report of an innovation dialogue - wurportals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/innovation dialogue on...

Wageningen International

Report of an Innovation Dialogue

May 26-27, 2008

Capacity Development and Institutional Change Programme Wageningen International, the Netherlands Irene Guijt November 2008

Innovation Dialogue on Navigating Complexity, 26-27 May 2008 in Wageningen, the Netherlands

2


Foreword Half a year after the Innovation Dialogue on Navigating Complexity, the subject is no less topical than it was back then. While in May the subject was unexplored territory for quite a few of the participants, since then, the interest in the topic of ‘complexity’ has rapidly evolved. The topic of ‘complexity and development’, while drawing on thinking and writing that started to emerge some decades ago, represents relatively new terrain for much of the international development sector. It potentially represents a way of tackling some of the difficult contradictions and dilemmas faced by development policy makers and practitioners. Not surprisingly, the topic and its potential relevance to development is understood differently by keen fans and questioning sceptics. As the Innovation Dialogue illustrated, we are still at an exploratory phase regarding the real practical implications. The Innovation Dialogue in May helped to draw together ideas and questions that had been fermenting in various corners. Not all perspectives could be covered, not all confusion could be laid to rest, not all implications for development strategy and practice could be fully articulated. Some foundational ideas were laid on the table and hopefully curiosity was triggered. In part inspired by the Innovation Dialogue a series of follow-up initiatives are now underway. These include working towards an edited book on subject, a series of capacity development activities and the initiation of an Alliance between development practitioners and research organizations to look more deeply at the practical issues of complexity for governance and stakeholder processes. We hope that this report on the ‘Innovation Dialogue on Navigating Complexity’ will help to bring back to you the lively and challenging exchanges in May of this year. Clearly the topic holds significant potential for navigating more appropriately amidst the complex realities of development. Thank you to all those who so actively engaged in the Dialogue. In particular we want to thank the Ministry of LNV of the Netherlands for funding the dialogue processes as well as the Ford Foundation for their generous grant that made it possible to invite contributors from abroad. A special thanks goes to Seerp Wigboldus and Irene Guijt for all the work in organizing the event and pulling together these proceedings. Jim Woodhill Programme Director Wageningen International


Table of Contents Foreword

Day 1. Delving into New Ideas ........................................................................................................... 1

1. Why ‘Complexity’ and Why an ‘Innovation Dialogue’? ............................................................... 1

2. Key Ideas: Complexity, the Cynefin Framework, Systems Thinking and Theories of Change... 2 2.1 Ben Ramalingam - Exploring the Science of Complexity..................................................................................2 2.2 Jim Woodhill - The Cynefin Framework - What to do about complexity? Implications for learning,

participation, strategy and leadership ....................................................................................................................5 2.3 Bob Williams - Systems Thinking and Complexity Science ..............................................................................7 2.4 Rosalind Eyben - Power, Relations and Theories of Change in Development .............................................8

3. Clarifying and Converging at the Close of the Day..................................................................... 11 3.1 Areas for Clarification........................................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Converging Interests ............................................................................................................................................. 11

Day 2. Translating Ideas into Practice ..............................................................................................12

4. Complexity as Inspiration for Innovation: Reflections by Robert Chambers.............................12

5. Approaches – Making it Happen ................................................................................................13 5.1 Options for Narratives – Lorraine Alison Mancey .......................................................................................... 13 5.2 Managing for Results while Navigating Complexity – Eric Korsten and Heinz Greijn............................ 14 5.3 Institutional Evolution and Innovation – Jim Woodhill, Wageningen International ................................ 15 5.4 Governance Outcome Framework – Frank van Schoubroeck, ILEIA........................................................ 15 5.5 Navigating and Managing toward Impact Framework – Seerp Wigboldus, Wageningen International. 16

6. Thematic Explorations................................................................................................................17 6.1 Theme 1: Accountability ...................................................................................................................................... 17 6.2 Theme 4: Policy processes (aid systems/structures/donors and aid policies) ............................................ 18

7. Collective Harvest - Messages to Key Partners in Development ................................................19

8. Emergent ‘Aha!’s and Final Discussion ..................................................................................... 20

9. Planned Follow-up.......................................................................................................................21 Annex 1: Participants and organisations Annex 2: Programme Annex 3: References and key websites


0


1

Day 1. Delving into New Ideas

1. Why ‘Complexity’ and Why an ‘Innovation Dialogue’? Complexity has all the hallmarks of being the new buzzword in development discourses. Sudden repeated use of the term has been signalled in diverse contexts with high expectations (see Box 1 and Annex 1). One such context was in the Netherlands in May 2008 – and more events are being planned. Over the course of two days, 50 people shared and discussed ‘complexity science’ to start identifying the possible relevance for those working within international development. So what is the buzz around ‘complexity’? Is it a powerful new perspective or better viewed as a strategically useful metaphor to repackage marginalised ideas? To what extent is it operational or is it purely of conceptual interest? Which elements within the extensive complexity science field might be of relevance? These and other questions shaped the Innovation Dialogue on May 26 and 27 in Wageningen, which drew a large and diverse group of people active in international development (see Annex 2 and Annex 3). This report shares some of the ideas discussed at the event1. While buzzwords can get out of hand and become devoid of meaning, they usually do emerge initially around legitimate concerns. In this case, the interest seems to have centred on a growing recognition of the disjunction between the non-linearity and unpredictability of change processes and the protocols and procedures that govern development interventions that assume otherwise. The ensuing tensions are increasingly experienced as hindering poverty reduction and social change efforts. There is no doubt that the development sector is under much pressure to show impact, with its performance in terms of poverty alleviation under considerable critical scrutiny in recent times. In doing so, those active in the sector face various dilemmas. While development sector actors generally acknowledge the non-linearity of change pathways, program logic models, notably the logical framework matrix, still rule as the main instrument to track progress. Despite the agreement that change requires simultaneous actions by many actors at different levels, impact attribution is still considered possible and necessary. Notwithstanding everyone’s recognition that all is in flux and cannot be predicted, the aid system still demands precisely defined anticipated outcomes many years in advance of expected realization. Furthermore, aid bureaucracies use the achievement of these outcomes in performance assessment and resource allocation decisions. In recent times, complexity thinking, evolutionary theory and sense-making have emerged as potentially important ideas. These ideas may be able to shed light on some dilemmas and challenge long held assumptions that underpin these dilemmas. These ideas, emerging from sectors as diverse as natural resource management, cognitive psychology, business management and evolutionary biology, have not yet informed the development sector. How do these ideas and the new assumptions they offer affect the nature of development interventions and the process of accompanying these through planning, monitoring and evaluation? How, if we are essentially dealing with systems thinking versus rational and linear planning logics, can we best learn about what we are doing in order to adapt? These questions bring us to processes and procedures, methodologies that align with assumptions:

1 Grateful use was made of notes were taken by Simone de Hek, Cora Oosten, Cecile Kusters and Seerp Wigboldus. Not

all discussions were documented hence some interpretation and additions were needed. These are solely my

responsibility.

Box 1: Recent ‘Complexity and Development’ Events:

• May 28, 2008 - ‘Evaluating the Complex’ (NORAD, Norway)

• July 9, 2008 – ‘Complexity and Aid’ (ODI, UK)

• October 3, 2008 ‘Complexity and Learning Capacities (IDS, UK)


2

“…in decision-making at both policy-making and operational levels, we are increasingly coming to deal with situations where these assumptions [of order, rational choice and intentional capability] are not true, but the tools and techniques which are commonly available assume that they are.” (Kurtz and Snowden 2003: 463) The Innovation Dialogue created an opportunity to start articulating the potential relevance of emerging insights from the complexity sciences and systems thinking, combined with field practice, for the design, monitoring and evaluation of development work. To achieve this means taking time to examine the concepts and to relate them to the diversity of issues and actors that influence the aid nexus. In particular, it will mean identifying problematic assumptions.

2. Key Ideas: Complexity, the Cynefin Framework, Systems Thinking and Theories of Change

The contours of the Dialogue were provided by four presenters who each highlighted inter-related aspects of ‘complexity’ thinking. Ben Ramalingam2 started off the day with a broad overview of why complexity science has much to offer, and what some of the core concepts are that need further exploring. Jim Woodhill3 followed up by sharing the Cynefin framework to locate how situations of complexity relate to other types of situations. Bob Williams4 then took us into systems thinking, which is considered essential to deal with complexity. Finally, Rosalind Eyben5 brought us back to the underlying theories of change that shape whether or not we recognise complexity or systems, and how we chose to respond.

