Global Water Operators’ Partnerships Alliance

Learning Approaches in
Water Operators’ Partnerships
Framing the Issues
CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS  i

LIST OF BOXES, TABLES AND DIAGRAMS  ii

LEARNING APPROACHES IN WATER OPERATORS’ PARTNERSHIPS  1

1. INTRODUCTION  3

1.1 AIM OF THE PAPER  3

1.2 THE CURRENT STATUS OF WOPs: RANGE AND PURPOSE  3

1.3 THE IMPORTANCE OF CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING IN WOPs  4

2. CURRENT THEORY AND PRACTICE IN CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT  6

2.1 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT THINKING ABOUT CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT: THEORY  6

2.2 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT THINKING ABOUT CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT: GUIDANCE FOR PRACTICE  12

3. WHAT WORKS IN WOPs?  19

3.1 RESOURCES AND EVIDENCE AVAILABLE  19

3.2 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES IN WOPs  19

3.3 CONDITIONS THAT SUPPORT LEARNING  23

3.4 FACTORS THAT CAN IMPEDE LEARNING  24

3.5 GAPS IN THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON LEARNING IN WOPs  25

4. DIMENSIONS OF A LEARNING FRAMEWORK FOR WOPs  27

4.1 OUTLINE OF A GUIDING FRAMEWORK  27

4.2 THEMES  27

4.3 WHO NEEDS TO LEARN WHAT? WORKING WITHIN A HOLISTIC CAPACITY FRAMEWORK  29

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: PULLING IT ALL TOGETHER  31

5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS  31

APPENDIX: INTERVIEWEES, INFORMATION SOURCES AND RESOURCES  32

ABBREVIATIONS

BCC
Bulawayo City Council

BEWOP
Boosting Effectiveness in Water Operators’ Partnerships

BOWSER Bulawayo Water and Sanitation Emergency Response

BWS
Belize Water Services

CCWD
Contra Costa Water District

GWOPA Global Water Operators’ Partnerships Alliance

IWA
International Water Association

IWC
International Water Centre

M&E
Monitoring and evaluation

MDG
Millennium Development Goal

MWAUWASA Mwanza Urban Water and Sewerage Authority

NGOs
Non-government organisations

NOSS
National Occupational Skills Standard

NRW
Non revenue water

PBA
Perbadanan Bekalan Air

PWSA
Penang Water Services Academy

SNDE
Société Nationale d’Eau

UNESCO-IHE UNESCO Institute for Water Education

VEI
Vitens-Evides International

WOPs
Water Operators’ Partnerships

WVZ
World Visions Zimbabwe

WWN
World Waternet

i
LIST OF BOXES, TABLES AND DIAGRAMS

Box 1: Some learning theories that can apply to WOPs activities  9

Box 2: Good practice for capacity assessments  13

Box 3: Enabling conditions and absorptive capacity  14

Box 4: Approaches and tools for learning for capacity development  15

Box 5: Training for competency standards  20

Box 6: Bulawayo Water and Sanitation Emergency Response (BOWSER)  20

Box 7: Belize Water Services and Contra Costa Water District  21

Box 8: MWAUWASA database  22

Table 1: Types of capacity  8

Table 2: The use of different approaches and examples of application in WOPs  16

Diagram 1: Levels of capacity  7

Diagram 2: The Limits of Training and Learning  16

Diagram 3: The application of learning process  18

Diagram 4: Schematic of a capacity development framework for WOPs  30

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This framing paper was prepared by Jenny Pearson with guidance from Julie Perkins of the GWOPA
Secretariat and support from Uta Wehn de Montalva and Mireia Tutusaus Luque of UNESCO-IHE. Thanks are
also due to the various water operator experts who gave their time to be interviewed as part of the inquiry
process, and those who shared both publications and some internal organisational documentation to add
to the resources available for review. Many useful insights were gained from conversations with participants
in the BEWOP workshop and 2nd Global Water Operators Congress in Barcelona in November 2013. The
author bears responsibility for any errors or omissions.

ii
iii
LEARNING APPROACHES IN WATER
OPERATORS’ PARTNERSHIPS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This paper has been produced as a framing paper for the “Learning Approaches” thematic session at the
second Global WOPs Congress, held in Barcelona in November, 2013. The aim of the paper was to provide
the conceptual basis for understanding capacity development and learning approaches in Water Operators’
Partnerships (WOPs).

The paper also makes an important initial contribution to the Boosting Effectiveness of Water Operators’
Partnerships (BEWOP) project, a 5-year collaboration between UN-Habitat’s Global Water Operators’
Partnerships Alliance (GWOPA) and the UNESCO Institute for Water Education (UNESCO-IHE) to mainstream
effective knowledge transfer and change in WOPs. This work contributes specifically to Activity 2 which
focuses on how knowledge is transferred between utilities and managed within them.

Globally, many water operators are not yet able to fulfil their mandate to provide effective, affordable and
sustainable water services for their consumer communities. The operators’ capacity needs vary considerably,
dictated by the unique circumstances and challenges of each. WOPs are a peer-to-peer, non-profit mechanism
for helping water operators to learn from each other in order to increase their capacity. Arrangements for
WOPs vary considerably in terms of their focus and duration, and some have many partners involved.
However, at the heart of each there is a mentee partner with an identified capacity need, and a mentoring
partner willing and able to help.

Capacity development theory and practice are evolving disciplines with many dimensions. Current
understanding is that within any given system capacity exists in and between multiple levels – individual,
organisational, and enabling environment, and that intangible capacity is equally, if not more, important as
tangible capacity. Themes for application will be defined by the context. The need for learning at all levels
is an inherent feature of capacity development, both in the form of knowledge and skills transfer, and in the
acquisition of other capacities such as the ability to solve problems and to innovate. The need is for both first
and second loop learning i.e. knowing how to do things right and to do the right things. The most effective
approach to capacity development is not events, but facilitated and supported processes that draw together
multiple linked and sequential methods over time. Of particular relevance to WOPs is the fact that partnerships
are now recognised as effective mechanisms for learning.

The design of any capacity development intervention will be most appropriate and effective if it is based on
a substantive assessment of current capacity and conditions, drawing on the knowledge and understanding
not only managers but also operators. Design is then a series of decisions to define the capacity goals and
objectives to be achieved, decide who needs to be involved, and how best to achieve the desired results, using
methods that can maximise opportunities and minimise or overcome constraints. Training has a role to play in
developing the technical capacity of individuals, but often training fails to achieve hoped-for results because
the learning acquired on courses is only partly applied. Other types of learning approach have proved to
be more appropriate and effective for facilitating the development of intangible and organisational level
capacities. However, it is recognised that both training and learning practices have limited effectiveness for
capacity development in complex situations.

The common feature of WOPs is that they focus on aspects of service delivery, either to solve a problem
(including staff knowledge and expertise) or to introduce a new feature of the system to enhance the quality or
range of services provided. While there have been and continue to be many WOPs, few have been written up
in sufficient detail for others to understand fully the capacity development process and results. All cases involve
an element of capacity development, though how it is defined in the partnership agreements varies significantly
from one to another. What case studies and other documentation have identified as being the most important
conditions that support success in WOPs are: enabling conditions for the WOP to function; the right starting
point; a strong planning framework; the overall WOP process creates conditions conducive to learning; and,
quality of the relationships within the partnership. However, no WOP will be without its challenges and the

1
evidence cases indicates that the main challenges are: insufficient diagnostics and unhelpful assumptions;
language and cross-cultural working; and, lack of guidelines for those new to WOPs.

There are a number of important gaps in the available information, most significantly: how best practices
are identified and transferred; monitoring and evaluation (M&E) processes for capacity development;
understanding the motivations for learning to lead to change; and understanding capacity development at the
enabling environment level.

This paper has sought to draw together what is currently thought to be the most effective approach to capacity
development with what is known of the current practice in WOPs. Upon this basis the paper proposes an initial
framework for assessment of capacity needs and design of WOP capacity development activities. Any such
framework must start with a definition of capacity that clarifies ‘Capacity for what?’ together with a definition
for the process of capacity development. In the context of WOPs the following definitions apply:

For water and sanitation operators, capacity can be defined as the ability to sustainably deliver quality
services to all within their target communities.

Capacity development is understood as the process facilitated by WOPs whereby water operators unleash,
strengthen, create, adapt and maintain their capacity.

Other elements of the framework are consideration of tangible and intangible capacities across all levels in
the context of the important themes for water operators’ capacity, namely: technical; managerial; governance;
and, consumer relations. It further addresses the need to think about both first and second loop learning, both
for the mentee and the mentor partner.

While many will be able to use the information directly in design or refinement of their WOPs, it is the intention
of the BEWOP project to build on this framework, and adapt it so that it may be considered a practical tool for
WOPs implementers and supporters.

As noted in the paper, there are some important gaps in the available evidence about what is currently
happening in WOPs. In order to extend the level of current understanding and to offer something that can help
improve the design and delivery of WOPs, the conclusions lead to the following recommendations:

• Undertake research that will provide better understanding of learning approaches as they are currently used
in WOPs, and the factors that support or block successful application of learning;

• Seek ways to fill the gaps in current knowledge about other aspects of capacity development in WOPs;

• Develop a format and guidance for framing capacity goals, and learning objectives and indicators in
WOP agreements;

• Develop a format and guidance for including M&E of capacity development approaches in the overall
WOP M&E framework; and,

• Explore how best to develop the framework above as a helpful tool for those negotiating new WOPs.
This might be the creation of a checklist or assessment guidelines, which could then be piloted.

2
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 AIM OF THE PAPER

The aim of this paper is to provide an initial theoretical foundation for understanding capacity development
and learning approaches in Water Operators’ Partnerships (WOPs). It presents an overview of current practice
in capacity development generally and within WOPs, from which it identifies ideas and approaches worthy
of special attention. The paper suggests an initial framework to guide future initiatives, and possible actions at
different levels for encouraging best practice. The paper also highlights some current gaps in knowledge and
understanding about capacity development in WOPs that need further investigation.

The paper is a contribution to the start of the Boosting Effectiveness in Water Operators’ Partnerships (BEWOP)
project. This project is a collaboration between UN-Habitat’s Global Water Operators’ Partnerships Alliance
(GWOPA) and the UNESCO Institute for Water Education (UNESCO-IHE) to mainstream effective knowledge
transfer and change in WOPs. An earlier draft of the paper was prepared as background to the “Learning
Approaches” thematic session during the 2nd Global WOPs Congress held in Barcelona from November
27–29th, 2013.

1.2 THE CURRENT STATUS OF WOP s : RANGE AND PURPOSE

Globally, many water operators experience a wide array of service delivery problems associated with lack of
capacity and weak governance. These problems include: poor management; weak operational and financial
management; under-skilled and under-valued personnel; lack of effective policies; absent or weak service
orientation; political interference; and, little or ineffective regulation. For many years it was hoped that the
private sector could solve performance shortcomings. However private sector entities would rarely venture into
the high risk and low-profit water market, or where they did, often failed to provide the expected solutions and
results. With an increasing number of contracts terminated or coming to an end, the private sector has been
departing, taking much institutional knowledge with them, and leaving many operators in an even weaker
position to perform well. The imperative of trying to reach the water-related Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) called for a different strategy. WOPs, already being conducted in a piecemeal fashion by operators
around the world, were recognized as a potential solution. A Global Mechanism to scale up WOPs was called
for by the UN Secretary General’s Advisory Board in its 2006 Hashimoto Action Plan, and UN-Habitat was
requested to establish GWOPA to support WOPs as an alternative approach to enabling water operators to
achieve sustainable capacity.

