We are carrying out some work to refine and improve the way we structure programmes and projects within DFID.
At present we have a “simple” two-tier structure (called Project and Component). The Project level contains the overall purpose and narrative for the activity - including business case, reviews and logframe. The Component level contains one or more agreements (purchase orders, grants, MOUs) with details of geography, sector, funding arrangement, transactions etc.
This works for some simple programmes, but breaks down where there are more complex arrangements such as umbrella programmes, where there can be hundreds of Components under one Project. The 2-tier model doesn’t match the reality of our range of programming.
We would like to move to a structure that better reflects this reality and diversity of programming, that helps programme managers to describe their programmes well, and that captures the important data at the right level.
What do other donors do? Do you have a multi-level structure or do you have a single tier activity level? How do you map your structure to IATI?
Please either share here or email me directly with your diagrams!
Thanks
John
Have been watching, but just wasn’t sure what would be useful to share. From what I’ve seen/understood of DFID and SIDA models, GAC seems much simpler:
A project in our (SAP) system has single funding recipient (implementing partner) and normally a single contractual instrument (e.g. a grant agreement, a contract). This is what we publish as an activity in IATI.
When a projet has more than one funding recipient or contractual instrument, this second component is much smaller and is for monitoring or evaluation of the project, so it is still part of the same project. At the moment we are not able to extract these additional components for publication.
We publish “siblings” when projects are related to each other. This is often when there are subsequent phases to a project (with the same partner).
All this seems very simple to me (of course ). Future improvements could include linking projects related to the same e.g. Call for Proposals, but this is not our dominant business model (nor is it being asked by stakeholders) so it has not been a priority.