This document discusses methodologies for adaptive and systemic development. It introduces complex systems theory and how it can be applied to development work. Participatory methodologies are explored that incorporate feedback and learning. Case studies are analyzed to exemplify adaptive approaches. Systems thinking tools like the iceberg model are used to map challenges in development by examining symptoms, patterns, structures and underlying mental models. The document advocates for approaches that consider interconnected dynamics and contexts rather than linear reductions.

1. Ways of Doing Development
Differently: Methodologies for
Adaptive & Systemic
Development.
María Llanos del Corral

2. Introduction
In the field of development and humanitarian aid, we are facing increasingly complex and
interconnected problems that exist in changing and unstable contexts. We need to
incorporate approaches and methodologies that allow us to propose solutions that
understand and embrace the qualities of today's reality. This means seeking solutions that:
take into account the whole system; can evolve and effectively adapt to changing
circumstances; build a body of learning and good practice throughout the process; and look
at long-term behavioural changes and impacts.
A body of action-research has emerged within the field of development aiming to solve some
of the above issues. This includes considering frameworks, models and methodologies to
“Do Development Differently”. During this workshop we will look at the underlying paradigms
of thinking that can help us to reflect upon and put into practice adaptive development. We
will explore the theories and science of Complex Systems that lie behind the new paradigm
of thinking designed to better understand the realities of today’s challenges and to overcome
some of the limitations of linear, reductionist thinking for programming and planning. We will
look at some of the methodologies that will help develop adaptive, systemic and
collaborative projects. Lastly we will get to share a case study that exemplifies the learning.
In this course we explored:
1) Explore how complex living systems theory can be applied to development work.
2) Gain an understanding of systemic, agile, iterative approaches that allow us to be
responsive to contextual feedback and complexity in project management. This
approaches are fundamental to create innovation and learning within development;
3) Put into practice participatory methodologies. The commitment to genuine
participatory processes increases the involvement, empowerment, awareness and
responsibility of the different actors involved and the appropriation of these
processes and their results.
4) Analyse and reflect upon case studies.
Frames and methodologies:
Complex living systems approach, Action Research, Collective Impact, ​Systems Thinking,
Integral Sustainable Development (AQAL), Learning Organizations, ​Outcome Mapping,
Community Asset Based Approach, generative dialogue, permaculture, Ecovillage
Model,Trello.
Course designer and facilitator:
María Llanos del Corral,

3. Co Facilitator
Sarah Queblatin
Number of hours: 15 hours
Programme & Content:
Day 1
What it is not working on the development system.
Complex Living systems applied to Development.
Principles to doing Development Differently.
1) Opening Circle: Introduction participants. Open space for check-in and introduction.
Why are we here?
2) I​ntroduction to the course.​ Themes, methodologies, practicalities.
3) Introductory exercises​, getting to know each other through an object that represent
us. We created a collective Altar with the qualities that each of us bring to the
spaces.
4) Learning Zone.
‘If you want to feel secure do what you already know how to do. But if you want to grow…
Go to the cutting edge of your competence, Which means a temporary loss of security.
So, whenever you don’t quite know What you are doing Know That you are growing…’
(Viscott, 2003)
The Learning zone model was developed by the German pedagogue Tom Senninger. He
states that there are three important zones to take into account for learning processes.
The Comfort zone:​ is the area where things are familiar, there are no risks, is the space of
what we know. It is important to keep ourselves safe, and is a good space to come back to
integrate things and grow. The bigger this area the better, we will be able to feel comfortable
in different fields, with different knowledge, and this gives us versatility, flexibility, wisdom
and resilience as people and as organizations.
The Learning zone: ​is where we can grow, learn and innovate. The learning zone means
stepping into the unknown, be lead by your curiosity, accepting uncertainty. Puts people in a
vulnerable position. It means accepting that we don´t know yet, that we are exploring the
edges of our own capabilities and limits.
In this zone we take risks and we embrace vulnerability and uncertainty in order to learn and
expand as people and organizations. To be able to step into this we need to create safe
containers for our groups, communities, departments, organizations.
A ​safe space ​is a place where the participants feel encourage and free to participate, to step
into the uncomfortable zone. For truly participatory processes, we need to collectively create
and curate this safe spaces. Creating space to talk about safe participation will influence the
culture of open and honest communication, horizontal & equal participation, non-judgement,

4. ownership of the group, levels power dynamics. This spaces will look different depending on
the group, so it is important to create it collectively for each group, moreover it is the process
of giving voice that it is empowering in itself. Note that it is important to revisit the
agreements made by the group as it evolves. Here are many tools available, we explored
one form of collectively create this space.
The panic zone​: right outside of the learning zone is the Panic zone. It is dominated by fear
rather than trust. In here curiosity shots down. Whatever happens in that zone will be
remember in our bodies and brains as fearful and so many times traumatic.
Creating a safe container, a trustworthy environment will prevent people going to the panic
zone.
To create healthy, innovative intelligent group, organization, projects, community we need to
create this safe spaces and a culture of learning together.
5) Participatory exercise and methodology. ​Active listening and participatory
reflection. ​What is our purpose to work in development? What challenges we face
?and what motive us to keep on working in aid and development?
This exercise aims to​: Introduce a facilitation technique to create generative dialogue.
Introduce active listening. Create team building. Begin unfolding our common ground as a
group, using popular education to analyse the development system as a whole. We do so
using participants experience and knowledge.

