~notetmp
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
BENCHMARKING in civilian CSDP CMOs
Methodology Development
Progress Report to CIVCOM
Birgit Loeser Luigi Bruno
Brussels, 14 April 2011
Planning & Methodology Section
CPCC
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 3
Information Points
Background
CPCC Initial Views
Project Status & Way Ahead
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 4
Background
Last CIVCOM discussions
Current samples: EULEX Kosovo / EUPOL RD Congo / EUJUST LEX Iraq
Visits to OSCE and UN DPKO
February 2005, PU Benchmarking Workshop
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 5
initial considerations
CPCC Initial Views
Need for agreed methodology and terminology
Meet both EEAS & Mission requirements(political and operational)
Civilian CSDP within overall EU action
Clarity about expectations(who is doing what by when)
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 6
benchmark approaches
CPCC Initial Views
Benchmark against End State (how far are we? hard to say)
(*) Michael S. Lund, Preventing Violent Conflicts: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy, USIP Press Books, April 1996
NOW END STATE: when?
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 7
benchmark approaches
CPCC Initial Views
NOW END STATE: when?
Baseline 1 yr New Baseline
2 yrs New Baseline
(Mission launched)
(Mission renewed)
Mandate Intermediate END STATE
Mandate Intermediate END STATE
Benchmark against Baseline (have we progressed? we can measure)
Baseline END STATE
Where to start from Where to get to
Why are both required?
Benchmark against End State (how far are we? hard to say)
NOW END STATE: when?
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 8
benchmark approaches
CPCC Initial Views
Missions: “baseline” to report on progress
What is the best approach for whom?
Council:“end state” - if CSDP still required
NOW END STATE: when?
Baseline 1 yr New Baseline
2 yrs New Baseline
(Mission launched)
(Mission renewed)
Mandate Intermediate END STATE
Mandate Intermediate END STATE
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 9
definition, aim & scope
CPCC Initial Views
Methodology to assess Mission’s effectivenessBenchmarking is a tool aimed at measuring change through the use of
comparison. It functions as a monitoring and reporting mechanism to assist in the verification of the outcome of any given action or process, providing accurate and
timely feedback, which can then, if required, be used to adjust and enhance the strategy towards a desired end state
AimTo standardise the way Civilian CSDP Crisis Management Operations measure
and report on the effect they produce against a baseline, assessed through identified indicators and means of verification
ScopeThis benchmarking methodology is meant to be integrated throughout the entire
Civilian CSDP Crisis Management Operations cycle: planning, conduct, refocusing and termination
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 10
indicators and means of verification
CPCC Initial Views
Different indicators for different levels:
Tactical
PoliticalStrategic
Operational
Types of Indicator:Quantitative / Qualitative / Hybrid
Means of verification: Method or source to be used to verify an indicator
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 11
indicators and means of verification
CPCC Initial Views
Sample of Quantitative Indicator(it helps specifying the amount of the change, e.g. number of beneficiaries or
amount of the change expressed as a figure or a percentage)
OUTCOMEThere is improved trust and exchange of information between the police and the population
INDICATORNumber of crimes reported by the civilian population
BASELINEIn 2009, 37.000 crimes where reported to the police by the public
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
National crime statistics
Details: Published annually, in March, by the Ministry of Interior on their website
Progress Report2010 – The number of crimes reported by the civilian population is 42.000, increased 13,5%
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 12
indicators and means of verification
CPCC Initial Views
Sample of Qualitative Indicator(it helps characterising the quality of the change, e.g. presence/absence of an
expected/undesirable change, behavioural change, improved processes)
OUTCOMEThere is improved trust and exchange of information between the police and the population
INDICATORPolice foot patrols
BASELINEIn Apr. 09, it was assessed that community patrols are conducted by car due to the hostile attitude of local population
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
European Commission
Details: Quarterly report by the EC presence in the host country
Progress ReportApr. 10 - Police foot patrols started to be conducted in community areas (1/5 of total patrols during Jan.-Mar. 2010)
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 13
indicators and means of verification
CPCC Initial Views
OUTCOMEThere is improved trust and exchange of information between the police and the population
INDICATORPercentage of male and female population with a favourable perception of the police
BASELINEIn Sep. 09, 45% of the cluster had a favourable perception of the police, of which 20% were womenCluster:1000 citizens, 200 for each region, of which 30% <30yrs, 40% 31-60 yrs and 30 % >61yrs.Of the total, 50% lived in urban areas
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
CSDP Mission
Details: Conducted annually, in September, according to the methodology outlined in the baseline
Progress ReportSep. 10 - People’s appreciation of the police service increased to 60% (+33%), 25% female
Sample of Hybrid Indicator (it helps demonstrating qualitative improvement by quantitatively characterizing
the change)
14
need assessment, objectives & baseline
CPCC Initial Views
Situation Analysis (SA) domains:•Constitutional & Institutional•Legal & Budget•Organizational Design•Infrastructures & Equipment•Personnel•Training
international standards
& best practices
international standards
& best practices
Need Assessment
(NA)
Mission Objectives
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
Indicators
&
Means of Verification
Indicators
&
Means of Verification Baseline
Bench
Bench
Marking
Marking
Baseline
15
what does it imply?
