Policy Analysis, Engagement and Advocacy
A workshop for Transparency International Bangladesh
12-14 February 2007
Dhaka , Bangladesh
Naved Chowdhury
Overseas Development Institute, London
• Britain’s leading development Think
Overseas
Development Institute
Tank
• £8m, 60 researchers
• Research / Advice / Public Debate
• Rural / Humanitarian / Poverty &
Aid / Economics (HIV, Human
rights, Water)
• DFID, Parliament, WB, EC
• Civil Society
For more information see: www.odi.org.uk
RAPID Programme
• Research
• Advisory work
• Policy change projects
• Workshops and seminars
• Civil Society Programme
www.odi.org.uk/rapid
Workshop Objectives
a) Share experiences about CSO-policy context in
different countries;
b) Learn about the latest worldwide research and
practice in this area;
c) Share experiences about approaches to
influence policy and what works;
d) Start to develop strategies to improve policy
impact.
Outline of the Workshop
Day 1
• General Introductions
Day 2
• Tools, Strategy and Knowledge
management
Day 3
• Field trip
Any questions about the plan?
Self Introductions
2 minutes!
• Name
• Area of Work
• What do you want to get out of this workshop?
Plenary discussion:
1. What are the main opportunities and
challenges
a) Regarding CSO-policy links in Bangladesh? (in
general)
b) Affecting the policy impact of your work?
Civil Society Partnerships Programme
Aim: Strengthened role of southern CSOs
in development policy processes
Outcomes:
• CSOs better understanding evidence-policy
process
• Capacity to support CSOs established
• Improved information for CSOs
• Global collaboration
http://www.odi.org.uk/cspp/
CSOs and Pro-poor Policy Influence
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Complementing state in providing services
Innovators in service delivery
Advocates with and for the poor
Identifying problems & solutions
Extending our understanding
Providing information
Training and capacity building
Key factors for CSO influence (Malawi)
Opposing
• Lack of capacity
• Lack of local
ownership
• Translating data into
evidence
• Lack of data
• Donor influence
• Crises
• Political factors
Supporting
• Evidence of the value
of CSO involvement
• Governments
becoming more
interested in CSOs
• CSOs are gaining
confidence
• Strength of networks
• The media
• Political factors
Definitions
• Research: “any systematic effort to increase the
stock of knowledge”
• Evidence: the result/output of the research process
• Policy: a “purposive course of action followed by an
actor or set of actors”
– Agendas / policy horizons
– Official statements documents
– Patterns of spending
– Implementation processes
– Activities on the ground
The linear logical policy model…
Identify the problem
Commission research
Analyse the results
Choose the best option
Establish the policy
Implement the policy
Evaluate the results
Generic Policy Processes
1. Problem Definition/
Agenda Setting
2. Constructing the Policy
Alternatives/ Policy Formulation
6. Evaluation
The Policy Cycle
5. Policy Implementation
and Monitoring
3.Choice of Solution/
Selection of Preferred Policy Option
4. Policy Design
• “The whole life of policy is a chaos of purposes and
accidents. It is not at all a matter of the rational
implementation of the so-called decisions through
selected strategies.” 1
in reality…
• “Most policy research on African agriculture is irrelevant
to agricultural and overall economic policy in Africa.” 2
• “CSOs often have very little to bring to the policy table.” 3
• “CSOs, researchers and policymakers seem to live in
parallel universes.” 4
– Clay & Schaffer (1984)
– Omamo (2003)
3 – CSPP Consultations
4 – ODI-AFREPREN Workshop
1
2
Industry
CSOs
Scientists
Agenda
setting
Problem
definition
& analysis
Government
Policy
tools
Selection
Implementation
Enforcement
Media
Public
Source: Yael Parag
Policy
evaluation
1.
