Content uploaded by Ulf- Daniel Ehlers
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ulf- Daniel Ehlers on Aug 24, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Open ECBCheck -
Quality for eCapacity
Building in Africa and
Beyond: Community
Based, Low Cost
Certification for E-
Learning
Ulf-Daniel Ehlers, University Duisburg-Essen, 2010
Reference: Ehlers, U.-D. (2010): Open ECBCheck - Quality for eCapacity
Building in Africa and Beyond: Community Based, Low Cost
Certification for E-Learning
Correspondence address: Prof. Dr. phil. habil. Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Duale Hochschule Baden-Württemberg | Baden-Württemberg Cooperative State University
Friedrichstraße 14, 70174 Stuttgart
Deutschland | Germany
mail: ehlers@dhbw.de | ulf.ehlers@googlemail.com
skype: ulf.ehlers
web: www.dhbw.de | www.ulf-ehlers.net
1
Open ECBCheck - Quality for eCapacity Building in
Africa and Beyond: Community Based, Low Cost
Certification for E-Learning
AuthorsName
Abstract
The purpose of the paper is to present a quality certification scheme for e-learning in the
field of Capacity Building. The certification scheme is developed in a participatory
process together with organisations in the field of Capacity Building. Based on a
landscape analysis on the utilisation of e-learning in Capacity Building and a study
focusing on the possible requirements that Capacity Building Organizations have towards
a certification scheme, demands for the development are derived. In a second step,
existing standards and certificates like UNIQUE, EFMD CEL or ISO/IEC 19796-1 are
assessed if they meet these demands or if parts of the existing standards and certificates
could be incorporated into the development. Finally, a blueprint for a certification
scheme is proposed including a description of the architecture, the definition of quality
criteria and related indicators as well as a definition of a certification process. The results
of the needs analysis suggest that organisations in the field of Capacity Building have in
general a high interest to obtain a quality label. Mostly organisations are interested in a
tool that supports measuring and improving impact efficiency, that helps ensuring the
success of e-learning programs and that allows to benchmark with other organisations.
The analysis also shows that organisations differ in the diffusion of e-learning within
their Capacity Building activities. To incorporate these differences a label with two
options is developed: a label for single programs (e.g. course) and a label for a whole
institution.
Keywords: E-learning, Quality, capacity Building, Innovation
1. Introduction
If ICT is to live up to the promises it holds for Capacity Building it has to be rooted deep
into organisations understanding of learning and exchange of good practices. Capacity
Building Organisations largely use ICT as an add on in form of separated projects,
2
making their first attempts with this – often new – form of approaching learning. A recent
study shows that the potentials e-learning holds to transform organisations’ ways of
producing, sharing and enhancing knowledge for development through education often
remains unused through an island approach where ICT is used encapsulated and co-
existing next to other organisations’ core-activities, not embedded into an innovation
strategy (Ehlers et at. 2007, p. 58). Quality Management when understood as a concept to
enhance an organisations’ strategy to use the innovation potential ICT carries especially
for Capacity Building Organisations can support organisations in their learning, change
and innovation processes. Quality management then goes beyond the pure measurement
of educational outcomes and extends to an organisations’ ability to absorb innovation
processes. It calls for transparency and trust in using e-learning for development related
purposes to enhance existing practices.
So far, there is neither transparency about the quality of e-learning programmes for
Capacity Building nor about the quality of the organisations that offer e-learning in
Capacity Building according to Ehlers et al. (ibid.). Quality certification developed in
consensus with a network of Capacity Building Organisations could lead to higher trust
in the still developing market of e-learning for Capacity Building. Observations by the
Operations Evaluation Department of World Bank (OED) and Whyte support this view:
In a report the OED states that “many projects have capacity building activities
embedded in their major operational components, but the objectives of these activities
tend to be ill defined, and their achievement is poorly tracked and reported” (OED 2005,
p. viii). Whyte (2004, p. 9) who conducted a so called landscape analysis of donor trends,
also agrees that Capacity Building activities „are often embedded in other programs and
are not tracked separately“.
This paper argues that for certain requirements none of the existing approaches for
quality management or quality certification can be applied one-to-one to e-learning in the
field of Capacity Building. To fill this gap and to support the application of e-learning in
the field of Capacity Building the aim of this paper is to develop a certification model
3
based on existing quality approaches that fits the special requirements in Capacity
Building. We argue that quality and innovation go hand in hand. Therefore we will first
present findings from an international study on the innovation through the use of e-
learning in Capacity Building Organisations and will then present a quality approach
which supports innovation through e-learning with a community based and low cost
certification model.
2. E-Learning for Capacity Building
Information, knowledge, competencies and education are nowadays considered crucial
elements for progress in developing countries and serve to achieve the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) agreed on the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000
by the international community of states. The ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-
OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD) (2006, pp. 7) views the lack of adequate
country capacity as one of the main obstacles to meet the MDGs on time, even if the
funding of development efforts is increased considerably during the following years. This
position is also supported by reports of the COMMISSION FOR AFRICA (2005, pp. 135) and
SACHS (2005, p. 99). The importance of Capacity development is now largely accepted
by both donor organisations and partner countries and has been explicitly articulated in
the “Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness” (n. a. 2005) which is based on the prior
declaration of the High-Level Forum on Harmonisation in Rome (n. a. 2003) as well as
the results from the Marrakech Roundtable on Managing for Development Results (n. a.
2004).
Furthermore, the development community largely agrees on the idea that information and
communication technologies (ICTs) are crucial for development progress and for
reaching the MDGs. Since the publication of “The missing Link”, a report of the
Independent Commission for World-Wide Telecommunications Development, the
importance of ICTs has been discussed not only in terms of infrastructure but also in
terms of building the capacities for the participation of developing countries in a modern
4
information society and in digitalised economies. The Millennium Declaration dating
from 2000 acknowledges the importance of ICTs as a fundamental tool to achieve the
MDGs that is especially helpful in the alleviation of poverty and the improvement of
education and health as well as in improving the accessibility of government services
(InWEnt 2005, p. 4).
However, the application of e-Learning in Capacity development is still considered to be
in the transition between an experimental state and sustainable implementation and e-
Learning is not yet widely used (Ehlers et al. 2007, p. 7). One important drawback in the
application of e-Learning for Capacity development is definitely the situation of
infrastructure and access to ICTs that is needed to effectively use e-Learning, especially
in rural areas that are considered to be one main potential beneficiary. More specifically,
JOHNSON and THOMAS (2007, p. 456) highlight these constraints within the context of
Capacity development with electronic distance education for local governments in
Africa.
In order to assess how organisations currently use e-Learning for Capacity development,
EHLERS et al. (2007, pp. 44) uses a model from innovation theory to assess how e-
Learning is integrated in Capacity development Organisations. The model divides the
diffusion of innovation in three main phases, i) project orientation, ii) systems orientation
and iii) potential orientation. These phases should be understood as a continuum and
organisations may change their status over time, sometimes even rapidly. Figure 5
illustrates this continuum.
5
Project
Orientation
Systems
Orientation
Potential
Orientation
Figure 1: Three Phases of Innovation Diffusion
The different stages can be conceptualised as follows:
– Project orientation: The focus is on single projects and the organisation does not
provide any additional services besides content generation (see also Figure 1).
– Systems orientation: E-learning is used in a systematic way and capacities for e-
Learning as well as own applications are built in an organisation (e.g. economic,
technical, didactical and organisational capacities). Responsibilities and roles for
e-Learning are defined within the organisation and in some cases it may be
possible that a department or an e-Learning centre is established within the
organisation. Additional services e.g. tutoring, consultancy, etc. are offered
additionally to content. E-learning is integrated as a part of the organisation’s
strategy but no specific e-Learning strategy exists for the organisation (see also
Figure 1).
– Potential orientation: Strategic integration of e-Learning in both organisational
processes of an organisation and within all Capacity development activities that
are carried out. The organisation possesses an own strategy for information and
6
communication technology or e-Learning and offers full fledged, tutored e-
Learning as well as blended learning and full Capacity development programmes
by means of e-Learning (see also Figure 1).
The analysis of Capacity Building Organisations shows that e-learning is used in a
multitude of ways and models, however, mainly within the stage of project orientation,
with some organisations leaning towards system orientation. The stage of potential
orientation, presented in table 1 as the most mature stage, is only reached by very few
organisations. The categorization of organisations according to the penetration with e-
learning innovations is elaborated as a tool in form of a maturity model in which
organisations can position themselves and their organisational practice of using e-
learning.
