PCBP-I– ONE YEAR MASTERS DEGREE PROGRAMEVALUATION REPORT OF PCBP-I – ONE YEAR MASTERS DEGREE PROGRAM - 2 - highly. Majority of the scholars believe that their pro-activeness (motivation,

EVALUATION REPORT

OF

PCBP-I – ONE YEAR MASTERS DEGREE

PROGRAM

BY

AHMAD NAZIR WARRAICH

INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT EXPERT

EVALUATION REPORT OF PCBP-I – ONE YEAR MASTERS DEGREE PROGRAM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 1

2 - BACKGROUND...................................................................................... 22.1 - List of Scholars, Their Degree Programs & Universities.................................................... 32.2 - Topics of Dissertation of Scholars And Objectives & Scope of Dissertations.................... 4

3 - METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 63.1 - What is Evaluation............................................................................................................ 63.2 - Purpose of Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 73.3 - Structure Of Questionnaire ............................................................................................... 73.4 - Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 93.5 - Process .............................................................................................................................. 9

4 - FINDINGS........................................................................................... 104.1 - Assessment of Programs, Universities and Logistical Arrangements............................. 104.2 - Impact of Program on Improving Personal Skills............................................................ 234.3 - Relevance of Degrees to the Government / Departments............................................. 25

5 - RECOMMENDATIONS / SUGGESTIONS ................................................. 34

ANNEXESAnnex A - Eligibility Criterion for ApplicantsAnnex B - List of all PCBP-I ScholarsAnnex C - Questionnaire

EVALUATION REPORT OF PCBP-I – ONE YEAR MASTERS DEGREE PROGRAM - 1 -

1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Government of the Punjab is working for capacity building of its officials with a view toimproving the overall performance and efficiency levels of service delivery. The Governmenthas entrusted this task to Punjab Resource Management Program (PRMP). In this regard, PRMPis carrying out a number of initiatives including short courses at Asian Institute of Technology,Thailand, Civil Services College, Singapore as well as the World Bank funded Foreign MastersProgram of the Punjab Capacity Building Program (PCBP). Under Punjab Capacity BuildingProgram, two batches have completed their Masters Program i.e. PCBP-I and PCBP-II (inacademic years 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively) and currently scholars under PCBP-III arestudying abroad.

In this regard PRMP has identified a list of high-ranking programs / universities afterextensive stakeholder consultations. Applications were invited from all provinical governmentservants who fulfilled the eligibility criterion (attached as Annex A). A transparent andcompetitive selection process was adopted. The officers were required to acquire a valid offer ofadmission in one of the identified programs / universities. As a result of the selection process 15candidates got selected (list attached as Annex B). All these officers have successfully completedtheir courses and returned to Pakistan. PRMP, in keeping with international best practicesconsidered it necessary to conduct an evaluation of this program to ensure efficient and properutilization of government resources.

This evaluation is based on the feedback of 14 scholars out of a total of 15, as only these14 took part in the evaluation exercise by filling in the evaluation questionnaire (attached asAnnex C). The list of these 14 PCBP-I scholars is provided in a table alongwith the respectivedegrees and universities in the next section of this report.

The courses fell under the broad headings of Human Resource Management, ProjectManagement, Economics and Environment Studies. Due to this diverse range of courses it wasnot possible to compare / evaluate course contents, therefore it was decided to evaluate andcompare more general aspects of the program itself as well as the pre-departure arrangementsand post degree placement. The questionnaire thus covers a range of questions such as the abilityand skills of resource persons / teachers and logistical arrangements, etc.

The feedback provided by the scholars has helped evaluate a range of factors such as thelevel of satisfaction of the scholars with logistical arrangements, relevance of the course contentfor the Government in general and the parent department in particular and gauging ofimprovements in the personal skills of the scholars as a result of the courses attended.

The report also contains a section each on findings as well as recommendations. TheFindings section of the report illustrates that the scholars were completely satisfied with theselection process and the degrees acquired though a number of suggestions were made by thescholars for further improvement in the selection process. Most of the scholars were also pleasedwith the logistical arrangements made by PRMP however there were a few concerns raisedwhich are discussed below. They have also shown satisfaction with the facilities andarrangements offered at their respective universities and have rated the resource persons, very


highly. Majority of the scholars believe that their pro-activeness (motivation, ability to takeaction) and ability to learn from experience were the most improved abilities as a result of theirparticipation in PCBP-I.

The last section of the report lists the suggestions of the scholars in their own words.They have made a range of recommendations which include, among others, the continuation ofthe program and provision of incentives for the scholars, such as financial benefits andpromotions, etc.

2 - BACKGROUND

Government of the Punjab’s desire to improve efficiency has become doubly important inview of the many reforms being introduced by the Government, as well as the rapidly changingmodern governance paradigm, both of which require acquisition of new skill sets.

In this regard as mentioned above PRMP has initiated Punjab Capacity Building Programwith the help of funds available from the World Bank. Under this program, officers ofGovernment of the Punjab are being sent for one-year degree programs to universities identifiedfor this purpose. The purpose of sending officials abroad for these one-year Masters DegreeProgrammes is to enable them to enhance their knowledge and develop expertise in specificareas, so that upon completion of their degrees they should be in a position to apply theknowledge and skills learnt abroad to their work in the respective departments, thereby,improving the overall government efficiency which in turn will lead to improvement in publicservice delivery.

As discussed above a transparent and competitive selection process was adopted forPCBP-I. Applications were invited from all provinical government servants who fulfilled thebasic eligibility criteria. One of the basic requirements of applications was that the officersshould have a valid offer of admission in one of the identified disciplines / institutes. Theapplication form was designed in such a manner as to be able to capture not just relevantinformation about their academic background but also their future plans with regard to theirservice and their vision about the utilization of skills acquired for the overall improvement of thegovernment functioning. A committee was formed to shortlist the applications. After theshortlisting, interviews were conducted by the Capacity Development Interventions Committeeunder the chairmanship of Chairman Planning and Development Board.

As a result of this process 15 candidates were selected. This was the first batch ofofficials that was sent under this program. The range of courses for which these candidates wereselected, included Project Management, Human Resource Management, Economics andEnvironment Studies. The evaluation has been done on the basis of comparison of only thegeneral aspects of the courses with each other rather than comparing the specific course content.

In order to better evaluate the program we need to be aware of the basic facts with respectto the participants & their courses. The list of the 14 PCBP-I scholars is therefore provided in thetable below alongwith the respective degrees and universities. The topics of dissertations ofscholars alongwith objectives and scope of dissertations are also provided in a separate table.


2.1 - LIST OF SCHOLARS, THEIR DEGREE PROGRAMS & UNIVERSITIES

SR#

SCHOLAR DEGREE UNIVERSITY

1Dr. AhmadAfnan

MSc in Human Resource forInternational Development

IPDM, University ofManchester, UK

2NaveedShahzad Mirza

MSc in Human ResourceDevelopment


3 Farrukh NaveedMSc in Management &Implementation ofDevelopment Projects


4MuhammadShabbir AhmedKhan

MA in Development StudiesIPDM, University ofManchester, UK

5MuhammadSohail Shahzad

Organizational Change &Development

University of Manchester,UK

6MuhammadShafiq Ahmad

MSc in Program & ProjectManagement

University of Warwick, UK

7MuhammadAkhtar

MSc in Program & ProjectManagement


8MuhammadFarooq Rasheed

Masters in PublicAdministration


9 Syeda MalikaMA in Environment &Development

Kings College London, UK

10 Sadaf ZafarMSc in Public Services Policy& Management

Kings College London, UK

11MuhammadSajjad Babar

MSc in Poverty Reduction &Development Management

University of Birmingham,UK


12MuhammadAslam

MSc in River EnvironmentalManagement

University of Birmingham,UK

13 Ghulam AbbasEconomic Policy forDeveloping & TransitionalEconomies

BCID, University ofBradford, UK

14 Jahangir AnwarMA Employment Studies &HRM

London MetropolitanUniversity, UK

2.2 - TOPICS OF DISSERTATION OF SCHOLARS AND OBJECTIVES &SCOPE OF DISSERTATIONS

SCHOLAR TOPIC OF DISSERTATIONOBJECTIVES & SCOPE OF

DISSERTATION

Dr. AhmadAfnan

Public Sector Reforms inPakistan and theimplications for HRD – ACritical Analysis

To explore Public Sector Reforms sothat maximum benefit can beobtained for HR of PunjabGovernment

NaveedShahzadMirza

Performance Managementfor Learning & learning forPerformance Management.A critical study in PakistanCivil Service

To identify and investigate into theareas that lack in the application ofthe concepts of learning &performance management in civilservice in Pakistan.Scope: Diagnostic and notprescriptive in nature. Provides thedirection for further detailedresearch.

