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

Hettie Walters 2011

Guidance Note for the Programmatic Approach of the ICCO Alliance

4

1

Guidance Note for the Programmatic Approach of the ICCO Alliance Version 31 December 2011

2

This Guidance Note is based on earlier documents in which insights gained in the development of the Programmatic Approach where presented: Briefing paper Growing insights on the Programmatic Approach, ICCO February 2009, Harry Derksen en Hettie Walters; R&D; Evaluative Study on the Programmatic Approach Erica Wortel and Jouwert van Geene, December 2009; Synthesis paper : Findings and recommendations gained from the Evaluative study and the Appreciating the Programmatic Approach processes. April 2010, Hettie Walters; A debriefing note from the workshop held on February 1-‐5, 2010, Appreciating the Programmatic Approach; a systematisation of experiences, Consultants Appreciating the Programmatic Approach, March 2010 and the Appreciating the programmatic Approach feedback workshop 2011. Insights gained and tools used in the trainings on Methodologies and methods for the programmatic Approach 2008-‐2011 have also been used as a source (various reports by teams of CDI-‐WUR).

3

Content Introduction 5

1 Why we do what we do 6

1.1 Objective and vision 6 1.2 What is the Programmatic Approach? 7

1.3 The theory of change of the programmatic approach 7 1.4 Why do we promote this way of working? 8 1.5 With whom do we co-‐operate in the programmatic approach? 9

2 Theories of the programmatic approach 11

2.1 Systems theory and complexity thinking 11 2.2 Multi-‐stakeholder Process theory 13 2.3 Coalition building and network development 14

3 The methods we can use in the Programmatic Approach 16

3.1 Methods for working with systemic change and complexity 16 3.1.1 Appreciative Inquiry 17 3.1.2 Methods for understanding systemic change: 20

-‐ Four quadrant framework 20 -‐ Institutional Analysis 22

3.1.3. Methods for working with complexity: 24 -‐ Cynefin Framework 24 -‐ Ralph Stacey's Agreement & Certainty Matrix 26

3.2 Methods in Multi-‐stakeholder processes (MSP) 28 3.2.1 Theory of Change 30 3.2.2 Stakeholder analysis 33 3.2.3 Context analysis 35 3.2.4 Problem tree analysis 35 3.2.5 Large group interventions:

Open Space Technology and Future Search 37 3.3 Methods for Networking and Coalition development 40

3.3.1 Networking for social change and knowledge development 40 3.3.2. Coalition Development 42

4 Programmatic approach and the ICCO Alliance roles and practices 44

4.1 Roles, thematic focus and partner relations 44 4.1.1 Strategic funding and the Programmatic Approach 44 4.1.2 Brokering 47 4.1.3 Capacity development 47

4.2 The thematic programmes in the Business Plan and the Programmatic Approach 48

4.3. Governance models and structures 49 Annex 1 Guidelines for Developing programmatic cooperation; the phases 53 Annex 2 Programmatic Cooperation scan 59

4

5

Introduction This paper intends to give guidance and orientation to staff of the ICCO Alliance as well as to staff of civil society organizations with whom the ICCO Alliance cooperates in the context of the Programmatic Approach. It will describe what the Programmatic Approach entails, what the considerations were that led to the development of the approach, what its theory of change is, and which theories underpin the Programmatic Approach. In this Guidance note we will describe what kind of a donor and partner organization we will be as a result of our choice to work with and from a programmatic approach, and which consequences this choice has for our activities. Our readers will predominantly come from within the ICCO Alliance’s circle of influence, either from organizations within the ICCO Alliance or from organizations with whom we directly or indirectly forge relations. However, we also expect readers to be interested that belong to other development organizations that are reflecting on their own strategies and would like to understand the ICCO Alliances approach. This paper is the result of several years of learning-‐by-‐doing and is certainly not the end station in our learning process. That is why we called this paper a Guidance note -‐ calling it a manual would imply that we have a definite model or that we expect that a single approach can be “rolled out” in different contexts. Instead we wanted to stress the ongoing character of the development of the Programmatic Approach. We will start this guidance note with the vision of the ICCO Alliance. This will be followed by a description of what the Programmatic Approach means for the ICCO Alliance, why we use this way of working and with whom we work together doing so. In Chapter 2 we will then explain the conceptual framework underpinning the Programmatic Approach. In chapter 3 we will introduce several methods that can be used in the Programmatic Approach. These methods help us to understand the complexity in which we work, to analyze the stakeholder diversity, to assess where we are in a change process and to which changes we are contributing, and also to clarify how we can help networks and coalitions to develop. In chapter 4 we will discuss some of the practical examples that we now have of governance and funding models for the Programmatic Approach. The annexes contain two specific tools that have been developed: The guidelines for developing programmatic cooperation and the Programmatic Cooperation scan (P-‐scan) We hope that this guidance note will inspire you, that it will support you in your reflection process and that it offers some practical guidance, helping you to make choices, to direct processes and to support others in the development of cooperation for fundamental social change.

6

1

Why we do what we do

1.1 Objective and vision The ICCO Alliance’s objective is to end poverty, assure just societies and enable men and women to live dignified lives. In large parts of the world and for many people these aims are still far from the reality of their lives. Many countries still have development levels in which health and education for all, sufficient food of good nutritional value, and income that enables people to obtain services and resources are lacking. These problems are often related to underlying issues, such as absence of respect for Human Rights. This leads to inequality in society because of the marginalization of groups based on gender, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation or because of their geographic location in a country. Lack of control over productive resources and markets by particular groups in society (such as for example women farmers) leads to injustice and poverty. Many conflicts are grounded in inequalities, and the result of the situation in fragile states where good governance is lacking, and in which opposed interests of factions and individuals are numerous. The ICCO Alliance’s overall vision is based on the three basic dimensions of poverty and injustice: social, political and economic. Poverty and injustice cannot be explained from one dimension only; solutions therefore have to take into account all three of them. Our choice for thematic areas is based on these three dimensions: Social: • Basic health, Basic education • HIV/Aids • Food and Nutrition Security Political: • Conflict transformation and Democratization Economic: • Fair Economic Development • Fair Climate Dimensions and themes are overlapping; programs as defined in the business plan can therefore have relations to one or more dimensions. Human Rights, gender, capacity development, and religion and culture are underlying and crosscutting principles and issues that connect the thematic areas and are meant to reinforce or complement the actions on a particular theme. Staff from Regional Councils and Regional Offices have further defined the overall vision and mission to fit the context of their regions (e.g. Central America, South America and Central and Eastern Africa).

7

1.2 What is the Programmatic Approach? The Programmatic Approach is essentially about the way in which the ICCO Alliance1 promotes cooperation between organizations in developing countries in order to reach development results. Poverty and injustice are invariably related to complex problems in which many people have a stake and where organizations represent specific interests. All are embedded in larger systems that often maintain existing inequalities. Several systems combined make up societies. The ICCO Alliance aims at changing the systems that maintain inequalities in such a manner that poverty is ended, justice is guaranteed and rights of all individuals and communities are respected. To be able to do so we propose to work in an approach that will support actors with different stakes in systems to come together and develop a shared agenda for change. The Programmatic Approach thus can be defined as follows:

A multi stakeholder process that leads to organizations working together, based on a joint analysis, shared vision and objectives and clear perspective on the results of the cooperation. In such a process all actors can do different things, work at various levels and use their specific strengths for the common purpose and objectives, as well as share activities, and in particular participate in the mutual linking and learning processes. The programmatic approach aims at change in systems rather than addressing single problems2

The ICCO Alliance Programmatic Approach differs from a sectoral approach. In the latter, projects and programs generally are brought together in one general planning, whereas the core of the Programmatic Approach is that we support cooperative processes of multiple stakeholders aiming at creating systemic change. It is therefore not only a planning approach but a strategy for realizing fundamental change with our partner organizations and other stakeholders in the areas in which we work.

1.3 The theory of change of the programmatic approach Kurt Lewin once remarked: “There is nothing as practical as a good theory”. Any development intervention is based on a ‘theory’ of how the desired changes can be achieved. Sometimes this theory of change is implicit, a vague idea based on perceptions of poverty and assumptions about the factors related to change. Although in many cases such initiatives yield good results, this approach also has its limitations. Many of the initiatives focus only on one particular aspect of the problem, leaving untouched the numerous other factors related to the state of poverty and injustice. In addition, development efforts are often small-‐scale, not well coordinated, and limited in time. Many of the present theories of change used by (international) development organizations are based on the assumption that development that can be constructed 1 The ICCO Alliance is formed by: ICCO, Edukans, Prisma, Kerk in Actie, SharePeople,

ZeisterZendingsgenootschap, Yente. 2 A system is a set of interacting or interdependent entities forming a larger whole. These systems may

include organisational systems, may have geographical boundary, and often have multiple levels and actors. Systems have the capacity to change, to adapt when it is necessary in response to internal or external stimulus. Complex Adaptive Systems, Heather Baser and Peter Morgan, Complex Adaptive Systems Theory, ECDPM 2004

8

from outside, and can be managed and planned from top to bottom if the right means are provided. Development is thus seen as a linear process that can be captured and followed in a logical framework. One particular problem is that such a logical framework does not offer space for changes that were not foreseen or expected but nevertheless did take place as a result of the intervention and therefore had an impact. As people who form the target of such top-‐down interventions are often regarded as ‘beneficiaries’ instead as primary actors, the eventual impact on their life is often superficial. A very different angle of view is offered by the Systems Thinking. Systems are defined as interactions among diverse agents that persist and evolve as a coherent whole. Systems Thinking looks at the ‘whole’ first and examines how parts of the wider whole influence each other, or change as result of their relationship to their environment. Attention to the various elements of the system is secondary to attention to the whole 3 4. Systems thinking states that changes in parts of a system will always cause the whole system to change. This change will however not have a predictable result nor can it be planned in a linear fashion. The ICCO Alliance takes these systems behavior into account in its Programmatic Approach. The insecurity that is implied by the unpredictability of changes needs to be reflected in the monitoring and evaluation systems that we use. In addition to measuring expected changes, they need to be able to capture the unexpected and ‘notice’ emergent change as well. This line of thinking has resulted in the following theory of change underpinning our Programmatic Approach: • Development problems are the result of complex systems of interlinked actors,

structures, institutions and processes • Complex problematics demand an approach that can deal with and work in the

complexity. Therefore a Multi Stakeholder Process (MSP) is needed • MSPs lead to joint learning and cooperation between the actors involved • The MSP represents the system involved in the problematic. Cooperation between

actors and organizations leads to added value: greater effectiveness in change at the institutional level and whole system change.

• The ICCO Alliance will support existing cooperative processes and initiate the cooperative process if none exists yet.

• Coalitions of cooperating actors have (and adhere to) ownership in the programmatic cooperation (the program).

• This also implies that a coalition can identify possibilities for diversification of funding sources to assure sustainability of the cooperation and independence from the ICCO Alliance. It is preferable that the cooperative process is not solely dependent on ICCO Alliance funding.

1.4 Why do we promote this way of working? Problems and issues of poverty and injustice in developing countries are related in a systemic way in what we call problematics5. For example promoting respect for human rights is related to the following aspects: the absence or the lack of implementation of a 3 Definition by Peggy Holman in Engaging with Emergence, page 220, Berrett Koehler 2010 4 ‘The idea and practice of systems thinking and their relevance for capacity development’, Peter

Morgan, ECPDM march 2005 5 Problematics are sets of single problems and issues that together express aspects of a system that has

negative effects for groups of people.

9

legal framework, traditional and cultural norms and values about rights of individuals and groups in societies, the level of knowledge about rights of individuals and communities, claim-‐making capacities in societies and the capacities and intentions of duty bearers in assuring the human rights. This implies that, when we acknowledge that human rights are not sufficiently respected and we want to contribute to change, we need to work on the systems underlying and connecting problems and issues rather than on single issues and problems. Working towards change of systems requires the cooperative effort of many of the players involved at different levels and from different angles in addressing. This approach is key to achieving coherence, connection and complementarity in the work of the ICCO Alliance and in the work of civil society organizations whose partners we are in development. Organizations, when working together, can take on more responsibilities for analyzing their society, developing a joint vision, developing strategies, setting priorities, embarking on joint lobby campaigns, raising funding from their own society and engaging in a joint learning and capacity development process. In this way added value is created by addressing the complexity at various levels leading to greater effectiveness in results. We expect more fundamental changes to occur due to the cooperative work. In the end the sustainability of the change realized will increase as well as the sustainability of cooperative efforts and co-‐operative arrangements. Some cooperation will also come to a natural end while new ones can also develop.

