google-site-verification: googlefccb558c724d02c7.html

Translate

Showing posts with label Logic Model. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Logic Model. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 10, 2020

Global Affairs Canada Results-Based Management Guides: 1998-2021

 

 Greg Armstrong - Last updated: April 2 2023

The Global Affairs Canada suite of Results-Based Management guides, tools and checklists are among the most practical guides available for the design, management, monitoring and results reporting for projects funded by any international agency.  And, of course, they are essential for anyone bidding on or implementing projects funded by Global Affairs Canada.   

As strong as the project-level RBM guides are, however, the agency-wide results framework for GAC is surprisingly weak.

This article reviews the most recent changes made to the GAC RBM system between 2016-2023, considers how flexible the GAC Results-Based Management system is, in practice, and looks at the state of agency-wide Global Affairs Canada results reporting,  in early 2023.

16 GAC RBM guides, tables and checklists inside a red Canadian maple leaf symbol
GAC RBM Guides: 1998-2021

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Online Results-Based Management Training: The University of Wisconsin's Logic Model development course

Last Update:  March 7, 2023

The University of Wisconsin’s excellent online interactive Logic Model training is a valuable, easy to use introduction to RBM – and it is free.


Level of Difficulty:  Easy to moderate
Primarily Useful as: An introduction to RBM and Logic Models
Length: 3-5 hours online, 216 page downloadable PDF, and an 86-page teaching and training guide
Limitations:  No longer audio, but individual components are available for download

Who this is for

Like other consultants and trainers who work on international development issues, I usually work with groups, either donor or implementing agencies, training 10-200 people on RBM.  This reduces the cost (to them) of the training time, travel and other expenses.  But readers of this site or the RBM Training website sometimes ask if I can provide training on results based management  for individuals.  This would, however, be so expensive  that it would not be practical.  Other options such as enrolling in university courses in Europe or Canada might work, but often require more time, and again, more money, than an individual might be prepared  to invest.

But there is online, an excellent resource available to introduce RBM to anyone  who has no experience with RBM – or,  for that matter, to refresh even the most jaded RBM practitioner’s interest. This is the University of Wisconsin Extension Department’s Enhancing Program Performance with Logic Models.  Developed in 2002, originally put online in 2003, and revised in 2022 there is very little in this easy to use and interactive course, that is not still relevant today, in 2023 to those who are trying to understand how to use results-based management.

This course is one of 11 offered free by the Program Planning and Evaluation Division of the University of Wisconsin's Extension Department.

List of 11 course on program planning and evaluation
Program Planning and Evaluation courses offered by the Program Planning and Evaluation Division,
University of Wisconsin Extension Department


Format: Interactive Online learning and a number of downloadable components


When I first saw this course in 2011 it had both an interactive online format, and for those who did not want to, or could not use the internet for the 2-5 hours completion of the course takes, a PDF version of the course.  The real charm of this course, however, is that it is interactive, and it is the engaging nature of the interaction that cannot be replicated in the downloadable PDF.  The downloadable PDF version is still available, and the course itself has a number of useful additions including the boring sounding but very useful Document List, which has a 16 different downloadable documents including very practical worksheets and background information on social science issues. 

List of 16 documents for download in the Logic Model course
Downloadable components of the University of Wisconsin Online Logic Model Course




Presentations, in the course’s 7 sections, both audio and text, are supplemented with pop-up windows which participants can view, if they want additional examples or references,  followed with exercises and then feedback on the answers.

Logic Model explanation
University of Wisconsin Extension Online Logic Model Training



It should not be surprising that the interactive elements are as engaging as I found them to be, because this site was developed by a team of content and technical experts,at the Extension Department of the University of Wisconsin  – and extension departments are almost always the group in any university the most skilled in tailoring learning events to learners’ needs and learning styles.

Each of the course’s 7 sections contains tthe following elements

  • Section Overview
  • Section Goals
  • Section Outline with clickable links to the components of the section
  • Content presentation 
  • Activities that require us to put into practice the theory on the preceding pages.
Some of the sections also contain a section on the research or public administration background to the topic, and a bibliography.

