Visit MS-Denmark

The focus, focus and focus

Shiva Dangol
Program Officer, MS Nepal

I still remember the day, Oct. 8th 98, in Bhaktapur, when responding to one of the questions/expectations of the workshop, with little knowledge about MS Nepal, I had put forward that MS needs to focus rather than Scattering/diluting its efforts elsewhere. It was probably my 4th day in MS and with the recent developments of re-organizing and re-structuring, I can now reconfirm that my judgement and claim were very much with the valid reasons.

My notion of this type remained raw until the issue was shared/discussed in the series of regional consultation workshops organized in connection with the formulation of MS strategic policy paper 1999 - 2004. This concern about focus expressed in Bhaktapur workshop was once again discussed in the consultation workshop and it has now been refined in the strategic policy paper. Finally, the strategic policy paper came out not only with the increased emphasis on focus but also with many new thematic areas and cross cutting issues that are important for MS to make certain impact on its efforts for development assistance in Nepal.

My expression on that day was something very odd for someone who had just joined the organization. If you tell something like we have supported 50 Nepali NGOs with developmental activities worth Nrs.100 million in ten years of time, it would mean nothing as it does not show any impact. The day I started to go through the MS documents, I had found that MS was very thinly scattered and the way it was doing its program was too diverse which can not generate meaningful impact. Somehow, the focus was needed there. And, unaware of the fact that MS is undergoing a process of strategic policy paper formulation, which could recommend correcting such shortcomings, I was tempted to express that MS needs to focus its efforts seriously. The focus should be in terms of geographical area, program activity, and the real target beneficiary groups it intends to work with.

Following the Bhaktapur workshop, the regional consultation workshops, the series of meetings in PAB has now decided that MS, to match its resources, should be focusing in fewer geographical clusters rather than scattering its efforts. Finally, the policy paper is now ready and we have, at hand, many of the strategic objectives and some of the cross cutting issues as our priority. From the cluster approach, it has now been clear that we will be working in fewer geographical locations and that the work is already in progress towards this end. However, the real focus on the program and the target beneficiaries so as to have certain measurable impact has yet to be exercised. If we ignore or fail to exercise this, I feel that we will be in the same situation as we were in the past without any measurable impact.

In order to fulfill each of the objectives we have set, we will definitely require several activities to accomplish. Given the resources and capacity available, it is also true that we might not be able to carry out all the activities needed. However, we have the choice and should position ourselves in such a manner as to maximize our efforts to fulfil the objectives, with fewer but key activities that can best fit our resources and, at the same time contributing towards the fulfillment of our ultimate goal. When we are able to do so, we are also able to plan the size and extent of the activities under each of the objectives to have the desired impact before we initiate anything. Similarly, we can have the concrete indicators set beforehand to monitor and guide us throughout the program/partnership period.

As we keep on discussing, the real task of focus would not be considered complete unless we re-visit and try to compare the target beneficiaries we are working with and the target beneficiaries we often talk about. Also, the type of activities and its suitability are equally important in order for us to encompass the actual target group and to benefit them. Although, it has usually been a difficult task both for MS and the partners to reach the people in real need and to involve them in each stages of the activity/program, this is one of the crucial areas where we need to look at once again and exercise seriously. 

The MS, has now finalized its strategic policy paper 1999-2004 and is preparing to move forward accordingly. It’s a matter of satisfaction for me too being a part of MS and being someone who made an odd but sincere expression in his very early days with an organization and wanted MS to emphasize on focusing its effort. Needless to say, the formulation of strategic policy paper took a long time. However, with the guidelines laid out in the strategic policy paper and the internal changes that is taking place in the organization, I have no doubt that MS, with its emphasis on focus will be able to achieve more than anticipated in the days to come.

With this very clear view in mind, besides some of the areas that have already been mentioned in relation to the focus, I feel that there are few more areas where we need to look at in order for us to derive value-added-benefit from our aim to focus our efforts. All of us, being together with an organization, it is our duty to have dialogue and continuously try to modify and refine the way we work. And, it is for this reason that I am trying to put forward few areas/things that I feel necessary for all of us to immediately take care of and discuss further:

1. Re-definition and finalization of the geographical areas/clusters should immediately be started, although it will remain loose for some time as we gradually plan to phase out from other areas and it will also take some time to initiate partnership with new organizations.

