Developing My Capacity

Photo Card

2012-01-16T21:11:00.001-08:00

Sparkling Snowflakes Christmas

Turn family photos into personalized Christmas cards.

View the entire collection of cards.

Action Research?

2010-10-12T09:40:00.001-07:00

From January to June of last year (2009) as I was putting together my research outline for my PhD fieldwork I came across the concept of action-research. I have to admit that at that point I was relatively new even to the concept of "research", in that I had never really internalized how research exists as an intentional knowledge-generation process. In my master's degree program several years ago I had the standard quantitative research methods class and I had to write multiple papers—usually from a list of books, or a topic that a professor had provided for me in a syllabus—but I never conceived of what I was doing as a form of research. And outside of academia I was as exposed as anyone else to NPR and other news stories that began with "researchers found that…", or "in a survey of 10,000 master's degree students…", but for some reason I didn't "get" what research was all about. Entering into my PhD program I was clear that I wanted to read, study, reflect, write, and yes, generate new knowledge, but how research figured in to all of this was very hazy to me. In future blog posts on this subject I will revisit some of the problematic reasons that I got this far without a better understanding of research (always under the assumption that I was at least an "average" master's degree student—perhaps not the sharpest tool, nor the dullest, but certainly a perfectly good shovel!). But suffice it to say that if my understanding of research was hazy, action research was a completely new concept to me.

Although I lacked a deep understanding of the research side of the AR concept, I had significant experience on the action side of things through my work as an organizational "capacity building" practitioner over the previous ten years or so. In that role I had worked with multiple organizations who were seeking support on intentional change processes, usually meant to improve some organizational process, system, behavior or "capacity". Usually after some process for diagnosing organizational needs we would take action with members of the organization to dig deeper into the problem areas, the underlying factors, and exploring potential ways forward. This work was almost always done in intense 2-3 day participatory workshops in which we combined brainstorming, small group reflection and synthesis exercises, and occasionally the use of participatory techniques such as sociodramas, drawing, and other more creative means of expression and analysis. So I had quite a lot of experience on the action side of things, and since action research almost always starts with a question of the kind, "how can we improve this situation?" (Reason and Bradbury, 2008: 11), it seemed I was halfway to understanding what AR was all about.

But what did we learn from these processes? Beyond diagnosing needs, identifying underlying "causes" and developing action plans to move forward, did we learn anything about how improvement comes about in these organizations, about how they learn and change, or remain the same after the workshops are through? After the cathartic moment of getting multiple key folks together in one place and putting important, often ignored issues on the table, —after so much overwhelming work "in the field"—, what happens next? Did we examine how organizational culture and power relationships often allow us to change just enough in symbolic spaces such as workshops, so that when the workshops are finished things can "get back to" remaining the same? Did we introduce any critical thinking or even theory that might be relevant, and might help us reflect on how we reproduce unhealthy worldviews and behaviors with the people we work with inside and outside of our organization? Did we document key reflections that might be helpful later on, beyond the fully cooked workshop matrices, syntheses, action plans and other outputs that we have to report on?

My answer to these questions is "sometimes, not often enough", and definitely not with an intentional learning focus in mind—neither for the organizations nor the facilitators. So I have helped many organizations address organizational sustainability, financial management, strategic planning and other needs not by helping them learn through the incredible complexity in which they are immersed, but by shot-in-the-arm intense action processes largely devoid of learning and research. I am not suggesting many of these processes were not helpful in some way; I think they often generated important reflection and responded to expectations in many ways. But I do feel that they reinforced a non-critical action culture that most of the organizations and facilitators I know work within, in which the deeper, structural problematic issues around transformational change and one's role in that change are not discussed, and deep organizational assumptions are left unmoved.

This is problematic to me and it relates to a dichotomy that exists in much development practice, which Reeler (2007) frames in terms of "the ungrounded academic versus the unthinking practitioner". The idea is that much academic thinking on development is very critical and important but not grounded in ideas on how to go about doing things differently. On the other hand, much development intervention—often run through projects—lacks spaces and practices of reflection, theorizing and critical thinking. As Smit (2007) frames it, we're too much in the "to do" mode. Action research, with its focus on combining theory and practice, action and reflection, and respecting emergent change, challenges both poles in this dichotomy and invites us to develop new methodologies for intervening in complex change situations that incorporate A/R principles. The idea that this type of research / practice existed heavily resonated with me as I thought about how to go about my own doctoral research. So I dug deeper and made AR the core part of my research methodology and I have also started trying to more intentionally incorporate AR into the classes I teach.

In future blog posts I will go deeper into what is AR to me (and others), how that is playing out in my work and life, and why I think students, organizational change facilitators, development practitioners, and social change organizations in general, should incorporate more AR into their work. As Dreze (2002: 818) notes, "the case for action-based research appears to me to be particularly strong if the aim of the research is to facilitate human advancement and social change". But for now I'll end with a quote by Peter Reason, an author that was particularly helpful to me in understanding "why research?", which I believe is important before assuming that learned research techniques (the "how" of research) might be meaningful to students and practitioners.

The quest for living knowledge is directly connected with working with people in their life situations, working with how people experience their worlds and how we might work together to change them. (Reason, 1996: 19)

References

DREZE, J. 2002. On Research and Action. Economic and Political Weekly, March 2, 2002, 3.

REASON, P. 1996. Reflections on the Purposes of Human Inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 2, 13.

REASON, P. & BRADBURY, H. (eds.) 2008. The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, London: Sage.

REELER, D. 2007. A Theory of Social Change and Implications for Practice, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation. CDRA.

SMIT, M. 2007. We're Too Much in 'To Do' Mode: Action Research into Supporting International NGOs to Learn (Praxis Paper 16). In: INTRAC (ed.) Praxis Papers. Oxford: INTRAC.

The capacity building / project management echo chamber

2010-03-04T08:49:00.001-08:00

[This post is taken from an email I wrote focusing on capacity building of biodiversity conservation organizations]

For the last few years I have worked as an organizational development facilitator as well as coordinator of various 'capacity building' programs, projects and consultancies in Africa and Latin America primarily. I would say that about half of the work I have done has been in the conservation sector, and the rest in other development sectors (obviously, much of this work crosses the somewhat arbitrary lines of sectors). In much of my experience I found myself trying to help organizations strengthen their capacity to manage their project cycles better, from conceptualization, proposal writing and design (often using 'logical' frameworks), to monitoring and evaluation. Organizational sustainability (often narrowly understood as 'we need more money'!) was also frequently a priority theme, as were issues of financial management, organizational governance and other capacity areas. In quite a few cases, either because the organizations (often local partners of larger NGOs) desired it, because their donors 'encouraged' it, or because me and my colleagues explained the merits of it in a spirited and convincing way , organizations decided to take a look at their overall organizational capacity, setting aside a block of time to brainstorm, debate and 'improve' the relationships (read, 'gaps') between actual and ideal capacities in multiple areas of organizational development. This overall look at an organization brought together programmatic areas and support areas, and eventually, usually, ended up in an 'action plan' conspicuously similar to the types of plans the organizations used in their projects and programs.

