Collaboration Types:
- Signpost+: A Signpost project involving small but significant deviations from the standard Signpost technology or strategy. SP+ projects may require additional customization or modifications to the existing tools and processes but will still primarily rely on the core Signpost infrastructure (Example: United for Ukraine).
- Small Tech Collaborations: Collaborations primarily focus on technology-sharing, such as integrating new technologies, developing custom features, or optimizing existing systems. These collaborations may involve sharing and configuring tools or testing new products but do not include any large-scale technical builds (Example: MEAL Poland).
- Collaborations on Programs: Collaborations involve working with external organizations or partners to deliver specific programs or initiatives using the Signpost-like processes. These collaborations may require tailoring the Signpost tools and methods to meet the unique needs and objectives of the program (Example: Development of the Responsive Information Services in Emergencies Toolkit).
- Full Builds: Collaborations that involve building entirely new instances of the Signpost platform from scratch. Full Builds may be necessary when the requirements or scope of the project are significantly different from the standard Signpost implementation, requiring extensive customization and development work (Example: RAI Virtual Services for Resettlement and Placement).
Evaluation Responsibilities and Decision-Making Process
- Signpost+
- Advisor for Responsive Information (ARI) evaluates the collaboration
- ARI consults with the Product Manager and Product Lead
- ARI presents a go/no-go decision to the Program Director for signoff
- Tech Collaborations
- Product Manager evaluates the collaboration
- Product Manager consults with ARI and Product Lead
- Product Manager presents a go/no-go decision to the Program Director for signoff
- Collaborations on Programs
- ARI evaluates the collaboration
- ARI consults with the Product Manager and Product Lead
- ARI presents a go/no-go decision to the Program Director for signoff
- Full Builds
- Product Manager evaluates the collaboration
- Product Manager consults with ARI and Product Lead
- Product Manager presents a go/no-go decision to the Program Director for signoff
Evaluation Process:
- The designated evaluator (ARI or Product Manager) conducts the evaluation based on the specific collaboration type and evaluation framework
- The evaluator consults with the other specified team members (Product Manager, ARI, and/or Product Lead) to gather insights, feedback, and recommendations
- The evaluator synthesizes the findings and formulates a go/no-go decision based on the evaluation results and consultations
- The evaluator presents the go/no-go decision, along with supporting evidence and rationale, to the Program Director
- The Program Director reviews the evaluation findings and the go/no-go recommendation and makes the final decision on whether to proceed with the collaboration
- If the Program Director signs off on a "go" decision, the collaboration moves forward as planned
- If the Program Director signs off on a "no-go" decision, the collaboration is either terminated or revised based on the evaluation findings and recommendations
Key Considerations:
- Ensure that the evaluation process is transparent, objective, and based on predefined criteria and metrics
- Provide clear guidelines and templates for the evaluator to follow, including consultation protocols and decision-making frameworks
- Foster open communication and collaboration among the evaluator, consulted team members, and the Program Director throughout the evaluation process
- Document the evaluation findings, consultations, and final decision, along with any lessons learned or recommendations for future collaborations
- Communicate the final decision and its implications to all relevant stakeholders, including partners and beneficiaries
- Establish a feedback loop to ensure that the evaluation findings and decisions inform continuous improvement and learning within the Signpost project
| Criterion | High (5) | Medium (3) | Low (1) |
| Impact | Collaboration has the potential to improve outcomes for beneficiaries and drive systemic change significantly | Collaboration contributes to improved outcomes for beneficiaries but may have limited systemic impact | Collaboration has minimal impact on beneficiary outcomes or systemic change |
| Effort | Collaboration requires minimal time, resources, and coordination from Signpost and partners | Collaboration requires moderate time, resources, and coordination from Signpost and partners | Collaboration requires significant time, resources, and coordination from Signpost and partners |
| Reach | Collaboration has the potential to reach a large number of beneficiaries across multiple contexts or geographies | Collaboration reaches a moderate number of beneficiaries within a specific context or geography | Collaboration reaches a limited number of beneficiaries within a narrow context or geography |
