80745





          Is
Results‐Focused
Capacity
Development
the
New
Meta
of
Development?

                                                    

                                             Samuel
Otoo1

                                 Capacity
Development
and
Results

                                         World
Bank
Institute

                                                    

                                                    

Capacity
Development
Results
Measurement
in
World
Bank
Projects



A
recent
World
Bank
Institute
(WBI)
review
of
nearly
200
World
Bank
lending
operations
indicated

that
results
measurement
in
capacity
development
(CD)
projects
is
lacking
in
a
variety
of
ways
but

that
there
also
promising
opportunities
in
current
practices
for
future
improvement.2



The
review
found
consistent
patterns
of
missed
opportunities
for
focusing
on
and
measuring

results
in
World
Bank
CD
projects
over
the
last
five
years.

The
most
fundamental
challenge
that

was
presented
in
the
review
of
Bank
projects
was
the
weak
focusing
of
CD
efforts
on
results
to

advance
institutional
reforms
and
development
goals.
In
general
the
quality
of
results
measures

was
inconsistent
both
within
individual
projects
and
across
sectors
in
how
outcomes
were

characterized
and
measured.

For
instance,
the
Bank
projects
often
emphasized
outputs
instead
of

outcomes.

Another
common
mistake
in
the
Bank
projects
was
the
misrepresentation
of

intermediate
outcomes
from
CD
activities
as
results
that
indicate
impact
or
final
outcomes.



The
good
practice
examples
that
emerged
from
the
Bank
project
review
confirmed
the
use
of

high‐quality,
precise
results
measures
in
select
instances
across
sectors,
and
types
of
CD

interventions.
A
consistency
in
focus
on
results
made
it
possible
to
clearly
communicate
how
the

outcomes
of
diverse
CD
activities
contributed
to
results
for
reform
agendas
and
country

development
goals,
as
well
as
to
collaborative
learning
about

‘what
worked
and
did
not
work’
to

drive
the
needed
changes.3

The
presence
of
these
good
measures
points
to
the
feasibility
of

implementing
the
use
of
more
precise
and
comprehensive
results
measurement
systems.
So
why

are
such
good
practices
not
more
widespread?





                             




























































                            

1
    
Inputs
provided
by
Cristina
Ling,
Violaine
Le
Rouzic,
Jenny
Gold
and
Nicola
Smithers.

2
    
A
Review
of
Capacity
Development
Results
Measurement
in
World
Bank
Projects.
World
Bank
Institute
2010.

3
 
For
example,
an
HIV/AIDS
project
in
Africa
measured
the
results
of
their
media
campaigns
and
community
education

program
to
reduce
stigma
against
persons
with
HIV/AIDs
and
change
behaviors
so
treatment
and
prevention

programs
would
be
supported
and
sought
out.

Surveys
were
conducted
to
assess
attitude
and
report
behavioral

change.

In
yet
another
case,
CD
activities
focused
on
reforming
the
organizational
arrangements
of
an
electric

company
to
promote
long‐term
sustainability
through
cost
recovery.

The
improved
financial
viability
of
the
company

was
measured
by
the
self‐financing
ratio,
the
rate
of
return
on
revalued
assets,
and
the
debt
service
coverage.






                                                                                                                  1








Focusing
results
on
factors
that
constrain
or
enable
reforms
and
goal
achievement


There
is
wide
acceptance
of
the
importance
of
CD
to
the
achievement
of
development
outcomes.

It
underpins
the
Millennium
Development
Goals
and
the
2005
Paris
Declaration
on
Aid

Effectiveness.
The
OECD
(2006,
p.11)
lays
out
the
nature
of
the
challenge,
contrasting
this

importance
with
the
difficulties
experienced
in
trying
to
achieve
it,
noting:
"CD
has
been
one
of

the
least
responsive
targets
of
donor
assistance."4
One
of
the
main
stumbling
blocks
has
been
very

broad
and
varied
understanding
of
what
is
meant
by
capacity
and
CD,
such
that
consensus
on
an

effective
operational
set
of
definitions
is
lacking.
This
undermines
a
strategic,
results‐focused

approach
to
CD.
Lack
of
clear
links
between
CD
interventions
and
development
goals,
externally‐
driven
technical
solutions,
inadequate
consideration
of
stakeholder
incentives,
lack
of
clarity
and

rigor
in
setting
objectives
and
measuring
results
of
interventions
and
poor
fit
to
local
institutional

context
have
also
been
among
the
culprits.



