Knowledge Compendium (India Backbone) chage march 2015

India Backbone Implementation Network
KNOWLEDGE COMPENDIUM
Confusion Coordination | Contention Collaboration
Intention Implementation
December 2014

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................01
SECTION 1: IndiaWorks High Five!......................................................................07
SECTION 2: Delivering Change Foundation ..........................................................43
SECTION 3: FICCI QUPRAC 2014 .........................................................................49
SECTION 4: A Coordinated Process for Improving the Business ................................57
Regulatory Environment in India
SECTION 5: Industrial Relations: Building Trust and Cooperation .............................67
SECTION 6: Accelerated Cluster Growth and Partnership Initiative............................77
SECTION 7: Scenarios - Enterprise Structures and the Future of Jobs ........................85
SECTION 8: Collaborative Process to find solutions for Affordable, Accessible ............95
and Acceptable quality Medicines and Healthcare for all citizens
SECTION 9: Simple Systems of Effective Participative Planning in Indian Cities..........107
SECTION 10: Simple Systems for Effective Participative Planning in Villages ...............117
SECTION 11: Civil Society Organizations - Learning Together...................................129
Annexure: IbIn team ....................................................................................135

02 | IbIn Knowledge Compendium
THE INDIA BACKBONE IMPLEMENTATION NETWORK
IbIn (India Backbone Implementation Network) provides methods and tools to enable stakeholders
to work more effectively together, to turn contentions amongst them into collaboration, and
confusion in implementation into effective coordination. Thereby it accelerates the conversion of
development intentions into outcomes. The methods required are being found from other countries
and from best practices within India too. The use of such methods can reduce delays and
misdirected resources, and thus increase the 'total factor productivity' of the economy.
The idea of IbIn was conceived within the Planning Commission while preparing the 12th Five Year
Plan. During the process of consultation with stakeholders, many suggested that, rather than
preparing another Five Year Plan, the Planning Commission should focus on implementation of its
plans. Moreover, increasing demands from various sectors, to increase allocations so that they
could produce the outcomes they must, could not be met with a Government financial crunch as
well as insufficient economic growth. Therefore there is a pressing need to repair leaky and choked
pipes before pouring more water into the overhead tanks, with the hope that a sufficient quantity
will reach the ground.
The country must improve its ability to produce outcomes with limited resources. Progress is being
impeded by myriad bottlenecks. A root cause analysis of these bottlenecks, which are resulting in
wastage of resources of time, money, and human capacity, revealed that unresolved contentions
amongst stakeholders—in projects, policies, and programs—were a prime cause. These bottlenecks
are at all levels: in the cities and districts, in the States, and in the Centre. These contentions are
often kicked upstairs for resolution from above, which creates bottlenecks in central coordinating
capacity. Increasingly these contentions are taken to courts to resolve them, which is very time-
consuming. Therefore they must be prevented from arising, at the root, with systematic processes
for cooperation amongst the relevant stakeholders. This will improve the speed of implementation
and reduce wastage of resources.
The introduction of systematic methods of collaborative planning and implementation must become
a national campaign. A model of a process to improve a nation's ability to get things done is
available in the Total Quality Movement in Japan in the 1960s and 70s. Techniques for group
working to achieve zero defects, and on time delivery were disseminated throughout the country.
Their application turned Japan from a producer of cheap, flimsy, products into the hallmark of
quality, and even premium pricing in many industries. The contribution of the Total Quality
Movement to the Japanese economic miracle cannot be over-stated.
Introduction

IbIn Knowledge Compendium | 03
A small group within the Planning Commission studied the national 'roll out' strategy of TQM in
Japan and also looked around the world for other examples of systematic methods of improving
capabilities to collaborate and get things done. They were assisted in this search by the World
Bank's Trade and Competitive Industries Division and by the GIZ, the German Government's
international development arm. This was the genesis of the India Backbone Implementation
Network, or IbIn—which also stands for 'Ibhi (i.e. Abhi) India ki bari hai'.
IbIn was announced in April 2013. It has been a 'skunks work' so far, on less than a shoe string
budget. It has not been given any government budget yet. Nevertheless, it has been able to produce
some good results already. Because the idea is a good one.
The IbIn network of partners and projects is described in the chart.
IbIn Node
Planning
Commission
World Bank
GIZ
India @ 75
“Volunteer
Managers”
Delivering Change
Foundation (PEMANDU –
SAKAL)
QUPRAC
INDIAWORKS
Urban SSEPP
Rural/Village
SSEPP
CSO Platform
Manufacturing
Scenarios
Indust
Platform
rial Relations
MSME Cluster
Stimulation Cell
Business Regulations
Affordable
Medicines/Health
Insights and
Methods
IbIn Knowledge
Compendium
IbIn Website
IbIn's supporters
On the left are the resources supporting the starting node of the IbIn network—the IbIn working
group. The idea was conceived in the Planning Commission and was supported by the World Bank
and GIZ as mentioned before. The IbIn node comprises of young managers who have been 'donated'
by Indian corporations, and other young managers who have volunteered to work in IbIn 'pro
bono'. Therefore the Government was not required to hire and pay for these personnel, and
Government recruitment rules did not have to be followed. The availability of the 'best of the best'
talent at no cost to Government has provided IbIn with great operational flexibility. Moreover the
team operates in non-hierarchical and fluid mode which has enabled it to respond to needs in a
dynamic manner.
India@75, an organization supported by the Confederation of Indian Industry, has provided the
team with space to operate from in CII's office in Gurgaon. The Tata Group has donated Rs. 12 lakhs
and Mr. Kris Gopalakrishnan has donated Rs. 15 lakhs through India@75 towards stipend and
expenses of IbIn nodal cell.

IbIn projects
The IbIn team
The projects that IbIn has initiated and facilitated are represented to the right of the IbIn node in
the chart. Accounts of these projects and the insights obtained from them are provided in this
document.
Three of these projects, viz. the Delivering Change Foundation, IndiaWorks, and QUPRAC, are
developing generic methodologies for collaborative planning and implementation that can be
applied to many sectors.
Another set viz. the Business Regulation Cluster of Projects, the Industrial Relations' Platform, The
Accelerated Cluster Growth and Partnership Initiative, and the Manufacturing Scenarios, are
primarily in the manufacturing space, in which IbIn began as explained in its genesis.
The other projects, outside the manufacturing arena, are focused on the search and dissemination
of SSEPPs (simple systems for effective participative planning) for inclusive and sustainable
development in urban and rural areas.
Many insights as well as methods for collaborative planning and implementation have emerged from
the work of IbIn. These have been compiled into a compendium of IbIn knowledge for the benefit of
all IbIn partners and for wider dissemination in the country. These insights and methods are
presented in this document, and are also available on IbIn's web-site at www.ibinmovement.in.
Finally, to the box in the middle of the diagram labelled the 'IbIn Node'. IbIn is an innovation
within Government. Both, in what it does, and how it does it. What IbIn does is explained in the
Knowledge Compendium in the accounts of its projects. 'Who' the people are in the IbIn node, and
how they operate, is the story of an entrepreneurial start-up within Government.
The seeds of IbIn were sown in the Planning Commission sometime in 2011. The Deputy Chairman of
the Planning Commission had appealed to the Members of the Planning Commission which had been
constituted in July 2009 not to be trapped in the way the Government (and the Planning
Commission) thinks and works. He wanted them to engage with the world outside Government and
bring in new ideas, and shape new approaches to speed up development of the country.
The Members of the Commission requested for a couple of assistants each from outside Government,
who were not from 'within the box', with whose help they could shape innovative ways of working.
Government rules made it impossible for the Deputy Chairman to provide this assistance. He asked
the Members to find innovative ways even to get the resources they needed! 'Turn to your friends in
Industry', he said to Mr. Arun Maira, Member Industry.
Mr. Arun Maira asked the Tata Group and the Mahindra Group for help. Considering the benefit that
the country (and Industry) could have if the Planning Commission could operate innovatively, both
offered to donate a 'best of best' young manager for a year, free of any cost to Government, to work
with the Member Industry. According to the rules, the Planning Commission could not engage them
as individuals. But it could hire a consulting organization. Therefore, these two young men, who
had never met each other before, created a two person consulting company which they called
'Paradigm Consulting', in recognition of the new paradigm of providing assistance to the Planning
Commission.

A few months later, CEOs of other organizations—Axis Bank, and Sona Steering—who saw the
invaluable management development experience these young men were getting, in addition to the
contribution they were making to shape new policies, offered to donate young managers from their
organizations too. They were followed by other organizations—ICICI Bank and L&T. And other bright
and motivated young persons, not sponsored by any organization, came forth to volunteer their
help pro bono. The first to join Paradigm have returned to their parent organizations and have been
replaced by others from their organizations. Thus Tata's are into their fourth generation with
Paradigm; Mahindra's into their third; and Axis Bank into its second.
Thus Paradigm Consulting has grown within the Planning Commission, from two to seven and eight
persons at a time. When the idea of IbIn was spawned in the Planning Commission, in which the
Paradigm Consulting members at that time played a major role, they became the nodal cell of the
IbIn network. Thus Paradigm Consulting has morphed into the IbIn nodal team. It is a self-
organizing team without a hierarchy. New members come, and others leave, and the work carries on
smoothly. The IbIn node is a flexible, internally networked organization. It seeks to embody the
spirit of cooperation to serve a higher cause with which, it is hoped, all IbIn projects, whose super-
ordinate purpose is to create new cultures and systems of collaboration, will be driven.
The names and pictures of the 16 persons who have been members of Paradigm/IbIn are given in an
Annexure to the Knowledge Compendium.

