promoting evidence-based sme policy in egypt€¦ · promoting evidence-based policy the second...

Ministry of Finance SMEPol Project

Promoting evidence-based SME Policy in Egypt Grand Hyatt Hotel Cairo, 23rd & 24th January 2007

John Young and Enrique Mendizabal, Overseas Development Institute, London [email protected] [email protected]

Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 Day 1 – An introduction to evidence-based policy .................................................................. 3

Opening address ................................................................................................................. 3 An introduction to policy processes..................................................................................... 3 Discussion: Key features of SME policy in Egypt ................................................................ 3 Promoting evidence-based policy ....................................................................................... 4 Participant’s policy objectives.............................................................................................. 4 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 4 Addressing complexity ........................................................................................................ 4

Day 2 – Trying out some of the tools ...................................................................................... 4 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 4 Comments and discussion .................................................................................................. 4 The RAPID Framework ....................................................................................................... 5 The Alignment Interest and Influence Matrix (AIIM) ............................................................ 6 Force Field Analysis ............................................................................................................ 6 What next? .......................................................................................................................... 6 Further sources of information and support ........................................................................ 7

Appendix 1: Workshop Programme ........................................................................................ 8 Day 1 – An introduction to evidence-based policy processes ............................................. 8 Day 2 – Trying out some tools for evidence-based policy................................................... 8

Appendix 2 – Handout Materials............................................................................................. 9 Appendix 3: Presentation Slides …………………………………………………………… ……10

2

SMEPol Evidence-based Policy Workshop Cairo, 23rd & 24th January 2008

Introduction The purpose of this 2-day SMEPol workshop was to provide an introduction to evidence-based policy processes, and some tools and approaches to promote greater use of research-based evidence in SME Policy for members of the SMEPol Policy Committees, and other key stakeholders. The programme is attached as Appendix 1, and a list of materials handed out to all participants as Appendix 2.

Day 1 – An introduction to evidence-based policy Opening address The workshop was opened by Mr. Mohamed El Far. CEO General Authority for Government Services (GAGS). He explained that the small and medium scale enterprise is a vital sector in Egypt and a high priority for the government which has created a supportive legislative and policy environment including new laws in the areas of tax, import and export duties and a programme of support for SMEs. The IDRC/CIDA funded SMEPOL project has played a major role in this through the provision of national and international expertise, the encouragement of civil society involvement nd the recent international conference, and has produced a manual covering all procedures for promoting SME engagement with government. The objective of this workshop is to identify the factors affecting SMEs and how all actors can make better use of research-based evidence to promote and implement appropriate SME policies.

An introduction to policy processes The first presentation included an introduction to ODI and the RAPID Programme, an overview of policy processes and the role research-based evidence can play and an analytical framework developed by ODI. The presentation slides are in Appendix 3.

Discussion: Key features of SME policy in Egypt Participants identified the following key features of SME policy in Egypt: SME policies focus on the formal sector whereas most SMEs operate in the informal

sector. Policies are too complex, excessively procedural, with too many executive bodies which

are difficult for SMEs to reach and a lack of effective dialogue between stakeholders There are many competing ideas but a lack of specialised knowledge about SMEs in

government departments, a lack of interest in research and insufficient credible data. Civil servants have vested interest, corruption is endemic and SMEs lack confidence in

the government Policy implementation is weak there is poor coordination between different departments

and a disconnect between external and internal policies SME workers are not aware of their rights, Trade Unions and NGOs are not sufficiently

involved Donors tend to import ready-made models based on developed countries.

3

Promoting evidence-based policy The second presentation described an approach developed by ODI to increase the use of research-based evidence in policy, introduced some of RAPID’s tools toolkits, and provided some examples where research-based evidence has influenced policy. The presentation slides are in Appendix 3. Further information is available in the handouts: Strategies for Impact and Policy Relevance, and Bridging Research and Policy in International Development. An analytical and practical framework.

Participant’s policy objectives After lunch, participants used a “stories of change” approach to identify and describe their own policy objectives. One focused on the challenge of promoting a culture of entrepreneurship. There are many actors including the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Higher Education Religious Authorities Government entities, NGOs, the Media, sports clubs, youth centres and unions. While there are many organisations involved in trying to promote entrepreneurship, it remains a considerable challenge to change the culture and attitudes in society weak incentives for entrepreneurs, lack of experienced people to promote an entrepreneurship culture, an unsupportive business environment and weak access to finance. .

Discussion The subsequent discussion included a lively debate about both the policy issues, and about the approach: How to apply a systematic approach in a complex environment like Egypt? Many people are already thinking systematically about these things. Information exists,

but there is sometimes a problem with access to it, and with prioritisation. It would be interesting to try applying the RAPID framework to specific Egyptian

experiences.

Addressing complexity The final presentation on the first day developed the concepts outlined earlier in the workshop, this presentation highlighted the fact that policy processes are extremely complex and that “blueprint” approaches do not work. Each context demands a tailor-made approach, based on a thorough understanding of the context, active learning throughout, and the application of a series of tools and approaches focusing down on, and facilitating the development of strategies to address specific issues. The presentation slides are in Appendix 3. Further information is available in the handout: addressing complexity in Policy Entrepreneurship.

