Comments on ToRs – Niamh Brannigan
16/02/08
These comments are a response to the feedback document circulated by AT, in
response to the original ToRs drafted by TC.
Overall Approach to Strategic Planning
I support the two-phased approach suggested and concentration on core issues at
this point in the planning process.
Core Group
I think the core group must represent the dimensions of the organisation, while
remaining small in number. As it stands, all dimensions or functions are
represented save for Communications and Knowledge Management. Without this
function directly inputting into the process from the outset, it is in danger of
becoming an add-on half-way through the process, and as such, not being truly
represented in the final output.
Given that this function is GeSCI’s youngest and represents some of GeSCI’s
greatest challenges (geographical disperse of staff; tacit and explicit knowledge
capture; capture of good practice; team building; effective and open communication
etc.) it should be a part of the planning process throughout both stages. It is also the
function that is primarily responsible for capture of information and dispersal of
said information and knowledge to all stakeholders, in appropriate formats, both
internal (staff who are not part of core group) and external (donors, ministries etc.
etc.) as well as recording the mechanics of the process itself for organisational
learning. If this function is to truly serve the organisation to the best of its ability
then I suggest that this objective be reflected in the strategic planning process.
Mission and its role in the strategic planning as outlined…..
The mission, comprising three areas:
1. Vision - Why do we exist? What do we want to become in the future? How will we
get there?
2. Organisational Definition – What is GeSCI and what are ICTs?
3. Values – A list of key values both external (capacity building, neutral facilitation
etc.) and internal (team-work, accountability, transparency etc.)
…is of critical importance to GeSCI, and it’s imperative that it does not remain a
redundant and disconnected by-line of the organisation. Going forward, any reworking of the mission should genuinely reflect the above three aspects of GeSCI,
with each word translating into effort in reality.
Normally, planning on this scale would not be undertaken without addressing
organisational mission and it is unfortunate that at this point, without the new
E.D.’s input, this cannot be done. As long as it is re-examined as part of the strategic
planning at a later date it shouldn’t hinder the planning process.
Consultation process/Methods of inclusion
The core team would consult with other members of the GeSCI team by phone and email
and also meet face-to-face at least once during this period to debate and discuss key
issues and team contributions.(ToR feedback as circulated by AT)
Objective:
 Minimise time demands on group with a carefully thought out planning
process
 Maximise coordination and consensus
It is understood that time is at a premium with regard to the development of the
white paper and as such the process of consultation should be as efficient and well
documented as possible. Perhaps over the coming days we can give more thought to
how we are going to illicit and document the opinion/feedback of all team members’
(all those able/willing to do so) during the drafting of the white paper. Given the
importance of this process we can endeavor to create a balance between
undocumented conversation and carefully recorded feedback. Perhaps we can use
the extranet or a wiki to help record and analyse feedback.
External Facilitator
I think GeSCI could richly benefit from an external facilitator to oversee Phase II of
the strategic planning. GeSCI might take such an opportunity to learn more about
the external factors affecting its mission, thus with greater preparedness it may
better anticipate future challenges; identify relevant trends and opportunities, and
identify challenges that can be mitigated in advance.
Suggested Objectives for the White Paper

Suggested Objectives for the White Paper are to develop a series of
recommendations on:
o GeSCI’s value add and niche activities
o Where we are now (brief situation analysis) as measured against our
objectives in the 2005 – 2008 Strategic Plan – may not fall under
‘recommendations’
o Lessons learned and how they inform:
 Programmatic priorities and effectiveness
 Country engagement strategies
 Measures of success in fulfilling critical objectives
 Expected performance in key priority areas
o Organizational infrastructure improvements to facilitate the next phase of
the organizations growth
I think that the suggested objectives cover most of the core areas that warrant
treatment in this white paper. I am suggesting that we explicitly examine (however
briefly) our current situation as an organisation, as compared to our stated
objectives in the Strategic Plan of 05 -08. I can’t help thinking that ‘lessons learned’
are more grounded when they are treated in a commonly understood context. Could
the former strategic plan provide this? Could it at least be considered as one control
in our effort to establish ‘where we are’ (in addition to others, including the audit
report if is available).
Can we address our expectations and measures of effectiveness to some degree in
this white paper? I think they are an important element in our growth and learning
as an organisation and they influence, not only our perception of ourselves, but also
our stake-holders expectations and perception of us as a facilitator in their own
growth processes. I suggest that it might warrant some treatment at this stage of the
process in its own right.