Reaching the Moon: Documenting the Programmatic Operational Model

1. Reaching the Moon:Documenting the Programmatic Operational Model Debriefing for CARE Bangladesh 8 December, 2010 Dhaka Michael Drinkwater, Mary Picard, and Mare Fort

2. Strategic Intuition: The Creative Spark in Human Achievement • The paper on addressing the geography question in CARE Bangladesh regarding how to address the challenge of operationalising the program approach, employed the sub-title, “You can’t reach the moon by climbing the tallest tree”. • Well, so how do you reach the moon? • One answer is by dreaming, and then being courageous enough to find pathways to realise those dreams • Our take is that people are beginning to do this here, a process that we would say requires the use of strategic intuition, which provides, as stated in the sub-title of a book by William Duggan, the creative spark in what we can collectively achieve.

3. Objectives of this Visit • Continue the documentation and analysis of the change processes that have been ongoing in the program approach learning labs over the last few years • Review specifically the outcomes from the dialogue that has taken place since May 2010, stimulated by the review of the COs work streams undertaken then • Provide further specific guidance to the CO on how to move its work on operationalizing the program approach forward • Begin to look at the systems implications of this • Provide recommendations for the CO and RMU • Continue to draw out operational implications for different parts of CI • Use the thinking generated by the exercise to refine guidance materials for the program approach

4. Challenges of the ‘Rubic’ Cube • You cannot construct management structures along all 3 dimensions • But you cannot ignore any of them either Regions 4 3 2 Cross-cutting themes 1 EP WE Urban Vuln to EC Governance Economic Development Health Coherent set of projects/initiatives Coherent set of projects/initiatives Coherent set of projects/initiatives Education Food Security Gender Equity

6. Grappling with the Big Questions • The organizational structure / teams to support the programs in the regions – what should this look like? • The ‘rubic cube’ challenge (non-contiguous boundaries of programs, projects, geographic regions) – and then how do we get beyond the current level of cooperation between projects? • Revisiting the work streams (post-Koitta) – are they still valid or how do they need to change? • Resourcing strategy and forms of financial analysis to support the work

7. Grappling with the Big Questions • Human resources: use of strategic resources for talent retention; having the right expertise; and having in place a transparent and accountable system for human resources • What do we see as the role and the challenge of large or flagship projects in a program approach? • How do we focus our work – align with program theories of change, generate models to take to scale? • How do we develop an impact monitoring system around programs, build an evidence base, and establish the niches for CARE’s identity formation? • How do we further develop our thinking around partnerships at multiple levels with multiple stakeholders to achieve long-term impact for the impact groups?

8. CARE BD’s Reflections on 5 Years Hence – a Recap • A more efficient, reflective organization producing higher quality work at lower cost • Identity built around the 4 impact populations • Being known for use of cost-effective models – ‘high cost’ not an issue • More capable of demonstrating impact – systematic information provided • Known for its models and working at multiple levels around these • Has a wider reputation in CARE for developing and taking to scale models for ending extreme poverty • Works with multiple others and brings diverse resources together

9. Operationalising Programs:Big Pieces for the Next 2-Years • Setting up the structure and teams for programs • Resourcing strategy (financial analysis, cost pools) • Embedding the theories of change in programming – taking models to scale • Creating a rational and appropriate impact monitoring system for programs • Reforming and aligning CARE’s identity with programs • Working in society: Building relations and synergies with diverse others

10. Setting up the structure and teams for programs Principles agreed for the reteaming process: • Program structures should follow the logic of the impact statements and the impact group definitions. These are headed by an Impact Director • Program support structure can be regional in nature, but has to accommodate 2 different scenarios, and therefore is not single model

11. Setting up the Structure - Programs Further requirements are: • Programs: • Establish a program leadership team including all key strategic players • A program cost pool structure: Program Director, Operations Manager; Financial Analyst; Impact Monitoring and Learning Coordinator; GE point person, other core technical specialist(s) • Impact Directors located where convenient: CBHQ or region • Geographic coordination of program activities and key regional relationships: Nominated point person

12. Setting up the Structure – Program Support • Program Support: • Geographic and program logics overlap and need some organic combination • Matrix management is inevitable, and hence the importance of teams! • Rangpur: Covers nw mainland and chars. Has a Regional Program Support Manager and ROMT, which draws the RPSM into an accountability for advancing the programs. Some members of EP program can be based here (financial analyst, IM&L coordinator) • Haor area: Dispersed offices, 4-5 hours apart, no obvious centre, electronic communication key, ROMT not essential