Section 1
IndiaWorks High Five!
The Power of Alignment
An operating model for shaping cooperation and managing coordination amongst
stakeholders so that they can achieve the outcomes they want
Based on Capacity WORKS of the GIZ
(www.giz.de and http://www.giz.de/expertise/html/4620.html for Capacity WORKS)

Contents
1. Introduction............................................................................................09
1.1 Why India needs a Backbone Capability ....................................................09
1.2 The Power of Alignment.........................................................................10
1.3 The IbIn way of doing things and IndiaWorks.............................................11
1.4 The GIZ and Capacity WORKS...................................................................11
2. Cooperation vs. Organisation .....................................................................12
2.1 A difference that makes a difference.........................................................12
2.2 The Organisation ..................................................................................13
2.3 The Cooperation System.........................................................................14
3. The IndiaWorks High Five! Model ................................................................17
3.1 Purpose and Objectives..........................................................................18
3.2 Shaping a Cooperation System ................................................................19
3.3 Steering Structure ................................................................................20
3.4 Systematic Processes ............................................................................20
3.5. Accelerating Learning ..........................................................................21
4. Tools ......................................................................................................22
5. Examples from Capacity WORKS..................................................................23
5.1 Purpose and Objectives; and Shaping a Cooperation System .........................23
5.2 Steering Structure ...............................................................................28
5.3 Systematic Processes............................................................................33
5.4 Accelerating Learning ..........................................................................38

Introduction01
1.1 Why India needs a Backbone Capability
The progress of India, in the growth of its economy, in creating more jobs and livelihoods for its
young and growing population, in the creation of infrastructure, in the provision of public services,
and in the improvement of its institutions, has been hampered by contentions amongst
stakeholders and by confusion in implementation.
A root cause for the stalling of policies and projects, and often their reversal too, are contentions
amongst stakeholders—within government, within industry, within civil society, and contentions
between civil society, industry and government stakeholders. We must address this root cause to
accelerate our progress. IbIn focuses attention on the root cause; and it provides techniques and
tools with which the contentions can be converted into collaboration, and the manifest confusion
into coordination thereby serving almost like a backbone on which to build structures. Thus IbIn
enables collaborative implementation—the need of the hour for India's progress—to be faster and
more certain.
India has for years been described as having huge potential, but has consistently lagged behind
China and others in its growth rates. There are many reasons for this…
India has huge 'potential', but there are many constraints to growth
Infrastructure,
Power
Technology,
Trade Policies
Land,
Environment
Messy Business
Regulations
Human Resources,
Industrial
Relations
Cost of credit
Exchange Rate
Contention Collaboration Intention ImplementationConfusion Coordination
Implementation failures are rooted in systemic problems
As a result, implementation bottlenecks exist at multiple levels
Centre
State
City / local

1.2 The Power of Alignment
IbIn applies the power of alignment which is evoked by deeply desired and shared aspirations.
Figure 1: The Power of Alignment
IbIn is creating demand for and supply of systematic methods to convert Contentions to
Collaboration and Confusion to Coordination so that Policy and Plan Intentions can be achieved by
effective Implementation.
Figure 2: Process map
• Mapping the
stakeholders
• Enrollment into
a process
Stakeholder alignment
• Shared Vision
• Common understanding
of the ' Systemic' issues
• Appreciative of each
others' concerns
• ...
Formation of "Team"
with Role Clarity
• Goals
• Identify roles and
responsibilities
• ...
Good Plan of Action
with joint Monitoring
Plan
• ...
Recognizing varying depths of contention and
confusion and addressing them appropriately
Skills, techniques appropriate to each stage

1.3The IbIn way of doing things and IndiaWorks
1.4The GIZ and Capacity WORKS
This process of aligning various groups of stakeholders in a common way of doing things requires a
theoretical and a practical underpinning. It is not a trivial task to convene parties that have been
used to years of conflict and argument instead of dialogue and working together to solve common
problems. The IbIn way of aligning these people and organisations behind common goals and
helping turn confusion and contention into effective cooperation requires more than goodwill and
commitment, it needs tools and instruments as well as an ‘operating system’ to underpin it and
provide practitioners with a toolkit to help them with their tasks.
This emerging model IndiaWorks High Five! (explained in this document) is based on Capacity
WORKS of the GIZ (the Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, GmbH). The GIZ developed
Capacity WORKS as a way of working with loose coalitions of actors from the state, private sector
and civil society to solve complex development problems and develop their capacities in a holistic
and sustainable manner. It was launched world-wide in 2009 after several years of development and
testing and has since become the GIZ’s standard management model for its projects and
programmes world-wide – regardless of region, sector or context.
The challenge facing the GIZ in finding out what were the common practices and procedures of all of
its hundreds of projects and programmes world- parallels the situation and challenge of IbIn – how
to create a movement not an organisation with a common set of models and tools that can create
collaboration out of contention, coordination out of competition and implementation out of
intention. Capacity WORKS was so similar in its origins, uses and tools that IbIn decided it could
form the basis of a new model (IndiaWorks High Five!). It is the result of an innovative collaboration
between the GIZ and IbIn that has adapted the basic model to the Indian and IbIn contexts. It is the
first step on a long journey of adapting and creating new content with which IbIn has only started –
but represents a large and solid step on the way of realising the IbIn vision.
The IbIn team gratefully acknowledges the generosity of GIZ and its consulting partner, The
Frankfurt Corporate Development Group, in assisting IbIn with its evolution.

2.1 A difference that makes a difference – management in
organisations and management in cooperation systems
The task of taking contention and confusion and turning them into cooperation and collaboration is
complicated by the fact that the management of cooperation systems takes place on a
fundamentally different basis than management in classical organisations. Practitioners wishing to
work in the IbIn way need to understand this difference in order to work effectively in this area.
What makes for successful cooperation between different organisations and institutions that must
respond jointly to societal demands, problems or challenges? It is very important to distinguish
between work performed in the context of a cooperation system, and work conducted within a
single organisation, because this enables us to understand the different management challenges
and respond to them appropriately.
IndiaWorks is a management model that supports the steering of cooperation systems. It is not a
management model for organisations. There are many good management models for organisations,
such as EFQM, Six Sigma, Balanced Scorecard etc., but these are not suited to the special
managerial needs that arise in cooperation systems.
Cooperation vs. Organisation02
Figure 3: Organisation vs.
Cooperation System Steering
in a multi-
organisational
context
Leadership
in on
organisational
context
I2
I1
Cooperation and
negotiation
make decisions
possible
Germancontribution
O3
O2
O1
Organisation
Hierarchy
resolves blockages
and makes
decisions possible
German
contribution
Resource
management
Organisational
development
Strategy
Human resource
management
Controlling
Marketing
Outputprocess
The organisation

This Topography of Management illustrates the different ways in which organisations and
cooperation systems work. It provides a conceptual framework for understanding the context in
which IndiaWorks is used. Let us first of all take a look at the phenomenon of the organisation
(bottom right half of the map).
Why do we need the type of social system that we call an 'organisation'? Organisations are always
responses to specific social and individual needs. Organisations develop and become more
specialised in order to deliver more or less useful solutions to specific social problems. Hospitals for
instance supply groups of patients with opportunities to be cured, public administration
organisations deliver public goods, and commercial enterprises sound out what the market needs,
and then satisfy these needs by supplying products and services.
To maintain their sustainability and ensure their survival, organisations must clearly demarcate the
boundaries between themselves and their environment. These boundaries are defined on the basis
of membership. Who is a member of the organisation? Who is not? The way in which membership is
defined and regulated tells both the members and the outside world who is a member and who is
not. Usually a contract is drawn up that describes rules for entry and exit, the nature of the
remuneration, the entitlement to leave, the limited- or unlimited-term nature of the membership,
rewards and sanctions, and many other aspects too.
The members of an organisation are not tied to it 'body and soul'; they are bound only by their
membership role. As well as being members of this organisation, people also operate in many other
roles in their professional and private lives. As individuals they also belong to one of several
stakeholder groups that make up the organisation's environment.
In the course of their history organisations develop and acquire a 'will of their own'. Organisations
are always more than just the sum of their members. Organisations strive to become 'immortal';
regardless of who the current members are, they form their very own 'DNA'.
Organisations are built on decisions, not individuals. An organisation's 'decision-making DNA' (its
premises for decision-making) is an agglomeration of all those regulations that ultimately
constitute the guiding framework for the day-to-day life of the organisation. These include
questions such as: Why do we exist as an organisation? What are our tasks? How are we organised as
an organisation? What are our expectations concerning the behaviour of the members of the
organisation?
The answers to these questions play a formative and paradigmatic role in shaping the organisation
in question. They are manifested in specific organisational structures, processes, rules and rituals.
This can be observed very clearly in organisations of a certain age. Members, including line
managers, may come and go, yet the fundamental decision-making premises, and the structures,
processes, regulatory frameworks and rituals resulting from them, often remain in place for
decades, and change only very slowly. This ensures that even when staff leave and are replaced, the
2.2 The organisation
System of objectives
Membership
Decisions

