k4health east africa field support the state of knowledge
TRANSCRIPT
K4Health East Africa Field Support
The State of Knowledge Management in ECSA-HC
Findings from the Endline Data Collection
December 2016
Contents Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................................................. ii
Acronyms............................................................................................................................................................................ iii
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... iv
Background .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
K4Health East Africa Field Project ............................................................................................................................ 1
Baseline Survey 2015—Summary .............................................................................................................................. 1
Endline Survey 2016 ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
Findings ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Participant Characteristics .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Findings in KM Programmatic Areas (Survey and KII) ......................................................................................... 8
Findings in KM Capacity Areas (KM CAT) ........................................................................................................... 24
Recommendations and Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 29
Appendix 1: Pathway to Sustainable Knowledge Management in East Africa ................................................... 32
Appendix 2: Knowledge Management Capacity Scores at Baseline and Endline .............................................. 33
ii
Acknowledgments
This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The views expressed herein do
not necessarily reflect those of USAID or the U.S. government.
The Knowledge for Health (K4Health) Project is supported by USAID’s Office of Population
and Reproductive Health, Bureau for Global Health, under Cooperative Agreement #AID-
OAA-A-13-00068 with the Johns Hopkins University. K4Health is led by the Johns Hopkins
Center for Communication Programs (CCP) in collaboration with FHI 360, IntraHealth
International, and Management Sciences for Health.
The three-year East Africa Field Support project (March 2014 to December 2016) was funded
by USAID East Africa Mission, and was a partnership between four organizations: the East,
Central, and Southern Africa Health Community (ECSA-HC); the East African Community,
USAID East Africa Mission; and K4Health.
iii
Acronyms
CAT capacity assessment tool
CCP Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs
ECSA-HC East, Central and Southern Africa Health Community
GHeL Global Health eLearning
IT information technology
K4Health Knowledge for Health (Project)
KII key informant interview
KM knowledge management
M&E monitoring and evaluation
MSH Management Sciences for Health
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WHO World Health Organization
iv
Executive Summary
Introduction
The goal of the Knowledge for Health (K4Health) East Africa Field Project (March 2014 to
December 2016) was to improve the exchange of information, experiences, tools, research,
and knowledge concerning health service delivery among governments and stakeholders in East
and Central Africa. K4Health collected baseline data in August 2015 to measure existing KM
capacity and collected data for an endline assessment in October 2016 to gauge the impact of
KM interventions. The objectives of this study are as follows:
1. To review progress made by ECSA-HC in adopting KM practices over the project
period;
2. To assess and demonstrate the impact of KM interventions over time; and
3. To identify KM capacity gaps at ECSA-HC Secretariat.
K4Health employed a mixed-method approach, combining both qualitative and quantitative
methods, to gain a comprehensive understanding of various KM domains addressed by the
project. The data collection phase included three sequential components to enhance and
validate findings: a structured survey, the KM capacity assessment tool (CAT), and key
informant interviews (KIIs). The K4Health team organized and coded the data from the
structured survey and the KM CAT into spreadsheets using Microsoft Excel and examined
frequencies and trends. The interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed in ATLAS.ti to
identify emerging themes.
Participant Characteristics
In the baseline assessment, 26% of participants were female and 74% were male. In the endline
assessment, 47% of participants were female and 53% were male. In both the baseline and
endline assessments, a large majority of the participants had more than six years of work
experience and the majority of participants had worked for ECSA-HC for one to five years.
Key Findings and Recommendations
The KM capacity assessment systematically documented and compared the progress before and
after the project had been implemented. The assessment resulted in a number of key findings
and recommendations that the ECSA-HC Secretariat may consider useful in order to increase
the effective use of KM approaches in the future, as shown below. Findings and
recommendations from the endline assessment complement the Knowledge Management Needs
Assessment of ECSA-HC Member States, which was conducted in the summer of 2016.
v
Themes Key findings Recommendations
Improve systems
Leadership
commitment to
KM
ECSA-HC staff members
understood the value of KM and
recognized the leadership
commitment to further integrate
KM approaches into their day-to-
day work.
Continue showing leadership
commitment by including KM in
budgets and activities at both the
program and organizational levels.
KM strategy There was a notable lack of
awareness among ECSA-HC staff
about the existence of the KM
strategy documents. KM
components are currently
embedded in other broader
strategies (e.g., research
information, advocacy, or communications).
Continue showing leadership
commitment to KM components and
related practices that support the
overall KM strategy. (i.e., editorial
review board).
Consider developing a stand-alone KM
strategy that will guide KM activities within ECSA-HC and its member states.
The KM strategy should also specify
various roles and responsibilities of the
KM M&E team and the newly appointed
KM M&E manager. The strategy may
also include roles and responsibilities of
member-state KM champions.
Systematic use
of KM
The continued application of KM
practices and techniques needs
improvement, particularly those
that have been adopted and
viewed as practical for everyday
work.
Continue to systematically review KM
needs and implement appropriate
strategies, for example, incorporate KM
activities into the ECSA-HC work plan
and program work plans, and conduct
quarterly reviews of progress on KM
activities.
Enhance Technical Expertise
KM champions ECSA-HC staff members
articulated the role of KM
champions well and frequently
interacted with KM champions to
ask for programmatic and
technical advice.
Consider continuing to nurture KM
champions at the ECSA-HC. Strengthen
their role in supporting leadership and
staff to continuously apply KM
practices, identify KM needs among
ECSA-HC staff, and connect them to
appropriate resources to increase their
KM capacity.
vi
While ECSA-HC Secretariat expands
KM expertise to member states,
consider using a KM champion
approach, which has been successful at
the Secretariat.
Maximize Networks
Role of ECSA-
HC as a
knowledge hub
Respondents expressed a desire
and aspiration to position ECSA-
HC as a knowledge hub in the
region.
Strengthen collaboration between
ECSA-HC and other intergovernmental
organizations and organizations in the
region to showcase ECSA-HC’s
technical expertise in health.
Consider strengthening collaboration
particularly with those organizations
identified during the development of
the Resource Mobilization Strategy and
Business Planning and Proposal
Development Workshops.
The Best Practices Forum is an existing
ECSA-HC event that can strategically
position ECSA-HC as a knowledge hub
in the region. Consider continuing to
enhance the event through advance
preparation and increased participation.
Consider building upon the skills
acquired during the Journal Writing
Workshop and prioritize a number of
journal articles for publication.
Knowledge
sharing
Sharing knowledge between
partner states continues to be a
challenge, similar to findings from
the KM needs assessment of
ECSA-HC member states.
Ensure that the ECSA-HC Secretariat is
more visible within the member states
and that it clearly promotes what it can
offer in terms of technical assistance to
member states.
Consider prioritizing the activities
identified over the past few years and
through the Member States Needs
Assessment to enhance ECSA-HC’s
visibility and relevance in the region.
These include enhancing participation at
the Best Practices Forum and Health
vii
Ministers Conference.
Prioritize communication about the
Health Ministers Conference to ensure
that people are aware of its existence
and the purpose of the resolutions and
follow up on whether the resolutions
are being implemented.
Finalize the website revision that began
during the K4Health East Africa project.
Finalize the website refresh that has
started.