2.1 Ben Ramalingam - Exploring the Science of Complexity6

How does institutional behaviour occur in the aid sector? What are the pathways for improvement? Thus far, change initiatives in aid organisations are based on: -quality and accountability; -thematic development; -structure; -joint action and partnerships; and -business development. These are difficult processes, not always very effective and not unlike the notion of rebuilding an aircraft, while it is in mid-flight, and fully loaded with passengers. Can complexity science help those of us working on change and reform initiatives within the aid sector? Several lessons have been learned about change in the aid sector. First, change efforts are largely focused on new ‘systems’ and ‘products’ as opposed to changed behaviours, ways of thinking and attitudes. Furthermore, reflection, learning and analysis are threatened by existing agency cultures and processes. Change initiatives often sit on top of existing silos, inefficiencies and power imbalances, rather than resolving them. Change efforts tend to be based on wish lists, not strategies, and therefore are often overloaded (not unlike the donkey in the photo). Increasingly clear is that the monitoring and evaluation of change is weak at best. Hence, change efforts resemble an iceberg: what is hoped for is explicit and articulated, but what actually happens is tacit, hidden under the surface.

2 Presentation at:

http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/File/navigatingcomplexity/Navigating%20Complexity%20Presentation_BR.pdf 3 Presentation at:

http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/File/navigatingcomplexity/CynefinFramework%20final%20%5bRead-Only%5d.pdf 4 Presentation at: http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/File/navigatingcomplexity/Systems_Intro.pdf

5 Presentation at: http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/File/navigatingcomplexity/Rosalind.pdf

6 This section is based on Ramalingam’s presentation.

About Ben Ramalingam: Ben is Head of Research and Development at the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action. http://www.odi.org.uk/alnap/index.html


3

Given this context, what are the core ideas and implications of complexity science for the aid sector? First, it is clear that logical frameworks, that are ubiquitous, articulate a specific world view and theory of change. The ‘universe as clockwork’ notion is strongly embedded in logframes, with the future assumed to be knowable given enough data points. Phenomena are assumed to be reducible to simple cause-effect relationships, with the dissecting of discrete parts revealing how the whole system works or worked. And it is the role of scientists, technologists and leaders is to predict and control. But our realities, those in which development aid occurs, are different, which is where complexity science offers much food for thought. ‘Complexity science’ is a loosely bound collection of ideas, principles and influences from a number of other bodies of knowledge. It is a discovery of similar patterns, processes and relationships in a wide variety of phenomena. Ten key concepts are central in complexity science: (Ramalingam and Jones 2008) Features of systems

1. Interconnected and interdependent elements and dimensions 2. Feedback processes promote and inhibit change within systems 3. System characteristics and behaviours emerge from simple rules of interaction

Dynamics of change 4. Nonlinearity 5. Sensitivity to initial conditions 6. Phase space – the ‘space of the possible’

Behaviour of agents 7. Attractors, chaos and the ‘edge of chaos’ 8. Adaptive agents 9. Self-organisation 10. Co-evolution

Let’s take a look at one of these concepts in a bit more detail: ‘interconnectedness’ and ‘interdependence’. Complex systems are interconnected and interdependent to different degrees, they operate at multiple and nested levels. Yet the complexity of real world systems is often not recognized or acknowledged by scientists and policy makers. This makes it crucial to understand what kinds of problems one is dealing with. A well-known perspective on this from systems thinking comes from Ackoff (1974), who distinguishes between: -complex messes (do not have a well defined structure or form); -complicated problems (have a known or knowable from or structure) and; -simple puzzles (well-defined and –structured known problems with specific ‘best’ solutions ). In much of modern science and policy, there is a bias towards puzzle-solving: the complex, messy nature of systems is frequently not recognized, while simple puzzle-based solutions are applied to complex messes. This is not a normative distinction by the way, simply an observation about the nature of the relations between the elements. It means we need to be very clear about the nature of the situation – is it a problem or even a mess but are we perhaps handling it as a puzzle?

Noteworthy reading #1 Ramalingam, B and H. Jones. Exploring the science of complexity: Ideas and implications

for development and humanitarian efforts, ODI Working Paper 285 http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/odi-publications/working-papers/285-science-complexity.pdf


4

International aid takes place in the context of a dense and globalised web of connections and relationships between individuals, communities, institutions, nations and groups of nations. The reality of this system needs to be analysed and dealt with, therefore:

• Multidimensionality, interdependency and interconnectedness should be recognised;

• Messes, problems and puzzles should be dealt with using appropriate approaches;

• Analysis may need to be in line with historical research – not ‘did x cause y?’ but ‘what

happened and why?’

• Selection and synthesis of data becomes as important as analysis;

• Different perspectives should be taken into account.

Non-linearity is another ‘complexity science’ concept. Many planning frameworks visualise change as linear, based on cause-effect relationships. Complex systems exhibit non-linear behaviour. In an interconnected and interdependent system, small events may trigger huge effects and huge efforts may have negligible effects. In complex systems dynamics are frequently non-linear. The need within the development sector is to challenge linearity, wherever it may lie. This may mean challenging assumptions, mental models and implicit theories. It may mean working to understand the

association and interaction among variables of a system (see Bob Williams below). It requires clarity about the implications for logframe-based linear logics. ‘Complexity’ thinking may be a concept that can help rethink long standing issues or trade-offs which may in fact be about difference in mindsets and assumptions, as well as goals. Above all, complexity concepts can support the intuition and navigation of practitioners.

Reactions from the Group7 What is complexity thinking? We should not try to control the concept of complexity – it is so diverse. Nor should we think too simply about applying a concept that emerged from trying to understand biophysical systems to human systems. We also need to be careful that complexity doesn’t become used as an excuse for no accountability. We should not replace common sense with complexity. Let’s challenge the notion of unplanned change. Complexity thinkers should not overestimate themselves. Nevertheless, the insights that it is giving are already very useful. What are the implications of thinking in complexities in terms of a paradigm shift? Complexity approaches do not describe what will happen, which has implications for planning. They help explain how to go about doing things. What seems to be needed are different qualities: being more adaptive, being more anticipatory, work more based on network thinking, be more realistic, be more modest and be more honest (values). We deal with logframes when dealing with donors, but manage complexity in reality (e.g. by using outcome mapping). Donors impose linear methods but others in the aid web accept and reinforce this. Do we need to adapt logframes or chuck them out? Can they be used in complex situations when not wielded as a blueprint? We need to explore the issues of leadership in relation to this more, as it is important in facilitating. Complexity asks for flexibility – we need to keep adapting to changes that occur in situations of complexity. We need to think of ways to institutionalise flexibility (mechanisms such as dialogues) and create procedures that enhance this, including those related to using and accounting for budgets.

7 Drawn from sub-group discussions on Ramalingam’s presentation.


5

2.2 Jim Woodhill - The Cynefin Framework - What to do about complexity?

Implications for learning, participation, strategy and leadership8

Complexity is all fine and well but in the end, assuming that ‘yes, complexity exists’, how do we deal with it? An important framework that helps with the new forms of sense making that are required is the Cynefin framework (see Figure 1). This sense -making framework was developed by Dave Snowden and colleagues, and recognizes that situations differ, consisting of different mixes of more and less complex parts.

Figure 1. The Cynefin Framework

ComplicatedComplex

Chaotic Simple

DisorderUnordered Ordered

Source: Cognitive Edge (www.cognitive-edge.com)

The Cynefin framework9 divides the space in which we make decisions or solve problems into five domains: Simple or Known, in which the relationship between cause and effect is obvious to all, there is a high degree of control and clear procedures. Complicated or Knowable, in which the relationship between cause and effect requires analysis or some other form of investigation and/or the application of expert knowledge. 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, focus on testing (example: how do you work with different stakeholders in different situations?). Chaotic, in which there is no relationship between cause and effect at systems level, the approach is to Act - Sense – Respond. The main focus is on acting. The fifth domain is disorder, when you don't know what you are dealing with: not knowing/no agreement, interpretation on preference of action, conflicts. The simple and complicated domains are ordered domains. The complex and chaotic domains are unordered domains. The framework does not imply that situations are static. There are relationships and interactions between the domains that are helpful for strategising problem solving. For example, the boundary

8 This section is based on Woodhill’s presentation.

9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin

About Jim Woodhill: Jim is the director of the Capacity Building and Institutional Change Programme of Wageningen International. http://www.cdic.wur.nl/UK/


6

between ‘simple’ and ‘chaos’ is a well-known vulnerable area when excessive and blind adherence to procedures in the simple domain can, when suddenly dysfunctional, slip a system into chaos – and not just a more complicated situation. Another relationship between domains is that of the ‘complicated’ in relation to the complex– too much focus on the expert role in the complicated can hinder innovation that could come about from a more ‘let’s see what happens’ approach to problem solving. Furthermore, over time, what is ‘complex’ might become clearer and elements can become more aligned with ‘complicated’ forms of sense-making or even ‘simple’ ones. The Cynefin framework not only helps to make sense, but it helps to make sense of sense-making. Three key implications that merit highlighting are: - the need for different learning strategies for different situations; - challenging the notion of 'learning lessons' and good and best practice ambitions of many development organisations, as only of value for certain types of situations and issues (the ‘simple’ and ‘complicated’ domains; and - recognising the value of ‘probing’ as an action strategy, which means 'investing in failure'.

