43
Number of operational guidelines developed and adopted to facilitate partnership activities, by type
Refers to the number and type of guidelines, instructions, plans, or any other formal documentations that are developed and adopted to facilitate the operation and implementation of activities
This indicator refers to the number and type of guidelines, instructions, plans, or any other formal documentations that are developed to facilitate the operation and implementation of activities in a partnership and are adopted by all of the partner organizations. Operational guidelines may include a memorandum of understanding (MOU), annual work plan and budget, performance management plan, communications plan, or progress report.
Quantitative data and qualitative data from programmatic records
Administrative/programmatic records, operational guideline documents
Annually or semiannually
The purpose of this indicator is to ensure that a set of rules and expectations for each partner organization and the mechanism for operating the partnership are clearly set. It provides objective measures for the coordination of policies or programs, evidence of communication, and coordination of activities.
In addition to documenting the number and types of operational guidelines, it is important to track how the partnership agreements are implemented and monitored, and ensure that each partnership organization understands it rights, roles, and responsibilities. Findings collected from this indicator can be further confirmed by indicators 44 (leadership and management) and 45 (shared vision).
Findings collected from this indicator can be further confirmed by indicators 44 (leadership and management) and 45 (shared vision).
2017
Count, qualitative
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
44
Rating of the coordination roles and responsibilities undertaken by the leadership and management body in the partnership
Measures the extent to which the leadership and management body, such as an advisory group or steering committee, guide and coordinate the work of the partnership and the perceptions of that leadership
This indicator measures the extent to which the leadership and management body, such as an advisory group or steering committee, guide and coordinate the work of the partnership. For example, the performance criteria include that the leadership and management body:
· understands and supports KM as key to the partnership success, such as establishing a KM strategy or using KM tools/techniques;
· promotes partnership vision and identity;
· encourages active participation by partner organizations;
· shares accountability for achieving partnership goals;
· has a clear and transparent governance structure to make mutually beneficial decisions; and
· uses participatory processes to develop scopes of work and joint activities.
Qualitative and quantitative data from responses to questionnaires (using Likert scales) regarding the perceptions of partner organizations about the performance quality and characteristics of the leadership and management body
Periodic surveys, followed up with key informant interviews and focus groups as needed; checklist to measure governance, accountability, and so on, as specified in a collaboration agreement
Periodically (before, during, and after specific activities or events)
For the purpose of forming and sustaining a partnership, it is crucial to have a leadership and management structure that meets performance criteria identified by partner organizations. This indicator aims to periodically collect the data using various performance criteria, including the support to KM, to gauge how well the leadership and management body is operating. The indicator also helps the leadership and management body to assess its strengths and areas for improvement and ensure that the partnership continues beyond personnel changes.
The term “partnership” implies an equal relationship, and in order for a partnership to succeed from the start and over time, it requires that partner organizations are willing to let go of some of their own power and control (IOD PARC, 2015; Harris & Wilkins, 2013). Therefore, it is essential for all parties to be involved in the establishment of clear governance and accountability structures, and use performance monitoring indicators for ongoing planning, documentation of progress, and reflection, revision and transformation of the appropriate leadership and management practices (ADB, 2010; IOD PARC, 2015). Further research is required to develop objective measures of these areas including governance, accountability, and performance monitoring.
2017
Categorical scale, qualitative
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
45
Level of commitment and support for shared vision
Measures the extent to which the partnership vision is jointly created, shared, and understood by member organizations and the perceptions of that leadership
This indicator measures the extent to which the partnership vision is jointly created, shared, and understood by partner organizations. For example, the quality criteria include that the shared vision:
· contributes to knowledge sharing and use among partner organizations and between the partnership and its audiences,
· builds an identity for the partnership,
· addresses the common needs of the partnership,
· aligns with goals of partner organizations, and
· guides concrete actions and joint activities including the planning and production of KM outputs.
Qualitative and quantitative data from questionnaires (using Likert scales) regarding the perceptions of partner organizations about the shared vision measurement, using dimensions that are agreed upon for the partnership
Periodic surveys, followed up with key informant interviews and focus group discussions, as needed
Periodically (before, during, and after specific activities or events)
This indicator aims to facilitate the planning, implementation, and monitoring of the shared vision set by partner organizations in their efforts to improve health and development outcomes via KM. Partnerships must be guided by a shared vision that builds trust and recognizes the value and contribution of all partner organizations. The understanding and acceptance of the importance of the shared vision leads to improved coordination of policies, programs, and service delivery (C. C. Fund, 2010).
