HOW TO ASSESS NGO CAPACITY? A Resource Book on Organisational Assessment Stein-Erik Kruse Oslo 1999 Norwegian Missionary Council Office for Development Cooperation Table of Content 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD............................................................................................................................ 2 HOW TO READ THE BOOK ...............................................................................................3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE ................................................................ 4 1.1. NEW CHALLENGES FOR NGOS ......................................................................................4 1.2. WHAT IS ORGANISATIONAL ASSESSMENT? ...................................................................4 1.3. WHAT ISSUES ARE DISCUSSED? .......................................................................................5 CHAPTER 2: AID POLICES AND KEY CONCEPTS ....................................................... 8 2.1. THE REDISCOVERY OF ORGANISATIONS ..........................................................................8 2.2. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS .........................................................................................10 CHAPTER 3: STAKEHOLDERS AND PURPOSES ........................................................ 14 3.1. WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS? .....................................................................................14 3.2. HOW TO DECIDE THE PURPOSE?.....................................................................................15 3.2.2. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT ..................................17 3.2.3. ESTABLISHING NEW PARTNERSHIPS............................................................................17 CHAPTER 4: A FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING NGO CAPACITY......................... 19 4.1. FOCUSING THE ASSESSMENT: ZOOMING IN AND ZOOMING OUT .....................................19 4.2. FRAMEWORKS FOR ASSESSING PERFORMANCE ..............................................................20 CHAPTER 5: HOW TO CARRY OUT AN ASSESSMENT?........................................... 27 5.1. REASONS FOR CONDUCTING AN ASSESSMENT ................................................................27 5.2. MAPPING THE STAKEHOLDERS. ......................................................................................28 5.3. ASSESSING ORGANISATIONAL READINESS ......................................................................30 5.4. DECIDING THE TEAM TO CONDUCT THE ASSESSMENT .....................................................32 5.5. IDENTIFYING KEY ISSUES AND SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT.............................................34 5.6. TAILORING THE TOOLS ...................................................................................................35 5.7. ARRANGING THE WORKSHOP .........................................................................................35 5.8. PREPARING THE FOLLOW-UP .........................................................................................37 CHAPTER 6: FOCUSING THE ASSESSMENT ............................................................... 38 6.1. RAPID ASSESSMENT TOOLS ............................................................................................38 6.2. ORGANISATIONS IN DIFFERENT STAGES OF LIFE ..........................................................43 APPENDIX 1: ORGANISATIONAL ASSESSMENT FORMAT .................................... 47 APPENDIX 2: REFERENCES............................................................................................. 52 Foreword 2 FOREWORD An anecdote tells of six blind men who happen upon an elephant. One man felt the animal's leg and exclaimed: "Elephants are very much like trees!" Another man felt the tail and concluded: "No, an elephant is more similar to a rope". Another felt the tusks, and yet another the trunk, and so on. In the end, each of the six blind men left with his own idea of what an elephant really is. The assessment of organisations is very much like the six blind. It is the same organisation, but conclusions vary dramatically depending on who describes and evaluates, and the purpose of the assessment. To some extent this is necessary. Organisations are complex "animals" that need to be examined from many different perspectives. As such, there is not only one organisation, but several images of the same organisation depending on people's different perceptions. On the other hand, we believe that a more systematic approach helps to provide a better understanding of organisations and their dynamics. It is increasingly being realised that NGO performance is linked to and depends on organisational capacity. Capacity building or organisational development have become key aims and strategies in respect of the cooperation between Northern and Southern NGOs. NGOs in the North and South are thus faced with new challenges. How do they form the basis for constructive collaboration? How do Norwegian NGOs appraise the capacity of their partners, and identify genuine needs and opportunities for change? What methods of self-assessment are available for Southern NGOs starting capacity building efforts? And not least, how should the results and impact of partnership and organisational objectives be measured and evaluated? The Norwegian Missionary Council – Office for Development Cooperation (BN) has for several years worked with thematic areas like new partnerships, the assessment of organisational sustainability and how to measure results and impact. A Handbook with various models for how to assess organisational sustainability was developed in 1995, along with tools to analyse the handing over process of development projects. 1 This book has been used extensively and BN wished to prepare a new and supplementary resource book. While the former analysed organisations in relation to a broad discussion of sustainability, this book goes more inside the organisation and presents models and tools for assessing NGO capacity. 1 "Caring, Sharing, Daring. Development Work in Transition”, Oslo 1995. Acknowledgements 3 HOW TO READ THE BOOK This is partly a Handbook presenting guidelines and tools for how to assess organisations, but it seeks also to broaden perspectives and knowledge about organisational change and institutional development. Chapters 1 and 2 set the scene by defining new challenges for NGOs as partnership organisations and key concepts used in the book. Chapter 3 makes the point that the purpose of organisational assessment depends on the interests of the users, and introduces three main purposes for conducting an assessment. In Chapter 4 the framework and main analytical model for organisational assessment is presented. Chapter 5 goes through the practical steps in an assessment process and Chapter 6 suggests some more rapid assessment methods. There is a logical progression in the book and basic ground rules are important. Organisational assessment is not a neutral instrument, but needs to be understood in a broader development context and handled with care. Users could, however, benefit from specific tools and guidelines in the final chapters. We will also encourage readers to test and experiment with alternative approaches and keep in mind that one or the same tool does not necessarily work in all organisations. Quality assessment is not a matter of mechanical application, but careful adaptation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank BN for funding this project and their staff - in particular Arne-Kjell Raustøl for his moral support and professional advise throughout the process. An advisory group consisting of representatives from Norwegian missionary organisations and external advisers have met three times and provided valuable comments and input to the process and product. The main model in this book has been tried out in Bangladesh and Kenya. We would like to thank Bangladesh Evangelical Lutheran Church (BNELC) and the Norwegian Santal Mission, the Free Pentecostal Fellowship (FPFK) in Kenya and the Pentecostal Foreign Mission of Norway (PYM) for their active cooperation and useful comments in constructive workshops in Dinajpur and Nairobi. Chapter 1 4 CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 1.1. New Challenges for NGOs New partnerships between Norwegian and Southern NGOs are emerging. NGOs in Norway are not supposed to plan and implement programmes on their own, but collaborate with and provide support through like-minded Southern partners. Capacity development has become a key concern for most Norwegian NGOs, and organisational development represent both a strategy and an aim in a new era of development cooperation. NGOs are faced with new challenges. How do organisations find each other and form the basis for constructive collaboration? How do Norwegian NGOs appraise the capacity of their partners, and identify genuine needs and opportunities? What methods for self-assessment are available for Southern NGOs starting new capacity building efforts? And not least, how should the effects and impact of partnership and organisational change be measured and evaluated? NGOs need new knowledge about organisations and how they change in different cultural contexts. They need to know what characterises a well performing NGO, a framework for assessing NGO capacities, skills and methods for the systematic collection of data. The new concepts of capacity building and institutional development are still over-used and under-defined by most NGOs. Strategies and rhetoric have changed without sufficient understanding of operational strategies and the skills required to follow the new principles and practices for development cooperation. Capacity development has been presented as part of the new answers, without a clear sense of the problems. Effective strategies for capacity development require good diagnosis. Lack of diagnosis is malpractice whether in medicine or management, and may lead to resources being wasted and serious failures. Project support was often found to be difficult, but organisational development is a far more complex and risky effort. 1.2. What is Organisational Assessment? Organisational assessment is defined as: «all systematic processes which are used to assess the performance, competence and capacity of an organisation and find ways to increase its efficiency and effectiveness". 