Capacity Building

Framework

UNESCO-IICBA

By Atsushi Matachi

U N E S C O - International Institute for Capacity Building in Africa

About IICBA
Established in 1999, the U N E S C O International Institute for Capacity Building
in Africa is one of eight U N E S C O institutes and centres under the administrative
direction of the U N E S C O Secretariat. A s the only U N E S C O Institute in Africa,
it is mandated to strengthen the capacities of teacher education institutions of its
53 m e m b e r States. This is carried out through a range of initiatives, including introducing information and communication technology for education; establishing
networks of partner institutions to foster the sharing of experiences; undertaking
research and development on teacher education institutions in Africa; utilising
distance education for improving the capacities of teacher education institutions,
linking educational development to economic development through collaboration
with the African Union and sub-regional and regional educational institutions; and
promoting international cooperation for the development of education through the
N e w Partnership for Africa's Development ( N E P A D ) .

The views and opinions expressed in this booklet are those of the author and d o not
necessarily represent the views of U N E S C O or IICBA. The designations employed
and the presentation of material throughout this review do not imply the expression
of any opinion whatsoever on the part of U N E S C O or I I C B A concerning the legal
status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries.

Published in 2006 by the

United Nations Economic Commission for Africa
P . O . B o x 3001, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Layout and Cover Design: Daniel Ergetachew, IICBA

IICBA 2006

Table of Contents

Foreword

Introduction

Purpose and Relevance of the Capacity Building Framework

Purpose

Relevance

Capacity Building Framework

Definitions of Terms and Concepts

IICBA's Approach to Capacity Building

Steps for IICBA's Capacity Building

Capacity Building Matrix
Points to Note for Capacity Building Matrix

10
11
14

Conclusion

15

References

16

Annexes:
1. Capacity "Building" or Capacity "Development"?

17

2. Institution or Organization?

19

3. Definitions of Capacity Building/Development

21

4 . Problems in the traditional approaches and a n e w approach to

Capacity Development

22

5. Capacity Development Matrix (IGNOU)

26

6. Capacity Development Matrix (Multi-grade School)

27

Capacity Building Framework

Foreword

ver since its establishment in 1999, the U N E S C O International Institute

for Capacity Building in Africa (IICBA) has been engaged in building
the capacity of teacher education institutions in Africa. It has been
doing so in the four areas of its mandate, namely teacher education, curriculum
development, educational planning and distance education. However, though
IICBA's efforts have been guided b y the motivation to assist African teacher
education institutions, they have not been informed by well formulated guiding
principles of capacity building. In its meetings in C a p e T o w n ; South Africa, in
January 2005 and later in the same year in Paris, France, IICBA's Govemii ^
Board felt that while it endorses the focus on teacher education in the Strategic
Plan, there was need to emphasize the institutional capacity building aspects
of the Institute. This, the Board believed, will guide not only IICBA's internal
capacity building efforts, but will also re-link it to its programmes in the African
region as well as programmes and activities at U N E S C O Headquarters.
A s a result, there has been a felt need for some time to articulate the basis of
IICBA's capacity building ventures in Africa. A n d in order to do so, I I C B A
has been engaged in an internal appraisal of its activities. This publication,
The UNESCO
IICBA Capacity Building Framework, is a result of that and is
designed to chart out and guide the Institute's future programme focus and areas
of intervention.
The term "capacity building" is used in this document in its broadest sense
to m e a n "building development capacity" of teacher education institutions. It
refers to creating or strengthening the capacities of African teacher education
institutions to plan, implement and manage policies and programmes aimed
at achieving sustained improvements in their institutions. Individuals and
institutions are the repositories of national capacities. Thus, national capacity
refers to the combined h u m a n skills and knowledge and institutional resources
in the public, private and voluntary sectors in the country. The approach to
capacity building advocated by this framework has several important features,
the main one being respecting ownership of the capacity building process and
recognizing capacity building as long-term efforts.
It is strongly believed that guided by the Capacity Building Framework, IICBA's
programmes implemented in Africa shall be more focused in addressing the
strategic needs of African teacher education institutions and the benefits are to
be accrued more by the institutions themselves rather than individuals. A n d for

Capacity Building Framework

this to happen, the Framework has analysed the interface between individual
and institutional needs and has identified mechanisms for ascertaining that
while it is by w a y of capacitating individuals working in institutions that one
can capacitate the institutions themselves, there should not be a conflict between
institutional need and individual aspirations.
T h e timing and context of the formulation of the Framework is also very pertinent
as it c o m e s too close to the publication of I I C B A ' s Strategic Plan 2005-2010.
T h e Plan has identified major programme areas that I I C B A shall be focusing
in the coming six years. T h e targets set in each programme areas are clearly
s h o w n in the Plan. T h e usefulness o f the Framework in informing IICBA's
decisions in relation to the implementation of its projects in order to meet the
targets is evident - the Institute shall m a k e sure that it targets and addresses
issues of concern of Africa's teacher education institutions.

Joseph N g u
Director

Capacity Building Framework

Introduction

T h e U N E S C O International Institute for Capacity Building in Africa (IICBA) was

established in 1999 as one of the eight institutes of U N E S C O to specifically serve the
M e m b e r States in Africa in thefieldof teacher education. I I C B A focuses on building1
capacity not only of individuals, but also of institutions so that African teacher
education institutions will develop their capacity to improve the quality of teachers
in Africa.
Neglecting the capacity building of institutions (organizations)2 m a y limit the
effectiveness of capacity building of individuals. A s a specialized institute for capacity
building, I I C B A needs to keep the focus on institutional (organizational) capacity
building. Therefore, it is felt that I I C B A needs to develop and present its o w n strategy
for and approach to institutional (organizational) capacity building.
This framework is developed to help IICBA's staff and stakeholders understand the
concept and issues related to capacity building and apply them to their work for an
effective implementation of programme activities.
T h e annexes will provide more detailed information about capacity building issues.
Although the framework can be understood without referring to the annexes, in
order to understand the significance of the concepts presented in this framework, it is
strongly recommended to read the annexes as well.

There is another term "capacity development" that is often used in a similar or in the same context. S o m e people
m a k e a clear distinction between the two terms, namely, "capacity building" and "capacity development" as the
distinction implies a difference in the attitude towards the concept of capacity development/building activities.
Annex 1 describes the difference and implications of the distinction. In this framework, the term "capacity
building" is used as I I C B A has used only this term up to now.

