The Human Capacity Development landscape in the social development context has evolved significantly over the years. From the more simplistic term “training,” it has now developed into a much more nuanced concept, “Competency-Based Capacity Building” (CBCB). Yet, one question persists: Why do so many well-intended capacity building efforts end with impressive reports but negligible systemic change or impact? The answer to my mind is simple yet very deep, that good intentions alone will never create a desired impact unless supported by a well-thought-out strategic approach. 

Diverging perspectives
Having been fortunate to observe and live this journey through its different phases, from traditional training to participatory methods, to broader ideas of capacity building and development and eventually to CBCB, it is fair to say that this evolving journey has, on one hand, brought greater clarity on how to facilitate capacity development in the sector. On the other hand, the focus has largely remained on learning design rather than on the actual impact. This has created a mismatch between the investments made in these initiatives and the benefits gained by individual learners, departments and organisations. As a result, it has become even more difficult and complex to demonstrate the impact of capacity development projects, both globally and in India.

So how did we reach here? Drawing on my lived experience of managing capacity building projects for several social development organisations across various states in India between 2003 and 2012 and since 2013 until now working with bi- and multilateral agencies to strengthen capacity building of government officials, I’ve observed a recurring pattern. While both funders and practitioners have been deeply invested in the same broad goals, they often approach them from different angles. Practitioners tend to see capacity building as an opportunity to scale and reach more learners, whereas funders often prioritise systemic change and measurable impact. These perspectives, while not contradictory, have rarely converged meaningfully largely because there haven’t been enough efforts on either side to align on common terms, definitions and goals.
 
If we step back and look objectively, it becomes clear that the fault line runs through both practitioners and investors. Over the years, I’ve seen a pertinent and consistent disconnect between the aspiration of the capacity development sector to make learning owned by the learners and funders’ need to get a sense of impact. Bridging this gap will require more intentional collaboration and mutual understanding. 

The numbers game and its limitations
Practitioners of capacity development programmes have spent years refining learning designs to improve learner engagement and outcomes. But many of us failed to simultaneously develop frameworks to track progress toward longer-term impact such as changes in organisational performance or service delivery. On the other hand, funders/investors with their preference to look at numbers as the impact, slowly, created an atmosphere where the capacity development projects ended with indicators of impact such as number of learning programmes delivered, number of individuals reached, number of learning programmes designed as proxies for impact. This dependence on numbers to demonstrate impact has led the sector to adopt concepts like RoI and SRoI as makeshift solutions to provide a semblance of scientific validation, leaving little room to explore deeper indicators such as behaviour change, institutional transformation or improved systems.

It has further deepened the trust deficit between the two parties, as each views impact through its own lens. As a result, it is often the project or programme that bears the cost either through withdrawal of support by funders or cessation of implementation by practitioners.

From my experience of working with management and assessment concepts, I’ve often found that frameworks such as RoI, log frames and RBM don’t always translate seamlessly into the realities of the social development sector. Relying on these concepts without adapting them to the context of social development has often led to more confusion and burden than solutions in achieving or contributing to impact. They have also remained limited in offering any real hope for the sustainability of capacity development projects.

What’s being done to measure impact?
There are several dilemmas that both funders and practitioners are struggling with and as a result  multiple practices have emerged:

1.    Doing very little or nothing for monitoring and evaluating the capacity building efforts to understand its impact.
2.    Making the entire Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) process so overwhelming and complex that it becomes unsustainable (from excessive data collection to a lack of analysis, decision-making, communication or learning from the results.)

Capacity development projects, programmes or initiatives are not simple calculations of input-output and therefore they have not been able to provide answers to more complex questions related to sustainability.

The silver lining is that both practitioners/implementors and funders/investors are trying to solve a common problem – the sustainability of capacity development projects and programmes. The open questions both sides are grappling today are: How do we ensure the institutionalisation of capacity building efforts within an organisation? How do we sustain these efforts? And, how do we assess progress to understand the trajectory toward the long-term impact of capacity development projects?

Key non-negotiables and the way forward
To tackle these questions, there are certain non-negotiables that must be agreed upon and clarified between a funder/investor and a practitioner/implementer. Ideally, this alignment should happen at the project conceptualisation or ideation stage. Some guiding questions that may help both sides include:

First, it is essential to agree that capacity building projects and programmes are fundamentally different from interventions in other sectors or thematic areas. Both parties must recognise that capacity building is not primarily about numbers and percentages. It aims instead at deeper, more intangible outcomes such as mindset shifts and behavioural changes. It is also about investing towards the intrinsic motivation of learners in a way that leads to positive observable behaviour and their movement toward efficiency and effectiveness. 

Second, it is important to align on the definition and more importantly, a jointly owned definition of what constitutes a capacity building intervention. Co-ownership of the answer to this question allows both the funder/investor and the practitioner/implementer to arrive at a shared understanding and better appreciate each other's intentions in entering the partnership.

Third, both parties need to align on what the impact of capacity building projects or programmes should look like and how that impact will be measured. Do the funder/investor and the practitioner/implementer have the same vision of what success looks like in a capacity building context?

Fourth, it is essential to align on what is the level one in measuring change, i.e., the impact of capacity building investment on the partner organisation or the impact of capacity building on the community that the partner organisation works with. From a long-term sustainability point-of-view, it is essential to capture impact from the three lenses: people impact, system impact and organisational impact. In order to have capacity building intervention lead toward societal impact, it is essential to define these impacts together and carefully by both the parties. 

Another important element is to agree on the levels of complexity attached to the Capacity Building projects/programmes, the context the Capacity Building project/programme is placed in, the area in which capacity building is required, orientation towards the measure of change (is it numbers or stories or a combination of both). 

Alignment on these foundational aspects is the first step towards a mutual understanding and ownership of the complexities involved in any capacity building initiative.

Once the complexities and overall effort are co-owned, there is a higher likelihood that both the funder/investor and the practitioner/implementer will view capacity building as a long-term, system-level intervention rather than a short-term, transactional one. This shared understanding can bring both parties closer, with the hope that funders and investors begin to see themselves not merely as financial sponsors but as companions in the journey of building capacity and working together towards system change and people-level impact.
________________________________________

Ziaul Hoda is the Vice President and Head of the Personnel Management (PM) vertical and Knowledge Creation and Management (KCM) function at the Centre for Effective Governance of Indian States (CEGIS).