results management

8/12/2019 Results Management

1/36


2/36

34 D


3/36

1

After reading and using this Practical Guideyou should recognise:

the importance of setting clear objectives . that outcomes represent the most important result-level in results

management. You and your partner should stay focused on whatultimately matters: the effects of the intervention on people andsystems.

the significance of developing a limited number of sound indicatorswith targets as these are the keys to knowing when you and yourpartner are making measurable progress towards desired results.

the need to collect baseline values for the indicators in the planningphase. It is difficult to determine what has been accomplished in3-5 years if we dont know where we are at present.

that risk management is an important and integrated part of resultsmanagement. What are the major risks? How should they be handledor monitored, by whom and when?

that the results framework with indicators, targets and baselinesshould be linked to a monitoring and evaluation plan . Make surereporting and evaluation requirements are aligned with the monitoringand evaluation system of your partner.

the importance of KISS ! If results management is to be successful,it must be grounded in reality and be perceived as useful. Thissuggests a simple and practical approach to result management.Keep It S imple and Smart!


4/36

2


5/36

3

Introduction Purpose, target groups and contents 5

1. Background and definitions Background 9 What is a result? 10

What is a risk? 11

2. Practical results management Using logical planning models 13 Selecting indicators, establishing baselines and setting targets 14 Linking the results framework to a monitoring and evaluation plan 15 Identifying, analysing and responding to risks 18 Some additional success factors 20

3. Results management in the different stagesof the programme cycle 1. Preparatory phase 23 2. Follow-up phase 26 3. Completion phase 28

Annex Annex I Some sources for indicators 30

Content


6/36

4

Illustrasjonsbilde


7/36

5

Purpose, target groups and contents

Findings from Management Reviews of Norwegian development co-operation reveal a need and a demand for a practical introduction tothe main concepts, principles and especially tools of results management.This short guide is an attempt to respond to that demand, the purpose

being to increase staffs knowledge of the main principles of results andrisk management and what it means in practical terms throughout thevarious stages of programme management 1 .

The principal users of this Practical Guide are embassy staff with respon-sibility for development cooperation as well as staff in the Ministry ofForeign Affairs (MFA) and Norad. It may also be useful for a wider range ofdevelopment partners, such as NGOs and institutions in partner countries.

The Practical Guide has three parts:

Part 1 gives a short introduction and background to the subject, aswell as definitions of the main concepts.

In Part 2 , practical aspects of results management are elaborated: Using logical planning models Selecting indicators, establishing baselines and setting targets Identifying, analysing and responding to risks Linking the results framework to a monitoring and evaluation plan Some additional success factors

Part 3 looks at the practical use of results management in the differentstages of the programme cycle (preparatory, follow-up and completion).Part 3 is closely related to and compatible with the DevelopmentCooperation Manual (DCM), and the two can be applied seamlessly.

As mentioned, results and risk management are identified as weak spotsin Norwegian development cooperation management. This means that evensmall steps in the right direction will imply progress, and this Guide will beyour tool to take those steps!

1 To staff members who request a more detailed introduction to results management we recommend youstudy handbooks such as the World Banks Ten Steps to a Results Based Monitoring and EvaluationSystemor explore www.mfdr.org or similar websites.


8/36

6

Please note that the concepts and principles presented are internationallyrecognised and extensively used by other donors and partners alike,and can thus be safely brought into programme management anddialogue at country level. Also be aware that the requirements containedare in accordance with Norwegian laws and regulations, such as theAdministration Act (Forvaltningsloven), the Budgetary Regulations

(Bevilgningsreglementet) and the Norwegian Financial ManagementRegulations (konomiregelverket).

As you use this Guide, you may come across sections that could beimproved. Any suggestions to that effect will be welcome, as will yourexamples of real-life experiences (that could be included in the nextedition). Please submit your input to: [email protected].

