Library – Adaptive Management in International Development - Custom feedLibrary – Adaptive Management in International Developmenthttps://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/2024-03-29T09:30:45.928794+00:00https://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/atom.xml?type=reportKerkoPartnering with communities to co-design humanitarian health strategies: A SeeChange CommunityFirst Framework for implementation in MSF projectshttps://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/IVWEY52I2024-03-25T14:20:16Z2024-03-25T15:10:41ZThe CommunityFirst Framework is intended
to be implemented by field teams at MSF. The
theoretical aspects and evidence presented on
the importance of community engagement are
intended for all MSF staff seeking to learn more
about why and how to shift the way we work
with communities as humanitarians.
We believe this guideline, and other tools like
it (including OCA’s Person-Centred Approach
Guidance07, and MSF Vienna Evaluation Unit’s
Guidance for Involving Communities08), to be an
important contribution to the growing movement
of communities and humanitarian actors who
are pushing for changes in the humanitarian
system that translate to dignity, health, justice,
equity and self-determination for communities
around the world.
Specifically, the CommunityFirst Framework
is intended to guide MSF teams to co-design
health strategies with communities, throughout
all stages of the project cycle, for exploratory
missions, projects that are just opening, projects
that have been running for some time, or those
that are closing.
At the time of publication, the CommunityFirst
Framework has been tested in pilot projects in:
(1) Madre de Dios, Peru (MSF OCP, August 2022),
(2) Tonkolili, Sierra Leone (MSF OCA, November
2022) and (3) Anzoátegui, Venezuela (MSF OCB,
February 2023) The experiences from these
pilots (feedback from teams, implementation
results, adaptations to each context, etc.) have
informed the adaptation of the Framework.
CommunityFirst builds on existing community
engagement work inside MSF and contributes
a practical framework for co-designing health
initiatives with communities. To avoid duplicating
efforts and resources around community
engagement inside MSF, the appendices in this
guideline largely refer to already existing MSF
resources.09
This guideline is meant to be a living document
that can evolve and be adapted given the
experience of MSF staff and community
members and diverse community contexts.
This guide can be used by anyone in MSF who
is interested in partnering with communities to
improve the responsiveness and impact of their
humanitarian programs. This is the first iteration
of the document. Subsequent iterations will be
published based on additional testing during
future phases of the CommunityFirst TIC project.Chapela Trillo, VioletaFarber, Jessica2034.03Partnering with communities to co-design humanitarian health strategies: A SeeChange CommunityFirst Framework for implementation in MSF projectsDoing weeknotes - What weeknotes are, how weeknotes work, and how to start writing weeknotes of your ownhttps://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/UTRSGHP52024-03-15T10:04:18Z2024-03-15T10:06:26ZDoing weeknotes brings together various things I’ve written about weeknotes in different places. This text expands on things I wrote in The agile comms handbook, as well as various blog posts. Quite a lot of it is brand new.
- Weeknotes for beginners
- Why write weeknotes
- The weeknotes rules
- Weeknotes within the corporate environment
- What weeknotes can bring about
- Examples of good weeknotes
- How to write weeknotes
- Weeknotes tips and tricks
- Further readingTurnbull, Giles2024.03Doing weeknotes - What weeknotes are, how weeknotes work, and how to start writing weeknotes of your ownThe Radical Howhttps://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/A35RWLZS2024-03-15T09:39:56Z2024-03-15T09:42:09ZAny mission-focused government should be well equipped to define, from day one, what outcomes it wants to bring about.
But radically changing what the government does is only part of the challenge. We also need to change how government does things. The usual methods, we argue in this paper, are too prone to failure and delay.
There’s a different approach to public service organisation, one based on multidisciplinary teams, starting with citizen needs, and scaling iteratively by testing assumptions. We’ve been arguing in favour of it for years now, and the more it gets used, the more we see success and timely delivery.
We think taking a new approach makes it possible to shift government from an organisation of programmes and projects, to one of missions and services. It offers even constrained administrations an opportunity to improve their chances of delivering outcomes, reducing risk, saving money, and rebuilding public trust.
