The Capacity Building Game

A few years ago I was travelling in India with a man working with a grassroots NGO. He was going from one workshop to another. This is the dialogue we had

Me: What is your role?
He: I am the learning officer in (name of NGO).
Me: Yes but what do you do?
He: I participate in all workshops that (name of NGO) gets invited to.
Me: but surely you must be specialising in an area?
He: No. You see I am a graduate and I know a lot. Over the last six months I have been to gender, human rights, Non-formal-education, M&E and Reproductive rights trainings. Most of these were organised by donors who make grants to (name of NGO). Very often project people cannot go since they have implementation deadlines and so I go.
Me: (still not taking this one seriously) Hmm but what happens when you have 2-3 workshops in a row? Don’t you get the subjects muddled up by the time you get back to your office?
He: No no. It cannot happen. I have different notebooks for different workshops.
Me: speechless till today

So why am I breaking my silence today?

Well over the last two weeks I have been hearing the term ‘capacity building’ over and over. The height was the long Skype chat I just finished with an NGO I had been associated with in India. They were brainstorming with me on some capacity building venture they were planning. I found that they were clueless on why they wanted to build capacities, what would be achieved – all they knew was that they had a grant to build capacities of youth. I was appalled and felt that I had to get this out of my system before a new week began.

This is of course not a stray case. Most development workers, myself included, often get irresistible urges to build capacities of others.

  • Managers want to build capacities of staff.
  • Staff want to build capacities of partners.
  • Partners want to build capacities of communities.

and consultants and trainers (oops facilitators) laugh all the way to the bank.

I am surprised that with all the capacity building that has been going on for decades, we still have someone whose capacities need to be built left in the world. Many a time capacity building is just a euphemism for cramming 30 people in a room for a few days and trying to kill them with power-points and flipcharts and group work (that also takes care of the ‘participation’).  

Does one get to see improved social capital or skills then?

Well. Not really. Otherwise why would NGOs who have gone through at least 10 different capacity building exercises on Monitoring and Evaluation be completely unable to develop a simple framework that can tell anyone who wants to know if their work is making a difference? (true story)

I think that the biggest reason why capacity building does not work is because it is often in an area that the capacity builders are interested in. The buildees (not a word I love but just a play on the mentor : mentee that I keep hearing) could not care too much.

I am reminded of Sir Humphrey Appleby saying “Bernard, subsidy is for art, for culture. It is not to be given to what the people want! If they want it, they will pay for it. It is for what the people don’t want but ought to have!” Just replace ‘subsidy’ with ‘capacities’.

A few other reasons why capacity building does not work are

  • Boring methods.
  • Condescending and / or contextually clueless facilitators.
  • Poor design; often top down.
  • Participants unable to relate subject to their work.
  • Mismatched incentives of builders and buildees.

Finally, I think that any capacity building must be followed by letting go. If you want to build capacities of communities to decide for themselves and take action, you cannot insist that they take action in an area that you are interested in. It is for the community to decide what to do and how. The art of letting go and losing control is not one that most of us development workers have any mastery over.

I am not saying that all capacity building is useless. However, I would like to see these efforts being made in a bit more strategic manner. IMO capacity building should include

  • Setting objectives jointly – understanding the areas where capacities are to be built and how the builders and buildees see it.
  • Understanding the incentives of both groups – hopefully there is sufficient overlap.
  • Understanding what it means when capacities are built – how will it look like, what will be the change, how will one know that change has happened.
  • Determining the processes that will aid in capacity building – obviously training can be one of them but is not the only one for sure. You have exposure, learning while doing, mentoring etc
  • Ensuring that the buildee has the opportunity to practice what (s)he learnt, make mistakes and have help in getting them corrected.

Makarand

This post was reproduced on WhyDev here. 

31 thoughts on “The Capacity Building Game”

  2. In the midst of all the involved discussions I guess I am posting a comment at a tangent…

    I was thinking in terms of capacity being built or tried to be built just for the sake of doing something and not in the interest of the actual need …

    Also this need not be confined to just skill sets but even hard capacity built but ending up as empty malls / housing complexes / ghost towns / bridges to nowhere….