The Norwegian FinancialManagement Regulations

(Reglement for konomistyringi staten), in article 6.3.6,

states that the fund managershall retrieve from the recipient,reports that make it possibleto establish the degree oftarget achievement.


9/36

7


10/36


11/36

9

BackgroundThe international commitment to improve management for results is a sha-red responsibility between partner countries and donors. Developing coun-tries should pursue results orientation in their national development stra-tegies, programmes and projects. Development agencies have committed,through adherence to the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda forAction, to implement the results agenda and to support capacity building in

that area.

The need for information on actual results is also a shared concern. Ourpartner governments are accountable to their parliaments, constituenciesand the beneficiaries of development interventions, to make efficient useof investments and to achieve results on the ground. Donor agencies, ontheir side, are accountable to their governments, parliaments, tax payersand the general public audience. Communicating results (as well as chal-lenges) is important for donors in order to keep up public interest andknowledge of development cooperation

The concept of results management is a well established strategy andhas been applied in many private and public organisations and develop-ment agencies during the 80s and 90s. In this Practical Guide, conceptssuch as Managing for Development Results 2 (MfDR), Results BasedManagement (RBM) and Performance Management (PM) are for simplicityreferred to as results management.

Alice in Wonderland was told that, If you dont know where youre going,

any road will get you there. This lack of direction is what results manage-ment aims to fix. It is about choosing a destination first, then deciding onthe route, checking progress against a map and making adjustments, asrequired, in order to achieve the desired results.

A results approach involves shifting management attention away from afocus on inputs, activities and processes to a focus on benefits fromwhat you have done to what you have achieved . Results managementalso focuses on using information on results to improve decision making.

1. Background and definitions

2 Emerging Good Practice in Managing for Development Results:Available at http://www.mfdr.org/Sourcebook.html


12/36


13/36


14/36


15/36


16/36


17/36

15

In selecting indicators, attention should be given to the

Source of information/Means of verification: How and where to get the information? How often? Who is responsiblefor collection, analysing, reporting and commenting?

Cost/benefit:How much does it cost to provide information? How valuable is the infor-

mation? Alignment with national systems. Do not establish a new indicator if oneof acceptable quality and relevance is already available in the existingsystem of the partner country (or institution). This ensures ownershipand sustainability.

There are a great number of internationally used indexes that may serve wellas indicators 4 , in particular at the higher (outcome/impact) levels. Your part-ner will not always be able to rely on existing statistics or established indica-tors. If the task of finding relevant indicators seems difficult, consider this:

What made you decide there was a problem in the first place? What kind ofinformation made it clear an intervention was necessary? This is where youshould look for indicators and baselines.

In 3-5 years time it will be difficult to determine what you have achieved,if you dont know where you started. The present situation and challengesshould be described in the Programme Document, and your partner shouldknow the baseline values of the indicators before they start implementingprogramme activities . The purpose of a baseline is to describe or measurethe situation prior to the development intervention, against which progresscan be assessed or comparison made. Normally, therefore, the initial step insetting targets is to identify the baseline. This can be done through a feasi-bility study or a more focused baseline study. Much too often, we start thiswork too late!

Linking the results framework to a monitoring andevaluation planA monitoring and evaluation system focusing on results will offer an evi-dence-based foundation for decision making. Once a results framework with

indicators, baselines and targets has been established, it should be linkedto a plan and a system that supplies managers and other stakeholders withreliable information about what works and what doesnt. This means puttingrequired monitoring and reporting systems in place for measuring performan-ce at appropriate institutional or organisational levels, ensuring availability ofrequired data sources, agreeing on frequency of monitoring, and having com-petent personnel to collect information and assess whether desired resultsare being achieved according to plan and budget.

4 See Annex 1

Indicators should, to theextent possible, be SMART:S pecic It should be exact,distinct and clearly stated.Measurable It should bemeasurable in some way,involving qualitative and/orquantitative characteristics

A chievable It should berealistic with the human andnancial resources availableRelevant Does it measurethe result?

