ECB PROJECT CASE STUDY

Examining an Inter-Agency Community of Practice: the ECB Accountability & Impact Measurement Advisory Group

Loretta Ishida and Katy Love

August 2011

1

Examining an Inter‐Agency Community of Practice: the ECB Accountability and Impact Measurement Advisory Group

1. Background

The Emergency Capacity Building (ECB) Project aims to improve the speed, quality, and effectiveness of the humanitarian community in saving lives, improving welfare, and protecting the rights of people in emergency situations. To this end, , Catholic Relief Services, , Oxfam, Save the Children, and Vision International have come together in a unique collaboration to build field, agency, and sector level emergency capacity.

The Emergency Capacity Building (ECB) Project focuses on improving capacity in three cross‐cutting themes: Staff Capacity, Disaster Risk Reduction, and Accountability & Impact Measurement (AIM). In the first phase of the ECB Project (2005‐2007), over 20 tools, research products, and inter‐agency program approaches were developed in each of these areas. Now in its second phase, the six participating agencies and five inter‐agency country consortia have developed collaborative work plans to improve their capacity across these three themes. Agencies and country consortia both are supported in this work by three inter‐agency Advisory groups brought together at the global level.

The three inter‐agency Advisory groups share their technical expertise to develop small multi‐agency projects, and provide support to the consortia for their country‐level activities. Each agency has designated one primary Advisor and one alternate to each Advisory group. The Advisors are, for the most part, headquarters staff (though some Advisory groups benefit from country office staff participation) with full‐time jobs. These Advisors support the ECB project for up to 25% of their time. The individual work plan time allocated is considered an agency “match” or collaboration cost, and is not paid by ECB Project funding. Without each agency committed to assigning specific ECB time to the salaries of Advisors, it was initially not clear how active each Advisory group might be sustained over five years.

2. Community of Practice by Design

Etienne Wenger, a leader in the theory and practice of communities of practice defines them as “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.”1

Wenger describes three characteristics of a community of practice: 1) members are committed to a particular area of common interest; 2) members build relationships so as to learn from each other by sharing information, helping each other, and working on joint projects; and 3) members engage in practice together through shared experiences, tools, and ways of solving problems. According to

1 Wenger, Etienne. 2006. “Communities of Practice: A Brief Introduction” www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm

2

Wenger, these three elements are the critical components of a community of practice (COP), and it is “by developing these three elements in parallel that one cultivates such a community.”2

The ECB Project clearly defines the Advisory groups’ function as a community of practice. ECB’s Advisory groups serve three main roles in the Project:

1) Provide technical oversight and support to ensure the Project’s work is technically robust and of high quality in planning and implementation. 2) Disseminate outputs and learning from the implementation of the Project’s work. 3) Function as a community of practice by sharing information and experience and developing common positions.

As COPs, each Advisory group carries out the following activities: meeting through monthly teleconferences and periodic face‐to‐face meetings, discussing in between meetings through email exchanges, sharing resources, and implementing joint activities with a shared goal.

Advisors are equals, and no Advisory group has a designated leader. Decisions are made by consensus within each group. All groups receive the support of the global project coordination team. This support facilitates communication and collaboration, and includes the following activities: orienting new Advisors, maintaining email databases, developing communications materials (website, newsletters and regular updates), setting up conference calls, building and orienting Advisors to the knowledge base intranet platform, preparing the monthly meeting chairperson, taking minutes, and facilitating meetings occasionally as necessary.

All Advisory groups began meeting by telephone conference at the end of 2008. Several months later, Project stakeholders came together to define common gaps and priorities, and to develop joint activity work plans. Advisors oversee and support work on those joint work plans, in addition to meeting regularly by phone and in person to share learning and experience from their agency.

3. Results

Using Wenger’s characteristics of a community of practice, we examined the ECB Accountability and Impact Measurement Advisory group. Based on those criteria, we found that the AIM Advisory group fit the profile outlined in Wenger’s research.

Common interest The Advisory groups worked quickly to identify specific areas of common interest. AIM Advisors focus their work in the areas of learning, accountability, impact measurement, and monitoring and evaluation. The group is particularly interested in developing and supporting a joint needs assessment approach, joint evaluations, accountability frameworks and systems, training, and more. In fact, several Advisors’ individual job descriptions or work plans are very closely aligned with the work plan of the AIM Advisory group, and their engagement with the group is seen to add value to their organization’s broader strategy and work.

