written by Matt Andrews

Although the benefits of experimental iteration in a PDIA process seem very apparent to most people we work with, we often hear that many development organizations make it difficult for staff to pursue such approaches, given the rigidity of logframe and other linear planning methods. We often hear that funding organizations demand the structured, perceived certainty of a logframe-type device and will not allow projects to be too adaptive.

In response to this concern, we propose a new logframe-type mechanism that embeds experimental iteration into a structured approach to make policy or reform decisions in the face of complex challenges. Called the SearchFrame, it is shown in the Figure below (and discussed in the following working paper, which also offers ideas on using the tool).

The SearchFrame facilitates a transition from problem analysis (core to PDIA) into a structured process of finding and fitting solutions (read more about ‘Doing Problem Driven Work’). An aspirational goal is included as the end point of the intervention, where one would record details of ‘what the problem looks like solved’. Beyond this, key intervening focal points are also included, based on the deconstruction and sequencing analyses of the problem. These focal points reflect what the reform or policy intervention aims to achieve at different points along the path towards solving the overall problem. More detail will be provided for the early focal points, given that we know with some certainty what we need and how we expect to get there. These are the focal points driving the action steps in early iterations, and they need to be set in a defined and meaningful manner (as they shape accountability for action). The other focal points (2 and 3 in the figure) will reflect what we assume or expect or hope will follow. These will not be rigid, given that there are many more underlying assumptions, but they will provide a directionality in the policymaking and reform process that gives funders and authorizers a clear view of the intentional direction of the work.

The SearchFrame does not specify every action step that will be taken, as a typical logframe would. Instead, it schedules a prospective number of iterations between focal points (which one could also relate to a certain period of time). Funders and authorizers are thus informed that the work will involve a minimum number of iterations in a specific period. Only the first iteration is detailed, with specific action steps and a specific check-in date.

Funders and authorizers will be told to expect reports on all of these check-in dates, which will detail what was achieved and learned and what will be happening in the next iteration (given the SearchFrame reflections shown in the figure). Part of the learning will be about the problem analysis and assumptions underpinning the nature of each focal point and the timing of the initiative. These lessons will feed into proposals to adjust the SearchFrame, which will be provided to funders and authorizers after every iteration. This fosters joint learning about the realities of doing change, and constant adaptation of assumptions and expectations.

Readers should note that this reflection, learning and adaptation make the SearchFrame a dynamic tool. It is not something to use in the project proposal and then to revisit during the evaluation. It is a tool to use on the journey, as one makes the map from origin to destination. It allows structured reflections on that journey, and report-backs, where all involved get to grow their know-how as they progress, and turn the unknowns into knowns.

We believe this kind of tool fosters a structured iterative process that is both well suited to addressing complex problems and meeting the structural needs of formal project processes. As presented, it is extremely information and learning intensive, requiring constant feedback as well as mechanisms to digest feedback and foster adaptation on the basis of such. This is partly because we believe that active discourse and engagement are vital in a complex change processes, and must therefore be facilitated through the iterations.

written by Michael Woolcock

It is no secret that a long succession of Australian governments – federal and state, Liberal and Labour – have struggled to implement effective policies in Indigenous communities. Less well known, even among seasoned researchers, is exactly why this has been (and remains) the case. How is it that a public sector otherwise able to administer billion dollar pension funds, to regulate powerful companies, respond admirably to global financial crises, prevent devastating diseases spreading to people, crops and animals, and oversee the safe passage each day of thousands of people flying at high speed in metal tubes miles above the ground, can somehow be unable to provide even basic housing, education and health care to its original inhabitants? Certainly compared to most other countries, the problem is not the absence of well-intentioned policies or inadequate financial resources.

Why does a problem that is literally not rocket science or brain surgery routinely stump governments that by most other measures are ostensibly (or at least relatively) “world class”? Because of a fundamental mismatch between policy and practice – in this case, between the type of problem that engaging with Indigenous communities represents and the dominant way in which large political bureaucracies are predisposed to act. This mismatch is pervasive across the developing world, where an even larger cast of domestic and foreign bureaucracies – with their corresponding array of imperatives, incentives, interests, ideals and capabilities – interact, often in perilous conditions (think Afghanistan). But it is also a problem that hobbles rich countries, as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg recently discovered when his $100m gift to a single disadvantaged school district in New Jersey yielded little more, several years later, than a minor increase in enrollments (or quantity of schooling, not quality). This unhappy tale is documented in Dale Russakoff’s excellent book, The Prize: Who’s In Charge of America’s Schools?

