Last in year in December at the Network Managers Meeting in Tobago, we debated approaches to assessing capacity needs. In the business of capacity of development, we are constantly faced with the challenge of identifying capacity gaps that retard; firstly, current water management goals; and secondly and even more so desired change (achieving future management goals). Even where there is confidence in the capacity gaps (needs) identified, the second challenge is prioritising them based on the available resources.We simplify the issue with 3 questions and answers:

Why are needs assessments problematic?

• Individuals and organisations are not always able (or willing) to articulate their needs especially in the absence of a good facilitator
• The capacity gaps identified are not fixed even in the short term, with some organisations revising their needs within one year to two year periods, owing to rapid changes within the organisation itself
• Many a time, greater impact is achieved by addressing institutional needs as opposed to individual needs (the common result of needs assessment surveys)
• Anticipating future needs to fulfil desired change in water management often presents a crisis legitimacy, where the suppliers and users of knowledge differ in defining the objectives of water management in the future

Thus, it is often observed that the traditional and often used “survey of needs assessments” may not sufficiently address these problems. While needs assessment surveys, are important in defining the common issues and entry points for capacity building, say at the scale of regions and countries, they tend to be less useful for medium term adaptive programming.

What are the challenges in moving from needs assessment to work planning and capacity building delivery?

Some method of prioritisation and resource allocation is required (whether coded in procedures or internalised) to turn capacity gaps into capacity building opportunities and later activities. Besides ranking exercises based on the perception of clients, the prospective providers of capacity building have to analyse their own capacity to deliver on the priority needs. Some new challenges may then emerge - including the unavailability of technical expertise to match the capacity needs identified, potential clients who are unable to pay for capacity building services, and conflicting priorities with external funders.

What are we doing about it?

In Cap-Net’s work, we find that what we term capacity building networks are not only a mode of delivering capacity building, but are equally efficient forums for rapid opportunity assessment where the interaction between water professionals, trainers, funders and researchers allows for a continuous matching of capacity building needs, expertise and resources. In this way, the network acts as an open virtual or physical “capacity building market place”- where buying and selling is cheaper and faster, transcending market barriers such as distance in the same way as online shopping has. Inclusive membership also unravels previously latent capacity of both local and international organisations. The resulting work plans, while not necessarily based on formal needs assessment surveys are characterised by being: practical, achievable, dynamic to match the organisational life cycles, resourced and negotiated. The resulting activities such as training courses provide a stimulus for more localised action, the result being replication of regional courses at national levels and refining of themes to better target those working on the ground.

In light of the associated costs and complexity, would it be better to target our time and money less towards needs assessment and invest it in building robust, well organised and functional networks of water professionals and capacity builders?

Login and post your comment below or contact me to register as a user