Day 2 – Trying out some of the tools Introduction The introduction to day 2 included a brief review of the first day and an outline of the programme for the second day which focused on trying out a number of the tools. The presentation slides are in Appendix 3.

Comments and discussion Participants’ comments and questions included: The tools seem useful, especially the RAPID framework, social network analysis etc

4

Does ODI have any examples where using these tools did result in policies which had enhanced impact (the Tanzania Essential health Improvement Programme was suggested as an example)

How can we involve users in the development of policies (the consultation process in the UK Policy Impact Assessment process was suggested as an example)

Where policy processes should start: Whether policy processes start with policy makers, civil society or researchers, there are tools and approaches that can be used to maximise use of research-based evidence.

The key problems are not so much in the policy or research processes, but in the links between them. The policy committees are a mechanism to address this.

The RAPID Framework The RAPID framework is a simple question list to map the broad context for a policy issue including questions about the external context, the political context, the evidence and the links between them. The presentation slides are in Appendix 3. Further information is available in the handout: Tools for Policy Impact – A Handbook for Researchers” (page 13). The framework provides the foundation for a strategy development process that follows these systematic steps:

1. Identify the key partners you need to influence 2. Identify allies and ‘enemies’ using the Alignment, Interest and Influence Matrix 3. Identify a vision of progressive changes in the behaviours of key partners that you try

to influence for the short, medium and long term 4. Develop a draft strategy for influencing in relation to you longer-term work objectives 5. Recognise your strengths, limitations and areas that require additional development

for more effective communications 6. Develop a monitoring strategy to learn from you communications’ successes and

failures to adapt and improve their effectiveness 7. Develop the foundations of an action plan to address capacity needs for influencing

Participants’ applied the framework to the policy objectives they had developed on day one. One group made a brief presentation about what they learned when they applied the framework to their case on developing an IT services outsourcing industry in Egypt. The key issues were the need to establish a positive image of Egypt as an IT services outsourcing center; and the need to mobilise service providers in the private sector. The group identified existing opportunities in the context including the skills and capacities among the youth of Egypt; and interest from individuals and organizations. The main challenges were finding investors and entrepreneurs; and developing complementary policies from other public bodies to build the image of the country and attract investors Another group addressed the objective of restructuring the education system to respond to the requirements of the markets. The main challenge in the political context (as well as the ‘links factor’ of the RAPID framework) faced by this initiative is to establish appropriate links between the various productive ministries so that the Ministry of Education can appropriately respond. In this case, there was clear evidence than when entrepreneurs cannot find the right man-power in Egypt they go elsewhere. However, the MoE lacks the necessary evidence to be able to respond to the needs of the market. Another key challenge highlighted by the group related to the role of the media in helping re-educate public opinion about the value of technical careers (as opposed to professional education). New evidence of their value is necessary.

5

Most participants found that the tool helped them to identify the most important issues obstructing a policy process. It made it easier to explain and communicate their ideas.

The Alignment Interest and Influence Matrix (AIIM) The AIIM is a sophisticated form of stakeholder analysis to help identify key actors and their relation to each other with respect to a specific policy issue. It includes additional steps to identify which stakeholders are both influential and can be influenced directly by the programme. Its focus on ‘priority stakeholders’ is based on the principles of Outcome Mapping (www.outcomemapping.ca). The presentation slides are in Appendix 3. One group presented the results of their work. They felt that the value of the tool is more in the use of the tool itself than in the outputs it was possible to produce during the workshop. Using this tool should take much longer and involve a wide range of stakeholders. They identified a wide range of stakeholders including government, civil society, NGO and donors. They found that the WB was not highly aligned, had little interest and little power. CIDA and the Social Fund are highly aligned, very interested and very influential. The Ministry of Investment is very interested, but not well aligned, and has medium interest. (They stressed though that these results were supposed to be illustrative rather than represent the actual position of these organization). Other participants stressed the need to ensure the right people, who have the necessary level of knowledge are involved in the process to ensure that the results are really representative that it is difficult to do it with a very large number of stakeholders that there is a danger of ending up with too many stakeholders and that it may be necessary to revisit the map from time to time because the situation changes. Ideally this sort of exercise should be undertaken at the start and during a project rather than at the end. Other points included the problem of what to do when there are contradictory results from research. There is no easy solution to this. Triangulation of different data sources and consultation are two approaches that are commonly used research contested data.

Force Field Analysis Force Field Analysis is a useful tool for formulating strategies to influence specific stakeholders. The presentation slides are in Appendix 3. Further information on how to use FFA is provided in Tools for Policy Impact – A Handbook for Researchers (on page 22) Some participants were already familiar with Force Field Analysis. Others had used similar tools e.g risk analysis to develop a map identifying risks. The risk maps are plotted along two dimensions: likelihood and potential impact. This helps develop risk mitigation strategies. While similar this risk mapping looks at what might happen; while FFA focuses on existing forces and their strength.

What next? Participants asked how to develop a strategy. While not wanting to be prescriptive, the general process is to follow the process from context analysis, through stakeholder analysis to identify the actors and force-field analysis to identify strategic action. Once you have identified them you can develop appropriate action plans, and access whatever support you need to implement them. This might include communications, knowledge management, negotiations, or organizational development, etc. Participants said they would need some time to think about what they had learned, read more on the websites and then decide what to do. But initial ideas included more support to apply the tools more systematically, access to additional resources from others, and

6

continued exchange with ODI. Both the ODI and the ebpdn websites have resources and links to researchers, practitioners and supporters of this kind of work. Participants can also engage with each other, engage in debates and contribute and use resources (including research, manuals, tools, case studies, etc.).