X
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Linear model
Too close for comfort, Edwards
Impact & Effectiveness, Fowler
‘Context, evidence, links’, RAPID
Policy narratives, Roe
CSO legitimacy, L. David Brown
Links and Learning, Gaventa
‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay & Schaffer
‘Street level bureaucrats’, Lipsky
Policy as experiments, Rondinelli
Policy Streams & Windows, Kingdon
Disjointed incrementalism, Lindquist
Tipping point model, Gladwell
Mercenaries, missionaries and
revolutionaries , Malena
‘Non-Western?’, Lewis
Global Civil Society, Salamon, Kaldor
Types of Engagement, Coston
18. Linear model of communication,
Shannon
19. ‘Space’ for thought & action, Howell
20. Simple and surprising stories,
Communication Theory
21. Provide solutions, Marketing Theory I
22. Find the right packaging, Marketing II
23. Global Civil Society?, Keane
24. Global Legitimacy, van Rooy
25. Epistemic communities, Haas
26. Policy entrepreneurs, Najam
27. Advocacy coalitions, Keck & Sikkink
28. Negotiation through networks, Sabattier
29. Social capital, Coleman
30. Accountability, OneWorld Trust
31. Communication for social change,
Rockefeller Foundation
32. Wheels and webs, Chapman & Fisher
CSOs and Policy: Existing theory
15.
16.
17.
www.odi.org.uk/rapid/lessons/theory
Existing theory – a short list
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Civil Society, Edwards
Types of Engagment, Coston
Legitimacy, L. David Brown / van Rooy
‘Street level bureaucrats’, Lipsky
Global Civil Society, Keane / Kaldor / Salamon
Policy streams and policy windows, Kingdon
Disjointed Incrementalism, Lindblom
Social Epidemics, Gladwell
Any questions?
Policy life is complex. What
issues matter? The RAPID
Framework
A word of warning…
• The world is complex
• We do not aim to make it simple
• Only to find recognisable patternrs or
beacons
• Which might guide your actions
• There is NO blueprint. NO linear, logical,
rational, proper, method.
• Most of the time it is up to you.
… A word of warning
• You will probably never find out what goes
on within the policy process
• And not have all the evidence you need
• You need to be confident to act even in a
context of uncertainty
• And be systematic and scientific (context,
strategy, action, record, learn) but flexible
and original
External Influences
The political context –
political and economic structures
and processes, culture, institutional
pressures, incremental vs radical
change etc.
The
Analytical Framework
Socio-economic and
cultural influences,
donor policies etc
The links between policy
and research communities –
networks, relationships, power,
competing discourses, trust,
knowledge etc.
The evidence – credibility, the
degree it challenges received
wisdom, research approaches
and methodology, simplicity of
the message, how it is packaged
etc
And allows useful comparisons
1. Ideal model
e.g. ??
2. Islands model
e.g. multilaterals
Contexts
Links
Contexts
Knowledge
3. Technocratic model
e.g. donors
Links
Knowledge
4. Ivory Tower model
e.g. Research institutes
Contexts
Contexts
Links
Links
Knowledge
Knowledge
Political Context: Key Areas
• The macro political context (democracy, governance,
media freedom; academic freedom)
• The sector / issue process (Policy uptake = demand –
contestation) [NB Demand: political and societal. Power.]
• How policymakers think (narratives & policy streams)
• Policy implementation and practice (bureaucracies,
incentives, street level, room for manoeuvre, participatory
approaches)
• Decisive moments in the policy process (policy processes,
votes, policy windows and crises)
• Context is crucial, but you can maximize your chances
Evidence: Relevance and credibility
• Key factor – did it provide a solution to a
problem?
• Relevance:
– Topical relevance – What to do?
– Operational usefulness – How to do it? :
• Credibility:
– Research approach
– Of researcher > of evidence itself
• Strenuous advocacy efforts are often needed
• Communication
Links: Coalitions and Networks
• Feedback processes often prominent in
successful cases.
• Trust & legitimacy
• Networks:
– Epistemic communities
– Policy networks
– Advocacy coalitions
• The role of individuals: connectors, mavens and
salesmen
External Influence
• Big “incentives” can spur evidence-based
policy – e.g. PRSP processes.
• And some interesting examples of donors
trying new things re. supporting research
• But, we really don’t know whether and
how donors can best promote use of
evidence in policymaking (credibility vs
backlash)
LUNCH
Key-note Speakers
• On the needs and pressures of
policymaking
• On producing relevant and credible
research
• Questions?
Plenary discussion:
1. How can we change what we do to be more
useful for policymakers?