Although partners may believe they have a shared vision based on a cohesive set of common goals and a mutual understanding, to work together, each organization needs to understand how its own culture and practices impact and influence the relationship (IOD PARC 2015). In developing a shared vision, it is crucial for each organization to understand the specific norms, values, and approaches of other partners (Harris & Wilkins, 2013). When applicable, measuring the perception of “acceptance of differences among partner organizations” as one of the criteria to measure the level of commitment and support for the shared vision may be useful.
Number/percentage of group members able to articulate a shared vision (indicator 66) addresses the importance of shared vision in the social-interaction context.
2017
Categorical scale, qualitative
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
46
Level of trust among partner organizations
Measures each partner organization’s level of confidence in and willingness to open oneself to the other
This indicator refers to each partner organization’s level of confidence in and willingness to open oneself or one’s organization to the other, based on the following dimensions:
· integrity – each organization is fair and just;
· dependability – each organization will do what it says it will do;
· competence – each organization has the ability to do what it says it will do;
· credibility – each organization is well-respected among its respective audiences; and
· risk management – each organization manages and mitigates potential common risks that may include shortage of resources or departure of key members.
Qualitative and quantitative data from questionnaires (using Likert scales) regarding the perceptions of partner organizations about the trust measurement, using dimensions that are agreed upon for the partnership
Periodic surveys, followed up with key informant interviews and focus group discussions, as needed
Periodically (before, during, and after specific activities or events)
This indicator aims to look closely at various dimensions to characterize the quality of relationship supported by mutual trust, which is one of the key elements of facilitating sound decision making approaches and building successful partnerships. Trust has been used as a key measurable components of relationships (Ki & Hon, 2007).
Trust has been a widely studied concept as a component of the quality of relationships, and some researchers have identified and used three dimensions of trust that are measurable, including integrity, dependability, and competence (Ki & Hon, 2007; Paine, 2013). Other studies have shown that credibility and risk management are also key dimensions in trust measurement (Lister, 1997; Lee, 2001; ADB, 2011). Having data on these dimensions will help partnerships identify areas for improvement and become more authentic and transparent (Paine, 2013).
Level of trust among group members (indicator 69) addresses the importance of trust in the social-interaction context.
2017
Categorical scale, qualitative
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
47
Level of satisfaction with the overall partnership
Measures each partner organization’s level of favorable feeling toward the partnership because needs and expectations are positively reinforced
This indicator refers to each partner organization’s level of favorable feeling toward the others and the partnership as a whole because needs and expectations related to the partnership are positively reinforced (Hon & Grunig, 1999). Satisfaction dimensions to ensure a positive relationship include the following:
· collaboration – each organization works together to achieve the performance expectations set by the partnership;
· complementarity – each organization selects skilled and committed staff with complementary skills and knowledge to serve as team members;
· contribution – each organization provides resources and knowledge to design, manage, and monitor joint activities;
· coverage – each organization helps to find and reach new audiences through partnerships.
Qualitative and quantitative data from questionnaires (using Likert scales) regarding the perceptions of partner organizations about the satisfaction measurement using dimensions that are agreed upon for the partnership
Periodic surveys, followed up with key informant interviews and focus group discussions, as needed
Periodically (before, during, and after specific activities or events)
Partnership satisfaction, along with trust, is a key and fundamental indicator for measuring and maintaining a positive relationship among organizations in a partnership. Satisfying relationships produce more benefits than costs, and the concept of success is determined, in part, by how well the partnership achieves performance expectations set by partner organizations (Mohr & Spekman, 1994; Paine, 2013).
A partnership that generates satisfaction exists when performance expectations have been jointly achieved (Mohr & Spekman, 1994). As part of the satisfaction measurement, it is important to look at the multiple dimensions proposed for this indicator, including collaboration, complementarity, contribution, and coverage. To fully support each other’s work, partnership activities need to be integrated into the work of the organization and not considered to be “extracurricular” (King, 2014). This indicator focuses on the level of satisfaction with the overall partnership, rather than assessing each organization individually, because the latter approach may introduce bias as people may not feel confident judging others willingly and/or accurately.
Indicators 24 to 28 are a set of indicators that specifically address user satisfaction of KM outputs.
2017
Categorical scale, qualitative
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
48
Number of joint activities to produce KM outputs, by type
Measures the number of both new and continued activities that are jointly implemented to produce KM outputs for intended audiences
This indicator refers to the number of both new and continued activities that are collectively implemented to produce KM outputs, such as products and services, publications and resources, training and events, and approaches and techniques, for intended audiences.
