Upload
lindsay-stokes
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Content
• Added value in Structural Funds• PCM / LFA• Output based subsidies• Outcome mapping• Conclusions
1
Complexity is back again
• PCM and OBF are „static“ approaches.• They assume the environment is pretty
stable (at least within the lifespan of a project).
• But, as we know, the world is complex. • Outcome mapping is one option how to
deal with this.
3
Logical framework for COP RBM + network
4
• Equal Opportunities case study in hand-out
5
Further reading
Name of your presentation
Outcome mapping “intentional design” as one approach to dealing with complexity in a better way
7
8
improved human, social, & environmental wellbeing
Step 1:
9
A vision statement..
• guides
• motivates and inspires
• is an ‘accountability-free zone’
10
Vision facilitation question
“Imagine that in 3-5 years the world has changed. The well-being of your intended beneficiaries has improved beyond your most ambitious dreams. What changes have occurred? Who is doing what differently? How have the actors changed? What conditions are influencing people’s well-being?”
Describe the world you seek to help bring about.
11
Vision facilitation question
“Imagine that in 3-5 years the world has changed. The well-being of your intended beneficiaries has improved beyond your most ambitious dreams. What changes have occurred? Who is doing what differently? How have the actors changed? What conditions are influencing people’s well-being?”
Describe the world you seek to help bring about.
Requires good knowledge of the
situation which can be gained eg from a …problem analysis
12
COP RBM problem tree, based on situation analysis (see doc.)
COP RBM longer term vision• The network partners have ignited an energetic movement of reform throughout the
European Structural Funds. Fund leadership and their staff are focused on key organizational and societal outcomes. They are also highly attuned to their external environment, aware of emerging threats and opportunities and ready to act upon these swiftly.
• There is a common understanding that change primarily takes root when it involves broad sets of actors engaged together in designing and implementing locally relevant solutions to locally perceived problems, in the public service and in society in general. Collaboration, inviting feed-back, using information purposefully, deliberation, respecting diversity and taking responsibility constitute the core of Fund management. This is reinforced actively at all levels by a highly committed leadership.
• Leading by example, the Funds are actively engaged in stimulating more widespread reform of the public service throughout Europe, at all levels, including the European one. They are acknowledged as centres of excellence in this field.
• Due to this effort, the public sector matches the capacity of the private and non-governmental sectors to perform, innovate and change. It is seen by citizens as being responsive, pro-active and supportive. It is government “with” citizens rather than “for” citizens, therefore strengthening their resilience.
13
14
The mission is that “bite” of the vision statement on which the
project is going to focus.
MissionStep 2:
15
A mission statement:
• Describes what you do, produce
• Identifies your principle collaborators
• Tells how you work with them
COP RBM mission• To contribute towards the vision, the members of the COP “RBM-plus” steering group,
supported by their Mr/Mrs results, take meaningful steps (relevant to them in their particular context) forward in terms of increasing the results orientation of their respective organisations. To this end, they make use of the training and consultancy opportunities as well as the web-based platform that the network, as a partnership, offers to its members.
• In taking steps forward, they generate new insights as to how to approach the kind of reform depicted in the vision of the network. They share the knowledge they gain within the network, through direct contacts, the website and learning seminars, helping their partners to progress even further.
• They also share this knowledge beyond the network, particularly towards initiatives in support of wider public reform, some of which may be financed by their own Structural Fund programmes. To gain further support for these internal efforts to reform as well as any wider public reform initiatives, they each set up a regional / national network of relevant stakeholders (for example academics, officials, politicians, professional associations, social partners, NGOs, etc. ).
• At the EU level, the network will likewise interact with the European Commission (particularly DG EMPL and REGIO), the relevant European Parliament committees, the European Court of Auditors, social partners etc. gaining further support for its mission and vision.
16
17
Summary
✓ feasible, accountable
✓ current
✓ identifies activities, products, services
Vision Mission
✓ idealistic
✓ future ‘world’ conditions
✓ observable wellbeing & interrelationships
18
Boundary Partners
Those individuals, groups, & organizations with whom a project interacts directly to effect change & with whom the project can anticipate some opportunities for influence.
Step 3:
19
BeneficiariesProject Partners
There are limits to our influence
sphere of influence
sphere of concern
20
Who are our Boundary Partners?
