Transcript Lancement

CAP-Scan in Mauritania
Evaluation of MfDR Capacities
Description of the exercise
Contents
 Introduction : General context
 Why CAP-Scan ?
 What is the CAP-Scan ?
 CAP-Scan process
 CAP-Scan in Mauritania
2
Note
 This document is the final compilation of all other
CAP-Scan presentations describing the process
in Mauritania
 Its objective is to serve as a guide and toolbox for
the next CAP-Scan exercise
 It should be used with complementary documents
including:
• Excel tools
• Methodology
• CAP-Scan report, July 2008
3
CAP-Scan in Mauritanie
Evaluation of MfDR Capacities
Introduction – General Context
General Context (1/2) – MfDR framework
 A framework on development performance
 Evidence-based decision-making tool
 Simple and practical tool for strategic planning, risk
management, and monitoring and evaluation of results
 Approach that seeks to have a long term impact.
5
General context (2/2) – CAP-Scan approach
 The CAP-Scan was developed by the Joint Venture
Managing for Development Results (JV MfDR), of the
OECD’s Development Assistance Community (DAC).
 The CAP-Scan Working Group included :
•
•
•
•
•
•
UNDP
Inter-American Development Bank
Asian Development Bank
Canadian International Development Agency
Millenium Challenge Corporation
World Bank
 Mauritania is the first country to implement the CAPScan in this pilot phase. It will share this experience at
the Accra High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness,
September 2008.
6
CAP-Scan in Mauritania
Evaluation of MfDr Capacities
Why CAP-Scan?
What is the CAP-Scan?
Why CAP-Scan?
 The Triennial Development Plan for 2008-2010
identified capacity building as a long-term goal:
• In particular decision-making, strategic planning and
program management capacities
 Inter-sectoral charater of capacities adds
complexity to the search for solutions
 The CAP-Scan is an opportunity to develop an
improvement plan
•
•
•
•
Self-assessment by senior government officials
Cross-cutting groups
Setting capacity building priorities
Concrete action plan that integrates existing
efforts
8
What is the CAP-Scan?
1. MfDR principles
 Focus on result : priorities, action planning
 Factual data : scores based on facts
 Monitoring and evaluation : a monitoring
mechanism to adapt and improve capacities
 Appropriation : self-assessment and adaptation of
methodology
 Transparency : framework and process
What is the CAP-Scan?
2. An integrated approach
 Five « pillars » : for selfassessment
 Macro-level evaluation
 Integrated vision for the 5
pillars : understanding
interactions and
dependancies as important
as identifying actions
 Each piliar is divided into
evaluation criteria : the
dimensions
 Dimensions are the base of
priorities and actions
CAPScan
10
What is the CAP-Scan?
3. A framework and self-assessment methodology
What is the CAP-Scan?
3. Framework and self-assessment methodology (continued)
 Through self-evaluation the country positions
itself at a point along the development capacity
change for each dimension
12
What is the CAP-Scan?
Priority = combinaison Importance, Feasibility, Urgence
4. Methodology and analysis of priorities
Action
requested
4
3
2
1
Commitment
Management of
change
Budget reflects
National priorities
Data quality
assessment
MfDR informs
policy
Efforts without
significant
returns
1
« Quick win » ?
Public access
to information
2
3
Score of self-assessment
No urgent
action needed
4
What is the CAP-Scan?
5. Concrete results : self-assessment, priorities, action plan
CAP-Scan in Mauritania
Evaluation of MfDR Capacities
Process
1. Self-assessment
Self-assessment Structure
Pillars divieded in dimensions = criteria
Capacity Development
Leadership
Monitoring and Evaluation
Accountability
Budget Process
Statistics
Self-assessment : positioning each dimension
17
Collecting data, position, visualization
Journal : Framework data
Visualisation: MfDR profile
Mauritania’s Approach
Sector
materials
•Group
Discussion
•Selfassessment