1.5 With whom do we co-operate in the programmatic approach?

The ICCO Alliance aims to cooperate with and develop the capacities of civil society organizations in developing countries, sharing with them the values, aims and strategies of working towards the realization of just societies in which men, women and children are able to live in dignity and well-‐being, where poverty, injustice and inequality are eradicated. Civil society organizations6 play a crucial role in changing systems of oppression, marginalization and discrimination which exclude large groups of people from wellbeing and the possibility of leading dignified lives. The systems of injustice are often the result of societal political institutions; government and state dysfunction in combination with a market economy that maximizes profits for a few, and impoverishes many others. The ICCO Alliance is itself an alliance of civil society organizations; we believe in the strength of civil society and the unique role we have to play. Looking at the complexity of problematics we recognize that for solutions and systems change to occur we need to involve in the co-‐operation other actors such as private sector companies, government organizations and knowledge institutions. The specific mix of actors required depends on the problematic and the system that is involved in the change. In particular the cooperation with the private sector has shown to be valuable in

6 Civil society organizations: As ICCO Alliance we work with the formal spectrum of civil society. These

are organizations that are registered, have a formal status, and have developed a mission, vision and strategies and implementation capacity. These organizations can be CBO’s movements, NGO’s. Organizations can be faith-‐based but we don’t restrict our co-‐operation to faith-‐based organizations.

10

addressing poverty in the economic sector as well as in the social sectors. Local and national government need to be involved because system change often requires adjustment of the regulatory frameworks and the enabling environment in which government agencies are very important. They are also important because for some social sectors they perform the role of duty bearing organization. Knowledge institutions play an important part due to their responsibility for innovation and deepening of certain issues and patterns in change processes, whether these are technological or socio-‐political. In the programmatic approach it is important to identify in developing countries existing networks and alliances of different kind that could benefit from support by and cooperation with the ICCO Alliance, enabling them to strengthen their cooperative processes and their capacity to realize change. Alliances in the South, when facing global challenges or issues at supra-‐national level, can also become linked to or supported by strategic alliances from the Netherlands or elsewhere. As ICCO Alliance we strive towards cooperative arrangements that are not exclusively built on the ICCO Alliances partner network. The Programmatic Approach is not a replacement of the ICCO Alliance’s or ICCO’s partners’ policies although they have much ground in common. These will be discussed in a separate paragraph on the programmatic approach and the partner policy (Ch. 4.1.1).

11

2

Theories of the programmatic approach The theories that underpin the Programmatic Approach are: 1 Systems theory 2 Complexity theory 3 Multi-‐Stakeholder Process theory 4 Coalition building and Network Development It is important to understand that in the Programmatic Approach we do not make a choice for any of these theories and their related methods. Rather, the Approach is located in the grounds the overlapping theories have in common. We combine insights and methods linked to all four theoretical domains. These theories are all expressions of the so-‐called constructivist paradigm. This paradigm basically states that the world as we know it is the result of the experiences that each of us has gained in our lives. We all see our surroundings through the lens of these experiences: we construct our own world. Analysis of what is going on around us and the search for solutions for problems is not an exact science in which there is only one truth or one reality that is experienced in the same way by all concerned. Therefore what we need are methods that enable us to connect to the multiple realities and the complexity that is the result of many different stakeholders. All four mentioned theories shed light on the various aspects of this complexity. Each theory will be introduced in the following paragraphs.

2.1 Systems theory and complexity thinking Although systems theory and complexity are two separate theoretical fields, they are also to such an extent interconnected that we present them here in one paragraph. The systems theory emphasizes the connections between different parts of the system and the notion of a system as a holistic whole. A system is defined as: “a set of interacting or interdependent entities forming a larger whole. These systems may include organizational systems, may have geographical boundaries, and often have multiple levels and actors. Systems have the capacity to change, to adapt when it is necessary in response to internal or external stimulus. Change in one part of the system therefore always causes the whole system to change. How a system reacts to changes in one part is not predictable but often shows itself in rather unexpected ways. It cannot be understood nor planned in a linear manner”7. Morgan8 describes different systems: natural systems (e.g. rain forests, climate, biodiversity); technical systems (e.g. communication networks, tsunami warning arrangements and human systems such as families), groups, organizations, networks, partnerships, consortia. These human

7 Complex Adaptive Systems, Heather Baser and Peter Morgan, Complex Adaptive Systems Theory,

ECDPM 2004 8 Peter Morgan Ibid.

12

systems are non-‐linear, entangled, wandering messes that do not lend themselves easily to traditional analysis and action. In complexity theory, a change of the system occurs through ‘emergence’. Emergence The short definition for ‘emergence’ is: order arising out of chaos. A more nuanced definition is: higher order complexity arising out of chaos in which novel, coherent structures coalesce through interactions among diverse entities of a system. Emergence occurs when these interactions disrupt, causing the system to differentiate and ultimately coalesce into something novel.9 Change in a system starts with disruption, with unbalancing the systems current state. It is a challenge and maybe even a paradox to guide this process in such a manner that the outcome is a new coalescence of relations (in the human system) that lead to the system being more effective, just, inclusive or equal. There are however ideas about how we can engage with emergence in such a manner that all relations in the system can participate in the change process. The practices involved in engaging with emergence are broadly related to three iterative phases in emergence: a) preparing for a system change, b) hosting the system in its change process and c) engaging with the system in its change process. We use many of the practices involved already more or less consciously in our work with regard to promoting programmatic cooperation. In the methods description in Chapter 3 we will treat in more detail how we can engage with emergence in the context of the Programmatic Approach. Complexity thinking In the last decade we have seen an increasing influence of Complexity Thinking on development theory and strategies. These came up as a result of the growing notion that the linear positivist approaches in the planning of development interventions do not represent well the complex systems of change. Heather Baser and Peter Morgan, Ben Ramalingam and colleagues at IDS and articles in the Broker10 have all pointed to the possibility of using insights from Complexity Thinking on development processes in highly complex contexts and systems. They all adhere to the notion that: “we live in a qualitatively different world to previous eras, one marked by increasing interconnectedness and interdependence – economically, socially, politically, environmentally and technologically. In such an interdependent world, the argument goes, there is greater unpredictability and uncertainty. In the extreme, standard operating procedures, best practices and grand designs can be irrelevant, counterproductive or downright damaging. Instead, complexity theory:

• provides a set of lenses with which to look at the world, • helps pose questions which can help better understand the dynamics of real

world systems, and • helps generate insights as to how these dynamics can be ‘sensed’ and ‘navigated’

What does complexity theory offer? The Complexity Theory can be considered a more specific form of Systems Thinking. Systems are characterized by interconnectedness and interdependent elements and dimensions that are a key starting point for understanding complexity. Feedback

9 Peggy Holman Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into Opportunity Berrett Koehler Publishers

San Francisco 2010 pg 18 10 www.thebrokeronline.eu

13

processes shape how change can happen in a system and change usually occurs as a non-‐plannable emergent process between parts of systems. When acknowledging the complexity in a system it also means recognizing that change happens in a non-‐linear way. Sensing the initial state of a system also makes one understand the importance of initial small changes to have great effects (the butterfly who laps its wings leading to a Tsunami is an example for this). A systems changes because part of it changes, causing a reaction by the entire system. This can be based on actions of so-‐called adaptive agents that react to the system and to each other. This might lead to a disruption and creation of diversity in the system. Through self-‐organization (another characteristic of a complex system) a new state of equilibrium may develop. In this process co-‐evolution between adaptive agents and the overall system may occur. In a Programmatic co-‐operation process that is tackling change in complex developmental problematics it is important to understand how change in these complex systems emerges, of how the feedback loops within the system operate, and to understand how we can promote emergence in certain direction. In Chapter 3 more will be said about how to work with emergence and about which methods can be used to promote/host emergence. Some methods like scenario planning and system loops diagrams11 can help to develop images of the feedback loops. An important example of these theories are the ideas developed by David Snowden presented in the Cynefin Frame work and by Ken Wilbur in the Four Quadrant model. Both are presented in Chapter 3 in more detail and can help in working with complexity in systems in a more explicit manner. Related are theories about understanding institutions and institutional change, as institutions are mechanisms maintaining systems.

2.2 Multi-stakeholder Process theory The basic principle of the Multi-‐stakeholder theory is that in every social process in which people are involved these people will have a different understanding of the situation they are in. They will not only have a different understanding but also a different appreciation of their lives, the societies in which they live and of the problematics involved12. Solving problematics therefore requires that all people having a stake and an appreciation of the situation/problematic be brought together to jointly analyse the situation from their various perspectives. This process of jointly analysing and validating different perspectives is of course not an easy process. MSPs are fraught with power differences that reflect the power differences of the very systems they belong to. Bringing multiple stakeholders together (such as multinational companies, international traders, processing businesses and producers organizations)13, implies bringing power relations into the process. This will require dialogue skills, keeping an open mind and sometimes the suspension of judgment. Many of the methods that are 11 Peter Senge The Fifth Discipline, Random House, 1990, Peter Senge, Art Kleiner, Charlotte Roberts,

Richard Ross, Bryan Smith, Het Vijfde Discipline Praktijkboek, Academic Services, 1998, praktijkboek 12 The multi-‐stakeholder theory is based in the constructivist paradigm. 13 Being aware of the gender aspects( as a specific type of power relation and institution) of a MSP is

important and easily overlooked

14

mentioned in Chapter 3 on methods for working with Emergence, apply to working in multi-‐stakeholder settings. The main assumption of the multi-‐stakeholder theory is that when people are able to come together they will enter into a social learning process which will enable them to find solutions that respond to the needs of multiple actors in a system14. The system then enters into a process of change. It is obvious that this process is not easy and will often require facilitation. In the Programmatic Approach the roles of brokering, learning and facilitating capacity development are very often required. In Chapter 4 we will discuss how we have organized these processes so far. It is our responsibility as ICCO Alliance to assure that we play our roles well and only when they are required; we need to be aware of our place in the system. Being a part of the system, we inevitably bring our own interests and stakes, our own power position into the process. We are never a neutral. This is also why it is important that we reflect on the consequences of who we are and what we want to be if we promote systems change and change our position if this is required.

2.3 Coalition building and network development The ICCO Alliance’s Programmatic Approach is an approach that is about emerging forms of organizations: organizations of organizations, or a group of groups that come together to collaborate. These organizational forms are known by different names such as coalitions, alliances, networks, partnerships, joint ventures or federations. The name used is often related to the context and what is within that context considered a current label for associative forms of organizing. In the ICCO Alliance we have initially called them Program coalitions or even shorter: programs. This last term is however confusing because it is also used for the ICCO Alliance policy level, for a set of objectives, results and activities (projects) related to a thematic domain and for the cooperation between stakeholders on a problematic. In this paper we will use the term coalition for the associative form of organizations working together for the realization of a joint purpose. Following the definition of Thomas Cummings15 we are discussing an inter-‐ organizational system that has become semi-‐autonomous but maintains accountability and feedback loops to its organizations of origin (the constituent organizations). He called this system a Trans Organizational System. We will call it a coalition. In a coalition the constituent organizations will maintain their separate identities and goals. In its development a coalition can be ambiguous for a long time. The group and the structure are co-‐created through process and dialogue. This form of organizing is a response to turbulent and complex environments. In these environments non-‐linear and expansive approaches are required because these contexts are often messy and complex. In such contexts (individual) organizations face meta level problems (problematics). This organizational ecology perspective aims to draw together a wide range of social organizations in order to develop a meta organizational response to meta problems, that individual organizations do not have the capacity to solve. Turbulence caused by complex problems in the environment can be addressed by consulting the consolidated resources and knowledge base of coalitions.

14 Woodhill, J& van Vugt,S, The Power of MSP, Capacity.org, edition December 2010 15 In Joan M. Roberts, Alliances, Coalitions and PartnershipsBuilding collaborative organizations. New

Society Publishers , 2004 p 5

15

There are different levels of intensity possible in the cooperation16 (see Chapter 3 for an overview) ranging from networking to collaboration. In the Programmatic Approach we also see the different levels in intensity and integration of activities occurring in the coalitions. This is often a response the meta problem that needs addressing, and the ongoing trust-‐building and power dynamics developing in the coalition. Coalitions often start as linking-‐and-‐learning networks, develop slowly towards coordinating their efforts and further into cooperating and sometimes collaborating with full sharing of resources, risks, responsibilities and rewards. But this takes time and not all coalitions (need to) develop into the (full) collaboration type (see also the table in paragraph 3.3.2).

