Process Monitoring Consultancy Services for SIPP Process... · Social Investment Program Project (SIPP) Process Monitoring Consultancy Services for SIPP Report on Training on Process

Social Investment Program Project (SIPP)

Process Monitoring Consultancy Services for SIPP

Report on Training on Process Monitoring

in association with

ITAD Information, Training And Development 12, English Business Park English Close Hove BN3 7ET U.K. Telephone: +44 1273 7654 250 Fax: +44 1272 7653 251 e-mail: [email protected]

CNRS Center for Natural Resource Studies

House # 14 (2nd Floor), Road # 13/C Block # E, Banani

Dhaka-1213 Bangladesh

Telephone: +880-2-9886700Fax: +880-2-9886700

email: [email protected]

June 2005

SIPP – Process Monitoring Training Report

Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

CF Community Facilitator (of CSO) CIW Community Infrastructure Works CSO Community Support Organisation FF Field Facilitator FGD Focus Group Discussion NGO Non Governmental Organisation M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning MIS Management Information System NFR Note For the Record PAST Project Appraisal and Supervision Team PM Process Monitoring PMA Process Monitoring Agency PMC Project Management Committee PO Participating Organisation PPF Pilot Private Financing RO Research Officer (of PMA) SAP Social Assistance Program SDF Social Development Foundation SIPP Social Investment Program Project SRO Senior Research Officer (of PMA) SW Social Worker VDC Village Development Committee

Acknowledgements: This report was written and edited by Julian Barr and M. Anisul Islam. The Training Course Outline and Trainers’ Notes were written by Abigail Mulhall.


Contents

Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms i

1. Executive Summary 1

2. Introduction 2

3. Details of Trainers and Participants 4

4. Participant Evaluations of the Course 6

4.1. ACHIEVEMENT OF COURSE OBJECTIVES 7

4.2. QUALITY OF TRAINING 9

4.3. BUILDING ON THIS COURSE 11

5. A Selection of Course Outputs 13

6. Annex 1. Powerpoint Slides Used in the Course 17

7. Annex 2. Training Course Outline (for Participants) 18

8. Annex 3. Trainers’ Notes 19


1

1. Executive Summary This report provides feedback on two short courses on process monitoring, run for organisations involved in the implementation of the SIPP. A half day course was run for the various partner organisation, covering a general introduction to process monitoring and use of the process monitoring tools, notably Report Cards, that they would have to use. A one and a half day course was run for SDF staff, covering in more detail the other process monitoring tools in use, and the outputs from the monitoring, especially the Notes for The Record. Evaluation results are presented showing that the course was rated as very good on average, by the participants. They liked the format of the course, but considered that a larger venue and a slightly longer course would have been an improvement. Consideration may need to be given to delivering a refresher once the Report Cards tool is in extensive use.


2

2. Introduction This report summarises the results of a two training courses in Process Monitoring, delivered by ITAD and CNRS at the offices of SDF on 17th and 18th of January 2005. In summary, the two courses covered:

• Course 1: A half-day course, covering introduction to process monitoring and the role of the process monitoring agency, Wealth Ranking, and Report Cards

• Course 2: A one and a half day course, covering other process monitoring tools in detail: field assessment, focus group discussion, and case studies

Full details of the participants is given in Section 3. However, Course 1 was primarily designed for staff from SDF, plus staff from the partner organisations implementing SIPP (CSO, PO, PAST, etc), while Course two was design for SDF staff only. Course details are as follows: Course 1

Title Wealth Ranking and Report Cards

Duration 4 hours

Learning Objectives

Participants gain skills that enable them to carryout a wealth ranking

Participants can use report cards for facilitating self-assessment of performance and progress by VDCs or other community groups

Participants Staff from SDF< Community Support Organisations, Participating Organisations, and other project partner organisations

Content Introduction to the course; participant introductions

10 mins

Outline of SIPP and the role of the Process Monitoring Agency

15 mins

Introduction to Process Monitoring 15 mins

Introduction to Wealth Ranking 90 mins

Break

Introduction to Report Cards 90 mins


3

Course 2

Title Process Monitoring

Duration 1.5 days

Learning Objectives

By the end of the course participants are able to:

Use the process monitoring tools

Implement the process monitoring system used in SIPP

Participants Staff from SDF

Content Day 1

Course 1 4 hours

Lunch 60 mins

Introduction to Part 2 of the course 10 mins

Field Assessment 90 mins

Break 15 mins

Field Assessment (continued) 120 mins

Day 2

Summary of Day 1 30 mins

Note For the Record (NFR) 90 mins

Break 15 mins

Note For the Record (NFR) (continued) 60 mins

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) 30 mins

Lunch 60 mins

Case Studies 90 mins

Break 15 mins

Wrap-up/Summary 30 mins

Course Evaluation 20 mins


4

3. Details of Trainers and Participants The training course was delivered by Julian Barr from ITAD. Julian led the design of the process monitoring system for SIPP, and is both an experienced M&E specialist and trainer. He was the process monitoring specialist for the World Bank District Poverty Initiatives Project in Andhra Pradesh, and has been directing the Rural Livelihoods Evaluation Partnership, which is contracted to make annual evaluations of all DFID’s rural livelihoods projects in Bangladesh. The course was facilitated with M. Anisul Islam, Ashitava Halder and Md Alam Hossian from CNRS. M. Anisul Islam is the Local Coordinator of SIPP’s process monitoring, and was closely involved in developing the design system for SIPP. CNRS and Anisul both have long experience in implementing CDD projects in Bangladesh. Ashitava Halder has been leading the Jamalpur district SIPP process monitoring team. He was directly involved in the process mapping exercises and report card development process for SIPP. Ashitava is experienced in M&E systems and worked as Monitoring Officer in the UNDP supported SEMP project. Md. Alam Hossain has been leading the Gaibandha district SIPP process monitoring team. Alam, being a PDO, has long experience in monitoring and evaluation of different CARE-Bangladesh projects such as NOPEST and LIFE-NOPEST. The following participants attended the two courses: Sl # Name of Participant Designation Name of

Organization Participants for Course 1 and Course 2

1. M. Hafizuddin Khan Managing Director SDF 2. AKM. Rahmat Ullah GM SDF 3. Muhammad Abu Taher Khan GM SDF 4. Masud Al Mamun Manager SDF 5. Syed Md. Mosuddeque Hossain TM SDF 6. M. Shahjahan Muntu SAM SDF 7. A. K.M. Mahbubur Rahman SAM SDF 8. F. U. Ahmed Mia TA (water) SDF 9. Shams Uddin Md. Rafi CDM SDF 10. Md. Kamal Bashar TM SDF 11. Ireena Jahan Manager, Procur.

& Adm. SDF

12. Morshed Chowdhury TA (H) SDF 13. Md. Lutfar Rahman Manager, MFL SDF 14. Nazrul Alam Sarder CDM SDF 15. Md. Abdul Kayum Accounts Officer SDF 16. Md. Shoharab Ali Khan Finance Manager SDF 17. M. I. M. Zulfiqar MIS Specialist SDF 18. Md. Kamal Basher TM SDF 19. Ashitava Halder S. Research

Officer CNRS


5

20. Md. Alam Hossain S. Research Officer

CNRS

21. Md. Touhidul Islam Research Officer CNRS 22. Maheen Newaz Chowdhury Research Officer CNRS

Participants for Course 1 only 23. K.N. Sarker Team Coordinator ESDO 24. Md. Abu Hanif Field Supervisor ESDO 25. Maruf Ahmed F.S ESDO 26. M. Zakir Hossain F.S DORP 27. Foyzoon Nahar TC (SAP) TMSS 28. Ekramul Haque ATO (SAP) TMSS 29. Ms. Shahzadi Begum PC. (SAP) TMSS 30. Amir Hossain Mollah PC (DAM) DAM 31. Kakhal Chandra Das TC DAM 32. Banari Saha Sr. Program

Officer READ

33. Fahmida Karim D.D. Research READ 34. S. R. Kadir Team Coordinator DORP


6

4. Participant Evaluations of the Course Participants were requested to complete course evaluation sheets anonymously, rating their satisfaction with the course and providing comments on areas of particular success or where improvements could be made. Tables 1 and 2 summarise the participant responses. These tables show the number of participants applying which rating to each criterion – for example, 2 (out of 12, = 17%) of participants rated as excellent their ability by the end of the course to explain what is meant by process monitoring, while 7 (out of 12, = 58%) rated their ability as very good). Table 1 is from SDF staff, and Table 2 is from participants from all other organisations. Table 1: Summary of course evaluations from SDF staff (n = 12) How do you rate the training you have received? Against each of the performance criteria, indicate your rating of the course by ticking the relevant cell in the right hand column

Exce

llent

(5)

Very

goo

d (4

)

Satis

fact

ory

(3)

Unsa

tisfa

ctor

y (2

)

Very

Un

satis

fact

ory

(1)

Ave

rage

By the end of the course, participants will be better able to: 1. Describe what is meant by

process monitoring

2 7 3 3.9

2. Use the tools of process monitoring 2 5 5 3.8

Achievement of training objectives The extent to which the training objectives have been achieved…

3. Support communities, especially VDCs, to use the PM tools

4

4 4 4.0

• Visual aids: the quality and the appropriateness of slides and handouts

3 7 2 4.1

• Exercises: the relevance and practicality of the exercises

4 3 5 3.9

Quality of training materials

• Participation: the extent to which all trainees were valued, and able to participate

3 3 6 3.8

• Trainers: the conduct of the trainers in delivering the materials and interacting with the participants

5 5 2 4.3 Quality of training delivery

• Time-keeping: the time allowed for delivery of materials and the completion of exercises

3 4 5 3.8

Quality of training venue

• The training room: the appropriateness of the training room to the type of training provided

1 6 5 3.8


7

Table 2: Summary of course evaluations from staff of other organisations involved in SIPP (n = 10) Attributes

Exce

llent

(5)

Very

goo

d (4

)

Satis

fact

ory

(3)

Unsa

tisfa

ctor

y (2

)

Very

Un

satis

fact

ory

(1)

Ave

rage

By the end of the course, participants will be better able to: 1. Describe what is meant by

process monitoring

6 4 4.6

2. Use the tools of process monitoring 4 2 4 4.0



1 5 4 3.7

• Visual aids: the quality and the appropriateness of slides and handouts

4 5 1

4.2


4 4 2 4.3



4 3 3 4.1


4 6 4.4 Quality of training delivery


1 7 1 1 3.8



2 2 4 1 1 3.3

4.1. Achievement of Course Objectives Figure 1 below shows that the participants rated all the training objectives as having been achieved, to at least a satisfactory degree. Participants’ ability to describe what is meant by process monitoring was achieved most successfully (achieving an average rating of 4.2, = 84.5%), while participants’ ability to use the tools of process monitoring, and participants ability to support communities, especially VDCs, to use PM tools, both received average rating of 3.9, = 77.3%.


8

Figure 1: Participants’ Percentage Rating of Achievement of Training Objectives

During the introductory session of the training, the trainer asked participants to give their expectations of what the course would explain. This list is as follows: Participants’ expectations:

• Why monitoring? • What is PM • Why PM is needed? • What is monitoring indicators? • How it be implemented? • PM tools numbers and use • Scope and limitations • Who will monitor? • Difference between Process monitoring and Progress Monitoring • Impact and output of PM • Monitoring process of PM • Advantages and disadvantages of PM • Reporting of PM • What benefit derived from PM (for a short duration project) • How it support in decision making process? • Difference between participatory monitoring and process monitoring.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

% re

spon

se

Excell

ent

Very go

od

Satisfa

ctory

Unsati

sfacto

ry

Very U

nsati

sfacto

ry

Participant rating

Describe what ismeant by processmonitoring

Use the tools ofprocess monitoring

Supportcommunities,especially VDCs, touse the PM tools


9

During the final session of the course, participants looked at this list again. It was agreed that the training course had addressed their expectations.

4.2. Quality of Training Figure 2 below shows that most aspects of training quality were rated as very good (average rating 4.0, = 79%). The most successful aspects were the training quality of the visual aids (rating 4.2, = 84%), and the conduct of the trainers in delivering the materials and interacting with participants (average rating 4.3, = 86%). Figure 2: Participants’ Percentage Rating of Quality of Training Although the average ratings were good across the board (Table 3), there were two noticeable areas which received some low ratings; this can be seen in Figure 2. These areas were time-keeping, and the training room. As can be seen from the participants’ feedback comments, there was a feeling that the training would have benefited from being a little longer, probably 3 days in total for both courses:

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

% re

spon

se

Excelle

nt

Very go

od

Satisfa

ctory

Unsati

sfacto

ry

Very U

nsati

sfacto

ry

Participants' ratings

Visual aids: the qualityand theappropriateness ofslides and handouts

Exercises: the relevanceand practicality of theexercises

Participation: the extentto which all traineeswere valued, and able toparticipate

Trainers: the conduct ofthe trainers in deliveringthe materials andinteracting with theparticipantsTime-keeping: the timeallowed for delivery ofmaterials and thecompletion of exercises

The training room: theappropriateness of thetraining room to the typeof training provided

In summary, the course successfully delivered an understanding of process monitoring and its application in the Social Investment Program Project. It was most successful in ensuring the participants were able to describe what is menat by process monitoring.


10

Increase time for each section Time will extended to the process There should be enough time for the training course Should provide more time Time of exercise should be increased Time is not sufficient Should organize 3 days training Training duration must be extended and provide training certificate.

The duration of training is always problematical as short courses result in not covering material in sufficient depth, but long courses conflict with people’s other commitments and often result in lower attendance rates. Nonetheless, the comment about duration has been noted by the trainers. Several of the participants expressed dissatisfaction with the training venue. Eg: “Venue or training is more closely. So, we are not scope to face or eye contact. I think in this training would be arrange in ideal training centre/room/venue.” The two problems related to this are the lack of space for the interactive/participatory elements of the training, and the long narrow aspect of the room, which puts some participants a long way away from anything projected on the screen at the front. It would be useful for SDF to note this for future training. Table 3. Participants’ Average Rating of Quality of Training

Average rating

Average %

Visual aids: the quality and the appropriateness of slides and handouts

4.2 84%

Exercises: the relevance and practicality of the exercises

4.0 81%

Participation: the extent to which all trainees were valued, and able to participate

3.9 78%

Trainers: the conduct of the trainers in delivering the materials and interacting with the participants

4.3 86%

Time-keeping: the time allowed for delivery of materials and the completion of exercises

3.8 76%

The training room: the appropriateness of the trainingroom to the type of training provided

3.5 70%

In summary, training quality was rated very highly. The training powerpoint presentation and handouts and the interaction of the trainers/facilitators with the participants was very much appreciated. However, participants felt that a 3 day course may have been warranted, and they believed that a room better designed for training would have been beneficial.


11

4.3. Building on this Course The course evaluation asked participants which parts of the training they like best, and why; which they considered could be improved, and how; and which parts of the training did not meet their requirements. The responses to the evaluation questionnaires are summarised below: Table 4. Summary of evaluation questionnaire responses. Best parts of the training Sessions which could be improved Course design

Course outline and concept of process monitoring, implementation process

Description of Process of Monitoring. Due to set up an simple example and use projector

Process monitoring tools Use of PM tools because we will be able

to monitor the process Process monitoring tools technique. Tools of PM PM tools, to be elaborated all the

process Field assessment tool and quality criteria Use the tools of PM I like report card because the report

format is very easy. I like report because the format easy

NFRS NFR issues - SDF can execute their

opinion on formats and contents The issue related to NFR. Because it is

the output of the whole process Structure of NFR

Process of developing NFR and flow

charts Comments on NFR part

Minute taking Minute writing or taking notes for

minutes, may by through exercise The last part that is note writing

Group work & role playing Group work. As I have the opportunity

of communicating by feelings & experience

Group work- learning by doing Role play parts on wealth ranking Group exercise

Group work, reading the materials and

time consideration for conceptual direction

The group exercise session should be improved. It could be the four members group.

Role play ranking of report card of VDC FGD. They improved by facilitation VDC scoring sessions improved Should be improved VDC


12

From this summary it can be seen that the participants were in general very positive about the course, however it would appear that from the trainers’ perspective, more attention needs to be paid to two areas. While there was a mixed response to these two areas (some positive feedback, and some constructive criticism), the trainers have noted that some changes could be made to suit all participants. The two areas were: (i) training in understanding the development and use of the NFR. NFRs are only written by PMA staff, thus the issue for trainees is mainly in understanding how to use the recommendation contained therein. And (ii) running the group work sessions, and especially the role playing of process monitoring a VDC. As noted above, more space in the training venue may have helped here. One participant commented “The training is very much helpful. Refresher is needed.” It is thus worth SDF considering if follow training is indicated at some point in the future, and if so, whether SDF’s in-house training section could provide this.

In summary, the overall course design, and the parts dealing with the process monitoring tools were well received. Some participants considered the group work/role play and the section on NFRs could have been improved. As commented by one participant, a refresher may be indicated, particularly once the various organisations have started to implement the report cards.


