1. 1
COLLABORATING, LEARNING AND ADAPTING: LESSONS FOR IMPROVING
ACTIVE PROJECTS
Benjamin Aisya1
1
Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning Manager, Community Connector
Project, Kampala, Uganda
Abstract
So often beneficiaries in a project participate in evaluations and yet fail to benefit from such
assessments. Based on an ongoing project in Uganda, this paper presents field experiences on how a
project has made “evaluation” results [learning] useful to the beneficiaries in the lifetime of the
project.
Keywords
Collaborating, Learning, Adapting, beneficiaries, stakeholders

2. 2
Introduction
So often beneficiaries of a project participate in evaluations but rarely get to benefit from such
assessments. In improving the implementation of the project, their views [given during the formal
evaluative periods] count for less, and/or rarely benefit them [the way they would have intended it
to] at the midpoint or end of the project. The experience of the Community Connector project in
Uganda has design and implementation lessons that are relevant for other development projects.
These design and implementation lessons equate to the learning organisation concept in
management studies.
Peter Senge popularised this the learning organisation concept in the ‘90s albeit with considerable
absorption in the for‐profit sector. In one of his books, The Fifth Discipline, he defines a learning
organization as an organisation where people “continually expand their capacity to create the results
they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective
aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together…” (Senge,
2006, Pg. 3)
Three key themes emerge that shape the basic concept when applied in a project setting:
1) Collectiveness or collaboration: Just as the for‐profit sector has learnt that, it is no longer
sufficient to have one person, learning for the company, increasingly projects ought to learn
collective for one stakeholder to learn for the organisation.
2) Continuous learning: where organisations generate learning throughout the project
lifetime. Stiglitz (1987) has argued that one learns to learn at least partly in the process of
learning itself.
3) Reworking or adaptation: Watkins & Marsick (1993) described a learning organisation as
one that learns continuously and transforms itself.
Over the years, development partners have mainly adopted [used] these themes in silos. Increasingly
the desire for a better way of utilising out evaluations implores the donor community to embrace a
multi‐themed ‘learning project’ approach to realise greater impact of development efforts.
This paper reflects a model of the practice of evaluation, which ultimately adds value to the project
stakeholder opinions [and choices] in the project lifetime.
Why learning projects?
 Stakeholder hunger: Stakeholders long to be heard in a project. Over time it has been shown
that there is imminent danger of evaluators representing more the thoughts and wishes of
the donor [key stakeholder in most evaluations] and less of the other stakeholders. Each
project will often have more than one stakeholders such as government, beneficiairies,
implementing mechanism and donors.
In almost all projects, the Evaluators cannot choose who to share the evaluation results with,
donors/implementing mechanism does. Evaluators may never understand the width and
height of the stakeholder agenda…donors/implementing mechanism does!
It has been whispered that Evaluators do not design projects, they nicely mess up those that
have been designed and/or are being implemented. When donors stick to the approach in
the design, however much the evaluator writes ten thousand lessons, there’s no guarantee
beneficiaries get to benefit from those lessons regardless of the feedback mechanisms.

3. 3
 The project environments are dynamic: Each project designer faces a choice of either a
dynamic or a static design. The dynamic project follows in the footsteps of a learning
organisation; action orientation, geared towards using specific diagnostic and evaluative
methodological tools, which identify, promote, and evaluate the quality of learning inside the
project. The static design focuses on applying the predetermined steps [often] oblivious of
the changes in the social environment.
In order to implement dynamic projects, there ought to be a consistent application of
evaluation methods and practices. The choice of project design itself confounds the practice
of evaluation in the project.
 Attaining project impact: Formative evaluations are meant to refocus the projects towards
the attainment of its ultimate results. Without a proven design that allows for this formative
process to happen earlier rather than later in the project timeline, there is a possibility that
the alterations/reworking done at midpoint may not have enough time for implementation
in an ongoing project. These most often form the basis for donors to desgin add‐on projects!
The Community Connector Project Context:
Managed by FHI360 as a prime partner, this five‐year project is implemented under an evolutionary
acquisition mechanism referred to as the Collaborating, Learning and Adapting (CLA) approach of the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Uganda. Collaborating, Learning and
Adapting is a framework to help implementers become more knowledge‐driven and responsive to
the evolving root challenges that projects face in achieving development objectives. (USAID, 2014)
This development approach emphasizes evidence‐based iterative adaptation of projects.
Community Connector, which is operational in 15 districts of Uganda, is an integrated nutrition and
agriculture project. Throughout its documentation, Community Connector is a learning project
[learns and adapts in response to changes in the implementation and dynamic contexts in which it
operates].
It is safe to say that at the end, this five‐year project will most likely look much different/changed
from what it was at start of the project [from the design]
According to USAID the intent of the Collaborating, Learning and Adapting is to continuously assess
the causal pathway to desired outcomes and adjust activities [both operational and programmatic]
as necessary to yield the most effective course of action.
In its design, Community Connector is a three‐phase project, with an implementation and learning
module in each phase. Therefore, beyond the routine program reviews, the project design allowed
Community Connector to establish and maintain innovative, outside‐the‐box systems [a pseudo
evaluative practice] to affect the project success. In Box 1 is a case of how the project evolved a
mechanism that contributes majorly to one of the project’s key result areas, the village loan and
savings.

