Knowledge Compendium (India Backbone) chage march 2015

India Backbone Implementation Network

KNOWLEDGE COMPENDIUM

Confusion Coordination | Contention Collaboration

Intention Implementation

December 2014

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................01

SECTION 1: IndiaWorks High Five!......................................................................07

SECTION 2: Delivering Change Foundation ..........................................................43

SECTION 3: FICCI QUPRAC 2014 .........................................................................49

SECTION 4: A Coordinated Process for Improving the Business ................................57

Regulatory Environment in India

SECTION 5: Industrial Relations: Building Trust and Cooperation .............................67

SECTION 6: Accelerated Cluster Growth and Partnership Initiative............................77

SECTION 7: Scenarios - Enterprise Structures and the Future of Jobs ........................85

SECTION 8: Collaborative Process to find solutions for Affordable, Accessible ............95

and Acceptable quality Medicines and Healthcare for all citizens

SECTION 9: Simple Systems of Effective Participative Planning in Indian Cities..........107

SECTION 10: Simple Systems for Effective Participative Planning in Villages ...............117

SECTION 11: Civil Society Organizations - Learning Together...................................129

Annexure: IbIn team ....................................................................................135

Introduction

02 | IbIn Knowledge Compendium

THE INDIA BACKBONE IMPLEMENTATION NETWORK

IbIn (India Backbone Implementation Network) provides methods and tools to enable stakeholders

to work more effectively together, to turn contentions amongst them into collaboration, and

confusion in implementation into effective coordination. Thereby it accelerates the conversion of

development intentions into outcomes. The methods required are being found from other countries

and from best practices within India too. The use of such methods can reduce delays and

misdirected resources, and thus increase the 'total factor productivity' of the economy.

The idea of IbIn was conceived within the Planning Commission while preparing the 12th Five Year

Plan. During the process of consultation with stakeholders, many suggested that, rather than

preparing another Five Year Plan, the Planning Commission should focus on implementation of its

plans. Moreover, increasing demands from various sectors, to increase allocations so that they

could produce the outcomes they must, could not be met with a Government financial crunch as

well as insufficient economic growth. Therefore there is a pressing need to repair leaky and choked

pipes before pouring more water into the overhead tanks, with the hope that a sufficient quantity

will reach the ground.

The country must improve its ability to produce outcomes with limited resources. Progress is being

impeded by myriad bottlenecks. A root cause analysis of these bottlenecks, which are resulting in

wastage of resources of time, money, and human capacity, revealed that unresolved contentions

amongst stakeholders—in projects, policies, and programs—were a prime cause. These bottlenecks

are at all levels: in the cities and districts, in the States, and in the Centre. These contentions are

often kicked upstairs for resolution from above, which creates bottlenecks in central coordinating

capacity. Increasingly these contentions are taken to courts to resolve them, which is very time-

consuming. Therefore they must be prevented from arising, at the root, with systematic processes

for cooperation amongst the relevant stakeholders. This will improve the speed of implementation

and reduce wastage of resources.

The introduction of systematic methods of collaborative planning and implementation must become

a national campaign. A model of a process to improve a nation's ability to get things done is

available in the Total Quality Movement in Japan in the 1960s and 70s. Techniques for group

working to achieve zero defects, and on time delivery were disseminated throughout the country.

Their application turned Japan from a producer of cheap, flimsy, products into the hallmark of

quality, and even premium pricing in many industries. The contribution of the Total Quality

Movement to the Japanese economic miracle cannot be over-stated.

Introduction

IbIn Knowledge Compendium | 03

A small group within the Planning Commission studied the national 'roll out' strategy of TQM in

Japan and also looked around the world for other examples of systematic methods of improving

capabilities to collaborate and get things done. They were assisted in this search by the World

Bank's Trade and Competitive Industries Division and by the GIZ, the German Government's

international development arm. This was the genesis of the India Backbone Implementation

Network, or IbIn—which also stands for 'Ibhi (i.e. Abhi) India ki bari hai'.

IbIn was announced in April 2013. It has been a 'skunks work' so far, on less than a shoe string

budget. It has not been given any government budget yet. Nevertheless, it has been able to produce

some good results already. Because the idea is a good one.

The IbIn network of partners and projects is described in the chart.

IbIn Node

Planning Commission

World Bank GIZ

India @ 75

“Volunteer Managers”

Delivering Change Foundation (PEMANDU –

SAKAL)

QUPRAC

INDIAWORKS

Urban SSEPP

Rural/Village SSEPP

CSO Platform

Manufacturing Scenarios

IndustPlatformrial Relations

MSME Cluster Stimulation Cell

Business Regulations

Affordable Medicines/Health

Insights and Methods

IbIn Knowledge Compendium

IbIn Website

IbIn's supporters

On the left are the resources supporting the starting node of the IbIn network—the IbIn working

group. The idea was conceived in the Planning Commission and was supported by the World Bank

and GIZ as mentioned before. The IbIn node comprises of young managers who have been 'donated'

by Indian corporations, and other young managers who have volunteered to work in IbIn 'pro

bono'. Therefore the Government was not required to hire and pay for these personnel, and

Government recruitment rules did not have to be followed. The availability of the 'best of the best'

talent at no cost to Government has provided IbIn with great operational flexibility. Moreover the

team operates in non-hierarchical and fluid mode which has enabled it to respond to needs in a

dynamic manner.

India@75, an organization supported by the Confederation of Indian Industry, has provided the

team with space to operate from in CII's office in Gurgaon. The Tata Group has donated Rs. 12 lakhs

and Mr. Kris Gopalakrishnan has donated Rs. 15 lakhs through India@75 towards stipend and

expenses of IbIn nodal cell.


IbIn projects

The IbIn team

The projects that IbIn has initiated and facilitated are represented to the right of the IbIn node in

the chart. Accounts of these projects and the insights obtained from them are provided in this

document.

Three of these projects, viz. the Delivering Change Foundation, IndiaWorks, and QUPRAC, are

developing generic methodologies for collaborative planning and implementation that can be

applied to many sectors.

Another set viz. the Business Regulation Cluster of Projects, the Industrial Relations' Platform, The

Accelerated Cluster Growth and Partnership Initiative, and the Manufacturing Scenarios, are

primarily in the manufacturing space, in which IbIn began as explained in its genesis.

The other projects, outside the manufacturing arena, are focused on the search and dissemination

of SSEPPs (simple systems for effective participative planning) for inclusive and sustainable

development in urban and rural areas.

Many insights as well as methods for collaborative planning and implementation have emerged from

the work of IbIn. These have been compiled into a compendium of IbIn knowledge for the benefit of

all IbIn partners and for wider dissemination in the country. These insights and methods are

presented in this document, and are also available on IbIn's web-site at www.ibinmovement.in.

Finally, to the box in the middle of the diagram labelled the 'IbIn Node'. IbIn is an innovation

within Government. Both, in what it does, and how it does it. What IbIn does is explained in the

Knowledge Compendium in the accounts of its projects. 'Who' the people are in the IbIn node, and

how they operate, is the story of an entrepreneurial start-up within Government.

The seeds of IbIn were sown in the Planning Commission sometime in 2011. The Deputy Chairman of

the Planning Commission had appealed to the Members of the Planning Commission which had been

constituted in July 2009 not to be trapped in the way the Government (and the Planning

Commission) thinks and works. He wanted them to engage with the world outside Government and

bring in new ideas, and shape new approaches to speed up development of the country.

The Members of the Commission requested for a couple of assistants each from outside Government,

who were not from 'within the box', with whose help they could shape innovative ways of working.

Government rules made it impossible for the Deputy Chairman to provide this assistance. He asked

the Members to find innovative ways even to get the resources they needed! 'Turn to your friends in

Industry', he said to Mr. Arun Maira, Member Industry.

Mr. Arun Maira asked the Tata Group and the Mahindra Group for help. Considering the benefit that

the country (and Industry) could have if the Planning Commission could operate innovatively, both

offered to donate a 'best of best' young manager for a year, free of any cost to Government, to work

with the Member Industry. According to the rules, the Planning Commission could not engage them

as individuals. But it could hire a consulting organization. Therefore, these two young men, who

had never met each other before, created a two person consulting company which they called

'Paradigm Consulting', in recognition of the new paradigm of providing assistance to the Planning

Commission.


A few months later, CEOs of other organizations—Axis Bank, and Sona Steering—who saw the

invaluable management development experience these young men were getting, in addition to the

contribution they were making to shape new policies, offered to donate young managers from their

organizations too. They were followed by other organizations—ICICI Bank and L&T. And other bright

and motivated young persons, not sponsored by any organization, came forth to volunteer their

help pro bono. The first to join Paradigm have returned to their parent organizations and have been

replaced by others from their organizations. Thus Tata's are into their fourth generation with

Paradigm; Mahindra's into their third; and Axis Bank into its second.

Thus Paradigm Consulting has grown within the Planning Commission, from two to seven and eight

persons at a time. When the idea of IbIn was spawned in the Planning Commission, in which the

Paradigm Consulting members at that time played a major role, they became the nodal cell of the

IbIn network. Thus Paradigm Consulting has morphed into the IbIn nodal team. It is a self-

organizing team without a hierarchy. New members come, and others leave, and the work carries on

smoothly. The IbIn node is a flexible, internally networked organization. It seeks to embody the

spirit of cooperation to serve a higher cause with which, it is hoped, all IbIn projects, whose super-

ordinate purpose is to create new cultures and systems of collaboration, will be driven.

The names and pictures of the 16 persons who have been members of Paradigm/IbIn are given in an

Annexure to the Knowledge Compendium.

Section 1

IndiaWorks High Five!The Power of Alignment

An operating model for shaping cooperation and managing coordination amongst stakeholders so that they can achieve the outcomes they want

Based on Capacity WORKS of the GIZ (www.giz.de and http://www.giz.de/expertise/html/4620.html for Capacity WORKS)

Contents

1. Introduction............................................................................................09

1.1 Why India needs a Backbone Capability ....................................................09

1.2 The Power of Alignment.........................................................................10

1.3 The IbIn way of doing things and IndiaWorks.............................................11

1.4 The GIZ and Capacity WORKS...................................................................11

2. Cooperation vs. Organisation .....................................................................12

2.1 A difference that makes a difference.........................................................12

2.2 The Organisation ..................................................................................13

2.3 The Cooperation System.........................................................................14

3. The IndiaWorks High Five! Model ................................................................17

3.1 Purpose and Objectives ..........................................................................18

3.2 Shaping a Cooperation System ................................................................19

3.3 Steering Structure ................................................................................20

3.4 Systematic Processes ............................................................................20

3.5. Accelerating Learning ..........................................................................21

4. Tools ......................................................................................................22

5. Examples from Capacity WORKS..................................................................23

5.1 Purpose and Objectives; and Shaping a Cooperation System .........................23

5.2 Steering Structure ...............................................................................28

5.3 Systematic Processes............................................................................33

5.4 Accelerating Learning ..........................................................................38

Introduction01

1.1 Why India needs a Backbone Capability

The progress of India, in the growth of its economy, in creating more jobs and livelihoods for its

young and growing population, in the creation of infrastructure, in the provision of public services,

and in the improvement of its institutions, has been hampered by contentions amongst

stakeholders and by confusion in implementation.

A root cause for the stalling of policies and projects, and often their reversal too, are contentions

amongst stakeholders—within government, within industry, within civil society, and contentions

between civil society, industry and government stakeholders. We must address this root cause to

accelerate our progress. IbIn focuses attention on the root cause; and it provides techniques and

tools with which the contentions can be converted into collaboration, and the manifest confusion

into coordination thereby serving almost like a backbone on which to build structures. Thus IbIn

enables collaborative implementation—the need of the hour for India's progress—to be faster and

more certain.


India has for years been described as having huge potential, but has consistently lagged behind

China and others in its growth rates. There are many reasons for this…

India has huge 'potential', but there are many constraints to growth

Infrastructure,

Power

Technology,

Trade Policies

Land,

Environment

Messy Business

Regulations

Human Resources,

Industrial

Relations

Cost of credit

Exchange Rate

Contention Collaboration Intention ImplementationConfusion Coordination

Implementation failures are rooted in systemic problems

As a result, implementation bottlenecks exist at multiple levels

Centre

State

City / local


1.2 The Power of Alignment

IbIn applies the power of alignment which is evoked by deeply desired and shared aspirations.

Figure 1: The Power of Alignment

IbIn is creating demand for and supply of systematic methods to convert Contentions to

Collaboration and Confusion to Coordination so that Policy and Plan Intentions can be achieved by

effective Implementation.

Figure 2: Process map

• Mapping the stakeholders

• Enrollment into a process

Stakeholder alignment

• Shared Vision

• Common understanding of the ' Systemic' issues

• Appreciative of each others' concerns

• ...

Formation of "Team" with Role Clarity

• Goals

• Identify roles and responsibilities

• ...

Good Plan of Action with joint Monitoring Plan

• ...

Recognizing varying depths of contention and confusion and addressing them appropriately

Skills, techniques appropriate to each stage


1.3 The IbIn way of doing things and IndiaWorks

1.4 The GIZ and Capacity WORKS

This process of aligning various groups of stakeholders in a common way of doing things requires a

theoretical and a practical underpinning. It is not a trivial task to convene parties that have been

used to years of conflict and argument instead of dialogue and working together to solve common

problems. The IbIn way of aligning these people and organisations behind common goals and

helping turn confusion and contention into effective cooperation requires more than goodwill and

commitment, it needs tools and instruments as well as an ‘operating system’ to underpin it and

provide practitioners with a toolkit to help them with their tasks.

This emerging model IndiaWorks High Five! (explained in this document) is based on Capacity

WORKS of the GIZ (the Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, GmbH). The GIZ developed

Capacity WORKS as a way of working with loose coalitions of actors from the state, private sector

and civil society to solve complex development problems and develop their capacities in a holistic

and sustainable manner. It was launched world-wide in 2009 after several years of development and

testing and has since become the GIZ’s standard management model for its projects and

programmes world-wide – regardless of region, sector or context.

The challenge facing the GIZ in finding out what were the common practices and procedures of all of

its hundreds of projects and programmes world- parallels the situation and challenge of IbIn – how

to create a movement not an organisation with a common set of models and tools that can create

collaboration out of contention, coordination out of competition and implementation out of

intention. Capacity WORKS was so similar in its origins, uses and tools that IbIn decided it could

form the basis of a new model (IndiaWorks High Five!). It is the result of an innovative collaboration

between the GIZ and IbIn that has adapted the basic model to the Indian and IbIn contexts. It is the

first step on a long journey of adapting and creating new content with which IbIn has only started –

but represents a large and solid step on the way of realising the IbIn vision.

The IbIn team gratefully acknowledges the generosity of GIZ and its consulting partner, The

Frankfurt Corporate Development Group, in assisting IbIn with its evolution.


2.1 A difference that makes a difference – management in organisations and management in cooperation systems

The task of taking contention and confusion and turning them into cooperation and collaboration is

complicated by the fact that the management of cooperation systems takes place on a

fundamentally different basis than management in classical organisations. Practitioners wishing to

work in the IbIn way need to understand this difference in order to work effectively in this area.

What makes for successful cooperation between different organisations and institutions that must

respond jointly to societal demands, problems or challenges? It is very important to distinguish

between work performed in the context of a cooperation system, and work conducted within a

single organisation, because this enables us to understand the different management challenges

and respond to them appropriately.

IndiaWorks is a management model that supports the steering of cooperation systems. It is not a

management model for organisations. There are many good management models for organisations,

such as EFQM, Six Sigma, Balanced Scorecard etc., but these are not suited to the special

managerial needs that arise in cooperation systems.

Cooperation vs. Organisation02

Figure 3: Organisation vs.

Cooperation System Steeringin a multi-

organisationalcontext

Leadershipin on


I2

I1

Cooperation andnegotiation

make decisionspossible

German contribution

O3

O2

O1Organisation

Hierarchyresolves blockages

and makesdecisions possible

German contribution

Resource management

Organisationaldevelopment

Strategy

Human resourcemanagement

Controlling

Marketing

Out

put

proc

ess

The organisation


This Topography of Management illustrates the different ways in which organisations and

cooperation systems work. It provides a conceptual framework for understanding the context in

which IndiaWorks is used. Let us first of all take a look at the phenomenon of the organisation

(bottom right half of the map).

Why do we need the type of social system that we call an 'organisation'? Organisations are always

responses to specific social and individual needs. Organisations develop and become more

specialised in order to deliver more or less useful solutions to specific social problems. Hospitals for

instance supply groups of patients with opportunities to be cured, public administration

organisations deliver public goods, and commercial enterprises sound out what the market needs,

and then satisfy these needs by supplying products and services.

To maintain their sustainability and ensure their survival, organisations must clearly demarcate the

boundaries between themselves and their environment. These boundaries are defined on the basis

of membership. Who is a member of the organisation? Who is not? The way in which membership is

defined and regulated tells both the members and the outside world who is a member and who is

not. Usually a contract is drawn up that describes rules for entry and exit, the nature of the

remuneration, the entitlement to leave, the limited- or unlimited-term nature of the membership,

rewards and sanctions, and many other aspects too.

The members of an organisation are not tied to it 'body and soul'; they are bound only by their

membership role. As well as being members of this organisation, people also operate in many other

roles in their professional and private lives. As individuals they also belong to one of several

stakeholder groups that make up the organisation's environment.

In the course of their history organisations develop and acquire a 'will of their own'. Organisations

are always more than just the sum of their members. Organisations strive to become 'immortal';

regardless of who the current members are, they form their very own 'DNA'.

Organisations are built on decisions, not individuals. An organisation's 'decision-making DNA' (its

premises for decision-making) is an agglomeration of all those regulations that ultimately

constitute the guiding framework for the day-to-day life of the organisation. These include

questions such as: Why do we exist as an organisation? What are our tasks? How are we organised as

an organisation? What are our expectations concerning the behaviour of the members of the

organisation?

The answers to these questions play a formative and paradigmatic role in shaping the organisation

in question. They are manifested in specific organisational structures, processes, rules and rituals.

This can be observed very clearly in organisations of a certain age. Members, including line

managers, may come and go, yet the fundamental decision-making premises, and the structures,

processes, regulatory frameworks and rituals resulting from them, often remain in place for

decades, and change only very slowly. This ensures that even when staff leave and are replaced, the

2.2 The organisation

System of objectives

Membership

Decisions


structures, rules, processes, rituals, membership role and expectations remain intact. This is how

organisations become partially independent of individuals – “The King is dead – long live the King!”

Line management leadership is not a task performed by leaders who hold their positions because

they possess a specific type of heroic, charismatic personality. We understand leadership as a

function that becomes increasingly sophisticated as organisations develop. Leadership is an

organisational capacity that, unlike the manifold technical tasks which an organisation requires in

order to deliver services or products, specialises in continuously generating organisational vitality.

This includes supplying the relevant decisions.

Understood in this way, leadership is a function within an organisation that focuses on ensuring the

survival and sustainability of the organisation as a whole. In practice, this role may be more or less

well developed. Depending on the organisation, this concern for the sustainability of the

organisation is addressed part of the time by designated line managers, and part of the time by

other members of the organisation or by intelligent organisational structures and processes.

For the organisation as a whole, line management leadership is performed in distinct areas of

activity. Six which are often highlighted in management literature are:

1. Strategy development and implementation: orienting the organisation in line with future

trends

2. Human resource management: securing the performance ability and motivation of the

workforce

3. Marketing: orienting the organisation toward the needs of its environment and the market

4. Resource management: securing the resources needed by the organisation to perform its

tasks

5. Organisational development: finding the right organisational forms for generating

demand-driven institutional performance

6. Monitoring and Evaluation: establishing appropriate self-monitoring mechanisms that

allow key dimensions of the organisation's status to be measured swiftly and reliably.

The main task associated with this special function of leadership is to continuously supply the

organisation with viable decisions, and to resolve blockages and conflicting objectives within the

organisation by communicating with its members.

So far we have looked at the bottom right half of the map of two logics, which covers the managerial

perspective on the single organisation. In a second step we will now look at the other half of the

map: the managerial challenges involved in cooperation between several organisations.

To understand the context in which IbIn organises its projects and in which IndiaWorks is used, it is

necessary to examine the phenomenon of cooperation between several organisations (top left half

of the map).

Decision-making: leadership

2.3 The Cooperation System


We observe that organisations on their own are not always able meet the demands placed on them

by society. To do so they cooperate with other actors. In many fields and sectors of societies, these

forms of cooperation between organisations undergo consolidation. Only through better

cooperation are the organisations involved able to deliver the anticipated solutions to social

problems. In order to take concerted action the organisations involved must first of all agree on

objectives, and then on specific contributions to achieving them. Unlike in the context of the single

organisation, in this multi-organisational context decisions are reached not on the basis of

leadership, but through a process of negotiation. This is the nature of the IbIn way of doing things

and the core business of IndiaWorks.

IbIn projects are designed to achieve negotiated and measurable results in specific policy fields.

These projects and groups of projects are linked in multiple ways to partner organisations and

institutions.

Projects and programmes are based on goal-oriented cooperation between these organisations,

institutions and networks, each of which is in itself a centre of interests, power and influence, and

each of which has its own logic – defined by its own structures, rules, processes and rituals. This

creates challenges that projects must overcome if they are to succeed. Projects exist for a limited

period, are geared to achieving defined objectives with sustainable results, and function according

to principles of project management.

What particular features of cooperation systems distinguish them from organisations? Where are

the key differences – from a management perspective – that we need to be familiar with in order to

operate successfully within cooperation systems?

Cooperation is a system within which various organisations play their respective roles, and in which

each organisation has its own specific organisational objectives and decision-making premises.

These objectives and decision-making premises often vary widely, and may conflict with those of

other cooperating partners. The challenge is to reach a viable consensus on the objectives for the

cooperation system as a whole, and jointly negotiate the arrangements for the system.

The joint orientation toward the anticipated objectives and results of the cooperation is itself a

matter to be negotiated by the cooperating partners involved. This presupposes that the

cooperating partners recognise that they are dependent on each other for achieving the envisaged

benefits. It also presupposes that they are willing at least partially to relinquish their autonomy in

order to achieve the joint objectives of the cooperation system.

A further key difference between cooperation systems and organisations concerns the phenomenon

of 'membership'. In cooperation systems, the forms of affiliation or association are softer, more

open and more flexible through time. Participation in these cooperation arrangements is based on

successful negotiation with the other partners in cooperation, and involves a high degree of free

will. If an actor questions the benefits of the cooperation objectives, their participation may also be

called into question. The boundaries between participating and remaining outside stay fluid

through time, and are always dependent on the process of joint negotiation. Just as individuals

never completely lose their individuality though membership of an organisation, cooperating

partners and their organisations also never merge completely with the cooperation system. The

Differences in the system of objectives

Differences in terms of affiliation versus membership


boundaries of the cooperation system may be more or less open, may encompass more or fewer

partners, and may change through time (i.e. they remain flexible).

We outlined the significance of decision-making in the context of leadership above. In cooperation

systems, decisions also need to be brought about in order to orient and coordinate the cooperation.

How do these decisions come about? In these contexts we speak not of leadership but of steering.

Whereas leadership by positional authority can be exercised in organisations--because decisions

can ultimately be brought about by hierarchy thus resolving any blockages, in cooperation systems

the option of using hierarchy in this way does not exist. Cooperation systems usually form a

steering structure in the course of time that supplies the system with decisions in a way that is

transparent for all the actors concerned. These decisions, however, are reached through negotiating

processes that may be more or less formalised depending on the cooperation system.

Any attempt by a partner in a cooperation system to bring about decisions through hierarchical,

line management-type leadership behaviour is incompatible with the logic of a cooperation system,

and jeopardises its existence.

IndiaWorks High Five! is a framework or model that allows a conceptual way of thinking about the

management and organisation of cooperation systems. And it is a guide to the selection and

application of practical tools that are suited for work in such systems.

Differences in decision-making (steering)

The Power of Alignment: The genesis of the IndiaWorks High Five! Model

03

The starting point for the alignment of diverse organisations and players in a cooperation system is

the insight that no one organisation is able to achieve the results desired on their own. Objectives

such as “better industrial relations” or “affordable medicine” can only be achieved when a range of

individuals, organisations and institutions work together. This acknowledgement of the mutual

dependence of the actors is key to shaping a working cooperation system where the combined

resources, talents and energy of the participants delivers the necessary raw material for the kinds

of goals that IbIn has set itself.

IndiaWorks as a method must respond to this context by providing an architectural framework that

explains this dynamic and how it can be used as a constructive force (rather than seeing it as a

blockage). It is also a guide to tools that allow practitioners to intervene and shape processes to

help cooperation systems align themselves and unleash their potential.


Figure 4: The IndiaWorks High Five! Model

ACCELERATINGLEARNING

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

SHAPING A COOPERATION

SYSTEM

STEERINGSTRUCTURE

SYSTEMATICPROCESSES

IndiaWorks

HIGH FIVE!


The IndiaWorks High Five! framework incorporates five disciplines. These are:

1. Purpose and Objectives

2. Shaping a Cooperation System

3. Steering Structure

4. Systematic Processes

5. Accelerating Learning

These five disciplines, which are integrally connected with each other, will be described now.

The objective of the IbIn movement is to develop a 'culture' of systematic collaboration. Therefore

every IbIn project must works on two levels. It must focus on instilling a new attitude for systematic

collaboration and on learning and application of methods for systematic collaboration.

An insight into the conditions in which people change their attitudes and beliefs is that more often

they 'act themselves into new ways of thinking than think themselves into new ways of acting'. A

related insight from transformational change management is that, 'you do not change the culture

by working on the culture: you do something else and change of culture is an accompanying

outcome'.

The implication of these insights is that change must proceed along two tracks simultaneously: a

track of learning about new ways of thinking and acting, and a track of deliberative action towards

other, more concrete objectives that matter to those within the learning system. The impetus to

achieve deeply desired, concrete objectives, recognising that they will not be realised unless the

methods that have been used so far to obtain them change, sets up an 'action learning' system for

transforming attitudes and ways of working.

Therefore the Purpose of an IbIn initiative that brings stakeholders together must be clear. It is to

improve the way they can work together so that they can achieve the goals that matter to them.

Also concrete Objectives that they will strive towards must be agreed upon. These concrete

objectives will clarify the issues they must address and the knowledge they will need. Measurement

of progress towards these concrete objectives enables the stakeholders to assess what they have

done together that has helped and what has not. Thus it sets up the possibility of systematic

learning. And, when the purpose of the initiative, to develop a new culture of systematic

collaboration is made explicit, the learning from experience can be directed towards learning for

this objective too.

An IbIn project that brings together stakeholders to produce outcomes together that they may all

desire but cannot obtain individually is likely to have a 'fuzzy' beginning. The reason for this is that

an understanding of the connections between the outcome desired and the stakeholders that must

be engaged to achieve this outcome requires an iterative process. As more stakeholders are

included who must be, their motivations have to be taken into account and objectives adjusted and

sharpened accordingly. This iterative process will produce a rough, meta-level, 'systems map',

before an exact destination can be pin-pointed and a broad path to tread towards it is chosen.

This is a very critical stage of the project when the participants must live with some ambiguity. They

have to keep their minds open to understand the contours of the system before they make a precise

3.1 The discipline of Purpose and Objectives


agenda for their work. Too often, some participants cannot live with any ambiguity. They want focus

too soon before they have understood what is in the system—who are the stakeholders, and what

are the many inter-related issues, and the connections between these issues and the stakeholders.

They jump in before they know where the rocks are under the water, whereas, a plan to

systematically understand the system and make a system map can direct the energy of the

stakeholders at this stage. It can build a collective commitment to the purpose of their work.

(Methods for this discipline of High Five! are illustrated in the IbIn Industrial Relations project)

Complex systems have many components to them. Indeed they are complex, not only because they

have many components, but also because the relationships between the components is not

understood. The relationship between the components is particularly difficult to understand when

the components are fundamentally different to each other. The tendency then is to set aside those

components that are not easy to understand and focus on the rest. But this is an incorrect approach

to systemic issues. Because the leverage points for change may very well lie in the side of the

system that has been mentally put aside.

