Pros and cons of the methodology
 This section focuses on the pros and cons of ILEIA’s CAPEX methodology the MED SG worked with. The main points are partly based on a self-evaluation the group conducted several months ago. In addition to this, they are based on personal observations from the MED SG coordinator and discussions with SG members and other staff from IC-Pakistan.
Pros
(A) Self-critical reflection
Self-criticism cannot be taken for granted, especially during collective analytical exercises where participants often feel observed and evaluated by other stakeholders involved in the process (e.g. co-workers, consultants and facilitators). Unlike other methodologies (e.g. Appreciative Inquiry), where focus is put on assets only, it tends to include all aspects of social reality, i.e. positive, unknown (hypothetical) and negative. In this respect, it is a comprehensive methodology facing not only the comfortable aspects of projects, but also the rather “uncomfortable” ones, thereby grasping a fuller picture of what is really happening at grass-roots level.
“Here you have to talk about things that didn’t work well. And this is really difficult for many of us, because we are not used to openly talk about weaknesses in front of others. But, eventually this is the only way we can improve what we are doing” (SG member, September 2007).
“In the beginning I couldn’t see the sense of asking all the time “why” and “how”. Though, gradually I saw the benefit. It makes you look at things differently” (SG member, October 2007).
(B) Culture sensitive
It leaves scope to combine with other methodologies like, for example, case studies and CAPEX workshops. It can be combined with inter-project field visits, art and poetry and involves a wide range of different stakeholders. In this respect, different (i.e. western and indigenous) sharing and learning “repertoires” are creatively combined with each other. This is crucial, especially in a context where communicative interaction (rather than e.g. Communities of Practice) is key for experience sharing and learning to take place effectively.
“It was during the field visit I learnt most about my project. We should do more CAPEX this way” (SG member, October 2007).
“We are doing things differently. For the first time we are learning by doing, using creative tools and not just reports” (SG member, October 2007).
(C) Process oriented
 While trying to come up with specific thematic results participants put a lot of effort into “the process” as such (without necessarily always being conscious about it). This is related to, amongst others, the aforementioned self-criticism and cultural sensitivity the methodology spurs. Regular exposure to communicative interaction, plenary and self-critical analysis promoted ice-breaking, trust- and teambuilding among participants, which ultimately fostered a constructive group dynamic and conflict culture. The more SG members interacted with each other, the easier it became to be open to suggestions and opinions from others.
“This was the best team I have ever worked with. I have never experienced such constructive team-building and mutual respect in a group of such different people. Now, I know how much one can achieve by working in a group” (SG member, December 2007).
Generally speaking, “process” is often considered at least as important as mere “outcomes” (IC-Pakistan staff member, November 2007). Our experience indicates that this holds true especially in the run up of a collective exercise of a collective exercise where it is not only about concerted time-bound thematic efforts, but also about organizational development and, more specifically, team-building. In this respect, ILEIA’s methodology is suitable for “process promotion”.
Cons
(D) Time consuming
 This is largely due to its comprehensiveness. Despite a well structured format, the corresponding process and effort participants are supposed to go through are demanding in terms of energy and time. It goes without saying that the amount of energy and time investment is dependent on the depth/size of the corresponding theme to be capitalized on. Nevertheless, there are various factors rendering this methodology all but a “short & simple” exercise.
For example, it took SG members a full day to collect relevant information and fill out the corresponding charts outlined in the manual (“setting the boundaries” and “describing the project”, p. 17-23). In addition to this, the guidelines for filling out these charts are not always clear. To mention but two examples, the meaning of the components item (p. 18) was difficult to grasp, and participants also found it burdensome to figure the difference between problems (p. 19) and difficulties faced (p. 20).
“The format including the success criteria and the indicators is very helpful and interesting. But it takes too much time to collect all the required information in advance” (SG member, November 2007).
 Furthermore, the fact that the methodology involves a strong element of analysis and self-criticism, combined with the fact that participants are biased to suppress issues and highlight success increased the amount of time and energy we had to invest for identifying influencing factors.
In fact, although meant to be kept short and simple, CAPEX in general is a complex process. It, therefore, should not be underestimated in terms of time investment. In addition to this, it seems worth allocating sufficient time accordingly, especially when taking into account the aforementioned advantage of “process promotion”.
(E) Flexible, but challenging
In its foreword ILEIA’s manual explicitly mentions a word of caution: “…we suggest you use this manual creatively and intelligently, rather than as a recipe book. Let the documentation method proposed here be enriched and blended with other tools, techniques and perspectives. Learning from experience takes many forms, and you will have to develop an approach that suits your own situation best” (ibid.: 8). This citation clearly indicates the potential for methodological flexibility. And as mentioned earlier, we have been experiencing this as a strong asset.
 However, we have also learnt that with flexibility comes challenge. The challenge is that participants and facilitators have to dispose of sufficient thematic knowledge, but also experience in CAPEX and project management in order to be able to model the methodology flexibly. In other words, the more knowledgeable and experienced all involved in the process are, the more they are able to adjust the methodology according to their needs. Our situation was particularly challenging to the extent the facilitator is neither a market nor a CAPEX specialist. Furthermore, participants had little knowledge and experience on CAPEX. In addition, they faced difficulties when it came to “hardcore” analytical assignments.
“Based on six months personal experience I think you have to be a subject matter specialist and competent facilitator in order to fully adjust the methodology according to your needs. This is mainly because CAPEX is a complex process and the topic you’re working on is complex too” (SG member, December 2007).
On this background the adjustment of ILEIA’s methodology to our context can be considered only partly successful. One indication is that roughly 60% of the collected information on BDSPs was not used at any time during the process, which implies lacking efficiency on our part. Except the information on objectives and strategies/approaches items few other data were further used and/or discussed. This holds true for collected information on items like, for example, title, location, starting date and duration (p. 17f.), problems, main achievements and difficulties faced (p. 19ff.).
 In addition to this, it was not always clear how the collected data were supposed to be further employed during process. It seemed to us as if a lot of information was “sitting idle” once collected. On one hand, we found specific instructions on how to utilize data, especially with regard to the items objectives and strategies/approaches (p. 23). On another hand, instructions on items like, for example, activities, main achievements and unexpected results are rather broad and implicit.
This indicates the difficulties we faced in developing an approach that suits our own situation best. We therefore conclude that although the application of ILEIA’s methodology is potentially flexible, its successful adjustment is largely dependent on prior knowledge and experience. The bottom line is the effort required for appropriate methodological adjustment should not be underestimated.
 Introduction / Methodology
Lessons learnt
|