Over time I started noting three major problems with the premises that much of our strengthening was based on. First the premises or 'assumptions':

Projects, usually based on cause and effect logics, are taken as given—as 'making sense'—as the main vehicles through which development interventions should be carried out
Capacity building increases capacities (in whatever area), which leads to an increase in effectiveness, or performance as some like to call it. The application of this capacity increase is expected to be relatively timely as well; otherwise it can't really be justified within the 'logic' of the time boundaries of a project
Organizations have the bandwidth to tackle multiple capacities at one time (and it is desirable to do so in the first place)

There are some problems with these assumptions, some which I 'felt' or saw as things didn't work as planned, and others that I have picked up as I have been in my PhD process. First, much of the social change (i.e. literally human change in behavior—socioeconomic, socio-environmental, etc.) that most of the organizations I have worked with (and my own at the time) were trying to support was outside their control. In other words, for the long-term behavioral changes that they were pursuing to actually take place, multiple other 'factors and actors' would also need to intervene to generate the conditions needed for change, and those actors and factors were not programmable or controllable by the organization—regardless of how neatly packaged a logframe and project was. But not only were many of the known actors and factors largely outside the control of the project; many of these broader conditions for change were unknowable to start with. From multiple perspectives on what might constitute meaningful change at a micro level, to broader issues of enabling environments, governance, power, culture (even the weather!); the inherent complexity of many change situations rendered them uncontrollable, 'unplannable' (at least in the traditional sense)—'unprojectable' (Reeler, 2007). The objectives, results and indicators could really only be known and defined emergently, along the way, and might get more precise towards the end as a team of people learned in continual execution and redefinition of activities what they couldn't possibly have known going into it. This would obviously require a change in planning mentality—from preplanned to iterative (see Ortiz and Taylor, 2009); from linear (i.e. direct cause and effect) to nonlinear (accepting complexity), from optimization (often in unrealistic logframes) to learning (concept from Checkland, 1985).

Enter capacity building. Organizational change is also a complex endeavor, yet much capacity analysis assumes a similar design to the linear project model. Capacity is thought of as an objectively definable and obtainable 'thing' that can be strengthened through a relatively short process of capacity assessment and action planning. The changes needed, in multiple areas (financial management, leadership, HR, etc.), can be addressed at once and, once gotten onto the annual organizational activities docket, can be sure to be carried out and improve organizational performance. But in practice, 'just as development interventions cannot be thought of to linearly 'cause' development outcomes, capacity strengthening cannot be thought of to linearly 'cause' improved capacities, nor can these capacities be assumed to contribute linearly to social change' (Ortiz, 2010 forthcoming). But much capacity building is implicitly geared towards trying to increase an organization's ability to carry out the project management cycle—from fundraising and proposal writing to execution and M&E. Poor capacity is implicitly understood to be poor ability to generate project funds, design projects, manage projects, and evaluate projects. Or, it is defined as project cycle capacities and organizational management capacities, which can be transferred to any organization in a 'best-practice' framework. 'Every organization needs HR, financial management, leadership, etc., and the business world has been doing that forever', the assumption goes. 'We just need to professionalize organizations a bit by strengthening these broader management capacities, so that they will better support the organization's ability to carry out its technical work (read 'projects')'.

I'm intentionally over-generalizing a bit to make a point, which is that capacity building is often implicitly conceived of as a way of strengthening organizational project cycle and general management capacities, without regard for whether these capacities actually help the organization deal with—make more sense of—the complexity that they face as they try to support meaningful change. By taking the linear project model and worldview as givens, capacity building unwittingly becomes a process that helps organizations increase their ability to use planning instruments, to account for outputs and render accounts in a more 'professional' way, and to structure organizations to be better at this very cycle; even when (in many cases) the complexity of the change that they wish to support is unresponsive to this type of model and thinking. So the problem is often not a project management capacity issue, but a problem of the indiscriminate use of linear planning models (and the worldviews behind this) that don't take into account the inherent complexity of what organizations are trying to do. And missing is capacity building that might actually help an organization take purposeful action as it grapples with complexity.

In response to this, in my research we (two co-action-researchers in Ecuador and Peru and me) are working with (developing) a methodology (tentatively called 'Systemic Theories of Change'—STOC) that tries to better match the way conservation organizations (and other social change organizations) strengthen themselves, with the changes (i.e. impacts) that they are trying to support. It tries to customize capacity development to what a particular organization needs, based on its purposes and a deeper understanding of its complex environment. This is in contrast to more general best practice models that apply the same standard capacity categories to every organization, regardless of their unique circumstances. We believe those models can still be useful as devices for generating debate about certain areas of capacity that most organizations need, but not very helpful in strengthening organizations to confront their particular and unique realities in complex situations. We also think that regardless of the framework(s) used, the process should not assume that the world is simple and controllable; rather that the 'sustainable' human change ideal is complex and often reveals itself along the way (if at all). This requires new ways of seeing the world and planning (and strengthening oneself to do so), which we hope to discover with the organizations we're working with. We are conscious of the pressing realities of immediate problems of funding, or project management, or organizational governance, or human response capacity; but we think that these issues shouldn't be addressed in reference to themselves, but in relation to the change that the organization supports, understood from a non-linear complexity lens (which, by the way, comes to development studies via biology).

What capacities does an organization need in relation to the complex change it wishes to support? We think the answers to this question are not necessarily so straightforward and 'logical', and may demand capacities that are outside of the frameworks that we're used to operating within.

References

CHECKLAND, P. 1985. From Optimizing to Learning: A Development of Systems Thinking for the 1990s. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36, 757-767.

ORTIZ, A. & TAYLOR, P. 2009. Learning purposefully in capacity development: Why, what and when to measure? In: IIEP (ed.) Rethinking capacity development. Paris: IDS.

REELER, D. 2007. A Theory of Social Change and Implications for Practice, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation. CDRA.

The logframe made me do it

2010-02-16T07:17:00.001-08:00

[Note—this was a response I posted to an interesting conversation on complexity and systems thinking on the discussion board 'Pelican Initiative: Platform for Evidence-based Learning & Communications for Social Change'--
http://dgroups.org/groups/pelican. See http://dgroups.org/ViewDiscussion.aspx?c=3c4b8b5b-d151-4c38-9e7b-7a8a1a456f20&i=277c1aeb-1993-4b61-a84f-c24a19d68d88; and http://dgroups.org/ViewDiscussion.aspx?c=3c4b8b5b-d151-4c38-9e7b-7a8a1a456f20&i=0b9ba608-cf2a-403b-afc2-85a2d4bea34a; for the full discussion.]

