A part of my role in Somalia is to look at M&E, either through joint initiatives or internally, within the programmes and the emergency assistance that Concern is providing.
So this is a very simplified definition of M&E that I will expand upon in the future (you will notice that M&E draws on many of the principles of programme, risk, capacity, etc that are described in other parts of this blog)...
Monitoring is Performance Management and should provide sufficient information support decision-making that allows you to continue as planned or make changes, on an on-going basis, to activities that contribute to the achievement of the objectives/outcomes.
•The progress made on agreed activities
•The impact of risks that have materialised on Progress (activities) and Purpose (objectives/outcomes)
•The impact of assumptions that were incorrect on Progress (activities) and Purpose (objectives/outcomes)
Evaluation is Impact Assessment & Lesson Learning - that is to say, did we achieve what we set out to achieve and how did we do it. This is measured in two phases:
1.Did we do what we said we would do (meet the objectives/outcomes)
2.Did we meet the expectations of the various stakeholders (the Goal)
Evaluation is always a "point in time" assessment and so, itself will have assumptions ("our conclusion is based on..."). The opportunity for continuous improvement is to capture practical lessons that can be applied to Performance Management (decision-making & resource optimisation) for the future.
Resources: activities use resources, so performance management is resource optimisation. There are only three resources that are affected by decision-making:
1.Time: the number of people that you have, their skills, experience and ability to complete the activities
2.Things: the tangible things that are available to you to help you complete the activities
3.Money: the flexibility to buy either more time (1) or more things (2) that will help you complete the activities.
A RISK is a definable, describable but unknowable event that we presume will happen ("there is a risk of rain…"). As a result a risk requires additional resources/activities to mitigate its impact (umbrella, raincoat, sandbags, etc.)
An ASSUMPTION is a definable, describable but unknowable event that we presume will not happen ("we assume it will not rain..."). No additional resources are set aside - but the assumption must be monitored in case it is wrong.
Footnote: I am currently working on developing "Theories of change" for humanitarian and resilinece-based programmes. An important definition that I draw upon is for Strength (as in SWOT): Strength – is a tangible resource (time, things, money) that you can leverage to directly achieve your objective (strength-to-opportunity) or; influence the achievement of the objective by using those tangible resources to overcome a weakness or threat
Friday, December 30, 2011
Snapshot from Somalia
My most recent placement - as Food Assistance Programme Manager with Concern, responding to the famine in Somalia. One of my most challenging posts so far, the following is just a snapshot (note - much has changed in recent weeks, but that is for a later update when the security situation allows):
The Food Assistance programme is a 6 month life-saving programme designed around Food Vouchers. It is scheduled to cover the hunger period – which as we are all aware has been exasperated by the famine in Concern’s areas of operations in south/central Somalia; between the two harvest seasons (the Gu in July and the Deyr in January). The Food Assistance programme, which also includes blanket supplementary feeding plus recovery assistance such as seed provision for the Deyr season, will be completed with the final distribution of food vouchers in late January 2012. After which there will be programme closure activities including lesson learning, evaluations and donor reporting.
More importantly, with the changing security and political situation in Somalia, the Food Assistance programme requires active management & monitoring – we have seen in September the need for first-hand engagement in programme delivery by all members of the team – in the regions, in Mogadishu and in Nairobi. On behalf of Concern, as the lead agencyin south & central Somalia, I am actively engaging with cluster coordination and peer-organisations to ensure that assistance continues in these regions during the on-going instability.
Our teams have been able to procure / pre-position food stocks for our nutrition programmes to complement the food assistance that we are providing and the focus now is on continuity of the programme activities. As the programme manager I travel in regularly to Mogadishu, leading these teams with the support of the in-country managers & coordinators. As an organisation we know, from both current and past experience, that day-to-day management will be required right up to the final distributions in January 2012, where Concern is feeding more than 200,000 people every month.
