The final step is the feedback of the lessons learnt into the design of the arrangement. Lessons may relate to the partnership objectives, content, the process or its implementation. The process of implementation will reveal whether the objectives were clearly defined, overly ambitious or not ambitious enough, or whether the partners are simply under- performing. Another type of lesson will concern the contract itself, and will vary significantly with contract type. Implementation will reveal that there are critical gaps, that some clauses are too loose and others too constraining. Some activities will be found difficult to implement simply because the right structures or skills are not present.
Without an established mechanism to facilitate change on the basis of observed trends, the motivation for monitoring diminishes. If monitoring and evaluation conclude that target groups are not benefiting, for instance, there must be a means to revise the arrangement framework. Regular reviews, structured revision processes and contractual flexibility are thus key ingredients of the procedures established for feedback and revision.
Once the partnership strategy is reconsidered on the basis of the lessons learnt, it may be necessary to instigate a renegotiation of the arrangements that formalise the partnership. It is in all the parties' interests to be able to renegotiate the contract, and the procedure for doing so will need to be defined in the contract at the outset. The provisions for contract renegotiation and amendment must identify processes and timeframes for different types of changes. For example, the contract should stipulate the timeframe and approach to the renegotiation of financial aspects (e.g., tariff structures, connection fees and investment programmes). Municipalities should be aware of the implications of allowing the private sector to shift the goal posts too far or too frequently (see the experience in Buenos Aires in Box 7.18).
Box 12.6 Building Structural Capacity for Partnerships Ankara, Turkey |
As is commonly found elsewhere, municipalities in Turkey are based on a rigid hierarchical organisational structure with limited control over their finances and restrictive rules governing staff. In the early 1990s, Ankara municipality - with a population of 3.67 million - embarked on an ambitious US$3 billion development programme for improving urban transport, water supply and urban renewal under Murat Karayalcin's administration. This programme required the establishment of new support structures within the municipality, as a means of coordinating and managing new working relationships between the municipality and private sector partners that were involved in the construction and management of new facilities and the operation of services established under the programme. Ankara thus provides an interesting example of a municipality that has adapted and modified its organisational structure in order to improve municipal programme planning and management in partnership with the private sector. This has taken place at two levels: external (to enhance inter-agency coordination) and internal (to establish more effective and coordinated support within the municipality). External Structural Arrangements A variety of formal structures have been either strengthened or established to assist with this task. The main focus has been on establishing coordination units designed to enhance inter-agency and intra-agency activity: • an Infrastructure Coordination Centre for improved coordination of all infrastructure-related activities and projects of the municipality with other related public bodies; • a Transportation Coordination Centre responsible for all transport management; • a Development Plan Coordination Centre comprising eight sub-provincial mayors and heads of planning to coordinate all planning activities; and • an Advisory Board to provide the city with vision and strategy. Internal Structural Modifications In addition to these external structural arrangements, Ankara has undertaken further structural innovation to overcome the obstacles of fragmented and inefficient administration associated with the traditional Turkish municipal system (which has in the past been a powerful disincentive to the entry of private sector partners). In order to address this problem, the municipality has attempted to substitute and by-pass the formal organisational structures with a number of informal initiatives designed to facilitate effective project management and partnerships. Such partnerships are thought to be necessary to supplement existing financial resources with new internal and external sources, and to encourage public participation in project design and implementation. The main structural changes that have been introduced include: • Reorganising existing departments of the municipality to introduce a greater corporate orientation, and to address the issue of the reallocation of responsibilities and redeployment of staff in response to changing departmental functions and priorities. • Setting up new work units within departments, mostly on an informal basis to avoid lengthy delays. Such units have been entrusted with specific responsibilities in relation to managing partnership relations and overseeing and monitoring work contracts. • Staffing new units with expert personnel from within the organisation to ensure that such units and departments have access to the necessary range of skills and expertise at all times. • Recruiting new expert staff through municipal firms to allow for more flexible employment terms and conditions. This has proved to be an important way of injecting the right calibre of staff into the municipal structure without having to work through the formal bureaucratic channels. • Retraining and equipping personnel with specific skills needed for project design, bidding and tendering, contract management, monitoring and auditing. • Creation of a special Executive Committee to meet monthly to monitor project activity. • Establishment of a Mayor's Bureau to undertake all central support work related to new projects and partnerships. • Constitution of an annual convention to inform citizens of project activities and progress. • Setting up of consultative project-decision boards to mediate discussions with all stakeholders. • Regular interaction with neighbourhood committees. Source: Goymen, 2000 |