The
constraint
placed
by
inadequate
capacity
on
development
and
poverty
reduction,
and
the

disappointing
achievements
from
interventions
to
date,
signify
the
urgent
need
to
advance
CD

knowledge
and
practice.
In
response,
in
consultation
and
collaboration
with
partners,
the
World

Bank
Institute
(WBI)
has
developed
an
operational
approach
that
addresses
the
problems
noted

above,
which
is
termed
'results‐focused
CD.'

Central
to
results‐focused
CD
is
self‐directed

institutional
change
for
improved
development
results.
The
approach
recognizes
the
need
to
go

beyond
ability
and
competence,
to
address
the
impact
of
the
institutional
environment
on
the

willingness
of
stakeholders
to
act.


WBI’s
results‐focused
approach
emphasizes
strengthening
stakeholder
ownership,
improving

efficiency
of
policy
instruments,
and
enhancing
effectiveness
of
organizational
arrangements
as

the
core
objectives
of
CD.

This
separation
allows
attention
to
be
focused
more
accurately
on
what

concerns
the
demand
for
capacity
(the
stakeholder
ownership
part)
and
what
concerns
the
supply

(policy
or
incentive
instruments,
and
organizational
arrangements).

CD
interventions
can
work
to

improve
the
likelihood
of
better
development
results
by
fostering
changes
in
institutional

conditions
in
each
of
the
three
areas
through
action
by
any
segment
of
society.
Hence,
the

objectives
of
CD
are
focused
on
changing
constraining
or
enabling
characteristics
of
institutional

conditions;
facilitating
improvements
in
institutional
capacity
dynamics
to
advance
reforms
and

development
goals.




In
practice,
results‐focused
CD
is
a
strategic
and
country‐led
approach
to
CD,
focused
on
local

agents
designing
and
implementing
their
own
change
process.

It
is
concerned
with
collective

action
across
society,
and
extends
beyond
individuals
and
organizations
to
institutions
and
the

enabling
environment.

It
supports
country
stakeholders
in
a
systematic
process
from
problem

                             




























































                            

4
 
OECD.
2006.
"The
Challenge
of
Capacity
Development."
GOVNET.
Paris.








                                                                                                     2








identification
and
design,
to
implementation,
monitoring
and
evaluation.
At
its
core
is
a
results

focus
that
enables
objective–setting
and
measurement
of
achievements
while
facilitating
flexibility

and
innovation
in
the
change
process.

This
approach
provides
the
basis
for
systematic
learning

about
what
works
and
why.
It
also
aims
to
assist
in
applying
the
specialized
knowledge
across
the

broad
spectrum
of
governance,
political
economy,
social
accountability
and
institutional

development
to
CD
initiatives.

The
conceptual
framework
and
processes
for
this
approach
are

captured
in
the
Capacity
Development
and
Results
Framework
(CDRF).5

WBI
has
coupled
the
new

approach
with
new
instruments
that
go
beyond
structured
learning
to
encompass
platforms
that

facilitate
practitioner
knowledge
exchange,
experiential
learning,
innovation
and
serendipity.


The
focus
on
change
and
the
definition
of
CD
as
the
process
whereby
change
is
enabled
makes
the

challenge
of
monitoring
and
measuring
results
conceptually
more
tractable.

Another
feature
of

the
CDRF
that
facilitates
results
monitoring
and
measurement
are
standard
sets
of
intermediate

and
final
outcome
indicators
that
can
be
flexibly
applied
across
sectors
and
countries.

The

integration
of
monitoring
and
evaluation
at
all
program
stages
also
promotes
adaptive

management
and
a
systematic
learning
loop
to
determine
what
works
and
what
does
not.

The

CDRF
features
a
rare
adaptability—institutional
indicators
try
to
focus
on
underlying

characteristics,
which
can
take
different
forms
depending
on
the
actual
context.