1
Table 1 presents a short abstract of the maturity model and shows which could
be the next meaningful stage to aim at on some selected dimensions. In addition to an
analysis tool it can be used as a planning tool on an organisations’ way from “occasional
use” of e-learning in a project stage to realising the full potential of e-learning integrated
effectively into every capacity development program and organisation.
Table 1: Different maturity stages of Capacity Development Organisations towards
use of e-learning
1
The maturity model for e-learning in Capacity Building Organisations has been published in
Ehlers et al. 2007.
7
The snapshot of the comprehensive maturity model has been developed as a result of the
described survey and in order to allow capacity development organisations to have an
easy to use concept to analyse their achievements, create their maturity profile and
elaborate a strategic plan for making more and more effective use of e-services for their
organisational and program processes.
3. Development of Quality for e-learning in Capacity Building: The Open
ECBCheck Approach
Open ECBCheck is a new certification and quality improvement scheme for E-Learning
programmes and institutions in international Capacity Building. It supports Capacity
Building Organisations to measure how successful their e-learning programmes are and
allows for continuous improvement though peer collaboration and benchlearning of
institutional practices. Open ECBCheck forms a participative quality environment which
allows its members to benefit in a variety of ways by having access to tools and
guidelines for their own practice on the one hand, and being able to obtain a community
based label on the other hand. Three stages to quality are suggested:
1. Organisations document their commitment to quality by joining the Open
ECBCheck Community
2. The Open ECBCheck professional community provides access to and
allows sharing of guidelines, tools as well as experiences for quality
development for its members
3. On basis of a detailed self-assessment process, members can enter into
mutual peer-review partnerships to improve the quality of their e-learning
offers.
Open ECBCheck is developed from the community of organisations through an
innovative and participative process which has been initiated by InWent – Capacity
Building International, Germany and the European Foundation for Quality in E-Learning
8
(EFQUEL). Over 20 organisations have meanwhile showed their interest in joining the
Open ECBCheck community which will form a professional network for quality and
innovation.
4. Architecture and Governance of the Quality Label for e-learning in Capacity
Building
Between June and September 2008 an involving 15 international Capacity Building
Organisations in the field of e-learning took place. All organisations were asked to
contribute information on their activities in the field of e-learning, as well as their
interests and requirements for the development of a quality label for e-learning. The
information was collected through both a questionnaire and an extensive interview series.
The study provides precise information on requirements for the development of a quality
label for e-learning in Capacity Building. It shows a general high interest into the topic of
quality development and suggests that apart from a quality label, the launch of a
professional network which gives its members access to guidelines, tools and best
practices is of urgent interest to participating stakeholders. Therefore Open ECBCheck
has been developed as a combination of a self commitment (declaration of intent) (stage
1) which allows organisations to join a professional network where they get access to
guidelines, tools and practices (stage 2), and where they can enter into a self assessment
and peer-review process which allows them to obtain a quality label (stage 3). The
quality label is representing the final step in this community based peer-label, focussing
on the improvement of practices through a peer-reviewed self-assessment both for
programmes and for organisations.
In a context analysis as well as the study on requirements and constraints of Capacity
Building Organisations towards a quality label for e-learning in Capacity Building the
distinct characteristics of the field were systematised in two major domains. The first is
concerned with the fundamental architecture of the label, concerning the quality
dimensions, criteria and methods of assessing and validating them and the second with
9
the governance system and processes, concerning the way the label is awarded. An
overview of the main aspects in both areas is given in figure 2.
Architecture
•Coverage of e-Learning
Programmes as well as e-
Learning Institutions
•Broad Coverage and
Applicability through Minimum
and Excellence Criteria
•Educational Territories
Governance System
and Processes
•Quality Certification as an Open,
Community Driven Process
•Governance of the Quality Label
•Low Cost Certification System
•Learning for Improvement
Figure 2: Overall Requirements for a Quality Label for e-Learning in Capacity
Building
Architecture of the quality label
1. Coverage of e-learning programmes as well as e-learning institutions: The label
should offer the possibility to cover both single programmes and institutions as
certification entity to consider different e-learning strategies of organisations. A
quality label for single programmes is considered of more interest for
organisations that are in the stage of integrating e-learning rather project oriented
and a quality label on the institutional level is considered to be of more interest
for organisations that have advanced to integrate e-learning strategically in
internal organisational processes as well as all Capacity Building activities.
