Capacity Building: For the Next Generation of Academics

CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVES IN HIGHER EDUCATION © 2002 Centre for Higher Education Transformation (CHET) CHET PO Box...

Author: CHET

59 downloads 649 Views 403KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVES IN HIGHER EDUCATION

© 2002 Centre for Higher Education Transformation (CHET) CHET PO Box 29204, Sunnyside, 0132 http://www.chet.org.za All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by electronic or mechanical means, including any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. ISBN 1-919833-36-6

Produced by comPress www.compress.co.za

Contents Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

SECTION 1:

OVERVIEW

A differentiated approach to capacity development . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Review process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Key findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Dimensions of difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Dimensions of effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

SECTION 2:

CASE STUDIES

Case study 1: The Kellogg Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Case study 2: NUFFIC/MHO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Case study 3: Tertiary Education Linkages Project . . . . . . . . . . 57 Case study 4: The Mellon Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

iii

Acronyms AED AIMS ASD ATLAS BPR CBO CHEPS CHET DoE DRC HAI HDI HEIs ICT IDEAA IIS IIT IPD IRDP ISOC

Academy of Education Development Audit and Integration of Management Systems Academic Staff Development African Training for Leadership and Advanced Skills Business Process Re-engineering Community-Based Organisation Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies Centre for Higher Education Transformation Department of Education Developmental Research Centre Historically Advantaged Institutions Historically Disadvantaged Institutions Higher Education Institutions Information and Communication Technology Initiative for Development and Equity in African Agriculture Integrated Impact Services Information Integration Technology Improvement of Personnel Department Integrated Rural Development Programme Implementation of Streamlining the Organisation Structure and Channels of Communication project IT Information Technology LeaRN Leadership Regional Network MBA Master of Business Administration MHO Joint Financing Programme for Higher Education (Medefinansieringsprogamme voor Hoger Onderwyssamewerking) MIS Management Information Systems MMCB Middle-management Capacity Building Project NGO Non Governmental Organisations NQF National Qualifications Framework NUFFIC Netherlands Organisation for International Co-operation in Higher Education Pentech Peninsula Technikon PIL Programme Implementation Letter QA Quality Assurance SAQA South African Qualifications Authority TABIESA Technical and Business Education Initiative in South Africa TELP Tertiary Education Linkages Project TNG Technikon Northern Gauteng UCT University of Cape Town UFH University of Fort Hare UNCF United Negro College Fund UP University of Pretoria US United States USA United States of America USAID United States Agency for International Development VC Vice-chancellor WKKF WK Kellogg Foundation

iv

Foreword This project was conceived during a discussion about the numerous capacity building projects underway in higher education. Dick Fehnel from the Ford Foundation, Nasima Badsha from the Department of Education and Nico Cloete from the Centre for Higher Education Transformation initiated this study as a first assessment of different approaches to capacity building employed by four big projects operating in South Africa. It is important to note that it is not an evaluation of effectiveness. This study wants to acknowledge the frank co-operation of the following foundations: l WK Kellogg l Netherlands Organisation for International Co-operation (NUFFIC) and the Joint Financing Programme for Higher Education Co-operation (MHO) l USAID and the Tertiary Education Linkages Project l the Mellon Foundation. Institutions listed below, who participated in the capacity building projects, were also remarkably frank in their comments and a number of senior staff members contributed valuable time: l University of Cape Town l University of Fort Hare l University of Pretoria l Peninsula Technikon l Technikon Northern Gauteng. The project was initially co-ordinated by Tembile Kulati,then by Donnovan Nadison and the final project management was done by Juliann Moodley. The research team consisted of: l David Donald l Zane Dangor l Erica Gillard l Johann Louw l John Makina l Juliann Moodley.

v

FOREWORD

Appreciation is due to the Ford Foundation for funding the project and to Fathima Dada and Compress for editing and publishing the report. FOREWORD The report consists of two sections. Section 1 is an overview of the methodology and the key findings, a kind of extended executive summary. Section 2 deals with the four case studies that describe and analyse the relationships between the foundations and the recipient institutions in greater detail.

vi

SECTION 1

OVERVIEW

A differentiated approach

OVERVIEW

A differentiated approach to capacity development Introduction

‘Capacity building’ is a broad, over-inclusive concept, amenable to many interpretations and operationalisations. Capacity building has been commonly understood as a basic human resource issue: a matter of building institutional person-power to the point where there is an adequate skills base to fulfil the tasks of an organisation. More recently, the notion of capacity building has incorporated broader dimensions which include, but go beyond, the human resource issue. An organisation may thus have suitably trained personnel, but if it lacks a clear mission and strategic goals, and has inadequate governance and management structures to support those personnel, it is unlikely that it will function optimally. A APACITY DIFFERENTIATED BUILDING IPPROACH NITIATIVES TOINCH APACITY IGHER EBDUCATION UILDING C One aimAof capacity building would be to change the composition of staff at Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to make this more representative. Secondly, competence: the quality of HEI staff is insufficient and inadequate in a number of skills areas. Thirdly, structural problems within the higher education sector result in inequalities between institutions in terms of staff qualifications, staff/student ratios, availability of postgraduate programmes, availability of research funding, library and information services, information technology, management capacity, and infra- structural support.

Review process Purpose By 1999 the Higher Education Branch of the Department of Education (DoE) realised that several strategies for capacity building in higher education, particularly in respect of Historically Disadvantaged Institutions (HDIs), had been employed by numerous donors active in the field of higher education. The Department’s interest was to determine which of these strategies seemed to have the most promise and under what conditions. To address this question, the Ford Foundation ‘earmarked’ some funds to support a study into higher education capacity building strategies; hence the conceptualisation and the implementation of this research project. This project seeks to review the nature and scope of capacity building programmes that have been initiatives in the seven years from 1995 to 2001 in 1


the South African higher education system. A number of capacity building projects and initiatives have been launched to support the overall management of change in the higher education system in South Africa. These vary from internationally funded programmes that have targeted a particular higher education institution, or group of institutions, to projects which have been initiated by institutions themselves, using both funds from foreign donors and internally generated funds. To maximise the potential usefulness of this study, the project identified donors who contribute substantial funds to building capacity at HEIs, and who have been active in South Africa for at least three years. In addition, the donors needed to be sufficiently different in their approach to capacity building to enable us to draw lessons from comparisons between them. The aims of the review are as follows: l l l l

l l

Identify the different kinds of capacity building interventions in higher education institutions. Assess the different approaches used in developing capacity within higher education. Identify and examine the challenges these capacity building initiatives intended to address. Examine the manner in which these capacity building projects within the target institutions have been conceptualised, designed, implemented and assessed. Assess the effects and benefits that the capacity building projects had on recipients within the respective institutions. Identify elements of best practice within each institution to inform future capacity building projects.

To address the above purposes, information was sought within five general categories: conceptions of capacity building; structure and management of capacity building; implementation of capacity building programmes; the outcomes of such programmes as perceived by the recipients; and the strengths and weaknesses of such programmes. Information was gathered through interviews, focus group discussions and secondary documentation review. Participants Four major funding approaches which were seen to meet these broad criteria are: l

2

the Kellogg Foundation with University of Pretoria as ‘country hub’ partner;

A DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO CAPACITY BUILDING l

the Netherlands Organisation for International Co-operation in Higher Education (NUFFIC) through the Joint Financing Programme for Higher Education Co-operation (MHO) with Technikon Northern Gauteng; USAID and the Tertiary Education Linkages Project (TELP) in collaboration with the historically disadvantaged institutions; the Mellon Foundation and the University of Cape Town.

l l

Sources of research include: l l l l

Interviews with senior representatives of donor organisations. Site visits to all five HEIs, and interviews with their senior staff. Inspection of the relevant documentation and records held with donor organisations and institutions. Searches of relevant web-sites.

The study was administered and managed by a project manager,assisted by a group of senior researchers. Together with the Director of CHET, this group designed, reviewed and carried out the study. A team of two, sometimes three, researchers visited each one of the five HEIs included in the study, and held interviews with donor agencies. Interviews were conducted by at least two researchers, to guard against inaccuracies in and unreliability of information gathering and interpretation. Representatives from the donor agencies and relevant senior staff in the institutions were interviewed. For a more detailed description of the methodology and the participants, see the case studies in Section 2. Limitations The most accurate way to portray this study is to say that it contains a review of the functioning of four versions of capacity building interventions. A review is understood to be an assessment at a particular point in time of how a piece of work is progressing. The study is therefore not an evaluation, if evaluation is understood to be a systematic investigation into the effectiveness of social interventions (see Rossi, Freeman & Lipsey, 1999). Even though the objectives of capacity building initiatives and indicators of their success are, in almost all instances,not clearly defined,much can be learned from an examination of how different versions of the same basic initiative are in fact conceptualised and put into practice. Such a review looks at the performance of the initiatives to see how they can be improved, without making a general judgement about effectiveness (see Gosling & Edwards, 1995). When compared with generally accepted views of what evaluation is, this view of the study’s aims comes closest to ‘formative evaluation’ – an investigation undertaken to provide 3


information that will guide programme improvement (Rossi, Freeman & Lipsey, 1999, p. 443). The study is limited by the fact that it relies substantially on the views and perceptions of key figures at the HEIs and the donor organisations during the period of data collection for the study (July 2000 to March 2001). These key figures provided descriptions of their experienced reality, and the scope and time frame of the study allowed little opportunity for validating these views across a wider spectrum of participants in these initiatives. Including assessments of these capacity building initiatives by recipients of services, for example, might have provided a somewhat different perspective. Doing this would have re-focused the study in more evaluative terms, which was not the intention. The study therefore remains within its circumscribed aims.

Key findings Strengths of the capacity building models 1. Kellogg Foundation–University of Pretoria The WK Kellogg Foundation (Kellogg) has programmes in the United States of America, Latin America, the Caribbean, and in six Southern African countries. In the southern African region, one HEI is selected as the ‘country hub’ and ‘grantee’ for the disbursement of funds in each of the respective countries. Project partners, namely NGOs, are identified and project sites are then selected for the actual interventions. The University of Pretoria (UP) is the HEI grantee through which the Kellogg Foundation implemented its leadership development project in Southern Africa. (Pretoria is the largest residential university in South Africa, situated in the industrial heartland of the country.) The main focus of the leadership development project is not on higher education, but on leadership across sectors. The approach of the Kellogg Foundation and the University of Pretoria, as described in Chapters 3 and 4, allows the possibility for capacity development at several levels. Through working at multiple levels, a potential is generated for mutual benefit involving the university, the NGOs, and other communities. When a donor wishes to contribute to building capacity in a country, particularly at grass roots level,involving multiple NGOs and project sites,how to co-ordinate the initiative and disburse funds must constitute a central problem.In this situation there are clear advantages to working through a strong (high capacity) institution in one country to co-ordinate the initiative and to partner the relevant NGOs.The approach must then assume that resources and capacity will effectively ‘filter down’ from the grantee to other levels. This assumption cannot, however, be taken for granted and can only be tested in practice. 4

A DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO CAPACITY BUILDING

2. MHO –Technikon Northern Gauteng The MHO approach is to mobilise Dutch expertise through the establishment of long-term inter-institutional linkages between one institute for higher education in a developing country and several Dutch institutes for higher education.These linkages are a means of institution building and knowledge transfer. MHO thus concentrates their resources on one institution – in this case Technikon Northern Gauteng (TNG), which is an historically disadvantaged institution located in Soshanguve township on the outskirts of Pretoria. The approach’s characteristic policy of ‘inter-institutional linkage’ and ‘concentration’ generates a number of advantages in building capacity. In particular, the potential for building institutional capacity can be enhanced where relationships with staff, an understanding of the institution as a whole, and the programme in relation to that whole, are built up intensively and over time. As emphasised throughout this report, the potential for realising the MHO goal of ‘institution building’ is greatly enhanced when viewed in a systemic and integrated way. However, this in itself would not be possible without the concentration of focus on one organisation that is the hallmark of the approach itself. The MHO principle of ‘demand-driven’ practice is a distinct strength in terms of the important criterion of ‘ownership’. With the demand-driven practice, the priorities of an institution steer the project. Although some reservations were expressed at TNG about whether ownership had been effectively extended to all members of the institution, the general consensus was that the principle was sound,while the practice could improve.A particular dimension of practice that was emphasised, if the advantage of this principle was to be properly reaped, was the tighter integration of the different projects’ goals and activities with the institution’s own strategic planning. Despite current problems in effecting this integration – as seen from both sides – these problems were not seen as insuperable.The basic strength of an approach which is demand-driven from the institution’s own strategic perspective was acknowledged. The tripartite funding structure within the MHO approach was explicitly mentioned by a number of respondents as a specific strength. The measure of internal control over the disbursement of funds, the sense of project ownership that this generated, and the managerial and administrative capacity that it built through necessity, were all seen as advantages of this funding structure – despite its initial difficulties. In terms of the management structure of the approach, the directness of relationships with both NUFFIC and the Dutch partner institutions, the necessary involvement of members of the institution’s top executive in driving and sustaining the programme, and the senior position and decision-making powers of the project co-ordinator, were all seen as lending strength to the management structure of the approach. There was a directness and immediacy 5


of decision making and operationalisation about this arrangement that contrasted with the experience of other donor programmes at TNG. As mentioned earlier,however,the very advantage of the power of this programme in the institution was also seen as conflicting with the conventional power and decision-making hierarchies of the institution itself. There is a high degree of flexibility in changing priorities of projects as they are implemented. The flexibility also allows for shifting resources to allow for development of infrastructure and equipment capacity. 3. TELP–Pentech/University of Fort Hare The USAID-funded TELP was approved in September 1995 through a bilateral agreement between the governments of the USA and South Africa. Following negotiations on the form of the project between USAID, the South African Department of Education and the vice-chancellors of the original 15 HDIs identified as participants in the project (increased to 17 institutions since 1999). Implementation was contracted out to the United Negro College Fund (UNCF-SP). Capacity development in this model involves grants to individual institutions, linkages with American institutions and joint capacity development programmes in areas such as curriculum, staff and new government policy. The essential difference with the MHO model is that the target group here is a whole sub-sector of higher education – the HDIs. The TELP model has the greatest amount of variation – this variation is dependent on the type of programme implemented,the approach and methodology used, and the type of grant awarded. Given that these differ for the two institutions sampled, namely the University of Fort Hare (UFH) and the Peninsula Technikon (Pentech),their strengths need to be recorded separately. At UFH, the strengths of the TELP approach commonly mentioned by interviewees include: l

l

l

l

6

The responsiveness of TELP to evolutionary changes in the system. It is open to negotiating new or modified individual projects (PILs) on the basis of clearly motivated proposals. The gains of individual staff in terms of qualifications or simply in terms of skills such as those related to proposal generating and writing, accountability processes, etc. The willingness, readiness and availability of help and technical assistance on TELP-related issues. An example given was that if someone ‘gets stuck’ in the process of generating a proposal, ready assistance was always available. The value of being able to initiate and ‘seed’ activities like the MBA programme which would otherwise not have been possible.


At Pentech, the most frequently mentioned strengths include: l l

l l

The TELP Programme was most useful when they were most flexible. The TELP approach could be integrated most readily with the institution’s own capacity building needs as articulated through its strategic plan. TELP made resources available to address these issues directly. TELP allowed the institution and its members to feel that they were ‘defining and controlling’ their own destiny.

A specific strength of the institution-specific activities at Pentech is that they have been progressively developed and refined, not only internally within any one PIL but also in relation to one another. In this way the range of activities have been chosen and developed to optimise their synergistic effect, with different activities building on and benefiting others. Three strengths, all of which need to be seen as essentially interactive in nature, are evident in the particular relationship between TELP and an institution such as Pentech. l

l

l

First, the process of progressive institutionalisation of TELP activities that has been possible at Pentech is a significant strength in so far as it has generated an ‘owned’, continuous and sustainable process of capacity enhancement. This has operated primarily with those institution-specific activities that have been integrated into the strategic objectives, and therefore into the internal structures and processes, of the institution. The degree of constructive evolution in TELP activities and processes that have been possible at this institution is a second interactive strength. The evolutionary process is reflected in the modifications and re-focusing that has occurred in particular PILs – PIL 88 is a good example – such that they have progressively evolved in relation to the strategic objectives and needs of the institution. Thus the ability, clarity and confidence in the institution to challenge and initiate, as well as the flexibility and responsiveness on the part of TELP, have been key factors in this process. Finally, related to both the above strengths, is the effectiveness in how TELP is managed at Pentech. Factors which appear to characterise the strength of TELP management in this institution include the commitment and pervasive involvement of the VC; the consistency of strategic planning (one strategic planner pre-dates the TELP initiative); the managerial and administrative strength of the TELP co-ordinator; the level of collaboration which occurs; and the transparency and clarity that is maintained on TELP matters through all levels of line function within the institution. 7


4. University of Cape Town–Mellon Foundation The University of Cape Town’s (UCT) capacity building initiative functions on the basis of a funding partnership between itself and the Mellon Foundation (Mellon), whereby the university works independently towards achieving its own objectives. The project – the Audit and Integration of Management Systems (AIMS) – looked at areas where the institution’s operational systems could be improved to ensure maximum quality, efficiency and effectiveness. The overall goal is to create more space and time for research and teaching for academics. This approach involves a well-established institution receiving donor money, which it complements with its own funding, to improve efficiency within the university. Many capacity building programmes flounder as a result of the level of separation between the needs of an organisation and the skills requirements of the individuals who are part of the specific capacity building programme. Often the skills developed are not those needed for increased organisational effectiveness in that specific context,or become irrelevant as a result of changes in the organisation’s processes and priorities. The main strengths of this approach are: l

l

l

8

Capacity building does not stand separate from the things that people do in their work. The development of skills becomes an integral part of the broader goal of organisational change and efficiency. This reduces the chances that skills are developed in areas where they are not needed or highly prioritised, or where they are not integral to the organisation’s processes. Basically, the skills are developed as the work is improved: and as greater skills are developed, so the work improves. Another important strength of this approach relates to the generally problematic area of ownership. The fact that staff work alongside consultants, and then take over the work themselves, contributes substantially to this strength. Likewise, the fact that the project is visibly managed by its own academics contributes to a sense of ownership in the institution as a whole. Those involved in the project argue that academics might have been more reticent in participating in the process if it had not visibly been managed by fellow academics who understand the needs of their academic enterprise. Although this still remains to be seen, the equally problematic area of achieving sustainability may yet prove a strength of this approach. The fact that the resources for the project are largely internal might make it more sustainable as it is relatively independent of continuing donor support. There are indications that this has led to more commitment by those managing the programme and those participating in it. Donor-funded capacity building and change initiatives are often regarded as ‘nice to have’ but not really what the institution wants or needs.From such a perspective this approach may prove to be more sustainable than interventions which are mainly externally funded.