GWOPA defines WOPs as:

… peer support exchanges between two or more water operators, carried out on a not-for-profit basis, with the
objective of strengthening their capacity, enhancing their performance and enabling them to provide a better
service to more people.1

Within this definition it is acknowledged that knowledge sharing and professional support can take a multitude
of forms depending on the individual circumstances and needs of each WOP. GWOPA has identified some of
the ideal key features of WOPs as:

• They are demand driven, in that neither the mentoring partner nor the donor defines or drives the agenda or
process, but are defined by the mentee partner;

• They are based on mutual trust, and the good governance principles of integrity, transparency and
accountability; and

1 GWOPA Strategy 2013–2017 available at http://gwopa.org/index.php/resource-library/3536-gwopa-strategy-2013-2017 accessed 4.9.2013

3
• The agreements to establish them are results-oriented.

A number of additional advantages of WOPs have been noted, including that they are relatively cost-effective;
tend to be flexible enough to respond to evolving needs; enable the involvement of a diversity of essential
actors; and that they help put the local operator in the drivers’ seat to sustain improvements over the long-term.

A more strategic advantage of WOPs is that over time they can have a significant multiplier effect. As water
operators gain capacity having themselves been supported by a mentoring partnership, they are then able to
mentor others. Some examples where this has happened are discussed below.

Whatever their duration and nature, all WOPs have a start-up phase, either formal or informal, in which
preliminary assessments are conducted and agreements are prepared. Thereafter, the nature of a WOP can
vary significantly both in terms of duration, focus of work, and the number and nature of partners involved.
No two are exactly the same. Some are very simple, focused on a single technical issue and last less than a
year. Others are multi-faceted, covering several areas of need and lasting for three or more years. The third
group can be defined as special performance partnerships with a mandate to work on many different aspects
of service delivery and organisational functioning. These will likely be long-term, involving multiple actors. The
Bulawayo case study outlined in Box 6 below is an example of this type of WOP.

It isn’t possible to know how many WOPs are in operation worldwide at any give time, although GWOPA’s
database contains over 100 records. Globally the span is a varied and dynamic group with start-ups,
implementation, extensions and completions underway all the time. The GWOPA Secretariat helps broker
WOPs. Other WOPs are established through bilateral arrangements. For example, well-established mentoring
partners such as Vitens-Evides International (VEI) and Dunea in the Netherlands will often work through their
own networks to extend the range of their partnerships. However, most WOPs come into being through the
WOPs platforms that operate in the regions. GWOPA and its members, particularly development banks
and water associations, have set these up in Asia, Africa, the Arab Region, Europe, Latin America and the
Caribbean, North America and Oceania. Additionally, some water associations are now starting to facilitate
in-country WOPs. An example of this is the Indonesian Water Supply Association (PERPAMSI), which three
years ago began to facilitate WOPs among its own members, some of whom had previously been mentees
in WOPs with an external partner. There are also known national level platforms in Mexico, Columbia, Brazil
and Pakistan.

Support for WOPs is given by a number of funding partners such as bilateral and multilateral donors,
development agencies and regional development banks. Additionally in some countries, such as the
Netherlands and France, water operators are permitted by law to spend a proportion of their revenue on
activities in developing countries. Many small-scale WOPs are self-funded by the partner operators.

Creating the enabling environment and incentives for WOPs calls for a broad range of stakeholders beyond
those directly involved in the partnerships. The role of central and local governments in creating the legal
and policy frameworks for change cannot be underestimated. Similarly, in many situations civil society
organisations have an important role to play, which can range from community representation, through a
range of capacity development activities, to the consumers, who need to be engaged in multiple ways to
ensure that any capacity developed in water utilities is fully and appropriately used in the communities that
they serve.

1.3 THE IMPORTANCE OF CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING IN WOP s

The aim of all WOPs is to help water operators acquire the capacity they need to improve the delivery of
water services. GWOPA, working in the spirit of the ‘Hashimoto Action Plan’, has as one of the guiding
principles in its Charter ‘Learning from the Past and Others: The Global WOPs Alliance seeks to draw lessons
and learn from past experiences to promote best practices for utility partnerships and capacity building.’2
This recognises the importance of holding learning central to the work of all WOPs, and this paper is a step
towards making that principle an operational reality.

2 http://gwopa.org/index.php/about-us-gwopa/charter/guiding-principles accessed 25.10.2013

4
The capacity that water operators need may be defined in different ways according to the nature of each
operator’s particular circumstances and challenges. Learning is an inherent feature of capacity development,
both in the form of knowledge and skills transfer, and in the acquisition of other capacities such as the
ability to solve problems and to innovate. Thus learning may be considered a central supporting strategy for
achievement of the aim of WOPs, because it is a mechanism to facilitate necessary capacity changes coming
into place. However, most often in WOP arrangements capacity development is framed in terms of, first,
the problems to be solved and, second, the activities undertaken to solve the problems. Rarely are learning
approaches (or any capacity development methods other than training) mentioned specifically in planning and
contracting. Some documentation identifies lessons learned from different projects and activities, but to date
that appears to be the extent to which learning has been addressed in WOP methodologies.

“Most often in WOP arrangements capacity development is framed in terms of, first, the problems to be solved
and, second, the activities undertaken to solve the problems. Rarely are learning approaches, or any capacity
development methods other than training, mentioned”

Examination of case studies and other WOPs documentation shows that capacity development is implicit in
virtually all aspects of WOPs operations, and within this learning must be happening even though it is not
specifically discussed. Given this centrality of capacity development to the implementation and success of
WOPs there is a need to examine and make explicit the learning and knowledge transfer methods already in
use, and explore options for enhancing current practice for greater effectiveness in future. Guiding this aspect
of WOPs’ through the use of a framework could contribute to improved practice by making the planning,
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of capacity development activities more focused and specific. Additionally,
those tasked with knowledge and skills transfer would have more resources to support their work, and help
them to deepen their expertise in developing the capacity of their counterparts.

As will be described in other sections the need for learning goes beyond technical personnel and their
managers, to the organisational level of the utilities, and beyond that again to the various agencies in the
operating environment that are influential in determining the enabling conditions for change to happen. A
further dimension of learning involves the consumers, who often need to be made aware of, or educated
about, various aspects of water service operations and how to use them. Last, but not least, the mentoring
partners can also benefit from working more consciously with a learning framework, as it will help to prepare
their experts for assignments, and consolidate their experiences into a body of knowledge within their
own organisations.

5
2. CURRENT THEORY AND PRACTICE
IN CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

2.1 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT THINKING ABOUT CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT: THEORY 3

In its broadest sense capacity development is about change and transformation through designing and
facilitating culturally appropriate local solutions to development issues at a large enough scale to make a real
difference for human development. Ideally every capacity development process is endogenous, led by local
actors, who may or may not be supported by a range of external partners. Capacity development is both a
complex process and inherently political because it is inextricably linked to change. Ownership is therefore a
prerequisite for sustainability, as is having clarity about whose capacities are to be developed and for what
purpose. Learning is emerging continually about what works and why, which means that the understanding
and the practice of capacity development are ongoing and dynamic processes. For example, in some
frameworks that have been developed to guide approaches and implementation attention is now being paid
not only to capacity development, but also to utilisation and retention of capacity once in place.

Attention is now being paid not only to capacity development, but also to utilisation and retention of capacity
once in place.

2.1.1 LEVELS AND TYPES OF CAPACITY

One key feature of capacity development that is now clearly understood is that capacity exists and is needed
at multiple, inter-related levels. In practice this means that capacity development initiatives can only achieve
sustainable results if they take account of all related levels, the linkages between levels, and the complexity
of the whole system. One of the most frequently used specifications of levels is ‘Individual – Organisational –
Institutional’. However there are many variations of this, both in terms of what the levels are called, and how
many there are. Many organisations include the sectoral level in their specifications, often with reference to
the ‘water sector’, because for any country there are multiple stakeholders concerned with water. The diagram
below illustrates what the levels look like in the context of a water sector.

3 This section adapted from the Core Concept section of the Learning Package on Capacity Development available at www.lencd.org/learning accessed 25.10.2013

6
DIAGRAM 1: LEVELS OF CAPACITY

Institutional
The enabling environment of laws and policies, frameworks, and other conditions. This level exists sub-
nationally, nationally, and regionally

Sectoral
All other stakeholders that may be relevant to the water utility, including other utilities and, for example,
land, environment and health authorities

Organisational
The water operator; community and consumer groups

Individual
Staff: all disciplines – their competencies, skills and knowledge, and the motivation and ability to use them

The second area of importance is that there are different types of capacity. The tendency in the past has
been to think that capacity is the technical skills of individuals. While this is still important, because all
organisations, including water utilities, need competent technical staff in a range of disciplines, the reality is
that a comprehensive analysis of capacity embraces a range of different types. The mix is of both tangible
and intangible features, which are also sometimes called ‘hard and soft’ ‘technical/ functional and social/
relational’, or ‘visible and invisible’. As shown in Table 1 below, types of capacity may be distinguished under
these different headings. However, it is important to note that the distinctions between some of these capacities
are not always as clear-cut as suggested in the table, they are presented in this way simply to highlight the
different classifications. There is now a growing recognition that, in many situations, intangible capacities are
the essential underpinning requisites for other types of capacity to exist or be utilised.

Support for capacity development needs to be approached in a range of ways to address the different needs.

The different types of capacity are relevant at all levels in any given system, up to and including the enabling
environment. According to the context, different combinations and measures of capacities may be needed.
A holistic analysis will show that overall capacity is a mix of tangible and intangible components that fit
to the context and enable individuals, organisations, sectors and broader social systems to carry out their
functions and achieve their development objectives. Support for capacity development therefore needs to be
approached in a range of ways to address the different needs.

7
TABLE 1: TYPES OF CAPACITY

Tangible Intangible

Capacities that may also be described as hard, technical, Capacities that may also be described as soft, social, relational,
functional, and visible and invisible

• Technical skills, explicit knowledge and methodologies Operational capacities such as:
(which for individuals can be considered as competencies)
• Organisational culture and values
• Organisational capacity to function: appropriate structures;
systems and procedures for management, planning, finance, • Leadership, political relationships and functioning
human resources, monitoring and evaluation, and project
cycle management; the ability to mobilise resources • Implicit knowledge and experience

• Laws, policies, systems and strategies (enabling conditions) • Relational skills: negotiation, teamwork, conflict resolution,
facilitation, etc.

• Problem solving skills

• Communication (including intercultural when relevant)

Adaptive capacities such as:

• Ability and willingness to self-reflect and learn from

experience

• Ability to analyse and adapt

Note: tangible resources like infrastructure, money, buildings, • Change readiness and change management
equipment and documentation can be considered as the
material expression or product of capacity, but they are not • Confidence, empowerment and or participation for
capacity in and of themselves. legitimacy to act

2.1.2 LEARNING 4

Learning, knowledge transfer, skills transfer and capacity development are inextricably linked, in that learning,
knowledge and skills transfer are all means through which capacity may be developed, and knowledge and
skills transfer are means by which learning may happen. For the purpose of this paper the use of the word
learning embraces knowledge and skills transfer at the individual and the organizational levels, as well of
routes to acquisition of intangible capacity and other approaches in the enabling environment.

The improvement of water services requires different levels of learning, which can be acquired in different
ways. Most simply put learning may be needed for two purposes, either to understand something new or for
the correction of an error. For an individual or an organisation, learning about something new may involve
either learning the rules that already exist, or how to create new rules to meet the needs. Likewise at both
levels, when something goes wrong the first response is usually to see what is not working within a known
set of rules and variables, and then to introduce corrective steps.

Among many different approaches to organisational learning, the theory of single and double loop learning,
developed by Argyris and Schon5, provides a helpful framework for thinking about water operators’ learning
needs. The first level of learning is about operational matters and how to do them, or how to do them better.
This level is about learning and then applying known rules for the way to do things. This could be, for
example, about the installation of meters, or how to stop leaks. These are primarily operational matters that call
for the skill to implement technical methods routinely and consistently to known standards. It is important that

4 This section draws on http://infed.org/mobi/chris-argyris-theories-of-action-double-loop-learning-and-organizational-learning/ accessed 15.10.2013

5 There are many different resources available on the Internet to explain this theory. For example, http://infed.org/mobi/chris-argyris-theories-of-action-double-loop-
learning-and-organizational-learning/ accessed 27.10.2013

8
these methods are implemented properly so that the system works efficiently and effectively. In terms of learning
this can be called ‘single loop learning’, sometimes referred to as ‘doing things right’.

