Comments for If you only read one thing this week...

Comment on Development Aid Doesn’t Work in Africa by annayoung

annayoung — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:57:34 +0000

Here is an interesting book review written by Paul Collier, author of “The Bottom Billion”. He taught Moyo and has a good critique of the book – http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/dead-aid-by-dambisa-moyo-1519875.html.

Comment on Why are borders still so important to us? by ifyouonlyreadonethingthisweek

ifyouonlyreadonethingthisweek — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:02:38 +0000

I think this is a really good point – particularly when you need multiple representation in different locations to talk to donors at different levels.

Comment on Why are borders still so important to us? by Alanna Shaikh

Alanna Shaikh — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:50:44 +0000

I think because they need to stay near their donors. Your grants and donatiosn are what keep the NGO alive, and being able to do in-person meetings is a big part of that money flow.

Comment on Attempting to better define fragile states by John Maszka

John Maszka — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:37:59 +0000

Constructive Sovereignty An emerging theory intended to address globalization’s increasing onslaught against state sovereignty. The theory maintains that states are not the primary actors, their constituents are. Therefore, their preferences are not fixed. Since states merely represent the preferences of their constituents, they will only adhere to and ultimately embed those international norms their constituency will accept. Rather than push for larger and more powerful international organizations that will impose global norms from the outside in, the theory of Constructive Sovereignty posits that ultimately change must come from the inside out. That is to say, from each state’s own constituency. As each state’s constituents become more and more international, they will become more receptive to international norms and they will voice their acceptance of these norms both politically and (especially) as consumers. It is therefore a central pillar of the theory that privatization is not only the driving force behind globalization, but also that private enterprise possesses the incentive to implement those international norms reflected in the preferences of consumers (profit). As private enterprise meets the increasingly international demands of consumers, it will itself become more international in scope. The cycle is self-perpetuating. In this way international norms are embedded and viewed with legitimacy by each state’s constituency, while state sovereignty is maintained and respected.

For the seminal paper go to http://constructivesovereignty.blogspot.com/

Comment on Technology for the Poor by ifyouonlyreadonethingthisweek

ifyouonlyreadonethingthisweek — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:20:48 +0000

Great Colin! I’m looking forward to hearing how this goes – it sounds like a cool project! Nick

Comment on Technology for the Poor by Colin Spurway

Colin Spurway — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 03:23:19 +0000

Well, as it happens I’m going to be working with this technology in my new job … with the BBC. I guess that’s why they are reporting on it with such enthusiasm! If anyone wants to know more they are most welcome to contact me after July on sayahatchi@yahoo.com .

Yours,
Colin
[currently CoP for CDI in Kyrgyzstan]

Comment on Unintended Consequences of Poverty Reduction by ifyouonlyreadonethingthisweek

ifyouonlyreadonethingthisweek — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:17:34 +0000

Hi,

Thank you for your comments on the article – we try to post a range of opinions and articles that represent different points of view (not just our own!) as you may have seen on the debate around the current food crisis. If you have any counter opinions or something that you think might be more relevant right now please send it on to us and we will look at hosting it here.

And do keep the comments coming –

Anna

Comment on Unintended Consequences of Poverty Reduction by بكر التميمي

بكر التميمي — Thu, 22 May 2008 07:34:03 +0000

Salam,

How can you fit such an article under a category of “if you only read one thing this week”?

I am sorry to tell you this: This article looks, sounds, and feels like propaganda, full of dogma, and almost ready to broadcast from the BBC or the VOA !, weather you realise it or not !

Please … there are so many tings that are happening around you this week that are much more worthy of the category name.

I wish you all the best.

Salam
B.T.

Comment on Strategic Planning – does it really make us more strategic? by Volker Frank

Volker Frank — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:29:03 +0000

Your post brings up the question for me about the difference between an operational plan and a strategic plan. We need to recognize that every organization is busy meeting existing commitments. All things being equal, everybody already has a 40h (and more) job operating as is. If there is the desire to be in a different situation 2-3 years from now everybody needs to know what will be different then and have a way to work towards accomplishing the change. That’s what I call a strategic vision. It is measurable, specific and time bound.

That usually requires two things:
1) A change in resources, often starting with funding which leads to more people and infrastructure
2) A change in priorities to divert effort from things that are not critical to new goals that support the future vision

The second point is the more tricky one to get a handle on. In order to create a new situation, we need to be clear about what we stop doing so that we have the resources to start doing new things. Most planning efforts focus on the new goals without being deliberate and explicit about where we are cutting back. That leads to biting off more than we can chew and in most cases we default to continuing to do what we have been doing and know how to do. The new goals and initiatives don’t get the attention they need and cynicism/frustration is just around the corner.

It seems to help to distinguish between operational goals (we are already doing it) and strategic goals (takes us closer to the vision). This might also be reflected in meeting agendas, where a part of the meeting deals with operational questions and part of the meeting is dedicated to implementing strategic goals.

The whole thing also brings up the issue around planning. The plan is just a plan and then life happens and we need to adjust. How good are we at adjusting? Are we too quick to adapt without having some persistence and stamina? Are we too slow to adjust and stubbornly struggling to control the world according to plan? Where do we want details so that everybody understands what we want to do and where can we be vague and let things happen? That all is expressed in our organizational culture and one of the things to notice is that to really get a different outcome, chances are it will also take a change in culture to accomplish it in a sustainable way.

Comment on Strategic Planning – does it really make us more strategic? by rkenneth

rkenneth — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:58:05 +0000

I’m a big fan of the 60 Minute Strategic Plan (60msp.com). It provides a good structure for the planning process. My take on it is that any strategic planning session should be facilitated by an outsider, somebody who knows how to keep things moving, positive and productive.

My suggestion to owners, presidents and CEOs is to set goals than work with key team members to identify opportunities, map out strategic initiatives, prioritize and assign responsibilities.

If a strategic plan takes more than a page or two, it’s too long. Share it with everyone in the company. Post it on the wall: goals > strategies > tactics

Review/revise often.