1. Individually, think about 3 things you (as
an individual) and 3 things your
organisation can do different (5 minutes)
2. Then in groups identify the 5 most
important things you and an organisation
can do different (30 minutes)
3. Feed-back to plenary (25 minutes)
Networkers
Skills of (pro-poor) policy entrepreneurs
Storytellers
Engineers
Fixers
Policy Entrepreneurship
Questionnaire
• Rank responses
• Add scores
• Don’t worry about
specifics
End DAY 1
DAY 2
• Results of the Policy entrepreneurship
questionnaire
• Tools
– Identifying the problem and assessing the
context
Kenya CSO Policy Entrepreneurs
Carroll, T
Lothike, F
Nyaga, M
Lenachuru, C
Jelle, A
Kisangau
Mohamud, M
Githuka, P
Nganga, T
Kaimui, M
Gituthu, J
Virginia
Onyango, S
Average
38
36
36
30
46
34
30
40
28
38
25
40
32
31
23
32
32
29
33
30
36
33
32
32
33
34
45
39
40
39
39
44
41
32
35
34
39
38
36
46
52
43
46
34
39
49
43
44
44
45
40
48
35
32
39
44
>44 = Low
<30 = High
<23 = V. High
Comments
• Tendency to prefer “storytelling” and
“networking”.
• Several people dislike “fixing” and
“engineering” is close by.
• One of you has a strong preference:
“networking”
Developing a strategy
To Maximize Chances
You need to:
• better understand how policy is made and
options for policy entrepreneurship;
• use evidence more effectively in influencing
policy-making processes;
• build stronger connections with other
stakeholders;
• actively participate in policy networks
• communicate better.
The overall framework
Who?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identify the problem
How?
Understand the context
Identify the audience(s)
Develop a SMART Strategy
Identify the message(s)
Resources – staff, time, partners & $$
Promotion – tools & activities
Monitor, learn, adapt
What?
Identifying the problem
• First win the fight over the problem
• Then fight for the solution
• Therefore the first thing we are going to do
is think about the problem:
– What is the problem?
– Why is it important that we address this
problem?
External Influences
The political context –
political and economic structures
and processes, culture, institutional
pressures, incremental vs radical
change etc.
An
Analytical Framework
Socio-economic and
cultural influences,
donor policies etc
The links between policy
and research communities –
networks, relationships, power,
competing discourses, trust,
knowledge etc.
The evidence – credibility, the
degree it challenges received
wisdom, research approaches
and methodology, simplicity of
the message, how it is packaged
etc
External Influences
political context
A Practical Framework
Politics and
Policymaking
Campaigning,
Lobbying
Scientific
information
exchange &
validation
Media,
Advocacy,
Networking
links
Policy analysis, &
research
Research,
learning &
thinking
evidence
Using the framework
• The external environment: Who are the key
actors? What is their agenda? How do they
influence the political context?
• The political context: Is there political interest in
change? Is there room for manoeuvre? How do
they perceive the problem?
• The evidence: Is it there? Is it relevant? Is it
practically useful? Are the concepts familiar or
new? Does it need re-packaging?
• Links: Who are the key individuals? Are there
existing networks to use? How best to transfer
the information? The media? Campaigns?
Using the Framework
Group Work
Use the RAPID Framework to analyse
the key factors likely to affect the
policy influence of your work
(remember you will present each
other’s work)
To do:
1. Go over all factors (pick the most relevant
questions)
2. Answer:
1. How friendly is the policy context?
2. Do you have access to the right evidence?
3. Are there clear and strong links between
evidence and policy?
4. How influential are the external forces?
Feedback and Discussion
Groups (a few key points):
What is the issue?
What factors matter?
Is the evidence credible?
Others:
Are the same issues important?
Do you find the evidence credible?
What is the present policy agenda?
What CSOs need to do
What CSOs need to
know
What CSOs need to
do
Political Context:
• Get to know the policymakers. • Work with them – seek
commissions
• Identify friends and foes.
• Strategic opportunism –
• Prepare for policy
prepare for known events
opportunities.
+ resources for others
• Look out for policy windows.
• Who are the policymakers?
• Is there demand for ideas?
• What is the policy process?
Evidence
• What is the current theory?
• What are the narratives?
• How divergent is it?
• Who are the stakeholders?
Links
• What networks exist?
• Who are the connectors,
mavens and salesmen?
•
•
•
•
•
Establish credibility
Provide practical solutions
Establish legitimacy.
Present clear options
Use familiar narratives.
• Get to know the others
• Work through existing
networks.
• Build coalitions.
• Build new policy networks.
How to do it
• Build a reputation
• Action-research
• Pilot projects to generate
legitimacy
• Good communication
• Build partnerships.
• Identify key networkers,
mavens and salesmen.
