Striking a Balance: Payment by Results and Adaptive Management
A few months ago, my colleagues and I invested significant
amount of time to design a project that championed local ownership,
accountability to beneficiaries and adaptive management. We were explicit about
our methodologies and about how the results would be defined by the
beneficiaries during the inception phase of the project: our philosophy was
that success would be more likely to be achieved if the beneficiaries could
decide what success looked like – for them. Beyond the jargon, the proposal was
good. Good enough to be approved by the donor and for us to get excited about a
project with a truly adaptive management approach. But when it came time to
sign the contract, the dreaded ‘payment by results’ phrase magically appeared.
Out of nowhere, we were told we needed to have ‘pre-defined results’ before the
project could move ahead.
I should hardly have been surprised by this development –
the donor community has consistently undercut development effectiveness
principles and the concept of ownership by pushing value for money and payment
by results agendas. It’s no wonder international development is derided and the
people and governments it is supposed to benefit disillusioned Goodness, it’s a
daily struggle to keep the derision and cynicism out of my own voice when I
have to talk about it.
It is increasingly obvious that donors and development
organizations work in parallel universes. It is even more obvious that no one
can agree on who we – donors and implementers alike – are primarily accountable
to. To be completely candid: there seems to be a misunderstanding amongst
donors that it is either-or when it comes to accountability to stakeholders
versus financial accountability. There is an inability to give up some control
of the process, despite the fact that research[1]
– not to mention general feedback – debunks the idea that development projects
are most useful and their results sustainable when they are over-simplified,
linear, and have pre-determined results that must be achieved regardless of
shifting contextual environments.
I can see why donors are having real difficulty
transitioning away from this control mindset towards more effective approaches
to development (such as adaptive management approaches, which are demonstrating
more sustainability in their results amongst ongoing testing). We have all read
the flashy headlines about the misuse of funds, or the projects that failed to
achieve their goals (*cough*), and the backlash governments face from their constituents
over ostensibly ‘wasted tax-payer money.’
We are all still stuck in a conundrum, however. Development
professionals recognize that our approach to development needs to change, but
we are pushing an agenda (adaptive management) that has the other side (donors)
feeling like there will be no accountability for money spent or neatly packaged
results that they can report back on. So, how do we strike a balance to achieve
all our goals?
We already have the tools, we’re just not good at
prioritizing them. In my upcoming book on how to implement a monitoring and
evaluation framework in an adaptive project I provide in-depth guidance on how
to employ these tools on a daily basis: proper risk management, tracking,
recording and resolving challenges to the project, joint project reviews (and
monitoring missions!), joint problem solving and an overall candidness in
communications between donors and implementers can make a difference. It
alleviates the fears of ‘losing control’ on the side of the donors, while also
providing regular opportunities for implementers to demonstrate the challenges
they are up against.
These are easy fixes, but the biggest roadblock will be the
changes in mindsets on both sides – a recognition that we are on the same side,
which, given the often acrimonious relationships to date, is not something that
we (both donors and implementers) are quite ready to admit.
[1]
See for example: Duncan Green’s 2016 book ‘How Change Happens’ (free to
download at how-change-happens.com), and Ben Ramalingham’s 2013 book ‘Aid on
the Edge of Chaos’.
So true!!
ReplyDeleteSeminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino - Mapyro
ReplyDeleteFind 김천 출장안마 hotel prices and reviews for Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Punta Cana. 창원 출장마사지 Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino 보령 출장안마 is a Native American casino 상주 출장샵 with Native American 광명 출장안마