Accurately Measuring Progress
Johannesburg
26-7th Avenue, Parktown North, 2193 PO Box 923, Parklands, 2121, South Africa 
Tel: (011) 447-6464/5/6/7 Fax: (011) 447-6468 
Web: www.khulisa.com E-mail: info@khulisa.com 
Directors: Dr H. Aiello, PhD (USA); Ms. J. Bisgard (USA); Mr. P Capozza (USA); Mr. M Ogawa (Can) Ms. MP Selvaggio (USA); Prof. R. Murapa, PhD (Zimbabwe)
Assessment Report 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of South 
African Supplier Diversity Council (SASDC) Capacity 
Building Program 
RFTOP number SOL-674-15-000034
under IQC number AID-674-I-12-00002
Submitted: 31 March 2016 
Submitted by:
PRIME CONTRACTOR 
Mary Pat Selvaggio, Director 
Khulisa Management Services 
(Pty) Ltd
26 7th Avenue
Parktown North 2193
Johannesburg, South Africa
Tel: +27 11 447 6464
Email: 
mpselvaggio@khulisa.com
www.khulisa.com
SUB-CONTRACTOR
Alyna Wyatt, Partner 
Genesis Analytics (Pty) Ltd
Office 3, 50 6th Road, Hyde Park
Johannesburg, 2194, South Africa
Tel: +27 11 994 7000, Ext 7074
Email: alynaw@genesis￾analytics.com
www.genesis-analytics.com
Submitted to: 
Allan Hackner
Regional Economic Growth Office
USAID/Southern Africa
Tel: 012 452 2209
Cell: 083 2780011
Email: ahackner@usaid.gov
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | ii
Document Reference: 
Khulisa Management Services (Pty) Ltd. Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of South African 
Supplier Diversity Council (SASDC) Capacity Building Program. Produced under RFTOP number SOL￾674-15-000034 under IQC number AID-674-I-12-00002. 
31 March 2016 
Authors 
Paul Jackson, Assessment Team Leader 
Salome Omolo, DQA Expert 
Rebecca Pursell-Gotz, Senior Assessor 
Puveshni Crozier, Assessor 
Kris Eale, Assessor 
Lynette Byrne, Data Management Specialist 
Mary Pat Selvaggio, Assessment Manager 
Contact Information 
 Khulisa Management Services (Pty) Ltd 
Physical Address: 26 Seventh Avenue, Parktown North 2193, Johannesburg, South Africa 
Postal Address: PO Box 923, Parklands, 2121 Johannesburg, South Africa 
Tel: +27.11.447.6464 
Fax: +27.11.447.6468 
Email: info@khulisa.com 
www.khulisa.com 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
Khulisa Management Services (Pty) Ltd would like to thank USAID South Africa for affording Khulisa 
the opportunity to conduct this assessment. Specifically, Khulisa thanks Mr Allan Hackner of
USAID/South Africa for his valuable contributions and support of this assessment, particularly in
terms of being highly responsive to the dynamics of this assessment. Khulisa also thanks Mr Gary 
Joseph, CEO of SASDC, for his knowledge, contributions, and guidance. 
Khulisa is grateful to the many respondents from the SASDC secretariat and board, as well as 
corporate members and certified suppliers, who openly discussed their views with our assessment 
team. In particular, we would like to recognize the support and assistance of the following 
individuals and companies: 
 The Staff of the SASDC Secretariat 
 Brendan Raju, CUMMINS SA (Pty) Ltd and SASDC Board member 
 Sifiso Mncube, Foskor (Pty) Ltd and SASDC Board member 
 Matthew Govender, Barloworld and SASDC Board Chairperson 
 Feroza Jacobs, Shell SA 
 Dennis Mlambo, Denel 
 Cornelia Olivier, ABSA Bank Limited 
 Freddy Motau, Reba Chemicals 
 Tshepo Makelane, Sasol Ltd 
 Tony de Abreu, IBM SA (Pty) Ltd 
 Makhula Magaoga, Afrox 
 Fareed Refal, Reagola IT Services 
 Lebo Ramakuela, Libra Landscaping 
 Lucinda Dalcos and Maria Baron, Pfizer 
 Dave Govender, Drake and Scull 
 Mfundo Ngauza, Mutual and Federal 
 Sibongile Shongwe, Airports Company South Africa and SASDC Board member 
 Leslie Mamaila, Cisco Systems 
 Patrick Damon, Barloworld Motor Retail 
 Enoch Sithole, Macha’s Electrical
 Lillian Karuri-Magero, SASDC Board Member 
 Renee Horne, Non-Executive SASDC Board Member 
 Trevor Govender, Non- Executive SASDC Board Member and BSIC Chairperson 
 Dolly Mbuyane, BSIC Member 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1 Executive Summary.................................................................................................. 10
2 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 13
2.1 Program Description ........................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Purpose and Scope of the Assessment............................................................................... 14
3 Summary of Methodology ....................................................................................... 15
3.1 Intended vs. Actual Data Collection.................................................................................... 15
Reasons for Deviations........................................................................................................ 18
3.2 Limitations........................................................................................................................... 19
4 Findings: Data Quality Audit at SASDC...................................................................... 21
4.1 Description of the SASDC Secretariat DMS......................................................................... 21
4.2 Assessment of SASDC’s Data Management System ........................................................... 22
DMS Strengths .................................................................................................................... 24
DMS Weaknesses ................................................................................................................ 25
DMS Opportunities ............................................................................................................. 25
DMS Threats ........................................................................................................................ 26
Recommendations for improving SASDC’s Data Management System ............................. 26
4.3 Verification Factors/Error Rate by Indicator....................................................................... 28
Indicators Assessed under the DQA .................................................................................... 28
Indicator 1: Number of Corporate Members ..................................................................... 32
Indicator 2: Numbers of Applications Received ................................................................. 32
Indicator 3: Total Number of Certified Suppliers ............................................................... 33
Indicator 4: Total Number of Sales .................................................................................... 33
Indicator 5: Total Number of Sales to SASDC Corporate Members ................................... 34
Indicator 6: Rand Value of Sales ........................................................................................ 35
Indicator 7: Rand Value of Sales to Corporations .............................................................. 35
Indicator 8: Rand Value of Sales to SASDC Corporate Members ....................................... 36
Indicator 9: Total Value of Procurement ........................................................................... 37
Indicator 10: Value of Procurement from Certified Suppliers ........................................... 37
Indicator 11: Value of Procurement from Woman Owned Suppliers ................................ 38
5 Findings: Answers to the 8 Assessment Questions................................................... 40
5.1 AQ1: To what extent do SASDC corporate members and certified suppliers understand 
SASDC objectives and products and services?.................................................................... 40
Understanding of SASDC’s Core Objectives........................................................................ 40
Understanding of SASDC’s Products and Services.............................................................. 41
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 43
5.2 AQ2: To what extent do SASDC corporate members and certified suppliers see value in 
SASDC membership, and how does this impact on results reporting? .............................. 44
Perceived SASDC Value Proposition and Corporate Member Reporting Behaviour .......... 44
SASDC Board Members’ Views on SASDC’s Value Proposition........................................... 46
Suppliers’ Expected and Realised Benefits of SASDC membership .................................... 47
Referring suppliers and corporations to SASDC .................................................................. 48
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | v 
Perceived Value of SASDC membership and Intention to renew ....................................... 48
USAID’s Views on Corporate Member Reporting ............................................................... 49
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 49
5.3 AQ3: How familiar are SASDC corporate members and SASDC certified suppliers with 
SASDC reporting requirements? ......................................................................................... 51
Familiarity with SASDC Reporting Requirements ............................................................... 51
Reporting Guidance Provided by SASDC ............................................................................. 52
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 53
5.4 AQ4: To what extent do corporate procurement systems and reporting hierarchy impact 
results reporting?................................................................................................................ 54
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 54
5.5 AQ5: To what extent do corporate data management systems and their interface with 
SASDC data management tools pose a barrier to accurate and timely data capture and 
reporting, and how can these be overcome? ..................................................................... 55
Data Collection and Reporting Tools and Process .............................................................. 56
People ................................................................................................................................. 57
Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................................... 59
5.6 AQ6: To what extent do SASDC corporate members under-report because of their 
concerns about providing access to proprietary information? What other concerns do 
SASDC corporate members have about reporting to the SASDC?...................................... 61
5.7 AQ7: How can the SASDC performance management system be improved to address 
constraints and limitations to reporting? ........................................................................... 62
5.8 AQ8: What is the actual rand/dollar amount spent by SASDC corporate members on 
procurement from certified suppliers to date? .................................................................. 64
6 Conclusions and Implications of Findings.................................................................. 66
Appendix 1 Terms of Reference .................................................................................. 68
Appendix 2 Data Collection Tools................................................................................ 73
Appendix 3 Detailed Assessment Approach and Methodology .................................... 82
Appendix 4 List of Respondents for the Fieldwork ....................................................... 92
Appendix 5 Certified Supplier Case Studies.................................................................. 95
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | vi
FIGURES 
Figure 1. SASDC Logic Model ...............................................................................................................13
Figure 2. CMs who participated in Fieldwork by Membership Payment Type ....................................18
Figure 3. The 5 functional Areas of the Systems Assessment – Areas of Focus ..................................21
Figure 4. Data Flow for SASDC’s Data Management System ...............................................................22
Figure 5. SASDC Secretariat Systems Assessment Scores ....................................................................23
Figure 6. Data Verification Procedures conducted in the SASDC Assessment ....................................28
Figure 7. Corporate Members' and Certified Suppliers' Understanding of the Core Objective of 
SASDC (% of Respondents)..................................................................................................40
Figure 8. Corporate Members' Understanding of SASDC's Products and Services (N = 11) ................42
Figure 9. Certified Suppliers' Understanding of SASDC's Products and Services (% of Respondents) 43
Figure 10. Corporate Member’s views on SASDC Value Proposition and Reporting...........................44
Figure 11. Expected vs. Actual SASDC Benefits and Services by Certified Suppliers (N=68) ...............48
Figure 12. Value attached to SASDC membership by Corporate Members ........................................49
Figure 13. Corporate Member’s Understanding of SASDC's Reporting Requirements? .....................51
Figure 14. Certified Suppliers’ Understanding of SASDC Reporting Requirements (% of Certified 
Supplier Respondents) (N=65) ............................................................................................52
Figure 15. Suppliers Understanding of the Required Reporting Frequency (% of Certified Supplier 
Respondents) (N=65) ..........................................................................................................52
Figure 16. Reporting Guidance Given ..................................................................................................53
Figure 17. Data Flow from Corporate Members/Suppliers to SASDC and USAID ...............................55
Figure 18. Data Sources for Corporate Member Reporting ................................................................. 56
Figure 19. Corporate Staffing and SASDC Relationship Management? ...............................................58
Figure 20. Corporate Staffing and SASDC Reporting ............................................................................59
Figure 21. Amount Reported vs. Estimated Actual Amount ................................................................65
Figure 22. Sampling Methodology .......................................................................................................82
Figure 23. Timeline of Key Events or Libra and Sasol ...........................................................................97
Figure 24. The Impact of the Sasol Linkage on Libra Revenue.............................................................98
Figure 25. The Impact of the Sasol Linkage on Libra's Staff Complement ...........................................98
Figure 26. Timeline of Key Events for Reba and Rand Water ............................................................ 100
Figure 27. Timeline of Key Events ...................................................................................................... 102
Figure 28. Growth in Nozihle Staffing and Revenue .......................................................................... 103
TABLES 
Table 1. Planned Fieldwork vs. Actual Fieldwork .................................................................................16
Table 2. SASDC Reported Number of Members versus Recounted Number of Members ..................18
Table 3. System Assessment Scores Across the Functional Areas of the DMS ....................................23
Table 4. DQA Indicators Assessed at SASDC ........................................................................................29
Table 5. Summary of Data Verification Findings by Indicator ..............................................................31
Table 6. Indicator 1: DVFs For Number of Corporate Members ..........................................................32
Table 7. Indicator 2: Number of Application Received by the SASDC ..................................................33
Table 8. Indicator 3: Total Number of Certified Supplier DVF .............................................................33
Table 9. Indicator 4: Total Number of Sales as Reported by CSs .........................................................34
Table 10. Indicator 5: Total Number of Sales to SASDC CMs as Reported by CSs ...............................34
Table 11. Indicator 6: Rand Value of Sales ...........................................................................................35
Table 12. Indicator 7: Rand Value of Sales to Corporations ................................................................35
Table 13. Indicator 8: Rand Value of Sales ..........................................................................................36
Table 14. Indicator 8: Rand Value of Sales to Corporate Members ....................................................37
Table 15. Indicator 9: Total Value of Procurement .............................................................................37
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | vii 
Table 16. Indicator 10: CMs’ Value of Procurement from Certified Suppliers ...................................38
Table 17. Indicator 10: Cummins Value of Procurement from Certified Suppliers ............................38
Table 18. Indicator 11: Value of Procurement from Woman Owned Suppliers ..................................39
Table 19. Issues and Recommendation around the SASDC DMS ........................................................62
Table 20. Estimated Actual Spend on Procurement from Certified Suppliers .....................................64
Table 21. USAID KII Interview Guide ....................................................................................................73
Table 22. SASDC Board Interview Guide ..............................................................................................73
Table 23. SASDC CM Interview Guide ..................................................................................................74
Table 24. Certified Supplier Interview Guide .......................................................................................77
Table 25. SASDC BSIC Interview Guide................................................................................................. 78
Table 26. Online Survey – Certified Suppliers ......................................................................................79
Table 27. List of Respondents Interviewed ..........................................................................................83
Table 28. The Approach to be Applied to Each Respondent Group ....................................................85
Table 29. SASDC Reported Number of Members versus Recounted Number of Members ................94
Table 30. Staff breakdown of DELTRON Consulting ........................................................................... 104
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | viii 
GLOSSARY
Accurate Reporting Occurs when source documents contain exactly the same number of services 
delivered as were reported. 
