Globally, KM initiatives and the benefits reaped by formally implementing such initiatives in PSOs are an issue that is in its initial stage or under-researched (Naghavi, Dastaviz & Nezakati 2013). There is a scarcity of research that provides evidence as to why KM initiatives should be implemented in PSOs (McEvoy, Arisha & Ragab 2015:4). Moreover, there is a deficiency in the understanding of KM and inadequate awareness regarding its benefits (Cong, Li-Hua & Stonehouse 2007:258).

Within the South African context, it is evident that KM is being used in municipalities and government departments for various reasons. For example, to raise the levels of service delivery by encouraging a culture of learning amongst employees; translating individual knowledge into corporate intellectual capital; and to improve the management and accessibility of corporate information assets for specialised information services (Phalatse 2017; Smith 2017; Western Cape Provincial Government 2013).

Empirical studies on KM initiatives in PSOs within the African context include Kimani (2013), Mphahlele (2010), Ncoyini and Cilliers (2016), Ondari-Okemwa (2007), Potgieter, Dube and Rensleigh (2013) and Ramohlale (2014), which showed that although there are no formal structures for managing knowledge in these organisations, a large amount of knowledge flows through them and KM is barely understood in some organisations. However, some organisations regarded KM as important as it has been present for over a decade in the country like South Africa, and several national departments are at various stages of putting KM into practice. The importance of getting support from top management for successful KM initiatives was recommended and the lack of awareness and commitment were seen as barriers to KM success.

With regards to KM awareness in PSOs, research by Cong and Pandya (2003), Khanal (2016), Ling, Bakar and Islam (2014) and Valaei and Aziz (2012) found that the level of awareness for KM in PSOs is on a medium level as it is not new, as some of the organisations knowingly or unknowingly practiced it. Their investigations also revealed challenges and barriers for successful implementation of KM initiatives such as the lack of understanding of KM and its benefits.

The literature above attests to a knowledge gap regarding the awareness amongst PSOs’ employees in South Africa regarding KM initiatives and the benefits of these initiatives. The empirical study on which this article is based sought to address this gap.

In terms of gender, 36 (59%) of the respondents indicated female and 25 (41%) male, reflecting the dominance of females within the Department under study. With regard to terms of employment, 52 (85%) respondents were permanently employed and 9 (15%) were working under contract. The large percentage of permanently employed respondents can be advantageous if a formal KM initiative was to be implemented as it takes a long process to achieve results and requires commitment. Concerning commitment, employees in the Department can be said to be committed to serving as only 3 (5%) of the respondents had been working in the Department for less than a year, whilst as many as 23 (38%) had been working for more than 10 years. In terms of the sections that the respondents were working under, most of the respondents 42 (68%) were employed in HR, while the section with the smallest representation was SM with only 3 (5%) respondents (see Figure 1).

Opinions regarding the basics of KM were solicited from the respondents. Figure 2 indicates the responses of the respondents on whether they had heard about the term KM before participating in the study or not. While a majority of respondents (37, 61%) had heard about the term, a surprisingly high number (24, 39%) had never heard about KM. For those who did not know about KM, a definition of the term was provided for them to gain some understanding of the concept, thus enabling them to respond to the subsequent questions.

The 37 respondents who indicated that they knew about KM were asked a follow-up question to determine where they had heard about the concept. Eleven (30%) of the 37 respondents indicated that they had heard about KM from the KZN DPW, 10 (27%) mentioned short courses as the source, 2 (5%) identified other departments, and a further 2 respondents (5%) mentioned conferences as their source of information. Twelve (33%) respondents indicated ‘Other’ and did not specify.

Concerning KM initiatives that were already in place within the Department, a multiple response question was posed. Thirty-nine (64%) respondents were of the opinion that knowledge sharing was the most used practice. This was followed by the knowledge utilisation practice as indicated by 25 (41%) respondents. The dissemination of knowledge was the third most mentioned practice with 21 (34%) respondents specifying the same. Knowledge retention and knowledge creation were the least mentioned KM practices used within the Department indicated by 14 (23%) and 13 (21%) respondents, respectively.

Concerning the benefits of implementing a formal KM initiative, respondents were asked whether they thought employees, as well as the Department, would benefit from such an initiative. Figure 3 shows that a substantial majority of respondents (51, 84%), thought that there are benefits to be attained from a formal KM initiative.

Figure 4 shows the respondents’ answers regarding whether implementing a KM initiative in the Department would enhance performance and service delivery. Again, a substantial majority of respondents (48, 79%) believed that a KM initiative, if implemented, would enhance departmental performance and service delivery; 10 (16%) respondents did not know if KM would help in this regard; and 3 (5%) respondents stated that KM will not assist the Department.

Respondents were further asked if they would support a KM initiative if implemented within the Department. It can be seen from Figure 5 that of the 61 respondents the vast majority of 56 (92%) indicated that they would support such an initiative if implemented. Of the remaining 5 respondents, 3 (5%) indicated that they would not support such an initiative, while 2 (3%) were undecided in terms of their support or not.