13

5. A Selection of Course Outputs The following are examples of outputs produced by the participants during exercises in the course: 1. Outputs from the wealth ranking exercise; from two different groups. Criteria used to differentiate between four wealth groups:

Rich Middle Criteria Persons Criteria Persons

1. Reside in building/half-building.

2. Cultivable land more than 250 decimal.

3. Regular service/ large business.4. Have a lot of assets 5. Have access to education

facility. 6. Can maintain regular savings. 7. have other sources of income

such as poultry, cow rearing, fishery etc.

8. have electricity facility at home.

1. Parimal Das 2. Bulbul Islam 3. Zahurul Islam 4. Ois uddin 5. Rahmat Ullah 6. Karim Uddin

1. Reside in tin shade house. 2. Cultivable land 50 to 250

decimal. 3. Low paid service/ small

business 4. Have assets such as radio, bi-

cycle, TV etc. 5. Access to intermediate level

education facility. 6. Have some sort of savings.

1. Bulbul Ahmed 2. Salma Begum 3. Azharul Islam 4. Monwar Hossain

Poor Very Poor Criteria Persons Criteria Persons

1. Land Hold less than 50 decimal

2. Get employed more than 6 months.

3. have domestic animal 4. Have meal twice a day.

1. Karim Uddin 2. Resma Bewya 3. Amir Ali 4. Hafizur Rahman 5. Zahidul Islam

1. No house/homestead 2. No Land 3. No access to education facility 4. Get employed less than 6

months. 5. Woman headed family or

disable person in family. 6. No access to micro credit

facilities. 7. Have meal only once in a day.

1. Zaheda begum 2. Arif Mia 3. Rahim Uddin 4. Rokeya Begum 5. Alam Mia

Rich Middle Criteria Persons Criteria Persons

1. Have more than 250 decimal land

2. Monthly income more than Tk. 2000

3. Have enough resources 4. Have access to higher level

education facility

1. Monwar Hossain 2. Rahmat Ullah 3. Zahrul Islam

1. Have less than 250 decimal land

2. Monthly income not more than Tk. 2000

3. Have some significant resources

4. Have access to high level education facility

1. Parimal das 2. Hafizur Rahman 3. Ois Uddin 4. Azharul Islam 5. Salma Begum 6. Bulbul Ahmed

Poor Very Poor Criteria Persons Criteria Persons

1.Have not more than 50 decimal land

2.Monthly income less than Tk. 1500.

3.Have no resources 4.Have little access to

education facility 5.Reside in tin shade house.

1. Zahidul Islam 2. Reshma Bewya 3. Amir Ali 4. Bulbul Islam

1. Have only homestead. 2. Monthly income less than

Tk. 800. 3. Have no resources 4. Have no access to

education facility 5. Reside in tin shade/straw

made house.

1. Zaheda Begum 2. Alam Mia 3. Arif Mia 4. Milon Rani 5. Rokeya Begum 6. Rahim Uddin


14

2. Results of 4 groups’ (VDCs 1 – 4) scoring of the hypothetical Shapla village VDC, using the Report Cards tool: Sl. No. Indicator VDC-1 VDC-2 VDC-3 VDC-4 1 Regular Meeting 4 3 2 5 2 Record Keeping 3 1 1 3 3 Involvement of Poor 5 4 3 3 4 Benefit of Poor 5 3 4 2 5 Involvement of Woman 5 5 4 5 6 Benefit of Woman 5 3 3 3 7 Leadership 5 5 4 5 8 Social Norms 3 2 3 2 9 Linkages 2 1 4 2 10 Maintenance 2 1 2 2 11 Active Planning 4 3 2 5 12 Unity 4 2 3 3 13 Information 5 2 4 3

3. Summary of participants’ criteria for process quality, to be used when undertaking the Field Assessment: Active community Participation

Awareness about process of the stakeholder

Ensure participatory decision making

Quality of leadership

Need and expectation of poor and hardcore reflected in the plan

To ensure bottom up –planning

Clear understanding about the implementation process

Active participation with equal authority and rights

Felt needs are prioritized in sub-project

Maximum presence and active participation assured in PRA session

Villagers know about objective, goal, approach and strategy of SIPP

Proper information Sharing

4. Results from Field Assessment exercise. Participants had to work in groups to produce a list of questions that they would ask in semi-structured interviews (CAP and pilot private utilities programme), or factors/issues they would aim to look out for in participant observation: Semi-structured interview (CAP):

i. Are/How the villagers involve in prioritization of needs/CAP? ii. How the people know about their prioritized sub-project? iii. Did the villagers contribute their portion? iv. How the community will be benefited from this road sub-project? v. Are the PMC and purchase committee formed properly to implement the sub-project? vi. Do the people know the cost of the sub-project? Was it shared with the community? vii. How the project will be maintained afterward? viii. Do you think the quality and cost is reasonable in compare with others? ix. What is the feeling about the sub-project?


15

Participant Observation (CAP formation) i. Representation from all para/every corner of the village. ii. Male/female participants were present and participating? iii. All/majority participants expressed their opinion/comment iv. women's opinion are accepted v. Whether all participants stayed during the whole PRA? vi. Facilitator lead the PRA session directly vii. felt needs identification and prioritization viii. Opportunity to express opinion ix. Timely start and timely end x. Sharing of collected information in the planning.

Pilot Private Utility program (using semi-structured interview)

i. How the information was disseminated to you? ii. Why you have decided for rural piped water supply? iii. Why you are ready to share the cost? iv. What should be your share? v. How you will collect tour share/deposit? vi. What benefit do you expect? vii. How you will maintain the water supply system after the sponsor withdraws? viii. How you will bear the maintenance and operation cost? ix. Do you consider that the total cost is affordable to you? x. Do you think that water will be Arsenic and bacteria free?

5. One group’s assessment of the strengths and weaknesses in content and format of two sample NFRs: NFR Group Work (NFR -1)

Strength Contents Format In content women participation focused. Comments are specific and clear regarding joint

meeting of VDC & PMC and female respondents.

Financial problem identified specifically. Villagers are aware about sub-project

status/progress.

Comments are placed in bold form.

Weakness Contents Format Misinformation about the roles of VDC & PMC. Contents not pin pointed. Specific recommendation is absent. Comments are not provided under way heading. Date and period of reporting are not mentioned. Contents of NFR-1 is not clearly described eg .

Villagers informed but not quantify how many villagers.

Misinformation in NFR 1(2&3). No recommendations. Place/date are not specified in NFR. Did not follow the proper R- structure.

Not organized. Format is absent. Did not follow R- structure.


16

NFR Group Work (NFR - 2) Strength Contents Format Process recommendations are well defined (eg 2

& 3). Specific statement. Process recommendation is specific under SL-2. Field assessment exercise was done. Quality of process is well identified. Helpful in future planning.

Structure of the report is good. Language is very simple and

understandable. Format seems to be better. Content described under specific

reading.

Weakness Contents Format Process observation wrongly described. Irrelevant issues were raised. eg . Office bearers. Contains of NFR are not reflected the critical

path. Date /places are not specified. Contents with some misinformation and

incomplete information. Process recommendation is wrongly suggested

under SL.1. Under SL.3 Wrongly observed the process.

Absent of matrix/matrix are not used.

Summary matrix is absent.

6. Plenary recommendations from NFR exercise, for strengthening NFRs:

Factual information is good Key success should be clearly highlighted Date and place should be clearly mentioned Critical path-project cycle should be followed (VDC not PMC, submit the final sub-

project report) Language should be specific and clear Managers like to have specific recommendation NFR should be submitted with summery matrix NFRs issues should be discussed in the monthly meeting at the district level and

decisions should be incorporated in the next months report/NFR Recommendation should be supported by reasons /rational Critical issues shall be submitted to MD, SDF directly Follow up of implementation of recommendation by quantity and shared in the

quarterly meeting.


17

6. Annex 1. Powerpoint Slides Used in the Course

ITAD and CNRS December 2004

SIPP Process Monitoring Training 1


Training in Process Monitoring

17-18 January 2005SDF

SIPP Process Monitoring TRAINING2

Overview

• COURSE 1 [0.5 day; 17 Jan]

– An introduction to wealth ranking and report cards

– Process tools used/facilitated by project partners

• COURSE 2 [1.5 days; 17 – 18 Jan]

– An overview & training in the main process tools, used by the PMA


Course 1: Outline

• Introductions (course & participants)

• What is Process Monitoring

• Wealth Ranking

• Report Cards


House keeping

• Timing for the training sessions

• Evaluating the training

• Refreshments

• Toilet facilities

•

•


Course 1: Learning Objectives

• Your expectations…• Participants gain skills that enable them

to carryout a locally relevant Wealth Ranking

• Participants can use Report Cards for facilitating self-assessment of performance and progress by VDCs or other community groups


What is Process Monitoring?

• Processes are “coherent sets of actions that produce outcomes”

• Process Monitoring = “observing and analysing howactivities are done”

• PM = a management tool to generate information for institutional learning and taking corrective action in innovative and adaptive projects that involve a high level of community participation




Why do process monitoring?

• To learn about how to improve the way things are done in projects

• To generate information for institutional learning


Why do process monitoring? –The Role of the PMA

To provide:• SDF management a more direct and objective

communication of the processes and qualitative changes taking place throughout the project, so that corrective measures can be taken where necessary.

• an entry point for scaling up good practice lessons

• a feedback mechanism from the communities on how to do things better, as well as to get a clear assessment of hard-to-measure shifts in community attitudes and practices.


PM Tools

Documentation of better practices and lessons learnt

TOOL 6: Case Studies

Monitor the processes involved in implementation of the utilities programme

TOOL 5: Field Assessment (Utilities)

Verify issues raised during the Field Assessments

TOOL 4: FGDs

Routine monitoring of project processes in sample villages

TOOL 3: Field Assessments

Self-assessment of VDCsperformance

TOOL 2: Report Cards

Establish poverty status of households in project villages (baseline)

TOOL 1: Wealth Ranking

PurposeTool



Wealth Ranking - purpose

• Establish the main criteria of poverty in different villages, as seen by villagers

• Establish in which poverty categories different households in a village are placed (by villagers)

• Verify who are the poor and very poor

• Monitor whether HHs move between wealth categories (due to SIPP)


Wealth Ranking in SIPP

• When is it used?– Start of programme

– Two further intervals

• Who uses it?– CSO

– Field Facilitators of the POs

– Impact Evaluation Agency




Wealth categories

Very / hardcore poor

Poor

MiddleRichHousehold 1

Household 2

Household 3

Household 4


Wealth ranking - criteria

Full-time, salary

Rich Middle

Day labour

Poor V.PoorCriteria

occasionalemployment

Condition of dress

Food availability

Land ownership



Report Cards

• A tool for reflection and learning

• For self-assessment of performance

• To enhance transparency, encourage debate and discussion

• To improve process and practice


How to monitor change?

• SIPP is a complex project


Indicators

• Signs we look for to tell us if change is happening

• Signs that tell us not only ‘how much’change is happening, but also ‘how well’it is happening




Report Card

Holding regular meetings


Report Cards - Scoring

• Scoring: 5 = best, 1 = worst

• Collating scoresScore for each indicator (taken from individual quarterly score sheets) Date Quarte

r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Total

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total


SDF’s use of Report Cards

Indicators Village Development Committee Regular

meeting Record keeping

Involvement

of poor

Benefit of poor

Involvement of women

Benefit of

women

Leadership

Observance of social norms

Linkages Maintenance of sub-projects

Active planning

Unity and conflict

resolution

Information collection and dissemination

Total

VDC-1

VDC-2

VDC-3

VDC-..




Training in Process Monitoring

17-18 January 2005SDF



• Participants are able to use the full set of process monitoring tools

• Participants understand and can implement the process monitoring system for SIPP


PM Tools




TOOL 5: Field Assessment for Utilities program


TOOL 4: Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)







PurposeTool



Field Assessment Tool

• Main tool used in PM

• Comprises: Participant Observation and Semi-Structured Interviews

• Assesses project processes against indicators of process quality

• The end product is a Draft Note for the Record (NFR)



• Is not rocket science

• Requires:– good understanding of project objectives and

working practices– good understanding of social norms in rural areas– strong skills in participatory / sociological

techniques– good enquiry / detective skills– very good analytical and writing skills




Quality Criteria

• Inclusiveness

• Transparency

• Governance and empowerment

• Sustainability

• Cost effectiveness

• Information sharing


Participant observation

• Gathering data (quantitative and qualitative) through observation and enquiry

• About learning through watching and listening


Semi-Structured Interviews

• Guided interview

• Topics for discussion are predetermined

• Questions used are flexible and change according to responses

• Open ended questions are used


Field Assessment Exercise

• Three groups– Participant observation

– SSI

– SSI on pilot private utilities program


Field Assessment Exercise

• Participant observation– 10 points to look for on process quality during PRA

exercises for CAP

• SSI– 10 questions to ask on process quality in road sub

projects

• SSI on pilot private utilities program– 10 questions to ask on process quality in

community preparation for involvement in PPUP


What is Field Assessed?• Process maps - critical processes




Steps How the step was/will beintervened Indicators

IC campaign (villagelevel)(2)

8-10 village was allocated to every CF for IC campaignThe IC campaign was done through door to door visit,informal meeting in market, shops, announcementthrough loud speaker of local mosque, leaflet/posterdistribution, mass gathering etc. Sometimes discussionwas held in the marriage ceremony and quarrelgathering.

Village survey

Developed data collection formCollected data on general issues, infrastructure,education, health, occupation, sanitation, water, landresource, cooperative, income, social bondage, cropsetc. through FGD in the villages and collected fromunion council, bureau of statistics.Conducted 3-12 FDGs in every village and calculatedmean for different values

Enthusiasm test andvillage selection

Forms are supplied by SDF6 indicators were evaluated; 3 through groupdiscussion and other 3 through interviewing 20% HH ofthe village (every interviewed HH are followed bysome un-interviewed HH)Summing the scores for ranking the villagesVillages with higher scores are selected

PRA (3)At first the CF goes to the village to select the venuedate and timeVillagers of all levels participatedThe CF facilitated the sessions

Villagers themselves proposed to prepare the mapFirstly, drawing several maps (boundary, direction andmapping) on earth in small groupsLater the best drawing on earth was copied to the largebrown sheetThe session was held at morning or evening for 3-3.5hours

People have build up attitude for woin unityPeople's knowledge about the projecDistributed posters leaflets

Mapping

Raised voice and knowledge of thepeople about participatory planningprocessesVillagers endorsement in the preparematerials and plan

• Process maps - critical processes

PM Outputs: Notes for the Record

(NFRs)


PM Outputs

• Draft Note For the Record (draft NFR)

• Final Note For the Record (NFR)

• Summary Matrix of NFRs


NFR

Purpose• analysis, summary and presentation of

findings from F.A.s

• Used to:– Report to management how processes

have been implemented– Indicate to management where programme

design may require modification


Structure of the NFR

• Several processes / groups of processes covered in each NFR

• Each process/group of processes is reported in three parts:

– Observations about the process of SIPP implementation at the field level

– Any issues about how the processes are carried out

– Recommendations that relate to the purpose


Process for developing NFRs1. Field Assessment2. Collate, summarise, analyse Field Assessments –

using 3-part format3. (FGDs at field level to explore F.A. issues arising)4. Write Draft NFR5. Review Draft NFR within PMA6. (May circulate Draft NFR to SDF (and partners))7. Hold FGD(s) with project partners & SDF8. Finalise NFR, considering PMA QA & FGD

comments9. Submit Final NFR to MEL Division, SDF10. Summarise NFR issues & recommendations into a

matrix (monthly)This complicated flow looks like this




NFR group workNFR-1 NFR-2

Strengths

Weaknesses

Content•••

Content•••

Format•••

Format•••

Strengths

Weaknesses

Content•••

Content•••

Format•••

Format•••

TOOL 4: Focused Group Discussion


FGDs

• Feedback findings from Field Assessments

• Seek clarification on confused / complex issues from Field Assessments

• Triangulation / validation of Field Assessment findings

• Discuss Field Assessment findings and reach decisions on issues raised

• To use the information to inform planning and future implementation

BACK



Case Studies

Purpose:

To help SIPP to:

• Enhance performance through analysing & disseminating good practice

• Establish benchmarks of good practice

• Provide structured documentation of the lessons


Case Studies• Documenting good practice is only half

the job

• The other half is to communicate the lesson to other relevant partners

• How does the learning from Case Studies flow around SIPP?