5. As facilitators we create a space for people to talk safely, hence meaningfully about the work
they do. Creating an intimate space of two, and shaping the communication in a way that
each person actively listen, will not be interrupted, allowing silence after which sometimes
deeper reflective analysis emerged. Each person has the same amount of time to speak and
to listen, this encourages participation and limits the power dynamics that often emerges in
conversation.
To be able to innovate we need to create different spaces in which we share our ideas that
encourage us to find new points of view, reflections and thoughts that haven't been
formulated before.
The deeper conversation that ca​n​ emerge from active listening also enables us to overcome
our patterns of thought, hence speech. We all carry patterns of thought and behaviour.
These patterns emerge constantly and are unconscious most of the times. Patterns are a
survival habit that is needed but many times it is also the block for new thinking, innovation
and progress for people, organizations and societies. We do what we know although it is not
taking us anywhere good.
Sow a thought, reap an action;
Sow an action, reap a habit;
Sow a habit, reap a character;
Sow a character, reap a destiny.
To overcome our patterns we need to create awareness of them, and to create spaces
where we can think,hence act differently.
Is in conversation where patterns emerged and action is created. Shifting and changing the
way we talk can create new thinking, hence new action. This is what we call generative
dialogue.
Active listening is a technique that also works towards revealing patterns and help us
transcend them. One of the most mentioned leverage points within theories of change,
management and organizational theory is communication. We need to learn how to speak1
and listen to each other, an art that we have taken for granted. Due to the constant use we
do of it it is overload with hidden patterns and bad habits. Communication is a key element
for change.
Some guidance for Active Listening:
Physical and mental predisposition to pay attention.
Remove assumptions, prejudices and concerns by presenting an open mind.
Pay attention to nonverbal language.
Consider the feelings, emotions and values ​​of your interlocutor.
Try to understand the place from which they speak.
1
Theories of change and frameworks such as Theory U, Dragon Dreaming, the Fifth Discipline, the movement of
Teal Organizations. Further the MIT management Sloan School. Transformative centre like The Centre of
Courage and Renewal, Schumacher College, coin communication as the central element that enables change,
innovation, intelligent organizations and is at the heart of a new model of management.

6. Things to avoid:
Do not get distracted. The attention curve starts at a very high point, decreases as the
message continues and ascends again toward the end of the message. Be aware of this
when entering a dialogue.
Do not interrupt the speaker.
Do not judge.
Do not offer help or premature solutions.
Do not reject what the other is feeling, for example: "don't worry, that's nothing".
Do not tell "your story" when the other needs to talk to you.
Don´t counterargument. For example: the other says "I feel bad" and you respond "and me
too".
Avoid the "expert syndrome"​: no fixing, no saving, no advising, no setting each other
straight”​.
This exercise is also an educational approach that encourage people to teach and learn from
each other experiences and knowledge. A participatory and horizontal approach to
education that stimulates collaboration and empowerment.

7. Popular Education was developed by Paulo Freire and influenced by many other theories
and political expressions.
“Popular education is an educational approach that collectively and critically examines
everyday experiences and raises consciousness for organizing and movement building,
acting on injustices with a political vision in the interests of the most marginalized” Paulo
Freire
Facilitating spaces where we steir from our own experience and knowledge allows us to
contextualise the learning space to the concrete experience of the group, hence is more
accurate, it is empowering and according to learning theory what you enact, what you say,
what you reflect by yourself is 90% more likely that you remember and put into practice .2
“I see and I forget
I hear and I remember
I do and I understand” Confucius
6) Mapping ​the challenges we face
using the Systems Thinking Iceberg.
What is not working in development today
and why? We looked at symptoms,
patterns, structures and mental models
that affect and define development work
today.
Introduction to the systems thinking
iceberg​: a frame that thinks about and
analyses the root causes of a particular
issue. We looked at the symptoms,3
patterns, structures and mental models
used in Development. Looking at the
mental models, the influence of science,
economic theory, and eurocentrism offers
an understanding of some of the root
causes of the challenges we observed and
the obstacles we face.
2
Edgar Dale´s developed the cone of experience which constitute the theoretical ground to the expansion of
learning theories and methodologies. On a nutshell it states that active, embodied and owned learning, direct
learning has 90% chances to remember, whereas indirect learning has only a chance of 10%. ​Edgar Dale's Cone
of Experience.
3
https://nwei.org/resources/iceberg/

8. The work on sustainable development is very complex. Is multi-dimensional, interconnected
and dynamic. Linear, reductionist approaches have shown its limitations in addressing the
complexity of the sustainability work.

