Steps

0. Define the problem owner who wants to intervene (more effectively)

0. Formulate the (sub-) question that you want to answer by making the institutiogramme. Suitable aims of using an institutiogramme are:

  • To position a project or programme (choosing who implements what and/or who co-ordinates/supervises)
  • To develop key relationships (identifying bottlenecks and designing institutional interventions)
  • To prepare strategic choices (on what to produce and how to serve your mission)

0. Define the field of analysis

  • Define the sector or service/product
  • Define the geographical area
  • Decide whether you depict the current, expected (when?) or desired situation:
  • Clearly distinguish desired from current and/or expected
  • Analyse the desired situation only after the current and/or forecasted situation
  • Comparing current and expected or desired situations can be of added value

1. Define the orientation. This may be:

  • Radian (only depicting relations between the central actor and the others), or
  • Network (depicting the relationships between all actors)

2. Define the type of actors to include

  • Define the level: clusters of organisations (e.g. 'NGO's'), individual organisations, units within organisations, and/or individuals within units
  • Define the type: public, private, target group

3. Identify and position the actors in a map (if you identify more than 20 actors, split into more institutiogrammes)

Note: If you analyse a sector or programme implemented by several actors, place the actors that are under the control of the problem owner in the middle and draw a line around them. This helps you to distinguish relations under control and outside the control of the problem owner. Observe that this demarcation is narrower than the entire sector. Also note that this border may shift depending on which actors you contract for implementation. Before strategic orientation, verify that in- and outside are distinguished unambiguously

4. Optional: Cluster and order the actors as follows, to further a comprehensiveness:

  • (Potential) implementers in the centre
  • Suppliers to the left
  • Co-ordinators and supervisors above
  • Regulators and macro-actors on top of the co-ordinators
  • Stimulators (e.g. donors) below
  • Immediate/intermediate target groups or clients to the right
  • Ultimate target groups to the far right

5. Define the type of relations to look into (in relation to your question). Suggestions:

  • Hierarchy
  • Services/inputs
  • Communication
  • Co-operation
  • Financial flow

6. Draw arrows to show the relations in the map, using

  • Different types/colours of lines for different types of relations
  • An arrow at one end (or both ends) of all lines
  • Including also (actual) informal relations (may be with a different line than formal relations)

7. Show the intensity of relations (frequency and importance, e.g. with line thickness)

8. Judge the adequacy of the relations (in view of your question), and show your judgement in the map. Also look at relations that do not exist, and add your judgement on cards below the map. In your judgement refer to the BQ and/or assess relations in terms of:

  • Timeliness
  • Quantity
  • Quality of service delivery

Note: Try to distinguish judgement of the internal and external situation. If your relationship with another actor is good/bad,

  • To what extend does it characterise the other (opportunity/threat), and
  • To what extend is this caused by you (strength/weaknesses - remember them for the internal analysis)

Note: Do not have lengthy debate about whether a relation is positive or negative. In case of uncertainty or disagreement:

  • Check whether the judgement is based on the basic question. If the basic question seems pointless or vague, refine the question
  • Split the relation into sub-relations that are positive and negative
  • Give the relation both a positive and a negative judgement, or no judgement at all

Note if there is insufficient information about certain facts, this can be noted for further research. 'Being uninformed' is in itself also a weakness or threat

9. Analyse the institutiogramme, resulting in observations and conclusions:

  • Who do you propose to give which (implementing or co-ordination) task?
  • Which (key) actor do you need to analyse further?
  • What ID interventions should be undertaken?
  • Where are (main) plusses (called opportunities - write them on yellow cards) and what are main negative relations (threats - write them on blue cards)?

Note: If you analyse relations between actors who are both under the control of the problem owner within a sector or programme, then classify the relations as strengths and weaknesses. Call plusses strengths (write them on green cards) and minuses weaknesses (write them on red cards)