In 2016, I joined a peer training called Context-Driven Adaptation that sought to draw out examples from USAID staff on their understanding and adapting to their dynamic contexts. We were fortunate to have staff from six diverse backstops (FMO, PO, OAA, DRG, GH, BFS) and 19 Missions. They were able to describe a number of approaches they’ve used in practice to understand the local context and adapt programming in response to shifts in the context. It was a great reminder of how often  people manage adaptively as part of their routine work, and how much we can learn from their experiences.

With the publication of the updated ADS 201, which features “Manage Adaptively through Continuous Learning” as one of the foundational principles of the program cycle, increasing attention has been focused on adaptive management. Supporting development in the modern world requires an adaptive approach, as the contexts of our work shifts constantly. And much of the latest thinking in development, from the notion of laying multiple small bets on different change pathways and tactics as “development entrepreneurship,” to understanding and riding power dynamics by “thinking and working politically,” to navigating the space of a particular development challenge through “problem-driven iterative adaptation,” lays out signposts for how we can be effective in managing adaptively. Perhaps because of the novelty of this emphasis on managing adaptively, there have been fewer efforts to trace ways in which it is already done - so it was great to have the peer training focus on learning from each others’ experiences rather than learning something “new”.

Starting this fall, the facilitation team plans to share several of their approaches and experiences in different formats, such as case studies, tools, and webinars; I thought I might whet appetites by identifying a few trends and commonalities:

1. Moving Beyond Permission - The strongest examples took adaptation for granted as a cornerstone of their work. While there are many challenges in our timelines and structures that make it hard to be adaptive (and we spent considerable time discussing various innovative approaches to mitigate those challenges), the strongest examples did not focus only on the formal processes (what we called “getting permission to adapt”), instead seeing it as just a part of the job operating in uncertain environments.
2. Informality and Building Trust - Most of the techniques that were shared began with an effort at outreach and establishing a common understanding of contexts and their evolution, and spent time in grounding where stakeholders and partners were coming from in their beliefs and approaches. Often, this required deliberately stepping outside of formal spaces and channels of communication - for example, planning for regular conversations over tea or coffee with implementers, key local stakeholders, and Mission staff. In these spaces people spoke as peers addressing a challenge, and the topic of conversation was to explore with real curiosity and candor how circumstances related to programming were shifting.
3. Triangulation - Several people spoke of how having different perspectives reflected in discussions improved their understanding of the local context. They also acknowledged the difficulty of getting real diversity in such conversations. Beyond the “usual suspects,”  that is those already engaged in USAID’s efforts, other local voices are (by definition) less  focused on USAID’s programming and are not included in the conversation. Therefore, finding ways to secure their critical and honest input was a vital challenge to meet.
4. Lack of Documentation - Perhaps because of the informal nature of most of the approaches discussed, there was rarely a considered Mission effort to document those reflections and the decisions informed by them. This may have been necessary to manage expectations and maintain trust, or may point to a lack of more robust monitoring information that would align with adaptation decisions. This is a weakness in our overall efforts to manage adaptively, since documentation is necessary in order to understand the basis for decisions to make adjustments. Without documentation of the adaptation we cannot go back and examine whether or not the adjustment led to better development outcomes. I have hope that the USAID/DFID joint activity called Global Learning for Adaptive Management, which aims to learn about adaptive programming in concert with USAID field staff, will help us more effectively document our decision making.
5. Committed to Understanding the Context - The staff who adapted cared how  the world around them was shifting in its own right, not only as it bore on their particular projects’ plans of action. They wanted to design and manage programs using context-specific assumptions so as to avoid a “one size fits all approach” and to fit their programs to the context instead.
6. Genuine Curiosity - I mentioned this above, but it was striking to me that in almost all of the cases of successful adaptive management that were shared, the Mission staff were quite humble regarding the limitations to their own knowledge, and passionately curious about what was really going on. This translated into a focus on learning how change could happen toward their objectives in the context, rather than just whether programming was on track towards pre-selected outputs. The comfort with driving forward despite uncertainty, and willingness to rethink planned intermediate outcomes in service of larger strategic achievements, seems a hallmark of both the programming and the people who manage adaptively.

I wanted to close by giving a quick example that I think highlights a lot of these trends, taken from USAID/Indonesia, where they are tracking changes in the DRG space through a weekly “gut check” of Indonesian staff, and relating that to their programming. The approach is quite informal and emphasizes looking at dynamics in context (although it is well-documented), intended to complement their existing M&E, with some triangulation through the justifications for their opinions. It is simple but powerful and could inform some useful reflections around how to keep programming relevant as the context changes, rather than just adapt to stay “on track” to planned indicator targets. You can read more about the approach here.

This blog by David Jacobstein, from USAID's Democracy, Rights and Governance Policy, Learning and Integration Office, was initially published on USAID's blog page and is republished here with his permission.