Complex systems with human actors in them have a 'social' side in addition to their 'technical'

side. The technical side is the rational and measurable parts of the system. It is the side that

engineers, managers, economists, and 'domain knowledge' experts focus on. The social side is the

human side of the system, composed of human beings with their emotions, social needs, and their

power-relationships with each other viz. their politics. To bring about change in complex systems,

such as nations, economies, cities, and institutions, it is never sufficient to focus on the technical

side. The human side is where the obstacles to change and also the levers to change usually are.

Mainstream economics is finally realising that its world view of rational actors was incomplete if not

wrong. Therefore economists are beginning to delve into emotional and social forces to understand

the behaviour of economies.

Complex systems have many actors in them: many institutions and many persons, often with

conflicting objectives, and contention amongst them. An essential, early step in the IndiaWorks

methodology is to identify who the principal actors may be who must come together to work

together, as partners to change the condition of the system.

The negotiation of differentiated roles and responsibilities amongst the partners according to their

inputs and resources is a key task for the cooperation management function. Through this trust,

cooperation grows organically and enables the system to take on more and more complex tasks. Key

questions here include:

• How can we link together people and organisations in order to make the relevant change

possible?

• How can we make it clear to all participants that they are mutually dependent on each

other if they wish to achieve these results?

• How can we be most economical with the most expensive fuel that we have?

The cooperation system as a whole can only be successful when the individual partners agree on

common objectives. These objectives bundle energy and mobilise resources in the development of a

team spirit in pursuit of the new, common objectives without losing sight of the individual identities

3.2 The discipline of Shaping a Cooperation System


and organisations that comprise them. (This critically important concept is illustrated in the

diagram of the magnet presented earlier to explain the power of alignment). Key questions here

are:

• How can we shape the negotiation and agreement process concerning the strategic

direction with all relevant partners?

• What options do we have to achieve our objectives and results?

• Which of these options will meet our collective objectives best of all and cause least harm

to all stakeholders?

(The vital importance of these steps, of mapping the socio-technical system as a whole, identifying the

positions and needs of stakeholders, and negotiating agreements about broad objectives and

approach, are illustrated in the IbIn Affordable Medicines project as well as the IbIn Urban cluster of

projects)

Cooperation systems that are more complex in terms of their composition, and that are set to

operate over a period of time with a complex set of responsibilities need a minimum structure to

prepare, take and implement decisions about management tasks such as strategy, resource

allocation planning, implementation, evaluation and reporting, amongst others.

A key question in designing a steering structure is:

• How can we provide a structure that enables decisions to take place about resources,

strategy, planning, coordination, conflict resolution, monitoring and impact monitoring?

Steering structures emerge out of the cooperation system as it forms. They cannot be, and must not

be, defined too precisely prematurely. They must be 'owned' by the partners in the system who

must trust and rely on these structures to guide the process. Therefore, until all the critical

stakeholders are on board, it is premature to define the steering group because at this stage it may

exclude stakeholders who must become 'co-owners' of the steering process rather than be steered

by others.

(The roles of steering structures, as well as the ways in which they can form so that there is ownership

of the process by the key stakeholders, is illustrated in the IbIn IR project, and in the Delivering Change

Foundation process. A detailed discussion of requirements for an effective steering structure is

available in the account of the Accelerated Cluster Growth and Partnerships initiative.)

Effective cooperation systems are characterised by a high degree of focus and clarity amongst their

participants concerning the key processes required to achieve the goals, whether this be the

improvement of existing processes or the design and implementation of new processes.

Key questions here are:

• What are the key processes in the sector in which we want our impacts to be?

• What are our internal management processes in the project?

3.3 The discipline of a Steering Structure

3.4 The discipline of Systematic Processes


It is essential to focus on the conduct of processes in ways that will build more trust and

cooperation. Specific steps required to build trust and cooperation, which will enable more

contentious 'technical' issues to be addressed cooperatively, must be designed into the process

with a 'socio-technical' approach as mentioned before.

Good processes for solving and managing the technical and 'domain' matters are essential of

course. Processes for these are fairly well developed with many consulting companies. The Pemandu

process developed by the Government of Malaysia is an outstanding example.

(The Delivering Change Foundation's explicit additions of the 'People's Connect' and 'Public Pressure'

processes to Pemandu's 'Convergent Planning' process—which focuses explicitly and mostly on the

technical and organizational sides of complex problems, is an illustration of a comprehensive socio-

technical transformation framework. The combination of steps for managing the 'social' side and

building trust and cooperation amongst partners who must work together to implement systemic

solutions is illustrated in the IbIn IR project and IbIn Urban projects too).

The purpose of IbIn projects is both, to achieve concrete goals which have proven difficult to attain

by conventional approaches, and to learn and institutionalise new ways of working that will make

such goals easier to reach. Therefore learning of new methods is at the heart of the IbIn approach.

The partners in a project must focus on what they are learning about managing their cooperation

system, assess how well they are learning, and spread the learning around so that it can be applied

more widely.

Usually explicit steps for learning are not designed into processes. So the learning, if it happens at

all, is accidental and tacit. It is not systematically abstracted. The power of the TQM movement in

Japan, which has been a model for IbIn, was systematic learning at two levels. Each TQM project

applied the Learning Cycle to itself, to produce results faster, and improve the TQM team's ability to

improve results faster. (Projects and teams were on many scales—from production groups on the

shop floor to large inter-departmental product development teams.) At an even broader level,

principles of systems' management and methods for participative problem solving were distilled

and spread across Japan. The TQM movement in Japan is a good example of consciously improving

the ability of a complex system to produce better outcomes.

Many methods for enabling good learning from successes and failures are available in the 'learning

organizations' field. These include 'After Action Reviews' and 'Appreciative Inquiries', as well as

several techniques in the Total Quality Management tool-box. IbIn projects are distinguished by

their emphasis on participants reflecting on their experiences and learning together. Therefore

they must apply such methods.

(IbIn projects that illustrate the value of steps for reflection and accelerating learning are the Business

Regulations project, Rural/Village SOPs and the CSO platform. The Affordable Medicines Project has

also applied an ‘after action review’ method to document valuable learnings. An aim of the QUPRAC

project is to distil and document principles and methods for cooperation systems by compelling

practitioners to share their insights and reflect with each other.)

3.5 The discipline of Accelerating Learning


IbIn's purpose is to introduce new ways of thinking and working into large, complex systems in

which better outcomes can be produced by effective cooperation and coordinated action of multiple

stakeholders. New ways require a new 'architecture' of thought and action. For this, new principles

of design have to be adopted. A 'socio-technical' and a 'systems' way of thinking and acting are

fundamentally different to conventional approaches to problem solving.

IndiaWorks High Five! describes the architecture and the principles. Using these principles as

guidelines, solutions can be customised to specific situations.

In each stage of the process, good techniques and tools must be applied for the steps to be taken -

for example, to make a systems' map, and to conduct a reflective after action review, etc. It is not

our intention to provide a complete set of tools because they can be found in many places. Three of ththe richest sources of these tools, amongst many others, are The 5 Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies

and Tools for Building a Learning Organization by Peter M. Senge; Capacity WORKS: The management

Model for Sustainable Development by GIZ (published by Springer); and The Accelerating Organization:

Embracing the Human Face of Change by Arun Maira and Peter B Scott-Morgan. They are also

available in the literature of the Quality Movement, and elsewhere, and with many consulting

organizations.

Some examples and tools from Capacity WORKS, the GIZ methodology which has contributed greatly

to the development of IndiaWorks High Five!, are presented here.

Tools04

Examples from Capacity WORKS 05

We have selected examples and tools from Capacity WORKS for applying the disciplines of the High

Five! model. (Illustrations of the values of these disciplines and ways of applying them are also

given in the reports of the IbIn projects in the IbIn Knowledge Compendium).

The task of bringing together autonomous and potentially conflictive partners into a common

cooperation network is not a trivial task. Stakeholders in the industrial relations area such as

employers' associations, trade unions and government representatives have years of well-

entrenched opposition to each other. These positions as well as the highly ritualised conflicts

around labour relations issues have come into being over a long period of practice and

consolidation. Enmity is cultivated and much of the conflict takes place in ritualised forms such as

strikes, rallies and speeches which strengthen the legitimacy of the individual parties within their

own constituencies, but which serve only to perpetuate the blockages of the status quo. How can

one break down these roles and positions that have been carefully cultivated over many years? How

can one turn contention into collaboration, whether in the labour relations field, affordable

pharmaceuticals or any of the myriad challenges facing India approaching its 75th birthday?

The fact that the changes targeted by such IbIn projects can only be achieved by a diverse coalition

of partners putting their combined resources at the disposal of the whole cooperation system

creates both the necessity as well as the means of moderating this process. Only when the partners

come to acknowledge that they are dependent upon one another and their diverse resources to

achieve the changes can the cooperation system unleash its potential. As long as there are partners

thinking in a “zero-sum” mentality that they can acquire unilateral benefits out of their

participation at the expense of others there will be no possibility of achieving the common goals.

Only when the participants acknowledge their mutual dependency and negotiate the corresponding

roles and responsibilities within the sphere of the project's (time-bound, limited-scope and

temporary) activities can the cooperation system as a whole move forward toward the goals.

This in no way requires the individual participants or organisations to give up their autonomy as

independent entities. They must be prepared, however, to restrict their individual interests and

goals in pursuit of the common objectives of the project. Free-riders and organisations seeking a

unilateral extension of their resource base without the acknowledgement of the give and take

nature of cooperation will slow or even immobilise a cooperation system. Conversely, while

cooperation is “good” more cooperation is not always “better”. Cooperation is not an end in itself

5.1 The disciplines of Purpose and Objectives; and Shaping a Cooperation System



but a means to a higher end (better industrial relations or more improved models for elderly

healthcare). In order to achieve this end there is an optimal number and configuration for the

partners to be involved. Cooperation has a price and provides for friction and causes expense.

Potential partners must be identified, their inclusion negotiated with the current set of project

partners, their role worked out and negotiated with others. The maintenance of this relationship

consumes resources (time and energy on the part of all partners). Issues must be dealt with,

conflicts negotiated and ideas and concerns debated and resolved. This has a price, both in

absolute terms (time and money) as well as in terms of transaction costs (time that could be spent

on “direct” activities with the target group or with other issues. This necessary inefficiency must be

kept to a minimum – as much as is required, but no more!

Over and above the basic pre-requisites for successful cooperation outlined above

(acknowledgement of mutual dependence in the pursuit of common goals) there are a number of

specific conditions that need to be present in order for cooperation to flourish.

• Benefit: the participating individuals or organisations expect a tangible benefit for

themselves as a result of their participation in the cooperation system that can only be

achieved through the cooperation system and cannot be more easily obtained by other

means. This is not necessarily the same as the project goal, it may be a particular or special

interest unique to the individual or organisation in question. Moreover, this may not

always be an economic value (money or resources) but also access to information,

networks, influence, new skills etc.

• Transaction Costs: must be lower than the benefits that are expected. This transaction cost

calculus is subjective and depends on the experience, culture and alternatives available to

the individual or organisation concerned. Cooperation systems where in the subjective

calculus of the members the costs exceed the benefits will be (to misquote Thomas

Hobbes) nasty, poor, brutish and short-lived.

• The Rule of Synergy: participants in cooperation systems orient themselves in their

actions to the maximisation of their individual strengths. They are therefore more likely to

admit new participants into the system that offers new and complementary skills and

resources. Difference attracts and similarity repels.

• Fairness and Balance: participants observe and compare their own inputs and efforts in

the cooperation systems with those of others. Perceived imbalances lead quickly to conflict

and if not addressed to the exit of those who feel exploited by such a discrepancy.

Above and beyond the individual perspectives of the participants there are also common themes

and issues that have to be dealt with in the management of cooperation systems. Chief amongst

these are:

• Is there a minimum level of transparency amongst the participants about roles and

responsibilities in the project?

Cooperation systems need internal coherence concerning roles and responsibilities as well

as an effective demarcation between inside (“members”) and outside (“non-members”).

Parallel to this is the definition of how new members can pass from outside to inside, as

well as the conditions under which the reverse takes place. It is important to invest time

and energy in the establishment of these roles and responsibilities (as well as the

transparency that accompanies them) amongst the participants in order to avoid conflicts

and disagreements later on.


• Is there a healthy balance between cooperation and conflict?

It is utopian to assume that cooperation is a cake-walk. Individuals and organisations do

not leave behind their basic identities when they enter a cooperation system and although

they agree on the broad goals of the project, they will still retain partially conflicting goals

and disagree over strategy as well as tactics to reach those goals. To ignore this potentially

conflictive undercurrent is to jeopardise the functionality of the cooperation system.

Conflicts have to be identified and if needs be addressed in order to stop them intruding

like icebergs in the otherwise smooth waters of the cooperation system.

1. Which actors are relevant for the achievement of the goals as set out in the project's

strategy? How diverse does this group have to be? How much diversity can the project

sustain without losing its ability to act constructively?

2. What roles, responsibilities and mandates do these actors have in their “home”

organisations? To what extent do these roles and mandates overlap or contradict with

those of the project?

3. What disparities and asymmetries exist amongst the participating actors with respect to

power? How could these be constructively addressed in the design of the project?

4. Which actors must be involved in the project if it is to succeed? Which actors must not

under any circumstance be allowed to participate if it is to succeed?

5. Do the potential actors possess the necessary resources to achieve the goals postulated by

the project?

6. Which potential actors at the moment outside of the system (or who traditionally are not

part of the group of “usual suspects” rounded up for these projects) could/should be inside

it?

7. Why should the cooperation system by attractive to these actors (“What's in it for them?”)?

Every project needs to select carefully who will be actively involved and why. Too few participants

and the necessary diversity or critical mass will not be achieved. Too many participants and the

project will be drowning in its own resources – the cost of identifying, initiating and maintaining

cooperative relationships is high and is not an end in itself, but rather a means for achieving a

greater objective. The economy of cooperation must be maximised and this tool helps in this

process.

Having the right people and organisations on board is only half of the story. Negotiating with them

about their roles and responsibilities is an on-going process that requires constant effort. Who is in

the inner circle and intimately involved in the decision-making process of the project? Who is in a

specialist role on the periphery? Indispensable but involved only in particular roles or for specific

issues? All these roles have to be identified (according to the goals and objectives) and negotiated

in the spirit of a cooperation system. This tool helps focus the discussion, as well as structure the

discussion of this on-going process.

5.1.1 Seven useful questions facilitators and participants should ask themselves

5.1.2 Who needs to be involved in what way (i.e. How) and Why?


5.1.3 Some Examples

GIZ's Capacity WORKS has had considerable experience of using such a model in its many hundreds

of projects around the world. While its context is different to that of IbIn (namely state-to-state

international development cooperation), the experience of the GIZ is included in this early version

of India Works in order to provide some concrete examples of the model in action. It is expected

that these will be replaced with IbIn examples as time goes by. While all examples include aspects of

each Success Factor, we have tried to include those which have a particular focus on the Success 1Factor at hand – here Cooperation .

Chance for change

Environmental issues in Tunisia

Tunisia's economy has been growing steadily for over

ten years. Despite the positive aspects of growth, the

country is facing the problem of an increasingly

polluted environment. The volumes of waste and

wastewater are on the rise and water and land

resources are at risk. While the issue enjoys high

priority on the political agenda, the legislation,

environmental regulations and technology have not

kept pace with the country's development.

The GIZ supports Tunisia in its efforts to improve the

framework and ensure that environmental concerns are systematically taken into account. In the

course of the cooperation, the Arab Spring has changed the political landscape. While the fate of

the country was largely in the hands of the political elite until the end of 2010, since then civil

society has been increasingly demanding a say.

Stronger in tandem

In order to improve the environmental situation, the GIZ and the Ministry of Agriculture and

Environment in Tunisia have, from the very start, been working in complementary areas. These

range from better mechanisms for environmental monitoring and control, environmental planning

in the municipalities and technological advice for small and medium-sized enterprises for waste

management planning and raising awareness for environmental issues in society. The GIZ

Coordinator of the environmental programme from 2003 to 2011, used the Capacity WORKS

management model to work with the partners on bringing structure to the steering of the

programme: 'From the outset, we included the Ministry of the Environment, the relevant

authorities and the Centre for Environmental Technologies in the steering structure.' For this, the

partners defined 20 results' chains in which the change processes to be initiated were described.

One GIZ staff member and one representative from the body responsible for the particular area of

work then took on the task of steering. Each team saw what its input was, who did what, and the

results that were produced. 'This tandem structure is super,' said one participant, looking back. 'I

would always do things the same way, as the roles, tasks and responsibilities of the individual

actors are clearly defined from the very start.'

1 These examples are adapted from, 'Capacity WORKS Success Stories, examples of good practice' GIZ GmbH, 2012 (www.giz.de)


A swift response

Until the revolution, the potential cooperation partners were clearly defined and were identified by

the Government. For instance, entering into a direct cooperation arrangement with the

municipalities required permission from the Ministry of the Interior and the prevailing decision-

making channels had to be taken into account. Things changed with the Arab Spring. Municipalities

acting independently, a self-confident population and more than 100 non-governmental

organisations (NGOs) in the environmental sector alone presented the programme with interesting

new actors. It was important to re-explore the stakeholder landscape, which was quickly done with

the assistance of Capacity WORKS. New partners have since come on board. For example, the

partner responsible for the municipal waste sector that was working in tandem with the programme

now works directly with the waste management departments in the municipalities. The project

coordinator is pleased with the developments:

'We can now make a concerted effort to approach

the people and to involve them in the effort.' For

this purpose, the programme worked together with

communication coordinators from civil society. In

meetings with the people, and in talks with opinion

leaders such as imams and NGOs, the issue of waste

was addressed, landfills and disposal options were

discussed, as were public attitudes to waste

removal. 'Much has happened here. Capacity

WORKS gave us an orientation that enabled us to

respond to the changed situation swiftly. Not only

did this result in new partners, but we also adapted our processes,' the coordinator goes on to say.

In the wake of the revolution, several new NGOs have appeared on the scene. Thanks to their

presence on the ground, the programme staff knew some of the initiators well, having worked with

them in the past as individual advisors. To ensure that their work would be more effective, the

environmental NGOs wanted to intensify cooperation and have set up an environmental network

with GIZ support.

In addition to new partners, several new donors also came to Tunisia. Here, too, the programme has

used the Capacity WORKS tools to shed light on the new stakeholder landscape. The project

coordinator is satisfied with the result: 'We had meetings with partners and donors and we

identified and agreed on the areas of actions. All this now helps us to avoid overlaps in our work and

manage it more effectively.'

Learning organisations

One of the major concerns of international cooperation was the need to institutionalise knowledge

among the partners on a long-term basis and to create learning organisations. One participant in

the process described one of the greatest challenges before him: 'It used to be extremely difficult

not only to train the individuals assigned by the Ministry and the authorities, but also to develop a

knowledge management system throughout various institutions. We have managed to do this in the

Centre for Environmental Technologies.'

The Arab Spring brought the winds of change to the authorities and to the Ministry. Instead of what

was once a rather negative attitude, there is now an interest in not wanting to lose the lessons

learned from the work done over the last ten years. The knowledge needs to be accessible,


documented and available to each and every staff member – not only in the Centre for

Environmental Technologies, but in all environmental institutions. Interaction with the partner's

administrative systems created a knowledge platform that links the authorities with enterprises

besides providing networks and a contact management system. 'Our partners have shown

considerable interest, the management levels are for it, and the new minister is extremely open to

the idea,' remarks one participant, describing the upswing.

The partner at the wheel

The speed at which change processes take place and the path to achieving visible results cannot be

fully planned in advance. The programme had to be constantly reviewed and adapted – and

displayed faith in the partner. 'Planning with the management model led me to understand that I

had to leave a lot to the partner and had to shape the processes accordingly. This could possibly

take longer, but is more sustainable because our partners are the bosses at the steering wheel, not

us,' says a member of the GIZ team with conviction. The success of the model proves him right. The

Ministry of the Environment has been working on environmental legislation entirely on its own after

the programme initiated the process at an international symposium attended by many of the

country's lawyers. 'We should not take on the tasks of our partners but must adapt to the pace at

which the processes occur. We will then achieve sustainable results,' she stressed.

Decisions about the management of organisations take place through the hierarchy represented in

the organisational chart. Operational decisions take place in teams and departments and strategy is

decided at board and executive level. Cooperation systems must also take decisions about the

management of project activities – planning, implementing and coordinating their efforts in pursuit

of the objectives. In this respect cooperation systems and organisations are very similar in their

needs for timely and appropriate decisions, however with the significant difference that

cooperation systems cannot rely on the traditional hierarchy of organisations to deliver them from

the blockages of indecision.

The steering structure of the project is the answer to this dilemma. It provides a space within which

the temporary project organisation can erect transitory structures that it needs to plan, implement

and coordinate the activities of the cooperation system. In this space, the roles, responsibilities as

well as the decisions that the project needs can be negotiated and agreed by the participants. These

structures vary from project to project according to the complexity of the goals to be achieved and

as a consequence of this the size and diversity of the cooperation system that this entails. The rule

of thumb is: as simple as possible, as complex as necessary.

The steering structure provides a kind of river bed in which the flow of project activities and their

related decisions can be regulated. Sometimes shallow and rapid, sometimes languid and deep, the

form provides an appropriate basis on which decisions can take place. There are seven basic

functions that it provides:

• Strategy: a part of the steering structure concerns itself with setting the strategic

direction of the project. Checking whether or not we are 'doing the right thing' and

agreeing on which of the many possible alternatives for achieving this objective we are

going to choose is a key task of part of the steering structure (see SF Strategy for more

details on this).

5.2. The discipline of Steering Structure


• Implementation: operational planning, scheduling and implementation are important

functions of this part of the steering structure. Ensuring that the strategy is translated

into concrete activities on the ground and supported by the relevant contributions of the

partners is an essential function of this part of the steering structure.

• Coordination: between the implanting partners (see above) as well as between the

strategic and operational functions of the steering structure is important to prevent the

disparate groups of partners from atomising and pursuing different and maybe even

contradictory aims.

• Monitoring and Evaluation: provides a reflective function for the cooperation system –

observing both the planning as well as the implementation of activities and relating them

back to the strategic direction through data collection and processing.

• Resource Management: is a crucial issue both within projects as well as organisations. The

efficient allocation and use of scarce resources is the question here.

• Learning and Knowledge Management: Using the knowledge and data produced to enrich

and improve the practice of individuals, organisations and networks within the project as

well as making this knowledge available to other practitioners and beneficiaries outside of

the project is the challenge here (see SF Learning and Knowledge Management for more

details about this).

• Conflict Management: providing a positive and timely safety valve for the inevitable

conflicts and tensions that emerge between participants in order for such issues to be

treated pro-actively and positively, rather than brushing them under the carpet in the hope

that they will go away if ignored for long enough.

The perfect number for stability in the natural and physical world is three. The triumvirate is always

stable – whether as a tripod, a milking stool, a pyramid or in the form of the Hindu trinity (Brahma,

Vishnu and Shiva) or the Christian version (God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost) the number

three has it. So it is also with steering structures in cooperation systems. In order to keep steering

in a cooperation system on a stable basis it needs three independent but linked elements: political,

strategic and operational.

Political Steering: provides for the basic impetus for a project, as well as patronage and protection.

Basic values (democracy, pro-poor orientation, poverty reduction) as well as a keen eye for the

overall political goals of the project are debated and directed here. The political steering element

provides patronage as well as protection and resources for the project, allowing it to develop its

unorthodox and controversial activities in peace. It also provides a point for scaling up of individual

solutions onto the national political stage.

Strategic Steering: transfers these basic political directives (e.g. pro-poor orientation) into specific

projects and objectives (e.g. the availability of essential medicine to poor populations). The

strategic steering process translates these broad objectives into concrete strategies, oversees the

operational implementation of them and provides feedback on success to the political level.

Operational Steering: is the boiler room of the project, taking the strategic direction of the project

and turning it into concrete activities on the ground coordinated and reported on amongst a myriad

of independent participating individuals and organisations and feeding back on success or failure to

the strategic level in order to validate or contradict strategic alternatives.

5.2.1 Levels of Steering


5.2.2 The Steering Model

5.2.3 Requirements of the Steering Structure (checklist)

The overall steering structure with its membership, roles, responsibilities, rules and functions

needs to be visualised. This basic document provides a reference point for the participants in the

cooperation system concerning their location within it and the consequences that this has for their

roles, rights and duties arising from their participation. Alternatives can include (but are by no

means limited to) the following generic examples:

A classical functional model for projects involved in tasks that are suited to

such a design. Engineering or professional projects (such as health) could

be well suited to this where project activities are clustered into professional

or technical groups.

Cluster projects on the other hand tend to

have a design where a nominal coordinating

centre provides a star shaped communication

system within which different satellite clusters revolve. These

clusters are generally different from each other and so self-contained

in themselves, but broadly linked to each other in terms of

professional or technical knowledge which justify the coordination of

the central organ.

The community model on the other hand is characterised by a high

level of differentiation and independence between the project

parts. They can largely function independently of each other and

provide a hybrid form of the first three models, containing as they

do elements of the functional and cluster model, as well as new

forms such as the ‘project within the project’.

As always, there are numerous alternatives, the only rule being

the adequacy of the fit to the project's goals and objectives. Form does indeed follow structure –

even in cooperation systems!

How good the cooperation system is at

taking decisions is a crucial aspect of the

functionality of the steering structure. The

steering structure should be assessed

according to how good it is at performing

the following functions.

This tool, described in more detail in the

toolbox, enables a cooperation system to

assess its steering structure and agree on

any changes that may need to be made to

o p t i m i s e i t o r i f t h e p r o j e c t ` s

circumstances have changed.

Management of resources

Conflict Management Decision-

making

Impact monitoring

Control

Coordination

Planning

StrategyFunctions


5.2.4 Example: Clearly defined structures; Maternal and child health in Tajikistan

The provision of health care for the people of

Tajikistan is below the average level for Europe,

while maternal and infant mortality rates are far

above it. Many people have to pay for medicines

and visits to doctors themselves, as health care

staff is poorly paid. Medicines are often in short

supply. The entire health care system suffers

from a lack of well-trained personnel and

adequate funds. Quality standards and hospital

guidelines in accordance with the norms set by

the World Health Organization do not exist.

The GIZ joined forces with the Ministry of Health in Tajikistan to improve maternal and child health

care. The focus was on introducing uniform quality standards for all clinics and maternity homes, on

providing training for nurses, doctors and midwives, and on setting up an accreditation authority

for hospitals with an appropriate monitoring system. For the Ministry, it was particularly important

to be able to manage and steer the health sector reform. The GIZ provided support in the form of

advisory services.

Harmonised interaction

When the project started looking at maternal and child health four years ago, its attention was

drawn to the many different organisations and institutions active in this sector. Bringing them all

together was important: 'To start with, we drew up a stakeholder map based on the Capacity WORKS

management model. Together with the Ministry of Health, we listed all the actors from the public

sector, civil society and international donors who can help improve health care' reminisced one

project member. The Ministry now had an overview of all the 'co-actors' and could bring them

together. The Ministry's concern was to ensure that the reform and the funds provided by the

international donors were efficiently managed. In a year-long negotiation process involving all the

health sector actors, a steering committee for maternal and child health was established, and has

been managing and coordinating the reform process ever since. Also involved are representatives

from the Ministry, donors, universities, training institutions and various other authorities. The

steering committee clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the respective organisations and

authorities, assigns responsibilities and tasks, and ensures that there are no overlaps between the

various actors playing a role in health care reform. In brief, it provides for clearly demarcated

structures.

'When we first sat together and all the donors described their activities to the steering committee

in the Ministry, we found that in some regions, two or three organisations were working on the

same issue. That really wasn't such a good thing, and until then not one of us had been aware of the

extent of the overlap. That will certainly never happen again,' says a steering committee member

with a smile. The new steering structure is worth hard cash. In 2011, Tajikistan saved USD 150,000

in donor money because the activities were better coordinated. This money now goes towards

paying for medicine, hospital equipment and study tours for paediatricians. Deputy Minister

Jobirova Saida is satisfied: 'In the past, donors cooperated at their own discretion with national or

regional partners. With the new steering structures in place, we bring together all the actors and

balance our activities throughout the country.'