• Use informal contacts
Example of application
• Animal Healthcare in Kenya :You could use a
time line of events…
• How PRSP came about: You could analyse
events that lead to a significant
development/change
The PRSP Story…
• The WB & IMF “adopted” PRSPs at
o
the AGM in Sept. 1999 as the 1
instrument for HIPIC II (and
subsequently for all loans)
• Why?
• What were the key factors?
• What role did “evidence” play in the
process?
PRSPs – Evidence
• Long-term academic research informing new
focus on poverty, participation, ownership, aid
effectiveness etc
• Applied policy research:
– ESAF reviews
– HIPC review
– SPA Working Groups
– NGO research on debt
• Uganda’s PEAP
PRSPs – Political Context
• Widespread awareness of a “problem” with
international development policy in late 90s
• Failure of SAPs (and Asian financial crisis)
• Mounting public pressure for debt relief
• Stagnation of Comprehensive Development
Framework idea
• Diverging agendas (UK – Poverty, US –
Governance)
• WB/IMF Annual General Meeting, Sept 1999
PRSPs – Links
• WB, IMF, SPA, Bilaterals, NGOs all involved
• Formal and informal networks
• “None of the players was more than two
handshakes away from any of the others”
TEA
Practical Tools
Overarching Tools
- The RAPID Framework
- Using the Framework
- The Entrepreneurship
Questionnaire
Communication Tools
- Communications Strategy
- SWOT analysis
- Message Design
- Making use of the media
Policy Influence Tools
- Influence Mapping & Power Mapping
- Lobbying and Advocacy
- Campaigning: A Simple Guide
- Competency self-assessment
Context Assessment Tools
- Stakeholder Analysis
- Forcefield Analysis
- Writeshops
- Policy Mapping
- Political Context Mapping
Research Tools
- Case Studies
- Episode Studies
- Surveys
- Bibliometric Analysis
- Focus Group Discussion
Policy Analysis: Methods and tools
– RAPID Framework
– Problem Situation Analysis (Tree Analysis)
– Stakeholder Analysis
– Policy Process Mapping
– Force field analysis
– Influence mapping
– SWOT analysis
Problem Tree Analysis
•
•
•
The first step is to discuss and
agree the problem or issue to be
analysed.
Next the group identify the causes
of the focal problem – these
become the roots – and then
identify the consequences – which
become the branches
The heart of the exercise is the
discussion, debate and dialogue
that is generated as factors are
arranged and re-arranged, often
forming sub-dividing roots and
branches
Stakeholder Analysis
• Clarify the policy change
objective
• Identify all the stakeholders
associated with this objective
• Organise the stakeholders in
the matrice according to
interest and power
• Develop strategy to engage
with different stakeholders
High
Keep
Satisfied
Engage
Closely and
Influence
Actively
Monitor
(minimum effort)
Keep
Informed
Power
Low
Low
Interest
High
SWOT Analysis
Strengths
Weaknesses
•Skills and abilities
•Funding lines
•Commitment to positions
•Contacts and Partners
•Existing activities
Opportunities Threats
•Other orgs relevant to the
issue
•Resources: financial,
technical, human
•Political and policy space
•Other groups or forces
• What type of policy
influencing skills and
capacities do we have?
• In what areas have our staff
used them more effectively?
• Who are our strongest
allies?
• When have they worked
with us?
• Are there any windows of
opportunity?
• What can affect our ability to
influence policy?
Force field Analysis
• Specific Change
• Identify Forces
• (Identify Priorities)
• (Develop Strategies)
Force Field Analysis
• Think about:
– Who needs to change
– Who can support and who can resist change
• Do not confuse strength of force with importance
of force
• Look out for:
– VERY strong forces
– Priorities
– Nested FFA (you might have to re-think your problem)
Identifying the forces for and against change and
developing the Strategy
Group work:
• Use Force field analysis to identify key
issues and strategic objectives
• Feedback –highlighting examples
(remember you are telling each other’s
strategies):
– Main forces for and against
– Overall strategic options
– Implications for problem analysis?
Lunch
LUNCH
The over all framework
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Who?
Identify the problem
Understand the context
How? What?
Identify the audience(s)
Develop a SMART Strategy
Identify the message(s)
Resources – staff, time, partners & $$
Promotion – tools & activities
Monitor, learn, adapt
Communication Toolkit for Researchers and CSOs
• Why Communicate? (To inspire, inform and learn).
• African agriculture Researchers have failed identify the
problems facing policymakers ( Omamao 2003).
