How can a trend analysis feed into operational planning?

Step 1: A SWOT

_Analysis

analysis to assess the extent to which an organisation is able to deal with the trend and therefore what, if any, subsequent action is required. For example, each political trend identified should be ranked as a Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat or Neutral:

• Strength – i.e. that the project/organisation is able to deal with a trend well, no action is required. • Weakness – i.e. that the project/organisation is not well placed to deal with this, and therefore

mitigating actions may be required to avoid this trend potentially turning into a threat for the organization.

• Opportunity – i.e. that this trend presents an opportunity for the project/organisation. Action should be taken to take advantage of this opportunity.

• Threat – i.e. that this trend presents a threat to the project/ organisation. Action should be taken to mitigate the threat before it damages the project/organization.

• Neutral – i.e. that this trend presents no implications for the project/organisation and therefore no action is required; consider potentially ongoing monitoring in case the issue becomes an opportunity or threat.

Step 2: Agreeing actions required. Once trends have been classified as Strengths, Weaknesses,

Opportunities, Threats or Neutral, actions that should be taken need to be agreed upon for those trends classified as Weaknesses, Opportunities or Threats.

Step 3: Prioritising action required. Those

trends classified as Weaknesses, Opportunities or Threats should be prioritised to ensure those which are the most urgent/important are addressed first. Trends should be ranked in order of importance/urgency. That can either be done as a prioritised list highlighting which actions should be dealt with first and potentially require more resources to do so, or they can be plotted on an urgency/importance grid as demonstrated in the diagram.

Step 4: Agreeing resourcing. For each action,

resources to achieve that action should also be discussed as an approximate (i.e. approximate rounded numbers in terms of budget, people and

other resources). Responsibility for carrying out these actions should be allocated.

Note: All these trends will be relevant for the whole project, although some may be specific to parts of it. As such, prioritised actions should shape the project’s overall plan.

What should be the outputs of a trend analysis?

The output of a trend analysis should be a list of trends against each area of PESSTLE, which have been categorised as Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats/Neutral, actions against those classed as Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats are each given a prioritisation ranking. The table below shows an example of how this can be done.

Politics Economics Social Security Technology Legislative Environmental Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat Neutral

Trend ranking

XHigh urgency and high importance – this trend should be addressed first

XHigh urgency and low importance – this trend should be addressed second XLow urgency and

high importance – this trend should be addressed third

X Low urgency and low importance – this trend should be addressed last

To ensure there is no duplication of trends and to condense the list, once the full list has been agreed upon it should be reviewed and clustered – i.e. those trends which are very similar should be grouped into one overall trend.

Action required •Trend A •Trend B etc •Trend A •Trend B etc •Trend A •Trend B etc •Trend A •Trend B etc •Trend A •Trend B etc •Trend A •Trend B etc •Trend A •Trend B etc •Trend A •Trend B etc •Trend A •Trend B etc Trends •S •W etc SWOT(N) categorisation Prioritisation PESTLE analysis Technological Social Environmental Legislative (Sector-specific) Security (Internal) Economics Politics Action required •Trend A •Trend B etc •Trend A •Trend B etc •Trend A •Trend B etc •Trend A •Trend B etc •Trend A •Trend B etc •Trend A •Trend B etc •Trend A •Trend B etc •Trend A •Trend B etc •Trend A •Trend B etc Trends •S •W etc SWOT(N) categorisation Prioritisation PESTLE analysis Technological Social Environmental Legislative (Sector-specific) Security (Internal) Economics Politics

Annex 2: Types of Monitoring

There are different types of monitoring, including the following in order of importance for projects:

• Results / progress monitoring – Assesses the effect and change brought about by the project, in terms of the three levels of results (Outputs, Outcomes and Impact – see Annex 1). To follow up on these results, a baseline against which to establish progress should be in place (e.g. comparing Pre-Harvest and Post-Harvest monitoring results). Progress against outputs and outcomes can be gauged through monitoring, while impact (both intended and unintended, positive and negative) is usually assessed through evaluations. Assessing the extent of progress against each level of results allows for adjustments to be made where required. For example, monitoring lower level results such as outputs, allows project managers to assess whether these are contributing towards higher level results (outcomes and impact), and if not, what alteration in inputs and activities can be applied to correct this.

• Process or activity monitoring – Assesses if resources or inputs (e.g. funds, goods in kind, human resources) are being used at the planned rate, and activities are happening in line with activity plans to delivery outputs. This is particularly important for managers in terms of determining resource allocation.

