First, is real clarity and honesty about the purpose, i.e., establishing a shared understanding of capacity building for what? The Tanzania case study shows the effects of purpose on subsequent commitment and behaviour. When framed as 'ends' i.e., capacity to increase performance, rather than 'means' such as staff retrenchment, acceptance and commitment increased. Lack of rigour in being clear about 'for what', as vague or long term as this may be, fosters confusion and multiple interpretations that often lead to deflection of effort. This is why -- illustrated by the Red Cross case -- early, balanced negotiation between relevant stakeholders is so vital.

Second, is to check how the anticipated level of intervention 'nests' within others. An example, as many cases show, is the extent to which the overall incentive structure creates positive or negative pre-conditions for more narrow reforms. Failure to factor in and deal with higher and lower conditions reaps its own reward of frustration and resistance to change. Taking a system view of CB is one way of understanding and mapping linkages to important features surrounding the intervention. The skill is knowing how far to look and what to do in order to create an enabling framework.

A third precondition is learning from the 'trigger' for change. Crudely, is it internal or external? In the latter situation, far more attention must be paid to issues of ownership, commitment and empowerment of those who are ultimately responsible for making change occur and endure. This is always the organisation that is undergoing change. Funders can help, but in the last analysis the responsibility for change is not theirs. The CIDA case in Ethiopia shows that the funder's responsibility is to reflect on and apply the changes they need to make in their own behaviour to better enable change in others.

Finally, the Uganda case indicates that a pre-condition for success (in any development intervention) is knowing and agreeing from the outset how withdrawal will take place. The art of 'letting go' is as important as the art of engaging. This is perhaps one of the least explored facets of good practice.

Preconditions are often shaped by prior processes, (relational) experiences affecting trust and deep factors of convention (implicit rules of the game) and culture. They are seldom amenable to easy or short-term improvement. Hence they may be recognised but are then discounted or placed in the assumptions column of project log frames. Institutional interests, pressure to act and to disburse add to the relative inattention to getting the preconditions right. A common penalty of not taking pre-conditions seriously enough is gaining superficial change that does not become embedded and enduring. In sum, pre-conditions matter.