The Radical How in a nutshell
The struggles and shortcomings of delivering in government are well rehearsed. Many of the root causes that make it tough have been restated
several times over several decades. But what to do?
We believe the government can and should change how it delivers, by:
organising around multidisciplinary teams
embracing incremental, feedback-driven iteration
focusing more on outcomes.
The Radical How is a change of mindset as much as a change in organisation. It promotes methods and processes that have been shown to work, multiple times, at scale. They are the default ways of working for many of the world’s most successful companies.
However, the occasions where they have been deployed are rare in government. These occasions have come about thanks to exceptional leaders, exceptional circumstances, or both.
We think they’d make a big difference if they became the norm, rather than the exception.
We also think that without them, mission oriented government will not become a reality. New policy ideas will remain just that, rather than translating into profound improvements to society.
Central to this approach is the widespread adoption of internet-era ways of working. This paper explains both those and our thinking in more detail, with reference to real examples.Greenway, AndrewLoosemore, Tom2024.03The Radical HowChallenge-led Innovation Workbook. Organising for Systems Innovation at Scalehttps://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/XRGKCBT62024-02-29T12:07:29Z2024-02-29T12:14:15ZOrganising for Systems Innovation at Scale
Our team at Griffith Centre for Systems Innovation have been experimenting with and evolving a Challenge-led Innovation Approach (based on Mission-oriented approaches developed by Mariana Mazzucato at UCL IIPP and others internationally).
We are using this approach to guide the way we work internally and engage with our systems innovation partners.
We’ve facilitated intensive Re:Treats, worked with government bodies, businesses and civic organisations, and engaged deeply with others exploring this work. We have a bias for developing and testing HOW such approaches could be applied to respond to both local and global challenges rather than getting too caught up in the what and why of such approaches.
We decided to openly share our learnings and thinking to date in this workbook, to spark conversations and innovation in both practice and thinking amongst those exploring how we work, and to learn together to address complex systems and challenges.
We see this booklet as a first step in a longer learning journey. In it we share an overview of:
the principles and processes that sparked our evolution to a Challenge-led Innovation framework (from Mission-oriented).
examples of our learnings from other system innovators who are experimenting.
an adaptable process to help guide the learning journey.
learning tools and canvases to catalyse thinking, practice, and further adaptations.
Part One sets out some foundations we’ve identified as important to Challenge-led Innovation.
If you want to jump straight into the mapping process, we suggest you skip to Part Two.
The final section, Part Three, focuses on what we have learnt about the conditions needed and how to get started on a Challenge-led initiative.Burkett, Ingrid2023-11enChallenge-led Innovation Workbook. Organising for Systems Innovation at ScaleEveryday patterns for shifting systems - Right scalinghttps://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/UN2WDGX22024-02-28T15:15:00Z2024-02-28T15:16:13ZGCSIOct 25, 2022enEveryday patterns for shifting systems - Right scalingThe Art of Scaling Deep - Research in Summaryhttps://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/83T5DZA42024-02-28T14:51:00Z2024-02-28T14:58:13ZOver the last 15 years the concept of scale has become a foundational part of the apparatus of the social and environmental change sector. A business mindset of growth has been seamlessly transferred to the social and environmental problems we are collectively trying to shift in the world. Scaling up, (influencing policy) has been considered the strategic pathway to systems change. Scaling out (spreading new models) is seen as a pathway to success. The allure of these scaling theories lies, in part, in their tangibility, and the easy way in which they can be measured.
However this focus on growth has shifted our attention away from a series of messy truths.
Sometimes bigger isn't better.
Endless growth is not sustainable and our urgency to try to fix the problem and seek solutions may be part of the crisis we are in.
One unintended consequence of this has been that another type of scale has been devalued and as a result, under-resourced. It’s a scale that values the slow steady work of deepening relationships. It recognizes the significance of context, building connections that bridge diverse communities and it prioritizes inner work and healing as integral components of the scaling process. We call this type of scale ‘Scaling Deep’ and we believe that adequately supporting it, and funding it, holds the greatest potential for long lasting systemic change.
