Strengthening Latin American NGOs in ICTs
strategic use.
Lessons Learned and
Recommendations, from Evaluating projects funded under the IDRC program
"Capacity Development for Internet Use in LAC"
By Yacine Khelladi yacine@yacine.net
27/11/01 © 2001-2002
Thanks to Katherine Reilly for proofreading my
Spanglish
During the last 2 years (1999-2001), the Canadian International
Development Research Centre (IDRC) “has
supported small capacity-building training and networking activities by
selected researchers and institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean”
through the Capacity Development in Internet use (CAPDEV) program. “The project was a response to the increasing accessibility of information and
communication technologies (ICTs) by previously marginalized sectors of
society…Priority was given to requests that involved collaborative networks,
grassroots participation, innovative experimentation with Internet resources
and uses, potential for future collaboration in regional networking (PAN)
projects, and links with other IDRC-supported activities”
1.1. Capacity building in ICT use must
not be viewed as just adding/acquiring new resources.
1.2. Capacity building is a long process,
from adoption to strategic use and appropriation;
1.4. Learn to Learn Lessons Learned and to systematize your experiences
1.6. Is small beautiful or big too big
for small grants?
1.8. Impact of ICT capacity building on gender
variables is not yet understood.
2. Recommendations
for the granting agency:9
2.1. Create mechanisms to accompany and
support the capacity development processes.
2.2. Develop methodological tools for
grantee self help
2.3. Develop better analysis/lecture
grids for project proposal prior to granting
2.4. Produce specific research on gender
and ICT capacity building
2.5. Enable real lessons sharing and
promote systematization
Annex 1 On
new Methodological elements since the last paper12
The author was contracted to asses the program and among other internal
issues, to evaluate:
(a) the impact of each project in terms
of: the beneficiary organization's ability to efficiently achieve general goals
and/or particular projects; the working efficiency of the beneficiary,
including involved professionals, researchers or development workers; and other
development activities at the national or regional level;
(b) the lessons learned in the process.
In general terms the assessment demonstrated the usefulness of the
program to strengthen, with a relatively low investment, a large number of
development organizations and networks, and to promote creativity and
innovative applications/solutions in the use of ICTs for social
development. Of course, not all grants have produced the same level of impact, but
some of the projects have been very significative , in terms of developing the
capacity of organizations and networks to reach their social objectives and
widen their range of impact
Most seeds have become flowers - organizations and networks that have
adopted Internet use and become more
efficient. Others have
become lovely trees - institutions, projects or programs that are being structurally transformed, with significant
prospects for impacts on specific social situations. Of course in many cases those processes will continue for
months or years, and have not yet product realized their full impact. Also new approaches
and applications have emerged as in the cases of educational research and local media networking, In a
particular case the grant played a vital role in saving an organization
struggling to continue its social mission in very difficult context
Some of these impacts go beyond the grant objectives, as when they were
inserted in broader processes or when they reinforced existing network
synergies. And also some impacts occurred were not expected, when at the margin
of the recipient institution, an endogenous processes have occurred,
reinforcing the capacity of groups other than the expected, or, creating new –
non planned- network dynamics (as in Oaxaca, Mexico).
The two and a half years long follow up shows up that many of these
very interesting social and institutional processes and projects would not have
taken place without access to the type of financial support provided by CAPDEV, and therefore, that
has therefore demonstrated its great usefulness.
As of gender impact within the institutions, even though most of the
projects were conducted by organizations which are aware of the importance of a
gender perspective (some even being women organizations, as in Brasil and
Chile), and, even though most made efforts to include women equally in their
training and planning, we consider that a
gender perspective was not effectively integrated into the
projects. There was a lack of
concerted efforts to produce gender sensitive training modules, specific
applications or methods to reduce gender inequality both internally and
externally, or to address private and public power relations. There is here an
entire field of research to be explored. In the following section on lessons
learned, some of the possible fields of questioning are proposed.
Participation or
civil society strengthening;
In general, all of the projects have helped the spreading innovative ICT use among civil society
organizations. But six of the projects have directly aimed at enhancing the
capacity of civil society and/or grassroots networks to participate in specific
social processes. Most of these
have truly amplified the reach of the organization’s concerns in their
societies, as in the cases of the Peruvian Ashaninka and Oaxaca (Mexico)
indigenous organizations network, Central American NGOs for post hurricane
Mitch reconstruction, or the Uruguayan community organizations network.