FarrukhNaveed

Investigation of privatefinance initiative for schooleducation in Pakistan

*


MuhammadShabbirAhmedKhan

Decentralization andAccountability: The criticalstudy of Devolution plan inPakistan

To study the current debate ondecentralization evolution of localgovernment reforms in Pakistan. Themechanism of Accountability inDevolution Plan.

MuhammadSohailShahzad

Challenges to Planning &Implementing ChangeInitiatives: A case study ofIrrigation & PowerDepartment from Pakistan

To analyze Reform Program

MuhammadShafiqAhmad

Project Managers andimpact of emotionalintelligence on theirperformance

A case study of PERSP, Pakistan

MuhammadAkhtar

Does the EmotionalIntelligence of ProjectManagers contribute toeffective service delivery inhealth sector projects,Punjab, Pakistan?

*

MuhammadFarooqRasheed

Evaluating the Genuineness& Responsiveness ofCommunity organizations –A case study of CCBs inPakistan

To unearth the need ofCommunity Participation

To evaluate performance &potential of CCBs

To point out bottlenecks &suggest remedial measures

SyedaMalika

When flooding in London:Climate Change Adaptation,Sustainability and Resiliencein Urban Environment

To have a vision how to apprehend,anticipate and prepare to combatclimate change in Pakistan in themake of Global warming and thechallenges of Development

Sadaf ZafarCapacity Building & TrainingInitiatives in the PublicSector in the Punjab

Impact assessment of CBTI on thecapacity building of the officers of thePunjabScope: Focus on CBTI introduced byPRMP in four key deptts of thePunjab Govt. under Track-I & Track-II


MuhammadSajjadBabar

Effects of PermanentRehabilitation Scheme ofZakat of Government ofPakistan on the income ofbeneficiaries

To describe how the systems of Zakatoperates at the local level

MuhammadAslam

Study of River Stabilizationand training techniques

Sustainable design of regimechannels and river trainingtechniques which are economical

GhulamAbbas

Pakistan’s Agriculture Sectorunder WTO Regime.

The objective of the study was tojudge the impacts of WTOagreements on Pakistan AgricultureSector

JahangirAnwar

Effectiveness ofperformance appraisalsystem in the Governmentof Punjab: End user’s pointof view

*

* Not filled by the scholar.

The next section of the report describes the methodology used for the evaluation ofPCBP-I. The methods used to collect data are also discussed in this section which include thedata collection instruments and types of data collected. It also discusses the analytic techniquesused.

3 - METHODOLOGY

3.1 - WHAT IS EVALUATION

Evaluation is the comparison of actual project impacts against the agreed strategic plans. Itlooks at what you set out to do, at what you have accomplished, and how you accomplished it.It can be formative (taking place during the life of a project or organization, with the intentionof improving the strategy or way of functioning of the project or organization). It can also besummative (drawing lessons from a completed project or an organization that is no longerfunctioning). In addition, experts usually distinguish among four levels of trainingevaluation:


Level 1: ReactionLevel 2: LearningLevel 3: Transfer to the jobLevel 4: Organizational impact

This evaluation report is based on the first level technique, that is the reaction of the participantswhich measures the participants’ opinions about the course. This is the most common way toevaluate a course and provides a measure of target individual’s satisfaction. It is simple toadminister, provides insights into participants’ opinions. It also provides quick feedbackregarding successes and failures.

3.2 - PURPOSE OF EVALUATION

The tool of evaluation is used as a device to assess any project / program undertaken with a viewto improving it further through better decision making in light with the lessons learnt.

There are two main reasons to evaluate a learning and development activity:

To acquire information on how to improve the activity To decide whether to continue, expand, or eliminate the activity

Both of the above-mentioned reasons are important for the evaluation of PCBP.

3.3 - STRUCTURE OF QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaire was custom designed to yield quantitative as well as qualitative data foranalysis so as to be able to get a true picture of assessment of the program. The questionnaireincluded not just closed-ended but also open-ended questions. The objective was to get thedetailed responses from participants including their observations, their experiences and theircandid views on different aspects of the courses.

In addition the questionnaire involved the ranking and rating scale techniques. Ranking wasincorporated to judge what participants found most / least useful during the course. TheRankings method involves getting participants to state what they consider most important, mostuseful, least important, least useful, etc. It can be used with individuals and groups, as part of aninterview schedule or questionnaire, or as a separate session. The Rating Scale method wasincluded to let the participants express their level of liking and disliking about various fields ofcourses. This technique makes use of a continuum, along which participants are expected toplace their own feelings, observations, etc. People are usually asked to say whether they agreestrongly, agree, don’t know, disagree, disagree strongly with a statement, etc. A typical ratingscale asks subjects to choose one response category from several arranged in an hierarchicalorder. Some of the common examples of Ratings Scale are the ‘Likert Scale’ and 1 to 10 ratingscales in which a subject selects the number, which is supposed to reflect the perceived quality ofa product. Rating scales are useful in making important decisions not only regarding products,but even important decisions about public policy.


As mentioned above in keeping with the broad range of courses it was decided to cover thegeneral aspects of the courses rather than the course content. The questionnaire was, therefore,carefully structured inline with this requirement to capture the feedbacks of scholars on thefollowing topics:

a) Assessment of Program / University / Arrangementsb) Impact of Program on improving personal skillsc) Degrees’ relevance to the Department / Organization

a) Assessment of Program / University / Arrangements

It was decided to evaluate and compare selected skill sets and abilities of Resource Persons ofeach course instead of comparing the Resource Persons of courses individually for the purpose ofdrawing a comparison between the courses. The skill sets and abilities of Resource Persons thatwere included for the analysis are demonstrated in figure 1:

Figure 1

For this purpose the means / averages of these abilities of resource persons’ of all individualcourses were taken and comparisons were drawn between courses.

The other aspects of courses that were evaluated and compared are as under:

Satisfaction with the teaching facilities & logistical arrangements Relevance and adequacy of course content Teaching effectiveness


Overall rating of teaching facilities Overall rating of Degree Program and University

It is hoped that this would be useful for PRMP in a number of ways, to evaluate the satisfactionlevel of scholars with the logistical arrangements, establish the relevance of course content forthe parent department of scholar and at the same time provide a guideline for future scholarsseeking admissions in these Universities.

b) Impact of Program on improving personal skills

The second section of the questionnaire was designed to gauge the improvement in personalskills of the scholars. The questions were aimed to inquire the improvement in their knowledgebase and skills. In addition the scholars were asked to specify the three most improvedimplementing capabilities from the list of some most common ones, which in their view wereparticularly enhanced as a result of the course.

c) Relevance of the Degree to the Government / Department

The questions contained in this part of the questionnaire were designed to assess how useful thedegree has been for the parent Department / Government. In this regard one of the questions isabout their opinion as to the most relevant department inline with the degree obtained for theirposting.

