Of the impossibility of predicting results: the birth of ISF.
One of the main takeaways from implementation in the first pilot countries was that, in order to build true ownership over the dialogue process, one cannot predetermine its outcomes, something that we learned when we asked our local partners to develop a log frame at the beginning of their dialogue process.
Indeed, once we thought it through, we realised that stating the objectives and expected outcomes beforehand didn’t make much sense, but even if we couldn’t make much use of the programmatic function of the log frame, we still needed to use it as a monitoring tool that would help to keep track of the dialogue process to both the hosting structure and the donor sponsoring it.
To this end, we ended up designing the Integrated Support Framework, a sort of dashboard that aims at providing an accurate snapshot of the dialogue process and its different outcomes.
Building on the three tiers or orientations of the Operating Model –policy, process and results– the ISF provides an overview of:
The issues of concern and the ways in which they are currently being addressed by the policies in place, which entails mapping the policy and regulatory landscapes, identifying the main points of contention and keeping track of the solutions that are being proposed along the process.
The key stakeholders lay at the centre of the ISF because the so-called “political will” is a matter of agency, which needs to be analysed and disaggregated so as to understand the different levels of influence and exposure to the policy reform, as well as their interests and incentives for change and, once the Roadmap is agreed upon, their respective capacity gaps when it comes to implementing what has been collectively agreed.
The three types of indicators that have to be collectively agreed by the stakeholders at the end of each of the three phases: the policy indicators (resulting from the participatory assessment of the policy at stake), the process indicators (reflecting the interests and incentives of the actors taking part in the consensus-building phase) and, finally, the impact indicators (that should be expressed in terms of policy influence).
Therefore, the different columns of the ISF allow the hosting structure to follow the different stages of the process and the evolution of the stakeholders’ attitudes and positions, thereby pointing at commonalities, potential commitments or opportunities to broker agreements amongst the actors involved.

In other words, the ISF is not just a reporting tool that can provide donors with, but a crucial tool when it comes to identifying potential gridlocks and conflicting visions, as well as real windows of opportunity, thus helping donors and implementing agencies to design and coordinate programmes and assistance measures in a way that ensures their alignment with locally-led processes of reform.