Implementing ICCO's ProCoDe process: A mid-stride evaluation Proposal for an evaluation of phase 2
2 likes517 views
This document outlines a mid-stride evaluation proposal for ICCO's ProCode process, focusing on co-responsibility and the implementation across four pilot regions as well as Utrecht. It aims to assess progress, identify unexpected effects, and evaluate the effectiveness of emerging structures in facilitating intended outcomes. The evaluation will also guide future decisions about broader implementation and organizational strategies within ICCO.
![Intention and Status of the Evaluation To assess progress with implementing ProCoDe: Focus on Co -responsibility as the central ‘vision’ How do ‘ De centralisation’ and ‘ Pro grammatic Approach’ help and hinder Co ? What difference do we hope we will make? ‘ Ideas’ so that ICCO can meet its objectives within existing pilots and guide a better process for the other regions Provide insights for ICCO’s Board for its decision-making about subsequent phase of ProCoDe “ ... results and lessons learned … [to] provide input for the further development of the ProCoDe process, and especially in the set–up of the regional structures (regional work organization and Regional Councils) and the relation between the Regional Councils and the ICCO head office and ICCO Board. The results of the evaluation will furthermore be used to take decisions on the broader implementation of ProCoDe within ICCO.”](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/presentation-icco-evaluation-approach-1225449296598483-9/85/Implementing-ICCO-s-ProCoDe-process-A-mid-stride-evaluation-Proposal-for-an-evaluation-of-phase-2-3-320.jpg)
Implementing ICCO's ProCoDe process: A mid-stride evaluation Proposal for an evaluation of phase 2
- 1. Implementing ICCO’s ProCoDe Process: A Mid-Stride Evaluation Proposal for an Evaluation of Phase 2 Presentation for ICCO Utrecht 23 October 2008 Irene Guijt
- 2. Reducing risks of accidental learning Why bother? Everything’s going fine… Shouldn’t we stop to consider our options?
- 3. Intention and Status of the Evaluation To assess progress with implementing ProCoDe: Focus on Co -responsibility as the central ‘vision’ How do ‘ De centralisation’ and ‘ Pro grammatic Approach’ help and hinder Co ? What difference do we hope we will make? ‘ Ideas’ so that ICCO can meet its objectives within existing pilots and guide a better process for the other regions Provide insights for ICCO’s Board for its decision-making about subsequent phase of ProCoDe “ ... results and lessons learned … [to] provide input for the further development of the ProCoDe process, and especially in the set–up of the regional structures (regional work organization and Regional Councils) and the relation between the Regional Councils and the ICCO head office and ICCO Board. The results of the evaluation will furthermore be used to take decisions on the broader implementation of ProCoDe within ICCO.”
- 4. Scope of the Evaluation and Outputs Four pilot regions: West Africa (Moussiliou Alidou) Central America (Natalia Ortiz) South Asia (Celine d’Cruz) Central Asia (Kate Hamilton) … And Utrecht (Irene Guijt) Five reports: one for each of the four pilot regions and a synthesis report
- 5. Areas of Inquiry describing current form of new structures assessing progress towards milestones and quality of implementation testing validity of assumptions about ProCoDe seeking surprises
- 6. What is happening? 1. To what extent is the CoDe process being implemented in the four regions/Utrecht as planned for? a. Which part of the structures and systems are being (seem likely to be) implemented? b. Which parts are not being implemented or unlikely to happen? c. Why is implementation happening as planned or not ? (E.g. is it an issue of resources, skills, alignment of values of the players, etc.. )
- 7. And what about …? 2. What unanticipated effects is the CoDe process having in the pilot regions? Positive and negative at different levels per player and interactions political / operational / …)
- 8. Walking the talk, vision on the ground? 3. To what extent do the new, emerging structures and systems make it possible to realise the ambitions embedded in the CoDe vision? Do the (decentralised) structures and systems allow for: representation and voice of relevant stakeholder groups of civil society? identification of the priorities of marginalised people in the regions? translation of priorities into regional and international policy recommendations? collaborations of (more) diverse groups of actors? increased ownership and decision-making by partners and other CS actors in ICCO? more efficient use of resources? (?) easier access for partners to resources (less bureaucracy) better alignment of programmes to regional priorities (that should reflect marginalised people’s priorities)? more ‘co-responsibility’ to happen? (Check if this is a summary of the above elements) Which of these structures and systems seem to make each of these ambitions possible?
- 9. What now, what next? 4. What is needed for the values embedded in the CoDe vision to become reality in all the regions (current pilots and anticipated regions)?
- 10. Components and Timing Component 1 Methodology finalisation (by end October 2009) Component 2 Desk study (documentation; Netherlands-based interviews (by end December 2008; ongoing in early 2009 as necessary) Component 3 Inquiry in pilot regions, draft pilot region reports (by early May 2009) Component 4 Cross-comparative analysis; draft synthesis reporting; draft (by end May 2009) Component 5 Finalise regional and synthesis reports (by 1 August 2009).
- 11. Methodology Core perspectives to understand: ‘the architects, the builders, the residents ’ Regional Council Members Regional Office, esp. RPC (RM) Programme coalitions (and partners) Utrecht: ‘functions’, Workers’ Union, Senior Management Others … Two ‘field visits’, including one Regional Council Meeting Monthly talks (quick evolution!) Narratives (stories that stand out for those involved) Feedback process – of concern but unclear how
- 12. Grey Areas The ‘weight’ of the programmatic approach alongside ‘CoDe’ The potential to compare with and without ‘De’ Timing of the outputs in relation to the implementation – considerable delays The detail of our observations The specificity of our recommendations Evaluation, review, research?