Here is what the Section Outline typically looks like, using Section which focuses on defining Outcomes: 

Example of an Outline for one component of the Logic Model Course, with 18 clickable topics
18 Clickable Topics in Section 2 on Defining Outcomes





Course Contents: Reinforcing important lessons about RBM



The course title is Enhancing Program Performance with Logic Models, but it deals with all of the associated elements of results-based management, not just the Logic Model.  Nothing in it will be a major surprise to people who work regularly with RBM, but the what this course teaches users about results-based management is worth repeating, simply because these lessons are often neglected or ignored, by even the most experienced users of RBM.

The course has 7 content sections, each of which generally takes between 20-40 minutes to complete.


What is a Logic Model?


Section 1 discusses the difference between Outputs and Outcomes, the need to test assumptions, and identify risk.  This section covers 20 screens in the course, and runs from pages 7-58 in the downloadable PDF. The difference is that in the PDF, transcripts of the audio from the online course, and a number of worksheets, are included as text.

This introduction to Logic Models includes, among much else, an interesting interactive Logic Model puzzle, requiring us to test our understanding of sequence, timing, risk and results, placing 20 different statement about a programme into one of 8 categories such as resources, activities, participants, Outputs, Outcomes, assumptions and external factors (or risk).

University of Wisconsin Logic Model course - interactive puzzle
Copyright: 2002, Board of Regents, University of Wisconsin
CLICK image to enlarge


This is not dissimilar to what you can do in a group with paper and scissors, but nevertheless engaging if you are working alone, and trying to ensure you understand the ideas of sequence, scale, change and other factors.


More about Outcomes



Section 2 takes us in detail through the different types of legitimate results that we can see in at individual, group, agency, system, or community levels, and talks about why participation of stakeholders in defining Outcomes is important.

This section includes material about RBM that more than one of the UN development agencies could usefully review.  Some of these agencies – not all, but some important UN agencies - get hung up on completing activities, (Outputs) and never seem to move on, in practice, to assessing whether these lead to any real change, or result (Outcomes).

Section two uses19 screens in the online course, and 32 pages in the PDF, with all of the associated supplementary material which is found in the pop-ups and links, in the online course.


More About Program Logic


Section 3  introduces (or reintroduces to forgetful RBM cognoscenti) the concept of clarifying the logic and assumptions implied in designing activities with the intention of contributing to a result.  It covers theories of change, the complexity of real-life programme logic, results chains – what it calls Outcome Chains -  and whether it is reasonable to claim causality – part of the current discussion on attribution of results to programme or project interventions.

It is important to note here, for those sometimes justifiably cynical about RBM who focus on complexity, that this course itself makes the point that multiple, often unplanned or unforeseen factors can affect results, not just the programme interventions. It also discusses the idea that a simple, linear logic model may not reveal enough of the factors involved in achieving results, and why more complex logic models may be needed to underpin the simple ones that we are often forced to submit to funding agencies.  

Another interactive exercise here, helps us to think through the theory of action behind a programme intervention, and despite the fact that this section has only 9 screens in the online course, and 24 pages in the PDF, the complexity of the interactive exercise on page 7 means it can take well 30 or 40 minutes to finish this section.


University of Wisconsin online Logic Model course, interactive exercise testing theories of action
Copyright: 2002, Board of Regents, University of Wisconsin
CLICK image to enlarge



This exercise is also an example of why, if you can, it is more productive in terms of learning to go to the online course first, before using the PDF, because with the PDF material there is essentially no chance to test your own understanding of the processes, before you see the “answer”.


What does a Logic Model Look Like?



Section 4 discusses why logic models, depending on the situation, purpose and culture involved,  can take many different forms.  There is no single format for Logic Models that suits all needs when the intellectual process of testing theories of change is involved – even though there may be, for any given donor, only one format they want to see.  There are, as the course points out, situations where Logic Models may differ in size and complexity, depending on whether they are being used to test ideas for programme planning, evaluation,  communication or for programme and project managers, the core of implementation activities.

Once again, note to complexity theorists, the course makes the point that logic models need not be simplistic, linear creations, but can be useful in helping agencies and individuals understand the complexity of the systems involved in interventions.
Examples of different formats for Logic Models
Logic Model formats - click to enlarge

This section takes 8 screens in the online course and there are several downloadable examples and worksheets.


How do I draw a Logic Model?



Section 5 is perhaps the most important of the course because it focuses on the real need to develop logic models as a group, not as an individual.