There are also a number of initiatives that I am leading including a consolidated M&E initiative with several other NGOs that offer similar modalities of assistance (cash transfers/food vouchers). This will support our own lesson learning plus broader advocacy on these types of programmes. I am preparing a Standard Operating Procedures manual to cover the various procedures (from adhering to Concern policies to checklists for field activities). And I will be supporting the programme teams as Concern prepares for the transition from Emergency to Recovery in line with the changing circumstances and operational plans for 2012.
The Food Assistance programme is a 6 month life-saving programme designed around Food Vouchers. It is scheduled to cover the hunger period – which as we are all aware has been exasperated by the famine in Concern’s areas of operations in south/central Somalia; between the two harvest seasons (the Gu in July and the Deyr in January). The Food Assistance programme, which also includes blanket supplementary feeding plus recovery assistance such as seed provision for the Deyr season, will be completed with the final distribution of food vouchers in late January 2012. After which there will be programme closure activities including lesson learning, evaluations and donor reporting.
More importantly, with the changing security and political situation in Somalia, the Food Assistance programme requires active management & monitoring – we have seen in September the need for first-hand engagement in programme delivery by all members of the team – in the regions, in Mogadishu and in Nairobi. On behalf of Concern, as the lead agencyin south & central Somalia, I am actively engaging with cluster coordination and peer-organisations to ensure that assistance continues in these regions during the on-going instability.
Our teams have been able to procure / pre-position food stocks for our nutrition programmes to complement the food assistance that we are providing and the focus now is on continuity of the programme activities. As the programme manager I travel in regularly to Mogadishu, leading these teams with the support of the in-country managers & coordinators. As an organisation we know, from both current and past experience, that day-to-day management will be required right up to the final distributions in January 2012, where Concern is feeding more than 200,000 people every month.
There are also a number of initiatives that I am leading including a consolidated M&E initiative with several other NGOs that offer similar modalities of assistance (cash transfers/food vouchers). This will support our own lesson learning plus broader advocacy on these types of programmes. I am preparing a Standard Operating Procedures manual to cover the various procedures (from adhering to Concern policies to checklists for field activities). And I will be supporting the programme teams as Concern prepares for the transition from Emergency to Recovery in line with the changing circumstances and operational plans for 2012.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
What is Capacity Building?
There are a variety of explanations (depending on the source) for what capacity building is. However, there is a simple formula to follow for any (all) organisations in order to measurably increase your capacity
Time, things and money are the only three resources that any (all) organisations have available to them. It is the optimisation of these resources that builds capacity.
Time: the people available and their knowledge,skills and attributes
Things: the physical, logistical, technological resources that are available to us
Money: the financial resources that give us flexibility to buy additional time (e.g. recruitment, over-time, training) or things (additional tangible resources) should we need them
Optimising these three resources is measured against the stated objectives of the organisation. Normally these are the strategic objectives for a period – the priorities of the organisation, towards which it intends to concentrate its resources/capacity.
And the points of intervention that an organisation can make in order to optimise the combination of resources (time, things & money) in order to achieve these strategic objectives are:
Competency focuses on “Time” – increasing the abilities of the human resources (staff, consultants, donors, supporters, volunteers, partners, beneficiaries etc.).
Capability focuses on “Things” – what tangible resources are available to the organisation to allow it to exploit its competencies (i.e. what these human resources, where, when, how, etc. ).
Cost is the enabling resource “Money” that allows us to invest in the organisations competency (buying better Time) and in the organisation’s capability (buying more appropriate things).
Take a look at Activity & Resource-based Planning on how day-to-day management of the three resources (time, things & money) can build capacity through good operational planning & management
Time, things and money are the only three resources that any (all) organisations have available to them. It is the optimisation of these resources that builds capacity.
Time: the people available and their knowledge,skills and attributes
Things: the physical, logistical, technological resources that are available to us
Money: the financial resources that give us flexibility to buy additional time (e.g. recruitment, over-time, training) or things (additional tangible resources) should we need them
Optimising these three resources is measured against the stated objectives of the organisation. Normally these are the strategic objectives for a period – the priorities of the organisation, towards which it intends to concentrate its resources/capacity.
