THE ANALYTICAL APPROACH - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – THE ANALYTICAL APPROACH PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 198c0e-ZDc1Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

THE ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Description:

Analytical Approach & tools used in Costing the Plan. Illustrations of the costing ... key priority acions were then analysed vis- -vis the Total cost for the entire ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:21
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 25
Provided by: boscok
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: THE ANALYTICAL APPROACH


1
THE ANALYTICAL APPROACH TOOLS USED IN PLANNING,
PRIORITISATION AND COSTING OF THE DRAFT NPAP
2006/07
  • Presented
  • By
  • John Bosco Kavuma
  • In
  • The National Partnership Forum, Jan 30th - 1st
    Feb. 2006

2
OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION
  • Analytical approach used in planning and priority
    setting
  • Systematic steps
  • criteria
  • Analytical tools used in planning and priority
    setting
  • Matrix Score Card
  • Logframework

3
OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION Cont
  • Analytical Approach tools used in Costing the
    Plan
  • Illustrations of the costing
  • Limitations
  • Methodological
  • Practical
  • Conclusions

4
PART II - APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
  • (1) APPROACH
  • The Uganda NPAP 2006/07 was developed through a
    participatory and interactive process.
  • Approaches used for data collection, and
    consensus building included
  • Interviews and consultations
  • Presentations for validation, feedback and inputs
  • Literature review

5
ANALYTICAL APPROACH TOOLS IN PLANNING, PRIORITY
SETTING COSTING NPAP
  • A. Analytical Approach to Planning Priority
    setting
  • Step 1 Identifying a set of Strategic objectives
    that could be costed - setting key deliverables
    or outputs by using NSF, HSSP JAR as a
    starting point.
  • Step 2 Identifying the Priority Activities to
    attain the set objectives and targets
    prioritize the critical activities to ensure
    strategic orientation (again using NSF, HSSP and
    JAR recommendations as starting point).

6
Analytical Approach to Planning Priority
setting Cont
  • Step 3 Costing of the Priority Activities-
    estimating or assessing the resource requirements
    and attaching financial costs to those resources
    to ensure that the goals are financially
    affordable.
  • Step 4 Logically linking identified Priority
    Activities (PAs) with the Objectives -
    assigning input, process and output indicators to
    each objective/activity as well as the key
    responsible actors

7
Analytical Approach to Planning and Priority
Setting cont.
  • Planning and Priority setting
  • The analytical approach to planning and selection
    of priority action plans was guided by a number
    of questions
  • (i) Why should we prioritise?
  • (ii) What do we prioritise?
  • (ii) For whom do we prioritise?
  • (iii) For how long do we prioritise?
  • (iv) How to we prioritise?

8
Analytical Approach to Planning and Priority
Setting cont..
  • Why should we prioritise? Why do we prioritise
    again when we already have the NSF?
  • It will be unrealistic to assume that every
    single strategy/objective and every need
    prioritized in the NSF could be executed/ met in
    a period of one year (with slight exception of
    the activities for already on-going
    programme/projects) .

9
Analytical Approach to Planning Priority
Setting Cont
  • We therefore prioritise to select those
    strategies and action plans on which we can
    strategically focus the resources and efforts.
  • Priority setting is not meant to eliminate any
    objective or strategy in the NSF on the basis of
    being least important but to select action plans
    that require urgent and immediate
    attention/action.

10
Analytical Approach to Planning and Priority
Setting Cont
  • HOW TO PRIORITISE?
  • The underlying principles in prioritizing the
    strategic objectives were (1) keeping the number
    of objectives small not to lose the objective of
    strategic focus, and (2) set strategic objectives
    measurable targets (quantitatively) to be able to
    cost them and to monitor progress.
  • To prioritise based on well standard criteria and
    using proven methodologies

11
ANALYTICAL TOOLS IN PLANNING, PRIORITY SETTING
  • Two planning, programming and priority setting
    techniques were used arrive at the priorities
  • Logframework, and
  • Matrix Score Card.
  • The Matrix Score Card Technique was used to
    pre-qualify and re-prioritise the activities in
    the NSF based on the standard checklist.
  • That is, each action plan in the NSF was
    assessed based on standard criteria/checklist

12
CRITERIA FOR SELECTING PRIORITY ACTION
PLANS/ACTIVITIES
  • Based on knowledge, skills and experience
    regarding national development planning in
    particular planning and costing for HIV/AIDS
    initiatives, Eight (8) criteria were used to
    assess, grade, and rank the priority activities
    for NPAP 2006/07.
  • The extent of gap in national service coverage
  • (ii) Consistency with the overall
    macroeconomic framework
  • (iii) Magnitude of direct impact on
    HIV/AIDS epidemic
  • (iv) Availability of the capacity to
    implement the activity