But learning at this level is not sufficient on its own. Complex systems such as water services also require
another level of learning. For example, it would not be possible to reduce the percentage of non-revenue water
(NRW) through the application of single loop learning alone. Dealing with a challenge of this nature requires
a combination of both technical knowhow and intangible capacities such as analytical and problem solving
abilities, and maybe negotiating skills. For this level of learning, rather than applying rules, it is necessary
to ask and answer the questions that will establish the rules. Some of the basic questions to be dealt with
are “What is causing this problem?”, “Who is involved and what is their role?”, “What factors will help or
hinder resolution?”, “What are the options for change?”, “Which is the best option?” and “How can we
most effectively apply the solution?” This level of learning is called ‘second loop learning’, or ‘doing the right
things’. Every organisation needs the capacity for second loop learning for continuous improvement, because
learning at this level is essential for flexibility and adaptation in response to opportunities, challenges and
external change. Without second loop learning no organisation can hope to be sustainable. Where the result
of first loop learning is doing things better, the result of second loop learning is doing things differently by
changing the governing rules for any particular function.

BOX 1: SOME LEARNING THEORIES THAT CAN APPLY TO WOPS ACTIVITIES

Many different theories attempt to explain how people learn through the definition of learning styles. They
all have their merits and disadvantages, which must be judged according to the group of learners under
consideration. The two theories offered here are perhaps among the most applicable for water operator staff.

Honey and Mumford’s learning styles

This is probably the best known of the learning styles theories, and it is useful because it provides a framework for understanding
the different ways in which individuals learn and acquire skills. This in turn makes it helpful for the design of learning processes,
because it shows that in order to facilitate a group of learners the process must be multi-dimensional so that it is sensitive to their
different learning styles. It is particularly useful when working to develop technical capacity, which is often a central feature of
WOPs. According to this theory there are four different learning styles, each of which are a part of an experiential learning cycle.
Each individual will favour one of the styles, though not exclusively.

The four styles are:

• Activist (feeling): those who learn by doing, having an experience

• Theorist (thinking): those who like to know the theory behind the action
• Pragmatist (doing): those who need to be able to see how to put the learning into practice through active experimentation
• Reflector (watching): those who prefer to observe and reflect on what they have seen

Each of these styles requires different types of activity to facilitate learning.

70 20 10

This model is included here because it helps to explain the success of the mentoring approach that is central to the design of
many WOPs. The 70 20 10 model has evolved from extensive research about what actually happens in the workplace, namely
that the majority of learning comes from experience, backed up by social exchanges. It is gaining popularity as an approach to
management and leadership development. In this theory it is understood that:

• 70% of learning is gained from actually doing the work, dealing with challenging tasks, solving problems, etc.;
• 20% of learning comes from others – mentors, colleagues, networks and so on; and
• 10% comes from formal training events.

Using the broad outline of this model can be useful for guiding the proportions of formal training and follow up support to offer in WOPs.

Application of this model for WOPs is discussed in Exploring water leadership Lincklaen Arriëns & Wehn de Montalvo, 2013

9
2.1.3 THE CULTURAL CONTEXT OF LEARNING

When working across cultures, it is essential to appreciate that learning is not understood or acquired in
the same ways in all societies. Examples of how these differences may show up are:

• People educated in a student-centred pedagogy will take a more active role in their learning than will
those educated in a teacher-centred pedagogy who will, most likely, hold the teacher responsible for
their learning;

• For some, questions are an essential learning mechanism, while others expect to be told, not asked, and
will find questions inappropriately intrusive or extractive; and,

• For some, refection on personal actions and experience is an invaluable source of learning, while for others
there is no value in self, only in what is handed down from respected elders or teachers of higher status
in society.

Before embarking on any activity designed to facilitate learning from one culture to another it is important to
seek the answers to questions such as the following:

• How is learning defined in this culture? As a study process, as wisdom, or as the means to do something?

• What sources of learning are valued? Books, elders, or personal experience?

• What types of learning are valued within this culture? Learning to do, to be or to relate?

• How do people expect to learn? By doing, observing, reading, or listening?

• Who is thought to be responsible for the student’s learning? The teacher or the student?

Other questions may also be appropriate according to the particular culture.

Given that learning is inherently about change in order to do things differently or better, it is equally important
to understand any cultural blocks to learning, as these may be very powerful inhibitors of change. For
example, learning from mistakes can be a very useful approach, however in some societies the admission of a
mistake will create loss of face and is therefore to be avoided at all costs. In post-conflict societies people who
have experienced trauma may have become risk averse to the point of being frozen and unable to do anything
to change the status quo. In some circumstances people are fearful of doing anything differently unless given
direct and specific instructions to do so from higher authorities. The questions to be considered are:

• In this context what are the blocks that prevent learning from leading to change?

• How can people unlearn fears and inhibitions in order to be open to something new?

• What approaches might be helpful in overcoming the blocks?

The dangers of planning and implementing learning activities without considering these questions are that,
firstly, the activities will have limited impact and, secondly, resources and opportunities will be wasted. It is
therefore worth investing time to explore cultural perspectives on learning before beginning to plan.

2.1.4 LEARNING IN PARTNERSHIPS

Within capacity development practice partnerships are now being recognised as important and effective
mechanisms for learning. There is a body of academic work about how learning can best happen
within a partnership, and what conditions will support it, although this body of knowledge is not yet well
incorporated into the general capacity development discourse. There are also many interpretations of the
word partnership, because it is applied to many different types of relationship. The paper Partnerships in the

10
Water and Sanitation Sector6 noted that the factors that help partnerships to flourish are: common objective
and ownership; communication; transparency; fairness; enabling environment; and, trust and respect. It can
be argued that these factors are also all necessary for learning to take place. In WOPs a partnership comes
together around the core factor of a difference in capacity. Other differences or imbalances, such as levels
of engagement and commitment to name just two, may have the potential to impact on the opportunities
for learning.

Despite the scarcity of documentation there are some important lessons that have been learned in the NGO
sector7, primarily in the context of learning in North-South partnerships. These lessons are summarised here,
because they are also relevant to WOPs.

Lessons on Partnership that are applicable to WOPs

Explicitly negotiate and clarify the purposes and principles of partnerships, including related expectations,
rights and responsibilities: learning cannot happen if the nature or purpose of the partnership itself is unclear;

Build on existing opportunities and create space for learning: remember that learning is always happening to some
extent, and use it as a starting point. Also consider how to maximise opportunities and space for change;

Design projects that explicitly facilitate learning: distinguish the different types of learning that need to happen and
formulate learning objectives for each;

Build trust and consider the longer term: it is better to consider learning in terms of a process, rather than as an event. If
time is taken to build good relationships, everyone is likely to be more open and trusting therefore better able to deal honestly with
mistakes.

Fund learning as a core activity: working with a broad array of learning methods and opportunities, such as exposure visits,
needs dedicated funding;

Develop appropriate systems of evaluation, measurement and accountability that make learning a key
focus of evaluation: planning needs to formulate learning goals and indicators that can then be incorporated within broader
M&E frameworks;

Address internal factors of organisational culture and question deeply held assumptions: organisational culture
may not welcome or support innovation and change, and this would be a significant barrier to learning. The culture therefore
needs to be examined and understood, and where necessary, challenged;

Address power-related issues and other barriers to learning: this includes being aware of gender imbalance and any
factors relevant to marginalised groups; and,

Look beyond partnerships to networks and communities of practice: often it is necessary to think beyond a two-way
partnership to one that involves more members, in order to connect with other sources of learning.

6 Susan Graas, Annette Bos, and Caroline Figuéres (UNESCO-IHE) and Tunde Adegoke (WESWA) ‘Partnerships in the Water and Sanitation Sector’ IRC International Water and
Sanitation Centre Thematic Overview Paper 18, available at http://www.irc.nl/page/33041 accessed 29.8.2013

7 This list adapted from Vincent, Robin and Byrne, Ailish (2006) ‘Enhancing learning in development partnerships’, Development in Practice, 16:5, 385 – 399, available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614520600792192 accessed 22.10.2013

11
2.2 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT THINKING ABOUT CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT:
GUIDANCE FOR PRACTICE

Capacity development practice is an evolving discipline that has many dimensions. The most effective practice
is based not on events, but on process approaches that are linked and sequential, working over time to move
forward step-by-step, building on what already exists or is coming into place. The design of good capacity
development processes depends on many factors, which should start with thorough assessment. Thereafter, the
various components of the process will be drawn together according to need, decisions about entry points,
availability of appropriate resources, and so on. It is also now understood that training is most effective, not
if offered as a stand-alone event, but if situated appropriately within a process to facilitate the application of
learning in the workplace. The sections below discuss these points in more detail.

2.2.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF ASSESSMENT 8

The design of the capacity development intervention will be most appropriate and effective if it is based on a
substantive assessment of current capacity and conditions. As noted in Section 3.4 below one of most common
challenges to the effectiveness and success of WOPs is ‘insufficient diagnostics’, accompanied by unhelpful
assumptions.9 Assessments are necessary to understand the potential and limits of any type of capacity
development intervention, and in particular to recognise any barriers to the transfer of learning leading to
change in practice.

When the focus of the capacity development initiative is the technical skills of utility staff it is essential to
assess both how the staff themselves understand their technical needs and the availability of the resources
needed for implementation. The other critical factor is management’s attitude and ability to support staff to
implement changes. Without the full support of the organisation the resources spent, the time allocated, and
the efforts dedicated in any type of capacity development initiative, including training, may not result in the
desired effect. Assessment of environmental factors, especially power dynamics and resource availability, will
provide invaluable guidance about these and other issues such as the most effective entry points, and the most
appropriate means of intervention.

There is a growing understanding that specific areas of capacity need to be assessed within the context of
larger system capacity. For example, consideration of individuals should be in terms of what their enhanced
capacity would contribute to higher-level capacity goals for the whole utility. Similarly, assessment of a team
must take into account the functioning of the whole department in which it is situated. The various factors that
should ideally be taken into account when doing assessments are noted in Box 2 below.

8 This section draws on two key documents: Training for Better Cities (2012) UN-Habitat, accessed 7.11.2013, and ‘Leadership in knowledge and capacity development in the
water sector: a status review’ Uta Wehn de Montalvo and Guy Alaerts Water Policy 15 (2013) 1–14 available at http://www.iwaponline.com/wp/015S2/S2/ accessed
7.11.2013

9 As noted elsewhere there is no publicly available documentation that deals with mistakes in WOPs. However, a number of the respondents interviewed noted that mistakes have
been made because of insufficient depth and analysis in the assessment phase.

12
BOX 2: GOOD PRACTICE FOR CAPACITY ASSESSMENTS

Best practice assessments incorporate the following features, all of which are interlinked in several ways

Looking at multiple levels and variables: Much helpful analysis can be gained from looking at integration across all levels and
the variables that exist at each, such as: individuals’ motivation and attitudes; organisational change processes, management
commitment, incentive structures, and so on; and, the enabling environment, for example national level laws and policies, and
public sector investment plans.

Start with existing capacity: identification of existing capacity is a helpful and affirming starting point for understanding what
individuals, teams, utilities or any other relevant stakeholders such as the consumer community need to move forward. The choice
of tools is important in this respect. Using a ‘gap analysis’ as the primary assessment tool does not pay sufficient attention to the
capacity that already exists, or to other important factors like key change agents and previous or current processes on which
a new intervention should build. This can be demotivating for staff, who may already feel undervalued, to be told only what
they don’t know. Additionally, in the gap analysis approach the definition of required capacity may be too ambitious, based on
high international standards, rather than achievable next steps relevant to the local context. (This isn’t to say high international
standards should be ignored, but in many circumstances they can only be achieved in the long term, through a series of
sequenced interventions.)