Nonetheless, in many cases, we found evidence that impacts could have been much more structurally significant and sustained –
impacts on the institution, network or application, on the ability of
organizations to affect social development, on civil society strengthening, on
reduction of gender inequality, etc.
As is described in the following section on lessons learned and
recommendations, there is a need for: more specific and permanent
methodological support in strategic planning; sustainability strategies; the
inclusion of gender sensitive methods and social vision in the design of
organizational ICT integration and the training modules; and a self evaluation
in the assessment of internal and external impacts.
To be relevant and effective, capacity
development has to be much more than just
training staff and acquiring new
resources or facilities (computers, software, connectivity).
For a meaningful impact, ICTs can and should
be integrated in organizational
activities, administration, activities (production) tasks and processes,
learning and training, and in particular, communications and information use
(access/diffusion, internal/external).
This can lead to a much improved use of available resources, through
networking and public exposure, allow new internal and external networks, much
more and direct learning and research, increase efficacy in delivering products
and services, boost internal communication - in a word, radically transform the
institution and its capacity to achieve its goals. [1]
The process of capacity building of ICTs in
development organizations for a social impact, is a long and time consuming process that needs too be better understood.
According to this assessment results, and
adopting categories systematized by Kemly Camacho a researcher of Fundación
Acceso (La Internet, un
gran desafío http://www.acceso.or.cr/publica/grandesafio.shtml), we can present
the process in three steps as described in the following table:
|
Steps |
Process
|
|
Adoption
(step A) Connecting and Firsts Steps. |
Getting connectivity, training, learning, setting user support,
hardware, software, organizing access to resources,
etc, |
|
Strategic
use (Step B) Results in more efficiency in projects, Begin of
structural impact |
Integrating the use of ICT in the organizations tasks, automation,
speed, systematization, etc.; adapting structures and processes. as in decision making, and working
procedures etc |
|
Appropriation (Step C) Structural Change Completed And New Organizational Paradigm |
Creating new knowledge, new processes, new products or services, etc. |
Effectively adopting the Internet (step A) can lead to a significant
change in efficiency in the institution (the impact could also be negative in
this sense) . However, structural
change within organizations, that will potentially multiply the impact of the
institution activities, occurs when step B is completed, when research,
learning, services, communications, administration, etc, have been transformed
through the integration of ICTs.
We can see from the CAPDEV projects that this
process may require more time than was expected - to assimilate, adjust,
integrate - and that resources must be allocated to sustain these processes.
The process is not necessarily linear, - step
A “training”, step B “integrating ICT use in tasks”. Activities can be developed together, and this type of
strategic consideration needs to be envisioned in order to ensure the impact of
capacity building efforts.
However, envisioning step C results without thinking through and
assembling steps A and/or B can lead to bad results. Results are much more
positive when current activities are first strengthened so that the tools can
be used to develop and apply new knowledge.
Also we learned that projects have to take
into account the organization’s or community’s timeframe, and build a process
with an adapted pace, that is certainly not as fast as the internet evolution,
and that may not necessarily correspond to project’s grant timelines.
The most impressive CAPDEV results were
obtained when the integration of ICTs corresponded with a process of review
that considered the organization’s situation, installed capacity, objectives
and strategies to reach its social objectives. Small seed grants for capacity development can contribute to
institutional transformation and generate greater social impact if the
institution first, or in parallel, clearly responds to questions such as: who
we are?, what do we have? what is our agenda? why do we work? what is our
actual and possible capacity? A
process of deep analysis is needed, which eventually revisits the institution’s mission, values, goals, and strategies;
and which reflects on how available and possible resources could be mobilized
to better attain those goals given ICTs use.
When this analysis and creative process is not realized, Internet capacity
development is unsustainable or very limited compared to its potential.
So, only the construction of an institutional strategic plan will
facilitate the correct envisioning and
planning of the ICT integration process, and allocate the required
resources (human, financial, etc) to achieving a sustainable process.
Even where the impetus for ICT integration
results from an external requirement (a project, a granting agency, external
assessment), only deep analysis and careful planning can adapt existing resources, maximize internal synergies
and scale advantages. And when external resources are scare, this
process will set priorities and identify
critical elements in the organization’s integration of ICTs.
Unfortunately the assessment found that
almost none of the CAPDEV projects realized this type of planning and are
therefore we found that they are now struggling to find external resources to
sustain their ICT integration processes.
Only one organization realized such a
process, and, with the help of a professional trained in strategic planning,
produced a clear vision and an institutional project for the integration of
ICTs. Hopefully this plan will be
implemented. The results of this particular project also suggested that this
process of strategic planning must develop a systemic and non-linear (holistic,
in terms of organizational transformation) form of thinking.
We also learned such complex processes, often
including institutional strategy, demand professional
and methodological support in the process of strategic planning for
ICT integration.
Understating the potential and the
particularities of the ICT integration process is a relatively new, but already
experimented, area of knowledge, we believe that there are many elements that
can be learned from compiling the lessons or evaluations produced by similar
processes or organizations. We know that there is a large amount of data available,
through Web sites, books, data bases, homologues, personal stories, etc.
Nonetheless we found that most of the CAPDEV
projects did not consider other similar experiences, stories or
research results. We then asked: why aren’t
organizations using the existing databases of learned lessons?
CAPDEV recipients responded as follows::
(a)
did not know were/how to search, as nobody directed them (or they did
not ask the right person)
(b)
did not realize the complexity of the process and
therefore did not feel the need of searching answers
(c)
felt that the lessons they found did not fit their
needs (for example too much theory, or cases of big/wealthy organizations)
On the other hand very few of the CAPDEV experiences have been systematized in a way that
other organizations, entering similar processes, can use to learn from and build upon.
Training in basic internet tools (software or
functions as email, navigation, etc) is much more efficient if there is:
·
an introduction or an awareness
building activity that addresses the social, developmental and
cultural aspects and impacts of the Internet,
·
meaning/sense building to its use in concordance with the
organization and individual perspective and goals,
·
help in understanding the pros and
cons of the adoption/appropriation process, putting in perspective
the advantages and the necessary start-up investment.
Much resistance
to the use of modern technologies can be lowered, and enthusiasm gained, when the impacts of the use of
ICTs at the personal, local, institutional, and social levels, are aligned with
individual perceptions, establishing connections with personal beliefs and
motivational systems.
Not all of the CAPDEV projects integrated
this vision in their training, resulting in additional internal obstacles to
sustaining the process. The integration of these perspectives, given a clear
vision of the advantages and risks of ICT adoption, is a way to sustain the
process and ensure the support of stakeholders.
It is also important that an organization’s
decision makers, leaders and coordinators be aware of the implications, future
benefits, and necessary inputs, of successful ICT integration.
Another way of ensuring the positive attitude
of organization members is to organize a participatory planning process, were
all can provide inputs into the strategic plan.
At a certain
point, when considering the capacity building progresses of the different
recipients, we were inclined to think that small organizations were much more
proactive, effective and creative in integrating ICTs and generating innovative
uses or processes.
But after
considering the previous points, about the necessity of conducting a process of
participatory strategic planning, awareness building and vision sharing,
careful resource allocation for sustainability, etc., we came to understand that
the grant volume and efforts undertaken
within bigger organization were not adequate. Larger organizations
would need to apply more effort, more time and more resources to build an
institutional plan and involve all their members in a common and conscious
transformation process.
Smaller
organizations, with fewer people to consult, fewer activities and structures to
adapt, can even use informal internal exchanges to develop their integration
strategy.
Thus the size of the institution matters, in regard to the
grant amounts .
As most did not integrate the CAPDEV
activities within a broader framework, very few of the recipients connected
their results or outputs with institutional needs and programs. This explains
why some of the capacity building processes were left uncompleted after the
grant objectives were achieved (x computers installed, x persons assisted to a
training). It is a consequence of the lack of strategic planning for ICT
integration.
We believe that institutional learning for
progress can only occur when a participatory assessment connects activity results with people,
programs, projects and institutional needs
and plans. When “learning” occurs to satisfy grant deliverables, it
does not empower the organization.
The definition of an evaluation or self-assessment
framework (what, how, who and when) should be part of the strategic planning process, which is participatory
and includes vision-sharing processes.
Two grantees were women’s groups, and some
others have integrated a gender perspective into their projects and
activities. However, we believe
that the equitable inclusion of women in training activities is not sufficient
for achieving progress towards gender equality, considering the structural
change opportunity given by the ICT capacity development process.
For instance, we received negative responses
to most of the following questions/indicators:
·
What about institutional strategic planning? Were women equally integrated in the process? Were their
specific concerns taken into account?
·
Was the option of female only groups in training considered?