The term "institution" also needs to be used carefully as it has two different meanings: 1 ) an organization founded
for a religious, educational, or social purpose; and 2) an established law or custom (Concise Oxford English
Dictionary 10* edition, 2001 ). For example, the term "institution" used as in "teacher education institution" refers
to an organization. However, the same term used in the context of capacity at the environment level (See p.5)
normally refers to an established law or custom. Please see Annex 2 for the detailed discussion o n this issue.

Capacity Building Framework

Purpose and Relevance of the

Capacity Building Framework
Purpose
The purpose of the framework is to provide IICBA's staff and stakeholders with the
philosophy on and systematic approaches to capacity building, including the institute's
definitions of and views on the issue. The framework provides not only the basic
principles of IICBA's capacity building, but also concrete steps for capacity building
that can ' ; used to formulate, monitor and evaluate activities. I I C B A has developed
its Strategic Plan for 2005-2010 which describes IICBA's mission, goals, priorities
and programmes/projects to be implemented and achieved during the period. While
the Strategic Plan describes the " w h y " and "what" of IICBA's activities, the Capacity
Building Framework provides " h o w " IICBA will achieve its mission and goals.

Relevance
IICBA's idea about capacity building was clearly outlined w h e n I I C B A w a s
established in 1999. T h e terms of reference of I I C B A , prepared by the founding
director, emphasizes the aspect of "organization (institution)" in capacity building
as follows:
The Institute's responsibility will include research, development, training
and dissemination. Its responsibilities, defined as "capacity building",
will focus on institution buildingfirstand foremost, and on individual
training as an essential component of this (UNESCO IICBA, 1999a).
In thefirstissue of U N E S C O - I I C B A Newsletter, the concept of capacity building is
further explained as follows:
At a superficial level, "capacity building" can be equated to training.
However, it is well known that training may benefit individuals without
strengthening the capacities of institutions and of countries to perform
their responsibilities more efficaciously. Individuals who have benefited
from high level training may not be able to put their newly acquired
skills to good use where their home institutions are unappreciative and at
times even hostile to such skills application. Lack of understanding and
appreciation of theses newly acquired skills may lead to a mismatch of

Capacity Building Framework I 3

trained personnel and tasks, with personnel being assigned to tasks for
which they have not been trained and in which they have no experience.
Thus unless capacity building is targeted at both individuals and
institutions, its benefits may be uneven and unreliable. Capacity building
must therefore be defined as building up institutional capacities first
and foremost (emphasis added). ( U N E S C O - I I C B A , 1999b).
M a n y of the programmes that I I C B A has implemented since its inception dealt with
institutional (organizational) capacity building as the major focus, and individual
capacity building as an essential component of institutional (organizational) capacity
building. However, some programmes stopped at developing individual capacities
and failed to deal with institutional (organizational) capacity building properly.
Thus, it is necessary for IICBA to have its o w n framework which specifies its approach
to capacity building in order to help IICBA's staff to 1) share a c o m m o n understanding
of the concept of and approach to capacity building; and 2) to effectively plan,
implement and evaluate IICBA's activities in a systematic way.

Capacity Building Framework

Capacity Building Framework

Definition of Terms and Concept
There are various definitions of "capacity" and "capacity development/building"
(See Annex 3). Sometimes the terms are used in ambiguous manner or without being
defined properly. Hence, it is necessary to have a c o m m o n and clear understanding of
basic concepts and terms to understand IICBA's Capacity Building Framework.
Based on the definitions used by some devele jment cooperation agencies such as
U N D P , C I D A and JICA, IICBA defines the term "capacity" as follows:
Capacity is defined as the organizational and technical abilities,
relationships and values that enable countries, organizations, groups, and
individuals at any level of society to carry out functions and achieve their
development objectives over time. Capacity refers not only to skills and
knowledge but also to relationships, values and attitudes, and m a n y
others (emphasis added) (adapted from Morgan, 1998).
Furthermore, it is crucially important to take account of levels of capacity in a system
context. This can be done at least at there levels: Individual, Organization, and
Environment as shown in Figure 1.

Environment

Figure 1: Levels of capacity (adapted from U N D P , 1998; p. 7)

Capacity Building Framework

Hence, capacity must be discussed in a broader context. Definitions and examples of

capacity at different levels are summarized below.

1. Capacity at the individual level

Capacity at the individual level is the most fundamental element of capacity. It
becomes the foundation for organizational capacity and refers to the will and ability
of an individual to set objectives and to achieve them using one's o w n knowledge
and skills (JICA, 2004). Capacity at the individual level includes knowledge, skills,
value, attitude, health, awareness, etc. It can be developed through various ways such
as formal, non-formal and/or informal education, training, on-the-job-training (OJT),
independent reading, etc. In the context of organizational development, it is also
referred to as h u m a n resources development.

2. Capacity at the organization level

Capacity at the organization level will determine h o w individual capacities are
utilized and strengthened. It refers to anything that will influence an organization's
performance (JICA, 2004) and includes: h u m a n resources (capacities of individuals in
the organization); physical resources (facilities, equipment, materials, etc.); intellectual
resources (organization strategy, strategic planning, management, business k n o w - h o w ,
production technology, program management, process management (e.g., problemsolving skills, decision-making process, communications, etc.); inter-institutional
linkage (network, partnership, etc.); incentive and reward systems; organizational
culture and leadership of managers. A s an institute which focuses o n organizational
capacity building, I I C B A needs to pay due attention to this aspect.

3. Capacity at the environment level3

Capacity at the environment level refers to the environment a n d conditions
necessary for demonstrating capacity at the individual and organizational levels
(JICA, 2004). This includes systems and frameworks necessary for the formation/
implementation of policies and strategies beyond an individual organization. There
are various dimensions on environment such as administrative, legal, technological,
political, economic, social, cultural, etc., that impinge on and/or mediate the
effectiveness and sustainability of capacity building efforts.
Elements o n which capacity is based on at the environment level include formal
institutions (laws, policies, decrees, ordinances, membership rules, etc.), informal
institutions (customs, cultures, norms, etc.), social capital and social infrastructure,
and capacities of individuals and organizations under the environment. The following
table illustrates the major features of the three levels of capacity.
3 S o m e literature divides the environment into external and internal. Internal environment refers to environment
in the organization such as organizational culture, incentive and reward systems, leadership and management
process. In this document, capacity at the internal environment level is included as capacity at the organization
level as shown in Table I.

