Organisational health check. Coordinator guide

Transcription

1 Coordinator guide

2 About Bond Bond can help you link up with organisations working on similar issues or in similar locations, matching expertise and sharing resources to maximise impact. About the Bond Effectiveness Programme The Bond Effectiveness Programme aims to support UK NGOs in improving how they assess, learn from and demonstrate their effectiveness this involves: 1. Developing agreement and supporting implementation of: Sector wide framework of indicators, data collection tools and assessment methods to improve the consistency of how NGOs measure, learn from and report results (Improve It Framework) Online organisational health-check tool and resource portal that enables benchmarking with peers, sign posts to existing tools, and supports improvements in effectiveness systems and capacities 2. Building knowledge and skills to support members in measuring and managing effectiveness through training, peer learning and support, piloting, and resource development 3. Creating an enabling environment that encourages and supports organisations to deliver improvements in their effectiveness through engagement with donors, NGO leaders and promoting greater transparency about performance The Effectiveness programme is supported financially by a number of organisations: ActionAid UK, CAFOD, Care International UK, Christian Aid, Comic Relief, Department for International Development, EveryChild, Islamic Relief, Mercy Corp, Oxfam GB, Plan UK, Practical Action, Save the Children UK, Sightsavers, Tearfund, VSO, WaterAid, World Vision and WWF. Contact us If you have further questions or comments please contact the Effectiveness Programme team: ngoeffectiveness@bond.org.uk or

3 What is the organisational health check? The health check is an online self-assessment that helps organisations to identify strengths, weaknesses and areas for improvement. It enables benchmarking with peers and sign posts to other relevant initiatives, guides, training and support. It is a one stop shop to improving the effectiveness of UK international development organisations. About this guide As coordinator of the organisational health check in your organisation, this guide provides you with the information needed to ensure that your organisation gets the most out of the self-assessment process. The guide is structured according to the five steps of the online organisational health check: 1. Prepare your organisation: how to decide on the approach your organisation should use to collect and analyse the data collected through the self-assessment, who to involve, how and when 2. Gather the data: how to collect data using the online survey, focus groups, workshops and/or interviews and how to sustain momentum for the process. 3. Analyse the results: how to take an in-depth look at the strengths and weaknesses of your organisation with those who took part. 4. Develop an improvement plan: how to prioritise which areas to take forward, agreeing who will be responsible and the resources required. 5. Use the online resources portal: how to identify the quality standards and principles, guides, training courses and consultants that will be useful in improving your organisation. Before using this guide To get the most out of the Organisational Health Check it is vital that there is buy in at a senior level to the process and that everyone involved is clear about why the organisation is doing it, understands what will happen once the data has been gathered, and there is a willingness to act on the findings to improve the organisation. It is crucial that discussions on these issues have taken place before starting the health check. How the Health Check is structured The health check is structured in the following way: There are 11 pillars these correspond to the core functions in most organisations for example, finance, programmes, human resources (see the table on page 7). 3

4 Each pillar is broken down into a number of building blocks these represent the specific and most important elements of a pillar that an organisation assesses itself against. Each building block has five levels these represent the different stages of an organisations development for a particular building block. You will need to decide which level best describes your organisation. Broadly speaking the progression across the levels is as follows: Level Stage of an organisations development Levels for Partnership building block within Identity and integrity pillar 1 Emerging: your development in an area is at an early stage. You recognise there is scope for improvement. We have mixed understandings within our organisation of why and how we work with partners in the South. We only seek their views on the project activities they are 2 Evolving: you are taking steps to develop an area, but your approach is ad hoc and not necessarily informed by a logical strategy. 3 Maturing: you recognise the importance of developing an area and have a logical approach. Your development and practice in this area is of a good standard. 4 Flourishing: you have a systematic and coherent approach to an area and have evidence that it is developing consistently across your organisation. You are starting to move towards best practice in an area. 5 Leading: you have a strong evidence base collected over time that indicates your development in an area is of a very high standard. The development of the area is consistent across your organisation at all levels. Your practice in this area is recognised by external actors. involved in. Some staff have an understanding of why and how we work with partners in the South. Amongst others this is unclear. We are looking at ways in which we can reflect partner's views in the development of our strategies and policies as well as project activities. The majority of our staff have a shared understanding of why and how we work with partners in the South. This understanding is consistent across most of our activities. We try to ensure the views of partners are reflected in the development of our strategies and policies as well as project activities. We have a clear and widely shared understanding at all levels of our organisation of why and how we work with partners in the South. This understanding is consistent across all activities and our external communications. Partners views are reflected in project activities, the development of our strategies, policies and in our governance. We have a clear and widely shared understanding at all levels of our organisation, including the Board, of why and how we work with partners in the South. This understanding is consistent across all activities and our external communications. We have processes for ensuring partners views are reflected in project activities, the development of 4

