Knowledge Management 'Reloaded'

Background
On 1st July 2016, the JRC went through its largest reorganisation of the last 20 years, with a new organisational chart introducing "Knowledge Management" as a core activity.

The move towards "Knowledge Management" was triggered by requests from the top political level, and it was vital for the JRC to implement it. The JRC image, within the Commission and in front of the outside world, has indeed dramatically benefited from this repositioning.

After more than five years, we are now in the position to make an assessment of what is working and what needs to be fixed. We can't ignore, in fact, that major inconsistencies related to the internal structure of the JRC and its organisational chart do exist.

Already the 2017 JRC Implementation Review report also contained several remarks about the new JRC structure and the confusion around it:
- "The JRC presents itself in many different structures to the outside world and we have the impression that there are more today than in the past. That there is some confusion around these structures is undoubtedly an unintended effect of the new strategy and the reorganisation."
- "During the hearings, staff responded with insufficient clarity about the role of the [knowledge] centres, the criteria for their creation or closing, or the strategy behind them."
- "Deep changes place challenges on all staff. These changes do not always work out equally well for every person, and can lead to varied sentiments and behaviour, like acceptance, rejection, and assimilation of ideas. Hence, we recommend to pay attention to these aspects in the strategy implementation plan."

Knowledge Management is identified as one of the four areas into which the JRC organisational chart is structured. But staff working in the Knowledge Management area are invited to be active in Knowledge Production, while staff working in Knowledge Production area are requested to be active in Knowledge Management too, hence creating confusion and dismay. 
Furthermore, Knowledge Centres are managed within Knowledge Production Units, adding to the inconsistency.

Resources allocated to Knowledge Management have been programmed to grow at the expenses of Knowledge Production, thus causing unhelpful antagonism among staff leading to the opposite result to that desired: less cooperation instead of more.


Lastly, the JRC strategy 2030 aimed at ensuring that the JRC became truly an equal partner with the other DGs. We don't believe this promise is fulfilled, also due to the current organisational structure that has introduced a plurality of contact points and "principalities" throughout the organisation.

A possible solution
We believe that neutralising the frustration and conflict between the two artificially created souls of the JRC, i.e. "Knowledge Production" vs "Knowledge Management", is an absolute priority.

We will request our management to consider this revision during the rumoured upcoming JRC reorganisation.