    Sorry for digressing from the conversation going on…

    Like

  4. Very interesting post…. and this is a quick response…
    A common problem with a lot of capacity building / training / coaching / mentoring… call it what you will, is that the energy is in the wrong place. we have many different words to describe one part of the process, but only one – learning – for the part that actually matters, with a consequence that we produce a proliferation of details and theses about the lesser part and ignore the greater part. I recently came across a 5 page competency frameworks for trainers, produced by a leading UK NGO, implicitly suggesting that if the facilitator jumps through the requisite hoops, the learners will magically comply and learn what someone else wants them to learn…

    I am increasingly of the opinion that large swathes of the approach to training and capacity building within NGOs (and, at elast in the UK, in wider sectors as well) is based on false premises that are nothing to do with how learning, as a fundamental energy of humanity, actually works. I can also assert, however, that where learning events are based on truth rather than falsehood, and seek to build on natural energy rather than counter it, the outcomes can be remarkable.

    Like

    1. You have hit the nail on the head when you say “….. based on false premises ….” I have seen capacity building work and that makes me optimistic that when done well, it can get transformational change… in the builder and ‘buildee’

      Like

  5. This is a great blog post on an important topic.

    However, I am intrigued that you seem to equate ‘capacity building’ with training, and ‘training’ with formal workshops in a classroom setting.

    In my experience, training only has limited value as a capacity building method. Partly because participants often only attend training courses because ‘it is their turn’, rather than because the training subject is relevant to their role. Partly because participants are often used to learning by rote rather than analytically, and therefore struggle to apply the concepts outside of a classroom setting. Partly because facilitators are often too rigid and lacking in flexibility in their approach to course contents and timetabling. And partly because little thought is given, well in advance of the workshop, as to how the learning will be implemented and whether or not there should be any accountability for follow-up.

    I’d like to suggest that capacity building is far more effective when it is based on peer-to-peer learning, accompaniment, coaching, mentoring and simple ‘trial and error’.

    However, in situations where training is deemed to be an appropriate capacity building method, then I’d suggest it’s only useful if:
    – It is demand-driven (i.e. participants have asked for it);
    – The participants are the right people for the course topic (i.e. those whose roles are directly relevant to the course topic);
    – The facilitator is willing to set objectives jointly at the outset, and work flexibly in delivering content, rather than having a predetermined agenda;
    – Peer-to-peer learning is encouraged throughout;
    – All concerned are clear (before they even sign-up for the course) about how they plan to apply their learning, and there is accountability for follow-up.

    Capacity building, when done well, can lead to the acquisition of new skills, the encouragement of peer relationships, and impact in the delivery of projects and programmes. However, it requires a long-term investment of time and effort, and will never be met by a mindset that delivers a training workshop and ticks a check-box.

    Like

    1. Could not agree more with you. Believe me, I am not saying that capacity building = training. All I am saying is .. that is the way it is interpreted. I have seen most success in capacity building come out of learning-while-doing so long as there was strong hand-holding (accompaniment as you call it).

      Like

      1. Makarand, you got it right, what is required is hand holding and not cramming hi-funda gyan in compressed training sessions. Hand holding is possible only if that knowledgeable person is ready to get his/her hands dirty in the field/operations.

        Like

  7. Brilliant brilliant brilliant! This is exactly what I have been saying to anyone who will listen.

    Also, capacity building needs to follow the ideal way the ‘buildees’ learn: adults usually learn best and change the way they work through application and experience, not being lectured at like they’re in a high school classroom.

    Like

    1. Thanks. Extra thanks for reusing ‘buildees’; boy I got some flak for that term 🙂

      Learning through doing, making mistakes and finding answers by themselves for the situation they are in – yes that is the way I would try and help adults build their capacities.

      Like

  8. For me, I find myself in a very difficult position; I am (volunteering) for a nonprofit that has never won its first proposal for years since inception. It was founded by my co-founded by two ladies-one is an African-American and the other a Sierra Leonean. They came together to register this organization both in the US and in Sierra Leone in the wake of the 11 years bloody conflict that left the entire nation in ruin. The challenges have been daunting but looking at the determination and vision that these two ladies have, i chose to work for them and the first thing that came to my mind was to draft a proposal for building the capacity of the staff now that lots of programs and projects have been earmarked and the organization has no basic funding. What in your opinion is feasible for this young nonprofit to make a head start and how appropriate is it to write a proposal for building the capacity of the organization in order for us to be able to move to another level even though there has been no call for such a proposal anyway? Thanks so much for the opportunity to leave my thoughts on the subject!

