Delivery mechanisms introduction: PMO strategy and value added Vladimír Kváča and Benedict Wauters

Delivery mechanisms introduction: PMO strategy and value added

Vladimír Kváča and Benedict Wauters

Content

• Added value in Structural Funds• PCM / LFA• Output based subsidies• Outcome mapping• Conclusions

2

3

PMO strategy = strategy concerning added value

PMO

stra

tegy

=

tech

nica

l ass

istan

ce

prio

rityOP

Priority1

OPPriority

2

OPPriority

3 PMO strategy = technical assistance priority

OPPriority

1

OPPriority

2

OPPriority

3

Added value by leveraging the technical assistance!

4

Innovator• An innovator supports delivery and other partners and stakeholders

to continuously (re)develop new products and services for new constituent needs and deploy them until they become stable and mainstream.

• These new products and services have intrinsic superiority over existing product/services, excelling in dimensions that end users care deeply about.

• The MA/IB innovator (possibly via a separate entity) takes charge of the innovation portfolio as well as management of service/product development. It does not have a hands-off approach to financing innovation but is actively keeping the innovation process on track.

• The key idea is to finance an innovation process that leads to developed and tested products/services to be replicated at a larger scale.

5

Enhancer• an enhancer supports delivery partners to produce (a higher volume) of

already existing products/ services to satisfy existing constituent needs• if it would be possible to finance particular established actions through non-

EU funding would the burden be less? the entire transaction has to be taken into account from the point of view of the delivery

partner: E.g. there may be very little administrative burden involved in using a national funding source, but this may also imply there is little support to prevent problems or to resolve them quickly when something does go wrong at any time of the transaction

reliability and convenience are key (swift, dependable response if a problem arises and assistance is required; transactions that are easy, pleasant, quick, correct and when mistakes do happen, they are quickly rectified and compensated for) in order to keep the cost of the transaction as low as possible.

The way the enhancing PMO supports delivery partners is therefore to be subject to continuous “enhancement”.

• ultimately constituent and high-level policy outcomes have to be realised, so the PMO stimulates (efficient) evaluation to ascertain whether delivery partners are in fact delivering

• the key idea is therefore the efficient financing of mature actions as well as their continuous improvement.

6

Solutions manager• For a solutions manager the focus is NOT on specific products and

services but on developing detailed knowledge concerning specific challenges (a limited number of) delivery partners (the customers) are facing regarding their constituents and wor- king closely with them to solve these challenges

• This entails supporting, through a portfolio of tailor-made actions, collaboration with other actors to integrate and customise a whole battery of products/services even crossing traditional policy domains (e.g. education, welfare, employment, economy, ...) to better suit the needs of the constituents.

• The key idea here is to finance transformational processes that aim for sustainable change in what relevant actors are doing

• Although this may be deemed innovative in its own right, the idea here is NOT to develop and test replicable products/services for constituents, as in the innovator orientation, but to fundamentally change the way actors work with each other to address a variety of issues and to ensure that this new dynamic will be sustainable (long lasting without need for sustained finance from Structural Funds).

7

Adding value as an ESF PMO• 1. Volume effects: ESF action 'adds' to

existing action, either by supporting national action in general ('mirroring') or specific areas of national policy ('boosting');

• 2. Scope effects: ESF action 'broadens' existing action by supporting groups or policy areas that would not otherwise receive support;

• 3. Role effects: ESF action supports local/regional innovations that are taken up at national level or national innovative actions that are then 'mainstreamed';

• 4. Process effects: ESF action influences Member States administrations and organisations involved in the programmes.






Enhancer






Innovator






Solutions manager

Adding value as an ESF PMO

The processes, systems, people, culture, structure of the PMO

are bound to be fundamentally different, depending on the

value you want to add!

Calls for proposals and applications for fundingDiscussion• What is your current way of selecting and

managing of projects?• Where are the weak points / strong

points? • What problems to solve? • Have a look at the PMO operating model

descriptions at previous slides. How close are you to one of them?

13

Content

• Added value in Structural Funds• PCM / LFA• Output based subsidies• Outcome mapping• Conclusions

14

PCM and LFA

15

INDICATIVE PROGRAMMING

IDENTIFICATION

FORMULATION (APPRAISAL)

FINANCING

IMPLEMENTATION

EVALUATION

Strategy document / Call for proposals

Strategy document / Call for proposals

Verification of ideas and

drawing up TOR for pre-feasibility

study

Verification of ideas and

drawing up TOR for pre-feasibility

study


IDENTIFICATION


FINANCING

IMPLEMENTATION

EVALUATION

Pre-feasibility study

Pre-feasibility study

Identifica-tion

workshop

Pre-feasibility study (may include identification workshop with consultant contracted by PCM) executed and submitted

...with info regarding problem, stakeholder, strategy analysis, intervention logic, risks, initial resource requirement estimates, sustainability, policy consistency, indicative implementation arrangements (who will manage, partner, finance; not yet fully developed M&E incl. indicators)

Group/organisation… Interests, goals

Perception of issues

Means and and mandates

Centre for equal opps

Combat discrimination, poverty, insecurity and social exclusion

Prejudice is the basis for discrimination in job interviews of Morrocan immigrants

-advisor to parliament; -knowledge of inter-cultural communication; -run sensibilisation campaigns

Group 2

Group 3

etc.