Reactions from the Group10 The framework seems to offer several advantages. At a basic level, terminology, a new language is not unimportant. The framework provides vocabulary to convey new ideas that resonate with experience. The notion of four (five) domains explains and legitimises differences in learning and accountability approaches. This gives space for an explicitly differentiated P, M&E framework, as long as we recognise that most projects have bits in all domains. Each domain (level) requires own learning/M&E process, and therefore legitimises diversity. It opens up space beyond the “one solution fits all” mentality that often abounds. Seeing the differentiated domains helps to manage expectations in terms of learning processes, and fairer accountability for different types of ‘outputs’. By opening the door for allowing ‘complexity’ to be recognised, it appears to open up space for dealing with seemingly less tangible issues, changes, and processes. The Cynefin framework offers a diagnostic tool to recognise situations and strategise in relation to the characteristics of the situation. Different dimensions of a problem can be in different domains. It can help to analyse and understand what occurred. The diagnosis is shaped by boundaries and perspectives (see Williams’ contributions). Three additional issues were clarified that underpin the framework: naturalistic sense-making, weak signals, and safe-fail experimentation. First, is the importance of distinguishing between naturalistic and idealistic forms of sense-making. Naturalistic sense-making is based on evolutionary biology, and why we have evolved as humans. It brings us to valuing inductive processes, which relate to stories (narratives), or as Snowden says “faction” (the real life mix of fiction and fact). Stories help to avoid ‘gaming of the targets’, i.e. manipulation of actions to achieve pre-desired or pre-set results. Second, is the need to understand ‘weak signals’ and the role they play in innovation and change processes. Most information systems zoom in on and only hear ‘strong signals’. But how do we pick up on the ‘weak signals’ that hint at emerging issues of importance, be they positive or negative? And how do we resource this? Third, Snowden distinguishes between safe-fail experimentation, which is at home in the complex domain and fai l-safe design, which is characteristic of the simple and complicated domains. Typically, in

10

Drawn from sub-group discussions on Woodhill’s presentation.

Noteworthy reading #2 Woodhill, J. 2008. ‘How Institutions Evolve: Shaping behaviour.’ By Jim Woodhill. The Broker. Issue 10. http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/en/articles/Shaping-behaviour


7

development, the logframe is approaches with a fail-safe design mindset, rather than seeing it as a safe-fail experiment. However, questions remain: -How do we know, which criteria exist to help us know when we’re dealing with which domain? And how to deal with possibly different perspectives on which domain is pertinent? -How can we zoom in and simplify, and then how can we re-aggregate the ‘bits’ when one is dealing with a diverse set of initiatives? -How to act in ‘disorder’ – sit down and debate which domain and which approach(es) to sense-making make most sense? -What exactly does each domain imply in terms of learning strategies and which forms of M&E belong where?

2.3 Bob Williams - Systems Thinking and Complexity Science11

‘Systems thinking’ is an extensive and diverse field of ideas, concepts and approaches. A recent review (see ‘Noteworthy Reading #3) identified three common concepts that define systemic thinking: - inter-relationships; - perspectives; and - boundaries. Inter-relationships. The study of inter-relationships is central to any systems inquiry. This concept is well known and has fuelled many methods and approaches (e.g. systems dynamics and viable systems models). The fundamental question: what is the nature of the interrelationships within a specific situation? What is the structure? A systemic approach to inter-relationships will help navigate through complexity by posing the following general questions: What is the nature of inter-relationships within the situation? What is the structure of these inter-relationships? What are the processes between them? What are the patterns that emerge from those processes, what are the results? Why does this matter? To whom? In what context? Perspectives. Perspectives help to explain and predict unanticipated behaviours since they give us a window into motivation. Some approaches have been developed with perspectives in mind, notably soft systems methodology. People see a problem often from different perspectives. They disagree because they see problems in different domains (see the Cynefin framework above). The fundamental issue: the dominant perspective decides what is ‘in’ the system and what lies ‘out’. A systemic approach to perspectives will help navigate through complexity by posing the following general questions: - What are the different ways in which this situation can be understood? - How are these different understandings going to affect the way in which people judge the success of this endeavour? - How will it affect their behaviour – especially when things go wrong from their perspective? With what result and significance? Boundaries. Who (people) or what (ideas) gains and loses from a decision? It is important to study and critique boundary decisions and who made them. Not many approaches deal successfully with this notion of boundaries.

11

This section is based on William’s presentation and group discussions.

About Bob Williams: Bob is an independent consultant in programme evaluation, meeting design and facilitation and organizational development. http://users.actrix.co.nz/bobwill/

Noteworthy reading #3 ‘Systems Concepts in Evaluation: An expert Anthology’ was edited by Bob Williams and Iraj Imam. Go to Bob’s ‘systems stuff’ page (see link in box above) and click on the book title for ordering information.


8

A systemic approach to boundaries will help navigate through complexity by posing the following general questions: What differences make a difference12 to the way in which a situation is understood of behaves? Who or what is being excluded, marginalised or made victim by the way in which this situation is being viewed or is operating? What does this say about what is “valued”, by whom, in this situation? The LogFrame is a common and much maligned tool in the design, administration, monitoring and evaluation of development projects. How well does it work? It is just a tool. And well done, it is not that bad for handling perspectives. For inter-relationships it is a bit clumsy but possible. But it is really bad for boundaries. The important ‘assumptions’ column can be very useful to set the boundaries, so the tool can be used in a more systemic way, in a much more intelligent way, than it usually is. Reactions from the Group13 Perspectives are not only about people but also within people. It is all about mapping and not about ‘reality’. Mapping is only mapping and does not represent the territory itself. So let’s not confuse models with reality. Seeking different perspectives will raise different questions about what works for whom and under which circumstances. We are often (too) focused on objectives and do not consider enough what actually works. The three notions appear related to institutions (inter-relationships), knowledge (perspectives) and power (boundaries). These concepts relate fundamentally to development. Our understanding is partial. My horizons are limited by the place where I stand. We cannot understand all perspectives. But if we work with others and understand power and power relationships, the work can shift. In defining a plan, power must be taken into account. People are becoming dissatisfied with interventions being forced to show ‘success (eg MDGs). Yet there is also the perception that there are too many failures. We need alternative ways to frame efforts. Failure is the product of the method being used to evaluate, not necessarily the efforts. Systems thinking – does it enable a more in-depth analysis before undertaking action? It appears to be a tool for thinking, very conceptual, but not for practice. How can we use this with people who do not think that way?

2.4 Rosalind Eyben - Power, Relations and Theories of Change in Development14

How does change happen and how can development organisations support changes that enhance equity and social justice? My approach is personal, partial15 and political. How we theorise about ‘change’ shapes our efforts at purposeful intervention. These efforts may have unintended consequences of sustaining or reinforcing inequitable relations of power and injustice. Thus, reflexivity and positionality are important. Putting oneself in the picture is necessary, as how we position ourselves will influence what we can understand. Furthermore, we need to recognise that development has become more and more ambitious - ‘aspiration’ has been confused with what is ‘achievable’. We need to be explicit about our theories, for which I offer three inter-connected sets of theories: - Theories of society and societal change; - Substantialism and relationalism;

12

Gregory Bateson famously defined information as “the difference that makes a difference”. 13

Based on group’s thoughts related to Williams’ presentation. 14

This section is based on Eyben’s presentation and group discussions. 15

I.e. biased and realizing that it is from one’s own perspective.

About Rosalind Eyben: Rosalind is a social anthropologist with an interest in history. She is Research Fellow at the Participation, Power and Social Change group of the Institute of Development Studies. (http://www.ids.ac.uk/go/research-teams/participation-team)


9

- Complexity. Theories of societal change in the Western intellectual tradition. I suggest five theories of societal change: (1) belief in the aggregate actions of individual; (2) belief in change through technological progress; (3) valuing the effect of new beliefs and ideas; (4) focusing on the merit of purposive individual and collective action; and (5) seeing change as occurring through structural conflicts. These are not either/or options but people tend to strongly value one or some theories of change above others.

