Annual Review - Summary Sheet
This Summary Sheet captures the headlines on programme performance, agreed actions and learning over the
course of the review period. It should be attached to all subsequent reviews to build a complete picture of actions
and learning throughout the life of the programme.
Title: The BEAM Exchange (to Build Enabling and Accessible Markets)
Formerly referred to in the Business Case as the Market Systems Development Platform (MSDP)
Programme Value: £4m (DFID contribution is £3m, Swiss
Review Date: July 2014
Agency for Development and Cooperation £1m)
Programme Code:
Start Date:
End Date:
Budget Centre: P0369 / Component:
203732 / Order number: 6374
Aries: 30th Oct 2012
Contract: 1st Apr 2014
Aries: 31st Jan 2017
Contract: 31st Mar 2017
Summary of Programme Performance
2014
Year
A
Programme Score
Med
Risk Rating
Summary of progress and lessons learnt since last review
This is the first annual review. The programme was contracted on 1st April 2014.
Summary of recommendations for the next year
There are no significant recommendations to note at this stage.
A. Introduction and Context
DevTracker Link to
Business Case:
DevTracker Link to
Log frame:
http://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB1-203732/documents/
http://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB1-203732/documents/
Outline of the programme
The BEAM Exchange (referred to throughout as ‘BEAM’) is a forum for knowledge exchange
and learning about the role of market systems approaches in reducing poverty.
BEAM will work to strengthen and extend the application of these approaches in diverse
development programmes– including sectors (such as health, education, sanitation and energy
services) where market-orientated strategies are still innovative and emerging.
BEAM aims to build a vibrant community among policy-advisors, consultants, practitioners and
businesses, supporting those who design, manage, implement, evaluate and participate in
development programmes. It will improve access to field-orientated guidance and evidence of
good practice and results; create events and spaces for learning, knowledge sharing and
experience-informed debate, and build a valued library of key resources.
Currently in its inception phase, BEAM is a facility jointly funded by DFID and the Swiss Agency
for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and is managed for DFID by a PWC-led consortium.
1
B: PERFORMANCE AND CONCLUSIONS
Annual outcome assessment
Intended outcome (draft, from the Business Case): The strengthened and extended
development and application of market systems development policy and practice.
At this stage, the programme is two and a half months into its inception phase and as such, it is
too early to make an assessment at outcome level.
Overall output score and description
1. As the programme has completed only half of its five month inception phase, the
assessment of output performance is limited and based on deliverables received so far.
2. The programme is progressing in line with agreed plans and schedules and so has been
awarded a score of A: Outputs met expectation.
Key lessons
3. The DFID and PWC-led teams are in regular contact and opportunities for two-way feedback
are refining our approach as the inception phase progresses. Emerging lessons are feeding
in to the inception phase report, due in mid-September and shaping the design of the
implementation phase.
Key actions
4. A clear work plan for the inception phase has been agreed and a work plan for the early
stages of implementation will be submitted as part of the inception report.
Has the logframe been updated since the last review?
5. A fully developed logframe is a specified deliverable under the inception phase and is due
for submission as part of the inception phase report.
6. This annual review has been conducted using a set of draft headline outputs as set out in
the original contracting Terms of Reference (ToR). The ToR did not detail specific indicators
to assess the performance of these outputs, so the assessment below is a general reflection
of progress against expectations set out in the ToR.
2
C: DETAILED OUTPUT SCORING
Output Title
Successful completion of a consultative inception phase
Output number per LF
1
Output Score
Risk:
Not yet agreed
Impact weighting (%):
Risk revised since last AR?
N/A
Impact weighting % revised
since last AR?
Indicator(s)
Not yet agreed
Milestones
Not yet agreed
A (although not yet
completed)
Not yet agreed
N/A
Progress
Not yet agreed
Key Points
7. The programme was contracted on 1st April 2014 and the inception phase began on 1st May
2014. The programme is now two and a half months into its five month inception (half way).
All deliverables that have become due under the initial inception schedule have been
provided on time and in line with agreed processes.
