Guidance note for the Programmatic Approach (version 31-12-2011)

  • 36,851 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
36,851
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
67
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Guidance Note for theProgrammatic Approachof the ICCO AllianceHettie Walters2011
  • 2.     4  
  • 3. Guidance Note for theProgrammatic Approachof the ICCO Alliance                                                            Version  31  December  2011   1  
  • 4.                                                                                        This  Guidance  Note  is  based  on  earlier  documents  in  which  insights  gained  in  the  development  of  the  Programmatic  Approach  where  presented:  Briefing  paper  Growing  insights  on  the  Programmatic  Approach,  ICCO  February  2009,  Harry  Derksen  en  Hettie  Walters;  R&D;  Evaluative  Study  on  the  Programmatic  Approach  Erica  Wortel  and  Jouwert  van  Geene,  December  2009;  Synthesis  paper  :  Findings  and  recommendations  gained  from  the  Evaluative  study  and  the  Appreciating  the  Programmatic  Approach  processes.  April  2010,  Hettie  Walters;  A  debriefing  note  from  the  workshop  held  on  February  1-­‐5,  2010,  Appreciating  the  Programmatic  Approach;  a  systematisation  of  experiences,  Consultants  Appreciating  the  Programmatic  Approach,  March  2010  and  the  Appreciating  the  programmatic  Approach  feedback  workshop  2011.  Insights  gained  and  tools  used  in  the  trainings  on  Methodologies  and  methods  for  the  programmatic  Approach  2008-­‐2011  have  also  been  used  as  a  source  (various  reports  by  teams  of  CDI-­‐WUR).       2  
  • 5.   Content     Introduction                   5    1   Why  we  do  what  we  do               6   1.1   Objective  and  vision               6     1.2   What  is  the  Programmatic  Approach?           7   1.3    The  theory  of  change  of  the  programmatic  approach       7   1.4   Why  do  we  promote  this  way  of  working?         8   1.5   With  whom  do  we  co-­‐operate  in  the  programmatic  approach?   9      2   Theories  of  the  programmatic  approach           11   2.1     Systems  theory  and  complexity  thinking         11   2.2   Multi-­‐stakeholder  Process  theory           13   2.3   Coalition  building  and  network  development         14    3   The  methods  we  can  use  in  the  Programmatic  Approach       16   3.1   Methods  for  working  with  systemic  change  and  complexity     16   3.1.1   Appreciative  Inquiry             17   3.1.2   Methods  for  understanding  systemic  change:       20   -­‐  Four  quadrant  framework           20   -­‐  Institutional  Analysis             22   3.1.3.   Methods  for  working  with  complexity:         24   -­‐  Cynefin  Framework             24   -­‐  Ralph  Staceys  Agreement  &  Certainty  Matrix     26   3.2     Methods  in  Multi-­‐stakeholder  processes  (MSP)       28   3.2.1   Theory  of  Change             30   3.2.2   Stakeholder  analysis             33   3.2.3   Context  analysis             35   3.2.4   Problem  tree  analysis             35   3.2.5   Large  group  interventions:     Open  Space  Technology  and  Future  Search       37   3.3   Methods  for  Networking  and  Coalition  development       40   3.3.1   Networking  for  social  change  and  knowledge  development   40   3.3.2.    Coalition  Development           42    4   Programmatic  approach  and  the  ICCO  Alliance  roles  and  practices     44   4.1   Roles,  thematic  focus  and  partner  relations         44   4.1.1   Strategic  funding  and  the  Programmatic  Approach     44   4.1.2   Brokering               47   4.1.3   Capacity  development             47   4.2   The  thematic  programmes  in  the  Business  Plan     and  the  Programmatic  Approach           48   4.3.   Governance  models  and  structures           49    Annex  1   Guidelines  for  Developing  programmatic  cooperation;  the  phases   53  Annex  2   Programmatic  Cooperation  scan           59         3  
  • 6.     4  
  • 7. Introduction  This  paper  intends  to  give  guidance  and  orientation  to  staff  of  the  ICCO  Alliance  as  well  as  to  staff  of  civil  society  organizations  with  whom  the  ICCO  Alliance  cooperates  in  the  context  of  the  Programmatic  Approach.  It  will  describe  what  the  Programmatic  Approach  entails,  what  the  considerations  were  that  led  to  the  development  of  the  approach,  what  its  theory  of  change  is,  and  which  theories  underpin  the  Programmatic  Approach.    In  this  Guidance  note  we  will  describe  what  kind  of  a  donor  and  partner  organization  we  will  be  as  a  result  of  our  choice  to  work  with  and  from  a  programmatic  approach,  and  which  consequences  this  choice  has  for  our  activities.  Our  readers  will  predominantly  come  from  within  the  ICCO  Alliance’s  circle  of  influence,  either  from  organizations  within  the  ICCO  Alliance  or  from  organizations  with  whom  we  directly  or  indirectly  forge  relations.  However,  we  also  expect  readers  to  be  interested  that  belong  to  other  development  organizations  that  are  reflecting  on  their  own  strategies  and  would  like  to  understand  the  ICCO  Alliances  approach.    This  paper  is  the  result  of  several  years  of  learning-­‐by-­‐doing  and  is  certainly  not  the  end  station  in  our  learning  process.  That  is  why  we  called  this  paper  a  Guidance  note  -­‐  calling  it  a  manual  would  imply  that  we  have  a  definite  model  or  that  we  expect  that  a  single  approach  can  be  “rolled  out”  in  different  contexts.  Instead  we  wanted  to  stress  the  ongoing  character  of  the  development  of  the  Programmatic  Approach.    We  will  start  this  guidance  note  with  the  vision  of  the  ICCO  Alliance.  This  will  be  followed  by  a  description  of  what  the  Programmatic  Approach  means  for  the  ICCO  Alliance,  why  we  use  this  way  of  working  and  with  whom  we  work  together  doing  so.      In  Chapter  2  we  will  then  explain  the  conceptual  framework  underpinning  the  Programmatic  Approach.      In  chapter  3  we  will  introduce  several  methods  that  can  be  used  in  the  Programmatic  Approach.  These  methods  help  us  to  understand  the  complexity  in  which  we  work,  to  analyze  the  stakeholder  diversity,  to  assess  where  we  are  in  a  change  process  and  to  which  changes  we  are  contributing,  and  also  to  clarify  how  we  can  help  networks  and  coalitions  to  develop.    In  chapter  4  we  will  discuss  some  of  the  practical  examples  that  we  now  have  of  governance  and  funding  models  for  the  Programmatic  Approach.  The  annexes  contain  two  specific  tools  that  have  been  developed:  The  guidelines  for  developing  programmatic  cooperation  and  the  Programmatic  Cooperation  scan  (P-­‐scan)    We  hope  that  this  guidance  note  will  inspire  you,  that  it  will  support  you  in  your  reflection  process  and  that  it  offers  some  practical  guidance,  helping  you  to  make  choices,  to  direct  processes  and  to  support  others  in  the  development  of  cooperation  for  fundamental  social  change.         5  
  • 8. 1Why we do what we do1.1 Objective and vision  The  ICCO  Alliance’s  objective  is  to  end  poverty,  assure  just  societies  and  enable  men  and  women  to  live  dignified  lives.  In  large  parts  of  the  world  and  for  many  people  these  aims  are  still  far  from  the  reality  of  their  lives.  Many  countries  still  have  development  levels  in  which  health  and  education  for  all,  sufficient  food  of  good  nutritional  value,  and  income  that  enables  people  to  obtain  services  and  resources  are  lacking.  These  problems  are  often  related  to  underlying  issues,  such  as  absence  of  respect  for  Human  Rights.  This  leads  to  inequality  in  society  because  of  the  marginalization  of  groups  based  on  gender,  ethnicity,  religion,  and  sexual  orientation  or  because  of  their  geographic  location  in  a  country.  Lack  of  control  over  productive  resources  and  markets  by  particular  groups  in  society  (such  as  for  example  women  farmers)  leads  to  injustice  and  poverty.  Many  conflicts  are  grounded  in  inequalities,  and  the  result  of  the  situation  in  fragile  states  where  good  governance  is  lacking,  and  in  which  opposed  interests  of  factions  and  individuals  are  numerous.    The  ICCO  Alliance’s  overall  vision  is  based  on  the  three  basic  dimensions  of  poverty  and  injustice:  social,  political  and  economic.  Poverty  and  injustice  cannot  be  explained  from  one  dimension  only;  solutions  therefore  have  to  take  into  account  all  three  of  them.      Our  choice  for  thematic  areas  is  based  on  these  three  dimensions:    Social:      • Basic  health,  Basic  education  • HIV/Aids  • Food  and  Nutrition  Security    Political:  • Conflict  transformation  and  Democratization    Economic:  • Fair  Economic  Development  • Fair  Climate      Dimensions  and  themes  are  overlapping;  programs  as  defined  in  the  business  plan  can  therefore  have  relations  to  one  or  more  dimensions.  Human  Rights,  gender,  capacity  development,  and  religion  and  culture  are  underlying  and  crosscutting  principles  and  issues  that  connect  the  thematic  areas  and  are  meant  to  reinforce  or  complement  the  actions  on  a  particular  theme.  Staff  from  Regional  Councils  and  Regional  Offices  have  further  defined  the  overall  vision  and  mission  to  fit  the  context  of  their  regions  (e.g.  Central  America,  South  America  and  Central  and  Eastern  Africa).       6  
  • 9. 1.2 What is the Programmatic Approach?  The  Programmatic  Approach  is  essentially  about  the  way  in  which  the  ICCO  Alliance1  promotes  cooperation  between  organizations  in  developing  countries  in  order  to  reach  development  results.    Poverty  and  injustice  are  invariably  related  to  complex  problems  in  which  many  people  have  a  stake  and  where  organizations  represent  specific  interests.  All  are  embedded  in  larger  systems  that  often  maintain  existing  inequalities.  Several  systems  combined  make  up  societies.  The  ICCO  Alliance  aims  at  changing  the  systems  that  maintain  inequalities  in  such  a  manner  that  poverty  is  ended,  justice  is  guaranteed  and  rights  of  all  individuals  and  communities  are  respected.  To  be  able  to  do  so  we  propose  to  work  in  an  approach  that  will  support  actors  with  different  stakes  in  systems  to  come  together  and  develop  a  shared  agenda  for  change.  The  Programmatic  Approach  thus  can  be  defined  as  follows:     A  multi  stakeholder  process  that  leads  to  organizations  working  together,  based  on   a  joint  analysis,  shared  vision  and  objectives  and  clear  perspective  on  the  results  of   the  cooperation.  In  such  a  process  all  actors  can  do  different  things,  work  at   various  levels  and  use  their  specific  strengths  for  the  common  purpose  and   objectives,  as  well  as  share  activities,  and  in  particular  participate  in  the  mutual   linking  and  learning  processes.  The  programmatic  approach  aims  at  change  in   systems  rather  than  addressing  single  problems2    The  ICCO  Alliance  Programmatic  Approach  differs  from  a  sectoral  approach.  In  the  latter,  projects  and  programs  generally  are  brought  together  in  one  general  planning,  whereas  the  core  of  the  Programmatic  Approach  is  that  we  support  cooperative  processes  of  multiple  stakeholders  aiming  at  creating  systemic  change.  It  is  therefore  not  only  a  planning  approach  but  a  strategy  for  realizing  fundamental  change  with  our  partner  organizations  and  other  stakeholders  in  the  areas  in  which  we  work.  1.3 The theory of change of the programmatic approach  Kurt  Lewin  once  remarked:  “There  is  nothing  as  practical  as  a  good  theory”.  Any  development  intervention  is  based  on  a  ‘theory’  of  how  the  desired  changes  can  be  achieved.  Sometimes  this  theory  of  change  is  implicit,  a  vague  idea  based  on  perceptions  of  poverty  and  assumptions  about  the  factors  related  to  change.  Although  in  many  cases  such  initiatives  yield  good  results,  this  approach  also  has  its  limitations.  Many  of  the  initiatives  focus  only  on  one  particular  aspect  of  the  problem,  leaving  untouched  the  numerous  other  factors  related  to  the  state  of  poverty  and  injustice.  In  addition,  development  efforts  are  often  small-­‐scale,  not  well  coordinated,  and  limited  in  time.  Many  of  the  present  theories  of  change  used  by  (international)  development  organizations  are  based  on  the  assumption  that  development  that  can  be  constructed                                                                                                                            1   The  ICCO  Alliance  is  formed  by:  ICCO,  Edukans,  Prisma,  Kerk  in  Actie,  SharePeople,   ZeisterZendingsgenootschap,  Yente.  2   A  system  is  a  set  of  interacting  or  interdependent  entities  forming  a  larger  whole.  These  systems  may   include  organisational  systems,  may  have  geographical  boundary,  and  often  have  multiple  levels  and   actors.  Systems  have  the  capacity  to  change,  to  adapt  when  it  is  necessary  in  response  to  internal  or   external  stimulus.  Complex  Adaptive  Systems,  Heather  Baser  and  Peter  Morgan,  Complex  Adaptive   Systems  Theory,  ECDPM  2004     7  
  • 10. from  outside,  and  can  be  managed  and  planned  from  top  to  bottom  if  the  right  means  are  provided.  Development  is  thus  seen  as  a  linear  process  that  can  be  captured  and  followed  in  a  logical  framework.  One  particular  problem  is  that  such  a  logical  framework  does  not  offer  space  for  changes  that  were  not  foreseen  or  expected  but  nevertheless  did  take  place  as  a  result  of  the  intervention  and  therefore  had  an  impact.  As  people  who  form  the  target  of  such  top-­‐down  interventions  are  often  regarded  as  ‘beneficiaries’  instead  as  primary  actors,  the  eventual  impact  on  their  life  is  often  superficial.    A  very  different  angle  of  view  is  offered  by  the  Systems  Thinking.  Systems  are  defined  as  interactions  among  diverse  agents  that  persist  and  evolve  as  a  coherent  whole.  Systems  Thinking  looks  at  the  ‘whole’  first  and  examines  how  parts  of  the  wider  whole  influence  each  other,  or  change  as  result  of  their  relationship  to  their  environment.  Attention  to  the  various  elements  of  the  system  is  secondary  to  attention  to  the  whole  3  4.  Systems  thinking  states  that  changes  in  parts  of  a  system  will  always  cause  the  whole  system  to  change.  This  change  will  however  not  have  a  predictable  result  nor  can  it  be  planned  in  a  linear  fashion.  The  ICCO  Alliance  takes  these  systems  behavior  into  account  in  its  Programmatic  Approach.  The  insecurity  that  is  implied  by  the  unpredictability  of  changes  needs  to  be  reflected  in  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  systems  that  we  use.  In  addition  to  measuring  expected  changes,  they  need  to  be  able  to  capture  the  unexpected  and  ‘notice’  emergent  change  as  well.    This  line  of  thinking  has  resulted  in  the  following  theory  of  change  underpinning  our  Programmatic  Approach:    • Development  problems  are  the  result  of  complex  systems  of  interlinked  actors,   structures,  institutions  and  processes  • Complex  problematics  demand  an  approach  that  can  deal  with  and  work  in  the   complexity.  Therefore  a  Multi  Stakeholder  Process  (MSP)  is  needed  • MSPs  lead  to  joint  learning  and  cooperation  between  the  actors  involved  • The  MSP  represents  the  system  involved  in  the  problematic.  Cooperation  between   actors  and  organizations  leads  to  added  value:  greater  effectiveness  in  change  at  the   institutional  level  and  whole  system  change.  • The  ICCO  Alliance  will  support  existing  cooperative  processes  and  initiate  the   cooperative  process  if  none  exists  yet.    • Coalitions  of  cooperating  actors  have  (and  adhere  to)  ownership  in  the   programmatic  cooperation  (the  program).    • This  also  implies  that  a  coalition  can  identify  possibilities  for  diversification  of   funding  sources  to  assure  sustainability  of  the  cooperation  and  independence  from   the  ICCO  Alliance.  It  is  preferable  that  the  cooperative  process  is  not  solely   dependent  on  ICCO  Alliance  funding.    1.4 Why do we promote this way of working?  Problems  and  issues  of  poverty  and  injustice  in  developing  countries  are  related  in  a  systemic  way  in  what  we  call  problematics5.  For  example  promoting  respect  for  human  rights  is  related  to  the  following  aspects:  the  absence  or  the  lack  of  implementation  of  a                                                                                                                            3   Definition  by  Peggy  Holman  in  Engaging  with  Emergence,  page  220,  Berrett  Koehler  2010  4   ‘The  idea  and  practice  of  systems  thinking  and  their  relevance  for  capacity  development’,  Peter   Morgan,  ECPDM  march  2005  5   Problematics  are  sets  of  single  problems  and  issues  that  together  express  aspects  of  a  system  that  has   negative  effects  for  groups  of  people.     8  