Finally, UCT’s approach needs to be seen as long term. Since ongoing skills development is key to sustaining the other two legs of AIMS – the business re-engineering processes aimed at improving the mechanics of the organisation, and the improvements to the Governance and Decisionmaking Systems – it is the on-going element which will be critical in the end. The success of the capacity building activities has to carry through to what the university calls ‘continuous improvement’.

Weaknesses of the capacity building models 1. Kellogg Foundation–UP A weakness of the Kellogg Foundation–University of Pretoria approach is its complicated, hierarchical design. Although the primary objective is to benefit communities at grass roots level, the line from the foundation to grantee institution to NGO to project sites and ultimately to people in communities is a long one. Inevitably such a long disbursement line is difficult to co-ordinate, to implement,and to control in terms of time wastage and the erosion of resources down that line. This being the case, there are many instances where the funds are disbursed from the foundation directly to the NGOs and CBOs. In addition, differential power relations could reduce the effectiveness of the intervention strategies. When working with a strong grantee such as UP, there are clearly problems with weaker partners meeting their own goals, or even standing up to the needs of the stronger partner. When there is such a discrepancy in the relative power and capacity of partners, there is a danger that the stronger partner can act to build its own strength further. A possible negative consequence for the country more broadly is that the donor has allied directly and exclusively with one high-capacity grantee that acts as a conduit for all its funds. While this may be a logical choice within the donor’s objectives and approach, it may inadvertently create more imbalances in the higher education sector than presently exist. In support of the above observations, the NGO respondent suggested that several changes would be necessary if the approach were to be made more workable. These included more attention to clarifying what the approach intended (for example, what are the specific expectations, responsibilities and limitations of the grantee or country hub?); clear expectations for each of the partners about the project and of each other; and a simplified management approach. 2. MHO –TNG The following are cited as the most commonly perceived weaknesses of the capacity building programme: l

The problem of sustainability. This is the problem of having too few staff and too unstable a staffing situation to actually support the implementation. In 9


l

l

l

l

l

l

10

the TNG context, this problem is aggravated by staff becoming qualified through the capacity building efforts of the project and then seeking greener work pastures on the strength of their skills.Although perceived as a constraint in this instance, this may by definition be an outcome of capacity building. Ownership. Despite the ‘demand-driven’ principle articulated by MHO, and clearly put into practice in the formal, structural dimensions of the programme, a number of interviewees saw problems in this area. Whether all members of the institution have a sense of ownership of the programme is perceived as something that has not been sufficiently addressed. In particular, while some members of TNG are seen to have ‘owned’ and taken on the programme, others feel less consulted and less involved, and still others are perceived to be resistant. This seems to hinder implementation and follow-through. Procedural constraints. The assessment of project proposals is often experienced as tedious and difficult. Equally, the level of control over project execution is considered to be too bureaucratic, and guidelines are not always clear. The constraint of workload. Again, staff often perceived project demands (for example,attendance at courses and workshops) as conflicting with normal work demands and creating a sense of overload – and often resentment. Real or perceived, this is seen to influence the effectiveness of implementation.There is the common perception that there had been too much duplication in courses and particularly in workshops. The question of whether the ‘problem with workshops’ is in itself the issue, or whether it is a symptom of some broader issue, was also raised. As a systemic question, this may well be resolved through the more holistic approach that is being taken with the Implementation of Streamlining the Organisational structure and channels of Communication (ISOC) project. Lack of capacity in project management. The problem here was seen to be the lack of experience of staff at TNG in managing and administering externally-funded projects, and the resultant difficulties experienced in implementation and accountability. Continuity. Changes, from both the MHO side as well as the TNG side, in key personnel concerned with the programme, were seen as affecting consistency and follow-through of implementation. The lack of continuity in the process and control of strategic planning at TNG was also seen as a specific but far-reaching problem. Conflict of management structures. This is a challenging but highly relevant problem for this particular approach of capacity building. With such a complex and extensive level of intervention in one institution, the problem is how to resolve the need for a project co-ordinator with enough seniority and power to ensure effective decision making, co-ordination and implementation in relation to the needs of the programme, while not


l

l

creating conflicts with the conventional institutional hierarchy and its authority. This is perceived to be an unresolved issue at TNG. Use of consultants.The tendency to use mainly Dutch consultants in relation to TNG projects and workshops was generally found to be problematic. The cost of the Dutch consultants is high; in many cases such consultants lacked sufficient understanding of the immediate context, and language and communication was experienced as a problem. It was felt that more use could be made of local consultants. Institution-wide problems of organisational structures and communication processes. This is seldom referred to explicitly, yet it is perhaps the most commonly implied general problem encompassing other more specific ones. Essentially seen to be a problem of organisational co-ordination and integration of strategic planning within the organisation, it was seen to permeate all dimensions of the organisation’s effectiveness, let alone project implementation itself.

Despite its contribution, the approach is very demanding on the institutional capacities of TNG in terms of the availability of limited internal resources – including finances,staff time,and management capacity.All of these are needed if the project is to be sustainable, but other ongoing institutional demands also compete for all these same resources. Although its broad institution-building perspective has advantages, the approach was also viewed as somewhat ‘lacking in substance’ and not defining its outcomes specifically and concretely enough. The long-term goals of many of the activities contributed to this. The high number of different activities in one institution, and the associated problems of monitoring, managing, integrating and co-ordinating this range of activities, was also evident. This contrasted with the more limited but focused, discipline-related, and explicitly stated capacity building objectives of a programme like TABIESA,for example. Finally, although the variety of expertise in having a range of Dutch institutions involved in different projects was appreciated, the question was raised whether a relationship with just one good institution might not increase co-ordination, support relationship building; and specifically reduce the amount of duplication and overlap in courses and workshops.This raises the issue of how far demand-driven policy can in fact be demand driven when it conflicts with donor policy in other ways. 3. TELP – Pentech/UFH Weaknesses of the TELP approach were as follows: l

Over-complexity. The over-complex, strict and sometimes cumbersome controls around setting up activities involved both delays and what was often seen as excessive time expenditure. The number of steps involved (including those in the institution itself), through UNCF, to USAID (and 11


l

l

l

l

l

12

then often also to consultants via US institutions) – and then the return steps – is found to be time-consuming, frustrating and frequently expensive in terms of delays. Complex accounting requirements. When funds can only be accessed after authorised spending has occurred, and the complex and often slow reimbursement procedures involved in this, places a burden on the institution. Again, while this imposes what may ultimately be seen as capacity building financial discipline, the fact remains that many HDIs – UFH included – have substantial debts which create problems of liquidity.Prioritising funds for TELP activities and developments,even for short-term bridging purposes, constitutes a problem in such contexts. Sustainability. The issue of sustainability recurs frequently in relation to the TELP approach. The main problem is that activities requiring considerable maintenance costs are set up, and staff are either appointed or freed up to co-ordinate the intervention as a whole, or run elements of it, on the basis of TELP funding. How to replace this funding in order to maintain the activities in the long run is the issue. As has happened at Pentech, those activities that are regarded as central to its own strategic plan can be integrated and maintained through top-slicing the budget. However, this solution to the long-term institutionalisation and sustainability of TELP activities depends on the institution: (a) having the funds to top-slice in the first place; and (b) prioritising and integrating the activities in terms of its own strategic goals.This may not be possible or a priority in many HDIs, as can be seen at UFH. Linkage activities. In principle, linkage activities were seen as potentially important, particularly for staff and research development. In practice they tended to be seen as a weakness in the TELP approach. Linkage activities were generally seen as hampered by inequalities of role perception and structure between the relevant linked institutions, and further constrained by indirect and cumbersome communication and administrative procedures. Basically, the process was seen to be too unilateral and insufficiently collaborative. Joint activities.Many criticisms of joint activities were voiced,particularly in relation to workshops. The most important weaknesses were perceived to be insufficient differentiation in terms of varying institutional needs; insufficient contextualisation in terms of HDIs in general, and of specific institutions in particular; and the fact that activities were driven too much by the demands of delivery rather than by criteria of optimising effectiveness. Consultants. The need for more choice about consultants, for more consultants with an understanding of the specific context to be used, and for more continuity and follow-through to be built into the consultative process – especially where workshops were concerned.


l

Emphasis on technical assistance. Although in itself TELP’s emphasis on technical assistance was appreciated, it was also seen as limited – not focused sufficiently on processes of ‘collaborative problem solving’. Competition.There was a perception that areas of joint funding and activity had tended to lead to too much competition,rather than leading to greater mutual support amongst HDIs. Although getting the HDIs together had been an achievement in itself, and although benefits had certainly flowed from this, it was time for this arrangement to be reviewed. It was felt that the Department of Education should ultimately take firmer overall control of the situation through a consultative process.

4. UCT–Mellon The major weakness of this as a general approach to capacity building is that it requires a set of pre-conditions in the institution in which it is applied. Pre-conditions for its effective deployment in any institution are: extensive financial and human resources existing within the institution, and a central and strategic commitment to deploy such funds and resources in a process of institutional transformation and capacity building within its own walls. These conditions may apply in some South African HEIs where the approach could have considerable relevance.However,it would be a tall order for many others. Specific criticisms or challenges identified by the individuals interviewed included: l

l

Some perceived the investment in the AIMS project as taking away institutional resources that could have been better deployed in the university’s primary teaching and research activities, where a number of faculties and departments have experienced severe cut-backs. While academic, management, administrative and support staff who have been directly involved in the process have been committed to its objectives, and have benefited from its transformative and capacity building activities, perceptions of the purposes and processes of the AIMS project has not been as well received by the numbers of staff who have not been directly involved in it. It is acknowledged that this might have been better managed.

Dimensions of difference Throughout this report,context and its influence on both the possibility and the effectiveness of different approaches to capacity building has emerged as a consistent theme. Clearly, different approaches to capacity building cannot be seen as self-contained ‘packages’ that are independent of the different contexts which frame them, nor can they be seen as independent of the different institutional contexts in which they are applied. Some of the most important 13


dimensions of difference that were seen to shape the relationship between donors and recipients in this study are outlined below. Differences of structure Government versus private A major structural difference in the approaches discussed in this report lies between donor organisations that are governmental in origin (USAID/TELP and NUFFIC/MHO) and those which are private (Kellogg and Mellon Foundations). Because of the structural constraints under which governmental organisations must necessarily operate, this difference has a considerable influence on the choices and delivery processes of approaches that involve them. Government–government versus donor–HEI A second important difference exists between USAID/TELP, which is structured according to an explicit bilateral agreement between the governments of the USA and South Africa, and the other three donor organisations which are currently essentially structured according to agreements with individual HEIs.Again,although all donors take account of national policy,this difference affects the degree to which there is interaction and negotiation between the South African government and the Department of Education,and the respective donor organisations,on their policies and approaches to capacity building. Direct versus indirect funding The third structural difference relates to the mode of funding. Mellon (and UCT’s use of its own funds) together with MHO (especially under its tripartite arrangement) deliver funds most directly to the institution in which capacity is to be built. Contrasted with this USAID/TELP and Kellogg both deliver funds more indirectly: USAID/TELP through the agency of UNCF and on the basis of reimbursement; and Kellogg through the agency of its grantee (UP), via relevant NGOs, to its project sites. This difference in directness of funding does not simply have procedural implications. It affects time and efficiency; it affects fund erosion through the costs of intermediaries; and, most importantly, it affects ownership and the capacity which is built through the responsibilities and procedures of institutions having to administer and make financial choices around funds at their disposal. This involvement of accountability and control makes this issue more complex.However,because it affects delivery and ownership in significant ways,it needs to be highlighted and examined closely.

14


Agencies The fourth structural difference is in relation to agencies. Different funders use intermediate agencies differently, and the range is quite wide. At one end of the spectrum there is a complete absence of agencies,as in the case of UCT and Mellon. In other cases not only funding takes place via agencies but implementation of projects also occurs via the agencies. USAID, for example, uses the UNCF to implement some programmes, and to outsource other implementation activities.There is some evidence in the current report that the success of the project is influenced by the agency,both in its funding as well as its delivery mode. This arrangement means that institutions which often have a capacity problem to start off with have to interact with three or more different organisations, with their own requirements and institutional cultures. In addition, there may be some confusion of roles. This is hinted at in the Kellogg model, where a strong, high capacity agency (the University of Pretoria) acts in concert with a smaller, weaker agency (the Development Resource Centre). There may be a need to examine the role of these intermediate agencies much more carefully than was possible in this project. Such an assessment could include the role they play in the project, and what the interaction processes are between the different partners. Differences in conceptualisation and basic strategy Donor–HDI versus donor–HAI Although all four donor organisations reviewed in this report are committed to development in South Africa as a whole, two broad and basic strategy differences are apparent in the different donor approaches. On the one hand, characterised most clearly by USAID/TELP and NUFFIC/MHO, is the commitment to work directly with what are seen as low capacity historically disadvantaged institutions (HDIs) in their efforts to build capacity in the higher education sector. On the other hand, the strategy of the Kellogg and Mellon Foundations is to work through high capacity historically advantaged institutions (HAIs), thus reinforcing centres of excellence through which the store of national capacity may be extended and filtered through the system. Concentrating versus spreading resources Intersecting the above difference, NUFFIC/MHO and Mellon have a strategy of concentration, putting all their resources into the development of one institution. By contrast, USAID/TELP spreads its resources horizontally across a group of institutions, and Kellogg spreads its resources vertically through a filter-down strategy. (Kellogg’s regional policy is also consistent with a horizontal spreading strategy.) Although there are many other variations of strategy amongst the different donor approaches, the two mentioned above probably have the most 15


pervasive influence. Between them, these two strategy differences carry many assumptions about what is and what is not effective capacity building.Neither is necessarily right or wrong, but perhaps the effectiveness of each needs to be examined more closely in relation to different contexts of operation. Systemic versus structural approach A fundamental strategy difference that reveals itself in the conceptualisation of capacity building between donor organisations and HEIs,is how to go about the process of institutional change. At least three of the HEIs involved in this study (Pentech,UFH and UCT) were very explicit about the need for a systemic and interactive approach to change. This included strategies such as analysing the structures, relationships and functions of the institutional system as a whole before attempting to change elements of it; identifying strategic points of leverage which are most likely to generate synergy between activities; and making active use of existing strengths in the institution – including the strengths of particular individuals – as opposed to relying only on imported expertise to generate confidence and ownership, while also developing capacity. By contrast, TELP was mainly structural in its orientation, the essence of which is to build specific elements of the organisation. On the information provided, the Kellogg Foundation’s strategy was broad but diffused across a range of intervention levels, and the Development Resource Centre (DRC) respondent certainly indicated the need for more clarity. MHO, while articulating systemic principles, had mainly operated in structural terms to this point. (UCT’s AIMS strategy was explicitly systemic.) This difference in conceptualisation and the strategic approach to organisational change is important.Theories of organisation development have long advocated the effectiveness of a more systemic, interactional approach to change. The views of HEIs in this study should be heard, not only for their theoretical import, but also because such views have an experiential validity from the perspective of recipient organisations. Differences of existing institutional capacity As has emerged at various points in this report, the level of existing capacity in institutions has a significant influence on the types of capacity building interventions that are possible, their effectiveness, and their apparent sustainability. The difference between high and low capacity is therefore an important dimension to consider. Nevertheless, the conventional and absolute line that is drawn between HAIs and HDIs on this dimension appears to be misleading.In this study alone,which involves only five HEIs,it should be clear that ther is a continuum, not an absolute division. Apart from historical advantage/disadvantage, which certainly has a significant effect, factors such as the age of an establishment; institutional identity and physical resources; duration of stable leadership and governance; together with power within a 16


region of the country or a group of competing institutions; all have their effect on existing capacity. It should be apparent from this study that such a continuum exists. Significantly, if decisions are to be made about what forms of capacity building are most likely to be effective in which kinds of institutional contexts, then the level of existing capacity must be a primary differentiating factor. All the evidence points to this.But if the division is simply based on the HAI/HDI criterion, it is likely to miss the mark in many cases. The level of existing capacity must be seen as spread along a continuum from low to high, or at the least in rational clusters along such a continuum. Only in this way can forms of capacity building and institutional contexts be matched in ways that have a reasonable chance of success at different levels.

