A note on sector enabling environment

The extent to which innovations in service delivery are institutionalised within a sector is not only dependant on the programmatic aspects of a Learning Alliance but also on the sector’s institutional and social context. For example, organisational capacity building is reliant on the ability of those taking part in Learning Alliance platforms to disseminate and institutionalise innovation within their work place (Sijbesma et al.

2007). This is, in turn, dependant on the cultures of communication and information sharing in these organisations. The ability to institutionalise new practices throughout the sector is also reliant on the levels of coordination between the various organisations involved in the area of service delivery.

This study revealed certain barriers to the process of organisational capacity building in each country. A major barrier was the ability of facilitating organisations to ensure that regular core group meetings took place and were well attended. Ghana was the only country where the project managed to achieve the expected quarterly core group meetings. Consortium members in each country reported that high level government officials were often too busy to attend core group meetings. This is a difficult problem to overcome, particularly in a relatively small project where large sector events and meetings will invariably take precedence over Learning Alliance activities. However, a representative from the Ministry of Water and Environment in Uganda proposed a possible strategy to overcome this problem: encouraging government officials to sign memorandums of understanding at the beginning of a project, thus allowing for the necessary time and budget allocations to be made. The same interviewee explained how this could also help to improve accountability among these individuals and stimulate information sharing within organisations.

Staff turnover was another significant barrier to organisation and institutional capacity building in all three countries. During the project, lead project facilitators and communication specialists left consortium organisations. Members of the core working groups also moved on. Learning Alliances operating over a long time span are expected to be dynamic in nature with stakeholders entering or leaving as different issues emerge. However, in the context of a three year project, staff turnover can be very disruptive.

In respect of the departure of Learning Alliance members, there are no clear solutions.

54

It is not possible to prevent Learning Alliance members from changing organisations during the course of the project. Rather, it is best to look for ways to alleviate the disruption this may cause and find potential benefits which can arise from this process.

Obviously, it is important for replacement Learning Alliance and consortium members to be found as quickly as possible. It is also important for facilitators to ensure there is an adequate hand-over between organisational representatives leaving the Learning Alliance and their replacements. Any new members joining a Learning Alliance also need to have access to all of the relevant project documentation so they can familiarise themselves with their role quickly. A potential benefit which could arise from staff turnover is that it creates opportunities to build capacity and raise awareness in new organisations. It is therefore important to keep those leaving Learning Alliance organisations up to date with activities and encourage them to introduce the principles and practices in their new organisations. The issue of staff turnover in facilitating organisations can also be very disruptive to a Learning Alliance, as these individuals drive the learning agenda forward and ensure Learning Alliance members are engaged. The only means of ensuring the required continuity in this process is to employ full time facilitators, dedicated to the project. Again, this may be difficult to attain in a small project with limited resources.

An area of the Learning Alliance approach which demands closer scrutiny is the way in which innovation in WASH service delivery is diffused in the context of sub-Saharan Africa. The WASHTech project Learning Alliance struggled to attain awareness of their main innovations within the participant countries, particularly at a regional or district level. However, it is important to note that in each country there are very few platforms, providing opportunities for knowledge sharing and dissemination of information at this regional level. In Ghana and Uganda learning platforms have begun to emerge in recent years however, in Burkina Faso, there is a distinct lack of learning platforms operating at this intermediate institutional level. There is clearly a demand for further detailed research into the mechanism behind diffusion processes and the contextual factors influencing their effectiveness in this context. The use of the Learning Alliance approach presents an excellent opportunity to shape the institutions within which they work and to develop a more cohesive and coordinated learning environment within a sector. Learning Alliances therefore need to share their experiences around communication and dissemination, in order for best practices in this domain to be identified. This will also allow future programmes using the approach to tailor their interventions accordingly and further contribute to the knowledge base.

Sijbesma et al. (2007) discuss how the time and resources required to set-up platforms at different institutional levels, makes it difficult to harmonize the Learning Alliance

55

approach with current project approaches to implementation. The findings from this study support this observation. It is clear that certain components of both the innovation process and the ability to institutionalise and scale up project innovations have been affected by such constraints. For example, at the beginning of the project there was little time to establish core working groups and this affected the ability to conduct a thorough stakeholder and problem analysis in a participatory manner. With regards to stakeholder analysis, interviews revealed that some important stakeholders may have been left out of the Learning Alliance or not engaged early enough in the project timeline. A short project timeline also meant that the innovation addressing technology assessment and introduction were largely predefined, as was the research protocol for its development. Therefore, perhaps the most important institutional contextual element governing the way project-based Learning Alliances are implemented, lies in the way donors fund such projects. Learning Alliances rely on institutionalisation of innovative practices. These processes are likely to take much longer than the conventional three year project timeline. This study has demonstrated the need for advocacy towards donors taking a longer term approach to sustainable development and a more flexible attitude towards project outputs. The current approach is somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand, donors fund short term projects and demand measurable outcomes but on the other hand, this is clearly limiting the ability of project-based Learning Alliances to achieve long term and sustainable benefits.

Innovations in praxis such as Learning Alliances offer up new opportunities to influence donor institutions. However, in order for this to happen they must be involved in the learning process. In the context of WASH it is also appropriate that these actors are involved, as these are key stakeholders in service provision within the sector.

Therefore, it is important for Learning Alliances to engage donor organisations in their processes as much as feasibly possible. This may require programme architects to develop new strategies to ensure these stakeholders are sufficiently engaged. When donor organisations are sufficiently involved in the learning processes, they will be able to realise the constraints exerted by short project timelines on the realisation of improved governance and service delivery.

56