Case StudiesGroup work

• Group 1 – List 10 possible topics for future Case Studies, and explain the process lessons they demonstrate, which are important for the whole of SIPP

• Group 2 – examine the proposed information flow for PM information in SIPP. Suggest and justify any modifications, and explain the practical steps for implementing this flow as part of a SIPP learning system


Other resources

Notes for Facilitators

• Holding a meeting

• Taking notes

• Documentation


Thank you


18

7. Annex 2. Training Course Outline (for Participants)

SIPP Process Monitoring


January 2005

Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

CF Community Facilitator (of CSO) CIW Community Infrastructure Works CSO Community Support Organisation FF Field Facilitator FGD Focus Group Discussion NGO Non Governmental Organisation M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning MIS Management Information System NFR Note For the Record PAST Project Appraisal and Supervision Team PM Process Monitoring PMA Process Monitoring Agency PMC Project Management Committee PO Participating Organisation PPF Pilot Private Financing RO Research Officer (of PMA) SAP Social Assistance Program SDF Social Development Foundation SIPP Social Investment Program Project SRO Senior Research Officer (of PMA) SW Social Worker VDC Village Development Committee

SIPP process monitoring November 2004

FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 1 – Introduction

INTRODUCTION These Facilitation Notes provide supporting Reference Material for the SIPP Process Monitoring Training Course. Each set of Notes is designed for use as a stand‐alone step‐by‐step guide to using a process monitoring tool. In addition to the guidance on using the process monitoring tools, guidance is provided on three other facets of process monitoring in which process monitors and facilitators ought to be well versed: holding a meeting, talking notes and understanding different types of documentation (which are important for recording how processes have occurred). The Facilitation Notes comprise the following materials:

Name of Section Content

Facilitation Notes 1 – Introduction An introduction to Process Monitoring and the PM tools

Facilitation Notes 2 ‐ Wealth Ranking A step‐by‐step guide to using A step‐by‐step guide to using TOOL 1: Wealth Ranking

Facilitation Notes 3 ‐ Report Cards A step‐by‐step guide to using TOOL 2: Report Cards

Facilitation Notes 4 ‐ Field Assessments A step‐by‐step guide to using TOOL 3: Field Assessments

Facilitation Notes 5 ‐ Note for the Record

Guidance on how to complete a ‘Note for the Record’

Facilitation Notes 6 ‐ Focus Group Discussions

A step‐by‐step guide to using TOOL 5: Focus Group Discussions

Facilitation Notes 7 ‐ Case Studies A step‐by‐step guide to using TOOL 6: Case Studies

Facilitation Notes 8 ‐ Holding a Meeting

An overview to the principles of holding an informal or formal meeting

Facilitation Notes 9 ‐ Taking Notes Guidance on how to take meeting notes and how to write reports

Facilitation Notes 10 ‐ Documentation

Note on types of possible documentation (e.g. for process documentation)


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 1 – Introduction

What is Process Monitoring? Process Monitoring is about looking at how activities are done. It concerns: • Consciously selecting processes, systematically observing them, comparing

them with others and communicating this to learn how to better steer and shape the processes

• A management tool to generate information for institutional learning and taking corrective action in projects that involved a high level of community participation.

Processes are sets of actions that produce outcomes. Processes are essentially activities, but the process monitoring is concerned with how the activity is done. A number of tools are used in Process Monitoring of the SIPP. These are outlined in the table below. The set of facilitation notes provides more detail about each tool and provide detailed steps for using the tools. Tool Purpose When is it used Who uses the

tool? TOOL 1: Wealth Ranking

To monitor changes in levels of poverty

At the start of CSO involvement in the village, and two repeats

CSO, then PO, then READ

TOOL 2: Report Cards Self-assessment of VDCs performance

Quarterly VDC, facilitated by CSO/PO; summaries used by SDF MEL (MIS)


Routine monitoring of project processes in sample villages.

Quarterly PMA

TOOL 4: FGDs Verification of issues raised during the Field Assessment visits.

Monthly (District) & Quarterly (Dhaka)

PMA

TOOL 5: Field Assessments (Utilities)

To monitor the processes involved implementation of the utilities programme

Quarterly PMA

TOOL 6: Case Studies Documentation of better practices and lessons being learnt during the implementation of the SIPP.

Quarterly PMA


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 2 – W

ealth Ranking

WEALTH RANKING Wealth Ranking is a tool that is used to identify different socio‐economic groups in a community. The following table summarises how wealth ranking is used in SIPP Implementation and Process Monitoring. Detailed steps for conducting a wealth ranking are provided after the table.

Tool Wealth Ranking

Purpose • To identify the different wealth categories in a village

• To monitor whether there is any change in the number of poor and very poor households

• To verify that the poor and very poor are the main beneficiaries of the project

When is it used? At the start of the programme (when first working in the village) after VDC formation

At two further intervals during involvement with the programme (steps 2 and 3 only)

How long does it take? 4‐5 hours plus additional time for reviewing/checking

Who uses this tool? The Community Facilitators (CF) of the Community Support Organisations (CSOs) is responsible for carrying out a wealth ranking at the start and during the programme.

The Field Facilitators / Social Workers of the Participating Organisation (POs) are responsible for verifying wealth rankings in areas where the CSOs have withdrawn.

The Impact Evaluation Agency may use this tool later in the process to evaluate the impact of different projects. It may be used to see how many poor people have moved between different wealth categories (to a high category or in some cases they may have dropped to a lower category).


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 2 – W

ealth Ranking

Method

Step 1 Identifying characteristics of poverty / wealth

People from the community undertake the wealth ranking exercise, with outside facilitation. This is achieved by first holding a mass gathering of village people (this normally achieves a 10‐20% attendance; approx 1 person per household). At this gathering, the facilitator divides the gathering according to different geographical locations or paras. The number of groups depends on the size of the village and number of paras. The facilitator should try to ensure that each group include a diverse mixture of people (e.g. different socio‐economic status, clan, occupation, gender, etc.). In order to achieve a balanced representation, there would ideally be a minimum of 5 people per para group. Note to facilitator: You may want to discuss with the group what criteria they use to identify who are the heads of households. Such criteria may include the earning capacity of the person, age, and sex.

Ask each group to identify definitions for the following four categories:

Rich Middle Poor Very poor / hardcore poor

In the SIPP context, most groups will differentiate levels of poverty between households using factors such as: • Amount of land owned; • Food availability (how many days in a year the household takes 1, 2 or 3 meals a

day); • Condition of dress; • Availability and type of employment; • Type of house; • Level of indebtedness • …. Other factors may also be mentioned depending upon the village context and this should be encouraged. All the factors which are used to identify which households fall in which of the four categories should be documented. Note to facilitator: four categories are identified as this conforms with the Operational Manual of SIPP and allows for easier recording and consolidation by the SIPP MIS.


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 2 – W

ealth Ranking By whatever criteria the villagers define poverty their definitions should be recorded and kept with the VDC. These definitions remain the same throughout the life of the project, even though the definition of poverty nationally or internationally may change. This is important if like is to be compared with like.

Step 2 Classification of all village households by poverty status

Each group should write the name of each household in the village on a card [note: Symbols or objects can be used if literacy levels are low. For example, household x could be discussed and the main characteristics of the household illustrated in a picture. E.g. they may have a pond with ducks and this could represent that particular household.] Then place each household into one of the four groups according to their wealth status. To do this, take a sheet of paper and separate it into four sections. Write a wealth category in each section as illustrated in the table below. Now place a card with the name of each household head in the relevant box. Once the group has placed all the cards in the boxes complete FORM 1. The Facilitator should also note down the criteria that were used to assess the wealth ranks.

Very poor / hardcore poor

Poor

Middle

Rich

Step 3 Verification of wealth ranks

After the formats have been completed, the para groups come together, and with the CF of the CSO debate and validate the lists of wealth ranks in a plenary session. Validation entails reading out the para lists and the rank for each household, and offering people the opportunity to comment on the validity of these ranks. The information is then consolidated at the village level into one table of the four socio‐economic categories (FORM 1).

Step 4 Monitoring changes in wealth/poverty

The original forms should be kept by the villagers then by the VDCs once formed. The CSOs should send a copy to the SDF MEL unit for incorporation in the MIS.


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 2 – W

ealth Ranking The lists of households will then be used to verify whether the very poor and poor are the major beneficiaries of project activities.

Once the CSO completes its work in any village, and the PO takes over, the PO should review and revalidate the wealth ranking to ensure that it is working only with very/ hardcore poor households. This would not necessarily be a repeat of Steps 2 and 3, but smaller PRA exercises and one‐to‐one checks with households. The result may be some non‐poor households being exclude and some previously missed very poor households now being included.

Towards the end of the project period, Steps 2 and 3 may repeated by the Impact Evaluation Agency with a sample selection of villages to assess how many households from the very poor and poor categories have moved up the poverty ladder.


FORM

1 – Wealth Ranking

Wealth Ranking Format

Name of facilitator:

Date of ranking:

_ _ /_ _ /_ _ _ _

Village name: Upazilla:

Total number of households in the village:

Wealth category (place a √ in the appropriate box)

No. Name of household head Very Poor Poor Middle Rich

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Insert more rows as necessary …..

TOTALS

The following table should also be completed, to record the poverty criteria used in the particular village: Very Poor Poor Middle Rich List criteria here

List criteria here

List criteria here

List criteria here


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 3 – Report C

ards

REPORT CARDS A Report Card is a tool for reflection and learning by VDCs to help them assess their performance and so improve processes and practice. The report cards enhance transparency and encourage debate and discussion to further the development of the VDCs. By assessing their own performance, VDCs can identify areas of weakness and strengths that will help the VDC to develop. The report card also acts as a monitoring tool for SIPP, to identify areas where CSOs or POs may need help, or to take initiative to improve the situation.

Tool Report Card

Purpose • For VDCs or community groups to assess their own performance against criteria that they identify themselves

• For VDCs to learn through practice

When is it used? Quarterly, during a VDC meeting

How long does it take? 1 hour

Who uses this tool? VDC facilitated by CSO / PO (completing FORM 2)

SDF and PMA at quarterly District Coordination Meetings (only FORM 3)

SDF at quarterly project meetings in Dhaka (only FORM 3)

Method

Step 1 Introduce Indicators

The Report Card comprises 13 indicators. For each indicator an illustrated card is available to enable non‐literates to understand the meaning of the indicators (the list of cards, and the accompanying illustrations, that are available is given at the end of this note ‐ Facilitation Notes 3). Briefly discuss each indicator to ensure that group members understand each indicator. Ask the group if the indicators are appropriate to their VDC. Allow some flexibility so that 1‐2 indicators can be added.


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 3 – Report C

ards Additional resources on ‘How to hold a meeting’ are provided in Facilitation Notes 8.

Note to facilitator: Indicators can be added, but ideally none should be removed except unless a group feels so strongly about them that they wish them to be removed. This is because the indicators are used in the SIPP monitoring information system (MIS) to enable comparisons to be made across villages.

Description of Indicators used in the Report Card Indicator Description Issues covered (sub‐indicators) 1 Regular meeting Frequency of meetings,

number and type of members attending and effectiveness of discussion and decisions

VDC members organise regular meetings; majority of members attend the meetings; issues identified by the members are discussed; decision making process.

2 Record keeping Extent and inclusiveness of recording agendas, decisions, accounts etc. and transparency of records

Issues discussed and decisions taken in the meeting are documented, financial accounts are documented and all the documents are known and agreed to the members

3 Involvement of the poor

Involvement and active participation of poor in meeting, decision making and implementation

Number of members of the VDC from the poor, attendance in the meetings; opportunities to play positive role in discussion and decision making, active participation of poor in various subcommittees and activities

4 Benefit to the poor

To what extent do discussions, the community action plan and interventions actually target the poor? What benefits are the poor actually receiving?

Discussion, decisions, community action plan and activities are pro‐poor and they are actually benefited by the activities done so far

5 Women’s involvement

Involvement and active participation of women in meetings, decision making and implementation

Number of women members in the VDC, attendance in the regular meeting, get opportunity to uphold their issues in discussion, substantial number of decisions regarding women are taken and implemented, actively participate in various subcommittees and implementation

6 Women’s benefit How much the discussion, plan and implementations are targeting women and how women benefit

Women are directly benefit from various activities done so far, their expectations are fulfilled and there are various future activities that meet their expectations


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 3 – Report C

ards Indicator Description Issues covered (sub‐indicators) 7 Leadership Skills, entrusted,

transparency of activity, capacity of new leader creation

The leaders are competent, entrusted, and transparent to other VDC members and villagers, enthusiastic to create new leaders and decentralise duties as far as possible.

8 Observation of social norms

Capacity to observe, intensity of observation and implementation of decisions against deterioration of social norms

The VDC has well developed system for regular observation of various social norms like dowry, physical abuse of women, child labour, polygamy, female education, school attendance etc in the village, emphasize discussion on these issues, there are instances of taking effective decisions and implementing

9 Linkages Extent of linkages with appropriate service providers/authorities and capacity of VDC to utilize these

The VDC has appropriate links to other service providers/authorities that are enhancing their capacity and helping in development of their villages. The VDC has the system for regular communication with them.

10 Maintenance of subprojects

Level of interest and capacity of maintenance of subprojects implemented

The VDC has the mandate for maintenance of the subprojects, developed system for regular maintenance and there are instances of subproject maintenance.

11 Active planning Positive attitude and capacity of participatory planning and implementation

The VDC prepare participatory plan for addressing various problems related to the development of their village and villagers and there are instances of implementing these plan.

12 Unity and conflict resolution

Level of unity in the village and capacity of the VDC to prolong unity and conflict resolution

Villagers are united enough to help one another, to address problems collectively, the VDC is careful enough to prolong the unity among the villagers, there are instances of fare arbitration by the VDC members without any exploitation

13 Information collection and dissemination

The amount and type of information that is made relevant and disseminated to the poorer people in the community.

The VDC collects necessary information from service providers, other authorities and outsiders and then provides villagers/ poor/ women with timely and relevant information. The VDC should disseminate the information, especially amongst the poorer people in the community.


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 3 – Report C

ards

Step 2 Scoring Performance

Facilitate the Group members in discussing their performance during the previous quarter and against each of the indicators. Note to facilitator: The booklet ‘Report Card Baboher Nirdeshika’, which is produced in Bangla by CNRS, provides guidance on how to facilitate a discussion. The group gives a score against the criteria from 1 to 5, where 5 = a high rate of satisfaction and 1 = a low rate of satisfaction. The final score could be an average of individual group members’ scores, or a score reached by consensual agreement of VDC members. The scores should be recorded in the format given in FORM 2.

Step 3 Recording Scores The results for each VDC are added and totalled at the end of the Report Card book. The book is permanently displayed at the meeting venue of the VDC. The CSO or PO should compile results from the VDCs every quarter using Form 2.

Step 4 Compilation of Scores The CSOs or POs should use Form 3 to compile the information from all VDCs. For each VDC the total score for each indicator every quarter should be put in Form 3. The table should then be sent to SDF where the information is entered into the MIS.


FORM

2 – Score Card

QUARTERLY SCORE CARD

For self-monitoring VDC performance

VDC :

Facilitator:

Date:

Quarter:

No. Indicators High Low 1. Regular meeting 5 4 3 2 1 2. Record keeping 5 4 3 2 1 3. Involvement of poor 5 4 3 2 1 4. Benefit of poor 5 4 3 2 1 5. Involvement of women 5 4 3 2 1 6. Benefit of women 5 4 3 2 1 7. Leadership 5 4 3 2 1 8. Observance of social norms 5 4 3 2 1 9. Linkages 5 4 3 2 1 10. Maintenance of subprojects 5 4 3 2 1 11. Active planning 5 4 3 2 1 12. Unity and conflict resolution 5 4 3 2 1

13. Information collection and dissemination

5 4 3 2 1


FORM

3 – Score Card

Summary of VDC Scores over 12 months

Score for each indicator (taken from individual quarterly score sheets) Date Quarter

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Total

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total

Quarter 1 (Q1) = 1st January to end of March Quarter 2 (Q2) = 1st April to end of June Quarter 3 (Q3) = 1st July to end of September Quarter 4 (Q4) = 1st October to end of December

Enter the date at the start of the quarter e.g. 1st July 2005

FORM 3 – Report Card Compilation

Village Development Committees Compilation of Self-monitoring scores Quarter: from 2005 Date:



Involvement

of poor

Benefit of poor


Benefit of

women

Leadership



Active planning

Unity and conflict

resolution


Total

VDC-1

VDC-2

VDC-3

VDC-..

VDC-..

VDC-n

Total

Report Card - Illustrations

List of Report Card Illustrations Indicator Illustration 1 Regular meeting

2 Record keeping

3 Involvement of the poor


Indicator Illustration 4 Benefit to the poor

5 Women’s involvement

6 Women’s benefit


Indicator Illustration 7 Leadership

8 Observation of social norms

9 Linkages


Indicator Illustration 10 Maintenance of subprojects

11 Active planning

12 Unity and conflict resolution


Indicator Illustration 13 Information collection and

dissemination


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 4 – Field A

ssessments

FIELD ASSESSMENTS The Field Assessment is a tool that is used for routine monitoring of the quality of the SIPP project processes. The quality criteria used for assessing the SIPP processes are: • Inclusiveness ‐ relates to how well all parts of society are involved in processes

(e.g. women, the elderly, the young, different ethnic and religious groups, disabled people, the very poor, and people from all parts of villages or from remote areas). It also relates to how well people are involved, i.e. the DEPTH of their involvement or participation; do they get opportunities to express their views without censure? do their voices get heard? are their views and choices reflected in final outcomes?

• Transparency ‐ relates to the extent to which the way process are managed is

clear to all concerned parties; is there openness about what has happened and what is planned? is information, including financial information, about processes accessible to people?

