I think we are getting to the root of it!

THanks Maggie and Lucho for the great comments which have moved the disucssion forward a lot. I think we are getting to the root of the issue already - and Lucho is coming up with some useful potential solutions!

I would perhaps add to Lucho's three bullets another one: that people may not be sure what to contribute: what is appropriate, what people will be interested in etc. I dont know about the markets group currently as I am not in it, but this is something I struggle with in the main network. I would like to participate but cant really think of something interesting that others might like to hear!! Its much easier if someone asks for some information, then you know if you can help them out. Or if you finish a piece of work then you can share outputs. But day to day I dont have reason to share anything - and perhaps everyone else is just the same!!

I think this - and some of your other points - can be resolved with more intensive facilitation. This obviously requires a lot of time input by that facilitator - to keep asking questions, and even to ask specific people to contribute something. One of the facilitators of the KM4Dev network told me she often does this - she will send a private email to someone asking them to respond to a message on the network just to ensure that there is a response! This encourages others to respond too!!

I strongly agree with your solutions Lucho - and I think we have come up with some of those before. The bottom line is that it seems to take quite a lot of effort to make a network work, even though one might think it shoudl just "happen" of its own accord. ITs not uncommon for networks to have a full time facilitator, so when we are trying to manage these groups on minimal amounts of time and resources its not a wonder that it is a struggle!

If there is to be another WHY then perhaps we should investigate why any of Lucho's solutions might not be successful or feasible - based on past experience or just logical thinking (as we have not tried them all yet!).

Kath

Lucho's feedback to Maggie

Hi Maggie:

Thanks for your feedback, specially because it opens the cul de sac in which I though the exercise was getting into by saying that the problem was in the nature of the livelihoods approach.

OK. Let me see...

Why has there been a lack of purpose of bringing specific collaboration?

I can think of the following reasons:

• The sub-group is still very young. In its lifetime there has only been one proper face-to-face meeting (6th of June 2006 in London).
• There is still a long way to go in terms of trust amongst members.
• With the resource available it has been hard to keep the rhythm of the conversations at a more or less constant pace.

These answers point at the process that the sub-group has been going through and I think that this is a good result of the exercise. If this is true, we need to understand the process better and take measures to overcome the challenges.

Some concrete actions that could help us move in that direction are:

• Have another markets group meeting as soon as possible.
• Have a more interactive virtual meeting and resource space.
• Make the profile of members one of the most important features of the group. The profile should tell as much about the member as possible; not only about his/her organisation but also and mainly about the person. Pictures of the faces of members will be strongly encouraged.
• (The last two points partially explain why I decided to create a Dgroup).
• Define ASAP a research/action agenda with two or three concrete objectives and define two-three leaders to move it forward with the condition that they frequently share all the details of progress with the members. The integration of the IIED initiative to the group contribute to this.
• Define a fundraising mechanism to get the resources to make that agenda a reality.

What do you think?

Maggie's feedback and an improved Why.

In her comment to my last entry (see below), Maggie proposes to modify the second (or third?) 'why' I proposed. She thinks it is better to ask ourselves:

Why has there been a lack of purpose of bringing specific collaboration?

Lucho proposes to move to the next why

Kath:

I agree on the lack of clarity of purpose. In the case of the markets group (one of the sub-groups of the network) it is still not clear whether it is a mailing list or a means to promote collective initiatives to transform markets. In theory, it is was conceived as more than a mailing list but in practice it is working as one.

I would also like to highlight that lack of clarity of purpose is closely related to a lack of understanding of the incentives and obligations to make things happen.

Now... WHY IS IT THAT THERE IS A LACK OF CLARITY OF PURPOSE? (this would be the second why)

I agree with you that the breadth of the livelihoods approach makes clarity of purpose almost impossible unless you focus on particular aspects of it. This is for me the answer to this second why: it is a problem related to the nature of the subject of the whole network!

Of course, there are other problems that are hampering the whole sub-group to progress: lack of time of the members, lack of funding, lack of leadership (and I assume part of the responsibility here), short age of the initiative, etc. However, if clarity of purpose is not there, no amount of resources, time or leadership will improve the dynamics of the sub-group.

Having said this, the sub-groups of the network are a step forward in terms of focus but we are still a long way to go in this sense. For example, the issue of markets is still as broad as one wants it to be. In this sense, I believe that concrete collaborative research activities or projects could be a good engine to get the sub-groups moving.