Overall, it is important for ECSA-HC to recognize that some of the internal challenges, for
example, the workload and other commitments among staff members and timing to complete
and approve processes, may have impacted the finalization of some of the KM strategies and
policies. The formalization of those strategies and policies will contribute to integrating KM into
the organization more holistically and systematically, and continue to strengthen the foundation
for knowledge sharing and learning among all ECSA-HC staff.
1
Background
K4Health East Africa Field Project
In 2013 USAID Kenya/East Africa launched a strategic framework to “Catalyze and Accelerate
the Scale-Up of High-Impact and Sustainable Solutions to Priority Health Systems Challenges in
East Africa.” The framework calls for USAID Kenya/East Africa to strengthen the capacity of
regional intergovernmental institutions to improve the quality of health services and outcomes
in the region, and to influence and accelerate the scale-up of high-impact solutions to common
health systems challenges in East Africa.
From March 2014 to December 2016, the USAID/East Africa Mission engaged the Knowledge
for Health (K4Health) project to work with key partners in the region on knowledge
management (KM) capacity. The project sought to improve the exchange of information,
experiences, tools, research, and knowledge concerning health service delivery among
governments and stakeholders in East and Central Africa.
K4Health worked closely with the East, Central, and Southern African Health Community
(ECSA-HC) to enhance the organization’s KM capacity in four areas: (1) improve collaboration,
sharing, and learning; (2) scale up high-impact practices; (3) reduce duplication of effort, and (4)
improve the quality of health systems across countries in the region. These objectives aligned
with ECSA-HC’s 2012–2017 strategic plan, which included the following recommendations: (1)
enhance technical expertise (developing KM champions), (2) improve KM systems, including
public online repository system, and (3) maximize networks (virtual forums, website, and
linkages with member states resource centers).
Baseline Survey 2015—Summary
K4Health collected data on ECSA-HC’s KM capacity in August 2015 (baseline) and October
2016 (endline) to measure the impact of KM interventions.
Key findings on KM programmatic areas at the baseline assessment were:
KM was considered a new yet promising concept.
Almost all participants said KM was an essential part of their work.
On average, people knew of three KM champions within ECSA-HC and three outside of
ECSA-HC.
2
Staff used various KM techniques and approaches, and notably about one-half of
participants had completed an after-action review and developed a fact sheet/brief in the
last six months.
Key findings on KM capacity:
KM activities were happening but on an ad hoc basis and non-standardized manner.
When asked what aspirations or expectations they had in regard to successful uses of
KM, participants wanted to improve the current online library, expand the information
technology (IT) system, and tailor information to specific audiences.
Based on the findings and the participants’ aspirations, K4Health made specific
recommendations as follows:
Continue to focus on increasing the visibility of ECSA-HC by ensuring that the
website/online library provides up-to-date materials on relevant health topics and is
interactive and user friendly.
Identify a team of KM champions/coordinators at ECSA-HC and among member
states who will take the lead in collecting, synthesizing, and sharing up-to-date
information. Create an internal staff matrix or directory.
Create tools and templates to help member states organize their contents and
facilitate the process of producing an analysis/synthesis report.
Establish processes and procedures to document and submit best practices and assist
each program to build its staff capacity to document their own stories.
Endline Survey 2016
Objective
K4Health conducted an endline data collection activity in July 2016 in collaboration with the
ECSA-HC Secretariat staff. Its aim was to measure attitudes and behaviors toward KM practice
among ECSA-HC staff to demonstrate the effects of project interventions over time, since the
start of the project. More specifically, the objectives of the endline data collection activities
were to:
1. Review progress made by ECSA-HC in adopting KM practices over the project period;
2. Assess and demonstrate the impact of KM interventions over time; and
3. Identify KM capacity gaps at ECSA-HC Secretariat.
The data collection activity was guided by K4Health’s Social KM approach, the Center for
Communication Programs’ Ideation conceptual framework, as well as K4Health’s KM
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) Logic Model. The K4Health and USAID gender strategies
were also taken into consideration.
3
The linkages between two specific project objectives, endline data collection topics, and
instruments were as follows (Table 1).
Table 1: Linkages between project objectives, endline data collection topics, and instruments
Project objectives Conceptual
framework,
work plan,
performance
monitoring
plan
elements
Topics covered by the
baseline and endline
data collection activity
Data sources
Objective 1
Improve effectiveness
and efficiency of
knowledge sharing
among the ECSA-HC
Secretariat and its
member countries
Building a
foundation
Role of KM, KM
champions, KM strategies
and policies, participation
of men and women
Survey
KM capacity
assessment
tool (CAT)
Key
informant
interviews
(KIIs)
Improving
systems
ECSA-HC’s use of KM,
public online repositories
Survey
KIIs
Enhancing
technical
expertise
KM trainings, KM
techniques and approaches
Survey
KIIs
Objective 2
Build sustainable
African leadership to
maintain and update
KM systems within
the region
Maximizing
networks
ECSA-HC virtual forums
and website
Survey
KIIs
Strengthening
KM capacity
and culture
Future aspirations,
five capacity elements
(people, process, platform,
partnership, and problem
solving)
KM CAT
KIIs
4
Methods
K4Health employed a mixed-method approach, combining both qualitative and quantitative
methods, to gain a comprehensive understanding of various KM domains addressed by the
project. The data collection team was composed of three members: a staff member from
K4Health/Arusha, a staff member from the Tanzania Center for Communication Programs
(TCCP) in Dar es Salaam, and a staff member from K4Health in Baltimore. The data collection
team aimed to interview the same participants who participated in the baseline assessment.
However, in the absence or unavailability of the same participants, the data collection team
interviewed others who were first-time participants, but had been exposed to the KM
interventions implemented during the project period. The data collection phase included the
same three sequential components from the baseline to enhance and validate findings. The
components were a structured survey, the KM capacity assessment tool (CAT), and key
informant interviews (KIIs). As shown in Table 2, at endline, the survey had the highest number
of participants (N=17). Of the 17 participants, 9 participated in the KM CAT discussions, and 6
participated in interviews. For reference and comparison purposes, the baseline data are listed
in the table as well.
Table 2: Objective and number of participants for each method
Method Objective Design Participants
Baseline Endline
Survey To understand how
ECSA-HC perceived
the role of KM
activities and champions
and how it used KM
trainings, techniques,
strategies, and other
tools to support its
work.
This was a quantitative
instrument containing
mostly closed-ended
questions focused on KM
programmatic areas.
Open-ended questions
were included for data
validation purposes and to
elicit further information
about attitudes and
norms.
N=19
Program
assistants,
officers,
managers,
and
directors
N=17
Program
assistants,
officers,
managers,
and
directors
KM
CAT
To better understand
the complete picture of
KM capacity within
ECSA-HC.
This included both
quantitative aspects (rating
of KM maturity using a 5-
point scale) and qualitative
N=9
Group 1
(n=5)
N=9
Group 1
(n=5)
5
(A facilitator helps a
group to describe a
shared understanding of
the current state using
core KM topics: people,
process, platform,
partnership, and
problem solving during
group discussions).
elements (assessing
participants’ experience
through open-ended
questions).
Program
assistants
and officers
Group 2
(n=4)
Managers
and
directors
Director
and
manager
Group 2
(n=4)
Program
manager,
officer, and
specialist
KII To elicit more in-depth
feedback on both KM
programmatic areas and
KM capacity elements,
and validate the data
collected from the
survey and KM CAT.
