BIGD Policy Communications Strategy

BRAC Institute of Governance and Development (BIGD) BRAC University

1

BIGD Policy Communications Strategy

June 2014

2

I

Executive Summary

Knowledge sharing and policy engagement ambition of BIGD has been prioritized

recently in a new direction. This created a demand for a Policy Communication

Strategy. The current research uptake process was critically assessed to integrate a

policy influencing drive in it for creating greater impact. Following three overseas and

two country level workshop and series of consultation meeting, webinars between IDS,

UK, Asian Think Tanks, Practical Action and BIGD (between January – June 2014) an

improved understanding on Policy Engagement & Communication (PEC) was developed

among relevant BIGD staff used as a basis to formulate this strategy. The strategy clearly

focused on conceptual basis, capacity on PEC, operational approach, latest

communication means, stakeholder relationship and monitoring aspects. It explains the

complexity of policy influence and recommended an “evidence plus approach” to policy

engagement which captured political and relational aspects. While analyzing PEC

capacity at individual and organization level, it was identified that BIGD has some

dedicated PEC staff having very positive intention to implement a forward looking plan;

however there is some gap of understanding on PEC goal and its theory of change.

There is lack of skill in delivering new systems for knowledge mobilization and policy

engagement, using latest and effective digital communication means, quality knowledge

material production for different audience and monitoring the change. The PEC strategy

emphasized to identify more appropriate policy actors and champions for a targeted

change, recommended to strengthen its relation with media (local & international), civil

society networks and relevant alliances. It encouraged to follow a problem solving

approach in policy engagement and indicated to position BIGD as a quality information

provider and advocate for change. The newly merged BIGD (IGS + BID) need to

integrate its communication, public relation, IT department and research clusters to

create open access to knowledge on governance and development and providing quality

evidence for decision makers at national and international level. The conceptual basis

and operational framework clarified five main pillars to operationalize policy

engagement around setting a 1) PEC goal, 2) having right evidence and 3) technical

expertise (eg. Data visualization, use of twitter), 4) forming pressure group and civil

society mobilization, 5) working with powerful alliances and networks. For measuring

change, an scale for periodic performance measurement is recommended and for in

depth impact assessment key questions and indicators, operational efficiency aspects,

stakeholder analysis tool has been introduced. BIGD is confident that by 2020, policy

makers will be more informed and better engaged through evidence based research and

other PEC effort on governance and development in formulating and implementing pro-

poor policies in Bangladesh and South Asia.

I

Contents Page

Executive Summary

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The research communication process of BIGD 01

1.2 Strength & weakness of BIGD on PEC 03

1.3 External threats and challenges 04

1.4 How does policy change happen? 04

2.0 Policy Engagement Communication Goal of BIGD 05

3.0 How to fulfill the mission? 05

3.1 BIGD Impact Story/Vision 05

3.2 Any influencing effort of BIGD should have two three elements 06

3.3 Policy influencing map and operational model 06

3.4 Diverse communication channels to engage and influence 08

3.5 Capacity assessment and development 09

3.6 Capacity building priorities on PEC of BIGD 11

3.7 Assessing Policy Stakeholders of BIGD: Where can we improve? 11

4.0 Things we need to deliver our mission 13

4.1 Financial resource mobilization for PEC 13

4.2 Human Resource 13

4.3 Partnership & Networks 14

4.5 Organizational Change 14

5.0 How do we measuring

change? 14

6.0 Conclusion 16

Annex

II

List of tables Page No.

Table 1: Strength & weakness of BIGD on PEC 03

Table 2: Communication channels: What do we do? What can we do more? 08

Table 3: Stakeholder map of BIGD and way forward 11

Table 4: Example - Progress Assessment Tool for Advocacy Influencing 14

List of figures

Figure 1: Current research communication process of BIGD 02

Figure 2: Different conceptual perspective of policy influencing (source: IDS, UK) 03

