Theory & Practice
Dear Colleagues,
I hope you are all well and enjoying a happy, healthy, and productive start to 2009!
Some of you may remember me from the 1st Annual Meeting of the AfCoP in Mukono, Uganda. Since we last met, I have been working as a Senior Performance Management Analyst for the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs. In this capacity, I have been developing metrics, indicators, and on-line tools to help measure the impact of Canada’s diplomatic work (an interesting challenge)!
I have followed the AfCoP’s progress over the past year and it is quite exciting to see such a high level of engagement and abundance of dynamic discussions! I am thrilled that the AfCoP Secretariat has asked me to open a next round of on-line discussion.
The AfCoP has seen a wide variety of high quality, focused discussions on MfDR. Soon, the AfCoP will be launching the next round of discussions on specific topics.
The idea of this discussion space is to open the floor to any thoughts and comments that might fall outside of a specific discussion theme. Any burning questions, ideas, approaches that you have been waiting to put forward but weren’t sure if it fit a discussion category? Well here is the place for you to put those forward!
To get the ball rolling, I thought I would put forward a question that has often crossed my mind while working in a government ministry:
As practitioners of results management, we promote evidence based decision making. We hope that our senior management and politicians will make decisions based on data that we provide them. Often, however, senior management does not know the type of information and data that they would like to have. How are you, in your ministries, addressing this question?
o Are you collecting more data instead of less?
o Do you have strategies/tactics that you use to encourage senior
management/politicians to want to use the data you provide them?
o Once you have collected the data and provided the evidence, how confident are
you that your data gets used?
Also, please feel free to put forward any other questions or comments that you may have. (The questions above are merely intended to stimulate the discussion and get the ball rolling). As a free flowing group discussion – Anything goes!
Am really looking forward to a lively discussion!
Hannah
I hope you are all well and enjoying a happy, healthy, and productive start to 2009!
Some of you may remember me from the 1st Annual Meeting of the AfCoP in Mukono, Uganda. Since we last met, I have been working as a Senior Performance Management Analyst for the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs. In this capacity, I have been developing metrics, indicators, and on-line tools to help measure the impact of Canada’s diplomatic work (an interesting challenge)!
I have followed the AfCoP’s progress over the past year and it is quite exciting to see such a high level of engagement and abundance of dynamic discussions! I am thrilled that the AfCoP Secretariat has asked me to open a next round of on-line discussion.
The AfCoP has seen a wide variety of high quality, focused discussions on MfDR. Soon, the AfCoP will be launching the next round of discussions on specific topics.
The idea of this discussion space is to open the floor to any thoughts and comments that might fall outside of a specific discussion theme. Any burning questions, ideas, approaches that you have been waiting to put forward but weren’t sure if it fit a discussion category? Well here is the place for you to put those forward!
To get the ball rolling, I thought I would put forward a question that has often crossed my mind while working in a government ministry:
As practitioners of results management, we promote evidence based decision making. We hope that our senior management and politicians will make decisions based on data that we provide them. Often, however, senior management does not know the type of information and data that they would like to have. How are you, in your ministries, addressing this question?
o Are you collecting more data instead of less?
o Do you have strategies/tactics that you use to encourage senior
management/politicians to want to use the data you provide them?
o Once you have collected the data and provided the evidence, how confident are
you that your data gets used?
Also, please feel free to put forward any other questions or comments that you may have. (The questions above are merely intended to stimulate the discussion and get the ball rolling). As a free flowing group discussion – Anything goes!
Am really looking forward to a lively discussion!
