At ASI, we’ve spent over 30 years delivering technical assistance (TA) in some of the most complex governance and reform environments globally. From remote ministries in subnational governments in Somalia to frontline service delivery in Pakistan to building a new police force in parts of Syria held by the opposition to Assad’s regime, we’ve seen TA at its most effective, and at times, its most challenging.

Throughout, we’ve adapted our approach, learning what works, what doesn’t, and why. Our experience tells us that TA works – when it is done right. The most impactful TA we’ve delivered has been politically smart, contextually grounded, flexible in delivery, and focused on long-term systems change rather than short-term fixes. This is the approach we’ve taken at ASI, including in our work with the FCDO. While tools and contexts continue to evolve, one lesson remains constant: effective TA isn’t about importing solutions; it’s about working in partnership with governments to co-create sustainable, locally owned change.

TA remains a cornerstone of international development. At its best, it enables governments to tackle complex problems—from policy design and institutional reform to systems strengthening and capacity building. TA encompasses various functions, including addressing staffing and skills gaps, introducing new technology and processes, developing and delivering policy and regulation, managing institutional change, and providing training.

But it’s not without its critics. When not designed and delivered well, TA can fail to build long-term institutional capacity, even when it succeeds in upskilling individuals. It can create dependency on donor-financed programmes and lacks local ownership due to insufficient buy-in from top levels of the recipient government. The limitations of conventional TA delivery models have been known for a while.

Throughout, we’ve adapted our approach, learning what works, what doesn’t, and why. Our experience tells us that TA works – when it is done right. The most impactful TA we’ve delivered has been politically smart, contextually grounded, flexible in delivery, and focused on long-term systems change rather than short-term fixes. This is the approach we’ve taken at ASI, including in our work with the FCDO. While tools and contexts continue to evolve, one lesson remains constant: effective TA isn’t about importing solutions; it’s about working in partnership with governments to co-create sustainable, locally owned change.

Delivering Smart TA – the need for continuous learning and adaptation

Here are five practical lessons from our experience on how to design better TA and ensure effective delivery. 

1. Putting Political Economy Analysis at the centre: To design a successful TA intervention, one must start with a granular PEA of the target institution – an analysis of who the key decisionmakers are, the winners and losers from the status quo and how that is likely to change if the reforms are implemented. The nature of TA to be delivered needs to be tailored to the specific context one has to operate in and will look very different depending on whether the intervention is situated in say, Somalia, or Ghana. For example, in Uganda, where we examined the application of administrative sanctions in the civil service as part of major FCDO anti-corruption prgramme, the challenge was not purely technical – the legislative framework and theory was in place – but the implementation gap stubbornly remained. This analysis takes time and requires investment in building relationships. This is time worth spending and should precede (and inform) technical diagnostic assessments. A politically informed diagnosis provides the basis for an approach that tackles root-causes instead of patching skills gaps. It can prompt donors towards focusing on issues that matter in moving the needle towards better governance rather than scattered interventions that achieve little impact. 

The next step is to integrate PEA into everyday TA activity. There are some amazing technical advisers out there but they are not supermen and women. They are individuals with rare and highly honed skillsets – experts in intergovernmental fiscal transfers or virtual asset regulatory frameworks may be world leaders in their fields but, often, they’ll only work best when they are truly part of a multi-disciplinary team. Hiring a dedicated role within the core team to support everyday PEA and provide on-demand assistance for the technical team is crucial, particularly for complex programmes operating in politically sensitive environments. This role is critical in the creation of the authorising environment that Matt Andrews et al (Building State Capability at Harvard Kennedy School) talk about in their work by retaining the ability to operate with political neutrality and engage principals in government to resolve problems. This role also ensures that management and technical teams receive regular, actionable political insights, enabling the programme to design activities that are forward-looking and reflective of the emerging risks and opportunities. While effective, this approach does come with increased operational costs. This however should be seen as one of the acceptable trade-offs that need to be made to implement Smart TA. 

2. Design for adaptive management and be open to innovation: Smart TA requires flexibility but often, programme designs are rigidly defined by project cycles and reporting requirements. For example, one should start by designing and embedding a flexible results framework that allows for multiple pathways towards the stated outcome. This way, adaptiveness is built into the structure of the TA rather than it being something where approvals are required for every change. It is vital that clients, counterparts and implementers see this as a joint endeavour based on mutual trust so that a broad direction can be set and all parties held accountable to it through rapid feedback loops, but without the rigidity of pre-determined activities and timescales.

TA teams must be open to a variety of approaches – from teaching to coaching to mentoring, depending on what works best at different stages of capacity. For example, a key feature of ASI’s Climate Finance Accelerator (CFA) work was its emphasis on networking and partnership-building as part of TA. Rather than just offering technical advice in isolation, the programme convened workshops and networking events where project developers could meet investors, banks, and donors. Being open to a multiplicity of approaches is vital if we are to nurture and encourage the real innovations that every government, donor and implementer wants to see. Innovation practices and frameworks are used to fantastic effect in the world of private sector tech and adaptive management and focus on outcomes are critical components of these approaches.

