2. Planning & Methodology Section
CPCC
BENCHMARKING
in civilian CSDP CMOs
Methodology Development
Progress Report to CIVCOM
Birgit Loeser
Luigi Bruno
Brussels, 14 April 2011

3. Information Points
Background
CPCC Initial Views
Project Status & Way Ahead
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
3

4. Background
Last CIVCOM discussions
Current samples:
EULEX Kosovo / EUPOL RD Congo / EUJUST LEX Iraq
Visits to OSCE and UN DPKO
February 2005, PU Benchmarking Workshop
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
4

5. initial considerations
CPCC Initial Views
Need for agreed methodology and
terminology
Meet both EEAS & Mission requirements
(political and operational)
Civilian CSDP within overall EU action
Clarity about expectations
(who is doing what by when)
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
5

6. benchmark approaches
CPCC Initial Views
Benchmark against End State
NOW
(how far are we? hard to say) END STATE: when?
(*) Michael S. Lund, Preventing Violent Conflicts: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy,
USIP Press Books, April 1996
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
6

7. benchmark approaches
CPCC Initial Views
Benchmark against End State
NOW
(how far are we? hard to say) END STATE: when?
Benchmark against Baseline
(have we progressed? we can measure)
Mandate Mandate
Intermediate Intermediate
NOW END STATE END STATE END STATE: when?
(Mission (Mission
launched) renewed)
Baseline 1 yr New 2 yrs New
Baseline Baseline
Baseline
Why are both required?END STATE
Where to start from Where to get to
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
7

8. benchmark approaches
CPCC Initial Views
What is the best approach for whom?
Council:
“end state” - if CSDP still required
Mandate Mandate
Intermediate Intermediate
NOW END STATE END STATE END STATE: when?
(Mission (Mission
launched) renewed)
Baseline 1 yr New 2 yrs New
Baseline Baseline
Missions:
“baseline” to report on progress
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
8

9. definition, aim & scope
CPCC Initial Views
Methodology to assess Mission’s effectiveness
Benchmarking is a tool aimed at measuring change through the use of
comparison. It functions as a monitoring and reporting mechanism to assist in the
verification of the outcome of any given action or process, providing accurate and
timely feedback, which can then, if required, be used to adjust and enhance the
strategy towards a desired end state
Aim
To standardise the way Civilian CSDP Crisis Management Operations measure
and report on the effect they produce against a baseline, assessed through
identified indicators and means of verification
Scope
This benchmarking methodology is meant to be integrated throughout the entire
Civilian CSDP Crisis Management Operations cycle: planning, conduct,
refocusing and termination
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
9

10. indicators and means of verification
CPCC Initial Views
Different indicators for different levels:
Political
Strategic
Operational
Tactical
Types of Indicator:
Quantitative / Qualitative / Hybrid
Means of verification:
Method or source to be used to verify an indicator
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
10

11. indicators and means of verification
CPCC Initial Views
Sample of Quantitative Indicator
(it helps specifying the amount of the change, e.g. number of beneficiaries or
amount of the change expressed as a figure or a percentage)
OUTCOME INDICATOR BASELINE MEANS OF
There is improved Number of crimes In 2009, 37.000 VERIFICATION
trust and exchange reported by the crimes where National crime
of information civilian population reported to the statistics
between the police police by the public
and the population Details:
Published annually,
in March, by the
Ministry of Interior
on their website
Progress Report
2010 – The number of crimes reported by the civilian population is 42.000, increased 13,5%
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
11

12. indicators and means of verification
CPCC Initial Views
Sample of Qualitative Indicator
(it helps characterising the quality of the change, e.g. presence/absence of an
expected/undesirable change, behavioural change, improved processes)
OUTCOME INDICATOR BASELINE MEANS OF
There is improved Police foot patrols In Apr. 09, it was VERIFICATION
trust and exchange assessed that European
of information community patrols Commission
between the police are conducted by car
and the population due to the hostile Details:
attitude of local Quarterly report by
population the EC presence in
the host country
Progress Report
Apr. 10 - Police foot patrols started to be conducted in community areas (1/5 of total
patrols during Jan.-Mar. 2010)
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
12

13. indicators and means of verification
CPCC Initial Views
Sample of Hybrid Indicator
(it helps demonstrating qualitative improvement by quantitatively characterizing
the change)
OUTCOME INDICATOR BASELINE MEANS OF
There is improved Percentage of male In Sep. 09, 45% of VERIFICATION
trust and exchange and female the cluster had a CSDP Mission
of information population with a favourable
between the police favourable perception of the Details:
and the population perception of the police, of which 20% Conducted annually,
police were women in September,
Cluster: according to the
1000 citizens, 200 for methodology
each region, of which
30% <30yrs, 40% 31-60
outlined in the
yrs and 30 % >61yrs. baseline
Of the total, 50% lived in
urban areas
Progress Report
Sep. 10 - People’s appreciation of the police service increased to 60% (+33%), 25% female
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
13

