Thu 31 Jan 2013
Sure, measurement matters…but the culture of aid matters more
Posted by Ed under development, Development Institutions, policy, research
[15] Comments
Bill Gates, in his annual letter, makes a compelling argument for the need to better measure the effectiveness of aid. There is a nice, 1 minute summary video here. This is becoming a louder and louder message in development and aid, having been pushed now by folks ranging from Raj Shah, the Administrator of USAID, to most everyone at the Center for Global Development. There are interesting debates going on about how to shift from a focus on outputs (we bought this much stuff for this many dollars) to a focus on impacts (the stuff we bought did the following good things in the world). Most of these discussions are technical, focused on indicators and methods. What is not discussed is the massively failure-averse institutional culture of development donors, and how this culture is driving most of these debates. As a result, I think that Gates squanders his bully pulpit by arguing that we should be working harder on evaluation. We all know that better evaluation would improve aid and development. Suggesting that this is even a serious debate in development requires a nearly-nonexistent straw man that somehow thinks learning from our programs and projects is bad.
Like most everyone else in the field, I agree with the premise that better measurement (thought very broadly, to include methods and data across the quantitative to qualitative spectrum) can create a learning environment from which we might make better decisions about aid and development. But none of this matters if all of the institutional pressures run against hearing bad news. Right now, donors simply cannot tolerate bad news, even in the name of learning. Certainly, there are lots of people within the donor agencies that are working hard on finding ways to better evaluate and learn from existing and past programs, but these folks are going to be limited in their impact as long as agencies such as USAID answer to legislators that seem ready to declare any misstep a waste of taxpayer money, and therefore a reason to cut the aid budget…so how can they talk about failure?
So, a modest proposal for Bill Gates. Bill (may I call you Bill?), please round up a bunch of venture capitalists. Not the nice socially-responsible ones (who could be dismissed as bleeding-heart lefties or something of the sort), the real red-in-tooth-and-claw types. Bring them over to DC, and parade out these enormously wealthy, successful (by economic standards, at least) people, and have them explain to Congress how they make their money. Have them explain how they got rich failing on eight investments out of ten, because the last two investments more than paid for the cost of the eight failures. Have them explain how failure is a key part of learning, of success, and how sometimes failure isn’t the fault of the investor or donor – sometimes it is just bad luck. Finally, see if anyone is interested in taking a back-of-the-envelope shot at calculating how much impact is lost due to risk-averse programming at USAID (or any other donor, really). You can shame Congress, who might feel comfortable beating up on bureaucrats, but not so much on economically successful businesspeople. You could start to bring about the culture change needed to make serious evaluation a reality. The problem is not that people don’t understand the need for serious evaluation – I honestly don’t know anyone making that argument. The problem is creating a space in which that can happen. This is what you should be doing with your annual letter, and with the clout that your foundation carries.
Failing that (or perhaps alongside that), lead by demonstration – create an environment in your foundation in which failure becomes a tag attached to anything from which we do not learn, instead of a tag attached to a project that does not meet preconceived targets or outcomes. Forget charter cities (no, really, forget them), become the “charter donor” that shows what can be done when this culture is instituted.
The evaluation agenda is getting stale, running aground on the rocky shores of institutional incentives. We need someone to pull it off the rocks. Now.
15 Responses to “ Sure, measurement matters…but the culture of aid matters more ”
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
[...] Externally, data-driven decision-making on the part of funders in the social sector space have just as much work to do, if not more. As Edward Carr puts it, [...]
-
[...] 3. Having the data is not a guarantee of acting on it – failure – a strong focus on measurement and accountability in a difficult funding environment means that there is little willingness to admit and learn from failure in the fear that this will mean that organizations and programmes that are unsuccessful – but are learning from those mistakes and providing valuable lessons for others will be defunded. Ed Carr has an excellent analysis of this issue in his blog on the Gates letter. [...]
-
[...] and power all influence, even subvert, how we gather and use evidence. There is a terrific blog here by Ed Carr which makes this point eloquently, e.g.: “I agree with the premise that better measurement [...]
-
[...] ridiculed) his overall approach to international development. Others are not so blunt, and argue instead that it is the culture of development that needs to be [...]

Margaret Wheatley summed up her experience with “measurement”
“If we look closely at our experience of the past few years, it is clear that as a management culture, we have succeeded at developing finer and more sophisticated measures. But has this sophistication at managing by the numbers led to the levels of performance or commitment we’ve been seeking? And if we have achieved good results in these areas, was it because we discovered the right measures, or was something else going on in the life of the organization?
We would like to dethrone measurement from its godly position, to reveal the false god it has been. We want instead to offer measurement a new job–that of helpful servant. We want to use measurement to give us the kind and quality of feedback that supports and welcomes people to step forward with their desire to contribute, to learn, and to achieve. We want measurement to be used from a deeper place of understanding, the understanding that the real capacity of an organization arises when colleagues willingly struggle together in a common work that they love.”
