Hi Sujaya

Thank you for the quick reaction on the position paper.
Your questions are very relevant and we tried to address those in the position paper that resulted from the workshop. Please have a look here: forum.susana.org/component/kunena/54-wg-...l-draft-for-comments

Regarding your last question on how to access all knowledge products in an easy way: we think that there is non one solution neither, but that different groups of people have different needs on how to access material or support tools. But definitely, the internet and the new formats of e-Learning coming up are a good way to largely disseminate open-source information in a user friendly format.
We are currently also planning to make a survey among WG1 members to get more information on who is doing what and we hope to get some support for this from the secretariat. The aim is to:
(1) Establish a Cap Dev section on the webpage were different capacity resources can be easily access
(2) Identify gaps in the capacity development activities and start thinking about how to fill those.

Cheers, Dorothee

Thanks for sharing this.
Some points that I think we need to have more understanding and clarification:
- For whom are the capacity building interventions – what are the different levels? How can the interventions/products be customised for different needs?
- How can we create learning processes for “Just in Time” needs (since city governments do not have the bandwidth, as they are perpetually in a fire-fighting mode)
- How different is it for different countries?
- How can an user access all knowledge products in an easy way? ( how can we design the platform for greater user accessibility)
CSTEP has a ready reckoner for Sanitation Tools. This is just a start and we plan to update with some more tools that we came across recently.
Sharing the current version (although shared in Susana earlier too).
Thanks
Sujaya

How can we build capacity at the scale needed while maintaining quality?
Summary of discussion on this topic at the WEDC Conference in Ghana (July 2016):
Stakeholder engagement was recognised as a core element but narrowing the wide range of stakeholders (e.g. NGOs, funders, donors, ministries, business) down to the important/ influential actors was harder. The need to know their knowledge gaps, priorities and plans was highlighted. Training providers are key players.
Issues (such as funding and career paths) and capacity building options (such as MOOCS, custom courses, using existing institutions) were identified but no real strategy emerged.
The focus on quality made it clear that critical decision-making related to context is important. Interestingly, the rationale for this was agreed but no solution was identified.

Do you agree:
Yes.

What would you add:
(We want to add clarity to the question- we want to define "quality" as being cap building that meets the needs of the end users)
- Tailoring capacity building programs to the local context is key to scaling up
- Capacity building must include not only technical skills, but non-technical as well- including community engagement best practices, financing, demand creation, etc, to allow for scale-up of technology implementation

How to turn these ideas into action:
- Tracking recipients of training programs and mapping them
- Supporting earlier-career vocational training and mentoring programs to get professionals into the sector early while filling the growing need
- Education programs that include a practical implementation project, to both build capacity and fill need at the same time

What is SuSanA's role?
- As a sharer of best practices in scaling up
- As a sharer of challenges/failures in scaling up
- As a connector of complementary groups

** Please note: for the group who worked on this topic in the working groups meeting in Stockholm, we had a technical problem posting your discussion. We have tried to capture the main points of your discussion here, but if we have missed anything, please reply to this post and add what's missing.**

What makes Capacity Building effective?
Summary of discussion on this topic at the WEDC Conference in Ghana (July 2016):
This group had three main answers to the question on making Capacity Building effective and sustainable. They proposed: 1. to have participant centered growth, with the ability to measure progression; 2. The characteristics of effective capacity building; and coordination between those delivering it.
1. Using Professional Development plans, mentoring, emphasis on engagement, establishing learning processes and action plans that can be followed up upon are all driven by participants and therefore promote sustainability.
2. Effectiveness of training can be achieved by introducing experiential and active learning, making it demand driven and adapted to the participants’ needs.
3. Those delivering Capacity Building activities should coordinate by creating partnerships, agreeing to decentralize training, sharing knowledge and managing it effectively, and integrating training between sectors.
- Making training fun and interactive

Do you agree? What would you add?

