®
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Ubora Organizational Performance and learning
8 July 2008
WARMU
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
What is Ubora?
Swahili word for Excellence CARE’s Organizational Performance and
Learning System Framework uniting program and program support
used for ongoing, systematic measurement of performance at all levels of the organization
Promotes organizational learning and accountability
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
What is good performance for CARE?
Operations
Culture
Structure
Strategy
All aspects of the organization (culture, strategy, structure, operations) are working efficiently and effectively to achieve measurable, long-term sustainable progress toward our vision. And other stakeholders believe this is true, particularly the poor themselves.
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Components of Good Performance
PROGRAM QUALITYPROGRAM SUPPORT
IMPACTThe accumulated
impact of our work shows evidence of lasting broad scale
change
Effectively and efficiently managing key resources and
conducting operations in a way that
contributes to program quality and impact
achievements
Evidence that our programs incorporate our principles, adhere
to standards, and contribute to desired
impacts
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Continuous Learning & Improvement
Analysis & Reports
Targets
Indicators
Key Processes of Ubora
Accountability and
Recognition
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Why measure? Balance current focus on financials and reward staff
for achieving program quality and impact
Bring together program and program support
More informed decision-making and planning
Start looking at work more holistically and strategically beyond the project level and encourage the shift to programs
Start looking at CARE at a global level beyond individual COs
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
CO Indicators: “Managing the Basics”
All COs, HQ, RMUs, Global in FY09 Drawing from existing systems Basic indicators
Primarily program support Procurement, Audit Basic project management (PMSI) and risk preparedness
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
CO Indicators: “Beyond the Basics”
Learning Labs FY09 More robust indicators, tied to the shift to a
programmatic approach More indicators on processes for program
quality Eventually measuring impact Learning labs will inform the rest of CARE
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Measures of Program QualityThat measure the degree of incorporation and/or effectiveness of
CI programming principles Promote empowerment Work with partners etc.
Other key strategies/hypotheses Learning and knowledge management Resource mobilization Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency
Preparedness Adherence to project and technical standards
Vision
Programming Principles
Core Guidelines
CI Project Standards
Sector/technical guidelines
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Key Definitions: Program Initiative
A set of coherent activities with a final goal and one or more programmatic objectives, and which has specific resources (human, financial, etc.) available to achieve the objectives and contribute to the attainment of the goal.
May be project-based or non-project based initiatives
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Pilot set of Quality Indicators
Managing the Basics; Program
Process
1. # and % of program initiatives that apply relevant technical and project management standards adopted by CARE2. Level of risk versus level of preparedness (DRR Scale)
Promote Empowerment
3. # and % of program initiatives* that have deliberate strategies to shift power relations and to empower specific marginalized and excluded groups, in particular women.
Work with Partners4. # of strategic partnerships and alliances (non-project; non-contract specific) in place.
Ensure Accountability and
Promote Responsibility
5. # and % program initiatives that have a functioning system in place to be held accountable by participants and civil society.6. # and % program initiatives that have a clear approach for compelling those with responsibilities toward poor and marginalized people to fulfill their obligations.
Address Discrimination
7. # and % of program initiatives that have a deliberate strategy for opposing discrimination and promoting equity, in particular gender equity.
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Pilot set of Quality Indicators
Promote Non-Violent Conflict
Resolution
8. # and % of program initiatives that have a deliberate strategy* to mitigate and address potential or existing conflicts arising from shifts in power relations.
Seek Sustainable
Results
9. # and % of program initiatives that have a coherent strategy* to address and measure impact on the underlying causes of poverty and social injustice.
Advocacy10. # and % of program initiatives that include a specific advocacy strategy*.
Learning and Knowledge
Management
11. # and % of program initiatives that have learning objectives linked to the program’s theory of change and processes in place for pursuing their learning objectives.
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Program Support+ Indicators
Learning and Knowledge
Management
1.# and % of units that show evidence that learning is being obtained and used for organizational improvement.
Resource mobilizationand finance
2. % of required program budget mobilized for the next two years
Human resources
3. % staff retained across funding gaps between program initiatives
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Minimum Definition for Indicator
Relevant staff has been trained in power and gender analysis.
Power and gender analysis (needs an operational definition) has been done.
A specific change has been identified and activities developed that target all three aspects of CARE’s unifying framework.
Mechanism for reviewing accuracy of the power and gender analysis and for revising actions identified is in place.
The change in power relations is measured.
1. # and % of program initiatives that have deliberate strategies to shift power relations and to empower specific marginalized and excluded groups, in particular women.
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Instrument to Collect Indicator DataIndicator 1. # and % of program initiatives that have a deliberate strategy to shift power relations and to empower specific marginalized and excluded groups, in particular women.
1.1 Describe what you are doing to shift power relations and to empower specific marginalized and excluded groups, in particular women. In particular, please describe which parts of the unifying framework – human conditions, social positions, the enabling environment – you are addressing.
1.2 In what ways are specific marginalized groups being empowered by this strategy? What evidence – qualitative or quantitative, anecdotal or rigorous, formal or informal – do you have that marginalized and excluded groups, particularly women, are being empowered?
1.3 What has been successful and what has been difficult?
1.4 How could the program be improved in order to better incorporate this principle?
1.5. Please assign a numerical rating for the extent to which your program initiative has a deliberate strategy to shift power relations and to empower specific marginalized and excluded groups. (See rating criteria below)
0 1 2 3 4 5
1.6 Please assign a numerical rating for the extent to which your program initiative has a deliberate strategy to empower women. (See rating criteria below.)
0 1 2 3 4 5
0=None of the criteria of a “deliberate strategy to shift power relations” (see operational definition) is met1=At least 1 of the criteria has been fully met2=At least 2 of the criteria have been fully met3=At least 3 of the criteria have been fully met4=At least 4 of the criteria have been fully met5=At least 5 of the criteria have been fully met6=All 6 of the criteria have been fully met
®
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Program Impact Measurement
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Definition of Impact
Long-term and sustainable social change that happens at systemic and structural levels and addresses underlying causes of poverty for a specific group of people
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Short-comings of DM&E system
Typical systems in CARE tend to: Seldom be used beyond donor reporting. Generate a LOT of data that is never analyzed. Engage in single loop learning and not on testing
hypothesis. Not conducive to understanding social change
processes. Be good at measuring outputs and outcomes.
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Key Elements Across long periods of time (10-15 years) Beyond the output and outcome level to the
impact level. Across both project and non-project activities. Cross-cutting themes as well as main program
foci. Outcomes and impacts across at least a
minimum set of constant indicators. Both CARE’s contribution as well as attribution Allows the testing of the theory of change (ToC)
rather then just verifying outcomes.
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Changes in Knowledge Hierarchy
Knowledge Hierarchy
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Program Indicators: MDI Plus
Millennium Development Indicators (MDIs) can be internally consistent and externally translatable
Overcome shortcomings by adapting and adding measures at the target level
Also have additional indicators social position enabling environment
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Process of Selecting MDI +Selection through testing a draft list of indicators in Learning Labs by:
Select the marginalized and excluded groups Adjust the ratios and numbers of the MDI Develop guidance on the methods and process
for measurement and analysis Learning labs will then test the impact
measurement component of Ubora Refined and verified indicators used in rest of the
organization.
Top Related