Recommended
Tips on effective meetings
Consider the following tips how to schedule and prepare for meetings, meet and follow-up, and try to incorporate any approaches that are suitable for your national situation.
If action is agreed:
You can use similar principles for larger meetings, such as: seminars, workshops, conferences, and even public meetings. It is necessary to prepare thoroughly, target your interventions to the issue and audience, prepare brief, targeted written supporting materials, anticipate possible arguments and questions, use the principles of effective presentation and negotiation (see below), where applicable, use every opportunity to develop personal relationships when there, and follow-up appropriately. Too many advocates – and policymakers! - attend meetings, and forget about them the moment they leave the venue.
Recommended
Advice on managing coalitions
Read the following advice, and apply it whenever applicable to your work with coalitions
Recommended
A Logframe (logical framework matrix) is a project management tool that is often used in development and civil society work. It provides a practical framework for program learning and review (M&E).
The aim is to work towards agreed objectives, with any review being in this context. The framework helps to develop a results orientation, and a move away from being ‘activity-driven’ (which can lead to being ‘busy going nowhere’!).
The following framework is used to map out advocacy issue aim, objectives, indicators, outcomes and activities. It is then used as a project management tool, and for program learning and review purposes.
Programme Area:_________________
Date:__________________
Aim (or Goal) | |||
Objective 1 | Indicators | Means of Verification | Risks and Assumptions |
|
|||
Outcomes | Indicators | Means of Verification | Risks and Assumptions |
1.1 |
|
||
1.2 |
|
||
1.3 |
|
||
Activities | Roles and Responsibilities | Timeframe/Target finishing date | |
1.1 |
|
||
1.2 |
|
||
1.3 |
|
||
1.4 |
|
||
Objective 2 | Indicators | Means of Verification | Risks and Assumptions |
|
|||
Outcomes | Indicators | Means of Verification | Risks and Assumptions |
2.1 |
|
||
2.2 |
|
||
2.3 |
|
||
Activities | Roles and Responsibilities | Timeframe/Target finishing date | |
2.1 |
|
||
2.2 |
|
||
2.3 |
|
||
2.4 |
|
||
Objective 3 | Indicators | Means of Verification | Risks and Assumptions |
|
|||
Outcomes | Indicators | Means of Verification | Risks and Assumptions |
3.1 |
|
||
3.2 |
|
||
3.3 |
|
||
Activities | Roles and Responsibilities | Timeframe/Target finishing date | |
3.1 |
|
||
3.2 |
|
||
3.3 |
|
||
3.4 |
|
Add more sections as necessary – both categories (e.g. resources/budgets) and additional objectives
The Logframe works on the following propositions:
Some people use ‘aims’ and ‘objectives’ interchangeably, but they actually denote separate and different concepts. The terms used are explained briefly below:
Aim - is an aim or purpose - the required long-term impact or program/policy goal.
Objective – is something you plan to achieve. The medium term results that the activity aims to achieve (in terms of benefit to target groups). It is more specific – and shorter term - than an aim.
Outcomes are the tangible results (changes, products or services) that the activity will deliver.
Indicators are the evidence that shows how an objective or outcome has been achieved. They should be measurable, as they provide an objective target against which progress may be measured. They should be Objectively Verifiable (OVIs), and define the performance standard required to achieve the objective. They specify the evidence we need to tell us that the overall aim, the project purpose or indeed any required outcome is reached. Activities are not verified by indicators; instead we identify the inputs needed to carry out the activities. Indicators are defined by a set of characteristics, which are described in terms of quality, quantity, location, and time. They can be qualitative or quantitative.
Means of Verification (MOV) tell us where we get the evidence that the objectives have been met and where the data necessary to verify the indicator can be found.
Finally and most important, the framework is based on a set of Risks and Assumptions. Inherent in all plans are a series of risks.
