<strong>UNDP</strong> <strong>Capacity</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Methodology User‘s <strong>Guide</strong>Some indicators are applicable across many core issues; others are more targeted to specificissues. For those that are more general, the assessment team needs to make them morespecific to the issues under assessment.The assessment team should strive to define indicators that are SMART: Specific, Measurable,Attainable, Relevant and Timebound.The process of defining progress indicators aids activities throughout the capacity development process.Specifically, it:Supports policy dialogue and strategy formulation as a part of the analytical work that precedescapacity development investments;Contributes to the design of a capacity development response;Enhances monitoring: by tracking process and progress over time, thus improving the design of acapacity development response;Enhances evaluation by tracking the change resulting from a capacity development response;Promotes organizational learning and empowerment because it is an internal learning exercise.Figure 5. Indicators and the monitoring of results(Adapted from <strong>UNDP</strong> Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluating for Results)TYPE WHAT IS MEASURED INDICATORSDevelopment(Impact Level)<strong>Capacity</strong>Development(Outcome Level)CD Strategies Response(Output Level)A development impact, not a capacitydevelopment impact. <strong>Capacity</strong>development may be a contributing factorDevelopment effectiveness, or results interms of access, usage and stakeholdersatisfaction from products and servicesgenerated by projects and programmesEffort, or products and services generatedby capacity development projects andprogrammesSustained positivedevelopmentchangeSustainedproduction ofbenefitsImplementation ofactivitiesRegardless of the type of indicators selected, baseline and target metrics should be defined. Thebaseline may be as straightforward as the quantitative ranking determined during the assessment.Regardless of the indicator chosen, its ―measurability‖ is critical – the availability of indicator data, or lackthereof, may require the capacity assessment team to reconsider its indicators.3. Cost a capacity development responseCosting a capacity development response is critical, since it encourages stakeholders to realisticallyestimate the funding required for implementation. If the exercise reveals insufficient funds for all theproposed capacity development actions, alternative solutions are needed, These can include leveragingother programmes and resources or to prioritize the actions. This will build on the priorities set during thedesign of the capacity assessment (guided by ‗capacity for why?‘ ‗capacity for whom?‘ and ‗capacity forwhat?‘) and the validation and interpretation of its findings. Since priority setting is inherently political, thisprocess should be managed carefully and transparently, with the involvement of all relevant stakeholders;otherwise those that stand to lose out may withhold their support during implementation.The costs for a shorter-term capacity development response can be determined through activity-basedbudgeting. This starts from actions planned, for example, ‗support to a functional review‘ and budgets theestimated, quantifiable inputs (such as number of consultant days, transportation costs, translation days,number of training materials to be printed) need to complete this action. Project costs for a longer-term20
<strong>UNDP</strong> <strong>Capacity</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Methodology User‘s <strong>Guide</strong>capacity development response is more complicated. If these cannot be accurately projected (which ofteninvolves using econometric modeling techniques), the costing exercise should probably be limited tocosting actual, planned activities to avoid questioning the credibility or legitimacy of the costs. Undersome special circumstances, an element of imputed costs may be estimated a priori and built intoprogramme/project design.21