2. Broad coverage and applicability through minimum and excellence criteria: The
label should offer the distinction between minimum criteria that indicate solid
quality of a programme or institution and are relevant to all organisations and
10
excellence criteria that demonstrate exceptional quality achievements of an
organisation or programme. While all organisations would be required to meet at
least the minimum criteria in order to guarantee that they are conformant to the
set standards, they can create their own excellence profile through scoring high
on the excellence criteria. The employed methodology for evaluation is going
back to the method of Qualitative Weighting and Summation, described for the
evaluation of learning software for the first time by Baumgartner et al. (2002).
3. Educational territories: For the study and the development of the label the
concept of educational territories rather than educational segments has proven
valid. It emphasises that e-learning is not an own educational territory but a
transversal component which creates many different educational contexts, some
covering the traditional distinction between educational segments, some creating
new learning spaces. Considering the educational territories, Capacity Building
Organisations focus their e-learning activities largely on activities in the
educational fields e-Learning at the Workplace and Evolved Distance Education
(see MENON Network 2007, pp. 34 or Delrio and Fischer 2007, p. 4 for
the terminology used). Further important activities are Virtual Professional
Networks and Non-professional e-Learning Communities. While the quality
criteria which will be developed for the quality label can potentially be used for
internal assessment and as guidelines by organisations or individual organisation
actors, the quality label will cover especially those activities which are explicit
and formal e-learning programmes. However, informal activities like
professional networks and community oriented learning processes are more and
more important in Capacity Building Organisations. The way employees deal
with technology in order to form learning relevant contexts like communities
then plays an important role for the assessment of the institutional readiness of
Capacity Building Organisations
11
Governance of the quality label
4. Quality certification as an open, community driven process: The special
characteristics of the Capacity Building community suggests an open,
community and learning based approach of mutual recognition of quality with a
bottom-up agreement on criteria and the governance system as the fundamental
architecture of Open ECBCheck. While this is sometimes perceived as a
contradiction because quality certification appears often as instrument of
competitive distinction and not as open, community and consensus oriented
concept, the analysis’ results show a clear preference for open models, oriented
towards peer-review processes. Transparency of the evaluation processes on
basis of peer-review has been stated as an important factor for acceptance.
5. Governance of the quality label: The specific context of Capacity Building and
of Capacity Building Organisations has to be taken into account. It is not
following primarily market logic with free flowing capital in which customers
have to be attracted, but rather a closed market structure which follows clear
rules and regulations. This has consequences for a governance system of a
quality label. Capacity Building Organisations on the one hand have a clearly
identified need for proving their effectiveness and efficiency and need to work
with transparent quality standards, however, these quality standards can not be
easily imposed on them from the outside. Due to the specific constraints of this
group of organisations quality rules and regulations have to be developed in a
consensus process and a certification processes as well. This requires developing
a certification system around a community of organisations in which Capacity
Building Organisations should be represented. The representation of those who
want to be certified within the system of certification is posing specific
constraints towards the governance system to be developed. In order to avoid
conflict of interest, the different acting bodies of a quality certification system
have to be clearly identified and separated from each other, so that decisions are
12
based on consensus of many rather than on interests of only few. Such a
certification system then would ensure high acceptance of the system within the
community of Capacity Building Organisations. For Open ECBCheck therefore a
three-stage approach will be adopted:
a. Organisations become part of a professional network, which has been
launched in a common meeting. They are asked to declare their
willingness to advance quality development for their e-learning activities
in a declaration of intent.
b. Organisations will have access to the Open ECBCheck guidelines,
criteria and tools for e-learning quality for use in their organisations and
networks.
c. Organisations have the possibility to undergo a self-assessment process
to document how they are assuring and promoting quality in e-learning
in their organisations or their programs which will be reviewed by two
members of the community in form of a peer-review.
This open, three stage process which is based on a professional network allows
organisations to advance over time in their quality practices and – in case they
want – to get recognition from other organisations by obtaining the peer-review
based label. This concept is also supported by a number of organisations that are
not offering e-learning themselves but work together with partner organisations
who offer e-learning and want to use the tools and guidelines to support these
partners in quality development. It allows to demonstrate (self-)commitment
towards quality (code of practice), make use of existing guidelines and tools, and
obtain a community based label through self-assessment and peer-review.