Assumptions are the conditions that must exist if the project is to succeed but which are not under the direct control of the project. They are included in the log frame, if they are:
Assumptions influence the next higher level of achievement in the log frame, e.g., the project aim will be achieved, if the outcomes are carried out and the assumptions occur.
Formulating assumptions should lead to consideration of risk management and contingency planning needed.
Assumptions which are almost certain to occur should not be included in the log frame. Assumptions which are most likely not to occur and which can not be influenced by alternative project strategies are killer assumptions! They will jeopardise the project success. When killer assumptions occur the project must be re-planned!
The fundamental logic is therefore that if you carry out the activities explained these will result in the expected outcomes. If these outcomes are successful you should achieve your objectives. The successful accomplishment of the objectives should contribute towards successful completion of the final aim.
Outcomes/Expected Results are:
The changes in people’s behavior resulting from the completion of a set of activities that contributes to the achievement of the objective. (The outcome and activities should be negotiated and agreed with the relevant partners.) These should be monitored closely to capture learning and to enable adjustments when progress is not being made.
The Outcome/Expected Result should be the effect of the completion of a set of activities.
An activity is defined as:
The detail of what is done to achieve the outcomes and expected results which will put into practice the objectives and the associated aim.
Detailed planning needs to include the steps needed, who is responsible for each, and agreed deadlines.
Recommended
This is a simple framework from Edwards de Bono which provides an alternative to the traditional Western adversarial way of thinking. This framework provides a creative and constructive way of assessing options from different perspectives, and is suitable in many different cultures.
There are six imaginary thinking hats. Only one is used at any one time. When that hat is used, everybody in the group wears that hat. Everybody is now thinking about the problem in the manner determined by the hat, so consideration goes ahead in parallel, and in a timely way without the usual divergence. The six thinking hats are:
The White Hat
The white hat indicates an exclusive focus on information. What information is available? What information is needed? How are we going to find the information we need?
Think of white paper and computer print-out.
The Red Hat
The red hat allows free expression of feelings, intuition, hunches and emotions – with no need for apology or explanation. Feelings are expressed without justification. Intuition should be given free rein, and never decried or disregarded.
Think of fire and warm.
The Yellow Hat
The yellow hat is the yellow logical, positive hat. Under the yellow hat the seeker seeks out the values and benefits. The thinker thinks out how the idea can be made workable and put into practice.
Think of sunshine and optimism.
The Green Hat
The green hat is the creative hat. Under the green hat we put forward alternatives. We seek out new ideas. We modify and change suggestions. We generate possibilities. We use movement and energy to produce new ideas.
Think of vegetartion, growth, energy, shoots, etc.
The Blue Hat
The blue hat is the control hat. The blue hat is concerned with the management of the thinking process. The conductor of an orchestra conducts the process, and gets the most out of the musicians. The ring-master in a circus makes sure that proceedings are ordered and in sequence. The blue hat is for the thinking process itself.
Think of blue as sky and overview.
The blue hat defines the issue or problem, and sets up the sequence of other hats to be used, and ensures that the rules of the six hats framework are followed.
Using the Hats
Using the six hats framework in the context of strategic choice, the blue hat can be used to consider the options at hand and to establish a process using the most useful thinking hats.
It often helps to start with a blue hat, and to end with a blue hat. But the rest of the process can be built. It is also possible to change it during the process, in order to deal with issues that arise.
Recommended
This tool is a table providing suggested solutions to key obstacles encountered by NGOs/CSOs in policy engagement.
Use the table below for guidance.
