HOME | JOBS | FEEDBACK | CONTACT US | LOG IN
Subscribe:  Mail Alerts Get Job Alerts


Apply for UNV Pakistan
Apply for Internship
Apply for YPO


Consultant-Evaluation of the Transformation Fund (TF)

Job Category:
Admin Assistants
Career Level:
Job Type:
Full Time
Positions:
1
Agency / Project:
UNDP RC OFFICE
City/Location:
Islamabad
Country:
Pakistan
Posted On:
26 January, 2011
Last Date to apply:
07 February, 2011
Experience in years
2 to 4
Experience:

Experience:
A minimum of ten years of professional experience specifically in the area of evaluation of development initiatives and development organizations;
Substantial track record of conducting different types of evaluations, including process, outcome and impact assessments;
Experience in change management will be an advantage;
Experience in areas of sustainable development such as governance, social sector development, environment is desirable;
Knowledge and/or experience of the UN System is required, and knowledge of the UN Reform process desirable;
Knowledge of finance and accounting is desirable.

Description:
 

  1. Introduction and Description of the Transformation Fund Project:

The Transformation Fund (TF) in Pakistan supports the implementation of the work of the 2006 UN's High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence, whose key recommendation was to ''deliver as one'' at the country level: with one leader, one program, one budgetary framework, one management practice, and where appropriate, one office. Pakistan became one of the eight Pilot Countries to test the Delivering as One approach. One of the outcomes of the reform process is reduced transaction cost resulting from coherent programming, reduced duplication and increased synergies. To effect this change certain fundamental structural changes to the UN system in Pakistan had to be made with regard to the conceptual areas of One leader, One budgetary framework and One Program. The Transformation Fund (TF) was established to provide the resources needed for piloting change over the transition period, and was intended to be used to meet expenses relating to establishing and enacting joint programming.

A project document was developed for TF utilization which elaborates on the intended results to be achieved through the TF project. These results were envisaged to be achieved through establishment and a smooth roll-out of One Program, One Data System, One M&E system, One Budgetary Framework and Unified business practices.

The timeframe of the TF project was July 2007 to July 2009. However, later the project was extended till December 2010 and later till June 2011. As the TF was conceptualized to jump-start the process of piloting UN Reform in Pakistan, it secured $3.5 million with contributions from Australia, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, UK and Switzerland. The TF Project is being implemented by UNDP on behalf of the UN system. As per the project document, the allocation and use of these funds will be overseen by the UN Country Team and managed by a Transformation Fund Management Committee. UNDP is responsible and accountable for the management of resources and will provide all needed logistical support including, but not limited to, recruitment and procurement.

As per the project document of the TF, it will primarily be used to support four pillars of UN Reform (plus independent evaluations):

  1. Temporary support to One Programme (Thematic Working Groups/Joint Programmes

  2. Temporary support to the Operations Management Team (OMT)

  3. Temporary support to the One Leader (RC Office)

  4. Temporary support to the One Budgetary Framework

  5. and

  • Independent Evaluations of DaO in Pakistan

Under the management arrangements a Transformation Fund Oversight Committee was established which would have the UN Resident Coordinator and the Secretary of GoP/EAD or his representative as co-chairs, as well as contributing donors (DFID, Netherlands, CIDA, Norway, SDC and AusAID) as its members. In addition, a Transformation Fund Management Committee composed of RC, UNCT, members, and UNDP was also proposed in the Project Document. The primary responsibility of this committee is to provide guidance on the strategic direction of the TF Project.

2.       Evaluation Objectives:

The objective of this evaluation is to assess relevance, effectiveness, efficiently and sustainability (Since 3.5 years may be premature to accurately measure impact per se, the evaluation will not focus on the impact of the TF Project, but aspects of this will, no doubt, be discernible through the analysis of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability) of the TF in the context of four outcomes stipulated in the TF project document. In general, the guiding questions related to the four major objectives of the evaluation (the list is not exhaustive) will be answered against the four expected outcomes of the TF (Support to Thematic Working Groups, Support to the Operation Management Team, Support to One Leader and independent Evaluations):

2.1. Relevance:

  1. What value did the TF project add to the DaO process in Pakistan and how did it contribute to the DaO process?

2.2. Efficiency:

  1. Have project outputs been achieved in a cost effective manner? How efficiently were the TF funds utilized for the achievement of expected results?

  2. How efficient and participatory were the management decisions on the fund allocation and distribution taken and shared?

  3. How efficient was the role and function of the Managing Agent of the TF?

  4. How efficient was the role and function of the RCO?

2.3. Effectiveness:

  1. Have the planned activities led to the achievement of the outputs and contribution to the outcomes including the cross cutting issues?

