A Complimentary Approach to Developing Progress Markers in Outcome Mapping Julius Nyangaga and Heidi Schaeffer

1. To share results of the Progress Marker Research. 2. To discuss how the results can be used to think about change in Boundary Partners and to develop Progress Markers. Objectives of the webinar

Introduction: boundary partners and outcome challenges Boundary Partners are Individuals, Groups or Organizations that you do not control but in whom you wish to support transformation. The Outcome Challenge is the ideal transformation (in the form of behavior, actions, interactions, relationships, cultures, policies and practices) sought in the boundary partner.

Progress Markers are graduated indicators of transformation towards the outcome challenge ✓ They are the OM indicators of change. ✓ Starting from what is expected to be immediate reactions to the project/intervention … ✓ They demonstrate progression in transformation … over time or greater commitment to desired change

5 Expect to see PMs Love to see PMs Like to see PMs Progress Markers = change ladder

Key rule for progress markers … PMs are changes associated WITH a Boundary Partner: For a Farmer Field Schools (FFS) project, the PMs for extension agents as boundary partners included: -The extension agents are working directly with the farming communities to establish the FFS -They (the extension agents) run FFS sessions with a high level of participation by both men and women farmers -They form networks of FFS facilitators for knowledge and information exchange, peer-support PMs here are about transformation in the extension agents,.. and not the farmers or other actors

Examples of Bad Progress Markers They must be about observable changes in the actions, interactions, relationships, procedures or policies of a boundary partner. e.g. The effects of climate change on poverty are reduced. They must be measurable. e.g. Awareness about the effects of climate change is increased.

Progress Markers in the OM manual The Outcome Mapping manual proposes a way to categorize changes in boundary partners (the Progress markers) as a progression in phased steps from ‘expect to see →like to see →love to see’. Hypothesis: Behavioural change in BPs follows an observable patterns that can make them easier to develop

Progress Marker Research – method 32 sets of Progress Markers (indicators in OM) from 13 Projects (using Outcome Mapping for PPM&E) were analyzed in 2009/2010 to determine if there were comparable patterns in the stages of change in Boundary Partners Analysis entailed reviewing the project, the BP and targeted Outcome Challenge and placing the progress marker into categories of practice

Some of the projects and their boundary partners: … ProjectBoundary Partner Quality Education and Vulnerability Programme ( ). Funded by VVOB Co-curricular support structures VECO Indonesia’s country programme on sustainable agriculture chain development Local Service NGO’s Lake Winnipeg (Canada) Watershed InitiativeCommunity and private foundations The YCDO Coalition; Realizing the potential of young people as leaders in using information and communications technologies (ICTs) Young Social Entrepreneurs ILRI’s Commercialisation of the Infection and Treatment Method of Immunisation against East Coast fever in cattle Private Commercial Partners, Companies ILRI’s Farmer Field Schools projectExtension Agents/Workers Progress Marker Research – method

Boundary partner sets – an example Project: Project: ILRI implementing Farmer Field Schools for livestock keepers Boundary Partners: Roles: FFS Implementers Implementers (donor-organizations and development agents) who provided funds and were expected to apply the methodology in their development work. Extension Agents/Workers The extension are agents appreciating the principles to an extent that they (own their own) use LFFS as the primary method of information sharing and learning methodology with their clients Donor Organizations include donor-organizations and development agents who, not only provided funds for the initial stages of activities, but also – in the long run – were expected to apply the methodology in their respective development activities. Planners Policy-makers and planning and regulatory authorities associated with the livestock sector, and particularly education and extension processes

P1 transformation: Progress Markers Showing practices around knowledge acquisition about project’s intentions, and building required capacity The BP is... “... ‘interacting with’ the project team to learn about the technology” “...raising questions and issues that (the Project) will address (the BP’s) uptake of the technology” “...seeking information on issues related to the technology” “...clarifying their purpose, methods of organisation and internal functioning in line with project vision, mission” Progress Marker Research – findings

