different forms and involve various types of

participants.

KM Approach Generally, KM approaches focus on obtaining or generating quantitatively or

qualitatively better information in order to make the process of agenda setting more robust.

This may be achieved by including information from other stakeholders like, for example,

local communities. To achieve this, systems principles may be followed for example to

identify stakeholders.

KM Tools For agenda setting, KM tools can be arranged in three groups, each with a different

knowledge purpose:

2.1.1 Information

2.1.2 Research

2.1.3 Knowledge integration

2.1.1 Information

With regard to KM tools used with the intention to expand the information base, a great

part of these are based on information systems intended to generate or improve maps, data

bases, and statistics.

Examples are:

African Regional Commodity Trade Link, current and historical commodity price information

International Monetary Fund, Data and Statistics

Regional Agricultural Trade Information Intelligence Network (RATIN), current and historical

commodity price information

United Nations, Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), FAOSTAT

United Nations, Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), International Commodity Prices

United Nations, Statistics Division, Commodity Trade Statistics Database, Comtrade

United Nations, Statistics Division, National Accounts

West Africa Agricultural Trade Network, current and historical commodity price information

http://www.resakss.org/map/

Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System - ReSAKSS (http://www.resakss.org/) is

an Africa-wide network of regional nodes that offers high-quality analyses and knowledge products to

13

support implementation of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP).

It approaches information (and research) from a systems’ angle. It could therefore also be categorized

under systems tools (see number 2.1.3).

The above listed resources are oriented towards (inter-) National Information Systems. One

important functionality is how to arrive from an (inter)national system to a local information

system. Led by local partnerships, Local Information Systems (LIS) collect, store and

disseminate information to support local decision-making and citizen empowerment.

One interesting website that provides information on how to assess LIS and develop LIS pilots is:

http://www.esd.org.uk/esdtoolkit/Communities/LIS/ContentView.aspx?ContentType=Content-287

and

http://www.esd.org.uk/Esdtoolkit/Communities/LIS/ContentView.aspx?ContentType=Content-372

These webpages provide a place for public sector staff to access and exchange support, advice, learning

and resources on local information systems. They also provide links to further resources.

2.1.2 Research

Whenever outside knowledge enters the political sphere, it has to go through a special

transformation process in order to become a usable resource for political action. This is

especially the case with scientific or academic knowledge with its special kind of inherent

self-doubt. A U-turn is needed to create a form of self-confidence– the opposite of self-

doubt. This is needed to present a special plausibility in policy processes knowledge is valued

that has the appearance of having passed the test of “feasibility” and providing ground for

‘evidence’- based policy processes.

ODI’s Research and Policy in Development Programme (RAPID)’s has created a framework for relating

research with policy: http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/events-

documents/2764.pdf The framework comes with a detailed list of questions to assess the relationships

between research and policy: http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-

opinion-files/8854.pdf

In general, the RAPID’s site contains resources focused on the roles evidence based research plays,

amongst other issues, in influencing policy, and tools for bridging research and policy.

With regard to KM-based research tools and instruments, these can be grouped as follows,

with each group consisting of a multitude of different tools:

1. quantitative research tools, e.g. surveys. These tools often border the group of

information tools;

2. qualitative research tools, e.g. focus group discussions;

3. mixed methods: methods combining quantitative and qualitative tools.

14

2.1.3 Knowledge Integration: systems-based tools for agenda setting

In complex situations, for example, when multiple stakeholders are involved, designing the

stages of a policy process requires special attention. In such conditions how to build an

agenda entails special efforts, because of the range of voices involved. In consequence,

systems principles are used to varying degree in KM for policy processes.

Examples exist which demonstrate how to use an integrated knowledge translation

approach to build a public health research agenda.

An example from the health sector how that can be done is:

http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/12/1/6 (Accessed 2nd June 2014) describes a case of

how a policy agenda was developed. The purpose of the Accelerating Public Health Systems Research in

Ontario: Building an Agenda was to bring together a group of key stakeholders from across Ontario with an

interest and expertise in Public Health Systems Research (PHSR), as well as national and international

PHSR experts, to engage in discussion and debate about PH systems research priorities at the provincial

level.

2.2 Analysis

Agenda setting is generally followed by analysis, a second stage in the policy process.

Similarly to the stage of agenda setting, analysis can focus on a range of aspects and take

many various forms involving different stakeholders depending on the specific aim and

design. Although in this stage, the emphasis is on analysis, analytical actions can occur in

other stages as well, notably in that of monitoring and evaluation.

