The Human Resources Policy and Implementation of Save the Children Norway in Cambodia by Linda PUTH

THE HUMAN RESOURCE POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SAVE THE CHILDREN NORWAY IN CAMBODIA

A Research Project Presented to The Academic Faculty of Pannasastra University of Cambodia

By PUTH LINDA

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree in Master of Business Administration Major in Human Resource Management Graduate School of Management and Economics

PAÑÑASASTRA UNIVERSITY OF CAMBODIA Phnom Penh, Cambodia September 2014

ABSTRACT

The researcher conducted this research report in order to find out the issues relating to human resources policy and the implementation of Save the Children Norway through the assessment of the Management Strategic Plan of Save the Children Norway in Cambodia (SCNiC) and Operation Enfants Du Cambodge (OEC). In addition, the report also aims to assess whether Save the Children Norway’s Management Strategic Plan is SMART enough that can help the organization achieve their overall goals/aims. Furthermore, this report will also assess how Save the Children’s HR policy and their management follow the strategic plan, best practices and has accountability built into system. The questions asked in this research are to know whether the human resources of OEC improve their employee capacity in delivering services effectively and efficiently or not; and how does OEC ensure that their project staff have core competences, clear roles and responsibilities in implementing the project. In conclusion, it showed that the overall goal in Country Program Strategy 2010 – 2014 and the management/operational objective in human resources areas of SCNiC are not very SMART. The capacity building of OEC still needs some improvement in terms of having effective capacity building to project staff in implementation and monitoring skills. Moreover, the same as their mother organization, OEC should improve their accountability system in project implementation, and their HR policy in partnership for effective and efficient services delivery to children.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am deeply indebted to my great advisor, Prof. GARY Kawaguchi, for his guidance and editorial work, and especially his valuable time throughout this entire research. In addition, I thank Pannasastra University of Cambodia (PUC) very much for providing administrative support while I conducted my research. Special thanks to my colleagues, Mr. Markus AKSLAND – Country Director of Save the Children Norway in Cambodia, Mr. BUY Dararith – Human Resources and Administration Manager, Mr. IEK Thong – Finance Manager, and Ms. KHAT Ty Ekvisoth – Child Protection Program Manager, for spending their time for the interviews for data gathering. Without their involvement, my research could not finish on time as scheduled. I also thank very much to Mr. SO Sophay, OEC staff, who guided me to the field visit and provided me very useful information for my research. My deep thanks to the village chief and the recipient families of Rukkhakiri District for their warm hospitality during my visit. I want to give my very special thanks to my mother (EK Khaya) and my husband (ITH Phalkun) for their emotional support. I feel a sense of gratitude for their love, understanding and encouragement. I did not mention many other people here. I wish to thank all of them.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................ II LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... V LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... VI LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... VII CHAPTER I BACKGROUND AND NATURE OF THE STUDY ....................................................... 1 1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ...................................................................... 1 1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................ 3 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................ 3 1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ........................................................ 4 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW AND CORPORATE ASSESSMENT ..................................... 6 2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4

Capacity Building in Non-Government Organizations ........................................... 6 Donor and Recipient Partnerships ......................................................................... 9 Developing Effective Partnerships ....................................................................... 10 Implementing Accountability in Partnerships ....................................................... 11

2.2 CORPORATE ASSESSMENT ......................................................................... 12 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7

History of Save the Children Norway ................................................................... 12 Organizational Structure of Save the Children Norway in Cambodia .................. 13 Save the Children Norway in Partnership ............................................................ 14 Save the Children Norway’s Vision and Mission ................................................. 16 Save the Children Norway’s Objectives and Programs ....................................... 16 General Ethnical Principles in Save the Children Norway ................................... 16 Objectives for Human Resources for 2010 .......................................................... 17

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 19 3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................... 19 3.2 DATA ANALYSIS METHOD ........................................................................... 19 3.3 RESEARCH MODEL .................................................................................... 20 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3

Independent Variables and Dependent Variable ................................................. 20 Populations .......................................................................................................... 21 Samples ............................................................................................................... 21

iii

3.4 SAMPLING DESIGN ..................................................................................... 21 3.5 DATA COLLECTION METHOD ....................................................................... 22 CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................ 24 4.1 RESEARCH FINDINGS ................................................................................. 24 4.1.1 4.1.1.1 4.1.1.2 4.1.1.3 4.1.1.4

Data Presentation ................................................................................................ 24 Save the Children Norway and their Overall Strategic Plan ................................ 24 The Strategic Plan of OEC and SCN’s Operations .............................................. 26 Human Resource Policies .................................................................................... 27 HR Policies Follow Best Practices and the Strategic Plans for the Overall Organization ......................................................................................................... 28 4.1.1.5 Save the Children Norway and their HR Monitoring on their Partner .................. 30 4.1.2

Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 32

4.2 RESEARCH DISCUSSION ............................................................................. 33 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4

Does Save the Children Norway Follow the Overall Strategic Plan? .................. 34 Does OEC Follow the Strategic Plans of the Overall Organization and/or Follow the Save the Children Norway Operations? ............................................. 38 Do the HR Policies Follow Best Practices and the Strategic Plans for the Overall Organization? .......................................................................................... 41 Does Save the Children Norway Monitor the HR of the Partners? ...................... 45

4.3 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS ............................................................. 49 CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................................. 55 5.1 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 55 5.2 RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................... 56 REFERENCES APPENDIX 1A: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR COUNTRY DIRECTOR ..................................... 2 APPENDIX 1B: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR FINANCE MANAGER ....................................... 7 APPENDIX 1C: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR CHILD PROTECTION PROGRAM MANAGER ....... 9 APPENDIX 1D: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR HR AND ADMIN MANAGER ........................... 16 APPENDIX 1E: INFORMAL CONVERSATION IN KHMER AT THE TARGET AREA..................... 22 APPENDIX 1F: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR EDUCATION PROGRAM MANAGER ................. 30 APPENDIX 2: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF SAVE THE CHILDREN NORWAY ....................... 31 APPENDIX 3: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF OPERATIONS ENFANTS DU CAMBODGE ........... 32 APPENDIX 4: PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT...................................................................... 33 APPENDIX 5: SUMMARY IN KHMER ............................................................................... 39 iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1

Target areas for Home-Based Visit

Table 4-3

Summary of Research Findings

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1

Map of Save the Children Norwayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Operating Provinces in Cambodia

Figure 2-2

Structure of Senior Management Team and Extended Senior Management Team Members

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CBO

Community Based Organization

CEO

Chief Executive Officer

CEDC

Children in Especially Difficult Circumstances

CPP

Child Protection Program / Country Program Plan

CPS

Country Program Strategy

CRC

Convention on the Rights of the Child

CRG

Child Rights Governance

CWD

Children with Disabilities

ECCD

Early Childhood Care and Development

ESMT

Extended Senior Management Team

Human Resource

HIV

Human Immunodeficiency Virus

IPU

International Program Unit

LNGO

Local Non-Government Organization

MBO

Management by Objective

M&E

Monitoring and Evaluation

MOU

Memorandum of Understanding

NGO

Non-Government Organization

OEB

Operations Enfants du Battambang

OEC

Operations Enfants du Cambodge

OVC

Orphans and Vulnerable Children

RGOC

Royal Government of Cambodia

SCN

Save the Children Norway

SCN-CO

Save the Children Norway-Cambodia Office

SCNiC

Save the Children Norway in Cambodia

SHRM

Strategic human resource management

SMART

Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timely

SMT

Senior Management Team

TOT

Training of Trainers

UNCRC

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

UNICEF

United Nations Children Funds

vii

CHAPTER I BACKGROUND AND NATURE OF THE STUDY

1.1

Statement of the Problem Save the Children Norway in Cambodia (SCNiC) developed a long-term strategy

for their Country Program for five years implementation and operation in Cambodia country office. The Country Program Strategy (CPS) covers the period from 2010 to 2014. The overall goal for the strategy period in the CPS is “to bring long lasting change in the lives of children particularly the most disadvantaged and vulnerable ones”. In addition, the overall strategic aim is “to bring long lasting change in children’s lives through empowering children and parents and strengthening systems and mechanisms in order to monitor and implement the UNCRC, provide access of relevant and quality education for all children, prevent and protect children from exploitation and abuse and provide care and support to children.” 1 The Main Management Objectives of SCN stated that, “Early in the strategy period the focus will be on strengthening the organization to prepare for the unification with SC Australia. …. SCNiC also will strive to improve its administration, finance and communication system and internal linkages/communication and documentation of accumulated results and achievements for effective implementation of programs. Staff of SCNiC and partners’ knowledge management and capacity (technical, organizational culture, language ability, understanding of Child Rights Programming) will be further developed and maintained.” (SCNiC, 2009, p.13) As part of CPS, the Management/Operational Objectives stated for the area of Human Resources that, “SCNiC planned to have a strong human resource base and high level of professional competence to create positive change for children (Planned 1

Save the Children in Cambodia, Country Program Strategy 2010-2014, 2009, p.3

Objective)”. The Human Resources Department developed their objectives for the years based on their Baseline survey that, “SCNiC lacks of coherent and comprehensive human resources policy. SCNiC’s capacity building is apparently ad hoc or not strategically aligned with organization’s vision, mission and goals.” Hence, the human resources expected to see two results out of the objectives that, “1). To have a strategy in place and applied on how to recruit, retain, and inspire the human resources and create a healthy organizational culture; and 2).To have a pool of skilled and experienced staff with clear roles and responsibilities.” (SCNiC, 2009, p. 24). Based on partnership assessment of Save the Children Norway in Cambodia, conducted by Abrahamsen, T. (2006), it showed that “SCNiC cooperation with its partners is process oriented and based on mutual respect. The challenge of this approach arises when the quality of the partner's implementation is poor in areas directly affecting children. …. Common issues relate to a lack of coherent reporting systems, limited

overall

financial

management

and

inadequate

quality

assurance

implementation level. … Capacity building of the partners is at the center of Save the Children Norway’s partnership approach, yet there is no systematic capacity building plan developed for SCN’s partners, or any systematic documentation of the capacity building efforts applied so far”. Furthermore, through Abrahamsen’s observation, he found within SCN that there were some internal challenges among management, programming, finance, administration and information in the position of providing support to each partner that he recommended that, “There is some confusion about the roles and responsibilities of management staff. This can be addressed by a revision of the Job Descriptions for the Program Managers and the Program Director, ensuring that the roles are clearly spelled out and not overlapping.” (p.p. 1 – 4)

Moreover, according to the Interim Evaluation of SCN CEDC Programme 20072, Vijghen, J. & Sithon K., “there were various reports made for SCN’s partners by different consultants. The recommendations and comments made in Taran Abrahamsen were or also made by the other evaluators (Edelweiss Silan and Ngy San) or were conclusion without specific recommendations.” (p. 10)

1.2

Objective of the Study 

To assess whether the Management’s Strategy of Save the Children Norway is specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely (SMART) or not



To assess whether Save the Children Norway’s HR policy and management follows the strategic plan, best practices and has accountability built into the system and to see the impact of strategic planning on human resources management and policies of SCNiC and their NGO partners.

1.3

Research Questions 

Does Save the Children Norway use Management’s Strategy in the specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely method?



Do Save the Children Norway’s HR policy and its HR management follow best practices and has accountability built into the system? In addition, having followed best practices and had accountability in the system, can human resources of SCNiC deliver staff capacity effectively and efficiently within the organization and with their NGO partners?

Interim Evaluation CEDC Partner Programme of Save the Children Norway in Cambodia, Commissioned to ECR – Mekong, January 2008, p.10

1.4

Scope and Limitations of the Study The researcher used both primary data and secondary data for the study in order

to see whether the human resource policies of Save the Children Norway consistently matched with the real implementation or not. In addition, the researcher used all relevant data to study on the effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery provided by the Local Non-Government Organization partner (Operations Enfants du Cambodge) via their capacity building covering core competences, clear roles and responsibilities in implementing the project. Furthermore, the researcher used secondary data relating to human resources of Save the Children Norway and their strategic planning as reference for this research report; for example, Country Program Strategy, Country Program Plan, Assessment of SCN-CO NGO Partnership, Partnership Strategy, Partnership Agreement and Handbook of Save the Children in Cambodia. This secondary data was used to find out what SCNâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strategy, goals and objectives are. The researcher gathered information from primary data through making appointment with the top four senior managers and one leader of Save the Children Norway for face-to-face interviews, asking some closed and open-ended questions. Observation at the field is another approach to get the primary data. The researcher did a home-based visit at the target area with the social workers and some local NGO staff to see whether the policies have been implemented as planned and agreed. In addition, the researcher expected that having interviewed with the top managers and gone to the field visit for observation would help reveal the truth that Save the Children Norway has a HR best practice system following their country strategic plan. During the interviews, the researcher found some difficulties in making appointment for the interviews with those in top management as they were preparing for the transition of the Unified Present (merging process) between the two organizations 4

(Save the Children Norway and Save the Children Australia). The big change from merging the two organizations affected to the availability of their times for interviews. One interview with Program Director was cancelled because she had resigned from Save the Children Norway for the new position in other country. The replacement of her interview was made instead with the Program Manager. Unfortunately, the Program Manager was never available for interviews since he had many things to do at the time of interviewing. The home-based visit was also a challenge for the research to do observation and note taking during the conversation because the researcher alone was asking the questions and taking notes. However, the researcher was able to record some useful and informal conversation with the social worker in the field. Save the Children Norway has been working with Operations Enfants du Cambodge (OEC) in only one district (Rukkhakiri) in Battambang province since 2011. In this project, OEC used one social worker to work as partner with the authority in the Commune Council, and the Teacher Training Center in order to provide the services to the children. There are twenty villages in Rukkhakiri according to Mr. So Sophay, Project Assistant/Social Worker of OEC, whose working base is in Battambang province and the target areas. He divided the twenty villages into two parts (ten villages for the first semester and another ten villages for second semester) for implementing the project plan during one-year period. According to the time constraint and the resources availabilities, the researcher randomly selected only five villages to gather data for the research paper, following the Social Workerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plan for the next semester.

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW AND CORPORATE ASSESSMENT

2.1

Literature Review

2.1.1

Capacity Building in Non-Government Organizations Capacity Building is about a broad range of procedures and a wide series of

features including policy, analysis on strategy, planning of project, technology, information management systems, a variety of individual skills, as well as the issues related to the organizational cultures, forms and incentives, Afful K. & Manandhar M.D, 2002 (as cited in Vantha, Rattana & Chane, 2005, p. 5). Furthermore, in order to engage successfully in partnerships for sustainable development, partners need to understand and have goals, components, and methodologies for capacity building programs (Hemmati, M., & Whitfield, R., 2003, p. 3). In addition, Sanyal, P. (2006) stated that, “Partnership is viewed as a cure for centrally managed bureaucratic NGOs and capacity building as a measure for strengthening local NGOs.” (p. 66). Then, nonprofits have a responsibility to seek new effective ways of making visible progress for their missions, and it requires building organizational capacity. This proves that great programs must have great organizations behind them, so to build a great organization it is necessary to build organization’s capacity (McKinsey & Company, 2001, p. 21). To define non-profit capacity, McKinsey et al. (2001), created the Capacity Framework of a pyramid of seven elements such as Aspirations, Strategies, Organizational skills, Human Resource, Systems and infrastructure, Organizational structure, and Culture. When combining all seven elements of non-profit capacity into one, it proves that all are closely interrelated. Aspiration, strategies, and organizational skills are higher-level elements, which are supported by the foundation elements such as 6

human resource, system and infrastructure and organizational structure joint with cultural element to make the capacity framework/assessment complete (McKinsey et al., (2001) p.p. 33-37). Adding to Capacity Assessment Grid, which is used as an analytical tool to measure an organization’s strength specifically in human resource component, it showed that “when organizations succeed in attracting talented people and unleashing their full potential, good things happen.” (McKinsey et al., (2001), p. 49). According to Backer, T. E (2000), the finding was that the need for strengthening organizational capacity needs special attention to. There are eight (8) core components of effective capacity building, five (5) challenges to effectiveness capacity building, and six (6) specific recommendations for building in capacity building. The core factors of effective capacity building are comprehensive, customized, competence-based, timely, peer connected, assessment-based, readiness-based, and contextualized (and evaluation). The five challenges to the effectiveness to increase impact of capacity building activities in philanthropy are quality and evaluation, nonprofit and community engagement, shakeout and the second generation, and field building. To improve capacity building, six recommendations were recommended. They are conducting a more comprehensive study of ‘good practices’ in capacity building, conducting a metaanalysis of evaluations of capacity building programs, conducting a series of case studies of capacity building programs, conducting empirical research on effectiveness of specific capacity building interventions, developing and piloting test an on-line capacity building service, and promoting cross-sector dialogue on capacity building (p.p. 3-5). In evaluation on capacity building activities, Connolly P. & York, P. (2002) found that non-profit organizations have to determine who will conduct and participate in evaluation for the first start. The evaluators can be insiders or outsiders to conduct an evaluation based on available skills and resources, the ability to be objective, and how 7

the findings will be used; but it was stated that the external evaluations may be insufficient for staff since the information revealing from staff is sensitive to the organization. Next, they have to understand the multilayered nature of evaluating capacity building. At this stage, evaluation can be conducted at different levels from usage, to short-term outcomes and to long-term impact. There should also be using a logic model to guide an evaluation. A logic model can help to bring order to questions such as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;What effect capacity building efforts have on organizational functioning, How changes in individuals within the organization translate into organizational change, How these changes affect the provision of services, and What the impact on the lives of people and strength of the community which depends on those services.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Next is to state evaluation questions and potential success indicators. Developing an evaluation work plan and implement evaluation methods is the last step. This involves with what to evaluate, when to evaluate and how to evaluate. Finally, they will have to use and share results from findings of evaluation to determine what worked, what did not work and why and the evaluation should be an ongoing process through individuals, groups, organization and societies enhancing their ability to identify and meet development challenges (p.p. 34-38). Furthermore, Connolly P. & York, P. (2002), in order to meet the all above requirements, they produced a Continuum of Capacity-building Evaluation, which consists of Evaluation Level, Evaluation Questions Addressed, and Evaluation Methods that evaluate on activity/engagements. (p. 35). However, Planning Capacity Development is done in negotiation with partner based on Handicap Internationalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strategy through the expected result of joint capacity development planning which is a concrete action plan including the activities and planned changes. Each stakeholder, in a best situation, carries out its own selfassessment in advance to gain a better understanding of its organization and prepares a 8

clear strategy, which lets it go fully into a negotiation process. The time required for this approach depends on project size and existing planning skills (Ziegler, S., 2008, p. 23). From the sources, human resource management/development focusing more on capacity building really assists partnership to become a healthy organization that contains skills, improves performance, influences collective and behavior in order to play developmental roles and adapts to new demands and situations. Being successful in partnerships for sustainable development is a responsibility of partners to be aware of having clear goals and methodologies for capacity building programs, as it is known that capacity building is a big matter that can make a difference for partnerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to fulfill effectiveness. The sooner nonprofit organizations realize that capacity building of partners is fundamental need, assessing capacity is the better, and this is not only for non-profit organization or for partners, but it is also for society as a whole. There shall be a problem when using the theory mentioning if the practitioners do not put it into practice.