Accurate Reporting is represented by: 
 A VF = 1.0 
 An error rate equal to 0%.
Data Management The development, execution, and supervision of plans, policies, programs, 
and practices that control, protect, deliver, and enhance the value of data and 
information assets.
Data Management 
System (DMS)
The structures, rules, methods, policies, practices and procedures that guide 
the collection, storage, retrieval, distribution, and sharing of data. 
Data Quality The state of completeness, validity, consistency/reliability, timeliness, and 
accuracy/precision that makes data appropriate for a specific use.
Data Verification 
Factor (DVF)
A measure of the accuracy of reported data. The data verification factor is 
calculated by the following formula: 
𝑫𝒂𝒕𝒂 𝑽𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓 = 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒏𝒖𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒔/𝒓𝒆𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒏𝒖𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒔
Error Rate A measure of the accuracy of reported data. The error rate is calculated by 
the following formula:
𝐸𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 (%) = (𝟏 − 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓) 𝒙 𝟏𝟎𝟎
Levels of the Data 
Management System
Refers to the different points of the data management system where data is 
recorded and reported. For SASDC, there are 2 levels of the DMS:
1. Certified Suppliers and Corporate Members, and 
2. The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) unit at the SASDC head offices.
Over-reporting Occurs when source documents contain fewer reports of activities than were 
reported. 
Over-reporting is represented by: 
 A DVF < 1.0 = an “over-report” because less data were found in the 
source documents than were reported.
 An error rate greater than 0%.
Source Document A document in which data is first collected and recorded (e.g. files, excel 
reports, etc.).
Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP)
A procedure specific to an operation that describes the activities necessary to 
complete tasks in accordance with regulations, laws, or standards. 
Under-reporting Occurs when source documents contain more activities than were reported. 
Under-reporting is represented by:
 A DVF > 1.0 = an “under-report” as more data were found in the 
source documents than were reported
 An error rate less than 0%.
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | ix
ACRONYMS
AQ Assessment Question
ACSA Airports Company South Africa
B-BBEE Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment
BSIC Black Supplier Input Committee
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CM Corporate Member
CPO Chief Procurement Officer
CS Certified Supplier
DMS Data Management System
DTI National Department of Trade and Industry
DQA Data Quality Assessment
DVF Data Verification Factor 
FGD Focus Group Discussion
KII Key Informant Interview
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
PMERP Performance, Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Plan
PMP Performance Management Plan
RFP Request for Proposal
SASDC South African Supplier Diversity Council
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VAT Value-Added Tax
ZAR South African Rand 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 10
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) hired Khulisa Management 
Services, in association with Genesis Analytics, to undertake a data quality assessment (DQA) of the 
monitoring and evaluation system of the South African Supplier Diversity Council (SASDC) Capacity 
Building Program. 
The objective of this assessment was two-fold. Firstly, to try and determine the actual program 
results for the period 2012 to 2015, in light of apparent under-reporting by SASDC corporate 
members. Secondly, to better understand what has influenced this behaviour in order to make 
recommendations to overcome this in the future. 
To achieve the objectives of the assessment, the assessment team administered a set of questions to 
SASDC stakeholders, through a combination of key informant interviews and an online survey. 
These stakeholders included USAID, members of the SASDC secretariat, SASDC corporate members, 
SASDC certified suppliers and members of the SASDC Board and Black Supplier Input Committee. 
Questions to respondents revolved around the potential influence of the following on reporting to 
SASDC: 
1. Understanding of SASDC objectives, products and services 
2. Perceived value in SASDC membership/ certification 
3. Familiarity with SASDC reporting requirements 
4. Corporate procurement and data management systems and reporting hierarchy 
5. Concerns around sharing proprietary information 
The assessment also looked at the SASDC secretariat’s data management system and attempted to 
reveal the actual Rand/Dollar amount spent by SASDC corporate members on procurement from 
SASDC certified suppliers. 
The participation of respondents in the key informant interviews was constrained by the limited 
availability of relevant individuals within corporate members. Despite this, similar themes became 
apparent and as such, the response rate achieved was considered acceptable. Responses to the 
SASDC certified supplier online survey was predictably low, but not outside the norm of such tools. 
The core limitation to this assessment was the poor cooperation by SASDC corporate members in 
sharing their procurement data. This jeopardised the assessment team’s ability to complete a 
successful recount of key program results. 
The main findings of this assessment are described below: 
 SASDC’s core objective is not widely understood by both corporate members and certified 
suppliers (i.e. to help corporate members grow their procurement with black-owned 
suppliers). That said, there is some commonality of understanding by corporate members 
and certified suppliers that SASDC is primarily about facilitating business linkages. 
 The SASDC’s database of certified suppliers is the most used SASDC product by corporate 
members, whereas “meet the buyer” events are most used by certified suppliers. Notably, 
between 20-30% of corporate members and certified suppliers have not used any of the 
SASDC products/services that are on offer. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 11
 There is a diversity of expectation by corporate members around the benefits of SASDC 
membership, and perceived membership value is influenced by whether the corporate 
member believes that they are deriving these expected benefits. An interpretation of 
corporate member responses reveals a possible division between a) corporate members 
that understand the SASDC model and their responsibility within the model, and b) 
corporate members that see SASDC as a BEE service provider of sorts, where the latter 
results in a perception of lower membership value. 
 Knowledge of corporate member reporting requirements is not universal. Of the 
respondents who are deemed current members, only 64% are confident of the reporting 
requirements. 
 Less than half of corporate members report to SASDC. The data suggest that when 
corporate members perceive value in their SASDC membership, there is no relationship with 
their likelihood to report. However, when CMs do not see value in their SASDC membership, 
they are twice as likely not to report. Indeed, over 40% of corporate members interviewed 
indicated that they do not see value in their SASDC membership. 
 Most corporate members who do not report claim they did not know that reporting was 
required. Other, less commonly-cited constraints to corporate member reporting relate to 
sensitivity around proprietary information (in one instance) and the inability of corporate 
procurement systems to generate required data with minimal time and effort (in two 
instances). 
 SASDC-specific reporting on certified supplier procurement appears to be an after-thought 
by many corporate members, where statutory B-BBEE reporting requirements rank higher in 
importance by the various corporate members. 
 SASDC’s data management system is immature. There is no formalised M&E structure and 
defined data management process. As a consequence, there are weaknesses around 
indicator definitions, data aggregation and analysis processes, and data protection. That 
said, the reporting templates for corporate members and certified suppliers are user 
friendly. . 
 In terms of the 11 indicators that were the focus of this assessment, we found a mix of over 
and under-reporting to USAID as indicated in the table below. The main reasons for the 
discrepancies were missing reports from members and suppliers, as well as errors in the 
SASDC database due largely to transcription errors when copying information from the CS 
and CM reports into the database. 
#
Indicator
Error Rate 
calculated Result
6. Rand value of sales +1.5% Very slight over-report
7. Rand value of sales to corporations -11% Under-report
8. Rand value of sales to SASDC corporate members +13% Over-report
9. Total value of procurement (ZAR) -240% Significant under-report
10. Value of procurement from certified suppliers (ZAR) -31.8% Under-report
11. Value of procurement from women owned firms (ZAR) +38% Over report
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 12
The abovementioned main findings can grouped into three categories of issues, with accompanying 
recommendations. 
Perceived value from membership/certification: 
A sizeable proportion of corporate members and certified suppliers do not see value in their SASDC 
membership/ certification and this appears to be affecting the frequency and quality of reporting. 
To address this SASDC needs a renewed clarity of purpose and vision, to maximise the unique 
position it fills in the congested B-BBEE landscape of South Africa. Crucially, SASDC needs to 
effectively communicate to corporate members the value they should expect to derive from their 
membership. Furthermore, SASDC should make a concerted effort to create success with a few 
certified suppliers, and better communicate these successes. Lastly, SASDC should limit its 
product/service offering to those that are most in demand, and prioritise securing and maintaining 
the quality of the database of certified suppliers. 
Understanding of the purpose of reporting: 
SASDC should clearly communicate to its corporate members and certified suppliers, on a regular 
basis, why reporting is necessary. Furthermore, SASDC should decisively deal with the reporting 
protocol for business relationships that pre-date SASDC involvement or where there is no obvious 
link between the deal and SASDC activities. It is envisaged that clear messaging around the purpose 
served by reporting will alleviate confidentiality concerns or, at the least, encourage reporting which 
may be devoid of key identifying information. Finally, consideration should be given to crafting 
indicators for corporate members that help drive their active participation in SASDC. 
