Table 1. Three approaches to technical assistance.

	Capacity substitution	Capacity supplementation	Capacity development
Role for the advisor	DOER, performing government functions	PARTNER, providing specific support to the government (in most cases, technical support on specialised areas)	FACILITATOR, working with government to enable change and facilitate complex processes
Policy need	The government needs specific inputs but does not have the capacity to provide them – sometimes the need is urgent and no capacity is available, at other times the capacity needed is a niche that the government would not invest in beyond the current assignment so they in-source.     •   Clear technical problem     •   Known solution/output     •   Capacity constraints that cannot         be filled with existing resources	The government needs specific expert inputs in certain areas.     •   Moderately sophisticated         problems     •   Specific technical inputs         required     •   Government requires         additional support but         leads the process	The government needs support in implementing a complex change process, and it requires specialised support to facilitate the process.     •   Complex change management         problems     •   It is not clear what type of         support is required     •   Support in identifying problems         to solve, and testing different         solutions, is required     •   The government will be         involved and in the driving seat
Programme characteristics	•   Clearly defined outputs to be         delivered and reported against     •   Led by external actors with         control from the government         counterparts     •   Limited or no learning, the         programme is mainly focusing         on outputs     •   The advisors are expected to         have technical competencies,         and to be local or international         experts.	•   Predefined outputs but         also outcome-based         technical support     •   Led by the government         counterparts or external         actors     •   Learning depends on the         context, the implementing         partner, and it is not         necessarily embedded in         the programme design.     •   The advisors are expected         to have both technical         and professional skills,         sometimes including         facilitation skills in a         specific area. In most         cases, the expectation         for the experts is to have         international expertise.	•   Outcomes-based programmes,         with flexible and adaptive         programme framework         - regularly updated to navigate         existing spaces for reform.     •   Led by the government and         facilitated by external actors.     •   The role of the advisor is to         manage a process, rather than         the content of the programme.     •   Learning is central to         programme design – both         real-time learning for course         correction as well as learning         about what works, what doesn’t         and why in that particular         context.     •   The advisors can be both local         and international, and the type         of competencies required refer         primarily to their facilitation         skills and capacity to work with         senior leaders and bureaucrats         – although technical skills and         experience in the area of work         will be appreciated.
Enabling conditions	•   Clearly identified gap in existing         capacity     •   High levels of acceptance that         there is a capacity gap to be         filled     •   Some open channels to other         government departments         impacted by the work of the         technical advisor     •   Authorisation to work on filling         the capacity gap	•   Medium levels of authority         to engage on the subject     •   Medium levels of         acceptance, ability, and         willingness to partner with         the advisor on the subject     •   An initial identification of         areas of support needed	•   High levels of acceptance that         there is a problem to be solved/         something needs to be done     •   Authority, ideally from the         highest political levels, to         have the government teams         engaged in the change process     •   At least medium level of ability         of the government team to         work on the change process
Key risks	•   Lack of acceptance at various         levels in the government         (sometimes, a principal may         request support but others         in government may feel         threatened or just not accept         that the support is needed)     •   Lack of authority in government         (the person who opts for this         activity may lose authority or         may not have authority over the         relevant departments)     •   When this is based on supply,         rather than demand, it may         end up duplicating efforts and         damaging the current reform         efforts	•   Lack of engagement         from the government:         sometimes the         government may ask         the advisor to lead the         process, which eventually         damages the level of         ownership of the results     •   No authority in         government     •   When this is based         on supply rather than         demand, it may provide         highly technical advice, but         not grounded in the local         political economy     •   No follow-through         after the end of the         programme/ the funding         period     •   No capacity developed,         given a limited         involvement from the         government counterparts     •   Unintended consequences         of diverting resources         from other reform areas	•   Having the support of a         recognised authority in         government is critical to         undertake this type of activity.         Relying too much on only one     •   person may damage the         success of the programme     •   Losing the interest of the         principal, for instance by         focusing on too many long-         term results and not enough         quick wins to create acceptance     •   Focusing too much on         developing technical skills and         not understanding the political         economy     •   Serious gaps in terms of         hardware, infrastructure, supply         chains, staff available     •   Unintended consequences of         diverting resources from other         reform areas