Publisher’s note - MSP Guide€¦ · Section 1: MSP essentials and challenges 9 Chapter 1: MSP...

Publisher’s note

This book is published by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH on behalf of the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).

Neither GIZ nor BMZ researched or verified any of the contributions, figures, or company examples contained in this book and as such cannot make any verification concerning the accuracy of any of the information herein. The inclusion of company examples is solely to facilitate learning and does not constitute an endorsement or judgement by GIZ and BMZ of the companies described herein or of their policies or practices.

The material in this publication may be quoted and used, provided there is proper attribution.

June 2011

Editing: Elsa Crous, South Africa Design and typesetting: Andri Steyn, South Africa

Contents

Foreword 1

Executive summary 3

Section 1: MSP essentials and challenges 9

Chapter 1: MSP essentials 10

Chapter 2: Challenges and questions from the field 20

Section 2: Expert opinions 35

Chapter 3: Facilitating MSPs – a sustainable way of changing power relations? 36Jim Woodhill and Simone van Vugt

Chapter 4: Partnering step by step 57Abridged by Darian Stibbe from: Partnering step by step, by Ros Tennyson, with Nazneen Huq & Joanna Pyres.

Chapter 5: Guidelines for using Theory U in MSPs 76Vanessa Sayers

Chapter 6: Guiding others in a space of not knowing 84Douglas Kativu

Section 3: Process map 91

Chapter 7: A process guide for MSP facilitation 92

Chapter 8: Reflections and recommendations 112

Abbreviations and acronyms 119

References and useful web links 120

Notes on contributors 122

Foreword

‘Multi-stakeholder process (MSP) facilitation’ is a term that is widely used in development cooperation for sustainable development. In my view, while ‘multi-stakeholder’ is comparatively less ambiguous, ‘facilitation’ could mean different things to different practitioners working in development cooperation.

Two straight-forward applications of facilitation are consultative meetings involving stakeholders aiming to reach a negotiated agreement and planning workshops. Mostly, these two applications fall in the domain of what I would call ‘events’ facilitation, in which the ‘individual’ facilitator plays a key role.

At the Centre for Cooperation with the Private Sector (CCPS), we also consider our work – in respect of forming partnerships with the private sector or the initiation of other forms of collective action to advance corporate social responsibility (CSR) – to belong to the realm of ‘facilitation’. Here, we see ourselves as ‘institutional’ facilitators, supporting continuous and long-term processes to achieve our objectives (in contrast to the individual events facilitator). In fact, as expert contributors to this guidebook, Jim Woodhill et al. argue, ‘not all multi-stakeholder processes enter the collaborative action phase, as some are purely designed to be consultative’. While CCPS also makes use of and supports consultative events to advance CSR in sub-Saharan Africa, it places strong emphasis on the collaborative action phase, which could take various forms, such as public–private partnerships (PPPs) and other types of partnerships with the private sector, academia and civil society.

In this matrix of individual vs. institutional facilitators, and event vs. collaborative-action facilitation, success depends on the use of the

appropriate paradigm, methodology and methods. In the case of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), for instance, one of our goals is to ‘promote complex reforms and change processes’ – a commitment which calls for continuous and long-term efforts. Hence, a question that comes to mind is: How can one ensure compatibility in GIZ’s paradigm-methodology-methods set? For instance, time is one parameter which could be understood or set differently when one chooses a working paradigm on the one hand, and a set of methodology and methods on the other. What are the implications of this, i.e. different perceptions on available time, on other aspects such as contractual implementation, which are constrained by tight timelines?

These are some of the questions on which this guidebook sheds light. While it is prepared in the context of the work CCPS is undertaking to advance CSR in sub-Saharan Africa, I believe it would be equally useful to other GIZ colleagues and practitioners engaged in the field of development cooperation. For us in GIZ, the rallying themes include ‘sustainable development’, ‘transformative change’, ‘societal learning and change processes’ and ‘collective capacities for change’ – some of the concepts addressed in this guidebook.

Before concluding, I would like to thank the many individuals who made this publication possible. We are especially indebted to our expert contributors, Jim Woodhill (Centre for Development Innovation at Wageningen University), Darian Stibbe (The Partnering Initiative), Vanessa Sayers (Reos Partners) and Douglas Kativu (African Institute of Corporate

2 Guidebook for MSP facilitation

Citizenship). My heart-felt appreciation is also due

to our partners and colleagues from other GIZ

programmes for sharing their experiences. Although

I could not name them all here for lack of space,

I would like to assure them that we value and

acknowledge their personal insights.

Last but not least, a special word of thanks

to the consultant, Arnold Smit, for sourcing the

expert contributions, conducting the interviews and

compiling the guidebook, and to my colleague Girum

Bahri, for supervising this publication from concept to

completion.

Doris Popp

June 2011

Executive summary

Introduction

This guidebook has been designed and written for facilitators of MSPs. People faced with the daunting task of facilitating such complex processes know both the exhilaration and the anxiety that go with it. In as much as such processes can produce breakthrough moments and shift our boundaries regarding critical societal challenges, can they also go horribly wrong and get shelved as just another expensive failure.

The guidebook is, therefore, intended to be a companion for the ‘brave’ who avail themselves to enter the stream of MSP facilitation. It offers the reader the following benefits:

• It can be used as a checklist in preparation for leading, managing and facilitating multi-stakeholder processes;

• It offers a compass to navigate the different phases of MSPs;

• It serves as a companion guide, presenting advice obtained from peers and experts who were once confronted with similar challenges;

• As a toolkit it points towards instruments that simplify and enhance the critical moments of process flow and decision making.

The term ‘facilitation’ needs some explanation at this early stage. In the modern mind-set it is used to describe a variety of activities in which a facilitator, for example, may enable a group of people to

work together more effectively, to find solutions to problems, to work out strategies for future action, or to guide them through a process of learning. However, it is not only ‘event’ facilitators who facilitate, since nowadays mention is made of leaders and managers being encouraged to work in a more facilitative way. ‘Facilitate’, ‘facilitation’ and ‘facilitator’ will, in this guidebook, refer to a broad application in which the process as a whole should be facilitative, and every role – from project manager to professional ‘event’ facilitator – should contribute to the end result as a facilitated experience. Where it matters, different roles (that of the professional facilitator included) will be clearly indicated.

Building blocks for the guidebook

Four sources informed this document: the work of the GIZ CCPS; the field experience of project managers and ‘event’ facilitators deployed in GIZ and CCPS processes; the views of experts in the domain of MSP facilitation; and Capacity WORKS, the GIZ management model for sustainable development.

During the course of its existence, CCPS has embarked on a journey guided by the following objectives, namely to

• help companies identify crucial areas of engagement and the corresponding need for support in respect of CSR;

I remember my first complex facilitation assignment quite well. It was too exciting to say ‘no’ and too daunting to say ‘yes’. I had the basic building blocks of knowledge, skills and

experience, but this one was of a higher order. Where do I start? What will I need? Where can I find advice?


• assist the private sector in analysing and overcoming those factors impeding or hindering CSR;

• support the development of companies’ institutional and networking capacity;

• link businesses with other networking initiatives for partnerships and mutual learning;

• back the private sector to collaborate with national public institutions and non-governmental organisations through cross-sector, multi-stakeholder partnerships; and

• document and share relevant information for effective knowledge management.

CCPS did not pursue these objectives from a position of knowing, but had to find its way through the many uncertainties of not knowing. Nevertheless, backed by GIZ’s wealth of experience in development work, and inspired by the relevance and necessity of supporting the private sector in embedding socially responsible and environmentally sustainable practices in its business endeavours, CCPS embarked on a learning journey in which MSP facilitation became an essential ingredient. The process of discovery started off with learning forums devoted to CSR-related issues. The forums were essentially multi-stakeholder processes from the very beginning, since they included private sector companies, academic institutions, government institutions and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). As issues such as corruption, human rights, employee financial wellness, responsible business investment in post-conflict zones, water sustainability and food security were tackled in these MSPs, case studies were documented and toolkits designed for public benefit. In this regard, the CCPS journey into the domain of MSP facilitation is an invaluable learning resource for this guidebook.

The second source of learning, as outlined in this document, is the field experience of MSP facilitators. They are the men and women at the frontline of working with a wide variety of MSPs in different stages of development. Some hail from within GIZ

(namely GIZ South Africa and GIZ CCPS), while others come from partnering organisations, such as companies and academic institutions. These MSP facilitators work on a wide range of projects. With regard to CCPS, the various MSPs it ‘supported’, and from which this guidebook benefited, can be categorised as follows:

• Cooperation with academia to advance corporate social responsibility;

• Business collective action against corruption;

• Employee financial wellness;

• Responsible business investment in resource-rich fragile states;

• Business and sustainable water management; and

• GIZ development partnerships with the private sector in South Africa.

The facilitators’ rich experiences and insights were tapped in interviews, during which they taught us a number of things:

• Most of them ventured into this dynamic multi-stakeholder territory with a less-structured and experiential approach. The concept of MSP and the requirements of managing or facilitating it properly, only gradually emerged from experience;

• MSPs offer unique opportunities to bring together a diversity of stakeholders to solve complex societal problems, but the challenges inherent to making these processes work, are often as challenging and complex as the problems themselves;

• Many facilitators have to fulfil more than one role in the process, because they often are in positions where they have to lead, manage, motivate and facilitate all at once. This in itself is not unique in the context of a developing economy. Advanced role differentiation is dependent on the context, size and complexity

Executive summary 5

of projects, as well as the availability of financial and human resources. However, the facilitators welcomed the prospect of contributing to a product such as this guidebook, but also requested that it be easy to understand and apply in the complex processes they have to navigate.

The third source of information involves the experts who contribute to our understanding of MSP through their theories, process frameworks and practical toolkits. Apart from various sources that have been utilised – many of them referenced in this study – four contributions were solicited to highlight specific aspects of MSP facilitation:

• Jim Woodhill shared his views on what an MSP essentially is, and what one should know in order to facilitate it effectively – especially with a view to changing power relationships (chapter 3);

• Darian Stibbe contributed a chapter on the facilitation of partnerships as MSPs, adapted from the publication Partnering step by step by Ros Tennyson, Joanna Pyres and Nazneen Huq (chapter 4);

• Vanessa Sayers wrote on Theory U, to highlight how groups can be assisted to access their collective wisdom in solving complex societal problems (chapter 5);

• Douglas Kativu cast light on the experiences of a professional facilitator of MSPs (chapter 6).

In the fourth instance, Capacity WORKS (CW) was consulted for methods, tools and techniques to enhance the enabling capacity of the facilitative processes inherent to an MSP. In particular, alignment was sought between the phases of the preferred CCPS approach to MSP facilitation on the one hand, and useful tools from CW on the other.

Contents and structureThis guidebook aims to answer four questions:

• What determines the successful initiation, implementation and roll-out/sustainability of multi-stakeholder initiatives with the private sector?

• What success factors, barriers, determinants and pitfalls should MSP facilitators be wary of?

• What theoretical frameworks, recommendations and good practice experiences already exist?

• Can a simple, guiding framework be formulated to inform GIZ’s future development cooperation endeavours?

The answers to these questions unfold in the following pattern through the respective sections and chapters of the book. In section 1 there is a chapter on MSP essentials, based on a literature study, and a chapter based on the experiences of GIZ project managers and leading role-players from stakeholder organisations. Section 2, which comprises four chapters, presents the contributions of the experts previously mentioned. Section 3 offers a process map for MSP facilitation. The guidebook therefore journeys from conceptual clarification (chapter 1) to field observations (chapter 2) and from there to expert models (chapters 3–6). The guidebook culminates in the last two chapters, which offer a process guide to the MSP facilitator at the coalface of a project (chapter 7), and some reflections to ponder on at the higher institutional end of the process, from where GIZ CCPS influences the setup and course that an MSP is expected to follow (chapter 8).

How to use the guidebook

In approach and style, the guidebook is more conversational than theoretical. It taps into highly experienced and skilled resources, but keeps in mind the needs of the MSP facilitator, who requires ‘just-in-time’ assistance from a straightforward and helpful reference guide. It does not present an academic treatise or a comprehensive theory, but offers a


variety of perspectives that MSP facilitators can use to plan and steer the processes they are responsible for. The focus is, therefore, squarely on what it takes to facilitate an MSP, so that it achieves its intended outcomes in a sustainable way.

Therefore, if you are an MSP initiator, project manager or facilitator, the following tips may assist you in using this publication optimally:

If you need a quick understanding of the

essentials of MSPs, go to chapter one. Based on a literature review, it offers you five statements with which to frame the territory of MSPs, as well as five ground rules with which to enter the territory.

If you need to connect with the experience and

reflections of MSP project managers/facilitators

in the field, read chapter 2. The chapter reflects

the learning journeys of 18 people involved in

GIZ CCPS-initiated MSPs in different stages of

development. Through their reflections we learn about

the importance of context, process flow, programme

planning, communication strategies, challenges and

risks, as well as the use of professional facilitators.

If you require information on theories and

methodologies from expert resources, read chapters

3–6.

Chapter 1:MSP essentials

Chapter 2:Challenges and

questions from the field

Section 1:MSP essentials and

challenges

Chapter 3:Facilitating MSPs – Jim

Woodhill

Chapter 4:Partnering Step-by-

step – Darian Stribbe

Section 2:Expert opinions

Chapter 5:Guidelines for using Theory U in MSPs –

Vanessa Sayers

Chapter 6:Guiding others in a

space of not knowing – Douglas Katvu

Chapter 7:A process guide for MSP

facilitation

Chapter 8:Reflectons and

recommendations

Section 3:Process map

Figure 1: Division of chapters

Executive summary 7

• In chapter 3, Jim Woodhill and Simone van Vugt offer an all-encompassing overview, covering MSPs from the perspectives of rationale, principles and practice. This chapter will serve you particularly well if you are in an initiator role (e.g. GIZ CCPS) and want to align your various MSP initiatives with best practice guidelines;

• Darian Stibbe’s contribution in chapter 4 serves a similar purpose, but takes you into the domain of partnerships as unique expressions of MSPs. It offers a good combination of methodology, tools and tips to navigate its particular complexities more effectively;

• Vanessa Sayer’s coverage of the U approach, outlined in chapter 5, is different from the other contributions in that it deals with a leading theory on societal change. Theory U has a wide range of applications, and therefore the focus of this chapter is less on MSP methodology and more on the learning journey and experiences of people participating in an MSP;

• The interview with Douglas Kativu, in chapter 5, brings greater clarity to the role of the professional facilitator in MSPs. The chapter, which is offered from the facilitator’s point of view, reflects the expectations, mind-set and preparations of someone who has to lead others into and through a landscape of not knowing.

You may need to know more about process

facilitation as a framework for guiding others through processes of change, conflict, consensus building and decision making, or relationship development. This is especially important for someone with the frontline responsibility of steering an MSP through its various phases, while keeping the process on track, and the various stakeholders committed and involved. Chapter 7 will be helpful in this regard.

MSPs inevitably involve a number of issues that

need to be managed at an institutional level and some of them have been identified as being peculiar to the GIZ CCPS environment. Chapter 8 distils these observations from the study and offers some reflections for further consideration.

Conclusion

The guidebook does not constitute an effort to blend the variety of insights obtained from the different sources into a single, comprehensive theory. No adjustments have been made to any external input to make the contents fit an ideal framework. However, as the project unfolded, some important instances of consensus emerged from the various chapters, that strengthened and amplified the value of the product for its end users. As a guidebook in the true sense of the word, it broadens the options of the end user to make MSP facilitation more meaningful, successful and sustainable.

Section 1MSP ESSENTIAlS AND CHAllENGES

The two chapters in this section introduce MSPs from two points of view:

Chapter 1, which is based on a literature study, summarises the essentials of what an MSP is about. It offers five statements with which to frame the territory of MSPs as well as five ground rules with which to enter this terrain. The chapter furthermore states that four key elements need to be involved in any MSP facilitation, namely

• process elements, which provide for movement and progress through interaction, communication, learning, negotiation, problem solving and decision making;

• programme elements, such as events, milestones and clear timeframes with which to anchor the progress being made;

• relational elements, with reference to issues of power, conflict and trust, along with values such as commitment, openness, transparency and respect for differences;

• institutional elements, such as organisational capacity and competencies, and the division of roles and responsibilities.

Chapter 2 reflects the learning journeys of 18 people involved in GIZ-initiated MSPs in different stages of development. Through their reflection we learn

• the importance of understanding the contextual positioning of an MSP;

• the value of a model to guide the process flow of an MSP;

• how careful programme planning can be enhanced by means of thorough and detailed communication;

• about the sensitive and skilful management of stakeholder engagement;

• to access knowledge of and manage the challenges and risks related to an MSP; and

• the value of using a knowledgeable and skilful facilitator.

Chapter 1MSP essentials

Introduction

Multi-stakeholder process facilitation! Every word in this expression is laden with a meaning of its own:

• Multi-stakeholder implies that people from different sectors of society gather around a common issue or challenge, either because they are affected by it or are able to contribute to problem solving in innovative ways;

• Process is an indication of a pathway, fit for multi-stakeholder purposes, towards problem solving, maintaining the openness and flexibility to make adjustments, as required;

• Facilitation is a function of process guidance, creating and securing an environment where others can cooperate in finding solutions to complex challenges.

Together, these concepts speak about an activity with a distinctive application, unique enough to require a description of its own and complex enough to demand careful planning, good management and skilful guidance.

This chapter addresses the essentials of MSPs based on a study of the relevant literature. The perspectives acquired in this way are summarised in a set of five statements.

Statement 1: MSP facilitation refers to a set of principles and methodologies applicable to cross-sector forms of cooperative engagement

In defining what we understand MSPs to be, it is important not to confuse process with form. A definition dating back to the time of the Earth Summit, held in Johannesburg in 2002, makes this distinction quite clear:

The term multi-stakeholder processes (MSPs) describes processes which aim to bring together all major stakeholders in a new form of communication, decision-finding (and possibly decision-

MSP essentials and challenges 11

making) on a particular issue. They are also based on recognition of the importance of achieving equity and accountability in communication between stakeholders, involving equitable representation of three or more stakeholder groups and their views. They are based on democratic principles of transparency and participation, and aim to develop partnerships and strengthened networks between stakeholders. MSPs cover a wide spectrum of structures and levels of engagement. They can comprise dialogues on policy or grow into consensus-building, decision-making and implementation of practical solutions. The exact nature of any such process will depend on the issues, its objectives, participants, scope, time lines, etc. (www.earthsummit2002.org )

In this rich description, a number of MSP characteristics are highlighted. Some refer to process aspects such as communication, dialogue, decision making and consensus building, while others are about principles such as equity, accountability and transparency. Together, these processes and principles are applied to give direction and facilitate progress in forms of human cooperation, such as networks and partnerships. In turn, these forms of collective engagement carry notions of how power is understood and what preferences exist with regard to decision making.

As a framework of principles and methodologies, MSPs are therefore not synonymous with the forms in which they are expressed, such as forums, summits, networks or partnerships. Rather, MSPs are the enablers that make these complex forms of inter-sector human cooperation, dialogue and problem solving more effective and successful.

Ground rule 1: Whoever leads, manages or facilitates an MSP will need a reasonable understanding of the issues at stake and the stakeholder agendas involved, combined with the skills required to enable diverse constituencies of people to work together effectively.

Statement 2: MSP facilitation offers a framework of action to deal with society’s cross-cutting issuesIn a 2008 report on multi-stakeholder partnerships, the World Economic Forum (WEF) states the following: ‘The start of the twenty-first century has proven to be a time of great paradox and complexity, with unprecedented opportunities for business success seriously challenged by persistent poverty, inequality, instability and insecurity.’ This list of issues can be further framed by linking it to the wider global context of continued population growth, and its impact on social infrastructure and services such as education and health; the depletion of non-renewable

MSP characteristics include process aspects such as communication, dialogue, decision making and consensus building as well as principles such as equity, accountability and transparency.

12 Section 1

energy resources and the implications thereof for economic growth; as

well as global peace and security; climate change and global warming, and

the pressure these factors exert on critical industries such as agriculture

and fisheries.

These issues cut right through our global system to involve all of

humanity and all sectors of society. The challenge is clear: as humans we

need to find ways of working together on issues that pose a threat to the

future sustainability of the planet. At a global level, our century has seen

initiatives in the right direction: the United Nations Global Compact

(UNGC) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are perhaps

the best-known examples of global frameworks for responsible action on

cross-cutting issues.

The UNGC comprises a set of ten principles that invites companies to

get involved in and to address issues in the areas of human rights, labour

standards, the environment and anti-corruption. Since its inception in

2000, it has gained the active support of more than 7 000 companies

around the globe, many of which have, in turn, engaged in MSPs at a

national level, thereby furthering the corporate citizenship agenda.

MDGs are framed and subdivided into objectives or global challenges

in eight areas: poverty and hunger; universal education; gender equality;

child health; maternal health; HIV/AIDS; environmental sustainability;

and partnership for development. The sheer complexity and global

pervasiveness of these issues call for MSP-based engagement and action.

While the UNGC and MDGs have framed challenges of global

importance, the appropriation thereof most often seems to occur in

multi-stakeholder forums at a national level. Steve Waddell (2005) offers

a series of MSP-based case studies of societal learning and change that

emphasise this point: water systems in South Africa, forestry in Canada,

technology and economic development in India, road building in

Madagascar, rice production in the Philippines, and community banking

in the United States.

Hamann’s (2010) study of the success factors in cross-sector

partnerships in an emerging economy context (such as South Africa)

highlights, once again, the necessity for a multi-stakeholder approach

to cross-cutting issues such as water and sanitation, transport, inner-

city and urban development, the social and environmental impact and

responsibilities of mining companies, biodiversity and conservation, and

orphans and vulnerable children.

As humans we need to find ways of working together on issues that

pose a threat to the future sustainability of

the planet.


Ground rule 2: Issues of such systemic complexity require the involvement of stakeholders from various spheres of society to work together to find pathways towards responsible action. The complexity of the issues themselves, and the processes required to facilitate the involvement and cooperation of such a multiplicity of participants, demand a carefully designed process.

Statement 3: MSP facilitation enables societal learning and changeThe deeper aim of MSPs is to enable societal learning and change. On the surface this sounds deceptively simple. At a deeper level, however, it involves complexities that deserve to be well understood and carefully managed.

According to Steve Waddell (2005), societal learning and change (SLC) relate directly to the scale and systemic nature of the environmental and social challenges and opportunities we are faced with today. These challenges and opportunities assert a common impact on all sectors of society, and therefore can only be effectively addressed when multiple stakeholders are prepared to come together to pool their distinctive resources and competencies. Waddell (2005: 79) explains the essence of SLC as follows: ‘Rather than negotiations-based change that re-divides a pie or makes incremental modifications, SLC is a re-visioning and reinventing process where different world-views, resources and weaknesses are brought together in an intimate transformative and synergistic way. Core to this order of change is the ability of people and organisations to create new relationships.’

More voices echo Waddell’s approach. According to Jim Woodhill (2007: 2), ‘the MSP approach recognises that the most complex problems will never be solved by one group alone. Multi-stakeholder processes enable different perspectives to be presented and debated, scenarios and options to be evaluated, decisions taken and actions implemented.’ In addition, Woodhill (2007: 4) defines societal learning ‘as the process by which communities, stakeholder groups or societies learn how to innovate and adapt in response to changing social and environmental conditions’.

