Setting the Stage: Why This Reorg Matters 

The World Bank Group (WBG) is widely recognized as a major producer of development knowledge. Clients and partners consistently tell us how much they value the WBG’s role in generating, curating, and disseminating high-quality, policy-relevant knowledge. These insights shape development strategies, inform policy decisions, and enhance the effectiveness of operations and global convening initiatives. 

A major reorganization of the ‘Knowledge Bank’ was recently announced. This involves merging global units responsible for knowledge production, sector strategies, and partnerships across the World Bank Group. This will include the private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and the research arm, Development Economics (DEC), alongside the reorganization of some regional units. The stated goal is to “supercharge” thought leadership, innovation, and cutting-edge knowledge, all under the banner of jobs as the unifying theme. 

This is not the first time the Bank Group has used reorganization to boost knowledge and bring IFC and World Bank staff together in joint departments. For example, the World Bank’s 2014 reorg created two joint departments, since disbanded. IEG’s evaluation of the 2014 reforms found that reforms ran into implementation challenges because change management was lacking. The reforms created new silos: while collaboration across regions within a sector improved, collaboration between sectors became harder. Culture and incentives were overlooked. Some central players involved in the design of the structure at the time left the institution soon after. 

What Can We Learn from Current Knowledge Flows in World Bank Projects? 

IEG’s recent evaluation of learning in the lending portfolio of the World Bank (the WBG’s public sector arm) provides other important insights for the implementation of this new reform. The World Bank’s knowledge ecosystem is built on a formal, linear model that creates learning moments at specific points in the project cycle, especially during preparation. This model excels at producing explicit technical knowledge for project design but is less effective for fostering learning during implementation and underemphasizes country knowledge. 

Some key findings: 

  • Tacit knowledge matters. We looked at 34 projects of various types and from across all regions, and these case studies indicated a far greater reliance on tacit knowledge from previous or ongoing projects than on formal, documented lessons. Informal opportunities—such as candid discussions with peer reviewers—were often more valuable than formal processes. 
  • Weak lesson learning. The World Bank has no formal system for learning from canceled or dropped operations and from failure. Lessons are often fragmented and hard to access. 
  • Global vs. operational priorities. Global units often produce knowledge aligned with corporate priorities rather than operational needs or country context.
  • Knowledge Management as an afterthought. Learning is often driven by the motivation of Task Team Leaders, who manage the implementation of projects, and external trust funds rather than formal mandates or budgets. Institutional support for Knowledge Management (KM) was weak in the past. Without a centralized knowledge system, business units develop their own, creating uneven capacity. 

The WB–IFC Collaboration Challenge 

Efforts to foster collaboration between the public and private sector arms, World Bank and IFC, are not new. Over the years, we’ve seen Joint Implementation Plans, joint Country Partnership Frameworks, and attempts to structurally integrate IFC and World Bank units, for example on finance, competitiveness, private sector development, and oil, gas, and mining. The former Trade and Competitiveness Global Practice worked hard to streamline procedures and incentives, but this approach ended with the 2018 reorganization of Equitable Growth, Finance, and Institutions Practice Group.

Our findings highlighted above underscore that a new structure alone will not fix the underlying issues. The World Bank Group needs to rethink how knowledge is captured, shared, and applied. Other fundamental challenges remain, such as differences in mandates, metrics, and incentives between the World Bank and IFC. Cultural differences across institutions are also real—the World Bank’s academic, consensus-driven style versus IFC’s need for speed to match its private sector clients. Many staff say that working together on projects matters far more than reports and strategies. Joint teams and platforms that bring staff together across organizational boundaries have often been effective. 

Bank Group management is seeking to address many of these issues, but sustained attention will be necessary. 

Five Recommendations for Getting It Right 

  1. Invest in Change Management and Culture.
    History shows that structure alone does not deliver better knowledge outcomes. The reorganization must go beyond new charts and invest in the “software” of collaboration: trust, incentives, and shared purpose.
  2. Professionalize Knowledge Management.
    KM has been an afterthought in past reforms. The Bank needs standards for knowledge capture, storage, and sharing, and should invest in communities of practice and technical help desks. Managers should create spaces for informal learning and role model openness to discuss failures.
  3. Learn from Past Integration Attempts.
    The design of the new structure should build on lessons from past joint departments and collaboration platforms. Integration is not just about structure, it’s about incentives, culture, and practicalities.
  4. Focus on Knowledge Brokering.
    Global units must produce knowledge that is useful for operations and country teams, not just for corporate priorities. Mechanisms to ensure knowledge is applied in practice are essential.
  5. Be Patient and Persistent.
    Developing effective joint units takes time. Patience, ongoing attention to change management, and a willingness to learn from past mistakes are critical.

Closing Thoughts: From Ambition to Impact 

The Bank’s reputation as a ‘Knowledge Bank’ is well-earned, yet evidence shows persistent imbalances and missed opportunities. The FY26 reorganization is a chance to address these, but only if it tackles culture, incentives, and the practicalities of collaboration. As an evaluator—and as someone who has lived through previous reforms—I urge management to focus on the substance of knowledge work, invest in KM, and create the conditions for learning that will truly “supercharge” the Bank’s impact. 

Resources:

FILTER BY