• Each stakeholder has different communication needs,
information is accessed by them differently, need research
results in different times and different formats (Mortimer et
al 2003).
• Communication capacity – is a long term process
• How to improve communication of research to
policymakers, to other researchers and the end users ( i.e
NGOs, CBOs, etc).
• Communication tools
Audience
•
Who needs to make these changes?
•
Who has the power?
•
What is their stance on the issue?
•
Who influences them?
•
Identify targets and influence
(use stakeholder & context mapping tools)
Message
•
Why should things change (or what is the
evidence to support your case?)
•
How to make sure that the evidence is
credible and ‘legitimate’?
•
What the target audience can hear....
frameworks of thought
•
Language, content, packaging, and timing
Messenger (Promotion)
• How to access information and target?
• Who is a trusted and credible messenger?
• What is the most appropriate medium?
(campaigns, public mobilisation, formal and
informal lobbying)
• How will you package your information?
• Role of the media?
Different Approaches
Issues: Persuasion
•
•
•
•
•
Separate people from problem
Focus on interests, not positions
Invent options for mutual gain
Insist on using objective criteria.
Manage human emotion separately from the
practical problem
• Highlight the human need to feel heard,
understood, respected and valued.
Targeting: Writing Effective Policy Papers
Providing a solution to a policy problem
• Structural elements of a paper
– Problem description
– Policy options
– Conclusion
• Key issues: Problem oriented, targeted,
multidisciplinary, applied, clear, jargon-free.
[Source: Young and Quinn, 2002]
Issues: Lobbying
•
•
•
•
Be an authority on the subject
Include all group in the work
Be positive in your approach
Be aware of the agenda and language on
the government in power
• Identify and target politicians
• Time your input
• Use the Media to lobby
Advocacy Rules
(Or how to influence
people to make changes ....)
What are the changes you are trying to bring
about?
• Use the problem tree or some other tool to
identify problems, impact of the problem and
root causes
• Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic,
Time-Bound (SMART) objectives
Who are you advocating/communicating to?
Who needs to make these changes?
Who has the power?
What is their stance on the issue?
Awareness, Knowledge, Attitude, Behaviour
Targets and influence
Mapping where decisions happen
Analyse the outcome and then decide.
Who are you working together with?
1. Who do you need to work with?
2. Identify your ‘niche’ (SWOT)
3. Stakeholder Mapping
4. Structures for collaborative working
5. Skills needed in teams
6. Benefits and pitfalls of collaborations
Why do you want to make the changes?
Why should things change (or what is the
evidence to support your case?)
How to make sure that the evidence is
credible and ‘legitimate’?
The evidence : accurate, credible, well
researched, authoritative…
What the target audience wants to hear....
Advocacy Statement
A concise and persuasive statement that captures
What you want to achieve, Why, How and by
when?
 Should ‘communicate’ with your target
audience and prompt action
 Think about language, content,
packaging, and timing
 Persuasive
How will you communicate your messages and evidence?
 How to target and access information?
 Who is a trusted and credible messenger?
 What is the most appropriate medium?
 How will you package your information?
 Role of the media
Where and when to advocate/communicate?
 Creating opportunities (campaigns,
public mobilisation, formal and
informal lobbying etc.)
 Influencing existing agendas
 Piggybacking on other agendas
Tomorrow
• We will begin with a field trip.
• You will use some of the questions and tools to
collect information about the problems faced by
the project and its context
• Use your ‘What to watch for’ hand out as a guide,
only.
• Ask questions, observe, make sketches, get
quotes.
Group work
1. In your country groups:
1. Write up a strategy brief detailing: problem,
context, audience, strategy, message and
messenger
2. Develop a presentation of your message
2. To the plenary:
1. Present your message
Plenary Discussion
• Think about 1 way in which you:
– monitor impact?
– learn from what you do?
– learn from what others do?
• Discuss in Plenary
Why is this important?
• Because we need to be able to be strategic
• And strategies need to be evidence based
• But most relevant evidence is held by the process
of policy influence –we will learn it as we do it
• And we must have the capacity to respond to new
evidence and adapt our strategy
– Do not think about evaluation!
– Think monitoring LEARNING and adapting
There are different forms of knowledge…
Implicit
Y
Start
Has it been
articulated?
Y
Explicit
N
Can it been
articulated?
