1. Delivery mechanisms introduction: PMO strategy and value added Vladimír Kváča and Benedict Wauters

2. Content Added value in Structural Funds PCM / LFA Output based subsidies Outcome mapping Conclusions 2

3. 3

4. PMO strategy = strategy concerning added value PMO strategy = technical assistance priority OP Priority 1 OP Priority 1 OP Priority 2 OP Priority 2 OP Priority 3 OP Priority 3 PMO strategy = technical assistance priority OP Priority 1 OP Priority 1 OP Priority 2 OP Priority 2 OP Priority 3 OP Priority 3 Added value by leveraging the technical assistance! 4

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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!

13. Calls for proposals and applications for funding Discussion 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

14. Content Added value in Structural Funds PCM / LFA Output based subsidies Outcome mapping Conclusions 14

15. PCM and LFA 15

16. 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

17. 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)

18. 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 list Check official mandates and goals and contact personally.

19. 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 happen in 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 see the use of Management has few interactions with employees The work environment is dangerous in the production shop Employees get many complaints from clients ESF example problem tree

20. 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 happen in 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 is safe in the the production shop Employees get few complaints from clients ESF example objective tree

21. SOME CRITERIA Implementation strategy ? Economic and financial costs and benefits Availability of financial resources, expertise, etc. Institutional capacities Urgency Fit with policy and programme priorities Target group priority Complementarities with other programmes or projects LFA Strategy analysis

22. 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 happen in 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 is safe 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

23. The Logframe matrix 1. Fewer accidents in the production shop 2. Employees get fewer complaints from clients Employees feel adequately challenged at work To contribute to an adequate retention of employees 1. Project Description Overall objective Project purpose Results

24. PCM prepares identification fiche: judges pre-feasilibity study for RELEVANCE, and formulates questions that should appear in the Terms of Reference for the Feasibility Study Pre-feasibility study (rele- vance) Assessment & ToR Assessment & ToR Identifica -tion fiche

25. PCM: summary of tasks during identification stage QSG=quality support group FOR REFERENCE ONLY!

26. Formulation workshop 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)

27. Feasibility study Assessment & Instruction Assessment & Instruction Financing proposal Financing proposal is prepared by PCM based on feasibility study, checked for FEASIBILITY

28. The Logframe matrix 1. Fewer accidents in the production shop 2. Employees get fewer complaints from clients Employees feel adequately challenged at work To contribute to an adequate retention of employees 1.80% less serious accidents* 1.50% less complaints 1.Safety records 2.Customer service records Employee satisfaction score of 8,5 ES survey administered yearly by consultancy global satisfaction score** Annual % of leavers reduced to 3% HR records Employees are praised for doing well Employees 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

29. Operational plans At formulation stage

30. PCM: summary of tasks during formulation stage

31. Financing agreement / contract PCM concludes contract with PM who starts up the project and prepares annual operational plans Start up worksho p Annual plans Assessment &instruction

32. Operational plans During implementation: annual Here we use more detailed planning (incl. Gantt charts)

33. Monitorin g reports Assessment & Instruction Assessment & Instruction 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 workshop s Annual plans

34. End of project report Review worksho p 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

35. Evaluation report / LESSONS Review Workshop Assessment & Instruction

36. 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)

37. 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

38. Content Added value in Structural Funds PCM / LFA Theory of Change Output based subsidies Complexity Outcome mapping Conclusions 38 Further reading

39. Logframe is oversimplification Output Purpose Visits of teachers to parents Better study- results Better start in labour market Global LFA Theory of change Adapted from C. Weiss Action Teacher engages in scripted dialogue with parents Results Better homework + More at school Further reading

40. 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) 41 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 42 Further reading

43. Training Better skills Better employability Employment Better income Poverty reduced Europe 2020 Eternal peace Danger of „Chimney thinking“ Source: V. Kvaca Further reading

44. Adapted from C. Weiss Action Teacher engages in scripted dialogue with parents ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Further reading

45. A lot of further reading… Let’s jump now to the conclusions relating to how to organise calls with these approaches 45 Further reading

46. 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) 47