Experience and management of the data management process: 
Some corporate members find the SASDC reporting process time consuming, especially where their 
accounts payable or procurement systems are not able to readily generate reports based on SASDC 
indicator requirements. SASDC should encourage its members to create the necessary “tags” in 
their finance/procurement systems. The SASDC secretariat should ensure that there are no 
functionality problems in reporting template, and that requests for data from corporate members 
are dispatch in a timely fashion. Furthermore, consideration should be given to aligning SASDC 
indicator definitions with prevailing statutory B-BBEE definitions, as far as possible, and perhaps 
reducing the frequency of reporting. Finally, the SASDC secretariat should strengthen its data 
management system and processes, prioritising those issues that threaten data protection and 
accuracy. 
A crucial cross-cutting issue that negatively influences perceptions of member value as well as 
reporting behaviour, is the high turnover of SASDC representatives within corporate members. This 
results in low institutional memory vis-à-vis SASDC requirements and inhibits the ability of corporate 
members to get traction and thereby extract value. The SASDC secretariat must increase the 
regularity of its contact with corporate members and design a handover process that mitigates the 
negative impact of corporate member representative transitions. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 13
2 INTRODUCTION 
2.1 Program Description 
SASDC is a non-profit member-led organization comprised of representatives of domestic and global 
corporations operating in South Africa. SASDC’s vision is to be the leading corporate-driven council 
in South Africa dedicated to promoting sustainable supplier diversity through targeted procurement 
and black supplier development. 
SASDC seeks to go beyond the compliance-driven culture of B-BBEE in South Africa. It conceives 
Supplier Diversity as corporations making sound business decisions while being good corporate 
citizens. Supplier Diversity is about substantive inclusion of previously disadvantaged people 
through business relations and access to procurement, with corporations deriving benefit from 
having a diverse base of suppliers. ` 
FIGURE 1. SASDC LOGIC MODEL
SASDC’s core objective is to build a powerful cohort of like-minded corporate members and a 
significant database of bona-fide black-owned suppliers to facilitate business linkages of increasing 
value and substance. SASDC is designed to be financially self-sustaining, primarily through corporate 
member fees and income generated from an annual conference and business opportunity fair. 
However, it has also received seed funding from USAID designed to put the organisation onto a path 
of self-sustainability. 
SASDC faces several key challenges: 
 Achieving prominence in a market that is congested by a plethora of B-BBEE initiatives. 
 Being relevant in a market that is driven by B-BBEE compliance. 
 Implementing universally-accepted and robust processes and systems that facilitate cost￾efficient reporting by members and suppliers and that also satisfy confidentiality concerns. 
• Generate Sustained 
and Inclusive 
Economic Growth
• Growth in Business 
Linkages and 
Procurement 
between 
Corporations and 
Black Enterprises
• Grow and Retain 
Corporate 
Membership
• Certify Suppliers
• Facilitate Business 
Linkages
• Achieve Self￾Governance and 
Self-Sustainability
• Achieve Recognition 
as the Leader and 
Authority on 
Supplier Diversity
• Corporate Member 
Recruitment
• Corporate Member 
Retention
• Corporate Member 
Attraction
• Membership 
Advocacy
• Deliver Valued 
Member Services
• Corporate Capacity 
Building
• Provide Access to 
Certified Suppliers
• Certified 
Pipeline 
Development
• Supplier 
Certification
• Facilitate Business 
Linkages
Input: Output: Outcome: Impact:
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 14
 Facilitating the sharing of access to quality black suppliers and genuine procurement 
opportunities in an environment characterized by low trust and simplistic conceptions of the 
basis for competing. 
These challenges have variously affected the level of participation and reporting of members to 
SASDC. 
2.2 Purpose and Scope of the Assessment 
USAID/South Africa required an independent assessment of SASDC’s reporting to: 
 Verify reported SASDC results so as to determine the actual results to date; 
 Help understand the drivers of under-reporting by SASDC corporate members; and 
 Offer recommendations to overcome this in future – whether this relates to data 
management or programme value considerations. 
In short, USAID hopes to reveal a more positive story around the SASDC’s results and wants to leave 
SASDC (i.e. post-USAID funding) in a stronger position, in terms of programme focus and data system 
strength. 
The Assessment was focused around answering 8 assessment questions (AQs): 
AQ 1. To what extent do SASDC corporate members and certified suppliers understand SASDC 
objectives and products and services? 
AQ 2. To what extent do SASDC corporate members and certified suppliers see value in SASDC 
membership, and how does this impact on results reporting? 
AQ 3. How familiar are SASDC corporate members and SASDC certified suppliers with SASDC 
reporting requirements? 
AQ 4. To what extent do corporate procurement systems and reporting hierarchy impact 
results reporting? 
AQ 5. To what extent do corporate data management systems and their interface with SASDC 
data management tools pose a barrier to accurate and timely data capture and 
reporting, and how can these be overcome? 
AQ 6. To what extent do SASDC corporate members under-report because of their concerns 
about providing access to proprietary information? What other concerns do SASDC 
corporate members have about reporting to the SASDC? 
AQ 7. How can the SASDC performance management system be improved to address 
constraints and limitations to reporting? 
AQ 8. What is the actual rand/dollar amount spent by SASDC corporate members on 
procurement from certified suppliers to date? 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 15
3 SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY 
To answer the 8 assessment questions, the assessment team planned to 
(i) carry out a Data Quality Audit at the SASDC secretariat; and 
(ii) analyse procurement data from corporate members and M&E data from SASDC. 
(iii) conduct Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with a wide range of SASDC stakeholders, 
(iv) carry out an online survey of SASDC certified suppliers, 
The SASDC secretariat and Board, corporate members, certified suppliers, as well as other relevant 
stakeholders were the focus of the KIIs. Certified suppliers were the focus of the online survey. 
Mixed methods (both quantitative and qualitative) were applied in the KIIs and online survey. 
Procurement data obtained from the corporate members focused on the value of transactions 
between the corporate member and black/women-owned suppliers( in general) and SASDC certified 
suppliers(specifically) over the period April 2012 to March 2015. 
Data collection took place from October 27 to November 20 2015. 
Appendix 3 presents a detailed description of the methodology utilised for the assessment. 
3.1 Intended vs. Actual Data Collection 
Table 1 presents the intended fieldwork against the actual fieldwork. Data Collection was carried 
out in a sample of: 
1. Corporate Members across 4 categories: in Good Standing, Payments Pending, Withdrawn 
their Membership, and Payments written off (Figure 2 lists the corporate members who 
participated). 
2. Certified Suppliers; and 
3. Other Stakeholders (e.g. USAID, SASDC Secretariat, SASDC Board, and selected BSIC 
representatives) 
The Team was successful in engaging a narrow group of corporate members in good standing and 
other stakeholders to participate in the Assessment, reaching 77% of the intended respondents. 
However, the team was less successful in engaging with corporate members who were not in good 
standing as well as certified suppliers. Only 42% of corporate members not in good standing 
targeted for KIIs participated in interviews, and 22% of intended certified suppliers responded to the 
online survey or KIIs with the Team, although this is not an unusual response rate for online surveys. 
Reasons for deviations are provided below. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 16
TABLE 1. PLANNED FIELDWORK VS. ACTUAL FIELDWORK
# Targeted Respondent Intended Activity Actual Fieldwork and Activity
Corporate Members
Corporate Members in Good Standing
1. Cummins SA Pty Ltd KII
Data Verification
KII 
Data Verification
 Spend Report Submitted
 Reported Procurement
2. Foskor (Pty) Ltd KII
Data Verification
KII
Data Verification
 Spend Report Not Submitted
 Reported Procurement
3. Barloworld Ltd (incl. Barloworld 
Motor Retail) 
KII
Data Verification
KII only
Data Verification
 Spend Report Not Submitted
 Reported Procurement
4. Shell (SA) KII
Data Verification
KII only
Data Verification
 Spend Report Submitted
 Reported Procurement
5. Absa Bank Limited KII
Data Verification
KII
Data Verification
 Spend Report Not Submitted
 Reported Procurement
6. Sasol Ltd KII
Data Verification
KII only
Data Verification
 Spend Report Not Submitted
 Reported Procurement
7. IBM SA Pty Ltd KII
Data Verification
KII
Data Verification
 Spend Report Not Submitted
 No Reported Procurement
8. Afrox KII
Data Verification
KII only
Data Verification
 Spend Report Submitted
 Reported Procurement
9. Pfizer KII
Data Verification
KII only
Data Verification
 Spend Report Submitted
 No Reported Procurement
10. Transnet KII
Data Verification
Did not Participate
11. Rand Water KII
Data Verification
Did not Participate
TOTAL Fieldwork Activities 22 19 (86.4%)
Corporate Members with Payments Pending
12. Airports Company South Africa KII
Data Verification
KII
Data Verification
 Spend Reports Not Submitted
 Reported Procurement
13. Cisco Systems KII
Data Verification
KII only
14. Johnson Controls Facilities 
Management
KII
Data Verification
Did not Participate
TOTAL Fieldwork Activities 6 3 (50%)
Corporate Members who have Withdrawn their Membership
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 17
# Targeted Respondent Intended Activity Actual Fieldwork and Activity
15. Drake & Scull KII KII
16. Fidelity Security Management KII Did not Participate
17. Fidelity Cash Solutions KII Did not Participate
TOTAL Fieldwork Activities 3 1 (33%)
Corporate Members with Payments Written Off
18. South African Breweries KII Did not Participate
19. Coca Cola KII Did not Participate
20. Mutual & Federal KII KII
21. BP KII Did not Participate
22. Denel KII KII
TOTAL Fieldwork Activities 5 2 (40%)
Other stakeholders
23. USAID KII USAID
24. SASDC Board (11 members) One FGD  FGD1 
 FGD2 
25. SASDC Secretariat DQA Systems Assessment 
Data Verification
Systems Assessment 
Data Verification
26. BSIC One FGD  KII
 Telephone-based KII
TOTAL Fieldwork Activities 4 6 (150%)
Subtotal Corporate Members and other 
SASDC stakeholders 40 31 (77%)
Certified Suppliers
27. 315 Approved and Certified SASDC 
Suppliers
Online Survey (sent to 
315 suppliers)
65 completed the survey
28. Reba Chemicals KII KII
29. Deltron Consulting KII Did not Participate
30. Reagola IT Services KII KII
31. Sebata Group of Companies KII Did not Participate
32. Libra Landscaping KII KII
33. Macha’s Electrical KII
TOTAL Fieldwork Activities 320 69 (21.6%)
GRAND TOTAL 360 100 (27%)
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 18
FIGURE 2. CMS WHO PARTICIPATED IN FIELDWORK BY MEMBERSHIP PAYMENT TYPE
REASONS FOR DEVIATIONS
The main reasons for the differences between the planned and actual fieldwork are as follows: 
1. Discrepancy between Corporate Members and Certified Suppliers reported by SASDC versus 
those recounted during the Assessment: 
Data collection was highly influenced by the number of active (at the time of the assessment) 
corporate members and certified suppliers. During the assessment, major discrepancies were 
uncovered in terms of their number of certified suppliers and corporate members as per Table 2. 
SASDC reported 25 corporate members and 313 certified suppliers, but only about half of these 
were active members at the time of the assessment. When we attempted to engage with the non￾active members and suppliers for the assessment, there was very poor response. 