2 2 Another definition is: "OA is the application of different frameworks, techniques and tools to help development agencies decide which partner organisation to work with, and to help them identify which interventions may be needed to strengthen this partnership". Hailey J. (1995) Chapter 1 5 It consists of tools and techniques which are used to identify areas in organisations that are progressing well, and to reveal deficits in capacity and competence that are limiting performance. The analysis also indicates what level of capacity would be needed in the future. The comparison between the actual and the desired shows what gaps need to be filled. Organisational assessment is nothing new or mysterious. It is a continuous process carried out by managers, staff, members and beneficiaries. People often have clear views about the qualities of leaders, the reputation of the organisation, its profile, ability to provide services, etc. There is, however, an important difference between intuitive judgements and more formal organisational assessment. It is the structured approach and more systematic procedures which characterise organisational assessment. The purpose of this resource book is twofold: • To present an approach, models and procedures for assessing NGO capacity. • To place organisational assessment as a strategic challenge for NGO growth and development. It is partly a Handbook which presents guidelines on how to conduct an organisational assessment. The specific dos and don’ts are relatively few since every assessment needs to be tailored to a context and particular organisation. We would rather call it a resource book on organisational assessment with the intention of broadening perspectives and knowledge about organisational diagnosis and development. The book is prepared mainly for NGO managers, staff and consultants working with NGOs. We also believe that development practitioners from other sectors could benefit from the approach and models presented here. 1.3. What Issues are Discussed? Changing Policies and Key Concepts What drives the interest for capacity development? What are the basic concepts and definitions? Concepts are many and often unclear. Similar terms have multiple meanings. There are few operational definitions which allow NGOs to target capacity development well. Recent NGO evaluations illustrate a wide gap between theory and practice in the sense that NGOs are often more clever at adopting Chapter 1 6 new buzzwords than at translating and putting those words into operation in their programmes. 3 The Purpose of Organisational Assessment Why are we doing an organisational assessment? Who are the users and the stakeholders? Organisational assessment is always a means to an end, and should be placed within a broader strategic framework. It is the user that defines purpose and relevance. A powerful tool has little value if the craftsman does not know how and why he is using it. Assessment of organisational capacity is carried out at various points in the programme cycle with different objectives. We need to clarify the most common uses, define who the stakeholders are and their interests. Framework and Analytical Model What is a relevant framework and model for assessing organisational capacity? What are the most important dimensions? An organisational assessment requires a view of what constitutes an organisation, and what capacities or abilities are required to perform well. For each ability a set of dimensions should be defined for measuring the most relevant characteristics. This Resource Book concentrates on one analytical model - not because there is only one way to analyse organisations. On the contrary, no blueprints are available. Different approaches are complementary and each model might provide particular insights. There is a growing abundance of literature available 4 on the subject and NGOs have gained much experience in assessing organisations. Our attention is focused on one approach since it is comprehensive and has been found to be relevant in practice. 5 For practical and pedagogical purposes one approach remains in focus - not excluding others. How to Carry out an Organisational Assessment? How to clarify the reasons for conducting an assessment and its major stakeholders? How to decide whether an organisation is prepared and ready for an assessment? What is the best team to conduct an assessment? 3 UD Evaluation Report 3/98, NGO Study See References. 5 The model has been tried out with NGOs in Bangladesh, Kenya and Jamaica. 4 Chapter 1 7 How to identify key issues and the scope of the assessment? How to organise an assessment and prepare for the follow up? The tool in itself is neutral – neither good nor bad, but the use and how the process is carried out must be guided by clear, shared and agreed values and guidelines. The message is that there are several roads to the same goal. But it is equally important to acknowledge that organisations start from different “locations” and normally use different means of transport depending on how far they want to travel, their resources, cultural preferences and the time available. Chapter 2 8 CHAPTER 2: AID POLICES AND KEY CONCEPTS 2.1. The Rediscovery Of Organisations The broad ideas of organisational and institutional development gained new importance in the 1990s in Norwegian development cooperation. This was a result of the growing realisation of the role organisations and institutions play in the development process. In Norwegian aid policy increasing emphasis has been placed on the ability and capacity of developing countries to design and implement their own programmes through the growth of effective organisations and institutional frameworks in the public, private and civil sectors. Capacity building for sustainable development has become a cornerstone of Norway’s involvement in international development cooperation. Linking organisations in the South with like-minded partners in Norway was encouraged. While institutional development was perceived as the goal, cooperation between public agencies, universities, cultural institutions, and non-governmental organisations became the means. In the same period there has also been a rapid increase in the number and size of non-governmental organisations involved in development work. There are currently more than 80 Norwegian NGOs supporting about 1000 large and small projects in Africa, Asia and Latin America with support from the Norwegian Government. This Resource book is about NGOs and there has been a gradual shift in how most Norwegian NGOs have responded to three questions: • Strategy: • Activities: • Evaluation: What should we focus on? What should we do? How do we know if we are succeeding? Chapter 2 9 Strategy: From Project Support to Organisational Development There has been a change in focus for Norwegian NGOs from supporting their “own” projects to building and strengthen-ing like-minded organisations in the South. Various NGOs have followed different paths and speed in the process of change, but most Norwegian NGOs currently define themselves as «partner organisations» in the sense that their main role is to support Southern NGOs in achieving their aims and objectives. The chart illustrates the change of focus which has taken place from helping poor individuals, to community development, leadership training and finally partnership and organisational development. There are obvious differences between NGOs. Some provide only support to organisational development while most seek to balance traditional projects with forms of organisational support. Emergency relief maintains a strong focus on helping individuals in need, while long-term development has a stronger organisational focus. What do we focus on? Helping individuals in poverty Organising local groups Developing leaders Building capacity in partnership Activities: From Transferring Resources to Building Capacity in Partnership When development is understood as helping individuals, it is natural that the primary activity involves transferring those resources they are lacking. Most NGOs have realised, however, that simply transferring resources was a shortterm solution. A more lasting response was to offer new technology and/or enable people to help themselves. But technical solutions were often inappropriate and imposed from the outside. Communities were not sufficiently involved in solving their own problems. Therefore Northern NGOs started to concentrate on activities with the aim of embedding capacity in partner organisations. The transfer of resources and skills were still required, but the emphasis was on equipping those organisations to use the technology and resources more wisely. More recently some NGOs have tried to more radically redefine the terms capacity and partnership. Partnership should not be a lopsided arrangement where one organisation provides the resources, direction and ideas, but a reciprocal relationship in which both parties share ideas and learn from each Chapter 2 10 other. In this context capacity is not something that one organisation has and can give or teach to another organisation. Capacity is built when two organisations are able to work together to find the best ways of interacting with the poor in a particular situation. What are our activities? Transferring resources Transferring technology Embedding capacity Building capacity in partnership Evaluation: How do We Know if We are Succeeding? What are the expected results? How should those results be measured and evaluated? These are burning and complex issues for any NGO. There are complex methodological problems and criteria and standards of effectiveness have changed over time. NGOs have supported several programmes based on good intentions and general assumptions about what was needed. Many of these programmes were later found not to benefit the poor and NGOs were challenged to go beyond good intentions. Some NGOs developed management-by-objectives systems which reported regularly on achievements in terms of increased crop yields, improved literacy, reduced child malnutrition, etc. However, with less emphasis on individual projects, changes in organisational performance became more important. The challenge of evaluation in a period where mutual partnership is high on the agenda is to find appropriate criteria for quality and "good" performance, and relevant methods for measuring results. This is both urgent and necessary in order to avoid reverting to good intentions. How do we measure results? Good intentions Management by objectives Organisational skills in monitoring Evaluations partnership 2.2. Concepts And Definitions Chapter 2 11 Several broad and complex concepts will be used in this book and some definitions are required to provide direction and guidance for assessing organisational capacity. 6 What is Institutional Development? Institutional or capacity development is defined as: "the process by which individuals, organisations and social systems increase their capacities and performance in relation to goals, resources and the environment". It is important to keep in mind that institutional development consists of, but goes beyond human resources and organisational development. It involves fundamental social change, the transformation of patterns of behaviour. Institutional development embraces three levels and includes a broad range of activities at individual, organisational and system levels. Organisations and institutions The concepts of institution and organisation are related, but not identical. Institutions refer mostly to the system level and the norms, values and regulations which guide and constrain the behaviour of individuals and organisations in a society (“the rules of the game), while organisations are the actors or “players” within a system. A health care delivery system, for example, can be said to be an institution made up of many interrelated organisations. What is Capacity? This is a difficult term to get a handle on. It consists of dimensions at various levels and is most often part of an ongoing process. Capacity is the power or energy of something which determines the outcome and performance of an organisation. It is synonymous with capability and refers to the ability of individuals, organisations and broader systems to perform their functions effectively, efficiently and sustainably. Dimensions of Institutional Development The failure of many development programmes can often be attributed to a narrow view of capacity which has concentrated on individual skills or organisational characteristics. Important dimensions of capacity at the system or contextual level are left out. A holistic and multi-dimensional perspective is important as a starting point. For an NGO we are talking about the immediate action environment at the community or local level and the broader context, like economic and political stability, cultural traditions, legal frameworks for NGOs, etc. If not all levels and dimensions of capacity are addressed, the chances of sustainable development occurring are diminished. 