Knowledge Sharing for Development: Dead Slow Ahead?

Knowledge Sharing for Development: Dead Slow Ahead?

How might knowledge sharing—across and within international organizations, government agencies, the private sector, civil society organizations, and other development practitioners—be advanced to create synergies toward the Sustainable Development Goals?

Olivier Serrat 07/03/2017

1 After All These Years, Teething Questions Remain All the time more, individuals and organizations promote partnerships as vehicles for addressing development challenges across sectors.1 On the face of it, the logic of partnerships—that is, the synergies they promise—is so plain proponents think it self-evident such arrangements can readily amplify the breadth and depth of inputs, outputs, and outcomes (and thence— hopefully—impacts). For that reason, partnerships are allotted a growingly large space in the very fabric of development work and its business models, lately with emphasis on what innovative ways of working together they are meant to conduce. Partnerships that promote knowledge sharing, for one, are a case in point: they march past as associations and networks of individuals or organizations that share a purpose and whose members contribute knowledge, experience, resources, and connections and participate in two-way communications to accomplish it. Notionally, they thrive when there is a strategic, structural, and cultural fit, and when members embrace a collaborative process, behave as a coherent entity, and engage in joint decision making and action.

And yet, despite the widespread assumption that partnerships deliver the goods, there is limited evidence of links to improved results (and, in truth, lack of clarity about how one might ascertain effectiveness). Into the bargain, the sheer number of partnerships means that partnering is a complicated business—ideologically, conceptually, and practically—with a myriad of approaches in reality or on display. That is why good practice in the realm of partnering for development may be a long time coming.

Notwithstanding, the Sustainable Development Goals—officially known as Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development—that were approved on 25 September 2015 by the 194 Member States of the United Nations do give the lion's share of attention to partnering. SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), which binds the other goals together, aims to "strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development": SDG 17 recognizes that multi-stakeholder partnerships are important vehicles across capacity building, finance, systemic issues, technology, and trade.2 So, how might knowledge sharing—across and within international organizations, government agencies, the private sector,3 civil society organizations, and other development practitioners—be advanced to create synergies toward the SDGs? Specifically: What are the needs for knowledge partnerships? What strategies should they adopt to meet needs? What issues and challenges can one foresee and how might they be overcome? These are very big questions and it is vital that they should be raised (if not necessarily answered in a blog); indeed, while interest in partnerships grows daily the state of the art leaves much to be desired and such inquiries may even be premature; in this spirit, here are observations from experience and suggestions for next steps (with much further reading).

Seeing the Wood through the Trees: Understanding Partnerships Swayed by political correctness and with little recourse to common sense, many organizations forge partnerships in "default mode", that is, as ends in themselves and with insufficient understanding of rationale, typology, function, level, or the necessary and exacting ingredients of success. Clarifying,  Rationale. Organizations create partnerships to pool assets and thereby multiply impact.

The financial contributions, knowledge, experience, resources, and connections of mobilizing actors are critical contributions that partnerships can, potentially, make to the 2030 Agenda. This said, lest we forget, complementary is the key: there is no point in setting up a partnership if the parties to the arrangement do not rely on one another to achieve the

2









shared purpose. Why a partnership should be entered into is the most effective question.

Beyond the why (and where) of a partnership, the key questions are who, what, and how; when is a subordinate consideration.

Typology. There is great variety in the forms partnership take. Put simply, arrangements differ by (i) level of formality and obligation on behalf of the partners; and (ii) function, geographic distribution, and time. This said, along a continuum of cooperation, coordination, and collaboration,4 a fuller typology of relationships includes: (i) multi-stakeholder partnerships (across and within the public, private, and third sectors); (ii) business partnerships; (iii) strategic alliances; (iv) public–private partnerships; (v) cross-sector or cross-thematic partnerships; (vi) mandated partnerships; (vii) enacted partnerships; (viii) community partnerships; (ix) negotiated partnerships; (x) local partnerships; (xi) locally-led partnerships; (xii) participatory international partnerships; (xiii) non-participatory international partnerships; (xiv) nascent partnerships; (xv) research and development (R&D) partnerships; (xvi) production partnerships; (xvii) transactional partnerships; and (xviii) integrative partnerships. The variety makes a difference for knowledge sharing, among other things.