I'm currently carrying out my PhD fieldwork with three organizations and Peru and Ecuador. One of the Peruvian organizations is trying to figure out how to offer meaningful, 'empowering' support to individuals and organizations working in community development in an economically-depressed area on the limits of Lima (literally on the edge of chaos!). The possible entry points are numerous, the available resources are limited, and there are multiple organizations (public and private, formal and informal, legal and illegal, etc.), individuals, and 'enabling' or un-enabling conditions and factors in play at all times. Any changes that come about over time—in people's attitudes, capacities, family life, job situation, material resources, etc.—are influenced by so many factors that even 'emergence' becomes too precise a term for describing things. The complexity situation is similar in Ecuador, with a biodiversity conservation organization that owns a 12,000-hectare private reserve in the afro-Ecuadorian northwest region of the country, where most people generally have little or no land and eke out a subsistence living by working for large landholders in the banana and African palm industries. In the middle of the denuded countryside is this private reserve, standing out like an island oasis—unconquered territory for mining, logging and other human activity. The reserve is important biologically, and in contrast to the surrounding destruction, is something that many feel is worth conserving. But there are so many factors that are not only complex (as a general explanation) but inherently irreconcilable, and a major part of the development 'agenda' is figuring out the balances that are feasible and possible in a macro setting that has tended to yield lose-lose alternatives for the majority of the people, and the environment in the process.

Leaving aside the ubiquitous monocrop-solution of the project model for a moment, each of these organizations has to figure out 'what' to do as an overall organizational offering or response in their respective situations—i.e. what should our organizations' strategy be in these realities? To qualify a bit, this example is obviously not the road-building project that Bob mentioned, with its well funded team, resources and enabling environment that allow it to define the goals from the outset, and bring massive resources to bear on constructing that most people would agree to call 'road' or 'bridge' once complete. They have their complexities, but the risk column of their logframe is tied to a budget that virtually guarantees that the project is not going to fail. The amount of resources that goes into developing the risk column itself is substantial—engineers actually take learning about assumptions and risk analysis serious. And chances are, even though goals are clear, they use talented project managers that adapt their approach as complexities hit them in the face (I have a friend who is a project engineer in a large civil engineering firm and he understands complexity intuitively and practically because he's paid to do so.). But the bridge or road is not the human and ecosystemic changes needed in my two cases at least, so I am happy to dismiss the logframe possibility (or its multiple equivalents) with regards to helping each organization make sense out of what to do.

Now that I have joined the kicking-the-logframe tooth-fairy club (thanks Ben), my point. The logframe is a convenient 'object' of 'our' attack because it so visibly reminds us of the things we know or feel are questionable about development intervention and the rules and incentives that support development intervention—from design to evaluation, and the things that happen outside of that logic as well. Speaking of cause and effect, the logframe didn't cause anyone to offer a linear response to complex situations; our desire or at least willingness to use it did. Our often well-intentioned yet linear, or expedient, or heroic, business efficiency-oriented, positivist, Western, aid-industry, etc. ways of seeing the world have more to do with our predisposition or susceptibility to simple cause and effect thinking, I think, than any logframe does. Take the logframe away and, in many cases, you don't remove the tendency towards linear worldviews that were behind it. And you certainly don't do anything to change the incentives structures that support this worldview. For example, why is it that the organizations I'm working with now, and the ones I've worked with in the past, even when they are faced with obvious complexity every day, choose to use the 'project model' to implement their work—even when they have unrestricted funds that would have allowed them to do things differently (not always, but often)? And why does anyone who studies complexity theory seem to 'get it' and start nodding their heads as to how it explains so many things, but still not fundamentally alter the way we work, even as we say that complexity implies 'fundamental shifts in thinking and practice'? I'm not talking about the creative attempts—some successful— to do things differently, but the things many of us end up doing most of the time as we respond to TORs or organizational demands, or donor wishes.

We may use logframe thinking sometimes because of lack of better tools, or because 'the donors compelled us', but not most of the time. The other explanations, I believe, have more to do with our own complex worldviews, the incentive structures of much development work, and the 'predispositions' (i.e. habitus) that condition us all in the different fields and subfields we operate in as we try to offer meaningful responses to complex change (or as Bourdieu might say, as we struggle for distinction in the fields we belong to. In this sense, knowledge of linear programming tools is clearly highly valued symbolic capital in the development industry). So my final point is that whether the interventions need to be simple or complex I think that in general we need to generate more critical thought to grapple with complexity, not to be able to master it, but to act purposefully within it (ala Checkland, Burns and others). The frames of reference from which we approach change need to be shaken up and examined, continually. Time needs to be spent in development interventions and organizational change processes on 'complejizando'—literally reflecting on multiple complexities in order to 'concientizarnos' about different ways of seeing and reacting to the world. A simple solution may emerge, but the process may be just as important as the solution.

On my way back from airport today, my suegra (mother-in-law) exclaimed as she yawned, 'el sol me dio sueño' (the sun made me sleepy). Certainly that must be part of the story.

Debating complexity and theories of change connections

2009-09-25T15:59:00.000-07:00

(This post is a cross post from a class blog for a class I teach)

I just read an interesting article on complexity by Alan Fowler, 'Connecting the Dots'. I encourage you to read it, along with the response by Chris Mowles at the bottom of the article, and the summary of the debate called 'Debating Complexity'. These give a good overview of some of the key issues surrounding complexity thinking, and if you read them in conjunction with the Snowden, Eyben et al, my research proposal, and the ECDPM articles I think you'll get a good dose of this stuff. I would also encourage you to read the Mowles et al article in my bibliography. If you don't have access to it through the MIIS online journals let me know. The Mowles et al article is a longer version of his criticism of the Fowler article, but in an earlier blog post of mine I 'observed' similar language from Mowles himself (if interested, see the second to the last paragraph of this blog post).

The Fowler article has a lot of relevance to theories of change, and I think has some good general ideas on complexity. On TOC he starts off the article with the assumption 'The function of international development work is to accelerate and guide change in societies'. That's a big generalization--what do you guys think the purpose of int'l development work is? Also on TOC, I found it interesting how he broke down the major worldviews on development by Sachs, Collier and Easterly. What was really interesting to me wasn't that such major thinkers, with many adherents around the world, have different understandings about development--that's probably even a healthy thing. Rather, I found it interesting to see them side by side, and wondered how many adherents of each explore the others' points of view. This goes back to the archetypes framework from the Eyben article, which shows how divergent some of this thinking can be, although its adherents often assume it to be true.

(Recreated from Eyben et al, 2008, Thinking about change for development practice: a case study from Oxfam GB, Development in Practice)

The article has some good language on development conditions under the subsection 'Re-framing Perspectives', which I think you'll be able to spot.

