Standard 7: Realistic and participatory detailed implementation planning for program impact.

• Primary responsible: Project manager/chief of party (PM/CoP) if part of the design process, or other designated individual with a thorough understanding of the project design.
  • If she/he was part of the design process, the PM/CoP leads the overall context review and validation process; otherwise, the HoP or a member of the proposal development team with strong understanding of the project design and decisions made during the design process leads the process with organizational support and follow-up actions led by the PM/CoP.

• Others involved: Members of the project design/proposal development team; all available CRS and partner members of the project start-up/implementation team; head of programming (HoP) and head of operations (HoOps), if not part of the proposal development team; country representative (CR); security staff and technical advisors as needed.
  • Available members of the proposal development team participate to help explain design analysis and assumptions;
  • CRS and partner members of the project start-up/implementation team participate in all aspects of the processIdeally, there would be significant overlap in the membership of the proposal development team and the start-up/implementation team. ;
  • The HoP, HoOps, and CR participate to understand the operating context and issues, and to support validation process follow-up as needed with a project donor or other stakeholders.
  • In projects implemented in insecure operating environments, engage security staff in the operating context review. 

Who should be in the room? The participation of programming and operations staff with a solid understanding of project operating realities and the project design is key to an effective operating context review and proposal validation process.  This may include staff with security responsibilities, especially in insecure operating contexts. Newer staff less familiar with the project context and design should participate for their learning and understanding of the project. Select technical advisors or other regional staffFor example, the RTA for MEAL; regional or senior technical advisors for priority programming sectors; deputy regional director for program quality. may also participate in design validation, particularly for large and complex projects. Finally, it may also be appropriate to include partner senior leadership, in addition to partner project team members.

• The operating context review and validation process always takes place before detailed implementation planning.  
  
  • For most projects, operating context review and validation can be incorporated into the project start-up workshop.
  • For projects where there have been significant changes in the operating context and/or where CRS anticipates making changes to the project, organizing an operating context review and validation event before the start-up workshop may be needed to ensure appropriate technical inputs and donor consultation/approval as applicable.

Operating context review, validation, and award negotiation: Complete as much of the operating context review and proposal validation as possible prior to award finalization, to ensure that the final approved proposal and award reflect the situation on the ground. For some donors (e.g., USDA), award negotiation is a lengthy and complex process which provides scope for carrying out the steps below. However, most donors’ award negotiation and finalization processes do not allow for a comprehensive operating context review or validation of the original project proposal. Furthermore, if staff who will play important roles in project start-up and implementation are not in place at the time of issues letter response or award negotiation, a post-approval operating context review and validation process will still be needed.

Follow these steps to ensure a well-organized and effective review of the project operating context and validation of the project proposal:

Prepare for the operating context review and proposal validation process

1. The PM/CoP or the individual who will lead the operating context review and validation process (with support from the PM/CoP) gathers and reviews the necessary inputs, using the Guidance for Operating Context Review and Proposal ValidationThe Guidance for Project Operating Context Review and Design Validation describes the inputs and outputs and provides facilitation tips for a three-step process to review the project operating context; analyze the implications for the project of risks, opportunities, and issues; and validate the project theory of change and technical design. The Guidance document provides prompts and questions to guide participants through the process, and offers examples to help the facilitator and team better understand the process and its outputs. .

• This includes reviewing the templates for the project Risk Register and Issues LogAs needed, the PM/CoP (and any other staff leading the review and validation process) should review the general concepts of risks and issues. See the guidance in the Risk Register and Issues Log templates as well as the information on risk management under “Other Resources”. templates and any risk and opportunity analysis included in the project proposal, as well as any key documents from the proposal handover file related to assumptions and risk and opportunity analysis.  

Project risk registers and issues logs: Project risk registers and issues logs are essential project management tools used to support effective, adaptive project management. The PM/CoP uses the project risk register to document ongoing project risk analysis and risk response planning (risk=the potential effect of uncertainty on project objectives). Risk registers help the PM/CoP to track risks from project start-up through close-out, and to work with the project team and members of the project governance structure to prioritize risks and identify appropriate risk management strategies. A PM/CoP uses the project issues log to document and summarize team analysis of project issues (issue=a risk that has occurred - i.e., an unresolved decision, situation, or problem that will significantly impact the project), assign responsibility for actions to promote resolution of the issues, and track issue status. In addition to their importance for general project management and decision-making, risk registers and issues logs are also rich sources of information for project reporting.  

• Use the final approved project documents to prepare an appropriate version of the project documents for use in the validation session.Be sure to remove any CRS and/or partner confidential, proprietary, or sensitive information (review the restrictions in any project Teaming Agreements, donor agreements, and CRS intellectual property requirements).
• See the box below for additional preparation for externally funded projects.