5 strategy and policy and in our governance and we can show how they influence our thinking and decisions at all levels. You may find that your organisation does not neatly fit into one of the five levels and achieves some elements of one level and some of another. In these cases, you ll need to select the level that best reflects your organisations current practice. There is no expectation that you should reach level 5 for all the building blocks. The health check was designed to be used by organisations of all sizes and complexities and for some building blocks the highest levels may be more relevant for larger organisations. It has been designed so that level three reflects a good benchmark for any organisations operating in the international development sector and should be attainable for any organisation irrespective of size. Ensuring a robust self-assessment process The health check is a self-assessment so therefore requires your organisation to be self-reflective and open about its strengths and weaknesses. To ensure the picture being created is as accurate as possible, it is important that those engaging in the process are as specific as possible about why they think the organisation is at a certain level. As the coordinator you should push people to make reference to existing policies and procedures, provide specific examples of practice, and quote evaluation findings when doing the assessment. This is particularly important as you start to move up the levels. At level four and five you should have a strong evidence base that supports why the organisation has been scored at this level. To help facilitate the collection of this evidence the online survey allows people to provide comments under each building block. Gathering a wide range of perspectives during data collection and involving a wide range of stakeholders in analysing the results can also help ensure the robustness of the process. A wide range of perspectives can help mitigate biases and help create a more objective and balanced picture of your organisations strengths and weaknesses. Involving a wide range of stakeholders can also help increase the ownership of the final results and the likelihood of key staff implementing the steps in the improvement plan. See page 12 for a checklist of key steps for ensuring a robust self-assessment. 1. Prepare your organisation To get the most out of the organisational health check, you may find it helpful to work through the following steps: Approach: identify who you want to involve in the process and how representative you want them to be of the organisation Timing: identify the best time to undertake the assessment Build commitment and ownership among colleagues: those involved need to understand what the health check is, why the organisation is doing it and what it will get out of the process 5

6 Approach As a first step you need to decide how in depth and detailed you want the self-assessment process to be. The main things to consider are who you want to involve and how representative they are of the wider organisation. In planning who you will involve and how you will do the assessment you might find it helpful to think in terms of the categories below: Light touch approach might involve a small, self-selected group of staff (e.g. senior management team) undertaking the self-assessment. They might individually complete the online survey before a regular team meeting, or they might do the assessment collectively at the team meeting itself. For example, Leonard Cheshire Disability got the senior management team to complete the selfassessment during a three hour focus group and four regional managers working overseas completed the online survey. Moderate approach might involve a group of staff representing different perspectives within the organisation gathering the opinions of their team either through asking them to complete to online survey or provide their feedback individually followed by a discussion of the results in a workshop. For example, Toybox got representatives from teams across the organisation to complete the selfassessment individually and then representatives from most teams joined a workshop to discuss the results. In-depth approach might involve sending the online survey out to a large number of staff across all teams and to external stakeholders such as partners. All staff, partners, and board members invited to complete the survey individually followed by a discussion of the results in a workshop. For an example of an in depth approach, see the Mothers Union case study below. The type of assessment process you adopt is not determined by the size of your organisation. For example, if you are a small organisation but involve all members of staff across all teams, partners and board members you have selected an in-depth approach. When you come to using the benchmarking you will be able to compare yourself to organisations that used a similar approach to you (see section 3 Analyse the results). Once you have identified who to involve and how representative they are of the wider organisation you will need to decide which pillars you want to cover and who to involve in assessing which pillar. The table below provides suggestions for the people and teams to involve in reviewing each pillar of the health check. Case study Mothers Union deciding who to involve in which pillar A total of 125 people were invited to complete the survey. Those invited to participate were asked to score Mothers union headquarters, not local Mothers Union groups. Different groups of stakeholders were invited to complete different sections of the survey according to their role in Mothers' Union. Trustees and all UK headquarters based staff completed all sections. Volunteers from Mothers Union member groups across the UK completed all areas excluding managing people (pillar 6) and managing money (pillar 7) as this was not relevant to their involvement with Mothers Union headquarters. Selected paid Mothers Union staff working overseas, for example, Provincial Community Development Coordinators and the leader of the Mothers Union in Kenya, also excluded managing people and money (pillars 6 and 7), and external relations (pillar 8) and monitoring (pillar 9) as well. The decision around getting different groups to assess 6

7 different parts of the organisation was based on the level of engagement of these groups in different areas of the Mothers Union and their direct knowledge and experience of each pillar. Pillars Building blocks Who is the best person/team to involve? 1 Identity and integrity Shared values and vision Board, senior Distinctive contribution management team, Transparency human resources and Partnership communications teams Beneficiary voice 2 Leadership and strategy Developing strategy Board, senior Monitoring strategy management team, Strong governance human resources Diverse governance teams Inspiring leadership 3 Partners Selection Senior management, Shared values monitoring and Roles and responsibilities evaluation and Monitoring partnerships programmes teams, Staff capacity country offices and Staff continuity partners Capacity development Partner sustainability 4 Beneficiaries Transparency Programmes and Participation institutional funding Feedback teams, country offices, Staff capacity partners, and beneficiaries 5 Programmes Identification Senior management, Planning monitoring and Indicators and targets evaluation, Monitoring and learning programmes, and Evaluation and learning institutional funding Programme resources teams, country offices Resources for monitoring and partners Strategy for impact Sustainability of impact 6 People Skills and capacity Senior management, Recruitment and human resources Policies teams, and all line Managing performance managers, staff and Learning and development interns Interns Health, safety, and security Feedback 7 Money Planning and fundraising Treasurer, senior Financial risk management management, finance Value for money teams, and all budget 7

8 Budgeting Accounting systems Financial reporting Financial controls Staff capacity 8 External relations Communications strategy Creative communications Media Supporters Institutional donors Private sector Civil Society Organisations Networks Government Research community 9 Monitoring Culture System Communicating results Knowledge management Innovation Staff capacity 10 Internal communications Communication Collaboration Staff participation Country offices Affiliates/ members 11 Influencing Strategy Evidence base Context analysis Planning Monitoring and learning Evaluation and learning Staff capacity Collaboration Public mobilisation Beneficiary involvement Policy influence holders Board, senior management and communisations teams, fundraising team including institutional, corporate and individual giving staff, advocacy and policy team Board, senior management, monitoring and evaluation and programmes team Board, senior management and human resources teams, all staff, country offices Senior management, advocacy, policy and campaigning teams, monitoring and evaluation team Timing The timing of the health check has a big influence on its overall success. It may help to discuss: Why are you doing the assessment now? Is it the best time to do it? What else is going on? What is it responding to or contributing to? What will you do with the results? Will they be used in a way that can lead to sustainable organisational development rather than ad hoc initiatives? How much investment are you prepared to make in the process? (time and money) When will you repeat the process? 8