13. 2. Resourcing strategy (financial analysis, cost pools) Finance • Existing finance system provides accounting services only and involves heavy duplication (especially CBHQ of field) • System offers low ‘bandwidth’ on policy interpretation and limited analytical capacities, including on cost-effectiveness • Alternatives used in LAC include having separate teams for financial analysis and accounting. Analysis team is accountable to programs. • Broad requirement is to draw finance into the challenge of helping develop measures of cost-effectiveness and value of models, and being able to show information for impact groups and geography

14. Donors by Category FY09 – FY11

16. Resourcing Strategy • Importance of generating increased levels of ‘quality funding’, which can be used to fund program ‘basket’ funds (ie cost pools), and work around model innovation (developing, testing, learning, documenting), advocacy – the TOC testing • Also funding to ensure retention of key staff across funding gaps (if not covered through the pooled program funds) • Potential value of private, semi-restricted funding for this, also European CI member funding • Bilateral funding covers the core bodies of program work

17. 3. Embedding the theories of change in programming – taking models to scale - 1 • Projects are now aligned with the programs in their design • Within regions, projects are now collaborating across a growing number of areas eg, using common platforms in programming; expertise sharing; resource and space sharing; joint advocacy; regional events; tools, techniques and methods; external relations; learning and sharing through exchange; joint resource planning • Critical issue: if we wish to build coherence around each program theory of change, then it means becoming more intentional about what methodologies, approaches and practices are working, ie, identifying the value propositions that can be taken to scale

18. Developing and Leveraging Models Wider Spreading The broader impact group Policy Influencing Model Development Our area based work

19. Embedding the theories of change in programming – taking models to scale - 2 Where do you need to go from here? • Recast the achievements being made in communities as models for a change process that are worth replication / spread; and as evidence for influencing at higher levels. • Make explicit the “value propositions” in your work. • Evaluate, document and share them. (Could also mean testing them in another context – e.g., another region with a different set of factors.) • Perform a cost-effective analysis of the model, once sufficient impact has been achieved. Calculating the gains and the # of people benefiting against your initial investment. • Once the evidence can be articulated, focus on the policy influencing and broader leveraging of resources for greater uptake, or scale-up through influence, policy change, network building, etc. • The “how” it was achieved is also about demonstrating the synergies and efficiencies employed through cross-project cooperation, embedded in a broader set of mutually accountable relations with civil society, government, private sector

20. Embedding the theories of change in programming – taking models to scale - 3 What will be signs of change? • It will be easier to tell an impact story. Staff will have narrative in their head and won’t have to wait until M&E data is analyzed. • More robust and coherent designs that are distinctly part of the pathway of change connecting prior and future work in relation to a specific impact group. • You will be more driven by the research and analysis in identifying the gaps in advancing social change for the impact group, more than by referring to the impact statement to say what you are not yet doing. • Similarly, the research and analysis will guide your choice of where to locate the next piece of work, more than other factors such as the need for a match. • You will be looking at “value added” in several ways: • the value which one initiative adds to the bundle of initiatives in a program • the value of a model to the impact group as a whole • the value of 2-3 projects collaborating to the impact on the geographically- based population group • the value added to the broader social aims of a private sector entity • the value of the knowledge generated to the academic and development community • the value of leveraging other resources (other players and their engagement) to sustaining the change within the society as a whole

21. 4. Creating a rational and appropriate impact monitoring system for programs - 1 • There are inchoate bodies of evidence to demonstrate change for an impact group (don’t see the change just the results) • The COML is a top-down measurement system that is not going to give you an impact story. This is not a means to measure social change nor to generate bodies of evidence. • There are promising practices: • Shouhardo I thematic studies • Process documentation with COVAW • EDU’s work with Oxford to measure the impact of its Rural Services Project (impact on consumers and consumption) • EDU that got funding for a three-person team on learning and evaluation that will link to the ODI work and a CO measurement system (I need more clarity on this) • New initiatives that hold potential: • The participatory impact assessment methodology being developed by SETU • Community profiles (SETU) as baseline

22. Creating a rational and appropriate impact monitoring system for programs - 2 What will the program approach require to measure impact and build bodies of evidence? • Cost-benefit analysis of your value propositions • Capturing unintended impacts (not being indicator-led or indicator-blind). MSC is one method for doing this. SETU’s participatory impact monitoring may work well. • Monitoring social change that happens over a long-term trajectory (why we have programs). This needs longitudinal studies or a cohort (PCTFI might be a good example) study to look at impacts (conditions of life but also changes in power relations) on your impact groups. Repeating a wellbeing analysis across a cohort of communities is another example. There should be something on exploitation or dependency relations too. The community profiles are more intensive but perhaps a small number can be selected for this. Changes in gender relations. • Key is being able to tell an effectiveness (of the model) story and an impact story (impacts on the impact populations) that begins with the communities or groups on the ground where CARE is operational and extending to impacts on broader reaches of the impact group through leveraging resources, networking, etc. • More forms of inductive research.