I did find his language to be a bit deterministic, even as he notes the strong linear tendencies of these three major development thinkers.

I could say more, but probably should leave further interpretation up to you. Anyway, I recommend the short reading--which I find overall a good complexity intro article, and at the same time share the criticisms leveled by Mowles. Enjoy.

Adding in some 'personal transformation' to my previous post

2009-07-18T12:46:00.000-07:00

Building on some recent reflections of my co-researcher Juan Carlos Giles, which include a challenge to analyze the extent to which we take personal transformation and identity into account when we think about developing the capacities of ‘others’, I offer the following modification to the question at the bottom of my previous post:

To what extent do the management practices and systems of social change organizations take into account the complexity (external and internal) of the social change they aim to support, and the identities and personal transformation of the people who put these systems and practices to use?

I think this is important because of some reflections I've been having on my own motivations for supporting social change, as well as the multiple motivations that different people have for desiring, or not, social change prescriptions from outside. The more I reflect on this the more I feel I need to rethink the way I approach capacity development work in general. Also—in addition to human motivations for change—the implications of the broader situational complexity behind any significant change (i.e. multiple hidden and visible factors, relationships, conditions, etc.), make me really question the logic and philosophy behind some traditional capacity development thinking and methods.

One of the exciting things for me is the potential I see in learning based methods for capacity development. An example could be participatory action research not ‘into’ capacity development, but as capacity development. With these methods it’s OK to ask questions and assume that we don’t know the answers going in (i.e., we can assume that there is not already an existing best practice—waiting to be discovered—that can be applied in each case). This kind of approach can support more emergent CD processes that take into account where the individuals that call themselves ‘organization’ have come from and how that affects where they see themselves going, both individually and collectively (as well as what key stakeholders outside the organization have to say about that). It can also take into account local realities, which are situational, emergent, and potentially ill-suited to homogenizing best practice management models.

Brainstorming on the general applicability of management ‘best practice’ to social change organizations

2009-07-18T11:10:00.001-07:00

I would start from the premise that, although social change organizations can learn certainly from 'business-like practices', it might be helpful to first understand the premises and worldviews that underlie these practices and systems before trying to adopt them as a 'best' practice. The NGO I worked with for 9 years, (and many other grants management NGOs), promotes financial management 'best practice' with its grantees, which essentially means 'solid, professional, transparent, efficient, etc.' financial management systems that are mostly geared towards rendering accounts to donors. That might be OK if, in the process, internal users of financial information (e.g. what financial information does any individual or team need to be better informed and make better decisions), and internal users of financial services (e.g. things such as getting paid, or requesting an advance, etc.), were taken into account as part of the design of 'best practice' systems. I feel that internal needs and downward accountability needs are often not addresses in these 'best practice' systems.
I think there is a big difference between the 'best practice' systems that are promoted within the development industry and best practices in the private sector, usually because (in my opinion) the tools, models and practices in many development NGOs represent very dated (and a tiny selection of what is actually out there) private sector best practice. Human resource management is an area, for example, where private sector practices and HR theory are light years ahead of what most of the NGOs I've worked with are using. Issues of job design, extrinsic (theory X) versus intrinsic (theory Y) rewards and sticks, and even issues of shared identity have been debated for 30-40 years, yet most of the NGOs I have worked with have administrative focused HR systems that don't do much for developing shared vision and co-construction of organizational and individual identity.
I think we can learn a lot from systemic thinking and its philosophy in this area. Many best practice management systems assume that there are objectively definable problems and issues for which 'hard' systems can be engineered to solve—project management best practice is an example. In my research I am using Checkland's soft systems theory to rethink systems and the worldviews that underlie them. A log frame is a classic example of a management best practice hard system that might be useful for designing a bridge, but, with its linear design towards predefined 'objectives', it often ignores the emergent, unpredictable nature of 'soft' human challenges and development, for which there is no one right, objective answer (and even if there was, it couldn't be known far in advance).
There are also the critical and emancipatory systemic thinking traditions that offer even deeper critiques of management systems, their worldviews and their boundaries. Related, but not from the systemic tradition is critical management studies (CMS) movement, which has some really good critiques of blind application of management best practice, although some of the authors seem to find a conspiracy of world domination in everything they see J
Local theory and organizational learning—I am interested in creating local, organization level organizational theory and systems, and then enrich them with good external thinking if relevant, but not start from the outside. There is a lot here to be explored.
I recently used Wordle (an online tool for creating 'weighted' word diagrams based on any selection of text) to create the two images below. The first came out of an organizational self-assessment facilitated (by my previous NGO team Ecuador) in 2003 with three Ecuadorian indigenous federations on the capacities that they perceived as important for their own organizational effectiveness. The second diagram is a Wordle of the McKinsey best practices model for nonprofit capacity. The question I would ask is if the McKinsey model applicable as standard best practice in this particular situation? I don't see how it can be. I believe that organizational management is situational (based on local realities, including the broader context) and emergent. McKinsey (and multiple other best practice models), in my opinion, assumes management is static and pre-definable. This is a clash of worldviews/philosophy, which needs to be addressed at that level as well.

Figure 1--Indigenous federations' 'rough' capacity development worldviews

Figure 2--McKinsey nonprofit 'rough' capacity development worldviews

A research question that goes directly to the management side of things (my own research question is more on a strategic and methodological level) might be:
To what extent do the management practices and systems of social change organizations take into account the complexity (external and internal) of the social change they aim to support, and the identities of the people who would put these systems and practices to use?

Communities of fear

2009-06-06T12:09:00.000-07:00

Where the Angriest Words Can Lead

This is a good reflective article on how political leaders create repetitive messages to reinforce certain stereotypes and simplistic arguments in broader groups of followers. Extremists from the right (e.g. Milosevic, and many others) and left (e.g. Chavez, and many others) have always used this kind of tactic to create fear and reinforce/demonize the ‘otherness’ of ‘people like that’, that aren’t really people, that have ‘inhuman values’, etc., etc. The point is to see these messages for what they are—attempts to turn extremism into common wisdom, and to use fear to create ‘common values’ in support of narrow, exclusionary political agendas.

The author, Colbert King, shows how we are all capable of affecting outcomes and behaviors by participating in this type of practice. Colbert’s reflectiveness and willingness to self-implicate himself seems to me like an honest way of showing how—when we repeat simplistic messages without digging further and without thinking about ‘others’ as people like us, who are doing the same thing, but from different points of view—we also we all contribute to the formation of communities of convenience based on fear.