Working
Sessions
Adaptation
•Consolidation
and synthesis
• Selfassessment
• Priorities
• Action Plan
• Monitoring
3 stages :
•
•
•
By departement : Group review and evaluation
Synthesis : Points of convergence and divergence
Full group discussion
21
Self-Assessment Tools
 Mauritania CAP-Scan – Framework
• Self-assessment framework: Engage group in discussion. One questions
per dimension, responses correspond to each stage of development
• Pillars and dimensions : Synthesis viewpoint of group
• Stages of development capacities : General definitions
• Correspondance : matrix showing dimensions (based on existing CAPScan documents)
 Mauritania CAP-Scan– Journal
• Journal : Recording ofdiscussion and arguments
 Mauritania CAP-Scan - Synthesis
•
•
•
•
Self-assessment 1 : July 2008 results
Self-assessment 2 : results of next cycle
Self-assessment - Pillars : averages per pillar
Self-assessment - Dimensions : Diagram showing dimensions
Pillars and dimensions
Vue synthétique des piliers / dimensions / questions clés
1. Leadership
2. Suivi et Evaluation
2.1 Dans quelle mesure le
Engagement 1.1. Quel est le niveau de
Capacité en
l'engagement du
Gouvernement dispose-t-il des
suivi et
Gouvernement dans une
compétences adéquates pour
évaluation
démarche de gestion axée sur
assurer un suivi et une
les résultats de
évaluation des politiques
développement ?
publiques ?
1.2 Dans quelle mesure la
Clarté et
Système
articulation de planification nationale
d'information
présente-t-elle clairement les et outils d'aide
la vision
objectifs de développement et à la décision
constitue-t-elle le cadre de
référence de l'action
gouvernementale ?
Implication des
acteurs non
gouvernementa
ux
1.3 Dans quelle mesure le
Planification
Gouvernement arrive à
nationale
impliquer les organisations de orientée vers
la société civile et le secteur
les résultats de
privé comme partenaires dans développement
l'atteinte des résultats de
développement ?
2.2. Dans quelle mesure le
Rôle du
Gouvernement dispose-t-il des Parlement dans
outils adéquats, informatique
le contrôle de
en particulier, pour assurer un
l'action
suivi et une évaluation des
gouvernementa
politiques publiques et utiliser
le
des données factuelles dans
les décisions ?
2.3 Les politiques publiques
sont-elles soumises à un
processus de suivi et
d'évaluation de manières
régulière et soutenue
permettant des ajustements
dans un objectif de
performance ?
Responsabilisa 1.4 Les pratiques de gestion
Performance 2.4 Dans quelle mesure une
des cadres de l'Administration
information factuelle de suivi
tion et
de
encouragent-elles le
délégation
l'administration et évaluation est-elle utilisée
développement, l'implication
orientée vers comme moyen d'améliorer le
et la motivation des
les résultats de fonctionnement de
fonctionnaires ?
développement l'administration pour de
meilleurs résultats de
développement ?
2.5 L'administration a-t-elle
Coordination 1.5 Dans quelle mesure la
Système de
des bailleurs et coordination au sein du
mesure de la mis en oeuvre des moyens de
mesure de qualité des
alignement sur Gouvernement assure-t-elle
satisfaction
l'alignement des partenaires
priorités
des usagers services au service de
extérieurs
sur
les
priorités
l'atteinte des résultats ?
nationales
nationales ?
Intégration de 1.6 Dans quelle mesure les
Harmonisation 2.6 Quel est le niveau de
la dimension niveaux central et local sont-ils des demandes préparation et d'influence de
décentralisatio intégrés dans un cadre
d'information l'administration dans la
cohérent pour l'atteinte des
n
des bailleurs discussion d'harmonisation
résultats de développement ?
des processus de suivi ?
de fonds
Gestion du
changement
1.7 Dans quelle mesure le
Gouvernement s'est-il donné
les moyens de traiter le
développement de capacités
comme un vrai projet de
changement profond de
l'Administration et de ses
pratiques ?
Gestion des
ressources
humaines
1.8 Quel est le niveau de
moyens mis en place pour
l'implication individuelle des
fonctionnaires dans la gestion
axée sur les résultats de
développement ?
3. Redevabilité et contrôle
4. Processus budgétaire
4.1 Quel est le lien entre le
Indépendance 3.1 Dans quelle mesure les
Le budget
CSLP, le CDMT et la LdF?
de la Justice et institutions de contrôle et le
reflète les
pouvoir judiciaire exercent-ils
Dans quelle mesure la LdF
des Hautes
priorités
leur
action
en
indépendance
reflète-t-elle les priorités
Institution de
