NewsLetter March 2010

Complexity or planning for Results

Editorial

It is conceivably a familiar scenario to many organisations: An international development agency was supporting one of its partners in conducting a new annual plan. Off they went: What was achieved last year and why? What was not achieved and why not? And as a result what are the priorities for next year? Indeed, it had been a tough year. Continued ethnical and political unrest, natural disasters and a global economic crisis are just few of the reasons why most of last year's plans could not be achieved. However, making this world a better place is a long term process, thus: let's keep up the hard work and continue trying next year. With a bit of patience and extension of deadlines, most of last year's targets can be reached this year. Within no time a new annual plan and budget was put together. Everyone was all geared up for a fresh start of the new year and was ready to move ahead …

"Wait! " an old man said. "There is something wrong with this picture. Why would this year be different? The ethnical tensions are likely to remain as will the political unrest, while the end of the economic crisis is not in sight. So why would we suddenly be doing better this year?!" A heated debate followed about assumptions, risks and capacity building. About projections and uncertainties, about optimistic versus pessimistic scenarios, and so on. All evolving around the question: What can we realistically achieve next year, hence what should be in the new plan?
A unique debate? Probably not. Did the debate lead to a better plan? Future will tell. There are too many factors involved. Development, even more so in an international context, is apparently too complex to be captured in plans. So why continue planning? Perhaps for budget allocation, task distribution and public relations. But why continue planning for results?

Is this why the complexity theory is rapidly gaining ground? This theory suggests that organisations map their future challenges and categorise them according to complexity. The next step is to plan for the simple ones, but not so much for the complex ones. Does it mean that the complex ones are not important? Will it bring us back to 'good intentions, no commitments'? Certainly not! It presents a new challenge to organisation development in search for a recaptured balance in the systems and behaviour of organisations. That is to say: a balance between planning and flexibility, between direction and adaptation, and a balance between freedom and control. In other words - real Managing for Development Results.

Mike Zuyderduyn
Director MDF, ad interim

Voice from a participant from 2004

I would like to inform you also, that I applied the knowledge I got from you during the Project Monitoring and Management course in the year 2004. I now own a college known as Thabita Vocational Training College. And also Hostels with a capacity of 60 students. I presented this project in the class when we where asked to develop a project we would do when we come back to our country.

Lema A.N., Tanzania

MDF in Public Administration in Guatemala

In 2009 MDF started a new NUFFIC financed project called "Institutional Strengthening of INAP", the National Institute for Public Administration of Guatemala. MDF has started this project together with it's consortium members HL (Hogeschool Leiden) and FLACSO (Facultad LatinoAmericano de Ciencias Sociales).

Guatemala is a small and poor country with huge problems, and it is engaged in an important but complicated governmental decentralisation process. Relationships between ethnic groups form an important issue within this development. A great challenge, as Guatemala has a big indigenous population! Within this context it is INAP's mission to contribute to the modernisation of public administration. This is done by means of training, technical assistance programmes, and research. INAP's beneficiaries are government organisations (e.g. municipalities and ministries), government officials, and new actors in the political arena.

The consortium supports INAP developing their core programmes, by improving quality management. This is being done from an external perspective (what do beneficiaries want and need?) and from an internal perspective (e.g. what is needed in terms of systems and procedures?). The consortium provides tailored technical assistance and organised reflection by bringing experiences from elsewhere to Guatemala and organising national events on what has been going on in the country. The consortium coaches and assists the INAP in drawing their own plans for improvement and on how to implement them. The project will run up to 2012.

Sam Boering, senior trainer

MDF and Theory of Change

MDF experiences that many organisations are struggling with determining their organisational added value in a complex social and institutional environment. A great number of local and international actors, government and non-government alike, are making a conscious effort to determine their role in view of locally owned national development policies, and also in view of each other. Understandably many organisations find it difficult to capture the complexity of development processes, and to determine what they will do in terms of support activities within these complex processes.

Theory of Change (ToC) supports both processes. On one hand it stimulates determining a "development dream". On the other hand it supports constructing a "pathway of change". Working with ToC also enables organisations to test hypothesis underlying their theory of change. This will support organisations to become more effective in contributing to development.

MDF has embraced ToC and embedded the method in regular courses to support planning processes that comply with the Aid-effectiveness Agenda "Managing for Development Results". MDF also promotes ToC in tailor made training and consultancy activities with Government Organisations and NGOs.

If you are interested in obtaining more information, please contact us at: mdf@mdf.nl.

Sam Boering, senior trainer