TABLE 2. SASDC REPORTED NUMBER OF MEMBERS VERSUS RECOUNTED NUMBER OF MEMBERS
Respondent Category Reported
by SASDC
Verified/ 
Recounted1
Corporate Members 30 12
Payment up to Date 11 12
Payment Pending 3
Payments Written Off 11
Withdrawn Membership 5
Certified Suppliers 313 146
Suppliers with paid up active certification 146
Suppliers with expired certification (Jan-Mar 2015) 6
 
1 Verified excludes CMs and CSs whose payments were not up to date 
Corporate Members
who participated in Fieldwork
(N=14)
In Good Standing: 
Payment up to Date 
(N=9)
•Cummins SA (Pty) Ltd
•Barloworld SA
•Foskor
•Shell
•Sasol
•ABSA Bank Limited
•IBM
•Afrox
•Pfizer
Payment Pending (N=2)
•Airports Company South 
Africa
•Cisco Systems
Withdrew Membership 
(N=1)
•Drake and Scull
Payments Written Off 
(N=2)
•Mutual and Federal 
•Denel
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 19
Respondent Category Reported
by SASDC
Verified/ 
Recounted1
Suppliers with expired certification prior to 2015 183
Suppliers without membership data 10
Suppliers on SASDC database 345
2. Unavailability of Targeted Key Informants 
Another issue was the unavailability of key informants due to: 
 The individual no longer worked at the Corporate Member; 
 The Corporate Member was not aware of SASDC at all and felt that they could not provide 
meaningful information; and 
 Compulsory travel or work commitments which precluded the individual from participating. 
Less frequently, but still prevalent, some respondents just refused to participate. 
3. Poor Online Supplier Survey Response Rate 
The platform ‘Survey Monkey’ was able to generate a list of respondents who had not participated in 
the survey. Eight email reminders were sent to those who had not participated at all. At the end of 
the data collection phase, the assessment team telephoned those respondents who had only 
partially completed the survey so as to understand why they had not completed and submitted the 
survey. Those who needed assistance were given guidance so as to successfully complete the 
survey. 
3.2 Limitations 
 It was not possible to interview respondents from all the corporate members in our sample, 
primarily due to the limited availability of relevant individuals within corporates or due to 
changeover in staff. This made it difficult to find a new SASDC focal point in the corporation 
or someone who had knowledge of the SASDC. 
 The interview instruments were piloted at Cummins at the start of the assessment after 
which some changes were made to the instruments. There are some gaps in the Cummins 
data related to revised questions which have not been included in this draft report. 
 Khulisa attempted to obtain procurement or spend data from 14 corporate members, but 
only managed to receive data from half of these (i.e. 7 CMs). Corporate members’ 
resistance to sharing their spend data resulted in a very small sample of procurement data 
made available to the assessment team. This constrained the calculation of an accurate 
error rate for corporate member reporting. 
 Overall, the level of reporting by corporate members and suppliers was low and this 
complicated the verification exercise. 
 Data on certified supplier’s turnover, and SASDC’s share of this turnover, was self-reported 
through an online survey. As such, the assessment team was unable to verify these self￾reported data. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 20
 Because the DQA Systems Assessment was only conducted at SASDC (and no other sites) the 
assessment team is unable to determine what data management improvements should be 
made at the corporate member or supplier levels to improve the overall accuracy of 
reporting. 
 Many of the DQA indicators are actually data points in the SASDC database, rather than 
separate indicators. Unfortunately, the crash of SASDC‘s database in June 2015, and the 
subsequent incomplete retrieval of lost data, means that many of the DQA indicators could 
not be reliably verified. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 21
4 FINDINGS: DATA QUALITY AUDIT AT SASDC 
Assessment of data management systems (DMSs) was carried out only at the SASDC Secretariat. No 
Corporate members or certified suppliers were assessed on their data management systems. 
The System Assessment examines five functional areas of a DMS as elaborated in Figure 3. The 
following discussion provides an overview of the Systems Assessment findings at SASDC. 
FIGURE 3. THE 5 FUNCTIONAL AREAS OF THE SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT – AREAS OF FOCUS 
M&E structure, functions, and capabilities: documented M&E organizational structure; M&E staffing 
sufficiency; M&E training; clear M&E roles and responsibilities around reviewing incoming and 
outgoing reports. 
Indicator definitions and reporting guidelines: documentation of indicator definitions and links to 
services delivery; sharing of documentation; guidance to all levels on what, how, to whom and when to 
report; document retention policies. 
Data collection and reporting forms/tools: standards source documents; standardized reporting 
tools; sufficiency of data to measure the indicator; availability of source documents. 
Data management processes: clear documentation of aggregation/analysis steps; SOPs for how to 
handle late/inaccurate/missing reports; feedback to sub-reporting levels; quality controls for 
transcribing from paper to computer; database administration and backup policies; confidentiality of 
records maintenance; reporting system’s ability to account for double counting/lost to follow￾up/death; regular supervisory visits around data quality. 
Links with the national reporting system: national forms are used; national reporting systems are 
used; national reporting deadlines are used; national site IDs are used. 
4.1 Description of the SASDC Secretariat DMS 
USAID acknowledged early in this assessment that SASDC did not receive funding earmarked 
specifically for developing a comprehensive Data Management System (DMS). As such, the 
Secretariat’s DMS evolved during implementation – moving from an M&E system based on the SAGE 
CRM database to a manual Excel-based system. 
With the exception of Cummins SA (Pty) Ltd, the Secretariat’s data base depends mainly on two 
standardized reporting tools that are designed to collect data for specific indicators (detailed in 
Table 4): 
 Reporting from Corporate Members (CMs): The SASDC Secretariat send CMs a standardized 
EXCEL spreadsheet which serves as the quarterly reporting template. CMs either upload 
their entire accounts payable to the Secretariat, or send an email through to the Secretariat 
of the scanned ‘Report Sheet’ using only the aggregated data from quarterly reports; and,
 Reporting from Certified Suppliers (CSs): The SASDC uses a standardized Survey Monkey 
based tool wherein certified suppliers are able to record their data and submit to the 
Secretariat on a quarterly basis. For CSs that are do not or cannot use Survey Monkey, data 
is sent by email or fax, and these entries are manually added to the data set downloaded 
from Survey Monkey. 
Figure 4 depicts the data flow from these reports to the SASDC database. Both certified suppliers 
and corporate members are expected to report on a quarterly basis. Once the SASDC Secretariat 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 22
receives the data, the SASDC Relationship Manager manually transcribes the data into the 
consolidated Excel-based workbook which serves as the programme’s database. The data in this 
workbook is used to manipulate, analyse, and report to USAID on a quarterly basis. 
FIGURE 4. DATA FLOW FOR SASDC’S DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
4.2 Assessment of SASDC’s Data Management System
Figure 5 and Table 3 and summarize the assessment scores of the System Assessment’s 5 functional 
areas. The overall Systems Assessment score of 1.64 (of 3 possible points) indicates a very weak 
data management system (DMS). Given that there is currently no national reporting system for 
supplier diversification, the score for ‘Links with the National Reporting System´ were not included in 
the overall Systems Assessment score. 
The Secretariat’s DMS is strongest in ‘Data Collection and Reporting Forms/Tools’ (score of 2.6 out of 
3), representing the design and implementation of standardized data collection and reporting 
forms/tools that are routinely used by both the CSs and CMs (apart from Cummins SA). 
‘Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines’ (score of 1.57) was the second best performing 
functional area, followed by ‘M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities’ (score of 1.4), although 
these are weak scores. In terms of incoming reports from CMs, the Secretariat has comprehensive 
reporting guidelines (in the form of a tab on the Excel reporting template) that describes what, how, 
and when CMs should report to SASDC. Incoming reports from CSs are collected through Survey 
Monkey or email or fax. In terms of outgoing reports to USAID, the Secretariat uses a reporting 
template but reporting guidelines for this template are not documented. 
The Secretariat has developed and documented a Performance Monitoring, Evaluation, and 
Reporting Plan (PMERP) which details the indicators and associated indicator definitions. However, 
some indictor definitions in this plan are not fully defined and need further development, and the 
PMERP has not been shared with its data management staff or with the sub-reporting levels, i.e. 
Certified Suppliers and Corporate Members, thereby limiting its value. 
USAID 
Reports
SASDC Database
(e.g. 
consolidated 
Excel workbook)
Certified 
Suppliers reports 
(via Survey 
Monkey, fax, or 
email)
Corporate 
Members’ 
Quarterly 
Reports (via 
Excel template)
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 23
FIGURE 5. SASDC SECRETARIAT SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT SCORES
TABLE 3. SYSTEM ASSESSMENT SCORES ACROSS THE FUNCTIONAL AREAS OF THE DMS 
Functional Area M&E Unit Score 
(of 3 possible points)
M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1.40
Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines 1.57
Data Collection and Reporting Forms/Tools 2.60
Data Management Processes 1.00
Links w/ National Reporting System -
SASDC Average 1.64
In terms of ‘M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities’ (score of 1.40), the Secretariat does not have 
a document or organogram that details the MER responsibilities within the DMS. Ideally this would 
be part of the PMERP. In addition, the Secretariat was unable to inform the assessment team of 
current vacant MER positions. In terms of M&E and DMS related training, the Relationship Manager 
received data administration training several years ago but was unable to provide the assessment 
team with evidence of such training. The Secretariat was also unable to provide the assessment 
team with an MER training plan. 
Another weakness around M&E structures and functions is the absence of a designated SASDC staff 
member who is responsible for verifying the data when: 
 Data is transcribed from the received reports onto the Secretariat’s Excel-based workbook; 
or
 Data is consolidated, manipulated, analysed, and reported to USAID. 
The lack of verification is clearly evident in the multiple ways in which the Certified Supplier names 
have been spelled in the reports submitted to the assessment team by SASDC. 
The weakest functional area is ‘Data Management Processes’ (with a score of 1.00). This is because 
the Secretariat: 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 24
 takes the various CM and CS reports and other data points and puts them in a single Excel 
workbook with multiple worksheets, none of which are linked; 
 has not developed standard operating procedures to manage late, inaccurate, incomplete, 
and/or missing reports; 
 lacks quality controls in place when data is transcribed between the different platforms / 
worksheets / workbooks; 
 lacks consistent data validation and verification across the levels of the DMS, posing a risk of 
double counting certified suppliers; 
 has not documented the data aggregation and analysis steps used for reporting on the 
indicators; 
 does not provide routine feedback to either CSs and CMs on data quality issues; 
 does not have (or actively implement) a Data Administration Policy. This places all data, 
including the supplier database which is central to SASDC’s core value proposition, at risk. 
Indeed, at the date of assessment, the supplier database had not been backed-up for over 4 
weeks. This risk is clearly evident in the contamination of files during June 2015 which 
resulted in a complete crash of the SASDC database. This crash was attributed to a weak 
firewall, but when questioned by the assessment team, the Secretariat was unable to 
confirm the strength of the current firewall, the existence of any anti-virus software, nor 
were they able to quantify the data lost as a result of the crash. In addition, when Khulisa 
visited SASDC to better understand the “database” it became clear that most workbooks 
relating to supplier data were infected with viruses, and could not be accessed; and 
 lacks a systematic filing system for hard copy data as well as electronic or scanned data 
reports – particularly Supplier reports and data – which makes the retrieval and verification 
difficult. 