6 See UD Evaluation Report 5.98, Capacity Assessment and Development, UNDP 1998 and How to Assess Institutional Sustainability, NORAD Handbook 1999. Chapter 2 12 In brief, what we are saying is that NGOs depend on capacities both inside and outside the organisation. They are shaped by both internal capabilities and forces in the external environment. A strong and effective NGO often possesses the skills to make a good fit between internal strengths and external opportunities, and is able to continuously manage this fragile and changing balance. INSTITUTIONAL LEVELS M b SYSTEM LEVEL ORGANISATIONA L LEVEL INDIVIDUAL LEVEL Strategy Development Organisational Development Human Resources Development A major dimension of capacity is at the individual level - staff, including small networks and groups of individuals – participants and managers of organisations. The smallest and most basic building block in any organisation consists of individual energy – competence and capability in the form of technical and managerial knowledge and skills, morale and conduct, communications skills, motivation, integrity and attitudes, personal and professional networking, interrelationships and teamwork. Sufficient capacity at this level represents the conditions necessary for any project or organisation to function efficiently and effectively. There is also another dimension of capacity at the organisational level irrespective of whether or not the organisation is a Northern or Southern NGO, a national or a local community-based organisation. Capacity at this level refers to the vision, objectives, leadership of the organisation, its structures and resources, external linkages, performance and sustainability. The system level provides the context for any NGO or development programme. For most NGOs the system level will include those components that are relevant in the immediate action environment, like the community, other NGOs, etc., and broader contextual variables like: economic and political frameworks, cultural norms and traditions, relations to external agencies, participation and legitimacy, etc. Chapter 2 13 What is Institutional Sustainability? There are various kinds of sustainability, like financial, technological, environmental and socio-cultural. We are focusing on the institutional aspects of sustainability. An institution is sustainable if it appears to have the strength to survive and develop long enough to fulfil its functions. More specifically, an NGO is sustainable if it is likely: to be able to secure the necessary external input and support, to provide, efficiently and effectively, a continuing stream of activities and output that are valued by its stakeholders (members, beneficiaries, etc.) for as long as the institution is needed. This understanding of sustainability brings out several important messages: The emphasis is on prognosis – on what is expected to happen in the future. The goal is to assess the likelihood that the organisation appraised will survive until its mission is accomplished, with or without external support. It is not assumed that sustainability means permanent survival. Even NGOs may disappear when their mission is accomplished, they may go through radical changes since needs and opportunities are transformed, or they merge with other organisations to survive. There is a difference between effective NGOs and legitimate NGOs. Both effectiveness and legitimacy are required in order to secure long-term sustainability. A strong and well-managed organisation may have a high level of effectiveness, but not the trust and credibility of its stakeholders. On the other hand, respected and highly credible organisations may be weak from a management point of view. Chapter 3 14 CHAPTER 3: STAKEHOLDERS AND PURPOSES 3.1. Who are the stakeholders? The users of the assessment influence its scope and direction. The sooner the stakeholders are identified, the easier it will be to determine their needs and concerns. Stakeholders are individuals or organisational actors that will be affected by the outcome of the assessment. Most organisations have a wide range of stakeholders: Inside the organisation – the Board of Directors and senior officials who use the results of the assessment to support their efforts in respect of strategic management or organisational change. Professionals and staff using the results to improve decisions relating to roles and responsibilities. Outside the organisation – funders using organisational assessments to support internal change and to better understand the outcome of their investments. Members, clients or beneficiaries can use the results to better understand their relationship with the organisation. As shown in the figure below, most organisations have a wide range of stakeholders, some more influential than others. Not all stakeholders have the same stake in the organisation, and it is important to recognise the level of impact each stakeholder has on the organisation. A tool for mapping the stakeholders and their interests is presented in Chapter 5. Level of influence: Strong: Medium: Little: Collaborators Community Suppliers Funders Employees Organisation Board Governments Competitors Media Clients Beneficiaries Chapter 3 15 3.2. How to Decide the Purpose? Organisational assessment is only a tool for achieving something else. It is therefore important to define the reasons for undertaking an assessment and agree on the purpose. Once the purpose is clear, it is easier to determine: • The scope of the assessment • Its focus in terms of issues • Who should be involved and carry out the process Three main purposes for conducting an assessment are discussed: • Programme planning and development – a basis for preparing a new programme or improving an existing one. (3.2.1.) • Monitoring and evaluation – as a tool to keep track of the progress of capacity development programmes and evaluate their successes and failures. (3.2.2.) • Establishing new partnerships – as a guide for screening and selecting new partners. (3.2.3.) Projects go through a life cycle of planning/preparation, implementation, evaluation and completion. The assessment precedes planning and action. In the programme cycle there is a logical progression from assessing “Where we are now,” to discussing “Where we want to be,” “How to get there,” and “How to stay there”. In practice, differences may be more blurred. An assessment of organisational capacity is required in all phases of the cycle, but the purpose and direction will differ. Chapter 3 16 WHERE WE ARE NOW Current situation WHERE WE WANT TO BE Vision HOW TO GET THERE Strategy/ action HOW TO STAY THERE Sustainability 3.2.1. Programme Planning and Preparation When a Southern NGO is in the process of preparing a new programme for strengthening its own management capacity, it is particularly important to start the process with a proper description and analysis of the existing situation. Leaders and members need to address what gaps there are in capacity and the opportunities, competence and capabilities that exist and should be maintained. We argue that NGOs need to invest more time in analysis and reflection, as a basis for action. In the field of organisational development, action without proper understanding of the complexities of organisational change may cause serious damage, or lead to a waste of people’s time and resources. An assessment would provide some clues to and estimates of required future capacity. Comparison between current and required capacity provides an indication of what capacity gaps to fill. In this setting assessment is used as a precursor to a organisational development for the purpose of: identifying areas in which organisations need to improve or skills they need to maintain, suggesting relevant interventions which might help to overcome the problems. The exercise could be carried out as an internal and participatory process – a self-assessment where the leaders and members clarify and present their own Chapter 3 17 perceptions of organisational capacity. It is also possible to use external personnel to assist and facilitate in the self-assessment, and/or to provide their own independent analysis. At any rate, the instrumental use of assessment is prominent. It should prepare the ground for a new programme. 3.2.2. Monitoring and Evaluation of Capacity Development It is often said that organisational development is difficult to measure compared to projects in the agricultural or water sectors. There are in fact few evaluations carried out of capacity development efforts, and major NGOs admit their shortcomings. Some of the reasons are: • Objectives are too general. It is difficult to define output and impact clearly, and indicators to measure the success of an activity. • Organisational development is seen as a problem-solving and learningoriented process more than an aim in itself. • Performance and impact is determined by several factors inside and outside the organisation, where it is difficult to decide the relative importance of each factor. • Assessment of change tends to be based on subjective perceptions. • Organisational development constitutes part of a long chain of means and ends. Organisations are complex, but not mysterious entities. They are possible to penetrate and assess with proper methods. Problems with finding indicators, lack of relevant methods or methodological constraints should not be used by NGOs as an excuse for not trying, or as a reason for reverting to good intentions and progressive rhetoric for hiding poor practice. We believe that this Resource book presents a feasible approach and method for monitoring and evaluating organisational development. 