The purpose of this research has been to delve deeper into the art and craft of Scaling Deep. Ultimately, our goal is for it to become firmly ingrained within the recognized realm of social change, alongside the well-established concepts of scaling up and scaling out. We want practitioners who are Scaling Deep to be able to harness the wisdom and power of this work and to talk about it openly, with confidence and credibility. We want understanding of this approach to flourish and evolve and for it to be appropriately celebrated and supported. We want decision-makers to be informed and inspired by the principles and practices of scaling deep. For it to be embedded in theories of change as an essential component of decision-making processes within the wider change discourse. Importantly we want leaders who are Scaling Deep to have access to sufficient resources and to receive the care from the field that they need to thrive.
We would like to see organisations that have the power to invest, to align their efforts with the profound impact that scaling deep aspires to cultivate in the world.
Before we begin, let us be crystal clear. We are not opposed to scaling up and out as strategies for change. Innovation and scaling what is working is part of how we evolve as humanity. As social entrepreneurs ourselves, we have both done this twice over. We value it and we know it’s important. We recognize these are strategies for creating widespread impact and effecting positive change. Our intention here is not to dismiss or undermine the value of scaling up and out, but rather to encourage a broader and more holistic perspective that includes other dimensions of scale. There is a need to understand how the different scaling approaches can work together, rather than seeing them as hierarchical and disconnected.
Our ultimate goal is to equip the change sector with a more inclusive, expansive, and powerful approach to tackling the myriad challenges we face, by exploring the potential
of Scaling Deep as a transformational strategy for systems change.Fraser, Tatiana09.2023The Art of Scaling Deep - Research in SummaryUSAID ADS 201 - Operational Policy for the Program Cycle (Update 05/22/2023)https://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/784FZATT2024-02-22T20:18:10Z2024-02-22T20:20:15ZThe Program Cycle is USAID’s operational model for planning, delivering, assessing,
and adapting development programming in a given region or country to advance U.S.
foreign policy. It encompasses guidance and procedures for:
1) Making strategic decisions at the regional or country level about programmatic
areas of focus and associated resources;
2) Designing supportive projects and/or activities to implement these strategic
plans; and
3) Learning from performance monitoring, evaluations, and other relevant sources
of information to make course corrections as needed and inform future
programming.USAID2023.05.22enUSAID ADS 201 - Operational Policy for the Program Cycle (Update 05/22/2023)FCDO Programme Operating Frameworkhttps://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/G46BBKB82024-02-22T20:14:04Z2024-02-22T20:15:08ZThe Programme Operating Framework (PrOF) sets the standard for how the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) delivers its programmes and projects.FCDO2021-06-30enFCDO Programme Operating FrameworkHow Does Participatory Action Research Generate Innovation? Findings from a Rapid Realist Reviewhttps://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/LY5WIEGY2024-02-22T11:16:40Z2024-02-22T11:17:27ZThis Emerging Evidence Report shares evidence of how, for whom, and under what circumstances, Participatory Action Research (PAR) leads to innovative actions. A rapid realist review was undertaken to develop programme theories that explain how PAR generates innovation. The methodology included peer-reviewed and grey literature and moments of engagement with programme staff, such that their input supported the development and refinement of three resulting initial programme theories (IPTs) that we present in this report. Across all three IPTs, safe relational space, group facilitation, and the abilities of facilitators, are essential
context and intervention components through which PAR can generate innovation. Implications from the three IPTs for evaluation design of the CLARISSA programme are identified and discussed. The report finishes with opportunities for the CLARISSA programme to start building an evidence base of how PAR works as an intervention modality, such as evidencing group-level conscientisation, the influence of intersecting inequalities, and influence of diverse perspectives coming together in a PAR process.Snijder, MiekeApgar, J. Marina2021-07-23enThis is an Open Access paper distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited and any modifications or adaptations are indicated.How Does Participatory Action Research Generate Innovation? Findings from a Rapid Realist ReviewHow to do Process Tracing: A Method for Testing “How Change Happened” in Complex and Dynamic Settingshttps://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/7IFCX8KY2024-02-19T09:56:32Z2024-02-19T10:02:39ZProcess tracing is a causal methodology that can help people understand how a particular large-scale change actually happened within a complex dynamic environment. Much of the existing literature provides important information about the method; we wrote this brief to help more people operationalize the concepts and learn about practical steps for using this method more easily, with quality, and toward a more equitable world.
