Presentation on theme: "Building a TEC Communications Strategy: Questions and Issues for Consideration."— Presentation transcript:
Building a TEC Communications Strategy: Questions and Issues for Consideration
Definitions & Ideas Dissemination Purposive, goal-oriented communication of information or knowledge that is specific and potentially usable (Louis & van Velzen, 1988). RAPID (Court et al, 2005) Continuous interaction leads to greater chances of successful communication – and therefore influence.
What we need to do today Strategy questions Aims & objectives Audience/s Messages / to whom Duration Modalities Channels: products / activities Follow-up Resources needed Next steps (final plenary)
Our Aims & Objectives Aims: To promote change in policy and practice in the humanitarian sector, as well as in the recovery / development sectors. To optimise accountability to the public in both donor and affected countries in terms of what TEC agencies have done. To learn from this ‘test case’ evaluation and to foster appropriate change in policy and practice in the humanitarian evaluation community.
Our Aims & Objectives contd Objectives: To promote higher level analysis of humanitarian policy and practice through synthesis. To facilitate learning from the TEC thematic evaluation reports, the synthesis report and other products as relevant. To provide the public in donor and affected countries with a summary of what was done with their donations to the tsunami response. To facilitate learning about the TEC joint evaluation process. To increase awareness of TEC products and raise the profile of the TEC more generally.
Strategy Questions: What are the Characteristics of our Target Audiences / Organisations? Who do we need to influence? (policy-makers; practitioners; public; others?) Where are they located? What are their preferred channels of communication and engagement? For these audiences: what are the levels at which the products and tools should be pitched (policy, strategic management, project / programme management)? Among these, are there any potential “owners” of the evaluation findings (eg, Egeland) or “catalysts” for change (eg, Benn, UK)? How should we reach them?
Target Audiences / Organisations Some Issues to Consider Prioritise audience Ensure outputs are ‘demand led’ Lead the demand
Strategy Questions : What Messages? Which messages to which audiences? –What are the current ‘policy strands’ we could influence? –Are there burning issues that aren’t currently on the policy agenda but need to be? –What issues go ‘across emergencies’? Cross-sectoral / thematic?
Modalities: How Can We Best Reach Them? What ‘products’ can we use in order to influence policy makers and practitioners eg, briefing papers, synthesis, etc? What ‘tools’ can we use in order to influence policy makers and practitioners eg, seminars, launches, website, etc? What are the ongoing policy debates to which the findings may contribute eg, GHD, UN reform, etc? How do we feed in? Who else can we use to disseminate and amplify evaluation findings eg, is the media an available and useful option? What external windows of opportunity and timing can be exploited to increase impact?
How Do We Reach Them? Some Issues to Consider Timeliness: –Plan ahead so outputs coincide with major policy events –Briefing note in advance of publication while findings still fresh? Flexibility: resources for opportunism? ID experts within TEC who can talk to the 2006 agenda themes? Translation?
Diary Dates & TEC Products: An Example DateEventIssuesOpportunityTEC product / who? DecemberIASC (UN reform agenda discussions) Discussion of ‘cluster system’ To begin to engage around sectoral findings FebruaryDonors meeting in Montreux Identify agenda & decide opportunity AprilInterAction Annual Meeting Get TEC on agenda? To begin to engage US INGOs on relevant findings JulyECOSOC Annual meeting Get on agenda for humanitarian segment?
Follow-up: Encouraging and Monitoring Utilisation in Different Organisations What are the institutional processes within different types of agencies to implement evaluation findings? What are the institutional incentives and constraints for utilisation of evaluation findings? How can utilisation of findings be monitored? What are the resource implications for the TEC?
Next Steps?… Afternoon plenary led by John Telford
Bibliography ALNAP (2003) ALNAP Training Modules for Evaluation of Humanitarian Action (London: ALNAP at ODI). Beck, T (2003) Report on Follow-up visits to ALNAP agencies following the ALNAP Annual Review 2003. June. Borton, J & Eriksson, J (2004) Lessons From Rwanda – Lessons for Today (Copenhagen: Danida). Court, J, Hovland, I & Young, J (2005) Bridging Research and Policy in Development – Evidence and the Change Process. (Rugby: IDTG & London: ODI) Davies, H, Nutley, S & Walter, I (2005) Assessing the Impact of Social Science Research: conceptual, methodological and practical issues. May. Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG; 2002) HPG Communication Strategy. November. Lundgren, H (2003) A Review of Evaluation in Danida Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Copenhagen: Danida). January. MSF - Holland (2000) ‘The Utilisation of Evaluation Recommendations in Medecins Sans Frontieres’. May. National Centre for the Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR; 2001) Developing an Effective Dissemination Plan. January. ODI (2004) Does Evidence Matter: An ODI Meeting Series (London: ODI). ODI (2005) Informing and Influencing the 2005 International Development Agenda: An ODI Communication Strategy. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development & Development Assistance Committee OECD/DAC (2001) Evaluation Feedback for Effective Learning and Accountability (Paris: OECD) Patton, M Q (1997) (3rd edition) Utilisation Focused Evaluation (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications). Perrin, B. (2005) ‘How Evaluation Can Help Make Knowledge Management Real’ in (Eds.) Rist, R and Stame, N. From Studies to Streams: Managing Evaluative Knowledge (Transaction Publishers; forthcoming). Telford, J (2003) ‘Learning Lessons from Recovery Efforts following Major Natural Disasters’ – for the ProVention Consortium. March. Van de Putte, B (2001) Follow up to the Evaluations of Humanitarian Programmes – Findings of the ALNAP Commissioned Study (London: ALNAP at ODI). April.