In Australia, perhaps the clearest, most persistent and deeply consequential instance of this policy-practice mismatch is to be found in Indigenous communities. In Serious Whitefella Stuff, Mark Moran and his two collaborators provide, in my view, the most insightful account yet given of how and why this mismatch is both so ubiquitous and so impervious to change. All three authors have spent multiple decades living and working in remote northern communities, as representatives of public agencies and charitable organizations, and their accounts are those that could only be provided by seasoned veterans of such searing experiences. There are no simple narratives here of vice trumping virtue, or trite “cultural explanations” of enduring social problems, but rather measured accounts of how good, decent people on both sides of the giving/receiving relationship have tried to make things work, sometimes because of and oftentimes despite what the prevailing ‘policy’ actually claims to be striving for.

Engaging with Indigenous communities, in Australia and elsewhere, is a quintessential example of what social scientists call a ‘wicked’ problem – by which is meant, of course, not ‘evil’ but deep, enduring complexity. More precisely, wicked problems are those that inherently involve lots of human interaction and considerable discretionary decision-making on the part of front-line implementers (social work is a good example); they often have no known solution up front (or a solution that can only be worked out each time, in each new situation and circumstance), and even when a solution is found it is likely to be resisted, if not actively opposed, by an influential group. Solutions to wicked problems are context specific and highly variable across time, groups and space, even when faithfully implemented and politically supported. So, to take just one instructive example from Serious Whitefella Stuff, broad agreement on a policy to grant ‘property rights’ to Indigenous communities turns out to great in theory but diabolically hard to implement, not least because property rights are desired and possible in some communities, are an utterly alien concept in others (e.g., in those committed to communal ownership of land), are desirable but unworkable in others (e.g., those where overt policies to dismantle communities and then, decades later, reassemble them has completely disrupted a coherent accounting, in both formal records and oral history, of which family lineage has legitimate claim to what land).

Because of these diverse contextual differences, the ‘same’ policy – whether it be in property rights, efforts to revive traditional ceremonies, to centralize or decentralize the layout of communities, to promote school attendance, to address concerns with alcohol  and domestic violence – will likely result in everything from tremendous success to outright failure. Yet the underlying reasons for this variation, and the possible learning opportunities it represents, are mostly lost, filtered instead through a single unifying bureaucratic lens back in capital cities, wherein senior political figures will ultimately decide that the policy was categorically good or bad. But because “something must be done”, each successive government engages in what Moran astutely calls a four-component process of purging, swinging, mimicry and contradiction: that is, of first declaring the previous policy a failure (no matter what it actually achieved), then layering a vacillating series of instruments and objectives upon one another, often by copying “best practices” from abroad, all of which introduces so many “policies” with so many constituent elements that, almost inevitably, irreconcilable contradictions emerge, thus making life permanently frustrating for providers and recipients alike.

The delightful indigenous term for this vexing policy concoction is ‘whitefella stuff’. Could things be otherwise? At one level, the six detailed case studies presented in this book seem frustratingly silent on this point; there is little finger pointing, few searing indictments of overt corruption or mismanagement, and no laundry lists of confident prescriptions for what should be done instead, by whom, now. A lesser book would seek desperately to fill this vacuum; wisely, Moran and his co-authors do not, letting the reader experience the vacuum for what it is, namely part of the problem. In the concluding chapter, Moran outlines the contours of an alternative approach, one slowly gaining traction in the international development community but that surely also has potential resonance in and for Australia.

Serious Whitefella Stuff is ultimately a book about the power of social relationships to engage with wicked problems in ways that are constructive and locally legitimate, even as such relationships themselves are sometimes part of the problem, and even as invoking them may yield priorities and strategies that are administratively alien in Whitefella world. Indeed, successfully brokering across the many “worlds” of Indigenous affairs policy is precisely what constitutes good practice. Respecting the moral integrity of community life, imperfect as it may often be, while simultaneously trying to change it – for example, by providing even minimally adequate housing, education, justice, roads and health care – is the mother of all wicked policy problems. There is no single “policy” solution to such problems; there are only negotiated solutions (plural), and each must be discovered over the course of a long jointly-undertaken voyage. Getting there, as Moran, his team and the Indigenous communities deftly remind us, requires not just “good policy” in the abstract but committed, respectful and creative people who are given the time, space, trust and resources to implement it.

