Framework

Many organizations in both developing and developed countries are struggling with how to effectively monitor and evaluate (M&E) capacity and capacity development. One of the challenges is the variety of understandings of the concept of capacity and hence of what the goals of capacity development should be. This is coupled with skepticism in some international development organizations and partner countries about the whole concept of capacity and its lack of identifiable substance compared to other more established areas of activity such as public sector reform. Indeed, many development agencies are abandoning the concepts of capacity and capacity development because of the difficulty of operationalizing them, and especially of monitoring and evaluating them. The exercise in PNG is thus timely because it tries to give more operational meaning to the terms and to experiment with a new approach to monitoring.

Six years ago, the European Centre for Development Policy Management in Maastricht in the Netherlands set out to better understand what capacity is, how capacity develops, and what outsiders can do to stimulate it. The final report of what became a major study entitled Capacity, Change and Performance[1]provides one way of thinking about capacity that could set out its distinctive contributions and provide the basis for its monitoring and evaluation. This framework is still in its initial stages of development and needs refinement before it can be considered a robust approach for monitoring capacity. Based on the experience of other widely accepted approaches to M&E, this refinement could be expected to take from 2 to 5 years and would likely include the development of analytical methodologies to support potential users.

Because of the importance of capacity and capacity development to the law and justice sector in Papua New Guinea (PNG), it was decided to apply the ECDPM framework on an experimental basis to three groups or organizations in the sector, as described in this series of reports. In view of the background above, it is important that the reader consider the findings of both the monitoring (point 1 of the TORS in Chapter 1) and the identification of effective capacity development approaches as indicative rather than definitive.

The ECDPM study tries to answer questions such as: What makes up capacity? Where does it come from? What does it look like? The framework which comes out of the study uses the following concepts:

  • Context or the political, social and institutional factors within which the organization or system struggles to make its way - Context includes the tangible and intangible features of culture, history and governance.

Key questions: What matters most in shaping capacity – external factors, stakeholder demand/support or internal factors? Can organizations build their capacity regardless of the context or the nature of the demand?

  • Individual competencies or the direct contributions of individuals to capacity - Competencies are the ability to do something and can include a range of skills and abilities from technical or logistical to mindsets, motivations and hopes. The ECDPM research found that the energy of an individual or a small group at the core of a structure contributes to the progress of any capacity development process. Perhaps the most obvious contributions at the individual level were those of leaders at all levels.

Key questions: What competencies are needed for individuals to do their work? To what level do they need those competencies? What is their current level?What processes can generate competencies?

  • Collective capabilities or the skills of a group, an organization or a system to do things and to sustain itself - Organizations and systems can be seen as combinations of capabilities and areas where capabilities are weak (their disabilities).

Key questions: What kinds of capabilities are needed and to what degree of depth and expertise? Which capabilities are less critical? What is the present state of capabilities? What processes can generate capabilities?

The diagram below defines five core capabilities and their interrelationships.

These are described in more detail below.

  • Capacity development or the process of enhancing, improving and unleashing capacity - Capacity development is about how competencies and capabilities interrelate to encourage virtuous cycles that support broader capacity, for example and ideally, improved individual leadership reinforces the group’s capability to build supportive networks and attract resources. This, in turn, increases overall capacity. This increased capacity opens up new opportunities for the organization and the individuals within in it. And the cycle continues.

Key questions: What stimulates virtuous cycles? What is needed to keep them on track? What can be done to redirect vicious cycles to become virtuous?

  • System capacityas the overall ability of a system to perform and make a contribution – It is the outcome of the interrelationships among competencies, capabilities and the context, with the outcome being different from any one of the inputs. This ability includes combining and integrating the competencies and capabilities into a functioning system. Some aspects of such a ‘capacitated’ system would be legitimacy, relevance, resilience and sustainability.

Key questions: How do competencies and capabilities come together in a particular context to create capacity? What can be done to enhance this process? How can the necessary interrelationships be stimulated?

  • Performance or the ways in which organizations or systems[2] apply their capabilities and the results of that application in terms of the ability to deliver and function - Performance is about execution and implementation: the results of the application and use of capacity. It is capacity in motion.

Key questions: What is the link between capacity and performance? How can that link be enhanced?

Two analogies, one on football and one on the public service, should help to clarify these concepts. The football analogy is on the next page.

To continue the football analogy,

  • The capability to commit is about team spirit and the motivation to play well. Various factors encourage motivation including good coaching, recognition and support from the community, and financial incentives such as salaries and rewards. The history of the team, how it has evolved and the extent to which it represents national ideals are also important. Without some positive inputs, teams can get stuck in a low commitment, low capacity, and low performance equilibrium.
  • The capability to carry out tasks is not only about team skills and playmaking but also about team management and providing support services such as physiotherapy and emergency care.
  • The capability to relate includes the relationship with the coach, the owners and the spectators. It includes the ability of the team to attract support for building of stadiums and other facilities and for encouraging national associations as a source of future national players.
  • The capability to adapt includes the ability to position both the players for different styles and conditions of play and the team management for changes in municipal governments in their role as stadium owners and in sports associations in their roles of revising the rules of play and setting regulations such as on drug use.
  • The capability to balance diversity and coherence is about combining diverse abilities, interests and identities in a team while avoiding fragmentation into different groups. Some key capabilities may be in contradiction such as the coach’s direction versus individual player initiative or developing community support versus attracting star players and trade offs as necessary.

Each core capability can be broken down into more specific capabilities reflecting the context and the actors involved.

The interaction among these capabilities is important. For example, the management of the team affects the motivation of the players. The ability to adapt affects the play in the field.

It should be borne in mind that the analogy is a depiction of what happens in a controlled environment where the rules of the game are known, accepted and stable. In real life, however, the political economy needs to be considered including changes to the rules of society. This could be the equivalent, for example, of going into a championship game of football with players chosen for their political connections rather than their playing skills, of moving the goal posts, or even of playing by rules which are changed to benefit particular players.

Chapter from An Experimental Approach to Monitoring Capacity and Capacity Development:

An Overview of the Findings and an Assessment of the Frameworkby Heather Baser

August 2009. Port Moresby:The Law and Justice Sector Program (LJSP), Papua New Guinea.

1

[1] Baser and Morgan, 2008.

[2]A system is an entity that maintains its existence and functions as a whole through the interrelationships of its parts