Capacity development strategies

Strategic principles for successful capacity development

The success of capacity development strategies depends on a wide range of factors.

There is no simple formula.

It is useful to keep in mind that for several decades governments and international agencies have looked for successful capacity development strategies and that so far nobody has yet come up with a workable formula for guaranteed success. The simple reason is that such a formula does not exist: both the complexity of processes and the diversity of contexts preclude such a formula.

However, what these decades of work have shown is that capacity development needs to respect some key principles for its impact to be positive and sustainable. We present hereunder some key principles, which are of particular importance for the work undertaken by international agencies.

  • Capacity development must develop its own internal leadership and ownership.

      Capacity development is an endogenous process. External agents cannot and should not attempt to replace internal actors: the objective is precisely to strengthen internal ownership of EFA (Education For All) plans and their implementation. Capacity development only succeeds in the long term where there is a commitment which is reflected in internal ownership and leadership. The paradox is that, while a government needs to take leadership for capacity development to succeed, arguably in some cases government capacities are so scarce that its staff cannot take leadership. Nevertheless, in all countries there is some space for action and, within government and elsewhere, there are actors who strive for national development and units that are open to change. External support to capacity development efforts must identify and support these actors and units. Our focus must shift from pointing at gaps and deficits to identifying points of strength and opportunities for change. We must invest in change leaders, even at the risk of seeing only a few succeeding. Identifying such change leaders requires an in-depth knowledge of a particular country. Short workshops with larger groups may help to spot potential leaders. We must also seek out opportunities for our partners so that they may learn and share in the activities we implement, even if at times this may lead to slower implementation.

  • Capacity development strategies must be context-relevant and context-specific.

      A profound understanding of the context within which educational planners and managers operate is fundamental to the identification of relevant strategies. Policy suggestions must be diverse in light of the specific situation and characteristics of each country. A successful strategy in one country may not work in another. The characteristics of the context are often more important than the choice of strategies.

      Recognizing that context is more fundamental than strategies does not imply that strategies are not important. It is the choice of strategies, the decisions on how they will be implemented and the speed of implementation that must take into account the context.  In the contextual analysis, local actors play a central role  - they know the context better than outsiders. But outsiders can contribute in three ways. 1) They can be guides and coaches in analysing capacity development processes and linking them up with relevant strategies. 2) Because as outsiders they are less linked to internal interests, they can become brokers between the actors participating in this analysis. 3) Because of their wider knowledge of different countries, they can compare the specific situation of this particular country to that of others; they can turn what seems a complex and challenging strategy into something feasible, based on its successful implementation.

  • Capacity development must be an integrated set of complementary interventions, although implementation may need to proceed in steps.

      In many countries, a capacity development programme needs to deal with capacities at different levels and will probably have to combine several strategies. These may include the development or clarification of organizational tools such as detailed organizational charts and mission statements or job descriptions for units as well as for individual officers; professional development activities, which include but go beyond training; the development of a common vision which inspires staff; the establishment of incentive schemes; demands for accountability from within or outside the organization. While each individual strategy has a contribution to make, its effectiveness increases when linked with other strategies. The weight and importance of each strategy differs from country to country.

      However, such integrated programmes are difficult to manage and to absorb, especially in countries where they are most needed. They can become too complex to be feasible. The simultaneous implementation of a long menu of capacity development prescriptions may be a recipe for disaster.

      It may therefore be more appropriate, in particular in countries where absorptive capacity is weak, to break down this complex process into more manageable elements. It is easier to handle and it offers greater possibilities of some progress and some success, which may be needed to keep the process going. However, it is important to focus on those elements which may have a ripple effect from the start. This could be the setting up of a corps of educational planners, which may have several benefits in various areas: it would force a reflection on the number and profile of planners needed at each level of the education system; it would ensure that posts are occupied by staff with at least a minimum level of competencies; and, it would limit room for appointments based uniquely on political criteria. It could be the training (through joint work on an institutional assessment) of a key group of directors within the ministry of education in order to create the critical mass needed for organizational reform.

  • Commitment to long-term investment, while working towards short-term achievements

      Capacity development is a long-term activity. Most contexts and needs require more time to assess, plan, deliver and evaluate than is typically anticipated – there is very often a significant amount of time between an action and any measurable result. The more typically anticipated timeframe of 1-4 years from intervention to results is simply too little time in most areas of capacity development. The source of inappropriate timeframes is not always external agencies and actors. In many instances internal forces, for practical or political reasons, request or demand timeframes that are ill-suited to the needs and realities. The focus on short-term results can lead to a decrease in long-term impact.

      Many agencies and governments now recognize that 10- to 20-year timeframes may be more appropriate in countries where capacities are most lacking. Clearly, these longer timeframes present practical and functional challenges: national and international partners need to see progress to remain motivated and committed; they may need to show short-term progress to obtain continued funding and support. Progress must be monitored, so that all are reassured that progress is in the right direction. While change is long-term, particular successes may emerge in the short-term. In other words, we must include within the long change process, concrete short-term outputs and outcomes in order to build on success and build confidence. National partners must be the ones deciding on these outputs or outcomes and on the time-table and they must lead the work towards them. In order for these intermediate products not to become the end-all, partners need to maintain flexibility. Experience has shown that a rigid and severely time-bound concentration on a particular product, such as an EFA plan, may indeed lead to the successful completion of this plan, but without the indispensable involvement of national actors, therefore sacrificing the capacity development opportunity the plan preparation presents.

  • Before considering outside intervention, assess its impact on national capacities at individual, organizational and institutional levels.

      This fifth and final principle is more pragmatic. Before planning any outside intervention in capacity development, consideration must be given to its possible impact on national capacities at all levels and, in the context of this strategy paper on EFA, to the country’s capacity to achieve that goal. The principle is similar to the one in which all infrastructure projects now include an environmental assessment. This should be done even when national actors demand outside support. Demands by a particular person or unit at times have little concern for the wider development interests of the country.

      We are not suggesting a complex and time-consuming appraisal, as it may be unworkable to foresee from the start all the possible outcomes and impacts of a specific intervention. However, what should be possible is a short “estimation” of the medium-term effects of the intervention on the country’s capacity to achieve EFA in an autonomous and sustainable manner. Such an “estimation” should refer to the outcomes and impacts of previous similar interventions in similar contexts. This may help to avoid repetition of capacity development exercises which have failed to achieve much progress or may have been unhelpful.

      There is an evident risk that such a “rapid assessment forecast” may become a mechanical form-filling exercise. But this risk may be less important than the risks of disregarding the possibility of the negative impact of an intervention or of taking for granted that whatever is called capacity development is intrinsically positive.

Hide All
Show All