·
What about the design of new ICT enabled work processes and
decision-making structures? Were they designed to reduce the inequality in
power relations, both within the institution and in the outer world?
·
After the change, who controls access to technology? Who is empowered to
change or innovate? Who (gender) are gatekeepers?
·
Were the symbols, references, analogies images and stereotypes used in
the training oriented towards empowering women? Did male trainers avoid male
domination in courses by avoiding excessive "techie" language, which
tends to intimidate other learners?
·
Were, when it was the case, female trainers chosen because their gender,
and prepared specific gender sensitive materials or activities?
·
Was equal participation of men and women sought? Were men encouraged to ask questions
(instead of making "expert" statements) and were women encouraged to
ask questions (instead of remaining silent)? Or when working in pairs, were
male-female groupings avoided, since men tend to take over mouse and keyboard,
while women sit and watch?
Most of the concerns raised by those
questions were not considered in capacity building planning or processes.
That is why we believe that integrating a real gender perspective into ICT enabled
organizational transformations is still an unexplored and
potentially rich field of research.
We have found the small grants project to be extremely useful in terms of strengthening, with a
relatively low investment, a large number of development organizations and
networks, and promoting creativity and innovative applications/solutions in ICT use for social
development. But we also found evidence that impacts could have been much more structurally significant and sustained.
The following recommendations try to address this concern.
A support mechanism should be created, so
that the grant recipients receive permanent support in their capacity building
processes, ensuring that maximum benefit is obtained from the grant and from
the ICT integration process.
Support should begin at the project
definition phase and should be directed at helping the grantee to locate and
understand experiences and lessons, better their project proposal, implement
strategic planning processes, carrying out assessment and evaluation,
envisioning alternatives or creating solutions, etc.
This support may come from persons or
institutions different from the grant maker so it is not perceived as a formal
requirement. Eventually this role could be taken on by peers or previous
grantees, or local not for profit groups specialized in institutional strategy
building and ICTs. It might be preferable to choose a local, national, or
sub-regional group, that knows the local conditions and possibilities, possible
obstacles, services, resources or solutions available. It could also could be a
(jump?) team of experts (planning, evaluation, connectivity and technology,
training, sustainability).
This mechanism should at the same time
monitor the projects and answer to their needs and find solutions to problems. A sort of cocooning…
A body of knowledge, techniques and methods
should be established for the grant recipients which addresses:
·
strategic planning and ICT integration, including conducting
institutional assessment
·
awareness building and participatory integration in ICT diffusion;
·
the integration of a social vision in the training
·
training for meaningful use of the Internet
·
self evaluation and monitoring which responds to institutional needs and
goals, not the granting institution’s needs
·
technological solutions updates
Research should be conducted to build a
analysis framework that would:
·
Establish to which step of the internet integration process the project
proposal/ innovative product services corresponds (and thus if contemplated
activities and strategies are adapted to it);
·
assess if all sustainability parameters are included, as the relationship
between the size of the organization making the proposal, the effort/resources
required, and the grant amount;
·
check that all other factors (see lessons learned) which could
contribute to maximizing the investment outputs, are considered.
How can we use the opportunity of ICT
capacity building, and the specific characteristics of ICTs, to enable new
structures and relationships within organizations and within their environment?
Results should be practical tools,
guidelines, check lists, gender impact assessment methods, and ICT training
modules, which are more gender sensitive and which respond to this question.
Research on capacity building in ICT use for
development should be directed at the question of how “lessons learned” can be
effectively transferred to others, and not become lost in unused data bases.
Research focused on better systematization of experiences should create:
·
Mechanisms to ensure that previously learned lessons, that currently
exist in may different databases and formats, are effectively taken into
account, examined and valuated, when institutions decide to pursue a similar
strategic change process
·
Mechanisms to provide guidelines for the systematization of project
experiences in a sharable format as methods for producing stories, traducing
self-assessment in lessons, etc.
All the elements
(framework, research question, variables and indicators, tools) in the previous
version are described online at the CAPDEV evaluation web site http://yacine.net/perso/CAPDEV that
is password protected, also a description is freely accessible on line on the
IDRC web within a paper presented at the PanLac meeting in September 2000.
Tree years ago, we formulated the following
research questions, which respond to the research objectives of a)
defining/measuring impacts on institutional capacity and the provision of
research/development service/products, and b) the capacity development small
grants program:
1. if there is an integration of ICTs
and positives changes in the different areas of the beneficiary institutions.