2.1.2

Donor and Recipient Partnerships World Food Programme (2006) mentioned that there was continuous demand for

NGO partners to implement and complement WFP project. The rapid increase in NGO partnerships was a result of improved reporting on partnerships of a single country office. In addition, countries with a high number of partners such as Angola, Afghanistan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Colombia, Mozambique and Sudan have more than 100 NGO partners; and they are mainly based in conflict areas. More importantly, WFP entered into various partnerships since many NGOs are not extensive in their geographic coverage or lack the capability to cover different program modalities.

There was a discovery that the terms like Donor and Recipient have been using and replaced with terms â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Development Partnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; to mean more interactive relationship based on a shared agenda for change. So, most definitions of partnership including terminology such as common aim, vision, goals, mission or interests are commonly used in partnership that it is to do with joint rights, resources and responsibilities, selfgoverning and independent, equality and trust (Wildridge, 2004 as cited in Blagescu et al., p. 2). In general, partnership means cooperation, collaboration and coordination between the two organizations working together having agreed on the same vision and mission to achieve the goal.

2.1.3

Developing Effective Partnerships Frank & Smith (2000) said there are three phases of effective partnership

development to be considered such as Initial Development starting with vision and goals, commitment and implications. Next is to Make It Happen, which refers to having action plans, resources, roles and responsibility and capacity building. Lastly is evaluation and Setting Future Directions which encounter evaluation that determines success of partnership activities, direct future that maintains momentum and determining what needs to happen next, and review Renewal and Closure, identifying how to adjust and move on or end partnership (Frank, et al., (2000) p.p. 25-40). Thus, in this area of developing effective partnerships, there are some reasons hidden behinds being effective partner. For instance, the situation when choosing or creating partner to share tasks with in order to have the work done responds to the same goal. Furthermore, the partners having clear structure, clear accountability (having transparency, participation, evaluation, complaint and respond mechanisms), and good management skills are one of the main requirements of being successful partner. However, without accountability in human resources management on partnerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 10

assessment of their learning and capacities, effective partnership may not exist. In each of above, principles from different authors do not mention anything about accountability; this needs to be followed up and implemented in Human Resource Policy.

2.1.4

Implementing Accountability in Partnerships As it is known that NGOs are professionalized and independent entity which

operates at both national and international level provide social welfare (services), education and social and environmental (public policy) advocacy, the accountability is described as “a contract between an agent and a principal and arises from a duty upon the agent and the rights of the principal. Thus, it can be argued that accountability for NGOs should be more focused on accounting for their actions and effects on society rather than accounting for their financial performance.” (Gray, et al., 1987, p.3. as cited in Tilt, C. A. (2006), p.p. 6-7). For accountability in public partnerships, accountability can have various forms; it can be management accountability and professional accountability, but the two are subordinate to public or governmental accountability In addition, there are four different types of accountability: Accountability for probity and legality, accountability for process or the way decisions are taken, Accountability for performance and Accountability for policy. Talking about who is accountable, it is difficult to see that. There are no procedures to ensure the accountability and not many partners directly accountable to local people. Furthermore, it is also important to understand the difference between responsibility and accountability. “Responsibility is the powers, duties and resources of an authority, but accountability is about how the authority has used its powers, duties and responsibilities.” However, the two are interrelated. For instance, “One should not be held accountable for matters beyond one’s responsibility, but one should be held accountable for matters within it.” (Jones G. & Stewart, J., 2009, p.p. 59 – 62). 11

Furthermore, Tilt, C. A. (2006), found that there are two types of accountability. First is performance accountability (accountable for what they do). Second is voice accountability (accountable for what they say). For accountability practice in partnership, voice accountability is not preferable as it is an abstract purpose. (p.p. 9-10). In order to ensure the accountability in place, some common mechanisms are being applied. The first mechanism is Applying the Corporate Model, which requires NGOs to provide regular and systematic report on their activities and there will be punishment where the account or actions are inadequate. Next is Existing Accountability Mechanisms. This is involved in undertaking performance assessment and engaging in community participation and through self-regulation. The requirement is to provide accountability to the public in very detailed information about finances, organizational structure and programs. However, there was an argument that the existing accountability mechanism is not sufficient like applying the corporate model since voluntarism and selfregulation are not effective that it can be biased by partners, (Tilt, C. A. (2006), p.p. 1116).

2.2

Corporate Assessment

2.2.1

History of Save the Children Norway Save the Children Norway (SCN), named ReddBarna in Norwegian language, is

a member of the international Save the Children Alliance. Save the Children Norway was among the first international organizations to have entered Cambodia in 1979. The SCN country program implemented through the SCN Thailand office in 1983. After fifteen years operating in Cambodia, Save the Children Norway Cambodia office ceased to implement projects directly and instead developed partnerships with local nongovernment and government organizations. Currently, SCN was operating in eight provinces and with the Municipality of Phnom Penh (Vijghen, J. & Sithon, J., 2008, p.1). 12

Figure 2-1 Map of Save the Children Norwayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Operating Provinces in Cambodia

Source: Adapted from Annual Program Plan of Save the Children Norway (2011)

2.2.2

Organizational Structure of Save the Children Norway in Cambodia In 2011, there were two international staff members working in the Top Line

Management, (Program Director and Grants and Fundraising Manager) and forty-three national staff members in Save the Children Norway in Cambodia. The Country Director with Program Director including the other three Managers from Information and Communications Section, Human Resource and Administration Section and Finance Section were the Senior Management Team (SMT). The Grants and Fundraising Manager, Child Protection Program Manager, Child Rights Governance and Advocacy Manager, and Education Program Manager were Extended Senior Management Team. (Country Program Plan 2011, SCNiC, 2010, Annex D)

Figure 2-2 Organizational Structure of Save the Children Norway in Cambodia (SMT with Red Borders and ESMT Members)

Country Director

Program Director Info &Com Manager

Grants & Fundraising Manager

CPP Manager

CRG & Advocacy Manager

HR & Admin Manager

Finance Manager

Education Program Manager

Source: Adapted from Annual Program Plan of Save the Children Norway (2011)

2.2.3

Save the Children Norway in Partnership Save the Children Norway defines different types of partners that have similar

vision and mission and enter into partnership with. Local Non-Government Organizations and Community Based Organizations (CBOs) are the primary fabric in civil society and are the groups of people that are close to children. Besides, LNOGs and CBOs are the grass root oriented with an in depth local understanding of childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lives and they are at the center of social and political change. Children and Youth led groups is the second group of potential partners for Save the Children Norway in Cambodia. International Non-Government Organizations is the third group of partners, which Save the Children

Norway in Cambodia will enter into partnership. Next is the Duty Bearers of the implementation of convention on the rights of the child in Cambodia (the Governmentboth central and local). This type of partner is a highly relevant partner for Save the Children Norway in Cambodia to work with. The Research Institutions/Universities, Buddhist

Monks,

Private

Sector/Charity

Foundations

and

Capacity

Building

Organizations are also in partnership list of Save the Children Norway (Partnership Strategy 2007 – 2009, Save the Children Norway, p.6). The formal documents required for partners are Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Partnership Agreement, Service Contract, Terms of Reference, and Agreement Contract. Save the Children Norway provides funds and capacity building and works together based on joint vision and trust. An ideal partner of Save the Children Norway in Cambodia has close fit in values and purpose together with efficient implementation capacity to create positive changes in children’s lives. In addition, Save the Children Norway in Cambodia also believes in partnership with the Government in order to encourage, support and influence the duty bearers to fulfill, respect and protect the rights of children (Partnership Strategy 2007 – 2009, Save the Children Norway, p.p. 5-8). From 2010 - 2013, Save the Children Norway in Cambodia will be working as partnership with eleven partners (five local NGO partners and six Provincial Education Offices) with nineteen projects. The Five local NGOs are Operation Enfants Du Cambodge (OEC), NGO Committee of the Rights of the Child (NGOCRC), Legal Aid of Cambodia (LAC), Cambodian Children Against Starvation and Violence Association (CCASVA), Cambodian Center for the Protection of Children's Rights (CCPCR), and Minority Organization for Development of Economy (MODE). The other six government partners are Ministry of Education Youth and Sports, Kampong Cham Provincial Education Office, Siem Reap Provincial Education Office, Kampong Chhnang Provincial

Education Office, Preah Vihear Provincial Education Office, and Koh Kong Provincial Education Office (Country Program Quarterly Report, April 30, 2010, Annexe C, p. 28).

2.2.4

Save the Children Norway’s Vision and Mission Save the Children Norway’s vision is a world that respects and values each child,

listens to children and supports their influence, and where all children have hope and opportunity to live a life in freedom and security. The Mission is to strive for children's rights and for a dignified life for the poor and vulnerable both in Norway and in the rest of the world. (Save the Children Norway – Cambodia Handbook, 2009)

2.2.5

Save the Children Norway’s Objectives and Programs The objectives are to fulfill children's rights to education, fulfill children's rights to

protection against violence and sexual abuse, and exploitation, fulfill children's rights to protection against the impact of HIV/AIDS, fulfill the right of children with disabilities to social inclusion, and strengthen the implementation and monitoring of children's rights. The three big programs of Save the Children Norway for being operated in Cambodia are Basic Education, Advocacy and Communication, and Child Protection. (Save the Children Norway – Cambodia Handbook, 2009)

2.2.6

General Ethnical Principles in Save the Children Norway Save the Children Norway fights for children’s rights everywhere – in Norway and

globally. As such, it is important at all times to observe and protect children’s rights in a manner that shows and gives children respect and dignity. Save the Children Norway has a long history of protecting children and their rights in Norway. The principles cited herein are intended to build on SCN’s reputation as a child-oriented, ethically-guided organisation in Norway and internationally. It is 16

therefore not only important, but fully expected that everyone representing SCN in any capacities behave ethically and responsibly when carrying out their duties. The ethical principles cited below are divided into two categories - (1) mandatory, and (2) guiding. “Mandatory Principles” are to be observed at all times. Their violations are grounds for immediate discipline/termination. “Guiding Principles” are also to be observed at all times, recognizing that sometimes-local contexts and situations-at-hand may determine extent of practice possible. (Save the Children Norway – Cambodia Handbook, 2003, p. 1)

2.2.7

Objectives for Human Resources for 2010 The following are the main management and operational objectives in Country

Program Annual Plan and Budget Year 2010 (Country Programme Plan 2010, SCNiC, 2009, p.3): 

Build a learning organization: SCNiC becomes a center of learning, working creatively with partners to generate and share innovative practices, knowledge and wisdom that will contribute to change for children.



Financial management: Promote an effective, accurate and very transparent financial management system for SCNiC.



Stronger funding base: Increase the country program fundraising capacity for scaling up or expansion.



Human resource: -

SCNiC has a strong organizational culture rooted in the values of the learning organization

SCNiC staff and partners have improved their level of understanding on result-based planning and reporting



Experience and lessons learned are documented and shared.

Advocacy: Together with other child rights organizations and children, SCNiC is a strong and clear voice for children. The RGC and other duty bearers listen and act.



Communication: SCNiC plays active role in disseminating information on children’s issues.

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1

Research Design As the research model is to study about strategic human resources management

(SHRM) of Save the Children Norway in Cambodia (SCNiC), this research will describe what SHRM is and point out if the Strategic HRM is effective and useful or not for the organization in achieving business objectives or overall goal. According to Shaista E. Khilji and Xiaoyoun Wang (2006)3, they stated that Intended HRM is the practices formulated by policy-makers whereas Implemented HRM is the practices operationalized in organizations and experienced by employee. Shaista E. Khilji and Xiaoyoun Wang found that many organizations do not properly implement HR practices. For example, employees from nine different organizations (low or medium on implementation) do not know about HR policies is being pursued or they even criticized a weak implementation in HR practices. Therefore, HR departments and managers must demonstrate their commitment by supporting the implementation and unless intended HRM is consistent with implementation. (p. p. 1172 – 1181)

3.2

Data Analysis Method The researcher used a qualitative analysis method to analyze the data from the

interviews with top management officials in Save the Children, and relevant documents by using a descriptive study to describe and interpret the results based on the researcher’s concept and experience on the independent variables and dependent variable. As this research is not quantitative, there will be no any charts such as bar 3

‘Intended’ and ‘implemented’ HRM: the missing linchpin in strategic human resource management research, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17:7 July 2006 1171 – 1189

chart, pie chart or column to interpret the data for the research findings. However, the researcher used a table to summarize the findings at the Research Findings and Discussion Chapter.

3.3

Research Model The researcher used the XY Model to study on the topic entitled â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Human

Resource Policy and Implementation of Save the Children Norway in Cambodiaâ&#x20AC;? and to see how the human resource policy and its implementation would affect the service delivery that NGO partners provide to children.

Dependent Variable (Output) Effective and Efficient Service

Delivery

Respondents Parents, Children, Top Management

3.3.1

Independent

Variable 1

Variable 2

Variable 3

HR Policy

The Human Capital

The Culture

Independent Variables and Dependent Variable The researcher defined that the human capital of employee such as their

education, training, ages, genders, the HR policy of SCN and the partners, and culture

are the Independent Variables while the Dependent Variable is effective and efficient service delivery to the children.

3.3.2 

Populations One project staff of Local NGO partner (OEC) and one authority, the Chef Village, based in the Commune Council



Twenty recipients (parents of children) in the Commune Meeting at the Commune Council Office and ten recipients of the five target villages where OEC is working with



Five disabled children who received direct services from OEC



Five staff of Save the Children Norway ranking from top levels to managing levels

3.3.3

Samples Ranking from the top management level to the line management level, there are

eleven (11) staff leading and managing the whole organization of Save the Children Norway in Cambodia. The interview was based on the selection of person whose works are more directly working with the NGO partners. Hence, the people selected for the interviews are Country Director, Program Director, Finance Manager, Human Resources and Administration Manager, and Child Protection Program Manager.

3.4

Sampling Design The researcher used formula of Taro Yamane (1967) to calculate the sample

size below. A 90 percent confidence level and precision level (P) = 0.7 are assumed for this equation.

N n

= 1 + N (e)²

Where n is the sample size, N is the population size (32), and e is the sampling error (0.07). This formula was applied and the results of the sample size are as below:

N n

32 n

= 1 + N (e)²

1 + 33 (0.07)²

Therefore, the result of the sample size is 27 (≈ 28), the research was selected the investors 28 to be the respondents in this report.

3.5

Data Collection Method The data collected was divided into two categories – primary and secondary

data. The primary and secondary data and other relevant information are essential keys in interpreting the results. Furthermore, the paper used the secondary data as a bibliographic reference collected from different sources; for example, concerned websites, publications from relevant sectors, Country Program Strategy, Country Program Plan, Assessment of SCN-CO NGO Partnership, Partnership Strategy, Partnership Agreement and Handbook of Save the Children Norway in Cambodia. The information received from the interviews and observation is the primary data. The researcher made appointment with OEC to arrange for the home-based visit in the mentioned target areas by spending two days going and observing the project activities in the villages. While being in these community settings, the researcher made careful, objective notes and record all accounts and observations as field notes in a 22

notebook. Informal conversation and interaction with members of the study population were also important components of the method, were recorded in the notes, and in tape recorder/MPEG-1 or MPEG-2 Audio Layer III (MP3) as much detail as possible. The appointment for the formal face-to-face interviews were made with experienced five staff whose positions are Country Director, Program Director, Child Protection Program Manager, Human Resources/Administration Manager, and Finance Manager. A list of questionnaires with different questions were prepared and sent in advance to the interviewees so they could prepare for the answers during the interview. A good condition tape recorder with some spare battery was well prepared for the interviews. All voice recorded from the interviews was transcribed into the data presentation for research results and discussion. The interviews took about twenty-five minutes to one hour each at Save the Children International office located at address Building #5, Street 242, Sangkat Chaktomuk, Khan Daun Penh, Phnom Penh City.

Table 3-1 Target Areas for Home-Based Visit Province

District

Commune

Villages Pen Prey Tralach

Battambang

Rukkhakiri

Prey Tralach

(Moung Ruessei)

Chong Por Srah Kuy Ta Preat

Source: Adapted from the report of Operations Enfants du Cambodge (2011)

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

4.1

Research Findings

4.1.1

Data Presentation The researcher developed sixty questions for face-to face interviews with the top

management of Save the Children Norway. The interview questions are mixed up and used to probe about human resources policies/management and best practices both with Save the Children organization itself as well as with the partners. Moreover, some questions were used to examine whether Save the Children Norway and the NGO partners follow the country strategy plan throughout the strategic period. Some recorded conversation at the field visits were also presented here.

4.1.1.1 Save the Children Norway and their Overall Strategic Plan According to Country Program Strategy 2010-2014 of Save the Children Norway in Cambodia (SCNiC), the overall goal is “to bring long lasting change in the lives of children particularly the most disadvantaged and vulnerable ones”. The overall strategic aim is “to bring long lasting change in children’s lives through empowering children and parents and strengthening systems and mechanisms in order to monitor and implement the UNCRC, provide access of relevant and quality education for all children, prevent and protect children from exploitation and abuse and provide care and support to children. This aim will be done through strengthening the capacity of communities, children and youth groups, government systems and mechanisms and NGO networks. Save the Children Norway will work with their partners and alliance members and networks to ensure a broad partnership approach for reaching more children.” (p.3)

It was written evidently in the objectives of the Country Program Plan 2011 that, “…in support of the ongoing International Program Unit merging process, consolidating the plans of Save the Children Norway, Australia and Sweden which will have some impact on overall strategy, including focus in thematic areas or geographical areas”. Secondly, Save the Children Norway also stated in their second year of Country Program Plan 2011 that, “…the overall aim of the second year in the implementation of the country strategic plan 2010 – 2014 remained the same even though there had been some changes in the strategic focus based on evaluations and baselines carried out in 2010.” (Country Program Plan, 2011, p.p. 12-13) The Country Director of Save the Children mentioned that, “The strategic goal of the organization developed a few years ago with consultation process based on inputs from Save the Children Norway’s strategy, Save the Children alliance’s strategies and UNICEF’s general strategy plus some assessments on situation of children and made by other international organizations is not measurable. The overall strategy goal is not clear because during the development of Cambodian Program Strategy, there was one big discussion among the Board Member in Oslo to develop a separate Save the Children Norway’s strategy which is different from Save the Children International strategy.” In addition, he said, “I have to confess that, to me it doesn’t really make sense that in the new strategy international it doesn’t make sense for each member to have their own strategies because we have one big international strategy, then why we should have our own strategy? This is what we talk about the Cambodian Program Strategy. I was trying to make Save the Children Norway as strong as possible before merging with Save the Children Australia to prepare for Save the Children International…. So there were different opinions in Norway when we discussed this.” With question on how to measure SMART goals and objectives, the Country Director said, “The objectives of Save the Children Norway may not be SMART 25

(Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timely), they were too general in the past because SCN has been doing the same kinds of works for several years and there were many challenges. So it was hard to measure the success.”