Further sources of information and support Further information about all of the approaches and issues presented during the workshop can be found on the RAPID website at www.odi.org.uk/rapid. The Evidence-based Policy in Development network is a global network of organizations interested in supporting evidence-based development policy. Information about the network is provided in the handout: The Evidence-Based Policy in Development Network. ODI Background Note. 2007. The ebpdn website at www.ebpdn.org. provides access to a wide range of resources including case studies, toolkits and discussions. In addition to the two toolkits provided as handouts, RAPID has produced 3 other toolkits: Tools for Knowledge and Learning: A Guide for Development and Humanitarian

Organisations: includes tools for Strategy Development; Management Techniques; Collaboration Mechanisms; Knowledge Sharing and Learning Processes; and Knowledge Cature and Storage.

Successful Communication: A Toolkit for Researchers and Civil Society Organisations: 23 tools grouped under the headings of Planning, Packaging, Targeting and Monitoring.

Mapping Political Context: A Toolkit for Civil Society Organisations - a series of tools that have been designed to map various dimensions of political context. The tools cover a wide variety of political dimensions. As such, they provide a menu of different approaches to mapping political context.

7

Appendix 1: Workshop Programme Day 1 – An introduction to evidence-based policy processes 09.00-09.30 Registration 09.30-10.00 Introductions (Opening address, participant self-introductions, outline of the

workshop etc). 10.00-11.00 Presentation: An introduction to policy processes and the RAPID analytical

framework followed by Q&A. 11.00-11.30 “Buzz Groups”: What are the key factors promoting or hindering evidence-

based policy in small and medium scale enterprise in Egypt? 11.30-12.30 Presentation: Promoting evidence-based policy: Supply, demand and the

role of intermediaries followed by Q&A. 12.30-13.00 Wrap-up: Some examples from other countries and sources of further

information. 13.00-14.00 Lunch 14.00-15.00 Group work: Stories of change (participants discuss examples from their

own experience of policy initiatives that have worked and have not worked) to identify the key policy systems and processes.

15.00-15.45 Feedback of Group work. 15.45-16.15 Presentation: Addressing complexity and the RAPID approach - A more

detailed overview of the RAPID Approach and the tools it uses, identifying a few specific ones to try out on the second day.

16.15-16.30 Wrap-up of day 1. Discussion of programme for Day 2

Day 2 – Trying out some tools for evidence-based policy 09.00-09.30 Registration 09.30-09.45 Review of Day 1 09.45-10.45 Exercise 1: Participants to apply the RAPID framework to a specific policy

issue – to identify particular obstacles & opportunities to support change 10.45-11.00 Feedback 11.00-11.15 Presentation of Tool 2: eg Stakeholder mapping: Alignment, Interest and

Influence Matrix 11.15-12.15 Exercise 2: Participants apply Tool 2 to a real-life example. 12.15-12.30 Feedback 12.30-13.15 Lunch 13.15-13.30 Presentation of Tool 3: eg Force Field Analysis 13.30-14.30 Exercise 3: Participants apply Tool 3 to a real-life example. 14.30-14.45 Feedback. 14.45-15.45 Brainstorm: Systems, competencies and skills analysis to identify

additional needs. 15.45-16.15 Presentation: Other sources of information and support. 16.15-16.30 Wrap-up & evaluation.

Facilitators: John Young (ODI) and Enrique Mendizabal (ODI) For further information please visit www.odi.org.uk/rapid

8

Appendix 2 – Handout Materials The following materials were provided to all participants: The workshop programme (See Appendix 1) A printed version of the powerpoint slides used during the workshop (also attached as

Appendix 3) Bridging Research and Policy in International Development. An analytical and practical

framework. ODI Briefing Paper. October 2004 The Evidence-Based Policy in Development Network. ODI Background Note. 2007. Strategies for Impact and Policy Relevance. John Young. October 2007. ODI London Addressing Complexity in Policy Entrepreneurship. Enrique Mendizabal. ODI London.

December 2007. Tools for Policy Impact: Tools for progressive Policymakers:

9

Promoting evidence-based SME Policy inbased SME Policy in EgyptJohn Young and Enrique Mendizabal, Overseas Development Institute, London

[email protected]@odi.org.uk

An introduction to SMEPol and the policy committees Mr. Mohamed El farCEO G l A th it fCEO General Authority for Government Services (GAGS)

Introductions• We are:• You are:

– In your table take 5 minutes to introduce yourselves to each other:

• Your name and organisation and • ONE interesting piece of information about

you

• So no more than one minute each!

Rules of the game• Time keeping• Respect for others’ opinions• Participatory and open• Feedback – on-going monitoring andFeedback on going monitoring and

evaluation

Overview of the workshopDay 1• An overview of SMEPol and the role

of the policy committees• Introduction to policy processes and p y p

evidence based Influence• New lessons for strategic planningDay 2• Tools for planning• Next steps

An introduction to policy processes and evidence-informed influence

10

JYoung

Text Box

Appendix 3: Presentation Slides

OverviewPart 1:• Policy processes & the role of research• Different perspectives• A useful analytical frameworkPart 2:• A useful practical framework• Some tools for researchers, policy-makers and

donors.Part 3:• Some examples from around the world • Conclusions• Sources of further information.