2 Ibid.

3

Since they work on similar issues, the AIM Advisory group has helped individual Advisors with their responsibilities within their respective agencies. One of the CARE Advisors said, “I’m just as likely to ask an AIM Advisor for materials or support as I am to ask an [agency] colleague. I get access to resources I would have never seen otherwise.” Indeed, many have shared resources and experience to avoid duplication of effort and to capture learning from different perspectives. CRS, for instance, benefitted from a guidance document about real time evaluations from Oxfam. CRS adapted the guidance to fit its needs and then shared that guidance and experience in real time evaluations with Save the Children. Save the Children also provided CRS with job descriptions for accountability positions. During the Haitian earthquake response, World Vision shared tools in Haitian Creole with others, saving agencies valuable time and resources.

In addition, most AIM Advisors regularly deploy in emergencies, sometimes to the same emergency. In these settings, they often meet and collaborate in person as they are often deployed with similar program functions. In other instances, one deployed Advisor may meet with other agencies’ in‐country staff. For example, one AIM Adviser held a joint accountability training based on ECB tools in Pakistan and again in Ethiopia, open to all ECB agency staff.

Relationship building The ECB Project was designed to bring the AIM Advisors together. A joint commitment to the areas of impact measurement and accountability is the critical foundation to the group’s purpose, but would not have been sufficient if professional and personal relationships did not develop. The relationships among the individuals developed over time due to several critical factors.

First, AIM Advisors regularly meet in person and have built trust in their group. Face‐to‐face meetings are critical to build trust, and are reinforced by regular monthly phone meetings. Occasional miscommunications or misunderstandings receive prompt attention and are often quickly resolved. Cooperation, though difficult at time, has proved to be the best way forward and allows each agency to better meet the needs of disaster‐affected communities. An Oxfam Advisor noted that “the levels of trust are high, really very high considering most of us really haven't worked together very much before the ECB Project.”

AIM Advisors have a commitment to the principles of accountability, where Advisors “practice what they preach.” Each Advisor, in his/her given job, encourages transparency, cooperation, meaningful participation, and accountability in his/her agencies. These values are modeled within the Advisory group; people share experiences and resource materials, follow through on commitments, and are accountable to each other.

Advisors have common priorities and overlapping work plans, and use the ECB Project to achieve their individual and agency goals. One CARE AIM Advisor noted that he used the ECB Project’s work to help develop CARE’s Humanitarian Accountability Framework, and Mercy Corps has done the same. Both have solicited advice and input from their colleagues. When the priorities of some are not the priorities of all, however, Advisors have the option to ‘opt out’ of certain projects. An Oxfam Advisor noted that this is important and allows her to focus on the more relevant projects.

4

Finally, Advisors have a stronger voice in arenas when they develop common advocacy agendas. In working with sector partners like ALNAP, HAP, or the UN, ECB agencies have a ready‐made peer group to discuss issues and positions of each agency at the field, regional, and headquarters levels, and can come forward with a common agenda. When relevant, one or more agency representatives can shed their individual identities and speak on behalf of ECB agencies with one voice with meaningful shared commitment on specific advocacy issues.

Engaging in practice Though most current members of the AIM Advisory group were not previously involved with ECB, the Project did have a track record of successful joint activities in Phase I. The Project’s published works included the widely used Impact Measurement and Accountability in Emergencies: The Good Enough Guide, among others. In the second phase, AIM Advisors are continually developing and improving work based on these successful joint actions. This work includes the re‐launching of the inter‐agency accountability and impact measurement Standing Team, Joint Needs Assessments (JNA) and associated tools, joint evaluation guidelines and practice, supplemental tools to the Good Enough Guide, and advocacy within the humanitarian sector.

When ECB launched its second phase in 2008, only partial funding was secured. A gap of over $7 million dollars needed to be raised for joint activities. At first, the group gathered to share knowledge and, to some extent, develop joint actions. However, with insufficient funding, most of the joint actions could not move forward, and some Advisors became frustrated with this situation.

While an inter‐agency fundraising committee coordinates fundraising on behalf of the Project, AIM Advisors were quite proactive in fundraising themselves. Specific agencies took lead roles in proposal writing and managing funded projects and other agencies came forward to actively assist in the proposal writing and implementation of project activities. A steering committee of three agencies is usually developed to focus the proposal writing and/or the project management. This model has been quite effective. Many funded joint actions were gaining momentum and a stronger sense of shared responsibility at the time of writing of this case study.

Other contributors to success Several other factors have contributed to the success of the AIM Advisory group as a community of practice. Early on, the AIM Advisors organized themselves effectively to set their meeting agendas, run monthly teleconferences, organize face‐to‐face meetings, and implement joint actions. ECB staff provided support that saved the Advisors time – orienting new members, organizing conference call logistics, taking meeting minutes, and occasionally facilitating meetings or specific sessions.