In terms of SASDC’s ‘Link to the National Reporting System’, which in this case would be the 
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), SASDC does not report to DTI, in part because DTI has not 
developed a monitoring, evaluation, and reporting system. As such, the scores for this functional 
area were not included in the overall average for the Systems Assessment. However, collaboration 
and linkage with the DTI can be an important leverage point for the SASDC Secretariat, particularly 
given that several key DTI documents speak to the need for developing a monitoring, evaluation, and 
reporting framework for the private and public sectors2
. 
More specific strengths and weaknesses of the SASDC Secretariat DMS include the following: 
DMS STRENGTHS
Use of Identified standard tools/forms. SASDC developed standard and appropriate reporting tools 
and forms that are routinely used at both Corporate Member and Certified Supplier levels. The only 
exception is Cummins SA (Pty) Ltd who uses their company-specific form but, the Secretariat is able 
to accurately extract the data from the Cummins reporting form. 
 
2 https://www.thedti.gov.za/economic_empowerment/docs/National_Summit_Report.pdf
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 25
Documented PMP. The Secretariat was able to provide the assessment team with a comprehensive, 
although out-of-date, PMP for the period 2012 to 2015. Although the key performance indicators 
were included and defined, these indicator definitions are not aligned to the ‘SMART’ principles, 
especially around the ‘specific’ and ‘time-bound’ SMART criteria. Indicators names and definitions 
also need to clearly state whether the indicator is cumulative or discrete. In addition, the PMP still 
makes reference to the SAGE CRM database which the SASDC Secretariat no longer uses. 
Comprehensive Reporting Guidelines. By including the reporting guidelines as a tab on the Excel￾based CM reporting template, the Secretariat has consistently provided CMs with clear and 
comprehensive reporting guidelines. Certified Suppliers reported on a template that included 
minimal guidelines (one or two sentences) on the Survey Monkey platform. 
DMS WEAKNESSES 
M&E Structure, Functions, and Capabilities. The quality of the data generated by SASDC is at risk 
due to the overall lack of a proper M&E Structure. M&E functions and responsibilities are not 
defined and the SASDC Secretariat was unable to provide the assessment team with an M&E 
Organogram. In addition, SASDC could not indicate how many M&E related posts were currently 
vacant. In general, there has been some M&E training although the Secretariat was unable to 
provide any evidence of such training. In addition, the Secretariat has not developed an M&E 
training plan. Finally, and most importantly, there is no designated staff member who is responsible 
for validating and verifying the data as it moves along the DMS. 
Indicator Definitions. Although the PMERP defines the SASDC performance indicators, some 
indicators lack sufficient detail, especially around whether the indicator is meant to be a cumulative 
figure or a discrete figure for the corresponding reporting period. In addition, current SASDC 
Secretariat staff are unaware of the indicators and indicator definitions, and these had not been 
shared with CSs or CMs. Because CMs have highlighted the issue of confidentiality around 
proprietary information as a reason for not consistently reporting, it is important that SASDC better 
communicate the reasons underlying the request for data, how the data will be processed, who will 
have access to the data, and what level of aggregation will be carried out on the reported data. 
Data Aggregation, Analysis and Reporting SOPs. Currently, the Secretariat’s CEO is entirely 
responsible for all steps of the data aggregation, analysis and reporting. This is a very manual 
process of transferring/transcribing data between different Excel workbooks and spreadsheets and 
which depends almost exclusively on the institutional memory and his understanding. In order to 
consistently maintain a high quality data, it is important that these steps be documented and shared 
with the rest of the SASDC staff. Because this manual process presents a risk of transcription error 
(indeed transcription errors were identified in the verification procedure), Ideally SASDC would 
benefit from developing an ACCESS database into which the Excel spreadsheets from CSs and CMs 
could be automatically added and the requisite calculations could be automatically generated. 
DMS OPPORTUNITIES
Links with the National Reporting System (The Department of Trade and Industry, DTI). Given the 
changes to the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) Codes of Good Practice in May 
2015, the SASDC Secretariat is well positioned to collaborate with the DTI and to use the revised 
legislation as a leverage point for driving transformation/diversification among its members. 
Furthermore, key DTI documents2
 speak to the need for developing a monitoring, evaluation and 
reporting framework for the private and public sectors. This then offers the SASDC Secretariat the 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 26
opportunity for further collaboration with the Government by using DTI standard reporting 
tools/forms as well as harmonizing their reporting timelines and reporting channels with those of 
the DTI. 
In addition, state owned enterprises, such as Rand Water, are now required to procure their 
suppliers through the National Treasury’s central procurement e-government platform. This 
reinforces the importance of SASDC’s linkages with the DTI and National Treasury. 
Data Validation/Verification Checkpoints. Currently, there is no designated staff member who is 
responsible for verifying and validating data prior to its submission to the CEO for further 
aggregation, analysis and reporting. Because there are no data validation/verification steps at key 
checkpoints as the data moves along the DMS, this places the quality of the data at risk. It is, 
therefore, crucial that such checkpoints be established and implemented. Additionally, SASDC, CM, 
and CS staff have to be made aware that by emailing the workbook for higher level aggregation, 
analysis and reporting, they have effectively signed-off on the quality of the data. 
Consistent Feedback to Corporate Members and Certified Suppliers on data quality issues. 
Routine feedback to sub-reporting levels, i.e. the CSs and CMs, improves the possibility of receiving 
better quality data. In addition, a routine visit to CSs and/or CMs to assess the quality of data has 
the potential to improve the quality of received data. However, these visits need to be documented 
as part of a portfolio of evidence that supports improving the quality of received data. 
DMS THREATS
Data Management Processes. The database system crash in June 2015 was due to a weak firewall. 
The opening of an email attachment resulted in the viral contamination of a substantial portion of 
the SASDC supplier database, which is one of the organization’s key value propositions. Since the 
Secretariat has not developed or documented a ‘Data Administration Policy’, there was no guidance 
in recovering the lost data and, as such, to date there has been no clear quantification or 
reconciliation of the lost data versus what was recovered. Moreover, the Assessment Team also 
discovered that the last back-up of the database had occurred more than 4 weeks prior to the date 
of assessment. Finally, at the time of the assessment, SASDC staff were unable to articulate the 
current level of security (firewall and anti-viral software) that is being used for the Secretariat’s IT 
system and database. 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING SASDC’S DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
No. Issue Recommendation
1. Out of date PMP  Update PMERP and M&E Plans to reflect the current DMS processes 
and procedures. Ensure that indicator definitions are aligned to 
current B-BBEE legislation.
2. SASDC PMP indicators do 
not align with the SMART 
indicator principles
 Indicators need to be revised so as to be specific and time-bound.
 Cumulative and discrete indicators need to be identified as such.
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 27
No. Issue Recommendation
2. M&E Structure, Functions 
and Capabilities
 Develop and document an M&E Organogram that clearly indicates 
the roles and responsibilities of all DMS staff.
 Develop and implement job descriptions that are aligned with DMS 
staff performance contracts that speak to the M&E role and 
responsibilities.
 Develop and implement a comprehensive M&E training plan and 
retain evidence of training.
3. Reporting Guidelines  Given the lack of continuity within CMs, due to staff turnover, 
SASDC should consider providing designated M&E CM staff with 
written reporting guidelines.
4. Indicator Definitions  Ensure indicator definitions and associated descriptions are aligned 
with current B-BBEE legislation.
 Share indicator definitions with SASDC M&E staff as well as with 
sub-reporting levels (CMs and CSs)
5. Data Management 
Processes
 Develop, document, and workshop data aggregation, analysis and 
reporting SOPs
 Develop, document, and workshop a ‘Data Administration Policy’ 
that speaks to the database security measures, back-up and 
recovery processes and procedures, password protocols, etc.
 Ensure that the SASDC firewall and anti-virus software provides the 
SASDC database with adequate security and apply recommended 
software updates and cleaning processes.
 Implement data verification/validation checkpoints so as to ensure 
the quality of data as it moves along the DMS.
6. Links with the Department 
of Trade and Industry 
Reporting System
 SASDC could consider using DTI standard reporting tools/forms and 
harmonize the SASDC reporting timelines and channels with those 
of the DTI.
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 28
4.3 Verification Factors/Error Rate by Indicator 
The Data Verification procedure relies on comparisons between different source documents to 
determine the level of accuracy of reporting at each level. Figure 6 depicts the comparisons that 
were carried out for the calculation of indicator DVFs or error rates. The specific comparisons used 
for each indicator are detailed in Table 4. 
FIGURE 6. DATA VERIFICATION PROCEDURES CONDUCTED IN THE SASDC ASSESSMENT
INDICATORS ASSESSED UNDER THE DQA
Table 4 lists the 11 performance indicators that were the focus of the DQA with the corresponding 
SASDC PMP indicator (or data point) in the SASDC database. Many of the DQA indicators are actually 
data points in the SASDC database, rather than separate indicators. Unfortunately, the crash of 
SASDC‘s database in June 2015, and the subsequent incomplete retrieval of lost data, means that 
many of the DQA indicators could not be reliably verified. 
The comparisons between CM reports to SASDC and the SASDC database used procurement data 
received from seven CMs for the 12 quarters covered in the period under review (i.e. April 2012 to 
March 2015). As discussed in the Limitations section of this report, Khulisa attempted to obtain this 
procurement data from 14 corporate members, but only managed to receive data from half of these 
(i.e. 7 CMs), and this somewhat constrained the determination of the accuracy of reported data. 
Two CMs who did not share data with Khulisa are understood to have reported very large numbers 
to SASDC, but because they did not share their data with us, some of our calculations found an 
“over-report” from SASDC to USAID, as we could only verify and recount a portion of the corporate
data. 
Procurement data submitted by the 6 CMs was sourced from the CMs’ accounts payable system or 
the CMs procurement system. This procurement data was then used for the comparisons with CS
information or with numbers in the SASDC database for the period being reviewed. 
USAID 
Reports
SASDC Database
(e.g. consolidated Excel 
workbook)
Certified Suppliers 
reports (via Survey 
Monkey, fax, or email)
Corporate Members’ 
Quarterly Reports (via 
Excel template)
CS reports to SASDC 
compared to 
CM reports to SASDC
SASDC DB numbers 
compared to 
numbers in
SASDC reports to 
USAID
CM reports to SASDC 
compared to 
SASDC DB numbers
CS reports to SASDC 
compared to 
SASDC DB numbers
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 29
TABLE 4. DQA INDICATORS ASSESSED AT SASDC 
s
DQA 
Indicator
Corresponding SASDC 
PMP Indicator
SASDC 
Indicator 
# SASDC PMP Indicator Definition
Corresponding 
SASDC PMP Data 
Point
Data Sources for DVF and Error Rate Calculations
Numerator
Recounted or Verified
Denominator
Reported
1 Number of 
corporate 
members
Number of 
Corporations joining 
the SASDC
6.2.8 Corporations registered with 
SASDC to improve their supplier 
diversity practices and good 
governance
# of corporation 
members
Excel output from the SASDC 
Membership workbook dated 
September 2015
SASDC reports 
to USAID
2 Number of 
applications 
received
Number of Suppliers 
Certified with the 
SASDC
6.2.2 Black bona-fide business 
enterprises certified with the 
SASDC to receive possible 
procurement opportunities and 
support to improve their business
# of applications 
received
Excel output from the SASDC 
Membership workbook dated 
September 2015
SASDC reports 
to USAID
3 Total number 
of certified
suppliers
Number of Suppliers 
Certified with the 
SASDC
6.2.2 Black bona-fide business 
enterprises certified with the 
SASDC to receive possible 
procurement opportunities and 
support to improve their business
Total # of Certified 
Suppliers
Excel output from the SASDC 
Membership workbook dated 
September 2015
SASDC reports 
to USAID
4 Total number 
of sales
Number of sales made 
by Certified Suppliers
6.2.4 A sales contract is defined as a 
discrete order, where delivery is 
completed, invoice issued and 
against which payment is 
affected.