Hannah
Views: 10
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Samer Hachem on -
Dear All,
This is indeed a very interesting topic. Let me try to share some additional thoughts after reading the various contributions. First, while we understandably focus in this forum on the situation in Africa, I would like to remind that all issues mentioned are relevant in most countries. In France for example, debates sometimes arise about calculation methods that allow presenting "better" results for example before elections. Second, and not putting into question that MfDR is the way to go, one has to recognize that, as often said of democracy, it is probably the "least worse" management system and not an ideal one in the sense it may generate its own issues. A standard example lies in my sense in the classical “what gets measured gets done” from which one could easily infer “what does not get measured does not get done”. Bearing that in mind, my point for this topic is that any strategy in this area can only be a succession of small steps and iterations that are completely dependent on the context to try to create some kind of virtuous circle. In some cases it may be enough to get one senior official interested and rely on his/her leadership. In other situations, public voice will make the difference and get the administration focused on results and data. In general, this topic is very close to me to a discussion about incentives and control (or in more popular words “carrot and stick”). Although my personal experience does not include working in a government, the principle remains probably the same. As a subordinate one can only try to provide a superior with potential incentives (in this specific case probably ways to show he/she is doing things “well” or “better”) but at the end of the day one probably does not have much margin for real change unless it is wanted above. But here again, possible incremental improvements (one of them being ensuring the quality of data produced) can be the solution to improve the situation and manage personal ethics without necessarily putting oneself at risk. I believe there was a whole work stream focusing on “Incentives” emerging from the various international forums but I think focusing on donors incentives to aid effectiveness. Does anyone know of similar work at country level? Thanks. Samer
-
Permalink Reply by Hannah J Cooper on -
Dear Nimit,
Thank you so very much for your feedback and for contributing your report to our discussion! I would like to add your report to our elibrary as well, if you are okay with that.
You have very interesting conclusions, in particular one that states: "To ensure the maximum impact of M&E/MIS Implementation the monitoring information should be relevant to all stakeholders."
Some of the challenges that I have faced before with regards to this conclusions are:
1) How to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are included in the discussion? How to know who is relevant?
2) How to consult without 'over-consulting' so that it is hard to move to implementation? At what point can you consider that you have done due diligence with your consultation?
3) As a low/middle level public servant, sometimes it is hard to get access to senior management - what are they best ways to address this?
Nimit Leelasorn said:Dear Hannah,
I have been looking at the your initiated discussion briefly - on and off - during my travels in Asia and Africa, which has very interesting.
I am now back home and have recently submitted paper for Co-MfDR (hosted by Asian Development Bank) annual publication, that may be relevant to your discussion, where I suggest our practical approach based on past projects. I have uploaded it into this discussion as well as on my profile.
I hope it will provide different view point for your discussion.
Nimit
Sydney, Australia
-
Permalink Reply by Sithole Humbe on -
Hie Hannah
The real problem i presume is centered on the practice not the theory of managing for development results. Why im saying this is that on the practice of MfDr we should over consult from all necessary stakeholders to capture as much data as we can before implementation of programmes while the Theory says we should not over consult. My argument is based on experience.
For any successful implementation of a program/project there is a need to consult all stakeholders ( customers, clients, donors, bankers, hosting Government(Policy Makers) , independent M&E Institutions and benefiting Communities) and tasks for each stakeholder should be clearly outlined/understood by all players.
This is the only way to harmonise our processes so as to improve transparency, accountability and integrity.
However, consultation should be directed to open minded people who have authority in a society. Morever, consultation should also go down to the operatives who i might call the technocrats not only the policy makers. If consultations are not extended to the operatives then no implementation will take off. When all required program implementation plan is in place, funding guarantereed and project/program human resource structure is agreed then the practitioner should narrow consultation to the statisticians for program M&E . The M&E should be as important as the whole programme to all stakeholders to ensure accurate and timely recording and reporting of progress at each reporting period.
This process of involving relevant stakeholders should not be done through sampling techniques but rather a rigorous thematic group formations. The thematic groups will decide based on relevant data to be collected/ collated who is relevant or not to any lined discussion issue per session from the total population. In this way you can create databases for the possibility of data warehousing and data mining. Hypothesis testing using both quantitative and qualitative methods can therefore be made. This method of involving all stakeholders although over consulting will engrave a sense of "Community of Purpose" .You can see Hannah, why i say we need to be over consulting.
Participatory Monitoring &Evaluation is the only way to incorporate low level managers whether in Government or Private institutions.Encourage open forums mixing all stakeholders. In this way low level managers will collect the necessary data or information necessary for policy implementation. Also country specific Community of Practice can be a solution to reach low level managers in Government through intranet or internet sharing of knowledge and ideas.
Thanks for the time Hannah. I will follow up the discussion to its end. Hope to hear more from other colleques
-
Permalink Reply by Zaam Ssali on -
Dear All,
Interesting discussions above from all. From the various members there are several issues raised why IRBM, MfDR may not be working in Africa ranging from data gaps, need for organisation change and leadership. I believe this is all true. However, a question comes to mind; as practitioners or managers in organisations, government departments are we using the right communication methods to put the messages across.
