Spreadsheet: 687974d1595513513-cant-copy-paste-dependent-lists-to-mulitple-rows-using-indirect-function-speadsheet-issue
Sheet: EQ 1a

Column1 | Column2 | Column22 | Column3 | Column4 | Column6 | Column7 | Column8 | Column9 | Column10 | Column11
Notes ID Code | Date | KII/FGD | [NAME] | USAID Staff Sub-Type | Interviewer | Key point/statement made from Notes | Brief Summary of key point made (**important for this to be as clear and simple as possible - this will help you when trying to develop themes and sub-themes) | EQ selection | Theme | Sub-theme
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | EQ list | EvalQ1a | EvalQ1b | EQ2 | EQ3 | EQ4a | EQ4b
004 | 2020-05-21 00:00:00 | KII |  |  | NH | test1` | effectiveness | EvalQ2 | Evaluation_and_Assessments_successes | Final evaluations’ findings used in subsequent design |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | EvalQ1a | Significant_uptick_in_Mission_MEL_productivity | Variable_understanding_of_SIMPLEs_utility_and_function | Monitoring_successes | Monitoring_and_Evaluation_challenges | Missions_first_time_using_this_type_of_structure | Advantages
004 | 2020-05-21 00:00:00 | KII |  |  | NH | test 2 | effectiveness |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | EvalQ1b | Improved_Mission_processes | Factors_for_Success | Evaluation_and_Assessments_successes | Learning_challenges | Successes | Disadvantages
004 | 2020-05-21 00:00:00 | KII |  |  | NH | test3 | value |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | EvalQ2 | SIMPLE_support | Structural_Challenges | Learning_successes | Capacity_Building_challenges | Challenges | Mitigation
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | EvalQ3 |  | Operational_Challenges |  | Crosscutting_issues
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | EvalQ4a
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | EvalQ4b
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Significant uptick in Mission MEL productivity | Improved Mission processes | SIMPLE support | Variable_understanding_of_SIMPLEs_utility_and_function | Factors_for_Success | Structural_Challenges | Operational_Challenges | Monitoring_successes | Evaluation_and_Assessments_successes | Learning_successes | Monitoring_and_Evaluation_challenges | Learning_challenges | Capacity_Building_challenges | Crosscutting_issues | Missions_first_time_using_this_type_of_structure | Successes | Challenges | Advantages | Disadvantages | Mitigation
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Provided needed support to Program Office | AMELP review and DQA provision | Trust built gradually | Robust understanding of SIMPLE’s utility and function | Location inside the Mission (ease of communication, ability to discuss sensitive issues; ability to have meetings) | Challenges within culture of USAID (not adaptive to change; micro-management of processes, control over evaluation SOWs; technical/program issues; evaluation culture) | SIMPLE staff turnover (COPs especially) | DQAs show steady improvement in data quality | Mid-term evaluations’ recommendations used | Relatively new, but enthusiastic response | DQAs: Quality of data received from IPs remain challenging/ inconsistent, and inconsistent processes across consultants | Seems to be limited to dissemination of findings and recommendations from evaluations and assessments | Lackluster trainings for USAID | Sensitivities (Pushback) from [NAME] CORs and IPs on recommendations (evaluations, DQAs) | Learning curve for USAID staff (PO and TOs) | Core/task order separation helped focus resources and drive demand | Time-consuming task order process often leading to loss of consultants | Access easier for USAID and SIMPLE | Perception of SIMPLE as USAID staff | SIMPLE office within security perimeter (place where consultants can work, but communicate more easily with SIMPLE staff)
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Increased production of quality products (e.g. evaluations) | Development of the PITT (performance indicator tracking table) | Only M&E functions initially. Learning added later, informally | Limited understanding of SIMPLE’s utility and function | Front Office support | IDIQ (process, delays, loss of competent consultants) | Inconsistent approach in DQAs (even if for the same IP) | PITT development & uptake from Technical Offices | Assessments leading to expansion/improvement in program design | More open communication among SIMPLE, Mission, and IPs | TO process burdensome and affects quality of evaluations in terms of planning, keeping consultants | Learning for projects and how to integrate learning in design remain a challenge | Limited direct interaction with [NAME] CORs | Demand-driven nature of SIMPLE limited its ability to build capacity | IDIQ design vs. demand-driven vs. demand creation | Structure allowed for flexible expansion of services as needed | Heavy management burden on USAID and SIMPLE (for the task orders) | Enhanced communication and ability to coordinate | Slow security clearance process for SIMPLE staff | Meeting spaces available outside Mission for consultants, IP
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Increased use of evidence-based materials (PwD assessment, especially) | CDCS support | Collaboration and coordination (among USAID, its IPs, and SIMPLE) |  | Program Office management | Constraints in establishing a direct relationship with Technical Offices & IPs | Heavy demand on services from USAID (many DQAs and evaluations at the same time) | AMELP reviews show steady improvement, linked with improved communication | Final evaluations’ findings used in subsequent design | Expansion of activities to include facilitation | Not enough collaboration between SIMPLE and USAID in developing technical design of evaluation SOWs |  | Limited direct interaction with IPs | Task Order process burdensome |  | Gradual increase in collaboration (evaluation SOWs) | Lack of collaboration | Relationship building | Discomfort from USAID as to what they can/cannot share with SIMPLE
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Facilitation services support | Emphasis on capacity-building of Mission |  | Flexibility, adaptability and understanding of USAID (their languages, processes, sensitivities) and Egyptian context | Limited understanding of the value of MEL within the Mission | Difficulty in acquiring timely government approvals for data collection |  | Viable workarounds for data collection challenges | More targeted process and products for Mission staff | Participation and engagement of AORs/CORs and IPs in evaluation review, dissemination, and utilization |  |  | M&E not prioritized |  | Increased ability to start with Core resources while TO being developed (the CDCS) |  | Front Office support | Access challenges for consultants
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Emphasis on capacity-building of IPs |  | Trust built over time with USAID | Inefficient Evaluation Planning Processes |  |  | Quality information dissemination downstream products (infographics, etc.) |  |  |  |  | Lack of relevant expertise with some consultants (e.g. Level of knowledge of consultants, Context awareness of consultants, Subject-matter expertise of consultants)
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Ongoing effort to right-size approach to Mission tasks |  | SIMPLE leadership and management; quality of staff and consultants | Demand-driven, rather than demand-creation/exploration |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Communication between consultants
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | QED and SIMPLE relationship
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Evaluations and DQAs were heavy lift for mission
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Perception of value of MEL improved