Ralph Hamann (2010: 3) states that although partnerships exist on different scales and take different forms, ‘they have in common the expectation that the participants can achieve their objectives more effectively and efficiently through strategic alliances with others rather than acting independently’. The WEF (2005: 11) holds the opinion that ‘true partnerships are about shared agendas as well as combined resources, risks and rewards. They are voluntary collaborations that build on the

Societal learning and change is a re-visioning and reinventing process where different world-views, resources and weaknesses are brought together in an intimate transformative and synergistic way. Core to this order of change is the ability of people and organisations to create new relationships.

14 Section 1

respective strengths and core competencies of each partner, optimize the allocation of resources and achieve mutually beneficial results over a sustained period. They imply linkages that increase resources, scale and impact.’

Ground rule 3: Those who facilitate MSPs should, therefore, be aware that the end goal involves more than solving a problem. Helping people to discover their interdependencies, foster new relationships, and create an environment within which they are empowered to cooperate now and in future, are the ingredients of an MSP that has a lasting effect on society.

Statement 4: The key stakeholder spheres in MSPs are government, business and civil society

The argument up to this point has been that we are today faced with cross-cutting societal issues that can only be dealt with through cooperative engagement amongst a multiplicity of stakeholders. These stakeholders are normally meant to be entities from the three dominant societal spheres: government, business and civil society.

What do these entities bring to process facilitation that renders it worthy of special recognition and separate description? According to Steve Waddell (2005: 13), the entities are distinctively different in a variety of ways. ‘The political subsystem comprises government and its agencies that focus on setting the rules of the game and enforcing them; another is the economic subsystem, which is made up of business focusing on wealth creation; and the third is civil society and its organisations, which focus on promotion of their sense of justice and community well-being.’

Waddell’s views are informed by those of Rudolf Steiner and Amitai Etzioni. With reference to the former, Waddell describes the three distinct spheres comprising society as ‘the economic sphere, which concerns production; the sphere of civil rights, which refers to the political sphere of law-making, governance and definition of how people interact; and the cultural sphere, which refers to free human spirit expression with thinking, morality and creativity’. Referring to Etzioni’s views on three different types of organisations, each with different forms of power, Waddell (2005: 22) highlights ‘the governmental type, where power is coercive (police, law, courts); the business type, which depends on calculative and instrumental (financial payments) power to achieve its goals, and non-profits, where power is normative and people act based on shared values.’ Waddell (2005: 83) offers a useful categorisation of the three sectors, and in the process helps us form a better understanding

The political subsystem comprises government

and its agencies that focus on setting the

rules of the game and enforcing them;

another is the economic subsystem, which is made up of business focusing on wealth

creation; and the third is civil society and its organisations, which

focus on the promotion of their sense of justice and community well-

being.


of the complexities involved in bringing them together in the context of

MSPs.

Table 1: Waddell’s three types of sectors

State sector Market sector Civil society sector

Primary concern Political systems Economic systems Social systems

Control unit Voters/rulers Owners Members

Primary power form Law, police, fines Money Traditions, values

Primary goals Societal order Wealth creation Healthy communities

Assessment frame Legality Profitability Justice

Goods produced Public Private Group

Dominant organisational form

Governmental For profit Non-profit

Operating frame Administrative Managerial Developmental

Relationship basis Rules Transactions Values

Temporal framework Election cycles Profit-reporting or business cycles

Sustainability/regeneration cycles

Woodhill (2007: 2) states with regard to the spheres of government,

business and civil society, that ‘no sphere is all powerful, yet each has

the power to at least partially subvert the actions of the other spheres to

which they are opposed. Progress, particularly in relation to sustainable

development, hinges on a social capacity for different sectors and interests,

to be able to constructively engage with each other.’

Cooperation amongst the three spheres is indeed not easy, and aligning

and synchronising their respective contributions can be a challenge in

itself. The WEF (2005: 37) states it well, saying that ‘business tends to be

slow to move up to the point that it has made a decision and then wants

action and delivery instantly … NGOs tend to be incredibly keen and/or

demanding and then seem to be slow to deliver … the public sector often

is quick to engage, but then gets stuck in bureaucracy’.

Ground rule 4: MSP facilitation, therefore, demands the ability to understand

and interact with stakeholders from the perspective of the sectors they come

from, to reckon with the variety of expectations they hold, to adapt the pace of progress according to the rhythms that characterise them, and to appreciate the value of the contribution forthcoming from each of them.

16 Section 1

Statement 5: MSPs require careful planning, management and facilitation

The complexities inherent to MSPs have already been outlined. They deal with complex and systemic issues that are overlaid with equally intricate multi-stakeholder dynamics. It goes without saying that MSPs require careful planning, management and facilitation, to guide stakeholders from different sectors in their collective activities which are aimed at finding solutions.

We are in the fortunate position that certain people have already mapped the terrain for effective MSP facilitation, and much can be learned from the lessons they have learned. Woodhill (2007: 4), for instance, states that an effective MSP

• deals with a clearly bounded context and set of problems;

• involves an explicitly defined and evolving set of stakeholders with common (but often conflicting) interests;

• works across different sectors and scales;

• follows an agreed yet dynamic process and time frame;

• is guided by negotiated and understood rules of interaction;

• deals consciously with power and conflict among stakeholders and sectors;

• engages stakeholders in learning processes (not just negotiations over fixed positions);

• aims for a balance between bottom-up and top-down approaches; and

• aims to contribute towards effective institutional change.

In a study of cross-sector partnerships, Hamann (2010) identifies six success factors, namely

• partners’ organisational commitment to the initiative;

• a clear and well-defined purpose, agreed by all partners;

I have worked so hard to bring together all of these relevant stakeholders, but when we finally got to the first meeting I

had no clue of how difficult it was going to be to make them work together. (An engineer working on water issues)


• organisational and facilitative capacity on the part of the manager/secretariat;

• an organisational culture conducive to interest-based negotiation;

• partners’ accountability to their constituencies and to the partnership;

• the trust developed among partners.

The WEF (2005: 6), approaching the topic more from the point of view of the business sector, identifies seven success factors for effective partnership, namely

• openness, transparency and clear communication to build trust and mutual understanding;

• clarity of roles, responsibilities, goals and ‘ground rules’;

• the commitment of core organisational competencies;

• the application of the same professional rigour and discipline focused on achieving targets and deliverables that would be applied to governing, managing and evaluating other types of business alliances;

• respect for differences in the approach, competence, time frames and objectives of different partners;

• a focus on achieving mutual benefit in a manner that enables the partners to meet their own objectives as well as common goals;

• an understanding of the needs of local partners and beneficiaries, with a focus on building their capacity and capability, rather than creating dependence.

Although these lists differ in many ways, they point to certain common factors that need to be considered, to enhance the success of MSPs. Besides having a clear focus that justifies a multi-stakeholder approach, the following elements need to be taken care of:

• Process elements that provide for movement and progress through interaction, communication, learning, negotiation, problem solving and decision making;

• Programme elements, such as events, milestones and clear time frames with which to anchor the progress being made;

• Relational elements, with reference to issues of power, conflict and trust, and to values such as commitment, openness, transparency and respect for differences;

• Institutional elements, such as organisational capacity and competencies, and the division of roles and responsibilities.

Seven success factors for effective partnership are openness, transparency and clear communication; clarity of roles, responsibilities, goals and ‘ground rules’; the commitment of core organisational competencies; professional rigour and discipline; respect for differences; a focus on achieving mutual benefit; and an understanding of the needs of local partners and beneficiaries.

18 Section 1

These different elements are best made sense of when they form part of a holistic framework for MSP facilitation. Such a framework is useful in integrating processes, phases and activities into a comprehensive whole that helps to simplify the process facilitation. Capacity WORKS (2009: 9) proposes a five-factor framework for contract and cooperation management in partnerships: 1) a clear and plausible strategic orientation; 2) a clear understanding of who they will be cooperating with and how; 3) an operational steering structure; 4) a clear understanding of the key strategic processes; and 5) measures to develop and consolidate capacities. Woodhill (2007: 39ff ) advocates a process model with four facets to it, namely initiating, doing adaptive planning, taking collaborative action and reflexive monitoring. CCPS prefers a three-phase model that takes an MSP from initiating to implementing and on to phasing out/sustaining.

Ground rule 5: The skill in MSP facilitation is to make provision for all of these elements, and to carefully manage their underlying interdependencies. Careful

planning, good management and skilful guidance will improve the odds of MSPs being inclusive, effective and successful.

Summary

MSP facilitation is indeed a special instance of process guidance, designed to enable societal learning and change around cross-cutting issues. As an inter-sector MSP it needs to be carefully planned, well managed and sensitively facilitated.

Every instance of MSP facilitation, therefore, raises certain questions:

• What is the issue at stake?

• What objectives have to be achieved?

• Does it require an MSP?

• Who are the relevant stakeholders?

• What do the different stakeholders bring to the process in terms of capacities and competencies, and what do they expect in terms of outcomes?

• What resources does the MSP need in terms of infrastructure, staffing and funding?

• What processes are needed to ensure flow, cooperation and progress in a multi-stakeholder environment?


• Are there potential power imbalances or conflicts that may put the process at risk?

• How can the various aspects of the process, such as relationship building, communication and listening, problem solving, decision making and implementation, be enhanced?

• Can one person play more than one role in an MSP, for instance, by both managing and facilitating?

In the next chapter we are going to listen to voices from the field. In the process, we will learn from the experiences and insights of men and women involved in the work of GIZ and those at the helm of MSPs in Africa, who had to find their own way through MSPs for which they were not necessarily adequately equipped in the beginning.

ResourcesGTZ. 2009. Capacity WORKS: the management model for sustainable

development. Unpublished working paper. Hamann, R., S. Pienaar, F. Boulogne and N. Kranz. 2010. What makes cross-

sector partnerships successful? A comparative case study analysis of diverse partnership types in an emerging economy context. Unpublished working paper.

Helmchen, C.J. 2010. Running a global compact local network: insights from the experience in Germany. In The United Nations Global Compact: achievements, trends and challenges, ed. A. Rasche and G. Kell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Waddell, S. 2005. Societal learning and change: how governments, business and civil society are creating solutions to multi-stakeholder problems. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

Woodhill, J. 2007. Facilitating complex multi-stakeholder processes: a societal learning perspective. Working document.

World Economic Forum Global Corporate Citizenship Initiative. 2005. Partnering for success: business perspectives on multi-stakeholder partnerships. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

Chapter 2Challenges and questions from the field

Introduction

When the GIZ CCPS commissioned the writing of this guidebook, four questions framed the parameters of the exercise:

• What determines the successful initiation, implementation, and roll-out/sustainability of multi-stakeholder initiatives with the private sector?

• What success factors, barriers, determinants and pitfalls should MSP facilitators beware of?

• What theoretical frameworks, recommendations and good practice experiences already exist?

• Can a simple, guiding framework be formulated to inform GIZ’s future development cooperation endeavours?

At the time of writing, CCPS was already involved in a variety of multi-stakeholder-type projects, specifically based on the consideration that the condition of the natural environment, communities and employees can be improved through socially and environmentally responsible business behaviour, thus ensuring the sustainability of businesses. Based on this belief, CCPS engaged in a variety of projects in which the private sector, with the involvement of other stakeholders, could be strengthened in its development and implementation of responsible business practices.

CCPS’s projects today constitute a broad range of partnerships built around an equally rich variety of topics. Table 2 offers a field map of CPPS’s current multi-stakeholder footprint.

The systemic and cross-cutting nature of the issues addressed in these partnerships speaks for itself. The question is rather about knowing how issues were dealt with and what we can learn from this. This quest resulted in a series of interviews with the people at the helm of these MSPs. The rest of the chapter is a testimony and tribute to their experiences.

CCPS engaged in a variety of projects in

which the private sector, with the involvement of other stakeholders, could be strengthened

in its development and implementation

of responsible business practices.


Table 2: CPPS’s multi-stakeholder footprint

Thematic area Partnerships involved Interviewees

Cooperation with academia to advance corporate social responsibility

University of South Africa: the establishment of UNGC Regional Learning Forum and the organisation of the 4th UNGC Learning Forum International Conference in 2007 in Ghana (completed)

Prof Derick de Jongh (UP), Doris Popp (GIZ)

University of Pretoria: the promotion of responsible leadership and the setting up of the UP Centre for Responsible Leadership (CRL)

Prof Derick de Jongh (UP), Doris Popp (GIZ), Anne Reiner (GIZ)

University of Ghana Business School: to set up a centre of excellence with the objective of embedding CSR within Ghanaian businesses and academia

Dr Daniel Ofori (UGBS), Doris Popp (GIZ)

University of Cape Town: research into food security Prof Ralph Hamann (UCT), Anne Reiner (GIZ)

Business collective action against corruption

Ethics Institute of South Africa (EthicSA): to create regional nodes and networks to spur anti-corruption networks in countries such as the DRC, Kenya, Tanzania, Mauritius, Uganda, Zambia, Mozambique, Senegal and Malawi

Sophie Geerts (EthicSA), Ulli Klins (Southern Africa Trust)

Employee financial wellness

BMW: an Employee Financial Wellness Programme (completed)

Dr Natalie Mayet (BMW)

Responsible business investment in resource-rich fragile states

Liberia: the establishment of a corporate responsibility forum

Marcus Wleh (ArcelorMittal Liberia), Doris Pop (GIZ)

The DRC: a responsible business investment initiative Ulli Klins (Southern Africa Trust)

Business and sustainable water management

Woolworths: sustainable management of wastewater in the company’s supply chain

Dr Johan Ferreira (Woolworths)

GIZ development partnerships

These include development partnerships with the private sector, a programme on strengthening local governance, an employment and skills development service programme, a public service reform programme and a rural development programme.

Gavin Watson, Faith Lawrence, Adri El Mohamadi, Kirstin Walker and Catherine Churchill (all from GIZ)

Voices from the field

It is quite a challenge to do justice to insights gained from 18 in-depth interviews, many of which also covered more than one project. The interviewees were either MSP project managers from the ranks of GIZ and CCPS, or they were leading figures from key stakeholders.

22 Section 1

Nevertheless, the objective here is not to offer detailed feedback, but to distil from the experience such advice as may be of value to those facilitating similar processes.

Each interview represented a unique story worthy of deep exploration, but in the end six broad themes emerged:

1. The importance of understanding the contextual positioning of an MSP;

2. The value of a model to guide the process flow of an MSP;

3. Careful programme planning enhanced by thorough and detailed communication;

4. The sensitive and skilful management of stakeholder engagement;

5. Gaining knowledge of and managing the challenges and risks;

6. A knowledgeable and skilful facilitator.

We will now elaborate on each of these themes.

Contextual positioningWhoever facilitates an MSP should be keenly aware of the contextual landscape within which it unfolds. Our interviewees indicated ‘context’ to be an important factor in determining the approach to an MSP. As political, economic, social, legal, infrastructural and/or cultural conditions differ from country to country, that will have an impact on the way in which each MSP is set up and facilitated.

Facilitating an MSP in post-apartheid South Africa, with its various development challenges, is different from doing it in post-conflict Liberia, where conditions for economic growth need to be carefully reconstructed. Anti-corruption, similarly, may be a cross-cutting issue in many African countries, but initiatives to strengthen the private sector’s response to the issue will be approached differently in Malawi than in the DRC.

Questions such as the following should, therefore, guide the contextual positioning of an MSP:

• What is happening in the broader political landscape that may have an effect on the process?

To do my homework I meet with CEOs, attend board meetings and/or CEO roundtables and rely on advice from the business forums in various countries. (Sophie Geerts,

EthicSA)

As political, economic, social, legal,

infrastructural and/or cultural conditions differ from country to

country, that will have an impact on the way in which each MSP is set up and facilitated.


• Are there any legal frameworks that will have a bearing on the process?

• What is culturally acceptable in terms of how relationships are managed or how matters of authority or seniority should be dealt with?

• What are the systemic interdependencies surrounding the topic of an MSP, and what are the implications thereof for stakeholder selection?

• Are there any infrastructural impediments on factors such as transport and communication technology?

• Do participants (such as steering committee members) expect to be remunerated for their work?

Process flow

Our interviewees relied largely on common sense and practical wisdom, and hardly reported any reference to theoretical frameworks or best practice approaches to MSP facilitation, such as those referred to at the end of chapter 1. They nevertheless had clear recommendations and sound advice regarding the basic setup and flow of MSPs:

• Make sure that an MSP is the appropriate approach for a particular issue;

• Good preparation, going beyond just nuts and bolts, leads to better outcomes;

• Design a clear road map for the MSP in your MSP process;

• Understand and respect your mandate;

• Timelines are often over-optimistic, therefore be prepared to stay in the process for longer than expected;

• Processes should help stakeholders understand that they form part of a bigger system;

• Choose a process that helps people see the ‘ecosystem’ of the problem at stake;

The process is like a holding pattern within which stakeholders can be navigated towards a destination. (Dr

Daniel Ofori, Ghana Business School)

24 Section 1

• Keep your processes simple, practical and focused on the mandate and the particular topic;

• Process design is critical – it can make the journey either easy or very complicated;

• When your process is highly complex, due to the nature of the problem you need to address, it is important to break it down into smaller and manageable chunks.

This is certainly good advice which offers helpful checkpoints before anyone enters the waters of process design and implementation.

Apart from this helpful advice there is still the question of a holistic framework for setting up, managing and facilitating an MSP. ‘Trial and error’ is often the way in which we learn to do new things, but there comes a point when new kinds of processes are benchmarked in comparison with others, and project managers and facilitators are selected not only on the basis of their natural skills, but also for their theoretical competence. The old saying holds true: nothing is as practical as a good theory.

GIZ CCPS favours a three-phased approach to MSP facilitation that is utilised here to structure all the feedback forthcoming from the interviewees’ ‘common sense’ approach. The three phases are: initiate, implement and phase out/sustain (hereafter either referred to as sustain or institutionalise.)

Programme planning and communication strategy

As an MSP flows from the 1st to the 2nd phase, programme planning becomes increasingly crucial. Phase 1 is predominantly a preparatory phase, in which the project management function dominates. Phase 2 widens the scope and impact of the process through the incorporation of multiple stakeholders. This ushers in a period for stakeholders to network, learn and design solutions together. It is characterised by meetings, workshops and conferences.

Our interviewees stressed three aspects:

• Communicate, communicate, communicate! Put a communication strategy in place and ensure the quality, clarity and accuracy of whatever contents are communicated;

• Feedback loops are critical, therefore ensure that minutes are taken, reports are on time and follow-up takes place, and that notices are sent and received. Leave nothing to chance.

GIZ CCPS favours a three-phased approach

to MSP facilitation: initiate, implement and

phase out/sustain.

Phase 1 is a preparatory phase, in which the

project management function dominates. Phase 2 widens the scope and impact of the process through

the incorporation of multiple stakeholders.


Malawi can be without e-mail for as long as a week. (Marlett Balmer, GIZ)

Figure 2: A three-phased approach to MSP facilitation

Phase 1: Initiate

• Ensure that your TOR is well understood

• Be clear about the ultimate objective

• Plan for an integrated process right from the beginning

• Determine your resources in terms of funding, infrastructure and time

• Provide for and distinguish between the roles of programme management, steering committee and facilitation

• Identify stakeholders and plan how to get them on board

• Study the context and be aware of constraints

Phase 2:Implement

• Ensure that a key stakeholder is in place to take ownership of the project

• Find your way through (often) confusing stakeholder networks

• Be prepared to deal with power inbalances, conflict, stuckness and criticism

• Take care of good programme planning and management

• Ensure excellent communication and regular feedback

• Ensure that stakeholders experience ownership and significant involvement

• Ensure role efficiency in programme management, the steering function and facilitation

Phase 3: Sustain

• Have follow-up strategy to help stakeholders stay on board

• Market the process, communicate well and entrench the programme and its outcomes in the mindset of stakeholders and beneficiaries

• Institutionalise the outcomes of the project through decision-making, agreements and good knowledge management

• Ensure that reports and/or tools that were designed to be published are available to all stakeholders and even the broader public

• Plan carefully for handover and remember the following: Handover is not about delegation; it is about relationships

26 Section 1

• Infuse the MSP network with a sense of collective identity, combined with special acknowledgement where it is due. In other words, ensure that branding and co-branding are incorporated in logos and posters.

Stakeholder engagement

What we have learned from our interviewees regarding stakeholder engagement boils down to five messages:

1. It is vital, at all times, to remember that people and relationships are key. See people as individuals, and deal with them or treat them as such. The success of an MSP and the sustainability of its outcomes are dependent on this;

2. Stakeholders bring with them the value systems and operating styles of the sector or industry they belong to. This may not necessarily sit well with stakeholders from other sectors or industries. Such an awareness should play a role when preparing for stakeholder engagement forums, which must be carefully facilitated;

3. Stakeholder differences create room for power imbalances and potential conflict. On the preventative side, the process should, therefore, provide positive relationship-building opportunities, combined with a strong focus on the ultimate objective of what the MSP is designed to achieve. In the real-time setup of the MSP, a facilitator should always be ready to deal constructively with conflict;

4. Maintaining good stakeholder relationships demands open lines of communication at all times, as well as time spent with key people in stakeholder constituencies. While good structure is essential in the common stakeholder space, relationship building is important in the off-line arena;

5. Remember: an MSP brings additional work and is not necessarily a priority for participants. Accountabilities need to be well managed.

Relationship building is important; I am not afraid to phone a CEO. (Sophie Geerts, EthicSA)

Five keys to stakeholder engagement:

See people as individuals, and deal

with them or treat them as such.

Stakeholders bring with them the value systems and operating styles of the sector or industry

they belong to.

Provide positive relationship-building

opportunities, combined with a strong

focus on the ultimate objective.

Maintain open lines of communication.

Accountabilities need to be well managed.


For me, the most critical ‘derailers’ were the impact of some individual personalities, people with individual agendas,

the lack of buy-in, not allaying uncertainties and anxieties right in the beginning, people not coming and then

wanting to hold the process back when they do come, and stakeholders not being carefully selected. (Dr Natalie Mayet,

BMW SA)

Challenges and risksRemember Murphy’s Law: if something can go wrong, it will! It is no different with even the most carefully planned MSP.

So what can go wrong that may derail the flow and put the success of an MSP at risk? Through the experience of our interviewees we are now sensitised to be cautious about the following:

• Loss of focus: the process needs to be kept on track in terms of focus and purpose, otherwise some stakeholders may be tempted to withdraw, leaving the MSP facing a crisis of legitimacy;

• Breakdown in funding: funding constraints may occur as a result of macro-economic conditions, or when the cost assumptions made during the budgeting phase of a project are too low;

• Discontinuity in representation: stakeholders may change their representation due to internal shuffles in the composition of the board or management. New representatives who need to be brought on board may not share the views, values or commitment of their predecessors;

• Political developments: changes in the political landscape – especially around elections or cabinet reshuffles – may have a huge influence on the relevance and future of an MSP, especially where it requires the blessing of the political powers that be;

• Emotional hygiene factors: when a relationship of trust is ruined, transparency is lost, certain personalities dominate or role confusion sets in, the emotional space for optimal stakeholder engagement is contaminated;

• Monitoring and evaluation: the demand for a return on investment, both in terms of funding and time, requires that

Risks include: loss of focus; breakdown in funding; discontinuity in representation; political developments; emotional hygiene factors; and monitoring and evaluation.