  2. Have unexpected outputs happened? If so, why, and how were these addressed?

  3. Have some of the TF design assumptions not held, and if so how has this affected project achievements?

  4. How effective were risk management processes?

  5. Was any process of updating and re-design included and if so when was it applied?

  6. How effective were the information-sharing and reporting processes, both internally and externally?

  7. How did the UN TF interact with the wider aid/development environment?

  8. How effective was the TF governance structure?

  9. Was sufficient quality monitoring information generated in the course of the project to allow for better planning and course correction?

2.4. Sustainability:

  1. What is the ability and readiness of the UN system to maintain the level of coherence that has been obtained through the TF? What constraints, if any, need to be addressed in this regard?

  2. Is there a sustainability strategy and if yes how appropriate is it?

The four objectives mentioned above will be prioritized based on the consultative process through the inception phase in the first phase of the assignment.

3.     Scope:

Broadly the evaluation will focus on how the financial resources provided by the TF have facilitated the initiation and operationalization of the four pillars of DaO and how effectively and efficiently those resources were utilized to address capacity gaps and to acquire additional technical expertise required to establish a sound foundation for DaO.

There are five Outcome Indicators of the TF project which will be evaluated against each question under the four objectives stated above:

  • Joint Programs (One Program including cross cutting issues) established

    • One Programming System established and adopted

    • One Data System Established

    • One Monitoring System Established and activated

  • One Budgetary Framework established and activated

  • Unified Business practices established and activated

  • RC office supported and provided with needed capacities

  • External independent evaluation of the UN Reform Pilot conducted

When assessing that response, the evaluation will analyze the progress of initiation and implementation of the DaO approach expressed in the four Ones, namely - One Leader, One Programme, One Budgetary Framework, and, One harmonized set of business practices including how the UN has spoken with One Voice. The emphasis of the evaluation is on how the UN’s own internal procedures and processes have changed through the DaO in support of better achievement of development results.

4.     Partners:

The evaluation partners will include:

  • UNCT members

  • JP Co-chairs and members

  • Cross Cutting Issues Working Group

  • UNDP as Managing Agent of the TF and UN RCO as facilitators of the evaluation

  • Individual UN agencies involved in the governance and decision making

  • RCO relevant staff

  • EAD

  • Donors

5.        Methodology:

The information will be collected mainly through desk review, key informant interviews and focus group discussions. The review will consult a wide range of stakeholders and will triangulate information to meet the review objectives. The consultant will formulate in detail the methodology for the evaluation under the guidance of the UNCT. The evaluation will be informed by the key methodological principles below:

  • The evaluation is forward-looking and will focus on the design and process aspects while broadly reviewing the results achieved through TF-funded interventions to make evidence-based conclusions;

  • The evaluations will adopt a highly consultative, iterative and transparent approach with stakeholders;

  • Triangulation of information and data across groups of stakeholders and individuals will be the key method to validate evidence,

  • The evaluation will strictly adhere to UN Norms & Standards;

The evaluation methods and tools will preferably include some or all of the following, among others:

  • Evaluation matrix relating evaluation issues and questions to evaluation criteria, indicators, sources of information and methods of data collection;

  • Desk review of reference documents;

  • Individual and group interviews including (but not limited to) TF Oversight Committee, TF Management Committee, representatives from EAD, Donors, UN Agencies, Thematic Working Groups and Cross-Cutting Initiative Group (TWGs & CCI), (The TWGs comprise of Agriculture, Rural Development and Poverty, Health and Population, Education, Environment, Disaster Risk Management, and the CCIs include Gender, Refugees, Human Rights and Civil Society Engagement.) UNDP as AA and Manager of TF, UN Resident Coordinator’s Office, UN M&E Working Group, etc;

  • Checklists or semi-structured interview protocols for each type of interview;

  • Debriefing session with the management.

6.         Roles and Responsibilities:

The evaluation will be conducted by an external consultant hired by the RCO following the SSA rules and regulations. The responsibilities of the consultant will include:

  • Designing the evaluation according to the specific terms of reference;

  • Gathering data from different sources of information;

  • Analyzing and systematizing the information; identifying patterns and causal linkages that explain current performance;

  • Drafting evaluation reports at different stages (inception, drafts, final);

  • Responding to comments and feedback from stakeholders and incorporating them, as appropriate, in subsequent versions;

  • Making presentation to concerned audience; ensuring the evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations are communicated in a coherent, clear and understandable manner.

7.           Management of the Evaluation:

The Evaluation will be managed by the TF Management Committee, and will also include RCO representatives and representatives from UNDP and UNCT. The consultant will work closely with the Senior Coordination Officer in the RCO.