- We need to be the example of what we're teaching (e.g. using composting latrines if you are promoting them).
- Also having ongoing capacity building. In many projects we do capacity building while we are building infrastructures. Then we run out of time and the capacity building is finished when the project is finished and then people are left on their own. Support is needed when the systems are working and that's when the real problems appear. We need post implementation capacity building and technical assistance in addition to monitoring.
- There's a need to tailor capacity development to ongoing programs so that people can see how it directly relates to what they are doing. We learn so many things at school and if we don't use them directly, we forgot them. We learn more from what we do; we need the practice which connects to what we've learned.
- Every situation is unique so we need to train people to think; some ways are by encouraging them to make mistakes, tackling real world problems.
- Charismatic leadership is important (remember your favorite teacher?)
- What you are promoting needs to be simple and visible otherwise people will not understand and replicate.
- Recognition is very important.


How can we turn these ideas into action?
- You have to identify somebody local who has a passion to make it happen and invest in that person.
- Work through existing structures (e.g. make sure that WASH training in the country is up-to-date and meets the standard, could be coordination of universities.)
- There's a gap in vocational training. In Europe it requires 2 years of training to become a plumber and then plumbers are well paid.
- Make 10 toilets and make them well, rather than making 100 that won't be sustainable.
- Do what you can with local materials and capacities.
- The best contribution organizations can make is training. More training and less materials; then you won't have dependence.


What is Susana’s WG1’s role regarding this challenge?
- Advocacy for more training, improved curriculum, standards, vocational training (more courses are for policy and planning, very few technical)
- Advocate for capacity development of existing local institutions (vocational institutes, universities)
- Supporting local organizations and their capacity (we think SuSanA does a good job of connecting organizations through the website)
- Create and promote more technical courses to empower 'barefoot engineers'
- Empowering people to do it themselves
- Do an assessment to understand what exists in terms of technical training and materials and if we find there are gaps, link with other working groups or members who could develop these materials

Dear All,


How can we measure the impact and effectiveness of training?

Summary of discussion on this topic at the WEDC Conference in Ghana (July 2016):

This team provided answers to how to measure impact and effectiveness of training that could be classified similar to the Kirkpatrick model:
1. Measuring overall results of the training (observed as changes in the project outcomes),
2. Measuring the behaviour change of the participants (observed as what they are doing differently),
3. Measuring the learning of the participants (observed as what new information they know after the training)

The answers of this group didn’t seem to distinguish between trainings directed to: participants looking to improve their knowledge and skills to perform their implementation work, training aimed at forming trainers, and trainings to increase the capacity of institutions.

1.Identified methods to measure results included: formal impact assessments, organizational and institutional changes and development, evolution of capacity needs or performance monitoring

2. Behaviour could be measured observing post training practices and applications, such as implementation of skills, ability to apply new tools, measuring a behaviour change or observing the participants’ ability to train others

3.The group proposed that learning can be measured by evaluating lifelong learning, following up with participants or using workshop assessments.

The participants of SuSanA’s working group 1 meeting at Stockholm World Water Week added the following to the discussion from the WEDC conference:

Do you agree with the above discussions? What would you add?

- Yes we agree: The impact of the training needs to be evaluated for a longer period of time e.g. after a few years to ensure that people still have the skills that they acquired.

- In some cases, participants are unable to use the skills that they acquired e.g. through migration, change of jobs which leads to loss of skills.

- Measuring the effectiveness of training can be compromised by short interventions of many programme.

- Different indicators are required to measure impact.

How can we turn these ideas into action?

It should be in the project design of any capacity development intervention to do a post evaluation after a few years to ensure sustainability and that people still have the skills and to monitor whether the interventions were effective.

All capacity development initiatives should be anchored in national institutions to ensure sustainability. Toolkits should be provided and the focus should be on training for trainers.


What is Susana’s WG1’s role regarding this challenge?

Its an excellent platform for members to share what they are doing on capacity development. Developing indicators should be shared and new tools and mechanisms should be developed by the partner organisations to ensure long term monitoring

WG1 is key in encouraging institutional linkages, networking with relevant institutions to achieve SDG 6.