Capacity Building Framework

Level of
Capacity

Definition of Capacity

T h e will and ability to set

objectives and achieve them
using one's o w n knowledge
and skills.

Individual

Elements on which the capacity is based

Knowledge, skills, value, attitude, health,

awareness, etc.

H u m a n resources (capacities of individuals in

organizations)

Physical resources (facilities, equipment,

materials, etc) and capital

Organization

Anything that will influence

an organization's performance.

Intellectual resources (organizational strategy,

strategic planning, business k n o w - h o w , production
technology, program management, process
management, inter-institutional linkage, etc.)

Organizational structure and management methods

which affect the utilization of the resources
(human, physical intellectual assets) such as
organizational culture, incentive and reward
system, etc.

Leadership of managers

Environment

T h e environment and
conditions necessary for
demonstrating capacity at the
individual and organizational
levels. It includes: systems and
frameworks necessary for the
formation/implementation of
policies and strategies beyond
an individual organization.
It includes administrative,
legal, technological, political,
economic, social and cultural
environments.

Formal institutions (laws, policies, decrees,

ordinances, membership rules, etc)

Informal institutions (customs, cultures, norms,

etc)

Social capital, social infrastructure, etc.

Capacities of individuals and organizations under

the environment

Table 1: Key capacity features and elements at the three levels

Adapted from JICA, 2 0 0 4 (p.10-11) and Lusthaus et al., 1995

Capacity Building Framework

T h e following example m a y clarify capacity at each of the three levels. Suppose

I I C B A works with a teachers college to develop the capacity of the college to manage
a distance education degree programme. In this case, capacity at the individual level
includes skills and knowledge of the staff m e m b e r s in the distance education unit and
s o m e faculty staff members in other relevant faculties of the college.
Capacity at the organization level includes the capacity of the staff members of the
college, planning skills, implementation ability, past experience in managing other
distance education programme, facilities of the college such as computers, the
leadership and commitment of the vice-chancellor, etc.
Capacity at the environment level includes a policy enforced b y the ministry of
education which mandates teachers colleges to organize s o m e distance education
programmes for in-service teachers, and the level of development of internet and
computer facilities in the country in general, etc.
Capacity at the environment
level: policy on distance
education programmes, national
infrastructure of ICT, etc.
Capacity at the organization
level: capacity of the staff,
computers, equipment,
leadership and commitment of
the vice-chancellor, etc.
Capacity at the individual level:
skills and knowledge of material
development for distance
education, attitude towards and
commitment to the work, etc. of
the staff m e m b e r s .
Figure 2 : Levels of capacity in the c a s e of a teachers college

Hence, it is necessary, w h e n issues of capacity are discussed, to include as m a n y aspects

of capacity as possible and clearly explain what sort of capacity is referred to.

IICBA's Approach to Capacity Building

A s mentioned above, since IICBA's responsibilities "will focus on institution building
first and foremost, and o n individual training as an essential component of this",
IICBA's intervention activities should pay due attention to developing capacity at the
organization and environment levels.

Capacity Building Framework

In s o m e cases, to intervene in developing capacity at the environment level is not

easy w h e n variables at that level are controlled and influenced by national and/or
international actors. However, as an institute of U N E S C O which works closely with
the international community and national governments, it m a y not be that difficult for
I I C B A to influence capacity at the environment level. This is an advantage of I I C B A
as an international organization.
Various approaches to capacity development have been proposed. Although the
details of the approaches differ, there is a lot in c o m m o n a m o n g the alternatives. Most
approaches have been developed by reviewing and reflecting on past experiences
in the field of development cooperation (See A n n e x 4). S o m e of the c o m m o n
perspectives and principles that appear in these approaches include: 1) emphasizing
on the importance of ownership by partner organizations; (2) paying due attention
to capacity development at the various levels, in particular, at the organization and
environment levels; and 3) recognizing capacity development as a long-term process.
Based o n these perspective and principles, the following approach is proposed for
IICBA's capacity building activities.
Respecting Ownership:
(1)

Let the partner organizations take ownership of their capacity building

initiatives. Bear in mind that the role of IICBA is to serve as a catalyst.
I I C B A can provide information, training, or other services, but the ultimate
responsibility of the initiatives must be borne by the organizations themselves.
It is important to work collaboratively with the organizations from the planning
stage. Discuss the long-term strategy and clarify h o w IICBA will phase out
of the initiativesan exit strategyand h o w partner organizations will be
prepared for this by changing organizational structure, establishing incentives,
ensuring finance, etc., paying attention to the various levels of capacity. Ensure
h o w committed partner organizations are to the project, for example, by
identifying time, effort and m o n e y they are willing to devote to the project.

Putting Interventions in a Broader Picture:

(2)

Focus on the needs and priorities of the organization as a whole. Consider

the context that the organizations are located in and identify their priorities.
If I I C B A proposes a n e w initiative to organizations without telling them
to share some of the cost involved, they often agree easily to work on the
initiative. It is, therefore, essential to identify their priorities, and ensure their
willingness and commitment before starting the initiative. W h e n they have
other competing initiatives which have higher priorities, ensure h o w they will
be able to m a n a g e their time and effort to provide for all.

(3)

Create an environment and condition that is conducive to learning and

change and in which the trainees can utilize their skills and knowledge.
W h e n you launch a n e w initiative, convince the decision makers in the
organization of the importance of creating an environment that is conducive
to learning and change, for example, by fostering openness w h e n discussing

Capacity Building Framework I 9

learning and being aware of strengths and weaknesses. Team-based

trainingbringing together team m e m b e r s rather than individuals for training
eventsalso helps build support for implementing change in trainees' h o m e
organizations. Think about environment (leadership style of supervisors, rules,
incentives, etc.) which will encourage the participants to utilize their skills and
knowledge in their daily work.
(4)

Cultivate adequate political support. It is necessary to study policy and

regulations in a country (province/region) where the organization is located. If
the environmental factors are not in favour of the capacity building initiative,
have a dialogue with the higher officials in the ministries, and higher decisionmakers in the organizations. A n y significant capacity building effort must be
supported by decision-makers in high level positions such as ministers, etc.