Time-bound It should beachieved in a stated time-frame


18/36

16

Essentially, a monitoring system provides regular information on the degreeof achievement of results at a particular point of time . While monitoringprovides records of activities and results, and ideally signals challenges andrisks to be handled along the way, it will probably not be able to explain whya particular problem has occurred or why the programme is not reaching itsplanned outcome. That kind of analysis, to understand questions of causeand effect, will normally be done through Reviews and evaluation exercises.

There is a high degree of international consensus with respect to criteria andquality standards to be applied in evaluations. Bilateral aid is largely evalua-ted based on the criteria of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) inthe OECD, which are:

Fig. 5 Example A performance measurement framework related to an educationprogramme for girls and boys affected by armed conict (at outcome level only)

Outcomes Performanceindicators

Means of Verication

CollectionMethods

Frequency Responsi-bility

Access toeducationhas increa-sed for girlsand boysin targetedareas

% enrolmentand retentionrates for girlsand boys

MoEstatistics

Documentreview

Annually Review 3rd

year

Projectdirector

Review:externalconsultant

New educa-tion modelsmeet thesocial,emotionaland educa-tional needsof girls and

boys inwar-affectedcommunities

Perceptionof girls, boys,parents,teachers onrelevanceand quality ofnew educa-tion models

Verbal testi-mony/surveydata fromgirls, boys,parents andteachersin targetedschools and

communities

Focusgroups

Surveyquestion-naire

Interviews Review

Annually Review 3rd

year

NGOpartners


Girls andboys de-monstrateincreasedcapacity fordemocraticdecisionmaking

Nr. of instan-ces wherechildrenare able toinuenceeducationdecisions/outcomes

Verbal testi-mony/surveydata fromgirls, boys,parents andteachersin targetedschools andcommunities

Focusgroups


Interviews Review

Annually Review 3rd

year

NGOpartners


Girls andboys de-monstrateincreasedacceptanceof tolerance,diversity andnon-violentsolutions toconict

Perceptionof girls, boysand teachersre changes inincidents ofverbal/phy-sical abuseand useof conictresolution atschool

Verbal testi-mony/surveydata fromgirls, boys,parents andteachersin targetedschools andcommunities

Focusgroups


Interviews Artistic

and drama-tic expres-sion withchildren

Review

Annually Review 3rd

year

NGOpartners



19/36

17

Evaluations or Reviews should be seen as complementary to regular monito-ring and should be used selectively to deal with information that monitoringcannot adequately provide. For an Evaluation or a Review to be feasible,however, monitoring data must be available.

Remember that donors often contribute to the fragmentation of the part-ner countrys monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems. Try not to requirecustomised reports or support parallel systems with data incompatible withthe countrys monitoring system. It is important that donors, as far as pos-

Fig. 6 OECD Evaluation criteria and some relevant issues to look into in a Review/Evaluation

Evaluation criteria Some relevant questions to raise.

Impact The totality of the effects ofa development intervention,positive and negative, inten-ded or unintended.

How has the intervention affected the well being of differentgroups of stakeholders, intended or unintended?

What do beneciaries/stakeholders affected by the interventionperceive to be the effects of the intervention on themselves?

To what extent does the intervention contribute to capacity

development and strengthening of institutions? Would the identied changes have taken place without the

intervention?

Effectiveness The extent to which a development intervention hasachieved its objectives, takingtheir relative importance intoaccount.

To what extent do development changes accord with theplanned results of the intervention?

To what extent is the identied development the result of theintervention rather than external factors?

What are the reasons for the achievement or non-achieve -ments of results?

What can be done to make the intervention more effective?

Efciency The extent to which the costof a development interventioncan be justied by its results,taking alternatives intoaccount.

What measures have been taken during planning andintervention to ensure that resources are efciently used?

Could the intervention have been implemented with fewerresources without reducing the quality or quantity of theresults?

Could more of the same result have been produced with thesame resources?

