Consultancy People that Deliver (PtD) Organizational and Structural Evaluation Consultant, UNICEF Supply Division

This is a non-traditional evaluation, in addition to the retrospective analysis of PtD, it also requires strategic, forward-facing, recommendations for the initiative as it moves into its next phase. The preferred consultant has both evaluation design and implementation experience, and an organizational theory and development background. Consultants interested in this assignment will need to submit a proposal for the evaluation methodology to be used, in addition to other requirements listed in the evaluation process. A qualitative and participatory approach to this evaluation is recommended.

People that Deliver (PtD) Organizational and Structural Evaluation Consultant

Duration: five months (approximately 80 working days) from October 2, 2017 until the end of February 2018, duration driven by deliverables
Location: Flexible
Travel: Travel costs and daily subsistence allowance (DSA) will be covered in accordance with UN rules and regulation
Start Date: October 2, 2017
Reporting to: People that Deliver (PtD) Executive Manager, UNICEF Supply Division

BACKGROUND ON PEOPLE THAT DELIVER:
The People that Deliver (PtD) Initiative was established in 2011 focusing on the professionalization of supply chain personnel. This is achieved through a global partnership of organizations advocating for a systematic approach to human resources (HR) for supply chain management (SCM) both at the global and local level. It is based on the global recognition that without trained professionals to manage the health supply chains, drugs and other health supplies do not reach the patients who need them.

PtD is governed by a board representing governments, international donors, multilateral agencies, nongovernmental organizations, academic institutions, professional associations, and private companies. PtD has a Secretariat with two full-time staff that is hosted by UNICEF’s Supply Division.

PtD’s Vision
We envision a world where health supply chain workforces are empowered and equipped to optimize health outcomes by improving access to health commodities.

PtD’s Mission
Promote global awareness, generate evidence-based approaches, and catalyze national capacity to plan, finance, develop, support and retain national health supply chain workforce through global partnership.

PURPOSE EVALUATION:
PtD continues to evolve since inception, and while the initial focus was on raising awareness and conducting research to garner support from key donors and mobilize required resources in country, PtD activities have evolved to the development of tools and engagement within a few key focus countries supporting in country activities through member organizations. As in-country demand for PtD services increases, PtD’s focus on country-level implementation is also growing. Strategic goals were set out for PtD in 2011, updated in 2013, and again in 2016 to help guide the activities of the initiative going forward.

A review of PtD has never been completed, therefore it was agreed by the PtD Board to take stock at this point to determine the following three objectives:
1. The degree to which the initiative achieved its strategic goals from 2011-2013, and 2013 through the present period (Strategic Plan to be shared when assignment commences);
2. The factors - both internal and external - that either supported or hindered progress made since 2011; and
3. How well the initiative is currently positioned or what needs to change both in terms of programmatic and organizational aspects for PtD to succeed in the coming two to three years (Theory of Change to be shared when the assignment commences). This third and final objective should include specific forward-facing recommendations both about PtD’s structure and function.

This is a non-traditional evaluation, in addition to the retrospective analysis of PtD, it also requires strategic, forward-facing, recommendations for the initiative as it moves into its next phase.
Consultants interested in this assignment will need to submit a proposal for the evaluation methodology to be used, in addition to other requirements listed in the evaluation process below. A qualitative and participatory approach to this evaluation is recommended.
For guidance in conducting the evaluation, a set of evaluation questions have been drafted and can be found in Annex 1. They are separated into three sections and include: 1) those that address the degree to which PtD achieved its four initial strategic goals, 2) those that address the internal and external factors that contributed or prevented the achievement of those goals, and 3) those that will assess PtD’s positioning to meet future targets.

DESCRIPTION OF ASSIGNMENT:
The Consultant will report to the PtD Executive Manager on the following tasks:
- Initial meeting to clarify the purpose and objectives of the evaluation, and sharing of resources to review and stakeholders to consult
- Agreement on evaluation methodology and questions
- Draft workplan, data collection instruments, and summary of literature review
- Mid-evaluation report and second meeting to review progress made and feedback from stakeholder interviews
- Final report which includes evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations on PtD’s structure and function
- Formal presentation of key findings and recommendations to the PtD Board

It is envisioned that this work will take place over approximately a five-month period (approximately 80 working days) from October 2 until the end of February 2018.

KEY DELIVERABLES:
# Deliverable Deadlines
1 Proposed evaluation methodology and questions October 16, 2017
2 Draft workplan, data collection instruments, and summary of literature review November 15, 2017
3 Mid-evaluation report December 29, 2017
4 Final report which includes evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations on PtD’s structure and function January 31, 2017
5 Formal presentation of key findings and recommendations to the PtD Board TBD (Jan-Feb 2018)
Deliverables are expected to be submitted electronically.
Further specification on individual activities will be specified and agreed after contracted.

QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS:
Education:
Advanced, post-graduate degree is required (Master of PhD), or equivalent
Work Experience:
At least 10 years work experience in organizational development, and program and project evaluation (designing, conducting and leading evaluations; applying qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods), or equivalent.