28 Section 1

results be measured. An MSP should have indicators of the results that will be considered meaningful and measureable.

Skilful facilitationCan the project manager of an MSP also be the facilitator? Our interviewees’ answers seem to indicate that ‘it depends’. It depends on the size, complexity and financial resources of the project. It depends on the relationship the project manager has with the various stakeholders. It depends on the competencies of the project manager.

As a rule of thumb, however, the preference seems to be for the use of an external facilitator. This releases the project manager from an extra duty that s/he may not have time for or may not be adequately equipped for. It provides the process with an important set of skills, manifested in a person who is neutral to the different parties involved.

With this preference in mind, we can now ask what the facilitator role requires. From the responses of our interviewees we gained four important perspectives on the prerequisites: a set of principles, personality attributes, technical know-how and process know-how.

A set of principles

• Determining the most appropriate facilitative mechanism should indicate what facilitative capacity is needed and which facilitator should be utilised;

• Role differentiation and clarity are critical in the relationship between role-players in the overall project steering mechanisms, and in particular between the project manager and the professional facilitator;

A facilitator is, for me, someone who can elicit maximum participation as well as goal achievement in a limited time; who is committed to and interested in the project; who has some knowledge of the subject matter; who is experienced and used to working in multiple countries; who can ask

probing questions; and who is familiar with GIZ’s Capacity WORKS model. (Gavin Watson, GIZ)

The preference seems to be for the use of an external facilitator, as it provides the process with an important set of skills, manifested in

a person who is neutral to the different parties

involved.


• As a general rule, the facilitator should not run the process alone. The process should be complemented and supported by an advisory team that takes ownership of the process;

• In any given context, cultural factors may demand that not just anybody will be allowed to facilitate. In certain contexts it may be important to consider factors such as gender, seniority and acquaintance with local conditions.

Personality attributes

• A sensitive person with respect for others;

• A person who is open and transparent, and able to create a context of trust;

• A person who can remain self-defined and calm in the face of pressures and questions;

• A person with the ability to reflect on self and others, and on the process.

Technical know-how

• A person who truly knows and understands the subject matter of the MSP;

• Someone with a good reputation in the domain of the MSP’s subject matter and who is, therefore, also known and respected by the stakeholders.

Figure 3: Prerequisites for a facilitator

A set of principles

Personality attributes

Technical know-how

Processknow-how

30 Section 1

Process know-how

• The ability to create a safe space for stakeholder participation – especially in an environment where stakeholders from different sectors need to find a way to cooperate;

• The ability to create a space where everyone has a voice, can share a set of objectives and know what to do together;

• The ability to enable and empower participants to take ownership of a process and its outcomes;

• The ability to deal with surprising twists and turns in a process and keep it on track;

• The ability to ask the right questions and keep the focus on what is material.

External observationsWhile our interviewees acknowledged that they learnt ‘on the go’, their reflections on their MSP journeys turned out to be filled with valuable and replicable insights. Having learned predominantly in an experimental way, they would probably concur with Waddell’s (2005: 116–118) reference to the six classic mistakes in societal learning and change processes, and even admit that they have also stumbled upon some (if not most) of them. These mistakes are:

1. Jumping in without having done the necessary groundwork: this happens when the preference for action-orientation overrules a disciplined development approach. It may even result in bringing together the wrong stakeholders;

2. Being event focused rather than process focused: while meetings, workshops and conferences represent important events in stakeholder cooperation, they should not run ahead of the process design, but should become its natural expressions and extensions at the appropriate time;

3. Underestimating the distinctive inter-sectoral qualities vs. the inter-organisational: working across sectors is different from working with role-players from the same sector, and therefore requires a different approach. For the same reason, facilitators with exposure to different sectors seem to fare better than those with experience in only one sector;

4. Underestimating the distinctive third-order change qualities: it is important for visionary and aspirational strategies to take

Six classic mistakes in societal learning

and change processes are: jumping in without having

done the necessary groundwork; being

event focused rather than process focused; underestimating the

distinctive inter-sectoral qualities vs. the

inter-organisational; underestimating the

distinctive third-order change qualities;

failing to understand that repetitive cycles of development are necessary and take

time; and thinking that you should define

your organisational structure, relationship and decision-making processes and then do

the work.


precedence over negotiations and conflict resolution strategies, especially in the beginning of a multi-stakeholder approach that has societal learning and change as its objective. Strong expectations about negotiations and conflict may be an inappropriate assumption to start with, and may set the process up for stuckness right from the start;

5. Failing to understand that repetitive cycles of development are necessary and take time: as the learning process expands and spills over into more and more stakeholder constituencies, aspects of it will have to be repeated. This kind of natural development will inevitably put pressure on time frames;

6. Thinking that you should define your organisational structure, relationship and decision-making processes and then do the work: both these aspects need to be a work in progress that develops in parallel fashion as the process unfolds. One is dependent on the state of the other.

MSPs deal with complex societal issues and are, in themselves, also complicated to put together effectively. Keeping an MSP on course and getting most of it right most of the time is, in itself, a notable achievement.

Another observation lies at a somewhat intuitive level. In interview after interview, respondents stressed the importance of working with people. The issues at stake demand solutions which, in turn, can only be designed by people in cooperative multi-stakeholder settings. If the cooperation does not succeed, there will be no solutions worthy of being carried forward towards implementation. This is reminiscent of Adam Kahane’s (2010) treatment of the forces of power and love in social and organisational change processes. Power is about purpose and getting the job done. Love is about connectedness and caring enough to work together. Power and love stand in creative tension, and we need to engage with both if we want to address our challenges. Power without love is destructive, and love without power is sentimental. Apart from discovering these two forces within ourselves, we also need to provide for their influence and creative impact on the processes we facilitate.

An MSP is set up to solve a societal problem, with contributions from sectors which do not usually work together and, at the same time, are used to working in distinctively different ways. The product that the process needs to deliver at the end is both a solution (the result of power) and the collective commitment (the result of love) to implement it. It can thus be said that an MSP is built on the will of stakeholders to make

An MSP is built on the will of stakeholders to make a difference (power), and the skill to help them to do it together, in an effective way (love).

32 Section 1

a difference (power), and the skill to help them to do it together, in an effective way (love). This is the prerequisite for a durable and sustainable solution, which implies that the processes inherent to an MSP should embrace both.

Getting the creative balance of power and love right, is what we are going to look for in the next section, in which four experts offer their views on MSPs.

ResourcesKahane, A. 2010. Power and love: solving tough social and organizational problems.

Cape Town: Tafelberg.Waddell, S. 2005. Societal learning and change: how governments, business and civil

society are creating solutions to multi-stakeholder problems. Sheffield: Greenleaf

Publishing.

Section 2ExPERT oPINIoNS

The contributions solicited for this section were carefully selected. Each had to help us see a different facet of MSP facilitation.

In Chapter 3, Jim Woodhill and Simone van Vugt help us understand how a responsible and thorough MSP process evolves out of the confluence of rationale, principles and practice.

Darian Stibbe (chapter 4) offers us the vast experience he and his colleagues at The Partnership Initiative have gained, and provides a step-by-step overview of what it takes to make this form of inter-sectoral cooperation effective and successful.

Vanessa Sayers (chapter 5) covers one of today’s leading theories on societal change processes, namely the U approach/Theory U, which is based on the work of Otto Scharmer.

It was important to mine the insights of an experienced facilitator as well. Such a person is Douglas Kativu, who facilitated quite a number of MSPs (amongst others, for GIZ). This contribution (chapter 6) is presented in an interview style.

The following themes emerge from the four chapters:

• Theoretical frameworks and applied methodologies and how they contribute to the impact and success of MSPs;

• The importance of systemic thinking and the impact thereof on process dynamics in MSPs;

• The importance of good relationships and how they help secure the long-term sustainability of an MSP;

• Facilitation as a process and facilitators as process guides, and the personal competencies needed to facilitate well.

Together, these chapters enrich our understanding of the complexities and nuances involved in MSP facilitation. Even experienced MSP project managers and facilitators will gain much from the depth of insight offered by these seasoned MSP practitioners.

Chapter 3Facilitating MSPs – a sustainable way of changing power relations?

JIM WOODHILL AND SIMONE VAN VUGT

Preface

The framework offered in this article has evolved over more than ten years, thanks to a wide range of experiences of different MSPs. It has also been tested and refined through the annual three-week international course on facilitating MSPs and social learning, run by the Centre for Development Innovation (CDI). Moreover, experiences with several learning trajectories in this field (with Dutch NGOs like SNV, ICCO, Cordaid and Hivos and the APF network and international organisations like IFDC, FAO and IFAD) deepened our understanding of the complex aspects of such MSPs.

At the beginning of 2011, CDI plans to publish a full-fledged booklet, in which we share our insights on the multiple aspects involved in facilitating and understanding MSPs for sustainable change. The summary given below is just a foretaste of all you can read about – and hopefully respond to – in 2011.

The multi-stakeholder framework: a deeper understanding of conflicting change processes

Increasingly, (development) organisations and practitioners are involved in initiating, being part of, supporting and facilitating a wide variety of multi-stakeholder partnerships, coalitions, platforms and processes. MSPs are understood as processes of constructive political engagement in which power, conflict and politics are central. Although there is a need for such collaboration between government, business, NGOs and citizens, the knowledge that there is nothing neutral about them, makes the practice of enabling these processes to be effective and sustainable, far from simple.

Expert opinions 37

Too often MSPs are begun with insufficient thought devoted to the underlying dynamics of change, politics, process elements and capacities on which success depends.

To be effective, the people who initiate, support, take part in or facilitate MSPs have important questions to ask:

• Do the right conditions exist for an MSP?

• Who are the right stakeholders to involve, who decides on their suitability and at what point will they be involved?

• How will the process gain legitimacy?

• What risk does such a process hold for marginalised or disempowered groups?

• What role can/should an organisation play – initiator, active participant, funder, facilitator, knowledge broker, and/or learner?

• How can you monitor the influence stemming from the ever-changing context in which these processes play a role?

• What capacities do different stakeholders need, to be able to play an effective part in the process?

• What sort of process needs to be created, and what are the best methodologies and tools to use?

• When do you know that the process is successful and moving in the right direction?

The intention in answering these questions, is to offer practical advice for practitioners. This advice does not, however, come in the form of clear steps, recipes or simple facilitation tools. Rather, it comes in the form of a framework that underpins a deeper understanding of multi-stakeholder change processes. This will hopefully enable practitioners to become critically questioning, creative and flexible, in the way they engage with and support such processes. As has often been said, nothing is as practical as good theory. Deep issues of social change – directly linked to conflict and governance, with all the complexity this involves – are at the heart of most MSPs.

Certainly, the facilitation of a good process requires the effective use of participatory methodologies and high-level facilitation skills. However, to be fully equipped, a multi-stakeholder ‘facilitator’ must have the capacity to look more deeply at the underlying dynamics of change related to, for example, complexity, institutions, power, conflict and leadership.

There are three interlinked dimensions to the multi-stakeholder framework:1

A multi-stakeholder ‘facilitator’ must have the capacity to look more deeply at the underlying dynamics of change related to complexity, institutions, power, conflict and leadership.

38 Section 2

• The rationale: this explains why, in an increasingly complex world, MSPs are becoming important mechanisms of governance. It explains how the processes complement the more formal workings of national governments and their international relations. The rationale explores the underlying nature of sustainability and equity problems, in the context of recognising that human societies are best understood as complex adaptive systems. An understanding of this wider context is important, as it allows us to decide whether, in a particular situation, it makes sense (i.e. there is a good rationale) to engage in an MSP;

• The seven principles: our view is that MSPs can help bring about deep and fundamental change in how individuals, organisations and societies behave. This transformative change is necessary in order to tackle the underlying causes of un-sustainability and inequity. We have identified seven principles related to the dynamics of change, that experience has shown need to be considered and integrated into an MSP, in order to foster transformative change;

• The practice: MSPs don’t just happen; they need to be created, supported and facilitated. There are many practical aspects related to setting up MSPs, deciding who to involve, which methodologies to use, the phases to go through, and the facilitation capacities. This dimension of the framework combines the understanding

Figure 4: The multi-stakeholder framework

RationaleGoverning for

sustainability and equity in a complex

world

PrinciplesThe dynamics of transformative

change

PracticeMethods, tools and

tips for process design facilitation

Expert opinions 39

that comes from the rationale and principles, with a process model. The aim is to show how, in practice, MSPs can be designed, created and facilitated.

Who are the stakeholders, what is the process and what is facilitation?

Who are the stakeholders?A stakeholder (or actor/player) is an individual, organisation or group which has a role to play and/or is affected by the outcome of an issue, situation or process. In turn, what a stakeholder does may influence the situation. How the situation changes will again, in turn, feed back to have some effect on the stakeholders. This type of interaction is found in complex systems. While important for understanding MSPs, complexity is not covered in any detail (see further readings for additional guidelines).

From a governance perspective, relational dynamics can be understood in terms of four main groups: citizens; private sector actors; government and civil society organisations. The inclusion of citizens, alongside the classic distinction made between government, business and civil society, is important for three reasons: first, citizens – in how they vote, the products or services they buy or use, and the way they engage with civil society – are important actors in their own right. Second, individuals have roles as both citizens and actors. An individual may well have different perspectives and interests, depending on whether she is being a ‘citizen’ or carrying out a paid responsibility (in, for example, government or business). Third, stakeholder processes at times fall into the trap of only engaging representatives from three of the sectors, without considering how to involve ‘non-organised’ citizens who self-organise in other ways, to create a future for themselves and their families (Fowler and Biekart 2008).

What is important in analysing stakeholders is not just knowing who the players are, but understanding how they relate, where their commonalities and differences lie, and identifying their different power bases. The essence of bringing together different actors is the fact that they are different. The value-assumption of a process involving and connecting multiple stakeholders is that it will enable the recognition of higher-order common goods, concerns and interests that motivate stakeholders to overcome their differences in pursuit of win-win solutions. If there is no common problem and no sense of some benefit for all who are engaged, then clearly collective effort has little point. From this precondition, combining the respective resources, connections, technical capabilities, responsibilities, interests, perspectives and knowledge on

What is important in analysing stakeholders is not just knowing who the players are, but understanding how they relate, where their commonalities and differences lie, and identifying their different power bases.

40 Section 2

situations, different forms of power and ways of driving change, add up to new types of capability.

What is an MSP?To begin to answer this question, let us focus on a few examples. In Recife, Brazil, local government is working with many different community and business groups on a process of participatory budget monitoring, aimed at improving the overall outcomes of public expenditure. In Uganda, the Dutch development organisation, SNV, links farmers, business and government to improve their joint management and development of the oil seeds value chain. Across many countries, governments have engaged a wide diversity of stakeholders in developing poverty reduction strategy papers and sector-wide strategies, in order to improve their formulation and implementation. In Australia, a multi-level structure exists for involving farmers, environmental organisations, government, business and researchers in tackling land degradation. In Benin, a community-based grassroots initiative involving local traders has

Figure 5: How stakeholders relate

Government

Private sector Civil society

Citizens(and non-citizens)

Expert opinions 41

drawn together donors and government to improve the local market. At a global level, the World Wildlife Fund has initiated a dialogue within the shrimp aquaculture sector, to help establish standards for maintaining a sustainable industry. Meanwhile, also at a global level, many players in the cotton industry are involved in the Better Cotton Initiative.

In all the aforementioned examples, stakeholders with different perspectives, roles and direct interests have come together because of a wider common problem or opportunity. They realised that their own longer-term interests depend on coordination and collaboration2 with others, with whom they may even be, in the first instance, in conflict.

To be more precise, we will define an MSP as: ‘A process of interactive learning, empowerment and collaborative governance that enables stakeholders with common longer term objectives, but different interests, to be collectively innovative and resilient when faced with the emerging risks, crises and opportunities of a complex and changing environment.’

To be clear, we see multi-stakeholder processes not as ‘once-off ’ workshops and ‘harmonious’ processes involving different actors, but rather as an ongoing engagement involving a range of activities and events, often undertaken over an extended time frame, and which transforms conflicting interests.

There are many variations on this scenario: some processes may be initiated and largely controlled by the state (government). Others may be initiated by concerned citizens or civil society organisations that are, perhaps, frustrated by the failings of government. The private sector is increasingly engaged in establishing or forming part of MSPs, in response to demands for sustainable business strategies and CSR. Some MSPs are initiated jointly between government, civil society and business actors.

The core purpose of an MSP also varies – from simply stakeholder consultation (for example, about government policy) through to joint decision making and action by all the stakeholders involved. Some processes are established to enable stakeholders to explore and learn about shared problems, so they can utilise this understanding when taking action in their own domains of responsibility. MSPs also occur at and across different scales. Some are highly localised, others work mainly at a global level, while many are set up to work across different levels of, for example, authority or responsibility. Given this diversity, some common characteristics include

• dealing with a defined ‘problem situation’ or development opportunity (the boundary and focus may expand or contract during the process);

• involving the stakeholders who form part of or are affected by this ‘problem situation’/development opportunity;

An MSP is defined as a process of interactive learning, empowerment and collaborative governance that enables stakeholders with common longer term objectives, but different interests, to be collectively innovative and resilient when faced with the emerging risks, crises and opportunities of a complex and changing environment.

42 Section 2

• working, as necessary, across different sectors and scales;

• following an agreed yet dynamic process and time frame;

• involving stakeholders in setting ‘rules’ for constructive engagement;

• working with the power differences and conflicts between different groups who may have multiple and conflicting interests;

• engaging stakeholders in learning and questioning their beliefs, assumptions and existing positions on the matter at hand;

• balancing bottom-up and top-down approaches;

• making institutional and social change possible.

If these characteristics cannot be realised, a practitioner needs to consider other ways of fostering collaboration. Examples are less-formal networks, consultative forums, and other arrangements that call for less operational interaction and commitment. Collectively generated capacities, such as mutual responsiveness on a bigger scale, may still arise from looser setups.

What does it mean to ‘facilitate’ an MSP?The term ‘facilitate’ is used here in a broad way, to include a range of functions that are all necessary for an MSP to succeed. Said functions include: initiating the process; providing funding or other resources; mobilising the interest and engagement of stakeholder constituencies; providing public and political leadership; establishing informal networking between different groups; creating linkages between different stakeholders; creating access to different knowledge bases; giving expert advice on process design; and professionally facilitating multi-stakeholder events.

Generally, the following roles are important:

• Leadership by representatives of the interested stakeholder groups;

• Coordination, networking and organisation by somebody (or some group) working on behalf of all the stakeholders;

• Provision of financial and technical support;

• Professional facilitation advice and support for the overall process and for specific events.

There may be overlap, with some stakeholders or organisations assuming or contributing to multiple roles. However, if a single group begins to dominate in all roles, it is unlikely the process will be sustainable.

Development organisations often find themselves trying to take on multiple roles. In addition, it can become unclear whether they are

Facilitating implies initiating the process;

providing funding or other resources;

mobilising the interest and engagement

of stakeholder constituencies;

providing leadership; establishing informal networking between

different groups; creating linkages between different

stakeholders; creating access to knowledge bases; giving expert

advice on process design; and facilitating

multi-stakeholder events.

Expert opinions 43

engaging as external supporters of the process, or as engaged stakeholders with their own interests and biases.

What justifies a multi-stakeholder process? – The rationale

Nowadays, government alone is often unable to marshal the collective capacity needed to tackle the difficult issues facing a society. Consequently, at local, national or global levels, people are searching for new ways to create collective capabilities. One result has been innovative forms of governance that try to create collective capacity through MSPs in which citizens, government, business and NGOs collaborate.

These efforts call for constructive interaction between many different parties. Their success depends on being able to direct people’s energies and the diverse types of capacity (which are distributed across a society) towards shared goals. It should be noted, however, that the parties involved – typically referred to as stakeholders or actors – differ in many ways. These differences are important, because they can either enable or impede social change that seeks (to mention but one example) greater justice and ecological viability.

Consequently, practitioners working to create collective capacities for change need to be aware of what makes stakeholders different, and why. This is an important point of departure for becoming skilled in understanding the way relationships work, and for selecting appropriate ways of bringing together stakeholders.

In the wider sense, the rationale for multi-stakeholder collaboration is simple. Today, the world is faced with a set of very difficult issues: the over-use of natural resources; climate change; continuing poverty; and the psychological and health-related ‘downsides’ of modern living. Quite simply, our existing ways of making decisions, along with our mechanisms of governance – from the local to the global level – are failing to cope with today’s challenges. The sociologist, Ulrich Beck, argues that we live in a ‘risk society’. Social change is driven, he believes, not by the decisions of government, but largely by what happens in the economic and technological spheres, over which national governments have increasingly little influence.

The implication is that steering change in a direction that is desirable, because it is aimed at the common good, is not something we can hope for from national governments alone. Increasingly, it seems that in order to tackle difficult issues, coalitions of powerful actors from across business, government and civil society are needed.

Our existing ways of making decisions, along with our mechanisms of governance – from the local to the global level – are failing to cope with today’s challenges.

Increasingly, coalitions of powerful actors from across business, government and civil society are needed.

44 Section 2

What leads to success? – The seven principles of transformative change

1. Work with complexity: create MSPs around the recognition that human systems are complex. This means that change processes are dynamic and often unpredictable. Effective change processes, therefore, require a shared understanding between multiple actors, as well as collective learning processes that enable groups with shared interests to be responsive and adaptive to uncertainty.

Practical implications

• Do not expect things to go as planned. Design processes around multiple cycles of reflection, planning and action, so that you can adapt to unexpected change;

• Recognise that in complex systems change happens because of the actions of many different actors. Build a broad network of support and be wary of centralised and top-down approaches;

• Expect and learn from failure. In the evolution of complex systems there are many failures, but only a few big successes that change the system;

• Be entrepreneurial; look for and support those emerging successes that may be the triggers of fundamental change.

2. Foster collective learning: underpin MSPs with processes that enable different stakeholders to learn together from their collective experience. Such learning is based on the concepts of experiential learning; single-, double- and triple-loop learning; action research and participation. Participatory methods foster creative, open, emotionally engaging and analytically sound interaction between stakeholders.


• Design MSPs and workshops around the experiential learning cycle. This means first exploring the situation without judgement, then analysing the implications from different stakeholder perspectives, before making decisions and finally taking action. Jumping to snap decisions or taking action prematurely, will undermine the learning process;

• Engage stakeholders in deeply questioning, exploring and sharing their underlying assumptions about the problems they see, and why they suggest particular strategies for action;

The seven principles of transformative

change are: work with complexity; foster

collective learning; reinvent institutions;

shift power; deal with conflict; enable effective

communication; and promote collaborative

leadership.

Expert opinions 45

• Design processes that involve the ‘whole’ person and are emotionally, creatively and intellectually engaging.

3. Reinvent institutions: recognise that social, economic and political change is largely about changing institutions. Institutions provide the ‘rules of the game’, which may be formal or informal. Formal and informal political, legal, social, cultural, economic and religious institutions all interact both as influences and constraints in terms of change. Effective MSPs need to engage stakeholders in looking critically at their own institutions and the institutions they want to affect.


