The BEAM Exchange
Draft October 3 2014
1. Executive Summary
This report outlines the key findings from the BEAM Exchange (“BEAM”) consultation process. Between May and July 2014 the team conducted a four-stage consultation including key informant interviews, an online survey, follow-up interviews and data analysis. Our consultation sought to gather views on BEAM’s vision, BEAM’s audience, priority sectors, priority themes, knowledge sharing and networking, capacity building, practitioner incentives, key networks and BEAM positioning. Details for each section are outlined in the document, but headline findings include:
Who should BEAM focus on?
· Donor staff (both at headquarters and in-country) and the individuals and organisations implementing market systems programmes in the field were viewed as requiring the most support. Consultants were seen most likely to engage with BEAM.
· The principal barriers preventing practitioners from engaging with learning networks were identified as being limited time and budget. This suggests BEAM will need to explore ways to make it easier for practitioners to share what they learn, connect to the latest information, and help them write-up their experience and good practice.
· The Donor Committee for Enterprise Development (DCED), the former M4P Hub, the SDC Employment and Income (E&I) Network and the SEEP Network are important networks for BEAM to engage with.
What are the key issues and sectors?
· The consultation showed that the greatest need for support relates to the ‘how to’ of market systems approaches, e.g. analysing market failures and underlying causes and negotiating with the private sector.
· Priority issues included identifying systemic change, improved tools for evaluating systemic change and moving from pilot to scale-up. Nevertheless, priorities differed amongst practitioner groups, with job creation a key theme for donors, but not for others, for instance.
· Sectors with the highest level of interest amongst the practitioners we consulted with included labour markets, impact investing, agriculture and nutrition/ food security.
How can BEAM support and facilitate learning in the market systems community?
· To facilitate knowledge-sharing and networking, practitioners highlighted the value in more matchmaking, signposting to accredited experts and help desk services. Face-to-face events were also identified as an important way to build trust and relationships.
· To support capacity development, practitioners expressed the need for further support in exchange visits and mentoring. Suggestions were also made for facilitating the training market, such as adding on optional externally provided trainings to BEAM events.
· The consultation suggests that BEAM should strive to be inclusive, practical, complement other networks and facilitate the market rather than take a direct role.
Emerging issues for BEAM to consider
· Should BEAM focus on countries where a number of networks are already highly active, or where they are less established and programmes have limited knowledge-sharing resources?
· Messages are mixed on the degree to which BEAM should support work in conflict-affected environments (CAEs) and women’s economic empowerment (WEE).
· Should BEAM have a funding window for knowledge sharing activities? If yes, how will it ensure funds are fairly accessible and have sustainable market-building impacts?
· Should BEAM develop processes to feed back programme procedural challenges to donors and if so, how?
· Should BEAM carry out assessments of programmes across donor portfolios? Should BEAM support the standardisation of programme reporting and assessment?
Each section ends with priority decision points and next steps. These are brought together in the table within the final section, ‘Next Steps’.
2. Consultation Process
The BEAM Exchange carried out an extensive consultation process with key market system approach stakeholders from May to July 2014. It aimed to:
· Develop a stronger understanding of market system approach stakeholder groups, map relevant networks and build relationships with individuals and organisations interested in further collaboration.
· Identify key constraints, strengths and interests within the market system approach community and suggest which BEAM activities and positioning would provide most added value.
· Guide the activities of the programme through its implementation phase and indicate where resources would best be prioritised.
It involved four stages:
1. Key informant interviews: Seventy interviews were conducted with experienced and established individuals within the market system approach community, well-positioned to provide insights on its current state and BEAM’s positioning in it. The Consultation Strategy originally planned for 45 interviews, but this was significantly overachieved due to the useful information received and positive feedback from interviewees who valued talking with BEAM and getting involved in its development at an early stage.
2. Online survey: A survey was developed and disseminated (including through partner organisations such as DCED, Business Fights Poverty (BFP) and DFID’s Private Sector Development (PSD) Twitter account), focusing on respondents’ own priorities. We received 231 responses from 54 countries, providing valuable data, but this was significantly less than the 566 expected responses. This is primarily due to the low incentives to fill out such a survey. Feedback was generally very positive, with many qualitative comments and suggestions on ways to collaborate with BEAM. Ninety-six percent of respondents wished to be kept informed of BEAM updates. Response numbers were lower for business (15) and senior donor policy advisers (18), and many people responded that they identified with multiple practitioner types (e.g. consultants and programme managers).
3. Follow-up interviews: Nineteen follow-up interviews were conducted with survey respondents who had provided insightful comments or had been recommended as worth speaking to, and with experts purposefully selected to explore discrepancies in consultation responses. The strategy envisaged 15 interviews, with the overreach again representing significant interest in learning about BEAM, having an early input and discussing potential collaborations.
4. Analysis and write up: Responses across the three previous stages were analysed alongside ‘lessons learnt’ in the M4P Hub final review and a review of comparator platform knowledge management and learning strategies.
3. BEAM Vision
This section outlines interview responses that addressed BEAM’s goals, structure and ways of operating. Key messages include that BEAM should be inclusive, overseeing activities and online spaces both for beginners and for experts; that it should be practical and not overly focus on theoretical discussions. Despite these points, responses suggest that there is value in BEAM being clear on what is and what is not a market system approach. Decisions should be made on whether BEAM will have a funding window for knowledge sharing activities and if so, how it will develop processes to feed back programme procedural challenges to donors.
Interviewees were positive on the broad scope of work BEAM anticipates focusing on its three spokes (policy and practitioner learning; research and innovation; and results measurement and impact) and the overall goal of strengthened and extended development and application of market system approaches. Nonetheless, a large number of respondents highlighted that BEAM should also support programmes to communicate to donors their grievances about how they are affected by donor processes on various operational issues.