Relevance The extent to which adevelopment interventionconforms to the needs andpriorities of target groupsand the policies of recipientcountries and donors.

Is the intervention consistent with the livelihood strategies andliving conditions of the target group?

Is it consistent with a policy of supporting partner countryownership?

Is it a technically adequate solution to the problem at hand? Does the intervention have a potential for replication? Is it consistent with Norwegian policies and priorities?

Is it consistent and complementary with other developmentinterventions?

Sustainability The continuation or longevityof benets from a develop-ment intervention after thecessation of developmentassistance.

Is the intervention consistent with partners priorities anddemand? Is it supported by local institutions and integratedwith local conditions?

Are requirements of local ownership satised? Did partnercountry stakeholders participate in the planning andintervention?

Are relevant institutions characterised by good governance,including effective management and organisation?

Is the technology appropriate to the economic, educationaland cultural condition?

Do partners have the nancial capacity to maintain thebenets from the intervention when donor support has beenwithdrawn?

Is the intervention harmful to the natural environment?


20/36


21/36


22/36

20

Having the responsibility for planning and implementation, the partner alsohas the day-to-day responsibility for identification, analysis and response torisks in all phases of the programme. It is the partner and (local) stakehol-ders who possess the most detailed information on what risk factors existor may emerge. It takes inside knowledge to be able to identify, analyseand handle risk factors. However, one should be aware that stakeholders in

some cases are reluctant to inform about potential risks as they fear thatthe programme may not be supported.

The donor is responsible for assessing risks in all phases of the programmecycle and to raise risk factors in the dialogue with the partner. It is parti-cularly important in connection with Appraisals and Reviews. The donorsresponsibility is to control and react if risk management is not performedsatisfactorily and results are not forthcoming.

Some additional success factorsAll the described systems and methods are important tools for plannersand implementers of development interventions in our partner countries andpartner organisations. We must, however, keep in mind that results mana-gement is much more than technical tools and methodological challenges.There are other factors that are equally important, such as:

A results oriented leadership A major precondition for successful results management is management

commitment. A results oriented leadership defines clear objectives andstrategies for the programme or organisation, demands information anddocumentation of results and actually uses this information in decisionmaking. Leaders are role models in demonstrating attitudes and beha-viour that are essential for the success of the organisation/programme.The focus on outcomes must be supported from top political or manage-ment level. Parliaments play an increasingly important role in demandingresults and result information.

An organisational culture and structure conducive to improvement andlearning

Involvement of staff in developing and implementing a resultsapproach is important in order to create support for the necessarychange of orientation. This implies training, as well as participation,in setting realistic goals and targets, assessing risks and reporting onperformance. In addition, incentive structures for management andstaff to change a traditional compliance-oriented culture are important.A results oriented organisation is structured so that knowledge andlearning from e.g. reporting and evaluations are used systematically inorder to improve decision making. What should be changed in order toimprove the achievements? Focus on learning implies that flexibility inresponding to the demands and needs of the target group is encouraged.Decentralisation of authority to bring decision-making closer to the targetpopulation may be a means to achieve stronger results management.


23/36

21

Accountability requires that there are clear roles and responsibilities forachieving results and that the responsible authority is held answerablefor its performance.

Supporting this kind of capacity building in partner institutions is highlyrecommended, either as part of a bigger programme or as a separate

initiative.

Stakeholder/beneficiary involvement Participation by all stakeholders and beneficiaries is of vital importance

to set relevant and realistic goals and identify risk factors. In orderto uncover what matters to the society and keep this in focus, it isnecessary to involve stakeholders and integrate target group concerns.Stakeholders may be individuals, institutions and interest groups who areaffected by the development intervention and want to exercise influenceon the decisions. By encouraging this kind of involvement, we will also

contribute to democratic development in general.