Sustainability Related to the problem of existing institutional capacity is a critical issue that is not easily resolved. As emerges repeatedly throughout the study, capacity building interventions depend on them being sustainable after donor funds have been withdrawn, if they are to have any ultimate value. But sustainability depends on the degree of ownership that has been established in relation to the relevant capacity building activities: unless the institution feels it owns and is committed to the activities to the extent that it is ultimately prepared to maintain and fund them out of its own resources, sustainability cannot be achieved. Ownership, in turn, depends on the degree to which the capacity building intervention has been internally driven – the degree to which the institution has been able to exercise its own choices in terms of project activities,processes and procedures – including financial procedures and access to the resources it requires. (This contrasts with interventions that are externally driven, where the choices and agendas are essentially in the hands of the donor organisation.) To make effective choices and be internally driven, in its turn, depends on a sufficient level of existing capacity to carry this through. It requires the institution, at the very least, to know clearly where it is going and what it needs to get there.It also requires sufficient administrative and management capacity to be accountable for its choices and to follow these through and maintain them. The emphasis on leadership, strategic planning and management competencies that appear in all the approaches reviewed is therefore understandable. It is based on the assumption of a linear chain of factors, and assumes that – by focusing on the lowest point of the chain – the other essential elements of effective capacity building will be generated upwards through the chain. However, the chain is not linear. It is circular. Thus, once we get to the requirement for sufficient existing capacity in the chain, the question is: What should be done if the minimum capacity requirements do not exist?. The 17


answer has been: build the required capacity. As we have seen, to do that effectively depends on sustainability and all the factors which then underpin this. ‘Building the required capacity’ in terms of the deficiencies of an institution, through an externally driven approach,simply feeds back into the cycle again. FIGURE 1: THE CYCLE OF CAPACITY BUILDING

depends on

depends on Sustainability

Building required capacity

Ownership

depends on

depends on

Internally driven intervention

Sufficient existing capacity

depends on

The critical issue, therefore, is how to break into this cycle effectively, and at what point or points to do this.Certainly,with institutions perceived to have low or insufficient capacity, the conventional approach has been to enter at the ‘build-the-required-capacity’ point through an externally driven approach. This makes good sense if the chain is indeed linear.Since the indications are that it is not, a strategy needs to be devised which takes account of the cyclical, systemic nature of the issue. Although neat answers are not apparent at this stage, some likely starting points in a different orientation to the issue than is currently apparent would seem to be: l l l

18

Approaching the issue from a systemic point of view. Thinking in terms of multiple, optimally synergistic entry points in the cycle, as appropriate for any one institution. Building from strengths, even if they are minimal to start with, rather than from a perspective of deficit.


In the following section, observations about what appears to have been less or more effective in the approaches reviewed in this report are presented, as it may be possible to incorporate these into the broader orientation referred to above.

Dimensions of effectiveness The dimensions of effectiveness presented in this section should not be taken as absolute. As such, the dimensions of effectiveness should be understood as perceptions and interpretations of a situation in which it is in many cases too early to judge effectiveness from outcomes. In addition, the review encompasses only a limited number of institutions, from which the data was gathered within a circumscribed time period (July 2000 to March 2001) and where much of the interview material was drawn only from key figures in donor organisations and institutions. These limitations aside, it would not make sense to attempt to make a blanket comparative evaluation of these four approaches to capacity building anyhow. As should now be apparent, there are too many dimensions of difference that would make direct comparisons meaningless. Nevertheless, what has emerged clearly from this review is that there is an interaction between the capacity building approaches and the institutional context(s) in which they are applied. What is presented, therefore, is an interpretation of some combinations of approach and institutional capacity that appear to have most potential, and some elements that appear to be most problematic. These are briefly stated, since the substance behind each point is apparent in the body of the report. Approach-context combinations that appear to have the most potential 1.

High capacity institutions l l l

l

Approaches are maximally internally driven and therefore generate optimal ownership. Since internal funding is usually possible within such institutions, it should be used to promote commitment and sustainability. Multiple, interactive capacity building activities are possible, using the institution’s strengths in mentoring or apprenticeship wherever practicable. Approaches to internal capacity building are linked in dynamic, interactive and explicit ways with wider dimensions of development in the communities served by the HEI and nationally. Examples include research and course development initiatives with such interaction and synergism built in. 19


2.

Medium capacity institutions l

l l

l

l

3.

Low capacity institutions l

l l

l

l

20

Approaches are internally driven to the extent that they interact specifically with the institution’s own strategic view and objectives. They should involve minimal constraints, and make active use of the institution’s strengths. External funding is direct, with maximum institutional responsibility and flexibility in using its funds. Some degree of internal funding of capacity building activities, whether initially or phased in, is desirable to reinforce ownership and sustainability. Concurrent capacity building activities are possible, but should all be institution specific and optimally synergistic. Activities that interact with development in the HEI’s community are desirable. Inter-institutional linkages may be useful if they can be based on equality and joint, product-related interests in research or development.

Approaches have a degree of external regulation,but attempt to reduce this wherever possible and practicable (as a priority, systems would intentionally be set up to make internal regulation more possible). Approaches, and activities within them, are flexible to allow for modification as the process of capacity building evolves. External funding is used, but procedures are as direct and uncomplicated as possible to avoid the time wastage, confusion and frustration which erode commitment. Some degree of ownership and responsibility for funds is desirable. Activities are limited to a chosen few with optimal synergistic effects. Activities are relatively short term and outcome specific – and could link productively with local community needs.Such activities optimise impact, maintain focus and create confidence in and commitment to the intervention. Selected workshop input is possible, but is limited to the institution’s choice of topic,and uses consultants with knowledge of the institution and its context.


Elements that appear to be most problematic

l

Complex arrangements of intermediaries which result in time delays, erosion of funds to recipients for whom the funds were not intended, and lack of clarity about procedures, roles, rights, etc. Interventions that are exclusively or predominantly deficit-oriented, and that do not involve a collaborative approach to problem solving. Undifferentiated joint interventions where the differing needs of participants are not taken into account. Especially in low capacity contexts: too many concurrent activities, activities that have objectives that are too long term and diffuse, or activities that have not been carefully prioritised and endorsed by the institution as a whole. Any or all of these can result in loss of focus and commitment. Complex procedural requirements that serve the purposes of the donor but not of the capacity building process itself. Inter-institutional linkage arrangements where the relationship is structured unequally and where collaboration is not prioritised.

l l l

l l

Observations The conclusions discussed all point to one final inference: there needs to be a differentiated approach to institutions with different capacities. The dimensions along which capacity building approaches differ, and the different dimensions along which they can be considered as effective, simply makes a one-size-fits-all approach unworkable. l

l

The primary and most general recommendation that flows from this report is that the South African DoE will need to consider to what extent it wishes to play an active role in capacity building initiatives in higher education institutions.As is evident from this report,the DoE will be faced with a complex situation.In some ways this situation will constrain the role it can play, and in other ways it creates the potential for a more active role. The recommendations that follow will best serve as points of entry in considering the possible extent and dimensions of DoE involvement. In terms of the structural difference of capacity building funding originating from external government versus private sources, there is much potential for the DoE to work more closely and fruitfully with all donor organisations that are governmental in origin.Although there is less potential with privately funded organisations,collaboration is still possible.

21

CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVES IN HIGHER EDUCATION l

l

l

l

l

l

l

22

The extent of negotiation/collaboration possible with either group of donors will ultimately depend on the clarity of the DoE’s own strategic plan in relation to the development of higher education in South Africa, and the role of capacity building initiatives within this. Funding mechanisms should be negotiated to be as direct as possible. This implies that: o There should be as few intermediaries as possible. o Access to funding should be as procedurally uncomplicated as possible. o Most importantly, local institutions should have as much discretion in the disbursement of funds, balanced by relevant accountability, as is practically possible. The relative advantages and disadvantages of concentrating resources versus spreading resources should not be judged as absolute, but should be examined in relation to different contexts of operation. A systemic approach to the analysis, development, delivery and monitoring of capacity building initiatives of whatever sort, involving the DoE, donor organisation and the institutions concerned, is strongly recommended. Existing differences in capacity at HEIs should be viewed as occurring on a continuum, rather than as an absolute split between those with and without capacity. A simple division between high, medium and low capacity institutions may be useful in this regard. It is critically important that capacity building be viewed as cyclical in nature, and not as a linear process. If it is thought of in this way, then the cycle of capacity building can be accessed simultaneously at multiple, synergistically effective entry points. The notion of different capacity building ‘approach-context combinations’ is suggested as an analytical tool with which to examine the potential of different activities and interventions in various contexts.While the validity of the particular combinations suggested above is limited in the ways indicated, these points may nevertheless act as useful starting points for discussions between the DoE and particular donors and institutions.

SECTION 2

FOUR CASE STUDIES l l l l

THE KELLOGG FOUNDATION NUFFIC/MHO TERTIARY EDUCATION LINKAGES PROJECT (TELP) THE MELLON FOUNDATION

The Kellogg Foundation


CASE STUDY 1


CASE STUDY 1


Introduction

The WK Kellogg Foundation (WKKF) has programmes in the United States of America,Latin America,the Caribbean,and in six Southern African countries: Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, South Africa, Swaziland and Zimbabwe. THE APACITY KELLOGG BUILDING In the FOUNDATION Southern INITIATIVES AfricanIN region, HIGHER one Higher EDUCATION Education Institution (HEI) is C selected as the ‘country hub’and ‘grantee’for the disbursement of funds in each of the respective countries. Project partners, namely NGOs, are identified, and project sites are then selected for the actual interventions.(See Figure 2 below.) FIGURE 2: THE KELLOGG FOUNDATION APPROACH KELLOGG FOUNDATION REGIONAL COUNCIL Country Hubs

Regional Hub

University of Lesotho

NGO

University of Pretoria

University of Zimbabwe

NGO

NGO

Country Hubs University of Botswana

NGO

University of Swaziland

NGO

27


The University of Pretoria (UP) is the HEI and grantee through which the Kellogg Foundation (Kellogg) works in South Africa.It is the largest residential university in South Africa, situated in the industrial heartland of the country. It reached full-fledged and autonomous university status in 1930, and currently has ten faculties.

Conceptualisation of capacity building The Kellogg approach to capacity building The WK Kellogg Foundation is guided by the mission ‘to help people help themselves through practical application of knowledge and resources to improve their quality of life and that of future generations’. The Foundation’s programme activities centre around the vision of a world in which each person has a sense of worth, accepts responsibility for self, family, community, and societal well-being, and has the capacity to be productive, and to help create nurturing families, responsible institutions, and healthy communities. Some of the central values and principles that guide the foundation are: l l l l

l l l

Those who are most vulnerable in society should have a voice and be heard. All communities have assets, including history, knowledge, and the power to define and solve their own problems. Nurturing individuals and families fosters the growth of healthy communities. Partnerships, collaboration and civic participation are fundamental to improving organisations and institutions, and to assuring sustainable social change. A society’s future is dependent upon the quality of nurturance and investment in its children. The human condition can be improved by the appropriate use of knowledge, science, and technology. Long-term sustainability should be encouraged through the wise use of human and natural resources.

All investments in Southern Africa fall under three long-term goals:

l l l

28

Developing human capital. Increasing economic opportunity. Improving civic participation.

THE KELLOGG FOUNDATION

To achieve these objectives, funding focuses on three main priorities: l l l

Institutional and organisational development and transformation. Strengthening leadership capacity. Strengthening the capacity of communities.

A fourth strategy involves Integrated Impact Services (IIS). This acts as a radar system for the programme, ensuring that programme assumptions are consistent with the foundation’s goals and values as well as with the regional context, goals and objectives. The IIS promotes effectiveness, efficiency, design and implementation relevance and the creation of a positive environment for programme success. Programming in Southern Africa is built on the recognition of an African cultural and historical heritage.The foundation’s approach to development and systemic change (the WKKF Africa Program) seeks to identify a strong set of African values and principles, and to use these to build a modern, functional African society, at all levels: community, civil society, organisations, economy and government; and to use their contribution to influence the global community. The foundation uses a partnership approach based on the principle that effective programming relies on processes that are collaborative, people driven and participatory. It does not actually run projects. Instead its pool of grant holders perform the tasks in line with the underlying philosophy and strategy. Characteristic of the present Southern African programmes is the connection of institutions with communities. The foundation ‘seeks to assist the social and economic transformation of the region and to nurture its emerging democracies by strengthening the capacity of individuals, families, organisations and institutions for the development of healthy and sustainable communities’.Thus the focus of the foundation’s approach is on the community. The HEI is the channel through which funds ultimately reach community sites via participating NGOs whose capacity is also built in the process.Even though the focus is on the community, the HEI is still able to use the funds strategically for its own ends. This makes it a fairly complicated approach. It focuses on the community, but there is an intention to build capacity in all participants. The overall goal of the programmes is to strengthen the capacity of civil society organisations and their public and private sector partners and to seek multi-sectoral solutions to community problems, particularly the problem of rural poverty – especially as it impacts on family life, women and youth. Other views The notion of capacity building varied amongst the different stakeholders at the University of Pretoria and the Kellogg Foundation, although common ground appeared to prevail around the foundation’s mission ‘to help people 29


help themselves through practical application of knowledge and resources to improve their quality of life and that of future generations’. This notion of capacity development is clearly invested in developing the individual. The Leadership Regional Network for Southern Africa (LeaRN) project leader saw capacity building as ‘investing in human capacity development to contribute to the society they live in’. This initiative is seen as enabling the advancement of human capacity development in South Africa through the foundation’s interest in human capital in sub-Saharan Africa. The University of Pretoria’s Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) team sees capacity building as developing integrated rural strategies and building rural societies.This was seen as their first priority,but they also saw the possibility of building capacity of staff and students through the opening of research opportunities. The Development Resource Centre (DRC) saw the Kellogg approach as intended to build capacity in communities, but conceded that capacity would also be built in the University of Pretoria itself. Clearly, interviewees saw capacity building as operating at several levels: that of the rural site, the co-operating partner, university staff and students. All, however, focused first on capacity development in the community. Capacity development for staff and students came from working in the community with insights fed back into teaching and research.

The Kellogg Foundation capacity building approach in practice Structure and management Typically the Kellogg Foundation sets up a relationship in the following way. First,it invites proposals from HEIs or it is approached with a funding idea.One HEI is then selected as the grantee and, with foundation support, it writes a proposal. Other HEIs in the region are then taken on to form ‘country hubs’. The next step is that project partners (NGOs) are identified, and project sites are selected. Finally, the project begins operation (see Figure 2 on p. 27). A variation to this process occurred in the case of the Leadership Regional Network for Southern Africa (LeaRN) initiative. At the initial selection stage the HEI,University of Pretoria,indicated that they were in partnership with an NGO, the Development Resource Centre (DRC). The DRC did not, however, become a grantee. Generally, the elements of the funding structure consist of: l l l

30

The donors (WK Kellogg and other donors). A grantee (a university,for example the University of Zimbabwe or the University of Pretoria). A regional council (governing and policy making body).

THE KELLOGG FOUNDATION l l l

A country hub (usually a university) in each of the participating countries in the region. An NGO (working in conjunction with the country hub to execute the programmes at project sites). Smaller groups such as reference groups, forums, or programme committees which filter advice back to the regional councils.

Funding goes from the donor(s) directly to the grantee. From there it is disbursed through the NGO to the grass root beneficiaries. The beneficiaries access the funds (sometimes donations in kind) to execute the activities in line with project objectives. The elements of the generic management structure consist of:

l l l l

Regional hub (university). Executive committee (reference group or council). Country hub (country management committee). Country programme co-ordination and support.

Projects and activities The Southern African programme is comprised of three capacity building initiatives:

l l l

Strengthening the capacity of communities: Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP). Strengthening leadership capacity: Leadership Regional Network for Southern Africa (LeaRN). Building sustainable agricultural practice and capacity: Initiative for Development and Equity in African Agriculture (IDEAA).

For each initiative there is a grant holder who runs the project. The University of Pretoria is a grant holder for two of the initiatives:the IRDP and LeaRN.

31


Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) District-level sites are targeted to increase co-operation among local government, educational institutions and agencies, and to enhance participation of rural youth and families in social and economic development. The IRDP initiative has four objectives: l

l l l

To increase civic participation by mobilising the community in each IRDP site to plan, design and execute a holistic, integrated and agreed-upon strategy towards their economic, social and physical empowerment and development, with a major focus on the empowerment of women and youth. To enable the economic empowerment of the community as a whole. To enable physical and psychological well being at the individual and household level. To develop skills, knowledge and understanding through the implementation of strategy aimed at empowering the community at each site with a special focus on women and the youth.

