Our Ecosystem


We have been developing a suite of diagnostic, analytical and budget preparation tools and applications in support of improved fiscal intelligence.
These go well beyond the standard approaches. We believe that our technical cooperation ecosystem is an effective way to apply the tools we have developed over the last 25 years. Our end-to-end technical cooperation engagement solution starts at diagnostics and consensus building through to reform strategy development, performance monitoring systems, and an implementation mechanism designed to incentivize team and institutional performance. 

Problem Diagnostics

We start by asking questions
We have developed the concept of development risk (the risk that investments do not achieve their intended outcome) to sit alongside fiduciary risk (the risk that funds are not used for their intended purpose). We have also progressed Development and Fiduciary Risk Analytics (DFRA) founded on the principle that core country systems provide the means for citizens to hold government to account for its performance in the space between democratic elections.

Consensus Building

We believe that consensus building needs to begin at the start of a reform process, not the end
Our engagement orientated approach to diagnosing problems helps set the foundation for political consensus building, strategic reform planning and successful implementation. Political ownership is supported by incentives-based implementation, including through the strategic use of community driven development and social accountability mechanisms, budget support modalities and team-based performance management systems.

Strategic Reform Planning

We believe that strategic reform planning must be about understanding what's possible,
what's desirable, and what's feasible - politically and technically. Moving from a problem statement revealed by diagnostics to a reform plan owned and driven politically and technically should be done carefully. Parachuted or expert opinion-based reforms can be destructive, especially when they create incentives for both donors and policy makers to avoid taking tough decisions on building systems and institutional capacity.

Performance and Policy-Focused Budgets

A budget is good one if it meets policy objectives
with the efficient, effective and sustainable use of scarce resources to benefit the people and society as a whole. A hard budget constraint is a key part of a good budget that promotes a competition of ideas that earns access to scarce resources. Performance and policy-based budgeting represents the state of the art, bringing in the best elements of having policies driving the budget, and performance systems providing the mechanisms for government to learn to do better and be accountable internally and externally. We use low-cost, fit for purpose technology to help establish robust systems that underpin good budget processes.

Monitoring Agreements

We believe that diagnostics are more effective if integrated into reform plans
as targets supported by baselines, and included in financing agreements as incentives. Diagnostics need to be able to be updated quickly and cheaply, and on an annual basis. Our systems support such an approach, and can easily be supplemented with local contexts. Another key component to monitoring agreements is to ensure reporting is not duplicated or fragmented. We believe that the primary monitoring and evaluation mechanism in a country is the government's budget cycle where the budget can be thought of as a "good faith promise to the people", and the annual report, an "honest assessment" of actual outcomes.

Team Incentives

Teams not themes because teams are accountable, themes are not.
A great plan that is politically and technically owned throughout government is arguably easy to implement. But what happens, if will is weak and management capabilities uneven? Incentives-based implementation can help. Strategic use of community driven development and social accountability, along with innovative budget support and team-based performance management is cost-effective. Over the last 25 years we have centered our efforts around teams. We have a saying that its "Teams not Themes". Meaning, we need to focus on team performance, because teams can be held accountable, while "reform themes" can dilute accountabilities.