I think I’m learning some simple lessons about complexity

2009-05-24T05:48:00.001-07:00

I think I'm learning something, and it has little to do with how to do or understand something better. In June of last year (2008), I co-wrote a paper on monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of capacity development (CD). One of the parts I wrote was on the usefulness of using a theory of change (ToC) framework as a basis for measurement of CD outcomes. Here is a snippet of what I wrote, with the parts I'd like to comment on in red bold:

Theory of Change (TOC) is a planning process for visualizing, constructing and substantiating the elements, conditions and interventions that are fundamental for achieving sustained impact. The principal advantage of TOC is that it encourages the design of a programmatic intervention model that includes the totality of the conditions necessary for the success of a program, project or overall organizational strategy (not only the areas that a particular project might typically take into account). Seeing the totality of conditions necessary for success, it becomes easier to evaluate whether the approaches and interventions that a particular project chooses to implement, in addition to assumptions of the roles and interventions of other actors, are sufficient to "cause" the success of our overall vision. This also reveals gaps in a particular CD project design—both at the level of conditions and interventions necessary for success—and makes it clearer to see what needs to be measured. (Ortiz and Taylor, 2008: 27)

Fast forward to May of this year (2009), and I was recently writing a case study on an experience I had using 'ToC thinking'. I went back to the earlier paper to see if I could pull some language from the ToC section to complement what I was writing now. When I revisited this section of the earlier paper I almost shrieked. What was painfully evident to me is that I don't believe, now, in the things I wrote back in June of last year. The subject of 'complexity theory' has a lot to say about 'the futility of setting up planning and measurement schemes that assume CD interventions have more control over their desired ends than they actually do', and I had even included a significant section in that paper to make this point clear:

Besides being unable to predetermine precise long-term outcomes without knowing where one is starting from, it is inadvisable to attempt to precisely predict these outcomes in any case, because multiple, unpredictable factors are often at play that influence the direction that development takes in practice. Complexity theory sheds light on the futility of setting up planning and measurement schemes that assume CD interventions have more control over their desired ends than they actually do. One of the basic premises of complexity theory for CD is that the directions in which "development" is going have little to do with where well-planned CD interventions intend for it to go.

"Complexity theory posits that it is not possible to predict with any confidence the relation between cause and effect. Change is emergent. History is largely unpredictable. Organised efforts to direct change confront the impossibility of our ever having a total understanding of all the sets of societal relationships that generate change and are in constant flux. New inter-relational processes are constantly being generated, which in turn may affect and change those already existing. Small 'butterfly' actions may have a major impact, and big ones may have very little impact. (Eyben et al., 2008: 203-4)"

In practice (and if looked at retrospectively) capacity development moves in directions where its trajectory and momentum are taking it (which will result in poorly placed CD interventions if not understood beforehand); and where other actors and influences—including policies, internal and external power structures, culture, weather—and other visible and invisible factors push it…Capacity strengthening interventions only have a chance of affecting development to the extent that they're adequately in concert with ongoing development processes. Their effectiveness depends also on whether other actors and influences are cumulatively overwhelming the ability for specific interventions to promote change. (Ortiz and Taylor, 2008: 14-15)

Yet somehow, I had still used cause-effect language in the ToC section, as well as language on 'sustained impact' and seeing 'totality of conditions'. I guess I have been so conditioned in my work in development (with NGOs) over the years to think about success as a destination that we work to produce, not to mention the desire to figure out hard systems, to see the 'totality of the conditions necessary', so that we can design ever better 'solutions'. Perhaps even the use of the word 'puzzle' in the title of the paper was an indicator of my conditioning—after all, puzzles can be 'figured out'; they are far from 'unknowable to the human mind' (Flood, 2001). One thing I can say I have learned since I wrote the language that made me shriek is what I would call the 'practical lesson of complexity', which essentially argues that complexity renders cause-effect thinking futile. This was just as I had written before, but I noticed a clear change in my thinking, as evidenced by this section I wrote for the recent case study I mentioned earlier:

Box 1—A clarifying note on TOC diagram structure and non-linearity

Conditions and interventions at lower levels of a TOC do not cause higher level conditions to occur, i.e. there is not a linear, cause-effect relationship. One thing can be said to cause another

…if the cause is both necessary and sufficient for its effect. One thing is necessary for another if the other cannot occur unless the first one does. One thing is sufficient for another if the occurrence of the first assures the occurrence of the second. (Ackoff, 1999: 10)

Lower level preconditions are necessary 'conditions' that support higher level preconditions, but they are never sufficient for their occurrence because all conditions are emergent—i.e. they have properties which are more than the sum of their parts (Flood, 2001: 133) and which are the result of multiple factors that complexity renders 'inherently unknowable to the human mind' (Flood, 1999: 86). As such, interventions are ultimately only part of a myriad of factors that might contribute to overall change.

Emergence is an unplanned and uncontrollable process in which properties such as capacity emerge from the complex interactions among all actors in the system and produce characteristics not found in any of the elements of the system. (Land et al., 2009: 2)

The path between preconditions is, like development in general, non-linear, and the TOC can be presented in multiple ways, including more creative organic looking diagrams that are clearly non-linear. If, however, an organization's overall perception of change is predominantly linear, then it is indeed possible that this orientation may manifest itself through the way the TOC is articulated.

This is important because if traditional thinking and practice doesn't work due to complexity then we should seriously rethink the way we work. It would be impractical to do otherwise.

But this is not the important lesson I have learned, which for me is actually more the 'philosophical lesson of complexity'—which I think I've internalized more than learned. My internalization of this lesson dawned on me as I was reading an article on choice and quality in action research by Peter Reason (2006), which states:

Because action research is so intimately bound up in peoples' lives and work, a fourth characteristic is that it is necessarily an emergent process (Reason & Goodwin, 1999). Good action research does not arrive fully fledged in a clear research design separate from the stream of life, but evolves over time as communities of inquiry develop within communities of practice. (Reason, 2006: 189)

Specifically, what dawned on me is that we don't need complexity theory to tell us that life is emergent, i.e. life arises from multiple factors, is infinitely more than the sum of its parts, including spiritual and metaphysical dimensions, none of which 'causes' it. So while the 'practical lesson of complexity' is that we should take it seriously if we want to be able to support anything that is practical and useful; the philosophical message, for me, is that even if we could try to figure out life like a puzzle, we shouldn't, because when we do so we will miss the richness of living that is found in the streams, eddies, and rapids of real life, 'bound up in real peoples' lives and work'.