10. Exercise.
We collectively organized the challenges we face in Development work, and draw the links
between symptoms, patterns, structures, mental models.
Some of the Symptoms we observed:
- Projects do​n​´t last. Lack of long-Term sustainability.
- Disminution of cultural diversity.
- More money, no better results.
- Increasing inequality.
- Decreasing trust from general public.
- Laws that are not relevant.
- Long term unpredicted negative impacts.
- Disempower communities with long term aid assistance.
- Hierarchies and unequal power distribution within the chain of actors in development.
- Primacy of western visions.
- Problems persist.
- We don't know how to measure change.
- Fights over beneficiaries.
- Some communities over attended some overlooked.
- Increased environmental damage in developing countries.
- Globalization.
Some of the patterns:
- Lack of ownership with the projects.
- Issues aren't​ ​addressed at a policy level.
- Theories of change are fixed on assumptions rather than tested a​n​d adjusts to local
realities.
- More and more we seem to confront “why they don't want what we know is good for
them”.
- The final decisions about projects are not made by the community
- Extrapolating solutions from one context to another. Prescriptive strategies.
- Participatio​n​ used to meet capabilities of the NGOs.
- Local needs transformed to meet donors and NGOs expertise.
- Low level of education amongst the local workers in the field.
- Change is considered a bad thing. Monitoring and evaluating turns into supervision
and punishment system.
- Reduction on innovation within the field.
- Quantitative measurements do not reflect behavioral changes.
- Standards don't include community.
- Lack of coordination in the field amongst international NGOs.
- Accountability systems still prioritize donors.
- Rigid frameworks can´t meet the complexity and changeability of the context. They
are not adaptive.
- A tendency to overlook environmental sustainability.
- Isolating problems that are connected.
- Increased specialization within Agencies.

11. Some of the structures:
- The logical frameworks.
- The accountability system:
- Prevalence of quantitative measurements.
- Value in scalable projects
- Punishment based on measures. No indicators no money.
- Primacy of efficacy and efficiency to measure success.
- The public funding system:
- In which NGOs and Agencies had to compete against each other.
- Project or programme based. Which narrows down the scope of possible
interventions.
- Directivity of the funding towards specific strategies and isolated specialized
sectors.
- Time constrictions. Which influence the proliferation of long term strategies.
- The funding is dependent on the accountability system. The project needs to
meet the indicators.
-
- Education system around development
- increasingly specialised.
- Lack of funding for research and innovation.
-
- NGO Organizational Structures:
- Hierarchies that push up the decision making power.
- Specialization.
- Performance measurement.
- Separation between departments such as intervention, monitor and
evaluation, human resources, financial management,agency and
development, emergency and development...for example.
Some of the me​n​tal models that sustain the development system.
- Influence of Scientific thinking and method. Reductionism and mechanistic laws at
the basis of our understanding of reality.
- Reductionist and linear understanding of development and project
management.
- Separation among sectors that are interconnected missing the influence
amongst each other, hence the impacts.
- Linear thinking and causality.
- Predictability.
- Universal knowledge.
- Truth is observable and quantifiable.
- Economic thinking:
- Unlimited Growth
- Development equals economic growth.
- More projects, bigger, better.
- Who has the money has control.
- Colonialism:Racism.
- Problem solving mentality.
- Rationalism
“Entrenched ideas and values, among them the view of the universe as a mechanical
system composed of elementary building blocks, the view of the human body as a machine,