KISS! There has been a tendency in results management to develop too

complicated and comprehensive results frameworks and systems, notleast because of donor pressure. For instance, a large number of indica-tors can make monitoring complicated, unfocused, inpractical and expen-sive. If results management is to be successful and sustainable,it must be grounded in reality and be perceived as useful. This suggestsa gradual, realistic, simple and practical approach to results manage-ment. Keep It Simple and Smart!


24/36


25/36

23

Partners and donors have different roles in results management . Ourpartner governments and implementing organisations are responsible forproducing and monitoring results in accordance with the goals and objecti-ves of their national development plans, sector policies and strategies andprogrammes. As a donor, our responsibilities are to appraise and discussprogramme proposals, assess plans and reports, carry out a dialogue onresults and risks, initiate Reviews and Evaluations and react if obligations

are not followed up or results are not coming as planned. In the followingsection, we will look at what results management means for staff at theembassies, in Norad and MFA in our daily management of developmentcooperation programmes in the various phases of the programme cycle.This part is closely linked to the Development Cooperation Manual. 1. Preparatory phase Quality at entryThe preparatory phase of a programme lays the foundation for success ofa development intervention. The term Quality at entry implies a partici-patory process whereby the process and documentation in the planningphase achieve optimal quality. Investment of time and resources in results-oriented planning of a programme and a precise Agreement bring rewardsin the form of smoother implementation even in a risk prone environment.

Platform for DialogueThe purpose of the Platform for Dialogue (PfD) is to clarify important issuesconcerning results management which should be raised in the early dialo-gue with the Partner government and/or other potential development part-ners regarding support to the programme.

Issues to consider:

Are the planned outcomes aligned with national development plans? Is there a need for a separate baseline study? What are the sources of information/means of verification to provideevidence of results?

If relevant, review experience from previous support to the programme,or use other information sources, to identify possible risk factors thatmay hinder the success of the programme.

The PfDs description of experience from previous phases of the pro-gramme should focus on outcomes achieved- or not achieved.

3. Results managementin different stages of theprogramme cycle


26/36

24

Share your views regarding possible risk factors with the partner, sothat the partners programme documentation may incorporate relevantrisk analysis and risk management measures. Alternatively, separate/more in-depth studies may be undertaken.

The possibility of offering financial and/or technical support to thePartner to arrange planning workshops to ensure stakeholder involve-ment in the planning process should be kept in mind. A participatoryapproach may contribute to realistic plans both with regard to risks anddesired results. Are there any domestic institutions that provide trainingin results management (e.g. log frame planning, monitoring and evalua-tion)?

Programme DocumentA results framework and risk assessments are supposed to be included inthe partners Programme Document (if they are not, see below). Where risk

factors are identified and analysed, mitigation measures and risk manage-ment procedures should be incorporated in the document. Description ofthe monitoring system and accountability structures on different levels isan important part of the Programme Document.

AppraisalThe Appraisal is a quality control of the programme proposal. An assess-ment of the results framework and risks that may hinder the programmessuccess is a major part of an Appraisal. The format for Terms of Reference(TOR) for Appraisal in the DCM covers important results and risk issues,and should be used as appropriate.

Issues to consider:

Does the partner/organisation in question practice results manage-ment? Has the partner in question a results oriented organisational cul-ture? (This question is relevant when assessing institutional capacity.)

Is the programme design clear and logical and based on cause-and-effect relationships? Are there unclear linkages between the differentlevels of results so that it becomes hard to establish how a specific

result will be achieved? Are the outcomes realistic and relevant for theproblem to be solved?

Is the partner clear about what outputs it intends to produce as contri-butions to outcomes? Does it have specific targets or benchmarks forits outputs like service coverage, standards of quality, and timeliness?Is the partner confusing completed activities with outputs?

Are key indicators formulated? Are they SMART? Is baseline data available?


27/36

25

What are the sources of information/means of verification to provideevidence of results? Does the programme design integrate monitoringand evaluation systems and practices that yield an evidence basedfoundation for decision making? Is the monitoring and evaluationsystem adequate, sufficient and aligned with the partners ordinary

system? Are the reporting requirements kept simple and realistic? Have Reviews and Evaluations been planned for, including in thebudget?

