Jamaica lost 60% of its nursing cohort to overseas recruitment in 2023. Guyana loses 40% of engineering graduates by age 30, even during an oil boom when domestic opportunities have never been stronger. Over 70% of Caribbean nationals with tertiary education now live and work abroad. Development reports classify these numbers as "brain drain" statistics requiring better retention policies or competitive salaries. But are we missing something? When that Jamaican nurse emigrates to Canada, she takes more than her clinical skills. She takes the institutional knowledge of which community health protocols actually work in rural parishes, which stakeholder relationships enable cross-sector coordination, and which informal workarounds make formal systems function. When the Guyanese engineer accepts a position in Houston, he takes the implementation lessons from failed infrastructure projects that could prevent the next team from repeating identical mistakes. None of this knowledge gets documented. None of it transfers to replacements. It simply vanishes.

This institutional amnesia becomes amplified during crises. When Hurricane Melissa struck Jamaica as a Category 5 storm in October 2025, Health Minister Christopher Tufton acknowledged in December that outdated legislation hampered response efforts. "I think there's also a role for the Public Health Act in terms of some of the responses and some other pieces of legislation, some of which are outdated because they've been around for a long time," Tufton told the Jamaica Observer. The challenge was not lack of expertise. Jamaica has survived hurricanes, managed COVID-19, and built one of the Caribbean's most advanced disaster financing systems. The problem was that hard-won operational knowledge about coordinating rapid emergency response existed in people's heads and outdated legal frameworks rather than in systematic protocols that could guide action when those people were themselves among the displaced or overwhelmed.

Caribbean organisations lose critical implementation knowledge. These loses are often normalised. The numbers tell a stark story. Youth unemployment across the region averages 17.6%, climbing to 30.5% when Haiti is included.

The Evidence That Knowledge Capture Improves Performance is Unambiguous.

Research consistently demonstrates that organisations with strong learning cultures report 37% higher productivity than peers. When learning initiatives align with performance goals, performance improves by 95% according to rigorous evaluation studies. Organisations that prioritise internal mobility see 36% higher retention rates, creating virtuous cycles where knowledge compounds rather than depletes. Yet despite this robust evidence base, only 34% of non-governmental organisation managers report that knowledge management is part of their organisational strategy. This drops to shocking levels when examining whether organisations have actually implemented knowledge capture systems rather than merely acknowledging their importance. The gap between knowing something matters and actually doing it represents a textbook implementation failure.

The standard international development response to Caribbean institutional capacity gaps is to provide more technical assistance. Bring in more consultants. Run more training programmes. Write more strategic plans. Conduct more organisational assessments. This treats the problem as a knowledge deficit, as if Caribbean professionals do not know how to implement evidence-based programmes. But this fundamentally misdiagnoses the barrier. The problem is not that organisations lack knowledge. The problem is that organisations cannot retain knowledge they acquire because systems to capture and transfer that knowledge do not exist or do not function.

Implementation science distinguishes between service outcomes and implementation outcomes. Training a nurse in updated maternal health protocols improves that individual nurse's knowledge, which is a service outcome. But training does nothing to prevent that knowledge from leaving the country when the nurse accepts a better-paying position abroad six months later, which is an implementation outcome. The intervention is mismatched to the barrier. No amount of training addresses the systematic knowledge loss that occurs through staff turnover without capture systems.

Why Knowledge Capture Systems Fail Even When Organisations Recognise Their Value

Understanding why knowledge management fails despite acknowledged importance requires examining what implementation science calls the Inner Setting domain. This encompasses organisational culture, implementation climate, and structural characteristics that enable or prevent change. Caribbean organisations face at least three distinct barriers that interact to prevent knowledge capture from taking hold.

First, organisational culture often privileges action over documentation. Staff view documentation as bureaucratic overhead that steals time from actual service delivery. This perspective is partially rational. When you are overworked, underpaid, and managing caseloads that exceed any reasonable standard, time spent writing down what you did feels like time stolen from helping the next person who needs assistance. The immediate need is visceral and visible. The long-term knowledge loss is abstract and future-oriented. Human psychology predictably prioritises the immediate over the abstract.

But this cultural bias is also short-sighted when examined through an implementation lens. The time spent documenting implementation lessons prevents having to relearn those same lessons from scratch when staff turn over.

