1. Managing for Results Capacity in Higher Education Institutions
Managing for Results Capacity in Higher Education Institutions
NORHED seminar in Addis Ababa 13 – 14 March 2014
Lill-Ann Bjaarstad Medina
Senior Adviser
Department for Quality Assurance, Norad

2.
A two days mission
Give input to your finalization of the Results Frameworks for NORHED Projects based on the principles in Results Based Management.
Introduce basic principles in Risk Management
Making an inventory of indicators that may be helpful in completing your the Project’s Results Frameworks
Suggesting common indicators for the NORHED to make it possible to aggregate essential information into consolidated reports on the results of the Programme
Making the process inclusive.
Making general frameworks is often a top-down process. UNICEF
Quite challenging with size of the work shop .

3. Why should we focus on results ?
Why should we focus on results ?
Verification - Documentation
Accountability - Reporting
Legitimacy - Communication
Strategic management towards results
The two first: Documentation and Reporting – there is no escape. You have been granted public funds, you are responsible for and have agreed to document and report on your projects achievements.
The third: Commination – we have a common interest.
The forth Strategic Management towards results. If you are leaders that believe that strategic thinking matters,
I hope I can convince you that this is a useful instrument to focus your interventions also achieve better results in the long run.

4. Results Based Management (RBM)
Results Based Management (RBM)
A method with various uses;
Strategic Planning of interventions (resources and activities) to give intended results and desired effects
Monitor how resources and activities translate into deliverables and whether these have the intended effects (outcomes)
Learn to be able to change interventions to achieve better results (“what works?”)

5. Impact Resources 1.0 Outcome ( Strengthened Institutions) Activities
Impact
1.0 Outcome ( Strengthened Institutions)
1.1 Outcome
1.2 Outcome
1.3 Outcome E
1.1.1.
Output
1.1.2
Output
1.1.3
Output
1.2.1
Output
1.2.2
Output
1.3.1 Output
Activities
Resources

6. Strengthen Institutions
Sustainable development
Expanded and better qualified gender balanced workforce
Increased, better and relevant knowledge base
Increased evidence base for policies and public decision
SP1 S
SP2
SP3 SP
SP4 S
SP5
SSS
SP6
SSS
Strengthen Institutions
46 NORHED projects
NORHED allocation

7. NORHED Outcome Strong institutions SP2 S SP3 SP4 SP5 SP6
Sustainable development
Expanded and better qualified gender balanced workforce
Increased, better and relevant knowledge base
Increased evidence base for policies and public management
NORHED Outcome
Strong institutions
SP2 S
SP3
SP4
SP5
SP6
Education
Project

8. for Capacity Building at Institutions
Soc i e ty
Sustainable development
Expanded and better qualified gender balanced workforce
Increased, better and relevant knowledge base
Increased evidence for policies and public management
Institution
Project
Monitoring
System
for Capacity Building at Institutions

9.
Strategic Management towards Results Part I “To make a strategy you need to know where you are going”

10. A change in mind set Managing towards results
A change in mind set Managing towards results
A shift of focus
From what we do to what we want to achieve
From how we do things to why we do it
- although it is not irrelevant how we do things
Towards a results culture ……….

11. The results chain Impact Effects Outcomes Results Outputs Activities
The results chain
Impact
Effects
Outcomes
Results
Outputs
Activities
Interventions
Input

12. Impact Resources 1.0 Outcome ( Strengthened Institutions) Activities
Impact
1.0 Outcome ( Strengthened Institutions)
1.1 Outcome
1.2 Outcome
1.3 Outcome E
1.1.1.
Output
1.1.2
Output
1.1.3
Output
1.2.1
Output
1.2.2
Output
1.3.1 Output
Activities
Resources

13. The Results Framework Some basic characteristics
The Results Framework Some basic characteristics
Consistency: A system for the monitoring of progress and documenting results in a consistent manner
Coherence; The framework is made up of coherent and complete results chains (including three levels outputs, outcomes and impact)
Results are clearly defined at each level: Results statements that define what is to be achieved are ascribed to each level in the framework
Correspondence: Results statements are phrased in such a way that the different levels in the framework correspond.

14. The results framework as a monitoring systems
The results framework as a monitoring systems
For the results framework to constitute a monitoring system there needs to be indicators that can verify results or degree of results achievements at each level.
To function as an instruments for strategic management there should also be indicators to monitor progress towards outcomes.
The topic of tomorrows intervention

15. Changing institutions
Changing institutions
The purpose of the NORHED grant is to contribute to change
Capacity building is a means to an end
Building institutional capacity is building institutional structures that endure
What is capacity? How do you know that you have reached capacity?

16. Capacity to do what? Measuring capacity by its effects.
Capacity to do what? Measuring capacity by its effects.
In NORHED the effects of capacity are identified as,
more and better research produced
more and better qualified graduates
In addition:
The NORHED shall contribute to more relevant knowledge, which can also influence policies and management.
And:
Gender as a cross-cuttings issue
How do we know that we have increased institutional capacity to secure these effect in the long term?

17. What is Institutional Capacity at Universities? A Working Hypothesis:
What is Institutional Capacity at Universities? A Working Hypothesis:
Sustainable environment for high quality graduate teaching and graduation
Sustainable environment for high quality research production
Improved and retained human capital at Universities
Accumulative knowledge base in relevant/identified areas
Access to the international knowledge base, global and regional networks
Reflecting and being adaptable societal demands and needs

18. Different Knowledge Base - the six sub-programmes
Different Knowledge Base - the six sub-programmes
The research agenda of the six sub-programmes varies:
Disciplinary
Muliti-disiplinery research agenda
Knowledge agenda defined by global, local and/or trans-border research agendas
Building institutions in HE as such (South- Sudan)
Does this have implications for how you formulate capacity as an Outcome?
What is similar and what is unique?