structures, rules, processes, rituals, membership role and expectations remain intact. This is how
organisations become partially independent of individuals – “The King is dead – long live the King!”
Line management leadership is not a task performed by leaders who hold their positions because
they possess a specific type of heroic, charismatic personality. We understand leadership as a
function that becomes increasingly sophisticated as organisations develop. Leadership is an
organisational capacity that, unlike the manifold technical tasks which an organisation requires in
order to deliver services or products, specialises in continuously generating organisational vitality.
This includes supplying the relevant decisions.
Understood in this way, leadership is a function within an organisation that focuses on ensuring the
survival and sustainability of the organisation as a whole. In practice, this role may be more or less
well developed. Depending on the organisation, this concern for the sustainability of the
organisation is addressed part of the time by designated line managers, and part of the time by
other members of the organisation or by intelligent organisational structures and processes.
For the organisation as a whole, line management leadership is performed in distinct areas of
activity. Six which are often highlighted in management literature are:
1. Strategy development and implementation: orienting the organisation in line with future
trends
2. Human resource management: securing the performance ability and motivation of the
workforce
3. Marketing: orienting the organisation toward the needs of its environment and the market
4. Resource management: securing the resources needed by the organisation to perform its
tasks
5. Organisational development: finding the right organisational forms for generating
demand-driven institutional performance
6. Monitoring and Evaluation: establishing appropriate self-monitoring mechanisms that
allow key dimensions of the organisation's status to be measured swiftly and reliably.
The main task associated with this special function of leadership is to continuously supply the
organisation with viable decisions, and to resolve blockages and conflicting objectives within the
organisation by communicating with its members.
So far we have looked at the bottom right half of the map of two logics, which covers the managerial
perspective on the single organisation. In a second step we will now look at the other half of the
map: the managerial challenges involved in cooperation between several organisations.
To understand the context in which IbIn organises its projects and in which IndiaWorks is used, it is
necessary to examine the phenomenon of cooperation between several organisations (top left half
of the map).
Decision-making: leadership
2.3 The Cooperation System

We observe that organisations on their own are not always able meet the demands placed on them
by society. To do so they cooperate with other actors. In many fields and sectors of societies, these
forms of cooperation between organisations undergo consolidation. Only through better
cooperation are the organisations involved able to deliver the anticipated solutions to social
problems. In order to take concerted action the organisations involved must first of all agree on
objectives, and then on specific contributions to achieving them. Unlike in the context of the single
organisation, in this multi-organisational context decisions are reached not on the basis of
leadership, but through a process of negotiation. This is the nature of the IbIn way of doing things
and the core business of IndiaWorks.
IbIn projects are designed to achieve negotiated and measurable results in specific policy fields.
These projects and groups of projects are linked in multiple ways to partner organisations and
institutions.
Projects and programmes are based on goal-oriented cooperation between these organisations,
institutions and networks, each of which is in itself a centre of interests, power and influence, and
each of which has its own logic – defined by its own structures, rules, processes and rituals. This
creates challenges that projects must overcome if they are to succeed. Projects exist for a limited
period, are geared to achieving defined objectives with sustainable results, and function according
to principles of project management.
What particular features of cooperation systems distinguish them from organisations? Where are
the key differences – from a management perspective – that we need to be familiar with in order to
operate successfully within cooperation systems?
Cooperation is a system within which various organisations play their respective roles, and in which
each organisation has its own specific organisational objectives and decision-making premises.
These objectives and decision-making premises often vary widely, and may conflict with those of
other cooperating partners. The challenge is to reach a viable consensus on the objectives for the
cooperation system as a whole, and jointly negotiate the arrangements for the system.
The joint orientation toward the anticipated objectives and results of the cooperation is itself a
matter to be negotiated by the cooperating partners involved. This presupposes that the
cooperating partners recognise that they are dependent on each other for achieving the envisaged
benefits. It also presupposes that they are willing at least partially to relinquish their autonomy in
order to achieve the joint objectives of the cooperation system.
A further key difference between cooperation systems and organisations concerns the phenomenon
of 'membership'. In cooperation systems, the forms of affiliation or association are softer, more
open and more flexible through time. Participation in these cooperation arrangements is based on
successful negotiation with the other partners in cooperation, and involves a high degree of free
will. If an actor questions the benefits of the cooperation objectives, their participation may also be
called into question. The boundaries between participating and remaining outside stay fluid
through time, and are always dependent on the process of joint negotiation. Just as individuals
never completely lose their individuality though membership of an organisation, cooperating
partners and their organisations also never merge completely with the cooperation system. The
Differences in the system of objectives
Differences in terms of affiliation versus membership

boundaries of the cooperation system may be more or less open, may encompass more or fewer
partners, and may change through time (i.e. they remain flexible).
We outlined the significance of decision-making in the context of leadership above. In cooperation
systems, decisions also need to be brought about in order to orient and coordinate the cooperation.
How do these decisions come about? In these contexts we speak not of leadership but of steering.
Whereas leadership by positional authority can be exercised in organisations--because decisions
can ultimately be brought about by hierarchy thus resolving any blockages, in cooperation systems
the option of using hierarchy in this way does not exist. Cooperation systems usually form a
steering structure in the course of time that supplies the system with decisions in a way that is
transparent for all the actors concerned. These decisions, however, are reached through negotiating
processes that may be more or less formalised depending on the cooperation system.
Any attempt by a partner in a cooperation system to bring about decisions through hierarchical,
line management-type leadership behaviour is incompatible with the logic of a cooperation system,
and jeopardises its existence.
IndiaWorks High Five! is a framework or model that allows a conceptual way of thinking about the
management and organisation of cooperation systems. And it is a guide to the selection and
application of practical tools that are suited for work in such systems.
Differences in decision-making (steering)

The Power of Alignment:
The genesis of the IndiaWorks
High Five! Model
03
The starting point for the alignment of diverse organisations and players in a cooperation system is
the insight that no one organisation is able to achieve the results desired on their own. Objectives
such as “better industrial relations” or “affordable medicine” can only be achieved when a range of
individuals, organisations and institutions work together. This acknowledgement of the mutual
dependence of the actors is key to shaping a working cooperation system where the combined
resources, talents and energy of the participants delivers the necessary raw material for the kinds
of goals that IbIn has set itself.
IndiaWorks as a method must respond to this context by providing an architectural framework that
explains this dynamic and how it can be used as a constructive force (rather than seeing it as a
blockage). It is also a guide to tools that allow practitioners to intervene and shape processes to
help cooperation systems align themselves and unleash their potential.
Figure 4: The IndiaWorks High Five! Model
ACCELERATING
LEARNING
PURPOSE AND
OBJECTIVES
SHAPING A
COOPERATION
SYSTEM
STEERING
STRUCTURE
SYSTEMATIC
PROCESSES
IndiaWorks
HIGH FIVE!

The IndiaWorks High Five! framework incorporates five disciplines. These are:
1. Purpose and Objectives
2. Shaping a Cooperation System
3. Steering Structure
4. Systematic Processes
5. Accelerating Learning
These five disciplines, which are integrally connected with each other, will be described now.
The objective of the IbIn movement is to develop a 'culture' of systematic collaboration. Therefore
every IbIn project must works on two levels. It must focus on instilling a new attitude for systematic
collaboration and on learning and application of methods for systematic collaboration.
An insight into the conditions in which people change their attitudes and beliefs is that more often
they 'act themselves into new ways of thinking than think themselves into new ways of acting'. A
related insight from transformational change management is that, 'you do not change the culture
by working on the culture: you do something else and change of culture is an accompanying
outcome'.
The implication of these insights is that change must proceed along two tracks simultaneously: a
track of learning about new ways of thinking and acting, and a track of deliberative action towards
other, more concrete objectives that matter to those within the learning system. The impetus to
achieve deeply desired, concrete objectives, recognising that they will not be realised unless the
methods that have been used so far to obtain them change, sets up an 'action learning' system for
transforming attitudes and ways of working.
Therefore the Purpose of an IbIn initiative that brings stakeholders together must be clear. It is to
improve the way they can work together so that they can achieve the goals that matter to them.
Also concrete Objectives that they will strive towards must be agreed upon. These concrete
objectives will clarify the issues they must address and the knowledge they will need. Measurement
of progress towards these concrete objectives enables the stakeholders to assess what they have
done together that has helped and what has not. Thus it sets up the possibility of systematic
learning. And, when the purpose of the initiative, to develop a new culture of systematic
collaboration is made explicit, the learning from experience can be directed towards learning for
this objective too.
An IbIn project that brings together stakeholders to produce outcomes together that they may all
desire but cannot obtain individually is likely to have a 'fuzzy' beginning. The reason for this is that
an understanding of the connections between the outcome desired and the stakeholders that must
be engaged to achieve this outcome requires an iterative process. As more stakeholders are
included who must be, their motivations have to be taken into account and objectives adjusted and
sharpened accordingly. This iterative process will produce a rough, meta-level, 'systems map',
before an exact destination can be pin-pointed and a broad path to tread towards it is chosen.
This is a very critical stage of the project when the participants must live with some ambiguity. They
have to keep their minds open to understand the contours of the system before they make a precise
3.1 The discipline of Purpose and Objectives