Figure 3: How does policy change happen? (Source- ODI) 04

Figure 4: Influencing map 04

Figure 5: Channels of communication 07

Figure 6: Policy engagement operational model (source: Practical Action) 08

Figure 7: Organization level PEC capacity of BIGD 09

Figure 8: Individual level capacity in relation to PEC 10

Figure 9: Some common capacity both at individual and organisation level 10

III

1

1.0 Introduction

BRAC Institute of Governance & Development (BIGD) wants to contribute to the inclusive governance and development discourse in Bangladesh & South Asia by having a stronger knowledge sharing and policy engagement communication strategy for greater public well-being. Academic and research focus of BIGD is now expanded to a new direction towards knowledge mobilisation and policy influence. The institute recently emphasized on a planned approach towards national, international policy & practice change and its credibility as a leader in some issues of governance and development. Senior

management of BIGD started to rethink its research communication process for greater impact. BIGD is a sister concern of BRAC University, Bangladesh known for its research, training and higher education work and a pioneering institute in Bangladesh on Governance and development. Perhaps policy influencing could be more emphasized in its mandate. Its flagship report on “The state of Governance in Bangladesh” is popular. The institute’s close connection with BRAC (one of the largest NGOs in the world) is its advantage to bring grass root and macro level development insights in governance. The institute is equipped with recent innovations and practices in public policy and management of the contemporary world for the future leaders of Bangladesh. The institute has policy notes on - anticorruption commission, judiciary policy, electoral process, municipal public procurement, public service commission and foreign exchange reserves. One of their successful works is on National Integrity Strategy. Their important research programs covers state of governance, state of cities, youth survey and parliamentary programs. Conference, roundtable discussion and public lecture are the key events along with research and education and training work. They think influencing secretaries, ministers and politicians is really a challenging task and many issues are politically sensible and may bring risk for any institute. However, they have close connections with government branches and key constitutional bodies. Their target audiences are – member of parliaments, politicians, academics, bureaucrats, civil society, top level advisors, secretaries, donors and journalists for which they need more comprehensive communication plan. They do quite a lot of round table discussions but critical things happen beyond the formal talks which require off stage negotiation and influencing. They use personal and sector connections to engage stakeholders. They have communication, publication, IT staff for organizational communications. Their website is simple and perhaps could be further improved. They think media can play an important role in sensitizing policy makers. They have reports, papers, articles, media reports, dialogue reports, books and policy notes which they want to put in a more communicable form for various audiences. They think it is difficult to reach senior decision makers/high officials and politicians through face book and blog and other social media which is popular to younger decision makers.

1.1 The research communication process of BIGD Current research communication process has got three main steps where a draft research report is shared using different communication means such as briefing, press release, webinar, slide show etc. Then following expert meeting the final draft findings shared through various events such as -lecture, round table, online discussions have been arranged. These events play both dissemination and validation role. Finally the report is printed and repurposed as different

2

type of communication materials such as - policy note, web post, opinion piece, working paper etc. for wider uptake.

Figure 1: Current research communication process of BIGD

This current process can be further adapted with a strong policy engagement element. It can be linked with policy engagement operational model (figure 4 & 5).

Communication is often perceived as public communication, program (research or development) communication and organizational communication. The program communication is dominant where communication work is often considered as a support function. But this perception is changing. With an influencing objective communication need to go beyond support functions. In reality this is a cross team work between research, IT, management, and advocacy and communication team. Recent understanding among BIGD staff is that communication for policy engagement is not just about dissemination of research work; it is more about engagement, relationship with power holders and different cluster of stakeholders such as – donor, government, civil society groups, alliances, media, research and academic institutions. Quality evidence is the key to influence policy makers but in reality what works better is an evidence plus approach to deal the complexity of influencing. That means they need to do more than just giving evidence. They should have special technical skills of staff to influence (e.g. latest digital communication tools), need 4-5 set of stakeholder cluster, issue specific pressure groups, alliances, relation with champions, connections with media and networks to influence policy. The PEC team of the institute may contribute to change practices of others or may contribute to a policy formulation (or legislation) or implementation process or just to a decision. It may contribute to a long term change process or to a current burning issue. Level of relationship with power holders and impact on significant number of people are two important aspects of policy engagement. Conceptually policy engagement is about advising, advocating, lobbying or doing activism. It could go from cooperation to confrontation or from value based approach to evidence based approach or vs versa. Any organisation doing PEC has to decide their position on selecting approach. The organisation should clarify their position whether they are a quality evidence provider or an advocate for change or both. A true influencing organisation should have good researchers, science arbiters, issue advocates and honest brokers.

