what are the key issues and sectors? - beam exchange · web viewthe consultation strategy...

Consultation Report

The BEAM Exchange

Draft October 3 2014

1

1.Executive SummaryThis report outlines the key findings from the BEAM Exchange (“BEAM”) consultation process. Between May and July 2014 the team conducted a four-stage consultation including key informant interviews, an online survey, follow-up interviews and data analysis. Our consultation sought to gather views on BEAM’s vision, BEAM’s audience, priority sectors, priority themes, knowledge sharing and networking, capacity building, practitioner incentives, key networks and BEAM positioning. Details for each section are outlined in the document, but headline findings include:

Who should BEAM focus on? Donor staff (both at headquarters and in-country) and the individuals and organisations

implementing market systems programmes in the field were viewed as requiring the most support. Consultants were seen most likely to engage with BEAM.

The principal barriers preventing practitioners from engaging with learning networks were identified as being limited time and budget. This suggests BEAM will need to explore ways to make it easier for practitioners to share what they learn, connect to the latest information, and help them write-up their experience and good practice.

The Donor Committee for Enterprise Development (DCED), the former M4P Hub, the SDC Employment and Income (E&I) Network and the SEEP Network are important networks for BEAM to engage with.

What are the key issues and sectors?

The consultation showed that the greatest need for support relates to the ‘how to’ of market systems approaches, e.g. analysing market failures and underlying causes and negotiating with the private sector.

Priority issues included identifying systemic change, improved tools for evaluating systemic change and moving from pilot to scale-up. Nevertheless, priorities differed amongst practitioner groups, with job creation a key theme for donors, but not for others, for instance.

Sectors with the highest level of interest amongst the practitioners we consulted with included labour markets, impact investing, agriculture and nutrition/ food security.

How can BEAM support and facilitate learning in the market systems community?

To facilitate knowledge-sharing and networking, practitioners highlighted the value in more matchmaking, signposting to accredited experts and help desk services. Face-to-face events were also identified as an important way to build trust and relationships.

To support capacity development, practitioners expressed the need for further support in exchange visits and mentoring. Suggestions were also made for facilitating the training market, such as adding on optional externally provided trainings to BEAM events.

The consultation suggests that BEAM should strive to be inclusive, practical, complement other networks and facilitate the market rather than take a direct role.

Emerging issues for BEAM to consider

Should BEAM focus on countries where a number of networks are already highly active, or where they are less established and programmes have limited knowledge-sharing resources?

Messages are mixed on the degree to which BEAM should support work in conflict-affected environments (CAEs) and women’s economic empowerment (WEE).

Should BEAM have a funding window for knowledge sharing activities? If yes, how will it ensure funds are fairly accessible and have sustainable market-building impacts?

Should BEAM develop processes to feed back programme procedural challenges to donors and if so, how?

Should BEAM carry out assessments of programmes across donor portfolios? Should BEAM support the standardisation of programme reporting and assessment?

Each section ends with priority decision points and next steps. These are brought together in the table within the final section, ‘Next Steps’.

2

2.Consultation ProcessThe BEAM Exchange carried out an extensive consultation process with key market system approach stakeholders from May to July 2014. It aimed to:

Develop a stronger understanding of market system approach stakeholder groups, map relevant networks and build relationships with individuals and organisations interested in further collaboration.

Identify key constraints, strengths and interests within the market system approach community and suggest which BEAM activities and positioning would provide most added value.

Guide the activities of the programme through its implementation phase and indicate where resources would best be prioritised.

It involved four stages:

1. Key informant interviews: Seventy interviews were conducted with experienced and established individuals within the market system approach community, well-positioned to provide insights on its current state and BEAM’s positioning in it. The Consultation Strategy originally planned for 45 interviews, but this was significantly overachieved due to the useful information received and positive feedback from interviewees who valued talking with BEAM and getting involved in its development at an early stage.

2. Online survey: A survey was developed and disseminated (including through partner organisations such as DCED, Business Fights Poverty (BFP) and DFID’s Private Sector Development (PSD) Twitter account), focusing on respondents’ own priorities. We received 231 responses from 54 countries, providing valuable data, but this was significantly less than the 566 expected responses. This is primarily due to the low incentives to fill out such a survey. Feedback was generally very positive, with many qualitative comments and suggestions on ways to collaborate with BEAM. Ninety-six percent of respondents wished to be kept informed of BEAM updates. Response numbers were lower for business (15) and senior donor policy advisers (18), and many people responded that they identified with multiple practitioner types (e.g. consultants and programme managers).

3. Follow-up interviews: Nineteen follow-up interviews were conducted with survey respondents who had provided insightful comments or had been recommended as worth speaking to, and with experts purposefully selected to explore discrepancies in consultation responses. The strategy envisaged 15 interviews, with the overreach again representing significant interest in learning about BEAM, having an early input and discussing potential collaborations.

4. Analysis and write up: Responses across the three previous stages were analysed alongside ‘lessons learnt’ in the M4P Hub final review and a review of comparator platform knowledge management and learning strategies.

3

Key Informant Interviews

Online Surveys

Follow-up Interviews

Analysis & Write up

3.BEAM VisionThis section outlines interview responses that addressed BEAM’s goals, structure and ways of operating. Key messages include that BEAM should be inclusive, overseeing activities and online spaces both for beginners and for experts; that it should be practical and not overly focus on theoretical discussions. Despite these points, responses suggest that there is value in BEAM being clear on what is and what is not a market system approach. Decisions should be made on whether BEAM will have a funding window for knowledge sharing activities and if so, how it will develop processes to feed back programme procedural challenges to donors.

Interviewees were positive on the broad scope of work BEAM anticipates focusing on its three spokes (policy and practitioner learning; research and innovation; and results measurement and impact) and the overall goal of strengthened and extended development and application of market system approaches. Nonetheless, a large number of respondents highlighted that BEAM should also support programmes to communicate to donors their grievances about how they are affected by donor processes on various operational issues.

Several overarching messages were expressed. BEAM should aim to be inclusive in regard to who it works with and what it considers to constitute market system approaches. BEAM should work with a broad range of people and organisations, and not just the usual suspects and larger organisations. It should bring in people from other sectors and bring on-board other donors.

BEAM should avoid suggesting that there is only one correct way to carry out market system approaches and refrain from being judgemental; rather it should take a broad-church approach. However this should not mean that anything goes, and BEAM should be clear on what market systems approaches are or are not. BEAM should develop different strategies to engage with beginners and experts, including having online spaces introducing market system approaches and allowing practitioner discussion on any issues and more expert/ advanced spaces. The value of being inclusive is also made in the M4P Hub final report which notes that consensus on best practice requires the involvement and support of a broad set of practitioners.

