Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
~Notetmp
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

~Notetmp

219

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
219
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Planning & Methodology Section CPCC BENCHMARKING in civilian CSDP CMOsMethodology DevelopmentProgress Report to CIVCOM Birgit Loeser Luigi Bruno Brussels, 14 April 2011
  • 2. Information Points Background CPCC Initial Views Project Status & Way AheadCIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 3
  • 3. Background Last CIVCOM discussions Current samples: EULEX Kosovo / EUPOL RD Congo / EUJUST LEX Iraq Visits to OSCE and UN DPKOFebruary 2005, PU Benchmarking WorkshopCIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 4
  • 4. initial considerations CPCC Initial Views Need for agreed methodology and terminology Meet both EEAS & Mission requirements (political and operational) Civilian CSDP within overall EU action Clarity about expectations (who is doing what by when)CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 5
  • 5. benchmark approaches CPCC Initial Views Benchmark against End State NOW (how far are we? hard to say) END STATE: when? (*) Michael S. Lund, Preventing Violent Conflicts: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy, USIP Press Books, April 1996CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 6
  • 6. benchmark approaches CPCC Initial Views Benchmark against End State NOW (how far are we? hard to say) END STATE: when? Benchmark against Baseline (have we progressed? we can measure) Mandate Mandate Intermediate Intermediate NOW END STATE END STATE END STATE: when? (Mission (Mission launched) renewed) Baseline 1 yr New 2 yrs New Baseline Baseline Baseline Why are both required?END STATE Where to start from Where to get toCIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 7
  • 7. benchmark approaches CPCC Initial Views What is the best approach for whom? Council: “end state” - if CSDP still required Mandate Mandate Intermediate Intermediate NOW END STATE END STATE END STATE: when? (Mission (Mission launched) renewed) Baseline 1 yr New 2 yrs New Baseline BaselineMissions:“baseline” to report on progress CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 8
  • 8. definition, aim & scope CPCC Initial Views Methodology to assess Mission’s effectiveness Benchmarking is a tool aimed at measuring change through the use ofcomparison. It functions as a monitoring and reporting mechanism to assist in theverification of the outcome of any given action or process, providing accurate and timely feedback, which can then, if required, be used to adjust and enhance the strategy towards a desired end state Aim To standardise the way Civilian CSDP Crisis Management Operations measure and report on the effect they produce against a baseline, assessed through identified indicators and means of verification ScopeThis benchmarking methodology is meant to be integrated throughout the entire Civilian CSDP Crisis Management Operations cycle: planning, conduct, refocusing and termination CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 9
  • 9. indicators and means of verification CPCC Initial Views Different indicators for different levels: Political Strategic Operational Tactical Types of Indicator: Quantitative / Qualitative / Hybrid Means of verification:Method or source to be used to verify an indicatorCIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 10
  • 10. indicators and means of verification CPCC Initial Views Sample of Quantitative Indicator (it helps specifying the amount of the change, e.g. number of beneficiaries or amount of the change expressed as a figure or a percentage) OUTCOME INDICATOR BASELINE MEANS OFThere is improved Number of crimes In 2009, 37.000 VERIFICATIONtrust and exchange reported by the crimes where National crimeof information civilian population reported to the statisticsbetween the police police by the publicand the population Details: Published annually, in March, by the Ministry of Interior on their website Progress Report2010 – The number of crimes reported by the civilian population is 42.000, increased 13,5% CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 11
  • 11. indicators and means of verification CPCC Initial Views Sample of Qualitative Indicator (it helps characterising the quality of the change, e.g. presence/absence of an expected/undesirable change, behavioural change, improved processes) OUTCOME INDICATOR BASELINE MEANS OFThere is improved Police foot patrols In Apr. 09, it was VERIFICATIONtrust and exchange assessed that Europeanof information community patrols Commissionbetween the police are conducted by carand the population due to the hostile Details: attitude of local Quarterly report by population the EC presence in the host country Progress ReportApr. 10 - Police foot patrols started to be conducted in community areas (1/5 of totalpatrols during Jan.-Mar. 2010) CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 12
  • 12. indicators and means of verification CPCC Initial Views Sample of Hybrid Indicator(it helps demonstrating qualitative improvement by quantitatively characterizing the change) OUTCOME INDICATOR BASELINE MEANS OFThere is improved Percentage of male In Sep. 09, 45% of VERIFICATIONtrust and exchange and female the cluster had a CSDP Missionof information population with a favourablebetween the police favourable perception of the Details:and the population perception of the police, of which 20% Conducted annually, police were women in September, Cluster: according to the 1000 citizens, 200 for methodology each region, of which 30% <30yrs, 40% 31-60 outlined in the yrs and 30 % >61yrs. baseline Of the total, 50% lived in urban areas Progress ReportSep. 10 - People’s appreciation of the police service increased to 60% (+33%), 25% female CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 13
