[/caption]
be sent out to what they fondly imagine are battalions of eager staff desperately awaiting their words of wisdom (bosses can be funny that way). Reality is usually rather different but one recent communiqué – on working in fragile states – actually got me quite excited recently, because despite a certain amount of management-speak, I thought it captured some pretty sharp thinking. With big cheese permission, here are some of the less boring bits highlights:
“Whilst each context is different and in any conflict-affected state it is difficult to predict how change will happen, it is unlikely to be through one model of change, is likely to involve both slow incremental change and sudden unpredictable events that can lead to step change ….. change happens in emergent and surprising ways demanding ongoing analysis and checking.
We need to develop our ability to be agile enough to be ready to respond to opportunities for change. We need to think long-term, act short-term and long-term. We need to:
· Deepen our understanding of social, religious, cultural dynamics in our power analysis. Such dynamics continue to function in any conflict. We need to recognise and build on what IS working better.
· Develop our capability to convene antagonistic groups that may think very differently. It is critical at all levels to keep dialogue open, develop awareness and deepen understanding and build on joint interests from disparate groups
· Partner with a broader range of organisations that include religious, youth and private sector
· Support, enable and follow innovation in communities
· Encourage and invest in leadership potential, especially of women and young people
· Engage with economic drivers of conflict – both in terms of positive and negative incentives
· Leverage international pressure, linking up community level engagement with national and international awareness and action.
· Find incentives that challenge the status quo
Programme Design
Programming needs to be designed to reflect the more emergent, non-linear, way change happens. Our current methodology needs adapting so that we can be more agile, so we can prepare the ground and enable truly effective response when events open up opportunities for change. Our analysis needs to reflect the root causes of the conflict not just the symptoms. It needs to be more iterative so the normal ‘analyse à plan à review’ cycle moves to a speedier ‘analyse, design, experiment, fast review, then scale up what works or kill off what doesn’t, analyse, redesign etc’ model.
Whist we may need to meet people’s short-term needs in conflict-affected states, we recognise that this often engages us in only transactional change for poor people. We need to find ways of balancing or developing such interventions into programmes that will lead to more long-term, transformational change. We will need to persuade major donors on the shortsightedness of their short-term funding 3-6 month cycles. We need to be more open to see what structures and processes ARE actually working in conflict-affected environments, e.g. tribal and religious structures or private sector. We need to develop our organisational capability, the confidence and capacity of staff as convenors of antagonistic actors, to forge shared agendas across conflict gaps. We can sometimes use our technical competency e.g. water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) as an entry point to bring about dialogue. This may involve a level of discomfort in working with those with whom we may disagree. It involves taking risks and being creative and innovative in our design thinking.
People – How do we recruit and retain high skilled staff that can make skilled judgements in dynamic high-risk 
environments?
· We need to find new ways to attract staff, e.g. linking to academic institutions dealing with conflict perhaps with internships, secondments etc. We need to find better ways to assess potential in high-risk environments and not ask for Oxfam experience.
Business systems – Our planning and budgeting systems seem too rigid – we need a new planning toolkit more like rapid-onset planning (for emergencies like conflict or natural disasters) with minimal, more flexible planning systems that don’t rely on web-based systems – we need to find alternative technical solutions. We may need to set minimal levels of unrestricted funding, create opportunity funding pots to encourage agility. We need to develop a Real Time Evaluation equivalent to enable quick decision-making on killing off what isn’t working, and building on what is.
We need to develop a framework to support staff in quickly working through or reviewing legalities and decision-making on the ground. We may also need a stand back review on terrorist legislation and implications for our work.”
Wish all the internal chatter was this meaty……
P.S. Matt Crook describes an intriguing new initiative – a group of governments in fragile states getting organized to put pressure on aid donors – but frustratingly doesn’t say much about what they are actually asking for]]>