Assignment – Learning Launch

Challenge

I work for an international organisation in the field of Development. Particularly, the project I work on  focuses on institutional development and strengthening the capacity of the institutions to provide  services to all people in the country. We work with over 20 national partners in the whole country.

The project is funded by international donors. The donors expect regular reports every 3 months, which  provide updates on the activities undertaken with the donor funds, and results achieved. Our donor  reports are an important product, they showcase the project achievements and are an important source  of information for donors. The donors are our clients.

The information in the reports that we produce is based on the reports that we receive from our  partners. Therefore, in order for us to be able to produce high quality reports to the donors, it is  important that we receive good reports from the partners.

The challenge therefore lies in improving the quality of the partner narrative reports, so we can produce  better donor reports.

Selection

The project team has already identified the reasons for the weak partner reports. Good partner reports  are a challenge, for several reasons, which include: partners have to write in English, and often their  English is weak. Partners usually describe the activities that they did (for example trainings, workshops),  but they do not describe how these activities fit into the bigger picture, and they do not report on  results. Partners are weak in data collection.

The next step is therefore the learning launch tool. With this tool, we want to confirm our assumptions  on the reasons for the weak reports, and our assumptions on how to address these weaknesses.

Application

The learning launch revolved around the following assumption:

•  Partners are interested in producing better narrative reports, but do not know how to.

We also assumed that partners are keen to showcase their achievements, they want to how to improve  data collection and data management, and they want their activities to lead to results/ changes.

The hypothesis was:

•  If partners know what a good report looks like, they will be motivated to put more effort into  producing a good report.

•  If partners think that the information in their reports is being used in donor reports, and they  see them reflected in the donor reports, then they will make efforts to capture all relevant  information.

•  If partners understand the theoretical concept of monitoring and have the capacity for data  collection, then they will strengthen their own monitoring and data collection systems.

•  If partners understand results-based monitoring, then they are motivated to monitor their  activities and report the changes.

This was tested through providing training to all partners in one region of the country, over 2 days.  There were 15 trainees present. The training overall was on results-based management RBM, and  focused on monitoring and reporting for results.

Test:

1. We made a list of which criteria are important to ensure quality reporting. This list was based on

our experience and understanding of results-based reporting. We also consulted some relevant  handbooks.

2. We analysed the Partners’ previous reports, focusing on the criteria that we had identified. This

was done with a checklist. In addition, we added a narrative to the list, based on weaknesses  that we had observed while going through the reports.

3. We analysed the training materials for indicators that are relevant to measuring quality. We

produced as list of the relevant indicators that were covered in the training – and added to the  checklist.

4. After the training, based on the criteria identified, we checked the next partner reports, using

the checklist. For each identified criterium/ indicator, we reported whether they were included.  We also added a narrative to our report. We focused on whether the narrative reporting had  improved, and to what extent.

5. In addition, we compared previous and new reports. That was possible, because most partners

continue to undertake similar activities, and we wanted to confirm/ or disconfirm, that the  content of the reporting had changed, focusing more on results.

6. By doing so, we had a comparison between training materials, old and new reports.  7. I did a pre-and post-test during the training.

Insight and Approach

Despite the small sample, all partners showed common weaknesses in the old reports, and two out of  five new reports showed improvements, and that was very encouraging. Therefore, the overall  assumption that partners are interested in producing better quality reports could be verified.

The results also showed the following:

There is a need for continued training. A once-off training is not sufficient. Further, a class room training  needs to be supplemented with personalised training for each IP, separately for each IP. Participants  requested that that receive personalised assistance. They asked me to go through their reports with  them together, and to identify and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each report. They also  requested samples of good reporting.

The Post-test revealed that participants are keen on learning how to improve their reporting skills, and  IPs requested more training on the subject.

The learning launch exercise confirmed some assumptions, and also dis-confirmed some data. The  exercise showed that providing training was important and appreciated. However, standard traditional  class room training is not enough, but needs to be supplemented with new and innovative approaches.  The approach needs to take into consideration the situational context. The county in which I work in has  a strong oral tradition. The results of the training and feedback showed that the elements of the training  that take this into consideration were the most successful. Therefore, the assumptions we made were  correct, and the approach we used was good. However, the approach needs improvements, and needs  to be further developed. Future interventions to improve partner reports need to be further  contextualised.


