UN-NGLS Publications: Development Dossier

No one really seems to know where the phrase "capacity building" originated. Certainly its use has become ubiquitous in the development sector; it is upon you before you know it, and it seems to spring from all directions at once. "Capacity building" is used by Northern development organisations and donors when looking at their Southern "partners"; but the term is used also in the South itself, when non-governmental organisations (NGOs) try to address their own needs and constraints. (It is worth noting that it is only very recently being used by a limited number of Northern organisations about themselves.) What we may mean by capacity building might depend on whether we use the term as a Northern or as a Southern organisation; it might depend on whether we use the term with reference to others or to ourselves. And it will depend on how we see development organisations in terms of their value-in other words, capacity building for what?

From these considerations, two possible angles on capacity building immediately present themselves. The first angle takes its cue from the fact that Northern donors, and even Northern "operational" NGOs, often view their Southern "partners" as local delivery vehicles for plans and policies which are developed in the North. Within this perspective, the concept of capacity building is used by Northerners towards Southerners, with reference to others rather than to themselves, and within a context which sees Southern development organisations as local implementing agents for Northern policies. In this sense, capacity largely refers to the "absorption capacity" of Southern organisations; in other words, the donation of money by Northern donors is limited by the capacity of Southern organisations to effectively use that money, and be accountable for its use.

Thus capacity here refers to the ability of organisations to implement and manage projects, to exercise financial and product accountability as per Northern specifications, to employ and train staff competent to undertake specific tasks, and to report on their work in ways which are acceptable to their donors. In other words, capacity refers to the ability to deliver specified projects timeously and cost effectively. This may read as an extreme characterisation, and indeed there are many gradations, but the gist remains-capacity is the ability to deliver specified products, often according to others' specifications.

The second angle starts from a contrary position-although it remains influenced and affected by the first. In this scenario, Southern development organisations (together with their more "alternative" or "progressive" Northern counterparts) view themselves as important and viable "organs of civil society", players whose role is to work towards social transformation, towards redress, towards a better deal for the marginalised, towards poverty alleviation and towards parity with respect to the dynamics of power. As such, here we are really talking about building robust and sustainable organisations which are capable of sovereign focus and direction, of strategising and innovation, of responding with flexibility and adaptability to changing circumstances, and of acting decisively to impact on, and change, their circumstances and social context.

This is a more recent appreciation of capacity, and is in line with current organisational thinking and literature about effective and sustainable organisations. In this version of capacity, Southern organisations are viewed as autonomous entities which engage actively and independently with both their own societies and with their Northern counterparts. According to this understanding both Southern and Northern development organisations, towards themselves and towards each other, are intent on building the capacity to organise themselves for different strategies, and for the long haul, rather than the capacity to perform a particular task at a specific time.

These two different scenarios have been raised here in order to clarify that we are concerned with the second, broader angle on capacity. Capacity then, in this sense, refers to the ability of an organisation to function as a resilient, strategic and autonomous entity. The emphasis is on the capacity to organise, rather than to carry out a particular task (particularly according to others' specifications), although clearly this latter ability forms an important subset of organisational capacity. This distinction creates a major break with the majority of capacity building interventions of the past-for example, the emphasis on training. We will return to this "break" below.

Over the years many different models or images of organisations have been generated, as more and more people have grappled with the tensions, potentials and anomalies of organisational life. We view the organisation as an open system comprising a number of different features; each of these features in themselves, as well as the dynamic and harmony of the relationships between them, is relevant and vital to organisational capacity.

The organisation is open in the sense that, while it has boundaries, these boundaries are porous, with the result that contextual influences pervade and invade the system, ensuring continued growth and demanding adaptability. Each organisation is an entity in itself, but not entirely; it interacts with its environment, it affects and is affected by that environment. It is one entity among many, and its specific identity is a combination of its own internal integrity and its relationship with others. The continued growth, and the continued life of the organisation, depend largely on its interaction with its ever-changing context and environment. Without such interaction the organisation-as with a biological organism-would soon become dormant and cease to function.