With regard to determining the barriers preventing the implementation of a formal KM initiative at the KZN DPW, a quick analysis of where the Department is when benchmarked against the three important success elements of KM, namely, people, processes and technology was conducted. This quick analysis is referred to as a KM readiness assessment (Mohd Zin & Egbu 2010:789). A KM readiness assessment is an evaluation of the level of the commitment or the plan to take part in the KM practice by employees within a normal working environment (Jalaldeen, Karim & Mohamed 2009:302). Shirazi, Mortazavi and Azad (2011:167) stated that for an organisation to develop a KM strategy, it must first evaluate its willingness, which also includes recognising barriers within the organisation that can prevent the adoption of a KM initiative.

Findings regarding the readiness of the KZN DPW to implement a formal KM initiative as displayed in Table 1 indicate that management in the Department does have a ‘convincing knowledge management strategy…’ as 46 (75%) respondents attested to this statement, whilst 8 (13%) respondents did not know and 7 (12%) felt that such a vision does not exist.

Concerning the capturing of knowledge within the Department, 42 (69%) respondents attested that there are effective processes in place to gather, organise as well as exploit key knowledge. Eleven (18%) respondents indicated that they did not know about such processes and eight (13%) respondents felt that these processes did not exist within the Department.

In terms of storing explicit knowledge within the Department, there was a slight difference between those respondents (26, 43%) who agreed ‘There are regularly maintained knowledge records … that are readily accessible across the Department’ and those respondents (25, 41%) who indicated that they did not know if this was the case. Ten (16%) respondents indicated that they did not agree with such records being regularly maintained and readily accessible.

When it comes to the codification of tacit knowledge, a small majority of the respondents (32, 53%), mentioned that they knew the dominant specialists in the various areas of knowledge inside their section and that there were mechanisms available to systematise personal knowledge into organisational knowledge. Nineteen (31%) respondents did not know about these experts or the mechanisms in place to transform tacit to explicit knowledge, while 10 (16%) respondents indicated that knowledge codification does not take place in their section.

The Department has a culture that encourages the sharing of knowledge amongst employees. This is reflected by the 38 (62%) respondents who attested to knowledge sharing across departments and informal knowledge exchange being actively encouraged. However, a relatively high percentage (30%) of the respondents were of the opposite view, while 5 (8%) respondents indicated that they did not know.

A substantial minority of respondents (24, 40%) were of the opinion that a knowledge unit to facilitate the management of knowledge within the KZN DPW did not exist, while 21 (34%) did not know. Interestingly, there were 16 (26%) respondents who attested to the Department having a knowledge unit in place.

In terms of the Department’s technical infrastructure that can support formal KM initiatives, a majority of respondents, 41 (67%), indicated that they could find important information using technologies available within the Department. However, 16 (26%) respondents said that they were unable to do so and 4 (7%) respondents did not know whether they could or not. While, 35 (57%) respondents indicated that they do not use KM tools to access information, 19 (31%) respondents indicated that they did use such tools to access information and 7 (11%) respondents did not know. A majority of respondents (39, 64%) used databases to access information, 15 (25%) respondents did not, and 7 (11%) did not know whether they used databases or not. With regard to using Groupware software, such as email to access information, 42 (69%) respondents indicated that they did, 12 (20%) did not and again 7 (11%) did not know. A majority of the respondents (44, 2%) used bulletin boards or e-departmental notices to access information, 11 (18%) respondents did not do so and 6 (10%) did not know whether such boards or notices were used to access information. Seven (11%) respondents believed that the Department had a KM officer. A small majority of respondents (32, 52%) believed that such a position did not exist and 22 (36%) did not know.

With regards to the organisational strategy, respondents were asked to indicate whether the KZN DPW gives priority to ‘ensuring that knowledge that is generated is accurate, reliable, and delivered on time…’ In response to the question, a small majority of respondents (32, 52%) stated that the DPW does give priority to such a strategy. However, 14 (23%) respondents stated that the Department did not give such priority and 15 (25%) indicated that they did not know.

Finally, the research sought to establish the availability of procedures to capture tacit knowledge held by the departing workforce. Less than half of the respondents (30, 49%) attested to the availability of such procedures in the Department whilst 12 (20%) respondents believed that these procedures were not in place and 19 (31%) indicated that they did not know.

It is evident that there is a general understanding and awareness of what KM comprises amongst the majority 37 (61%) of respondents in the KZN DPW. However, it is also evident that there is a definite need to increase awareness of KM if a KM initiative is to be formally implemented given that a fairly substantial percentage 24 (39%) of respondents were ‘still in the dark’ regarding KM. To bridge this awareness gap, the Department is expected to provide introductory workshops regarding KM initiatives to employees before they can be implemented. These findings corroborate what the study by Dube (2009) emphasised, namely, that it is important to inspect the level of employees’ understanding of KM before implementing KM initiatives. Employees having a good awareness and understanding of KM is important for enabling an organisation to create its own KM initiative suitable to its mission (Valaei & Aziz 2012).

