Responses to draft outline-site map, organised by subject

Practitioner profile

I like the way you have started to develop a practitioner profile that in a sense forms the point of reference / demand side for the whole exercise. I think it is very worthwhile to clarify it further and get balances right in it. I have made a couple of comments that you find in the attachment – all of these focusing on getting certain understandings/orientations/settings/demands as realistic and relevant as possible. In general I would suggest that may create a bit of variation in the profile for it to cover a certain gamut of practical settings. I like the fact that you focus it on a variation of project/program settings. See my comments with the attachment.

Connected to the above: I do agree that we should assume Jane and her peers to have some skills. It would be important however also to make clear that certain things really need good facilitation or CD content skills. Help actors to know when they call in specific expertise. Also because I feel that your Jane is too much of an ideal type practitioner. We will often have to do with staff of program teams that are much less equipped in CD related things than Jane is I think (see my comments with the attachment).

I am a little concerned on the choice of a profile as "Director of a Training Institute/Department". Indeed I share Jan's concerns that having a training institute as the main sample target might perpetuate the understanding that CD is something for those who are already in the field of training. It might be worth working out an alternative profile that includes a training person but is not exclusively focused on that - e.g. Jane might be the chief Technical Advisor of  a  National (or Regional?) Institute and be working closely with the Training and Policy units of the Institute. In this way you would be able to include issues from the training and policy perspectives depending on whom Jane is working with.  

You provide a relatively ideal picture of a person being open and flexible to learn and adapt to new concepts and ideas - which is good, and indeed what a "change agent" should be. However, we may imagine that Jane will have to deal with a lot of resistance for instance coming from inside her own department/institute. We could figure that the institute has been living on revenues from donor-funded projects for years and has no interest in changing modus operandi. By pushing for new ways of operating, Jane might as well become an "internal" agent of change/champion for her own institute, for example, by advocating for a more comprehensive approach to CD as opposed to assigning the CD project automatically to the training department as it may always have been done in the past.  

From your story CD comes out as yet another "condition" put by donors in order for partners to get the project funds. Also at some point you mention that Jane might have to support other local partners or adapt to "what the donors are pushing for". The message one gets here is that CD is something that "we have to take care of to please donors". I assume there is a provocative intent here, but I am not sure how this would be taken by others. It might be interesting to hear the opinion of African colleagues here. If the objective is to draw attention on  the need for real ownership, you might as well have Jane be very vocal with the Ministries that "they have to take the lead" and let them understand well what this actually means in practice - from the beginning of the project to the very end of it - not because they are pushed by the donors but because it is basically their own development plan and ideas.

Your outline / site map is quite classical and might  end up in a kind of a report. I like your Jane as representative of the audience: would it be possible to use Jane to guide us through all the elements of your site map. Hence, you put Jane somewhere on the site, in front of such a reform process and let her ask: what is the first step ? needs assessment, organisational analysis, etc. (and how to do it). Second step perhaps an actor or stakeholder analysis and a contextual analysis, (and how to do it), third step organisational and institutional reform; fourth step skill development. Jane can meet other “persons” in the exercise: Tom, the consultant; Barbara, the donor; Abdoulaye the civil servant etc. The core concepts could be text boxes or “clouds” linked to the steps for which these concepts are relevant. Etcetera, in this way you work from inside to outside and make it look like a real life process. Using this approach will have the advantage to develop it relatively easily online.  By the way, I agree with Jan and others that Jane is bit too focused on training; could you make her coordinator of a public administration reform program ?

Contrary to other opinions voiced, I actually thought your profile of Jane was right on the mark. I think it was a very pragmatic take on who would pick this learning package up. For me it will not be a policy advisor, a CTA or Programme Director, rather it will likely be someone who is already thinking a little about these issues. I don't think we should fool ourselves that this package will be so well advertised and world-renowned at the outset that we will be influencing those outside of the CD circles. This is not to say that we don't want to do this and that we will be unable to do so, rather just a very upfront recognition that the people who are likely to use this first are the Jane's in the government's we work with. I think also that Ceclia's comments on the need to put Jane in a more challenging context where the modus operandi is not in favour of change is good though. 