• Engage stakeholders in questioning their own rules of the game (meaning, norms and values) which have an effect on the changes they want to effect;

• Bring stakeholders together in a dialogue (formal or informal) which is aimed at critically analysing the existing institutions which enable or block the changes they want to effect;

• Recognise that to change these institutions long-term processes are needed, which can effect a change in their behaviour.

4. Shift power: social change involves understanding, working with and shifting power structures related to political influence, economic wealth, cultural status and personal influence. Power is not a negative force, but rather the means by which any change is both brought about and resisted. Empowering particular stakeholder groups is often key to equitable multi-stakeholder change processes.


• Carefully analyse the power dynamics in the early stage of an MSP;

• Identify how personal, political and financial ‘power’ can be mobilised to benefit the collective process;

• Recognise that processes can be ‘held captive’ by the more powerful groups, which may further disadvantage marginalised and disempowered groups;

• Consider ‘partisan’ stakeholder processes, where the capacities and political power of disadvantaged groups are first developed, before engaging with more powerful actors.

46 Section 2

5. Deal with conflict: conflict is an inevitable and normal part of any MSP. Understanding, surfacing and dealing with conflict is essential for MSPs to be effective. In fact, conflict is often necessary and desirable for change to occur.


• Carefully analyse the attitudes, behaviours, perceptions, contexts and underlying structures of conflicts, in order to propose an effective conflict transformation strategy;

• Understand the conflict process, as it will help you determine whether the situation is such that interventions may be accepted;

• Identify possible ways in which to deal with conflict, for instance through dialogue (informal or organised), (principled) negotiation, interest-based bargaining and mediation;

• Carefully try to find out who the most important actors are (or could be) in dealing with or transforming the conflict at hand.

6. Enable effective communication: underlying any effective MSP is the capacity for people to communicate with each other in an open, respectful, honest, empathetic and critical way. This requires the capacities of being able to listen to others and of clearly articulating your own perspectives and ideas. Weak basic communication skills are often a barrier to multi-stakeholder collaboration (a key area for capacity development as a foundation for the process).


• Engage stakeholders in questioning how they communicate, listen and try to define, as well as how they judge and integrate their perceptions in the way they communicate;

• Bring stakeholders together in other forms of dialogue, ranging from debate to non-violent communication.

7. Promote collaborative leadership: leadership patterns and capacities have a profound influence on the direction of MSPs. Formal leadership of stakeholder constituencies; respected community figures; political leaders; informal leaders and the leadership and facilitation of the stakeholder processes are all important. Effective MSPs require the strong influence of collaborative leadership, where those taking a formal or informal leadership role are supportive of and promote the collaborative

Expert opinions 47

principles on which such processes depend. Facilitation in the absence of collaborative leadership can be difficult or near impossible, and developing collaborative leadership capacities can be an important aspect of helping to create an effective MSP.


• Understand the existing status, traditional values and capacities of the stakeholders, in order to promote constructive leadership styles for taking forward the change processes in which they are involved;

• Carefully analyse the linkages (hierarchical, social, familial, economic, political) between the different stakeholders, in order to distinguish leadership qualities;

• Engage stakeholders in critically analysing different leadership styles and their consequences in terms of advancing (or stalling) the on-going processes.

Supporting these seven principles for effective multi-stakeholder engagement are four fundamental core qualities:

• Trust: building trust between different stakeholder groups and in the processes itself, is critical;

• Emotional engagement: people behave the way they do and change what they do largely because of their emotions. After all, we are emotional beings. To be effective, MSPs need to engage with people at an emotional level. This means offering inspiration; dealing with fear; and creating an environment that, in the broadest sense of its meaning, is loving;

• Creativity: new ideas and innovative solutions flow from the human capacity for creativity. Effective MSPs need to use methods and create the space/environment that makes possible and harnesses human creativity. This means combining intellectual analysis with visual methods, art, music, drama, and out-of-the-box methods and approaches.

• Critical and informed analysis: in itself, bringing together different stakeholders is no guarantee for creating intelligent and well-thought-through outcomes. An effective MSP needs to draw on the best available information; make use of science and research; and subject the views and opinions of different stakeholder groups to a critical analysis of the context and the envisioned change.

The four core qualities underlying effective multi-stakeholder engagement are trust, emotional engagement, creativity and critical and informed analysis.

48 Section 2

How can MSPs be supported? – The practice

The practice of creating and supporting MSPs has three elements:

• A process model, that outlines the main phases of an MSP and the key process considerations for effective stakeholder collaboration;

• A toolbox of participatory methodologies and tools, that can be used to help create interactive learning processes which uphold the principles and qualities of effective multi-stakeholder engagement;

• A set of facilitation competencies, as required by those designing, managing, leading or facilitating MSPs.

Figure 6: The stakeholder process model

Initiating• Clarify reasons for an MSP• Undertake initial situation

analysis (stakeholders, issues, institutions, power and politics)

• Establish interm steering body• Build stakeholder support• Establish scope and mandate• Outline the process

Reflexive monitoring• Create a learning culture and

environment• Define success criteria and

indicators• Develop and implement

monitoring mechanisms• Review progress and generate

lessons• Use lessons for improvement

Adaptive planning• Deepen understanding and trust• Identify issues and opportunities• Generate visions for the future• Examine future scenarios• Agree on strategies for change• Identify actions and

responsibilities• Communicate outcomes

Collaborative action• Develop detailed action plans• Secure resources and support• Develop capacities for action• Establish management structures• Manage implementation• Maintain stakeholder commitment

Adaptive planning

Reflexive monitoring

Collaborative action

Initiating

The three elements needed to support MSPs

are a process model, a toolbox of participatory methodologies and tools, and a set of facilitation

competencies.

Expert opinions 49

What are the elements of an effective process? Designing any type of MSP requires clarity on many fronts. How do you get going? Who should you involve at the start? Are you dealing with major disagreements or big imbalances in power between the stakeholders? What sort of information and analysis are needed to move the process forward? Is a short-term or long-term process needed? What sorts of meetings, workshops and events would be appropriate? Importantly, the design must be flexible and continuously adjusted as the process unfolds.

Every stakeholder process is unique and will follow its own path and logic. Nevertheless, experience has shown that there are some common phases and process considerations that, if followed, will improve the effectiveness of the process. These have been captured here in what we call the process model. Moreover, the phases can be considered as iterative and should not be regarded as linear step-by-step elements.

The phases of the process model are:

• Initiating: this is when an individual or a group of stakeholders first starts thinking about and organising an MSP. This phase is critical. If, for example, mistakes are made regarding who to involve early on, or the politics of the situation is misjudged, it can spell disaster for the entire process. There is no ‘right way’ to get an MSP going. However, there is a set of tips that, if carefully considered, will give the process a better chance of success;

• Adaptive planning: stakeholder processes need to engage the different interest groups in processes of problem analysis, vision building, strategy development and action planning. In recognising their complexity, these processes are not seen as linear or as a blueprint for change, but rather as an on-going process of adaptive planning;

• Collaborative action: ideas and plans for change need to be acted on. Often, MSPs fail or lead to disillusionment, because the ideas and plans generated through multi-stakeholder engagement are not acted on or put into practice. Taking action requires different levels of commitment and resources, than those used during the adaptive planning phase. Significant resources are often required, while different management and organisational arrangements may be needed. Not all MSPs enter the collaborative action phase: some are purely designed to be consultative;

• Reflexive monitoring: very few stakeholder processes effectively embed monitoring in the process. We use the term ‘reflexive

The phases of the process model are: initiating, doing adaptive planning, taking collaborative action, and doing reflexive monitoring.

50 Section 2

monitoring’ here to refer to a type of monitoring that enables the actors to learn about their process as it unfolds, and to adapt it. It is important to monitor not just the anticipated outcome of the process, but also the expectations and quality of the process itself. Engaging stakeholders in a discussion about what, for them, would constitute quality processes, and then setting up systems aimed at monitoring and regularly reviewing these, can be a very powerful tool for improving the processes.

What competencies do facilitators need?An effective facilitator is self-aware, self-critical and able to adapt his/her facilitation behaviour to the needs of a particular situation, individual or group. Facilitation capacities need to be seen not only as the skills to facilitate a stakeholder workshop, but also as the ability to understand the culture and politics of a situation, and to design and manage a long-term societal learning process. A facilitator needs a good grasp of the theoretical, methodological and institutional aspects of societal learning and dialogue. This calls for a new type of ‘facilitation professional’. Such a person needs multi-disciplinary training, alongside a high level of personal awareness about the role they are playing, as well as the influence of their own character.

Unfortunately, potential facilitators are often given a mixed bag of participatory methods to use, but little other in-depth facilitation training. This has led to the mechanical application of methods in often inappropriate and ineffective ways. The knowledge, skill, experience and training required for the effective facilitation of societal learning should never be underestimated.

To be an effective facilitator you need

• a clear vision of what you are trying to achieve;

• a general understanding of the philosophical foundations and paradigms underlying interactive processes;

• a set of theories, assumptions and values about how to effect change;

• to be able to choose from a set of participatory and learning methodologies that will guide your actions;

• a set of techniques and tools to put the methodologies into practice;

• adequate knowledge of the content area;

• to think creatively about how to create inspiring learning processes;

• be able to help groups bring conceptual clarity to a situation;

An effective facilitator is self-aware, self-critical and able to adapt his/her

facilitation behaviour to the needs of a

particular situation, individual or group.

Expert opinions 51

• specific personal qualities and skills to take on a facilitation role, amongst which are the ability to

– listen actively

– clearly express ideas

– do constructive questioning

– recognise and value difference

– understand and express emotions

– give constructive feedback

– value people

– deal with difficult personalities

– manage group dynamics

– understanding power dynamics and manage conflicts

– use facilitation techniques effectively

– handle cross-cultural communication

– do self-critique, and be self-aware

– initiate tasks and role plays

– debrief

– do reflective practice

– show political awareness

– design interactive learning processes

– exhibit analytical clarity.

How to choose methods and tools

The wide-spread use of participatory processes has led to the development of diverse methodologies with varying purposes. An MSP is likely to utilise some or many of these methodologies in various combinations, and a skilled process and learning facilitator will adapt such methodologies or create his/her own specific methodology to meet the unique circumstances of the particular situation. A key part of facilitating the learning process is being able to choose, at the right moment, the right set of tools and methodologies, and to take into account the situation and the moment of the process. It is, therefore, vital to use methods and tools that enable people to visualise and understand issues, communicate with each other, analyse options and reach decisions in a structured way.

A key part of facilitating the learning process is being able to choose, at the right moment, the right set of tools and methodologies, and to take into account the situation and the moment of the process.

52 Section 2

Notes1 The framework brings together a key set of concepts from fields of

work that include: experiential and adult learning; systems thinking; complexity science; the sociology of reflexive modernisation; cognitive science; participatory/dialogical democracy; power analysis; globalisation theory; and conflict management, to mention but a few. These ideas reflect the theoretical discussions that have evolved over the past 20–30 years, as environmentalists, sociologists, economists and political scientists have tried to make sense of the emerging trends of globalisation, environmental degradation and continuing poverty and inequality.

2 A wide range of terms is used to describe such engagement, for instance: dialogue; citizen participation; stakeholder engagement; multi-actor collaboration; multi-stakeholder platform. Multi-stakeholder process or MSP is used here, as it is the most commonly used term.

ResourcesHemmati, M. 2002. Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability:

beyond deadlock and conflict. London, UK: Earthscan.Milbrath, L.W. 1989. Envisioning a sustainable society: learning our way out. New

York: State University of New York Press.Pretty, J., I. Guijt, J. Thompson and I. Scoones. 1995. Participatory learning and

action: a trainer’s guide. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

Pruitt, B. and P. Thomas. 2007. Democratic dialogue: a handbook for practitioners. Washington DC: CIDA, IDEA, OAS and UNDP.

Vermeulen, S., J. Woodhill, F. Proctor and R. Delnoye. 2008. Chain-wide learning for inclusive agrifood market development: a guide to multi-stakeholder processes for linking small-scale producers to modern markets. Wageningen: International Institute for Environment and Development, and Wageningen University and Research Centre.

Waddell, S. 2005. Societal learning and change: how governments, businesses and civil society are creating solutions to complex multi-stakeholder problems. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Ltd.

Wageningen UR Centre for Development Innovation. 2009. Building your capacity to facilitate multi-stakeholder processes and social learning. http://portals.wdi.wur.nl/msp/

Wals, A., ed. 2007. Social learning towards a sustainable world. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

Woodhill, J. 2008. Shaping behaviour – how institutions evolve. The Broker 10: 4–8.

Woodhill, J. 2009. Institutional innovation and stakeholder engagement: linking transition management in the North with development in the global South. In Transitions: towards sustainable agriculture and food chains in peri-urban areas, ed. K.J. Poppe, C. Termeer and M. Slingerland, 273–291. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

Woodhill, J. 2010a. Capacities for institutional innovation: a complexity perspective. IDS Bulletin 41.

Expert opinions 53

Woodhill, J. 2010b. Multiple actors – capacity lives between multiple stakeholders. In Capacity development in practice, ed. J. Ubels, A-B. Naa-Aku and A. Fowler. London: Earthscan.

Woodhill, J. and S. van Vugt. 2008. Facitilating multi-stakeholder and institutional change processes: a societal learning perspective. Wageningen: Wageningen International.

Addendum Tips for running a successful workshop

Running a successful workshop

Any MSP will involve a series of workshops and meetings. The following tips will help to make your workshops and meetings more time-efficient, productive and rewarding.

General structure for workshops

• Explain the background and context of the workshop, along with the intended outcomes;

• Let participants introduce themselves and, if appropriate, conduct some sort of ‘ice-breaker’ that establishes a rapport between participants and generates a few laughs;

• Explain the agenda and process of the workshop, as well as the role of the facilitator;

• Invite participants to make a statement about what they would like to achieve during the workshop. For example, ask: ‘What would make this workshop a success for you?’;

• If necessary and appropriate, revise the agenda based on participants’ needs;

• Move through the activities of the institutional and policy mapping methodology selected for the particular workshop;

• Clarify the outcomes of the workshop and agree on future actions;

• Ask participants to provide a written evaluation of the workshop (optional);

• Close the proceedings by inviting participants to say what the workshop has meant to them;

54 Section 2

• Write up the workshop and report back to participants as soon as possible. Listing the participants as authors reinforces their sense of shared ownership of the process.

Working with different-sized groupsThe ideal number of participants for an interactive workshop is between 20 and 25 people. This enables the workshop to be structured around three or four small groups, and makes for easy plenary discussion. With this number you get a good balance between a diversity of ideas and representation, with an easily manageable group size. In many instances it may be necessary to work with much larger groups.

It is quite possible to hold an effective interactive workshop with 70 or 80 participants. With larger groups, however, you will have to lower your expectations of what can be achieved within a given period of time. Reporting back from small groups and simply marshalling people in and out of coffee and lunch breaks will take that much longer.

For larger workshops to succeed, consider the following:

• Use co-facilitators to work with the small groups;

• Limit the report-back from small groups to just a few key points;

• Use a ‘marketplace’ for sharing the work of small groups, whereby participants walk around the room to see what other groups have done;

• Enforce very strict time management and make it clear at the beginning of the workshop that this will be necessary;

• Use small buzz groups of three to four participants within a larger plenary discussion – this will give everyone a chance to get talking.

Additional tips

• Be clear about the objective and intended outcomes of the workshop for the participants, the funding body, the client or the wider community, as well as for the facilitator and organisers;

• Have a well-prepared but flexible plan which includes alternative scenarios. Think carefully about the structure and sequence of activities, and discuss these with others with a view to improving those aspects;

• Prepare very clear instructions and focusing questions for each session. It is usually best to present the questions in written form, so participants can refer back to them;

Expert opinions 55

• Keep proceedings as simple as possible;

• Be very time conscious; do not be too ambitious about what can be achieved;

• Avoid over-facilitation, where people feel they are being manipulated into an outcome they do not fully agree with;

• Use activities to create an atmosphere that breaks down barriers between people and is non-threatening;

• As far as possible, record all material on butchers’ paper and stick finished sheets to the walls. This will remind participants of what the workshop has achieved at that point, and will give them something to refer back to;

• Appoint helpers to write up discussions in detail – the summarised versions on butchers’ paper are often not detailed enough, when it comes to compiling the workshop report;

• Write up the workshop as soon as possible;

• When working with larger groups, use assistant facilitators who are trained in the techniques being applied, and who are well prepared for their role;

• Alternate between small groups and plenary sessions, but do not overdo it;

• Frustration and conflict are healthy features of any workshop. Learn how to manage these and do not be intimidated by disagreements;

• Take risks with workshops. Do not worry too much about getting it perfect. People like to discuss and share ideas; if they have the opportunity to do so, chances are they will have found the workshop worthwhile.

LogisticsHere are some tips for organising workshops and other events. We focus on the venue, timing and scheduling, and budgeting. Logistical considerations should not be overlooked, as good organisation is one of the keys to success.

VenueChoose a suitable venue: the right atmosphere, without distractions, space for small group work and plenary sessions, and lots of wall space or many display boards for putting up butchers’ paper or cards.

56 Section 2

A local venue offers advantages in terms of gathering information and attracting local participants. Consider factors such as comfort, additional equipment (photocopier, telephone, fax) and cost. The available options are rarely perfect, so consider what implications this will have for the effectiveness of the workshop. It is always advisable to visit the venue beforehand, so you can be prepared for any limitations (e.g. seating arrangements or sources of distraction).

Timing and schedulingTry to ensure that the main activities of the MSP do not coincide with busy periods of the year, as this may prevent key stakeholders from participating. Hold meetings, workshops and interviews at times which are suitable for group members. Consider the special needs of different stakeholder groups in terms of timing. For example, women may have responsibilities which impede them from participating at particular times. Organise activities well in advance and give participants plenty of notice.

Take note of the participants’ energy and concentration levels, and be prepared to adapt the programme if it becomes apparent that the planned timing is no longer suitable. Also remember that participants need time to unwind.

BudgetingIf you need to develop a budget for an MSP or workshop, consider the following:

• Human resources (organising, professional facilitator, documentation);

• Equipment (telephone, fax, photocopies, paperwork);

• Workshop materials;

• Venue (meeting room, meals, beverages);

• Daily allowances, if applicable;

• The transport and travel costs of participants;

• Catering.

Chapter 4Partnering step by step

ABRIDGED By DARIAN STIBBE FROM: PARTnERInG STEP By STEP, By ROS TENNySON, WITH NAZNEEN HUq & JOANNA PyRES. COPyRIGHT © 2011, THE PARTNERING INITIATIVE

About The Partnering Initiative

The Partnering Initiative (TPI), a specialist programme of the International Business Leaders Forum, aims to drive effective cross-sectoral collaboration for a sustainable future. Working directly with business, governments, bi-lateral donors, NGOs and the United Nations, TPI performs cutting-edge research to help systematise the process and set professional standards for effective partnering, through its range of tools and guidebooks. In addition, it builds partnering capacity through training and direct support to organisations and partnerships worldwide.

• For further information, see: www.thepartneringinitiative.org

• For further information on partnership brokers, see: www.partnershipbrokers.org

Introduction

This chapter gives a brief introduction to the process of multi-stakeholder partnering. Although it is entitled ‘Partnering step by step’, the reality is that partnerships are so dependent on the context – from the socio-economic-political to the characteristics of the individuals involved – that the developmental journeys of all partnerships are unique.

What this chapter provides is a theoretical framework presenting a series of steps that, from experience, most partnerships will need to go through in order to build the strongest foundations and to operate as effectively as possible. In reality, few (if any) partnerships will take these steps in perfect sequence: partners may dive right in, missing out on the early steps (and may well later have to return to the beginning to rebuild

TPI Definition A multi-stakeholder

partnership is a collaboration among any stakeholders from

the public sector, business, civil society,

academia and the media, amongst

others; who commit to

work together on a project or programme to pursue sustainable development goals;

in which the partners bring complementary

resources, contribute to the design of the

programme, and share risks and benefits;

in order to achieve their own, each other’s, and the

58 Section 2

the foundations); several steps may be taken in parallel; or there may be a complex flitting between various steps as the partnership builds.

By sharing this framework and having partners agree on a common understanding and common language around the process of partnering, all parties will know what is expected of them at all times, and can more effectively work together to reach the next levels. In this way, development time can be significantly reduced.

The framework uses a simple ‘partnering cycle’ (Figure 7) which outlines the life cycle of a typical partnership. Each section covers one stage in the cycle, and suggests the characteristics which are typical of this stage as well as the appropriate activities. In addition, at each stage there is a simple partnering tool that practitioners may find useful, as well as a tip that will help them complete that stage successfully.

Figure 7: A partnering cycle

Sustainingoutcomes

Reviewing& revising

Scoping &building

Managing &maintaining

Moving on

xii

Scaling

xi

Revising

x

Reviewing

ix

Measuring

viii

Scoping

i

Identifying

ii

Building

iii

Planning

iv

Structuring

v

Mobilising

vi

Delivering

vii

LONG-TERM PLANNINGSIGNING AN AGREEMENT

IMPLEMENTATION

Expert opinions 59

Our experience suggests that three core principles underlie effective partnerships: equity (where everyone’s contribution is valued and respected); transparency (where partners deal with each other in an open and honest manner) and mutual benefit (where it is legitimate for all partners to expect a ‘return’ for their own organisation/sector from being partners). Throughout the entire partnering cycle, partners should be consciously attempting to build or reinforce these three principles, to ensure that the partnership remains robust.

Phase 1 – Scoping and building

1. ScopingThe idea of creating a sustainable development partnership can come from any sector, be it government, business or not-for-profit. Some partnerships are born at the ‘grassroots’ level while others are top-down, but whatever the specific situation, the initial energy for a partnership originates from one organisation or sector. We call this the initiating

organisation, since even when it is an individual who takes a lead, that individual is almost always operating in the name of an organisation.

Partnering is not a quick fix or easy option, and so it is important to be sure that there is no obvious non-partnering way in which to address the presenting issue or challenge. Be systematic in exploring other options – there is no value in partnering for the sake of partnering.

Activities

• Identify, in broad terms, the issue(s) or challenge(s) to be addressed;

• Consider any available non-partnering alternatives that may be adopted to tackle the issue. If a partnering approach seems the only or the best way forward, build a clear rationale to persuade others;

• List some initial ideas about the range and types of projects that the partnership may undertake, to use as a basis for discussion with potential partners;

• Map the relevant stakeholders (those who can affect/are affected by the issue, have relevant resources or control relevant regulatory instruments);

• Consider the possible contributions of different sectors, based on their likely interests and motivations.

Three core principles underlie effective partnerships: equity, transparency, and mutual benefit.

Be sure that there is no obvious non-partnering way in which to address the presenting issue or challenge – there is no value in partnering for the sake of partnering.

60 Section 2

Tool – stakeholder mappingBy mapping the stakeholders into the matrix in Figure 8, you can begin to determine who the key stakeholders are, and who could potentially be partners. In some cases, there may be important (in the sense that they can strongly affect the success of the partnership) stakeholders with low interest, who would need strong persuasion to move into the critical group of partners. In other cases, there may be stakeholders who have a strong interest but need their capacity developed in order to be able to contribute to the partnership and become critical partners.