KM Approach Overall, the aim of KM is to deepen or broaden the process of analysis in order

to enhance its quality and in that way ensure a better quality policy process. If designed and

implemented well, analysis can lead to the creation of more robust evidence.

KM Tools In general, KM tools focus on discerning what we are dealing with. Some resources

cover one topic of the analysis stage, other cover a range of different topics.

Regarding more topical analytical tools, a first group concentrates on the type of policy

processes. The leading question is what kind of policy process is at hand. In short, what is

going on. Distinguishing the type of knowledge involved in the policy process then serves as

a basis to determine the type of KM approach.

This is exemplified in the following document: http://www.henley.ac.uk/web/FILES/corporate/cl-

Knowledge_in_Action_issue_25.pdf

Some resources cover various tools and methods. One such resource presents a review of

different policy analysis tools and methods:

15

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/mafap/documents/Synthesis_Report/Policy_analysis_in_Af

rica_-_a_review_of_experiences_and_methods.pdf

Of the reviewed methods the most relevant one is value chain analysis (VCA) for policy-

making (see especially chapter 2 in that document). While topical, VCA can be said to pertain

to a second group consisting of KM tools based in systems thinking.

A third group can be said to consist of more integrated (as opposed to topical) tools that

cover different areas. They can but need not be based on systems thinking.

An example of a non-systems based site located in the agricultural sector is:

http://www.fao.org/mafap/en/

MAFAP develops innovative analysis for policymakers and other stakeholders in the food and agricultural

sector and covers most of the key issues driving food and agricultural policy dialogue. It translates

information into analytical products such as country reports, commodity-specific technical notes, policy

briefs and country profiles.

An example of an integrated, systems-based KM source is the guide on strategic analysis and creation of

knowledge support systems13, first launched by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

IFPRI defines a Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS) as a network of people and

institutions that provides timely, credible, and evidence-based knowledge and analysis to inform

agricultural and rural development (ARD) strategies in Africa. Although it pitches at a conceptual level,

and in consequence is not always an easy read for those in search of step by step handbooks, the guide

provides different strategic analysis models in a conceptually clear and well-founded manner.

In this same category belong the earlier mentioned tools to create strategic analysis and knowledge

support systems, like the earlier mentioned regional strategy analysis and knowledge support systems.

Within systems-based tools, there are several (sub)groups that cover important topics. In

consequence, here they are placed separately because of their importance and the special

attention that should be given to the aspects they cover.

A fourth group of tools focuses on analysis of different aspects of stakeholders.

The Stakeholder Power Analysis guide developed by IIED in 200514 focuses on the analysis of power in

multi-stakeholder relations in policy processes. The guide proposes an approach with the following six

steps:

1. Develop purpose and procedures of analysis and initial understanding of the system

2. Identify key stakeholders

3. Investigate stakeholders’ interests, characteristics and circumstances

4. Identify patterns and contexts of interaction between stakeholders

13

Michael Johnson and Kathleen Flaherty, 2011. Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support Systems for Agriculture and

Rural Development in Africa: Translating evidence into action. IFPRI Food Security in Practice series.

http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/sp6.pdf Accessed 5th June 2014 14 http://www.policy-powertools.org/Tools/Understanding/docs/stakeholder_power_tool_english.pdf Accessed 6th June

2014

16

5. Assess stakeholders’ power and potential roles

6. Assess options and use the findings to make progress

The guide is detailed and provides concrete, doable guidance geared towards achieving change

particularly in policy areas.

Within the group of tools for stakeholder analysis are tools for social network analysis. These

tools can be IT or non-IT based and focus on stakeholders and sometimes their relationships.

An example is the spider-web diagram (http://www.wageningenportals.nl/msp/tool/spider-web-

network-diagram). This tool allows for a quick visualization of the actors and their interrelations in

multi-stakeholder process (MSP ) including networks. The diagram will show which stakeholders are

well-connected to each other, and what sub-coalitions are present in the MSP configuration and the

different types of relationships.

Within the group of stakeholder relations analysis tools, some zero in on specific type of

relations.

An example is the Political Analytical Tool (PAT:

http://www.wageningenportals.nl/msp/tool/political-analytical-tool-software) which is a piece of

software that helps to visualise political relationships (coalitions, alliances, networks), developed by the

Developmental Leadership Program (www.dlprog.org).

A fifth group of KM tools focuses on analysis of institutions with an institution being “any

structure or mechanism of social order governing the behaviour of a set of individuals within

a given group”.