And the points of intervention that an organisation can make in order to optimise the combination of resources (time, things & money) in order to achieve these strategic objectives are:
Competency focuses on “Time” – increasing the abilities of the human resources (staff, consultants, donors, supporters, volunteers, partners, beneficiaries etc.).
Capability focuses on “Things” – what tangible resources are available to the organisation to allow it to exploit its competencies (i.e. what these human resources, where, when, how, etc. ).
Cost is the enabling resource “Money” that allows us to invest in the organisations competency (buying better Time) and in the organisation’s capability (buying more appropriate things).
Take a look at Activity & Resource-based Planning on how day-to-day management of the three resources (time, things & money) can build capacity through good operational planning & management
Friday, April 23, 2010
UNHCR in Sri Lanka
The following is a link to a dedicated YouTube site for UNHCR in Sri Lanka.
http://www.youtube.com/user/UNHCRlk
It will give you a small flavour of the work that I have been doing - you may even spot me in moe or two of the videos.
http://www.youtube.com/user/UNHCRlk
It will give you a small flavour of the work that I have been doing - you may even spot me in moe or two of the videos.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Working with UNHCR in Sri Lanka
In May 2009 I arrived in Sri Lanka as part of the Emergency Response in the aftermath of the fighting between the SLA and LTTE. I was seconded from the Irish Aid Rapid Response Corp to UNHCR as Field Officer for the Mannar District, working from the UNHCR field office in Mannar town.
With the displacement of quarter of a million people into camps, adding to the already large internally displaced population, the initial focus of emergency assistance was on the families that had been placed in camps. Mannar was the first district to also see resettlements – displaced families returning to their places of origin. The focus of assistance, in addition to the camps (welfare centres) in Mannar changed to that of resettlement assistance.
At this time the activities of the emergency assistance was on building the logistical & supply capacity of the Mannar office – the infrastructure, procedures and the actual assistance being provided to IDPs in camps, homes (elderly homes, orphanages, etc.), IDPs living with host families and, as the first returnees after the conflict, to families returning to Musali.
This assistance included: Shelter & House Repair; NFRIs; QIPs; Humanitarian assistance to EVIs/PWSN and assistance to refugees returning from India. In addition there were general management responsibilities (from staff to stock).
I remained in Mannar until the end of August 2009 before I had to return to Ireland for work commitments.
During September an October the number of resettled families to Mannar increased greatly, with 4 of the 5 divisions opened for returning families. A “180-day” plan was proposed by the government that anticipated all IDPs in camps would be returned to the places of origin, creating a new emergency for UNHCR and other humanitarian organizations – not of displacement but of resettlement.
In early November I returned to Mannar.
The assistance being provided to beneficiaries has also changed – away from Shelter & House Repair to that of Shelter Grants. This is a combination of cash (5,000 Rps) and bank certificates (20,000 Rps) and the emergency assistance I was tasked with leading the coordination, implementation, monitoring & reporting of this grant in addition to the other assistances being provided by UNHCR (NFRI, QIPs, Humanitarian assistance, assistance to refugees returning from India). Our beneficiary group can be segmented a dozen different ways - but we have returnees, IDPs with hosts, homes (elderly & orphanage), refugee returnees and EVIs (humanitarian assistance to vulnerable people or groups).
As physical shelter assistance is no longer being provided by UNHCR I am also acting as shelter coordinator for the District, coordinating the activities of all organizations providing shelter assistance to all beneficiary groups. This includes advocacy to government on behalf of these organizations to be granted access/ permission to provide assistance in Return areas.
With the conclusion of the presidential election in January 2010, the incumbent winning, it must be assumed that the focus on resettlement will continue and the challenge of getting access/permission by NGOs to return areas will remain.
Based on information provided by the Project Director’s office, as at 22nd January 2010 5,235 IDP families resettled in Mannar District - in Musali, Rice Bowl (Mannar & Mantai West Divisions), north of Mantai West and, most recently to former conflict areas in Nanaddan and Madhu.
