Transcript Peer Review SA Cities Network

Overview of Peer
Review programme
Why peer review
Power of peer learning

“Mayors learn best from other mayors”
2001
Many approaches
The seminar etc
 Communities of Practice
 Peer to peer exchanges
 Peer networks
 Peer review

IULA
Approaches to review
Qualitative
SACN Peer review
NEPAD Peer review
Learning
Control
Donor project evaluation
Quantitative
Purpose
Local government helping itself


Not inspectors but critical friends
Identifies strengths as much as weaknesses
Sharing learning


Culture of critical reflection
“Review panel members learn more than host”
Change and on-going improvement

Supports
Process
(based on IDeA model)
Intensive 1 week programme of extensive
interviews/workshops/visits

executive leadership, senior management, middle
management, frontline staff, ward committees,
UACs, labour, neighbouring municipalities, NGOs,
business, province etc
Build picture of municipality against benchmark
based on evidence
On-going feedback/ discussion with CEO
Presentation of conclusions to leadership on
last day
Written report (within 6 weeks)
Use of “ideal” benchmark to
foster supportive learning culture
Initial benchmark of “Developmental Local
Government”




Maximising social development and economic growth
Leading and Learning
Democratising development, empowering and
redistributing
Integrating, co-ordinating and managing
To be developed as part of on-going project
Composition of peer
review team
Balance of senior politicians and managers
crucial




2 councillors
2 senior officials (including CEO)
1 person from another sector
Review manager
Cities Network has established review panel pool

Selection important – balance
Joburg review conclusions
“Consumer/service user focus
Establishment of People’s Centres and call centre greatly
improve customer/citizen access
Big strides in building e-government capability


Outstanding web-site
eJoburg


Investment must be balanced with number of consumers who have access
Big capital investment but not enough training to maximise advantage
Some concerns re UACs building own distinct identity as against
providing seamless joined up service to consumer
More attention and focus on consumer/service user required


awareness of issue but lack of substance – real service user care
strategy needed
Need to understand and segment consumers better to provide
better service (e.g. how reach out people without easy access, how
different points of access function for different people etc)”
Evaluation of Joburg pilot
review
Review method simple, relevant and transferred
Interesting and useful conclusions
Much learning – review mindset and reciprocity
Programme/logistics outstanding
Review team functioned well
Briefing and orientation of team prior to review
Scheduling at appropriate time
Prior buy-in from leadership of host
Communication with organisation and interviewees
The benchmark needs development
Next steps
Develop peer review manual and guidelines (done)
Conduct next corporate peer review – Buffalo City
Build review management capacity
Develop “ideal city municipality” benchmark project

in collaboration with SALGA/DPLG/LGTP/USAID (Hologram)
Expand concept from corporate to strategic sectors

E.g eco development peer reviews, Cato Manor urban renewal
Build partnerships and linkages


IDEA and others (reciprocal reviews)
National government (DPSA etc)
Build into bigger programme of leadership and
management development and support