Managing and meeting partner expectations is a major challenge for CCMs in their “business not as usual” relationships. The relationships between CCM and the involved stakeholders must overcome many challenges to be successful.

As such, it is proposed to set up a Coordination Capability Model (Ccm)

The objectives would be:

1. Be able to define “Coordination capability model” which differs from the traditional evaluation models
   
2. Enable the CCMs to become familiar with the factors of Ccm
3. Improve the understanding of the CCM functions among stakeholders and supervision activities over PRs.
4. Gain a sense of the “scaling up potential” for implementing a GF project through a well defined capability model

The main relationship challenges include:

•        Ensuring compliance with GF requirements, especially in selecting CCM members.

•        Implementing practices to translate explicit requirements into deliverables of defined and desired quality.

•        Innovating, building flexibility, and increasing responsiveness to manage shortening health service lifecycles.

To help CCM organizations succeed in the face of these challenges, the GF will create an innovative and practical “best practices” capability models for both sides of the coordination relationship.

Such model should be built up on the GF’s successes identified as follows:

•         Managing client health related expectations

•         Ensuring positive experiences during interactions

•         Managing cultural differences

•         Managing PR and subcontractor relationships

•         Guarding against communication breakdowns

•         Developing partners satisfaction

•         Measuring service performance

The  Coordination Capability Model Ccm for Country Coordination Mechanisms CCM will provide a framework to improve their capability to deliver consistently high quality services and aids them in establishing, managing, and continually improving relationships with stakeholders. The intent of the Ccm is to present CCM with a set of best practices that help them effectively manage coordinating relationships.

SO WHAT COULD BE THE STRUCTURE OF SUCH MODEL?

By grouping the Best Practices identified into increasing levels of capability, the Ccm MODEL willl describe an improvement path. CCM may advance from a minimal level of coordinating services, to the highest level where they are proactively enhancing value for partners, regardless of the requirements or scope of efforts.

Practices could be identified grouped by:

a.      Capability Level

b.      Life-cycle

c.      Capability Area

Definition practice

The practices must create an underlying infrastructure that enables effective implementation of the Country Coordinating Mechanisms activities and legitimates its functions.

They deal with such issues as organizational requirements and implementation of tools and procedures.

Capability Levels

Level 2 focus is on meeting Global Fund requirements at the engagement level

At Capability Level 2, a CCM is able to

•         Systematically capture and understand client requirements

•         Design (but not yet to deploy) a Coordination service to meet the Global Fund requirements

•         Successfully deliver the service according to agreed upon service levels

At Level 3, this is broadened to organizational level in order to deploy a Coordination service to meet the Global Fund requirements with increased focus on performance and knowledge management

At Level 4, this is expanded with increased focus on innovation and efficiency value-driven decision making

Life-cycle

The temporal dimension is important: there are three phases: 1- Initiation (submission of one national proposal : snp & selection of principal recipient: spr), 2- Delivery (coordination of the program and evaluation: cpe 3- Completion

Globally speaking, the average length of a contract is 5 years, which means that the Global Fund Secretary and the CCM can reset the terms of the contract according to the performances delivered by the Principal recipient (s) on a fixed time basis.

The period of contract is long enough to make the best use from the investments, and more purposefully, to undertake a continuous improvement process through Capability Levels

The Ccm Model does address the entire planning process, including pre and completion phases

Capability Area

There are five Organizational Elements : Knowledge, People, Performance, Relationship, Technology, Threat

The Coordination Capability Model (Ccm) could contain a series of 84 practices that describe the activities a Country Coordinating Mechanisms CCM should do

Proposed list of practices

First column: Practice reference

Second column: Capability level

Summery

The Coordination capability model:

•        Gives Country Coordinating Mechanisms CCM a progression path towards improvement

•        Provides Global Fund with a consistent basis for comparing CCM services provided to PR (s) and stakeholders

•        Is compatible with and complementary to on going or scheduled procedures or tools implementation plan

Dear friends,

            I had already discussed in the E-forum discussion earlier about this the country co-ordinting mechanism (CCM) have to receive recommend and review the proposal from the principle Receipients and sub-Receipients. This CCM have to mobilize all other resources to meet the gap out of my Global fund program. Regarding implementation of the Global fund program, the CCM have to Monitor and evaluate the program without any partiality. If there is any deviation or delay in the implementation of the program successful. The CCM must hard a brotherhood activities on Principle / Sub Receipients. The CCM should act co-ordinators between the my Global fund and the implementors. The CCM should not misnse the powers as veshed by the my Global fund.