The second barrier is structural and concerns funding cycles. Caribbean organisations predominantly operate on 12 to 24 month grant cycles that do not align with the timeline required to build knowledge management infrastructure. Establishing functioning knowledge capture systems requires approximately 18 to 36 months. Six months to assess what knowledge matters most, select appropriate tools, and build staff buy-in. Twelve months to pilot systems with one or two departments, learn what works in organisational context, and refine approaches. Another six to twelve months to scale across the organisation and embed knowledge capture into routine workflows rather than treating it as separate documentation burden.

But donors fund programmes, not systems. An organisation can secure funding for a new maternal health programme but cannot secure funding for the knowledge management system that would help that maternal health programme learn from three previous maternal health programmes the organisation implemented. This creates what implementation scientists call intervention-driven rather than system-driven funding. Each intervention brings its own monitoring and evaluation requirements, its own reporting templates, its own documentation demands. But none of these contribute to organisational knowledge because they are designed for donor accountability, not organisational learning. The programme closes, the donor moves on, and the knowledge generated vanishes because no system exists to retain it.

The third barrier concerns who holds knowledge and their incentives to share it. Staff who remain in organisations often carry institutional knowledge tacitly and see limited incentive to codify that knowledge. Making yourself replaceable by documenting everything you know can feel professionally risky, particularly in contexts where employment security is uncertain. Staff members planning to emigrate have even less incentive to invest time documenting knowledge for organisations they are preparing to leave. This creates adverse selection. The people with the most valuable implementation knowledge are precisely the people least likely to document it.

Senior staff who have been with organisations for many years sometimes actively resist knowledge capture because their tacit knowledge represents their primary source of organisational power. If anyone can access documented knowledge about stakeholder networks, funding opportunities, or implementation shortcuts, then what makes the long-serving staff member indispensable? This is rational self-interest in contexts where job security is fragile. But it is catastrophic for organisational resilience.

Caribbean-Specific Barriers That Aggregated Capacity Building Cannot Address

The linguistic fragmentation of the Caribbean creates knowledge capture challenges that generic organisational development programmes systematically fail to address. Consider three examples that illustrate how governance structures and linguistic diversity shape what is implementable.

In the French Caribbean, Guadeloupe and Martinique face what recent research documents as post-colonial institutional arrangements that constrain knowledge transfer in distinctive ways. These territories cannot participate in CARICOM knowledge exchange networks because they are French overseas departments, not sovereign states. Regional learning platforms, technical working groups, and communities of practice organised through CARICOM structures legally exclude them. Simultaneously, they cannot access Small Island Developing States-specific technical assistance because European Union member status disqualifies them from mechanisms designed for developing countries. They exist in a knowledge isolation zone, neither fully integrated with French metropolitan systems nor with Caribbean regional networks. A Martinican public health professional who develops innovative approaches to dengue vector control cannot easily share that knowledge with Saint Lucia or Dominica through regional platforms, even though the ecological and epidemiological contexts are nearly identical.

In Suriname, knowledge management must navigate twenty-plus languages. Government mandate that all official documentation occurs in Dutch creates an immediate accessibility barrier. Interior communities where Sranan Tongo, Sarnámi, or indigenous languages predominate cannot operationalise knowledge captured in Dutch-language documentation. This is not merely a translation issue requiring Dutch-to-Sranan Tongo conversion. It is fundamentally epistemological. The conceptual categories that organise knowledge in Dutch-language public health documentation may not map onto the operational realities of multilingual implementation contexts. Research on Suriname's education system documents average pass rates of 50 to 60 percent in interior regions precisely because knowledge transfer mechanisms presume linguistic uniformity that does not exist. If the education system itself cannot successfully transfer knowledge using Dutch-medium instruction, expecting health and development programmes to succeed using the same linguistic medium is demonstrably unrealistic. But there are wonderful case studies of non-governmental organisations who adjusted their programming and deliver services to people in the interior from both maroon and amerindian communities in their native languages. Costing of programmes in those communities must take a number of variables into consideration relative to what it may cost to implement in another part of the Caribbean where everyone in any given community speak the same language.

