I’ve now had the chance to analyse the results from the PFM Board Survey. Many thanks indeed to the considerable number of members who found the time to respond. The results will help us in refining the content and presentation of the PFM Board and in plotting a course for future development.
Note that in the analysis below % calculations exclude those who answered ‘Other’.
Question 1
43% of members are consultants and only 30% government officials.
(We missed academics in the list! Very sorry, but you made yourselves known through the ‘Other’ option.)
Question 2
44% of members joined because they received a message from a PFM Board partner and 29% through word of mouth.
Question 3 & 4
Only 23% of respondents consult the Board on a weekly basis or more. The most important reason (81%) for those who looked at the Board less often is lack of time. Among a couple of free-form answers, lack of organisation/focus on the Board came up a couple of times.
Question 5
Undoubtedly, the fireside chats came up as the most popular topics, particularly Matt Andrews (although this was the most recent chat). Programme budgeting, PEFA indicators, decentralisation and internal control/external audit also seem popular.
Question 6 & 7
Only 20% posted on the most interesting topic that they had read recently. Of the majority who did not post, 49% did not do so because they thought the discussion was complete and there was nothing more to say. A significant minority - 19% - did not post because they felt somewhat excluded from the discussion.
Question 8
Only 6% found the topics on the Board ‘uninteresting’ or ‘not so interesting’. Most - 80 % - found them interesting, with roughly equal numbers finding them interesting, but either too technical or not technical enough - suggesting that we have a good balance. Most of those who gave free-form answers (‘Other’) also seemed to find the topic interesting, but there were suggestions that more case studies and practical guidance would make topics even more interesting.
Questions 9 to 16
On the questions concerning the composition of the different areas of the Board most people were either happy with the current content or had no opinion. A significant minority of respondents - 11% - thought that there were too few subjects dealt with under ‘Internal and External Audit’ and ‘Donor Practices’. Several respondents suggested that an ‘Internal Control’ subject area needed to be added to ‘Internal and External Audit’. One respondent said that ‘Donor Practices’ could easily have its own separate Board and, as if to confirm this, another said that there should be a subject for each element of the aid effectiveness agenda. Another lengthy response also indicating missing subjects went like this, ‘Two of the three items relate to budget support. In the field, important donor related issues includes [sic] coordination among donors, coordination with national budget priorities, including donor funding in the national budget (whether or not cash goes through the national treasury and procurement systems). The section is silent on all of these commonly experienced and important issues.’ One person regretted the lack of sound political economic analysis of the issues in relation to donor practices.
Questions 17 & 18
Most people - 68% - had no opinion about the ‘Ad Hoc PFM Boards’
Questions 19 & 20
Nearly half of members found the PFM Marketplace ‘useful’ or ‘very useful’. 46% had no opinion. In terms of suggestions for improving the marketplace, there seems to have been some confusion concerning the question and a number of responses seem to relate to general improvements to the Board, e.g. send an email to members when interesting new topics come up. One suggestion was to allow sponsorship for a small fee (already allowed as indicated in the header to the Board!) and another was to get more TA providers to use the Board to advertise positions.
Question 21 to 25
36% of respondents thought that the appearance of the Board was ‘appealing’ or ‘very appealing’. 47% thought that it was ‘OK’. A significant minority of 12% thought the Board ‘not so attractive’ or ‘unattractive’. One respondent thought that the Board seemed too ‘cluttered’. In the same vein, 20% of respondents to Question 22 found it ‘not so easy’ or ‘difficult’ to locate what interests them. This suggests to me that these are areas where we might aim to do a little better.
Only 31% were aware of the RSS feeds capability.
There were some useful suggestions for improving the appearance and functionality of the Board. One member suggested using more colour and another suggested consolidating the topics with fewer discussion areas (which doesn’t fit with the majority of responses on the contents of the main subject areas). There is some demand for more alerts about interesting topics, but this is accompanied by wariness about being bombarded with too many.
Questions 26 & 27
It’s difficult to summarise the suggestions made in response to these questions, since they are very wide- ranging. In general, one can say that more country-specific content is demanded, together with easier access to material in a country’s own language. Engaging with regional networks is proposed, together with closer ties with international bodies. Greater use of social networking platforms, e.g., LinkedIn is also suggested. I will return to these questions in a second post.
