1

Module 4: Partners’ demand and

ownership

Towards more effective Capacity Development

Challenge

• Share experience on capacity development (sector, network, organisation, unit).

• List 2-3 conditions for the success of CD intervention

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

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

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

QC 2: Demand, Ownership and Commitment

• Success depends on partner ownership of and commitment to the change process.

• Facilitating not leading change - EU support in

absence of ownership and commitment will not work

• Three perspectives: • Change Readiness • Effective Ownership• Demand for external support

• When there is disagreement……

5

Why is this criteria important?

✓

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

7

• 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”

14

Roles of partners and the EC

• The emphasis on partner-owned programmes will

change how EC staff work in all phases of PPCM

• Partner identifies needed support and comes to

the EC to discuss; ideal situation rarely exists

Ideal role for EC (and other donors’) support: to facilitate, to assist and support but

not to “do”

Ideal role for EC (and other donors’) support: to facilitate, to assist and support but

not to “do”

Tools 1B and 3a help to assess the involvement of the Partner in the CD process

Conclusions

• 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

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