12. the view of life in society as a competitive struggle for existence, the belief in unlimited
material progress to be achieved through economic and technological growth, and-last, but
not least-the belief that a society in which the female is everywhere subsumed under the
male is one that follows a basic law of nature. All of these assumptions have been fatefully
challenged by recent events. And, indeed, a radical revision of them is now occurring​”. (F.
Capra, The Web of life, 1996)
This set of beliefs and mental models once born as the western scientific paradigm shape
the way we create our systems today such as the economy, education, health,
organizations, development… We analysed how this beliefs manifest on our realities. For
example the deepening tendency for specialization in our societies, the smokescreen for
greater breaking apart the whole. Rampant specialization is an attempt to better understand
the growing complexity using the old glasses and methods that are not fit for purpose.
Specialization on health for example, takes us away from understanding the complex
interactions of the human body and mind, hence understanding better the symptom whilst
blindly overseeing the roots causes of the problem.
Reducing problems to symptoms, to its simplistic parts takes us away from understanding
that education, nutrition, health, culture, politics, environment, are deeply interconnected
issues that cannot be understood in isolation. Thus, we are not being able to truly respond
and transform deeply today's realities.
This worldview has shaped the way we create our organizations, manage our projects and
expect results through simplistic causal narratives. What we can identify with the metaphor
of the Silver Bullets.
Some of the Silver Bullets we've shoot in development for example had an impact on the
spread of malaria today. On the 60´s the DDT Silver Bullet (insecticide) to end Malaria have
influenced mosquito mutations and resistance which has kept malaria as great cause of
death in many countries. Simple strategies such as this one, based on eradication and
control of the event, focus on the symptom that we obverse, has no account of the complex
evolutionary dynamics of the system in which it manifests. They do not contemplate, hence
account for the patterns, structures, beliefs and mental models that have create the
symptom in the first place.
Participatory practice​. In pairs we work with the iceberg to apply the way of thinking that
the icebergs favours into our own projects.
Aims: The exercises is a practice of applying systems thinking into project management.
This frame can be useful in the design phase of the project, to better understand the different
depths and dimensions of the issue we are addressing and the interconnectedness amongst
each other. Each person guided the other in a process of enquiry. We introduced coaching
techniques, skills to better communicate and support which are essential to instigate
participation and empowerment. We explore how to formulate open honest questions.
• An honest, open question is one you cannot possibly ask while thinking, “I know the right
answer to this…” Thus, “Have you ever thought about seeing a therapist?” is not an honest,
open question! But “What did you learn from the experience you just told us about?” us.

13. • Try not to get ahead of the presenter’s language with your questions. “What did you mean
when you said you felt sad?” is an honest, open question. “Didn’t you also feel angry?” is
not.
• Ask questions that are brief and to the point rather than loading them with rationales and
background materials that allow you to insert your own opinions or advice.
• Ask questions that go to the person as well as the problem, questions about the inner
realities of the situation as well as the outward facts.
• Ask questions aimed at helping the presenter explore his or her concern rather than
satisfying your own curiosity.
• If you have an intuition that a certain question might be useful, even if it seems a bit “off the
wall,” trust it—once you are reasonably certain that it is an honest, open question.
• If you aren’t sure about a particular question, sit with it for a while and wait for clarity.
• As a group, watch the pacing of the questions, allowing some silence between the last
answer and the next question. Questions that come too fast may feel aggressive, cutting off
the deep reflection that can help the presenter.
• If you have asked one question and heard an answer, you may feel a need to ask a
follow-up question. But if you find yourself about to ask the third question in a row before
anyone else has had a chance to ask one, don’t!
• Avoid questions with yes-no or right-wrong answers. At the same time, remember that the
best questions are often simple and straightforward.
7) The history of Development. Annex 1
8) Introduction to Complex Living Systems and systems thinking.
History of Complex Living Systems Theory (CLST​).
“Because development problems are typically complex and processes of change are highly
uncertain, it is essential to allow for cycles of doing, failing, adapting, learning and
(eventually) getting better results”.(Doing Development Differently, ODI, 2014)4
What theories, beliefs, methodologies will help us addressing the complexity of our world.
We explored the space for learning offered by nature as a contrast to mechanistic beliefs.
We looked at how complex living systems work.
4
​Doing Development Differently:​ ​http://doingdevelopmentdifferently.com/

14.
A Complex Living Systems approach talks about the importance of looking at the relations
amongst issues. How they affect each other through the interaction and how that affects the
nature of the whole system, creating emerging properties unique to the whole and so many
times unpredictable. This frame focuses on understanding the co-evolving dynamics
happening within the system. It makes us question, what is this influencing? What is this
affected by? What is emerging new from this interactions? How can I better influence? It
invites us to contextualise the knowledge and avoid the tendency to extrapolate magic pills
from one country to another, one region or town to another. It invite us to think about
changing from silver bullets to multiple micro strategies.
Following from our previous example on Malaria, an integral systemic approach will zoom
out to look at the social, cultural, economic, geographical, political dimensions that can be
affecting the appearance of malaria. A case study in Kenya realised that several elements
affected the prevalence of malaria; the predominance of rice paddies, a resistance from the
farmers against a government law on irrigation which led to flooding, and how cattle can
serve as tasty first bytes for mosquitos.
This systemic analysis led to designing a multi strategy intervention: controlling flooding
through a better way of organising amongst farmers, alternating dry crops, introducing cattle,
planting natural mosquito repellents, and larves in the fields of rice that eat the mosquito.
Doing so they not only reduced the cases of malaria to an unprecedented minimum but
increased their nutrition, hence their health which affects also mortality due to malaria.