This piece was written based on our experiences implementing process tracing when our experience showed that existing materials on the method had a lot more conceptual than practical information. We’ve approached this as people with some successful (and some unsuccessful) experience with the method itself, alongside deep experience in evaluating initiatives and strategies in complex and dynamic settings.
We focus not on the Bayesian side of process tracing but rather on how this can be implemented in a way that’s more participatory and lifts up the experiences and wisdom of those closest to the work and the problems being tackled. We hope this contributes to and helps make more approachable the important work of political scientists and methodologists upon which this work sits.Lynn, JewlyaStachowiak, SarahBeyers, Jennifer2022.10How to do Process Tracing: A Method for Testing “How Change Happened” in Complex and Dynamic SettingsLearning from Life Story Collection and Analysis with Children who Work in the Leather Sector in Bangladeshhttps://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/3YYX4Y8F2024-02-16T15:31:29Z2024-02-16T15:31:49ZCLARISSA (Child Labour: Action-Research-Innovation in South and South-eastern Asia) is a participatory evidence and innovation generating programme. We are generating evidence on the drivers of the worst forms of child labour (WFCL) and exploring how to address them through participatory Action Research (PAR) with children and other stakeholders in the leather supply chain in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Our main intervention modality is Systemic Action Research (SAR) (Burns, 2007), of which life story collection and analysis (LSC&A) is the first step in our participatory design that will inform child-led PAR groups which will become the engines of innovative responses to WFCL.
The LSC&A methodology is a storytelling and story listening methodology and was chosen because of the universal power of stories to make sense of complex realities and seek new futures. People across the world like to tell their stories; they like to feel listened to and they are interested in how their story connects and compares to others. By collecting and analysing stories from hundreds of children in WFCL we can visualise the bigger system that each individual story is connected to. We hypothesize that through engagement in the process of telling, listening, collecting, and analysing life stories, children engaged in harmful and hazardous work will use their understanding of systems dynamics to move into creating their own solutions to the drivers of WFCL.
In 2021 in Bangladesh, we collected 405 life stories from children living in Hazaribagh, Hemayetpur, Lalbagh, and Bhairab in Dhaka, with more than one hundred of these stories collected by children themselves. Following the story collection and transcription, children were supported by the CLARISSA implementation team to collectively analyse the stories through identifying critical ‘factors’ (events which have causes and consequences) and understanding how they causally relate to each other. The analysis of the 405 life stories resulted in the development of large system maps that illustrate all the causal dynamics that underpin lived experiences of WFCL. Based on the systemic analysis process the children identified themes of the PAR to be set up in their localities.
Our experience with the LSC&A methodology is the first in the context of children in WFCL. The methodology has been used in one other project in Bangladesh to date. We therefore intentionally aimed to learn from the implementation process and to evaluate if and how the telling of, listening to, collecting and analysing of life stories is empowering and in turn whether it leads to increased ownership of the problems which motivates collective action (Burns, 2021). In this learning note we share our methodological learning and reflect on operational implications for designing and facilitating an LSC&A process with children which we hope will support adaptation and use of the methodology by others working in participatory programming with children.Sayem, MashriquePaul, SukantaApgar, MarinaSnijder, Mieke2022enhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Learning from Life Story Collection and Analysis with Children who Work in the Leather Sector in BangladeshScaling Up Development Programmeshttps://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/DCBX4BBT2024-02-13T22:12:49Z2024-02-13T22:16:10ZMany development organizations, national and local governments and civil society organizations are faced with the issue of scaling up development interventions — the main questions raised time and again are: a) what should be scaled up, and how it can be scaled up; b) is there a strong reason for a particular initiative to be scaled up; and c) what should be the value-added of the scaling up efforts, and how can practitioners ensure that technological and other innovations are being integrated for improved development effectiveness? Answers to these questions depend on a host of complex realities—the relative strengths and weaknesses in national and local systems, political and economic situations, including vulnerability of country systems to shocks, commitments from development partners, power dynamics between various groups and stakeholders in a given country, regional and global environments. For the United Nations Country Teams (UNCT) and UNDP offices, another factor to consider is how to maximize our respective comparative advantages.
This guidance note summarizes the main conceptual thinking available from development institutions and academia, and presents a simplified conceptual framework and roadmap for scaling up processes. It also provides UNDP programme staff and UNCTs with practical actions and checklists to consider when designing and implementing programmes that support national scaling up initiatives, and proposes actions that can be undertaken at the regional and global levels. Although intended for internal audiences, the scaling up concept and recommendations can also be used by the public and private sector, civil society and social entrepreneurs.
This note benefited from a wide consultative process held in 2011, including practical recommendations and proposals from colleagues at country offices and regional/global centres. Their insights have been instrumental in the distillation of main recommendations presented in this note, and the individuals who provided substantive contributions are gratefully noted in the Acknowledgements section.UNDP2013.01Scaling Up Development ProgrammesAdaptive Evaluation: A Complexity-based approach to Systematic Learning for Innovation and Scaling in Developmenthttps://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/J72PMLTI2024-02-13T21:50:30Z2024-02-19T10:10:29ZNearly all challenges in international development tend to be complex because they depend on constantly evolving human behaviour, systems, and contexts, involving multiple actors, entities, and processes. As a result, both the discovery and scaling of innovations to address challenges in development often involve changes in system behaviour or even system-level transformation. This is rarely a linear process over time and can result in unexpected outcomes. Existing evaluation techniques commonly used in international development, including Randomized Control Trials (RCT) and quasi-experimental methods, are good at assessing specific effects of interventions but are not designed for the change processes inherent to innovation and scaling within a system. There is a need to reconstruct how we use existing measurement tools, techniques, and methodologies so that they capture the complexity of the environment in which an intervention or change occurs. We introduce Adaptive Evaluation, designed to learn at various levels of complexity while supporting the transformation needed to foster sustainable change. An Adaptive Evaluation uses three main approaches to work with complex questions—systems diagnosis, theorybased assessment of change processes, and iterative designs. An Adaptive Evaluation typically builds hypotheses from field-based interactions, emphasizes learning over testing, advocates open-mindedness with techniques, and appreciates the value of dialogue and participation in navigating complex processes. It can use RCT or similar techniques to analyse specific processes within a system or a development cycle, but these are embedded in a broader approach to assessment and interpretation. It is designed to be flexible and adjust to shifting contexts. Finally, an Adaptive Evaluation can be applied at any stage in a complex intervention's lifecycle, from the interpretation of the system and change processes to rapid experimentation, prototyping, and testing of select interventions, and then adaptation to different settings for impact at scale. This paper provides the theoretical basis for an Adaptive Evaluation—the main approaches, core ideology, process, and applications.Gokhale, SiddhantWalton, Michael2023.03enAdaptive Evaluation: A Complexity-based approach to Systematic Learning for Innovation and Scaling in DevelopmentIs DFID Getting Real About Politics?A stocktake of how DFID has adopted a politically-informed approach (2010-2015)https://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/PHP2FPQ82024-02-13T18:26:56Z2024-02-13T21:44:21Z1. Background
This internal stocktake assesses whether DFID is “getting real about politics” - how it
is taking power and politics into account in all its operations. Country Poverty
Reduction Diagnostics undertaken by DFID teams identify politics as the most
frequent barrier to poverty reduction and growth. The UK 2015 Aid Strategy has
committed DFID to spending 50% of Official Development Assistance (ODA) in
fragile states. This requires a “patient, long-term approach” to addressing barriers to
peace and stability which are fundamentally political, rather than purely financial or
technical.
