My first degree was in Political Science, so I understand
that almost everything ultimately ties back to decision-making, values, and
politics. Knowledge Management (KM) is no exception. While often described
as neutral, KM is, in reality, a tool in the hands of people who have priorities
and values to uphold. They will therefore use KM—if they value it at all—to
support their priorities.
When discussions arise about reducing the federal workforce,
they often center on eliminating waste and redefining the government’s role.
While these debates are deeply political, I have aimed to provide a neutral
analysis, focusing on how KM plays a vital role in ensuring that
institutional knowledge is preserved, efficiency is maximized, and
transitions—whether through downsizing or restructuring—are executed without
jeopardizing essential government functions. My intent is not to judge ongoing
changes but to explore how KM can be leveraged in a shifting landscape.
At the same time, I acknowledge that my perspective is
shaped by my career in Knowledge Management. My experience leads me to
view KM as a critical enabler of efficiency and continuity. Others may see
different priorities, and I welcome discussion on how KM aligns—or does not
align—with different viewpoints on government workforce reductions.
KM as a Tool for Efficiency, Not Bureaucracy
A key argument for workforce reduction is inefficiency—too
many employees performing redundant or unnecessary tasks. However, KM can
enhance efficiency without workforce reductions by:
- Streamlining
operations through better information-sharing and collaboration.
- Preventing
rework by ensuring employees access lessons learned from past
initiatives.
- Implementing
AI-powered knowledge retrieval, reducing time spent searching for
information.
A well-managed KM system ensures that knowledge flows
seamlessly across agencies, reducing unnecessary duplication and allowing
government employees to work smarter, not harder.
Preventing Unintended Consequences of Workforce Cuts
While downsizing may reduce costs on paper, it can also
create new inefficiencies if critical knowledge is lost. KM mitigates these
risks by:
- Preserving
institutional memory so agencies don’t lose expertise that takes years
to develop.
- Easing
onboarding for new or remaining employees, preventing gaps in service
delivery.
- Ensuring
knowledge continuity for long-term projects, preventing disruption
when experienced employees depart.
Without a strong KM strategy, workforce reductions can lead
to costly mistakes, inefficiencies, and delays that offset potential
savings.
Aligning Knowledge Retention with Changing Government Roles
If the scope of government changes, knowledge must
transition accordingly. Whether services are being privatized,
decentralized, or restructured, KM helps by:
- Capturing
critical knowledge before employees exit.
- Facilitating
knowledge transfer between agencies and external partners.
- Ensuring
accessible archives of regulations, policies, and historical data for
future use.
Additionally, one of the persistent challenges in the
federal government is the reliance on antiquated electronic systems that are
not well connected. Many agencies continue to use legacy databases and
software that are incompatible with modern knowledge-sharing tools. This
fragmentation further exacerbates knowledge loss when employees leave, as
critical information is often siloed in inaccessible or outdated systems.
Addressing this issue requires investments in modernized KM platforms that
integrate across agencies, ensuring knowledge remains accessible and
actionable even during workforce transitions.
KM doesn’t dictate the size or role of government; it
ensures that any transition is managed intelligently and without
unnecessary disruption.
Lessons from NASA: Knowledge Management in Workforce Reduction
Having worked with NASA’s KM program at the Goddard Space
Flight Center for nearly a decade – as a contractor rather than a civil
servant--, I am more familiar with this real world example. I was privileged to attend and present at the
January 2011 Knowledge Forum dedicated to Shuttle Lessons learned and to
work on case studies documenting some of NASA’s most tragic events. When NASA retired the Space Shuttle program in
2011, thousands of employees, many with specialized knowledge, left the agency.
To mitigate knowledge loss, NASA implemented several KM initiatives:
- Knowledge
Capture Initiatives: Video interviews, wikis, and structured
documentation preserved insights from departing employees.
- Lessons
Learned Databases: Institutional knowledge was centralized for use in
future space missions.
- Knowledge-Sharing
Networks: Retired experts were engaged as consultants to provide
continuity for emerging projects.
These KM strategies—while not perfect— helped sustain
institutional memory, ensuring that knowledge critical to future missions,
including Artemis and commercial spaceflight partnerships, remained accessible
despite significant workforce reductions.
As a side note, I came to work for NASA’s KM from a
completely different industry, international development, an industry I
rejoined later and which is today being destroyed (at least in the US)– sorry,
losing neutrality here!
The Role of AI in Workforce Optimization—But AI Alone Is Not Enough
Artificial intelligence (AI) is often touted as a solution
to inefficiency in government operations, from automating processes to
assisting with decision-making. While AI can enhance KM by improving
searchability, generating insights, and automating routine tasks, AI without
a strong KM foundation is unlikely to succeed. AI systems rely on
structured, well-organized data and knowledge repositories. Without KM ensuring
that information is curated, contextualized, and up-to-date, AI risks
amplifying errors, reinforcing biases, or failing to deliver meaningful
insights.