13
CRITERIA FOR SELECTING PRIORITY ACTION
PLANS/ACTIVITIES
  • (v) Potential for funding
  • (vi) Contribution of the activity to the
    coordination, harmonization and
    rationalization of HIV/AIDS
  • (vii) Addressing issues of equity and
    vulnerability
  • (viii) Magnitude of costs/damages in case of
    inaction

14
ILLUSTRATION OF THE ASSESMENT OF NSF ACTIVITIES
USING MATRIX SCORE CARD
15
COSTING THE PLAN ANALYTICAL APPROACH TOOLS
  • 1. Analytical Approach to Costing
  • The process of costing the Uganda NPAP 2006/07
    involved the following components
  • Determining the unit cost required for delivering
    a particular service or implementing a given
    priority activity
  • Determining the level of demand/need for
    particular services
  • Determining the desired Scale-up levels

16
DETERMINING UNIT COSTS
  • To determine the unit costs, a Rapid Costing
    Assessment (RCA) approach was used.
  • RCA assists in developing the unit costs for
    interventions included in NPAP

17
STEP 1 DETERMINING UNIT COSTS
  • In order to collect unit costs
  • key informants in Uganda were interviewed and
    asked to define the resources requirement to
    provide particular services.
  • Relevant local publications of various HIV
    programmes were also consulted.
  • The derived unit costs were compared to global
    estimates and checked for consistency. The data
    in the Resource Needs for an Expanded Response to
    AIDS in Low- and Middle Income Countries (UNAIDS
    2005) was used as benchmarks.

18
DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF DEMAND/NEED FOR SERVICES
  • The level of demand for particulars services were
    assessed to help in estimating the levels for
    up-scaling in shortto-medium term period. The
    assessment of potential demand was based on
  • Information in UNGASS report, Sero-surveys, UDS,
    UNHS.
  • We looked at such information as
  • (i) demographic information,
  • (ii) current level of service coverage,
  • (iii) epidemiological statistics,
  • (iv) Poverty Eradication Action Plan Goals
  • (v) Health Sector Strategic Plan (HSSP targets.
  • (vi) NSF Goals

19
DETERMINING THE DESIRED SCALE-UP LEVELS
  • This costing exercise was not intended to
    estimate the resources required to meet every
    need. The idea was to try as much as possible to
    align this costing with the goals and objectives
    of the NSF, while developing a budget that is
    feasible yet adequately ambitious. This analysis
    was therefore based on certain assumptions about
    the level scaling up that would realistically
    be attained in one year (FY 2006/07).

20
CHECKING FOR CONSISTENCY
  • Having estimated the targets/intensity of
    activities (scale-up levels), the strategic
    objective/priority activities were costed and
    estimate of financial resources required to
    achieve this targets was provided.
  • The costs for key priority acions were then
    analysed vis-à-vis the Total cost for the entire
    NPAP 2006/07 and the resource requirement for the
    implementation of the plan also analysed versus
    the current funding sources
  • Unit costs for individual priority actions were
    with international benchmarks for consistency
  • Finally the resource requirements for the NPAP
    will be analysed for consistency with the overall
    macroeconomic budgetary framework (MTEF ceiling)
    and estimates for Non-MTEF.
  • Comments will be provided on implementation
    modalities (key actors and their roles) as well
    as on monitoring the progress of implementing the
    NPAP.

21
AN ILLUSTRATION OF COST BUILD-UP
22
LIMITATIONS
  • Methodological Limitations
  • Assigning scores using the Matrix Score Card
    Technique was subjects
  • The different criteria chosen to assess and
    evaluate priority action plans were assumed to be
    of equal importance across the various activities
    ( No weight were attributed to different criteria
    to maintain simplicity)
  • The unit costing technique could not assess the
    cost-effectiveness for priority actions.
    Financial costing intended to assessing the
    actual expenditure on activities or be
    executed/procured not the Economic Costs1,
    which reflect the true cost of these activities.

23
LIMITATIONS
  • (4) Units costs are optimal for planning purposes
    (including scaling up) but is not a budget and
    unit costs are no indication of cost
    effectiveness of the intervention
  • (5) The financial costs assigned to resources
    needed to implement the action plans are not
    exact but close estimates. To date the unit cost
    for delivery of various HIV/AIDS services has not
    been established (no baseline).

24
CONCLUSION
  • The activity-based costing may not come up with
    accurate costs, particularly for a data poor and
    human resource constrained environment like that
    of Uganda. However, it is better to raise the
    right questions on setting priorities and
    articulating preferences and come up with rough
    budget estimates rather than focusing on detailed
    operational budgets of limited strategic value.
    Costing of this kind must be seen as a stepwise
    process which keeps improving over the years and
    that involves significant capacity building.
About PowerShow.com