“As you work through this section, you will appreciate that the best way to construct a logic model is with others. While it may be quicker and easier to work alone, try not to. Many people believe that the real value of logic modeling is the PROCESS of creating one and the understanding and consensus that you build about a program as a result.”[Section 5, screen 1, PDF: p. 127]

I can only say I agree completely. In the Results Based Management training sessions I do with donor agencies, implementing organizations and national partners, feedback suggests that 80-90% of participants were absorbed by the Logic Model development process, sometimes surprised at how often the discussions reveal previously unknown or unacknowledged differences in perception among close colleagues, about what the original problem is, what risks and assumptions they have, and what reasonable results could look like.

5 different approaches to Logic Model development


All of the approaches focus on Logic Model development  a group.  The first four approaches are intended for planning new programmes.  These can be found at the online course, by clicking on the links at the bottom of the screen on creating a logic model for a new programme or on page 136 of the PDF.  All of these approaches begin with the result, and move back to activities and necessary resources.

  1. Start with the Long-term result or Outcome, and move back through mid-term or intermediate results, to short-term results, then to the Outputs needed to achieve these, then back again to activities and finally to inputs.
  2. Start with the long-term desired result, but then move immediately to activities, which is often the primary interest of participants, and then testing whether these will in fact, contribute to short of mid-term results which can logically relate to the long-term result.
  3. Start with the Long-term result, then brainstorm all of the elements that will affect this – activities, short, mid-term results, participants, risks, then sort them out to see if participants agree on the relationships and sequence.
  4. Juxtapose the situation or problem with a long-term desired change or Outcome then move  back through mid-term and short term results necessary to get there, and finally to participants, activities and resources required. This looks similar to the first option, but in fact really does, in practice in groups force those with preconceptions about what the activities should be, to confront the problem clearly, to look for results and then decide what activities and resources are needed.
  5. A fifth approach is also listed separately, on the next screen of the course, and this is for a situation where it is necessary to start logic model development with existing resources and existing activities. 
I have seen this happen where there is a second phase to a project, or where there is just too much institutional inertia to reconceptualize how to approach a problem.  It is essentially an approach focusing, as I see it, on a search for results to justify what is already being done – or as the this course suggests, where an “off the shelf” programme already exists:  Ask about an existing programme why each activity exists, what possible changes it can lead to, and how this can relate to a newly identified problem.
This approach is sometimes necessary, in my experience,  when working on RBM with universities, where activities such as degree course work and research are accepted as the core of university activities, and therefore the starting point for interventions.  It can also be necessary with some government agencies which  also sometimes see every problem through the paradigm of their own mandate and existing expertise.  
Moving such institutions towards a genuine questioning of what is really likely to achieve results is sometimes quite difficult.

How Good is my Logic Model?


Section 6 reviews some of the pitfalls individuals or RBM workshop facilitators may encounter in the development of Logic Models, including:

  • Getting lost in the RBM terminology,
  • Focusing too much on the mechanical aspects of putting activities and results in boxes, without assessing the plausibility of the connections between activities and results,
  • Focusing on – or complaining about – linearity, rather than exploring the complexities that some Logic Model formats can reveal,
  • Confusing the development of a Logic Model with evaluation, (for which it can indeed be a useful tool, but to which its utility is not limited)
  • Perceiving the Logic Model as a panacea for programme or project design or implementation problems, rather than as a tool to help us find possible solutions to such problems,
  • Focusing on production of the paper product, but never using it in practice.

It also makes the point that different people and agencies can use – or require the use of – Logic Models, for different purposes, and that we need to be clear about what this purpose is when we determine in how much detail we will work on Logic Model development.

This section spans 10 screens in the online programme, and 16 pages in the PDF version.


Using Logic Models in Evaluation  - Indicators and Measures


Section 7 reviews how understanding the original problem, assumptions, risk and the intended logic of the results chain can help agencies determine what evaluation questions to ask during different types of evaluations – questions about, and indicators relevant to:

  • The quality of inputs and completed activities (Outputs),
  • Who is participating, and what is the reach of the activities,
  • Assumptions underlying programme design, and selection of activities,
  • Whether results are actually achieved, and to what extent they can be reasonably attributed to the intervention, and
  • External factors –including what many agencies refer to as risk - on the achievement of results, or the failure to achieve results.

