The document discusses organizational competencies and capacity development. It defines organizational competencies as the integral set of work processes, structures, systems and technologies that allow a local government unit to effectively perform and sustain superior performance. Capacity refers to an organization's ability to fulfill its functions and mandates, while performance is the effectiveness in achieving its mission and producing desired results. Key pillars that indicate an organization's capacity include structures, competencies, management systems, enabling policies, knowledge and learning, and leadership. The document provides examples of assessing these pillars by comparing the current and desired states of capacity development and identifying appropriate interventions. It emphasizes that capacity development should be strategic, performance-focused, owned by the local government, and integrate individual and organizational

1. CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT AGENDA

2. What are Organizational Competencies?
referred to as “ institutional or organizational
capacity”
- Integral set of work processes, structures, systems
and technologies that a LGU must have to render
and sustain superior performance.

3. Individual /competency
EXPERIENCE
KNOWLEDGE
ATTITUDE
SKILLS

4. ORGANIZATIONAL
COMPETENCIES
Valid
STRUCTURES
ADEQUATE
RESOURCES
COMPETENT WORKFORCE
EFFICIENT PROCESSES
APPROPRIATE
TECHNOLOGY
EFFECTIVE POLITICAL
AND PARTICIPATORY
PROCESSES
EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP
AND MANAGERIAL
STYLES

5. The individual
the organization
The Community
Capacity Development
Public participation
Institutional
development
Individual development

6. PERFORMANCE AND CAPACITY
 CAPACITY - ability of LGU ( organization and
individuals) to perform functions to fulfill
their accountabilities and produce desired
results
 PERFORMANCE – effectiveness of the LGU in
achieving its mission or what its mandate
says, and producing desired results

7. Capacity vs. Performance
Capacity Performance
 Appropriate Organizational
Structure
 Competent Employees
 Efficient and Effective
Management Systems
 Enabling Policies
 Presence of Knowledge
Management mechanisms
 Adequate Resources
 Effective Leadership
 Client Satisfaction
 Compliance with existing
laws/policies
 Increased citizens
participation
 Increased in economic
activities
 Increased in revenues
 Increased income
 Decreased in mortality

8. Capacity and Performance
Input Throughput Output Outcome Impact
Capacity Performance
Ability of LGU to perform
functions to fulfill their
accountabilities and produce
desired results
“means”
Effectiveness of the LGU in doing
its mission or what its mandate
says, and producing desired results
“end”

9. Capacity and Performance
Capacity Performance
Ability of LGU to perform
functions to fulfill their
accountabilities and produce
desired results
“means”
Effectiveness of the LGU in doing
its mission or what its mandate
says, and producing desired results
“end”
Resources,
enabling
mechanisms
to run...
Processes
Systems
Programs
to produce/
deliver ...
Products
Services
that lead/
contribute to ...
Benefits
that meet the
needs of
constituents and
lead to…
Development
Improvement in
the lives of
constituents
(e.g., MDG)

11. How to assess capacity
 The process of analyzing capacity is through the
Capacity Pillars.
 These are the factors that indicate an LGU’s capacity or
its “ability to perform functions to fulfill the mission
and deliver desired results.”


12. Structure
Competency
Management
Systems
Enabling
Policies
Knowledge
&
Learning
Leadership
Accountable, transparent,
participative and effective
Local Governance
Environment Protective, Climate Change
Adaptive and Disaster Resilient LGUs
Competitive and
Business Friendly
LGUs
Socially protective
and Safe LGUs
Pillars of
Capacity

13. Sample
“Capacity” Change Matrix

14. Structure
 Presence of appropriate structure (office, committee
or work group) with defined authority and
accountability for performing the necessary
functions within a program
 Note: include external support groups, e.g., LDRRMC, SWMB
 Points for assessment:
 Presence/ absence of formal structure?
 Functional? (appropriate staffing/membership, meeting regularly, producing required outputs, provided with budget)
Current State Desired State Intervention
Structure
Low functionality of the SWMB; no regular meetings
 No coordination among members of the Board leading to
poor implementation and overlapping of PPAs
ENRO just designated; has dual function (also the
CPDC)
 Programs not properly monitored; resources wasted
SWMB meets regularly (PNA)
& collaboration with different
stakeholders is being
practiced resulting to a more
responsive SWM plan and
harmonized PPAs
ENRO appointed with office
& personnel; management
systems established
Reactivation of SWMB
Conduct of monthly SWMB
meeting
Enact ordinance & allocate
budget for the creation of
ENRO
Recruit ENRO and staff;
conduct training

15. Competency
 Knowledge and skills of people who need to perform their assigned functions in the
program
 Technical competencies
 Program management competencies
 Planning
 Designing
 Implementing
 Monitoring and evaluation
 Points for assessment:
 Level of proficiency (proficient, needs improvement, not proficient)
 Level of motivation/ productivity
Current State Desired State Intervention
competencies
Lack of technical know how of
MENRO, garbage collectors
-Inefficient garbage collection
-Increased volume of waste dumped
• Highly trained
and competent
MENRO and
garbage
collectors
Conduct of re-
orientation for
MENRO and garbage
collectors on proper
collection and
disposal of wastes