3.2.3. Establishing new Partnerships There is another use of organisational assessment – which starts before the programme cycle. It is not sufficient to base long term collaboration on “romantic love” between people meeting each other at international meetings. Individuals are often found to be important in the initial stage to establish links, but the collaboration will sooner or later have to be broadened and institutionalised in the sense that certain rules and regulations for cooperation are established. To appraise and select a partner is one of the most difficult and important tasks for any Norwegian NGO. It is no secret that there are a broad range of illegitimate and opportunistic NGOs in Southern countries (as well as in Norway). The costs are high for any partner making a wrong choice. Chapter 3 18 A Norwegian NGO could use organisational assessment for: Screening and selecting new partners. Making decisions on future cooperation and funding. The different purposes could be summarised as follows: TYPE OF ASSESSMENT Planning PURPOSE (a) Identify capacity Preparatory phase gaps (b) Suggest interventions Monitoring (a) Evaluation (b) (a) (b) (c) Partnership Appraisal WHEN (a) (b) BY WHOM Internal/ participatory and/or external contributions Measure progress During implementation Internal/manage and detect constraints ment Report and improve Measure Mid-term and at the Internal and/or achievements end/after Contribute to external revisions and improvements Provide accountability Screening and Before and at the end Norwegian NGO selecting partners Basis for continued collaboration Chapter 4 19 CHAPTER 4: A FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING NGO CAPACITY 4.1. Focusing the Assessment: Zooming in and Zooming Out All assessments are carried out with the use of certain lenses and categories. Lenses help to focus our attention on issues and dimensions which are considered important. Categories help to organise and systematise the collection of information and analysis. Different lenses could be used to throw light on and discover various aspects of an organisation. If this is true, the best method would be to use several lenses or multiple methods – look at the organisation from more than one side and change lenses from time to time. The previous section argues that an assessment of capacity needs to address dimensions of capacity at individual, organisational and system levels. The reason is that an organisation like an NGO is shaped by both internal capabilities and external forces. This does not mean that all assessment must include every aspect of capacity. This Resource Book focuses on the organisational level. In other words, the analysis zooms first in on organisational capacity, and with this entry point seeks to incorporate an assessment of the human and system levels. Other approaches zoom first in on the individual or system level, and then move to the organisation. There is in principle nothing right or wrong about any of the approaches. It is important to make a deliberate choice based on the purpose and scope of the assessment, and not least the competence of those carrying out the assessment. Analysis at the individual, organisational and system levels requires quite different professional expertise. Chapter 4 20 E N T R Y P O IN T S – Z O O M IN G IN A N D O U T Z O O M IN SYSTEM O R G A N IS A T IO N IN D IV ID U A L ZOOM OUT 4.2. Frameworks for Assessing Performance How do we know if and when an NGO is performing well? This is the underlying question in respect of the different frameworks for assessing performance. Is performance related to effective management systems providing donors with solid and timely plans and reports on activities and the use of funds? Is a strong NGO an organisation with values and principles and a vocal leader to fight for a worthy cause? Could performance be measured through the satisfaction of its members or participants? Or is the effective NGO simply able to deliver and meet its targets and objectives? These questions introduce the problem inherent in defining and measuring organisational effectiveness. The belief that success or performance defies definition in humanitarian work has unfortunately been widely accepted. Many people fail to realise that irrespective of whether or not they can define or label a phenomenon, that phenomenon is still real and continues to function. Gravitation existed for a long time before Newton "discovered" it. But if the ambition is to find a single and universal criterion for success, disappointment is understandable. Since NGOs do many things and their success depend on adequate performance in a number of areas, the criteria for success must reflect this complexity. Subjective judgement and intuition are also involved in the assessment process. Before presenting the "Abilities model" we will briefly outline three options for measuring performance. Chapter 4 21 (a) The Goal Attainment Approach - Success measured through Results According to this approach an organisation's effectiveness is judged by its results. What is important is not how you play, but that you win the game in the end - restoring patients to good health, providing services, delivering products. The assumptions are that NGOs are rational goal-seeking organisations with goals that are defined well, and are few enough to be manageable and measurable. Tangible, verifiable, and measurable goals are developed and performance is measured and compared against targets. This approach is popular with governments and donors, but fraught with problems that make its exclusive use questionable. Are goals clear and measurable? Whose goals are we talking about? What about the difference between official and actual goals? Are we looking at the short term or long term goals, and is it not true that most organisations have multiple and sometimes even conflicting goals? Small NGOs may act first, then later create a "goal" to justify what has happened and satisfy the donor. We are not questioning that organisations are goal oriented - the problem lies more in identification and the measurement of goals, and that performance needs to be evaluated by more than the goals achieved. (b)The Systems Approach In this approach, goals are not ignored, but they are only one of several evaluation criteria. Systems models emphasise multiple criteria that increase the long-term survival of the organisation - such as the ability to acquire resources, manage and maintain itself internally, and interact and adapt successfully to its external environment. The focus is not so much on specific goals as on the means and processes needed for the achievement of those ends. This approach implies that organisations are made up of interrelated parts, and if any one of those parts performs poorly, it will affect the performance of the whole system. It is short-sighted to judge success only on results. Sustained performance requires awareness and successful interactions with external stakeholders. An NGO cannot fail to maintain good relations. Survival also requires a steady in-flow of resources and an ability to manage those resources. In practice performance could be appraised in a number of areas to ensure that the organisation get the maximum efforts out of its resources. The problem with this approach is that measuring goals may be easy compared to measuring process variables such as "flexibility of response" or "clarity of internal communications". It can also be argued that if results are achieved, is the discussion of means really important? Is it sufficient to look good? Chapter 4 22 (c) The Stakeholder Approach This represents a more recent and radically different approach. It proposes that an effective organisation is one that satisfies the demands of those stakeholders and constituencies in its environment from whom it requires support for its continued existence. A Board member will have different criteria than a community member, a government official or a donor representative. Neither goals nor internal systems are in focus. Organisations are assumed to be political arenas where vested interests compete for control over resources. Success can then be said to be determined by the ability of the organisation to identify critical constituencies, assess their preferences, and satisfy their demands. This is an intriguing approach even if it can be difficult to follow in practice. (d) The Abilities Approach This is a comprehensive approach which seeks to incorporate lessons from the former. It takes as a point of departure that an NGO would need four key abilities to function effectively. 7 In other words, an organisation needs four groups of capacities which to a large extent determine how the organisation is perceived, its performance and sustainability. The four abilities and the twelve elements can be summarised and visualised as follows: IN T E R N A L D IM E N S IO N S " A B IL IT Y T O B E " E X T E R N A L D IM E N S IO N S " A B IL IT Y T O R E L A T E " GOVERNANCE L E A D E R S H IP ID E N T IT Y S T A N D IN G L IN K A G E S R E S P O N S IV E N E S S O R G A N IS A T IO N A L PERFORM ANCE " A B IL IT Y T O O R G A N IS E " HUM AN RESOURCES SYSTEM S F IN A N C E S 7 " A B IL IT Y T O D O " RELEV ANCE E F F E C T IV E N E S S V IA B IL IT Y The model is developed from a framework prepared by INTRAC, UK. “Participatory Self Assessment of NGO Capacity”. Chapter 4 • 23 AN ABILITY TO BE To maintain an identity reflecting important purposes, values and strategies, and a leadership to direct and manage the organisation. The organisation should know what it wants to achieve – both in terms of a long-term vision and more short-term objectives and targets. If an organisation does not know where it wants to go, it will most likely never arrive there. Most NGOs are driven by values and principles which explain and justify the formation of the organisation in the first place. These values are important for the members and should be understood and shared. The organisation also needs a strategy on how to reach its objectives. Finally, leadership is required to direct and manage the organisation. • AN ABILITY TO ORGANISE To establish effective managerial systems and procedures, and ensure that human and financial resources are available. A strong and clear identity is a necessary condition for being an able NGO, but not sufficient for those who want to make an impact on society. The organisation also needs a capacity to organise and establish effective systems and procedures to translate objectives into specific activities, and serve as tools to help leaders and managers find the right direction. An organisation must also have the human and financial resources to implement its policies. An organisation needs capable staff and/or members willing to work, and a level of financial and material support is required to start or continue activities. • AN ABILITY TO DO To provide services that are relevant for and valued by its users and/or members. However, the former two abilities are not sufficient. Several NGOs have strong ideas and principles and a vocal leadership speaking loud about NGO identity and core values, but they possess little ability to implement and carry through their good intentions. Principles remain lofty rhetoric. There needs to be a correspondence between speaking and action – and an NGO would need the ability to deliver and provide services that are relevant and valued by its members or users. “The proof of the pudding lies in the eating.” This ability is measured through an assessment of relevance, effectiveness (ability to achieve agreed goals and objectives) and sustainability. • AN ABILITY TO RELATE To respond and adapt to new demands among its users and changing needs in society, and retain standing (legitimacy) among its stakeholders. It is not sufficient to be a “doer” either – an NGO with a strong ability to effectively deliver products and services to its members or clients. There are Chapter 4 24 many action-only oriented NGOs working hard for a certain period of time – reaching a point where energy tends to gradually dissipate because a clear cause or ideology is missing, or because needs are changing. Several NGOs (in the North and South) are not directly exposed to pressures and changing external demands in a market. NGOs are mostly funded by external grants (usually for a long period of time) and are to a certain extent protected from a critical review of their programmes. They may be able to continue activities of poor quality which are overdue for change. Due to donor grants few incentives are in place to take quality issues seriously and make NGOs more responsive to new demands. A Southern NGO may even be