Overseas Development Institute• Development Think Tank• 60 researchers• Research / Advice /

Public Debate• Rural / Humanitarian / Poverty & Aid /

Economics / Policy Processes• DFID, Parliament, WB, EC• Civil Society

For more information see: www.odi.org.uk

RAPID Group• Promoting evidence-based

development policy & practice• Through

– Research – Advice – Public Affairs– Capacity-building

• Working with:– researchers– policymakers– parliamentarians– southern think tanks - ebpdn

for further information see: www.odi.org.uk/rapid / www.ebpdn.org

Definitions• Research: “any systematic effort to

increase the stock of knowledge”• Policy: a “purposive course of action

followed by an actor or set of actors” • Evidence: “the available information

supporting or otherwise a belief or proposition”

• Evidence-based Policy: “public policy informed by rigorously established evidence”.

Policy ProcessesIdentify the problem

Commission research

Analyse the results

Choose the best option

Establish the policy

Evaluation

Implement the policy

Agenda Setting

Decision

Policy Formulation

Policy Processes

DonorsCabinet

Parliament

Monitoring and Evaluation

Making

Policy Implementation

Civil Society

Ministries

Private Sector

11

Chronic Poverty in Uganda

Kate Bird et al, Fracture Points in Social Policies for Chronic Poverty Reduction, ODI WP242, 2004 (http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/working_papers/wp242.pdf)

…in reality…• “The whole life of policy is a chaos of

purposes and accidents. It is not at all a matter of the rational implementation of the so-called decisions through selected strategies 1”

• “Most policy research on African• Most policy research on African agriculture is irrelevant to agricultural and overall economic policy in Africa2”

• “Research is more often regarded as the opposite of action rather than a response to ignorance”3

1 Clay & Schaffer (1984), Room for Manoeuvre; An Exploration of Public Policy inAgricultural and Rural Development, Heineman Educational Books, London

2 Omamo (2003), Policy Research on African Agriculture: Trends, Gaps, and Challenges,International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) Research Report No 21

3 Surr (2003), DFID Research Review

But Policy makers are…

• Speed• Superficiality

…practically incapable of using research-based evidence because of the 5 Ss…

• Superficiality• Spin• Secrecy• Scientific Ignorance

Vincent Cable – Lib. Democrat MP & Shadow Minister of FinanceMore at: www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/Meetings/Evidence

Experience & Expertise

JudgementPragmatics & Contingencies

Factors influencing policy making

EvidenceResources

Values and Policy

Context

Habits & Tradition

Lobbyists & Pressure Groups

Source: Phil Davies Impact to Insight Meeting, ODI, 2005

Different Notions of Evidence

• Colloquial (Contextual)

• Anything that seems

Policy Makers’ Evidence

• ‘Scientific’ (Context free)

Researchers’ Evidence

Anything that seems reasonable

• Policy relevant

• Timely

• Clear Message


• Proven empirically

• Theoretically driven

• As long as it takes

• Caveats and qualifications

Existing theory1. Linear model2. Percolation model, Weiss3. Tipping point model, Gladwell4. ‘Context, evidence, links’

framework, ODI5. Policy narratives, Roe6. Systems model (NSI)7. External forces, Lindquist8. ‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay &

S h ff

17. The source is as important as content, Gladwell

18. Linear model of communication, Shannon

19. Interactive model, 20. Simple and surprising stories,

Communication Theory21. Provide solutions, Marketing I22. Find the right packaging, Marketing

II

X

Schaffer9. ‘Street level bureaucrats’, Lipsky10. Policy as social experiments,

Rondinelli11. Policy Streams & Windows,

Kingdon12. Disjointed incrementalism,

Lindquist13. The ‘tipping point’, Gladwell14. Crisis model, Kuhn15. ‘Framework of possible thought’,

Chomsky16. Variables for Credibility, Beach

II23. Elicit a response, Kottler24. Translation of technology, Volkow25. Epistemic communities26. Policy communities27. Advocacy coalitions etc, Pross28. Negotiation through networks,

Sebattier29. Shadow networks, Klickert30. Chains of accountability, Fine31. Communication for social change,

Rockefeller32. Wheels and webs, Chapman &

Fisher

12

Existing theory – a short list• Policy narratives, Roe• Systems of Innovation Model, (NSI)• ‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay & Schaffer• ‘Street level bureaucrats’, Lipsky• Policy as social experiments Rondene

• The RAPID Framework

Policy as social experiments, Rondene• Policy streams and policy windows,

Kingdon• Disjointed Incrementalism, Lindblom• Social Epidemics, Gladwell

An Analytical Framework

The political context –political and economic structures and processes, culture, institutional pressures, incremental vs radical change etc.

External Influences Socio-economic and cultural influences, donor policies etc

The evidence – credibility, the degree it challenges received wisdom, research approaches and methodology, simplicity of the message, how it is packaged etc

The links between policyand research communities –networks, relationships, power, competing discourses, trust, knowledge etc.