15. 9) AQAL: A​nnex 1.
10) Examples of applied CLST.
We looked at the fields in which CLST has been applied:
- Asia foundation video:​ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-FFYhLCRdA
- Integrated Rice Duck
farming:​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1d2zsAK4EI
- Change in organizations:​ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxGGkrtKZaA
Exercise​: From this examples which ideas or principles can you underlie that are applicable
to development work?
11) Introduction to the Principles proposed within the frame of the course to Ways of
doing development differently.
1. Working through problem-driven and in systemic and politically informed ways.
2. Instigate participation: involve all the stakeholders and support change that is locally
led.
3. Being adaptive, iterative and entrepreneurial.
4. Systemic and Adaptive Management.
12) Instigate participation: involve all the stakeholders and support change that is
locally led​. Characteristics of participatory methodologies.
Participation at a high level is key for the success and sustainability of any intervention.
Throughout the workshop we have been putting into practice participatory approaches,

16. conveying conversations that instigate peer to peer learning and analysis, and looking at the
qualities of the spaces for participation.
Following we will preset Collective Impact a frame that enhance participation within the
project cycle.
13) Being adaptive, iterative and entrepreneurial​. Agile approaches and methodologies
for project management: How does our organization learn? Intervening the Evaluation and
Monitoring systems. Action Research, Iterative learning,Trello.
When working in changing environments ad in order to promote learning and innovation in
the development field organizations need to create the internal and external conditions for
that to happen. Internal conditions will look at the learning structures put in place by our
organizations and embracing a culture where enquiry and safe risk taking is not punished
but encourage. Externally we can support that by looking at and adapting our evaluation and
monitor systems, and by using adaptive iterative methodologies.
This iterative approach have led to the appearance of agile methodologies and project
management tools such as scrum, kanban, trello.

17. The Agile methodologies propose alternatives to traditional project management. Agile
approaches help respond to unpredictability through incremental, iterative work cadences
and empirical feedback. Agilists propose alternatives to waterfall, or traditional sequential
development.
Trello​ is a free project management tool that allow for iterative processes. Is good for groups
that are spread out, is agile, is process based and very visual. Projects are represented
by ​boards​, which contain ​lists​ (corresponding to task lists). Lists
contain ​cards​ (corresponding to tasks). Cards are supposed to progress from one list to the
next (via drag-and-drop), for instance mirroring the flow of a feature from idea to
implementation. Users can be assigned to cards.
Users and boards can be grouped into ​organizations.​ Users may organize projects through
the utilization of boards, lists and cards, which form a bespoke data hierarchy that facilitates
effective management of projects, jobs and tasks.
Project cycle and management is changing across sectors and disciplines. It started with
software development companies such as google, microsoft, apple, that implemented a
“learn as you go” system with in their product design, and has transcended to many
disciplines like organizational change theory with pioneering thinker P. Sege describing
intelligent organization as learning organizations. The basic rationale for such organizations
is that in situations of rapid change only those that are flexible, adaptive and productive will
excel.
“​…organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they
truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective
aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together”
P. Se​nge
P. Sege definitions of learning organizations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc2ruCErTok
The learning cycle is an interesting frame for introducing deep learning with in our project
management.

18. 14) Participatory Exercise. ​How does your organization learn? what are the structures in
place? Where do you see space for improvement?

21. Project design together with the creation of systems of evaluating and monitoring in
development need to adopt more agile, flexible processes and measurements in order to
allow for innovation and adaptation to changing circumstances. Some of the agile, iterative
tools and technologies could be implemented to help this transition process, whilst still meet
the needs for accountability specific to the development system.
This approaches together with collaboration of the stakeholders at a high level, meaning
taking part in project design, implementation and evaluation will enable ownership,
pertinence and sustainability within our interventions.
Later on the document we will introduce two frames that embrace these two key principles,
together with the first principle introduced in this course. Those being: ​Collective impact​ and
Outcome mapping​.
15) Systemic & Adaptive Management.​To be able to implement these approaches is
fundamental that we as facilitators of these processes embrace a​n​d embody qualities,
values and skills of adaptive participatory management.
It is important to move forward and overcome the weaknesses of other participatory
approaches that degenerate into more effective manipulation. We need to ensure data is
bottom up and relevant to people on the ground, and decision making power is also taking
down to to the level of those protagonists and beneficiaries of the interventions.