agenda for their work. Too often, some participants cannot live with any ambiguity. They want focus
too soon before they have understood what is in the system—who are the stakeholders, and what
are the many inter-related issues, and the connections between these issues and the stakeholders.
They jump in before they know where the rocks are under the water, whereas, a plan to
systematically understand the system and make a system map can direct the energy of the
stakeholders at this stage. It can build a collective commitment to the purpose of their work.
(Methods for this discipline of High Five! are illustrated in the IbIn Industrial Relations project)
Complex systems have many components to them. Indeed they are complex, not only because they
have many components, but also because the relationships between the components is not
understood. The relationship between the components is particularly difficult to understand when
the components are fundamentally different to each other. The tendency then is to set aside those
components that are not easy to understand and focus on the rest. But this is an incorrect approach
to systemic issues. Because the leverage points for change may very well lie in the side of the
system that has been mentally put aside.
Complex systems with human actors in them have a 'social' side in addition to their 'technical'
side. The technical side is the rational and measurable parts of the system. It is the side that
engineers, managers, economists, and 'domain knowledge' experts focus on. The social side is the
human side of the system, composed of human beings with their emotions, social needs, and their
power-relationships with each other viz. their politics. To bring about change in complex systems,
such as nations, economies, cities, and institutions, it is never sufficient to focus on the technical
side. The human side is where the obstacles to change and also the levers to change usually are.
Mainstream economics is finally realising that its world view of rational actors was incomplete if not
wrong. Therefore economists are beginning to delve into emotional and social forces to understand
the behaviour of economies.
Complex systems have many actors in them: many institutions and many persons, often with
conflicting objectives, and contention amongst them. An essential, early step in the IndiaWorks
methodology is to identify who the principal actors may be who must come together to work
together, as partners to change the condition of the system.
The negotiation of differentiated roles and responsibilities amongst the partners according to their
inputs and resources is a key task for the cooperation management function. Through this trust,
cooperation grows organically and enables the system to take on more and more complex tasks. Key
questions here include:
• How can we link together people and organisations in order to make the relevant change
possible?
• How can we make it clear to all participants that they are mutually dependent on each
other if they wish to achieve these results?
• How can we be most economical with the most expensive fuel that we have?
The cooperation system as a whole can only be successful when the individual partners agree on
common objectives. These objectives bundle energy and mobilise resources in the development of a
team spirit in pursuit of the new, common objectives without losing sight of the individual identities
3.2 The discipline of Shaping a Cooperation System

and organisations that comprise them. (This critically important concept is illustrated in the
diagram of the magnet presented earlier to explain the power of alignment). Key questions here
are:
• How can we shape the negotiation and agreement process concerning the strategic
direction with all relevant partners?
• What options do we have to achieve our objectives and results?
• Which of these options will meet our collective objectives best of all and cause least harm
to all stakeholders?
(The vital importance of these steps, of mapping the socio-technical system as a whole, identifying the
positions and needs of stakeholders, and negotiating agreements about broad objectives and
approach, are illustrated in the IbIn Affordable Medicines project as well as the IbIn Urban cluster of
projects)
Cooperation systems that are more complex in terms of their composition, and that are set to
operate over a period of time with a complex set of responsibilities need a minimum structure to
prepare, take and implement decisions about management tasks such as strategy, resource
allocation planning, implementation, evaluation and reporting, amongst others.
A key question in designing a steering structure is:
• How can we provide a structure that enables decisions to take place about resources,
strategy, planning, coordination, conflict resolution, monitoring and impact monitoring?
Steering structures emerge out of the cooperation system as it forms. They cannot be, and must not
be, defined too precisely prematurely. They must be 'owned' by the partners in the system who
must trust and rely on these structures to guide the process. Therefore, until all the critical
stakeholders are on board, it is premature to define the steering group because at this stage it may
exclude stakeholders who must become 'co-owners' of the steering process rather than be steered
by others.
(The roles of steering structures, as well as the ways in which they can form so that there is ownership
of the process by the key stakeholders, is illustrated in the IbIn IR project, and in the Delivering Change
Foundation process. A detailed discussion of requirements for an effective steering structure is
available in the account of the Accelerated Cluster Growth and Partnerships initiative.)
Effective cooperation systems are characterised by a high degree of focus and clarity amongst their
participants concerning the key processes required to achieve the goals, whether this be the
improvement of existing processes or the design and implementation of new processes.
Key questions here are:
• What are the key processes in the sector in which we want our impacts to be?
• What are our internal management processes in the project?
3.3 The discipline of a Steering Structure
3.4 The discipline of Systematic Processes

It is essential to focus on the conduct of processes in ways that will build more trust and
cooperation. Specific steps required to build trust and cooperation, which will enable more
contentious 'technical' issues to be addressed cooperatively, must be designed into the process
with a 'socio-technical' approach as mentioned before.
Good processes for solving and managing the technical and 'domain' matters are essential of
course. Processes for these are fairly well developed with many consulting companies. The Pemandu
process developed by the Government of Malaysia is an outstanding example.
(The Delivering Change Foundation's explicit additions of the 'People's Connect' and 'Public Pressure'
processes to Pemandu's 'Convergent Planning' process—which focuses explicitly and mostly on the
technical and organizational sides of complex problems, is an illustration of a comprehensive socio-
technical transformation framework. The combination of steps for managing the 'social' side and
building trust and cooperation amongst partners who must work together to implement systemic
solutions is illustrated in the IbIn IR project and IbIn Urban projects too).
The purpose of IbIn projects is both, to achieve concrete goals which have proven difficult to attain
by conventional approaches, and to learn and institutionalise new ways of working that will make
such goals easier to reach. Therefore learning of new methods is at the heart of the IbIn approach.
The partners in a project must focus on what they are learning about managing their cooperation
system, assess how well they are learning, and spread the learning around so that it can be applied
more widely.
Usually explicit steps for learning are not designed into processes. So the learning, if it happens at
all, is accidental and tacit. It is not systematically abstracted. The power of the TQM movement in
Japan, which has been a model for IbIn, was systematic learning at two levels. Each TQM project
applied the Learning Cycle to itself, to produce results faster, and improve the TQM team's ability to
improve results faster. (Projects and teams were on many scales—from production groups on the
shop floor to large inter-departmental product development teams.) At an even broader level,
principles of systems' management and methods for participative problem solving were distilled
and spread across Japan. The TQM movement in Japan is a good example of consciously improving
the ability of a complex system to produce better outcomes.
Many methods for enabling good learning from successes and failures are available in the 'learning
organizations' field. These include 'After Action Reviews' and 'Appreciative Inquiries', as well as
several techniques in the Total Quality Management tool-box. IbIn projects are distinguished by
their emphasis on participants reflecting on their experiences and learning together. Therefore
they must apply such methods.
(IbIn projects that illustrate the value of steps for reflection and accelerating learning are the Business
Regulations project, Rural/Village SOPs and the CSO platform. The Affordable Medicines Project has
also applied an ‘after action review’ method to document valuable learnings. An aim of the QUPRAC
project is to distil and document principles and methods for cooperation systems by compelling
practitioners to share their insights and reflect with each other.)
3.5 The discipline of Accelerating Learning

IbIn's purpose is to introduce new ways of thinking and working into large, complex systems in
which better outcomes can be produced by effective cooperation and coordinated action of multiple
stakeholders. New ways require a new 'architecture' of thought and action. For this, new principles
of design have to be adopted. A 'socio-technical' and a 'systems' way of thinking and acting are
fundamentally different to conventional approaches to problem solving.
IndiaWorks High Five! describes the architecture and the principles. Using these principles as
guidelines, solutions can be customised to specific situations.
In each stage of the process, good techniques and tools must be applied for the steps to be taken -
for example, to make a systems' map, and to conduct a reflective after action review, etc. It is not
our intention to provide a complete set of tools because they can be found in many places. Three of
th
the richest sources of these tools, amongst many others, are The 5 Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies
and Tools for Building a Learning Organization by Peter M. Senge; Capacity WORKS: The management
Model for Sustainable Development by GIZ (published by Springer); and The Accelerating Organization:
Embracing the Human Face of Change by Arun Maira and Peter B Scott-Morgan. They are also
available in the literature of the Quality Movement, and elsewhere, and with many consulting
organizations.
Some examples and tools from Capacity WORKS, the GIZ methodology which has contributed greatly
to the development of IndiaWorks High Five!, are presented here.
Tools04