This is thus a multi-faceted initiative, of which the overall strategy is to reduce rural poverty. The initiative addresses issues such as inadequate access to services, resources and political power, and a limited ability to participate and influence policy. The IRDP is co-ordinated by the University of Pretoria’s Post-graduate School of Agriculture and Rural Development as the regional and country hub. It collaborates with the University of Zimbabwe’s Centre for Applied and Social Studies. The initiative supports, and is part of, the outreach programme of the School,which gives students opportunity to study rural situations and to contribute to projects and solutions in those communities. The initiative supports integrated development activities in nine rural districts in six Southern African country hubs: Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, South Africa, Swaziland and Zimbabwe. Leadership Regional Network for Southern Africa (LeaRN) This initiative aims to build the capacity of leaders at local, provincial, national, regional and global levels, and to increase community voices in the policy development process, thereby strengthening young leaders for the future. It attempts to nurture leadership for social and economic development through experiential and formal learning opportunities, through stimulation of social partnerships, and through facilitation of critical reflection at all levels of society. Core values such as shared responsibility, collective and shared leadership, accountability and transparency, building and sharing of best practices, and 32


leadership through service, inform its activities. LeaRN has five subprogrammes: l Local Leaders. The goal is to support, strengthen and develop local leaders who will enhance the conditions for social and economic development. The constituency of this programme comprises traditional leaders, councillors, church leaders, CBOs and local NGOs. l Youth 21. The goal is to help youth to participate in the development of their communities with skills that prepare them for future entrepreneurial, government and civil society organisational leadership. The constituency is all youth – primarily in rural areas. l Leadership Academy. The goals here are to provide opportunities for formal study and learning experiences that will increase knowledge and consciousness, explore values and attitudes, and develop leaderships skills which lead to effective action.The constituency consists of the Leadership Academy programme ‘fellows’ (long-term study of no less than two to three years) and ‘associates’ (short courses and experiences) drawn from a range of people involved with the development of rural communities and the institutions that support them.An element of the Leadership Academy is the study grant programme that supports post-graduate training in Southern Africa and the United States of America in selected relevant study areas. l Public Policy Dialogue. The goal is to strengthen and develop the capacities of individuals, communities, organisations and institutions to participate more effectively in the policy-making process at all levels of civic life. Regional themes include local governance; equitable access to land and secure tenure rights; micro-finance and mainstream financial markets; and high quality and relevant education. The constituency comprises community leaders, academics, business leaders, administrators, political decision makers,policy related NGOs and CBOs,and the thinking public. l Global Leadership. The goal is to develop people’s understanding of the impact of globalisation and to respond to it both from a local and regional perspective. The constituency comprises local, national and regional leaders and communities. This programme also seeks to expose and alleviate African solutions that have global significance. Initiative for Development and Equity in African Agriculture (IDEAA) IDEAA seeks innovative ways of improving the provision of services to smallholder farmers by public, private and civic institutions. It believes that efficient demand-driven services will result in improved productivity of the smallholder agricultural sector in Africa,and an increase in household incomes. The project brings together institutions and providers of agricultural

33


information, transport services, finance, machinery and marketing to enable change in policies that hinder effective service provision to farmers. IDEAA was established in 1997 as one of the Southern African regional initiatives. The regional office which co-ordinates the initiative is at the University of Zimbabwe’s Department of Agricultural Extension.Programmes run in Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Malawi, South Africa and Zimbabwe. In South Africa, the programmes are based in the Eastern Cape, Kwa-Zulu Natal, and the Northern Province. Of the three initiatives, two (IDEAA and LeaRN) have been in operation for more than three years,while the third,IRDP,is in the process of being set up. From September 2001, IRDP (the second phase of IDEAA) will be launched, including work in Mozambique, and focusing on strengthening market opportunities for farmers and production associates. The second phase of the IRDP will be assigned to the University of Pretoria. Implementation of capacity building activities The Kellogg Foundation’s primary focus is the development of rural communities where poverty reduction is key. Capacity building in HEIs is a secondary focus. The Universities of Pretoria and Zimbabwe were selected as grantees on the basis of their rural development programmes. Thus, capacity building within these institutions must be in line with Kellogg’s vision, values, principles and specific areas of focus. In the LeaRN project, the University of Pretoria is partnered with the DRC. As described earlier, programmes have been run at UP as well as in each country, and scholarships have been awarded through the study grants components of the Leadership Academy (managed by the Academy of Educational Development) for study purposes. The university’s perception is that while programmes are driven by NGO needs, it wishes to strengthen the academic component of the initiative. It wants a focus beyond direct development so as to emphasise education as a socialising force in building a civil society. IDEAA activities in Phase I (1997–2000) that have been implemented: setting up of the project with a regional office and country offices; selection of Country Implementation Councils; selection and appointment of fellows; and presentation of five capacity building sessions at five country hubs. These included: l l l l

34

Building teams for effective transformation of smallholder agriculture. Putting farmers at the centre of all activities. Transforming institutions for effective service delivery to smallholder farmers. Broadening smallholder farmers access to services for sustainable agriculture.

THE KELLOGG FOUNDATION l

Building leadership for sustainable transformation of smallholder agriculture.

The IRDP initiative commenced its implementation by selecting and operating in three pilot sites. Work in these sites started at the beginning of 1998 and was concluded at the end of 2000.The rollout of the first phase of the project commenced with the identification of these three sites. The University of Pretoria managed the programme. The remaining six sites will be identified during the following year. The selection of the nine sites and the implementation programme within these sites is based on the lessons generated from the pilot sites (two in South Africa and one in Zimbabwe), and the outcome of the consultation with all partners. Negotiations with communities about implementation will follow. Perceived constraints in successful implementation The approach is complicated, with a substantial number of interdependent components. From the literature provided and interviews undertaken, the greatest challenge appears to be to co-ordinate and synchronise the various constituent parts of a complicated and multi-component programme. The information documented on the perceived constraints is based on the views of individuals within the WKKF,the University of Pretoria and the Development Research Centre.It does not reflect the views of the consultants on the project. In the case of LeaRN,DRC was of the view that there was a change of focus in the partnership between the UP (grantee) and its partner (the DRC) which introduced some tension. Since the DRC is not a grantee, the attitude of the donor is that its selection as an NGO partner is the prerogative of the UP.This is somewhat contradictory to documentary evidence that indicates the UP and DRC are indeed partners. In an interview with the DRC representative, this dissatisfaction was expressed in the view that the UP appeared to have entered into competition with its partners, both with respect to building its academic programmes and with respect to staff recruitment. An example given was the courses developed by the partner institutions where the quality assurance was done and accredited by the UP.This had not been well received by academics at other universities in the region. On the other hand, the UP was aware that the development of courses had to be negotiated, as the university might want to develop a course that had not been identified as a need from the other partners. The university had apparently also been able to identify good staff to recruit. This had helped the university change its staff profile and add to its research strengths, but had depleted the organisation which had lost the person. 35


The perspective from the UP’s side was that allocation of funds, and perceptions about this, had to be very carefully managed. It was felt that NGOs tended to fear the power of universities and to view them with suspicion. It is clear that the relative strengths of partners in the relationship will always be a source of tension. Where a strong university such as the UP works with a weaker partner, problems arise in meeting the weaker partner’s goals or in its being able to stand up to the stronger partner. The focus of the initiative has also shifted somewhat. A representative from the University of Pretoria noted that the Kellogg perspective had always been driven by its focus on rural communities.This conclusion was reached through an analysis of the Southern African realities and not just the realities faced within South Africa. Even though 70% of the population lives in rural communities in South Africa, poverty and dysfunction exist equally in urban areas. Kellogg apparently now accepts this, so that the focus has shifted to include both urban and rural populations. Despite being clearly justified, this shift has created some uncertainties about the foundation’s objectives. Outcomes Implementation of the Kellogg–UP approach appears to have been substantial. There are multiple community projects, courses have been introduced and scholarships have been awarded. In the case of IRDP, ambitious plans are being set in place. Evidence of how successful these implementations have been, however, and of what tangible outcomes have been achieved in terms of the stated objectives, is less clear. Less tangible outcomes are nevertheless apparent. The initiatives appear to fit within a broader UP strategy to extend its influence and to change its research focuses and its staff composition. One UP representative said that the university took a strategic view rather than focusing on immediate benefits.He said that while the university had previously had a different involvement in South Africa, it now wanted to make a contribution to the new South Africa and to unleash its resources in southern and sub-Saharan Africa. The representative from the DRC noted that large injections of funds had allowed UP to lever resources from other sources as well. Certainly, official university publications describe a complex and extensive web of large projects that reinforce and feed into each other. The outgoing vice-chancellor reportedly paid great attention to changing the staff profile of the university and these projects had supported this aim. (One interviewee questioned to what extent these benefits went beyond the Kellogg project and its specified goals.)

36


Review of the approach in context Strengths An approach of the kind illustrated by the Kellogg Foundation (Kellogg) and the University of Pretoria (UP) allows the possibility for capacity development at several levels.Compared to other approaches,it introduces another level into the capacity building mix:the (rural) community.In terms of the systemic view presented in Figure 2 (p. 27), this adds a significant dimension to capacity building and its potential impact beyond the institution itself. Through working at multiple levels of capacity building, a potential is generated for mutual benefit involving the university,the NGOs,and the rural communities. When a donor wishes to contribute to building capacity in a country, particularly at grass roots level, involving multiple NGOs and project sites, how to co-ordinate the initiative and disburse funds must constitute a central problem.In this situation there are clear advantages to working through a strong (high capacity) institution in one country to co-ordinate the initiative and to partner the relevant NGOs.The approach must then assume that resources and capacity will effectively ‘filter down’ from the grantee to other levels. This assumption cannot, however, be taken for granted and can only be tested in practice. It is clear, given the objectives of the Kellogg Foundation, that the capacity building initiatives fitted in well with the UP’s existing projects and structures, such as those in the School of Agriculture and Rural Development. The relationship between Kellogg and UP therefore had a basis of experience and strength to build on from the start. Weaknesses A weakness of the Kellogg Foundation–University of Pretoria approach is its complicated, hierarchical design. Although the primary objective is to benefit communities at grass roots level, the line from the foundation to grantee institution to NGO to project sites and ultimately to people in communities is a long one. Inevitably such a long disbursement line is difficult to co-ordinate, to implement,and to control in terms of time wastage and the erosion of resources down that line. This being the case, there are many instances where the funds are disbursed from the foundation directly to the NGOs and CBOs. In addition,differential power relations could reduce the effectiveness of the intervention strategies. When working with a strong grantee such as UP, there are clearly problems with weaker partners meeting their own goals, or even standing up to the needs of the stronger partner. When there is such a discrepancy in the relative power and capacity of partners, there is a danger that the stronger partner can act to build its own strength further.

37


A possible negative consequence for the country more broadly is that the donor has allied directly and exclusively with one high-capacity grantee that acts as a conduit for all its funds. While this may be a logical choice within the donor’s objectives and approach, it may inadvertently create more imbalances in the higher education sector than presently exist. In support of the above observations, the NGO respondent suggested that several changes would be necessary if the approach were to be made more workable. These included more attention to clarifying what the approach intended (for example, what are the specific expectations, responsibilities and limitations of the grantee or country hub?); clear expectations for each of the partners about the project and of each other; and a simplified management approach.

38

Netherlands Organisation for International Co-operation in Higher Education/MHO

NUFFIC / MHO

CASE STUDY 2

Netherlands Organisation for International Co-operation in Higher Education/MHO Introduction The Netherlands Organisation for International Co-operation in Higher Education (NUFFIC) administers a number of programmes, MHO (Medefinancieringsprogramma voor Hoger Onderwyssamewerking – Joint Financing Programme for Higher Education Co-operation) – being one of these. MHO was established in 1993, but originated out of earlier programmes based on linkages between higher education institutions of the Netherlands and those of developing countries. (See Figure 3 below.) FIGURE 3: THE NUFFIC/MHO APPROACH NUFFIC/ C APACITY BUILDING MHO INITIATIVE S

Dutch Human Development Policy

Ministry of Development Co-operation

IN

HIGHER EDUCATIO N

Capacity built by joint project management

Joint project management

NUFFIC

Southern Hemisphere HEI

Dutch HEI

Joint project management Capacity built by Dutch institutions in TNG

The approach of working through inter-institutional linkages, as developed in its early phases, has remained characteristic of MHO’s basic philosophy and method of operation. Thus: 41

NUFFIC / MHO

CASE STUDY 2

CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVES IN HIGHER EDUCATION The characteristic feature of the MHO programme is the mobilisation of Dutch expertise through the establishment of long term inter-institutional linkages between one institute for higher education in a developing country and several Dutch institutes for higher education. These linkages are a means of institution building and knowledge transfer. (MHO, 1998, p. 3)

Although the Dutch Minister of Development Co-operation recently decided to phase out MHO as a particular programme, it will evidently make way for a new Institutional Development Programme in 2002 (NUFFIC, 2000). Whether the same philosophy will underlie the new programme is not yet clear,but given the consistent history of using ‘inter-institutional linkage’as the approach for Dutch bilateral co-operation and development in higher education, the chances of this remaining are high. In South Africa MHO supports one selected institution: Technikon Northern Gauteng (TNG). One of 14 technikons in South Africa, and amongst six others that are regarded as HDIs, TNG was established at Soshanguve, 30 km north-west of Pretoria, in 1979. Since its inception its primary purpose has been to provide vocationally oriented education to students in a context of severe social and economic disadvantage. Technikon Northern Gauteng currently has four faculties. Student enrolment stands at approximately 9 500 (year 2000 figures), with an academic staff complement of approximately 260 (part time and full time) and a non-academic staff complement of approximately 500 (MHO, 1999). TNG was chosen from amongst a number of other South African HDIs, primarily because the institution clearly articulated its strategic priorities. In terms of MHO’s policy of ‘demand-driven institution building’ (see below), this was seen to be a key criterion in the choice of institution. Apart from this, the extent of the developmental needs at TNG and in its surrounding community also influenced the choice.

Conceptualisation of capacity building MHO’s objectives and principles of capacity building MHO’s interventions are governed by a number of explicitly stated policy objectives and principles. Objectives 1. Institution building This is consistently stated, in all documentation, as MHO’s priority. Because this governs, and has had a critical influence on many levels of decision making and practice – as was corroborated in our direct observations of the MHO–TNG relationship – it is important to set out MHO’s own operational definition of ‘institution building’. It is seen as: 42

NUFFIC/MHO the process in which an institution improves its ability to: define its mission statement, including teaching and research objectives; and develop a strategic plan to meet the objectives; translate the strategies into a plan of operations; implement the plan of operations and manage it by: o mobilizing the . . . resources required for implementation; o raising the level of training of teaching and research staff; o managing the existing . . . infrastructure and other resources; o monitoring the implementation; o evaluating the results; o translate the outcome of evaluations into terms of policy development; and o strengthen relations with government, other educational institutes, and society . . . (Abbreviated from MHO, 1998, p. 5)

2. Human resource development This ‘...refers to increasing the number and/or improving the quality of people that are educated at tertiary level. In other words, meeting the country’s needs for manpower with high level technical and professional skills.’ It ‘. . . does not refer to the further education and training of the staff of the institutions of higher education; staff development in this sense must be seen as part of the process of institution building.’ (MHO, 1998, pp. 5–6). In this sense, ‘institution building’ is the primary objective, with ‘human resource development’ being seen as the derivative objective – or the ultimate outcome of the former process. Principles 1. Concentration This principle refers not only to a concentration of effort and funding on one particular institution in a given developing country, but also to the number of inter-related and simultaneously operating projects which are typically implemented within that institution. Through this concentration of projects, the programme aims to generate added value whereby ‘the result of the co-operation as a whole is larger than the sum of results of all the individual projects together’ (MHO, 1998, p. 7). This added value is seen in terms of cost-efficiency through the sharing of resources across projects, as well as through the academic and managerial synergy that is generated in the process. 2. Demand-driven practice The importance of taking the strategic plan of the recipient institution as the starting point for all interventions is continually emphasised in MHO documentation (MHO, 1998; Vogels and Samarakoon, 1999). Demand-driven practice is seen as a guiding principle in all MHO’s inter-institutional relationships and as a criterion for the success of its primary objective of institution building. 43


3. Transfer of knowledge and skills Working through inter-institutional linkages, MHO places its emphasis on the transfer of knowledge and skills – from the Dutch institutions to the developing one – as the main means of achieving institution building. As a consequence of this, a 20% budgetary limit is placed on material support (buildings, material resources, etc.), and the material support that is provided should be directly supportive of projects aimed at the transfer of knowledge and skills (MHO, 1998). 4. Sustainability Intervening for change that is sustainable in the long term, especially once support is withdrawn, is a common goal in most capacity building approaches. MHO,with its concentration within one institution,emphasises stable levels of staffing, as well as consistency, reliability and adequacy of internal managerial and administrative support in the creation of change that will be sustainable in the long term. The main focus areas of MHO’s interventions at TNG are: l l l l l l l

Non-academic support – human resource managers. Academic staff development. Improving information technology. Quality assurance in teaching, research and extension services. Training middle management. Improving personnel department. Organisational restructuring.

In summary, MHO’s conceptualisation of capacity building clearly foregrounds institution building. The programme aims to increase national human resource capacity through its concentrated focus on building the capacity of a disadvantaged tertiary institution to deliver the relevant education and training effectively and efficiently. This much is apparent in its own documentation. The strategies to be used in this process, or just how capacity is to be built, can be discerned in the operational definition of institution building given earlier, as well as through other operational principles like the concentration of inter-related and simultaneously operating projects to create added value; the transfer of knowledge and skills on a demand-driven basis; and the creation of sustainable operational change.

44

NUFFIC/MHO

TNG’s views Since the above strategic principles were clearly articulated in documentation available at TNG, the key terms and concepts appeared to be familiar to the majority of interviewees. Nevertheless, there was something of a difference between this ‘formal’ conceptualisation and what most interviewees saw as capacity building in practice. Thus, although a systemic conceptualisation is apparent in the notion of institution building and,for example,in such concepts as ‘the whole being greater than its parts’, the majority of interviewees saw the intervention as a ‘collection of projects’. Some projects were seen to be more related to each other than others, but not in a systemic way: not in interaction with the institution as a whole. In almost all cases, when it really came down to it,it was the training and development of individual staff members,formally and informally, which was seen as the essence of capacity building at TNG. An important exception to this, which may signal a significant evolutionary change in how the process is seen and operationalised from both the MHO and the TNG sides, appears to be manifesting in the Implementation of Streamlining the Organisational structure and channels of Communication (ISOC) project (see below). This project has apparently emerged out of a growing awareness that organisational structures and communication processes need to be looked at, systemically, from a ‘whole institution’ perspective if parts of the institution, including MHO projects individually and collectively, are to operate more effectively.

