Gestión del conocimiento público: ¿Mito o innovación sostenible? J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (July - December 2025) 3(2): 15-20 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16750065 ISSN 3091-1850 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Public Knowledge Management: Myth or Sustainable Innovation?  Verónica Vargas maria.vargas@utm.edu.ec Universidad Técnica de Manabí, Portoviejo, Ecuador. Received: 02 May 2025 / Accepted: 10 July 2025 / Published online: 31 July 2025 © The Author(s) 2025 Verónica Vargas · Loyola Guadalupe García Abstract This study critically examined the viability of knowl- edge management in the public sector as a sustainable innovation, versus the possibility that it may constitute an administrative myth with no concrete eﬀects. A qualitative study was conducted, incor- porating a systematic review of indexed academic literature and a comparative analysis of ﬁve relevant case studies from Uruguay, Colombia, Spain, Brazil, and Sweden. The goal was to identify the institutional, technological, cultural, and organizational conditions that determine the eﬀectiveness of these strategies in state contexts. Based on an analytical matrix constructed with ﬁve key dimen- sions — institutionalization, technological capabilities, organiza- tional culture, human talent participation, and sustainability-based evaluation —the cases were classiﬁed into three types: sustainable models, fragmented models, and symbolic models. The results showed that the most successful experiences occurred in countries with stable regulatory frameworks, committed political leadership, interoperable technological infrastructure, and an institutional cul- ture oriented toward collective learning. In contrast, in contexts where reforms were implemented through imitation without sup- port structures or continuity, knowledge management operated as a ritual practice with no transformative impact. It was concluded that for this tool to become a proper mechanism for innovation in public management, it must be integrated into state policy, accom- panied by resources, evaluation mechanisms, and a strategic vision that values institutional knowledge as a central asset of democratic governance and the generation of public value. Keywords knowledge management, public sector, innovation, or- ganizational culture, sustainability. Resumen Este estudio examinó la viabilidad de la gestión del conocimiento en el sector público como una innovación sostenible frente a la posibilidad de que constituya un mito administrativo sin efectos concretos. Se desarrolló una investigación cualitativa con revisión sistemática de literatura académica indexada y análisis comparativo de cinco estudios de caso relevantes: Uruguay, Co- lombia, España, Brasil y Suecia. El objetivo fue identiﬁcar las con- diciones institucionales, tecnológicas, culturales y organizacionales que determinan la efectividad de estas estrategias en contextos es- tatales. A partir de una matriz analítica construida con cinco dimen- siones clave —institucionalización, capacidades tecnológicas, cul- tura organizacional, participación del talento humano y evaluación con sostenibilidad— se clasiﬁcaron los casos en tres tipos: mode- los sostenibles, modelos fragmentados y modelos simbólicos. Los resultados mostraron que las experiencias más exitosas se dieron en países con marcos normativos estables, liderazgo político com- prometido, infraestructura tecnológica interoperable y una cultura institucional orientada al aprendizaje colectivo. En los contextos donde las reformas se implementaron por imitación, sin estructuras de apoyo ni continuidad, la gestión del conocimiento operó como una práctica ritual sin impacto transformador. Para que esta herra- mienta se convierta en un verdadero mecanismo de innovación en la gestión pública, es necesario integrarla como política de Estado, acompañada de recursos, mecanismos de evaluación y una visión estratégica que valore el saber institucional como activo central de la gobernanza democrática y la generación de valor público. Palabras clave gestión del conocimiento, sector público, innova- ción, cultura organizacional, sostenibilidad. How to cite Vargas, M., & García, L. G. (2025). Public knowledge management: Myth or sustainable innovation? Journal of Management and Human Resources, 3(2), 15-20. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16750065 Universidad Técnica de Manabí, Portoviejo, Ecuador.

