SuSanA – Strategy study, Task 4 Options for organisation structures

SuSanA – Strategy study, Task 4 Options fororganisation structures Wolfgang Pfefferkorn, 16 April 2013 Input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.42013

Task 4: work process Four parts: 1. Analysis of organisation structures of SuSanA 2. Interviews 3. Analysis of organisation structures of similar networks 4. Conclusions, hypotheses, recommendations

Guiding questions: Who are the most relevant players influencing SuSanA? How intense and of which quality is the relationship between these players and SuSanA? How are the relationships among these players? -> 6 Drawings System environment analysis SuSanA system environment

SuSanA system environment

The most relevant institutions with the highest influence on SuSanA: GIZ, SEI and EAWAG, then IWA, further: Unesco, Unicef, UN-Habitat and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, further (mentioned 2x) Seecon, GTO, PlanUSA, WELF, WTN, IRC, WSP, KFW, waste plan, Xavier University … (mentioned 1x) Positive relations dominating, no relevant conflicts Representation of the key players in SuSanA (core group): GIZ: 5; EAWAG: 3; SEI: 2; IWA: 1; Unicef: 2; Xavier University: 2 Findings and conclusions from the drawings SuSanA system environment

Task 4: work process Four parts: 1. Analysis of organisation structures of SuSanA 2. Interviews 3. Analysis of organisation structures of similar networks 4. Conclusions, hypotheses, recommendations

Secretariat Well organised No clear mandate from the core group Less present than with former leading persons Maybe too much power, “runs the show” Interviews with those who made the drawings (5)Roles of the organisation units Interview results

Core group Influence has decreased over the last years Responsibility and tasks are unclear, terms of reference and agenda missing … has a lot to do with voluntary work For the members of the core group it is often unclear what is expected from them. Also for those who are externals, it is not clear what can be expected from the core group Only a few active members Roles of the organisation units Interview results

Working groups Some active, some inactive and not very much committed – has to do with voluntary work Open participation is positive Working group leaders should play a more important role in the network Roles of the organisation units Interview results

Core group <–> secretariat Works well Not clear, who is doing what in the core group Need for a better organisation of communication between the two units Interfaces between units Interview results

In general, SuSanA is a friendly network Some conflicts between core group and partners Maybe SuSanA was/is not open enough for people with other opinions and approaches Conflicts about external communication Some personal conflicts, not structural SuSanA is strongly based on values, it is a “circle”, still very much based on the ECOSAN technology approach Frictions and conflicts Interview results

There are no taboos The ECOSAN technology is a taboo But it is opening up to other integrated sanitation approaches Taboos within SuSanA Interview results

Better balance between north and south required Northern countries could play a stronger role in advocacy, southern countries in field work More commitment from organisations from the South would help to decentralise tasks and to increase the global relevance of the network Actors from the south should be more actively invited and encouraged to take over a stronger role. They should feel more welcome by the northern actors … Installing focal points or regional nodes would be very helpful and bring the network closer to regional realities North / south Interview results

Positive: Clearer frameworks make work and communication easier Would lead to a clearer commitment Could help to decentralise certain tasks Some rules could help to make leadership clearer than today Becoming more formal than today would allow to improve advocacy work, to better approach regional governments Change from a loose to a more binding network Interview results

Negative: Loss of liberty? Increases the barrier for new members and for exchange with other organisations (use of documents etc.) Annual fee, it would be a problem for many small organisations Financial issues become much more important, this possibly leads to rivalry and conflicts Risk of over-administration Open source idea could get lost Change from a loose to a more binding network Interview results

Further comments: What SuSanA needs is mainly a clearer communication structure: who communicates when with whom about what? There are many individual SuSanA members. They have a high potential, which could be better used Regional sub-units of the network have been discussed several times, but nobody takes the lead and starts an initiative Regional sub-units could help to emphazise more on specific needs and topics in the different regions. Change from a loose to a more binding network Interview results

A core group, where all partners are represented More people and organisations play an active role Working groups are defined more precisely, are more active, working group leads have a more prominent role Two strong elements: 1. advocacy level with big players and strong presence on the international floor able to organise international funding; 2. field organisations with strong local roots. The link could be made by the working groups Working group leads should be present in the meetings of the core group. If overnight a wonder would happen and the biggest wishes would come true, how would SuSanA be different? 1/3 Interview results

There are 2-3 co-financing organisations -> there are more resources in the secretariat and in other sub-units. SuSanA stands on a solid financial basis Other networks and CoP´s use SuSanA as a platform SuSanA has a speaker, a face Further partners come on board and join the network Sanitation sector recognises SuSanA more than today SuSanA becomes a network with more real-time cooperation (= more physical meetings) If overnight a wonder would happen and the biggest wishes would come true, how would SuSanA be different? 2/3 Interview results

The regions from the South are better represented. The dominance of the Northis reduced Some working groups are re-activated SuSanA continues to work on an open source base There are regular meetings among the working group leaders: once or twice per year, skype is sufficient There is more regular communication If overnight a wonder would happen and the biggest wishes would come true, how would SuSanA be different? 3/3 Interview results