Have stakeholders been involved in the planning process? How does the partner work with, and manage risk? Are relevant riskfactors identified, analysed and are mitigating actions integrated inthe programme design?

Is there a need for support to capacity development for results/risk management including monitoring systems? Keep in mind thatcapacity development should support the partner countrys national

development strategy and be part of a country-led, coordinated capacitydevelopment plan.

In the dialogue with the partner subsequent to the Appraisal, oneshould not miss the opportunity to improve the results and riskmanagement of the programme.

Are lessons learned from previous Reviews and Evaluations systemati-cally embedded in the programme design?

If the Programme Document does not address these issues satisfactorily,you should request an improved version to be made (or reject the pro-gramme proposal altogether). Remember: Quality at Entry is important inthe long run!

Appropriation DocumentBased on the Appraisal, the donors Appropriation Document (AD) presentsthe final assessment of the programme documentation with special atten-tion to results and risk management.

Issues to consider:

If previous support has been given, describe what has been achieved(outcomes), and what have been the obstacles. Make sure the goal hierarchy/results framework in the AD is identicalto the goal hierarchy/results framework in the Programme Document.

Your assessment of the partners risk acceptance and risk manage-ment including follow-up actions should be documented in the AD.You and your partners view on risk issues may differ, and should bebrought into the dialogue and documented in the AD.

Risk factors that need to be monitored during programme implementati-on must be described in the AD and reflected in the Agreed ProgrammeSummary.


28/36

26

Reporting requirements should be assessed and described in the AD.Reporting requirements should be kept simple. Relevant and good qua-lity data is more important than quantity. Information on key figures,a selective set of indicators and analyses of risks and challenges aremore important than frequent quantitative information. If your partners

ordinary performance monitoring system is not being used in the pro-gramme, you should explain the reasons why.

Description of the partners implementing procedures should, wherepossible, include description and assessment of responsibility andaccountability at different levels.

AgreementThe Agreement shall reflect the requirements for monitoring and resultsinformation described in the AD or as resolved with the partner duringAgreement negotiations.

Issues to consider:

The Agreement must be precise with regard to reporting requirements.Try to make this section of the Agreement as clear as possible regar-ding who is responsible, contents, means of verification and timing ofreports.

The goal hierarchy/results framework described in the Agreement mustbe identical to the goal hierarchy/results framework in the ProgrammeDocument and the Appropriation Document.

Make sure it is stated in what form and through what media thepartner will report on results to their constituency and superiors.

Assumptions and conditions related to risks should be mentioned inthe Agreed Programme Summary for easy reference during implementa-tion.

2. Follow-up phaseProgress reports and work plansProgress reports (semi-annual or annual) normally provide results infor-mation at output level. However, data collected on indicators should also

measure progress toward the desired outcomes.

Issues to consider:

Make sure that progress reports focus on actual outputs, not activities. If relevant, has the programme reached its targets or benchmarks forthe outputs like service coverage, standards of quality, and timeliness?

Are options for improved effectiveness considered or/and acted upon? To promote output based reporting; make sure that the partners annu-al work plans, against which progress is measured, are formulated asplanned outputs, not activities.

To promote outcome based reporting; make sure that data is regularlyprovided on relevant key indicators.


29/36

27

Annual MeetingAnnual Meetings or other monitoring meetings are normally decision-making forums where i.a. results and risk management are discussed. Thediscussions are based on progress reports and work plans submitted bythe partner prior to the meeting. If a Review or Evaluation has been car-ried out, the follow-up is often discussed in an Annual Meeting. Therefore,

issues to remember under Progress Reports and Reviews are relevanttopics for discussions in Annual Meetings. Focus the dialogue on results atvarious levels.

Issues to consider:

If results are not materialising as planned, the partners and donorstogether should analyse why the programme is not developing as plan-ned and how it could be brought back on track. It should not be a trig-ger for rigid application of penalty rules. Results information should beused for learning and lead to improved decision making and risk mana-

gement.

