1 / 30

Case 1. – Verification of the Inception Report

Case 1. – Verification of the Inception Report. Please a ssess the Inception report in terms of: Activities , Output Resources and Timinig by using the following distributed documents: Extract from the Terms of Reference Extract from the Technical Proposal

dustin
Download Presentation

Case 1. – Verification of the Inception Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Case 1. – Verification of the Inception Report Please assess the Inception report in terms of: • Activities, • Output • Resources and • Timinig by usingthe following distributed documents: • Extract from the Terms of Reference • Extract from the Technical Proposal • Extract from the Inception Report

  2. Case 1. Findings Activities:TP 2. Strategy/Activities Proposed vs IR 3.3 Expected Results • New activity included for project management • Assessment: • Not in contradiction with ToR • Does not modify objectives or purposes • Might cause problems in input allocation – KE days should be reduced on other activities

  3. Case 1. Findings Activities: • Activity 2.7 deleted • Assessment: • No related output mentionned in ToR • Activity specified in ToR and Technical Proposal • Should be re-included

  4. Case 1. Findings (Cont’d) Output: • Missing outputs: • R.1: ‘Necessary capacity for project monitoring and reporting ensured’; ‘Min. 300 OTS checks and field visits’; • R.2: ‘Management, … support to final beneficiaries’; ‘Project management capacity of beneficiary institutions improved’ • R.3: ‘Operation Generation capacity’; ‘More demand oriented operations designed’

  5. Case 1. Findings (Cont’d) Output: Assessment • Missing from TP too • No clear link to Activity in ToR • Need to identify activities to outputs explicitely

  6. Case 1. Findings (Cont’d) Output: • Activity 1.3: ‘organizational structure revised’ (TP) vs ‘support ensured’ (IR) • Assessment: • No such output in ToR • Revision has been proposed not simply support • Beneficiary can refer to TP

  7. Case 1. Findings (Cont’d) Output: TP 2. Strategy/Activities Proposed vs. IR 3.3 Expected Results • Activity 1.10 4 study visits instead of 5 • Activity 1.11 6 internship instead of 5 • Assessment: • ToR specifies, should be aligned, but there is room for consideration if no overall cost reduction can be demonstrated

  8. Case 1. Findings (Cont’d) ResourcesTP 2. Strategy/Input Table vs. IR 7. Resources • KE days reduced in SCs 1.1 – 1.3 and increased in Project management and Closure phase, total (300) remained unchanged • LTNKE days decreased in SCs 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4., total reduced from 700 to 550 • ONKE days increased in SCs1.2 – 1.4 from 700 to 1000

  9. Case 1. Findings (Cont’d) ResourcesTP 2. Strategy/Input Table vs. IR 7. Resources • Assessment • Contribution of KE reduced in SCs – shift to project management from technical content • Replacement of KE and LTNKE involvement by ONKE – danger of shift from senior to junior expertise • Decrease of KE and LNKE input in SC 1.1 is not compensated, overall input reduced • Overall increase in 1.2 shall be justified

  10. Case 1. Findings (Cont’d)

  11. Case 1. Findings (Cont’d) Time schedule (Cont’d) Assessment • Extended duration of activities as a possible consequence of shift in experts’ structure (see assessment of input) • Danger of shift of milestones towards the last phase of the project • Completion of 1.4 RCOP evaluation due to delay coincides with 1.5 RCOP revision

  12. Case 2. – Verification of the Inception Report Please assess the Activities undertaken in inception period (both inception and non-inception) in terms of • Activities, • Output • Resources and • Timinig by using the distributed documents: • Extract from the Technical Proposal • Extract from the Inception Report

  13. Case 2. Findings TP 2. Strategy/Input Table vs. IR 7. Resources vs. IR 4. Inception Activities + IR 5. Non-inception Activities Resources: • KE inception activities: 33 in IR 4-5, instead of 30 in IR 7 (and TP Input Table) • Assessment: Inception activities shall be aligned with Inception Report Chapter 7. Resources • KE overall activities 52 for 2 months (less potential working days in 2 months) • Assessment: Inception activities shall be in line with working day numbers

  14. Case 2. Findings (Cont’d) Resources/timing • No spending of NKE mandays under SC 1.3 • Disproportionately high spending of NKE mandays under SC 1.4 (25%) • Activity 2.2 has not started (planned start month: 1) • Assessment: find justification in Inception Report text under Key Issues, Review of Risks, or Changes in the Workplan • If delays not justified, request for contingency plan • if overspendings not justified, consider to reject

