Working Paper Series

Governance Working Paper Series – Issue 3: “Managing Facilities: a stock-take from the first 12 months” Graham Teskey, Lavinia Tyrrel and Jacqui de Lacy.

This paper, the third in Abt Associates’ Governance Working Paper Series, examines the company’s experience in managing the first year of start-up for three large, multi-sector Facilities. All three Facilities are funded by the Australian Government: KOMPAK in Indonesia, what is now the Papua New Guinea – Australia Governance Partnership (what was called the PNG Governance Facility or PGF at the time of writing) and the Australia-Timor Leste Partnership for Human Development (ATLPHD).

The paper identifies five practices which the company used to manage the uncertainty and challenges posed in this first 12 months of operations. Based on our experience, we judge it is possible to identify a clear phasing for startup (which extends from office establishment to project re-alignment); a common approach to increasing program coherence (beginning with consolidating projects under a single operating platform and ending with intra- then inter- sector coordination); establishing and adapting a staffing profile which supports the above processes; developing a program management approach which aims to balance accountability and adaptability, and; putting in place a minimum set of conditions that the donor and managing contractor need to drive (what arguably sits at the heart of the Facility approach) flexible and politically-informed approaches to programming.

Abt Associates – Governance Working Paper Series – Issue No 3 (Final) 171120

Governance Working Paper Series – Issue 2: “Thinking and Working Politically in large, multi-sector Facilities: lessons to date” By Graham Teskey and Lavinia Tyrrel.

This paper, the second in Abt Associates’ Governance Working Paper Series, examines the company’s experience in rolling out more politically-informed, iterative and adaptive approaches to development in three large, Australian Government, multi-sector Facilities. The authors find that progress on ‘thinking and working politically’ (TWP) in such Facilities is mixed; we seem to be better on the ‘thinking’ part than the ‘doing’ part. Some aspects of the agenda are easier to operationalise than others: taking account of context, understanding institutions (at least formal ones), designing regular ‘review and reflection’ exercises. Some, by contrast, are extremely challenging: understanding the incentives and interests of key individuals, the role of collective action, getting the right mix of staff and partners, replacing the principal-agent relationship between the donor and contractor with one based on partnership and having the right skills to implement, learn and adapt as we go.

Probably the most pertinent conclusion from this review is that such large multi-sector Facilities create their own constraints (at least in the first year) to TWP. Indeed, the context and the inheritance strongly favour doing development pretty much the same. The main factor here is the need to continue implementing legacy projects and immediately produce outputs to justify the Facility model. Looking forward, the authors believe it is possible to identify whether an implementer can match the rhetoric and actually ‘do TWP’ in a Facility mechanism. In concluding, the authors propose ways that donors can look for and incentivise these traits at tender and review.

Abt Associates – Governance Working Paper Series – Issue No 2 (Final) 171120

Governance Working Paper Series – Issue 1: “Thinking and Working Politically: Are we seeing the emergence of a second orthodoxy?” By Graham Teskey.

This paper, the first in Abt Associates’ inaugural Governance Working Paper Series, examines whether a ‘second orthodoxy’ has emerged to stand alongside – or even supplant – the traditional project framework in the aid industry. This ‘second orthodoxy’ is characterized by a focus on clearly identifying and understanding the nature of the problem being addressed (in particular its political economy factors) and taking small, incremental steps and adjustments towards a long-term goal. It assumes that ‘solutions’ to complex development problems can only emerge through implementation, and are very hard to identify at the outset of a program. Such an approach stands in stark contrast to more traditional aid approaches (or the ‘first orthodoxy’) which tend to lock in inputs-outputs-outcomes up-front at design, and chart a linear course towards a given ‘solution’. The author concludes with a series of recommendations for aid practitioners to help them translate this ‘second orthodoxy’ into day-to-day aid program design, implementation and review.

Abt Associates – Working Paper Series – Issue No 1 – FINAL 010617