9 Having clear answers to these questions will help you to show staff that working through the organisational health check is worth their time and will lead to tangible benefits for the organisation. The table below provides some examples of the ongoing processes other NGOs have incorporated the health check into. Organisation Purpose and timing Farm Africa Strategic planning at organisational level and allocating resources We went through the self-assessment process during our strategic planning period and whilst we were finalising a funding agreement with DFID and used the results when we were at the end stage of formulating our strategy. It was good to get an idea of what the organisation feels about itself and what should be included in the strategy, and doing the health check at this time provided us with good insight into placing resources. It was especially useful for us as a PPA recipient organisation as it enabled us to smartly put new resources into the right areas. EveryChild Organisational change involving structural or strategic focus shift Existing process of organisational change changing our operating model. Haven t had to apply much from the health check. It gave us confidence and confirmed that there were no major trouble spots for us. No glaring problems. We have confidence to say we can move forward with strategy shift, would have happened anyway. Nothing was serious enough for us to take any immediate action. Self Help Africa Developing a proposal and collecting baseline data and evidence For us, the main purpose of going through the health check process was to collect baseline data for organisational learning and to add information into a funding proposal. The health check provided us with a systematic process for assessing effectiveness and a source of evidence. We have a PPA funding agreement with FARM Africa and in funding proposal we said we d use the health check to track progress over time. It s so useful to have evidence from this assessment. The whole process coincided with our strategy and we used results as a baseline. This time next year we will do the assessment again, as part of a mid-term review of our strategy. ADRA and Tree Aid Preparing for HAP certification or becoming compliant with other standards and principles Two organisations made reference to using the process of going through the organisational health check as an intermediary step before applying for HAP certification ADRA Last year we had two DFID initiated KPMG due diligence reviews which have already helped us to streamline the organisation and catalogue processes and procedures. The ultimate goal of these exercises is to apply for HAP certification in the very near future. TREE AID We don t currently use any existing tools or standards, but the health check and resources portal is useful in pointing us to relevant standards. We will work on some kind of formalised internal standards, for example, we are renewing our partnership policy and the health check has reinforced our need to do that. There are also cases where we may think about using external standards and principles. 9

10 Building shared commitment and ownership among colleagues Whoever you involve make sure that they understand why the organisation is doing the health check, their role in the process and how the results will be shared and used. Some of the ways in which you could generate wider interest and commitment are: bringing together a working group of staff representing different levels and teams to work with you to promote the roll out of the health check getting the working group involved in planning how you will discuss, analyse and use the results (the discussions around the results and action planning are an exciting part of the process and it is important to emphasise this whenever you can) collaboratively developing an action plan outlining the steps needed to improve the organisation s effectiveness While the reasons for doing the health check will be specific to your organisation and will have already been agreed at a senior level, some general benefits can be found in the Organisational Health Check; benefits and considerations guide. Case study Every Child establishing a working group to lead the process The responsibility for rolling out the self-assessment was shared by an internal effectiveness working group made up of departmental and functional leads and also individuals who had been with EveryChild for long enough to have a broad view of organisational effectiveness. They championed the tool internally and broke off into subgroups, analysing trends and looking at the results we needed to understand further. More specifically, the group analysed and debated discrepancies in scores, looking to understand whether these were due to individual differences in opinion, or indicators of pockets within the organisation where more work is needed. They assessed whether the overall level of effectiveness for each area is appropriate for EveryChild s current and planned future state, or whether further improvements are desired. Where improvements were desired, they began preparing action plans for enhancing effectiveness. Finally, the effectiveness working group instilled confidence in the participants involved in the survey by communicating clearly that the survey responses have been taken on board, assessed, and that relevant actions would be taken moving forwards. 2. Gather the data The health check has been designed so that it s easy to gather data from a wide range of people. The online survey can be sent out to as many participants as you want. There are direct links to the different pillars so that you can ask people to only complete certain sections. The online survey also allows users to save their responses and return to them at another time, and to leave comments against individual sections of the tool to either explain their scores or provide suggestions for improvement. Individuals answering the survey first set up a personal profile and select their role and location. The role and location details are then pulled into the CSV data file containing individual survey responses that you can download from the results page. For you as the coordinator the obvious benefit of people using the online survey is that individual responses are automatically aggregated so there is no need for you to do any data inputting. That said, 10

