Are donors really the problem? Overcoming barriers to embracing adaptiveness in humanitarian response
This blog post is part of a series sharing insights from sessions at the Humanitarian Innovation Exchange, which took place on 26 June 2019. The event was jointly organised by Elrha, Leiden University’s Centre for Innovation and the Dutch Coalition for Humanitarian Innovation (DCHI). The blog is inspired by discussions during a session facilitated by ALNAP’s Alice Obrecht .
A number of recent papers explore the barriers to, and potential of, adaptive approaches to transform humanitarian action. Here, I unpack some of the key barriers to adaptiveness and unpack potential opportunities for overcoming them. Some of these barriers are discussed openly and frequently; others are not so readily recognised.
The case for adopting adaptive approaches in humanitarian response is clear, even more so for organisations working to create an enabling environment for innovation to flourish. However, implementing adaptive approaches can be tricky. The barriers to improving adaptiveness across aid agencies are very real but often incorrectly diagnosed.
ALNAP describes adaptiveness as “an organisation’s ability to adjust and make necessary changes to achieve a set of goals within dynamic or complex external environments”. This applies at different levels of an organisation. At a programme level, it affects the ability of staff to monitor and react to changes in the external environment to make sure programmes remain effective. At a higher level, it affects the ability of organisations to make the structural changes necessary to adopt new ideas and to shift organisational resources accordingly.
Essentially, adaptiveness can help agencies to remain outcome-focused in everything they do. It is also invaluable for organisations aiming to get new solutions out of the innovation team and into mainstream programmes.
What are the barriers to adaptiveness?
ALNAP’s research suggests that humanitarians can be quick to hold donors responsible for distributing funding in a way that relies on creating and implementing set plans over that of flexibility and adaptiveness. However, it also raises questions about the preparedness of organisations to operate with greater flexibility.
We often talk about examples of donors imposing rigid contracts and not being open to new ways of working (as discussed in this IASC paper). However, while donor practices can create challenges (explored by ODI’s Humanitarian Policy Group), a more thorough examination of the barriers to adaptiveness show that they are not the only problem. During the workshop Alice Obrecht referred to interviews that highlighted a number of assumptions made by aid agencies about the flexibility of donors; these often prevented them asking for what they needed. This is a great example of how we can take decisions to pre-empt barriers which may or may not exist.
Other barriers highlighted were:
1. Fixed processes and siloed ways of working
‘Back-office’ teams (such as finance and procurement) are frequently involved too late in innovation and programme development processes to understand the full potential created by new ways of doing things. These teams may be able to adapt existing organisational processes to enable new solutions to be adopted. However, there’s rarely enough collaborative space to identify these opportunities, and fully understand the trade-offs.
2. Relationships with unexplored potential
A recent Humanitarian Policy Group report indicates that aid agencies are too often incentivised by donors to prioritise short term project deliverables, at the expense of investing in different types of activities that could have a more sustained impact. This means lower potential for flexibility in the way a programme is delivered.
3. Decision making and culture
Fear of perceived ‘failure’ can prevail within agencies and donors alike and we know that this influences the way decisions are made. On top of this, staff too often do not have the capacity to adopt flexible working mindsets due to the urgent and hectic nature of their day-to-day work.
This fosters an environment where humanitarian actors excel at problem solving when programmes reach a crisis point, but are less well prepared and supported to adopt more systematic approaches to continuous improvement — whether that’s reacting to real-time MEAL activities, or shifting to support new, more effective approaches.
How can we make adaptiveness more achievable?
Aid agencies and donors need to change to overcome these barriers and enable adaptive approaches to flourish.
1. Involve whole organisation
Create space to involve teams such as finance and procurement much earlier in programme design. This is important for both innovation processes and standard programme design. Changing processes can require significant additional work, so don’t forget to help back-office teams understand the real impact enabled by those changes.
2. Prepare all levels of the organisation
Consider the extent to which the organisation is prepared to change in order to become more adaptive. One donor-driven way to encourage adaptive management and more iterative programming is to adopt outcomes-based funding. For example, this might mean contracting on the basis of improved access to sanitation facilities, rather than on the basis of the number of latrines constructed.
However, if this was implemented for the majority of contracts, it would affect the core business model of aid agencies and could require major changes to processes and systems. Outcome based contracting ties revenue to achieving certain outcomes, which are never totally predictable, and would require better ways of accurately and transparently tracking outcomes.
3. Lead by example and make it simple
Leaders may be needed to support and enhance engagement with donors to ensure communication is both practical and strategic. Delivery teams should find ways to rapidly adapt programmes in response to MEAL activities — keeping these processes as simple as possible.
Leaders should also showcase examples of adaptive management to demonstrate an openness to such approaches. Convincing internal staff of the value of adopting an innovation can be a huge challenge; it’s essential to make the case effectively and make the change process as straightforward as possible.
4. Test donor risk appetites
There is significant potential for agencies to engage more deeply with donors and improve the status quo. More collaborative relationships between agencies and donors could create space for adaptiveness, help to manage risk more effectively and reveal better outcomes for both sides.
This will enable you to check whether contracts are as rigid as they appear; whether the fear of failure is legitimate in relation to the donor’s risk appetite; and whether contracts and requirements can be amended to enable greater flexibility. You should be prepared for this to take time!
5. Don’t be afraid to ‘ask the question’
Communicate clearly with donors. Don’t be afraid to articulate what you need, together with how and why this would help you deliver better outcomes. Explain why flexibility across the whole organisation, not only within teams with explicit responsibility for innovation, will enable the uptake of better solutions and ways of working. Some donors may even be persuaded to advocate to other donors on your behalf.
Through our HIF programme, Elrha supports innovators to adopt adaptive approaches by making our grant funding flexible and by helping grantees overcome practical barriers like those identified above. We’re continuing to learn how we can do this most effectively through feedback from our grantees and discussions with a wide range of experts. If you have insights or examples we can learn from, please get in touch.