Tip: Use this early scoping phase to build the case for partnering, but do not be too fixed in your ideas. Simply use your initial ideas as a basis for further conversations and engagement.

2. Identifying There are many ways to identify appropriate partners. One option is to call an open meeting for a large number of key organisations (from all sectors) to brainstorm the issues; explore the idea of a collaborative approach; or to simply make contact with as many potential partners as

Figure 8: Mapping the stakeholders

Important group:Potential to promote or

impede partnership

Low priority

Critical group:Including potential

partners

Potentially useful group:

Interested but not immediately important

Impo

rtanc

e

Interest

Identify appropriate partners by calling an

open meeting for a large number of key organisations or by

selecting the most likely partners and meeting

with them one by one, to present your idea and

engage their interest.

Expert opinions 61

possible – as identified in your stakeholder mapping. Another option is to

select the most likely partners and meet with them one by one, to present

your idea and engage their interest.

Activities

• Find examples and evidence of where a partnering approach has

worked effectively in similar circumstances. Share this with your

potential partners;

• Seek out a wide range of possible partner organisations;

• Make initial contact with potential partner organisations – on a

‘no commitment’ basis – to explore the idea;

• Draw up a list of preferred partners and investigate their suitability

in greater detail. Remember to let them verify your organisation’s

suitability as well, as this should be a two-way process.

Tool – potential partner checklist

Table 3: Rating potential partners

Characteristics / partnering capacity (actual or potential):

Score: 1 = low 5 = high

A good reputation and track record in their sector? With other sectors?

1 2 3 4 5

Skills, competencies and/or other useful resource contributions?

1 2 3 4 5

Sound management and governance structures? 1 2 3 4 5

Good communications channels and access to networks/information?

1 2 3 4 5

Good financial management track record? 1 2 3 4 5

Willingness to innovate and learn from experience? 1 2 3 4 5

Interest in and willingness to collaborate? 1 2 3 4 5

Staying power when things get tough? 1 2 3 4 5

Tip: Keep your options on potential partners open for as long as possible, to ensure that your choices are sound. Many organisations which are inexperienced in partnering may take time to adopt the idea, and to become confident and capable of partnering well.

62 Section 2

3. BuildingOnce partners have been identified, it is a good idea to invest quality time deepening your mutual understanding of each other and building partner relationships – both between the key individuals and the cultures of the organisations involved. Spending time doing this at an early stage will reap rewards later on, and will make the future partnership more robust when faced with challenges. It is common to find entrenched assumptions (in oneself, as well as in others!) towards people and organisations in different sectors. It is vitally important to work beyond this and to build genuine engagement and insight into the drivers, priorities and values of each of the partner organisations and the people involved.

Activities

• Create opportunities for getting to know each of the organisations (site visits, presentations);

• Explain the key principles of partnering to partners, and ensure that they understand the implications of the principles and agree to abide by them;

• Co-create and record an agreed definition of what the partners mean by the term ‘partnership’;

• Co-create some ‘ground rules’ to support considerate behaviour between the partners.

Tool – types of ground rule for building successful partner relationshipsLay down rules in respect of

• interacting with other partners (behaviour);

• communicating internally and externally (shared responsibility);

• managing logistics (being efficient and effective);

• making decisions (building collective responsibility).

Note: It is a good idea to limit the number of ground rules, and to keep them as simple as possible, while ensuring that they meet their desired goals. If there are too many ground rules or they are too complex, partners will not remember them well enough to abide by them!

Tip: Demonstrate good partnering behaviour by being a good listener, being genuinely interested in all the partners, and adhering to principles of collaborative decision making.

Build genuine engagement and

insight into the drivers, priorities and values

of each of the partner organisations and the

people involved.

Expert opinions 63

4. Planning

This is the most critical step in the pre-agreement phase. You may find

it surprising that we suggest doing so much planning prior to signing

an agreement. Experience suggests that the strongest partnerships are

those that work through most aspects of a plan – albeit an outline – to

ensure that the right partners are involved, and expectations are clear and

acceptable.

The most important aspect of this phase is to urge partners to spend

time working through each aspect of the planning (see Tool below), and

to address issues of controversy or divergence as fully as possible – this,

to bring resolution and consensus. The process will involve some ‘give

and take’ on the part of all partners, but achieving the goal will become

more important than simply satisfying the interests of a single partner

(although, of course, those are important too).

Activities

• Move the partners from broad agreement on the key issue(s) to be

addressed by the partnership, to a more precise definition of focus

areas, actual projects and specific goals – this process will reveal

potential partners who are not at the table yet;

Table 4: A framework for mapping resources

1. Key issues

2. Desired outcomes

3. Activities

Design parameters Partners

1 2 3

A:

B:

C:

D:

E:

F:

4. Resources

5. Evidence of success

64 Section 2

• Agree, as a group, on the hoped-for outcomes of the partnership’s activities, and on how the achievement of these outcomes will be measured and assessed;

• Brainstorm the range of specific activities and projects that should be developed to achieve the hoped-for outcomes. Be realistic as well as ambitious, always bearing in mind the constraints the partnership may face in implementing its plans;

• Undertake a resource mapping exercise to assess what resources are needed, and also what each partner is able and willing to contribute. Understand the term ‘resources’ to cover knowledge and expertise, competencies, equipment, products, networks and relationships, influence, labour, as well as cash. Creating such a resource map is an excellent way in which to build equity in the partnership, because it offers every partner organisation the opportunity to contribute from its area of strength.

Tool – outline planning and resource mapping frameworkThe end of this phase of the partnering cycle is concluded, typically, by those involved confirming the partnership with some form of partnering agreement. The agreement can record the shared vision, a partnership definition, principles and ground rules underpinning the collaboration, individual partner objectives as well as shared objectives, resource commitments and obligations, as well as provisions for more formal review and grievance procedures. This is important, because it will form the basis of the partnership as it moves into project implementation mode.

Tip: There are many possible types of agreement: from the completely informal (a handshake or verbal promise) to the ultra-formal (multi-page contracts assigning detailed obligations to each partner). Most successful partnering agreements are built as a collaborative process, with all the partners deciding together exactly what needs to go into the document, how it should be monitored and how often it should be reviewed. If necessary, sub-agreements or contracts can be drawn up at a later stage to cover specific transactions under the broader ‘umbrella’ agreement.

Phase 2 – Managing and maintaining

5. StructuringOnce an agreement is signed, it is time to put in place the infrastructure to develop and deliver the agreed programme of work. It is not

A partnering agreement records the shared

vision, a partnership definition, the

principles and ground rules underpinning

the collaboration, individual partner objectives as well as

shared objectives, resource commitments

and obligations, as well as provisions for more

formal review and grievance procedures.

Expert opinions 65

uncommon for partnerships to struggle at this point, since it is invariably

a challenge to move from planning to managing mode. The aim is to

create a delivery mechanism that will be efficient, without losing the

active engagement of all the partners – something that was established so

carefully in Phase 1.

Activities

• Ensure that the partnership is not over-reliant on a few individuals

who are representing their organisation, and that it is rather

embedded in each partner organisation;

• Agree on which types of decision can be taken by individuals on

behalf of the partnership, and which must be agreed to in advance

by all partners;

• Build systems through which partners can be accountable

to each other (in addition to being accountable to their own

organisations), and address any actual or potential conflicts of

interest. Partners need to feel increasingly confident that they can

rely on each other;

• Maintain regular communications between partners, and between

the partnership and other stakeholders. All communication needs

to be informative (but not too burdensome), and needs to be

designed appropriately for each purpose and audience.

Tool – communications options

Table 5: Communications options

Purposes Mechanisms Audiences

Engaging interestConfirming agreementsRecording commitmentsRecording meetingsSharing information Describing projectsTracking the historyCapturing the storyOther?

Face-to-face conversationsPresentationsWorkshopsStory-tellingWritten minutes/notesEmailPhone callsVideo/audio/photographsOther?

Partner representativesPartner organisationsPartner networksProject staffProject beneficiariesOfficialsWider publicOther partnership practitionersOther?

66 Section 2

Tip: Share communication tasks between all the partners, as this will consolidate their commitment and build their sense of being responsible for representing the partnership to others.

6. Mobilising Sometimes it turns out that partners – in all the enthusiasm surrounding a new partnership – over-promise on what their organisation can offer. They may need help activating their promise and persuading their organisation that the contribution is appropriate, and will deliver organisational benefits. Sometimes a partner has under-promised, and as the project work develops, that organisation is able to offer more or new contributions.

Partners now need to actually deliver what they committed to, during an earlier stage. Whatever resource contributions they offered, now need to be brought into the partnership as and when the time is right. It is important to value all resource contributions (intangible as well as tangible), so the partner who contributes knowledge and information feels that that contribution is just as valuable as the input of a partner who contributes equipment, people or cash.

Activities

• Confirm, in writing, exactly what resources have been pledged and when they will be delivered, including the time commitment of each partner representative;

• Support partners in honouring their commitments and help them persuade their organisations to fulfil their commitments, where necessary;

• Set up a system for recording contributions and the application/use of those contributions, so that partners can clearly see how their contribution is being used and report back to their colleagues and managers in this regard;

• Widen the engagement of other stakeholders – including those who may be able to make further resource contributions as and when needed.

Tip: There can be a lot to do in a partnership and it is important for partners to prioritise, but stakeholders can be very important to the success and impact of a partnership. Do not feel you have to reach every stakeholder immediately, but do beware of the partnership becoming too insular and exclusive.

It is important to value all resource

contributions (intangible as well as tangible), so the

partner who contributes knowledge and

information feels that that contribution is

just as valuable as the input of a partner who contributes equipment,

people or cash.

Expert opinions 67

7. DeliveringThe delivery stage in a partnership is a continuing cycle of activity – sometimes lasting years! In many ways it is similar to any type of project delivery cycle. Some partners will find this stage easy and may be familiar with it, if they have delivered development projects before. It is important to remember, however, that for some partners this will be a new experience and for all partners, delivering as a partnership will pose additional challenges.

It is important to be practical and precise in terms of what projects are being undertaken, and who will do what by when. Be realistic: projects often take longer to deliver than expected. Use a project management tool to ensure that people fulfil their commitments, since one person failing to deliver work within an agreed time scale can have serious ‘knock-on’ effects on other activities, and also on the partnership’s achievements and impacts.

Activities

• Allocate clearly (and fairly) roles and responsibilities for project delivery;

• Track activities and the fulfilment of agreed commitments and timetables;

• Celebrate project successes with all those involved, to maintain enthusiasm and engagement;

• Continue to keep partners and other agreed stakeholders informed of progress.

Tool – Project management

Table 6: Project management

Activity: Holding a press conference

Task Resp. Human resources Other resources Date start

Date complete

Depends on:

1. Reserve venue David $100 deposit August 3rd

2. Create invitation list Hilary David to compile (2 days)Hilary to oversee (.5 days)

David (2 days) 08/01 08/03

3. Send out invitations David David (2 days) 70 x envelopes; Printing; stamps

08/04 08/05 Task 2

Milestone: September 2nd, Press conference held

Be practical and precise in terms of what projects are being undertaken, and who will do what by when. Use a project management tool to ensure that people fulfil their commitments.

68 Section 2

Tip: Remember that in addition to internal challenges, partnership projects are likely to be impacted by changes in the context in which they are operating (for instance, changes in the local economic/political landscape) or by completely external phenomena (like extreme weather conditions). A good partnership is flexible enough to adapt to external changes, and partners should be encouraged to see such changes (whether good or bad) as opportunities for the partnership to move in new directions.

Phase 3 – Reviewing and revising

8. Measuring It is tempting when a partnership is going well and partner relationships seem to be generally satisfactory, to avoid asking some of the tougher questions: Is the partnership productive? Is everyone pulling their weight? Is it achieving targets and goals? All these questions are critical – and ultimately each partner organisation will want them answered, to justify their involvement.

It is important for partners to understand the need for measurement and to engage whole-heartedly with any measurement processes. Where things are not working as well as they might, it is essential for the partners themselves to come to this realisation and to take their share of responsibility. Simply laying blame on someone else or on external factors is not good enough – this will have the effect of destabilising the partnership.

Activities

• Agree/confirm success indicators with partner organisations – were the original measures correct, or should new ones be added?

• Monitor compliance – are partners doing what they promised, within the agreed timescale?

• Make arrangements for project review – what changes to implementation are necessary?

• Keep track of deliverables, outputs and impact – are the activities achieving targets and goals?

It is important for partners to

understand the need for measurement and to

engage whole-heartedly with any measurement

processes.

Expert opinions 69

Tool – Who needs to know what?

Table 7: Measuring delivery

What needs to be measured?

How will this be done, by whom and by when?

Who needs to know?

Tip: Do not be afraid of measurement – it does not have to be ‘rocket science’ and it can play a major and positive role in reinforcing the value of the partnership, both to the partners and to other stakeholders.

9. Reviewing

In a partnership it is useful to distinguish between measuring the project’s outputs and impacts, and reviewing the added value and effectiveness of the partnership. It is tempting to give the project priority during Phase 2 of the partnering cycle, and to lose sight of the partnership aspects. In a healthy partnership, reviews are a regular feature and are used as a basis for confirming the value of the partnership to the different partners (i.e. whether or not it meets their underlying interests), as well as for determining whether the partnership is operating efficiently.

Activities

Use a regular review process to

• take stock of the efficiency and effectiveness of the partnership – in terms of management and development – and agree on any changes necessary to procedures and/or communications;

• help partners assess the value of the partnership to their own organisations and constituencies;

• record any unexpected benefits or outcomes (e.g. wider influence) from the partnership;

In a healthy partnership, reviews are a regular feature and are used as a basis for confirming the value of the partnership to the different partners as well as for determining whether the partnership is operating efficiently.

70 Section 2

• consider whether there are new opportunities for the partnership, where it might go next and what might need to change, for these next steps to be taken.

Tool – reviewing the partnershipPartnership reviews can be undertaken in a number of ways, but we strongly recommend that they be approached in a highly participative manner, since no one knows better than the partners themselves whether or not the partnership is valuable and is working well. A review should usefully include the following:

• Separate review sessions within each partner organisation, where each

– undertakes some form of ‘SWOT’1 analysis;

– explores any unexpected (positive or negative) outcomes from the partnership;

– agrees on a set of priorities for the partnership going forwards.

• A pulling together of findings from each partner’s review work;

• A joint session where the findings are shared, discussed and acted on.

Tip: It may be valuable to appoint someone who is less directly involved in the partnership, to act as ‘facilitator’ during a review process. This is not to detract from the partners’ overall control of the review process, but rather to help them interpret, internalise and act on the review findings.

10. Revising Any review is likely to give rise to suggestions for changes to the partnership. These can range from small (but important) procedures to more drastic changes (for example, deciding to radically restructure the partnership). This can be a challenging process, which some partners may view as an implicit criticism of what has gone before. However, change may simply put in place what is needed now, which is invariably different from what was needed in the past.

Activities

• Agree as a group on what needs to be changed;

• Agree on a timetable and change management process, and allocate tasks between the partners;

Any review is likely to give rise to suggestions

for changes to the partnership. This may

simply put in place what is needed now, which is invariably

different from what was needed in the past.

Expert opinions 71

• Make the agreed changes (which could include dropping some partners and bringing in new ones);

• Re-define the partnership and re-write the partnering agreement, if necessary.

Tool – communicating change Changes in the partnership may impact many people and organisations, and should be communicated well and sensitively. A number of options are available (see Tool – communications options), but the important thing is to anticipate who should be informed and at what stage of the change process.

Table 8: Communicating change in a partnership

Agreed change Who needs to know? At what stage?

Change number 1• within partner organisations

• project staff and beneficiaries

• other stakeholders

• wider public

Change number 2, etc.

Tip: People may be resistant to change, but change can be the life-blood of a dynamic partnership – stopping it from getting stale, enabling it to be responsive to changing circumstances and giving partners the energy they need to move forward.

11. ScalingMany partnership initiatives start as ‘pilots’, i.e. testing out the partnering approach and ensuring that it is a suitable vehicle for delivering the hoped-for results. Some partnership projects remain small and adequately meet expectations. More typically, if a programme is successful, partners begin to consider how to scale it up to establish gain reach, impact and influence.

ActivitiesYou have a number of options for scaling up. These include

• expanding the established projects;

Some partnership projects remain small and adequately meet expectations. More typically, if a programme is successful, partners begin to consider how to scale it up to establish gain reach, impact and influence.

72 Section 2

• publicising the projects (using the media or partner networks and communication channels);

• writing up the partnership’s story and making it available to others;

• encouraging partner organisations, other organisations and policy/decision makers to adopt a partnering approach.

Tool – reaching scale

Table 9: Levels of partnerships

Level 3 The partnership is used as a model for new partnerships and/or as a trigger for changing national policies

How will partners use their experience to encourage the adoption of new ‘rules of the game’ by sector leaders and policy makers?

Level 2 The partnership begins to influence key individuals, organisations and systems

How can the partner organisations and others internalise the lessons learnt from partnering, and support the new approaches in their day-to-day functions?

Level 1 Practical projects are developed in partnership to address sustainable development challenges

What is needed to scale these up? Is the partnership the best mechanism, or should the project be handed over to a mainstream delivery mechanism?

Tip: If your partnership work is proving successful, do not be too modest! Your example may encourage others to try a partnering approach to their own sustainable development challenges.

12. Moving on At some stage, the time will be right for individual partners or the partnership as a whole to move on. If the partners decide to disband the partnership, they need to ensure that a long-term delivery mechanism is put in place to sustain the projects or the outcomes of their project work.

ActivitiesMoving on can involve a number of options. These include

• concluding the partnership – with partners free to work with new partners on other projects;

If the partners decide to disband

the partnership, they need to ensure that

a long-term delivery mechanism is put in

place to sustain the projects or the outcomes

of their project work.

Expert opinions 73

• handing over the current project(s) and continuing to work together as partners on new projects;

• establishing the partnership as a new mechanism or ‘institution’ with its own independent strategy and structure (see tool below for options).

Tool – selecting the right long-term delivery mechanism

Table 10: Selecting delivery mechanisms

Option Advantages Disadvantages

Creating a new unit within one of the partner organisations

Supporting the creation of a new public service managed by the local authority

Building the capacity of the local authority or existing public service to adopt the project and manage it appropriately

Setting up a new free-standing institution/organisation dedicated to continuing the project and/or scaling it up – not necessarily as a partnership

Other?

Tip: Remember to celebrate what has been achieved and to acknowledge success, hard work and perseverance. Moving on well takes as much careful management as building a new partnership!

Good partnering behaviour

The way in which partner organisations and the individuals acting as their representatives behave, can have a tremendous effect on the success or failure of a partnership. ‘Good’ partnering behaviour implies acting in a way which will most likely have a positive, fostering effect, and will lead to a constructive partnering culture and a robust partnership.

Attitude

• Be flexible and open to new ideas, wherever possible;

‘Good’ partnering behaviour implies acting in a way which will most likely have a positive, fostering effect, and will lead to a constructive partnering culture and a robust partnership.

74 Section 2

• Recognise and respect the value of each partner’s contribution;

• Be prepared to ‘give way’ on some issues and to ‘give space’ to your partners to make their contribution to the partnership;

• Encourage a culture of transparency by being transparent.

Understanding

• Listen to determine and understand the real interests, needs and constraints of your partners;

• Appreciate that different sectors have different motivations and cultures, and may use a different vocabulary. Try to translate these into your own understanding;

• Be honest about (and ensure that other partners understand) your interests, needs and constraints.

Practical elements

• Spend time reflecting on your interactions with other partners. Are there details which you/they may not have understood? Are there things you could do differently?

• Be prepared, where necessary/feasible to help build the capacity of partners, to allow them to perform their roles more effectively;

• Ensure that you honour all the commitments you make to the partnership.

Partnership success factor checklist Certain factors can help to maximise the chances of a partnership being successful:

Approach

• The partnering process is well understood by all partners;

• Programmes of work are jointly designed and implemented;

• Partners have a genuine voice at the table and their contribution is respected (thereby reducing potential power imbalances);

• Enough (but not too much) time is allocated to partnership-building.

Expert opinions 75

Competencies and commitment

• The individuals involved have the necessary skill set and mindset;

• There is strong commitment from the partner organisations, as well as senior management buy-in.

Efficiency/Effectiveness

• The partnership shows evidence of strong project management and strong relationship management;

• Appropriate communications channels are in place.

Results/Productivity

• The partnership is outcome and output-oriented;

• Partners are achieving their individual organisational goals as well as shared goals;

• The partnership is achieving wider impact and influence.

Note1 A useful framework for a discussion on the partnership’s strengths,

weaknesses, opportunities and threats.

Further readingThe International Business Leaders Forum. 2011. The Partnering Toolbook. www.thepartneringinitiative.org

The International Business Leaders Forum. 2005. The Brokering Guidebook. www.thepartneringinitiative.org

Chapter 5Guidelines for using Theory U in MSPs

VANESSA SAyERS

Introduction

This section is intended to provide GIZ project managers with an outline of the U approach (also known as Theory U or U-Process) to MSPs. The approach is grounded in theoretical work undertaken by a range of practitioners, such as C. Otto Scharmer, Peter Senge, Joseph Jaworski, Adam Kahane and others currently working with Reos Partners. All of these people have written in depth on the U and its application, in their experience. The reader is advised to study key texts such as Solving tough problems by Kahane, Theory U by Scharmer and Presence by Flowers, Jaworski and Senge.

This contribution also draws heavily on existing reference sources used by Reos Partners, and the author would like to acknowledge the contributions of Zaid Hassan and Mille Bojer in its creation. In addition, the author draws on recent experience with the U approach in South Africa, working with Reos Partners on Change Labs – a composite social technology which uses the U as one of its components.

Why do we need a U-Process?

MSPs are often designed in response to the realisation that a societal challenge is too complex for any one stakeholder or stakeholder group to address alone. This initial insight into the need for diverse perspectives and capacities to be brought to bear is further developed in the U, which offers an explicit methodology for ‘the group to access its collective intelligence or wisdom’.1 It is worth acknowledging, in the words of McGonagill, that ‘what the U-Process describes is not new. We have taken what has been an intuitive, individual and largely un-replicable practice and outlined a process that can be used consciously and collectively for transformation in even the most challenging contexts.’ The U originally

Expert opinions 77

developed out of about 100 interviews with creative people over a number of years.2

The U is designed to support people as they tackle problems that are complex at three levels: socially (many actors with diverse ideas of the what the solution – and often the problem – is); dynamically (cause and effect are far apart in space and time), and generatively (they are totally ‘new’; we cannot seek best practice or past solutions as a path to follow in addressing them.)3 The U takes the group on a detour, in order to develop new solutions to problems of this apparently intractable nature. If a problem has a more obvious solution, then this detour is not needed: ‘If you already know what to do, then do it.’

What is the U-Process?

One of the key interviewees who contributed to the discovery of the U as an approach, was W. Brian Arthur. He explains the need for it as follows:

Operating in the new environment requires knowledge that does not stem from an abstract framework that we apply to or impose on a situation, but from a knowing that emerges from the quietness of deep observation and reflection. To access this deeper source of knowing – the source of all true creativity and innovation – and to use it as the basis for action, one follows three steps: (1) total immersion: observe, observe, observe; (2) retreat and reflect: allow the inner knowing to emerge; (3) act in an instant: bring forth the new as it desires.