4. 4
Box 1: How Community Connector improved the group savings and loan mechanism
CLA was key to Community Connector’s testing and eventual redesign of the village saving and
loan association (VSLA) approach for ultimately increasing community and household assets
[one of the project’s key livelihood indicators].
During the project’s first year, Community Connector registered 1,269 community groups, of
which approximately 40% were already participating in village saving associations. Through the
savings and loan approach, group members were saving funds throughout the year and then
receiving those funds back as a lump sum at end of the year [around December].
Despite the goal of increasing the members’ ability to acquire productive assets and/or other
inputs for business or entrepreneurial ventures, the monitoring efforts by sub‐district project
staff indicated that households were spending the funds primarily to celebrate the December
holidays, that is, the funds were not benefitting the household for the long‐term.
Community Connector holds monthly review and planning meetings at the sub‐offices. These
meetings are provide an opportunity for those working directly with communities to have frank
discussions regarding what is working and what is not and channel feedback up to program
decision makers. The project’s sub‐district staff in one of their monthly regional planning
meeting discussed the challenge seen in this village saving association mechanism.
As a result, the project designed a targeted assessment/a mapping exercise to examine the
saving and spending patterns of association members. This assessment mainly focused on
household interviews and focus group discussions with savings association members to
document their views. The targeted assessment further involved a desk review of external
literature evaluating village loan and saving mechanisms.
Halfway through year two, the project presented a comprehensive report of the assessment at
a meeting with local government staff to share the findings, learn and develop an adaptive
solution together. A new approach, termed “Saving with a Purpose” (SWAP), was developed
and rolled‐out to all Community Connector districts.
The SWAP, which replaced the previous loan and savings approach, features the following:
1) For most groups, group member disbursements of funds [or share out] now coincides
with planting seasons and/or the commencement of the school year [for purchase of
agriculture inputs and/or school fees respectively]
2) Group members are required to come up with saving goals for which they must sign
commitment card. Their commitment or the saving with a purpose plan will encourage
group members to hold one another accountable for how funds are spent. This spreads
the responsibility. Saving goals can be broad depending on the community. However,
the project encourages groups to adopt goals such as saving toward the purchase of a
household productive asset, or for a business investment.
After one year of implementation of the SWAP, the monitoring information indicates the
effective adoption of the improvements to the approach in most of the groups. Having seen the
danger in the December share out, many groups are taking initiatives to make further
adjustments to their saving and disbursement practices to address their needs better.

5. 5
Learning and Adapting ought to be integral
Whereas a learning project is one that possesses transformative abilities, continually learning how to
learn while implementing, the challenge with most development projects is that they are not
designed as learning projects but rather projects in which learning is expected. As a result adapting is
planned and less haphazard in the former because it is integral than in the latter because it is an add‐
on element.
Internally, a learning project ought to have a project design that supports a mix between learning
and adapting, systems to help generate the learning and an organisational culture that is keen on
learning and/or supports iteration. Externally, a learning project is most successful when it
synchronizes with its funders and with the stakeholders including partner NGOs, communities and
local government.
The Community Connector project aligned the M&E system and all major components to support the
collaborating, learning and adapting agenda in a unique design shown in Figure 1. Feedback loops
were set up to encourage data use at all levels and continuous project improvement.
Figure 1: Comparison of the project lifetime between Community Connector and most projects