Recognizing Capacity Building as a L o n g - T e r m Effort:

(5)

V i e w capacity development as m o r e than a one-off event. Training must

be contextualized in a boarder picture. For instance, whenever a training
workshop/session is to be organized, it must be m a d e sure h o w the participants
will utilize the skills and knowledge they acquire through the workshop. It is
necessary to put in place mechanisms to trace h o w they utilize the skills and
knowledge and/or to organize another meeting/workshop to follow up the
progress. Furthermore, it is necessary to plan h o w the target organizations
can sustain the activities with their o w n resourses. If enough resources are
not available, include activities that will enable the organization to generate
revenue sufficient enough to sustain the intervention.

(6)

Build in monitoring and evaluation at the outset of a capacity building

initiative. Developing a plan for monitoring and evaluationdeciding which
indicators to use to monitor the progress of a capacity building processcan
help you and the target organization sharpen the objectives and become more
aware of assumptions. This process can be supported by developing a logical
framework of the capacity building venture.

(7)

Create a sustainable mechanism after project completion. Ensure

that capacity building initiatives can be sustained by the organizations
themselves after the completion of IICBA's intervention. Plan together
with the organization h o w to maintain and expand the initiative with their
o w n resources. During this process, it is also important to involve other
stakeholders, in particular, those organizations w h o are in a position to b e
able to decide the budget and personnel allocation to the target organizations.
W h e n physical facilities and equipment are provided through the intervention
activities, ensure h o w they can be maintained, for example, electricity, toners,
papers, maintenance, etc.

Capacity Building Framework

Steps in IICBA's Capacity Building

Based on the six steps proposed by Horton et al. (2003), the following steps are
proposed.

Step 1: Monitor the external environment to identify needs and opportunities

for organizational change
Begin by monitoring and studying the external environment such as
international and national education policies, major trends in education in
the countries, etc. in order to identify and ensure the needs and opportunities
for organizations (e.g., teachers colleges). I I C B A c a n assist an organization
to identify its needs and opportunities through dialogue. It is important to
inform partner organizations of our experiences in other countries. Dialogue
with national ministries as well as international organizations (multilateral and
bilateral donors) are encouiaged.
Step 2: Review the organization's strategy
Review the mandates, missions, future plans and strategies of the
organizations (e.g., teachers colleges). Capacity building needs can be
identified or clarified through this process. This can be done by visiting the
organizations.
Step 3 : Identify capacity needs and plan for capacity building
Understanding the external environment and the organizational strategies
makes it easier to identify capacity needs as well as ensure whether
assumptions on the needs are appropriate. Use the I I C B A Capacity Building
Matrix (See the next section) to identify capacity needs at the three levels:
individual, organization and environment. Give a breakdown of the capacity
and clarify what capacityskills, knowledge, understanding, attitude,
leadership, management style, standards, equipment, etc.needs to be
developed. Then, design activities that will enable the organization to develop
the capacity. The results of the analysis must be shared with the target
organization. It is recommended to develop a logical framework based o n the
capacity needs identified.
Step 4: Discuss and agree on the support that I I C B A c a n provide
Intervention and support such as equipment provision and training to be
m a d e by I I C B A need to be clearly agreed on at the outset of the intervention.
A n exit strategyhow to sustain and expand the intervention after I I C B A
withdrawsneeds to be discussed. It is important to ensure h o w committed
the organizations are by evaluating h o w m u c h time and resources they are

Capacity Building Framework

willing to devote (e.g., paying registration fee, bearing the cost for attending
workshops, etc).
It is recommended, at this stage, to plan h o w to monitor and evaluate the
capacity building activities. It is necessary, at least, to identify indicators that
will help measure achievements.
Step 5: Implement and m a n a g e the capacity development process
Support by the decision makers in the organizations is essential at this stage.
A s capacity building processes call for organizational changes, effective
management and environment conducive to changes are needed. If effective
and supportive management does not exist, activities to develop effective
management and supportive environment need to be included in the plan.
Even w h e n the management is supportive, it is recommended to involve the
managers and decision makers in the project by, for example, inviting them to
attend workshops/conferences, meeting with them, and keeping them informed
regularly.
Step 6: Monitor and evaluate the capacity development process
Y o u should not be bound too m u c h by the goals/objectives that are set at the
outset of the project as a capacity building process is not a one-off event. A
capacity building process is not a "project" in a rigorous sense as a project
only aims to achieve goals within a timeframe set at the outset. Since not only
the outcomes, but the process of capacity building is important, monitoring
the process is essential. Based on the results of monitoring and periodic
evaluations, you need to discuss and negotiate the strategy being implemented
with the organization.

Capacity Building Matrix

In order to help I I C B A identify needs and activities for capacity building, the matrix
s h o w n below is proposed (Table 2). A s explained in Step 3 above, it would be helpful
to k n o w what capacity at each levelindividual, organization and environment
needs to be developed and to understand what capacity exactly needs to be developed.
T h e matrix will help you to pay attention to these aspects.

Capacity Building Framework

Overall Goal

(#1)

Project Goal

(#2)

Whose
capacity?

Capacity
to d o
what?

Breakdown
(Element)
of the
capacity

H o w to
develop
the
capacity

H o w to
sustain the
capacity
>

(#4)

(#5)

(#6)

(#7)

(#8)'

Individual
(skill, knowledge,
attitude, value,
experience, etc. of
staff)

3*,
o

rgai

_N

Organization
(infrastructure, budget,
decision-making
process, leadership,
administrative
structure, organization
culture, etc.)

rge

fi

Environment
(policy framework,
legal system, etc.)

Table 2 : Capacity Building Matrix

H o w to use the matrix:

(1)

Fill in the overall goal (#1). A n overall goal refers to what the partner
organization and I I C B A want to achieve in the long-run. A n overall goal can
be defined as one of the impact level outcomes of the project.

(2)

Fill in the project goal (#2). A project goal refers to what is to be achieved
by the end of the project or capacity building intervention. A project goal is a
subset of the overall goal.