BEAM should aim to provide practical support. It shouldn’t overly focus on theoretical issues, it should be aware of practitioner limitations and aversions to long documents, and it should develop or disseminate tools and guidance that are simple to use. Engaging with BEAM should be understood as a time investment, not a privilege, and BEAM should consider what the practitioner return on investment is for each activity and how to increase it.

A number of interviewees discussed BEAM’s plans and strategies, with several noting the value of BEAM initially focusing on the practitioner community, developing consensus and trust, before longer term advocacy with donors. BEAM should aim to develop a narrative about its role, the issues it will focus on and its goals. It could have several thematic zones that work focuses around. It should be flexible and adaptive, experimenting with different activities and focusing on what works. Rather than driving the agenda, respondents suggested BEAM should aim to let the network that it engages do this. Similarly, findings suggest that BEAM should not treat network products as its own, rather giving credit to the people populating the space.

There were different views on whether BEAM should provide bespoke services to programmes, such as developing a cadre of market system approach experts or organising individual knowledge sharing events for programmes; and if BEAM should charge for these. Such bespoke support may be appropriate in some instances, but there was larger support for BEAM facilitating the market and not competing with current suppliers. Nevertheless, interviewees were enthusiastic for BEAM to have funding windows for grants or matched funding for knowledge sharing activities e.g. programmes exchanges, write-up of case studies reports and regional events.

Suggested next steps1. Take forward suggested principles within website development and learning activities. For

instance, the initial website should define market system approaches in an inclusive manner, explain the approach for beginners and focus on guidance. Activities should include discussion spaces for practitioners new to market system approaches and those more experienced.

2. Decide whether/ how BEAM will have an open funding window for knowledge sharing activities

4

3. Decide whether/ how BEAM will develop a process to share challenges identified by programme staff with donors.

5

4.BEAM Audience This section summarises interview responses on which practitioners BEAM should focus on. The largest barriers to effective practice were noted at the implementation, donor headquarter (HQ) level and donor country staff level, with consultants being the group most likely to engage, suggesting BEAM prioritise these practitioner types. Working with national governments or the private sector were not seen as BEAM priorities.

Interviewees noted that the largest constraints in the market system approach value chain were with implementers, donor HQ staff and donor country staff. Implementers were viewed as most requiring support, and also as the key source of practical knowledge. Lack of trained, skilled people was a common message, while others highlighted the challenges they faced with their work, such as identifying and negotiating with private sector partners and developing terms of reference and contracts. Programme managers are important stakeholders as they take the practical decisions on how things are done in a programme. Multiple interviewees mentioned that there was no guide on how to manage a successful market system approach programme.

Two problems were noted at donor HQs. Firstly, donor structures are insufficiently flexible for market system approach programmes and often provide perverse incentives to programmes e.g. towards quick wins and not taking risks, and both for VfM and pushing for higher spend. Secondly, often there is limited support for the market system approach approach at more senior levels with the organisation, suggesting BEAM think about how to support internal lobbying. Finding and supporting senior drivers within donor agencies is also needed to order to expand the role of market system approaches in non-traditional sectors. Quality assurance / evaluation staff should also be made aware of and encouraged to contribute to discussions about challenges in evaluating systemic change initiatives.

Donor staff at the country level are often isolated, potentially with a team leader that does not support market system approach. They need help with issues such as how to design a good market system approach programme and how to make their case to HQs, and generally in networking with their colleagues in similar situations in other countries or in other donor agencies.

The stakeholders viewed as most likely to engage with BEAM were consultants. This is due to their need to stay on top of issues and boost their profiles for business development, and increased ability and/ or time to engage with conceptual learning.

Working with partner governments was viewed as not a BEAM priority, though BEAM can develop partnerships with organisations better placed to do so. Businesses are also unlikely to be overly interested in BEAM, especially if BEAM’s branding stresses the goal of poverty reduction. The barriers limiting consultants at the national level were generally viewed as low capacity levels and a lack of information on the latest approach developments/ opportunities. Interviewees also noted language barriers, the newness of market system approaches and larger demand from direct delivery approaches.

Suggested next steps4. Focus on donor HQ staff, donor country staff, implementers and consultants.

5. Focus learning activities with specific practitioner groups on their thematic priorities e.g. senior donor policy adviser priority theme of job creation.

6. Further explore ways for BEAM to engage with the private sector indirectly and feed conclusions into BEAM private sector engagement strategy.

6

5. Priority SectorsThis section looks at which sectors practitioners are most experienced and interested in. It reviews survey data and then compares this with interviews. Strength of experience is noted in agricultural and financial sectors. The survey notes high interest in labour markets, agriculture and food security/ nutrition, suggesting BEAM focus on these areas. Among non-traditional sectors, high interest in impact investing suggests BEAM focus on this sector. Limited interest in other non-traditional sectors suggests BEAM takes a more flexible approach, where it works with partners in such sectors where they are being innovative and are keen to collaborate. This may suggest currently health as a focal sector.

Survey

Survey respondents were asked to note experience and/or interest in 11 sectors. The responses are shown in Graph 1. Experience is heavily focused in the agriculture sector, followed by finance, labour markets and nutrition/ food security. There is, though, experience in every sector included in the survey. Interest is highest in labour markets, followed by impact investing, agriculture and nutrition/ food security. There is, however, interest as well in non-traditional sectors, such as energy, education, water and sanitation, health, infrastructure and extractives.

Labour m

arkets

Impact

Inves

ting

Agricu

lture

Nutrition/ fo

od secu

rityEn

ergy

Educati

on

Finan

ce

Water a

nd sanita

tionHeal

th

Infrastr

ucture

Extrac

tivesOther

0

40

80

120

160

200

Graph 1: Survey respondents experience and/ or interest in sectors

ExperienceInterest

Num

ber o

f res

pond

ents

InterviewsInterview responses to some extent match survey data on sector experiences, similarly identifying working in agriculture as an market system approach area of strength. Though not highlighted in interviews, experience in finance is not a surprise as donors have carried out a number of financial deepening programmes- though there is potentially a disconnect between these two areas of work. Follow up interviews highlighted that labour markets are likely to be an important consideration in any market system approach programme.

Interviews reveal, however, different levels of sectoral interest; health is highest, followed by extractives, impact investing and education. This difference can potentially be explained as survey respondents are indicating higher interest for learning in sectors that may support their current work as opposed to curiosity to learn about new sectors. Key informant interviews, however, tended to ask which sectors are the ‘hot topics’ rather than of direct interest, potentially explaining why health and other non-traditional sectors were higher up the priority list.

7

Suggested next steps7. Explore ways to support knowledge sharing and interaction between market system approaches

experience in agriculture and finance.8. Learning agenda to include a sectoral focus on labour markets, impact investing, agriculture and

nutrition/ food security.

9. Flexible approach to which non-traditional sectors are focused on, with potential partner interest and advances in the health sector suggesting BEAM initially focus here.

8

6.Priority Themes This section examines the key themes that practitioners are interested in and where they have identified knowledge gaps. It reviews survey data and then compares this with interviews. High practitioner need is noted for a number of themes: identifying systemic change, improved tools for evaluating systemic change, moving from pilot to scaling up, challenges in analysing market failures and underlying causes, negotiating with the private sector, developing programme strategies, selecting market systems for poverty impact, designing intervention strategies and using programme and market data to inform decision making. However needs vary by practitioner type, and once these have been prioritised, BEAM can work with respective groups on their priority issues. Mixed messages were provided on WEE and working in CAEs; though highlighted as important areas of work in interviews, they were seen as less important in the online survey.

SurveySurvey respondents were asked to note little or no, medium or high interest in 32 themes across six thematic groups. Where they answered high interest, they were asked to score out of 100 how easy it is to access useful and relevant information or guidance on the topic. Table 1 and Graph 2 show the percentage of respondents noting strong interest for themes, the average score for access to information, and the difference between these scores. This difference can be seen as a proxy for practitioner need; if a theme has a high positive difference, it can broadly be viewed that there is significant practitioner need for support on the theme.1

The themes attracting most interest are those that focus on the ‘how to’ i.e. implementation, design and management themes, such as moving from pilot to scaling up, challenges in analysing market failure and underlying causes, and negotiating with the private sector. Systemic change is a key issue, with identification of systemic change of most interest and ways of evaluating systemic change second. Interest is lowest for cross-cutting themes, such as disaster risk reduction and market resilience, and implementation in varying contexts, such as emergency situations.

Respondents broadly expressed that the degree of information currently available was similar for different themes, with all but two scoring between 30 and 50. However respondents noted that information was most available for monitoring, with carrying out monitoring and creating a results measurement framework first and third respectively. Information was also viewed as fairly available for WEE, environmental sustainability and facilitation skills/ tools.

The themes with a high practitioner need (where the level of interest is at least 25% higher than access to information) are: identifying systemic change, improved tools for evaluating systemic change, moving from pilot to scaling up, challenges in analysing market failures and underlying causes, negotiating with the private sector, developing programme strategies, selecting market systems for poverty impact, designing intervention strategies and using programme and market data to inform decision making.

1 The two questions measure interest and access in different ways and so this difference should only be seen as indicative of practitioner need

9

Table 1: Survey respondents high interest, access and need by theme

Area ThemeHigh

interest Access NeedImplementation Identifying systemic change 81 39 43Evaluation Improved tools for evaluating systemic change 75 36 40Implementation Moving from pilot to scaling up 75 37 39

DesignChallenges in analysing market failures and underlying causes 73 39 33

Implementation Negotiating with the private sector 71 38 33Design Developing programme strategies 76 44 31Design Selecting market systems for poverty impact 74 44 30Management Designing intervention strategies 75 46 30

ManagementUsing programme and market data to inform decision making 70 44 26

Evaluation Better evaluation of programme impacts 69 44 25

EvaluationBuilding a broad evidence base for market system approaches 60 37 23

Context Working in very thin or remote markets 56 34 22Cross-cutting Job creation 66 44 21Management Creating a learning programme culture 63 44 19Design When to use or not use a market systems approach 63 44 19

ContextWorking in very politicised or corrupt business environments 46 31 16

Design Creating a results measurement framework 64 49 14Implementation Facilitation skills/ tools 62 49 13Management Adaptive management practices 54 41 13Cross-cutting Integrating the extremely poor 56 43 13Context Working in highly distorted market environments 46 34 12Cross-cutting Youth employment and skills 56 46 10Implementation Working with co-implementers 48 40 8Design Developing business cases/ project documents 54 48 6Cross-cutting Role of the government 48 45 2Cross-cutting Women's economic empowerment 56 57 -1Implementation Carrying out monitoring 55 58 -2Management Staff recruitment and retention 34 37 -3Cross-cutting Environmental sustainability 42 49 -7Context Conflict affected environments 31 44 -13Cross-cutting Disaster risk reduction and market resilience 28 46 -18Context Emergency situations 17 45 -28

10

Identifying sy

stemic

change

Evaluating sy

stemic

change

Moving fr

om pilot t

o scalin

g up

Analysing m

arket f

ailures a

nd underlying ca

uses

Negotiating with

the priv

ate secto

r

Developing programme st

rategies

Selecting m

arket s

ystems f

or pove

rty im

pact

Designing in

tervention st

rategies

Using programme and m

arket d

ata to in

form decis

ion makin

g

Better eva

luation of programme im

pacts

Building a broad evid

ence base

for M

SA

Working in

very

thin or remote m

arkets

Job creation

Creating a learning programme cu

lture

When to use

or not u

se a m

arket s

ystems a

pproach

politicis

ed or corru

pt busin

ess envir

onments

Creating a resu

lts m

easurement f

ramework

Facilita

tion skills

/ tools

Adaptive m

anagement practi

ces

Integrating the extr

emely poor

Working in

highly dist

orted m

arket e

nvironments

Youth employment a

nd skills

Working w

ith co

-implementers

Developing busin

ess ca

ses/

project docu

ments

Role of the gove

rnment

Women's eco

nomic empowerm

ent

Carrying out m

onitorin

g

Staff recru

itment a

nd retention

Environmental s

ustainabilit

y

Conflict affecte

d environments

Disaste

r risk

reducti

on and marke

t resil

ience

Emergency sit

uations

(40)

(20)

-

20

40

60

80

100

Graph 2: Survey respondent high interest, access and need by theme

High interestAccessNeed

Aver

gae

scor

e

11

Practitioner type prioritiesA breakdown of the top 10 themes by practitioner type need is displayed in Table 2. There is significant variety, both in regards to themes and also the range of priority thematic areas for each practitioner type. Practitioner type priority differences include:

Researchers: Particular needs around evaluation, with three themes from this thematic area in their top 10, including improved tools for evaluating systemic change and building a strong evidence base for market system approaches.

Consultants: Measuring and identifying systemic change are priorities. Programme design is also important with three themes in their top 10 focusing on this, such as analysing market failures and underlying causes and developing programme strategies.

Senior donor policy advisers: Job creation is a priority theme, with high priority also given to developing programme strategies and evaluating programmes.

Donor project advisers: Similar profiles to consultants, with priority themes identifying and measuring systemic change. Larger focus on implementation themes, job creation and working in challenging contexts, such as very thin or remote markets.

Business: Priorities are moving from pilot to scale-up, when to use or not use a market system approaches approach and negotiating with the private sector.

Implementation manager: Themes are from a variety of thematic groups, with a focus on themes related to programme management, such as developing programme strategies and designing intervention strategies. The priority, though, is challenges in analysing market failures and underlying causes.

Non-managing implementers: Implementation themes were high priorities, in particular negotiating with the private sector and identifying systemic change. The priority, though, is challenges in analysing market failures and underlying causes. Using programme and market data to inform decision making is also important.

12

Priority themes Researcher Consultant

Donor senior policy adviser Donor project adviser Business

Manage implementation

Non-managing implementers

1

Improved tools for evaluating systemic

changeIdentifying systemic

change Job creationIdentifying systemic

changeMoving from pilot to

scaling up

Challenges in analysing market

failures and underlying causes



2Moving from pilot to

scaling up


change

Developing programme strategies

Negotiating with the private sector

When to use or not use a market

systems approach

Designing intervention strategies


3Identifying systemic

change



Better evaluation of programme impacts


changeNegotiating with the

private sectorIdentifying systemic

changeIdentifying systemic

change

4

Building a broad evidence base for

market system approaches

Moving from pilot to scaling up


change


Identifying systemic change


change

Using programme and market data to

inform decision making

5


systems approach



systems approachMoving from pilot to

scaling up





6Better evaluation of programme impacts





Working in very thin or remote markets



7

Selecting market systems for poverty

impact


impactNegotiating with the

private sector Job creation




8Working in very thin or remote markets

Creating a learning programme couture


impact


impact


change


impact


change

9



Building a broad evidence base for

market system approaches




Developing business cases/ project

documents

Using programme and market data to

inform decision making


10




Working in very politicised or corrupt business environments

Building a broad evidence base for market system approaches

Better evaluation of programme impacts

Selecting market systems for poverty impact

13

Table 2: Priority theme by practitioner type

14

Interviews

The interviews provide significant support to these findings. Areas of divergence, though, include high interview but low survey interest in cross-cutting issues such as WEE, working with the government and working in CAEs. Knowledge gaps noted in interviews but less visible in the survey are M&E, targeting specific vulnerable groups (in particular women) and working in highly distorted markets.

Further exploring these discrepancies, similar to interviews, the survey shows a need for support for some aspects of M&E but not all. Creating a results measurement framework and ongoing monitoring are not priorities. However how to evaluate systemic change, how to use programme and market data to inform programme management decisions, better evaluation of programme impacts and building a broad evidence base for market system approaches are high priorities. Key informant interviews also identified interest in developing evidence on the sustainability of programmes by supporting research or evaluations after they have finished, and in comparative studies of market system approaches against other approaches. There was limited support as well for BEAM carrying out assessments of programmes across donor portfolios and supporting the standardisation of programme reporting and assessment.

Follow-up interviewees noted that the use of the market system approach was not necessarily always the right approach in CAEs or at least that the approach faces many challenges. It was suggested that a more strategic understanding of the use of the market system approaches in CAEs may be of more interest to donors than implementers who face similar ‘how to’ challenges to implementers in other contexts. This is to some extent reflected in the survey which shows working in CAEs as a higher priority for senior donor policy advisers than other practitioner types. However it is a low priority for all types.

It is unclear why WEE was highlighted as a significant issue in the key informant interviews but as less important in the survey. A follow-up interviewee noted that this is potentially as WEE is a bigger issue for donors (overrepresented in initial interviews), who require its inclusion in programmes, whereas implementers are more focused on everyday challenges. However the same interviewee noted that field staff may conversely be more likely to be concerned by gender issues as they encounter the real life issues more often. The survey seems to support the latter view with non-managerial implementers and donor project advisers more interested in WEE than senior donor policy advisers, implementation managers and consultants. Several interviewees noted that the challenge was less a lack of theoretical knowledge on how to support women and more of limited capacity and incentives to carry out gender sensitive programming.

Suggested next steps10. Thematic focus of BEAM’s learning agenda to follow priority needs identified in the consultation,

including identifying systemic change, improved tools for evaluating systemic change and moving from pilot to scale-up.

11. Activities to focus on the practitioner types that prioritised the specific theme e.g. both manager and non-manager implementers prioritised analysis of market failures and underlying causes.

12. Decide on whether BEAM will support the standardisation of programme reporting and assessment and carry out assessments of programmes across donor portfolios

12. Decide whether/ how BEAM will take forward market system approaches work in conflict affected environments and women’s’ economic empowerment

15

7.Knowledge Sharing and NetworkingThe section examines market system approach community views on different knowledge-sharing and networking activities. It reviews survey data which is then compared with interviews, a review of comparator platforms and the M4P Hub final report.

Key messages include that there is a large need for matchmaking services, signposting to accredited experts and help-desk services, suggesting BEAM focus on these activities. Face-to-face meetings were deemed very important, and BEAM respondents suggested BEAM should organise seminars and regional events. Online learning events, such as webinars, were seen as both less valuable and more accessible, suggesting that they should only constitute a limited part of BEAM’s activities.

Findings were consistent across practitioner types, though some differences are relevant such as implementation manager had higher interest in working group membership. Differences between developed and developing countries should also be considered, such as reduced access in developing countries to online learning spaces.

SurveySurvey respondents were asked to score out of 100 how useful and how available were 11 methods for updating their knowledge and strengthening professional relationships. Responses are displayed in Table 3 and Graph 3.

Meeting people in person was valued most, with face-to-face seminars/group meetings most useful, followed by local/ regional conferences. Matchmaking services were next, followed by membership of formal working groups. Virtual learning spaces (webinars, facilitated e-discussions and open-ended discussion forums) were seen as least useful. Virtual learning spaces are conversely most available, with access most limited to signposting to accredited experts, matchmaking services and help desk services. The difference between the two, again used as a proxy for practitioner need, shows the largest need to be in matchmaking, followed by signposting to accredited experts and help desk services. These are followed by ways to meet people face-to-face. Virtual learning spaces are the lowest priority, with open-ended discussion forums particularly low.

Table 3: Survey respondents use, availability and need of knowledge sharing and networking activities

Method Useful Available NeedMatchmaking services 67 32 35Signposting to accredited experts 61 32 29Help desk services 57 33 24Local/ regional conferences 72 49 23Face-to-face seminars/group meetings 77 56 21Membership of formal 'working groups' 66 48 19Informal social networking events 62 48 14International conferences 66 54 12Webinars 54 57 -3Facilitated e-discussions 56 60 -4Open-ended discussion forums 45 66 -22

16

Matchmaki

ng serv

ices

Signposti

ng to ac

credite

d expert

s

Help desk

servi

ces

Local

/ regio

nal confer

ences

Face-t

o-face

seminars

/group m

eetings

Members

hip of form

al 'worki

ng groups'

Informal s

ocial n

etworki

ng even

ts

Internati

onal confer

ences

Webinars

Facilit

ated e-

discussi

ons

Open-en

ded disc

ussion fo

rums

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Graph 3: Survey respondent use, availability and need of knowledge sharing and networking activities

UsefulAvailableNeed

Aver

age

scor

e

Practitioner type prioritiesA breakdown in need by practitioner types is displayed in Table 4, illustrating significant consistency in priorities across practitioner types. Either matchmaking or signposting to accredited experts are the first priorities for all practitioner types, for instance, while open-ended discussion groups are the lowest priority for all. However some practitioner type preferences were expressed and should be used to help guide BEAM’s engagement strategy. There is particular value-add for researchers in face-to-face seminars/ group meetings. Donor senior policy advisers comparatively prioritise informal social networking events and value less face-to-face seminars/ group meetings and membership of formal working groups. Donor project advisers have the highest need for signposting to accredited experts followed by local/ regional conferences, suggesting BEAM should focus on these activities with these groups. Help desk services are comparatively less prioritised. For implementation managers, membership of formal working groups is a higher comparative need, suggesting BEAM facilitate these for managers. Help desk services are also less prioritised.

17

Activity priority Researcher Consultant

Donor senior policy adviser

Donor project adviser Business



1Matchmaking

servicesMatchmaking

servicesMatchmaking

servicesSignposting to

accredited expertsSignposting to

accredited expertsMatchmaking

servicesMatchmaking

services

2Signposting to



accredited expertsLocal/ regional conferences

Matchmaking services

Signposting to accredited experts

Signposting to accredited experts

3

Face-to-face seminars/group

meetings Help desk services Help desk servicesMatchmaking

services Help desk services

Membership of formal ‘working

groups’ Help desk services

4 Help desk servicesLocal/ regional conferences

Local/ regional conferences


meetings


meetings


meetingsLocal/ regional conferences

5


groups’


meetingsInformal social

networking events Help desk servicesLocal/ regional conferences Help desk services


meetings

6Local/ regional conferences


groups’International conferences


groups’


groups’Local/ regional conferences


groups’

7International conferences

Informal social networking events


meetingsInternational conferences

Facilitated e-discussions


International conferences

8Informal social

networking eventsInternational conferences


groups’Informal social

networking events WebinarsInternational conferences


9 WebinarsFacilitated e-discussions Webinars Webinars

International conferences



10Facilitated e-discussions Webinars



Informal social networking events Webinars Webinars

11

Open-ended discussion foras (e.g.

LinkedIn)


LinkedIn)


LinkedIn)


LinkedIn)


LinkedIn)


LinkedIn)


LinkedIn)

18

Table 4: Priority knowledge sharing and learning activities by practitioner type

Developing vs developed countries Graph 4 below shows differences in the use and availability of knowledge sharing and networking activities for survey respondents based in developed and developing countries. Responses were generally similar for both groups. However the usefulness of activities tended to be higher for developing countries, in particular open-ended discussion forums, local/ regional conferences, matchmaking services and signposting to accredited experts. Developed countries had higher access to virtual meeting spaces and face-to-face events, potentially reflecting greater availability of internet technology and the high costs of international conferences.

Facil

itated

e-disc

ussions

Open-en

ded disc

ussion fo

rums

Web

inars

Face

-to-fa

ce se

minars/gr

oup mee

tings

Members

hip of form

al 'w

orking g

roups'

Internati

onal co

nferen

ces:

Loca

l/ reg

ional co

nferen

ces

Help desk

servi

ces

Informal

socia

l netw

orking e

vents

Matchmak

ing serv

ices

Signposti

ng to ac

credite

d expert

s0

102030405060708090

Graph 4: Use and availability of knowledge sharing and networking activities in develop-ing and developed countries

Useful (developing)Useful (developed)Available (developing)Available (developed)

Aver

age

scor

e

Other consultation elementsInterviews, the review of comparator platforms and lessons from the M4P Hub final report support many of the survey findings. Interviewees noted the significant value in knowledge platforms helping link people together. For some, this facilitation of relations and partnerships was the very essence of what BEAM should be about, in particular as opposed to providing its own expertise. However little advice was given on how to match make, and views differed on how it should be carried out- whether by LinkedIn, functionality for individuals to set up profiles on the BEAM website or by BEAM carrying this out internally. Accrediting experts was seen as valuable but highly challenging. The M4P Hub final report noted a large demand for bespoke technical support to programmes, which outstripped the M4P Hub’s capacity. The survey shows that this remains the case with a support desk seen as of high use but of low availability. Whether or not BEAM provides such support (directly or indirectly), it should learn from the M4P Hub’s experiences to manage expectations.

Interviewees repeatedly highlighted the importance of face-to-face meeting, with particular support given for regional events. Smaller local networking events were seen as just as valuable as larger conferences. The latter should also not be held more frequently than annually. Another reoccurring view was that having met participants in person made online events stronger. This was a key message as well in the M4P Hub final report, which noted that the M4P Hub “placed too much emphasis on virtual platforms as effective vehicles for knowledge exchange, when in reality virtual for a need to be complemented with face to face exchange and networking events.” Similarly the review of comparator platforms notes the value of face to face interaction, finding them a key feature of trust building within networks and communities of practice and the co-construction of shared meaning. However though both the survey and interviewees show interested in working groups, the review of comparator platforms suggests they aren’t so effective unless there are strong and positive interpersonal relations, transparent and equitable incentives to work together and clear objectives. If BEAM supports such groups, it should consider these potential constraints.

19

A slight discrepancy is potentially visible as the survey prioritised matchmaking while interviews prioritised face-to-face meetings. This is perhaps explained as the survey actually shows the highest use for face-to-face meetings but significantly less availability for match making, hence the overall need is highest for matchmaking. The interviews, though, focused less on availability.

More significant discrepancies include interviewees highlighting e-discussions and webinars as very useful. However little need was shown for these in the survey. This in part reflects a view in interviews that they are more useful when combined with other activities than when free standing. They also may be more readily available not due to their effectiveness but as they are less resource intensive than other methods, a potential criteria for decisions noted in the review of comparator platforms. As noted though, the interviews did not focus on availability. Open ended discussion forums were viewed as particularly valuable in the review of comparator platforms, but as least valued in the survey. Follow-up interviews with LinkedIn group managers further explored this, though without clear resolution. Whereas they can support communication within a large group pf people, they are potentially more useful for inexperienced people as insights are often quite basic.

Suggested next steps14. Explore ways to support matchmaking, signposting to accredited experts and use of help desk

services.15. Prioritise the role of face-to-face meetings within learning activities over online spaces.

16. Incorporate different practitioner needs by type and where based into BEAM strategies, suggesting, for instance, potentially a programme manager working group.