8. The most substantial activity conducted to date has been the consultation phase (which
remains underway). The coverage of the consultation has been wide and a better than
expected response from consultees has been received (to requests for interviews).
9. As such, the inception phase is on target to deliver against the partner engagement
expectations specified in the ToRs and is well-placed to reflect the information gained into
the design of the website, research agenda and on-going outreach strategy.
10. Operationally, the team is progressing work on assessing value for money and capturing the
impact BEAM will have on the policies and behaviours of key stakeholders.
11. Recruitment continues to fill the web manager role, after which the team will be operating at
full staffing. The procurement process for a web design subcontractor has been completed,
responding to feedback from DFID and SDC as part of the contract negotiation process. A
good quality alternative supplier has been sourced, with a better skills fit and a more
complete offering in terms of on-going support to the BEAM site.
12. In summary, a good start to the inception phase, with the on-going consultation currently
running to schedule with a good response rate.
Output Title
Establishing and developing a market systems community
Output number per LF
2
Output Score
N/A
Risk:
Not yet agreed
Impact weighting (%):
Not yet agreed
Risk revised since last AR?
N/A
Impact weighting % revised
since last AR?
N/A
Indicator(s)
Not yet agreed
Milestones
Not yet agreed
Progress
Not yet agreed
Key Points
13. In advance of the main BEAM platform (the website) going live, the team have already
begun developing the individual and institutional relationships which will support the
foundation of the BEAM community. Mainly this has been done via the consultation and
3
interview process, although wider and more in-depth meetings have been held with key
players in the consultancy and donor fields, as well as leading practitioners.
14. Early work has already begun to establish the BEAM Exchange as a forum for discussion,
with the team leader contributing to external events and the wider team signposting BEAM to
existing sections of the market systems community (such as the members of the previous
M4P Hub LinkedIn group).
Output Title
The generation of additional project (matched) funding
Output number per LF
3
Output Score
N/A
Risk:
Not yet agreed
Impact weighting (%):
Not yet agreed
Risk revised since last AR?
N/A
Impact weighting % revised
since last AR?
N/A
Indicator(s)
Not yet agreed
Milestones
Not yet agreed
Progress
Not yet agreed
Key Points
15. The matched funding target was established to leverage additional resources and
encourage partnerships with the new facility, by reaching out to ‘non-core’ donors (those
with particular thematic interests, who may prefer to target their contributions, rather than
join the general funding facility with DFID and SDC).
16. A set of draft principles for the attraction and measurement of matched funds has been
discussed and will be finalised as part of the inception report due in September.
17. The possibility of partnering with BEAM through this mechanism was highlighted to
stakeholders throughout the consultation stage, allowing early consideration by potential
partners.
18. One early matched funding opportunity has been secured, relating to an international
conference with strong attendance – a good platform from which to promote the go-live of
the BEAM site.
Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant)
N/A – This is the first annual review.
Recommendations
19. As noted above, the DFID and PWC-led teams are in regular contact and opportunities for
two-way feedback are refining our approach as the inception phase progresses.
20. There are no significant recommendations to note at this stage.
4
D: VALUE FOR MONEY & FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE (1 page)
Key cost drivers and performance
21. As part of the contract negotiation process, DFID and the PWC team agreed an element of
‘payment by deliverables’ across the lifetime of the programme, to act as a quality assurance
mechanism. In addition to this, PWC have put up to £200,000 of their total fees at risk
against achieving the programme’s matched funding target of £2,000,000.
22. During the inception phase, the deliverables triggering the performance-related payments1
were agreed and the schedule of other costs (relating to on-going management – or
‘continuous supply’ deliverables – and third party commissions) were defined (the total by
activity for the inception phase is shown in the table below).
