A top Toolkit on Adaptive Management. But is that a good idea?

In recent years, I’ve been one of a crowd of people thinking and pontificating about ‘adaptive management’. The debate has been rather dominated by academics and thinktankers, fond of hand-waving generalizations and rather better at taking down the bad stuff that suggesting what might replace it.

In those conversations, Graham Teskey has played the role of the stroppy practitioner, demanding more practical guides to how to ‘do development differently’, things that might help a harassed donor or programme manager (or him) get it right. He’s obviously got tired of waiting because he (with Lavinia Tyrrel) has written his own. And I think it is going to be really significant.

The paper, Implementing adaptive management: A front-line effort. Is there an emerging practice?, spends just 16 pages summarizing the main issues – what’s wrong with standard, aid practices such as the logframe; the principles behind Adaptive Management (or the overlapping approaches to Doing Development Differently, or Thinking and Working Politically or – for the really nerdy – Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation – lots of common features, but see Heather Marquette’s great summary of the differences). They come up with a catchy new acronym – PILLAR: Politically Informed, Locally-Led and Adaptive Responses (wonder how many beers that took) – to summarize their recipe.

But then they get onto the important stuff – 15 ‘how to’ notes for development practitioners on everything from how to ‘screen’ potential recipients of donor grants to setting out practical guidelines on the 3 elements I developed with Angela Christie a few years ago (adaptive governance, programming and delivery, above) and a final note on how to measure all this. I’ll cover those tomorrow.

Some highlights from the initial paper (italics are mine):

‘The current state of play: Among the many principles that currently inform donor-funded development initiatives, three appear to stand out: first, that they should be politically informed; second that they should be locally led; and third, that they should be adaptive. The purpose of this paper is not to interrogate these principles or summarise different views expressed in the literature. Rather, it is to grapple with the question of how to operationalise them. It is written from the point of view of two practitioners who are operating at the ‘front-line’ and who are struck by the predominance of papers that explain the ‘what’ and the why’, but rarely the ‘how’.

What was wrong with what went before: These three principles arise not only from a recognition that development initiatives often do not go according to plan, but also from concerns regarding the nature and functioning of the logframe, and results frameworks more generally. As far as the logframe is concerned, Chris Mellor, then in the Evaluation Department of what was the Department of International Development, identified three intrinsic problems: (i) they assume that causal pathways can be known in advance; (ii) they condense and simplify ‘messy realities’ and assume they can be treated in reductionist ways; and (iii) they establish incentives to deliver, rather than to adapt. While the logframe undoubtedly requires donors to think more rigorously about their investments, it can sometimes act as something of a ‘straightjacket’, preventing the emergence of more flexible and appropriate ways to design and deliver investments. Adaptive management is part of the response.

Their theory of change: What will it take to shift practice away from linear and planned approaches (top left quadrant of figure), towards models which foster local leadership and -suggests that the answer is not to throw out the discipline of the logical framework, results frameworks, or theories of change. Rather they need to be handled rather more reflectively and ‘elastically’. We need tools for planning, monitoring and reporting which can be actioned within the dominant aid paradigm.

Conclusion: Operationalising adaptive management – what we have called PILLAR – is conceptually difficult, politically risky and organisationally challenging. However, given what we have learned about complexity, systems theory, competing interests and incentives, changing policy contexts, and the sheer unpredictably of individual and collective human behaviour, it seems – to these authors at least – that there are two options. Either we accept the challenges and embrace PILLAR, or we resign ourselves to the likelihood of continued program underperformance or failure.

It is, by some distance, the most practical guide so far to this cluster of approaches, but I have to admit to some misgivings, which I’ve discussed before on this blog. The aid sector, along with most public institutions, seems only able to absorb new ideas when they are codified and turned into toolkits. Then people can be trained, measured and evaluated against an agreed set of criteria. Graham and Lavinia have taken on that challenge as the only way to drive the changes they see as urgently needed.

The trouble is that the essence of adaptive management is to some extent, ‘throw away your toolkits – study the system (even dance with it), adapt, respond, improvise’. And codification can easily take power away from people on the frontline and into the hands of ‘adaptive managers’ versed in the jargon of the new orthodoxy, when the exact opposite is needed. I only hope that when people use this guide (as they undoubtedly will), they are able to follow the spirit, as well as the letter, of the adaptive management message.

More on the actual guidance notes tomorrow.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please see our .

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.

Comments

5 Responses to “A top Toolkit on Adaptive Management. But is that a good idea?”
  1. First they had the participation toolkits and we ignored them because our programs were already participatory. Then they introduced gender toolkits and conflict sensitivity checklists and we ignored them because we already included women & complained how difficult it is to work in fragile environments. Then followed the Theories of Change which we ignored because who needs theories when you want to have impact on the ground? And then a new generation of consultants gave us adaptive management toolkits and we ignored them because we were already agile after FCDO had cut our funding leaving us understaffed…

  2. P S BAKER

    Interesting piece. Has anyone written a history of the managerial toolkit?

    I’ve always assumed it evolved as some sort of McKinseyite scheme whose purpose was to codify every element of management so that employees don’t have to be so highly trained and therefore paid less. And potentially now of course to be progressively replaced by AI.

  3. Nice view, and a step forward. But here too the iron law of bureaucracy could strike.
    One of the underlying principles of development work is that we fund only projects, with a start and an end (we don’t want to be colonial). However, in a real engagement, when really working on governance, there is no beginning and no end. It is a long-term routine, with needs for daily tweaking. This approach is recognised in most countries, as the budget is, in principle, annual, meaning it just flows from one year to another, with annual corrections. The stability the 3-5 year project brings is in fact NOT stability: there is immobilism during the project, as you have to plan now over the term of the project, and there is rupture at the end of the project.

  4. The document setting out PILLAR is very well-written and insightfully sets out key junctures at which efforts at cultivating adaptive practice “go wrong.” Where I think it goes amiss is that it still assumes some kind of revolution in programming–what I think of as a “convergence” model in which all stakeholders come together, recognize the errors of their ways and get on board with a very disruptive (however astute) vision to re-engineer program cycles to accommodate complexity and systems thinking. Ain’t gonna happen. Instead, I think we can coax stakeholders into a more adaptive mindset through a process of “calibration”–periodic, strategic, targeted partner events (which most projects do any way) in which everyone is shown, not told, what adaptation is and how it works within currently realities. That could be a recipe for maintaining an unsatisfactory status quo, but it might — just might — be a lever to create the conditions for something like PILLAR to genuinely take hold.

  5. Masood Ul Mulk

    The problem with tool kits and using them for adaptive management at the local levels is that you need to live in a culture and learn its its intricacies to adapt within it. Tool kits may help you understand how you adapted and explain it in development jargon to the the donors with benefit of handsight, but will help you very little to understand a culture at the local level while implementing. It the difference between business organisations and development organisation. A business organisation before sending you to another country will expect you to learn the language of that country before going there. A development organisation will never do that.

Leave a Reply to Joseph Petraglia Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *