OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES & FOLLOW-UP INDICATORS OF HI ... · OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES & FOLLOW-UP...

INTERNAL DOCUMENT ONLY – NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED

1

HI FEDERATION STRATEGY AND FEDERAL ACTION PLAN

OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES & FOLLOW-UP INDICATORS OF HI DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

EXTRACTED FROM 2012 ANNUAL DESK REPORTS This is the first time that the 8 Development Division Desks (DD/DAD in French) produce an annual situation report (RASTA) based on a common scheme, designed with all Desk Officers (DO/RP in French) during two specific workshops held in Paris and Brussels. The main goal is to report and analyse the activities at DAD global level through a common set of 25 indicators (initially 35).

Opportunity to undertake global analysis at DD level. For some indicators, the goal was to establish a baseline allowing follow-up in the coming years. In spite of its limitations, the compilation aims at being a reference for the DD Director, the Desk Officers and the Programme Directors (DP).

This analysis has allowed the DD to check coherence of our actions regarding the Federal Strategy and Action Plan, and to spot some important or surprising trends on which we will need to reflect.

The exercise has created a collective thinking aiming at establishing a shared vision on steering indicators both for operations and support services. Regular update of this exercise will allow to improve this shared vision and to precise some steering indicators, including reviewing some internal tools.

Limitations of this first exercise, which will be taken into account as « lessons learnt » for next year: need to precise some indicators (methodology); need to improve coordination and anticipation (i.e. availability of head office staff involved, in order not to overload programmes with information requests). We would have liked to include quality operational indicators (M&E, impact, beneficiaries, partnership) but our internal policies and tools need to be finalized before we can establish common indicators. DAD teams are already actively contributing to the different working groups.

_________________________________________________________

I. OPERATIONAL INDICATORS: Number of countries/programmes/projects; Budgetary volumes; HDI; Context; Families of Activities; Level of autonomy of programmes.

II. FINANCE INDICATORS: TCA per Desk/Programme; Evolution of DD’s own funds envelop; Ratio R4/2012 closure; 2013 Non-secured funding; Ratio of funding per donor category; Success donor rate; Structure of project funding.

III. SUPPORT SERVICES INDICATORS: HR (Level of responsibility of national staff; Ratio national/expat staff; Ratio North/South expat; HR framework; Ratio of expat costs in Programmes budgets; Average monthly cost of expat) AND LOGISTICS (6 qualitative indicators and Satisfaction of interfaces).

IV. MONITORING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT MISSIONS V. SECURITY: Number and main categories of security incidents reported, Desk distribution; Status of Security documents per Programme.

VI. COMMUNICATION: Existing annual report; Publications. VII. OTHER: Focus-countries (Strategic Policy Unit/Service Analyses et Positionnement); Advocacy initiatives with geographical entry.


2

I. OPERATIONAL INDICATORS

PAF (Federal Action Plan): HI is present in 45 to 50 countries (without HIB), 20 being Low HDI (need to strengthen interventions in sub-Saharan Africa). Presence in all continents.

Hypotheses DAD by 2015 (including HIB): 60 countries (5 less, 12 new: optimistic hypothesis regarding opening of new missions, to be confirmed this summer through the Federal Strategy update process) + stable number of Programmes (40). From 27 to 36 Low HDI (60%)

1. Number of countries of intervention & Number of HI Programmes. Budgetary volumes per Programme / Desk

NB1 : regional coordinations have been counted as 1 Programme (+3). In 2012 are still counted the double-presences (HI Fed and ex-HIB). NB2: In 2001, HIF : 48 programmes + 49 countries. By 2013 (with HIB integration): 34 programmes (+ 3 regional coordinations) + 49 countries: we go back to the same number of 2001. This is due to normal evolution of presence (closing/open) but also the effect of transfers/merges. In 2001, HIB : 15 country programmes (Afgha/Iraq/Yemen/Col/Cuba/Honduras/RDC/Bur/Ivory Coast/Libe/Ango/Cbdia/Lao/VTN/China). In 2011 (before integration): 13: Iraq/Col/Cu/Bol/Haïti/RDC/Bur/Cbdge/Chin/CdN/VTN/Lao/Ang. Number of countries per programme in 2012: 1 (COB) and 1,4 (Lyon). By 2015: 1,3 (COB) and 1,6 (Lyon): Organisation and dimensions are different within the DAD (MERO & Bolivia being a good example of existing differences between programmes). Slow progression on COB’s side.

2001 (HIF) 2012 Projection 2013 Projection 2014 Projection 2015 Increase 2012 /

2015

Total PROGRAMMES’ VOLUMES DAD (in €) 28.868.000 52.444.213 60.010.460 61.185.299 59.717.227 14%

Average Budget per Programme (1) 601.416 1.307.368 1.723.574 1.747.862 1.662.635 27%

(1) Excepting Programmes < 50K€ and regional coordinations.

DESK 2011 2012 2013

Working

hypothesis

to be

confirmed

2015

2011 2012 2013

Working

hypothesis

to be

confirmed

2015

2011 2012 2013

Working

hypothesis

to be

confirmed

2015

40 60 241 276 237 251

Nombre de projets

TOTAUX 40 41 37 53 52 49

Nombre de programmes Nombre de pays

Average DAD 2012

6,5 Pays par Desk

5,1 Programmes par Desk

34,5 Projets par Desk

6,7 Projets par Programme

5,3 Projets par Pays

Need to also take into consideration budgetary volumes: - In 2001, HIF: average of 600K€ per programme. - In 2013 (average DD) = 1,723M€ per programme. The leap between 2012 and 2013 can be explained by merges & global progressions by certain programmes.


3

2. Number of Low HDI countries In 2012:

Number of Very Low and Low HDI countries: HI all (3 DA) = 42 countries out of 61 (68 %); DAD = 36 out of 48 (75%) If we also consider budgetary volumes : HI all (3 DA) = 57M€ (79%) in Very Low and Low HDI; DAD = 42M€ (81%)

Annual reports of DAD Desks include a more detailed analysis of other intervention criteria related to context besides the HDI (geopolitical, natural disasters, inequalities, minorities, etc.) This subject will be treated during the 3rd day of our 2013 SMS, as we will be working on complementary intervention criteria/indicators besides HDI, global number of countries or type of context.

3. Context of intervention

PAF (Federal Action Plan): Baseline 2010 (without Haiti earthquake): 50% URCC, 50% DEV. Forecast 2015: 30% increase in URCC activities (65%), all Divisions, keeping a stable level of development activities.

DAD perspectives: at least keep the 2012 baseline: 42 URCC / 58 DEV (budgetary volumes), with roughly 30M€ DEV. Prioritise URCC in new countries and in new projects. Data on 2015 perspectives are not accurate enough to allow a global analysis on context. DAD Desks will review their context codifications within their finalized annual reports.

DAD 2012 : D 58%, URCC 42% All HI (3 DA) : D 45%, URCC 55%

In 2012 to meet the PAF target (65-35) all Directions together should have increased URCC activities by 9,5M€, considering that DEV activities are supposed to remain stable.


4

4. Families of activities

PAF : Up to 2015, the budgets per families of activities will progress in coherence with the orientations fixed by the Strategy regarding the contexts of intervention (increase in URCC) + increase expected in the families : basic needs, health, rehabilitation and DRR. Thus no number target in the indicator.

At DAD’s level, we will follow this trend and we introduce an objective of reduction in the number and types of projects (rationalisation of implemented themes per programme).

5. Increase in the level of autonomy of the Programmes (finance, technical and operational management)

We still need to identify SMART indicators to measure the respect of rules/established frameworks and the management control –even the quality of management, linked with the deeper thinking over operational quality indicators. For 2012, we decided to focus on two elements:

a) Respect of main budgetary deadlines Among the 38 Programmes: 19 Always +17 Almost always on time. But only an average rate of 1,1 (from 0 to 3) in terms of average quality of financial documents sent by Programmes.

b) Audits

ESTIMATED AUDITED AMOUNT IN 2012 ESTIMATED AVOIDED FINANCIAL RISK RATIO RISK/AUDITED VOLUME

TOTAL 17.847.553 363.020 2,0%

There are important differences between geographical areas which reflect DAD Desks’ specificities. Examples: DRM in South Asia, Inclusion in West Africa, Health (Road Safety) in ASENE. But at DAD’s global level, the share of different families is quite balanced. As for the context, data on 2015 perspectives are not accurate enough to allow a global analysis on families of activities. We can nevertheless expect an increase of Inclusion activities (new livelihood projects already foreseen) and decrease of Mine Action (completion of Ottawa obligations in Mozambique by 2014).


5

Data for 2012 SFP do not include the COB Programmes and the indicator can certainly be improved (i.e. risks include other items than purchase files?). It would also be interesting to include in the analysis the “Total incomplete files” (initial risk) and the “Total amounts returned to donors” (real result of the audit). To be considered in parallel: the internal control policy (DD Logistics service) which helps to identify this kind of risk before an audit takes place. In principle this policy should be implemented both in the programme and at HO level.

DD Internal Control – head office / 2012 files (*) In Euros In USD TOTAL 2012

Number of PSR (DAS) >5K€ controlled 119 67 186

Global amount controlled 1 210 719,83 149 943,00 1 326 060,60€

Financial Risk Estimated (worst-case scenario) 528 166,64 45 914,35 563 485,37€

% of non-conformity 44% 31% 42%

(*) Burundi / Mali / Togo / Haiti / Burkina / Indonesia / Afgha / Nepal / India / Sri Lanka / Bangladesh / Cambodia / Philippines / Ethiopia / South Sudan / Head office (purchases for programmes). Last but not least, we need to consider the extra workload when preparing final reports (« reconstitution » of files, of long time non-respected rules…)

II. Financial indicators

6. TCA 2012 per Desk / Programme

SEA AFRIQUE de l'EST & du SUD 81,55%

AOC AFRIQUE de l'OUEST & AMERIQUES 77,14%

ASE ASIE de SUD-EST 65,93%

ASU ASIE du SUD 75,65%

MEN MIDDLE EAST CENT ASIA & NORTH AFRICA 71,84%

DAD LYON Direction Action Développement LYON 76,45%

ASENE ASIE de SUD-EST 104,56%

AGL AFRIQUE des GRANDS LACS 95,82%

ALAC AMERIQUE LATINE et CENTRALE 96,26%

DAD COB Direction Action Développement BRUXELLES 100,47%

DAD Direction Action Développement 81,13%

TCA / Coûts DirectsSYNTHESE par DESKS Different funding structure between COB and Lyon’s

Desks. Progression (increase in TCA) on Lyon’s side.

Historically:

HIB / COB: TCA always near 100%, but closure of programmes linked to donors stopping funding (Honduras, Ivory Coast, Angola…)

HIF/Lyon: some closures also in critical periods (Benin, Tchad, RCA, Gabon…)


6

7. Evolution of the envelop of own funds (global DAD) between 2011 and 2013

* In 2008 calculation method changed (TCI/TCA)

8. Ratio R4/ 2012 closure

Interest of this indicator for us: to measure budget steering & control capacities.

2001 (HIF): 9,8M€ FP (TCI=66,1%). TCI remained stable until 2008. Strong progression on institutional funding starting from 2008.

Integration of HIB programmes has not driven a significant increase in the DAD’s envelop.

Light impact of merges (appr 200K€)

Progression 2011-2013 explained by Haiti envelop (increase to 570K in 2012) and unforeseen expenses by certain programmes in 2012-2013.

For the first time, indicator globally positive and progression compared to previous years when we were close to 8%. R4 is the last official budget revision shared between Programme& Desk&DAD. After R4 there is a further adjustment between Desk&DAD which for 2012 brings us to 2,9%.

Budget R4 Clôture Ratio R4 / Clôture

SEA AFRIQUE de l'EST & du SUD 13.989.130 13.416.505 95,91%

AOC AFRIQUE de l'OUEST & AMERIQUES 11.537.736 10.935.607 94,78%

ASE ASIE de SUD-EST 4.041.745 3.869.042 95,73%

ASU ASIE du SUD 8.095.397 7.715.085 95,30%

MEN MIDDLE EAST CENT ASIA & NORTH AFRICA 6.750.409 6.297.260 93,29%

DAD LYON Direction Action Développement LYON 44.414.417 42.233.498 95,09%

ASENE ASIE de SUD-EST et du NORD EST 5.742.779 5.250.690 91,43%

AGL AFRIQUE des GRANDS LACS 3.396.416 3.337.592 98,27%

ALAC AMERIQUE LATINE et CENTRALE 1.758.629 1.622.433 92,26%

DAD COB Direction Action Développement BRUXELLES 10.897.824 10.210.715 93,69%

DAD Direction Action Développement 55.312.241 52.444.213 94,81%

SYNTHESE par DESKS


7

9. Ratio of non-secured funding (submitted and waiting for an answer, and to be submitted) by May 2013 (R2 2013) NB : Non secured funding corresponds to: Total Programme budget minus obtained (signed) contracts, minus allocated own funds. The numbers below do not take into account the administrative costs within obtained contracts.

4 602 190 € on a total DD budget 2013 of 59 339 000€ = 7,76% Very positive evolution of this risk-measure indicator, most of all if we compare it with the % at initial budget stage (IN), established on N-1 year, and even if we compare it with the first reference budget of the year (R1), when the average rate is between 50% and 30%. Behind this positive ratio we should not forget the high pressure put on Programmes and National Associations between the last quarter of the previous year and the first quarter of 2013.

10. Ratio of funding per donor category

*Funding allocation on 2012 budget, based on official closure accounts (CER)

• Very high dependency on UE: we need to anticipate this risk in link with the ongoing review of UE funding instruments.

• Belgian and France represent a significant part of National cooperation funding, due to historical relationship between HI and national donors; progression on Anglo-Saxon donors should become a main objective.

• For certain national donors (DGD, AFD, MAE Lux), HI has today the possibility to negotiate multi-year funding: strong impact on 2012 allocations.

• « Public foreign countries » is high because of some big contracts: SIDA, Norway, AusAid (demobilization, demining and victim assistance).

• UN donors are also significant (mainly funding de-mining in Mozambique, HCR refugees projects and UNICEF MRE and inclusive education).


8

11. Institutional Funding - Success rate 2012

12. Structure of project funding in 2012: Number of contracts per number of projects and Ratio of programme budgets funded through one or several multi-year Framework Agreements

a) Number of contracts per number of projects in 2012: 677/276 = 2,5 contracts per project. Even if we take into account the limits of the indicator, we have for each DAD project more than 2 donors with different rules, constraints etc. which in principle represents operational and managerial complexity, higher workload…

b) Ratio of programme budgets funded through one or several multi-year Framework Agreements (Accords-cadre):

SYNTHESE par DESKS Budget 2012

Framework Agreement

funded part

SEA AFRIQUE de l'EST & du SUD 13.416.505 4,41%

AOC AFRIQUE de l'OUEST & AMERIQUES 10.935.607 8,75%

ASE ASIE de SUD-EST 3.869.042 11,35%

ASU ASIE du SUD 7.715.085 1,71%

MEN MIDDLE EAST CENT ASIA & NORTH AFRICA 6.297.260 8,60%

DAD LYON Direction Action Développement LYON 42.233.498 6,30%

ASENE ASIE de SUD-EST et du NORD EST 5.250.690 57,28%

AGL AFRIQUE des GRANDS LACS 3.337.592 40,29%

ALAC AMERIQUE LATINE et CENTRALE 1.622.433 52,20%

DAD COB Direction Action Développement BRUXELLES 10.210.715 50,92%

TOTAL DAD Direction Action Développement 52.444.213 14,99%

Taux de succès : Sur les contrats déposés en 2012, % d’acquis en mai 2013

a. Submitted b. Accepted

(signed)

Rate of success: b/a

Total DAD 398 190 48%

2012 : baseline (to be further analysed). Ratio difficult to comment : almost 1 proposal out of 2 is rejected. This looks quite high: are we taking enough risk? Are we targeting some donors too much?

Analysis to be done by Technical Domain – benchmark of other INGOs (i.e. difficulties to identify relevant donors for Health activities)

NB: Four FA (AC) considered: AFD-CP, DGD, MAE Lux AC3 and BUZA. This indicator shows clearly the difference in terms of funding structure in 2012. It will partially evolve with programme transfers. Globally the part of funding coming from multi-year agreements is quite feeble (less than 15%): if we link this indicator with the one before showing strong dependence (27%) towards one single donor (EU), we could say that there is some fragility in terms of funding structure.


9

III. Support Services indicators

Human Resources

NB: Gender and Inclusion HR related indicators still need to be compiled: 1) Gender: Ratio men/women in the different categories; 2) Inclusive policy: : Number of disabled people among national staff ; Ratio Disabled people/all staff ; Accessibility of HI offices ; Inclusion policy

13. Level of responsibility of national staff

NB: Agreed definitions at DAD’s level: 1/ Managerial position: Management & supervision functions at programs levels such as field program director, administrator or Service Support Coordinator or Managers according to the admin modelisation , Technical Coordinators, site coordinator or Head of Mission. 2/ Project Managers: request at DAD’s level to quantify this specific category. For this year’s exercise, we have included Project Managers within Managerial positions. 3/ Non-managerial position: supervisory functions at site level (site administrator & site logistician …), project staff facilitators / trainers / technical advisers…), qualified administrative and logistics staff, various, guards, cleaners.

14. Analysis of staff (quantitative) : Ratio national/expatriate staff

2012Managerial

positions

Non managerial

positions

(all the other

positions)

Members of

decisionnal

bodies

Total national staff

276 1258 106

Total staff including

expatriates 440 1321 174

Ratio of national staff

in each

category/column 63% 95% 61%

National staff Expatriates Total

Total 1870 248 2118

Ratio vav Total 88% 12% 100%

NB: Relative reliability of data (not systematic/ not always homogeneous/some calculation errors), mainly because data do not belong to a systematic collection at HI level: they have been collected by each Desk need for better coordination between DAD and HR Department to consolidate the data gathering tool. Based on these data anyway: More than 60% of HI field managerial positions today are held by national staff: excellent. Except that there is no HR follow-up / support from head office for this population. Moreover, the 276 national managerial positions are clearly not represented in the decisional bodies (only 106 national staff).

8 national staff per 1 expatriate staff


10

15. Analysis of staff : Ratio North / South origin of expatriates

16. % of DAD’s Programmes complying with the HR Framework: 2012 baseline

17. Training : % of national staff salary budget affected to training on the bases of a Training Plan Today we are not able to calculate the 2012 numbers in an accurate way, but DAD’s target is established at 2%.

18. % of expats costs regarding the global programme budget in 2012

Closure 2012 Total Expat costs Expat part in Programme Budget

SEA AFRIQUE de l'EST & du SUD 13.416.505 1.994.992 14,87%

AOC AFRIQUE de l'OUEST & AMERIQUES 10.935.607 2.610.121 23,87%

ASE ASIE de SUD-EST 3.869.042 932.975 24,11%

ASU ASIE du SUD 7.715.085 1.870.352 24,24%

MEN MIDDLE EAST CENT ASIA & NORTH AFRICA 6.297.260 1.393.582 22,13%

DAD LYON 42.233.498 8.802.021 20,84%

ASENE ASIE de SUD-EST et du NORD EST 5.346.503 1.068.834 19,99%

AGL AFRIQUE des GRANDS LACS 3.241.779 807.582 24,91%

ALAC AMERIQUE LATINE et CENTRALE 1.622.433 207.855 12,81%

DAD COB 10.210.715 2.084.271 20,41%

Total DAD Direction Action Développement 52.444.213 10.886.292 20,76%

"Northern" countries "Southern" countries

Total 204 44

Ratio 82% 18%

Compliance with HR framework% (Programmes "Yes"/Nombre

total de programmes)

1/ Internal Regulations 93,8%

2/ Specific Terms and Conditions for Expatriate Staff 87,5%

3/ Terms and Conditions of Engagement for National Staff 93,8%

4/ Organisationnal Chart 96,9%

5/Remuneration Policy ( including Salary Grid) 78,1%

6/ Health and Social Policies (including HIV - AIDS policy) 70,3%

7/ Training Policy / Competencies development (including Assessment form) 54,7%

8/ Recruitment policy / processes 68,8%

9/ Others (diversity policy, DP's ingration policy etc.) 15,6%

10/ Is there staff representatives in HI office in the country? 50,0%

11/ Definition of program governance (decision-making bodies …) 0,0%

The 11 criteria have been auto-evaluated by the Programmes themselves. Some criteria need to be precised (ex. 7) or seem to have been misunderstood (11) –or then, it would mean that no programme seems to have a formalised governance (decision-making) system.


11

19. Average cost expat per month Total expatriate costs 2012 (including volunteers) = 10.886.292€ Average monthly cost (not including volunteers’ costs) = 10.343.476€ / 1.921 months = 5.384€

Logistics

20. Follow-up of the Six Objective Qualitative Indicators and Indicator on Interfaces’ Satisfaction

Scale Very Low ! Low Functional Satisfactory Very Satisfactory

NB: Most of data come from auto-evaluations by Admin/CSS in the programme (subjectivity). For the moment, the 6 criteria are just measuring the existence of the Logistic framework –and not its effective and correct implementation. If we consider the “Very satisfactory” trends (=existing Log framework), only 22% of programmes (not even ¼) say that they have it in place. So the global picture (outstanding orange and red) is not very positive. When we consider the satisfaction of clients (projects, finance, HO and Programme Directors) with their own field logistic service, global results are neither encouraging.

Domains CaT Ph InTL Bol Col Cu Afg Bang Ind Nep SrL Lao Vtn Chin CdN RDC Bur Rwa BFN Mal MR Sen Tog Haï Ssou Mad Ken EthMag

hre

MER

O

Asie

Cen

Formalisation

of Procedures and RulesN/A ! ! ! ! !

Quality of Logistics

Team ManagementN/A

Quality of Procurement

ManagementN/A ! !

Quality of Equipment

ManagementN/A !

Quality of Stock

ManagementN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Quality of Vehicle

ManagementN/A ! ! N/A

Interfaces'

SatisfactionN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A


12

IV. Monitoring and technical support missions

21. Number of support missions sent in 2012 to the DD Programmes

In the beginning considered as a measure of the programme’s autonomy in all its aspects, we decided to keep it as a key indicator, as it gives an indication on the level of “pressure” the Programme has to cope with. But further qualitative analysis will be done regarding the ToR/objectives/themes and the status of these missions (head office or consultant).

2012 numbers are to be considered cautiously, as criteria applied by each Desk were not the same. Support missions concentrated on merging programmes (33 Burundi, 23 Cambodia) or crisis management; or on regional programmes using a high proportion of consultants.

Reasonably accurate average amounts to 1 mission per month. This seems very high but needs to be further analysed.

Reasons: needs for support (Programme or HO-identified); follow-up by Desk Officer or Deputy or Technical referents or Programme Officers from National Associations; external comm reasons… But there is few follow-up (or even return) of these missions…

Consequences: Costs (money and time); Mobilization of operational teams (negative impact on normal implementation of activities); Eventually carbon footprint!

V. Security

22. Number and main categories of security incidents reported to Security Service

Need to establish the volume represented by “non-reported incidents”; need to double-check with other information sources (Desk, Risk Management Committee). Clear geographical tendencies (Africa) and important rate of violent incidents.


13

23. Status of Security documents per Programme

VI. Communication

24. 2012 Annual report of the Programme : YES/NO; % of DAD Programmes that published a 2012 Report NB : Although June 2013 seems late to publish the 2012 Report, 5 Programmes declared it was “in process”.

Desk # YES # IN PROCESS # YES + IN PROCESS # Programmes

Total 6 5 11 35

25. Number of publications coming from DAD Programmes Indicator completed with Knowledge Management Unit database and with data gathered by Desks (some went through exhaustive compilation on their side). Will be included in the final DAD compilation.

VII. Others

26. % of DAD intervention countries under “focus”of the Strategic Policy Unit (Service Analyses et Positionnement) in 2013 NB: this “focus countries” classment is only existing since 2011

% of DAD intervention countries under “focus” compared to the total DAD countries (12/49): 24,5%

27. Advocacy initiatives with geographical entry Collected at Desk level, they will be included in the final DAD compilation.

NB: Picture taken at a precise moment in time (31/01/2013) Green: OK Grey: Non existent Red: Outdated There is a risk for HI (in link with the « duty of care »), mainly regarding Contingency Plans (half of them are completely absent).

Ratio = 31% yes or in process DAD target: 100%

OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES & FOLLOW-UP INDICATORS OF HI ... · OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES & FOLLOW-UP...

Documents

Transcript of OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES & FOLLOW-UP INDICATORS OF HI ... · OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES & FOLLOW-UP...