Draft Report Abstract

Slide share, Op-eds, Radio, distribute at events, Tweets and

Briefing, Google Drive, YouTube, Face book, Scribd/Webinar,

Eventbrite, Emai, Press release

Events

Final outcome/

Publication

Lecturing, Roundtable, Expert Dialogue, Seminar, Online

discussion, Website News, Voice Recording, Media Coverage,

Video interview

Final Report, Printed publication, Website upload, E-flyer,

Opinion Piece, Policy Note, Background Note, Working paper,

Interview, Book review

3

Figure 2: Different conceptual perspective of policy influencing (source: IDS, UK)

1.5 Strength & weakness of BIGD on PEC

Table 1: Strength & weakness of BIGD on PEC

Strength Weakness Attachment with BRAC University and its vast development work , A sister concern of globally renowned NGO BRAC, It’s brand on Governance , Independent research capability , High academic orientation ,offering graduation and post-graduation, Close connection /linkage with Govt. Recently joined up with Bangladesh Development Institute /BDI (merged) to strengthen it, BRAC Research & Evaluation Division will be closely linked. Trying to have a balanced staff capability across the organization ( not champion centered), Experience with urban governance , Networking with Experts and Government decision makers , Good media connections Manage influencing work beyond a public debate event Sector work on – Health, Banking, Urban governance etc.

Receive Govt. fund ( could be a limitation) Structure of the communication, knowledge, publication unit could be further strengthened Post publication work – distribution dissemination of research outcomes. Not linked with clear policy influencing target Newly merged BIGD could face challenge on setting staff Could have more diversified – research and communication skills, More collaboration with local TTs Lack of five year plan/strategic plan Need more focus on advocacy and policy influencing Staff on ICT, web communications Integration of research vs communication Language barrier to reach general audiences (English and Bengali). Reluctant to advocacy and communication work . External and internal communication means.

Evidence/Science based

Interest/Values based

Confrontation/

outside

Cooperation

/inside

Advising Advocacy

Lobbying Activism

4

1.3 External threats and challenges Interpretation of research outcome to policy recommendation is a real challenge for BIGD. While dealing with governance related discourse, it is difficult to grab the attention of key stakeholders and people retaining neutrality and integrity. As communication requires new skill in diverse fields, it is really tough to get and recruit a right staff on PEC. Knowledge mobilization and management ( capturing, filtering, repurposing, archiving) is also a new area becoming important for BIGD need further improvement. The institute has various informal linkage with national media but media is not expected to be supportive always is a threat. There is a chance of misinterpretation of research findings. Lack of fund is a challenge. Staff may face violence and political pressure on some sensitive findings of governance. Role of vested interest group can also be a threat.

1.4 How does policy change happen?

There is no straight forward recipe for policy influence. Ideally policy change or any practice

change need quality evidence. But only evidence is not enough. There is relational approach

where connections of people and decision makers, links with networks and civil society group,

interest group, champions play a vital role in policy change. Activism or radical or

confrontational (aggressive) approach may also require during emergency periods. In reality

decision making is closely associated with political process, links with the pressure from

network, alliances and interest groups.

Figure 3: How does policy change happen? (Source- ODI) BIGD will follow an “evidence plus” approach to influence decision makers which prioritise its

relationship with power holders, linkage with media, journalist, CSOs and interest groups

5

2.0 Policy Engagement Communication Goal of BIGD

The institute will have one or more PEC goal considering its different research thematic areas. It should not be same like the organizational goal. It may have other goals for marketing, fundraising or research etc. General PEC goal By 2020, policy makers will be more informed and better engaged through evidence based research

on governance and development in formulating and implementing pro-poor policies in Bangladesh

and South Asia.

BIGD wants that both people and policy makers will be better aware and engaged to secure good governance and development. It will be considered as first point of contact by government and private sectors for inclusive governance and development and improved well-being. It will be known as credible evidence providers and advocate in this field. The research communication process will be strongly linked with bigger policy asks. The institute will develop a communication strategy that leads to improved policy engagement and will be more influential in policy engagement and communication in the coming days.