2. In order to have certain impact of our program, we need to exercise to figure out key areas/activities as well as its target group under each of the program objectives/cross cutting issues (that are laid out in the strategic policy paper) with appropriate indicators. While we determine the key activities, the organizational capacity building of partner organizations in terms of criteria i.e. the capacity that we intend to see with our partner when we phase out should be included as one of the major component. 

Based upon the key activities and the indicators, we also need to tentatively have a time frame fixed for our partnership period with an organization so as to guide us in achieving what we really intended to when we initiated the partnership. This tentative time frame will also help to plan the partnership program in a defined period and in a smooth manner.

3. Also, as we plan to phase out from some of the areas, together with the partners, we need to develop a clear-cut phase out plan with emphasis on partner’s organizational capacity building. This can be done /planned within the committed partnership period with modification of plan or we might even think of extending the co-operation slightly so that the phase out is smooth and the partner is organizationally sustainable.

4. MS is much more democratic than many of the organizations working in Nepal. Being democratic, we are very flexible to jointly try what our partners feel they should be doing. While we often do so, we are in a way, diluting our efforts on our target and the strategies resulting in difficulty to have measurable impact. While I express it, I do not mean to say that we should not be flexible and entertain partner’s needs. What I mean to say is that we as MS, better partner with organizations who are like-minded and can more or less agree to what MS has as its agenda. Even by working in this manner, we can entertain and support other needs of our partners.
If we look at this issue from another angle, it’s much easier and convincing too. Whatever we have come up with in our strategic policy paper 1999-2004, are very much in consultation and agreement with our partners and all other stakeholders. And therefore, we should not be hesitating to agree and partner with only those organizations (including the DANIDA funded projects/organizations) that are very much willing to follow what MS will soon have as its agenda in the form of different program/activities.

5. History of NGOs and social organizations in Nepal is not that long and we find many of such organizations being run/managed by a handful of people or in many cases by a single person. The challenge for MS in the coming days will be to initiate measures that can enhance democratic practices in the partners if not all of such organizations. 

In fact, to move forward in the right direction and achieve everything stated, it will not be enough to stick on what has been discussed/suggested herein. But, it will also be necessary to have a look at and continue to make the organizational systems effective and efficient making the staff more capable. Also, the transparency, and the check and balance mechanism will have to be reviewed and brought into effect. Again, I do not mean that the systems we have are inadequate, but it is just to indicate and encourage all of us to continue to build on our process of organizational transformation, which we already have started. Following are some of the areas where we can look at in an effort to maximize desirable output of all our endeavors of development assistance:

If we look back 2-3 years from now, the first ever-recorded move towards man power planning took place where each of the staff was given increased responsibilities. This was done, perhaps, with a future plan to equip with the needed skills. Given the situation that we are planning our capacity to strengthen in line with our new vision, it is the right time for all of us to look at the 2nd. Bhaktapur workshop where we exercised and practiced to develop staff competence to match the professional needs. There is no doubt that similar exercise, once again for the key staff positions would benefit us in the long run.

We often talk of the coordination and linkages with other organizations to smoothly function /implement the plans. It is considered highly important anywhere else. However, we often tend to forget the need of in-house co-ordination. The Monday meeting we have initiated for POs and the Coordinator has been very successful, and considering this experience, we can start having dialogue to begin such meeting with different stakeholders as well as the general one in a reasonable frequency which could help us further enhance our in-house co-ordination ultimately benefiting our program. 

Needless to say, we already have so many of the ideal things/systems/mechanisms compared to many other organizations. Friendly environment, team spirit, the provision of staff forum, and the transparent mechanisms are some among these systems. Now, it should be the time for all of us to see ourselves and discuss on how we are practicing it to cash out optimum benefit for the program and how we can build on what we already have rather than re-inventing the wheel in every aspects.

While we try to discuss all these needs, we should not ignore the fact that we have already been able to do so many of the things in line with our new vision of focus. Definitely, the changes are taking place and it takes some time to smoothen the things. If we all can join together and can feed up each other with constructive suggestions, we are quite sure that we will have all we desire for. So, let us join together to see what we can do in the days ahead.

Back to Contents