    Examination of a Logic Model and how it is formed can provide the foundation for

    • Needs assessments (assessing the original problem, and what can be done about it),
    • Process evaluations (assessment of inputs and the quality of activities)
    • Outcome and Impact evaluations (whether changes occurred and to what extent programme or project activities, and also external factors, may have contributed to such change).

    Section 7 is the longest of the course, with 20 online screens and 49 pages in the downloadable PDF.  The indicator discussions run from screens 9-20 in section 7, and pages 178-205 in the PDF.


    Glossaries and references on logic model development, RBM and evaluation



    The course, formally ends with section 7, but it is worth taking a look at other resources included:

    • The bibliography of references related to results based management and evaluation can also be reached by clicking on “resources” at the top of each screen or on pages 212-216 of the PDF.  The bibliography includes 72 references, 8 of which have clickable links that still appear to be functional.  Most of the 72  articles or references were written between 1994-2003, but it is worthwhile in particular visiting the Centers for Disease Control evaluation resources page which has a lot of very useful, accessible, and in some cases more current, guides on evaluation, logic models and data collection. The link in the bibliography is not current, but the page will automatically redirect to the new location, which I have provided in the previous sentence.

    • 11 additional links on evaluation issues such as questionnaire design, surveys, focus groups, quasi-experimental design and other issues can be found throughout section 7 online, or on page 199 of the PDF.

    • Finally, the course also provides links to 15 downloadable logic model worksheets or hints, in PDF and sometimes Microsoft Word format, also under “resources” at the top of each page.  These can also be found scattered throughout the PDF document.


    Limitation

    Because this course was developed in 2002 and redeveloped in 2022, most people will have computers capable of making use of the interactive elements of the site – but there is one potential limitation to this with some of the potential users in Africa, Asia or Latin America.   A reliable internet connection is needed to use the site, and in many of the places I, and my colleagues have work such connections can be, at times, unreliable.  You might, for example, have a half hour of access to read things like this blog, but it would be frustrating to be interrupted in the middle of this online course.
    Alternative provided: Users can download the 216 PDF version of the course, which includes the text of the whole course. 

     For those who are interested in training of trainers on RBM, the the Teaching and Training Guide is also useful, providing templates, schedules and outlines for activities.




    The bottom line:  This is an excellent introduction to results based management, focusing on logic model development, and its design is a credit to its authors' adult education abilities. It does not pretend to replace group workshops but it provides an intelligent, practical, and easy to use walk-through of the main issues in RBM.   

    _____________________________________________________________








    GREG ARMSTRONG
    Greg Armstrong is a Results-Based Management specialist who focuses on the use of clear language in RBM training, and in the creation of usable planning, monitoring and reporting frameworks.  For links to more Results-Based Management Handbooks and Guides, go to the RBM Training website. 



    Wednesday, April 28, 2010

    Using Logic Models in Results-Based Management

    --Greg Armstrong --

    [Links updated 2018]

    This website houses a large number of articles, some of them quite complex, on how to construct logic models, using proprietary software.


    The Outcomes Theory Knowledge Base
    Level of Difficulty:  Complex
    Primarily useful for:  RBM specialists, academics
    Length: 50-60 web pages
    Most useful sections: Articles on evaluation
    Designing Logic Models - Review by Greg Armstrong


    The “Outcomes Theory Knowledge Base” is the title given to a compilation of more than 50 articles on what the author refers to as Outcomes Theory --  what many of the rest of us refer to as RBM, or management for development results. Most of the articles focus on how to use visual Logic Models for project management.


    Who this is for


    Readers will need to sift through 50+ articles, all written by Paul Duignan, to find what they need. But, although there is a lot of repetition in many of the articles, some of them could be useful to three groups:
    • Those interested in learning how a visual approach to results, through the development of logic models or outcome models can clarify results discussions.
    • Those who want an overview of some broad issues in evaluation.
    • Those people interested in an academic analysis of how results are viewed in a broad conceptual format.

    For most field project managers, and host-country counterparts, the utility of many of the articles will be limited by the relatively dense language used to explain some common-sense ideas (for example, see the article “Problems faced when monitoring and evaluating programs which are themselves assessment systems”. Some simpler summaries on logic model development are also, however, available at a related commercial website, EasyOutcomes.org. 