    Like

    1. This is a very specific query and I am afraid that since I do not know the context it would be difficult to give an answer that will add value. Please note that I am not saying that all capacity building is useless. My point is that we need to plan it better and use appropriate methods and follow through. In your case, if capacity building is what you think is needed, go ahead and plan well. make it a touch focussed and do not do it in a vacuum. All the best.

      Like

  9. Does this mean the much adored Training of Trainers course is nothing more than a capacity building of the capacity builders? Bingo for the comment on the capacity builders not wanting to let go or losing control. That’s a capacity that should be built, but it would imply the self-awareness that not everything “we” want is what “they” want.

    Like

    1. ToT would be attempted capacity building of wannabe capacity builders. Yes. We need to encourage letting go; just like in children we hope to instil values at a young age and then let them decide the course of their lives by themselves. We all know that trying to influence decisions of our children all their lives can only lead to disaster. Why then, do we want to control what others (targets of capacity building) do? Baffling; that’s what it is.

      Like

  11. Great post. So Makarand, where does the problem lie more with here? The donor or the NGO?

    It seems to me that the everything that is done in capacity building seems to be at the donor’s behest. For example, donors ask local NGOs to write (or have someone write for them) proposals to build their own capacity. These proposals need to be written in forms that are often incomprehensible to the local organisation, and right from the very start, a power imbalance is created.

    In your opinion, where does the responsibility lie in changing our current understanding of capacity building?

    Like

    1. Very good question. A complete answer would be material enough for another post 🙂 I will try to be brief here.

      Short answer : Problem lies at both ends.

      Donors for insisting on capacity building because that shows something ‘tangible’ in terms of outputs and holds a prospect of leaving behind sustainable impacts in terms of better capacities.

      NGOs for the same reason and because they find it difficult to refuse the donor. I find this puzzling and a bit worrisome. I think that since NGOs are often closer to ground realities than Donors, one of their roles is to engage donors in a dialogue on what works and what does not. There is need to remember that it is not only NGOs who need donors, donors need good partners too. It should be a symbiotic relationship and is in principle but not in practice. Therefore if an NGO is really only implementing at the behest of a donor, the relationship is more contractual and then focus shifts to tangible outputs – training programmes done, people trained, people taken on exposure visits rather than change in lives of the people / behaviour of institutions who were the targets of capacity building.

      Like

      1. That’s a great reply and yes perhaps fodder for your next post!

        At the NGO end, I couldn’t agree more with the need to educate donors on what good practice should be. But we seem to be in the situation where there is so much competition over funding (and NGOs being scared of not being able to sustain themselves because of lack of funding) that NGOs don’t feel like they have the power to do this. Is this how you’re reading it too? If so, how can they turn the power balance around?

        Like

      2. Yes the scare is unfortunately true.

        However, I think that in the first place NGOs should shed this fear – how on earth can we work with people to make them fearless if we are scared ourselves? Second, NGOs (& donors) need to give up the ambition of being around for a long time. The ONLY (imo) honourable ambition to have is to end up in a world where we are no longer needed.

        Like

  12. This so-called “lack of capacity” is used to justify many antiquated practices in the aid industry. Capacity building, if an unexplored concept, is arrogant at best.

    The general (and often pejorative) assumption in the development sector that the capacity of “local implementing partners” should be measured by the degree of formal structure and the differentiation of organizations is something that must be re-examined. What about the capacity found in local civil society groups’ deep contextual knowledge, embeddedness within communities, resourcefulness, language and cultural skills, and the ability to operative in a responsive manner to local needs? These are capacities that international NGOs and donors lack.

    Thus the ability and penchant to understand and work with organizations of any size and type can and should become a core skill of anyone working on behalf of change. If there’s any capacity to be built, perhaps it’s our own.

    Like

    1. Ah. You have touched a raw nerve 🙂 Could not agree more with you. In a number of cases local partners have much better understanding of the issues, what will work and more importantly what will not. Sadly, ‘capacity building’ is seen as a one way traffic and rarely do I see the understanding flow towards INGOs or Donors. It is worse when private sector or foundations get into the game – they have a ‘corporate’ lens that skews things further.