This
is
very

different
from
standard
sector
indicators
that
tend
to
assume
institutional
arrangements
have
the

same
meaning
in
different
contexts.


Although
still
in
its
early
implementation
stage,
the
CDRF
has
already
had
a
profound
influence
in

WBI's
shift
to
results‐focused
CD,
not
only
seen
in
the
business
processes
of
the
Institute,
but

more
importantly
in
its
renewal
strategy.

WBI
is
now
more
concerned
with
the
"how"
of
the

change
process
to
understand
how
we
can
systematically
promote
change,
and—through
its

experience
and
that
of
others—advance
the
thinking,
practice
and
learning
of
results‐focused
CD

globally.




Observations
from
WBI’s
Emerging
Practice


(i)
















Promising
practices
and
positive
incentives
from
your
experience
that
support
results‐
driven
capacity
development
processes.



WBI’s
approach
seeks
to
address
many
of
the
challenges
faced
by
development
partners
and

donors
in
their
CD
efforts,
including
those
highlighted
by
the
concept
paper
of
this
meeting.

Some

points
are
offered
below
to
facilitate
group
discussion.





    1. How
to
fill
the
"missing
middle"
of
capacity
results?

The
international
community
has

           struggled
with
the
"missing
middle"—a
fatal
flaw
of
many
CD
programs.

The
CDRF
has

                             




























































                            

5
 
See
The
Capacity
Development
Results
Framework.
World
Bank
Institute,
2009,
and
The
Importance
of

Stakeholder
Ownership
to
Results‐Focused
Capacity
Development.
World
Bank
Institute,
2010.




                                                                                                        3








       precisely
been
created
in
part
to
address
the
"missing
middle"
issue,
and
responds
to
it

       through
careful
attention
to
specifying
and
tracking
the
intermediate
outcomes
that
drive

       the
change
process.

Thus
the
CDRF
requires
users
to
articulate
and
test
their
theories
and

       assumptions
about
what
will
lead
to
a
desired
institutional
change.

When
more
information

       becomes
available
or
underlying
circumstances
change
in
the
program,
it
can
be
adjusted

       accordingly.


    2. How
to
deal
with
the
attribution
versus
contribution
issue?

WBI's
strategy
emphasizes
the

       importance
of
partnership
in
CD
and
its
approach
explicitly
recognizes
the
leading
role
of

       local
agents
in
the
change
process.

Accordingly,
WBI
focuses
on
how
it
contributes
to

       development
results
through
intermediate
capacity
outcomes
that
enable
local
leaders,

       coalitions
and
other
change
agents
to
make
changes
in
institutional
capacity.


    3. How
can
CD
pursue
ambitious
results?

CD
interventions
can
be
designed
and
managed
to

       enable
ambitious
results—with
the
understanding
that
they
only
contribute
to
these

       results.

By
anchoring
CD
initiatives
in
locally‐defined
change
strategies
it
is
possible
to

       define
a
clear
results
logic
that
explains
how
CD
activities
contribute
to
behavioral
changes,

       new
processes
and
relationships,
as
well
as
new
products
and
services
(i.e.,
intermediate

       capacity
outcomes)
that
drive
change
in
institutional
capacities
(i.e.,
stakeholder
ownership,

       policy
instruments,
and
organizational
arrangements).

This
logic
can
then
be
adaptively

       managed
to
guide
the
simultaneous
implementation
and
testing
of
the
change
strategy.


    4. How
to
deal
with
the
non‐linearity
of
CD
and
evolving
contexts?

WBI’s
approach

       encourages
adaptive
management
based
on
results
and
partners'
context.

CDRF
users

       focus
on
articulating
their
results
logic
anchored
in
solid
diagnostics
of
institutional
capacity

       conditions
that
constrain
or
enable
the
achievement
of
reforms
and
development
goals,

       monitor
progress
and
revisit
the
logic
and
M&E
approach
as
needed.

The
iterative
learning

       approach
allows
for
the
complexity
of
the
change
process
by
emphasizing
intermediate

       capacity
outcomes
that
relate
to
collaborative
solutions
(such
as
coalition
building)
as
well

       as
more
experiential
outcomes
that
accommodate
discovery,
innovation
and
serendipity.