11 you may want to supplement the survey with data collected through other methods, or might not want to use the survey. Other options include: Focus groups this could involve teams completing relevant pillars together in a small group. If you choose a focus group there are PDF versions of each of the pillar that you can download and print out to use in a workshop. Telephone interviews coordinator interviewing people. Might need to turn levels into questions by unpacking the level descriptions and breaking them down into a set of questions. Of course if you choose to run a focus group or conduct telephone interviews you will need to add the data into the health check yourself in order for all responses to be represented in your overall results. Case study Tree Aid approaches to collecting data In terms of collecting the data, we used a combination of focus groups that we facilitated internally and focus groups which Bond helped facilitate. All UK based staff were invited to participate in two focus groups to assess two of the self-assessment pillars. The other areas were split up based on technical expertise and availability, for example external relations (pillar 8) and internal communications (pillar 10) were assessed as part of an existing meeting about programme information and communication and fundraising. Similarly, managing money (pillar 7) was reviewed as part of a regular finance team meeting. None of the meetings were mandatory so the spread of people scoring the organisation was not necessarily representative. In addition to the focus groups, we also reviewed a piece of research that we d commissioned on our strategy process and organisational leadership to inform our assessment of our identity and integrity (pillar 1) and leadership and strategy (pillar 2). We chose this approach because at the time of doing the assessment we were in the middle of a very participative strategy process which staff were committing time to. Robust data collection Whichever approach you take it is recommended that you don t rely on assumptions or the information people already have on their department or area of work. You will get a more accurate picture of the health of your organisation if staff review key documents including organisational strategies, policies, guidelines and partner agreements in order to provide evidence to back up the responses and why the particular levels within the building blocks were chosen. Evidence needs to be robust, gathered honestly and critically analysed - cutting corners will skew the findings and defeat the object of doing the health check. 11

12 A checklist for assessing the quality of NGO evidence of change (DRAFT) Principle Criteria or optional consideration/ useful for subsequent assessments 1) Voice and Inclusion We listen to beneficiaries perspectives on our organisational effectiveness 1a. Are the perspectives of beneficiaries included in the assessment data collected and evidence reviewed? 1b. Are the perspectives of the most excluded and marginalised groups included in the assessment data collected and evidence reviewed? 1c. Are findings disaggregated according to role and location? Optional Optional Comments / evidence 2) Appropriateness We use methods that are justifiable given the size of our organisation and purpose of the assessment 3) Triangulation We make conclusions about the organisation s effectiveness by using a mix of methods, data sources, and perspectives 4) Contribution We can show how change happened and explain unintended changes 1d. Do beneficiaries play an active role in analysing the data? 2a. Are the methods used to collect data appropriate given the size of the organisation and the purpose of the assessment? 2b. Is the size and composition of the group from which data is collected appropriate given the size of the organisation and purpose of the 2c. Is the composition of the group collecting and analysing the data appropriate given the size of the organisation and purpose of the assessment? 2d. Are the methods used to analyse the data appropriate given the size of the organisation and purpose of the assessment? 3a. Are different data collection methodologies used and/ or are different types of data collected? 3b. Are the perspectives of key stakeholders compared and analysed in establishing if and how change has occurred? 3c. Are conflicting findings and divergent perspectives presented and explained in the analysis and conclusions? 3d. Are the findings and conclusions of the assessment shared with and validated by key stakeholders (e.g. beneficiaries, partners, peers, Bond)? 4a. Do we show how change has happened using a point of comparison (e.g. a baseline, a counterfactual, a comparison with a similar group)? 4b. Are unintended and unexpected changes (positive or negative) identified and explained? Optional Subsequent assessments Findings should always be shared but extent of validation is optional Subsequent assessments 5) Transparency We are open about the data sources and methods used, the results achieved, and the strengths and limitations of the evidence 5a. Is the size and composition of the group from which data is collected explained and justified? 5b. Are the methods used to collect and analyse data and any limitations of the quality of the data and data collection methodology explained and justified? 5c. Is it clear who has collected and analysed the data and is any potential bias they may have explained and justified? 5d. Is there a clear logical link between the conclusions presented and the data collected? 12