14. need assessment, objectives & baseline
CPCC Initial Views
Situation Analysis (SA) domains:
•Constitutional & Institutional
•Legal & Budget international
•Organizational Design standards
Indicators
•Infrastructures & Equipment &
best practices
•Personnel
•Training Need
&
Assessment
(NA)
B M
e a
Means of n r Mission
Verification Baseline c k Objectives
h i
n
g
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
14

15. what does it imply?
CPCC Initial Views
in terms of Mission Planning
FFM (Political SA+NA) Mandate = CMC+CD (end state)
TAM (Strategic SA+NA) CONOPS (objectives)
Mission PT (Operational SA+NA) OPLAN (tasks)
Mission (Tactical SA+NA) MIP (activities)
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
15

16. what does it imply?
CPCC Initial Views
in terms of Mission Conduct
MIP = internal planning & constant reporting
MR = Mission OUTPUT
6MR = Mission progress / OUTCOME trend assessment
Yearly = Mission OUTCOME
Mandate Renewal = refocusing, if need be
Termination = mission accomplished
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
16

17. using benchmarking
CPCC Initial Views
Political Objectives (they are stated in CMC/Council Decision)
• Long/Mid/Short Term (if stated in CMC/Council Decision)
Mission End State (it is the benchmark for CSDP disengagement and it is stated in CMC,
based on political indicators and related means of verification)
Programme 1. (they correspond to Strategic Indicators (in Means of
“Mission objectives” desired OUTCOME CONOPS as generic Criteria Verification
as identified in the CONOPS) for Success) (rarely indicated)
Programme 2. SIs MoV
Programme ... SIs MoV
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
17

18. using benchmarking
CPCC Initial Views
Political Objectives (they are stated in CMC/Council Decision)
• Long/Mid/Short Term (if stated in CMC/Council Decision)
Mission End State (it is the benchmark for CSDP disengagement and it is stated in CMC,
based on political indicators and related means of verification)
Programme 1. (they correspond to Strategic Indicators (in Means of
“Mission objectives” desired OUTCOME CONOPS as generic Criteria Verification
as identified in the CONOPS) for Success) (rarely indicated)
Action 1.1. (they correspond to “Mission Operational Indicators (in Means of
Tasks” desired OUTCOME as identified in OPLAN as generic Criteria for Verification
the OPLAN) Success) (rarely indicated)
Action 1.2. OIs MoV
Action 1. … OIs MoV
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
18

19. using benchmarking
CPCC Initial Views
Political Objectives (they are stated in CMC/Council Decision)
• Long/Mid/Short Term (if stated in CMC/Council Decision)
Mission End State (it is the benchmark for CSDP disengagement and it is stated in CMC,
based on political indicators and related means of verification)
Programme 1. (they correspond to Strategic Indicators (in Means of
“Mission objectives” desired OUTCOME CONOPS as generic Criteria Verification
as identified in the CONOPS) for Success) (rarely indicated)
Action 1.1. (they correspond to “Mission Operational Indicators (in Means of
Tasks” desired OUTCOME as identified in OPLAN as generic Criteria for Verification
the OPLAN) Success) (rarely indicated)
Activity 1.1.1. (they correspond to Tactical Indicators (or Means of
“Mission Sub-Tasks” expected OUTPUT Performance Indicators, Verification
as identified in the MIP) sometimes in MIP) (rarely indicated)
Activity 1.1.2. TIs MoV
Activity 1.1. … TIs MoV
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
19

20. using benchmarking
CPCC Initial Views
Field Operator’s Mask
Activity 1.1.1. … Expected OUTPUT …
Indicator/s Means of Verification Baseline
I a) … MV a) …
…
I b) … MV b) …
I c) … MV c) …
Milestones By when Who Risks Opportunities Questions
1.1.1.1.... ... ... ... ... ...? update
1.1.1.2.... ... ... ... ... ...? update
1.1.1.3.... ... ... ... ... ...? update
Progress Report Mission Staff:
… (periodically, as required) daily report on what
is being done
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
20

21. using benchmarking
CPCC Initial Views
Mission Internal Reporting
Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity
OUTPUT OUTPUT OUTPUT OUTPUT OUTPUT OUTPUT OUTPUT OUTPUT
Action Action Action Action
OUTCOME OUTCOME OUTCOME OUTCOME
Programme Programme
OUTCOME OUTCOME
Mandate
OUTCOME
Mission Reporting
MR: progress of activities (OUTPUT)
6MR: impact trend assessment (OUTCOME)
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
21

22. Project Status & Way Ahead
FINALIZE THE METHODOLOGY
Step 1
CIVCOM to agree on CPCC Benchmarking Paper
(June 2011? tbc)
Step 2
Requirements, including for IT support
Step 3
Library of indicators and means of verification
(Political / Strategic / Operational / Tactical)
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
22

23. Project Status & Way Ahead
IMPLEMENTATION
Introducing Benchmarking
in ongoing Missions
Address impact on how
we plan and conduct
(throughout the entire Mission cycle)
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
23

24. Planning & Methodology Section
CPCC
THANK YOU
CIVCOM meeting on CSDP Benchmarking
24