20

8.Capacity DevelopmentThis section examines market system approach community views on capacity development activities. It reviews survey data which is then compared with interviews, the review of comparator platforms and the M4P Hub final report. There is a need for all activities included in the survey, but BEAM would provide most value by focusing on exchange visits and mentoring. However in practical terms, little advice was given on how to carry out these activities, with steps clearer on how to support the training market, such as developing a basic online training and organising training alongside BEAM peer-to-peer events. Activity prioritisation was consistent across practitioner types, though differences exist between developed and developing countries. Formal classroom training, for instance, is much less available for respondents based in developing countries.

SurveySurvey respondents were asked to score six methods for gaining new skills and competencies out of 100, in terms of their usefulness and current availability. Table 5 and Graph 5 display survey responses.

Exchange visits/ secondments were viewed as most useful, followed by mentoring/ coaching on the job and short modular learning workshops. All methods were viewed as useful, however, and had scores over 50, though online mediated training/ distance learning and formal classroom based training courses are least useful. The availability of such methods was the inverse of their use, with exchange visits/ secondments the least available and formal classroom based training most available. As such, the survey clearly finds that community need is largest for exchange visits/ secondments, followed by mentoring/ coaching on the job, with formal classroom based training courses last.

Table 5: Survey respondents use, availability and need of capacity building activities

Method Useful Available NeedExchange visits/ secondments 72 34 38Mentoring/ coaching on the job 72 42 30Short modular learning workshops 71 48 23Online mediated training/ distance learning 58 48 10Formal classroom based training courses 55 54 1

21

Exch

ange

visit

s/ sec

ondments

Mento

ring/

coac

hing on th

e job

Short

modular le

arning w

orkshops

Online m

ediat

ed tr

aining/

distan

ce le

arning

Form

al cla

ssroom base

d train

ing course

s0

20406080

Graph 5: Survey respondent use, availability and need of capacity building activities

UsefulAvailableNeed

Aver

age

scor

e

Practitioner type priorities

A breakdown by practitioner type need is displayed in Table 6, illustrating consistency in activity need across groups. For instance, all prioritised exchange visits/ secondments and all but one placed formal classroom based training courses last. A minor distinction can be seen in business preferences for online mediated training/ distance learning and against short modular learning workshops, while donor senior policy advisers showed the opposite prioritisation.

22

Activity priority Researcher Consultant

Donor senior policy adviser

Donor project adviser Business



1Exchange visits/

secondmentsExchange visits/






secondments

2Mentoring/ coaching

on the jobMentoring/ coaching

on the jobShort modular

learning workshopsMentoring/ coaching




learning workshops

3Short modular

learning workshopsShort modular



learning workshops

Online mediated training/ distance

learningShort modular


on the job

4


learning


learning

Formal classroom based training

courses


learningShort modular

learning workshops


learning


learning

5


courses


courses


learning


courses


courses


courses


courses

23

Table 6: Priority capacity building activities by practitioner type

Developing vs developed countryGraph 6 shows differences in the usefulness and availability of capacity building activities for survey respondents based in developed and developing countries. Respondents based in developing countries tended to find online mediated training/ distance learning, and to a smaller degree mentoring/ coaching on the job and exchange visits/ secondments, more useful than those based in developed countries. Those based in developing countries also have higher access to mentoring/ coaching on the job and exchange visits/ secondments, while those in developed countries have higher access to formal classroom based training courses and short modular learning workshops.

Formal c

lassroom base

d training co

urses

Short modular le

arning works

hops

Online m

ediated training/ d

istance

learning

Mentoring/ c

oaching on th

e job

Exchange vi

sits/

seco

ndments0

20

40

60

80

Graph 6: Use and availability of capacity building activities in developing and developed countries

Useful (developing)Useful (developed)Available (developing)Available (developed)

Aver

age

scor

e

Other consultation elementsInterviewees highlighted the value of facilitating mentoring or backstopping, though some were unsure on feasibility. Significant interest was also shown for exchanges and learning trips to specific businesses or regions. Follow-up interviewees noted dangers, though, in these being too short on the one hand and too expensive and time consuming for programmes on the other, while programmes may not accept staff from competitor organisations.

Interviewees also stressed the value of BEAM supporting the market system approach training market. In particular there was support for BEAM developing a basic online training and supporting shorter training/ workshops. These could be attached to local peer-to-peer events and could potentially focus on specific modules/ issues such as facilitation or crowding in. BEAM could also highlight the size of the potential market to potential trainers, such as business schools, and aim to bring them in.

A key discrepancy is that interviews stressed the value in support to training more often than support to exchanges and mentoring. This is potentially due to interviews often explicitly asking about the training market. However it can also possibly be explained by interviewees being able to imagine BEAM’s role in supporting training markets. When referring to exchanges and mentoring, interviewees were more likely to highlight challenges in their facilitation and may not have considered that BEAM may focus here. However interviewees noted the limitations of trainings, stressing learning as an ongoing on-the-job process, with formal training more useful for beginners, suggesting that the discrepancy is less significant.

Interviews were used to explore which materials practitioners valued. There were mixed views on whether BEAM should develop new guidance, but agreement that generally guidance needs to be practical and highlight programme experiences. BEAM should signpost high quality available

24

guidance, while interviewees also suggested public voting on which guidance is most useful. Case studies were generally seen as an effective ways to support learning in the key informant interviews. The review of comparator platforms, however, suggested their limited value, and so follow-up interviews considered them in more depth. They were broadly seen as useful for certain activities, such as exploring complex issues or for materials to weave into training, but otherwise they should be short, highlight lessons learnt and signpost to further resources or people to speak to for more information.

Suggested next steps17. Explore ways to support exchanges and mentoring, including further engagement with

organisations carrying out these activities to determine what is restricting their extension.18. Support the development of the training market.

19. Clearly communicate the services and support that BEAM can provide.

25

9. Practitioner IncentivesThis section examines the incentives and disincentives to engaging with learning platforms identified by the consultation. It reviews survey data and then compares this with interviews. Though there are a number of disincentives, the primary one is people’s limited time and resources. BEAM should consider ways to counter this, in particular through making it easier for practitioners to share what they learn and connect to the latest information, and helping them write-up experience and good practice. Incentives to engage are more diverse, though generally practitioners are most interested in learning ‘how to’, emphasising that BEAM should focus on providing practical support.

SurveyOnline survey respondents were asked to score the importance of seven incentives and six disincentives to engage out of 100. The average score for incentives is displayed in Graph 7. Professional self-development was rated as the most important incentive, followed by the need to solve a specific problem and intellectual curiosity or personal satisfaction. However practitioners engage due to a broad range of incentives, with all incentives in the survey receiving a score over 50, except for discovering funding opportunities.