The NUFFIC/MHO capacity building approach in practice Structure and management MHO has worked through two funding structures:bipartite and tripartite.The bipartite structure, which predominated in the preparatory phases of the different projects at TNG,basically involves MHO funding and administering a project through an institution in the Netherlands. Thus, as still exists in the Middle management Capacity Building (MMCB) project, the relationship is from MHO to the Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS) at the University of Twente and then to TNG:

MHO

CHEPS (University of Twente)

TNG

45


The tripartite structure, through which the other four original projects have been funded since 1998, involves funding and administration from MHO to both the recipient as well as to the Dutch institution(s). Active collaboration between the two institutions is further encouraged. Thus, in the Improvement of Information Technology (IIT) project, for example, funding and administration is from MHO to both TNG and the University of Tilburg, involving both in decision making around the specific disbursement of funds,as well as allowing collaborative negotiation between them:

MHO

TNG

University of Tilburg

Due to the lack of experience and administrative capacity in relation to project-fund management, the introduction of the tripartite structure in 1998 resulted in some serious gaps in auditing and accountability at TNG.Following the monitoring mission in 1999,procedures were instituted at both central and project level to ensure transparent, accurate and accountable disbursement and reporting of project-related funds. Essentially, however, the nature of the relationship has not changed. Details of these arrangements are given in Vogels and Samarakoon (1999).In essence:

l

l

At central level, the managing, accounting and bookkeeping of MHO funds was clearly located in the TNG Finance Department, with the appointment of a dedicated MHO financial officer to facilitate this process. All MHO funds were to be disbursed through a separate bank account, with all payments having to be authorised by two of the Principal, the Vice-Principal (Finance and Operations) and the Director of Finance. At project level, a clear system of responsibility for keeping a fully documented and consistent financial record was vested in each project leader who, in turn, was to be responsible for reporting to the MHO financial officer at central level.

In itself, this was clearly a valuable capacity building process. Apart from specific administrative and financial accounting outcomes, some of the systemic problems in relation to organisational structure and channels of communication,subsequently captured in the ISOC project,emerged through 46

NUFFIC/MHO

this process. That these are now being addressed is indirectly the result of the move to a ‘more responsible’ tripartite funding structure. Initially,simply through lack of exposure to and experience with externallyfunded project management, TNG was ill-prepared for the demands and structures required for effective project management. However, as with their financial management, experience has evolved their project management into an articulated, hierarchical, and matching bilateral arrangement between MHO and TNG. Again the details of what has evolved, largely since the 1999 monitoring mission, are available in Vogels and Samarakoon (1999, pp. 27–30). On both the MHO and the TNG sides there are now steering committees, with senior management and financial representation on each, to govern and monitor major decision making and policy concerning the programme. On each side there are also persons responsible at executive, project co-ordinator, financial officer, project supervisor and project leader levels. Through this process, a clear vertical system of accountability and communication has been established. Given the range and complexity of a capacity building approach such as this in one institution, the seniority and status of the project co-ordinator is to be noted. Some of the clear advantages, as well as disadvantages, of this will be commented on at a later point in this report. Projects and activities As mentioned above,a consequence of MHO’s principle of ‘concentration’has been the structuring of its intervention around a number of inter-related and simultaneously operating projects in one institution.TNG’s original ‘Indicative Plan’identified needs in the first five areas below and led to the establishment of the following projects. (Project 6 is a more recent addition.) 1.

Middle Management Capacity Building (MMCB). This project has involved co-operation between TNG and CHEPS at the University of Twente. According to some documents it may be seen as the backbone for the overall MHO project, and has focused on both strategic and financial planning. Activities have included training courses and workshops, an organisational and financial audit, and exchange visits including a process of shadowing known as ‘matching managers’. 2. Improvement of Information Technology (IIT). The partner in this case is the University of Tilburg. The project’s aim has been to ‘reach a situation in which TNG has a modern and sustainable ICT (Information and Communication Technology) infrastructure, organisational set-up and service level . . .’ (MHO, 1999). Four component targets have been identified:the creation of a strategic information policy plan;improvement of the IT directorate; office automation and networking; and library automation. Activities have included the installation of appropriate

47


3.

4.

5.

6.

48

hardware and software, training courses and workshops, and the appointment of a long-term Dutch expert to be resident at TNG. Improvement of Personnel Department (IPD). Partnered with Fontys Hogescholen, this project has aimed to improve professionalism, co-operation between managers and personnel officers, and general effectiveness in human resources management. Activities have involved mainly short, focused courses and workshops on personnel instruments and processes,as well as exchange visits and personal coaching. Quality Assurance (QA). In partnership with the Leidse Hogeschool, the quality assurance project has aimed to provide a feedback mechanism at TNG in relation to its processes of teaching, research and extension. The emphasis has been as much on the effectiveness of the management, procedures and rules that lie behind these processes as on the processes themselves.Activities have involved the setting up of a QA team at TNG as well as exchange visits, courses and workshops. Academic Staff Development (ASD). This project, in collaboration with the University of Maastricht, Utrecht Hogeschool and Christelijke Hogeschool Noord-Nederland, has aimed to assist staff to improve their qualifications, as well as their teaching, curriculum development and research skills. Its initial focus was on the Departments of Civil Engineering and Mechanical/Electrical Engineering in the Faculty of Engineering, and the Departments of Food Services Management and Community Nursing Sciences in the Faculty of Health and Food Technologies. Planned activities have involved workshops to develop departmental plans, the initiation of Masters degree training for staff in these departments, and training in Outcomes Based Education (OBE) teaching methodologies. Much of this has proven too cumbersome to co-ordinate in one project, across four departments based in two faculties. This project has therefore recently been split into four separate projects. Implementation of Streamlining the Organisational Structure and Channels of Communication (ISOC). Following feedback from the audit of the key MMCB project, and the realisation by both TNG staff and MHO monitoring personnel that implementation of the various projects was not happening as smoothly as had been planned, it was recently decided to initiate a project with a wider systemic focus. As its title suggests, this project aims to examine the wider organisational and communication structures and processes in the institution and, ultimately, to implement more effective and efficient ones which ‘should lead to the transformation of TNG into a professional organisation’ (MHO, 1999, p. 24). The project will start in collaboration with CHEPS. Although the project is still in its preparatory phase, activities have already included financial auditing and administration improvements as well as the establishment of working groups at TNG, which have undertaken essential groundwork for the implementation phase.

NUFFIC/MHO

Implementation of capacity building activities Since its inception in 1997, when the first MHO-funded project was initiated at TNG,a great deal has happened.Details on the implementation of projects at TNG, as planned and effected, are documented in the MHO Project Agreements and Approved Budgets documents, and the report of the monitoring mission (Vogels and Samarakoon, 1999). For the purposes of this report, the following is a brief account of significant implementation developments since inception of the programme:

l

l

l

The five projects of the original Indicative Plan have all been set up with their respective Dutch partners. Planned activities such as exchange visits, training courses and workshops, and the installation of infrastructure where appropriate – for example for IIT – have occurred. In 1999 the sixth project, ISOC, was formulated. Although still in its preparatory phase, important work for the implementation has been done. (Although it is seen as preparatory, the groundwork may be viewed as implementation in so far as it generates different awarenesses of, and therefore different responses to, organisational structures and processes among those members of the organisation who are taking part in it.) During the course of 1999 the financial allocation to the MHO–TNG programme for 2000/2001 and 2002/2003 was substantially increased, requiring a revised Indicative Plan. Significantly, at TNG’s request, this has been linked to its reformulation of its three-year rolling strategic plan for the institution as a whole, to ensure that project and institutional plans intersect. Again the implementation of this level of interactive planning can be seen as significant evolution.

Perceived constraints in successful implementation Despite what has been achieved, a number of constraints are generally seen to be holding back a fully successful level of implementation. As noted in the monitoring mission’s own report, ‘. . . the ‘‘take-off ’’ of the implementation of the MHO-funded projects has been rather slow’ (Vogels and Samarakoon, 1999,p.11).As pointed out in that report,the management crisis at TNG had a particularly disrupting effect on implementation during most of 1999. Apart from this specific event, the following are the other most commonly perceived constraints on implementation, identified both in the mission’s report and through individual interviews.

49


The problem of sustainability. Almost everyone mentioned the problem of having too few staff and too unstable a staffing situation to actually support the implementation. In the TNG context, this problem is aggravated by staff becoming qualified through the capacity building efforts of the project and then seeking greener work pastures on the strength of their skills. Although perceived as a constraint in this instance, this may by definition be an outcome of capacity building. Viewed more widely and systemically, this could be seen differently. l Ownership. Despite the ‘demand-driven’ principle articulated by MHO, and clearly put into practice in the formal, structural dimensions of the programme, a number of interviewees saw problems in this area. Whether all members of the institution have a sense of ownership of the programme, is perceived as something that has not been sufficiently addressed. In particular, while some members of TNG are seen to have ‘owned’ and taken on the programme, others feel less consulted and less involved, and still others are perceived to be resistant. This is seen to hinder implementation and follow-through. l Procedural constraints. The assessment of project proposals is often experienced as tedious and difficult. Equally, the level of control over project execution is considered to be too bureaucratic, and guidelines are not always clear. l The constraint of workload.Again,very commonly reported,respondents said staff often perceived project demands (attendance at courses, workshops, etc.) as conflicting with normal work demands and creating a sense of overload – and often resentment. Real or perceived, this was seen as influencing the effectiveness of implementation. There was the common perception that there had been too much duplication in courses and particularly in workshops. This appeared to occur when presenters, often from different institutions, presented similar material under the umbrella of different projects to repeatedly overlapping groups of TNG staff. The question of whether the ‘problem with workshops’was in itself the issue,or whether it was a symptom of some broader issue, was also raised. As a systemic question, this may well be resolved through the more holistic approach that is being taken with the ISOC project. Other constraints, less commonly but still frequently reported, were: l Lack of capacity in project management. The problem was seen to be the lack of experience of staff at TNG in managing and administering externally-funded projects, and the resultant difficulties experienced in implementation and accountability. l Continuity. Changes in key personnel concerned with the programme, from both the MHO side and the TNG side, were seen to affect consistency and follow-through of implementation. The lack of continuity in the process and control of strategic planning at TNG was also seen as a specific but far-reaching problem. 50

NUFFIC/MHO l

Conflict of management structures. This is a challenging but highly relevant problem for this particular approach of capacity building. With such a complex and extensive level of intervention in one institution, the problem is how to resolve the need to have a project co-ordinator with enough seniority and power to ensure effective decision making, co-ordination and implementation in relation to the needs of the programme, while not creating conflicts with the conventional institutional hierarchy and its authority. This is perceived to be an unresolved issue at TNG. l Use of consultants.The tendency to use mainly Dutch consultants in relation to TNG projects and workshops was generally found to be problematic. The cost of the Dutch consultants is high, in many cases such consultants lacked sufficient understanding of the immediate context, and language and communication was experienced as a problem. It was felt that more use could be made of local consultants. l Institution-wide problems of organisational structures and communication processes. This was seldom referred to explicitly, yet perhaps the most commonly implied general problem encompassing other more specific ones. Essentially seen to be a problem of organisational co-ordination and integration of strategic planning within the organisation, it was seen to permeate all dimensions of the organisation’s effectiveness, let alone project implementation itself. A number of specific developments have occurred to meet these or other problems identified at earlier stages in the programme. Again, only the most significant will be mentioned. Perhaps the most important development, in terms of its potential effects, has been the initiation of the ISOC project, to address the general problem of organisation and communication as mentioned above. The effects of this development are yet to be seen. because of its systemic centrality, it is possible that it could benefit every one of the existing constraints on implementation. Another development, which has had a wide and significant effect on implementation, has been the move from the bipartite to the tripartite funding structure. Although the initial change-over was beset with difficulties of administration, the experience of these very difficulties, as well as the responsibilities and rewards of a level of independence in financial decision making, have motivated the development of managerial and financial administrative skills that would not otherwise have been possible. The introduction of clear structures and procedures for financial administration and accounting has been directly related to this and has, in its turn, had a positive effect on implementation. In fact, this has been a very good example of an effective systemic capacity building intervention.

51


Outcomes Apart from problems that have slowed the process of implementation, it is still early in the programme to expect many tangible outcomes.As a measure of this, most interviewees interpreted ‘tangible outcomes’ in terms of what had been implemented instead of what had actually been demonstrated in terms of outcomes. Nevertheless, the improved structures and procedures for financial administration and accounting, the extent and reach of IT facilities that have been installed,a manual for staff that has been developed in the Improvement of Personnel Department (IPD) project, and a performance appraisal system that has been introduced in the quality assurance project, were all mentioned as legitimate tangible outcomes. Less tangible but generally agreed upon outcomes that respondents perceived to have been achieved included a reduction in feelings of insularity amongst staff as a result of their being exposed to fellow institutions, and their programmes and staff.This often exposed similar problems experienced in such institutions. Several respondents also said that – although it was difficult to assess – they felt that where previously there had been a tendency to ‘close down’on problems in the institution,especially from senior staff,there was now more of a willingness to confront issues and to look for solutions in the general institutional ethos.

Review of the approach in context Strengths The approach’s characteristic policy of ‘inter-institutional linkage’ and ‘concentration’ generates a number of advantages in building capacity. In particular, the potential for building institutional capacity can be enhanced where relationships with staff, an understanding of the institution as a whole, and the programme in relation to that whole, are built up intensively and over time. This was articulated in one form or another by a number of respondents. As emphasised throughout this report, the potential for realising the Dutch MHO (Joint Financing Programme for Higher Education Co-operation) goal of ‘institution building’ is greatly enhanced when viewed in a systemic and integrated way. However, this in itself would not be possible without the concentration of focus on one organisation that is the hallmark of the approach itself. The MHO principle of ‘demand-driven’ practice is a distinct strength in terms of the important criterion of ‘ownership’. With the demand-driven practice, the priorities of an institution steer the project. Although some reservations were expressed at Technikon Northern Gauteng (TNG) about whether ownership had been effectively extended to all members of the 52

NUFFIC/MHO

institution, the general consensus was that the principle was sound, while the practice could improve.A particular dimension of practice that was emphasised, if the advantage of this principle was to be properly reaped, was the tighter integration of the different projects’goals and activities with the institution’s own strategic planning. Despite current problems in effecting this integration – as seen from both sides – these problems were not seen as insuperable. The basic strength of an approach which is demand driven from the institution’s own strategic perspective was acknowledged. A number of respondents explicitly mentioned the tripartite funding structure within the MHO approach as a specific strength. The measure of internal control over the disbursement of funds, the sense of project ownership that this generated, and the managerial and administrative capacity that it built through necessity, were all seen as advantages of this funding structure – despite its initial difficulties. The directness of relationships with both NUFFIC (The Netherlands Organisation for International Co-operation in Higher Education) and the Dutch partner institutions, the necessary involvement of members of the institution’s top executive in driving and sustaining the programme,and the senior position and decision-making powers of the project co-ordinator, were all seen as lending strength to the management structure of the approach.There was a directness and immediacy of decision making and operationalisation about this arrangement that contrasted with the experience of other donor programmes at TNG. As mentioned earlier, however, the very advantage of the power of this programme was also seen as conflicting with the conventional power and decision-making hierarchies of the institution. Weaknesses Most of the constraints on implementation described earlier could be seen as weaknesses of the approach. However, as already pointed out, there are few of these that could not also be seen as potentially remediable – especially through the more holistic and systemic approach which is currently taking place through the ISOC project. Apart from these, therefore, the following more structural issues – ironically the converse of the approach’s strengths – need to be mentioned as weaknesses. Despite its advantages, the policy of inter-institutional linkage and the focus on one institution in a developing country was also seen as a limitation in so far as the regional or national perspective might not, despite intentions, be given sufficient priority in the intervention. This was seen to contrast with other approaches where the involvement of other institutions in the country would necessarily bring such a perspective into central awareness and consideration. Despite its contribution, the approach is very demanding on the institutional capacities of TNG in terms of the availability of limited internal resources – including finances,staff time,and management capacity.All of these

53


are needed if the project is to be sustainable, but other ongoing institutional demands also compete for all these same resources. Although its broad institution building perspective has advantages, the approach was also viewed as somewhat ‘lacking in substance’ and, in particular, not defining its outcomes specifically and concretely enough. The long-term goals of many of the activities contributed to this.The high number of different activities in one institution, and the associated problems of monitoring, managing, integrating and co-ordinating this range of activities was also evident. This contrasted, for example, with the more limited but focused, discipline-related, and explicitly stated capacity building objectives of a programme like TABIESA. A particular weakness was evident around the use of foreign consultants in both project activities and workshops. This related mainly to cost, lack of contextual familiarity, and language issues. Finally, although the variety of expertise in having a range of Dutch institutions involved in different projects was appreciated, the question was raised whether a relationship with just one good institution might not increase co-ordination, support relationship building, and specifically reduce the amount of duplication and overlap in courses and workshops mentioned. This raises the issue of how far demand-driven policy can in fact be demand driven when it conflicts with donor policy in other ways. This issue was raised by several respondents.