• Governance and empowerment ‐ relates to the extent to which VDCs and

particularly villagers are given opportunities and the necessary power to take village‐level decisions about things that affect their lives, and enabled to act upon these decisions. These link closely to inclusiveness – e.g. are the views of the poorest considered in village‐level decision making, and can women exercise their rights to make decisions that affect their lives.

• Sustainability ‐ relates to the extent to which processes are realistic, pragmatic

and fit for purpose, the extent to which the people responsible for managing processes after SIPP support finishes have the capacity to do so, and the extent to which the costs of processes can continue to be afforded after SIPP support finishes. E.g. are processes overly complex, and without the project, likely to collapse? do project processes fit with the local institutional reality (e.g. Union Parishad power structures)? have VDC members been given the skills and empowerment to continue without project support? is there a funding mechanism to continue project initiatives?

• Cost effectiveness ‐ relates to the value for money in project processes. Are the

costs and benefits of specific processes in balance? Are transaction costs (especially use of villagers’ time) realistic for the nature of the output?

• Information sharing ‐ relates to how well the objectives and functioning of the

project are known outside the VDC; e.g. do non‐VDC members know who the VDC members are and what their roles are? do they know what contributions in cash and kind are expected for sub‐projects?


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 4 – Field A

ssessments

A Field Assessment is the main tool used in monitoring the process of SIPP projects. The end product of a field assessment is a draft Note for the Record (NFR) (Facilitation Notes 5). The draft NFR is then discussed and further developed through a Focus Group Discussion (Facilitation Notes 6).

Tool Field Assessment

Purpose To routinely monitor the agreed SIPP processes (as detailed above) in sample villages.

When is it used? Every quarter in sample villages

How long does it take? A full Field Assessment takes between 3 to 6 hours over 1‐2 days per issue, village or event

Who uses this tool? The PMA monitors based in the Districts. Results are discussed with the concerned stakeholders (i.e. SDF, CSO, PO, PAST, VDC, PMC and beneficiary members).

Method The Field Assessments use two participatory methods:

Participant Observation Semi‐Structured Interviews (SSI)

During a field assessment you may not need both tools. It depends on the situation in the community and how much you know about the community and its projects. The Participant Observation is usually used during large meetings, such as village planning processes, or during events such as IC Campaign meetings, training events, PRA exercises, and sub‐project implementation. This is then followed‐up with SSIs to verify what was observed or to seek further information. Participant Observation

Step 1 Selecting Participants for observation Participant observation is about gathering data (both quantitative and qualitative) through observation and inquiry – it is a type of scoping exercise. The PM team should listen and learn from the VDC and community members and from project partners, rather than offering views and opinions of their own. Participant observation helps the PM staff to integrate into the process rather than being perceived as outsiders. This initially requires rapport building with the community members, especially to clarify and reach a common understanding on why data is being collected and how it will be used. The PM will observe the critical processes and important steps rather than all steps in SIPP implementation. The timing of participant observation may be before, during and after a process takes place, depending on what is deemed necessary. A main part


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 4 – Field A

ssessments

of the participant observation is to see the extent of participation of different disadvantaged and poorer groups in different activities of the SIPP process. When you are carrying out a participant observation you may want to look at points such as the following examples:

• During PRA exercises, the level of engagement and interaction of women and the poorest (or conversely the domination of elites) [inclusiveness criterion]

• Location of particular sub‐projects and who has made cash contribution to them (e.g. has the total contribution for a tube‐well been made by one household) [transparency criterion]

• In group situations the willingness of women to stand up for their rights (e.g in meetings to express their own views in the face of authority) [empowerment criterion]

Step 2 Recording a participant observation During the participant observation you should take your own notes. Guidance on how to take good notes is given in Facilitation Notes 9_Taking Notes.

Semi‐Structured Interviews (SSI) A semi‐structured interview (SSI) is a guided interview where the topics of discussion are predetermined. The actual questions asked depend on responses and responsiveness of the interviewee(s). A checklist of questions and topics is used rather than questionnaire. In Process Monitoring SSIs are used to obtain information about the quality of SIPP processes. A checklist of pre‐determined issues is used to provide some structure to the interviews, but does not specify the exact questions to be asked. A few questions may be determined beforehand. During the discussion with the community, new questions will arise and there will be aspects to follow‐up. The checklist will be the major tool used to guide the questioning, to ensure key

process areas are addressed. Open‐ended questions will be used. What? When? Where? Who? Why? How?

The PMA staff will avoid asking questions, which can be answered with a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

The observations and findings will be documented in a Note For the Record (NFR) [see Facilitation Notes 5].


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 4 – Field A

ssessments

Step 1 Identify participants for the SSI SSI respondents can be VDC members, PMC members, direct beneficiaries, Group members formed by PO; staff of PO, CSO, PAST and SDF. The actual selection of SSI respondents depends on what you are trying to find out. You may use the SSI to validate or triangulate information you obtained during the Participant Observation. You may use SSI as a stand‐alone tool to gain more detailed information. SSIs can be carried out with individuals or a few people. Ideally the group should not be more than 10 for an SSI. The SSI is seeking more in‐depth information and with a larger group it is much more difficult to include everyone in the discussion and the process becomes very time consuming.

Step 2 Produce a Checklist of relevant questions The checklist of questions should be organised around the following criteria. These have been identified for the routine monitoring of the quality of the SIPP project processes. • Inclusiveness • Transparency • Governance and empowerment • Sustainability • Cost effectiveness • Information sharing Here are some examples of issues that could be explored under each quality criteria. The first set of questions is for general projects. The second set of questions is specific to the Utilities Programme. Issues of Inclusiveness • What proportion of villagers took part in the formation of VDC and preparation

of CAP? • What was the percentage from the poor and poorest and from women? • Did households from all geographical areas take part in the formation of VDC

and preparation of CAP? • Did the poorest and women actively contribute to the preparation of CAP? Were

their views taken into consideration? Are they the overwhelming direct beneficiaries of sub‐project activities? Are they the overwhelming direct beneficiaries of SAP activities?

• What is the quality (where quality means – is it useful? is it objective oriented? does it represent the views of the majority of stakeholders?) of the village maps, venn diagrams, demand mapping & problem analysis, problem prioritisation, wealth ranking and community action plan in terms of completeness, clarity etc?


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 4 – Field A

ssessments

Do random villagers asked by the PM team understand the purpose of these exercises?

Issues of Transparency • Are the minutes of the meetings of the VDC regularly recorded and updated? Do

the meetings reflect adequately what was discussed – especially where the concerns of women and poorer members taken into account? Are the minutes read out in subsequent meetings?

• Are the records of sub‐project implementation updated in a correct and transparent manner? Are receipts for all possible procurement attached? Do all members of the PMC and most members of the VDC know about the estimates and costs incurred on implementation including who and how much community members have contributed? Is the treasurer fully aware of the details in the books?

• How much are much are other villagers aware about the sub‐project preparation? At VDC meetings or mass gatherings, are the details of the sub‐project implementation progress and details of contributions announced? Are receipts given for contributions? If not, why?

• Are collected contributions deposited in the bank account on a timely basis, and if not, why? Who deposits the money?

Issues of Governance and Empowerment • Which aspects of the VDC are villagers satisfied with and which are they not? • How is the VDC and the villagers tackling issues such as dowry, polygamy,

physical abuse, village conflicts, child labour, poor female education, high school dropout, etc?

• Which other socio‐economic activities have you undertaken with the help of the PO and how? What has been the impact of these activities in terms of number and percentage of people adopting, empowerment and income improvement? What percentage of the total identified activities in SAP has the PO assisted in tackling?

Issues of Sustainability • Are meetings held regularly every fortnight at a fixed place and time? Are

members of the VDC and others informed about the meeting to be held? Do the overwhelming majority of VDC members attend the meetings? Is this reflected in the attendance register?

• Is the CAP being annually updated? Are mass gatherings being organised for CAP updating?

• Was sub‐project implemented within the budget, according to the design and in time? If not, why? What is the mechanism for operation and maintenance of the


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 4 – Field A

ssessments

sub‐project after completion? Is there an O&M committee, does it have a system of regular contributions or collections on a need basis? How transparent is the record of O&M funds?

• Without the help of SIPP, describe which activities VDC is independently undertaking e.g. linkages, support from other NGOs, sub‐projects entirely on its own? Do you have records and addresses of these liaisons?

• Has the VDC thought of or started savings and lendings operations through which they are intending to encourage income‐generating activities and providing capital support to members? If so, what is the mechanism? Have the office bearers been given training in this?

• Is the VDC thinking of or does it have an office? If so, what is the mechanism of its establishment? Does it or is it thinking of recruiting permanent staff to handle VDC activities? If so, what is the mechanism of remuneration?

Issues of Cost Effectiveness • Are there cases of duplication of processes between different project

organisations, eg. CSO vs PO, CSO vs PAST, VDC vs PMC? If so, what savings can be made by streamlining processes?

• Is the contribution of villagers’ time in PRA processes used effectively; has the balance of getting good representation of people’s views been balanced with the 100s of person‐hours used in holding large meetings?

• What examples of using local resources to reduce costs? Issue of Information Sharing • Do randomly selected villagers know about SIPP and the purpose of group

formation? Are they interested in working as a group or not? Do they know who members of the VDC are? In how many strategic places can the PM team observe pasted posters about SIPP?

• Where any street dramas/folk songs staged in the village by the CSO or PO? What messages do randomly selected villagers remember from those events? Did they or did they not enjoy the events? What other messages would they like dramas and songs to be produced on?


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 4 – Field A

ssessments

Checklist of questions to assess quality of processes in the Pilot Private Financing of Community Utilities Programme Assessment Guidelines assist the PMA to monitor how the processes designed for implementation of the utilities programme have been followed. They also help to indicate where the design might require some modification. This is a very targeted tool, designed to assess the quality of implementing the pilot private financing of community utilities programme. Due to the technical nature of the programme, some of the issues in ‘quality of implementation’ are of an engineering or financial nature, and these are outside the remit of the PMA. These PM guidelines are an adaptation of the criteria for grant assistance as detailed in the ‘Guidelines to Sponsors for Submission of Project Proposal for the Implementation Rural Piped Water Pilot Projects’. Technical Aspects • Have the right of access been obtained for water distribution layout and other

infrastructures to be built in the village without having to evict any people or creating adverse impacts to economic activities caused by loss of land by those who were settled on the land (in accordance with TOR) ?

• What processes were used to obtain these rights of access, and what process issues were arising?

• Have the issues of transparency, inclusion and governance been addressed in obtaining these rights? How?

The following issues are raised by the ‘Guidelines to Sponsors for Submission of Project Proposal for the Implementation Rural Piped Water Pilot Projects’, but are of a technical nature, and lie outside the remit of the PMA: • Does the water source (or treatment facility) meet the Bangladesh Standard of

drinking water quality (Physical /Chemical and Biological)? • Is the project construction, O&M, procurement and disbursement system of

adequate quality (i.e. in accordance with TOR)?

Financial Aspects • Were the up‐front contribution from the community and Sponsor provided (as

evident from bank account)? If yes, what processes were used to persuade communities to contribute, and what were the process issues related to this?

• Do the community members (especially the poor ones) believe that the tariffs will be affordable? How have they calculated this? What information has been provided to them by the Utility NGO?

The following issues are raised by the ‘Guidelines to Sponsors for Submission of Project Proposal for the Implementation Rural Piped Water Pilot Projects’, but are of a technical nature, and lie outside the remit of the PMA:


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 4 – Field A

ssessments

• Does the system have an adequate number of connections which make its operation financially viable?

• Are the revenues sufficient to cover full operational, maintenance and repair cost as well as loan repayments and Sponsor remuneration?

Institutional Aspects • Are the institutional arrangements for construction and operation of the piped

water supply scheme clear and sustainable? What issues are there in relation to institutional sustainability?

• If a CBO has been established, is the Service Agreement between the Sponsor and the CBO of acceptable quality?

The following issue is raised by the ‘Guidelines to Sponsors for Submission of Project Proposal for the Implementation Rural Piped Water Pilot Projects’, but are of a technical nature, and lies outside the remit of the PMA: • If a CBO has been established, is the legal document establishing it of acceptable

quality (in accordance with TOR)?

Social and Participation Aspects • Was there adequate participation/consultation of the community in the

preparation of the Proposal? What was the process used, and what process issues were arising?

• Were the vulnerable groups and poorer members of the community adequately involved/consulted in the preparation of the proposal?

• Will at least 70% of the poor members of the community have access to the piped water?

Environmental Aspects The following issue is raised by the ‘Guidelines to Sponsors for Submission of Project Proposal for the Implementation Rural Piped Water Pilot Projects’, but are of a technical nature, and lies outside the remit of the PMA: • Are adverse environmental impacts being mitigated?


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 5 – N

ote for the Record

NOTE FOR THE RECORD A Note for the Record (NFR) assists the PMA to monitor how the processes designed for implementation of the programme have been followed. They also help to indicate where the design might require some modification. A draft NFR is produced at the end of the Field Assessment (Facilitation Notes 3). The draft NFR is discussed and verified in FGDs (Facilitation Note 6). The final NFR is then presented to SDF who use the information for improving the programme.

Tool Field Assessment and FGDs

Purpose • The NFR is a written description of the key process findings from Field Assessments and FGDs.

When is it used? NFRs are produced monthly for each District

NFRs are discussed monthly, at Quarterly SIPP Co‐ordination Meetings (Dhaka), and periodically at SDF staff meetings

How long does it take? NFRs take at least two days to draft, but internal Quality Assurance and the sharing of drafts for comment with SDF adds at least two weeks.

Who uses this tool? The NFR is produced at the end of a field assessment (Facilitation Notes 3). The PMA is responsible for producing the NFR. The Senior Research Officer and Research Officer of the PMA is responsible for completing a NFR for each village/VDC visit they make each month.

The PMA uses the NFR to report on any visits they make to SIPP projects

Method Step 1 Draft a NRF following a field assessment

The NFR is a flexible format and the content depends on what is observed during a field assessment. The NFR is like a field visit report. The basic structure of a NFR is to document: Observations about the process of SIPP implementation Issues arising about how processes are carried out Recommendations relating to the processes


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 5 – N

ote for the Record The most important part of the NFR is documenting your experiences and observations in note form whilst carrying out the field visit. There are a variety of ways to do this (see Facilitation Notes 9 ‐ Taking Notes).

Step 2 Summarise your notes

After you have taken notes during the Field Assessment, you should summarise these in the following format. The average length of a NFR is 4 to 8 pages.

SIPP - Process Monitoring Agency (ITAD/CNRS)

Note For The Record

This is a draft format for a NFR – anything written in italics and marked with is an explanation on how to complete the NFR NFR Code No. XX / Month Year give the NFR sequential numbers and also

note the month and year in which the NFR was completed

Date of visit: write the date of the observation/visit Person completing the NFR: The name of the person who wrote the NFR Persons involved with the visit: The names of people and their organisations

who took part in the field visit Area/Place visited The name of the place/district visited Schedule of visit A detailed schedule of the villages and projects

visited Background and objectives [this is an introductory paragraph for the whole NFR]

Explain the background to the visit – why was it necessary to visit the area/place.

Explain how the NFR was compiled (through which meetings, with whom and through visits to which area)

Clearly outline the objectives of the visit. The objective is the reason for the information. For example what did you want to know by the end of the visit?

It might be to:

Assess the process quality of SIPP activities

Assess level of inclusion and participation by the poor in VDCs and other activities

Review processes used by the VDC


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 5 – N

ote for the Record Note For The Record (continued)

For each issue there is: Issue identified [this is a descriptive heading about the particular issue] Findings are summarised in three headings:

Process observation [this should be no more than a paragraph] • What was observed, or learnt from SSIs? The factual detail. Process issue [this should be about 2 sentences] • Explaining the underlying process issue in relation to the observation – the generalisable issue

relevant to SIPP. Draft NFRs are discussed with project partners and there ideas on the issue are incorporated here.

Process recommendation: [this should be about 2 sentences] • What process modification is needed? Other points: • Include here any other issues you want to raise that may affect any of the SIPP projects

Step 3 Sharing a NFR Before finalising the NFR you should share it with the relevant partner organisations to verify its contents. The NFR is then shared with SDF management and finalised. It is then SDFs responsibility to share the NFR with the partners involved. The Partner(s) then works with the community to refine the programme/project according to the recommendations and observations in the NFR.


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 6 – Focus G

roup Discussions

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS Focus Group Discussions are used in the SIPP Process Monitoring to verify findings from the Field Assessments (see Facilitation Notes 3 – Field Assessments). A focused group discussion is a meeting of different people to discuss a particular topic or issue that has already been identified (for example through the Field Assessments). The participants in a FGD for example, may be a mix of people with different views on an issue or people from the same group to bring more depth to an issue. In SIPP, the Focused Group Discussions are used specifically as a tool for guiding discussions with POs, CSOs and PAST, and with SDF staff.

Tool Focus Group Discussions

Purpose • To feedback the findings from the Field Assessment visits by the PM staff (eg as in a draft NFR)

• To discuss findings with project partners and to reach a decision on any issues/concerns that were identified during the Field Assessment

• To use the information to inform planning and implementation of activities by the project partners

When is it used? Flexible. Usually combined with other meetings or activities of CSOs, POs and PAST.