The U-Process therefore comprises three phases: sensing – uncovering the current reality by expanding and deepening awareness; presencing – retreating and reflecting to enable individual ‘inner knowing’ as a foundation for collective commitment; and realising – generating a new reality through rapid-cycle prototyping, piloting and the implementation of breakthrough ideas.

Figure 9: The U-Process

I. Sensing

II. Presencing

III. Realising

The U-Process comprises three phases: sensing – uncovering the current reality by expanding and deepening awareness; presencing – retreating and reflecting to enable individual ‘inner knowing’ as a foundation for collective commitment; and realising – generating a new reality through rapid-cycle prototyping, piloting and the implementation of breakthrough ideas.

78 Section 2

Figure 9 shows how these three processes are organised in time, and demonstrates why the approach is called the ‘U’:

These three phases are not totally separate from each other, but overlap, as people move at different paces from one phase to another. Each phase is also likely to be repeated during an ongoing MSP, as participants go through iterations of learning more about the current reality, discovering new possibilities and rapidly implementing prototypes. Thus, the design of a process needs to allow for multiple iterative loops.

Scharmer describes seven capacities that are required to successfully navigate the U-Process, revealing that it is a journey for the individual and the group, and that it requires considerable commitment. These seven capacities are: suspending judgement; redirecting; letting go; letting come; crystallising; prototyping; and institutionalising. These capacities are described in greater detail below, under each of the phases of the U.

Working with the U

A key aspect of a successful U-Process, is identifying a challenge where there is a group of stakeholders who are clear enough about having a shared ‘tough problem’ to resolve, and where the group is aware enough of the limits of their current approaches to be willing to embark on such a detour. Thus, there is a need to invest considerable time and resources at the outset, to establish a ‘steering’ group with such a clear intent, and to identify clearly the issue they want to work on as a team. This convening work takes place in conjunction with the earliest stages of sensing, as it is part of ‘seeing’ the problem, and involves facilitators and key stakeholders in the process.

The following sections outline the capacities required for each of the three phases. They offer examples of the types of process that can be designed to create the space and opportunity for the capacity to be practised.

Sensing: capacitiesHassan offers the following descriptions of the capacities required for sensing:

Suspending judgment in practical terms means becoming aware of your own personal lenses and biases. It doesn’t mean that you reject your judgments but rather that you, in a sense, hang them up … and examine them …. It means being conscious how and when your training or your judgment are affecting your perceptions. (Hassan 2004)

Scharmer describes seven capacities that are

required to successfully navigate the U-Process.

These capacities are: suspending

judgement; redirecting; letting go; letting

come; crystallising; prototyping; and

institutionalising.

Expert opinions 79

The second capacity, re-directing, is the ability to listen and see from different positions. Usually we listen and see from within ourselves. Re-directing means asking questions from a number of different perspectives – from outside ourselves. So, for example, if we are interested in learning about farming and we meet a farmer, re-directing could mean that we evaluate the situation from his perspective. We might ask, ‘What does this information mean to him? What does he think of this situation?’, as opposed to asking questions that are meaningful to us.

Sensing: creating opportunitiesMost frequently, Reos Partners uses two methods to sense the system: the first is to undertake deep dialogue interviews with a set of key stakeholders. These interviews are designed not only to access the interviewees’ knowledge of and perspective on the system, but also 1) to begin to help them move beyond their usual way of seeing things; 2) to consider more deeply what are the issues and challenges facing them; and 3) how what they are doing may be contributing to a status quo that is not creating the outcomes they desire. Dialogue interviews are not based on a rigid set of questions, but pursue key themes and follow the interests and concerns of the interviewee. They also, in the initial stages of a process based on the U, spend time reconnecting the interviewee with the original source of their passion for being involved in their work, and identify their commitment to engaging in a collective U process.

The second approach is to take groups of participants out on ‘learning journeys’. Here, participants travel together to visit parts of the system they are addressing. The purpose is not to ‘gather data’ in the way a normal field trip would, but rather to 1) experience first-hand the reality of the problem situation (which is often far from their daily lives, behind desks or removed from ground-level activities); and 2) to practise suspending judgement and redirect, both with the people they meet at the learning journey site, and with the other participants on the journey who come from elsewhere in the system, and may hold very different views.

Based on the evidence and experience that these activities and others like them generate, the group is then encouraged to move into ‘presencing’.

Presencing: capacitiesHassan describes the capacities for presencing as follows:

The first capacity of Presencing is letting go. Letting go to what? When confronted with a challenge we often have our favourite theories, tools and ideas about what is needed. We often, sometimes sub-consciously, believe that if only everyone else adapted our

Suspending judgment means becoming aware of your own personal lenses and biases, while re-directing is the ability to listen and see from different positions.

Reos Partners uses two methods to sense the system: they undertake deep dialogue interviews with a set of key stakeholders to pursue key themes and follow the interests and concerns of the interviewee. The second approach is to take groups of participants out on ‘learning journeys’ to experience first-hand the reality of the problem situation and to practise suspending judgement and redirect.

80 Section 2

positions or solutions then everything would be fine. The practice of letting go is an act of letting go of all these things. It’s about giving up and surrendering oneself to whatever it is that might want to emerge.

The second capacity of presencing is letting come. Once again, this is about entering a profound state of openness, and being sensitive and open to whatever it is that wants to emerge, to whatever wants to be born. While the phrase ‘letting come’ seems to be quite passive, the act of giving birth is far from passive. Letting come is a uniquely difficult point in the U process, because it represents a shift to action and all action is a commitment of some sort. (Hassan 2004)

Presencing: creating opportunitiesThe working environment of most stakeholders – particularly those who occupy senior roles in organisations – does not allow them the space to release approaches, tools and ideas that, for the most part, work towards ‘getting the job done’. The challenge in a U-Process is, therefore, to create space and time for them to leave behind these familiar patterns for a while. In a longer process, this has involved taking participants into nature to spend time alone (including overnight, if possible) without interruptions, with the intention to engage in an exploration of their own role in the problem situation and a version of the question ‘what is my role/work here?’

In the South African context, it has often proven difficult to convince busy leaders to take such time out. As a result, alternative approaches have included taking walks in nature as part of multi-day workshops, sending participants away overnight with questions to ponder, or taking ‘dialogue walks’, where participants engage with each other in an exploration of new possibilities.

Realising: capacitiesCrystallising is the capacity to move from a broad intention that has ‘arrived’ through the process of letting come, into a specific ‘crystallised’ idea of what to do. It is the move into a concrete idea of what needs to happen to help a better future emerge. This is followed by prototyping, which Hassan distinguishes from the more familiar and typical ‘planning’ approach:

There are (at least) two approaches one can take to producing something new, be it a sculpture or a piece of software. The first is by going through a long and detailed planning process. We can try and anticipate and design for as many different scenarios as possible and put the whole plan on paper before taking the first step. This

The first capacity of presencing is letting go, while the second

capacity of presencing is letting come.

The challenge in a U-Process is, therefore,

to create space and time for stakeholders to leave

behind these familiar patterns for a while.

Crystallising is the capacity to move from a broad intention into a specific ‘crystallised’

idea of what to do.

Expert opinions 81

is how modern planning processes usually work. The U-Process however, has a different way of approaching the realisation of new ideas, which involves creating quick, incomplete models that can be physically worked with. Instead of planning and designing, you just start. You take the first step as quickly as possible. You try something out and then evaluate it. You walk around it, test it and then change it. This process is sometimes called ‘rapid prototyping’ but can also be thought of as simply applying the principle ‘start now’. One of the most powerful ideas behind such an approach is to ‘fail often, fail early’ in that we learn best from making mistakes. By making small mistakes early, rather than a single catastrophic mistake, we go through a repeated learning cycle. This learning cycle is almost like a mini-U-Process. (Hassan 2004)

The last capacity is moving from this prototyping into institutionalising the idea, or as Scharmer describes it, ‘performing and embodying the new’. The latter description captures the idea effectively, that the new can involve not only new institutional forms and activities, but also new ways of relating and behaving.

Realising: creating opportunitiesEffective facilitation of the ‘right-hand side’ of the U is highly dependent on the current situation of the system in which the process is taking place, and the existing commitments of the participants. It may be that they are able to commit to working collectively (in teams, based on interest in a particular area) on a particular topic. These teams then need to be coached, in particular during the prototyping phase, when the tendency emerges to become attached to a particular idea and therefore not to ‘let go’ of a new idea, even when it does not seem to be working. Alternatively, it may be that individuals with an idea find that they can take it back into their own organisation to implement, and prefer to stay more loosely connected to the other participants in the process. The key challenge here is for programme design and facilitation to be customised appropriately to suit the realities the participants face: in itself, this is an example of the need for U design to be based on a prototyping, rather than planning, approach.

RelevanceThe relevance of the U-Process to GIZ CCPS will be best measured by considering whether the specific challenges facing the multi-stakeholder groups match the criteria for a complex social problem. If they do, then this approach offers an effective new language for considering possible ways forward, as well as a flexible set of guidelines for designing a process that can help a group navigate towards new ideas and action, based on

The U-Process has a different way of approaching the realisation of new ideas: you just start. You take the first step as quickly as possible. You try something out and then evaluate it. This process is sometimes called ‘rapid prototyping’.

The last capacity is institutionalising the idea, or ‘performing and embodying the new’.

The key challenge here is for programme design and facilitation to be customised appropriately to suit the realities the participants face.

82 Section 2

grounded experience of their current reality. An important first step in the

process is to assess the readiness of the group to engage with the problem

in a different way, and their willingness to challenge and change their own

assumptions and approaches as they progress.

Based on experience garnered in the last three years working on the

ground in South Africa, the U can offer groups with multi-stakeholders

the opportunity to identify the deeper issues driving the symptomatic

problems they face. It provides a strong container in which to develop

relationships with people whom they may have previously considered

‘unlikely allies’.

GIZ and the U-Process

Reos facilitated the Southern Africa Food Lab during 2010, with funding

support from GIZ, using a design based on the U-Process. The lab

brings together diverse role-players with passion and influence in the

regional food system, in order to identify and pilot innovative means of

enhancing long-term food security. Currently, six innovation teams are

working on initiatives around primary producers (two groups), packaging,

distribution in low-income markets, a ‘national conversation on food

security’, and taking the process forward. As with most other work that

Reos undertakes using the U as framework, in combination with other

methodologies and tools, the process is known as a ‘change lab’. For

further examples of such change labs, please visit www.reospartners.com

Recommendations

This contribution provided a very brief introduction to the potential of

and practices for the U, as currently used by Reos Partners as part of the

Change Lab approach. Working with this process is highly experiential,

and anyone considering using it is strongly advised to participate in an

in-person training session.

Notes1 See Z. Hassan, The U: a language of regeneration.

2 See C. Otto Scharmer’s book, Theory U, for a detailed exposition of the process undertaken by Jaworski and Scharmer in 1999–2000.

3 For more on these three types of complexity, see Kahane’s book Solving tough problems.

An important first step in the process is

to assess the readiness of the group to engage

with the problem in a different way, and their willingness to

challenge and change their own assumptions and approaches as they

progress.

Expert opinions 83

ResourcesHassan, Z. 2004. The U: a language of regeneration. India: Expressions by

Abhivyakti Media For Development.Kahane, A. 2004. Solving tough problems: an open way of talking, listening, and

creating new realities. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. McGonagill, G. n.d. Underpinnings and elaborations of the U. Unpublished

document. Scharmer, C.O. 2007. Theory U: leading from the future as it emerges. Cambridge,

MA: The Society for Organisational Learning (SOL).Senge, P., C. Otto Scharmer, J. Jaworski and B-S. Flowers. 2005. Presence:

an exploration of profound change in people, organizations, and society. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Chapter 6Guiding others in a space of not knowing

DOUGLAS KATIVU

Douglas, please tell us how you got involved in facilitation and specifically in MSPs.

I got involved as part of my work duties and responsibilities. The organisations I have worked for are engaged in facilitating MSPs that bring together business, government and civil society organisations for collective action, collaboration and partnerships, to address pertinent sustainability challenges.

How is facilitating an MSP different from other facilitation processes?

The difference lies in the mix of participants, who usually are drawn from different stakeholder or interest groups that, in many cases, hold divergent views or positions on the subject matter or issues. The group of participants is not homogenous, thus the need to allow for and balance divergent views during the facilitation. The facilitator would require a good level of interpersonal skills to handle and manage group dynamics, and would be expected to be knowledgeable of not only the subject areas, but also of the positions or viewpoints of the main stakeholder groups.

What do you regard as requirements for the successful facilitation of MSPs?

• Good interpersonal skills to handle group dynamics;

• Good preparation, including ensuring that the agenda, objectives and desired outcomes are shared by the stakeholder groups and are communicated to the groups well in advance, to allow for adequate preparations beforehand;

The difference between facilitating an MSP

and other facilitation processes lies in the mix

of participants, who usually are drawn from

different stakeholder or interest groups that,

in many cases, hold divergent views or

positions on the subject matter or issues.

Expert opinions 85

• Good preparation and research by the facilitator to understand the subject matter, topical issues and likely positions or viewpoints of the different stakeholder groups, and how these can be balanced to achieve consensus;

• Rules and procedures that are acceptable to all stakeholder groups and allow each of them to express their views. There are no right or wrong answers – all ideas are welcome, and participants freely share their experiences and/or concerns. It may be necessary to break the larger group into smaller thematic groups, to allow for deeper engagement on issues on the part of the stakeholders;

• Setting out the ground rules for democratic decision making, whether by consensus or by the decision of the majority.

What are the most common ‘derailers’ of MSPs that you have observed?

• Dominant or most vocal groups who want their position or viewpoint to carry at the expense of achieving consensus;

• Diverting from the set agenda and objectives, to pursue the interest or position of a particular stakeholder group at the expense of other stakeholder groups;

• Failure to narrow or bridge differences between stakeholder groups;

• Imbalance in the resources and skills set across the stakeholder groups. Some groups may lack negotiating skills or the confidence to express their viewpoints, while others may be too poorly resourced to effectively participate;

• Power dynamics imbalances. Some stakeholder groups may be more dominant or powerful than others;

• Managing expectations – some stakeholder groups may hold expectations that are outside of or at variance with the set objectives or desired outcomes.

How do you prepare yourself for a facilitation process, and in particular for an MSP?

• Through desk research or reading to understand the subject matter and related topical issues as well as the perceptions of different stakeholders;

• By understanding the stakeholder mix – who are the stakeholder groups and what are their positions on the issues or subject matter?

86 Section 2

• By preparing facilitation tools and guidelines or techniques to use during the facilitation process;

• By outlining the agenda, objectives and expected or desired outcomes, and sharing these with participants or stakeholder groups in advance. Also, by encouraging the stakeholder groups to provide input in determining the agenda, objectives and expectations;

• By distributing resource materials that will help stakeholders understand the subject matter. It helps them prepare adequately for the engagement process.

Do you have any theoretical frameworks about facilitation that guide your action?

• Chatham house

• Goal setting

• Decision-making processes.

What do you do to help multiple stakeholders work together well?

• Ensure that all stakeholder groups are well represented in the process;

• Encourage and allow all stakeholder groups to freely express themselves;

• Allow all stakeholders to be accommodative of divergent views or positions;

• Create interdisciplinary groups or committees that are balanced across stakeholder groups;

• Use democratic decision making, i.e. decisions by consensus or by the majority;

• Adopt rules and procedures that are acceptable to all;

• Ensure shared objectives and expectations or desired outcomes.

How do you ensure that power imbalances amongst stakeholders are well managed?

• By allowing participation and input from all stakeholder groups;

• Balancing the divergent viewpoints towards a consensus;

Expert opinions 87

• Setting up interdisciplinary or multi-stakeholder groups, and ensuring that these are balanced and representative of all stakeholders, while making provision for gender balance;

• Building or enhancing the capacity of some stakeholder groups may be necessary in identified areas, where such groups are lacking and where such a lack of capacity may compromise or derail the process.

What do you do when conflict threatens to derail a process?

• Identify the source of the conflict, then encourage open debate on the source and resolution of the conflict by all parties or stakeholders, before then proceeding with the process;

• It may be necessary to directly engage the conflicting parties to understand their viewpoints, frustration or source of conflict, and to discuss with the parties proposals to resolve the conflict;

• Always avoid direct confrontation between groups, but facilitate a discussion on the conflict and propose they work to resolve the conflict;

• Engage the conflicting parties to understand the source of conflict, narrow or bridge their differences, and ensure the conflict resolution is acceptable to all.

How do you deal with a process that is stuck?

• Identify and analyse – with the group – the reasons why the process has reached such an outcome. What are the reasons why the process is stuck? What errors of commission or omission have been made? How best can these be rectified? What alternatives can be pursued or incorporated?

• Analyse the reasons: is it a question of resources or group dynamics? If it is about resources, how can the process be better resourced, technically or financially? If it is about group dynamics, engage the groups with a view to bridging differences and ensuring that objectives and outcomes remain shared;

• Revisit the objectives and desired outcomes, and determine how these can be bettered, if a lack of progress is linked to these. Engage the stakeholder groups by ensuring that objectives and outcomes remain shared, and determine how best to address any impasse.

88 Section 2

What are your personal dos and don’ts as a facilitator?

• Develop interpersonal skills to handle group dynamics. Build rapport with all groups represented;

• Be adequately prepared and knowledgeable about the subject matter or process;

• Be confident and reassuring in your dealings with stakeholders;

• Prepare your facilitation guideline, including guiding questions and which tools to employ;

• Do not impose your own viewpoint(s). Guide the process towards the shared outcomes;

• Remain focused on the issues at hand, not on personalities or political affiliations;

• Do not be dictatorial. Always ensure that everyone can express their views, and then build consensus towards a common position;

• Do not align yourself with a particular group(s) and/or the interests of a particular group(s) at the expense of others.

What do you need from project managers or steering committees that want to work with you?

• Assistance in determining the agenda, objectives and desired outcomes;

• Mobilise resources – technical and financial;

• Mobilise stakeholder groups to actively engage in the process;

• Do planning, budgeting and handle logistics;

• Monitor and evaluate the process;

• Choose the relevant skill set to assist with the process.

How do you deal with the ‘not knowing’ element in facilitation?

• Through the provision of resource materials in advance of meetings, to improve attendees’ understanding of issues;

• Through open debate (there are no right or wrong answers), as this allows for all ideas to be freely expressed, and through discussion, as this allows us to eliminate or crystallise ideas;

• By sharing experiences and/or case studies;

Expert opinions 89

• By reviewing the agenda, objectives and outcomes with the stakeholder groups, to ensure that they are all on the same page and have the same understanding of the process and expectations.

People tell me that you appear cool, calm and collected when you facilitate. Are you ever nervous before or during processes?

Sometimes. Beforehand you are not always sure how responsive the stakeholders will be. During the process, you may be anxious about whether or not the set objectives and outcomes will be achieved.

Was there perhaps one MSP that challenged your abilities to the utmost?

There was one process that called for the participation of political opponents. The process was challenging, as the participants aligned themselves to the viewpoints of their political parties. They were always measured in terms of their participation, so as to avoid upsetting their political principles.

Was there perhaps an MSP which you really felt brought together most of what a facilitator dreams of?

The development of the social responsibility standard, in which the facilitators had to balance the views or positions of different stakeholder groups (such as government, industry, NGOs, consumer groups, labour and academia, drawn from more than 90 developed and developing countries). Decisions had to be made based on consensus, and processes and groups had to be balanced across the developed/developing world divide, across the stakeholder groups and with gender balance in mind.

What personal tips do you have for others who need to facilitate MSPs?

• Be adequately prepared and confident;

• Ensure that the rules and procedures are acceptable to all;

• Ensure democratic decision making;

• Ensure that all major stakeholder groups are represented;

• Allow for divergent views and build consensus.

Section 3PRoCESS MAP

The two chapters in this section pull together the learning journey in two areas, namely at the process frontline where the MSP is planned, managed and facilitated on a daily basis, and at the institutional level, where care is taken in respect of the overarching development frameworks, contractual dimensions and resources needed to sustain the effort.

Chapter 7, which deals with the first aspect, covers the dynamics involved in guiding others through the processes of change, conflict, consensus building, decision making and relationship development involved in steering an MSP through its various phases, while keeping the process on track, and the various stakeholders committed and involved.

Chapter 8, which deals with stakeholder commitment and involvement, raises a number of issues that need to be managed at an institutional level, and that may be very peculiar to the GIZ CCPS environment. It distils some observations from the study as a whole, and introduces reflections for further consideration.

Chapter 7A process guide for MSP facilitation

Introduction

This chapter distils the foregoing wisdom gained from MSP project managers, facilitators and experts, and integrates it into a process guide for MSP facilitation. It offers direction for the journey, frames the various stages, and refers to tools that may help to make the tricky parts more negotiable.

The idea of a ‘guide’ solicits other metaphors like territory, landscape, direction, momentum and journey. The facilitation of such complex processes cannot be cast in a pre-design that will remain fixed throughout. The purpose is, therefore, to help with process navigation within the parameters of certain boundaries.

‘Facilitation’ is again referred to in this chapter as an overarching concept which is linked to the contributions of a variety of role-players, and it is utilised to describe the way in which an MSP can be guided through different stages of development and evolution. Although different role-players in this sense ‘facilitate’ and play a ‘facilitative’ role, there will again be reference to the ‘facilitator’ as a specialist function in guiding the overall process.

This chapter will, more than any of the preceding chapters, focus on process.

Preparing for the journey

Reflect on your dispositionProcess facilitation is not about neutrality, but about integrity. You simply do not embark on MSP facilitation in a neutral fashion – you come from a certain background, with prior experience and set ideas about the world’s challenges, with certain biases as to how problems should be solved, and with some ideas about people and organisations, and how to involve them in learning and change processes.

The challenge is to employ what you know and what you are capable of, in service of the process – not the other way round. The process is not there to serve the preconceived outcomes of the facilitator, or to showcase the facilitator’s capabilities, but to create a safe space where key

Process facilitation is not about neutrality, but about integrity.

The challenge is to employ what you know

and what you are capable of, in service

of the process – not the other way round.

Process map 93

stakeholders can find pathways towards solutions they are ready to take ownership of. This is a key principle in process facilitation.

Beware, therefore, of the following factors that may influence your approach:

• Your primary background may be in development work, project management, public service, business or academia, and it will certainly influence your approach to process aspects such as design, management and implementation. Your background may be different from that of other role-players in the process. The challenge is, therefore, to realise that there are paradigms for MSP facilitation other than your own. Open yourself up to learn from them;

• Your prior experience in similar processes will be an important strength and resource, but may, at the same time, put the learning curve and quality of the MSP at risk. It simply means that your experience may tempt you to ‘compress’ the process by offering answers and solutions, instead of preserving the quality of the learning journey for others. Always remember that your performance is not measured by what you know, but by your ability to provide a learning space where others can discover, learn and design together. The challenge is thus to exercise patience and to show diligence as you focus on the quality of the process within which others will have to deliberate the outcomes, notwithstanding the mistakes they may make in the process;

• Depending on the size and complexity of the MSP you take facilitative responsibility for, you may be required to play more than one role. You may be a project manager one day, and a chairperson or a meeting or conference facilitator the next day. This is not advisable, but if that is how things are, be sure that you protect the boundaries of whatever role you play, and that you respect and empower the roles of those around you. Proper role differentiation and preparation are good for ensuring the hygiene of the process.