54

Tertiary Education Linkages Project


CASE STUDY 3

Tertiary Education Linkages Project Introduction A project of USAID, the Tertiary Education Linkages Project (TELP) was approved in September 1995 through a bilateral agreement between the governments of the USA and South Africa. Following negotiations on the form of the project between USAID, the South African DoE and the vice-chancellors of the original 15 HDIs identified as participants in the project (increased to 17 institutions since 1999), implementation began under the auspices of DevTech, the first contractual appointment. As from June 1998 implementation of the project has been contracted out to the United Negro College Fund (UNCF-SP) for the period June 1998 to August 2004. The UNCF is responsible for the development and implementation of individual projects (PILs), for the delivery and follow-up of workshops under the joint activity programme, and for managing linkage grants. (See Figure 4 below.) FIGURE 4: THE USAID/TELP APPROACH TERTIARY C APACITY BDUCATIO E UILDING N INITIATIVE SLINKAGESIN HROJECT P IGHER EDUCATIO N

USAID / TELP

National DoE

Committee of University and Technikon Principals for the HDI

United Negro College Fund special programmes

International and local service

17 Historically Disadvantaged Institutions

57


CASE STUDY 3


The two institutions selected for study under this funding approach were the University of Fort Hare (UFH), a university in the rural part of the Eastern Cape,and the Peninsula Technikon (Pentech),a technikon in the urban areas of the Western Cape. Since all 17 HDIs supported by the TELP could not be studied, it was decided to select one university and one technikon, and within this choice to select one urban and one rural institution. The fact that the Peninsula Technikon is seen as something of an exemplar within the TELP project, and that the University of Fort Hare has a unique and particularly important history attached to it within the South African context, were additional factors in the final decision to study the TELP approach in these two institutions. The Peninsula Technikon is one of 14 Technikons in South Africa, and among the six that are regarded as HDIs. It is an autonomous higher education institution, offering career-specific education and training. The institution was established in 1967 on its present campus in Bellville South. It was granted partial autonomy in the early 1980s and full autonomy with the passing of the Technikon Act of 1993.Six academic schools were reorganised in 1998 to form three faculties, each with a focus on the needs of industry and preparing students for the workplace.Student enrolment for 2001 stood at 6 985 (3 082 in the faculty of Business Studies, 2 414 in the Faculty of Engineering, and 1 489 in the faculty of Science), with 226 academic staff. While the medium of instruction is English, this is a second language to approximately 75% of the students (Peninsula Technikon, 1999). The University of Fort Hare, situated near the town of Alice in the Eastern Cape, has been in existence since 1916, with university status since 1923. Until it was taken over by the Department of Bantu Education in 1959,it had a proud history of independence and of having produced many prominent South African and southern African leaders. It has always been at the forefront of the struggle for democracy and of resistance to apartheid. Following the damage done by recent maladministration in the late 1990s,and the need to re-establish itself in the South African tertiary education context, the appointment of the current vice-chancellor in April 1999 has been a turning point for the university. The production in 2000 of a strategic plan for the transformation of all dimensions of the university, and the processes and structures that have been set up to generate this – and implement it in detailed and exacting ways – constitute a particularly significant development in this short period (University of Fort Hare, 2000a, b). These current developments at the university, and their contrast with the period immediately preceding April 1999, are key contextual features which will frame the TELP–University of Fort Hare relationship to be discussed in this report. The Department of Education and USAID identified the University of Fort Hare as one of the original 15 HDIs to take part in the project in 1996. As part of its recent restructuring, the University of Fort Hare has redefined and streamlined its academic activities into four faculties. In 2000, there were 58

TERTIARY EDUCATION LINKAGES PROJECT

2 546 students enrolled at the university with 239 academic staff (Strategic Plan, 2000).

Conceptualisation of capacity building TELP’s approach to capacity building The aim of USAID’s TELP has been to support the Department of Education and to build capacity at 15 historically disadvantaged institutions (HDIs) in South Africa (increased to 17 in 1999). USAID developed the following strategic objective:‘to transform the education system based on equity of access and quality’, and all USAID/South Africa-funded activities in the education sector must support this objective. TELP defines capacity building as ‘the process by which historically disadvantaged institutions are strengthened, expanded, and/or made more effective.’ It supports this process by: improving administrative, academic, and research infrastructure; developing and implementing strategic plans; supporting priority strategic disciplines (Mathematics,Science and Engineering;

oral and written English; Public Administration and Management; Commerce and Economics); promoting professional development; and strengthening curriculum development and pedagogy. (TELP, 2000, p. 14)

Central modalities An estimated $50 million was made available to spend until 2004,through three main modalities of activity: 1. Policy analysis and planning This modality is aimed at examining critical issues in higher education and presenting options and programmes to national government that are designed to ensure a more equitable and effective system.Through this modality,support is to be provided for the Department of Education’s policy implementation, and involves the provision of technical assistance, travel, and workshops by the UNCF. 2. Capacity building This modality is aimed at developing individual HDIs so that they can become more effective in the manner in which they operate and provide learning opportunities. The modality is, in turn, divided into two distinct areas of activity:

59


l

Joint activities usually involve several or the whole group of HDIs around commonly identified needs, and is considered to be a cost-effective way of addressing those needs. In implementing these activities, the contractor (UNCF) may consider a variety of mechanisms such as linkages, sub-contracting, and grants. National conferences, regional workshops, institution-based training, short-term training for staff in South Africa or the USA, and the provision of technical assistance are among the more common approaches used for joint purposes. Institution-specific activities are generally defined by the targeted needs of a particular institution. Each institution specific activity is awarded and governed by a Project Implementation Letter (PIL) – based on a formal proposal and review process through USAID – and the specific interventions involved may vary according to the nature of the need identified in the proposal. Following concern by USAID that earlier PILs had resulted in a myriad of activities that sometimes strengthened capacity of a specific department or faculty but did not have institution-wide impact, PIL funding criteria now requires that proposals demonstrate how increased institutional capacity in one of five focus areas will result.

3. Institutional linkages The purpose of this modality is to establish relationships between selected HEIs in South Africa and the USA and for the South African institutions ‘to take advantage of expertise at US institutions of higher education and provide the means for two or more linked institutions to address broad-based problems, share resources, and engage in joint activities in the five focus areas’ (TELP, 2000, p. 31). With some similar purposes to the linkage modality are other long-term training programmes aimed at responding to the need to have better qualified HDI faculties. Under the African Training for Leadership and Advanced Skills programme (ATLAS), HDI staff are offered opportunities to study for either a Masters or PhD degree in the USA, supported by USAID. A ‘STEP’ grant, funded by USAID,is also available through the South African Institute of Race Relations for similar purposes, but study is to be at local higher education institutions. This is consistent with the South African Democratic Transition Support Act of 1993, which requires that bursary programmes emphasise ‘in-country’ training. Despite only one of these modalities being specified as ‘capacity building’, all three are clearly directed at building capacity in a wider sense. The negotiation of these three modalities as vehicles for addressing capacity building needs in higher education was a significant step in the process. A prior approach,through the American Council for Education’s South Africa Project, had been primarily based on the linkage modality which appears,at least for the moment, to have a number of limitations.

60


Focus areas In November 1996 the TELP Advisory Panel, consisting of the 15 TELP vice-chancellors, and representatives from the Department of Education and USAID, identified five focus areas in which to target TELP resources. 1. Staff development A general need is perceived for staff development throughout South Africa’s educational system, especially within the HDIs. There is also an overall awareness among the HDIs of the need for effective faculty promotion and retention policies so that qualified staff are attracted into these institutions. 2. Curriculum development Through joint activities UNCF is assisting HDIs to develop and implement curriculum changes to address issues of access, relevance and congruence with revised national qualification requirements. 3. Student development The majority of students currently enrolled in the HDIs are academically under-prepared for higher education. Areas of most severe under-preparation include English language skills, Mathematics, time management and study skills, and information gathering and processing. Assisting HDIs in the preparation of five-year plans for student academic development forms an important part of this focus area. 4. Management and administrative development While many of the HDIs have made considerable improvements in their management and administrative systems, areas such as financial management, management information systems, and the development of strategic rolling plans continue to require joint workshops and technical assistance. 5. Research skills development One of the problems facing HDIs is limited research output.In the absence of a critical mass of scholarship, research support and research administration structures, no effective research and publication culture has developed. Addressing this set of issues is the purpose of this focus area. Views of capacity building from UFH and Pentech University of Fort Hare Although they could be encompassed in the USAID definition discussed earlier,other views of capacity building expressed by those interviewed at UFH were less structurally oriented, and more systemically conceived. The main thrust of these views, particularly as expressed by the vice-chancellor, was on developing a synergy of commitment and focus (particularly in relation to the university’s strategic objectives) not only within the system of the institution itself, but also encompassing the wider system of its local community. Capacity building in this view would lay its emphasis on building connections and 61


commitment through the experience of ‘doing’,through building competence and confidence and so ‘drawing people into the central processes of decision making and effective action’. In addition, the vice-chancellor emphasised the need to search continually for ‘strategic levers’ in the system which can create ‘centres of gravity’ from which interventions and activities have optimal synergistic or ‘multiplier effects’on other people and areas of the system around them. In addition,other opinions on building leadership in the institution through involvement;through ‘developing ownership’;and through effective systems of communication were expressed. Equally, drawing out the latent capacity in people was mentioned (‘helping people to recognise and use what they have, rather than emphasising what they don’t have’), as well as the importance of linking capacity building more closely to context (drawing more on people’s actual experiential context, and on ‘who can do what well and why – and how to draw this out and then follow up on it’). Taken as a whole, this systemic, interactive and contextually focused view of capacity building is somewhat different to TELP’s broad-based structural view. Peninsula Technikon As was the case at UFH, the views of capacity building expressed by those interviewed at Pentech gave somewhat different emphases to the TELP definition of capacity building. Emphatic views were expressed around the centrality of strategic planning. Raising the level of strategic planning in the institution was seen as enabling it to harness different resources towards a co-ordinated and focused achievement of its own goals. Thus, capacity building should ‘enable the institution to do what it wants to do,or to do it better’ – with the assumption in this that effective strategic planning is an absolute pre-condition for this to happen. Another emphasis was on choosing areas of focus in capacity building which would be likely to have optimal synergistic effects through the institution as a whole. Thus a focus on student development (through the development of more appropriate teaching materials), has resulted in not only the achievement of the primary goal but has also generated a synergy of staff involvement and collaboration, research and materials output, and greater competence and confidence amongst the staff. In short, generating staff development through focusing on a strategic student development issue may be more effective than, say, focusing directly on an area of staff development that has less systemic resonance. In general, all interviewees at Pentech saw capacity building as a process which has to have an internal cohesion and momentum if it is to succeed:it must be ‘institution driven’. Externally generated resources and assistance play a 62


critical role in the process, provided that they are harnessed and integrated into the institution’s own goals and systemic context.Without contextual specificity, however, inputs may be wasted through elements of redundancy, mismatch or failure to connect with the particular dynamics of motivation and continuity in the institution itself.

The TELP capacity building approach in practice Structure and management USAID funds all TELP activities on a bipartite basis and maintains strict control over all dimensions of funding and expenditure, with defined regulations governing areas of legitimate expenditure (for example, no capital expenditure – such as buildings or renovations – and only US tendering and airline usage). No funds are held by individual institutions. All expenditure has to be accounted for and re-claimed through a system of disbursement reports routed through UNCF. Individual PILs, negotiated with USAID, define the parameters and financial limits of particular activities – apart from joint and linkage activities where the funding is directly managed by UNCF. Eligibility of an institution for the submission of proposals in the next round of PILs is determine by its previous expenditure pattern,and at least 50% of the allocated budget of previous PILs must have been spent. The institutional TELP co-ordinator is responsible for monitoring the PIL activities and expenditure and for forwarding the vouchers for reimbursement while the activity leader is responsible for carrying out PIL activities. The management of TELP projects in institutions is general centrally co-ordinated. Vertically, the line function runs from the vice-chancellor (VC) through a deputy to the TELP co-ordinator and from there to individual activity (PIL) leaders. The TELP co-ordinator is the link between UNCF and USAID on the one hand and the institution on the other. At both the University of Fort Hare (UFH) and Pentech the VCs take an active role in the TELP projects. At UFH in the past the management of TELP has, as with broader management structures and processes, been through a period of disruption, inadequate co-ordination, and recent significant changes. The closer involvement of the current VC, the recent appointment of a new TELP co-ordinator, and the broader structural changes associated with the development of the university’s Strategic Plan 2000 and its implementation are, in particular, likely to have an increasingly positive impact on the project. At Pentech, the VC has been committed over a longer time period to harnessing and co-ordinating all project activity to the institution’s strategic plan and its objectives. TELP is currently managed centrally at UFH, through the VC’s office. The VC himself, his personal assistant and the TELP co-ordinator are in close contact. The TELP Co-ordinator is directly responsible for all dimensions of 63


the project at the university, including its management, finances and implementation. A TELP advisory committee, involving Deans and other management personnel on campus, fell into disuse during the previous co-ordinator’s period of office. It is planned to set this up again, but with an emphasis on getting other people who are ‘really interested in the project’, including PIL leaders, onto the committee. This is also seen as important as a means of integrating, and increasing ownership of TELP activities through the broader university community, including the Senate and Faculty structures. At Pentech the general management structure of central co-ordination and vertical line functions are followed. A relatively open-door communication policy results in open and frequent communication between the VC, his deputy and the TELP co-ordinator. It would appear from the management structure of TELP at these two institutions that a combination of a number of strategies contribute to an effective overall management of the project: consistent adherence to strategic objectives; making key institutional choices in relation to this; collaborative problem solving; the enforcement of strict accountability criteria and follow-through on all activities; clarity and transparency of communication; and processes of delegation which successfully make use of the strengths and motivations of particular staff members in the institution – including the management of TELP. (Note: While these strategies are well established at Pentech, they are still relatively new and still making their impact at UFH.) Projects and activities As mentioned earlier, TELP’s HDI-based activities are basically structured into joint, institution-specific and linkage modalities. As presented to the HDIs as a group,the two institutions shared in the joint activities that have focused mostly on: l

l

l

64

Curriculum and programme development. UNCF is assisting HDIs in developing and implementing revised curricula in science and one other subject area to meet the requirements of the National Qualifications Framework. At Pentech it was agreed that all three faculties should participate in this activity. Student academic development. UNCF is providing training and technical assistance in this area to all HDIs,including the assessment of Mathematics, English, Science and Study Skills for all first-year students, the development of bridging programmes, and the formulation of five-year Student Academic Development Plans. Both general workshops and on-campus technical assistance have been provided in this area. Management and administrative development.UNCF is working with HDIs to improve the management, administrative and leadership capacity required to develop and implement ‘three-year rolling plans’. Several workshops in this area have been run. The Peninsula Technikon’s own rolling plan and


process of strategic transformation have been used as a guide to other HDIs. l Gender equity, PIL management and proposal writing. In response to general needs in the HDIs, UNCF has run workshops to facilitate sensitivities, policies and applied processes in these three areas. Pentech, due to its longer and more consistent history with TELP, has a large number of institution-specific activities, while UFH has one (PIL 50 – extended to PIL 50/122):an MBA programme that has now been running for three years. Student enrolment for the first two-year cycle was 65. Briefly, Pentech has developed the following: l

l

l

l

l

PIL 5. This was the first PIL approved at Pentech in 1996. It is currently divided into four distinct activities:the development of a management and information control system; the formulation and documentation of policies and procedures; the development of a broad range of curriculum materials (producing, for example, both printed and web-site curriculum materials in Economics,Mathematics,and Art and Design);and leadership development for academic and support staff in conflict management, diversity training, practical supervision and information technology. PIL 22. This is focused on the development of teaching materials and resources for foundation level courses in Engineering. This activity has enabled Pentech, in collaboration with five other technikons, to publish ten Engineering textbooks. As part of this venture, a CD ROM is in the process of development as support material for the books. PIL 63/75. To improve internet connectivity, this PIL has focused on developing the capability of academic and support staff to improve student learning in computing and communications technologies. This is being effected through: training of staff in the internet and multimedia; re-designing programmes and infra-structure to increase student access; and curriculum development to improve the quality of teaching and learning. PIL 88. Since the majority of students at the institution have to learn through the medium of a second language, a cross-departmental, collaborative exercise in curriculum review and the development of more student-friendly and effective learning materials was launched under this PIL. Thus far, 11 publications of integrated teaching materials have emerged. Staff have delivered 26 papers at two conferences on aspects of this activity.Students have benefited from the materials developed and also from the acquisition of computer literacy skills, processes of interactive self-access learning and general language skills. PIL 116. This activity has focused on the development and refinement of management information systems (MIS) in the institution, including data validation and accessing. Available MIS delivery systems were identified, and the purchasing or development of an appropriate MIS is under 65


consideration. The initial activities have included research on a suitable system, top and middle management needs analysis and a survey of MIS delivery options. l PIL 39. A new PIL involving an e-business/e-commerce activity has recently been approved by USAID. In terms of linkage activities, a formal linkage has been established between UFH and the University of Connecticut in the USA, with a focus on the development of UFH’s central administration. At the time of writing this report, no specific activities had been arranged. The University of Michigan is the Peninsula Technikon’s formal linkage, with a focus on the development of science and engineering at Pentech. Activities are designed to include staff and student exchange, research training, joint research and publication, short courses and workshops delivered by the University of Michigan staff in South Africa, and joint conferences. General implementation has been slowed by a number of factors, although substantial progress in the area of Science has been achieved. This includes a joint publication and a conference presentation. Implementation of capacity building activities The implementation of TELP activities has been sufficiently discussed above. Perceived constraints in successful implementation General constraints: In terms of general constraints, both institutions were challenged by a number of factors: l Sustainability. While the seeding function of TELP’s interventions was clearly acknowledged, the problem of how to ultimately replace the funding that frees people up to co-ordinate or undertake specific project-related activities remained. At UNCF the view most generally expressed was that both the donor and the institution need to be more proactive about building sustainability into the project. In the case of the MBA programme, for instance, there was the potential for developing sustained income on the basis of state subsidies, income-generating activities (short paying courses, consultancies, etc.), and support from local business and industry. However, this needed to be planned and activated from the beginning. Both institutions addressed this challenge by harnessing TELP (and other donor activities) to their own strategic objectives.Pentech top-sliced the budget to maintain those activities that are seen as having ‘one-to-one correspondence with the Strategic Plan’,and are thus seen and accepted as having legitimate priority within the institution as a whole. The two institutions hope that aligning TELP with their strategic plans will increase perceived relevance, ownership and structural support of activities.