16 Ibid pg. 28

16

3

The methods we can use in the Programmatic Approach In this Chapter we will present methods that can be helpful in shaping the programmatic cooperation processes. They are organized as follows: 1 Methods for working with Complexity and Systemic change 2 Methods for Multi-‐Stakeholder Processes 3 Methods for Coalition and Network development

3.1 Methods for working with systemic change and complexity

Introduction methods for working with emergence Emergence is the process by which novel structures emerge out of interaction between elements of the system17. Programmatic cooperation aims to promote change in complex systems through coherent actions of agents within the system. In complexity theory the result of such a process is called emerge. Emergence starts with the disruption of a static situation in a system. At the moment that I am writing this paper we are in the midst of major systemic change that starts with upheaval and disruption in the countries in Northern Africa and the Arab World. Seemingly unmovable and unchangeable political systems are in a change process that is forced by agents from within the system, who are not the established power. So as a consequence the diversity in the system is also increasing. In such complex systems there are mechanisms of self-‐organizing which in the end will cause the system to find a new equilibrium. This new balance is the result of emergence. In the Programmatic Approach we would like to promote emergence through the creation of conditions that favor this process. In preparing for emergence there are three rather vague ‘processes” that we need attention. These processes are: a) accepting that we don’t know and understand everything, but that we should be very curious to understand as much as possible, b) choosing possibility: being open to and sense the (new) opportunities for changes, c) following where the (life) energy of the system is going, recognize it and trying to give it space. Where are the hopes, aspirations, and visions pointing? What drives or motivates the people, what change is needed? By promoting emergence we create the conditions for change to happen. By hosting this process we create a welcoming environment in which people really feel that their contributions matter, we create focus in the intentions of all involved; what is it that really matters to us, what would we like to maintain and what would we like to change? Also we create the space to be open to diversity; diversity of people, of opinions, of

17 Peggy Holman pg. 18

17

experiences. For this process to be as inclusive as possible we make sure that all those who ARE IN18, those with Authority, Resources, Expertise, Information and Need are present and are welcomed to participate actively. In the engaging process we use several steps: we inquire appreciatively, we reflect, we connect, we listen, we are open to what emerges and we will act /react accordingly. In many of the meetings of organizations and stakeholders in the context of the Programmatic Approach this is the process that we strive to follow. Al three phases are followed in an iterative process and happen either at the same time, in sequence or without sequence at all. Some concrete methods that we can use in this process are: Appreciative Inquiry, Open Space Technology, Future Search, and Scenario Planning. Story telling and active listening plays an important role in all of these methods, as are dialogue techniques and conflict handling.

3.1.1 Appreciative Inquiry ‘Those who do not have power over the stories that dominate their lives, power to retell them, rethink them, deconstruct them, joke about them, and change them as times change, truly are powerless because they cannot think new thoughts."

(Salman Rushdie: One Thousand Days in a Balloon) What is Appreciative Inquiry? Of all new tools, schools and methods for change in organizations and communities that have dominated the discussions of the last years, Appreciative Inquiry (AI) sticks out. It is not a new tool. It is not a new school. And it is not a method. AI can be best described as a new paradigm in how we approach change in organizations and communities. It invites people to tell the stories they wish to tell, and to jointly search for what gives life to organizations and communities. It is increasingly applied in both small and large change processes, ranging from small personal change to mega-‐cities or entire regions and multi-‐national companies such as McDonald's or British Airways. It builds on the power and the experience of the stakeholders, it values what people are ready to contribute and it changes human mindsets by switching the focus of their attention. AI relates to what OD practitioners call the ‘power of mental models’. The concept of mental models19 (or mental maps) has been described by most authors on personal and organizational change. Peter Senge has also devoted one of his famous five disciplines on the issue of mental models. What is radically new in AI is the notion that the adaptation of certain, resourceful mental models can help us overcome. By focusing a group of people on questions such as ‘What has been there already?’, and ‘What could be?’, an implicit intervention in the group is created that causes a shift. Referring to the famous metaphor of system thinkers, the introduction of AI into an organization is not a single butterfly (that causes a tornado 5000 miles away by a single flap of its wings), it is a large group of butterflies.

18 Peggy Holman pg.76 19 Source: http://www.change-‐management-‐toolbook.com/mod/book/view.php?id=74&chapterid=45

18

Or an entire flock of birds as was described by Kevin Kelly in ‘Out of Control’, where he describes that a group of flying geese react as a whole when they change the direction of their flight. This is what AI does, when done with an entire organization or community -‐ it changes the direction of people's actions. The recent development of AI is dominated by a desire to put the philosophy into a process, which can be applied to many different assignments, e.g. strategic planning, visioning, or monitoring and evaluation.

Figure 1 - The 4D Model of Cooperrider and Srivastva (taken from Watkins and Mohr, 2001) The models and how they can be applied for Monitoring and Evaluation AI, as it was developed by Cooperrider and Srivastva is based on the 4-‐D Cycle, which runs through 4 stages (see Figure 1): 1 Discovery (appreciating that which gives life) 2 Dream (envisioning impact) 3 Design (co-‐constructing the future) 4 Delivery (sustaining the change) In the Discovery phase, people start to explore the resources of the organization or the community they relate to, by conducting interview across the organization, and even including external resources such as clients. Interviews are principally ‘appreciative’, and are developed together with a steering group composed of different stakeholders. In the monitoring of a program, an interview could look like this:

• If you revisit the history of the conflict transformation program and your engagement in the program, which was a moment when you felt deeply connected to its core? A moment in which you were able to contribute to the achievement of purpose and overall objective? Please describe this moment in detail.

• What was your particular contribution? What did you do to help others to contribute?

• What were the nurturing framework conditions that supported that extraordinary performance of yours and other stakeholders?

• What was the particular outcome at that time? • If you had three wishes for the future of your organization (or the program),

which would they be?

19

In this phase, people share stories and write down the answers in interview protocols, which are the base for the next phase. In the Dream phase, stakeholders engage in a conversation about the organization’s or community’s potential, future or vision. The future is described in a ‘Provocative Proposition’. In an evaluation, this proposition could be about what should be changed in the set-‐up of the program to replicate the peak performances that have been experienced by the stakeholders. But the provocative proposition can go far beyond that and describe a vision that had so far not been conceptualized. In monitoring, this is the coaching phase. The team sits together with the stakeholders to find out what parts of the project are worth to expand. In the Design phase, the results are transferred into architecture. Structures that exist might have to change (or to be strengthened) to facilitate the replication of the peak performance and the implementation of the new dream. In monitoring, this is the time for concrete recommendations for action that concern all involved stakeholders. The final Delivery phase is the phase of implementation and experimenting. The design is put into practice, and a constant learning environment is created. This forms the base for a new monitoring cycle, not out of the blue but grounded in constant research on what gives life to the organization or community. The 4-‐D Model has been altered by Bernhard Mohr and MetteJacobsgaard into a Four-‐I model, which has the following steps (see Figure 2): 1. Initiate (Introduce AI to key stakeholders and create temporary structures) 2. Inquire (Conduct generic interviews) 3. Imagine (Collate and share interview data; develop provocative propositions) 4. Innovate (Engage maximum number of stakeholders in conversations; implement

design changes) The advantage of the 4I-‐Cycle is that institutional capacity is systematically built up.

In the Conflict Transformation methodology which is developed by ICCO use is made in several phases of this process of techniques that stem from Appreciative inquiry. It starts with a deep reflection by all participants of the situation and its history,their role in it; then invites participants to dream up a future, followed by a translation into concrete proposals which are then implemented in the programme cooperative process. Monitoring is a process of going back to the original analysis, the dream, its proposal and the way the implementation process manages to realize some of the dream.

20

Figure 2 - The 4I Model of Mohr and Jacobsgaard (taken from Watkins and Mohr, 2001)

3.1.2 Methods for understanding systemic change:

Four quadrant framework Ken Wilbur is an author who has published many important insights into change and transformation of systems. A key product of this work is what is now referred to as the ‘four-‐quadrant’ diagram20 presented in the table below. The table suggests that a successful strategy must address four challenges for change. These concern the relations that individuals or that groups of people have to systems and the way they relate to a systemic change process. In the quadrant the vertical axis shows two categories: the individual and the collective (group) level. The horizontal axis reflects the difference between what people experience and develop as their mindset (individually or collectively) . The external column represents what people (individually or collectively) show in their behavior as part of the system towards the outside world. The broad change theories that are mentioned for each of the quadrants show the assumptions behind change that is inspired from one of the quadrants. The idea behind the four quadrants is that change in a whole system involves change in each of the

20 Steve Waddell Networking Action for the 21st. Century Four Network Change Strategies for Complex

Systems

21

quadrants. Only if al four quadrants have coherent and effective change the systemic change can develop into a new state of equilibrium. The first figure shows the four-‐quadrant diagram. The second figure shows how we have used the framework to present the changes that have happened in each of the quadrants for the process of introducing the ProCoDe Approach in the ICCO system21 Quadrant 1 deals with intention, personal identity and ways of perceiving, Quadrant 2 with behavior and how it is developed, Quadrant 3 with culture, beliefs and values, and Quadrant 4 with the structures and processes of social systems. Figure 3 - The four-uadrant diagram

21 By Machteld Ooijens and Hettie Walters for IODA conference: August 2010 Budapest

22

Figure 4 - Presentation ICCO PA development22

Internal External

Individual Individual Values / Dispositions • Curiosity, humility and openness to

engaging in the critical reflection required to foster learning

• Commitment/capacity/confidence to be present and authentic in PA interactions

• Intention to promote and strengthen both the spirit (culture) and discipline of inquiry and learning

• Openness to recognizing and exploring different perspectives

• Skills / Competencies • Knowledge and understanding of tools,

procedures, methods being proposed by PA strategy and ability to use them effectively

Relationships • Shared vision and purpose

developed in Alliance and with partners

• Sufficient trust for building and maintaining transparent and authentic communication within the decentralorganisation

• Shared sense of responsibility / ownership for Pro-‐Co and De, manifest in shared investments

• Transactional cooperative forms develop between different stakeholders in the organisations

• Adequate attention given to dysfunctional relationship dynamics between individuals / groups / organizations that impede the kind collaboration, cooperation required for collective learning

Collective Culture • Support and clear ownership from key

leaders/authorities in organization(s) • Clear “norms” within the organizational

cultures that learning is valued and recognized as an essential part of “doing the work”

o Critical reflection / examining assumptions, testing new ideas is valued, not scorned

o Time invested in learning activities is recognized

• Culture of open collaboration and sharing ideas, knowledge as opposed to withholding, protecting knowledge as private asset (competition)

• Using communication tools (web-‐based) that are in sync with this culture

Structures / Systems / Procedures • Appropriate access and distribution of

resources required for the scale of change and learning initiatives

o Explicit plan for learning on strategies, thematic areas, work processes

o Time for reflection, participation in learning activities is prioritized GO-‐RO

o People, financial resources made available GO-‐RO

• Tools, procedures, methods that are effective and viable for facilitating reflection and collective learning.

• Good and user-‐friendly information / knowledge management systems need to be further developed and implemented.

Institutional Analysis

Systemic change through Multi Stakeholder Processes has a strong relation to institutional change. As we have said before the focus in a programmatic cooperation is on the problematic. Problematics have many institutional aspects. They exist largely because of existing rules, regulations and the norms and values that inform them. Gender relations are a very clear example of an institutional arrangement in society. A problematic exists when the institutions do not respond to the needs of all whose lives are governed by them. Therefore many aims of programmatic cooperation processes are related to institutional change required for creating justice, well-‐being and equality for all.

22 Prepared by MachteldOoijens and Hettie Walters ( P&D) for the OD World summit , 22-‐26 August

2010 Budapest

23

Institutions are patterns23, which anchor behavior over time, through norms, rules, regulations of a formal or less formal nature. Development is essentially a process of change of these patterns, of setting new, transformed rules, expectations, standards for behavior, of cooperation and interaction between individuals, in organizations, between organizations and between different social actors. That this implies a change in the embedded power relations is obvious. Changing institutions means changing power relations and changing power relations ( i.e. gender equality)24 means changing the social institutions that govern them. The following model (by Jim Woodhill) provides us with an institutional analysis framework that incorporates attention for four main functions of institutions namely: 1. Institutions as ways of making meaning of our lives and the social and natural world

we inhabit. 2. Institutions as the associations we make to work together to achieve social,

economic and political objectives. 3. Institutions as the basis for control over what individuals and organizations should

or can do. 4. Institutions as reoccurring action carried out by individuals or organizations in

social, economic and political life.

