1. Managing for results in the new SF programming period? European Employment forum Benedict Wauters Coordinator Community of Practice on Results Based Management Deputy director, Flemish ESF agency Lecturer at Rotterdam Business School, Hogeschool Den Haag, in Strategy, Risk Management and Research Methodology

2. Challenges for the new SF period Moving from a fragmented collection of Managing Authorities, Intermediate Bodies, beneficiaries, final beneficiaries... to a Programme Management Organisation, delivery partners and constituents, aligned to a common strategy? Moving from accountability to responsibility: what does it mean for indicators, evaluation, performance based-budgeting? COP on RBM has been discussing these challenges for + 2 years 2

3. 3 Results based management (RBM) = Strategic management for the public sector Review and synthesis of tools from leading organisations led to the development of a RBM self-assessment framework (see http://www.coprbm.eu/?q=node/430)http://www.coprbm.eu/?q=node/430 –Public sector oriented sources New Zealand: Getting Better at Managing for Outcomes and Getting Better at Managing for Shared Outcomes Treasure Board of Canada: The Managing for Results Self-Assessment Tool World Bank: CAP-Scan Managing for Development Results Capacity Scan Asian Development Bank: Readiness Assessment Tool - Implementing a Results Focus in Organizations EIPA: CAF –Mainly private sector but also attention to public sector: Palladium: Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame award for Executing Strategy Key starting point is to define the “Programme management organisation” (PMO)

4. 4 Example: the ESF PMO in Lithuania Ministry of Finance (MA) Ministry of Employment (IB) ESF Agency Ministry of education (IB) PMO crosses organisational boundaries and may relate only to a (small) part of the legal entities involved Etc… EC? Audit Authorities? Partners? Who are the line units? Who is supporting who?

5. 5 Example: the ESF PMO in Lithuania Ministry of Finance (MA) Ministry of Employment (IB) ESF Agency Ministry of education (IB) PMO crosses organisational boundaries and may relate only to a (small) part of the legal entities involved Etc… EC? Audit Authorities? Partners? Who are the line units? Who is supporting who? If these entities are in the programme management organisation together, that means they address common policy expectations!

6. 6 A strategy map for programmes-1 An example of a PMO strategy (reconstituted on the basis of planning documents)

7. 7 A strategy map for programmes-2 Four levels of expectations: –Legitimising authorities: who can pull the plug? –Constituents: ultimate beneficiaries (reciprocal expectations) –Process: Delivery and other external partners Internal innovation, production, relationship management processes –Learning and growth: intangible assets (human, organization and information capital) of the PM organization OUT- PUTS ALIGNMENTALIGNMENT INPUTS Conventional programme strategy Decreasing influence OUTCOMES PMO strategy!

8. 8 A strategy map for programmes-2 Four levels of expectations: –Legitimising authorities: who can pull the plug? –Constituents: ultimate beneficiaries (reciprocal expectations) –Process: Delivery and other external partners Internal innovation, production, relationship management processes –Learning and growth: intangible assets (human, organization and information capital) of the PM organization OUT- PUTS ALIGNMENTALIGNMENT INPUTS Conventional programme strategy Decreasing influence OUTCOMES PMO strategy! PMO does NOT deliver any actions /outputs for constituents itself! PMO needs to define, given its chosen added value, what it expects from partners and what they should expect from the PMO

9. 9 PMO added value Programme organisations can add value in three ways: –Either the PM organisation is an enhancer that supports delivery partners to produce already existing products/services to satisfy existing needs BUT also support continuous improvement (volume + process effects*); –or it is an incubator that supports delivery and other partners to continuously (re)develop new products and services for new needs and deploy them until they become stable and mainstream (scope + role effects); –or it is solutions manager where the focus is NOT on specific products and services but on developing detailed knowledge concerning specific challenges (a limited number of) delivery partners are facing regarding their constituents and work closely with them to solve these challenges. This entails supporting, through a portfolio of tailor-made calls, collaboration with other actors to integrate and customise a whole battery of products/services even crossing traditional policy domains (eg education, welfare, employment, economy,…) to better suit the needs of the constituents of the delivery partners (scope + role effects) * See DG EMPL Methodological note : A framework to describe the Community Added Value of the ESF

10. 10 An example of a PMO strategy (reconstituted on the basis of planning documents) Managing for process outcomes at the level of external partners should be top priority for the PMO! Without success there, why should other (attributable) results be expected? Measuring PMO added value

11. Compliance versus responsability? Accountability = compliance –Follow the (financial) rules –Hit targets on indicators –Link finance to targets automatically Managing for results = responsability –Pro-active management: rules are not an end but just a means: if they do not add value, scrap them –Understand and be able to explain why you (did not) make progress: requires a good theory! –Make payment conditional on what was learnt from evaluation and actions taken 11

12. A theory of change in Flanders Most of these actions are part of pathways offered to the unemployed (mod 7) Actions oriented towards the unemployed ASSUMPTIONS TOC requires good understanding of actions!