nationales
par rapport au pouvoir exécutif
établies dans le CDMT et le
Contrôle
?
CSLP?
3.2 Quel est le niveau
d'implication du Parlement
dans le contrôle de l'action du
Gouvernement, notamment au
niveau des politiques
économiques et des
allocations budgetaires?
Indépendance 3.3 Dans quelle mesure les
médias dans leur globalité
des médias
(publics et privés) peuvent-ils
constituer un contre-pouvoir
effectif ?
Accès du
public aux
informations
3.4 Le Gouvernement
dissémine-t-il de manière
systematique l'information sur
son action au public ?
Elaboration
budgétaire
basée sur les
objectifs et
résultats
Participation
des acteurs
non
gouvernementa
ux à la
planification et
l'élaboration
budgétaire
5. Statistiques
Stratégie et
dispositif
5.1 Quel est le niveau de mise
en oeuvre de la stratégie
nationale en termes de
statistiques ?
4.2 Dans quelle mesure la
vision objectifs et résultats
constitue-t-elle une base
d'allocation des ressources
budgétaires ?
Désagrégation 5.2 Quel est la capacité du
des données Gouvernement en termes de
désagrégation des données ?
4.3 Dans quelle mesure les
autres acteurs (société civile,
parlement) participent-ils au
processus des allocations
budgétaires et dans
l'évaluation des résultats?
Évaluation de
la qualité des
données
5.3 Quels sont les moyens
consacrés par le
Gouvernement à l'amélioration
de la qualité des données
statistiques ?
Capacité à
mener des
enquêtes
5.4 Le Gouvernement a-t-il la
capacité de mener des
enquêtes de niveau national ?
Coordination 4.4 L'élaboration budgétaire
interne dans le au sein d'un département suitdépartement elle une déclinaison logique
des objectifs aux différents
niveaux ?
Coordination 4.5 Dans quelle mesure la
inter sectorielle coordination sur base des
objectifs intersectoriels estelle prise en compte dans
l'élaboration budgétaire ?
Stages of capacity development
CAP-Scan Column descriptors
Awareness
Exploring
Transition
Full Implementation
The organization is aware of, but
not committed to, MfDR. People
in the organization recognize that
what they have been doing is
inadequate and that there must
be a better way of proceeding.
Managers may express a broad
commitment to MfDR, saying
that they wish to be in line with
broader public policy, but their
statements lack conviction. This
stage can involve a sense of fear,
guilt and unhappiness with past
performance. It can also lead to
attempts to place blame, as
various organizational
stakeholders become frustrated
with parts of the organization
that do not implement MfDRrelated practices. With increased
exposure to the idea of managing
for results, groups become more
open to the possibility of change,
leading to the next stage.
The organization begins to
commit to MfDR and explores
different approaches. During this
stage, people begin to pick up on
new ideas from a variety of
sources. The exploration may
take the form of learning groups,
benchmarking studies and pilot
projects. One problem at this
stage is that people may prefer
one technique or system over
others, without having given
them a full trial. Another
problem may be that too many
different ideas are tied at once,
resulting in practices that are
never fully explored. During the
exploration stage, enough people
across the organization develop a
sense of the benefits of MfDR
and at to explore it in a broader
context. This willingness leads to
the next stage.
The organization has committed
itself to MfDR and attempting to
make the transition from
previous systems. People being
to make a commitment to the
new practices required. They
drop old practices in favor of new
ones because the old practices
can no longer solve the
organization’s day-to-day
problems. This stage can be
characterized by hard decisions
on what to keep and what to
discard in terms of MfDR
strategies. For example, the
conversion to a set of resultsoriented measures is likely to
mean that some old measures
need to be dropped. As more
people see the benefits provided,
MfDR becomes more widespread
throughout the organization.
The organization fully
implements MfDR in all areas.
Groups across the organization
begin to begin to see and look
forward to the real benefits of
the new management approach.
Resources are allocated and
plans are designed to support
new practices, not to maintain
old and outdated ones.
Onglet «Stades de dév. de capacités » du cadre de référence
Presentation of Working Sessions