Participating in ECB can be time‐consuming and the associated workload can often be hard to balance with individual Advisors’ agency‐specific responsibilities. However, the group’s interactions are quite systematic and may help with personal time management. For instance, monthly teleconferences are organized in advance, the time limit on the monthly calls is respected, and action points from the meetings are very clear. Communications are conveyed consciously and concisely. Emails and bilateral conversations are focused and usually only involve those who are engaged in a particular conversation.

5

One constant challenge is the electronic platform for knowledge sharing and exchange. ECB has a SharePoint intranet knowledge‐sharing site called ECBconnect which AIM Advisors have access to and use, but only occasionally. The electronic library is widely used, but use of discussion boards, announcements, and the calendar is minimal. Advisors often rely too heavily on emailing each other documents and discussions, which is problematic for safeguarding the project’s institutional memory. While Advisors have not maximized the potential of their intranet site, their work as a community of practice is not hindered because of ECBconnect.

4. Learning in Progress

The ECB Project itself provides the purpose, structure, and support for the community of practice  The ECB Project’s design, with defined Advisory groups and commitments from participating agencies to staff the groups, helps to define a structure and operating principles. ECB Project staff support made the group’s work easier in certain areas.  The continuity from Phase I has been helpful to orient the group at the start of Phase II. The continuity ensured institutional memory, especially with some staff who were active in Phase I carrying over into Phase II, and the AIM group successes such as the Good Enough Guide and the AIM Standing Team.

Trusting relationships are key  Face‐to‐face meetings build trust and keep momentum going. They provide an ideal opportunity to sit together, allow for the interpretation of body language, and often allow opportunities for both formal and informal conversations, all factors that are widely associated with key elements of relationship building.  Following through on commitments also builds and reinforces the trust between Advisors.

Shared values cement cohesive behavior  Accountability is a powerful theme for a community of practice. AIM Advisors hold themselves accountable to each other and model behavior.  There is a core group and a foundation of trust in spite of membership changes. Some Advisors come, some go, but things seem to move ahead with good progress and speed.

Community of Practice work is relevant to members, both as individuals and as a group  The sharing of experience and learning is widely appreciated by the Advisors themselves. If there is something one Advisor is struggling with, he/she often engages with the COP for help.  Joint actions result in activities and products that are useful to individual members’ work responsibilities and create results that individual agencies would not have achieved on their own.  While Advisors underline the importance of sharing resources and experiences with each other, a focused effort on carrying out activities and developing tools together, and compiling resources that are useful to all defines the group as a COP rather than an information‐sharing network.

5. The Road Ahead

6

Two large funding streams have arrived at the halfway point of the Project, allowing the AIM Advisors to proceed with the group’s previously defined joint actions. The activity level of the group has increased because of these funds, transforming the group from largely a knowledge‐sharing group, to primarily working together to implement joint actions. The joint work will carry through until the end of the second phase of the ECB Project (2013). But what will happen when the funds have ended and the ECB Project structure has formally dissolved?

The future of ECB agency collaboration, and specifically this community of practice, is less clear. At a minimum, Advisors anticipate continuing to work together in some way. Oxfam Advisors anticipate that Advisors would stay in touch and continue to bounce ideas off each other. An Advisor from Save the Children said, “I think those that work together on particular initiatives will continue. I would like to think that we will continue to reach out to each other to share learning, resources, and opportunities, both at the global agency level and in country opportunities.” But the CRS Advisor notes that once ECB’s formal project structure ends in 2013, there is no guarantee that Advisors would continue to naturally engage with the other agencies, especially as they begin to change roles and responsibilities.

Funding may be critical to ensure joint work in the years ahead. A Mercy Corps Advisor is interested in pursuing further funding for joint work, noting that funding provides an incentive to continue to act together. CRS’s Advisor agrees, noting that funds provide the foundation for collaborating formally.

Ultimately, the Inter‐agency Working Group (IWG), made up of the emergency directors of the member agencies, has operated without funding. The ECB Project was their creation and considered worth the time and effort to go through two phases and involve many teams from across the globe. The IWG will determine the commitment of each agency to future collaborations, whether in the form of communities of practice, or through other joint initiatives.

For further information, please contact [email protected]

www.ecbproject.org

Many thanks to the ECB Advisors who graciously provided their reflections for this case study.

Loretta Ishida, Catholic Relief Services Hana Haller‐Crowe, Save the Children Jock Baker, CARE Alexandra Levaditis, World Vision Brian Atkinson, Mercy Corps Shagufta Jeelani, Mercy Corps Lucy Heaven Taylor, Oxfam Yo Winder, Oxfam Vivien Walden, Oxfam

7