Professional self-improvement

Need to solve a specific problem

Intellectual curios-ity or personal sat -

isfaction

Relationship build-ing / camaraderie

Building your or-ganisation’s repu-

tation

Building your personal reputa-

tion

Discovering fund-ing opportunities

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Graph 7: Importance of incentives to engage with learning platforms

Aver

age

scor

e

The average score for six disincentives is displayed in Graph 8. The main disincentive is lack of time/ resources and so BEAM should consider how to counter this disincentive e.g. make it easier for practitioners to share what they learn and connect to the latest information, and help them write-up experience and good practice. However other disincentives should also be considered, in particular limited writing or blogging experience, concern of censure/ criticism and desire to protect one’s own intellectual property. Language barriers scored low, but this is likely an underrepresentation of its importance as survey respondents were likely to have a high level of English.

26

Lack of time / budget

Limited writing or blogging experi-

ence

Concern of censure / criti-

cism

Desire to protect one’s own intel-lectual property

Discouragement from managers

Language barriers0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Graph 8: Importance of disincentives to engage with learning platforms

Aver

age

scor

e

Other consultation elementsInterviews generally supported the survey findings. They similarly stressed the importance of learning about what works from other people, with particular interest in learning about other interventions and from examples of failures. Interviewees also noted that the most significant weakness in the learning process was the limited time that people have to engage.

Interviews also discussed ways to create stronger incentives for engaging. Interviewees most often noted that facilitation/ moderation of knowledge sharing activities is key. Having events where people can meet in person and develop relations is also critical. Competition can be useful as they give individuals and organisations the opportunity to build their reputations. There is also value in showcasing the work of those committed to knowledge sharing. This could include free support in writing up their work (including graphic design support). The value of this support is also highlighted by the M4P Hub final report which noted that many practitioners were confined from knowledge sharing by restrictive programme-level time and resource constraints, and suggested the value in offering practitioners support in preparing and developing knowledge exchange products. Interviewees also noted the incentive for practitioners of BEAM publicising their activities and putting their work/ them in front of donors. Additionally, flexibility is needed so that people can receive information in the way that is best for them to digest.

Suggested next steps20. Counter practitioner lack of time and budget through supporting the write-up of experience and

good practice, and ensuring low barriers to knowledge sharing on BEAM website/ learning activities.

21. Increase resources committed for active facilitation of learning activities, such as engaging key practitioners in advance.

22. Incorporate findings that practitioners have varying incentives for engaging with BEAM in event planning and promotion.

27

10.Key NetworksThis section examines the networks that practitioners engage with and value. It reviews survey data and then compares this with interviews. Particularly important networks for BEAM include the DCED, the former M4P Hub, the SDC E&I Network and the SEEP Network. Further analysis reveals a variety in how much networks focus on several key countries or are more widely dispersed. BEAM may wish to consider whether it focuses in countries where a number of networks are already strongly active or in countries where such networks are less established – or at least develop different strategies for each.

SurveyOnline survey respondents were asked to score out of 100 how much they engaged with nine networks and how important the networks were as a source of knowledge. Responses are shown in Graph 9. The DCED was seen as the most important source of knowledge, followed by the former M4P Hub, the SDC E&I network and the SEEP Network. The DCED was also engaged with the most, followed by the former M4P Hub, the SDC E&I Network and BFP. It is likely that survey respondents were not fully representative of the market system approach community, with the survey sent, for instance, shared disproportionally among the DCED, former M4P Hub and SDC E&I networks. All networks in the survey, however, were engaged with and viewed as sources of knowledge for some practitioners.

More broadly, though there is a strong pattern between the degree of engagement with a network and its role as an important source of knowledge, the graph below illustrates that learning can go significantly beyond those engaged with. The SEEP Network and ANDE were particularly strong in this respect. BEAM should consider how it can have this similar extended impact.

DCED

M4P Hub

SDC E&

I netw

ork

SEEP Netw

ork

MicroLin

ksMaF

IBFP

BIF Prac

titioner Hub

ANDE0

20406080

100120140

Graph 9: Survey respondent engagement with and learning from networks

Engage with regularlyImportant source of knowledge

Num

ber o

f res

pons

dent

s

Country analysisGraph 10 and 11 examine the country spread of people engaging and learning with networks from survey responses. As a proxy of network how dispersed networks are, Graph 10 shows the concentration of people finding each network an important source of knowledge in their top five countries. The DCED has the lowest score at 49% reflecting a more dispersed network. The BIF Practitioner Hub has the highest concentration at 74%, followed by MaFI at 68% and the SDC E&I Network at 67%, suggesting that these platforms have a less dispersed network.

28

M4P Hub

SDC E&

I netw

orkMaF

ISEE

P

Microlin

ksDCED

BIF Prac

titioner Hub

BFPANDE

BEAM Su

rvey

01020304050607080

Graph 10: Learning network concentration in top five countries%

of t

otal

lear

ning

from

net

wor

k

Graph 11 shows the respective importance of individual countries to the networks by showing which countries represented more than 10% of individuals noting any network as an important source of knowledge. Bangladesh is on average the most important country for networks. Switzerland is an important base for a number of networks, in particular the SDC E&I Network, and the BEAM Exchange can potentially offer value as an interlocker between the SDC E&I Network and other networks/ countries. The UK is also a key country for a number of networks, in particular Microlinks and MaFI. Beyond these, there is no clear country where a number of networks are very strong, though the BIF practitioner Hub has a focus in Nigeria and Zambia and BFP in the USA.

The reliability of these figures is questionable, however, as the survey was particularly shared among DFID and SDC staff and contractors, hence a bias is likely towards the UK, Switzerland and countries where they fund large programmes such as Bangladesh. This may have distorted results, for instance underestimating the importance of the USA in networks such as SEEP and Microlinks. Secondly, the numbers for some of the networks, such as ANDE and BFP, are small and unlikely to be representative of their practitioner base. However they provide some insight and suggest BEAM should decide between focusing on engaging countries where there are many active networks or on focusing in countries and regions where there are less; or at least, separate strategies should be developed, such as helping coordinate networks where they are established and providing a more direct network role where they are not.

Bangla

desh

Switze

rland UK

Nigeria

Zambia

USA0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Graph 11: Key countries where survey respondents learnt from networks

M4P HubSDC E&I networkMaFISEEPMicrolinksDCEDBIF Practitioner HubBFPANDEBEAM Survey

% su

rvey

resp

onde

nts

29

InterviewsInterview responses generally match online survey results. Interviews highlighted the importance of the DCED, former M4P Hub and the SDC E&I networks. For the DCED, its work on results measurement was particularly mentioned, while interviewees also noted that it is not focused on market system approaches but PSD more broadly. Mixed views were expressed on the usefulness of the M4P Hub. It was seen as insufficiently interactive, but its 2011 conference was positively received. The SDC E&I Network discussions were viewed as very useful, though overly SDC focused. Microlinks, BFP, the BIF Practitioner Hub and ANDE were all also noted to a more limited extent as in the survey.