Non-hierarchical, open, voluntary High diversity Well organised Dedicated, interactive members High share of people ready to engage actively (content work in working groups, working group-lead AND strategic work in core group, strategy development Financial backup of secretariat from BMZ, support from BMGF Strengths of the organisation structure of SuSanA Survey results, SWOT update

Hard to know, who is doing what Unbalanced geographic representation Reliance on volunteers, engagement often ineffective Informal, instable network relying on persons and relations Lack of funding structure and strategy Almost too international, too little local focus Rigid criteria for organisations-membership Very little number of active people Always the same people having the last word Weaknesses of the organisation structure of SuSanA 1/2 Survey results, SWOT update

Communication mechanisms not well defined Communication mainly based on web-based systems Little awaresness of SuSanA niche among members Weaknesses of the organisation structure of SuSanA 2/2 Survey results, SWOT update

Social media, crowd-sourcing Sustainable sanitation has become more important globally Opportunities SWOT update Threats • Only few members contribute financially • Working group commitment depends on personal motivation because of voluntary work • Not all members representated at meetings because of voluntary work

Most relevant: contribution to policy dialogue Least relevant: catalyst – from commitment to action Wide range of topics identified as “hot topics”: technical solutions, capacity building, advocacy and lobbying -> Consequences and requirements for organisational changes? Future orientation of the network: Survey results

Task 4: work process Four parts: 1. Analysis of organisation structures of SuSanA Interviews 3. Analysis of organisation structures of similar networks 4. Conclusions, hypotheses, recommendations

Analysis of similar networks Organisation charts of 10 networks: (1) IWA – International Water Association International Rainwater Harvesting Alliance (IRHA) IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities The World Association of Non-Governmental Organi-zations (WANGO) InterPress Service – Journalism and Communication for a global change SCAN – Sustainable Commodity Assistance Network GEF- NGO network (global network of civil society) World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action IPIECA – The global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues

Standard organisation units Analysis of similar networks

Standard network / organisation structure Survey results Members Coordination committeeSteering group consultancy,advice technicalsupport Advisorygroup Executive committee(directors) Secretariat Regional sub-units(focal points) Content orientedsub-units(working groups) Short termtask forces

SuSanA network structure Survey results Partners Partners Partners Partners Individualmembers Core group (31) Secretariat Working groups (11)

Standard network structure and SuSanA Survey results Members Coordination committeeSteering group consultancy,advice technicalsupport Advisorygroup Executive committee(directors) Secretariat Regional sub-units(focal points) Content orientedsub-units(working groups) Short termtask forces

Task 4: work process Four parts: Analysis of organisation structures of SuSanA 2. Interviews 3. Analysis of organisation structures of similar networks 4. Conclusions, hypotheses, recommendations

Observations from the comparison between the standard organisation structure and the SuSanA structure: 1/2 Conclusions, hypotheses SuSanA is much less structured Some units of a standard network chart do not exist in SuSanA: advisory group, regional sub units, task forces, and the most relevant one: the executive committee. As a consequence, the existing units (core group, secre-tariat) fulfil several tasks by mixing the functions of steering, decision making and day to day implementation. The SuSanA secretariat is much more than a unit providing technical support and services to the other units.

Observations from the comparison between the standard organisation structure and the SuSanA structure: 2/2 Conclusions, hypotheses • The core group with its 31 members is mainly a steering group.For an executive committee, the core group is too big. As there is a relevant share of less active members in the core group, the active members are also in the role of an executive committee. • The active members of the core group together with the secretariat fulfil the role of an executive committee. This obviously leads to a mixing of the strategic and the day to day levels as well as to a mixing of the functions of steering, decision making and support/implementation.

Strategic options for organisation structure Conclusions, hypotheses Continue as before Major change towards high level of regulation and bindingness Soft change towards more regulation and bindingness. Low barriers at the external borders, increased level of regulation and structuring in the center

First recommendations based on steps 1-3: Conclusions, hypotheses Keep barriers low at the external borders of the network (open source principle). Allow easy entry and membership in order to keep touch to the ground and to widen the network globally. Set clearer rules and enhance the level of bindingness in the center of the network. Better distinguish the roles of the inner network units, separate strategic decision making from day to day implementation. Maybe install a co-ordination unit and a executive unit. In the co-ordination unit, representative-ness of the network members is important. Re-define the place of core group and secretariat in the newly defined 3 units.

First recommendations based on steps 1-3: Conclusions, hypotheses Define standard communication processes in the network as a starting point Strengthen the role of working group leaders – they could be an important link – maybe combined with stronger regional representativeness More structure could make it easier to decentralise, to widen the basis and the resources of the network Low external borders and more structure in the inner circle could support both directions: advocacy and locally based field organisations.

First recommendations based on steps 1-3: Conclusions, hypotheses Higher level of bindingness and more structures and rules combined with strengthened advocacy orientation are not compatible with voluntary work in the long run-> additional financing required! Possible areas of conflict within the overall network: paid work in the center of the network (secretariat, executive committee), voluntary work at the borders (forum, content production …) … working group lead? -> Requires a discussion process within the network in order to find the “right” solution.

Contact: Wolfgang Pfefferkorn Rosinak & Partner, Vienna (A) +43-544 07 07 / 37 pfefferkorn@rosinak.at

SuSanA – Strategy study, Task 4 Options for organisation structures