Basis : synthesis of sectoral self-assessments
Review of differences with a view to reaching
consensus
It is your assessment
The score is less important than the
arguments!
Roles :



•
•
•
Moderator : …
Facilitator : …
Time-keeper : …
CAP-Scan in Mauritania
Evaluation of MfDR Capacities
Process
2. Identifying priorities
Identifying priorities : Criteria

Criteria 1 : Must be done
•
•
•

Criteria 2&3 : feasibility and urgency
•

Discussion in full group
Identifying priorities
•
•
•

Full group discussion
Urgent and Feasible = 1
Priorities 2 and 3 discussed in group
Evaluation
•
•

Group work -- consensus
Only those dimensions considered indispensible are kept for further analysis
Others are ranked as lowest priority
Implicit in the analysis of Feasibility / Urgency
Visualize on Evaluation x Priority table and validate final priorities
Note : the number of levels of priorities is not important (3 or 4 in general).
The critical point is reaching consensus on the 5-6 dimensions of priority 1.
Level 1 Analysis : importance by dimension
Indispensable
In the short term
4
Commitment
Change Management
Budget reflects national priorities
Critical
3
Important
2
Useful
1
Not useful in the short term
Clarity and
articulation of
vision
Evaluation of data quality
Access to public information
0
Working Session Activities

Activity 1 (1hr)
•
•
•
Objective : position dimensions on the vertical axis measuring
importance
All dimensions are important : must define relative importance
and think in sequential terms
2 working groups, 1 rapporteur for each group (NB : the group
of rapporteurs convene on day 2)



•
Group work : 20 min
Restitution : 10 min per group
Discussion / full group validation : 20 min
Roles :


Moderator : …
Facilitator : …
Level 2 Analysis : feasibility x urgency
Commitment
Feasibility
Clarity and
articulation of
vision
Ch
Evaluation of data quality
Budget reflects national priorities
Change Management
Urgence
Working Session Activities

Activity 2 (45 min)
•
•
•
•
•
Objective : identify priority dimensions and develop action plan
Second iteration of first group of priorities to determine results
and introduce two addtional varieables : urgency and feasiblity
Think sequentially in timeframe of 6 months – 1 year
Full group work to set the first group dimensions on the table:
urgency x feasibility
Roles :


Moderator : …
Facilitator : …
Priority = combinaison Importance, Feasibility, Urgence
Identify priorities and final analysis
Action
requested
4
3
2
1
Commitment
Management of
change
Budget reflects
National priorities
Data quality
assessment
MfDR informs
policy
Efforts without
significant
returns
1
« Quick win » ?
Public access
to information
2
3
Score of self-assessment
No urgent
action needed
4
Working Sessions Activities

Activity 3 (30 min)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Objective : Full group validates priorities for action (around 5)
Full group plots the dimensions on a table measuring
assessment x priorities
Priorities are defined in activities – Concentrate on high levels!
Take an step in advance : review and correlate 5-6 priority
dimensions
Conclusion of first day
Roles :

Facilitator : …
CAP-Scan in Mauritania
Evaluation of MfDR Capacities
Process
3. Developing an Action Plan
Note

Developing an action plan is one step in improving the
methodology
Observations :

•
•

Formulate objectives based on priority dimensions, define
actions
First meeting in small group (of focal points) to develop a first
draft of the action plan for review by the full group
In all cases, share adaptations with the MfDR
Secretariat
Principles
Working Sessions Activities

Activity 1 (1hr30) : 2 working groups
•
•
Objective : propose an action plan for priority dimensions (priority
1)
Additional rules :



•
Prohibited words : « apply », « reinforce », « assist »
Additional pillar required: Monitoring CAP-Scan / communication
Each group has the right to revise 1 dimension among the priorities and
propose complementary actions for group validation
Indications / questions to validate an action :



Is it possible to define the result in 6 months to a year?
Is it possible to measure the results with indicators?
Is responsibility for actions clear?
•
Tools : Results from day 1, Action planning
•
Roles :

Facilitators : … (1 per group)
Working Session Activities

2 Activities (1hr30)
•
•
Objective : Develop first draft of workplan
Actions must address criteria :


•
Group Work


•
15 per group
Discussion : 1hr
Roles :


•
Concrete results in 6 months – 1 year and associated indicators
Clear responsibilities
Moderator : …
Facilitator : …
If differences persists at the end of the morning:
arbitration committee during the afternoon (3-4
representatives from each groups, facilitators)
Working Session Activities

3 Activities (1hr)
•
•
Objective : Finalize Action Plan
Additional Information :




•
•
Responsabilities
Indicators, baselines and targets
Resources
Ties to other initiatives / programs
Full Group Work
Roles :


Moderator : …
Facilitator : …
Working Session Activities

4 Activities (1hr)
•
Objectives


•
Additional Information :


•
•
Finalize analysis of CAP-Scan pillars and communicate Action Plan
Proposing Post-Accra mechanisms
Responsabilities
Ties to other initiatives / programs
Full Group Work
Roles :