3.4 - DATA SOURCE

The data source used in the preparation of this report included the Questionnaires - duly filled bythe scholars of PCBP-I.

3.5 - PROCESS

The evaluation was broken down into four different phases: filling in of questionnaires, elicitingdata from the questionnaires, processing of data and report writing.

The participants of the courses were provided with the questionnaires and were requested to fillin the required fields as per their experiences and observations about the course.

The quantitative and qualitative data from questionnaires was meticulously extracted andcompiled. Statistical techniques were used to convert responses into means (averages),frequencies and percentages for thorough analysis. The analyzed data was then organized in theform of lists, charts and tables and has been included in the succeeding section whereasnecessary comments have been provided and information analyzed.

The recommendations and suggestions of the scholars for the improvement of program areprovided at the end of the report.


It should be noted that the italicized content in the report represents either the exact words ofscholars to convey their comments effectively or the title / skill sets etc., picked from thequestionnaire.

The numbers used in the data of the report were rounded off to two decimal points wherever themeans / averages or percentages were taken.

4 - FINDINGS

4.1 - ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMS, UNIVERSITIES AND LOGISTICAL

ARRANGEMENTS

In accordance with the methodology as explained above the first section of Findings illustratesthe results, regarding the programs, universities and logistical arrangements made by PRMP, inthe form of charts and tables.

4.1.1 SATISFACTION OF SCHOLARS WITH THE SELECTION PROCESS, COURSE AND

ARRANGEMENTS

The following chart shows the number of scholars who expressed their satisfaction ordissatisfaction with the selection process, degree acquired and logistical arrangements made byPRMP.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Satisfaction withSelection Process

Satisfaction withInvestment madethrough PCBP-I

Satisfaction withLogistical

arrangements

Satisfaction withDegree acquired

Recommendation ofDegree & University

Yes14

Yes14

Yes12

Yes14

Yes14

No0

No0

No2

No0

No0

Nu

mb

er

of

Sc

ho

lars

Different Aspects of Program

Satisfaction with the different aspects of Program Yes No

Figure 2

The dark shaded bars in figure 2 represent the number of scholars who expressed satisfactionwhereas the bars with lighter shade show the number of those who were not satisfied.


It is evident from the figure 1 that all the scholars were satisfied with the selection process, thecourse itself and the degree acquired. There were two scholars who showed concerns regardinglogistical arrangements.

In addition to ticking Yes / No, a few of the scholars have also provided their comments whichare provided in the following sub-sections of the Report:

i. Do you think that the Investment made through PCBP-I is beneficial?

If the provincial officers are not given good & relevant postings after completing foreigndegree they would be de-motivated and all the investment through PCBP-1 would be awastage.

It is definitely beneficial for me personally but whether the government uses it effectivelyremains to be seen.

But, it is a Capacity Building exercise / Foreign Training, it must have been consideredby S&GAD for promotion, not in lien of MPDD, mandatory training but subject to thattraining if not being held by S&GAD as a mala fide act to discourage / restrainpromotion.

ii. Are you satisfied with the logistical arrangements for PCBP-I before your departureand during the program?

The stipend amount for the 1st Semester & Air tickets should be given to participants wellbefore time. The subsequent installments of scholarship amount should be given in time.

However, as suggested in my presentation, PRMP may liaise with the Passport office forissuance of official passports. Secondly the stipend amount should be paid timely,preferably lump sum, keeping in view the fluctuations in exchange rates.

Arrangements are good. But I would like to suggest that officers must be providedhandsome amounts as substantial amount before their departure.

None from the department coordinates with the institution to facilitate for makingboarding / logistic arrangements, etc.

iii. What changes would you like to incorporate in the selection process?

Civil Servants serving in field should be kept informed about foreign degree programs &ratio of PCS / PSS while allocating scholarship should be 50 / 50.

In order to make the process more competitive, more diverse participation may beensured through effective publicity.

Selection process is transparent. No need to change it.


It already had adequate transparency and competitiveness.

- Age limit for Masters Degree should be limited to 40 years.- Test the English language proficiency.- Belated inclusion of tests like NTS should be avoided and whole criteria should begiven in advance.

Better coherence of course/ institute identification with the needs of public sector.

NTS is the most appreciable component besides few other tests, interviews envisaged forevaluation of the candidates.

- Condition of minimum service should be two years instead of five so that moreapplicants can apply.- More officers should be sent abroad on continued basis.

Selection process is okay and good. No change is required / needed.

Proportional distribution of scholarships among the professionals of differentdepartments in the Punjab e.g. Education and Justice Department.

I endorse the existing selection procedure.

4.1.2 SATISFACTION LEVEL OF SCHOLARS WITH THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF

COURSES

This portion of questionnaire was aimed at gauging the level of satisfaction of scholars withregards to some of the important aspects of training. For this purpose the scholars were asked torate their level of satisfaction on the Ratings Scale for the following:

Satisfaction with the teaching facilities and logistical arrangements offered at the university Adequacy and relevance of the course content Teaching effectiveness Overall rating of teaching facilities Overall rating of Degree Program and University

The five-point scale used for the rating is as follows:1. = Poor2 = Fair3. = Good4. = Very good5. = Excellent

The ratings of scholars were used to make comparisons between the courses for the above-mentioned aspects of the courses. It is to be noted here that average / mean ratings werecalculated for comparisons in those cases for which more than one feedback was available forthe same course and university, as in some courses / universities more than one scholar was


enrolled. The following charts show the satisfaction level of scholars with above-mentionedaspects of training:

3.50

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Program & Project Management - University of Warwick, UK

Human Resource for InternationalDevelopment - IPDM, University ofManchester, UK

Organizational Change & Development - University of Manchester, UK

Public Services Policy& Management - Kings College London,UK

Poverty Reduction & Development Management - University ofBirmingham, UK

Economic Policy for Developing & Transitional Economies - BCID, University ofBradford, UK

Employment Studies & HRM - London Metropolitan University, UK

Management & Implementation of Development Projects - IPDM, University ofManchester, UK

Development Studies - IPDM, University of Manchester, UK

Public Administration - University of Warwick, UK

Environment & Development - KingsCollege London, UK

River EnvironmentalManagement - University of Birmingham, UK

Rating

Pro

gra

m&

Un

ive

rsit

y

Satisfaction with the teaching facilities & logistical arrangements

Figure 3

The purpose of this question was to measure the satisfaction level of scholars with thelogistical arrangements and the teaching facilities provided by their respective universities.

For Satisfaction with the teaching facilities & logistical arrangements it is evident fromthe figure 3 that a number of scholars have assigned the maximum rating 5.00 to their programswhich represents Excellent on the Ratings Scale. Most of the other programs were rated 4.00 andonly one of the programs which is Program and Project Management – University of Warwickwas assigned a lower than 4 rating that is 3.50 and it represents Good to Very Good on theRatings Scale.

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Organizational Change & Development - Universityof Manchester, UK


Public Services Policy & Management - Kings College London,UK

Economic Policy for Developing & TransitionalEconomies- BCID, University ofBradford, UK


Human Resource for InternationalDevelopment - IPDM, UniversityofManchester, UK



Public Administration - Universityof Warwick, UK

Environment & Development - Kings College London, UK



Rating

Pro

gra

m&

Un

ive

rsit

y

Adequacy and relevance of course content

Figure 4


This question was added to gauge the satisfaction level of scholars regarding theadequacy and relevance of the course content of their respective degrees. This information wouldbe particularly useful for the scholars seeking admission in these programs.

Figure 4 shows that about half of the programs were assigned the perfect 5.00 ratings byscholars for the Adequacy and relevance of course content. These include River EnvironmentalManagement – University of Birmingham, Poverty Reduction & Development Management –University of Birmingham, Environment & Development – Kings College London, PublicAdministration – University of Warwick, Development Studies – IPDM University ofManchester and Management & Implementation of Development Projects – IPDM University ofManchester. All other courses were also rated 4.00 or higher which is Very Good to Excellentrating on the Ratings Scale.

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00





Economic Policy for Developing & TransitionalEconomies- BCID, University ofBradford, UK








Rating

Pro

gra

m&

Un

ive

rsit

y

Teaching effectiveness

Figure 5

Research indicates that students are the most qualified source to report on the extent towhich the learning experience was productive, informative, satisfying, or worthwhile. Whileopinions on these matters are not direct measures of instructor or course effectiveness, they arelegitimate indicators of student satisfaction, and there is substantial research linking studentsatisfaction to effective teaching. The measure of satisfaction level of scholars with TeachingEffectiveness was therefore considered of great value for the next batch of scholars seekingadmissions in these universities.

About the Teaching effectiveness of the program, the half of the scholars has assignedExcellent rating (5.00) to their programs as can be seen in the Figure 5. In this case, again allremaining programs were given 4.00 rating.


3.50

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00



Economic Policy for Developing & TransitionalEconomies - BCID, University ofBradford, UK










Rating

Pro

gra

m&

Un

ive

rsit

y

Overall rating of teaching facilities

Figure 6

This question was added to measure the Overall satisfaction level of the scholarsregarding the teaching facilities that were offered by their respective universities.

It is evident from the figure 6 that more than half of the scholars have given Excellentrating (5.00) to their courses for teaching facilities. The remaining five were also rated veryhighly i.e. 3.50 or higher.

3.50

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.00

5.00

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00


Organizational Change & Development - University of Manchester, UK

Public Administration - University of Warwick, UK

Public ServicesPolicy & Management - Kings College London,UK


River Environmental Management - University of Birmingham, UK

Economic Policy for Developing & TransitionalEconomies - BCID, University ofBradford, UK


Human Resource for International Development - IPDM, UniversityofManchester, UK




Rating

Pro

gra

m&

Un

ive

rsit

y

Overall rating of Degree Program and University

Figure 7

Overall rating of Degree Program and University provides a satisfaction level with allthe aspects of the program / university.

Three of the programs were given the maximum rating of 5.00 which are ‘Environment& Development – Kings College London’ and ‘Development Studies’ and ‘Management andImplementation of Development Projects’ of IPDM, University of Manchester for Overall rating


of Degree Program and University as shown in figure 7. The only program which was ratedlower than 4.00 was ‘Program and Project Management – University of Warwick, UK’.

4.1.3 COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT ABILITIES AND SKILLS OF RESOURCE

PERSONS / TEACHERS

The participants were asked to rate the resource persons with regard to a number of abilities andskills:

Qualification & experience Teaching methodology Knowledge of the topics Communication style Time management Availability for after session consultations Management of the learning process

The five-point scale used for the rating is as follows:1. = Below average2. = Average3. = Good4. = Very good5. = Excellent

Since we are not evaluating a single course or university, therefore instead of comparing theresource persons / teachers of a program with one another it was decided to evaluate andcompare important abilities and skill sets of resource persons of these courses with a view toprovide a guideline for future scholars seeking admissions in these universities.

For this purpose the means / averages of ratings of resource persons’ skills were takenand were compared with those of resource persons of the other courses. Three of scholars did notprovide their feedback for this section in the questionnaire. We were able to get the feedback fortwo of these courses from other scholars who attended the same course. Consequently only onecourse is left out from the following comparison which is Poverty Reduction & DevelopmentManagement - University of Birmingham, UK.


3.60

3.75

4.33

4.50

4.67

4.67

4.83

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Economic Policy for Developing & Transitional Economies -BCID,University of Bradford,UK

Organizational Change & Development - University of Manchester,UK

Program & ProjectManagement - University of Warwick, UK

EmploymentStudies & HRM - London Metropolitan University, UK

Human Resource for International Development - IPDM,University ofManchester,UK

Management& Implementation of DevelopmentProjects -IPDM, University of Manchester,UK


DevelopmentStudies - IPDM, University of Manchester,UK

Public Administration - University of Warwick,UK

Environment& Development - Kings College London,UK

River Environmental Management - University of Birmingham,UK

Rating

Pro

gram

&U

niv

ers

ity

Qualification & Experience

Figure 8

It is evident from the figure 8 that the resource persons of the majority of the courses gotthe average ratings of 5.00 or very close to 5.00 which is the maximum rating on the RatingsScale and represents Excellent. The resource persons of ‘Organizational Change & Development– University of Manchester’ and ‘Economic Policy for Developing & Transitional Economies –BCID, University of Bradford’ got the lowest average ratings of 3.75 and 3.60 respectively.However, it should be noted here that these ratings too represent Good to Very Good on theRatings Scale.

4.17

4.20

4.33

4.33

4.33

4.50

4.50

4.67

4.67

5.00

5.00

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00












Rating

Pro

gram

&U

niv

ers

ity

Teaching Methodology

Figure 9

The resource persons of the courses ‘River Environmental Management – University ofBirmingham, UK’ and ‘Development Studies – IPDM, University of Manchester, UK’ weregiven the perfect ratings (5.00) for Teaching Methodology by scholars as illustrated by figure 9.Whereas the resource persons of the courses ‘Public Services Policy & Management – KingsCollege London, UK’ got lowest average rating of 4.17. However, all of these average ratings


were above 4.00 which means all resource persons were rated Very Good to Excellent by thescholars for their Teaching Methodology.

4.17

4.20

4.33

4.50

4.50

4.50

4.83

4.83

5.00

5.00

5.00

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00












Rating

Pro

gram

&U

niv

ers

ity

Knowledge of the topics

Figure 10

All of the scholars have rated the resource persons of their programs between 4.00 and5.00 for their Knowledge of the Topics which indicates that all resource persons were rated VeryGood to Excellent by the scholars for their Knowledge of the Topics. The resource persons ofcourses ‘Organizational Change & Development – University of Manchester, UK’, ‘PublicAdministration – University of Warwick, UK’ and ‘River Environmental Management –University of Birmingham, UK’ were rated highest while those of ‘Environment Development –Kings College London’ were rated lowest in this category.

4.00

4.00

4.17

4.17

4.33

4.33

4.50

4.50

4.67

4.83

5.00

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00












Rating

Pro

gram

&U

niv

ers

ity

Communication style

Figure 11

For Communication Style, the resource persons of the course ‘River EnvironmentalManagement – University of Birmingham, UK’ topped the list with average rating of 5.00. Thecourses ‘Economic Policy for Developing & Transitional Economies – BCID, University of


Bradford, UK’ and ‘Environment & Development – Kings College London, UK’ were ratedlowest with average rating of 4.00 each.

4.00

4.17

4.17

4.33

4.50

4.50

4.83

4.83

4.83

5.00

5.00

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00












Rating

Pro

gram

&U

niv

ers

ity

Time management

Figure 12

All of the resource persons got an average rating of 4.00 or higher for their TimeManagement. The leading resource persons for Time Management were of the courses ‘RiverEnvironmental Management – University of Birmingham, UK’ and ‘Organizational Change &Development – University of Manchester, UK’ with average ratings of 5.00 each. The lowestaverage rating for Time Management was assigned to the resource persons of the course‘Economic Policy for Developing & Transitional Economies – BCID, University of Bradford,UK’.