Function. Knowledge partnerships can serve different functions: (i) filtering—organizing and managing information and knowledge that is worth paying attention to; (ii) amplifying—taking new, little-known, or little-understood ideas, giving them weight, and making them more widely understood; (iii) investing and providing—offering a means to give members the resources they must have to carry out their main activities; (iv) convening—bringing together different, distinct people or groups of people; (v) community building—promoting and sustaining the values and standards of individuals or organizations; and (vi) learning and facilitating—helping members carry out their activities more efficiently and effectively. To note, partners can carry out one or more of these functions simultaneously—and many activities would fall under more than one category—but one must also recognize that there are trade-offs. Each function calls for (and rests on) specific capacities and skills, resources, and systems: overlooking trade-offs can drive partners away from the roles they originally agreed to.

Level. Partnerships can take form at the local, state, national, international, and global levels. Irrespective, they should be developed where there is strong common interest, leadership, and energy. But the nature and characteristics of the constituencies each level must draw from is not necessarily the same: partnerships at local and state levels, for instance, should as a priority empower and engage local civil society, local foundations, and the local private sector. Sure enough, parties often bring their particular organizational mandates, interests, and competencies to partnerships; and, less we forget, they also bring discrete weaknesses.

Ingredients of Success. With demand for impact from holistic solutions escalating, there is a need for more structured guidance on how to make partnerships more effective.

Necessary and exacting ingredients, that however much they might wish to organizations cannot ignore, include (i) shared purpose; (ii) mutual trust and reciprocity; (iv) clear objectives; (iv) leadership; (v) resources, skills, and capacities; (vi) transparency and accountability; (vii) focus on process and outcomes; (viii) well integrated and established organizations; (ix) measurement and evaluation; and (x) adaptive flexibility.

Emphasizing Knowledge Use Within and Across Partnerships SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) aims to strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. In June 2015, in advance of its expected approval under the 2030 Agenda, an expert group meeting on Multi-Stakeholder

3 Partnerships in the Post-2015 Development Era: Sharing Knowledge and Expertise to Support the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals was organized by the Division for Sustainable Development of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs in collaboration with the United Nations Office for Sustainable Development.

A background paper (UN-DESA 2015) prepared for the meeting makes sobering (but fascinating) reading; it identified that the bulk (82%) of the entities in the sample considered was engaged in sharing news on the topic of the partnership.5 Only half of the entities (51%) shared information about what the other partners were doing. Two-thirds (60%) went beyond news to provide in-depth reports, studies, and other analysis-related knowledge. Less than one-third (28%) offered active skill- or capacity-building (knowledge transfer) services of any kind. A small number of partnerships provided access to statistical databases (9%), registries of commitments (3%), or specialized knowledge-sharing tools such as software applications or diagramming platforms (3%).

The internet, and specifically the traditional organizational website, was far and away the dominant technology (and method) by which the partnerships disseminated information and knowledge—to their own members, to other partnerships and initiatives, and to the general public. In the sample, fully 100% of them employed the internet. Newsletters—the second largest category—marked a significant drop: just 61% of the partnerships in the sample relied on them. The picture then diversified: 53% of the partnerships organized live meetings and conferences, and a similar 53% appeared to be actively leveraging social media services, e.g., Facebook, Twitter. Searchable databases, providing access to a wide variety of different types of static knowledge (such as organizational profiles or project case studies) were available on the websites of 48% of the partnerships reviewed, and 41% of the partnerships turned out videos. Only 22% provided access to facilitated or self-moderated communities of practice.

Finally, just 9% of the partnerships surveyed offered webinars, online courses, or similar organized learning opportunities. The background paper made scant reference to the quality of the information and knowledge generated, this being taken to mean useful, evidence-based materials, preferably the subject of earlier debate in mediated forums and framed for easy uptake in digestible formats. Nor did the paper pass comment on the extent to which the absorptive capacity of targeted audiences had been taken into account.