4.1.1.2 The Strategic Plan of OEC and SCN’s Operations According to the written objectives in the Country Program Plan 2011 of SCN, it stated that, “… in support of the ongoing International Program Unit merging process, consolidating the plans of Save the Children Norway, Australia and Sweden which will have some impact on overall strategy, including focus in thematic areas or geographical areas...”. Furthermore, Save the Children Norway also stated in their second year of Country Program Plan 2011 that, “…the overall aim of the second year in the implementation of the country strategic plan 2010 – 2014 remained the same even though there had been some changes in the strategic focus based on evaluations and baselines carried out in 2010.” Moreover, Save the Children Norway in Cambodia set their planned objectives according to the information in baseline study. The Human Resources and Administration Manager (and/or a Senior Management Team member) described that, “Before developing their Country Program Strategy 2010-2014, SCN used baseline to evaluate and to reflect on the need for the four years’ time in the non-thematic and thematic areas. SCN also looks at their own existing resources and their partners’ resources to see what they can do to achieve the results.” In relation to this, the Country Director said, “I do not think that all partners understand their roles and objectives of the project very well because the partners are different in terms of their program/project size and their resources. Moreover, this is not a problem for Save the Children Norway because Save the Children Norway may not understand the partners’ roles and objectives as well.” 26

Having answered to the question how can SCN measure that OEC understand about their vision, mission, goals and objectives, the Child Protection Program Manager of SCN said, “For this point, I don’t know how to measure, but I do observe that OEC attached their vision and mission statement on the wall on the entrance door. Therefore, all staff can see their vision and mission every time they walk in. So, it really inspires. Also during staff meeting, they do the spot check with their staff members by raising the questions about their vision and mission. One more thing, OEC’s staff always wear their blue shirt (uniform) showing their NGO’s logo and status whenever they to go the field work/villages or even during their working time at the office. So this can tell how they know about their vision and mission.”

4.1.1.3 Human Resource Policies The Human Resource Policy for Save the Children Norway (SCN) approved in March 2007 and documented in the Handbook is a governance document that provides guidance on how to handle Human Resources related issues in Save the Children Norway. The policy outlines overall governing principles applicable to the entire organization. Save the Children Norway’s Human Resources Policy defines the governing principles as Organizational Values and Leadership, Recruitment, Learning and Professional Development, Work-Life Balance and Non-Discrimination, Health and Safety, Remuneration, and Personnel Administration/Management. Furthermore, the handbook outlines details of Overall principles for personnel management, Categories of positions in program countries, Guidelines for the terms and conditions of employment of national staff, Terms and conditions of employment of international and seconded staff, Ethical principles in SCN, Internal travels expenses and allowances, Safety and preparedness, Documents and Mail management, Filling key and filing, Library and IT best practice. This Human Resource policy is used for the implementation through 27

procedures and local guidelines. It varies according to the needs of each unit and Head Office requirements (Program Handbook, Human Resource Policy for Save the Children Norway, 2007, p. 1). The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Save the Children Norway has the overall responsibility for HR Policy. Responsibility for implementation and compliance with the Save the Children human resources policy follows SCN’s chain of command which requires country programs Country Directors to be responsible for monitoring the local HR policy. Heads of departments are responsible for compliance with the SCN HR Policy within their respective departments at head office. The Head Office Personnel Manager is responsible for ensuring uniform implementation of the SCN HR policy throughout the organization, ensuring that systems for local monitoring is in place, reporting of non-compliance with the SCN Human Resources policy to the Head Office CEO, and proposing adjustments and revision of the HR policy (Program Handbook, Human Resource Policy for Save the Children Norway, 2007, p.p. 7-8). In addition to the HR policy, Save the Children Norway in Cambodia also developed their own country specific HR policy to be used in the country program office for all SCN staff in Cambodia. The HR policy covers Organizational Development, Personnel Management, Job Descriptions, Terms and Conditions of Employment for National Staff, Staff Performance Appraisal, Travel and Subsistence Allowances, Acting Procedure, Selection Procedure for Consultant, Overtime Compensation, and Staff Promotion (Save the Children Norway in Cambodia Handbook).

4.1.1.4 HR Policies Follow Best Practices and the Strategic Plans for the Overall Organization Based on the interviews with the HR Manager related to human resource policy of Save the Children Norway, he said that, “SCN does have Human Resource Policy – 28

both a global HR policy and a country specific one. For OEC’s I dare not say anything about this. I am not sure about OEC’s HR policy whether they have it or not. The OEC or responsible person who works directly with OEC should be asked this question, not me. To some extent, I think that OEC may have their own human resource policy or they might copy the policy from SCN HR policy to use as their own. One more thing is that I dare not answer this question because we cannot force or tell OEC to align their HR policy with our policy… so I cannot answer this question.” Besides that, the Child Protection Program Manager provided the answers for both HR policy of SCN and OEC by stating that, “Currently there is no HR policy used in Save the Children Norway. Hence, the OEC partner also does not have their HR policy. Therefore, there is nothing to say. OEC itself does not have its own Human Resource Plan. So, we cannot say anything about Human Resource Management. For example, OEC did not even have a proper Employment contract for their staff before. They set only six months for employment contract. But it is changed now form six month to a one year duration contract.” In addition, the response related to strategy development through strengthening institutions, staff training and improving management capacity of the partner, CPP Manager mentioned that, “Save the Children Norway has conducted workshops to help partners to develop their own strategies. In addition, there are three channels to help them develop strategy. SCN organizes in-home training (at SCN’s office), trains them to do the strategic plan/development, or program design. However, SCN invites only Directors and Program Directors who have high level of management. Secondly, when SCN conducts the quarterly update meeting, partner staff is asked to bring their own draft together and share knowledge, give consultation and follow up during quarterly meetings. Not only SCN alone gives input to one partner (OEC), but other partners of SCN also give input. Last channel, when we do monitoring we will provide more 29

consultation to them. So, Save the Children Norway helps them through these three channels.” Being asked with the question about how HRM follows SCN’s strategic plans, the HR Manager answered, “It is a must that Save the Children Norway has to follow the strategic plans because Save the Children Norway is a value-driven, child rights based organization. We take information from baseline survey to put into our programs. …. We do strategic plan based mainly on the thematic areas. We look at implementation capacities in SCN and OEC (our partners). We look at the focal points in thematic program and plan for the future. Our partner, OEC, has to follow SCN’s strategic plans. If they don’t follow and their strategic plan is not aligned with ours, we don’t accept them as partner.”

4.1.1.5 Save the Children Norway and their HR Monitoring on their Partner In the plans of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), Save the Children Norway in Cambodia planned for a consultative process to better ensure the full participation and cooperation of all stakeholders while assisting to develop partner’s M&E functions. The SCNiC planned to assess and measure the capacity of the partners to ensure the monitoring systems are in place and are aligned with the results framework. They also planned to strengthen financial monitoring tools across all projects to avoid corruption and fraud and to ensure the effective use of resources. Furthermore, to maximize the effectiveness of M&E, SCNiC and partners planned to ensure that goals and objectives are SMART. They, Save the Children Norway in Cambodia, planned to utilize the resultbased monitoring system based on the model of the linked hierarchy from inputs to outcomes and ultimately impacts/change in children’s lives. Finally, SCNiC planned to apply regular system with end of project review and assessment of partnership in order

to assess impacts and promote mutual learning (Country Program Strategy 2010-2014, SCNiC, 2009, p.28). The NGO partner (Operation Enfants du Cambodge) is monitored through visits and follow-ups by the Child Protection Programs Section of Save the Children Norway based in Phnom Penh. Some staff of Save the Children Norway visits the project one time per every three months. During the visits, comments or suggestions for improvement in the field are given. In addition, Save the Children Norway does the supervision visits and monitoring visits with partners and beneficiaries to ensure the service delivery to children. Save the Children Norway helps OEC partner develop their strategy through staff training, workshops, and in-home training. This all was told by Child Protection Program Manager. In term of monitoring capacity of partners with the question, “How do you monitor the capacity of partners?" The Country Director told that, “I don’t really monitor the capacity of the partners. However we have program staff working with the partners. The program staff will report to their Line Manager. … It is not my job. So as long as I know I can trust them they are doing good work, that’s fine.” Another response from related to Capacity Building into partnership the Country Director was that, “I am accountable for the resources I invested in partnership and the other relevant people are responsible for the work they produced. I delegate the work to Child Protection Program Manager.” He also added that, “Save the Children Norway uses different tools to select partners such as Partnership Agreement and Plan. Save the Children Norway also sets some fundamental criteria when assessing partners. Both parties have an agreement for resources to implement the project. Also, Save the Children Norway monitors their partners in many different ways to see the outcomes.” Other related points in relation to monitoring and practices of HR policy in OEC, HR Manager confirmed that, “SCN does not force OEC to follow SCN’s HR policy for 31

their project implementation. SCN does not interfere in OEC’s work because SCN wants to keep a good relationship with them. Still SCN usually sends their staff to monitor their partners when they need technical support. For example, SCN staff member will join in the process of recruitment and selection with OEC to select the right candidates for the projects.” According to the Finance Manager of Save the Children Norway, he gave information that, “Save the Children Norway trusts their partners a hundred per cent (100%) for the implementation of the projects funded by SCN. The project holder is accountable for the whole capacity building, operation and project implementation of their partners. This means that SCN has to build their partner capacity when needed. Any mistake made by partners, the project holder is responsible and accountable.” Through recorded conversation with the Social Worker while travelling to Battambang province for home-based visit, Mr So Sophay – Program Officer and Social Worker of OEC, it is noticed and observed that OEC program staff especially project implementers do not have enough time working alone in the field for the whole year time. The Social Worker also admitted that it took him very long time visiting and working in the twenty targeted villages alone; and at the same time he has to produce the report regularly to the Program Managers at OEC and to the Project Holder at Save the Children Norway as well.

4.1.2

Data Analysis The data analysis provides the result of the personal analysis and the discussion

of the findings based on the primary data collected from the field based observation, key informant interviews, and the secondary data collected from related documents such as Country Program Strategy, Country Program Plan, Assessment of SCN-CO NGO Partnership, Partnership Strategy, Partnership Agreement and Handbook of Save the 32

Children in Cambodia. The analysis focused primarily on four main questions, reflecting to the four points presented in the data presentation part such as Strategic Plans for the Overall Organization, Strategic Plans for the Save the Children Norway and for the Partners, Human Resource Policies, and How Save the Children Norway Monitors their Human Resources. Hence, the four main questions are following: 1. Does Save the Children Norway follow the overall strategic plan? 2. Does Operations Enfants du Cambodge follow the strategic plans of the overall organization and/or the Save the Children Norway operations? 3. Do the Human Resources policies follow best practices and the strategic plans for the overall organization? 4. Does Save the Children Norway monitor the human resources of the partner?

These questions were used to find out what Save the Children Norway has been doing and compare the findings with what they are saying about their strategy and human resources policies and human resources best practices for the overall organization as well as for their partners.

4.2

Research Discussion There will be discussion on each questions based on the data gathered from

face-to-face interviews with key people at Save the Children Norway in Cambodia. Some important and real information recorded from informal conversation with OEC staff will also be interpreted and analyzed. This part will also evaluate the four questions (Does Save the Children Norway follow the overall strategic plan? Does Operations Enfants du Cambodge follow the strategic plans of the overall organization and/or the Save the Children Norway operations? Do the Human Resources policies follow best practices and the strategic 33

plans for the overall organization? Does Save the Children Norway monitor the human resources of the partner?). The data are about management’s strategic plan, human resources policies and human resources best practices for the overall organization as well as for the partners.

4.2.1

Does Save the Children Norway Follow the Overall Strategic Plan? Save the Children Norway’s full statement of overall goal and aim is “to bring

long lasting change in the lives of children particularly the most disadvantaged and vulnerable ones through empowering children and parents and strengthening systems and mechanisms in order to monitor and implement the UNCRC, provide access of relevant and quality education for all children, prevent and protect children from exploitation and abuse and provided care and support to children.” In order to achieve this aim, Save the Children Norway works with partnership by strengthening the capacity of the communities, children and youth groups, government as well as NGO networks. Save the Children Norway uses a consultative process to ensure the full participation and cooperation of all stakeholders while developing partner’s monitoring and evaluation functions because it can ensure that monitoring systems are in place and are aligned with the results framework. The statement of ‘long-lasting change in the lives of children’ is quite broad. It is extremely difficult to measure the long-lasting change. It is not feasible to estimate how long the children can live with the change, what change is to be measured and how to measure. Moreover, the word ‘change’ itself is somehow quite abstract to measure and see in children’s lives. To have a long lasting change for children, it is a bit hard to have a measurable long lasting change for the target children when it is not stated specific enough about how long the change is going to be changed. The change could be more than four years or even longer than ten years or twenty years, or even more. In addition, 34

it is not very specific about what types of change they want to make and see for the children lives in specific period and by how to obtain it successfully. The other thing related to the strategic goal is that they want each child to have a quality education, but for some reasons this is not easy to achieve. It should be defined well about what quality education is meant for children. There should have been a detailed guideline for quality measurement and assurance to measure the quality of education. For example, the quality education is identified and undertaken by the quality measurement through hours of instruction or test score by the Accreditation Committee of Cambodia. In addition, there should have been some selected criteria for monitoring the quality. Also, there might be uncountable numbers of disadvantaged and vulnerable children living in Cambodia. It is doubted that how children and their parents can be empowered to receive the long lasting change through strengthening the capacity of communities, children and youth groups, government systems and mechanisms and NGO networks. Normally, children and parents are grouped and targeted as beneficiaries who directly receive the services. To some extent, these children with disabilities and vulnerabilities are already victims who need support from the people who were given empowerment to make the projects successful. Similarly, the ‘strengthening systems and mechanisms’ is another concerned statement revealing the vague aims. To strengthen the systems and mechanisms, Save the Children Norway needs to have a realistic enough plan. However, in what way that Save the Children Norway can strengthen the systems and mechanisms with UNCRC while the plan was unrealistic. Another statement in the overall goal itself states obviously about the disorder use of the word monitor and implement “… in order to monitor and implement the UNCRC…” In practice, when we have a clear goal we usually do planning, 35

implementing, then monitoring and evaluation at the end. Then, the order of wording which is supposed to be ‘to implement and to monitor’ the UNCRC, not ‘to monitor and implement’ the UNCRC, was not correctly used by its order. According to the Logistics Clusters – WFP, 2000 – 2012, it was defined that the Planning Cycle starts from (1) Logistic assessment, (2) Review assessment results against program needs, (3) Plan, (4) Review plans against intended outcomes, (5) Implement, (6) Monitoring, (7) Evaluation, (8) Exit strategy. Thus, if the plan was not implemented, there is nothing to be monitored and evaluated for the activities/results/outcome/impact. Next, the phrase of ‘prevent and protect children from exploitation and abuse’ in the aim is also uncertain in its meaning. It is not known whether how many children to be prevented and to be protected from exploitation and abuse. Then, how many children so far have been prevented and protected from these abuses? The Child Protection Program Manager and others should have known this terminology and these five types of abuse very well as Save the Children Norway or Save the Children International is the Child Safe organization. Then why was this term used differently from the word ‘abuse’ in the aim while exploitation is the part of abuse? In addition, according to monitoring and evaluation plan, Save the Children Norway with their partners planned to ensure that the goals and objectives are SMART. This means that the goals and the objectives of Save the Children Norway are already not SMART in place. Based on data gathered from face-to-face interview with Country Director of SCN, ‘The strategic goal of the organization developed a few years ago with consultation process based on inputs from Save the Children Norway’s strategy, Save the Children alliance’s strategies and UNICEF’s general strategy plus some assessments on situation of children and made by other international organizations is not measurable. The overall strategy goal is not clear because during the development of Cambodian Program 36

Strategy, there was one big discussion among the Board Member in Oslo to develop a separate Save the Children Norway’s strategy which is different from Save the Children International strategy.’, said Country Director. In addition, he said, ‘I have to confess that, to me it doesn’t really make sense that in the new strategy international it doesn’t make sense for each member to have their own strategies because we have one big international strategy, then why we should have our own strategy? This is what we talk about the Cambodian Program Strategy. I was trying to make Save the Children Norway as strong as possible before merging with Save the Children Australia to prepare for Save the Children International…. So there were different opinions in Norway when we discussed this.’ With question on how to measure SMART goals and objectives, the Country Director said, ‘The objectives of Save the Children Norway may not be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timely), they were too general in the past because SCN has been doing the same kinds of works for several years and there were many challenges. So it was hard to measure the success.’ Furthermore, the Country Director seemed really care more about the future plans for SCN staff that might lose their jobs to have them all well prepared for the new organization. The interviews with the Country Director and the analysis on each word in the strategy, even though some strategies are SMART, but when the top leader is not clear about their own strategies and plans, the whole organization may be unclear about what to do with their strategies and plans. With these cases, it is more likely affected to the goal as a whole, especially when implementing the project. In addition, the SMART goal and objectives are foundation of achieving the successes. Having recognized that SMART strategy can affect the actual implementation or the strategic plan can affect the results of the operational plan, the organization should have SMART strategy, which covers SMART goals, objectives and plans. The SMART strategy could be done through 37

SMART goal in all areas; and there should be an effective guideline for the objectives outlined in the strategy in order that the accountability is in place. Therefore, it is a bit reluctant to say that SCN follows their overall strategic plan. Finally, the Country Program Strategy 2010 – 2014 developed for four years period may no longer be used for the rest of the years after the merging of the two organizations (Save the Children Norway and Save the Children Australia) according to what the Country Director had mentioned in the formal interviews.

