A Continental Platform for Results

1. A Continental Platform for Results Session: 2:00-3:30 PM Dec. 12, 2012 Michele Tarsilla, Ph.D.

2. AfCoP-MfDR Original Structure

3. AfCoP-MfDR Original Network Configuration: Secretariat Model

4. Future AfriK4R Configuration: Network Model

5. AfriK4R Partnership Institutionalization + Regionalization = Pan-African/Continental MfDR discourse conducted in a more systematic, fully owned and accountability-driven fashion

6. AfriK4R Partnership: Rationale “To improve national and regional development processes by assisting and advocating for results-focused policies and strategies” (AfCoP Strategy) The Partnership will address the: • Lack of convergence across national MfDR practices in Africa; • Disparities and missed opportunities for cross-fertilization among African networks and countries; • Lack of standard MfDR indicators • Gap national and regional MfDR policies; • Relatively low capacity level; • Cross-border challenges

7. Partnership: Definition • A process in which two or more entities actively work together • in a mutually beneficial and well-defined relationship • in order to achieve a vision not likely to occur in isolation. • It is not just about knowledge sharing. • It brings together resources, strategies, and ways to address concerns or create something new (Adapted from Wilson, 2000)

8. AfCoP & AfriK4R To this date, AfCoP has been primarily a knowledge and learning network. Focus over the years has been on individual-level outcomes: • Knowledge Sharing (Info dissemination); • Knowledge Building; • Professionalization of members; Institutional Impact is mentioned in the AfCoP strategy (e.g., regional integration) but there was an apparent need to enhance it further So, a new strategic partnership with other African institutions (AfriK4R) is key and a discussion is needed on a new internal governance structure and the formulation of strategic objectives that could resonate more effectively with each one of the new AfCoP partners

9. African Platform for Results: Rationale • Need for more accountable governments; • Need for more mutual learning on what works and what does not in development; • Need for an holistic approach integrating the various MfDR pillars; • Need for stronger collaboration links among what used to be called AfCoP Thematic Working Groups

10. Platform Configuration I:Expertise-Based Learning Hub on Budget Reform Learning Hub on Social Accountability AfCoP Secretariat + CMT + Advisory Committee (?) Learning Hub on Gender and Human Rights National CoP and Regional CoP Learning Hub on Monitoring and Evaluation

11. Expertise-Based Configuration in the Medium- and Long-Term: The Learning Hubs go to the Regions/RECs Learning Hub 1 Learning Hub 5 Learning Hub 2 Governing Body Learning Hub 4 Learning Hub 3 Core-Periphery Model

12. Platform Configuration II:Geography-Based Northern Africa Western Africa AfCoP Secretariat + CMT + Advisory Committee Eastern Africa Central Africa Southern Africa

13. Geography-Based Configuration in the Medium- and Long-Term: The Regions/REC link with sectorial expertise Northern Africa South Africa West Africa Governing Body Eastern Africa Central Africa Core-Periphery Model

14. Possible Activities • Identify a variety of topics for online discussions; • Facilitate online discussions; • Provide guidance and input on AfCoP analytical work; • Assist with the organization of learning events – virtual and face-to-face - (e.g., identification of experts; • Contribute to the finalization of the AfriK4R results framework; • Conduct a satisfaction survey about the Partnership among their respective members; • Promote AfCoP membership among other institutions (and individuals) in their domains of expertise; • Provide technical guidance to National CoP; • Expand further the e-library

15. A new African Platform for Results: Key Issues to Consider

16. Key Conditions (I) • A common understanding of AFRIK4R mission as well as the AfCoP and Coalition’s roles exists among ALL partners; • Coalition’s objectives are agreed upon by all institutional partners and are aligned with all partners’ respective core values/mission/mandate; • The AfriK4R stays on track towards its goals; • The mission might want to be built upon the principles of active engagement, collaboration, freedom of expression, inclusiveness, integrity, mutual respect, transparence and usefulness; • Atheory of change (demonstrating that the Platform and its partnership with AfCoP is a win-win situation and creates value for stakeholders) is in place (see next slide); • A partnership performance evaluation framework is in place; • A partners’ engagement strategy is in place;

17. Key Conditions (II) • Learning among partners is enabled; • Innovation to address new opportunities and challenges is fostered; • A trial and error period is granted for 6 months (flexibility is there to update or modify objectives in the course of the AFRIK4R implementation); • Means toward conflict resolution within CMT are established and known well by all partners; • Expectations are clarified among all partners; • Appreciation for individual differences as well as fairness and sincerity among partners are encouraged; • Reward options are established (see slides on incentives); • Decision-making procedures are clearly established; • Resources are available as part of Program-Based Budgeting; • The frequency and type (not specific content) of online exchanges need to be defined in advance

18. Potential Risks to Mitigate • Prominence given to institutional partners could prevail over the engagement of individual AfCoP members; • Duplication of existing efforts among partners; • Dismissal of national governments’ or country-level strategies by AFRIK4R own strategy; • Insufficient monitoring of assumptions throughout implementation; • Lack of geographical balance within governance structure and activities; • Regional CoP are not there yet and National CoP are only present in 9 countries. The MfDR discourse at the national level is not strong yet; • Greater time and financial burden as well as information overload for partners involved; • Lack of adequate legitimacy among partners; • Insufficient resources or definition of tasks and responsibilities among partners

19. Some Key Factors Affecting Participation in Partnerships

20. Possible Incentives • Provision of Technical Information Sharing benefiting partners in their work; • Joint Programming among Learning Hubs/Clusters; • More responsibility to the most active partners; • Provision of specialized MfDR literature to the most active partners; • Generation of Joint Knowledge Products; • Participation in AfCoP Learning Events/ Meetings; • Providing partners with the space to express their opinions on roadmaps and milestones

21. Thank you!

22. Collaborative Internal Governance for AfriK4R Session 3:45-5:00 PM Dec. 12, 2012 Michele Tarsilla, Ph.D.

23. Possible Governance Scenarios

24. AfriK4R Governance: Scenario I African Capacity Building Foundation will assist with any activity related to Capacity Development

25. AfCoP Governing Body: • Strengths and Need for Improvements Strengths • Fruitful Collaboration between the AfCoP Secretariatand the CMT; • Sectorial expertise mainstreamed in operations; • Eight (8) National Cop have been created; • Plurality of activities catering to individual members Key Issues within current AfCoP CMT: • Too many members (slow decision-making and implementation); • Lack of continued commitment due to voluntarynature of functions; • Lack of incentives; • Lack of members active involvement in the online discussions

26. AfriK4R Governing Body: • Suggested Improvements CMT: -Reduce number of CMT members to 7 or 9 so as to ensure more ownership/engagement/unity and less delegation to others; - CMT members should stay on for a two-year term (the first year will be a probationary period and, upon successful performance, CMT members will be reconfirmed). At least two members could be former CMT members so as to ensure continuity of functions over time and will stay in for a year as well; -Two CMT members could be the REC Focal Points and two others could be elected by National CoP to represent CoP needs, interests and voices withinthe CMT; -The number of CMT members could be modified at the end of the first year of implementation (e.g., Annual Meeting) only with the approval of 75% of all members with the voting rights; -CMT members will not receive any remuneration from AfriK4R and should exercise leadership, intellectual honesty and integrity in their actions.

27. AfriK4R Governing Body: • Suggested Improvements -After election, CMT members need to pledge to the AFRIK4R Code of Conduct and, in case of low engagement (e.g. absence in 3 meetings) or unresolved conflict of interest, their removal will be established by the rest of the CMT; -CMT will meet during monthly conference calls (via Skype) and two annual meetings in a different region. Every month an institutional partner could be invited – especially if not directly represented in the CMT - to present on a given topic/proposal that the AFRIK4R might be interested in pursuing; -Special meetings may be held at any time when called from by the Co-President or a majority of Board members; -Make sure that CMT members are geographically balanced (decision-making informed by better in-depth knowledge of needs, opportunities and challenges across the entire continent); -Make sure that different age groups and gender are adequately represented; -Ensure a clear definition of tasks and responsibilities among CMT members; -You can keep the number of Board members low by establishing advisory group members

28. AfriK4R Governing Body: • Suggested Improvements -The AfCoP’s CMT should be led by two Co-Chairs. AfCoP Co-Chairs are elected during the annual meeting on a yearly basis from CMT membership and should include one Anglophone member and one Francophone member. One will be more directly in charge of the relationship with the Secretariat and the other one will be more responsible of dealing with the CMT and the Advisory Committee members -Vacancies could be filled by Board, with the recommendation of the two Co-Chairs. In case of lack of consensus, the Manager’s input will be determining; -Some members will have more a fiduciary role. Some other will have a more operational role; -A majority of CMT members constitutes a quorum. In absence of a quorum, no formal action shall be taken except than to adjourn the meeting to a subsequent date; -Any CMT member who has a financial, personal or official interest in, or conflict (or appearance of a conflict) with any matter pending before the CMT will vacate his/her seat and refrain from discussion and voting on said item.