The stocktake is based on three DFID offices case studies (Democratic Republic of
the Congo, Pakistan and Malawi) as well as extensive internal and external
consultations between June and December 2015. It provides illustrations of how
DFID is evolving but does not systematically offer evidence of development impacts
or non-country work, as this would have required a different methodology.
2. What does it mean to take politics into account?
Politically-informed approaches are based on a large body of evidence that
confirms the importance of institutions and politics for sustainable
development. External assistance needs to support locally-led change. Success
depends on timing, context, political processes and local actors. Desirable outcomes
are hard to achieve and difficult to predict.
Politically-informed approaches improve development effectiveness through:
The ‘what’: political goals, using development assistance to shift how
power is distributed in the economy and society. The two main elements are:
aiming for long term transformation of institutions; and supporting locally-led
change processes more likely to be sustainable and successful: locallyowned (i.e. with local salience) and locally-negotiated.
The ‘how’: politically-smart methods, with greater realism and
feasibility. The three main elements are: understanding power and politics
in a specific context in order to identify opportunities and barriers for change;
influencing and stakeholder management skills; and proactive risk
management.
To influence DFID operations, a politically-informed approach needs to be
iterative, not one-off. The explicit understanding of context, whether formal setpiece studies or more routine analysis, should inform policy and programme
decisions, from high level strategic choices, to day-to-day implementation, for both
international policy and country support. This is a dynamic process: as the context
evolves and lessons are learned about what works, analyses and decisions are
updated. These are the principles behind the ‘flexible and adaptive’ agenda.Piron, Laure-HélèneBaker, AislinSavage, LauraWiseman, Katie2016.03enIs DFID Getting Real About Politics?A stocktake of how DFID has adopted a politically-informed approach (2010-2015)Scaling up Social Accountability in Complex Governance Systems: A Relational Approach for Evidencing Sustainabilityhttps://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/AQVIQ4GX2024-02-13T13:08:32Z2024-02-13T13:11:23ZWhen social accountability interventions scale up and their sustainability depends on the interactions of many agents and system components, related results are rarely observable at the end of an intervention. The 2019 OECD Development Assistance Committee’s (OECD DAC) revamped evaluations criteria for assessing sustainability acknowledges that such results are often emergent, and should be monitored and evaluated with this in mind. It therefore emphasizes a turn towards assessing complex processes prospectively. It also asks evaluations to consider how likely it is that these results are evident at the time they are monitored or evaluated. However,the social accountability field continues to have gaps regarding doing this effectively in practice.
This paper presents and provides evidence from testing an innovative operational approach that has promising potential to support this aim - a sequential, relational rubric. This approach can support practitioners to monitor, evaluate and learn about the causal processes of scale up of social accountability interventions with an eye towards sustainability i.e., considering prospective sustainability. It is grounded in systems thinking, co-production and social learning theory, as well as links with collective governance and social contract theory for development.
Evidence yielded from the authors’ testing of this approach on a sample of diverse projects from the Global Partnership for Social Accountability (GPSA) program revealed that the alleged ‘absence of evidence’ dilemma of social accountability scale up is due to ill-fitting concepts and methods for assessment. It challenges existing assumptions and findings that claim that social accountabilityprocesses do not scale and are unsustainable. The authors propose that by using fit-for-purpose concepts and methods with a focus on social learning and compromise – also called a ‘resonance pathway to scale’ which this paper discusses in detail – it is possible to observe loosely coordinated scale up processes at work in many (but not all) social accountability interventions and identify tangible evidence of prospective sustainability. An important caveat is that these processes, the outcomes they generate, and the corresponding evidence often look qualitatively different than the original intervention design and predictions for scale-up at that point in time. This is because the process of deliberation and compromise inherent to social accountability work in dynamic local systems introduces changes and new conditions for uptake by diverse actors in the public sector, civil society, and donor institutions.