able to operate without the trust and support of its members – due to the availability of external funding. These are the reasons why ability to relate is so important. In the long run most NGOs face the realities and need to respond and adapt to new needs and demands, and also retain sufficient standing or legitimacy among their members and stakeholders. The argument is that NGOs need all four abilities to be effective and ensure future sustainability, or to be more correct: if an NGO has a combination of these abilities their chance of success is enhanced considerably. It is important to emphasise that the categories or abilities are “empty”. We do not say that a particular identity is required, only that organisations need to know what business they are in and what they want to achieve. No particular systems or procedures for implementation are favoured. Neither does the model tell how much of each ability is required for an organisation to perform well. A high score on all abilities is not necessarily the best, nor is a certain combination of abilities. A small, weak NGO with strong vision and commitment, but poor managerial systems, may be as good as a strong business-like NGO with one hundred employees. A framework helps us to define what relevant indicators to look for. It provides direction to our assessment, but it does not put a value or a quality on the finding. The model does not say which image is better than another. Neither does it help to answer what is good, acceptable or poor performance. For valuating - putting a value on - standards are required and most of the time they exist in programme documents and in people’s minds. In our experience leaders and members of NGOs have clear ideas about standards – what is good and what is poor performance. All stakeholders need to be involved in the discussion about criteria and standards. As partners Norwegian NGOs should be involved, and in the end discuss findings in the light of their own values, but they should take care not to impose one set of criteria and standards. Chapter 4 25 We need to break down the four abilities into smaller and more manageable units. In the model each ability is represented by three elements for each ability, giving a total of twelve. These elements form the basis of the rating system. In the attached assessment format (Appendix 1) a number of statements reflect and represent each element. The assessment exercise is carried out by rating to what extent the assessment team agrees or disagrees with a statement on a scale of one to five. Based on the responses the next step is to draw a profile for each element and then a composite profile for each ability, e.g. aggregating or summarising the profiles for each element. The procedures will be described in more detail later, but the product of the assessment is an organisational profile, or in other words a map which presents the organisation’s strong and weaker abilities. This is a comprehensive approach involving a relatively time-consuming assessment process. Other more rapid assessment tools are presented later. It should be emphasised that the time required for the suggested approach is variable. In a workshop setting at least one full day will be necessary. For a small team it can be carried out within a few hours, but only if the scoring is based on perceptions, impressions and available data. If the team or the organisation decides to collect new data and information, the process would take considerably longer. Chapter 4 26 ABILITIES ABILITY TO BE (Identity) ABILITY TO ORGANISE (Capacity) ABILITY TO RELATE (Linkages) ELEMENTS 1. Governance 2. Leadership 3. Identity (Purpose, values, strategy) 4. Human resources 5. Systems and procedures 6. Material and financial resources 7. Legitimacy and trust 8. Alliances and connections 9. External pressures 10. Relevance & outcome ABILITY TO DO (Performance) 11. Effectiveness 12. Sustainability DEFINITIONS The role and functions of the Executive Board. The legal basis, charter or bylaws. The system of constituency – or level of member ownership. The abilities and qualities of the leadership (more than the Head). Purpose or long term vision – what the organisation wants to achieve. Values – what drives the members and organisation. Strategy – the distinctive profile or individual identity of the organisation. The capability to recruit, train, compensate and keep people with good technical and managerial skills. The capability to plan, implement/ manage and evaluate programmes. The ability to secure sufficient financial support and material infrastructure. The extent to which external stakeholders respect and have confidence in the organisation. The quality and effectiveness of links with national/international partners. The level and type of response to external demands and pressures. To what extent activities are perceived as relevant. To what extent the organisation meets its short and long-term targets and objectives. To what extent the organisation is able to sustain its activities without external technical and financial support. Chapter 5 27 CHAPTER 5: HOW TO CARRY OUT AN ASSESSMENT? The former chapters provide direction, models and tools, but no tools are better than the hands that guide them - and no guide can replace practice and common sense. This chapter describes how an organisational assessment could be carried out using the rating approach from the abilities model. Some of the most important, practical issues in an assessment process are discussed and additional tools are suggested. 8 • • • • • • • • • Identifying the reasons for conducting an assessment. Mapping the stakeholders. Assessing the organisational readiness. Deciding the team to conduct the assessment. Identifying key issues and scope. Organisations in different stages of life. Tailoring the tools. Organising an assessment workshop. Preparing the follow-up. 5.1. Reasons for Conducting an Assessment It is important to clarify the reasons for undertaking an assessment. When this is clear it is easier to determine the scope of the assessment, its focus in terms of issues, who should carry out the assessment, etc. In Chapter 3 three main purposes are discussed: Programme planning and development – a basis for preparing a new programme or improving an existing one. Monitoring and evaluation – as a tool to keep track of the progress of capacity development programmes and evaluate their successes and failures. Establishing new partnerships – as a guide for screening and selecting new partners. It is common for an organisation to conduct an assessment when it is at a turning point in its history, or when it needs to make important decisions. Some of those decisions are: Strategic decisions – Should the organisation grow? Merge? Shrink? Change its mission? 8 This Chapter has several contributions from Lusthaus (1999) Chapter 5 28 Programme decisions – Should programmes be expanded? Should two or several programmed be integrated? Should new services be offered? Financial sustainability decisions – Should funding sources be diversified and how? Should new approaches to fundraising be identified? Staffing decisions – Should staff with different skills be hired to support a changed mission? Should the organisation let some staff go, and if so, who? IDENTIFYING THE REASONS Before starting an assessment ask senior managers and staff – or people that would most likely be involved in the assessment - to start reflecting on the reasons and purpose for the assessment. Request them to prepare a list with the three main reasons and ask them to share the list to form a basis for a group discussion in the preparatory phase of the assessment process. In your organisation, identify the three main reasons for undertaking an assessment: 1…………………………………………………………………………………… 2.…………………………………………………………………………………… 3…………………………………………………………………………………… 5.2. Mapping the stakeholders. Before starting an assessment it is also important to identify who are the stakeholders and what do they want to know and what are their roles and interests? The mapping may be carried out using the following two exercises. Identify the stakeholders and their level of influence: Strong: Medium: Little: Chapter 5 29 WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS 1. Fill in the names of the stakeholders from the previous diagram. IDENTIFY EACH STAKEHOLDER’S CATEGORY – FUNDERS, EMPLOYEES, LEADERSHIP, PARTNERS, ETC. YOU MAY ALSO INDICATE WHETHER A STAKEHOLDER: Is an integral part of the organisation; Is interested in, and committed to the organisation; Knows the organisation, but is not committed to it; or Has a vested interest in destroying the organisation, i.e., rivals, competitors, etc. 2. Indicate each stakeholder’s interest in the assessment results, e.g.: Use the results for planning; Use them to support the organisation; Use the assessment to design new programmes, introduce changes, or develop future strategies, etc. 3. Identify each stakeholder’s possible participation or role in the self-assessment, e.g.: Be a provider of information; Make a decision on the assessment findings; or Become a beneficiary of change arising from the assessment, etc. Stakeholder Category Interests Participation or role Chapter 5 30 5.3. Assessing organisational readiness Organisations need to have a certain degree of readiness in order to engage in assessment. If the purpose is to prepare the ground for organisational development, an assessment should not be imposed from outside. To be able to make a successful link between assessment and development, the organisation and in particular top management needs to be involved throughout the process, see the needs and acknowledge the potential benefits of a systematic assessment. People must also be willing to spend time before, during and after the assessment. An assessment is a critical learning process for any organisation which involves both risks and opportunities. For learning and development to take place, NGOs involved must be open to critical reflection, alternative arguments, and even criticism from peers and partners. An assessment might hurt and create tensions. If the climate of the NGO is not open and conducive to change, the frustrations and mistrust that are likely to emerge will themselves become bottlenecks to growth and development. Hence, establishing trust and an open working relationship must be one of the first steps in an assessment process. You should also be aware that there might be cases where internal conflicts are so strong that a participatory assessment process is impossible, or at least difficult to carry out. The following types of readiness should be considered: Cultural readiness - which means that the organisation has an internal culture and climate in which it is acceptable to provide suggestions for improvement. Leadership readiness - which means that leaders support the assessment and the allocation of resources to the process. Resource readiness - which means that the organisation is prepared to commit the resources needed to conduct the assessment. People readiness - which means that the organisation has employees who will champion the assessment process and be willing to work together through a process that may sometimes be ambiguous and will constantly be changing. 