Two examples are:

http://go.worldbank.org/Y8JVGH86W1 which provides a clear description of what social analysis of

institutions is. It distinguishes between static map and process map. However, the guide is less strong on

the how to’s of social analysis of institutions;

http://www.wageningenportals.nl/msp/tool/institutional-analysis. This resource provides detailed and

concrete guidance on how to do an institutional analysis.

A sixth and last group of tools focuses on the change process, for example by analyzing the

drivers and containers of change.

An example is: http://www.managingforimpact.org/tool/drivers-and-constrainers-change. This tool is

used to strategically assess ‘forces’ that are involved in keeping a situation as it is or moving it in a

different direction.

2.3 Decision making (Defining objectives & options)

17

In the third stage of a policy process, emphasis is on decision-making. Decisions can be taken

about many aspects, but generally relate in one way or the other to planning of the policy

process.

KM Approach Overall, the aim of KM is to contribute to the robustness of decision making in

a policy process. They can contribute in two ways:

1. Create or strengthen the knowledge base from which participants in the policy

process draw to make decisions;

2. Encourage reflection and reflexivity, among others, by bringing in divergent voices or

broadening the range of issues to be considered.

At a general level, it is argued that good decision making processes need to relate to and be

embedded within an organisation’s or a network’s central processes. Various aspects of KM

can help in ensuring that the organisation has considered and optimized the conditions to

support decision-making processes. These include, for example, the use of expert

knowledge, use of technology, internal and external collaborations, organisational learning

from decisions, and developing individuals as decision makers.

One proposition how to do that is made in the following resource:

http://www.henley.ac.uk/web/FILES/corporate/cl-KM_Forum_Knowledge_in_Action_issue_21.pdf

(Accessed 16th June 2014).

It points to five essential factors that must be worked on in an integrated way in order to improve the

organisation’s ability to make good decisions. The five factors are: the use of expert knowledge, use of

technology, internal and external collaborations, organisational learning from decisions, and developing

individuals as decision makers. These five factors relate to KM in differing degrees.

KM Tools

Three different categories of ways of making decisions are considered here:

Consensus decision making: decision making processes that aims to find decisions

which everyone can accept.

Hierarchical decision making: making decisions on the basis of formal positions of

authority

Majority decision making: basing decisions which have the support of the majority of

the decision makers.

KM methods and tools can then be classified per way of decision-making.

One resource that describes these ways of decision-making and groups KM methods and tools

accordingly is: http://betterevaluation.org/plan/manage/who_controls. Although it focuses on

decisions related to evaluations, the methods and tools described can be used in policy processes, such as

the guide to consensus decision-making.

18

Another resource is the KS toolkit which describes a multitude of methods and tools in a more detailed

manner. Dotmocracy (http://www.kstoolkit.org/Dotmocracy is an example of a tool that may be

relevant in a policy decision-making process. Unfortunately, while organized per ‘context’ (e.g.

planning, monitoring and evaluation; listening, gathering information etc….), the toolkit does not

separate out tools for policy processes, nor do the contexts overlap with the policy process stages such as

decision-making. This forces a reader to review the tools one by one.

KM tools can take further issues identified during the stage of analysis e.g. by mapping

drivers, trends, issues and stakeholders. Mapping is useful in planning for action and

ultimately meant to strengthen policy decisions. Mapping can also be applied in the later

stage of analysis.

Mapping can zoom in the major drivers to bring about change, how these are translating

into trends for different actors, and what the implications (issues and opportunities) of these

trends are for different actors. Such a mapping exercise produces three sets of outputs for

multi-stakeholder settings:

A list of key drivers;

A list of trends, some of which may be certain, and others which will be uncertain.

Looking at uncertainties is an important part of the scenario analysis;

A table that lists different issues and opportunities for different stakeholders faced

with these trends.

By making these explicit, they can be shared and in this way facilitate a process of shared

decision-making.

An example of a mapping tool is: http://www.wageningenportals.nl/msp/tool/mapping-drivers-trends-

issues-and-opportunities

Also, there is the category of Decision support systems. Generally, these are specific

computer software applications that are capable of carrying out reasoning and analysing a

subject area with a level of proficiency close to the level of human experts. The role of these

systems is to access and manipulate data in order to computerize and structure decision-

making. They usually work with a data warehouse, use an online analytical processing

system (OLAP), and employ data mining techniques. In some cases they also include

functionalities targeting the management of participatory processes. Also, they can provide

an analysis of obstacles and problems, and recommendations for future use.

One example from the water sector is: http://www.splash-era.net/downloads/D9-4_D9-

5_DSS_for_IWRM.pdf (accessed 3rd June 2014). It describes how a decision support system can be used,

and presents experiences in different countries.