Keep focus on outcome, to the extent possible, using output dataand information based on indicators to assess the progress towardsdesired outcomes.

Use the Programme Document, Appropriation Document and Agreementas reference documents in the preparation for an Annual Meetingin order to check risk issues to be followed up. Does the reportingfrom the partner or other sources indicate the occurrence of new riskfactors?

Although not mandatory, it is highly advisable to prepare a follow-upnote subsequent to the Annual Meeting, focusing on results and hand-ling of risks. Such a note may also be of use for the embassys inputto the annual reporting to MFA and Norads annual Results Report. Itmay also be the basis for communication of results on the embassyswebsite or through other media.

If a lead donor has a specific responsibility to assess and approvereports on behalf of other co-funding donors, make sure that suchdivision of work is formalised (e.g. through an Agreement on delegatedcooperation). As a co-funding donor, make sure that your comments to

the lead donor regarding reports, prior to meetings with the partner,focus on results and risks.

Field visitsField visits offer a possibility to verify results that have been reported andto discuss possible risk factors with stakeholders.

Issues to consider:

A report or back-to office memo should be written, with focus onresults and risks (re. the DCM)

Knowledge and impressions gained from field visits may be of generalinterest and should be communicated through the embassys website


30/36

28

Reviews/EvaluationsReviews may have different purposes (re. the DCM). Reviews are common-ly used during implementation to assess progress and whether the desiredoutcomes are being achieved. Unfortunately, experience shows that toolittle is said about results in Review reports. This needs to change. Theimpact of a programme can normally be established only through an in-

depth Evaluation.

Issues to consider:

When a Terms of Reference for a Review is being prepared, make sureto direct the attention towards assessment of outcomes and whathinders progress towards desired outcomes (see the OECD evalua-tion criteria on page 17 with some relevant questions to include in aReview). Reviews also provide an opportunity to update risk assess-ments from the preparatory or implementation phase.

Encourage the use of local resources (consultants) to perform Reviews

and Evaluations. Two reasons: build capacity by using capacity, and ofcourse, the local knowledge.

In the follow-up of a Review, use the dialogue with the partner to pur-sue the results and risk focus and how it may contribute to learningand better decision making.

Use the embassy and other websites and databases to expose infor-mation on results, displaying Review reports, evaluation findings etc.Do not forget to submit the Review report to Norad Collected Reviews(e-mail to NORAD-Post-INFO) in order to reach a wider audience (will bepublished on www.norad.no).

3. Completion phaseIssues to consider:

End Reviews should always have a focus on outcome and, if possible,on the impact of the programme.

Communication of results and lessons learned is important! See abovefor existing channels. Since results communication is an emerging toppriority, watch out for new and improved channels and products in thefuture!


31/36

29


32/36


33/36


34/36

32

http://faostat.fao.org/FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS.Data relating to food and agriculture

http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indicesTransparency International seeks to provide reliable quantitative diagnostic

tools regarding levels of transparency and corruption at the global and locallevels.

http://www.oecd.org/document/23/0,3343,en_2649_33935_36225815_1_1_1_1,00.html#data_baseGender Database that provides indicators that contains a set of innovativemeasures to quantify inequalities between men and women.


35/36

35E

For inquiries aboutResults Management

in Norwegian Cooperation A Practical Guide

please contact Norad,Department for Quality Assurance

Telephone + 47 22 24 20 [email protected]

Published by Norad, on behalf ofThe Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Photo: Ken OpprannDesign: Agendum See Design

December 2008ISBN 978-82-7548-351-3


36/36

Norad

Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation

Postal address:P.O. Box 8034 Dep, NO-0030 OSLOOffice address:Ruselkkveien 26, Oslo, Norway

Tel: +47 22 24 20 30Fax: +47 22 24 20 31

[email protected]

results management

Documents