LenCD – Learning Network on Capacity Development

Capacity Development for Sustainable Results at Sector Level

Get organized – Get traction – Get results

LenCD Initiative - Background document

CD4Results: Insights from previous LenCD work

This annex does not pretend to be comprehensive but it provides an overview primarily drawn from previous LenCD efforts. It has 4 sections. The first will first focus on capacity for results that has been quite prevalent in LenCD's work. The second discusses considerations on sector development. The third section explores the continued need to sharpen concepts and methodology (get organized). Finally section 4, provides indications on the critical role of process facilitation, of leadership and change agents to effectively "get traction" in the development process. Both are effectively inseparable as reflected in the concept note and any approach to fostering capacity development needs to combine them in order to achieve sustainable results, including at sector level.

1. Capacity for Sustainable Results

The LenCD joint statement for Busan has made the case for focusing on capacity development as a critical dimension in development processes leading to sustainable results. It builds on LenCD’s collective experience documented by many Southern and Northern development agencies and articulated an agreed starting point for deepening our understanding of CD processes at sectoral level. The box below highlights the salient messages.

Box: "Getting to sustainable Results that matter" [1]

The LenCD Joint Statement for the Busan HLF 2011 was agreed by network partners and further evidenced with a collection of documented cases. The main messages included:

  • Sustainability of results matters
  • Sustainable results of aid are premised on country capacity, ownership and partnership
  • Results materialize at different levels, within different scopes and time-horizons – and they can be specified accordingly
  • Capacity development is a critical part of the chain from short to longer-term sustainable results
  • Managing for sustainable results requires flexibility and careful adaptation to the context
  • Results focus is critical for learning
  • Country leaders, managers and change agents are key for getting to results
  • Advancing results-focused capacity development is important for aid and development effectiveness

The LenCD/OECD perspectives paper on "Managing for capacity results"[2] discusses some of the issues, which would, if addressed, help to ensure that capacity results are adequately captured and monitored. These do not only apply to aid programmes but to capacity development efforts in general. They include the need to:

  • Build awareness of the link between the “soft’ intermediary or process results to be expected from much CD work such as motivation, cooperation, and leadership and “hard” development or service delivery outcomes,
  • Build agreement among stakeholders early and integrated in the planning phase on what capacity results are sought in any intervention and how best these can be achieved and actual progress be appreciated,
  • Explore the potential for using complexity-based approaches to help define, monitor and evaluate capacity interventions,
  • Develop a better understanding of the contexts in which various quantitative/qualitative methods for measuring or assessing capacity are most suited,
  • Give accountability for capacity development the same attention as accountability for more tangible kinds of results,
  • Ensure that monitoring and evaluation of capacity development programs gives more attention to their learning potential and to encouraging uptake for decision making, and
  • Improve the capacity of line ministries, sector organizations as well as civil society and development partner organizations to address capacity as a key development challenge.

A further LenCD review undertaken in early 2013 on measuring results for effective institutions[3] summarizes key lessons as follows:

  1. Key challenges in M&E of CD arise because CD processes are complex and not easily measured, CD interventions and evaluations are often poorly designed, and professional knowledge and expertise are limited.
  2. The complexity of CD processes can be better dealt with by using more participatory and qualitative approaches. There are successful examples of using mixed approaches for measuring CD results, and where learning through M&E leads to improved performance (and thus effectiveness). However, designing and using mixed approaches requires investments in time and skills.
  3. M&E of CD interventions is more effective when there is an explicit, but not too complicated, theory of change in place that provides clarity about what is meant by ‘capacity’ and ‘capacity development’ in that particular context and for the different stakeholders involved, and clarity about the purpose of CD.
  4. Donors and evaluators have to be clear about their purpose, as M&E designed to support accountability to donors and supporters is different from M&E designed to learn and improve, and needs to be approached differently. Combining both purposes requires mixed methods and investing in working with different groups in different ways.
  5. A too-rigid focus on results risks hindering and obstructing the CD process, while learning-oriented M&E has the potential to contribute to and strengthen CD processes and outcomes (see also Ortiz and Taylor, 2008)[4].
  6. More discussion is needed on approaches to M&E of CD which contribute to the enhancement of key capacities in the participating organisations or systems, and how application of such approaches can be mainstreamed by development cooperation agencies, while preserving and enhancing their own accountability to politicians and auditors. (Watson, 2010)[5].

Recent ODI research on "Unblocking results"[6] presented at the Brussels meeting focused on the systemic bottlenecks for performance, notably governance constraints. Types of aid activities that where found helpful included inter alia: support to government prioritisation processes and resolving conflicting mandates, which impinge on implementation, stakeholder empowerment for claiming better performance, and convening and brokerage roles encouraging stakeholders to meet, discuss and resolve common problems. It is interesting to note that promising practice identified underline the importance of clear alignment where frameworks have been agreed and in general emphasize change management roles focusing on softer dimensions. Examples are given in the box below.