Another example is the following resource from the agricultural sector:

http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/babu99_01.pdf which described an approach

19

used to generate decentralized policy recommendations of crop choices in order to achieve household

food security and nutrition.

Furthermore, KM tools can aim at different ways of so-called Knowledge Translation (KT).

These tools often equate knowledge with research, and they specifically focus on ‘preparing’

research results for use in policy decision-making.

One example15 proposes the need for research summaries, that translates research results specifically for

management and policy purposes. The resource pleads for more collaboration between the data

collectors (researchers) and the data interpreters (decision-makers) as those working in the system are

often more skilled at this than those collecting the data, and careful an context-dependent data

interpretation is crucial.

Another example is the Knowledge Translation Toolkit prepared for IDRC16 (2011) which provides

handles on how to effectively bridge the “know–do” gap between research, policy and practice.

Ultimately, it aims to contribute to evidence-informed decision-making.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) presents a clear overview of existing KT frameworks in the

context of ageing, but the observations made are applicable more widely.17 The page provides an

overview of strengths and weaknesses of different knowledge translation frameworks for health policy

making (in this case of ageing).

The review of KT frameworks demonstrate that the frameworks span a wide spectrum of theories, such

as, planned action theory, diffusion of innovation, change management theory, and decision making

theories. Several of the frameworks share concepts. However, the majority of them have not been

empirically tested. The following frameworks and tools were identified:

1. Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services(PARIHS) framework

2. Ottawa Model of Research Use (OMRU) framework

3. The Knowledge to Action (KTA) framework

4. Framework for Research Dissemination and Utilization(RD&U)

5. Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR)

6. Research and Policy in Development (RAPID) model

7. Assessing country level efforts linking research to action (Linking RTA)

8. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF) Self-Assessment tool

9. Supporting Policy relevant Reviews and Trials (SUPPORT) tools

One important condition for knowledge translation to work, is that it has to be embedded

within the core business and central managerial process. By doing so, an organisational

learning process can be supported.

15 CHSRF Knowledge Transfer: Decision Support: A New Approach to Making the Best Healthcare Management and Policy

Choices. Healthcare Quarterly, 10(3) May 2007: 16-18. http://www.longwoods.com/content/18918 Accessed 2nd

June

2014 16

http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/Publications/Pages/IDRCBookDetails.aspx?PublicationID=851. Accessed 10th

September 2014. 17

http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/knowledge_translation.pdf?ua=1 Accessed 2nd June 2014 (page 10)

20

The following resource (http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/8/05-026922.pdf) proposes a

basic approach to ensuring that knowledge from research studies is translated for use in health services

management so as to build a learning organization. It posits that an integrated and interactive approach is

essential to ensure that knowledge from research is translated in a way that allows a learning organization

to be built. For this, knowledge is not to be used merely to influence a single decision in isolation from

the overall services and management of an organization. Rather, it is important to understand how

different knowledge types interact in overall health services management.

Another resource that also focuses on Knowledge Translation is Integrated Knowledge Translation

(IKT). IKT covers different approaches, but generally the intention is to involve different parties

including end-users in activities to reformat knowledge to increase its usability. The Canadian Institutes

of Health Research (CIHR) have developed various practical IKT resources:

Factsheet Knowledge translation CIHR (Health): http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/39033.html

Guide to Knowledge Translation Planning at CIHR: Integrated and End-of-Grant Approaches

http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/45321.html Accessed 2nd June 2014

A Guide to Researcher and Knowledge-User Collaboration in Health Research, http://www.cihr-ir

sc.gc.ca/e/44954.html. 18

A fifth category of tools focuses specifically on Knowledge Sharing for policy decisions. The

assumption is that evidence-based decision making can be promoted by collecting and

disseminating information on policy decisions.

The Food and Agriculture Policy Decision Analysis (FAPDA:

http://www.fao.org/economic/fapda/tool/Main.html) is an initiative that aims to do so via a freely

accessible web-based tool. The web-based tool FAPDA tool gathers policy decisions collected since 2008

from more than eighty countries. It tracks national food and agriculture policy decisions in more than

eighty countries. At country level, FAPDA focuses on developing the capacities of national partners and

institutionalizing policy monitoring functions to systematically monitor and analyze policy decisions for a

more transparent and effective policy environment and coherent and effective food and agriculture

policies.

2.4 Implementation

In the fourth stage of a policy process is emphasis is on the one hand on how the

implementation of a policy can be guided, and on the other hand, on what can be done

during the policy implementation period.