16. Management Systems
Systems, processes and procedures for managing programs
 Planning and budgeting
 Design and Development
 Implementation
 Monitoring and Evaluation
Pointers for assessment:
 Documented? (manual, flowchart, plan, protocols, SOP), Approved?, Standardized?, Streamlined?,
User-friendly/ customer-focused?, Implemented/ used?, Participatory? Transparent?
Current State Desired State Intervention
Management Systems
Absence of monitoring mechanism
-weak enforcement of envi code
-No basis for corrective measure
Ineffective garbage collection scheme(by
contract)
-Presence of mixed garbage
-Poor HH participation on waste segragation
except for brgys with MRF
• Monitoring
mechanism
institutionalized
• Strict enforcement of
laws
• Effective garbage
collection scheme
institutionalized
• Active community
involvement
>Develop a monitoring mechanism
>Regular submission of M&e reports
>Review and improve existing contract
agreement on garbage collection scheme
>Strengthen BSWMC and intensify IEC
>Incentivize compliant barangays on waste
segregation
>Revisit and enhance existing ESWMP
>Strict enforcement of environmental laws
and policies

17. Enabling Policies
 Presence of policy and legislative support for planning, developing,
implementing, monitoring and evaluating service delivery functions, programs
and projects
 Points for assessment:
 Presence/ absence?
 Sufficient/ effective/ with gaps?
 Conflicting?
 Up-to-date?
 Disseminated?
 Enforced?
Current State Desired State Intervention
Enabling Policies
Absence of envi ordinance and SWM Plan
-no blueprint for program implementation
No basis for collection
No M & E
• Envi ord and
SWMP formulated,
passed and enacted
• Increased the level
of awareness of the
community
Public Hearings
Social Marketing
IEC/Advocacy

18. Knowledge and Learning
 Mechanisms for generating, analyzing and using data and information as
basis for decision-making and continuous improvement
 Pointers for assessment:
 Data or database is accessible to and used by stakeholders
 M&E data are used
 Engaging citizens/ stakeholders to provide feedback on service delivery
 Continuous benchmarking with good practices
 Comparing own performance with other LGUs
 Documenting and sharing good practices
Current State Desired State Intervention
Knowledge and Learning
Lack of benchmark information & best practice
relative to SWM; Insufficient data (e.g., volume of
solid waste generated, and number of households
practicing segregation at source)
Poor plans
Poor program design
Inefficient technologies used; resources wasted
• Develop
Databank
on SWM
Databank is
in place and
used in
planning and
decision-
making

19. Leadership
 Presence of mechanisms for:
 Defining vision, mission and values, and setting strategic directions
 Ensuring transparency and accountability in the LGU’s operations
 Instituting participatory mechanisms
 Establishing partnerships and collaboration
 Visible sponsorship of programs
 Pointers for assessment
 Social Contract, CDP-ELA, Strategic Plan, etc.
 SGH compliance, Ulat ng Bayan, etc.
 Involvement of CSOs, citizen feedback mechanisms
 Partnerships with NGAs, regional, sectoral groups, private sector, media, etc.
 Active involvement in program, providing resources, etc.
Current State Desired State Intervention
Leadership
SWM is not a priority of the LGU
Poor plans and programs
Insufficient funding support
SWM is among the
strategic priorities of
the LGU; updated
SWM plan in place;
budget based on
plan
Include SWMP in
the agenda of the
LDC meetings for
prioritization &
fund appropriation

20. •Enhancing individual competencies
and organizational capacity through
strategic and integrated interventions
to equip and empower LGUs to fufill
their accountabilities, and produce
desired results
Capacity Development

21. Guiding Principles for
LGU Capacity Development
(CapDev)
Strategic
Performance-
focused
LGU-driven
and LGU-
Owned
Adaptable Integrated
Tracked and
assessed
Policy-
compliant
Innovative

22. Guiding Principles for LGU CapDev
Strategic
• Anchored on the LGU’s vision, mission
and priority development goals
• Attuned to current realities and
developments
• Forward-looking

23. Guiding Principles for LGU CapDev
Performance-focused
• Aligned to the performance
improvement objectives and
priority thrust of the LGU
• Reflects LGU’s striving for
excellence and innovation

24. Guiding Principles for LGU CapDev
LGU-driven and LGU-owned
• LGU identifies its priority needs and
determines appropriate interventions
• LGU-led but at the same time inclusive
of the needs and interests of relevant
stakeholders, and aligned with national
priorities/ development directions

25. Guiding Principles for LGU CapDev
Adaptable
• LGUs have different profiles, contexts
and needs
• CapDev is customized and anchored on
the LGU’s context and change readiness
• Anticipates and responds to changed
circumstances