Learning together

Six thematic working groups have been created within the steering committee to address the issues

of further training, accreditation, creation of frameworks, and monitoring of standards. The area of

Learning and Innovation was given top priority in the working groups. Here, too, all the actors now

pull in the same direction and jointly guide the necessary change processes. The idea of bringing

together all cooperation partners is therefore reflected not only at government level. Doctors,

midwives, training institutes and universities come together to discuss who lacks knowledge of

what. 'To unify the different groups into a team was by no means easy because individual interests

dominated at the start,' recalls one participant. This stage has, however, now been overcome, and

the results of the joint efforts speak for themselves. There are guidelines in place for medical

personnel and for the hospital management staff. Doctors, midwives and administrative personnel

from hospitals attend the training sessions. 'The number of training sessions and participants is not

a criterion on the basis of which we can establish whether things are genuinely getting better for

the patients. That's why we have set up a monitoring system in the working group, which helps us

establish whether the situation in the clinics has improved,' says another member of the project

team. With the aid of a checklist, each organisation must check regularly whether the staff has put

the knowledge acquired to practical use and whether the standards covered in the training sessions

are being adhered to. Every three months, external inspectors from the new accrediting authorities,

accompanied by doctors from different hospitals, arrive to carry out an independent audit of the

clinics. Holding joint training courses and having the medical personnel from the individual

hospitals working together in the groups have helped build mutual trust. This in turn has led to the

creation of networks in which midwives and doctors from different clinics work together and

support each other.

A model to be replicated

The idea of aligning the structure and

method of management with the f ive

Capacity WORK S success f actors has

convinced the personnel in the Ministry of

Health. Other departments also started using

the model a long time ago. For example, the

Department on Family and Children was also

keen on forming a steering committee, and

thus having a quantifiable and reliable basis

for a cooperation arrangement. The same is

true of the personnel at the Mother and Child

Health Services Department. However, on taking a closer look at the links to the other partners and

organisations, they soon realised that it would be far more effective for the ‘family’ affairs to be

integrated into the scope of the existing committee. The Deputy Minister is highly appreciative of

this development: ‘The different departments in the Ministry are networking more and more

because we are constantly checking to see who can work with whom to achieve what. The

departments of hygiene, legislation, family, and mother and child previously worked alongside each

other. Having used Capacity WORKS with the success factor of cooperation, this is now a thing of the

past. We have developed our capacity for change process management, which is useful to us in many

situations.’

Impressed by the positive results achieved in the health sector, the Agency on Social Protection in

the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection is now also showing an interest in managing


cooperation as has been done by its counterparts in the health sector. The GIZ has already discussed

this idea with the other donors and is also supporting the Ministry of Labour in its efforts to set up

a steering committee. ‘We also have the finance and health ministries on board here. All three

ministries must cooperate in providing social security for the very poor, otherwise it is

meaningless,’ says one participant, describing the approach.

Every organisation, irrespective of its size or field of operations, uses a fantastically wide variety of

proc¬esses – indeed processes are the nervous systems of both organisations and cooperation

systems. Cooperation systems, composed of individual organisations, also use processes to plan,

coordinate and implement their joint activities. Efficient and effec¬tive process design is thus not

only another key factor in the successful implementation of a development project, but a major

contribution to the achievement of common goals in cooperation systems.

The ability of the individual organisations as well as the cooperation systems and sectors in which

they are active to jointly plan, implement, coordinate and improve their processes is a key success

factor on the way to sustainable development.

The above discussion however begs the question of what we mean by processes in the first place. A

process is a collection of related, structured activities or tasks that produce a specific service or

product (serve a particular goal) for a particular customer or customers. The first and most famous

process analysis was that by Adam Smith in his 1776 analysis of the specialisation of tasks in a pin

factory and as a consequence the concept of the division of labour. Later incarnations of process

analysis include Henry Ford’s famously efficient production line, the business process re-

engineering of the 1990s, Michael Porter’s value chain analysis as well as the quality management

movements that placed process definition, analysis and improvement at the heart of the

International Standards’ Organisation (ISO), Total Quality Management (TQM), Six Sigma and other

related quality improvement systems and philosophies.

A process in the sense in which we wish to use it here, in order to be qualified as such must fulfil 2some basic criteria :

1. Definability - it must have clearly defined boundaries, inputs and outputs

2. Order - it must consist of activities that are ordered according to their position in time and

space, even if this order is a logical and not a chronological one

3. Goal, Customer or Recipient - there must be a clearly defined goal to the process (its

reason for existence) as well as a notion of who is to be the recipient of the process's

outcome, a customer or target group. The added value is defined through the perspective

of the customer and not the producer.

4. Value Adding - the transformation taking place within the process must add value to the

recipient, either within the process (the next step) or the final recipient

5. Integration – a process cannot exist in itself, it must be embedded in an organisational,

project or sectoral structure in which it plays a part (i.e. adds value within the landscape)

6. Cross-functionality - a process regularly spans several functions, departments or

organisations and cannot by definition be organised within a discrete organisational unit.

5.3 The discipline of Systematic Processes

2 Adapted from Henry J. Johansson et al. (1993). Business Process Reengineering: BreakPoint Strategies for Market Dominance.

John Wiley & Sons


Classical process analysts in management literature stress the difficulties of applying this kind of 3thinking to organisations. Michael Hammer in his classic introduction to the subject remarked that

it was a revolution for organisations to stop thinking in hierarchies, functions, tasks and

departments and to start thinking in terms of cross-cutting processes. This was, to use his term, the

‘white areas on the organisational chart between the departments’. Organisations struggle with

cross-departmental cooperation, and this has not got easier with time.

Because the basic concepts of the process management section are also the two tools, they are

described together in order to avoid redundancy.

A. Process Landscape

One of the most important questions for the process analysis is the definition of the strategic

context in which the project operates. It is not enough to ‘do the thing right’ - efficiency; the

project also has to be sure that it is ‘doing the right thing’ - effectiveness. This requires the

selection of the most important processes (‘Key or Core Processes’); and the placement of these

into a Process Landscape. This is a great strength of the approach, providing a strategic context

missing in many of the TQM approaches. This approach builds on concepts such as the SIPOC high

level process map of Six Sigma.

5.3.1 Some Basic Process Concepts/Tools

3 Beyond Re-engineering (1996) Harper Collins Business

Key Processes

OrganisationProject or

SectorGoal

Steering Processes

...

...

Key Process 2

Cooperation Process

Learning Process

Key Process 1

...

...

...

...

Resource Processes

...

...

Goal

Goal

Goal

Goal

?Driving and managing the key processes, ensuring the link between the processes and the organisation’s mission

Figure 5: Process landscape

?Doing the key tasks that together contribute to the achievement of the organisation’s goal

?Supporting the key processes and developing their potential

This representation is at a strategic level and the processes are no more than representative arrows

with names. Operational management of processes and their component parts takes place at

another level (see Process Hierarchies). Here the task is strategic, making the analytical difference

between those processes that are crucial to achieving the results (Key Processes, there should be

between four and six of these); and the Supporting and Steering processes which enable them.


In order to construct a process landscape one has to distinguish between three categories or

qualities of processes.

Key Processes are the unique contributions to the (organisation’s, project’s or sector’s) goal. They

are unique in character, delivering a direct contribution to achieving the goals of the project and

are very difficult if not impossible for other national or development organisations to copy. They

build on the core competencies of IbIn which facilitates the design and implementation of them in a

way that other development organisations cannot. In development contexts they can also include

cooperation and learning processes. In traditional process management these process types are

usually relegated to support status, since the core task of a development project must include both

cooperation processes (between a large number of diverse partners) as well as learning processes

(in pursuit of capacity development) it is logical to allow them a place as key processes here.

Steering processes build on the activities and structures used in HF3 (Steering Structure) for the

project, and include also coordination and quality assurance functions in all three elements.

Classical steering processes in organisations include leadership and strategy.

Resource Processes provide a platform which enables the other processes to take place. Because

they are generic in character (book-keeping, IT or procurement for example) they can also be sub-

contracted out of the core organisation.

B. Process Hierarchy and Design – the operational view

Given the strategic picture outlined in the previous section, process analysis can also provide the

link to operational management (as well as monitoring and evaluation) through the Process

Hierarchy concept. This is one of the greatest strengths of the approach – providing the practical

‘how to’ level missing in tools such as Value Chain or QM methodologies such as EFQM.

GoalGoal

Strategic:wholeorganisation

Intermediary:Key Process 1

Operational 1:components Key Processes

of

Processes and Activities:Level: Principles:

Management/Technology

....................


....................


... ... ... ... ...

GoalGoal

GoalGoal

Figure 6: Process hierarchies

1. SubsidiarityEvery activity in the process chain can be split down into its own, discrete chain or disaggregated to a higher level

2. Babushkaor the “Russian Doll” principle that everything fits together

3. GranularityDuring the activity sequence recording or process design it is essential that everyone is on the same analytical level (compare apples with apples and pears with pears)


This concept provides the participants and partners in an organisation, project or sector with the

tools to translate strategy into action – starting at a high level of abstraction of a 'Key Process' it

allows each step to be broken down into its subsidiary components and processes. This gradual

filling out of the basic strategic ideas provides a logical link between detailed operational planning

on the one hand, and high level abstract logical analysis on the other.

The subsidiarity of the concept allows for 'reality checks' along the way, allowing participants to

choose the appropriate level of visualisation depending on whether one is talking to senior

executives, partners or operational managers.

Drinking water and sanitation services in Peru

An adequate supply of clean and safe drinking

water is taken for granted in industrialised

countries, but for over five million people in

Peru it is more the exception than the rule. A

dilapidated water supply network combined

with the lack of qualified staff and tariffs that

do not cover costs means that the water supply

companies are unable to put their management

and finances on a solid footing and cannot

ensure reliable and safe drinking water and

sanitation facilities. Often the personal and

short-term interests of local politicians play a greater role in the supervisory boards of the water

supply companies than the principles of efficient management.

Multifaceted advisory services

The GIZ supported Peru in bringing about long-term improvements to the situation. The focus is on

three parallel approaches here.

The programme aimed to create a more solid foundation for the urban drinking water and sanitation

system. With the help of a sector reform it worked to ensure a stricter separation between local-

level political tasks and management tasks in the areas of water and sanitation, provided technical

assistance to optimise operations, and trained the management and the staff of selected

companies to help improve their operative, social and management capacity. However, things could

only change for the country as a whole if the municipalities and the water supply companies in each

corner of the Andean state developed the necessary long-term technical and management capacity

enabling them to offer the citizens satisfactory services. In order to consolidate this process, the

GIZ, along with the sector ministry, the umbrella association of water supply and sanitation

providers, and the national universities, developed a network of service providers that offer the

municipalities and the companies tailor-made training programmes, specific technical advice and

technological innovations.

Quantifiable results count

The GIZ’s water programme in Peru has to handle several sites at the same time endeavouring to

improve the country’s drinking water supplies. Yet there is a great danger of losing the way in the

5.3.2 Systematic Processes, an Example


many individual activities that, at the end of the day, do not really complement each other. The

programme coordinator from 2004 until the end of 2011, remembered his early days: ‘I faced the

complex question of how to manage it all with simple, recognisable models, so that all the

programme teams understand their respective areas of work and network with each other, and that

the programme outputs could be dynamically adapted to achieving the desired objectives and

results. What we wanted, or what our partners wanted, soon became clear. The greater challenge for

all the participants was to decide how and with whom we should initiate change to improve the

drinking water and sanitation services.’

With the help of the Capacity WORKS management

model, all three programme teams analysed the

change processes that they would like to initiate and

the objective to be achieved. This inevitably led to

the question of how this process should be designed

and what partners it might be useful to take on

board in the endeavour to achieve the desired

objective. And, last but not least, it was important

for the individual lines of action to be managed such

that they held out the promise of success. All these

processes were summarised in a manual, which

included benchmarking to help programme staff

review the progress and the interim results of their work on a regular basis. Should it become

apparent that the strategy is not effective or successful, it is time to review the selected strategy,

the process design, as well as the cooperation partners, and to re-align the work. Only when the

deployment of the team leads to a quantifiable result, which in turn also brings about a visible

improvement in the drinking water situation, can the water supply system be sustainable. ‘We thus

remain in an effective corridor of impact, so that we can optimise the use of our services to achieve

the targeted changes,’ stresses the coordinator.

A look at the day-to-day work

One of the key objectives was to develop the technical and management capacity of the human

resources in the supply companies and the municipalities, enabling them to offer their customers

good services. The companies also needed to be motivated to actively ask for and accept a training

and qualification programme. Besides the Ministry of Housing, Construction and Sanitation, on the

political side the Ministry of Economy and Finance also came into play and developed interesting

promotion and incentive programmes. Universities and training institutions all developed training

programmes as well.

The success of such training depended on five factors: a sustainable further training programme

could only be established when all the partners involved worked towards a common goal; when

there was a country-wide training strategy; when the process was tailored to the needs of the

companies and the municipalities; when the learning and innovation programme was the right one;

and when all pull together in managing these steps. One participant described the dangers on the

way to achieving the objective: ‘The water association initially thought that with five or six training

courses on individual topics, we would move forward. However, this does not lead to a permanent

system in which our partners can continue to develop after the programme has come to an end.’ As

the authorities and the ministries themselves now think in terms of the five success factors, a broad

learning and innovation programme for the water sector has been introduced. Companies that are


pro-active in their request for training and that invest in their staff are given more state assistance.

This makes it attractive even for hesitant decision-makers to fill the gaps in the knowledge of their

workers and to benefit from the associated advantages. A sensitive issue addressed by the

programme is the political reform of the water sector. Local political heavyweights wield influence

over the many small and medium-sized water supply companies. While this is universally known, the

will to change the situation is a different matter. For one participant it starts and ends with the

correct strategy, which is to submit proposals for reform to parliament: ‘We asked ourselves who

were the partners that we had to have as allies. Who is interested in change, pushes for change, and

takes responsibility?’ Looking beyond the limits of ‘water’ swiftly brought the Ministry of Economy

and Finance and the Presidential Office into the picture. The reform holds out the prospect of

savings and greater economic efficiency, and both can add their weight to the effort. ‘These two

ministries have the influence to push through changes in the prevailing political and social

environment,’ says a delighted participant. A large-scale reform project that will result in a new

structure for water and sanitation is now under way.

Partners convinced

After expressing initial scepticism, a growing number of Peruvian partners were also convinced by

the working of the water programme. The water suppliers now take the success factors into

consideration when drawing up their plans and ask themselves how they can achieve the best

results. If all the departments work in parallel, they remain unsuccessful. But when they interact,

have a joint strategy, coordinate their actions, and when there is a management system in place to

ensure that each individual knows his or her responsibilities, then the companies can successfully

bring about permanent change.

“Learning in the project” means the Capacity Development of the people, organisations and

networks immediately associated with the project

Capacity development (CD) should be understood as a holistic process. In this context we use the

term ‘capacity’ to mean the capability of people, organisations and societies to drive and manage

their own sustainable development process, and adapt to changing conditions. This includes

recognising obstacles to development, developing problem-solving strategies and operationalising

these successfully. This proactive management capacity enables the people, organisations and

societies concerned to combine political will with interests, knowledge, values, and financial

resources in pursuit of their own development goals.

The explicit support of CD processes requires a strategy that is geared toward the actual political,

economic and social context of the policy field in question. CD measures must be agreed on with all

the stakeholders in the policy field, to ensure that all of them assume ownership of implementation

of the CD strategy. The CD strategy is based on the project’s system of objectives.

Good CD strategies meet the following quality criteria:

• well embedded into the context of the policy field in which they are working

• appropriate with regard to the actors' willingness to embrace change

• tied to initiatives of the actors themselves

• coherent interlinkage of effects at the different levels of CD (society, organisation,

individual).

5.4. The discipline of Accelerating Learning


The three levels of Capacity Development are intimately linked to each other in a reciprocal fashion. 4This can be summed up in the following table :

4 Based on and with grateful acknowledgment to the GIZ original in Capacity WORKS

The Levels of CD The Actors The focus of CD activities

Human resource development

promote individual learning

capability, self-reflection,

discussion of values, abilities and

skills (skills development).

Purpose:

Organisational development

organisational learning and

raising of the performance and

flexibility of an organisation.

Purpose:

Cooperation and network

development

develop and strengthen

cooperation between

organisations and networks for

knowledge exchange, coordination

and co-production.

Purpose:

System development in the policy

field

build legal, political and

socioeconomic frameworks that

are conducive to CD so that people,

organisations and their networks

can develop and raise their

performance capability.

Purpose:

Individuals and small groups.

Organisations and sub-

organisations of the state, civil

society and the private sector.

Groups of actors, production

chains, clusters, networks along

geographical or thematic lines.

Actors and groups of actors who

participate in the negotiation of

rules at all levels.

Coaching and training: values and

attitudes, motivation, action

strategies, abilities and skills in

key competencies, social skills

such as team work, leadership and

communication.

Change management: agreement

on vision and system boundaries,

strengthening of self-reflectivity,

delivery processes and clients;

division of labour, planning and

steering, optimal resource

management, internal rules and

structures, knowledge

management.

Network management:

establishment, development and

steering of cooperation

arrangements and networks

(community-based,

public/private, sectoral, product-

based) on the basis of comparative

advantages, to utilise favourable

locations and effects of scale.

Policy advisory services: culture of

negotiation, articulatory

capacities of actors, incentives to

agreement, agenda analyses,

round tables and other forms of

participation for the negotiation

of rules, interests, basic rights,

policies and their implementation,

rule of law, checks and balances on

the exercise of power,

transparency, mediation and in-

process facilitation of

negotiations.

As can be seen from the table it is unsustainable to invest in the people while neglecting the

organisations in which they work. People qualified with new skills and knowledge who try to apply

them in an unreformed organisation will run into a brick wall. Clearly the organisation has to

change in tandem with the people within it. Similarly, good initiatives in individual areas in the


industrial relations field need to be backed up by changes in the network and society levels – laws

and policies need to be updated and experience scaled-up into other regions and areas. Only when

the project has a clear strategy for intervention in all three areas here can the sustainable capacity

development take place.

Seeing the bigger picture: Local government in Burkina Faso

Whether it is a matter of issuing a birth certificate or

taking a decision to build a new community hall – it

all falls under the responsibility of the municipality,

the municipal council and the mayor, yet, until 2006,

not all the municipalities in Burkina Faso had elected

local representatives or municipal administrations

that would have been capable of tackling these

tasks. Political reform was intended to help address

the problem and provide citizens throughout the

country with access to better municipal services.

However, the newly appointed mayors, municipal

councils and administrative personnel had neither the know-how nor the funds required to

discharge their responsibilities.

A combined team of GIZ and national partners was formed to solve the problem. They took civil

society on board so that the citizens had some say in the decisions that affected their town or

village. Together with the respective municipality, they also drew up budgets and helped to lay

down the foundations of a sound and transparent financial system. For the reform to be successful,

it was essential that the Government created the legal framework required. Funds for the

municipalities had to be guaranteed, and qualified administrative personnel provided.

Selecting partners carefully

For change to be actually initiated, committed

partners who are open to reform are needed. The

Government, the staff in the municipalities, the

donor community and the GIZ all agreed on the

importance of setting up a national training system

with uniform quality standards for the administrative

personnel.

H o w e v e r, t h e m i n i s t r y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r

decentralisation was not in a position to manage this

on its own. The programme team made a concerted effort to identify another cooperation partner

and found it in the Ministry for Territorial Administration. Working together with the Ministry made

it possible to put the subject of municipal personnel resources on the political agenda. The

Government issued a decree on training, and the first 100 members of staff have already completed

their training at the National School of Administration. ‘We were successful only because we saw the

bigger picture and looked ahead. We have found cooperation partners who have developed a

coherent training strategy together with us. The other donors have acknowledged our role as the

5.4.3 Accelerating Learning: Example


organisation that takes the lead in capacity development. In fact, this has facilitated a delegated

cooperation arrangement with the EU,’ explained one participant.

In the still fairly recent decentralised local and regional structure, it was not easy for the municipal

and regional councils, mayors, governors, civil society representatives, and ministry personnel to

understand and clearly define their respective new roles and to take on duties and responsibilities.

All the stakeholders worked together to improve public services for all citizens. The programme

focused on accompanying and coordinating this process. The project manager: ‘Most of them were

not clear about who should work with whom, who needs what from the other, and how they could

work together.’ Over three days, the project brought together all the individuals involved. With the

help of a moderator, the questions and frustrations were put on the table, and gradually the various

groups started to talk freely with one another, to express their mutual expectations and to point

out difficulties. ‘It was an extremely emotional moment for me, as the various actors were starting

to trust each other. All the participants left the meeting with constructive agreements, and

cooperation in the two pilot regions has been very good ever since,’ said another participant,

looking back.

The GIZ used Capacity WORKS even during the unrest in early 2011 and the political challenges that

came with it. The programme and its partners used the model to analyse the changed context, to

identify new actors and to adapt the change processes and support strategies to the altered

context. ‘Capacity WORKS sensitises us to change so that we can handle it better and respond to it

appropriately,’ reported the GIZ representative.

The conference has a new look

Impressed by the positive results of the Programme and by the speed with which its intervention

strategy adapted to changes, the Decentralisation Ministry also sought ideas from the GIZ’s

Capacity WORKS management model. In a large annual conference, the Ministry gave a public

account of how far it has progressed with the decentralisation process in the country. Dissatisfied

with having to appraise the situation from the perspective of the central government, the Ministry

sought a new format. Based on the questions of who should actually be accountable to whom and of

how the process of evaluation could be made participatory, a brand new concept for a conference

was created. The central government no longer reports to the municipalities about where the

country stands. Instead, governors, mayors and civil society representatives report on what works

well and what does not. Information no longer flows from the top to the bottom, but from the

bottom to the top, thereby providing the municipalities with an opportunity to bring reports on

their progress and their difficulties to the notice of the central government.

Section 2

Delivering Change Foundation

Delivering Change Foundation

Genesis

With a daily circulation of 1.5 million, the Sakal Marathi newspaper is amongst the top 10 regional

language newspapers in the country. In 2012, Sakal, a Maharashtra-based group, organized a

movement in the city of Pune in an unusual way to promote the use of public transport. It decided

that Pune's citizens should actually experience a vision of their city with much more public

transport and correspondingly less need for private transport vehicles, because seeing is believing,

and believing leads to committing. The intention was to generate stronger public commitment and

pressure for enabling more public transport in the city.

Thus 'Pune Bus Day' was conceived with this idea at its core. A plan was made with participation of

diverse groups of citizens: several civil society organizations, industry chambers, traders'

associations and government departments, to provide and run sufficient buses on one day so that

citizens would not need to use private transportation that day. Accordingly money was raised to

hire more buses from other cities, routes for their deployment in Pune were planned, route maps

were circulated through schools and colleges and public enthusiasm was created by the newspaper

for the day-long experiment. The passionate involvement of citizens is epitomized by pictures of

housewives who volunteered to wash and clean the buses before they were deployed so that a

common complaint of citizens about public transport, viz. its uncleanness, was removed!

The Pune Bus Day was a great success. Most owners of private transport cooperated and travelled by

bus on that day. Measurements revealed that pollution levels in the city were substantially reduced,

as were the numbers of road accidents. Thus the benefits of the vision were made real.

The challenge thereafter was to make an ad-hoc experiment into a permanent reality. For this, more

buses would have to be bought by the municipal transport corporation, staff hired and trained and

their salaries provided for, permanent bus shelters installed, etc. These changes require the power

and the resources of government machinery, the movement of which requires inter-departmental

coordination, and implementation of an overall plan that is adopted by all wings of the

government, at the city and state levels. The need to address this challenge of aligning government

power with people's passion drew the Sakal group to the mission of IbIn, which is to propagate

systematic methods for converting contentions amongst stakeholders into collaboration, and

confusion amongst agencies into coordination, so that plans can be implemented, and desired

outcomes produced.

IbIn, with the help of the World Bank, introduced the Sakal Group to Pemandu, the delivery unit

created in the Malaysian Prime Minister's Office to develop plans made by collaboration amongst



stakeholders in Malaysia and their systematic implementation to produce desired outcomes in a

time-bound manner. Pemandu had the 'technology' that Sakal was looking for to systematically

engage government agencies and experts with the planning and implementation of public missions.

Sakal and Pemandu entered into an agreement to make the Pemandu methodology available in

India through the Sakal Foundation.

An essential requirement for the application of the Pemandu methodology, which entails intensive

involvement of government agencies, is sponsorship of the process by top levels of government so

that government officers (and senior persons from the private sector, and experts too) are

motivated to participate in the process. Therefore the Sakal Foundation offered the Pemandu

methodology to the Chief Minister and the Government of Maharashtra for making and

implementing plans for the state of Maharashtra.

An innovation that Sakal introduced to the Pemandu methodology was a systematic participation of

citizens to select the areas in which they wanted better results. This was achieved by the

engagement of women in Maharashtra through the Tanishka movement that the Sakal Foundation

runs. Tanishka engages with hundreds of women self-help groups throughout Maharashtra.

Sakal had its own model for transformation, the Trinity 7 Model with an emphasis on emotional

connect. The Sakal Model is described in the diagram below.

Evolution

Figure 1: Sakal Trinity 7

As will be explained, this model combined with the Pemandu model determined the four essential requirements for programmatic change in large socio-political systems.

A consultation was organized by Sakal through the Women self-help groups to determine citizens' priorities. Water related issues emerged as the top most priority. Maharashtra is afflicted with

PARTICIPA-TION

CONSENSUS

EMOTIONAL CONNECT PROGRAM

ACCOUNTA-BILITY+

TRANSPA-RENCYRESPONSE

EQUITABLE+

INCLUSIVE

IMPLEMENTATION

EFFICIENCY+

SIMPLICITY

RULE OF LAW

SOCIAL IMPACT

RETURN ON RESPECT


acute water problems: large parts of the state are drought prone leading even to distressing farmer suicides, and other parts suffer from periodic floods. Many segments of society are concerned with water-related problems: agriculture, industry, and consumers in rural and urban areas. Therefore a plan to alleviate the state's water problems requires that many stakeholders' needs must be considered—and they are often in contention, and that systemic solutions be found and implemented rather than quick-fixes to alleviate one set of concerns that cause other problems.

The State Government accepted that water should be the issue to which the Pemandu-Sakal methodology, renamed as the Trinity 7S methodology, should be applied.

The heart of the Pemandu methodology is a 'lab process' to create convergent plans. As a first step, in a “pre-Lab” process, data regarding the issue is gathered and analyzed to determine the extent of the problem and its likely origins. This is a conventional step of problem diagnosis. However the next step of the Pemandu process is the unusual one. Relevant stakeholders are selected for the issue at hand, from government, the private sector, and civil society, and they are required to work together for a few weeks, in a time-bound manner and to use the systematic Pemandu methodology to convert the intentions of the plan (in this case to 'make Maharashtra drought free in five years') into the steps that must be taken on the ground by various actors in a coordinated manner to achieve the desired result. Thus, a 30,000 foot intention is converted into 3-foot level actions.

The Pemandu methodology requires that the 3-foot level plans are produced by the implementing agencies themselves, working in unison with other agencies who make their 3-foot plans simultaneously within the same short period. This approach is different to the other more conventional approaches of planning in which plans are made by experts or others in authority remotely and then passed on for execution to the implementers who do not 'buy into' these plans and often find that the plans are out of touch with ground realities.

After the plans are made in a participative manner, the sponsoring authority ensures that they are implemented. For this, a 'program management unit' is set up that uses a program management methodology to keep the sponsor informed of progress. Also, this unit alerts the implementers themselves about slippages so that they can take corrective actions. This unit, with the support of the sponsors' authority where required, tries to remove the bottlenecks in implementation. Ultimately, the sponsoring authority itself—in the Malaysian case, the Prime Minister—can intervene with the defaulting ministry or agency following the performance reviews. Thus implementation is managed in a systematic manner.

Methods for 'convergent planning', which is the purpose of the Pemandu 'Labs', are used by strategy consulting companies for their clients all over the world. Indeed, the Pemandu 'Labs' was developed and introduced in Malaysia by international consulting companies. Such methodologies fit well into situations with an empowered 'CEO' who can enforce the plan, as there generally are in the corporate sector. However in the public governance sphere, especially wherever democratic participation is an applied norm, people's support for the intentions of the plan becomes essential to ensure that it will be implementable. Experience has shown that people's support is not easy to obtain with mere data and analysis. An 'emotional connect' is essential to win the people's support.

