The development sector really does manage to get its knickers in a knot at times. While agreeing that ‘it’s all rather complex’, they continue to hold on like shipwrecked sailors to linear models of planning, monitoring and evaluating, scratching their heads about why ‘it isn’t working’. And the sharks circle ever closer –dissatisfied donors who want to see value for money, frustrated activists having to provide data, overworked staff trying to chase up and make sense of the information that does trickle in. Innovation is not allowed to fail and indicators must be set years ahead of time that guarantee ‘poverty alleviation’ and ‘citizenship strengthening’ impacts. The sector partly needs to shake off unrealistically ambitious expectations. But it needs to start understanding more fundamentally the nature of the beast with which they are dealing.
Since attending the CE London April course, I’ve been airing the Cynefin framework among development organisations in the UK and the Netherlands. I reckon bringing across the notion of ‘multi-ontological sense-making’ and implications for learning is particularly important. I’ve discussed narratives and tagging with those managing diverse funding portfolios at their wits end to ‘make sense’ of such messy stuff, sketched the framework on napkins over dinner, on flipcharts and in reports. And people are keen. Very keen. One example, an NGO supports work on the whole power / equity / democracy / governance / advocacy gamut of political change (small ‘p’ of course, just in case the Charity Commission is reading this blog). They were intrigued by the possibility to justify why pre-set indicators may not be useful for some of the innovative advocacy work that it supports in conflict-rife contexts. High levels of ambiguity, dynamic constellations of partners who come and go, trial and error with strategies makes linear planning an impossibility. So perhaps standardised indicators across the global was a problem for very good reasons! Recognising innate features of the different domains – and the consequences of this, is like seeing a cloud lifting on the faces of some with whom I’ve talked. Finally something that seems to make sense ...
What we need now, though, is practical examples, stories to share about how narratives have helped pick up on weak signals and helped make sense of wildly diverse portfolios of funding, about how to understand which parts of the work are complex and which are not, about planning for action in different domains, on integrating learning strategies that recognise the differences, and more. One recurring question has been ‘But how do I recognise when something is complex? What is a useful definition?’. Maybe that’s a good place for me to start with making it practical. All suggestions welcome
Irene Guijt
Learning by Design
Comments (4)
I often work one step lower down the heirarchy than "funder", working with organisations that are the "funded". I have great sympathy for the leadership and management of those organisations, as they struggle to align/re-interpret/re-frame/bullshit their activities to fit the funders world-view. And most have to run this in parallel, redoing it differently for each funder and their different requirements, which then change every few years after they take a swig of some promising elixir. It's draining work that saps the focus and integrity of funded organisations as they strip their reality of context, and dress it in that of the funder, so most everything of value is lost in the process.
No wonder the funders are confused. (Hey, it's confusing enough with the context!)
Posted by anthony | June 19, 2008 10:00 PM
Posted on June 19, 2008 22:00
I often work one step lower down the heirarchy than "funder", working with organisations that are the "funded". I have great sympathy for the leadership and management of those organisations, as they struggle to align/re-interpret/re-frame/bullshit their activities to fit the funders world-view. And most have to run this in parallel, redoing it differently for each funder and their different requirements, which then change every few years after they take a swig of some promising elixir. It's draining work that saps the focus and integrity of funded organisations as they strip their reality of context, and dress it in that of the funder, so most everything of value is lost in the process.
No wonder the funders are confused. (Hey, it's confusing enough with the context!)
Posted by anthony | June 19, 2008 10:01 PM
Posted on June 19, 2008 22:01
Hi Irene
I think you are having more luck than me getting these messages across, but you are probably working harder at than I am.
I like Dave's lift description - complex systems are those in which the agents and the system constrain each other.
That is by the by. The real issue is do the participants in the development sector want to change and accept the new simplicity? I think it poses a massive threat to most academics, who I think want to prove their case or theory or justify their paradigm, instead of wanting to learn. If they make the shift to wanting to learn, to want to make sense of the world, rather than prove, then we will get there.
I am being extreme, for a reason.
Posted by Jonathan Carter | June 20, 2008 7:58 AM
Posted on June 20, 2008 07:58
Yes, Anthony, huge sympathy indeed for the 'pig-in-the-middle' managers who basically live two stories. The one based on information fields required by databases to justify resource allocation and the much messier toing-and-froing of everyday implementation. When will the system start changing? And where is the leverage point for that? Someone has to start by saying 'hey, guys, we don't think we can reduce poverty quite so quickly but still think we're worth supporting'. Isn't going to get you a whole lot of cash I imagine. On the other hand, when ActionAid International 'confessed' errors, one of its sponsors, Nokia, was really impressed. Or this is the story that I have heard. So perhaps those in the sector shouldn't be too scared about owning up to less than godly powers.
As for success, Jonathan, too early to tell. The conversation is just starting. But for some reason the timing seems right. The new 'simplicity' is, of course, actually more sophisticated. We'll need more diverse and fine-tuned sense-making processes for different operating conditions and the ability to distinguish which is which (am just imagining the debates that will ensue about characterising different types of work!). I think you've got a point that some academics might fear for their intellectual footholds. But I've met many others who are keen to explore what 'complexity science' has to offer the development, non-profit sector. And yes, it does mean that there has to be a serious openness to seeing what emerges rather than proposing A solution.
Posted by Irene Guijt | June 23, 2008 9:42 AM
Posted on June 23, 2008 09:42