    The Utility of a Visual Logic Model


    While there is considerable overlap in the ideas discussed in the more than four dozen articles originally included in what Google refers to as a “Knol” or a “unit of knowledge”, the reader who takes the time to work through these will find some useful material.


    By my estimate at least 30 of the articles focus on the advantages to project managers, evaluators and monitors of using a visual approach to managing for results - Outcome Models, Logic Models or other visual representations about the relationship between activities and results. The core of these articles (although each puts these in a slightly different context) is based in some common-sense ideas that many RBM trainers, planners or evaluators may recognise from their own experience. Among these is that in planning, monitoring and evaluating for results, we should:
    1. Focus on results, not activities - and label results as “Outcomes”.
    2. Use a visual logic model to clarify results. This makes it easier to see the relationships between activities and different levels of results than is possible using a Logical Framework.
    3. Distinguish, in the logic model, between a) results and indicators for which an agency is directly responsible in the near term, and b) higher level results, for which attribution to the intervention (for success or failure) is not clear.
    4. Hold managers responsible for two primary tasks: a) Achieving results for which there are clear indicators and a reasonably clear and accepted causal relationship between activities and results; and b) Managing for development results at a higher level, in part by collecting and reporting on indicator data on results for which there is less certainty of attribution.
    5. Frame contracting, monitoring and evaluation within the context of the results, activities and indicators identified in the visual logic model.


    Most of these articles also suggest that the proprietary software (DoView)  sold through a related website, can help us do all of these things more efficiently and creatively than we can by relying just on tables in word processing software. Taken together these four dozen articles also appear to form a help file for those using that software.


    Evaluation issue summaries


    At least ten of these articles focus specifically on evaluation. While the author obviously thinks that the visual logic model would assist in focusing evaluation questions, the articles go beyond this, and some provide what could be, for those looking for quick summaries, useful overviews of major evaluation issues.


    Among those articles that could be useful to readers, whether they use the author’s software or not, are:



    Greg Armstrong’s analysis


    Key Resources on Evaluation and RBM?



    While many of the articles on the logic model and on evaluation are useful, the article on “Key Outcomes, Results Management and evaluation resources” provides fewer useful links than the average reader might expect, from someone of the author’s experience.


    The descriptive summary says it contains ”A summary list of key outcome theory related resources for working with outcomes, results management, evaluation, performance management, outcomes-focused contracting and evidence-based practice”.


    “ Ahha!” I thought, “just what people who want to learn about RBM should have - ideas from the UN, DfID, CIDA, SIDA, Universities, government agencies, think-tanks, trainers and NGOs.” This could have been very useful to professionals seeking user-friendly tools on evaluation and RBM.


    A quick review, however, shows it contains, at least at this writing in 2010, just 14 links - all of them to one of 8 of the author’s own websites, including his blog and twitter feed, and all with links to the sale of the logic modelling software. The author obviously has a history of work in evaluation, and presumably knows of other useful sites.  


    Links to other relevant sites, such as, for example the Monitoring and Evaluation News, or the Centers for Disease Control's Evaluation Working Group resources would have been helpful to people looking for useful tools. 


    The list of references to Outcome Theory  similarly lists 33 articles, all written by this author. Many of them are probably useful, but a broader net might have brought in ideas about the work other people have done on similar or related topics.



    The Value of Logic Models

    While there is some overlap in the content of these different articles, the basic point being made here is valid - using a Logic Model diagram as the focus for discussion can, indeed, as I have found recently in workshops in Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia and Thailand, clarify differences of perception over results, assumptions about cause and effect, and can energize discussions on project design and evaluation.


    In one of the articles on this website, dealing with the value added of evaluation, to governance and policy making, using a visual logic model, the author writes:
    “Outcomes models need to be able to be used in all parts of the decision-making process. In order for them to be able to be used in this way, their visualizations needs to be portable across different media so that they can be used whenever and wherever they need to be used. For example, they should be able to be developed and used in real-time during meetings with high-level stakeholders, printed out in a report, and reproduced on an intranet or the internet. Meeting this criteria requires using appropriate software and laying out an outcomes model in a way that ensures that it is portable”.


    Software Limitations for Logic Model Development



    I facilitate workshops on developing results frameworks, logic models and indicator assessment several times a year, in almost all cases in countries where English is at best a second language, where internet access is often unstable, and in some cases where electrical power is unreliable.