6. 6
Learning And Adapting pathways
Avenues The learning process How the learning is
captured
How it informs
change/action
Programmatic
Learning
‐ Quarterly and
annual analysis of
project data
‐ Ad hoc analysis of
routine data
‐ Packaged into reports,
‐ Discussed by CC
managers, staff at all
levels, partners, and
other stakeholders in
monthly quarterly,
annual, and ad hoc
meetings where
decisions and plans are
made
‐ Adjustments to
Community Connector
activities in quarterly
planning meetings
‐ Changes to strategies and
activities during annual
planning, and
‐ Changes to the basic
design and strategic
approach at the
beginning of the
implementation modules
Developing and
testing project
hypotheses
‐ District situation
analyses
‐ Operations research
studies
‐ Periodic
expert/participatory
reviews
‐ Project evaluations
‐ Situation Analysis
reports were written up
as district profiles
detailing needs and
drivers of malnutrition,
poverty and food
security
‐ Evaluations and
research studies
presented in reports,
shared through
publications, events,
and other research
dissemination channels.
‐ Situation Analysis were
used by consortium
partners to design
Community Connector
strategies and
interventions for each
district.
‐ Findings of the
evaluations and
operations research
primarily inform future
programs but also used
to make iterations to
current aspects of the
projects when necessary
Ad hoc
Troubleshooting
‐ Monitoring
operations and
trouble‐shooting
challenges
‐ Discussed among staff
and partners in weekly
and quarterly meetings
and field visits,
‐ Codified in operations
notes and revised
Standard Operating
procedures (SOPs), and
noted as lessons learned
in quarterly and annual
reports
‐ Inform changes in day‐to‐
day management,
operations processes,
quarterly plans, partner
roles, staff skills, and
standard operation
procedures and job‐aids
for staff
Distilling
Promising
Practices
‐ Pilot testing
interventions
‐ Capturing
experiences from
field staff through
case stories
‐ These are analyzed and
written‐up as technical
notes or briefs,
disseminated among
staff and partners
(briefs and training
materials), and
discussed in planning
‐ These inform decisions
about which
interventions and
methods to continue and
to scale‐up.
‐ Promising practices have
been adopted by staff
and beneficiaries, while

7. 7
Avenues The learning process How the learning is
captured
How it informs
change/action
and design meetings,
and highlighted in
quarterly and annual
reports.
scale‐up of tested
interventions is planned
annually and at the
beginning of
implementation modules
Source: Community Connector Annual Report, 2013
Lessons learned in Collaborating, Learning and Adapting approach
The collaborating, learning and adapting approach realised in Community Connector points to four
key lessons for the evaluation community.
1. Generating good quality, timely and well‐analyzed data is central to the success of a learning
project. Community Connector has been able to employ participatory techniques to ensure
comprehensive data is collected as and when needed. This project collaborated with two
universities and community level stakeholders [lead farmers and government personnel] in
data collection, analysis, and interpretation, making recommendations and highlighting areas
for further investigation during the learning segments of the project.
Generating quality data necessitated employing an electronic performance monitoring
system that eliminated delays in data collection and cleaning, and eased data analysis.
2. Creating an organisaitonal culture that emphasizes learning and easing the process to the
expected outcomes for instance by involving all stakeholders is pivotal to the learning
organisation practice. For when placed in the same system, individuals, however different
tend to produce the same results. (Senge, 2006) At Community Connector, the field
personnel, that were trained in data quality assessment and evaluative practices, support
sub‐district governments to deploy simple but quality assessments on a quarterly basis to
track outcomes at the sub‐district level. Often, this has been the origin of the key learning /
lessons.
3. In addition to the narrative sections [progress against targets] in project reports, including a
synthesis of emerging lessons and implementation adaptations during the reporting period
improves the project reports to the donor, other partners, and the district local
governments.
4. Linking with the stakeholders at appropriate intervals enhances the image of the project and
is amiability to collaboration. In this project, collaboration is viewed as an ongoing activity
rather than a one off event.

8. 8
Acknowledgements
I acknowledge the input of Robert Mwadime, Ph.D. and the Community Connector staff for their
vigilant contributions and input into this paper.
References
Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline. The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. (2nd ed.).
London: Random House Business Books.
Stiglitz, J. E. (1987). Learning to learn, localized learning and technological progress. In P. Dasgupta, &
Stoneman, Economic Policy and Technological Performance (pp. 126‐130). Cambridge:
Cambride University Press.
USAID. (2014, March 18). Sites. Retrieved from United States Agency for International Development
Website: http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/203.pdf
USAID. (2014, August 28). USAID Learning Lab. Retrieved from USAID Learning Lab website:
http://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/files/media/StorylinePublished/story.html
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and
science of systemic change. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.