Examples from Capacity WORKS
05
We have selected examples and tools from Capacity WORKS for applying the disciplines of the High
Five! model. (Illustrations of the values of these disciplines and ways of applying them are also
given in the reports of the IbIn projects in the IbIn Knowledge Compendium).
The task of bringing together autonomous and potentially conflictive partners into a common
cooperation network is not a trivial task. Stakeholders in the industrial relations area such as
employers' associations, trade unions and government representatives have years of well-
entrenched opposition to each other. These positions as well as the highly ritualised conflicts
around labour relations issues have come into being over a long period of practice and
consolidation. Enmity is cultivated and much of the conflict takes place in ritualised forms such as
strikes, rallies and speeches which strengthen the legitimacy of the individual parties within their
own constituencies, but which serve only to perpetuate the blockages of the status quo. How can
one break down these roles and positions that have been carefully cultivated over many years? How
can one turn contention into collaboration, whether in the labour relations field, affordable
pharmaceuticals or any of the myriad challenges facing India approaching its 75th birthday?
The fact that the changes targeted by such IbIn projects can only be achieved by a diverse coalition
of partners putting their combined resources at the disposal of the whole cooperation system
creates both the necessity as well as the means of moderating this process. Only when the partners
come to acknowledge that they are dependent upon one another and their diverse resources to
achieve the changes can the cooperation system unleash its potential. As long as there are partners
thinking in a “zero-sum” mentality that they can acquire unilateral benefits out of their
participation at the expense of others there will be no possibility of achieving the common goals.
Only when the participants acknowledge their mutual dependency and negotiate the corresponding
roles and responsibilities within the sphere of the project's (time-bound, limited-scope and
temporary) activities can the cooperation system as a whole move forward toward the goals.
This in no way requires the individual participants or organisations to give up their autonomy as
independent entities. They must be prepared, however, to restrict their individual interests and
goals in pursuit of the common objectives of the project. Free-riders and organisations seeking a
unilateral extension of their resource base without the acknowledgement of the give and take
nature of cooperation will slow or even immobilise a cooperation system. Conversely, while
cooperation is “good” more cooperation is not always “better”. Cooperation is not an end in itself
5.1 The disciplines of Purpose and Objectives; and Shaping a
Cooperation System

but a means to a higher end (better industrial relations or more improved models for elderly
healthcare). In order to achieve this end there is an optimal number and configuration for the
partners to be involved. Cooperation has a price and provides for friction and causes expense.
Potential partners must be identified, their inclusion negotiated with the current set of project
partners, their role worked out and negotiated with others. The maintenance of this relationship
consumes resources (time and energy on the part of all partners). Issues must be dealt with,
conflicts negotiated and ideas and concerns debated and resolved. This has a price, both in
absolute terms (time and money) as well as in terms of transaction costs (time that could be spent
on “direct” activities with the target group or with other issues. This necessary inefficiency must be
kept to a minimum – as much as is required, but no more!
Over and above the basic pre-requisites for successful cooperation outlined above
(acknowledgement of mutual dependence in the pursuit of common goals) there are a number of
specific conditions that need to be present in order for cooperation to flourish.
• Benefit: the participating individuals or organisations expect a tangible benefit for
themselves as a result of their participation in the cooperation system that can only be
achieved through the cooperation system and cannot be more easily obtained by other
means. This is not necessarily the same as the project goal, it may be a particular or special
interest unique to the individual or organisation in question. Moreover, this may not
always be an economic value (money or resources) but also access to information,
networks, influence, new skills etc.
• Transaction Costs: must be lower than the benefits that are expected. This transaction cost
calculus is subjective and depends on the experience, culture and alternatives available to
the individual or organisation concerned. Cooperation systems where in the subjective
calculus of the members the costs exceed the benefits will be (to misquote Thomas
Hobbes) nasty, poor, brutish and short-lived.
• The Rule of Synergy: participants in cooperation systems orient themselves in their
actions to the maximisation of their individual strengths. They are therefore more likely to
admit new participants into the system that offers new and complementary skills and
resources. Difference attracts and similarity repels.
• Fairness and Balance: participants observe and compare their own inputs and efforts in
the cooperation systems with those of others. Perceived imbalances lead quickly to conflict
and if not addressed to the exit of those who feel exploited by such a discrepancy.
Above and beyond the individual perspectives of the participants there are also common themes
and issues that have to be dealt with in the management of cooperation systems. Chief amongst
these are:
• Is there a minimum level of transparency amongst the participants about roles and
responsibilities in the project?
Cooperation systems need internal coherence concerning roles and responsibilities as well
as an effective demarcation between inside (“members”) and outside (“non-members”).
Parallel to this is the definition of how new members can pass from outside to inside, as
well as the conditions under which the reverse takes place. It is important to invest time
and energy in the establishment of these roles and responsibilities (as well as the
transparency that accompanies them) amongst the participants in order to avoid conflicts
and disagreements later on.

• Is there a healthy balance between cooperation and conflict?
It is utopian to assume that cooperation is a cake-walk. Individuals and organisations do
not leave behind their basic identities when they enter a cooperation system and although
they agree on the broad goals of the project, they will still retain partially conflicting goals
and disagree over strategy as well as tactics to reach those goals. To ignore this potentially
conflictive undercurrent is to jeopardise the functionality of the cooperation system.
Conflicts have to be identified and if needs be addressed in order to stop them intruding
like icebergs in the otherwise smooth waters of the cooperation system.
1. Which actors are relevant for the achievement of the goals as set out in the project's
strategy? How diverse does this group have to be? How much diversity can the project
sustain without losing its ability to act constructively?
2. What roles, responsibilities and mandates do these actors have in their “home”
organisations? To what extent do these roles and mandates overlap or contradict with
those of the project?
3. What disparities and asymmetries exist amongst the participating actors with respect to
power? How could these be constructively addressed in the design of the project?
4. Which actors must be involved in the project if it is to succeed? Which actors must not
under any circumstance be allowed to participate if it is to succeed?
5. Do the potential actors possess the necessary resources to achieve the goals postulated by
the project?
6. Which potential actors at the moment outside of the system (or who traditionally are not
part of the group of “usual suspects” rounded up for these projects) could/should be inside
it?
7. Why should the cooperation system by attractive to these actors (“What's in it for them?”)?
Every project needs to select carefully who will be actively involved and why. Too few participants
and the necessary diversity or critical mass will not be achieved. Too many participants and the
project will be drowning in its own resources – the cost of identifying, initiating and maintaining
cooperative relationships is high and is not an end in itself, but rather a means for achieving a
greater objective. The economy of cooperation must be maximised and this tool helps in this
process.
Having the right people and organisations on board is only half of the story. Negotiating with them
about their roles and responsibilities is an on-going process that requires constant effort. Who is in
the inner circle and intimately involved in the decision-making process of the project? Who is in a
specialist role on the periphery? Indispensable but involved only in particular roles or for specific
issues? All these roles have to be identified (according to the goals and objectives) and negotiated
in the spirit of a cooperation system. This tool helps focus the discussion, as well as structure the
discussion of this on-going process.
5.1.1 Seven useful questions facilitators and participants should ask themselves
5.1.2 Who needs to be involved in what way (i.e. How) and Why?

5.1.3 Some Examples
GIZ's Capacity WORKS has had considerable experience of using such a model in its many hundreds
of projects around the world. While its context is different to that of IbIn (namely state-to-state
international development cooperation), the experience of the GIZ is included in this early version
of India Works in order to provide some concrete examples of the model in action. It is expected
that these will be replaced with IbIn examples as time goes by. While all examples include aspects of
each Success Factor, we have tried to include those which have a particular focus on the Success
1
Factor at hand – here Cooperation .
Chance for change
Environmental issues in Tunisia
Tunisia's economy has been growing steadily for over
ten years. Despite the positive aspects of growth, the
country is facing the problem of an increasingly
polluted environment. The volumes of waste and
wastewater are on the rise and water and land
resources are at risk. While the issue enjoys high
priority on the political agenda, the legislation,
environmental regulations and technology have not
kept pace with the country's development.
The GIZ supports Tunisia in its efforts to improve the
framework and ensure that environmental concerns are systematically taken into account. In the
course of the cooperation, the Arab Spring has changed the political landscape. While the fate of
the country was largely in the hands of the political elite until the end of 2010, since then civil
society has been increasingly demanding a say.
Stronger in tandem
In order to improve the environmental situation, the GIZ and the Ministry of Agriculture and
Environment in Tunisia have, from the very start, been working in complementary areas. These
range from better mechanisms for environmental monitoring and control, environmental planning
in the municipalities and technological advice for small and medium-sized enterprises for waste
management planning and raising awareness for environmental issues in society. The GIZ
Coordinator of the environmental programme from 2003 to 2011, used the Capacity WORKS
management model to work with the partners on bringing structure to the steering of the
programme: 'From the outset, we included the Ministry of the Environment, the relevant
authorities and the Centre for Environmental Technologies in the steering structure.' For this, the
partners defined 20 results' chains in which the change processes to be initiated were described.
One GIZ staff member and one representative from the body responsible for the particular area of
work then took on the task of steering. Each team saw what its input was, who did what, and the
results that were produced. 'This tandem structure is super,' said one participant, looking back. 'I
would always do things the same way, as the roles, tasks and responsibilities of the individual
actors are clearly defined from the very start.'
1
These examples are adapted from, 'Capacity WORKS Success Stories, examples of good practice' GIZ GmbH, 2012 (www.giz.de)