In conclusion, it seems the partnerships reviewed concentrated on the production and dissemination of information and knowledge, a resource-driven (rather than demand-driven) approach to the delivery of services that can only militate against capacity planning; and so, what authentic use was made of outputs remains unclear. As a matter of fact, investigation of how the partnerships reported on "usage" of information and knowledge revealed a preoccupation with numbers, e.g., how many website visitors, document downloads, course participants, Facebook posts and "likes", etc. Moreover, these numbers did not differentiate between users who came from within the partnership, those who came from other partnerships, and the general public; nor did they provide insights on how the information and knowledge was used, determination of which would require user surveys, focus group discussions, and the like.

For sure, the use (or dismissal) of what information and knowledge our plethora of partnerships "create" or recycle is an area that is ripe for research.

4 Figure 1: Establishing Knowledge Sharing Within Partnerships

•T: Type the partnership to determine its critical characteristics, e.g., geographic scope, breadth of goals, type of governance, etc.

•O: Develop the Ontology, the set of commonly used concepts, terms, phrases, data definitions, etc.

•L: Identify the critical Learning loops that need to established

•K: Establish the Knowledgesharing processes that best meet the partnership's purpose, given the foregoing

•A: Activate the institutions and individuals involved (including financing agencies) so the processes work

Source: UN-DESA. 2015. Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships in the Post-2015 Development Era: Sharing Knowledge and Expertise to Support the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals: Background Paper. New York.

Figure 2: Promoting Knowledge Use Across Partnerships Assess Inter-Partnership Knowledge Needs • Who else needs to know what we know?

Establish Critical KnowledgeSharing Relationships • Which linkages are most critical?

Identify the Appropriate Mechanisms • What tools, methods, and approaches do we use?

Monitoring and Evaluation of Knowledge Use • What's working? What needs improving?

Establish Regularity and Frequency of Exchange • How do we make collaboration routine?

Translate the Knowledge (as necessary) • How do we understand each others' issues?

Source: UN-DESA. 2015. Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships in the Post-2015 Development Era: Sharing Knowledge and Expertise to Support the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals: Background Paper. New York.

Progressing from Knowledge Products to Knowledge Processes What with the amount of money at play across the global partnership "coalition", these findings are discouraging but should not cause surprise: the rise of the internet has provoked a veritable

5 deluge of data, information, and knowledge. Truly, "infoglut" is changing the way we think about knowledge. Knowledge, once deemed a "stock" (or a store, as the expression goes) is now thought of as a "flow". (Illustrating, the old Encyclopedia Britannica was quintessentially a "stock"; Wikipedia is the paradigm of "flow".) Some have added color to the distinction by referring to "knowledge products" (read, "stocks") and "knowledge processes" (read, "flows"); but the irrefutable, objective verity is that with "infobesity" most "knowledge products" such as newsletters—and even reports—are (virtually) out of date by the time they are published. On the other hand, "knowledge processes" stand a better chance of making a difference: learning constantly, using what has been learned, and then learning more is what can truly make a difference.

Designing Knowledge Partnerships Better The Guidelines for Knowledge Partnerships (ADB 2011), available at www.adb.org/publications/guidelines-knowledge-partnerships, that ADB published in 2011 opined that the OECD-DAC Criteria for Evaluating Development Assistance come close to providing a well-established framework that can be applied to knowledge sharing initiatives among institutions working in development:  Relevance—this refers to the extent to which the work of the knowledge partnership was suited to the priorities and policies of the target group, recipient, and donor.  Efficiency—this refers to whether or not the knowledge partnership adopted the most efficient process to achieve its outputs with respect to cost and time.  Effectiveness—this refers to the extent to which the knowledge partnership achieved its objectives.  Sustainability—this refers to whether or not the benefits of the knowledge partnership are likely to continue independent of the partnership's interventions; and whether and how the partnership itself will continue.  Impact—this refers to the changes produced by the knowledge partnership's interventions, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended.

Therefore, to design for performance against the evaluation criteria, the Guidelines for Knowledge Partnerships placed emphasis on:  Relevance: (i) establish a clear, shared purpose; (ii) select partners based on capacity to achieve more together than separately; and (iii) recognize drivers behind participation.  Efficiency: (i) choose an appropriate operating model; (ii) allocate resources; (iii) make adjustments; and (iv) manage benefits and assets.  Effectiveness: (i) prepare an outcome-oriented work plan together; and (ii) provide or foster leadership and governance processes within the knowledge partnership.  Sustainability: (i) sustain outcome; (ii) value reflection and learning; (iii) motivate partners; and (iv) implement sustainability planning (across time, resources, relationships, and relevance).  Impact: (i) proactively manage collaboration, knowledge processes, and external communications; (ii) articulate processes for collaboration; (iii) articulate processes for knowledge generation and sharing; (iii) articulate processes for communications beyond the partnership; and (iv) put in place mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation.

6 Figure 3: Success Factors in Knowledge Partnerships

Focus Management Leadership and Coordination Management Partners Management Short- and Long-Term Benefits Management Risk Management Communications Management Source: Developed from ADB. 2011. Guidelines for Knowledge Partnerships. Manila. www.adb.org/publications/guidelines-knowledge-partnerships

References ADB. 2011. Guidelines for Knowledge Partnerships. Manila. www.adb.org/publications/guidelines-knowledge-partnerships UN-DESA. 2015. Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships in the Post-2015 Development Era: Sharing Knowledge and Expertise to support the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals: Background Paper. New York.

Further Reading Bruce Britton and Olivier Serrat. 2013. Learning in Partnerships. Manila. www.slideshare.net/celcius233/learning-in-partnerships Olivier Serrat. 2008. Building Communities of Practice. Manila. www.adb.org/publications/building-communities-practice ——. 2008. Creating and Running Partnerships. Manila. www.adb.org/publications/creatingand-running-partnerships ——. 2009. Building Networks of Practice. Manila. www.adb.org/publications/building-networkspractice ——. 2009. Managing Virtual Teams. Manila. www.adb.org/publications/managing-virtual-teams ——. 2009. Learning in Strategic Alliances. Manila. www.adb.org/publications/learning-strategicalliances ——. 2012. Designing Knowledge Partnerships Better. Manila. www.researchgate.net/publication/266798127_designing_knowledge_partnerships_better ——. 2014. Information Overload in the Attention Economy. Manila. www.slideshare.net/celcius233/information-overload-in-the-attention-economy.

——. 2014. Essentials of Knowledge Partnerships. Manila. www.slideshare.net/celcius233/essentials-of-knowledge-partnerships ——. 2016. ADB and the Sustainable Development Goals. Manila. www.slideshare.net/celcius233/adb-and-the-sustainable-development-goals

7 ——. 2016. Understand: The Sustainable Development Goals. Manila. www.researchgate.net/project/understand-the-sustainable-development-goals Video ADB. 2012. Creating and Running Partnerships. Manila. vimeo.com/67184320 Acknowledgements The author thanks Bacha Kebede Debela, Ben Levin, and Reuven Shapira for the insights they shared in response to a question he posted on ResearchGate on 2 March 2017.

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank, or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent.

1

2

3

4

5

The glamor of partnerships—that some ingenuously regard as the last hope for revitalizing a workable approach to global and multilateral problem-solving, can be traced to the eighth of the Millennium Development Goals that United Nations introduced in 2000, which aimed to "develop a global partnership for development". Thereafter, a slew of High-Level Forums on Aid Effectiveness in Rome (2002), Paris (2005), Accra (2008), and Busan (2011) kept raising expectations.

For multi-stakeholder partnerships, SDG 17's targets are to (i) enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial resources to support the achievement of the SDGs in all countries, in particular developing countries; and (ii) encourage and promote effective public, public–private, and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.

A responsible and inclusive business sector can scale partnerships. Increasingly, governments must broker relationships with businesses—from multinational corporations to smallholder farmers—and emphasize the merit of investing in core business practices that conduce sustainable development. This requires appreciation of one another's objectives, mindsets, and language, through dedicated dialogue.

Given the diverse range of actors engaged in partnerships, it is not realistic to expect uniform usage of definitions or even vocabulary. Broadly, however, cooperation is characterized by informal relationships that need not have a defined mission; coordination entails a formally compatible mission; and collaboration springs from what enduring and deep-rooted relationship, commitment, and new structures a common mission entails. To state the obvious, collaboration hinges on mutual trust.

The partnerships numbered 64. They included grand global partnerships, specialized global partnerships, independent global partnerships, regional partnerships, national partnerships, and subnational partnerships. About 42% of the entries had been initiated by the United Nations or were otherwise closely related to processes and programs of the United Nations.