An institutional analysis can therefore help in charting the institutional field related to the problematic.

Figure 5 – Institutional analysis framework

In the training of ICCO Alliance staff on the programmatic Approach the analysis shown in the photo was made using this model:

23 Hettie Walters: Capacity development, Institutional Change and Theories of Change , conference paper

2007, WUR-‐CWI 24 Johannes Jutting and Christian Morrisson Changing Social Institutions to improve the status of

women in developing countries. OECD Development Centre Policy Brief No. 27 2005

24

Participants acknowledged that the model helps them in charting the institutional context related to a problematic and therefore can help them to identify action paths, develop focus and formulate clear objectives at this level of change.

3.1.3. Methods for working with complexity:

Cynefin Framework The Cynefin framework has been developed by David Snowden and came out of his work on complexity within networks. It is an analysis and decision-‐making model for working with complexity, and identifies 5 different levels in the complexity of a system: simple, complicated, complex and chaotic, disorder. Each of these have a different level of complexity but also require a specific way of working. The Cynefin framework recognizes the differences between how change happens at different levels of complexity. This model helps us in deciding what type of change strategy is needed in a situation based. There are some very nice explanations about the Cynefin framework to be found on the internet (see the links in the footnote).25 Each of the five domains represents a distinct level of complexity with an associated behaviour/action/strategic path: 25 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Miwb92eZaJg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-‐8&feature=related http://www.anecdote.com.au/archives/2009/04/a_simple_explan.html

25

• Simple, in which the relationship between cause and effect is obvious to all, the approach is to Sense - Categorize - Respond and we can apply best practice.

• Complicated, in which the relationship between cause and effect requires analysis or some other form of investigation and/or the application of expert knowledge, the approach is to Sense - Analyze - Respond and we can apply good practice.

• Complex, in which the relationship between cause and effect can only be perceived in retrospect, but not in advance, the approach is to Probe - Sense - Respond and we can sense emergent practice.

• Chaotic, in which there is no relationship between cause and effect at systems level, the approach is to Act - Sense - Respond and we can discover novel practice.

• The fifth domain is Disorder, which is the state of not knowing what type of causality exists, in which state people will revert to their own comfort zone in making a decision.

Figure 6 – The Cynefin framework

In full use, the Cynefin framework has sub-‐domains, and the boundary between simple and chaotic is seen as a catastrophic one: complacency leads to failure. In dealing with complexity in programmatic cooperation we sometimes see that we use planning approaches that work fine for the simple domain but not fully suited to a situation that is characterized by the complex domain. Such a situation can be found in the fragile states in which we are working, but also in highly complex value chains across international levels.

26

Ralph Stacey's Agreement & Certainty Matrix26 In the last ten years, complexity science had a strong impact on the theory and practice of change facilitation. Tools like Open Space Technology, Appreciative Inquiry and others are based on the assumption that highly complex social systems like organizations follow certain generic principles and resemble other systems such as the body, colonies of ants, swarms of fish, flocks of birds, etc. Also, cybernetic models have been applied, for example for the description of systems archetypes. A model that gives a simple road map for dealing with complexity is the model of Ralph Stacey. As it can be seen in the figure, Stacey has proposed a matrix that introduces two dimensions with regards to management of organizations: Certainty and Agreement: Certainty depends on the quality of the information base that facilitates individual and joint decisions in organizations. Modern social systems such as organizations are mainly self-‐organized on the base of negotiation processes. The degree of agreement among the people directly involved on what should be done (‘the truth’) with respect to the implementation methodology of a project is an important factor determining success. Figure 7 - Ralph Stacey's Agreement & Certainty Matrix (modified from: Brenda Zimmerman)

The various areas in the figure are described below: 1. Many simple business processes are situated at a level in which it is certain what needs to be done and people involved agree on that. In the work of the ICCO Alliance there are not many simple and straightforward actions in which traditional management approaches (e.g. management by objectives) apply and work well. Therefore, we should always question ourselves, "How do we know that we know?", "Have we assessed all the critical variables?" and, "What have we done to assure that people in our organization

26 Source: http://www.change-‐management-‐toolbook.com/mod/book/view.php?id=74&chapterid=45

27

and in the programmatic cooperation share a common perspective?" A tool to assess different perspectives is a participatory risk analysis. 2. Very often, strategic analyses show a strategy that is most likely to lead to a better performance. What has to be done, and what will be the outcome, is quite obvious to value chain analysts. However, some stakeholders might not agree or, for any reason, show resistance to the planned changes. The relations between producers’ organizations, private enterprises and NGOs as service deliverers to producer organizations are not always straightforward. Perceptions of one group of another might hamper effective value chain development. So what to do in situations characterized by disagreement and resistance? Creating dialogue sessions, exchange visits, training and pilot activities in which perceptions and mindsets might change are important. 3. The other extreme in which we can find ourselves is characterized by a high agreement of stakeholders (what Senge calls "shared vision") but a high degree of uncertainty. "How will our sector evolve?", "What new technologies will be available tomorrow?", "Which political decisions will influence our future?", etc. are just some key questions that apply. This is the area of Scenario Design. Also, the current theories of Otto Scharmer on Theory U (http://www.ottoscharmer.com/) provide leverage to navigate through such environments. Participatory approaches for defining strategies apply very well in such situations. 4. There are also situations in which the future is highly uncertain and the stakeholders are far beyond any agreement. However, many(political) leaders are operating in exactly such an environment. It is what complexity scientists call "The Edge of Chaos". The fall of the Berlin wall, one of my favorite stories that illustrates complexity, is such a story, where a system that had been stable for 40 years, collapsed in one night of freedom celebration. The changes that are occurring in the Arab world at the moment are another example. 5. Most contemporary change processes are situated in a field that fluctuates between the extremes that have been delineated above. Characterized by a medium to high level of uncertainty and by stakeholders with highly diversified perspectives on what should be done. Here, laws of complexity science apply to change in organizations, and change is the norm. In such environments, the main task of process facilitators is to facilitate the co-‐creation of the organization’s future, to provide room for self-‐organization and to let people decide themselves about their own and their organization’s issues. Such strategies are the only way to lead out of the political crisis of the world, and more, and more often profit and non-‐profit, organizations will adapt management tools for co-‐creation, such as Open Space Technology, Appreciative Inquiry, World Café, and other tools to come such as we promote in the Programmatic Approach.

28

Rationale Governing for

Sustainability and Equity in a Comple

World

Practice Methods, Tools an Tips for Process Design and Facilitation

Principles The Dynamics of Transformative

Change

Rationale Governing for

Sustainability and Equity in a Complex

World

Practice Methods, Tools and

Tips for Process Design and Facilitation

7 Principles The Dynamics of Transformative

Change

3.2 Methods in Multi-stakeholder processes (MSP) The Centre for Development Innovation (CDI) of Wageningen University has developed a model for Multi Stakeholder Processes (shown below) that is one of the conceptual frameworks that we use as basis in our understanding of the relation between multi-‐stakeholder involvement and systems change in the programmatic approach. Figure 8 – Multi Stakeholder Process framework

The intention of the MSP framework is to guide facilitators, process managers and leaders of stakeholder groups in the task of designing and supporting a process that is unique to the demands of a specific situation. It offers the theoretical ideas, principles, practical tools and generic process elements that optimize the chances for effective and productive stakeholder engagement27

As shown abovem the framework has three main elements:

1) The Rationale: This explains why, in an increasingly complex world, multi-‐stakeholder processes are becoming an important mechanism of governance. It is explains how they complement the more formal workings of national governments and international relations. The rationale explores the underlying nature of sustainability and equity problems within the context of recognizing that human societies are best understood as complex adaptive systems. An understanding of this wider context is important for being able to decide whether in a particular situation it makes sense (there is a good rationale) for engaging in a multi-‐stakeholder process.

2) The Seven Principles: CDI’s view is that MSPs can contribute to bringing about deep

and fundamental change in how individuals, organizations and societies behave. This transformative or systemic change is necessary to tackle the underlying causes of un-‐sustainability and inequity. Seven principles were identified about the dynamics of change, that experience has shown need to be considered and

27 You can read more in Capacity.org, December edition; Woodhill and van Vugt

http://www.capacity.org/capacity/opencms/en/index.html

29

integrated into an MSP in order to foster transformative change. Key principles are those dealing with power and conflict.

1. Working with Complexity 2. Fostering Collective Learning 3. Reinventing Institutions 4. Shifting Power 5. Dealing with Conflict 6. Enabling Effective Communication 7. Promoting Collaborative Leadership

As we stated earlier in this guidance note the Programmatic Approach is a multi stakeholder process in which we need to involve all the Stakeholders who ARE IN (those with Authority, Resources, Expertise, Information and Need) in relation to the system that we are trying to change. Those stakeholders (often diverse organizations) engage in a process that leads to emergence of system change through joint analysis and increased understanding of what needs to change, of how this change can be promoted and what each organization can contribute towards the joint and purposive process. Such a joint undertaking requires trust building, dealing with power differences, ensuring open and mutually respectful relations, curiosity in each other and a dialogue process (listening, reflection, questioning and appreciation). The first and foremost condition for actors to enter into a multi-‐stakeholder process or programmatic cooperation process is that they see the added value of the investment in cooperation. This is the case if actors see that for the realization of their own objectives it is necessary to work with others and to learn with others. The participating organizations need to have a sense that they will gain from the cooperation and that this will make the investment in time and energy worthwhile. Coalitions that are built upon a perceived idea that they will have to join the program coalition to assure on-‐going funding for the organization from the ICCO Alliance are not a good basis for a fruitful cooperation. 3 The Practice. It is obvious from this description that such a process does not occur easily and by itself. It needs, as was mentioned in the Systems change paragraph, facilitation or otherwise called hosting and the use of methods that enable such a process. These methods are described in the Change Management Toolbook. Some of the methods are also introduced in the Training on the facilitation of the Programmatic Approach that the ICCO Alliance organises for its staff members and for facilitators of programmatic cooperation processes.

30

3.2.1 Theory of Change28 In the context of the Programmatic Approach we would like to propose to use another logic approach: the Theory of Change. The main difference with the logical Framework Approach is that in a Theory of Change much more attention is paid to the assumptions underlying the chain of change: why do we think that XXX happens as a result of doing YY? The second difference is that in a Theory of change much more attention can be paid to the process of change and not just to the input, output and outcome relation (as is the case in the Logical Framework Analysis) A Theory of Change is a logic model that has some distinct features: • Popularized in 1990s to capture complex initiatives • Outcomes-‐based • Causal model • Articulate underlying assumptions • Theories of Change link outcomes and activities to explain HOW and WHY the desired change is expected to come about

Figure 9 – Theory of Change model Show activities (HOW) here also

28 Based upon work by Heléne Clark (actknowledge) and Ann Anderson (aspenroundtable.org)

Long-term

Outcome

Necessary

Pre- condition

Necessary

Pre- condition

Necessary

Pre- condition

Necessary

Pre- condition

Necessary

Pre- condition

All outcomes that must be achieved BEFORE long-term

Explain WHY here

31

Wageningen University and Research ‘Centre for Development Innovation has also developed the following Theory of Change model29. ‘Theory of change’ is becoming an increasingly used concept in planning development interventions. Yet there is much confusion and ambiguity around what it means and how it is useful. CDI’s approach to looking at ToC links it to the wider context within which interventions aimed at societal transformation are conceptualized, planned, managed, monitored and evaluated. Figure 10 – Context of Change model

At one end of the spectrum of ToC use, organizations turn to it to construct (more) rigorous cause and effect maps (logic models, outcome pathways etc) that show how a particular set of interventions should, through a set of explicit cause and effect relations, lead to desired outcomes and impacts. At the other end of the ‘use spectrum’, ToC is being used to signal that human systems are complex and cannot, either logically or practically, model change processes on a full set of cause and effect relationships. Sometimes, although complexity is recognized, it is nonetheless argued that responding requires a more rigorous approach to creating logical models for intervention. Others use ToC generically to represent being more explicit and critical of the assumptions, values, principles and theories that underlie any intervention. The approach to ToC is based on the following premises:

1) Organisations, societies and economies are complex systems and understanding

what this means is fundamental to any effort of social change. 2) However, not all of what people try to deal with in their social and physical

context is necessarily complex.