The findings indicate that there are various KM initiatives within the Department. However, these take place on an informal basis. Knowledge sharing was the most used initiative followed by knowledge utilisation. Sharing knowledge effectively amongst employees without a formal KM initiative can be very challenging since there is the issue of trust in terms of with whom knowledge is to be shared and what knowledge is to be shared. The lack of a formal KM initiative creates competition amongst employees and, as a result, they may hold back on sharing important knowledge since it may not be clear how the other person will use it. The practice of informal KM initiatives limits the Department from obtaining the potential benefits of the initiatives (see below) as well as active participation from all employees because of the lack of awareness programmes to help employees understand KM. This finding resonates with the study conducted by Nengomasha, Mubuyaeta and Beukes-Amiss (2017) who established that the Ministry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare in Namibia had ‘no programs put in place to educate and bring awareness to the understanding and the importance of KM’. Similarly, Wilson and Nawe (2017) confirmed the lack of such programmes at the Mbeya University of Science and Technology, Tanzania, and this was an inhibiting factor for the successful implementation of KM initiatives.

There is an increasing realisation of the importance of KM in enhancing organisational performance and service delivery within the South African public sectors (Hourigan 2017). It is also noticeable from the results of this research that a majority 48 (79%) of the respondents recognised this importance. In line with this finding, a substantial majority 56 (92%) of the respondents stated that they would support a formal KM initiative if implemented. This bodes well for the future in that should the Department decide to establish and implement an effective KM initiative, the employees would be open to new approaches and routines.

The findings from the KM readiness assessment revealed some of the barriers that could prevent the successful implementation of a formal KM initiative within the KZN DPW. It is evident from the findings that the Department has the desire in terms of a vision to implement a KM initiative even though this still needs to be accentuated throughout the entire Department. For example, drawing employees’ attention towards knowledge capturing processes and how they should be applied across the entire Department.

The finding relating to the storage of explicit knowledge within the Department can be seen as a barrier to the successful implementation of a formal KM initiative. This underscores the importance of the Department ensuring that employees are aware of the platforms that can be useful to them to achieve their daily jobs. The formal implementation of a KM initiative will help the Department, as well as its employees, identify specialists in the various areas of knowledge in the different sections to systematise personal knowledge into organisational knowledge.

Formal KM initiatives require a strong organisational culture that encourages knowledge sharing and consultation (Kermally 2002), and the findings of this study revealed that the culture relating to knowledge sharing across departmental boundaries and informal knowledge exchange in the Department was actively encouraged as indicated by a majority 38 (62%) of the respondents. Nevertheless, when it comes to the organisational culture there is always room for improvement as 18 (30%) of the respondents thought that such a culture did not exist and a further 5 (8%) did not know either way. Bearing in mind that the Department continuously recruits new personnel, it is important that such a culture is continuously emphasised and promoted.

Another barrier identified from the findings of this study is the Department not having a KM unit staffed by a specialist such as a KM officer to, amongst other responsibilities, ensure the provision of information to support key decision-making (despite a minority of respondents believing that such a unit existed). Having such a unit is important if a formal KM initiative is to be implemented, as a dedicated focus to coordinate the supply of information to sustain imperative decision-making is required. This finding resonates with that of study conducted by Ramohlale (2014:142), who also found that the Department of Defence lacks KM professionals and a component dedicated to managing their intellectual capital.

The study found that a majority 42 (above 60%) of respondents believed that they were able to use networks, databases, Groupware software, bulletin boards or e-departmental notices to find and access information using the technologies available within the Department. Rather than a barrier, this finding can be regarded as an enabling factor for the successful implementation of a formal KM initiative as advanced information and communication technology (ICT) skills are critical for fostering and facilitating KM processes within organisations. It is evident, however, that more could be done within the Department to encourage the use of KM tools.

For a KM initiative to be successful, it should be aligned to the organisational strategy (David 2011; Omotayo 2015). The findings of this study indicate that a small majority of respondents 32 (52%) believed that in terms of the Department’s strategy, priority is given to promoting the creation and preservation of new knowledge and ensuring that it is delivered amongst employees promptly. Given the small majority, it is evident that more could be done in terms of implementing and promoting such a strategy. The lack of a formal KM initiative (which would embrace such a strategy), results in knowledge loss and ‘reinventing the wheel’ in terms of work processes, hence the importance of implementing such an initiative. Similarly, the HR procedures that are in place to capture the tacit knowledge of the departing workforce will not be as effective if there is no formal KM initiative since there will be no traceable process to prove what is and has been done with the tacit knowledge extracted from those exiting the workforce.