(3)

Think and decide which organization (ministry of education, teacher education

institution, provincial government, district office, school, etc.) will be targeted
for capacity building intervention (#3). Depending on the intervention
envisaged, you m a y need to have one or more target organizations. For
example, if the capacity building intervention aims to develop the capacity

Capacity Building Framework

of teachers colleges to manage a distance education programme, the

target organizations should be the teachers colleges (See Annex 5). If the
intervention aims to develop the capacity of a regional education bureau (or
education department of a provincial government) to promote and implement
multi-grade teaching, two levels of organizations, namely, the Regional
Education Bureau (REB) and the schools m a y be target organizations (See
Annex 6). A s the environment for the schools are easily determined and
influenced by the capacity of the R E B , in this case, both organizations, viz.,
the R E B and schools need to be targeted (See Figure 3 below). Annex 5 and
Annex 6 are actual examples taken from what IICBA has been undertaking.
Annex 5 is an example of the Indira Gandhi National O p e n University
( I G N O U ) programme which has one main target organization (teachers
colleges) and Annex 6 is an example of the Multi-grade School Project which
has two main target organizations, viz., a Regional Education Bureau and
schools.

Figure 3: A case of having two target organizations4

(4)

Fill in the columns for " W h o s e capacity" (#4) and "Capacity to do what" (#5).
In general, to influence the capacity at the environment level, organizations in
higher hierarchical level than the target organization need to be approached.

4 In this context, the R E B is also influenced by the schools and teachers to a certain extent. However, to simplify
the interactions as a model, arrows from the school to R E B were not included in the diagram

Capacity Building Framework

(5)

Then, specify what kind of "capacity" you are referring to (#6). These m a y be
skills, knowledge, attitudes, values, practices, system, etc. This process will
help y o u to c o m e up with activities for developing the capacities in the next
column " H o w to develop the capacity" (#7). For example, if you would like
a provincial education department to have a "capacity to develop textbooks
suitable for multi-grade teaching", staff members of the provincial department
need to have knowledge about learning theories (e.g., learner-centered
approach) and skills for developing self-directed textbooks, etc.

(6)

It is also important to develop a plan as to h o w the developed capacities will

be sustained and expanded (#8).

(7)

Based o n the activities identified in the process above, develop a program

implementation plan (See Table 3 below). It is recommended to develop a- .
logical framework to ensure the logical sequence of the activities.
Year
Task

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Budget
(US$)

1.
2.
3.
9.

Table 3: Example of the format for project implementation plan

Points to note for the Capacity Building Matrix

(1)

T h e I I C B A Capacity Building Matrix can be used as a checklist. W h e n you fill

in the matrix, it will help you to realize which levels of capacity are addressed
and which are not. In m a n y cases, you have plenty of activities in the row of
"individual", but very few in the row of "organization" and "environment".

(2)

In terms of the row of "environment", it is often the case that you cannot find
m a n y activities. In a logical framework, most of the activities falling into
this category are treated as assumptions, external conditions or risks. W h a t is
important is that you are aware of those factors which m a y have positive or
negative impacts on the capacity building efforts.

(3)

This matrix m a y give you a wrong impression that the interaction and
relationship between the three levels are linear and simple. T h e relationship
and interaction a m o n g the three levels are actually complicated. T h e matrix
discards such an aspect for the sake of simplicity.

Capacity Building Framework

Conclusion
This document reviews some of the literature o n capacity development issues and
proposed a perspective and an approach that U N E S C O - I I C B A could use in planning,
implementing and evaluating its capacity building activities.
The document presents a holistic approach to capacity building. It is holistic because
capacity building interventions must be located in a long-term timeframe and a
broader context, including the various levels such as individual, organization and
environment.
S o m e concrete steps to follow (including the use of the Capacity Building Matrix)
are proposed for I I C B A staff to apply the approach and the perspective in their daily
work. Although it m a y not be easy to use the matrix at the beginning, its advantage
lies in the fact that it makes I I C B A staff conscious of capacity at various levels and
identify what capacity needs to be developed and h o w it can be done.
Finally, it is worth reiterating here that IICBA's role for capacity building interventions
is that of a catalyst for change. IICBA's interventions cannot be continued forever
and must eventually be taken over and internalized b y partner organizations. Thus,
it is important to bear in mind the limitation of our involvement in capacity building
interventions and the importance of having an exit strategy.

Capacity Building Framework

References
-

Berg, Elliot, and the United Nations Development Programme ( U N D P ) . Rethinking

Technical Cooperation: Reforms for Capacity-Building in Africa. N e w York: U N D P and
Development Alternatives International. 1993.

Bolger, Joe. "Capacity Development: W h y , W h a t and H o w " . Capacity Development

Occasional Series, Vol.1; N o . 1. C I D A Policy Branch. M a y 2000.

Chung,Fay. Draft UNESCOUCBA

Economic Commission for Africa ( E C A ) Development Management Division. CSO

Capacity Building: An Action Framework. E C A . 1999.

Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko, Lopes, Carlos, and Malik, Khalid. "Institutional Innovations for Capacity
Development' '. In Capacityfor Development: New Solutions to Old Problems, edited by Sakiko
Fukuda-Parr, Carlos Lopes and Khalid Malik N e w York/London: UNDP/Earthscan. 2001.

Horton, Douglas, et al. Evaluating Capacity DevelopmentExperiences from research

and Development Organizations around the World. International Service for National
Agricultural Research, International Development research Centre and A C P - E U Technical
Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation, 2003.

Plan ofActhn:Manl999-Dember2000.\JNESCOUCBA.

1999.

JICATask Force on Aid Approaches. Capacity Development Handbook for JICA Staff. JICA, March 2004.

Lopes, Carlos and Theisohn, T h o m a s . Ownership, Leadership and Transformation: Can

We Do Better for Capacity Development?. Earthscan. 2003.

Lusthaus Charles, Anderson G . , and Murphy, E . Institutional AssessmentA Framework for

Strengthening Organizational Capacity for IDRC's Research Partners. Ottawa: I D R C , 1995.

Lusthaus, Charles, Adrien, Marie-Hlne and Perstinger, Mark. "Capacity Development:

Definitions, Issues and Implications for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation".
Universalia Occasional Paper, N o . 35, September 1999.