Mowles et al (2008), suggest a move towards 'complex responsive processes, which privileges communicative interaction, power relating and the spontaneous and improvisational nature of collective human action' (2008: 810). I agree, in the sense that we should be responsive to life as it emerges, and need to privilege (empathetic) communication and take into account power structures. But I am increasingly wary of language that sounds of built in solutions, i.e. 'complex responsive processes' in response to 'complexity'. I don't mean to insinuate that the authors meant this at all—which I actually think the article shows wasn't their point. But the language itself made me wonder if maybe the best response to complexity isn't 'complex responsive processes', but rather 'simplicity', presence, and awareness to the streams of life. Perhaps this will allow us to appreciate the whole, by 'developing the capacity not only to suspend our assumptions but to "redirect" our awareness toward the generative process that lies behind what we see' (Senge et al., 2004: 42). I think I better understand what Reeler meant by this passage, which I think sums up nicely what I am trying to express:

In the confusing detail of enormously complex social processes, we need to turn down the volume of the overwhelming and diverse foreground and background "noise" of social life, to enable us to distinguish the different instruments, to hear the melodies and rhythms, the deeper pulse, to discover that "simplicity on the other side of complexity." We need help to see what really matters. (Reeler, 2007: 2)

I am more and more aware of the need to do this, for my own sanity and philosophical growth; notwithstanding the fact that it is eminently practical.

ACKOFF, R. (1999) Ackoff's Best: His Classic Writings on Management, John Wiley & Sons Inc.

EYBEN, R., KIDDER, T., ROWLANDS, J. & BRONSTEIN, A. (2008) Thinking about change for development practice: A case study for Oxfam GB. Development in Practice, 18, 12.

FLOOD, R. L. (2001) The Relationship of 'Systems Thinking' to Action Research IN REASON, P. & BRADBURY, H. (Eds.) Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. 1st ed., Sage.

LAND, T., HAUCK, V. & BASER, H. (2009) Capacity development: between planned interventions and emergent processes. Implications for development cooperation. IN ECDPM (Ed.) Capacity Change and Performance, Policy Management Brief ECDPM.

MOWLES, C., STACEY, R. & GRIFFIN, D. (2008) What contribution can insights from the complexity sciences make to the theory and practice of development management? Journal of International Development, 20, 804–820.

ORTIZ, A. & TAYLOR, P. (2008) EMERGING PATTERNS IN THE CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT PUZZLE: Why, what and when to measure? (report for IIEP). Institute of Development Studies.

REASON, P. (2006) Choice and Quality in Action Research Practice. Jornal of Management Inquiry, 15, 187-203.

REELER, D. (2007) A Theory of Social Change and Implications for Practice, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation. CDRA.

SENGE, P., SCHARMER, C. O., JAWORSKI, J. & FLOWERS, B. S. (2004) Presence: Exploring Profound Change in People, Organizations and Society, Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

‘New’ Summary research proposal

2009-05-10T16:19:00.000-07:00

With my research I want to help non-governmental organizations (NGOs) discover and develop better ways of doing their important work. By ‘NGO’ I mean non-profit organizations that work in specific areas of social (primarily health and education), environmental, political and economic development—in poorer areas of the world. Some have worked primarily in one ‘sector’ (e.g. a health clinic), while others attempt to work in wide range of themes around the concept of ‘sustainable’ development (a holistic mix of social, economic and environmental development) . These NGOs consciously exist to serve a purpose (e.g. often a mission in support of human development) other than their own growth and survival, and base their legitimacy on the fulfillment of that purpose.

Specifically, I want to help NGOs improve their ability to conceive of, design, implement and learn from their work in ways that:

Reflect what the intended ‘beneficiaries’ of that work might find meaningful. The history of ‘development’ intervention is rich with examples of projects, programs and activities that are intended to make a meaningful contribution to people’s lives, but that end up not delivering on that intention. There are many reasons why development activities don’t deliver (when they don’t), but one is that they are often unwittingly designed to be meaningful to those who fund them or those who design and carry them out, and not to those who are intended to be the primary beneficiaries of them.
Take into account the fact that NGOs often work with messy human realities in highly complex environments, with multiple factors influencing how change happens in practice—beyond the understanding or control of any particular organization. It’s worth unpacking two concepts here. Of particular importance are ‘messy human realities’ which include multiple different perceptions on what is or isn’t a real problem, not to mention meaningful solutions; and ‘highly complex environments’, in which ‘it is not possible to predict with any confidence the relation between cause and effect. Change is emergent. History is largely unpredictable. Organised efforts to direct change confront the impossibility of our ever having a total understanding of all the sets of societal relationships that generate change and are in constant flux. New inter-relational processes are constantly being generated, which in turn may affect and change those already existing. Small ‘butterfly’ actions may have a major impact, and big ones may have very little impact. (Eyben et al., 2008: 203-4)’

So development work is inherently difficult and complex, and what makes its results meaningful or not depends on who you ask at any point in the process. Which leads me to ask how do NGOs ‘conceive of, design, implement and learn from their work’? Do they take these important issues into account?

In my experience I have perceived that the NGOs I have worked with have not fundamentally changed the way they approach their work to take these issues into account. We continually go about our work in ways that mostly reflect primarily what is meaningful to us and our donors (on behalf of others), and with the use of projects and other interventions that assume the world is simple, well understandable, and with well definable, ‘hard’ problems which lend themselves to ‘engineerable’ solutions—like building a bridge. Yet the issues NGOs seek to address are often ill-defined, ‘soft’, problematic situations, such as:

What should be done to address the predicaments of street children in Lima, Peru? How might poverty and marginalization of the poor in rural Bangladesh be approached? What should be done to conserve areas of high biodiversity in Ecuador? How can education of girls in conservative regions of Afghanistan be approached?

These are not bridges or dams to be built. Each of these not uncommon problematic situations might have hundreds of stakeholders, none of whom exactly agree on the nature of the problem, nor on what might constitute a meaningful response. But the approaches many NGOs continually use assume that things are more straightforward, and that the NGO can affect change much more that it possibly could. My research, therefore, aims to help figure out what capacities (i.e. organizational abilities) should NGOs develop to make sense out of these issues in a more purposeful manner. In other words, what mix of learning approaches might strengthen the ability of any particular NGO to do its work in ways that are meaningful to its intended beneficiaries, and which take into account the inherent complexities of effectively contributing to ongoing development processes? The first half of this question (i.e. what mix of learning approaches might strengthen…), represents half of what I want to research—the methods. For my proposal purposes I have worded the methodological research question as follows:

How can systemic qualitative action research methods support more purposeful NGO capacity development?

The second half of the colored question above (i.e. …of any particular NGO to do its work in ways that are meaningful…inherent complexities…) represents the second half of what I want to learn about: how capacity development might lead to social change. For my proposal purposes, I have ‘simplified’ this question into a research question that includes the framework /lens I will be using to look at the different cases:

Can a more systemic appreciation of theories of change help NGOs better develop the capacities that are needed for achieving their purposes?