An element of self-assessment: however technical the capacity need may be, a fully informed and accurate assessment will best be
achieved with the full involvement of local stakeholders, because they have the most knowledge about the specific areas of need
under consideration. In any type of assessment process, there can be a tendency to focus only on the views of managers whereas
the personnel doing the work hold the all-important knowledge of what is actually happening in daily operations. Their views are
important not only for first loop learning, but also because they often also have much to offer in terms of second loop learning.
Another issue that sometimes needs consideration is that of political influence, which might be difficult for the mentee utility to deal
with. The role of external expert is, therefore, to facilitate internal processes that gather information from all relevant sources, and
to provide the technical knowledge component of assessment as required.

Assess absorptive capacity: Assessment of existing capacity needs to take account of the absorptive capacity of the individuals,
utility or group under consideration. There is no point in implementing a capacity development initiative if the people and or utility
concerned are not yet ready to absorb and use what is on offer. It may be, for example, that individual technicians are ready for
skills enhancement, but the utility does not yet have the resources or systems in place that would allow them to utilise those skills.
(See Box 3 below for an example of working on this issue.)

Local culture and context: Analysing culture and context, within the utility, sector, enabling environment and local communities,
can help to ensure that enabling and constraining factors are taken into account and understood. In particular this means paying
attention to cross cutting issues such as gender, power dynamics and the physical environment. Analysis of local factors is
particularly relevant in the water sector, where much may depend on the understanding and engagement of both local authorities
and the consumer community.

Purposeful analysis: Assessments will be more helpful in informing the design of effective capacity development processes if they
have clear purpose to guide evaluation and analysis of the data, including the cross cutting issues such as gender factors, in ways
that will inform the design of an effective capacity development process.

2.2.2 HOLISTIC AND SEQUENCED PROCESSES 10

Design of a capacity development initiative is a series of decisions about what needs to be achieved, who
needs to be involved, and how to achieve the desired results. The quality of the decisions will be related
directly to the quality of information available from the assessment process, including understanding of the
local culture and context. These factors can range from practical matters such as the availability of resources
and other support mechanisms, to important cross cutting issues such as gender, power relations and the
political economy for change. It is extremely unlikely that any analysis would show that circumstances in a
utility are all helpful opportunities with no constraints. The task of decision makers and designers is, therefore,
to assess, in conjunction with key local actors, in particular the operational staff who will make things happen,
if there is a way forward that can maximise opportunities and minimise or overcome constraints.

10 This section adapted from Pearson, J. (2011), ‘Training and Beyond: Seeking Better Practices for Capacity Development’, OECD Development Co-operation Working
Papers, No. 1, OECD Publishing, available at http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/training-and-beyond-seeking-better-practices-for-capacity-
development_5kgf1nsnj8tf-en;jsessionid=4ld21rkgpd5gq.delta accessed 28.10.2013

13
As in any systematic planning process intended to achieve results an essential first step is the specification
of overall goal/s for the capacity development agenda. Especially when aiming for long-term changes,
good design includes an appropriate mix of both long – and short-term perspectives. For example, when
working to develop long-term community engagement in sustainable water solutions, the planning framework
would ideally include short and mid-term results, such as having a short-term objective to identify and set up
communication mechanisms with relevant community groups. Planning needs to take account of the fact that
not everything can be done at once and so activities need to be sequenced. Some steps and activities have to
be completed to put in place foundational conditions before further initiatives can be started.

It is, therefore, important to distinguish the difference between long-term learning goals and component parts
that can be achieved more quickly as specific objectives. Doing something to achieve some ‘quick wins’ can
be very helpful in terms of securing engagement and motivating people for the longer-term process. This is very
true for water operators where staff may be able quickly to acquire the knowledge and technical skills needed
as a component of a broader capacity development goal. For example it may be possible to train chemists in a
short time frame as one of the first activities to achieve a longer-term goal about reaching consistent standards
of water quality. Quick wins are a good way of engaging and motivating staff who may otherwise feel
reluctant to engage with a complex change process if they feel it is being imposed on them. Staff being willing
and motivated to embrace a change process is an intangible capacity that all utilities need. A danger of not
having any learning goals and objectives is that the failure to specify desired results at the start, whatever
the approach and formulation, makes it impossible to monitor the effectiveness of the learning practices and
measure the contribution they are making to overall capacity development.

It would be very unusual for any capacity need to be answered by one learning practice alone. However, it is
all too frequently assumed that activities targeting individuals will automatically contribute to higher-level needs,
which is by no means the case. This approach to capacity development is very deeply ingrained in some
institutional cultures. Changing approaches to be more holistic, iterative, and therefore more effective, means
that those who assume that every problem can be solved by training will need to let go of that assumption –
the ‘I have a hammer, so every problem is a nail’ syndrome. Designing an appropriate mix of modalities over
time depends on the designers’ understanding of how to match learning methods to specific needs.

BOX 3: ENABLING CONDITIONS AND ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY

World Waternet (WWN) in Amsterdam has long recognised that no WOP will be successful in bringing sustainable change unless
certain conditions are in place at the start. For WWN, the most important are legislation and the political will to support change.
WWN will no longer start on the establishment of a WOP until they have carefully assessed the potential partner and are assured
that the enabling environment will provide any necessary support to get the right start up conditions in place.

An example is WWN’s recent experience in Mauritania. After preliminary discussions about setting up a WOP with Société
Nationale d’Eau (SNDE) first assessment showed that the absorptive capacity of the mentee was not yet at the level needed
for a WOP to have a good chance of success. The issue was that there were insufficient qualified staff available to work with
WWN, and this was judged to be an essential factor for success and sustainability. WWN therefore approached the Minister
of Hydraulics and Sanitation to engage his support in helping to prepare SNDE to get qualified staff in place. Over the next two
years the Ministry appointed a number of well-qualified personnel to relevant positions within SNDE, which represented a first
foundational step of capacity development for SNDE. Following the creation of this important condition, WWN and SNDE were
able to start serious talks on implementing a future WOP.

This example demonstrates the importance of both doing a thorough assessment, and being able to engage political support to
implement the necessary changes. It also demonstrates that capacity comes into place through different routes, in that while clearly
there are still gaps, the capacity of SNDE has already been enhanced by the intervention of WWN that led to the appointment of
qualified staff.

2.2.3 CHOICE OF METHODS

Selecting multiple methods to use together to achieve the ‘best fit’ can be a very effective way of maximising
the strengths and mitigating the challenges of each component in the selection. However the combined array
of needs and possible tools and techniques for response can be bewildering and often a strategic framework
is needed to guide compilation of elements into a coherent and effective whole.

14
Many of the practices described below are linked, but all can have a clear and specific role to play in
particular circumstances. As with the use of tools for assessment, a caution is needed about the use of tools for
learning practices. No tool can provide ‘the answer’ to a problem, it can only be what the word tool suggests
– a device to be used as a means of achieving something. In any setting tools must be used appropriately
and skilfully if they are to be helpful and that is equally true for learning tools. The learning methods and
tools chosen should be seen as a component of bigger facilitation processes, not the means to an end in and
of themselves.

BOX 4: APPROACHES AND TOOLS FOR LEARNING FOR CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

This box provides a short listing and general overview of some the wide range of approaches and tools
that can be used to facilitate and enhance learning for different levels and groups in a WOP. More detailed
information about each of these approaches and tools is available in the UN-HABITAT publication Training
for Better Cities.

Technical Skills For technical skills customised training (i.e. training that has been designed for the needs
of a specific group) or external training courses (i.e. courses for which the content and
curriculum are predefined by the provider) are the most common approaches, with follow-
up coaching and mentoring providing the all-important support for implementation of
learning. Other approaches to the capacity needs of individuals might include academic
study programmes, either through attendance overseas or through some form of distance
learning or e-learning. Exposure or site visits can provide invaluable opportunities
to learn from what others are doing. Experiential learning, for which there are multiple
methods, support individuals to learn from their own workplace experiences. Blended
learning is the term used for working with a combination of different training and learning
technologies and activities, usually including e-learning.

Strengthening For strengthening organisations, there are three interrelated disciplines known as:
Organisations organisational development, change management, and organisational learning.
In summary, these involve working with coordinated learning and change techniques to
move organisations towards the levels of capacity necessary to be effective and fulfil their
organisational mandates. Knowledge management, considered by some to be a cross
cutting issue in capacity development, is the process by which organisations generate value
from their intellectual and knowledge-based assets. Leadership development processes
are designed to enhance the leadership skills of existing and potential leaders within an
organisation or system. Finally, many organisations can leverage new capacity through
partnerships and networks. This can include twinning organisations with similar
mandates, but different levels of capacity. WOPs are a prime example of this approach. In
many respects all of these disciplines and approaches address the realm of intangible capacities
that are necessary for an organisation to survive and thrive in a complex environment.

For Communities For communities and other stakeholder groups different approaches are needed because the
capacity needed is often more intangible than tangible. There are, for example, a number
of methodologies that come under the heading of communication. These approaches, for
example World Café and Future Search, generate or share learning through connecting
people in structured activities where they access their collective knowledge and insights, or hear
new messages from outside their group, and by so doing enhance and support learning and
change within those communities. Advocacy and behaviour change communication are
two specific communication approaches frequently used to achieve change in people’s thinking,
understanding and actions.

The final point to note is that any well-designed process will ensure that all activities are linked and
appropriately sequenced. This means working through a repetitive loop of assessment, design, implementation
and M&E, looping back to re-assess the next level of learning or change needed for continuous improvement
and capacity development. When needs are complex the design sometimes involves a ‘platform approach’ in
which one set of capacities is necessary as the platform for moving on to the next. Only when capacities in the
first platform are well established and consolidated is it time to consider starting the next round of initiatives.
Many WOPs complete one phase and start a new one to build on what has previously been achieved and

15
help the mentee move on to a new level of capacity. Such experiences are an ideal example of iterative and
sequenced processes that help the mentee utility move forward through a steady and sustainable progression.

Diagram 2 illustrates where different approaches are needed because each have their limitations. Table
2 below describes how this translates to the practice and application of different methods by giving some
examples. Because they go beyond training, the use of many approaches and tools call for the mentoring
partner to think of their role as process facilitator rather than simply as trainer and mentor.

DIAGRAM 2: THE LIMITS OF TRAINING AND LEARNING 11

Results focus Capacity needs that The limits of learning

can be met by training
At the simpler/
lower levels of
Capacity needs
systems and their
that can be met by
capacity needs
learning practices
approaches
(including training)
focused on results
are helpful. The
Capacity needs that
relevance and
require an array of
usefulness of a
responses (including
results based
learning practices)
approach
decreases as the
Capacity needs that
complexity of the
are beyond the scope
system increases.
of all external support
Complexity and interventions The limits of training

TABLE 2: THE USE OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES AND EXAMPLES OF APPLICATION IN WOPs

Use of approaches Examples of application in WOPs

Training Traditional training approaches are very Developing the technical skills needed to install and
relevant for technical knowledge transfer maintain meters in good working order.
and skills development. Training may be
strongly oriented to problem solving.

Learning Learning practices (including training) can Working to establish sustainable community engagement
be helpful for challenges that have social with a waste water system might include features such as:
change and empowerment dimensions. advocacy about health and sanitation issues; education
campaign to ensure community acceptance of the charge
system; and so on. These issues cannot be ‘trained’.
The relevant capacity will only come into place through
facilitation of community dialogue, possibly including
conflict resolution12.