4.2.2

Does OEC Follow the Strategic Plans of the Overall Organization and/or Follow the Save the Children Norway Operations? In the first two years of Country Program Plan in 2010 and 2011, Save the

Children Norway and their partners agreed to work together to achieve different results. In the planned objectives, it was not stated any specific name of the partners who were expected to implement the plans. There were many points set to achieve in the plans related to Education, Health, Advocacy, Child Protection, Humanitarian, Funding Base, Human Resources (capacity building in SCNiC and partner’s staff), Financial Management, Communications, and IPU Merging Process (in consolidation of the plans of Save the Children Norway, Australia and Sweden). According to the written objectives in the Country Program Plan 2011, it stated that, ‘… in support of the ongoing International Program Unit merging process, consolidating the plans of Save the Children Norway, Australia and Sweden which will have some impact on overall strategy, including focus in thematic areas or geographical areas...’. From this, it can be assumed that the management decisions varied on the tendency of the unification between the two organizations. Furthermore, Save the Children Norway also stated in their second year of Country Program Plan 2011 that, ‘…the overall aim of the second year in the 38

implementation of the country strategic plan 2010 – 2014 remained the same even though there had been some changes in the strategic focus based on evaluations and baselines carried out in 2010.’ This means that Save the Children Norway started to lose their focus on the strategic planning for the following years. However, Save the Children Norway in Cambodia set their planned objectives according to the information in baseline study. As Human Resources and Administration Manager and/or a Senior Management Team member, he described that before developing their Country Program Strategy 2010-2014, Save the Children Norway uses baseline to evaluate and to reflect on the need for the four years’ time in the nonthematic and thematic areas. This means that during the development of operational plans, SCN also looks at their own existing resources and their partners’ resources to see what they can do to achieve the results. In contrast to the information gathered from HR/Admin Manager, the Country Director said, ‘I do not think that all partners understand their roles and objectives of the project very well because the partners are different in terms of their program/project size and their resources. Moreover, this is not a problem for Save the Children Norway because Save the Children Norway may not understand the partners’ roles and objectives as well.’ Having answered to the question how can SCN measure that OEC understand about their vision, mission, goals and objectives, the Child Protection Program Manager of SCN said that, ‘For this point, I don’t know how to measure, but I do observe that OEC attached their vision and mission statement on the wall on the entrance door. Therefore, all staff can see their vision and mission every time they walk in. So, it really inspires. Also during staff meeting, they do the spot check with their staff members by raising the questions about their vision and mission. One more thing, OEC’s staff always wear their blue shirt (uniform) showing their NGO’s logo and status whenever they to go the field 39

work/villages or even during their working time at the office. So this can tell how they know about their vision and mission.’ Having said so, this can express that SCN does not really care about how OEC understand their vision, mission, goals and objectives. It might not be enough to just observe and conclude that partners understand their work, roles, and responsibilities well. This also does not mean that partners follow SCN’s Strategic Plans and Operations. The OEC partner does not know about their roles and objectives of the project they have been implementing very well as Save the Children themselves as the parent organization does not know it as well, said the Country Director. Measuring how much OEC understand about their own vision, mission, goals and objectives was not possible to do so as the CPP Manager who works closely and directly with the NGO partners said she does not know how to measure, besides do observation. Then, the strategic plan of Save the Children Norway was not used wisely within both SCN and OEC. From the beginning, it sounds that SCN and OEC understand each other very well in achieving the results set in the agreement and their plans. However, the responses gathered from HR and Admin Manager, Child Protection Program Manager, and Country Director show uncertainty and conflict. All of the three said as if they do not really know OEC (their partner) very well. More remarkably, the Country Director of Save the Children Norway seems to be very peaceful and not to be very aware of what has been going on related to the roles and the objectives of the projects, which partners are implementing in the field. In addition, it is not precisely known whether the partners’ roles and objectives are aligned with Save the Children Norway or not. Hence, it can be said that Save the Children Norway’s partners, for example, OEC do not truly follow the strategic plans of the overall organization and operational plan of Save the Children Norway. 40

4.2.3

Do the HR Policies Follow Best Practices and the Strategic Plans for the Overall Organization? The global Human Resources policies of Save the Children Norway look good

and standardized compared to the HR policies of other organizations since it covers many good parts such as governing principles usable in the organization and can be extended or adopted by their NGO partners in order to be used in handling the HR related issues. However, the country specific HR policy has different structures and does not follow most of the principles as the global one. Save the Children Norway in Cambodia does not integrate their HR policy especially the key roles of human resources into the strategic plans. For example, the Country Programme Strategy 2010 – 2014 and the Country Programme plans for 2010 and for 2011 mainly focus about thematic programs, but not human resources area. More importantly, they even pay very little attention to the HR policy of their partners. Therefore, the country specific HR policies are not as good as the global HR policies so it still needs a lot more improvement. The HR policies were not integrated and focused in strategic plans especially in the thematic programs. It is unclear and mixed up whether the HR Management of SCN follows SCN’s strategic plans or not with the response getting from HR Manager. The answer of HR Manager to the question related to human resource policy of Save the Children Norway is very positive, but his answer related to the HR policy of OEC is opposite. He did not give much explanation for this part. So this is a bit difficult to analyse the best practices of HR policy for the overall organization as a whole. The HR/Admin Manager said, “SCN does have Human Resource Policy – both a global HR policy and a country specific one. For OEC’s I dare not say anything about this. I am not sure about OEC’s HR policy whether they have it or not. The OEC or responsible person who works directly with OEC should be asked this question, not me. To some extent, I 41

think that OEC may have their own human resource policy or they might copy the policy from SCN HR policy to use as their own. One more thing is that I dare not answer this question because we cannot force or tell OEC to align their HR policy with our policy… so I cannot answer this question.” According to the Country Program Annual Plan and Budget 2010, Save the Children Norway covered human resource part in their plan objectives for a strong organizational culture rooted in the values of the learning organization for their staff and partners to improve the level of understanding on result-based planning and reporting and for the experience and lessons learned. This tells that Save the Children Norway addressed their need for human resource in the HR planning activities, but it is not specific and linked to strategic planning activities. Besides, the HR policy is not following strategic plans because Save the Children Norway admitted their negligence. The other example of human resources planning not following strategic plans is that the HR Manager of Save the Children Norway does not know whether OEC has HR policy for their organization or not as this organization has been working as partnership with Save the Children Norway for a long period. He thinks that the Child Protection Program Manager should know this very well, not him. Besides that, Child Protection Program Manager provided different answer for both HR policy of SCN and OEC by stating that, ‘Currently there is no HR policy used in Save the Children Norway. Hence, the OEC partner also does not have their HR policy. Therefore, there is nothing to say. OEC itself does not have its own Human Resource Plan. So, we cannot say anything about Human Resource Management. For example, OEC did not even have a proper Employment contract for their staff before. They set only six months for employment contract. But it is changed now form six month to a one year duration contract.’

In relation to above evidence, when the program/project owner who is responsible for the overall outcome produced by partners is not so aware of their own organizationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s HR policy, there should be something missing while following the strategic plans for the overall organization. This could also be the root cause which provides negative impact to effective and efficient outcomes from partners when they implement the projects without a clear direction and/or recommendation from the even though the LNGOs are legal entities and independent organizations defined by Save the Children Norway and stated by the HR/Admin Manager. For instance, due to having full freedom and decision making for developing own policies, OEC organization has a vague organizational structure which consists of too many management members who have the same roles and responsibilities, but different knowledge. The OEC organization also has a limited capacity of human resource management because there is no system in the organization. For example, the Operations Enfants du Cambodge has just had a better and proper staff employment contract compared to last few years. This was observed and said by Child Protection Program Manager. The response related to strategy development through strengthening institutions, staff training and improving management capacity of the partner, CPP Manager mentioned that, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Save the Children Norway has conducted workshops to help partners to develop their own strategies. In addition, there are three channels to help them develop strategy. SCN organizes in-home training (at SCNâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s office), trains them to do the strategic plan/development, or program design. However, SCN invites only Directors and Program Directors who have high level of management. Secondly, when SCN conducts the quarterly update meeting, partner staff is asked to bring their own draft together and share knowledge, give consultation and follow up during quarterly meetings. Not only SCN alone gives input to one partner (OEC), but other partners of SCN also give input.

Last channel, when we do monitoring we will provide more consultation to them. So, Save the Children Norway helps them through these three channels.’ More importantly, the HR and Admin Manager did not provide a satisfactory answer during interview to the point of how human resource management (HRM) follows Save the Children Norway’s strategic plans. His answer is more about the roles of HRM and what HRM does in the strategic plans. He described mostly about what Save the Children Norway must do and follow based on baseline study and survey. Then, it is clearer that if the NGO partners do not follow their strategic plans and the plans are not aligned with Save the Children Norway’s strategic plans, the partners will normally meet the difficulty in future funding. Asking with the question about how HRM follows SCN’s strategic plans, HR Manager answered, ‘It is a must that Save the Children Norway has to follow the strategic plans because Save the Children Norway is a value-driven, child rights based organization. We take information from baseline survey to put into our programs. …. We do strategic plan based mainly on the thematic areas. We look at implementation capacities in SCN and OEC (our partners). We look at the focal points in thematic program and plan for the future. Our partner, OEC, has to follow SCN’s strategic plans. If they don’t follow and their strategic plan is not aligned with ours, we don’t accept them as partner.’ Having full and completed outline and format is the initial stage of developing a clear human resources policy. The HR policies follow best practices for the overall organization or not depend on the clear outline and its relevant and comprehensive information. The information received from the two managers should be assumed that the human resource policy of Save the Children Norway does not follow best practices for the overall organization. The other reason behind this could be the policy itself does

not state very clearly about when to do the new policies orientation to staff so that the policy are spread wisely not only within the organization, but only across the partners. Moreover, based on the response from HR Manager and CPP Manager, it was found that there is no HR policy in place at OEC â&#x20AC;&#x201C; NGO partner. Therefore, poor HR practices happen in NGO partner. For example, OEC does not have a proper employment contract â&#x20AC;&#x201C; only six-month duration for a fix term contract for all staff. Without an HR policy, OEC with full authorization in decision-making and variety of choices was not encouraged and reinforced to use SCNâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s HR policy when the CPP Manager does not know that SCN has their own HR policies, both global one and the country office one. Hence, Save the Children Norway has lost their control on disseminating their HR policies within the organization and does not have a good human resource management and share their policies with partners. In short, it is revealed that it is the requirement that HR policies must comply with the strategic plans for the overall organization so that those policies can support the programs to achieve the results according to plans. Since it is not identified clearly to assess how human resource management follows the strategic plans, the HR policies of Save the Children Norway may not follow their strategic plans. And it is not only that the HR policies do not follow the strategic plans, but also the plans are not SMART, which cannot identify clear roles and need of the HR management for the organization. This apparently causes some problems to service deliveries to children provided by partner as working in partnership with Save the Children Norway.

4.2.4

Does Save the Children Norway Monitor the HR of the Partners? The NGO partner (Operation Enfants du Cambodge) is monitored through visits

and follow-ups by the Child Protection Programs Section of Save the Children Norway based in Phnom Penh. Some staff of Save the Children Norway visits the project one 45

time per every three months. During the visits, comments or suggestions for improvement in the field are given. In addition, Save the Children Norway does the supervision visits and monitoring visits with partners and beneficiaries to ensure the service delivery to children. Save the Children Norway helps OEC partner develop their strategy through staff training, workshops, and in-home training. This all was told by Child Protection Program Manager. In term of monitoring capacity of partners with the question “How do you monitor the capacity of partners?" The Country Director told that, ‘I don’t really monitor the capacity of the partners. However we have program staff working with the partners. The program staff will report to their Line Manager. … It is not my job. So as long as I know I can trust them they are doing good work, that’s fine.’ Personally, he himself does not like the word ‘Capacity Problem’ because his perspective is that Save the Children Norway enters into partnership only with weak partners that need capacity development for their organization. Having assessed the capacity of partners, it is a part of Human Resource Management. Not so different from giving a response to the question related to Capacity Building into partnership, the accountability for the resources in partnership is ‘I am accountable for the resources I invested in partnership and the other relevant people are responsible for the work they produced. I delegate the work to Child Protection Program Manager.’, said Country Director. He added that Save the Children Norway uses different tools to select partners such as Partnership Agreement and Plan. Save the Children Norway also sets some fundamental criteria when assessing partners. Both parties have an agreement for resources to implement the project. Also, Save the Children Norway monitors their partners in many different ways to see the outcomes. Other related points in relation to monitoring and practices of HR policy in OEC, HR Manager confirmed that Save the Children Norway does not force OEC to follow 46

SCN’s HR policy for their project implementation. SCN does not interfere in OEC’s work because SCN wants to keep a good relationship with them. Still SCN usually sends their staff to monitor their partners when they need technical support. For example, SCN staff member will join in the process of recruitment and selection with OEC to select the right candidates for the projects. According to Finance Manager of SCN, he gave information that Save the Children Norway trusts their partners a hundred per cent (100%) for the implementation of the projects funded by SCN. The project holder is accountable for the whole capacity building, operation and project implementation of their partners. This means that SCN has to build their partner capacity when needed. Any mistake made by partners, the project holder is responsible and accountable. However, what HR/Admin Manager said is not completely reasonable because if the partner is strong enough in recruitment skills as well as developing their own recruitment policy, then SCN does not have to send their staff to monitor the process and provide the technical support as needed. It also contradicts that SCN does not want to interfere in partner’s work, then whey SCN has to get their staff involved in the recruitment process and other technical support. Through recorded conversation with the Social Worker while travelling to Battambang province for home-based visit, Mr So Sophay – Program Officer and Social Worker of OEC, it is noticed and observed that OEC program staff especially project implementers do not have enough time working alone in the field for the whole year time. The Social Worker also admitted that it took him very long time visiting and working in the twenty targeted villages alone; and at the same time he has to produce the report regularly to the Program Managers at OEC and to the Project Holder at Save the Children Norway as well. The reasons behind this complain can be because of the Social Worker himself does not have enough time implementing the tasks or it can be because his report writing skills still needs further improvement. 47

This can be presumed that SCN trusts their partners and primarily believes in the partnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; quarterly reports on the outcomes they produced. Though SCN seems to monitor the outcomes produced by partners, but the quality assurance is still in limitation to some extent because the project staff does not have enough time and feels happy with what he is doing for beneficiaries. Also, if the SCN human resource policies do not follow the strategic plans for the overall organization, it is not easy to measure their partnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; results oriented against the outcomes. And the Country Director does not want to work with strong partners to deliver the services to the children. So, it could be understood that SCN does not pay attention to monitoring the human resources of their partner. It is also suspected that SCN does not really provide full support in capacity building to their partners, especially partner staff who implement SCN project directly. In addition, SCN may not really monitor the HR policy used within OEC to improve the outcome of the project. Another factor is that Save the Children Norway claimed that they do not interfere with partnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; work, meaning that their partners must have enough capacity to implement the project. Still the social worker said he does not have enough time to go out to the field. With monitoring the good practices of HR policy at OEC, Save the Children Norway does not help much. They help only when OEC asks for technical support such as recruitment and selection process. Furthermore, Save the Children Norway trusts their partner a hundred percent that OEC is accountable for everything including staff capacity building, project operation and project implementation. In addition, there are only three approaches Save the Children Norway helps their partner to develop the strategy. They are staff training, workshops and in-home training. Therefore, monitoring and evaluation conducted by SCN has no systematic overall monitoring. 48

4.3

Summary of Research Findings

Table 4-1 Summary of Research Findings Questions

Findings

Does Save the Children

 Using unclear words in the overall goal and aim statement It is a bit reluctant to say that SCN

Norway (SCN) follow the overall strategic plan?

Conclusion

follows their overall strategic plan

such as: -

Unspecific duration for a long lasting change in the lives of children for four-year plan

Unmeasurable quality education

Unmeasurable good quantity and quality of most disadvantaged and vulnerable children

Unrealistic plan for strengthening the systems and mechanisms with UNCRC

Disorder usage of the word “monitor” following by “implement”

Questions

Findings -

Conclusion Unknown numbers of children who need prevention and protection from abuse

 The confusion and disagreement occurred among the Board Members when developing the Cambodian Program Strategy at global level  The Country Director of SCN in Cambodia country office confessed that the overall strategic goal is not clear and unSMART and it was hard to measure the success  The Country Director plays politic in order to help prepare Save the Children Norway as strong as possible for the new organization in the merging process with Save the Children Australia to One Save the Children International

Does Operation Enfants du Cambodge (OEC)

 SCNiC developed the plan and set the criteria before SCN’s partner, i.e. (OEC) does not truly follow the strategic plans of the overall

selecting the partners

Questions

Findings

Conclusion

follow the strategic plans

 The Partnership Agreement points out some specific points organization and operational plan of

of the overall organization

to achieve the results on implementing the project, but still SCN.

and/or the SCN

unclear

operations?

 Save the Children Norway and its Country Office (SCNiC) started to lose their focus on the strategic planning for the following from 2011 onwards  Save the Children themselves as the parent organization does not know the roles of the partner and objectives of the project  The OEC partner does not know about their roles and objectives of the project they have been implementing very well  The OEC does not really understand about their own vision, mission, goals and objectives  The CPP Manager does not know how to measure OEC

Questions

Findings

Conclusion

for the understanding of their vision, mission, goals and objectives  The strategic plan of SCN was not used wisely within both SCN and OEC  The Country Program Strategy developed for four years period may no longer be used for the rest of the years after the merging of the two organizations.

Do the Human Resource policies follow best practices and the strategic plans for the overall organization?

 The country specific HR policies are not as good as the The HR policies of SCN do not follow global HR policies and it still needs a lot more improvement

best practices for the overall

 The HR policies were not integrated and focused in organization. strategic plans especially in the thematic programs  It is unclear and mixed up whether the HR Management of SCN follows SCN’s strategic plans or not  There is no HR policy used at OEC – NGO partner

Questions

Findings

Conclusion

 Poor HR practices happen at OEC  OEC was not encouraged and reinforced to use SCN’s HR policy  CPP Manager does not know that SCN has HR policies – both global and country specific  Save the Children Norway has lost their control on disseminating their HR policies within the organization and does not have a good human resource management and share their policies with partners.

Does Save the Children Norway monitor the Human Resources of the partner?

 Save the Children Norway monitors their NGO partner

SCN does not pay attention to monitoring the human resources of

(OEC) quarterly

 The program staff of SCN goes out to the field visits to their partner. provide comments and suggestions for improvement areas  The beneficiaries were also visited at the field

Questions

Findings

Conclusion

 There is a limitation in term of monitoring the capacity and accountability of partner  Save the Children Norway does not help much with monitoring the good practices of HR policy at OEC  Save the Children Norway trusts their partner a hundred percent that OEC is accountable for their own staff capacity building, project operation and project implementation  There are only three approaches Save the Children Norway helps their partner to develop the strategy – staff training, workshops and in-home training.

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1

Conclusion Based on research analysis, discussion and findings compared with objectives of

the study and research questions, we can conclude that with the overall strategic plan of Save the Children Norway, there are some confusion and misunderstanding about using the words in the overall goal and aim statement. It is also stated clearly about unSMART goal and some obstacles during the development of Cambodian Program Strategy for the whole organization. Hence, the Country Program Strategy for four years’ time (2010 – 2014) may no longer be using after the merging process. Save the Children Norway works as partnership with OEC NGO to implement the project indirectly by using some tool such as the Partnership Agreement to reassure the quality and the outcome. However, SCN does not have enough energy to make OEC follow the SCN’s strategic plans and the SCN operations for the overall organization since SCN themselves has lost their concentration on how to strengthen and update their plans for a better operations and implementation due to the huge future change for the whole organization. Therefore, that simply affects the operation and implementation of their NGO partners like OEC, for example. The HR policies of Save the Children Norway is in place for use but it still needs some more improvement especially HR policies for Country Specific and for the partners if there is no any policy introduced. In addition, the HR management is not being taken into account for Country Strategic Plan. This HR policy is not wisely introduced and oriented within the organization and with their partners. Therefore, it cannot be said that SCN HR policies follow best practices and align with the strategic plans.

In term of monitoring the Human Resources of the partner since Save the Children Norway trusts their partners a hundred percent and they believe that the partner is responsible and accountable for everything they funded, SCN does not monitor their partner at all. Then, the program staff and the project owner of SCN are happy with what they are doing, give full authority, and delegate all the work to the partner. The same as Human Resources mobilized within the project, SCN does not really care whether OEC (partner) has enough resources with competencies to implement the project or not. Overall, the reflection of being unable to produce the coherent reporting system, being not so good in financial management and implementation level is a matter of human resource development/management, which is the main source of knowledge, skills, experiences and abilities from staff. This is about staff performance. It can also be because of having no capacity building and accountability as mechanism in partnership. In addition, being effective partnership with great achievement/outcomes require human resources development to accelerate other important parts in the plan. The performance can tell about how strong and weak individual is. Therefore, human resource in nonprofit organizations working as partnership is one of useful components, especially the capacity building of NGO partners such as the area of training and development and their human capital (staffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s knowledge, competencies, behaviors, etc.).

