MfDR Software: Culture Change - A Tough Nut to Crack

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bimerew Alemu on March 4, 2010 at 8:10am

Dear colleagues

This cultural change topic initiated by Hannah is very important. This is the key problem that needs an in depth discussion and understanding. This is I think one of the key variables to sustainable growth. On that basis I suggest that cultural change has to be initiated at all levels with special emphasis to leadership and pointed out the following ideas.

In most of the institutions we have been undergoing change process during the last 6 years. There are certain changes with respect to service delivery. But in most of the cases I see we are not that much successful. Why such shortcomings?
Let me focus for instance on some of the causes
 ineffective communication;
 failure to identify and eliminate obstacles to change;
Solution is clear
The change effort must be guided by committed and resilient role models. Leaders actually play a critical role as change agents in the transformation process. Successful change efforts necessitate the leader to articulate a forceful vision that appeals to both internal and external stakeholders; show strong personal commitment, and enable stakeholders to contribute to their full potential. Successful change management, therefore, requires the organization to overcome several leadership challenges, and to develop a focused and proactive strategy to address change.

From these general ideas I totally believe that we need a cultural change in all our societies especially with respect to work that the society as a whole needs to implement. To have seen results on the ground we need to be efficient and effective. Transparency and interpersonal communication of the workforce is important.

Very important point is that change has to begin in schools so that the new generation is well aware of what the current situation demands. In the context of developing countries formal and non-formal education institutions are overburdened with the task of providing basic education, thus failing to engage students in other social and leadership issues. I think focus group discussions with regards to what the new generation or the future leaders of that specific society require needs to be identified and properly addressed.

Generally to empower the youth it is not enough to make them a member of a certain club. The main thing is to realistically show them proactively participate in matters that need immediate change in the society. That is when we can be sure sustainable development is to exist.

Best regards

Bimerew Alemu

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hannah J Cooper on March 5, 2010 at 3:15pm

Dear James and Bimerew,

Thank you both for your comments.

James, I agree with you. We really need to ensure that civil society, community based organizations, and the private sector need to be included in the debate on performance. They help hold governments to account and are another way to convey results achieved to citizens.

Do you have any suggestions on how to ensure that these groups are brought to the table? I know that this is not always an easy feat, and so some small, realistic small suggestions would be really helpful!

Bimerew, you raise some interesting and tough points, especially regarding youth and empowering them to become change agents.

I’d like to move to the last part of our ediscussion and ask you all the following questions:

E. Lessons learned

9. What are the positive and critical lessons learned?

10. What could we advise others to improve in this process?

Please share your thoughts. I look forward to hearing from you all on this and any other points that we have raised throughout our ediscussion that you would like to answer.

Many thanks and kind regards,

Hannah

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James O. Wagala on March 8, 2010 at 12:04pm

Hello Hannah and other CoP members for very insightful contributions. It has been through provoking reading from you.

