Peer Network Programme Community of Practice convener - Invitation to Tender Clarifications & Consortia

Transcription

1 Peer Network Programme Community of Practice convener - Invitation to Tender Clarifications & Consortia This document provides further information for bidders interested in the Invitation to Tender for the Peer network Programme Community of Practice convener and does not replace any of the information provided in the original Invitation to Tender document, please click here. Bidders shall address their questions and requests for clarification or further information via to: workwithus@thepowertochange.org.uk This document includes information on: 1. Convener ITT Clarification Questions: Answers to clarification questions received 2. Evaluation ITT Clarification Questions: Answers to clarification questions received 3. Convener team matching : Organisations/individuals wishing to share skills/experience needed/offered can record details here to be shared This document will be updated when new information is available and uploaded to our website. It is the bidder s responsibility to check as required up until 12 noon 12 July 2016, after which we will not be making any further updates. The deadline for submitting questions and sharing your information for consortia bids is 12 noon 08 July 2016 Document last updated: 08/07/16 1. Clarification questions 1.1. Can you please confirm that the scope of the community is The practice of Peer Networking, as applied to community business rather than The practice of setting up and operating a community business : We can confirm the scope of the community is The practice of Peer Networking, as applied to community business 1.2. If the scope is the former, can you please confirm that the total number of active practitioners i.e. people with an accountability for (rather than an interest in) peer networking is the 12 peer network leaders, plus the convenor. We can confirm that the CoP will consist of between network practitioners who will be nominated to represent the peer networks grant supported through the programme. In addition to the convener team and the programme evaluator 1.3. Can you also please explain the basis for having 12 peer networks. Are these based on geography (e.g. London, Leeds, Bristol etc), or on business segment (Finance, Sport, Pubs etc), or some other criterion? In parallel to the procurement of a convener team we are launching an application process for selection of community business peer networks to receive 18 months grant funding to implement new activity to support

2 increased sustainability and cover the cost of participation in the CoP. The application window will be launched on the 25 th July, click here to find out more by registering your interest. The successful convener will have a role in the selection process of networks to be included in the programme. Selection will be based on meeting programme criteria e.g. established peer networks servicing community business, based in England. We will not be targeting specific sub sectors or geography, selection is based on the quality of proposed project, evidence of need and its ability to increase sustainability. Applicants will apply in two parts: for the activity to improve sustainability of existing peer networks and for the individual who will be leading the project. This will help us assess the suitability of the project for funding and for the lead individual to engage with the community of practice. As part of the peer to peer ethos, an element of all applications will be assessed by other applicants to arrive at a shortlist, with the final decision being made by a panel of community business, peer to peer and communities of practice practitioners. 1.4 Regarding the intellectual property as outlined in the draft contract, it is stipulated that the Customer (Power to Change) shall retain ownership of all IPR. We wondered if the supplier would still have freedom to disseminate the lessons learnt to the wider sector through its own website and networks in order to spread the impact of the programme further? Yes we would support this type of communication activity, as it would add value in relation to increasing our communication channels for the sharing of findings/lessons learnt with stakeholders and engaging wider audiences 1.5 Also, we wondered what the implications of IPR being retained by the Customer would be in terms of sign off processes for any materials produced? We envisage that a need for sign off on all materials produced might significantly increase the time needed to develop the repository of tools and resources, for example. We would not envisage a relationship where PTC would be needed to sign off on content and materials produced. After signing of the contract we will enter a period of design, project planning and agreeing KPI/millstones. The contractor will have a high degree of autonomy in delivery supported by ongoing support from the PTC programme manager and programme evaluator 1.6 Is it anticipated that the online community will be hosted on the website of Power to Change or the selected Convenor? We do not anticipate the online community to be hosted on the PTC website, we are open to other cost effective and creative options. 1.7 The invitation stipulates that an independent evaluator will undertake evaluation for the programme and that there is a potential benefit from the Convenor and Evaluator being of the same organisation. Could you clarify if the evaluation will be independent or if it should come from the same organisation? We would be happy to work very closely with an independent, external evaluator if that was what was intended. We are looking to commission an embedded evaluation for our Peer Network Programme. This evaluation will be independent to Power to Change. We expect the evaluator to contribute to the ongoing development of programme so can see benefits to the two distinct functions (convener/evaluation) being delivered by the same organisation. If a single organisation delivered both functions we would expect systems to be developed to allow for transparency regarding relationships/roles and for each activity to be delivery by separate teams. The evaluation ITT is live and can be found on ITT web page