To effectively integrate AI into government KM strategies,
agencies should:
- Ensure
high-quality, structured data that AI can access and process
accurately.
- Develop
AI models that support knowledge retrieval, rather than replacing
human expertise.
- Implement
ethical AI practices to minimize misinformation and bias.
- Use
AI to enhance knowledge-sharing through automation and intelligent
recommendations, rather than merely as a cost-cutting tool.
Thus, while AI can support workforce optimization, KM
remains the backbone that ensures knowledge is captured, organized, and
made actionable. Agencies looking to modernize must invest not only in AI but
also in robust KM strategies that ensure AI tools work effectively and
ethically.
Contrasting Republican and Democratic Perspectives on KM
The main issue KM professionals encounter isn't related to a Republican/Democrat divide but rather about whether leadership will understand and support KM, especially when KM is often on the chopping block in challenging budget contexts. Nevertheless, let's try this chain of thoughts. Both perspectives recognize that losing knowledge is costly, but they might differ on how KM should be applied to government workforce reductions. The key challenge is finding KM strategies that work regardless of political shifts—ensuring government remains effective whether agencies grow, shrink, or transform.
Republican Perspective: KM as a Tool for Efficiency and Lean Government
Republicans generally advocate for a smaller, more efficient government with reduced federal oversight and streamlined operations. From this perspective, KM should be used to:
Eliminate redundancy and ensure that government functions remain lean and agile.
Facilitate outsourcing and privatization, ensuring that knowledge transfers smoothly to contractors or state agencies when functions are moved outside the federal workforce.
Leverage AI and automation to reduce reliance on human-driven processes and decrease operational costs.
Minimize knowledge retention costs, focusing KM efforts on essential knowledge that directly supports the most critical government functions.
Under this model, KM plays a supportive role in enabling workforce reductions, ensuring that knowledge gaps do not disrupt government services while aligning with broader goals of downsizing and fiscal responsibility.
Democratic Perspective: KM as a Safeguard for Institutional Knowledge and Public Services
Democrats tend to emphasize the stability and continuity of government services, arguing that institutional knowledge is a public asset that should be preserved. From this perspective, KM should be used to:
Protect knowledge continuity to prevent disruptions in public services caused by workforce reductions.
Invest in workforce upskilling and retraining, ensuring that government employees can transition into new roles rather than being replaced by external contractors or automation.
Increase transparency and knowledge equity, ensuring that public access to government knowledge remains robust even when agencies downsize.
Strengthen cross-agency collaboration, using KM to prevent knowledge silos and ensure institutional expertise remains available across different branches of government.
Under this model, KM is seen as a critical safeguard that ensures government effectiveness and accountability despite workforce reductions.
Bridging the Divide: Common Ground in KM Approaches
While the two perspectives differ in how they approach workforce reductions, they share some common ground in KM applications:
Risk Mitigation: Both recognize the need to prevent critical knowledge loss that could harm national security, economic stability, or essential public services.
Data-Driven Decision Making: Regardless of political stance, effective KM strategies rely on data and AI-enhanced insights to guide workforce changes.
Improved Operational Efficiency: Both perspectives agree that government inefficiencies should be addressed, whether through workforce optimization, better collaboration, or smarter knowledge-sharing systems.
Ultimately, KM must be adaptable to different political priorities, ensuring that it supports workforce transitions in ways that align with broader governance objectives.
Both perspectives recognize that losing knowledge is costly, but they differ on whether KM should support a leaner government (Republican view) or protect institutional continuity (Democratic view). The key challenge is finding KM strategies that work regardless of political shifts—ensuring government remains effective whether agencies grow, shrink, or transform.
A Values-Driven KM Approach to Workforce Decisions
KM may be neutral as a set of tools and frameworks, but its
operationalization is not neutral—it reflects the priorities of those who wish
to use it. Whether an agency is downsizing, restructuring, or shifting
responsibilities, KM provides the framework to:
- Identify
and retain essential knowledge.
- Ensure
smooth transitions for employees and services.
- Minimize
disruptions to government functions.
This is an initial set of ideas, written from the perspective of someone who has spent a career in KM. While my bias toward the importance of KM is clear, I invite discussion on these perspectives and alternative viewpoints.
----
There is a literature on KM in the public sector but it tends to assume that politics don't impact public service institutions that much. This may need revisiting.
For additional light reading:
* "Navigating the Political Landscape: Insights on Knowledge Management and Progressive Politics," by Keith Markovich, January 30, 2025. An interesting take which leans towards advice for Personal Knowledge Management (PKM), which I find to be extremely relevant in today's challenging information environment.
* "The incoming US administration: transition, decision-making, and the value of Knowledge Management," by Bill Kaplan, December 4, 2020. Obviously about the previous administration's transition, but advocating "unemotional, evidence-based, analytical, understanding history and lessons learned." I'm afraid all that gets thrown out the window.