There is usually a tendency of submitting very large reports to the decision makers and statistical data without clarity on how we want them to act. The reading culture in Africa is another un-doing, usually the main mode of communication is documents which many times are never read by those to whom they are intended. On the otherhand, are we engaging stakeholders/partners right for them to support the cause, for example is the media aware maybe they could help?
I think it is high time MfDR practitioners appreciate the importance of communicating results or whatever we want others to know. Do we have the necessary skills and what do we have to do to improve the existing situation?
I look forward to your thoughts.
Zaam
-
Permalink Reply by Kellen Namusisi on -
Reply by Kellen Namusisi- April 17th, 2009
The area of discussion is topical today especially where programs have to show results at the end of the implementation cycles. Communicating results is very crucial if you have to show your contribution to development (indicators) Many times we dont create favourable environments for communication but also the communicator is not skilled enough to communicate meaningfuly. Therefore i suggest that a favourable environmmnet be created in organizations always to communicate and skills be developed. What do i mean by faourable environment? This includes organizational buy-in, budgets/votes, proper avenues and creating a culture that appreciates and uses information for decision making.
-
Permalink Reply by Bimerew Alemu on -
Dear all
Thank you for raising another interesting issue; on the importance of communicating results.First of all let me start my brief contribution by recaptulating few of the basic problems of communication. 1. problem of getting the right information to right person at the right time. 2. Distortion of information 3.Lack of reliability and mutual trust between the communicator and the receiver. 4.Inability of the originator to formulate a clear purpose of his /her communiation before communicating. 5.Lack of balance between what is said and what is written.
So when communicating we have to keep in mind that such problems mentioned above are avoided. Communication is most important of all skills. Officers at the top are expected to use around 80% of their time communicating with others. To be efficient and achieve results they need to use resources appropriately. That is; their effectiveness per expenditure needs to be optimum.
It is known that to be agood orator doesn't mean a good communicator. A good orator can be a poor communicator if the tool utilized in communicating and the flow of information and understanding is not well thought of.
Thank you
BIMEREW ALEMU
-
Permalink Reply by Sithole Humbe on
-
The real problem surrounding our poor communication of results hinges on the technical jargon contained in reports. Whenever we talk of "results" we are talking of changes either improvement or deterioration. The measurement of results in its essence is based on statistical tabulation. The evidence-based reporting of results is what is lacking and not fully appreciated by those the reports are meant for. The message being coded is not easily understood because of its structure, content and form. In that sense i believe we as practioners we are not doing any justice to the decision makers.I think that we as practioners of MfDR ,we should aim at simplifying the report structure and form but not compromising the content of our reports to our immediate supervisors and decision makers.
Lets have a sense of belonging. The top leadership in organisations do not read through the whole report that we present to them. I agree 100% with Zaam on the un-reading culture in Africa. We need to initiate some reading culture not the signing syndrome to our top managers. However, the immediate solution is communicating results in the best language understood by the users of our reports.
-
Permalink Reply by Nimit Leelasorn on -
Dear Hannah and Colleagues,
Please see my response below:
1) How to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are included in the discussion?
How to know who is relevant?
Some time ago I have uploaded other paper from my discussion with MfDR hosted by Asian Development Bank with Dr Ray Rist (please see attached). It was the approach that I have developed and followed for the development and implementations. In Step 1 "Data and Process Flow Analysis" the relevant stakeholders will be identified for discussion to ensure they are invited to participate.
Relevant stakeholders are typically those who are contributing to the total outcome (i.e. Development Plan outcome).
The focus of implementation could be on those stakeholders who have the greatest contribution to the total outcome (i.e. Development Plan outcome) this may need to be assessed along with their current capacity VS effort or budget available for the implementation.
2) How to consult without 'over-consulting' so that it is hard to move to implementation?
There is an assessment framework that I have also developed and followed on the past experience in similar environment (i.e. Developing and Developed countries) that would provide a guide for proceeding with implementation while preparing for additional capacity building during and post implementation as well as effort required for the implementation.
3) At what point can you consider that you have done due diligence with your consultation?