3.00

3.20

3.67

4.00

4.00

4.17

4.17

4.25

4.50

4.83

5.00

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00












Rating

Pro

gram

&U

niv

ers

ity

Availability for after session consultations

Figure 13

In the case of Availability for after session consultations the resource persons of the‘River Environmental Management – University of Birmingham, UK’ leads with average rating


of 5.00 while the resource persons of ‘Human Resource for International Development – IPDM,University of Manchester, UK’ and ‘Economic Policy for Developing & Transitional Economies– BCID, University of Bradford, UK’ were able to get the average ratings of 3.00 and 3.20respectively.

3.83

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.17

4.17

4.17

4.67

5.00

5.00

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00












Rating

Pro

gram

&U

niv

ers

ity

Management of the learning process

Figure 14

Figure 14 shows the average ratings assigned by scholars to the Management of learningprocess ability of the resource persons. It is evident from the chart that the resource persons ofthe courses ‘River Environmental Management – University of Birmingham’ and ‘DevelopmentStudies – IPDM, University of Manchester’ lead with the perfect rating of 5.00 for Managementof the Learning Process. The resource persons of the course ‘Management & Implementation ofDevelopment Projects - IPDM, University of Manchester’ are also not far behind with anaverage rating of 4.67.

4.1.4 IDENTIFICATION BY SCHOLARS OF SUBJECTS STUDIED THAT WERE MOST

BENEFICIAL FOR THE PUBLIC SECTOR AS WELL AS THOSE THAT WERE

NOT RELEVANT

The following table lists the responses of scholars to two questions from thequestionnaire in which they were asked to list down three most relevant and not so relevantsubjects from their courses for the public sector.

INST. SCHOLARMOST BENEFICIAL SUBJECTS

FOR PUBLIC SECTORNOT SO RELEVANT

SUBJECTS

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

MA

NC

HES

TE

Dr. AhmadAfnan

Public Sector Reforms &Management

Human ResourceDevelopment

Human Resource Practice

InternationalManagement

Characteristic Skills& Development


NaveedShahzad Mirza

H.R.D. Strategy H.R. Practice Public Sector Reform &

Management

*

FarrukhNaveed

Project Finance Risk Management Private Finance Initiative

*

MuhammadShabbirAhmed Khan

Perspective onDevelopment

Public Sector Reforms &Management

Diverse Urbanism inSouthern Towns & Cities

NGO Management

MuhammadSuhailShahzad

Organization Development Training and Development Organizational Change

Strategies

*

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

WA

RW

ICK

,UK

MuhammadShafiq Ahmad

Project Planning,Management & Control

Managing multi-project /Program Environment

Change Management

*

MuhammadAkhtar

Project Planning,Management & Control

Managing multi projects Management of Change

ProductDevelopment andDesign Management

Quality, Reliabilityand Maintenance


Operations Management Performance

Measurement &Management

Entrepreneurship in Public& Private Sector

*


KIN

GS

CO

LLEG

E,LO

ND

ON

Syeda Malika

Water ResourceManagement & WaterPolicy

Sustainable Urbanization Disasters and

Development

*

Sadaf Zafar

Human Resource Mgmt inthe Public Services

The Political Economy ofthe Public Services

Politics, Governance andRegulation in PSM

*

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

BIR

MIN

GH

AM

,

UK

MuhammadSajjad Babar

Introduction toDevelopment Projects

Decentralized Governance& Management

Rural Poverty &Development

*

MuhammadAslam

Fluvial Geomorphology Surface Water Resource

I&II Water Resource

Management

*

BC

ID,U

NIV

ERSI

TY

OF

BR

AD

FOR

D,U

K

Ghulam Abbas

Public Policy Analysis &Management

Public Action, Civil Society& Private Sector inpartnership

Research Skills

*

LON

DO

NM

ETR

OP

OLI

TAN

UN

IVER

SITY

,UK

JahangirAnwar

Performance Appraisal Recruitment & Selection Change Management

PsychologicalAssessment

* No subject was mentioned by the scholar


4.2 - IMPACT OF PROGRAM ON IMPROVING PERSONAL SKILLS

This section presents the feedbacks of the scholars regarding improvement in theirpersonal skills as a result of attending their Masters Program and its related experiences.

4.2.1 IMPROVEMENT IN IMPLEMENTING CAPABILITIES

The scholars were asked to identify any 3 implementing capabilities, which in their viewwere particularly enhanced as a result of the course. For the convenience of the scholars ageneral list of the most common capabilities was listed from which the scholars were asked toselect. In case some important ability was left out in the list, a column for ‘other ability’ wasprovided for those who needed to specify some other ability, not mentioned in the list given inthe Questionnaire. The capabilities listed in the Questionnaire are as follows:

i. Pro-activeness (motivation, ability to take action)ii. Sociability (understanding of others, ability to build relationships)iii. Sense of trust (sense of responsibility, ability to achieve things)iv. Ability to learn from experience (awareness of issues, application of

experience)v. Self control (emotional stability, control)vi. Communication ability (ability to express oneself, persuasive power)vii. Other ability – please specify

The chart below shows the capabilities that were selected, with those most selected at thetop and those selected by the least number of scholars at the bottom.

Figure 15


It is evident from the chart that the Pro-activeness (motivation, ability to take action) andthe abilities specified under the header Other ability have the highest frequency of 9, whichmeans most of the scholars (9 out of 14) think that their Pro-activeness (motivation, ability totake action) has been improved as a result of this program. These were followed by the Ability tolearn from experience (8) and Self Control (5).

Following are the improved abilities as mentioned by the scholars under the Other abilityheader:

1. Out of box thinking for problem resolution– (Farrukh Naveed)2. Real issues / onground facts– (Muhammad Sohail Shahzad)3. Analytical Approach– (Syeda Malika)4. Expression of critical ideas– (Syeda Malika)5. Views for comparative study of developed world– (Syeda Malika)6. River Engineering– (Muhammad Aslam)7. Design of Regime Channels– (Muhammad Aslam)8. Measurement of accurate discharge of open channel equal distribution b/w

shareholder– (Muhammad Aslam)9. Managing Change– (Jahangir Anwar)

This shows that the scholarship program has been very useful from this point of view, asmost of these skills have vast applications in the government service.

4.2.2 IDENTIFY THE AREAS WHERE THE DEGREE PROGRAM HAS BROUGHT

MAJOR IMPROVEMENT IN YOUR CAPACITY IN TERMS OF KNOWLEDGE BASE

AND SKILLS.

In answer to this question, the scholars have declared the PCBP initiative as very useful.Some of the select responses are given below [verbatim]:

My knowledge concerning H.R. issues has increased.My computer skills have improved.9

Financial appraisal, Financing & Risk Management tools for development projects as wellas the concept of Private Finance Initiative (PFI).

Evaluation of development initiativeEnhanced my analytical skills.Enhanced my understanding on the role of civil society, NGOs and importance of socialdevelopment

Knowledge base – Yes for change strategiesSkills – Strong know how for Organization Development

Change ManagementPerformance Measurement


Project ManagementGlobal e-businessFinancial Management

Capacity to do the right thingsImproved my capacity in doing things rightGone pro-active instead of reactiveAdded confidence

Helped learning management themesWhy & how to measure performance & manage itNeed / Role of Community participation in local development

Particularly on Climate Change Adaptation, Energy Crisis, Green Development, etc.Improved report writing, better experienced style, presenting views analytically.

I feel a significant effect on my knowledge, skills and professional capabilities with specialreference to effective policy making & human resource development.

Knowledge about Poverty Reduction & DevelopmentTo have a better understanding of different patterns of poverty and methods to alleviate it.Broad experience, international exposure.

River MorphologyDesign of regime channelsAccurate discharge measurement methodFlood risk management

Examination and evaluation of Public Policy process and management of Public ServicesKnowledge of the principles and practices of Project Planning, Design, Appraisal techniquesApplication of quantitative methods such as SPSS

Interview skills, Communication Skills, Negotiation Skills, Training Skills.

4.3 - RELEVANCE OF DEGREES TO GOVERNMENT / DEPARTMENTS

This section is meant to assess the usefulness of the program for concerned department ofeach scholar and also with regard to their placement upon completion of the course. TheGovernment of Punjab has taken this initiative which has a price in money and man hours, with aview to build the capacity of its officials, so that they may in turn improve the efficiency of theGovernment. It is because of this objective that this section aims to gauge the effectiveness of thePCBP scholarship program.


4.3.1 EXTENT TO WHICH THE OBJECTIVES OF SCHOLARS HAVE BEEN

FULFILLED [Q.9.]

This question is about the objectives of the scholars for proceeding abroad for higherstudies. And it lists the objectives of scholars and shows the extent to which the stated objectiveshave been fulfilled. In this regard the table below shows the response of scholars alongwith theranks that they allotted to express the degree of fulfillment of their objectives on 1 (Not fulfilled)to 5 (fulfilled) scale.

Scholar Objectives Rank

Dr. Ahmad Afnan To get international exposure Self grooming To improve my knowledge & skills

3

4

5

Naveed ShahzadMirza

Perpetual Improvement of the self Improvement of the surroundings Understanding of the modern H.R. theories and

practices Possibility of its Applicability in Pakistan

5

3

5

4

Farrukh Naveed

Gain first hand knowledge of projectmanagement

Develop skills in this area Applicability of these concepts in Pakistan's

perspective

4

4

4

MuhammadShabbir AhmedKhan

To expand my knowledge base To explore the new avenues of research in the

field of development To equip myself with the development strategies

of various multi and bilateral Donor Agencies

5

5

5


MuhammadSuhail Shahzad

Enhance my capacity of Professional skills 4

MuhammadShafiq Ahmad

To learn new management tools / techniques To learn project management methodology

3

4

MuhammadAkhtar

Acquiring relevant knowledge and skills Diversification International exposure / interaction

4

4

4

MuhammadFarooq Rasheed

Assimilating new themes Learning from working systems and habits Evaluate foreign solution to local problems

4

4

4

Syeda Malika

Environmental Management Sustainable Urbanization Pollution Control / Carbon Trade Water Poling Disasters / Crisis Management

5

5

5

5

5

Sadaf Zafar

International Exposure Understanding of new public sector management Techniques of Policy Making Human Resource Practices

5

4

5

5

MuhammadSajjad Babar

To improve knowledge about poverty reduction To learn various strategies for poverty alleviation

at the International level To interact with students & teachers belonging to

different nations To observe the overall systems of UK

4

4

4

4

MuhammadAslam

To enhance the knowledge of River Engineeringand River Morphology

To learn new theories for design of regime channel

5

5

Ghulam Abbas

To enhance my knowledge base To professionally equip myself with latest

theories, analytical skills and techniques in thearea of development economics

To have an exposure of a developed nation tofamiliarize myself with their system that broughtfor them an inspiring state as nation

4

4

4

Jahangir Anwar To seek new knowledge To update existing knowledge on HR Learn about international best practices

5

5

5


4.3.2 DO YOU CONSIDER THAT YOU SHOULD DEVELOP ANY SPECIALIZATION

RELATED TO PUBLIC SECTOR IN THE FUTURE? [Q.13 (1)]

In answer to this question all 14 of the scholars, who filled the questionnaire and attendedthe debriefing session responded in the affirmative. This shows that people in the public sectorare no longer satisfied with just being generalists, but want to specialize in some area of publicsector administration.

4.3.3 HOW WILL YOU CONTRIBUTE TO MAKE YOUR ORGANIZATION MORE

EFFICIENT? [Q.13 (b)]

The comments given below help assess the usefulness of the program, as it tries tomeasure how useful the course would be in practical terms, when the officers go back to theirwork places.

Ho

ww

illy

ou

con

trib

ute

tom

ake

you

ro

rga

niz

atio

nm

ore

eff

icie

nt

PARTICIPANTS’ COMMENTS

I will try to implement the acquired skills if given chance to serve in relevant field.(Dr. Ahmad Afnan)

By enhancing Employee involvement in the Organization’s working. (NaveedShahzad Mirza)

I can share my expertise in the field of project management with special regard tofinancing tools. Besides other best practices learnt in UK can be introduced.(Farrukh Naveed)

I will contribute to make organization more efficient by introducing new conceptsand ideas learnt in UK. (Muhammad Shabbir Ahmed Khan)

To work for next generations. (Muhammad Suhail Shahzad)

Apply the acquired knowledge and skills as and when required. I would like toutilize the knowledge and learning in training sector as well. (Muhammad ShafiqAhmad)

- By developing cross-functional teams.- Getting the work done from those who know.- Employing the acquired knowledge.- Creating and celebrating short-term wins. (Muhammad Akhtar)

- By making processes lean.- Bringing objectivity in performance management.- Create better understanding and trust among team. (Muhammad Farooq


Rasheed)

By streamlining its various sectors, particularly if employed in some Urban Sector,Disaster Development or Water Resource Management area etc. (Syeda Malika)

If given a chance to work in my degree relevant field, I will contribute all myefforts & skills to make the organization more efficient. (Sadaf Zafar)

I will give suggestions & proposals as when required to improve the existingprograms of Poverty Reduction. (Muhammad Sajjad Babar)

By the implementation of new skills, a huge public funds can be saved.(Muhammad Aslam)

- Project Planning and execution ensuring sustainability of the project.- Engagement of different stakeholders in designing and implementation of publicpolicies and Development Project

- Application of quantitative skills in assessing loss and benefits of the project.(Ghulam Abbas)

By utilizing required skills & knowledge. (Jahangir Anwar)

4.3.4 HOW CAN YOU IMPROVE YOUR ORGANIZATION’S EFFECTIVENESS? [Q.13(c)]

Ho

wca

nyo

uim

pro

veyo

ur

org

aniz

atio

n’s

eff

ect

ive

ne

ss?

PARTICIPANTS’ COMMENTS

Old system of Performance Management of ACRC should be removed. I would liketo introduce promotions on basis of performance & qualification. (Dr. AhmadAfnan)

By improving the Performance Management System. (Naveed Shahzad Mirza)

Align the strategy & process adopted by the departments with their goals basedon their roles & responsibilities. (Farrukh Naveed)

I can improve my organization effectiveness by introducing the modern publicsector reforms and by focusing on the issue of accountability, transparency andparticipation. (Muhammad Shabbir Ahmed Khan)

Increasing service delivery to the public by the organization.(Muhammad Suhail Shahzad)

Organizational effectiveness can be improved by introducing team spirit andteamworking instead of solo thinking and working. (Muhammad Shafiq Ahmad)Q

- By creating a sense of ownership.- Authority with responsibility.- Performance based intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. (Muhammad Akhtar)


- By implementing learning skills (Muhammad Farooq Rasheed)

By imparting the knowledge I have shared and the skills I have gained from myinstant training abroad. (Syeda Malika)

Put efforts for using new management techniques in policy making and humanresource development in international scenario. (Sadaf Zafar)

- I will run my organization in more efficient manner.- Better implementation of Government Plans & Policies in the Department.(Muhammad Sajjad Babar)

- By designing the channels according to new theories.-By application of sustainable river stabilization & training techniques.(Muhammad Aslam)

Through building citizen and private sector confidence on my organization whileworking in collaboration or even partnership. (Ghulam Abbas)

By contributing towards setting goals & objectives. (Jahangir Anwar)

4.3.5 ON THE BASIS OF YOUR QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE, WHICH

DEPARTMENTS CAN BEST UTILIZE YOUR POTENTIAL? [Q.13 (d)]

An important post training aspect is the placement of the returning officers. It is generallybelieved that skills and knowledge acquired through such programs and degrees is best utilizedwithin the next 3 to 5 years. It is therefore essential to place these officers in the Departments,where their recently acquired degree would be put to the best use. It may be mentioned thatPRMP is putting special emphasis on this and is already making efforts in this regard, bydeveloping a Placement Policy as well as requesting the Government to place the returningscholars in Departments, which are appropriate to their degrees.

