|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This site provides a 10-step methodology to assess the capacity of a government agency to implement an education project or program, that is, to determine whether it has the capacity to do the work and deliver the expected outputs. Capacity gaps need to be identified early in project preparation when there is still time to narrow the scope of the project, or phase it over a longer period of time (to lighten the capacity required), or introduce capacity-building activities. Addressing capacity gaps improves your project's quality at entry. The methodology is designed for projects with clearly identified development objectives; that is, for projects for which the first iteration of the Logframe has been completed. It builds on the last steps of the Logframe, extending it to consider implementation issues. Table of Contents
Part One: Determining Who Must Have Capacity To Do What Steps 1- 3 You will probably know from the start what organizations are involved in your project, but you have to identify the units within each organization where the work is actually done. The Logframe and other project-related documents often indicate units with formal responsibility for discrete components or sub-components of the project, but not who will do the work. Here you need to be very precise in identifying the units involved at the "working level". A good place to start is to determine the "to do what". You need to focus mainly on functions and activities generated by the proposed project, since the objective of this specific tool is to assess the capacity of a public sector education agency to implement the project. The next step is to determine 'whose capacity' is involved, that is, identify the units involved. The third step is to aggregate the tasks by unit in order to generate a Task Allocation Matrix. (In Annexes: Operational Definition of Capacity) Step One: Determining the 'Capacity to Do What?' In order to determine the 'to do what', you need to break the proposed development program into distinct tasks. In most cases, the analysis done by the preparation team up to the point where a first iteration of the Logframe is completed, would not provide this breakdown. It would, of course, provide you with the proposed development objectives, the strategies, and sub-strategies, to achieve them. But the language would be general and the level of detail would not be sufficient to analyze the capacity required. Thus, Step 1 is designed to help you translate the development program into a list of specific, workable tasks. The way to do this is to take each development objective in the Log frame, and ask successively "what is your strategy - how will you do this?", until you get to a level of specificity that will allow you to determine (in the next step) who is going to do the work. Sometimes you will find out that the preparation team has not yet thought through all strategies and all the steps involved. This will be the time to complete the job. An example and worksheet show how to proceed.
Step Two: Determining 'Whose Capacity?' Once a complete list of the key tasks is available, you can proceed to determine who would be involved in accomplishing these tasks. By 'who' we refer not to individuals, but to organizations and organizational units. These units will have to have capacity to accomplish the tasks allocated to them in the proposed project (in addition to their routine tasks, of course). Their managers will have to be accountable for the accomplishment of these tasks. You may be surprised to find out not only how many tasks are involved in implementing one proposed project component or even sub-component, but also how many different units may get involved in accomplishing these tasks. You will see how easy it is, therefore, to overlook some of these units - and, thus, also to overlook the capacity they require. Please note also that it is necessary to identify both the broadest unit to which each distinct component, or sub-component is assigned - that is, where 'ministerial' responsibility, and accountability lie - and the narrowest unit to which each distinct task within the component or sub-component is assigned - that is, where the work will be done. The distinction is important because the capacity required of each will be different. In some cases you may find out that the preparation team has not yet dealt with the questions of responsibility and accountability, or has not distinguished between the two types of responsibility and accountability, thus leaving room for misinterpretation, inaction or overlap. Step 2 is designed therefore to help you review the tasks, clarify both managerial and work responsibilities for them, and then determine who would have to have the capacity to manage and the capacity to do the work in question.
Step Three: Aggregating Tasks by Organizational Unit Once you complete Step 2, you will know which unit is responsible for each of the sub-components and tasks. What you need to do now is to list all the sub-components and tasks by unit and produce an aggregate list of tasks for each. Taken together, these unit lists will make up your Task Allocation Matrix. We believe that there is no way to build up the capacity of an organization as a whole, without dealing with its components. Capacity building is in large part, though not only, detailed work at component and sub-component level and therefore at unit level. Having this matrix in your hands, you will know in concrete and practical terms which unit, and what organizations, need capacity to do what, in order to implement the proposed project. The listing of these tasks by unit is purely a mechanical job. The resulting list is quite important, however, not only because it is necessary for the next phase, but also because it may be the first time that each organizational unit to be involved in the implementation will see the whole range of tasks added onto its plate as a result of the proposed project. This can be quite a surprise to the unit's management, as you can see in the next example. Please note that when you list the project-related tasks assigned to each unit, you need to list also the unit's key routine tasks. This is necessary because all existing jobs need to be accounted for when you assess the capacity of the unit to carry out new and additional jobs.
Part Two: Identifying Capacity Gaps By Organizational Unit Steps 4 - 10 Having determined what tasks are to be performed by whom, you can start the analysis of capacity and the identification of capacity gaps now, unit by unit. You need to review each unit list with the manager of that unit and, if possible, also with some of the staff, preferably not at the same time. Carry out the review systematically. Verify first that all the tasks on the list belong to the unit, and only then whether or not the unit has all the wherewithal to implement them. Step Four: Assessing Organizational Homes for functions and Tasks (In Annexes: Capacity and Organizational Home) The capacity of a government agency to implement a project
depends on whether or not all of the key components, sub-components and
tasks added by the project have been clearly allocated to operational units
within the agency. For each component or sub-component, there must be a unit
in the organization that bears the managerial responsibility, and for each
task within them, there must be a (lower-level) unit that does the work.
Together, these units must make up an adequate 'organizational home'. Now,
the number of new tasks generated during the preparation of a new project is
large. Because most of them are embedded in the wider sub-components, or
components, as was seen in Step 1, little thinking goes into their
allocation to units. Some of this thinking may have taken place when you
went through Step 2 with the preparation team, that is, when you asked the
team 'who will do x'. But, at this stage, the answers are accepted without
much scrutiny, because you were only establishing initially who must have
capacity to do what. Now is the time to look at this more thoroughly. Your
first question is therefore:
In some cases, you will identify already in Step Two,
tasks and even whole functions that do not have a distinct organizational
home at all. This does not necessarily mean that the tasks will be
neglected, but it means that they are likely to be performed in an ad hoc
manner, without a strategic framework, norms and standards, guidance and
monitoring. Each of these 'homeless' tasks indicates a capacity gap. You
need to keep them in mind when you review each of the unit lists, because it
is necessary to identify an adequate organizational home, or to create one,
for them. Your second and third questions are, therefore:
(Back to Beginning of Step #4)
Step Five: Assessing the Adequacy of Leadership (In Annexes: Capacity and Leadership) Having dealt with the question of organizational home it
is now time to examine the next factor which could enhance or constrain the
capacity of organizations: leadership. By 'leadership' we refer to a
management team, or a manager, at the head of an organization, and each of
its units. We regard leadership as adequate (a) if the managers/leaders
provide their organization with direction, (b) if they allocate resources in
line with this direction, and (c) if they continually articulate the
direction and keep their people on course.
Step Six: Assessing the Availability of Financial Resources (In Annexes: Capacity and Financial Resources) Now you have to deal with the availability of funds to the
organizations and the units that are going to implement the project. Please
remember that the funds must be made available not only by the government
(or other providers) to the organizations concerned, but also by the
organizations concerned to the specific units that have to implement the
project. This depends (a) on whether or not the funds are allocated to these
units, and (b) on whether or not, once allocated, the funds actually
released on time and reach destination, that is, get into the hands of those
who need to implement specific project activities. Capacity depends greatly
on these two conditions.
Governments sometimes do not release funds and replenish operational accounts on time, because their actual revenues are not matching budget projections. The probability of this happening in the countries where we work is quite high and needs to be assessed, even though it may represent an external constraint on capacity. External constraints are more difficult to address. It may not be possible for an organization, or a unit within an organization, to prevent the late release of funds, but it is possible at least to be prepared for it. Sometimes, a change in certain internal rules and practices, which aims at ensuring that relative priorities of certain activities remain intact despite the late release of funds, can help address the capacity gap created by this phenomenon. The situation is somewhat different with respect to the diversion of funds, once they are released according to the budget. In this case, what you need to assess is whether current practices create opportunities for diversion, whether there are any rules in the system which create incentives to divert the funds and whether there are any mechanisms in place to prevent such diversion from happening. And if you identify any, you will have to seek ways to change it. (Back
to Beginning of Step #6)
Step Seven: Assessing the Availability of Material Resources Material Resources include everything that can be
procured with financial resources, except people. Material resources include
infrastructure, such as physical facilities, vehicles, machinery and
equipment, as well as the software, systems and consumables that go with
equipment, including even items such as fuel.
You will discover capacity gaps caused by the lack of material resources when you review all factors of capacity. But now is the time to ensure that you have fully covered material resources by focusing directly on them. Ask each and every unit whether it has all the resources it requires. Please remember that not all material resources are regarded as capital expenditure. Some are procured under the recurrent budget. Sometimes, these resources are forgotten and sometimes they are not assessed carefully, because of the tendency of project preparation teams to assume that much of the extra work generated by their projects can be absorbed by existing staff and resources. It is important to note here that the provision of certain material resources, particularly office equipment, communications equipment and computers, is one of the easiest and most common ways followed by project preparation teams in addressing capacity gaps. You need to remember, however, that the utilization of such equipment often depends on the availability of other materials, on training, and even on the incentives and motivation of people to use them. There is a tendency for these to be overlooked.
Step Eight: Assessing the Availability of Human Resources (In Annexes: Capacity and Human Resources) Note that the assessment here is confined to the human
resources that the organization requires in order to implement a
proposed project and not to human resources that it requires to deliver all
of its regular services on an on-going basis. The second assessment relates
to the organization's medium and long-term capacity. It needs to be done and
taken into account, but the methodology to do it differs from the one
presented here.
Because these two questions seem to be simple, we may not always realize that the answers require a thorough analysis, and that we may not judge what is 'right' well enough. With respect to the right number of people, it is particularly important that you do a good analysis because the project you are preparing is going to add new programs, and new work, on top of existing ones. As indicated earlier, there is a tendency for project preparation teams to assume that much of the extra work created by the new projects will simply be absorbed by existing staff. The teams do almost always list some positions that have to be staffed, and they make the staffing a condition of effectiveness. However, these positions often represent only the most obvious capacity gaps which are either created by the project, or become conspicuous because of it. The less obvious gaps, which require deeper analysis, may go unnoticed. You can analyze the requirement for human resources, and also for other resources, in several ways. In the Country X case we used the technique of Work Load Analysis.
Step Nine: Assessing Work Practices (In Annexes: Capacity and Practices) All the assessments that you have done so far relate to generic practices and ways of doing things. You assessed practices of organization and leadership, and you assessed practices related to financial, material and human resources management in organizations. Now is the time to consider organization-specific and product-specific work practices in these organizations -- the nature of such practices and how they are determined by skills, technology and incentives. These practices often constrain capacity even more than the general management practices, but they also provide greater opportunities for capacity building. In most cases, you and the specialist consultants helping
you in project preparation and appraisal, can carry out the analytic work
involved in assessing these production practices without difficulty.
Step Ten: Addressing the Gaps Identified Remember that the methodology here is aimed at assessing only the capacity to implement new projects as they are designed, whether or not the design includes medium and long-term capacity building components. It is important, of course to include long term capacity building measures in most projects, but organizations need to have capacity even for capacity building. The methodology being presented here deals with the capacity to implement all of the components of proposed projects - including components which aim to build long-term capacity. Having identified the capacity gaps, you will need to think now of measures to address these gaps. There are three ways an organization can address capacity gaps, and your client organization can follow them individually or in combination:
Many of the examples referred to in this presentation illustrate also these three ways of addressing capacity gaps. The first option of changing practices is illustrated remarkably well by the case of the girls scholarship component. Having reviewed the lengthy procedure followed by the Ministry of Social Welfare in selecting girls for scholarships, the Ministry of Education decided to change the selection procedure radically, by shifting the responsibility for selection to the headmasters and the PTA's of each school. The Ministry reasoned that the shift would make it possible to identify as many girls as necessary without having to add new positions to the MOSW and without multiplying the already high cost of selection. The second option – that of adding resources when capacity is fully utilized is illustrated in the case of the Inspectorate. In this case, the Ministry added so much work to a unit that was already unable to do what was required of it, that the question was not whether or not to add resources, but how much to add. The third option of addressing capacity gaps, by decreasing the scope of action, is a practical and common action. If the development objectives of a proposed project require the implementation of activities for which there is no capacity, and if there are no financial resources to sufficiently improve capacity utilization, or increase capacity as a whole, then the development objectives need to be less ambitious. This could mean to do less, or to lengthen the duration of he proposed project. In many countries, projects start out as very large multi-donor projects. They then decrease in size during the preparation stage as both the Ministry and the donors realize it would not be possible to do so much in the context of one project. The new APL lending instrument make it possible to spread implementation of components over a longer period of time, so as to lower the demands on immediate capacity. The options are stated in order of priority. In many cases, your assessment will initially point to a need for more people and a larger operational budget. However, remember that it makes little sense to add financial resources and procure additional inputs as long as current inputs are not used optimally. This is why changing the way things are done ought to be your first option. Nevertheless, in some cases an organization will require additional financial resources in order to implement this very change and help achieve optimal use of its existing inputs. Typically, these financial resources are modest and often they can be obtained through reallocation, rather than addition. (Back to Beginning of Step #10)
Before defining 'capacity' operationally, it is necessary to clarify whose capacity is to be defined: here we are talking about the capacity of individual public sector organizations: ministries, commissions and other agencies inside and outside government. We are also talking about the organizational units which make them up, such as the Basic Education Directorate in a ministry of education, or the Girls Education Unit in the Basic Education Directorate. In most of your projects, these are the entities whose capacity will be of concern to you. You will be able to use the methodology, however, to deal also with wider entities such as 'sectors', to the extent that you are willing to regard sectors as clusters of organizations. It is important to realize also that capacity cannot be defined operationally without referring to the question 'to do what?' By this we mean what actions, or what clusters of actions - to which we shall refer as 'functions' - does the organization want to perform, for which it requires capacity. Determining the 'to do what' in a practical and specific way is a key to addressing capacity; in fact, it is one of the first steps in the proposed assessment methodology. Generally speaking, the organizations with which you work need capacity to perform their routine core functions as well as to implement development programs. This capacity consists of an ability do the following: (a) formulate a vision, design strategies and develop plans and programs (b) mobilize funds to carry out these plans and programs, and (c) carry out the plans and deliver the programs. The kinds of functions that are typically associated with
these three abilities and are to be found in a Ministry of Education, can be
summarized on the next page:
An organization is an entity which consists of people who have shared objectives and are pursuing them collectively. An organizational home is such an entity, designated for the performance of certain defined functions and activities. It can be a whole organization, such as a Ministry of Education, designated by Government to carry out the government's vision and core strategy for education; it can also be a unit within the Ministry, designated by it to carry out one of its own key functions, such as the management of human resources or the conduct of teacher in-service training. By placing functions in given organizations, the government contracts with them to formulate policies, devise strategies and make plans for these functions. It contracts with them also to budget for the functions, apply standards and norms to them, guide, monitor and control them. The same applies when the organizations structure themselves by units and divide the labor among the units. Capacity is weak when key functions have no designated homes, or when they are split among several homes, because typically nobody is then contracted to take full responsibility, and nobody is held accountable, for them. The functions may still be performed, but without planning, direction and control and accountability. Capacity is weak also when functions are placed at an inadequate organizational home. By an inadequate organizational home, we refer to a unit where the function or task cannot be carried out efficiently and effectively - for reasons inherent in its location in the structure. Location in the structure influences many factors: it influences the unit's authority and responsibility, and thus its very ability to carry out the assigned function, to monitor and control it; it influences access to information and thus the unit's ability to assess, and enter into, internal and external contractual relationships; and it also influences the unit's access to financial, human and material resources, and thus its ability to deploy the best mix of resources for the job. These factors could increase unnecessarily the transaction costs involved in performing the assigned function, and in some cases prevent the unit from performing it altogether. Thus, if an organization has capacity, then you will see the following in it: (a) All of its key functions and activities have a designated organizational home (b) None of the designated organizational homes is technically, managerially or institutionally inadequate, and (c) None of the key functions is split among several organizational homes without a strong coordination mechanism
Having an organizational home is only the first step towards capacity. Whether or not an organizational home actually provides the direction, support, guidance and control to any function or activity depends on leadership. Leadership, in turn, is provided by Management in the form of a core strategy. A core strategy includes a clearly defined vision, a policy framework for its accomplishment and a system whereby it is translated into specific objectives of action down the management ladder. Capacity is weak if any of these elements is weak, or missing. Thus, if an organization or a unit has capacity to carry out its designated functions and activities, then you should see the following in it: (d) A person in authority, that is, a manager (e) A clear overall vision and mission, as well as clear terms of reference (or 'contracts') for all of its units to perform functions assigned to them (f) Individual job descriptions (or 'contracts'), and time bound objectives (including objectives that are directly linked to project components) , for key staff in each unit, and (g) A commitment to the vision and objectives, reflected in stated priorities and in actual resource allocation.
Leadership without financial resources cannot achieve much. Capacity depends not only on the general availability of finances to an organization, but also on the availability of these finances to the specific units, functions, programs and activities which are prescribed by the vision, the strategy and the plans of action. An organization must be able, therefore, (a) to mobilize the funds in the first place, (b) to allocate and reallocate these funds to the stated priority areas and (c) to ensure that the allocated funds reach their destination. Each of these is a key element of capacity. To mobilize funds for any specific activity, a public sector organization needs to present a convincing case to its parent organization and to the users of its services. In developing countries, it needs to present a convincing case also to donor organizations. This depends on its ability to gather accurate and reliable information regarding the said activity, to analyze it well and generate alternative action plans, do cost/benefit analyses and trade-off analyses for comparison and, finally, present it well. To do all of these, it requires mechanisms for the collection of information, rules of game which provide incentives to report accurately and reliably, technology to process the information, and skills both to perform the analysis and to write proposals. The same - and much more - applies to fund allocation, that is, the process of linking budgets to plans. In addition to the requirements listed above, the capacity of an organization to link budgets to plans well depends on budgeting practices. These practices depend, in turn, on prevailing rules of game and the mechanisms which exist to enforce them. Rules such as 'there will be no resource allocation without policy/strategy framework', 'all budget sources are considered and accounted for in the allocation process', and 'overall allocation is done at higher levels of the organization, but internal resource allocation is best left to line units', are particularly important. Mechanisms for the enforcement of such rules - for example, the inclusion of data on all donor funds in a Ministry's budget - are also important. Since we are dealing with the ability of government agencies to implement a given, new project, you need to pay attention also to how they allocate operational funds to the implementing units and activities. Projects typically cover capital expenditure and major development costs. They do not cover all costs associated with the implementation of each component. These require counterpart funding, namely, a provision from the government agency's own sources. The problem is that these costs are not always estimated well and budgeted for. It is common for new projects to impose extra work, which requires extra time and extra travel, on various staff. Yet, project planners either assume that this extra work will be absorbed by the implementing agencies and their units at no added cost, or do not properly analyze the added costs and ensure their provision. Typical costs which are not well anticipated include fuel and S&T for travel. But other costs too are often ignored and the budgetary impact of various project related activities is often not calculated well. Finally, to ensure that allocated funds do reach their destination, an organization needs to control expenditure, in terms of (a) who does the spending, (b) on what, and (c) how much is being spent. Reaching destination means that funds allocated for specific organizations or units and specific programs do reach these organizations or units and within them these programs. There is a tendency sometimes for funds either to be held up and diverted on the way to destination, or to be diverted at destination. To have capacity to control expenditure, organizations need reporting systems as well as rules of game which provide incentives firstly to use funds as intended and secondly to report accurately and reliably on expenditure. They also need institutional mechanisms to help enforce the rules. Budget constraints, for example, must be hard. In other words, there must be a rule saying that nobody, including the higher authorities in the organization, can override the budget; and there must be penalties on overspending. Periodic reporting systems which make it possible to reconcile ex-ante and ex-post spending, and which expose deviations as soon as they occur, with minimal delay, need to be in place. Capacity is weak if such rules and mechanisms are not in place. Thus, if an organization, or an organizational unit, has capacity, then you will see evidence that: (h) It is able to mobilize funds from its parent authority, and/or from additional sources, such as donor organizations and/or from the users of its services (i) It has an adequate macro framework (j) Its budget allocates resources on the basis of this framework (k) Its policies are determined, among others, on the basis of an adequate comparison of the medium term costs of competing alternatives (l) It has incentives to use resources according to plans; it has reporting practices to monitor the use of resources and institutional mechanisms to penalize unauthorized deviations from plans
By material resources we refer to infrastructure and technical resources, such as buildings, offices, furniture, machinery, communications equipment, motor vehicles, and computing hardware and software. We are, of course, stating the obvious when we say that it is important to determine what material resources are necessary in implementing a development project and that you need to assess the availability of these resources. This is one area that typically receives much attention in project preparation - an area that also receives a major part of borrowed funds. But, we are including it here as a distinct step for the sake of completeness. Having said that, we believe that an assessment of the material resources required to implement a proposed project, done in the context of a systematic, unit-by-unit review of capacity, may still uncover gaps that could otherwise go unnoticed. In addition, you need to assess the capacity of the implementing agency to use and to maintain the material resources provided by the project. This may depend, in turn, on user training, and the availability of maintenance personnel and funds. The question of funds is particularly important. Budgets for the acquisition of material resources are often not well integrated with recurrent budgets. Material resources are procured with a limited insight into the on-going costs of using them. Thus, after project completion, they add costs to the organization's recurrent budget which cannot be met, leading to disuse and deterioration. Capacity, therefore, depends not only on the availability of material resources, but also on the availability of recurrent funds to operate and maintain them. If an organization has capacity, then you will see evidence that: (m) It has adequate material resources in the total mix of resources at its disposal (n) It utilizes these resources fully (implying both technical ability to operate and maintain them and the availability of funds for operation and maintenance).
People are at the heart of capacity because, in the end, they are the ones who create organizational homes, provide leadership, mobilize financial resources and acquire and utilize the material resources. The capacity of organizations can therefore be constrained because of a shortage of skilled people. In most cases, constraints result not from a shortage of people per se, but from a shortage of people with the right mix of skills and the deployment of skilled people in areas where their skills are of limited use. Capacity can also be constrained because of an excess - when too many people impose a heavy burden on an organization's salary bill, making it difficult to allocate adequate financial resources to non salary inputs. Some ministries of education in some developing countries provide good examples of these situations. They have large numbers of unqualified teachers, large numbers of qualified teachers with very poor skills, too many qualified teachers in the social sciences and the humanities and too few in the sciences. The administrative and managerial capacity of many is limited also because most of their administrative, managerial and technical staff are ex-teachers - often, the more highly skilled and successful teachers who are being promoted out of the classroom to serve in positions for which they have limited skills. Of relevance to the development projects are skills of project management. Many ministries of education lack these skills. Thus, if an organization has capacity, then you will see at least some evidence that: (o) It has the right number of people to carry out its key functions and activities (p) The people are placed in the right jobs, at the right levels of operation and management, and (q) The people have mixes of skills that are right for their jobs
Practices are ways of doing things. They are methods, techniques, and procedures, followed by people at work. Work practices can greatly diminish or enhance the capacity of an organization. This is true not only of general practices which are followed by all organizations - such as planning, programming, budgeting, procuring, supervising, and communicating - but also of specific practices which are particular to specific organizations, depending on the products and services they provide. The training of teachers, the distribution of teaching and learning materials, and the supervision of classroom instruction in the schools, are examples of specific practices that are particular to ministries of education. Each of them is a practice consisting of a series of calculated operations, performed by people who use financial, human and material resources to accomplish their tasks. How these practices are designed and structured, greatly influences the quantity and quality of the goods and services they deliver, and thus the capacity of the ministry. Bear in mind that practices are a product of three different types of factors: (a) the knowledge and skills people have, (b) the technology at their disposal, and (c) the incentive systems prevailing in their work environment. Knowledge and skills are acquired through education and training. We have dealt with this factor in the section on 'Capacity and Human Resources'. Technology - ranging from machinery and equipment to methods, techniques and systems - can be procured in the market place, often with project funds. We have dealt with technology in the section on 'Material Resources'. But incentives have not been dealt with yet. Incentives are determined by the institutional environment of the organization. Institutions are rules of game and institutional environments consist of external as well as internal rules. Individuals working in organizations are subject to both and respond to incentives created by both. Thus, the capacity of organizations can be enhanced or constrained by such rules. Rules of game determine whether or not people in organizations use their knowledge, skills and technology, how they do, and to what purpose. No amount of training and technology will make people do well what they need to do, if the rules create weak incentives, or disincentives, to do so. Therefore, if an organization has capacity, you will observe some evidence of 'good practice' in it: (r) Generic functions, will be carried out in a professional way: there will be an overall vision, written programs, plans and budgets; coordination among operational units, monitoring and supervision of planned activities; people will be hired, trained, and posted to their jobs on the basis of merit and well considered technical criteria; managers will make decisions on time, delegate authority, and communicate with staff regularly, etc., etc. (s) Specific processes whereby the organization, and its key units, produce their key 'products' will be well thought out; the mix of inputs going into these processes will be reasonable, if not optimal, and key resources will be highly utilized. (t) Some appropriate technology and systems will be available for use by people and the people will be trained to use them, and finally (u) People will be motivated, through a system of incentives, to use their knowledge, skills and technology optimally in the production process.
Finally, it is necessary to remember that all organizations have external environments which provide them support, but also impose on them heavy demands. A ministry of education is part of a civil service and a larger public sector. Its environment includes not only the national government, the pupils and the parents, but also other stake holders and society at large. Each one of these may have a view on what the ministry should do, and often also on how it should operate. Some stake holders may have authority over the ministry and their views are therefore binding. These views can thus turn into constraints on the ability of the ministry to change practices and thus improve its capacity. The most common example has to do with the remuneration of teachers. Being part of the civil service, ministries of education cannot determine the remuneration of teachers and other working conditions, independently of the civil service. Since these conditions affect incentives and motivation, the ministry's capacity to improve instructional practices is constrained. Institutional arrangements and rules that prevail in the larger society can be a major source of constraints on the operation of the civil service. Equally, rules of the game which prevail in the civil service can be a source of constraints on the operation of individual ministries. Individual ministries often cannot change these rules. For example, in certain countries, planning is centralized in one ministry of planning. Ministries of education (and all other ministries) cannot have their own planners. The central planning ministries allocate to them some of their planners. Because the ministries of education have little say over the selection of these planners, because these planners can be replaced any time by the central planning ministries, and because they report to the central ministries, there is a tendency for these education ministries not to bring them into the inner management circles and not to consult with them when important decisions are made. The planning units end up doing 'planning' work prescribed by their planning ministries, which is mostly operational and short-term in nature. They do not do the long-term educational planning work. Unable to remove this constraint, some ministries find ways to live with it by placing education planners in non-planning positions and assigning them planning work. Many institutional arrangements and rules, and many work practices, are created however internally by each organization. They are not dependent on the organization's environment and cannot be regarded as external constraints. It is not necessary, therefore, to wait with all capacity building action at the organizational level, until all arrangements and rules and practices have changed. END (Back to Beginning of Annexes)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
