“CoP-MfDR” Review of Pilot Phase

1. “CoP-MfDR”Review of Pilot Phase Presented by Dr. Sohail Amjad At CoP-MfDR/MLI Joint Meeting LKYSPP National University, Singapore 1 September 2006

2. Objectives of CoP-MfDR Review • To assess the pilot operation of CoP-MfDR in terms of achievements, progress, issues and challenges • To share and discuss strategies, and recommendations for future action

3. Introduction of CoP • The “community of practice” is a particular type of network that features peer-to-peer collaborative activities to build member skills as well as organizational and societal capabilities. • Organizations and researchers use a variety of terms to describe similar phenomena, such as “learning networks,” “knowledge communities,” “competency net-works,” “thematic groups,” etc. • The essential features of CoP are: Informal Domain Voluntary Community Practices

4. Background-CoP MfDR • Launched in March 2006 • with the vision: • ‘To contribute to the enhancement of sustainable capacity for results management among countries in Asia and the Pacific’. • with main focus: • To establish the mutual trust among members, sharing their ideas, and experiences through informal discussions. • with key practices thru VLN: • First such kind of effort (virtual learning network) in developing countries with different languages and different development stages and is totally a new concept and a challenging initiative.

5. The Community & Commitment • Community: • Government Officials/National, Sectoral levels • Civil Society/Other Non-State Organizations • Researchers & Experts • Multilateral/donor agencies • Commitment to contribute towards three key outcomes: • Improved institutional coordination and cooperation of planning, budgeting and implementing agencies within governments; • Enhanced capacity development thru sharing good practices and information on MfDR, • Improved awareness-raising and country ownership thru deepened understanding of MfDR principles and practices.

6. Structure

7. (1) Progress & Key ActivitiesParticipation

8. (2) Progress & Key ActivitiesVLN Operation Interim Coordination Committee (ICC) meetings • Three telephone conferences and 1 video conference • Functional ICC workroom • Discussion on CoP-MfDR Guidelines, Action Plan and identification of topics to be discussed online as well as for Singapore meeting Online discussions • Expert-led discussion 4 topics • On-line postings and comments 105 entries • National/sectoral, project, 20 papers & civil society • CoP members contributed 20 papers on three MfDR themes

9. (3) Progress & Key ActivitiesVLN Operation Other online activities • Monthly email newsletters • CoP-MfDR Question of the Month • CoP members Q & A • CoP-MfDR Library with Members’ Collection and Country Folders • MfDR Resource Center (250 files) • MfDR Sourcebook translation • Continuous fine-tuning of content, design and technical features of the CoP website • Introduce the CoP experiences to IFAD, AFDB, African developing countries and other development partners

10. Advantages of the CoP Format • Participation • Voluntary vs. compulsory • Developing countries’ voice • Working level practitioners’ voice • Both mid-income and low-income developing countries • Networking • Build relationship & trust • Learning experiences • Sustainability • On-going vs single time activity • Flexible vs time-bound • Modality • Free expression • Personal opinions vs. official capacity • Informal vs. formal • Information sharing • Resources—toolkits, reports, case studies etc • On-line library • Cost-effective

11. (1)Key Areas to be Addressed • Format vs. substance • More Focus on CoP during Pilot and • Less attention to substance (MfDR) • Deliver more substance e.g. MfDR tools, other resource material, relevance of contents etc • Country-specific approach vs. community’s common interests • Diverse DMCs in Asia & Pacific • Socio-economic, political, culture, language and interests • Different development stages • Difficult consensus on relevance • Need agreement on region of common interest • MfDR incentives vs. capacity • Focus on capacity building Or Online discussion for MfDR • Where is the balance? • Both may be parallel

12. (2) Key Areas to be Addressed • Results on aid vs. results on country resources • Donor’s more focus on own their aid-effectiveness • Less on country’s own resources • Different terminology used e.g. MfDR vs. RBM • Online vs. face-to-face activities • VLN has advantages • Convenient, less time-bound • Cost-effective • Face to face activities • Build mutual trust • On the spot learning experiences • Avoid so-called On-line discussion fatigue • But ‘Cost’ implications • ICC should find balance between VLN vs. Face to face events

13. (3)Key Areas to be Addressed • Membership size and mix • Fluid Core Group based on On-line Performance • Strike balance between govt. dominated to evenly distributed among Civil Society, NGOs, Researchers, Experts etc • CoP- MfDR Demand vs. Supply • Demand driven • Regional public goods • CC & Core group guide to maintain supply • Partners from OECD, DFID and MLI provide expert supply and material • ADB should keep sponsoring CoP • Input, output, and outcomes • CoP apply RBM on itself • More clarity in CoP-MfDR inputs, outputs and outcomes • Define short term and long term results

14. Issues and Challenges • Virtual Learning Network • Face to Face Events • Organization and Management

15. Issues and Challenges: Virtual Learning Network • Relevance of topics / focus: • Results on aid or country’s own resources? • National, sectoral, local, or project level? • Language barrier • Time constraints • CoP Library needs improvement • Technical / access / website problems

16. Issues and Challenges: Face-to-Face Events • Usefulness of face-to-face events • Build and maintain mutual trust • Focus on implementation on the ground • To serve as milestones of online discussions • Format (training, study tours, workshops) • Relationship with VLN • Frequency and size • Budget constraints and cost effectiveness

17. Issues and Challenges: Organization & Management • Future and function of ICC • Core group composition and size • Scaling up from core group • Role of experts • Role of ADB and other development partners • Facilitation / secretariat • Knowledge brokering • Budget and financing support

18. Recommendations:Virtual Learning Network • Demand-driven topic selection • Question of the Month (or bimonthly?) • Common issues across all countries • Incentives for participation • Annual publication • Practical tools • Recognition, certificate • Proper scheduling of online activities • Address language problem • Translation facility • Country-based CoPs in native language • Address technical problems • More active ADB Helpdesk support • Improve design and features of online discussion forum • Members must communicate their technical issues with coordinator

19. Recommendations: Face-to-Face Events • Arrangements within budget constraints: • CoP Needs budgetary support from ADB and Partners • Frequency: twice a year or 1+3 or more events? • One mega event and three or more small group study tours • Formats: • Study tour to see real implementation • Clinic in the field • Bilateral exchanges between countries with mutual interests • Training (with partner institutions) • Attendance: active online participants

20. Recommendations:Organization and Management • Leading group of CoP • Change the name “ICC” (Coordinating Committee or other name) • Each sub-region represented • Scaling up of CoP • Develop country-based or network-based CoPs (core group members are focal points) • Publish CoP member contributions • Provide easy access to broader audience • Link with other MfDR or similar networks • Development partners • ADB should provide support for next 3 years • ADB should provide facilitation / coordination / secretariat services • Co-financing from other development partners • Development partners reflect and respond to the voice of the CoP

21. THANKS