The importance of an emotional connect with people in any substantial government led transformation process has been endorsed in examinations of large scale reform programs in democracies in South America and South East Asia, which were recently conducted by the Global Economic Symposium and by the World Bank. (In fact, the importance of an emotional connect with the public, and the processes for obtaining it, such as the Tanishka program of Sakal, have been appreciated by Pemandu of Malaysia and will be henceforth incorporated by Pemandu also.) Therefore an integral part of any process to make plans in a plural democracy must be systematic


methods for connecting with citizens. India, with its history of non-violent citizens' engagement with political and social transformation inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, is a rich source for insights into methods for emotionally engaging citizens with large scale reforms. IbIn has undertaken the distillation of best methods for this, in the Indian context at least, in another project, the on-going CSO initiative supported by UNDP which is reported separately.

Another significant difference that was observed in the power structure of the executive, between Malaysia and India, though both are democracies, is in the relative stability of the Government in power in Malaysia and the concentration of power within it. In the state of Maharashtra, into which the Pemandu methodology was first applied in India, there was a noisy coalition government in which the Chief Minister could not assert his authority like the Prime Minister in Malaysia could in his party which had a large majority in Parliament, and a long history of a very large majority. Moreover, with elections announced and a change in government expected in Maharashtra, the power of the CM as 'CEO' to lead a large scale program through implementation was clearly doubtful. Therefore, forces other than the authority of the CEO were required to obtain political alignment and continuity of political support for the plan. These forces can arise from public pressure on the political establishment. For this, the 'people connect' mentioned before is essential, and it can be amplified by the media.

Therefore a public campaign in the media to publicize the demand for the plan and the progress of its implementation becomes the third essential component of a transformative planning and implementation process. In Maharashtra, the Sakal Group of newspapers provided a media platform for the 'public pressure'. The combination of the 'people connect' through the women's organizations and the 'public pressure' through the media has forced a 'political alignment' as an outcome in Maharashtra. With this, the planning process for 'water for all' was supported by all parties in the state's coalition government before the elections, and it continues to be supported (in fact even more strongly) by the newly elected government.

The three processes essential for a large, systemic change process in the public sector are described in the diagram below: People Connect, Public Pressure, and Convergent Planning. Political Alignment, as explained already, is an outcome principally of the People Connect and Public Pressure processes as well as Convergent Planning.

Figure 2: Four P Model

Political alignment

Plan convergence

People'sconnect

Public pressure (Media)


Two points need to be made about these processes. One is that there are principles and learnable

methods too, for systematically managing Convergent Planning, People Connect and Public Pressure

processes. Indeed, as mentioned before, IbIn is looking out for these through other projects.

The other point, about the process to connect with local publics, is the necessity to use locally

established and trusted channels—local civil society organizations and local media. Principles and

methods are transportable: the trust in institutions is not.

The Sakal Group has created a foundation, the Delivering Change Foundation, to provide the

support that the Central Government and Indian state governments are now asking for, seeing the

good progress made by the application of new methodologies in the 'Water for All' program in

Maharashtra. The Prime Minister of India has publicly announced the intention to use the

methodology more widely in the country. The new government in Maharashtra has signed a

memorandum of understanding with the Delivering Change Foundation to set up a 'project

management office' to oversee the implementation of the plans for the water sector that have been

developed by the Labs, and also to extend the Lab process to develop plans for other sectors in the

state.

Capacity must now be built within the country to meet the demands arising. The capacity-building

process will have to ride along with work on new areas in the state and in the centre. Capacity

development for 'soft skills' required for facilitation of complex processes requires that 'trainees'

work on real-life situations to complete the capacity building process. Concepts can be taught off-

line, and some skills can be developed in simulated situations. But mastery of the skills requires

application in real situations albeit under tutelage of coaches. A structured process, to induct

potential facilitators, impart the training required through class room sessions, simulated training

and on-line coaching is being designed by the Delivering Change Foundation with support from

IbIn. Assistance for this is expected from the World Bank and GIZ, founding partners of IbIn, who

are supporting the expansion of IbIn processes in India.

For more information on the Delivering Change Foundation, please visit

http://www.deliveringchangefoundation.org/.

The Delivering Change Foundation has emerged as a strong new node in the IbIn network. The

processes it is developing and applying are being supported by other projects of IbIn which are

creating new nodes in the network too. This is an illustration of how the IbIn network is forming

and growing in a short time with multiple, mutually reinforcing nodes.

Progress

Additional Reading for: Delivering Change Foundation

S. No Document URL

1

ST 7 Model

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wpcontent/uploads/ST7-Model.pdf

-

Section 3

FICCI QUPRAC 2014

FICCI QUPRAC 2014

Genesis

Evolution

The philosophy of the IbIn movement, like the Total Quality Movement of Japan, is to inculcate the

use of systematic processes, tools and models within the country to facilitate multi stakeholder

engagements. The purpose of IbIn is to further collaboration amongst the various actors of the

system and to enable the system to move together and achieve much greater results. Through the

QUPRAC initiative, IbIn and its network of partners is providing a platform where such existing

systematic processes and tools are brought to light as well as creating a market place where people

who need better results can get access to providers of these tools and processes. To spread this idea

of using quality practices in India, FICCI, an IbIn partner, initiated the idea for a conference to find

and promote such practices.

The QUPRAC project is well aligned with the principal objective of IbIn. The purpose of IbIn, as

mentioned earlier, is to inculcate a culture of using systematic processes to improve collaboration

among stakeholders and thereby obtain desired outcomes. The QUPRAC project set out to identify

systematic methods being used across the country and to provide a platform where these practices

could be shared amongst practitioners and others who could benefit from such good practices.

IbIn & FICCI jointly approached the World Bank to support this initiative. The World Bank

appreciated the power that the QUPRAC proposition. It was agreed that Federation of Indian

Chambers for Commerce & Industry (FICCI) would play the role of the partner that would house the

event as well as devote resources to fulfilling the objectives of the initiative. The advantage of

having FICCI as a partner was their in house method for calling for practices and presentation of

these practices in the of “White Papers” FICCI through their organization structure also had a wide

reach to generate these white papers from different audience groups.

The process for QUPRAC 2014 was envisaged as follows –


Figure 1

Discovery Distillation Dissemination


a. Create a platform for discovering systematic quality practices and tools

b. Distil the theories in use from these systematic quality practices

c. Refine and disseminate the theories by taking them to the states.

A steering committee was formed to provide guidance to the process. A scientific committee was set

up to vet the papers that were submitted for QUPRAC 2014 and shortlist the papers that would be

presented in the conference. The steering committee would review the process for QUPRAC going

forward, post the first QUPRAC conference.

A key learning here was regarding clarity on the involvement and the responsibilities of the

scientific committee since there was confusion amongst the various partners of QUPRAC with

regards to the degree of involvement of the scientific committee. Certain partners believed that

the role of the scientific committee ended with the main conference and their role was only to

vet the papers that were submitted and short listing the one’s that need to be presented. This

created confusion with regards to the selection of the members of committee and resulted in

most of the members being unresponsive to the needs of the movement. Ambiguity in the roles

and responsibilities of the Scientific Committee also led to numerous instances where the

scientific committee was left out of critical decisions pertaining to the process.

This later resulted in the formation of a separate technical committee for the same purpose

after the conference in February.

The first phase of the process was designed around discovery of various systematic quality practices

that enabled the actors to understand that they were all part of a system and then facilitated

collaboration amongst these actors. It was envisaged to use FICCI’s reach to get submissions on

such quality practices that would then be scrutinized by the Scientific Committee. Through this

method close to forty submissions were received. Unfortunately, the idea of quality in terms on

non-manufacturing activities is very nascent in the eco system and it was a difficult challenge to

convey the same to the leadership at FICCI as well as the various participants from whom the

submissions were solicited.

This was another critical learning from the entire process on how the Indian eco system

perceives quality to be a subset of manufacturing. This makes platforms like QUPRAC all the

more important to spread awareness about quality practices in non-manufacturing activities. If

the eco system as a whole needs to grow then more and more quality practices for collaboration,

consensus building and convergent planning need to be applied to everyday activities. Ideas

like QUPRAC are a new line of thought which reinforce the need and power of such a movement

to change the nation.

After multiple rounds of iteration with the authors of papers that were submitted, the scientific

committee narrowed down to 18 practices that would be showcased at the day of the conference. On

the 1st and 2nd of February 2014 the first ever Quality Practices (QUPRAC 14) conference was

conducted at the FICCI Federation House. The purpose of the conference was to serve as a platform

to facilitate discovery of systematic quality practices to further collaboration and not quality

practices in the manufacturing sense.

A. Discovery


IbIn being a network that aims at promoting systematic practices for improving collaboration

among stakeholders also invited a few of its partners to present their codified models for furthering

collaboration among stakeholders. The purpose of this was to familiarize as well as start spreading

awareness about such practices among the audience. In this regard a panel discussion was

conducted on the first day where the panellists included practitioners and authors of structured

models for collaboration from across the globe as well as from India. The models that were studied

during the panel discussion included

• Capacity Works – Developed by the German Federal Enterprise for International

Cooperation (GIZ)

• Leadership for Development – Developed by the World Bank Institute (WBI)

• ST 7 Model – Developed by Sakal Media Group & PEMANDU

• Project Management Institute (PMI)

To further the IbIn cause of creating a tool box of codified systematic practices for collaboration in

multi stakeholder environments IbIn invited partners who already had codified their quality

practices along with the panellists for a session to identify synergies and learn from each other as

well as work towards creating “The IbIn Way”. These included partners such as the German Federal

Corporation for International Cooperation (GIZ), The World Bank Institute, Project Management

Institute as well as the Delivering Change Foundation. Along with these experts there were a

number of observers who had a higher level of maturity with regards to quality practices such as

Krishi Gram Vikas Kendra (KGVK), Partnership Brokering Association, Rajasthan Patrika, SCA Group.

Figure 2: Synthesising the IbIn way

As is typical of IbIn events, the conduct for the workshop was unconventional in comparison to the

way traditional workshops are run. The four panellists from the panel discussion were given time to

make a detailed presentation of their models in the first half of the workshop. The idea was to

familiarize the fellow participants and the observers with the nuances of each of the model. The

presentation was focused along the following lines –

• What is the story behind the evolution of the process for the said cooperation model

• An overview of the process

End Customers

Underlyingprinciples

Tool Codification

Explaining each tool

• Understanding the nuances of each tool

• Identifying & understanding the underlying principles on which the toolshave been formulated

• Understandingthe process undertaken to codify the tool

• Who or what would the best suitors for each tool & what couldthey hope to achieve Identifying

commonalities, if any

Synthesizing the Ibln Way

Next Steps


•

• How learning from implementation is ploughed back into the process

After this, all the participants were divided into groups of three to discuss the following

• How to characterize these tools with respect to the speed with which they build capacities

• How to characterize these tools with respect to the complexity of issues they seek to

address

• What are the common under lying principles that run across these models

The purpose of this exercise was to help the participants understand the background or knowledge

on which these models were created.

At the outset the IbIn team's hypothesis was to get these great minds to collaborate on

identifying the theories in use of these models to develop a simple “IbIn Way”. The “IbIn Way”

was expected to be one model that would encompass all these tools for public consumption, as

described in the figure above. However, during the course of the workshop, the IbIn team's

perceptions evolved influenced by the discussions. It became clear that no single detailed

model can apply in all situations, whereas there would be some core principles that would apply

in all.

In the workshop, in the discussions between the expert practitioners it was obvious that each

had a “theory in use” of how alignment in engendered in a large system. The uncovering of

these innate theories by discussion amongst the practitioners was found to be of very great

value. From the discourse around these theories the core principles for shaping collaboration

systems would emerge.

Once the conference was concluded, FICCI undertook an analysis to identify the underlying theories

in use of all the submissions that were presented at the conference. Building on the work that was

already done within the IbIn partner workshop FICCI developed a three pronged module from the

quality practices. The three pillars they developed were –

The unique proposition of the process

B. Distillation

These pillars were developed after identifying the underlying theory in use that each submission

was based on. This was done by drilling down from the end result in each submission to what were

the procedures. After identifying the procedures, the overarching process on which the procedures

Figure 3: Three pillars of quality practices

C t g ry

a e o

Theory-in-u

es

StakeholderEngagement

Organizational Learning Systems

OwnershipStructures

Structure MUSTsupport

Responsibility+Accountability

NEED KnowledgeRepository with

Capability for Analytics

Beneficiaries also NEED convincing


were created were identified from where an

exercise was undertaken to identify what the

underlying principles or theories in use were

that helped deliver the end result. From a

QUPRAC standpoint, FICCI tried to identify

theories in use that were focused around the

themes of Collaboration, Coordination &

Implementation to make the findings relevant to

the context of the QUPRAC initiative.

This analysis of theories in use was undertaken

by FICCI along with the various authors of the

papers that were presented at the conference. In many cases the authors found it very difficult to

articulate the theories in use since as implementers the authors were doing whatever was needed

for the success of the project without consciously reflecting on the theory in use for their action.

The template that FICCI used for this analysis is as follows

C. Dissemination

Once the module was developed it was required to test the module as well as refine the learning

gained from the limited reference points in the form of the submissions from the conference.

At the outset of the QUPRAC design itself the scientific committee had underlined the importance of

taking the learning from the conference to the states. Hence, it was decided that post the

conference there would be two state level workshops with the aim of building capacities in the state

with regards to collaborative quality practices as well as refining the learning from the conference

with inputs from the states.

Till date one such workshop has been conducted with the Sakala Mission of the Karnataka State

Government. The state workshop saw a wide range of audience from mid and senior level

bureaucrats as well as members from the Karnataka industries. At the workshop, a theme was

identified by the state government as “Destination Karnataka” to promote Karnataka as a

destination for investment and entrepreneurship. Under this theme workshops were conducted

under three broad categories

C1. Infrastructure

C2. Human Resource

C3. Business Regulations

Under each of these sessions the participants were part of a facilitated session where they

discussed the current level of the Karnataka Government with regards to Stakeholder Engagement,

Organizational Learning & Ownership structures and what the road ahead should be for the

Karnataka Government in the three broad categories with respect to the learning from QUPRAC ‘14.

Procedures

End Result

Process

Theory In Use

# Paper End Result

Collaboration

Theory-in-use

Coordination Implementation OthersProcess Example


At the planning stage of the workshop we had adopted a strategy of pushing these quality

practices into the state rather than tailoring them to the state’s needs to make the state

government receptive to the message. This led to conflicts between the state government and

the planning team. This caused the state government to push its own agenda in the workshop.

The lesson is that the strategy for learning a new way must be a ‘pull’ strategy rather than a

‘push’ strategy. In a push strategy the expert wants to force a new method. Whereas in a pull

strategy the learner wants to learn a new way to achieve goals which are important to the

learner.

The location of the ‘client’ within the state government and the alignment between the agenda

of this client and others in the government are important to understand. The client may draw

the design of the workshop to suit the clients own agenda rather than a broader agenda of the

state system. Therefore, a diagnosis, with the cooperation of the client, of the state agenda is

necessary.

The essential idea here is to ‘manage expectation’ of both the client as well as other

participants in the workshop.

Progress towards improving and strengthening the QUPRAC process

As it stands the Technical Committee has reviewed the progress that has been made with regards to

the QUPRAC initiative as well identify the learning through the same. It has also been decided that

an initiative like this needs to continue to promote collaboration and cooperation amongst actors

who are part of the same system. In this regards the second state workshop will be conducted as

and when a suitable state comes forward and expresses the need for such a workshop. In the

meanwhile, a smaller team has been put together to look at the challenges that have been faced

and on the basis of the recommendations plan for the next conference i.e. QUPRAC ‘15. The team

will look at addressing the following challenges in their plan for the process going forward -

1. Partnership Gap Analysis – Post the first state workshops it came to light the lack of skills

that were evident within the partnership between IbIn, the World Bank & FICCI. IbIn &

World Bank played an advisory role to FICCI who organized and ran the workshops.

However, the first workshop did not meet its purpose since there was a lot of pre work that

needed to be done with regards to the planning of the workshop, getting the buy in of the

state government and priming the audience to be receptive to the kind of discussions that

form a part of the workshops.

The team will look at how to improve on these skills prior to the next workshop or bring in a

new partner to the partnership who has considerable experience in such work. If a new

partner is to be brought on board there are certain skills that they should bring into the

system for example – the partner must have certain degree of experience in working with

quality practices and should not be weighed down by conventionality and traditions. They

should be active change facilitators.

2. The process of Discovery – For the process to be sustainable and grow going forward it is

essential to delve into the process by which new practices are discovered. In future an

annual conference should not be the only source to discover remarkable work being done

in the country with regards to quality practices and processes. The process of discovery,

distillation and dissemination should happen constantly to make the output document

much richer and useful.


3. Assimilation: Adaptation: Application – Going forward the QUPRAC initiative has to put

more focus on the assimilation, adaptation and application of the learning and

methodology developed within the QUPRAC initiative by the various participants and

organizations involved and exposed to QUPRAC. Considerable research needs to be

conducted to develop a process that can be added to the process of QUPRAC to ensure this

happens.

Additional Reading for: FICCI QUPRAC 2014

S. No Document

URL

1 Process Guideline document

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Process-Guideline-Document.pdf

2 FICCI report on Karnataka Workshop

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Karnataka-Workshop-Report.pdf

3 QUPRAC 2014 Analysis Methodology

4 QUPRAC 2014 Conference Proceedings

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/QUPRAC-2014-analysis-methodology.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/QUPRAC-2014-Conference-Proceedings.pdf

Section 4

A Coordinated Process for Improving

the Business Regulatory Environment

in India

A Coordinated Process for Improving the Business Regulatory Environment in India

Genesis

India has been consistently ranked among the worst performers among all countries in the World ndBank Group's annual “Doing Business Report”. In 2013, India ranked 132 out of 185 countries in

ndthe world; India's rank has fallen to 142 according to latest survey results. Even in other studies,

such as those conducted by OECD, India's performance has been consistently poor.

Needless to say, poor performance in such studies negatively alters the perception of potential

foreign investors regarding India as an investment destination and thus prevents the country from

fulfilling its economic potential by keeping away much needed investment.

In order to identify the real problems that plague the Business Regulatory Environment in India,

specifically those that affect manufacturing competiveness, the IbIn team stationed in the

Planning Commission undertook an extensive stakeholder consultation drive in the year 2013. It

emerged from the consultation process that the primary actors in improving the BRF in India are

the State Governments as almost 2/3rds of the regulations that affect business are controlled by

these state governments.

On the basis of these findings, the Planning Commission hired a consulting firm (Deloitte Touche

Tohmatsu) to conduct a survey of India states to carry out a comparative analysis of the Business

Regulatory Environment impacting manufacturing competitiveness of individual states. The IbIn

team collaborated with Deloitte to identify the key parameters for conducting the comparative

analysis.

It was observed during consultations carried out by IbIn that many Government agencies and

industry bodies conducted separate studies and surveys to assess the Business Regulatory

Environment in India and to identify “best practices” being followed by various state governments.

These include the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), the Confederation of

Indian Industry (CII), the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and the

Planning Commission itself. In the absence of any mechanism to channel the energies and learning

of these organisations, these individual efforts were not having the desired effect of improving the

Business Regulatory Environment in the country.

Therefore, IbIn devoted its efforts towards co-creating, along with key stakeholders, a Business

Regulatory Framework that would enable these stakeholders to collaborate and jointly work

towards a common vision for improving India's Business Regulatory Environment. The design of this

framework is the highlight of this project from IbIn's perspective.



The objective of the project was to co-create with relevant stakeholders an institutional framework

that could be used for continuous improvement of the Business Regulatory Environment in the

country.

The IbIn team understood that to develop an institutional and sustainable process for

improvement, the various participants of the system needed to be consulted. The following factors

were considered important for the success of the project:

- In the Indian context, the states are the key players in improving the Business Regulatory

Environment. Therefore, the designed framework should focus on action in the states.

- In a constantly changing global business environment, a system's ability to learn and

adapt to changes becomes very important. Therefore, the Business Regulatory

Framework's design should incorporate these abilities.

- 'Lateral learning' i.e. states learning from each other was considered more powerful than

the central government imposing “best practices” on the states. Therefore, the framework

should include mechanisms that promote lateral coordination and mutual learning among

the states.

The key stakeholders in the process, as identified by IbIn are shown in the stakeholder map below:

Evolution

Key Stakeholders

State Governments Doers

Enablers

Facilitators

Citizens

Industry

Government of India (including GoI agencies) DIPP Planning Commission

Line Ministries

Beneficiaries

Government of India

Industry Associations

CII FICCI

ASSOCHAM

others

Consultants

KPMG

Deloitte

BCG

McKinsey, etc.

Media

Elected Representatives

International

Development Agencies

World Bank Group OECD

ADB, etc.

Figure 1: Stakeholder Map

• Beneficiaries: those stakeholders who are directly affected by the changes in the

environment. In t his case t hey include t he cit izens at large and t he

industries/entrepreneurs operating or planning to set up business in India.


• Doers: those stakeholders who have the ability and power to take actions that change the

environment. In this case, studies suggested that 2/3rds of the regulations came within

the purview of the state governments in India, while the remaining regulations fell into

the domain of the Government of India. Therefore, these two entities have been classified

as doers within this system.

• Enablers: those stakeholders who possess the convening power to bring all stakeholders to

a common platform. In the Indian system, the Central Government and its various agencies

hold this power; therefore they are classified as enablers. Elected representatives have the

mandate from citizens and therefore give voice to people’s aspirations and also sensitize

citizens about the benefits of government action. Therefore, they can also be considered as

enablers in the system.

• Facilitators: those stakeholders who by virtue of their knowledge or influence are in a

position to persuade the enablers and doers to take appropriate action or to sway the

beneficiaries regarding the benefits/pitfalls of action taken by the doers. Industry

Associations (CII, FICCI, etc.), International Development Agencies (World Bank Group,

OECD, etc.) and Consulting Organisations (Bain, BCG, McKinsey, Deloitte, KPMG, etc.) and

the media could be considered as facilitators within the system.

The process of designing an appropriate Business Regulatory Framework required the following

steps to be carried out:

i. Analysis of the System

Having identified the key stakeholders in the system, the IbIn team developed a systems

map identifying the interrelationships between the stakeholders. The purpose of the

exercise was to understand and analyse how the system worked. To offer any solution, like

a doctor prescribing medicine, one has to have a highly developed understanding of the

system, similar to the doctor’s understanding of the human body. Through interviews with

various stockholders and brainstorming within the team, a system map was developed by

the team.

Process

Citizens

IndustryIndustry Associations

CII

FICCI

ASSOCHAM

Others

Consultants

KPMG

Deloitte

BCG

McKinsey, etc.

Media


Regulatory Action

Regulatory Action

Regulatory Action

Regulatory Action

Regulatory Action

Figure 2: System Map

International Development Agencies

World Bank Group OECDADB, etc.Others

State Government 1

Government of India

State Governm ent 2

State Government 3

State

Government #


The system map indicates that despite the best intentions, the various stakeholders in the

system were unable to meet the objective of improving India’s Business Regulatory

Environment primarily because of lack of coordination among themselves.

There was no platform through which the “doers” could interact and share their

experiences or learn from each other; neither was there a platform through which

organisations that had knowledge of good practices could impart such knowledge to the

“doers”. The Central Government Agencies, such as the Planning Commission, were more

involved in allocation of funds rather than enabling states to learn from each other.

Even the industry associations, which represent the voice of industry, had a mutually

contentious relationship, despite having similar recommendations to offer to the

Government. This resulted in similar yet competing efforts on the part of these industry

bodies to access the Business Regulatory Environment in the country through various

surveys and recommendatory reports. In the absence of an institutional mechanism for

bringing the industry associations and Government agencies together, the actions of the

industry associations were often perceived as lobbying.

The International Development Agencies such as the World Bank have acquired a

knowledge bank of good practices in business regulation from around the world. The World

Bank’s role in inducing improvements in Business Regulation is mostly tied with its role as

a lender and therefore its motivations are sometimes suspected by a section of citizens and

elected representatives. Hence, its direct recommendations are often difficult for states to

implement for fear of political backlash. Therefore, a government sponsored platform that

gives states an opportunity to jointly evaluate such recommendations would make the

adoption of such recommendations less complicated.

Consulting firms have been hired by many Government agencies, industry associations and

state governments to evaluate the business regulatory environment and make suitable

recommendations. Most of these recommendations are based on good practices followed

by other states. Some of these recommendations were acted upon while other

recommendations gather dust. The primary reason is that state governments are wary of

acting solely on the basis of consultants’ recommendations because consultants are

limited by their lack of appreciation of the implementation challenges of policy action. In

the absence of a lateral platform for states, it is difficult for state governments to find out

from each other the merit of the recommendations and the implementation challenges.

ii. Stakeholder Consultations

While individual consultations were held by the IbIn team in the course of analyzing the

system, there was a need for more extensive consultations with various state governments

along with other key stakeholders to co-create the new institutional framework for

business regulation. The Planning Commission and IbIn undertook such consultations with

various key stakeholders. It was found that the stakeholders were highly aligned as far as

the objective of improving India’s Business Regulatory Environment goes. These

stakeholders were also highly motivated towards achieving this objective. However, this

individual energy was being lost in the system that did not have the ability to learn and

improve. Everyone knew “what” was to be done. However, only a few state governments

who had successfully implemented regulatory interventions had the answer to “how” to

implement these actions. Also, no single state had all the answers to “how”. There was


tremendous scope for the “doers” to learn from each other. Therefore, the idea of a lateral

platform where states could share and learn from each other was received positively.

iii. Co-creating the new framework

Taking into consideration the inputs received from stakeholders on the limitations of the

existing system and the expectations from any new framework, the IbIn team within the

Planning Commission proposed a new Business Regulatory Framework that was essentially

a platform that would enable participants to achieve continuous improvement in business

regulation by focusing more on “how?” while keeping in mind the “what?” of business

regulatory interventions.

State

Government 1

Citizens

Industry

Government of

India

Industry Associations CII FICCI ASSOCHAM others

Consultants KPMG

Deloitte BCG

McKinsey, etc.

State

Government 2

Sta te

Government 3

State

Government #


International

Development Agencies

World Bank Group

OECD

ADB, etc.

Others

Regulatory Action

Regulatory Action

Regulatory Action

Regulatory Action

Regulatory Action

A

T

F

O

R

M

P

L

Figure 3: The Platform

The platform would bring all the key stakeholders together to share experiences with

respect to implementation and therefore learn from each other. A key consideration behind

a lateral platform is that states find it easier to learn from each other rather than be told

by the Central Government or by some consulting firm on the correct course of action.

Another consideration is to channel the combined energies of all stakeholders rather than

dissipating such energies through uncoordinated action.

However, just creating a platform was not deemed enough. For India to enhance its

competitiveness and stay ahead, continuous improvement in business regulation would be

necessary; the key to continuous improvement is learning and innovation. A lateral

platform is only a part of a process that induces learning and innovation. The key is to

design the framework in the form of a “cycle of learning”.

Media


DIPP collates best practices

Learning cycle for Business Regulatory Environment reforms

Improving business

regulatory environment

Rating of States

(first one done by PC)

Collaboration & coordination

amongst stakeholders

STATES MAKE IMPROVEMENTS

MOTIVATE THE STATES

Guide to best

practices

MAKE BEST PRACTICES KNOWN TO STATES

Annual survey of states’ BRE

with assessment of

who makes fastest

improvement

1. Best techniques for collaboration & improvement of business regulatory environment– IFC, OECD, etc.

2. Platform for systematic management of the improvement process- Independent associations, State Govt., etc.

ASSESSMENT OF PACE OF IMPROVEMENT

DISTILLING BEST PRACTICES & TECHNIQUES

FOR MAKING CHANGE HAPPEN

Figure 4: Cycle of Learning

The “Cycle of Learning” explained

This design ensures that both the “how” and the “what” of Business Regulation reforms are

answered. As pointed out earlier in the note, more than 2/3rd of Business Regulation lies with

the state governments in India, and these regulations are the prime reason for India's low

ranking in global surveys. Therefore, the Central Government has to primarily play the role of

enabler in the process of improving India's Business Regulatory Environment.