19. Strategic Management towards Results Part II
Strategic Management towards Results Part II
“If you want to make a good strategy you need to know where you are
- and what it takes to get where you are going”.

20. Problem analysis Why and where do we lack capacity?
Problem analysis Why and where do we lack capacity?
A problem analysis is used to assesse our current capacity narrow down our objectives, focus and prioritize within your Project
Phrase realistic Outcomes
Decide how (scarce) resources can be used and translated into critical Outputs that most effectively will help you reach these Outcomes.

21. A problem analysis may include many aspects
A problem analysis may include many aspects
A problem analysis may be;
A situation analysis, including contextual analysis
Identify the problems to be addressed
What are their causes?
What are the main obstacles, what is missing (capacity gaps)?
Baseline
Justification - “A theory of change”
Strategic considerations, readiness assessment

22.
Baseline
The situation prior to implementation in areas that are relevant for your intervention – the current situation
The starting point against which progress, achievements and the effects of institutional capacity can be measured
Baseline values are linked to selected indicators (topic of tomorrows session)

23. Justification Not only what, but why.
Justification Not only what, but why.
Building a rational for the intervention (“theory of change”)
Clarify your assumptions and identify the risks of these assumptions being weak or not building on sufficient evidence or experience
Make the logic (or causalities) in the results chains explicit
Explaining Outputs; Why do we believe certain Outputs lead to a particular Outcome. “What works”
Justifying Outputs; Why do you select and combine a particular set of Outputs;

24. Strategic considerations
Strategic considerations
What are your ambitions?
Do you need a strategy?
Strategic considerations and priority setting requires leadership
Readiness assessment; Resources, power and knowledge
«Leaders tend to overestimate what can be done on short terms and underestimate what can be done in the long run».

25. Today’s mission Phrasing results statements
Today’s mission Phrasing results statements
How do we phase strengthened capacity as clear Outcomes ?
Based on a Problem analysis, how do we identify essential Outputs that are needed to get there?
How do we select essential Outputs to be included in our framework and reported upon?

26. Impact 1.0 Outcome ( Strengthened Institutions) 1.1 Outcome
Impact
1.0 Outcome ( Strengthened Institutions)
1.1 Outcome
1.2 Outcome
1.3 Outcome E
1.1.1.
Output
1.1.2
Output
1.1.3
Output
1.2.1
Output
1.2.2
Output
1.3.1 Output

27. What is Institutional Capacity at Universities? A Working Hypothesis:
What is Institutional Capacity at Universities? A Working Hypothesis:
Sustainable environment for high quality graduate teaching and graduation
Sustainable environment for high quality research production
Improved and retained human capital at Universities
Accumulative knowledge base in relevant/identified areas
Access to the international knowledge base, global and regional networks
Reflecting and being adaptable societal demands and needs

28. Identifying Essential Outputs
Identifying Essential Outputs
Selecting
Combining
Sequencing
Why?

29. Strengthen Institutions
Sustainable development
Expanded and better qualified, gender balanced workforce
Increased, better and relevant knowledge base
Increased evidence base for policies and public decisions
SP1
SP2
SP3
SP4
SP5
SP6
Strengthen Institutions .
Research
Environment /Infrastructure
Networks
Graduate
education
Management /
administration
Partnerships

30.
Risk Management
Risk management as a method to address the risks of not reaching planned results.
Project risks;
Including management risks
Not including “corporate risk”; political and reputational risks and risks for own staff

31. What are risks? What is risks management?
What are risks? What is risks management?
Risk
Risk Management
“Factors or events that may occur and influence the results achievements in a negative way». Risks surging from uncertainties that have negative impacts
A step-wise method to be able to handle risks
Identification
Analysis
Mitigation
Tolerance

32. Impact Risks Resources 1.0 Outcome ( Strengthened Institutions)
Impact
1.0 Outcome ( Strengthened Institutions)
1.1 Outcome
1.2 Outcome
Risks E
1.1.1.
Output
1.1.2
Output
1.1.3
Output
1.1.4
Output
Activities
Resources

33.
Types of risks «Internal” vs. “external” risks Interne risiko Eksterne risiko

34. Main Principles in Risks Management
Main Principles in Risks Management
Risks must include both aspects; uncertainties and negative impact on achievement of results
Risk management divides into “phases” (identification, assessment, mitigation and tolerance) of which all are necessary elements
Assessment of probability and consequences to help identify the most significant risks to be prioritized when introducing mitigating measures

35. Risk Analyisis Probability and Consequence
Risk Analyisis Probability and Consequence

36. Mitigation and Tolerance
Mitigation and Tolerance
Implementation of preventive measures to reduce likelihood (ref. probability)
Preventive measures to reduce the degree of negative impact (ref. consequence)
Early intervention
Contingencies plans
Mitigation measures may reduce risks but not remove it.
Mitigation measures reduces, but not necessarily removes the risk

37. Some common flaws in risk management
Some common flaws in risk management
Risk factors are identified, but the consequences for the intervention are not identified nor assessed
External risks are mistaken as not being possible to mitigate
“Jumping to conclusions”; Risk factors are identified, and mitigation measures are discussed, without a sound assessment of probability and consequence
Risk assessments needs to be updated .
Problems can be removed and should be addressed.