5.2

Recommendation It would be better if Save the Children Norway could do some more effort on

setting SMART goals, follow their overall strategy for the organization, set clear goal/objectives, have a better human resources management and plan, and have closer monitoring strategy and effective tools for their partners.

First, the Board Members at the global level should agree with each other on developing the Cambodian Program Strategy, make a clear cut to each country program office and guide them along the way to set their own strategies though there will be a big change for the whole organization. Second, editing and rearranging the statement of overall goal and aim for the country program strategy is the first step. For example, the overall goal statement should be SMART â&#x20AC;&#x153;To bring positive change in the lives of most disadvantaged and vulnerable children living in Siem Reap province through empowering children and parents on the rights to quality education and strengthening systems and mechanisms of UNCRC by end of 2014.â&#x20AC;? Next, if possible when setting the goal, SCN should get their partner to involve if they have any comment on the statement. Both SCN and the partner should sit together to define the same meaning of the overall goal of the organization. To help Operation Enfants du Cambodge (OEC) to follow the strategic plans of the overall organization and the SCN operations, before joining into partnership, Save the Children Norway should adjust by adding some more specific points in their current Partnership Agreement, partner selection criteria, and other tools to select the best partners. For example, adding another Section stating out a Strategic Human Resources Management which covers Human Resource Management Information System, Recruitment and Selection, Learning and Professional Development, Performance Management, Compensations and Benefits, and Human Resources policies. By doing so, SCN themselves need to be very clear about their own Human Resources Management and operations. They should stay focus on their current strategic plan and policies with some flexibility to adapt and change themselves to the new circumstances. Moreover, understanding firmly about the roles and objectives of their partners is also important.

The Human Resource Manual for Country Specific should be improved and updated regularly based on best practices and studies from other organizations at least two years each. Once it is updated, the policies should be introduced and rolled out wisely to all staff and the partner. More importantly, the HR policies should also be integrated in each Country Annual Plan. Then, the focal persons and relevant person should do follow up on the best practices of HR Management and the strategic plans for the overall organization. Lastly, as a parent organization, though the partner already have their own HR policy, SCN should strengthen and check whether the partners are doing the right things at least with an acceptable standard in order to avoid poor HR practices that affect to the effectiveness and efficiency in delivering the services to children. Finally yet importantly, in order to monitor the human resources of the partners with productive outcomes, having gone to the field in every three months is not enough. The Program Staff of SCN should spend some more time on this at least one time a month. Doing some spot checks should also be stated in the Partnership Agreement in order to help activate the program to work run faster as well as to see the loopholes for better improvement. Another important point for monitoring is that having a full trust and confidence on partners is good, but a hundred percent trust is not very realistic. Logically, the possibility and probability of making a mistake still can occur even it is one or two percent. For that reason, SCN should leave some space for that trust and set up an effective monitoring and evaluation tool to measure the quality of HR of their partners.

REFERENCES Abrahamsen, T. (2006).Assessment of SCN-CO NGO partnership [Mr. Iek Thong, thong@scn.online.com.kh]. 02/12/2010. Phnom Penh Ahoy, C. (1998), Strategic Planning, Iowa State University, Facilities New. Retrieved from: http://www.fpm.iastate.edu/worldclass/strategic_planning.asp Backer, T. E (2000), Human interaction research institute. Retrieved from: http://www.nebhands.nebraska.edu/files/Strengthening%20Non-profits.pdf Blagescu, M., de La Casas, L. & Lloyd, R. (2005), Pathways to accountability: The GAP framework: London, One World Trust, Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/management/partnerships/accountability/PathwaysAccountabili tyGAPFramework.pdf Connolly P. & York, P. (2002), Evaluating capacity-building efforts for nonprofit organizations. Retrieved from: http://www.systemsinsync.com/pdfs/EvaluatingCapacity_4B1329.pdf Conzemius, A. (2011), S.M.A.R.T. Goals Workshop, HSIAC National Conference, Retrieved from: http://archives.huduser.org/oup/conferences/presentations/hsiac/2011/HSIAC110202-SMARTgoals.pdf Cooperation Committee for Cambodia (2010), Directory of international nongovernmental organizations in Cambodia: CCC Cooperation Committee for Cambodia (2010), NGO contribution to Cambodiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s development 2004-2009. Retrieved from: http://www.ccc-cambodia.org/downloads /publication/Final%20Report%20NGO%20Contribution%202010.pdf Country Program Quarterly Report, (April 30, 2010), Annexe C, p. 28 De Vita, C. J. & Fleming, C. (2001).Building capacity in nonprofit organizations. The Urban Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/building_capacity.pdf Drucker, P. F. (1990). Managing the non-profit organization. Principles and practices. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Frank, F., & Smith, A. (2000).The partnership handbook. Canada: Human resource development Canada (HRDC). Retrieved from:

http://www.forumpartnerships.zsi.at/attach/TND_00_G_HRDC_Partnership_Hand book.pdf Hemmati, M., & Whitfield, R., (2003).Capacity building for sustainable development partnerships. A template for stakeholders. Retrieved from: http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/preparations/global/capacity%20building.pdf Human Resource Policy for Save the Children Norway (2007), Program Handbook: Save the Children Norway James, R. (1994), Strengthening the capacity of Southern NGO partners. Retrieved from: http://www.intrac.org/data/files/resources/117/OPS-5-Strengthening-theCapacity-of-Southern-NGO-Partners.pdf Jones, G. & Stewart, J. (2009), New development: Accountability in public partnerships The case of local strategic partnerships, Retrieved from: http://www.oneeastmidlands.org.uk/downloads/Accountability%20in%20Local%20 Partnerships.pdf Lawler III, E., & Boudreau, J. (2009). What makes HR a strategic partner? People & strategy, 32(1), 14-22. Retrieved from: Business Source Premier Database Logistics Clusters, WFP, 2000 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2012. Retrieved from: http://log.logcluster.org/response/assessment/index.html McKinsey & Company (2001), Effective capacity building in nonprofit organizations, Prepared for venture philanthropy partners: New York, New York Office Design Center, Retrieved from: http://www.vppartners.org/sites/default/files/reports/full_rpt.pdf Sanyal, P. (2006), Capacity building through partnership: Intermediary nongovernmental organizations as local and global actors, Harvard University, Retrieved from: http://psanyal.faculty.wesleyan.edu/files/2008/09/sanyal_nvsq.pdf Save the Children Norway. (2006). Partnership strategy 2007-2009 [computer software]. Phnom Penh Save the Children Norway in Cambodia. (2009). Country program strategy 2010-2014. Phnom Penh: Save the Children Norway in Cambodia. Save the Children Norway in Cambodia. (2009). Country Programme Plan 2010, Phnom Penh: Save the Children Norway in Cambodia. Save the Children Norway in Cambodia. (2010). Country Programme Plan 2011, Phnom Penh: Save the Children Norway in Cambodia.

Save the Children Norway - Cambodia Office Handbook. (2009). Cambodia Office Handbook (2001 – 2009), Phnom Penh: Save the Children Norway in Cambodia. Shaista, E. K. & Xiaoyun W. (2006). 1171 – 1189. ‘Intended’ and ‘implemented’ HRM: the missing linchpin in strategic human resource management research, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17:7 July 2006 1171 – 1189 The Asian Foundation (2008).Project list 2008.U.S. Administer program. Retrieved from: http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fasiafoundation.org%2Fpublication s%2Fforcedownload.php%3Ff%3D%252Fresources%252Fpdfs%252FProjectList2008.pdf&s a=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNE8gkV9bJNAhUXtjDQ5q6S6ig5Apg Tilt, C. A. (2006).Considering NGO accountability: A note of caution, Australian and New Zealand: Navigating New Waters, Retrieved from: http://www.socsci.flinders.edu.au/fippm/ANZTSR%20Conf%20Proceedings/confer ence%20files/Tilt.pdf UNEP (2002), Capacity building for sustainable development: An Overview of UNEP environmental capacity developmental capacity development initiatives. Retrieved from: http://www.unep.org/Pdf/Capacity_building.pdf Vantha, T., Rattana, H., &Chane, N., (2005).An evaluation of the capacity building program of the Cambodian women’s development agency. Master research report, Pannasastra University of Cambodia, Phnom Penh. Vijghen, J. & Sithon, K. (2008), Save the Children Norway: Interim Evaluation CEDC Partner Programme of Save the Children Norway in Cambodia, Commissioned to ECR – Mekong World Food Programme (2006), WFP’s operational relationship with NGOs, Annual report 2006. Retrieved from: http://home.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/communications/wfp203030. pdf Ziegler, S. (2008), Capacity development and partnership, Overview and methodology: New York, Vasselgraphique (Handicap International), Retrieved from: http://www.handicap-international.de/fileadmin/redaktion/pdf/renf_cap_eng.pdf

Appendix 1A: Interview Questions for Country Director Formal Interview with Mr. Markus Aksland, Country Director of Save the Children Norway in Cambodia

Venue:

Save the Children International Office, Preah Khan break-out room

Address:

#5, Street 242, Sangkat Chaktomuk, Chamkarmorn, Phnom Penh

Date:

24 October 2011

Time:

3:00pm â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 3:30pm Interview Questions

1. How does Save the Children Norway set its overall strategy? The questions here are very general. The current strategy, it was developed a few years ago. Moreover, the process was consultation. So we based on, as the starting point we have our own strategy, we have Save the Children allianceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strategy, we also have the more general inputs like UNICEF startled of children input, for example. There were numbers of international players who made assessments on situation of children. So, all these documents are sorts of foundation for the discussion. Of course Save the Children Norway is membership program organization. So the board members who were recruited from the members, they were also the key parts of the discussion, so the Administration in Oslo, I was a part, we presented directly to the board. There are many green lights to continue what we are doing.

One big discussion we had in Oslo at that time was to what extent needed a separate Save the Children Norway strategy because at the same time Save the Children International stated their opinion strategy. In addition, I have to confess that, to me it does not really make sense that in the new strategy international it does not make sense for each member to have their own strategies because we have one big international strategy, then why we should have our own strategy. This is what we talk about the Cambodian Program Strategy.

This is the overall strategy not about Cambodia. There were different opinions in Norway when we discussed this. Therefore, people talked it is important. However, you can say that Save the Children International strategy is the overall strategy for everybody, and then within that strategy each member should have freedom to say in his or her strategy, as if Save the Children Norway would say Education is important to us. Therefore, we want to have it. We do not want to stand on health or something else. Therefore, that way SCN’s strategy as it stands now is kind of subset of Save the Children International’s strategy. I meant it is linked together, but Save the Children International cannot tell Save the Children Norway to do. It is the other way around because Save the Children Norway is a member and Save the Children Norway does not own Save the Children International. 2. What are your strategic goals? I do not understand this question. When I came to Phnom Penh to Cambodia, some recognized our good discussion…some … even before my strategy was to try to make Save the Children Norway in Cambodia as stronger as possible before merging with Save the Children Australia to become Save the Children International. In that way, it will prepare for Save the Children International. 3. Do you think all partners understand their role and objectives of the project very well? No, I do not think so. Our partners are different. One partner is big organization. Some partners are big some are small local organizations. But that‘s okay when they don’t understand… maybe I also don’t understand theirs. 4. How do you measure that goals and objectives are SMART? You said it already. Because if your goal and objectives are SMART, it means that, it is possible to measure. However, more challenges we have had in Save the Children Norway in Cambodia is that we have been doing the same kinds of works for several years and it looks the same. Maybe in the past our objectives were too general. Therefore, it is hard to measure for success. For example, building schools is easy to measure as you can count it. Nevertheless, for others it is more unclear. I think that, during the last couple of years we have some foundation. By doing baseline, we have made it possible to measure ours in step forwards. 3

5. What outcomes do you expect from the goals and objectives? Happy Children! That is our business. Therefore, the outcomes we would like to see is children receive education and so on…I think we are quite successful in preparing our organization for Save the Children International if you look at the new organization Save the Children with Save the Children International you see where former SCN Staff keep their positions… That is the good outcomes. 6. How do you know when you need more capacity in your employees? It is difficult to measure when people do not speak English, it is easy for me to communicate and to assess, but if they do not speak English, it is very hard for me to understand and assess. They might do brilliant job but I cannot see and I do not understand them. Therefore, I have to trust other people’s assessment. I can assess my senior management whether they are good or not good and still improve, but for the rest of the organization, it is very hard for me to assess. I cannot assess.

7. When was the first partnership strategy created? 1996. 1995 and 1996. It is a big change for Save the Children Norway. We changed to Save the Children Norway in Sri Lanka for example, when we shifted from selfimplementation to partnership, there were 300 employees had to leave when we stared to work with partnership because we do not need them. We go to work with partners. 8. How do you monitor the capacity of partners? Moreover, what do you do? Yes… I do not really monitor the capacity of the partners. However, we have program staff to work with partner. Our program staff will do it and they report to their line managers. It is not my job. So, as long as I know I can trust them they are doing good, that’s fine. 9. When do you find out that there are capacity problem with partners? It’s not the capacity problem or what? My question to you is what is Capacity Problem? In my year, we had discussion couple of years ago because when I came to SCN in Cambodia, there are a lot of set of criteria that was used with partners. I did not like that, because in my year SCN for civil society they should select weak partners, 4

partners that have a capacity problem. We should make them a strong partner. That is what we should do. If you have a strong partner, you don’t need to do that and we don’t need partners.

Sometimes the partners are stronger now. Partners can be everything. We have all kinds of partners. So the way you are talking. It sounds you’re talking about small local organizations. So I disagree with that question. I don’t like the word Capacity Problem that you can ask “how do you understand when you need to help the partners strengthen a certain area?” 10. Who is responsible and accountable for the implementation at SCN and partners? Me. No, I’m joking. But Not only a joking But it’s my responsibility. But I’m delegating. So I trust Visoth and I work with Visoth. So her responsibility is to ensure that who’s doing what. I meant I am accountable for the partnership part. But at the end of the day, OEC, they are accountable for that. I’m accountable for the resources that I what I invest in OEC partnership. But all of us are accountable. 11. What are the best outcomes SCN expect from partners? What tool do you use to measure the outcomes? We have different tools that have been used. The easiest way to see the project achieving the goal, the goal we agreed. We have an agreement for resources. Partnership Agreement describing financial resources and agreed plan, and we can monitor in many ways, whether they are producing good outcome. And if they don’t, we have to stop. I want the partner to… when they have a contract it’s like a business… they have committed to deliver certain outcomes, to build the school, or to strengthen their NGO… we have committed our own.

12. How does SCN assess partnership? What do they do when the partnership do not work out? We have, my previous as Knut together with Management Team we had some criteria to assess partnership. My view is that those criteria are very strict. If you apply those, you will see they are not good enough. So that’s why we changed them. When we assess the partners we look at different aspects. The difference between my opinion and Knut, during his time if you did not meet criteria you are not qualified, you could not become the partner of Save the Children Norway. But my assessment helped partners. That helps the partners. They can be some partners for example, some partners in Kampong Thom, they do excellent work in the village, and they are horrible in financial management and human resources management… but that’s ok… but what we want to see is the results. If the partnership doesn’t work for some reasons, just stop it. Phase out!

13. What are the reasons that SCN does not work directly with the community? The main reason why we chose this strategy in the past is that our belief in change is… we are trying to make it happen is to become more sustainable. Our Save the Children organization is doing differently. We see self-implementation is not so sustainable. But working with partners is also more complicated.

Appendix 1B: Interview Questions for Finance Manager Formal Interview with Mr. Iek Thong, Finance Manager of Save the Children Norway in Cambodia

Venue:

Save the Children International Office, Ta Promh break-out room

Address:

#5, Street 242, Sangkat Chaktomuk, Chamkarmorn, Phnom Penh

Date:

11January 2012

Time:

13:00pm – 13:17pm Interview Questions

1. How does Finance System fit into SCN’s strategic plans and goals? Firstly, we look at the strategic plans and goals of Save the Children Norway (SCN) to make sure that Finance system is in line with the strategy and goals. Then we create a tool, which is Account Structure to monitor all thematic areas/themes on the results and outcomes of each program. We use this tool to check on the expenses of the thematic areas and harmonize all themes into one and to be used by other departments in SCN and to all program country members.

2. Who is accountable for the failure of the implementation? It is the project holder. The project holder is accountable for providing capacity building to the partners. SCN provides both financial support and technical support to partner. The partner is accountable for their implementation when they implement, but the project holder is accountable for the whole activities and outcomes produced by the partners and when the partners fail to implement their work.

3. What do you think about partners’ accountability? Talking about partner’s accountability, it is very broad because partners have to be 100% accountable for their outcomes. SCN trusts its partners 100% and believes in what they can do. When we select the partners, we have our tools to select the right partners to work with. We do the assessment on their financial

resources, human resources, capacity building, etc. SCN did the capacity assessment when selecting partners. 4. What are the differences between Partnership Strategy 2007-2009 and CPH Grant

Management-Partner

assessment

and

selection-process

and

criteria? Since SCN was not doing a self-implementation the project, SCN created the partnership strategy. In the Partnership Strategy 2007-2009, it tells and shows in general how SCN selects its partners, what selection criteria to select the best partner are and how to achieve the outcomes by working in partnership from the starting point to the end point of the cycle. The Core Process Harmonization (CPH) Grant Management is the tool used when selecting partners to comply with Partnership Strategy 2007-2009.

5. Does SCN have Funding Model in strategy? How does SCN use Funding Model? â&#x20AC;&#x153;It is not clear to me.â&#x20AC;? Funding Model of SCN is receiving funds from different sources/donors like NORAD, the biggest funder, and individual donors who distribute their money to Save the Children Norway. 6. Could you tell about Financial planning/budgeting in organizational skills? Financial planning is the plan of how to achieve the specific amount of money/fund within a specific time consisting of series of steps. For example, we want to earn xxx amount of money in 2012 by fundraising. The financial budgeting is financial plans that are structured to detail on incomes and expenses on both short term and long-term basis. It covers a period of one year at least. 7. Could you tell about financial operations management between SCN and partners? SCN provides the financial support to the partners for their capacity building and the partners use the money for their operation and implementation.

