Building a TEC Communications Strategy:

1. Building a TEC Communications Strategy: Questions and Issues for Consideration

2. Definitions & Ideas Dissemination Purposive, goal-oriented communication ofinformation or knowledge that is specific and potentially usable (Louis & van Velzen, 1988).RAPID (Court et al, 2005) Continuous interaction leads to greater chances of successful communication – and therefore influence.

3. Strategy questions Aims & objectives Audience/s Messages / to whom Duration Modalities Channels: products / activities Follow-up Resources needed Next steps (final plenary) What we need to do today

4. Our Aims & Objectives Aims: • To promote change in policy and practice in the humanitarian sector, as well as in the recovery / development sectors. • To optimise accountability to the public in both donor and affected countries in terms of what TEC agencies have done. • To learn from this ‘test case’ evaluation and to foster appropriate change in policy and practice in the humanitarian evaluation community.

5. Our Aims & Objectives contd Objectives: • To promote higher level analysis of humanitarian policy and practice through synthesis. • To facilitate learning from the TEC thematic evaluation reports, the synthesis report and other products as relevant. • To provide the public in donor and affected countries with a summary of what was done with their donations to the tsunami response. • To facilitate learning about the TEC joint evaluation process. • To increase awareness of TEC products and raise the profile of the TEC more generally.

6. Strategy Questions:What are the Characteristics of our Target Audiences / Organisations? • Who do we need to influence? (policy-makers; practitioners; public; others?) • Where are they located? What are their preferred channels of communication and engagement? • For these audiences: what are the levels at which the products and tools should be pitched (policy, strategic management, project / programme management)? • Among these, are there any potential “owners” of the evaluation findings (eg, Egeland) or “catalysts” for change (eg, Benn, UK)? How should we reach them?

7. Target Audiences / Organisations Some Issues to Consider • Prioritise audience • Ensure outputs are ‘demand led’ • Lead the demand

8. Strategy Questions: What Messages? • Which messages to which audiences? • What are the current ‘policy strands’ we could influence? • Are there burning issues that aren’t currently on the policy agenda but need to be? • What issues go ‘across emergencies’? • Cross-sectoral / thematic?

9. Modalities:How Can We Best Reach Them? • What ‘products’ can we use in order to influence policy makers and practitioners eg, briefing papers, synthesis, etc? • What ‘tools’ can we use in order to influence policy makers and practitioners eg, seminars, launches, website, etc? • What are the ongoing policy debates to which the findings may contribute eg, GHD, UN reform, etc? How do we feed in? • Who else can we use to disseminate and amplify evaluation findings eg, is the media an available and useful option? • What external windows of opportunity and timing can be exploited to increase impact?

10. How Do We Reach Them? Some Issues to Consider • Timeliness: • Plan ahead so outputs coincide with major policy events • Briefing note in advance of publication while findings still fresh? • Flexibility: resources for opportunism? • ID experts within TEC who can talk to the 2006 agenda themes? • Translation?

11. Diary Dates & TEC Products: An Example

12. Follow-up: Encouraging and Monitoring Utilisation in Different Organisations • What are the institutional processes within different types of agencies to implement evaluation findings? • What are the institutional incentives and constraints for utilisation of evaluation findings? • How can utilisation of findings be monitored? What are the resource implications for the TEC?

13. Next Steps?… Afternoon plenary led by John Telford

14. Bibliography • ALNAP (2003) ALNAP Training Modules for Evaluation of Humanitarian Action (London: ALNAP at ODI). • Beck, T (2003) Report on Follow-up visits to ALNAP agencies following the ALNAP Annual Review 2003. June. • Borton, J & Eriksson, J (2004) Lessons From Rwanda – Lessons for Today (Copenhagen: Danida). • Court, J, Hovland, I & Young, J (2005) Bridging Research and Policy in Development – Evidence and the Change Process. (Rugby: IDTG & London: ODI) • Davies, H, Nutley, S & Walter, I (2005) Assessing the Impact of Social Science Research: conceptual, methodological and practical issues. May. • Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG; 2002) HPG Communication Strategy. November. • Lundgren, H (2003) A Review of Evaluation in Danida Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Copenhagen: Danida). January. • MSF - Holland (2000) ‘The Utilisation of Evaluation Recommendations in Medecins Sans Frontieres’. May. • National Centre for the Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR; 2001) Developing an Effective Dissemination Plan. January. • ODI (2004) Does Evidence Matter: An ODI Meeting Series (London: ODI). • ODI (2005) Informing and Influencing the 2005 International Development Agenda: An ODI Communication Strategy. • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development & Development Assistance Committee OECD/DAC (2001) Evaluation Feedback for Effective Learning and Accountability (Paris: OECD) • Patton, M Q (1997) (3rd edition) Utilisation Focused Evaluation (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications). • Perrin, B. (2005) ‘How Evaluation Can Help Make Knowledge Management Real’ in (Eds.) Rist, R and Stame, N. From Studies to Streams: Managing Evaluative Knowledge (Transaction Publishers; forthcoming). • Telford, J (2003) ‘Learning Lessons from Recovery Efforts following Major Natural Disasters’ – for the ProVention Consortium. March. • Van de Putte, B (2001) Follow up to the Evaluations of Humanitarian Programmes – Findings of the ALNAP Commissioned Study (London: ALNAP at ODI). April.