22. Qualities of Systemic Adaptive Leadership
1) Being responsive​: to have flexibility and reactivity.
2) Ability to be present​. If we are constantly faced with changing, open situations,
meetings, projects ... we need to develop our capacity to be present, to react and to
be able to influence what happens, when it happens. To be present we need to
maintain an emotional balance and a state of commitment, motivation and
detachment at the same time.
3) Process Work​: Our culture is very defined by the supremacy of the result at the
expense of process. An example might be how we approach education. Education
today is oriented to learn by memory the content rather that focus o​n​ guiding the
learning process. The process of how we do things is as relevant as what we e​n​d up
doing.
4) From hero to host​. As M. Wheatley poses it "The leader is that person who is able to
interpret what the situation demands, which includes what needs to happen and
facilitates the process to make it happen." It creates processes of effective and

23. honest participation. The spaces for collective intelligence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTgm0yfzz-4
5) Embracing uncertainty​. When our vision is broad and inclusive and we aim to
facilitate participatory processes so that we collectively walk towards that vision.
Moreover if we understand that creating the new is about acting and not knowing
exactly what is going to happen, we must be ready to work with uncertainty.
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvrD2Po3uUY
6) Working consciously with our ego​:Today's reality is more complex interconnected
and uncertain than ever before, in the nature of this reality we cannot lead using a
command and control approach, the tendency to get back power and control in times
of chaos although it is a default reaction it will not take as through these times.
Leading in times of uncertainty and complexity needs creating space for the
collective to deal with the nature of the system, to create the conditions for people to
contribute and participate. As M. Wheatley explains​“Trying to control chaos from the
top will create more chaos, we often choose power over productivity, in this times we
need to learn how to let go and lead​”. The important thing is not my intelligence but to
create spaces for collective intelligence to emerge. To work from facilitation, for the
sake of group creation and the empowerment of the team, we must also work our
ego.​ ​Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h523m2B5_1c
7) Be a visionary​. Do not be blind by achieving concrete results. Results are important
as they are the paths we choose to walk towards our vision, but they are not ends, or
visions themselves. It is important to create a strong shared vision, and to be guided
by the principles and values of our organizations. The vision, values and principles
constitute the spirit and character of your organization. Focusing on results makes us
lose the true center of our shared experience and commitment. Organizations that
are in internal crisis, must work to rescue what is that common vision that united and
excited them in the first place.
8) Ability to take risks​. We live in a context that is constantly changing and demands us
to create new solutions: Innovati​ng involves​ taking risks. It also refers to the ability to
take individual risks. We need leaders who dare to be themselves. To propose, to
think outside the box despite of the (social) risks that this implies.
9) Learning to let go​. We should not confuse detachment with lack of interest or
involvement. The detachment is the ability to detach from expectations and remain
open to the flow of information and proposals that are created through the
interactions with other people. This opens the door to true participation, creativity and
acceptance. It also allows us not to react emotionally when something does not turn
out as we expected, but quickly accept the new situation and re-create a process
around what we find. To work o​n​ detachment means to work the ego.
10) The balance​. to find the balance between detachment and commitment or deep
hearted involvement. The balance between compassion and courage.

24. 16) The Ecovillage Model. A case study. Annex 1.
17) Collective Impact.
Collective impact (CI) occurs when a group of actors from different sectors commit to a
common agenda for solving a complex social or environmental problem. More than simply a
new way of collaborating, CI is a structured approach to problem solving that includes five
core conditions.
1) Build a common agenda.
2) Shared measurements a​n​d agree o​n​ them
3) Mutually reinforced activities
4) Continuous, efficient communication.
5) Backbone Organization.
Once these conditions are in place, a CI initiative’s work is organized through what is called
“cascading levels of collaboration.” This structure includes the following:
An oversight group,​ often called a Steering Committee or Executive Committee, which
consists of cross-sector group of individuals from the key organizations within the project, as
well as representatives of the individuals touched by the issue. This group meets regularly to
oversee the progress of the entire initiative.
Working groups ​focused on the initiative’s primary strategies. More complicated initiatives
may have subgroups that take on specific objectives within the prioritized strategies.
Working groups typically develop their own plans for action organized around “moving the

25. needle” on specific shared measures. Once plans re-developed, the working groups come
together on a regular basis to share data and stories about progress,as well as challenges
and opportunities, and to communicate their activities to other partners affected by the
issue, so that the circle of alignment can grow. CI works perfectly and uses quite often Agile
Project Management Tools. Although each working group meets separately, effective
coordination by the backbone can ensure coordinated action among hundreds of
organizations that simultaneously tackle many different dimensions of a complex issue.
The backbone function ​provides periodic and systematic assessments of progress attained
by the various working groups and then synthesizes the results and presents them back to
the oversight committee that carries the sustaining flame of the common agenda.
Differences with the Logical Frame.
Collective impact is a frame for project management that has collaboration a​n​d complexity
as its central statements. From the identification of the project to the execution and
monitoring, everyone affected or influential, participates. Also it comes from an
understanding of the world through complexity, hence takes into consideration uncertainty
and flexibility. In other project management philosophies, like the logical frame , participation
happens in some stages not all, it is very linear and based in a very fix and narrow cause
consequence relatio​n​. It is a risk when we focus too much on the plan and forget to look
openly to the reality we encounter in order to make the next move.

