Knowledge management processes and performance. The impact of ownership of public sector organizations

• Date: 23 October 2019
• Published date: 23 October 2019
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-05-2019-0131
• Pages: 1-21
• Author: Sreejith Balasubramanian,Sultan Al-Ahbabi,Sony Sreejith
• Subject Matter: Public policy & environmental management

Knowledge management

processes and performance

The impact of ownership of

public sector organizations

Sreejith Balasubramanian

Business School,

Middlesex University –Dubai Campus, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Sultan Al-Ahbabi

Abu Dhabi University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, and

Sony Sreejith

Business School,

Middlesex University –Dubai Campus, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of ownership of public sector organizations

on the implementation of knowledge management (KM) processes and subsequent performance.

Design/methodology/approach –Using 268 responses obtained from a structured country-wide survey,

the study assesses the hypothesized differences in the implementation of KM processes (knowledge creation,

knowledge capture and storage, knowledge sharing and knowledge application and use), the overall

performance benefits of implementation (innovation, quality and operational performance), and their

relationships, among the federal, state and semi-government organizations in the United Arab Emirates.

Findings –The results show that federal government organizations implement all four KM processes to the

greatest extent, followed by state and semi-government organizations. In general, all KM processes had a

significant positive impact on the innovation, quality and operational performance of the public sector, but the

strength of this impact was found to differ across different public sector organizations. The overall

improvement in all three performance aspects was found to be highest for federal, followed by state and semi-

government organizations.

Practical implications –The findings of this study are useful for practitioners and policymakers,

especially those overseeing national KM programs to devise strategies, policies and support mechanisms to

ensure that public sector organizations, regardless of their ownership, can implement efficient and effective

KM processes and achieve their desired performance goals.

Originality/value –The study is arguably the first comprehensive attempt to understand the impact of firm

ownership on KM in the public sector.

Keywords Public sector, United Arab Emirates, Organizational performance, Knowledge management,

Ownership

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

Firm ownershipis an important contingencyvariable in macro-organizational studies thatcan

affect an organization’s strategies, processes and performance (Demsetz, 1983; Han and Suk,

1998; Welch, 2003). In the private sector, sever al studies have investigated the impact of

different firm ownership structures on management practices/processes and performance,

including between, internal and external ownership ( Johansson et al., 2013); concentrated and

diffused ownership (Kapopoulos and Lazaretou, 2007); family and corporate ownership

(Fernández and Nieto, 2006); and d omestic and foreign ownership (Berger et al., 2005). Also,

there has been arise in the number of comparative studies aimingto understand the intrinsic

difference in the management practices/processes and performance between private-

and public-sector firms (Cornett et al., 2010; Dewenter and Malatesta, 2001; Shleifer, 1998 ).

International Journal of Public

Sector Management

Vol. 33 No. 1, 2020

pp. 1-21

© Emerald PublishingLimited

0951-3558

DOI 10.1108/IJPSM-05-2019-0131

Received 29 May 2019

Revised 22 July 2019

3 September 2019

Accepted 15 September 2019

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3558.htm

1

KM processes

and

performance

However, there exists a significant gap with regard to how different types of firm ownership

( federal government, state/local government and semi-government) impact the

implementation of management practices/processes such as knowledge management (KM)

and subsequent performance in public sector organizations.

Any KM program must feature efficient, effective and extensive implementation of KM

processes (i.e. knowledge creation, knowledge capture and storage, knowledge sharing and

knowledge application and use) to achieve desired organizational performance outcomes

(Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Von Krogh, 1998). In contrast to the private sector, in which the

main organizational performance outcomes are growth, revenue and profitability, the three

pillars of public sector performance are innovation, quality of service delivery and

operational efficiency of services (APO, 2013; Cong and Pandya, 2003).

Although KM is as critical for public sector organizations as it is for private sector

organizations (Willem and Buelens, 2007), most KM studies have been conducted in the

private sector (Oluikpe, 2012; Ringel-Bickelmaier and Ringel, 2010). The lack of academic

enquiry into KM in the public sector, particularly regarding firm ownership issues, is

concerning since, in general, public sector organizations fare lesser in most aspects of KM

than private sector organizations (Chawla and Joshi, 2010; Park, 2007).

A national transition toward a knowledge-based economy warrants implementation of

KM programs within all federal/central, state/regional and semi-government organizations

and entities (APO, 2013). However, the scope, power and roles of each organization or entity

differ (Wettenhall, 2003). For instance, in the case of the United Arab Emirates (UAE),

governmental operations are distributed between the federal and local governments of each

emirate (i.e. state), as defined by the UAE’s constitution (Government.ae, 2019a). Federal

government entities have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over particular areas. For

example, the Ministry of Defense has jurisdiction over defense and security, the Emirates

Post is responsible for postal services nationwide and the Telecom Regulatory Authority is

responsible for regulating the UAE’s telephonic and wireless services. Public sector entities

at the individual emirate level have jurisdiction over all matters not assigned to the

exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. For example, the Dubai, Abu Dhabi and

Sharjah municipalities are responsible for providing municipal services to their respective

emirates, and the Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Sharjah police forces are responsible for enforcing

the law. Sometimes these responsibilities overlap; for example, the Federal Competitiveness

and Statistics Authority may work closely with state entities such as the Dubai Statistics

Center, Statistics Center Abu Dhabi and Sharjah Department of Statistics and Community.

Additionally, semi-government entities, such as the Abu Dhabi National Oil Corporation,

have established long-standing partnerships with several global energy companies, such as

Shell and British Petroleum, resulting in a series of mutually beneficial investments and

initiatives. Similarly, DP World is continuously looking for new partners both within and

outside the UAE for strategic investments. Despite differences in their aims, scope and

responsibilities, government entities at each level play a key role in improving the UAE’s

economic and social development.

The fundamental questionof this study is as follows:could the nature of a firm’sownership

(i.e. federal, state or semi-government) determine the success or failure of KM programs?

To answer this question, we need to know the following:

•First, we need to know whether public sector entities differ in the extent to which

they implement KM processes. This understanding must be developed at the level

of individual processes (i.e. knowledge creation, knowledge sharing, knowledge

capture and storage and knowledge application and use) since it could differ for

each process. Policymakers and practitioners could then support the

implementation-wise deficient firm ownership category through financial and

other incentives, including training programs.

2

IJPSM

33,1