29 J. Woodhill and S. van Vugt, publication forthcoming, November 2010

32

3) This means that there is a need to work with complex or chaotic aspects of a situation where adaptive processes of change are needed AND with complicated or simple aspects where linear processes of change are effective.

4) In most development situations, the overall context is generally complex. However, many aspects of the situation or of an intervention will be simple (or complicated). This means that adaptive and linear approaches need to be integrated.

5) Things ‘go wrong’ in achieving ambitions for social change for a wider variety of reasons including:

a. Mistaking the complexity of a situation and inappropriately using linear concepts logics, and methodologies;

b. Poor analysis of situations and missing what should have been obvious dynamics and relationships that, if known, could have lead to more success (and sometimes mistakenly blaming this on complexity);

c. Being unrealistically ambitious about what is possible within given contexts, timeframes and resources (financial and human);

d. Inadequately accounting for the influence of power and conflict; e. Breakdown in relationships between different actors that need to

cooperate because of different paradigms, interests, assumptions about change and interests; and

f. Poor execution (planning and management) of interventions. 6) Use of a ToC can help reduce the risk of such failures and make interventions

more realistic and effective in a given context, which may include recognizing limited scope for change.

7) ToC is equally applicable to adaptive and linear processes of change. However, a ToC may look quite different, may be used differently (more/less flexibly) and implies very different intervention strategies.

8) In complex situations, people/organisations still have to plan and act but this needs to happen in more adaptive ways.

9) Monitoring and evaluation approaches for adaptive processes of change need to be fundamentally different than for linear processes.

Based on these premises, we view the notion of a ToC as placed in a wider context of paradigms of development, taking into account the mindsets, worldviews, values and cultural identities that different actors bring to their engagement in societal transformation. Therefore, political beliefs about, for example, the role of government versus markets and deep assumptions about human nature become very important. Such paradigms shape what ToCs people follow. In turn, explicit attention to ToCs can help to challenge and reassess paradigms that may be taken for granted. The approach to ToC requires a set of ‘tools for thought’ to help make social science theory practical and accessible for critical questioning and analysis of underlying assumptions about change. Some examples of such ‘tools for thought’ that we propose to weave into the learning trajectory include:

• Cynefin framework on distinct domains of known/unknown; order/disorder, with an emphasis on the domain of ‘complexity’;

• Four Quadrant model of individual, interpersonal, cultural and structural dimensions of change;

• Cultural theory model of social hierarchy; • Power cube model of different forms of power; • Experiential learning cycle and model of single/double/triple loop learning.

33

Adaptive processes of change also require the use and integration of diverse participatory, learning-‐oriented methodologies. These include for example: Outcome Mapping; Scenario Analysis; Open Space; Future Search; Soft Systems Methodology; Theory U; and Most Significant Change. Such methods will also form a building block in the learning trajectory, as they are the mechanisms by which ToCs are generated, challenged and adapted. Figure 11 - Example of the ToC that was developed for the RO Southern Africa

3.2.2 Stakeholder analysis At the start of a programmatic coalition formation process it is important to know who could or should be involved in the Coalition. It is therefore important to do a Stakeholder analysis. A Stakeholder Analysis is an important technique for stakeholder identification & analyzing their needs. It is used to identify all key (primary and secondary) stakeholders who have a vested interest in the issues with which the project is concerned.

The aim of stakeholder analysis process is to develop a strategic view of the human and institutional landscape, and the relationships between the different stakeholders and the issues they care about most.

There are several forms of stakeholder

The example of one of the FNS program coalitions is a good example of a coalition in which the partner organizations have entered on the wrong assumptions. They perceived the coalition as a pre-‐requisite for continued funding of ICCO. The Organizations are all involved in an already existing national level FNS coalition and did not perceive the added value of another ICCO initiated coalition. There are also no perceived added values of the cooperation between the actors involved who are widely spread geographically. At this moment in time the FNS coalition has therefore not born fruit from joint actions.

34

analysis:

The influence and interest analysis seeks to understand which are the important actors involved around a certain issue or in a system. The stakeholders are then grouped along two axes. The interest axis (vertical): those actors that are important because they have an interest or stake in the issue and influence axis (horizontal): those actors that have influence on the matter at hand. Figure 12 – Influence and interest analysis Significant

Influence Some Influence

Little Influence

No Influence

Significant Importance

Some Importance

Little Importance

No Importance

A variation on this matrix incorporates the follow-‐up actions and monitoring of the stakeholders: Figure 13 – Power/Interest Grid

35

3.2.3 Context analysis Two good examples of tools used in context analysis are the SWOT analysis, and the Problem tree analysis. A SWOT analysis uses information gathered through the assessment of several trends ( social, political, economic, cultural, demographic, etc.) and combines them with data on the organizational strengths and capacities in order to establish the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Organisation(s), as well as with the Opportunities and Threats that are important in the context for which we have the data through the trend analysis. Figure 14 – SWOT-analysis Intra organizational/ coalition What are the qualities of our organization?

Strengths

Weaknesses

External/ contextual factors What are the social, economic, political, cultural trends ?

Opportunities

Constraints

The idea is to follow–up the analysis with a strategy development: What can we do to use the strengths and opportunities , what can we do to improve upon the weaknesses and what do we need to do to overcome the constraints from within the context?

3.2.4 Problem tree analysis The problem tree analysis is another context analysis tool that stems from the ZOPP toolbox widely known for its relation to the Logical Framework Analysis planning tool. Below you see an example of a problem tree from an Egyptian coalition advocating for the elimination of the practice of female genital mutulation (FGM) under the auspices of the National FGM Task Force.

36

Figure 15 – Problem Tree analysis Objective30 This exercise is used to analyze the root causes of a problem and to identify the primary consequences. The tree provides a visual structure for the analysis. Process This activity is best handled in small groups so that each person in the group has an opportunity to participate. If time permits, a large group can be divided into two groups, with the first group working on causes and the second group examining consequences. If you are working on more than one problem, assign each group a different problem. Take one problem and go through the process once together before dividing into groups. 1. Explain the problem tree. Point out the different parts of the tree and what each

represents: • Roots = Root Causes of the Problem • Trunk = the Problem • Branches = Consequences of the Problem

2. Ask a participant to draw a tree on flipchart paper. Write the problem on the trunk of the tree. Ask all participants to list the causes of the problem. If possible, let each participant who suggests a cause write it on a card and tape it to the roots of the problem tree. If this is too time-‐consuming, the facilitator can write what the participants say on the tree. Encourage people to explore social, economic, and political causes including attitudes, behavior, and other factors 3. Repeat the same process with the consequences. 30 Lisa VeneKlasen and Valerie Miller (2002) A New Weave of Power, People and Politics: the action

guide for advocacy and citizen participation, World Neighbors, Oklahoma. pages 311-‐316 http://www.wn.org

37

Discussion • First ask questions about the problem itself, then follow up with questions about the solutions.

• What are the most serious consequences? • Which causes will be easier to address? More difficult to address? Why? • Which causes and consequences can the government help address? Where can international agencies help? What can people do?

3.2.5 Large group interventions: Open Space Technology and Future Search

Open Space Technology31

In the past, it seemed difficult to involve large groups in a participatory manner. For example, the upper limit of participants of a workshop was considered to be around twenty persons. In most cases, this limit was just exceeded by inviting key persons from the involved agencies or departments. In contrast, it was difficult to bring a large and diverse group of people to interact.

Recently, several new tools for large group facilitation have been developed, among them Future Search (by Marvin Weisbord and Sandra Janoff see below)) and Open Space Technology (by Harrison Owen).

Open Space Technology supports systems of all sizes in navigating and adapting to the major changes we all experience. It provides a framework of time and space in which people self-‐organize their own process and work on issues they feel passionate about and for which they will take responsibility. Since Harrison Owen discovered this unique and radical workshop technique 20 years ago, it was successfully applied by thousands of communities and non-‐profit organizations, as well as by private companies. The number of participants in such an interactive workshop is virtually unlimited -‐ recently, an Open Space Conferences with 1,700 street kids and 300 adults was held. To all stakeholders, it offers the opportunity to work on complex and burning issues. Simple rules support a highly participatory, reflecting and task oriented cooperation for 5 to 500 participants of a meeting, which can go on for one to three days. Each collaborator is empowered to contribute to the success of the workshop with his/her own competency and ideas. The methodology is particularly appropriate for initiating and establishing self-‐referenced learning and development processes in communities, organizations and companies.

The principle Any Open Space event is predefined by a question which is to be discussed during a one to three days meeting. The question has to be selected carefully by the management, supported by the facilitator. It should address a burning and conflicting issue and ensure a high diversity of opinions. One day means a good exchange of ideas, two days means a good exchange of ideas and the elaboration of recommendations and three days means a

31 Source: http://www.change-‐management-‐toolbook.com/mod/book/view.php?id=74&chapterid=45

Within the ICCO Alliance we have used a series of Open Space sessions in our learning process about the Programmatic Approach. The Open Space method allows for all participants together to shape the agenda of meetings based upon their own interests and experiences. This leads to a high level of involvement in the discussions because the participants sense that what is being discussed matters to them

38

good exchange of ideas, elaboration of recommendations and the prioritization of actions.

Such a meeting would have neither a fixed agenda nor invited speakers. Management should be aware that the lay-‐out of the conference would not allow any status differences ("no ranks, no titles") and should commit themselves to the outcomes of the conference. Within the first two hours of an Open Space event, the participants themselves have set the agenda. Initial resistance or uncertainty disappears, when suddenly more issues have been identified that anybody would have expected beforehand. On average, 30 focus groups are set up in a conference of one hundred participants.

Workshop results are constantly documented and displayed. At the end of the conference, each participant will take the conference proceedings home.

The process is based on a set of four Principles and one Law:

1. Principle: Whoever comes is the right people Open Space works with those who are interested and ready to commit themselves. Only those who are present can contribute. Although the invitation list might be limited, an Open Space conference is principally open for everybody; often, outsiders bring in fresh and independent views that can cause a quantum leap for the process.

2. Principle: Whatever happens is the only thing that could have. This principle gives the base for sustainable involvement of stakeholders. Those issues for which people have a passion and in which they would engage themselves are discussed, not less, not more. In Open Space, everything that happens has a meaning. In contrast, issues that have been identified before the conference had started might not be considered. Open Space creates transparency and facilitates identification of those areas that bear the highest probability of implementation.

3. Principle: Whenever it starts is the right time. 4. Principle: When it's over, it's over. (When it's not over, it's not over.)

These principles describe an obvious and well-‐known fact: it is not possible to force processes. If people are committed to make a change, they will take the process in their hand. Although time and place are predefined in an Open Space event, clocks play a minor role in setting the pace. Participants themselves decide, how much time is needed to work on an issue – ten minutes, two hours, one day – or not at all.

The Law of the Two Feet is the only law that guides Open Space. It means that whenever a participant feels that he/she is neither contributing nor learning, he/she is encouraged to use their capacity to walk to another place of interest. Thus, the Law of Two Feet creates a process of cross-‐fertilization between the different focus groups. Open space can be applied for:

• stakeholder consultation, • solution finding for corporate uncertainties , • networking of institutions on local, regional and international level, • creating synergy and growth among representatives of different pressure

groups, • mergers of companies, • creativity, research and development, • solving technical problems, • vision sharing,

39

• opening event for projects and programs or for change processes in larger organizations,

• community planning Great resources to all Open Space related issues, training, case studies can be found in the links in the footnote32

Future Search33

Future Search is an innovative planning conference used world-‐wide by hundreds of communities and organizations. It helps to transform the capability of organizations for cooperative action in a relatively short time. Future search is especially helpful in complex, uncertain, and/or fast-‐changing situations. Because people build on what they already have and know, they need no prior training or expertise.

In Future Search conferences, topics focus on a wide range of purposes but the title is always, "The Future of ...". Because Future Search is largely culture free, it has been adopted with success by people from all walks of life in many parts of the world. As criteria for success, Future search conferences call for diverse stakeholder groups to come together for a pre-‐designed series of tasks. In an example of 'Education Reform in Pakistan', stakeholders ranged from high ranking ministry officials to parents and teachers. There were also women who never before had left their home village! The approach empowered everyone to work on their own issues and discuss these freely with the other participants.

