PDIA Notes 1: How we have PDIA’d PDIA in the last five years

written by Matt Andrews, co-Founding Faculty of the Building State Capability Program

We at the Building State Capability (BSC) program have been working on PDIA experiments for five years now. These experiments have been designed to help us learn how to facilitate problem driven, iterative and adaptive work. We have learned a lot from them, and will be sharing our lessons—some happy, some frustrating, some still so nuanced and ambiguous that we need more learning, and some clear— through a series of blog posts.

Before we share, however, I wanted to clarify some basic information about who we are and what we do, and especially what our work involves. Let me do this by describing what our experiments look like, starting with listing the characteristics that each experiment shares:

  • We have used the PDIA principles in all cases (engaging local authorizers to nominate their own problems for attention, and their own teams, and then working on solving the problems through tight iterations and with lots of feedback).
  • We work with and through teams of individuals who reside in the context and who are responsible for addressing the problems being targeted. These people are the ones who do the hard work, and who do the learning, and who get the credit for whatever comes out of the process.
  • We work with government teams only, given our focus on building capable states. (We do not believe that one can always replace failed or failing administrative and political bodies with private or non profit contractors or operators. Rather, one should address the cause of failure and build capability where it does not exist).
  • We believe in building capability through experiential learning and the failure and success such brings (choosing to institutionalize solutions only after lessons have been learned about what works and why, instead of institutionalizing solutions that imply ex ante knowledge of what works in places where such knowledge does not exist).
  • We work with real problems and focus on real results (defined as ‘problem solved’, not ‘solution introduced’) in order focus the work and motivate the process (to authorizers and to teams involved in doing the work).
  • We—the BSC team affiliated with Harvard—see ourselves as external facilitators of a process, and do not do the substantive work of delivery—even if the results look like they won’t come. Our primary focus is on fostering learning and coaching teams to do things differently and more effectively; we have seen too many external consultants rescuing a delivery failure once and undermining local ownership of the process and the emphasis on building local capability to succeed.

This set of principles has underpinned our experimental work in a variety of countries and sectors, where governments have been struggling to get things done. We have worked in places like Mozambique, South Africa, Liberia, Albania, Jamaica, Oman, and now Sri Lanka. We have worked with teams focused on justice reform, health reform, agriculture policy, industrial policy, export promotion, investor engagement, low-income housing, tourism promotion, municipal management, oil and electricity sector issues, and much more.

These engagements have taken different shapes—as we vary approaches to learn internally about how to do this kind of work most effectively, and how to adapt mechanisms to different contexts and opportunities:

  • In some instances, we have been the direct conveners of teams of individuals, whereas we have relied on authorizers in countries to act as conveners in other contexts, and in some interactions we have worked with individuals only—and relied on these individuals to act as conveners in their own contexts.
  • Some of our work has involved extremely regular and tangible interaction from our side—with our facilitators engaging at least every two or three weeks with teams—and other work has seen a much less regular, or a more light touch interaction (not meeting every two weeks, or engaging only be phone every two weeks, or structuring interactions between peers involved in the work rather than having ourselves as the touch point).
  • We have used classroom structures in some engagements, where teams are convened in a neutral space and work as if in a classroom setting for key points of the process (the initial framing of the work and meetings at major milestones every six weeks or so), but in other contexts we work strictly in the environments of the teams, and in a more ‘workplace-driven’ structure. In other instances, we have relied almost completely on remote correspondence (through online course engagements, for instance).

There are other variations in the experiments, all intended to help us learn from experience about what works and why. The experiments have yielded many lessons, and humbled us as well: Some of these experiments have become multi-year interactions where we see people being empowered to do things differently, but others have not even gotten out of the starting blocks, for instance. Both experiences humble us for different reasons.

This work is truly the most exciting and time consuming thing I have ever done, but is also—I feel deeply—the most important work I could be doing in development. It has made my sense of what we need in development clearer and clearer. I hope you also benefit in this was as we share our experiences in coming blog posts.

 

The DDD Manifesto finds a new home

written by Salimah Samji

Since we published The DDD Manifesto on November 21, it has been viewed over 5,000 times all around the world (in 100+ countries). It currently has over 400 signatories from 60 countries. It is an eclectic community with people from bilateral organizations, multilaterals, governments, academia, NGOs, private sector, as well as independent development practitioners. These are the founding members of The DDD Manifesto Community.

