Those Pesky Unmeasurable Variables
I read recently that we see diminishing creativity in
society because we are too busy. We never take time to let our minds empty to
allow those ‘ah ha!’ moments in. This is probably true. But I had a ‘seriously,
it took me that long to realize that?’ moment this morning. Like, full on,
I’d-like-to-go-back-and-rewrite-an-entire-evaluation kind of moment. And it all
hinged on the confluence of events. The first took place over my morning
coffee, reading a recent Guardian Development Pros article ‘Development is Not a Science and Cannot be Measured.’
Indeed, it is not (as I’ve argued here before). Despite all the tools and
academic and policy maker claims to the contrary, there are too many variables
in development for any of us to explicitly state ‘A therefore B’. And we know
this (those of us who do the work day in and day out and try to meld
development policy with practicality and bare bones reality). The second took
place at the gym a short while later as I was reading ‘Aid on the Edge of
Chaos’ by Ben Ramalingam (this book in itself providing me numerous ‘ah ha’ moments
recently). We jump through hoops to make development somehow measurable,
sacrificing ambition and creativity along the way (for more on that, read
chapter 5 of the book). That is, until we lose our cool and tell off HQ for
being ridiculous (me) or let it all out in an editorial in the Guardian
(Michael Kleinman, see above).
Somehow, with the concepts of measuring change and impact and jumping through hoops to make people happy swarming in my head, all while aiming to ‘turn off my brain’ at the gym, I realized that one of my crowning ‘measurement’ glories was in fact only a partial victory.
Somehow, with the concepts of measuring change and impact and jumping through hoops to make people happy swarming in my head, all while aiming to ‘turn off my brain’ at the gym, I realized that one of my crowning ‘measurement’ glories was in fact only a partial victory.
Way back in 2008, when the provincial government in Aceh,
Indonesia was properly getting back on its feet after years of conflict, a
devastating tsunami and recent elections, I led the design of the monitoring
framework for a programme to support the new Governor to ‘make government
work’. Although colleagues and government were keen to measure the programme
through the number of policies developed, staff trained and systems put in
place, I advocated (strongly and loudly - sorry DJ) for something more robust,
more meaningful. I wanted to see if the policies and trainings and systems
would make a difference in the end game: the actual delivery of services. The
provincial government had an appallingly poor record of delivering its annual
budget and programmes. How about measuring change on that front and then back
tracing the factors to see if our programme contributed? It sounded boring to many, and not immediately achievable - like that ‘low hanging
fruit’ everyone is hell bent on when it’s the long game we should be worried
about - but it remained.
In 2007 the provincial government delivered just over 60% of
its annual budget. By the end of 2009, it was 80%. In 2010, it was just over
90%. And boy did I crow in glory. Yes, there were other capacity building
programmes taking place, but our programme had indeed contributed significantly
to this astounding change, and I took my indicator success for a ride all over
town (metaphorically speaking).
But today, as I sweated my way through 10km on the bike, it
dawned on me that we didn’t measure or indeed account for what may have been
the deciding factor or variable in the change: leadership. We talk about it but
we don’t have tools to measure it, development not being a science and all.
Logframes tend to preclude us from doing so, so we unknowingly limited our
measurement ambitions. And although hindsight may be 20/20, even back in 2009
and 2010 it was obvious to everyone that the leadership of the Governor and his
highly capable department heads was the reason change was happening. You can
draft all of the policies in the world and train millions of civil servants,
but unless there is leadership to take the results of these activities and move
forward, you are nowhere. And if you want evidence of this, look no further
than the self-serving Governor who was elected in 2012 and the dramatic
reversal of governance and government fortunes that Aceh experienced in the
ensuring five years. (Happily, the Governor from 2007-2012 was re-elected in
2017 so Aceh’s future is brightening).
This is a lesson well learned for me: although development
is not a science we must still measure it and we must try our best to responsibly
capture and account for the variables which are not in our control but
nonetheless determine the success or failure of a project or programme within
our project monitoring, not just as a part of our risk management strategy. Am
I potentially creating more work when I’d ideally like to see things
simplified? Yes, probably. But accountability matters more than simplicity at
the end of the day.
Comments
Post a Comment