There will be a challenge facing both the government, UNHCR and humanitarian organisations as more families return to the 5 Mannar divisions. To plan for all returnees will require the government authorities and humanitarian organisations to plan for the potential resettlement of 13,931 returning families to areas that may require various types of infrastructure & humanitarian assistance.
In the immediate aftermath of the presidential election an announcement was made by the Ministry of Resettlement that all remaining IDPs would be returned to their places of origin by April 2010; a potential resettlement of almost 9,000 families - 43,000 individuals in 3 months for Mannar alone.
Complicating this will be the legacy of the conflict in Sri Lanka, with families being displaced since the 1990s up to the final fighting in May 2009. Many families are in camps (Menik Farm primarily) but there are also large caseloads of IDPs who will be retuning from other areas where they have been living with host families, or where they have established themselves due to the length of time they have been displaced (in some cases 20 years).
The organization of returning & resettling these families across the various caseloads will be a logistical challenge, complicated for UNHCR as we are also the focal point for statistical reporting of resettled families on behalf of the World Bank and Japanese government among other donor bodies.
And the assistance to these families will require increased inter-agency coordination and field/operational management as the assistance being provided will vary depending on:
• the needs of families in return areas – based on the conditions that families encounter on returning to their villages & homes;
• the ability of families to meet these needs using their own and the communities resources & capacities (this will depend on the length of time families have been displaced & the resources they have been able to accumulate and bring with them to the return areas);
• the policies of organisations such as UNHCR on eligibility for the various beneficiary segments to assistance.
With the displacement of quarter of a million people into camps, adding to the already large internally displaced population, the initial focus of emergency assistance was on the families that had been placed in camps. Mannar was the first district to also see resettlements – displaced families returning to their places of origin. The focus of assistance, in addition to the camps (welfare centres) in Mannar changed to that of resettlement assistance.
At this time the activities of the emergency assistance was on building the logistical & supply capacity of the Mannar office – the infrastructure, procedures and the actual assistance being provided to IDPs in camps, homes (elderly homes, orphanages, etc.), IDPs living with host families and, as the first returnees after the conflict, to families returning to Musali.
This assistance included: Shelter & House Repair; NFRIs; QIPs; Humanitarian assistance to EVIs/PWSN and assistance to refugees returning from India. In addition there were general management responsibilities (from staff to stock).
I remained in Mannar until the end of August 2009 before I had to return to Ireland for work commitments.
During September an October the number of resettled families to Mannar increased greatly, with 4 of the 5 divisions opened for returning families. A “180-day” plan was proposed by the government that anticipated all IDPs in camps would be returned to the places of origin, creating a new emergency for UNHCR and other humanitarian organizations – not of displacement but of resettlement.
In early November I returned to Mannar.
The assistance being provided to beneficiaries has also changed – away from Shelter & House Repair to that of Shelter Grants. This is a combination of cash (5,000 Rps) and bank certificates (20,000 Rps) and the emergency assistance I was tasked with leading the coordination, implementation, monitoring & reporting of this grant in addition to the other assistances being provided by UNHCR (NFRI, QIPs, Humanitarian assistance, assistance to refugees returning from India). Our beneficiary group can be segmented a dozen different ways - but we have returnees, IDPs with hosts, homes (elderly & orphanage), refugee returnees and EVIs (humanitarian assistance to vulnerable people or groups).
As physical shelter assistance is no longer being provided by UNHCR I am also acting as shelter coordinator for the District, coordinating the activities of all organizations providing shelter assistance to all beneficiary groups. This includes advocacy to government on behalf of these organizations to be granted access/ permission to provide assistance in Return areas.
With the conclusion of the presidential election in January 2010, the incumbent winning, it must be assumed that the focus on resettlement will continue and the challenge of getting access/permission by NGOs to return areas will remain.
Based on information provided by the Project Director’s office, as at 22nd January 2010 5,235 IDP families resettled in Mannar District - in Musali, Rice Bowl (Mannar & Mantai West Divisions), north of Mantai West and, most recently to former conflict areas in Nanaddan and Madhu.
