Context in capacity development
29 October 2010
In capacity development, it is good to be humble and recognise the contextual dynamics that are often more forceful and influential in the long term than support intervention itself. This issue of Capacity.org focuses on methods that can help to understand the societal context in which capacity development takes place. One of these methods is systems thinking, in which organisations, sectors and societies are seen as systems composed of elements that interact with each other.
The concept gained momentum in 1990 with the publication of Peter Senge’s book, The Fifth Discipline. Senge refers to systems thinking as the ability to see connections among cause–effect relationships that are related but separated in time and space. Within the aid sector the discussion about systems thinking is currently focused on the complexity of systems. There are often so many links among the elements that it is difficult, some would argue impossible, to predict the outcomes of processes of social change.
Interventions in these systems with specific targets are bound to fail, because each intervention will itself trigger feedback loops that are almost impossible to predict when the intervention is being planned. While the idea of systems and the complexity of systems are not disputed, conclusions about what action to take vary considerably. Whereas some, such as William Easterly in The White Man’s Burden, say ‘don’t bother planning’, others believe that planning can work to some degree, but that one has to be aware that intended outcomes are not guaranteed (see ‘ Connecting the dots’, Alan Fowler, The Broker 7).
Although systems thinking makes a lot of sense as a concept, much of the debate surrounding it has been at an abstract level, which makes it difficult to gauge the applicability of systems thinking in practice. In this issue of Capacity.org we have attempted to bring the concepts of systems thinking and complexity down to earth. We asked the authors to look at the merits as well as the pitfalls of systems thinking in practice.
The systems field is very broad, with many schools of thought and a plethora of opinions about what the essence of systems thinking is or is not. In an effort to identify the ‘bottom line’ commonalities that unite most of these schools of thought, Bob Williams traces the historical development of systems thinking and introduces some of the most commonly used concepts and methods.
Sam Joseph and Shamim Bodhanya show how thinking in terms of interdependent relationships, a particular branch of systems thinking, can help practitioners to understand the jumble of cause–e ffect relationships that influence the outcome of an intervention. Andy Hall et al. show how redefining the boundaries of a system, in their case an agricultural innovation system, can reveal underexplored opportunities for developing innovation capacity. Tony Land explains that it matters a great deal which metaphor for a system is chosen. Whereas adherents of the logframe implicitly use the metaphor of the machine, often with very disappointing results, Land argues that the metaphor of a living organism is much more promising.
Chris Mowles offers some words of caution. There are notions of systems thinking prevalent among European NGOs that do not recognise the complexity of systems, and in particular aspects of local knowledge and power relations.
Irene Guijt and Sandra Seeboldt also argue that power relations require a lot more rigorous analysis than is usually the case, and show how power relations can be better understood.
Carlo Kuepers and Agnes Luz of SNV Ethiopia explain how value chain analysis helps them to understand the interconnections among poor and marginalised farmers with networks of processors, traders and markets that span the globe. They use value chain analysis to identify entry points for supporting capacity development that will contribute to improving the livelihoods of these farmers.
Guest columnist Nils Boesen observes that context matters a lot more than most donors realise. Many live with – and fuel – unrealistic expectations about what can be achieved through aid. A more humble approach – understanding context and recognising the value of small, incremental steps in capacity development – can prevent many from being disillusioned.
By Heinz Greijn, Editor in Chief