Self-report of number of activities to produce KM outputs, by type; complementary data: self-report of number of KM outputs jointly produced, by type
Administrative records and programmatic records, including planning/design records, qualitative analyses of changes in quality of products related to local relevance, accuracy, compelling design, and clearer writing
Semiannually
The purpose of this indicator is to ensure that each organization in a partnership is actively engaged in and contributing to activities to produce a variety of KM outputs. For example, some partnerships may create websites or use social media channels to increase awareness, share knowledge, or call for action, while others may focus on documentation of lessons learned in a form of newsletter, case studies, or reports. Partnerships often allocate responsibility for components of the task to different partner organizations; for example, one organization manages the website and another organization produces newsletter. It is important to systematically track those activities to gauge how well the partnership is integrating KM into its work.
In addition to just counting the joint activities to produce and maintain KM outputs, additional data should be kept for each of the activities, for example, scope/focus, duration/frequency, intended audience, and so on. Creating a simple spreadsheet would be useful to document and organize the information about partnerships in terms of activities.
It is important to capture new KM outputs (reflecting the generation and synthesis of knowledge) and existing KM outputs that are kept up-to-date to include the latest research findings and lessons learned from the global health field (see indicators 6 and 7). Number of KM coordinating/collaborating activities, by type (indicator 8) is complementary.
2017
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
49
Number/percentage of partner organizations learning new and valuable information/knowledge produced from partnership activities, by type
Measures the extent to which partner organizations and their audiences report that they have learned about knowledge jointly produced from partnership activities
This indicator measures the extent to which partner organizations and their audiences report that they have become aware of and are learning from knowledge jointly produced from partnership activities and feel capable of applying knowledge in their work. This indicator focuses on the value-generating type of knowledge, or expertise, that enables them to achieve their partnership goals and objectives (ADB, 2011).
Quantitative data from self-reporting survey; qualitative data from anecdotal user reports
Periodic surveys, followed by key informant interviews and focus groups, as needed
Annually
The purpose of this indicator is to systematically document learning opportunities supported in the partnership through partnership activities and KM outputs, particularly partner organizations producing value-generating types of knowledge, such as guidelines, lessons learned, or promising practices on technical topics. For example, High Impact Practices (HIPs) in Family Planning, which are a set of evidence-based family planning practices vetted by experts against specific criteria and documented in an easy-to-use format, provide specific value-generating types of knowledge.
Value-generating types of knowledge are specifically relevant to KM and partnerships, and generally fall under three categories of knowledge areas: 1) sector/thematic, 2) research, and 3) operational (ADB, 2011):
· sector and thematic knowledge – largely tacit, but can be made into know-how explicit through meetings, publications, and other mechanisms;
· research knowledge – primarily published and, therefore, explicit but may also include tacit research know-how in specific subject areas and research methods, which should be distinguished from the explicit nature of basic health science research;
· operational – primarily explicit know-how about the organizational framework, examples include operational policies, procedures, instructions, and processes.
It is useful to link the learning of new knowledge among partner organizations to these categories, and assess in which areas partnership activities are adding particular values in achieving partnership goals and objectives.
To adopt new knowledge, partner organizations need to first learn the new knowledge. This learning stage encompasses the progression from awareness of new knowledge to one’s attitudes toward the knowledge and the intention to use it. For more information, see indicators 34 to 39.
2017
Count, proportion, qualitative
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
50
Number/percentage of partner organizations using information/knowledge produced from partnership activities
Measures the extent to which partner organizations apply knowledge gained from partnership activities
This indicator measures the extent to which partner organizations apply knowledge gained from partnership activities. Related to indicators 40 to 42 to measure actions regarding making decisions (organizational or personal), improving practice, or informing policy.
Quantitative data from self-reporting survey; qualitative data from anecdotal user reports
Periodic surveys, followed by key informant interviews and focus groups, as needed
Annually
The purpose of this indicator is to trace how knowledge has been used by partner organizations for specific purposes, and how each organization has benefitted from that knowledge. This may include the use of knowledge by their intended audiences, such as policy makers, program managers, and service providers. To examine use of knowledge, and outcomes stemming from the use of knowledge, data can be collected by asking partner organizations themselves or observing their actions, when applicable. There are two main levels of inquiry: 1) the specific knowledge used (a countable item) and 2) the impact of the knowledge use (a qualitative appreciation of how the new knowledge affected the reporting partner).
It is useful to link use of new knowledge among partner organizations to the three categories: 1) technical/sector/thematic, 2) research, and 3) operational. Asking those who have been exposed to knowledge if they have applied it, how they have applied it, and what effect it had is relatively straightforward, however observing the use of knowledge and outcomes related to its use in real time is much more challenging.
For more information and suggested approaches to tackle such challenges, see indicators 40 to 42 and the Action section in the KM M&E Guide (pp. 54–55).
2017
Count, proportion, qualitative
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
