5 Adaptive management: Doing Development Differently
One increasingly popular approach to doing development is commonly referred to as ‘adaptive management’. Adaptive management has grown in popularity since the 2010s, moving from the margins towards the mainstream of official development management.
USAID’s definition of adaptative management is:
an intentional approach to making decisions and adjustments in response to new information and changes in context.
Championed by key official donors like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Department for International Development (DFID) and the Australian government’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT); by influential research institutions like the UK’s Overseas Development Institute (ODI); and by major international development NGOs like Oxfam, adaptive management – or ‘Doing Development Differently’ – seeks to explicitly put the need to listen, observe, learn and adapt to information and changing circumstances at the heart of development management.
In fact ‘adaptive management’ is an overarching term for a number of different approaches. It covers a spectrum between:
- efforts to improve management of development interventions by increasing learning and adaptation (the managerial approach identified by Wallace et al., 2007) and
- efforts to have a more politically sensitive, possibly even politically engaged, approach to development.
Having a much looser definition of outcomes and impact, and deliberately ‘feeling the way to the goal’ through a process of regular monitoring and adaptation are the key aspects of the adaptive management approach. It provides greater opportunities to place beneficiaries at the centre of the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation processes. This was seen at the time as implying a radical change of approach, and arguing that all components of the ‘chain’ should be seen as provisional and subject to constant evolution and occasional revolutions.
Though, some argue that this was less a radical change and more a shift towards how development is really done rather than how it has been theorised.
Whether this is true or not, it is clear that donors were recognising the importance of a flexible, adaptive approach to intervention management. Almost inevitably this encourages greater attention on the context and greater efforts to understand and respond to changes in the context; to situate development interventions within a complex, messy and dynamic context.
The three official donors mentioned above each has their own flavour of adaptive management:
- DFAT: ‘thinking and acting politically’
- USAID: ‘collaborate, learn and adapt (CLA)’
- DFID: ‘politically informed programming’.
As is clear from these titles, they aim not only to encourage a flexible, learning approach to the management of interventions, but also contextually-sensitive approaches that explicitly recognise the political (with a small ‘p’) nature of development.
Now complete the next activity.
Activity 3
In what senses do you think development work is political? Note your answer in the box below.
Discussion
We can think of development work as political in two senses.
- Firstly, it often involves seeking to directly influence governmental or intergovernmental policy in one way or another.
- Secondly, if we define development as ‘good change’, that change has implications for individuals and groups. Not everyone will regard the change as desirable or positive, and objectively there may be gains or losses for them. There are likely to be ‘winners and losers’.
Development work is not about supporting one political party or group, but of advancing a progressive agenda for government and the state. It is therefore fundamentally political, but perhaps with a small ‘p’.
Adaptive management is therefore an approach to doing development that engages with the inherent complexity of development but not in a rigid and predetermined way. It is driven by continuous and iterative monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL). The approach provides reflective space and time for deeper research and monitoring to test current approaches. It employs mixed methods to collect both qualitative and quantitative data to determine what is working and what isn’t working and to better inform decision-making throughout implementation.
In the design of interventions, it is important to appreciate that interventions take place within a context and a system. Identifying the stakeholders that are involved or may be affected; identifying the processes, policies and institutions that influence the problem; and understanding the institutions, norms and practices involved can all help diagnose the problem, identify a potential solution, and the best way to achieve it. It can also promote sustainability by designing the intervention to work with the context, not in spite of it.
The appreciation of the context has also influenced the kinds of interventions that are designed and undertaken. Development actors have long sought to influence official policy and practice through advocacy and campaigning work. Now there are efforts to move away from service delivery and instead influence other contextual, systemic factors – from governance interventions to ‘making markets work for the poor’ and health system strengthening. All these aim to achieve large-scale change through influencing systems.
While approaches, methods and tools are important, so, too, is how they are used. It is the combination of these elements that is critical. Becoming familiar with these different approaches and methods, and learning how they can be used alone or in complementary ways is valuable. So, too, is keeping in mind the messy, complex and dynamic context and how interventions are likely to interact with them.
Involving a range of stakeholders in the design process, and particularly representatives of those affected by the intervention, can be critical in understanding the issues and the context.
If we:
- remain imaginative, open to others, reflective and self-critical
- remain aware of the political nature of development and the power issues involved
- have a focus on achieving good change
then we can seek to use a variety of tools in ways that reflect and respond to the context, and to the needs and priorities of those that need that change most.
In the next activity, Graham Teskey (2018) highlights different approaches from the UK, the USA and Australia aiming to increase the context-sensitivity and flexibility of interventions, with the aim of increasing their contribution to achieving change.
Activity 4
First, read Teskey’s blog post about alternative approaches to managing development: ‘Adaptive management: why we find it so hard to operationalise [Tip: hold Ctrl and click a link to open it in a new tab. (Hide tip)] ’. Next, read some of the comments that follow his piece to gain a more nuanced understanding. Then answer the following questions:
- What are the key points for you?
- What do you think of the ideas of adaptive management or thinking and working politically?
Note your thoughts in the box below.
Discussion
The idea of adaptive management is exciting, although it is appreciated that it is not the easy path. Development actors are skilled in implementing projects and programmes following particular approaches, and the adaptive management approach is a demanding one. As Teskey says, development actors do not necessarily have the skills to do ongoing monitoring or know how to respond to monitoring data that suggests adaptation is needed. He argues that such agility is not necessarily a skill they have had to develop to date. Teskey’s answer is to allow implementation staff to build the skills for effective monitoring and the experience and judgement to identify where adaptation is needed and to effect it.
Some have argued that many development actors already do development in an adaptive way and that this is not necessarily a new approach, and that development actors may already have some of the necessary skills Teskey identifies.