In recent years, various Central Government agencies such as the Planning Commission,

Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), etc in collaboration with various

consulting firms have been conducting surveys to assess the state of Business Regulatory

Environment in Indian States. Such surveys and their results are useful in identifying better

performing states and also in motivating states to improve their performance to compete with

other states. The learning cycle incorporates this element of competition in states by

suggesting an annual survey of state business regulation on the lines of those conducted by the

Planning Commission in the year 2013-14. This will form the basis on which good practices

being followed in various states could be distilled.

Various central government agencies, such as the Department of Industrial Policy and

Promotion (DIPP) are already in the practice of collating best practices in Indian States. This

can form the source of the guide to best practices that could be shared by the centre with the

states.

On the basis of such guidance states would be expected to make improvements in Business

Regulation. The aforementioned collaborative platform will enable them to learn from each

other and implement the necessary improvements.


• Stimulating improvement and competition amongst states

• Creating a platform for learning amongst states

• Providing states with tools to tune up regulations

• Building institutional framework to support the process

• Forming a “flotilla” of organisations with complementary capabilities advancing towards

the national goal

Some key lessons from the project could be summarised as:

• Learning and innovation are becoming increasingly important for good governance. In the

modern global economy, a country that possesses the ability to learn and adapt to

constant changes in the business environment will have an edge over less responsive

countries.

• Policy prescriptions by themselves do not help unless there is a way to manage the process

of implementation of these prescriptions. Therefore, reform is more about the “process of

change” rather than going for the “big bang” approach.

• Uncoordinated action dissipates energy; therefore coordination among stakeholders is the

key to successful reform.

• Top down processes do not always work in a federal structure like India. The Central

Government has to engage laterally with state governments to encourage and motivate

them to implement reforms.

Progress to institutionalise the process

In response to the recommendations of IbIn regarding the process for the improvement of India's

Business Regulatory Environment, the Planning Commission had initiated a discussion among

states on the framework for Business Regulatory Impact Analysis (BRIA), a process of systematically

identifying and assessing the expected effects of regulatory proposals. BRIA has been globally

acknowledged as a promising tool to analyse the need and relevance of existing as well as new

regulations on the basis of set criteria, developed through a consultative process, and matching

with the context of the particular country.

The initiative has hit a roadblock after the scrapping of the Planning Commission by the new

government. However, this should not have a bearing on the process in the long term as other

institutions in the central government can take up the task of coordinating the improvements in

Business Regulatory Environment in the states. It is hoped that the new government will take this

initiative forward as it is in line with the decentralised and collaborative approach that the Prime

Minister stresses upon where the states are seen as partners in the growth of India.

Key Learnings

The subsequent annual survey will measure the improvements that each state has made and will

also reward the most improved states along with the usual best performers. The process of

improvement (the “how”), rather that the specific prescription (the “what”), is expected to be

the key learning that states would be able to share with each other.


Additional Reading for: A Coordinated Process for Improving the

Business Regulatory Environment in India

S. No Document

URL

1

2

“Survey on Business Regulatory Environment for Manufacturing – State Level Assessment” – Planning Commission of India – Deloitte

Presentation on Business Regulatory Framework – December, 2013 – IbIn

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Survey-on-BRE-for-Manufacturing-Vol-I.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Survey-on-BRE-for-Manufacturing-Vol-II.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Business-Regulatory-Environment-Arun-Maira.pdf

Section 5

Industrial Relations:

Building Trust and Cooperation

Industrial Relations: Building Trust and Cooperation

Genesis

It is imperative that over one hundred million additional jobs are created in the country in the next

decade to absorb the youth coming of employment age. The onus of creating these jobs lies on the

Manufacturing sector, especially the MSME sector. However, for these sectors to create jobs,

constraints on investments and growth must be removed.

When the Planning Commission prepared a plan for the growth of Industry, while putting together ththe country’s 12 Five Year Plan, it had engaged stakeholders widely, from industry, government

ministries, the states, and the unions too. The consultations brought together many perspectives

and illuminated the condition of the ‘system’ – what were the visible opportunities and what the

constraints to realizing these opportunities were.

Amongst the principal constraints, which included the dysfunctional business regulatory

environment, poor transportation and energy infrastructure, were human resources related issues.

These included the shortage of adequately skilled workers, the shortage of good manufacturing

managers (with the swing of engineers to IT jobs in the past 15 years), deteriorating industrial

relations (IR), and need to reform labor laws.

The labor law issues related to terms of employment (including Contract Labor (CL) and termination

issues), payment of wages (equity, amount and mode of payment), safety, social benefits

(especially to the unorganized sector), right to representation, and apprenticeship. It was observed

that there is contention amongst the stakeholders about how these subjects should be tackled

including the changes in relevant laws and regulations.

The need to reform labor laws was acknowledged by all stakeholders: the unions, industry, and

government. The laws, they say, were too many, antiquated, and badly administered in general.

Demands to reform labor laws have been made for 25 years by both industry and unions and several

attempts to reform them have been made by Government but there has been little progress so far.

The system was caught in “Einstein’s Conundrum: You cannot use the same process that has

contributed to the problem and expect a different outcome.”

The approach taken so far by the stakeholders to resolve IR issues can be characterized as legalist

and antagonistic. Both sides view each other as a problem. When they meet they talk ‘at’ each

other, whereas what is required is to talk ‘with’ each other.

The stuck record



To cite an example, in a meeting between leaders of both industry and trade unions, after both

sides had stated their positions (and accused the other of being the problem), the Member of the

Planning Commission, who was invited to hear their views and assist in some reconciliation, asked

the industry leaders how often they had said the same things to the unions in the past. The reply

was that they had been saying this for the past 15-20 years perhaps. When asked the same

question, the union leaders said they too had been repeating what they had said for a similar time

frame but the employers would not listen. Both sides have been repeating their views for a long

time; without the other side listening.

It became clear that the form of the discussion would have to change for the needle in the cracked

record to become unstuck. If the format of the discourse was not changed, to insist on more

listening to the other rather than repeating one’s own position again, to acknowledge some truth in

the others’ perspective and thus make space for one’s perspective to be acknowledged too, and

thereby begin to create more trust, solutions will not be found.

An ‘ideological’ contention became visible in the course of the development of the plan for

Industry. This was a contention within industry. For many, the difficulty of firing labor at will was a

big problem in improving productivity and a deterrent to growth of their industry. For some,

however, the problems they were focused on were how to develop more skills within their

enterprise, to improve the quality of relationships within them, and to retain talent that was

nurtured. One view was that workers are a problem and worker-related costs must be minimized at

all times. The other view was that workers (and human resources generally) are the real assets of

the enterprise, and the source of its ability to improve productivity and competitiveness.

The Planning Commission decided to test these two theories by comparing the top-line and profit

performances of companies with different approaches to their human resources. Bain and Company

undertook this study. It compared companies within the same industries, and often in the same

states in India. Thus these companies were subject to the same labor laws and regulations. The

study showed conclusively that those companies that considered their employees as their

‘appreciating assets’ out-performed those who took a more mechanical, legal, and predominantly

cost-driven approach to their employees. This report stirred a lot of reflection within industry.

An employers’ approach to employees, to invest in their skills, and desire to retain rather than

greater freedom to fire them, will determine the approach the employer has towards dialogue with

employees and their representatives, and towards what the focus of labor laws should be. Thus, the

quality of the dialogue between employers and unions regarding labor laws is affected by the

underlying ‘theory-in-use’ of the employer towards human assets. Hence, as preparation for a new

approach to resolving labor law matters (that the Einstein Conundrum suggested had become

necessary), it is imperative that the differences of perspectives within industry be resolved.

It is necessary to note here that there are fundamental differences of approach within unions too.

For a few, employers as a class are inherently untrustworthy, and improved dialogue with them will

not change reality. In many others’ minds though, cooperation can produce win-win outcomes and

they would like to try new formats for dialogues.

The evolution towards a new dialogue between industry and labor (employers and unions) began

with a movement within CII members led by Dr. Surinder Kapur, Chairman of the CII IR Council, to

The theory-in-use regarding ‘human assets’

Evolution


improve the IR climate in the country which had become vitiated by issues related to CL. At the same

time, some industrial leaders in Maharashtra voluntarily examined the conditions of CL in their

establishments and were determined to make improvements. Both these initiatives were spurred on

by the Bain Report mentioned before which presented the CL issue in a new light.

The CII IR Council took the assistance of GIZ to facilitate a series of meetings of CII members in

various parts of the country for reflection amongst industry members. These meetings surfaced the

differences in attitudes towards human assets and approaches to IR between the members. At the

same time they did encourage some leaders for change within industry.

Meanwhile the Employers Federation of India, then led by Mr. Rajeev Dubey, who was also a

prominent leader of the voluntary initiative taken up by industry leaders in Maharashtra, had been

organizing a series of seminars to evangelize a collaborative approach within enterprises to

improve IR.

At this stage, Dr. Kapur and Mr. Dubey reached out to Mr. Arun Maira, the founding mentor of IbIn,

and then a Member of the Planning Commission, to convene a meeting of some change leaders in

industry with change leaders on the unions’ side to begin a new dialogue amongst them.

Mr. Maira sounded out the International Labor Organisation (ILO) and others who had been working

with unions for some years on labor law and IR issues, to gauge which union leaders may be ready

for a new dialogue with industry.

Important decisions regarding the design of the dialogue process were taken at this stage. One

decision was to invite only some leaders of industry federations and some leaders from the

union side and to invite them to come in their personal capacity, albeit they were officially

designate leaders within their organizations. The leaders invited would be persons willing to

step out of the ‘stuck record’ of discourse so far, and willing to listen to opposing views because

they cared very much to produce better relationships between stakeholders rather than win the

argument for their side. The leaders would be persons who carried weight within their

organizations and with ‘their side’. But they would not be expected to automatically commit

their organizations to new ideas that emerged in the dialogue.

The intention of the dialogue would be to build new bridges across the divides between the

stakeholder groups even before all internal divides within the groups were resolved. The

emergence of new possibilities, created by leaders from both sides working together in a new

dialogue, would inspire ‘fence sitters’ within the stakeholder groups to come along, and thus a

movement of change would ‘snow ball’. It was accepted that there may be permanent nay-

sayers on both sides but they would matter less when the movement for change had become

stronger.

This approach is in contrast with the approach that was taken in another IbIn process, the

Affordable Medicines project. In that process there was an emphasis on getting alignment

within the stakeholder groups first—industry, civil society, and government, and then to

conduct ‘negotiations’ amongst them. However, the process stumbled because the differences

within a stakeholder group, viz industry could not be resolved and some industry members

chose to follow the usual adversarial, legalistic route with which they were familiar rather than

support the creation of new bridges and a new dialogue.

With the above backdrop, IbIn has brought representatives from national unions and employers’

associations together over the past one year into a new dialogue. The objective of this process is


to provide the stakeholders another platform, outside the formal systems of tripartite labor

conferences etc., in which they can listen to each other and together craft solutions that will ensure

that the rights of employees are respected while creating conditions that will allow employers to

improve the competitiveness of their enterprises and thus grow them faster (thereby creating more

employment too).

The dialogue between the stakeholders has expanded. It has been adopted by the stakeholders as a

new and valuable platform and a new process for deliberation amongst them in a more open-

minded manner and, importantly, a manner in which trust between them is increased.

In fact, they have deliberated on the ‘rules of the game’ for this process and adopted an informal

charter. They have thus taken ownership of the process, and it is not necessary for IbIn to drive it.

In fact, the stakeholders themselves are determining next steps for which they ask for IbIn support

where necessary.

This note presents progress of this initiative in phases and highlights many learnings that have

come from this process that could be applied to other situations too in which progress is stuck in

the ‘Einstein Conundrum’ by contentions amongst stakeholders.

I. Understanding the positions of key stakeholders

Fully aware that the two key stakeholders in this field, i.e. the Industry Federations and the

Trade Unions share a very contentious relationship, we decided to engage individually with

each party first. We began to speak with Industry representatives (mainly CII members) and

realized that the industry was far from unified on their stance on various issues viz. hire and

fire of labour, treatment of CL etc. The differences were starker across industries and

geographies (this exercise was carried out separately in the North, South, East and West of

India). Once this information from Industry was collated, we began to engage with the Trade

Unions. A collective meeting with the big central Trade Unions was convened and we realized

that the unions stood more unified in their opinions and demands. During these individual

consultations, we could also gauge that the stakeholders showed some amount of preparedness

to engage with each other bilaterally.

Progress towards an IbIn nodal platform

Learning Methods/ tools used

Very often our initial understanding of the problems

in the system would undergo change after

consultation with stakeholders. Therefore, it is very

important that there be a neutral facilitator when

dealing with a contentious issue such as this.

While proceeding to bring about change, a credible

study explaining the system can prove to be very

helpful.

An understanding of stakeholders in the system

helps

Mr. Arun Maira and GIZ have ensured neutral

facilitation

The Bain PC report proved helpful in showing that

organizations that treat its CL better, are at least as

competitive if not, generally, more so. The improved

competitiveness comes at a very low financial cost

to the company.

We used the map given below to understand the

nature and roles played by stakeholders in the

system


Documents: Planning Commission – Bain Report (Link provided at the end of the chapter in a table)

II. Creation of Shared Vision

The two stakeholder groups were then invited for a closed door dialogue with an

understanding that every participant has an equal voice. Care was taken to ensure that

there was adequate representation from each stakeholder group. The dialogue started with

every participant stating their expectations from the process. A few points emerged:

- There was largely an understanding within each stakeholder group that it was in the

interest of both groups to work together

- For any discussions to continue, the participants needed to trust each other

Realization of the above points helped the group create a shared vision for itself: Better Industrial

Relations in India. The participants also prepared a charter detailing the purpose, underlying

principles, etc. to be followed by the group in their journey towards this vision.

Figure 1: Stakeholder Map


Importance of a shared vision

Creation of a shared vision helps to align

shareholders better; it acts as a glue to bind them

together.

Creation of a vision was a group exercise. All

participants sat together and visualized the change

they want to work towards bringing about. It was

important that this vision be representative of the

interests of all stakeholder groups for it to be

effective. This vision was further revisited at regular

intervals.

Supporters

Enablers

Doers

Direct Beneficiaries

ILO, GIZ etc.

State and Centre Governments, knowledge

institutions etc.

Industr y associations, trade unions,

individual firms etc.

People/ society at large, Employers and

employees

Direct Beneficiaries: Actors who will be directly impacted by change

Doer: Actor who will carry out necessary actions to bring change

Enabler: Actors who will facilitate and support the doers

Supporter: Actors who will support the overall process by providing resources like knowledge,

technology, expertise etc.


Documents: Charter of the group (Link provided at the end of the chapter in a table)

III. Identifying issues

Once a shared vision was created, the group decided to focus attention on issues that

required a consensus from both parties. These issues were selected after discussions within

the group. The group selected issues like CL, Social Security of MSME concerns, Recognition

of Trade Unions etc. The participants have since been meeting at almost monthly intervals

and have made progress on some of the aforementioned issues.


Approach adopted

During the first few meetings, it

became evidently clear that for

the group to reach consensus on

any issue, a process has to be

followed. This process, which

derives its strength from the trust

among members, acts as a strong

foundation for meaningful change

to come about. We believe the

absence of such a foundation to

be the reason for ineffectiveness

of several bi-partite/tri-partite

processes that have been initiated

in the past.

Importance of Ownership

The participants from very early

on owned the process and called

the shots. The process started

when Mr. Arun Maira was a

member in the Planning

Commission and even when his

tenor came to an end; the

participants wanted to continue

the process and requested him to

continue to be the facilitator for

the group. Therefore this

initiative is not an IbIn/ Planning

Commission/ Mr. Arun Maira

owned, it has always been owned

by the stakeholders.

Growing the snowball

Though it is important to have a

representative group but

complete naysayers of the process

should be kept on the fence at the

beginning. It is only with time

that some people see the merit in

the process and come onboard.

The group has adopted a two pronged approach, to work on issues

that emerge from the group and to simultaneously strengthen this

process. Both the approaches have been explained below:

The participants were informed at the start of the process that IbIn

is only working in the capacity of a facilitator and would provide the

group with whatever they require. However, the onus to drive the

process lay with the stakeholders. This has been followed

throughout the process. For example: After 2-3 meetings,

participants felt the need to involve the Government as an employer

in the process and BHEL was then invited. Similarly, when discussing

the problem of CL, it was decided that an important player in this

field is Contractors/Contracting bodies; therefore representatives

from this group were invited. In addition, the dialogue was closed

door to begin with, it was only after about 6-7 months into this

process that the participants wanted to speak openly about the

process, which was complied with.

All of the above instances helped build an element of ownership

among participants. Therefore, they have begun to view this as their

initiative and take steps accordingly.

IbIn ensured that there was critical mass to start the process and

then we let the process decide who comes onboard.

Process : Platform and process that will build trust and enable solutions

Content issue2: Social security for employees for MSMEs

Content issue 3: ……

Content issue 4: ……

Constructive feedback improves the process

Strong foundation that leads to better resolution

Content issue 1: Contract labour related issues for large firms

Figure 1:


In addition to the above, a learning we have, especially in case of a contentious area like IR, is that

in order reach the common vision, one must balance the process on a tripod of the following:

1. Trust

2. Ownership

3. Systematic Approach


Need for safer places to dialogue

It was felt that since IR is such a

contentious and sensitive issue,

the participants feel the need to

speak from positions at current

forums that take place for

improving IR in the country. There

is a need for safer spaces to

engage with participants where

they can talk openly.

Benefit of Quick results

Though everybody realized that IR

within the country will not

improve overnight and will

require time but some quick

results help motivate participants

and strengthen the process.

Role of a facilitator

The facilitator apart from playing

the role of neutral conductor of

events is expected to perform

other following functions:

• Knowledge Repository

• Synthesis of knowledge

• Preparation of minutes

Connect different participant

effectively

We created a set up that was completely anti- hierarchical.

Everybody was an equal with no preferences. Mr. Maira who at the

start of the process was Member, Planning Commission, acted like a

neutral facilitator, occupying no special status within the process or

the room of the meeting. The participants were given the

confidence of speaking freely. This has helped in a better

understanding of the problem, clearing any misunderstanding the

participants were holding against each other and enabled the group

to come up with effective solutions. For example: The group has

realized that different sectors have different problems (social

security is bigger concern for MSME), both stakeholders groups

agree to certain issues (online payment of wages) etc.

We realized the benefits of quick results from the following

initiatives that have come about within the platform, viz.,:

• CII western region initiative for better treatment of CL

• CII northern region initiative for better treatment of CL

• Self-Evaluation questionnaire: IbIn with help from Bain

consulting has developed a self-evaluation tool which will

help employers gauge their labour practices. The same will

be shortly circulated amongst the membership of Industry

Associations like CII, FICCI, etc.

Trust

Common

VisionSystematic

ApproachOwnership


The partners in the dialogue for solutions have stated that Trust is a fundamental requirement

for discovering solutions to systemic problems that are elusive when there is little trust

amongst the principal stakeholders. Therefore progress in building more trust must be an

important measure, even an essential measure, of the success of the process. Good solutions

that can be implemented will emerge only when there is more trust.

The partners have recognized that a Systematic Approach is necessary to lift the discourse out

of the ‘stuck record’, and to move the participants out of pathological distrust towards more

trust of each other. Merely wishing for more trust will not create more trust.

Thirdly, the proof of trust and the appreciation of the value of the process is affirmed by

Ownership of the process, when it is no more an invitation by a third party, but a choice made

by the participants to use the process to produce the results they hope to produce together.

All three legs of the tripod are visibly rising in the IR dialogue process facilitated by IbIn. They

are able to support a stronger platform now for debating and resolving the contentious issues

related to human resources which must be resolved expeditiously for the country to achieve its

objectives for more employment for its youth.

Documents (Links provided at the end of the chapter in a table):

I. Minutes of Meetings

II. Self-Evaluation tool (Questionnaire and answer key)

III. IHD report on good practices

IV. CII western and northern geography initiatives

V. Notes from Gautam Mody and Anil Bhardwaj

B. Timelines

Date Intervention

March 2013

July to November 2013

29/11/2013

10/01/2014

22/02/2014

07/03/2014

Bain Consulting, which was commissioned by The Planning Commission of India

to study the relation between competitiveness and healthy labour eco-system,

releases its report. The study reveals that good labour eco-system helps the

companies to remain competitive.

Individual consultation with industry and Trade Unions to understand their

positions

First joint meeting between Trade Unions and Industry Association to discuss

the differences and concrete issues

Second joint meeting to list down issues related to CL and work done by

participants

Third joint meeting with inclusion of public sector enterprise to discuss issues

of payment of wages and hygiene factors for CL

Fourth joint meeting to discuss the future of the platform with respect to

change in government and recognize the different challenges faced by MSMEs


Date Intervention

17/04/2014

30/04/2014

17/06/2014

26/07/2014

08/08/2014

11/09/2014

04/11/2014

Fifth joint meeting for agreement on continuation of process and setting up a

charter for the platform

Sixth joint meeting for agreement on the two parallel approach 1) to build the

platform 2) to set clear milestones to resolve concrete issues

Seventh joint meeting to decide the way forward after new govt. and ways to

enlarge the platform by setting up a steering group

A small steering group met to discuss the ways to enlarge the platform and

agreed to hold an national event in Sept.

Eighth joint meeting which finalizes the date and agenda for the national

event

First national conclave of 40 leaders to improve the eco-system and how this

alternative approach is the only way forward

Ninth joint Meeting of representatives to review the 2nd labour commission

recommendation

Additional Reading for: Industrial Relations:

Building Trust and Cooperation

S. No Document

URL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Planning Commission – Bain report

Charter Adopted by the group

Minutes of Meetings

Self-Evaluation tool (Questionnaire and answer key)

IHD report on good practices

CII western and northern geography initiatives

Notes from Gautam Mody and Anil Bhardwaj

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/PC-Bain-report-_6-Human-Resources-Development-Challenges.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/IR-Platform-Charter.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Minutes-of-Meeting_IR-dialogue.pdf

To be added

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/IHD_Good-Practices-Report.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/CII-Western-Region-initiative.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/CII-Northen-Region-initiative.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Payment-through-banks-for-contract-workers_Proposal-by-NTUI.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Alternative-Social-Security-Mechanism-for-Labour_FISME.pdf

Section 6

Accelerated Cluster Growth

and Partnership Initiative

The purpose of the ‘Accelerated Cluster Growth and Partnership Initiative’ is to facilitate

coordination and collaboration amongst various agencies with stakes in cluster development. The

initiative seeks to connect various existing programs and catalyse their implementation to drive

growth of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs).

IbIn facilitated a process amongst key stakeholders, i.e., Ministry of MSME, Department of

Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Ministry of Textiles, Federation of Indian Micro, small and

Medium Entreprises (FISME), National Innovation Council (NInC), Foundation for MSME clusters

(FMC), Indian Institute for Corporate Affairs, GIZ, and others to develop a strategic road-map for

estabilishing a Cluster Stimulation Cell (CSC), which the Ministry of MSME will anchor.

Over the past two decades, driven by economic reforms, the Indian economy has taken strides to be

counted among the major global economies. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of India has grown

substantially during this period. The concern is that the pattern of economic growth is not

generating sufficient numbers of good quality jobs. Whereas job creation has to be an imperative

for the Indian economy to provide sufficient employment opportunities for the huge number of

young people in India to obtain the country’s potential ‘demographic dividend’.

It is widely accepted that India has to create jobs in manufacturing. Within the manufacturing

sector, the MSME segment is a primary source of employment generation. Therefore policy-makers

have to find effective ways to stimulate the formation and growth of MSMEs in the manufacturing

sector.

Many surveys have been made of the problems faced by Indian MSMEs. Their principal challenges

are:

i. High cost of credit: Access to adequate and timely credit at a reasonable cost is the most

critical problem faced by this sector. The major reason for this has been the high risk

perception among the banks about this sector and the high transaction costs for loan

appraisal. Further MSMEs are not in a position to provide collateral to avail loans from

banks and hence are often denied credit faciltities.

ii. Forms and Inspectors Raj: MSMEs face the brunt of FIRs (Forms and Inspector Raj). India

is a notoriously difficult place to do business for all enterprises, large as well as small.

Genesis

Problems faced by Indian MSMEs


Accelerated Cluster Growth and Partnership InitiativeImproving the productivity & competitiveness of industrial clusters: A holistic strategy for India


MSMEs do not have sufficient organizational resources to manage FIRs. Therefore owner-

managers of enterprises must divert considerable time and energy to this, distracting them

from attending to the management of the production and business activities of their

enterprises. Thus, Indian MSME entrepreneurs are handicapped compared with

entrepreneurs in other countries.

iii. Inadequate infrastructure facilities, including power, water, roads, etc.: MSMEs are

often located in industrial estates, set up many decades ago, which are decaying, or are

functioning within urban areas close to their limited markets where they have problems in

obtaining space for industrial purposes, or have come up in an unorganized manner in

rural areas. The state of infrastructure, including power, water, roads, etc. in such areas is

poor and unreliable. Poor infrastructure adds considerably to the costs of operations of

Indian MSMEs and reduces their competitiveness compared to enterprises in other

countries that have better infrastructure.

iv. Lack of skilled manpower for manufacturing, services, marketing, etc.: Although India

has the advantage of a large pool of human resources, systems for developing skills are

under-developed, and MSME units suffer from poor quality of human resources for their

operations.

v. Low technology levels and lack of access to modern technology: Linked with the low level

of skilled human resources, especially supervisory and managerial resources, is the poor

technology absorption capability of Indian MSME enterprises. The MSME sector in India,

with some exceptions, is characterized by low technology levels, which acts as a handicap

in the emerging global market. As a result, the sustainability of a large number of MSMEs

will be in jeopardy in the face of competition from imports.

vi. Innovation, restructuring of operations, sharing of knowledge and best practices: With

increased competition, including more competition from other countries, MSMEs in India

will be under more pressure to innovate, improve efficiencies, and restructure their

operations. Therefore the capability of owners/managers of Indian MSMEs has to be

enhanced and they should be able to obtain advisory/mentoring assistance for this.

vii. Procurement of raw materials at a competitive cost: Since MSMEs are small, they do not

have enough leverage to obtain raw materials at competitive prices as larger units have.

Often, they are not aware of better sources for their raw materials.

viii. Poor social security measures for MSME employees: The major problem MSMEs have with

regard to labour laws and social security measures, according to Indian MSMEs is the poor

design and implementation of Government social security schemes. MSMEs say they want

to provide social security in some form to their employees. However, the schemes they are

compulsorily required to subscribe to are not appreciated by their employees and this

results in unhappiness within their enterprises and adds to their costs when they have to

make up for the deficiencies of the official schemes.

ix. Exit/bankruptcy policies: Indian bankruptcy laws are antiquated and need reform. Small

enterprises that fail due to changes in the market or internal management mistakes cannot

exit easily, as firms can in many other countries with more practical regimes, for asset

reconstruction/management of bankruptcy. Therefore Indian MSME assets and energies

can remain stuck in non-productive ventures.

x. Insufficient access to global markets: With the liberalization and globalization of the

Indian economy, the small enterprises in India should have more opportunities to expand

their markets. However Indian MSMEs have limitations in seizing these opportunities. On


one hand, their competitive ability is limited by the many constraints they have which have

been mentioned above. On the other hand though, they are not well informed of the new

market opportunities they have. Here too, their small size and limited resources are a

constraint on their ability to find and engage with new buyers, especially international

buyers.

Almost all the disadvantages MSMEs have in obtaining the resources they need to be competitive

are compounded by their small size. Banks find it costly to deal with small accounts. Similarly

buyers’ transaction costs are higher. MSMEs cannot afford in-house training facilities. They cannot

overcome infrastructure deficiencies, e.g. for power, by building their own infrastructure as large

companies can. They do not have as much clout in dealing with Government functionaries as large

companies have, and so they suffer from FIR much more. Moreover, they are unable to have the

same access to policy-makers that big companies have and so their policy requirements often are

badly represented.

The only way that MSMEs can overcome these difficulties on account of their small size is to form

larger aggregations that meet the needs of the members. These aggregations may take the forms of

clusters (of co-located companies or virtual clusters) or business associations of MSMEs.

The benefits to MSMEs of participating in well-managed clusters has been demonstrated in many

countries, such as Germany, Taiwan, and Italy. Clusters of small units in the same industrial

segment, generally co-located, but not always, can provide each other complementary capabilities.

They can also have a larger clout with external agencies—credit providers, material suppliers,

buyers, and government agencies too—if they organize themselves into an effective cluster or

association.