  • 11. legal  framework,  traditional  and  cultural  norms  and  values  about  rights  of  individuals  and  groups  in  societies,  the  level  of  knowledge  about  rights  of  individuals  and  communities,  claim-­‐making  capacities  in  societies  and  the  capacities  and  intentions  of  duty  bearers  in  assuring  the  human  rights.  This  implies  that,  when  we  acknowledge  that  human  rights  are  not  sufficiently  respected  and  we  want  to  contribute  to  change,  we  need  to  work  on  the  systems  underlying  and  connecting  problems  and  issues  rather  than  on  single  issues  and  problems.  Working  towards  change  of  systems  requires  the  cooperative  effort  of  many  of  the  players  involved  at  different  levels  and  from  different  angles  in  addressing.    This  approach  is  key  to  achieving  coherence,  connection  and  complementarity  in  the  work  of  the  ICCO  Alliance  and  in  the  work  of  civil  society  organizations  whose  partners  we  are  in  development.    Organizations,  when  working  together,  can  take  on  more  responsibilities  for  analyzing  their  society,  developing  a  joint  vision,  developing  strategies,  setting  priorities,  embarking  on  joint  lobby  campaigns,  raising  funding  from  their  own  society  and  engaging  in  a  joint  learning  and  capacity  development  process.  In  this  way  added  value  is  created  by  addressing  the  complexity  at  various  levels  leading  to  greater  effectiveness  in  results.  We  expect  more  fundamental  changes  to  occur  due  to  the  cooperative  work.  In  the  end  the  sustainability  of  the  change  realized  will  increase  as  well  as  the  sustainability  of  cooperative  efforts  and  co-­‐operative  arrangements.  Some  cooperation  will  also  come  to  a  natural  end  while  new  ones  can  also  develop.      1.5 With whom do we co-operate in the programmatic approach?  The  ICCO  Alliance  aims  to  cooperate  with  and  develop  the  capacities  of  civil  society  organizations  in  developing  countries,  sharing  with  them  the  values,  aims  and  strategies  of  working  towards  the  realization  of  just  societies  in  which  men,  women  and  children  are  able  to  live  in  dignity  and  well-­‐being,  where  poverty,  injustice  and  inequality  are  eradicated.    Civil  society  organizations6  play  a  crucial  role  in  changing  systems  of  oppression,  marginalization  and  discrimination  which  exclude  large  groups  of  people  from  wellbeing  and  the  possibility  of  leading  dignified  lives.  The  systems  of  injustice  are  often  the  result  of  societal  political  institutions;  government  and  state  dysfunction  in  combination  with  a  market  economy  that  maximizes  profits  for  a  few,  and  impoverishes  many  others.  The  ICCO  Alliance  is  itself  an  alliance  of  civil  society  organizations;  we  believe  in  the  strength  of  civil  society  and  the  unique  role  we  have  to  play.        Looking  at  the  complexity  of  problematics  we  recognize  that  for  solutions  and  systems  change  to  occur  we  need  to  involve  in  the  co-­‐operation  other  actors  such  as  private  sector  companies,  government  organizations  and  knowledge  institutions.  The  specific  mix  of  actors  required  depends  on  the  problematic  and  the  system  that  is  involved  in  the  change.  In  particular  the  cooperation  with  the  private  sector  has  shown  to  be  valuable  in                                                                                                                            6   Civil  society  organizations:  As  ICCO  Alliance  we  work  with  the  formal  spectrum  of  civil  society.  These   are  organizations  that  are  registered,  have  a  formal  status,  and  have  developed  a  mission,  vision  and   strategies  and  implementation  capacity.  These  organizations  can  be  CBO’s  movements,  NGO’s.   Organizations  can  be  faith-­‐based  but  we  don’t  restrict  our  co-­‐operation  to  faith-­‐based  organizations.     9  
  • 12. addressing  poverty  in  the  economic  sector  as  well  as  in  the  social  sectors.  Local  and  national  government  need  to  be  involved  because  system  change  often  requires  adjustment  of  the  regulatory  frameworks  and  the  enabling  environment  in  which  government  agencies  are  very  important.  They  are  also  important  because  for  some  social  sectors  they  perform  the  role  of  duty  bearing  organization.  Knowledge  institutions  play  an  important  part  due  to  their  responsibility  for  innovation  and  deepening  of  certain  issues  and  patterns  in  change  processes,  whether  these  are  technological  or  socio-­‐political.    In  the  programmatic  approach  it  is  important  to  identify  in  developing  countries  existing  networks  and  alliances  of  different  kind  that  could  benefit  from  support  by  and  cooperation  with  the  ICCO  Alliance,  enabling  them  to  strengthen  their  cooperative  processes  and  their  capacity  to  realize  change.  Alliances  in  the  South,  when  facing  global  challenges  or  issues  at  supra-­‐national  level,  can  also  become  linked  to  or  supported  by  strategic  alliances  from  the  Netherlands  or  elsewhere.      As  ICCO  Alliance  we  strive  towards  cooperative  arrangements  that  are  not  exclusively  built  on  the  ICCO  Alliances  partner  network.  The  Programmatic  Approach  is  not  a  replacement  of  the  ICCO  Alliance’s  or  ICCO’s  partners’  policies  although  they  have  much  ground  in  common.  These  will  be  discussed  in  a  separate  paragraph  on  the  programmatic  approach  and  the  partner  policy  (Ch.  4.1.1).       10  
  • 13. 2Theories of the programmatic approach    The  theories  that  underpin  the  Programmatic  Approach  are:    1   Systems  theory  2   Complexity  theory  3   Multi-­‐Stakeholder  Process  theory  4   Coalition  building  and  Network  Development    It  is  important  to  understand  that  in  the  Programmatic  Approach  we  do  not  make  a  choice  for  any  of  these  theories  and  their  related  methods.  Rather,  the  Approach  is  located  in  the  grounds  the  overlapping  theories  have  in  common.  We  combine  insights  and  methods  linked  to  all  four  theoretical  domains.    These  theories  are  all  expressions  of  the  so-­‐called  constructivist  paradigm.  This  paradigm  basically  states  that  the  world  as  we  know  it  is  the  result  of  the  experiences  that  each  of  us  has  gained  in  our  lives.  We  all  see  our  surroundings  through  the  lens  of  these  experiences:  we  construct  our  own  world.  Analysis  of  what  is  going  on  around  us  and  the  search  for  solutions  for  problems  is  not  an  exact  science  in  which  there  is  only  one  truth  or  one  reality  that  is  experienced  in  the  same  way  by  all  concerned.  Therefore  what  we  need  are  methods  that  enable  us  to  connect  to  the  multiple  realities  and  the  complexity  that  is  the  result  of  many  different  stakeholders.  All  four  mentioned  theories  shed  light  on  the  various  aspects  of  this  complexity.  Each  theory  will  be  introduced  in  the  following  paragraphs.  2.1 Systems theory and complexity thinking  Although  systems  theory  and  complexity  are  two  separate  theoretical  fields,  they  are  also  to  such  an  extent  interconnected  that  we  present  them  here  in  one  paragraph.    The  systems  theory  emphasizes  the  connections  between  different  parts  of  the  system  and  the  notion  of  a  system  as  a  holistic  whole.  A  system  is  defined  as:  “a  set  of  interacting  or  interdependent  entities  forming  a  larger  whole.  These  systems  may  include  organizational  systems,  may  have  geographical  boundaries,  and  often  have  multiple  levels  and  actors.  Systems  have  the  capacity  to  change,  to  adapt  when  it  is  necessary  in  response  to  internal  or  external  stimulus.  Change  in  one  part  of  the  system  therefore  always  causes  the  whole  system  to  change.  How  a  system  reacts  to  changes  in  one  part  is  not  predictable  but  often  shows  itself  in  rather  unexpected  ways.  It  cannot  be  understood  nor  planned  in  a  linear  manner”7.  Morgan8  describes  different  systems:  natural  systems  (e.g.  rain  forests,  climate,  biodiversity);  technical  systems  (e.g.  communication  networks,  tsunami  warning  arrangements  and  human  systems  such  as  families),  groups,  organizations,  networks,  partnerships,  consortia.  These  human                                                                                                                            7   Complex  Adaptive  Systems,  Heather  Baser  and  Peter  Morgan,  Complex  Adaptive  Systems  Theory,   ECDPM  2004      8   Peter  Morgan  Ibid.       11  
  • 14. systems  are  non-­‐linear,  entangled,  wandering  messes  that  do  not  lend  themselves  easily  to  traditional  analysis  and  action.  In  complexity  theory,  a  change  of  the  system  occurs  through  ‘emergence’.      Emergence  The  short  definition  for  ‘emergence’  is:  order  arising  out  of  chaos.  A  more  nuanced  definition  is:  higher  order  complexity  arising  out  of  chaos  in  which  novel,  coherent  structures  coalesce  through  interactions  among  diverse  entities  of  a  system.  Emergence  occurs  when  these  interactions  disrupt,  causing  the  system  to  differentiate  and  ultimately  coalesce  into  something  novel.9  Change  in  a  system  starts  with  disruption,  with  unbalancing  the  systems  current  state.  It  is  a  challenge  and  maybe  even  a  paradox  to  guide  this  process  in  such  a  manner  that  the  outcome  is  a  new  coalescence  of  relations  (in  the  human  system)  that  lead  to  the  system  being  more  effective,  just,  inclusive  or  equal.  There  are  however  ideas  about  how  we  can  engage  with  emergence  in  such  a  manner  that  all  relations  in  the  system  can  participate  in  the  change  process.    The  practices  involved  in  engaging  with  emergence  are  broadly  related  to  three  iterative  phases  in  emergence:  a)  preparing  for  a  system  change,  b)  hosting  the  system  in  its  change  process  and  c)  engaging  with  the  system  in  its  change  process.  We  use  many  of  the  practices  involved  already  more  or  less  consciously  in  our  work  with  regard  to  promoting  programmatic  cooperation.  In  the  methods  description  in  Chapter  3  we  will  treat  in  more  detail  how  we  can  engage  with  emergence  in  the  context  of  the  Programmatic  Approach.    Complexity  thinking  In  the  last  decade  we  have  seen  an  increasing  influence  of  Complexity  Thinking  on  development  theory  and  strategies.  These  came  up  as  a  result  of  the  growing  notion  that  the  linear  positivist  approaches  in  the  planning  of  development  interventions  do  not  represent  well  the  complex  systems  of  change.  Heather  Baser  and  Peter  Morgan,  Ben  Ramalingam  and  colleagues  at  IDS  and  articles  in  the  Broker10  have  all  pointed  to  the  possibility  of  using  insights  from  Complexity  Thinking  on  development  processes  in  highly  complex  contexts  and  systems.  They  all  adhere  to  the  notion  that:  “we  live  in  a  qualitatively  different  world  to  previous  eras,  one  marked  by  increasing  interconnectedness  and  interdependence  –  economically,  socially,  politically,  environmentally  and  technologically.  In  such  an  interdependent  world,  the  argument  goes,  there  is  greater  unpredictability  and  uncertainty.  In  the  extreme,  standard  operating  procedures,  best  practices  and  grand  designs  can  be  irrelevant,  counterproductive  or  downright  damaging.  Instead,  complexity  theory:   • provides  a  set  of  lenses  with  which  to  look  at  the  world,   • helps  pose  questions  which  can  help  better  understand  the  dynamics  of  real   world  systems,  and   • helps  generate  insights  as  to  how  these  dynamics  can  be  ‘sensed’  and  ‘navigated’  What  does  complexity  theory  offer?  The  Complexity  Theory  can  be  considered  a  more  specific  form  of  Systems  Thinking.  Systems  are  characterized  by  interconnectedness  and  interdependent  elements  and  dimensions  that  are  a  key  starting  point  for  understanding  complexity.  Feedback                                                                                                                            9   Peggy  Holman  Engaging  Emergence:  Turning  Upheaval  into  Opportunity  Berrett  Koehler    Publishers   San  Francisco  2010  pg  18  10   www.thebrokeronline.eu     12  
  • 15. processes  shape  how  change  can  happen  in  a  system  and  change  usually  occurs  as  a  non-­‐plannable  emergent  process  between  parts  of  systems.  When  acknowledging  the  complexity  in  a  system  it  also  means  recognizing  that  change  happens  in  a  non-­‐linear  way.    Sensing  the  initial  state  of  a  system  also  makes  one  understand  the  importance  of  initial  small  changes  to  have  great  effects  (the  butterfly  who  laps  its  wings  leading  to  a  Tsunami  is  an  example  for  this).  A  systems  changes  because  part  of  it  changes,  causing  a  reaction  by  the  entire  system.  This  can  be  based  on  actions  of  so-­‐called  adaptive  agents  that  react  to  the  system  and  to  each  other.  This  might  lead  to  a  disruption  and  creation  of  diversity  in  the  system.  Through  self-­‐organization  (another  characteristic  of  a  complex  system)  a  new  state  of  equilibrium  may  develop.  In  this  process  co-­‐evolution  between  adaptive  agents  and  the  overall  system  may  occur.      In  a  Programmatic  co-­‐operation  process  that  is  tackling  change  in  complex  developmental  problematics  it  is  important  to  understand  how  change  in  these  complex  systems  emerges,  of  how  the  feedback  loops  within  the  system  operate,  and  to  understand  how  we  can  promote  emergence  in  certain  direction.  In  Chapter  3  more  will  be  said  about  how  to  work  with  emergence  and  about  which  methods  can  be  used  to  promote/host  emergence.  Some  methods  like  scenario  planning  and  system  loops  diagrams11  can  help  to  develop  images  of  the  feedback  loops.      An  important  example  of  these  theories  are  the  ideas  developed  by  David  Snowden  presented  in  the  Cynefin  Frame  work  and  by  Ken  Wilbur  in  the  Four  Quadrant  model.  Both  are  presented  in  Chapter  3  in  more  detail  and  can  help  in  working  with  complexity  in  systems  in  a  more  explicit  manner.  Related  are  theories  about  understanding  institutions  and  institutional  change,  as  institutions  are  mechanisms  maintaining  systems.  2.2 Multi-stakeholder Process theory  The  basic  principle  of  the  Multi-­‐stakeholder  theory  is  that  in  every  social  process  in  which  people  are  involved  these  people  will  have  a  different  understanding  of  the  situation  they  are  in.  They  will  not  only  have  a  different  understanding  but  also  a  different  appreciation  of  their  lives,  the  societies  in  which  they  live  and  of  the  problematics  involved12.  Solving  problematics  therefore  requires  that  all  people  having  a  stake  and  an  appreciation  of  the  situation/problematic  be  brought  together  to  jointly  analyse  the  situation  from  their  various  perspectives.  This  process  of  jointly  analysing  and  validating  different  perspectives  is  of  course  not  an  easy  process.  MSPs  are  fraught  with  power  differences  that  reflect  the  power  differences  of  the  very  systems  they  belong  to.  Bringing  multiple  stakeholders  together  (such  as  multinational  companies,  international  traders,  processing  businesses  and  producers  organizations)13,  implies  bringing  power  relations  into  the  process.  This  will  require  dialogue  skills,  keeping  an  open  mind  and  sometimes  the  suspension  of  judgment.  Many  of  the  methods  that  are                                                                                                                            11   Peter  Senge  The  Fifth  Discipline,  Random  House,  1990,    Peter  Senge,  Art  Kleiner,  Charlotte  Roberts,   Richard  Ross,  Bryan  Smith,  Het    Vijfde  Discipline  Praktijkboek,  Academic  Services,  1998,  praktijkboek  12   The  multi-­‐stakeholder  theory  is  based  in  the  constructivist  paradigm.  13   Being  aware  of  the  gender  aspects(  as  a  specific  type  of  power  relation  and  institution)    of  a  MSP  is   important  and  easily  overlooked     13  
  • 16. mentioned  in  Chapter  3  on  methods  for  working  with  Emergence,  apply  to  working  in  multi-­‐stakeholder  settings.  The  main  assumption  of  the  multi-­‐stakeholder  theory  is  that  when  people  are  able  to  come  together  they  will  enter  into  a  social  learning  process  which  will  enable  them  to  find  solutions  that  respond  to  the  needs  of  multiple  actors  in  a  system14.  The  system  then  enters  into  a  process  of  change.  It  is  obvious  that  this  process  is  not  easy  and  will  often  require  facilitation.  In  the  Programmatic  Approach  the  roles  of  brokering,  learning  and  facilitating  capacity  development  are  very  often  required.  In  Chapter  4  we  will  discuss  how  we  have  organized  these  processes  so  far.  It  is  our  responsibility  as  ICCO  Alliance  to  assure  that  we  play  our  roles  well  and  only  when  they  are  required;  we  need  to  be  aware  of  our  place  in  the  system.  Being  a  part  of  the  system,  we  inevitably  bring  our  own  interests  and  stakes,  our  own  power  position  into  the  process.  We  are  never  a  neutral.  This  is  also  why  it  is  important  that  we  reflect  on  the  consequences  of  who  we  are  and  what  we  want  to  be  if  we  promote  systems  change  and  change  our  position  if  this  is  required.  2.3 Coalition building and network development  The  ICCO  Alliance’s  Programmatic  Approach  is  an  approach  that  is  about  emerging  forms  of  organizations:  organizations  of  organizations,  or  a  group  of  groups  that  come  together  to  collaborate.  These  organizational  forms  are  known  by  different  names  such  as  coalitions,  alliances,  networks,  partnerships,  joint  ventures  or  federations.  The  name  used  is  often  related  to  the  context  and  what  is  within  that  context  considered  a  current  label  for  associative  forms  of  organizing.  In  the  ICCO  Alliance  we  have  initially  called  them  Program  coalitions  or  even  shorter:  programs.  This  last  term  is  however  confusing  because  it  is  also  used  for  the  ICCO  Alliance  policy  level,  for  a  set  of  objectives,  results  and  activities  (projects)  related  to  a  thematic  domain  and  for  the  cooperation  between  stakeholders  on  a  problematic.  In  this  paper  we  will  use  the  term  coalition  for  the  associative  form  of  organizations  working  together  for  the  realization  of  a  joint  purpose.    Following  the  definition  of  Thomas  Cummings15  we  are  discussing  an  inter-­‐  organizational  system  that  has  become  semi-­‐autonomous  but  maintains  accountability  and  feedback  loops  to  its  organizations  of  origin  (the  constituent  organizations).  He  called  this  system  a  Trans  Organizational  System.  We  will  call  it  a  coalition.  In  a  coalition  the  constituent  organizations  will  maintain  their  separate  identities  and  goals.  In  its  development  a  coalition  can  be  ambiguous  for  a  long  time.  The  group  and  the  structure  are  co-­‐created  through  process  and  dialogue.  This  form  of  organizing  is  a  response  to  turbulent  and  complex  environments.  In  these  environments  non-­‐linear  and  expansive  approaches  are  required  because  these  contexts  are  often  messy  and  complex.  In  such  contexts  (individual)  organizations  face  meta  level  problems  (problematics).  This  organizational  ecology  perspective  aims  to  draw  together  a  wide  range  of  social  organizations  in  order  to  develop  a  meta  organizational  response  to  meta  problems,  that  individual  organizations  do  not  have  the  capacity  to  solve.  Turbulence  caused  by  complex  problems  in  the  environment  can  be  addressed  by  consulting  the  consolidated  resources  and  knowledge  base  of  coalitions.                                                                                                                              14   Woodhill,  J&  van  Vugt,S,  The  Power  of  MSP,  Capacity.org,  edition  December  2010  15   In  Joan  M.  Roberts,  Alliances,  Coalitions  and  PartnershipsBuilding  collaborative  organizations.  New   Society  Publishers  ,  2004  p  5     14  