I would consider the operationalising of the implementation as the completion of the engagement where participating stakeholders could measure their progress and improving outcome through the implemented system.
Prior to this would be very hard to conclude as there could be a number of capacity building ideas and recommendations from consultation that may sound very good and positive in the final paper or report of the engagement but being theoretical and not tested if able to be operationalised (practical).
4) As a low/middle level public servant, sometimes it is hard to get access to senior management - what are they best ways to address this?
Following the past engagement with all levels of public servants, unfortunately, it often is the case that only assignments which have support from the top level management could proceed to the real implementation and eventual operationalisation. Development and implementation of M&E/MIS requires transformation and changes in the organisation, which without the top level management support, would be nearly impossible to implement.
In response to other points of discussion.
COMMON DATA, following the attached 14th Steps Approach in Data Structure Design and pre-developed M&E/MIS system would ensure obtaining a consensus from participating stakeholders for relevant data to collect and store, as well as for its dissemination. Data structure design would ensure the collection and stored data approach is from the organisation and common development plan perspective, while disseminating data would ensure fulfilling the requirement for most common data for all levels of participating stakeholders, but flexibility of data structure and pre-developed M&E/MIS system should allow accommodation of individual needs.
CREDIBILITY AND TIMELINESS OF THE DATA would only improve when all participating stakeholders share and use the same common data. M&E/MIS software tools should allow for continuing adjustment and improvement of the stored common data and accommodate individual data needs. - Attachments:
-
Permalink Reply by Hannah J Cooper on
-
Dear Nimit,
Thank you so much for your tremendously helpful feedback. Your comments are extremely useful and I think that you hit the nail on the head in terms best practice for proper consultation.
Your paper on 14 Steps in Constructing Results Based M&E Data System is a very helpful guide which I will put in our elibrary.
You raise a very interesting point about transformation and organisational change. I have been in many organizations who try to promote these kind of changes but there are often many challenges in moving from rhetoric and dialogue, to implementing real change.
I was wondering if colleagues have had similar experiences? Have you worked for an organization that promotes transformation and organizational change? What are some shifts in culture that you have experienced? And were they longer term/long-lasting changes? What are some of the factors that contributed to the success of the transformation and buy-in from members of the organization? And what were some of the challenges?
Looking forward to your thoughts.
Hannah
-
Permalink Reply by Bimerew Alemu on
-
Dear friends
It is asked that if we have worked for an organization that promotes transformation and organizational change and if there is a shifts in culture that we have experienced.
After taking a long time to deeply study the traditional working system, recently my institution has just started implementing Business Process Reengineering (BPR). It is a radical change or transformation. It is a change from a task based to process based thinking and a shift from the traditional nature to a flat structure in a way that similar jobs that give an outcome are combined together and the team of professionals are expected to deliver the outcome. Moreover. each worker is empowered to deliver efficient service to the customer. What is then the paradigm shift? There is no hierarchy as used to be in the traditional way of thinking. Actually it is too early to comment on the successes and the challenges, because we have only just started.But we are very certain that workers' attitude are getting changed.
Best regards
Bimerew Alemu
-
Permalink Reply by Hannah J Cooper on
-
Dear Colleagues,
Please find attached a summary of the discussion. I really enjoyed our dialogue! In fact, I enjoyed it so much that I will be working with you again and will start a new discussion very shortly!
See you soon amd thank you again!
Hannah - Attachments:
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
Get Involved
Latest Activity
REBECCA CHIRCHIR left a comment for Princess
Hi Princess, thank you for being my friend
AMOUZOU bedi commented on Sylvia Siango Apreku's blog post 'Part 6- Public Sector Reforms in Sub-Saharan Africa. Conclusions'
Please read my resume regrading on Public Sector in Africa
http://amouzoubedi.blogspot.com/2011_04_01_archive.html
Please if you are not french speaker use the google translate option
Thanks®ards,
Amouzou…
Sheka Bangura commented on Sheka Bangura's blog post 'Book Review: Fixing Failed States - A Framework for Rebuilding A Fractured World'
Thanks Tayani, that is a brilliant comment and observation. Unfortunately, as argued by many scholars, and I concur, a lot of aid has gone more to serve adherents ideologies than nations it is purportedly meant for. But receiving government…
George Ngobeh shared a profile on Facebook
© 2012 Created by copafrica.