How long does it take? 1.5 – 3 hours, with a partner; but to finalise an NFR with several issues, more than one partner may need to be involved – hence more than one FGD

Who uses this tool? The PMA

Method Step 1 Identify open‐ended questions

Before each FGD, the PMA staff should identify a checklist of about 10 open‐ended questions (i.e. questions that cannot be answered with yes or no), which are identified from the findings and issues raised in the previous months monitoring. The questions are focused on the unresolved issues or issues about which there is doubt, confusion or conflict. The questions may also just seek better clarification of process issues.


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 6 – Focus G

roup Discussions

Step 2 Identify participants for the FGDs The FGD is used to validate findings from the Field Assessments. The participants of the FGD vary according to the findings. The field assessments may raise issues that need following‐up, or verified with certain people, or groups in the community, as well as the project partners. From the field assessment identify which issues need further clarification or verification. Identify whom you need to speak with, or consult to address these issues. For example, from the field assessment you may identify that some people (such as those living in a remote part of the village) have been excluded from SIPP activities. You may then want to verify this by seeking opinions from different groups. You may decide to hold a focus group with: • CSO, PO, PAST, SDF • VDC members In the latter case, liase with a member of the VDC to bring together the identified people for the FGD. Request the VDC member to arrange a suitable venue for the FGD. Ideally this should be a quiet place and the meeting should be closed to those who are not participating. However FGDs are mostly carried out with project partner organisations.

Step 3 Running the FGD Introduce yourself and the purpose of the discussion Ask the participants to introduce themselves if not all already know to each

other. Make sure the participants fully understand the purpose of the meeting. Start the discussion with an open question (i.e. one that does not result in a ‘yes’

or ‘no’ response). For example “We have observed in xxx village that the VDC prioritised a culvert & road sub‐project, but this was not funded, what were the reasons for this?”

Note to facilitator: It is important that participants fully understand the purpose of the meeting. You can check this by asking them what they want from the meeting.

It is also good to mention to participants how the information you collect at the meeting will be used. This will, to some extent, ensure a transparent and open meeting.

Try to encourage active participation by everyone at the meeting. Don’t let anyone dominate discussions, but try to bring in all viewpoints and provide an opportunity for all participants to speak.


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 6 – Focus G

roup Discussions Ask probing rather than closed questions (e.g. a closed question leads to a yes or no response. For example ‘Do you benefit from SIPP projects’ is a closed question. ‘How do you benefit from SIPP projects’ is an open question (i.e. it cannot be answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’)

Step 4 Recording and analysing outputs from the FGD Ensure that someone keeps a record of the meeting (see Facilitation Notes 8_Taking Notes, which gives some guidance on how to take notes). These notes are used to produce or modify the draft Note for the Record. At the end of the discussion it is a good idea to summarise the main issues and decisions or conclusions that were made. You could do this as the facilitator, or if appropriate you could ask someone in the group to summarise the main conclusions. The output from FGDs is a draft Note for the Record (NFR). The NFRs should form the basis for further discussion at meetings with SDF, including the Quarterly Coordination Meetings.


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 7 – C

ase Studies

CASE STUDIES Case Studies are a form of documentation of better practices and lessons that are learnt during the implementation of the SIPP. Documentation of these lessons is important for development of the programme. Note to facilitator: This PM Tool has been called ‘Documenting better practices…’ rather than ‘Documenting best practices….’. This avoids the inference that any one approach or method is the best, and is thus universally applicable. ‘Better’ practices shows that SIPP is in a state of continual learning and improvement.

Tool TOOL 6: Case Study

Purpose To documenting innovative practices through case studies to help the SIPP to: • Enhance its performance – through understanding why

a certain strategy was adopted and what was its outcome.

• Establish benchmarks – to maintain quality standards. • Preserve the record of the project in a historical manner

When is it used? Two case studies should be written‐up per quarter and submitted with the quarterly report to SDF

How long does it take?

3 days to write 1 case study

Who uses this tool? District PM teams are responsible for documenting the case studies. PM team in Dhaka will provide guidance and review the studies

Case studies are used to tell a story. This is a qualitative method, producing narrative statements rather than quantities (i.e. numbers of items). Analysis of qualitative methods produces written statements and often contains lots of direct quotes from people. Quantitative analysis generally produces tables of figures and graphs or diagrams. In some qualitative methods, the results can also be expressed in figures and diagrams, but often the narrative statements tell the real story. There are some advantages to this: Storytelling lends itself to participatory change processes because it relies on

people to make sense of their own experiences and environments. Stories can be used to focus on particular interventions while also reflecting on

the array of contextual factors that influence outcomes.


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 7 – C

ase Studies Stories can be systematically gathered and claims verified from independent

sources or methods. Narrative data can be analysed using existing conceptual frameworks or assessed

for emergent themes. Narrative methods can be integrated into ongoing organizational processes to aid

in program planning, decision making, and strategic management.” These narratives, or stories, have two parts:

a descriptive part and an explanatory or interpretive part.

For PM in SIPP, the critical element is the interpretative part, which will entail the PM team interpreting the process issues underlying the story. You should also remember to include both negative and positive lessons. Much can be learnt from knowing what works well and also what does not work so well. The case studies seek to describe the ‘lessons learnt’, which may not necessarily be positive cases. Often as much can be learnt from negative cases, failures and setbacks as can be learnt from successes. Note to facilitator: Documentation is important for SIPP to: • Enhance its performance through documenting innovative practices in the form of case

studies. Project staff can learn from the case studies (at an individual as well as project level), to understand why a certain strategy was adopted and what was its outcome.

• Establish benchmarks: A benchmark is a certain quality standard. The better practices documented in the case studies could set a benchmarks in terms of performance and output. Once the benchmark has been set, the project would ideally want all other implementing partners, VDCs or interventions to achieve this benchmark – leading to incremental and positive change across the project.

• Identify good venues for exposure visits for replication by other VDCs or other project partners.

• Disseminate information about current activities within the project to SDF senior managers, the World Bank, other NGOs, development practitioners and academics in Bangladesh and abroad.


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 7 – C

ase Studies

Method

Step 1 Identify the case studies to document Consult with the district CSO, PAST and/or PO to identify case studies. The case study should be something that helps SIPP to learn about positive and negative experiences of SIPP. The case study should provide a real story of something that you feel SDF should know about. The stories or narratives that are identified for writing the case studies should be outlined in the quarterly progress reports. The case study can be about an individual, a group, a VDC, or of an activity or event such as training or sub‐project. The case study could also be an exploration of the management models being adopted at District levels by project partners for effective implementation. You should explain why the case study was selected so keep a note of the reasons for selecting your case study. The case study might be selected because it provides information that enables SIPP to: Enhance its performance – the case study provides information of innovative

practices Establish benchmarks – the case study provides information about reaching a

certain quality standard Identify venues for exposure visits – so that others can see practical experiences

of the Programme and can learn from these Document – maintain a good historical record of the programme Disseminate information – tell others about what is happening in SIPP The following points should help you decide which experiences and lessons to document in a case study: Steps 2a and 2b provide guidelines for completing two different types of case study:

Step 2a: A case study about an individual, groups or VDCs and Step 2b: A case study about Activity Profiling

Step 2 a Case Study of an individual, groups or VDCs The case study can be divided into 4 sections: 1. The Person/Group – describing the person, group of VDC to build a visual

profile and bring them to life. 2. The Story – what the group members, fellow villagers and you consider

exemplary about the individual or group’s achievements. 3. The explanation – what was the reason for the transformation described in the

story above. What were the processes involved?


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 7 – C

ase Studies 4. The Learning Points – what was learned from the process? The following points can be kept in mind when writing the case study. The order can of course be changed, and the emphasis may be different for each case. The Person/Group – describe the person, group, or VDC to build a visual profile and bring them to life. This section should be very short – it will be kept as brief as possible. It should be written as a story and may include the following: • Personal Information ‐ such as names, name of village, gender, ages, educational

levels, household size, etc. Note to Facilitator You should discuss with respondents how the data you collect will be used. Emphasise to respondents that only the minimum necessary factual data will be recorded and only with proper consent. The data should also be made available to them. • Housing and Living Conditions ‐ Such as: type of housing, sanitation and health

conditions, access to markets/transport, etc., pleasant or unpleasant aspects of the environment, negative or positive externalities, etc.

• Participation in Village Institutions and Economic Activities ‐ Such as:

occupations and skills, skills and training received, past or present membership of any village bodies / other associations, history of participation and achievements, etc.

• Social and Economic Status ‐ such as income levels and sources of income, other

sources of livelihood, levels of savings, personal / household assets (eg, land, livestock, farm machinery, consumer durables, etc.), natural resources of community: availability and condition of arable land, soil, water, and social problems/issues: disunity, dowry, female‐related violence or other social vices, etc.

The Story: Describing the Change in Quality of Life The following questions may be useful for initiating discussion that helps think about the situation and changes that happened as a result of the project. • Why did the individual/village become interested in entering into a partnership

with SIPP? Where did they hear of SIPP? How was contact made and what was SIPP’s response?

• Why do other community members feel that this person(s) is exemplary in their

achievements (and/or involvement with the project?).


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 7 – C

ase Studies • What are the achievements, for example :

− Changes in income − Changes in quality of life, improved living conditions − Changes in recognition and status − Contributions to family, neighbours and community

• What plans does the group/person have for the future?

− What does the group/person want to do in the future − What does the group/person expect to achieve from this − What does group/person expect from SIPP and what does SIPP expect

from the group?

• What are the figures? − What is the change in income? − How much do groups/households have to contribute either in money or

in‐kind payments?

C. The Explanation What were the reason(s) and cause(s) for the change in quality life, according to the person or group’s? You should think about and document the successful factors, the reasons and causes and also those that were less successful. What are the process issues arising from the story? These should be identified by the group/person that the case study is about. You should then identify or summarise the recommendations for SIPP. The process issues are concerned with looking at, or analysing the way activities are done in a project. Processes are sets of actions that produce outcomes. D. The Learning Points You should identify, very clearly, the learning points that are coming out of the case study. What is being learnt that can then feed into future development of the programme? What are the learning points that can help SDF/SIPP make better informed decisions about the programme and its activities?

Step 2b Activity Profiling Case studies about activities could include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Sub‐projects (roads, tubewells, culverts etc) 2. Training in managerial or technical skills


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 7 – C

ase Studies 3. Linkages with other financial or non‐financial organisations/institutions

including government of Bangladesh institutions 4. Assistance in marketing 5. Improved production farm practices 6. The introduction of improved technology 7. Events such as campaigns against dowry, domestic violence, polygamy etc,

exhibitions, study tours etc The case study can be structured in a similar way as the individual/group case study way: 1. The Situation Before the Activity. 2. The Story – what the group members, fellow villagers and you consider

exemplary about the individual or group’s achievements. 3. The explanation – what was the reason for the transformation described in the

story above. What were the processes involved? 4. The Learning Points – what was learned from the process? Situation before the activity • What was the existing state of affairs, what were the problems, why was a need

felt for the activity to be done e.g. access to information was poor, a potential for income generation existed by selling handicrafts, etc, etc?

• How was the need for the activity identified, how did the villagers respond to the suggestion, what steps did the project take to begin the activity? BY what processes were they consulted and engaged?

B. The Story • What happened on the day(s) of the activity, what problems arose and how did

were they resolved. What were the key mistakes made which need to be avoided in future? Where did processes go wrong?

• Where did the activity take place and why? • If a training, what was the course structure? How was this arrived at? • What was the contribution of the project, villagers and any 3rd party towards the

activity in terms of time, money or kind? What was the number of participants and how (by what process) were they chosen? How many were women and the poorest?

• What was the attitude/reaction of the villagers and the project during the activity?

• Had an alternative been chosen to the activity, would the alternative have cost more/less, been more/less effective, more/less participatory?


FAC

ILITATIO

N N

OTES 7 – C

ase Studies C. The explanation • If the activity involved a third, do the villagers now maintain independent

linkages with it? If so, how? Have the villagers linked up with others also? If so, how?

• What have been the changes in income, quality of life, improved living conditions, changes in recognition and status, more orders for products, more markets, etc? This information can be gathered from beneficiaries, their neighbours, users of their services or staff of the CSO, PAST or PO.

• What are the future plans of the target group, what do they expect to achieve from this, what do they expect from SIPP? What does SIPP expect from the groups? How have they done their planning?

• To what extent is the activity sustainable? How have the people involved thought about sustainability, and what have they done to address it? How easy is it now for the beneficiaries to train others, get spare parts, operate and maintain the project, what is the system they have established to ensure sustainability? What problems have arisen, how have they been resolved?

• What has been the demonstration effect? Where possible give figures for the numbers of adopters season by season or year by year. What has been the change in the lives/incomes of these indirect beneficiaries?

Note: The use of diagrams, charts, maps or photographs enables the story to become more interesting and vivid and breaks the monotony of narration. Such devices should be used in the profile. D. The Lessons The questions above provide insights to why those involved in the activity think it was successful, or less successful. In this section, the PMA will provide its interpretation of the story, focusing on the process involved and any process issues arising that need to be signalled to SDF and other project partners.

Step 3 Information Sharing and Dissemination At district level the PM teams will share the finalised case studies with the district project partners for review and consensus. Ideally, if time allows, the case study should be presented back to the individual, group or community so that they can verify what is said. The district PM teams will forward the case studies to PM Coordinator in Dhaka for onward submission to SDF. SDF is responsible for wider dissemination of the case studies as appropriate. The IC Department of SDF, as outlined in the Operational Manual, is responsible for the dissemination of best practices and lessons learnt within SIPP.

FA

CILITA

TION

NO

TES 8 – Holding a Meeting

HOLDING A MEETING In the Process Monitoring system for SIPP, meetings take place between various stakeholders on a monthly and quarterly basis. The meetings are important for:

Project learning – to see what is working well and what is not working so well

Discuss issues on SIPP

The meetings are formal meetings with the following people attending:

Type of meeting → Monthly meeting – District Level

Who attends? CSO and PAST, PMA, PO Coordinator/team Leader and supervisor level staff

of CSO , PAST and concerned Managers of SDF (every 3 months, the field staff of CSO and PAST

also attend) Another meeting with PO, CSO and PMA

Coordinator/team Leader and supervisor level staff of PO and PAST and concerned Managers of SDF.

HPO and TAT also attend (and every 3 months the field staff of PO also attend)

Who Chairs the meetings?

General Manager (Program) of SDF

Who organises the meeting?

SDF

How long do they take?

1‐2 days

Who records the meetings?

PMA district team records and circulates the meeting minutes

Objectives progress review and coordination meeting

FA

CILITA

TION

NO


Type of meeting → Quarterly meeting – National Level

Who attends? MD, SDF and all management staff. Key persons of Partner organizations (CSO, PO,

PAST, PMA, utilities and HPOs) at central level and also at field level

TAT Team Leaders Project Coordinators, executive Directors, and

district level (Team Leader and Coordinators) of Partner Organisations

Who Chairs the meetings?

MD or SDF

Who organises the meeting?

SDF

How long do they take? 1‐2 days

1 day

Who records the meetings?

PMA

Objectives Progress review and coordination

FA

CILITA

TION

NO


Format for recording meeting minutes Action Log of Meeting Minutes Action log number

Date

Subject

Applicable to whom

Notes of discussions and decisions Follow‐up action 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Signature ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ (Chairperson)

FA

CILITA

TION

NO


The following pages present some guidance notes on how to run a good meeting. They may be useful for those managing a meeting, but also for those attending a meeting. • Formal meetings Formal meetings may include regular monthly or fortnightly meetings of colleagues, meetings between NGOs or between NGOs and government or other organisations, and meetings with donors. Formal meetings may also be held in villages for a talk on a particular subject. In all cases, formal meetings need:

a clear agenda a set of procedures for conducting and recording the meeting a procedure for decisions to be taken for future action

Advantages

Quick pooling of ideas Participation in groups enhances the democratic process, builds confidence

and encourages cooperation and consensus Attitudes are more easily modified in meetings where an individual

recognizes s/he is outnumbered A formal meeting can be the quickest way to keep everyone informed

Problems /difficulties Need careful planning Chairman needs to have some understanding of the topic and needs to be well

prepared Chairman needs skills in guiding the meeting and ensuring participation Can only work successfully with small numbers Participants need to be well prepared to contribute successfully

• Informal meetings Informal meetings may include meetings with farmers groups, youth groups, women’s groups and other such gatherings where the purpose is to discuss and explore ideas and opinions rather than necessarily to come to formal decisions. Informal meetings can help the group to identify problems and needs, to reach decisions and share experiences. For the NGO advisor ‐ or group facilitator ‐ such meetings can be useful to seek opinions, learn from the villagers and obtain feedback on progress.

FA

CILITA

TION

NO


Such meetings:

explore issues and seek opinions do not have a rigid agenda do not have fixed procedures

Advantages Build participants confidence and sense of self worth Allow for everyoneʹs ideas to be taken into account Encourage cooperation Develop group cohesion Lead to a commitment to group decisions Promote tolerance and understanding

Problems/difficulties Difficult to control personal conflicts Easy to become diverted to side issues Reaching decisions can be time consuming Not suitable for teaching skills Some participants may dominate the discussions Can be difficult to keep to any decisions made particularly if no records are

taken Such meetings will still need to be scheduled however and the better they are planned and organised in advance, the more the participants are likely to be pleased by the results.