Case Studies• Detailed:

– Sustainable Livelihoods– Poverty Reductions Strategy

Processes– Ethical Principles in

Humanitarian AidC– Animal Health Care in Kenya

– Dairy Policy in Kenya– Plant Genetic Resources

• Summary– GDN x 50– CSPP x 20– Good news case studies x 5– Mental health in the UK

Professionalisation of Public Services.Structural Adjustment → collapse of services.Paravet projects emerge.ITDG projects.

1970s

1980s

Professionalisation of Public Services.Structural Adjustment

ITDG projects – collaborative research.

Animal Healthcare in KenyaInternational Research

Privatisation.ITDG Paravet network.Rapid spread in North.KVB letter (January 1998).Multistakeholder WSs → new policies.Still not approved / passed!

1990s

2000s

Privatisation ITDG Paravet network and change of DVS.

KVB letter (January 1998).Multistakeholder WSs → new policies.

The Hubl StudyDr Kajume

Approaches for promoting evidence-based policy

Influence: who, what and why

13

A Practical FrameworkExternal Influences political context

Politics and Policymaking Policy analysis, &

research

Campaigning, Lobbying

evidencelinks

Media, Advocacy, Networking Research,

learning & thinking

Scientific information exchange & validation

What you need to knowThe external environment:• Who are the key actors? • What is their agenda? • How do they influence the

political context?

The evidence:• Is it there? • Is it relevant? • Is it practically useful? • Are the concepts new? • Does it need re-packaging?

Links:• Who are the key actors? • Are there existing networks? • How best to transfer the

information? • The media? • Campaigns?

p g g

The political context:• Is there political interest in

change? • Is there room for

manoeuvre? • How do they perceive the

problem?

What you need to doWhat need to know What need to do How to do it

Political Context:• Who are the policymakers?• Is there demand for ideas?• What is the policy process?

• Get to know the policymakers.• Identify friends and foes.• Prepare for policy

opportunities. • Look out for policy windows.

• Work with them – seek commissions

• Strategic opportunism –prepare for known events + resources for others

Evidence

Links

• What is the current theory?• What are the narratives?• How divergent is it?

• Who are the stakeholders?• What networks exist?• Who are the connectors,

mavens and salesmen?

• Establish credibility• Provide practical solutions• Establish legitimacy.• Present clear options• Use familiar narratives.

• Build a reputation• Action-research• Pilot projects to generate

legitimacy• Good communication

• Get to know the others• Work through existing

networks.• Build coalitions.• Build new policy networks.

• Build partnerships.• Identify key networkers,

mavens and salesmen.• Use informal contacts

Policy entrepreneurs

Storytellers Networkers

Engineers Fixers

Supply-side ToolsOverarching Tools

- The RAPID Framework - Using the Framework

- The Entrepreneurship Questionnaire

Context Assessment Tools- Stakeholder Analysis- Forcefield Analysis

- Writeshops- Policy Mapping

- Political Context MappingCommunication Tools- Communications Strategy- SWOT analysis- Message Design

- Making use of the mediaResearch Tools- Case Studies

- Episode Studies- Surveys

- Bibliometric Analysis- Focus Group Discussion

Policy Influence Tools- Influence Mapping & Power Mapping- Lobbying and Advocacy

- Campaigning: A Simple Guide- Competency self-assessment

RAPID Framework

14

Policy Process Mapping• General Context issues – domestic and

international.• Specific Policy Issues (i.e. the policy cycle)• Stakeholder analysis

– Arena: government, parliament, civil society, judiciary, private sector.

– Level: local, national, international • What is their Interest and Influence?• Process matrix + political matrix• Political and administrative feasibility assessment

[Sources: M. Grindle / J. Court ]

Policy Process MappingFormulation Implementation

Politicians

Cabinet

G tGovernment

Bureaucrats

Civil Society

International

Stakeholder AnalysisWhy:• To understand who

gains or lose from a policy or project.

• To help Build

Keep Satisfied

Engage Closely

High

Powero e p u dConsensus.

Steps:1. Identify Stakeholders2. Analysis Workshop3. Develop Strategies

Monitor (minimum effort)

Keep Informed

Low

Low HighInterest

Develop enthusiasm to address

topic

Learn in partnership

High

Alignment-Interest Matrix

1. Map actors on the matrix

2. Which are the most influential?

topic

Develop awareness

and enthusias

m

Challenge existing beliefs

General level of alignment

Low

Low HighInterest in specific

topic

Forcefield Analysis• Identify what you

want to achieve

• Identify forces for and against change

• Identify which are most important

• Develop strategies to reinforce those for and overcome those against

Communications strategy• Identify the audience(s)• Identify the message(s) • Promotion• Evaluate impact and

How?

Who?What?

change as necessary• Clear Strategy

– Interactive – Multiple formats

15

Writing Policy PapersProviding a solution to a policy

problem• The policy community• The policy process• Structural elements of a paper

– Problem description– Policy options– Conclusion

• Key issues: Problem oriented, targeted, multidisciplinary, applied, clear, jargon-free.