Today, we are delighted to launch the online platform of the DDD Manifesto Community which is the new home of the manifesto. We hope that this will be a place where you can come to share ideas, have conversations, question your assumptions, learn from others, offer support and be inspired. It includes a forum for discussion, blog posts written by community members and features video presentations from the recent DDD workshop (#differentdev).

To sign the manifesto and to participate in the forum, you can register here. Please contribute actively – this is a community website and you are the community. 

If you want to Do Development Differently but it sounds too hard…

written by Matt Andrews

Arnaldo Pellini recently wrote an interesting personal blog post about the Doing Development Differently workshop and manifesto. He concludes with, “I agree with these ideas and  I can share and discuss these ideas with the team with whom I work  but what difference can it make if the systems around us due to organizational culture, history, circumstances, and traditions struggle to embrace flexibility, uncertainty,  untested experimentation, and slow incremental changes?”

This is an honest reflection from a practitioner in the field; and one that I hear often–from folks working in multilateral and bilateral agencies, as contractors, and beyond. It captures a concern that the development machinery (organizations, monitoring and reporting devices, profession-alliances, government counterparts, etc.) is structurally opposed to doing the kind of work one might call DDD or PDIA.

It’s like this cartoon…where our organizations say “let’s innovate but stay the same.”

Change-is-hard-430x332

I have been thinking about this a lot in the last few years, ever since I wrote chapter ten of my book…which asked whether the development community was capable of changing. In that chapter I was not especially confident but (I hope) I was still hopeful.

Since then, I think I’m more hopeful. Partly because,

  • we have found many folks in the multilaterals, bilaterals, contractors etc. who are doing development in this more flexible way. We invited a range of them to the DDD Workshop and over 330 signed on to the DDD Manifesto. One of the goals of our work in the next while is to learn from these folks about HOW they do development differently even with the constraints they face. How do they get funders to embrace uncertainty? How do they get ministers in-country to buy-into flexibility and give up on straight isomorphism?
  • I am also working on research projects that tackle this question; doing PDIA in real time, in places where development is predominantly done through the incumbent mechanisms. It is hard work, but I am finding various strategies to get buy-in to a new approach (including showing how problematic the old approach is, by working in the hardest areas where one has a counterfactual of failed past attempts, and more). I am also finding strategies to keep the process alive and buy more and more space for flexibility (by iterating tightly at first, for instance, and showing quick wins…and telling the story of learning and of increased engagement and empowerment). So far, I have not experienced complete success with what I have done, but I have certainly not struggled in getting support from the practitioners and authorisers we work with. (In my world it is harder to get support from academics, who think action research on implementation is a hobby and consultancy work… indeed, anything that does not say ‘RCT’ is considered less than academic. Sigh.)

All this is to say that I think Arnaldo is emphasizing a really important constraint on those working in development agencies. But a constraint that we should work through if we really do agree that these more problem driven, flexible approaches are what is needed. To Arnaldo and others I would suggest the following:

  • Separate the conversation about which way we should do development from the conversation about how much our organizational realities ALLOW us to do it. The first conversation is: “Should we do DDD/PDIA?” The second conversation is: “How do we DDD/PDIA?” If we conflate the conversations we never move ahead. If we separate them then we can develop strategies to gradually introduce PDIA/DDD into what we do (in essence, I’m suggesting doing PDIA ourselves, to help change the way we do development…see an earlier blog).
  • I also constantly remind myself that we (external folks in development organizations) are not the only ones facing a challenge of doing new stuff in existing contexts–with all the constraints of such. This is what we are asking of our counterparts and colleagues in the developing countries where we work. Dramatic and uncomfortable and impossible change is in the air every time we are introducing and facilitating and supporting and sponsoring work in developing countries. I always tell myself: “If we can’t work it out in our own organizations–when we think that our own organizational missions depend on such change–then we have no place asking folks in developing countries to work it out.”
  • So, it’s a challenge. But a worthy one. And if we care about doing development with impact, I think it behooves us to face up to this challenge.

