Addressing the evaluation-of-sustainability-paradox: A relational rubric for evidencing… - Guerzovich, Florencia (Medium, 2024)
Florencia Guerzovich and Alix Wadeson

The Radical How - Greenway, Andrew; Loosemore, Tom (Nesta and Public Digital, 2024)
Any 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.

Doing weeknotes - What weeknotes are, how weeknotes work, and how to start writing weeknotes of your own - Turnbull, Giles (Use the Human Voice, 2024)
Doing 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 reading

Review of current system & portfolio practices in the development sector: Organizational… - Pereverza, Kateryna (Medium, 2024)
Building on interviews with colleagues in development organizations, donor & partner governments and foundations, this article explores the adoption of system and portfolio-based approaches in the development sector focusing on organizational motivations and challenges, changes in the network of the development sector actors, and types of collaborative experiments initiated around the novel approach. The aim is to take steps towards understanding how this type of approach for system change can be institutionalized in the sector and become one of the main ways of operating for delivering transformative impact. Summary While there is a broad consensus that linear, fragmented, projectized ways of doing development & public policy are not a match for the type of context we live in today, there is less consensus about what alternatives look like. In this space, system and portfolio approaches have emerged during the last few years and a new field is beginning to slowly emerge. Currently, there is a diversity in interpretations of system and portfolio-based approaches by the development sector organizations. This is connected to different logics and theories of transformative change in complex systems. Also, the intent with the adoption of the novel approach can vary along the dimension of organizational efficiency vs place-based transformations. Organizations engage with portfolio-based approaches with different intents and in different roles. For example, OECD OPSI takes forward the innovation portfolio management for partners; the European Commission funds place-based portfolios e.g. within the M4EG program; while UNDP facilitates place-based and thematic portfolios for system transformations. When it comes to the motivations of development sector partners to experiment with system and portfolio-based approaches, these include increased effectiveness & efficiency of the use of funds for place-based transformations; response to the post-colonial critique; creation of visibility as a frontrunner; the potential of joint risk-taking; the opportunity of collective learning from an entire portfolio (coherence & dynamic evolution); and directionality added to internal and external activities. Challenges encountered by partners engaged in the experimentation with system and portfolio-based approaches are connected to resources and time constraints that emerge from the prevailing logics & constraints of current organizational structures premised on fragmentation & projectization; organizational leadership dynamics; the influence of dominant organizational culture and mindsets; the difficulties of adopting the ‘portfolio language’/jargon; prevailing funding structures and cycles; and a shortage of both time and capacity to engage with numerous local partners. The structure of the development sector ecosystem is undergoing changes driven by a rapidly changing context. The experimentation with system and portfolio-based approaches has led to new actors joining the space, such as innovative consultancies developing the logic of transformative change in systems and facilitating portfolios on the ground, and the emergence of new roles and relationships, for example, ‘learning partners’. Since 2020, three noticeable types of collaborative experiments emerged in the development sector ecosystem: systemic investments; thematic and place-based portfolio interventions; and monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) for the context of system change. This study revealed areas for further exploration and analysis. One is a need to co-create institutional structures to enable a co-ownership of place-based portfolios by several international partners as well as local stakeholders. Another area connects to the need to create and implement spaces and tools for collective learning from portfolios. Finally, there is a need to understand what mechanisms can enable the institutionalization of novel approaches on the level of the entire sector and their interconnection with organizational changes needed. This study is based on the interviews with representatives of ten development sector organizations conducted in spring 2023 and insights shared within portfolio practitioner gatherings and the M&E Sandbox webinars run during 2023. Introduction: The article emphasizes the importance of (re)framing challenges in portfolio-based approaches for steering system transformations. It acknowledges that the way we frame challenges significantly influences the solutions we develop, and therefore, it’s crucial to address the right problems rather than wasting resources on incorrect issues. Study Insights: The insights come from a study initiated in autumn 2021, focusing on how framing processes unfold, what needs to be framed, the open-ended nature of framing, and the roles international organizations like UNDP can play in developing inclusive and system transformation-oriented framings of urban challenges. Key Points: The study involved interviews with experts from the UNDP Istanbul and Thailand Regional hubs. It explored the experimentation with the portfolio approach in collaboration with local and national governments and partners. The article presents insights related to the framing process and highlights open questions for researchers and practitioners. System Transformations: System transformations require a deep understanding beyond surface-level issues, as existing systems often limit our imagination and prevent us from exploring the root causes of complex societal challenges. Portfolio Approaches: The article references the collaboration between the Swedish Strategic Innovation Programme “Viable Cities” and the Strategic Innovation Unit of UNDP. They focus on portfolio-based approaches for urban low-carbon transitions in Sweden, targeting the mission: “Climate-neutral cities 2030 with a good life for all within planetary boundaries.” Conclusion: The blog post concludes by highlighting the need for further research and practice in developing effective portfolio approaches to address complex societal challenges.

Partnering with communities to co-design humanitarian health strategies: A SeeChange CommunityFirst Framework for implementation in MSF projects - Chapela Trillo, Violeta; Farber, Jessica (MSF, 2034)
The 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.