[Source: Young and Quinn, 2002]

Organisational development• Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices:

– The entrepreneurship questionnaire

– Training & mentoring etc

• Knowledge Management

O i ti l d l t• Organisational development– Finance, admin & personnel systems

– Strategic (action & business) planning

– Fundraising & reporting

• Building an organisational profile– Communications, Public Affairs and the

Media

Struyk, 2002, Local Governance Institute, Open Society Network, Budapest

• Increasing the pull for evidence– Require the publication of the evidence base– Require spending bids to provide evidence base– Submit government analysis to external expert scrutiny– Provide open access to information

• Facilitating better evidence use

Tools for Policymakers

Facilitating better evidence use– Encourage better collaboration across analytical services– Co-locate policy makers and internal analysts– Integrate analytical staff at all stages– Link R&D strategies to departmental business plans– Cast external researchers more as partners than as

contractors– Second more university staff into government– Train staff in evidence use

Source: Abstracted from PIU 2000, Bullock et al (2001)

Overview and Checklist1. Impact Assessment and Appraisal: guidance checklist for policy makers.

Strategy and Policy Evaluation2. Strategy Survival Guide3. Magenta Book: Guidance notes on Policy Evaluation4. Green Book: Appraisal and evaluation in Central Government5. Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)

Ensuring Key Perspectives are Included6 Incorporating regional perspectives into policy making toolkit (Subnational)

UK Government “Tools”

6. Incorporating regional perspectives into policy making toolkit (Subnational)7. International Comparisons in Policy Making Toolkit8. Gender Impact Assessment: a framework for gender mainstreaming9. Managing risks to the public: Appraisal Guidance

Testing Policy Ideas10. Policy PilotsPublic-orientated Tools11. Concern Assessment Tool12. Community Engagement How to Guide 13. Connecting with Users and CitizensGetting Better Advice and Evidence14. Expert Advisory Bodies for Policymakers 15. Improving Standards of Qualitative Research

Regulatory Impact Assessment• Aims to improve causality between

evidence and advice• A process that must be completed for all

proposed policy changes:– Purpose / intended effectPurpose / intended effect– Policy problem– Options & evidence– Impact & evidence– Results of consultation

• Published

More at: http://www,cabinet office.gov.uk/regulation/ria/ria_guidance/index.asp

Using Qualitative Research• A framework developed by the Cabinet

Office / National Centre for Social Research• Based on review of 29 existing frameworks

(esp from medical/health)• Four principles. Research should be:

– contributory;contributory; – defensible in design;– rigourous in conduct;– credible in claim.

• 18 Questions, with criteria• Recognises need for:

– Policymakers to have necessary expertise– New approaches to research

16

Using Qualitative Research1. How credible are the findings? 2. How has knowledge or understanding been extended by the research? 3. How well does the evaluation address its original aims and purpose? 4. How well is the scope for drawing wider inference explained? 5. How clear is the basis of evaluative appraisal? 6. How defensible is the research design? 7. How well defended are the sample design/target selection of

cases/documents? 8. How well is the eventual sample composition and coverage described? 9. How well was the data collection carried out? 10. How well has the approach to and formulation of analysis been conveyed? 11. How well are the contexts of data sources retained and portrayed? 12. How well has diversity of perspective and content been explored? 13. How well has detail, depth and complexity of the data been conveyed? 14. How clear are the links between data, interpretation and conclusions - i.e

how well can the route to any conclusions be seen? 15. How clear and coherent is the reporting? 16. How clear are the assumptions/theoretical perspectives/values that have

shaped the form and output of the evaluation? 17. What evidence is there of attention to ethical issues? 18. How adequately has the research process been documented?

More at: http://www.policyhub.gov.uk/evaluating_policy/qual_eval.asp

“Tools” for donors… • Funding mechanisms

– Competition vs Support– Academic rigour vs Policy relevance– Individual Organisations vs Partnerships

Project vs Programme– Project vs Programme– Outputs vs Outcomes – “Home” capacity vs Southern capacity-

building• Funding communications etc• Funding networks• Evaluation

Evaluation• Classical case studies…

– IFPRI, IDRC– Can capture depth and

diversity– Overestimate

role of research• Episode Studies…

– ODI– Focus on policy change– Historical– Underestimate role of

research

Other Approaches• Outcome Mapping• RAPID Outcome Assessment• Social Network Analysis• Most Significant ChangeMost Significant Change• “Impact Box”• Peer review• Expert review

Outcome MappingOUTCOME MAPPING:Building Learning and Reflection into Development ProgramsSarah Earl, Fred Carden, and Terry Smutylo

http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9330-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

RAPID Outcome Assessment• Combining

– Case Study– Episode Study– Retrospective Outcome

Mapping• Involving all stakeholders• With ILRI / CGIAR

17

Some examples from around the world

DELIVERI - Indonesia• Decentralised Livestock Services

in Eastern Indonesia• 5 years (originally 10)• Public Service reform (in livestock

sector)• Action-research + institutional developmentAction research institutional development

+ policy reform• Surprisingly successful: “The DELIVERI

programme has developed some useful models of institutional change in the context of decentralisation, making a government service more responsive to the needs of local people”1

1 DFID Country Strategy Paper for Indonesia September 2000

For more information see: www.deliveri.org

Political context• 1963 - 1995 centralised & bureaucratic• Policy “maintained” by senior

bureaucrats• Services “delivered” by bureaucrats• Services “received” by farmers • Participation & decentralisation in