There will be a challenge facing both the government, UNHCR and humanitarian organisations as more families return to the 5 Mannar divisions. To plan for all returnees will require the government authorities and humanitarian organisations to plan for the potential resettlement of 13,931 returning families to areas that may require various types of infrastructure & humanitarian assistance.
In the immediate aftermath of the presidential election an announcement was made by the Ministry of Resettlement that all remaining IDPs would be returned to their places of origin by April 2010; a potential resettlement of almost 9,000 families - 43,000 individuals in 3 months for Mannar alone.
Complicating this will be the legacy of the conflict in Sri Lanka, with families being displaced since the 1990s up to the final fighting in May 2009. Many families are in camps (Menik Farm primarily) but there are also large caseloads of IDPs who will be retuning from other areas where they have been living with host families, or where they have established themselves due to the length of time they have been displaced (in some cases 20 years).
The organization of returning & resettling these families across the various caseloads will be a logistical challenge, complicated for UNHCR as we are also the focal point for statistical reporting of resettled families on behalf of the World Bank and Japanese government among other donor bodies.
And the assistance to these families will require increased inter-agency coordination and field/operational management as the assistance being provided will vary depending on:
• the needs of families in return areas – based on the conditions that families encounter on returning to their villages & homes;
• the ability of families to meet these needs using their own and the communities resources & capacities (this will depend on the length of time families have been displaced & the resources they have been able to accumulate and bring with them to the return areas);
• the policies of organisations such as UNHCR on eligibility for the various beneficiary segments to assistance.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Strategic & Operational Cost Management (SOCM)
With the change in the economic climate many enterprises - small, medium and large; will be faced with financing challenges – both strategic (debt financing) and operational (cashflow). But these challenges have been faced by enterprises in Ireland and overseas over many years and, based on proven experience of strategic and operational cost management. Taking from my corporate and consulting experience over the past 20 years, I have developed an accelerated approach to identifying and prioritise cost management opportunities. This “hypothesis-led” approach complements the other Enterprise Healthcheck tools and allows an enterprise to action the optimum cost management (reduction) opportunities based on both strategic and operational priorities. For want of a better name I will efer to this approach as SOCM.
Strategic (tomorrow) AND Operational (today) approach
The SOCM is an accelerated approach to cost management – where “best practices” have been embedded in the project methodology and tools. Then, using a hypothesis-led approach (identifying the most likely 20% of the enterprise where 80% of the costs/savings will lie), accelerates the review – ensuring speed of delivery and minimum project costs. The proven cornerstones for successful cost management reviews:
+ Creation of an integrated, hypothesis-led programme
+ Focus on realising benefits early
+ Achieving buy-in and sustaining the savings
Because “best practice” and past experience of cost management are directly incorporated into the project methodology, organization and tools (see the graphics), project quality is equally embedded, supported by proven project management techniques plus the experience of the consultants that will work with the enterprise.
Applying Best Practices
A critical element of any cost management review is to understand where costs are actually incurred during the ongoing operations of the enterprise. Based on “best practice” and past experience I have developed the SOCM Cost (Value) Chain – a way of looking at an enterprise from the five areas that both incur costs and generate value.
Hypothesis-led approach
Hypothesis-led approach involves working with senior management in the initial stage of the SOCM project, identifying priority areas – based on enterprise-specific insight & experience; where managers believe cost saving opportunities exist.
An SOCM question-based “ready-reckoner” has been developed, incorporating “best practice” & past experience, to facilitate hypothesis generation. Once identified, this approach ensures that the review focuses on areas that are known to be costly or where senior managers believe that costs could (or should) be managed better.