Start with a broad theme: eg “discrimination of citizens of foreign descent looking for a job” Ask a sample of the proposed target group who they encounter in their daily life regarding this theme

as starting point then further brainstorm stakeholder listCheck official mandates and goals and contact personally .

Employees make many mistakes

Employees feel bad about coming to work

Employees get blamed for everything that goes wrong

Employees have regular work

overload

Good employees massively leave company

Many accidents happenin the production shop

Most employees are knowledgeable in only a

few tasks

Jobs are assigned arbitrarily

Employees have to execute many tasks they

don’t seethe use of

Management has few interactions with

employees

The work environment isdangerous in the production shop

Employees get many complaints from clients

ESF example problem tree

Employees make few mistakes

Employees feel good about coming to work

Employees are praised for doing well

Employees have sustainable workloads

Good employees stay in company

Few accidents happenin the production shop

Most employees are knowledgeable in a variety

of tasks

Jobs are assigned purposefully

Employees understand the use of their tasks

Management interacts regularly with employees

The work environment issafe in the the production

shop

Employees get few complaints from clients

ESF example objective tree

SOME CRITERIA

Implementation strategy ?

Economic and financial costs and benefits

Availability of financial resources, expertise, etc.

Institutional capacities

UrgencyFit with policy and programme priorities

Target group priority

Complementarities with other programmes or projects

LFA

Strategy analysis

Employees make few mistakes

Employees feel good about coming to work

Employees are praised for doing well

Employees have sustainable workloads

Good employees stay in company

Few accidents happenin the production shop

Most employees are knowledgeable in a

variety of tasks

Jobs are assigned purposefully

Employees understand the use of

their tasks

Management interacts regularly with employees

The work environment issafe in the the

production shop

Employees get few complaints from clients

ESF example objective tree

PURPOSE

RESULT 1 RESULT 2

OVERALL OBJECTIVE

Employees feel adequately challenged at work

To contribute to an adequate retention of employees

The Logframe matrix

1. Fewer accidents in the production shop2. Employees get fewer complaints from clients

Employees feeladequately challenged at work


1. Project Description

Overall objective

Project purpose

Results


IDENTIFICATION


FINANCING

IMPLEMENTATION

EVALUATION

PCM prepares identification fiche: judges pre-feasilibity study for RELEVANCE, and formulates questions that shouldappear in the Terms of Reference for the Feasibility Study

Pre-feasibility study (rele-vance)

Pre-feasibility study (rele-vance)

Assessment& ToR

Assessment& ToR Identifica

-tion fiche

Identifica-tion fiche

PCM: summary of tasks during identification stage


IDENTIFICATION


FINANCING

IMPLEMENTATION

EVALUATION

QSG=quality support group

FOR REFERENCE ONLY!


IDENTIFICATION


FINANCING

IMPLEMENTATION

EVALUATION

Formulation workshop

Feasibility study

Feasibility study

Feasibility study prepared and submitted(possibly with input from new workshops with consultant contracted by PCM, focusing on questions asked on basis of pre-feasibility study)


IDENTIFICATION


FINANCING

IMPLEMENTATION

EVALUATION

Feasibility study

Feasibility study

Assessment& Instruction


Financing proposal

Financing proposal

Financing proposal is prepared by PCM based on feasibility study, checked for FEASIBILITY

The Logframe matrix

1. Fewer accidents in the production shop2. Employees get fewer complaints from clients

Employees feeladequately challenged at work


1. 80% less serious accidents*2. 50% less complaints

1. Safety records2. Customer service records

Employee satisfaction score of 8,5

ES survey administered yearlyby consultancy global satisfaction score**

Annual % of leaversreduced to 3%

HR records

Employees are praised for doing wellEmployees understand the use of their tasks

Employees wages stay stable or increase

1. Project Description

2. Verifiable indicators

3.Sources of verification

4. Assumptions

Overall objective

Project purpose

Results

*serious = resulting in more than 5 days off work** instrument example attached

Operational plans

At formulation stage

PCM: summary of tasks during formulation stage


IDENTIFICATION


FINANCING

IMPLEMENTATION

EVALUATION


IDENTIFICATION


FINANCING

IMPLEMENTATION

EVALUATION

Financing agreement / contract


PCM concludes contract with PM who starts up the project and prepares annual operational plans

Start up workshop

Annual plans

Annual plans

Assessment&instruction

Assessment&instruction

Operational plans

During implementation: annual

Here we use more detailed planning (incl. Gantt charts)


IDENTIFICATION


FINANCING

IMPLEMENTATION

EVALUATION

Monitoring reports

Monitoring reports Assessment

& Instruction




PCM receives plans and reports, assesses if results are being achieved, resources used effectively and efficiently and if corrective action is needed

Review workshops

Annual plans

Annual plans


IDENTIFICATION


FINANCING

IMPLEMENTATION

EVALUATION

End of project report

End of project report

Review workshop

PCM assesses end of project report and may pose questions for an end of project or ex post evaluation (were planned benefits achieved, are they sustainable, are there broader lessons learned?)