    I have not used the DoView software which many of these articles are linked to, in such workshops but I can see from its description that it could be helpful particularly during facilitation of logic model development workshops. Given that this software was developed particularly with results chains in mind, it could possibly have an advantage over other visual mapping software of a similar nature, such as Xmind, Vue or SmartDraw among many others. Like those other programmes, too, however, the software promoted here has limitations which would diminish its utility for facilitators working in the situations I work in.


    At the end of a Logic Model development workshop, one important deliverable is a draft Logic Model and possibly an indicator assessment framework, which the users can take back to their many different offices, in different countries, different provinces or cities, a document they can distribute widely to their own colleagues and their own networks, for further critique and possible alteration.


    The price for the DoView software is not high - roughly $35 per copy, cheaper than others that can run to several hundred dollars - but not as cheap obviously, as Vue, Xmind or others that are free. Even the free programmes have a problem with accessibility and portability however. Having used any of these programmes to engage people in a dynamic discussion of results, what do you do next, when they want to continue the discussion with their own partners? Do you ask them all to download and install the programmes?


    It is not clear to me that the Logic Model diagrams from any of the visual mapping programmes I have seen can actually be edited with standard, commonly - available word-processing software such as Microsoft Word, OpenOffice Writer, or Google Docs. While Logic Models produced with DoView, Xmind, Vue, SmartDraw and many other similar programmes can be viewed using those programmes, or alternatively in PDF or on the web, and can be pasted into word processing programmes, in most cases they cannot be edited by people who do not have the original software in which the diagrams were originally produced -- making downstream participation very difficult.


    For those programmes which are web-based, some editing can be done on the internet, but accessibility does not rest in “the cloud” for people where internet access is not always reliable.  The bottom line is that the utility of all of these mapping and diagramming programmes is limited where it is impractical to install specialised programmes on dozens of different computers.


    If portability really is the criteria for assessing all of these programmes, then the priority should be not just the ability to view the results in a PDF file or on the internet, but the ability of partners to critique and edit the models.


    No Painless Performance Indicators


    Another issue, is that none of these programmes, with these limitations, will be easy to link to the other half of the results discussion - in many ways the most time consuming portion of results-based planning -- the assessment of the utility of indicators.


    As anyone who has worked through the indicator development process knows, it can take days for project partners, working in groups, to sort through potential indicators, testing them for validity, for the existence of baseline data, for the availability and accessibility of reporting data, for the existence of appropriate research skills, and the time required for data collection and analysis.


    While several of the articles in the Outcomes Theory Knowledgebase refer to the tongue-twisting “Non-output attributable intermediate outcome paradox”  and make a reasonable point about attribution, none of them makes the job of assessing indicators any easier, any faster or any more accessible for partners.


    The Outcomes Theory Knowledgebase web site has many “how to” videos, hosted on YouTube, aimed primarily at helping people use the proprietary software. One of these is titled “Painless Performance Indicators: Using a Visual Approach”. This got my hopes up!


    But, foiled again: What the video demonstrates is that if you have already done all of the hard work on indicators, having completed this assessment, you can insert a reference to the existence of the indicator, in the Logic Model, using the software. I am sure this is useful (although it can also be done with word processing programmes and the use of hyperlinks) but the point is that inserting indicators in a visual model is not the painful part of indicator development.


    For the time being, until something new develops, I will be sticking with the basic word processing programmes which allow a facilitator to work with participants to develop a logic model (albeit without some of the ease of the mapping software) and then link and integrate it with an indicator assessment worksheet, as indicators are being proposed, tested, rejected, modified and accepted. But, I continue to live in hope, and may revisit the issue of software again later.


    The bottom line: "The Outcomes Theory Database" includes articles with some useful arguments in favour of using a visual logic model approach, and some quick summaries of evaluation issues, but there is no magic bullet here.



    Other resources on Logic Models:



    _____________________________________________________________

    GREG ARMSTRONG
    Greg Armstrong is a Results-Based Management specialist who focuses on the use of clear language in RBM training, and in the creation of usable planning, monitoring and reporting frameworks.  For links to more Results-Based Management Handbooks and Guides, do to the RBM Training website. 



    RBM Training

    RBM Training
    Results-Based Management

    Subscribe to this blog by email

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

     
    Read the latest posts