  • 13. need assessment, objectives & baseline CPCC Initial Views Situation Analysis (SA) domains: •Constitutional & Institutional •Legal & Budget international •Organizational Design standards Indicators •Infrastructures & Equipment & best practices •Personnel •Training Need& Assessment (NA) B M e a Means of n r MissionVerification Baseline c k Objectives h i n gCIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 14
  • 14. what does it imply? CPCC Initial Views in terms of Mission PlanningFFM (Political SA+NA) Mandate = CMC+CD (end state) TAM (Strategic SA+NA) CONOPS (objectives) Mission PT (Operational SA+NA) OPLAN (tasks) Mission (Tactical SA+NA) MIP (activities)CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 15
  • 15. what does it imply? CPCC Initial Views in terms of Mission Conduct MIP = internal planning & constant reporting MR = Mission OUTPUT6MR = Mission progress / OUTCOME trend assessment Yearly = Mission OUTCOME Mandate Renewal = refocusing, if need be Termination = mission accomplishedCIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 16
  • 16. using benchmarking CPCC Initial ViewsPolitical Objectives (they are stated in CMC/Council Decision)• Long/Mid/Short Term (if stated in CMC/Council Decision)Mission End State (it is the benchmark for CSDP disengagement and it is stated in CMC, based on political indicators and related means of verification)Programme 1. (they correspond to Strategic Indicators (in Means of“Mission objectives” desired OUTCOME CONOPS as generic Criteria Verificationas identified in the CONOPS) for Success) (rarely indicated)Programme 2. SIs MoVProgramme ... SIs MoV CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 17
  • 17. using benchmarking CPCC Initial ViewsPolitical Objectives (they are stated in CMC/Council Decision)• Long/Mid/Short Term (if stated in CMC/Council Decision)Mission End State (it is the benchmark for CSDP disengagement and it is stated in CMC, based on political indicators and related means of verification)Programme 1. (they correspond to Strategic Indicators (in Means of“Mission objectives” desired OUTCOME CONOPS as generic Criteria Verificationas identified in the CONOPS) for Success) (rarely indicated)Action 1.1. (they correspond to “Mission Operational Indicators (in Means ofTasks” desired OUTCOME as identified in OPLAN as generic Criteria for Verificationthe OPLAN) Success) (rarely indicated)Action 1.2. OIs MoVAction 1. … OIs MoV CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 18
  • 18. using benchmarking CPCC Initial ViewsPolitical Objectives (they are stated in CMC/Council Decision)• Long/Mid/Short Term (if stated in CMC/Council Decision)Mission End State (it is the benchmark for CSDP disengagement and it is stated in CMC, based on political indicators and related means of verification)Programme 1. (they correspond to Strategic Indicators (in Means of“Mission objectives” desired OUTCOME CONOPS as generic Criteria Verificationas identified in the CONOPS) for Success) (rarely indicated)Action 1.1. (they correspond to “Mission Operational Indicators (in Means ofTasks” desired OUTCOME as identified in OPLAN as generic Criteria for Verificationthe OPLAN) Success) (rarely indicated)Activity 1.1.1. (they correspond to Tactical Indicators (or Means of“Mission Sub-Tasks” expected OUTPUT Performance Indicators, Verificationas identified in the MIP) sometimes in MIP) (rarely indicated)Activity 1.1.2. TIs MoVActivity 1.1. … TIs MoV CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 19
  • 19. using benchmarking CPCC Initial Views Field Operator’s MaskActivity 1.1.1. … Expected OUTPUT … Indicator/s Means of Verification BaselineI a) … MV a) … …I b) … MV b) …I c) … MV c) … Milestones By when Who Risks Opportunities Questions1.1.1.1.... ... ... ... ... ...? update1.1.1.2.... ... ... ... ... ...? update1.1.1.3.... ... ... ... ... ...? update Progress Report Mission Staff:… (periodically, as required) daily report on what is being done CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 20
  • 20. using benchmarking CPCC Initial Views Mission Internal ReportingActivity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity ActivityOUTPUT OUTPUT OUTPUT OUTPUT OUTPUT OUTPUT OUTPUT OUTPUT Action Action Action Action OUTCOME OUTCOME OUTCOME OUTCOME Programme Programme OUTCOME OUTCOME Mandate OUTCOME Mission Reporting MR: progress of activities (OUTPUT) 6MR: impact trend assessment (OUTCOME) CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 21
  • 21. Project Status & Way Ahead FINALIZE THE METHODOLOGY Step 1CIVCOM to agree on CPCC Benchmarking Paper (June 2011? tbc) Step 2 Requirements, including for IT support Step 3 Library of indicators and means of verification (Political / Strategic / Operational / Tactical)CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 22
  • 22. Project Status & Way Ahead IMPLEMENTATION Introducing Benchmarking in ongoing Missions Address impact on how we plan and conduct (throughout the entire Mission cycle)CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 23
  • 23. Planning & Methodology Section CPCC THANK YOUCIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 24

×