The key points for leading any kind of meeting are: • Make sure the meeting is appropriate and necessary • Make sure the objectives of the meeting are clear and understood by

everyone (even if the objectives are to have a general discussion on a subject)

• Encourage everyone to participate and add their point of view • Lead the meeting and guide the conversation towards a conclusion • Get a clear and agreed outcome at the end

FA

CILITA

TION

NO


CHECKLIST IN PREPARING FOR A MEETING

The agenda • Venue, time, length of meeting • Who should attend • Who will chair • Who will be called upon to speak • Any written reports, graphics or visual aids needed at the meeting • Minutes from previous meeting • Reports to be read beforehand Purpose • What do you want to achieve? • What kind of meeting is it? • Do you need to canvass for views? • Do you need to acquire specialist advice on any subject? • Are you conversant with the reason for the meeting? • Do you need to discuss any of the content of the meeting with anyone in a higher

management position? • How much general knowledge of the subject is there? The roles of chairperson and members In a formal meeting there will be a chairperson, somebody to take minutes, or notes of the meeting, and the members. Everyone should work together to ensure that the meeting is successful. All meetings have a formal and informal level because of the personal interests of all the people involved and their personal and sometimes hidden agendas. The chairperson is responsible for: Prior to the meeting − informing all members of the purpose of the meeting; − setting the agenda; − deciding who should attend; − collating and circulating any background information needed During the meeting − controlling the meeting, − clarifying the objectives, − handling participants contributions to the meeting − ensuring a fair distribution of time to all members

FA

CILITA

TION

NO


− ensuring that all members make a contribution − get decisions made; − confirm actions and responsibilities; − ensure everyone knows what is expected of them following the meeting and − close the meeting. After the meeting − review the meeting; − follow up on progress and results It is important that, whatever the reason for the meeting, the right climate is created. It should be a climate of practicality of views and constructive criticisms, and an efficient attitude towards the use of time and resources. Responsibilities of the members Everyone who attends a meeting has a responsibility to make that meeting a success. It is important that all members actually understand the objective of the meeting, the agenda items and the roles of others at the meeting. Points that members should consider include: Before the meeting − Research the case from a personal viewpoint; − Prepare a reasoned argument with supporting documents; − Make a note of venue, date and time details; − Prepare for any particular role you are expected to play.

During the meeting − Listen to the views of others; − Be constructive when contributing; − Maintain interest in the item being discussed; After the meeting − Complete any tasks allocated at the meeting. It is important that everyone is prepared to put forward constructive ideas and to decide on the best solution for the problem being presented, even if it means modifying or surrendering their own views. Individual members may loose interest in the meeting once their particular area of expertise or interest has been dealt with. The level of interest should be maintained

FA

CILITA

TION

NO


as much as possible as it is often found that good ideas are forthcoming from a combination of abilities. If a chairperson fails to fulfil his/her function in a proper fashion one of the members should raise the point of order in a tactful manner. The worst possible situation would be where a chairperson loses complete control of a meeting and it would then be up to a member to regain some sort of control ‐ as diplomatically as possible. Adapted from ‘The essence of effective communication’ Ludlow, R and Panton F, 1992, Prentice Hall / CBDD Nigeria NGO Training Programme, AERDD The University of Reading.

FA

CILITA

TION

NO

TES 9 – Taking Notes

TAKING NOTES

Effective Note Taking

Note Taking Is A Skill

• This takes understanding of what youʹre doing • It takes practice, which involves effort

Note Taking Is Difficult Because

• Spoken language is more diffuse than written • Speakerʹs organisation is not immediately apparent • Immediate feedback seldom occurs • Spoken language is quick, and does not ʹexistʹ for long

o This makes analysis difficult

Four Purposes For Note Taking

• Provides a written record for review • Forces the listener to pay attention • Requires organisation, which involves active effort on the part of the listener • Listener must condense and rephrase, which aids understanding

Physical Factors

• Seating o Near the front and centre

Vision is better Hearing is better

o Avoid distractions Doorways, window glare, etc. Peers

• Materials o Two pens

Ink easier to read You have a reserve

o Wide‐lined, easy‐eye paper o Conference/Meeting date, and topic clearly labelled

May use dividers o Plenty of blank paper in back

FA

CILITA

TION

NO


Before Taking Notes

• Prepare yourself mentally o Be sure of your purpose and the speakerʹs purpose

They may not be the same • Review your notes and other background material • Generate enthusiasm and interest in what is to be discussed

o Increased knowledge results in increased interest o Donʹt let the personality or mannerisms of a speaker put you off

What, not how, is important • Be ready to understand and remember • Anticipate what is to come, and evaluate how well you were able to do this

o We learn from failure

Decide How Much You Are Going To Do

• Are notes necessary? o Donʹt be lulled into a sense of security by an effective presentation

• Hearing a thing once is not enough. Memory requires Review and Understanding

While Taking Notes

• Donʹt try for a verbatim transcript o Get all of the main ideas o Record some details, illustrations, implications, etc.

• Paraphrase o But remember that the speaker may serve as a model o But donʹt allow preconceived notions to distort what you are hearing

• Use form to indicate relative importance of items o Underscore or star major points

• Leave plenty of white space for later additions • Note speakerʹs organisation of material

o Organisation aids memory o Organisation indicates gaps when they occur

• Be accurate o Listen carefully to what is being said o Pay attention to qualifying words like sometimes, usually, rarely, etc. o Notice signals that a change of direction is coming but, however, on the

other hand • Be an aggressive, not a passive, listener

o Ask for clarification if needed o Develop a suitable system of mechanics

Jot down words or phrases, not entire sentences

FA

CILITA

TION

NO


Develop some system of shorthand and be consistent in its use (e.g. Hr s sntnc wth vwls lft t ‐ Here is a sentence with vowels left out!)

Leave out small service words Use contractions and abbreviations Use symbols +, =, &, @

o Try to get the hang of listening and writing at the same time. It can be done.

You may practice listening to the news on TV and taking notes

After Taking Notes

• Review and reword them as soon as possible o You should consider this in scheduling your work load

Donʹt just recopy or type without thought Rewrite incomplete or skimpy parts in greater detail Fill in gaps as you remember points heard but not recorded Arrange with another colleague to compare notes or debrief if

appropriate Find answers to any questions remaining unanswered Write a brief summary of the event

o We forget 50% of what we hear immediately; two months later, another 25% is gone. Relearning is rapid if regular review is used

• Sharpen your note taking technique by looking at your colleaguesʹ notes. How are they better than your own? How are your notes superior?

• Practice those skills you wish to develop

FA

CILITA

TION

NO


Agendas for Committee Meetings An agenda is a list of items to be discussed during a meeting. It must be drawn up in advance. What are the important points to remember? • Think carefully about the order in which items should come up for discussion.

Consider these factors when deciding the order: • Make sure the items are in a logical order. Wherever possible, the end of the

discussion on one item should lead naturally on to the next. It is normally best to put routine business first. • Try to place difficult or controversial items just after half‐way through the

agenda, with some simple, non‐controversial items before and after them. This is known as a bell‐curve structure. Begin with some items likely to achieve a consensus. Then move on to your more ‘difficult’ subjects. Conclude with more simple, non‐controversial items so that the meeting will end amicably.

• Make it easy for the committee members to find their way through the agenda by using these devices:

• Number all items consecutively, beginning with ‘1’. • If separate documents are required for any item, quote the reference number

under the appropriate heading together with the date of circulation. If they are to be circulated later, or handed out at the meeting, say so.

• Where an item on the agenda is being continued or carried forward from a previous meeting, quote the minute and date of that meeting.

• At the end of the agenda provide a checklist of the documents required for the meeting, in the order in which they will be needed.

Finally, obtain the chairperson’s approval of the agenda before circulating it. This agenda will form the basis of the minutes of the meeting.

FA

CILITA

TION

NO


Meeting Minutes Minutes are a written record of what takes place at a meeting. They can have legal and authoritative force in some cases but generally are mainly of use to the organisation itself.

What are the main points? • Generally the fewer the words used the better. The minutes should not be a

verbatim transcript of everything which was said. Minutes of a formal meeting must include: decisions taken, motions passed and the names of the people who attended. They must provide enough information and discussion so that absent members can participate on equal terms at the next meeting. • Write in the simple past tense (Mr A reported that . . .), and as soon as possible

after the meeting. (Take notes during the meeting as the basis of the minutes ‐ see handout on note taking). Concentrate on conclusions.

• Do not record controversy; state what was decided.

Check that your minutes: • provide a true, impartial and balanced account of the proceedings; • are written in clear, concise and unambiguous language; • are as concise as is compatible with the degree of accuracy required; • follow a method of presentation which helps the reader assimilate the contents. Once the minutes have been drafted, ask the chairperson to check them. Then circulate them to everyone who attended the meeting and also to anyone else who will be expected to act upon them. If someone asks for a correction, try to negotiate an acceptable form of words. However do not be fooled by people who want you to report what they should have said, not what they actually said. At the following meeting these minutes will be discussed and any arguments over them will be resolved. The chairperson will then sign them as correct.

FA

CILITA

TION

NO

TES 10 – Documentation

DOCUMENTATION

Some common types of documentation in an organisation.

Internal documentation • Memoranda • Agendas for meetings • Minutes of meetings • Desk messages • Faxes • Notes of telephone calls • Progress reports • Appraisal reports • Explanatory reports • Feasibility studies • Research studies • Trouble shooting reports

External/public documentation • Letters • Proposals • Project documents • Annual reports • Audit reports • Instructional manuals What documentation is needed for process documentation to inform process monitoring? What documentation is needed within the context of your communication network and information system? Who needs it and how do they access it? E.g. own filing cabinet, central filing cabinet, library/doc centre, on diskette/own computer etc.? What templates does your organisation need for structured documentation?

FA

CILITA

TION

NO

TES 10 – Documentation

The most important points in managing documentation to remember are:

The requirements of the person who requested the documentation (if not yourself).

The House‐style (use templates with logos, fonts and any other common characteristics for all your documents)

Custom and conventions. Your objective(s). Your readership. Common sense. It must present relevant facts accurately and in a way that is both acceptable and intelligible to its readers.

It must have a beginning, a middle and an end. The objective is that all documentation will: • be read without unnecessary delay • be understood without undue effort • be accepted. So always think about the needs of your readers. They are the important people, and they have a right to expect you to make things as easy for them as possible. If you do not help them, why should they help you?



These notes are produced by the Process Monitoring Agency for the Social Investment Program Project (SIPP) in Bangladesh. SIPP is

managed by the Social Development Foundation and funded by a World Bank IDA

loan to the Government of Bangladesh.

The Process Monitoring Agency is a collaboration between ITAD Ltd in the UK and

CNRS in Bangladesh.

ITAD Information, Training And Development 12, English Business Park English Close Hove BN3 7EE U.K. Telephone: +44 1273 765 250 Fax: +44 1273 765 251 e-mail: [email protected]

CNRS Center for Natural Resource Studies

House # 14 (2nd Floor), Road # 13/C, Block # E, Banani,

Dhaka-1213, Bangladesh

Telephone: +880-2-9886700 Fax: +880-2-9886700

email: [email protected]


19

8. Annex 3. Trainers’ Notes


A Trainers’ Guide

January 2005

Contents

COURSE RESOURCES 1

COURSE 1: OUTLINE 3

COURSE 2: OUTLINE 4

VENUE AND MATERIALS 5

COURSE 1 6

INTRODUCTION, AND BRIEFING ON SIPP AND THE PMA 6

INTRODUCTION TO PROCESS MONITORING 8

WEALTH RANKING 10

REPORT CARDS 14

TRAINING EVALUATION 17

COURSE 2 18

FIELD ASSESSMENTS 19

NOTE FOR THE RECORD 21

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 25

CASE STUDIES 26

SUMMING UP 28

TRAINING EVALUATION 29

ANNEX 1. END OF TRAINING EVALUATION FORM 30

ANNEX 2. DAILY REFLECTION EXERCISES 32

RATING SCALE 32 COLOUR-CARDS AND PAIRS 32 STRIPS OF TOPIC TITLES 33 MOOD-READER USING FACES 33

ANNEX 3. ENERGISERS 34

SINKING BOAT 34 THROWING A BALL WHILE THINKING OF NAMES 34 SIMON SAYS 35 FLIP JACKS 35 FORMING A SENTENCE 35

SSIIPPPP PPRROOCCEESSSS MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG –– CCOOUURRSSEE RREESSOOUURRCCEESS

1

COURSE RESOURCES The course is divided into two parts:

Course 1 – An introduction to Wealth Ranking and Report Cards

Course 2 – An overview to the Process Monitoring System and Tools

The following table provides a detailed list of the modules and content

TRAINERS’ RESOURCES

Document Name Content

SIPP PM Training – Course 1 – outline

SIPP PM Training – Course 2 ‐ outline

These provide the course outlines for parts 1 and 2, the overall objectives and give an indication of the ideal length for each session

Introduction to SIPP and the PMA

Introduction to Process Monitoring

Wealth Ranking

Report Cards

Field Assessments

Note for the Record

Focused Group Discussions

Case Studies

The training notes are for the trainers. They indicate learning objectives, duration of session, materials needed, etc

Training Evaluation A form to be given out to each participant at the end of the training to evaluate the training.

Daily Reflection Exercises If required, daily reflection exercises can be carried out. This document gives examples of daily reflection exercises.

Energisers This document provides detailed steps for energisers. They are not compulsory but can be used as and when either the trainer or participants feel they are necessary.

SSIIPPPP PPRROOCCEESSSS MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG –– CCOOUURRSSEE RREESSOOUURRCCEESS

2

PARTICIPANTS’ RESOURCES

Document Name Content


These include the following sections:

Facilitation Notes ‐ Introduction

Facilitation Notes 1 ‐ Wealth Ranking

Facilitation Notes 2 ‐ Report Cards

Facilitation Notes 3 ‐ Field Assessments

Facilitation Notes 4 ‐ Note for the Record

Facilitation Notes 5 ‐ Focus Group Discussions

Facilitation Notes 6 ‐ Case Studies

Facilitation Notes 7 ‐ Case Studies

Facilitation Notes 8 ‐ Holding a Meeting

Facilitation Notes 9 ‐ Taking Notes

Facilitation Notes 10 ‐ Documentation

These are hand‐outs for participants. They clearly describe more detail about the tools and a step‐by‐step process for using the tool.

SSIIPPPP PPRROOCCEESSSS MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG –– CCOOUURRSSEE 11 OOUUTTLLIINNEE

3

COURSE 1: OUTLINE

Title Wealth Ranking and Report Cards

Duration 4 hours

Learning Objectives

Participants gain skills that enable them to carryout a wealth ranking

Participants can use report cards for facilitating self‐assessment of performance and progress by VDCs or other community groups

Participants Staff from Community Support Organisations and Participating Organisations

Content Introduction to the course; participant introductions

10 mins

Outline of SIPP and the role of the Process Monitoring Agency

15 mins

Introduction to Process Monitoring

Substantially more time may be needed here if participants are not very familiar with the concept of press monitoring – up to 1 hour, to include Question & Answer session

15 mins

Note comment

Introduction to Wealth Ranking 90 mins

Break

Introduction to Report Cards 90 mins

SSIIPPPP PPRROOCCEESSSS MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG –– VVEENNUUEE AANNDD MMAATTEERRIIAALLSS

4

COURSE 2: OUTLINE

Title Process Monitoring

Duration 1.5 days

Learning Objectives

By the end of the course participants are able to:

Use the process monitoring tools

Implement the process monitoring system used in SIPP

Participants Staff from SDF

Content Day 1

Course 1 4 hours

Lunch 60 mins

Introduction to Part 2 of the course 10 mins

Field Assessment 90 mins

Break 15 mins

Field Assessment (continued) 120 mins

Day 2

Summary of Day 1 30 mins

Note For the Record (NFR) 90 mins

Break 15 mins

Note For the Record (NFR) (continued) 60 mins

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) 30 mins

Lunch 60 mins

Case Studies 90 mins

Break 15 mins

Wrap‐up/Summary 30 mins

Course Evaluation 20 mins

SSIIPPPP PPRROOCCEESSSS MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG –– VVEENNUUEE AANNDD MMAATTEERRIIAALLSS

5

VENUE AND MATERIALS Setting up the training venue A checklist of issues to consider when setting out the training venue:

Health and safety – assess the risks and take any necessary mitigating action Registration area Space at the front (and side?) for role plays, flipchart work, etc – additional rooms may be considered, if necessary

Flipchart stands, or other means of displaying flipchart paper One laptop linked to a beamer (multimedia projector) plus screen, usually at the front of the room (or alternatively an overhead projector with acetates)

The arrangement of chairs/ tables, to help maximise participation and group work

Wall space for flipcharts – with some pre‐prepared flipcharts already put on the walls

Welcome flipchart near the front door, and arrows to the venue (if necessary) Area for breaks – appropriately set out, with arrangements made for tea, coffee, etc

Pens, notepads and training folders laid out on the desks for every trainee Toilet facilities – where are they? Are they functional? Disabled access?