11 Adapted from Pearson J (2013) Training and Beyond: Seeking better practices for capacity development

12 See the GWOPA Asia Case Study II for an example

16
 Use of approaches Examples of application in WOPs

Broad capacity Complex challenges require broad capacity Refurbishing large-scale water infrastructure for a city
development development approaches that have multiple requires several types of capacity at different levels,
approaches elements, including learning practices. including: legislation and policy frameworks; secure
At this level the overall goals need to be financial resources; municipal finance and planning
defined flexibly but some constituent parts systems; technical expertise; and change management skills.
of capacity could be specified through a Training and learning practices alone would be insufficient
Results Based Management style LogFrame. to establish all these capacities.

Beyond capacity Some issues are beyond the reach of The provision of water and sanitation services in slums is
development any capacity development approach. not simply a matter of capacity, it is the result of many other
Complexity theory tells us that nothing factors such political will and social relationships, power
can be predicted at this level of systems, distribution, corruption, and local traditions of governance.
so there can be no relevant capacity Unregistered slum communities with no right to vote rarely
development frameworks. attract significant political support or enough government
resources to meet their needs.

2.2.4 APPLICATION OF LEARNING 13

Training practice, even though described as a cycle, traditionally follows four sequential steps that conclude at
the end of the training event, they are: assessment; design; delivery; and evaluation. However, within industry,
government and education, awareness has long been growing that this approach to training has serious
limitations as the mechanism to bring about sustainable change in workplace practices. Very often training fails
to achieve the desired impact because the learning acquired in training settings is only partly applied, and
sometimes not at all. This is especially true in complex contexts where a simple, single focus and linear process
is inevitably limited in terms of meeting needs that are multi-dimensional. Both academics and practitioners
have come to understand the limitations of training. This has led to the identification of a broader specification
of the training cycle, namely ‘Transfer of Learning’. It is important to note that this is not about the transfer of
learning from one person to another, or from one entity to another, but ‘the transfer by an individual of learning
acquired in one setting to another setting’. This approach, which is supported by both a body of theory and
guidance for practice is now considered to be best practice for training and for evaluation of its effectiveness.

Indicators of successful application of learning include both positive changes in performance on specific tasks
and an enhanced ability to learn, and to learn more quickly, in response to other workplace challenges and
opportunities. An example might be training staff of a water utility to launch an education campaign about
water charges. If application of learning has been successful the staff would not only be able to complete the
current campaign, they would also later be able to apply the learning to new advocacy campaigns on different
issues. Diagram 3 below gives a visual representation of the application of learning process.

Successful application of learning by individuals should, arguably, also contribute to organisational level
learning, because the two are recognised to be inextricably linked. The ability to learn at both individual and
organisational level has been identified not only as a requirement for other types of capacity, but also as a
capacity in its own right for organisations to be able to adapt and self-renew in situations of rapid change in
complex environments.14 This is particularly true for water utilities that might be facing emerging challenges
such as those caused by climate change, or the changing demographics of rapid urbanisation.

13 This section is adapted from the UN-Habitat publication Training for Better Cities op. cit. Other useful sources of information about Transfer of Learning are http://www.nwlink.
com/~donclark/hrd/learning/transfer.html accessed 1.11.2013 and http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/hip/lld/nls/Publications/A/transfer-a.shtml accessed
1.11.2013

14 See for example ODI (2008) Overseas Development Institute Working Paper 285 Exploring the science of complexity: Ideas and implications for development
and humanitarian efforts available at http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/583.pdf and European Centre for Development Policy
Management (2008) Capacity Change and Performance Study Report available at http://www.ecdpm.org/Web_ECDPM/Web/Content/Download.
nsf/0/5321BD4DC0C1DB09C1257535004D1982/$FILE/PMB21-e_capacitystudy.pdf

17
DIAGRAM 3: THE APPLICATION OF LEARNING PROCESS

Assessment Design Delivery Follow up M&E

• Needs • Targeting the • Action • Activities for • Event

right people oriented providers,
• Effective entry • Follow up
objectives trainees and
points • Ensuring and transfer
managers
relevance to • Quality factors,
• Trainee’s
target group • Coaching, focus on
motivation • Motivate
needs on the job overcoming
through
• Linkages support, barriers
• Process relevance
availability
• Barriers and • Accountability
• Approaches • Involve of resources,
support for process
and tools managers management
support for • Impact
• Addressing • Perfomance change, etc assessment
barriers aids
• Follow up
activities

Redesign if necessary

Re-assess for new levels or areas of need

Research has shown that, apart from the issues of good design and delivery, the key factors for successful
training are:

• Appropriate targeting: developing the right training content to match the participants’ needs;

• Building in the expectation and practice of follow up activities from the start, and then holding the relevant
people accountable for their implementation; and,

• Ensuring line management engagement and support for participants’ application of their learning.

It is clear from case studies that many of the training practices in WOPs adopt key features of good practice
for application of learning. This is most apparent in the training arrangements that:

• Are demand driven, and agreed by management as the right approach to solve a particular problem;

• Include short mission visits by mentoring experts who use targeted training to address very practical learning
needs;

• Build in an expectation of application of learning between mission visits, with subsequent visits being
focused on solving the problems of application;

• Ensure that trainees have the resources to apply the learning (e.g. a supply of meters to install); and,

• Have clear criteria for assessment of success (e.g. the number of chemists able to manage water quality
correctly without expert support).

What is not clear is whether or not this good practice is happening as a result of knowing about the theory, or
simply by instinct, most likely the latter.

18
3. WHAT WORKS IN WOP s ?

3.1 RESOURCES AND EVIDENCE AVAILABLE

While there have been and continue to be many WOPs, few have been written up in sufficient detail for others
to understand the full intricacies of the capacity development process and results. Even the helpful case studies
that exist do not go into detail about capacity development and training practices. Similarly, interviewees for
this paper have been with senior personnel within WOPs, concerned more with the strategic formulation of the
partnerships than the details of implementation. With the exception of one recent paper about how to define
capacity development results15, there appears to have been little interest thus far in documenting the details of
learning practices. Of necessity, therefore, what follows is to a certain extent supposition. However, there is
sufficient information available from various sources to assert that what is presented here is likely correct.

Appendix 1 gives the list of interviewees and documentation consulted.

3.2 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES IN WOP s

3.2.1 CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT IN WOP AGREEMENTS

As noted above there are many different routes and arrangements by which WOPs come into being. There are
also many different arrangements for establishing the financial and other support resources needed for a WOP
to function effectively. While it is not the purpose of this paper to examine those different practices, it needs to
be noted that they can and do affect the purpose and nature of the partnership agreement and what activities
will be undertaken. For example, Waterlinks’ core activities are, firstly, to support WOPs and strengthen
partner capacity through the development and implementation of training programmes, and, secondly, the
production of knowledge products such as toolkits, guidelines and applied research. The way Waterlinks
works is to be the catalyst for short-term, focussed, bi-lateral partnerships based on technical training needs.
By contrast, the WOP in Bulawayo was multi-partner and multi-issue, with a donor project lasting almost three
years, and a partnership between the two operators continuing beyond the donor project period (see Box 6).

A holistic approach would hold that the entire WOP is about capacity development, whereas the tendency is
to define the WOP as a problem solving exercise with capacity development, if mentioned at all, confined to
the staff training component.

What is common to all WOPs is that they focus on aspects of service delivery, which may either be the need
to solve a problem (including that of staff knowledge and expertise), or to introduce a new feature of the
system to enhance the quality or range of services provided. All cases will involve an element of capacity
development, though how it is defined in the partnership agreements and documents is again something that
varies significantly from one case to another. A holistic approach would hold that the entire WOP is about
capacity development, whereas the tendency is to define the WOP as a problem solving exercise with capacity
development, if mentioned at all, confined to the staff training component. This means that most usually the
goals of WOPs are formulated in terms of the problem to be solved or the target level for improved service
delivery, with capacity development only sometimes being a part of the overall goal and objectives framework.
The examples in the boxes below illustrate different types of WOP activities, across different timeframes, within
the broad spectrum.

15 Pascual et al, 2013 What counts as ‘results’ in capacity development partnerships between water operators? A multi-path approach toward accountability, adaptation and learning

19
BOX 5: TRAINING FOR COMPETENCY STANDARDS

The Penang Water Services Academy (PWSA) is the dedicated facility of the water supply corporation of Penang, Malaysia,
(Perbadanan Bekalan Air (PBA)) for training water supply industry personnel (Malaysian and foreign). The PWSA mission is ‘to
facilitate and provide “real world” technical education and training programmes to the water supply workforce of today and
tomorrow’. The training academy has both classrooms for learning theory, and an array of state-of-the-art indoor and outdoor
laboratories for hands-on practice. All instructors are water sector professionals with many years of first-hand experience.

The PWSA programme was designed based on the Malaysian National Occupational Skills Standard (NOSS), which was
developed by industry experts to outline the competencies requirements for different occupations in the water sector. Using
the NOSS format, PBA have developed a set training programmes to achieve the 14 different competency standards for the
various disciplines of water engineers (supply, and waste and sanitation). Within each standard there are specifications set
out for different levels of competence which link to clearly defined job profiles for different grades of staff within the discipline.
For example for water treatment plants there are six levels of job profile: Operator, Technician, Senior Technician, Engineer/
Executive, Assistant Manager, and Manager. This represents an important aspect of overall capacity for the Malaysian water
sector in that this set of standards is an enabling condition for the industry.

In keeping with their own mandate, PBA-PWSA have undertaken WOPs that are training for technical disciplines. Following
assessment of training needs against the competency standards, utility staff are trained at the academy. Academy trainers then do
follow-up visits to the participants to support them in implementation of their learning. They also consult with line managers and
human resource departments about progress, and whether or not trainees are ready to be trained on the next level of competence
within the standard.

While the approach taken by PBA-PWSA does not fit to the strict definition of a WOP, the partnerships in which they engage have
the purpose of developing capacity through technical training for individuals. However, they have noted that few other countries
in the region have competency standards for the water sector. If PBA-PWSA were able to work at a more strategic level in those
countries to facilitate the development of national competency standards, they would be contributing to overall capacity by
creating enabling conditions at the institutional level.

Information sourced from interview with and documents provided by the Manager of PBA-PWSA.

BOX 6: BULAWAYO WATER AND SANITATION EMERGENCY RESPONSE (BOWSER)

The BOWSER project in Bulawayo was established in response to an emergency in all of the city’s water systems, which carried
serious inherent health dangers. The breakdown of services over time had been accompanied by increasingly vocal anger and
frustration in local communities. The aim of the WOP was: Reduced vulnerability to waterborne diseases by improved sewerage,
water supply systems, capacity building and hygiene promotion.

There were two water operators at the heart of this WOP, Bulawayo City Council (BCC) in Zimbabwe, and eThekwini Water
and Sanitation, City of Durban in South Africa. However, many others were involved including a donor, two non-government
organisations (NGOs), an engineering consulting company, and several local business and community groups.

The approach to meet the aim was a combination of rehabilitation and repair interventions, training and advice, public health
and hygiene promotion campaigns, establishment of a call centre, creation of a geographic information system facility, etc. The
complex set of responses to needs required time to implement and the main project period was almost three years. The planning
framework covered short, medium and long-term objectives and activities in order to appropriately sequence the extensive range
of activities, to ensure sustainability and to help secure investment,

This WOP is a very interesting example of a multi-dimensional approach to a range of needs addressing relevant issues within
the entire Bulawayo water system. This included both specific tangible capacity needs within the water utility and, importantly,
intangible capacities in its operating environment, most particularly with its consumer community, and the utilities ability to engage
with them.

Information sourced from GWOPA/UN-HABITAT’s Water Operators’ Partnerships in Africa Case Study 3.

20
BOX 7: BELIZE WATER SERVICES AND CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

The WOP between Belize Water Services (BWS) and Contra Cost Water District (CCWD) in California was a pioneer in the
initiative for water utilities in the USA to provide training partnerships with water utilities in developing countries. The USA
utilities are tasked with providing on-site training, skills development, and best practices exchange, modified for each partnership
according to need and priorities for the mentee utility. The duration of the first phase of the WOP was one year with a second,
follow-up phase now in preparation.