Substantionalism and relationalism. Most of the time we carry both perspectives. Substantionalism views the world as separate autonomous entities. Development aid from this perspective is based on: money, technical assistance, aid as catalyst, aid architecture, incentives, mechanisms, outcomes/results, accountability between binary sets of actors, and aid chains. Relationalism sees entities as defined and shaped by their

relations with others. Development aid from this perspective is based on: patterns of social relations, shaping and being shaped, donor as well as recipients being changed by the aid relationship, systems, processes, emergent change, solidarity, clientelism/patrimonialism, and webs. In other words, substantialism sees aid as a catalyst: a catalyst does not ‘change’ as such, it simply triggers. We are all part of the system and shaped by it, as well as shaping it. From a relational perspective, aid ‘brings it home’. The way we report aid influences the receivers of aid but also the givers. Perceptions of power differ between the two theories of change. Substantialists in development see power as: a resource, identifies ‘power-holders’, works on the basis of mechanisms to tackle power imbalances, and approaches accountability as sets of dyadic relations. Relationalists see power is everywhere – not a scarce resource. They work through the basis of multiple, interconnected and emergent relations, and seek to expand the social limits of what is possible in webs of relations. Complexity approaches towards development aid. This theory of change, or one’s version of it, connects to several aspects of development discourse and practice. Important is recognising the disagreements on what the problems are, and that these change through contestation. We operate with many uncertainties as to how improvements might be made. This implies being open to risk taking. Can complexity thinking help develop a kind of planned opportunism and facilitate working with seeming paradoxes? A useful perspective may be that of a ‘messy partnership’ (Guijt 2008, see cartoon): many stakeholders with different perspectives and histories and different boundaries, but still working together. The tough parts in relation to ‘theories of change’ include: -Seeing ourselves as partial and in the system; -Managing multiple accountabilities (MAD), not just a financial one towards the donors; -Investing in relationships rather than themes, which means re-educating donors; -Going public about failure, as this may lead to declining funding streams; -Being realistic about strategic planning, as this might constrain spotting and supporting local self-generated processes; -Dealing with international NGOs’ focus on growth which constrains agility and flexibility; and -Seeing that bureaucratic organisations, which constitute a historical form derived from substantialist thinking, have good reasons why they are anti-relational.

Noteworthy reading #4 Eyben, R. Power, Mutual Accountability and Responsibility in the Practice of International Aid: A Relational Approach. IDS Working Paper 305. 2008. http://www.ntd.co.uk/idsbookshop/details.asp?id=1048


10

Bringing these strands together in relation to complexity thinking, the most important question is looking at how the ways we think shape our actions. Complexity is just another perspective, not something ‘out there’. With which explicit and implicit assumptions about ‘the world’ and our part in it, are we acting? Assumptions that we need to consider are related to: -Our visions about interventions; -Our processes for planning and resourcing them; and -Our processes for making sense of process.

Reactions from the Group16 What’s in a name - the development sector? Isn’t this notion too broad and should we narrow it down? It should not be narrowed down to just the Dutch development sector. Perhaps talk in terms of aid-industry or aid-chain, as there is development beyond the industry. Differentiating it is important as power relationships are different at different levels. But thinking in levels is not helpful. Eyben’s model of development resource flows shows the boundaries: it is not a chain but a web (see Figure 2). Everybody can locate themselves in this web. Within these boundaries, of course, relations and actions are influenced by the outside. Is the distinction between substantialism-relationalism the same as linear-non linear? In complexity thinking, there is no necessary correlation between linear-nonlinear and substantialist-relationalist. For example, Ramalingam’s paper seems to be substantialist, yet discussed complexity. It contains much language around autonomous actors and catalysts, there is much ontology. The substantialism-relationalism distinction shows that one can be both, it shows that one is partial. And isn’t this issue very theoretical? Different philosophical ideas help understand problems and problem perceptions. It is not about them being mutually exclusive or potentially symbiotic. The challenge is to recognise the different perspectives at play (substantialism-relationalism) and then to relate to the other perspective and work with it. A key challenge is that people with a substantial perspective tend to be reluctant to learn from the other perspective. Failure vs weakness. How can we convey ‘failures’ as learning experience to people who do not perceive development from a complexity perspective, without this coming across as a total showing of weakness? Should we perhaps use the term ‘mistakes’ or an innovation that didn’t work out? People do things with good intentions, but errors occur often small issues were not taken into account. Under slightly different circumstances a failure might be a success. Some people see failures as successes. Penicillin, for example, was discovered as a 'mistake'. But it is difficult to show failures, though this depends who you are talking about and to. Few people and organisations appear interested in learning from failure. The bigger the organisation gets, the more difficult learning is (change is learning). It will get much harder to operate on the chaos side as there are high political stakes, leaving little space for learning. However, every organisation has change agents who are open to ‘failure’. Seeking coalitions of the willing is perhaps an important idea. The inner substantialist and changing mindsets. In ourselves, we still find the substantialist perspective. We want to believe it. Yet through aid, we can only create opportunities; the achievements are out of donors’ hands. The analysis should go further towards lessons learnt that focus on the journey, not the output. This requires a change in mindset.

16

Drawn from sub-group discussions on Eyben’s presentation.

Figure 2. Development as a web, not chain


11

Power. Complexity theory refers to uncertainty and relations. But what about power, which does not seem to be discussed? Does this relate to its base in biological/ecological sciences? For example, how does power operate in the construction of boundaries? Someone has the power to draw these boundaries. Who decides if you are in a mess, a puzzle or a problem? Again, issues of power are central. There is much ‘hidden power’ – influencing what is on/off the agenda. What is special about complexity as a perspective? What does it mean in practise? Complexity is a lens. It is not the situation but how the situation is perceived and how power is perceived. We all have a partial perspective(s). Design of planning processes taking into account multiple realities is what participatory planning and MSP has long tried to value and do. But the image of ‘the partial position’ is new and constitutes a nice argument for technocrats about the merits of participatory processes. And a final note of optimism. Aid sector is in an identity crisis. There is confusion and thus defensive behaviour. ‘Believing’ in complexity theory allows for recognition that very small changes, perhaps in this room, will make a difference in the end. It provides a positive framework. Perhaps complexity and development are made for each other....

3. Clarifying and Converging at the Close of the Day

3.1 Areas for Clarification

Participants were asked to identify which clarification they needed, in order to start applying some of the ideas they had heard today to development processes. Some questions focused on problematic issues in the development sector, such as:

• How can you be accountable using complexity thinking?

• What does planning look like in a complex context?

• Other questions were practical in nature:

• What is the process of setting the boundaries?

• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the different tools?

• Are there any examples of different approaches that help to think differently?

• A third set of questions related to the wider systemic context:

• What are the processes at work that sustain linear approaches? What is good about the current system? It has existed for so long...

• How do big/bureaucratic organisations match with a complex environment?

• Clarification on complexity and systems approaches, how are they related? And one question fundamentally questioned the added value:

• Is there new wine in what we have been talking about today? So is ‘complexity’ about putting old wine in old bottles, ie applying existing concepts known in other sectors to our sector of development? We are just opening the wine of this thing called ‘complexity’ and have a general feeling about it but translation to practice is not yet clear. The concept appears huge and needs hands and feet. Let’s not forget that some of the current approach/paradigm/ system does work. Why does it work where it works? What can we learn from that? Perhaps we already apply some aspects but don’t know it or don’t want to reveal it. We practice some deception in the system and subversion towards the system, and know full well that this is a result of ‘complexity’ in action. We promise more than we deliver and other results and processes than we deliver. But it seems necessary in order to survive and adapt to shifting circumstances. Perhaps it is as simple as being explicit about complexity forces people to be more modest.

3.2 Converging Interests

Participants were asked to form small groups and suggest three areas of interest or concern around which discussions could be structured for day 2. Five themes were identified around which sub-groups


12

were formed for Day 2: accountability; planning and logframes; capacity building; policy processes (aid systems / structures / donors and aid policies); and implications for NGOs at the interface.