Boundary Partners
Beneficiaries
other stakeholders
Project
21
1. Identify actors and stakeholders
2. Categorize actors & stakeholders
Categorizing stakeholders
your allies or strategic partners
(already act in a beneficial way)
your boundary partners
Your boundary partners’ boundary partners
22
• Think of a specific project and write down –during the next break- an answer to the following questions:
• With whom do you work directly in this project?
• In which individuals, groups, or organizations is your project trying to encourage change as a contribution to the vision?
• On whose actions does your success depend?
Boundary partner facilitation questions
STAFF(OF THE RBM+ NETWORK
PARTNERS
CoordinationCOP RBM+
Central Coordinators + Zonal coordinators
VISION
Network Partner Senior Management+
Mr/Mrs Results
PROGRESS MARKERS- - - - -
OUTCOME CHALLENGE
STRATEGY MAPS
STEERING GROUP
Facilitation & Coordination COPFacilitation COP websiteFacilitate consultancy requestsAdmin & FinancesReporting to EC…
COP RBM+ Network
Expected changes
Type of support activities
24
• Describes how one boundary partner is contributing maximally to the vision.
• Defines one boundary partner’s ideal actions, relationships & activities.
Step 4: Outcome Challenge
STAFF(OF THE RBM+ NETWORK
PARTNERS
VISION
PROGRESS MARKERS- - - - -
OUTCOME CHALLENGE
COP RBM+ Network
Expected changes
The steering group members and the Mr/Mrs result work with staff to bring about the following changes in staff behavior:
Staff take a variety of initiatives out of their own accord to change and improve the way they work, based on constant critical thinking. This leads to taking actions that benefit the
“clients” (project promotors), such as reducing administrative burden and conducting the required verification and other
processes faster. However, staff do more than work on files. They take ownership of the issues their programme is trying to
address, which becomes visible by their engagement in dialogue with relevant stakeholders, including constituents, whose needs
are always at the top of their mind. They seek feed-back from their colleagues and the outside world about what they are
doing, learn from it and use it. They regularly give an account of what they have done and why they have done it to those that
they touch with their work and allow these to contest what they are doing.
Outcome ChallengeIdeal desired changes in practice/behavior of the staff from the participating network partners.
26
Progress Markers
(Deep transformation)
(Active engagement)
(Early positive responses)
Love to see
Like to see
Expect to see
Step 5:
Love to see
Like to see
Like to see
Expect to see
Like to see
Like to see
Expect to see
Like to see
Like to see
Expect to see
28
inputs activitiesoutputs
Changes in behaviour as ‘outcomes’
sphere of influence
sphere of concern
o u t c o m e s
changes in conditions, well-being
changed patterns of behavior
technical training
unemployed acquires social and personal skills
Unemployed applies more often and more focused for a new job on own initiative
Unemployed gets job that fits profile
coaching on the work floor
training in job application
personal skills training
unemployed acquires technical skills
acquires skills to apply for a job
Getting unemployed towards durable jobs
?
?
Increased social
inclusionUnemployed applies new
skills?
?
Screening better idea of labour market and own potential
Stays in the job and works longer
?
In this case only one boundary partner identified: what about others (e.g. employers)
30
Progress Marker Checklist
• Each Progress Marker:Describes a change in the boundary partner’s
behaviorCan be monitored & observed
• As a set, Progress Markers:Are graduated from preliminary to more profound
changesDescribe the change process of a single boundary
partner
31
Generic Stages in a Journey of Change
1. Learning about the journey
2. Taking the first tentative steps
3. Strengthening skills & knowledge
4. Committing to the journey
5. Investing own resources
6. Overcoming obstacles
7. Owning, identifying with the changes
8. Leading, influencing, leaving a legacy
COP RBM progress markers1 Staff ask for information in order to be engaged in the journey of change towards an RBM
organisation2 Staff ask to participate in RBM-related trainings and similar opportunities that cover personal
needs for skills development to improve professional competences (e.g. management and leadership)
3 Management (Heads of Unit) communicate about results from projects4 Staff give more feedback and coach each other on how to improve their work in terms of RBM5 Units meet with each other on a regular basis to coordinate and discuss improvement in terms
of RBM6 Staff present concrete ideas to be more result oriented7 Staff apply practices and experiences gathered from each other in daily work8 Staff coach promoters on results orientation 9 Staff use relevant sources of information to learn about the needs of constituents/citizens10 Staff seek feedback from their colleagues and the outside world about what they are doing,
learn from it and use it11 Staff set up working groups with other external actors to remove barriers to results12 Staff discuss and assess results with promoters and the citizens they serve alongside controls 13 Staff facilitate active ownership with relevant partners 14 Management encourages staff to critically assess the ways of working 15 Staff anticipate the consequences of decisions
32
33
causal persuasive supportive
Iaimed at
individual boundary partner
stronginfluence
arouse new thinking;
build skills, capacity
on-going support
Eaimed at boundary partner’s
environment
alter the physical,
regulatory or
information environment
broad information dissemination; access to
new info
create / strengthen
peer networks
Step 6: Strategy Map
34
causal persuasive supportive
Iaimed at
individual boundary partner
what will be done to produce
immediate outputs?