The Government of India has been acutely aware of the need to improve the quality of clusters and

has developed several schemes to assist clusters. Most of these schemes are being anchored with

the Ministry of MSME and the DIPP besides several line ministries that are responsible for various

industrial sectors. However, these schemes have delivered limited results largely due to the lack of

coordination among the ministries involved and even amongst sections within the same ministry.

thThe Mid-term Appraisal of progress of the 11 Five Year Plan was done with the back-drop of

insufficient growth of the manufacturing sector. Considering the critical importance of the MSME

sector for the manufacturing sector, and especially the growth of jobs; and also noting the critical

role that clusters play in stimulating growth of MSMEs; the review of the progress of the many

ministries that have MSMEs in their sectors was done through the lens of their work on clusters.

The review revealed the absence of an effective mechanism for coordination amongst ministries, for

sharing best practices, and for combining their schemes for the benefit of MSMEs in their industrial

clusters. The need was felt for an institutional arrangement to stimulate better coordination and

faster learning within Government, the beneficiaries of which will be Indian MSMEs. There were two

options for this insitutional arrangement for coordination. One was to centralise all schemes

connected with MSME clusters in one ministry. The weakness of this approach is that it would

disempower other ministries who have responsibilities for manufacturing sectors and must use the

cluster strategy to help units in their sectors. The other option is to create a ‘lateral linking’

The strategic advantage of good clusters and MSME associations


institution for coordination of work and learning amongst ministries. The latter option can add

more power to the responsible ministries rather than disempowering many of them.

The preferred option of better lateral linking and more effective cooperation requires principles of

‘cooperation systems’ to be applied and the design of a networked structure rather than a vertical

hierarchy. For this, ‘IbIn’ methods were required and the IbIn cell in the Planning Commission set

about designing the solution. Several other organizations were engaged with issues related to the

quality of MSME clusters in India. These included the National Innovation Council, GIZ, ILFS and

FMC. IbIn connected with them to shape a good solution for the Indian context.

Since the Ministry of MSME is the arm of the government that is primarily tasked with the

administration of most MSME related schemes, the IbIn team worked closely with the officials from

the MSME ministry and submitted to it the framework for the “Cluster Stimulation Cell” to

coordinate all cluster development schemes of the Government of India.

Many government agencies in India as well as Non-Government bodies are promoting policies based

on clusters as mentioned before. Some of these are:

• Government Bodies: Planning Commission, MSME, DIPP, Respective state governments

• Public Sector Undertakings: STC, ECCCIL, ITPO and others

• Industry specific Bodies: Under respective ministries (Textiles, Leather, Sugar etc.)

Evolution

Figure 1: Bodies associated with cluster development initiatives in India

In addition to these, other institutions are also involved in cluster initiatives:

• Universities

• Government run Research Institutes

• Private Research Institutes

• Government Financial Institutes

• Export Councils

• Industry Cluster Associations or Special Purpose Vehicles

• International agencies like UNIDO, GIZ

Universities

Government RunResearch InstituteIIFT, IIP, IDI,FDDI

CMTI etc.

Private Research

Institute

Government FIs

REC, PFC, SIDBI,

NABARD

Export Councils

EIC, EPC,

APFPEDA, ECGCIL

Industry Cluster

Associations

ACMAI, IMTMA

IndustrialCluster

SupportEcosystem

(India)Public SectorUndertakings

STC, ECCCIL,ITPO etc.

Industry specificbodies

Ministries (Textile, Leather, Sugar

etc.)

Government BodiesPC, MSME, DIPP,MoCI, DST, SIDO,State Govt. etc.


Other state-level and even local-level bodies are also engaged with facilitation of clusters.

In such a situation, with multiple agencies involved, it is impossible to make a complete map of all

stakeholders and agencies before designing the network. Instead one must create a node to which

the stakeholders will be attracted and through which they can connect with others. This node must

provide them some service that they find valuable so that they are attracted to connect with it.

The task for the IbIn team was to determine what would be the role this node will play and what

services will it provide. Conversations with many agencies that are working with clusters revealed

that there is no strong platform on which they can connect with each other, to learn from each

other, and to make connections which can lead to collaborations. Therefore there would be great

value, they suggested, in the creation of some nodal point that would enable them to connect,

learn, and collaborate.

It was generally agreed that this nodal point should be with the MSME Ministry which is officially

responsible for the growth of the MSME sector. The Ministry accepted this. It requested the IbIn cell

to design the nodal cell: what would be its functions, and what resources will it need to perfom

them?

Insights from international experience

Insights from international experience point to several challenges that must be addressed to grow a

healthy eco-system for clusters in India.

Participation of

academic

institutions

Maturity of cluster

management

associations

Penetration of ICT

Multiplicity of

agencies/

institutions

• Limited underpinning to cluster interventions in India unlike support provided by Harvard University, European Cluster Observatory, Stockholm School of Economics

• Need to take up theoretical r e s e a r c h f o r f o r m u l a t i n g principles specific to India

• Stronger cluster management associations/ cluster managers in developed countr ies-hence easier to network and collaborate

• This is the key leverage point for s t re n g t h e n i n g t h e c l u s t e r ecosystem in India

• Easier to bui ld web-based collaborative platforms and knowledge sharing activities as compared to India

• Vast scale and number of clusters

• Multiple agencies including state, central, private, public and N G O s i n v o l v e d i n c l u s t e r development initiatives present a reach and penetration challanges in Inida

• Need to build offline alternatives ( e . g . m e e t i n g s , e v e n t s , publications etc.)

• Need to develop and promote use of online platform for wider reach and efficiency

• Underscore the importance for creating collaborative platforms for these agencies to achieve other objectives

Key Challenges Implication for CSC objectives

design


Design of the Coordination Process and the Cluster Stimulation Cell

Coordination of many independent agencies requires some place where they come together, and

some moments when they are together and connected. They must have some place/time at which

they 'convene'. Therefore they must have a convening power to bring them together for these

occasions. When all are under one authority immediately above them, that authority has the

requisite convening power. But if they have to be convened without burdening their ultimate

common 'boss', (which, in the case of ministries in the Parliamentary system is the Prime Minister),

they have to establish another institutional way to convene themselves.

This became important while designing the process of coordination of all ministries engaged in

some way with MSMEs and clusters, of which there are many as mentioned before. Whereas the

MSME Ministry is dedicated to MSMEs and therefore should be the logical coordination point for all

MSME-related work, whenever it is required, in practice this is not easy. Because functionaries in

other ministries are of equal rank they will not come when asked by their counter-part in the MSME

ministry. They may depute junior officers who will not be in a position to make commitments on

behalf of their ministry without checking back with their bosses. This reduces the effectiveness of

coordination meetings. Which makes them even less attractive for people to participate in, reducing

them to formal rituals that cannot produce results.

The Secretary MSME proposed a solution: the Member responsible for Industry in the Planning

Commission, who has a higher rank than all secretaries, and is also supposed to be responsible for

the entire canvas of industry, should be the chairperson of a coordinating committee consisting of

all relevant ministries. The Secretary MSME would be the Member Secretary of this committee. (It

may be noted that with the abolition of the Planning Commission, another solution will have to be

found for this requirement now.)

Another important issue was to define the role of this committee, which would be to enable

coordination amongst ministries about matters relating to MSME clusters in particular. The

ministries should find value to themselves in participating in this coordination process, which

should enable them to improve their own performance too.

An examination of the experiences of many such coordinating committees in government, of which

there are very many, at all levels, is that the quality of work done by these committees is determined

by the quality of their 'secretariats'. Good secretariats are those who are dedicated to steering the

work of the committees. They are staffed with people who have the skills to facilitate the meetings:

their agendas, their conduct, and the follow-up. They ensure that the committee fulfils the purpose

for which it is established. The secretariat resources perform their roles with a sense of mission,

rather than another bureaucratic duty.

The IbIn team designed the small secretarial unit that would be required to make the committee

and the coordination process for MSMEs beneficial to all the stakeholders. It defined the functions

of this unit, the profiles/skills of its members, and the measures of its performance. It also

estimated the cost of running this unit. Thus the complete design of the unit was provided to the

Secretary MSME and Development Commissioner MSME. This unit was described as the 'CSC' to make

its ultimate purpose clear.

The CSC will not be merely an adminstrative secretariat to the committee. It must undertake several

activities for stimulating coordination and learning in the ecosystem of institutions that support

clusters. Its work on these activities will enable it to add value in its secretarial role to the

committee. The CSC would facilitate the following outcomes:


• Develop framework for cluster performance mapping

• Collaborative R&D platforms to codify existing research and creation of frameworks and

toolkits

• Creation of Macro and Micro platforms for better stakeholder alignment and exchanging

best practices

• Conducting various activities to build capacity within the system

• Create/support an online cluster portal for wider dissemination of knowledge

Current status and way forward

To summarise: the nodal structure for stimulating the ecosystem to support the development of

more effective clusters would have two, integrally connected components: the steering committee,

and its supporting unit. One without the other would be insufficient. This composite solution was

taken aboard by the Secretary MSME for execution.

However, the Development Commissioner MSME and Secretary MSME expressed a difficulty in

staffing the supporting unit with appropriate personnel from within government. Therefore they

were asked to consider 'out-sourcing' the creation of this unit to an appropriately equipped

organization. It was pointed out to them that other government departments have made similar

arrangements when confronted with a similar problem. Secretary MSME agreed to pursue this

solution.

There may be several candidate organizations to provide the 'outsourced' service to set up and run

the CSC for the MSME Ministry. To begin with, the Ministry wishes to explore whether the National

Institute for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development (NIESBUD), which is affiliated with

the Ministry, and which is supporting the Ministry's 'Virtual Cluster Initiative' would have the

band-width to set up the CSC also. If not, the Ministry will consider other host organizations.

The present position of this initiative with the Ministry MSME is not known as of end December

2014.

Additional Reading for: Accelerated Cluster Growth and Partnership Initiative

S. No Document

URL

1

2

3

4

A report by Planning Commission on 'improving the productivity and competitiveness of industrial clusters by adopting cluster strategy'

A report by Planning Commission on 'Cluster Stimulation cell (CSC): Design principles, objectives and roadmap'

FACTS framework

A report by IbIn on the design and outcome of cluster stimulation cell

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Cluster-Strategy-Document.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/CSC_Design-principles-objectives-and-roadmap.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/FACTS-framework.xlsx

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Accelerated-Cluster-Growth-and-partnership-initiative.pdf

Section 7

Scenarios - Enterprise Structures

and the Future of Jobs

Scenarios - Enterprise Structures and the Future of Jobs

With the largest population of young people ready to enter the workforce, India has a unique

challenge among developing nations to ensure that its young population is gainfully employed.

Unlike the history of other large economies, India seems to be moving from being a large agrarian

economy to becoming a large services economy, skipping the intermediate stage of developing a

large manufacturing sector. Many believe that the last decade of “jobless growth” that India has

witnessed is largely due to this neglect of the manufacturing sector, with the services sector unable

to provide the “farms to shop floor” transition for low-productivity farm jobs.

The new Indian government has taken up this challenge of developing India's manufacturing sector

very seriously, launching the “Make in India” initiative to promote the growth of the manufacturing

sector in the country. The government believes that a thriving manufacturing sector will provide

many, if not most of the jobs that will provide for a balanced and sustainable growth of the

country's economy.

The manufacturing sector doubtlessly is an important pillar of a modern economy; however, the

increasing role of technology and automation in manufacturing means that the sector is becoming

increasingly capital intensive and consequently less labour intensive. The emergence of new

manufacturing technologies, such as 3-dimensional printing (3D printing), is likely to change the

shape of manufacturing in the future.

This gives rise to several questions that need to be considered by policymakers who are looking to

enable creation of jobs in the future. Some of these questions are:

• How will technology impact the way businesses are organised?

• Will improvements in automation technology render human jobs redundant?

• Where and how will the abilities of human beings be utilized in the economy?

• What abilities will human beings require to succeed in the world of the future?

• How will developments of technology and new business models impact societal and

political dynamics?

To answer all these questions, the IbIn team undertook an exercise to develop a framework to

enable policymakers and business leaders to visualise the world of the future and consequently take

decisions that enable society and businesses to adapt to the changing world and thrive in it.

The methodology adopted is 'systems thinking and scenario planning'. Prevalent modes of

examination of complex socio-economic-technological systems are trapped within a



'specialization-cum-expert' syndrome. Whereas, whenever many forces are at play in a complex

system, as societies, economies, and nations are, it becomes more essential to understand the

interactions amongst these forces, and not merely study each of them and the effects each

individually can have on the whole.

Systems thinking and scenario planning methods were used by the Planning Commission in 2011-12

to understand the forces from within and outside that are shaping India's development. They

revealed that the direction of India's progress has become dependent in a fundamental way on the

architecture of institutions, of governance, government, and business. The total factor productivity

of the economy, as well as its inclusiveness in terms of sustainable opportunities for employment,

and also the sustainability in use of natural resources for growth, will depend on (1) whether or not

more devolved, local, and entrepreneurial institutions (in governance and business) are developed,

and (2) whether or not these will form into effective collaborative networks. These two,

complementary features of the institutional architecture are captured in the images of Fireflies 5Arising and A Flotilla Forming and Advancing that visualise the essences of the scenarios .

Figure 1: Scenarios for India

The Planning Commission's exercise using systems thinking and scenarios began with the question:

“Where are the leverage points within the Indian socio-economic-political 'system' to induce faster

progress of the system?” The question was a very broad one. Therefore the search for the answer

began with a stethoscopic 'listening into' the many parts of the system (which is described in the

document referred before). The present exercise on the effects that technological development will

have on job creation was narrower and was focused on the interplay between technology and human

activity. Its insights so far appear similar to those of the broader India exercise, in that the critical

variable to resolve the dilemma of inclusive development, in the face of global economic,

environmental, and technological forces, may be the shape of enterprises and institutions.

5 For more information about these scenarios, please see the Planning Commission Report on Scenarios for India

FIREFLIES ARISING

FLOTILLA ADVANCES

FALLING APART

BUFFALOESWALLOWING

WOLVES PROWLING

PEACOCKS STRUTTING

MUDDLING ALONG


This is an insight that gives hope. Because forms of institutions and enterprises are human

inventions we can invent (or, to use the current jargon—innovate) our way to an inclusive and

sustainable future. For this, innovations in technologies must be combined with innovations in

enterprise forms to produce desired outcomes.

The purpose of the present exercise is to test, validate, and sharpen emerging insights. And to

then present them in a compelling fashion to induce aligned actions by policy makers and

entrepreneurs.

Drivers of change

As an initial exercise in developing the framework, the nucleus IbIn team identified the primary

drivers that would shape the future from the perspective of how business interacts with human

society. Some of the forces identified were:

i. Technological change

ii. Need for people to have jobs

iii. The manner in which business view human beings (as assets or as problems)

iv. The forms of organisations (monoliths or networked enterprises)

v. Processes of accumulation and deployment of financial capital

vi. Natural Resource constraints

Out of these forces, forces (i), (ii) and (vi) could be considered as more certain. Technology will

keep evolving. People need to have jobs in order to make a living. And natural resources are scarce.

However the directions of the other three forces are not certain. These three could be the axes, or

pivots, for imagining what the different scenarios can be depending on the directions they will

take. To begin with, forces (iii) and (iv) were chosen as the primary axes around which the scenarios

could be developed. The processes for accumulation and deployment of capital were considered as a

feature of organizational architecture and organizational governance and therefore treated as a

dependent variable initially.

Moreover, the third force, the consideration of human beings as primary assets of an enterprise,

rather than as a mere resources and costs, strikes at the same question of the weight given to

considerations of financial capital vis-à-vis human capital. Therefore forces (iii) and (iv) can be

used, initially at least, as fundamental drivers of change.

Scenarios provide lenses through which a complex reality can be seen more clearly. The process of

developing useful scenarios is like the iterative process of testing eyes to prescribe the best lenses

to improve vision. The optician tries various lenses and asks, did you see more clearly through this

one or that one? The purpose of wearing better glasses is to improve clarity of vision, reduce risks,

and enable actions that will produce desired outcomes. Thus it is with scenarios too. They can

provide sharper lenses for policy actions.

The IbIn team has produced a starter lens: a framework through which to see the shapes of the

world that can be formed by the various combinations of forms of organizations and attitudes

towards human beings as assets (vis-à-vis capital and other resources).


The diagrammatic representation of the framework is as follows:

Networked

Enterprises

(Scale through

connections of

many small

enterprises)

Humans are problems

Monolith

Enterprises

(Scale

through

consolidation

/ownership of

assets)

Humans are appreciating assets

Using money to increase social capital

Using people to increase

financial capital

Scenario 1:

Dense clouds of fireflies arising

Scenario 2:

Enterprises oriented to

sustainability and trusteeship

Scenario 4:

Machines Connect and Run

the World

Scenario 3:

Socially detached capitalists

Innovation primarily seen as “Product & Technology

Innovation”

Innovation in Enterprise Models along with Product & Technology Innovation

Figure 2: Scenarios Framework

The two axes along which the scenarios (of the condition of the world) will differ, as mentioned

before, are the shape of enterprises, and the orientation towards the role of human beings in

enterprises. What we then try and envisage is what will be the state of society, the shape of politics,

and the pattern of business and the economy within each scenario. As explained earlier, the system

must be envisaged in its complete reality and therefore, to ensure that the scenarios are

comprehensive, society, the polity, and the economy must all be envisaged. There will be other

facets of reality that should be considered too. Beginning with society, polity, and the economy

opens up the picture. Other facets can then be added in.

What we have, at this stage, are rough descriptions of four scenarios. What we must now consider is

what must be added into each of them to make their descriptions more complete. As we do this, we

may also come to a conclusion that one or two of them may be implausible because there are

internal contradictions which cannot happen in practice. This will leave us with two, three, or four

alternative, plausible scenarios of the future may be when the underlying conditions accord with

the differentiating axes.

These scenarios then serve several strategic purposes. One is to point to early indicators of which

way the world is trending by the appearance of developments that conform with the description of

one of the scenarios, rather than others. Another useful function of the scenarios is to suggest

what type of innovations and policy actions can help to bring about that scenario. Thus

developments can be steered towards a more desirable scenario than others.

Scenario 1: Dense clouds of fireflies arising

• Boom in entrepreneurship and innovation


•

• Ability of entrepreneurs and workforce to keep up with technological changes will be

critical to individual and enterprise success

• State of technology (3D printing/additive manufacturing) will enable smaller

entrepreneurs to start manufacturing units

• Need for nimbleness and flexibility will give rise to more malleable and possibly smaller

enterprises

• Size will no longer be a barrier for raising capital. Smaller enterprises will have access to

risk capital from investors looking for the next big idea.

• People will be highly paid but will be in and out of jobs more often

• Banking and finance jobs will increase as investments in business will be of smaller ticket

sizes, requiring greater human administration

• Resource scarcity will bring greater efficiency in material use; assets that can be shared

between people and enterprises will be shared (cars, manufacturing facilities, etc)

• Material transformation through physical processes will increasingly be a smaller part of

products’ value chains. Other aspects, such as design, marketing, distribution, etc. will

demand more human inputs

• Distinction between manufacturing and services jobs will be blurred

• Information symmetry will empower people, provide economic freedom to the masses

• A large middle class will demand more services such as entertainment, sports, travel,

leisure, etc. More jobs will be created in these sectors

• Due to higher disposable incomes, there will be a demand for more differentiated products

as opposed to standardised products

• Manufacturing will be more distributed with large number of smaller enterprises

manufacturing different variations of a product

• Bigger enterprises will increasingly become aggregators

• Greater social and economic mobility (upwards and downwards) due to constant change

• There will be no permanent winners and losers, hence there will be less disparity in wealth

(a flatter pyramid)

• Due to breakdown in class barriers and domination of a few, a more cooperative form of

democracy will take shape

• Policy will be driven by shared aspirations rather than compromise of opposing interests.

Decision-making will become more consultative

• The role of the government would rather be that of an enabler and regulator of economic

activity than an active participant

• More networked enterprises will lead to compact but more numerous environmentally

sustainable urban areas

Scenario 2: Enterprises oriented to sustainability and trusteeship

• Manufacturing will be characterised by smaller product life cycles. However, additive

manufacturing technology would not have evolved to the extent that it would replace large

scale assembly line manufacturing

Constant change in technology will lead to shorter product life cycles


•

learn and adapt to changing demand

• Entry barriers for new entrants in manufacturing will still be large

• The “pyramid” of society will remain intact. Demand for standardised goods and services

will remain. This will suit traditional enterprises that rely on scale.

• Access to capital will still be monopolised by dominant players in any industry

• Access to information will be asymmetric and those having better access will more likely

succeed

• Innovation will be stilted, may lead to exodus of high-skill workforce to economies that

provided greater opportunities to innovators

• Politics will continue to be driven by the spirit of compromise between competing interests

• This is a transient scenario. Government policy will determine whether the society moves to

Scenario 1 (desirable) or to Scenario 3 (undesirable)

Scenario 3: Socially detached capitalists

• Human jobs will increasingly be taken over by machines

• Due to the capital intensive nature of manufacturing, entry barriers will be very high

• Access to capital will therefore be largely restricted to existing dominant enterprises with

deep pockets

• Fewer jobs will lead to widespread unemployment and social breakdown

• The socio-economic pyramid will be elongated. Class distinctions will increase

• Lack of job opportunities will force people to undertake independent but low-productivity

work akin to the unorganised small scale sector in India

• Large enterprises, to protect their capital investment, will restrict the pace of change, thus

killing innovation

• Lack of innovation will lead to large scale brain drain from universities

• Low incomes will restrict growth of services

• Politics will be characterised by constant friction between haves and have-nots

• To maintain a semblance of society, government will have to impose high taxes on the rich

and provide hand-outs to the poor

• Democracy will be more difficult to maintain due to constant social friction and

domination by the few

• May lead to the installation of an authoritarian regime with almost exclusive access to

technology/capital/information/muscle

Scenario 4: Machines Connect and run the World

• Growth of artificial intelligence and machines that are able to take decisions through

crunching of big data

• Makes humans dispensable even in knowledge services

• Conflict between man and machines will lead to complete breakdown of society

Flexibility offered by the human workforce will be valued by enterprises for its ability to


•

low-productivity work

• Will lead to breakdown of nations. Society will retreat to primitive settlements.

• An almost unfathomable scenario

To summarise:

The summary of the key characteristics of the 4 scenarios developed are as follows:

Humans will be driven to independent technology-free enclaves where they will undertake

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 1

Scenario 4

State of Society

• Current inequalities will persist

• Social and economic mobility will be driven by

education and wealth

State of Polity

• Driven by spirit of compromise

• Modern industrial democracy

• Moderate degree of Government influence on

business (beyond regulation)

State of Business & Economy

• Large enterprises protected by entry barriers

• Access to resources will be key to business

success

• Conservative business models

• Large number of low paying jobs

Key to Success: INFORMATION & KNOWLEDGE

State of Society

•

• Class barriers, aristocracy of the rich and

powerful

State of Polity

• Contention among classes

• Weak democracy maintained through high

taxes and handouts to the poor

(unsustainable)


• Large enterprises with exclusive access to

resources

• Connections key to success

• Lack of jobs will force people to take up low

productivity independent work

• Lack of concern for the environment

Key to Success: CAPITAL

Higher degree of inequality

State of Society

•

• Higher degree of Social and economic mobility

driven by ability to learn and adapt

State of Polity

• Driven by spirit of cooperation

• Post-modern, Post-industrial democracy

• Government as enabler and regulator


• Decentralised & networked enterprises

• Distinction between manufacturing and

services will diminish

• Entrepreneurial & Innovation driven

• Concern for the environment

Key to Success: ABILITY TO LEARN

Higher degree of equality/harmony

State of Society

•

• Social breakdown

State of Polity

• Autocratic regime with complete power over

government and business


• All economic resources channelled towards

preservation of the regime

• No economic freedom

• People survive on handouts of the state

Key to Success: CONTROL

All round poverty


Additional Reading for: Scenarios - Enterprise Structures and the Future of Jobs

S. No Document

URL

1

2

3

4

Planning Commission Report on Scenarios for India

Manufacturing/Industrial Policy – Getting to the fundamentals (presentation) – Mr Arun Maira

Pivoting Indian Manufacturing Policy Differently – Prof. Pankaj Chandra

Article (Mint) – 'How to make in India' - Mr Arun Maira

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Scenarios-Shaping-Indias-future.compressed.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Manufacturing-Policy-Getting-to-the-fundamentals.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Manufacturing-Paper-Oct-2014-Prof-Chandra.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Arun-Maira-_-How-to-%E2%80%98Make-in-India%E2%80%99-Print-View-Livemint.pdf

Section 8

Collaborative Process to find solutionsfor Affordable, Accessible, and

Acceptable quality Medicines and Healthcare for all citizens

Collaborative Process to find solutions for Affordable, Accessible, and Acceptable quality Medicines and Healthcare for all citizens

Genesis

A major problem for ensuring inclusive and just growth of India’s economy and society is to ensure

that all citizens, regardless of their income levels have access to affordable and acceptable quality

of healthcare and medicines. India is far from this goal.

Healthcare is a systemic issue with many inter-related facets to it, relating to development and then

production of medicines and services, their costs, their affordability, and equity in access to them.

To use a common expression, there is no ‘silver bullet’ solution. In fact too much emphasis on one

solution can lead to unintended consequences. For example fixing low prices for essential

medicines below actual production costs can lead to reduced availability of essential medicines if

tax-funded, ‘public sector’, production or procurement capacity is not in place at the same time.

Moreover the condition of the system and possibilities of solutions can be complicated by

ideological issues too. For example, a belief that public sector social program are anathema; will

prevent the creation of the matching part of the solution which may be required along with

insistence on low prices for citizens. Therefore, solutions to such complex, systemic issues often

require the inter-relationships between many ‘technical’ components of the system—prices,

production capacities, IPR—to be examined along with an understanding of related beliefs and

ideas.

Many attempts continue to be made to address this vexatious and emotionally charged issue of

affordable, accessible, and acceptable healthcare (and medicines) in India. These attempts use the

conventional Methods ‘A’ and ‘B’ to resolve problems and find solutions. Method A relies mostly on

Adjudication of disputes. It is inherently and Adversarial approach. An impartial authority hears the

two sides and decides which is right. In India, this approach has been repeatedly used in matters

relating to medicines and healthcare, to settle disputes regarding IPR and prices. While this

approach can resolve specific disputes, it is not designed to create new solutions to complex issues.

Method B is the traditional, expert-driven, bureaucratic approach. While this approach does

consider multiple facets of a system to find new solutions, its limitation is that, traditionally, it

focuses mostly on the ‘technical’ side of issues where data can help to explain the problem and

suggest solutions. However, as mentioned before, many systemic problems are not resolvable with

technical expertise alone. Deeper social and ideological divisions prevent ‘rational’ technical

solutions being accepted. Indeed, this is a principal reason for the great difficulty in reforming the

healthcare system in India (and in the USA too). The inability of Method B to find acceptable and

timely solutions cause stakeholders to use Method A, the other established method, which has

limitations too as explained before.



Complex, systemic issues, stuck in deep differences between stakeholders require a Method C—a

Collaborative method—to understand the linkages between all important facets of the problems

and find new solutions ‘out of the mental boxes’ in which stakeholders are trapped. Method C is the

essence of the IbIn approach.

In 2012, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India was beleaguered under

pressure from the Supreme Court and from stakeholders to find sustainable solutions to demands

for lower priced medicines. It continued with more determined use of Method B available to it.

However the Secretary of the Department understood that the solutions had the risk of unravelling

because it was very difficult to get the principal stakeholders to commit to the solutions. They could

and would opt out of the official solutions by appealing to the courts. The Secretary turned to the

Industry Division in the Planning Commission to apply Method C with an IbIn process to get the

stakeholders together and attempt a collaborative approach to find a systemic solution, while he

would continue with the official Method B.

The Planning Commission was itself stuck in the groove of Method B with the belief that experts can

find the solution to a complex problem if they gather the requisite data and analyze it. The

proposition to hire a good ‘process facilitator’ with experience in Method C processes was turned

down. Instead the Planning Commission selected a consultant who had the ‘domain knowledge’ of

the pharmaceutical industry and the data required. IMS, a world known consulting company in the

field of medicine prices, was selected and asked to submit a ‘report’ with the solution.