Day 2. Translating Ideas into Practice

4. Complexity as Inspiration for Innovation: Reflections by Robert Chambers

The following is a selective and loosely interpreted narrative of Robert Chambers’ reflections on complexity and Day that started off the second day of the seminar. We have to puzzle about complexity science and find out what it can mean for those working in development processes. Or is it old wine in new bottles? Are these ideas potentially powerful for international development? Interesting ideas and concepts that came up for me yesterday include the following. Subversion. Are we sustaining unhealthy systems (that deny complexity) with subversive behaviour? We are engaged in a power system and what implication does ‘complexity’ have on this? Does complexity thinking enable us to change the system? ‘Messy partnerships17’. If these types of social configurations are so prevalent within development, what do we need to do and think about to deal with these more effectively? Sense-making. Inspiration can be drawn from the Cynefin framework (see Woodhill’s session on Day 1), a sense-making framework. The importance of distinguishing between naturalistic vs idealised sense-making (see Snowden’s material). We articulate an idealised way of thinking about change (with logframe the crowning glory of this!), yet actual think about change differently. How do we reconcile this contradiction? Weak signals. Unexpected outcomes, not captured by present monitoring systems. Messes, puzzles and problems. The distinction that needs to be made between these types of situations (see Ramalingam’s session on Day 1) - and the implications for our actions, expectations, and procedures. Perspectives, especially one’s own. The biggest blind spot in development is perhaps reflecting on one's own perspectives (see Williams’ session on Day 1). Boundaries, a notion that were never before mentioned (see Williams’ session on Day 1). Stories and ‘Faction’. Snowden refers to ‘faction’ or fact and fiction (working with information that contains meaning, not just facts and not just imagined stories). The importance of stories is increasingly heard and voiced. One option is that of ‘tagged stories’, which is particular to the Cynefin framework. Gaming of targets. There is a need to recognise methodologies that are open for manipulation (or gaming). For example, the logframe as an instrument of power that reduces the transaction costs for funding agencies, but increases them for target groups.

17

See Guijt (2008) who coined the term to describe a convergence of diverse societal actors for concerted action that is

characterised by continual evolution of composition of partners driven by common concerns and rooted in relationships

of trust and reciprocity.

About Robert Chambers: Robert is a Research Associate in the Participation, Power and Social Change group of the Institute of Development Studies. (http://www.ids.ac.uk/go/research-teams/participation-team)


13

What I missed yesterday, however, was the mention of emergence and irreversibility, i.e. that some changes are too late to readjust. Complexity, diversity and power. It is important to look at complexity, diversity and power as a set of interrelated concepts. What makes it work? Why does it work? There are thousands of methodologies, yet there are some very dominant (notably the logframe that ordinary people cannot make work). Do we need methodological diversity? We need different accountability systems and we need differentiating methodologies. We need alternatives to the logframe. Maybe we can tinker, change and improve it. Or can we think of how to use a multiplicity of methods, enabling diversity in creativity? Empowerment through minimum rules. Emerging self-organizing systems with human organisations and behaviour require enabling minimum rules and commitment on the part of the actors. Example: MYRADA, an NGO in South India, has catalysed thousands of women’s self-help savings groups insisting on only two things: transparent and accurate accounting and rotating leadership. This is a self-organising system on the edge of chaos. Planning and action in a complex context: the best people to deal with it are the people who live in it. Decentralization and empowerment are key guiding values. Reversed power relations through non-negotiable principles. Principles can be expressed as values, objectives or behaviours and these can be presented as non-negotiable. Example: APMSS, the non-negotiables of Mahila Samatha, adopted principles to be kept in mind during all stages, and which are not open to negotiation. This NGO for women empowerment is supported and protected by an influential board of trustees, some of them former government officials. The nature of these non-negotiable principles is neither macro-principle nor micro-principle. They are rather meso-principles special to the organisation and its philosophy. They indicate attitudes and guide behaviour without saying in detail what should be done. They both express and reinforce a culture of commitment. Donors love this. The non-negotiables have empowered women, the staff and the organisation. The question is, should we ask our development partners: what are your non-negotiables? And this brings us back to the merit of a ‘complexity perspective’. Does it have to do with the nature of the universe? Are we tapping into something that can bring us deeper? The fundamental question here is: Can we use these concepts to help us all towards change and organisations towards changes?

5. Approaches – Making it Happen Five parallel sessions were held, with two rounds each, enabling participants to attend two sessions of their choice. These sessions were practical in nature, focusing on approaches that could start to bring some hands-on ideas to bringing a complexity perspective to development.

5.1 Options for Narratives – Lorraine Alison Mancey

If we need to deal with complexity better, then we need knowledge systems and processes that align with that18. Over the past few years, the use of narratives has emerged as a serious addition – or perhaps alternative as some would argue – to indicator-based understanding. This surge of interest stems from a growing recognition that humans are pattern, rather than information, processors. We continuously see and assimilate ‘fragments’ of information to shape our understanding and actions. Some argue that stories are an evolutionary mechanism for inductive reasoning: “As Plato said, ‘Those who tell stories rule society.’ … Stories are vital to us because the primary way we process information is through induction. Induction is essentially reasoning by pattern recognition. … We like stories because they feed our induction thinking machine, they give us material to find patterns in – stories are a way in which we learn.” (Beinhocker 2006, 126-7)

18

This paragraph is not based on Mancey’s presentation and is solely the responsibility of the report writer(Guijt).

Noteworthy Reading #5 Robert recommends....: John Gribbin ‘Deep Simplicity’ Steven Johnson ‘Emergence’ M. Mitchell Waldrop ‘Complexity’


14

Mancey19 shared theories on how to think about narratives and sense-making – and how to apply these ideas. She says: “A complexity view implies more attention to meta-monitoring: asking what people know and what that means” and explicitly seeking multiple narratives. Hence narrative inquiry and sense-making are two sides of the same coin: “It is through language organized into discourse, narratives and stories that we come to experience our world” (from Mancey’s presentation). The core theorists on sense-making to whom she refers are: Barbara Dervin, Karl Weick and Dave Snowden. The narrative theorists on whom she draws are: David Boje, Barbara Czarniawska and Steve Denning. In the discussions triggered by her presentation, participants asked for clarification on the difference between a story and a narrative and whether everything is a story or narrative. Someone commented: “People tell you stories but there is a narrative within all stories”, and another said “A narrative consists of stories, while a story is a description, the individual personal experience”. Participants discussed the importance of voice, whose story comes through and how. Comments related to the conditions for good story telling to be possible, commenting that size of group, facilitation, organisational culture, and the presence of outsiders or certain insiders all influence what stories are shared. Story-based approaches need greater legitimacy. How can we create more powerful, story-based approaches and free them from the stigmatization of ‘anecdotal’? In such an approach, the essence of using narratives should be made possible: to create space for sharing how we perceive the world, knowing about issues that might otherwise not be known, see connections, emotions, and context. It is not just about hearing the stories - the value of telling the story should not be underestimated. We also need to work at sense-making from among diverse, perhaps conflictual stories.

5.2 Managing for Results while Navigating Complexity – Eric Korsten and Heinz Greijn

SNV has been working with an approach that seeks to prove (accountability), improve (learning), and move (steering) based on assessing results. Understanding the actors is a crucial part of this approach towards ‘navigating complexity’. Actors are perceived to be the impact boundary of SNV and, therefore, the programme logic per country will look very different. SNV’s approach is based on setting these impact boundaries, and using minimum (corporate) standards. For each assignment, SNV advisors map the various actors, beneficiaries and stakeholders at all levels, in ‘actor constellation maps’. SNV20 defines an ‘actor constellation’ as a formation of interrelated organizations, groups, networks, or even influential individuals, relevant for a basic service/value chain that together constitute a ‘system’. An actor constellation map is a graphical representation of actors in a specific constellation and the various connections and interrelationships between them. The objective is to have an accessible, well organised and contextualised overview of relevant actors in a given area of work and their interrelationships – including with SNV. These maps are a supportive tool in understanding the links between various actors and their roles and power in the process. An actor constellation map also includes a brief description of the dynamics of, and between, actors. The actor constellation map is thoroughly reviewed once a year. The actor constellation map consists of: an introduction page to the sector/chain; a map depicting all the relevant actors; and for each client a ‘client brief’. The actor maps (see Figure 3 as an example) are constructed based on arrows depicting specific relationships, such as who provides capacity development services to whom, who participates with whom or provides funding to whom.

19

Presentation at:

http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/File/navigatingcomplexity/presentation%20on%20narrative%20and%20complexity%

20for%20NLx.pdf 20

Presentation at:

http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/File/navigatingcomplexity/SNV%20managing%20for%20results%20while%20navigati

ng%20complexity.pdf


15

In discussions triggered by their presentation, participants commented on the issues of power as influencing how the boundaries are drawn. They also questioned the need for baselines in complex situations.