PEC goal for specific research cluster Economic Governance, Growth and Development By 2020, BIGD will influence market institutions through evidence and policy engagement to promote equitable economic growth and sustainable development in Bangladesh and in South Asia.

3.0 How to fulfill the mission?

3.1 BIGD Impact Story/Vision

BIGD’s key stakeholders are policy makers, media, research organizations and academics, civil society groups and foreign donors. This could be done by involving policy-makers and other stakeholders in the research design process, so that ownership is developed and policy relevance is assured. The elected representatives, champions of various sectors, the media and serious public officials need to be engaged more rigorously.

6

The research product should be appropriately packaged for different stakeholders. It may require serious effort or repurposing, processing, filtering knowledge and evidence to communicate different audiences.

Scope and nature of operations need to be broadened by involving new-stakeholders. Monitoring and

evaluation mechanism need to be in place to track the progress. Secured resources are needed for

sustainability of PEC strategies.

3.2 Any influencing effort of BIGD should have two three elements -

(1) Contribution to any national, international policy discourse should be at the centre of a PEC process. This could be towards a long term process of change. The Think tank has to set a change vision and target, generate evidence host some of the key events on a discourse and facilitate or lead a partnerships to achieve change. (2) Contribution to an immediate decision or a legislative change could be different than contributing to a long term process. This will require a role issue advocate or opinion leader with quality evidence to influence decision maker. Evidence could be already available. This job is more with lobbying and advising. (3) A general learning sharing objectives for learners and development practitioners and mass people also helps to sensitise people contribute towards influencing.

3.3 Policy influencing map and operational model

Having a strong policy influencing target the dissemination process should include an influencing pathway includes allies, partners and networks to create a pressure for the change. Working with different cluster of stakeholder is not enough. The process demands advisors and opinion leaders or champions to communicate the change agenda to the decision maker in a right time. This policy engagement process requires some special technical capacity of staff on advocacy such as - data visualization, use of social media etc.

7

Figure 4 : Influencing map

We need to identify gap and develop internal capacity to influence. Lessons and evidence have to be generated or repurposed in a right format for right type of audience. We need to work with partners, networks and allies to bring a change. Sometimes we may have to form and sensitize pressure groups. From current analysis BIGD perhaps need more opinion leaders in various issues, They need to work with lobby group and associations/networks and utilize media in many different effective way.

Civil society mobilization,

Pressure Group

Stakeholder engagement, network

and alliance building Evidence

Technical expertise

Internal capacity &

confidence

Association, Lobbies

Public, Constitutes

Information

, media

Belief s, Ideology Regime

Policy change agenda or PEC Goal

8

Figure 5: Policy engagement operational model ( source: Practical Action )

3.4 Diverse communication channels to engage and influence

There are four clusters of communication channels usually used is effective PEC process. BIGD is already working through four channels but perhaps need to do more on “digital” and “media” cluster. The institute needs a balance attention in following four channels to influence its target audience.

Figure 6: Channels of communication

Table 2: What do we do? What can we do more?

Digital Currently doing:

Twitter, Facebook, , mobile text message, Webinars What can we do more? LinkedIn, Info graphics, Data visualization, ( eg. HANCI), , Google Eventbrite and email alert, Online discourse, Blogging, Flicker, E-mail update, Drop box, E-learning, , Digital publication, Slide/Photo share, Scribed ELDS (sharing presentation), PDF eBook/digital publication, Wikipedia, YouTube, Video case studies, Google +, Video/audio recording, RSS(XML) feeding, pod cast, Using open docs, RE PEC,

Media Currently doing: Press release, Press briefing, Letter to editors, TV/Radio talk Show, , Interviews, Op-eds (article) What can we do more? Newspaper supplementary, Media note, Journalist Forum, Media partnership,

Publications

Currently doing: Working paper, Annual Diary, Annual Diary, Annual Visual Diary, Research Report, Abstract, Paper, News Letter ( Qt), Policy Note, policy Brief,

Events

Currently doing: Seminar, Public Lecture on specific development issues/discourse, National and International Conference hosting/participation), Local dialogue,

9

Dialogue Report What can we do more? Opinion piece, Rapid response briefing, Strategy Paper, Evidence Report, Background Note, Literature review, Baseline Report, Post Event Report, Background note, Project Reports, Booklet, Monograph, Workshop Proceedings, Training Manual, Annual Report,