The Industry Division of the Planning Commission, with IbIn support, turned to the World Bank to

pay for a qualified process facilitator. Manford Alliance, a small consulting company with

experience in conflict resolution and change management was appointed. IbIn devised a

collaborative process between the two consulting companies to enable the Method C process to be

applied.

IMS have been working in India for many years and have been used by the Government of India for

data relating to medicines prices. They were quite familiar with the contentions holding up policy

development in the Indian healthcare sector. They were very happy to work in collaboration with

Manford Alliance under the guidance of IbIn.

A two-stage process was designed. In the first stage, IMS would complete the technical analysis

and, while doing this, they would also throw light on the positions of the principal stakeholders

regarding these matters. Complex systems are not merely ‘technical’ systems. They have a socio-

political side to them too. In fact, the complexity of these systems arises from the inter-play of the

social and political forces with the technical forces. Therefore, to understand complex systems fully,

their social sides must be mapped too.

IMS agreed to expand the interview process that they had designed to validate their information

regarding the ‘technical’ side of the problems and their solutions, to also, open-endedly, solicit the

beliefs of stakeholders and their positions on relevant inter-related issues. With this information

they prepared a ‘socio-technical’ representation of the system, which pointed to issues on the

stakeholder side of the system, which Manford Alliance could delve into more deeply with their

methodologies in the second phase.

Evolution


Manford grouped the stakeholders into three distinct groups—industry, civil society, and

government. Manford’s approach was to conduct a dialogue for solutions between these three

groups. As a preparation for this, they proposed to get each of these groups to come to an internal

agreement on their position on critical issues and determine the priority issues they wanted to

deliberate on with the other two groups. This first step with each of the groups would enable an

orderly design of the inter-group deliberations in the second step.

The first group Manford worked with was industry. Several industry leaders, from domestic industry

as well as MNCs, had been approaching the Planning Commission privately for many months to

suggest that a new approach would be required to break-out of the policy log-jam in which the

pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors were stuck. They were receptive to a Method C approach.

However, there were many contentious issues within industry too. Industry was divided on issues

relating to IPR, foreign investments, and pricing. Therefore work was required to bring about

consensus within industry on its positions for deliberation with the other stakeholders. Also, some

important stakeholders within industry were not convinced that a Method C was workable or even

necessary. They believed that they should approach Government directly and let Government

convince, or over-rule, the civil society stakeholders.

Meanwhile the civil society stakeholders, who were being enrolled to meet with each other and then

with industry, began to see some possibilities in the new process. As they said, nothing stops us

from continuing to use the present methods and we will. But there can be no harm, and there may

even be some benefit, to try a new approach.

While the difficult dialogue within industry was proceeding, the change in Government at the

Centre seemed to provide some of the industry members the direct access to sympathetic

Government functionaries they wanted and so they abandoned the internal dialogue. They hope

that Method B will resolve the issues and, of course, in their favour too.

The process has come to a pause. This is a good time to reflect and, to use Learning Organization

terminology, to do an ‘After Action Review’. An After Action Review looks back at the course covered

with an objective to learn what worked and what did not. These insights help to travel better on the

next stage of the journey, and on other similar journeys. We have used the framework and lenses of

the IndiaWorks to look back along the journey of the Affordable Healthcare and Medicines project

so far.

An idea to consider to carry on the process, whenever there is another impetus for it, is to

change direction to avoid the road-blocks encountered. Perhaps it is not necessary to get

complete alignment WITHIN each of the stakeholder groups before building new bridges

AMONGST them. Leaders within the groups willing to collaborate to create new solutions can

begin a new dialogue with leaders from other groups. This may start a small snowball which

fence-sitters can join and enlarge. Hardened naysayers should not hold up the process.

IndiaWorks emphasizes the importance of beginning with a map of the stakeholders in the system.

Who are they? What are their needs? What are their beliefs? Into this map, the technical issues are

included. Thus a complete ‘socio-technical’ map is prepared, rather than a partial technical map

only, or a partial social map only. Later in this note, the stakeholder map is described. At this stage,

it is like 16th century ocean navigator maps—crude and incomplete, but better than having no map

at all.


Manford Alliance has its methodology for going deeper beneath the stated positions of

stakeholders to their beliefs and their real needs. This uncovers the invisible rocks beneath the

water line. Even if it is not possible to move these rocks, it is best to map them so that one can

navigate around them deliberately.

Uncovering the stakeholders' beliefs and needs

We have prepared two versions of the stakeholder map: one before the start of the process, the

other after, to gauge the shifts in positions if any. It was important to document the progress made

in the process so far, we have made use of the IbIn tool 'India Works' to do the same. A stakeholder

map has been prepared to present all the stakeholders, categorized as primary, key and secondary

and also identify the other forces in the universe. The stakeholder map analysis has also been used

to depict the situation before and after the dialogue process. The essence of the information

gathered in the dialogue process so far, has also been distilled and is given in the subsequent

tables.

Stakeholder Map

Key for the map

Solid lines indicate close relationships in terms of information exchange, frequency of contact, overlap of interests, coordination, mutual trust etc.

- - - - - - - -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

?-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Dotted lines symbolize weak or informal relationships. The question mark is added where the nature of the relationships is not clear

Double lines symbolize alliances and cooper ation that are formulized contractually or institutionally.

Arrows symbolize the direction of dominant relationships

Lines crossed by a bolt of lightning symbolize relationships that are marked by tension, conflicting interests or other forms of conflict

Cross lines symbolize relationships that have been interrupted or damaged

IMS Report

• Data Centric• Identifies stakeholders & their

positions• Rational Data

• Identifies Interests & Concerns• Value & Emotion Centric

Interactions

Dialogue

• Identifies Needs underlying the Interests, Concerns & Positions

• Addressing Needs can address overlying factors

Positions

Interests &

Concerns

Needs


This is a pictorial representation of the affordable healthcare ecosystem. In this ecosystem the civil

society representatives are depicted on the bottom left sector, industry representative on the

bottom right sector and government and other actors in the ecosystem within the top sector.

The inner most circle of the map represents all the key stake holders of the ecosystem. Key

stakeholders by definition refer to those actors without whose support and participation the

targeted results of the initiative normally cannot be achieved.

The second circle of the map represents all primary stakeholders. These stakeholders are directly

affected by the initiative either positively or negatively.

The outer most circle of the map represents secondary stakeholders of the ecosystem. These are

stakeholders whose involvement in the initiative is only indirect or temporary.

This map represents the relationship between the different stakeholders of the ecosystem prior to a

dialogue process. On the industry side there is no co-ordination or alignment among the three main

industry associations namely Indian Drug Manufacturers Association, India Pharmaceutical Alliance

& Organization of Pharmaceutical Producers of India. Each of them has been working towards its

own interest and not putting in any conscious efforts towards resolving the many

differences/issues they face amongst each other.

On the other hand the civil society representatives have good connections amongst each other and

interact on a regular basis. There is common understanding amongst them and willingness to work

together towards a common goal, i.e. affordable healthcare. Although they have not systematically

laid down the steps needed towards achieving their core objective. Amongst the several individual

voices, one can see some common threads but the group lacks a cohesive action plan.

Before the dialogue process

Figure 2: Stakeholder map- before the dialogue process

Civil Society

lGopa Dabade

rMi a Shiva

Mirai Chatterjee

Courts

IPA

OPPI

IDMA

Indus rytAn nda

ovGr erAmSen

it

Gupta

Jayashree

Gupta

Amabh

it

Guha

o

r

G pakuma

Govt. & Others

World Bank

ManfordIbln PHFI

Planning Commission

Chemists

Doctors

IMS

Chinu Srinivasan


In this traditional ecosystem, for years these two stakeholder groups have been fighting over this

contentious issue and have resorted to the judiciary as a means to resolve it. The judicial route

provides a quick fix or a short term solution without really tackling the root cause. The judicial route

also causes the contention to grow deeper with its win-lose judgement. This has been the approach

that has been followed in the country as a means to achieve affordable healthcare.

Progress made with the dialogue process

Figure 3: Stakeholder map- progress made with the dialogue process

OPP

IPA

OPPI

Manford

IbIn

PHFI

IMS

Doctors

Chemists

Mirai

Chatterjee

IDMA

Govt. & Others

Planning Commission

This is a pictorial representation of the process that IbIn is trying to facilitate with the

stakeholders. The objective of IbIn is to resolve contention among stakeholders through a

systematic approach, to identify the root cause and arrive at a consensus among the stakeholders

towards an overarching common vision. With this regard, IbIn hopes to create a self-sustaining

platform which will serve as an alternative to the judicial process as a means to resolve contention

among stakeholders and help them arrive at the common goal of affordable healthcare. This

process does not serve as a replacement of the judicial route but an alternate mechanism to resolve

contention and conflict and address the root cause of the same. In this regard IbIn has made

considerable progress with both stakeholder groups.

On the industry side IbIn initiated one-on-one consultation with key stakeholders from the three

industry associations to understand the perspective of the industry associations about their

relationship with each other as well as their perspective on affordable healthcare. Post this, a

dialogue amongst the three associations was held to help resolve contention amongst themselves

in order to move closer to the goal of affordable healthcare. During this dialogue, the industry

associations affirmed that such a dialogue had never taken place and saw the value of having

facilitated dialogue rather than a conventional meeting.

Three meetings were held amongst these stakeholders with considerable progress. However, under

the current circumstances, the Industry associations felt it best to take a pause with this initiative

and focus their efforts on a dialogue directly with the government, to provide a faster redressal of

World BankCourts


their problems. The points that emerged from these meetings have been distilled and are available

at the end of this document.

On the civil society’s front, IbIn hoped to initiate a platform where all the representatives could

come together to work towards affordable healthcare. IbIn initiated one-on-one consultation with

stakeholder representatives with the view of understanding their perspective on affordable

healthcare. IbIn hopes to bring together these representatives so they can share their perspectives

with each other and work towards co-creating a common vision towards which we all can focus our

efforts. The distilled perspectives of these meetings can be found at the end of this document.

IbIn realized that such a contentious issue would require a partner with widespread expertise and

capabilities in facilitation as well as conflict resolution. This partner would have to be someone who

uses unconventional methods and addresses the social aspect of the problem (depicted as the parts

of the iceberg that are under the water line) and not take merely a data driven approach to the

problem, as has been the approach traditionally. Our partner, Manford brought these skills to the

process. Manford applied various concepts of conflict resolution in the interactions as well as the

larger cluster meetings. The value of these was appreciated by the stakeholders who accepted the

need for professional facilitation in such multi stakeholder dialogue processes.

Methods of Facilitation employed: The first cluster meeting for the industry cluster was conducted

in an unconventional fashion where representatives of all three industry associations were asked to

identify the major challenges they faced with the government and civil society in their respective

groups. Each association was given a corner of the room along with flipcharts, markers and post-its

to brainstorm these issues. At the end of these two exercises the representatives of the three

associations were shuffled so that they now formed a new group with members from other

associations. These newly formed groups were then asked to examine issues that existed between

the three associations and how they could be overcome the same using flipcharts and post its. The

feedback received from these sessions was that this is the first time that they had constructively

applied themselves together to identify issues with other stakeholders and amongst themselves.

The results from these sessions are available in a condensed form in the Learning Section.

Several insights emerged during the consultations and cluster meetings.

1. Issues as distilled from various consultations and meetings

Conflict Resolution & Facilitation

Learning

What are the issues Who do they want to talk to How can they resolve this

Industry needs to be united

Intellectual Property Rights

Buy in from association members

to the process

OPPI, IPA, IDMA

OPPI & IPA

Key members from each

association

Address low hanging fruits among

the associations vs.

IPR first and then the rest of the

issues

Dialogue (Alignment of different

business models)

Industry (Internal)



Trust deficit

IbIn convening power

Policy implementation

Lack of concern, direction &

encouragement by the government

Power struggle with bureaucracy

Fragmented government bodies

and agencies

Issues of

- Regulation

- Pricing etc.

Industry at high risk of loss

Only Industry makes compromises

Lack of appreciation of the pharma

industry

Industry is taking initiative

however it's the government that

is not doing enough

Government, Civil Society,

Industry Associations & IbIn

Senior government officials and

Prime Minister's Office

Civil Society

Government

Dialogue with the government first

and then with civil society

Who will bring senior government

officials to dialogue

IbIn Role?

Open mind to listen

Accountability to commitment

from government

Negotiate

Compromise

Give and Take

Infrastructure

Better Administration

Industry (External)


IbIn project scope

Definition of affordability

Affordable Healthcare

vs.

Affordable Medicines

Government & Industry Clarity on responsibility to provide

affordable healthcare

Industry - Larger Issues

Healthcare Planning Regulations –

Implementation &

Monitoring

Cost of Healthcare

Integrated and

networked healthcare

system

Primary healthcare a

pre requisite

Medical facilities,

diagnostics, doctors &

industry

Irrational prescription

Cost of healthcare a key

concern

Out of pocket expenditure

biggest cause for pushing

people into poverty

Civil Society

Healthcare Education

Mindless healthcare

privatization

Rural healthcare

education


It is very evident that both Industry and Civil Society identified the role of the government as a key

issue. Both wished to discuss their issues with the government. They also highlighted the

commitment of the government to implement the outcome of these dialogues as a major challenge.

2. Process Specific Learning

2a. Cluster Champions -

An important learning in the process of dialogue was the need to identify champions at the

beginning of the process. Such champions should be progressive members who understand the

purpose of the dialogue and the need for a systematic approach. These champions can then play a

leading role throughout the process in bringing the stakeholders together within their cluster and

keep the process directed towards its purpose.

2b. Convening Power and Steering Structure –

In this process we learnt the importance of a convening authority. This authority should either have

an ‘official’ power to convene or this convening authority should be generated by the stakeholders

themselves as a steering structure.

Healthcare Planning Regulations –

Implementation &

Monitoring

Cost of Healthcare

Shift focus from

tertiary to primary

healthcare

Avoid geographical

clustering

Insufficient

government spend on

healthcare

Healthcare being state

subject and issue

Government has prime

responsibility for

healthcare

Lack of political will

Single healthcare

ministry needed

Procurement and

distribution model like

TN & Rajasthan

Industry practices

Increase government

accountability

Increase API Production

Transparency in drug tests

and approvals

Loopholes in archaic

regulations

Develop indigenous drug,

diagnostic, medical

equipment manufacturing

capability

Poor past experiences with

Insurance to see it as a

solution

Limited scope of availing

insurance and access to

healthcare through

insurance

Institutionalizing private

sector investment

Healthcare Education

Focus on healthcare

workers and not doctors


In this project the official convening power would have lain with the Department of

Pharmaceuticals perhaps. However, since the department had offloaded the process to IbIn, it

became essential for a group of leaders within the stakeholders to take charge to convene. A good

beginning was made in this regard when the industry cluster chose a small group to steer their

work. However, with the change in the Government and the possibility of stronger convening from

the Government itself, the steering structure fell apart. Outside events prevented the formation of

the snowball. In other words, the sunshine came out faster than the snowball could form.

Going forward, the aim should be to bring a small set of stakeholders from Industry and Civil

Society together to build trust amongst them and let them be the owners of the process rather than

the process being driven by the actors such as IbIn, World Bank & Manford.

Additional Reading for: Collaborative Process to find solutions for Affordable,

Accessible, and Acceptable quality Medicines and Healthcare for all citizens

S. No Document

URL

1

2

IMS Report on Affordable Medicine

Manford Presentation at Industry Cluster Meeting

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Access-to-affordable-medicines-in-India.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Project-scope-presentation.pdf

Section 9

Simple Systems of Effective

Participative Planning in

Indian Cities

Simple Systems of Effective Participative Planning in Indian Cities

Overview

In recent years, rapid economic growth in India has resulted in an exponential growth in job

opportunities in Indian cities. This has resulted in unprecedented movement of people from rural

areas to cities in search of a better life. This rapid urbanisation is putting increasing pressure on

existing cities’ infrastructure and social fabric. There is growing realisation that India needs to

rejuvenate its cities in order to manage the process of economic growth and also develop new urban

centres to harmoniously accommodate the influx of migrants from the countryside.

Taking this need into account, the Government of India had developed schemes such as the

Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) and Urban Infrastructure

Development Scheme for Small & Medium Towns (UIDSSMT) that together covered all of India’s

cities and towns. These schemes, driven by the centre and implemented by the states, tried to link

financial support for urban infrastructure development with governance reforms that were tied to ththe 74 amendment of the Constitution of India, which gives urban Indian citizens the right to local

self governance.

Despite being well intentioned, these schemes have failed to achieve either of the aims, i.e.,

infrastructure development or governance reforms. Why is it that the schemes and programmes

designed with the best of intentions failed when it came to implementation? Why is it that where

implementation took place, like in the case of the Bus Raid Transit (BRT) system in Delhi or the

Delhi-Gurgaon Expressway, there is so much resentment among users against these projects?

This IbIn team tried to look at the heart of this question that repeatedly showed up when analysing

the performance of various sectors of the economy and not just the urban sector. It was found that

at the heart of poor implementation in India was contention among stakeholders and lack of

coordination among implementing agencies. This confusion and mutual contention lead to friction

within the system, resulting in poor implementation of well-intentioned projects and schemes.

The IbIn movement itself was created by the Planning Commission of India to provide structured

tools and processes that would help implementing agencies to convert this mutual contention into

collaboration, the manifest confusion into coordination and mere intention into implementation.

The IbIn team understands that despite similarities with other sectors of the economy, the urban

sector is unique in the implementation challenges faced by the authorities and the less than clear

demarcation of responsibilities among implementing agencies. Therefore, in order to develop

structured tools and processes for ensuring sustainable implementation of public welfare projects



in urban areas, the IbIn team has been interacting, through various channels, with experts in the

field and citizen groups working towards betterment of their respective cities. The team is also

trying to distil good practices (in terms of processes followed) from various successful

implementers in India, including the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC).

Since it was observed that lack of participation of stakeholders at the planning stage was the

primary cause of contention among stakeholders and implementing agencies, we are calling this

compendium of tools and processes as “Simple Systems of Effective Participative Planning"

(SSEPP).

The distillation of SSEPP is an ongoing process where good practices are identified and converted

into practical tools that could be used by implementing agencies in Indian cities. The source

material for SSEPP includes primary and secondary research, interaction with experts and

practitioners through various platforms, such as the United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP) Solution Exchange (Solex) and various seminars and conferences. A detailed list of such

sources is provided as Annexure A of this document.

SSEPP is envisioned as a toolkit continuing structured tools and processes that could be used by

authorities and citizens’ groups to implement projects of public interest in Indian cities.

Urban governance is an ongoing exercise while elections happen once every five years. While it can

be argued that a democratic mandate empowers a government to undertake all schemes and

policies it deems fit during its tenure; it is also true that some aspects of governance, particularly

planning have a very long term impact that goes beyond the period between successive elections.

Simple Systems of Effective Participative Planning (SSEPP)

Why SSEPP?

CITIZENS

CITIZENS’ PLATFORM(S)

Planning

Implementation

Operations & Maintenance

Impact: Long term

Impact: Medium term

Impact: Short term

GOVERNANCE

Election

Election

Election

Mandate

Mandate

Mandate

Engagement

Figure 1: Rationale for SSEPP

Engagement


Therefore, a Government needs to constantly engage with citizens and other stakeholders to ensure

that the urban planning exercise is undertaken in a consultative manner. A plan that has the buy-in

of a majority of stakeholders will most likely encounter fewer obstacles at the implementation and

operations stage.

The diagram above depicts the relationship between the process of governance and the citizens of a

city. Even if we assume that city governments have a democratic mandate to govern a city (which is

not the case in a majority of Indian cities), it is imperative that a city government constantly

engages with citizens through various citizens’ platforms, particularly in the planning process. As

implementation and operations flow out of planning, it can be stated with a fair degree of

confidence that a good planning process ensures smooth implementation and operation of projects

and programmes in a city.

The SSEPP Framework has been

divided into four pillars:

• Principles of SSEPP

• Challenges of SSEPP

• Imperatives of SSEPP

• Tools for SSEPP

• At the very core, cities are about

people. This includes existing citizens

and people who aspire to live in cities.

Any good planning exercise will take

into account the peoples’ interests

and well-being.

• A city is a complex system that is an

interplay of three often competing

and opposing forces, i.e., liveability,

economics and sustainability. A good

planning exercise takes into account

and balances these opposing yet vital

forces that define a city.

• Cities, while being separate systems are also part of an overall ecosystem that includes

other parts of the country and the world. These interactions of a city with respect to the

overall ecosystem, such as in the case of migration or consumption of resources must be

kept in mind while developing processes for city governance.

• A planning exercise for a city is only as good as the process followed for undertaking the

exercise. The quality of a planning process depends on its level of inclusiveness. Therefore,

a process that elicits greater participation of a wide variety of stakeholders will lead to a

more robust and practical plan. Practicality of the plan ensures timely implementation of

projects and smooth operation of facilities and programmes that emanate from a plan.

SSEPP Framework

Principles of SSEPP

Figure 2: SSEPP Framework

Figure 3: A city system

Principles

Tools

Challenges Imperatives

Liveability

Economics Sustainability


Challenges of SSEPP

Imperatives of SSEPP

• A city is a heterogeneous mix of people from various social and economic backgrounds. The

interests of each set of citizens often do not align. Therefore, getting these disparate set of

stakeholders together to develop a common vision for the city is often a big challenge.

• Indian cities suffer from a problem of plenty when it comes to implementing agencies. The

multitude of agencies that deal with various aspect of city governance makes it a challenge

to identify the potential drivers for any participative planning exercise that addresses

issues at a systemic level.

• A city system consists of a wide variety of soft and hard components, such as the education

system, policing, water supply system, the waste management system, etc. The general

tendency in India to separate these components and develop independent solutions often

leads to situations where the overall system (i.e. the city) deteriorates despite

improvements in individual components of the system.

• The level of awareness among citizens regarding their rights and duties as citizens is also a

challenge in developing effective participative planning processes. This often results in the

authorities giving disproportionate credence to vocal and well-informed groups that do

not necessarily represent the voices of a large majority of citizens.

• Initiatives in a city need not be undertaken only by the authorities. Organisations like

Embarq, which brought to life the “Raahgiri day” in Gurgaon and Delhi and the Sakal

Foundation who organised the Pune Bus Day, have demonstrated how a private group of

individuals can begin engaging with various stakeholders (including government

authorities) and bring a project to fruition.

• The time spent on bringing about alignment among stakeholder interests is time well

spent. Stakeholder alignment at the planning stage ensures speedy implementation of

projects while hastily planned projects face numerous hurdles (mostly from stakeholders)

during implementation and operations.

• Effective governance is about partnership and cooperation among stakeholders. A

government agency or private organisation that initiates a project of public interest cannot

take an adversarial position vis-à-vis other stakeholders if it wants the initiative to

succeed. Such preconceived notions do exist, especially towards Government employees

and real estate developers, but often prove counterproductive.

• Very often “Capacity Building” in the urban sector focuses on technical aspects such as

procurement, engineering, etc. It is equally, if not more important, to build capacities at

various levels of urban government to manage cooperation systems for engagement with

diverse stakeholders within a city.

• A systematic plan to raise awareness among all stakeholder groups regarding their rights

(and duties) as citizens is a way to elicit wider participation in participative planning

initiatives. Very often (as in the case of City Development Plans prescribed in JNNURM)

despite the provision for participative planning in various schemes, the process is short-

circuited by the authorities due to lack of awareness among large parts of the citizenry.

This leads to stalled implementation of ill-conceived projects once such plans are approved

by higher authorities. Therefore, raising awareness among citizens will not only lead to


more power to citizens to decide the fates of their cities but also less implementation

hassles for the implementing agencies.

• Because cities are part of the larger state and national eco-system, all aspects of city

planning cannot follow a bottom-up approach; however, even in such cases, such plans

need to be effectively communicated to stakeholders in the city. This ensures smooth

implementation and operations of such plans.

• Very often professional planners end up making wrong assumptions about the future of

cities resulting in planning interventions that are unnecessary or in certain cases

undesirable. Therefore, as far as possible, cities should be allowed to develop organically

through the intervention of its citizens. Planners should focus on enabling the citizens by

making sufficient provisioning for growth while letting citizens to jointly decide on details

as the city grows and acquires its character.

• Every city is a distinct system. Therefore, a prescription from one city may not work in the

other. In order to make any city level initiative succeed, the initiator has to first develop an

understanding of the system through constant interactions with its various constituents.

• IndiaWorks: IbIn has, along with GIZ, developed the “IndiaWorks” model for managing

cooperation systems. The model contains practical tools and structured processes that

could be used/adapted by practitioners in the urban sector. The model can be used to bring

about stakeholder alignment and to achieve desired results in multi-stakeholder

situations. The model has been adopted from “Capacity Works”, a model that GIZ has used

extensively, and with great success, throughout the developing world.

Tools of SSEPP

Figure 4: IndiaWorks Framework

Steeringin a multi-


Leadershipin on


I2

I1

Cooperation andnegotiation

make decisionspossible

German c ntrib ti no u o

O3

O2

O1tOrganisa ion

Hierarchyresolves blockages

and makesdecisions possible

German contribution

Resource management

Organisationaldevelopment

Strategy

Human resourcemanagement

Controlling

Marketing

Out

put

proc

ess

The organisation

• Sakal Trinity 7: As part of IbIn’s initiative to bring practitioners together to develop new

models for stakeholder engagement driven governance systems, IbIn introduced the Sakal

foundation from Maharashtra to PEMANDU, the project monitoring cell housed in the Prime

Minister’s office in Malaysia. Using PEMANDU’s highly structured approach towards public


project management and Sakal’s understanding of the Indian system, the two have jointly

developed the Sakal Trinity 7 model for implementation of public projects in India. The

Sakal foundation is currently using this model for delivering its projects in the water sector

in Maharashtra. The same has been made available by IbIn to practitioners looking to

adapt the model for use in city-centric initiatives.

Figure 5: Sakal Trinity 7 model

• Rajasthan Patrika Model: Rajasthan Patrika is the most widely circulated Hindi language

newspaper in the state of Rajasthan. Prior to the legislative assembly elections held in

Rajasthan in the year 2013, the newspaper undertook a massive state-wide exercise to

develop a citizens’ manifesto for each assembly constituency in the state. In the course of

this exercise, they were able to develop a structured process through which they could

bring out the core issues affecting citizens of the state, particularly in the urban areas.

This model can be made available by IbIn to practitioners looking to undertake such an

exercise in their cities. The URL for the same is present at the end of this section of the

document.

In addition to distilling SSEPP, IbIn has also undertaken other projects in the urban space. These

include:

• Support to citizens’ groups in Gurgaon for more effective urban governance in the city

• Similar support to citizens’ groups in Pune

• Development of a lateral platform for cities in India

Details of these initiatives are as follows:

IbIn initiatives in the Urban Sector

PARTICIPA-TION

CONSENSUS

EMOTIONAL CONNECT PROGRAM

ACCOUNTA-BILITY+

TRANSPA-RENCYRESPONSE

EQUITABLE+

INCLUSIVE

IMPLEMENTATION

EFFICIENCY+

SIMPLICITY

RULE OF LAW

SOCIAL IMPACT

RETURN ON RESPECT


Gurgaon

Rapid expansion of Gurgaon, the “Millennium City”, has brought forth teething problems related to

the city’s infrastructure and overall civic governance. This malaise affects the quality of life of all

citizens of the city and manifests itself in massive traffic snarls, poor utility services, unplanned

development and piling up of garbage in public spaces. Citizens are often clueless about which body

to approach to resolve these problems as there is a multitude of agencies that are tasked with the

management and upkeep of the city.

The IbIn team is currently working as facilitator with some of the leaders within this initiative to

expand the movement started by them to include a wider variety of stakeholder groups. The group

has been using the tools and processes provided by IbIn to map the city system in Gurgaon and

identifying strategies for bringing in more groups within the platform. Details of the same are

available in the URL at the end of this section of the document.

Pune

Pune ranks high in quality of life but last in urban planning and design, says the Annual Survey of

India's City-Systems (ASICS) commissioned by Bangalore-based NGO Janaagraha. Once a

retirement paradise for Mumbaikars, Pune has in recent years, transformed into one of India’s

fastest growing cities and an industrial powerhouse. The civic infrastructure service standards

however fall short of actual requirements. An assessment after two and a half years of the JNNURM

mission in Pune, unfortunately, has much to talk about failures than success (incomplete projects,

inadequate planning, growing inconvenience and dissatisfaction to the citizens).

