Training and Beyond: Seeking Better Practices for Capacity Development

URL: 
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/training-and-beyond-seeking-better-practices-for-capacity-development_5kgf1nsnj8tf-en;jsessionid=4ld21rkgpd5gq.delta
Author: 
Jenny Pearson

Executive summary

Since the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, the need to deepen understanding of effective capacity development (CD) has been a central theme of the aid effectiveness debate. There has been a growing recognition that CD is much more than the transfer of knowledge and skills to individuals. Effective CD calls for strengthening the capacity of whole organisations, sectors and systems, and takes into account the culture and context within which they exist.

Training has long been a central element of many CD and Technical Co-operation (TC) programmes, but studies have consistently shown that past practices have not been as effective as expected. Training is just one of many approaches that can contribute to CD; many agencies concerned with CD are now changing their focus to look beyond training to broader conceptions of, and approaches to, learning. Furthermore, just as training is not the way to meet all learning needs, neither is learning the universal panacea to solve all CD problems. Current views of CD place learning among those factors – such as leadership, systems and incentives – that contribute to the development processes of an institution, organisation or individual. There are many aspects of capacity that call for an array of responses beyond support to learning, and others that are beyond the scope of all external support and interventions.

Learning is an organic, internal process and ultimately any outsider’s role can only be to support its emergence. Outsiders can influence learning negatively, however. For example, an imbalance of power between donors and recipients can distort learning if the need to comply with donor requirements takes precedence over learning important lessons from the implementation of a project. Consensus is growing among Northern donors and development training institutes (DTI) about new directions for training, learning and CD, as highlighted in several recent events and publications (Box 1). The views from the South are also generally consistent with those from the North (see, for example, CD Alliance and OECD, 2009). However, there is still a pressing need for more Southern perspectives on CD issues so that they can influence decisions about the way forward.

Box 1: The emerging consensus on CD

1. Context defines the limits of training and learning practices:

  • In many circumstances resources are wasted on inappropriate initiatives because complex contextual factors negate the potential effectiveness of training and other learning-based interventions. The design of any intervention should be informed by in-depth understanding of the context and the identification of opportunities and constraints, and appropriately aligned to broader CD initiatives (Nelson, 2006; ADB, 2008; Capacity Collective, 2008; Berlin Statement, 2008; Baser et al, 2008; Ramalingam et al., 2008; EC, 2009).
  • Training individuals is rarely an adequate CD response in and of itself. Training is best used as one    component of work at multiple levels of organisation and country systems (Figure 1; UNDP, 2006;  ADB, 2008; Berlin Statement, 2008; JICA, 2008; UNDP, 2009).

2. Some conceptual shifts are needed:

  • The ability to learn has been recognised as both a capability in its own right and an essential,  underpinning capability for other aspects of sustainable CD. Activities need to go beyond training towards processes that support learning (Berlin Statement, 2008; Baser et al, 2008; Ramalingam et al., 2008).
  • Achieving sustainable CD impact calls for long-term perspectives. There is a need to ensure that  short-term activities, such as training courses, contribute to long-term learning and change strategies and goals for sustainable CD impact. Also to facilitate the continuity of long-term relationships that can make valuable contributions to success and enable persistence through difficulties (DFID, 2006; Veer, 2008; Capacity Collective, 2008; JICA, 2008; ADB, 2008; IEG, 2008; CD Alliance and OECD, 2009; UNDP, 2009).

3. Training needs to be relevant and of good quality:

  • The quality of training design and management of the training cycle are fundamental to success  (DFID, 2006; Berlin Statement, 2008; IEG, 2008).
  • Training has often been both inappropriately used and poorly implemented as the response to CD    needs. Taking a results orientation can help to ensure that proposed training activities will meet   identified needs, and that progress and the contribution to overall CD can be monitored and evaluated (UNDP, 2006; DFID, 2006; Berlin Statement, 2008; JICA, 2008; IEG, 2008).
  • When translating resources and materials, greater attention needs to be paid to adapting concepts to  the local context as well as into the local languages. This can be achieved through more effective use of local resource providers (UNDP, 2006; Capacity Collective, 2008; ADB, 2008; Berlin Statement, 2008; IEG, 2008; CD Alliance and OECD, 2009; UNDP, 2009).

Capacity development: a three stage process

This paper reviews current thinking and emerging good practices in training and learning for CD by looking at three key stages: capacity assessments, design and implementation. 

1. Assessments. The crucial first step in any CD process is to understand what capacities exist, what capacities need to be developed and the context within which the need occurs. Often, assessment processes have tended to be too narrow and failed to identify contextual constraints to learning, including systemic factors (such as lack of civil service reform) and power and relational dynamics which might prevent new learning from being put into practice and result in wasted opportunities and resources. Steps are being taken to address these problems and many leading institutions now have tools available to support stakeholders and change agents to achieve the necessary understanding of the context. Furthermore, in recent years the CD sector has become aware of the need to base practice - starting with assessment - on clear theories of capacity and change. Without such grounding, CD will remain confined to the transfer of technical skills. Ideally, the focus now should be on enabling country-led self-assessments with DTI and donors playing a supporting role. Assessments would be done at the country or sector level, providing a baseline for more focused lower-level assessments and encouraging harmonisation among donors and providers.