Media briefing, Round table, Expert Opinion, Retreat, What we can do more? Capacity building training for journalists, Policy symposium, Exhibition/Fair, , Campaign through web/radio, Lecture with students, Engaging young scholars, Evaluation Report Sharing Meeting, Project Closing Workshop, Inception Workshop, Convention

3.5 Capacity assessment and development

While analyzing PEC capacity at organization and individual level, it was clear that at

organization level understanding on PEC theory of change, developing new systems and

process, planning policy communication and building capacity of staff to cope with changing

environment were the key areas for further improvement. At individual level, staffs need to

continuously improve their networking, planning skill, digital and policy influence monitoring

skills.

Figure 7: Organization level PEC capacity of BIGD

At organization level, BIGD has got strong capacity in event management and media management. They can further improve their copping capacity with the changing environment, understanding on their change game or theory of change, digital means of communication and systems and process needed to implement PEC goals and activities’. Perhaps engagement with government ministries and private sector could be further improved.

10

Figure 8 : Individual level capacity in relation to PEC

At individual level, better capacity exists in event management, digital communication (only some staff), communication with non-specialist, information literacy. However, they need to further improve planning and management skill, quality publication production skill, M &E and networking skill. There is also lack of understanding among staff on new systems and approaches on PEC.

Figure 9: Some common capacity both at individual and organsiatrion level

Over all the organization has good capacity in event management and digital communication and need further improvement on systems & process, PEC planning and doing quality publication ( includes various type of communication materials).

11

3.6 Capacity building priorities on PEC of BIGD

First, BIGD staff (particularly communication, IT , research and some management staff need improved understanding on policy engagement and communication issues such as – policy entrepreneurship, latest digital communication means, theory of change on PEC etc.

Having a clear understanding a core PEC group need to be formed who could facilitate the process of developing a communications strategy for BIGD, focusing policy engagement in governances & development. They need to understand the strategy development cycle, PEC capacity assessment indicators, stakeholder mapping techniques and monitoring influence.

They need strong in house capacity to communicate different audiences particularly

journalist, media people and national decision makers. There is a demand among staff to learn editorial and communicative writing skills in different type of knowledge communication materials such as - policy note, policy brief, opinion piece, newsletter, rapid response brief including research reports in Bengali

BIGD need assistance to develop and build capacity of a journalist group on governance.

The journalists also can be trained in data journalism and various issues of governance and development. Staff can learn how communicates non-specialist

Use of digital communication means and social media (twitter, face book etc.)can bring

a big difference in communication. BIGD Staff need orientation on those. The website of BIGD could be examined by IT and communication experts to make it more interactive focusing BIGD brand. The concept of digital and virtual library need to shared and a library & resource center could be developed with assistance from IDS, UK.

3.7 Assessing Policy Stakeholders of BIGD: Where can we improve?

BIGD Communication and research staff identified 6clusters of their stakeholder as – Policy makers, donors, academia/researchers, media, civil society and private sector. BIGD relation with media, Think tanks, Academia, Donor, BRAC University and Civil Societies is relatively good. With regards to relationship with government it does not have very good relation with all concern ministries need to improve. Its relationship with Real State, private sector, media, public Procurement department and politicians are relatively new and weak at the moment could be further strengthened. BIGD needs to continuously examine its policy stakeholder map by each theme of research and could have separate one. Here is one example for the broader PEC goal.

Table 3 : Stakeholder map of BIGD and way forward

Stakeholder cluster

Name Current means of communication

Comments /direction

Policy makers , Government

Bangladesh Bank Ministry of Finance

Working paper

LGRD, MPs are highly influential, others are

12

National Board of Revenue Ministry of Planning Parliament Standing Committee Local Government Rural Development and Co-operatives Ministry National Elected Representatives Judiciary members Local Elected Representative

Policy Brief Meeting Roundtable TV, Radio One to one meeting Interview Seminar

less or moderately influential, most of them has positive attitudes towards the change vision ofBIGD . Need opinion leader in for each Department/ministry. Can use media and other suitable digital means to better communicate them. Can have a plan to communicate parliament members and standing committees.