The paper concludes that even relatively small-scale localized projects of three to five years with budgets of less than one million USD, across different contexts and sectors can produce processes and outcomes which contribute to many forms of sustainability, including via scaleup.Furthermore, the cross-fertilization of learning and aggregation of results for scale-up across projects within and beyond the GPSA (and other programs) can help monitoring evaluation and learning (MEL) and social accountability practitioners alike to deliver on a program’s mandate. Doing so can also create new knowledge for the wider social accountability field that siloed interventions, lacking suitable concepts and methods for assessing scale-up and prospective sustainability, often fail to produce. The paper ends with recommendations for taking forward this approach and the associated benefits, implications and required investments.Guerzovich, FlorenciaWadeson, Alix2024.01Scaling up Social Accountability in Complex Governance Systems: A Relational Approach for Evidencing SustainabilityAssessing Value for Money: the Oxford Policy Management Approachhttps://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/89ZS7FB32024-02-12T14:07:53Z2024-02-12T14:12:21ZThis document offers practical guidance for assessing the Value for Money (VfM) of
government- and donor-financed programmes and policy interventions. In line with OPM’s
focus and mission, it has been predominantly applied in the international development
sector, but the approach upon which it is based is also used in the context of domestic public
policy and programmes.1
There is increasing scrutiny on VfM in international development, but a lack of appropriate
methods to support its assessment. There is a risk of reaching invalid conclusions if VfM
evaluation is tied to a narrow set of indicators devoid of any evaluative judgement—for
example, by emphasising the most readily quantifiable measures rather than the most
important (but harder to quantify) aspects of performance, or by focusing on the
quantification of outputs and outcomes at the expense of more nuanced consideration of
their quality, value, and importance.
The approach presented in this guide combines theory and practice from evaluation and
economics to respond to requirements for accountability and good resource allocation, as
well as to support reflection, learning, and adaptive management. It involves developing and
implementing a framework for:
• organising evidence of performance and VfM;
• interpreting the evidence on an agreed basis; and
• presenting a clear and robust performance story.
This guide sets out a framework for making and presenting judgements in a way that opens
both the reasoning process and the evidence to scrutiny. The approach is designed to be
used in alignment with broader monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) systems—both
for efficiency's sake, and to ensure conceptual coherence between VfM evaluation and wider
MEL work.
The VfM framework achieves these aims by:
• using explicit criteria (aspects of performance) and standards (levels of performance) to
provide a transparent basis for making sound judgements about performance and VfM;
• combining quantitative and qualitative forms of evidence to support a richer and more
nuanced understanding than can be gained from the use of indicators alone;
• accommodating economic evaluation (where feasible and appropriate) without limiting
the analysis to economic methods and metrics alone; and
• incorporating and building on an approach to VfM evaluation which is familiar to
international aid donors.King, JulianDaniel WateEsther NamukasaAlex HurrellFrances HansfordPatrick WardShiva Faramarzifar2023enAssessing Value for Money: the Oxford Policy Management ApproachGuidance on using the revised Logical Framework - How to notehttps://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/EEZWAX442024-01-30T10:50:22Z2024-01-30T10:56:16ZThe principal changes to the logframe from the earlier (2008) 4 x 4 matrix are:
- Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs) have been separated into their
component elements (Indicator, Baseline and Target), and Milestones added.
- Means of Verification has been renamed ‘Source’.
- Inputs are now quantified in terms of funds (expressed in Sterling for DFID
and all partners) and use of DFID staff time (expressed as annual Full-Time
Equivalents (FTEs).
- A DFID Share box now indicates the financial value of DFID’s Inputs as a
percentage of the whole.
- Assumptions are shown at Purpose and Output level only.
- Risks are shown at Activities level only, but also rated at Output level;
- At the Output level, the Impact Weighting is now shown in the logframe
together with a Risk Rating for individual Outputs.
- Activities are now shown separately (so do not normally appear in the
logframe sent for approval), although they can be added to the logframe if this
is more suitable for your purposes.
- A renewed emphasis on the use of disaggregated beneficiary data within
indicators, baselines and targets.
The Logical Framework (logframe) was significantly re-designed in February 2009.