Box: Unblocking results
ENABLING FACTOR / CURRENT PRACTICE (STYLISED) / PROPOSED PRACTICE
Windows of opportunity / Donor country strategies based on needs assessments / Weigh need against opportunity to affect change
Tangible political payoffs / Donor reluctance to have projects associated with political platforms/agendas / Accept that aid is inherently political and work with the political incentive structure
Building on what’s there / Tendency to want to start afresh with a revised legal, policy or regulatory framework / Get existing framework implemented, however imperfectly, and then adjust
Moving beyond policy advice / TA engaged to advise on the content of policies / TA engaged to support implementation of policies
Acting as facilitators / External agents provide sound technocratic advice for govts to ‘take or leave’ / External agents help to facilitate and mediate a local dialogue about problems and solutions
Adaptive and responsive to lessons learnt / Pre-defined logical frameworks that lock donors and implementers into a set of activities / Flexible frameworks that judge performance on the basis of a sensible effort, rather than pre-defined targets
Source:

During the Brussels meetings a number of sessions, including one dedicated to the issue, recommended a focus on capacity development and results. The issue of how to measure CD results was seen as requiring more work, including further research to help shape M&E systems for CD and exploration of the appropriateness of tools for the specific context. Inappropriate approaches may even jeopardize CD. Capacity for results that underpin service delivery being a burning issue on political agendas offers a useful entry point to contribute to a genuine debate. The topic is relevant for the debate in the Global Partnership.

2. CD at sector level

The Brussels meetings reinforced calls for engaging with sectors: "LenCD should start to invest in and support CD in sector settings where most development finance is spent and where many lessons are learned. The network should explore how to engage constructively and add value in sectors without duplicating existing efforts. Energy, climate change and food security were mentioned specifically. Also in the sector context the results angle could be particularly helpful."[7]

Again a good starting point for the focus at sector level is the LenCD/OECD perspectives paper prepared for the pre-Busan Cairo workshop on sector development.[8]It discusses opportunities for, and challenges of, capacity development in a sector context, examining these challenges "from an endogenous vantage point. Sectors are thus regarded first and foremost as frameworks for organizing the design and implementation of domestic development policies, rather than as instruments for structuring the delivery of aid. The endogenous perspective is, however, used to consider how external support for capacity development at sector level can be effectively provided, as an adjunct to locally driven processes."[9]

A sector is understood "as encompassing a discrete domain of development policy, institutions, actors, stakeholders and resources, such as transport, education, health, or agriculture. Some sectors, such as the environment are inherently multi-sector in nature. (...) Government bureaucracies, ministerial portfolios and associated planning and budgeting frameworks are typically structured around sectors, likewise development objectives are usually defined in sector terms. While it is useful to use the structure of government to define a sector, a more holistic view is required that takes account of all actors and stakeholders involved in sector affairs".[10] For a variety of reasons, as indicated in the box below, the sector level offers a particularly suitable entry point for capacity development.

Box: Why focus on CD at the sector level?
The sector level provides a particularly suitable context for embedding capacity development:
  • Theory meets practice. The sector level provides an appropriate level to bring together conceptual ideas from the top with operational realities and dilemmas that emerge from the bottom.
  • Encouraging a country-owned agenda. The sector level offers the opportunity for CD strategies to become an integral part of a sector development strategy. It can help country partners take ownership of capacity development, no longer treated as something separate that donors do to help, but something that is an integral part of the sector development process for which local stakeholders need to take charge.
  • Helping to harmonise and align external support. It provides a potential framework around which the role of development partners in supporting a country-led CD strategy can be discussed in more concrete terms both in relation to “what” and “how” questions, and especially in relation to the possible contribution of TC.
  • Promoting dialogue and learning. The process of preparing a CD strategy is as important as the product that emerges. This is because it encourages stakeholders to engage in discussion about capacity issues and in the process to confront sometimes divergent notions and views on what is important. It can help generate a common language that makes the shift away from sometimes symbolic reference to CD.
  • Multi-actor engagement. It is at the sector and thematic level that different actors and stakeholders including government both central and local, private sector actors, civil society can meet to address concrete policy questions and implementation challenges.
  • Leadership and resources.It is at the sector level where most development resources are budgeted, planned and delivered, and where CD champions can play an important role in influencing the allocation of adequate resources.


In the messages for Busan, the LenCD paper summarizes open agendas as follows:

  • The “sector” can provide a relevant entry point for partner countries and donors to jointly address challenges of capacity development, development performance and aid effectiveness. However, a narrow interpretation of the sector should be avoided (...).
  • A sector CD strategy should be an integral part of any sector development plan or strategy (... and) needs to be developed as part and parcel of the sector planning/ strategy process and not as a “bolt on” added after the plan has been completed and approved.
  • A multi-actor/stakeholder approach should ideally inform the way sector capacity challenges are addressed. This is important because sector ownership needs to take account of the full range of actors and stakeholders that engage around a sector
  • Addressing sector CD needs also to take account of related public sector reforms and processes including pay reform and decentralization. . A “joined up” approach will help promote coherence both among country stakeholders (sectors, central agencies, sub-national government) and among donors (sector, governance and civil society specialists). It will also promote synergies and avoid initiatives running at cross-purposes.
  • While considerable research and analysis has been conducted on programme-based approaches, such as SWAPs, and on budget support, comparatively little work has been done on capacity development at the sector level.