  • 17. There  are  different  levels  of  intensity  possible  in  the  cooperation16  (see  Chapter  3  for  an  overview)  ranging  from  networking  to  collaboration.  In  the  Programmatic  Approach  we  also  see  the  different  levels  in  intensity  and  integration  of  activities  occurring  in  the  coalitions.  This  is  often  a  response  the  meta  problem  that  needs  addressing,  and  the  ongoing  trust-­‐building  and  power  dynamics  developing  in  the  coalition.  Coalitions  often  start  as  linking-­‐and-­‐learning  networks,  develop  slowly  towards  coordinating  their  efforts  and  further  into  cooperating  and  sometimes  collaborating  with  full  sharing  of  resources,  risks,  responsibilities  and  rewards.  But  this  takes  time  and  not  all  coalitions  (need  to)  develop  into  the  (full)  collaboration  type  (see  also  the  table  in  paragraph  3.3.2).                                                                                                                              16   Ibid  pg.  28     15  
  • 18. 3The methods we can use in the ProgrammaticApproach    In  this  Chapter  we  will  present  methods  that  can  be  helpful  in  shaping  the  programmatic  cooperation  processes.  They  are  organized  as  follows:    1   Methods  for  working  with  Complexity  and  Systemic  change  2   Methods  for  Multi-­‐Stakeholder  Processes  3   Methods  for  Coalition  and  Network  development  3.1 Methods for working with systemic change and complexity  Introduction  methods  for  working  with  emergence  Emergence  is  the  process  by  which  novel  structures  emerge  out  of  interaction  between  elements  of  the  system17.  Programmatic  cooperation  aims  to  promote  change  in  complex  systems  through  coherent  actions  of  agents  within  the  system.  In  complexity  theory  the  result  of  such  a  process  is  called  emerge.    Emergence  starts  with  the  disruption  of  a  static  situation  in  a  system.  At  the  moment  that  I  am  writing  this  paper  we  are  in  the  midst  of  major  systemic  change  that  starts  with  upheaval  and  disruption  in  the  countries  in  Northern  Africa  and  the  Arab  World.  Seemingly  unmovable  and  unchangeable  political  systems  are  in  a  change  process  that  is  forced  by  agents  from  within  the  system,  who  are  not  the  established  power.  So  as  a  consequence  the  diversity  in  the  system  is  also  increasing.  In  such  complex  systems  there  are  mechanisms  of  self-­‐organizing  which  in  the  end  will  cause  the  system  to  find  a  new  equilibrium.  This  new  balance  is  the  result  of  emergence.  In  the  Programmatic  Approach  we  would  like  to  promote  emergence  through  the  creation  of  conditions  that  favor  this  process.    In  preparing  for  emergence  there  are  three  rather  vague  ‘processes”  that  we  need  attention.  These  processes  are:  a)  accepting  that  we  don’t  know  and  understand  everything,  but  that  we  should  be  very  curious  to  understand  as  much  as  possible,  b)  choosing  possibility:  being  open  to  and  sense  the  (new)  opportunities  for  changes,  c)  following  where  the  (life)  energy  of  the  system  is  going,  recognize  it  and  trying  to  give  it  space.  Where  are  the  hopes,  aspirations,  and  visions  pointing?  What  drives  or  motivates  the  people,  what  change  is  needed?    By  promoting  emergence  we  create  the  conditions  for  change  to  happen.  By  hosting  this  process  we  create  a  welcoming  environment  in  which  people  really  feel  that  their  contributions  matter,  we  create  focus  in  the  intentions  of  all  involved;  what  is  it  that  really  matters  to  us,  what  would  we  like  to  maintain  and  what  would  we  like  to  change?  Also  we  create  the  space  to  be  open  to  diversity;  diversity  of  people,  of  opinions,  of                                                                                                                            17   Peggy  Holman  pg.  18     16  
  • 19. experiences.  For  this  process  to  be  as  inclusive  as  possible  we  make  sure  that  all  those  who  ARE  IN18,  those  with  Authority,  Resources,  Expertise,  Information  and  Need  are  present  and  are  welcomed  to  participate  actively.    In  the  engaging  process  we  use  several  steps:  we  inquire  appreciatively,  we  reflect,  we  connect,  we  listen,  we  are  open  to  what  emerges  and  we  will  act  /react  accordingly.    In  many  of  the  meetings  of  organizations  and  stakeholders  in  the  context  of  the  Programmatic  Approach  this  is  the  process  that  we  strive  to  follow.  Al  three  phases  are  followed  in  an  iterative  process  and  happen  either  at  the  same  time,  in  sequence  or  without  sequence  at  all.  Some  concrete  methods  that  we  can  use  in  this  process  are:  Appreciative  Inquiry,  Open  Space  Technology,  Future  Search,  and  Scenario  Planning.  Story  telling  and  active  listening  plays  an  important  role  in  all  of  these  methods,  as  are  dialogue  techniques  and  conflict  handling.  3.1.1 Appreciative Inquiry  ‘Those  who  do  not  have  power  over  the  stories  that  dominate  their  lives,  power  to  retell  them,  rethink  them,  deconstruct  them,  joke  about  them,  and  change  them  as  times  change,  truly  are  powerless  because  they  cannot  think  new  thoughts."   (Salman  Rushdie:  One  Thousand  Days  in  a  Balloon)    What  is  Appreciative  Inquiry?  Of  all  new  tools,  schools  and  methods  for  change  in  organizations  and  communities  that  have  dominated  the  discussions  of  the  last  years,  Appreciative  Inquiry  (AI)  sticks  out.  It  is  not  a  new  tool.  It  is  not  a  new  school.  And  it  is  not  a  method.      AI  can  be  best  described  as  a  new  paradigm  in  how  we  approach  change  in  organizations  and  communities.  It  invites  people  to  tell  the  stories  they  wish  to  tell,  and  to  jointly  search  for  what  gives  life  to  organizations  and  communities.  It  is  increasingly  applied  in  both  small  and  large  change  processes,  ranging  from  small  personal  change  to  mega-­‐cities  or  entire  regions  and  multi-­‐national  companies  such  as  McDonalds  or  British  Airways.    It  builds  on  the  power  and  the  experience  of  the  stakeholders,  it  values  what  people  are  ready  to  contribute  and  it  changes  human  mindsets  by  switching  the  focus  of  their  attention.      AI  relates  to  what  OD  practitioners  call  the  ‘power  of  mental  models’.  The  concept  of  mental  models19  (or  mental  maps)  has  been  described  by  most  authors  on  personal  and  organizational  change.  Peter  Senge  has  also  devoted  one  of  his  famous  five  disciplines  on  the  issue  of  mental  models.    What  is  radically  new  in  AI  is  the  notion  that  the  adaptation  of  certain,  resourceful  mental  models  can  help  us  overcome.  By  focusing  a  group  of  people  on  questions  such  as  ‘What  has  been  there  already?’,  and  ‘What  could  be?’,  an  implicit  intervention  in  the  group  is  created  that  causes  a  shift.  Referring  to  the  famous  metaphor  of  system  thinkers,  the  introduction  of  AI  into  an  organization  is  not  a  single  butterfly  (that  causes  a  tornado  5000  miles  away  by  a  single  flap  of  its  wings),  it  is  a  large  group  of  butterflies.                                                                                                                            18   Peggy  Holman  pg.76  19   Source:  http://www.change-­‐management-­‐toolbook.com/mod/book/view.php?id=74&chapterid=45     17  
  • 20. Or  an  entire  flock  of  birds  as  was  described  by  Kevin  Kelly  in  ‘Out  of  Control’,  where  he  describes  that  a  group  of  flying  geese  react  as  a  whole  when  they  change  the  direction  of  their  flight.  This  is  what  AI  does,  when  done  with  an  entire  organization  or  community  -­‐  it  changes  the  direction  of  peoples  actions.    The  recent  development  of  AI  is  dominated  by  a  desire  to  put  the  philosophy  into  a  process,  which  can  be  applied  to  many  different  assignments,  e.g.  strategic  planning,  visioning,  or  monitoring  and  evaluation.  Figure  1  -­  The  4D  Model  of  Cooperrider  and  Srivastva  (taken  from  Watkins  and  Mohr,  2001)    The  models  and  how  they  can  be  applied  for  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  AI,  as  it  was  developed  by  Cooperrider  and  Srivastva  is  based  on  the  4-­‐D  Cycle,  which  runs  through  4  stages  (see  Figure  1):    1   Discovery  (appreciating  that  which  gives  life)    2   Dream  (envisioning  impact)    3   Design  (co-­‐constructing  the  future)    4   Delivery  (sustaining  the  change)    In  the  Discovery  phase,  people  start  to  explore  the  resources  of  the  organization  or  the  community  they  relate  to,  by  conducting  interview  across  the  organization,  and  even  including  external  resources  such  as  clients.  Interviews  are  principally  ‘appreciative’,  and  are  developed  together  with  a  steering  group  composed  of  different  stakeholders.  In  the  monitoring  of  a  program,  an  interview  could  look  like  this:     • If  you  revisit  the  history  of  the  conflict  transformation  program  and  your   engagement  in  the  program,  which  was  a  moment  when  you  felt  deeply   connected  to  its  core?  A  moment  in  which  you  were  able  to  contribute  to  the   achievement  of  purpose  and  overall  objective?  Please  describe  this  moment  in   detail.     • What  was  your  particular  contribution?  What  did  you  do  to  help  others  to   contribute?     • What  were  the  nurturing  framework  conditions  that  supported  that   extraordinary  performance  of  yours  and  other  stakeholders?     • What  was  the  particular  outcome  at  that  time?     • If  you  had  three  wishes  for  the  future  of  your  organization  (or  the  program),   which  would  they  be?       18  
  • 21. In  this  phase,  people  share  stories  and  write  down  the  answers  in  interview  protocols,  which  are  the  base  for  the  next  phase.      In  the  Dream  phase,  stakeholders  engage  in  a  conversation  about  the  organization’s  or  community’s  potential,  future  or  vision.  The  future  is   In  the  Conflict  described  in  a  ‘Provocative  Proposition’.  In  an   Transformation   methodology  which  is  evaluation,  this  proposition  could  be  about  what   developed  by  ICCO  use  is  should  be  changed  in  the  set-­‐up  of  the  program  to   made  in  several  phases  of  replicate  the  peak  performances  that  have  been   this  process  of  techniques  experienced  by  the  stakeholders.  But  the  provocative   that  stem  from  Appreciative  proposition  can  go  far  beyond  that  and  describe  a   inquiry.  It  starts  with  a  deep  vision  that  had  so  far  not  been  conceptualized.  In   reflection  by  all  participants  monitoring,  this  is  the  coaching  phase.  The  team  sits   of  the  situation  and  its  together  with  the  stakeholders  to  find  out  what  parts   history,their  role  in  it;  then  of  the  project  are  worth  to  expand.     invites  participants  to  dream     up  a  future,  followed  by  a   translation  into  concrete  In  the  Design  phase,  the  results  are  transferred  into   proposals  which  are  then  architecture.  Structures  that  exist  might  have  to   implemented  in  the  change  (or  to  be  strengthened)  to  facilitate  the   programme  cooperative  replication  of  the  peak  performance  and  the   process.  Monitoring  is  a  implementation  of  the  new  dream.  In  monitoring,   process  of  going  back  to  the  this  is  the  time  for  concrete  recommendations  for   original  analysis,  the  dream,  action  that  concern  all  involved  stakeholders.     its  proposal  and  the  way  the     implementation  process  The  final  Delivery  phase  is  the  phase  of   manages  to  realize  some  of  implementation  and  experimenting.  The  design  is  put   the  dream.  into  practice,  and  a  constant  learning  environment  is  created.  This  forms  the  base  for  a  new  monitoring  cycle,  not  out  of  the  blue  but  grounded  in  constant  research  on  what  gives  life  to  the  organization  or  community.      The  4-­‐D  Model  has  been  altered  by  Bernhard  Mohr  and  MetteJacobsgaard  into  a  Four-­‐I  model,  which  has  the  following  steps  (see  Figure  2):    1. Initiate  (Introduce  AI  to  key  stakeholders  and  create  temporary  structures)  2. Inquire  (Conduct  generic  interviews)  3. Imagine  (Collate  and  share  interview  data;  develop  provocative  propositions)  4. Innovate  (Engage  maximum  number  of  stakeholders  in  conversations;  implement   design  changes)    The  advantage  of  the  4I-­‐Cycle  is  that  institutional  capacity  is  systematically  built  up.       19  
  • 22. Figure  2  -­  The  4I  Model  of  Mohr  and  Jacobsgaard  (taken  from  Watkins  and  Mohr,  2001)  3.1.2 Methods for understanding systemic change:Four quadrant framework  Ken  Wilbur  is  an  author  who  has  published  many  important  insights  into  change  and  transformation  of  systems.  A  key  product  of  this  work  is  what  is  now  referred  to  as  the  ‘four-­‐quadrant’  diagram20  presented  in  the  table  below.    The  table  suggests  that  a  successful  strategy  must  address  four  challenges  for  change.      These  concern  the  relations  that  individuals  or  that  groups  of  people  have  to  systems  and  the  way  they  relate  to  a  systemic  change  process.  In  the  quadrant  the  vertical  axis  shows  two  categories:  the  individual  and  the  collective  (group)  level.  The  horizontal  axis  reflects  the  difference  between  what  people  experience  and  develop  as  their  mindset  (individually  or  collectively)  .  The  external  column  represents  what  people  (individually  or  collectively)  show  in  their  behavior  as  part  of  the  system  towards  the  outside  world.  The  broad  change  theories  that  are  mentioned  for  each  of  the  quadrants  show  the  assumptions  behind  change  that  is  inspired  from  one  of  the  quadrants.  The  idea  behind  the  four  quadrants  is  that  change  in  a  whole  system  involves  change  in  each  of  the                                                                                                                            20   Steve  Waddell  Networking  Action  for  the  21st.  Century  Four  Network  Change  Strategies  for  Complex   Systems     20  
  • 23. quadrants.  Only  if  al  four  quadrants  have  coherent  and  effective  change  the  systemic  change  can  develop  into  a  new  state  of  equilibrium.    The  first  figure  shows  the  four-­‐quadrant  diagram.  The  second  figure  shows  how  we  have  used  the  framework  to  present  the  changes  that  have  happened  in  each  of  the  quadrants  for  the  process  of  introducing  the  ProCoDe  Approach  in  the  ICCO  system21    Quadrant  1  deals  with  intention,  personal  identity  and  ways  of  perceiving,  Quadrant  2  with  behavior  and  how  it  is  developed,  Quadrant  3  with  culture,  beliefs  and  values,  and  Quadrant  4  with  the  structures  and  processes  of  social  systems.      Figure  3  -­    The  four-­uadrant  diagram                                                                                                                            21   By  Machteld  Ooijens  and  Hettie  Walters  for  IODA  conference:  August  2010  Budapest     21  
  • 24. Figure  4  -­  Presentation  ICCO  PA  development22     Internal External Individual Individual  Values  /  Dispositions   Relationships   • Curiosity,    humility  and  openness  to   • Shared  vision  and  purpose   engaging  in  the  critical  reflection   developed  in  Alliance  and  with   required  to  foster  learning   partners   • Commitment/capacity/confidence  to  be   • Sufficient  trust  for  building  and   present  and  authentic  in  PA  interactions   maintaining    transparent  and   • Intention  to  promote  and  strengthen   authentic  communication  within  the   both  the  spirit  (culture)  and  discipline  of   decentralorganisation   inquiry  and  learning   • Shared  sense  of  responsibility  /   • Openness  to  recognizing  and  exploring   ownership  for  Pro-­‐Co  and  De,   different  perspectives   manifest  in  shared  investments   • Skills  /  Competencies   • Transactional  cooperative  forms   • Knowledge  and  understanding  of  tools,   develop  between  different   procedures,  methods  being  proposed  by   stakeholders  in  the  organisations   PA  strategy  and  ability  to  use  them   • Adequate  attention  given  to   effectively   dysfunctional  relationship  dynamics   between  individuals  /  groups  /   organizations  that  impede  the  kind     collaboration,  cooperation  required   for  collective  learning   Collective Culture   Structures  /  Systems  /  Procedures   • Support  and  clear  ownership  from  key   • Appropriate  access  and  distribution  of   leaders/authorities  in  organization(s)   resources  required  for  the  scale  of  change   • Clear  “norms”  within  the  organizational   and  learning  initiatives   cultures  that  learning  is  valued  and   o Explicit  plan  for  learning  on   recognized  as  an  essential  part  of  “doing   strategies,  thematic  areas,   the  work”   work  processes   o Critical  reflection  /  examining   o Time  for  reflection,   assumptions,  testing  new   participation  in  learning   ideas  is  valued,  not  scorned   activities  is  prioritized  GO-­‐RO   o Time  invested  in  learning   o People,  financial  resources   activities  is  recognized   made  available  GO-­‐RO   • Culture  of  open  collaboration  and   • Tools,  procedures,  methods  that  are   sharing  ideas,  knowledge  as  opposed  to   effective  and  viable  for  facilitating   withholding,  protecting  knowledge  as   reflection  and  collective  learning.   private  asset  (competition)   • Good  and  user-­‐friendly  information  /   • Using  communication  tools  (web-­‐based)   knowledge  management  systems  need  to   that    are  in  sync  with  this  culture   be  further  developed  and  implemented.        Institutional AnalysisSystemic  change  through  Multi  Stakeholder  Processes  has  a  strong  relation  to  institutional  change.  As  we  have  said  before  the  focus  in  a  programmatic  cooperation  is  on  the  problematic.  Problematics  have  many  institutional  aspects.  They  exist  largely  because  of  existing  rules,  regulations  and  the  norms  and  values  that  inform  them.  Gender  relations  are  a  very  clear  example  of  an  institutional  arrangement  in  society.  A  problematic  exists  when  the  institutions  do  not  respond  to  the  needs  of  all  whose  lives  are  governed  by  them.  Therefore  many  aims  of  programmatic  cooperation  processes  are  related  to  institutional  change  required  for  creating  justice,  well-­‐being  and  equality  for  all.                                                                                                                            22   Prepared  by  MachteldOoijens  and  Hettie  Walters  (  P&D)  for  the  OD  World  summit  ,  22-­‐26  August   2010  Budapest     22  
