2016 elections result in staff turnover and lack of continued commitment to the project at policy and leadership levels Low High Empowerment of middle managers from the early stages of the project. Staff activities, reference to pre-existing and committing strategic documents. Self-imposed tight deadlines lead to quality of legal drafting, since baseline research and stakeholder feedback are insufficiently integrated Medium Medium Maintaining peer dialogue with AoG leadership regarding the deadlines, providing ongoing advice about sequencing of reforms, encouraging methodologically sound outputs, focus on process as well as outputs, encouraging early implementation of the monitoring and evaluation capacity to provide corrective action. Lack of coherence between strategic directions for PAR Roadmap 2020 and day-to-day decisions on civil service reform by GoG (short-term approach leading to dispersion of efforts) Medium Medium Context monitoring as part of regular project monitoring will enable to identify such occurrences and flag issues to Participatory approach and high level of empowerment will incentivize coherent approach. Lack of investment in horizontal communication and coordination by AoG, leading to dispersion of efforts, in particular as concerns the use of other donor support. High Medium Regular donor coordination efforts. Context monitoring as part of regular project monitoring will enable to identify such occurrences and flag issues to Participatory approach and high level of empowerment will incentivize coherent approach. Evolution of regulatory framework and IT tools used in the civil service preceding change in approach and business processes, leading to perpetuation of unwanted practices Medium Medium Context monitoring; early focus of the project on internal business processes, education and change management. Stakeholder Engagement GRF has identified four crucial stakeholders responsible for different project related outputs: The Administration of Georgia (AoG) – accountable for the overall successful implementation of the national agenda including the public administration reform; Civil Service Bureau – directly responsible for planning and executing civil service reform; International Education Centre (IEC) – key institution in the context of civil service reform responsible for establishment of unified civil servants’ professional development platform; Public Service Development Agency (PSDA) – an institution in charge of coordinating government’s efforts to create modern, user-friendly, and accessible public services Data Exchange Agency (DEA) – an organization in charge of fostering ICT development and introduction of e-government in various areas on the national scale. These institutions make up the key list of stakeholders as they are in the key positions to influence successful public administration reform.
regularly used as a forum to assess strategic agenda. PAR lessons learned sessions conducted. Lessons learned report produced. Donor coordination on PAR routinely conducted via AoG. (Piloting 2017) (routine 2018- 2019) 1.3. Share of civil servants understanding, supporting and promoting change associated with Civil Service reform Baseline, and final evaluations; ongoing monitoring data Level of support and understanding of change not assessed yet [NATO/GRRC] 2016 Representative sample of Civil Servants involved in Change Management Readiness Assessment by 2017. Civil Servants assert common values and some become agents of change abroad/in other sectors. First results by end 2017, a positive trend is maintained throughout the project lifetime. Civil Servants assert common values and some become agents of change abroad/in other sectors. First results by end 2017, a positive trend is maintained throughout the project lifetime. Policy Planning and communications units promote CSR/PAR and solicit ongoing feedback. Internal Civil Servants assert common values and some become agents of change abroad/in other sectors. First results by end 2017, a positive trend is maintained throughout the project lifetime. At least 35% of civil servants understanding and supporting PAR by 2017, rate stays stable or grows by 2020 Methods: Quantitative survey, focus groups Risks: no risks identified
communication strategy implemented by 2018 Output 2 Civil service and Human Resource Management: Professional civil service trained, and can protect itself against malpractice and arbitrary decisions 2.1-2.2. Number of civil servants re-trained; Annual intake of new entrants certified and trained. Baseline, and final evaluations; ongoing monitoring data Training centres in various ministries and as well as academic and private providers offer uncoordinated programs for civil servants. Draft Unified training system for civil servants (Civil Service School) conceptualized but not implemented yet 2016 Entry-level Certification program for Civil Servants established. Methodology and training program for the Unified Training System for Civil Servants (Civil Service School) finalized by Entry-level Certification program for Civil Servants established. Methodology and training program for the Unified Training System for Civil Servants (Civil Service School) finalized by Induction and training system formalized. International partnerships established in offering training at the basic civil servant and top level (political) levels Starting Civil Service School Established; first student intake. Specialized training courses by external service providers certified by 2018. Standardized induction and training conducted routinely. Ongoing evaluation for monitoring and adjustment of training content and methodology by the end of 2020. 10 thousand Civil Servants (re)trained by 2020. Methods: Quantitative survey, key informant interviews, desk review, monitoring data collection. Risks: no risks identified 2.3. Strengthen a capacity of CSB for better implement civil service reform (CSR), through a range of Baseline, and final evaluations; ongoing The capacity of CSB needs to be strengthened to effectively implement CSR initiatives. Mediation and 2016 # of capacity development needs are identified. Mediation and dispute settlement models in various countries and international organisations Capacity building activities within CSB are initiated. On-Demand needs are initiated for targeted issues. Additional topics are identified for on-demand needs. Mediation system rolled out across CSB expands its ability to perform its functions under PAR and skills are strengthened among capacity Methods: Stakeholder analysis – focus groups, key informant interviews, desk review.