(learning and training, services and production, project management,
administration, communication - both internal and external, etc.)
2. Changes in the visibility and
external relations (with stakeholders, including object populations) of the
institution
3. if the capacity of the individuals/members of the organization had
bettered their efficiency, quality, and effectiveness because of the use of the
new tools
4. If the small grant had enabled the
execution or design of bigger project, or bettered the execution of an existing
one.
We feel that the methodological framework we
built at that time was beyond the then current understanding of capacity
building with ICTs, which tended to be limited to counting connectivity
variables (time of use, amounts, number of computers, lines, kilobits
exchanged, etc.).
But since that time, the region has produced
several research activities related to ICTs impact evaluation, which enriched
our conceptual tools, such as EVALTICA (IDRC evaluation framework design),
MISTICA (ICT Social Impact Network), TELELAC evaluation component (LAC
telecentres network), and work of Fundación Acceso on evaluating the adoption
of Internet by Central American CSOs.
Fundación Acesso’s research work on the
adoption of Internet by Central American CSOs, headed by Kemly Camacho,
produced an interesting set of categories to explain the process of Internet
integration in an NGO:
1 - The access to the internet: as
connectivity, training, learning curve, etc.
2 - The strategic use of Internet: as
organizational transformation of processes, structure, decision making, working
procedures etc.
3 - The social/organizational empowerment of
the Internet use: new or better services/products, organizational networks, new
relations with the stakeholders, etc.
This model helped us to understand what was
implicit in our framework. Now, we
can relate our research questions transversally and better understand, how the
model presented by Camacho can help us answer our questions. We mean looking at
our questions over Camacho’s categories:
|
Our questions |
Correspondence to Camacho’s categories |
|
1. if there is an integration of ICTs
and positives changes in the different areas of the beneficiary institutions:
(learning and training, services and production, project management,
administration, communication - both internal and external, etc.) |
the process from A to B |
|
2. Changes in the visibility and
external relations of the institution |
this more an impact of B à C
(B: using it as an tool for communication to C networks and relations
with stakeholders) |
|
3.
If the capacity of the individuals/members of the organization had
bettered their efficiency, quality, and effectiveness because of the use of
the new tools |
individuals go though A à B à C (connect, learn, change their
way of work, new processes, etc.) |
|
4. If the small grant had enabled the
execution or design of bigger project, or bettered the execution of an
existing one. |
from B à C |
So now we can set a new classification of
CAPDEV projects regarding Camacho’s categories
|
Project |
objectives of the project |
|
(1) ISIS- Internacional Chile |
A and some B |
|
(2) SAKS – Haití |
A |
|
(4) RED Mulher – Brasil |
A and some B |
|
(3) Comunidad Ashanínka PERU |
A and looking to C |
|
(5) Bellas Artes de Ocaña - Colombia - |
B without A + innovative application |
|
(6) Red para la Paz Colombia Fundación Multicolor |
A / C |
|
(7) Colnodo Colombia |
reinforcing A for C |
|
(8) Desafíos Nicaragua |
A |
|
(9) Alforja Centro América |
impact application B |
|
(10) Transparencia Perú |
A and C |
|
(12) Puntos de Encuentro (nica) |
A |
|
(13) Binigulazaa Oaxaca – México |
A and C |
|
(14) GPDR _ Uruguay |
A and some B |
|
(15) La Calera (Colombia) |
A some B |
|
(16) Incorpore Costa Rica |
A AND B some C |
An emerging question is whether capacity
development in NGOs has proceeded through all the required levels. For example,
in going from A (connectivity) to B (strategic use) does the institution need
to go through all the different aspects of connectivity: equipment,
connectivity, training, user support, etc., or can it develop in both levels at
the same time, integrate while developing training, and even innovate and
create new knowledge. What is the relationship and the dynamic equilibrium, if
one exists, in the learning process?
[1] Some Excerpts on the net :
“Donors and international
NGOs have often understood it to be simply training in accountancy and
financial management. What do the clients -southern NGOs - want and expect to
develop capacity?” In article NGOs and
capacity building: for what and for whom?:
http://www.id21.org/society/s8crj1g1.html
“Building the capacity of
a community or local organization is much more than ensuring it has resources
and inputs.” In ICT
capacity development issues by: Simon Batchelor
http://www.capacity.org/ict/editorial1.html