Total # of sales 
contracts supported
Excel files of quarterly report 
downloads from Survey Monkey, which 
were manually supplemented with data 
sent by fax and email and manually 
transcribed into the Quarterly Report 
Workbook. 
SASDC reports 
to USAID
5 Number of 
sales to 
SASDC 
corporate 
members
Number of sales made 
by Certified Suppliers
6.2.4 A sales contract is defined as a 
discrete order, where delivery is 
completed, invoice issued and 
against which payment is 
affected.
Of which sales to 
Corporate Members
Excel files of quarterly report 
downloads from Survey Monkey, which 
were manually supplemented with data 
sent by fax and email and manually 
transcribed into the Quarterly Report 
Workbook. 
SASDC reports 
to USAID
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 30
s
DQA 
Indicator
Corresponding SASDC 
PMP Indicator
SASDC 
Indicator 
# SASDC PMP Indicator Definition
Corresponding 
SASDC PMP Data 
Point
Data Sources for DVF and Error Rate Calculations
Numerator
Recounted or Verified
Denominator
Reported
6 Rand value of 
sales
Number of sales made 
by Certified Suppliers
6.2.5 Cumulative value of sale 
contracts supported
Rand value of sales Excel files of quarterly report 
downloads from Survey Monkey, which 
were manually supplemented with data 
sent by fax and email and manually 
transcribed into the Quarterly Report 
Workbook. 
SASDC reports 
to USAID
7 Rand value of 
sales to 
corporations
Number of sales made 
by Certified Suppliers
6.2.5 Cumulative value of sale 
contracts supported
Rand Value of Sales 
to Corporations
Excel files of quarterly report 
downloads from Survey Monkey, which 
were manually supplemented with data 
sent by fax and email and manually 
transcribed into the Quarterly Report 
Workbook. 
SASDC reports 
to USAID
8 Rand value of 
sales to 
SASDC 
corporate 
members
Number of sales made 
by Certified Suppliers
6.2.5 Cumulative value of sale 
contracts supported
Rand value of sales 
to SASDC Member 
Corporation
Excel files of quarterly report 
downloads from Survey Monkey, which 
were manually supplemented with data 
sent by fax and email and manually 
transcribed into the Quarterly Report 
Workbook. 
SASDC reports 
to USAID
9 Total value of 
procurement
Value of corporate 
procurement from 
black owned suppliers
6.2.9 Cumulative value of procurement 
from Certifiable Suppliers
Value of 
procurement
Procurement data received from seven 
(7) Corporate Members
SASDC reports 
to USAID
10 Value of 
procurement 
from certified 
suppliers
Value of corporate 
procurement from 
black owned suppliers
6.2.9 Cumulative value of procurement 
from Certifiable Suppliers
Value of 
procurement from 
Certified Supplier
Procurement data received from 
Cummins 
Cummins 
reports to 
SASDC 
11 Value of 
procurement 
from women 
owned firms
Value of corporate 
procurement from 
black owned suppliers
6.2.9 Cumulative value of procurement 
from Certifiable Suppliers
Value of 
procurement from 
women empowered 
firms
CMs Quarterly reports which are 
manually transcribed into the Quarterly 
Report Workbook. 
SASDC reports 
to USAID
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 31
The accuracy of reporting is determined through the Data Verification Factor (or DVF), which is 
calculated by the following formula: 
𝑫𝒂𝒕𝒂 𝑽𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓 = 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒏𝒖𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒔/𝒓𝒆𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒏𝒖𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒔
Therefore, the DVF is a number that reflects if the reported data was accurate, over-reported, or 
under-reported. Usually, a DVF equal to 1 is ‘accurate reporting’, while less than 1 is ‘over-reported’, 
and greater than 1 is ‘under-reported’. The Assessment Team used the following DVF classification 
for the DQA component of this assessment: 
o Accurate (between 0.95 and 1.05) 
o Over-reported (<0.95) 
o Under-reported (>1.05). 
The error rate, on the other hand, is calculated as the percentage of the difference between 1 and 
the DVF, using the following formula: 
𝑬𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 (%) = (𝟏 − 𝒅𝒂𝒕𝒂 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓) 𝒙 𝟏𝟎𝟎 
Table 5 summarises the Verification findings for each of the 11 indicators using the numerators and 
denominators specified in Table 4. For indicators 1 and 3, the indicator definitions are not clear as to 
whether the indicator is supposed to be a cumulative figure or a discrete figure for the specific time 
period. As such, we have provided the error rates for both. 
A more detailed analysis of each indicator’s findings follows. 
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF DATA VERIFICATION FINDINGS BY INDICATOR 
#
Indicator
Error Rate 
calculated Result
1. Number of corporate members 0% Accurate for cumulative
+60% Over-report for discrete
2. Number of applications received -40% Under-report
3. Total number of certified suppliers +53% Over-report for cumulative
-10% Under-report for discrete
4. Total number of sales +47% Over-report
5. Number of sales to SASDC corporate members +54% Over-report
6. Rand value of sales +1.5% Very slight over-report
7. Rand value of sales to corporations -11% Under-report
8. Rand value of sales to SASDC corporate members +13% Over-report
9. Total value of procurement (ZAR) -240% Significant under-report
10. Value of procurement from certified suppliers (ZAR) -31.8% Under-report
11. Value of procurement from women owned firms (ZAR) +38% Over report
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 32
INDICATOR 1: NUMBER OF CORPORATE MEMBERS
According to the SASDC Secretariat’s Performance Management Plan (PMP), the equivalent indicator 
is the ‘Number of Corporations joining the SASDC’ and its definition is “Corporations registered with 
SASDC to improve their supplier diversity practices and good governance”. 
The main data source used by Khulisa for verifying the indicator was an Excel output from the SASDC 
Membership report (an Excel workbook) dated September 2015. The Assessment Team did not have 
access to primary data, e.g. paper-based or electronic CM application forms, to further verify the 
information on the workbook. 
This indicator’s definition is unclear and ambiguous around whether the indicator is meant to be a 
cumulative number or a discrete number for the reporting period. 
Assuming that the indicator is cumulative, SASDC reported 30 CMs and indeed, the assessment team 
were able to recount 30 CMs indicating accurate reporting (DVF=1.00, error rate of 0%). 
However, if the indicator is assumed to be discrete referring only the number of members in good 
standing (those who had paid their membership fees or who have payment pending only for 3 
months), only 12 of the reported 30 CMs could be counted (Table 6). This would give a substantial 
error rate for the indicator (60% over-reporting). 
TABLE 6. INDICATOR 1: DVFS FOR NUMBER OF CORPORATE MEMBERS
Respondent Category
Reported 
to USAID Verified DVF Error Rate Comment
Corporate Members (discrete) 30 12 0.40 +60% Over-report
Corporate Members (cumulative) 30 30 1.00 0% Accurate
Payment up to Date 11 11 1.00 0% Accurate
Payment Pending 3 3 1.00 0% Accurate
Payments Written Off 11 11 1.00 0% Accurate
Withdrawn Membership 5 5 1.00 0% Accurate
INDICATOR 2: NUMBERS OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVED
The equivalent SASDC PMP indicator is Indicator 6.2.2 ‘Number of suppliers certified by the SASDC’. 
This is indicator is reported to USAID about suppliers only and not corporate members. 
The main data source used by Khulisa for verifying the indicator was an Excel output from the SASDC 
Membership report (an Excel workbook) dated September 2015. The Assessment Team did not have 
access to primary data, e.g. paper-based or electronic CS application forms, to further verify the 
information on the workbook. 
Table 7, showing the number of applications uncovered in the SASDC database compared to the 
number reported to USAID, shows a significant under-report, which may be due to the fact that the 
indicator has several data points, and SASDC could have inconsistently chosen different data points 
when reporting to USAID. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 33
TABLE 7. INDICATOR 2: NUMBER OF APPLICATION RECEIVED BY THE SASDC 
Respondent Category
Reported to 
USAID
Recounted /Verified 
Data Point in SASDC 
DB DVF
Error 
Rate Comment
Supplier applications as 
per the SASDC Database 210 295 1.40 -40% Under-report
INDICATOR 3: TOTAL NUMBER OF CERTIFIED SUPPLIERS
The equivalent indicator listed in the SASDC PMP is the Indicator 6.2.2 ‘Number of Suppliers Certified 
with the SASDC’ and its definition is “Black bona-fide business enterprises certified with the SASDC to 
receive possible procurement opportunities and support to improve their business”. 
The main data source used by Khulisa for verifying the indicator was an Excel output from the SASDC 
Membership report (an Excel workbook) dated September 2015. The Assessment Team did not have 
access to primary data, e.g. paper-based or electronic CS application forms, to further verify the 
information on the workbook. 
This indicator’s definition is unclear and ambiguous around whether the indicator is meant to be a 
cumulative number or a discrete number pertaining only to the reporting period. 
If the indicator is assumed to be cumulative, then the error rate (-10%) represents a small degree of 
under-reporting for this indicator. However, if the indicator is assumed to be discrete, this would 
require using a much tighter definition referring only to those CSs who had fully paid up their 
certification fees at the time of the assessment. In this case only 146 paid up CSs would be counted 
compared to the 313 CSs that were reported to USAID resulting in a major over-reporting for this 
indicator (DVF=0.47, error rate of +53%). 
TABLE 8. INDICATOR 3: TOTAL NUMBER OF CERTIFIED SUPPLIER DVF 
Respondent Category
Reported 
to USAID
Recounted 
/Verified DVF
Error 
Rate Comment
Certified Suppliers (cumulative) 313 345 1.10 -10% Under-report
Certified Suppliers (discrete) 313 146 0.47 +53% Over-report
Suppliers with expired certification (Jan￾Mar 2015)
6
Suppliers with expired certification prior 
to 2015
183
Suppliers without membership data 10
Suppliers on SASDC database 345
INDICATOR 4: TOTAL NUMBER OF SALES
The equivalent indicator listed in the SASDC PMP is Indicator 6.2.4 ‘Number of sales made by 
Certified Suppliers’ and its definition is “A sales contract is defined as a discrete order, where delivery 
is completed, invoice issued and against which payment is affected”. The PMP indicator is 
disaggregated by two data points “total number of sales contracts supported” and “total number of 
sales contracts supported of which sales to CMs”. The assessment team examined the first data 
point for this indicator. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 34
The main data source used by Khulisa for verifying this indicator were the Excel files of quarterly 
report downloads from Survey Monkey, which SASDC then manually supplemented with data sent 
by fax and email. However, the assessment team questions the accuracy of the data, given missing 
values in the excel worksheets. 