As it happens, this lesson is remarkably similar to that from a rather different voyage, as conveyed in the recent movie ‘The Martian’. When astronaut Mark Watney (played by Matt Damon) – initially regarded by his colleagues as rather flakey because he was merely an all-purpose “botanist” – is addressing a new intake of wide-eyed NASA recruits, he is asked how he survived for so long, all alone, on a cold, distant, barren planet. He modesty replies: “You solve one problem. Then you solve the next one. And if you keep solving problems, you get to come home.” Australian governments and everyday citizens alike would do well to bear that seemingly simple principle in mind as they embark upon yet another round of policy deliberations regarding “what should be done”, by whom, to enhance dignity, integrity and opportunity in Indigenous communities. Building implementation systems focused on solving problems, rather than selling solutions, is the frontier issue in public policy, whether in Australia, the United States, or Afghanistan. Or even, it seems, Mars.

Would you like a how-to guide to make your organization more effective?

We recently experimented with online education as a modality to diffuse the essence of PDIA with the long term objective of creating a global community of practice that collaborates, learns, shares and grows together, ultimately leading to more successful development outcomes. Watch the promo video below.

One of the things we learned was that there are two potential audiences: those who are interested in the meta level understanding of PDIA (breadth), and those who are in the weeds of development and actually want to do PDIA (depth). To address this, we have iterated and adapted and are now offering two different programs tailored to these respective audiences.

If you are a development practitioner who is implementing programs and is struggling with a specific problem, then this is the training program for you. You will have the opportunity to work through your problem using our tools in real-time. Watch the preview video for more information (YouTube or Vimeo).

• The Practice of PDIA: Building Capability by Delivering Results is a free 12-week experiential training program that will provide you with the necessary frameworks and tools that you need to do PDIA in your context. The training will be offered from April 3- June 26, 2016 and will include video lectures, required reading, assignments, reflection exercises, peer interaction as well as group work. We hope that you will get your colleagues to sign up so that you can all work and learn together as a team. We estimate that the weekly effort required will be between 3-5 hours. Certificates will be issued to those who complete the training program. Enrollment is limited. If you are interested, please register here.

If you are a development practitioner who is not involved in the direct implementation of programs but are interested in learning about PDIA, then this is the training program for you. Watch the preview video for more information (YouTube or Vimeo).

• Principles of PDIA: Building Capability by Delivering Results. This is a free 8-week experiential training program that will provide you with the necessary frameworks and tools that you need to do PDIA in your context. The training will be offered from April 3- May 29, 2016 and will include video lectures, required reading, assignments, reflection exercises as well as peer interaction. We estimate that the weekly effort required will be between 3-5 hours. Certificates will be issued to those who complete the training program. Enrollment is limited. If you are interested, please register here.

Here are some testimonials from students who have completed a similar version of the Practice of PDIA: Building Capability by Delivering Results.

“The PDIA program faculty was truly exceptional, not only because of their expertise and individual intellect and knowledge and research, but also because they understand how to engage participants in different ways. If you are concerned about why and how countries are poor or mired in a vicious cycle of underdevelopment; then this course is just want you need to help unravel the answers to your questions and arm up with the principles and know-how to tackle them.” Abdulrauf Aliyu, Head of Business Development and Strategy, Inteliworx Technologies, Nigeria

“A couple of years ago I joined the development industry as a program officer for a bilateral aid agency in Tanzania. Three years down the line I was frustrated: our partners in the government were “always committed” but things were not really moving in the way and pace we hoped they would. In short, nothing much was changing. If anyone asked me at the time who is at fault, I would have hastened to say it was the government. Having done the PDIA course, however, I can appreciate better why things were happening the way they were, and our responsibility as staff members of funding agencies in the reform failures. So I am thrilled that it is possible to do development differently, the PDIA way. It does not promise that it will be easier doing development this way, and it might never get any easier; but I believe it offers a better chance of bringing real and lasting change even if it comes slowly.” Rose Aiko, Independent Consultant, Tanzania

“The course was terrific from both a theoretical and practical standpoint. I was amazed about how accurately the issues addressed in the course related to my day-to-day experiences working in development. In fact, our work plan for our upcoming technical assistance program is largely based on PDIA!” Team Leader, Asian Development Bank, Dili, Timor-Leste

“The PDIA course has been for me the learning highlight of this year. The course has given me the knowledge of a process and tools that I was looking since traditional approaches to projects with best practices from elsewhere, solution-based, blueprint-based, with fixed plan, aiming always at system change, etc. do not work in most cases. I have now a set of steps and, more importantly, questions that can guide me in the work with colleagues and partners to understand the context in which we try to introduce change, identify concrete problems that people want to solve, and try to solve them, one at a time.” Arnaldo Pellini, Research Fellow, Overseas Development Institute