13. Most of these actions are part of pathways offered to the unemployed (mod 7) Actions oriented towards the unemployed Output oriented: A theory of change in Flanders ASSUMPTIONS Used as a basis for evaluation of the relevant actions

14. 14 Position of detailed theories of change in the overall PMO strategy

15. Opportunities in the Regulation? The Partnership Contract shall set out: …arrangements to ensure efficient implementation of the CSF Funds,including: (i) an assessment of whether there is a need to reinforce the administrative capacity of the authorities and, where appropriate, beneficiaries, and actions to be taken for this purpose An operation may receive support from one or more CSF Funds and from other Union instruments, provided that the expenditure item included in a request for payment for reimbursement by one of the CSF Funds does not receive support from another Fund or Union instrument, or support from the same Fund under another programme. General ex ante conditionality: 7. Statistical systems and result indicators:… The existence of an effective system of result indicators necessary to monitor progress towards results and to undertake impact evaluation: … the selection of result indicators for each programme providing information on those aspects of the well-being and progress of people that motivate policy actions financed by the programme… 15

16. Opportunities in the Regulation? Reinforced strategic programming geared towards results: the Commission proposes a more results-oriented programming process to ensure that cohesion policy programmes have a clear intervention logic, are oriented towards results, and include the appropriate provisions for an integrated approach to development and the effective implementation of the Funds. In particular, the Commission proposes to introduce the Joint Action Plans, which are operations comprising a group of projects as part of an operational programme, with specific objectives, result indicators and outputs agreed between the Member State and the Commission. They offer a simplified management and control system geared towards performance. The CSF Funds may be used to support financial instruments under a programme,…, in order to contribute to the achievement of specific objectives set out under a priority, based on an ex ante assessment which has identified market failures or suboptimal investment situations, and investment needs. Content and adoption of operational programmes …arrangements to ensure the efficient implementation of the Funds, including (i) the planned use of technical assistance including actions to reinforce the administrative capacity of authorities and beneficiaries…; 16

17. Threats in the Regulation? 'Ex post' conditionality will strengthen the focus on performance and the attainment of the Europe 2020 objectives. It will be based on the achievement of milestones related to targets for outputs and results linked to Europe 2020 objectives set for programmes in the partnership contract. 5% of the budget of the relevant funds will be set aside and allocated, during a mid-term performance review, to the Member States whose programmes have met their milestones. In addition to the performance reserve, failure to achieve milestones may lead to the suspension of funds, and a serious underachievement in meeting targets for a programme may give rise to a cancellation of funds… The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall undertake a review of the performance of the programmes in each Member State in 2017 and 2019, with reference to the performance framework set out in the respective Partnership Contract and programmes. Ex ante evaluations shall appraise:…how the expected outputs will contribute to results 17

18. Threats in the Regulation? ESF: Common and programme specific result indicators relate to the priority axes or the sub-priorities established under a priority axis. Baseline indicators shall use the latest available data. Cumulative quantified target values shall be fixed for 2022. An operational programme shall consist of priority axes. A priority axis shall concern one Fund for a category of region and shall correspond, without prejudice to Article 52, to a thematic objective and comprise one or more investment priorities of that thematic objective, in accordance with the Fund specific rules. For the ESF, a priority axis may combine investment priorities from different thematic objectives set out in Article 9(8), (9), (10) and (11) in order to facilitate their contribution to other priority axes, in duly justified circumstances. 18

19. 19 Thank you for your attention! Visit www.coprbm.euwww.coprbm.eu Contact: benedict.wauters@esf.vlaanderen.be

20. Discussion What value are you striving to add with your EU programme(s)? –Enhancer –Incubator –Solutions manager Will you be able to seize the opportunities offered by the new Regulation? Deal with the threats? How? 20

21. Annex Some information about the Community of Practice on Results Based Management 21

22. The Community of Practice on results based management “Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.” Oriented primarily to the ESF as funded by DG EMPL but also open to other Structural Funds

23. The Community of Practice on results based management: work programme +/-Three years: start 1/4/2009 end 1/4/2012 8 knowledge sharing meetings for programme managers –Adressing urgent issues concerning results based management –Reflecting more fundamentally on structural funds practice –Bringing in leading experts to stimulate discussion on the basis of reports on state of the art and on current practices in the structural funds but also beyond 3 study visits to an ESF programme manager to review and improve planning and operations Interactive website with discussion forum, wiki pages, cybrary etc. Dissemination activities: –A training seminar in cooperation with the European Institute for Public Administration in Maastricht –Sessions inside/with the European Commission –A revised Sourcebook + website (www.esfsourcebook.eu) –…–…

24. The Community of Practice on results based management: work programme +/-Three years: start 1/4/2009 end 1/4/2012 8 knowledge sharing meetings for programme managers –Adressing urgent issues concerning results based management –Reflecting more fundamentally on structural funds practice –Bringing in leading experts to stimulate discussion on the basis of reports on state of the art and on current practices in the structural funds but also beyond 3 study visits to an ESF programme manager to review and improve planning and operations Interactive website with discussion forum, wiki pages, cybrary etc. Dissemination activities: –A training seminar in cooperation with the European Institute for Public Administration in Maastricht –Sessions inside/with the European Commission –A revised Sourcebook + website (www.esfsourcebook.eu) –…–… COP will be prolonged until end of 2012

25. Interested? The CoP is open to all structural funds programmes (programme managers, evaluation officers, etc.) External experts can be invited as ad hoc contributors