Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
LESSONS LEARNED: NEEF With consideration of the evaluation and the conclusions drawn, the following recommendations are made for future project planning, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of projects: Issue Recommendation Policy and Regulatory change Policy and regulatory change should not be targeted where it is not firmly within the project’s span of control or influence unless there is a strong commitment from a suitable stakeholder to champion this initiative Design due diligence The misalignment of scope and resources and the critical error of targeting the revision of building codes that effectively did not exist, highlights the need to conduct a stringent due diligence of the project design. The inception workshop and inception report are critical for the project team to take ownership of and internalize the scope. The projects should not proceed without this critical step. Project design structure (avoiding policy and regulatory change) GBCNA is an example of a clever project adaption that successfully leveraged industry interest and commitment, achieved improved awareness and created a platform for future energy efficiency in the country, that are not subject to cumbersome government processes. Project designs that can incorporate these characteristics may have greater success. Definition of Outcomes Output statements should be interrogated to check that they are relevant, specific, attainable, measurable and realistically timed, i.e. that they are SMART. The activities that support the outcome should also be aligned and tangibly contributing towards the outcome and the emission reduction goal. This recommendation is relevant to the design stage when the outputs are being defined, but also at implementation stage, especially during the inception workshop and as part of the ongoing M&E process. This is a reiterating the GEF / UNDP guidelines for project development, but is emphasized as critical to successful delivery. Scope and resource alignment Ensure there are adequate financial and human resources assigned or committed to the project for the range of activities planned. The NEEP probably needed three project managers with the support of a project assistant/administrator to have delivered on the full design scope of the project. At least a high-level work breakdown structure and resource allocation should be done to check the realistic delivery of the scope within budget and with the available resources. Positioning of the NEEP in the REEEI and project management. The REEEI faced challenges with implementation and did not leverage the strength of its influential position and capacity as center of technical excellence. Constraints related to capacity and skills are addressed separately below, but perhaps the key to unlocking this inefficiency lies with a stronger, structured project management approach focused on outcomes rather than activities. It is strongly recommended that, when it is not possible to find a technical expert with suitable project management experience, the team structure for similar projects have a full time project manager with part time technical specialist support. It is further recommended that project management capacity and structures be developed within the REEEI (NEI) to position it as a stronger delivery partner. Project management and reporting culture Project reporting is often handled as a report on the good progress only and the tendency is to hide or downplay the challenges. A culture should be instilled amongst project managers to use reporting as an opportunity for raising concerns, communicate risks and appeal for assistance, inputs or guidance as necessary. Issue Recommendation Monitoring and Evaluation. A comprehensive M&E plan and tracking during project implementation against indicators and outputs are critical to demonstrate success and to inform adaptive management. As this is already a requirement of GEF funded/UNDP administrated projects, the necessity of this can only be reemphasized. A project that cannot demonstrate tangible progress in terms of the goals, should be stopped. Skill/competency and capacity constraints. It is critical to recruit and obtain the support of full time, suitably skilled resources for a short-term, intensive project such as NEEP. It is strongly suggested that a skills/capacity development strategy be incorporated where this risk is identified. For example incorporating capacity development into contracts, recruiting widely for specialist positions, but identifying a candidate to shadow the specialist. In both these instances the contract conditions and performance requirements can be structured to enable, track skills transfer and to ensure retention of the ‘trainee(s)’. This addition may come at a premium, but can be capped and included in the budget if properly planned. The project team should furthermore ensure the requirements for studies are clearly defined, that the terms of reference (technical evaluation criteria) for work outputs form Consultants are clear and suitably specific, that the evaluation and selection of service providers identify the required competencies and that delivery is closely managed to the required outputs Stakeholder participation. It is essential to ensure the correct stakeholders are identified and involved from the onset; that strong, jointly beneficial partnerships are actively established towards a common goal; and that support is lobbied for throughout the project. Again, this is repetition of the existing guidelines, but proved a major barrier in revising the building codes without the buy-in of the relevant ministry. Co-funding contributions In-kind co-funding contributions should be assessed in terms of the realistic and specific contribution it will make towards the project goal and outcomes and alignment with project scope. While this project showed a co-funding contribution of >US$5 million, the designed project implementation scope was limited to the GEF funding component of US$859,000.