Technical Knowledge:
Organizational theory and development
• Demonstrated knowledge and experience in organizational theory and development.
• Understanding of coalition-based work and how non-implementing entities have impact is advantageous.
Evaluation design and implementation
• Demonstrated knowledge of various evaluation designs (e.g., non-experimental, experimental, quasi-experimental) and experience with evaluations using mixed method approaches.
• Demonstrated knowledge of approaches for generating, revising, and prioritizing evaluation questions and the development of evaluation plans.
• Demonstrated knowledge of appropriate quantitative and qualitative data analysis methods and the ability to gather data using qualitative and quantitative approaches such as interviews, group processes, participant observation, surveys, electronic data files, or other methods.
• Experience preparing and presenting evaluation results in a manner that increases the likelihood that they will be used and accepted by a diverse group of stakeholders.

Other:
Knowledge of human resource management in health supply chains in the developing world and the global health and donor context is advantageous, but not necessary. A conflict of interest with PtD or donor agencies will need to be submitted.

Language:
Excellent oral communication and report writing skills in English

Competencies:
1) Core Values
• Commitment
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Integrity
2) Core Competencies
• Communication
• Drive for Results
3) Key Functional Competencies
• Analyzing
• Planning and Organizing

EVALUATION PROCESS:
Qualified candidates are requested to submit:
1. Proposal evaluation methodology and questions, please refer to Annex 1 for draft evaluation questions
2. Cover letter
3. Financial quote for service fees at a daily rate in US Dollars
4. CV/Resume
5. Two References

Applications should be submitted online through www.unicef.org/about/employ by September 15, 2017 5:00pm. Vacancy ref number 506556. Please submit all documents listed above, including the proposed evaluation methodology. Please also indicate your availability and daily rate to undertake the terms of reference above. Applications submitted without a daily rate and evaluation methodology will not be considered. Successful applicants will be invited to a telephone interview. Any queries on the proposal methodology requested can be directed to info@peoplethatdeliver.org with subject line: Ptd Evaluation Consultant.

PAYMENT TERMS:
The consultant will produce the following deliverables aligned to the payment schedule indicated as a percentage:
Proposed evaluation methodology and questions – 25%
Mid-evaluation report – 25%
Final report which includes evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations on PtD’s structure and function – 25%
Formal presentation of key findings and recommendations to the PtD Board – 25%
The above percentages are indicative, final payment schedule will be based on the financial proposal from the successful consultant, on the understanding that all payments will be against deliverables as outlined above. No advance payments are possible.
Before payment is made the deliverables will be evaluated according to the following indicators: timeliness (meeting deadlines), achievement of goals and quality of work.

REMUNERATION:
Payment commensurate with experience. Travel costs and DSA will be covered in accordance with UN rules and regulations. DSA and terminal expenses will be covered for travel. No other remunerations apply.
  
Annex 1: Draft Evaluation Questions
Note: While these questions are very specific, please use these as guidance and feel free to recommend any changes or additions to these questions to achieve the overall objectives of this work.
This is a non-traditional evaluation, in addition to the retrospective analysis, it also requires strategic, forward-facing, recommendations for the initiative as it moves into its next phase. These recommendations are identified in italics below.

SECTION I: To what degree did the People that Deliver achieve its four initial strategic goals?
1. Global recognition that strong supply chains are essential for positive health outcomes and require a competent, recognized and supported supply chain workforce with significant technical and managerial capacity.
a. What did PtD do to accomplish this goal?
b. Identify the advocacy efforts and their results.
c. Can we demonstrate that there is greater global awareness of the role of the supply chain workforce in achieving positive health outcomes?
d. If so, can we draw any reasonable conclusions to the degree to which the efforts of PtD contributed to this increase?
e. How successful were the PtD advocacy efforts in their focus countries and beyond. What contributed to the success (or not)
2. Government and national health institutions demand, recruit and retain appropriately qualified personnel for positions with supply chain responsibilities.
a. What did PtD do to accomplish this goal? Has there been an increase in the demand, recruitment and retention of qualified personnel? Does this look any different in the initial set of PtD focus countries (Burkina Faso, Indonesia, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Namibia, Mozambique, and Liberia)?
b. Has PtD work led to changes at the national policy level around human resources for supply chain?
3. Adequate personnel from relevant cadres with appropriate supply chain competencies and qualifications are available.
a. What did PtD do to accomplish this goal? Are there adequate qualified personnel with supply chain competencies and qualifications available in the market?
b. Was the work by PtD effective (was there a change observed and can it attributed to the work of PtD)? What efforts did PtD undertake to increase the number of personnel with appropriate supply chain competencies and qualifications and did any of these efforts have the desired outcome? To what degree?
c. Can we document what the global “NEED” is versus the level of available personnel and determine what gap(s), if any, still remain?
4. A repository of evidence-based resources for HR for SCM is established, accessible, used and disseminated.
a. What did PtD do to accomplish this goal? Is there a comprehensive and relevant repository of evidence based resources being accessed and used?
b. To what degree has PtD driven or supported these efforts? How much of the PtD materials have been included in different documents/guidance used?
c. To what degree have these resources been used to formulate interventions or informed policy decisions? Is there an effective way to capture this moving forward?
d. What was the quality of the materials produced and usefulness/relevance to the intended audience?
5. What are the perceptions among stakeholders as to whether these goals have been achieved and PtD’s role in this?