How Future Search Works A future search usually involves 50 to 70 people. The magic number is 64 participants, because then 8 times 8 working groups can be formed. Equal numbers of participants are invited from all relevant stakeholder groups. In a business context it could be: employees, management, shareholders, suppliers, customers, the public, etc. It is intended that within stakeholder groups a cross section of gender, ethnic groups, powerful and non-‐powerful people, etc. are represented. When applied in a planning process, Future Search allows to learn about the issues that really concern people and constituencies. One of the unique features that distinguish Future Search from other (planning) methods is that people participate in some tasks according to their stakeholder group (e.g. have common perspectives to offer and/or interest in the outcome) and some tasks in groups that include representatives of all the stakeholders ('max-‐mix'). For example, in a conference in Pakistan, all teachers, all parents, all ministry employees, all donors, etc. met separately to present their unique perspectives and understanding around the conference theme, and for other tasks, groups are mixed to the highest degree possible (i.e., one member of each stakeholder group) so that all of the dialogues within each mixed-‐group carry the perspectives of each stakeholder group.

The conference is designed on principles that enable people to work together without having to defend or sell a particular agenda:

• "Whole system" in the room 32 http://www.openspaceworld.org/ Find Open Space Facilitators in your geographical region:

http://www.openspaceworldmap.org/ 33 Source: http://www.change-‐management-‐toolbook.com/mod/book/view.php?id=74&chapterid=45

40

• Global exploration before local action • Future focus on Common Ground • Self Management and Responsibility

The first principle involves "getting the whole system in the room." That means inviting people with a stake in the purpose who don't usually meet, thus enhancing everybody's potential for learning and action. The second principle involves putting the focal issue in global perspective, helping each person to see the same larger picture of which they all have a part. The third principle applies to treating problems and conflicts as information rather than action items, while searching for common ground and desirable futures. The fourth principle invites people to manage their own small groups in talking about and acting on what they learn.

The Future Search Agenda The work is done in two and a half days. There are five tasks. The first task establishes a common history: participants draw time lines on big sheets of wall paper and explore their personal history, the history of the theme of the conference, and major global events leading up to the present. The second task is done as a large group: a mind map of trends that influence the conference theme (e.g. 'trends that influence the future of education in Pakistan'). This task can create confusion and mixed feelings. People tend to experience the complexity of circumstances and dynamics in which they are living. Using colored dots, participants vote on those trends they feel are most significant with regard to the focus of the conference. This helps to narrow everyone focus and prioritize items to use for planning emphasis. The third task is the first time that stakeholders work within their own peer groups. This task calls for stakeholders to assess what they are doing now that they are proud of or sorry about, with regard to their response to the significant trends identified on the mind map (or, what they are doing now they want to continue to be doing, and what they are not doing they would like to be doing). This is an important and powerful step that helps groups take some responsibility for the status quo, and for other groups to understand more of each other's motives. The next task involves people, now in mixed groups, to create ideal future scenarios and bring these scenarios to life through role plays. Following this, all groups work together to identify common ground themes -‐ key features that appear in every scenario. The whole group confirms their common desired future, acknowledges differences and makes choices about what they want to accomplish and how to use their energy. In the final segment, participants volunteer and make public commitments to work together on desired plans and actions.

3.3 Methods for Networking and Coalition development

3.3.1 Networking for social change and knowledge development. The Programmatic Approach is an approach that aims to bring actors together for joint learning and actions for change. This is related to social learning in a network and to knowledge development. Eelke Wielinga34 has developed the Circle of Coherence

34 Eelke Wielinga: http://www.linkconsult.nl/en/

41

(shown below) representing different positions that actors can take when working together in a network. Figure 16 – Circle of Coherence The model displays two dimensions: The content/ knowledge dimension refers to knowledge in the broad sense: images of reality, capabilities, • Similarities: There must be sufficient recognition in order to interpret new signals. • Differences. There must be a certain degree of confusion in order to be interested to learn.

Between the poles people can be curious and develop new knowledge. Upon too much confusion people limit their perception, whereas upon too many similarities healthy people respond by looking for new differences that can always be found. The position dimension refers to the relations between actors in a network. There must be a certain degree of trust to allow others to get involved in individual learning processes. Again collective learning can take place between two poles: • Individual. There must be room for authentic individual input. • Collectivity. There must be sufficient attuning to the needs of the collectivity of the network.

Too little room for individual expression and safety drives aggressive behavior, too little attuning leads to loss of collective protection and added value. This causes fear. Aggression stimulates to enlarge individual space, whereas fear stimulates to more attuning. The borderlines of trust are constantly shifting and need to be probed all the time. These two dimensions are similar to the well-‐known phenomenon that every communication contains messages at two levels: the level of contents and the level of

Similarities

Differences

Collectivity Individual Vital Space

POSITIONS

CONTENTS

Group think isolation

oppression Power struggle

Selfgovernance

autonomy

hierarchy competition

42

relations. The added insight is that healthy systems are self-‐regulatory. The mechanisms to return to the middle are built in. This central part of the circle is called the “vital space” . In the Circle of Coherence different interaction patterns can be distinguished. • Autonomy. Actors interact on the basis of exchange. The balance of give and take should be positive.

• Competition. Actors feel challenged to give their input, striving for a better position. • Hierarchy. Actors accept differences in influence and a certain discipline or the sake of the network.

• Self Governance. Actors take their responsibility on the basis of dialogue from equal positions.

These four interaction patterns contribute to healthy networks where social learning takes place, because they all stimulate actors to give more input and to attune better. Thus, they take responsibility for the network. The patterns will alternate over time, because in case one pattern becomes too dominant there will be actors taking up leadership to balance the situation again.

3.3.2. Coalition Development Coalition development is an important aspect in the Programmatic Approach. It is linked to network development but takes a slightly different angle which is a more organizational cooperation perspective. In the development of a coalition several phases can be distinguished35 with the methods that can be used in each phase: Phase 1: Determining the need for a coalition-‐ programmatic cooperation process

and exploring the problematic: context analysis, stakeholder analysis, mapping, etc.

Phase 2: Motivation to collaborate: what are the perceived benefits of the collaboration? SWOT analysis of future cooperation, What do I bring what do I get from the cooperation, what is the perceived joint problematic?

Phase 3: Member identification and selection: Who cares about the problematic and is willing to join forces? Stakeholder analysis, brokering of relations, force field analysis, drivers of change analysis.

Phase 4: Collaborative Planning: should a coalition be created, what would be its vision, purpose, action strategies? Visioning, Large system intervention tools: future search, appreciative enquiry, open space, world café, logic models (theory of change, logical framework analysis) etc.

Phase 5: Building the coalition: How do we organize the vision and action into structure, leadership, communication, and work processes and procedures; organizational and collaborative models and leadership

Phase 6: Evaluation: How is the coalition performing, member interaction and satisfaction, learning and improvement36: Have we done things rights, have we done the right things and were our assumptions about the problem -‐ solution relation right?37

35 Adapted from Joan Roberts ibid pg.56 36 Adapted from Joan Roberts ibid pg. 38 37 Triple loop learning process, Chris Argyris

43

This phasing is recognizable in the guidelines tool that can be found in annex 1. Questions are formulated to serve as a check on whether essential elements of the phases are taken into account and addressed. The phases for program development that are included in the MFS2 application are also showing much resemblance to these phases38. In the development of functioning coalitions three aspects of coalition development need to be addressed: Trust building, governance and coordination. In each phase of coalition development these three aspects have a particular action or area of attention but in particular in the phases 4 and 5 all three need to receive continuous attention as parts of the development process. Joan Roberts also gives a typology of 4 levels of cooperation between organizations, as shown in the following table. Figure 17 - Types of co-operation

38 These were based on publications by Dr.Art-‐Pieter de Man

Types of relationships Definition Relationship Characteristics Resources Form of organisation

Networking Exchanging information for mutual benefit

informal Minimal time commitments; limited levels of trust; no necessity to share turf; Information exchange is primary focus

No mutual sharing of resources necessary

No organisation necessary

Coordinating Exchanging information for mutual benefit; Altering activities for a common purpose

Formal Moderate time commitments; Moderate levels of trust; No necessity to share turf; Making access to services or resources more user friendly is the primary focus

No or minimal mutual sharing of resources necessary

Trans organizational system (TS) once resources or project management are shared.

Cooperating Exchanging information for mutual benefit; altering activities for a common purpose

Formal Substantial time commitments; High levels of trust; Significant access to toeach others turf; Sharing resources to achieve a common purpose is the primary focus.

Moderate to extensive mutual sharing of some resources, some sharing of risks, responsibilities and rewards

TS

Collaborating Exchanging information for mutual benefit; altering activities, sharing resources; and

Formal Extensive time commitments; Very high levels of trust; Extensive areas of common turf; enhancing each other’s capacity to achieve a common purpose

Full sharing of resources and full sharing of risks, responsibilities and rewards

TC

44

4

Programmatic approach and the ICCO Alliance roles and practices The theory of change underlying the programmatic approach has been set out in the preceding part of this document. The core methodologies: systems change, complexity thinking, multi-‐stakeholder processes and network and coalition building have also been explained. Realizing a changed practice is however quite another matter. This guidance note discusses some of the issues involved in creating and strengthening a programmatic cooperation approach which leaves space for experimentation and creativity, which is inclusive of ‘non-‐partner organizations’ and also strives for ownership by the participating organizations and is coherent with ICCO Alliance policies and strategy. This implies paying attention to our roles, work processes and practices as a donor organization, as a co-‐creator of change and as a facilitator of learning and knowledge development.

4.1 Roles, thematic focus and partner relations In the Corporate Business Plan 2007 – 2010 the ICCO Alliance has defined four different roles for itself: Strategic Funding, Brokering, Lobby & Advocacy and Capacity Development. These roles have been maintained for the new Business Plan period 2011-‐2015. Program Officers are responsible in an integrated manner for all four roles. In this they are assisted by the Policy & Development department’s thematic and capacity development specialists, for research, knowledge and information brokering and advisory functions.

4.1.1 Strategic funding and the Programmatic Approach The strategic funding role is the main role of the ICCO and Kerk in Actie (KIA) Regional offices and the ICCO Alliance. Thematic specialists in the P&D department of the Global office maintain relations with northern networks and international/ global networks on specific themes and issues. Thematic and policy officers in the P&D department have roles in brokering, learning and knowledge development, capacity development and advisory services to the ROs as well as corporate PME responsibilities. Relationship management with Southern Partner organizations is either transferred to the Regional offices of ICCO and Kerk in Actie, remains with the ICCO Alliance members or in the case of ICCO and Kerk in actie for ‘global’ relations to the P&D and mission department of the GO and for the Dutch relations and congregation contacts with the IP department. There is a relation between the individual bilateral subsidy relation and the intention of the ICCO-‐Alliance to promote multi-‐stakeholder programmatic cooperation. Often there is a combination of support to individual organizations in an institutional/ core funding manner or through project funding and support to the process of programmatic cooperation in a multi-‐stakeholder setting in which the individual partner organizations participate with other -‐non-‐ICCO Alliance funded -‐stakeholders. ICCO and Kerk in Actie

45

RO staff and ICCO Alliance member staff decide with which organizations they would like to work on the realization of the stated objectives (in the business plan) and results. This choice for organizations will lead to a funding of these organizations for periods of up to 4 years (bilateral institutional support). The bilateral contracts are evaluated at least once every three years but always upon completion of every contract in order to ensure the learning cycles and accountability. Funding to programmatic cooperation is mainly in support of the process costs: to the governance, the linking and learning and capacity development and eventual lobby & advocacy or other joint activities of the cooperative arrangement (coalition, network, alliance etc). Participant organizations in the programmatic cooperation will contribute to the realization of the purpose of the cooperation by contributing staff time, financial and material resources for jointly developed initiatives and individual activities. In the context of a programmatic cooperation individual participant organizations will realize activities that are in line with the agreed vision, purpose and results of the cooperation. They will fund these activities from their own budgets whether funded by the ICCO Alliance or by other funding sources and donors. The activities that participating organizations undertake in the context of the co-‐operation is seen as their ‘investment’ in the realization of joint objectives. It is obvious that this giving and taking in a programmatic co-‐operation will only take place if the organizations involved see the added value of working co-‐operatively for the realization of their own objectives and when it is in line with the vision of change that their own organization has. Programmatic co-‐operation needs to be based on the creation of win-‐win situations. Otherwise the participating actors will not invest in the ‘cost’ of the participation themselves. It is therefore preferable for the ICCO Alliance not to integrate bilateral and program support in one programmatic funding budget only. The experience shows that combining these two in one budget leads to “programs” that are perceived by partners as ‘ICCO programs’. This way of funding also bears the risk of creating partner relations for the duration of a ‘program’ which end when the program ends. This is not in line with the Partnership policies of the current ICCO Alliance which are based on agreement on vision, mission and purpose at organizational level and are often of a long term character. During the partnership the organizational capacity of the organization is strengthened and partners are enabled to implement their activities. The ICCO Alliance funds both these through the institutional support relation. We are of course aware that in some cases the ICCO Alliance has chosen to fund one program through a lead agent construction. Examples are the Peace building and Democratization program in Liberia and the Food and Nutrition and Education programs in Benin. In some cases where there were no long-‐standing bi-‐lateral relations it is a possibility to bring together actors in a new configuration and link the funding to that new set of actors. The FNS program in Mali is slowly developing from a program with one funding through one lead agent to a form in which the participating organizations themselves determine who receives how much funding for which activities in the context of the programmatic cooperation. In the last 4 years of learning-‐by-‐doing in the Programmatic Approach a variety of (funding) strategies of programmatic cooperation initiatives has grown. Many have as starting point the existing partners and have not yet widened to a truly multi-‐stakeholder configuration. The funding of cooperative processes ranges from funding of the ‘program’ activities by the participant organizations from their own budgets as one form to a single funding for the program coalition plan and activities by the ICCO Alliance. In this form a lead agent/ governance structure channels the funding to the individual organizations which do not receive other direct funding from the ICCO