26. CI encourages iterative processes, collective evaluation and reflectio​n​, focusing more in the
long term vision rather than the concrete outcomes or activities planned. These are
strategies that can change as you test their effectiveness.
So these substantial differences will required a different set of methodologies to manage a
project. Remember that the ​framework don’t give you the qualities, the leading team is key to
bring these approach to life​ through the embracement of the skills and values and the use of
adequate methodologies.
When collective impact is the best option?
The Collective Impact Feasibility Framework ​is a guide to help a group of stakeholders5
assess whether or not collective impact is the right approach to address the specific social
problem in their community. This framework is most helpful before you invest in a collective
impact effort by assessing the landscape of actors, the scale and complexity of the social
problem you want to address, and the readiness of local stakeholders for collaboration.
5
http://www.fsg.org/tools-and-resources/collective-impact-feasibility-framework

27. 18) Outcome mapping
Outcome Mapping (OM) focuses on one particular category of results: changes in the
behaviour, relationships, activities or actions of people, groups, and organisations with whom
a programme works directly. These changes are called “outcomes”. Through the OM
method, development programmes claim contributions to the achievement of outcomes
rather than claiming the achievement (attribution) of development impacts.
OM helps to analyse complex changes, especially those relating to behaviour and
knowledge.
The key principles and set of beliefs of OM :6
- changes are complex and do not move in a linear way,
- development is done by and for people,
- although a programme can influence the achievement of outcomes, it cannot control
them because ultimate responsibility rests with the people affected.
- Non-causality: Outcomes can be logically linked to a programme’s activities but they
are not necessarily directly caused by them.
- Contribution instead of attribution: When applying OM, a programme is not claiming
the achievement of development impacts; rather, the focus is on its contributions to
outcomes. The logic behind this is that long-term development goals are rarely
6
These section is extracted mostly from: D. Roduner and W. Schläppi, AGRIDEA and Walter Egli, NADEL
(2008). Logical Framework Approach and Outcome Mapping A constructive attempt of synthesis. AGRIDEA
International/Publications/Concepts and approaches: http://www.agridea-international.ch/?id=627

28. accomplished by the work of a single actor and that the complexity of the
development process makes it extremely difficult to actually assess impact
(especially for an external donor agency seeking attribution).
- Control of change / development: Outcome Mapping assumes that the boundary
partners control change and that, as external agents, development programmes only
facilitate the process by providing access to new resources, ideas, or opportunities
for a certain period of time.
Steps to implement OM:
1) Identify individuals, groups or organisations with whom you will work directly to
influence behavioural change;
2) Plan and monitor behavioural change and the strategies to support those changes;
3) Monitor internal practices of the project or program to remain effective;
4) Create an evaluation framework to examine more precisely a particular issue.
Stages:
1) The first stage, Intentional Design, helps a programme establish consensus on the
macro level changes it will help to bring about and plan the strategies it will use. It
helps answer four questions why (vision)? Who (partners)? What (changes sought)?
How (contribution of programme to change process)?
2) The second is Evaluation Planning, helps the programme identify evaluation priorities
and develop an evaluation plan. The compulsory interactive and iterative planning
process with OM takes into account existing local organisations, institutions and
structures. It should be based on a pre-planning phase that is used to get to know the
‘big picture’.
3) Lastly Outcome and Performance Monitoring, provides a framework for the ongoing
monitoring of the programme’s actions and boundary partners’ progress toward the
achievement of outcomes. It is based largely on systematized self-assessment and a
set of data collection tools.

29. Requirements
- OM is a robust methodology that can be adapted to a wide range of contexts. It
enhances team and program understanding of change processes.
- Potential users of OM should be aware that the methodology requires skilled
facilitation as well as dedicated budget and time, which could mean support from
higher levels within an organisation. OM also often requires a “mindshift” of personal
and organisational paradigms or theories of social change.
Strengths:
- It is adaptable a​n​d participatory,​ understands its limitations a​n​d focuses on lo​n​g
term cha​n​ge.
- Clear definition of system borders​, roles and responsibilities; a process that
supports the partners in assuming responsibility and clarifies the end of project status
at the very beginning.
- Milestones that indicate a possible process​, not final indicators; this indicate a
path of change that makes it possible to assess development in short time periods
and therefore to assess / change / adapt strategies within a short time. It is agile a​n​d
flexible.

