Capacity Development & Technical Cooperation

What does Capacity assessment mean?

Assessing institutions and capacity is a central element of preparing and implementing any kind of support. It is also prerequisite for deciding if and how donor support to CD is feasible.

The traditional instruments used by development partners (equipment, technical assistance, training and knowledge transfer) have had a very mixed record of success. Sometimes the instruments are the problem (they may simply be the wrong answer, based on a poor diagnosis of needs and options). Sometimes the problem is the way in which the instruments are used (supply-driven by development partners rather than driven by sufficient domestic demand. Finally, it is sometimes the broader circumstances that are not conducive for CD) the instruments at donors’ disposal are simply not relevant to the situation at hand.

It is both complex and delicate to assist others in developing capacity.

Why assessing capacity is important?

Assessing capacity serves as input in different processes and may support interlinked decisions on:

• Strategic and operational choices about overall levels focus areas, operational modalities and timing of aid. Weak capacity may imply that fewer funds can be effectively used, and that more focus on capacity development is required.
• Selection of key capacity issues to be included in the ongoing policy dialogue, in monitoring, or as indicators.
• Decision about if and how development partners can support capacity development (CD) processes of partners.

How to assess capacity?

There are many different ways to assess organisational or system capacity, and there are numerous tools and instruments that can be used to diagnose different aspects of organisational or system capacity. There is, however, no single approach which can claim superiority or much less objectivity.

EuropeAid has prepared specific guid­ance on issues to consider when preparing TOR for capacity assessments, available here. Other approaches are also described hereunder.

Nevertheless, there is a set of issues that should be kept in mind when considering capacity assessments:

• Self-assessments are the best point of departure. Partner-lead assessments engaging staff can foster buy-in to subsequent CD processes, while external assessments often are perceived to be judgmental, disenfranchising those being assessed.
• Avoid approaches which focus only on identifying “capacity gaps” according to a pre-defined normative model for “good capacity” or “best practice”. Such models tend to overlook the existing capacity assets which are likely to be a good starting point for future capacity development. Gap assess­ments tend to have a one-sided focus on weaknesses, and they tend to lead to predict­able solutions: sending in TA to “fix” capacity problems and “close” or “bridge” capacity gaps. Such approaches rarely work.
• Look beyond single organisations. Particularly in sector wide approaches, it is important not to stay inside the “tower” of e.g. a central ministry, and see capacity issues from that view only. Front-line service providers, central level cross cutting ministries, oversight institutions and non-state actors are likely to shape and condition the dynamics of CD.

Timing, modality and scope of capacity assessments should be carefully considered. As noted, expert or TA-driven capacity assessments made on the insistence of donors and subject to donors’ calendars and deadlines is a particularly poor point of departure for home-grown CD processes. Depending on the nature of the organisation in question, it is often best to keep things simple to begin with and to consider more elaborate exercises only when participants are comfortable with the process. Clarity about the commitment to change and the capacity to lead and manage change may in some cases be a sufficient starting point, while a participatory, more comprehensive assessment process can come later.