This was a qualitative
instrument designed to
gather additional
information from a
selected number of
representatives based on
prior information
gathered.
N=7
Program
officers,
managers,
and
directors
N=6
Program
officers,
managers,
and
directors
Analysis
The K4Health team organized and coded the data from the structured survey and the KM CAT
into spreadsheets using Microsoft Excel and examined frequencies and trends. The interviews
were transcribed, coded, and analyzed in ATLAS.ti to identify emerging themes. The data from
all three sources were organized into two main categories: (1) KM programmatic areas
corresponding to work plan activities and (2) KM capacity components, and then analyzed for
cross-cutting themes.
6
Findings
Participant Characteristics
Sex
Table 3: Sex of participants
Sex Baseline
(N=19)
Endline
(N=17)
Female 26% 47%
Male 74% 53%
In the baseline assessment, 26% of participants were female and 74% were male. In the endline
assessment, 47% of participants were female and 53% were male. The percentages were closer
in the endline assessment, but overall, a majority of the participants were male.
Education Level
Table 4: Education level of participants
Baseline
(N=19)
Endline
(N=17)
University degree 11% 6%
Master’s degree 73% 82%
Doctoral degree 16% 12%
In both the baseline and endline assessments, the most common level of education was a
master’s degree; 82% of participants in the endline assessment had a master’s degree, whereas
only 73% had a master’s degree in the baseline assessment. A smaller percentage had either a
four-year degree from a university or a doctoral degree. None of the participants received less
than a four-year degree.
7
Job Function
Table 5: Job function of participants
Baseline
(N=19)
Endline
(N=17)
Director 21% 24%
Manager 21% 18%
Officer 42% 30%
IT 5% 7%
Other 5% 12%
For both baseline and endline assessments, Officer was the most common job function. The
least common job function was IT. The percentages for both the baseline and endline
assessments were similar for each job function.
Number of Years Worked
Table 6: Number of years participants worked
Baseline (N=19)
Endline (N=17)
<1 year 0% 7%
1–5 years 11% 7%
6–10 years 42% 35%
11–15 years 16% 18%
16–20 years 5% 7%
21–25 years 16% 12%
26–30 years 5% 7%
31 years or more 5% 7%
In both the baseline and endline assessments, a large majority of the participants had more than
6 years of work experience. In fact, for both assessments, most participants had between 6 and
8
10 years of experience. In the baseline assessment, 42% of participants had 6 to 10 years of
experience, and in the endline assessment, 35% had worked for 6 to 10 years.
Number of Years Worked at ECSA-HC
Table 7: Number of years participants worked at ECSA-HC
Baseline
(N=19)
Endline
(N=17)
<1 year 5% 12%
1–5 years 58% 53%
6–10 years 32% 29%
21–25 years 5% 6%
In both the baseline and the endline assessments, the majority of participants had worked for
ECSA-HC for one to five years, 58% at baseline and 53% at endline.
Findings in KM Programmatic Areas (Survey and KII)
This section presents findings from the survey and KII, and covers the issues that relate to
various KM programmatic components of the K4Health East Africa Project—the role of KM,
KM champions, KM trainings, KM techniques and approaches, KM strategies and policies, public
online repositories, and virtual forums. Each section presents and compares qualitative data
from baseline and endline first, and then some notable themes gathered from the analysis of the
qualitative data (KII) are also highlighted. There are also several unique issues covered only by
KII including ECSA-HC’s use of KM, participation of men and women, and future aspirations.
Role of KM
Participants were asked to describe KM in their own words, and how KM helped fulfill their job
responsibilities and contributed to the goal of improving health systems in the region. In
general, the findings from the endline assessment were very similar to the baseline assessment.
Endline findings revealed that participants already had comprehensive and coherent views about
KM regarding its meaning, value, and contribution to health systems in the region.
All of the survey respondents said that KM was essential in helping them fulfill their job
responsibilities and no one questioned the value of KM. Collectively, respondents defined KM
through the description of various processes, including the generation, collection, and
9
organization of knowledge. They also mentioned the importance of sharing knowledge and
information with the right audience and its use for decision-making.
In the endline assessment, respondents typically indicated that the purpose of KM was to make
decisions, take actions, achieve goals, improve outcomes, or equivalent statements. Because
their understanding of KM had widened to include the strategic use of KM, they seemed to
place less emphasis on various forms, mediums, or channels (e.g., online, in person, etc.) used in
KM when defining KM.
Table 8: Trends in KM role definitions
KM role and definition Baseline
(N=19)
Endline
(N=17)
KM is very essential 95% 100%
Definition of KM includes the purpose of KM (e.g., to make
decision, to achieve goals)
37% 53%
Definition of KM includes various forms of KM (e.g.,
publication, website, training)
21% 6%
Findings from KIIs support the survey findings, in that the majority of participants described KM
as a process of collecting, synthesizing, and disseminating information. A number of participants
discussed how KM facilitates informed and evidence-based decision-making.
“KM to me . . . it’s a whole continuum. For me I look at information and how
knowledge is gathered and synthesized, packaging it and disseminating it to various
people and making decisions based on it.”
“I think it’s all about the collection of information and then being able to analyze and
synthesize it or packaging it for the actual audience. And then using the information to
make informed decisions.”
In addition, KII participants were asked how KM can contribute to ECSA-HC’s work in East
Africa. Several participants discussed how KM can be used to generate and disseminate new
knowledge to and between member states, and how in this capacity ECSA-HC would
encourage evidence-based decision-making in the region.
“We do the KM in collecting data, I mean generating information, KM is important. You
can go out and talk to people, to generate information from the member states. That’s
one of the processes. Once you get the information from the member state, then you
10
try to synthesize that information, after you synthesize it, you get to know exactly how
you’re going to help the member states. It’s to address any health challenges they may
be having, but also by disseminating information on what we’re doing at ECSA, the
member states will get to know what we’re doing at ECSA, and they seek to get help
from you as a Secretariat. Because the work of the Secretariat is to work with member
states so to have [better] health outcomes, so generally. So by us sharing what we’re
doing at the Secretariat, the member states will be able to come to us, and get the
relevant help.”
A number of participants mentioned how KM can be used to strengthen health systems in the
region.
“As I said, especially for an organization like ECSA, which covers more than one
country, there’s a lot to learn, and a lot to disseminate and a lot to share across the
countries. So KM should be part and parcel of the support we are providing to the
country and coming to health system strengthening, there’s an opportunity to improve
by translating the knowledge. For instance, taking advantage of the countries, which are
doing better and looking for the best way to disseminate or create the platform for
disseminating that practice into another country for them to do better. So for me, I can
say that in health system strengthening across the region, KM is quite crucial.”
KII participants were asked about their opinion regarding the importance of KM to other
programmatic areas, such as behavior change and quality improvement. Two participants said
KM is helpful in planning and evaluating quality improvement initiatives.
“For KM to be meaningful, it means that it has to inform some decisions. For instance,
when you’re talking about quality improvement, it means that you’re looking at how
best you can improve that quality of health service delivery in the region. But you can
hardly just sit on your desk and think through it. You have to work out a KM aspect of
it. What has been done? And what needs to be done? You need to look at the trends.
So I can say that there is a lot of opportunity in KM to make information useful in
programmatic approaches. In a nutshell, KM has a potential to make the programs
useful. If you do not apply the KM tactics, you’ll just be implementing your programs
without looking at it critically, so it has a role to improve the quality of the programs
implemented.”
Another participant said KM can be used in behavior change in terms of collecting information
on human behavior, which can then be used to inform context appropriate behavior change
programs.
11
“Behavior change communication, that’s advocacy. . . . trying to find out what the
practice is. Trying to understand people. That is really gathering information. You can’t
introduce an intervention without understanding what the people have or what kind of
lifestyle they’re leading. You know what sorts of systems they have to utilize to change
them. You have to study the people first and then see what channels you’re going to use
to change them.”
KM Champions
Participants were asked to describe the qualities of KM champions, and how they interact with
KM champions within or outside of ECSA-HC.
Survey respondents shared various types and qualities of their interactions with KM champions,
including:
● Personality: willing to learn and share, good manager, advocate, self-learner, inspires
others.
● Skills: communication, research, documentation, information synthesis/analysis, IT,
expert in specific topic area.
KIIs elaborated further on these important qualities.
“The person should be knowledgeable. They should know about the tools and where to
apply them because they can actually advise the others. But they also should have these
mentorship skills because they need to mentor this technical person. The KM champion
has to convince me of the importance of this assistance. They should also have not just
knowledge but also the skills to provide this technical support.”
“Being a champion means that you have to be on the front, to advocate or to share the
KM aspects for others to learn and develop their skills. They should be innovative and a
good communicator. And being up-to-date on aspects of KM.”
On average, endline survey respondents knew four KM champions within ECSA-HC and four
KM champions outside of ECSA-HC, and both cases showed an increase of one person from
the baseline assessment (Table 9).
Table 9: KM champions within ECSA-HC and outside of ECSA-HC
Category Number of people Baseline
(N=19)
Endline
(N=17)
12
KM champions whom participants
knew within ECSA-HC
0 16% 0%
1 to 2 21% 24%
3 to 4 26% 29%
5 to 6 37% 47%
Average 3.15 people 3.94 people
KM champions whom participants
knew outside of ECSA-HC
0 21% 6%
1 to 2 16% 12%
3 to 4 11% 18%
5 to 6 53% 65%
Average 3.26 people 4.05 people
Almost all of the survey respondents said they had met KM champions by attending
conferences, seminars, forums, and donor/government meetings (e.g., World Bank, USAID,
World Health Organization [WHO], East African Community, and African Union colleagues)
organized at the regional level. Most KM champions were directors, technical advisors, or
program managers/officers. In general, participants also viewed K4Health staff members as KM
champions who provide technical support to ECSA-HC.
“I’m a member of a number of communities of practice, so I can say I interact with them
on a weekly basis through various communities of practice.”
The type of interaction and support received or sought after from KM champions in the last six
months included various topic areas. Endline survey respondents mentioned several times that
they sought feedback on study designs, reports, and presentations from KM champions.
Notably, more participants mentioned that they needed guidance on specific KM activities,
tools, and training including journal writing, after-action reviews, peer assists, and electronic
tools for communication and evaluation (e.g., WhatsApp, Poll Everywhere). An example from
one participant referred to information about resolutions from past Health Ministers’
Conferences.
13
“Yes. For instance, they reminded us the commitment that we made. When we have
these conferences and workshops, they followed up with the attendees and circulate
relevant literature.”
“So many things. Like for example: editing and proofreading. I consult with them in many
things.”
The frequency of interaction with KM champions varied by circumstance, but endline survey
respondents most commonly interacted with KM champions either on a weekly or monthly
basis, whereas the majority of baseline survey respondents interacted on a monthly basis. As
shown in Table 10, participants interacted with KM champions more frequently at endline.
Table 10: Frequency of interaction with KM champions
Frequency Baseline
(N=15)
Endline
(N=15)
Monthly 60% 47%
Weekly 27% 40%
Daily 13% 13%
KII participants were asked about challenges related to communicating with KM champions.
One participant mentioned that champions are not always available because of their schedules
or other commitments.
“So the challenge at times I find is that maybe people are too busy or not around.”
A number of participants mentioned a lack of KM champions among member states.
“But with the interaction with member states, I do not see any KM champions. Maybe
we have not given them enough opportunity to exercise their KM skills.”
KM Training
KM training covered various opportunities that the participants had to acquire to improve
knowledge and skills related to KM.
14
Many of the endline survey respondents participated in three to four KM trainings in the last six
months, showing a clear increase in the number from the baseline when the majority of
participants said one to two (Table 11).
Table 11: Number of trainings related to knowledge management that participants attended in the last 6 months
Number of trainings Baseline
(N=19)
Endline
(N=17)
None 37% 6%
1 to 2 63% 41%
3 to 4 0% 47%
5 or more 0% 6%
Survey respondents mentioned various topic areas for KM trainings that they attended, in some
cases noting that some might not be purely KM but were related to KM application (e.g.,
proposal writing and resource mobilization). Many respondents indicated that they had
opportunities to use something they learned from the training in their professional work.
“I’ve been introduced to a couple—some that we have used, some that we haven’t. I
will just give an example. I think it’s the after-action review; that is one that I see a lot of
people excited about. Maybe we have used it a couple of times; that has been very good.
We have done knowledge synthesis.”
Table 12: Training topic areas at endline
Topic Organized by
(if known)
Times
mentioned
Specific examples of use
(if known)
Proposal writing Management
Sciences for
Health (MSH)
8 Applied skills to write a section
assigned in proposal
Journal/scientific
writing
CCP 6 Increased skill to organize concept;
started drafting a manuscript
Business plan
development
MSH 5 Drafted business plan; developed
market research tool
Knowledge synthesis CCP 5 Developed promotional materials
15
about ECSA-HC’s work
Resource
mobilization
Not mentioned 5 Drafted resource mobilization
strategy; designed tracking tools for
potential donors
Social media Not mentioned 2 Better understanding of how to use
Twitter; tags/hashtags
In addition, the following topics were also mentioned: data collection on surgical workforce,
peer assist, after-action review, and disseminating information/reporting (internal training).
Overall, participants liked these KM trainings because:
● The topics and content covered were relevant to their work
● Existing knowledge was reinforced or validated
● New knowledge and useful skills were gained
In addition, survey respondents were specifically asked if they had participated in a training on
Internet searches, and almost half of the respondents said yes at endline compared to only a
few participants who said yes at baseline. They had used knowledge gained from the training to
try out different search engines and databases, and to make search terms more specific.
KM Strategies and Policies
KM strategies and policies covered documents and practices specific to KM initiatives at ECSA-
HC including its succession planning policy, KM strategy, and KM implementation plan, website
housing resolutions, member-state directory, and editorial board. Survey respondents were
asked about their knowledge and the status of certain strategies and policies.