In Haiti, where 1.4 million people are internally displaced and 5.5 million require humanitarian assistance, the implementation challenge is that knowledge capture systems require minimum organisational stability to function. Staff cannot document lessons learned when they are fleeing gang violence or operating from temporary shelters. Office infrastructure necessary for systematic documentation often does not exist or is inaccessible. Yet paradoxically, these crisis contexts are precisely where knowledge capture matters most. Humanitarian actors repeat coordination failures year after year, crisis after crisis, specifically because no functioning mechanism exists to capture and transmit implementation knowledge from previous emergencies to current responders. International organisations like the International Rescue Committee, International Organisation for Migration, and Médecins Sans Frontières maintain sophisticated global knowledge management systems. But local Haitian organisations providing continuity when international actors eventually withdraw have no comparable systems. When the crisis subsides and international attention moves elsewhere, the implementation knowledge leaves with the international staff.

Practical Implementation Pathways That Caribbean Organisations Can Actually Use

Standard knowledge management guidance recommends enterprise-wide platforms, dedicated knowledge management staff, sophisticated taxonomy systems, and substantial technology investments. This guidance is contextually inappropriate for most Caribbean organisations operating under resource constraints. Drawing from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change project that identified 73 discrete implementation strategies, the most feasible knowledge capture interventions for resource-constrained Caribbean organisations cluster in what researchers categorise as evaluative and iterative strategies combined with adaptation strategies.

Start with after-action reviews for completed programmes. This scores exceptionally high on feasibility because it requires only facilitated meetings, not technology infrastructure. It also scores high on what implementation science calls trialability, meaning organisations can pilot the approach with a single programme before committing to broader adoption. The standard after-action review protocol asks four deceptively simple questions. What was supposed to happen according to the programme design? What actually happened during implementation? Why was there a difference between plan and reality? What should we do differently in future programmes to close that gap? The review session brings together programme staff, beneficiaries when appropriate, and key stakeholders. A facilitator guides structured discussion. Someone captures answers in a simple template, maximum two to three pages. The document gets stored in a central location, even if that central location is initially just a locked file cabinet rather than a digital system.

This is not sophisticated knowledge management by international standards. But it is genuine knowledge capture. It prevents the absolute worst failure mode, which is learning something valuable through difficult experience and then completely forgetting you learned it when staff turn over. The next programme manager who encounters similar implementation challenges can access these after-action reviews to understand what previous managers learned. This is dramatically more efficient than requiring each new manager to relearn from scratch.

Progress from after-action reviews to workflow documentation for high-turnover positions. Every organisation can identify its top three positions with highest turnover rates. Have current position incumbents document their workflows before they leave. For digital workflows, simple screen capture software can record step-by-step processes. For non-digital workflows, detailed checklists capture essential tasks and decision points. This documentation typically requires ten to fifteen hours of the departing staff member's time. But it creates persistent value far exceeding that time investment. When the position turns over, the new incumbent can reduce ramp-up time from four to six months down to six to eight weeks because essential workflows are documented rather than tacit. The new staff member still needs to learn organisational culture, build relationships, and develop contextual understanding. But they are not simultaneously trying to figure out basic operational procedures through trial and error.

Implement exit interviews with structured knowledge transfer protocols. This approach scores high on what implementation science calls acceptability. People leaving organisations often genuinely want to help their colleagues succeed. They have no competitive reason to withhold knowledge since they are departing anyway. But exit interviews only capture knowledge if someone actually conducts them systematically and documents the responses. The standard exit interview for knowledge capture asks departing staff four targeted questions. What are the three things your replacement absolutely must know on day one? What relationships must be maintained for this position to be effective? What failed initiatives or approaches should not be repeated? What informal workarounds make the formal systems actually function in practice? Documented answers get shared with incoming staff as part of structured onboarding.

These three interventions require minimal technology investment, minimal external facilitation, and can be implemented within existing organisational capacity. They represent what implementation scientists identify as high feasibility, high importance strategies. More sophisticated knowledge management platforms can come later, after organisations have developed the fundamental behaviour of actually capturing knowledge. Technology cannot fix behaviour problems, but sustained behaviour change can eventually be supported and accelerated by appropriate technology.

Addressing the Standard Objections to Systematic Knowledge Capture

The most common objection to knowledge capture in resource-constrained settings concerns time. We barely have enough staff to deliver services to the people who need them. How can we add documentation burden when we are already overwhelmed? This objection is entirely rational given immediate operational pressures. It is also profoundly short-sighted when time calculations account for knowledge recapture costs.