23. 5. Reforming and aligning CARE’s identity with programs • Progress has been made towards the aim of people seeing themselves as part of a single CARE, and their roles as contributing towards aims and intentions that transcend their particular project • Nevertheless identities are still constructed most firmly around projects, and projects very much still label themselves as such, especially in the field – even if collaborating in a Union Parishad on different elements of a collective methodology, when the donor visits the sign boards still just say project X! • Outsiders also still see CARE’s identity in terms of their projects, which means they will still particularise their understanding of CARE, what it’s focus is, and what it is good at . This means this is still their expectation of how CARE operates

24. Reforming and aligning CARE’s identity with programs - 2 Challenges • Smaller projects feeling overshadowed by the heavyweights • Donor pressure to brand a project and the donor • The ‘flagship’ project of a program – how do you build a reputation around the program and not let the flagship project take over? • CARE’s legacy as a big organization with a lot of resources and big projects in Bangladesh that makes it easy for external audiences to view Shouhardo as evidence of the same approach

25. Reforming and aligning CARE’s identity with programs - 3 How do you fashion an identity out of programs and impact groups with these other competing influences on CARE’s reputation? • Focus on building the evidence base for impact groups and the core ‘models’ the CO is focusing upon (many of these should operate across programs) • Maintain a sustained communication strategy to reinforce the message of one CARE and of CARE’s niche areas in the 4 programs. • Use allies with substantial influence to convey the message as well. • Internally units also need to put the program before their particular focus (e.g., a technical area) whenever communicating externally.

26. 6. Working in society: Building relations and synergies with allies - 1 What’s working? • Using the UP as a unit for bringing all local stakeholders together (the social contract) • Working increasingly through local partners/ allies • Donors like Danone and their long term view of the engagement. • Private sector donors • Relations developed with ODI (academic bodies) and private sector together – innovative. Some interesting new configurations of collaboration evolving – external research institute, local university, multinational company (e.g. KIK from Germany), a CI Member driven by your fundraising strategy. • The PACCs developed by Shouhardo but (potentially) available as a coordinating and advocacy mechanism across programs • National VAW network that helped influence the passing of the Domestic Violence Act (?) • The steering committee for COVAW with several partners who really designed PROHURI. A good example of joint visioning and working as part of civil society.

27. Working in society: Building relations and synergies with allies - 2 The way forward? • Still some work to do to have less of a sub-contracting relationship with “implementing partners” (as the COVAW experience shows) • More strides to be made in establishing networks that link to national level • Continuing the work on creating innovative partnerships and constellations of partners as part of resourcing strategies for the program work (to build cost pools) and establish mutual accountability for impact on impact groups

28. Organizing Yourselves: Revisiting the Workstreams Defining and conceptualizing impact statements Review of organizational systems and practices to enable the shift (core positions, planning processes, talent management, financial mgmt & reporting….) Developing and using impact measurement and learning systems and standards Operationalizing a program approach on the ground Resourcing strategies – transition and medium term Developing purposeful relationships Shifting our identity (internal and external) Change communication

29. Organizing Yourselves: Revisiting the Workstreams Defining, conceptualizing and updating impact statements Building bodies of evidence around model development, and practical, repeatable forms of impact monitoring Review of organizational systems and practices to enable the shift (core positions, planning processes, talent management, financial mgmt & reporting….) Operationalizing a program approach on the ground Resourcing strategies – building program cost pools Developing purposeful relationships and coalitions Shifting our identity (internal and external) Change communication

30. Concluding Thoughts • Recruit the Impact Directors, finalize all program strategy designs; begin model development and moving programs forward (learning around TOCs) • More consistent GED lens in everything you do – women’s empowerment should be an internal theme too! • Focus on the identity piece • Move ahead with the structural pieces – have chewed this enough • Start paying attention to the systems reforms needed – no analytical focus and still huge inefficiencies. Don’t be driven by the compliance imperative! • Focus on impact monitoring and telling an impact story, rather than impact measurement • Make sure private sector engagement potential is fully integrated eg role in establishing program cost pools/ basket funds • Build on some of promising starts to working more in society