To promote the integration of capacity development in sector planning processes LenCD has promoted an approach through learning events.[11] The approach associated experienced capacity development practitioners with the respective sector planning process.

Box: Lessons from Sector learning events
  • The value of such an event stands with the degree of genuine demand and the right mix of participants with a clear common focus. This is correct notwithstanding the fact that an event can help build ownership gradually.
  • Participation and agenda are closely linked. There is a significant difficulty to get to communicate, identify the demand and the right people as it requires a preparedness to engage when partners are really interested because it serves their needs.
  • Sufficient time and energy needs to be spent in the preparatory process. But there is a tendency to let events come with difficulties for an outside facilitator to effectively orchestrate. (For Kenya a preparatory mission was undertaken but the Joined Learning Events (JLE) did not go ahead for a range of political economy type of reasons.)
  • Donor enticed JLE should be viewed with realistic expectations. The donor counterpart Ministry may agree on the good idea but may not be able to convince the system.
  • If genuine country ownership is the objective it is important to establish better sensors for opportunity through country staff and Southern partners. For NEPAD and ACBF for instance, 2008 was a difficult transition year but it is likely that demand will be defined this year.
  • The basic format for a JLE has turned out to be a basically useful design: larger group engagement in the beginning and end with a more focused workshop in the middle (2 levels). A high degree of participation, openness and flexibility has been appreciated and important in all events.
  • Grounding in real experience and cases from the respective country and elsewhere helps to get from conceptual elusiveness into an experiential learning mode.
  • It is worth considering a an option to work more with universities to stimulate CD learning for a domestic constituency either as part of a learning event or as a first stage engagement.
  • If country level learning events became more frequent we would run into a significant problem of a limited number of facilitators with the relevant skills


3. How to get organized

There are many frameworks, methodologies and tools that have now been applied and tested. They already constitute a sound basis for improved practice. Lessons can be drawn and there is scope to improve these frameworks and instruments for better grounded and targeted CD support. This section focuses on "how to get organized", implying the conceptual and methodological innovations that can effectively promote sector capacity and performance.

Building on a literature review and consultations, the LenCD perspective paper on managing for capacity results provides examples of promising approaches for designing, managing and reporting on capacity results. Some are based on planned linear methods with definable links between inputs, outputs and outcomes, while others depend on open processes where results emerge out of the various interactions between actors, activities and the context. Some are well established with accompanying tools and years of experience, others are less developed. Many still remain outside the mainstream of management systems used by public bureaucracies and development agencies to design, manage and monitor development activities. As indicated in the box below, the approaches fall into three groups that naturally have overlaps.

Box: Approaches for designing, managing and reporting on capacity results
The first group includes a sample of general methodologies that can be used to support capacity development, including action research, a method of progressive problem solving led by individuals working with others in teams. Complexity-based approaches can help to betterunderstand and cope withunpredictable processesand storytelling can articulate how CD actually unfolds in space and time.
The second group includes methodologies that address one or more of the “soft “dimensions of capacity, such as IDRC’sOutcome Mapping,which looks at changes in behaviours, relationships and actions of stakeholders. The World Bank Institute’sCapacity Development and Results Frameworkstresses learning and adaptive management as critical processes for CD. And UNDP’sDefining and Measuring Capacity Development Results[12]considers sustainability as a key element of national institutional capacity.
The third group includes approaches that focus on one or more aspects of how capacity development activities are carried out.NEPAD’sCapacity Development Strategic Framework[13]calls for a paradigm shift in capacity development to capitalize on African resourcefulness.TheDanish Development Cooperation’sAddressing Capacity Development[14]stresses operational concepts such as change readiness and change management capacity.AndKeystone Accountability aims to improve downward accountability.
Text drawn from a 2 pager. The paper includes many more approaches in each of these 3 categories.
Source:

There are also very recent attempts to improve methodology. The EC, for instance, in the process of revisiting key concepts and to make models more robust based on modern organisational science research. Field testing of the "Dynamic Capabilities Approach" were carried out in the transport sector of Ghana (2012) with the explicit objective of bringing DEVCO’s management methods in the domain of capacity development projects and programmes to a higher level of (developmental) performance. Research suggests that to achieve any set of desired developmental outcomes, efforts must be directed to putting in place effective capabilities of organisations and/or of institutions. This implies re-thinking of how development partners and countries go about clearly specifying and evaluating the development outcomes/impacts as well as the related capabilities that are required. It also implies accurate evaluation of the effective level(s) of performance and capacity that are required from the organisations and institutions that have been selected as the priorities for sector development.