Cover Image
close this bookOrganizational Performance and Change Management - Workshop proceedings - October 1-3, 1997, International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR), Philippines (IIRR, 1997)
close this folderWorkshop 2
close this folderCase 3: Planning, monitoring and evaluation - The PhilDHRRA experience
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentThe change management experience
View the documentHighlights
View the documentFurther learnings and insights
View the documentProcess
View the documentConclusion
View the documentNote

Highlights


Figure

The assessment processes were not as smooth as planned. A need to develop an integrated and standard set of indicators for planning and evaluation constantly surfaced. Clearly defined sets of strategies and sharpened result areas needed formulating to render a virtual order out of assorted approaches.

A sound planning, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation system needed installing. A system to guide decision-making and help set the agenda for subsequent action was necessary.

In lieu of which, the secretariat had, for the past two years, exerted serious attempts to systematize its planning and budgeting. The ICCO/CEBEMO Consult from Netherlands had been a good source of help on this. The group who has been commissioned by BILANCE, a major agency supporting the TriPARRD Program, introduced structures and processes that will make a better OPB system in general, it introduced the latest estimate concept, now integrated in the OPB tool - a most crucial indicator in the planning process primarily because it indicates the latest target expected at the end of the program period. It is based on:

· environmental developments, through which the program is implemented;
· the targets earlier set, which also serve as basis of management decision; and
· changes within the specific timeframe when the estimate was formed.

PhilDHRRA has also participated in a planning, monitoring and evaluation dialogue among other partners within the Philippines.


Figure

These efforts signify the interest, particularly of the secretariat to systematize the network processes. The rationale being that the network simply has to respond vigorously to the demands of its stakeholders for a more accurate measurement of its achievements, through defined key result areas, indicators of performance and targets.

The existing OPB tool is anchored on a process of environmental scanning, following the SWOT analysis procedures, for firmly believing that only through a careful assessment of its environment will more relevant and responsive organizational plans follow. This includes analysis of political, economic, social and ecological factors influencing its directions. Then each unit can determine its key strategies, key result areas and performance indicators, targets for specific timeframes, and use of baselines and benchmarks. Budgetary requirements and possible sources will also be identified.

PhilDHRRA use the PBME model as illustrated below:


Figure 1


Figure 2

Reviews and planning workshops always indicate that on-the-ground similar processes are conducted. For instance, what precedes the strategic review and planning is the program and department review and planning workshops on one side, and the Regional Secretariat Review and Planning Workshops on the other. PO Assessments are still conducted at program level. What proceeds the Strategic Planning is the consolidation of the Operating Plan and Budget at the secretariat level that will be subject for review of the Board. Then Regional Assemblies or the General Assembly reviews and approves it.

Regional assemblies are also held at least twice a year where regional members gather to update, plan, reaffirm and reform concurrent strategies. Regional Boards meet to discuss issues raised at the assembly further and to resolve them. Proposed strategies are further studied to assess their relevance and practicability. The whole process of PBME ends with the General Assembly Meeting that meets to discuss and resolve policy issues concerning the entire network, and to reaffirm and reform network strategies. The National Board convenes to formulate policy statements to guide secretariats to operationalize the strategies. This is the process that PhilDHRRA uses. The results, however, leave much to be desired.

Those who were involved found the meetings lacking in focus and no one could give a clear picture of what the network is in a coherent and cohesive whole.

In 1995, the leaders, representatives from member NGOs, and other stakeholders met to review and discuss the network strategy. It came up with an eight-point strategy that was meant to give the network its measured identity and defined niche in the overall realm of development work in the Philippines. The strategy covered the next five years, past the next millenium. The eight-point strategy is by no means reinventing the programs and involvements of PhilDHRRA in the past, rather, an attempt to capture them in one integrated and clearly directed whole.

Now that the network has defined its vision and its directions have unity and focus, what, then, remains to be done? A lot, but in the line of monitoring and evaluation, there remains a need to review the OPB tool and processes.