Key Obstacles for CSOs/NGOs | Potential Solutions |
External | |
Adverse political contexts constrain CSO policy work |
|
Internal | |
Limited understanding of specific policy processes, institutions and actors | Conduct rigorous context assessments. These enable a better understanding of how policy processes work, the politics affecting them and the opportunities for policy influence. |
Weak strategies for policy engagement | Identify critical policy stages – agenda setting, formulation and/or implementation – and the engagement mechanisms that are most appropriate for each stage. |
Inadequate use of evidence | Ensure that evidence is relevant, objective, generalizable and practical. This helps improve CSO legitimacy and credibility with policymakers. |
Weak communication approaches in policy influence work | Engage in two-way communication and use existing tools for planning, packaging, targeting and monitoring communication efforts. Doing so will help CSOs make their interventions more accessible, digestible and timely for policy discussions. |
Working in an isolated manner | Apply network approaches. Networks can help CSOs: bypass obstacles to consensus; assemble coalitions for change; marshal and amplify evidence; and mobilize resources |
Limited capacity for policy influence | Engage in systemic capacity building. CSOs need a wide range of technical capacities to maximize their chances of policy influence |
Policy Engagement: How Civil Society can be More Effective Overseas Development Institute (ODI)
A Primary Tool
The bridge is a visioning and planning tool that can be used to help organizations to assess where they are now, where they want to be, and how to bridge the gap.
Participants draw or list characteristics of their current situation. Then they visualize where they would like to be, and draw this (or represent it with symbols). This can be done through a guided meditation, or just through using the following useful tool:
These can then be mapped on the bridge diagram (see below).
Then, the aim is to construct a bridge between two sections, with the uprights being the key supporting/enabling factors.
An effective way of reaching this point is to begin by brainstorming all the things that need to be achieved or ‘got right’ in order to reach the right hand side of the bridge (the point where you want to be). Use ‘Post Its’, with idea on each. Make it clear that each major thing that needs to be achieved – strategies, aspirations or actions - should be included, regardless of whether it is directly related to the advocacy campaign (e.g. funding, staffing etc.).
When this process has finished, group the ideas into pillars (or columns) of similar themes. These will then represent the key themes that need to be tackled to reach the desired end point. This constructs a bridge between the two stages.
Be sensitive to the group dynamic, and guard against domination. People of lower status may be unwilling to challenge the status quo regarding the current state of the organization, decisions regarding the future and how to get there.
The benefits of this tool are that it:
Recommended
This is a tool for carrying out a risk analysis on your strategy or action plan.
Preparation:
Provide participants in advance with copies of your draft strategy or action plan, and any important documents about your external environment (e.g. PESTLE), internal organization (e.g. SWOT) and the plans of your opponents and competitors.
Ask them to examine your draft strategy or action plan and consider any potential risks or threats (using both the documentation and their own knowledge and experience).
Meeting:
As a group, brainstorm any risks or threats that could jeopardize your plan using ‘Post It’ slips.
Then, group and categorize these – first according to whether they are ‘internal’ or ‘external’ risks. Then discuss what steps you could take to mitigate the risks, either by changing your plan or integrating the risks into this plan. Agree in the full meeting any serious risks that would mean your plan needs to be changed.
Next, break into two groups – one to consider ‘internal’ risks and one to consider ‘external’ risks. Each group should be asked to group and categorize the risks, entering them on the table below, together with their thoughts on the action to be taken to mitigate these risks.
Then, each group should report back to the main meeting with its recommendations. The other group should then critique their analysis and suggestions, and add any agreed changes.
Risks Possible threat |
Probability Likelihood of occurring (1=low, 5=high) |
Importance (1=low, 5=high) |
Total Risk Level (importance x likelihood) |
Mitigation Steps to mitigate |
Internal risks | ||||
External risks |
Recommended
This tool maps is designed to assist analysis into advocacy audiences in order to target messages more effectively.
Map out advocacy audiences using the following chart as a guide. If necessary carry out any further research needed before completion. Then, assess the most effective way in which to target messages to each audience.
Audience | ||
Audience knowledge about issue/objective | ||
Audience openness to issue/objective | ||
Issues priorities of the audience | ||
Audience classification (Ally/Undecided/Opponent) | ||
Further research required on the audience? | ||
How to target messages |
Adapted from SARA manual
Optional
A systems map is a ‘rich picture’ that is drawn up to show the relative power and relationships between different bodies. It can be used to chart and analyze the power relationships between the key players in an organization, including potential targets (primary and secondary).
