Scope of Work
The assignment aims to identify the overall progress in implementing ARMAC’s Three-Year Work Plan 2019-2021 covering both its operations and programmes, as well as provide ARMAC with recommendations to improve its operational and programmatic work including its new work plan. The output of the assignment will provide a set of directions and way forward for ARMAC in the next 3 years.
The evaluation review will follow the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) evaluation criteria, with the following specific guiding questions/points in mind.
Relevance: Are we doing the right things?
- To what extent have the work plan implementation contributed to the ARMAC’s mandate and functions? What can be done to promote contribution?
- To what extent has the programme implementation corresponded with the priorities and needs of the affected AMS?
- Has the programme implementation aligned to the ASEAN Political Security Community Blueprint 2025? What can be done to promote alignment?
- Recommend revisions and/or adjustments to the work plan, as deemed necessary
Coherence: How well does the work plan align with the ARMAC mandates and functions?
To what extent has the programme added value to the work of the following stakeholders e.g., avoiding duplication of their efforts, and vice versa?
- National mine/unexploded ordnance (UXO) action authorities/centres and relevant institutions of the affected AMS
- Non-affected AMS
- International mine/explosive remnants of war (ERW) action related organisations and conventions
What can be done to promote complementarity, harmonization and coordination with these stakeholders
Effectiveness: Are the work plan objectives being/already achieved?
- To what extent have the progress been made towards the work plan objectives?
- What factors have contributed to achieving and hindering the achievement of the work plan objectives and outputs? Identify lessons learnt.
- To what extent have the programme objectives remained realistic in current trend of global mine/ERW action?
- To what extent have the operation objectives supported the achievement of the programme objectives?
Efficiency: How well are resources being used?
- To what extent have the resources (funds, personnel, time) been used to achieve the results?
- Have the work plan outputs been achieved within the intended timeframe?
- Are there any feasible alternatives for achieving the same results with lesser inputs?
Impact: What difference do the outcomes of the work plan implementation make?
- To what extent have significant higher-level effects on stewardship (of staff, systems and processes) of ARMAC have been achieved?
- To what extent have significant higher-level effects on the efforts to address the problems of explosive remnants of war in the affected AMS been achieved?
- Has the partnership strategy with key stakeholders been appropriate and effective?
- What is the quality of the existing monitoring and evaluation framework?
Sustainability: Will the benefits last?
- How have talents been recruited, developed, retained and promoted? What are the strengths and weaknesses of ARMAC’s systems and processes? Is there any knowledge management process in place? How strong is ARMAC’s foundation in terms of these factors?
- To what extent have the sustainability of the projects been ensured during the project formulation and implementation