9 9 Lusthaus (1999), p.3. Chapter 5 31 FACTORS THAT CAN AFFECT READINESS You must have • Acceptance of the process by leaders in the organisation • A champion • Adequate internal resources (time and people) for the assessment • A compelling reason for doing the assessment These are mixed blessings • Other changes going on at the same time, some of which you cannot control • An organisation with a history of change • Past experience with evaluation (positive or negative) It's nice to have • Leaders with credibility • A clear vision in the organisation of where it wants to go • Additional resources (financial) to conduct the self-assessment These can be major barriers • Past failures and frustrations with assessments • Superficial motives • Low level of skills and capabilities • Negative incentives for self-assessment The following exercise will help you to assess the readiness of an organisation. Ask a group of managers to reflect on the questions. Bear in mind that there are no clear-cut answers to these questions. READINESS ASSESSMENT 1. To what extent do the leaders support the assessment and change process? Do staff have confidence in the leader's ability to engage in change management? 2. To what extent is any individual willing to champion the process and is capable of doing so? 3. Is the organisation facing the need to make strategic decisions and would a selfassessment help in the decision making? 4. Does the organisation have a clear vision of where it wants to go? 5. Are major changes already going on within the organisation that might slow down the process or interfere with it? 6. Does the organisation have access to resources to carry out the process? 7. When was the last major organisational change? To what extent was it successful? Did it energise the staff or lower their morale? 8. Do people inside the organisation have adequate skills to undertake this process? 9. Is this is a good time for change? Would another time be better? Are there future incentives for change to occur now? 10. What are the positive, negative, neutral, or cultural implications of changing? Are people in the organisation supported if they try new things? Chapter 5 32 5.4. Deciding the team to conduct the assessment Part of the planning process is to decide roles and responsibilities and select the team to be in charge of the assessment. Such teams have often two roles: strategic and operational. The strategic role will require people to provide direction and guidelines for the process, make necessary decisions and monitor overall quality. The operational role will require people to be involved in the process itself with the collection of data, analysis and reporting. It has to be decided whether there is a need for one or two teams to perform the different roles. The organisation could organise and carry out an assessment using only internal people, but we would recommend including external facilitators - not necessarily an expatriate, but a consultant with no personal interests in or background from the organisation concerned. It is an important lesson that positive, constructive internal processes often depend on the support and facilitation of outsiders. Most importantly, he or she should possess the skills of a process consultant, be familiar with organisational dynamics and be trusted and accepted by the organisation. The facilitator also needs to speak and understand the language of the people participating. An external consultant could be more impartial, be able to take a "fresh look", focus on opportunities were others only see problems and have a distance to internal alliances and old conflicts. The purpose of the assessment will to some extent determine the configuration of the team, but in most cases a combination of external and internal people would be advisable. A Steering Committee fulfilling the overall strategic role would also be needed in most cases. CRITERIA FOR SELECTING A TEAM The following criteria can help in the selection process: Credibility – The members should have an appropriate mix of authority, responsibility, knowledge of the organisation, and insight. They need to be respected and accepted. Technical expertise – Someone who understands the assessment approach and uses the various tools and techniques. Impartiality – Someone who can balance the perspectives of different people. Communication skills – Someone who can communicate the results in a manner easily understood by all parties. Interpersonal skills – Someone who can interact with all parties in an effective manner and is able to work in a team. Availability – Someone who is available and willing to commit time to the work. Chapter 5 33 BUILDING THE TEAM To help in building the team the following exercise may be used: 1. 2. 3. In the organisation who will be on the team? Who are the preferred external facilitators? What value will each of them add to the team? 4. What roles are foreseen for them in the process Name Special skills Role Chapter 5 34 5.5. Identifying key issues and scope of the assessment An assessment requires focus – that key issues are identified and the scope of the process is defined. The scope is often too broadly defined, focus is unclear and impact may suffer. Some of the following questions need answers: What is the unit of analysis for the assessment? The entire organisation? The national office? All branches? Or some sections? What are the main performance issues to be addressed? Management issues? Issues relating to objectives and strategy? Financial issues? Lack of results? Partner issues? How much time and resources would be available for the process? What kind of information and data would be required? What method of data collection is needed? Are relevant data collection instruments available? Chapter 6 presents some additional tools to identify the main performance issues. The ability model is comprehensive and may initially be used to scan the entire organisation and for instance identify management and performance issues as the most important. In the next round the assessment may zoom in on more detailed questions and issues relating to those issues. The following exercise may also be used: IDENTIFYING PERFORMANCE ISSUES Gather a small team of key stakeholders during the planning phase for the assessment, and ask them to complete the chart below. In the first column, fill in what are believed to be the main performance issues. In the second fill in some of the reasons why these issues are problematic. Main Performance Issues What Makes this a Problem? Chapter 5 35 5.6. Tailoring the tools The next step is for the consultant and organisation to find the most appropriate tools and mechanisms for carrying out the assessment. It is here assumed that the organisation involves key personnel from its Board, management, staff and members. Our preferred method is a joint workshop. It is also decided to follow a broad approach addressing all four abilities which provides general information on a large number of variables. If this is the first time the organisation carried out this type of assessment, such a wide-spectre approach would be advisable. If the organisation on the other hand is more "advanced", and has defined one problem area more precisely, it is advisable to zoom in directly on one ability or area of concern. More questions will be raised concerning a smaller number of dimensions, when the former approach favours a large number of dimensions and a smaller number of questions. If the Assessment format for the ability model in Annex 1 is used in the workshop, the next step is to tailor that tool to the particular needs and situation of the NGO involved. The list of questions is long and presented as a menu where “guests” are encouraged to pick and choose, mix, change and also prepare their own “dishes”. A small working group chaired by the main facilitator should review the list and delete irrelevant questions, add new issues which are missing, adjust and change formulations and try to use well-known terms and names. The list must also be translated to a local language if participants do not understand English. This process helps to improve the assessment and reduce potential anxiety and tensions. The participants will learn that real organisational issues are in focus, not individuals and personal conflicts. The consultant should then edit the format and make sufficient copies for the workshop participants. 5.7. Arranging the Workshop The assessment session is then carried out during a full day workshop using a participatory and structured approach. It is important to emphasise both participation and structure. The model is empty and the participant should come with the substance, but the process needs a structure for the latter to happen. An open process may go astray at any moment in a workshop. The facilitator needs a clear mandate to direct the group gently, but firmly through all the steps. A loose discussion might be useful, but will not lead to the same results as a more structured approach. One is not better than the other, but if a decision is made to be more systematic, it is counter-productive to be otherwise. Chapter 5 36 AGENDA FOR THE WORKSHOP Welcome and presentations Present and confirm workshop objectives and allow people to voice expectations. Present the model with the four abilities and explain/present the Assessment format. Individual assessment For each participant to fill in the questionnaire and make a personal choice about what to score on a scale of one to five in respect of all the statements. Collective presentation Each participant should then transfer his/her marks from the questionnaire to four large flip-charts on the front wall in the room. 10 One chart will consist of all the issues for one ability and all the scoring options from one to five. Preliminary analysis When all the marks have been transferred, the consultant will briefly explain how to read the charts and indicate some findings. If the majority of scores cluster under number five, this indicates that a large number of the participants agree with the statement, and since all statements are positive, it indicates a "good" score for the organisation. If most of the responses come under one, this most likely reveals weakness. Average responses might reveal moderate achievements or uncertainty about what the situation is. If the rates are spread all over the scale, there is a high level of disagreement or considerable differences about how to assess the situation. Group Work Divide the participants into four groups so that each group may review all the statements under one ability and discuss three questions: Based on the response from the selfassessment, what are the: - Strengths of the organisation - Areas in need of improvement - Surprises or confusing findings (f) Plenary Presentation Each group will present their findings and the other groups will be asked to make comments to either confirm, contradict or add information. (g) Synthesis The first day of the workshop should end with a session where the consultant and the steering group/Head of organisation summarises the main findings of the day. If there is no second day in the workshop a follow-up plan must be discussed and agreed. The purpose of the assessment is identify as clearly as possible strong and weaker abilities in the organisation and present these findings in the form of scoring profiles. The use of several different modes of work is used deliberately. In the individual phase each and everyone should be given time to think through the questions and make up their own mind, maximise participation and minimise group pressure. In the group work findings are summarised and participants look for patterns and trends, and the groups also discuss to what extent findings are valid and 10 Equipment needed is a large number of flip charts, multicoloured markers and masking tape in order to move the charts around in the room. Chapter 5 37 reliable. The plenary session moves the same discussion further along and allows the entire group to build a common frame and consensus of what the real issues are. Such a workshop structure is interactive and lively and seldom boring. 