To draw a systems map, you use circles to represent each player, using different sized circles to depict the relative power of each. Then they are linked using connector arrows, which are also different sizes to depict the relative strength of the relationships between them. This is an example:
One aspect to remember is that for any particular policy decision there is always one decision maker (or decision gatekeeper), even if there may be many decision approvers and decision advisers within the organization. The decision maker is the person responsible for that policy or issue. They may not have sole authority, but the policy will not go forward for approval without their agreement. In government, the decision maker is often a minister. Decision approvers have a formal role in approving proposals presented to them. In a government, that may be the Cabinet, The President and/or the Parliament depending on the system of government in operation and the issue concerned. In a company, approvers may be the Board of Directors.
Decision advisors may be junior staff or civil servants, and there will also be a number of internal stakeholders who want to influence that decision (through formal and informal means). This is in addition to external stakeholders, including ourselves, who also want to influence that decision.
A Primary Tool
This is a tool for analyzing the most appropriate approach to the involvement of grassroots groups in your advocacy work. It works by considering the pros and cons of the three options as a basis for discussion and decision-making.
The three approaches to be considered are:
Exercise:
Take a few minutes to think of some of the pros and cons of each approach and make some notes in the table below:
|
Leading | Representing | With |
Pros | |
||
Cons |
How you see advocacy in this dimension will depend to an extent on how you see the role of grassroots groups. There is not one correct approach – each has its own advantages and disadvantages.
If you have a greater level of knowledge, skills and resources than grassroots groups, then leading advocacy for them can be quicker and more efficient. You could even advocate in your own right. There may be a short-term advantage in leading them if you want to add weight to your own advocacy, without changing your strategy (or taking time to capacity build).
Representing their positions in advocacy may require much preliminary education and awareness – and giving yourself over as a platform for their views.
Advocacy with grassroots groups gives a more level platform for advocacy work. However, it is not as simple as it sounds, and the reality is often not what is claimed. For it to be genuine, grassroots groups should be involved in choosing the issue, setting the objectives and deciding on the strategy, as well as sharing responsibility for putting the strategy into practice. To be successful this requires capacity building and increased understanding of the issues and political processes.
Recommended
This tool maps influence against the importance of the issue to the stakeholder. It is a useful stakeholder analysis tool.
For each stakeholder identified, map in the chart below – measuring the level of importance of the issue to them on the horizontal axis and their degree of influence on the vertical.
From the Audience Prioritization matrix, you can immediately identify whether the stakeholder is an important audience that cannot be ignored – due to the combination of their influence and how much importance they give the issue.
For stakeholders with high influence, who do not consider the issue important you may consider:
Recommended
This tool maps influence against the level of involvement in the advocacy issue. It is a useful stakeholder analysis tool.
For each stakeholder identified, map in the chart below – measuring the level of influence horizontally and their degree of involvement vertically.
Influence | High | Careful with them Consider trying to involve? |
Key |
Low | Ignore | Increase to key? | |
Low | High | ||
Involvement |
The windows indicate the type of strategies which could be considered, depending on the exact circumstances.
A Primary Tool
This tool is used to establish the relative importance and influence of people, groups or institutions with an interest in the advocacy campaign. It can be used in conjunction with a Venn Diagram and other stakeholder mapping tools.
In this context, a stakeholder is somebody who is affected by the policy issue, or who could affect that decision. By doing a stakeholder analysis around an issue, we can identify allies and opponents, and channels of influence who can make the most impact on a decision.
To carry out a stakeholder analysis, go through the following process:
Firstly, brainstorm all the stakeholders for the issue. The aim here is to be creative and obtain a long list, which you should write in the following table.