5.3 Institutional Evolution and Innovation – Jim Woodhill, Wageningen International

“Development is mostly about transforming institutions – cultural values, legal frameworks, market mechanisms and political processes. If aid is failing, it is in part because agencies misunderstand institutions and how they change.” (http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/en/articles/Shaping-behaviour) There is a strong link between institutions, institutional change and complexity according to Jim Woodhill21. As Woodhill (2008) says: “Intuitively we all know that much of what we deal with in life is ‘complex’. Yet the scientific and engineering mindset of the 20th century has too often led us to try to manage complex situations linearly. ... The development sector seems to be embracing the complexity idea. Understanding institutions is central to grasping the complexity and dynamics of social change. What makes social systems complex is the multitude of interacting institutions, combined, of course, with the often unpredictable nature of human behaviour.” Social change is essentially about institutional change. Woodhill highlights that no one consciously designed institutional frameworks that guide our societies – they evolved. And they are difficult to change, with power located in institutional arrangements. Questions that become important to ask are: Whether institutions create simply rules that enable complex behaviour? To what extent do institutions evolve and they can be ‘designed’? Working with institutions requires thinking systemically – considering interrelations, boundaries and perspectives (see Williams’ presentation Day 1). Woodhill illustrated his ideas with a concrete example about including small-scale producers in modern markets. “An institutional and complexity perspective offers no straightforward solutions, but has several principle-based implications. First, a deeper practical understanding of institutional innovation and the link to complexity is needed by development practitioners and policy makers. ... (2) Aid must focus not on short-term concrete results but on long term capacities and processes that enable societies to be learning-oriented and highly adaptive. ... (3) Those engaged in development need to distinguish between the simple, complicated, complex and chaotic, and recognize that each requires very different ways of intervening. Dealing with the complex means investing in multiple ‘experiments’ and scaling up what works – an evolutionary design approach to development intervention.” (Woodhill 2008) In the discussions triggered by his presentation, participants commented on the need for more reflexivity (double-loop learning) in aid, which suffers from a considerable degree of tunnel vision. Bringing in different perspectives would be helpful to understand change, and overseas development aid’s contribution to that, differently and better. A fundamental flaw appears to be that the boundary is wrong – perhaps ODS is outmoded as a force of (institutional) change.

5.4 Governance Outcome Framework – Frank van Schoubroeck, ILEIA

How to start intervening in a situation of complexity? Frank van Schoubroeck22 presented a case study of navigating action for sustainable agriculture work within an oasis in Tunisia. When local culture dynamics, market mechanisms, government legislation interact on – and threaten – an agricultural system, what are the options for NGOs to engage with the required institutional change? A first step requires many discussions with as many diverse perspectives as possible. The GO (Governance-Outcome) Framework enables the user to identify the ‘hot issues’ that threaten the overall goal, in this case ‘oasis conservation’. The idea is to separate workable ‘hot issues’ as part of an overall goal through a situational analysis. Then for each hot issue, an outcomes map and an actor map is created. Actors are aligned around the ‘hot issue’ so as to enable each other to realise objectives. This leads to a GO

21

Presentation at: http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/File/navigatingcomplexity/Institutions%20and%20E.pdf 22

Presentation at:

http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/File/navigatingcomplexity/GOframe%20for%20Navigating%20Complexity%2008052

6.pdf


16

framework matrix to structure the diverse actions in terms of actor-specific activities (with budgets), conditions that are needed for change and indicators of progress or success. In the discussions triggered by Frank’s presentation, participants were intrigued to notice that various features of complexity and systems thinking had a place in the GO framework. For example, taking an agricultural system, looking at the full range of actors engaged, the hot issues, the threats all contribute to building a systemic perspective. The hot issues emerge from multiple perspectives Focusing on the idea of ‘hot issues’ respects emergence and helps to start shaping boundaries (although who defines what is a ‘hot issue’ needs to be addressed). A generic multi-stakeholder process is too large. By taking a ‘hot issue’ focus, it helps to create actionable energised sub-systems. By working on creating conditions for changed activities, the GO framework recognises and works with interdependencies. And a final salient point that participants noted was that explicitly contradictions and exceptions to the perceived crisis, i.e. actual experiences that go against the so-called hot issue, concrete examples innovation were being identified and offered as routes for goal realisation.

5.5 Navigating and Managing toward Impact Framework – Seerp Wigboldus, Wageningen International

The essence of the Wageningen International approach was shared by one of its co-creators, Seerp Wigboldus23 in figure 4. To provide better guidance than currently available methodologies (such as logframe analysis, project cycle management), three levels need to be improved: enhancing conceptual clarity, methodological clarity and process clarity. Conceptual clarity means better understanding of core drivers of change and how these intervene, i.e. clarifying your theory of change. Methodological clarity requires translating conceptual clarity into collaborative work processes. This should provide focus, sequencing and scope of the intervention. Process clarity relates to on-the-ground operational processes that guide daily actions. To realise such clarity requires a different kind of capacity that goes beyond knowledge. It requires strategic thinking (see slides 4 and 5 of Wigboldus’ presentation). Liedtka (1998) inspired a list of capacities that this would require: systems thinking, intent-focus (beyond looking at phenomena), thinking in terms of timeframes (scenario perspectives), and working with hypothetical perspectives (what if... then; assumptions). Central in this is the need to shift from dependent capabilities to independent capabilities in relation to familiar and unfamiliar problems24: Dependent capabilities when dealing with familiar problems: Requiring detailed explanation about specific methods, including guidance on when and how to use those. Interdependent capabilities when dealing with familiar problems: Ability to choose from methodical options whilst requiring detailed guidance on application of those. Interdependent capabilities when dealing with unfamiliar problems: Ability to apply principles of good practice whilst requiring detailed explanation about methods. Independent capabilities when dealing with unfamiliar problems: Ability to choose, apply, recombine, adapt and innovate principles and methods to fit problem and context. The Wageningen Approach hinges on the principle that strategic partnerships operate from agreements of how a programme will navigate in a dynamic context, where operational plans are expected to adhere to quality standards, rather than results standards. Agreements are based on various descriptions (see Figure 4).

23

Presentation at: http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/File/navigatingcomplexity/Pres%20IDND.pdf 24

Adapted from Stephenson, J & S. Weil (1992) Quality in Learning: A Capability Approach in Higher Education, London

Kogan Page.


17

Figure 4: Wageningen International’s tentative framework: Navigating Complexity and Managing for Impact through Partnerships

Participants in Seerp’s session asked how this related to Outcome Mapping. An example of DGIS’ openness to alternative approaches such as OM was shared, illustrating that solidity of methodology seems to be important rather than preference for a particular type of methodology. Others remembered that this approach related to the ‘process approach’ that was more prevalent some decades ago but seem to have been sidelined by the focus on program logic based thinking and protocols. The use of basic rules and principles to guide complex processes was noted as an interesting alternative to a fixation on strict methodologies. Finally, a word of caution was given about vocabulary. While new words can help break from old ways of working and norms of success, they can also create confusion.

6. Thematic Explorations The last block on Day 2 was spent in sub-groups that were formed thematically based on concerns and questions articulated by participants at the end of Day 1. Each group discussed what the implications are of the ‘ideas’ discussed on Day 1 and the emerging approaches that were shared on Day 2 for their theme. Issues to consider included the nature of interventions and expectations, planning and resource allocation, understanding progress and effectiveness, and so forth. Participants were also asked to formulate messages for key development actors if some of the implications were to be dealt with. Reporting from the groups was uneven hence only two thematic discussions are shared here: accountability and policy processes. The other three unreported themes were: planning and logframes, capacity building, and the implications for NGOs at the interface.

6.1 Theme 1: Accountability

The ‘accountability’ issue pertains to planning and monitoring and evaluation. We need to differentiate in discussions and systems between legal (financial) accountability about results and strategic accountability on the quality of process, the goals, the agents. The current focus of accountability is rather singularly focused on SMART objectives.


18

Three questions are important: who is accountable, to whom and for what. How these questions are answered depends on the boundaries you draw and the perspectives you involve. So systems thinking can be useful. Accountability reporting requires attention to strong signals as well as ‘weak signals’ (see Cynefin framework discussions, Day 1). These signals allow those involved to see beyond their own intentions. Power and (inter)dependence shape the lines of accountability procedures. Who has the power to shift the boundaries of accountability? Especially when you depend on the money source? Can we envisage an M&E system with trust more central as the basis of funding? This requires congruence between staffs who understand and allocate resource and guide the efforts, and those who process reporting. It requires an ODA system in which accountability intentions (protocols) are congruent with formats (incentives). Let’s imagine a new type of accountability report based on: -emergence and the journey, including the changes en route; -sensitivity to the context and to starting conditions – is what we are doing the best fit?; -expressions of diversity/difference of perspective; -strong and weak signals – have they been looked for, seen, attended to (see, act, attend model) changes in power as part of the process; -demonstrate results in relation to ‘hot issues’ (how to use stories legitimately and convincingly); -the quality of the process of getting there (sustainability, power, learning en route); and evidence of learning. We still need to tackle the tricky question of non-project contexts. How do we deal with the difficulty of aggregation of disparate efforts? Working with ‘averages’ destroys the heat and passion. We need to learn to move beyond anecdote fragments to congruence of findings. The Cognitive Edge approach to narratives, with prompting questions that are tagged and allow patterns to emerge is one option. And finally, how do we relate learning and accountability? Is learning the larger idea, with financial accountability a subset? Or are they two separate ideas with separate systems and processes?