5.8. Preparing the follow up As mentioned several times: The assessment is never an end in itself. Analysis and action go together. The use and follow-up of assessment processes should be discussed from the very beginning. It is often advisable to continue directly from assessment to planning in the same workshop. The issues discussed and defined during the assessment are brought into a planning process where certain issues are selected and prioritised and where activities are suggested to address each issue. The various steps and procedures in a planning process will, however, not been dealt with here. Chapter 6 38 CHAPTER 6: FOCUSING THE ASSESSMENT Several methods can be used to identify and focus the assessment process. This chapter introduces some tools which can be used when the resources available (time and funds) are scarce. A broad range of diagnostic tools is currently on the “market”. It is not our intention to present a broad range of tools in workshops or meetings to create interest and awareness about the assessment process. Tools for more rapid assessments are often useful. The second part of the chapter presents the concept of organisational life cycles. It is discussed in this context to help focus the assessment. It is important to be aware that organisations are moving through different stages or life cycles and relevant issues and questions differ depending on where the organisation is in its life-cycle. A young and expanding organisation faces different challenges compared to an established organisation with little enthusiasm. 6.1. Rapid Assessment Tools An assessment process often follows three basic steps: (a) Dreaming about the future; (b) Identification of strengths and weaknesses; (c) and it ends with: Bridging the gap. There are several ways to take those steps – individually, in workshops, expert teams, etc. It depends to a large extent on the purpose and interest of the organisation. The following are some tools available with the purpose of guiding and facilitating the process. All the tools seek to uncover and identify the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the organisation, and prepare the basis for change and improvements. Appreciative Inquiry At the beginning of an assessment process participants in a workshop or meeting could be asked to reflect on two questions. The first question deliberately focuses on the positive aspects – or what the organisation is good at, and not on deficiencies. The point is that assessments tend to start with and focus on the negative aspects, what is missing or wrong, but should rather be based on opportunities and strengths. It is often important to be opportunityoriented and not problem-oriented. A Canadian organisation 11 uses the term 11 CRWRC (1997) Chapter 6 39 “appreciative inquiry” - meaning that an assessment starts with what gives life to an organisation, and not with problems and constraints. 1. What do you value most about your organisation? 2. What are the three most important hopes you have to strengthen the vitality of your organisation? It is important to look for the best in what there is. Regardless of how weak an organisation is, it will also have its strengths and abilities which should be acknowledged and form the basis and provide the resources for any changes. Such broad questions may initiate and stimulate self-reflection on other issues, and gradually become more specific. SWOT Analysis This is a well known technique for diagnosing key institutional issues by looking at S(trengths), W(eaknesses), O(pportunities) and T(hreats). Although it can be used by external consultants for their analysis, it also lends itself to a workshop approach, facilitating self-diagnosis by the institution concerned. It encourages not only diagnosis of internal issues, but also discussions on the external environment. If you want to assist the participants or guide the process, you may prepare ands present a long list of potential strengths and weaknesses. Findings could be presented in the following format: STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS INTERNAL EXTERNAL Chapter 6 40 Appraising Organisational Fundamentals The process of internal self-reflection may also start by asking the staff of an organisation to critically appraise some organisational fundamentals. This can be done by addressing a set of five key questions formulated by Peter Drucker 12 : 1. What is our organisation for? That is, what is our purpose or mission in society? 2. Who are we here to serve? That is, who should benefit from our work? 3. What do the people we serve value? That is, how will they judge what we do? 4. What are our results? That is, are we satisfying those we are here for? 5. What is our plan? That is, how are we proposing to go about our work? These basic questions apply to NGOs of all sizes and lie behind the more complicated approaches which appear later. Any staff member should be able to provide an answer to each of these questions - answers that are not too different. Missing or conflicting answers may reflect or be symptoms of organisational problems. The five questions could also be used as a basis for a more comprehensive assessment. The staff or members could be asked to specify relevant subquestions or a list of pre-formulated questions could be used. The following list is formulated on the basis of Drucker’s fundamentals: 12 Fowler (1995), p.10. Chapter 6 41 QUESTIONS FOR SELF-REFLECTION 1. What is our organisation’s purpose in society? What are we trying to achieve? What specific results are we seeking? Do we need to redefine our purpose? 2. Who are we here for? Who are we primarily here to serve or influence? Who else are we here to serve or influence? How are these people changing? 3. What do the people we are here for value or find important? How does what these people value affect what we do? Are we providing those we are here for with what they value? Are we reaching those we wish to influence? What information do we need about them for our work? 4. What are our results? How do we define results? To what extent have we achieved those results? What are our strengths and weaknesses? How do our results affect what we do? 5. What is our plan? What have we learnt and how should we change what we do? Where should we prioritise? What is my personal plan to improve in my area of responsibility? What is our plan to improve the organisation’s performance? There are several ways to use the questions. They could be used in a workshop or as a questionnaire to be sent to all staff, volunteers, board members, etc. with a request that they answer the questions on their own. With each answer they are also asked to indicate on what basis or how they know the answer. Concrete examples are the best way to do this. Another process could consist of three steps: an internal team starts by drawing an organisational profile based on the questions. Then an external team could do the same and the process would then be summed up in a meeting where similarities and differences between the internal and external profiles or "images" of the organisation are discussed, and the need for further action decided. At any rate, what we look for are questions with a potential to “trigger” a constructive discussion, stimulate self-reflection and help to guide the discussion in the right direction. Chapter 6 42 Setting Priorities Another technique which has proved to be useful in setting and clarifying priorities also takes some fundamental questions as its point of departure, and could be presented in the form of concentric circles: SHOULD NOT HAPPEN COULD DO LESS OF CAN DO HAS TO DO In terms of priorities there are four fundamental questions: First of all the organisation has to decide what the organisation has to do in order to be in line with its core purpose. What are the “musts” that the NGO cannot avoid and still remain in the same business. A church cannot forget its gospel, a human rights organisation has to address human rights issues, an environmental organisation needs a strong focus on the environment, etc. The other question seeks to clarify what the organisation also can do – in addition to its core activities – if it has the resources. Very often the distinction between “must” and “can” is blurred. Any organisation tends to grow by incremental expansion and continuously adding new activities. Then the organisation should know what it could and should do less of if resources are reduced, and the organisation had to focus its priorities. And finally, any organisation should set some ethical standards concerning what should not happen or be avoided. The misuse of people or corruption should not happen. Discrimination of women should be avoided, etc. Chapter 6 43 6.2. Organisations In Different Stages Of Life Organisations are born, they grow and may eventually die. New organisations are brought to life every day and in the last decade thousands of new NGOs have seen the light in both the North and the South. At the same time, several NGOs close their doors, never to open again. Organisations - like biological organisms - go through life cycles – or patterns of predictable change. Some develop faster than others, some do a far better job of growing up or ageing than others, but the metaphor from organic nature is interesting in order to understand and assess the life of organisations. Models often do not take account of organisational life cycles, and present static capacity profiles and ignore the fact that organisational needs and opportunities change, for instance, between the young and the established NGOs. For our purpose it is important to know what stage of life an organisation is in, since we shall find opportunities and strategies for becoming more effective. The actions that are appropriate for a given problem, when the organisation is growing, may be very different if the same problem occurs during the decline stage. What is considered as a good leader will also change from the formation to the consolidation and finally the decline stage. Similarly, it is not fair to expect that a very young NGO will have all the systems and procedures of a much older and experienced colleague. We would also expect an established organisation to have more consolidated structures than NGOs in the start-up phase. The relevant issues and questions change from phase to phase. The following presents the life-cycle perspective and seeks to define what are the key issues and concerns for an organisation at the various stages. The problem is that several potential life cycles are available. The first assumes a progression from birth, growth, maturity, and finally decline and maybe death. It is possible to define five stages: 1. Entrepreneurial stage. This stage represents the formation. The organisation is in its infancy. Goals tend to be ambiguous. Creativity is high. There is often a strong, charismatic leader. Few systems and procedures in place. Mainly informal communication. Progress to the next stage demands acquiring a steady flow of resources. Chapter 6 44 2. Collectivity stage. Innovation continues, but the organisation’s mission is clarified. Communication and structure remain essentially informal. Members put in long hours and show a high degree of commitment. 