Appendix 1C: Interview Questions for Child Protection Program Manager Formal Interview with Ms. Khat Ty Ekvisoth, Child Protection Program Manager of Save the Children Norway in Cambodia

Venue:

Save the Children International Office, Ta Promh break-out room

Address:

#5, Street 242, Sangkat Chaktomuk, Chamkarmorn, Phnom Penh

Proposed Date:

20 February 2012

Proposed Time:

13:30pm – 14:22pm Interview Questions

1. Does the Child Protection Program follow SCN’s strategic goals? If this is OEC’s program, so this is “Yes” question. This is about the whole organization’s programs. 2. Does OEC have clear mission, vision, goals and objectives in implementing each project? Are they following the goals? Yes. However, what does “They” mean? The statement of clear mission and vision are difficult. If we talk about vision, it is very broad. But their mission is working on two projects. When we talk about programs, it is about the whole origination’s programs. OEC has many programs. Actually, they have two big projects working with disabled youth/adults and disabled children. So if their project is not aligned with SCN’s mission, we will not fund them. If we talk about programs, their programs cover disable people, and disable children are also in the programs, so they divide into different projects. For example if the project is working on reproductive health, their target people is youth or adult-both males and females, not children. Therefore, we had better focus more on their project implementation because SCN works with their projects, especially children with disabilities. So when we talk about children with disabilities, it means that the recipients are children’s parents. So in summary, their vision and mission are in line with their goals. Their goals cover all programs/projects.

3. As you are working very closely with partners, do you see any problems existing within partner organization (OEC)? Normally each organization has their strengths and weaknesses. For example, now OEC has the Certificate of Good Governance from CCC in 2008. Any NGOs which have a clear organizational structure and clear committee, and apply for the certificate; they will be certified every year. For example, OEC has their procurement committee to judge and work on procurement process to ensure the transparency. This is their strength.

The problems I see is that, firstly, it is about communication flow/gap between head office and sub-office of OEC. For example, when we deliver the message about program quality to the head office in Battambang province, the messages sent from SCN were not delivered to the sub office in Pursat or vice-versa. Secondly, the staffing level is also very unclear. Normally, not all project staff are able to be Management Team (MT), but OEC-the Executive Director-assigns all project staff with different skills, knowledge and background to be MT. For example, their MT has many people beneath the Executive Director â&#x20AC;&#x201C; about 9 to 11 people (1 from Administration, 1 from Finance, and other 9 to 11 from Projects/Programs). All of these people are in the same line. They have one Advisor stay directly below Director. This creates a lot of problems, especially when the Executive Director is absent from work, the below line staff have to rotate in joining the meeting; so how can they ensure that all information received are shared to all? This is OECâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s weakness. I found that they do not have clear roles and strong team work and cannot transfer the messages to one another when there are too many people in Management Team. These people have different accountability and some even hold very little budget (about US$20,000 to US$30,000), they are in the same level. This is not necessary to include them in the MT. In addition, the Executive Director is absent very often and let the below staff (Project Manager) replace her. Furthermore, talking about their Board of Director, there are five members; and they claim that these people are Board of Director, but in fact, they are just Advisory Board of Director. There is no checking balance among these people. They just provide advice and they can do anything they want. It is not said that Board of Director has the authority to dismiss Director because Director is the founder of the organization. Moreover, there is no exact duration of employment contract, so if the Director does 10

not want to leave/resign, then she is there forever. These people are her old friends and people who live in those provinces. These people are from government rank too. Because the Executive Director of OEC believes that, these people can help her work move faster in her project work. This is not good. I also used to suggest them to change the system, but so far they still keep what they have and she tried to avoid meeting me.

For the Organizational Development, in recruitment practices with SCN, as SCN has a merit based recruitment, OEC practice a merit based recruitment; but with other donor’s programs, OEC does not have a merit based recruitment, I believe. For example, they just select those they know or those whose project is finished. They manipulated the recruitment process. If their program about children with disabilities, I observed that OEC prefer old people or retired people from government to work. These old people have many experiences, but they do not have a back-up system, especially when they are unable to perform the work or leave the organization for some reasons, then they leave nothing for the next generation. So, OEC needs to train new staff and spend a lot of time for building their capacity. However, the program implementation seems to be okay. 4. How can SCN measure that OEC understand about their mission, vision, goals and objectives? For this point, I don’t know how to measure, but I do observe that OEC attaches their vision and mission statement on the wall on the entrance door so all staff can see their vision and mission every time they walk in and every day. So, it really inspires. Also during their staff meeting, they do the spot check with their staff members by raising the questions to their staff about the vision and mission related. This helps their staff members always alert about their vision and mission. One more thing, OEC’s staff always wear their blue shirt (Uniform) showing their NGO’s logo and status whenever they go to the field work/villages or even during their working time at the office. Therefore, this can tell how they know about their vision and mission. 5. How does OEC deliver their services to children? OEC delivers direct service to children.

6. What reasons that SCN does not work directly with the community? This is what you already know about it. I don’t have to tell you. 7. What are the advantages and disadvantages of working as partnership? This is the same. You can find the answers yourself. I do not have to answer. 8. Do you think SCN’s HR policy affects the outcomes of partners? We do not have Human Resources Policy, but we have staff benefit and others but… but this is not really the policy. In short, we do not have Human Resources policy. It is very important to know about our own policy, but we do not have it. What we have is only about capacity building for staff. We used to have that, from what I know is that SCN gives 60% pay for long-term course – distance learning to get a degree. However, since year 2011, we don’t have this anymore. Therefore, the effect on the partner’s Human Resources Policy is strengthening staff capacity in short-term period training or on the job training. So, OEC adopts our idea, and it depends on donor’s budget.

The staff Capacity Building that SCN has with partner is to build the staff capacity to through quarterly meeting or short-term trainings. But OEC cannot do the same like SCN because they do the program-based, they do not have budget for staff capacity building. What they can do is that they take the occasion when they have staff meeting; they share knowledge with each other, among their staff members in staff meeting, especially after they had a training course with me (from SCN). For example, when I conduct any training, they will share their knowledge to other staff members. Therefore, they follow SCN. 9. Could you tell about external relationship building and management among partnerships? Nothing is bad. Honestly, for OEC we do not have any bad relationship with them. We never have problems with them. Not only about program work, for example, they usually ask for consultation from us (me) when they are doing proposal for new donors.

10. Does OEC have a clear individual job design? What do you see about staffing levels in the partner? Yes. They have Executive Director, Project Managers, and staff. But itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s just too many people. It is very messy in the structure. Nobody is responsible to make a firm team. There should be someone coordinates the programs. They have one Advisor beneath Director too, but he cannot help much. One person cannot do it all alone. So the projects are very messy according to the structure. So, in the future if no fund, they will collapse. There are differences even between ages, knowledge, skills and the amount of budget. Some projects receive only 10,000 but have the same level like others who have more budget and responsibility. They cannot mobilize themselves. There is no strong teamwork and clear project. All of them work only with one direction on children with disabilities.

11. Does OEC practice Human Resource Management effectively? I have nothing to say. It is linked to above question. We see that they do not have system. SCN need them to do the TNA, but it is only for our project. Actually, there should be a TNA for the organization as a whole. SCN wants Human Resources plan from OEC. But OEC itself does not have the Human Resources plan. So we can say anything about Human Resources Management. So they do only for the project funded and requested by donors. In addition, the people who do the TNA vary from one to another depending on their responsibilities.

Before, OEC even did the employment contract for 6 months duration, but now they changed to 1-year duration.

12. What strategy SCN is using with NGO partners in order to deliver services to children? We do the supervision visit and monitoring visit to meet directly with partners and beneficiaries. Most importantly is to do the monitoring visit with beneficiaries so we will know they receive the services or not.

13. How can you ensure on OECâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s service delivery to children? Question 13 and 14 are the same. We do the supervision visit and monitoring visit to meet partners and beneficiaries. 14. How does SCN help partner to be more effective and efficient in development strategy through strengthening institutions, staff training and improving management capacity? For SCN, they have done workshops to help partners to have their own strategies. There are three channels to help them develop strategy. We organize in-home training (at SCNâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s office) we collect them to train and do the strategy plan/development, or program design. But we invite only Director and Program Directors who have high level of management. Second, when we do the quarterly update meeting, we ask them to bring their own draft together and share knowledge, give consultation and follow up during quarterly meetings. Not only SCN alone gives input to one partner (OEC), but other partners of SCN also give input. Last channel, when we do monitoring we will provide more consultation to them. So we help them through these three channels.

15. What do you think about NGOs with technical capacity and a good record of accomplishment that can offer more effective and efficient ways of delivering services and achieving project outcomes? It is similar to question 15. Because monitoring visit is the same as On the Job Training (OJT). They both are the same. When we do OJT, all key project implementers are there doing the work. Moreover, SCN founds that OJT is the most efficient way to strengthen OECâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capacity. If we talk about management issue, we will attack the Management Team. If we talk about Implementation, we will attack the project implementers. We ask questions to find out the problems. We achieve the project outcomes by tracking through quarterly report. We meet with staff and beneficiaries. 16. What do you think about partner empowerment? It is like training to build their capacity.

17. In what way SCN give empowerment to its partner NGOs. SCN’s philosophy is that most of the time, we let them (partners) do. We did not guide them. We just let them do what they want. Then we just observe and we will guide later on because we believe that they have their talents. So far, we have found that there is a lack of community participation within OEC’s project implementation. However, OEC has no responsibilities for these problems. It has is Community Council’s responsibilities (those village chiefs, and the villagers, the beneficiaries themselves).

So we do the workshops with partners. If we find problem, we will add on. Let them take their own risks. We keep an eye on them. If they cannot do it, we will do TOT. We do not identify the problem on behalf on them. We just stimulate questions to them. We don’t tell them what to do. If we tell them, they will just see that’s problem and then follow us. So they create dependency. For example, in one family, there is a fight between husband and wife. We outsider see that they are having problem, but actually it is their habit. Therefore, they do not say that it is their problem.

18. Could you tell what the objectives of partner empowerment are? It is the same as question 18. I do not understand. I think this means to strengthen the power. However, for civil society it means to make them step on their foot, to find fund, to make them be able to stand, to grow and to deliver the services by themselves. In addition, it has to make them grow with transparency. And find more funds themselves. Now they have Good Governance Certificate, and we will help them receive Child safe organization certificate. So when they have all these certificates, they are able to propose and raise fund for much more amount of money. They are able to raise fund. So they are able to find more money. Finally, to make them be an international standard organization.

Appendix 1D: Interview Questions for HR and Admin Manager Formal Interview with Mr. Buy Dararith, HR and Admin Manager of Save the Children Norway in Cambodia

Venue:

Save the Children International Office, Ta Promh break-out room

Address:

#5, Street 242, Sangkat Chaktomuk, Chamkarmorn, Phnom Penh

Proposed Date:

19April 2012

Proposed Time:

16:30pm – 17:10pm Interview Questions

According to Country Program Strategy (CPS) 2010-2014 of SCN, in the planned objective of HR area, the overall goal stated that, “SCNiC has a strong HR base and high level of professional competence to create positive change for children”. But in baseline statement stated that “There is a lack of coherent and comprehensive HR policy and capacity building is apparently ad hoc or not strategically aligned with organization’s vision, mission and goals”. What does this mean? Could you explain briefly? These questions are very difficult for some reasons. Some people cannot answer. Before we start, I would like to talk about the process of developing Strategic Plan first. When we talk about Country Program Strategy Plan, we are talking about strategic plan. Before we develop a long-term strategic plan, we must have a baseline, we study on baseline and we do baseline to evaluate to see where we are and what we need to be improved in the next plan. Base on long-term strategic plan, after that we develop an operational plan for the year. We do not follow donor recipient relationship. Therefore, before we have our strategic plan, we do baseline first. These questions are interrelated.

OEC is an implementing partner working as partnership with Save the Children Norway and it is an independent organization. SCN and OEC are legal entities. They are equal. When we say that OEC is an independent organization, we do not talk about the agreement on implementing projects. OEC itself has a full authority over their program and projects implementation, organizational structure. SCN does not control over them, we cannot tell them to take our Human Resources 16

policy to use as their own. However, of course we give them money, so we must have more power. In addition, we do have some agreement for them to implement the project, for example procurement guideline. OEC has the right to develop their organizational structure.

Before we work as partnership with OEC, we also do partnership assessment with OEC to ensure that OEC has enough capacity – not yet full capacity – to implement the project we are funding. We look at their policy, their guideline. We look at their Organizational Capacity Assessment (OCA). We look at their resources (HR, Finance, Capacity, etc…) and what gapes they have. We look at different aspects. Therefore, we both talk with each other in order to find the gaps and to improve their capacity. It can be policy, thematic capacity, management skills, etc… At the end we select them whether we can work together to fill up the missing parts. This means we both depend on each other. Sometimes we depend on them, they use their resources and sometimes they depend on us and we provide resource to them. In addition, sometimes, we provide both management and capacity development. We always do baseline/assessment before we start our work. Sometimes they do their own capacity development.

In short, baseline is created before strategic plan. Baseline is what we want to be in the next 3 or 5 years. Moreover, because we know that Human Resources policy is not systematic, that is why we set the objectives in the strategic plan to improve our Human Resources policy. This question can be asked instead “If baseline and objective statements are different, what strategies that HRM could have helped to improve from this year to this year?” We do baseline for the whole organization to reflect ourselves. This is just the overall statement.

How does HRM follow SCN’s strategic plans? Yes. It is a must. Because Save the Children is a value-driven, child rights based organization. Everything we do we follow our core values, vision and mission. Moreover, we take information from baseline survey to input into our programs.

So Human Resource plays a very important role to support thematic program to move faster in implementation in term of capacity building, for example, staffing, recruitment, capacity building, employee champion to make the working environment become healthy and to support thematic program in term of implementation capacity. Therefore, HRM of SCN is a part of strategic plan.

We do strategic plan, we base mainly on our thematic areas. So before we do the strategic plan, we look at the main points of the program we have. We look at implementation capacities (both SCN staff and OEC staff). We have to find out the core competence when we are developing the strategic plan. We look at the focal points in thematic program and plan for the future.

Does OEC follow SCN’s strategic plans? How does OEC follow the plans? Yes. If they do not follow and their strategic plan is not aligned with ours, we do not accept them as partner. I do not know how you would write it, but you may mention about Partnership process in it.

Does SCN have HR policy? Yes. We do have it. We have both global HR policy and country specific HR policy. We have it in our handbook such or recruitment policy, staff development policy, terms and conditions of employment, etc… so I do not understand this question. I do not know what you really want from this question.

Does OEC have HR policy? How is OEC’s policy aligned with SCN HR’s policy? This question should be asked OEC or responsible person who works directly with OEC, not me. My responsibility as Human Resources person is only to support them. For example, if they lack of capacity development, I can help evaluate them and plan for the activities to help them develop their skills. But to my point of view, OEC must have their policy.

With the next question, I cannot even go further to answer this question again. I may say that their policy is aligned or is just copied from our SCN’s HR’s policy. I 18

dare not answer this question because we cannot force or tell them to align their HR policy with our policy, but we may be able to set this requirement in the agreement that our donors really needs to have it. It is mandatory for donor. So I cannot answer this question.

What is Resource Center (using with partner)? I don’t understand this question. But when we talk about Resource Center, there can be two things – tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. Document we have compile in order to share with other organizations. Tacit knowledge is the knowledge we receive from skills, competency in individual person. It’s hidden inside individual person. Explicit knowledge is the knowledge that received from documentation. This is what we define as resource center. To get this work done, we do evaluation, assessment, documentation; we do baseline study and workshops to share knowledge or experience sharing among partners and SCN. So this is the same with OEC. They also have this resource center. We help them produce their reports, write documentation, etc…. so our strategy is to help OEC have resource center.

How does SCN implement and follow up what is happening in the process? Is there any error? This is what the report said by the consultant. We lack of Capacity intervention is not structured and systematic, lack of coordination, and time constraint. After we do the partnership assessment, we didn’t coordinate and prepare for the missing part. We didn’t look at the weak points we have and follow up. We don’t have a clear follow-up plan. We don’t have a specific cycle.

How does OEC deliver their services to children? This should be asked OEC or Project manager who works with OEC. This is their methods of service delivery to children with disability, so this is really technical work not management work. So, I would recommend you to read their operational plan of OEC. It says about their program, objectives, main activities and they also say about HR area. Then we will know what we want from this question.

Do you think SCN’s HR policy affects the outcomes of partners? I think this question should be asked that “how and what HR policy of SCN helps improve capacity building of OEC’s Human Resources system?” because this is internal rule of SCN, not OEC. So, it does not affect any outcomes provided by OEC.

10. How can you ensure that OEC is implementing SCN’s policy? This is the same thing as question 9. We do not force OEC to follow SCN’s policy to implement project. What we want from them is just to make sure that they have enough capacity to implement the work. We do not interfere in their work, but we have our internal staff to join with their team, for example, in recruitment process…. We just make sure the good relationship between Save the Children and OEC is in place. When we do partnership agreement, OEC looks at the first priority only, if they agree with it we sign the contract. The most important thing is to keep a good relationship with OEC in a minimum standard. We cannot force or tell them to do what we want.

11. According to Mr. Abrahamsen (2006), he found that “The common issues relate to a lack of coherent reporting systems, limited overall financial management and inadequate quality assurance at implementation level”. What do you think about this issue? This question is mixed up with many parts. This relates to three main things – reporting systems, financial management and quality assurance. In order to have a good reporting system, we need to have a clear plan and clear monitoring system. Without a clear plan, there is no clear monitoring system. I cannot give much comment on these points because I don’t have experience on reporting systems, financial management and quality assurance.

Asking me what do I think about this issue? I think this is true and is reality. But the question should be asked that “What Save the Children could have done to help OEC’s program improve better? And how HR plays role in this to help their program work? “These all are really about program issues. So, these things are about program work, not Human Resources.

12. Does OEC have a clear individual job design? It can be Yes or No. Maybe you have this information from OEC. I cannot answer it, but I believe that at least they have their staffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Job Descriptions, performance management and performance planning. So this is enough. If you need any other information, please come back to me.

Appendix 1E: Informal Conversation in Khmer at the Target Area Tuesday 15th November 2011 At the Chef Village’s house after lunch, at 1 o’clock Questions and answers between Mr. So Sophay and the Researcher

In the Commune Council Meeting in Rukkhakiri district (all key people/ stakeholders in the 20 villages), how many NGOs come to join? When meeting the district governor never call for those NGOs to the meeting. They do like business, like selling and buying product. They discuss only with those key members/ stakeholders who are from different villages and communes.

Do they have the list of all NGOs who work in their areas? Yes, they do. Especially for the commune, for example, like OEC, when we come to the commune, they have our name list. When these people do the planning, they do without our participation. When they finish the planning, they will submit it to the commune and the commune will invite us (OEC) to come. They tell us about their plan, about what have been doing and what have not yet finished with the activities last year. They tell us which NGOs/ Institutions have not met the target objectives and when they can finish their work. After that they ask us to present our planning. If a new organization like us, OEC, before we come, we will submit the application form to the Commune Council, explaining about what we want to do for these villages. Before we come to this commune, we have to go to the district first. We tell them we have one new project to work with them. Then they will arrange for us. They show us their different projects that are similar to our project. If it is very similar or the same as ours, we will select one, for example, they have the project which is “Children without a Proper Care”. So, when finding that it is best suit to our project we fill in the form with our activities and objectives. Also with some estimated budgets. We estimate the budget for them. After this process when everything is agreed we start our activities following the plan and objectives. For next year, when they have the meeting, they will invite us to present our outcomes and what we have not yet reached or finished. Or if we still have not

completed our project, we have to clarify when we can finish it. And if we want to continue the project, we will write down our activities and objectives, if not we do not have to write anything. 3.