In addition to analyzing costs (as part of an SOCM review) there are also sound cost management disciplines and principles that are incorporated into an SOCM review:
SOCM Principles:
Strategy
Incentives & Controls
Business Design
Cost Management
Continuous Improvement
SOCM Disciplines
Strategic cost management
Cost transparency
Management tools
Cost culture
Continuous improvement
Strategic (tomorrow) AND Operational (today) approach
The SOCM is an accelerated approach to cost management – where “best practices” have been embedded in the project methodology and tools. Then, using a hypothesis-led approach (identifying the most likely 20% of the enterprise where 80% of the costs/savings will lie), accelerates the review – ensuring speed of delivery and minimum project costs. The proven cornerstones for successful cost management reviews:
+ Creation of an integrated, hypothesis-led programme
+ Focus on realising benefits early
+ Achieving buy-in and sustaining the savings
Because “best practice” and past experience of cost management are directly incorporated into the project methodology, organization and tools (see the graphics), project quality is equally embedded, supported by proven project management techniques plus the experience of the consultants that will work with the enterprise.
Applying Best Practices
A critical element of any cost management review is to understand where costs are actually incurred during the ongoing operations of the enterprise. Based on “best practice” and past experience I have developed the SOCM Cost (Value) Chain – a way of looking at an enterprise from the five areas that both incur costs and generate value.
Hypothesis-led approach
Hypothesis-led approach involves working with senior management in the initial stage of the SOCM project, identifying priority areas – based on enterprise-specific insight & experience; where managers believe cost saving opportunities exist.
An SOCM question-based “ready-reckoner” has been developed, incorporating “best practice” & past experience, to facilitate hypothesis generation. Once identified, this approach ensures that the review focuses on areas that are known to be costly or where senior managers believe that costs could (or should) be managed better.
In addition to analyzing costs (as part of an SOCM review) there are also sound cost management disciplines and principles that are incorporated into an SOCM review:
SOCM Principles:
Strategy
Incentives & Controls
Business Design
Cost Management
Continuous Improvement
SOCM Disciplines
Strategic cost management
Cost transparency
Management tools
Cost culture
Continuous improvement
Business Mentoring – a group (peer) based approach
Drawing on my experience of business mentoring to a group of as part of the PLATO mentoring programme I identified seven phases of the mentoring process during the programme. The challenge for the mentor throughout the programme is to broaden the scope of issues to accommodate all participants, without losing the focus in specific issues that may benefit individuals.
The Mentoring Process incorporates the key aspects of proven mentoring programmes and also looks to incorporate a structure that allows for risks to be reduced and to successfully manage the learning transition from group to individual.
1.Meet, as PLATO engage in the participant selection in advance the first real encounter between participants and mentor is the first meeting.
2.Plan, brain-storming the types of issues and challenges that face the participants.
3.Credibility, continuously & consciously building credibility between the group leaders & the group and between the participants.
4.Share, the peer-to-peer dialogue around the issues, challenges and potential solutions - drawing on facilitation skills & guest speakers.
5.Accompany, encouraging participants to "take-away" things from each meeting that may help them in their personal &/or enterprise development.
6.Action, where commitment to the group and to each other is demonstrated over the course of the programme.
7.Network, encouraging the participants to continue the relationships that they have built with each other and to share potential contacts with each other beyond the programme.
Establish, build and maintain credibility:
Credibility is built during the initial stages of the mentoring process – when the participants first meet at the launch and the sponsor companies (Mazars in my case) are introduced as large, credible organisation whose staff (credible by association) have volunteered to support the programme. First impressions may or may not have a part to play, given the context (hotel, drinks, etc.) but the message from PLATO of matching & mentoring does set an expectation that establishes an initial level of credibility.
Planning the overall content of the programme at the launch and initial group meetings further builds credibility as it shows the group that their priorities are the focus of the programme. The difficulty is to ensure that the topics selected are broad enough for all participants so that none are left out (or behind).
And the peer-2-peer nature of the programme and the meetings, where individuals share their concerns and experiences with the other group members builds a degree of consolidation within the group – where they are confident to discuss topics and give advice to each other. The best example of this related to merchant payment services, where the group discusses the pros & cons of creditcard payments and how to approach merchant service providers to obtain the best rates.
Engagement, participation and progress of the group:
Drawing on the programme plan, the sharing of experience plus accompaniment of the individual group members together, through the PLATO meetings did allow for individuals to progress. Again, best explained by an example where Irish recruitment Partners, drawing on some of the insights and general personal support that he received from the group, progressed with his franchise plans – not as originally anticipated (where he would franchise his operations to others) but by becoming a franchisee for an international online recruitment service – where his Irish business remained, but was complemented by an international element.