J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (July - December 2025) 3(2): 15-20 16 Introduction Today, digital transformation and citizens’ demands for greater eﬃciency and transparency have driven growing at- tention to knowledge management in the public sector. Un- like private organizations, where this approach has been wi- dely adopted to optimize processes and generate innovation, at the state level, ambiguities, structural diﬃculties, and an institutional culture that often hinders continuous organiza- tional learning persist. This tension has led to a fundamental theoretical-practical dilemma: is public knowledge manage- ment a transformative tool with the potential for sustainable innovation, or a discursive construct that fails to translate into real, systematic action? Knowledge management is deﬁned as a set of organiza- tional practices aimed at identifying, capturing, structuring, sharing, and applying individual and collective knowledge to improve institutional performance (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Wiig, 2002). In the state context, this deﬁnition is complicated by institutional fragmentation, regulatory rigi- dity, and decision-making processes characterized by mul- tiple actors with divergent interests. Despite this, from in- ternational organizations to local governments, discourse on the need to build “smart administrations” capable of genera- ting, using, and preserving knowledge as a strategic resource has proliferated. Numerous studies have shown that public systems face cultural and structural barriers that hinder the establishment of a genuine knowledge culture. These diﬃculties include high staﬀ turnover, poor long-term planning, the politiciza- tion of management positions, resistance to change, and a lack of incentives to share knowledge ( Cavalcante, 2019; Zárate, 2021). Despite this, some international experien- ces—such as the Knowledge Management System in the Digital Government of Uruguay, the National Institute of Health of Colombia, or the knowledge model in the Swe- dish administration—have demonstrated that it is possible to move towards institutional models that promote sustained organizational learning ( OECD/CAF, 2023). From a critical perspective, some authors argue that public knowledge management has been dominated by a manage- rialist rhetoric that promotes the adoption of organizational trends without questioning the structural conditions of ad- ministrative systems (Osborne, 2006; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2017). Thus, the idea of knowledge as a strategic resource can result in symbolic practices rather than profound trans- formations, reproducing modernizing myths that legitimize management without necessarily improving it (Brunsson & Olsen, 2018). Therefore, it is pertinent to investigate: to what extent does public knowledge management respond to ge- nuine innovation, or is it merely an administrative myth in contemporary reformist discourse? Within this framework, this article aims to critically analyze knowledge management in the public sector, ex- ploring its viability as a sustainable innovation. Through a qualitative approach based on a review of indexed literature and case studies, the paper identiﬁes critical factors aﬀecting its implementation, examines its most persistent challenges, and evaluates experiences that have eﬀectively institutiona- lized it. The central thesis is that, although public knowledge management still faces signiﬁcant obstacles, it can constitute a sustainable innovation if articulated in conjunction with broader institutional transformation processes and conceived from a systemic, participatory, and learning-oriented organi- zational perspective. The academic relevance of this study lies in its contri- bution to a rarely addressed discussion in the ﬁeld of La- tin American public administration: the problematization of knowledge management beyond technology transfer and modernization discourses, focusing on the political and ins- titutional conditions that make its sustainability viable—or not. From a practical perspective, the article guides public decision-makers, institutional managers, and international organizations in designing public policies that foster a ge- nuine culture of knowledge, rather than merely adopting the concept superﬁcially. To this end, the article is structured into ﬁve sections. The ﬁrst presents the introductory framework, the problems, and the objective of the study. The second describes the metho- dology used, which combines a systematic review and com- parative qualitative analysis. The third oﬀers the main results derived from case studies and the literature analyzed, highli- ghting both eﬀective practices and institutional failures. The fourth section critically discusses these ﬁndings in light of organizational theories and approaches to public innovation. Finally, the ﬁfth section summarizes the main conclusions and proposes recommendations for moving toward sustaina- ble, institutionalized, and impact-oriented public knowledge management. This approach assumes greater relevance in Latin Ame- rican contexts, where weak state capacities, institutional volatility, and a limited tradition of evaluation hinder the consolidation of organizational learning processes. As Peci et al. (2020) have pointed out, in Latin America, knowled- ge management is often disconnected from the fundamental dynamics of the production and use of public knowledge, adopting prescriptive approaches that fail to consider the complexity of the institutional environment. In this sense,