3. Formalisation stage. The structure stabilises. Formal rules and procedures are imposed. Innovation is de-emphasised while efficiency and stability are emphasised. Decision-making becomes more centralised and conservative. The organisation does not depend so much on one or a few individuals. Roles are clarified and professionalised in the sense that formal training becomes more important. 4. Diversification stage. The organisation expands and diversifies its services – looking for new needs and opportunities. The structure of the organisation becomes more complex and specialised with departments and sections. 5. Decline stage. As result of competition, fewer resources, internal conflicts, etc. the turnover of key staff increases, conflicts become more common and people start looking for a strong leader to arrest the decline. Decision-making is again centralised. Such models should be used with care. All organisations do not go through all the stages. The stages in the life-cycle do not necessarily follow the organisation’s chronological age. All organisations do not move from birth to death, but maybe towards transformation in one way or another. Maybe there are only four stages and the following illustration presents the four and five stage model in combination. It is the principle of stages in the life of an organisation which is important – not the number and names of the stages. Chapter 6 45 Maturity Growth Decline Formation Death 1. Entrepreneurial Stage Ambiguous aims High creativity many ideas circulate Risk-taking encouraged Loosely defined structures Strong leader/ founder 2. Collectivity Stage 3. Mission clarified Communication and structures remain informal. High commitment – strong group identity. Coordination remains centred on leader Innovation emphasised Formalisation Stage Formalisation of rules Structures/ procedures emerge and become consolidated More conservative culture with more emphasis on efficiency and stability 4. Diversification Stage 5. Decline Stage More complex structure Decentralisation Expanded/ Diversified mandates High employee turn over Increased conflict Centralisation. Detoriating image Denial of threats Overconfidence The Evolution – Crisis – Evolution Model An alternative model suggests that an organisation’s evolution is characterised by phases of prolonged and calm growth, followed by periods of internal turmoil. The point is that each stage of evolution or growth creates its own crisis. The resolution of the crisis, however, initiates a new evolutionary phase. The first stage is characterised by the creativity of its founders. Decisionmaking is controlled by the top manager/founder. Founders and members devote a lot of energy towards the organisation. Communication between people is frequent and informal. As the organisation grows, it becomes difficult to manage by relying only on informal communication. Managers become overextended. A leadership crisis occurs. Stronger and more professional management is needed. Chapter 6 46 New leadership will formalise communication and put managerial systems and procedures into place. The organisation becomes increasingly bureaucratic. Specialisation is introduced with an increasing number of staff. The new direction, however, will create a crisis of its own making. Lower level staff become frustrated and seek greater independence and autonomy. The new management, though, is reluctant to give up autonomy. The result is a crisis of autonomy. Decisions are then decentralised. Lower-level staff will have relative autonomy to run their units. Managers will devote most of their energy to long-term strategic planning. Delegation, however, eventually creates a crisis of control. The Board or the top level management fear that the organisation is going in too many directions at the same time. There is an attempt to re-centralise decision-making to provide unity of direction, but this is rarely realistic. The end result may be stronger personal collaboration between the members of the organisation, and/or more and stronger external partnerships. A strong culture acts as a substitute for formal controls. The structure of the organisation becomes flatter and more organic. This model illustrates that success or evolution creates its own problems. As an organisation grows, it faces new problems. Its crisis, in turn, requires management to make new adjustments. References 47 Draft 24.05.05 APPENDIX 1: ORGANISATIONAL ASSESSMENT FORMAT DIMENSIONS CHARACTERISTICS To what extent do you agree with the following statements? ABILITY TO BE (1) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Governance The organisation has a board which clarifies overall aims and supports direction. The Charter (by-laws) provides an adequate legal framework. A representative General Assembly is organised annually. Members own and control the organisation. Members take active part in all major decisions. (2) Leadership The leadership has a proven capability to: 6. Set priorities and provide clear direction for the organisation. 7. Direct, motivate and manage staff. 8. Be a good spokesman on behalf of the organisation. 9. Make decisions in a timely manner. 10. Make decisions after proper consultation with staff/members. 11. Handle internal conflicts well. 12. Delegate work and involve staff and members. IDENTITY (3) Identity Purpose (What the organisation wants to achieve) 13. The purpose is clear. 14. The purpose is understood and internalised by all staff/members. 15. The purpose is not contested 16. There is no need to change overall direction. Values (What the organisation believes in.) 17. Staff/members are committed to key values and beliefs. 18. Values and believes are shared with the Norwegian partner. Strategy (The distinctive profile of the organisation.) 19. The organisation has a clear strategy which helps to clarify priorities 20. The organisation shows an individual identity in what it does. 21. There are certain things that only this organisation can do. RATING Low 1 2 3 High 4 5 COMMENTS References ABILITY TO ORGANISE DIMENSIONS 48 Draft 24.05.05 CHARACTERISTICS To what extent do you agree with the following statements? (4) Human resources The organisation has a proven capability to: 22. Recruit and select people effectively. 23. Ensure that staff composition reflects fair gender and equity policy. 24. Regularly train and upgrade the skills of staff. 25. Provide satisfactory incentives and compensations. 26. Avoid turnover among staff. 27. Attract people with good technical skills. 28. Attract people with good managerial and administrative skills. CAPACITY (5) Systems and procedures The organisation has a proven capability to: 29. Set realistic priorities and plans. 30. Carry out plans and projects in a timely manner. 31. Monitor and report on activities. 32. Learn from mistakes and change accordingly. 33. Effective financial management and accounting systems are in place. 35. An organisational structure is in place with clear division of responsibilities at all levels. (6) Material and financial resources 36. Funds are available when needed for planned activities. 37. The budget is large enough to allow the organisation to fulfil its obligations. 38. Funding is stable and predictable. 39. Buildings and internal services (water, electricity, etc.) are adequate. 40. Building and equipment maintenance are well taken care of. 41. Communication systems function effectively (telephone, fax etc.). RATING Low 1 2 3 High 4 5 COMMENTS References 49 DIMENSIONS Draft 24.05.05 CHARACTERISTICS To what extent do you agree with the following statements? ABILITY TO RELATE (7) Standing (legitimacy) The following external stakeholders respect and have confidence in the organisation: 42. Members and/or participants 43. Other national NGOs 44. Public authorities 45. Donors LINKAGES (8) 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Alliances and connections The organisation is linked to and works effectively with national partners. The organisation is linked to and works effectively with international partners. The organisation maintains stable relations with its donors. The organisation shares information about its activities with others. The organisation has no major rivals or competitors. (9) Responsiveness 51. The organisation becomes involved in new areas of work and responds to new needs . 52. The external environment supports the organisation. 53. The organisation is resilient – is not swayed by new winds. The following factors support the work of the organisation: 54. The legal/regulatory context, e.g. the government’s NGO laws and regulations, etc. 55. Political environments (particular decisions, politicians, etc.). 56. Social and cultural environment. 57. Donor policies or preferences. RATING Low 1 2 3 High 4 5 COMMENTS References DIMENSIONS 50 Draft 24.05.05 CHARACTERISTICS To what extent do you agree with the following statements? ABILITY TO DO (10) Relevance 58. Members/users perceive activities to be relevant and beneficial. PERFORMANCE (11) Effectiveness 59. The organisation meets its short-term targets in annual work plans. 60. The organisation achieves most of its objectives. 61. Achievements compare well with other similar organisations. (12) Sustainability 62. The organisation can sustain its activities without outside financial support. 63. The organisation can manage all its activities without outside staff support. 64. The organisation generates an increasing level of domestic financial resources. 65. There are good prospects to sustain all activities without external support. RATING Low 1 2 3 High 4 5 COMMENTS References 51 Draft 24.05.05 Summary Sheet ELEMENTS 1. Governance 2. Leadership 3. Identity 4. Human resources 5. Systems and procedures 6. Material and financial resources 7. Standing (legitimacy) 8. Alliances and connections 9. External pressures (adaptation) AVERAGES ABILITIES ABILITY TO BE ABILITY TO ORGANISE ABILITY TO RELATE 10. Relevance 11. Effectiveness 12. Viability ABILITY TO DO AVERAGES References 52 Draft 24.05.05 APPENDIX 2: REFERENCES Bergh, Mirjam (1995), “Caring, Sharing, Daring. Development work in transition”, DiS/BN, Oslo. Christian Reformed World Relief Committee (1997), “Partnering to Build and Measure Organisational Capacity”, USA. Dale, Reidar (1998), “Evaluation Frameworks for Development Programmes and Projects”, Sage Publications, London. Fowler, Allan (1995), “Participatory Self Assessment of NGO Capacity”, INTRAC Papers Series, Number 10, Oxford. Hailey J. (1995), "International Organisation Assessment”, Brighton. Harrison, Michael. I. & Shirom.A. (1999), “Organisational Diagnosis and Assessment”, Sage Publications, London. Kruse, Stein-Erik (1998), “Institutional Development in Norwegian Bilateral Assistance, Synthesis Report”, UD Evaluation Report 5.98, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oslo. Lusthaus, Charles et.al. (1999), “Enhancing Organisational Performance”, A Toolbox for SelfAssessment, IDRC, Ottawa. Morgan, Gareth (1997), “Images of Organisations”, Sage Publications, London. Paterson et.al (1998), “Institutional Development promoted through Norwegian NGOs”, UD 3/98 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oslo. UNDP (1998), “Capacity Assessment and Development”, Technical Advisory Paper No.3, New York.
© Copyright 2024