SECTION II: Has PtD achieved its strategic objectives till now and if so, what factors - both internal and external have either supported or hindered PtD in its initial phase?
PtD has been set up as an organization to raise awareness and mobilize resources in country leveraging its member organizations, but not doing implementation work itself. In reviewing its performance to date, we are looking to the following structures, however feel free to recommend changes or additions to this as you see necessary. 
6. What are the top three factors that have enabled the success of PtD’s initiatives?
7. What the top three challenges PtD has faced in achieving its strategic goals?
8. Specifically in looking at different areas, how well or not is PtD doing:
a. Organizational Structure
9. Does the current focus on a small/lean organize work?
10. Are the specific roles/responsibilities still relevant for the work?
11. Is the location of the team optimum?
a. Membership
i. Does the current membership model work?
ii. Is it clear the benefit of membership?
iii. How has the membership been leveraged to achieve PtDs goals? What were the enablers that promoted engagement -- especially for members whose participation was not being somehow supported/funded by USAID either directly or indirectly?
iv. What might be some recommendations for PtD’s structure vis-a-vis membership? Should the initiative operate as a membership organization moving forward? If not, what structure would be recommended?
b. Board of Directors
i. Is the current construct of the board relevant for the PtD initiative going forward, in terms of numbers, constituencies represented, activities of the board etc.?
ii. Has the representations of specific constituencies been helpful on the board i.e. 1. Countries for identifying the need, facilitating the work in country, 2. Donors to help mobilize the resources in country etc.
iii. What barriers have there been for members to be engaged?
iv. Is there a clear understanding of the Board’s role in the initiative?
v. Are there any recommendations around Board structure or operation that would enhance PtD’s effectiveness moving forward?
c. Technical Working Groups (TWGs)
TWGs were set up to support three different areas of focus: Advocacy, Research and Country Engagement. While the TWGs disbanded over time, and we may look to reinstate the working groups. We would like to evaluate the work they have achieved and how we should consider them going forward. Working groups were the primary actors responsible for carrying out interventions at the global level and at the regional and country levels, the primary role of the working groups was to support work through the provision of relevant tools, guidelines, and/or other materials. Regular exchange between the working groups was essential because of their overlapping areas of interest.
i. Was the purpose of the TWGs understood?
ii. Did the various TWGs achieve their objectives? Were the objectives clear?
iii. How sustained was TWG membership and engagement?
iv. What might be some recommendations for mechanisms/structures to (1) support PtD members to be engaged with the initiative in a technical manner moving forward and/or (2) ensure PtD moves forward with the best technical inputs and expertise?
d. Secretariat/Organizational Host
Over the life of the PtD Initiative there has been 2 secretariats, Bioforce 2011-2013 and UNICEF 2013- present. Here we would like to look at the effectiveness of each and any lessons learned.
i. What have been the positive contributions to the initiative provided by each of the two organizational hosts (Bioforce: 2011-2013/UNICEF: 2013-present)?
ii. What have been the limitations that each hosting situation have placed on the initiative?
iii. What, if any, lessons can be drawn from the experience with each of the two host organizations that PtD might want to consider for its structure moving forward?
e. Funding
While PtD is focused on mobilizing resources (including funding) at a country level, the secretariat itself has received funding from USAID, UNICEF, UNFPA and GAVI in the past few years. In addition, in kind support has been provided by various board organizations. The fundraising process has been complicated due to the various constraints by different donor agencies.
i. What success has PtD had in leveraging funding for both Secretariat functions and programmatic operations? Please analyze both in-kind and direct contributions from USAID, UNICEF, Gavi, Global Fund and UNFPA. To the degree feasible, please also estimate the LOE and approximate value of the work carried out by Board members and TWG members and source of funds for these contributions.
ii. What challenges do donors have in supporting PtD?
iii. Has the level of financial resources that has been available to PtD been sufficient -- e.g. are the elements of the initiatives work that were not undertaken due to lack of funds?
9. Other
i. What other forces were at play the influenced either PtD’s ability to achieve its goals or the overall context in which PtD exists?
ii. In reference to PtD’s engagement with countries, what do countries think of the value of PtD, does it meet their needs, are they aware of it, etc.

SECTION III: How well the initiative is currently positioned - both in terms of programmatic and organizational aspects - to succeed in its next phase?
10. What, if any, structural changes ought PtD consider in order to achieve the current mandate to expand focus on country-based change?
a. Should the staffing structure be changed and/or expanded?
b. Is there a need to have some sort of regional presence? Or a structure that is somehow regionally focused? If so, what might this look like?
11. What do PtD’s key stakeholders (to be defined) think about the initiative’s ability and appropriateness to catalyze country-based activities? Implement said activities? Fund said activities?
12. What mechanisms or approaches should PtD be undertaking to engage members in order to foster country-based change? Which members?

To view our competency framework, please click here. 

 General Conditions of Contracts for the Services of Consultants.docx