Finally, I think it is true that our "Jane" is very closely linked to training, with the risk of the equation between the two.
Suggestion: Make Jane the Director of HRD Department in ... then it doesn´t sound like too much training. I find here professional background good since its so realistic having a sectoral expertise instead of HR professional background, but it also might be better to leave her professional background more open,. Is it necessary to mention the sector she comes from? Just to keep it more flexible for different sectors and make clear only that she is not an HR expert, but very keen in participatory training. ( I like this part!)

Questions and point of view:My very strong point comes from the third paragraph, you mentioned two international experts. For me it sounds directly: why are two international experts, though technicals not capacitated to support their CD process better?

This – from my point of view  - should be part of their role/ tasks and expertise! We all work with CD as a mindset – basic approach for International Cooperation, i.e. technical expertise in IC.

Two international experts could be involved in the process and work with Jane as the direct multiplicator or link her at least to the right sources to become a CD practitioner/ expert herself.

So either keep them totally out of the profile or give them also a role in this CD learning process.

And as you wrote : They (Who?)  have to conduct a W/S later for ministry a.o.

Structure outline

Overall I seem to quite like the simplified logics (three circles) that you now propose. One major remark here: I don’t like the “contexts and their connections” heading. These are abstract terms that I think may speak clearly to the audience. “Different settings and perspectives”  (or perspectives and settings) seems to me to capture the contents and probably be more understandable to people.

As a general comment, I find the  design  good but would suggest to be much more practical, straightforward and referring to the existing (large) literature for the rest. In this spirit, I wonder if the title of the block “core concepts” should not be rename as “common language on CD” or something in this line (or simply core concept in singular?) I understand the blocks on the definitions and on the tools (“options for actions”) as priorities.    The profile of the target user is also good although very much  focused  on training skills. However I don’t think this element is of lot importance in the framework of the general design, am I wrong?

Ad outline/site map:

-       For the core concepts: Maybe we could inverse  the different elements and add some others, namely:
1) what is CD: the general consensus, the different approaches
2) What capacities, for what, why and how they are developed
3) the common language, shared principles and values
4) why is CD important and what are the basic conditions to take into consideration
5) the key current challenges

I am not sure that the block on “contexts and their connections” is very clear for somebody who is not acquainted with CD. Could we be more precise? Or as referred below more defining the different contexts and connection and referring to the literature/theories.

 This brings me to a point that I feel is missing from the outline: "how to" engage with stakeholders and partners in such a way that CD takes place i.e. If Jane is to work and advise Ministries to work in a certain way, there will be issues concerning the way she engages in a dialogue with them, she provides advice, she sets up the right processes, and she models a way of acting that allows their capacities to grow and develop. Once again, it's clear to me that the actual skill development will not be part of the resource at this stage, but Jane might be a good way of bringing this aspect as part of the big picture and showing its importance.    

1.       I actually don't like the title "contexts and their connections", it's too vague and convoluted. Maybe better just to leave it at "the importance of context" or similar.

2.       I feel that what you put under this heading is very diverse and am not sure that should all stay together. For example I feel that "relevance of environment and culture" is such an important subject that it deserves to be a (sub) heading on its own; you may want to introduce it under the two previous headings especially as "analysis of the context" should inform the options for action, but certainly this should not be sitting under "the range of theories from different sources" (and by the way what do you mean by this?).  So you could either remove some of the items currently sitting there, or combine them differently or maybe just explain more clearly what you intend to focus on here - or otherwise you risk loosing people in this section.

On the outline I think the core concepts section is right on. Perhaps I would stress "why CD" more explicitly and then also put up the counter arguments for "why not CD" as well (eg: numerous different conceptual models, little in terms of accessible information on how to use the concept - hence this work, challenges traditional ways of doing things, etc.). A little history of the concept would also be useful too so people don't think that it just arose out of the ether. 

For the context and connections part I thought you could also just call it something like 'the importance of context' or such. My thought here is that reference will also need to be made to approaches such as whole scale public administration reform which is still a popular undertaking, as well as the humanitarian context which unfortunately is becoming a larger area of work every day. 

Good !!  and broad enough to become a nicely made up entry point for the package  ( technically I imagine good staff in it – like filmed dialogues on what is it or anything else but lifely!)

Unit 1 for definitions  

Unit 2 for Why CD

Unit 3 for common language thing. ( Yes I can work with you on that!)

Context and connections:

The range of perspectives -  Here I find the different levels confusing.

