often focuses on model-specific skills when what is needed is a much more comprehensive training effort. Finally, the common emphasis on training as the only type of capability or institution building needed is in most cases too narrow and insufficient. Training often needs to be combined with other organization- and even system-strengthening activities such as introducing rules, norms, and procedures for service providers; creating a system and norms for hiring, training, and promotion of AEWs; and improving supervision, accountability, and incentives.
Conclusions
There are various ways to address many of these challenges, all of which imply compromises and trade-offs. The first and less desirable option is to reduce the targeted scale. For example, in the presented scenario accept that the only implementer will be the MOA, or work only in those provinces where effective LGU and NGO capacity exists. The second alternative is to simplify the model, which will have a negative effect on impact, but will facilitate achieving large scale. Moreover, it reinforces a common tendency among large-scale implementing agencies, especially those with a technical bias or culture, to drop or dilute the delivery of social components of innovations, which are often key to their effectiveness. The third alternative is to make a substantial investment in capacity and capability building. While allowing for both scale and impact, this is easier said than done and contrary to common practice in development assistance. The extent of
investment needed will almost always entail more than the simple one-off training or investment in infrastructure and equipment so favored by donor agencies and foundations; it will require true organizational change. This is expensive and time consuming and requires the agreement of the implementing institution(s), which is not always forthcoming. The fourth and most desirable alternative is to specify in the
design phase what the potential scale is, and keep iterating and learning during the pilot implementation until the components in the ultimate design are aligned with existing capabilities and capacities and have significant impact. The advantage is that it will avoid investment in an unscalable model or project and avoid disappointing implementation at scale in terms of both reach and impact. The disadvantage is that this may constrain the initial design, and can be rightly criticized for potentially limiting innovations to those that involve only changes at the margins, depending on preexisting capabilities, incentives, and culture. The bottom line here is that if effective large-scale implementation of new innovations implies greater capabilities than exist, then there is no way around investing in systems and organizations.
For further reading: L. Cooley and R. Kohl, Scaling Up—From Vision to Large-Scale Change: A Management Framework for Practitioners,
www.msiworldwide.com/files/scalingup-framework. pdf.
Richard Kohl (
scalingupta@gmail.com) is a principal with Learning and Leading for Large Scale Change, LLC, a consulting firm that specializes in the design and implementation of scaling up strategies, located in Portland, Oregon and San Francisco, CA.
www.ifpri.org
Copyright © 2012 International Food Policy Research Institute. All rights reserved. Contact
ifpri-copyright@cgiar.org for permission to republish.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47