23. This clarity in scheduling has led to a high degree of certainty in the invoices submitted.
As a % of total
inception costs
£
Total Continuous Supply
Total 3rd party Commission
Total Performance-related
deliverables
Total for inception
£98,527
£53,327
23%
3%
£295,974
74%
£447,828
100%
VfM performance compared to the original VfM proposition in the business case
24. As agreed under the schedule of works for the inception phase, the team is currently
developing value for money metrics to assess the performance of the programme over the
implementation phase.
25. For the inception phase, value for money is assessed on the basis of the invoices so far
received and the deliverables completed – both of which have been timely and of good
quality.
Assessment of whether the programme continues to represent value for money
26. As above, at this early stage, the programme represents good value for money – in line with
the assessment made during the bid assessment process, pre-contract.
27. Early activities indicate that the team is alert to opportunities to further good value for money
practice. These include:
a. The re-tendering of the digital and website sub-contractor, delivering a better quality
offer within the same resource envelope.
b. Securing the additional services of a graduate student at no cost to DFID.
28. PWC are also a member of the Key Supplier Management (KSM) process, which provides
an additional opportunity to discuss and act upon any value for money issues.
Quality of financial management
29. Good to date – clear and transparent reporting, delivered against agreed schedule.
Date of last narrative financial report
Date of last audited annual statement
June 2014
N/A
1
To note that payments in respect of the performance-related deliverables are made at 75% on the timely receipt
of the deliverable, with the remaining 25% paid upon satisfaction (allowing an opportunity for DFID to review with
the team, provide feedback and outline any required revisions).
5
E: RISK (½ page)
Overall risk rating: Not yet agreed Risks identified at the business case stage were largely
rated as ‘medium’.
Overview of programme risk
30. As the programme has only been operational since May 1st, the risk assessment remains in
line with that detailed in the Business Case. Mitigation measures are being developed by the
team to address some of these risks (e.g. avoiding conflict of interest by setting clear BEAM
partnership principles, building consensus around needs via the consultation exercise).
Outstanding actions from risk assessment
N/A – This is the first annual review.
F: COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS (½ page)
Delivery against planned timeframe
31. Delivery is broadly on track with the planned timeline. Originally the inception phase was set
as four months from contracting; this will now be five months, as the first month was needed
to mobilise the PWC team.
Performance of partnership (s)
32. The DFID and PWC team are working well together and a regular schedule of update
meetings is in place. Some early feedback on ways of working was constructively received
by the PWC team and measures are in place to improve coherence and consistency of
external messaging. These will be reviewed at the end of the inception phase.
Asset monitoring and control
33. The programme will not have any physical assets. Digital assets (such as the website
construction code) are being managed in line with HMG Digital Principles2.
34. The ownership of research and guidance products commissioned by the BEAM Exchange
has been clarified as being in line with DFID policy – that such documents would be the
property of PWC, with DFID having free and unrestricted access and dissemination rights.
2
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/design-principles [accessed 10/07/14].
6
G: CONDITIONALITY (½ page)
Update on partnership principles (if relevant)
N/A
H: MONITORING & EVALUATION (½ page)
Evidence and evaluation
35. The evidence section of the business case focussed on the extent to which previous
knowledge management facilities have been shown to influence the decision-making of key
stakeholders. The assessment concluded that this evidence was fairly limited. As such, the
business case set out a clear role for BEAM in improving the evidence base in this area:
‘The limited evidence base and in particular, lack of robust impact measures, is a key
piece of the intervention rationale. These issues will be addressed in the design of the
proposed facility and in the evaluation of the programme itself’.
36. The monitoring and evaluation strategy for the implementation of the BEAM Exchange is
currently being developed and is due for submission as part of the inception report. It is
being designed to take account of the challenge above and this issue was discussed as part
of the DFID-SDC-PWC inception kick-off meetings.
Monitoring progress throughout the review period
37. As above – the monitoring and evaluation strategy for the programme is currently in
development. In the interim, DFID have held and will continue to hold, fortnightly catch-up
meetings with the BEAM Exchange team to receive updates and provide guidance on any
emerging issues.
7