Two discrepancies include that SEEP was rated more highly in the online survey than key informant interviews. Its annual conferences were particularly valued, though it was noted that it does not follow up on their thematic issues. On the other hand, MaFI was noted less in the survey than interviews. These interviews noted that MaFI was useful and well-facilitated. It was seen as overly theoretical though and being more for implementers and consultants than donors.

Other organisations and networks mentioned in more than one interview include the Springfield Centre (in particular its training course), Mercy Corps, Swisscontact, Helvetas, Adam Smith International, Kenya Markets Trust, Engineers without Borders, EPS PEAKS, HANSHEPP and R4D. Others mentioned in more than one survey response include CGAP, FAO Hub for Sustainable Food Value Chain Development, the Microfinance Gateway, ODI, KM4DEV and USAID’s Learning Lab.

Suggested next steps23. Explore ways to work with the DCED, the network of the former M4P Hub, the SDC E&I Network

and the SEEP Network.24. Invest in constructive relationships with all organisations highlighted in the survey, including

having at least one contact person in each, while also purposefully developing relationships with organisations beyond these.

25. Develop principles on which countries BEAM will initially focus on.

30

11.BEAM PositioningThis section highlights insights from interviewees about how BEAM should position itself with respect to other networks and community needs. BEAM needs to at least ‘do no harm’. However it should go beyond this to be the one-stop shop for market system approaches, bring together practitioners from different countries, approaches and sectors, and supporting and signposting to other platforms where appropriate.

An important consultation message is that BEAM should not overlap with other platforms, but rather align with them and work out divisions of labour. A risk of overlap with the DCED was noted most often, especially with BEAM’s spoke three, but risks were also noted with the SDC E&I network and MaFI. The principle of ‘do no harm’ to other platforms was viewed as important.

A number of positioning suggestions were made. Firstly, BEAM should support interactions and coordination between other networks and organisations, providing a chapeau role and signposting to different networks as appropriate. Similarly, BEAM should not compete with consultancies and develop its own services but rather as much as possible support the work of others. Secondly, by focusing on market system approaches, BEAM provides a specialisation different to others. Real value add can be provided if BEAM can be the one-stop shop where people can go to find all the information they need on market system approaches. Thirdly, BEAM should be open to individuals across countries donors and bring together donors and implementers. Fourthly, BEAM should look at ways of supporting other platforms. For instance, several interviewees noted MaFI’s valuable work but limited resources. BEAM could look at how it might offer support, for instance by writing up key points from particularly engaging conversations. Fifthly, BEAM should look at ways to support country communities and local initiatives. Several interviewees suggested BEAM start by focusing on large country programmes which are likely to already carrying out knowledge sharing activities.

Suggested next steps26. Before activities, consider potential harm on other networks and only proceed if minimal. Explore

ways to support other platforms.27. Focus on market system approaches specifically and not wider PSD.

28. Support country market system approaches communities and local initiatives

31

12.Next StepsThis report will be made publicly available on the BEAM website. Feedback will be sought and the report updated where appropriate. Key potential collaborations will be followed up on. The BEAM Exchange team will review and consider the questions and recommendations emerging from the consultation to inform programme plans. The report will directly feed into the development of BEAM’s learning agenda, 2014-15 Work Plan and subsequent activities.

The table below sets out a list of priority decision points and next steps which we have emerged from the consultation process. These actions against each point will be reassessed by the end of 2014.

BEAM vision1 Take forward suggested principles within website development and learning activities. For

instance, the initial website should define market system approaches in an inclusive manner, explain the approach for beginners and focus on guidance. Activities should include discussion spaces for practitioners new to market system approaches and those more experienced.

2 Decide whether/ how BEAM should have an open funding window for knowledge sharing activities.

3 Decide whether/ how BEAM will develop a process to share challenges identified by programme staff with donors.

BEAM audience4 Focus on donor HQ staff, donor country staff, implementers and consultants.5 Focus learning activities with specific practitioner groups on their thematic priorities e.g. senior

donor policy adviser priority theme of job creation.6 Further explore ways for BEAM to engage with the private sector indirectly and feed conclusions

into BEAM private sector engagement strategy.Priority sectors7 Explore ways to support knowledge sharing and interaction between market system approaches

experience in agriculture and finance.8 Learning agenda to include a sectoral focus on labour markets, impact investing, agriculture and

nutrition/ food security.9 Flexible approach to which non-traditional sectors are focused on, with potential partner interest

and advances in the health sector suggesting BEAM initially focus here.Priority themes10 Thematic focus of BEAM’s learning agenda to follow priority needs identified in the consultation,

including identifying systemic change, improved tools for evaluating systemic change and moving from pilot to scale-up.

11 Activities to focus on the practitioner types that prioritised the specific theme e.g. both manager and non-manager implementers prioritised analysis of market failures and underlying causes.

12 Decide on whether BEAM will support the standardisation of programme reporting and assessment and carry out assessments of programmes across donor portfolios.

13 Decide whether/ how BEAM will take forward market system approaches work in conflict affected environments and women’s’ economic empowerment

Knowledge sharing and networking14 Explore ways to support matchmaking, signposting to accredited experts and use of help desk

services.15 Prioritise the role of face-to-face meetings within learning activities over online spaces.16 Incorporate different practitioner needs by type and where based into BEAM strategies,

suggesting, for instance, potentially a programme manager working group.Capacity development17 Explore ways to support exchanges and mentoring, including further engagement with

organisations carrying out these activities to determine what is restricting their extension.18 Support the development of the training market.19 Clearly communicate the services and support that BEAM can provide.Practitioner incentives20 Counter practitioner lack of time and budget by supporting the write-up of experience and good

practice, and ensuring low barriers to knowledge sharing on BEAM website/ learning activities.21 Increase resources committed for active facilitation of learning activities, such as engaging key

practitioners in advance.

32

22 Incorporate findings that practitioners have varying incentives for engaging with BEAM in event planning and promotion.

Key networks23 Explore ways to work with the DCED, the network of the former M4P Hub, the SDC E&I Network

and the SEEP Network.24 Invest in constructive relationships with all organisations highlighted in the survey, including

having at least one contact person in each, while also purposefully developing relationships with organisations beyond these.

25 Develop principles on which countries BEAM will initially focus on.BEAM positioning26 Before activities, consider potential harm on other networks and only proceed if minimal. Explore

ways to support other platforms.27 Focus on market system approaches specifically and not wider PSD.28 Support country market system approaches communities and local initiatives.

33

what are the key issues and sectors? - beam exchange · web viewthe consultation strategy...

Documents