The organisation is a system in that it is greater than the sum of its parts, and in fact the parts themselves are only identifiable in relation to each other. In other words, while there are various features of organisational life which may be separated out, nevertheless these component parts are continuously interacting and relating to each other. The parts affect, and are affected by, each other. It is out of the relationship between these parts that organisation, as such, arises.

To use a concept central to the new sciences, organisation emerges out of the interaction of its component parts as a form of greater complexity than any one of those parts. In attempting to understand the system, we must look to the whole, rather than reduce our understanding to the component parts. Our tendency, generated by a Newtonian or Cartesian view of the world, is towards analysis, towards gaining understanding through reduction of phenomena to their component parts; but this way of thinking has been found to be insufficient for considering complex systems.

Rather than reduction, instead of studying parts and hoping thereby to capture the whole, we need to generate a picture of the whole through exploring the relationships between the various parts, because it is through these relationships that the complexity of the whole emerges. Fritjof Capra writes, "The emphasis on the parts has been called mechanistic, reductionist, or atomistic; the emphasis on the whole holistic, organismic, or ecological....In twentieth-century science the holistic perspective has become known as 'systemic' and the way of thinking it implies as 'systems thinking'." [Footnote 3: Capra, F. (1996), The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter, Harper Collins, Great Britain.]

Before looking, then, at the component features of organisational life, we will first attempt to describe a picture of the capacitated organisation. We will then look at specific features, and especially the relationships between them, to understand how the whole (capacitated organisation) emerges from the parts.

In all the work which we ourselves have done with organisations, in all the research we have done, the same points keep arising as regards the organisation with capacity. That organisation is directed and focused; that is, it has a clear sense of its own identity in terms of its own strengths as well as in terms of its intended impact in its relationships with others and with its context. It focuses on its sources of inspiration. It is able to strategise and to prioritise, and it is able to adapt its strategies with flexibility and foresight. It does not complain about the many unfavourable external conditions which impact on it, but rather takes full responsibility for its own circumstances and believes that it can impact and affect those circumstances. It is self-critical and self-reflective, attributing any problems it may have to its own lack of strategic coherence, or management competence, or focused vision, or evaluative stance, rather than on outside factors beyond its own control. It concentrates on what it can do, rather than lamenting what it cannot do. It takes the time to learn from its successes and failures. It takes the time to understand itself, to evaluate honestly, to become aware of its strengths and weaknesses, to hone its methodology and sharpen its strategic edge, rather than spending all its time on constant activity in the field. It takes the time to develop its staff; not simply to ensure that they are trained, but to encourage them to develop inner resourcefulness, creativity and a self-critical appreciation of their organisation's practice-and it rewards such creativity and self-critique.

It concentrates, then, on developing a kind of robust capability, rather than relying on the setting up of organisational structures and procedures, the securing of material resources, or the specific skills of staff. Of course these latter elements are of vital importance, and organisations which are badly structured or which are unstructured, which lack adequate and appropriate organisational procedures, which lack material resources and skilled staff, can hardly be said to be capacitated. Organisations which lack these latter elements will fail; but the point we are trying to make here stands. It is essential that an organisation is well-managed and well-resourced, but too many organisations regard these elements as sufficient, and as the departure point for capacity. On the contrary, all our work has shown that the departure point for capacity, given the volatile and ever-changing reality with which organisations interact and which they are trying to affect, lies in the ability to learn and focus, to adapt and respond, to move and change and develop, to harness creativity and innovation, to motivate and inspire its members, to achieve resilience and flexibility. It is a relentless quest for quality and self-awareness which enables organisations, rather than an emphasis on securing quantifiable indicators of organisational functioning.

This is a broad, idealised, over-generalised, picture of the capacitated organisation. In order to delve further, we turn now to the specific features of organisations which herald capacity-in other words we turn from the whole to the parts-after which we will return to the relationships between these parts in order to ascertain what such an analysis really means for an appreciation of capacity.