Repelita VI• Senior champion• Long DFID involvement• Gradual budget squeeze• 1998 economic crisis → Political crisis• Sudden decentralisation → huge

demand for new policies and practice

Evidence• Radical new idea (in Indonesia)• Specific concerns (legal / welfare /

corruption / quality / professional)• Preference for word-of-mouth or

sophisticated visual information • Baseline study to illustrate need +

evidence from elsewhere• Practical action-research + good

M&E • > 20% “investment” in

communication: hands-on engagement, visits, leaflets, video, multimedia

Links• Senior internal champion• Steering Committee• Farmers & Service staff working

together• Informal networks through peersg p• The K20• Planning Bureau Department of

Agriculture• Rakontechnis• Other Programmes (P4K, SfDM)• The media

Luck• Timing:

– REPELITA VI– Financial Crisis

• Misunderstandings– about implications– about implications– about “quality management”

• People and personalities– Donor– Dept of Livestock Services– Department of Agriculture

18

Groundwater in India• to maximise impact of DFID forest/

ground water research project in India• Researchers, policy makers and activists• Used framework to analyse factors in

water sector in India• Developed strategy for final phase:

– Less research– More communication– Developing champions in regional

and national government – Local, Regional & National advocacy

campaign

Policy process ranking• What works in DFID? • Small workshop with 7 staff.• Participatory pair-wise ranking of

factors in key policy processes.• Worked quite well.q• Policy processes work if they are:

– at the right time– championed by a senior person– based on good theory & evidence– solve a problem– have budget for implementation

Conclusions

• Clear intent• A systematic approach

To improve the use of research-based evidence in policy you need:

• The right incentives / culture• The right systems• To invest more on communication• To engage continually with all stakeholders• To use the right tools and approaches• To look to the long term

Further InformationODI – www.odi.org.uk

RAPID – www.odi.org.uk/rapidPublicationsCase StudiesCase StudiesWorkshops and SeminarsTools and Toolkits

Ebpdn – www.ebpdn.orgE-mail – [email protected]

[email protected]

Stories of changeGroups: Stories of Change• 5 minutes: individually think about one

change you want to achieve (change objective)

• Then share it with the rest of the group ( 50 i t )(~50 minutes)

• Identify one that you would like to share with the plenary (10 minutes to prepare in the group) (using guide)

• Share it with the plenary (3 minutes per group)–using the following ‘titles’ as a guide:

19

Stories of Change• When telling the story think of:

– Title that describes initiative/objective

– Setting/context

– Main actors, characters or protagonists

– The main challenge or opportunity faced

Groups: Stories of Change• 5 minutes: individually think about one

change you want to achieve (change objective)

• Then share it with the rest of the group ( 50 i t )(~50 minutes)

• Identify one that you would like to share with the plenary (10 minutes to prepare in the group)

• Share it with the plenary (3 minutes per group)

Feedback of group work• In plenary discuss:

– What lessons did you learn from the stories?

– What are the key policy systems and processes for SMEPol?

Addressing complexity and the RAPID approach

Policy ProcessesIdentify the problem

Commission research

Analyse the results

Choose the best option

Establish the policy

Evaluation

Implement the policy

Agenda Setting

Decision

Policy Formulation

Policy Processes

DonorsCabinet

Parliament

Monitoring and Evaluation

Making

Policy Implementation

Civil Society

Ministries

Private Sector

20

Experience & Expertise

JudgementPragmatics & Contingencies

Factors influencing policy making

EvidenceResources

Values and Policy

Context

Habits & Tradition

Lobbyists & Pressure Groups


As a process of conflict management

Distribution of power

Conflictivity

High

Open fli t

Managed fli t

Negotiation/ mediation

Communication

Low

Change

conflict

Expectant/potential conflict

conflict

Protest/ activism

Formation of alliances

Research






A Practical Framework

External Influences political context

Politics and Policymaking Policy analysis, &

research

Campaigning, Lobbying

evidencelinks

Media, Advocacy, Networking Research,

learning & thinking

Scientific information exchange & validation

Addressing Complexity• The first lesson is about

incorporating complexity: uncertainty, contribution rather than attribution, non-linear change, opportunism, intuitionpp ,

• The second lesson is about the importance of knowledge in decision making in complex contexts

• The third lesson is that networks and partnerships are essential

Addressing Complexity• The fourth lesson is that

organisational competencies can have significant effects

• The fifth lesson is that there aredifferent ways of developing competencies

• The sixth lesson is that this requires asystematic learning oriented approach to planning

21

Learning and knowledge are keyWe need 4 types of knowledge:

1. Of Content and Context2 Of Strategy2. Of Strategy3. Of Outcome/Impact4. Of Competencies

• These will help us learn and make decisions

Learning has clear connections with M&E

Goals ResultsUsingKnowledge

Doing

Learnduring

LearnL

“…the philosophy is quite simple: every time we do somethingKnowledgeLearn

afterLearnbefore

External networks and partners; Colleagues; Information assets; Own

knowledge

do something again we should do it better than the last time…”

There are different learning styles… Learning Organisations...