J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (July - December 2025) 3(2): 15-20 17 understanding the factors of success and failure in compara- tive experiences is crucial for avoiding the reproduction of administrative myths and promoting eﬀective reforms tailo- red to the context. This article also reﬂects the growing interest in the role of knowledge in public governance and its relationship to legitimacy, innovation, and accountability. As Dunleavy et al. (2006) argue, in a context marked by uncertainty and complexity, states must evolve from traditional bureaucratic structures to models based on learning, institutional intelli- gence, and intersectoral collaboration. Knowledge manage- ment, in this context, is not merely a technique but a political commitment to redeﬁne how the state produces, circulates, and uses knowledge to solve public problems. Ultimately, this study begins with a provocative but ur- gent question: Is public knowledge management a myth or a sustainable innovation? The answer, far from being dichoto- mous, requires a critical and situated approach that recogni- zes its potential, limits, and conditions of possibility. Methodology The study was structured in three phases: ﬁrst, a systema- tic review of indexed academic literature to identify the state of the art in public sector knowledge management, its main theoretical approaches, and relevant empirical ﬁndings; se- cond, the selection and analysis of ﬁve representative case studies of public administrations—Uruguay’s National Di- gital Government System, Colombia’s National Institute of Health, Spain’s Ministry of Finance Public Innovation Ne- twork, Brazil’s National School of Public Administration (ENAP), and Sweden’s Innovation Agency Vinnova—cho- sen for their institutional diversity, geographic distribution, and varying levels of model consolidation; and third, the theoretical contrast and development of an explanatory typo- logy on whether these experiences reﬂect genuine innova- tion or symbolic mythologizing. The literature review applied a systematic search in Sco- pus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect using combined descriptors in English and Spanish, applying inclusion cri- teria for peer-reviewed works (2010–2024) with empirical or theoretical-analytical focus in public contexts, resulting in a ﬁnal corpus of 57 high-quality articles. The case study analysis combined primary sources (oﬃcial reports and ins- titutional documents) with secondary sources (academic arti- cles and external evaluations), allowing for triangulation and enhanced internal validity. Phase three employed Ragin’s (1987) systematic qualitative comparison to build an analyti- cal matrix of ﬁve dimensions—institutionalization, techno- logical capabilities, organizational culture, human talent en- gagement, and evaluation/sustainability—categorizing each into qualitative levels to compare proximity to the ideal of innovative, sustainable knowledge management versus sym- bolic practices. The research adopted a constructivist epistemological stance, emphasizing the political, symbolic, and strategic dimensions of knowledge while avoiding its reduction to a neutral input. Although limited by its reliance on secondary sources and the non-generalizability of ﬁndings, the study contributes a critical reﬂection on the contextual conditions that enable or hinder the consolidation of knowledge mana- gement as a sustainable public sector innovation. Results and discussion The analysis of the ﬁve case studies identiﬁed recurring patterns, structural diﬀerences, and critical dimensions that inﬂuence the innovative or symbolic nature of knowledge management in public contexts. A comparative matrix sum- marizes the main ﬁndings according to the ﬁve dimensions analyzed below. The following radar chart (Figure 1) visualization provides an integrated and comparative view of each country’s rel- ative performance across ﬁve key dimensions: institution- alization, technological capabilities, organizational culture, human talent engagement, and sustainability. This represen- tation enables the identiﬁcation of implementation proﬁles and diﬀerentiation between cases that are closest to the ideal of sustainable innovation and those with partial or token im- plementation. Figure 1. Comparative radar of public knowledge man- agement dimensions by country To review successful experiences, we looked at the case of Uruguay. The knowledge management model implement-

J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (July - December 2025) 3(2): 15-20 18 ed by the Agency for Electronic Government and the Infor- mation and Knowledge Society (AGESIC) has established itself as a strategic initiative to strengthen institutional ca- pacities and foster a sustainable digital culture. According to the 2022 Annual Report (published in May 2023), during that year AGESIC worked with public agencies, the pri- vate sector, academia, and civil society on initiatives aimed at “advancing and consolidating a public policy for digital transformation.” Thus, this knowledge management model is integrated transversally into the design of public policies, the training of public oﬃcials, and inter-institutional coordi- nation, being a central pillar of its digital government strate- gy (AGESIC, 2023). One of the pillars of this model is the knowledge archi- tecture approach, based on interoperable systems, open re- positories, and a substantial investment in staﬀ digital skills. Uruguay has developed platforms, such as the “Digital Gov- ernment Observatory,” which enables the systematization of best practices, institutional maturity indicators, and continu- ous assessment processes. This case demonstrates how high institutionalization, supported by regulatory frameworks and sustained political leadership, can transform knowledge management into a real and sustainable innovation tool OECD/(CAF, 2023) Another success story is the Vinnova Agency in Sweden, which operates under a systemic innovation logic, where knowledge is understood not only as a resource, but also as a continuous ﬂow of learning, collaboration, and experimen- tation (Hartley, 2021). The knowledge management strategy is integrated with innovation governance, promoting com- munities of practice, public-private partnerships, and co-cre- ation networks. What is remarkable about this model is the high degree of coherence between discourse and practice, supported by an institutional culture that values professional autonomy, lifelong learning, and accountability. Unlike other contexts, knowledge is not captured by rigid hierarchies; instead, it is managed as a distributed common good (Borins, 2014). As a partial implementation, the Colombian case was re- viewed, which addressed advances in