A swift response
Until the revolution, the potential cooperation partners were clearly defined and were identified by
the Government. For instance, entering into a direct cooperation arrangement with the
municipalities required permission from the Ministry of the Interior and the prevailing decision-
making channels had to be taken into account. Things changed with the Arab Spring. Municipalities
acting independently, a self-confident population and more than 100 non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) in the environmental sector alone presented the programme with interesting
new actors. It was important to re-explore the stakeholder landscape, which was quickly done with
the assistance of Capacity WORKS. New partners have since come on board. For example, the
partner responsible for the municipal waste sector that was working in tandem with the programme
now works directly with the waste management departments in the municipalities. The project
coordinator is pleased with the developments:
'We can now make a concerted effort to approach
the people and to involve them in the effort.' For
this purpose, the programme worked together with
communication coordinators from civil society. In
meetings with the people, and in talks with opinion
leaders such as imams and NGOs, the issue of waste
was addressed, landfills and disposal options were
discussed, as were public attitudes to waste
removal. 'Much has happened here. Capacity
WORKS gave us an orientation that enabled us to
respond to the changed situation swiftly. Not only
did this result in new partners, but we also adapted our processes,' the coordinator goes on to say.
In the wake of the revolution, several new NGOs have appeared on the scene. Thanks to their
presence on the ground, the programme staff knew some of the initiators well, having worked with
them in the past as individual advisors. To ensure that their work would be more effective, the
environmental NGOs wanted to intensify cooperation and have set up an environmental network
with GIZ support.
In addition to new partners, several new donors also came to Tunisia. Here, too, the programme has
used the Capacity WORKS tools to shed light on the new stakeholder landscape. The project
coordinator is satisfied with the result: 'We had meetings with partners and donors and we
identified and agreed on the areas of actions. All this now helps us to avoid overlaps in our work and
manage it more effectively.'
Learning organisations
One of the major concerns of international cooperation was the need to institutionalise knowledge
among the partners on a long-term basis and to create learning organisations. One participant in
the process described one of the greatest challenges before him: 'It used to be extremely difficult
not only to train the individuals assigned by the Ministry and the authorities, but also to develop a
knowledge management system throughout various institutions. We have managed to do this in the
Centre for Environmental Technologies.'
The Arab Spring brought the winds of change to the authorities and to the Ministry. Instead of what
was once a rather negative attitude, there is now an interest in not wanting to lose the lessons
learned from the work done over the last ten years. The knowledge needs to be accessible,

documented and available to each and every staff member – not only in the Centre for
Environmental Technologies, but in all environmental institutions. Interaction with the partner's
administrative systems created a knowledge platform that links the authorities with enterprises
besides providing networks and a contact management system. 'Our partners have shown
considerable interest, the management levels are for it, and the new minister is extremely open to
the idea,' remarks one participant, describing the upswing.
The partner at the wheel
The speed at which change processes take place and the path to achieving visible results cannot be
fully planned in advance. The programme had to be constantly reviewed and adapted – and
displayed faith in the partner. 'Planning with the management model led me to understand that I
had to leave a lot to the partner and had to shape the processes accordingly. This could possibly
take longer, but is more sustainable because our partners are the bosses at the steering wheel, not
us,' says a member of the GIZ team with conviction. The success of the model proves him right. The
Ministry of the Environment has been working on environmental legislation entirely on its own after
the programme initiated the process at an international symposium attended by many of the
country's lawyers. 'We should not take on the tasks of our partners but must adapt to the pace at
which the processes occur. We will then achieve sustainable results,' she stressed.
Decisions about the management of organisations take place through the hierarchy represented in
the organisational chart. Operational decisions take place in teams and departments and strategy is
decided at board and executive level. Cooperation systems must also take decisions about the
management of project activities – planning, implementing and coordinating their efforts in pursuit
of the objectives. In this respect cooperation systems and organisations are very similar in their
needs for timely and appropriate decisions, however with the significant difference that
cooperation systems cannot rely on the traditional hierarchy of organisations to deliver them from
the blockages of indecision.
The steering structure of the project is the answer to this dilemma. It provides a space within which
the temporary project organisation can erect transitory structures that it needs to plan, implement
and coordinate the activities of the cooperation system. In this space, the roles, responsibilities as
well as the decisions that the project needs can be negotiated and agreed by the participants. These
structures vary from project to project according to the complexity of the goals to be achieved and
as a consequence of this the size and diversity of the cooperation system that this entails. The rule
of thumb is: as simple as possible, as complex as necessary.
The steering structure provides a kind of river bed in which the flow of project activities and their
related decisions can be regulated. Sometimes shallow and rapid, sometimes languid and deep, the
form provides an appropriate basis on which decisions can take place. There are seven basic
functions that it provides:
• Strategy: a part of the steering structure concerns itself with setting the strategic
direction of the project. Checking whether or not we are 'doing the right thing' and
agreeing on which of the many possible alternatives for achieving this objective we are
going to choose is a key task of part of the steering structure (see SF Strategy for more
details on this).
5.2. The discipline of Steering Structure

• Implementation: operational planning, scheduling and implementation are important
functions of this part of the steering structure. Ensuring that the strategy is translated
into concrete activities on the ground and supported by the relevant contributions of the
partners is an essential function of this part of the steering structure.
• Coordination: between the implanting partners (see above) as well as between the
strategic and operational functions of the steering structure is important to prevent the
disparate groups of partners from atomising and pursuing different and maybe even
contradictory aims.
• Monitoring and Evaluation: provides a reflective function for the cooperation system –
observing both the planning as well as the implementation of activities and relating them
back to the strategic direction through data collection and processing.
• Resource Management: is a crucial issue both within projects as well as organisations. The
efficient allocation and use of scarce resources is the question here.
• Learning and Knowledge Management: Using the knowledge and data produced to enrich
and improve the practice of individuals, organisations and networks within the project as
well as making this knowledge available to other practitioners and beneficiaries outside of
the project is the challenge here (see SF Learning and Knowledge Management for more
details about this).
• Conflict Management: providing a positive and timely safety valve for the inevitable
conflicts and tensions that emerge between participants in order for such issues to be
treated pro-actively and positively, rather than brushing them under the carpet in the hope
that they will go away if ignored for long enough.
The perfect number for stability in the natural and physical world is three. The triumvirate is always
stable – whether as a tripod, a milking stool, a pyramid or in the form of the Hindu trinity (Brahma,
Vishnu and Shiva) or the Christian version (God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost) the number
three has it. So it is also with steering structures in cooperation systems. In order to keep steering
in a cooperation system on a stable basis it needs three independent but linked elements: political,
strategic and operational.
Political Steering: provides for the basic impetus for a project, as well as patronage and protection.
Basic values (democracy, pro-poor orientation, poverty reduction) as well as a keen eye for the
overall political goals of the project are debated and directed here. The political steering element
provides patronage as well as protection and resources for the project, allowing it to develop its
unorthodox and controversial activities in peace. It also provides a point for scaling up of individual
solutions onto the national political stage.
Strategic Steering: transfers these basic political directives (e.g. pro-poor orientation) into specific
projects and objectives (e.g. the availability of essential medicine to poor populations). The
strategic steering process translates these broad objectives into concrete strategies, oversees the
operational implementation of them and provides feedback on success to the political level.
Operational Steering: is the boiler room of the project, taking the strategic direction of the project
and turning it into concrete activities on the ground coordinated and reported on amongst a myriad
of independent participating individuals and organisations and feeding back on success or failure to
the strategic level in order to validate or contradict strategic alternatives.
5.2.1 Levels of Steering

5.2.2 The Steering Model
5.2.3 Requirements of the Steering Structure (checklist)
The overall steering structure with its membership, roles, responsibilities, rules and functions
needs to be visualised. This basic document provides a reference point for the participants in the
cooperation system concerning their location within it and the consequences that this has for their
roles, rights and duties arising from their participation. Alternatives can include (but are by no
means limited to) the following generic examples:
A classical functional model for projects involved in tasks that are suited to
such a design. Engineering or professional projects (such as health) could
be well suited to this where project activities are clustered into professional
or technical groups.
Cluster projects on the other hand tend to
have a design where a nominal coordinating
centre provides a star shaped communication
system within which different satellite clusters revolve. These
clusters are generally different from each other and so self-contained
in themselves, but broadly linked to each other in terms of
professional or technical knowledge which justify the coordination of
the central organ.
The community model on the other hand is characterised by a high
level of differentiation and independence between the project
parts. They can largely function independently of each other and
provide a hybrid form of the first three models, containing as they
do elements of the functional and cluster model, as well as new
forms such as the ‘project within the project’.
As always, there are numerous alternatives, the only rule being
the adequacy of the fit to the project's goals and objectives. Form does indeed follow structure –
even in cooperation systems!
How good the cooperation system is at
taking decisions is a crucial aspect of the
functionality of the steering structure. The
steering structure should be assessed
according to how good it is at performing
the following functions.
This tool, described in more detail in the
toolbox, enables a cooperation system to
assess its steering structure and agree on
any changes that may need to be made to
optimise it or if t he project`s
circumstances have changed.
Management
of resources
Conflict
Management Decision-
making
Impact
monitoring
Control
Coordination
Planning
StrategyFunctions

