Compendium of Country Examples and Lessons Learned from ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

They identify and correct mistakes or misunderstandings.Involving stakeholders in the validation of assessments becomes an important newmanagement tool.Most importantly, involving stakeholders in the validation of assessments provides a validmechanism for ensuring buy-in and commitment to the procurement reform agenda, therebybuilding a coalition for change.Which stakeholders should be included?The identification and selection of stakeholders for validation will vary from country to country.However, they will often coincide with representatives of procurement entities and the group ofstakeholders generally understood to support procurement reform, such as:government line ministries;local government authorities;oversight institutions (ombudsman, audit authority, anti-corruption agency);parliamentary committees;civil society including academics, NGOs and the media;the private sector; andthe international donor community.How to involve stakeholders in the validation?An important consideration when inviting stakeholders to assist in the validation of the assessmentprocess and results is to ensure the stakeholder group is well informed about the assessment from thestart and its purpose within the wider procurement reform. Information on the assessment process andresults can be posted on the relevant web sites and through other, regular means of communicationsuch as newspapers and community newsletters. Depending on the previous level of involvement andthe knowledge within the stakeholder group, mechanisms such as those that follow could be applied:public hearingsstakeholder meetingsfocus groupsIt is important to specify from the beginning of the pilot exercise why stakeholders‟ involvement iscritical and how the stakeholders‟ input will be used. Before involving different groups of stakeholdersin the validation process, the appropriate approach for dealing with each group should be chosen andanalysed i.e. perhaps using face-to-face workshops with a particular group, emailed questionnaires orstructured telephone interviews with others. (Refer to section entitled “Stakeholder involvement”,above.)COMPENDIUM OF COUNTRY EXAMPLES AND LESSONS LEARNED […] - OECD 2008 39
Country experiencesMany pilot countries have expressed the view that the validation of the assessment exercise and of theresults of the assessment is a useful measurement of the transparency and credibility of the assessmentexercise. Stakeholders of the procurement process, such as civil society organisations, the privatesector, the development partner community, and both political and administrative governmentauthorities have, in many cases, been consulted when reviewing the results of the assessment and, to alesser extent, at the planning stage.A few countries have expressed some disappointment with regards to the attendance at validationworkshops. In Lao for example, representatives of six key ministries, two public authorities, 2 stateownedenterprises and the World Bank participated in the validation workshop. However, professionalorganisations and private companies who had also been invited to provide their views and commentson the assessment report did not attend.Challenges also remain in addressing disagreement over scoring and understanding the significance ofthe score.The following country cases of Botswana, Zambia and the Philippines illustrate different approacheschosen to validate the process and the results.In the validation process, problems related to the procurement assessment exercise as a whole maybecome apparent and should be evaluated. For example:If there is no validation process at all, the credibility of the assessment results will beaffected. Action should be taken to ensure stakeholder involvement.If civil society organisations or private sector institutions do not participate in either surveysor workshops, it is important to analyse and understand why.Box 7. Validation process in BotswanaBotswana has chosen a three-step approach to assess the baseline indicators and validate the results:1. scoring by Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Board (PPADB);2. scoring by stakeholders as a group;3. comparative analysis.All stakeholders were given the Methodology for Assessment of National Procurement Systems for theirindependent assessment during Phase 1 of the project. This assessment took place in a workshop where all theparticipating stakeholders were invited to share their independent assessment results with others for the purposeof validation. The participants were divided into groups. Each group was assigned a pillar with the objective ofreaching consensus on the scores. The scores, as agreed by each team, were then presented to the entireworkshop that then endorsed the score as presented, or modified it accordingly. The PPADB team also sharedtheir results with the workshop. It was agreed during the workshop that the two reports should be kept separateso that they could be compared and independent conclusions drawn up.A comparative analysis of the results was made displaying the margin of variation and a conclusion wasdrawn from the entire assessment exercise. The margin of variation in the two results is only 3%, which isnegligible. However, there is a need to reconcile the differences, which exist between the Procurement Board andits stakeholders, given that they have scored different marks in different aspects that the sub-indicators attempt toassess.40 COMPENDIUM OF COUNTRY EXAMPLES AND LESSONS LEARNED […] - OECD 2008
Page 1 and 2: Compendium of Country Examplesand L
Page 3: ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERAT
Page 8 and 9: ForewordIn 2002, the OECD-DAC and t
Page 10 and 11: Background and Purpose of this Pape
Page 12 and 13: The Procurement Assessment Methodol
Page 14 and 15: The Process of Preparing and Planni
Page 16 and 17: Box 1. High-level political support
Page 18 and 19: Table 2. Potential stakeholders in
Page 20 and 21: Based on the assessment reports pro
Page 22 and 23: willing to participate in the asses
Page 24 and 25: Implementing a Procurement Assessme
Page 26 and 27: 1 = areas where substantive work is
Page 28 and 29: Country experiencesMost of the pilo
Page 30 and 31: Indicator 4: Normative and regulato
Page 32 and 33: “Considerations for assessment”
Page 34 and 35: Lao, for example, reports that nati
Page 36 and 37: Figure 4. Possible negative impact
Page 38 and 39: Country experiencesThe usefulness o
Page 42 and 43: Box 8. Validation process in Zambia
Page 44 and 45: Making Use of the Assessment Result
Page 46 and 47: Procurement Capacity Development: I
Page 48: StakeholdersThe GPP argues that as
Page 51 and 52: Table 4. Compliance and Performance
Page 53 and 54: Engage banks in a dialogue to secur
Page 56 and 57: Linkages with Public Financial Mana
Page 58 and 59: Elements of transparency (transpare
Page 60 and 61: which serves as the externalinforma
Page 62 and 63: Next StepsThe Joint Venture on Proc
Page 64 and 65: CountryLatestprogressreportAssessme
Page 70 and 71: Country Sampling for CPI Stakeholde
Page 80: Country Sampling for CPI Stakeholde
Page 83 and 84: Procurementprocess (30%)10. Method
Page 85 and 86: 4. Member countries should ensure t
Page 88 and 89: Annex DList of Referenced Resources

Compendium of Country Examples and Lessons Learned from ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?