  15. Case study3 – Verification of activities reported in the InterimReport 1. Assess Interim Report’s Chapters 3. a) ‘Major activities undertaken’,Chapter 4. a) ‘Milestones delivered’and 6. ‘Resource Management’ in termsof: • Activities • Outputs • Resources • Timing by using the following distributed documents: • Extract from the Terms of Reference • Extract from the Inception Report • Extract from the Interim Report Assumption: all the modifications discovered in Inception Report have been approved, except for Activity 2.7 that has been re-included 2. List the supporting documents that you consider necessary to request from the Consultant

  16. Case 3. Findings Activities: • New activity introduced: ‘3.5 Providing on the job support to final recipient institutions on building operation generation facility’ • Assessment: justified, since output specified in ToR; overall input balance shall be considered

  17. Case 3. Findings Activities: • Activity ‘2.1 Training and support needs analysis local stakeholders’ deleted, however started in Inception phase • Assessment: • probably cancelled; • ToR does not specify as activity nor as output; • Beneficiary can refer to TP

  18. Case 3. Findings Output: • Activity 1.1212 training programmes, instead of 15 specified in TP and confirmed by Inception Report • Assessment: • Not in contradiction with ToR (‘minimum 12’) • Beneficiary can refer to both TP and Inception Report

  19. Case 3. Findings (Cont’d) Resources • No unput reported for SC 1.2 • Assessment: probably a mistake, shall be corrected • Over-spending of KE days in SC 1.3 (22 instead of 20) • Assessment: correction is needed, if no modification has been approved earlier; but: what if timesheets already approved?

  20. Case 3. Findings (Cont’d) Resources • Relatively high spending of mandays under SC1.1 (duration of activities in Incept. R. proportion: 17%; days reported: 25%) (Formula: Months to be spent: 17 / Duration months: 99 vs. WDs used: 107 / Total WDs: 430) • Disproportionately high spending of mandays under SC 1.4 (duration of activities in Interim R. proportion: 8%; days reported: 40%) • Relatively low spending of mandays under SC 1.3, see also Inception finding (duration of activities in Interim R. proportion: 12%; days reported: 5%)

  21. Case 3. Findings (Cont’d) Resources • Assessment: find justification in ‘Current and anticipated problems’ chapter • If low use of resources not justified, request contingency plan • If overspendings not justified, consider to reject

  22. Case 3. Findings (Cont’d) Timing • Activities not started: • 1.1Support in DIS processes(planned start month: 5) • 1.8 Support/coaching to PSCs and SMCs (planned start month: 5) • 2.2 Designing Training Programmes (planned start month: 1), see also Inception report finding

  23. Case 3. Findings (Cont’d) Timing • Activities not started: • 2.5 Preparation of training materials (planned start month: 3) • 2.6 Ensuring support to the final recipients for the technical implementation (planned start month: 5) • 3.1On the job support for technical documents(planned start month: 4)

  24. Case 3. Findings (Cont’d) Timing • Activities not started: • Assessment: • delays shall be justified in chapter on Current and anticipated problems and remedial actions foreseen • Also see high spending of resources in SC 1.4 despite of delay of Activity 3.1

  25. Case 3. Findings (Cont’d) Timing • Activity started earlier: • 2.3 Organization training programmes • Assessment: trainings organised before design of training programmes (Activity 2.2)

  26. Case 3. Findings (Cont’d) • Supporting documents (for completed actions): • Act. 0.1: Paper on situation analysis • Act. 0.2: Training Needs Assessment approved • Act. 0.3: Inception Report approved • Act. 1.3: Report on revision of organizational structure, roles and responsibilities • Act. 2.1: Support and Training Needs Analysis approved

  27. Case study4 – Verification of planned activities in the Interim Report Assess Chapter 5. ‘Planned major activities’ of the Interim Report in termsof • Activities • Outputs • Resources • Timing • by using the distributed documents: • Extract from the Terms of Reference • Extract from the Inception Report • Extract from the Interim Report

  28. Case 4. Findings (Cont’d) Time schedule: • Reduced duration compensates delay on activities 1.8, 2.6 and 3.1, - original deadlines kept • Delay, but completion planned in RP2 for activities: 1.1, 2.2 and 2.5 • Assessment: delays are planned to overcome in Reporting Period 2

  29. Case 4. Findings (Cont’d) Resources • Input aligned with time proportion for SCs 1.1 – 1.3 • Overspending rate increased (19% vs 80%) in SC 1.4 • Assessment: re-allocation has to be considered for SC 1.4

  30. Final Conclusions • Stick to Activity structure of ToR • If modifications are needed, do it under sub(-sub)-activity levels • Avoid input micro-management • Find logic between input and output delivered • Assess duration changes of activites • Use tables!

More Related