Donor World Bank JICA Asian Development Bank IDRC IGC CAB CRAB BGMEA BKMEA The Netherlands

Video conference Email Meeting

Most of the donors are positive towards BIGD change vision, WB is highly influential among them. Need to secure fund for policy research and policy change/influence agenda.

Academia /Research

Bangladesh Economic Association BRAC Research & Development PRI ERG Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies Dhaka University Star/Champions

Conference Website Op-eds

Only some star /champions are influential others are less influential. More stronger relation with BRAC University and BRAC - RED expected

Media BBC, CNN The Ittefaque The Finance The Daily Star The Economics Prothom Alo Economic Reporters Forum BD News 24, Desh TV

Op-ed Press briefing Letter to editor

Apart from misinterpretation of any findings they are influential and positive Need to communicate media and journalist more effectively. Could form a journalist group on governance, build their capacity and

13

initiate formal media partnership.

Civil Society Centre for Policy Dialogue PPRC Shujon TIB CAMPE

Research report Working paper Policy paper Research report Brochure News lewttewer

Most of them are positive but less influential relationship with some of them are weak and informal . BIGD can mobilize, sensitize civil society pressure group to influence. Need to work more with relevant alliance & networks.

Others REHAB ( Private Sector) Invite as Chair Less positive , moderately influential . Need more engagement with private sector actors.

4.0 Things we need to deliver our mission:

4.1 Financial resource mobilization for PEC: Recent fund for PEC capacity enhancement supported by IDRC. Need further discussion with donors showing BIGD’s long term vision in PEC. This strategy document could help convincing donors. More policy research project need to be designed which would secure money for PEC. For sustainability both research project based fund and core fund need to be allocated for series of coherent events on PEC. A strong PEC component is require in all BIGD research project. 4.2 Human Resource: They have around 50 staff members having researchers, management staff, fellows, communications, IT and operation staff. Recently BIGD formed a 12 membered core PEC team from different departments of the institute includes communication, IT, research, program and management staff. The team should have a TOR and performance monitoring system. Two new staff have been recruited. However they need more skills on repurposing, reformatting communication materials for different audiences. They need web management and digital library management staff to mobilize knowledge and influence digitally.

14

4.3 Partnership & Networks: The institute has formal and informal partnership with different stakeholders. Perhaps has better relation with government departments/ministries, donor, research/academia and some CSOs. However, its relationship with some ministries, national & international media, private sector and some CSOs could be further improved enhancing strategic communication and engagement. To contribute to the international development discourse the institute need to expand its linkage with various networks relevant to governance and development. 4.5 Organizational Change:

As BDI (BRAC Development Institute) and IGS (Institute of Governance Studies) recently merged

into BIGD (BRAC Institute for Governance & Development) may create tension among staff to

cope with the change. However it could be an opportunity to restructure Communication team

and giving new direction towards PEC. They have around 50 staff members having researchers,

management staff, fellows, communications, IT and operation staff. Both program support function

and organizational strategic communication function need to be well planned and resourced.

It’s an opportunity to rebrand organizations image to others as an quality evidence provider

and advocate for change.

5.0 How do we measuring change?

There is a growing concern among Think Tanks and other development agencies on how do we measure impact of policy influencing efforts. How can we say accurately how many people benefitted from a policy engagement process? Are we a change advocate or an evidence provider in policy influencing process. How do we measure the change in relationship with power holders? To track performance we need to know the name /title/area of decision making process, its objective, particular role of a Think tank and changed achieved over time. We have to estimate the number of potential beneficiaries and associated stakeholders. To measure periodic performance we may follow a tool as follows-

Table 4: Example - Progress Assessment Tool for Advocacy Influencing 1 2 3 4 5 Score

No clear influencing targets sets

No PEC goal

No relationship with power holders, weak relation with stakeholders

Some influencing targets set

Some contacts with power holders

No evidence of change

Clear targets set

Some influence achieved

Partnerships in place, strong relationship with

Evidence of good influence and change

Influencing processes strengthened and we have acquired leadership

Identified opinion

Independent evidence shows we’ve achieved changes through influence, with a high likelihood of tangible impact

Quality evidence provided

15

Only an intention to influence

Communication channel not clear

Some appropriate communication channel identified

Capacity gap and stakeholder identified

stakeholders

Engaging with national stakeholders

Using a balance of appropriate communication tools including digital means

leader

Used networks and allies

Worked with civil society groups, institutions

Technical expertise and confidence secured

Network and alliance in place

Change vision achieved ( decision or process)

Technical capacity very high

Formed of sensitised pressure group or civil society

Source: adapted it from Practical Action Guideline.