Prioritisation

On your prioritisation. I seem to agree that the core concepts and the 2 specific parts of action are your priorities. But my sense is also that developing certain elements and keeping others completely empty will not work. One of the key strengths/functions of this package is I think that ir does provide a compelling overall story. A holistic picture as it were. That gives people a basis for thinking and acting. Even if it does not provide details in all dimensions.

Content

Another point that strikes me now is the formulation “delivery of effective outcomes” that seems to come up at a couple of places. I am in favour of trying to achieve effective outcomes. They can however not be delivered. And one of the big experiences of CD is that getting to them is even not a very linear process. So this terminology is I think exactly opposite to what we want to share about a deeper and more effective CD practice.  One that builds on actors and their dynamics. Not on the program objectives as the single frame of reference. One also that entails learning in practice, learning-by-doing, iteration, loops and gradual builds up of realistic and effective practices/strategies.

Under the category “Options for Action” also a few remarks:

A)     The start with something like a baseline / assessment may be read/developed very instrumental/conventional. I think this is not our aim. It is very important to make clear that in this CD approach one wants to work a) with existing dynamics and realities, b) more “appreciative” with what is there rather than analysing “gaps” as compared to donor/instrumentally decided needs, and c) explicitly with the political dynamics of things.

B)      For the latter, the political orientation, both EU and ADB have actually integrated some interesting more dynamically and politically oriented tools in their governance and CD manuals (work done by Nils Boesen – now director of UNDP-CDG). There is also an interesting publication from last year by the Asia Foundation on “political settlements”. And also a recent one by GIZ on “political steering” in development collaboration.

C)      Another element that strikes me is the early bullet on “ Formulate capacity goals, objectives and indicators “in the action  cycle that you treat. I think one of the problems in many cases is that we delineate such detailed capacity goals and especially the objectives and indicators far too early in the process. I think it is very essential to have solid outcome and impact orientations early in the process. That gives orientation and a basis for judging progress and effectiveness. But how to reach these is often a searching process. One may also see certain bigger system capabilities that need addressing and maybe short-term specific gains and capacities to be pursued. But usually it is only over time and a considerable amount of experimentation, trial and error and growth of workable approaches and strategies that one starts to develop a more solid understanding of how key capabilities that really work can effectively be developed and spread. In this context a ‘best fit selection of CD methods and tools’ is also something to be continuously developed and adjusted.

D)       I realise that the above has something to do with an adaptive planning approach. This is also required to work with larger, multi-faceted entities/systems. This basic element may have to be introduced in the core concepts para and/or the monitor/learn/evaluate para as one of the central underpinnings of this deeper / new CD kind of working.

The last remark under 4 above, does make me realise that I feel we will need to look (under either the “core concepts” or the “contexts & connections” - my suggested “perspectives and settings” heading) in more detail also to what are the core logics / understandings / principles that we want to communicate. These should be simple and go beyond the normal (donor) CD rhetoric. They must explain in a few fairly simple (but nuanced and deep) points what it is that underpins the ways of thinking and working that we discuss and promote in this package. They must be based on what people have learned from effective practice (not from theory or policy). Do you think something like that would help? And where would it fit?

Somewhere in the options for action section I think it would be especially helpful to dwell on partnerships, the different forms and the absolute need for them. If there is one thing the CD agenda drives home for me is the need for a range of partners and for more deliberate selection, coordination and management of partnerships.  This could then tie into the part on the CD practitioner and the necessary skills. 

From our perspective suggestions how to build in CD elements is the most relevant. Although specific CD focussed programmes will be more and more part of the portfolio of Donors, except if the Donor community decides to have an other paradigm shift away from CD.
Also relevant is to explain how you build in CD aspects during the formulation of interventions. The same for M&E & learning
I'm not entirely sure that it is wrong to include a methodology for an appraisal of the initial situation (base line), this looks interesting and relevant to me
Unit 1

I would suggest to use  the UNDP model with the three levels as a starting page for the first unit and then  and fill it with short introduction and links to

Unit 2    for bullet points 2,3,4 and 6 as pages

And then have three Units with few following pages on

Unit 3 Changing Frameworks – democratic development

Unit 4 Capacity results...

Unit 5 Cross cutting issues ....

Options for action

No comments – this will fill itself - if the peers send tools and methods

... only on the CD practitioner, we have our competencies profile and other material for that, I will try to get this for the package as soon as the site map is clear and the first instruments are in it I can do more on that.