Know your donor! For externally funded projects where validation takes place after final project approval, review CRS’ final agreement with the donor as part of preparation for the validation process. Some donors may give CRS significant flexibility to make adaptations to the approved project; others may have very strict requirements for making changes, large or small. Consult with IDEA colleagues with knowledge of the donor before the operating context review and validation discussions. Be sure to brief validation session participants on what kinds of changes may be possible, which may be “off the table”, and which may require donor approval. Even if donors do not provide flexibility to make changes, it is still important to complete the operating context and validation process so that the project team begins implementation with an understanding of the likely challenges they will face due to any significant differences between the proposal and the reality on the ground.

2. The PM/CoP (or other designated staff) develops a facilitation plan for the operating context review and validation process, using the tips in the Guidance for Project Operating Context Review and Design Validation as helpful. This may be a simple plan for collective brainstorming, discussion, and analysis for a small group as the initial session in the “Key Details” portion of the start-up workshop, or a more detailed plan with parallel group work for a larger team of CRS and partner staff. The PM/CoP (or designated staff) keeps the following in mind when developing the facilitation plan:

• If the internal and external operating contexts have been relatively stable between proposal finalization and project start-up, the review of the current operating context risks, issues, and opportunities may take less time.
• In contrast, if there has been a long delay between proposal submission and project start-up, and/or if there have been significant internal and external changes, budget more time in the facilitation plan.
• If the proposal included an in-depth risk analysis and risk management plan (see Standard 2, key action 1), this will facilitate the process.
• If most/all participants have a strong understanding of the project designFor example, if there is significant overlap between the proposal development team and the start-up/implementation team, and/or if the teams have already reviewed key aspects of project design during handover and transition from the proposal development team to the start-up/implementation team (Standard 6, key action 3). , this will facilitate the review of the project Theory of Change. If there are many staff new to the project, plan extra time for this review.

Partnership and project validation and adaption: Just as CRS should include partners in key decision-making at design stage, create the space for active partner participation and leadership in the operating context review and proposal validation process, particularly by local partner organizations. This helps strengthen project partnerships as local partners share their insights and their deep experience, particularly regarding the project operating context, and will result in better validation process outcomes. 

Review the operating context and validate the project design and proposal

3. Led by the PM/CoP, validation process participants complete three suggested validation steps, using the Guidance for Project Operating Context Review and Design Validation:

• Review the project operating context.
• Analyze the implications of the risks, opportunities, and issues identified during the review of the project operating context.
• Validate key project design decisions, including targeting, the project results framework, theory of change and technical design (taking into account the risk, issue, and opportunity analysis), and identify adaptations as needed.
  
  • Keep in mind that changes in the operating context may indicate that the project team needs to refine the project’s prioritization of needs and target groups, as well as approaches to delivering project services and resources.

Changes are not always negative: The validation process focuses on identifying risks, issues, and opportunities. For example, if operating context changes include an exchange difference rate in the project’s favor, there may be opportunities to do more. Similarly, certain policy changes or other external changes may create new opportunities for collaboration or momentum which the project can leverage.

4. The PM/CoP ensures proper documentation of the risks, opportunities, issues, and agreed or proposed adaptations identified in the validation discussions, including clear and compelling justification for proposed changes.
5. The PM/CoP identifies any significant risks, opportunities, issues, or changes which require discussion with, or the approval of, members of the project governance structure and/or any project donor.

• If the project governance structure is already established and all members of the governance structure participate in the validation process, discuss these issues and make decisions as possible during the validation process itself.
• For centrally-managed or otherwise strategic awards, coordinate with IDEA donor engagement staff about the best approach to sharing validation process information and/or seeking donor approval as needed for changes. For locally-managed awards, the PM/CoP, with support as needed from the HoP or CR, facilitates the necessary discussions.
• As appropriate, the PM/CoP works with country program senior management to engage the region and technical advisors involved with the projectEngagement with the region and technical advisors may range from updating the team on the outcomes of the validation process, to requesting technical inputs or feedback on proposed changes, particularly significant changes. but who did not participate in the validation process.

Follow-up after operating context review, validation and adaptation discussions

6. After any required higher-level engagement (e.g., with the project governance structure and/or donor) and final decisions on proposed changes, the PM/CoP shares the outputs of the project validation process with the CRS and partner project team and uploads the summary of the validation process and any updated project documents to Gateway.

• Operating context review outputs include the project risk register (developed during or immediately following the session) and issues log (if the process surfaced any issues), which the team will use throughout the project (see Standard 11, key action 1).

Updating stakeholders: During the validation process, consider if the project team needs to update other key external stakeholders or seek their endorsement of the outcomes of the validation process, and who is best placed to lead this engagement. Stakeholders may include government, coordination bodies, community groups, etc.

7. The PM/CoP and project team use the outputs of the project validation process during the project start-up workshop (if conducted separately) and DIP planning.