3 1.8 What is the geographical spread of the networks? UK wide?? There are a significant range of peer networks involving community businesses, some of these will be across the UK. The Power to Change can only support community businesses in England so we will be specifically targeting peer networks in England 1.9 Could I have some clarification around expectation of the convener to create the CoP beyond being part of the selection process, is it our responsibility to be doing direct outreach or focus more building capacity of network leaders and members to do that themselves Building capacity through the introduction of new ideas, experiences, setting challenges and supporting creativity and innovation for CoP practitioners is a primary function of the convener team. Alongside this we also expect a supporting function of a communication role in promoting the learning and findings of the CoP to stakeholders and wider audiences it would be at the bidder s discretion to the degree of coordination and delegated responsibility to the members of the CoP to fulfil this activity 1.10 In the introduction of The programme its stated: Organisations that broker and provide peer networking and learning opportunities for community businesses are under increasing pressure to deliver more opportunities with less resources who they consider this to be? The wider community business support infrastructure provides peer networking opportunities the community business - peer network workshop report gives context and some examples of community business support providers. These organisations may apply to be part of the CoP and will be part of the wider stakeholder group 1.11To be clear, as the convener are we directly servicing the nominated leaders and/or the members to some extent? The main focus will be the Community of Practice practitioners, and supporting them to influence and build and share good practice in the peer network activity they are involved with and communicating this with stakeholder/wider audience. So you may potentially service their members through practitioners and may wish to monitor the effectiveness of this service In terms of format of the proposal, would a power point slide be acceptable? Yes we would welcome proposals using power point 1.13 Some clarification about the nature of network analysis and theory that you are looking for from the convener (i.e. from a tech/digital angle or otherwise)? Network theory is the study of complex interacting systems and, in this instance, applies to how people, organisations or groups interact with others inside their network. Our research and analysis to date shows that support providers who provide peer to peer networks to community businesses are not using network theory to inform and shape their efforts to support, connect and build peer to peer communities. We envisage the convener team will explore and introduce network theory to suit the needs of the CoP, allowing the practitioners to build an understanding of the theory, and its impact on why strategies succeed or fail. It will be important to capture and share this learning with wider audiences Will a portion of the 650,000 grant funding to the community business networks be assigned for, or available to, the Networks leader or manager for expenses for CoP participation (e.g. travel, accommodation

4 for face to face meeting and knowledge sharing events), or will this have to be funded from the convenor budget? Yes, an allocation to cover CoP participation costs is included within the 650,000 so not to be covered in convener budget 1.15 What are the resources, budget and finances that are to be managed by the Convenor that are mentioned in 2.5.2? Resources to include up-to 100,000 (exclusive of VAT) also intellectual resources generated through the CoP. The Convener will need to manage a budget to cover activities e.g. staff, facilitation, digital infrastructure 1.16 Is it anticipated that a deputy be assigned in each network to support the leader, and participate in the Programme CoP activities if the leader are unavailable? We have not asked for a deputy to be assigned in the application process. We will stipulate in grant offer letter that if the named practitioner needs to be replaced, a suitable alternative is provided. The use of deputies may be useful points when discussing practicalities of the CoP with the practitioners 1.17 Is communication, collaborative and knowledge sharing technology e.g. SharePoint already available. No, the choice and sourcing of appropriate digital infrastructure to service the CoP is a responsibility of the convener 1.18 Page 11 of tender document refers to the convener s involvement in the selection of CoP participants from September. Do you envisage this taking a full five days? No, the section activity will take place over this period, potentially up to 1.5 days of convener involvement 1.19 Pages 4-5 list the responsibilities of the convener as including supporting, creating and financial additional community roles What does this mean? Additional to what? This refers to the responsibility of the convener to assess the requirements of the CoP, and if required to expand the convener team and create and recruit to new roles to meet the CoP needs: e.g. communications expertise, or a membership expert 1.20 Are you intending to be rigid about your 3000 word limit? We included a 3000 word limit to ensure succinct responses. We do not want this limit to affect the quality and detail of responses, we are happy to be flexible and relax our position. Bidders are required to provide a succinct and concise response to the ITT, not to succeed a word count of 5000 words maximum

