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.
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
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.
Innovator
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.
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
INDICATIVE PROGRAMMING
IDENTIFICATION
FORMULATION (APPRAISAL)
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
To contribute to an adequate retention of employees
1. Project Description
Overall objective
Project purpose
Results
INDICATIVE PROGRAMMING
IDENTIFICATION
FORMULATION (APPRAISAL)
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
INDICATIVE PROGRAMMING
IDENTIFICATION
FORMULATION (APPRAISAL)
FINANCING
IMPLEMENTATION
EVALUATION
QSG=quality support group
FOR REFERENCE ONLY!
INDICATIVE PROGRAMMING
IDENTIFICATION
FORMULATION (APPRAISAL)
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)
INDICATIVE PROGRAMMING
IDENTIFICATION
FORMULATION (APPRAISAL)
FINANCING
IMPLEMENTATION
EVALUATION
Feasibility study
Feasibility study
Assessment& Instruction
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
To contribute to an adequate retention of employees
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
INDICATIVE PROGRAMMING
IDENTIFICATION
FORMULATION (APPRAISAL)
FINANCING
IMPLEMENTATION
EVALUATION
INDICATIVE PROGRAMMING
IDENTIFICATION
FORMULATION (APPRAISAL)
FINANCING
IMPLEMENTATION
EVALUATION
Financing agreement / contract
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)
INDICATIVE PROGRAMMING
IDENTIFICATION
FORMULATION (APPRAISAL)
FINANCING
IMPLEMENTATION
EVALUATION
Monitoring reports
Monitoring reports Assessment
& Instruction
Assessment& Instruction
Financing agreement / contract
Financing agreement / contract
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
INDICATIVE PROGRAMMING
IDENTIFICATION
FORMULATION (APPRAISAL)
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?)
Assessment& Instruction
Assessment& Instruction
INDICATIVE PROGRAMMING
IDENTIFICATION
FORMULATION (APPRAISAL)
FINANCING
IMPLEMENTATION
EVALUATION
Evaluation report / LESSONS
Evaluation report / LESSONS
Review Workshop
Assessment& Instruction
Assessment& Instruction
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)