KM Approach Overall, in this stage, the aim of KM approaches and tools is twofold and

follows the emphases of this stage, that is:

1. to guide the implementation of a policy; and

18

A Guide to Researcher and Knowledge-User Collaboration in Health Research, http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/44954.html.

David Parry, BA (Hons.) Jon Salsberg, MA Ann C. Macaulay, CM MD FCPC, McGill (PRAM)

21

2. to contribute to obtaining needed knowledge during the implementation, and based

on that knowledge to adjust the way a policy is implemented.

KM Tools The first aim of KM of guiding implementation of policy is closely related to the

stage of analysis; the second aim of finding out what can be done during policy

implementation overlaps with the stage of monitoring and evaluation. The KM tools

corresponding to these two aims will therefore be dealt with during those stages.

From a more general perspective on implementation of a policy, the following resource presents a short

overview of lessons that lead to successfully linking knowledge with action: www.future-

agricultures.org/e-debate/.../470-patti-kristjanson

2.5 Monitoring & Evaluation

In the fifth stage of a policy process emphasis is on monitoring and evaluation. In general,

monitoring means to be aware of the state of a system, a process of a situation including

any changes which may occur over time. Evaluation is to appraise or assess in a structured

way, to interpret and give of meaning to predicted or actual impacts of proposals or results.

Policy monitoring comprises activities that range from describing and analyzing the

development and implementation of policies, identifying potential gaps in the process and

areas for improvement, to holding policy implementers accountable. Policy evaluation

applies evaluation principles and methods to examine the content, implementation or

impact of a policy. It is the activity through which an understanding is developed of the

merit, worth, and utility of a policy.19 Both monitoring and evaluation can take on a number

of different forms with slightly different purposes, stakeholders and audiences. This diversity

reflects on approaches and tools for KM for policy processes.

It has to be remembered that a policy process needs not to end at this stage of monitoring

and evaluation, but may consist of multiple cycles of overlapping and –overflowing stages

characterized by different emphases in focus. In consequence, monitoring and evaluation

may lead to a new cycle in a policy process.

KM Approach As mentioned before, overall, the aim of KM is to strengthen the knowledge

base (through generation or sharing of knowledge) that guides or provides the basis to

adjust a policy process. In that sense, it is closely interrelated to aspects of learning,

accountability, and control, and should be embedded in processes of management of the

core services and business.

KM Tools With regard to policy monitoring, different concepts and steps in monitoring exist.

19

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/policy/Brief%201-a.pdf accessed 20th

June 2014

22

A concise description of is given in the following resource:

http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/images/documents/Monitoring_Steps/Policy_and_plan_effective

ness_monitoring/Policy_and_plan_effectiveness_monitoring_-_Monitoring_Steps_20022014.pdf

Although referring to the context of New Zealand, for example, its laws and other particularities, the

document provides a clear description of the different steps for policy monitoring and practical counsel

how to design these.

One specific area of policy monitoring which received a lot of attention is monitoring of

policy influence. There are various resources available in this area, all closely related to

advocacy or lobby.

Examples are:

1. "ROMA - the ultimate development policy guide". Although this resource by RAPID, ODI’s

Research and Policy in Development programme is focused on policy influencing, the tools

proposed can be used for policy processes in general. An example is the section on monitoring and

managing data: http://roma.odi.org/how_to_monitor-collecting_and_managing_data.html. The

innovation is that the Rapid Outcome Mapping Approach (ROMA) guide uses outcome mapping, a

method worked out by IDRC, as the basis of their methodology;

2. http://www.vippal.org/brochure/archivos/learners_practitioners_and_teachers.pdf Learners,

practitioners, and teachers : handbook on monitoring, evaluating and managing knowledge for

policy influence. Vanesa Weyrauch ; Julia D ́Agostino ; Clara Richards. - 1a ed. - Buenos Aires :

Fundación CIPPEC, 2011. Although this resource focuses on Latin-America and (sideways) on

education, the insights and guidelines proffered can be used more widely.

With regard to policy evaluation, it should be stressed that policy evaluation and program

evaluation lie close to each other. However, while they have many similarities, there are

some important differences as well.

One example www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/policy/Brief 1-a.pdf spells out some of these differences:

1. The level of analysis required (e.g., system or community level for policy evaluation; program level

for program evaluation).

2. The degree of control and clear “boundaries” may be more challenging with policy evaluation

3. The ability to identify an equivalent comparison community may be more challenging with policy

evaluation.