5 2 Peer Network Evaluator Questions 2.1 Is there an expectation that the evaluator will produce an economic analysis of the network or its members as part of the evaluation? No. We do not expect a separate economic analysis of the CoP or its member organisations. We would, however, expect that interviews with CoP members would include questions about the economic implications of the programme and whether it has affected sustainability, broadly understood, of either the network organisations or their members. If there are opportunities to support this qualitative information with evidence from CoP networks or their members, this would of course be welcome. 2.2 In the context of this tender, could you give further guidance about the use of existing tools? We are interested in developing methods that are open access and available to community businesses to use for themselves. In the context of the Peer Network Programme this might include mapping tools to show the distribution of network members or network analysis tools to show how the CoP has grown membership or created new links between networks. These could make learning from the evaluation more readily available and useful to community businesses. 2.3 Is there an expectation that the impact measurement approach taken by Power to Change will be applicable within the context of this evaluation? No. We don t expect the impact measurement platform to be relevant to network organisations themselves. The platform has been designed for community businesses rather than umbrella organisations. If, however, during the course of the Peer Network Programme the platform is taken up by members of network organisations, we would be keen to see this data integrated into the overall evaluation in relevant ways. 2.4 At the bottom of page 8 of your External Evaluation tender, you mention your three strands of data collection. Would you mind telling us whether you already collecting this information, and if so what tools are you using, whether participants are engaging with it, and who has access to the data? The impact data is going to be collected through a platform that is still in development. We re user testing it at the moment, and hope to have the first grantees making use of it from September onwards. The data is going to be publicly available at an aggregated level and will be accessible down to the grantee level through individual workspaces. More information about this will of course be available to the evaluators commissioned for the Peer Network Programme. That said, we don t anticipate that a large number of members of the wider networks will use our approach since few of them will be PTC grantees and the platform is not yet generally available (although it will be within the next 6 months). 2.6 What is the level of detail required for the evaluation proposal (even if number of pages is the best indicator of this)? We are conscious of the tight deadline on this so we don't expect a high level of detail. Between 3-5 pages with an outline approach, an overview of activities and an outline budget will be fine. If you could also provide some examples of previous work of a similar kind that would be helpful.

6 2.7 Is there any possibility of an extension on the deadline date on 5th July (also we have assumed it is 5pm on 5th July)? We will not be extending the deadline- the deadline cut off will be 12 midnight on the 5 th July 2.8 Is there a reason that there are two different submission dates for the evaluator and convener tender? Yes. We would like the evaluator to be appointed ahead of the convenor and before the selection of participants in the peer network itself. This is to ensure that the evaluator is embedded right from the very start of the programme. 3. Consortia Below is a list of individuals/organisations who have expressed an interest in being contacted about working together. If you would like to contact someone on this list, you may do so directly and do not need to inform Power to Change. If you would like to be added to this list, please workwithus@thepowertochange.org.uk before the 12 noon 08 July 2016 Contact Organisation Relevant CoP related skills/experience offered Any areas of CoP expertise/input needed Date