1 Module 4: Partners’ ownership & Demand Effective Capacity Development From Theory to Practice.

1

Module 4: Partners’ ownership & Demand

Effective Capacity Development

From Theory to Practice

This Module

• Discusses the importance of ownership in a CD context

• Reflects on typical challenges encountered and how these may be addressed

• Examines ownership from three perspectives

CD Quality grid requirement: 2. Adequate demand, commitment and ownership from the country partners

2.1 How have key stakeholders demonstrated demand for CD, beyond reacting to proposals from the EU or consultants?

2.2 How have the country partners led or participated in the design of CD support, beyond formal consultation and endorsement of proposals and other requirements?

Why Ownership & Demand are Important

• Success depends on partner ownership of and commitment to (i) change process and (ii) any proposed support

• EU support in absence of ownership and commitment will not work: It can facilitate but not lead change

• Partners must play an adequate role in each step of project cycle from identification to implementation and review of CD support, as custodians of proposed change

• Focus first on what partner will do, second on possible external contribution. Ideally, partner identifies needed support and comes to the EC to discuss possible support

• Capacity Development – a core responsibility for leaders of any organisation – a permanent agenda item

5

✓

A good design for CD Support

• Is known, owned and supported by partners and

stakeholders

• Can overcome resistance from

those who may stand to lose

• Not just a donor formatted

“project design document”

But good design is not sufficient –

ownership throughout the life of an intervention, needs to be

monitored and tested

Challenges

• On Partner Side• fragmented and contested ownership• weakly articulated and implicit ownership• New faces, new agendas, poor institutional memory• Ownership in words, but not sufficiently in action

On Donor Side• Design process rushed and consultant-driven• “Free good” syndrome especially vis TC• “salesmanship” and competing DP agendas and ideas• New faces, new agendas, poor institutional memory

• “Isomorphic Mimicry” and “Institutional Ventriloquism”

Moving towards ownership

8

• Ownership sits on a continuum between fully donor driven and fully country owned

• Levels of ownership will vary according to changing circumstances, personnel involved, and the different levels and places in an organisation or sector

• All processes should support working towards full country ownership

Fully donor driven

Fully country owned

Partner owned and partner led are different!

Dimensions of Ownership

• Change Readiness • Practical Ownership

• Demand for external support

Change Readiness

• Purpose is to judge the depth and extent of ownership of proposed change: • among different stakeholders involved• over life of a programme …..never static

Three criteria for change readiness

(1) Is there a Vision for change? • is it appealing, realistic and worth the effort? (Does it

suggest “where we want to be”)

(2) Is there adequate support for the vision? • extent to which support for change is owned among

external and internal stakeholders. Who would likely support or resist?

(3) Is there change management capacity? • is there the capacity to lead and run change process

and do people have confidence in that capacity (political, technical, outreach, financial)

Or put differently:

If D + P + V =

Change will happen

If D + P only =

Risk of confusion

If D + V only =

Likely Anxiety and frustration

If P + V only =

Change remains in pending tray

Conditions for change to happen

- Degree of Dissatisfaction (D) +

- Adequacy of change process (P) +

- Appealing vision (V)

Must be greater than cost of change

Practical Ownership - criteria

Who brings issue to table?

There must be a degree of initiative from country stakeholders to address capacity (do donors create an environment for ownership)

Who assesses options and scenarios?

Best for partners to select policies, actions and priorities based on own assessment even if technically not perfect

How solid is the support behind the proposal?

Extent to which there is evidence of building a constituency for change among wider group of stakeholders

How engaged are senior managers in process?

Devil in detail – how far are managers able to visualise and articulate what to achieve and how to get there

How do we relate Do partners and DPs communicate beyond the formal settings; is there mutual trust?

Demand for External Support

• Risk• Demand often low, leading to un-owned and supply-driven

assistance with little impact on change and indicative of poor ownership

• Exacerbated when a free good – no opportunity cost

Risk Mitigation• Focus discussions on what country partners can do for

themselves, before considering possible support• Make costs of alternative forms of support transparent • Be mindful of salemanship• Adequate involvement of partners in selection, and

management of external inputs• Mutual accountability for results; resolving “triangular affair”

Balance the three-way relationship

Doer?Middleman?Mediator?Facilitator?Controller?

Spy?

TADonor

Customer?Client?

BeneficiaryPartner?

Stakeholder?Employer?

Local Organisations

Employer?Stakeholder?Customer?Partner?Benefactor?

Conclusion

• Playing a facilitating or supportive role is key to fostering partner-owned and partner-led change

• And this means investing in relationships

• There are likely to be tensions between adopting this role and pressure to disburse and show results.

• Procedures might also act against favouring a facilitating role

• An operational dilemma that needs to be continuously monitored and managed

• AE principles remain relevant; harmonisation, alignment, coordinated TC, country systems support

Exercise - Partner demand and ownership

in your programmes

1. Is your programme fitting in the current context and the current levels of capacity? How do you know?

2. Is there sufficient dissatisfaction with the current situation?3. Is there a vision for change?4. If yes, is this vision widely supported among stakeholders?5. Is there sufficient change management capacity?

Achievements ------ Improvement needs

END