  • 25. Institutions    are  patterns23,  which  anchor  behavior  over  time,  through  norms,  rules,  regulations  of  a  formal  or  less  formal  nature.  Development  is  essentially  a  process  of  change  of  these  patterns,  of  setting  new,  transformed  rules,  expectations,  standards  for  behavior,  of  cooperation  and  interaction  between  individuals,  in  organizations,  between  organizations  and  between  different  social  actors.  That  this  implies  a  change  in  the  embedded  power  relations  is  obvious.  Changing  institutions  means  changing  power  relations  and  changing  power  relations  (  i.e.  gender  equality)24  means  changing  the  social  institutions  that  govern  them.      The  following  model  (by  Jim  Woodhill)  provides  us  with  an  institutional  analysis  framework  that  incorporates  attention  for  four  main  functions  of  institutions  namely:    1. Institutions  as  ways  of  making  meaning  of  our  lives  and  the  social  and  natural  world   we  inhabit.  2. Institutions  as  the  associations  we  make  to  work  together  to  achieve  social,   economic  and  political  objectives.  3. Institutions  as  the  basis  for  control  over  what  individuals  and  organizations  should   or  can  do.  4. Institutions  as  reoccurring  action  carried  out  by  individuals  or  organizations  in   social,  economic  and  political  life.    An  institutional  analysis  can  therefore  help  in  charting  the  institutional  field  related  to  the  problematic.    Figure  5  –  Institutional  analysis  framework    In  the  training  of  ICCO  Alliance  staff  on  the  programmatic  Approach  the  analysis  shown  in  the  photo  was  made  using  this  model:                                                                                                                              23   Hettie  Walters:  Capacity  development,  Institutional  Change  and  Theories  of  Change  ,  conference  paper   2007,  WUR-­‐CWI  24   Johannes  Jutting  and  Christian  Morrisson  Changing  Social  Institutions    to  improve  the  status  of   women  in  developing  countries.  OECD  Development  Centre  Policy  Brief  No.  27  2005     23  
  • 26.  Participants  acknowledged  that  the  model  helps  them  in  charting  the  institutional  context  related  to  a  problematic  and  therefore  can  help  them  to  identify  action  paths,  develop  focus  and  formulate  clear  objectives  at  this  level  of  change.      3.1.3. Methods for working with complexity:Cynefin Framework  The  Cynefin  framework  has  been  developed  by  David  Snowden  and  came  out  of  his  work  on  complexity  within  networks.  It  is  an  analysis  and  decision-­‐making  model  for  working  with  complexity,  and  identifies  5  different  levels  in  the  complexity  of  a  system:  simple,  complicated,  complex  and  chaotic,  disorder.  Each  of  these  have  a  different  level  of  complexity  but  also  require  a  specific  way  of  working.  The  Cynefin  framework  recognizes  the  differences  between  how  change  happens  at  different  levels  of  complexity.  This  model  helps  us  in  deciding  what  type  of  change  strategy  is  needed  in  a  situation  based.    There  are  some  very  nice  explanations  about  the  Cynefin  framework  to  be  found  on  the  internet  (see  the  links  in  the  footnote).25      Each  of  the  five  domains  represents  a  distinct  level  of  complexity  with  an  associated  behaviour/action/strategic  path:                                                                                                                            25   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Miwb92eZaJg&feature=related   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-­‐8&feature=related   http://www.anecdote.com.au/archives/2009/04/a_simple_explan.html     24  
  • 27.  • Simple,  in  which  the  relationship  between  cause  and  effect  is  obvious  to  all,  the   approach  is  to  Sense  -­  Categorize  -­  Respond  and  we  can  apply  best  practice.    • Complicated,  in  which  the  relationship  between  cause  and  effect  requires  analysis  or   some  other  form  of  investigation  and/or  the  application  of  expert  knowledge,  the   approach  is  to  Sense  -­  Analyze  -­  Respond  and  we  can  apply  good  practice.    • Complex,  in  which  the  relationship  between  cause  and  effect  can  only  be  perceived   in  retrospect,  but  not  in  advance,  the  approach  is  to  Probe  -­  Sense  -­  Respond  and  we   can  sense  emergent  practice.    • Chaotic,  in  which  there  is  no  relationship  between  cause  and  effect  at  systems  level,   the  approach  is  to  Act  -­  Sense  -­  Respond  and  we  can  discover  novel  practice.    • The  fifth  domain  is  Disorder,  which  is  the  state  of  not  knowing  what  type  of  causality   exists,  in  which  state  people  will  revert  to  their  own  comfort  zone  in  making  a   decision.      Figure  6  –  The  Cynefin  framework          In  full  use,  the  Cynefin  framework  has  sub-­‐domains,  and  the  boundary  between  simple  and  chaotic  is  seen  as  a  catastrophic  one:  complacency  leads  to  failure.    In  dealing  with  complexity  in  programmatic  cooperation  we  sometimes  see  that  we  use  planning  approaches  that  work  fine  for  the  simple  domain  but  not  fully  suited  to  a  situation  that  is  characterized  by  the  complex  domain.  Such  a  situation  can  be  found  in  the  fragile  states  in  which  we  are  working,  but  also  in  highly  complex  value  chains  across  international  levels.     25  
  • 28. Ralph Staceys Agreement & Certainty Matrix26  In  the  last  ten  years,  complexity  science  had  a  strong  impact  on  the  theory  and  practice  of  change  facilitation.  Tools  like  Open  Space  Technology,  Appreciative  Inquiry  and  others  are  based  on  the  assumption  that  highly  complex  social  systems  like  organizations  follow  certain  generic  principles  and  resemble  other  systems  such  as  the  body,  colonies  of  ants,  swarms  of  fish,  flocks  of  birds,  etc.  Also,  cybernetic  models  have  been  applied,  for  example  for  the  description  of  systems  archetypes.    A  model  that  gives  a  simple  road  map  for  dealing  with  complexity  is  the  model  of  Ralph  Stacey.  As  it  can  be  seen  in  the  figure,  Stacey  has  proposed  a  matrix  that  introduces  two  dimensions  with  regards  to  management  of  organizations:  Certainty  and  Agreement:    Certainty  depends  on  the  quality  of  the  information  base  that  facilitates  individual  and  joint  decisions  in  organizations.  Modern  social  systems  such  as  organizations  are  mainly  self-­‐organized  on  the  base  of  negotiation  processes.  The  degree  of  agreement  among  the  people  directly  involved  on  what  should  be  done  (‘the  truth’)  with  respect  to  the  implementation  methodology  of  a  project  is  an  important  factor  determining  success.    Figure  7  -­  Ralph  Staceys  Agreement  &  Certainty  Matrix  (modified  from:  Brenda  Zimmerman)    The  various  areas  in  the  figure  are  described  below:    1.  Many  simple  business  processes  are  situated  at  a  level  in  which  it  is  certain  what  needs  to  be  done  and  people  involved  agree  on  that.  In  the  work  of  the  ICCO  Alliance  there  are  not  many  simple  and  straightforward  actions  in  which  traditional  management  approaches  (e.g.  management  by  objectives)  apply  and  work  well.  Therefore,  we  should  always  question  ourselves,  "How  do  we  know  that  we  know?",  "Have  we  assessed  all  the  critical  variables?"  and,  "What  have  we  done  to  assure  that  people  in  our  organization                                                                                                                            26   Source:  http://www.change-­‐management-­‐toolbook.com/mod/book/view.php?id=74&chapterid=45       26  
  • 29. and  in  the  programmatic  cooperation  share  a  common  perspective?"  A  tool  to  assess  different  perspectives  is  a  participatory  risk  analysis.    2.  Very  often,  strategic  analyses  show  a  strategy  that  is  most  likely  to  lead  to  a  better  performance.  What  has  to  be  done,  and  what  will  be  the  outcome,  is  quite  obvious  to  value  chain  analysts.  However,  some  stakeholders  might  not  agree  or,  for  any  reason,  show  resistance  to  the  planned  changes.  The  relations  between  producers’  organizations,  private  enterprises  and  NGOs  as  service  deliverers  to  producer  organizations  are  not  always  straightforward.  Perceptions  of  one  group  of  another  might  hamper  effective  value  chain  development.    So  what  to  do  in  situations  characterized  by  disagreement  and  resistance?      Creating  dialogue  sessions,  exchange  visits,  training  and  pilot  activities  in  which  perceptions  and  mindsets  might  change  are  important.    3.  The  other  extreme  in  which  we  can  find  ourselves  is  characterized  by  a  high  agreement  of  stakeholders  (what  Senge  calls  "shared  vision")  but  a  high  degree  of  uncertainty.  "How  will  our  sector  evolve?",  "What  new  technologies  will  be  available  tomorrow?",  "Which  political  decisions  will  influence  our  future?",  etc.  are  just  some  key  questions  that  apply.  This  is  the  area  of  Scenario  Design.  Also,  the  current  theories  of  Otto  Scharmer  on  Theory  U  (http://www.ottoscharmer.com/)  provide  leverage  to  navigate  through  such  environments.  Participatory  approaches  for  defining  strategies  apply  very  well  in  such  situations.      4.  There  are  also  situations  in  which  the  future  is  highly  uncertain  and  the  stakeholders  are  far  beyond  any  agreement.  However,  many(political)  leaders  are  operating  in  exactly  such  an  environment.  It  is  what  complexity  scientists  call  "The  Edge  of  Chaos".  The  fall  of  the  Berlin  wall,  one  of  my  favorite  stories  that  illustrates  complexity,  is  such  a  story,  where  a  system  that  had  been  stable  for  40  years,  collapsed  in  one  night  of  freedom  celebration.  The  changes  that  are  occurring  in  the  Arab  world  at  the  moment  are  another  example.    5.  Most  contemporary  change  processes  are  situated  in  a  field  that  fluctuates  between  the  extremes  that  have  been  delineated  above.  Characterized  by  a  medium  to  high  level  of  uncertainty  and  by  stakeholders  with  highly  diversified  perspectives  on  what  should  be  done.  Here,  laws  of  complexity  science  apply  to  change  in  organizations,  and  change  is  the  norm.  In  such  environments,  the  main  task  of  process  facilitators  is  to  facilitate  the  co-­‐creation  of  the  organization’s  future,  to  provide  room  for  self-­‐organization  and  to  let  people  decide  themselves  about  their  own  and  their  organization’s  issues.  Such  strategies  are  the  only  way  to  lead  out  of  the  political  crisis  of  the  world,  and  more,  and  more  often  profit  and  non-­‐profit,  organizations  will  adapt  management  tools  for  co-­‐creation,  such  as  Open  Space  Technology,  Appreciative  Inquiry,  World  Café,  and  other  tools  to  come  such  as  we  promote  in  the  Programmatic  Approach.         27  
  • 30. 3.2 Methods in Multi-stakeholder processes (MSP)  The  Centre  for  Development  Innovation  (CDI)  of  Wageningen  University  has  developed  a  model  for  Multi  Stakeholder  Processes  (shown  below)  that  is  one  of  the  conceptual  frameworks  that  we  use  as  basis  in  our  understanding  of  the  relation  between  multi-­‐stakeholder  involvement  and  systems  change  in  the  programmatic  approach.      Figure  8  –  Multi  Stakeholder  Process  framework         Rationale   7  Principles Principles         Governing  for     The  Dynamics  of     Sustainability  and       Sustainability  and   Transformative       Equity  in  an  a  Comple   Equity  i  Complex     Change     World         Practice     Methods,  Tools  and       Methods,  Tools  an     Tips  for  Process       Design  and     Facilitation            The  intention  of  the  MSP  framework  is  to  guide  facilitators,  process  managers  and  leaders  of  stakeholder  groups  in  the  task  of  designing  and  supporting  a  process  that  is  unique  to  the  demands  of  a  specific  situation.  It  offers  the  theoretical  ideas,  principles,  practical  tools  and  generic  process  elements  that  optimize  the  chances  for  effective  and  productive  stakeholder  engagement27    As  shown  abovem  the  framework  has  three  main  elements:  1) The  Rationale:  This  explains  why,  in  an  increasingly  complex  world,  multi-­‐ stakeholder  processes  are  becoming  an  important  mechanism  of  governance.  It  is   explains  how  they  complement  the  more  formal  workings  of  national  governments   and  international  relations.  The  rationale  explores  the  underlying  nature  of   sustainability  and  equity  problems  within  the  context  of  recognizing  that  human   societies  are  best  understood  as  complex  adaptive  systems.  An  understanding  of  this   wider  context  is  important  for  being  able  to  decide  whether  in  a  particular  situation   it  makes  sense  (there  is  a  good  rationale)  for  engaging  in  a  multi-­‐stakeholder   process.      2) The  Seven  Principles:  CDI’s  view  is  that  MSPs  can  contribute  to  bringing  about  deep   and  fundamental  change  in  how  individuals,  organizations  and  societies  behave.     This  transformative  or  systemic  change  is  necessary  to  tackle  the  underlying  causes   of  un-­‐sustainability  and  inequity.  Seven  principles  were  identified  about  the   dynamics  of  change,  that  experience  has  shown  need  to  be  considered  and                                                                                                                            27   You  can  read  more  in  Capacity.org,  December  edition;  Woodhill  and  van  Vugt   http://www.capacity.org/capacity/opencms/en/index.html       28  
  • 31. integrated  into  an  MSP  in  order  to  foster  transformative  change.  Key  principles  are   those  dealing  with  power  and  conflict.       1. Working  with  Complexity   2. Fostering  Collective  Learning   3. Reinventing  Institutions   4. Shifting  Power   5. Dealing  with  Conflict   6. Enabling  Effective  Communication   7. Promoting  Collaborative  Leadership  As  we  stated  earlier  in  this  guidance  note  the  Programmatic  Approach  is  a  multi  stakeholder  process  in  which  we  need  to  involve  all  the  Stakeholders  who  ARE  IN  (those  with  Authority,  Resources,  Expertise,  Information  and  Need)  in  relation  to  the  system  that  we  are  trying  to  change.  Those  stakeholders  (often  diverse  organizations)  engage  in  a  process  that  leads  to  emergence  of  system  change  through  joint  analysis  and  increased  understanding  of  what  needs  to  change,  of  how  this  change  can  be  promoted  and  what  each  organization  can  contribute  towards  the  joint  and  purposive    process.  Such  a  joint  undertaking  requires  trust  building,  dealing  with  power  differences,  ensuring  open  and  mutually  respectful  relations,  curiosity  in  each  other  and  a  dialogue  process  (listening,  reflection,  questioning  and  appreciation).  The  first  and  foremost  condition  for  actors  to  enter  into  a  multi-­‐stakeholder  process  or  programmatic  cooperation  process  is  that  they  see  the  added  value  of  the  investment  in  cooperation.  This  is  the  case  if  actors  see  that  for  the  realization  of  their  own  objectives  it  is  necessary  to  work  with  others  and  to  learn  with  others.  The  participating  organizations  need  to  have  a  sense  that  they  will  gain  from  the  cooperation  and  that  this  will  make  the  investment  in  time  and  energy  worthwhile.  Coalitions  that  are  built  upon  a  perceived  idea  that  they  will  have  to  join  the  program  coalition  to  assure  on-­‐going  funding  for  the  organization  from  the  ICCO  Alliance  are  not  a  good  basis  for  a  fruitful  cooperation.          3  The  Practice.  It  is  obvious  from  this  description  that  such  a  process  does  not  occur  easily  and  by  itself.  It  needs,  as  was  mentioned  in  the  Systems  change  paragraph,  facilitation  or  otherwise  called  hosting  and  the  use  of  methods  that  enable  such  a  process.  These  methods  are  described  in  the  Change  Management  Toolbook.  Some  of  the  methods  are  also  introduced  in  the  Training  on  the  facilitation  of  the  Programmatic  Approach  that  the  ICCO  Alliance  organises    for  its  staff  members  and  for  facilitators  of  programmatic  cooperation  processes.         29  
  • 32. 3.2.1 Theory of Change28  In  the  context  of  the  Programmatic  Approach  we  would  like  to  propose  to  use  another  logic  approach:  the  Theory  of  Change.  The  main  difference  with  the  logical  Framework  Approach    is  that  in  a  Theory  of  Change  much  more  attention  is  paid  to  the  assumptions  underlying  the  chain  of  change:  why  do  we  think  that  XXX  happens  as  a  result  of  doing  YY?  The  second  difference  is  that  in  a  Theory  of  change  much  more  attention  can  be  paid  to  the  process  of  change  and  not  just  to  the  input,  output  and  outcome  relation  (as  is  the  case  in  the  Logical  Framework  Analysis)    A  Theory  of  Change  is  a  logic  model  that  has  some  distinct  features:    • Popularized  in  1990s  to  capture  complex  initiatives  • Outcomes-­‐based  • Causal  model  • Articulate  underlying  assumptions  • Theories  of  Change  link  outcomes  and  activities  to  explain  HOW  and  WHY  the  desired   change  is  expected  to  come  about    Figure  9  –  Theory  of  Change  model             Long-     term   Outcome       Explain WHY here     Necessar NecessarShow  activities  (HOW)   y yhere  also   Pre- Pre- All outcomes condition condition that must be   achieved   BEFORE   long-term Necessar Necessar Necessar y y y Pre- Pre- Pre- condition condition condition                                                                                                                          28   Based  upon  work  by  Heléne  Clark  (actknowledge)  and  Ann  Anderson  (aspenroundtable.org)         30  
  • 33. Wageningen  University  and  Research    ‘Centre  for  Development  Innovation  has  also  developed  the  following  Theory  of  Change  model29.  ‘Theory  of  change’  is  becoming  an  increasingly  used  concept  in  planning  development  interventions.  Yet  there  is  much  confusion  and  ambiguity  around  what  it  means  and  how  it  is  useful.  CDI’s  approach  to  looking  at  ToC  links  it  to  the  wider  context  within  which  interventions  aimed  at  societal  transformation  are  conceptualized,  planned,  managed,  monitored  and  evaluated.    Figure  10  –  Context  of  Change  model          At  one  end  of  the  spectrum  of  ToC  use,  organizations  turn  to  it  to  construct  (more)  rigorous  cause  and  effect  maps  (logic  models,  outcome  pathways  etc)  that  show  how  a  particular  set  of  interventions  should,  through  a  set  of  explicit  cause  and  effect  relations,  lead  to  desired  outcomes  and  impacts.  At  the  other  end  of  the  ‘use  spectrum’,  ToC  is  being  used  to  signal  that  human  systems  are  complex  and  cannot,  either  logically  or  practically,  model  change  processes  on  a  full  set  of  cause  and  effect  relationships.  Sometimes,  although  complexity  is  recognized,  it  is  nonetheless  argued  that  responding  requires  a  more  rigorous  approach  to  creating  logical  models  for  intervention.  Others  use  ToC  generically  to  represent  being  more  explicit  and  critical  of  the  assumptions,  values,  principles  and  theories  that  underlie  any  intervention.    The  approach  to  ToC  is  based  on  the  following  premises:     1) Organisations,  societies  and  economies  are  complex  systems  and  understanding   what  this  means  is  fundamental  to  any  effort  of  social  change.   2) However,  not  all  of  what  people  try  to  deal  with  in  their  social  and  physical   context  is  necessarily  complex.                                                                                                                            29   J.  Woodhill  and  S.  van  Vugt,  publication  forthcoming,    November  2010     31  