4. The scale and scope of data collection may be greater with policy evaluation.

5. Policy evaluation may require increased emphasis on the use of surveillance and administrative data.

6. The type and number of stakeholders involved may different

Although this resource has been developed for violence and injury prevention policies in Canada, the

proposed differences do apply to other policy areas as well.

23

This same source describes clearly the different steps to be organized in policy evaluation, thereby

distinguishing phases of evaluating policy content, policy implementation and impact. The site20 also

provides a number of briefs that each describe a different type of policy evaluation.

There exists a number of tools or toolkits specifically for policy monitoring and evaluation. In

general, the proposed tools are also applicable in monitoring and evaluation of other issues.

Some examples are presented here:

1. A guide for civil society organisations to monitor policies

http://commdev.org/files/1818_file_monitoringgovernmentpolicies.pdf Used tools are for example,

Interviews, surveys, focus groups.

2. IPAL guide 3, Keystone accountability

http://www.keystoneaccountability.org/sites/default/files/3%20Learning%20with%20constituents_0

.pdf Accessed 11th June 2014

A practical guide explaining three instruments or tools (feedback survey, formal dialogue processes,

journals of change) to identifying, documenting and analysing evidence of (planned or unplanned) impact

and learning from this in dialogue with constituents. Although focused on evidence, the tools are also

applicable for policy processes.

3. To monitor policy impacts, eight methodological steps of MPI are presented in:

http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/383/8-methlgcl-stps_057EN.pdf 2005. It presents a clear, but

linear model and thinking. oriented to formal system e.g. ministry

4. Keystone and IScale present a step-by-step guide focused on how to set up and conduct a feedback survey

for transnational social change networks. It is also useful more in general for multi-level/multi-location

policy processes http://www.keystoneaccountability.org/sites/default/files/Network%20CCF-guide-

web.pdf Accessed 11th June 2014

5. To enable a participatory review of local governance conditions,

http://www.impactalliance.org/ev_en.php?ID=12698_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC (Accessed 11th June

2014) presents an assessment is made of Local Governance. It also allows the comparison of results from

one locality to another.

As mentioned, the use of the tools and toolkits presented on the above sites is not limited to

policy processes. Focus groups, for example, can also be used in many other ways. In

general, there is an overlap between KM tools for policy monitoring and evaluation with

more general monitoring and evaluation tools.

3. KM in support of Policy processes: three issues of importance

When looking into KM approaches and tools in support of policy processes, a number of

issues emerges which needs to be taken into consideration. This chapter deals with three

such issues. They form the complex gist of policy processes, and force involved parties to

think twice about designing and rolling out linear, top-down approaches and tools. These

issues are:

20

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/about/policy/evaluation.html accessed 20th June 2014

24

3.1 The political dimensions of policy processes;

3.2 the related issue of power relations and local voices;

3.3 The emerging trends in policy processes.

3.1 Political dimensions of policy processes

Political dimensions form innate elements of a policy process. They need to be identified,

analysed and taken into consideration in the design and implementation of policy process.

Political dimensions require that conflict management and negotiation form inherent

aspects of navigating and managing policy processes. As a consequence, they also should

form important elements in the design and use of KM resources for the different stages of

policy processes. There are numerous resources available on negotiation and conflict

management or resolution.

One example is the following resource on negotiation, which explains the different stages of negotiation

process: http://www.skillsyouneed.com/ips/negotiation.html (accessed 3rd July 2014).

Another resource that briefly explains the different types of and tools for more effective negotiations is:

http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/798/negotiation-introduction_256en.pdf (accessed 3rd July

2014).

This resource rightly promotes the idea that there is no one right way to negotiate, and that negotiation is

not a theory, but a set of practical skills that follow a certain mindset and thinking. Although supposedly

meant specifically for policy processes, the suggested thinking based on the three pillars of process,

relations, and content, is more widely applicable. The same site

(http://www.fao.org/easypol/output/index.asp) also offers a more detailed paper:

http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/550/4-5_negotiation_background_paper_179en.pdf (accessed

2nd July 2014). The paper first presents five different approaches to negotiation, followed by a practical

description of the seven steps to what it calls principled bargaining.

Although not focused on policy processes per say , the following resource provides a very practical and

hands-on 12 skills approach to conflict resolution: http://www.crnhq.org/pages.php?pID=10 (accessed

29th of June 2014). Examples of skills are:

The win-win approach: http://www.crnhq.org/pages.php?pID=12#skill_1

Willingness to resolve: http://www.crnhq.org/pages.php?pID=12#skill_4

Introduction to negotiation: http://www.crnhq.org/pages.php?pID=12#skill_10

Although strictly speaking, resources are not explicitly named KM, they are closely related

and often make up key elements in KM approaches and tools for policy processes.

3.2 Power relations and local voices in policy processes

Related to political dimensions is the issue of power relations in policy processes. For

example, whose knowledge is taken into consideration when designing KM approaches, or

25

using KM tools depends on the constellation of power relations. Often, special provisions

need to be made in order to surface local voices or voices that are not mainstream as these

may lack the resources, standing or recognition to participate as equal partners in

knowledge endeavours in policy processes.

The following resource deals with knowledge, policy and power in international development:

http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8201.pdf.

This working paper present a four-fold framework for analysing the interface between knowledge,

policy and practice. The framework is designed to enable all those who a play a role in shaping the

content of policies - policy-makers, researchers, civil society organisations, non-governmental

organisations and donors - to better understand and address the complex interaction between knowledge

and policy. Although at times abstract, the paper is practical enough to help stakeholders understand of

the complex interface between knowledge and policy and to systematically draw out grounded,

operational implications for action.

3.3 Emerging trends in policy processes

In policy processes, value judgements and political interests play roles that are of equal

importance as technical facts and rational aspects. Overlapping and competing agendas

further complicate a smooth process. More and more, policy processes take place in a

landscape of growing complexity where policy issues cannot easily be dealt with through

ready-made solutions. The call therefore is for KM approaches and tools that support an

emergent learning approach and allow for multiple parties to contribute. This puts forward

the need, among others, for multilevel, and multi-stakeholder approaches.

In this landscape of growing complexity, three emerging changes can be identified in policy

processes. The first change relates to technological advances thereby transforming the way

interactions take place in policy processes. This change is generally driven by ICT. As a result,

KM approaches and tools such as digital networks, platforms and social media tools make

their way into policy processes. They change the way how, for example, citizens

consultations can be organised, how stakeholders in a policy process can interact or call each

other to account.

A second change sprouts from the degree of complexity of current days problems. Food and

nutrition security, climate change and water management are issues that cannot be solved

by one party alone. They require policy processes that depend on multi-stakeholder

approaches and tools, and that often stretched over multiple levels. This also applies to KM

for policy processes. A range of approaches have emerged in past years, such as, round

tables, or innovation platforms. They generally make use of systems principles and stress the

need for participation.

26

Constituent Voice is a methodology developed by Keystone Accountability to enable organizations to

improve results by optimizing their relationships with their constituents. The technical note explains step

by step how to use voices from constituents to design a process from design to evaluation, including a

policy process. Technical Note 1: Constituent Voice, Autumn 2013. Accessed 10th July 2014.

http://www.keystoneaccountability.org/sites/default/files/Technical%20Note%201%20-

%20Constituent%20Voice%20.pdf

Across sectors, policy processes make use of participatory methods when they aim for

inclusiveness or have multi-stakeholder characteristics such as policy processes with round

tables or innovation platforms.

The following resource http://www.participatorymethods.org/ is a site that provides a quick overview of

process stages when participatory methods can be used:

Plan, Monitor and Evaluate

Learn and Empower

Research and Analyse

Communicate

Facilitate

The site explains briefly what participatory methods are, where and how they are used, and their problems

and potentials, but does not provide how-to’s. It does, however, provide useful links to facilitation tools and

methods: http://www.participatorymethods.org/task/facilitate

Another site that is focused on participatory approaches and tools is:

http://www.fao.org/Participation/english_web_new/content_en/tool_part_.html.

It organizes approaches and tools along a project cycle. Although some tools are outdated (e.g. logframes)

and the tools are not specific to policy processes, the site is useful to obtain some structured ideas about tools

and methods. Especially the page on project management stages provides tools and methods that can be used

in policy processes, such as participatory data gathering tools.

A third change concerns the shifting roles and functions of government agencies. Big

government is to be replaced by big society, business is to drive (and resource) economic

growth and societal change, value for money is becoming a governing principle. As a

consequence, not only do accountability strategies play an increasing role, also concepts

such as open governance and co-governance forms increasingly play a role in policy

processes. As a consequence of these changes, KM also take on a different character with a

greater emphasis on multi-stakeholder and co-creation approaches and tools. This results in

an increase in approaches and tools based on systems principles.

One example is a learning alliance (http://www.alianzasdeaprendizaje.org/index.php) which rely on an

iterative learning process jointly undertaken among multiple stakeholders including, among others,

knowledge institutes including universities and research organizations, development agencies, policy

makers and private businesses.