Table 13: Findings regarding KM strategies and policies used at ECSA-HC
KM strategies and policies Baseline
(N=19)
Endline
(N=17)
Known by (%)
ECSA-HC editorial board 95% 94%
ECSA-HC website published resolutions from Health
Ministers Conference
68% 71%
ECSA-HC website published member-state directory 47% 88%
16
ECSA-HC KM implementation plan 37% 41%
ECSA-HC KM strategy 32% 71%
ECSA-HC succession planning policy 16% 35%
ECSA-HC editorial board
Almost all of the endline participants (94%) knew about the editorial board. The frequency of contacting the editorial board for obtaining approval for products increased from baseline, when only a few (12%) had sought approval from the board. At endline, in the past six months, about half of the respondents sought approval from the editorial board for their products around one to three times, and two other respondents did so more than four times. Respondents mentioned various types of resources that they submitted to the editorial board, including brochures, stories (similar to blogs), newsletters, and project briefs or reports. Feedback included inputs and suggestions on design and overall structure. The turnaround time to receive approval varied from two days to two weeks. A few respondents noted that it usually took a long time for the team to process and approve the resources when the team had other tasks or responsibilities, and it could be a challenge.
ECSA-HC’s resolutions on the website
The percentage of survey respondents who thought that the ECSA-HC’s website houses
organizational documents, including the resolutions from the Health Ministers Conference,
increased slightly from baseline to endline (68% to 71%). Unlike at baseline, no particular
functional problem was reported at endline; however, some respondents said the website
needed to improve in order to become a regional information hub for the member states. A
few respondents indicated that ECSA-HC was revamping its website. About half of the
respondents accessed the website to locate resolutions from the Health Ministers Conference,
reports from the meeting, and other program materials.
ECSA-HC member-state directory
The vast majority (88%) of endline survey respondents had seen the ECSA-HC staff and
member states directory including contact information and technical expertise of each
individual, which was a notable increase from the percentage at baseline (47%). About half of
the respondents thought that it could be found on the website, and a few of them specified that
it is under the M&E page. A few respondents indicated a physical office location, such as the
director general, director of operations, or director of programs. Some of the respondents did
not know where the directory was located.
17
ECSA-HC KM implementation plan
The implementation strategy was the second-least known KM guidance document among
respondents. Respondents who had heard of or read the KM implementation increased from
baseline to endline from 37% to 41%. Most of those who knew about the implementation plan
thought that it was either outlined or finalized, and a few respondents thought that it was either
disseminated or implemented.
ECSA-HC KM strategy
The percentage of survey respondents who had heard of or read the KM strategy more than
doubled from baseline to endline (32% to 71%). Of those who were familiar with the strategy,
almost all of them thought it was either outlined or finalized, but not yet disseminated nor
implemented.
ECSA-HC succession planning policy
There was an increase in the percentage of respondents who had heard of the succession
planning policy—from 16% at baseline to 35% at endline. Compared with other KM guidance
documents, the succession planning policy was the least well-known document. Those who had
heard of the plan were not very sure about its implementation status.
KM Techniques and Approaches
Participants were asked to describe their use of various types of KM techniques and approaches
for documenting and sharing knowledge, such as after-action reviews, data visualization, and fact
sheets/briefs.
Table 14: Survey respondents using KM techniques and approaches in the last six months
Type of KM techniques and approaches Baseline
(N=19)
Endline
(N=17)
After-action review 47% 47%
Data visualization 26% 76%
(Development of) fact sheets/briefs 58% 65%
After-action review
About half of the respondents had attended an after-action review in the last six months at
both baseline and endline. Common themes covered during after-action reviews included
review of project protocols or processes (e.g., Global Fund grant negotiation) and debriefing
18
and evaluation of successes and challenges of events (ECSA-HC Best Practices Forum and other
ECSA-HC organized conferences).
Data visualization
Three out of four endline survey respondents indicated that they had used data visualizations in
a presentation or communication materials in the last six months, compared with one of four
respondents at baseline, showing a large increase. Tables, graphs, and pictures were mentioned
as the formats that respondents commonly used. Many of the respondents noted that data
visualization was particularly effective to show comparisons by country and region.
Fact sheets/briefs
A slightly larger number of respondents were involved in the development of fact sheets/briefs
at endline (65%), compared to baseline (58%). Respondents listed various audiences for fact
sheets, including general, public, media donors, development partners, health professionals, and
ECSA member states. They also mentioned a wide range of purposes as follows: advocacy,
documentation of best practices and success stories, and promotion of events, campaigns, and
projects.
In addition to three KM approaches and tools listed above (after-action review, data
visualization, and fact sheets/briefs), about one-third of respondents considered the East Africa
KM Share Fair hosted by K4Health in April 2016 as a useful KM approach.
All of the survey respondents said they would use KM approaches and tools in their project in
the future.
Public Online Repository (Improving Systems)
Participants were asked about their awareness and experiences with a variety of public online
repositories (i.e., the systems used by ECSA-HC for collecting, cataloging, and sharing
information related to ECSA-HC’s resolutions and best practices).
There was a small increase in the percentage of survey respondents who accessed and used
public online repositories to locate information related to resolutions and best practices from
baseline (47%) to endline (59%). Public online repositories covered a wide range of systems
available online for collecting, cataloging, and sharing information related to resolutions and best
practices in global health.
A variety of public online repositories were mentioned including:
19
● Different organization’s websites (e.g., ECSA, WHO, World Bank, African Union, the
College of Surgeons of East, Central and Southern Africa)
● Databases (e.g., Hinari Access to Research for Health Programme, PubMed, POPLINE)
● Online libraries (e.g., Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland’s online library, Ugandan
Ministry of Health online library)
On average, survey respondents accessed these repositories monthly or a few times per year.
In general, respondents indicated that the repositories were valuable as they reinforced and
validated what they already knew or provided new and useful information. Respondents
mentioned the main use of information/knowledge from online repositories was for decision-
making, to improve programs, and to inform policies.
At endline, more than half (53%) of the respondents indicated that they had contributed to
evidence that pertains to the implementation of ECSA-HC resolutions in the last six months,
compared to about one-third (32%) of the respondents at baseline. Participants provided
various examples, such as preparing proposals and workplans, developing and facilitating
trainings, and writing performance reports and other documents.
When asked about an interactive map on the ECSA-HC website, one in every four (24%)
respondents said they were aware of it at endline, but they could not correctly specify its
location. At baseline, none of the respondents were aware of the interactive map. (The
interactive map is supposed to identify where the projects are and then link the user to
information about the project implementer, dates, and contact information; however, it has not
been populated recently. URL: http://library.ecsahc.org/geolocation/map/browse)
Virtual Forums (Maximizing Networks)
Participants were asked to describe their experience and use of different virtual forums. A
virtual forum is a platform for starting and continuing a discussion before and after meetings
and conferences. Successful and focused virtual forums may also be considered an online
community of practice.
Table 15: Number of virtual forums respondents participated
Number of virtual forums Baseline
(N=19)
Endline
(N=17)
None 63% 35%
1 to 3 32% 47%
4 to 6 5% 6%
20
7 to 9 0% 6%
10 and up 0% 6%
At endline, the majority of respondents (65%) had participated in a virtual forum in the last six
months, compared to less than half of participants (37%) at baseline. Most respondents (47%)
had participated between one and three times.