Development initiatives, including the establishment and usage of mediation and dispute settlement mechanisms. monitoring data arbitration system for contesting managerial decisions or tasking and performance evaluation judicial process is the only course of action studied. Appropriate model selected by 2017 and subsidiary legislation drafted by end-2017. Mediators sought and trained. Trial run of the mediation in three line ministries by the Civil Service by mid-2019. activities. Steady rate of increase in using the mechanisms plateauing by 2020. Capacity evaluations of CSB show favourable and significant improvements. Mediation /arbitration system operational by end of project. Risks: identifying appropriate method to measure the indicator 2.4. CSB prepared to adapt policies, diversify and deepen reforms, based on systematic analysis of implementation, generated stakeholder feedback and forward planning. Baseline, and final evaluations; ongoing monitoring data Action Plan 2017-18 under development; Law on Civil Service enters into force in 2017. 2016 Planning meeting with CSB. Study topic 1 for Policy Lab identified, ToRs agreed and study launched. Study 1 completed, recommendations presented and action taken. Study 2 for Policy Lab initiated. Study 2 completed, recommendations presented and action taken. Study 3 for Policy Lab initiated. Study 3 completed, recommendations presented and action taken. Readiness for decision-making ensured for upgrading the civil service recruitment, evaluation and mediation. Methods: Stakeholder analysis – focus groups, key informant interviews, desk review Risks: identifying appropriate method to measure the indicator 2.5. Citizens, civil society and academia contribute to PAR reform. Baseline, and final evaluations; ongoing Only few academic and civil society organisations have sufficient knowledge to meaningfully 2016 Topics first round of research grants announced/ awarded. Research reports published and recommendations discussed in Innovation Lab format Topics identified and the second round of research grants announced/ awarded Research reports published and recommendations discussed in Innovation Lab format At least four institutions have developed expert capacity in particular areas of PAR and Methods: Stakeholder analysis – focus groups, key informant interviews, desk review. 2018.