public health and scal- ability challenges. Since 2015, the Colombian National In- stitute of Health has implemented a knowledge management policy focused on generating, transferring, and applying sci- entiﬁc knowledge in public health. Through strategies such as the National Laboratory Network, virtual training courses, and open data banks, the circulation of technical knowledge among health system stakeholders has been strengthened (INS, 2022). However, the model has limitations in terms of scalabili- ty to other areas of the public sector. The lack of a nation- al knowledge management policy limits inter-institutional coordination, and the system relies heavily on the ad hoc leadership of certain agencies. This reﬂects a successful but fragmented sectoral implementation that has yet to be trans- lated into a comprehensive state policy (Cano Jiménez et al., 2021). In other cases, such as the Spanish context, the Public In- novation Network, promoted by the Ministry of Finance, has sought to foster a culture of shared knowledge through hor- izontal networks, co-creation platforms, and training spaces (Cortés Abad, 2022). However, experience shows that in- stitutionalization is weak, marked by political discontinuity and the absence of a regulatory framework to support these eﬀorts in the long term. Knowledge strategy is presented as a modern discourse, carrying a strong symbolic charge, but it lacks organic inte- gration into human resource management, institutional plan- ning, or policy evaluation systems. This disconnect gives rise to superﬁcial practices that reinforce the notion of the “organizational myth” in contexts of administrative modern- ization (Brunsson & Olsen, 2018). The case of the National School of Public Administration (ENAP) in Brazil was reviewed. This has led to important initiatives in training and public knowledge management through platforms such as EV.G and institutional repositories (Cavalcante, 2019). However, these practices coexist with signiﬁcant institutional fragmentation and limited coordina- tion between diﬀerent levels of government. Despite possessing advanced technological resources, the Brazilian system exhibits a weak organizational culture that is not oriented toward learning. Knowledge is often captured by vertical bureaucratic structures, which hinders its trans- versal circulation and strategic use. Furthermore, frequent changes in government policy aﬀect the sustainability of knowledge programs. Empirical evidence suggests that public knowledge man- agement can take three structural forms: • Sustainable innovation: This is observed in cases such as Uruguay and Sweden, where there is eﬀective co- ordination between regulatory frameworks, institu- tional culture, and technologies. Knowledge is treated as a strategic asset for governance and continuous im- provement. • Partial innovation: Cases such as Colombia and Brazil show signiﬁcant progress in speciﬁc sectors, but lack national and inclusive policies. • Administrative myth: In contexts like Spain, knowl- edge management discourse remains rhetorical with- out generating structural changes, functioning as a le- gitimizing narrative rather than a transformative tool. These ﬁndings are consistent with Pollitt and Bouckaert’s (2017) proposal, which argues that many administrative reforms adopt a symbolic logic that simulates moderniza-

J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (July - December 2025) 3(2): 15-20 19 tion without altering the core of bureaucratic power. In this sense, knowledge management can become a “rationalized myth”—in the words of Meyer and Rowan (1977)—when adopted under institutional pressure but without generating real operational structures. However, it is also true that successful experiences demon- strate that it is possible to reverse this trend through coherent policies, committed leadership, and a culture of evaluation. Innovation depends not only on technological resources, but also on the existence of an institutional ecosystem that val- ues knowledge as an input for designing public policies and transforming the State. Public knowledge management, therefore, cannot be re- duced to a managerial tool. It must be understood as a state policy, aimed at democratizing institutional knowledge, promoting collective learning, and generating public value (OECD, 2021). The sustainability of this approach implies overcoming short-term logic, investing in human capabili- ties, and fostering an organizational culture that rewards in- novation and collaboration. This study oﬀers an analytical contribution to the debate on state modernization by showing that knowledge manage- ment is neither a panacea nor a myth in itself, but rather a contested ﬁeld. Its transformative potential depends on mul- tiple factors: institutional design, political leadership, tech- nological infrastructure, organizational culture, and evalua- tion mechanisms. Furthermore, it becomes clear that knowledge practices in the public sector are neither neutral nor apolitical. Power relations, bureaucratic interests, and tensions between inno- vation and control inﬂuence them. Therefore, a sustainable knowledge management model must be based on the values of openness, collaboration, transparency, and accountability, rather than just operational eﬃciency. Conclusions Public knowledge management has emerged as a key com- ponent of state modernization, driven by technological ad- vances, demands for transparency, and citizen expectations for eﬃcient services; however, its consolidation remains uneven, oscillating between genuine innovation and symbo- lic reform. Comparative analysis of ﬁve cases reveals three scenarios: institutionalized and stable models that integrate knowledge into governance (e.g., Uruguay, Sweden); secto- ral or fragmented models with localized success but lacking systemic articulation (e.g., Colombia’s public health sector); and symbolic models that adopt the rhetoric and structures of innovation without transforming core practices (e.g., seg- ments of Spain and Brazil). The study identiﬁes ﬁve inter- dependent dimensions critical for sustainable knowledge strategies: institutionalization, technological