Webinars should be encouraged where brainstorming sessions could be organised to understand what other organisations are involved in. Looking at the capacity related indicators that can identify impact. Encourage impact studies.

Country level interactions could be encouraged. Linking institutions is important. SuSanA should provide us with mechanisms on the website on how to filter organisations based on their regions, area of expertise and resources.

Best regards,

Doreen Mbalo

How can we assess capacity gaps/needs?

Summary of discussion on this topic at the WEDC Conference in Ghana (July 2016):


The work in this group mainly focused on the capacity gaps and needs in three key WASH actor’s areas of influence: 1. Analyzing the results of implemented projects, 2. looking into National Institutions’ gaps 3. Gathering information on the roles and performance of the Community and/or Individuals.

1. For projects, they proposed analyzing existing capacities by looking at results and failures. They put the emphasis on practical, technical observations like the appropriate choice of technologies, the locations chosen for water points or their functionality. They also proposed to check if activities are happening at all. According to this group, all failures reflect capacity gaps.
2. They proposed a comprehensive but not exhaustive list of observations for National Institutions that could reflect capacity gaps such as national standards for WASH supplies, effective plans and indicators, the existence of regulations or community rights and obligations according to the law.
3. Finally, they proposed to gather capacity gaps of the community through open forums, mapping the roles of individuals to understand what the needs might be, and assessing current performance.

Summary of our discussion

SuSanA WG1 can collect information on potential gaps that practicioners could potentionaly encounter within their scope and provide a catalogue where they could find tools, materials, and other resources how these gaps might be filled (e.g. online database on existing training programmes, or training tools or materials in the field of sustainable sanitation).

Hello I would like to participate in the WG meeting; part of my research
at McGill University (which was funded by GWOPA) focused on the Capacity
Development of Water Operators.
Regards
Patrick Quinn

Insufficient capacity across disciplines related to sanitation is one of the most significant barriers to sustainable service provision. The limited technical human resource capacity of NGOs and government field staff is a critical barrier to attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). There is an immediate need to
develop more professional, hands-on capacity building programs tailored to the knowledge and skills needed to deliver sanitation programming in developing countries.
With SDG 6.a the need for capacity development to reach the post-2015 is directly explicitly addressed: " By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water- and sanitation-related activities and programs, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies".
SuSanA has played an important lobbying role in the past in order to highlight the importance of sustainability issues in sanitation particularly in the context of the MDGs. In order to build on this achievement and to prepare for the contribution of our working group to reach the post-2015 agenda, we are inviting all member to an interactive workshop during our meeting tomorrow at world water week in Stockholm (see here for more info: forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-...gust-from-1400-1530h).

During the workshop participants from various organizations will share the challenges they are currently experiencing in the Capacity Building components of their programs, as well as the lessons learned and successful strategies to improve the quality and effectiveness of Capacity Building interventions. Finally, participants will discuss how to bring successes in Capacity Building to scale. The workshop is structured in two topical part:
Topic 1: Capacity gaps and the SDG’s
Topic 2: Addressing Capacity Building Challenges
The workshop outcomes will be posted directly here in this thread and you are warmly invited to contribute to the discussion through the forum even if you cannot attend in person.

The session will build on a previous workshop held at the WEDC conference in Ghana in July 2006 and will address four questions:

1. How can we assess capacity gaps/needs?
2. What makes capacity building effective?
3. How can we build capacity at the scale needed while maintaining quality?
4. How can we measure the impact and effectiveness of training?

The document attached contains the summary of the WEDC discussion for each of the 4 questions. I f you would like to participate in the workshop or contribute the discussion, here are the instructions:

• Read and reflect the summary of WEDC discussions on this topic and answer following questions:
• Do you agree? What would you add?
• How can we turn these ideas into action?
• What is Susana’s WG1’s role regarding this challenge?

Cheers, Dorothee