Facilitator : …
CAP-Scan in Mauritania
Evaluation of MfDR Capacities
Process
CAP-Scan Process
Planning 2008
June 30 - July 8
Sector
Meetings
•SelfAssessment
•Group
Discussion
Launch
July 6 – 11
Preparation for
Working
Sessions
•Consolidation
and synthesis
July 12 & 15
Working
Sessions
• SelfAssessment
• Priorities
• Action Plan
• Monitoring
42
CAP-Scan Process
Working Session Agenda 2008
9h – 11h30
12h00 – 13h30
14h45 – 16h00
Opening
Identifying
priorities
Self-assessment
Self-assessment
16h15 – 17h30
Identifying
priorities
15 Juillet*
Déjeuner
12 Juillet
Schedule
Report from first
day
Action Plan
Action Plan
Action Plan
Monitoring and
next steps
End day
CAP-Scan Process
Inter-sectoral Group
CAP-Scan Process
Self-assessment : results by pillar
Average per pillar
0
1
2
3
4
Leadership
Monitoring and Evaluation
Accountability and Partnerships
Planning and Budgetting
Statistics
Jul-08
CAP-Scan Process
Self-assessment : Results by dimension
Commitm
ent
MfDR informs
policy
Involvement of Non governmental
stakeholders
Leadership
Accountability and
Delegation
Donor coordination and alignment with
national priorities
Linking the field and the capital
Change
Management
Human Resource
Management
National Development Plan evaluation
systems
Monitoring and Evaluation Capacity
Data management capability
Suivi et Evaluation
Government performance is oriented toward
results
Data management capability
Reporting harmonization
Judicial Independence
Legislative Oversight
Independent media
Redevabilité et contrôle
Public access to results
Budget reflects national
priorities
Performance based budgeting
Internal Coordination
Processus budgétaire
Inter-sectoral Coordination
Statistics strategy
Data
Disaggregation
Data quality assessment
Statistiques
Survey capability
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
CAP-Scan Process
Lively discussions…
CAP-Scan Process
Priorities
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
é
1
4.1 The budget reflects national
priorities
1.1 Commitment
2.1 National Development Plan
evaluation systems
1.2 MfDR informs policy /
national planning
2.2 Monitoring and evaluation
capacity
2.3 Data management
capability
2.4 Government performance
focus on MfDR
1.8 Human
Resource
Management
1.7
Management
of Change
1.5 Donor coordination
3.2 Legislative oversight
3.1 Judicial independence
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
é
2
3.3 Independence of the media
5.2 Etendue et désagrégation
des données
5.4 Data quality assessment
1.4
Responsibility
1.6
Integration of
3.4 Public access to results
1.3 Involvement of non
5.1 Statistics strategy
CAP-Scan Process
Action Plan (partial)
Dimensi
on
Programmed actions
Indicat
or/
Monito
r-ing
Refere
nce
situatio
n
Target
situatio
n
Schedu
le
Financing
Obta
in-ed
Obta
inable
Sour
ce
Resp.
Exec.
Prep
arati
on
Executi
on
Prio
r-ity
Comment/Conn
ec-tion with
existing action
Leadership
Commitment
CAPScan
1.1.1
Promulgate law
organizing the monitoring
and evaluation system of
the CSLP
Law
adopt
ed
1.1.2
Extend the sector CDMST:
MFPMA, MPEFP, MC
No.
depts.
CDMT
1.1.3
Study of capacitystrengthening needs of
the coordination structure
for governmental action
(DG of Interministerial
Coordination) to ensure
performance of the
coordination, facilitation
and support roles at the
interministerial level.
1.1.4
General introduction of a
specialized body or unit
responsible for strategic
programming in the MPM
and MC.
Clarity and articulation of vision
1.2.1
Make the different
programming tools
consistent: analysis to
3.0
7
1
TO + 6
month
s
MEF
10 to
TO + 1
yr
MEF/
other
departments
MEF
for
submis
s-ion to
PM
%
direct/
Dept
60%
CAPScan
3.0
100%
by TO
+6
month
s
Ministr
y
submit
s to PM
Adjustment of
organization
charts
1
TO + 6
month
s
MEF
/DG
CI
MEF/
DGCIM
Annex : Links
 MfDR Website : www.mfdr.org
 African Community of Practice : http://www.cop-mfdrafrica.org/group/mfdrfrancophone
50