In January 2011 a slightly amended logframe template was introduced at the same time as the launch of the new DFID Business Case. Given the extent of changes
that took place in February 2009 it was only necessary to make minor amendments
in January 2011. These amendments are as follows:
- Results Chain terminology aligned across DFID (the terms Goal and Purpose
in the old logframe template have been replaced by Impact and Outcome)
- Rows added to allow achieved results to be captured alongside the planned
results determined at project design stage
- Word version of the logframe template removed – excel is the preferred format
for logical frameworks from January 2011
- Indicator numbering introduced within logframe templateDFID2011.01Guidance on using the revised Logical Framework - How to noteAll about behaviour: KAPE, Adaptation and ' Sticky' Institutional Changehttps://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/VKMQ6CR52024-01-29T11:23:19Z2024-02-12T10:38:59ZThis paper describes Global Partners Governance’s (GPG’s) approach to institutional reform and political change. Developed over the last decade of working in some of the most complex and sensitive political environments with politicians and officials in parliaments, political parties, ministries and local government, it describes the KAPE® (knowledge-application-practice-effect) methodology that we adopt to get ‘sticky’ institutional and behavioural change.
Contents
1) Two dimensions of ‘adaptive programmes’: Flexible delivery and getting behaviour change
2) Enabling Change: KAPE and The Logic of Institutional Reform (Knowledge-Application-Practice-Effect)
- K: Knowledge – Defining the problem and what to do about it
- A: Application – Making Systems Work in Practice
- P: Practice – Pockets of good practice and establishing ‘the new normal’
- E: Effect – Improved performance and the ‘Ripple Effect’
3) Measuring Impact: Monitoring and Evolving
4) Conclusion: Behavioural insights, adaptive management and sticky changePower, Greg2016All about behaviour: KAPE, Adaptation and ' Sticky' Institutional ChangeLearning from adaptive programmes - 10 lessons and 10 case studieshttps://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/IKK3J2RM2024-01-29T11:17:38Z2024-01-29T11:18:23ZInternal DFID document from the DevAdapt Programme. Based on another previous document (also internal).Valters, Craig2018.10Learning from adaptive programmes - 10 lessons and 10 case studiesTop Tips: How to design and manage adaptive programmeshttps://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/D88SA8IR2024-01-29T11:15:45Z2024-02-19T09:55:49ZWithin DFID, there is now a commitment to more flexible and adaptive programming.
This recognises that:
• DFID works in contexts that continuously evolve and change, sometimes in unpredictable ways. To respond to this, the agency needs to remain flexible – to expect change and have a good understanding of context, with resources that can be adjusted and scope to change direction if needed. All DFID programmes should be able to do this.
• Some DFID programmes aim to support change in complex systems, behaviours and incentives. Efforts to address women’s empowerment, improve sanitation or build more sustainable health systems, for instance, all require engagement with the way in which complex systems operate and the people and behaviours within them. Trying to deliver reforms in these circumstances is challenging because the pathway to reform itself will be unclear: as a reform is rolled out, the system itself will react and respond. These types of programmes therefore need to build in from the start deliberate processes of learning and testing, to allow for adaptations as more information is gathered for what works over time.
These top tips are concerned with programmes that aim to be flexible and adaptive – which work in dynamic contexts and are trying to address complex problems. While there is growing commitment to these approaches, feedback suggests staff still have questions about how to do this well. This document highlights some of the commonly reported issues related to adaptive programming and a set of tips, strategies and examples to help in addressing them. It is aimed at programme managers and advisors who may be Senior Responsible Owners (SROs) or those managing and supporting adaptive programming in a range of ways. We have collated these lessons from discussions with country offices and SROs, feedback from surveys and the wider evidence.
We have looked specifically at the adaptive programmes we can find in the DFID portfolio, but this is not an exhaustive list. It should be noted that there is as yet no wide variety of case law to review, but there is a growing set of examples within DFID that can provide continuous learning for the organisation.Valters, CraigWild, Leni2019.07Top Tips: How to design and manage adaptive programmes