A few active citizens of Pune, in order to improve their city, created a citizen platform, Me Punekar,

along with CII CityConnect for different NGOs and social activists to come together and resolve

urban issues. IbIn was invited to be part of the group as a process facilitator.

During the course of the first few meetings, IbIn helped the group realize that creating an

‘organizational charter’ and ‘branding’ the movement at the initial stage of its genesis itself results

in other critical participants not taking ownership of it, because their issues and concerns were not

taken into consideration.

IbIn shared with the group the following 4P methodology as a good way to get a convergent plan:

Figure 6: IbIn 4P Methodology for Pune

Political alignment to the citizen’s needs (which in the Indian context is usually hard to achieve),

can be realized by creating ‘people’s connect’ via citizen platforms described above and apply public

pressure by mobilizing the media.

Political alignment

Plan convergence

People'sconnect

Public pressure (Media)


The group in Pune, along with IbIn, is now working on enlarging the participation in the citizen

platform by involving more stakeholders and also on harnessing the power of the media by

initiating talks with various media houses.

• IbIn-UNDP national workshop

IbIn in collaboration with UNDP has planned to organize a national workshop in the first

quarter of 2015 to disseminate the learning and tools of SSEPP. IbIn and UNDP are

currently working on the design of the workshop.

• EuroIndia Summit

EuroIndia centre is an organization working on mutual cooperation between India and

Europe for sustainable urban development. Since 2006, they have conducted 6 Euro-India

summits where practitioners from various cities share their learning and find collaboration

opportunities.

thThe centre has planned the 7 Euro-India summit in second half of 2015 to be held in India.

The centre with support from IbIn is working on the design of the workshop and identifying

the various stakeholders who could be benefitted by such platforms.

• UNDP-Solution Exchange platform (SOLEX)

Solution Exchange is a United Nations common initiative that leverages the power and

potential of managed Communities of Practice to effectively address development

priorities and the MDGs; tapping into the knowledge, experience and energies of members

for collective problem-solving.

In a partnership with UNDP, IbIn is using the platform to discover more about SSEPP which

could then further be used to address urbanization challenges. Using the SOLEX platform,

we are looking for following two queries:

1) Simple systems of participative planning which have proven effective, especially in

cities.

2) Best practices/cases that demonstrate the application of such tools

Through this global platform we are discovering both international and local examples, cases, and

tools etc. for SSEPP. This knowledge is further disseminated and applied to various city level

initiatives.

Development of Lateral Learning Platform for Indian cities

Additional Reading for: SSEPP in Indian Cities

S. No Document

URL

1

2

3

4

IndiaWorks Model for steering multi-stakeholder systems

Sakal Trinity 7 Model derived from PEMANDU framework

Rajasthan Patrika Tool

Gurgaon outcomes document

Section 1 of this document

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/ST7-Model.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/RAJASTHAN-PATRIKA-Jaggo-janmat.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Gurgaon_Outcomes.pdf

Section 10

Simple Systems for Effective

Participative Planning

in Villages

Simple Systems for Effective Participative Planning in Villages

Genesis

The need to improve conditions of people living in Indian villages has been accepted by Indian

governments since Independence. Massive government programs have been directed towards this

end. Many civil society organizations have been engaged. Lately many corporate trusts and

foundations have also become engaged.

An unusual approach was taken by a foundation set up by an industrial group in Jharkhand a decade

ago. It decided to train the village community to use ‘Total Quality Management’ methods with

which groups of workmen in industrial establishments in Japan, India and elsewhere have achieved

remarkable improvements in system performance. With such methods, the village citizens can

determine their priorities, and they can choose the assistance they need most of all from the

multiple government schemes and corporate CSR programs they can draw upon. Thus they are

‘empowered’, and moreover become agents of change of their circumstances rather than mere

beneficiaries or supplicants of assistance given by others. Independent, third party assessments of

the progress achieved in the villages using these TQM-like methods, compared with neighbouring

villages, revealed noteworthy improvements in income levels and social indicators too in these

villages.

Many CSO initiatives focus on the ‘social’ side of the village system and enter into the improvement

process from this side. Most ‘corporate’ led initiatives focus on the ‘technical’ side, on

improvements to the physical infrastructure, and management methods. Both the ‘social’ and the

‘technical’ are inter-connected in the real village system, and therefore a sound systems’

improvement approach must be an integrated ‘socio-technical’ approach. A systemic analysis of the

situation must put the social and technical issues into one frame to understand the connections

between them. Moreover, this analysis must be done in simple, jargon free language, so that the

community can do it (and also so that the social and technical experts have a common, jargon-free

language to talk to each other!)

Discussions with many organizations working on village improvement programs revealed that such

simple and systematic approaches to address total systems issues were mostly not being applied. Or

in the rare instances in which they were, they were not being applied by the village community itself

but by external experts. At the same time, it was discovered there were a few other organizations,

such as PRADAN, who have been applying systematic community-led methods for improvement in

rural areas. However, the knowledge of what they do was limited even amongst organizations who

are devoted to improve conditions for citizens of rural India.



The potential benefits of such simple, yet comprehensive methods for effective participative

planning were acknowledged by the many organizations working in the rural areas that IbIn met.

Therefore there would be benefit in arranging an exchange of ideas and methods amongst

organizations working on rural and village uplift programs. This was the genesis of a process for

‘good practice development’ that UNDP started in collaboration with IbIn, beginning with an initial thworkshop that was held on 14 November 2014 in New Delhi.

IbIn saw the need for a platform that would facilitate learning and sharing of ideas and methods

associated with better participative planning in a village. With this idea, IbIn approached its

existing partners, KGVK, Swades Foundation and the Tushar Jani Foundation, to get the

practitioners’ understanding of the village and aspirations of the villager. The discussion also

focused on the practitioners themselves; what kind of impact they would like to see from their

engagements? What are the challenges they face in improving their reach and effectiveness? Can

better collaboration amongst practitioners help them achieve their objectives faster?

These discussions brought out some important insights:

Learning 1: Sustainability – Practitioners were looking for sustainable solutions. They were looking

for methods that would help develop ownership amongst the community to ensure sustainability.

This would also enable the practitioners to move beyond one village and scale up their work.

Learning 2: One shoe doesn’t fit all - Scaling up came as a key challenge. The variation in

geographies, cultures, caste, etc. made it difficult for organizations to scale up. Practitioners were

looking for processes/methodologies that brought in some standardization while retaining the

ethos of the local community.

Learning 3: There are a lot of workshops that take place but few are designed to listen to the

practitioners and to address their specific challenges. There was a need for a platform where

practitioners could both learn and share.

Learning 4: During the discussions it was realized that while the organizations had a common

objective, were working in similar areas and had faced similar challenges at different stages of

evolution, they were all working independently and not deriving benefit from each other’s

experience. Thus, by bringing them together one could have a multiplier impact on their efficiency

and reach.

Learning 5: There was a need to distil and propagate effective ways of participative planning in

order to have a greater impact.

The very start of our process highlighted a very interesting insight regarding a wide knowledge gap

in the system, with a lot of un-met demand for solutions and better methods of participative

planning. Several organizations are working towards a common objective but are lacking a

coordinated approach that will align them in such a way that they retain their unique identities

while deriving benefits from the group’s knowledge.

This is in resonance with the idea of symbiosis, a close and long term interaction between different

biological species. Nature has several examples of a symbiotic relation wherein the stakeholders are

dependent on each other for mutual gains. Extending this learning to the current context, one can

Evolution


see the benefits that different practitioners would gain if they were to engage in a relationship that

encourages learning and sharing.

What was needed was a backbone entity that would help create a network between practitioners

pan-India, develop a knowledge repository, disseminate the learning’s and best practices and help

towards better implementation.

IbIn being a backbone entity itself understood this knowledge gap. Since IbIn is not a content

expert, there was a need for a partner who would not only have technical expertise but also have

connections with practitioners and experts in the area of rural development. IbIn first outlined a

clear objective for this partnership, which was to help practitioners find Simple Systems of Effective

Participative Planning, in short SSEPP. The next step was to identify a partner who knew people who

had SSEPP and were using them in their projects.

So keeping the objective in mind, IbIn approached UNDP, an organization very actively involved in

the area of rural development. UNDP was a very suitable partner to play a nodal role in its capacity

as a multi-lateral agency, a funding organization, technical experts and connections with the

Government. Moreover, the convening power of UNDP would not only help gather the necessary

momentum at the start but also ensure the sustainability of the movement going ahead. IbIn

shared the key learnings from the partner consultations with UNDP and the idea of finding SSEPP.

UNDP saw the value in the concept and agreed to partner with IbIn on this project.

Learning 1: For the sustainability of a project/process, it’s important to start with a clear objective

and identify the right convener keeping the objective in mind.

Learning 2: Following further deliberations with UNDP on the way forward, it was decided that

practitioners needed to be brought together to discuss about their best practices on SSEPP and also

decide on the way forward for the initiative. There was also a realization early on that for the project

to be successful, it had to be driven by the need of the practitioners rather than a pre-conceived

understanding of the organizers.

This led to the idea of a National Consultation for distilling SSEPP, which would bring together

stakeholders associated with a village, to help discover and disseminate better collaborative

tools/methods for the benefit of the villager.

UNDP runs an online platform of Solution Exchange through which they collect, distil and

disseminate best practices in various areas of rural development like health, education, change

management, empowering elected women representatives, data collection, etc. This tool was in

absolute resonance with what IbIn had in mind and so it was decided to leverage the existing

knowledge repository with UNDP, using which some key best practices were identified, keeping in

mind the idea of SSEPP. IbIn engaged with the practitioners of these best practices to get a better

understanding of their work and take their inputs on the idea of a rural practice workshop. IbIn did

over 50 discussions and while there were many insights, the one common thing they all shared was

the passion for their work.

Progress towards the shaping of a “learning practice for better methods” amongst practitioners of village improvement processes


Learning: It was interesting to see how most of the practitioners were very much aligned in terms of

the broad objective. The only thing needed was to get a platform in place that would get the

practitioners connected to each other and a process for the flow of knowledge.

The practitioners showed a lot of interest in the idea of a workshop that would be instrumental in

shaping a collaborative platform. Some of them shared their expectations from the workshop and

also their suggestions to make it a more successful engagement. UNDP and IbIn kept these

suggestions in mind while designing the workshop. For example, having an interactive session

rather than long monotonous presentations. It was also realized that for an engaging discussion,

the workshop should have a good mix of NGOs, multilateral organizations, Government

representatives, technical experts and corporate foundations, amongst others.

The workshop that was conducted had an ice-breaking session along with two broad thematic

sessions. Since there were many participants, the ice-breaking session was instrumental in

providing everyone a chance to be heard. Practically speaking, managing a group of 50 participants

can be difficult. So, smaller groups were formed, wherein the discussion was fashioned in a way that

everyone listened to each other. Each member was asked to share the most profound

idea/achievement/work philosophy that they had heard on the table, barring their own. This

ensured that each of them listened intently to other members of the group.

This is where the role of the facilitator is very crucial in establishing the ground principles for a

discussion. If this is done correctly in the early stages of the workshop, then the ensuing

discussions can be more fruitful.

Some of the general insights from the workshop were:

Learning 1: Very importantly, right from the beginning, participants were coached into listening to

each other. They were encouraged to learn from other’s experiences rather than just focusing on

showcasing their own achievements.

Learning 2: Participants were given the freedom to express themselves. At times it resulted in a

heated debate but it kept the group engaged since the process was owned by them and not

managed by an external party.

Learning 3: Participants were also given charge of how they wanted to shape the discussion as way

of encouraging ownership of the process.

Learning 4: No readymade solutions were propagated or endorsed. It was in the hands of the

participants to seek answers and offer solutions from their own experiences. It underscores an

important learning that solution to most of our problems lie within reach. We need to only look at

the right place.

Learning 5: It’s important to create safe spaces for dialogue as part of the process. This space

should be such that egos, of various bodies involved in the process of doing good work, do not

interfere with the process.

Learning 6: There needs to be better alignment between the upper level which includes the

Government, Corporate Organizations, CSO, etc. and a lower level which includes the people

themselves.

The Workshop


Rather than have those in the higher layer orchestrate the change in the lives of those in the lower

layer, we need to change the mindset and empower the people themselves to demand change as per

their need. Convening power of the people in the higher layer will make it easier to get the energy

flowing at the lower level.

Upper layer

Lower layer

Figure 1: Alignment between lower and upper layers

Learning 7: Scaling up is very important and many a times we look for standardization as the

method to achieve it. But standardization might not always be desirable as in the process one could

lose the local touch. Localized solution has its own advantages, especially in its ability to include

the community in decision making, thereby empowering them in the process.

Learning 8: An interesting method of achieving stakeholder convergence was shared by the

Delivering Change Foundation in the form of a three step ladder. The first step is building trust:

heart hold. The next step is capacity building: hand hold. The final step is making people realize the

benefits from the process: mind hold. This process has been built with an idea to create a bridge

between what the people at the grass root want and how the bureaucracy wants to do it.

The essence of the discussion on 'Collaboration through Change Management' was that change and

collaboration do not necessarily go together. So there is a need to identify the catalyst which can

bring about that change.


The mindset of people can be a key challenge that has to be overcome. Thus, in order to bring

change, it is important to get the support of the stakeholders and gain their trust. Planning plays

an important role here, right from the point of deciding who all should be involved, to bringing in

the right facilitator and ensuring safe spaces of engagement that encourage collaborative dialogue.

Planning needs to also focus on building the community's capacity to absorb change.

Figure 2: Collaboration through Change Management

On the topic of 'Facilitating Inter-Departmental Convergence', the group discussed various initiatives

taken by their organizations to facilitate better inter-departmental convergence, like development

of the Village Master Plan based on the demands of the village, including all social groups like

women, youth, senior citizens, ST, SC, etc. and connecting the boardroom to the grassroots by

understanding the requirements of the various stakeholder groups through their network and data

analysis.

The group brought out some of the critical challenges that organizations face while trying to reach

convergence, like bringing different departments together, separate planning cycles for different

schemes, flawed mechanism to understand the aspirations of rural India, etc.

The group identified principles of convergence for programme planning and implementation like

mobilization at the grassroots level and building the demand system, strengthening and

empowering groups through Self Help Groups, Mahila Mandal etc. The group stressed on the need

for social audit to bring transparency in the implementation of the schemes at the grassroots level

by involving the community.

On the topic of 'Using Technological Tools like GIS, Mobile and Mass Media for Planning, Monitoring

and Better Information Dissemination', the discussion started with the example brought forward by

Sampoorna Swaraj Foundation. The organization has launched a 'Sampoorna Panchayat Portal',

which aims at managing the workflow of the gram panchayat online rather than maintaining

records manually on paper, as well as to provide information to the citizen transparently. This

enables the citizens to be better informed, make better decisions and participate in the gram

sabha.

Some members raised points regarding issues with technology adoption in rural areas especially

because of the language barrier and lack of funding.


Members agreed that it was a challenge but they shared several examples of the good work being

done in this area like the example from Bhuj, Gujarat, as well as by UNICEF in Chhattisgarh where

the youth of the community were trained in Information Technology and now they are part of the

pilot process where they ensure the regular updation and maintenance of the local MIS system. This

highlights the utility and practicability of Information Technology in gathering information as well

as providing employment. The group also felt that community radio is a good means to connect with

the community at local levels.

Figure 3: Using technological tools for planning, monitoring and better information dissemination

The essence of the discussion on 'Social Mobilization and Community Building' was that identifying

the right issue is of utmost importance, as it is the issue that binds and mobilizes people together.

Thereafter, focus should be on creating awareness through innovative means. For a deeper connect,

the issue needs to transcend into an ideology, wherein the participation of women proves helpful.

The process should include the villagers in both planning and implementation stage. This bottom up

approach ensures the involvement of the community and makes the process sustainable.

The group also felt that involving the administration, particularly the grassroots functionaries to

help mobilize the community, brings in better results. At the same time, convergence at the top

level is very important in order to convene and direct the various stakeholders involved.

INTERNET

Rural Radio

Other Media

Audiences

Intermediaries

NGOs

E-Mail - Internet - Video conferences - Digital Audio - Printers

RuralAudiences


On the topic of 'Strengthening PRI's Role in Planning', many critical points were covered on how

planning at the grassroots level can be improved. This varied from involving planners and

stakeholders in the implementation stage, so they understand the challenges that arise at

implementation. Better knowledge sharing and building capacities between past and present

members such as the sarpanch's as well as tools, reports and processes for planning and

implementation was identified as a measure to improve and strengthen the planning process.

Through the discussion the example of Kerala also emerged as an example of an empowered

planning process, where the state earmarks funds for planning. A similar model, if followed, would

improve the emphasis of planning as well as ensure inclusion of the grassroots. It was also

discussed that the gram panchayats should not be seen as the last mile of governance.

Figure 4: Bottom up planning vs. top down planning

Figure 5: Participative planning

The key learnings from the discussion on 'Resource mapping for better prioritization and targeting'

were that the traditional definition of Resources should undergo a change and there needs to be a

shift in focus from just financial resources. Factors like voluntary contribution from society, social

capital etc. ensure better implementation of programs than just availability of finance. To put the

Decide who Participates

Take Action

ShareResults

AnalyseResults

GatherInformation

DevelopIndicators

EstablishGoals

Bottom up Top DownPLANNING PLANNING

Participatory Monitoring &

Evolution


discussion in perspective, a participant offered a framework, given below, for better understanding

the resources available within a village and hence the approach that needs to be followed in the

planning and resource allocation process:

Figure 6: Framework for understanding resource availability in a Village

EXPLICIT

IMPLICIT

Ecological Economic

Knowledge

Cultural

Political

Social

The group agreed that in order to persuade stakeholders, showing the impact of these resources

could be a powerful tool. They highlighted that needs assessment of a village might not necessarily

be able to capture the aspirations of the people. An interesting insight from the group was that

aspirations of today's Rural India are not very different from the urban population and there is a

need to treat them as partners and not necessarily consumers, who know what is good for them and

are capable of finding solutions to their problems.

Post the group discussion there was a brief presentation by the Delivering Change Foundation in

which they showcased the Trinity 7 Model to achieve better stakeholder convergence. This was a live

example of a method that was developed and implemented through participative planning. The

process was well received by the participants.

This workshop was the first step towards shaping a “learning practice for better methods”, amongst

practitioners of village improvement processes. The participants stressed on the need to create a

network/process to enable the learning to continue, with equal emphasis on expanding the reach

to more people. As has been already emphasized, the ownership of the initiative lies with the

practitioners and it is their inputs that will decide the way forward.

The 3 action points decided at the end of the workshop were:

1. Participants to share their tools/processes/methodologies

2. Participants to share ideas regarding documentation/codification of the techniques

3. Participants to help identify scalable methodologies

UNDP and IbIn will coordinate with the participants to get their inputs on the above action points.

The next steps in this initiative will be decided on the basis of their suggestions.

Way Ahead


Additional Reading: SSEPP in Villages

S. No Document

URL

1

2

3

4

Rural Development Workshop on SSEPP_concept note

Best practices in Participative Village Planning – Matrix

Rural Development Workshop on SSEPP_Participant Profiles

Rural Development Workshop on SSEPP_Minutes of the meeting

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Rural-development-workshop-on-SSEPP_Concept-note.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Best-practices-in-Participative-village-planning-Matrix.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Rural-development-workshop-on-SSEPP_Participant-profiles.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Rural-development-workshop-on-SSEPP_Minutes-of-the-meeting.pdf

Section 11

Civil Society Organizations-

Learning Together

Civil Society Organizations - Learning Together

Genesis

SEWA (the Self Employed Women’s Association) is a founding member of IbIn. SEWA is committed to

the cause of enabling women to work collaboratively and effectively to produce results beneficial to

their families. Thus SEWA’s objectives are aligned with IbIn’s objective of propagating better

methods for people to work together to produce results that will benefit them all.

SEWA is expanding its work to more states in India at the request of stakeholders in those states,

and even to other countries. Therefore SEWA is developing methods for training women leaders and

organizers. SEWA is keen to do this systematically and approached UNDP through IbIn to support its

work of distilling and disseminating better methods for its women leaders to produce results.

UNDP suggested that other organizations in India who have also organized millions of persons,

albeit not all women as in SEWA’s case, may also be rich sources of knowledge of methods for

systematically mobilizing less privileged persons to improve their own lots. MKSS (Mazdoor Kisan

Shakti Sangathan) and PRADAN (Professional Assistance for Development Action) are two such

organizations that have produced remarkable results. It was decided to ask these organizations

whether they would be interested in sharing their best practices.

UNDP and IbIn organized an initial meeting of leaders of the three organizations on September 25,

2014. In this meeting they expressed that they never got such opportunities to reflect on their

experience along with others on similar journeys. They said they found this valuable and would like

to participate in a larger meeting with more organizations doing similar work. Exchange of ideas

between them could enable each of them to become more effective. A well conducted meeting

would also enable better methods to be distilled which could then be propagated more widely.

It became clear in the meeting that these organizations, though all motivated to empower the least

privileged persons in society, and though all worked by mobilizing the people, had different

orientations in their work. For some, the focus seemed to be on economic empowerment and

through economic empowerment obtaining social and political empowerment. For others, political

empowerment appeared to be the primary instrument with social and economic empowerment

following it. Clearly there are inter-linkages between social, political, and economic empowerment

and therefore there would be possibilities of making the methods adopted by each of the

organizations more robust with insights from others.



Evolution: An unfolding process of learning

The three organizations agreed to help design the next workshop, in which they would participate

and to which others would be invited too, by suggesting some questions that should be discussed in

that workshop. The following were suggested as some good questions:

1. How does one maintain the purity, values and fervor of a growing CSO?

2. How do CSOs connect with diverse external stakeholders without compromising their core

values?

3. Human resource is more important than material resources for the work of CSOs. How can

these organizations attract the youth and the best minds of the country?

4. CSOs work towards the values of democracy and equality. How should such organizations

themselves imbibe the values that they want to see in the community?

5. How should CSOs institutionalize effective governance systems?

6. Traditional donors to CSOs ask for tangible outcomes and do not value sufficiently the

intangibles that are necessary to build, such as capacity and social capital in the

community, to obtain tangible outcomes. How should CSOs persuade donors to value these

intangibles as outcomes when they provide funds?

7. How to build an effective network of cooperation between CSOs?

8. How to identify the needs and aspirations of youth in rural areas?

9. Is it important to strike a balance between Seva (service), Sangharsh (struggle) and

Nirman (development)? If yes, how?

Documents: Minutes of meeting or September 25, 2014 meeting (Link provided at the end of the

chapter in a table)

The inquiry initiated by the interaction amongst the leaders of these three CSOs was reminiscent of

a meeting for reflection that Mahatma Gandhi had asked for after India obtained its Independence

from Britain. The meeting was held in March 1948 in Sevagram. Mahatma Gandhi could not be

present as he was tragically assassinated earlier. Nevertheless, in accordance with his wishes, the

leaders of India’s freedom movement, who had worked to mobilize millions in the course of India’s

struggle for freedom, met to reflect on what forms of CSOs and political organizations the country

needed to serve the needs of free India’s citizens. Organizations must evolve, Mahatma Gandhi

urged, to fit the changing contexts in which they must be effective. Therefore the leaders of public

service organizations must periodically reflect on the purposes of their organizations and what

changes they should make in the practices and institutional structures of their organizations to

fulfill their purposes.

A larger workshop was convened in Surajkund on December 5 and 6, 2014 for reflections amongst

these three CSOs and several others.

Documents: Profile of participants (Link provided at the end of the chapter in a table)


Several fundamental issues emerged in the discussions and many thoughts were exchanged

regarding these. Amongst these issues were:

• The financial model of the CSOs: how large must the core organization be vis-à-vis its many

projects and activities; how should the core organization be funded and how should the

projects be funded?

• Should the projects and other activities be financially self-supporting so that the core can

be financially lean to support, and thus more easily able to retain its independence of

purpose?

• What should be internal governance structures to ensure democratic governance?

• In what ways can resources be obtained from external providers (for projects or the center)

and maintain the core values of the organization?

• How do the leaders of the organization and its projects ensure that they understand the

needs of the communities they serve accurately and not impose their own biases?

• In what ways can motivated young people be enrolled and motivated to work in the

organizations that do not bias these persons and the organizations towards giving them

monetary compensation when the prime motivation of the best people may be to serve a

cause and not earn as much as their peers in the corporate sector for example? (How much

is ‘enough’ to retain the best people?)

• How can one ‘spread around’ the activities and benefits of the organization’s work without

‘scaling up’ the size of the organization and its internal pyramid hierarchy?

• What are pros and cons of legally registering a CSO?

Amongst the interesting insights that emerged in the workshop was the recognition of different

architectures of ‘systems’. Corporate management systems are usually founded on an ‘engineered

systems’ model that privilege vertical hierarchy and control. Whereas most CSOs seek to work as an

‘open’ cooperative system. The architectural principles of ‘complex self-adaptive systems’ appear to

be most relevant for tuning up the governance systems and organization designs of CSOs.

UNDP and IbIn will shortly publish a record of the meeting for the benefit of the participants and

others too.

The group listed the following suggestions for developing a ‘collaborative learning and action

practice’:

1. Periodical Meetings for reflection to discuss learning, failures etc.

2. Connecting with each other via an online medium viz. UNDP’s platform of “Solution

Exchange”

3. Practice advisory service – direct connect between CSO’s

4. A 3- day deep story telling session to be hosted by MKSS and UNDP

5. Explore areas of collaboration for business purposes viz. joint sourcing of material etc.

6. Exposure visits to each other’s organization

7. Process for documentation of practices and abstraction of the idea/principles/methods

Progress: An emerging IbIn node-- a CSO ‘learning practice’


8. CSOs getting together for Collective advocacy

It was agreed that the next meeting of CSOs will be held in Gujarat, near Ahmedabad, about four

months hence, and will be hosted by SEWA with UNDP support. This meeting will begin with a

‘learning journey’ to a work site of SEWA, following which there will be a session of reflections on

what the various participants experienced and an exchange of thoughts. The next day there will be

a structured discussion on subjects that will be determined by a small ‘design group’ that was set up

for this purpose at the conclusion of the Surajkund meeting.

Additional Reading for: CSOs-Learning Together

S. No Document

URL

1

2

3

Creating CSO Models of Excellence - Minutes of the Meeting

CSO Workshop Participant profile

Report on the workshop held in Surajkund on December 5, 2014

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/Creating-CSO-models-of-excellence_Minutes-of-meeting.pdf

http://www.ibinmovement.in/wp-content/uploads/CSO-Workshop_participant-profiles.pdf

To be added

Annexure

IbIn team

Deputing Organization: Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

Tenure: August 2011 to June 2012

Sriram Ramachandran

01

Deputing Organization: TAS, Tata Sons Ltd.

Tenure: August 2011 to March 2012

Varoon Raghavan

02


Tenure: January 2012 to March 2013

Arjun Nohwar

03

Deputing Organization: Planning Commission of India

Tenure: April 2012 to March 2014

Siddharth Coelho Prabhu

04

Deputing Organization: Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd.

Tenure: September 2012 to February 2013

Anand Seth05

Deputing Organization: Axis Bank Ltd.

Tenure: October 2012 to October 2013

Rahul Garg

06

Annexure: IbIn team

Deputing Organization: Pro-bono

Tenure: December 2012 to August 2013

Bhavana Mahajan

07



Shruti Mehrotra

08



Abhinav Patwa

09

Deputing Organization: Pro-bono

Tenure: October 2013 till date

Ajith Francis V

10

Deputing Organization: Axis Bank Ltd.

Tenure: November 2013 to December 2014

Shipra Bhalla

11


Tenure: March 2014 till date

Manish Meena

12

Annexure: IbIn team

Deputing Organization: L&T Infra

Tenure: April 2014 till date

Alok Sinha

13

Deputing Organization: ICICI Bank Ltd.

Tenure: April 2014 till date

Surbhi Ogra

14


Tenure: June 2014 till date

Anjali Birla

15

Deputing Organization: GIZ

Tenure: June 2014 to December 2014

Pragya Kothari

16

Annexure: IbIn team