30. - Concentration on learning and accountability​; learning from experiences and
coping with change are the key elements of OM. Accountability issues (in all
directions) and learning purposes are held in a balance.
- It is context based. Outcome Mapping explicitly requires that project structures and
activities constantly adapt to changing context. The course of projects will be less
predictable.
Weaknesses:
- Limited systematic analysis of OM. As a recent method there are no systematic
studies of its effectiveness and efficiency to date.
- One-dimensional focus on changes in the behaviour of partners could not be
sufficient.
- Due to the mainstream narrative of project management, some of its cutting edge
advantages are perceived as its downfalls like: it is difficult to make
international/interregional comparisons as it is context based, is unpredictable and of
course prescriptive strategies will not be successfully applied.
Key characteristics of Log Frame.
- Goal Oriented starting with the definition of clear goals and objectives,
- causality logic causal link between activities,outputs, outcomes and impact.
- Continuous improvement (periodical check as basis for timely adjustment)
- Results-based management.
Strengths of LOG FRAME.
- Simple summary of key elements in a consistent​ ​and coherent way​. Enables
rapid understanding of the broad outline of a project and facilitates comparisons
between different proposals. But the logical framework is a simplification and
‘dangerous when not seen as such’ (Gasper 2000: 17).
- Strongly responsive to our perception of the world and our current understanding of
change.
Weaknesses
- Increasing difficulty to attribute outputs to development.
- Simplifies complex situation. The logic model is based on simple, linear causality
excluding explicitly elements of systemic approaches such as feedback loops.
- The principle of causality – too rigid. This principle helps and even forces analysis of
the relations between project outputs and desired effects. But the mechanistic idea of
cause and effect does not hold true because there are many factors involved which
lie beyond the scope of the planned initiative.
- External risks tend to be neglected and poorly analyzed.
- Temptation of inflexible “blueprint planning”.
- The considerable effort associated with elaborating a project using the logframe
approach, as well as the fact that financing and implementation agreements are
made on the basis of this project design, lead to a situation in which all key

31. stakeholders (implementer and donor) have an interest in not altering the logframe
matrix.
- Development organisations are torn between increasing levels of stakeholder
participation and accountability and ever greater requirements to demonstrate that
they have performed according to expectations and to provide evidence of impact.
Which keep them using a dysfunctional methodology .7
Closing circle and invitations to create a Lab in which explore together the intricacies of
doing development differently.
Thank you all for partaking i this course,
And special thanks to Sarah for her work, her co-facilitation and valuable knowledge.
Maria Llanos del Corral
mlla​n​osdelcorral@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mar%C3%ADa-llanos-del-corral-64281b6a/
Skype:mllanosdelcorral.
+34627041919.
7
​D. Roduner and W. Schläppi, AGRIDEA and Walter Egli, NADEL (2008). Logical
Framework Approach and Outcome Mapping A constructive attempt of synthesis.

32. References:
0)​ ​Doing Development Differently:​ ​http://doingdevelopmentdifferently.com/
1) World Food Program (2001). ​Participatory Techniques and tools​. A WFP Guide.
2) B. Ramalingam. (2013). ​Aid in the Edge of Chaos​. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
3) M. Llanos, M. Segales, C. Garcia, J. Kindelan (2016).​ ​Experiencias de un cambio
sistémico: Factores clave para la investigación acción colaborativa​.​ Grupo
Compartir.
4)​ L. Wild, D. Booth, C. Cumming, M. Foresti, J. Wales (2015). ​Adapting Development:
Improving Services for the poor. ​Overseas Development Institute.
5) Maani, Kambiz & Cavana, R. Y (2007). ​Systems thinking, system dynamics :
managing change and complexity​ (2nd ed). Pearson Education New Zealand, North
Shore, N.Z
6) R. Chambers (2002). Participatory Workshops, EarthScan, London.
7) P. Holdman, T. Devane (1999). ​The Change Handbook​. Berrett-koehler, San
Francisco.
8) P. Reason & H. Bradbury (2001) Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry
& Practice. Earth Scan, London.
12) Nguyen, N. C., Bosch, O. J.H. and Maani, K. E. (2011),​ Creating ‘learning
laboratories’ for sustainable development in biospheres: A systems thinking
approach​. Syst. Res., 28: 51–62. doi:10.1002/sres.1044.
13) The systems thinker introduction:
https://thesystemsthinker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Introduction-to-Systems-
Thinking-IMS013Epk.pdf
14) H. Preskill, S. Gopal (2014). Evaluating Complexity: Propositions for Improving
Practice. FSG
15) The Art of Hosting: ​http://www.artofhosting.org
16) D. Roduner and W. Schläppi, AGRIDEA and Walter Egli, NADEL (2008). Logical
Framework Approach and Outcome Mapping A constructive attempt of synthesis.
AGRIDEA International/Publications/Concepts and approaches:
http://www.agridea-international.ch/?id=627