Checklist of suggested training materials

Training Packages (training notes; handouts; presentations), in both paper and electronic forms (with backup copies)

Pens, notepads and training folders for every trainee Flipchart paper Marker pens Stereo tape player, plus tapes/CDs? Laptop (with PowerPoint), plus beamer, extension cable(s) Overhead Projector (OHP), plus OHP transparencies? Blue‐tack (or masking tape) for putting up flipcharts Post‐it notes ‘Metacards’ (3” x 6” coloured cards for participants to write on) A4 paper for printing Copies of the manual and guides – enough for each participant, plus trainers

SSIIPPPP PPRROOCCEESSSS MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG –– IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN

6

COURSE 1

INTRODUCTION, AND BRIEFING ON SIPP AND THE PMA

Objectives • To introduce the participants to the course objectives, and elicit their expectations about the training

• To provide some background on the project and the process monitoring agency

• To deal with ‘house‐keeping’ matters

Time 15 – 20 minutes

Resources: Briefing and background slides (SLIDES 2 – 5)

Hand‐outs of relevant slides

Stationary Flip‐chart and marker pens; blu‐tak/tape

1. SLIDE 1 – brief overview to the course. Explain the difference between the two courses and provide a brief overview to each course content and the timetable.


Overview

• COURSE 1– An introduction to wealth ranking and

report cards

• COURSE 2– An overview to the process monitoring

system and tools

2. Introductions – Trainers introduce themselves and ask participants to introduce themselves (note: depending on numbers you could use an activity for this; name badges may or may not be appropriate).

3. Brainstorm on participant expectations on course objectives and what they will learn.

The trainer/facilitator should record these expectations on to a flip chart and fix on to the wall. This can be revisited duration the final wrap‐up and course evaluation.


7

4. The trainer can now present and discuss the objectives for course 1



• Your expectations…• Participants gain skills that enable them

to carryout a locally relevant Wealth Ranking

• Participants can use Report Cards for facilitating self-assessment of performance and progress by VDCs or other community groups

5. Agree on the timing of breaks and lunch if appropriate

6. Agree on daily evaluation sessions and/or end of course evaluation sessions

7. The trainer should start the session by giving an overview to SIPP and especially the function of the PMA. [this can be done verbally or slides can be created]

8. The trainer should summarise the session highlighting the main learning points/issues


8

INTRODUCTION TO PROCESS MONITORING

Objectives • Participants can define process monitoring

• Participants are able to describe the SIPP process monitoring system and tools

Time 30 ‐ 40 minutes

Resources: SLIDES 6 ‐ 9

Facilitation Notes 1 ‐ Introduction

Handouts of slides for participants

Stationary Coloured cards and pens for brainstorming sessions

Board/Flip Chart/Wall to stick cards to

Sticky tape, blue tac or pins Introduction

1. The trainer should mainly focus on getting participants to understand the meaning and objectives of Process Monitoring.

2. The trainer asks participants to write on cards what they understand by Process Monitoring (2‐3 cards per participant. Emphasise that no more than 2 lines of large text should be written on a card, in legible lower case text).

3. Stick the cards on a wall or flipchart and group them under common themes.

4. The trainer should discuss the cards, identifying any that are not relevant and highlighting those that are.

5. The cards should be summarised and then the trainer presents slide 6, which describes what is process monitoring.


What is Process Monitoring?

• Processes are “coherent sets of actions that produce outcomes”

• Process Monitoring = “observing and analysing howactivities are done”

• PM = a management tool to generate information for institutional learning and taking corrective action in innovative and adaptive projects that involve a high level of community participation


9

6. and slides 7 and 8, which highlight why we do Process Monitoring.


Why do process monitoring?

• To learn about how to improve the way things are done in projects

• To generate information for institutional learning


Why do process monitoring? –The Role of the PMA

To provide:• SDF management a more direct and objective

communication of the processes and qualitative changes taking place throughout the project, so that corrective measures can be taken where necessary.

• an entry point for scaling up good practice lessons

• a feedback mechanism from the communities on how to do things better, as well as to get a clear assessment of hard-to-measure shifts in community attitudes and practices.

7. Ask for any issues of clarification or further explanation from participants.

8. Introduce the range of tools that are used in process monitoring and provide a brief overview to the purpose of each tool (Slide 9)


PM Tools




TOOL 5: Utilities Field Assessment









PurposeTool

9. Provide participants with handouts of slides 6 to 9.

SSIIPPPP PPRROOCCEESSSS MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG –– WWEEAALLTTHH RRAANNKKIINNGG

10

WEALTH RANKING

Objectives • Participants understand why a wealth ranking is necessary for identifying different households in a community

• Participants gain skills in how to conduct a wealth ranking

Time 2 hours [with 15 minutes break]


Facilitation Notes 2 – Wealth Ranking


Sets of descriptions of households (1 set per 2 – 4 participants)



Sticky tape, blue tac or pins Introduction 1. The Trainer should begin the session by establishing whether or not participants

are familiar with the term wealth ranking and whether or not they have prior experience of wealth ranking.

2. Discuss with participants why it is necessary to carry out a wealth ranking. This

could be another brainstorming exercise. Either in groups or individuals writing on 2 – 3 cards (depends on the number of participants)

3. Summarise cards and then show slide

11.


Wealth Ranking - purpose

• Establish the main criteria of poverty in different villages, as seen by villagers

• Establish in which poverty categories different households in a village are placed (by villagers)

• Verify who are the poor and very poor

• Monitor whether HHs move between wealth categories (due to SIPP)


11

Points to cover include: • To identify households on the basis of predefined indicators related to socio‐

economic conditions, or for identifying local indicators of welfare and wellbeing. • Appreciate the communities views of measuring poverty and welfare compared

to outsiders views • A method that concentrates on a relative ranking of people’s socio‐economic

conditions (e.g., relatively well‐off and worse‐off), rather than making an absolute assessment.

• This method can help assess which households are benefiting from the project and if these belong to the intended target group (i.e. it is useful for producing a baseline to measure changes in poverty that may be attributed to project interventions).

• Providing a sample frame to cross‐check the relative wealth of informants who have been or will be interviewed. Biases against the poor and vulnerable can thus be offset;

4. The trainer should introduce

when wealth ranking is used in SIPP and who uses wealth ranking and provide a simple overview to the process of wealth ranking. (slide 12)


Wealth Ranking in SIPP

• When is it used?– Start of programme

– Two further intervals

• Who uses it?– CSO

– Field Facilitators of the POs

– Impact Evaluation Agency

5. The trainer should introduce the four wealth categories used in SIPP (slide 13)…


Wealth categories

Very / hardcore poor

Poor

MiddleRichHousehold 1

Household 2

Household 3

Household 4


12

6. …… and the main criteria used to identify levels of poverty (slide 14)


Wealth ranking - criteria

Full-time, salary

Rich Middle

Day labour

Poor V.PoorCriteria

occasionalemployment

Condition of dress

Food availability

Land ownership

7. Seek discussion from participants on other criteria that can be used to monitor or

assess wealth. Practical Exercise: Wealth Ranking The trainer should explain the method for carrying out a wealth ranking. Participants are then divided into groups (or it can be done as one group if there are less than 6 participants). It is best to use a number of smaller groups of 2 – 4 people each. For this exercise there needs to be a set of 20 cards each of which describes a different household. The cards will have different types of information profiling the household, some will have more information that others, e.g: Monwar Ali: has 2 cows, but no other assets; monthly income is Tk. 1100; takes two a day for 6 months a year and thrice rest of year. See below for more examples. Participants read the description of each household. After reading the descriptions they should decided the criteria they will use to place households in one of the 4 wealth categories. 1. first decide on 3 or 4 criteria and the range of the criteria to assess which

household will go in which level 2. note down the criteria you select and the reason for the selection 3. once the group has agreed on the rankings, complete FORM 1 4. present this back at a plenary session 5. the trainer can then compare the ranking from different groups, and explore the

reasons fro any differences. 8. The trainer should highlight: Why there are four wealth categories The main criteria used in wealth ranking, but emphasise that these should be

context specific


13

After carrying out the wealth ranking the ranks should be verified by meeting with the VDC members and the CF or CSO to agree the ranks

The original forms are kept by villagers/VDCs and a copy is sent to the SDF MIS unit

Examples of household profiles to use for wealth ranking exercise:

HH No. Name Status of wealth 1 Arif Mia

− day laborer − No cultivable land − Family of 6 members − House made with straw − Have only homestead area

2 Milon Rani

− Have only homestead area − Shabby house − Monthly income Tk.1000. − Family of 4 members where 2 are school

going child − No domestic animal

3 Rahim Uddin

− Has own house straw made − No land − 4 children (not go to school) − day laborer − took loan from BRAC for cow fattening

4 Azharul Islam

− High school teacher − No cultivable land − One University going daughter − Have a poultry firm

5 Zaheda Begum

− Widow − Occasional day laborer − 2 children − took VGF assistance − lives on others land − no fixed income

6 Karim Uddin

− Has tin shade house − 100 decimals cropland − 1 power tiller − 3 school going children − one big pond, 1 TW, 1 latrine, 1 bamboo

garden 7 Salma Begum

− Widow − 2 children, elder one is woman − Semi-pucca building − No cultivable land − Younger son do seasonal business

8 Bulbul Ahmed

− Having 50 decimal cultivable land − 2 tin shed living houses − takes meal 3 times per day − One milk cow − Studio business

SSIIPPPP PPRROOCCEESSSS MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG –– RREEPPOORRTT CCAARRDDSS

14

REPORT CARDS

Objectives • Participants know when to use report cards

• Participants are skilled in completing report cards

Time 2 hours [with 15 minutes break]


Facilitation Notes 3 – Report Cards

A Full set of Report Cards

A 1 page profile of a VDC in a hypothetical village




Sticky tape, blue tac or pins 1. The trainer introduces the Report

Card. This should provide an overview to the purpose of report cards, when they’re used and who uses them. (Slide 16)


Report Cards

• A tool for reflection and learning

• For self-assessment of performance

• To enhance transparency, encourage debate and discussion

• To improve process and practice

2. The trainer then introduces the

concept of measuring change by using indicators. (Slides 17 & 18)


How to monitor change?

• SIPP is a complex project


15


Indicators

• Signs we look for to tell us if change is happening

• Signs that tell us not only ‘how much’change is happening, but also ‘how well’it is happening

3. Optionally, the trainer shows each

Report Card to participants and asks them what the report card measures (or indicates). Indicators that are suggested by participants should be written on cards/flip chart and placed next to the picture card. It may be sufficient to do this with one or two cards only


Report Card

Holding regular meetings

4. The trainer should show participants how to complete FORMs 2, 3 and 4 (presented in the Facilitation Notes 3). (Slides 20 & 21).


Report Cards - Scoring

• Scoring: 5 = best, 1 = worst

• Collating scoresScore for each indicator (taken from individual quarterly score sheets) Date Quarte

r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Total

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total


SDF’s use of Report Cards



Involvement

of poor

Benefit of poor


Benefit of

women

Leadership



Active planning

Unity and conflict

resolution


Total

VDC-1

VDC-2 VDC-3

VDC-..

5. The use of report cards for self‐assessing performance in a group can be

demonstrated using a role play. Divide participants into two groups (about 4‐5


16

participants per group). The objective of the exercise is a role play for participants to practice planning and holding a meeting and using the report cards to assess their performance.

6. Explain the role play exercise to participants. You should allow about 30‐40

minutes preparation time and then about 10 minutes for each group to present their role play to the other participants. The trainer should then use the flip chart summaries of the report cards to facilitate a discussion of the use of report cards by the VDCs and thence SDF.

Practical Exercise: Role Play using Report Cards Participants should role play being a VDC. They are meeting to discuss their performance. Each role playing group should nominate a chairperson, secretary, etc. [See Facilitation Notes 8 ‐ How to hold a meeting, and Facilitation Notes 9 ‐ Taking Notes] On the basis of the profile they are given, each group should then use the report cards to assess their performance around these issues. They should record their assessment on FORM 2, and make a summary of the scores and indicators on to a flip chart. Example of a village profile for the Report Cards role play exercise: “You are members of the VDC in Shapla village in north central Bangladesh, on the banks of the Jamuna. People from an NGO first came to your village in 2003 to tell you about a new project called SIPP. Later in the year a Village Development Committee for the project was formed, and you were chosen to be on the Committee. Since the Committee first met in November 2003, you have met a further 3 times, but it is not always clear when the next meeting will be because people are involved in other work. However on the VDC the wife of the school master is the secretary and she has been to a school and knows how to keep a minute book. The problem is our treasurer is not very good with figures! The Chairman is a fisherman, and he provides clear information and direction for the VDC and villagers. The VDC is mainly farmers with because they know how to plan and they know what is best for the village. Sub‐projects have been done on roads because that helps everyone, but we are not sure how the road will be kept in good shape. This was agreed in a village meeting, with VDC making the decision. We have about half women on the VDC, one has worked with a woman’s NGO before and is very good at making the views of village woman heard by us on the VDC. Since the SIPP started we have noticed more children going to school, but my friend’s daughter was married last week and had to pay a big dowry.”


17

FINAL SESSION

The trainer should finish Course 1 by summarising (alternatively you could ask groups of participants to do the summary)

what is process monitoring

why we do process monitoring

what tools are used in process monitoring

when and why we use wealth ranking and report cards

END OF COURSE 1 The Trainer should now ask those participants only attending Course 1 to complete the training evaluation form using the following procedure. The evaluation form is given in Annex 1.

TRAINING EVALUATION

Objectives • Final evaluation of the course to indicate strong and weak parts of the course

• To provide information on participants’ views about the training received

• To provide guidance on areas where the course needs improving

Participants All trainees should complete an end of course evaluation form

Time 20 mins

Materials Evaluation form Method 1. The forms should be handed out to participants near the end of the course

2. Every participant should complete a form

3. Ideally, a quick analysis of the forms should take place at the end of the training and the findings immediately fed‐back to participants before they depart. If there is not enough time for this, the results can be summarised in a report of the training and shared with participants.

SSIIPPPP PPRROOCCEESSSS MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG –– FFIIEELLDD AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTTSS

18

COURSE 2

1. The trainer should present the learning objectives for course 2, and recap the tools that this course will cover (course 2; slides 2 & 3)



• Participants are able to use the full set of process monitoring tools

• Participants understand and can implement the process monitoring system for SIPP


PM Tools




TOOL 5: Field Assessment for Utilities program









PurposeTool


19

FIELD ASSESSMENTS

Objectives • Participants are able to carry out a semi‐structured interview and a participant observation

• Participants can identify the process issues by using these two tools

Time 2 ‐ 3 hours

Resources: SLIDES Course 2, 4 ‐ 13

Facilitation Notes




Sticky tape, blue tac or pins 1. Introduce the Field Assessment Tool.

Highlight why it is used, when it is used, and the competencies needed by the person doing the assessment. (course 2; slides 5 & 6)



• Main tool used in PM

• Comprises: Participant Observation and Semi-Structured Interviews

• Assesses project processes against indicators of process quality

• The end product is a Draft Note for the Record (NFR)



• Is not rocket science

• Requires:– good understanding of project objectives and

working practices– good understanding of social norms in rural areas– strong skills in participatory / sociological

techniques– good enquiry / detective skills– very good analytical and writing skills


20

2. Introduce the quality criteria. Ask participants in groups of about 4, to brainstorm on to cards the criteria they think are important in the project processes; i.e. what would define a high quality process in the context of SIPP?

3. Following discussion, the trainer can then compare the groups’ criteria with those used in the process monitoring system. (slide 7)


Quality Criteria

• Inclusiveness

• Transparency

• Governance and empowerment

• Sustainability

• Cost effectiveness

• Information sharing

4. Introduce the two tools used in Field Assessment. Participant Observation and

SSIs (slides 8 & 9). Explain: a. How they are used – either stand‐alone or to triangulate findings b. Explain the steps for each method, especially highlighting how to

select (i) the people/.groups to observe and (ii) participants for the SSIs


Participant observation

• Gathering data (quantitative and qualitative) through observation and enquiry

• About learning through watching and listening

SIPP Process Monitoring TRAINING

9

Semi-Structured Interviews

• Guided interview

• Topics for discussion are predetermined

• Questions used are flexible and change according to responses

• Open ended questions are used

5. The participants should now be introduced to the Field Assessment exercise. In

this exercise, which is done in groups of about 4, the participants role play being a Process Monitor, about to undertake a Field Assessment. The exercise starts by the groups being given 15 minutes to read the Field Assessment part of their Notes for Facilitators, with a focus on process quality criteria. The groups are then instructed to use either Semi‐Structure Interview or Participant Observation (1 method per group). Each group is then given a scenario or project stage which they have to assess, e.g. CAP formulation, pilot private utilities start‐up, sub‐project operation, etc. Each group must then produce a list of 10 questions they would ask (semi‐structured interview) or 10 issues they would look out for (participant observation). The lists should be recorded on to a flip chart, and each team explains their list to the plenary.