26. Guiding Principles for LGU CapDev
Integrated
• CapDev initiatives are linked and
synergistic
• Uses a holistic, whole-system approach
(whole institution)
• Recognizes and optimizes the interplay
of different actors

27. Guiding Principles for LGU CapDev
Tracked and assessed
• Evaluated for effectiveness in
improving LGU performance, lessons
are drawn and serve as basis for the
LGU’s continuous improvement; built
in feedback mechanism

28. Guiding Principles for LGU CapDev
Market-sensitive
•Demand-driven and
facilitates the market’s
access to providers of
capdev interventions

30. What is the CapDev Agenda
 A roadmap of appropriate individual and organizational
enhancement interventions
 within specific timeframes
 identified milestones and deliverables
 available and accessible resources
 …. to address priority capacity development needs along
defined LGU performance outcomes

31. Elements of the CapDev Agenda?
 Targeted Outcome Area/ ELA Priority and Performance
Goals
 Current State of Capacity
 Desired State of Capacity (Capacity Development
Objectives)
 Capacity Development Interventions
 Expected Output
 Target of CapDev
 Timeframe
 Funding Requirements by year
 Process Owner/ Office Responsible
 Source of Support/ Technical Assistance

32. Why formulate the CapDev
Agenda?
 The CapDev Agenda serves as basis for:
 Communicating the strategic directions and reform
agenda of the current leadership;
 Allocating the budget requirements of each capacity
development intervention across outcome areas of the
LGUs;
 Mapping out a results framework/ monitoring and
evaluating the effectiveness of the CapDev
interventions.
 Generating accountabilities for institutionalizing and
reaping the gains of the capacity development
intervention

33. Considerations in CapDev Planning
 Sequence of interventions (which comes first)
 Timing of interventions (is this the right time?)
 Quick-wins vs long term solutions (demonstrate
benefits quickly to gain support/ momentum)

34. CapDev Agenda
• Expected Output: plan, program, system, process, trained staff
• Target of CapDev: who will be trained or be involved in the intervention
• Timeframe: which year, and what is the duration (e.g., 3months, etc.)
• Funding Requirements: estimated cost/ budget required
• Process Owner/ Office Responsible
• Source of Support/ Technical Assistance

35. Sample CapDev Agenda

36. CDP FORMULATION WORKSHOPS
WORKSHOP 1 WORKSHOP 2 WORKSHOP 3 WORKSHOP 4 WORKSHOP 5
VISION ELEMENTS
SUCCESS
INDICATORS
OBSERVED
CONDITION
VISION-
REALITY
GAP
PROBLEM-SOLUTION
FINDIND ANALYSIS
MATRIX
POLICY
OPTIONS
GOALS,
OBJECTIVES
& TARGETS
PPAs
LEGISLAT
ION
NEEDED
EXPLANATI
ON
IMPLICATI
ON
ECONOMI
C
SECTOR
Sources:
RAPIDS, CBMS,
Disaster
Preparedness
Protocols, GAD
Database,
DRR/CCA
Diagnostic
Survey, LGU
Pefromance
Scorecard,
Scorecard on
Health, ETC.
Sources: LDIS,
SLDR, ARs, etc.
SI-OC (cause) (effect) Two
approaches:
Infra/hard/ph
ysical project
business-
friendly
economical
ly-vibrant
Presence of
updated LIIC.
None 10 Not a
priority.
No investors Creation of
TWG for
LIIC,RevCode
and Market
Code
Formulation
To formulate
LIIC, RevCode
& Market
Code.
Convene
TWG.
Enactment
of
ordinance
/resolutio
n adopting
the LIIC,
RevCode
and
Market
Code.
Presence of
updated
RevCode.
Outdated 8 Not included
as a
parameter in
search and
awards
Low income Conduct
writeshop.
Presence of
updated
Market Code
Outdated 8 Absence of
technical
experts
Low income Conduct
public
consultation.
Executive &

37. WORKSHOP 2
SECTOR CAPACITY PILLARS
OBSERVED CONDITION
ENVIRONMENT Structures ENRO just designated; has dual function (also the MPDC)
Competency Lack of technical know how of MENRO, garbage collectors
-Inefficient garbage collection
-Increased volume of waste dumped
Management Systems Absence of monitoring mechanism
-weak enforcement of envi code
-No basis for corrective measure
Ineffective garbage collection scheme(by contract)
-Presence of mixed garbage
-Poor HH participation on waste segragation except for brgys with MRF
Enabling Policies Absence of envi ordinance and SWM Plan
-no blueprint for program implementation
No basis for collection
No M & E
Knowledge
and Learning
Lack of benchmark information & best practice relative to SWM; Insufficient
data
(e.g., volume of solid waste generated, and number of households practicing
segregation at source)
Leadership SWM is not a priority of the LGU