Next, apply three filter questions to the list of stakeholders:
Stakeholder | Attitude of the stakeholder to your position | Importance of the issue to the stakeholder | Influence of the stakeholder over the issue |
AA A N P PP | L M H | L M H | |
AA A N P PP | L M H | L M H | |
AA A N P PP | L M H | L M H | |
AA A N P PP | L M H | L M H | |
AA A N P PP | L M H | L M H | |
AA A N P PP | L M H | L M H | |
AA A N P PP | L M H | L M H | |
AA A N P PP | L M H | L M H | |
AA A N P PP | L M H | L M H | |
AA A N P PP | L M H | L M H |
AA = Very anti; A = Anti; N = Neutral; P = Pro; PP = Very pro, LMH = Low, Medium, High
Having answered the questions, transfer the information to the following stakeholder analysis tools:
6. Allies and Opponents Matrix
18. Johari's Window
19. Audience Prioritization Matrix
by writing the stakeholders’ names into the appropriate boxes.
The information is easier to interpret on the matrices than it is directly from the table. Also, include interpretive notes.
If a facilitator is used, their role is to use open questions to check the reasons and logic for the group’s decisions.
From the Audience Prioritization Matrix, you can immediately identify whether the stakeholder is an important audience that cannot be ignored – due to the combination of their influence and how much importance they give the issue.
From the Allies & Opponents Matrix, you can identify who are your most significant allies and opponents, and who the most influential neutrals are.
From Johari’s Window you can identify stakeholders with influence and the likelihood that they will be involved in the issue
However, the stakeholder groups are not fixed in their positions and you can try to influence them. From the matrices, you can identify which of the following influencing strategies would be most appropriate:
Overall, you need to identify how many stakeholder groups you can realistically target as audiences, given your level of resources.
Interpret the results and determine your influencing strategy:
Optional
This is a diagram that provides advice on strategies that may be successful in countering power blocks.
Use the following diagram as a guide when you identify power blocks when charting your advocacy strategy.
Given the complex dynamics of power, strategies that only address formal decision-making processes and rely solely on good information and reasoned arguments will almost never result in long-term favorable social change. Informal decision-makers such as chiefs and religious leaders also need attention as do strategies that address all other forms of power over
Power that shapes and maintains unjust and inequitable norms, values and consciousness | Power that keeps our issues off political agendas | Power that excludes animal welfare voices from being heard | Power that prevents formal political decisions and implementation working to favor animal welfare |
Consciousness-raising: Challenges ideologies and belief systems that perpetuate injustice through analysis and awareness building, work to promote sense of rights and responsibilities (citizenship), political awareness, analysis of problems, sense of collaboration, respect etc. |
Research and dissemination: Investigation, action research and sharing of information that uncovers concealed data, develops alternatives and legitimizes and values the issues and agendas. Organizing and Mobilizing: Building active critical constituencies and movements around common problems, concerns and injustices. Promoting and supporting efforts to improve animal welfare. Changing public opinion: Through radio shows, campaigns etc. |
Strengthening capacity: Strengthening organizations, skills & access to information. Nurturing organizations and leadership building: Strengthening constituency organizations, coalitions, social movements and structures. Mobilizing around shared agendas. Research & dissemination of information that legitimizes groups & strengthens their knowledge. |
Public and policy influence strategies: Lobbying, advocacy, campaigning, monitoring; negotiation, litigation; public education, media; policy research, policy alternatives; marches, demonstrations, vigils. Voting, running for office. Collaboration, modelling and promoting welfare-friendly alternatives, etc. |
Given the complex dynamics of power, strategies that only address formal decision-making processes and rely solely on good information and reasoned arguments will almost never result in long-term favorable social change. Informal decision-makers such as chiefs and religious leaders also need attention as do strategies that address all other forms of power over. |
Amended from: Critical Webs of Power and Change. Action Aid International. November 2005.