5.2.4 Example: Clearly defined structures; Maternal and child health in Tajikistan
The provision of health care for the people of
Tajikistan is below the average level for Europe,
while maternal and infant mortality rates are far
above it. Many people have to pay for medicines
and visits to doctors themselves, as health care
staff is poorly paid. Medicines are often in short
supply. The entire health care system suffers
from a lack of well-trained personnel and
adequate funds. Quality standards and hospital
guidelines in accordance with the norms set by
the World Health Organization do not exist.
The GIZ joined forces with the Ministry of Health in Tajikistan to improve maternal and child health
care. The focus was on introducing uniform quality standards for all clinics and maternity homes, on
providing training for nurses, doctors and midwives, and on setting up an accreditation authority
for hospitals with an appropriate monitoring system. For the Ministry, it was particularly important
to be able to manage and steer the health sector reform. The GIZ provided support in the form of
advisory services.
Harmonised interaction
When the project started looking at maternal and child health four years ago, its attention was
drawn to the many different organisations and institutions active in this sector. Bringing them all
together was important: 'To start with, we drew up a stakeholder map based on the Capacity WORKS
management model. Together with the Ministry of Health, we listed all the actors from the public
sector, civil society and international donors who can help improve health care' reminisced one
project member. The Ministry now had an overview of all the 'co-actors' and could bring them
together. The Ministry's concern was to ensure that the reform and the funds provided by the
international donors were efficiently managed. In a year-long negotiation process involving all the
health sector actors, a steering committee for maternal and child health was established, and has
been managing and coordinating the reform process ever since. Also involved are representatives
from the Ministry, donors, universities, training institutions and various other authorities. The
steering committee clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the respective organisations and
authorities, assigns responsibilities and tasks, and ensures that there are no overlaps between the
various actors playing a role in health care reform. In brief, it provides for clearly demarcated
structures.
'When we first sat together and all the donors described their activities to the steering committee
in the Ministry, we found that in some regions, two or three organisations were working on the
same issue. That really wasn't such a good thing, and until then not one of us had been aware of the
extent of the overlap. That will certainly never happen again,' says a steering committee member
with a smile. The new steering structure is worth hard cash. In 2011, Tajikistan saved USD 150,000
in donor money because the activities were better coordinated. This money now goes towards
paying for medicine, hospital equipment and study tours for paediatricians. Deputy Minister
Jobirova Saida is satisfied: 'In the past, donors cooperated at their own discretion with national or
regional partners. With the new steering structures in place, we bring together all the actors and
balance our activities throughout the country.'

Learning together
Six thematic working groups have been created within the steering committee to address the issues
of further training, accreditation, creation of frameworks, and monitoring of standards. The area of
Learning and Innovation was given top priority in the working groups. Here, too, all the actors now
pull in the same direction and jointly guide the necessary change processes. The idea of bringing
together all cooperation partners is therefore reflected not only at government level. Doctors,
midwives, training institutes and universities come together to discuss who lacks knowledge of
what. 'To unify the different groups into a team was by no means easy because individual interests
dominated at the start,' recalls one participant. This stage has, however, now been overcome, and
the results of the joint efforts speak for themselves. There are guidelines in place for medical
personnel and for the hospital management staff. Doctors, midwives and administrative personnel
from hospitals attend the training sessions. 'The number of training sessions and participants is not
a criterion on the basis of which we can establish whether things are genuinely getting better for
the patients. That's why we have set up a monitoring system in the working group, which helps us
establish whether the situation in the clinics has improved,' says another member of the project
team. With the aid of a checklist, each organisation must check regularly whether the staff has put
the knowledge acquired to practical use and whether the standards covered in the training sessions
are being adhered to. Every three months, external inspectors from the new accrediting authorities,
accompanied by doctors from different hospitals, arrive to carry out an independent audit of the
clinics. Holding joint training courses and having the medical personnel from the individual
hospitals working together in the groups have helped build mutual trust. This in turn has led to the
creation of networks in which midwives and doctors from different clinics work together and
support each other.
A model to be replicated
The idea of aligning the structure and
method of management with the five
Capacity WORKS success factors has
convinced the personnel in the Ministry of
Health. Other departments also started using
the model a long time ago. For example, the
Department on Family and Children was also
keen on forming a steering committee, and
thus having a quantifiable and reliable basis
for a cooperation arrangement. The same is
true of the personnel at the Mother and Child
Health Services Department. However, on taking a closer look at the links to the other partners and
organisations, they soon realised that it would be far more effective for the ‘family’ affairs to be
integrated into the scope of the existing committee. The Deputy Minister is highly appreciative of
this development: ‘The different departments in the Ministry are networking more and more
because we are constantly checking to see who can work with whom to achieve what. The
departments of hygiene, legislation, family, and mother and child previously worked alongside each
other. Having used Capacity WORKS with the success factor of cooperation, this is now a thing of the
past. We have developed our capacity for change process management, which is useful to us in many
situations.’
Impressed by the positive results achieved in the health sector, the Agency on Social Protection in
the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection is now also showing an interest in managing

cooperation as has been done by its counterparts in the health sector. The GIZ has already discussed
this idea with the other donors and is also supporting the Ministry of Labour in its efforts to set up
a steering committee. ‘We also have the finance and health ministries on board here. All three
ministries must cooperate in providing social security for the very poor, otherwise it is
meaningless,’ says one participant, describing the approach.
Every organisation, irrespective of its size or field of operations, uses a fantastically wide variety of
proc¬esses – indeed processes are the nervous systems of both organisations and cooperation
systems. Cooperation systems, composed of individual organisations, also use processes to plan,
coordinate and implement their joint activities. Efficient and effec¬tive process design is thus not
only another key factor in the successful implementation of a development project, but a major
contribution to the achievement of common goals in cooperation systems.
The ability of the individual organisations as well as the cooperation systems and sectors in which
they are active to jointly plan, implement, coordinate and improve their processes is a key success
factor on the way to sustainable development.
The above discussion however begs the question of what we mean by processes in the first place. A
process is a collection of related, structured activities or tasks that produce a specific service or
product (serve a particular goal) for a particular customer or customers. The first and most famous
process analysis was that by Adam Smith in his 1776 analysis of the specialisation of tasks in a pin
factory and as a consequence the concept of the division of labour. Later incarnations of process
analysis include Henry Ford’s famously efficient production line, the business process re-
engineering of the 1990s, Michael Porter’s value chain analysis as well as the quality management
movements that placed process definition, analysis and improvement at the heart of the
International Standards’ Organisation (ISO), Total Quality Management (TQM), Six Sigma and other
related quality improvement systems and philosophies.
A process in the sense in which we wish to use it here, in order to be qualified as such must fulfil
2
some basic criteria :
1. Definability - it must have clearly defined boundaries, inputs and outputs
2. Order - it must consist of activities that are ordered according to their position in time and
space, even if this order is a logical and not a chronological one
3. Goal, Customer or Recipient - there must be a clearly defined goal to the process (its
reason for existence) as well as a notion of who is to be the recipient of the process's
outcome, a customer or target group. The added value is defined through the perspective
of the customer and not the producer.
4. Value Adding - the transformation taking place within the process must add value to the
recipient, either within the process (the next step) or the final recipient
5. Integration – a process cannot exist in itself, it must be embedded in an organisational,
project or sectoral structure in which it plays a part (i.e. adds value within the landscape)
6. Cross-functionality - a process regularly spans several functions, departments or
organisations and cannot by definition be organised within a discrete organisational unit.
5.3 The discipline of Systematic Processes
2
Adapted from Henry J. Johansson et al. (1993). Business Process Reengineering: BreakPoint Strategies for Market Dominance.
John Wiley & Sons

Classical process analysts in management literature stress the difficulties of applying this kind of
3
thinking to organisations. Michael Hammer in his classic introduction to the subject remarked that
it was a revolution for organisations to stop thinking in hierarchies, functions, tasks and
departments and to start thinking in terms of cross-cutting processes. This was, to use his term, the
‘white areas on the organisational chart between the departments’. Organisations struggle with
cross-departmental cooperation, and this has not got easier with time.
Because the basic concepts of the process management section are also the two tools, they are
described together in order to avoid redundancy.
A. Process Landscape
One of the most important questions for the process analysis is the definition of the strategic
context in which the project operates. It is not enough to ‘do the thing right’ - efficiency; the
project also has to be sure that it is ‘doing the right thing’ - effectiveness. This requires the
selection of the most important processes (‘Key or Core Processes’); and the placement of these
into a Process Landscape. This is a great strength of the approach, providing a strategic context
missing in many of the TQM approaches. This approach builds on concepts such as the SIPOC high
level process map of Six Sigma.
5.3.1 Some Basic Process Concepts/Tools
3
Beyond Re-engineering (1996) Harper Collins Business
Key Processes
Organisation
Project or
Sector
Goal
Steering Processes
... ...
Key Process 2
Cooperation Process
Learning Process
Key Process 1
... ...
......
Resource Processes
......
Goal
Goal
Goal
Goal
?Driving and
managing the key
processes, ensuring
the link between the
processes and the
organisation’s
mission
Figure 5: Process landscape
?Doing the key tasks
that together
contribute to the
achievement of the
organisation’s goal
?Supporting the key
processes and
developing their
potential
This representation is at a strategic level and the processes are no more than representative arrows
with names. Operational management of processes and their component parts takes place at
another level (see Process Hierarchies). Here the task is strategic, making the analytical difference
between those processes that are crucial to achieving the results (Key Processes, there should be
between four and six of these); and the Supporting and Steering processes which enable them.