capacity, lear- ning-oriented culture, human talent engagement, and eva- luation mechanisms. It underscores that knowledge in the public sector is both a technical and a political asset, shaped by power relations and institutional interests. Actual conso- lidation requires elevating knowledge management to state policy status, fostering public servants as active knowledge producers, and embedding it across all government subsys- tems to create open, adaptive, and citizen-focused adminis- trations capable of sustaining democratic legitimacy and continuous improvement. References AGESIC. (2023, mayo). Memoria anual 2022. Agencia de Gobierno Electrónico y Sociedad de la Información y del Conocimiento. https://www.gub.uy/agencia-gobier- no-electronico-sociedad-informacion-conocimiento/ sites/agencia-gobierno-electronico-sociedad-infor- macion-conocimiento/files/2023-05/Memoria%20 anual%202022.pdf Borins, S. (2014). The persistence of innovation in gover- nment. Brookings Institution Press. https://www.jstor. org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt6wpcpq Brunsson, N., & Olsen, J. P. (2018). The reforming organiza- tion: Making sense of administrative change (Routled- ge Library Editions: Management). Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9781351252188 Cavalcante, P. L. C. (2019). Knowledge management in the public sector: An analysis of initiatives in Brazilian federal government. Revista de Administração Pú- blica, 53(1), 112–134. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/379985961_Knowledge_Management_in_ the_Public_Sector_Maturity_Levels_of_Federal_Go- vernment_Organizations_in_Brazil_In_Moffett_S_ Galbraith_B_eds_Proceedings_17th_European_Confe- rence_on_Knowledge_Management_ECKM_2 Cortés Abad, Ó. (2022). La variable política en la institucio- nalización de las redes sociales en la Administración: El caso de la comunicación ministerial en España. Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia, (84), 213–244. ht- tps://doi.org/10.69733/clad.ryd.n84.a287 Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5ª ed.). SAGE Pu- blications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/the-sa- ge-handbook-of-qualitative-research/book242504 DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revi- sited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationa- lity in organizational ﬁelds. American Sociological Re- view, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). Digital era governance: IT corporations, the state, and e-government. Oxford University Press. https://acade- mic.oup.com/book/6227

J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (July - December 2025) 3(2): 15-20 20 Gil-García, J. R., Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Dawes, S. S. (2020). Digital government and public management research: Finding the crossroads. Public Management Review, 22(3), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.201 7.1327181 Hartley, J. (2021). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public Money & Mana- gement, 41(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9302.2005.00447.x Instituto Nacional de Salud. (2022). Gestión del conocimien- to y formación del talento humano en salud pública. https://www.ins.gov.co/conocenos/plataforma-estrat%- C3%A9gica Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organi- zations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. Ame- rican Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi. org/10.1086/226550 Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dyna- mics of innovation. Oxford University Press. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). Public sector innovation: Towards a new policy framework. https://www.oecd.org/gov/public-sector-in- novation.htm OECD/CAF. (2023). Digital government review of Latin America and the Caribbean: Building inclusive and responsive public services (OECD Digital Government Studies). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/ 29f32e64-en Osborne, S. P. (Ed.). (2006). The new public governance?. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203861684 Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public management reform: A comparative analysis – Into the age of aus- terity (4ª ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198795187.001.0001 Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Uni- versity of California Press. https://www.jstor.org/sta- ble/10.1525/j.ctt1pnx57 Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to ab- ductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914 Wiig, K. M. (2002). Knowledge management in public ad- ministration. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(3), 224–239. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270210434331 Zárate, A. (2021). Gestión del conocimiento en el sector público: Retos y oportunidades. Revista Iberoameri- cana de Gestión Pública, 8(2), 54–71. https://www. revistaiberoamericana.org/index.php/es/article/down- load/89/197 Conﬂicts of interest The authors declare that they have no conﬂicts of interest. Author contributions Conceptualization: Vargas, V., & García, L. G. Data cu- ration: Vargas, V., & García, L. G. Formal analysis: Var- gas, V., & García, L. G. Research: Vargas, V., & García, L. G. Methodology: Vargas, V., & García, L. G. Supervision: Vargas, V., & García, L. G. Validation: Vargas, V., & García, L. G. Visualization: Vargas, V., & García, L. G. Writing the original draft: Vargas, V., & García, L. G. Writing, review and editing: Vargas, V., & García, L. G. Data availability statement The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Statement on the use of AI The authors acknowledge the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies to improve the readability and cla- rity of the article. Disclaimer/Editor’s note The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publi- cations are solely those of the individual authors and contri- butors and not of Journal of Management and Human Ro- sources. Journal of Management and Human Rosources and/or the editors disclaim any responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products mentioned in the content.