The process to negotiate and formulate the WOP agreement included a visit to BWS by senior CCWD personnel. Once
concluded, the negotiations arrived at an overall framework for the WOP of two visits by BWS managers and senior technical
specialists to CCWD, with a follow-up support and assessment visit to BWS by CCWD personnel.

The first BWS team to visit CCWD were senior managers in Operations, Technical Services, Customer Services, and IT and 4 staff
from Finance, Customer Service, Operations, and Meter Reading. This visit was designed to offer an interesting mix of formal
training inputs, orientation to new/different working practices through site visits to CCWD facilities, and action planning for BWS
improvements. CCWD designed a programme that gave BWS team members a combination of group time on cross cutting issues
of priority such as safety, and individual programmes relevant to their technical discipline.

The second BWS team to visit CCWD were the Senior Finance Officer and 6 staff from Operations, Technical Services, Customer
Services (2), Water Treatment Operator, District Manager, and Safety. They undertook a training and exposure programme
focused specifically on areas of need identified in the action plans put together by the first team.

The third key activity was the visit by five CCWD personnel to assess progress against the action plans, provide advice about
challenges of implementation, and recommendations for next steps to achieve further improvements. The findings of the assessment
process were that significant progress had been made in many areas of operations and organisational functioning.

Between visits, when implementing the action plans, BWS personnel were able to access ‘real time’ advice from their CCWD
counterparts. On occasions when BWS staff ran into an operational challenge linked to the plan they were able to call their
CCWD to talk through what was happening and find a way forward. The immediacy of this support was much appreciated by the
BWS team and also helped to keep the CCWD team engaged and up to date with developments at BWS.

This WOP is interesting because although it was initially short term (it has since been continued), the approach was holistic,
covering a range of BWS operational and organisational functions, based on the prioritisation of some specific technical
problems, and the cross cutting issue of safety. It also highlights that time and attention given to developing relationships during
face-to-face visits can prove invaluable for supporting communication and problem solving during other phases of the WOP.
Although currently there is no formal project in place, the relationship developed between the utilities is so strong that support
continues to be given in informal ways.

Information sourced from Action Plan and Results Report, August 2012, provided by CCWD.

3.2.2 KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS TRANSFER

There is only summary information available about how knowledge and skills transfer actually happens in
WOPs. Most descriptions of WOPs, including documented case studies, give little detail about the actual
approaches and practices of capacity development, and sometimes none at all. There are, however, enough
examples of summary information, to be able to conclude that the predominant approach is technical skills
training for individuals. This training takes place in a variety of formats, such as:

• Formal training courses that offer a mix of theory in the classroom and practice in laboratories or on site;

• On-the-job training;

• Peer-to-peer problem solving;

• Site visits;

• Joint planning and work; and,

• Exposure and study visits to water utilities in other countries.

In general, technical specialists and or trainers provide the important follow up component of the training cycle
through on-the-job mentoring during subsequent mission visits.

21
There is insufficient documentation about other aspects of capacity development, including work to develop
intangible capacities such as those needed for effective consumer relations, to draw any conclusions about
the approaches being used. (One exception analyses engagement between utilities in Malawi and the
Netherlands for opportunities to influence policy.16) Similarly, very little has been noted about work at the
organisational level. However, the case study on the WOP between Mwanza Urban Water and Sewerage
Authority (MWAUWASA) and Dunea (see Box 8 below) is an exception in that it details two interesting
aspects of capacity development. The first concerns the billing database and the second is about employee
engagement. While there must, undoubtedly, be cases where it was necessary to put legislation or other
conditions in place before a WOP could be considered, there is virtually nothing documented about capacity
development at the enabling environment level, and this is an area worthy of further investigation.

BOX 8: MWAUWASA DATABASE

Various actions were put in place to reduce the estimated 30% commercial losses on billable production at MWAUWASA.
Alongside solutions to solve physical problems in the infrastructure such as faulty meters and illegal connections, another important
action was to ‘clean-up’ the database in order to improve billing. An unusual additional component of the WOP, in response to an
approach by the local union, was an employee satisfaction survey, the first known to have been conducted within a WOP.

The approach adopted by the partners to clean up the database was twofold. Firstly, training and practical support to resolve the
current problems with the database and, secondly, facilitation of the process to establish preventative measures to ensure similar
problems do not arise in future. In total the Dunea database specialists made five visits, approximately three months apart, of two
weeks each. In the first visits they gave very practical on-the-job training to the MWAUSAWA staff about getting the database
into good shape. They followed up with mentoring support to help work through any challenges arising in implementation. Once
the database was clean the Dunea experts changed their focus to facilitating the MWAUSAWA staff to design and implement a
system and procedures to ensure that the database remains accurate. Thus, this component of the WOP started with technical skills
training for individuals for database management, and then moved on to helping establish organisational level capacity in the
form of creating the systems and procedures needed for effective functioning and the prevention of problems.

The second, and unique, feature of this WOP is the ‘Employee satisfaction’ study, conducted by another partner, Abvakabo
FNV, the largest Netherlands public sector trade union, who worked in collaboration with TUGHE, a Tanzanian trade union. The
research used both quantitative and qualitative methods to assess employees’ views about: general job satisfaction; working time
and payment; organisation of work; and, the work environment, health and safety. The analysis and conclusions from the survey
led to a clear and comprehensive set of recommendations for MWAUWASA, for the workers councils, and for TUGHE. Consulting
the staff in this way not only generated a great deal of useful information for MWAUWASA management to improve their human
resource management, but also, by making them feel valued, served to improve employee motivation and commitment. There will
be a follow up study to assess changes resulting from the recommendations in two years’ time.

Information sourced from Water Operators’ Partnerships in Africa: Case Study 2 – Dunea MV and Mwanza Urban Water and
Sewerage Authority, 2013.

3.2.3 QUALIFICATIONS AND SELECTION OF TRAINERS AND MENTORS

Trainers and mentors come to their role in WOPs by a variety of routes. The arrangements for selecting staff to
participate in WOPs vary between the different organisations involved. Whatever the internal arrangements
may be, a common factor is that those arranging and managing WOPs call on qualified practitioners from
within their own utility. The first criterion for selection is, understandably, that the staff selected to work in the
WOP are qualified and experienced in the relevant technical discipline. After this, the choice of who will be
selected is frequently done on a simple rotational basis in order to give opportunities to all, i.e. whose turn is
it next? One of the issues that mentees raise is that they are rarely involved in the selection of the staff who will
work with them, which can sometimes create tensions if the fit does not prove to be a good one.

By way of preparing the mentor staff member for their work in a WOP few, if any, mentoring partners provide
any training skills development before missions. Some provide cultural awareness workshops, but have found
these lead to mixed results. Others ensure that when someone goes on mission for the first time, they are
accompanied by a more experienced trainer/mentor. From the interviews conducted with mentor partners, it

16 Breeveld et al Water operator partnerships and institutional capacity development for urban water supply Water Policy 15:S2

22
appears that the overriding assumption is that the strength of the arrangement is in the peer-to-peer nature of
the relationship between mentor and mentee and that formal training skills are not, therefore, required.

Many mentoring partner organisations now see participation in a WOP as an important part of their own
internal staff capacity development and career progression policies. Opportunities to participate in a WOP
are often keenly sought by young professionals wishing to enhance their experience. WOPs are also seen as
a way to motivate and bring added job interest to experienced staff who have been in their positions for a
long time.

3.3 CONDITIONS THAT SUPPORT LEARNING

It is important to note what case studies and other documentation17 have identified as being the most important
conditions that support success in WOPs. Not all of these are directly relevant to the capacity development
aspect of the partnership, but it is unlikely that the WOP would result in capacity having been developed
unless these other conditions are in place. The conditions can be grouped under some key headings,
as follows:

Enabling conditions for the WOP to function

• Political support and senior management commitment to mandate change. This is needed before the WOP
to ensure it is established appropriately (see case study in Box 3 above), and during implementation to
facilitate problem solving in the enabling environment;

• Sufficient funding (though the required minimum is often quite low) and other resources for necessary
activities to be completed; and,

• Key stakeholders, especially donors, appreciate the importance of capacity development and are willing
and able to commit the time and resources for effective processes to be implemented alongside work
to achieve operational performance targets, and, where necessary, support infrastructure investment.
(Investments are not essential to the development of a partnership but can help to foster results depending
on the specific working item chosen, for example, NRW. A number of success stories have noted that the
joint approach of capacity development concurrently with investment in infrastructure is one of the factors
contributing to success. Conversely, it has been noted that in some cases the lack of investment has created
restrictions for staff to use existing or newly acquired capacity.)

The right starting point

• Ideally, but not always, WOPs are demand driven, based on the mentee utility’s own assessment of their
challenges and needs. If the mentee does not have the capacity to make such an assessment the role of the
mentor is to facilitate the process, which can be a capacity development exercise in its own right (see Box 2
above); and,

• The design of the WOP formulates achievable objectives that match the absorptive capacity of the mentee
partner. Failing to take appropriate account of the existing capacity as the starting point, and or being too
ambitious both risk setting up failure.

A strong planning framework

• A shared process to create a strong planning framework that defines clear objectives and indicators not only
for operational performance targets but also for capacity. (The more comprehensive the WOP in terms of
addressing capacity needs, the more likely it will be to create sustainable results); and,

• The planning framework has built in flexibility to allow for appropriate responses if there are significant
changes in circumstances during implementation (and contractual agreements recognise this need).

17 See for example Pascual at al, op. cit.

23
The overall WOP process creates conditions conducive to learning

• An introduction phase to allow relationship building, especially at the level of operational staff who may not
have been involved or consulted in earlier stages of the WOP, and getting in place all other components,
including a comprehensive plan;

• A slow start with a focus on clear tasks that can demonstrate success in order to motivate for ongoing work;

• Challenges and mistakes are used as learning opportunities for all;

• Regular, reflective review processes to identify progress and learning; and,

• The contractual space to respond flexibly to changing circumstances.

Quality of the relationships within the partnership

• Relationships of trust and the time to build them. The mentee partner needs to be able to trust in the
mentoring partner’s organisational capacity and in the individuals working with them;

• Appropriate matching of expertise to need – peer to peer within technical disciplines, with the mentor(s)
having sufficient expertise to inspire trust and respect from the mentee(s) and having the right attitude to
respect what the mentee staff are already able to achieve, sometimes in very challenging conditions;

• Understanding that WOPs are a mutual process, in which trust and respect need to be built on both sides,
and that learning is a two-way process. This also involves cross-cultural sensitivity; and,

• Recognition of the value of long-term relationships for iterative processes.

A related point is that there are a number of cases where a water operator that was formerly a mentee is now
mentoring others. This cascading effect is particularly useful where operators can act as mentor in their own
country or region, because this means that some of the challenges of language and cross-cultural working
noted above are less likely to arise. Costs are also likely to be less, allowing more to be done with the
available resources.

3.4 FACTORS THAT CAN IMPEDE LEARNING

No WOP will be without its challenges of one form or another, at one time or another. The evidence from
documented cases indicates that the main challenges fall into three key groups: language and cross-cultural
working; insufficient diagnostics at the start, linked with unhelpful assumptions; and, lack of guidelines for
those new to WOPs.

Language and cross cultural working

In the majority of WOPs the mentor and the mentee/s, particularly at the level of operational personnel, do
not share a first language. In some cases there is, perhaps, a shared language, but that may be a second
language for both. In other situations there is no shared language at all. It is, of course, always possible
to overcome language challenges through the use of interpreters, but this solution may have some inherent
problems if the interpreter is not familiar with the technical terms needed for accurate translation.

In addition to the challenge of language, a range of issues may occur as a result of cross-cultural
misunderstandings, such as those noted in Section 2.1.3 above about learning in different cultures. The
difficulties may extend to other forms of communication and behaviour in which one side may inadvertently
confuse or offend the other through lack of knowledge of each other’s culture.