The DVF of 0.53 and error rate of +47% indicates an over-report (Table 9), mainly because there 
were large numbers of missing data in the Excel Spreadsheets, particularly in the first 3 quarters of 
2014. Before and after those quarters, all relevant cells in the spreadsheet were filled with the 
relevant data, zeros, or “N/A” and no cells were left blank. However, in those three quarters of 
2014, the vast majority of relevant cells in the spreadsheets were blank, suggesting that when the 
data was manually consolidated (and/or transcribed) from the Survey Monkey downloads, not all 
the data was included. 
TABLE 9. INDICATOR 4: TOTAL NUMBER OF SALES AS REPORTED BY CSS
Reported 
to USAID
Recounted 
/Verified 
Data Point in 
SASDC DB DVF
Error 
Rate Comment
No. Sales by Certified Suppliers reporting to 
SASDC 4,255 2,288 0.53 +47% Over-report
INDICATOR 5: TOTAL NUMBER OF SALES TO SASDC CORPORATE MEMBERS
The equivalent indicator listed in the SASDC PMP is Indicator 6.2.4 ‘Number of sales made by 
Certified Suppliers’ and its definition is “A sales contract is defined as a discrete order, where delivery 
is completed, invoice issued and against which payment is affected”. The PMP indicator is 
disaggregated by two data points “total number of sales contracts supported” and “total number of 
sales contracts supported of which are sales to CMs”. The assessment team examined the second 
data point for this indicator. 
The main data source used by Khulisa for verifying this indicator were the Excel files of quarterly 
report downloads from Survey Monkey, which SASDC then manually supplemented with data sent 
by fax and email. However, the assessment team questions the accuracy of the data, given missing 
values in the excel worksheets. 
As seen with indicator 4, the DVF of 0.46 and error rate of +54% indicates an over-report (Table 10), 
mainly because there were large numbers of missing data in the Excel Spreadsheets, particularly in 
the first 3 quarters of 2014. Before and after those quarters, all relevant cells in the spreadsheet 
were filled with the relevant data, zeros, or “N/A” and no cells were left blank. However, in those 
three quarters of 2014, the vast majority of relevant cells in the spreadsheets were blank, suggesting 
that when the data was manually consolidated (and/or transcribed) from the Survey Monkey 
downloads, not all the data was included. 
TABLE 10. INDICATOR 5: TOTAL NUMBER OF SALES TO SASDC CMS AS REPORTED BY CSS
Reported 
to USAID
Recounted 
/Verified Data 
Point in SASDC DB DVF
Error 
Rate Comment
No. Sales by CSs reporting to 
SASDC 1,883 872 0.46 +54% Over-report
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 35
INDICATOR 6: RAND VALUE OF SALES
The equivalent indicator in the SASDC PMP is Indicator 6.2.5 ‘Value of sales made by Certified 
Suppliers’ and its definition is “Cumulative value of sale contracts supported”. The relevant data 
point is “rand value of sales”. 
The main data source used by Khulisa for verifying this indicator were the Excel files of quarterly 
report downloads from Survey Monkey, which SASDC then manually supplemented with data sent 
by fax and email. 
Although the DVF of 0.985 for this indicator suggests mostly accurate reporting (Table 11), there 
were significant data entry errors that were corrected by the Assessment Team, including (i) CS over￾reports to SASDC because of a data capturing error in the period July to September 2014, (ii) CS 
duplicate entries from previous quarters in their reports to SASDC, and (iii) an arithmetic error in 
SASDCs’ report to USAID. 
Correcting for the above errors to determine the recounted/verified amount, the result shows a 
trend of overall accurate reporting with very slight (1.5%) over-report to USAID. 
TABLE 11. INDICATOR 6: RAND VALUE OF SALES
Reported to 
USAID
Recounted 
/Verified DVF
Error 
Rate Comment
Rand value of Sales by CSs ZAR
950,915,940
ZAR
936,635,398 0.985 +1.5% Very slight over￾report
INDICATOR 7: RAND VALUE OF SALES TO CORPORATIONS
The equivalent SASDC PMP indicator is Indicator 6.2.5, ‘Number of Sales made by certified suppliers’, 
and the definition is “cumulative value of sales contracts supported”. The data point used for the 
DQA was “rand value sales to corporations”. 
This indicator measures the value of sales from certified suppliers to any and all corporations 
whether they are SASDC corporate members or not. 
The main data source used by Khulisa for verifying this indicator were the Excel files of quarterly 
report downloads from Survey Monkey, which SASDC then manually supplemented with data sent 
by fax and email. 
Like Indicator 8, the DVF of 1.11 indicates under-reporting to USAID (Table 12), in part because of 
the significant data entry errors that were corrected by the Assessment Team (as with Indicator 6). 
Some of the discrepancies include (i) CS over-reports to SASDC because of a data capturing error in 
the period July to September 2014, (ii) CS duplicated entries from previous quarters their reports to 
SASDC, and (iii) an arithmetic error in SASDCs’ report to USAID. 
Using corrected CS figures as the recounted amount, the result is an 11% under report to USAID. 
TABLE 12. INDICATOR 7: RAND VALUE OF SALES TO CORPORATIONS
Reported to 
USAID
Recounted 
/Verified DVF
Error 
Rate Comment
Reported to SASDC by Suppliers ZAR 
422,538,044
ZAR 
470,177,645 1.11 -11% Under-report
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 36
INDICATOR 8: RAND VALUE OF SALES TO SASDC CORPORATE MEMBERS
The equivalent indicator in the SASDC PMP is Indicator 6.2.5 ‘Value of sales made by Certified 
Suppliers’ and its definition is “Cumulative value of sale contracts supported”. The relevant data 
point is “rand value of sales to SASDC CMs”. 
This indicator mirrors Indicator 10, which looks at the value of Corporate Members’ procurement 
from certified suppliers. 
The main data source used by Khulisa for verifying this indicator were the Excel files of quarterly 
report downloads from Survey Monkey, which SASDC then supplemented with data sent by fax and 
email. 
Data reported by SASDC to USAID was compared to recounted data from CSs. However, it is 
important to note that the amount that SASDC’s report to USAID is over-reported by ZAR 1.7m 
because of a transcription error when capturing data for the April-June 2015 period. This decreased 
the reported value. In addition, the reported figure includes duplicate entries of amounts from 
previous quarters. Khulisa’s recounted/verified figure corrects these errors, giving a DVF=0.87, 
indicating an over-report (Table 13). 
However, when going deeper and examining the indicator data in the SASDC data base against 
corporate procurement data shared with the assessment 
team, we find a very large under-report – that is, CMs 
record much more procurement from certified suppliers 
than CSs report to SASDC (Table 14). If this result is 
assumed to be generalizable across all members and 
suppliers, it suggests inconsistent reporting into the 
SASDC database by certified suppliers or incomplete data 
within the SASDC database due to the crash in 2015. 
Inconsistent reporting by suppliers may also be due to CSs 
unwillingness to attribute business activities to SASDC 
over the long-term, i.e. after the initial linkage and transaction(s), suppliers reported in the online 
survey that they no longer attributed subsequent sales to SASDC because there was no further 
SASDC “support”. 
The under-report also points to a lack of clarity in the indicator definition regarding the timeframe 
against which the indicator should be reported. Should suppliers report only on the value of the first 
transaction with the CM, or all transactions over time? This question was also raised by both 
Corporate Members and Certified suppliers during interviews and the online survey – namely, once 
the linkage is made and the first transaction is complete, how much attribution should be given to 
SASDC for future transactions between the two parties? 
For the purposes of this DQA exercise, the Assessment team has determined that the calculation 
presented in Table 13 is the most relevant and this is regarded as the main finding for this indicator. 
TABLE 13. INDICATOR 8: RAND VALUE OF SALES 
Reported to 
USAID
Recounted 
/Verified DVF
Error 
Rate Comment
Reported to SASDC by Suppliers ZAR
56,843,464
ZAR
49,273,970 0.87 +13% Over-report
Once a linkage is made and the 
first transaction is complete, how 
much attribution should be given 
to SASDC for future transactions 
between the two parties?
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 37
TABLE 14. INDICATOR 8: RAND VALUE OF SALES TO CORPORATE MEMBERS 
Level of Reporting
Reported 
to SASDC 
by 11 CSs 
Recounted 
/Verified from 4 
CMs DVF
Error 
Rate Comment
Reported to SASDC by 11 Suppliers 
that could be verified against data 
from 4 CMs versus value recounted 
against data provided by CMs
ZAR
4,153,305,
ZAR
15,265,478, 3.68 -267.6% Significant under￾report
INDICATOR 9: TOTAL VALUE OF PROCUREMENT
The equivalent SASDC PMP indicator is Indicator 6.2.9, ‘Value of Corporate Procurement from black 
owned suppliers’. The indicator definition is “cumulative value of procurement from certifiable 
suppliers”. The data point used for the analysis is “value of procurement”. This indicator looks at 
CMs’ procurement from all black owned suppliers, whether they are SASDC certified or not. 
The main data source used by Khulisa for verifying this indicator was procurement data received 
from 7 CMs, six of whom provided data in the form of Excel workbooks and one who sent a B-BBEE 
certificate. 
The DVF of 3.4 is equivalent to an error rate of -240%, 
or a significant under-report (Table 15). The possible 
reasons for the under-report are that due to the lack 
of consistent CM reporting to SASDC. SASDC reports 
to USAID appear to consist primarily of data from only 
3 CMs, whereas Khulisa team was able to obtain data 
from 7 CMs. This in itself explains the larger number 
used for the recount and thus the under-report. 
However, the under-report is certainly even greater, given the missing data from the other CMs in 
good standing, and because the data shared from the 7 CMs was incomplete – most of the reports 
didn’t cover the 12 quarters under review. 
One reason for the missing CM reports, which is discussed in section 5.2, is low level of reporting by 
CMs to SASDC. Less than half of CMs report to SASDC, and most of them report inconsistently. This 
may be due to the burden of double reporting to SASDC as well as for B-BBEE purposes. If corporate 
members’ annual B-BBEE reports could be used for reporting to SASDC, CM reporting rates would 
most likely increase. 
TABLE 15. INDICATOR 9: TOTAL VALUE OF PROCUREMENT 
Reported to 
USAID
Verified/ 
Recounted DVF
Error 
Rate Comment
CM reports ZAR
2,155,756,570
ZAR
7,335,629,262 3.402 -240% Significant 
under-report
INDICATOR 10: VALUE OF PROCUREMENT FROM CERTIFIED SUPPLIERS
The equivalent SASDC PMP indicator is Indicator 6.2.9, “Value of Corporate Procurement from black 
owned suppliers. The indicator definition is “cumulative value of procurement from certifiable 
suppliers”. The data point used for the analysis is “value of procurement from certified suppliers”. 
Less than half of Corporate Members 
report to SASDC. If CMs’ annual B￾BEE reports could be used for 
reporting to SASDC, CM reporting 
rates would most likely increase.
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 38
This indicator mirrors Indicator 5, which looks at Certified Suppliers’ sales to Corporate Members. 
The main data source used by Khulisa for verifying this indicator was procurement data received 
from seven (7) CMs, six of whom provided Excel workbooks with the requested data, and one sent a 
B-BBEE certificate. However, we were unable to use the B-BBEE certificate for verifying this 
indicator, so the calculations were carried out only on the Excel workbooks from the 6 CMs. 
