This paper is the result of a joint effort of OECD/DAC and LenCD to assemble the critical messages about training and learning that are emerging from the current international scrutiny of training and capacity development. It synthesises current wisdom on the topic, and offers a sense of direction on where the debate is going, particularly in terms of approaches to capacity development interventions at country and field levels. The paper is written primarily for the demand side, i.e.
This paper shares the first results of an ongoing collaborative action research in which ten development organisations explored different Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) approaches with the aim of dealing more effectively with complex processes of social change. There are four reasons why we think this paper may be of interest: 1) The paper illustrates a practical example of action research whereby the organisations themselves are becoming the researchers.
The guide on Reflexive Monitoring in Action offers principles, practical guidelines as well as theory and tools. Additional tools, developed more recently, are provided separately. The guide and tools focus on three target groups: Reflexive monitors Consultants, innovation brokers and action researchers who are (or will be) handling the actual monitoring Innovation managers Project managers or innovation champions who feel responsible for the progress of the innovation process and the realisation of the system innovation ambition.
The Capacity Development Results Framework (CDRF or the Framework) is a powerful new approach to the design, implementation, monitoring, management, and evaluation of development programs. Originally conceived to address well-documented problems in the narrow field of capacity development, the Framework can be profitably applied to assess the feasibility and coherence of proposed development projects, to monitor projects during implementation (with a view to taking corrective action), or to assess the results, or even the design, of completed projects.
This sourcebook outlines some of the key tools used by those involved in institutional development. While there are an increasing number of tools and techniques,the focus here is on those that are used or have been used in DFID’s own institutional work.
This paper captures lessons from recent experiences on using ‘theories of change’ amongst organisations involved in the research–policy interface. The literature in this area highlights much of the complexity inherent in the policymaking process, as well as the challenges around finding meaningful ways to measure research uptake. As a tool, ‘theories of change’ offers much, but the paper argues that the very complexity and dynamism of the research-to-policy process means that any theory of change will be inadequate in this context.
We are facing complex societal problems such as climate change, human conflict, poverty and inequality, and need innovative solutions. Multi-stakeholder processes (MSPs) are more and more seen as a critical way of coming to such innovative solutions. It is thought that when multiple stakeholders are able to meet, share experiences, learn together and contribute to decisions, new and innovative ways of dealing with problems are found and turned into action. Still, much remains to be understood about the role and effectiveness of social learning in multi-stakeholder settings.
The present manual provides a reference framework for the strategic and operational work in the field of capacity development. It is addressed to all staff of ADC in Austria as well as in the coordination offices, to non-governmental and implementing organisations, to stakeholders in partner countries, other donors and members of the public interested in development policy.
This policy brief sets out the conceptual and empirical underpinnings of a learning-orientated monitoring and evaluation approach known as Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) and discusses options for learning-oriented interventions and policy research.
This paper discusses issues related to support for capacity strengthening for agricultural research for development (ARD) by member countries of the European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development. It summarises the findings of an analysis of the policies, programmes and projects in capacity strengthening for ARD of fourteen European countries. These policies, programmes and projects were previously examined in relation to a common set of criteria covering aspects of needs identification, design, implementation, assessment, documentation and sharing of information.