Assignment – Learning Launch Challenge I work for an international organisation in the field of Development . Particularly , the project I work on focuses on institutional development and strengthening the capacity of the institutions to provide services to all people in the country . We work with over 20 national partners in the whole country . The project is funded by international donors . The donors expect regular reports every 3 months , which provide updates on the activities undertaken with the donor funds , and results achieved . Our donor reports are an important product , they showcase the project achievements and are an important source of information for donors . The donors are our clients . The information in the reports that we produce is based on the reports that we receive from our partners . Therefore , in order for us to be able to produce high quality reports to the donors , it is important that we receive good reports from the partners . The challenge therefore lies in improving the quality of the partner narrative reports , so we can produce better donor reports . Selection The project team has already identified the reasons for the weak partner reports . Good partner reports are a challenge , for several reasons , which include : partners have to write in English , and often their English is weak . Partners usually describe the activities that they did ( for example trainings , workshops ) , but they do not describe how these activities fit into the bigger picture , and they do not report on results . Partners are weak in data collection . The next step is therefore the learning launch tool . With this tool , we want to confirm our assumptions on the reasons for the weak reports , and our assumptions on how to address these weaknesses . Application The learning launch revolved around the following assumption : • Partners are interested in producing better narrative reports , but do not know how to . We also assumed that partners are keen to showcase their achievements , they want to how to improve data collection and data management , and they want their activities to lead to results/ changes . The hypothesis was : • If partners know what a good report looks like , they will be motivated to put more effort into producing a good report . • If partners think that the information in their reports is being used in donor reports , and they see them reflected in the donor reports , then they will make efforts to capture all relevant information . • If partners understand the theoretical concept of monitoring and have the capacity for data collection , then they will strengthen their own monitoring and data collection systems . • If partners understand results - based monitoring , then they are motivated to monitor their activities and report the changes . This was tested through providing training to all partners in one region of the country , over 2 days . There were 15 trainees present . The training overall was on results - based management RBM , and focused on monitoring and reporting for results . Test : 1 . We made a list of which criteria are important to ensure quality reporting . This list was based on our experience and understanding of results - based reporting . We also consulted some relevant handbooks . 2 . We analysed the Partners ’ previous reports , focusing on the criteria that we had identified . This was done with a checklist . In addition , we added a narrative to the list , based on weaknesses that we had observed while going through the reports . 3 . We analysed the training materials for indicators that are relevant to measuring quality . We produced as list of the relevant indicators that were covered in the training – and added to the checklist . 4 . After the training , based on the criteria identified , we checked the next partner reports , using the checklist . For each identified criterium/ indicator , we reported whether they were included . We also added a narrative to our report . We focused on whether the narrative reporting had improved , and to what extent . 5 . In addition , we compared previous and new reports . That was possible , because most partners continue to undertake similar activities , and we wanted to confirm/ or disconfirm , that the content of the reporting had changed , focusing more on results . 6 . By doing so , we had a comparison between training materials , old and new reports . 7 . I did a pre - and post - test during the training . Insight and Approach Despite the small sample , all partners showed common weaknesses in the old reports , and two out of five new reports showed improvements , and that was very encouraging . Therefore , the overall assumption that partners are interested in producing better quality reports could be verified . The results also showed the following : There is a need for continued training . A once - off training is not sufficient . Further , a class room training needs to be supplemented with personalised training for each IP , separately for each IP . Participants requested that that receive personalised assistance . They asked me to go through their reports with them together , and to identify and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each report . They also requested samples of good reporting . The Post - test revealed that participants are keen on learning how to improve their reporting skills , and IPs requested more training on the subject . The learning launch exercise confirmed some assumptions , and also dis - confirmed some data . The exercise showed that providing training was important and appreciated . However , standard traditional class room training is not enough , but needs to be supplemented with new and innovative approaches . The approach needs to take into consideration the situational context . The county in which I work in has a strong oral tradition . The results of the training and feedback showed that the elements of the training that take this into consideration were the most successful . Therefore , the assumptions we made were correct , and the approach we used was good . However , the approach needs improvements , and needs to be further developed . Future interventions to improve partner reports need to be further contextualised .