66

TERTIARY EDUCATION LINKAGES PROJECT l

Complexity. In general terms, the complexity of TELP requirements and administrative processes,keeping pace with changes in these,and the delays and difficulties often encountered in relation to accessing funds has been seen as a constraint. This is related to the general practice that funds can only be accessed after authorised spending has occurred, and has been accounted for through a system of disbursement reports that have been submitted and approved through UNCF to USAID. In the context of UFH, which is actively engaged in reducing a massive accumulated debt, such funds are difficult and often impossible to earmark against competing needs.This constraint has meant that TELP interventions cannot always be operationalised as planned. Similarly, funding for replacement of staff on study leave, and for research and travel, is not readily available. This interferes with the effectiveness of staff development and qualification upgrading. Although technical training and assistance has been provided by UNCF on the required formalities, the technicalities and procedures for setting up such study leave,and reimbursing staff,still appears to act as a significant barrier at both institutions – but at UFH especially.

Joint activities: In terms of joint activities, concerns were again quite similar. l Differentiation. The primary constraint at Pentech was seen as the lack of differentiation, in terms of the specific contexts and needs of different institutions, at workshops involving all HDIs. This resulted in what was perceived to be a lot of time wastage for staff from Pentech on issues which were either redundant or not of immediate concern or relevance to the institution. At UFH there was a general feeling that there should be more choice involved in what activities are presented. l Context. In relation to workshops, the principle vehicle for joint activities, the general view at UFH was that although one must believe that ‘something has been seeded in those who attended’,more tangible benefits were often not apparent. Specifically, it was felt that there was not enough selection of those who would really benefit from attending, and, generally, that a context-specific focus was absent in the workshops. Interviewees at UFH in particular felt that more use could be made of local expertise and particularly of people who understand the local context (the South African context generally, as well as the specific context of the institution concerned). It was felt that, apart from addressing the important and frequently mentioned contextual issue, this could facilitate networking in the region; more sustained ‘partnerships’ between consultants and those they have worked with;and ultimately a wider process of capacity building in the region as a whole. A somewhat jaundiced view of consultants expressed at UFH at the moment is that ‘there has been a lot of flying in and out, but not much action’. This may or may not be true, but the view is not uncommon and should be heard. At Pentech consultants brought in from outside to run workshops were generally seen as lacking in 67


l

l

understanding or experience of the contexts of HDIs generally, and of specific institutions in particular. This reduced the sense of relevance in what was being covered for those attending. Milestones.The system of meeting ‘milestones’in the delivery of workshops was universally seen as a negative constraint – not because it maintained a schedule, but because workshops were often perceived as happening ‘because they had to take place’. This was seen as eroding both the commitment to participation as well as the sense of relevance and commitment from the organisers and presenters. At Pentech it was seen as effectively ‘reducing consultation’ and as too mechanistic in its function. Follow-up. Related to the constraints involved with milestones was inadequate follow up with individuals who had attended workshops. For example, in terms of participants actively taking things forward on their return to UFH,it was stated that ‘people should be able to – and should be encouraged to – run workshops themselves on their return’. At Pentech the expression was ‘as long as people pitch up, it’s OK’. Meaningful and effective follow up thus had tended to be sacrificed to a schedule of delivery. It is ironic that, although follow-up requirements from the UNCF have been established, they have not been perceived as optimally effective, because they have involved a ‘lot of time’. This has often been seen as token rather than really productive in terms of what individuals wanted to do. The answer to this problem is therefore clearly complex. It cannot simply involve more time on more detailed follow-up: it may have to involve a more systemic examination of the whole joint activity programme,and how it can be integrated more optimally with the context, strategic objectives and motivations of staff at a particular institution – or at least at smaller and contextually similar groups of institutions. (It is important to emphasise that the sense of failure in real penetration and effective follow-up in these activities was seen as a problem both from the donor and the institution’s side. This was not a one-sided criticism. From the donor side, post-workshop reports, required by UNCF, are not seen as enough to ensure or sustain continuity of activity. From the institution’s side, a more proactive role is seen as necessary in planning and implementing follow-up that is appropriate to the institution’s needs).

Linkage.The linkage between the University of Fort Hare and the University of Connecticut does not appear,at this stage,to have really lifted off.Rather than a partnership through which to ‘address broad-based problems, share resources, and engage in joint activities in the five focus areas’ (TELP, 2000, p. 31), interviewees at the University of Fort Hare generally perceived the process to be too unilateral and not collaborative enough.(‘All the political,economic and strategic control is vested in the US institution’.) One terse comment was that the linkage has had ‘no real value at all – simply free trips for those involved!’

68


The linkage between Pentech and the University of Michigan was seen as having been a slow and only partly productive process. While it had worked reasonably well in the Science area, where there was a committed US advisor with whom the local activity leader had had prior connections, these interpersonal facilitating factors have not operated in the Engineering area. In an area such as the latter, where there are no pre-existing connections, the linkage has been further constrained by the necessity and indirectness of communication through the complex processes required by the UNCF. In general terms, and because of the way USAID relates to US institutions compared to foreign institutions, the linkage process was also seen as having been constrained by an ‘inequality in how the relationship was perceived and structured’ between the University of Michigan and Pentech. It is based ‘too much on a conventional aid model’ so that a sense of unilaterality – one side is seen as ‘having it all’ and, at its discretion, ‘handing out to the other’ – has generally not made for productive collaboration. The two institutions have made a number of significant adaptations to address these challenges. At Pentech: l A more exacting system of report-back by participants has been set up for joint activities. The TELP co-ordinator has played a major role in this. l There has been a shift to holding more regionally based workshops. This has made continuity of contact, and therefore local and more active collaboration, more likely. l A conference on ‘sharing success stories’ from amongst the HDI participants was seen as a positive, mutually supportive move. l More usage is now being made of HDI people, often in collaboration with HAI consultants, in the presentation of workshops. l The UNCF has been addressing some of the complex practicalities and process requirements of linkages through joint workshops. Pentech reports that the process is now more streamlined and linkage is developing very well within specific projects. There has also been a move between the University of Michigan and the Technikon to address the linkage more co-operatively and to alternate meetings between the US and SA. At the University of Fort Hare: The main adaptive development has been in the attempt to relate TELP activities more closely to strategic objectives: more broadly, for Strategic Plan 2000 to be the central driver for all activities at the University of Fort Hare, and for TELP activities to fit within these priorities and constraints.

l

69


l

l

l

l

A TELP co-ordinator, who has more status and authority in the university than her predecessor, has been appointed. The effectiveness and authority of the project co-ordinator has been seen by both TELP (TELP, 2000) and the university as key to project success. A TELP/International Linkages Committee has been established and the TELP co-ordinator now also has the responsibility of overseeing the integration and co-ordination of all international linkages through her office. The writing of project proposals to any donor organisation,which was loosely controlled before, is now also co-ordinated under the head of one of six strategic implementation cluster committees. Executive Deans, appointed in the new faculty structure, will now be responsible for the co-ordination and implementation of all donor projects within their particular faculties. A new director (and leader of PIL 50/122) has been appointed as the head of the MBA programme.

Outcomes According to the documentation provided, and information from interviews, the main tangible and perceived outcomes of the TELP appeared to be the following:

University of Fort Hare Tangible outcomes: l The production of the university’s Strategic Plan 2000 and Implementation Programme (University of Fort Hare, 2000a, b), is a major tangible outcome which has inter alia been stimulated by, and facilitated through, the TELP project. l The MBA programme (PIL 50/122),which has now been running for three years, is generally regarded as a tangible outcome. (This has to be interpreted with some reservation, however, as it is a two-year course from which, to date, there has only been one successful graduate from an enrolment of 65. According to the recently appointed director and new PIL leader, there has certainly been value in initiating the programme, but it requires a lot of academic and administrative tightening up, together with a concerted effort to make it financially sustainable in the longer term).

70


Perceived outcomes: l Progress has been made in understanding and dealing with SAQA and NQF requirements and the design of programmes. A number of staff members are now more competent in the process of project development and proposal writing. (However, harnessing these skills for the wider benefit of the institution has, according to the TELP co-ordinator, proved problematic). The project is perceived as having made a difference to the administrative, and especially to the financial accounting,skills of a number of staff who previously lacked such skills. Changes in perceptions around gender equity in the institution are felt to be gaining ground. Peninsula Technikon TELP has achieved a substantial number of outcomes at Pentech.These can be summarised in brief (see above,‘Projects and activities’for more detail): Tangible outcomes: l Strategic planning documents have been produced. Especially in relation to TELP,the three-year rolling strategic plan has been used as a guide for other HDIs, and falls under joint activities. l A significant number of policies and procedures in different areas of institutional activity have been formulated, documented, circulated, adapted and finalised. l A variety of curriculum materials have been produced and made public, including published manuals, course work and textbooks, and web-site material. l Individual members of staff have benefited from TELP-funded study leave and the processes of qualification and experiential improvement. l Delivery of papers by staff members at conferences, based on the curriculum materials production and related research done through TELP activities. l Some joint publication and conference presentation with staff at the University of Michigan. Perceived outcomes: l Increasing confidence amongst academic staff, particularly following achievements in new areas such as research activity and the delivery of papers in the public domain. l Greater collaboration across departments around issues identified as being of common concern. This process has apparently not only increased skills, such as collaborative problem solving and its follow through to concrete solutions, but has also generated a new level of energy and commitment to the institution and its objectives amongst those involved. 71


l

l

Networking in the region has improved, with Pentech engaging on a more equal footing with institutions such as the University of the Western Cape and the University of Cape Town on a variety of issues. Students have benefited from more learner-friendly and appropriate curriculum materials, IT-related skills and access, and general language development. A number of staff have developed specific skills which they formerly lacked, especially in relation to project management and financial accounting, proposal writing and the design and writing of teaching materials.

Review of the approach in context Strengths Given the contextual differences between the University of Fort Hare and the Peninsula Technikon, the perceptions of strengths and weaknesses are too dissimilar to be discussed together. At UFH, the strengths of the TELP approach commonly mentioned by interviewees included: l The responsiveness of TELP to evolutionary changes in the system. It is open to negotiating new or modified PILs on the basis of clearly motivated proposals. l The gains by individual staff in terms of qualifications or simply in terms of skills such as those related to proposal generating and writing, accountability processes, etc. l The willingness, readiness and availability of help and technical assistance on TELP-related issues.An example given was that if someone ‘gets stuck’ in the process of generating a proposal, ready assistance was always available. l The value of being able to initiate and ‘seed’ activities like the MBA programme which would otherwise not have been possible. At Pentech: The most frequently mentioned capacity building strength of the TELP approach related to its institution-specific activities. Essentially, these were seen as most useful as they were most flexible; they could be integrated most readily with the institution’s own capacity building needs as articulated through its strategic plan;they made resources available to address these issues directly;and, most importantly,they allowed the institution and its members to feel that they were ‘defining and controlling’ their own destiny. The Academy for

72


Educational Development (2000) evaluation also found the highest level of satisfaction with these institution specific activities. A specific strength of the institution specific activities at Pentech is that they have been progressively developed and refined, not only internally within any one activity (PIL) but also in relation to one another. In this way the range of activities have been chosen and developed to optimise their synergistic effect, with different activities building on, and benefiting, others. Three strengths, all of which need to be seen as essentially interactive in nature, are evident in the particular relationship between TELP and an institution such as Pentech. They constitute strengths of the approach interacting with the strengths of the institution. Thus the potential for flexibility in the TELP approach, particularly as related to institution specific activities,becomes most effective when it interacts with proactive,strategic and administrative strengths in the institution. It is clear that an institution of this nature is best equipped to draw on the potential flexibility of the approach to optimise and develop its own capacity. Although they are inter-related, the three ‘interactive’ strengths could be seen as follows: First, the process of progressive institutionalisation of TELP activities that has been possible at Pentech is a significant strength in so far as it has generated an ‘owned’,continuous and sustainable process of capacity enhancement.This has operated primarily with those institution specific activities that have been integrated into the strategic objectives, and therefore into the internal structures and processes, of the institution. The degree of constructive evolution in TELP activities and processes that has been possible at this institution is a second interactive strength. The evolutionary process is reflected in the modifications and re-focusing that has occurred in particular PILs — PIL 88 is a good example — such that they have progressively evolved in relation to the strategic objectives and needs of the institution. Thus the ability of, and confidence in, the institution to challenge and initiate, as well as the flexibility and responsiveness on the part of TELP, have clearly been key factors in this process. Finally, related to both the above strengths, is the effectiveness with which the TELP project is managed at Pentech. Factors which appear to characterise the strength of TELP management in this institution include:the commitment and pervasive involvement of the VC; the consistency of strategic planning (one strategic planner pre-dating the TELP initiative); the managerial and administrative strength of the TELP co-ordinator; the level of collaboration which occurs; and the transparency and clarity that is maintained on TELP matters through all levels of line function within the institution. Reinforcing the above observations, the Academy for Educational Development (2000) submitted a mid-term evaluation of TELP, which contained important conclusions regarding the project’s implementation. The study established that three factors contribute most to TELP’s success at an 73


institution: ‘a committed and pro-active Vice-Chancellor, a competent TELP Co-ordinator and the project’s integration into the institution’s strategic plan. The absence of any of these factors or a combination thereof limits potential project impact’. Weaknesses Weaknesses of the TELP approach generally mirror what were seen as constraints to implementation. In general, the following weaknesses emerge: l Over-complexity. The over-complex, strict and sometimes cumbersome controls around setting up activities involved both delays and what was often seen as excessive time expenditure. USAID’s rigorous controls and procedural requirements around setting up activities, exchanges and expenditure — while beneficial in that it requires proposal generating and competent accountability structures, processes and skills (and can therefore be seen as effective capacity building) — is nevertheless also seen as cumbersome and something of an ‘obstacle course’ in getting anything up and running. The numbers of steps involved, including those in the institution itself, through UNCF, to USAID (and then often also to consultants via US institutions), and then the return steps, is found to be time-consuming,frustrating and frequently expensive in terms of delays. Related to this is the accounting requirement that funds can only be accessed after authorised spending has occurred, and the complex and often slow reimbursement procedures involved in this. Again, while this imposes what may ultimately be seen as a capacity building financial discipline, the fact remains that many HDIs — UFH included — have substantial debts which create problems of liquidity. Prioritising funds for TELP activities and developments,even for short-term bridging purposes, constitutes a problem in such contexts. l Sustainability. The issue of sustainability recurs frequently in relation to the TELP approach. The main problem is that activities requiring considerable maintenance costs are set up, and staff are either appointed or freed up to co-ordinate the intervention as a whole, or run elements of it, on the basis of TELP funding. How to replace this funding in order to maintain the activities in the long run is the issue. As has happened at Pentech, those activities that are regarded as central to its own strategic plan can be integrated and maintained through top-slicing the budget. However, this solution to the long term institutionalisation and sustainability of TELP activities depends on the institution (a) having the funds to top-slice in the first place; and (b) prioritising and integrating the activities in terms of its own strategic goals.This may not be possible or a priority in many HDIs,as can be seen at UFH. l Linkage activities. In principle, linkage activities were seen as potentially important, particularly for staff and research development. In practice they tended to be seen as a weakness in the TELP approach. While some 74


l

improvements were evident in linkages involving Pentech, linkage activities were generally seen as hampered by inequalities of role perception and structure between the relevant linked institutions, and further constrained by indirect and cumbersome communication and administrative procedures. Basically, the process was seen as too unilateral and insufficiently collaborative. Joint activities.Many criticisms of joint activities were voiced,particularly in relation to workshops. The most important weaknesses were perceived to be insufficient differentiation in terms of varying institutional needs; insufficient contextualisation in terms of HDIs generally, and of specific institutions in particular; and the fact that activities were driven too much by the demands of delivery rather than by criteria of optimising effectiveness.

Other specific weaknesses mentioned by UFH respondents included: l The need for more choice about consultants, for using more consultants with an understanding of the specific context,and for more continuity and follow-through to be built into the consultative process — especially where workshops were concerned. l TELP’s emphasis on technical assistance. Although in itself this was appreciated it was also seen as limited — not focused sufficiently on processes of ‘collaborative problem solving’. Weaknesses at Pentech: l There was a perception that areas of joint funding and activity had tended to lead to too much competition, rather than leading to greater mutual support amongst HDIs. Although getting the HDIs together had been an achievement in itself, and although benefits had certainly flowed from this, it was time for this arrangement to be reviewed. It was felt that the Department of Education, through a consultative process, should ultimately take firmer overall control in the situation.

75

The Mellon Foundation

Mellon Foundation

CASE STUDY 4

Mellon Foundation

CASE STUDY 4

The Mellon Foundation Introduction

The University of Cape Town’s (UCT) capacity building initiative functions on the basis of a funding partnership between itself and the Mellon Foundation, whereby the university works independently towards achieving its own objectives. As a result, it involves a combination of the institution’s own funds and funds from the donor. THE APACITY MELLON BUILDING The FOUNDATION university INITIATIVES is South Africa’s IN HIGHER oldest,and EDUCATION is one of Africa’s leading teaching C and research institutions. It was founded in 1829, and it developed into a fully-fledged university during the period 1880 to 1900. The university has six faculties. This structure was recently reviewed, as part of a strategic planning process aimed at fulfilling UCT’s mission of being ‘an outstanding teaching and research university, educating for life and addressing the challenges facing our society’.Today,the university community comprises more than 15 000 students and 4 500 members of staff. Particular emphasis is placed on postgraduate studies and 30% of the university’s students are enrolled in postgraduate programmes.