6. Low cost certification system: Furthermore, the certification system has to be
constructed in a way that it can be operated on a low cost level to be affordable
for the majority of Capacity Building Organisations and their clients in
developing countries. Developing a low cost system demands an exchange of
13
services between the stakeholders rather than a flow of capital for buying those
services. For Open ECBCheck a thorough conceptualisation of the costs factors
of a certification process has to be taken into account. Within the development of
open ECBCheck two concepts will therefore be explored. First, for assessment
purposes a combination of self-assessment and peer-review of a self-assessment
report will be developed and secondly the peer-review services will be
exchanged between those organisations undergoing certification processes.
7. Learning for improvement: The interview results show that the certification
process should not only lead to a certification of a programme or institution but
should be conceptualised as a learning activity. Also in this case, self-assessment
and peer-review of a self-assessment report will be explored. First, the self-
assessment allows an organisation a systematic analysis of strengths and
weaknesses of the institution or a programme. Furthermore, the peer-review of
the resulting self-assessment report will not only provide the organisation with a
feedback on the self-assessment and provided information, but also include a
learning report that focuses on the possibilities for improvement that have been
identified during the review.
The results of the analysis of requirements and constraints of Capacity Building
Organisations towards a quality label for e-Learning in Capacity Building show the
distinct characteristics of the field and a number of unique requirements in the two major
domains architecture and governance system and processes. These requirements have
been the basis for the development of the quality label architecture. In conclusion the
study shows that organisations are interested in an open, community of practice based
approach for mutual recognition of quality within the international community of
Capacity Building Organisations that is based on a bottom up process of agreeing on
framework criteria that allow to incorporate the multitude of quality initiatives that are
14
already in place in these organisations and a strong self-commitment to demonstrate the
seriousness of the interest and effort put into quality.
5. Conceptual Frame for the Open ECB Check Label
Based on the requirements that Capacity Building Organisations have towards a quality
label in e-learning for Capacity Building and on the characteristics that can be derived
from a systematisation of the use of e-learning in Capacity Building, the following
architecture for a quality label is proposed.
Community of Practice around Open ECB Check
Declaration of Intent
Community and Guidelines
Program level
e.g. pedagogy e.g.
instructional
design
Institutional level
Program level
e.g. pedagogy e.g.
instructional
design
Label and Process of Certification
Institutional level
self-assessment
peer-review
self-assessment
peer-review
e.g. strategy e.g. processes
e.g. strategy e.g. processes
15
Figure 3: Architecture of Open ECBCheck
Figure 3 shows that the basic element of the Open ECBCheck label is a professional
network consisting of organisations that are interested into quality issues related to e-
learning in Capacity Building. This community allows on the one hand a bottom-up
approach in developing and improving the Open ECBCheck continuously as well as the
sharing of best practice. On the other hand this approach offers the chance for mutual
recognition of quality within the international community of Capacity Building
Organisations. To join the community and gain access, interested organisations are asked
to sign a declaration of intent to demonstrate their interest to advance quality to the
community and their willingness to contribute. Organisations that are members of the
community do gain access to quality guidelines that support their work on quality issues
and are the reference group for a peer-review process that organisations have to undergo
if they want to obtain the Open ECBCheck quality label. Guidelines as well as the review
process will be available for both program and institutional level and information will be
disseminated through an online resources centre (Quality Centre) that also supports
collaboration of the member organisations.
Guidelines and framework criteria will focus on existing quality practices for e-learning
in Capacity Building Organisations. Thus, the focus will be on helping organisations to
benchmark their quality practices, improve their tools and learn from each other through
a community based exchange. In cases where no practices (yet) exist, a number of basic
guidelines will be provided for adoption by the respective organisation. Rather than being
normative ridging, the focus will be on recognising achievements and improving existing
practices. Examples of quality e-learning practices on program and institutional level will
be elaborated and provided as cases to benchmark own practices and learning from each
other. This ensures that organisations gain an overview on what criteria are of importance
but they are open to decide how to address them. Thus, already established procedures or
16
guidelines can be integrated and organisations are not forced to abandon these. Still, the
guidelines will contain advice what tools could be used to achieve quality in this area.