Does this mean that now that we (apparently) found The Problem (the nature of the livelihoods approach) we should stop asking the next why? It seems to me that asking ourselves why it is that the livelihoods approach is so broad will not lead us much further. What do you think?

______
Now, there is one thing I do not agree with you much. It is the issue of people copying behaviours. I could agree on this in general, but at least in the case of the markets sub-group I have not seen this at all, despite moments of frenzy (like after a face-to-face meeting). Let me clarify: the frenzy is normally genarated by 6-7 people out of almost forty.
My future strategy will be to work with those 6-7 members. I will not wait for others to contribute if they are just not responding. I am sure that when the most active members begin producing concrete results others (not all) will engage more.

Thanks Kath for your contributions. I hope you can post again.

Hugs,
Lucho

REsponse to Lucho

I think that all the 5 points that Lucho makes are relevant reasons why people are not participating in the Livelihoods Network and its subgroups. But I think the most important of them might be the lack of clarity of purpose, i.e. what will they get out of it.
People tend to participate if they feel they have something to gain - e.g. they will learn something useful, or get some kudos, or disseminate their work to an appropriate audience. I think it needs to be expressed much more clearly just what people can hope to gain, and how it will be achieved. Then we need to make sure that those expectations are actually realised! It takes effort to contribute - even to an informal disucssion group - so people need to see that their investment of time will be rewarded somehow.
I think that this requires some very active encouragement in the early stages: lots of prodding and contribution from a facilitator on a regular basis to ensure that people dont forget about the group, and that they are getting something. I think people tend to copy behaviours, so if they dont see anyone else contributing, then they wont. But if they see others contributing more then they think that this must be something worth doing and will join in!
Obviously the topic also has to be quite clear and pertinent to peoples' interests too. In the case of the markets group then I think this is probably not bad. For the overall Network list this is more of a problem. Its a pretty broad subject area so perhaps people are not sure what they can legitimately contribute to the list.
Those are a few thoughts for now...
Kath

Lucho's first 'why'

My first answer to the question is:

I believe that the sub-groups have not been dynamic enough for several reasons (some of them are still a mistery to me) but I could mention the ones I consider 'most probable':

- Lack of time of the members to participate
- Lack of clarity of purpose (are the groups email lists or a means to achieve something together?)
- Lack of concrete activities with clear responsibles, products, resources and schedules
- Lack of funding to have a paid person to mobilise the groups and monitor progress
- Lack of matching between discussed objectives of the groups and the needs of their members

(Perhaps, in order to move to the next 'whys', we can select only one amongst the ones that we identify as the most important).

THE QUESTION

Let's go through the five whys using the Livelihoods Network.

Can we apply the technique to answer the following question?

WHY HAVE THE SUB-GROUPS OF THE LIVELIHOODS NETWORK NOT ACHIEVED THE LEVEL OF ACTIVITY THAT WE EXPECTED?

THE EXERCISE

Double-Loop Learning and The Five Whys (or at least three…)

Double-loop learning involves questioning the role of framing and learning systems underlying an organization’s goals and values, whereas single-loop learning looks at immediately observable processes and structures. At a practical level, Senge proposes the five “whys” as a useful tool for steering away from blaming first order causes or individuals, and reaching an deeper level of understanding of the factors underlying the issue. When the question “why is this happening? Is asked in relation to a particular problem, rather than taking the first answer(s) as the cause(s) of the problem, one should ask the question “why?” again in relation to each response. As the levels of probing get deeper the tendency is to move from specific technical aspects towards broader questioning of values, incentives or policies.

THE STEPS
(The participants will contribute to step a):

a. Identify an actual project or program outcome that did not achieve what had been intended or planned. Discuss with colleagues involved in project and provide at least 3 ever-deepening why answers why this had happened and try to move from initial technical and process explanations towards deeper reasons related to your organization’s values and policies. List initial and subsequent responses to these WHY questions.

(Steps b and c will be worked by Lucho):
b. How would you address deeper-lying issues that become visible through this process?
c. What can your organization do to engage more often in double-loop learning?


Reference:

Pasteur, K. (2004)
Learning for Development: A literature review. (PAGE 15)
Lessons for Change in Policy and Organizations No 6.
Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.