ILO

Back to index

Shan State: Peace reconciliation and development through community empowerment - Final evaluation

eval_number:

2377

eval_url:

https://webapps.ilo.org/ievaldiscovery/eval/2377

location:

country:

Myanmar

region:

Asia and the Pacific

---

eval_title:

Shan State: Peace reconciliation and development through community empowerment - Final evaluation

recommendations:

date:

2020-07-22 00:00:00.0

themes:

theme:

Organizational issues

category:

Planning and programme design

---

comments:

CTA of the programme is a good manager and he was determined to bring all consortium along in all of the planning and implementation, and he basically refused to adopt a top - down approach. Each of the partners are quite well -established in their respective geographic areas and it is understandable how the planning and involvement of other members of the consortium could not be taken for granted and done easily. The sense of distrust to outsiders in conflict affected area are quite a phenomena.

action_plan:

All of the recommendations are in the plan of the project, and have been implemented. It is noted that the planning for regular and frequent PAC meeting was not in the original plan, only for the project management to realize that more regular meeting and sharing information is needed, then PAC is therefore for set up to be once a month at least, and this has implication on provision of the budget toward the end of the project. However, PAC was held every month and sometimes some staff could not travel to take part of (such as admin finance staff) technology was used to allow her to be present in the meeting virtually.

management_response:

Completed

progress:

Partially achieved

admin_units:

ILO-Yangon

title:

Recommendation 3 (from conclusions 2 and 3) to ILO, Consortium members and PRD project staff to improve quality project management, strategic planning, programme / project design, monitoring (including regular data collection at both output and outcome levels), knowledge of procedures, knowledge sharing and support to all Consortium and partner organizations. Priority: High / Importance: High  R.3.1. Define who is going to provide quality programme management and how. Ensure the Consortium structure provides the authority for staff to monitor the programme effectively and on a regular basis.  R.3.2. Collect (output and outcome) data on a regular basis across the programme and request for regular feedback on the ground – for example through surveys – in order to tackle (more) timely upcoming issues. Data should be available at all times at the central and local levels (not only before writing the annual report).  R.3.4. Include more field visits and DSA in the project plan and budget allocation. Include sufficient DSA for all participants to join PAC meetings. Have sufficient budget for interpretation costs during PAC meetings to avoid separate discussions due to participants speaking different languages.  R.3.5. It could be within the task of an additional full-time Finance and Admin. Officer to support the M&E Officer and National Project Coordinator. This would allow them to provide all the requested programme monitoring and support to Consortium members.  R.3.6. Revise and harmonize project target indicators and collect data accordingly.  R.3.7. Include a section in project reports with consolidated results based on similar and comparable indicators (number/%/communities/participants) as a powerful communication tool for programme achievements. 

project_symbols:

MMR/14/01/EEC

url:

https://webapps.ilo.org/ievaldiscovery/recommendations/13822

information_source:

Country Office

---