Lavergne, Real and Saxby, John. "Capacity Development: Vision and Implications",
Capacity Development Occasional Series, N o . 3, C I D A Policy Branch, January 2001.

Lavergne, Real. Approaches to Capacity Development: From Projects to Programs and Beyond.
Notes for a presentation at the Manila Symposium on Capacity Development, January 14-16,2003.

Marope, P . T Mmantsetsa. "Capacity Development through A D E A Working Groups:

Applicable Practices and Lessons", Partnerships for Capacity Building and Quality
Improvement in Education. Papers from the A D E A Biennial Meeting. A D E A , 1999.

Morgan, Peter. Capacity and Capacity Development - Some Strategies. Note prepared for
C I D A / Policy Branch, October 1998.

Oxford University Press. Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10lh edition, 2001.

U N D P . Capacity Assessment and Development In a Systems and Strategic Management Context.

Technical Advisory Paper N o 3, Management Development and Governance Division. January 1998.

U N E S C O - I I C B A . "The Definition of Capacity Building" in the Draft UNESCO

IICBA Plan
of Actions, March 1999-December 2000 (February 20, 1999). U N E S C O I I C B A , 1999a.

U N E S C O - I I C B A . " C a n IICBA M a k e A Difference?". UNESCO

No.l (September 1999). U N E S C O I I C B A , 1999b.

U N E S C O - I I C B A . IICBA Strategic Plan 2005-2010. U N E S C O IICBA. 2005.

IICBA Newsletter Vol. 1,

Capacity Building Framework

Annex 1
Capacity "Building" or Capacity "Development"?
T h e two terms, namely, "capacity building" and "capacity development" are often
used interchangeably or in ambiguous manner. S o m e people, however, m a k e a clear
distinction between the two terms because the distinction implies a difference in the
attitude towards the concept of capacity development/building activities, in particular,
in thefieldof development cooperation. Below is a succinct explanation about h o w
the two terms are different.
Capacity Development (CD) is not the same as Capacity Building, a term
that was used quite frequently.... Part of the reasoning behind the word
"development" taking the place of the word "building" is to stress the
"endogenous development process of partner countries. " In other words,
since the term "building" connotes "creating something that does not
exist ", this terminology might increase the tendency to subconsciously
underestimate the ownership and potential of the partner country itself.
It is vital that we recognize the fact that our role is to capitalize on
the possibilities that exist in a partner country without undermining
the initiative of the partner country itself. Our role is also to create an
enabling environment to contribute to the sustainable development of the
partner country (JICA 2003: p. 7)

B o x 1: Capacity Development and Development Cooperation

(Excerpt from Approaches to Capacity Development: From Projects
to Programs and Beyond written by Lavergne, 2003)
W h a t has changed? O n e major change is the importance
accorded to local ownership and participation. Early models
of development cooperation emphasized the resource
transfer role of foreign aid. W e spoke of capital transfers, of
technology transfers, of knowledge transfers. S o , even w h e n
w e did engage in capacity development, it w a s from the
perspective of transferring capacity from North to South. In
the 1980s, the emphasis shifted to policy reformparticularly
in the Breton W o o d s Institutions, but here too, the policies
in questions were largely being transferred to developing
countries, in the form of conditionalities, in w a y s that largely
ignored local ownership.
Capacity issues emerged in both cases. The intended transfer
of resources were obviously insufficient in the absence of local
capacity to m a n a g e the n e w resources. In the case of policy

Capacity Building Framework

reforms, it b e c a m e obvious that "policies" by themselves

were insufficient in the absence of local capacity to implement
those policies or of a sufficient supply response due to low
capacities elsewhere in the system.
Let us remember that this is the context in which the concept
of Capacity Building - usually thought to be m u c h the s a m e
as that of Capacity Development - emerged in the first place,
because this heritage continues heavily to affect our thinking
today. T h e expression "Capacity Building" that remains
prevalent in m a n y quarters today continues to imply a
"transfer" model of development cooperation - a s though
all o n e had to d o w a s to build u p the capacity to fill
whatever gaps had been identified. This w a s a quick fix,
gap-filling approach to Capacity Development.
However, there emerged in parallel to this an ever more
sophisticated understanding c the notion of capacity
development and its application to aid effectiveness. What
emerges out of Shaping the 21s' Century, and increasingly
in the dialogues of organizations like the World Bank and
U N D P , is an understanding of development as a process
of social transformation, and a different notion of the role of
development cooperation, understood not so m u c h in terms
of resource transfers or of policy reform, but the more general
role of "change agent" (emphasis added).

B o x 1 above describes the reason w h y it is important to distinguish "capacity

development" from "capacity building" in the context of the history of development
cooperation. Thus, w h e n speaking about capacity issues, it m a y be necessary to be
conscious about the meaning and contexts in order to avoid unnecessary arguments
about the usage of the terms. In this framework, however, the term "capacity building"
is used since I I C B A has used only this term up to now.

Capacity Building Framework

Annex 2
Institution or Organization?
T h e term "institution" also needs to be used carefully. T h e term "institution" has two
different meanings: 1) an organization founded for a religious, educational, or social
purpose; and 2) an established law or custom (Concise Oxford English Dictionary,
2001).

B o x 2 : T h e Evolution of Institutional Thinking (Excerpt from

U N D P , 1997)
Like its counterpart on the economic side, the evolution of
institutional thinking reflects the changing d e m a n d s and
perceptions of development cooperation.
In the 1950s and 1960s institutional building referred to setting
up in developing countries basic public organizations required
to m a n a g e the functions of a state. The focus w a s on the
design and functioning (the building) of formal organizations
in the public sector, such as public service commissions, audit
bureaus, planning commissions, and the like.
In the 1960s and 1970s institutional strengthening dealt with
improving existing organizations (for example, their financial
systems, more staff training for counterparts) instead of
building n e w ones. Most donors included such strengthening
within programmes that would supposedly lead to a smooth
handover to local officials at the end of donor involvement.
Development m a n a g e m e n t in the 1970s referred to
the m a n a g e m e n t and implementation of development
programmes, particularly for social development and basic
h u m a n needs. It looked at the ability of public institutions and
governments to reach target groups, especially the rural poor
ignored by centralized bureaucracies created in the colonial
period and in the 1960s.
In the 1980s institutional development referred to the
broader process in which a society creates and maintains
organizations to deliver value to citizens. It applied to
private-sector organizations, N G O s as well a s government.
Institutional development w a s seen as a longer-term process
of restructuring and organizational change that went beyond
any single organization. Public-sector reform began to take
on a n e w urgency, and capacity building w a s introduced,

