Statement of significance

adding to the stakeholders’ understanding of the context of operation and the variables that influence the operations and outcomes of the initiatives of donor NGDOs.

4. Develop a conceptual framework for the critical analysis of processes in a NGDOs to guide the implementation of good development management practices.

1.7 Research Questions

The above aims are addressed in the following four research questions:

1. What is the relationship between NGDO organisational processes and the achievement of their development goals?

2. What intervening effect do the internal and external factors have on processes and consequently on goal achievement?

3. What are key issues for NGDOs processes in their context of operation, and what implications do these issues have on the management and functioning of NGDOs in international development?

4. How may NGDOs examine and evaluate their organisational processes in order to promote good development management practices?

The above questions were developed further into sub-questions to guide the data gathering exercise. The interview guide appears in Appendix II and the mail questionnaire in Appendix III.

1.8 Statement of significance

This study is an examination and evaluation of the organisational processes of nonprofit, non-governmental organisations working within the framework for international development cooperation – referred to as non-governmental development organisations (NGDOs). The results of this study will assist NGDOs to evaluate and improve their effectiveness by addressing the following five areas.

First, as noted in the problem statement, most studies on the assessment of donor NGDOs have focused more on project assessment than on the organisational factors contributing to outcomes. Donor NGDOs have often been assessed on the basis of projects implemented ‘out there’ in the field, and this kind of assessment has been inadequate to fully explain how donor NGDOs do their work owing to a lack of assessment of the contribution of organisational factors on outcomes. The current study addresses itself to this knowledge gap.

Second, the subject of NGDOs covers a wide range of organisations. As noted by Fowler (1997:xii) diversity is inevitable within the NGDO community. It stems from the contrasting values and goals of those who start and lead them, the different times and contexts in which they evolve, the many levels at which they operate, the varied scope of their activities, and the wide mix of resources they mobilise. However, this diversity presents problems in attempts to study, generalise and draw conclusions about NGDO functioning. As such, systematic analysis of the organisational functioning of NGDOs is in short supply. This study, while acknowledging that there is no fail-safe formula for “effective” performance of NGDOs, attempts to examine systematically how NGDOs have functioned and what they have been able to achieve as one way of identifying patterns of behaviour, general principles and practices which leaders and managers regularly use.

Third, the study is needed to address challenges facing the NGDO sector in Australia. Four challenges have been identified by AFCOA (1998, 1999, 2000d) AusAID (2000b) and the Industry Commission (1995a, 1995b) – (1) the need for good development management practices; (2) a stronger focus on professional

and ethical financial resource mobilisation leading to financial independence; (3) the delivery of high quality development assistance; and (4) a commitment to policy advocacy and development education. Part of good management is an evaluation of organisational capabilities. There is also a need for critical self- evaluation of the policies on which decisions are made about project activities (DAC 2000; Kruse et al. 1997; Simons et al 1997). There is need for the sector to promote its financial independence, while remaining ethical and professional in fundraising. This issue needs to be addressed in a systematic way to ensure NGDOs remain autonomous while drawing resources from various sources (ACFOA 2000a; Industry Commission 1995a; Simons et al. 1997).

The sector also needs to address the issue of delivering quality development assistance. In this regard, it is necessary for NGDOs to define and clarify what they perceive as key dimensions of quality in their programs, and come up with credible indicators to assess quality (ACFOA 2000d). Another aspect of quality is to ensure sustainability of project outcomes and benefits, which is only possible if there are practical strategies in place to promote sustainability and indicators to measure it (AusAID 2000a). The dimension of development education is especially important to increase the Australian public understanding of development, and to educate all stakeholders on the significance of their contributions (Wilson 1998). The study is necessary to determine ways in which NGDOs can approach these issues systematically and critically.

Fourth, the study is needed to respond to the messages and concerns from recipient NGDOs. As noted by Zivetz (1991), many recipient NGDO workshops devote considerable time to criticise policies and practices of their donor partners. Kajese (1987) in his experience with NGDOs in Eastern and Southern Africa noted that this kind of criticism and strained relations was as a result of the fact that the basic management and service delivery principles and processes of donor NGDOs were either wrong outright, not clearly understood or widely perceived as unjust by those they were supporting in developing countries.

The views expressed by Kajese (1987) and Zivetz (1991) are similar to the researcher’s own experiences. There appears to be much disagreement and criticism between donor and recipient NGDOs about what should constitute good development practice. Part of the reason for this is that to the recipients, little information exists about the context in which their funding partners operate. They hardly get an opportunity to ask pertinent questions regarding the whole development process, and do not understand some of the actions or decisions taken by their donors. While the donors ought to be accountable to their recipient partners for their actions, in practice this expectation is not always met. As a result, the relationship between the donors and recipients has been one of tension rather than cooperation. Values such as ‘participation’, ‘partnership’ and ‘accountability’, while appreciated, have not always translated into practice. The researcher has therefore aimed at gather some valuable information to contribute to the debate of bridging this gap between theory and practice, and increasing the understanding between donor and recipient NGDOs.

Fifth, there is a growing interest in a process-based view of organisations. Garvin (1998) notes the significance of a process perspective in addressing a common organisational problem – the lack of cross-functional integration that results in sub-optimal performance. Recent works by Braganza and Lambert (2000), De Bruin et al. (2000), Nickols (1998), Schmidt and Treichler (1998) and Vanhaverbeke and Torremans (1999) point to the need for more empirical studies to identify and analyse business processes and their implications for both strategy and outcomes. These studies seek to address the issue of improving the performance of organisations by evaluating and redesigning organisational processes.

However, most of this work has been based on corporate organisations. Kruse et al. (1997) point to the lack of data and analysis to support the contention that organisational attributes provide a context for NGDO project successes, or at least account for the differences in performance. A focus on nonprofit organisations in this regard is therefore warranted, as it contributes to the knowledge base in this area.