Strengthening Legislative Oversight for Water Service Delivery in Public Schools in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Guest blog by Dr. Mxolisi R. Mchunu, IPP ’26
One of my most important lessons from the Implementation and Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA) programme is that complex public-sector problems rarely have simple causes or straightforward solutions. My initial instinct was to analyse the problem carefully and identify the appropriate solution. PDIA challenged me to think differently: start somewhere, act, learn, adapt and act again.
The course taught me to distinguish between the problem itself, its causes, potential solutions and my own sphere of influence. Tools such as the fishbone diagram and the Triple-A framework helped me understand the problem more systematically while also forcing me to examine my own authority, acceptance and ability as a change agent.
I also learned that implementation is fundamentally about people. Building relationships, listening to frontline colleagues, communicating effectively, delegating responsibility and gradually building authorization can be as important as having a technically sound solution.
Perhaps most importantly, I learned to become more comfortable with uncertainty. In complex environments, waiting until everything is understood before acting can itself become a barrier to progress.
My implementation challenge focused on recurring water supply disruptions and prolonged water infrastructure failures in public schools in uMkhanyakude District, KwaZulu-Natal.
The problem has significant consequences for learners and educators, including compromised hygiene, unsafe learning environments, disruption of teaching and learning, and increased health risks.
My interest in the problem came from my professional role in legislative oversight. However, I deliberately did not define the problem as a failure of legislative oversight. Rather, I treated the water failures as the public service delivery problem and asked:
How can the KwaZulu-Natal Legislature strengthen its oversight function to improve the timely resolution of water supply disruptions and water infrastructure failures in public schools in uMkhanyakude District?
This distinction became important because it prevented me from assuming the solution before properly understanding the problem.
The process significantly changed my understanding of the problem.
My initial analysis focused largely on infrastructure and service delivery. Through successive iterations of the fishbone analysis, I identified a wider range of contributing factors: unclear accountability, fragmented information, weak coordination, limited technical capacity, procurement and resource constraints, slow response times, weak follow-through and inadequate monitoring.
Fishbone Diagram
The subsequent iterations helped me see that the persistence of the problem was not only about whether infrastructure existed or whether resources were available. It was also about what happens after a problem is identified and reported: Who is responsible? What is the response? Is the response monitored? Who follows up? What happens when deadlines are missed? How is completion verified?
This insight led me to identify a practical entry point within my change space: the tracking and follow-up of legislative oversight resolutions.
I therefore developed a prototype Legislative Oversight Resolution Tracking System (LORTS). The intention is to record resolutions, identify responsible institutions, monitor deadlines, track responses, verify evidence and ensure that unresolved matters remain visible for further committee action.
Importantly, I do not regard LORTS as a finished solution. It is a small experiment designed to generate learning. Rather than attempting to reform the entire legislative oversight system immediately, I intend to test the approach using a small sample of committee resolutions, gather feedback and refine it through successive iterations.
The process also generated personal insights. I recognised that I sometimes retain too much responsibility because I want to ensure quality. The programme challenged me to delegate more deliberately and create opportunities for colleagues to contribute and take ownership.
The photographs above capture different stages of the intervention: the Principal of Nkomo Special School briefing the Portfolio Committee and other stakeholders on the work undertaken; a multiparty delegation of Members of the Legislature participating in the oversight process; and a letter from the Principal of Khulani Special School thanking the Legislature for its intervention. Together, they illustrate how a long-standing service-delivery problem can begin to shift when evidence, stakeholder engagement and political oversight are brought together.
The water challenge at these schools had persisted for more than 15 years. Yet, following the Legislature’s intervention and coordinated engagement with the relevant stakeholders, the immediate water problem was resolved within a matter of weeks. This experience provided an important practical lesson for my PDIA journey: the existence of a problem for a long period does not necessarily mean that it requires an elaborate solution. Sometimes the critical issue is finding the right entry point, bringing the right actors together, creating accountability and maintaining follow-through.
The intervention was preceded by extensive preparatory groundwork by my colleagues and myself (Mxolisi Mchunu), who engaged key stakeholders—including the District Department of Education, the local Water Authority, the District Municipality, traditional leadership and local councillors—before briefing the Portfolio Committee. This reflected the PDIA principle of starting with the problem, understanding the system around it, engaging those closest to the problem and using that knowledge to identify practical action.
