The research upon which this article is based sets forth a relational process of building the capacity of non-governmental organizations.

While predominantly donor driven, capacity building cannot be understood by considering only a northern NGO (NNGO) or donor perspective. This study, which considered both northern and southern perspectives, employed an in-depth analysis of over one hundred interviews with four NNGOs and their southern partners, a meta-ethnography of six southern NGO (SNGO) case studies, and a thorough literature review.

Over the past decade, NNGOs have had to move from a direct service-delivery role to one involving partnership, coaching, facilitating, or mentoring with SNGOs (Korten 1990; Stamberg, 1997; Fisher, 1998). An increasing concern with organizational sustainability has created an imperative to build capacity of SNGOs.

The sections below present four capacity-building propositions that emerged from the research. Each is described and then supported with excerpts from my synthesis of the data, highlighting the interplay of northern and southern perspectives.

In the past, capacity building was often considered a one-way street, with donors funding NNGOs and NNGOs directing SNGOs. A hierarchical relationship such as this implies that each level is inferior in some way to the level above it, so donors have not only the right but also the obligation to direct the activities of any NGO. What we are learning today is that all of the agencies involved can learn from each other, thereby providing an interactive relationship. In order to accomplish this transition, however, "NGOs must move from project to process." (Fisher 1998). In 1996, Ndegwa argued that project-based activity is "the greatest threat to organizational sustainability." Capacity building needs to focus on the whole organization and on the skills and relationships an NGO needs as it builds to confront the challenges of today while becoming the transformational organization of tomorrow.

In one sense, capacity building involves the building of relationships between and among people. It is a series of relationships based upon trust and shared objectives. Therefore, in order to work together for the common good, people must believe in and trust each other. In Johnson’s research on global social change organizations (GSCOs), she concluded:

In addition to trust, the relational aspect of capacity building implies a "give and take" element, an openness to dialogue and the mutual exchange of resources. Therefore, respect is of utmost importance between organizations of the North and South. In an environment of trust and mutual respect, organizations can cooperate in building capacity.

Hamel, Oz, and Prahalad (1989) found that organizations getting the most out of their relationships are those which set out to learn from each other. When their members constantly strive both to create and understand values, visions, mission, goals, and objectives and to experiment with new processes and activities to ensure organizational effectiveness, organizations become "learning organizations" (Senge 1990).

Mutual learning and growth is based upon the relationships developed and nurtured among the many individuals, organizations, and agencies involved in development. Oxfam, a British poverty-focused NGO working in over seventy countries around the world, researched and concluded that a mutual learning approach in building capacity "fosters participation and responsibility, both individual and collective; and promotes human creativity and solidarity, instead of reinforcing power and patronage" (Eade 1998).

In the interviews for this study, people repeatedly quoted the classic proverb: "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach him how to fish, and feed him for a lifetime." It applies to the participatory learning process for NNGOs as well as for SNGOs. Consider this NNGO perspective:

In five of the six SNGO studies, members felt that the capacity-building intervention allowed their organizations to challenge their identities and build the necessary capabilities for sustainability. Active learning has the capability to turn the reactive, flailing organization into one of proactive learning. Senge (1990) refers to this as an organization "continually expanding its capacity to create its future."

To be sustainable and effective, capacity building must be a proactive, integrative process of building an organization’s future to exist beyond its initial funding or program activity. It is a multi-level process extending from organizational capacity building, to multi-organizational capacity, and, ultimately, to global capacity.

First level: Organizational capacity. This step occurs when people begin working together to build the internal components of the organization so it can better use its resources (e.g., people, time, and money) to pursue its mission, attain its vision, and achieve its goals in a sustainable existence.

Historically, capacity-building interventions have focused at the organizational level, emphasizing the development of core capabilities and improvements in processes and organizational performance.

Second level: Multi-organizational capacity. As important as the organizational capacity level is, it can become so inwardly focussed that it does little to address opportunities, challenges, and relationships that are external to the organization. In order for it to be successful, the organization must shift its attention outside itself. When this shift in focus involves working with other organizations, the concept of multi-organizational capacity is encountered.