P1 Preparation for the Journey Gathering knowledge and growing understanding of themselves; the beneficiaries and the environment Organizing regular planning meetings Seeking out additional information from external sources Attending events Honoring their roles and carrying out tasks Requesting information and training Familiarizing themselves Developing organizational capacity Actively communicating and sharing information

P2 transformation: Progress Markers showing greater involvement (in the project mission and activities) and promotion of targeted vision to others The BP is... “...establishing and expanding their membership base...” “...initiating activities/meetings during which members and other stakeholders can share, learn and cooperate to undertake project activities” “...identifying & collaborating with key actors of the supported value chain” Progress Marker Research – findings

P2 The Owned Journey Begins commitment to learning and building networks of support Initiating partnerships collaborating and actively sharing experiences and current information Organizing and learning activities building teams and networks, joining with others Monitoring and evaluating their actions Commitment of time and financial resources Accurately entering data Interacting frequently with staff to provide consistency in the formulation of policies

P3 transformation: Progress Markers showing ownership of transformation through own investment, policy influence and institutionalization The BP is... “...modifying/creating their (policies) and institutional structures to mainstream the change” “... generating their own funds and re-investing in (related) community projects” “... establishing mechanisms to share and review work programmes across departments” Progress Marker Research – findings

P3 The Owned Journey Continues Continuous actions (leadership) to support change; policy change Undertaking asset investments Developing multi- stakeholder networks Engaging in policy dialogue Participating in regional, national / International forums as spokespersons Advocating for institutionalization of new approach Influencing policy at local and national levels Successfully obtaining funding Facilitating continuous monitoring

Progress Markers, BPs and Context influence A BP’s set of markers developed for and with a partner will strongly be related to the project’s context... will depend on the stage of project implementation and the alignment status of the BP to the project goals and the shared vision of change

What phases of change tell us about BPs P1 transformation: Progress Markers Showing knowledge acquisition about project intention, and building required capacity... crucial when introducing a project to new boundary partners... vital in getting support from those disinclined to the mission or vision Aim: to increase their knowledge regarding the Program’s background and justification so as to develop acceptance

P2 transformation: Progress Markers showing greater involvement (in the project mission and activities) and promotion of targeted vision to others... working with BPs who are relatively more aligned and ready to support the project’s mission BP helps translate project intentions into what they would like/prefer and promoting the project’s vision and mission to other stakeholders) What phases of change tell us about BPs

P3 transformation: Progress Markers showing ownership of transformation through own investment, policy influence and institutionalization... working with BPs demonstrating support, the program would be to entrench targeted changes Use P3 types of PMs (‘culturalization', institutionalization and regularization of the change through long term policies) to develop ownership and sustainability What phases of change tell us about BPs

P1, P2, P3 Circle of Change

Comparing with “Expect to, Like to, Love to” The whole set is developed Expect to see Like to see Love to see P1: Building interest, capacity P2: Involved, promoting P3: Owning & sustaining Set will depend on BP alignment and project stage Both approaches can complement each other

Progress Markers are NOT linear Revised P1 Revised P2 Revised P3 P1 P2 P3

Example: BP Outcome Challenge -BP establishing participation throughout the organization in Change Management -... maintaining close working relationships with Head of Governments and other officials demonstrates strong leadership, frequent face- to-face communication with staff. -.. recognises the achievements of teams and staff and adheres to the agreed-upon model The Markers are NOT linear – an example

Example: BP Progress Markers BP develops and put in place a communication policy guiding how information is shared within the organisation P3 … schedule regular meetings to communicate the decisions and rationale of board meetings P2 … frequently interacts with staff to exchange ideas and provide clarity and consistency in the formulation and implementation of policies P1... recruit and retain competent management teams and holding these reporting officers accountable for their work outputs P2... conduct performance appraisals with their staff membersP2/3 The Markers are NOT linear – an example

Conclusions and Recommendations The whole set is developed Expect to see Like to see Love to see P1: Building interest, capacity P2: Involved, promoting P3: Owning & sustaining Set will depend on BP alignment and project stage Both approaches can complement each other

End Thank You