what will be done to build
capacity?
how will sustained support,
guidance or mentoring be
provided?
Eaimed at boundary partner’s
environment
what will be done to alter
the physical or policy
environment?
how will the media or
publications be used?
what networks or relationships
will be established or
utilized?
Facilitation questions ?I-2 I-3I-1
E-1 E-2 E-3
35
Step 7: Organizational Practices
How does your team or organization stay relevant, viable and effective?
36
Organizational Practices
1. Prospecting for new ideas, opportunities, and resources
2. Consulting knowledgeable informants
3. Maintaining the support of your next highest power
4. Assessing and redesigning products, services, systems, and procedures
37
…organizational practices
5. Getting feedback from those already served
6. Sharing your learning with the world
7. Experimenting to remain innovative
8. Engaging in organizational reflection
38
Step 8-12
• Monitoring Priorities: identify whether the project wants to monitor:Changes in the Boundary Partners (Outcome
Journal, Step 9)The effectiveness of its own strategies
(Strategy Journal, Step 10)Its functioning as an organization
(Performance Journal, Step 11)
• Evaluation strategy (Step 12)
Name of your presentation
40
Journal for Monitoring OutcomesOutcome Monitoring Journal
Period of monitoring and data collection: Contributors to Monitoring Update: Name of the person(s) who compiled the journal: Outcome Challenge:
Based on your analysis of each progress marker, please indicate the number on the scale that best represents the boundary partner's progress in achieving the progress marker (1 indicates no activity towards the progress marker while 7 represents full achievement of the progress marker) Not started yet/no activity towards progress marker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Progress marker reached/strong activity towards progress marker noted Progress markers What happened (who, how,
what, where) Date (when)
Strategy Used and its Efectiveness
Follow up/corrective measures Evidence (documents etc.)
1)
Not started yet/no activity towards progress marker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Progress marker reached/strong activity towards progress marker noted
2)
Not started yet/no activity towards progress marker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Progress marker reached/strong activity towards progress marker noted
3)
Not started yet/no activity towards progress marker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Progress marker reached/strong activity towards progress marker noted
4)
Not started yet/no activity towards progress marker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Progress marker reached/strong activity towards progress marker noted
5)
Not started yet/no activity towards progress marker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Progress marker reached/strong activity towards progress marker noted
Thanks to Kevin Kelpin
41
PROGRESS MARKERS
UK
Swed
en
Bel
gium
Fla
nde
rs
Bel
gium
Fr
Bul
gari
a
Slov
enia
Gre
ece
heal
th
Pol
and
Lit
hua
nia
Chec
h R
ep.
Gre
ece
Edu
cati
on
1 Staff ask for information in order to be engaged in the journey of change towards an RBM organisation
2 Staff ask to participate in RBM-related trainings and similar opportunities that cover personal needs for skills development to improve professional competences (e.g. management and leadership)
3 Management (Heads of Unit) communicate about results from projects
4 Staff give more feedback and coach each other on how to improve their work in terms of RBM
5 Units meet with each other on a regular basis to coordinate and discuss improvement in terms of RBM
6 Staff present concrete ideas to be more result oriented
7 Staff apply practices and experiences gathered from each other in daily work
8 Staff coach promoters on results orientation 9 Staff use relevant sources of information to
learn about the needs of constituents/citizens
X
10 Staff seek feedback from their colleagues and the outside world about what they are doing, learn from it and use it
X
11 Staff set up working groups with other
Color code for changes progress markers No progress in 2013 Initial changes in 2013 Bigger changes in 2103
Example OUTCOME journal COP RBM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ….