The reason I think a learning (embedded in action research—i.e. processes that attempt to learn through action) focus is needed is because I believe NGOs, in many cases, should assume that they don’t know what to do in the long term—because complexity effectively renders it unknowable. Therefore, we need capacity building (intentional strengthening of organizational abilities) approaches that help NGOs ask better questions and learn, and adjust course, continually. The second reason learning-based approached are needed is because for that which we could know (better), we should ask, and get key stakeholders’ worldviews—that which would make our work meaningful to others—into our work. In other words, I don’t want to apply more capacity building approaches whose aim is to help NGOs ‘do things better’; rather ‘to do better things’ (as the cliché goes). I want to help discover capacity building mixes that help NGOs critically reflect upon their work, question core assumptions, and strengthen their ability to do their work in more purposeful ways.

So how do I plan to go about this? Beginning in June, I will be carrying out action research processes with two organizations in Peru and one in Ecuador. I’d like to add a fourth organization in San Antonio that works with marginalized groups of people in the area, but that is TBD. One of the Peruvian organizations is a Christian NGO that works with street children and organizations that support street children. The second Peruvian NGO focuses on connecting social activists of different types with universities to promote shared action and learning. The Ecuadorian organization focuses on conservation and sustainable management of a region in the northwest of the country called the ‘Awacachi Biological Corridor’, including working with local communities which include the region’s namesake ‘Awa’ and ‘Cachi’ indigenous people. With the help of an old friend and colleague, and highly respected capacity development ‘guru’ (he would strike me for accusing him of that J), Juan Carlos Giles of Lima, we will combine interviews, workshops, and accompaniment of each organization’s own research processes to try to address the research questions. We will use methodological principles designed for working with messy human realities in complex environments (soft systems methodology), and hope to both support the strengthening of each organization (so that the process is meaningful for each organization), as well as generate enough information to be able to write up a PhD thesis. The action research will take about 9 months, and then it will probably take a year and a half or so to write everything up and build on existing theories in a way that produces useful new knowledge (a prime purpose of a PhD).

Finally, what do I hope will come of it—what areas of knowledge do I think this will contribute to? The process will reveal what the process reveals, and I need to be able to try to ‘suspend’ (Senge, 2004) my own worldviews to the extent possible and let things emerge on their own. That said, my previous work with similar methods, along with the theoretical framework (the main lens that I’ll look at things through) in my broader proposal, I think will help identify (at least) the following three things:

If NGO capacity building processes actually support their theories of change, i.e. are their CB processes purposeful? Under what conditions and with what implications? When they do not, how could they?
New programmatic/technical capacities needed that become evident after mapping and ‘seeing’ complexity, actors, relations and systems in a new way
The importance of the oft ignored ‘softer’ capacities, such as relationship development, adaptive management, iterative planning, listening and engaging with primary stakeholders, etc.

Any of these, I believe, would be a worthwhile contribution to capacity building thinking and practice.

Reflections on my change in research focus

2009-05-10T16:12:00.000-07:00

My research focus has changed quite a bit since I presented it in January. It has changed because I have improved my thinking, but also because I realized that I had written it for others; in other words I wrote it trying to set up arguments in a smart, ‘descriptive’ manner, and attempting to incorporate what important academics have said on key subjects related to my theme. I do need to build on what others have said and done, but after thoroughly hating my proposal—because it was written in a way that doesn’t reflect who I am, and doesn’t draw on my own experience and worldviews enough, and doesn’t speak to me in general—I have redone my concept and am in the process of re-writing my proposal. Significantly, I am doing so with the goal of telling a story of which I am a part of (and I would say an intentional protagonist in) and have lived; not describing some distant reality that I have observed. Since I changed my focus it has gone much better, and I am feeling pretty good about the start of my research process next month.

Transactional or Instrumental Capacity Building

2009-03-06T04:35:00.000-08:00

A few people have rightfully challenged my use of these terms (transactional or instrumental capacity building), on the grounds that some things are necessarily instrumental, yet still lead to positive change. I agree, and offer the following clarifications on what I mean when I use these terms:

Capacity development primarily for gap narrowing, quick fixes—the main goal being to develop an action plan that will remedy capacity deficiencies and lead to increased performance (i.e. outputs). My question is do organizations really improve capacities in a meaningful way when they approach CD like this?
[A counterpoint would be that meaningful organizational capacity development is about helping an organization make better sense of its environment over time (understand the complex development processes that it is enmeshed within), and reflect and attempt to achieve double or triple loop learning and change.]
[A challenge to myself—what if organizations find transactional, gap filling change meaningful, because it satisfies their ability to cope with the reality of their project environments? Is the learning based approach normative double talk that simply isn’t feasible? What if very few organizations really want to do things differently? (because “differently” is an unrealistic demand)]
Try to train technical proficiencies into the organization without any consideration for how an individual’s increased knowledge will translate into better organizational practice.
Substitute empathy (trying to understand what others—including internal staff and primary stakeholders—need and how they perceive things) for professionalism.
Substitute inquiry and learning for finding the “one best way” or the right answer.
Try to solve real life complexity with a three day SWOT-based strategic planning workshop.
Don’t see CD as a longer term learning process.

Some elements of my personal theory of change on capacity development

2009-03-01T23:30:00.000-08:00

Does action planning kill learning?

2009-02-13T11:42:00.000-08:00

One thing I can say about my last few years as a capacity building practitioner is that I learned a lot. I learned about how to dance in a frying pan, about how to think on my feet and improvise, about how to help thunderous, windy, sometimes violent brainstorms channel their way towards something with more direction—more “actionable”. But is the richness to be found in the "actionable" action plan, or in the complexity of the brainstorming and reflection along the way?

The text below was taken from a recent conversation between Juan Carlos Giles and me, about the role of action planning in organizational capacity assessment of NGOs. We discuss our observation that when NGOs see the action plan as the primary fruit of a CB process, the most important learning’s are sacrificed. A deeper, more continual form of reflective practice on the tensions, themes, visions, complexities, etc. that emerge during participatory self-evaluations, could help organizations make more sense of their environments and needs of their primary stakeholders.

I will try to translate it into English at some point, but for now here is the lightly edited summary of one part of our recent Skype chat:

[Esto es un resumen de parte de un Skype chat que tuvimos Juan Carlos Giles y yo sobre temas de desarrollo de capacidades organizacionales]

¿Por qué muchas de las ONG’s con las que hemos trabajado piensan que las capacidades se desarrollan a través de un plan de acción/mejora? ¿Por qué no ven CB como el estudio profundo del entorno de uno—para entender cosas que no entienden—y entenderse a sí mismas también? ¿Por qué demandan, a final de cuentas, muchas capacidades de las mejores prácticas, aun cuando tienen chance de definir cosas más profundas (véase el blog post de capacidades intangibles ). Parte puede ser un proceso de CB demasiado corto y delimitado. Parte puede ser sus realidades de proyectos no le permiten tomar el lujo de pensar fuera de la caja. Parte puede ser un mal proceso de facilitación :( (diga que no sea posible… :)) o el hecho de que es estipulado que el proceso termina con el bendecido plan de acción. Pueden ser muchas las razones, pero mi percepción es que muchas veces, para muchas organizaciones, la gran meta del proceso es tener el plan de acción en mano para poder “fortalecerse”.