46

Alliance. In such arrangements there is often a budget for the process costs of the programmatic cooperation. In Latin America and India there are more longstanding bilateral institutional funding arrangements than in countries where the level of CSO development is still weak. In the last case there was more often ‘project or earmarked funding’. In such situations the choice for a single program funding to be divided through project or earmarked funding to participant organizations is a preferred funding strategy in the programmatic approach. In cases where there is mainly institutional funding of individual partner organizations these are often continued and the funding of the programmatic approach is mainly for process costs. Participant organizations fund the activities from their own budgets. This reflects a mature funding strategy that also represents the ownership of participant organizations optimally. We need to note that there are differences between the funding strategies of ICCO Alliance partners. As the programmatic approach is the implementation strategy for the whole of the ICCO Alliance in the MFS period 2011-‐2015 this also requires harmonizing the funding strategies between ICCO Alliance members in order to be able to support the programmatic approach in a coherent manner. The reduction of available funding through the MFS2 has consequences for the funding of programmatic cooperation. However the reduction is also seen as an opportunity to critically assess the value of our partners and the value added created in the cooperation. Some partners and coalitions that are not showing real value added see their funding reduced and sometimes even stopped. In some cases good partners and programs also face budget cuts because of ending of programs in certain countries. Other decisions are made through a joint choice to focus on the strongest aspects of the cooperation and those activities that really show potential for value added or for fundraising with other donors.

The Conflict transformation programme in Uganda is a programme that has developed through a series of steps and meetings based on the Conflict Transformation Manual. In this process actors analysed the fundamental causes of conflict, did stakeholder analysis, and developed action paths/ plans. All actors involved were already partners of ICCO and Kerk in Actie. These partners maintain a bi-‐lateral relation with ICCO and Kerk in Actie and there is a budget for the Programme process costs. With the shrinking of the budgets available this budget is currently under pressure and partners are asked to contribute to the ‘process’ costs from their organisational budgets. How this affects the continuity of the cooperation remains to be seen.

47

4.1.2 Brokering Developing programmatic cooperation is a process that takes time and requires brokering and networking skills from the staff of the ICCO Alliance. In addition they need sufficient knowledge and background in the specific problematics/ themes that the programmatic cooperation would address and a good understanding of the systemic changes that we promote through the programmatic cooperation process. In many cases the initial steps towards a programmatic coalition were based upon brokering activities by staff of the ICCO Alliance. They first of all looked at their existing network of partners to identify who might be involved in a programmatic co-‐operation on a specific thematic area or an issue. Sometimes consultants with expertise and experience in the thematic area/ sector are invited to assist in the brokering of relations and in doing the stakeholder and context analysis. In a few cases relations with non-‐ ICCO-‐Alliance partners were also established due to an open stakeholder participation invitation or because of a targeted invitation to certain important stakeholders like local or national governments. The decentralization to the Regional Offices has also had as a result that POs now are much better informed about the context and the important stakeholders and understand the systems involved better. They are therefore more able to play a constructive broker role. They also are sometimes more critical towards the existing ‘partner set’ of the ICCO Alliance.

4.1.3 Capacity development

The ICCO Alliance understanding of the Programmatic Approach and the fact that we have developed its understanding in a learning-‐by-‐doing manner implies that our staff and our partner organizations need to develop their ability to promote and work in cooperative processes. Several aspects are: understanding the complexity and the systems that they are working in and are part of, developing the skills required for true multi-‐stakeholder participation and coalition development.

Staff of the ICCO Alliance needs to understand the requirements in terms of process facilitation and the stages in developing cooperation between stakeholders and the capacity development this implies. In their role and position they cannot themselves facilitate this process because that would take too much of their time. They are however engaging facilitators for the accompaniment of programmatic cooperation and capacity development. They therefore need to understand what competencies these facilitators need. To strengthen ICCO Alliance staff’s competencies we have developed a series of

At the start of the Ruta del Sol Education for all programme in Peru a consultant assisted in brokering relations between actors at national and regional level and in doing a stakeholder analysis for the identification of possible actors to become involved in the cooperation. This was possible as a quite open agenda because there was no previous “Education” programme in Peru only a few partners that worked on education.

48

trainings on “Methodologies and methods in the Programmatic Approach” which are facilitated by the Centre for Development Innovation of Wageningen University and Research39. Staff of the former head office of ICCO and Kerk in actie in Utrecht (now Global office), of the Regional Offices, of ICCO Alliance member organizations and facilitators have all been initiated in this manner in the Programmatic Approach. In another series of trainings we have also invested in the abilities of facilitators of programmatic cooperation and in staff from lead organizations. This process of introducing the Programmatic Approach at the level of partner organizations and facilitators will continue in the coming years. The subjects treated in the trainings are:

• Introduction on the Programmatic Approach: lessons learned • Paradigms of development • MSP facilitation framework • Power in MSP • Stakeholder analysis • Conflict handling and negation skills • Institutional and systems change • Complexity • Dialogue and non-‐violent communication • Theories of Change

4.2 The thematic programmes in the Business Plan and the Programmatic Approach

Within the ICCO Alliance the formal definition of programs is laid down in the Business Plan. The thematic programs are defined at global level and at country and in many cases regional levels. The program descriptions are the result of the consultation processes in which regional councils, staff of regional offices, partner organizations and staff of the (global) offices of the ICCO Alliance organizations have participated. A context analysis of the particular country, its main development problematics, the stakeholders and the (international and Dutch) development policies and the national government policy is taken into account in formulation of the thematic programs. Based on the choices presented in the business plan, staff of the ICCO and Kerk in Actie regional offices/ ICCO Alliance member organizations develop more concrete ideas about how to realize the objectives of the described programs. Promoting and developing programmatic cooperation between multiple stakeholders in the context of the business plan programs is an integral part of this process. Another strategy in the realization of the objectives of the business plan is the continuing support for individual partner organizations. There is a clear relation between the programs as defined in the Business Plan and the plans of programmatic coalitions established in the regions and countries. Maintaining the relation between these two levels of Programs is a major responsibility of the Program Officers in the Regional offices and of staff of the ICCO Alliance organizations. The ICCO Alliance can only fund programmatic co-‐operation and partner organizations if there is a clear relation between the aims of the ICCO Alliance and those of the partner organizations and coalitions. It is through the work of our 39 The CDI website gives you access to a great amount of resources , tools, literature that can be very

helpful in developing your abilities in facilitating multi-‐stakeholder processes.http://www.cdi.wur.nl/UK/. Another website is also very useful for accessing relevant tools for multi-‐stakeholder and social change processes: http://www.change-‐management-‐toolbook.com/mod/book/view.php?id=74&chapterid=45

49

partner organizations that we realize our aims and results. Programmatic coalitions should however also formulate their own objectives, this is of major importance in the creation of ownership by the actors involved over their joint program. The dialogue between the programmatic coalition and the PO should be such that ICCO Alliance objectives and coalition objectives reinforce each other rather than diverge too much. The objectives of the Coalition should be based on their own interests and not be defined by the ICCO Alliance. Coalitions should not become instrumentalized for the realization of the ICCO Alliance objectives. There should be a good partnership of equals for a joint purpose, each playing their own role. Back-donor funding In some cases programmatic cooperation has been developed as a meta-‐level project funded by a back-‐donor like the European Union. In these situations participant organizations receive a part of the project funding guided by the project-‐program document as is the case in the food-‐security program in Bangladesh. ICCO acts as liaison agent to the back donor. In addition the participant organizations receive funding from ICCO Alliance member organizations in the context of bilateral relations. The way in which we as ICCO Alliance combine the Programmatic Approach with back-‐donor funded projects/ programs needs to be further developed. As ICCO Alliance we think that the Programmatic Approach is a very valuable approach that might well be the ‘corporate advantage’ in tendering processes for back donor funded programs.

4.3. Governance models and structures In conjunction with the variety in funding strategies used, a number of models for the governance of the coalition and its relation to ICCO or the ICCO Alliance have developed. The following is a representation of various forms that have been developed in practice The current practice of the Programmatic Approach40 in ICCO shows a wide variety of programs with different characteristics on the content (type of issue, scope, level), the composition (partners, non-‐partners, networks), role of ICCO during the process, funding and governance. Various models for structure and governance have been identified: Figures: governance models and structures of coalitions Evaluative study 1 First step to joint activities

Model 1 is a ‘first step to joint activities’ in which partners have parts of their mandates or strategies overlapping, and therefore see the need to collaborate or coordinate on a certain theme or problematic.

40 Based on E.Wortel and J. van Geene Evaluative Study of the Programmatic Approach.

50

2 Joint Programme: e.g. Ruta del Sol In Model 2 the joint activities are made explicit in a program, for instance doing joint linking and learning, lobby and advocacy, in which all program partners participate.

3 Lead agency and clustering of activities: Peace-Building Programme Liberia.

Partner a,b Partners c,d,e Partner f,g,h,i In Model 3 a program is more expanded and has split up program activities in different clusters, which may be coordinated by a lead partner.

ICCO (Alliance)

partners

eg Lobby, Capacity Development

51

4 North South Alliances: e.g. Agri-ProFocus Ethiopia Coalition North Coalition South on country-‐level 5 Participation in and support to existing network Models 4 and 5 are a bit different: Model 4 shows a program in which both coalitions in the North and the South participate (such as Agri-‐ProFocus) while in Model 5 there is an existing network in which ICCO partners will participate.

ICCO

52

6 Value Chain Model 6 shows a value chain in which ICCO is a connector to different actors in the chain to support chain coordination. Program coalitions show high levels of ‘path dependency’. This means that, once a program coalition has started in a certain direction, particular options become more relevant and ‘natural’ than others. For instance, if a program coalition is started with an existing group of partners that all have ICCO funding, and no new funding is made available, it is likely that the scope and focus of the program will remain the same. Whereas, if a new set of actors is added to the composition of a coalition, the scope (levels of interventions) is more likely to widen. The same applies for the type of funding mechanisms and governance structures that are chosen: they will all drive the program in a certain direction, which is difficult (or even impossible) to change at a later stage. Every choice should therefore be taken with care. However, it is not easy to predict if the choices made for each program will work out positively or negatively. Within the different stages of program development (exploration, preparation, implementation) these choices are crucial, as well as the choice made before even ‘initiating’ a programmatic approach on a theme, in a particular place (the zero – phase). In conclusion: Within the ICCO Alliance we will promote inclusive and open ‘cooperative processes’ rather than the ‘program building’ approach which we have often followed so far in order to be able to change existing systems and address the complexity. This includes promoting true multi-‐stakeholder configurations with a mix of existing ICCO Alliance partners and non-‐ ICCO Alliance partners, and a focus on a problematic/ system and where possible support already existing cooperative initiatives. The structures, governance models and funding strategy need to promote and support Multi-‐stakeholder cooperative processes. In order to be able to learn more about the effectiveness and sustainability of various ‘cooperation forms’ we need tools that can help us in the assessment. To this end a Programmatic Cooperation scan has been developed in 2010. The P-‐scan will be included in the monitoring of programmatic cooperation. The programmatic cooperation scan also looks at the quality and readiness of organization’s cooperation and relations and will be used in the monitoring process. You can find the P-‐scan in Annex 2.