SCHOLAR DEGREESCHOLARS’ SUGGESTED DEPARTMENTS FOR

PLACEMENT

Dr. AhmadAfnan

MSc in HumanResource forInternationalDevelopment

ChiefMinister Secretariat

Postingas DO (HR)

NaveedShahzadMirza

MSc in HumanResourceDevelopment

The Bankof Punjab

ThePRSP

MPDD S&GAD


FarrukhNaveed

MSc inManagement &ImplementationofDevelopmentProjects

S&GAD, P&D and any of the development projects.

MuhammadShabbirAhmedKhan

MA inDevelopmentStudies

It is up to the government to appoint me in anydepartment. However Planning & Development,Education, Health and projects started byGovernment of the Punjab.

MuhammadSohailShahzad

OrganizationalChange &Development

It is not specific but I can resort to Irrigation & PowerDepartment being organization of my academicresearch work. However any ailing organization andinstitution can get benefit of my skills.

MuhammadShafiqAhmad

MSc in Program& ProjectManagement

P&D or where projects are being implemented.

MuhammadAkhtar

MSc in Program& ProjectManagement

P&D department and its allied departments. Anyongoing project.


Masters inPublicAdministration

Planning & Development Department, Governmentof Punjab.

SyedaMalika

MA inEnvironment &Development

Environment & Development areas. Water Resource& Policy, Disasters & Development, SustainableUrbanization, Climate Change, Adaptation, Resilienceand Sustainability. Sustainable Urban DrainageSystems (SUDS), etc.

Sadaf ZafarMSc in PublicServices Policy& Management

MPDD DSD

under Education Department Projects

& Programs related to Capacity Building Research

& Study cell relating to policy making

MuhammadSajjadBabar

MSc in PovertyReduction &DevelopmentManagement

Any Poverty Reduction Department.


MuhammadAslam

MSc in RiverEnvironmentalManagement

Irrigationand Power Department

Publichealth departments Department of Environment

GhulamAbbas

Economic Policyfor Developing& TransitionalEconomies

Planning& Development Department

FinanceDepartment

LocalGovernment & Community DevelopmentDepartment

JahangirAnwar

MAEmploymentStudies & HRM

S&GAD

4.3.6 WHAT ARE YOUR FUTURE CAREER GOALS AND HOW DO YOU WANT TO

ACHIEVE THEM? [Q.13 (e)]

In response to this question, the scholars stated the following goals:

My future goals are to deliver in more effective & efficient manner. I would try to achieve itby transmitting knowledge to work place.

To secure top management commitment for improvement of Performance ManagementSystem in the Public Sector.Possibly get hands on HR experience in a public sector bank, GONGO or autonomous bodyand use that experience for improvement of Public Sector Performance Management.

My goal is to be a project professional while remaining part of the provincial civil service.

My future career goal is to serve my Government and apply the new concepts and knowledgeacquired.

I would like to have PhD in Organization Development and to serve public sector forintroducing efficient organizations.

To serve the Government of the Punjab.

To be a successful leader and manager.Hands on experience in diverse conditions.Updating my knowledge.Learning from experience of others.

“Be a dynamic part of a Learning & Delivering group” through:


o Further study and research.o Checking validity of themes by implementing those.

PhD on Energy Crisis in Pakistan.Working in UNDP on Climate Change or Environmental issues.

I really want to contribute in the research & policy making side of public sector with specialfocus on HR Policies & Practices.

I intend to do PhD in the field of Poverty Reduction & Development Management.

I am serving as SDO in Irrigation and Power Department. I would like to work in PMU ofthis department to implement my new skills gained through this M.Sc.

I envision playing my professional role in Policy formulation and implementation. Moreover,I also intended to conduct research work in the area of Public Development.

To work for S&GAD and improve the systems.

4.3.7 HOW WOULD YOU EVALUATE THIS DEGREE IN ACHIEVING YOUR

OBJECTIVES AT THE ORGANIZATIONAL AND INDIVIDUAL LEVEL? [Q.11]

Training under PCBP-1 is good and should be continued by the PRMP. PRPM shouldcoordinate with S&GAD for 1st posting of participants after completion of degree program.

For me individually, it was a truly wonderful learning experience. It would be more fulfillingif I got the opportunity to further build upon this knowledge and utilize it for contributing tothe improvement of the public sector performance management system.

Excellent initiative which must be continued in future.

Training under PCBP-1 is very beneficial to me. I have learnt new ideas and current debateon development. I gained knowledge about the working of donor agencies. The acquiredskills will help me a lot to introduce these new ideas in the organization where I am going toserve.

It has been an excellent learning experience. PCBP has been extremely helpful in affordingopportunity of achieving professional skills.

Very good. It should be continued. There is room for improvement.

The program is instrumental in transferring me to be more methodical, pro-active, expandedknowledge base, skills to develop project teams and meet the objectives. Those points cantranslate into organizational effectiveness and get maximum benefits from availableresources.


Appreciative role with certain room for improvement.

A good & appreciable effort of Provincial Government to improve the Provincial CivilService vis-à-vis changing world & its pace of development.

PCBP-1 is an excellent program under which provincial government officers got opportunityto study abroad & had great exposure. I personally feel enriched with knowledge & skillsrequired for public sector management.

This training has really helped me to participate in Policy Making & Implementationprocess.

Excellent

I am really satisfied with training

Excellent training program

5 - RECOMMENDATIONS / SUGGESTIONS

Punjab Government officers (Civil Servants) should be promoted from one grade to anotherafter 7 years & foreign degree should be given weightage.

PRMP also focus on short term courses for provincial servants and establish researchfacilities for the provincial services.

Let the Program continue for maximum time

There should be a policy of rotation at core levels to enrich and diversify the experience ofpublic servants.

PRMP should take some steps for incentives for those officers who have acquired theirhigher degrees in terms of promotion or additional pay increments.

LUMS be enlisted for PCBP purposes

The feedback of scholars which were comments rather than suggestions for improvement of theprogram have been excluded.

AANNNNEEXXEESS

1

ANNEX A: ELIGIBILITY CRITERION FOR APPLICANTSOF PCBP

An applicant for PCBP must:-

a. Hold a masters degree or 16 year education (MBBS, BE etc.).

b. Fulfill the following age criteria at the closing date of application: -

(1) For BS-17 Officers 38 years(2) For BS-18 Officers 45 Years(3) For BS-19 Officers 52 Years.

c. Have at least 5 years public sector work experience in BS-17 or above.

d. Be a regular employee of the Government of Punjab, a Civil Servant orTechnical/Specialist Cadre or Ex-Cadre. (Officers belonging to autonomous bodies,corporations, regulatory bodies. Education, health, judiciary and not involved in publicpolicy making and implementation would be ineligible for the program).

e. Hold a permanent post with the Provincial Government or at the District level.

f. Furnish an undertaking on a legal paper that she/he will serve the Punjab government fora period of at least 5 years after training (on given format).

g. Not enrolled and pursuing a degree program at the time of application and not gettingfunds from the Government of Pakistan/ Punjab or any other source, scholarship etc.

h. Not got a foreign degree during the past 5 years.

i. Not be on currently on deputation to a donor or international agency.

j. Not be on long leave from the Government. (Equal or more than one year)

k. Not be involved in an inquiry or disciplinary action.

l. Be in good mental and physical health.

1

ANNEX B : LIST OF PCBP-1 SCHOLARS

Sr.No.

