An Approach to Monitoring Performance against the
ActionAid's Strategic Objectives
Draft (4th) concept paper by Rick Davies1 for ActionAid
My ToRs defined two immediate tasks facing AA.
a) "The longer-term plan is to develop a simple, light framework for monitoring
change against the Strategy Paper."
b) "In the shorter term we would like to think about what we can ask the Country
Directors to do this year, in terms of reporting against the Expected Outcomes in
the AA Strategic Plan".
"The consultant is invited to work with a small team for one day (4th February) to
think through potential frameworks / ideas / pitfalls and opportunities. The consultant
will be expected to facilitate the day"
2. Proposed Approach
In the course of a wide ranging discussion on Friday 5th, I have proposed that AA use
a form of success ranking to monitor changes against the FPT Strategy paper. The
reasons for doing so are:
• Success ranking is simple. It can easily be grasped by staff at all level, as well as
AA's partners and their ultimate clients - poor people.
• Success ranking is light, in terms of information demands. It typically makes use
of what people already know, rather than demanding a new set of purpose-specific
• Success ranking requires judgement, as well as description. The latter is usually in
relatively short supply in project progress reports.
• Success ranking involves devolved judgement. Performance measures do not need
to be highly specified in advance or from above. However, people doing the
success ranking can make use of such measures / indicators if they need to.
• Success ranking generates a balance of quantitative and qualitative information,
both of which have further uses. Numerical ranking values are accompanied by
text accounts of evidence and cause.
1 Cambridge, UK. Rick@shimbir.demon.co.uk www.mande.co.uk/news.htm www.swan.ac.uk/cds/rd/rd1.htm
PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com