6.2 Theme 4: Policy processes (aid systems/structures/donors and aid policies)

The theme of policy processes in relation to complexity and systems thinking offers many angles to explore. In particular, participants were interested in exploring current dissatisfaction with ODA and some of the more problematic aspects about the aid system/policies. Recurrent and deep dissatisfaction with the way aid works, in spite of changing approaches, seems to imply that underlying issues have never been addressed. The critique has been very superficial. Aid has become so simple that it is about to flip into chaos (based on the Cynefin framework notion, see Woodhill’s presentation Day 1). It is balancing on the edge with chaos. Lack of reflection on the donor machinery itself, creating defensive reactions. Perhaps complexity thinking can help make some of these assumptions explicit and bring a more systemic perspective to the debate. There are many reasons why the aid industry is not working but the analytical methods are missing to indicate which is the most important. For example, perhaps it is not so much policy that is at fault, as its implementation? A disconnected, inward looking system with no accountability keeps ODA actors only focusing on its own part in interventions from North to South is insular. Policy makers are disconnected. End beneficiaries of sufferers are not engaged in the system. In ODA, there is no accountability and donors do not learn because there are no consequences. Accountability is all focused towards tax payers, yet they are disconnected from ODA itself. Politicians can say whatever they want and with that create/influence public dissatisfaction. Processes take place at global level which fuels disconnection between the stakeholders and makes accountability difficult. We manage expectations wrongly and deal with a mythology of policy making. We pretend to have much control over issues, which we do not and so we create wrong expectations, overpromising and under-


19

delivering. For example, we introduce new ideas too easily, such as ‘rights-based programming’. Development aid always has had unachievable goals. Cognitive dissonance is ignored - experiences of the world that contradict the way one frames it. Policy does not seem to respond to how reality expresses itself. Amidst all this soul-searching, making it possible to still act through ODA – and report on it – without overly complexifying the issues is a concrete challenge. A second concrete task is to explore how complexity thinking can interrogate evidence-based policy, rather than the current ‘policy based evidence’ – doing research to confirm what one is doing. Ideas for improvement include: Systems thinking helps to understand where we can really make a difference and thus define achievable goals. Donor machinery requires more reflexivity, using the complexity lens, also on its own machinery. The boundaries of M&E need to be stretched towards double loop-learning and this needs to be institutionalised. Can one-week workshops with official aid agency staff for reflexion help, if different perspectives are brought in? Planning is useful. It is just a tool, not a goal in itself, with its limitations and a plan should be adaptable. Maybe we need to change the concept of planning towards ‘planned opportunities’ that allow freedom to implement the plan, depending on opportunities. Opportunities can be identified based on principles/values. Work with principles/values, and relate accountability with this, rather than outputs. Principles and values remain even in changing circumstances, or extreme conditions such as war. Position ourselves inside the whole picture and its analysis.

7. Collective Harvest - Messages25 to Key Partners in Development The seminar ended with a converging exercise, one that asked participants to name what part of the ‘aid system’ or ‘web’ would need to make a shift and what that shift should constitute, given what they had heard on complexity and systems thinking. NGOs and bilateral aid agencies were perceived to be key players in the system. Capacity builders were differentiated from researchers as two more marginal contributors to change. Most issues that were listed as ‘messages to actors’ related to age-old challenges, such as ‘developing capacities for critical reflection and learning’, and ‘strive for more equitable partnerships’. Below are listed only those challenges that relate directly to the seminar’s focus. Development NGOs are encouraged to:

• Work more with power: explicitly internally and in relation to accountability towards stakeholders (e.g. give feedback to partners about what is done with M&E data); and shift attention away from NGO-donor relations towards NGO-partners/beneficiaries relations;

• Explore the use of narratives: describe your own narrative/full story to yourself, and chapters to others (different stories to different stakeholders);

• Try out ‘principle-driven’ work based on realistic planning: define and agree on non-negotiable principles and shared reflection on implementation as it changes en route

• Develop complexity-inspired work: collectively constructively challenge the aid system systematically; use complexity thinking in putting up interventions; and invest in strategic dialogue with Northern citizens about the complexity of aid.

Bilateral aid agencies are encouraged to:

• Foster dialogue between tailor-made protocol departments and those who appraise reports;

25 The notion of ‘messages’ was intended to focus thoughts on what aspects of the system needed change, and not as real messages that would be conveyed.


20

• Explore the potential of embedding narratives in the system;

• Rethink pressure to spend and the punishment by budget cuts;

• Create simple and separate accountability domains in the larger aid architecture; and

• Limit ambitions to capacity outcomes and values/principles adherence.

Development NGOs and (bilateral) aid agencies are both asked to:

• Allow different systems/ methods / dimensions for accountability (for output/outcome but also or especially for innovation);

• Let go of the obsession with control: allow target groups to organise things their own way. Work with simple targets and principles and work on the basis of trust, guided by non-negotiables and principles;

• Engage aid agency staff as actors in change processes rather than only as administrators and include your own aid machinery in the evaluations of the funded interventions.

• Stimulate systems and complexity thinking and action in your organisations;

• Invest in clarifying pathways to change vis-a-vis formulating smart objectives. Capacity builders are asked to insert a political perspective and power focus in the concept of capacity development. Researchers are asked to help rethink ODA from a complexity perspective. Challenges for everyone included: -Use the Cynefin framework to differentiate situations and tools/methodologies, be strategic about change and diversity of methodologies; -Challenge the ideas underpinning the logframe using systems thinking and complexity ideas in the critique; stop talking logframe and identify animated emerging methods; -Start with innovations, allow for emergent practice, and co-evolve change.

8. Emergent ‘Aha!’s and Final Discussion To round off the seminar, participants were asked to share an ‘Aha!’ moment. Some Aha’s related to organisational procedures and processes:

• Seeing the donkey photo (see above under Ramalingam’s presentation) we realised: the complicated procedures we have created really are missing the point....

• Finally stepping away from the logframe, which 2 years ago was unimaginable. There seems to be a collective relief to step out of the frame thinking.

• It is okay to be the source of disturbance when returning to my organisation. We should start thinking about stopping doing certain things and daring to let go of certain things that give us a sense of security. Complexity asks for letting go of many parts of the knowing system: there is need for clear non-negotiable principles and some simple rules.

• We need an environment for safe-fail (not feel safe) experimenting. It is safe to fail. Acknowledge that it might fail but it is ok.

• Let’s realise that opening up to complexity ourselves, means you might be enlarging complexity for the partners.

Other Aha’s related to conceptual aspects and tools for thought:

• Cynefin framework with the different domains as a tool for diagnosis gives at least some device to think before you start doing.

• We slowly start using words that can be used as metaphors, concepts that are Trojan horses. It was more than just a language - it helped to rethink our experiences.

• Partial perspectives: all our perspectives are partial. Incorporating different partial perspectives we will have greater chance (but not 100 % chance) to achieve what we want to achieve.

• Best principles, rather than best practices? Perhaps we should start asking ‘what were the principles (and not the practises) related to development interventions?’.


21

• “Knowledge is partial” - I am nervous about assuming that we can collectively agree upon this. We should not use complexity thinking too much. We should not look for the commonalities but for the differences.

• Key of complexity is meta-monitoring, which is missing everywhere. Reflection, reflection ability and time for reflection is often lacking.

Some chose to offer an overall assessment of the event: Excellent presentations yesterday: very good theoretical input, but today good link with the practice. The last sessions seem to have opened the box of Pandora again a bit .... These two days were extremely rich because of putting on the lenses of the concepts when listening to a practical example. There was a lot of implicit use of a lot of the complexity concepts. And some were keen to start with next steps and doing things differently: -Shall we set up a community of practise, or continuing these discussions but also with partners from the South? -There exists shallow complexity (logframe), deep simplicity. Next steps require action and careful research action to cause manageable disturbance. -Go home and think of one idea that seems to be useful and focus on that and try it out. Use the space you have. Don't try everything, just try something out, see what happens and then try something else. Story telling is really important. We should go home and start telling stories and stimulate others to tell stories. -What can I apply from all this tomorrow in my work tomorrow? These two days were to disturb ourselves in the first place. Well, that worked out!