When new staff must relearn implementation lessons that previous staff knew but never documented, that relearning consumes substantially more time than initial documentation would have required. The time calculation must weigh fifteen hours documenting a position against two hundred hours training a replacement who could have learned in fifty hours with documentation. Organisations that refuse to invest the fifteen hours documenting will inevitably invest the two hundred hours retraining. The question is not whether organisations can afford time to document. The question is whether organisations can afford the opportunity cost of continuous relearning.

A second objection holds that knowledge management creates risk if documented knowledge is incorrect. What if we document an approach that failed or document procedures that are now outdated? What if someone follows documented guidance that turns out to be wrong? This objection fundamentally misunderstands how organisational learning operates. The primary value of documentation is not in recording what succeeded, because success is often highly context-dependent and may not transfer to new situations. The primary value is documenting what failed and why, so those specific failures are not repeated. Implementation science frameworks distinguish between fidelity, which means adhering to protocols as designed, and adaptation, which means appropriately modifying approaches for local context. Good documentation enables both. It provides the baseline protocol but also documents when and why adaptations were necessary.

A third objection argues that knowledge capture does not address root causes. Staff leave because salaries are internationally uncompetitive. No amount of documentation changes the economic reality that Canadian hospitals pay three times what Jamaican hospitals pay. Until we solve the salary gap, knowledge loss will continue. This objection is factually correct but strategically confused. Knowledge capture does not prevent staff departure. Migration is economically rational and individually beneficial for professionals seeking better opportunities. The realistic policy goal is not eliminating emigration, which would require transforming Caribbean economic structures. The realistic goal is ensuring that when nurses emigrate, the implementation knowledge they accumulated does not leave entirely with them. Knowledge about which protocols work in which communities, which stakeholders enable programme success, which barriers require workarounds. This knowledge can be captured and transferred even when the individuals cannot be retained.

What This Means for Caribbean Development Practice

The OECD and Inter-American Development Bank recently published Caribbean Development Dynamics 2025, documenting that Caribbean productivity growth has declined to almost zero. The IMF's Deputy Managing Director stated in June 2025 that addressing Caribbean growth challenges requires systematic and comprehensive policies to improve factors that contribute to growth potential. These analyses are technically accurate. But they miss the implementation mechanism. How do you improve productivity when organisations systematically lose the knowledge that creates productivity gains? How do you strengthen institutional capacity when institutional memory drains away faster than capacity building can replenish it?

Every training programme, every strategic planning process, every organisational assessment generates knowledge that could improve organisational effectiveness. But if that knowledge is not captured in formats that survive staff turnover, it vanishes when people leave. The result is perpetual capacity building that never builds lasting capacity. This is the institutional amnesia trap. Not lack of knowledge but inability to retain knowledge. Not insufficient learning but systematic forgetting.

Breaking this cycle requires treating knowledge capture as foundational infrastructure rather than optional enhancement. It requires recognising that documentation is not bureaucratic overhead but strategic investment in organisational resilience. It requires sequencing interventions appropriately, starting with highest-priority knowledge domains using simplest viable tools. It requires leadership commitment that persists beyond individual grant cycles. Most fundamentally, it requires understanding that Caribbean organisational challenges are not primarily about having smart people or good programmes. They are about building systems that allow organisational intelligence to accumulate rather than continuously draining away.

Uwamito Consulting's institutional assessment methodology applies the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research systematically to diagnose where organisations lose knowledge, why knowledge capture systems fail, and what minimum-viable interventions can interrupt the failure cycle. We do not recommend enterprise software platforms for organisations still using paper filing systems. We recommend phased approaches starting with highest-priority knowledge domains, using tools that Caribbean organisations can actually sustain given real resource constraints and real capacity limitations. The goal is not perfect knowledge management. The goal is persistent institutional memory. Ensuring that what organisations learn through difficult experience does not leave entirely when people inevitably leave. Because in the Caribbean, as everywhere, people will leave. The only question is whether their knowledge leaves with them.

*************************************************************************************************************

About the Author: Uwamito Consulting provides implementation science-informed advisory services to Caribbean development organisations, with expertise in organisational resilience, knowledge systems, and evidence-based programme design.

