- Evaluation Plan:
- 2006-2011, Viet Nam
- Evaluation Type:
- Project
- Planned End Date:
- 04/2008
- Completion Date:
- 08/2008
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- Yes
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 50,000
VEEPL
Share
Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
tor | Posted | 839 | ||
![]() |
report | English | Posted | 2298 | |
![]() |
summary | Posted | 646 |
Title | VEEPL | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Atlas Project Number: | |||||||
Evaluation Plan: | 2006-2011, Viet Nam | ||||||
Evaluation Type: | Project | ||||||
Status: | Completed | ||||||
Completion Date: | 08/2008 | ||||||
Planned End Date: | 04/2008 | ||||||
Management Response: | Yes | ||||||
Focus Area: |
|
||||||
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) | |||||||
Evaluation Budget(US $): | 50,000 | ||||||
Source of Funding: | |||||||
Joint Programme: | No | ||||||
Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||
Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||
GEF Evaluation: | No | ||||||
Key Stakeholders: | |||||||
Countries: | VIET NAM |
Lessons | |
---|---|
Findings |
Recommendations | |
---|---|
1 | I. Management style is inward-looking, rigid and centralized |
2 | II. Project design has some flaws: 2a. Indicators are out put oriented and quantitative rather than impact-oriented and qualitative 2b. From the onset, the structure of 'standard letter' construction and subcontracts has favoured the above-mentioned closed shop' |
3 | III. Sustainability and replicability: Demo's have been done, but there is no convincing 'technology delivery model' which integrating techno demo with viable financial schemes supported by policy instruments It is not clear which institution will or can continue VEEPL promotional activities |
4 | IV. Explore a more effective working mechanism to enhance the partnership between UNDP and partners |
Key Action Update History
Loading..
1. Recommendation: I. Management style is inward-looking, rigid and centralized
Management Response: [Added: 2009/02/10]
Enhance the operation and management system of the VEEPL project
Key Actions:
Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.1. Form core management team within PMU, consisting of PM, NSTA and ISTA and change in culture. (1st Week of Oct 08
1. 2. Change quality control System. For new assignments a quality team should be formed. (ASAP within Sep. 08)
1. 3 Make reports available in PDF format on website as standard practice (with at least executive summary
[Added: 2009/02/10] [Last Updated: 2009/08/03] |
PMU | 2009/03 | Completed | Updated in ERC on 3 August 2009: Quality reviewers are assigned to every output. STAs are focal quality assurance |
2. Recommendation: II. Project design has some flaws:
2a. Indicators are out put oriented and quantitative rather than impact-oriented and qualitative
2b. From the onset, the structure of 'standard letter' construction and subcontracts has favoured the above-mentioned closed shop'
Management Response: [Added: 2009/02/10]
Improve the Logical Framework
Key Actions:
Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.1. Hire external consultants to review and assess deliverables with PMU 'core management' Revise list of activities rom a holistic approach, building on results of deliverables so far, identifying gaps especially in area of policy-making, PR, financial economic analysis and financial mechanism);
2.2. Stop subcontracting & assignments until B.1 is done
[Added: 2009/02/10] [Last Updated: 2009/08/03] |
PMU | 2008/12 | Completed | Indicators profile was created. Some indicators need further adjustment Only 2009 initial budget was agreed Further discussion about procurement procedure is to be held in 2009 Updated in ERC on 3 August 2009: Indicators profile was created. And the logframe was refurbished |
3. Recommendation: III. Sustainability and replicability:
Demo's have been done, but there is no convincing 'technology delivery model' which integrating techno
demo with viable financial schemes supported by policy instruments
It is not clear which institution will or can continue VEEPL promotional activities
Management Response: [Added: 2009/02/10]
Promote VEEPL sustainability and replicability
Key Actions:
Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.1 Hire external consultants to redo the following activities in an integrated way
(1) economic analysis of EEPL/demo system, (2) benefit analysis (if EEPL is implemented, who will
profit, PC, PLC, power company, central government), (3) analyze source of finance and financing mechanisms, - (4) institutional analysis - (5) policy instruments to promote EEPL that fit within the overall national EE strategy coordinated by MoI; - (6) define appropriate 'technology delivery model' that could be tested for further replication
3.2 Assessment of willingness and capacity organisations to sustain (part of) activities post-VEEPL and
formulate exit strategy
3.3 Hire external consultant to formulate a PR and awareness plan
[Added: 2009/02/10] [Last Updated: 2010/01/21] |
ISTA/PMU | 2010/01 | Completed | The work continue in his 2nd mission ion February 09 TOR to be developed in Feb 09 Updated in ERC on 3 August 2009: The work continue in his 2nd mission ion February 09 Activity 3.1. (6) will be carried throughout 2009 and 2010 |
4. Recommendation: IV. Explore a more effective working mechanism to enhance the partnership between UNDP and partners
Management Response: [Added: 2009/02/10]
Enhance partnership among project stakeholders
Key Actions:
Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
4.1 Discuss EvaluationReport at next PSC meeting
4.2 PMU should respond to UNDP on proposed actions, how they will be implemented and within which
timetable
4.3 UNDP should made clear that if actions agreed upon are not implemented this could have financial
consequences for VEEPL; even going from NEX to DEX
[Added: 2009/02/10] [Last Updated: 2009/08/03] |
PMU/UNDP | 2009/12 | Completed | Several discussions were held in 2008. Further discussion will be held in 2009 Updated in ERC on 3 August 2009: All recommendations are largely and consistently followed by the PMU |