CPCC Initial Views
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
in terms of Mission Planning
FFM (Political SA+NA) Mandate = CMC+CD (end state)
TAM (Strategic SA+NA) CONOPS (objectives)
Mission PT (Operational SA+NA) OPLAN (tasks)
Mission (Tactical SA+NA) MIP (activities)
16
what does it imply?
CPCC Initial Views
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
MIP = internal planning & constant reporting
MR = Mission OUTPUT
6MR = Mission progress / OUTCOME trend assessment
Yearly = Mission OUTCOME
Mandate Renewal = refocusing, if need be
Termination = mission accomplished
in terms of Mission Conduct
17
using benchmarking
CPCC Initial Views
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
Political Objectives (they are stated in CMC/Council Decision)
• Long/Mid/Short Term (if stated in CMC/Council Decision)
Strategic Indicators (in CONOPS as generic Criteria for Success)
Means of Verification (rarely indicated)
MoVSIs
MoVSIs
Programme 2.
Programme ...
Programme 1. (they correspond to “Mission objectives” desired OUTCOME as identified in the CONOPS)
Mission End State (it is the benchmark for CSDP disengagement and it is stated in CMC, based on political indicators and related means of verification)
18CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
Means of Verification (rarely indicated)
Operational Indicators (in OPLAN as generic Criteria for Success)
MoVOIs
MoVOIs
Programme 1. (they correspond to “Mission objectives” desired OUTCOME as identified in the CONOPS)
Strategic Indicators (in CONOPS as generic Criteria for Success)
Means of Verification (rarely indicated)
Mission End State (it is the benchmark for CSDP disengagement and it is stated in CMC, based on political indicators and related means of verification)
Political Objectives (they are stated in CMC/Council Decision)
• Long/Mid/Short Term (if stated in CMC/Council Decision)
using benchmarking
CPCC Initial Views
Action 1.1. (they correspond to “Mission Tasks” desired OUTCOME as identified in the OPLAN)
Action 1.2.
Action 1. …
19CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
Means of Verification (rarely indicated)
Tactical Indicators (or Performance Indicators, sometimes in MIP)
MoVTIs
MoVTIs
Activity 1.1.1. (they correspond to “Mission Sub-Tasks” expected OUTPUT as identified in the MIP)
Activity 1.1.2.
Activity 1.1. …
Programme 1. (they correspond to “Mission objectives” desired OUTCOME as identified in the CONOPS)
Strategic Indicators (in CONOPS as generic Criteria for Success)
Means of Verification (rarely indicated)
Action 1.1. (they correspond to “Mission Tasks” desired OUTCOME as identified in the OPLAN)
Means of Verification (rarely indicated)
Operational Indicators (in OPLAN as generic Criteria for Success)
Mission End State (it is the benchmark for CSDP disengagement and it is stated in CMC, based on political indicators and related means of verification)
Political Objectives (they are stated in CMC/Council Decision)
• Long/Mid/Short Term (if stated in CMC/Council Decision)
using benchmarking
CPCC Initial Views
20CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
using benchmarking
CPCC Initial Views
Field Operator’s Mask
Indicator/s
I a) …
I b) …
I c) …
Means of Verification
MV a) …
MV b) …
MV c) …
Baseline
…
Progress Report
… (periodically, as required)
Activity 1.1.1. … Expected OUTPUT …
Milestones By when Who Risks Opportunities Questions
1.1.1.1.... ... ... ... ... ...?
1.1.1.3.... ... ... ... ... ...?
1.1.1.2.... ... ... ... ... ...?
update
update
update
Mission Staff: daily report on what
is being done
21CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
using benchmarking
CPCC Initial Views
Mission Internal ReportingActivity OUTPUT
Action OUTCOME
Programme OUTCOME
Mandate OUTCOME
Activity OUTPUT
Activity OUTPUT
Action OUTCOME
Activity OUTPUT
Activity OUTPUT
Action OUTCOME
Programme OUTCOME
Activity OUTPUT
Activity OUTPUT
Action OUTCOME
Activity OUTPUT
Mission ReportingMR: progress of activities (OUTPUT)
6MR: impact trend assessment (OUTCOME)
22CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
FINALIZE THE METHODOLOGY
Step 1CIVCOM to agree on CPCC Benchmarking Paper
(June 2011? tbc)
Step 2Requirements, including for IT support
Step 3Library of indicators and means of verification
(Political / Strategic / Operational / Tactical)
Project Status & Way Ahead
23CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
IMPLEMENTATION
Introducing Benchmarking in ongoing Missions
Address impact on how we plan and conduct
(throughout the entire Mission cycle)
Project Status & Way Ahead
THANK YOU
24CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
Planning & Methodology Section
CPCC