In order to construct a process landscape one has to distinguish between three categories or
qualities of processes.
Key Processes are the unique contributions to the (organisation’s, project’s or sector’s) goal. They
are unique in character, delivering a direct contribution to achieving the goals of the project and
are very difficult if not impossible for other national or development organisations to copy. They
build on the core competencies of IbIn which facilitates the design and implementation of them in a
way that other development organisations cannot. In development contexts they can also include
cooperation and learning processes. In traditional process management these process types are
usually relegated to support status, since the core task of a development project must include both
cooperation processes (between a large number of diverse partners) as well as learning processes
(in pursuit of capacity development) it is logical to allow them a place as key processes here.
Steering processes build on the activities and structures used in HF3 (Steering Structure) for the
project, and include also coordination and quality assurance functions in all three elements.
Classical steering processes in organisations include leadership and strategy.
Resource Processes provide a platform which enables the other processes to take place. Because
they are generic in character (book-keeping, IT or procurement for example) they can also be sub-
contracted out of the core organisation.
B. Process Hierarchy and Design – the operational view
Given the strategic picture outlined in the previous section, process analysis can also provide the
link to operational management (as well as monitoring and evaluation) through the Process
Hierarchy concept. This is one of the greatest strengths of the approach – providing the practical
‘how to’ level missing in tools such as Value Chain or QM methodologies such as EFQM.
GoalGoal
Strategic:
whole
organisation
Intermediary:
Key Process 1
Operational 1:
components
Key Processes
of
Processes and Activities:Level: Principles:
Management/Technology
....................
....................
... ... ... ... ...
GoalGoal
GoalGoal
Figure 6: Process hierarchies
1. Subsidiarity
Every activity in the
process chain can be
split down into its own,
discrete chain or
disaggregated to a higher
level
2. Babushka
or the “Russian Doll”
principle that everything
fits together
3. Granularity
During the activity
sequence recording or
process design it is
essential that everyone is
on the same analytical level
(compare apples with
apples and pears with
pears)

This concept provides the participants and partners in an organisation, project or sector with the
tools to translate strategy into action – starting at a high level of abstraction of a 'Key Process' it
allows each step to be broken down into its subsidiary components and processes. This gradual
filling out of the basic strategic ideas provides a logical link between detailed operational planning
on the one hand, and high level abstract logical analysis on the other.
The subsidiarity of the concept allows for 'reality checks' along the way, allowing participants to
choose the appropriate level of visualisation depending on whether one is talking to senior
executives, partners or operational managers.
Drinking water and sanitation services in Peru
An adequate supply of clean and safe drinking
water is taken for granted in industrialised
countries, but for over five million people in
Peru it is more the exception than the rule. A
dilapidated water supply network combined
with the lack of qualified staff and tariffs that
do not cover costs means that the water supply
companies are unable to put their management
and finances on a solid footing and cannot
ensure reliable and safe drinking water and
sanitation facilities. Often the personal and
short-term interests of local politicians play a greater role in the supervisory boards of the water
supply companies than the principles of efficient management.
Multifaceted advisory services
The GIZ supported Peru in bringing about long-term improvements to the situation. The focus is on
three parallel approaches here.
The programme aimed to create a more solid foundation for the urban drinking water and sanitation
system. With the help of a sector reform it worked to ensure a stricter separation between local-
level political tasks and management tasks in the areas of water and sanitation, provided technical
assistance to optimise operations, and trained the management and the staff of selected
companies to help improve their operative, social and management capacity. However, things could
only change for the country as a whole if the municipalities and the water supply companies in each
corner of the Andean state developed the necessary long-term technical and management capacity
enabling them to offer the citizens satisfactory services. In order to consolidate this process, the
GIZ, along with the sector ministry, the umbrella association of water supply and sanitation
providers, and the national universities, developed a network of service providers that offer the
municipalities and the companies tailor-made training programmes, specific technical advice and
technological innovations.
Quantifiable results count
The GIZ’s water programme in Peru has to handle several sites at the same time endeavouring to
improve the country’s drinking water supplies. Yet there is a great danger of losing the way in the
5.3.2 Systematic Processes, an Example

many individual activities that, at the end of the day, do not really complement each other. The
programme coordinator from 2004 until the end of 2011, remembered his early days: ‘I faced the
complex question of how to manage it all with simple, recognisable models, so that all the
programme teams understand their respective areas of work and network with each other, and that
the programme outputs could be dynamically adapted to achieving the desired objectives and
results. What we wanted, or what our partners wanted, soon became clear. The greater challenge for
all the participants was to decide how and with whom we should initiate change to improve the
drinking water and sanitation services.’
With the help of the Capacity WORKS management
model, all three programme teams analysed the
change processes that they would like to initiate and
the objective to be achieved. This inevitably led to
the question of how this process should be designed
and what partners it might be useful to take on
board in the endeavour to achieve the desired
objective. And, last but not least, it was important
for the individual lines of action to be managed such
that they held out the promise of success. All these
processes were summarised in a manual, which
included benchmarking to help programme staff
review the progress and the interim results of their work on a regular basis. Should it become
apparent that the strategy is not effective or successful, it is time to review the selected strategy,
the process design, as well as the cooperation partners, and to re-align the work. Only when the
deployment of the team leads to a quantifiable result, which in turn also brings about a visible
improvement in the drinking water situation, can the water supply system be sustainable. ‘We thus
remain in an effective corridor of impact, so that we can optimise the use of our services to achieve
the targeted changes,’ stresses the coordinator.
A look at the day-to-day work
One of the key objectives was to develop the technical and management capacity of the human
resources in the supply companies and the municipalities, enabling them to offer their customers
good services. The companies also needed to be motivated to actively ask for and accept a training
and qualification programme. Besides the Ministry of Housing, Construction and Sanitation, on the
political side the Ministry of Economy and Finance also came into play and developed interesting
promotion and incentive programmes. Universities and training institutions all developed training
programmes as well.
The success of such training depended on five factors: a sustainable further training programme
could only be established when all the partners involved worked towards a common goal; when
there was a country-wide training strategy; when the process was tailored to the needs of the
companies and the municipalities; when the learning and innovation programme was the right one;
and when all pull together in managing these steps. One participant described the dangers on the
way to achieving the objective: ‘The water association initially thought that with five or six training
courses on individual topics, we would move forward. However, this does not lead to a permanent
system in which our partners can continue to develop after the programme has come to an end.’ As
the authorities and the ministries themselves now think in terms of the five success factors, a broad
learning and innovation programme for the water sector has been introduced. Companies that are

pro-active in their request for training and that invest in their staff are given more state assistance.
This makes it attractive even for hesitant decision-makers to fill the gaps in the knowledge of their
workers and to benefit from the associated advantages. A sensitive issue addressed by the
programme is the political reform of the water sector. Local political heavyweights wield influence
over the many small and medium-sized water supply companies. While this is universally known, the
will to change the situation is a different matter. For one participant it starts and ends with the
correct strategy, which is to submit proposals for reform to parliament: ‘We asked ourselves who
were the partners that we had to have as allies. Who is interested in change, pushes for change, and
takes responsibility?’ Looking beyond the limits of ‘water’ swiftly brought the Ministry of Economy
and Finance and the Presidential Office into the picture. The reform holds out the prospect of
savings and greater economic efficiency, and both can add their weight to the effort. ‘These two
ministries have the influence to push through changes in the prevailing political and social
environment,’ says a delighted participant. A large-scale reform project that will result in a new
structure for water and sanitation is now under way.
Partners convinced
After expressing initial scepticism, a growing number of Peruvian partners were also convinced by
the working of the water programme. The water suppliers now take the success factors into
consideration when drawing up their plans and ask themselves how they can achieve the best
results. If all the departments work in parallel, they remain unsuccessful. But when they interact,
have a joint strategy, coordinate their actions, and when there is a management system in place to
ensure that each individual knows his or her responsibilities, then the companies can successfully
bring about permanent change.
“Learning in the project” means the Capacity Development of the people, organisations and
networks immediately associated with the project
Capacity development (CD) should be understood as a holistic process. In this context we use the
term ‘capacity’ to mean the capability of people, organisations and societies to drive and manage
their own sustainable development process, and adapt to changing conditions. This includes
recognising obstacles to development, developing problem-solving strategies and operationalising
these successfully. This proactive management capacity enables the people, organisations and
societies concerned to combine political will with interests, knowledge, values, and financial
resources in pursuit of their own development goals.
The explicit support of CD processes requires a strategy that is geared toward the actual political,
economic and social context of the policy field in question. CD measures must be agreed on with all
the stakeholders in the policy field, to ensure that all of them assume ownership of implementation
of the CD strategy. The CD strategy is based on the project’s system of objectives.
Good CD strategies meet the following quality criteria:
• well embedded into the context of the policy field in which they are working
• appropriate with regard to the actors' willingness to embrace change
• tied to initiatives of the actors themselves
• coherent interlinkage of effects at the different levels of CD (society, organisation,
individual).
5.4. The discipline of Accelerating Learning

Knowledge Compendium (India Backbone) chage march 2015

Knowledge Compendium (India Backbone) chage march 2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Knowledge Compendium (India Backbone) chage march 2015

Similar to Knowledge Compendium (India Backbone) chage march 2015 (20)

Knowledge Compendium (India Backbone) chage march 2015