8.      Expected Deliverables:

The consultant is expected to produce the following deliverables:

  • An inception report outlining his/her understanding of the issues under evaluation including a detailed work plan and an evaluation matrix;

  • A presentation with preliminary findings (based on data analysis) to be shared with concerned stakeholders; a short (two to four page) summary of key findings should be prepared for audience on the preliminary report;

  • A first draft report for circulation and feedback from stakeholders;

  • A final evaluation report and presentation;

    The final evaluation report should include i) an executive summary, ii) introduction and rationale, iii) evaluation methodology, iv) findings, v) conclusions, lessons and recommendations, and vi) annexes.

9.    Phases and Timeframe:

 

 

The evaluation will be conducted during a period of 22 working days (Saturdays included) spread over a period of two months to give ample response time on draft deliverables and hence ensuring an inclusive approach with partners. The consultant is expected to be recruited and start work in January 2011. It is expected that a desk review is carried out, followed by an inception and data collection exercise during which the report writing is initiated. Additional time will be given for report writing. Following the completion of the draft report, a review will be conducted by the partners with a subsequent finalization of the report. The evaluator is required to complete at least the following phases:

  • Desk review, 4 days after signing the contract.

  • Inception report: The first deliverable of the assignment is an inception report. The inception report lays out the consultant’s understanding of the issues to be addressed in the evaluation, the information available and the methods for data collection. It spells out a detailed work plan. This will be completed about 6 days after receiving the contract.

  • Data collection: The consultant will collect data through various means, including desk review, semi-structured interviews, focus group Discussions (about 7 days).

  • Data Analysis: The consultant will conduct an in depth analysis of the data gathered through desk review and interviews. The causal linkages between the external and internal factors supporting or adversely affecting the TF results will be projected to support what worked well and should be taken forward and what did not work and how to improve it for future. (3 days)

  • Partners’ meeting on preliminary findings: After the data analysis is finalized a meeting should be organized to present and validate preliminary findings. Participants of this meeting should include but not be limited to the people interviewed and other relevant stakeholders in the country. This is expected to take place during the last week of January 2011.

  • Draft report: After the partner’s meeting the consultant should present the first draft report;

  • Review of draft report: The RCO sends the report for corrections and feedback to the UNCT and to EAD. Subsequently the feedback is shared with the consultant by the RCO for incorporation and submission of the final report. This should be done in the 2nd and 3rd week of February 2011.

  • Final report: The consultant finishes the report after incorporating the feedback internal and external partners (UNCT, EAD and Donors) by end February. (2 days);

 

S. No

Task

Timeline (2010 – 11)

No. of Days

Responsibility

3

Desk Review

February ,2011

04

Consultant

4

Inception Report

February, 2011

02

Consultant

5

Data Collection, data Analysis and Preparation of preliminary Findings

February/March, 2011

10

Consultant

6

Partners meeting on Preliminary findings

February/March, 2011

0.5 day

RCO

7

Draft Report

March 2011

3.5 days

Consultant

8

*Reviewed Draft Report

March 2011

8 days*

UNCT/EAD/RCO

9

Final Report

March 2011

2 days

Consultant


Total Number of Days

22


* 8 days for Review Draft Report are subtracted as it will be done by the UNCT and partne

 

 

Application procedure:

 

The interested individuals will submit their online application on UN’s HR portal BrightSpyre.com. In addition, they will be required to submit a brief Technical proposal and Financial Proposal along with their CV to Ms. Cyra Syed at: cyra.syed@un.org.pk

Referring to the ToRs, the Technical Proposal will elaborate on how the consultant will undertake the assignment based on his past experience, qualification and skills. The Financial Proposal will include his daily consultancy fee in Pak Rupees.

 

 


Education
Must Degree Degree Level Country Description
YesMaster’s or doctoral degreeMasters DegreeThe consultant should be a seasoned development expert and evaluator with a proven track record of conducting evaluations in a professional manner. The evaluator should have a solid understanding of the national context, UN reform process, UN systems, rules and regulations as well as knowledge about Government institutions. Substantive knowledge/experience of sustainable development such as governance, social sector development, and environment is desirable.   The evaluation will be carried out by an independent consultant. To avoid conflict of interest, the consultant must not have been directly responsible for the policy-setting, design, or overall management of the subject of evaluation, nor expect to be included in programming implementation in the near future. Education: Master’s or doctoral degree in international development, public administration, evaluation or related field.

Skills
Must Title Level Description
YesLanguage/other requirements Excellent  Language/other requirements: Excellent communication and interview skills; Excellent report writing skills; Ability to deliver quality results following agreed timelines.