9. Planned Follow-up Three follow up actions seem possible:

• Sharing ideas over the next 12 months see if there will be enough material/ideas for developing a book (Jim Woodhill to act on this);

• Setting up a resource portal with the report of this workshop and related materials (http://portals.wi.wur.nl/navigatingcomplexity/);

• Each of us takes on practice in relation to emerging issues. A next moment of interaction and exchange would enable linking up people with hands-on experiences.


22

Annex 1. Participants and organisations

Family name First name Organisation 1 van den Berg Jolanda WUR 2 Bieckmann Frans The Broker 3 Brouwer Maarten Ministry of Foreign Affairs 4 Brouwers Ria Institute of Social Studies 5 Chambers Robert Institute of Development Studies 6 Chambille Karel Hivos 7 van Cooten Jolanda Context 8 Elzen Boelie Animal Science Group 9 van Es Marjan Hivos 10 Es Yvonne Oxfam Novib 11 Exterkate Marja Partos 12 Eyben Rosalind Institute of Development Studies 13 Greijn Heinz SNV 14 de Groot Dieneke ICCO 15 Guijt Irene Learning by Design 16 Helsloot Lucia CORDAID 17 Hijweege Wouter Leen IAC 18 Hoitink Conny OXFAM NOVIB 19 Hospes Otto Wageningen University 20 Kluck Thom Ministry of Foreign Affairs 21 Korsten Eric SNV 22 Kusters Cecile Wageningen International 23 Llewelynn Peter Independent Consultant 24 Mancey Lorrain Alison Department of Global Health, Ireland 25 Molenaar Henk NOW/WOTRO 26 Mutimukuru - Tendayi Wageningen University 27 Notten Isabelle Pontenova 28 Proost Jet Jet Proost Communication Consultancy 29 Ramalingam Ben ALNAP, UK 30 Ramaru Johannes Limpopo Department of Agriculture 31 Reedijk Heleen MDF Training and Consultancy 32 Rutten Rens CORDAID 33 Scheers Goeie European Centre for Conflict Prevention 34 Schoenmakers René Bernard van Leer Foundation 35 van Schoubroeck Frank ILEIA 36 Schuurmans Akke PSO Kenniscentrum 37 Tam Marcella PSO Kenniscentrum 38 Toonen Jurrien KIT 39 van Velden Fons Context 40 Visser Rob Ministry of Foreign Affairs 41 van Vugt Simone Wageningen International 42 van Walsum Edith ILEIA 43 Walters Hettie ICCO 44 Wigboldus Seerp Wageningen International 45 Williams Bob Independent Consultant 46 Woodhill Jim Wageningen International 47 Zanen Sjoerd MDF Training and Consultancy


23

Annex 2. Programme

Day 1 – Delving into ‘new ideas that make a difference’ Aim: To identify and understand innovative concepts (or ‘ideas’) and identify why they might be relevant for the development sector. Time Activity Who

09.00 Welcome and Scene Setting Irene Guijt (Learning by Design) 09.45 Complexity Concepts Ben Ramalingam (ALNAP, UK) 10.05 The Cynefin Framework Jim Woodhill (Wageningen International)

10.25 Coffee

10.50 Systems Thinking and Complexity Science Bob Williams (independent, New Zealand)

11.10 Theories of Change and their Value in Dealing with Complexity

Rosalind Eyben (IDS, UK)

11.30 Putting ideas to the test – group challenging and ‘ritual dissent’ process

Group facilitators

12.30 Lunch 13.30 Ongoing workshop / conversation in groups

(continuation from morning) Group facilitators

15.00 Coffee 15.20 Sharing of group outputs Irene Guijt (facilitator) 15.50 Identifying themes Irene Guijt (facilitator) 16.40 Closing of day Interactive Day 2 – Translating ideas into practice Aim: To share several emerging approaches that might help ‘navigate complexity’ and apply the emerging insights to key themes currently critical in the development debate. Time Activity Who

09.00 Overview Irene Guijt (facilitator) 09.15 Scene Setting Robert Chambers (IDS, UK) 09.45 WWC (workshop

world cafe) Round 1 Two rounds of approaches to help ‘navigate complexity’. The first round starts with a 30 min explanation by the presenter, followed by 30 mins discussion and mapping out ideas on flipcharts. In the discussions, other ideas/approaches can be integrated, explored, etc. Options for Narratives – Lorraine Alison Mancey, Ireland Actor Constellation Mapping – Heinz Greijn/Eric Korsten, SNV Institutions and Policy Mapping – Jim Woodhill, WI Governance Outcome Framework – Frank van Schoubroeck, ILEIA Navigating & Managing toward Impact Framework – Seerp Wigboldus, WI

10.45 Coffee

11.05 WWC Round 2 Each second round starts with the table host doing the same 30 min explanation and then sharing the output from the first discussion on which the 2nd round of discussions build. The flipcharts from first group discussions are added to, if possible.

12.05 Thematic exploration Irene Guijt (facilitator)

12.30 Lunch 13.30 Thematic exploration

continues Group facilitators

15.05 Coffee 15.30 Collective Harvest Irene Guijt (facilitator)

16.30 Closing Interactive


24

Annex 3. References and key websites

Selected suggested reading/browsing list (mostly open source) Ackoff, R. 1974. Redesigning the Future. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, NY. Eric Beinhocker (2006) The Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity and the Radical Remaking of

Economics. New York: Random House. Campbell, Bruce M., Jürgen Hagmann, Ann Stroud, Richard Thomas, and Eva Wollenberg. 2006.

Navigating amidst complexity (CIFOR) http://www.icarda.cgiar.org/publications/navigatingamidstcomplexity.pdf

Colabria. Undated. Systems thinking and complexity links http://kmblogs.com/public/item/86272 Eoyang, Glenda. Undated. Evaluation in a Complex Adaptive System: http://www.chaos-

limited.com/EvalinCAS.pdf Eyben. Rosalind. 2008. Thinking about Change for Development Practice: A Case Study from Oxfam

GB. Development in Practice. 18. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a791553269~db=all~jumptype=rss

Flynn Research. 2003. Complexity Science: A Conceptual Framework for Making Connections. http://www.flynnresearch.com/ComplexityScience2003.pdf

Fowler, Alan. Civic Driven Change and International Development: Exploring a complexity perspective. http://contextinternationalcooperation.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/contextuals-no-7-cdc.pdf

Fowler, Alan. 2008. Complexity thinking and social development. The Broker. http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/en/articles/connecting_the_dots

Kellogg Foundation. Complex adaptive systems. http://www.kapiti.co.nz/bobwill/CASmaterial.pdf Kurtz, C. and D. Snowden. 2003. The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and

complicated world. IBM SYSTEMS JOURNAL, VOL 42, NO 3. http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/423/kurtz.pdf

Lacayo, Virginia. 2007. What Complexity Science Teaches Us About Social Change. Mazi 10. 2007. http://www.communicationforsocialchange.org/mazi-articles.php?id=333

McDougall, Cynthia and Ann Braun. 2003. Navigating Complexity, Diversity and Dynamism: Reflections on Research for Natural Resource Management. In: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods. Uniting Science and Participation. Edited by Barry Pound, Sieglinde Snapp, Cynthia McDougall, and Ann Braun Earthscan/IDRC. http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-43432-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

Mowles, C., R. Stacey and D. Griffin. 2008. What Contribution can Insights from the Complexity Sciences Make to the Theory and Practice of Development Management? Journal of International Development. 20, 804–820.

NORAD. 2008. Evaluating the Complex. (Note. Webpage is in Norwegian but most presentations are in English). http://www.norad.no/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=10820

Ramalingam, Ben. 2008. Exploring the science of complexity: Ideas and implications for development and humanitarian efforts. http://www.odi.org.uk/rapid/publications/RAPID_WP_285.html

Rihani, Samir. Complexity: an appropriate framework for development? Progress in Development Studies. http://pdj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/1/3/237

Rogers, Patricia. 2008. Using Programme Theory to Evaluate Complicated and Complex Aspects of interventions. Evaluation 14 (29). http://evi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/1/29

Williams, Bob. Evaluation and Systems Thinking. http://users.actrix.co.nz/bobwill/ (go to Free Resources

A Community Dialogue for Meeting the Millennium Development Goals (Chapter 2). http://www.undp.org/pei/pdfs/CommunityCommons.pdf

Wirth, Ross A. 2007. Bibliography on Complexity Science applied in Organizational Settings: http://www.entarga.com/complexity/complexbib.pdf

Woodhill, J. 2008. ‘How Institutions Evolve: Shaping behaviour.’ The Broker. Issue 10. http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/en/articles/Shaping-behaviour

NAVIGATING

COMPLEXITY

report of an innovation dialogue - wurportals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/innovation dialogue on...

Documents