  • 34. 3) This  means  that  there  is  a  need  to  work  with  complex  or  chaotic  aspects  of  a   situation  where  adaptive  processes  of  change  are  needed  AND  with  complicated   or  simple  aspects  where  linear  processes  of  change  are  effective.   4) In  most  development  situations,  the  overall  context  is  generally  complex.   However,  many  aspects  of  the  situation  or  of  an  intervention  will  be  simple  (or   complicated).  This  means  that  adaptive  and  linear  approaches  need  to  be   integrated.   5) Things  ‘go  wrong’  in  achieving  ambitions  for  social  change  for  a  wider  variety  of   reasons  including:   a. Mistaking  the  complexity  of  a  situation  and  inappropriately  using  linear   concepts  logics,  and  methodologies;   b. Poor  analysis  of  situations  and  missing  what  should  have  been  obvious   dynamics  and  relationships  that,  if  known,  could  have  lead  to  more   success  (and  sometimes  mistakenly  blaming  this  on  complexity);   c. Being  unrealistically  ambitious  about  what  is  possible  within  given   contexts,  timeframes  and  resources  (financial  and  human);   d. Inadequately  accounting  for  the  influence  of  power  and  conflict;   e. Breakdown  in  relationships  between  different  actors  that  need  to   cooperate  because  of  different  paradigms,  interests,  assumptions  about   change  and  interests;  and   f. Poor  execution  (planning  and  management)  of  interventions.   6) Use  of  a  ToC  can  help  reduce  the  risk  of  such  failures  and  make  interventions   more  realistic  and  effective  in  a  given  context,  which  may  include  recognizing   limited  scope  for  change.   7) ToC  is  equally  applicable  to  adaptive  and  linear  processes  of  change.  However,  a   ToC  may  look  quite  different,  may  be  used  differently  (more/less  flexibly)  and   implies  very  different  intervention  strategies.   8) In  complex  situations,  people/organisations  still  have  to  plan  and  act  but  this   needs  to  happen  in  more  adaptive  ways.   9) Monitoring  and  evaluation  approaches  for  adaptive  processes  of  change  need  to   be  fundamentally  different  than  for  linear  processes.    Based  on  these  premises,  we  view  the  notion  of  a  ToC  as  placed  in  a  wider  context  of  paradigms  of  development,  taking  into  account  the  mindsets,  worldviews,  values  and  cultural  identities  that  different  actors  bring  to  their  engagement  in  societal  transformation.  Therefore,  political  beliefs  about,  for  example,  the  role  of  government  versus  markets  and  deep  assumptions  about  human  nature  become  very  important.  Such  paradigms  shape  what  ToCs  people  follow.  In  turn,  explicit  attention  to  ToCs  can  help  to  challenge  and  reassess  paradigms  that  may  be  taken  for  granted.      The  approach  to  ToC  requires  a  set  of  ‘tools  for  thought’  to  help  make  social  science  theory  practical  and  accessible  for  critical  questioning  and  analysis  of  underlying  assumptions  about  change.  Some  examples  of  such  ‘tools  for  thought’  that  we  propose  to  weave  into  the  learning  trajectory  include:     • Cynefin  framework  on  distinct  domains  of  known/unknown;  order/disorder,   with  an  emphasis  on  the  domain  of  ‘complexity’;   • Four  Quadrant  model  of  individual,  interpersonal,  cultural  and  structural   dimensions  of  change;   • Cultural  theory  model  of  social  hierarchy;   • Power  cube  model  of  different  forms  of  power;   • Experiential  learning  cycle  and  model  of  single/double/triple  loop  learning.       32  
  • 35. Adaptive  processes  of  change  also  require  the  use  and  integration  of  diverse  participatory,  learning-­‐oriented  methodologies.  These  include  for  example:  Outcome  Mapping;  Scenario  Analysis;  Open  Space;  Future  Search;  Soft  Systems  Methodology;  Theory  U;  and  Most  Significant  Change.  Such  methods  will  also  form  a  building  block  in  the  learning  trajectory,  as  they  are  the  mechanisms  by  which  ToCs  are  generated,  challenged  and  adapted.      Figure  11  -­  Example  of  the  ToC  that  was  developed  for  the  RO  Southern  Africa      3.2.2 Stakeholder analysis  At  the  start  of  a  programmatic  coalition  formation  process    it  is  important  to  know  who  could  or  should  be  involved  in  the   The  example  of  one  of  the  FNS  program  Coalition.  It  is  therefore  important  to  do  a   coalitions  is  a  good  example  of  a  coalition  in  Stakeholder  analysis.   which  the  partner  organizations  have     entered  on  the  wrong  assumptions.  They  A  Stakeholder  Analysis  is  an  important   perceived  the  coalition  as  a  pre-­‐requisite  technique  for  stakeholder  identification  &   for  continued  funding  of  ICCO.  The  analyzing  their  needs.  It  is  used  to  identify  all   Organizations  are  all  involved  in  an  already   existing  national  level  FNS  coalition  and  did  key  (primary  and  secondary)  stakeholders   not  perceive  the  added  value  of  another  who  have  a  vested  interest  in  the  issues  with   ICCO  initiated  coalition.  There  are  also  no  which  the  project  is  concerned.   perceived  added  values  of  the  cooperation   between  the  actors  involved  who  are  widely  The  aim  of  stakeholder  analysis  process  is  to   spread  geographically.  At  this  moment  in  develop  a  strategic  view  of  the  human  and   time  the  FNS  coalition  has  therefore  not  institutional  landscape,  and  the  relationships   born  fruit  from    joint  actions.  between  the  different  stakeholders  and  the  issues  they  care  about  most.  There  are  several  forms  of  stakeholder     33  
  • 36. analysis:  The  influence  and  interest  analysis  seeks  to  understand  which  are  the  important  actors  involved  around  a  certain  issue  or  in  a  system.  The  stakeholders  are  then  grouped  along  two  axes.  The  interest  axis  (vertical):  those  actors  that  are  important  because  they  have  an  interest  or  stake  in  the  issue  and  influence  axis  (horizontal):  those  actors  that  have  influence  on  the  matter  at  hand.    Figure  12  –  Influence  and  interest  analysis       Significant     Some     Little     No     Influence   Influence   Influence   Influence     Significant           Importance   Some           Importance   Little           Importance   No           Importance        A  variation  on  this  matrix  incorporates  the  follow-­‐up  actions  and    monitoring  of  the  stakeholders:    Figure  13  –  Power/Interest  Grid           34  
  • 37. 3.2.3 Context analysis      Two  good  examples  of  tools  used  in  context  analysis  are  the  SWOT  analysis,  and  the  Problem  tree  analysis.  A  SWOT  analysis  uses  information  gathered  through  the  assessment  of  several  trends  (  social,  political,  economic,  cultural,  demographic,  etc.)  and  combines  them  with  data  on  the  organizational  strengths  and  capacities  in  order  to  establish  the  Strengths  and  Weaknesses  of  the  Organisation(s),  as  well  as  with  the  Opportunities  and  Threats  that  are  important  in  the  context  for  which  we  have  the  data  through  the  trend  analysis.      Figure  14  –  SWOT-­analysis           Intra       organizational/   Strengths   Weaknesses   coalition   What  are  the   qualities  of  our   organization?         External/   Opportunities   Constraints   contextual           factors   What  are  the   social,  economic,   political,  cultural   trends  ?      The  idea  is  to  follow–up  the  analysis  with  a  strategy  development:  What  can  we  do  to  use  the  strengths  and  opportunities  ,  what  can  we  do  to  improve  upon  the  weaknesses  and  what  do  we  need  to  do  to  overcome  the  constraints  from  within  the  context?    3.2.4 Problem tree analysis  The  problem  tree  analysis  is  another  context  analysis  tool  that  stems  from  the  ZOPP  toolbox  widely  known  for  its  relation  to  the  Logical  Framework  Analysis  planning  tool.  Below  you  see  an  example  of  a  problem  tree  from  an  Egyptian  coalition  advocating  for  the  elimination  of  the  practice  of  female  genital  mutulation  (FGM)  under  the  auspices  of  the  National  FGM  Task  Force.           35  
  • 38.      Figure  15  –  Problem  Tree  analysis    Objective30  This  exercise  is  used  to  analyze  the  root  causes  of  a  problem  and  to  identify  the  primary  consequences.  The  tree  provides  a  visual  structure  for  the  analysis.    Process  This  activity  is  best  handled  in  small  groups  so  that  each  person  in  the  group  has  an  opportunity  to  participate.  If  time  permits,  a  large  group  can  be  divided  into  two  groups,  with  the  first  group  working  on  causes  and  the  second  group  examining  consequences.  If  you  are  working  on  more  than  one  problem,  assign  each  group  a  different  problem.  Take  one  problem  and  go  through  the  process  once  together  before  dividing  into  groups.    1. Explain  the  problem  tree.  Point  out  the  different  parts  of  the  tree  and  what  each   represents:   • Roots  =  Root  Causes  of  the  Problem   • Trunk  =  the  Problem   • Branches  =  Consequences  of  the  Problem    2.  Ask  a  participant  to  draw  a  tree  on  flipchart  paper.  Write  the  problem  on  the  trunk  of  the  tree.  Ask  all  participants  to  list  the  causes  of  the  problem.  If  possible,  let  each  participant  who  suggests  a  cause  write  it  on  a  card  and  tape  it  to  the  roots  of  the  problem  tree.  If  this  is  too  time-­‐consuming,  the  facilitator  can  write  what  the  participants  say  on  the  tree.  Encourage  people  to  explore  social,  economic,  and  political  causes  including  attitudes,  behavior,  and  other  factors    3.  Repeat  the  same  process  with  the  consequences.                                                                                                                              30   Lisa  VeneKlasen  and  Valerie  Miller  (2002)  A  New  Weave  of  Power,  People  and  Politics:  the  action   guide  for  advocacy  and  citizen  participation,  World  Neighbors,  Oklahoma.  pages  311-­‐316   http://www.wn.org     36  
  • 39. Discussion  • First  ask  questions  about  the  problem  itself,  then  follow  up  with  questions  about  the   solutions.  • What  are  the  most  serious  consequences?  • Which  causes  will  be  easier  to  address?  More  difficult  to  address?  Why?  • Which  causes  and  consequences  can  the  government  help  address?  Where  can   international  agencies  help?  What  can  people  do?    3.2.5 Large group interventions: Open Space Technology andFuture SearchOpen Space Technology31In  the  past,  it  seemed  difficult  to  involve  large  groups  in  a  participatory  manner.  For  example,  the  upper  limit  of   Within  the  ICCO  Alliance  participants  of  a  workshop  was  considered  to  be  around  twenty   we  have  used  a  series  of  persons.  In  most  cases,  this  limit  was  just  exceeded  by  inviting   Open  Space  sessions  in  our  key  persons  from  the  involved  agencies  or  departments.  In   learning  process  about  the  contrast,  it  was  difficult  to  bring  a  large  and  diverse  group  of   Programmatic  Approach.  people  to  interact.     The  Open  Space  method   allows  for  all  participants   together  to  shape  the  Recently,  several  new  tools  for  large  group  facilitation  have   agenda  of  meetings  based  been  developed,  among  them  Future  Search  (by  Marvin   upon  their  own  interests  Weisbord  and  Sandra  Janoff  see  below))  and  Open  Space   and  experiences.  This  Technology  (by  Harrison  Owen).     leads  to  a  high  level  of   involvement  in  the  Open  Space  Technology  supports  systems  of  all  sizes  in   discussions  because  the  navigating  and  adapting  to  the  major  changes  we  all  experience.   participants  sense  that  It  provides  a  framework  of  time  and  space  in  which  people  self-­‐ what  is  being  discussed   matters  to  them  organize  their  own  process  and  work  on  issues  they  feel  passionate  about  and  for  which  they  will  take  responsibility.  Since  Harrison  Owen  discovered  this  unique  and  radical  workshop  technique  20  years  ago,  it  was  successfully  applied  by  thousands  of  communities  and  non-­‐profit  organizations,  as  well  as  by  private  companies.  The  number  of  participants  in  such  an  interactive  workshop  is  virtually  unlimited  -­‐  recently,  an  Open  Space  Conferences  with  1,700  street  kids  and  300  adults  was  held.  To  all  stakeholders,  it  offers  the  opportunity  to  work  on  complex  and  burning  issues.  Simple  rules  support  a  highly  participatory,  reflecting  and  task  oriented  cooperation  for  5  to  500  participants  of  a  meeting,  which  can  go  on  for  one  to  three  days.  Each  collaborator  is  empowered  to  contribute  to  the  success  of  the  workshop  with  his/her  own  competency  and  ideas.  The  methodology  is  particularly  appropriate  for  initiating  and  establishing  self-­‐referenced  learning  and  development  processes  in  communities,  organizations  and  companies.    The  principle  Any  Open  Space  event  is  predefined  by  a  question  which  is  to  be  discussed  during  a  one  to  three  days  meeting.  The  question  has  to  be  selected  carefully  by  the  management,  supported  by  the  facilitator.  It  should  address  a  burning  and  conflicting  issue  and  ensure  a  high  diversity  of  opinions.  One  day  means  a  good  exchange  of  ideas,  two  days  means  a  good  exchange  of  ideas  and  the  elaboration  of  recommendations  and  three  days  means  a                                                                                                                            31   Source:  http://www.change-­‐management-­‐toolbook.com/mod/book/view.php?id=74&chapterid=45     37  
  • 40. good  exchange  of  ideas,  elaboration  of  recommendations  and  the  prioritization  of  actions.    Such  a  meeting  would  have  neither  a  fixed  agenda  nor  invited  speakers.  Management  should  be  aware  that  the  lay-­‐out  of  the  conference  would  not  allow  any  status  differences  ("no  ranks,  no  titles")  and  should  commit  themselves  to  the  outcomes  of  the  conference.  Within  the  first  two  hours  of  an  Open  Space  event,  the  participants  themselves  have  set  the  agenda.  Initial  resistance  or  uncertainty  disappears,  when  suddenly  more  issues  have  been  identified  that  anybody  would  have  expected  beforehand.  On  average,  30  focus  groups  are  set  up  in  a  conference  of  one  hundred  participants.    Workshop  results  are  constantly  documented  and  displayed.  At  the  end  of  the  conference,  each  participant  will  take  the  conference  proceedings  home.    The  process  is  based  on  a  set  of  four  Principles  and  one  Law:    1. Principle:  Whoever  comes  is  the  right  people   Open  Space  works  with  those  who  are  interested  and  ready  to  commit  themselves.   Only  those  who  are  present  can  contribute.  Although  the  invitation  list  might  be   limited,  an  Open  Space  conference  is  principally  open  for  everybody;  often,  outsiders   bring  in  fresh  and  independent  views  that  can  cause  a  quantum  leap  for  the  process.    2. Principle:  Whatever  happens  is  the  only  thing  that  could  have.   This  principle  gives  the  base  for  sustainable  involvement  of  stakeholders.  Those   issues  for  which  people  have  a  passion  and  in  which  they  would  engage  themselves   are  discussed,  not  less,  not  more.  In  Open  Space,  everything  that  happens  has  a   meaning.  In  contrast,  issues  that  have  been  identified  before  the  conference  had   started  might  not  be  considered.  Open  Space  creates  transparency  and  facilitates   identification  of  those  areas  that  bear  the  highest  probability  of  implementation.    3. Principle:  Whenever  it  starts  is  the  right  time.  4. Principle:  When  its  over,  its  over.  (When  its  not  over,  its  not  over.)   These  principles  describe  an  obvious  and  well-­‐known  fact:  it  is  not  possible  to  force   processes.  If  people  are  committed  to  make  a  change,  they  will  take  the  process  in   their  hand.  Although  time  and  place  are  predefined  in  an  Open  Space  event,  clocks   play  a  minor  role  in  setting  the  pace.  Participants  themselves  decide,  how  much  time   is  needed  to  work  on  an  issue  –  ten  minutes,  two  hours,  one  day  –  or  not  at  all.    The  Law  of  the  Two  Feet  is  the  only  law  that  guides  Open  Space.  It  means    that  whenever  a  participant  feels  that  he/she  is  neither  contributing  nor  learning,  he/she  is  encouraged  to  use  their  capacity  to  walk  to  another  place  of  interest.  Thus,  the  Law  of  Two  Feet  creates  a    process  of  cross-­‐fertilization  between  the  different  focus  groups.      Open  space  can  be  applied  for:   • stakeholder  consultation,     • solution  finding  for  corporate  uncertainties  ,     • networking  of  institutions  on  local,  regional  and  international  level,     • creating  synergy  and  growth  among  representatives  of  different  pressure   groups,     • mergers  of  companies,     • creativity,  research  and  development,     • solving  technical  problems,     • vision  sharing,       38  