Insufficient diagnostics and unhelpful assumptions

The water system in Mwanza is not the same as the water system in Madrid and it never will be. While water
systems will share many common features wherever they are in the world, no two systems will ever be exactly

24
the same. A large number of factors both within the water system itself, and in the surrounding environment
(physical, social and economic) will vary significantly to create a unique entity in unique circumstances.
Breeveld et al18 argue for a careful approach regarding policy transfer for institutional capacity building, and
this is also relevant at the implementation level because it is not helpful for assumptions to be made about
dealing with challenges in a mentee’s water system in the same way as in the mentor’s system.

As noted above, doing a full, participatory assessment of all relevant and related aspects of the system before
deciding on possible solutions is important. It has been noted that sometimes the involvement of third party
facilitators or mediators during the start-up phase can create misunderstandings that lead to complications
during implementation. Additionally, insufficient diagnostics in the start-up phase carry inherent dangers of
costly mistakes being made, if planned activities are based on assumptions of a system functioning in exactly
the same way as that of the mentoring partner or on the perspectives of an overly narrow set of stakeholders.

Lack of guidelines for those new to WOPs

Those new to working in partnerships can find it a challenge to know where to start and how to proceed. It is
unlikely that on either side many, if any, personnel with have direct experience of assessing capacity needs,
designing and implementing responses. At present there are few tools available to help those new to being in
a WOP either as a mentee or as a mentor. Filling this gap is one of the aims of the BEWOP project.

3.5 GAPS IN THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON LEARNING IN WOP s

There are a number of important gaps in the available information, most significantly: how best practices
are identified and transferred; M&E processes for capacity development; understanding the relevance
of motivations for learning to lead to change; and understanding capacity development at the enabling
environment level. Another very important gap is any information about learning that can be gleaned from
mistakes. More information about these issues would undoubtedly lead to clearer understanding of how to
make learning approaches more effective.

Identification of best practices

Some case studies make reference to the transfer of ‘best practices’19. Yet there is no information given about
how any given practice is identified as being ‘best’. More importantly there is no information available about
how, if at all, any practices are reviewed and adapted to fit to local circumstances. As noted in Section 3.4
above, significant challenges can arise when assumptions are made that what works in one context will also
be relevant and useful in another.

M&E processes for capacity development

There are no known documented examples of capacity development initiatives being monitored and evaluated
in their own right. Even in cases where capacity development is specified as a goal or objective of the WOP,
this does not appear to follow through to the formulation of capacity indicators, or any specific capacity
monitoring activities. The M&E systems in place in WOPs relate to solving problems for the achievement of
service delivery targets, rather than evaluating progress of the CD process.20 The prevailing assumption is
that if the problem has been solved capacity must now be in place. Another factor is that M&E tends to be
donor driven in that (most usually) the mentor is accountable to the donor for delivery of results specified in the
funding agreement.

Learning from mistakes can be one of the most valuable resources for ensuring future success. Unfortunately
few organisations in any sector are ever willing to make their mistakes public. At the present time all the WOP
case study materials available are about successes, with the exception of those that are currently the subject of

18 Breeveld et al, op. cit.

19 See for example, GWOPA Asia Case Study 2

20 See Pascual et al, op. cit. for a detailed analysis of this issue

25
academic research. It would add a great deal to the knowledge about how to make WOPs more effective if
the findings of M&E processes that had identified mistakes were shared for the benefit of all.

Motivations for learning and change

There is increasing recognition in the capacity development discourse that motivation to change can be a
critical factor in the success or failure of any initiative. In many cases well-intentioned actions do not lead
to good results because the target staff are not motivated to learn and change, or they may be motivated
to learn, but have no incentives to support change. Often this is about financial incentives, however other
factors, especially the distribution and use of power in the local political economy, can be very substantive
disincentives to learning and change. Finally, it is important to understand the motivators for change in the
enabling environment, i.e. at the level of political and policy decision makers. Thus far little has been done to
explore and understand these important issues at any level in WOPs.

Understanding capacity development at the enabling environment level

As noted at several points above having the right conditions in the enabling environment can be crucial for
the success of a WOP. While undoubtedly there must have been instances where interventions led to the
creation of capacity and enabling conditions at this level, little has thus far been documented. Having greater
understanding of how to create change at this level could, potentially, lead to considerable improvement in the
effectiveness of WOPs.

26
4. DIMENSIONS OF A LEARNING
FRAMEWORK FOR WOP s
This section of the paper draws together into a single framework key features of the theory of capacity
development set out in section 2, with the available knowledge of current practices in WOPs set out in section
3. It suggests a framework that may serve as a guide for some aspects of the conceptualisation and design
of WOPs, in order that capacity development becomes a clear goal within the WOP agreement. In turn, this
should lead to learning activities to achieve the goal being made more explicit and thus more effective in the
implementation of future WOPs.

In Progress and Challenges in Knowledge and Capacity Development21 Alaerts and Kaspersma set out a
matrix for knowledge and capacity development for different levels and actors in the water sector, including
civil society, i.e. consumers. While there are some significant similarities between that matrix and this
framework there are also some notable differences. This is largely due to the fact that the framework offered
in this paper focuses specifically on WOPs rather than the water sector in its entirety. This framework also
draws on a synthesized understanding of capacity and its development as set out in the Learning Package for
Capacity Development22 whereas the Alaerts and Kaspersma matrix draws on theory from a range of different
analytical disciplines. Despite the differences, this framework can be seen to be taking forward some of the
foundational ideas set out by Alaerts and Kaspersma, by applying some more recent understanding of the
theory and practice of capacity development.

4.1 OUTLINE OF A GUIDING FRAMEWORK

Any framework for capacity development must have as its starting point a definition of capacity that clarifies
‘Capacity for what?’ It also needs a definition for the process of capacity development. In the context of WOPs
the following definitions apply:

For water and sanitation operators, capacity can be defined as the ability to sustainably deliver quality
services to all within their target communities.23

Capacity development is understood as the process facilitated by WOPs whereby water operators unleash,
strengthen, create, adapt and maintain their capacity.

These definitions inform the elements set out below as the components of the framework.

The framework builds, in particular, on the understanding of two key aspects of capacity discussed in Section
2 above. These are the different levels at which capacity can exist, specifically individual, organisational and
enabling environment, and that capacity has tangible and intangible forms.

4.2 THEMES

The range of capacities needed for water operators to function effectively fall into four main themes: technical,
managerial, governance, and consumer relations. Although there is a significant level of crossover between

21 Alaerts, G. J. & Kaspersma, J. M. (2009). Progress and challenges in knowledge and capacity development. In: Capacity Development for Improved Water Management. Blokland,
M. W., Alaerts, G. J. & Kaspersma, J. M. (eds). Taylor & Francis, London, UK, pp. 3–30.

22 Learning Package for Capacity Development available at www.lencd.org/learning accessed 1.11.2013

23 In this context the key dimensions of sustainability are financial (cost-effectiveness being one aspect), social (including questions of equity, non-discrimination and participation)
and environmental (sustainability of services). The phrase ‘quality services’ encompasses the concepts of availability, affordability, accessibility, and acceptability.

27
these themes, especially between governance and consumer relations, each is worthy of consideration in its
own right.

Technical

There is a very substantial range of technical disciplines and expertise that a utility needs in order to function,
any or all of which might be the subject of a WOP. These technical disciplines fall within the category of
tangible capacities. What to do and how to do it are very practical needs, which Alaerts and Kaspersma
discuss as tacit knowledge, which is best acquired ‘… through one-on-one interaction between junior and
senior, apprentice and teacher.’24 Technical and tacit capacity needs are very often problem based. It should
also be noted that the need for technical capacity does not apply only to service delivery and the management
of the water infrastructure, but also within the organisational functioning of the utility. The MWAUWASA
example given above illustrates the important need for technical skills in information and communication
technology (among other needed capacities), and another key technical area is financial management.

Managerial

Intangible capacities are especially important at the managerial level if the utility is to be well-managed
for effective service delivery. These include: leadership; analytical and problem solving skills; the ability
to build and motivate teams; conflict resolution; and, the skills to engage in effective stakeholder relations.
Without these important intangible capacities in place it is unlikely that other capacities will be used fully and
appropriately. The range of capacities needed for effective and efficient management of water utilities includes
tangible capacities such as systems and procedures for planning, budgeting, human resource management,
M&E, and so on.

Governance

• The four pillars of good governance are usually defined as accountability, transparency, participation and
predictability25. The general meaning of each is as follows, though it needs to be noted that each may have
a nuanced variation according to context.

• Accountability means making public officials answerable for their behaviour and responsive to the
stakeholders from whom they derive their authority;

• Transparency refers to the availability of information to the general public and clarity about government
rules, regulations and decisions, and how these affect both public and private sector functioning.

• Participation is the active involvement of stakeholders in the decisions that affect their lives. Participation
implies that government structures are flexible enough to offer stakeholders the opportunity to improve the
design and implementation of public policies, programs, and projects; and,

• Predictability is (i) the existence of laws, regulations, and policies to regulate society, and (ii) their fair
and consistent application. It allows individuals and entities to keep planning future activities, with the
expectation that conditions will not suddenly change. Predictability is complemented and reinforced
by transparency.

Consumer relations

Issues like consumer relations do not usually get much attention in capacity development initiatives. However,
for water operators, success or failure may depend on the quality of their relationships with consumers in the
communities they serve. Consumer relations may have multiple dimensions, including very practical matters like
community involvement in planning processes, or employing community members to work on the installation of
systems. But it also covers less tangible matters like education and advocacy on the health benefits of linking

24 Alaerts and Kaspersma, op. cit. p15

25 This section is amended from Asian Development Bank, Operations Manual, Section C:4, issued 23 December 2013 available at http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/
OMC04.pdf accessed 4.11.2013

28
up to a proper wastewater and sanitation system. Given that improving and extending services is the ultimate
goal of most WOPs, reaching out to the consumer can be critical to achievement of the MDGs, and the Human
Right to Water. It is therefore important to recognise this as an essential area of any water operator’s capacity.

4.3 WHO NEEDS TO LEARN WHAT? WORKING WITHIN A HOLISTIC CAPACITY FRAMEWORK

As well as thinking about themes, it is also important to think about the different levels at which capacity needs
to be considered, and the linkages between the levels.

Individuals

This level is primarily, but not exclusively, the water operator staff who actually run the utilities and make them
function – the engineers, operators, technicians, chemists, planners, administrators, managers, etc. Many,
but not all, needs at this level are in the realm of tangible capacity, or tacit knowledge. It is about having the
knowledge and skills to be able to do things. Very often staff in mentee utilities do have a lot of skills and
knowledge that are not fully recognised, and capacity development initiatives need to ensure that activities
build on what already exists, rather than ignoring it. All also need to have the intangible capacity to be able to
work in teams, and to engage consumers and other stakeholders in meaningful ways. This level also extends to
others within the broader system, especially the consumers, who need to be well informed about key factors of
water supply, sanitation, and their usage. Another group of important individuals are the policy and decision
makers in the enabling environment.

Organisation

Depending on the nature of the WOP the focus on the organisation focus might be the whole utility or just
one department or section within it. This may be either specific capacity needs such as human resource
management, or it may be the need to look at organisational learning as a key to continuous performance
improvement and sustainability. A transformational idea that Belize Water Services gained from Contra
Costa Water District (see Box 7 above) was that safety is an organisational issue, in that it is not simply
the responsibility of a safety officer, but that every individual has responsibility for safety, which the whole
organisation needs to facilitate. As noted previously, the learning at organisational level is a mixture of both
tangible capacities for operational functioning and intangible capacity for adaptation and sustainability.