• Financial monitoring – Looks at whether income raised and expenditure spent are in line with project plans, as well as assessing actual cost for inputs and activities against those in the budget. This is done through budget follow up in liaison with the Finance and Admin team. • Beneficiary monitoring – Assesses beneficiary perception of and satisfaction with a project.

The Feedback or Complaints Mechanisms (see Annex 17) can help track perceptions of the beneficiaries. As the key stakeholders in an intervention, this allows them to participate in the project and provide feedback which is crucial to a project’s success. Gathering indirect beneficiaries’ and non–beneficiaries’ feedback can also gauge success of a project.

• Context monitoring – Assesses any changes in the context in which the project is being carried out. Changes in context may affect assumptions and risks held by the project. Surveillance of the FSL context is a particular type of context monitoring. Context monitoring is about the wider operating context of a project including the funding, political, security and legislative context that can affect project implementation or the ability of the target population to respond to it. Changes in context may require a revision of project assumptions or risks, and potentially even planned results.

• Market monitoring – This assesses changes in markets, such as availability and price of goods. This helps determine whether the markets are able to provide the goods and services required by a population or whether the population is able to access these with the support of an ACF intervention. Market monitoring allows for assessment on whether an intervention is required where a market is not meeting needs, or whether an existing intervention is having the desired effect on markets. This is a key part of surveillance and project monitoring, e.g. cash transfers. • Compliance monitoring – Assesses the extent to which a project is in compliance with ACF’s

mandate and ACF codes (e.g. ACF International Charter), agreements and contracts (e.g. donor requirements and Memoranda of Understanding), key sector standards (e.g. Sphere), sector codes (e.g. Red Cross and NGO Code of Conduct, and People in Aid), Government regulations and laws and ethical standards. Indicators against these requirements can form part of a logframe.

• Risk or assumption monitoring – Assesses whether there is any change in assumptions made about the project and risks to it. Assumptions are about the external operating environment; this is linked to context monitoring. Whereas risks are when assumptions about the external operating environment do not hold; they can also be internal. Indicators to track change in risks or assumptions can be used.

• Capacity monitoring – Assesses the sustainability of capacity built through the project, this can either be in households, communities or organizations, and is often as part of wider programme or organizational monitoring.

Annex 3: Types of Feedback/Complaint Mechanisms

Feedback/complaint mechanisms will vary depending on the project type and what is appropriate for the context. There are different options for how feedback is sought, with some examples listed below. Typically a combination of the below mechanisms is the best approach, as mixed methods typically have a higher likelihood of success.

Community feedback/complaint mechanisms

• Feedback (comment) box – Community and other stakeholders (e.g. volunteers) can submit written feedback or complaints through this. This can be a sealed box located in a community center or at a branch office, which should be checked regularly. This method is limited in confidentiality, (even if people do not record their names with the feedback, they can be identified when submitting them), and would be inappropriate if local literacy levels are very low.

• Regular community meetings – In instances where it is culturally acceptable to discuss feedback/complaints publically, this is a good forum for community feedback, but may be less appropriate for sensitive issues.

• Designated “feedback days” for the local office to receive feedback – These are fixed days for which stakeholders are informed and the local project office prepared to receive “walk-in” feedback. It is important to properly prepare. A sign-up sheet for appointments may be advisable if there is a risk of crowds gathering at the office.

• Information booths – These can be open regularly in project implementation areas that may not have access to the local office, making project representation more accessible and encouraging information sharing and feedback.

• Monitoring visits focused on stakeholder feedback – Field visits can be a valuable opportunity to get stakeholder feedback firsthand. Typically, this is best done through direct dialogue with stakeholders. Stakeholder inclusion during the visit, either within their own communities or to other communities, can encourage feedback to be expressed more readily, but care should be given that other stakeholders do not feel inhibited providing feedback with the presence of their peers.

• Focus group discussions – These can be a useful method to elicit feedback during monitoring visits or self-assessment exercises.

• Online feedback – Internet access and literacy levels would be a limiting factor, but this is particularly useful for feedback from stakeholders such as staff and partner organizations, and it can readily be shared with other stakeholders, such as country or international headquarters. • Posted mail or phone feedback – Access can again be a limiting factor, as can associated

costs, including postage or establishing a designated phone line with trained people to answer calls and record feedback. The costs of a “designated” line can be reduced by using an existing phone line, but designating set hours for receiving feedback calls, (similar to the open-office “feedback days” discussed above).

• A combination of the above mechanisms – As with many things, mixed methods have a higher likelihood of success. Using multiple feedback channels allows the project to draw on the benefits of each.