Country: |
Multi-national, Global Show on interactive map |
Active from: |
Jan 1996 to Jan 2013 |
Implementing organisation(s): |
Global Water Partnership |
Donor(s): |
ADB, DHI - Rio+20, EUWI, CAPNET, EC ANBO, UNDP/DHI, WACDEP, among others |
Website: |
|
Summary: |
To enable cost-effective use of human and financial resources in delivering results, the GWP Network has developed continually evolving and improving workplanning and monitoring processes and procedures. |
Why was OM chosen? |
As a policy-related organisation and network, and in order to bridge the attribution gap in conventional results-based management frameworks, as part of its present Strategy (2009-2013), GWP formally adopted an Outcome Mapping approach to plan, implement, monitor, evaluate and report on its work. Outcome Mapping inherently recognises that direct attribution of tangible results to outcomes is not possible in organisations such as the GWP. OM methodologies seek to identify and report on the plausible linkages between outputs, outcomes and results across this attribution gap. |
How was OM used? |
Intentional Design Planning (Vision and Mission, Boundary Actors, Desired Outcomes, Progress Markers); Implementation (Activities, Outputs); Monitoring (Progress Markers through outcome journals, implementation of activities); Evaluation (Learning and Reporting). |
What was the experience of using OM? |
The mid-term review of the GWP Strategy carried out in 2011 identified the challenges of applying an OM approach across a network organisation such as the GWP. As a result of these challenges a “made in the GWP” results-management framework is evolving which is reintroducing more familiar and simpler results-based-management terminology. |