Para mí, lo más interesante ha sido escuchar las discusiones entre las diferentes personas—representando departamentos, jerarquías y cosmovisiones my diferentes—en la aplicación de ECO (una evaluación dinámica de capacidades según los temas de importancia que la misma organización determina). Ahí es donde realmente uno ve, escucha, lo complejo que es la capacidad—y chingada la misma realidad—y tengo una hipótesis; No es la falta de sistematización/documentación de esas sesiones que mata un acercamiento mas real a las capacidades y el aprendizaje organizacional, sino el mismo plan de acción lo mata todo—lo vuelve marco lógico. Estoy exagerando pero mi punto es que es una reflexión continua, sobre la reflexión que sale durante la aplicación de la herramienta, podría producir unos aprendizajes transformativos del carajo—y de hecho los produce en el momento, pero a un nivel no muy trabajado, y sin la intención de llevarlo adelante como un proceso de aprendizaje.

El plan de acción provee respuestas a preguntas complejas, cuando mejor sería sustituir una agenda de investigación/acción para reconfirmar que los temas a tratarse no tienen respuestas fáciles, y que las capacidades se desarrollan cuando la ONG quiere y define sus propias preguntas—y luego se toma el tiempo para buscar evidencias que le permitan hacer más sentido de su realidad. Planes de acción son importantes para poder priorizar temas y coordinar acciones. Pero cuando la ONG los ve como un producto central, que supuestamente culmina un proceso de auto reflexión, la reflexión en sí se evapora en las matrices, y el espíritu de cambio endógeno y transformativo se sacrifica.

Intangible capacities?

2009-02-09T14:28:00.000-08:00

Recent research suggests that the best managed non-profit organizations aren't necessarily the most high impact organizations (Crutchfield and Grant, 2008). If this is true, it raises questions about some "high performance management" organizational capacity building approaches that primarily focus on strengthening traditional management capacities. These capacities, the research suggests, are clearly still important, but not necessarily the ones that lead to high impact development practice.

Other recent literature has also begun to highlight that organizational capacity development goes much beyond traditional, "harder" management capacities. A recent study by ECDPM focuses on organizational capabilities that allow an organization to commit and engage, adapt and self renew, relate and attract, balance diversity and coherence (Baser and Morgan, 2008, Morgan, 2006), and thrive in complex environments (Mowles et al., 2008)while consistently contributing to thoughtful good change. Yet another recent report highlights the need to re-focus capacity building by 'promoting empowering relationships, supporting rallying ideas, mobilising dynamic agents, proactively framing and shaping the context for CD, [and] enhancing grounding / enabling knowledge and skills through systemic learning processes' (Taylor and Clarke, 2008: 4). The study initially noted above highlights the need for high impact organizations to generate capacities around combining advocacy with their "core business", master the art of adaptation, developed shared leadership (Grant and Crutchfield, 2007)and other less traditional, perhaps more intangible, "standing" (Ortiz and Taylor, 2008: 10) capacities.

In fact, some older capacity development literature has alluded to the importance of capacities that would allow NGOs to 'function as…resilient, strategic and autonomous entit[ies] (Kaplan, 1999: 20)', and other intangible capacities. What is interesting now is that the newer literature is supported by recent field research, and less susceptible to charges of simply being more normative "pipe dreams".

The change in the language-from harder management to more intangible types of capacities-is clear. The question is, does, or should this mean anything to the way CD is practiced? Does this language resonate with the types of capacities that practitioners in the field intuitively believe are relevant? If these capacities are important, can then be strengthened, or do they need to emerge on their own? Can they emerge in organizations that are overwhelmed with the execution of multiple development projects? Are there experiences in the field that are insightful for better understanding of intangible capacities? Are there any organizations out there that actually engage in "systemic learning processes" (Flood, 1999, Taylor and Clarke, 2008) that lead to a better understanding of intangible capacities?

I have found this area of intangible capacity development very interesting, and hope to learn and write more about it in the future. If anyone has any thoughts on this please share…

References
BASER, H. & MORGAN, P. (2008) Capacity, Change and Performance: Study Report. IN ECDPM (Ed.) Capacity, Change and Performance. Maastricht, ECDPM.
CRUTCHFIELD, L. R. & GRANT, H. M. (2008) Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits, Jossey-Bass.
FLOOD, R. L. (1999) Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning within the unknowable, Routledge.
GRANT, H. M. & CRUTCHFIELD, L. R. (2007) Creating High-Impact Non-Profits. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 32-41.
KAPLAN, A. (1999) The Developing of Capacity. CDRA.
MORGAN, P. (2006) The Concept of Capacity. Capacity, Change and Performance. Maastricht, ECDPM.
MOWLES, C., STACEY, R. & GRIFFIN, D. (2008) What contribution can insights from the complexity sciences make to the theory and practice of development management? Journal of International Development, 20, 804-820.
ORTIZ, A. & TAYLOR, P. (2008) EMERGING PATTERNS IN THE CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT PUZZLE: Why, what and when to measure? (report for IIEP). Institute of Development Studies.
TAYLOR, P. & CLARKE, P. (2008) Capacity for a Change, Brighton, IDS.

Why this, why now, why me?

2009-02-08T08:21:00.000-08:00

After ten or so years organizational capacity development "practitioning" (i.e. the act of being, or thinking of oneself as a practitioner, or someone who practices something—or even worse, someone who tries to build capacities…), as well as a more hidden, sordid past as an investigative accountant (don’t say auditor—eeeek!), I have become a bit tired and disillusioned with my “practice”. I am also a bit suspicious of how I have allowed my practice to be overly influenced by the broader “development aid” industry that I have worked in, which I have found (my biased opinion) highly effective in “aiding” the discovery of urgencies (and upward accountabilities) and obscuring “importancies” in the process.

As part of a broader personal healing and detoxification process it occurred to me that perhaps I should “throw it all away” and begin a PhD program, hoping that it might help me go deeper into the reasons why I could, or should, or do, do (no pun intended) things. I thought I could perhaps discover a more meaningful way of approaching my practice, and, ultimately, hopefully, be more useful to others in the process.

Whether any of it will be helpful or not is an open question, but I’ve decided I should at least try to more openly reflect on the things I think I’m learning, or understanding better, about my subject area—organizational capacity development—in the hopes that reflecting and writing occasional tidbits will help me better develop my own capacity (to first do no harm?) to grapple with these issues and continually improve both my practice, preaching, and, why not, my theory.

So that’s what this is about. Now you know. Welcome.