Additionally this allows member organisations to share best practice as support for each
other. If a best practice (e.g. a checklist how to assess learner’s needs) is accepted by the
community it can be added to or referenced by the guideline in the online resource centre.
For those organisations interested in obtaining the Open ECBCheck as a quality label, the
tools and guidelines will be applied to the certification process. This process can address
either the programme or the institutional level. Based on the criteria that are defined
within the guideline organisations are asked to carry out a self-assessment proceedure to
assess their programmes or institution. The self-assessment is supported by documents
that systematise and structure the process. As soon as an organisation has finished the
self-assessment, the results of the self-assessment are validated through a peer-review
that is conducted by another member organisation of the Open ECBCheck community
which has already obtained the label. It will be one of the requirements for obtaining the
label to volunteer in a review process for another candidate. Through this inter-changed
collaboration, not only the assessment of own practices but also a benchlearning process
through assessment of other organisations’ practices will be introduced. After the peer-
review has been completed successfully, the Open ECBCheck label is awarded to an
organisation and can be used by them. After a certain period of time, the label has to bee
renewed if criteria have changed.
7. Conclusion
Open ECBCheck is a quality label which aims at combining the benefits of a community
of organisations with a low cost approach and the accountability of a clear structured
peer-review approach based on criteria.
The article starts by outlining different modes of Capacity Building Organsations to use
e-learning. It suggests that they represent different maturity stages of organisations:
Project orientation, Systems orientation, and Potential orientation. Quality is introduced
17
ass a concept which goes beyond measurement and controlling but rather supports
organisations in their efforts to innovate and enhance Capacity Building. Quality
Management when understood as a concept to enhance an organisations strategy to use
the innovation potential ICT carries especially for Capacity Building Organisations can
support organisations in their learning and changing processes.
A concise analysis of Capacity Building Organisations’ requirements shows that quality
certification has to be low cost, and governed in a joint approach of equals amongst
equals, leading to the concept of a community based, low-cost certification scheme. The
Architecture of the quality certification approach Open ECBCheck is designed to meet
these requirements in a specific way by introducing a system of mutual peer-reviews in
which organisations which are undergoing certification support each other through
mutual reflection.
6. References
1. Baumgartner, Peter; Häfele, Hartmut; Maier-Häfele, Kornelia (2002): Evaluierung
von Lernmanagement-Systemen: Theorie - Durchführung - Ergebnisse. In:
Hohenstein, Andreas; Wilbers Karl (Eds.) (2002): Handbuch E-Learning, Fachverlag
Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst, Köln.
2. Commission for Africa (2005): Our Common Interest. Report of the Commission for
Africa. Commission for Africa, London.
3. Delrio, Claudio; Fischer, Thomas (2007): HELIOS: Redefining e-Learning
Territories. In: eLearning Papers, 4,
http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media12725.pdf.
4. Ehlers, Ulf-Daniel; Aimard, Virginie; Gwardak, Lukas; Dembski, Sven (2007):
Potentiale von E-Learning für Capacity Building. Studie “E-Learning by InWEnt”,
Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen.
18
5. InWEnt – Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung gGmbH (InWEnt) (2005):
Mainstreaming ICTs for Development: the Key Role of the Private Sector. InWEnt –
Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung gGmbH, Berlin.
6. MENON Network (2007): e-Learning for Innovation. HELIOS Yearly Report 2007.
MENON Network, Brussels.
7. n. a. (2003): Rome Declaration on Harmonization. http://www.un-
kenya.org/RomeDeclaration.pdf, page retrieved on 2008-05-23.
8. n. a. (2004): Joint Marrakech Memorandum.
http://www.mfdr.org/documents/1JointMemorandum05feb04.pdf, page retrieved on
2008-05-24.
9. n. a. (2005): Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Ownership, Harmonisation,
Alignment, Results and Mutual Accountability.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/41/34428351.pdf, page retrieved on 2008-05-23.
10. OECD (2006): The Challenge of Capacity Development. Working Towards Good
Practice. OECD Publishing, Paris.
11. OED (2005): Capacity Building in Africa. An OED Evaluation for World Bank
Support. The World Bank, Washington, D.C..
12. Sachs, Jeffrey D. (Ed.) (2005): Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to
Achieve the Millenium Development Goals. Earthscan, London.
13. Whyte, Anne (2004): Landscape Analysis of Donor Trends in International
Development. The Rockefeller Foundation, New York.