  • 41. • opening  event  for  projects  and  programs  or  for  change  processes  in  larger   organizations,     • community  planning    Great  resources  to  all  Open  Space  related  issues,  training,  case  studies  can  be  found  in  the  links  in  the  footnote32    Future Search33Future  Search  is  an  innovative  planning  conference  used  world-­‐wide  by  hundreds  of  communities  and  organizations.  It  helps  to  transform  the  capability  of  organizations  for  cooperative  action  in  a  relatively  short  time.  Future  search  is  especially  helpful  in  complex,  uncertain,  and/or  fast-­‐changing  situations.  Because  people  build  on  what  they  already  have  and  know,  they  need  no  prior  training  or  expertise.    In  Future  Search  conferences,  topics  focus  on  a  wide  range  of  purposes  but  the  title  is  always,  "The  Future  of  ...".  Because  Future  Search  is  largely  culture  free,  it  has  been  adopted  with  success  by  people  from  all  walks  of  life  in  many  parts  of  the  world.  As  criteria  for  success,  Future  search  conferences  call  for  diverse  stakeholder  groups  to  come  together  for  a  pre-­‐designed  series  of  tasks.  In  an  example  of  Education  Reform  in  Pakistan,  stakeholders  ranged  from  high  ranking  ministry  officials  to  parents  and  teachers.  There  were  also  women  who  never  before  had  left  their  home  village!  The  approach  empowered  everyone  to  work  on  their  own  issues  and  discuss  these  freely  with  the  other  participants.    How  Future  Search  Works  A  future  search  usually  involves  50  to  70  people.  The  magic  number  is  64  participants,  because  then  8  times  8  working  groups  can  be  formed.  Equal  numbers  of  participants  are  invited  from  all  relevant  stakeholder  groups.  In  a  business  context  it  could  be:  employees,  management,  shareholders,  suppliers,  customers,  the  public,  etc.  It  is  intended  that  within  stakeholder  groups  a  cross  section  of  gender,  ethnic  groups,  powerful  and  non-­‐powerful  people,  etc.  are  represented.  When  applied  in  a  planning  process,  Future  Search  allows  to  learn  about  the  issues  that  really  concern  people  and  constituencies.  One  of  the  unique  features  that  distinguish  Future  Search  from  other  (planning)  methods  is  that  people  participate  in  some  tasks  according  to  their  stakeholder  group  (e.g.  have  common  perspectives  to  offer  and/or  interest  in  the  outcome)  and  some  tasks  in  groups  that  include  representatives  of  all  the  stakeholders  (max-­‐mix).  For  example,  in  a  conference  in  Pakistan,  all  teachers,  all  parents,  all  ministry  employees,  all  donors,  etc.  met  separately  to  present  their  unique  perspectives  and  understanding  around  the  conference  theme,  and  for  other  tasks,  groups  are  mixed  to  the  highest  degree  possible  (i.e.,  one  member  of  each  stakeholder  group)  so  that  all  of  the  dialogues  within  each  mixed-­‐group  carry  the  perspectives  of  each  stakeholder  group.  The  conference  is  designed  on  principles  that  enable  people  to  work  together  without  having  to  defend  or  sell  a  particular  agenda:    • "Whole  system"  in  the  room                                                                                                                              32   http://www.openspaceworld.org/  Find  Open  Space  Facilitators  in  your  geographical  region:   http://www.openspaceworldmap.org/  33   Source:  http://www.change-­‐management-­‐toolbook.com/mod/book/view.php?id=74&chapterid=45     39  
  • 42. • Global  exploration  before  local  action    • Future  focus  on  Common  Ground  • Self  Management  and  Responsibility  The  first  principle  involves  "getting  the  whole  system  in  the  room."  That  means  inviting  people  with  a  stake  in  the  purpose  who  dont  usually  meet,  thus  enhancing  everybodys  potential  for  learning  and  action.  The  second  principle  involves  putting  the  focal  issue  in  global  perspective,  helping  each  person  to  see  the  same  larger  picture  of  which  they  all  have  a  part.  The  third  principle  applies  to  treating  problems  and  conflicts  as  information  rather  than  action  items,  while  searching  for  common  ground  and  desirable  futures.  The  fourth  principle  invites  people  to  manage  their  own  small  groups  in  talking  about  and  acting  on  what  they  learn.      The  Future  Search  Agenda  The  work  is  done  in  two  and  a  half  days.  There  are  five  tasks.  The  first  task  establishes  a  common  history:  participants  draw  time  lines  on  big  sheets  of  wall  paper  and  explore  their  personal  history,  the  history  of  the  theme  of  the  conference,  and  major  global  events  leading  up  to  the  present.  The  second  task  is  done  as  a  large  group:  a  mind  map  of  trends  that  influence  the  conference  theme  (e.g.  trends  that  influence  the  future  of  education  in  Pakistan).  This  task  can  create  confusion  and  mixed  feelings.  People  tend  to  experience  the  complexity  of  circumstances  and  dynamics  in  which  they  are  living.  Using  colored  dots,  participants  vote  on  those  trends  they  feel  are  most  significant  with  regard  to  the  focus  of  the  conference.  This  helps  to  narrow  everyone  focus  and  prioritize  items  to  use  for  planning  emphasis.  The  third  task  is  the  first  time  that  stakeholders  work  within  their  own  peer  groups.  This  task  calls  for  stakeholders  to  assess  what  they  are  doing  now  that  they  are  proud  of  or  sorry  about,  with  regard  to  their  response  to  the  significant  trends  identified  on  the  mind  map  (or,  what  they  are  doing  now  they  want  to  continue  to  be  doing,  and  what  they  are  not  doing  they  would  like  to  be  doing).  This  is  an  important  and  powerful  step  that  helps  groups  take  some  responsibility  for  the  status  quo,  and  for  other  groups  to  understand  more  of  each  others  motives.  The  next  task  involves  people,  now  in  mixed  groups,  to  create  ideal  future  scenarios  and  bring  these  scenarios  to  life  through  role  plays.  Following  this,  all  groups  work  together  to  identify  common  ground  themes  -­‐  key  features  that  appear  in  every  scenario.  The  whole  group  confirms  their  common  desired  future,  acknowledges  differences  and  makes  choices  about  what  they  want  to  accomplish  and  how  to  use  their  energy.  In  the  final  segment,  participants  volunteer  and  make  public  commitments  to  work  together  on  desired  plans  and  actions.  3.3 Methods for Networking and Coalition development  3.3.1 Networking for social change and knowledge development.  The  Programmatic  Approach  is  an  approach  that  aims  to  bring  actors  together  for  joint  learning  and  actions  for  change.  This  is  related  to  social  learning  in  a  network  and  to  knowledge  development.  Eelke  Wielinga34  has  developed  the  Circle  of  Coherence                                                                                                                            34   Eelke  Wielinga:  http://www.linkconsult.nl/en/       40  
  • 43. (shown  below)  representing  different  positions  that  actors  can  take  when  working  together  in  a  network.    Figure  16  –  Circle  of  Coherence     POSITIONS     Similarities   C O Group   N think   Selfgovernan autonomy   isolation   T ce   E N Collectivity     Individual   T Vital  Space   S     hierarchy   competition   Power   oppression   struggle   Differences    The  model  displays  two  dimensions:    The  content/  knowledge  dimension  refers  to  knowledge  in  the  broad  sense:  images  of  reality,  capabilities,    • Similarities:  There  must  be  sufficient  recognition  in  order  to  interpret  new  signals.  • Differences.  There  must  be  a  certain  degree  of  confusion  in  order  to  be  interested  to   learn.    Between  the  poles  people  can  be  curious  and  develop  new  knowledge.  Upon  too  much  confusion  people  limit  their  perception,  whereas  upon  too  many  similarities  healthy  people  respond  by  looking  for  new  differences  that  can  always  be  found.    The  position  dimension  refers  to  the  relations  between  actors  in  a  network.  There  must  be  a  certain  degree  of  trust  to  allow  others  to  get  involved  in  individual  learning  processes.  Again  collective  learning  can  take  place  between  two  poles:    • Individual.  There  must  be  room  for  authentic  individual  input.  • Collectivity.  There  must  be  sufficient  attuning  to  the  needs  of  the  collectivity  of  the   network.    Too  little  room  for  individual  expression  and  safety  drives  aggressive  behavior,  too  little  attuning  leads  to  loss  of  collective  protection  and  added  value.  This  causes  fear.  Aggression  stimulates  to  enlarge  individual  space,  whereas  fear  stimulates  to  more  attuning.  The  borderlines  of  trust  are  constantly  shifting  and  need  to  be  probed  all  the  time.  These  two  dimensions  are  similar  to  the  well-­‐known  phenomenon  that  every  communication  contains  messages  at  two  levels:  the  level  of  contents  and  the  level  of     41  
  • 44. relations.  The  added  insight  is  that  healthy  systems  are  self-­‐regulatory.  The  mechanisms  to  return  to  the  middle  are  built  in.  This  central  part  of  the  circle  is  called  the  “vital  space”  .  In  the  Circle  of  Coherence  different  interaction  patterns  can  be  distinguished.    • Autonomy.  Actors  interact  on  the  basis  of  exchange.  The  balance  of  give  and  take   should  be  positive.  • Competition.  Actors  feel  challenged  to  give  their  input,  striving  for  a  better  position.  • Hierarchy.  Actors  accept  differences  in  influence  and  a  certain  discipline  or  the  sake   of  the  network.  • Self  Governance.  Actors  take  their  responsibility  on  the  basis  of  dialogue  from  equal   positions.    These  four  interaction  patterns  contribute  to  healthy  networks  where  social  learning  takes  place,  because  they  all  stimulate  actors  to  give  more  input  and  to  attune  better.  Thus,  they  take  responsibility  for  the  network.  The  patterns  will  alternate  over  time,  because  in  case  one  pattern  becomes  too  dominant  there  will  be  actors  taking  up  leadership  to  balance  the  situation  again.    3.3.2. Coalition Development  Coalition  development  is  an  important  aspect  in  the  Programmatic  Approach.  It  is  linked  to  network  development  but  takes  a  slightly  different  angle  which  is  a  more  organizational  cooperation  perspective.  In  the  development  of  a  coalition  several  phases  can  be  distinguished35  with  the  methods  that  can  be  used  in  each  phase:    Phase  1:   Determining  the  need  for  a  coalition-­‐  programmatic  cooperation  process   and  exploring  the  problematic:  context  analysis,  stakeholder  analysis,   mapping,  etc.  Phase  2:   Motivation  to  collaborate:  what  are  the  perceived  benefits  of  the   collaboration?  SWOT  analysis  of  future  cooperation,  What  do  I  bring  what   do  I  get  from  the  cooperation,  what  is  the  perceived  joint  problematic?  Phase  3:     Member  identification  and  selection:  Who  cares  about  the  problematic  and   is  willing  to  join  forces?  Stakeholder  analysis,  brokering  of  relations,  force   field  analysis,  drivers  of  change  analysis.  Phase  4:   Collaborative  Planning:  should  a  coalition  be  created,  what  would  be  its   vision,  purpose,  action  strategies?  Visioning,  Large  system  intervention   tools:  future  search,  appreciative  enquiry,  open  space,  world  café,  logic   models  (theory  of  change,  logical  framework  analysis)  etc.  Phase  5:     Building  the  coalition:  How  do  we  organize  the  vision  and  action  into   structure,  leadership,  communication,  and  work  processes  and   procedures;  organizational  and  collaborative  models  and  leadership  Phase  6:     Evaluation:  How  is  the  coalition  performing,  member  interaction  and   satisfaction,  learning  and  improvement36:  Have  we  done  things  rights,  have   we  done  the  right  things  and  were  our  assumptions  about  the  problem  -­‐   solution  relation  right?37                                                                                                                              35   Adapted  from  Joan  Roberts  ibid  pg.56  36   Adapted  from  Joan  Roberts  ibid  pg.  38  37   Triple  loop  learning  process,  Chris  Argyris     42  
  • 45. This  phasing  is  recognizable  in  the  guidelines  tool  that  can  be  found  in  annex  1.  Questions  are  formulated  to  serve  as  a  check  on  whether  essential  elements  of  the  phases  are  taken  into  account  and  addressed.  The  phases  for  program  development  that  are  included  in  the  MFS2  application  are  also  showing  much  resemblance  to  these  phases38.    In  the  development  of  functioning  coalitions  three  aspects  of  coalition  development  need  to  be  addressed:  Trust  building,  governance  and  coordination.  In  each  phase  of  coalition  development  these  three  aspects  have  a  particular  action  or  area  of  attention  but  in  particular  in  the  phases  4  and  5  all  three  need  to  receive  continuous  attention  as  parts  of  the  development  process.  Joan  Roberts  also  gives  a  typology  of  4  levels  of  cooperation  between  organizations,  as  shown  in  the  following  table.    Figure  17  -­  Types  of  co-­operation     Types  of  relationships   Definition   Relationship   Characteristics   Resources   Form  of   organisation   Networking   Exchanging   informal   Minimal  time   No  mutual  sharing   No  organisation   information  for   commitments;   of  resources   necessary   mutual  benefit   limited  levels  of   necessary   trust;  no  necessity   to  share  turf;   Information   exchange  is  primary   focus   Coordinating   Exchanging   Formal   Moderate  time   No  or  minimal   Trans   information  for   commitments;   mutual  sharing  of   organizational   mutual  benefit;   Moderate  levels  of   resources   system  (TS)  once   Altering   trust;  No  necessity   necessary   resources  or   activities  for  a   to  share  turf;   project   common   Making  access  to   management  are   purpose   services  or   shared.   resources  more   user  friendly  is  the   primary  focus   Cooperating   Exchanging   Formal   Substantial  time   Moderate  to   TS   information  for   commitments;  High   extensive  mutual   mutual  benefit;   levels  of  trust;   sharing  of  some   altering   Significant  access  to   resources,  some   activities  for  a   toeach  others  turf;   sharing  of  risks,   common   Sharing  resources   responsibilities  and   purpose   to  achieve  a   rewards   common  purpose  is   the  primary  focus.   Collaborating   Exchanging   Formal   Extensive  time   Full  sharing  of   TC   information  for   commitments;  Very   resources  and  full   mutual  benefit;   high  levels  of  trust;   sharing  of  risks,   altering   Extensive  areas  of   responsibilities  and   activities,   common    turf;   rewards   sharing   enhancing  each   resources;  and   other’s    capacity  to   achieve  a  common   purpose                                                                                                                              38   These  were  based  on    publications  by  Dr.Art-­‐Pieter  de  Man     43  
  • 46. 4Programmatic approach and the ICCO Allianceroles and practices  The  theory  of  change  underlying  the  programmatic  approach  has  been  set  out  in  the  preceding  part  of  this  document.    The  core  methodologies:  systems  change,  complexity  thinking,  multi-­‐stakeholder  processes  and  network  and  coalition  building  have  also  been  explained.      Realizing  a  changed  practice  is  however  quite  another  matter.  This  guidance  note  discusses  some  of  the  issues  involved  in  creating  and  strengthening  a  programmatic  cooperation  approach  which  leaves  space  for  experimentation  and  creativity,  which  is  inclusive  of  ‘non-­‐partner  organizations’  and  also  strives  for  ownership  by  the  participating  organizations  and  is  coherent  with  ICCO  Alliance  policies  and  strategy.  This  implies  paying  attention  to  our  roles,  work  processes  and  practices  as  a  donor  organization,  as  a  co-­‐creator  of  change  and  as  a  facilitator  of  learning  and  knowledge  development.    4.1 Roles, thematic focus and partner relations  In  the  Corporate  Business  Plan  2007  –  2010  the  ICCO  Alliance  has  defined  four  different  roles  for  itself:  Strategic  Funding,  Brokering,  Lobby  &  Advocacy  and  Capacity  Development.  These  roles  have  been  maintained  for  the  new  Business  Plan  period  2011-­‐2015.    Program  Officers  are  responsible  in  an  integrated  manner  for  all  four  roles.  In  this  they  are  assisted  by  the  Policy  &  Development  department’s  thematic  and  capacity  development  specialists,  for  research,  knowledge  and  information  brokering  and  advisory  functions.      4.1.1 Strategic funding and the Programmatic Approach  The  strategic  funding  role  is  the  main  role  of  the  ICCO  and  Kerk  in  Actie  (KIA)  Regional  offices  and  the  ICCO  Alliance.    Thematic  specialists  in  the  P&D  department  of  the  Global  office  maintain  relations  with  northern  networks  and  international/  global  networks  on  specific  themes  and  issues.  Thematic  and  policy  officers  in  the  P&D  department  have  roles  in  brokering,  learning  and  knowledge  development,  capacity  development  and  advisory  services  to  the  ROs  as  well  as  corporate  PME  responsibilities.  Relationship  management    with  Southern  Partner  organizations  is  either  transferred  to  the  Regional  offices  of  ICCO  and  Kerk  in  Actie,  remains  with  the  ICCO  Alliance  members  or  in  the  case  of  ICCO  and  Kerk  in  actie  for  ‘global’  relations  to  the  P&D  and  mission  department  of  the  GO  and  for  the    Dutch  relations  and  congregation  contacts  with  the  IP  department.        There  is  a  relation  between  the  individual  bilateral  subsidy  relation  and  the  intention  of  the  ICCO-­‐Alliance  to  promote  multi-­‐stakeholder  programmatic  cooperation.  Often  there  is  a  combination  of  support  to  individual  organizations  in  an  institutional/  core  funding  manner  or  through  project  funding  and  support  to  the  process  of  programmatic  cooperation  in  a  multi-­‐stakeholder  setting  in  which  the  individual  partner  organizations  participate  with  other  -­‐non-­‐ICCO  Alliance  funded  -­‐stakeholders.  ICCO  and  Kerk  in  Actie     44  