A Learning Approach1. Identify long term objectives2. Identify policy actors with which the team is

working with directly and whose behaviours it is trying to influence to contribute to the achievement of the long term objectives

3. Consider the changes that these policy actors need to undergo in the short, medium and long term

4. Develop a strategy that the team can follow to contribute to those changes

5. Consider and set out basic monitoring and learning methods

6. Consider the team’s capacity needs to carryout its strategy effectively and develop a plan of action

Business objectives and priorities

Stakeholder analysis (alignment–interest –influence matrix)

Stakeholder prioritization

Stakeholder 1 Stakeholder 2 Stakeholder3…

Understanding context



Influencing success criteria (behaviours now and in the future)



Influencing activities (including communications)

Monitoring and learning

Action plan



Capacities and resources

Always some feed-back

22

Methods, tools and support • What is available?• Lots of toolkits and manuals (see

www.odi.org.uk/rapid/publications for a few; and www.ebpdn.org for too many)

• Lots of methodologies (see www.outcomemapping.ca for example)

• But how useful are they?

Methods, tools and support• Systems, Competencies and Skills development

needs to take into account the following:– Different levels of decision making require different

skills, competencies, etc;– Because of their different responsibilities and work

processes individuals, teams and organisations learn in different ways;y ;

– Therefore, capacity development needs to be delivered through different mechanisms and relationships;

– These need to be part of a cohesive approach for Organisational Development (but not one that is inflexible and top down) that takes into consideration the opportunities and constrains faced by decision makers at all levels.

Introduction to Day 2Day 2• Review of Day 1 (15 mins)• Exercise 1: Participants to apply the RAPID framework to a specific

policy issue – to identify particular obstacles & opportunities to support change (60 mins)

• Feedback (30 mins)Coffee• Presentation of Tool 2: eg Stakeholder mapping: Alignment, Interest

and Influence Matrix (15 mins)• Exercise 2: Participants apply Tool 2 to a real life example (45 mins)• Exercise 2: Participants apply Tool 2 to a real-life example. (45 mins)• Feedback (30 mins)Lunch• Presentation of Tool 3: eg Force Field Analysis (15 mins)• Exercise 3: Participants apply Tool 4 to a real-life example. (45 mins)• Feedback (30 mins)Tea• Brainstorm: Systems, competencies and skills analysis to identify

additional needs (45 mins).• Presentation: Other sources of information and support (30 mins)• Wrap-up. (30 mins)

Key lessons from Day 1• Complex• Possible• Generic “approaches” no “blueprint”• Knowledge and learning are important for

d i i ki (b t k k l d )decision making (but key knowledge)• Networks and partnerships are essential • Need right organisational competencies • That there are different ways of developing

competencies • Systematic learning oriented approach to

planning

Business objectives and priorities

Stakeholder analysis (alignment–interest –influence matrix)

Stakeholder prioritization

Stakeholder 1 Stakeholder 2 Stakeholder3…








Monitoring and learning

Action plan



Capacities and resources

Always some feed-back

23

The tools• These tools recognise complexity and

do not pretend to be BLUEPRINTS or step by step manuals

• We must be ready to use them, test them and adapt them

• The RAPID Framework• The AIIM• Force Field Analysis

The RAPID framework






What you need to knowThe external environment:• Who are the key actors? • What is their agenda? • How do they influence the

political context?

The evidence:• Is it there? • Is it relevant? • Is it practically useful? • Are the concepts new? • Does it need re-packaging?

Links:• Who are the key actors? • Are there existing networks? • How best to transfer the

information? • The media? • Campaigns?

p g g

The political context:• Is there political interest in

change? • Is there room for

manoeuvre? • How do they perceive the

problem?

RAPID Framework Using the RAPID Framework• Exercise 1: Apply the RAPID framework to

a specific policy issue – to identify particular obstacles & opportunities to support change (45 mins)– In groups identify ONE policy issueg p y p y– Refer to the toolkit to identify the most relevant

questions to your policy issue• Feedback (30 mins)

– Each group identifies one obstacle and opportunity for research based evidence uptake

24

The Alignment Interest, Influence Matrix Develop

enthusiasm to address

topic

Learn in partnership

High

Alignment Interest Influence Matrix

1. Map actors on the matrix

2. Which are the most influential?

topic

Develop awareness

and enthusiasm

Challenge existing beliefs

General level of alignment

Low

Low HighInterest in specific

topic

AIIM• In groups, participants apply AIIM to

the same policy issue as before (45 mins)– Identify all stakeholders– Map them onto the matrixMap them onto the matrix– Identify the most influential and the ones

you work with directly• Feedback (30 mins)

– What did the analysis tell you that you did not know before?

Some examples

Force Field AnalysisForce Field Analysis

Plan: X moves from

? ?

?

?

?

?

?from current to ideal

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Total = ?

?

?

?

Total = ?

25

An example Force Field Analysis• In groups, participants apply FFA to a

real-life example (45 mins)– Identify key change– Consider forces for and against; weigh

ththem– Consider your influence over them

• Feedback (30 mins) – How can the FFA help you prioritise?

• Tea Implementation –what next?

What next?• What steps will you take next?

– Individually?– As a team?

• Do you have the necessary resources?– What else do you need?– Where could you get it?

Further InformationODI – www.odi.org.uk

RAPID – www.odi.org.uk/rapidPublicationsCase StudiesWorkshops and SeminarsTools and Toolkits

Ebpdn – www.ebpdn.orgE-mail – [email protected]

[email protected]

26

promoting evidence-based sme policy in egypt€¦ · promoting evidence-based policy the second...

Documents