| Strategic Value | The collaboration aligns closely with Signpost's mission, values, and strategic priorities | Collaboration partially aligns with Signpost's mission, values, and strategic priorities | Collaboration has limited alignment with Signpost's mission, values, and strategic priorities |
| Opportunities for Learning | Collaboration provides significant opportunities for Signpost to learn, innovate, and improve its approaches | Collaboration offers some opportunities for Signpost to learn and improve its approaches | Collaboration offers limited opportunities for Signpost to learn or enhance its approaches |
| Risk | Collaboration involves minimal risks (e.g., reputational, financial, operational) for Signpost and partners | Collaboration involves moderate risks for Signpost and partners | Collaboration involves significant risks (e.g., reputational, financial, operational) for Signpost and partners |
| Costs | Collaboration requires minimal financial investment from Signpost and partners | Collaboration requires moderate financial investment from Signpost and partners | Collaboration requires significant financial investment from Signpost and partners |
| Resource Gain | Collaboration brings significant additional resources (e.g., funding, expertise, networks) to Signpost | Collaboration brings some additional resources to Signpost | Collaboration brings limited additional resources to Signpost |
Questions for Signpost Collaborations
Technology:
- Do we need new instances of any tech platforms?
- Do we need to host a new website?
- Are there any specific software or tools required for the collaboration?
- How will data be collected, stored, and shared securely?
- What are the compatibility, integration, and interoperability requirements for the partnership?
- Do we need a new data-sharing agreement to move forward with integrations?
Resources:
- What human resources are needed from Signpost and partners for the collaboration?
- Are there any specific skills or expertise required for the collaboration?
- What financial resources are required, and how will they be allocated and managed?
- Are there any existing resources (e.g., tools, templates, frameworks) that can be leveraged for the collaboration?
- What are the capacity-building needs for Signpost and partners to effectively implement the collaboration?
Stakeholder Engagement:
- Who are the key stakeholders (internal and external) involved in the collaboration?
- How will stakeholders be engaged throughout the collaboration lifecycle?
- What are the communication and coordination mechanisms for the collaboration?
- How will feedback and input from beneficiaries and local partners be incorporated into the collaboration?
- What are the potential risks or challenges related to stakeholder engagement, and how will they be mitigated?
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning:
- What are the key indicators and metrics for measuring the success of the collaboration?
- How will data be collected, analyzed, and reported for monitoring and evaluation purposes?
- What are the processes for ongoing learning and adaptation throughout the collaboration?
- How will lessons learned and best practices be documented and shared within Signpost and with partners?
- What are the plans for the sustainability and scalability of the collaboration outcomes?
Governance and Decision-Making:
- What are the roles and responsibilities of Signpost and partners in the collaboration?
- How will decisions be made, and who can make them?
- What are the processes for resolving conflicts or disagreements within the collaboration?
- How will intellectual property rights and data ownership be managed?
- What are the legal and ethical considerations for the collaboration, and how will they be addressed?
Context and Adaptability:
- What are the specific contextual factors (e.g., cultural, political, socioeconomic) that may impact the collaboration?
- How will the collaboration be adapted to meet the unique needs and constraints of the local context?
- What are the potential risks or challenges related to the operating environment, and how will they be mitigated?
- How will the collaboration ensure inclusivity and accessibility for all beneficiaries, particularly marginalized or vulnerable groups?
- What are the plans for ensuring the collaboration is responsive to changing needs and priorities over time?
Support and Sustainability:
- Does this project require unique dedicated support that is outside of the scope of what is currently provided for a Signpost Project? If so, who will be responsible and accountable for this support?
- How long can we commit to ongoing tech and logistical support for this project?
- Does this project require us to commit short- or long-term budget resources?