This morning I heard that you said, OEC is going to close down their project in these villages, have you informed them yet about the plan? Yes, Already. We have informed them already that we will close down the project. We have our report for the Commune Council. The Project Holder already approved on the report and we will send the report to the Commune Council.

How about next following years, if we want to come to this place again, can we come? Yes, we can. We will send the letter from our office to this place telling that we want to continue our project, which we had done before. You know, children with disabilities are the difficult cases. Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve come to this place very often. We work will all children. We donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t just pick up some specific children in specific areas. We go and work in all areas even though there are no any disable children in the villages. We do awareness raising and prevention to all chef village and vice chef village and other key stakeholder in the villages. For instant, when we do awareness raising we play a video with some real case studies. Then we distribute some posters with some pictures of prevention messages to these key people in order for them to stick it on the wall of the houses in the villages. We gave them three each of posters.

How about children with disabilities and children who have problem with their penis (Buried penis?), are these two in the same project and are in the same criteria of children with disabilities? They are in the same project. Before we did not put this case into the same criteria/project and we did not implement this case. Because we have seen that children who are unable to walk (disabilities) are not very common in this area, it may be because we have working with them since 2000. Currently, weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve found that many children with penis problems exist more in here, even more than disabilities. For children with disabilities are pretty easier to find and to work and we spend less money on them. 23

For example, we spend for their transportation only between 10, 000 Riel to 25, 000 Riel (for 1 round trip from their home to the hospital for 1 time and for 1 child). But for children with buried penis are very difficult. However, we had discussed and proposed this case to SCN to the Child Protection Program Manager (Ms. Visoth), so finally SCN approved for us to include this case in our project. This case needs a lot of money to implement, for example, we do not have enough budgets. For this year we have only USD 95, 000 to implement the project, and so far we have not worked with three villages.

How many types of children with penis problems (Buried penis)? There are three types: -

Disorder position of penis?

The fall intestine into the penis?

The water inside the penis?

In some case it will disappear when the boys are growing up for the case that water stays inside, but some may not. So the only way to cure it is to have the surgery/operation on the penis. Only one time surgery, it will be gone forever. If the children do not have the surgery they penis will become bigger and bigger. The pain will exist after the children have their meal, or when they carry heavy things or do very hard work, or even when the climate is very cold. If we touch and twist it very often, the intestine will be stickier until we have to cut the intestine off. For this kind of disease when you wait till the age of 30 or 40, it will develop to cancer.

However, before we worked on the project ourselves we also invited a skillful doctor to train us for three days. The spending on the surgery/operation needs a big amount of money plus the transportation. For example, if we send them to Moung hospital, the cost is only US$ 35 for one child and they can do the surgery at a time for 10 children. But for other place like in Pursat hospital, they will do it at a time for only one child and the cost is 400,000 Riel (US$ 95). For Phnom Penh hospital, the cost is US$ 150 with no bargain. This is very different.

How many types of children with disabilities that OEC is working with? We work with children who have disabilities from below the neck down (Children who have no legs and arms from their birth or affected by land mine, and more). Sometimes we also work with children who are blind when we meet and they do not have a possibility or ability to go to the hospital. We provide them some money for transportation. But we do it when we have an approval from the office, then we will take an action and further action. They will email us.

How about following-up the activities? How do you do the follow-up? And how long will you do it when finish the project? After completing the project, we will hand over this implementation and follow-up the Commune Council. But we will help coordinate if they contact us and ask us to help. For example, there was one case happened in the old villages where we had gone to. And in that area we already finished the work but they still need us, then we went back to help. So if there is the case like that, we will go back to the old place.

Is this case new or old? It is a new case happened in the village because you know the villages here are very big. We cannot go to all areas. And for children who have problem with penis, it is very difficult to find because we cannot see by our eyes whether they are having problem or not. So we do is to call out and ask their parents “Do you have any children who has problem with pennies?” For instant, a boy whose age is 14, he will not tell us what’s wrong with him.

10.

How is if it is the old case, do you still continue helping? It can happen. We may help if it is not so long time that we have completed the project. If it is just one year long like what I’ve just said before for the previous case, it’s not very long time that we stopped, so they may call and ask us to help. It depends on how hardworking and good the commune council is. If they are helpful and hardworking to the village, they may contact us. These people are like their children, if they do not help and care, that is their responsibility and accountability.

But for our agreement/policy, once we complete the project we will hand over the rest of it to the chef village to be responsible for the villages. We do not work with Social Authority in the District like UNICEF because we don’t believe that these people will work better than Commune Council. SCN chooses to work only with the Commune Council. The Social Authority in the District do not go into very deeply like Commune Council does. They will go only at the Commune Council to get the information. They wait for the villages, and sometimes they’re just gone with the information. They even do not know the villagers. Also the Chef Village does not really know them at all. For example, if they both work together and go to the villages, the villagers will firstly know the Commune Council, not them.

For our side, before we started the work, we also invited the commune council to our meeting for three days and worked together on the planning of the project. So they know well about our work. We worked on the name list of each villager who would be our target people. If they were not relevant, we would not select them. If we don’t do like this, and we would like to do alone, for example, like me. If I go into each village alone, I will get lost because I don’t know the routes and. I used to come to the village since 8.00am but until this time at 3.00pm, I could not get out of the village. The village is very big and very far from one another. One more thing is that at the moment, I am very busy with the report demanded by Program Officer (Ms. Borrmey) from SCN and my colleagues from Finance section and Program Section. So I work alone, I do not have enough time for all of these activities.

ុំ ង ការសម្ភាសន៍ នង ខ រី ី ឃុស្ុំ តឡាច ង្េតតបាត់ដប ិ ការអង្ងេតង្ៅស្សុករុកគ ថ្ងៃអង្គារ ទ១ ុំ ០១១ ិ ិកា ឆ្ន២ ី ៥ ខេវឆ្ឆ

ង្ៅផ្ទះង្េឃុុំ បន្ទទប់ង្េលបាយថ្ងៃស្តង់ង្ម្ភ៉ោង១ សុំ នរួ នង ិ ចង្េលយ ើ រវាងង្ោក សូ សូ ថ្ផ្ នង ិ អនកស្ាវស្ាវ េុធ លីនដា

១

ុំ ុហ្ អញ្ច ឹ ងបានន័យថាង្ៅកនុងឃុង្ុំ នះ ង្េលង្គស្បជុឃ ុំ ឹ ង ន េិនខេនម្ភន ខត អងាការខតេួយង្ទខដលចូលរួេ ម្ភន អងាការង្ស្ចើនង្ទៀតខដលចូលរួេខេនង្ទ?

ឃុុំហ្នឹងង្េលង្គស្បជុុំ ង្ស្ចើនខតេន ិ ង្ៅអងាការឬាាប័នង្ផ្េងៗង្ទៀតឲ្យចូលរួេង្ទ ង្គង្ធវើដូចាយកទុំនិញង្ៅ

លក់អញ្ច ឹ ង។ ង្គគិតខតគ្ននង្គង្ទ េន ិ ម្ភនអងាភាេង្ស្ៅេកចូលរួេស្បជុុំាេួយង្ន្ទះង្ទ។ ង្គស្បជុុំខតស្កុេការង្គររបស់េួក ង្គង្ទ។

២

អញ្ច ឹ ងង្តើង្គម្ភនបញ្ជ ី ង្្មះរបស់អងាការង្ផ្េងៗង្ទៀតខដរឬង្ទ?

ង្គម្ភន។ ាេិង្សសខាងស្សុក ដល់ង្េល ឧទាហ្រណ៌ថា អងាការដូច OEC ចុះេក ង្គម្ភនបញ្ជ ី ង្្មះ

របស់ង្គេួយ។ ង្ៅង្េលង្គង្ធវើសម្ភហ្រណកេមខផ្នការ ង្គង្ធវើង្ដាយេន ិ ង្ៅង្យើងចូលង្ទ។ ង្គង្ធវើង្ហ្ើយង្គបញ្ជូ នង្ៅ

ស្សុក។ ង្ហ្យ ើ ស្សុកហ្នង ឹ ង្គអង្ញ្ជ ើ ញង្យង ើ េក។ ង្េលង្យង ើ េក ង្គនយា ិ យអុំេង្ី រឿងទុំរង់ សម្ភហ្រណកេម ខផ្នការឆ្ន ុំ ចាស់

ង្តអ ើ ងាការណាឬាាប័នណាេលះង្ធវង្ើ ៅសល់

ង្ហ្យ ុំ ៗង្ទៀត។ ង្ហ្យ ើ នង ឹ បង្ងហើយឆ្នណា ើ ង្គឲ្យង្យង ើ ង្

ង ើ រាយ

ការណ៍ង្ៅ។ ង្បើសិនាអងាការងមីង្ទើប នឹង ចូលេកង្ធវើដូចា OEC អញ្ច ឹ ងង្គង្ៅេក។ េុននឹងង្យើងេក ង្យើងដាក់

ចាប់ (ខបបបទ) សុុំ ង្ៅខាងឃុុំ។ េុននង ឹ េកឃុុំ ង្យង ើ ចូលខាងស្សុកេុនសិន ថាឆ្នង្ុំ ស្កាយង្នះ ខាង អងាការេ្ុុំសុុំចូល េកង្ធវស ង្គ ើ កេមភាេ ដាក់គង្ស្ម្ភងង្ធវង្ើ ៅទង្ី នះេួយ។ ង្ហ្យ ើ ខាងឃុុំង្គ ង្រៀបចុំង្ៅ។ បន្ទទប់េក ង្គស្បកាសង្ហ្យ ើ

រ ុំាយង្យើង ង្េលង្យើងេកដល់ ង្គឲ្យ ង្យើងង្ដើរង្េល ើ តារាងរបស់ង្គថាង្តើង្យើងង្េញចិតតយកគង្ស្ម្ភងេួយណា។ ង្បើចុំ គង្ស្ម្ភង របស់ង្យើងង្ហ្ើយ ង្យើងេកដល់ ង្គខចកស្កដាសឲ្យសរង្សរ ឧទាហ្រណ៍ថា គង្ស្ម្ភង ង្យើងសអី? គង្ស្ម្ភងង្នះង្គ ម្ភន «កុម្ភរេន ួ ៗនង ិ បានទទួលការខងរទាុំបានស្តេ ឹ ស្តូវ»។ អញ្ច ឹ ង ង្យង ើ បុំង្េញង្ៅ ង្យង ើ ដាក់សកេមភាេនេ ី យ ិ ង្គ្នល

បុំណងនិេយ ួ ៗម្ភនអវីេលះ។ ង្ហ្ើយម្ភនចុំនួនទឹកលុ យប៉ោុន្ទមន ង្យើងបា៉ោន់ាមនទឹកលុ យឲ្យង្គង្ៅ។ បន្ទទប់េក ង្យើង ចាប់ចុះង្ធវើសកេមភាេ។ សម្ភហ្រណកេមសស្ម្ភប់ឆ្នង្ុំ ស្កាយង្ទៀត ង្គង្ៅង្យើងង្ៅ ង្តើកុ ងសកេម ន ភាេនិងង្គ្នលបុំណង

របស់ង្យង ា ង្ហ្យ ថាង្តើង្យង ើ បានដាក់ ង្ធវបា ើ នប៉ោុណា ើ ើ បានទទួលអវបា ី នេលះង្ហ្ើយ ង្ៅសល់អង្ី ទៀត ង្ហ្យ ើ ង្យង ើ នង ឹ បញ្ច ប់គង្ស្ម្ភងឬក៏បនតបុន្ទ ៉ោ ម នឆ្នង្ុំ ទៀត។ ង្បើង្យើងបនតង្យើងសរង្សរ ង្បើេន ិ បនត ង្យើងដកង្ចញេន ិ បាច់សរង្សរង្ទ។

៣

ចុះដូចង្ោកស្គូបានស្បាប់ង្គេីស្េឹកេិញហ្នឹងថានឹងេិនបនតគង្ស្ម្ភងង្ទៀតង្ទ ហ្នឹង ង្តើង្យើងបានស្បាប់ង្គង្ហ្ើយ ខេនង្ទ?

ង្ៅភូេិខាង ង្លើ ទាុំងប៉ោន្ទ ុ មន

ចប់ង្ហ្យ គរឺ បាយការណ៍ចូល ឃុុំនង ើ ។ ង្យង ើ បានង្ធវរើ បាយការណ៍បញ្ច ប់ឲ្យង្គង្ហ្យ ើ ិ ស្សុក។ ស្បធាន

គង្ស្ម្ភងចុះហ្តាង្លខាអស់ង្ហ្ើយ។ ង្យើងនឹងបញ្ជូ នេកឲ្យង្គ។

៤

ចុំង្ ះឆ្នង្ុំ ស្កាយៗង្ទៀត ង្បើចង់ចូលេកង្ធវើការង្គរង្ទៀតង្ៅភូេិង្នះង្ទៀត ង្តើង្យើងអាចចូលេកេតងង្ទៀតបាន ង្ទ?

ង្យើងង្ធវើលិេិតសុុំ ចូលេកទីង្នះេីការយាល័ យង្យើងេកដាក់សុុំង្បើកស្សុកបនតេីការង្គរេុន។ ិ

ង្ៅទីង្នះ ង្រឿងករណីកុម្ភរេិការគឺម្ភនការេិបាកាងង្គ។ ង្យើងចូលញឹកញាប់ាងង្គ។ ង្យើងង្ធវើទូង្ៅទាុំង

អស់ង្លើកុម្ភរេកា េួយ ង្ន្ទះង្ទ។ ង្យង ិ រ។ ង្យង ើ េន ិ ចបច ិ យកខតភូេណា ិ ើ ង្ៅទូង្ៅ ង្ទាះបីាភូេខិ ដលគ្នមនកុម្ភរេកា ិ រ

ក៏ង្ដាយ។ ង្យង ើ ង្ធវកា ើ រ ផ្េេវផ្ាយបង្គេរដល់ ង្េភូេិ អនុភូេិ ជនបង្ង្គាលតាេភូេឲ្ ិ យេកចូលរួេទាុំងអស់គ្នន ស្គប់ភូេ។ ិ

ឧទាហ្រណ៍ ង្ៅ១០ភូេខា ឲ្យង្េល ី ិ ងង្លើ ចាប់ង្ផ្តើេេុនដុំបូង ង្យើងង្ធវើការផ្េេវផ្ាយបង្គេរ។ ង្យើងម្ភនចាក់វង្ដអូ ើ ង្េល ង្យើងង្ធវើការផ្េេវផ្ាយបង្គេរ។ ង្ហ្ើយង្េល ង្ៅវញង្យ ិ ើងខចកប៉ោុសឺ រទ (ប័ណាស្បកាស) ខដល

ក់េន ័ ធនឹងការផ្េេវផ្ាយ

បង្គេរឲ្យេួក គ្នត់បន្ទទប់េេ ី ួកគ្នត់បានចូលរួេង្ហ្យ ើ ង្ដើេបយ ី កង្ៅផ្េេវផ្ាយបនត ម្ភនក់េប ី ច ី ាប់ឲ្យ យកបទ ិ តាេផ្ទះ។

៥

ចុះកេមវធ ន យគ្ននខដរឬក៏ដាច់េីគ្នន? ិ ី កុម្ភរេិការនិងកុម្ភរម្ភនបញ្ហហេងង្កាប ង្តើវាាកេមវធ ិ ី កុ ងគង្ស្ម្ភងាេួ វាង្ៅាេួយគ្នន។ េីង្ដើេង្

ើយ ង្យើងេន ិ ង្ធវើង្ទ។ ង្ដាយារង្ឃើញកុម្ភរេងង្កាបម្ភនង្ស្ចើន ង្ហ្ើយកុម្ភរេិការ ង្យើងង្ធវើចង់អស់

ង្ហ្យ ុំ ០០២ង្េលះ៉ោ កុ ម្ភរប៉ោុលយ៉ោក៏ លាង ង្ហ្ើយចុំណាយលុ យតច ើ តាុំងខតេឆ្ ី ន២ ិ ខដរ។ ប៉ោូលយ៉ោង្នះស្សួ ិ ាង ចុំង្ ូ ម្ភនតច ូ

ះ

ការង្ធវើដុំង្ណើររបស់គ្នត់អស់ខត ១០ ០០០ង្រៀល ង្ៅ ២៥ ០០០ង្រៀលង្ទ ង្ៅេកទាុំងអស់ អស់ខត ៥០ ០០០ង្រៀល កនុងម្ភនក់។ ប៉ោុខនតកុម្ភរេងង្កាបេន ី ទធង្ៅ SCN ង្ទើប ិ ស្សួលង្ទ។ ជខជកគ្ននង្ៅាេួយ ស្បធានគង្ស្ម្ភង ង្ោកស្សីវសុ SCN ង្គឲ្យង្ធវើ ស្តូវចុំណាយង្ស្ចន ច ិ ិ ើ ង្ហ្យ ើ ងវការម្ភនត ិ េន ិ ស្គប់ស្គ្នន់ខដលទទួលបានេកេី SCN។ ងវការខដលបាន េកង្េល ង្នះម្ភន ៩៥ ០០០ ដុ ោល។ ង្ហ្ើយម្ភន៣ភូេខិ ដរខដលម្ភនបានចុះ។

៦

ង្តើកុម្ភរខដលម្ភនេងង្កាបម្ភនប៉ោន្ទ ុ ម នករណី? កុម្ភរេងង្កាបម្ភនបីករណី៖ -

ខដលង្

េងទក (េងង្ៅង្លើស្កង្លៀន)

ង្

ះង្វៀនធាលក់ (ង្

ះង្វៀនធាលក់ចូលេង)

េងទឹកដក់ (ទឹកដក់កុ ងេង) ន

ចុំង្

ះេងទឹកដក់ វាអាចស្សកង្ៅវញឬង្ ិ

ើងង្ហ្ើយអាចបូេយកទឹកង្ចញបាន។ ប៉ោុខនតចុំង្

ះង្វៀនធាលក់ ង្បេ ើ ន ិ វះកាត់ង្ទ េងង្ចះខតធុំង្ៅៗង្ស្

ះង្

ះករណីេងង្កាប

ះង្វៀនធាលក់ចុះ។ វាង្ស្ចន ើ ឈប ឺ ន្ទទប់េីង្េលបាយង្ហ្ើយ ឬ

ង្េលអាកាសធាតុ ស្តាក់និងង្េលង្ធវើការង្គរធៃនៗ ់ ។ ង្ហ្ើយង្បើង្យើងាទបនិងស្ចបាច់វាញឹកញាប់ ង្ន្ទះ ង្ ាប់សិ ត អ ង្ហ្ើយអាចរលួ យ ង្េលង្ន្ទះស្តូវកាត់ង្

ះង្វៀននឹង

ះង្វៀនង្ចាល។ ង្ទាះា យា៉ោងណាជេៃខឺ បបង្នះង្ៅខតអាចេាបាលបា

័ ៣០ ឬ៤០ ង្ន្ទះវាអាចវវឌ្ឍង្ៅាជេៃ ន។ ប៉ោុខនតង្បទ េ ង្ស្ ិ ើ ុកវាយូរង្េល រហ្ូតដល់វយ ឺ ហារកបាន ី

ះេងរលួ យ។

េុននឹងង្យើងចូលេកង្ធវើសកេមភាេ ង្យើងម្ភនជួលង្េទយជុំន្ទញេកបង្ស្ងៀនបណុ ត ះបណា ត លខដរចុំនួន៣ថ្ងៃ។

ការចុំណាយង្លើការវះកាត់ង្លើេងង្កាបស្តូវចុំណាយង្ស្ចើន ឧទាហ្រណ៍ ង្ៅ ង្េទយង្ម្ភង ង្េលបញ្ជូ នេតង ង្គ

យកម្ភនក់ខត ៣៥ដុោលង្ទ ង្ហ្ើយបញ្ជូ នេតងបាន១០ ន្ទក់។ ប៉ោុខនតង្ៅង្េទយង្

ធា ិ ង្គយកដល់ង្ៅ ៤០ េុន ិ ត់វញ ឺ

ង្រៀលកនុងម្ភនក់ ង្ហ្យ ទទួលវះកាត់ខតម្ភនក់ ប៉ោុង្ណា ា ះកនុងេួយដង។ ង្ហ្យ ិ ង្គយកម្ភនក់ ១៥០ ើ ើ ង្បង្ើ ៅង្េទយភនង្ុំ េញវញ ដុោលដាច់។

៧

ង្តើកុម្ភរេិការខដលអងាការង្ធវើការាេួយម្ភនកុម្ភរេិការអវីេះល ?