3. Building trusted relationships: As we have repeatedly witnessed in our programmes in Nigeria and Somalia, relationship management is a critical success factor in TA, particularly in sensitive sectors like security. Technical experts often focus on outputs, but this case proves that investing in partnerships and trust can be equally important. Regular consultation, responsiveness to feedback, and demonstrating respect for local counterparts builds credibility – which then accelerates implementation and improves the chance that reforms stick. Another lesson is the value of ownership transfer: in Northern Nigeria, by involving local stakeholders deeply in the work (co-creation of solutions, joint decision-making), the eventual handover became a formality rather than a hurdle. As TA providers, we were ready to assist with partner needs as they arise (even if not strictly within scope), as this flexibility yielded goodwill that pushed the broader objectives forward. In summary, building trust and buy-in through strong stakeholder engagement and adaptability in execution emerge as best practices for ensuring TA realise sustainable outcomes. 

Buy-in from recipients of TA is not a cliché – it can make the difference between a successful intervention and another one that ended up focusing on form over function. On a large FCDO-funded anti-corruption programme in Uganda for example, we supported institutional leaders to convene around functional performance data. Leaders presented their own institution’s performance data to their peers and (we believe) the ‘peer pressure’ spurred better performance each quarter. 

4. Focus on process of change: Traditional monitoring focuses on activity completion and output delivery. Smart TA requires metrics that can capture changes in behaviour and relationships, and institutional effectiveness. In an anti-corruption and accountability programme in Ghana, tools such as monthly programme diaries offered a structured format to collect the data that were used to advocate with donors for changes to modes of engagement – from workshops to structured mentoring, or the other way around for instance. More broadly, these tools help to compile insights from everyday work, including context assessments, evolving interventions, risks and opportunities. These diaries can focus on critical programmatic themes with specific prompts – such as gathering data on the institutional environment, key relationships, intervention-wise progress, risks, etc. 

Besides working as a basic source of institutional memory and first-hand information for programme strategy and operations, this diary helps to inform monthly strategic reflections. Over time, 

the team is able to capture the process of change as it unfolds in counterpart institutions. Teams can revisit earlier decisions, trace how context and relationships have shifted, and test whether key assumptions still hold. Crucially, this helps the TA team stay grounded in the realities of implementation, especially in complex or politically sensitive environments. 

5. Track failures as well as successes: Learning from failures is not mere platitude. Smart TA requires implementers who can constantly adapt based on what they see not working in their approach, along with building on what is working. They draw lessons from elsewhere that can be tailored to their own contexts. For instance, in one context, after eighteen months of hitting a brick wall with a set of international experts with a Ministry of Finance, we were able to convince the donor to amend the programme documents to allow for a change in the composition of the team, making it a team of predominantly national advisers. This transformed the programme entirely. In order to push for such changes, one needs to document rigorously not just what worked or not, but why it worked (or not) and under what conditions. This knowledge should then be regularly shared with all those involved so that it becomes the foundation for improved programme design and implementation. 

Too often, documentation is treated as an administrative burden, reduced to templated reporting that primarily serves donor compliance. But when done right, documentation can give implementers the evidence to push for course correction. When things aren’t going well, it can help shift the conversation from blame to strategy. This means creating space for field teams to reflect, share discomforts, and flag emerging blind spots without fear of repercussion – involving the implementer, TA recipients and donors. A culture of learning does not emerge from quarterly review meetings alone – it requires deliberate design and active leadership that rewards honest reflection and a focus on continuous learning. 

Conclusion: Delivering effective technical assistance presents significant challenges. However, with thorough preparation, thoughtful design, and realistic appraisal of the political environment, meaningful progress can be achieved. Based on our experience, it is essential for TA programmes to prioritise recipient governments as the primary stakeholders, rather than focusing solely on donors—this perspective forms the foundation upon which the previously outlined principles can be implemented. The practical strategies discussed here are informed by our lessons learned and demonstrate actionable pathways toward achieving success.

In summary, Adam Smith International’s involvement in various technical assistance programmes indicates that smarter design and implementation practices can significantly influence outcomes. Adopting flexible, locally informed approaches, considering political and ethical aspects, and encouraging technical expertise and collaboration can yield successful results in challenging environments. The examples provided illustrate these approaches. As the aid landscape evolves, adaptability and a commitment to learning are increasingly necessary. Implementers have to use continuous feedback and learning, promote open dialogue, and approach complex situations with humility. Applying these principles throughout the programme cycle can help ensure that technical assistance remains a relevant and effective instrument of change in international development.