MLD 102: 2014 Class 10, October 6, 2014

PDIA: Principles to get things done (and out of the big stuck) Matt Andrews Harvard Kennedy School

So far

• • •

We have gaps in many development interventions

– Where implementation does not happen – De jure is better then de facto – Concentrated is better than deconcentrated, etc.

We have many strategies/tools to close these gaps

– Both policies and management mechanisms • Management tools: Mostly classical administrative and NPM

But the gaps fester, despite the tools

– Largely because of capability traps • Organizations/governments are in a Big Stuck • Chasing external answers that give external legitimacy – Good, better and best practice policies and management solutions – That often fail to offer real solutions and improved functionality – Because they are beyond abilities (external load bearing) or are adopted simply for external support (isomorphic mimicry)

The Big Stuck as I see it: Too much development =isomorphic mimics or effervescent bubbles

External legitimacy (maintaining External support By complying with Procese agendas) Zombeta…assuming functionality will follow?

But no improvement in functionality…so A mimic without results Nomburo…assuming legitimacy will follow?

Where we start But no legitimacy: effervescent bubble Functionality (achieving goals with the right people and participation)

So…what’s next? Today’s class

• • • How do you get out of a Big Stuck?

Let’s consider the two experiences of policy and management reform in the case reading – Malaysia and Burkina Faso Discuss your answers to the following table in your teams: Malaysia Burkina Faso How is it successful? What drives change? How does the change process work? Who drives change?

How is it successful? What drives change? How does the change process work? Who drives change? Malaysia Burkina Faso Looks good. External legitimacy at first…but not much more External answer introduced by narrow profession Looks strange, limited, but much quick progress, with functional results,

strategy we call

much to build on. (i) Start with problems, Internal problem that (ii) Iterate with experiments, gets unpacked and (iii) Building authority and Introduce external answer and expect implementation, use, and roll out Narrow group works, build authority, diffuse, try more (through functionality) Broad, expanding group

PDIA: Basic principles in a picture

External legitimacy (maintaining External support By complying with Procese agendas) iii. Learn from first step, build with new intervention iv. Repeat. Until problem solved.

i.

Identify a problem where authority allows some action; Take a small step to improve functionality Where we start ii. Build authority And legitimacy based on early results Functionality (achieving goals with the right people and participation)

liberalization  were  truly  ‘win-win’  and could be implemented via external conditionality and financial support. proach  founders,  h o n fronts   activities like building organizational and state capability, since these tasks require (a) enormous numbers of discretionary decisions and (b) extensive and intensive face-to-face transactions to be carried out by (c) implementing agents needing to resist large temptations to do something besides implement the policy that would produce the desired outcome, and yet do so by (d) deploying ‘technology’  (or  instruments)  to  bring  a out  the   desired change that are largely unknown

ex ante

. It is for precisely these types of development activities—and, importantly, elements of activities within more traditional technical sectors—that we propose PDIA as a pragmatic alternative. Elements of approach What drives action?

Planning for action Feedback loops Plans for scaling up and diffusion of learning

Mainstream Development Projects/ Policies/ Programs

Externally nominated problems or ‘solutions’ in which deviation from ‘best practice’ forms is itself defined as the problem Lots of advance planning, articulating a plan of action, with implementation regarded as following the planned script.

Monitoring (short loops, focused on disbursement and process compliance) and Evaluation (long feedback loop on outputs, maybe outcomes) Top-down—the head learns and leads, the rest listen and follow.

Problem Driven I terative Adaptation

Locally Problem Driven— looking to solve particular problems ‘Muddling through’ with the authorization of positive deviance and a purposive crawl of the available design space experimentation with information loops Tight feedback loops based on the problem and on integrated with decisions. Diffusion of feasible practice across organizations and communities of practitioners Finally, we wish to emphasize that our critique and approach share many similarities with other new approaches. For instance, Nancy Birdsall and the Center for Global Development have been  promoting  “ a sh  on Savedoff 2010). This is a mechanism by which donors would deliver resources to countries for achievements (versus a benchmark). This frees up the country to achieve those results however it wishes; rather than a focus on disbursement against planned 20

Do we always need PDIA? No. sometimes you can just move ahead with an external solution

It depends on the nature of your task: Is it simple, complicated, or complex?

(Allen, Glouberman and Zimmerman)

You address simple and complicated tasks with ‘solutions+rational management’….But complex tasks demand a different approach

How you address complicated tasks

Role defining – setting job and task descriptions Decision making – find the ‘best’ choice

How you address complex tasks

Relationship building – working with patterns of interaction Sense making – collective interpretation Tight structuring – use chain of command Loose coupling – support communities and prioritise or limit simple actions of practice and add more degrees of Knowing – decide and tell others what to do Staying the course – align and maintain focus freedom Learning – act/learn/plan at the same time Notice emergent directions – building on what works Taylor, Weber, much of NPM

My view of development

• • •

We have done pretty well with the simple and complicated stuff But complex tasks, problems, systems still confound us

– – Challenges with learning in our schools Gaps with polio vaccinations – Getting civil servants to use shiny new systems, best practices

So we need something like PDIA

– To help us find and fit policy and management solutions – That fit the contexts in which we are working

Others have argued similarly…

Chris Pollitt suggests lessons from past reforms tell us that…

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Big models, such as NPM or ‘good governance’ or ‘partnership

working’, often do not take one very far.

The whole idea that there is one model or set of principles that can or should be applied everywhere is suspect.

Task differences really do matter.

Change is always political as well as managerial/organizational.

Change is usually saturated with vested interests, including consultants/advisors, and the existing public service staff. To

conceptualise it as a purely technical exercise would be naïve.

Successful PMR is frequently an iterative exercise, over considerable periods of time.

It does work sometimes!

• • •

And many of the principles of PDIA are not new…

Korten: participatory development (1980) – Contrasts ‘blueprint’ and ‘learning process’ – Emphasizes working in the context, learning what fits through action engagement, and then diffusing the new solutions Rondinelli: the changing face of development problems (1982) – Noted that problems were getting more complex – Asks: “If control-oriented planning and management procedures are neither effective nor appropriate in coping with the complexity and uncertainty inherent in development activities, what alternatives do international development organizations and governments in developing states have for dealing with these problems more effectively?” – Suggests: “Effective development administration requires managers who can facilitate rather than control the interaction of those individuals and groups who have the bits of knowledge and resources needed to change undesirable conditions, and the experience and judgment to define what the undesirable conditions are. It calls for skilled people who can act as catalysts, mobilizing those whose support or commitment is needed to make projects relevant and successful. it demands technicians and administrators who can respond creatively, appropriately, and quickly to changes, who are willing and able to seek out and correct mistakes as they are discovered, and who can plan and manage simultaneously.” And many theories of change influence our thinking…

Stachowiak

Next class…context

• • • A key issue in PDIA – Finding and fitting solutions that fit context So what is it about context that matters?

And how do we ‘see’ it?

• • We will look at a contemporary (new) case of regulatory policy reform in the USA – Where govt. is not ‘getting it done’ – – And we will ask ‘why?’ What contextual factors get in the way of reform?

And we will think beyond this to a basic approach to understanding what it is that matters about context…