2. Design. The design stage of a CD process involves a series of decisions: who should be   targeted, at what level, and how. The design of training and learning practices should be  based upon appropriate learning theories, informed by in-depth information and understanding of the local context, and relate to broader CD agenda and priorities. Decision makers need to distinguish between overall learning goals and component parts that can be easily defined, achieved and monitored. Where the situation offers too many variables for concrete learning goals and objectives to be specified from the start, different formulations should be used and goals should be continually reviewed as the process unfolds. In general, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) should be built into the design from the start. Service providers need to let go of their deeply held assumption that the answer to every learning need is formal training; they need to change their approaches and take training beyond the classroom. Most learning needs will be most effectively met by a mix of different methods over time. Indeed, there are many different approaches and practices that can be useful for building capacity. These include coaching and mentoring, experiential learning practices like action research, e-learning, knowledge management and organisational strengthening. Combining a number of these can be an effective way of maximising their strengths and mitigating their weaknesses.

3. Implementation. Innumerable factors can impact implementation for the better or worse. Relevance and adaptability of language, concepts and content to local culture and context must be ensured from the start. Relevance is also about matching the right participants with the right content and methods. This may involve working with local decision makers to ensure effective targeting and participant selection. Participants will need the continuous support of their managers to apply the learning from activities such as training courses and thus have a long-term impact in their workplace. Monitoring and evaluating the impact of training activities is a notoriously difficult task in any context, because multiple variables influence participants’ performance after the training event. Consequently, it is a problem that the vast majority of training monitoring takes place at the level of individual participant satisfaction and learning levels, and little is done to monitor outcomes or impact on the organisation overall.

Actions for change

Despite the emerging consensus on the new directions and strategic shifts to effectively support learning for CD, current practices are deeply entrenched and cannot be changed easily; this will require dialogue and action at all levels of engagement within the global aid and development systems. The challenge now is finding the best ways to make these strategic shifts a reality – moving from the “what” to the “how’’.

While practice lags dramatically behind there is however acknowledgement by an increasing number of donors, Southern partners and DTI that, in order to work with different learning practices and to address organisational and institutional constraints they need to change their behaviours and engage with the challenges of moving beyond training towards learning practices for sustainable CD. The conclusion of this paper is a listing of key next steps for those involved in supporting learning for CD: donors, Southern partners, DTI and other service providers, CD support decision makers at country level, and organisations promoting global dialogue and learning.

Donors. A great deal depends on what donors will pay for. As long as donors continue to fund training as the primary approach to CD, they are effectively rewarding poor performance; this situation must change if they are concerned about using their resources effectively. Donors have to change their own approaches first if they are to influence the rest of the sector.

Southern Partners. Partner countries receiving support need to take ownership of their own CD processes. This includes taking the lead in deciding when and how to address learning needs in line with their own strategies and priorities, as well as joining efforts with donors and DTI to identify and promote good practices. Partner countries should also mobilize Southern expertise and experience to support learning processes through South-South co-operation.

DTI and other service providers. Despite what is known about the limitations of training for developing sustainable capacity, service providers still do not have sufficient incentives for changing their way of doing things. Service providers, including DTI, need to make the shift from seeing themselves as expert providers of learning for others, to seeing themselves and their partners on a shared learning journey. Their role should increasingly become one of facilitation, supporting Southern providers as they provide support to others. Donors and DTI are increasingly acknowledging that in order to work with different learning practices and to address organisational and institutional constraints, their staff need to have both technical skills and a solid understanding of good practice and better integration of learning support within broader CD processes.

CD support decision makers at the country level. Decisions about appropriate responses to identified CD needs are made by multi-stakeholder groups such as sector working groups or thematic task forces. Everyone, from national stakeholders, through beneficiaries, donors, DTI and service providers, needs to acknowledge that training is not the answer to all CD needs and make informed choices about what kind of support is needed. To make the right choices, stakeholders need to be concerned about the quality and relevance of assessments, appreciating local context and potential, with a flexible approach to work towards transformation. Stakeholders need to be aware of power relations and interests on all sides and agree on rules and safeguards for how to deal with these, including through evidence-based monitoring. Learning support is one option for CD and training is one method that complements others.

Organisations promoting global dialogue and learning. Many agencies and institutes are concerned not only with the implementation of CD but also with the global dialogue to support change at the highest levels of policy and strategy. For these groups there is now a need to collaborate more widely to support knowledge sharing and the emergence of a joint, South-North consensus about what works. More work needs to be done to develop appropriate standards and accreditation systems to ensure that training and learning provision reflect this developing knowledge, as well as learning about effectiveness in local contexts and scaling-up of effective local CD innovations.

It is striking how many of these messages are similar to the messages set out at the end of The Challenge of Capacity Development: Working towards Good Practice (OECD, 2006), which reflects the fact that, while understanding about the issues has deepened in the interim, little has actually been done. The time has come to move from words to action.

 

The above is only the executive summary of the report.  The complete report can be obtained from the OECD iLibrary.

 

 |