Good luck, Arnaldo, thanks for your honesty and for the obvious commitment that causes you to share your reality. It is really appreciated!

The PDIA Anthem

Need help decoding the acronym PDIA? Check out the PDIA anthem.

 

This Anthem uses the Instrumental from Mos Def – Mathematics. It was made by a very talented student as part of an assignment for Matt Andrews course entitled Getting Things Done in Development. We had never imagined that we could write a song about PDIA, let alone a rap. Thank you.

Let me hear you say P. D. I. A.

World Bank uses PDIA in Sierra Leone

written by Salimah Samji

International development experts often tell us that they cannot do PDIA because the project processes within their organizations do not allow for flexibility. The truth however, is that all development agencies have some sort of instrument that does allow for experimentation and flexibility. Here’s an example of how a Pay and Performance project in Sierra Leone explicitly used PDIA principles.

Civil service reforms are complex in and of themselves. If you add, a lack of capacity to implement programs, multiple reporting lines, demoralized civil servants, a lack of coordination amongst key agencies, and a low-level of trust, the potential for success of such a reform decreases significantly. Recognizing this, the World Bank team decided to use the key principles of the PDIA framework with support from the Leadership for Results (LforR) program for their Pay and Performance Project in Sierra Leone. The rationale for this was to bring a broad range of stakeholders together and facilitate a process of collective problem and solution identification, as well as to introduce experimentation and adaptability during implementation.

They began with some short-term results-focused Rapid Results Initiatives (RRIs) in Year 0 and Year 1. The pilot was instrumental in building the confidence of the local civil servants by demonstrating that progress was possible in their context and gave them a sense of ownership. In addition, the short feedback loops facilitated rapid experiential learning about what results were actually achieved for both government and the World Bank staff – in PDIA terminology, we call this strategically crawling the design space.

Specifically, they used a two-pronged, learning-by-doing process, which included:

  1. Structured team coaching throughout the implementation process: A locally based rapid results coach who had an in-depth understanding of government and public sector reform was hired to provide support to teams on a daily basis. The coach:
    • Facilitated problem solving at multiple levels in the system with team-level work,
    • Helped create action plans by breaking a huge daunting task into smaller easier to digest chunks,
    • Motivated the teams despite the challenges, and
    • Created an opportunity for the teams to learn from each other and to see how their work fit within the larger picture.
  1. Facilitated leadership fora for dialogue: One-day strategic leadership convenings between leaders and implementation teams were held at critical points. These retreats served to review progress and learning, problem-solve, facilitate reflection, make strategic decisions, and course-correct where needed. In PDIA terminology, we call this maintaining the authorizing environment.

After 20 months of implementation (February 2014), they had several hard results. More importantly, there was stronger inter- and intra-agency collaboration and increased trust and communication. The teams actually had the capacity to do things themselves. The flexibility at the design stage allowed more politically and technically feasible solutions to emerge.

So, large bureaucracies can do PDIA and it doesn’t take forever. Bottom-line: the mundane matters and cannot be ignored for a project to succeed.

Roberto O. Panzardi and Kay Winning are in the process of publishing a paper with more details on this project. You can read about the preliminary results here.

 

What is Action Learning?

written by Matt Andrews

Action learning is a key part of PDIA. It is “a hybrid technique that allows participants to use what they learn to tackle priority problems within their companies under actual work conditions. Action learning is a social process for resolving the difficulties managers increasingly confront, where history offers no solution.

At its heart, action learning is a systematic process that increases participants’ organizational learning in order to help them respond more effectively to change. Originated by Reg Revans (1983), action learning is based on the underlying premise that there is no learning without action and no action without learning. Action learning is inextricably linked with action science. Action science (Argyris, Putnam, and Smith, 1985) provides a conceptual framework and a methodology for facilitating action learning, while Revan’s work establishes the actual form. The following processes of action science are implicit in action learning:

  • Critical reflection: bringing underlying assumptions to consciousness; testing those assumptions to determine if they are appropriate for attaining the desired goal
  • Reframing: altering assumptions that don’t accomplish desired goals
  • Unlearning and relearning: developing new sets of learned skills based on reframed assumptions; replacing old with new skills until new ones are automatic.