13 Timeframes It is important you are clear with people about how the process will move forward and key milestones. If those involved understand how their inputs fit into the bigger picture they are more likely to engage positively in the process. Also, make sure that you give a realistic timeframe and a firm deadline for people to have completed the self-assessment. You don t want deadlines to slip. Finally, make sure you give yourself and/or the working group sufficient time to do an initial analysis of the findings before you run a bigger results workshop. An initial analysis of results that starts to draw out emerging issues, areas of possible focus, and key strengths and weaknesses will be crucial for providing the basis for a detailed and informed discussion at a bigger workshop. 3. Analyse the results Case study EveryChild analysing your results and developing an improvement plan In terms of approach, ours was heavy-ish. We sent the survey sent to teams to circulate to team members but some completed the scoring as a group exercise. When we came to analyse the results, we spent almost a full day in a workshop to moderate scores and propose priority areas for action. Following this, the management team had a meeting to review proposals and allocate responsibilities. The way they looked to prioritise was not to focus on low scores versus high scores instead we concentrated on where we were and where we needed to be in order to deliver. There was a tendency for management not to worry about something if the score was above 3. Segmenting the results by respondent group was extremely useful and probably the most insightful part of the exercise. In terms of prioritisation we used traffic lighting approach. If we were close to achieving an area of improvement it was labeled green, if we were moving in the right direction and had a plan it was amber, and if not it was red. We found this worked quite effectively. Red didn t always mean an area needed urgent work. For some areas it was expected we d score low. Once all your data has been collected and entered into the online Health Check, the results page displays a spider diagram with the aggregate results for your organisation for each of the pillars you have completed. The scores are an average of all survey responses. A second-level spider diagram displays the aggregate results for the building blocks within each pillar. Again, each second-level spider diagram presents the average of all responses. You can either print off the results page or download it as a PDF file. 13

14 CSV file On the results page you can also download a CSV file containing respondent s data for each of the pillars, including their individual comments. From this file you can sort and analyse the response data by the location and role of respondents. For example, if you want to know how responses for leadership and strategy (pillar 2) varied according to whether a respondent was on the senior management team or not, the data in the CSV file allows you to do this segmentation. We know this file looks quite intimidating so we have produced a fact sheet containing guidance and tips for how to get the most out of the data contained in your CSV file. Contact us at ngoeffectiveness@bond.org.uk for a copy. Benchmarking If you are interested in seeing how your organisation is doing against other organisation there is the option to use the health check benchmarking filters. Results can be filtered by: organisation size themes of work countries of work approach to programmes approach to the assessment Using the benchmarking filters will give you a unique opportunity to get a picture of where you sit in relation to the average score among a group of peer organisations. Some organisations have found it useful to use the benchmarking to galvanising staff interest in 14

15 the process. Some have found that the benchmarking can help prioritise which areas you want to improve. Others however have decided not to use the benchmarking at all. TreeAid for example, felt that emphasising the benchmarking could skew people s responses and might make the process more about looking good rather than honestly reflecting on current practice. You ll need to decide how best to use the benchmarking within your organisation. A word of caution about interpreting the benchmarking: Organisations have all completed the assessment in different ways and while we are emphasised the need to be robust and evidence your scores, at the end of the day we have no control over the scores that are inputted into the benchmarking. Similarly, while we have tried to be as specific as possible in defining what practice for each level of a building block looks like, there will always be differences in interpretation. Recognising these challenges, it is important that you view the benchmarking as providing an indicative picture of current patterns (and over time trends) in the NGO sector. Interpreting the results is more of an art than a science. Preparing a workshop to analyse and interpret the results Before the results workshop, make sure that those taking part have a chance to see the picture of the organisation that s emerging. You can print out and enlarge the spider diagrams or send them as PDFs. At the workshop you will want to take stock of the emerging picture and check that it represents an accurate picture of current practice within your organisation. It might be helpful to consider: Whether the results that have emerged provide you with what you need to fulfil the purpose you identified for using the health check? Are there follow up questions you could discuss at the results workshop that will provide you with more insights and a way of validating responses or are there more people you could interview to provide a fuller understanding of that pillar? How will you ensure that all groups involved in the organisational health check are involved in the discussion of results? How did the results differ amongst the different groups involved and what does this tell you? People tend to be more critical of the areas they have the most involvement with. Was there anything that came out of the results that surprised you? Did you expect to score higher in specific areas? What does the overall distribution of levels look like? If there are lots of high and low levels you may need to discuss why this might be. Are you deliberately prioritising your development in some areas at the expense of others? Are there patterns where the same type of building block is at a similar level? For example, levels may be consistently low in the strategic dimension of a number of pillars (i.e. developing strategy in pillar 2, planning and fundraising in pillar 7, communications strategy in pillar 8, strategy in pillar 11) Where you reached levels 4 and 5, what helped you get there? Can you repeat this for other pillars? What are the key things holding the organisation back from achieving the higher levels? Which areas do you think need to be tackled as a priority? When could you repeat the health check to see if progress has been made? 15