42
What were key hindering factors affecting the achievement of progress markers?
- Volatile political situation which affects also PMO’s senior and middle management;
- Strong focus on absorption of Structural Funds rather than on the results;
- Very poor evaluation culture, (not just in terms of ministerial capacity building, also the outsourced reports are mainly descriptive-based, too),
evaluation is not perceived as a management tool;
- PMO is still predominantly audit-driven in terms of performance management;
- Unclear procedures regarding the field of lobbying (roadmap to prevent illegal lobbying is being elaborated in collaboration with Commision for Prevention of Corruption right now)
PROGRESS MARKERS Synthesis of progress in 2013
Describe briefly the progress for each PM with the main changes observed in the respective countries
1 Staff ask for information in order to be engaged in the journey of change towards an RBM organisation
We had a few requests from our co-workers to share experience from seminars in journey to COP RBM. Several of co-workers asked us to send the COP handbook although there was never a feedback or any questions from them regarding the content of the handbook or RBM agenda to enhance the debate. That’s why it’s only an initial progress.
What were key stimulating factors that assisted in achieving progress?
- Informal observations from the EC regarding the draft version of Partnership Agreement 2014-2020 promote the importance of results,
- The completion of projects from the 2007-2013 programming period – gradual emergence of result-based questions by journalists and EC (f.e., what has been achieved by certain project? What was the benefit for the citizen/constituents?)
Example OUTCOME journal COP RBM
Strategy journal
Name of your presentation
Name of your presentationPerformance Journal
WORK DATING FROM/TO: CONTRIBUTORS TO MONITORING UPDATE: PRACTICE 1. PROSPECTING FOR NEW IDEAS, OPPORTUNITIES, & RESOURCES EXAMPLE OR INDICATORS SOURCE OF EVIDENCE: LESSONS: PRACTICE 2. CONSULTING KNOWLEDGEABLE INFORMANTS EXAMPLE OR INDICATORS SOURCE OF EVIDENCE: LESSONS: PRACTICE 3. MAINTAINING THE SUPPORT OF YOUR NEXT HIGHEST POWER EXAMPLE OR INDICATORS SOURCE OF EVIDENCE: LESSONS:
Simplification and outcome mapping
• Outcome mapping presupposes financial simplification • Staff interact much more frequently with project:
Must be clear how project starts in the short term… then make agreement when to report back relating to which with what kind of
answer (e.g. in 3 months) depending on the nature of the project… …in person at the PMO Bring also financial/administrative pieces for verification (if deep financial
simplification this entails mainly registration and sub-contracting which can be verified quickly)
• As one person “interviews”, the other checks: probably done in 2 hours• Or could be done in advance, resolving any issues during the meeting
What is checked here is not rechecked afterwards! Short minutes are made and agreed (audit trail) on the spot
• discussion can even be taped (if consent given)
on the spot checks only when fraud may be an issue: easier to detect via interviews than via “paper perfect” project reporting
New agreement made for next meeting!
45
EXERCISE
• Take the OM exercise
Name of your presentation
Discussion on outcome mapping as a way to run a call
Outcome mapping and solutions management
• Solutions management is dealing with multiple actors who interact with each other and with constituents (target groups, users) across sectors and services
• Sustainable progress in this system will require establishing a self-sustaining dynamic of mutual adaptation
• Solutions manager does NOT impose solutions but support actors to continuously explore and find solutions together…
• …until the solutions manager is not required anymore for this
48
Nobel prize winning economist A. Sen’s capability approach
Outcome mapping is on
PLPA’s and calls for proposal
• at the call level, the specified outcome performs the function of a boundary
• at the project level, a PLP approach empowers constituents to create new possibilities to address their changing and diverse needs, which will itself unlock awareness of new needs
• hence, it is not a static but dynamic approach
50
Solutionsproject
to support e.g. PES
Solutions manager
PMO
PESConst.
Const.
Const.Demand
Demand
Demand
INVOLVE
CALL
Other actor
Other actor
FACILITATE
PLPA delivery mechanism(solutions project gets EURO
envelope)
52
Solutionsproject
to support e.g. PES
Solutions manager
PMO
PESConst.
