Strategic Planning Survey – January 2011

LenCD is an informal network of individuals and organisations engaged around advocacy and learning on capacity development, which has been active since 2004.  In February 2011, core partners in the network will convene in Kigali to review and define the network’s future strategic direction.  This survey was designed to give all members of the LenCD community a chance to make suggestions and provide their views on the network.

Summary of findings

WHY?  The purpose of LenCD

Respondents to the survey feel the network is important, and two main purposes for LenCD emerge from the survey: learning (which was clearly the most important) and policy engagement.  Some respondents also mentioned finding project partners and collaborators as a reason for participation in the network, but most did not think of LenCD as being directly involved in carrying out capacity development work except with regard to supporting the development of network members’ own capacities.

WHAT?  Activities that LenCD should consider undertaking

Respondents highlighted the following activities as priorities:

• Act as an information resource, gateway, or knowledge broker linking the wide range of information sources that members use.
• Provide formal learning opportunities, such as training programmes, workshops, and even formal accreditation programmes.
• Support networking and community building, which was valued for informal sharing of knowledge and experience, discussions, keeping in contact with like-minded individuals and organisations, and for finding collaborators for projects. 
• Serve as a clearinghouse of activities and initiatives, in order to help people be aware of what others are doing in the field.
• Increase outreach and promotion of LenCD itself and raise the profile of capacity development.  Raising the profile of network members was mentioned as an additional benefit to members that would make participating in the network more worthwhile.
• Engage with policy processes at the same time as increasing practical, operational, and sectoral relevance.  Respondents noted the importance of engaging with policy processes (e.g. Busan) and the potential to support members in influencing policy, but also suggested that current outputs are too often abstract and theoretical, and more respondents suggested that the network could be of greater practical relevance if its work was more concrete, practical, and operationally-focused.  Increased engagement at the sector level was also suggested.

HOW?  Ways of working that LenCD should adopt

Respondents highlighted several themes related to the institutional characteristics of LenCD and to how LenCD should operate, cutting across the activities mentioned above:

• Neutrality, breadth, and inclusiveness are important; LenCD should be a broad, open group and should not be too closely associated with any single agency.
• North-South bridging and Southern ownership were emphasised by many; LenCD must promote Southern participation and engage Southern members.  Establishing country or regional focal points or groups were suggested as ways of supporting this.
• Clarity on strategic focus was seen as lacking.
• Sustainable organisational structure and resources: the network lacks a definite and sustainable organisational structure and lacks resources.
• Improve communications (web site and email) to make them more attractive, user-friendly, and systematic.
• Support innovation and look forward to developing new practices, tools, and approaches as well as refining existing practices and learning from experience.

WHERE?  The levels and thematic areas where LenCD should focus

This survey was not designed to develop a comprehensive picture of the levels at which LenCD might work or the specific thematic areas in which it might get involved, so the results here are not comprehensive, but the following areas were mentioned as being of interest:

• Increased work on thematic areas such as results/impacts/evaluation, aid coordination, decentralisation, fragile states, governance, HIV/AIDS, migration, peace operations, and the “public good” debate.
• Increased linking with academic institutions and with NGOs was suggested, in addition to the strong calls for increased Southern participation already noted above.

STRENGTHS of LenCD

The following were the most frequently mentioned themes in response to the question about LenCD’s special value or niche:

• Learning, reflection, sharing experiences and best practices
• Information and resource gateway or hub, knowledge brokering
• Engaging with and influencing policy, debates, and donors
• Networking and community-building
• Developing capacities of members / training / professionalization / accreditation
• North-South bridging/networking
• Neutrality

WEAKNESSES of LenCD

The following were the most frequently mentioned themes in response to the question about the current weaknesses of LenCD:

• Web site unattractive, hard to use
• Insufficient outreach and promotion
• Too theoretical, too abstract, should be more operationally-focused
• Northern-centric
• Infrequent or unsystematic communication
• Lacks organisational structure / too centralised on one person (unsustainable)
• Lack of resources
• A closed group or clique

For further details, please see the complete report attached below.