  • 47. RO  staff  and  ICCO  Alliance  member  staff  decide  with  which  organizations  they  would  like  to  work  on  the  realization  of  the  stated  objectives  (in  the  business  plan)  and  results.  This  choice  for  organizations  will  lead  to  a  funding  of  these  organizations  for  periods  of  up  to  4  years  (bilateral  institutional  support).  The  bilateral  contracts  are  evaluated  at  least  once  every  three  years  but  always  upon  completion  of  every  contract  in  order  to  ensure  the  learning  cycles  and  accountability.    Funding  to  programmatic  cooperation  is  mainly  in  support  of  the  process  costs:  to  the  governance,  the  linking  and  learning  and  capacity  development  and  eventual  lobby  &  advocacy  or  other  joint  activities  of  the  cooperative  arrangement  (coalition,  network,  alliance  etc).  Participant  organizations  in  the  programmatic  cooperation  will  contribute  to  the  realization  of  the  purpose  of  the  cooperation  by  contributing  staff  time,  financial  and  material  resources  for  jointly  developed  initiatives  and  individual  activities.  In  the  context  of  a  programmatic  cooperation  individual  participant  organizations  will  realize  activities  that  are  in  line  with  the  agreed  vision,  purpose  and  results  of  the  cooperation.  They  will  fund  these  activities  from  their  own  budgets  whether  funded  by  the  ICCO  Alliance  or  by  other  funding  sources  and  donors.  The  activities  that  participating  organizations  undertake  in  the  context  of  the  co-­‐operation  is  seen  as  their  ‘investment’  in  the  realization  of  joint  objectives.  It  is  obvious  that  this  giving  and  taking  in  a  programmatic  co-­‐operation  will  only  take  place  if  the  organizations  involved  see  the  added  value  of  working  co-­‐operatively  for  the  realization  of  their  own  objectives  and  when  it  is  in  line  with  the  vision  of  change  that  their  own  organization  has.  Programmatic  co-­‐operation  needs  to  be  based  on  the  creation  of  win-­‐win  situations.  Otherwise  the  participating  actors  will  not  invest  in  the  ‘cost’  of  the  participation  themselves.    It  is  therefore  preferable  for  the  ICCO  Alliance  not  to  integrate  bilateral  and  program  support  in  one  programmatic  funding  budget  only.  The  experience  shows  that  combining  these  two  in  one  budget  leads  to  “programs”  that  are  perceived  by  partners  as  ‘ICCO  programs’.  This  way  of  funding  also  bears  the  risk  of  creating  partner  relations  for  the  duration  of  a  ‘program’  which  end  when  the  program  ends.  This  is  not  in  line  with  the  Partnership  policies  of  the  current  ICCO  Alliance  which  are  based  on  agreement  on  vision,  mission  and  purpose  at  organizational  level  and  are  often  of  a  long  term  character.  During  the  partnership  the  organizational  capacity  of  the  organization  is  strengthened  and  partners  are  enabled  to  implement  their  activities.  The  ICCO  Alliance  funds  both  these  through  the  institutional  support  relation.  We  are  of  course  aware  that  in  some  cases  the  ICCO  Alliance  has  chosen  to  fund  one  program  through  a  lead  agent  construction.  Examples  are  the  Peace  building  and  Democratization  program  in  Liberia  and  the  Food  and  Nutrition  and  Education  programs  in  Benin.  In  some  cases  where  there  were  no  long-­‐standing  bi-­‐lateral  relations  it  is  a  possibility  to  bring  together  actors  in  a  new  configuration  and  link  the  funding  to  that  new  set  of  actors.  The  FNS  program  in  Mali  is  slowly  developing  from  a  program  with  one  funding  through  one  lead  agent  to  a  form  in  which  the  participating  organizations  themselves  determine  who  receives  how  much  funding  for  which  activities  in  the  context  of  the  programmatic  cooperation.      In  the  last  4  years  of  learning-­‐by-­‐doing  in  the  Programmatic  Approach  a  variety  of  (funding)  strategies  of  programmatic  cooperation  initiatives  has  grown.  Many  have  as  starting  point  the  existing  partners  and  have  not  yet  widened  to  a  truly  multi-­‐stakeholder  configuration.  The  funding  of  cooperative  processes  ranges  from  funding  of  the  ‘program’  activities  by  the  participant  organizations  from  their  own  budgets  as  one  form  to  a  single  funding  for  the  program  coalition  plan  and  activities  by  the  ICCO  Alliance.  In  this  form  a  lead  agent/  governance  structure  channels  the  funding  to  the  individual  organizations  which  do  not  receive  other  direct  funding  from  the  ICCO     45  
  • 48. Alliance.  In  such  arrangements  there  is  often  a  budget  for  the  process  costs  of  the  programmatic  cooperation.       The  Conflict  transformation  In  Latin  America  and  India  there  are  more  longstanding   programme  in  Uganda  is  a  bilateral  institutional  funding  arrangements  than  in   programme  that  has  countries  where  the  level  of  CSO  development  is  still  weak.   developed  through  a  series   of  steps  and  meetings  based  In  the  last  case  there  was  more  often  ‘project  or  earmarked   on  the  Conflict  funding’.  In  such  situations  the  choice  for  a  single  program   Transformation  Manual.  In  funding  to  be  divided  through  project  or  earmarked  funding   this  process  actors  analysed  to  participant  organizations  is  a  preferred  funding  strategy  in   the  fundamental  causes  of  the  programmatic  approach.  In  cases  where  there  is  mainly   conflict,  did  stakeholder  institutional  funding  of  individual  partner  organizations   analysis,  and  developed  these  are  often  continued  and  the  funding  of  the   action  paths/  plans.  All  programmatic  approach  is  mainly  for  process  costs.     actors  involved  were  already  Participant  organizations  fund  the  activities  from  their  own   partners  of  ICCO  and  Kerk  in  budgets.  This  reflects  a  mature  funding  strategy  that  also   Actie.  These  partners   maintain  a  bi-­‐lateral  relation  represents  the  ownership  of  participant  organizations   with  ICCO  and  Kerk  in  Actie  optimally.           and  there  is  a  budget  for  the  We  need  to  note  that  there  are  differences  between  the   Programme  process  costs.  funding  strategies  of  ICCO  Alliance  partners.  As  the   With  the  shrinking  of  the  programmatic  approach  is  the  implementation  strategy  for   budgets  available  this  budget  the  whole  of  the  ICCO  Alliance  in  the  MFS  period  2011-­‐2015   is  currently  under  pressure  this  also  requires  harmonizing  the  funding  strategies   and  partners  are  asked  to  between  ICCO  Alliance  members  in  order  to  be  able  to   contribute  to  the  ‘process’  support  the  programmatic  approach  in  a  coherent  manner.   costs  from  their     organisational  budgets.  How   this  affects  the  continuity  of  The  reduction  of  available  funding  through  the  MFS2  has   the  cooperation  remains  to  consequences  for  the  funding  of  programmatic  cooperation.   be  seen.    However  the  reduction  is  also  seen  as  an  opportunity  to  critically  assess  the  value  of  our  partners  and  the  value  added  created  in  the  cooperation.  Some  partners  and  coalitions  that  are  not  showing  real  value  added  see  their  funding  reduced  and  sometimes  even  stopped.  In  some  cases  good  partners  and  programs  also  face  budget  cuts  because  of  ending  of  programs  in  certain  countries.  Other  decisions  are  made  through  a  joint  choice  to  focus  on  the  strongest  aspects  of  the  cooperation  and  those  activities  that  really  show  potential  for  value  added  or  for  fundraising  with  other  donors.     46  
  • 49. 4.1.2 Brokering  Developing  programmatic  cooperation  is  a  process  that  takes  time  and  requires  brokering  and  networking  skills  from  the  staff  of  the  ICCO  Alliance.  In  addition  they  need   At  the  start  of  the  Ruta  del  Sol  sufficient  knowledge  and  background  in  the  specific   Education  for  all  programme  in  problematics/  themes  that  the  programmatic  cooperation   Peru  a  consultant  assisted  in  would  address  and  a  good  understanding  of  the  systemic   brokering  relations  between  changes  that  we  promote  through  the  programmatic   actors  at  national  and  regional   level  and  in  doing  a  stakeholder  cooperation  process.  In  many  cases  the  initial  steps   analysis  for  the  identification  of  towards  a  programmatic  coalition  were  based  upon   possible  actors  to  become  brokering  activities  by  staff  of  the  ICCO  Alliance.  They  first   involved  in  the  cooperation.  This  of  all  looked  at  their  existing  network  of  partners  to   was  possible  as  a  quite  open  identify  who  might  be  involved  in  a  programmatic  co-­‐ agenda  because  there  was  no  operation  on  a  specific  thematic  area  or  an  issue.   previous  “Education”  programme  Sometimes  consultants  with  expertise  and  experience  in   in  Peru  only  a  few  partners  that  the  thematic  area/  sector  are  invited  to  assist  in  the   worked  on  education.  brokering  of  relations  and  in  doing  the  stakeholder  and  context  analysis.  In  a  few  cases  relations  with  non-­‐  ICCO-­‐Alliance  partners  were  also  established  due  to  an  open  stakeholder  participation  invitation  or  because  of  a  targeted  invitation  to  certain  important  stakeholders  like  local  or  national  governments.    The  decentralization  to  the  Regional  Offices  has  also  had  as  a  result  that  POs  now  are  much  better  informed  about  the  context  and  the  important  stakeholders  and  understand  the  systems  involved  better.  They  are  therefore  more  able  to  play  a  constructive  broker  role.  They  also  are  sometimes  more  critical  towards  the  existing  ‘partner  set’  of  the  ICCO  Alliance.    4.1.3 Capacity development   The  ICCO  Alliance  understanding  of  the   Programmatic  Approach  and  the  fact   that  we  have  developed  its   understanding  in  a  learning-­‐by-­‐doing   manner  implies  that  our  staff  and  our   partner  organizations  need  to  develop   their  ability  to  promote  and  work  in   cooperative  processes.  Several  aspects   are:  understanding  the  complexity  and   the  systems  that  they  are  working  in  and   are  part  of,  developing  the  skills   required  for  true  multi-­‐stakeholder   participation  and  coalition  development.    Staff  of  the  ICCO  Alliance  needs  to  understand  the  requirements  in  terms  of  process  facilitation  and  the  stages  in  developing  cooperation  between  stakeholders  and  the  capacity  development  this  implies.  In  their  role  and  position  they  cannot  themselves  facilitate  this  process  because  that  would  take  too  much  of  their  time.  They  are  however  engaging  facilitators  for  the  accompaniment  of  programmatic  cooperation  and  capacity  development.  They  therefore  need  to  understand  what  competencies  these  facilitators  need.  To  strengthen  ICCO  Alliance  staff’s  competencies  we  have  developed  a  series  of     47  
  • 50. trainings  on  “Methodologies  and  methods  in  the  Programmatic  Approach”  which  are  facilitated  by  the  Centre  for  Development  Innovation  of  Wageningen  University  and  Research39.  Staff  of  the  former  head  office  of  ICCO  and  Kerk  in  actie  in  Utrecht  (now  Global  office),  of  the  Regional  Offices,  of  ICCO  Alliance  member  organizations  and  facilitators  have  all  been  initiated  in  this  manner  in  the  Programmatic  Approach.  In  another  series  of  trainings  we  have  also  invested  in  the  abilities  of  facilitators  of  programmatic  cooperation  and  in  staff  from  lead  organizations.  This  process  of  introducing  the  Programmatic  Approach  at  the  level  of  partner  organizations  and  facilitators  will  continue  in  the  coming  years.    The  subjects  treated  in  the  trainings  are:   • Introduction  on  the  Programmatic  Approach:  lessons  learned   • Paradigms  of  development   • MSP  facilitation  framework   • Power  in  MSP   • Stakeholder  analysis   • Conflict  handling  and  negation  skills   • Institutional  and  systems  change   • Complexity   • Dialogue  and  non-­‐violent  communication   • Theories  of  Change    4.2 The thematic programmes in the Business Plan and the Programmatic Approach  Within  the  ICCO  Alliance    the  formal  definition  of  programs    is  laid  down  in  the  Business  Plan.  The  thematic  programs  are  defined  at  global  level  and  at  country  and  in  many  cases  regional  levels.  The  program  descriptions  are  the  result  of  the  consultation  processes  in  which  regional  councils,  staff  of  regional  offices,  partner  organizations  and  staff  of  the  (global)  offices  of  the  ICCO  Alliance  organizations  have  participated.  A  context  analysis  of  the  particular  country,  its  main  development  problematics,  the  stakeholders  and  the  (international  and  Dutch)  development  policies  and  the  national  government  policy  is  taken  into  account  in  formulation  of  the  thematic  programs.  Based  on  the  choices  presented  in  the  business  plan,  staff  of  the  ICCO  and  Kerk  in  Actie  regional  offices/  ICCO  Alliance  member  organizations  develop  more  concrete  ideas  about  how  to  realize  the  objectives  of  the  described  programs.  Promoting  and  developing  programmatic  cooperation  between  multiple  stakeholders  in  the  context  of  the  business  plan  programs  is  an  integral  part  of  this  process.  Another  strategy  in  the  realization  of  the  objectives  of  the  business  plan  is  the  continuing  support  for  individual  partner  organizations.    There  is  a  clear  relation  between  the  programs  as  defined  in  the  Business  Plan  and  the  plans  of  programmatic  coalitions  established  in  the  regions  and  countries.  Maintaining  the  relation  between  these  two  levels  of  Programs  is  a  major  responsibility  of  the  Program  Officers  in  the  Regional  offices  and  of  staff  of  the  ICCO  Alliance  organizations.  The  ICCO  Alliance  can  only  fund  programmatic  co-­‐operation  and  partner  organizations  if  there  is  a  clear  relation  between  the  aims  of  the  ICCO  Alliance  and  those  of  the  partner  organizations  and  coalitions.  It  is  through  the  work  of  our                                                                                                                            39   The  CDI  website  gives  you  access  to    a  great  amount  of  resources  ,  tools,  literature  that  can  be  very   helpful  in  developing  your  abilities  in  facilitating  multi-­‐stakeholder     processes.http://www.cdi.wur.nl/UK/.  Another  website  is  also  very  useful  for  accessing  relevant  tools   for  multi-­‐stakeholder  and  social  change  processes:  http://www.change-­‐management-­‐ toolbook.com/mod/book/view.php?id=74&chapterid=45     48  
  • 51. partner  organizations  that  we  realize  our  aims  and  results.  Programmatic  coalitions  should  however  also  formulate  their  own  objectives,  this  is  of  major  importance  in  the  creation  of  ownership  by  the  actors  involved  over  their  joint  program.  The  dialogue  between  the  programmatic  coalition  and  the  PO  should  be  such  that  ICCO  Alliance  objectives  and  coalition  objectives  reinforce  each  other  rather  than  diverge  too  much.  The  objectives  of  the  Coalition  should  be  based  on  their  own  interests  and  not  be  defined  by  the  ICCO  Alliance.  Coalitions  should  not  become  instrumentalized  for  the  realization  of  the  ICCO  Alliance  objectives.  There  should  be  a  good  partnership  of  equals  for  a  joint  purpose,  each  playing  their  own  role.    Back-­donor  funding  In  some  cases  programmatic  cooperation  has  been  developed  as  a  meta-­‐level  project  funded  by  a  back-­‐donor  like  the  European  Union.  In  these  situations  participant  organizations  receive  a  part  of  the  project  funding  guided  by  the  project-­‐program  document  as  is  the  case  in  the  food-­‐security  program  in  Bangladesh.  ICCO  acts  as  liaison  agent  to  the  back  donor.  In  addition  the  participant  organizations  receive  funding  from  ICCO  Alliance  member  organizations  in  the  context  of  bilateral  relations.  The  way  in  which  we  as  ICCO  Alliance  combine  the  Programmatic  Approach  with  back-­‐donor  funded  projects/  programs  needs  to  be  further  developed.  As  ICCO  Alliance  we  think  that  the  Programmatic  Approach  is  a  very  valuable  approach  that  might  well  be  the  ‘corporate  advantage’  in  tendering  processes  for  back  donor  funded  programs.    4.3. Governance models and structures  In  conjunction  with  the  variety  in  funding  strategies  used,  a  number  of  models  for  the  governance  of  the  coalition  and  its  relation  to  ICCO  or  the  ICCO  Alliance  have  developed.  The  following  is  a  representation  of  various  forms  that  have  been  developed  in  practice  The  current  practice  of  the  Programmatic  Approach40  in  ICCO  shows  a  wide  variety  of  programs  with  different  characteristics  on  the  content  (type  of  issue,  scope,  level),  the  composition  (partners,  non-­‐partners,  networks),  role  of  ICCO  during  the  process,  funding  and  governance.  Various  models  for  structure  and  governance  have  been  identified:    Figures:  governance  models  and  structures  of  coalitions  Evaluative  study    1    First  step  to  joint  activities      Model  1  is  a  ‘first  step  to  joint  activities’  in  which  partners  have  parts  of  their  mandates  or  strategies  overlapping,  and  therefore  see  the  need  to  collaborate  or  coordinate  on  a  certain  theme  or  problematic.                                                                                                                              40   Based  on  E.Wortel  and    J.  van  Geene  Evaluative  Study  of  the  Programmatic  Approach.     49  
  • 52.  2    Joint  Programme:  e.g.  Ruta  del  Sol           eg  Lobby,  Capacity  Development           partners                  In  Model  2  the  joint  activities  are  made  explicit  in  a  program,  for  instance  doing  joint  linking  and  learning,  lobby  and  advocacy,  in  which  all  program  partners  participate.      3    Lead  agency  and  clustering  of  activities:  Peace-­Building  Programme  Liberia.       ICCO  (Alliance)    Partner  a,b     Partners  c,d,e     Partner  f,g,h,i        In  Model  3  a  program  is  more  expanded  and  has  split  up  program  activities  in  different  clusters,  which  may  be  coordinated  by  a  lead  partner.         50  
  • 53. 4    North  South  Alliances:  e.g.  Agri-­ProFocus  Ethiopia          Coalition  North                Coalition  South  on  country-­‐level          5    Participation  in  and  support  to  existing  network                   ICCO                              Models  4  and  5  are  a  bit  different:  Model  4  shows  a  program  in  which  both  coalitions  in  the  North  and  the  South  participate  (such  as  Agri-­‐ProFocus)  while  in  Model  5  there  is  an  existing  network  in  which  ICCO  partners  will  participate.         51  
  • 54. 6  Value  Chain         ICCO              Model  6  shows  a  value  chain  in  which  ICCO  is  a  connector  to  different  actors  in  the  chain  to  support  chain  coordination.      Program  coalitions  show  high  levels  of  ‘path  dependency’.  This  means  that,  once  a  program  coalition  has  started  in  a  certain  direction,  particular  options  become  more  relevant  and  ‘natural’  than  others.  For  instance,  if  a  program  coalition  is  started  with  an  existing  group  of  partners  that  all  have  ICCO  funding,  and  no  new  funding  is  made  available,  it  is  likely  that  the  scope  and  focus  of  the  program  will  remain  the  same.  Whereas,  if  a  new  set  of  actors  is  added  to  the  composition  of  a  coalition,  the  scope  (levels  of  interventions)  is  more  likely  to  widen.  The  same  applies  for  the  type  of  funding  mechanisms  and  governance  structures  that  are  chosen:  they  will  all  drive  the  program  in  a  certain  direction,  which  is  difficult  (or  even  impossible)  to  change  at  a  later  stage.  Every  choice  should  therefore  be  taken  with  care.  However,  it  is  not  easy  to  predict  if  the  choices  made  for  each  program  will  work  out  positively  or  negatively.  Within  the  different  stages  of  program  development  (exploration,  preparation,  implementation)  these  choices  are  crucial,  as  well  as  the  choice  made  before  even  ‘initiating’  a  programmatic  approach  on  a  theme,  in  a  particular  place  (the  zero  –  phase).    In  conclusion:    Within  the  ICCO  Alliance  we  will  promote  inclusive  and  open  ‘cooperative  processes’  rather  than  the  ‘program  building’  approach  which  we  have  often  followed  so  far  in  order  to  be  able  to  change  existing  systems  and  address  the  complexity.  This  includes  promoting  true  multi-­‐stakeholder  configurations  with  a  mix  of  existing  ICCO  Alliance  partners  and  non-­‐  ICCO  Alliance  partners,    and  a  focus  on  a  problematic/  system  and  where  possible  support  already  existing  cooperative  initiatives.  The  structures,  governance  models  and  funding  strategy  need  to  promote  and  support  Multi-­‐stakeholder  cooperative  processes.  In  order  to  be  able  to  learn  more  about  the  effectiveness  and  sustainability  of  various  ‘cooperation  forms’  we  need  tools  that  can  help  us  in  the  assessment.  To  this  end  a  Programmatic  Cooperation  scan  has  been  developed  in  2010.  The  P-­‐scan  will  be  included  in  the  monitoring  of  programmatic  cooperation.  The  programmatic  cooperation  scan  also  looks  at  the  quality  and  readiness  of  organization’s  cooperation  and  relations  and  will  be  used  in  the  monitoring  process.  You  can  find  the  P-­‐scan  in  Annex  2.       52  