monitoring data contribute to PAR reform. meaningfully cooperate with the AoG Risks: no risks identified Output 3 Service delivery: Quality services delivered, based on innovative, consistent and replicable methodology, as well as analysis of usage data patterns and consumer feedback 3.1. Proportion of public services delivered based on unified Service Delivery Standard Operating Procedures (SoP) and integrating quality assurance system in place. Citizen satisfaction about quality of public services Baseline, and final evaluations; ongoing monitoring data No unified quality assurance system exists. Various agencies design and deliver services without shared and predictable principles. Level of citizen satisfaction about quality of public services - TBD 2016 Existing service delivery practices in Georgia and international best practices researched, baseline established by Existing service delivery practices in Georgia and international best practices researched, baseline established by Quality assurance system for service delivery selected and implemented in Policy document on Common Principles of Service Design and Delivery (Standard Operating Procedures) drafted, discussed and approved by mid-2018. SOPs published. Initial training conducted. Module on service delivery principles and quality assurance incorporated into Civil Service Training in 2019 95%of services use SOPs and comply to quality assurance systems by 2020 Level of citizen satisfaction about quality of public services increased by (?) % - (exact percentage increase to be determined per the baseline information) (2020) Methods: Quantitative survey, desk review, Key Informant Interviews, Focus groups. Risks: identifying appropriate method to measure the indicator 3.2. Knowledge- and expertise-management in e-governance improved, expanding sustainability, replicability and continuous improvement of the existing services; Expert staff retention Baseline, and final evaluations; ongoing monitoring data Award winning systems exist, but e technical and methodological documentation often lacking, endangering sustainability, replicability and continuous improvement of services. 2016 Competency Centre on established Competency Centre develops methodological packages and technical documentation. Centre website operational. Staff trained to transfer knowledge. At least two consultancy Domestic services maintained according to technical documentation. centre services made available through international platforms (e.g. Domestic services maintained according to technical documentation. centre services made available through international platforms (e.g. E-governance Competency Centre fully operational by 2020, maintains domestic services and transfers expertise abroad Methods: Quantitative survey, Key Informant Interviews, desk review, focus groups Risks: no risks identified
Monitoring Plan Monitoring Activity Purpose Frequency Expected Action Partners (if joint) Cost (if any) Track results progress Progress data against the results indicators in the RRF will be collected and analysed to assess the progress of the project in achieving the agreed outputs. In the frequency required for each indicator. Slower than expected progress will be addressed by project management. Contractor organization(s) contracted for baseline, and final evaluations Evaluation study costs (available within the project) Monitor and Manage Risk Identify specific risks that may threaten achievement of intended results. Identify and monitor risk management actions using a risk log. This includes monitoring measures and plans that may have been required as per UNDP’s Social and Environmental Standards. Audits will be conducted in accordance with UNDP’s audit policy to manage financial risk. Quarterly Risks are identified by project management and actions are taken to manage risk. The risk log is actively maintained to keep track of identified risks and actions taken. No (conducted by UNDP and project staff) Learn Knowledge, good practices and lessons will be captured regularly, as well as actively sourced from other projects and partners and integrated back into the project. At least annually Relevant lessons are captured by the project team and used to inform management decisions. No (conducted by UNDP and project staff) Annual Project Quality Assurance The quality of the project will be assessed against UNDP’s quality standards to identify project strengths and weaknesses and to inform Project Board / management decision making to improve the project. Annually Areas of strength and weakness will be reviewed by project management and used to inform decisions to improve project performance. Project Board Members No (conducted by UNDP and project staff)
Output 3 Quality services delivered and innovations planned, based on consistent and replicable methodology, citizens’ needs and feedback consistently integrated into service development 3.1. Common Standards and Principles of Service Design and Delivery (SoPs) established and implemented, integrating quality assurance systems 55,631.58 41,447.37 13,815.79 DFID 72100 - Contractual Services Companies 325,500.00 3.2. Competency Centre on Service Delivery and E-governance oversees quality control at home and conducts twining/experience transfer programs abroad 32,236.84 46,052.63 UNDP/DEA 240,394.74 3.3. Citizen feedback integrated into development of online services, their usage increased 50,657.89 9,210.53 UNDP/DEA 396,052.63 Sub-Total for Output 3 961,947.37 Monitoring/Evaluation Monitoring and Evaluation UNDP/PCU DFID 72100 - Contractual Services Companies 322,368.42 Project Management Project Management UNDP/PCU DFID 71400 – Contractual Services Individuals 1,180,510.52 Facilities and Administration 48,753.95 75,993.42 60,434.21 UNDP DFID 75100 – Facilities and Administration 438,594.74 TOTAL 5,921,052.63 Note: The budget is equivalent of GBP 4,500,000 per UNXRATE for Aug-2016: 1 USD =0.76 GBP. USD budget will be altered in the course of project implementation based on the exchange rate of actual instalments received.