“As a Project Manager and Solutions Consultant in Nigeria, taking “PDIA: Building Capability by Delivering Results” opened paths to new possibilities for finding and fitting solutions that are based on specific contexts and current realities, by working with clients, communities and policy drivers. At the heart of these possibilities is the realization that no matter what the problem is or how complex it seems, we can start acting immediately. Most importantly, the interactions with peers and access to a growing PDIA Community of Practice provide unlimited potentials for the future.” Abubakar Abdullahi, Managing Principal, The Front Office NG, Nigeria

“Having worked in development for 35 years I recommend this course to all development practitioners. PDIA is a detailed process that will facilitate your design and implementation approach. PDIA has several steps. I believe the adoption of either all of these steps or just some selected steps will improve the design and implementation of your projects and programs, with improved benefits and results.”  John Whittle, Semi-retired and Consulting in Central Asia

“Through the modules of PDIA, I have had a mindset change on how development works and how it could work. It is an approach that has opened my eyes to many things that I had previously struggled to understand in my 15 years of development practice, where I have observed vicious cycles of problems like chronic poverty, corruption, and poor service delivery despite heavy investments by donors and recipient governments. I will continue to see my work with a PDIA lens and assess new projects in the same way. It is exciting to try and do things differently in an effort to get different results from the norm.” Cate Najjuma, Economist, Royal Danish Embassy, Kampala

“The PDIA course is perfectly designed for those who are currently trying to address real world issues. It has contributed to increase my value add on reform issues in Tunisia.  The course is very focused and practical, allowing it to fit into the busy schedule of professionals like me and to learn at an impressive pace.  I definitely recommend it to prospective applicants.” Gomez Agou, IMF Desk Economist, Washington DC

“The PDIA course showed how approaching and solving complex and challenging reform efforts are not pinned on rigid, structured frameworks but rather on a common sense approach bottled in a simple method all rooted on the fundamentals of understanding, clarifying, learning, experimenting and adapting.” Abubakar Sadiq Isa, Managing Director, Inteliworx Technologies, Nigeria

“The PDIA course represents an empirical reform prescription in building state capability by delivering results through theoretical and practical approaches geared toward sustained improvement and performance.” Tom Tombekai, Liberia

“I enjoyed taking the course PDIA: Building Capacity by Delivering Results. I have been doing development work in Africa in the anti-corruption area. This course introduced me to some new concepts in terms of building acceptance for ideas and programs and especially understanding the environment in terms of what may be possible and how success should be measured. It has has changed how I will approach future development problems. I very much enjoyed the readings, lectures and interactions with other students from around the world.” Craig Hannaford, Independent Consultant, Canada

“I have also been taught that every problem has got a series of causes and sub-causes. You really have to be very critical in analyzing a problem in order to address it effectively. This is one of the products of PDIA. I find myself thinking outside the box when I have to solve a problem whether in the office, with vendors or even at home. It is in this course that I first heard “deconstruction of a problem”. Deconstruction and sequencing work has helped me to foster actions to solve a problem. Ultimately, through this course PDIA, I have learnt that in the development sector, before bringing solutions to the government, I have to understand the existing practice, positive deviance, latent practice and external best practice. Without this course, I would not be an improved reformer.” Doris Ahuchama, Finance and Administration Manager, Nigeria

written by Salimah Samji

The broad principles that underpin the PDIA approach to building state capability are gaining traction in development and policy circles. We recently experimented with an online course as a modality to diffuse the essence of PDIA with the long term objective of creating a global community of practice that collaborates, learns, shares and grows together, ultimately leading to more successful development outcomes.

We offered a free two-part online course entitled, PDIA: Building Capability by Delivering Results. The first part of the course ran for 6 weeks from November 8th to December 20th, 2015. It included video lectures, reading lists, assignments, reflection exercises as well as peer interaction. Here are some stats:

• 510 development practitioners from around the world began the course on November 8^th
  
• 58% (295) submitted the assignments for the first week
• 47% (241) completed the entire 6-week course, spending an average of 3-5 hours a week on assignments.

One of the course participants wrote the following in his blog, “The highlight of the year for me has been the online course on PDIA set up by the team of the Building State Capability at Harvard.  It was a great idea to set up this free online course to push a bit more the message about PDIA across the development sector trying to reach people like me who kind of felt instinctively that things have to be done a bit differently for projects and programs to succeed but we did not have an intellectual framework to organise the ideas and gut feelings.”

