Review 3 final 2 - TAU - National Treasury

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE UNIT REVIEW | Blending Voice and Text
that needs to be brought to the surface. Because
change is more often than not uncertain, contingent,
even messy, shaped by intangibles and interpersonal
dynamics – all these need to be acknowledged and
expressed (not so as to embarrass people). Because
OD is frequently such an acute personal as well as
organizational process, the words, perceptions, and
experiences of the people involved are a key part of
the record–not just part of the narrative, but part of
the definition, results, and indicators of change. There
is usually a “logic” at work, even if it is not obvious,
or rational – and almost certainly, this “logic” will be
vastly more complex and contradictory than the
manageable “fiction”of log-frames. And, the actors may
change the agenda in mid-stream. They may redefine
“the problem”, and hence “the results”; and this action
may itself be an indicator of success. Changing the
“Results statement” or the logic model may reflect
greater self-confidence and analytical clarity, or indeed
deeper understanding and “ownership” of the whole
process, and of its intended results. All this is not to say
that “results” and “performance” don’t matter–they are
of the utmost importance, because, ultimately, citizens
judge public institutions on their effectiveness. (“Divine
right” rarely works any more as a basis for authority and
legitimacy.)
The related issue is whether conventional “log frames”
are of much help in understanding how people and
their organizations change–not only their actions,
but their attitudes, beliefs, and cultures Readers will
know that this is an inescapable part of the web of
institutional relationships just mentioned. So, the TAU,
its international development partners, its “siblings”
within National Treasury, and its public-sector clients
(not to mention visiting consultants) have to contend
with it – and need to work within that framework – but
mindfully and consciously in recognising that it is but
one framework amongst many others.
Now to consider these questions:
(2) Based on South Africa’s own intent, development
co-operation should be used for innovative
responses to national /international needs
As this is a mid- term review, what opportunities for
innovative practices/levels of innovation would you see
for the TAU as an implementing agency as it fulfils this
current agreement or any potential future agreement
(3) Innovation can be one of the most exciting words in
the world, it can also, however, be a buzz word that
is used as an attractive ‘construct’ to spice up the
discourse, but, in reality and with good benchmarks,
the perceived innovation might simply be a novel
area of work or a systems improvement which
might not really amount to ‘innovation’, as it is more
broadly appreciation in global or local systems.
How do you see innovation through the lens of this
development partnership and what, within the
TAU implementation of the Development Partner
programme, would provide an example of innovation or
the potential for innovation
My Responses:
So, a point of departure: Innovation in the development
enterprise, and in institution-building in particular:
Your questions rightly signal the trap of buzz-word status
which attaches to “innovation”. Because the language of
advertising and PR has swamped us with the “i-word”, we
could be forgiven for saying that everything is innovation–
and hence, that nothing is. And, the development
enterprise seems especially prone to fads and fashions,
all inevitably “innovative”. But common sense does retain
some power: most people understand “innovation” to
mean doing new things, or doing things in a new and
different way; and that, to be considered “innovative”, a
22
page
Enabling change for development