ង្យង ើ នង ើ ង្ធវង្ើ លើកុម្ភរេកា ិ រចាប់េស្ី តេ ឹ កចុះេកស្កាេ (កុម្ភរេកា ិ រថ្ដនង ិ ង្ជង ិ សុី ភង ី ?)។ ជួនកាលង្យង ើ ម្ភន

ង្ធវើង្លើកុម្ភរេិការខភនកខដរង្បើង្យើងម្ភនជួបស្បទះង្ៅង្េល ខដលេួកគ្នត់េន ិ ម្ភនលទធភាេ។ ង្េលណាម្ភនង្សវា៉ោ គ្នត់ អត់ម្ភនលុ យង្ៅ ឧ៖ បាយខភនកឬខឆ្បម្ភត់ េុនបញ្ជួ នង្ៅ ខាងការយាល័ យង្គង្ផ្្ើអុីខេលេក ង្ហ្ើយង្យើងជួយផ្តល់ា ិ ងវការង្ធវ ដ ិ ើ ុំង្ណើរនង ិ វះកាត់ឲ្យ។

៨

ង្តើការតាេដានយា៉ោងង្េ៉ោចខដរ រយះង្េលប៉ោណា ុ ា ខដរង្ៅង្េលង្យើងបញ្ច ប់គង្ស្ម្ភង?

បន្ទទប់េច ប៉ោុខនត ិ ី ប់គង្ស្ម្ភង ង្យង ើ នង ឹ ង្វរការង្គរង្នះបនតង្ៅឲ្យស្កុេស្បក ឹ ាឃុុំ ាអនកតាេដានសហ្ការវញ។

ង្យើងង្ៅខតបនតជួយគ្នត់ង្បើសិនាេួកគ្នត់សុុំឲ្យជួយ។

ឧ៖

កនុងករណីភូេខា ុំ ១០កនលងេកខដលបានចប់ ិ ងង្លើទាង

ង្ហ្យ ង្គបានទាក់ទងេកឲ្យង្យង ឧ៖ ង្េលម្ភនករណីដូចង្ៅភូេថ្ិ ស្េតូច ង្យង ិ ើ ើ ជួយកុម្ភរ ង្យង ើ ក៏ស្តលប់ង្ៅវញ។ ើ ដកង្ចញង្ហ្យ ិ ើ ឆ្នង្ុំ ៅេញ ិ ។ ង្យើងក៏ស្តលប់ង្ៅង្េល ើ វញ។

៩

ង្តើវាាករណីចាស់ឬងមី? វាាករណីងមី ង្ស្

ះង្យើងេន ិ បានចូលដល់អស់ង្ទ ង្ស្

ះភូេធ ិ ុំៗណាស់។ ង្ហ្ើយករណីេងង្កាបង្នះេិបាក

នង ទាល់ខតង្ដរើ សួ រ «ង្តើម្ភនកូនណាម្ភនេងង្កាបអត់?» ឹ រកណាស់ វាង្េល ើ អត់ង្ឃញ ើ

ឧទាហ្រណ៍ ដូចង្កមងអាយុ

១៤ឆ្នអ ុំ ញ្ច ឹ ង វាេន ិ ស្បាប់ង្យង ើ ង្ទ។

១០

ចុះង្បើកុ ងករណ ន ួ ខដរឬង្ទ? ី ចាស់ ង្តើង្យើងង្ៅបនតជយ

អាចម្ភនខដរកនុងករណីចាស់ ប៉ោុខនតង្បើដកយូរឆ្នង្ុំ េក កស្េម្ភនង្គង្ៅវញណាស់ ។ ង្បើដកឆ្នង្ុំ ៅេញ ិ ិ ងមីៗ ង្គ

អាចទាក់ទងេក។ វាអាស្ស័យង្លើស្កុេស្បឹកាឃុុំថាង្តើង្គេនះខេនងយា៉ោងណាេលះ ង្បើង្គេនះខេនង ង្គអាចទាក់ទងេកខដរ។ ង្យង ើ អាចបញ្ជូ នង្ៅខដរង្ស្

ះង្គអត់លុយ។ ង្បតា ការតាេដានបនត ើ េង្គ្នលការណ៍ កាលណាង្យង ើ ដកង្ចញង្ហ្យ ើ

និរនតរភាេគឺខាងស្កុេស្បឹកាឃុុំាអនកទទួលេុសស្តូវបនត។ អាហ្នឹងកូនង្ៅរបស់គ្នត់ គ្នត់ាអនកបនតនិរនតរភាេ។ ខាង ង្យើងេន ិ យកសងាេកិចចស្សុកដូច UNICEF ង្ទ។ SCN គឺង្ធវើការាេួយខតនឹងស្កុេស្បឹកាឃុុំង្ទ ង្ស្ ចុះបានស្តេ ឹ ខតឃុុំង្ទ

េន ិ បានចុ ះដល់ស្សុកស្តដាបស្តដួសដូចង្យង ើ ង្ទ។

េួកង្គចាុំខតភូេង្ិ ធវឲ្ ើ យ

ះសងាេកិចចស្សុក

ង្ហ្យ ើ េន ិ ដឹងបាន

ង្ហ្ើយយកង្ៅទុកទីណាង្ទបាត់ ឈង ៏ ន ឹ ង្ៅណាេលះង្ទ។ េួកង្គេន ិ ាាល់ង្េភូេិ ឬអនកភូេង្ិ ទ។ ង្ហ្ើយង្េភូេក ិ េ ិ ាាល់ េួកង្គខដរ។ ឧ៖ ង្បើឲ្យទាុំងេីរ សងាេកិចចស្សុក និងស្កុេស្បឹកាឃុុំចុះាេួយគ្ននវញអន កភូេច ិ ិ ាស់ាាាល់ស្កុេ

ស្បក ឹ ាឃុុំង្ហ្យ ើ ង្គេន ិ ាាល់ ខាងសងាេកច ិ ចស្សុកង្ទ។ េួកង្យង ើ េុននង ឹ ចុះេក ង្យង ើ បានង្ៅស្កុេស្បក ឹ ាឃុុំង្ៅស្បជុុំ ៣ថ្ងៃាេួយគ្នន ង្ហ្ើយកុំណត់ង្គ្នលង្ៅង្េល ើ ។ េួកង្គង្ធវើ List (បញ្ជ ី ង្្មះ) េួយ ង្បើអាណាទាក់ទងនឹងរបស់ង្យើង ង្យើងយក។ ង្បើអាណា េន ះ ង្យើងេន ិ ិ ចុំរបស់ង្យើងង្ទ េន ិ យកង្ទ។ ង្ហ្ើយង្បើឲ្យង្យើងចុះង្ដើរស្សង់ម្ភនក់ឯងវញង្ហ្ហ ិ អាចង្ៅរួចង្ទ ង្ស្

ះវាឆ្ៃយ ង្ហ្ើយង្យង ល ឧ៖ េ្ុុំចុះភូេេ ួ តាុំងេង្ី ម្ភ៉ោង៨ស្េក ើ េន ិ ាាល់ផ្ូ វង្ៅណាៗង្ទ។ ិ យ ឹ េកទល់ង្េល

ង្នះង្ម្ភ៉ោង៣រង្សៀលេន ិ ទាន់បានង្ចញេីភូេផ្ ិ ងង្ទ។ ឯណាង្ៅបានខតេីរផ្ទះ េីរបីហ្តា េិបាកផ្លូវណាស់។ ង្ហ្ើយដូច េ្ុុំអញ្ច ឹ ង ណាេួយង្េលង្នះ ការង្គរេ្ុុំរវល់ខាលង ុំ ណាស់ ណាេួយង្ធវើរបាយការណ៍ជួនថានក់ង្លើ(បូរេ)ី ខាងម្ភចស់ជុំនួយ

ផ្ង ខាងអងាការេ្ុុំផ្ង ង្គទារេ្ុុំរហ្ូត។ របាយការណ៍បូកសរុប េ្ុុំវាយង្ហ្យ ើ បានង្ផ្្រើ អុខី េលង្ៅឲ្យបាន។ ង្ហ្យ ើ ណា េួយចុះភូេម្ភ ិ ន ក់ឯងផ្ង េ្ុុំេន ិ ម្ភនង្េលស្គប់ស្គ្នន់ង្ទ។

Appendix 1F: Interview Questions for Education Program Manager

Interview Questions for Program Director/Mr. Keo Sarath – Education Program Manager

What are the strategic goals of Partnerships?

What problems do you see existing in Save the Children Norway?

How about problems with capacity building of partners?

4. What are the differences between Partnership Strategy 2007-2009 and CPH Grant Management - Partner assessment and selection-process and criteria?

Why does SCN not implement the strategy directly?

Are the partnership guidelines used? If they are, how are they used?

Do SCN’s partners meet the target agreed with SCN?

Do you think SCN’s HR policy affects the outcomes of partners?

To you, how can we develop effective partnership?

10. How to measure organizational skills (performance management, performance analysis and program adjustments)?

11. How can you be sure that all programs and services are well defined and fully aligned with mission and goals?

Appendix 2: Organizational Chart of Save the Children Norway

Appendix 3: Organizational Chart of Operations Enfants du Cambodge

Appendix 4: Partnership Agreement

Appendix 5: Summary in Khmer

ការសិកាស្ាវស្ាវបានចាប់ង្ផ្តើេង្ៅកនុងខេវឆ្ឆ ុំ ០១១។ ការង្ធវើការណាត់ជួបសម្ភាសន៍ផ្ទទល់ ាផ្លូវការ ិ ិកា ឆ្ន២ ាេួយនឹងស្កុេស្បធានស្គប់ស្គងាន់េពស់របស់អងាភាេស្តូវបានង្រៀបចុំង្ បានេ័តម្ភ ៌ នបខនាេេីង្លើការស្ាវស្ាវតាេ

លេ័តម្ភ ៌ ន។ សស្ម្ភប់ការស្បេូល ើងង្ដើេបស្បេូ ី

រយៈការសម្ភាសន៍ផ្ទទល់ាេួយថានក់ដឹកន្ទុំ ការស្បេូលេ័តម្ភ ៌ នង្ដាយ

ការចុះផ្ទទល់ង្ៅេូលដាននស្បតិបតតិការង្គរ ខដលអងាការថ្ដគូរបស់អងាការនរង្វសេ៍ សង្រង្គាះកុម្ភរស្តូវង្ធវើង្

ើងអស់រយៈ

ង្េល២ថ្ងៃ។ របាយការណ៍ស្ាវស្ាវង្នះង្ធវើង្

ើង

គឺង្ដើេបខី សវងរកនូវបញ្ហហខដល

េនុសេ និងការអនុវតតង្លើការង្គរស្គប់ស្គងធនធានេនុសេរបស់អងាការ

ក់េន ័ ធនឹងង្គ្នលនង្យាបាយធនធាន

នរង្វសេ៍សង្រង្គាះកុម្ភរ។ ការស្ាវស្ាវង្នះង្ធវើ

តាេរយៈការវាយតថ្េលង្លើខផ្នការយុទធារសតស្គប់ស្គងរបស់អងាការនរង្វសេ៍សង្រង្គាះកុ ម្ភរ ស្បតប ិ តតិការកុម្ភរង្ដើេបក ី េពុាកនុងការផ្តល់ង្សវាដល់កុម្ភរ។

និងរបស់អងាការថ្ដគូ

ការស្ាវស្ាវង្នះក៏ម្ភនង្គ្នលបុំណងវាយតថ្េលថាង្តើ

ខផ្នការយុទធារសតស្គប់ស្គងរបស់ អងាការសង្រង្គាះកុ ម្ភរម្ភនភាេចាស់ោល់ អាចវាស់ខវងបាន អាចទទួលបានតាេ ការកុំណត់ ម្ភនភាេទាក់ទងគ្នន និងសង្ស្េចង្គ្នលបុំណងបាន តាេរយៈង្េលកុំណត់ ង្ដើេបទ ី ទួលបាននូវង្គ្នលង្ៅ រួេខដលបានដាក់កុ ងខផ្នការយុ ន ទធារសតរបស់ស្បង្ទសខដរឬង្ទ។ េា៉ោងង្ទៀត របាយការណ៍ង្នះក៏នឹងង្ធវើង្

ើងង្ដើេបវា ី យតថ្េលថាង្តើ ង្គ្នលនង្យាបាយធនធានេនុ សេ និងការ

ស្គប់ស្គងធនធានេនុសេង្គ្នរេតាេខផ្នការយុទធារសត ម្ភនការអនុវតតលអស្បង្សើរ និងម្ភនគណង្នយយភាេខដរឬង្ទ។ ង្ហ្តុដូង្ចនះ

សុំ ណួរតស្េង់ទិសសស្ម្ភប់ការស្ាវស្ាវគឺង្ដើេបច ី ង់ដឹងអុំេីធនធានេនុសេរបស់អងាការថ្ដគូស្បតិបតតិការ

កុម្ភរង្ដើេបក ី េពុាង្ស្បស្ើ បាស់ង្គ្នលនង្យាបាយធនធានេនុសេរបស់ ង្គឆ្លុះបញ្ហចុំង

នឹងង្គ្នលនង្យាបាយធនធាន

េនុសេរបស់អងាការនរង្វសេ៍សង្រង្គាះកុម្ភរកនុងការេស្ងឹងសេតាភាេបុគាលិកង្ដើេបផ្ ី តល់ង្សវា

ង្ដាយម្ភនស្បសិទធភាេ

និងស្បសិទធផ្លយា៉ោងដូចង្េតច។ ង្ស្ៅេីង្នះ ការស្ាវស្ាវង្នះគឺង្ដើេប ី ខសវងរកថាង្តើអងាការថ្ដគូស្បតិបតតិការកុម្ភរង្ដើេប ី កេពុា ង្ធវើយា៉ោងដូចង្េតចង្ដើេបធា ី ន្ទថា បុគាលិក គង្ស្ម្ភងរបស់ង្គម្ភនសេតាភាេស្គប់ស្គ្នន់ ម្ភនតួន្ទទី និងទុំនួលេុស ស្តូវចាស់ោស់កុ ងការ ន អនុវតតគង្ស្ម្ភង។

ការវភាគទ ័ ង្ធវើង្ ិ ិនននយ អងាភាេទាុំងេូល

ើងង្ដាយខផ្អកង្លើសុំណួរង្គ្នលបួន

ខដលង្ផ្ទតតង្លើខផ្នការយុទធារសតសស្ម្ភប់

ខផ្នការយុទធារសតសស្ម្ភប់អងាការសង្រង្គាះកុ ម្ភរនិងអងាការ

ថ្ដគូរបស់ង្គ

ង្គ្នលនង្យាបាយ

ធនធានេនុសេ និងវធ ិ ីារសតស្តួតេិនិតយតាេដាលលទធផ្ល ការង្គរង្លើការង្ស្បើស្បាស់ធនធានេនុសេ។ ង្សចកតីសននិដាានចុំង្

ះការសិកាស្ាវស្ាវបានឲ្យដឹងថា

ង្គ្នលង្ៅរួេខដលបានង្រៀបចុំង្

ើងកនុងខផ្នការ

កេមវធ ិ ីស្បចាុំស្បង្ទសក៏ដូចាខផ្នការយុទធារសតសស្ម្ភប់ឆ្ន ុំ ២០១០ ដល់ ២០១៤ ង្ហ្ើយនឹងង្គ្នលបុំណងថ្នខផ្នក ស្គប់ស្គងកនុងខផ្នកធនធានេនុសេរបស់អងាការសង្រង្គាះកុម្ភរេន ិ សូ វម្ភនភាេចាស់ ោស់ ទទួលបានតាេការកុំណត់ ង្ហ្តុដូចង្នះ

ម្ភនភាេទាក់ទងគ្នន

អាចវាស់ខវងបាន

អាច

ង្ហ្ើយសង្ស្េចង្គ្នលបុំណងបានតាេរយៈង្េលកុំណត់ង្

ើយ។

អងាការសង្រង្គាះកុម្ភរ គួរេស្ងឹងបខនាេង្លើការដាក់ង្គ្នលង្ៅរួេ និងង្គ្នរេតាេអវីខដលបានង្រៀបចុំ

សស្ម្ភប់អងាភាេ។ អងាការសង្រង្គាះកុម្ភរគួរង្រៀបចុំេស្ងឹងបខនាេង្លើការស្តួតេិនិតយ និងតាេដាន និងម្ភនឧបករណ៍ង្ស្បើ ាេួយអងាការថ្ដគូ ង្ដើេបធា ី ន្ទនូ វគុណភាេការង្គរ។ ចុំខណកការកាងសេតាភាេរបស់អងាការខដគូចុំង្

ះបុគាលិកគង្ស្ម្ភងសស្ម្ភប់ការអនុវតតការង្គរនិងជុំន្ទញ

ស្តួតេិនិតយតាេដានក៏ង្ៅម្ភនកុំរត។ ង្លើសេីង្នះង្ទៀត ដូចគ្នននឹងអងាការម្ភចស់ជុំនួយ អងាការថ្ដគូ គួរខតេស្ងឹងស្បេ័នធ ិ គណង្នយយភាេរបស់ង្គកនុងការស្បតិបតតិគង្ស្ម្ភង ក៏ដូចាង្គ្នលនង្យាបាយ ធនធានេនុ សេកនុងភាេាថ្ដគូសស្ម្ភប់ ផ្តល់ង្សវាកេមខដលម្ភនស្បសិទធិភាេនិងស្បសិទធិផ្លដល់កុម្ភរខដរ។