Here’s a summary of what we learned:

• There is a demand for approaches to do development differently.
• Development practitioners, who have busy schedules, are willing to work an average of 3-5 hours a week for a course they find useful. Some of them spent 10+ hours a week.
• Simple, short videos can be a powerful means of instruction.
• Reflection exercises allow students to internalize concepts and apply them to their work.
• There is a spacing effect of learning in one’s own environment especially with active experiential learning. Learning concepts in your environment and over a period of time is transformative because some concepts require some time to really sink in.
• Sustainable change requires teaching teams who work on the same/similar issue.
• There are two potential audiences for future versions of our course: those who are interested in the meta level understanding of PDIA (breadth), and those who are in the weeds of development and actually want to do PDIA (depth).

The second part of the course is 8 weeks and will end on March 30^th, 2016. We plan to offer another round of courses soon – stay tuned!

By Duncan Green

One of the criticisms of the big picture discussion on governance  that’s been going on in networks such as Doing Development Differently and Thinking and Working Politically is that it’s all very helicopter-ish. ‘What do I do differently on Monday morning?’, comes the frustrated cry of the practitioner. Now some really useful answers are starting to come onstream, and I’ll review a few of them.

First up is ‘Doing Problem Driven Work’, a paper by Matt Andrews, Lant Pritchett and Michael Woolcock. It turns previous work on PDIA – ‘problem-driven iterative adaptation’ – into a toolkit, aimed primarily at those involved in reforming governance from the inside, whether government reformers, or big bilateral and World Bank donors with access to the corridors of power. However, there are clear parallels with and lessons for the work of more ‘outsider’ NGOs and campaigners.

It starts by noting that while many reform projects have failed in the past, those that succeeded often involved a ‘problem focus’. Problems ‘force policymakers and would-be reformers to ask questions about the incumbent ways of doing things’ and ‘provide a rallying point for coordinating distributed agents who might otherwise clash in the change process’. ‘Good’ problems are urgent and can be easily addressed by those in the room. They often spring from crises or other ‘critical junctures’.

The first step for a would-be reformer is ‘problem construction’, which ‘involves gathering key change agents to answer four questions: ‘What is the problem?’, ‘Why does it matter?’, ‘To whom does it matter?’, ‘Who needs to care more?’ and ‘How do we get them to give it more attention?’’ Defining the problem is key: it’s no good having a woffly ‘corruption is a problem’ type statement – you need ‘a real performance deficiency that cannot be ignored’, like ‘we can’t get education and health care to these communities, because the municipal officials keep nicking the money’.

Once you have a problem, you can get started, with your doughty band of reformers:

What is the problem? (and how would we measure it or tell stories about it?)

Why does it matter? (and how do we measure this or tell stories about it?) Ask this question until you are at the point where you can effectively answer the question below, with more names than just your own.

To whom does it matter? (In other words, ‘who cares? other than me?) Who needs to care more? How do we get them to give it more attention? What will the problem look like when it is solved? Can we think of what progress might look like in a year, or 6 months?

The authors stress the importance of ‘authority’. For insider reformers like them, the key is to get political backing for the reform, preferably from the president or similar, which opens doors and aligns incentives.

Authority forms part of a ‘triple A change space analysis’, together with ‘acceptance’ and ‘ability’:

Authority to engage

Who has the authority to engage: Legal? Procedural? Informal? Which of the authorizer(s) might support engagement now? Which probably would not support engagement now? Overall, how much acceptance do you think you have to engage, and where are the gaps?

Acceptance

Which agents (person/organization) has interest in this work?

• For each agent, on a scale of 1-10, think about how much they are likely to support engagement?
• On a scale of 1-10, think about how much influence each agent has over potential engagement?
• What proportion of ‘strong acceptance’ agents do you have (with above 5 on both estimates)?
• What proportion of ‘low acceptance’ agents do you have (with below 5 on both estimates)?

Overall, how much acceptance do you think you have to engage, and where are the gaps?

Ability

What is your personnel ability?

• Who are the key (smallest group of) agents you need to ‘work’ on any opening engagement?
• How much time would you need from these agents? What is your resource ability?
• How much money would you need to engage?
• What other resources do you need to engage? Overall, how much ability do you think you have to engage, and where are the gaps?

The questions also highlight some of the weaknesses of PDIA – there’s no power analysis here, for example, whether some people who are currently not involved in decision-making could become so, and what might enable them to do so; who are the blockers, and do they operate through the exercise of visible or hidden power? A good power analysis would definitely lead to more refined tactics. There’s also a lack of a real systems approach, for example looking for positive deviants that are already working, or emergent hybrid institutions that combine new and traditional approaches. It all feels quite top down and traditional.

On the other hand, I like the bottom-up construction of problem and solution, and the authors have been out there, doing this kind of work for years, so the paper is full of practical examples.

I’d be interested in what people think.

This blog was posted on the oxfam blog.