Following questions can be used to monitor PEC issues in BIGD research programs:

1. Do you have a clear policy engagement goal? Did all staff understood and put into practice?

2. How far you are with the change agenda? 3. Do you have enough evidence and learning? Do you need to generate more evidence?

Did you repurpose it for different audience? 4. Have you done anything to build special technical skill of staff on policy influencing? Do

you know the gap? And strength? 5. What have you done on civil society mobilisation? Or pressure group sensitisation? Or

taking the advantages of existing networks and alliances 6. Who are your main stakeholders? Do you have opinion leaders? Any change in

relationship?

How best you can write an influencing case?

Writing of a good case is very important for policy influencing. A good case study should cover a number

of issues comprising the overall process, strategies, clear policy narrative, vision of change, potential

benefits and contribution to process and change or impact, like -

Policy argument, change agenda

Clear policy narrative,

National level reference of the issues,

Significance,

Potential benefits,

Target institutions and stakeholders, pressure group

Allies and networks, civil society mobilization

Process or decisions,

Power holder relationship,

Public debate, knowledge brokering,

Mentoring, networking, policy engagement.

16

6.0 Conclusion:

BIGD decided to put a special drive, well planned approach on policy engagement complementing to its

current research uptake process. It will expand its research, academic focus towards knowledge

service and policy engagement which can increase its local, regional contribution in many folds. PEC

issues can be integrated at project design stage so that it does not become a separate effort. Having a

broader PEC goal all research themes can have separate PEC goals and business plan to operate. Once a

PEC strategy is accepted a multidisciplinary core PEC team could be accountable for PEC functions in

BIGD. The implementation of the strategy requires some special capacity both at individual and

organizational level such as – networking skill, use of social media, monitoring skill and understanding

theory of change, planning management tools etc. On four major cluster of communication channels

BIGD need further investment on improving digital or online communication and digital publication

particularly repurposing reformatting different communication materials. To achieve its PEC goals BIGD

will continue to improve its relationship stakeholders such as - media, private sector and some

government ministries. With each issues champions and opinion leaders need to be identified.In some

case the process of influencing lack with advisors or opinion leaders. Measuring change is an important

need periodic effort with some selective tools on performance and impact in terms of wellbeing of

people.

Finally, for any PEC work we must remember the following few tips :

Identifying appropriate policy actors and champions for a change.

Identifying a smaller change issues with bigger policy ask.

Better understanding the urgency of decision makers and people.

A problem solving approach in policy engagement is always useful.

Impact on significant number of people

Better prepared with time, effort and money.

Have to remember, engaging policy makers work but not always.

Contribute to a policy influencing process or straight to a decision as

opportunity comes.

(Source: PEC Bangkok Workshop, TTI)

i

Annex1:

Strategy preamble - providing context – why is this strategy needed and how does it relate to other strategic planning frameworks such as a wider institutional strategy. Who owns it? How was it developed, who was consulted and who is it reviewed by?

Version – date last reviewed Timeframe – all strategic planning documents need to be time bound. 18 months/2 years/5 years?

Strategic goals – Broad outcomes that this strategy and the work associated with it is designed to bring about (or contribute to). A series of brief vision statements making it clear what success will look like in year x.

Situational analysis – this may be organised by theme, policy area, or relate to specific goals. It will briefly set out the context in which you are engaging in policy and delivering research communication. It should reflect both elements of internal and external analysis. Theory of change – You strategic approach/impact narrative

Strategic framework

Goal 1. State any links to how this relates to broader institutional strategy

Specific objectives (steps towards achieving your goal) These should be SMART and identify key stakeholders

Activities/Outputs Engagement activities/plans

Indicators Milestones KPIs

Resources People/Who? Networks Budgets

Goal 2. Goal 3.