Related Services: Institutional Assessments | Systems Strengthening | Implementation Support

*************************************************************************************************************

References

Caribbean Development Data:

Jamaica Observer. (December 24, 2025). "Heroic!" Available at: https://www.jamaicaobserver.com/2025/12/24/heroic/ [Source for Health Minister Christopher Tufton quote on Public Health Act requiring revision]

Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). (December 10, 2025). "PAHO supports Jamaica in the immediate deployment of mental health and psychosocial services after Hurricane Melissa." Available at: https://www.paho.org/en/news/10-12-2025-paho-supports-jamaica-immediate-deployment-mental-health-and-psychosocial-services

Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). (December 3, 2025). "PAHO ramps up support to Caribbean health systems one month after Hurricane Melissa." Available at: https://www.paho.org/en/news/3-12-2025-paho-ramps-support-caribbean-health-systems-one-month-after-hurricane-melissa

Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). (October 29, 2025). "Situation Report 3 Jamaica - Hurricane Melissa." Available at: https://www.paho.org/en/documents/situation-report-3-jamaica-hurricane-melissa-29-oct-2025

Inter-American Development Bank. (October 2024). "Building a Future Without Poverty: Suriname's Path to Inclusive Growth." Caribbean Development Trends blog. Available at: https://blogs.iadb.org/caribbean-dev-trends/

Inter-American Development Bank. (October 2024). Jamaica nursing cohort emigration data. Caribbean Development Trends blog series.

Inter-American Development Bank. (October 2024). Guyana engineering graduate emigration statistics. Caribbean Development Trends blog series.

OECD Development Centre and Inter-American Development Bank. (December 2024). Caribbean Development Dynamics 2025. Paris/Washington: OECD Publishing and IDB. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/caribbean-development-dynamics-2024_a8e79405-en.html

International Monetary Fund. (June 10, 2025). Clarke, N. "The Caribbean Challenge: Fostering Growth and Resilience Amidst Global Uncertainty." Speech delivered at Caribbean Development Bank Annual Meeting. Available at: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2025/06/10/dmd-clarke-cdb-speech-june-10

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). (2025). Economic Survey of Latin America and the Caribbean 2025: Resource Mobilization to Finance Development. Santiago: ECLAC. Available at: https://caribbean.un.org/en/299359-caribbean-economic-growth-decelerate-2025-and-2026-says-eclac-forecast

Implementation Science Frameworks:

Damschroder, L.J., Aron, D.C., Keith, R.E., Kirsh, S.R., Alexander, J.A., and Lowery, J.C. (2009). "Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for implementation research." Implementation Science, 4:50. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50

Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., and Hensley, M. (2011). "Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda." Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2):65-76. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7

Powell, B.J., Waltz, T.J., Chinman, M.J., Damschroder, L.J., Smith, J.L., Matthieu, M.M., Proctor, E.K., and Kirchner, J.E. (2015). "A refined compilation of implementation strategies: Results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project." Implementation Science, 10:21. doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1

Organisational Learning Research:

Deloitte. (2014). Global Human Capital Trends 2014: Engaging the 21st-century workforce. London: Deloitte Development LLC. [Report documents 37% productivity improvement with strong learning cultures]

Brandon Hall Group. (2024). Learning and Development Benchmarking Study. Delray Beach, FL: Brandon Hall Group. [Reports 95% performance improvement when learning aligns with performance goals]

LinkedIn. (2025). Workplace Learning Report 2025. Mountain View, CA: LinkedIn Corporation. [Documents 36% higher retention rates with internal mobility prioritisation]

ESADE Business School and PwC Foundation. (Multiple years). Innovation and Knowledge Management Studies. Barcelona: ESADE. [Research on NGO knowledge management strategy adoption showing 34% integration rate despite 89% acknowledging importance]

Regional Context:

Caribbean Public Health Agency (CARPHA). (2024). Caribbean Regional Health Statistics. Port of Spain: CARPHA.

Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). (2024). Health in the Americas+ 2024 Edition: Caribbean Subregion. Washington, DC: PAHO.

United Nations Multi-Country Sustainable Development Framework. (2022). English and Dutch-speaking Caribbean 2022-2026. Available at: https://www.undp.org/caribbean

Knowledge Translation Frameworks:

Graham, I.D., Logan, J., Harrison, M.B., Straus, S.E., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W., and Robinson, N. (2006). "Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map?" Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1):13-24. doi:10.1002/chp.47

Field, B., Booth, A., Ilott, I., and Gerrish, K. (2014). "Using the Knowledge to Action Framework in practice: A citation analysis and systematic review." Implementation Science, 9:172. doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0172-2