      Like

  13. As mentioned by Mona, I think donors and NGOs need to find a definition that works for them but a definition is needed.
    As a donor I always wonder why there is a rush to build capacity before there is a proven success. I always ask my self and others what is wrong with doing something really well before trying to make it bigger and better or is that part of capacity building?
    I’m just throwing this thought out there.

    Like

    1. I think the ‘capacities’ needed change with time, location and overall purpose. There is no doubt that we need absolute clarity on the overall purpose of what we are trying to do and how capacity building contributes to the same. Then comes the part of working out the process and implementing it. There are no short cuts, imo.

      Like

  14. yes things can be disheartening. Still there is a lot of very interesting debate about capacity building or capacity development going on.
    LenCD – a website dedicated to Capacity Development: http://www.lencd.org/
    The UNDP CD Home Page: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/capacitybuilding/overview.html
    The CD Gateway: http://www.capacity.org/capacity/opencms/en/topics/international-cooperation/index.html
    The EU page on CD: http://capacity4dev.ec.europa.eu/home

    The ODI is quite regularly publishing good studies.

    Like

    1. I am not really disheartened. That is an emotion that development practitioners cannot afford, imo. However, I would like us to learn from the past and realistically plan our interventions in this and other areas.

      Like

  15. An interesting topic…close to my heart esp. as I was running a management training centre for a large NGO several years…then I was backstopping a project in India and Nigeria whose aim was to build innovation capacities of people…..in both cases, we struggled a lot trying to define what ‘capacity building’ was:
    – was it training leading to increased knowledge about a subject?
    – was it training leading to improved skills to do something?
    – could that be achieved in a set of classroom sessions held in some idyllic location spread out over 2-3 days?
    – did the duration and location of training had any bearing on the development of skills?
    Moreover after having imparted skills and knowledge in a training program,
    – what guarantees that they would be used effectively? So,
    – was ‘creating conditions’ for using knowledge and improved skills also part of building capacities of the recipient organisation in order to lead to change? And yes,
    – who decided what changes are required? by whom?
    – are those to be decided in a consultative manner (participatory goal setting?!) or
    – was it better left to the communities who acquired the capacity to decide what they wanted changed for themselves?
    ….questions galore!

    In course of these discussions, to me building capacities came across as building a combination of: skills and resources…creating the abilty to build relationships for collaboration, cohesiveness and communication between all concerned (stakeholders if you please)….introducing things that affected the habits, routines and ways of working that shaped the patterns of interactions and relationships between different players and influencing the way things were done in order to put the skills and knowledge into productive use in order to bring about change! .

    Sorry for my ramblings…. hope they make sense 🙂

    Like

    1. Yes. Mona, it is a problem when we cannot define what we are trying to do. If there is a worse use of a loose term than capacity building, it is empowerment.

      Like

      1. Thanks Makarand for starting this interesting discussion. I agree with your and the others points. However, I would like to present the other side of the story if I may. I am a trainer and facilitator who have done and still doing capacity building in Asia, East Africa and now West Africa. When we talk about capacity building, we tend to focus on the subject matter, like the joke you started with, but we often fail to recognize being able to learn and being able to apply the learning is an ability of itself, and is deeply rooted in the education we receive from childhood. That’s why I found repeatedly people understand and agree with you in the workshop or when you are there working with them, but when left along, they are stuck. It is because they are not taught the cognitive skills to understand, analyze, and apply concepts. It is not always the case that donor’s ‘impose’ ways on there, it is because donors often come from a logical western way of thinking which other parts of the world are not used to, hence local organisations might have very valuable things to say, but when it is not said in a ‘log frame’, it is not understood.

        Going back to the capacity building, we need to help people to learn about the theme knowledge, but also to learn ‘how to learn’ and how to turn learning into practice, and also for us to learn to spend more time to listen to the people you want to ‘build capacity’ what they already know and how to build from there.

        Liu Liu

        Like

      2. +1 to “It is because they are not taught the cognitive skills to understand, analyze, and apply concepts.”

        When I look back at the education system I myself went through, I realise that most of it was learning by rote and questioning was not really encouraged. Application of the skills and knowledge was also rather limited. Which makes me feel that in such cultures, capacity building ventures must include support in implementation, a help-desk if you will.

        Like

Leave a comment