Enabling environment

The institutional level of the enabling environment includes different types of agency, within all of which
the issue of learning cannot be considered in isolation from political will. First are the local and national
governments responsible for enabling legislation and other conditions. These actors need to learn about what
works, current circumstances for any given utility, and how they can be most effective in supporting change
and improvement, or to put it another way, how to become more enabling. It appears that it is rare for
politicians and or senior policy makers to be actively involved in WOPs in any way, yet they can be highly
influential for good or otherwise. For example, if local politicians refuse to allow reasonable increases in
charges the water operator may not be able to achieve the financial sustainability necessary to ensure long-
term, high-quality service provision. In some situations more needs to be done to promote capacity and change
at this level in order to enable and facilitate more change at the organisational level. The second group are the
donors and finance institutes who are frequently needed to support WOPs, and who are, in many cases, the
only viable sources of support for substantial infrastructure investment. These actors also need to learn about
what works in local circumstances, and how they can become more enabling.

Mentoring partner

Finally, there are the learning needs of the mentoring partner to take into account, which are different to those
of the mentee partner. For example, for staff preparing to go on mission as a trainer or mentor, the learning
agenda is about how to understand and assess situations that may be very different from those in which they
are used to working. Organisations that routinely send staff overseas to work in WOPs would need to draw
lessons learned from previous experiences. The consolidated learning from multiple WOPs would be an
important resource for internal purposes and for sharing with others concerned with improving the design and
implementation of WOPs.

29
The schematic offered below in Diagram 4 is a way of showing all of the issues and dimensions discussed
above that would ideally be considered and, where relevant, explored in depth before decisions are made
about how to proceed.

DIAGRAM 4: SCHEMATIC OF A CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK FOR WOPS

Individual Organisational Institutional

RIGHT
TANGIBLE

THINGS
Technical
CAPACITIES

Managerial

RIGHT
THINGS

THE
Gover nance
DOING

DOING
Consumer Relations INTANGIBLE
CAPACITIES

Supporting conditions – incentives – cross-cultural adaption

As can be seen from the schematic, putting all the levels, types and themes together creates a picture of
considerable complexity. It is not intended to suggest that any WOP could or should cover all dimensions of
the framework. It is intended, however, to provide guidance about how to approach assessment and design
phases of a WOP. Using this framework can help to ensure that even if the WOP is to focus on a single
issue, consideration is given to other factors and issues in the mentee utility or its environment that might
impact on the success of the intervention. The framework might also help to broaden thinking so that helpful
linkages are made at an early stage and then lead to more comprehensive approaches to the challenge
under consideration.

30
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
PULLING IT ALL TOGETHER
This paper has sought to draw together what is currently thought to be the most effective approach to capacity
development with what is known of the current practice in WOPs. Within this analysis primary attention has
been paid to learning approaches and practices for the transfer of knowledge and skills, and the development
of other capacities necessary for effective water operator functioning.

As noted at various points in the paper, there are some important gaps in the available evidence about what is
currently happening in WOPs. While there is general evidence that there are many successful practices, there
is, as yet, very little evidence about the details of how change is being facilitated. Nor is there any evidence
available about what has not worked and why. There may in fact have been some very significant failures, but
these are not well documented. It is not therefore possible to draw any substantive conclusions about current
practice. More investigation is needed before existing approaches, tools and techniques can be analysed
comprehensively for their relevance and effectiveness.

The framework offered above may provide a useful tool to those assessing needs and designing a new WOP
in response. While many will be able to use the information directly in design or refinement of their WOPs, it
is the intention of the BEWOP project to build on this framework, and adapt it so that it may be considered a
practical tool for WOPs implementers and supporters.

5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS

• Undertake research that will provide better understanding of learning approaches as they are currently
used in WOPs, and the factors that support or block successful application of learning;

• Seek ways to fill the gaps in current knowledge about other aspects of capacity development in WOPs
as detailed in 3.5 above;

• Develop a format and guidance for framing capacity goals, and learning objectives and indicators in
WOP agreements;

• Develop a format and guidance for including M&E of capacity development approaches in the overall
WOP M&E framework; and,

• Explore how best to develop the framework above as a helpful tool for those negotiating new WOPs.
This might be the creation of a checklist or assessment guidelines, which could then be piloted.

31
APPENDIX: INTERVIEWEES, INFORMATION
SOURCES AND RESOURCES

List of interviewees (all interviews conducted by Skype)

Mohd Nizam bin Omar, Training Manager, Penang Water Services Academy

Digby Davies, Case Study Consultant, GWOPA

Arie Istandar, Chief of Party, Waterlinks

Gerard Rundberg, Director External Affairs, World Waternet

Leo Nijland, Programme Manager International Cooperation, DUNEA

The paper has also benefited from a number of informal conversations with water operators and other experts
during the BEWOP workshop in Barcelona on 25–26 November, 2013, and the 2nd Global WOPs Congress
in Barcelona on 27–28 November, 2013.

Reference documents and websites

Alaerts, GJ & JM Kaspersma Progress and challenges in knowledge and capacity development. (2009) in
Capacity Development for Improved Water Management Blokland, M. W., Alaerts, G. J. & Kaspersma, J. M.
(eds). Taylor & Francis, London, UK

Asian Development Bank Operations Manual, Section C:4, issued 23 December 2013 available at
http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/OMC04.pdf

Blokland MW, GJ Alaerts, JM Kaspersma, & M Hare editors, Capacity Development for Improved Water
Management (2010) UNESCO-IHE & UNW-DPC, CRC Press

Contra Costa Water District Action Plan and Results Report (2012), Belize Water Services and Contra Costa
Water District: Water Operators Partnership Program CCWD & BWS internal document

Breeveld R, L Hermans, & S Veenstra Water operator partnerships and institutional capacity development for
urban water supply (2013) Water Policy v15 Supplement 2, IWA Publishing 2013 available at
http://www.iwaponline.com/wp/015S2/S2/

Caplan, K The Purist’s Partnership: Debunking the Terminology of Partnerships (2003) BPD Water and
Sanitation Practitioner Note Series available at
http://www.bpdws.org/bpd/web/d/doc_86.pdf?statsHandlerDone=1

Dunea Grant Application for Financial and Operational Performance Improvement programme for Mwanza
Urban Water and Sewerage Authority (2011) Dunea internal document

Graas S, A Bos, C Figuéres, & T Adegoke Partnerships in the Water and Sanitation Sector (2007) IRC
Thematic Overview Paper 18 available at
http://www.irc.nl/content/download/29565/306650/file/TOP18_Partner_07.pdf

Gunawardana I, K Leendertse & W Handoko Monitoring outcomes and impacts of capacity development
in the water sector: a Cap-Net UNDP experience Water Policy v15 Supplement 2, IWA Publishing 2013
available at
http://www.iwaponline.com/wp/015S2/S2/

32
Global Water Operators’ Partnerships Alliance Charter (undated) available at
http://gwopa.org/index.php/resource-library/2925-global-water-operators-partnerships-alliance-charter

GWOPA Guiding Principles available at

http://gwopa.org/index.php/about-us-gwopa/charter/guiding-principles

GWOPA Strategy 2013 – 2017, available at

http://gwopa.org/index.php/resource-library/3536-gwopa-strategy-2013-2017

Water Operators Partnerships: Building WOPs for Sustainable Development in Water and Sanitation available at
http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=2851

Water Operators’ Partnerships in Asia: Case Study 1 – Metro-Cebu Water District and City West Water, 2013

Water Operators’ Partnerships in Asia: Case Study 2 – PDAM Tirtanadi and Indah Water Konsortium, 2012

Water Operators’ Partnerships in Asia: Case Study 3 – Water Supply and Sewerage Authority of Ulaanbaatar
and Vitens Evides International, 2012

Water Operators’ Partnerships in Africa: Case Study 1 – VEI and FIPAG, 2013

Water Operators’ Partnerships in Africa: Case Study 2 – Dunea MV and Mwanza Urban Water and
Sewerage Authority, 2013

Water Operators’ Partnerships in Africa: Case Study 3 – eThekwini Water and Sanitation, City of Durban
(South Africa) – Bulawayo City Council (Zimbabwe) (2013) draft version

All case studies available at

http://gwopa.org/index.php/resources/search-results?order=featured&cat=90&query=all&jr_jrrepubdate=2012&jr_retypesofdocument=case-study

WOPs summary information data base, available at

http://gwopa.org/engage-with-us/wop-profiles/search-results_m587/query:all/cat:97/order:alpha

GWOPA & UNESCO-IHE Proposal for Cooperation In support of Water Operator Partnerships (June 2013 –
June 2018), Project Document (2013) internal document

Hall D, E Lobina, V Corral, O Hoedeman, P Terhorst, M Pigeon, & S Kishimoto (2009) Public-Public
Partnerships (PUPS) in Water Public Services Institutes Research Unit, University Of Greenwich, UK available at
http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/pupinwater.pdf

Hollander, R Assessment of the effectiveness of short-term input in Mozambique, (2012), VEI internal report

infed (resource website of the WMCA George Williams College) page on Argyris theories of learning
available at
http://infed.org/mobi/chris-argyris-theories-of-action-double-loop-learning-and-organizational-learning/

IWA & GWOPA/UN-HABITAT in coordination with VEI Water Operators Partnerships Building WOPs for
Sustainable Development in Water and Sanitation (undated brochure)

Jabatan Pembangunan Kemahiran, Kementerian Sumber Manusia, (Department of Skills Development, Ministry
of Human Resource) Malaysia National Occupational Skill Standard: Standard Practice & Standard Content
For Water Treatment Plant Operator (undated)

Learning Network for Capacity Development (LenCD) Learning Package on Capacity Development
(2011) available at www.lencd.org/learning

Lincklaen Arriëns, WT & U Wehn de Montalvo Exploring water leadership (2013) Water Policy v15
Supplement 2, IWA Publishing 2013 available at
http://www.iwaponline.com/wp/015S2/S2/

33
Pascual Sanz M, S Veenstra, U Wehn de Montalvo, R van Tulder and G Alaerts What counts as ‘results’ in
capacity development partnerships between water operators? A multi-path approach toward accountability,
adaptation and learning (2013) Water Policy v15 Supplement 2, IWA Publishing 2013 available at
http://www.iwaponline.com/wp/015S2/S2/

Pascual Sanz, M, V Merme-Darrigrand, & K Schwartz Framework for Analyzing Water Operator Partnerships
(draft November 2013) UNESCO-IHE

Patrón Coppel, G & K Schwartz Water operator partnerships as a model to achieve MDGs for water supply?
Lessons from four cities in Mozambique (2011) Water SA Vol. 37 No. 4 available at
http://www.ajol.info/index.php/wsa/article/viewFile/71453/60398

Pearson, J Training and Beyond: Seeking Better Practices for Capacity Development (2011) OECD
Development Co-operation Working Papers, No. 1, OECD Publishing, available at
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/training-and-beyond-seeking-better-practices-for-capacity-development_5kgf1nsnj8tf-en;jsessionid=4ld21rkgpd5gq.delta

Penang Water Services Academy– Skills Training Initiatives By Penang Water Services Academy (EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY undated) PWSA internal document

UNESCO-IHE & GWOPA/UN-HABITAT, BEWOP Brochure (September 2013) available at

http://www.gwopa.org/images/BEWOP_brochure_2013 lowres.pdf

UN-HABITAT Training for Better Cities (2012) available at

http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=3350

United Nations Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation Hashimoto Action Plan:
Compendium of Actions (2006) available at
http://www.unsgab.org/index.php?menu=197

Veenstra, S Annual Workplan 2013 (concept) for effective and efficient employment of experts from Vitens
Evides International (2013) VEI internal document

Vincent, R & A Byrne Enhancing learning in development partnerships (2006) Development in Practice, 16:5,
385 – 399, available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614520600792192

Wehn de Montalvo, U & G Alaerts Leadership in knowledge and capacity development in the water sector:
a status review (2013) Water Policy v15 Supplement 2, IWA Publishing 2013 available at
http://www.iwaponline.com/wp/015S2/S2/

Wikipedia section on Organisational Learning available at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisational_learning

34
35
36
37