A variety of virtual forums were mentioned, and many of them were related to specific health
technical topics:
● Professional network groups or communities of practice (e.g., Harmonization of Health
in Africa, Global Health Diplomacy for Malaria, HIV and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis)
● Online forums (e.g., ICT forum, global consultation on guidelines for community health
workers)
● Webinars (e.g., social media training, webinar training by K4Health)
One respondent indicated that ECSA-HC used a rapid response system, in which topics were
discussed before monthly conferences.
At baseline, none of the forum topics were related to ECSA-HC resolutions; at endline,
however, one in four respondents indicated that the resolutions were discussed at the forums
in which they participated. The forums covered a wide range of issues such as human resources
for health, improving food security and nutrition, addressing non-communicable diseases, global
health diplomacy, strengthening diagnostic services to vulnerable populations, and advocating to
include KM in budgets.
Almost all of the respondents felt that virtual forums were valuable for networking with other
professionals and gaining new knowledge on topics relevant to their work, and that they would
recommend the forum in which they participated to their colleagues.
At endline, respondents mentioned two main reasons for participating in virtual forums: (1) to
build upon existing knowledge of a topic and (2) to network. At baseline, respondents chose
two other main reasons: (1) to inform policies and (2) to inform the technical assistance for
member states.
GHeL community groups
Participants were asked about their use of the Global Health eLearning (GHeL) center hosted
by K4Health.
Table 16: Respondents’ interaction with Global Health eLearning forums
21
Type of interaction with GHeL Baseline
(N=19)
Endline
(N=17)
Registered in GHeL as a learner 26% 35%
Participated in GHeL community groups 0% 6%
The percentage of survey respondents who were registered learners of GHeL increased slightly
from baseline (26%) to endline (35%). At baseline, no one had participated in GHeL community
groups, whereas one respondent participated in the Social Media on Health and Development
community group at endline.
ECSA-HC’s Use of KM
KII participants were asked about strengths and gaps in ECSA-HC’s use of KM and what KM
responsibilities they had in relation to their position.
ECSA-HC strengths and gaps
Participants cited the ECSA website, the newly formed KM Program, participation in KM
trainings, and application of KM trainings in their work as examples of ECSA-HC’s KM
strengths.
“Okay the participation of staff in the capacity development. They’re eager to learn. And
also application. I can’t talk on the behalf of everyone, but we have used a number of
KM tools, for example, after-action review after the Health Ministers Conference to see
what went well, what didn’t, and looking at opportunities for improvement. And I know
that there are certain programs that have already initiated or are in the process of
initiating the communities of practice. So I can say that those are visible and tangible
things. And coming to social media, I can tell that there are some improvements. And
I’ve personally applied it to my own project.”
In terms of weaknesses, participants said they need to work on disseminating information to
and communicating with member countries, strengthening the capacity of member countries to
use KM, and improve the handover process when employees leave.
“The first thing we did is we presented to our technical programs here and we told
them that we’ve been to countries and they don’t know what we are doing here. I think
it’s important that we establish this contact with these people. Just communication—it’s
good to develop that relationship with technical programs in the other countries.”
22
KM responsibilities and use of KM
Several participants said they are responsible for KM activities, such as updating the website,
writing an organization newsletter, coordinating team members, facilitating the sharing and
exchange of information across countries, and developing a database of technical experts in the
region.
“Major part of my work involves disease surveillance, which in itself includes collecting
data about disease, synthesizing it, and sharing it. All those processes need knowledge
management in a systematic way so that you can effectively communicate for the region,
individual countries, and individual players who work with community health workers.”
Participants were also asked about their use of KM in their day-to-day work at ECSA-HC. A
few recounted their involvement in packaging information for specific audiences and regularly
communicating with member states.
“Okay, yes. I can give an example very recently about a year ago. We produced a set of
health reports for ECSA. We have nine countries in the region. We want to give these
reports as indicators for monitoring. We developed this report recently updating the
previous one. But as we do this we know that we have different audiences. One of them
is the ministers of health, this is we did actually . . . I presented to the last conference.
So yes we packaged it, it was quite thick, maybe 100 pages, but we needed to give this.
So we picked just a few things that would be more interested to the ministers. We
showed them—yes, this is how we’re doing, this is how the population is, this is where
we should send help. We just picked that information in the presentation, the key
messages.”
“As I said, we have two projects which apply KM directly. One brings together 13
countries (beyond the ECSA countries). We have been having two regional consultative
meetings and we formed three working groups. So we normally exchange information
through the monthly (or every two months) teleconferences and we had one online
training which was held through GoToMeeting. Sometimes for the teleconference we
use a web-based application which can facilitate the teleconference. We are planning to
establish a community of practice. Although it’s not very active. We exchange a lot of
information through email. In another project, we are planning to form a knowledge
exchange forum, so it’s still in the process. So we are hoping that a lot of knowledge will
be exchanged across the ECSA countries and even outside. We’re developing a training
package so there will be moderation through the knowledge exchange forum.”
Interview participants were also asked to comment on the flow and quality of information
within ECSA-HC and between ECSA-HC and member states. Many of the findings were similar
23
to the findings captured from the ECSA member states KM needs assessment conducted in
August 2016.
Some participants spoke of the need to strengthen communication between projects, but
others said weekly meetings have been helpful in sharing information between projects. One
participant said the newly established internal newsletter has facilitated the sharing of
information within ECSA-HC.
“Okay, one way to know about each other’s projects is we have a standing meeting
every Monday. So every Monday we have a meeting, all the programs are present. They
get to present their work. So you get to know what they did in the previous week and
what they will be doing in the coming week. Yeah, so we get to know what the other
programs are doing, if you have any questions they’ve addressed.”
When asked about the flow of information between ECSA-HC and member states, participants
primarily discussed challenges, in terms of receiving feedback from member states and ensuring
that information gets to the right people in member states. One participant did mention that
formal communication channels are in place, such as focal point people for specific health topics
in each member state.
“Yes, we use email and also a copier and printed copies. But they don’t go to the right
people. That is why when I go to a country and talk to the people, they don’t know
about these things.”
“For every program or project, we have country focal points, so it depends on the
thematic area. At the highest level, it is the ministry, the governance structure. But on a
day-to-day basis related to program implementation or communication, we have the
country focal points, and at the regional level, we have the expert committee on certain
thematic areas.”
Participation of Men and Women
KII participants were asked about equal participation of men and women in ECSA-HC. Most
participants said men and women are equally represented in positions at ECSA-HC, but not at
the leadership level.
“Yes, there may be a problem in terms of numbers, but in terms of participation and
input, it is equal. In my project, we only have three males, but in food and nutrition,
there are only females. In finance, it’s mixed. So overall, it is equal.”
24
“Well, I think that at present, the leadership seems to be dominated by men. There have
been times when the leadership was more female . . . we had a female director general
and a couple of directors were female, but for now I think it’s more men than women.”
Future Aspirations
Finally, KII participants were asked where they would like to see ECSA-HC in two years in
terms of its use of KM techniques and approaches. Participants spoke of their hopes that ECSA-
HC would become the “WHO of the region” in the sense that it would be viewed as a regional
health organization. Participants also want to see ECSA-HC as a regional KM champion, well
versed in KM techniques.
“This is what I tell people: in two years’ time, I want us to be at the level of other
organizations like WHO. There’s so much we can do at ECSA and that’s where I hope
to be in two years.”
“I want ECSA to be like a knowledge management champion in the region. We want
countries to see ECSA as a KM hub; that is where I want to see it in two years. We
need to change quite a lot of things, like the culture internally needs to improve for us
to be champions in the region. Just want to develop our expertise to further help the
countries that need it.”
Findings in KM Capacity Areas (KM CAT)
This section presents key findings from two focus group discussion sessions using the KM CAT.
The tool has five core domains: people, process, platform, partnership, and problem solving.
The K4Health team used the facilitator’s guide describing various KM competency/maturity
stages to help the group reach consensus in answering questions associated with each of the
domains at baseline and endline. In both data collections, the facilitator and the note taker who
conducted two group sessions with the ECSA-HC staff rated each domain using a five-point
maturity/competency scale shown below.
25
Figure 1: Five stages of the capacity continuum
KM function, procedure, activities, etc. can be in one of the five stages in below.
Source: Adapted from MSH’ PROGRESS (internal resource) and Knowledge Management Capability Assessment
Tool. Houston (TX): APQC. Available from: https://www.apqc.org/km-capability-assessment-tool
Stage 3 is the most important milestone in an organization’s journey toward KM
maturity/competency because it denotes standardization, which will build the foundation for a
knowledge-sharing culture.
Table 17: ECSA-HC’s KM capacity assessment stages
Domain Sub-Domains Overall Stage (1 to 5)
Baseline Endline
People The people domain covers: (1)
resources/human capital required for KM; (2)
leadership, which is the organization’s senior
management support to KM; and (3)
organizational culture supporting knowledge
sharing and networking.
2 3
Process The process domain refers to: (1) KM strategy
that is aligned with the broader mission of the
organization; (2) knowledge flow/cycle of
assessing, capturing, generating, adapting, and
sharing knowledge within the organization; and
(3) measurement such as M&E system and
indicators and data use.
2 2
26
Platform The platform domain includes the
organization’s use of (1) KM systems such as
intranet, program management tool, or
database; (2) KM approaches such as
communities of practice, after-action reviews,
and data visualization; and (3) information
technologies.
2 4
Partnership The partnership domain refers to the
organization’s involvement in collaborating with
key stakeholders and partners for (1)
knowledge exchange and gathering and (2)
coordination and networking purposes.
2 4
Problem
Solving The problem-solving domain covers skills such
as (1) knowledge seeking to take initiative and
locate knowledge and (2) identification of new
ideas and problems.
2 3
People Domain
Resource: staff and training
● The overall score for this sub-domain increased from 2 at baseline to 4 at endline.
● Many staff members at endline felt that KM was everywhere and every project was
incorporating KM in its work.
● There have been many opportunities to be trained on KM concept and techniques
through the K4Health Project.
Leadership
● The overall score for this sub-domain increased from 2 at baseline to 3 at endline.
● There is a KM program officer and a manager, the KM team has been providing
leadership in all aspects of KM, and the senior leadership support KM as an
organizational commitment.
● The senior leadership provides guidance and advice through the Monday meetings.
Knowledge sharing culture and rewards
● The overall score for this sub-domain remained the same—2 at baseline and endline.
● Staff members are encouraged to share knowledge in a variety of ways, for example, at
meetings and on websites.
27
● Incentives or rewards may be given on an ad hoc basis, but is not fully practiced yet.
Process Domain
KM definition, strategy, funds
● The overall score for this sub-domain increased from 1 at baseline to 2 at endline.
● Staff members at endline felt they had a similar understanding of KM as generating,
storing, and sharing information, and everyone was doing it.
● At endline, ECSA-HC did not have a stand-alone KM strategy, but KM activities were
designed at the program level. The communication strategy incorporated some
components of the KM strategy.
● The K4Health Project funded various KM activities at ECSA-HC. KM was budgeted at
the program level, not at the organization level.
Knowledge flow
● The overall score for this sub-domain remained the same—2 at baseline and endline.
● Knowledge gaps and needs were determined during staff appraisals, and there was a
component of capacity assessments. There were some efforts to organize in-house
training but they were not systematized.
● The state of health report provides a good example of how knowledge is collected from
countries, analyzed and synthesized at the central level, and then disseminated to the
member states and via the website.
KM measurement: indicators and data use
● The overall score for this sub-domain remained the same—1 at baseline and endline.
● At endline, there are no indicators that reflect KM activities. KM is fairly new to ECSA-
HC and there are a number of activity indicators linked to KM but not specifically called
KM indicators.
Platform Domain
KM system
● The overall score for this sub-domain increased from 2 at baseline to 3 at endline.
● There are multiple systems and channels to organize and share resources including the
website, weekly Monday management meetings, Best Practice Forum, program meetings,
and expert committees.
● There is still room for improvement, for example, having an electronic platform where
the staff can share knowledge, social media, website, etc. A shared drive is not being
used at endline.
28
KM approach
● The overall score for this sub-domain increased from 2 at baseline to 4 at endline.
● ECSA-HC uses different KM tools and approaches more consistently at endline.
● After-action reviews have been used several times through the organization. Peer assist,
community of practice, and policy brief are also found in different projects.
Information technology
● The overall score for this sub-domain increased from 1 at baseline to 3 at endline.
● Various IT tools have been used at ECSA-HC, including website, email, social media,
webinars, telephone conference, etc. These tools are used fairly well, but not fully yet.
● There is an IT officer, though it has been challenging for one person to fulfill the needs
of all staff.
Partnership Domain
External knowledge gathering
● The overall score for this sub-domain increased from 2 at baseline to 4 at endline.
● Staff members gather a lot of information such as global, regional, and national health
trends from organizations including WHO, African Union, and donor agencies.
● There is a list of partners, which ECSA-HC is working with, and it is updated on a
regular basis.
Coordination and networks
● The overall score for this sub-domain increased from 2 at baseline to 4 at endline.
● ECSA-HC is part of a partnership in which WHO plays a role of a coordination body.
Sometimes donors realign focus and it may affect ECSA-HC’s strategic objective.
● Staff members are encouraged to participate in various professional networking groups
and technical meetings and conferences in-country and in the region.
Problem-Solving Domain
Taking initiatives and locating knowledge
● The overall score for this sub-domain remained the same—2 at baseline and endline.
● It depends on the availability of resources, and currently there is no established
structure to support new initiatives from staff members. There is some support for skill-
building courses.
● There is no special document for a new employee to get to know other staff, but there
are face-to-face meetings for orientation.
29
Identifying problems
● The overall score for this sub-domain increased from 2 at baseline to 3 at endline.
● Staff can share the issues at the monthly meeting with the director general. Sometimes
staff can go directly to the director general’s office. Depending on an issue, staff can go
to the director of programs (for technical issues) and the finance director (for finance
issues). There is an open-door policy.
● There is a suggestion box for those who want to stay anonymous. These messages are
only seen/read by the director general.
Recommendations and Conclusions
The KM capacity assessment systematically documented and compared the progress before and
after the project had been implemented. It resulted in a number of key findings and
recommendations that the ECSA-HC Secretariat may consider useful in order to increase the
effective use of KM approaches in the future as shown below. Findings and recommendations
from the endline assessment can be used together with the Knowledge Management Needs
Assessment of ECSA-HC Member States.
Themes Key findings Recommendations
Improve systems
Leadership
commitment to
KM
ECSA-HC staff members
understood the value of KM and
recognized the leadership
commitment to further integrate
KM approaches into their day-to-
day work.
Continue showing leadership
commitment by including KM in
budgets and activities at both the
program and organizational levels.
KM strategy There was a notable lack of
awareness among ECSA-HC staff
about the existence of the KM
strategy documents. KM
components are currently
embedded in other broader
strategies (e.g., research
information, advocacy, or
communications).
Continue showing leadership
commitment to KM components and
related practices that support the
overall KM strategy. (i.e., editorial
review board).
Consider developing a stand-alone KM
strategy that will guide KM activities
within ECSA-HC and its member states.
The KM strategy should also specify
various roles and responsibilities of the
KM M&E team and the newly appointed
KM M&E manager. The strategy may
30
also include roles and responsibilities of
member-state KM champions.
Systematic use
of KM
The continued application of KM
practices and techniques needs
improvement, particularly those
that have been adopted and viewed as practical for everyday
work.
Continue to systematically review KM
needs and implement appropriate
strategies, for example, incorporate KM
activities into the ECSA-HC work plan and program work plans, and conduct
quarterly reviews of progress on KM
activities.
Enhance Technical Expertise
KM champions ECSA-HC staff members
articulated the role of KM
champions well and frequently
interacted with KM champions to
ask for programmatic and
technical advice.
Consider continuing to nurture KM
champions at the ECSA-HC. Strengthen
their role in supporting leadership and
staff to continuously apply KM
practices, identify KM needs among
ECSA-HC staff, and connect them to appropriate resources to increase their
KM capacity.
While ECSA-HC Secretariat expands
KM expertise to member states,
consider using a KM champion
approach, which has been successful at
the Secretariat.
Maximize Networks
Role of ECSA-HC as a
knowledge hub
Respondents expressed a desire and aspiration to position ECSA-
HC as a knowledge hub in the
region.
Strengthen collaboration between ECSA-HC and other intergovernmental
organizations and organizations in the
region to showcase ECSA-HC’s
technical expertise in health.
Consider strengthening collaboration
particularly with those organizations
identified during the development of
the Resource Mobilization Strategy and
Business Planning and Proposal
Development Workshops.
The Best Practices Forum is an existing
ECSA-HC event that can strategically
position ECSA-HC as a knowledge hub
31
in the region. Consider continuing to
enhance the event through advance
preparation and increased participation.
Consider building upon the skills
acquired during the Journal Writing
Workshop and prioritize a number of
journal articles for publication.
Knowledge
sharing
Sharing knowledge between
partner states continues to be a
challenge, similar to findings from
the KM needs assessment of
ECSA-HC member states.
Ensure that the ECSA-HC Secretariat is
more visible within the member states
and that it clearly promotes what it can
offer in terms of technical assistance to
member states.
Consider prioritizing the activities
identified over the past few years and
through the Member States Needs
Assessment to enhance ECSA-HC’s
visibility and relevance in the region.
These include enhancing participation at
the Best Practices Forum and Health
Ministers Conference.
Prioritize communication about the
Health Ministers Conference to ensure
that people are aware of its existence
and the purpose of the resolutions and
follow up on whether the resolutions
are being implemented.
Finalize the website revision that began
during the K4Health East Africa project.
Finalize the website refresh that has
started.
Overall, it is important for ECSA-HC to recognize that some internal challenges, for example,
staff workload and other commitments and timing to complete and approve processes, may
have adversely affected the finalization of some KM strategies and policies. The finalization of
those strategies and policies will contribute to integrating KM into the organization more
holistically and systematically, and continue to strengthen the foundation for knowledge sharing
and learning among all ECSA-HC staff.
Appendix 1: Pathway to Sustainable Knowledge Management in East
Africa
Appendix 2: Knowledge Management Capacity Scores at Baseline
and Endline
Note: K4Health simplified the tool based on feedback from the baseline assessment, and therefore some questions were not used
in the endline assessment.
Domain Sub-Domain Domain Sub-Domain
Score Score Group 1 Group 2 Average Score Score Group 1 Group 2 Average
1.75 Staff 1 2 1.5 4.25 Staff 5 4 4.5
2 Training 2 2 2 4 Training 4 4 41.67 Leaders/Managers 2 2 3.25 Leaders/Managers 3 4 3.5
2 KM Coordination Body 1 2 1.5 3 KM Coordination Body 3 3 32 Support to Networking 3 2 2.5 1.5 Support to Networking
2 Support to Knowledge Sharing 1 1 1 2 Support to Knowledge Sharing 2 1 1.51 KM Definition and Vision 1 1 1 2.33 KM Definition 2 2 2
KM Strategy and Objectives 1 1 1 KM Strategy 2 2 2
1 KM Budget 1 1 1 2 KM Funds 5 1 31.67 Tacit Knowledge Capture 1 1 1 2.25
Knowledge Gaps and Needs 3 1 2 Knowledg Gaps and Needs 4 4
2 Knowledge Documentation and Sharing 2 2 2 2 Knowledge Documentation and Sharing 3 4 3.5KM M&E Indicators 1 1 1 KM M&E Indicators and Data Use 1 1 1KM M&E Systems and Tools 1 1
1 KM M&E Data Use 1 1 1System for Repository and Sharing 3 1 2 2.75 System for Repository and Sharing 3 3 3
2 Content Management System NA NA NA 3 Content Management System 3 2 2.5KM Approach 2 KM Tool and Approach 1 2 1.5 KM Approach 4 KM Tool and Approach 3 4 3.5
1.25 KM IT Team 1 1 1 3.5 IT Use in KM 4 4 4
1 IT Use in KM 2 1 1.5 4 KM IT Team 3 3 32.25 External Knowledge Gathering 2 2 2 4 External Knowledge Gathering 3 5 4
2 External Knowledge Promotion 3 2 2.5 4 External Knowledge Promotion 4 4 42.25 Participation to External Partnership 2 3 2.5 4.75 Participation to External Partnership 5 5 5
2 Partnership Structure 1 3 2 5 Partnership Structure 5 4 4.5Networks Participation to Professional Networking Networks 3 Participation to Professional Networking 4 2 3
1.75 Initiative 1 2 1.5 2 Initiative 2 2 2
2 Locating KNowledge 2 2 2 2 Locating KNowledge 2 2 2
1.5 Idea Generation 1 1 1 32 Problem Identification 2 2 2 3 Problem Identification 3 3 3
1.5 Representation of Levels 1 2 1.5 2.5 Representation of Levels 3 2 2.5
2 Group Problem Solving 1 2 1.5 3Total Scores 9 43.59 40 39 40.5 15 81.08 69 63 62
Baseline EndlineDomain
Problem Solving 2
Knowledge Seeking
3
Knowledge Seeking
Identification Identification
Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking
Partnership 2
External Knowledge
4
External Knowledge
Coordination Coordination
Platform
(Tool and
Technology)2
KM System
4
KM System
Information Technology
Information Technology
Process 1
Strategy
2
Strategy
Knowledge Flow
Knowledge Flow
Measurement Measurement
Score
People 2
Resource
3
Resource
Leadership Leadership
Culture Culture
Sub-Domain QuestionScore
Sub-Domain Question