Several overarching messages were expressed. BEAM should aim to be inclusive in regard to who it works with and what it considers to constitute market system approaches. BEAM should work with a broad range of people and organisations, and not just the usual suspects and larger organisations. It should bring in people from other sectors and bring on-board other donors.
BEAM should avoid suggesting that there is only one correct way to carry out market system approaches and refrain from being judgemental; rather it should take a broad-church approach. However this should not mean that anything goes, and BEAM should be clear on what market systems approaches are or are not. BEAM should develop different strategies to engage with beginners and experts, including having online spaces introducing market system approaches and allowing practitioner discussion on any issues and more expert/ advanced spaces. The value of being inclusive is also made in the M4P Hub final report which notes that consensus on best practice requires the involvement and support of a broad set of practitioners.
BEAM should aim to provide practical support. It shouldn’t overly focus on theoretical issues, it should be aware of practitioner limitations and aversions to long documents, and it should develop or disseminate tools and guidance that are simple to use. Engaging with BEAM should be understood as a time investment, not a privilege, and BEAM should consider what the practitioner return on investment is for each activity and how to increase it.
A number of interviewees discussed BEAM’s plans and strategies, with several noting the value of BEAM initially focusing on the practitioner community, developing consensus and trust, before longer term advocacy with donors. BEAM should aim to develop a narrative about its role, the issues it will focus on and its goals. It could have several thematic zones that work focuses around. It should be flexible and adaptive, experimenting with different activities and focusing on what works. Rather than driving the agenda, respondents suggested BEAM should aim to let the network that it engages do this. Similarly, findings suggest that BEAM should not treat network products as its own, rather giving credit to the people populating the space.
There were different views on whether BEAM should provide bespoke services to programmes, such as developing a cadre of market system approach experts or organising individual knowledge sharing events for programmes; and if BEAM should charge for these. Such bespoke support may be appropriate in some instances, but there was larger support for BEAM facilitating the market and not competing with current suppliers. Nevertheless, interviewees were enthusiastic for BEAM to have funding windows for grants or matched funding for knowledge sharing activities e.g. programmes exchanges, write-up of case studies reports and regional events.
Suggested next steps1. Take forward suggested principles within website development and learning activities. For instance, the initial website should define market system approaches in an inclusive manner, explain the approach for beginners and focus on guidance. Activities should include discussion spaces for practitioners new to market system approaches and those more experienced.
2. Decide whether/ how BEAM will have an open funding window for knowledge sharing activities
3. Decide whether/ how BEAM will develop a process to share challenges identified by programme staff with donors.
4. BEAM Audience
This section summarises interview responses on which practitioners BEAM should focus on. The largest barriers to effective practice were noted at the implementation, donor headquarter (HQ) level and donor country staff level, with consultants being the group most likely to engage, suggesting BEAM prioritise these practitioner types. Working with national governments or the private sector were not seen as BEAM priorities.
Interviewees noted that the largest constraints in the market system approach value chain were with implementers, donor HQ staff and donor country staff. Implementers were viewed as most requiring support, and also as the key source of practical knowledge. Lack of trained, skilled people was a common message, while others highlighted the challenges they faced with their work, such as identifying and negotiating with private sector partners and developing terms of reference and contracts. Programme managers are important stakeholders as they take the practical decisions on how things are done in a programme. Multiple interviewees mentioned that there was no guide on how to manage a successful market system approach programme.
Two problems were noted at donor HQs. Firstly, donor structures are insufficiently flexible for market system approach programmes and often provide perverse incentives to programmes e.g. towards quick wins and not taking risks, and both for VfM and pushing for higher spend. Secondly, often there is limited support for the market system approach approach at more senior levels with the organisation, suggesting BEAM think about how to support internal lobbying. Finding and supporting senior drivers within donor agencies is also needed to order to expand the role of market system approaches in non-traditional sectors. Quality assurance / evaluation staff should also be made aware of and encouraged to contribute to discussions about challenges in evaluating systemic change initiatives.
Donor staff at the country level are often isolated, potentially with a team leader that does not support market system approach. They need help with issues such as how to design a good market system approach programme and how to make their case to HQs, and generally in networking with their colleagues in similar situations in other countries or in other donor agencies.
The stakeholders viewed as most likely to engage with BEAM were consultants. This is due to their need to stay on top of issues and boost their profiles for business development, and increased ability and/ or time to engage with conceptual learning.
Working with partner governments was viewed as not a BEAM priority, though BEAM can develop partnerships with organisations better placed to do so. Businesses are also unlikely to be overly interested in BEAM, especially if BEAM’s branding stresses the goal of poverty reduction.
The barriers limiting consultants at the national level were generally viewed as low capacity levels and a lack of information on the latest approach developments/ opportunities. Interviewees also noted language barriers, the newness of market system approaches and larger demand from direct delivery approaches.
Suggested next steps4. Focus on donor HQ staff, donor country staff, implementers and consultants.
5. Focus learning activities with specific practitioner groups on their thematic priorities e.g. senior donor policy adviser priority theme of job creation.
6. Further explore ways for BEAM to engage with the private sector indirectly and feed conclusions into BEAM private sector engagement strategy.
5. Priority Sectors
This section looks at which sectors practitioners are most experienced and interested in. It reviews survey data and then compares this with interviews. Strength of experience is noted in agricultural and financial sectors. The survey notes high interest in labour markets, agriculture and food security/ nutrition, suggesting BEAM focus on these areas. Among non-traditional sectors, high interest in impact investing suggests BEAM focus on this sector. Limited interest in other non-traditional sectors suggests BEAM takes a more flexible approach, where it works with partners in such sectors where they are being innovative and are keen to collaborate. This may suggest currently health as a focal sector.