SSIIPPPP PPRROOCCEESSSS MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG –– NNFFRRSS

21

NOTE FOR THE RECORD

Objectives • Participants gain skills in completing a Note for the Record

Time 2 – 2.5 hours


Facilitation Notes


Examples of good and poor NFRs



Sticky tape, blue tac or pins

1. Introduce the NFR, explaining that it is produced through a process of observation, interviews and good documentation. It is developed from the previous tools. Explain when it is used and who uses it.

2. Explain why the NFR is one of the most important tools in process monitoring. (slide 16)


NFR

Purpose• analysis, summary and presentation of

findings from F.A.s

• Used to:– Report to management how processes

have been implemented– Indicate to management where programme

design may require modification

3. Explain the structure of the NFR, and steps

in completing them, giving detail on each section. (slides 17 & 18)


Structure of the NFR

• Several processes / groups of processes covered in each NFR

• Each process/group of processes is reported in three parts:

– Observations about the process of SIPP implementation at the field level

– Any issues about how the processes are carried out

– Recommendations that relate to the purpose


22


Process for developing NFRs1. Field Assessment2. Collate, summarise, analyse Field Assessments –

using 3-part format3. (FGDs at field level to explore F.A. issues arising)4. Write Draft NFR5. Review Draft NFR within PMA6. (May circulate Draft NFR to SDF (and partners))7. Hold FGD(s) with project partners & SDF8. Finalise NFR, considering PMA QA & FGD

comments9. Submit Final NFR to MEL Division, SDF10. Summarise NFR issues & recommendations into a

matrix (monthly)This complicated flow looks like this

4. Hand out examples of a good NRF and a poor NRF (see below).

5. Divide participants in to 3 or 4 groups and get them to quickly (15 mins) summarise the strengths and weaknesses of both NFRs. They should compile comments about each on to a flip chart. The strengths and weaknesses should both be separated in relation to the content of the NFR and the format/ presentation of the NFR (see slide)

SIPP Process Monitoring TRAINING

19

NFR group workNFR-1 NFR-2

Strengths

Weaknesses

Content•••

Content•••

Format•••

Format•••

Strengths

Weaknesses

Content•••

Content•••

Format•••

Format•••

6. Finally, in plenary, the trainer should lead a discussion of how the current NFR format (good NFR structure) might be improved, focusing on issues including:

• Importance of the issue • Length of NFR • Ease of use

Examples of NFRs samples (one good and one poor – it should be obvious which is which): NFR Example No. 1

1. Shapla Village Development Committee: Physical observation and discussion was carried out with the members of different committees as well as with the other villagers regarding the present sub-project status and future plan. Villagers informed, about 75% earthwork has been completed and they got 2nd installment from SDF. Rest 25% of total will be completed later when weather will be favorable. Partial soil erosion was found as the newly


23

constructed roads are not uncovered with grass. Members of different committees informed, eroded part would be repaired as well as turfing after completion of the road construction.

During discussion, it was found that though female respondents were active in response on different issues but they did not reply clearly which committee they are belonging and also what is the position of them in the committee.

Meeting is going regularly at least one in a month at Union Parishad office. The number of meetings may be more based on requirement. Members of the committee informed, active participation of female in the meeting is high, giving opinion and suggestion on different vital issues that is recorded after internal discussion.

It was observed that joint meeting of VDC and PMC taking place regularly due to sub-project implementation so far.

2. Financial Contribution: Char Union: “About 40 poor villagers will get seed money from the project” – the CG member use this slogan during collection of financial contribution from the poor for sub-project. One poor villager had to take loan for payment his financial contribution with a hope to get seed money in future.

3. Re-Measurement of Sub-project: Initially, the VDC prepares a proposal for a CIW sub-project, with the assistance of CSO. According to the responsibilities, PAST estimates the cost of sub-projects considering all technical aspects. If the deviation between two budgets is high, then the sub-project is measured again by both the community and the PAST. It is a time consuming system and duplication of work. PAST official opined that initial cost estimation of any sub-project should be based on money allocation and care should be given on the accuracy of the budget. Cost appraisal of any sub-project might be done jointly by the PAST and CSO with the concern of community. NFR Example No. 2

1. Competency of PMC Cashiers:

Process Observation: In the case of Shapla village, an energetic president of the PMC and his equally energetic wife as president of the VDC are playing sound roles but the PMC Cashier’s performance is poor. She does not keep the records, rather the


24

PMC President does. Despite urging by the partner organisations and recommendations by the PMA, the PMC has not replaced her.

Process Issue: Office-bearers should be energetic, able to devote enough time, have the trust of the community and be competent to do the duty assigned. Some PMC Cashiers fail on the last characteristic. The issue has been highlighted in earlier NFRs. The Program Division of SDF stated to the PMA that it has advised the CSO to probe into this issue.

Process Recommendation: While it is upto the villagers to choose their office-bearers, it is the responsibility of SIPP to guide them otherwise why is SIPP needed for its technical expertise? At least there should be minimum criteria in terms of educational level for cashiers (A student can become a cashier also). Additionally, CSOs should facilitate the choosing of PMC Cashiers by the community in consultation with the PAST, as it is the latter who has to work with them in sub-project implementation.

2. List of tube-well sub-project beneficiaries and cross checking

Process observations: The VDC submitted tube-well sub-project proposal to SDF for beneficiary groups with the assistance of CSO. A list of beneficiary’s name added with the proposal.

Process issues arising: It was observed in the list that they did not mention the fathers or husband’s name and occupation of beneficiaries. Resulted, it is very difficult to identify the beneficiaries individually whenever cross checking whether the actual beneficiaries were selected. Moreover, in some groups, there were no persons whose name mentioned in the list.

Process recommendation: To avoid all types of difficulties and ensure real beneficiaries in future, the name of father/husband and occupation of all beneficiaries has to be mentioned in sub-project proposal.:

3. Re-Measurement of Sub-project:

Process observations: Initially, the VDC prepares a proposal for a CIW sub-project, with the assistance of CSO. According to the responsibilities, PAST estimates the cost of sub-projects considering all technical aspects. If the deviation between two budgets is high, then both the community and the PAST measure the sub-project again.

Process Issues: It is a time consuming system and duplication of work. PAST official opined that initial cost estimation of any sub-project should be based on money allocation and care should be given on the accuracy of the budget.

Process recommendations: Cost appraisal of any sub-project might be done jointly by the PAST and CSO with the concern of community.

SSIIPPPP PPRROOCCEESSSS MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG –– FFGGDDSS

25

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Objectives • participants are able to describe the tool, and understand its role in the process monitoring system

Time 20 ‐ 30 minutes


Facilitation Notes




Sticky tape, blue tac or pins 1. Briefly explain to participants what is

the tool ‘Focus Group Discussion’ and why this is used in SIPP


FGDs

• Feedback findings from Field Assessments

• Seek clarification on confused / complex issues from Field Assessments

• Triangulation / validation of Field Assessment findings

• Discuss Field Assessment findings and reach decisions on issues raised

• To use the information to inform planning and future implementation

BACK

2. Discuss how you select participants for the FGD

3. Discuss how you develop questions and how you ask questions during a FGD

4. Highlight that the FGD validates the NFR which was developed earlier in the training.

SSIIPPPP PPRROOCCEESSSS MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG –– CCAASSEE SSTTUUDDIIEESS

26

CASE STUDIES Objectives • Participants are able to plan a case study

• Participants can identify relevant case studies for SIPP

• Participants understand the role of case studies in SIPP’s organisational learning

Time 90 minutes


Facilitation Notes

Diagram of information flows in SIPP




Sticky tape, blue tac or pins

1. Outline to participants the

purpose of the ‘Case Studies’ tool, and why this is used in SIPP. Explain that it is for documenting good or innovative practice and recording ‘lessons’ that the whole project can learn from.(Slide 23)


Case Studies

Purpose:

To help SIPP to:

• Enhance performance through analysing & disseminating good practice

• Establish benchmarks of good practice

• Provide structured documentation of the lessons

2. Explain that the purpose of Case Studies cannot be fulfilled solely by documentation. There is a need to ensure the learning encompassed in the Case Studies is communicated to the relevant parties in the project. (Slide 24)


Case Studies• Documenting good practice is only half

the job

• The other half is to communicate the lesson to other relevant partners

• How does the learning from Case Studies flow around SIPP?

SSIIPPPP PPRROOCCEESSSS MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG –– CCAASSEE SSTTUUDDIIEESS

27

3. The trainer should now break the participants into two groups, each to undertake a different exercise. In exercise 1, participants should brainstorm on to cards 10 possible cases studies that highlight important learning points for SIPP. For each potential case study, the group should then use a flip chart to make a simple (one sentence) explanation of why each case study is important, and what process issue it should emphasise.

4. The second group, doing exercise

2, will the proposed information flow for the whole project, with a focus on the Case Studies. The trainer should emphasise that all the tools, and especially the Case Studies, are important for SIPP lesson learning. Thus the group should review the proposed flow (slide), and record on to a flip chart practical steps for putting it into practice.

- Letter

- Discussion

- Attend meeting (VD

C)

- Letter

- Meeting m

inutes

- Discussion in meetings

Process MonitoringAgency (Dist &

Dhaka)

MEL divisionof SDF

READ

SDFmanagement

Reporting toWorld Bank

Villagers

VillageDevelopment

Committee

NGOs doing PPFof Community

UtilitiesPAST

ParticipatingOrganization

CommunitySupport

Organization

Others Local /National Level

Report CardsCase Studies, NFRs & PPF of UtilitiesBoth

Overview of PM Information Flows

Decision/Action (proposed)

Report/Documents

5. The trainer will conclude the session by getting the two groups to present their

flip charts to the plenary, and using them to explore issues relating to organisational learning in SIPP.

SSIIPPPP PPRROOCCEESSSS MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG –– SSUUMMMMIINNGG UUPP

28

SUMMING UP

Objectives • To bring the course to a conclusion

• To summarise on what the course was designed to achieve, and what was accomplished

• To focus participants on what the next steps are for building on the course

Time 30 mins

Materials Course objectives slide

Flip chart of participants’ expectations

Method The trainer should now use the Course Objectives slide and the flip chart of participants’ expectations to facilitate a discussion of what the course has achieved, whether expectations have been met, and what further actions are needed both from individuals and organisations to build on the training.

SSIIPPPP PPRROOCCEESSSS MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG –– TTRRAAIINNIINNGG EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN

29

TRAINING EVALUATION

Objectives • Final evaluation of the course to indicate strong and weak parts of the course

• To provide information on participants’ views about the training received

• To provide guidance on areas where the course needs improving

Participants All trainees should complete an end of course evaluation form

Time 20 mins

Materials Evaluation form Method 1. The forms should be handed out to participants near the end of the course

2. Every participant should complete a form

3. Ideally, a quick analysis of the forms should take place at the end of the training and the findings immediately fed‐back to participants before they depart. If there is not enough time for this, the results can be summarised in a report of the training and shared with participants.


30

ANNEX 1. END OF TRAINING EVALUATION FORM

Course title

Course dates

Organisation

Name (opitional)

Please complete the end of course evaluation form. This will help us improve the course. How do you rate the training you have received? Against each of the performance criteria, indicate your rating of the course by ticking the relevant cell in the right hand column

Exce

llent

Very

goo

d

Satis

fact

ory

Unsa

tisfa

ctor

y

Very

Un

satis

fact

ory

By the end of the course, participants will be better able to: 1. Describe what is meant by process

monitoring

2. Use the tools of process monitoring



• Visual aids: the quality and the

appropriateness of slides and handouts





Quality of training delivery





31

Which part(s) of the training did you like most and why? Which sessions should be improved? How could they be improved? Did training materials meet your requirements? If NO, how can they be improved? Which parts of the training did not meet your requirements? How can they be improved? Any other comments: please continue below (or attach another page)

SSIIPPPP PPRROOCCEESSSS MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG –– DDAAIILLYY RREEFFLLEECCTTIIOONN EEXXEERRCCIISSEESS

32

ANNEX 2. DAILY REFLECTION EXERCISES

Objectives • To provide participants with the opportunity to reflect on what they have learnt during each day of the course

Participants Trainees

Time 5 – 10 mins

Frequency The Daily Reflection Exercises are suggestions of activities that can be carried out with participants to monitor each days training. The trainer and participants together can decided with tool to use each day – you can use a different one each day, or use the same tool throughout the duration of the course.

Materials Flip chart, marker pens, coloured cards or post‐it notes Rating Scale 1. Trainer writes on flipchart paper areas requiring feedback or what should be

reflected on. For instance, he/she may write content, tools and methods, presentation, trainee participation, and length of each session.

2. Trainer explains that the facilitation team would like to get feedback on the day’s learning sessions and is asking participants to provide this feedback.

3. Trainer explains the rating scale, i.e. that 1 = low score and 5 = high score. (Trainer may use a rating scale of 1 to 10 if they prefer).

4. Trainer asks participants to rate each area indicated on the flip chart using the rating scale

5. When participants have finished rating, the trainer may wish to encourage participants to elaborate on the rating by highlighting why some scores are low or high so as to learn from the exercise.

Colour‐Cards and Pairs 1. Trainer writes three questions for feedback on flipchart. The three questions are

Q.1. What went well? Q.2. What went less well? Q. 3. What are your suggestions for improvement?

2. Trainer asks participants to form pairs

3. Each pair is given three colour‐cards and trainer explains that each question must be answered on one card; for instance, Green for Q. 1, Blue for Q 2, and, Yellow for Q 3.

4. The trainer explains that participants should discuss the three questions and write their responses on the cards

SSIIPPPP PPRROOCCEESSSS MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG –– DDAAIILLYY RREEFFLLEECCTTIIOONN EEXXEERRCCIISSEESS

33

5. When participants have finished writing their feedback, trainer should stick the cards on the board or wall and participants should be invited to make some comments or observations.

Strips of Topic Titles 1. The Trainer writes each topic title covered during the day on separate pieces of

paper.

2. Participants are divided into as many groups as there are topic titles

3. Each group is given one strip of paper with one topic title on it. They should then discuss and respond to three questions, i.e. Q. 1. Briefly state what was covered in that topic. Q 2. What went well? Q. 3. What did not go so well?

4. After 5 minutes of discussion, the trainer asks each group to give a verbal response to the questions and other participants are invited to make additional comments.

Mood‐Reader using faces 1. Trainer draws three faces one happy, one neutral and the third sad.

2. Trainer explains that for to day’s reflections participants will be asked to use a mood‐reader. The trainer should explain that the mood‐reader only summarizes a person’s mood.

3. Trainer asks participants to tick using a marker pen against the face that best describes their mood for the day.

4. Trainer encourages participants to explain their moods so as to integrate their observations in the next day’s work and thus modify the sessions accordingly.

SSIIPPPP PPRROOCCEESSSS MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG –– EENNEERRGGIISSEERRSS

34

ANNEX 3. ENERGISERS Notes to trainers: Energisers are used to break up sessions, re‐engage trainees and bring new levels of energy to all! They should be used at regular intervals or when needed. They may be particularly needed in afternoon sessions if trainees show signs of tiredness. Some energisers are given below but trainees may suggest other energizers.

Sinking Boat Instructions to Participants: Leader of the energizer says: Find space to move around easily. Imagine that we are on an ocean and the boat is being rowed (using arm and body movements as well as waking around, the leader demonstrates, how this is done). When I say the boat is sinking you should move into groups of a particular number, say 5, given by the leader of the energizer. If you are more than that number or less than that number your boat sinks. Throwing a ball while thinking of names Instructions to participants: Leader of energizer makes a soft ball of crumpled flipchart paper and masking tape. (A small plastic beach ball can be used as a substitute). The leader then asks participants to find space for easy movement. The leader explains that participants are supposed to catch the ball and give a name in the category called out by the leader (e.g. leader says fruit, catcher can say orange, guava, etc) before throwing it to another participant. If they hesitate in saying a right name or throwing the ball, or they say a wrong name, they fall out of the group. The leader calls out the first category and changes at any point during the game. Names vary from names of countries, cars, rivers, birds, animals, trees, people in this room, etc.

SSIIPPPP PPRROOCCEESSSS MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG –– EENNEERRGGIISSEERRSS

35

Simon says Instructions to participants: Leader of the energizer says: Find space for easy movement. The Leader explains that when participants are given instructions with “Simon says” said before the instruction, then they should follow the instruction. But if they are given instructions without Simon says, they should not follow the instructions or else they fall out.

Flip Jacks Instructions to participants: Leader of the energizer asks participants to find space and follow her/ his movements. The leader demonstrates how flipping Jacks are done by hopping up and down while clapping his/her hands above his or her head. Forming a sentence The objective of the exercise is for each team to complete a full sentence with one participant writing one word only. The team to finish first and complete a comprehensible sentence ‘wins’. Two blank pieces of flip chart paper are pinned to a wall/board about 2‐3 meters apart. Participants form two groups. Each group stands in a line, one participant behind another and facing the flip chart. The first participant in each team writes a word on the flipchart, they then hand the pen to the second person who writes another word and so on until all participants have written a word on the flipchart. Each person is to write one word only. Nobody should speak to try to pre‐determine a sentence. The fastest team wins.