ICCO

53

Annex 1

Guidelines for Developing programmatic cooperation; the phases In this annex we will present in more detail the different phases that are part of the programmatic cooperation and coalition development process. A set of guidelines has been developed over the last years that can serve as reference to those staff involved in the development of cooperative processes. The guidelines take you through the different phases, stating the main activities that need to be undertaken during such a phase. The guidelines also give questions to decide whether all aspects of a particular phase have received due attention. The phases resemble the phases as presented in the paragraph on Coalition development. A word of caution is needed here. The phases in the programmatic cooperation process are described in a seemingly linear fashion. However the reality of promoting programmatic cooperation is that it is anything but a linear process, but rather a process in which the phases do not happen one after the other but in an iterative manner in which we will often go back and forth between the stages and sometimes put one step forward and two steps back to put one step forward again. It is also possible that the process has already started and we as ICCO Alliance come in or associate ourselves to an existing initiative or co-‐operative process.

Phase 0 Preliminary phase, The ICCO Alliance preparation Based on the Corporate Business Plan (CBP) and the Strategic Plan 2011-‐2015 the member organizations of the ICCO Alliance have preliminary discussions on: the thematic programs as described in the CBP, the consequences for thematic program development and cooperation between the ICCO Alliance members, the specific countries/ regions in which thematic programs will be developed and the possibilities for supporting programmatic cooperation between multiple stakeholders on these thematic programs in the countries. The participants in this step of the process are: the identified member organizations of the ICCO Alliance. For ICCO this implies: policy specialists at GO, GPCs of the IPD, POs of the Regional offices, and searching for input from the regional councils. For the other member organizations this implies staff of the organizations in the Netherlands and in some cases staff of regional representatives (Edukans). The discussions will take place in the Netherlands but also with representatives of the stakeholders in the South and staff and council members of ICCO in the regions. The input to the discussions are:

• The Corporate Business Plan and the Strategic Plan • Thematic Policy as developed • Evaluations from earlier experiences • Research and studies concerning the thematic domain • Existing Stakeholder, context and baseline analyses (including information on

existing networks and activities)

54

• Inputs by existing programmatic cooperation coalitions (monitoring reports, partner/ coalition meeting reports and learning documents).

Phase 1 Exploration Phase The main purpose of this phase is twofold: to strengthen the understanding of the ICCO Alliance members on what we would like to realize in a particular thematic area in a particular country or region and to build or link up to cooperative efforts of Southern and/or northern organizations/ networks that are motivated to work with support of the ICCO Alliance on the identified problematics. This can also imply the initial identification of external funding resources from other donors. The following steps need to be taken: 1.1 identification of program: The ICCO Alliance has an idea about the aim of the

program and about the possible participation of specific partner organisations and other actors; These actors have been consulted and have initiated a

1.2 a context analysis specifically aimed at the theme in the country or the region that has been developed with the multiple actors concerned.

1.3 A stakeholder analysis has been executed aimed at the theme in a specific country / region in which partner organizations and other actors/ organizations have been consulted concerning the idea, the problematic and their stake in resolving it and have indicated their interest to co-‐operate.

1.4 In this phase of the programmatic cooperation formation process the ICCO Alliance plays a broker role: brings actors together, organizes meetings, contracts consultants for specific tasks such as the context analyses, stakeholder and gender analysis and facilitation of consultation meetings. But the ICCO Alliance also plays a role as a stakeholder because we have our own aims and knowledge of and experience with (thematic) development that we bring into the process. In cases where the initial stakeholder analysis shows that there are existing networks working on the issues the ICCO Alliance will investigate how we can support these existing networks and also promote linkages of ICCO Alliance partners to these networks if these do not yet exist.

Questions on program development I. Exploration phase ICCO Alliance assesses the possibilities for program development • Identification: Does an idea/ideas about the possibility of programmatic cooperation

in a country/ region and about the possible contributing partners/ other organizations exist? Initiative can come from ICCO or from the South.

• Has a participatory context and gender/ rights analysis for the specific theme/ themes been done and documented? Who has done the analysis and how? Who where the actors involved in the analysis (in particular existing partners, new actors from outside the existing network?) Have the results of the analysis been communicated to those involved and if yes how?

• Has the ICCO Alliance explained its thematic policy to the actors involved, so as to inform partners about the CCO – alliance conceptual and political framework concerning the problematic.

• Has a participatory stakeholder analysis been done identifying different actors and “drivers of change” (partner and non partner organizations) Who is involved in work on this theme? Which power/ influence do they have? How are they involved

55

in/ part of the system underlying the problematic. • By whom were the actors invited for participation in this programmatic cooperation

process? By the ICCO Alliance, or by Southern actors, in a shared process? • Have partners/ actors been consulted about the programmatic cooperation idea

and possible co-‐operation? Are there possibilities for synergy? • What is the possible role of the ICCO-‐Alliance as broker? ( linking of the right people,

organizations and enterprises so that added value and synergy can develop) • Is there coherence with other programmatic cooperation processes ( supported by

the ICCO Alliance and others) in the same context/ region/ product chain? • Linking and learning!! Are potential participants willing to critically self-‐ assess their

functioning and do they want to learn? • Have women and men been equally consulted in the exploration phase or have

efforts to that aim been undertaken? • Has a gender/ rights analysis been part of the analysis of the problematic? What

were its conclusions for the possible purpose of the cooperation and the activities to be undertaken?

Phase 2 Preparation phase 2.1 Potential participants in this program develop a shared vision, objectives and

strategy, and the setting up of an adapted M&E system. 2.2 Potential participants agree about the respective roles that each participant in

the process will play. 2.3 Potential participants make their interests explicit 2.4 Participants jointly develop a first plan of activities and budget indicating the

division of responsibilities and resources also indicating the budget requirements for the process costs. This is discussed amongst participating organizations and the ICCO Alliance.

2.5 Capacity development is included in the cooperation agreement and a possible personnel assistance has been foreseen in the plan

2.6 The manner in which the ICCO alliance contributes to the program in the form of e.g. an active brokering role, capacity development, knowledge development and learningis described in the cooperation agreement

56

Question for the Preparation phase In a joint effort of actors from the region/ country and the ICCO Alliance a program is developed , in which the four roles are represented. • Do potential partners in the program have a shared vision, (including values and

norms) ( thematic) objectives, ( including the intended results) and strategy reflected in a program document (including linking and learning). How did they develop this?

• Are gender equality and rights-‐based approach part of the programmatic cooperation’s plan ( the ‘program’)?

• Has a capacity assessment been undertaken? Do organizations have sufficient capabilities to fulfill their envisaged roles and responsibilities?

• Do potential partners agree about their prospective and complementary roles? How did they reach agreement on this?

• Are there potential areas of conflict, now or in the future? Are there potential pitfalls which can be addressed ( if needed) by the ICCO Alliance?

• Has a funding strategy been developed? Will there be a coalition funding or are individual ( project or institutional) funding foreseen in combination with programmatic cooperation process costs funding? Are there sources of funding from outside the ICCO Alliance?

• Has a governance structure been developed that will be able to steer the ‘program‘, monitor and learn from the ‘program’ and divide responsibilities and participation of all actors

• Does trust exist amongst the organizations that have explicitly committed themselves to the ‘program’?

• Is it clear who does/ does not participate at which level, and in relations to which part of the ‘program’? How have different elements of the ‘program’ been developed?

• How has the internal coordination of the program been set-‐up? Is there e.g. a local advisory board or steering committee? Based on which considerations? Is this structure funded?

• Have the 4 roles of ICCO been included clearly in the proposal? Does the ICCO Alliance commit itself for a longer period of time to play these roles?

• Which coordination agreements have been reached within the ICCO Alliance about: coordination, conferring, division of roles (also in regards the financial and administrative responsibilities), funding etc.

• Has a possible personnel assistance been foreseen in the plan, in which form? • Is there a communication strategy developed for the internal communication

between participating actors? • Does the ICCO Alliance play a role as broker or co-‐knowledge development? • Are women and men equally represented in the coordinating team or have efforts to

that avail been undertaken? • Have potential participants developed a funding plan and plan of activities? • Have agreements been reached about financial transparency and if required

uniform financial reporting?

57

Phase 3: Implementation/ Maturation phase 3.1 A contract or an MOU has been developed stating the roles that the ICCO Alliance

will play and the support that the ICCO Alliance will provide to the programmatic co-‐operation.

3.2 Agreements have been reached in the programmatic co-‐operation and with the ICCO Alliance about monitoring and evaluation.

3.2 Agreements have been reached in the programmatic coalition and with ICCO about how learning from experiences will be promoted.

3.3 A (possible) personnel assistance has been foreseen in the plan (preferably local/ regional)

3.4 The ICCO alliance gives external support to the programmatic cooperation in the form of an active brokering role, capacity development and knowledge generation.

3.5 Regular reflection moments are built in in order to follow whether the process is still going into the right direction, whether the key stakeholders are still committed and whether the program need new actors

Questions for the Execution/implementation phase Agreements will be made with all participating parties in the programmatic cooperation, with the ICCO Alliance members and possible others, concerning the duration of the ‘programme’, division of responsibilities and tasks etc. • Has an MOU been formulated stipulating all tasks, responsibilities and roles? • Has an MOU been formulated stipulating the roles and the support that the ICCO

Alliance will give to the program? Does this need adaptation? • Has the governance system been defined well? • Have agreements about monitoring and evaluation of the process as well as of the

results been reached? How often will M&E take place using which instruments? • In which manner will linking and learning in the program be assured ? Which

methods will be used? At which levels of the program? • Is there agreement about how all actors can learn from the program jointly (

thematically, as to process aspects). Have the aspects about which participants intend to learn been identified? Has also been identified how actors intend to do this, and the support needs?

• Has personnel assistance been agreed, in which manner? • External facilitation by the ICCO Alliance as broker through e.g. workshops, / D-‐

groups/ skype , visits etc has been agreed . • Are women and men equally represented in the implementation of activities? • In which manner are men and women belonging b to the beneficiary group of the

program participating in the program? Which support for the intended changes does exist at their level?

• Which lobby and advocacy needs to be undertaken locally; Which support or protection of activists can the ICCO Alliance offer?

3. Which support for lobby and advocacy and which support for development cooperation/ the program activities do need to be developed in the Netherlands and at a regional/ global level?

4. Does the group have the flexibility to incorporate new actors? If not, why not, if yes why so? Can the ICCO Alliance play a role in this?

58

Phase 4 Monitoring, Reflection and Follow up Follow-up 4.1 From the beginning on a proper M&S system has been set up and

implemented 4.2 Proper monitoring has taken place, reports are available. 4.3 A learning culture has been established 4.4 Proper monitoring has taken place, reports are available. 4.5 An evaluation of the ‘program’ has taken place, reports are available. 4.6 Lessons have been drawn from the programmatic cooperation process as

well as results realization. 4.7 Follow-‐up has been formulated, cooperation between involved actors

continues 4.8 Funding for continued cooperation has been sourced from different

(new, other) sources.

Questions for the Monitoring + evaluation Shortly before the end of the program an evaluation in which effectiveness of the roles of actors in the programmatic cooperation and of the ICCO Alliance will be judged This will provide the input for possible continued programmatic cooperation.

5. Has monitoring been taken up right from the inception phase? Are monitoring reports available? Is a baseline available, has a theory of change been developed for the program?

6. Has regular reflection moments taken place whereby not only the “steering Committee” participated but the whole alliance. What kind of tools / methods have been used in order to stimulate learning and critical reflection?

7. What kind of tools / methods have been used in order to stimulate learning and critical reflection?

8. Has a mid-‐term evaluation taken place? Is the report available? In which manner has it been done?

9. Evaluation has taken place, the report is available. 10. What has been learned about the program in terms of effectivity and

relevance? 11. What has been learned about the roles of partners and of the ICCO Alliance? 12. What will be the follow-‐up?

59

Annex 2: Programmatic Cooperation scan For reasons of space, we would like to refer you to the PMEL-‐wiki, where you will find the Programmatic Cooperation scan.

4

ICCOJoseph Haydnlaan 2a3533 AE UtrechtPostbus 81903503 RD UtrechtT (030) 692 78 11F (030) 692 56 14E [email protected] www.icco.nl

Date post:	28-Jan-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	icco-cooperation
View:	110 times
Download:	0 times

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

Documents