• When you embark on an MSP, as with any other process, you enter an emotion-laden space. MSPs deal with topics that affect people’s lives. MSPs bring together people who may not be used to working together. As a result, MSPs illicit a mixture of expectations: they may amplify power differences and participants may get stuck in conflict. Amidst all these factors, it is important to remain self-defined in terms of role clarity, and to stay in touch

The challenge is to realise that there are paradigms for MSP facilitation other than your own. Open yourself up to learn from them. Always remember that your performance is not measured by what you know, but by your ability to provide a learning space where others can discover, learn and design together. Be sure that you protect the boundaries of whatever role you play, and that you respect and empower the roles of those around you.

It is important to remain self-defined in terms of role clarity, and to stay in touch in terms of process leadership.

94 Section 3

in terms of process leadership. Reflect on your disposition and take care to manage yourself as well.

Be clear about your working theories

Woodhill (2007: 9) offers a helpful distinction between three constructs in MSP facilitation:

• Paradigm refers to an overarching framework of beliefs, assumptions and approaches that shape how individuals, organisations or societies behave and respond to problems and opportunities;

• Methodology refers to a coherent and logical approach or process for undertaking particular types of tasks or solving particular problems; and

• Methods, tools and techniques are specific ways of completing micro-level tasks that add up to a methodology.

We shall address aspects of methodology, methods, tools and techniques later in the chapter, but a word on ‘paradigm’ is suitable here. There are a few paradigmatic concepts that an MSP facilitator ought to grasp:

• A systemic worldview: our worldview determines, to a large extent, our approach to problem solving. If we look at the world as a series of predictable cause-and-effect events, it will naturally lead to a linear approach to problem solving. In such an approach, the objective is to find the cause underlying a problem, and to design and implement the best possible solution. There are, indeed, problems that can be solved in this way, but as a general rule this approach underestimates the systemic complexities and interdependencies of societal problems and challenges. It is more appropriate, therefore, to work with a systemic worldview that looks at the world through the lenses of complexity, interconnectedness and unpredictability. In chapter 3, Jim Woodhill stated that ‘human societies are best understood as complex adaptive systems’. MSPs are not mere problem-solving think-tanks; they are complex learning systems and should be treated and guided as such.

• Learning theories and strategies: more than once in this publication, MSPs have been referred to in terms of SLC processes. In essence, an MSP involves adults, from different walks of life and different sectors of society, entering a process in which their views on certain issues are challenged, or which radically challenges

It is best to work with a systemic worldview

that looks at the world through the

lenses of complexity, interconnectedness

and unpredictability. MSPs are not mere

problem-solving think-tanks; they are complex

learning systems.

Process map 95

their perceptions of others. Apart from the setting being a learning

experience in itself, for stakeholders the learning process may entail

a transition from one set of beliefs to another. For many, this may

be as uncomfortable as it is enriching. As a facilitator, you need

to plan carefully for both the context of learning, so that it can be

safe, and for the process, so that it can help to extend participants’

boundaries.

Kolb’s approach to experiential learning is quite informative

in this regard. In Woodhill’s (2007: 9) adaptation, it becomes

clear how the approach takes MSP participants through a process

that is cyclical, iterative and reflective in nature. As individuals

and groups go through phases of the learning cycle, their

understanding deepens and their readiness for action evolves.

• In chapter 5, we were introduced to another learning and change

theory, namely the U-Process. As participants progress through

the stages of sensing, presencing and realising, they grow in their

ability to design relevant and authentic responses to the problem

domain in which the MSP is involved.

Figure 10: Kolb’s phased learning cycle

Experience

Reflection

Conceptualisation

Experimentation

Act Explore

Decide Analyse

As a facilitator, you need to plan carefully for both the context of learning, so that it can be safe, and for the process, so that it can help to extend participants’ boundaries.

96 Section 3

In addition, what is important to note, is that both Kolb’s theory and the U-Process fit the presuppositions of a systemic worldview.

Change and conflict: an MSP is inevitably a journey into change and conflict. Dealt with badly, it may cause the process to fall apart. Dealt with constructively, it is simply essential for the learning experience. What is important in MSP facilitation, is to have a good understanding of what people experience when they enter these kinds of radical learning processes, and why conflict is so often one of the inevitable by-products. The foregoing treatment of Kolb and the U-Process makes it self-evident that change will (inevitably) occur, and that conflict may arise when people deliberate the most appropriate response to it.

It is, therefore, important to assume a positive position in relation to the potential occurrence of change and conflict in a process, and to be prepared to facilitate it in such a way that it enhances the quality of the outcomes.

• Human behaviour and relationships: a process, however carefully designed, does not change people – it merely provides the roadmap and creates circumstances which are safe enough for people to dare to change their views, perceptions, behaviours, preferred strategies and/or solutions. Relationships ignite change; people help one another to change. This sounds deceptively simple, but it is a truth of paradigmatic importance. In all its complexity (which needs to be carefully planned for), nothing in an MSP is as important as preparing a space in which people are enabled and empowered to learn together and to take joint ownership. What endures in a facilitated process is not allegiance to a set of ideas, but the level of trust and the intensity of the commitment developed amongst the role-players. When agreed-upon action plans afterwards fall by the wayside, people seldom blame it on the contents; they would rather bemoan the lack of commitment amongst the stakeholders.

Navigating the journey

You should be able to guide your MSP successfully towards its destination if you focus on six key elements:

• A framework that is appropriate for dealing with the systemic complexities and relational dynamics of a stakeholder environment;

It is important to assume a positive

position in relation to the potential occurrence

of change and conflict in a process, and to

facilitate it in such a way that it enhances

the quality of the outcomes.

What endures in a facilitated process is not

allegiance to a set of ideas, but the level of

trust and the intensity of the commitment

developed amongst the role-players.

Process map 97

• A facilitation process that creates a safe, nurturing environment for different stakeholders to deal constructively with complex issues;

• Competent and mutually supportive role-players who work together in facilitating a meaningful and successful MSP;

• Process facilitation competencies which are appropriately applied to the levels of problem complexity and the intensity of relational dynamics;

• A facilitator who is competent, assertive and sensitive enough to be a non-anxious presence in the process; and

• A facilitation toolkit that is appropriate for enhancing problem solving, decision making and process wellness.

Each of these elements will now be dealt with in greater detail.

A framework that is appropriate for dealing with the systemic complexities and relational dynamics of a stakeholder environmentIn the context of the work it does on CSR issues in sub-Saharan Africa, CCPS identifies three distinct phases in its MSP facilitation cycle, namely 1) initiating, 2) implementing and 3) sustaining.

The initiation phase concentrates on preparing for the MSP. The aim is to ensure that the process gets off to a good start.

Broadly speaking, activities to take care of in this phase are:

• Study the terms of reference (TOR)/concept note;

• Design the process flow;

• Budget for the cost of the process;

• Secure the necessary financial resources;

• Appoint a project team;

• Plan for stakeholder engagement.

Questions used to navigate this phase:

• What does the TOR/concept note for the process specify?

• What is the ultimate objective you want to achieve?

• What kind of process will best help to achieve the ultimate objective?

• Who will be the stakeholders involved?

• How will the stakeholders be approached?

An MSP facilitation cycle consists of three phases, namely initiating, implementing and sustaining.

98 Section 3

• What is the context (country, region or industry) within which the MSP will take place?

• What resources have been made available?

• What other capacities will be needed?

• What background information needs to be obtained?

• What is the timeline for the process?

• What constraints need to be taken care of?

The implementation phase steers towards what MSP facilitation is all about, namely societal learning and change. In this phase, stakeholders gather to learn and design solutions together.

Activities to take care of in this phase:

• Hold meetings, workshops and/or conferences;

• Do process design to ensure meaningful engagement;

• Do data capturing and implement recording practices (reporting);

• Do programme planning and management;

• Put in place communication systems and processes;

• Establish a stakeholder steering committee;

• Solicit the services of an experienced facilitator.

Questions to guide the process design:

• How can stakeholder relationships best be facilitated?

• What information will stakeholders need?

• What experiences will help stakeholders understand the problem domain?

• How can stakeholders be empowered for long-term ownership of the process?

• What are the changes stakeholders may be confronted with, and how can they be prepared for and guided through them?

• What potential power imbalances exist amongst stakeholders and how can mutual respect and equality best be assured?

• What kind of conflicts can be expected and how can they best be resolved?

• What role differentiation issues need to be taken care of with respect to the project management, steering committee and facilitation functions?

Process map 99

The sustaining phase is about ensuring the long-term impact of the outcomes of an MSP. The objective is to successfully facilitate the transition from learning to implementation, and ultimately to institutionalisation. This is a precarious phase for any MSP and its needs to be carefully navigated.

Activities to take care of in this phase:

• Ensure that appropriate knowledge management systems are in place to capture and transfer learning;

• Provide for decisions and commitments to be translated into mutual agreements amongst stakeholders;

• Empower stakeholders to communicate the outcomes to their various constituencies;

• Agree on how stakeholders may continue to network and cooperate;

• Provide education and skills development for stakeholder constituencies.

Questions for navigating this phase:

• What follow-up strategies will best encourage stakeholders to stay committed to the outcomes of the MSP?

• What knowledge and/or instruments need to be captured for dissemination and distribution to benefit wider audiences?

• What agreements need to be formalised to ensure follow-through towards implementation?

• How can stakeholders be empowered to stay in touch and extend their cooperation beyond the formal processes of the MSP?

• What kind of processes will best facilitate closure and the way forward?

• Are there any stakeholder needs for education or skills development, based on the outcomes of the MSP?

As the process rolls on and expands from phase to phase, the emphasis changes, other role-players become more dominant, and the process increases in complexity. In the first phase, the project management team dominates. In the second, the steering committee and facilitation role become more prominent. In the third phase, the stakeholders themselves are expected to step to the fore and determine the future. This does not at all imply that the project team disappears at any stage of the process, or that the facilitator is absent from phases one or three, or that the steering committee only becomes relevant towards the end.

In the first phase, the project management team dominates. In the second, the steering committee and facilitation role become more prominent. In the third phase, the stakeholders themselves are expected to step to the fore and determine the future.

100 Section 3

A process map is such an important aspect of MSP facilitation. It offers guidance, helps to measure progress and makes the journey intelligible for all participants. Different process maps were offered in this guidebook, namely the process model of Jim Woodhill, the U-Process (as explained by Vanessa Sayers), the partnership approach (outlined by Darian Stibbe) and the three-phase approach of CCPS (as explained above). All four approaches advocate learning, they all presuppose movement and can be applied in an iterative way. They differ in the sense that Woodhill’s model adds a very important fourth dimension, namely reflexive monitoring; the U-Process focuses strongly on the experiential immersion of people in the problem domain; the three-phase model preferred by CCPS has a stronger focus on the functionalities needed to guide the process from phase to phase; and Darian Stibbe’s contribution made us even more aware of the importance of systematic and detailed planning and coordination over the duration of an MSP, as would be evident in a partnership. It is advisable to be aware of all four approaches, and to allow their various perspectives to enrich your own approach.

A facilitation process that creates a safe, nurturing environment for different stakeholders to deal constructively with complex issuesWe have emphasised it earlier: the key to successful facilitation is the ability to create a safe environment within which stakeholders can participate in an atmosphere of mutual trust, respect and transparency. The process design unleashes these possibilities and protects the boundaries within which expectations inherent to each MSP can be optimised.

Figure 11: MSP facilitation process map from the perspective of CCPS

• Core activities• Key questions• Project team

Initiate

• Core activities• Key questions• Facilitator

Implement

• Core activities• Key questions• Stakeholders

Sustain

A process map is an important aspect of

MSP facilitation. It offers guidance, helps

to measure progress and makes the journey

intelligible for all participants.

Process map 101

In order to get this right, the MSP facilitator – be it the project manager or the professional facilitator – will do well to approach and lead the process from four different angles. This approach does not broach the process from the viewpoint of ‘flow’, as we have done thus far, but changes it to the intersection of four simultaneous perspectives.

• The process from the facilitator’s point of view: this view focuses on what the facilitator needs to know and do in order to get the process started and to guide it from phase to phase (the various dimensions of this were covered in detail earlier in the chapter).

• The process as it dynamically unfolds for the participants: participating stakeholders also need to prepare for and adapt to the

We had a situation where we were proposing the implementation of a regional carbon facility, to develop and trade carbon credits generated by our programme activities.

This required an understanding of preceding complex concepts, and these had to be conveyed in a workshop setup with a variety of stakeholders. Some stakeholders had better knowledge of the issues, and we could only move as fast as

the slowest one. (Marlett Balmer, GIZ)

Figure 12: Four perspectives on the facilitation process

What does the process facilitator need to know and

do?

How will stakeholders

experience the process and

participate in it?

How will understanding and

learning be best facilitated?

What methods, tools and techniques will be most helpful to promote flow and

progress?

The process

102 Section 3

process. They may need to overcome their own uncertainties, and may have to learn to trust the process and one another. The process furthermore takes them on a journey of growth in knowledge and understanding, as well as growth in innovation and vision. It brings the challenge of new experiences, priorities, processes and strategies. This is why the importance of process design can never be underestimated. To optimise stakeholder participation, ensure that you leave nothing to chance. An open and transparent process needs to be carefully planned and structured. The more people trust the process, the further they will be prepared to step outside their conventional boundaries.

• Process dynamics as an experience of emergent and evolving

understanding through the application of appropriate learning

processes: we have already alluded to theories and processes that will enhance the learning quality of an MSP. It is important to integrate learning theory with process design and application. In this way, the process runs within the parameters of responsible theory. This, in turn, offers process facilitators a framework within which to measure progress and adapt the tempo. It also allows for iterative learning loops.

• The process as guided journey through the application of

appropriate and helpful methods, tools and techniques: the ground rule in facilitation is to keep the process as simple and natural as possible. Methods, tools and techniques should only be applied to promote flow and progress, and should never dominate the experience. In any facilitated event, the methods, tools and techniques should be carefully selected and should make sense within the context of the overall learning approach, the current phase of the process or a specific challenge that needs to be addressed. The sustainability of a process is not dependent on what is in the toolkit of the facilitator, but rather on what happens in the relational space, where the quality and depth of trust fuel the willingness of people to journey together. In this regard, it makes sense to have an experienced facilitator to guide people through complex learning processes [more on this in an upcoming paragraph that deals with the toolkit in greater detail].

Process map 103

Competent and mutually supportive role-players who work together in facilitating a meaningful and successful MSPAs a process, an MSP is too complex to rest on the shoulders of a single person. MSP facilitation requires a team effort. Apart from the project sponsor (such as GIZ) that sensed the need and value of an MSP in a particular problem domain, wrote the TOR/concept note, secured the funding and appointed key role-players to initiate the process, there should, ideally speaking, be the following roles in an MSP:

• The project leader: this person takes responsibility for the overall management of the process, its human and financial resources and its programme. This person also builds the MSP networks and ensures that the process is embedded in sound relationships. In addition, the project leader maintains effective communication and feedback loops amongst all the key role-players;

• The project team: depending on the size and complexity of the process, there need to be people who take care of project logistics and systems, such as communication, knowledge management, supportive infrastructure and technology, venue logistics and financial administration;

• The steering committee: eventually, ownership of the process should be vested in the stakeholders, not the sponsor, project leader or anybody else. It is, therefore, important to ensure – for instance in phase 2 of CCPS’s three-phased approach – that a steering committee is established. The steering committee represents the composition and interests of the stakeholder community, forms an integral part of the overall facilitation process and plays a key role in the institutionalisation phase;

• A facilitator: the practical wisdom here is to emphasise, once again, the importance of having a skilled facilitator on board from the very beginning – not just in phase 2 – to facilitate workshops or conferences. The whole process may gain in effectiveness and credibility when the facilitator can guide the design process as well as the multi-stakeholder events and feedback sessions. There may be valid considerations for not having a specialist facilitator, for instance, where trust in the project management function is high. Bringing in an experienced stranger may put the process at risk.

The roles of an MSP include the project leader, the project team, the steering committee and the facilitator.

104 Section 3

While these roles need to be clearly differentiated, they also need to work together to secure process alignment, direction and progress. They are especially important in providing feedback loops, interpreting information and adjusting the process in its various phases.

The size and composition of the support network should fit the demands and level of complexity of the process. It is just as odd to overload a smaller-sized process with support functions, as it is ineffective to be under-staffed in running a rather big process.

Process facilitation competencies are appropriately applied to the levels of problem complexity, the intensity of relational dynamics and the phases of the processHere, ‘facilitation’ is applied in the broad sense of the word, to refer to competency requirements for the duration of the MSP’s life-cycle and all its activities. Effective process facilitation demands competence in the following areas:

• Thinking competencies, such as understanding, interpreting, analysing, problem solving and decision making;

• Relationship competencies, such as connecting, networking, listening and building trust;

• Process competencies, such as the ability to apply theoretical frameworks, initiate movement, establish interaction and communicate information;

• Institutionalisation competencies, such as strategic planning, organising and contracting.

The full profile of competencies is not to be found in a single person. This is what makes the availability and composition of a project team with a multiplicity of competencies so important. According to Woodhill (2007: 3), the ability to

design and implement a long-term MSP requires a sophisticated understanding of human social and political behaviour and a special set of skills. Good process design and facilitation must take account of power relations and conflicts, integrate scientific and community perspectives, build the capacity of stakeholders to effectively participate and build a supportive institutional environment.

In taking responsibility for an MSP it is, therefore, important to ensure that you know what capacities you require, and to bring the right people on board from the outset. This is as important as identifying the right stakeholders.

Effective process facilitation requires

thinking, relationship, process and

institutionalisation competencies.

Process map 105

A facilitator who is competent, assertive and sensitive enough to be a non-anxious presence in the processThe role of the facilitator has already been explored in a variety of ways. The interviewees stressed the importance of the role, as well as the requirements to perform it effectively (see chapter 2). The subject was covered in the expert contributions and in the interview with the MSP facilitator, Douglas Kativu.

The facilitator’s main role is to take care of the quality and integrity of the process, to ensure a level playing field for all stakeholders, and to spur movement towards goal achievement. Core to the facilitator’s gift to the process is the ability to be a non-anxious presence in the midst of a complex relational system. In other words, when the process enters the space of not knowing, and when stakeholders’ anxiety levels rise, the facilitator should be non-anxious enough to secure a safe holding environment within which stakeholder trust and progress can be maintained.

The facilitator’s role hangs together with Margaret Wheatly’s (1994: 38–39) view of the power of relationships in human organisations. What is important in an organisation is not its tasks, functions and hierarchies, but its ‘patterns of relationships and the capacities available to form them’. The heart of what we refer to as ‘process’ is not, in the first place, a technical matter, but a relational matter. What gives ‘process’ real meaning, is its ability to enhance the productive capacity available in human relationships.

A facilitation toolkit that is appropriate for enhancing problem solving, decision making and systemic wellnessMethods, tools and techniques are essential equipment in facilitation processes. They offer us options for dealing responsibly and effectively with complex human processes, and help us find effective ways of working together, exploring possibilities, making decisions, dealing with stuckness, managing change and resolving conflict. We commonly refer to these mechanisms (applied in facilitative situations) as a ‘toolkit’. This toolkit should, however, be used in such a way that it integrates naturally with the overall process of an MSP. The toolkit is there to serve the process; the process is not there to showcase the toolkit.

We have, as yet, not alluded much to the toolkit. It was more important to develop a thorough understanding of an MSP as a process of societal learning and change, embedded in and energised by the relationships amongst people with a common commitment to solve some of society’s cross-cutting dilemmas. Our ability to relate, communicate

When the process enters the space of not knowing, and when stakeholders’ anxiety levels rise, the facilitator should be non-anxious enough to secure a safe holding environment within which stakeholder trust and progress can be maintained.

106 Section 3

and take collective responsibility is, therefore, the natural equipment we use to advance into the future. The tools we introduce into process facilitation are helpful additions aimed at enhancing its quality and effectiveness.

Good process facilitators will always take care to select tools that

• fit the purpose of the process;

• are easy to introduce and easy to master;

• they themselves are comfortable applying.

Facilitation tools abound and can be sourced from many places. Each facilitator will also have a set of preferred tools that fits her/his overall process framework. GIZ, in fact, has a very good toolkit in Capacity WORKS (CW). In what follows, tools from CW and, where applicable, from others as well, will be cross-referenced with the three phases of the CCPS approach to MSP facilitation. None of the tools will be discussed in detail, since they are fully described in CW itself.

In the initiation phase activities can be enhanced in the following ways:

• The Variable geometry of strategy (CW, 2009: 35–39) offers a framework for the contextual positioning of an MSP. It is a pentagonal reference system that helps to define the landscape within which the MSP is positioned, and highlights the strategic reference points that need to be attended to. It will benefit an MSP to introduce a framework such as this in the early planning stages;

• CW introduces the well-known SWOT analysis as a supplement to the Variable geometry of strategy. A SWOT, which can also stand on its own, is always a handy tool to use in a variety of settings, in all phases of a process. As stated in CW: ‘This tool enables planners to analyse the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats associated with a project as a whole or its environment, or associated with individual groups of actors or components or aspects’;

• The Analysis of the project environment (CW, 2009: 40–43) has a more narrow focus than the Variable geometry of strategy and helps specifically to ‘shed light on the key trends and factors within the project environment before developing a strategy’. It is also helpful in identifying and analysing trends, effects, interdependencies, key factors and in doing limited future forecasting in the social, technological, economic, environmental and political environment of a project;

Good process facilitators select tools that fit the purpose of the process; are easy to introduce

and easy to master; and that they themselves are

comfortable applying.

Process map 107

• The Project overview plan (CW, 2009: 68–74) ‘helps to define and document indicators and measures’ and ‘is applied once the strategic objectives of the project have been defined on the basis of the available strategic options’. This tool combines perspectives from both strategic planning and operational planning, and can be used in an iterative way in all phases of a project. This done, it serves as a project reference map to which the project team can return regularly to assess progress, to update the plan and to determine next action steps, amongst others.

• CW offers a variety of stakeholder tools. The Internal stakeholder map helps to identify the ‘relevant project actors and their relationships’ (CW, 2009: 80–85), while Key internal stakeholders identifies ‘key stakeholders and their possible vested interests in/convergence with the change objectives of the project’ (CW, 2009: 86–92). On the other hand, the External stakeholder map will help to identify the ‘complementary actors outside the cooperation system that are relevant to the project’ (CW, 2009: 120–123), while Key external stakeholders narrows it down to ‘key actors outside our system with whom our project should be developing contacts and focusing efforts toward harmonisation and cooperation’ (CW, 2009: 124–128). It goes without saying that stakeholders are key to MSPs, and therefore great care should be taken in how they are identified, related to, communicated with and empowered in the course of a process. This collection of stakeholder tools is, again, a good example of the kinds of tools which are introduced right at the beginning of an MSP, and will benefit the process throughout;

• Reference was often made, in this publication, to the Steering structure of an MSP. CW (2009: 147) states that ‘it is naïve to think that in a development intervention there is a single steering unit with staff responsible for steering in the way a contract would be handled. To believe this would be to ignore the complexity of the tasks to be steered. It is thus a good idea to distinguish between different levels of steering (or fields of steering) and to identify these clearly and distinctly.’ CW furthermore states that the process goes beyond technocratic control, because steering a development intervention happens ‘within a complex framework that has emerged organically, in an environment that is subject to constant change and that impacts on the project or programme’. In the subsequent discussion, CW (2009: 150–154) then offers two steering scenarios, one of which sketches a more functional approach, while the other is more suited to a network of teams.