27

4. KM services and products

As we have seen in the first chapter, from a policy perspective, the three categories of KM

products and services already in demand for policy processes are:

input for research and analysis (types of intelligence);

knowledge about what will work (types of evidence);

knowledge about how we are doing and what has been achieved (types of impact).

At the same time, from a knowledge angle, categories of KM products and services are also

created for certain policy-related areas:

knowledge (through M&E and evidence creation) for advocacy and policy campaigns;

knowledge to feed into policy processes as information or evidence with research

often taken as knowledge production;

knowledge for monitoring and learning to create evidence and to judge policy impact

(with a purpose differing from the first category);

knowledge and innovation co-creation especially as an aspect of changing

governance arrangements.

As explained, there are areas of policy processes where these already connect with KM

pushed by a need for knowledge products and services. To further to strengthen the

appropriateness of KM approaches and tools and enhance synergies for CTA's support policy

processes, this chapter will look into design and implementation of knowledge products

creation.

28

29

ANNEX : Policy processes phases Knowledge Management Examples of Resources

Agenda setting

Depending on the design

and aim, agenda setting

can take on different forms

and involve various types

of participants.

Approach Generally, KM approaches

focus on obtaining or generating

quantitatively or qualitatively better

information in order to make the

process of agenda setting more

robust. This may be achieved by

including information from other

stakeholders like, for example, local

communities. To achieve this,

systems principles may be followed

for example to identify

stakeholders.

KM Tools KM tools can be arranged

in three groups, each with a

different knowledge purpose:

a. Information

b. Research

c. Knowledge integration

Analysis

Depending on the aim and

design, analysis can focus

on a range of aspects and

take many various forms

involving different

stakeholders. Although in

this stage, the emphasis is

on analysis, analytical

actions can occur in other

stages as well, notably in

that of monitoring and

evaluation.

Approach Overall, the aim of KM is

to deepen or broaden the process

of analysis in order to enhance its

quality and in that way ensure a

better quality policy process.

KM Tools In general, KM tools focus

on discerning what we are dealing

with, such as type of stakeholders,

power relations, etc.

Decision-making

Decisions can be taken

about many aspects, but

generally relate in one way

or the other to planning of

Approach Overall, the aim of KM is

to contribute to the robustness of

decision making in a policy process.

They can contribute in two ways:

3. Create or strengthen the

knowledge base from which

30

the policy process.

participants in the policy

process draw to make

decisions

4. Encourage reflection and

reflexivity, among others,

by bringing in divergent

voices or broadening the

range of issues to be

considered

KM Tools

First of all, KM can help unravel the

ways of making decisions. This can

be done in different ways: by

distinguishing type of decisions, by

decision support systems, or by

knowledge translation frameworks

Implementation

In the fourth stage of a

policy process is emphasis

is on the one hand on how

the implementation of a

policy can be guided, and

on the other hand, on

what can be done during

the policy implementation.

Approach Overall, the aim of KM

approaches and tools follows the

emphases during this stage, that is

to guide the implementation of a

policy, and to contribute to

obtaining needed knowledge during

the implementation, and based on

that knowledge to adjust the way a

policy is implemented.

KM Tools The first contribution of

KM of guiding implementation of

policy is closely related to the stage

of analysis;, the second contribution

of finding out what can be done

during policy implementation

overlaps with the stage of

monitoring and evaluation. The KM

tools corresponding to these two

contributions will therefore be dealt

with during those stages.

Monitoring and

evaluation

Policy monitoring

comprises activities that

range from describing and

Approach Overall, the aim of KM is

to strengthen the knowledge base

(through generation or sharing of

knowledge) that guides or provides

the basis to adjust a policy process.

31

analyzing the development

and implementation of

policies, identifying

potential gaps in the

process and areas for

improvement, to holding

policy implementers

accountable.

Policy evaluation applies

evaluation principles and

methods to examine the

content, implementation

or impact of a policy. It is

the activity through which

an understanding is

developed of the merit,

worth, and utility of a

policy.

Both monitoring and

evaluation can take on a

number of different forms

with slightly different

purposes, stakeholders

and audiences.

In that sense, it is closely

interrelated to aspects of learning,

accountability, and control, and

should be embedded in processes

of management of the core services

and business.

KM Tools There is an overlap

between KM tools for policy

monitoring and evaluation with

more general monitoring and

evaluation tools.

One specific area of policy

monitoring which received a lot of

attention is monitoring of policy

influence.