16 Case study International Childcare Trust analysing your results and developing an improvement plan The advantage of having an external facilitator who has worked on monitoring effectiveness is that it brings an impartial person into the room. Often, within an organisation, there will be different opinions for example, people who always think glass half empty or glass half full). An external facilitator will have worked with different organisations and can actually bring that broader sectoral knowledge into the room. And, external facilitation can help to break down power dynamics, as they can facilitate conversation and ensure that different voices, not just the dominant ones, are heard. From a more practical angle, it was our external facilitator s idea to show the visual matrix of how we scored, which added a lot of immediate value in terms of helping us to decide how we d focus our time and energy. 4. Develop an improvement plan Two phases 1. Prioritising capacity building needs The final spider diagram picture will show the areas where your organisation may need to build its capacity. Your next step will be to prioritise which areas to focus on. This should be done through participatory discussion, taking into account a number of factors including the need to: strengthen the areas critical to the success of the organisation address serious capacity deficits consider where a capacity deficit creates a problem in meeting important internal and external stakeholder requirements consider where improvements to individual building blocks would have positive effects on a number of other related building blocks (e.g. improving governance) consider where improvement in capacity could be achieved quickly or relatively easily to give confidence to those involved and send a signal to others in the organisation that change is attainable and the assessment process can lead to tangible benefits consider the resource implications of making any required changes avoid over-committing the organisation by tackling too many capacity needs at the same time consider other change processes that are happening in the organisation and the potential for synergy 2. Planning the interventions Once you have decided which areas to focus on, discuss and agree practical and realistic steps to address the issues. Ideas could be generated and analysed in a workshop, which could also include discussion of possible consequences of the interventions and any likely risks. 16

17 When examining options for the interventions, you should consider those which you can do yourselves (taking ownership of your own development), those which you can do with other organisations and those where you may wish to bring in additional, external help. Only bring in external help where it will add value. Writing the plan The development plan can be a standalone document or form part of an overall organisational strategy or business plan. It can also be fed into country or departmental work plans. The plan should include: timescales for each building block addressed in the plan, include the current average score and the goal score and description to remind you what you are aiming for a brief description of the proposed capacity building intervention or activity and details of how you will carry it out resource requirements (time, finances, tools, specialists) who is responsible for the activity how progress will be monitored, when, and by whom a space for comments, for example, noting when activity completed, delayed etc. 5. Use the online resources Follow steps 3 and 4 thoroughly before using the resources. When you are ready, the resources can be found: From the results screen, click on the pillars you are interested in finding resources for. Each pillar has is a summary of the most popular resources including standards and principles, tools, Bond training courses, and consultants. From the resource summary page there is a full selection of standards and principles for each pillar with information on each standard covering the organisations already using it and the steps and resources involved in using it You can also open a page with a full see set of tools related to each pillar. or to view the tools most relevant to your capacity needs use the menu to view to a full list of tools for each specific building block 17