~Notetmp

BENCHMARKING in civilian CSDP CMOs

Methodology Development

Progress Report to CIVCOM

Birgit Loeser Luigi Bruno

Brussels, 14 April 2011

Planning & Methodology Section

CPCC

CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking 3

Information Points

Background

CPCC Initial Views

Project Status & Way Ahead


Background

Last CIVCOM discussions

Current samples: EULEX Kosovo / EUPOL RD Congo / EUJUST LEX Iraq

Visits to OSCE and UN DPKO

February 2005, PU Benchmarking Workshop


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)


benchmark approaches

CPCC Initial Views

Benchmark against End State (how far are we? hard to say)

(*) Michael S. Lund, Preventing Violent Conflicts: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy, USIP Press Books, April 1996

NOW END STATE: when?



CPCC Initial Views


Baseline 1 yr New Baseline

2 yrs New Baseline

(Mission launched)

(Mission renewed)

Mandate Intermediate END STATE


Benchmark against Baseline (have we progressed? we can measure)

Baseline END STATE

Where to start from Where to get to

Why are both required?

Benchmark against End State (how far are we? hard to say)




CPCC Initial Views

Missions: “baseline” to report on progress

What is the best approach for whom?

Council:“end state” - if CSDP still required


Baseline 1 yr New Baseline

2 yrs New Baseline

(Mission launched)

(Mission renewed)




definition, aim & scope

CPCC Initial Views

Methodology to assess Mission’s effectivenessBenchmarking is a tool aimed at measuring change through the use of

comparison. It functions as a monitoring and reporting mechanism to assist in the verification 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

AimTo 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


indicators and means of verification

CPCC Initial Views

Different indicators for different levels:

Tactical

PoliticalStrategic

Operational

Types of Indicator:Quantitative / Qualitative / Hybrid

Means of verification: Method or source to be used to verify an indicator



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)

OUTCOMEThere is improved trust and exchange of information between the police and the population

INDICATORNumber of crimes reported by the civilian population

BASELINEIn 2009, 37.000 crimes where reported to the police by the public

MEANS OF VERIFICATION

National crime statistics

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%



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)


INDICATORPolice foot patrols

BASELINEIn Apr. 09, it was assessed that community patrols are conducted by car due to the hostile attitude of local population


European Commission

Details: Quarterly report by the EC presence in the host country

Progress ReportApr. 10 - Police foot patrols started to be conducted in community areas (1/5 of total patrols during Jan.-Mar. 2010)



CPCC Initial Views


INDICATORPercentage of male and female population with a favourable perception of the police

BASELINEIn Sep. 09, 45% of the cluster had a favourable perception of the police, of which 20% were womenCluster:1000 citizens, 200 for each region, of which 30% <30yrs, 40% 31-60 yrs and 30 % >61yrs.Of the total, 50% lived in urban areas


CSDP Mission

Details: Conducted annually, in September, according to the methodology outlined in the baseline

Progress ReportSep. 10 - People’s appreciation of the police service increased to 60% (+33%), 25% female

Sample of Hybrid Indicator (it helps demonstrating qualitative improvement by quantitatively characterizing

the change)

14

need assessment, objectives & baseline

CPCC Initial Views

Situation Analysis (SA) domains:•Constitutional & Institutional•Legal & Budget•Organizational Design•Infrastructures & Equipment•Personnel•Training

international standards

& best practices

international standards

& best practices

Need Assessment

(NA)

Mission Objectives

CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking

Indicators

&

Means of Verification

Indicators

&

Means of Verification Baseline

Bench

Bench

Marking

Marking

Baseline

15

what does it imply?

CPCC Initial Views


in terms of Mission Planning

FFM (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)

16

what does it imply?

CPCC Initial Views


MIP = internal planning & constant reporting

MR = Mission OUTPUT

6MR = Mission progress / OUTCOME trend assessment

Yearly = Mission OUTCOME

Mandate Renewal = refocusing, if need be

Termination = mission accomplished

in terms of Mission Conduct

17

using benchmarking

CPCC Initial Views


Political Objectives (they are stated in CMC/Council Decision)

• Long/Mid/Short Term (if stated in CMC/Council Decision)

Strategic Indicators (in CONOPS as generic Criteria for Success)

Means of Verification (rarely indicated)

MoVSIs

MoVSIs

Programme 2.

Programme ...

Programme 1. (they correspond to “Mission objectives” desired OUTCOME as identified in the CONOPS)

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)

18CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking


Operational Indicators (in OPLAN as generic Criteria for Success)

MoVOIs

MoVOIs







using benchmarking

CPCC Initial Views

Action 1.1. (they correspond to “Mission Tasks” desired OUTCOME as identified in the OPLAN)

Action 1.2.

Action 1. …



Tactical Indicators (or Performance Indicators, sometimes in MIP)

MoVTIs

MoVTIs

Activity 1.1.1. (they correspond to “Mission Sub-Tasks” expected OUTPUT as identified in the MIP)

Activity 1.1.2.

Activity 1.1. …




Action 1.1. (they correspond to “Mission Tasks” desired OUTCOME as identified in the OPLAN)


Operational Indicators (in OPLAN as generic Criteria for Success)




using benchmarking

CPCC Initial Views


using benchmarking

CPCC Initial Views

Field Operator’s Mask

Indicator/s

I a) …

I b) …

I c) …

Means of Verification

MV a) …

MV b) …

MV c) …

Baseline

…

Progress Report

… (periodically, as required)

Activity 1.1.1. … Expected OUTPUT …

Milestones By when Who Risks Opportunities Questions

1.1.1.1.... ... ... ... ... ...?

1.1.1.3.... ... ... ... ... ...?

1.1.1.2.... ... ... ... ... ...?

update

update

update

Mission Staff: daily report on what

is being done


using benchmarking

CPCC Initial Views

Mission Internal ReportingActivity OUTPUT

Action OUTCOME

Programme OUTCOME

Mandate OUTCOME

Activity OUTPUT

Activity OUTPUT

Action OUTCOME

Activity OUTPUT

Activity OUTPUT

Action OUTCOME

Programme OUTCOME

Activity OUTPUT

Activity OUTPUT

Action OUTCOME

Activity OUTPUT

Mission ReportingMR: progress of activities (OUTPUT)

6MR: impact trend assessment (OUTCOME)


FINALIZE THE METHODOLOGY

Step 1CIVCOM to agree on CPCC Benchmarking Paper

(June 2011? tbc)

Step 2Requirements, including for IT support

Step 3Library of indicators and means of verification

(Political / Strategic / Operational / Tactical)



IMPLEMENTATION

Introducing Benchmarking in ongoing Missions

Address impact on how we plan and conduct

(throughout the entire Mission cycle)


THANK YOU


Planning & Methodology Section

CPCC

Technology

~Notetmp