Sustainable Capacity Building Services Market: A Long Way To Go

22 February 2013
2 comments

In the fall of 2012 CGAP undertook a survey to better understand the dynamics of the market – both demand and supply - for capacity building services for financial service providers. More than 400 financial service providers (FSPs), from all regions and institutional types, reported on their demand for and use of capacity building services to build their own human, organizational, and institutional capacity. On the supply side, over 200 capacity building service providers (CBPs) shared their perspectives and challenges. Respondents included individuals, companies and organizations that offer a range of advisory services, training and skills building, IT services, human resources functions, and market research. The results of the survey are summarized in this presentation.

View the presentation of the capacity building survey results

The survey confirmed that the lack of capacity remains a major bottleneck for scaling up and diversifying quality financial services for low-income people. More than 40 percent of the FSPs that responded indicated that improving the capacity of their business is their main challenge for the coming years. This was especially the case for NGOs, cooperatives and non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs). On the supply side, more than half of the CBPs responding to the survey found that keeping up with the fast evolving financial inclusion space was their biggest challenge.

Mismatch of Demand and Supply

The study revealed a mismatch between demand and supply in terms of content prioritization. FSPs stressed the need for capacity building services in the areas of risk management, strategic planning, innovation, and mid-level people management skills. Yet, only one of these topics was among the top three services offered by capacity building providers. Indeed, CBPs perceive relatively more demand for product development than for mid-level management skills. Their perception of the need for governance is also much higher than FSPs reported in the survey.

Why this mismatch between demand and supply? Some respondents suggested that many FSPs are not aware of their own weaknesses and thus they don’t really know what they need. Yet others posited that “demand” is actually more a reflection of what donors are willing to pay for than the needs FSPs would express left to their own devices. Addressing these demand issues is critical to building a viable market.

Many FSPs still see capacity building services as a cost to doing business as opposed to an investment in growing their businesses. In order for this mindset to shift, it is key for capacity building to demonstrate results through change and improved performance. Capacity building doesn’t work without management buy-in: 86% of FSP respondents reported that managerial support for capacity building is by far the ingredient most likely to lead to change through capacity building.

Subsidies Abound

The majority (85%) of FSPs that have benefitted from capacity building services have found these services worth their money. But what are they actually paying? In most regions, external support – in the form of subsidies and grants - for capacity building remains important for around two-thirds of the FSPs. In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example 25%  of FSPs have training and technical assistance fully-funded by scholarships and grants while 43% pay less than half the costs of those services. One-third of the capacity building service providers indicated that more than 50% of their income is derived from subsidies. Interviews with capacity building providers indicate that these numbers probably underestimate the actual dependence on subsidies. This raises the big question, are these subsidies helping or hurting the market for capacity building services?

Getting the Market for Capacity Building to Work

The views of those who use or deliver capacity building services are revealing: we are still very far from getting the market for capacity building right. Despite years of donor programs that  have an explicit goal of helping build the market for capacity building, the market—where it exists—is highly subsidized with few viable providers able to adapt to an evolving landscape. How do we move beyond this?

Deeper research is needed to understand the constraints, answer some of the big questions we raise, and uncover possible solutions and innovations that will truly facilitate market building. CGAP is planning more research, a case study series, and eventually some new guidance for funders to help move beyond this stalemate. If you have lessons to discuss, please share them in the comments.

 

Comments

Submitted by Der George Kinyanjui on
Well done friends at CGAP. this is a major setback especially trying to transform to the next generation micro credit, saving and insurance. This means becoming technology savvy. Implementation of Mobile banking and automated systems is a costly affair. It really is not a question of IF but rather WHEN if the institutions want to remain relevant and sustainable in future. Consultants have financing difficult serving institutions that traditionally do not have a budget line for capacity building. They rely on grants and donations.This is restrictive and tempting to management. Many times the little available funds are diverted to other uses. I have found it expedient to include a module that introduces the need for establishing a budget line for capacity building, training and development when training the boards and senior management. There is some resistance as is expected in change management but it adds a lot of value in the end analysis. the fund grows and is matched dollar for dollar y donors. It gets exciting.

Submitted by Karla Brom on
I'm glad to see CGAP tackling this important and complicated issue. Capacity building should be an important part of the strategic and annual planning exercises of MFIs yet it is routinely ignored. When it is addressed it is mainly to see what trainings are being offered that senior managers might attend. A better approach might be to understand and plan for (including budgeting) capacity building and skills development at all levels of the organization. As a sector we have provided so much subsidized training that there is not an understanding of the true cost/value of training sessions. The supply and demand of different training topics has been skewed by funder priorities as well. This survey and summary is a great first step in examining this issue and I look forward to further research and recommendations.

Add new comment