icity Building Framework

emphasizing n e w capacities and institutions with the support

of external assistance.
In the 1990s holistic and cross-sectoral approaches to change,
institutionaal economics and governance have provided more
insights. These look at dynamic relations between actors
and the overall policy and governing context for sustainable
change. Capacity development has b e c o m e a central goal
and people the focus. Institutional economics emphasizes
the importance of incentives and the motivation of institutional
actors, especially where this information is scant or poor. This
approach also looks at the impact of the rules of the g a m e
on organizational performance. Governance covers topics
such as the impact of the political e c o n o m y on organizational
and individual performance, dmocratisation, legal systems,
participation, accountability and legitimacy.

W h a t complicates the situation is that the term has been used to refer to both meanings,
depending o n context. For example, since the 1950s, several concepts related to
"institution" have emerged and been utilized in the field of development cooperation
such as "institutional building", "institutional strengthening", "institutional
development", etc. In the early days, the term "institution" referred mainly to an
"organization". However, since the 1990s, influenced by the change in the approaches
to development cooperation, emphasis of the term has been placed on the other aspects
such as incentives, motivation, organizational culture, etc.

Capacity Building Framework

Annex 3
Definitions of Capacity Building/Development
(adapted from Lusthaus, 1999)
No.

Definition

Capacity is the ability of individuals, groups, institutions and organizations to

identify and solve development problems overtime. (Peter Morgan, 1996)

Capacity development is a concept which is broader than organizational

development since it includes an emphasis on the overall system, .
environment or context within which individuals, organizations and societies
operate and interact (and not simply a single organization). ( U N D P , 1998)

Capacity development is "...any system, effort or process... which includes

a m o n g its major objectives strengthening the capability of elected chief
executive officers, chief administrative officers, department and agency
heads and programme managers in general purpose government to plan,
implement, m a n a g e or evaluate policies, strategies or programs designed
to impact on social conditions in the community." (Cohen, 1993).

...capacity is the combination of people, institutions and practices that

permits countries to reach their development goals...Capacity building is...
investment in h u m a n capital, institutions and practices. (World Bank, 1998)

Capacity building is any support that strengthens an institution's ability to

effectively and efficiently design, implement and evaluate development
activities according to its mission. (UNICEF-Namibia, 1996)

Capacity building is a process by which individuals, groups, institutions,

organizations and societies enhance their abilities to identify and meet
development challenges in a sustainable manner. (CIDA, 1996)

Capacity development: The process by which individuals, groups,

organizations, institutions and societies increase their abilities to perform
functions, solve problems and achieve objectives; to understand and deal
with their development need in a broader context and in a sustainable
manner. ( U N D P , 1997)

Capacity strengthening is an ongoing process by which people and

systems, operating within dynamic contexts, enhance their abilities to
develop and implement strategies in pursuit of their objectives for increased
performance in a sustainable w a y . (Luthaus et al. for I D R C , 1995)

Capacity Building Framework

Annex 4
Problems in the traditional approaches and a new
approach to capacity development
Problems in the traditional approaches
It should be worth understanding the context from which the concept of "capacity
building" has emerged. The concept became more controversial after U N D P published
the book "Rethinking Technical Cooperation: Reforms for Capacity-Building in
Africa (Berg and U N D P , 1993)" which reviewed the effectiveness of technical
cooperation with over 30 countries in Africa. Most of the country reviews reached
similar conclusions which can be summarized as follows:
Technical cooperation had proven effective in getting the job done, but
less effective at developing local institutions or strengthening local
capacities; and that it was expensive, donor-driven, often served to
heighten dependence on foreign experts, and distorted national priorities,
(emphasis added). (Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko, et ai, 2001, p. 4).
Based on the results of the review, U N D P attributes the problem to the two mistaken
assumptions that the old development model w a s based on. T h efirstmistaken
assumption is that "it is possible to ignore existing capacities in developing countries
and replace them with knowledge and systems produced elsewhere - a form of
development as displacement, rather than development as transformation". T h e
second one is that "it is possible for donors to ultimately control the process and yet
consider the recipients to be equal partners" (Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko, et al., 2001, p. 8).
Then, they present a new perspective on development cooperation as follows:
As countries transform themselves, they have to develop different
capacities. But it is important to recognize that they do not do so merely as
an aggregate of individuals. National capacity is not just the sum total of
individual capacities. It is a much richer and more complex concept that
weaves individual strengths into a stronger and more resilient fabric. If
countries and societies want to develop capacities, they must do more than
expand individual human skills. They also have to create the opportunities
and the incentives for people to use and extend those skills....Most
technical cooperation projects, however, stop at individual skills and
institution-building; they do not consider the societal (environmental)
level, (emphasis added). (Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko, et al., 2001, p. 9).

Capacity Building Framework

The notion below elaborates the perspective:

In the past, there has been afragmented approach to capacity development,
whichfocused on individuals rather than the organizations as a whole. This
is perhaps most clearly reflected in the emphasis of traditional capacity
development efforts on individual training. However, organizations do
not necessarily change and grow stronger when individuals learn and
develop their capacities in isolation.
Individual knowledge, skills, and attitudes are of course important, but
they are not sufficient to develop organizational knowledge and promote
change. Capacity development efforts must also include team building,
and the development of the organizational procedures and systems that
channel human abilities towards achieving the organization's goals.
(emphasis added). (Horton et al, 2003, p. 44).
Horton et al. (2003) present as follows some of the c o m m o n characteristics of
traditional approaches and major traps that the development cooperation agencies
are likely to fall into:
i)

Organizational capacities are not developed through training individuals,

delivering information, or participating in collaborative projects alone. These
can be important components of a capacity development strategy, but only
w h e n they address organizational priorities;

ii) Most of the past organization capacity development began with assessing, or
sometimes even assuming, the needs of individual staff m e m b e r s or the needs
of individual projects or units;
iii) Managers believe that upgrading the capacity of the individual will lead to
better individual performance, and that this will automatically lead to better
performance of the organization as a whole;
iv) Individual staff or project-focused support seldom addresses the organizational
priority needs;
v)

A focus on individuals or projects misses the "big-picture" issues facing the

organization;

vi) Trained individuals m a y not find an environment conducive to the use of their
n e w knowledge, skills and attitudes; and
vii) A focus on individuals and projects m a y even undermine the organization's
capacity.