N
Tacit
• Shared beliefs
and common values
Getting
the environment
right
• A willingness to ask for help
• Common technology which connects
people
• Effective Peer Processes
• Rewarding and recognising learning
• Identifying and reinforcing the right
leadership behaviours
ODI experience
• Knowledge and learning are at the heart of the ODI
approach to bridge research, policy and practice
• ODI research groups and networks provide a
substantial knowledge base
– e.g. ALNAP and RAPID
• The CSPP has systematic learning as a core principle
The Knowledge Strategies Framework
external factors
organisational contexts
knowledge of partners,
donors, other external
agencies; networks;
national and global
factors
leadership approaches,
governance structures,
management processes,
institutional pressures, funding
cycles, historical evolution etc.
links within and
across the organisation
boundaries – via communities
and ICTs; to communications
plans; to core functions and
support functions, etc
knowledge – forms and
locations; processes – e.g.:
creation, sharing, storage, use;
key activities and tools; staff
capacities; relevance, M&E
Knowledge: processes and tools
• There are a range of processes to consider
– Mapping and creation of knowledge
– Managing and storing knowledge
– Learning and sharing knowledge
– Use of knowledge
• The different processes and different forms of knowledge can be
brought together…
Knowledge: a menu of tools
What kind of learner are you?
Activists
• Activists are people
who learn
by doing. They like
to involve
themselves in new
experiences,
and will ‘try anything
once’.
They tend to act first
and consider
the consequences
afterwards
Reflectors
• Reflectors learn by
observing and
thinking about what
happened. They like
to consider all the
possible angles and
implications before
coming to a
considered opinion.
They spend time
listening and
observing, and tend
to be cautious and
thoughtful
Theorists
• Theorists like to
understand the
theory behind
the actions. They
need models,
concepts and
facts in order to
learn. They like
to analyse and
synthesise, and
feel
uncomfortable
with subjective
judgements
Pragmatists
• Pragmatists are keen
on trying things out.
They look for new
ideas that can be
applied to the
problem in hand.
They like to get on
with things and tend
to be impatient with
open-ended
discussions; they are
practical, down-toearth people
After action reviews: learning during
projects
Four Simple Questions:
• What was supposed to happen?
• What actually happened?
• Why was there a difference?
15 minute team debrief,
conducted in a “rankfree” environment.
• What can we learn from it?
What is the problem we face while
monitoring?
• The problem with attribution
– Multiple actors and factors contribute
– Unintended results are often ignored
– Influence shifts overtime (indirect relation)
– Impact of our interventions occurs further down
the development chain
• The problem with Accountability vs.
Learning
Why do we face these problems?
• Because the responsibility for achieving
results ultimately depends on the actions of
our partners as influenced by the contexts
in which they work
• Focusing on downstream impact increases
programming bureaucratisation and is
inconsistent with our understanding of
development as a complex process.
What is OM?
• OM is a dynamic methodology useful in the
development of planning, monitoring and
evaluation mechanism. OM:
– Provides the tools to think holistically and strategically
about how it intends to achieve results
– Focuses on Outcomes instead of impacts
– It deals with Contribution instead of attribution
– Forces us to limit our planning and evaluation to our
sphere of influence
– Deals with changes in the behaviours of our direct
partners
Intentional design
• Boundary Partners
– Individuals, groups and organisations with
whom the programme interacts directly to effect
changes.
– Those that you are trying to encourage to
change so that they can contribute to the
vision? With whom will you work directly?
– We must try to group similar partners according
to the type of behavioural changes sought.
Boundary partners are different from strategic
partners.
Boundary partners
Program
= Program`s Partners
Intentional design
• Outcome Challenges
– The changed behaviours (relationships, activities
and/or actions) of the boundary partner and how they
would be behaving if they were contributing ideally to
the vision.
– Imagine that in 3-5 years TIB has been extremely
successful. What would our boundary partners be
doing to contribute maximally to the vision?
– Outcome challenges are about the boundary partner,
not the programme.
The three stages of OM
Further Information / Resources
• ODI Working Papers
• Bridging Research
and Policy Book
• JID Special Issue
• Meeting Reports
• Tools for Impact
• www.odi.org.uk/cspp
• www.odi.org.uk/rapid
Contact Details:
Naved Chowdhury – n.chowdhury@odi.org.uk
RAPID Programme, ODI www.odi.org.uk/rapid
Other sources of information:
Visit http://www.odi.org.uk/rapid
or e-mail rapid@odi.org.uk for a copy of the RAPID/CSPP CD-ROM
Thank you