29. CMT responsibilities The CMT might want to do the following: • Check and approve the Action Plan for accuracy and compliance with the Constitution/vision • Monitor progress against the project management plan • Review and approve changes made to the AfriK4R plan, schedules, scope, goals, cost estimate • Make strategy decisions regarding the prioritization of project deliverables and approves interim deliverables • Review and approve the AfriK4R development strategy • Review and suggest solutions for the issues critical to project success • Resolve conflicts between stakeholder groups

30. AfriK4R Governance: Scenario I

31. AfriK4R Governance: Scenario I STEERING COMMITTEE (1 member from each Hub)

32. AfriK4R Governance: Scenario I Guidelines and Strategic Support are disseminated among National CoPand Individual Practitioners working in governmental and non-governmental agencies National CoP identify country gaps in MfDR and provide data to the Governing Body

33. Scenario 1: Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths -The two-tier structure (CMT and Advisory Committee) would (a) enhance the autonomy of CMT decision-making from learning hubs; (b) make decision-making faster; (c) ensure the regular functioning of the AfriK4R despite delays/challenges faced by the African Platform for Results; The Advisory Group would replace the AfCoP Thematic Working Groups and it would allow institutional-level sectorial interest to inform the CMT decision-making Weaknesses -The different learning hubs might not be able to contribute directly to decision-making but they could influence it

34. AFRIK4R Governance: Scenario II

35. AFRIK4R Governance: Scenario II National CoP identify country gaps in MfDR and provide data to the Governing Body Guidelines and strategic support to National CoP Individual Practitioners working in Ministries

36. Scenario II: Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths -The CMT would reflect more truthfully the variety of needs/interests/specific expertise associated with each of the different Learning Hubs; -CMT members would be less burned out; -Clear distinction between members with fiduciary roles and more operational ones (e.g., partnership building, fundraising, etc.) Weaknesses -The diversity of needs and interests represented among the CMT might slow down decision-making within the AfriK4R Governing Body; -Sectorial experts within CMT might not reflect consensus across learning hubs within the coalition

37. Breakdown Work Structure (WBS) (I)

38. Breakdown Work Structure (WBS) (II)

39. Thank you!

40. Incentives Mechanisms Towards AfCoP Partners’ More Active Participation Michele Tarsilla, Ph.D. AfCoP Meeting Dec. 11-14, 2012

41. Some Key Factors Affecting Participation in Partnerships

42. Four Main Types of Incentives • Material Incentive—tangible rewards such as monetary compensation to partners in exchange for their involvement • Solidarity Incentive—intangible rewards that include camaraderie among partners • Status Incentive—partners’ standing within the Platform for African Results • Purposive Incentive—the satisfaction of a partner gains from satisfying a sense of mission. Adapted from: Wilson, 1989.

43. Three Types of Prizes • First-to-succeed prize: awarded to the first innovator to achieve the stated goal; • Intermediate prize (milestone-based “pull” incentive): awarded based on the completion of a previously-defined condition that would bring the Platform closer to fulfilling one or more its objectives; • Best Progress: awarded to the partner who has advanced most successfully towards reaching one or more Coalition’s goals. Judging this type of prize would require an extremely clear aim and impartial judges

44. Incentive Mechanisms (I) • Assure the quality of work produced by the Platform for Results and Governing Bodies maintain it at a high level; • Assign governing bodies not a censoring role but rather a clarification/rectification/support one; • Ensure the caliber and promote the legitimacy of individuals participating in AfCoP governance structures; • Ensure that leaders are convinced to work together; • Acknowledge the most active contributors among partners on a quarterly basis; • Develop a sense of community both within the Steering Committee and the rest of the membership (e.g., through the use of tweeter, social media and SMS campaigns); • Enhance a feeling of trust among partners (e.g., more details personal pages of members); • Enhance AfCoP communication strategy; • Include AfriK4R-related activities in partners’ staff ToR

45. Incentive Mechanisms (II) • Enhance Social Capital (trust across participants + promotion of connectorswithin and bridgers across partners); • Promote diversity of connections; • Allow partners and members to contribute to AfCoP (it should be felt as theirs rather than a donor’s initiative); • Facilitate partners’ ability to contribute their own resources and decide on their allocation; • Reduce space for frustration/bitterness/distrust; • Identify (in a participatory fashion) recommendations for positive actions and make them visible to all partners; • Enhance ease of the partnership’s use (including the AfCoP website); • Communicate in an open, accurate and timely manner

46. Incentive Mechanisms (III) • Develop/Update the partners’ ethical code of conduct in a participatory fashion and prevent goal divergence and competition for scarce resources; • Clarify the usefulness of AfCoP and the Platform to partners’ respective performance and mandates/missions • Encourage trust in competency and integrity across partners; • Encourage institutional membership by referral (it is easier to work with friends/colleagues of those who are already part of the Initiative); • Meet partners’ representatives needs for personal satisfaction; • Enhance positive leadership support

47. Thank you!