       The
overall
emphasis
is
on
learning
about
the
how
of
reform
and
development
solutions.


    5. How
to
deal
with
the
burden
of
M&E
for
capacity
development?

WBI
has
developed
tools

       that
enable
its
staff
and
other
practitioners
to
embed
results
monitoring
in
their
program

       design
and
implementation.

Data
are
collected
at
key
points
in
time
throughout
the
project

       life‐cycle
with
the
dual
intent
of
using
these
data
to
adjust
programs
as
needed
and
to

       document
results.

The
approach
is
flexible
and
simple.

Further,
at
the
country
level,
the

       WBI
approach
puts
local
agents
of
change
at
the
center
of
the
results
through
a
process
that

       starts
with
validation
of
the
development
goal.

Accordingly,
the
results
achieved
are
those

       of
local
agents.

In
addition
to
using
WBI’s
specially
administered
data
collection

       instruments,
WBI
teams
are
encouraged
to
agree
on
M&E
plans
that
country
partners

       would
generate
for
their
own
use.


    6. How
to
deal
with
the
risk
of
not
using
a
results
framework
after
it
is
developed?

Part
of
the

       answer
is
ensuring
that
WBI,
as
a
promoter
and
supporter
of
the
use
of
the
framework,

       embeds
it
into
its
own
results
management
and
monitoring
processes.


Therefore,
in



                                                                                                        4








       addition
to
using
a
results
framework
that
is
adaptable
and
meant
to
provide
value
to
its

       users,
WBI
has
recently
started
incorporating
reviews
of
results
considerations
as
a
regular

       feature
of
its
business
processes
and
portfolio
reviews.

A
central
unit
will
aggregate
and

       analyze
results
from
individual
initiatives,
and
produce
periodic
analytical
reports.

These

       outcome‐level
results
are
part
of
WBI's
Key
Performance
Indicators,
which
are
themselves

       based
on
six
characteristics
of
effective
organizational
arrangements—clarity
of
mission,

       focus
on
results,
operational
efficiency,
financial
viability
and
probity,
communications
and

       stakeholder
relations,
and
adaptability
and
innovation.

A
growing
number
of
organizations

       globally
are
looking
to
adapt
this
approach
to
their
practices.


    7. More
to
the
point
perhaps,
the
above
question
may
soon
be
dated.

Governments
and

       citizens
around
the
world
are
keen
to
understand
the
results
of
their
development
efforts

       and
of
CD
as
an
explicit
and
transformative
focus
within
country
development.

The

       burgeoning
growth
of
institutions
of
demand‐side
governance,
demand
for
south‐south

       knowledge
exchange,
and
proliferation
of
open
information
initiatives
driven
in
part
by

       technology
all
point
to
an
irreversible
worldwide
demand
to
understand
whether
and
how

       results
are
achieved
in
order
to
assess
accountability,
value
for
money
and
replicability.



    8. What
should
country
and
development
partners
do
differently
in
their
engagement
with

       each
other
to
get
specific
meaningful
CD
results?

How
can
this
be
monitored
to
ensure
the

       quality,
impact
and
sustainability
of
results?

WBI’s
approach
helps
country
and

       development
partners
get
specific
meaningful
results
by
encouraging
a
frank
dialogue
and

       explicit
agreement
among
stakeholders
on
their
development
goals
and
the
related

       institutional
constraints.

This
leads
to
clearer
country
ownership
of
the
locally‐developed

       change
process,
including
monitoring
the
process
and
results
for
decision‐making.

Country

       and
development
partners
can
embed
quality
and
results
monitoring
in
their
CD
initiatives

       to
use
the
data
collected
to
inform
their
next
steps.

Monitoring
is
not
viewed
as
a
separate

       add‐on
exercise
undertaken
to
document
information
for
accountability
purposes.


           

(ii)














Operational
challenges
and
constraints
faced
in
supporting
results‐driven
capacity

development
processes.



Implementing
results‐focused
CD
requires
a
cultural
shift
that
inherently
takes
time.