Over my short stint in the reform outfit in my country, I have come to appreciate that the software of managing for development results are more stable on a platform of:
1. The ability of the organization to know with certainty its stage of development (in results-focus) before it embraces MfDR or RBM. My country adopted RBM in 2004 but it had also been implementing programme-based budgeting, medium-term expenditure framework, stakeholder consultation in budget and programme implementation and many other hallmarks of MfDR. The dilemma now is that many RBM tools have been adopted in an uncoordinated manner. MfDR cannot deliver any results if its tools are not speaking to each other. In this case, conducting a comprehensive RBM readiness assessment is vital to informing the organization (or country) of what tools it needs to review and which new ones it needs to implement for its MfDR venture to be a success.
2. Power play is one of the most important factors which squarely determine the success of any MfDR venture. When I teach my students about politics in an organization, I stress that it is not just top-down interplay of authority and decision-making prowess. Rather, it is a complex state of chaos where the seemingly harmless nitty-gritties can totally undermine the organization's quest for results. The most subtle power games are between employees of middle or lower level cadres and this is the most dangerous. Where the work gets done, the results become manifest, the money gets spent etc is the point which determines the success of an MfDR venture. In government for example, the strategic orientation from the executive leadership can be clear. But for many reasons, the implementers can derail the strategic vision for other pursuits. Therefore, it is important for the leadership to delicately balance power plays in a manner which ensures that everyone (especially the operational staff) works towards achieving the results of the organization.
3. Momentum keeps the results coming and the organization going! It is important to build the momentum for change from processes to focus on results. This excitement will attract a critical mass of followership while at the same time unfreezing the barriers to change. Sustaining the momentum is also key. The leadership will steer the change process, there is need to keep the people focussed and highly motivated. In this case constant coaching is a must. And when I talk about coaching, our Rapid Results Approach comes to my mind. Institutions which were supported to scale up their RRIs are now bragging of the impressive results they have delivered to their constituencies. Those which did one wave and let go are constantly wondering whether RRI really transforms!
4. Any RBM or MfDR initiative will thrive on mutually beneficial coalitions. Partnerships with employees, customers, suppliers, fans, citizens and other stakeholders is crucial for the success of the transformation towards MfDR. Coalitions should be on communicating the good work that the organizations does to its citizenry, fostering and sustaining interdependencies which will ensure that the organization continues to deliver meaningful results and putting in place sustainability structures, not only for collaboration but also for delivery of results. A government institution for example needs to work closely with other government agencies to deliver its results, it needs to acquire a robust system for M&E, it needs to implement an effective IEC strategy for communicating its results to its citizens, its needs to talk to civil society and private sector to get a third party's opinion on how well it is delivering its results etc.
5. Lastly, freezing the change. Adopting MfDR as a way of doing business is one thing. Embedding MfDR within the organization is quite another. An organization and its workers are amenable to changing during the early stages when the hype for change is still high. Then when the steam dies down, they lapse back to business as usual. This has undermined the success of many MfDR ventures world over. It is therefore important that the change is embedded into the whole organization into a framework that even a regime change will find difficult to undo.

In MfDR, it is important to let CHANGE BE THE ONLY CONSTANT!

Regards,
James

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hannah J Cooper on March 23, 2010 at 3:52pm

Dear James,
Thank you so much for your excellent comments and contributions. Apologies for not responding sooner - I was travelling.

On your last point, I'd love it if you could provide an example of a framework that is strong enough to deeply embed MfDR and have it withstand internal decrease in steam. Do you have an example that you could share with us?

Regarding your first point on disparate ongoing MfDR related activities within your country, there is an MfDR Capacity Scan which helps countries assess the overall state of MfDR and helps to build bridges between different initiatives. For more information about the Capacity Scan please www.mfdr.org/CAP-Scan.html.

Thank you again so much for your insights! I hope that others will share theirs as well!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James O. Wagala on March 24, 2010 at 5:54am

Thank you, Hannah. Hello, my colleagues on AfCoP.

Many jurisdictions have not quite understood what Results-Based Management (RBM) or MfDR are and what they are supposed to deliver. Developing countries have borrowed these concepts from the developed world or multilateral development partners. They have then adopted them without properly domesticating them to their local conditions. This, to me, is the reason why different reform initiatives are disjointed and uncoordinated.

The requisite linkages between resources and concrete results are overly weak and so is M&E and reporting. Policy formulation and implementation is not based on objective evidence and the overall reform agenda (or even the national development agenda) remains a pipedream of the central government. Ownership is low. The delivery of results is reduced to a political gimmick for leaders and senior government officers to gain cheap mileage and publicity.

Meaningful transformation based on MfDR can only be achieved if the internal effectiveness and accountability of public sector institutions is strengthened. This institutional reform is based on ensuring that the institutions build robust and sustainable capacities to deliver their mandates now and to meet the myriad future challenges caused by the dynamic development environment. Institutions need to acquire and deepen systems, structures, infrastructure and resources. Attarcting the ight people with the right mindsets and heartsets is also key. however, this must be done in concert with other government institutions to avoid duplication and the conflict of interest which is rife in many governments. Admittedly, this is easier said than done.

A government should also be able to embrace MfDR or any of its initiatives, not as a panacea to its development challenges, but as an approach to guide the delivery of development results. Doing this requires a detailed capacity scan to determine the existing and emerging capacities that the government needs to put in place for MfDR to function properly. The scan will also ensure alignment of reform initiatives towards delivery of development priorities.