  • 55. Annex 1Guidelines for Developing programmaticcooperation; the phases    In  this  annex  we  will  present  in  more  detail  the  different  phases  that  are  part  of  the  programmatic  cooperation  and  coalition  development  process.  A  set  of  guidelines  has  been  developed  over  the  last  years  that  can  serve  as  reference  to  those  staff  involved  in  the  development  of  cooperative  processes.  The  guidelines  take  you  through  the  different  phases,  stating  the  main  activities  that  need  to  be  undertaken  during  such  a  phase.  The  guidelines  also  give  questions  to  decide  whether  all  aspects  of  a  particular  phase  have  received  due  attention.  The  phases  resemble  the  phases  as  presented  in  the  paragraph  on  Coalition  development.    A  word  of  caution  is  needed  here.  The  phases  in  the  programmatic  cooperation  process  are  described  in  a  seemingly  linear  fashion.  However  the  reality  of  promoting  programmatic  cooperation  is  that  it    is  anything  but  a  linear  process,  but  rather  a  process  in  which  the  phases  do  not  happen  one  after  the  other  but  in  an  iterative  manner  in  which  we  will  often  go  back  and  forth  between  the  stages  and  sometimes  put  one  step  forward  and  two  steps  back  to  put  one  step  forward  again.  It  is  also  possible  that  the  process  has  already  started  and  we  as  ICCO  Alliance  come  in  or  associate  ourselves  to  an  existing  initiative  or  co-­‐operative  process.        Phase 0 Preliminary phase, The ICCO Alliance preparation  Based  on  the  Corporate  Business  Plan  (CBP)  and  the  Strategic  Plan  2011-­‐2015  the  member  organizations    of  the  ICCO  Alliance  have  preliminary  discussions  on:    the    thematic  programs  as  described  in  the  CBP,  the  consequences  for  thematic  program  development  and  cooperation  between  the  ICCO  Alliance  members,  the  specific  countries/  regions  in  which  thematic  programs  will  be  developed  and  the  possibilities  for  supporting    programmatic  cooperation  between  multiple  stakeholders  on  these  thematic  programs  in  the  countries.      The  participants  in  this  step  of  the  process  are:  the  identified  member  organizations  of  the  ICCO  Alliance.  For  ICCO  this  implies:  policy  specialists  at  GO,  GPCs  of  the  IPD,  POs  of  the  Regional  offices,  and  searching  for  input  from  the  regional  councils.  For  the  other  member  organizations  this  implies  staff  of  the  organizations  in  the  Netherlands  and  in  some  cases  staff  of  regional  representatives  (Edukans).  The  discussions  will  take  place  in  the  Netherlands  but  also  with  representatives  of  the  stakeholders  in  the  South  and  staff  and  council  members  of  ICCO  in  the  regions.      The  input  to  the  discussions  are:   • The  Corporate  Business  Plan  and  the  Strategic  Plan   • Thematic  Policy  as  developed   • Evaluations  from  earlier  experiences   • Research  and  studies  concerning  the  thematic  domain   • Existing  Stakeholder,  context  and  baseline  analyses    (including  information  on   existing  networks  and  activities)     53  
  • 56. • Inputs  by  existing  programmatic  cooperation  coalitions  (monitoring  reports,   partner/  coalition  meeting  reports  and  learning  documents).      Phase 1 Exploration Phase  The  main  purpose  of  this  phase  is  twofold:  to  strengthen  the  understanding  of  the  ICCO  Alliance  members  on  what  we  would  like  to  realize  in  a  particular  thematic  area  in  a  particular  country  or  region  and  to  build  or  link  up  to  cooperative  efforts  of  Southern  and/or  northern  organizations/  networks  that  are  motivated  to  work  with  support  of  the  ICCO  Alliance  on  the  identified  problematics.  This  can  also  imply  the  initial  identification  of    external  funding  resources  from  other  donors.    The  following  steps  need  to  be  taken:    1.1   identification  of  program:  The  ICCO  Alliance  has  an  idea  about    the  aim  of  the   program  and    about  the  possible  participation  of  specific  partner  organisations   and  other  actors;  These  actors  have  been  consulted  and  have  initiated  a  1.2   a  context  analysis  specifically  aimed  at  the  theme  in  the  country  or  the  region   that  has  been  developed  with  the  multiple  actors  concerned.  1.3     A  stakeholder  analysis  has  been  executed  aimed  at  the  theme  in  a  specific     country  /  region  in  which  partner  organizations  and  other  actors/  organizations     have  been  consulted  concerning  the  idea,  the  problematic  and  their  stake  in   resolving  it  and  have  indicated  their  interest  to  co-­‐operate.    1.4   In  this  phase  of  the  programmatic  cooperation  formation  process  the  ICCO   Alliance  plays  a  broker  role:  brings  actors  together,  organizes  meetings,   contracts  consultants  for  specific  tasks  such  as  the  context  analyses,  stakeholder   and  gender  analysis  and  facilitation  of  consultation  meetings.  But  the  ICCO   Alliance  also  plays  a  role  as  a  stakeholder  because  we  have  our  own  aims  and   knowledge  of  and  experience  with  (thematic)  development  that  we  bring  into   the  process.  In  cases  where  the  initial  stakeholder  analysis  shows  that  there  are   existing  networks  working  on  the  issues  the  ICCO  Alliance  will  investigate  how   we  can  support  these  existing  networks  and  also  promote  linkages  of  ICCO   Alliance  partners  to  these  networks  if  these  do  not  yet  exist.    Questions  on  program  development    I.    Exploration  phase  ICCO  Alliance  assesses  the  possibilities  for  program  development    • Identification:  Does  an  idea/ideas  about  the  possibility  of  programmatic  cooperation   in  a  country/  region  and  about  the  possible  contributing  partners/  other   organizations  exist?  Initiative  can  come  from  ICCO  or  from  the  South.    • Has  a  participatory  context  and  gender/  rights  analysis  for  the  specific  theme/   themes  been  done  and  documented?  Who  has  done  the  analysis  and  how?  Who   where  the  actors  involved  in  the  analysis  (in  particular  existing  partners,  new  actors   from  outside  the  existing  network?)  Have  the  results  of  the  analysis  been   communicated  to  those  involved  and  if  yes  how?      • Has  the  ICCO  Alliance  explained  its  thematic  policy  to  the  actors  involved,  so  as  to   inform  partners  about  the  CCO  –  alliance    conceptual  and  political  framework   concerning  the  problematic.  • Has  a  participatory  stakeholder  analysis  been  done  identifying  different  actors  and   “drivers  of  change”  (partner  and  non  partner  organizations)  Who  is  involved  in   work  on  this  theme?  Which  power/  influence  do  they  have?  How  are  they  involved     54  
  • 57. in/  part  of  the  system  underlying  the  problematic.  • By  whom  were  the  actors  invited  for  participation  in  this  programmatic  cooperation     process?  By  the  ICCO  Alliance,  or  by  Southern  actors,  in  a  shared  process?    • Have  partners/  actors  been  consulted  about  the  programmatic  cooperation    idea   and  possible  co-­‐operation?  Are  there  possibilities  for  synergy?    • What  is  the  possible  role  of  the  ICCO-­‐Alliance  as  broker?  (  linking  of  the  right  people,   organizations  and  enterprises  so  that  added  value  and  synergy  can  develop)    • Is  there  coherence  with  other  programmatic  cooperation  processes  (  supported  by     the  ICCO  Alliance  and  others)  in  the  same  context/  region/  product  chain?  • Linking  and  learning!!  Are  potential  participants  willing  to  critically  self-­‐  assess  their   functioning  and  do  they  want  to  learn?  • Have  women  and  men  been  equally  consulted  in  the  exploration  phase  or  have   efforts  to  that  aim  been  undertaken?    • Has  a  gender/  rights  analysis  been  part  of  the  analysis  of  the  problematic?  What   were  its  conclusions  for  the  possible  purpose  of  the  cooperation  and  the  activities  to   be  undertaken?      Phase 2 Preparation phase  2.1   Potential  participants    in  this  program  develop  a  shared  vision,  objectives  and   strategy,  and  the  setting  up  of  an  adapted  M&E  system.  2.2   Potential  participants  agree  about  the  respective  roles  that  each  participant  in   the  process  will  play.    2.3   Potential  participants  make  their  interests  explicit  2.4   Participants  jointly  develop  a  first  plan  of  activities  and  budget  indicating  the   division  of  responsibilities  and  resources  also  indicating  the  budget   requirements  for  the  process  costs.  This  is  discussed  amongst  participating   organizations  and  the  ICCO  Alliance.    2.5   Capacity  development  is  included  in  the  cooperation  agreement  and  a  possible   personnel  assistance  has  been  foreseen  in  the  plan      2.6   The  manner  in  which  the  ICCO  alliance  contributes  to  the  program  in  the  form  of   e.g.  an  active  brokering  role,  capacity  development,  knowledge  development  and   learningis  described  in  the  cooperation  agreement           55  
  • 58.  Question  for    the  Preparation  phase    In  a  joint  effort  of  actors  from  the  region/  country    and  the  ICCO  Alliance  a  program  is  developed  ,  in  which  the  four  roles  are  represented.    • Do  potential  partners  in  the  program  have  a  shared  vision,  (including  values  and   norms)  (  thematic)  objectives,  (  including  the  intended  results)  and  strategy   reflected  in  a  program  document  (including  linking  and  learning).  How  did  they   develop  this?      • Are  gender  equality  and  rights-­‐based  approach  part  of  the  programmatic   cooperation’s  plan  (  the  ‘program’)?  • Has  a  capacity  assessment  been  undertaken?  Do  organizations  have  sufficient   capabilities  to  fulfill  their  envisaged  roles  and  responsibilities?    • Do  potential  partners  agree  about  their  prospective  and  complementary  roles?  How   did  they  reach  agreement  on  this?    • Are  there  potential  areas  of  conflict,  now  or  in  the  future?  Are  there  potential  pitfalls   which  can  be  addressed  (  if  needed)  by  the  ICCO  Alliance?  • Has  a  funding  strategy  been  developed?  Will  there  be  a  coalition  funding  or  are   individual  (  project  or  institutional)  funding  foreseen  in  combination  with   programmatic  cooperation  process  costs  funding?  Are  there  sources  of  funding  from   outside  the  ICCO  Alliance?  • Has  a  governance  structure  been  developed  that  will  be  able  to  steer  the  ‘program‘,   monitor  and  learn  from  the  ‘program’  and  divide  responsibilities  and  participation   of  all  actors  • Does  trust  exist  amongst  the  organizations  that  have  explicitly  committed   themselves  to  the  ‘program’?  • Is  it  clear  who  does/  does  not  participate  at  which  level,  and  in  relations  to  which   part  of  the  ‘program’?  How  have  different  elements  of  the  ‘program’  been   developed?    • How  has  the  internal  coordination  of  the  program  been  set-­‐up?  Is  there  e.g.  a  local   advisory  board  or  steering  committee?  Based  on  which  considerations?  Is  this   structure  funded?  • Have  the  4  roles  of  ICCO  been  included  clearly  in  the  proposal?  Does  the  ICCO   Alliance  commit  itself  for  a  longer  period  of  time  to  play  these  roles?  • Which  coordination  agreements  have  been  reached  within  the  ICCO  Alliance  about:   coordination,  conferring,  division  of  roles  (also  in  regards  the  financial  and   administrative  responsibilities),  funding  etc.  • Has  a    possible  personnel  assistance  been  foreseen  in  the  plan,  in  which  form?  • Is  there  a  communication  strategy  developed  for  the  internal  communication   between  participating  actors?  • Does  the  ICCO  Alliance  play  a  role  as  broker  or  co-­‐knowledge  development?  • Are  women  and  men  equally  represented  in  the  coordinating  team  or  have  efforts  to   that  avail  been  undertaken?  • Have  potential  participants  developed  a  funding  plan  and  plan  of  activities?  • Have    agreements  been  reached  about  financial  transparency  and  if  required   uniform  financial  reporting?         56  
  • 59. Phase 3: Implementation/ Maturation phase  3.1   A  contract  or  an  MOU  has  been  developed  stating  the  roles  that  the  ICCO  Alliance   will  play  and  the  support  that  the  ICCO  Alliance  will  provide  to  the   programmatic  co-­‐operation.  3.2   Agreements  have  been  reached  in  the  programmatic  co-­‐operation  and  with  the   ICCO  Alliance  about  monitoring  and  evaluation.    3.2   Agreements  have  been  reached  in  the  programmatic  coalition  and  with  ICCO   about  how  learning  from  experiences  will  be  promoted.  3.3   A  (possible)  personnel  assistance  has  been  foreseen  in  the  plan  (preferably   local/  regional)  3.4   The  ICCO  alliance  gives  external  support  to  the  programmatic  cooperation  in  the   form  of    an  active  brokering  role,  capacity  development  and  knowledge   generation.  3.5     Regular  reflection  moments  are  built  in  in  order  to  follow  whether  the  process  is   still  going  into  the  right  direction,  whether  the  key  stakeholders  are  still   committed  and  whether  the  program  need  new  actors      Questions  for  the    Execution/implementation  phase    Agreements  will  be  made  with  all  participating  parties  in  the  programmatic  cooperation,  with  the  ICCO  Alliance  members  and  possible  others,  concerning  the  duration  of  the  ‘programme’,  division  of  responsibilities  and  tasks  etc.      • Has  an  MOU    been  formulated  stipulating  all  tasks,  responsibilities    and  roles?    • Has  an  MOU  been  formulated  stipulating  the  roles  and  the  support  that  the  ICCO   Alliance  will  give  to  the  program?  Does  this  need  adaptation?  • Has  the  governance  system  been  defined  well?    • Have  agreements  about  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  process  as  well  as  of  the   results  been  reached?  How  often  will  M&E  take  place  using  which  instruments?    • In  which  manner  will  linking  and  learning  in  the  program  be  assured  ?  Which   methods  will  be  used?  At  which  levels  of  the  program?    • Is  there  agreement  about  how  all  actors  can  learn  from  the  program  jointly  (   thematically,  as  to  process  aspects).  Have  the  aspects  about  which  participants   intend  to  learn  been  identified?  Has  also  been  identified  how  actors  intend  to  do  this,   and  the  support  needs?      • Has  personnel  assistance  been  agreed,  in  which  manner?  • External  facilitation  by  the  ICCO  Alliance  as  broker  through  e.g.  workshops,  /  D-­‐ groups/  skype  ,  visits  etc  has  been  agreed  .  •  Are  women  and  men  equally  represented  in  the  implementation  of  activities?  • In  which  manner  are  men  and  women  belonging  b  to  the  beneficiary  group  of  the   program  participating  in  the  program?  Which  support  for  the  intended  changes  does   exist  at  their  level?    • Which  lobby  and  advocacy  needs  to  be  undertaken  locally;  Which  support  or   protection  of  activists  can  the  ICCO  Alliance  offer?     3. Which  support  for  lobby  and  advocacy  and  which  support  for  development   cooperation/  the  program  activities  do  need  to  be  developed  in  the   Netherlands  and  at  a  regional/  global  level?   4. Does  the  group  have  the  flexibility  to  incorporate  new  actors?  If  not,  why  not,   if  yes  why  so?  Can  the  ICCO  Alliance  play  a  role  in  this?         57  
  • 60. Phase 4 Monitoring, Reflection and Follow up Follow-up   4.1   From  the  beginning  on  a  proper  M&S  system  has  been  set  up  and   implemented       4.2     Proper  monitoring  has  taken  place,  reports  are  available.     4.3     A  learning  culture  has  been  established     4.4     Proper  monitoring  has  taken  place,  reports  are  available.     4.5     An  evaluation  of  the  ‘program’  has  taken  place,  reports  are  available.   4.6   Lessons  have  been  drawn  from  the  programmatic  cooperation  process  as   well  as  results  realization.   4.7   Follow-­‐up  has  been  formulated,  cooperation  between  involved  actors   continues   4.8   Funding  for  continued  cooperation  has  been  sourced  from  different   (new,  other)  sources.    Questions  for  the  Monitoring  +    evaluation    Shortly  before  the  end  of  the  program    an  evaluation  in  which  effectiveness  of  the  roles  of  actors  in  the  programmatic  cooperation  and  of  the  ICCO  Alliance  will  be  judged  This  will  provide  the  input  for  possible  continued  programmatic  cooperation.     5. Has  monitoring  been  taken  up  right  from  the  inception  phase?    Are   monitoring  reports  available?  Is  a  baseline  available,  has  a  theory  of  change   been  developed  for  the  program?     6. Has  regular  reflection  moments  taken  place  whereby  not  only  the  “steering   Committee”  participated  but  the  whole  alliance.  What  kind  of  tools  /   methods  have  been  used  in  order  to  stimulate  learning  and  critical   reflection?     7. What  kind  of  tools  /  methods  have  been  used  in  order  to  stimulate  learning   and  critical  reflection?   8. Has  a  mid-­‐term  evaluation  taken  place?  Is  the  report  available?  In  which   manner  has  it  been  done?   9. Evaluation  has  taken  place,  the  report  is  available.   10. What  has  been  learned  about  the  program  in  terms  of  effectivity  and   relevance?   11. What  has  been  learned  about  the  roles  of  partners  and  of  the  ICCO  Alliance?     12. What  will  be  the  follow-­‐up?         58  
  • 61. Annex 2: Programmatic Cooperation scan  For  reasons  of  space,  we  would  like  to  refer  you  to  the  PMEL-­‐wiki,  where  you  will  find  the  Programmatic  Cooperation  scan.     59  
  • 62.     4  
  • 63. ICCOJoseph Haydnlaan 2a3533 AE UtrechtPostbus 81903503 RD UtrechtT (030) 692 78 11F (030) 692 56 14E info@icco.nlI www.icco.nl