Capacity Building Framework

A holistic approach to capacity development

B a s e d o n the discussion about the problems and issues of the traditional approaches
to capacity development, Horton et al (2003). propose the principles o f a holistic
approach to capacity development as s h o w n below (modified by the author).
a)

Let them take the ownership of their capacity development initiative.

b)

Focus on the needs and priorities of the organization as a whole.

c)

Pay attention to the processes of capacity development.

d)

Build in monitoring and evaluation at the outset of a capacity development

initiative.

e)

View capacity development as more than a one-off event.

f)

E n g a g e stakeholders in the capacity development process.

g)

Cultivate adequate political support and preserve your autonomy,

h)

Establish an environment that is conducive to learning and change.

In addition, it should be noted that it is essential to create a sustainable mechanism

after project completion. W h e n a project/programme is launched, a post-project
scenario or an "exit strategy" upon the completion of the project must be developed. It
is crucially important to incorporate certain mechanisms for ensuring the sustainability
of the project outcomes as early a possible. B y doing so, it becomes easier for I I C B A
to understand what environment should be created for the project outcomes to be
sustained.
Horton et al. (2003) also propose the following six steps for holistic capacity
development:

Step 1 : Monitor the external environment to identify needs and opportunities

for organizational change;
Step 2 : R e v i e w the organization's strategy;
Step 3. Identify capacity needs a n d plan for capacity development;
Step 4 . Negotiate external support;
Step 5. I m p l e m e n t and m a n a g e the capacity development process; and
Step 6. Monitor and evaluate the capacity development process.

It is also worth quoting the following caution m a d e b y Horton et al (2003):

Capacity development involves learning and experimentation and what
works well in one place may fail in another....Keeping
in mind the futility
of searching for universal formulas, our experiences and reflections

Capacity Building Framework 125

from the evaluation studies suggest the value of going through the steps
listed below. Given the nature of capacity development processes, and
the frequent changes that organizations are exposed to today, managers
should not expect to implement these steps in a neat sequence as presented.
Nevertheless, our experience suggests there is some logic in the order
presented, which is mirrored in recent research on organizational strategy
and development in a wide variety of organizations and settings. (Horton
et al, 2003, p. 57)
These principles and steps above are modified and adapted as IICBA's Capacity
Building Framework.

Capacity Building F r a m e w o r k

saf5a||OQ 6uiuieji jaipeai

vo
H
CU

fi
fi
<

o
o
en
CU

CS

T3
SH

CuD
i

^H

CU

A
CS

s
X

W
CS

eu

S
'S
CU

?*>

Q
u
et

eu
es

^_

If

ai

il

5> S
^> OT
"
' S o; o.

ir -g .

fil

1!

fil

w O co a_ :

I!

S Se

J= -a ZI

ifi

rfll

!?j
E

Ht

o> o,

|IE1
o

II
I!

I S

II!
r

(D

.I

-i

5 "

"Si

27

HI

lll

If
S|ooi)og

th

I S S

III

E SB "g K '

H!
ils

ai

<" 5 -c

. & :

11

Capacity Building Framework

JQ 3 C

Li

Ol'
O

i III HI

I*"ll if
1=11'
nesjng uo|ieonp3 leuoiSau

Capacity Building Framework

T h e U N E S C O International Institute for Capacity Building in Africa ( U C B A )

The U N E S C O International Institute for Capacity Building in Africa (IICBA) is an
international centre for building capacities of educational institutions in Africa, focusing
on research and training for teacher education, cost-effective uses of ICT for education,
education policy and management.
It was established by U N E S C O in 1999 and isfinancedby U N E S C O and by voluntary
contributions from M e m b e r States. In recent years the following M e m b e r States have
provided voluntary contributions to the Institute: Japan, Norway, Sweden and the United
States of America.
The Institute's aim is to contribute to the development of education throughout the world, in
particular in Africa by expanding both knowledge and the supply of competent professionals
in the area of capacity building for education/In this endeavour the Institute co-operates
with interested training and research organizations in the U N E S C O ' s M e m b e r States. The
Governing Board of the IICBA, which approves the Institute's programme and budget,
consists of 12 members, appointed by the Director-General as follows: 9 members from the
region, one of w h o m is a national of the host country; 2 members from regional organizations
and I m e m b e r representing the bilateral donor community.
Chairpersons:
Lonce Couaovi Johnson (Togo); Secretary to the African Union Commission, African Union
Commission
Board Members:
Karima Bounemra Ben Soltane (Tunisia); Director, North African Sub Regional Office,
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa
Duncan Hindle (South Africa); Director-General, Department of Education, Ministry of
Education, South Africa
Kawsar Kouchok (Egypt); Helwan University, Egypt
Changu Mannathoko (Botswana); Regional Education Advisor, Eastern and Southern Africa
Regional Office, U N I C E F
Zeferino Martins (Mozambique); Deputy Executive Secretary, Community of Portuguese
Speaking Countries, Portugal
Dzingai Mutumbuka (Zimbabwe); Sector Manager, H u m a n Development Division - Africa
Technical Families Department, World Bank
Samuel Nyambi (Cameroon); Regional Manager U N D P Regional Service Center for Eastern
and Southern Africa, South Africa
Bikas C. Sanyal (India); Adviser, International Institute for Educational Planning, U N E S C O
Sibry Tapsoba (Burkina Faso); Advisor to Vice President, P R V P , African Development Bank
Sintayehu Woldemikael (Ethiopia); Minister, Ministry of Education, Ethiopia
Non-voting Members:
Peter Smith, Assistant Director-General for Education, U N E S C O
Lalla Ben Barka, Director, Regional Bureau for Education in Africa, Dakar, U N E S C O
Joseph Ngu, Director, U N E S C O IICBA (Secretary of the Board)
Inquiries about the Institute should be addressed to:
The Office of the Director, International Institute for Capacity Building in Africa
P.O.Box 2305, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia