Volume lll, Number 1, 1997

Issue Topic: Methodology

Promising Practices

Building the Capacity to Build Capacity

Juila Coffman of Harvard Family Research Project describes common qualities shared among “learning organizations,” examining them in the context of service programs.

The role of the evaluator is once again expanding. It is expanding beyond a recent focus on increasing participation and collaboration during the evaluation process, to helping programs develop the capacity to evaluate and improve themselves—that is, to become learning organizations.

The concepts of developing learning organizations and building organizational capacity originated in the fields of private sector business and management. They define a learning organization as one that assumes that learning is an ongoing and creative process and one that continuously develops in response to the needs of its customers and employees. It is an organization that institutionalizes process and outcome measures, and uses its members to identify plausible avenues for improvement (see text box).

Evaluators are well equipped to facilitate the development of learning organizations. A sizable knowledge gap exists among evaluators, however, in understanding how a learning organization works, identifying ways to build capacity, and defining the role of the evaluator in facilitating this process. This gap is widened by the fact that much of what is known about learning organizations comes from private sector examples, rather than public sector or nonprofit organizations and programs. Thus, while it is easy to see how creating a program that embraces evaluation and uses evaluation results for programmatic decision making is conceptually in line with the evaluation discipline, the pathway to achieving this goal is less discernible.

This is the first in a series of Evaluation Exchange articles designed to build an ongoing dialogue among evaluators about their role in developing learning organizations. The initial step in this process is to define the concept further by identifying common qualities among learning organizations. In addition, this step examines these qualities in a context familiar to evaluators—service programs—and then articulates the need for their development. Future articles will identify specific methods that programs can use to become learning organizations, and the part that evaluators can play in this process.

Learning Organizations Emphasize the Link Between Process Quality and Outcomes

It is no mystery that the process used to manufacture a product has much to do with the quality of that product. Similarly, the way in which a program delivers services has much to with the strength of its outcomes. Learning organizations emphasize the link between process and outcome, and therefore incorporate mechanisms for constantly improving process quality in their efforts to secure better outcomes. These organizations are able to anticipate, implement, and institutionalize process change.

Service programs traditionally have not placed the same emphasis on constantly exploring the link between process and outcomes. For many years, programs emphasized outcomes and put most of their resources into measuring results. More recently, programs have begun to emphasize process and to measure various facets of service delivery. Less emphasis, however, has been placed on examining the cause and effect relationship between the way services are delivered and the eventual outcomes achieved.

Learning Organizations Recognize the Importance of the Individual

Learning organizations recognize that employees are ultimately responsible for the organization's success, and therefore find ways to inspire and reward good performance. Their human resource management systems use practices such as performance-based accountability, feedback, incentives, and rewards to achieve high productivity. The idea is that employees are responsible for their own performance and for producing results. Part of this responsibility includes identifying ways to measure, evaluate, and improve performance. Organizational rewards are then directly linked to employees' ability to demonstrate positive results.

While service programs recognize the importance of staff in delivering services, they typically do not hold individuals directly accountable for achieving program outcomes. The current national trend toward results-based accountability (see The Evaluation Exchange, vol. 2, nos. 1 and 3) demonstrates a movement toward holding agencies and programs accountable for results, but does not demonstrate the same movement for individuals within those agencies. While arguably, it does not make sense to hold individuals responsible for broad program outcomes, it does make sense to hold them accountable for playing a part in achieving such outcomes. Individuals can define goals and objectives for themselves that are directly in line with the broader program vision, and measure their progress in meeting these objectives. In this way, individuals become accountable for furthering the progress toward broader program goals.

Like profit-seeking organizations, service programs must constantly accommodate change to maintain “profitability.” Successful organizations possess the ability constantly to think, analyze, evaluate, and adapt to changing conditions. Currently, however, few programs possess the qualities common to learning organizations. Many are familiar with the idea of evaluation, but few are familiar with self-evaluation. As a result, few possess the capacity to implement learning activities such as process quality measures and performance-based feedback or incentives.

Evaluators, who are familiar with the concepts that form the core principles of learning organizations—measuring performance and outcomes, collecting data, analyzing findings, interpreting results, and developing recommendations for change—can facilitate the development of this capacity. Thus, in addition to their roles as researchers, instructors, observers, interpreters, advisors, facilitators, conveners, analysts, theorists, and even sometimes therapists, evaluators can look forward to facing the further challenge of becoming capacity builders.

Julia Coffman, Research Specialist, HFRP