The Education Portfolio Committee subsequently conducted school oversight visits across uMkhanyakude District. Four special schools were selected as pilot sites to champion inclusive education and strengthen support systems in the district:
- Khulani Special School
- Nkomo Special School
- Sisizakele Special School
- Mpontshini Special School
For me, this experience brought PDIA to life. The process moved from listening, to understanding, to coordinating, to acting, and then to learning from the result. It demonstrated that effective oversight is not simply about identifying problems; it is also about creating the conditions for institutions to respond to them.
“The oversight visit did not begin at the school gate. It began with listening. Extensive preparatory work by Dr Mxolisi Mchunu involved engagement with the District Department of Education, the local Water Authority, the District Municipality, traditional leadership and local councillors before the matter was taken to the Portfolio Committee.”
The Portfolio Committee Chairperson and Team Leader, Hon. D. Mavimbela (Member of the Provincial Legislature).
This was consistent with the PDIA approach of starting with the problem, understanding the system around it and bringing different actors into the problem-solving process.
The Education Portfolio Committee subsequently conducted school oversight visits across uMkhanyakude District. Four special schools were selected as pilot sites to champion inclusive education and strengthen support systems: Khulani Special School, Nkomo Special School, Sisizakele Special School and Mpontshini Special School.
For me, these visits demonstrated an important PDIA lesson: formal oversight is more meaningful when it is grounded in the realities experienced by people at the frontline. The visits provided an opportunity to test what we had learned, listen to schools and communities, challenge our assumptions and identify where practical interventions could begin. This is the essence of an iterative approach—listen, understand, act, learn and adapt.
PDIA will change the way I approach complex problems.
In the future, I am less likely to begin by asking, “What is the correct solution?” Instead, I will ask: “What is the problem, what do we know about it, where is my change space, and what small action can generate useful learning?”
I will also pay greater attention to informal relationships and local knowledge. Formal reports provide important information, but people working directly within a system often understand its practical constraints and opportunities much better.
I will continue to use tools such as the fishbone analysis and Triple-A framework, but more importantly, I will apply the underlying PDIA mindset: iteration rather than perfection, learning rather than assumption, and adaptation rather than rigid implementation.
I am already applying the learning through the continued development of LORTS. My next step is to test the prototype with a small sample of committee resolutions and work with committee researchers and support staff to assess its practicality.
I will use the feedback and evidence generated from this pilot to refine the system and engage committee leadership and other relevant stakeholders. If the experiment demonstrates value, I will use the evidence to build authorization for broader adoption.
More broadly, I intend to apply PDIA to my work in legislative oversight, public finance and institutional development. Many of the challenges I encounter involve multiple institutions, competing priorities and limited resources. PDIA provides a practical framework for navigating this complexity without pretending that a perfect solution can be designed from the outset.
The approach is also influencing how I think about leadership. I am becoming more intentional about delegation, communication, prioritisation and self-care so that I can sustain my contribution over the longer term.
My advice is simple: do not wait for the perfect solution before you act.
Complex problems can be intimidating because they involve many causes, institutions and stakeholders. The temptation is to undertake more analysis, develop a comprehensive plan and seek complete authorization before taking the first step.
My experience has taught me that sometimes the better approach is to start small, act carefully, listen, learn and adapt.
Do not underestimate the value of a small experiment. A modest intervention can generate evidence, reveal hidden constraints, build relationships and create the authorization needed for something bigger.
I would also encourage practitioners to understand their own change space. You may not have formal authority to solve the entire problem, but you may have enough authority, acceptance and ability to influence one part of the system.
Finally, remember that implementation is not a straight line. There will be setbacks, resistance and unexpected discoveries. These should not necessarily be viewed as failures. In a PDIA approach, they are sources of information.
For me, the greatest lesson has been this:
Complex problems are not solved simply by having better answers. They are addressed by creating the conditions in which better answers can emerge through action, learning and adaptation.
My PDIA journey is therefore not ending with this programme. It is continuing with the next iteration.
This is a blog series written by the alumni of the Implementing Public Policy Executive Education Program at the Harvard Kennedy School. 33 Participants successfully completed this 5-month hybrid program in September 2026. These are their learning journey stories.