Multi-organizational capacity consists of—developing and nurturing the external relationships beyond the organizational capacity of [the organization’s] board, management, employees, and volunteers. At this level, people are working collaboratively to achieve program or project goals. Together, two or more organizations are collectively pursuing a common vision, mission, or set of objectives. It is multi-organizational capacity that magnifies the scale and impact of the work of a single organization through the support of partnerships, networks, coalitions, and alliances.

It is through the development of multi-organizational capacity that an NGO learns it cannot go it alone. In pursuing its mission, each NGO is part of a complex and dynamic web of relationships. Therefore, to have a significant impact upon those they serve, organizations must be prepared to work with each other.

Counterpart has demonstrated a strong capability in building multi-organizational capacity through partnerships with local and international NGOs, private-sector companies, host governments, and USAID missions. Its affiliates in Australia, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom identify and mobilize resources from over 150 national and international donors, foundations, corporations, individuals, and governments in support of all Counterpart’s programs. Counterpart strongly believes that these affiliations lie at the core of all its programs, and that such a network of partners can produce results far beyond what any single organization could hope to accomplish alone.

Pact, also, believes that multi-organizational capacity can assist in developing governmental policy, help in advocacy, and overall strengthen government and NGO relations. Pact believes that partnerships magnify the scale and impact of the work of a single organization and its organizational capacity. In the words of Pact’s president:

Third level: Global capacity. Slowly gaining attention, this level involves the challenge of responding to transboundary issues such as poverty, war, and the deterioration of the environment. When organizations begin to address these issues at a global level, they enter the third level of capacity building. Global capacity is:

NGOs at the global level must learn to cooperate and work together with individuals and organizations at all levels to create a critical mass of support for global social change. For example, "given that NNGOs, SNGOs, and governments in the South are competing for the same aid resources, an approach that encourages cooperation between them may be the sound and more sustainable option" (Eade 1998).

CEDPA presents an example of global capacity building with its ACCESS program for women. A five-year $25 million program, ACCESS will build a global network in much of the world to link future women leaders together. These women first travel to Washington, DC, for specific skills training. Then they go back to their home countries, where they are connected to a worldwide network. CEDPA also follows up with regional programs in China, East Asia, and West Africa.

In a discussion of global capacity, Pact’s program director of institutional capacity building used the metaphor of the "holy grail":

Appreciative Inquiry is based on the assumption that the best way to see the future is to value and learn from the past and understand what is happening now by "learning about the organization, its relationships, and its environment; and by identifying and building on existing strengths rather than examining in detail problems and deficiencies" (Liebler 1997).

Here are responses from two of the NNGOs to the question, "What is it that best seems to facilitate the capacity-building process?"

Appreciative Inquiry emphasizes a collaborative process of open dialogue to create an image of "the best of what can be" for the future. As the organizations identify and describe their "life-giving" forces, together they can discover and create the future of their organizations with energy, vitality, and commitment. The positive language and affirmation fit with the value systems of these organizations. In addition, the process can be a helpful approach in any capacity-building effort because it requires a "strategic vision, collective action, multiple parties, and an empowering context for innovation and development" (Liebler 1997).

Appreciative Inquiry has been used with many types of organizations, from private and public nonprofit organizations to for-profit organizations, government, and international agencies worldwide. Although the focus of Appreciative Inquiry for NGOs has historically been to help them build organizational capacity, it has often been used to help bring organizations together in building multi-organizational capacity.

The ten organizations in the study (six SNGOs and four NNGOs) demonstrated how capacity building can be operationalized and sustained. In this relational capacity-building framework, an organization’s efforts to build capacity are a function of the interplay at three levels. Conceptually, it is important to see organizational, multi-organizational, and global capacity levels as interacting and overlapping. There is a danger to the organization of viewing capacity building in isolation or at one level at a time because capacity building does not begin with organizational capacity nor end with global capacity. Rather, capacity building involves the entire network of relationships in society, from those developed at the organizational level to those at the multi-organizational and global levels.

Therefore, one might say that the building of relationships via multi-level capacity building is laying a foundation for civil society and sustainable development.