Const.
Const.Demand
Demand
Demand
INVOLVE
CALL
Other actor
Other actor
FACILITATE
PLPA delivery mechanism(solutions project gets EURO
envelope)
Enhancer PMO
DP
DP
DP
DPDP
DP
Const.
Const.
Const.
Demand
Demand
Demand
Demand
PCM (grants) or Results Based Financing delivery
mechanism (tender)
CALL
Or internalise
• Let us look at other applications of this kind of logic….
53
MICHAEL WOOLCOCK is Lead Social Development Specialist with the Development Research Group at the World bank, and a Lecturer in Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
From 2007-2009 he was on external service leave as Professor of Social Science and Development Policy at the University of Manchester, where he was the founding Research Director of the Brooks World Poverty Institute.
Prior to joining the Bank in 1998 he taught at Brown University and the University of Queensland (Australia).
Watch also : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05AaiOZfRXM
Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation
• developed to counter the tendency in the public sector to engage in “best practice” reforms
Name of your presentation
Rather PDIA will:
interventions are successful if they empower a constant process through which agents make organizations better performers
Performance drivenCompliance driven
“Issues” have to be politically and socially constructed to gain attention as “problems”. This involvesraising the visibility of issues through spectacular “focusing events” (such as crises), the use ofstatistical indicators, or manipulation of feedback from previous experiences.
Only possible when novelty is encouraged and rewardedwithin the authorizing environment within which key decisions are made
Small steps help flush out contextual challenges, includingthose that emerge in response to the interventions themselves.
Convening = decision-makers working closely with front-line staff… and connecting = interacting with other frontline workers to get the changes going
57
Innovation pipelines
OPENINNOVATION
NEEDS!
Robert G. Cooper is one of the most one of the most influential innovation thought-leaders in the business world today. He pioneered many groundbreaking discoveries in product innovation, including the Stage-Gate® Idea-to-Launch Process, now implemented by almost 80% of North American companies. He is the recipient of numerous prestigious awards including the Crawford Fellow from the Product Development and Management Association (PDMA) and the Maurice Holland Award from the Industrial Research Institute (IRI). He is also Professor Emeritus of Marketing and Technology Management at the DeGroote School of Business at McMaster University, and Distinguished Fellow at the Institute for the Study of Business Markets (ISBM) at Penn State University.
NOT LINEAR!
“CONCEPT”
59
Domain project
to supportinnovation
InnovatorPMO
DP
DP
DP
DPDP
DP
Const.
Const.
Const.Demand
Demand
Demand
INVOLVE
CALL
SUPPORT
InnovatorPMO
DP
DP
DP
DPDP
DP
Const
Const
Cons.Demand
Demand
INVOLVE
CALL
SUPPORT
PLPA delivery mechanism(domain gets EURO envelope)
PLPA delivery mechanism(DPs get EURO envelope)
• Annex
60
Worker teams
Workers more satisfaction
Sphere of influence
Sphere of interest
Human Res. Dept.
Management
Company XProject team Sphere of
Control
WorkersWorkers more healthy
VISION Specific objective
Intermediate Result (e.g.
Policy development)
Intermediate Result (e.g.
staff development)
Intermediate Result (e.g.
early childhood development)
Boundary Partner (e.g.
Student support
structures)
Boundary Partner (e.g.
College administra-
tions)
Boundary Partner (e.g.
Student bodies)
Sph
ere
of in
tere
stSph
ere
of in
fluen
ce
Programme implementing
team
Outcome Challenge
Progress Markers
Outcome Challenge
Outcome Challenge
Progress Markers
Progress Markers
Program activities &
outputs
Program activities & outputs
Program activities &
outputs
Spher
e of control
Organisational practices
Monitoring of results
through result indicators and
specific objective indicators
Monitoring of achievement of progress markers by boundary partners through outcome journal
Monitoring of
programme activities
and organisational practices
through strategy journals
Autonomyin teams
Management
Human Res. Dept
Worker teams
Teams have challenging but realistic tasks
Supportiveleadership Results
Workers have more job
satisfaction
Workers are healthier
Overall Objective
VISION
Project implementing
team
Project mission
Project purpose
Project activities and outputs
Project activities and outputs
Project activities and outputs project
actions