Personal development (of the individual group members):
The engagement, participation and progress of the group, linked to the individual successes of participants within the group, reinforced for me the need to incorporate “action-planning” into the overall programme. Not what you must do for next month, but rather what must you do if you want to progress this idea, this initiative, resolve this problem – giving a tangible output to the meetings for those participants who needed to translate sharing & accompaniment into action.
Following on from this was also the opportunity to support the individuals in building their networks – bringing the programme beyond the monthly meetings (and the end of the programme). There were some opportunities for networking with the group, but more interesting was learning from some of the members about techniques such as “Contact Spheres”.
Encouraging the participants to engage in the various PLATO training programmes, so as to learn new things but also meet new people (potential clients or contacts) is a natural extension of the PLATO mentoring programme into the network (future) phase of my mentoring diagram above.
The Mentoring Process incorporates the key aspects of proven mentoring programmes and also looks to incorporate a structure that allows for risks to be reduced and to successfully manage the learning transition from group to individual.
1.Meet, as PLATO engage in the participant selection in advance the first real encounter between participants and mentor is the first meeting.
2.Plan, brain-storming the types of issues and challenges that face the participants.
3.Credibility, continuously & consciously building credibility between the group leaders & the group and between the participants.
4.Share, the peer-to-peer dialogue around the issues, challenges and potential solutions - drawing on facilitation skills & guest speakers.
5.Accompany, encouraging participants to "take-away" things from each meeting that may help them in their personal &/or enterprise development.
6.Action, where commitment to the group and to each other is demonstrated over the course of the programme.
7.Network, encouraging the participants to continue the relationships that they have built with each other and to share potential contacts with each other beyond the programme.
Establish, build and maintain credibility:
Credibility is built during the initial stages of the mentoring process – when the participants first meet at the launch and the sponsor companies (Mazars in my case) are introduced as large, credible organisation whose staff (credible by association) have volunteered to support the programme. First impressions may or may not have a part to play, given the context (hotel, drinks, etc.) but the message from PLATO of matching & mentoring does set an expectation that establishes an initial level of credibility.
Planning the overall content of the programme at the launch and initial group meetings further builds credibility as it shows the group that their priorities are the focus of the programme. The difficulty is to ensure that the topics selected are broad enough for all participants so that none are left out (or behind).
And the peer-2-peer nature of the programme and the meetings, where individuals share their concerns and experiences with the other group members builds a degree of consolidation within the group – where they are confident to discuss topics and give advice to each other. The best example of this related to merchant payment services, where the group discusses the pros & cons of creditcard payments and how to approach merchant service providers to obtain the best rates.
Engagement, participation and progress of the group:
Drawing on the programme plan, the sharing of experience plus accompaniment of the individual group members together, through the PLATO meetings did allow for individuals to progress. Again, best explained by an example where Irish recruitment Partners, drawing on some of the insights and general personal support that he received from the group, progressed with his franchise plans – not as originally anticipated (where he would franchise his operations to others) but by becoming a franchisee for an international online recruitment service – where his Irish business remained, but was complemented by an international element.
Personal development (of the individual group members):
The engagement, participation and progress of the group, linked to the individual successes of participants within the group, reinforced for me the need to incorporate “action-planning” into the overall programme. Not what you must do for next month, but rather what must you do if you want to progress this idea, this initiative, resolve this problem – giving a tangible output to the meetings for those participants who needed to translate sharing & accompaniment into action.
Following on from this was also the opportunity to support the individuals in building their networks – bringing the programme beyond the monthly meetings (and the end of the programme). There were some opportunities for networking with the group, but more interesting was learning from some of the members about techniques such as “Contact Spheres”.
Encouraging the participants to engage in the various PLATO training programmes, so as to learn new things but also meet new people (potential clients or contacts) is a natural extension of the PLATO mentoring programme into the network (future) phase of my mentoring diagram above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)