IDENTIFICATION


FINANCING

IMPLEMENTATION

EVALUATION

Evaluation report / LESSONS

Evaluation report / LESSONS

Review Workshop



Issues with PCM?

• If the funding organisation reduces the role of the Project Cycle Manager to an appraiser, with a “public tendering” mindset (hands-off, competitive approach), then the following dynamic results: Poor quality proposals come in that get rejected outright Too few proposals are funded which is a problem for spending levels A double dynamic then starts

• Pressure is exerted on the PCM and others involved in appraisal to be more lenient • Subsidy consultants learn how to play the game and submit “formally” good projects

(frequently amounting to cut and paste of a successful project )

• A whole lot of paperwork is generated that has very little added value but looks good when auditors come

• The idea of Project Cycle Management is to • get involved by using (pre-) feasibility studies (with contracted experts if needed)

to improve project designs and to redress information asymmetries (the promoter knows more than the funder)…

• so no potentially good project is rejected and no potentially bogus project is approved (PCM does not have a “competitive” aspect where proposals are compared and ranked as each proposal is unique)

Calls for proposals and applications for funding

Discussion• What are the main differences between

you current way of dealing with project and the original PCM?

37

Content

• Added value in Structural Funds• PCM / LFA• Theory of Change• Output based subsidies• Complexity • Outcome mapping• Conclusions

38

Further reading

Logframe is oversimplification

Output Purpose

Visits of teachers to parents

Better study-results

Betterstart

in labour market

Global LFATheory of change

Adapted from C. Weiss

ActionTeacher engages in scripted dialogue with parents

Results

Better homework

+More at school

Further reading

Advantages of stakeholder ToC relative to Logframe• Logic is more clear:

Different strands of cause-effect linked to various actions Assumptions (also about other stakeholders) on equal footing to

actionable outcomes

• Not necessarily based on “problems”• Less issues with terminology as relies on visuals rather

than categories• Draws more heavily on research based theories (if

deductive approach is used)• If alternative theories allowed, then greater likelihood of

learning and improving• However, even harder to do than Logframe?

40

Further reading

41

Issues with both LFA and ToC-1

• the logic is linear: if we do A, B will happen, and then C, and so on = mechanistic,

engineering idea of cause and effect as if we can turn the key in the engine of development and the wheels start turning

it is assumes project actions set into motion a chain of events more or less automatically without feed-back loops or delaying effects

• although the logic of how the intervention should is much more elaborate, backwards re-engineering, in someone’s office, AFTER a project has been designed is unavoidable as ToC/LFA establish a parallel process to what is already going on (strategic planning processes, informal decision-making processes within existing power structures)

Further reading

42

Issues with both LFA and ToC-2

• “assumptions, risks, etc.” very difficult to identify in LFA the assumptions column usually is a formality (fill the box)

• limited by the imagination and experience • perception that too detailed a risk analysis might be seen negatively

by funders as it builds up a risky picture in ToC non-intervention pre-conditions have a bigger chance of

being identified due to seeing more of what happens in the outcome chain and by drawing on multiple, science based theories, but still there are many “chimney” ToC

in any case so many factors (systemic view) involved which lie beyond the scope of the planned initiative that will change the way things actually turn out, that it is unlikely you can identify them all

Further reading

Training

Better skills

Better employability

Employment

Better income

Poverty reduced

Europe 2020

Eternal peace

Danger of „Chimney thinking“

Source: V. Kvaca

Further reading

Adapted from C. Weiss

ActionTeacher engages in scripted dialogue with parents

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Further reading

• A lot of further reading…• Let’s jump now to the conclusions relating

to how to organise calls with these approaches

45

Further reading

Calls for proposal and LFA / ToC

At the call level, the specified outcome performs a similar function as the specific objective of the OP: it provides a boundary, usually taken up again as the overall objective

At the project level, the project purpose SHOULD reflect a specific need, defined in a bottom up way.

It is a relatively static approach (need is identified, then fixed and addressed)

*

* Delivery partner = project promotor 46

47

PMO added value and delivery mechanisms

• Bottom-up LFA and ToC is typically associated with “solutions management”, however…

• …, “solutions management” deals with complex issues, not complicated ones! LFA being static and conflict avoiding with tightly specified work

programmes that are reported on with “variance” analysis (hiting the targets) is not very suited for complexity

• but of course stakeholder analysis and problem analysis remain useful as some form of situation analysis is always required

ToC:• to get idea of scope / complexity• for evaluation of a particular case (of what happened, without concluding this

will happen again) • NOT as a general plan

• Use outcome mapping, problem driven iterative adaptation, Vanguard redesign,… (see later)

Documents

Delivery mechanisms introduction: PMO strategy and value added Vladimír Kváča and Benedict Wauters