NameCadre /

BPSDiscipline/ University Admission/

Destination

1. Mr. Ahmad Afnan PMS / 17MSc in Human Resource for InternationalDevelopment, University of Manchester, UK

2. Mr. Farrukh Naveed PMS / 17MSc in Management & Implementation ofDevelopment Projects, University ofManchester, UK

3. Mr. Jahangir Anwar PMS / 18MA in Employment Studies & HumanResource Management at LondonMetropolitan University, UK

4. Mr. Muhammad Akhtar PMS / 18MSc in Program & Project Management,Warwick University, UK

5.Mr. Muhammad ShafiqAhmad

PMS / 18MSc in Program & Project Management.University of Warwick, UK

6.Mr. Muhammad SohailShahzad

PMS / 18MSc in Organizational Change &Development, University of Manchester, UK.

7.Muhammad ShabbirAhmed Khan

PMS / 17MA in Development Studies, University ofManchester, UK

8.Mr. Naveed ShahzadMirza

PMS / 17MSc in Human Resources for InternationalDevelopment at University of Manchester, UK

9. Ms. Sadaf Zafar PMS / 17MSc in Public Service Policy & Management atKings College London, UK

10. Syeda Malika PMS / 17MA in Environment & Development at KingsCollege London, UK

2

Sr.No.

NameCadre /

BPSDiscipline/ University Admission/

Destination

11. Mr. Ghulam AbbasP&D Deptt./

17

MSc in Economic Policy & Developing &Transitional Economies, University ofBradford, UK

12. Ms Zahida Azher PMS / 17MA in Governance and Development,Institute of Development Studies, Universityof SUSSEX, UK

13.Mr. Muhammad FarooqRasheed

PMS / 17 MPA Program at Warwick University, UK

14.Mr. Muhammad SajjadBabar

Zakat &Usher

Deptt. / 17

MSc in Poverty Reduction & DevelopmentManagement, University of Birmingham, UK

15. Mr. Muhammad AslamI&P Deptt./

17

MSc in Taught Program in RiverEnvironmental Management at University ofBirmingham, UK

1

ANNEX C : QUESTIONNAIRE

PCBP-I POST TRAINING EVALUATION FORM

PERSONAL INFORMATION

1. Name: 2. Gender: MaleFemale

3. Designation & Organization:

3. Occupational Group/Service: 4. Pay Scale:

5. Date of Birth: 6. Year of Joining Service:

1. Education:Degree Subject Institution Year

M.A. / M.Sc.

Professional Degree

Others

2. Evaluation OF PCBP-I: Please provide your candid evaluation of PCBP-I. Yourevaluation will help to improve the future delivery of trainings by Punjab ResourceManagement Program.

3. Selection Methodology:

a. Are you satisfied with the selection process for PCBP-I?

Yes No

b. What changes would you like to incorporate in the selection process?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

c. Do you think that the investment made through PCBP-I is beneficial?

Yes No If no, why:-

2

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

d. Are you satisfied with the logistic arrangements for PCBP-I before your departure andduring the program?

Yes No

If no, why:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

4. Training Facilities:

Poor Fair GoodVerygood

Excellent

a. Are you satisfied with the training facilitiesand logistic arrangements offered at youruniversity?

1 2 3 4 5

b.Whether the training material providedduring the course was adequate andrelevant

1 2 3 4 5

c.Training effectiveness of the degreeprogram

1 2 3 4 5

d. Overall rating of the training facilities 1 2 3 4 5

5. Degree Program:

a. Title of the Degree being obtained:

__________________________________________________________________

b. Name of the University / Institute:

__________________________________________________________________

3

d. Are you satisfied with the degree obtained?

Yes No

If no, than kindly elaborate:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

e. What were the three subjects which you think were most beneficial for Public Sector inPunjab?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

f. What were the subjects, which were not so relevant (identify 2-3 only) for Public Sectorin Punjab?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

g. Would you like to recommend your degree and university for future training to otherofficers?Yes No

Poor Fair GoodVerygood

Excellent

h.Your overall rating of Degree Programand university.

1 2 3 4 5

6. Which projects were required to be completed in your programs (Annex ifapplicable)?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

7. Kindly specify the field visits attended during the programs (Annex if applicable)?

4

1. ____________________________________________________________

2. ____________________________________________________________

3. _______ ________________ _________ ________________ ___________

8. What was the topic of your dissertation? Kindly specify its objectives and scope?__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

9a. What were your objectives for pursuing of higher studies?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

b. To what extent were these objectives fulfilled?Not fulfilled Fulfilled

Objectives 1 2 3 4 5

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

10. Resource Person:

5

a. Resource Persons Evaluation (___________________)

Belowaverage

Average GoodVerygood

Excellent

A Qualification andexperience.

1 2 3 4 5

B Training Methodology. 1 2 3 4 5

C Knowledge of the topics 1 2 3 4 5

D Communication style 1 2 3 4 5

E Time management 1 2 3 4 5

F Availability for aftersession consultations.

1 2 3 4 5

G Management of thelearning process

1 2 3 4 5

b. Resource Persons Evaluation (___________________)

Belowaverage


Excellent


1 2 3 4 5






1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

c. Resource Persons Evaluation (___________________)

Belowaverage


Excellent


1 2 3 4 5




6



1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

d. Resource Persons Evaluation (___________________)

Belowaverage


Excellent


1 2 3 4 5






1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

e. Resource Persons Evaluation (___________________)

Belowaverage


Excellent

A Qualification and experience. 1 2 3 4 5B Training Methodology. 1 2 3 4 5C Knowledge of the topics 1 2 3 4 5D Communication style 1 2 3 4 5E Time management 1 2 3 4 5F Availability for after session

consultations.1 2 3 4 5

G Management of the learningprocess

1 2 3 4 5

f. Resource Persons Evaluation (___________________)

Belowaverage


Excellent

A Qualification and experience. 1 2 3 4 5B Training Methodology. 1 2 3 4 5C Knowledge of the topics 1 2 3 4 5D Communication style 1 2 3 4 5E Time management 1 2 3 4 5F Availability for after session 1 2 3 4 5

7

consultations.G Management of the learning

process1 2 3 4 5

11. How would you evaluate the training under PCBP-I in achieving your objectives atthe organizational and individual level?

__________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

12. Identify the areas where the Degree Program has brought major improvement inyour capacity in terms of knowledge base and skills.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

13. Career Planning

1. Do you consider that you should develop any specialization related to public sector in thefuture?

Yes No

a) Which of your implementing capabilities do you believe improved as a result of yourparticipation in PCBP-I? select the top three (from attached table):-

No. 1 ____________________________________________________________

No. 2 ____________________________________________________________

No. 3 ____________________________________________________________

Table:

a) Pro-activeness (motivation, ability to take action)

8

b) Sociability (understanding of others, ability to build relationships)c) Sense of trust (sense of responsibility, ability to achieve things)d) Ability to learn from experience (awareness of issues, application of experience)e) Self control (emotional stability, control)f) Communication ability (ability to express oneself, persuasive power)g) Other ability – please specify

b) How will you contribute to make your organization more efficient?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

c) How can you improve your organization’s effectiveness?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

d) On the basis of your qualification and experience, which Departments can best utilizeyour potential?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

e) What are your future career goals and how do you want to achieve them?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

9

f) Any other suggestion / comment.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Name: __________________________ Signature: ______________________

Date: ___________________________

Note:The information contained in this Pro forma will be treated as confidential and used forevaluation and analysis. We may also add your comments in certain publications.

Documents

PCBP-I– ONE YEAR MASTERS DEGREE PROGRAMEVALUATION REPORT OF PCBP-I – ONE YEAR MASTERS DEGREE PROGRAM - 2 - highly. Majority of the scholars believe that their pro-activeness (motivation,