A
key

challenge,
common
to
many
organizations,
is
internal
resistance
to
accountability
for
outcomes.


Understandably,
teams
in
aid
agencies
working
on
CD
initiatives
may
be
reluctant
to
be
held

accountable
for
CD
results,
which
by
design
and
nature,
depend
more
on
the
country
situation
and

partners
than
their
efforts.

Nevertheless,
through
a
series
of
integrated
efforts
toward

encouraging
the
achievement
of
higher
CD
results,
WBI
has
started
to
shift
from
resisting
this
level

of
accountability
to
asking
questions
about
how
to
make
the
achievement
and
demonstration
of

CD
results
possible.

While
this
improved
disposition
to
accountability
for
results
is
an
encouraging

step,
it
is
clear
that
more
efforts
and
time
will
be
needed
before
the
entire
Institute
is
efficient
in

this
practice.

Close
monitoring
is
needed
to
learn
from
the
experience
what
works
or
not
and
to

adjust
thinking
of
how
results‐driven
CD
can
best
be
done.






                                                                                                      5








The
greatest
challenge
is
managing
the
expectations
of
the
entire
international
community
with

regard
to
the
additional
time,
efforts,
and
financial
resources
required
for
results‐focused
CD.

In

the
case
of
the
World
Bank,
universal
implementation
of
the
additional
efforts
towards
local

ownership
of
the
change
process
and
a
serious
diagnostic
of
constraining
and
enabling

institutional
capacity
characteristics
could
increase
at
least
transitionally
the
preparation
time
and

cost
of
CD
operations.

Evaluation
of
results‐driven
CD
would
require
more
efforts
as
stakeholders

should
not
be
satisfied
with
assessing
whether
the
CD
intervention
did
things
right,
but
more

importantly
add
the
assessment
of
whether
CD
was
the
right
thing
to
do,
and
what
results
was
CD

driving,
beyond
intermediate
outcomes
that
may
or
may
not
be
part
of
a
critical
change
process.

The
resource
implications
include
the
fact
that
a
monitoring
and
evaluation
culture
and
skills
are

needed
to
operate
this
approach,
and
ensure
its
effectiveness
and
results.



WBI
is
still
in
the
early
stages
of
the
implementation
and
evolution
of
its
results
agenda,
and
likely

not
all
challenges
have
fully
emerged.

Some
of
the
issues
already
identified
for
further
attention

include:

    • More
tools
and
pilot
applications,
including
rapid
results
initiatives

    • Alternative
ways
of
measuring
and
monitoring
intermediate
capacity
outcomes

    • Weak
local
M&E
systems
and
culture,
and
low‐resource
tools
for
tracking
and
measuring

         change
processes
and
results

    • Guidance
for
design
and
selection
of
different
CD
platforms

    • Need
for
more
systematic
reviews
and
evaluations
of
CD
practice
for
systematic
learning

         about
what
works
and
what
does
not;
beyond
one‐off
story
sharing
and
unchallenged

         practice


    • Knowledge
sharing
and
learning
services,
and
operational
support
services

    • Prioritizing
and
identifying
critical
mass
for
change
when
facing
a
broad
array
of

         institutional
constraints
and
tradeoffs

    • Identifying
processes
that
will
yield
institutional
innovations
with
good
characteristics
in

         different
contexts

    • Shifting
the
local
focus
to
results,
not
on
what
is
missing
or
what
is
dictated
by
imported

         good
practice

    • Leveraging
local
leaders
as
agents
of
change



Against
the
many
practical
challenges
must
be
set
the
excitement
seen
in
countries
among

partners
about
what
they
have
achieved
and
being
able
to
explain
coherently
their
results
story,

the
scope
for
massively
increasing
global
learning
about
the
how
of
reforms,
and
the
potential
for

powerfully
affecting
development
effectiveness.

A
strong
partnership
within
the
development

community
is
vital
to
developing
the
concept
and
practice
of
results‐focused
capacity

development,
and
WBI
proposes
the
launch
of
a
major
collaborative
effort
in
this
regard.
Results‐
focused
CD
has
to
be
the
new
meta
of
development!





                                                                                                      6