A UNDP knowledge product is “a branded published piece offering new insights and analysis that advances learning or increases understanding about a development issue and leads to improved development policies, programmes, practices, products, skills and competencies.” It is produced for the purpose of informing or influencing decision-makers, professionals or the interested public. Knowledge products may be classified under eight types: report, technical paper, guidance material, contributing paper, findings, dataset, brief, and think piece.
Quality assurance for UNDP knowledge products is a three step online process conducted by the Issuing Office. The Issuing Office appoints a Knowledge Product Focal Point who: a)Submits the planned knowledge product details (scope of work, budget, target audience etc.); b)Once the knowledge product is produced, assesses it against the quality standards, and c)Uploads the product for publishing on UNDP's public site. Two key decision points in the process certify the product meets the criteria. It is the role of the Approver, the authorizing officer within the issuing office, to: a) “Approve” is when the approver -the authorizing officer- certifies that the knowledge product has been adequately justified and its design details have been satisfactorily thought through to proceed with the production stage, and
b) “Clear” is when the approver certifies that the product fully meets UNDP’s quality standards and can be finalized and issued. At each step the authorizing officer signs off on the Online Quality Assurance process.
Following its publication, the issuing office is also able to track and monitor the impact and the performance of the published knowledge product.
All UNDP knowledge products must meet six quality standards: (1) the product is relevant to the organization’s or programme’s priorities; (2) the product demonstrates thought leadership; (3) the product is well-designed and internally consistent; (4) the product is assured of reaching its intended audience; (5) the intended impacts are clear and measurable; (6) an appropriate roll-out plan is included. To certify these standards are met, the approver/authorizing officer signs a Quality Standards Certification form through the online quality assurance process.
To ensure the programme remains relevant and effectively contributes to outcome level results, the programme board may approve some changes to the programme without the need to resubmit the programme document to the UNDP Executive Board. These include: (a) removal of outputs that would not adversely affect the achievement of agreed outcomes; (b) adding new outputs necessary to achieve a given agreed outcome identified after the approval of the programme document; and c) changing outcome or output indicators that measure the progress of the programme.
Categories of costs in which the primary function is the promotion of the identity, direction and well-being of an organization. These include executive direction, representation, external relations and partnerships, corporate communications, legal, oversight, audit, corporate evaluation, information technology, finance, administration, security and human resources. This includes both activities and associated costs of a recurring and non-recurring nature.
The financial assistance provided to an intermediary which includes
nongovernmental or grass roots organizations in an amount not exceeding$150,000 for each individual grant.
Monitoring improves development effectiveness and efficiency by reviewing performance and using evidence to adjust programming for optimal results. Good monitoring starts with good planning and clear identification of what a programme or project will strive to achieve with specified resources. It is a continuous management function that provides decision-makers with regular feedback. Evidence from monitoring also serves as a critical input to evaluation and enables evidence-based reporting. Monitoring includes: (a) tracking performance through the collection of appropriate and credible data and other evidence; (b) analysing evidence to inform management decision-making, improve effectiveness and efficiency, and adjust programming as necessary; and (c) reporting on performance and lessons to facilitate learning and support accountability.