Action learning methodology has three main elements:

  1. Problems that people identify;
  2. People who accept responsibility for taking action on a particular issue; and
  3. Colleagues who support and challenge one another in the process of resolving the problems.

Using real tasks as the vehicle for learning, individuals, groups, or teams develop management and leadership skills while working on organizational problems and testing their assumptions against real consequences. By taking a real problem, analyzing it, and implementing solutions derived with colleagues, individuals monitor results and can be held accountable for their actions. Revans believes that if we are to cope with accelerating and turbulent change, then we must place our confidence in the lived experiences and insights of others in order to be successful.” from Experiential Learning, Past and Present  Lewis, L.H. and Williams, C.J. (1994).

Reflection Graphic

Common Core Math: when the how undermines the what

written by Salimah Samji

Without the how, the what remains fiction — often compelling fiction. Development is littered with examples of projects/reforms that have failed because no one systematically thought through how the project/reform would actually be implemented given the local capacity and context. The common assumption is that if you design a technically sound project then implementation will magically happen by itself. Others believe that implementation happens by edict. The reality is that the mundane, while ordinary, banal and boring, can be the key to getting things done in development.

Elizabeth Green in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine makes a similar argument about the Common Core math standards — the new math, in the absence of new teaching, will lead to failure. The traditional approach to teaching math which involves memorizing lists of rules, does not work. It turns out, we already know this and attempts to find better ways to teach math can be traced back to the 1800s, with the most recent efforts in the 1960s and 1980s.

The key problem is numeracy – the mathematical equivalent of not being able to read. Green’s research finds that America ranks in the bottom 5 of 20 countries in numeracy (a 2012 study comparing 16-65 year olds), and on national tests, approximately 67% of 4th and 8th graders are not proficient in math. Clearly all the past attempts of trying to teach “new math” have failed. In order for the latest version of new math to be successful, the teachers need to fully understand the new standards. They need training and support. In practice however, “training is still weak and infrequent, and principals — who are no more skilled at math than their teachers — remain unprepared to offer support. Textbooks, once again, have received only surface adjustments.”

Japan, has been very successful in implementing a similar approach to the Common Core. Green highlights that the teachers depend on jugyokenkyu or lesson study to perfect their teaching skills. This process includes planning a lesson, teaching it in front of an audience of students and other teachers, followed by a discussion of what worked — experiential learning with very tight feedback loops. The best discussions the Japanese teachers had were the most microscopic, minute-by-minute recollections of what had occurred, with commentary … essentially, the mundane!

Changing standards alone is not enough to create or sustain change. There is a need to address the existing delivery infrastructure, to build capacity and to allow for local experimentation, learning, iteration and adaptation. This is a process which takes time and cannot be done overnight, but it has the greatest chance of success.

If you are interested in learning more, read Escaping Capability Traps through Problem Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA). You can also watch our BSC video series.

BSC video 31: Crawling together in Cambodia

Everyone agrees that building the rule of law is important. But building the capability of a justice system is a long and difficult process, often susceptible to isomorphic mimicry. In this video, Michael Woolcock, uses an example of legal systems in Cambodia to illustrate how the arbitration council had to learn how to negotiate together through a process that built collective capability and legitimacy. You can watch the video below or on YouTube.

You can learn more about the Cambodia Arbitration Council here, and read more about opening spaces for reform in Cambodia and Indonesia here.

BSC video 30: Learning by crawling

In development, external best practice is almost always used as a solution. In reality, however, finding solutions to tough problems is not so simple. In this video, Matt Andrews, illustrates that if you crawl the design space, you might end up with a hybrid solution that is possible and also works in your context. You do not have to limit yourself to one or two options only. You can watch the video below or on YouTube.

If you are interested in learning more, watch learn, iterate, adapt, and iteration is research in action.

BSC video 29: Iteration is reasearch in action

Iteration does not take a thousand years. You can immediately begin the process of learning through iteration and adaptation, after you define your problem. In this video, Matt Andrews, demonstrates the process of how you learn through iteration to ultimately solve your problem. You can watch the video below or on YouTube.

If you are interested in learning more, watch learn, iterate, adapt.