From “What Do We Measure and Why? Questions About The Uses of Measurement”; Journal for Strategic Performance Measurement, June 1999. Margaret Wheatley and Myron Kellner-Rogers
Doug, this is fantastic – I’d not seen it before…
Agreed. And from 1999!
This is a fabulous article and I say this as someone currently working on the frontline in Zambia on a donor-assisted innovative trial.
Some things are going better than others (please read what you will it to that cliche!) but nothing has happened that we haven’t learned from.
We have certainly repeated mistakes that other have also made but not talked about for fear of upsetting their donors. Rest assured we have no such fear!
Simon:
Thanks for this – and great to hear that you all are trying to capture and learn from mistakes! I’m actually on the World Bank’s PPCR team for Zambia, and might be in Lusaka some time this summer…
Edward:
It would be great meet up and, if you have time, show you what we are doing. You have my email address. From a standing start in mid-Sept we have sold more than 13,000 anti-diarrhoea kits (a previously unknown commodity) to remote rural retailers in Kalomo and Katete.
I will share some of the things that haven’t worked when we meet!
In the meantime, you might want to sign up to get our blog posts by email. You can do this on our website…
Thank you for speaking so clearly and powerfully! With lots of respect for Bill Gates and others, they seem to confuse technical problems fixable by experts with adaptive systems problems that need leadership, learning and experimentation by local stakeholders to make the needed changes. In my field, for human capital development to work, different institutions have to collaborate – to align their actions to produce people with skills/knowledge needed in a society. This is very hard work. Look at how much trouble we have with that in the U.S. To solve complex systems problems there has to be room for failure, as you say, and for the learning that comes from failure.
Acknowledging failures requires good measurements.
The ability to ackowledege failures may be more common than recognized. The first microbicide study was a failure and the Gates Foundation immediately put up more money that very week to continue the progject.
AIDS vaccine work has had one disappointment after another with more money donated to try other things.
Polio eradication has seen dozens of failures followed with more grants…
Bill:
I agree…but there is a bit of chicken-and-egg here. To get good measurements, you have to have people willing to measure…and then to use what information comes back. I can alter the outcome of any assessment simply by shifting the variables measured (and there is no universal set of variables out there that could be implemented to avoid this problem). So if I don’t want any project failures to be seen, I can make them go away…or make them appear minimal. In either case, this makes learning very, very difficult.
Also, I was not saying that nobody wants to acknowledge failures or problems – Gates Foundation most certainly has done so, and there are more examples than just the microbicide study. But Gates is responsible to a single, intelligent master that created the foundation out of a genuine desire to see it succeed…donor agencies are responsible to capricious, often-uninformed, and sometimes politically hostile legislators who will use any sort of failure as a chance to score points and/or threaten the Agency budget. I know of which I speak – I worked at USAID in policy and program positions from 2010-2012. That said, there are a lot of people in the donor agencies that experience this pressure who still try to identify and learn from failures and mistakes…but their efforts are mostly internal, and usually limited to the office or team overseeing the program. It is hard for these folks to have a big impact on programs or policies.
Also, there is a difference between failures in a realm (i.e. malaria vaccines) and a particular failed effort (one effort to develop such a vaccine). In the case of the former, of course people keep trying. In the case of the latter, how often was a particular team associated with a failure re-funded? I doubt it is 100%, and given that, there is an incentive to hide failure.
Long and short, I was not suggesting that nobody acknowledges failure, but that the overall culture of aid and development is one that fears failure and hides it. My own experience (15 years of research, 2 years at a donor, still consulting for multiple donors) supports this, as does the (surprisingly massive) response to this post. This is why I was calling on the Gates Foundation to push this another step forward. Bill understands how to learn from failure, and he is not going to crush his own foundation for it…so you all could exist in a very risk-friendly, learning friendly environment (and perhaps you mostly do) as a model to others. Bill cannot be easily dismissed by anyone in the political world of development, and therefore his voice and example could be one that leads to large change quickly.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Ed
Great stuff as usual, Ed. Someone already quoted Margarat Wheatley above, but I’ll do it again, because she rocks.
“We manage by separating things into parts, we believe that influence occurs as a direct results of force exerted from one person to another, we engage in complex planning for a world that we keep expecting to be predictable, and we search continually for better methods of objectively measuring and perceiving the world. These assumptions, as I explain in Chapter Two, come from seventeenth century physics, from Newtonian mechanics. They are the basis from which we design and manage organizations, and from which we do research in all of the social sciences. Intentionally or not, we work from a world view that is strongly anchored in the natural sciences.
But the science has changed. If we are to continue to draw from science to create and manage organizations, to design research and to formulate ideas about organizational design, planning, economics, human motivation, and change processes (the list can be much longer), then we need to at least ground our work in the science of our times. We need to stop seeking after the universe of the seventeenth century and begin to explore what has become known to us during the twentieth century. We need to expand our search for the principles of organization to include what is presently known about how the universe organizes.”
–From “Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World,” by Margaret Wheatley
Thanks Oscar…I am loving these comments. I feel like I am catching up on some good reading…