108 Section 3

This is particularly helpful for designing steering functions in an MSP. Thought needs to be given to this at the beginning, when the project management function is set up, in the transition to the second phase when stakeholder representation needs to be incorporated into the steering model, and during the second phase and in the cross-over to institutionalisation, when different forms of working groups may need to be established.

The implementation phase will do well to incorporate tools such as the following:

• Scenarios are very useful tools in the second phase of an MSP. They serve the purpose especially well at a point where the stakeholders are ready for future exploration. The purpose of scenario development is ‘to assess, through an exchange of different perspectives and experiences, relevant factors and their effects on options for various paths of change’ (CW, 2009: 44). Scenario development demands a relatively high level of skill to facilitate, and should preferably be done by an experienced facilitator;

• Strategic options (CW, 2009: 50–56) is a very versatile tool that can either be utilised in the external stakeholder environment of an MSP, or within the internal project team environment. The tool serves ‘to evaluate strategic options for a project in order to decide which of them can be ruled out, and which require special attention in order to achieve optimum results’. It helps to plot project dimensions, such as stakeholders’ orientation change, scaling up, significance, synergies, conflict and accountability. The tool can be used in its entirety, or elements thereof can be utilised on an as-needed basis;

• Debriefing can occur during all stages of an MSP, but may be of particular importance at a stage when the process is really taking shape and starts to deliver results in the multi-stakeholder environment. CW (2009: 165) refers to a variety of debriefing methods, such as micro articles, case studies and learning histories. One can also assume that debriefing is a critical activity for the project team, and in this regard the ‘debriefing map’ offered in CW (2009: 167) should be very useful;

• An area that deserves special attention during this phase is the development of cooperative relationships amongst the various stakeholders. CW does not specifically deal with this aspect of MSP facilitation, but some other resources can be consulted in this regard. Otto Scharmer’s Theory U, referred to in chapter 5, is very informative in terms of how to immerse people who are in a

Useful tools in the implementation

phase include scenarios, strategic options, debriefing

and cooperative relationships.

Process map 109

relational environment into the problem domain, so that they can learn together. Harrison Owen’s Open space technology (1997) and Bunker and Alban’s treatment of Large group interventions (1997) may offer invaluable insights into how large groups of people can engage meaningfully in dialogue and decision making;

Altogether, one can say that this phase of the process, in order to succeed, requires three inter-related components: 1) sense-making through meaningful dialogue and decision making; 2) cooperative relationships that extend into the next phase of the MSP and beyond; and 3) facilitation that blends process, programme and structure into a seamless experience.

The following tools need to be considered for the sustaining phase:

• Consultancy strategies for organisation development (CW, 2009: 58–63) incorporates four dimensions of empowerment: 1) human resource development; 2) organisation development; 3) cooperation and network development and 4) systems development in the policy field. The tool is known to have a high level of difficulty, but the perspectives that it offers on an MSP are important and can be applied in accordance with the demands of the situation. Seen from one perspective, as CW indeed implies, it can be considered for application in phase 2 of the process to improve equality amongst stakeholders, specifically by ensuring that stakeholder groups with less power are capacitated to participate more confidently. Being also applied in the institutionalisation phase, however, it may contribute to the future sustainability of the outcomes of the process. In this approach it may serve as a framework to prepare stakeholders to institutionalise the outcomes and the termination of the MSP;

• Communities of practice is a mechanism that can be established in phase 2, but it will really start to show its value in phase 3 and beyond. CW (2009: 255–259) describes it as a ‘non-hierarchical, practical form of knowledge and experience among individuals with shared interests in a defined area of specialisation’. If communities of practice can be instilled in an MSP, it improves the chances of the learning outcomes being sustained and properly institutionalised over a much longer period of time. CW’s description of the tool contains a helpful checklist for developing communities of practice;

• Improving learning results (CW, 2009: 266–268) is a tool with which the learning results of an MSP can be assessed, and through which the long-term results of the learning process can be more

Useful tools in the sustaining phase include consultancy strategies for organisation development, communities of practice and improving learning results.

110 Section 3

effectively maintained. It has a strong training, coaching and

consultative orientation, all of which can greatly contribute to

sustainable institutionalisation.

It is important to remember that tools are never applied in isolation. They

work best when they fit into a broader theoretical and methodological

system. They find their rightful place in a theory of change, and in the

ebb and flow of a process. Most often they are carefully selected for a

particular occasion along the process path. Sometimes they are needed on

the spot and are selected on a ‘just-in-time’ basis.

When the various phases are juxtaposed with the variety of tools available,

the following pattern emerges:

Figure 13: Aligning tools with phases

Tools that help with contextual analysis, project planning, stakeholder identification and steering structures.

Initiating

Tools that help with future exploration, strategy, decision making and relationship building

Implementing

Tools that help with stakeholder empowerment and sustainable impact

Sustaining

ConclusionIt requires great care to initiate, implement and sustain an MSP. It is a delicate process that demands to be sensitively guided through its various phases and processes. Meaningful and lasting results are achieved when stakeholders feel their time and talents are constructively utilised in a process that creates pathways through society’s most pressing challenges. Facilitating an MSP is a reflective practice, in which those at the helm need to constantly observe, reflect and adapt. The learning process in an MSP is as much relevant for its facilitators as for its participating stakeholders.

Process map 111

ResourcesBunker, B.B. and B.T. Alban. 1997. Large group interventions: engaging the whole

system for rapid change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. GTZ. 2009. Capacity WORKS: the management model for sustainable development.

Eschborn: GTZ. Owen, H. 1997. Expanding our now: the story of open space technology. San

Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Owen, H. 1997. Expanding our now: a user’s guide. San Francisco: Berrett-

Koehler.Wheatly, M. 1992. Leadership and the new science: learning about organization from

an orderly universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Woodhill, J. 2007. Facilitating complex multi-stakeholder processes: a societal

learning perspective. Working document.

Chapter 8Reflections and recommendations

Introduction

One of the keys to successful facilitation is the art of asking the right

questions. Questions are better ‘teachers’ than answers are. Questions keep

the dialogue alive, while answers mostly bring an end – often premature –

to meaningful discussions. This guidebook started off with four questions:

• What determines the successful initiation, implementation and

roll-out/sustainability of multi-stakeholder initiatives with the

private sector?

• What success factors, barriers, determinants and pitfalls should

MSP facilitators be wary of?

• What theoretical frameworks, recommendations and good practice

experiences already exist?

• Can a simple, guiding framework be formulated to inform GIZ’s

future development cooperation endeavours?

These questions have opened up perspectives on MSPs from a variety of

viewpoints: from literature, from project managers in the field, and from

expert practitioners. The focus in the preceding chapters was specifically

on the process dynamics inherent to MSPs, with reference to theoretical

paradigms, methodologies and tools/techniques. The intention in these

chapters was to empower MSP project managers/facilitators, to optimise

the effectiveness and impact of the MSPs they have taken responsibility

for.

No attention was given, though, to the internal institutional processes

of GIZ CCPS in relation to MSP facilitation. When the preceding

chapters are read from this point of view, a number of issues seemingly

need to be managed at an institutional level, and these may be peculiar

to the GIZ CCPS environment. These observations, dealt with in

the remainder of this chapter, propose some reflections for further

consideration which could be instructive to other GIZ programmes.

Process map 113

An institutional framework for MSP facilitationAt the beginning of this guidebook, facilitation is defined as ‘referring to a broad application in which the process as a whole should be facilitative and every role – from project manager to professional facilitator – should contribute to the end result as a facilitated experience’. GIZ CCPS can, in this sense, thus be described as an institutional facilitator, with the role of overseeing the process from beginning to end.

The threefold coherence amongst theory, methodology and tools/techniques is, thus, also applicable to GIZ CCPS. The ideal is, therefore, that GIZ CCPS as institutional facilitator will not just oversee an MSP from a strategic and organisational point of view, but also from a theoretical and methodological viewpoint. One assumes that theoretical and methodological coherence will be maintained from project to project in the GIZ CCPS domain.

Some questions for critical reflection emerge from this assumption:

• Does GIZ CCPS have a preferred SLC paradigm, such as the U-Process (as described in chapter 5), that is compatible with its organisational mission and vision and guides the way in which it approaches MSPs? If the answer is ‘no’, then the question will be whether this guidebook can serve as a starting point in that direction. If the answer is ‘yes’, then one assumes such a paradigm will shape the way in which GIZ CCPS acts as an institutional facilitator, and that staff, partners and stakeholders will, as a consequence, also be aware of it. Then such a paradigm preference will not only determine the internal methodological approach to MSPs, but also institutional dimensions such as contractual and funding arrangements, the management of stakeholder relationships and the selection of project managers and facilitators. The question is: to what extent is this the case?

• To what extent does GIZ CCPS have a comprehensive methodological framework, derived from a preferred SLC paradigm, which serves as a roadmap for MSP facilitation, for example, as advocated in chapters 3 and 4? Capacity WORKS seems to be meant to fulfil this role, but indications are that project managers/facilitators find it difficult to translate the practical value thereof to the domain of MSP facilitation. What can GIZ CCPS do to assist them in this regard? Critical reflection and review of MSPs, as they develop and unfold, have often been advocated as essential disciplines in this guidebook. These steps should not only be taken from a project management point of view, but also from that of a learning theory and change management point of view.

114 Section 3

To what extent has this discipline grown to become an essential ingredient of the GIZ CCPS approach to MSP facilitation? How often does the institution set time aside for reflection and review, and for learning and adjustment?

• The human side of MSP facilitation was continuously emphasised by the contributors to this guidebook. This includes the relevance of contextual knowledge, the importance of relationships, the quality of communication, skills for leading people through learning and change, and effective conflict resolution. Capacity WORKS offers a rich collection of tools and techniques that can be applied to various aspects of MSP facilitation, but relatively little attention seems to be paid to the more human and interpersonal aspects of the process. How can this aspect be better attended to, and what might the potential impact be on the success of GIZ CCPS’s approach to the institutional and organisational side of MSP facilitation?

Operational dilemmas in MSP facilitationGIZ CCPS utilises an impact chain to monitor the outputs, outcomes and impacts of MSPs in terms of partnerships, for instance. While this framework is helpful for measuring progress and maintaining a sense of direction, common logic tells us about process breakdowns as a result of unexpected events, barriers to progress, or the misalignment of expectations. This observation leads to another category of questions needing further consideration at the GIZ CCPS institutional level:

• What happens when contractual arrangements with set timelines and deadlines are challenged by contextual realities, such as slower than expected progress on a specific process? It is true and valid to argue that contractual arrangements are necessary to ensure the legitimacy of an MSP, for securing the commitment

Members are, however, not very dedicated (they are not remunerated for their time and effort) and it is difficult to ensure meaningful participation. There is also little

continuity, as different representatives attend on behalf of the same organisation. Representatives often do not have any real decision-making powers and have to refer back to their organisations for any decisions to be made. (Marlett Balmer,

GIZ)

Process map 115

and contribution of all parties involved, and to empower a project manager with a mandate to get the job done. There is, however, the other side of the coin, namely that we have learned from interviewees and expert practitioners alike, that proper and sustainable stakeholder collaboration needs time to mature. There is, therefore, the possibility that an MSP may be formally and contractually completed, despite remaining incomplete as regards the requirements for continued collaboration or sustained implementation. To what extent does GIZ CCPS have a process in place to renegotiate the terms of a contract based on evidence that an MSP does not progress according to plan? How can allowance be made for some degree of freedom if the situation on the ground calls for it?

• The abovementioned dilemma can also present with the opposite scenario, namely that of a partner organisation not performing according to contract, for instance, by not being proactive in communicating and giving feedback, or not even following up on communication from GIZ CCPS. The partner is, therefore, effectively frustrating the process. This sort of situation has a demotivating impact on project managers and could foster conflict. What is GIZ CCPS’s way of dealing with such a situation? Is the preferred strategy one of ‘wait and see’ or continue to rely on sending repeated ‘friendly reminders’– which could be ineffective? Or is the preferred strategy a more proactive one, namely to provide for this scenario in the contracts, i.e. to specify contractually what processes will be applied and to act according to what was formally agreed on? Can other helping tools be used to enable smooth implementation on the part of the partners? These could, for instance, include frequently asked questions (and answers) to clarify commonly misunderstood contractual issues, ground-rules or codes of conduct on communication and reporting, etc.

• A third question that follows from the above is how to deal with a failed MSP. Does GIZ CCPS have a cut-off point at which to recognise, admit and accept the failure of an MSP? According to what criteria will such a situation be considered and adjudicated?

One of my most pressing issues involves negotiating with inflexible institutions and individuals in open forums.

(Gavin Watson, GIZ)

116 Section 3

How is it made possible for partners to accept the reality of the situation and to exit the process with dignity? What process does GIZ CCPS have in place to review, reflect and learn from failed MSPs?

This process versus contract conundrum is inevitable, but it also requires that agreements and processes be proactively put in place to empower GIZ CCPS as well as institutional partners and others, to deal with the situation as amicably and constructively as possible. On the contractual side of the equation, such an eventuality has to be foreseen; therefore the rules of engagement and fall-back mechanisms should be officially agreed on. On the process side it requires regular in-process review, to track progress, assess the status of institutional relationships, and the levels of on-going commitment.

Strategic considerations for the way forwardMSPs have become an important aspect of GIZ’s development strategy. The motivation for this approach has been made clear throughout this guidebook: we live in a globalised society, and we are faced with complex challenges of systemic proportions that demand an inclusive and collaborative approach to problem solving. It should, therefore, be encouraging for GIZ CCPS to read the following in the UN Global Compact Accenture CEO Study (2010: 14):

Across the board, the CEOs we spoke to confirmed that partnerships and collaboration (e.g., with suppliers, nongovernmental organizations, government agencies, etc.) are now a critical element of their approach to sustainability issues. Businesses realize that today’s global challenges are too broad and too complex to go it alone. Seventy-eight percent of CEOs believe that companies should engage in industry collaborations and multi-stakeholder partnerships to address development goals.

However, what follows immediately thereafter, may be less encouraging for GIZ CCPS:

Nevertheless, while CEOs believe civil society is an essential partner in tackling these issues, they believe non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are declining in their influence on corporate sustainability agendas. Just 15 percent of CEOs identified NGOs as one of the key stakeholders influencing their approach to sustainability, down 12 percent from 2007.

What does this mean for GIZ? Does it require an in-depth review of MSPs as a critical element of GIZ’s development strategy? Or does it require a different approach regarding whom GIZ prefers to enter into MSPs with? Is there perhaps the possibility that the position in developed

Process map 117

economies may be different from that in developing economies, and that the demand for GIZ’s involvement in sustainable development in the developing world, and in Africa in particular, will remain and even grow in the foreseeable future?

Is it time for a strategic and critical review of GIZ’s development philosophy, paradigm, methodology and techniques?

ReferenceLacy, P., T. Cooper, R. Hayward and L. Neuberger, 2010. A new era of

sustainability: UN Global Compact Accenture CEO study, 2010. Published by Accenture.

Abbreviations and acronyms

ACCA Association of Chartered Certified Accountants

AICC African Institute of Corporate Citizenship

APF Agri-ProFocus

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CCPS Centre for Cooperation with the Private Sector

CSR corporate social responsibility

CW Capacity WORKS

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

(GIZ) GmbH

GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit

(GTZ) GmbH

GRI Global Reporting Initiative

ICCO Inter-Church Organisation for Development Coordination

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IFDC International Fertilizer Development Center

MDG millennium development goal

MSP multi-stakeholder process

NGO non-governmental organisation

NPO non-profit organisation

PPPs public–private partnerships

SADC Southern African Development Community

SLC societal learning and change

SNV Stichting Nederlandse Vrijwilligers

TOR terms of reference

TPI The Partnering Initiative

UNGC United Nations Global Compact

WEF World Economic Forum

References and useful web links

References that were listed at the end of each chapter will not be repeated here. This list provides the MSP facilitator with additional references as helpful resources.

PublicationsGIZ does a great deal of its worldwide work through MSPs, and in particular in the form of partnerships. As a result, GIZ commissioned a number of MSP-relevant studies and acted as an important partner in certain others. The following list offers a collection of useful publications that can be read alongside this MSP guidebook.

• GTZ. 2008. Partnerships: an introduction to partnerships for sustainable development in South Africa.

• GTZ. 2010. The Partnering with Governments Navigator: building effective collaboration with the public sector in Africa.

• The UN Global Compact. 2005. Enabling economies of peace: public policy for conflict-sensitive business. www.unglobalcompact.org

• The International Business Leaders Forum. 2003. The case study toolbook. www.thepartneringinitiative.org

CCPS partnership portalsDuring the course of its existence, CCPS initiated a number of partnerships in which the application of MSP facilitation played a prominent role. Seven instances of partnership are listed on http://www.ccps-africa.org/

• Africa leads

• Business and food security in Africa

• Business combating corruption in Africa

• Business for water sustainability

References and useful web links 121

• Corporate social responsibility in Africa

• Financial wellness forum

• Partnering with governments

Apart from the case study value obtained from reading about these partnerships, the work forthcoming from two of them has been transposed into resource kits, namely the Financial wellness forum and Business and combating corruption in Africa. These resource kits can be found on the following URLs:

• Anti-corruption resource kit: http://www.ccps-africa.org/actoolkit/

• Financial wellness toolkit: http://financialwellnesstoolkit.ccps-africa.org/

Partnership is a by now well-established practice, and consequently also the topic of a number of publications and research studies. The CCPS’s Partnering with governments portal (http://partneringwithgovernments.ccps-africa.org/) provides some useful information.

On the CCPS website (http://www.ccps-africa.org/DOCUMENTCENTRE/tabid/739/Default.aspx), there is a rubric titled Reports & publications, under which there is a Corporate responsibility forum Liberia workshop report. This report is insightful from a process facilitation point of view.

Other websitesTwo highly recommended websites pertaining to this guidebook in particular, are:

• www.thepartneringinitiative.org (a very valuable resource on partnerships);

• http://portals.wi.wur.nl/msp/ (a very informative, practical resource for MSP facilitation).

Notes on contributors

ARNOLD SMIT

Dr Arnold Smit is the Executive of the Centre for Business in Society at

the University of Stellenbosch Business School – Executive Development

Ltd. The centre supports companies with their corporate responsibility

and sustainable development agendas, and builds the capacity of NPOs

to become more effective and sustainable. Dr Smit’s main interests are in

the areas of change management, leadership development and corporate

responsibility.

Contact details: +27 21 918-4404; +27 83 301-8713;

[email protected]

DARIAN STIBBE

Dr Darian Stibbe is the Director of The Partnering Initiative (TPI), the

global programme of the International Business Leaders Forum, which

aims to drive effective cross-sectoral collaboration for a sustainable future.

Darian has been working on cross-sector partnership for over a decade,

specialising in the public sector: helping governments, donors and UN

agencies to engage and collaborate more effectively with other sectors

– principally business. He directed the ‘Partnering with Governments’

programme, a joint project with GIZ, to explore how to build more

effective collaboration with governments in Africa, resulting in the

‘Partnering with Governments Navigator’. He has worked extensively

with organisations from all sectors in developing strategy and building

capacity for partnering.

Prior to discovering partnering he was a quantum physicist, firstly as

a NASA scientist and then as a Marie-Curie Fellow at the University of

Paris. For further information, see: www.thepartneringinitiative.org;

[email protected]

Notes on contributors 123

DOUGLAS KATIVU

Douglas Kativu is the Executive Director of the African Institute of Corporate Citizenship (AICC). Prior to his appointment to the position of Director, Douglas served in the capacity of Regional Programme Manager with advocacy, multi-stakeholder engagement, partnership building, training and capacity building responsibilities on AICC projects. The projects were mainly aimed at promoting good governance, ethics management and anti-corruption, business and human rights, environmental management and climate change, and value-chain partnerships in Botswana, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Zimbabwe and South Africa. Douglas is a member of the GRI Stakeholder Council, was an expert on the ISO 26000 Social Responsibility Working Group, is a member of the steering committee of the Agribusiness Accountability Network Africa Forum, and sat on the judging panel of the ACCA (South Africa) Sustainability Awards for 2008 and 2009.

Douglas joined the AICC in 2006 from Environment Africa, where he was a Programme Manager for five years. During this period he served on the environmental and technical committees of the Business Council for Sustainable Development Zimbabwe, the Confederation of Zimbabwean Industries and the Standards Association of Zimbabwe. He was the Country Representative for the Air Pollution Information Network Africa from 2005–2008, National Coordinator for the Community-Based Sanitation and Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems Initiative for SADC countries, and a member of the Southern Africa Network for Training and Research on the Environment.

Douglas holds a Master’s degree in Environmental Policy and Planning and a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Physics in which he researched renewable energy. Douglas has professional qualifications in ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 management systems.

JIM WOODHILL

Dr Jim Woodhill is Director of the Centre for Development Innovation at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. For over 20 years he has worked on the challenges of rural development and natural resources management, with a particular focus on innovation and learning processes. Jim is a highly experienced facilitator and trainer, having worked with MSPs in many different cultural settings. Originally from

124 Notes on contributors

Australia, Jim holds a PhD in political economics from the Australian National University and has a keen interest in the dynamics between globalisation and local economic development.

VANESSA SAyERS

Vanessa Sayers is an Associate in the Johannesburg office of Reos Partners. She is currently working with business, government and non-profit partners on projects focused on food security, partnerships between business and government, and climate change.

Vanessa has a diverse educational and professional background. Beginning life in the UK, she obtained her undergraduate degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics from Oxford (1990) and a Master’s in Public Administration from the Harvard Kennedy School (1998).

In the years between degrees she lived and worked in the Netherlands and Ethiopia, focusing on multi-stakeholder rehabilitation, development, and civil society promotion programmes driven by local actors. There she saw the power and the need for processes designed to address what local people identify as their priorities.

After her Master’s, Vanessa moved into the private sector to join McKinsey and Co. as an associate, and worked on a variety of strategic client engagements in telecommunications, mining, media and finance. In 2001 she joined FirstRand Group, a major South African financial services company, to design new approaches to financing previously disadvantaged entrepreneurs and later to promote sustainable business practices across the group.

Her experience in these very different worlds revealed the challenges of trying to create change in large complex systems of all kinds, and the need for approaches that directly address systemic issues. This, coupled with a decades-long personal journey to seek a holistic approach to work and life – bringing both left- and right-brain perspectives to bear – brought her to Reos.

Vanessa lives off the grid on a farm in the Magaliesberg Mountains near Johannesburg. She is a meditation practitioner who loves to read – particularly philosophy.

Publisher’s note - MSP Guide€¦ · Section 1: MSP essentials and challenges 9 Chapter 1: MSP...

Documents

Transcript of Publisher’s note - MSP Guide€¦ · Section 1: MSP essentials and challenges 9 Chapter 1: MSP...