Conceptualisation of capacity building Approach of UCT–Mellon to capacity building The collaboration between the Mellon Foundation and the University of Cape Town is substantially different from the approaches outlined so far. This is a once-off capacity building exercise, in which the foundation provides seed money to an institution to carry out its own activities. The university itself funded 75% of the project. The 25% contributed by Mellon was utilised to re-deploy staff so that they could dedicate time and effort to the project, and to secure the services of an external agency. Clearly this can only be done where there is sufficient capacity in the institution to carry out and monitor its own activities. This is in fact the general funding approach followed by the Mellon Foundation, and does not apply only to capacity building. The University of Cape Town essentially defined the problems it was experiencing, and conceptualised the initiative. The notion of upgrading the capacity of the university came from the institution itself, the Mellon Foundation simply undertook to support this amongst its other funding activities. Thus, although the foundation contributed to the initiative, the 79


donor was less of an active partner in this specific approach to capacity building than in the other three approaches. For this reason the Mellon Foundation is considered in less detail than other donor agencies in this report. The University of Cape Town embarked upon a substantial transformation and strategic planning process in 1995, which culminated in a Strategic Planning Framework. This framework subsequently drove the way capacity building was conceptualised at the university. An audit to assess the skills base of staff and the capacities within the entire organisation was launched. According to those managing the project, the audit identified a level of institutional dissonance between the core functions of the university (teaching and research), and its support systems (administrative and financial management). The subsequent formulation of UCT’s capacity building initiative thus became known as the Audit and Integration of Management Systems (AIMS) project.At the core of the AIMS approach is the goal of increasing its capacity through creating synergy between the academic enterprise of the university and its various support functions. There was more to this, however. The creation of synergy had to be accompanied by growing the skills of those needing to implement and manage the work.This constituted a more conventional, but significant, element of capacity building. How were these skills to be imparted? Here again this approach veers away from what we have seen so far.An explicit ‘apprenticeship’or mentoring model was adopted. UCT staff were appointed to work actively alongside consultants in implementing the project,so that the UCT staff would acquire the necessary skills to continue to improve the various processes once the consultants had left and the project itself had ended. Although this mentoring approach was to be a major skill-building component of the project, more conventional course-based management development and training exercises were also incorporated. Other views UCT interviewees indicated that the university community generally misunderstood the essential capacity building objectives of the AIMS project. Resistances that have been experienced might well relate to such a misunderstanding. It is unfortunate that the model of co-operative governance that this approach set out to facilitate, and its ultimate outcome of expanding the space for effective teaching and research, appears to have been placed at risk.

80

THE MELLON FOUNDATION

The UCT–MELLON capacity building approach in practice Structure and management The genesis of the AIMS project was the strategic planning process the university embarked on 1995. The resultant strategic planning framework proposed that an audit of the institution be done to assess the skills base of staff and to get a sense of the capacities within the entire institution. According to official AIMS documents the university-wide audit was ‘to look at areas where the operational systems could be improved to ensure maximum quality, efficiency and effectiveness’ (see UCT homepage, www.uct.ac.za/depts/ aims/overview). The Vice-Chancellor takes ultimate responsibility for the project within an AIMS Steering Committee that guides the process.Officially the AIMS project commenced in its current form in November 1999. The overall goal of the AIMS project is to create more space and time for research and teaching for academics. While this would entail freeing academics from support-related tasks, it would require closer understanding by both academics and support services of their relative needs and functions in the university.For those leading the AIMS project,the space for academics to better focus on research and teaching hinged on finding the methods of leadership that would facilitate this – i.e.for all those leading the different functions of the university ‘to get more effective and more efficient at what they do’. The resources for the AIMS project are largely internal. The continuous improvement approach to building capacity is located within the main focus areas of the project and these are resourced from internal UCT funds. The Mellon Foundation partially funds the formal course-based components, which appear to be supportive and secondary. Implementation of capacity building activities The roll-out of the AIMS project entailed two phases. The first phase, supported by Gemini Consultants, involved setting up and shaping the various work teams needed for processing improvement in the university. The work teams developed by the AIMS project managers and Gemini are the following:

l l l l l

Organisational Design and Governance Support Services Alignment (Properties and Services, and Finance) Planning and Budgeting Human Resources Communications

81


The work teams support the core AIMS team on short-term process change issues within their areas of expertise or function. The Organisational Design and Governance work team essentially deals with improving the decision-making systems within the university. This involves integrating the patterns through which various committees, management and deans made the different ‘political’ decisions at the university and how these interact with the Senate and Council. The first phase of the project commenced in November 1999 and ended in December 2000.The key areas that needed to be completed by the end of the first phase was a level of integration at the decision-making levels that would facilitate efficient decision making and implementation. The other work teams are all part of a business process re-engineering objective aimed at integrating and making more efficient the ways in which finances, human resources and information technology, for example, are managed and implemented. According to the AIMS project design flow chart, the first wave of the Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) with regard to Support Services Alignment would focus on process improvement in the areas of purchasing, receipting, payroll and undergraduate financial aid. The second wave of BPR within that same work team would involve process improvements in Physical Planning and Maintenance, Research Administration and Development Office Processes.The successful completion and achievement of these two phases of BPR would be maintained through improved skills and management. The first phase of AIMS was complicated and somewhat ambitious. However, the AIMS web-site indicated that the second phase of the Support Services Alignment commenced as scheduled in October 2000, indicating a level of successful implementation of the first phase. Given the nature of the process improvement in the service areas,a significant level of success could not have been achieved if substantial skills development had not shadowed each step of the process improvement work. This is where the unique element of approach to capacity building can be discerned. The consultants had a strong empowerment approach written into their contract.Throughout the first phase the consultants had to transfer skills,so that key people within the AIMS core group,and those involved in the work teams, learned facilitation and the necessary skills to lead the second phase of the AIMS project.The first,consultant-led phase ended in December 2000.Staff at UCT would lead the second phase,including the leadership of the second BPR wave. This necessitated the transfer and acquisition of organisational skills that would allow for UCT’s effective ownership of changes during phase two. UCT staff were involved in three areas of work in the AIMS project in which skills development occurred:

82

THE MELLON FOUNDATION l

l

l

Joint team members. These are academic and support staff seconded to the AIMS project. They worked outside of their usual work areas and ‘partnered’ the consultants. These staff were guided by the consultants to analyse work and decision-making processes, and work to achieve specific results. It is among this cadre of staff that most ‘organisational skill’ changes were developed. Staff from this group are expected to facilitate the second phase and play a leading role in the continuous improvement processes. Natural work teams. These are the work teams referred to earlier. Again, significant skills development would have taken place with those participating in order to achieve the desired process changes. Workstream champions. These are senior line managers in a department or process area with whom the project works.These managers provide strategic content input and are accountable for the achievements of agreed milestones in the stream of work for which they are responsible (see the UCT website: www.uct.ac.za/depts/aims/buildcap.htm).

There were three objectives to the capacity building of UCT staff: 1. The incorporation of skills required for executing the various aspects of the AIMS project into UCT’s capacity, to continue improving processes after the end of the project. This is perhaps the most important objective, and the means of achieving most of it was through working alongside consultants during phase one. (An example of this was the case within the Undergraduate Funding Office sub-stream. As a result of process changes during phase one, and the skills transfer that accompanied this, the Office was able to improve on their turnaround time for processing applications and related paperwork from two-and-a-half months to two weeks. Given the problems in this area facing South African universities, this constituted a substantial improvement in a significant area of service). 2. Leadership development and training. 3. Support staff development and training. Objectives 2 and 3 are to be achieved through more conventional capacity building programmes, revolving around structured courses in partnership with the university’s Graduate School of Business, such as the following: l

Executive management development. This course targets senior executives at UCT from both the decision-making ‘centre’and from the faculties. The AIMS literature suggests that this course will develop strategic management competencies and operational skills needed for managing and implementing change.

83


Junior and middle management development. The people targeted by this segment of the programme include those staff with tertiary qualifications but who need improved management skills, and those with management potential but with no formal tertiary education and training.

Perceived constraints in successful implementation A key risk has been the high staff turnover within the institution, especially amongst administrative staff. This in fact resulted in discontinuities in the implementation of AIMS at times. More generally, it means that the university has lost key staff, who were trained to perform certain tasks. During the interviews some expressed the view that although the skills are lost to the university, they are still available to the higher education system in general. However, the absence of succession planning in the transformation process increased the risks involved in high staff turnover. Because of its complexity and difficulties experienced in its application, the change in the information technology management system has generally not been viewed positively by staff. This is problematic, since the system is ultimately designed to provide the university with the management information necessary to fulfil its teaching and research functions more efficiently. While it is too early to comment on the success of the executive management course,the AIMS team there has expressed a fear that some of the academic leaders may feel slighted by having to undergo management training. If this were to happen, the non-participation of senior academics could undermine the cultivation of effective management skills needed for the ‘continuous improvement capability’ approach to capacity building which underpins the AIMS approach. Despite the intention to establish links with other knowledge organisations, and commerce and industry,this has been difficult to achieve in the short term. In cases where there was a lack of scheduling in delivery of activities, or no clear demarcation of roles and responsibilities between consultants and university personnel, this had negative effects on delivery. In fact, role re-alignment of staff in the university proved difficult, especially when taking over from consultants. Outcomes The idea of a university using its ‘natural’ competence to build the capacity of its internal management is in many ways unique and therefore previously untried in this context. Nevertheless, the management of the AIMS project were fairly confident that effective skills transfer did happen and that UCT staff would be adequately equipped to lead and implement continuing change 84

THE MELLON FOUNDATION

processes. The true outcome of this, however, can only be measured over time. A significant indicator of success would be the extent to which the people that have been through these processes and courses actually lead and manage UCT over the next 5 to 10 years. However, skills pertinent to managing HEIs are in demand and will continue to be so over the next few years. As pointed out earlier, there is a significant chance that many of the brightest and most capable people developed by UCT will be lured to other universities and even consultancies.The AIMS management is aware of this danger but suggest that if their efforts contribute to better management throughout the higher education system, UCT’s efforts will not have been in vain. In fact, the AIMS initiative may well evolve into one that develops higher education management skills as part of the university’s academic packages.

Review of the approach in context Strengths Many capacity building programmes flounder as a result of the level of separation between the needs of an organisation and the skills requirements of the individuals that are part of the capacity building programme. Often the skills developed are not those needed for increased organisational effectiveness in that specific context, or become irrelevant as a result of changes in the organisation’s processes and priorities. One of the main strengths of this approach to capacity building is that it does not stand separate from the things that people do in their work.The development of skills becomes an integral part of the broader goal of organisational change and efficiency. This reduces the chances that skills are developed in areas where they are not needed or not highly prioritised,or where they are not integral to the organisation’s processes. Basically,the skills are developed as the work is improved:and as greater skills are developed, so the work improves even further. Another important strength of this approach relates to the generally problematic area of ownership. Where ownership is often a point of contention in other approaches, in this case the chances of the institution owning the process is much enhanced. The fact that staff work alongside consultants and then take over the work themselves, contributes substantially to this. Likewise, the fact that the project is visibly managed by its own academics contributes to a sense of ownership in the institution as a whole. Those involved in the project argue that academics might have been more reticent in participating in the process if it had not clearly been managed by fellow academics who understood the needs of the academic enterprise. Although this still remains to be seen, the equally problematic area of achieving sustainability may prove to constitute a strength of this approach. As stated earlier, AIMS capacity building initiatives form an integral part of an organisational change process in which skills are developed as a necessary 85


element of initiating and managing continuing change.In addition,the fact that the resources for the project are largely internal might make it more sustainable, as it is relatively independent of continuing donor support. There are indications that this has led to more commitment by those managing the programme and those participating in it. Donor funded capacity building and change initiatives are often regarded as ‘nice to have’ but not really what the institution wants or needs. From such a perspective this approach may prove to be more sustainable than interventions which are mainly externally funded. Ultimately, UCT’s approach needs to be seen as long term. Since ongoing skills development is key to sustaining the other two legs of AIMS – the BPR processes aimed at improving the mechanics of the organisation and the improvements to the Governance and Decision-making Systems, it is the ongoing element which will be critical in the end. The success of the capacity building activities has to carry through to what the university calls ‘continuous improvement’. The approach may indeed be useful to consider for discussion with other higher education institutions over the next few years. Lessons from the approach may only be concretely evident in two or more years’ time. During this period it will become clear whether the continuous improvement approach is working and whether those participating in AIMS and undergoing the formal training manage a more efficient UCT with clear modalities of cooperation between the academic, support and decision-making frameworks. Weaknesses The major weakness of this as a general approach to capacity building is that it requires a set of pre-conditions in the institution in which it is applied. Pre-conditions for its effective deployment in any institution are: extensive financial and human resources existing within the institution, and a central and strategic commitment to deploy such funds and resources in a process of institutional transformation and capacity building within its own walls. These conditions may apply in some South African HEIs where the approach could have considerable relevance.However,it would be a tall order for many others. Specific criticisms or challenges identified by the individuals interviewed included: l

l

86

The investment in the AIMS project has been perceived by some as taking away institutional resources that could have been better deployed in the university’s primary teaching and research activities, where a number of faculties and departments have experienced severe cut-backs. While academic, management, administrative and support staff who have been directly involved in the process have been committed to its objectives, and have benefited from its transformative and capacity building activities, perceptions of the purposes and processes of the AIMS project has not been as well received by the numbers of staff who have not been directly involved. It is acknowledged that this might have been better managed.

References Academy for Educational Development. 2000. Tertiary Education Linkages Project (TELP). Mid-term evaluation: Revised final report. Submitted to USAID/South Africa. Buchert, L. & King, K. 1995. Learning from experience. Centre for Health Policy. 2000. Understanding capacity: Financial management within the district health system. CHET. 1997. A draft framework for creating management capacity and a culture of leadership in higher education. Pretoria: CHET. CHET. 1998. National management and leadership capacity development project in higher education. Pretoria: CHET. Cohen, J.M. 1995. Capacity building in the public sector: A focused framework for analysis and action. Gosling,L.& Edwards,M.1995.Toolkits:A practical guide to assessment,monitoring,review and evaluation. London: Save the Children. MHO. March 1998. Joint Financing Programme for Co-operation in Higher Education: Description of the Programme and its Procedures. MHO. 1999. Project descriptions (at TNG), 1999. NUFFIC. May 2000. MHO Rectors Meeting, 8–11 May 2000. Peninsula Technikon. 1999. Strategic planning document. Rossi, P.H., Freeman, H.E. & Lipsey, M.W. 1999. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Sixth ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage. TELP. 2000a. Mid-term evaluation: Revised final report. TELP. 2000b. Quartely report: Semi-annual report of institutional progress for the period 1 March to 31 May 2000. University of Fort Hare. 2000a. Strategic plan 2000. University of Fort Hare. 2000b. Strategic plan 2000: Implementation programme. Vogels, M. & Samarakoon, S. 1999. Report of a NUFFIC monitoring mission to the Technikon Northern Gauteng South Africa, 18–22 October 1999. World Bank. 1997. Revitalizing Universities in Africa: Strategy and Guidelines.

87

Capacity Building: For the Next Generation of Academics

Building the Latino Future: Success Stories for the Next Generation

Building the Latino Future: Success Stories for the Next Generation

Hacking: The Next Generation

Algorithms for Next Generation Networks

Algorithms for Next Generation Networks

Hacking: The Next Generation

Hacking: The Next Generation

The Next Generation

Hacking: The Next Generation

Next Generation Business Strategies for the Base of the Pyramid: New Approaches for Building Mutual Value

Next generation of data mining

Building Leadership Capacity for School Improvement

Next Generation Leader

Next Generation 2

IP Over WDM: Building the Next Generation Optical Internet

The Quantum Leap: Next Generation

The Next Generation CDMA Technologies

Global leadership: the next generation

The Quantum Leap: Next Generation

Journalismustheorie: Next Generation

Next Generation 2

Next Generation Leader

Next Generation 1

Next Generation 1

Next Generation ABAP Development

Next generation network services

Next Generation ABAP Development

Next Generation Intelligent Networks

Next-Generation Network Services

Next generation photovoltaics

Capacity Building: For the Next Generation of Academics

Building the Latino Future: Success Stories for the Next Generation

Building the Latino Future: Success Stories for the Next Generation

Hacking: The Next Generation

Algorithms for Next Generation Networks

Algorithms for Next Generation Networks

Hacking: The Next Generation

Hacking: The Next Generation

The Next Generation

Hacking: The Next Generation

Next Generation Business Strategies for the Base of the Pyramid: New Approaches for Building Mutual Value

Next generation of data mining

Building Leadership Capacity for School Improvement

Next Generation Leader

Next Generation 2

IP Over WDM: Building the Next Generation Optical Internet

The Quantum Leap: Next Generation

The Next Generation CDMA Technologies

Global leadership: the next generation

The Quantum Leap: Next Generation

Journalismustheorie: Next Generation

Next Generation 2

Next Generation Leader

Next Generation 1

Next Generation 1

Next Generation ABAP Development

Next generation network services

Next Generation ABAP Development

Next Generation Intelligent Networks

Next-Generation Network Services

Next generation photovoltaics

Recommend Documents