I believe this ties in with your second point and thanks for putting out clearly. Capacity scan, capability review, RBM readiness assessment, or any other names that different jurisdictions will refer to it, is a MUST for meaningful adoption of MfDR.

I conclude by saying that developing countries should view MfDR not as a tool but as an approach to deliver meaningful development results.

I mean MfDR should be A WAY OF LIFE IN PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY!

Regards,
James

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hannah J Cooper on April 23, 2010 at 9:23am

Dear Colleagues,

I've really enjoyed this ediscussion! Thank you so much for your dynamic contributions!

Please find attached a summary of our discussion - I tried to capture the main points raised and discussed. These points will be posted on the francophone version of this ediscussion so our French speaking colleagues can see the wide range of topics and innovation ideas that were presented through this dialogue.

I will be posting a summary of the French ediscussion here as well - so that we can see what took place on in that forum.

I will be starting a new ediscussion today on ICTs and MfDR. I hope that you will join me there too!

Many thanks and kind regards,

Hannah

Attachments:

• Summary of MfDR Software Ediscussion.docx, 21 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hannah J Cooper on May 3, 2010 at 10:12am

Dear Colleagues,

Please find below and attached a summary of this ediscussion on the Francophone side of the website.

Discussion “Change towards MfDR”

Introduction

The francophone CoP members intensively discussed the change process towards Managing for Development Results between 25th of October (launch of the discussion) and 30th of April (the last contribution). The discussion counted over 40 different contributions of 17 different and active debaters from: Cameroon, Congo (DRC), Marocco, Niger, Senegal and the Netherlands.

During the debate, members analysed the different external and internal developments leading to change, the information and awareness raising during the change process, organization and implementation of the change process and the results till date and different lessons learned. Below a brief summary is presented of this francophone discussion. The summary follows the leading questions (A-E) which were used throughout the discussion. The summary will be used, among others, to enable sharing of the main findings with the Anglophone colleagues. Similarly the Anglophone discussion has already been made available in French to the francophone colleagues.


A. External and internal developments leading to change
1. Who were the external drivers for change and how did leaders extend the messages?
2. How was the need for change towards MfDR created in your organisation and who were the internal drivers for change?


Often external actors triggered the change towards MfDR.

Regional organizations push for result-oriented public administration practices. In this context, the different members of the Economic Community of Western African States (ECOWAS) decided that from 2012 onwards, national budgets should be result-based.

Among others, stimulated by these regional initiatives, Ministries of Finance, like for example in Senegal, take the lead in promoting Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks and stimulate Sector Ministries to increase their result focus.

A regional development agency in Senegal, supporting 53 local collectives, felt the need to move towards MfDR while experiencing the lack of coordination between different actors, the loss of priority setting and the uncoordinated use of different tools, methodologies, etc.

A network in Cameroon of different food security and rural development organizations also realized that in order to achieve better results a reorientation was necessary. The network and its members first started with an internal analysis.

The African Development Bank, being the most important African financing institution, felt a clear need to strengthen the performance of the different interventions in member states and based on this need adopted an MfDR approach.

Also development partners (donors) increasingly insist on a clear result focus. A good example is the Nile Basin Initiative (a collaboration between 9 countries), where donors focused on accountability and attempted to harmonize reporting.

Headquarters of organizations, for example in the case of GTZ, decide and start to support change processes towards an increased result orientation throughout the organization.


The change towards results was also put in a more general context. The present thinking about good governance, the debate about aid and development effectiveness made different actors reflect and reorient their different interventions, provoking change and reorientation towards increased effectiveness and improved development results.


Select and involve the main internal drivers remains crucial

In Senegal, the Ministry of Economy and Finances introduced MfDR in the Government working towards a more result based budget. DREAT (« la Delegation à la Reforme de l’Etat et à l’Assistance Technique ») supports this change process by sharing the MfDR concept with all staff and by creating an active Senegalese Community of Practice. A vision is being developed and increasingly the result focus is translated into Planning and Monitoring & Evaluation practices (making use of MfDR tools like for example: result chains, logical frameworks, indicators, M&E frameworks).

The regional development agencies in Senegal were reinforced with qualified staff to play their role supporting the community (collective) level.

In the Nile Basin Initiative, the different project and programme staff increasingly experienced how difficult it can be to achieve results within a specific time-frame. In fact Time appeared a critical element in the change process. Monitoring and Evaluation staff was increasingly considered important to carefully keep track of progress towards planned results.

After awareness raising at head quarter level, project leaders were a clear starting point for GTZ to promote an increased result focus, now about 7-8 years ago. Afterwards, M&E staff seemed to have played a critical role in making this result focus more operational. They have played the “multiplier role” in training different project teams.

B. Information and awareness
3. To what extent was the concept and were the consequences of MfDR explained to everybody within the organisation?
4. How was staff informed about and motivated for the change towards MfDR?

The Regional Development Agency in Senegal put significant emphasis on information and communication during the change process. Several sessions with the different actors were organized and the initiative was promoted as a key pilot (“champion”) initiative.

The food security and rural development network in Cameroon organized a critical self-analysis (Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) to reposition the network better and strengthen its performance. Based on this analysis difficult decisions were made and implemented.

GTZ started with Head Quarters and continued to inform and train project managers worldwide.

C. Organisation and implementation
5. How was the change towards MfDR organised?
6. What support did staff members get to work differently and according to MfDR?

During the discussion, the “ideal” organizational structure was also debated. Decentralisation efforts seem to go hand in hand with MfDR efforts. Centralised structures do not necessarily guarantee sufficient local knowledge, decision making space at the local level, sufficient flexibility to change if results are not achieved, etc.
Whatever structure is chosen, proper local knowledge, an effective information flow, sufficient decision making space as well as flexibility remains crucial to ensure a clear result focus.

The Regional Development Agency in la region de Louga, Senegal started to focus clearly on bringing all intervening actors together under one umbrella, develop together a planning guide for all actors as well as a joint information system for M&E purposes.
This approach is not a Louga-specific example. On the contrary, other regional development agencies in Senegal also work on these harmonization and alignment initiatives! So-called Harmonisation Conferences serve not only to plan jointly within the boundaries of the National Development Plan, but also, harmonise tools and methods, strengthen synergies and reinforce Monitoring and Evaluation efforts,

The food security and rural development network (Cosader) in Cameroon decided to maintain a clear membership profile, increase the clarity on tasks and responsibilities, introduce a clear thematic division of competencies. The role of civil society actors in aid effectiveness in general and in making results more tangible in the field in particular, was again clearly emphasized.

The African Development Bank has a specific department responsible for quality and results. MfDR has been adopted as the basic strategy to improve performance of the different interventions. The Bank is presently experimenting with a Rapid Results Approach. After obtaining more experience with this approach, the Bank will share this experience with the different sectoral departments.
Interestingly, the Bank is also in the process of decentralising and establishing National Representation Offices in the different member countries, to reinforce the understanding of local needs, implicate member states more strongly and, in general, strengthening performance of the different interventions.

For GTZ, result chains are important. Critical in this approach are a clear definition of strategies, the formulation of expected results, precise description of target groups and the identification of indicators, which allow the collection of proof of performance.

D. Results
7. What is different in your organisation now, compared to the situation before the introduction of MfDR?
8. Which are the most important steps still to take in order to integrate MfDR as management approach in your organisation?

In Senegal, the government is moving towards an increased result focus. However, it is too early to say that a results culture has become reality within the government.

Civil society organizations and their networks are also repositioning themselves in the context of the present effectiveness debate, increased focus on accountability, their own role and improved performance.

The African Development Bank has achieved an improved performance of the Bank’s portfolio by increased selectivity of interventions, increased involvement of member states, an increased delegation to national representations and improved M&E systems, including involving civil society actors more and more.

In GTZ, the result focus is now a generally accepted approach.


E. Lessons learned
9. What are the positive and critical lessons learned?
10. What could we advise others to improve in this process?

Without wanting to repeat, quite a few lessons are already explicitly mentioned above.
Interestingly enough, the discussion provided experiences from many different angles and actors. We learned about MfDR initiatives at ECOWAS, the African Development Bank, the Nile Basin Initiative, the Government of Senegal, Rural Development Agencies (Senegal), different Civil Society actors (Cameroon) and international development agencies (GTZ).

If there is one thing we certainly learned: MfDR is (becoming) a reality!

Attachments:

• Summary Change towards MfDR[1].doc, 61 KB

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page