            The CCM can act as a catalyst to implement the my Global fund program.

Thanking you,

C.Ravichandran

I believe good and timely communication between CCMs and the stakeholders would help in early identification of problems hence better intervention---the clients need this as some of these cases are urgent.CCMs and stakeholders should strengthen accountability,opennes,information sharing and lessons learnt.This can be done,as mentioned earlier at project monitoring sessions or meetings,correspondence,forums  among others.Note that the beneficiaries should be represented.I would also add that the stakeholders(CSOs,government departments et al) become more and more transparenct and accountable...Please it would be good to share experiences,lows and highs,successess,lessonslearnt/shared learning points,challenges and way forward among others.It is from them that a focused way forward would be drawn and implemented.I would like to believe that we all have complimentary roles and good sharing would lead to good implementation and good realized impact on the end users-both qualitative and quantitative...we have to turn people's lives around...
 
Thank you pals for this shared learning....
 
Warmest Regards,

Susan

The CCM has a crucial job to do here as never before, firstly, to factually through M&E check the grant beneficiaries. Its unfortunate the most programmes revolves around urban areas. The effectiveness of grant cannot be impacting if the rural people do not have the first-hand information before migrating to urban areas.

Local and youth groups should be involved decision-making and in carrying out projects, wherever.

• Have committees that are representative and are composed of relevant expertise from different  but relevant fields(in terms of the disease being tackled) and implementing agencies,the health and development sectors among others.
• CCMs should have  M&E team/committees(in each country) in place to continually monitor and evaluate the projects to ensure that the activties are on course ie the performance against the objectives within the time frame.
• The Committees should have M&E tools that are user friendly(SMARTER) and capture both qualitative and quantitative impact of activities to the end users and are relevant to the projects.
• The tools should reflect what is on the results based log frames presented along with the proposals 
• There should be regular M&E meetings to evaluate the projects...quartely would be fine,then mid term and end term evaluation to measure the impact of activities on the end users.
• CCMs should engage the services of external consultants to carry out mid and end term evaluations...this would strengthen objectivity because of neutrality of the consultants.
• It is imperative that CCMs should be as participatory as possible...representatives of all players should be included at one level or the other (quartely or every six months)so as to have first hand informamtion and reporting on the activities and variances identified,discussed and put on course.
• I would also suggest CCMs  project site visits(randomly selected) and conduct spot checks to verify and validate the literature (Reports)recieved.
• The CCMs with all stakeholders should have a capacity building framework in place...continually capacitate the partners/implementers on  good project management systems including the monitoring tools and project administration.
• The monitoring tools should be relevant to he LFA  of the project:questionnaires,interviews with the stakeholders,beneficiaries included,Focus Group Discussions,site visits to get end users own voices and pictoriall eveidence,surveys(even household in a representative random sample).
• A look  reports by other players in the mitigation should be mandatory-government ,other CSOs within scope of work and independent reseachers reports.

One of the critical responsibilities of CCMs is the oversight of grant implementation. In many countries there are bottlenecks which affect grant performance and the overall success of programs. CCMs do not often have any systems for the early identification of these problems. 

Q. What possible mechanisms should be put in place by CCMs so that problems or bottlenecks during grant implementation can be identified early on? 

Your answer can include (but does not have to be limited to): your experience in the early identification of problems; relevant tools to identify problems and solutions; the need for a systematic process for CCM capacity building and who could provide the support.