The DVF of 0.793 is equivalent to an error rate of +20%, or an over-report to USAID (Table 16). The 
possible reasons for the over-report are likely due to the missing CM reports and incomplete CM 
data shared with Khulisa for the verification. 
However, if we go deeper and examine the indicator data in the SASDC excel files for just one 
corporate member - Cummins – against the procurement data that Cummins shared with the 
assessment team, we find a very large under-report. That is, Cummins’ own records show much 
more procurement from certified suppliers than what Cummins reported to SASDC (Table 17). One 
reason for this is that Cummins only reported to SASDC for 7 of the 12 quarters under review, while 
the data obtained from Cummins was for all 12 quarters. 
If we generalise this result across all corporate members, it demonstrates a high degree of under￾reporting by CMs, which is confirmed by the findings in section 5.2 below. 
For the purposes of this DQA exercise, the Assessment team has determined that the on-going 
Cummins data is the most relevant calculation, and therefore the error rate presented in Table 17is 
what is used as the main finding for this indicator. 
TABLE 16. INDICATOR 10: CMS’ VALUE OF PROCUREMENT FROM CERTIFIED SUPPLIERS
Level of Reporting
Reported to 
USAID
Recounted/ 
Verified DVF
Error 
Rate Result
Value of procurement from 6 
CMs
ZAR
106,552,811,
ZAR
84,532,562,
0.793 20.7% Over-report
TABLE 17. INDICATOR 10: CUMMINS VALUE OF PROCUREMENT FROM CERTIFIED SUPPLIERS 
Level of Reporting
Reported to 
SASDC
Recounted/ 
Verified DVF
Error 
Rate Result
Reported values to SASDC by 
Cummins versus recounted 
values in procurement data 
supplied by Cummins
ZAR
16,953,981
ZAR
22,342,648 1.318 -31.8% Under-report
INDICATOR 11: VALUE OF PROCUREMENT FROM WOMAN OWNED SUPPLIERS
The equivalent SASDC PMP indicator is Indicator 6.2.9, ‘Value of Corporate Procurement from black 
owned suppliers’. The indicator definition is “cumulative value of procurement from certifiable 
suppliers”. The data point used for analysis is “value of procurement from women empowered 
firms”. 
This indicator is a subset of Indicator 9, “Total Value of Procurement” and refers to CM procurement 
from all black-owned women suppliers, whether SASDC certified or not. 
The main data source used by Khulisa for verifying this indicator was the data within the SASDC 
quarterly report Excel workbook. In this workbook, we compared the data point for “women-owned 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 39
suppliers” to the SASDC reports sent to USAID. 
This indicator’s DVF of 0.616 and error rate of +38% indicates an over-report to USAID (Table 18). 
The possible reasons for the over-report are attributed to missing data points in the SASDC 
workbook available for verification, particularly in the first 3 quarters of 2014 (see more on this issue 
in the discussion around Indicators 4 and 5 above. 
TABLE 18. INDICATOR 11: VALUE OF PROCUREMENT FROM WOMAN OWNED SUPPLIERS
Level of Reporting
Reported to 
USAID
Recounted/ 
Verified DVF
Error 
Rate Result
Value of procurement from
indicated in SASDC database
ZAR
36,081,110
ZAR
22,240,227 0.616 +38% Over report
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 40
5 FINDINGS: ANSWERS TO THE 8 ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS 
5.1 AQ1: To what extent do SASDC corporate members and certified 
suppliers understand SASDC objectives and products and 
services? 
UNDERSTANDING OF SASDC’S CORE OBJECTIVES
SASDC’s core objective is to “help corporate members grow their procurement with black-owned 
suppliers”. Both certified suppliers and corporate members were asked what they believed to be the 
core objective, and interestingly certified suppliers report a better understanding of the core 
objective than corporate members (45% and 23% respectively per the red cells in Figure 7). Indeed, 
15% of corporate members surveyed indicated that they did not know SASDC’s core objectives3
. 
The low levels of understanding among SASDC’s main stakeholders suggest that there are perhaps 
communication challenges between SASDC and the corporate members. Furthermore, and drawing 
from the interview responses, there is also a lack of communication within corporate members 
where, for example, the SASDC representative is new and their position has not fully been handed 
over. 
FIGURE 7. CORPORATE MEMBERS' AND CERTIFIED SUPPLIERS' UNDERSTANDING OF THE CORE 
OBJECTIVE OF SASDC (% OF RESPONDENTS)
4
The importance of helping corporate members grow their procurement with black-owned suppliers 
was echoed as a core objective by suppliers and BSIC respondents, both of whom saw the 
establishment of linkages between big business and small suppliers as a core objective of SASDC. In 
addition, one BSIC respondent noted that these linkages are not limited to those between big 
 
3
 15% amounts to 2 corporate members, and this result should be tempered with the fact that one of these corporations 
withdrew their membership, and the other had their membership payment written off, and both individuals interviewed 
were relatively new to their respective organizations. 
4 Corporate members: 14 respondents. Certified suppliers: 65 respondents in the online survey.
8
12
23
45
23
20
8
23
Corporate Members 15 23
Certified Suppliers - Online Survey
To create jobs through targeted procurement
To help corporate members grow their procurement with black-owned suppliers
To provide capacity-building to black-owned businesses
To grow the South African economy through BEE
Do not know
Other
Corporate Members: n=14
Certified Suppliers: n=65
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 41
businesses and small suppliers, but that horizontal linkages between suppliers are also important. 
Irrespective of their knowledge of SASDC’s core objective, corporate members had many other 
interesting perspectives around SASDC’s effects: 
One corporate member noted that SASDC inspires confidence in suppliers through the certification 
process. Another noted that SASDC assists growth in procurement from black-owned suppliers 
primarily through its database. 23% of corporate members believed that capacity building was 
SASDC’s core objective, although one respondent noted that while they understood this to be the 
case, they did not see this happening in reality and that his company was conducting its own supplier 
capacity building programme. Likewise, a supplier noted that while they understand the purpose is 
to provide linkages, they cannot see how this is done. Another respondent echoed this by noting 
that “in my opinion, SASDC is invisible and it’s not partnering with the right partners (in the BEE 
space)”. This respondent suggested that in order to increase SASDC’s visibility, SASDC needs to more 
closely aligned to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and that SASDC needs to become a 
national portal for all small suppliers. A BSIC respondent added, as a suggestion, that SASDC 
increase the scope of its training, noting that at the moment, the bulk of training opportunities are 
only in the Gauteng area. 
Two corporate member respondents noted that SASDC’s role is an advisory role in terms of guiding 
corporate members in relation to BEE; while a third saw SASDC’s role as promoting entrepreneurship 
in black-owned businesses. Finally, in explaining lack of understanding of SASDC’s objectives, one 
corporate member highlighted that this was due to an internal problem where the respondent was 
new to the process and the SASDC element to their job had not formally been handed over. Another 
however noted that they did not know what the objectives are because SASDC is poorly positioned. 
UNDERSTANDING OF SASDC’S PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
SASDC’s product and service offering to its corporate members includes membership development 
services; a national database of certified black-owned suppliers; business and supplier diversity 
information resources; business opportunity fairs, networking, ‘meet-the-buyer’ and conferencing 
events; and formal awards and recognition. 
Corporate Member’s Understanding
When asked to identify SASDC’s key products and services, there appeared to be less ambiguity than 
there was around SASDC’s core objectives. Figure 8 below shows that of the products and services 
offered by SASDC, most corporate members (10 respondents)5
correctly identified the development 
and maintenance of a database of certified black-owned suppliers as a key SASDC service offering. 
Of the afore-mentioned services, all were identified as key services. There were three 
misidentifications. These were ‘none of the above’, consulting and advisory services, and training on 
supplier diversification. These however received the lowest number of responses. The implication 
of these results is that SASDC’s service offering is well-positioned, and is indicative of corporate 
members having made use of at least some of SASDC’s services. 
 
5 When asked to respond, corporate member respondents were permitted to select more than one option.
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 42
FIGURE 8. CORPORATE MEMBERS' UNDERSTANDING OF SASDC'S PRODUCTS AND SERVICES (N = 11) 
With regards to networking and knowledge sharing, one corporate member respondent noted that 
while this is a service offered by SASDC, the service needs to be expanded. Linked to this, one 
corporate member did not believe SASDC’s conferences to “add much value”. Another corporate 
member noted that they understood networking and knowledge sharing to mean that they would be 
receiving assistance with their supplier diversity policy, strategy, and implementation. In addition, 
two suppliers noted that they have collaborated with SASDC for their supplier days. 
Positively, one corporate member noted that his company’s relationship with SASDC and 
understanding of SASDC’s goods and services had improved over the last 18 months with the 
addition of a new team member at SASDC. This member was commended for “taking the time to 
introduce himself to us and has worked to foster the relationship with us”. 
Certified Suppliers’ Understanding
Figure 9 below shows that most suppliers had a fair-to-good knowledge of products and services 
available to certified suppliers. However, an area that perhaps needs more clarification is that of 
technical assistance where 21% of suppliers noted that their understanding was poor. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 43
FIGURE 9. CERTIFIED SUPPLIERS' UNDERSTANDING OF SASDC'S PRODUCTS AND SERVICES (% OF 
RESPONDENTS) 
Suppliers, for the most part, highlighted the training and conferencing products and services. One 
respondent however noted that communication on products and services offered could be 
improved; while another noted that the emphasis appears to be on conferencing when what 
suppliers need is better linkages to big businesses. 
CONCLUSION
In sum, it is observed that corporate members are not ad idem in terms of SASDC’s core objective. 
One can roughly split corporate members’ views as being either corporate centric or supplier centric, 
i.e. assisting corporate members to increasingly procure from black suppliers vs. helping black 
suppliers to get business from corporate members. The diversity of opinion by certified suppliers is 
less surprising, and perhaps to be expected, given the larger numbers of suppliers surveyed and the 
possibility that they have a more distant relationship with the SASDC than that of corporate 
members. However, a majority of certified suppliers correctly identified the core objective of 
SASDC. 
Both corporate members and suppliers appear to have similar levels of understanding around 
SASDC’s products and service offering. Corporate members identify SASDC primarily with the 
provision of access to suppliers through, for example, the database of black-owned suppliers. 
Similarly, suppliers generally understand the linkage facilitation aspect of SASDC. Suppliers seem to 
have the clearest understanding of the networking and knowledge sharing benefit of being 
associated with SASDC, with corporate members also identifying this as an SASDC service. 
What also emerges is that SASDC’s training and conferencing is more visible than the organisation’s 
technical assistance and professional development services. Certified suppliers in particular viewed 
SASDC’s capacity-building and skills workshops as having the least cited benefit – raising questions 
about the value, utility, and sustainability of supplier skills building workshops. 
8
10
6
20
21
11
19
19
19
13
11
21
Linkage Facilitation
Networking and Knowledge Sharing
Technical Assistance and Professional Development
Excellent Good Fair Poor N/A
Linkage Facilitation: n=60
Networking and Knowledge Sharing: n=61
Technical Assistance and Professional Development: n=57
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 44
5.2 AQ2: To what extent do SASDC corporate members and certified 
suppliers see value in SASDC membership, and how does this 
impact on results reporting? 
SASDC has driven the agenda of procurement reform in South Africa and has achieved varying levels 
of success. But reporting by corporate members is very low this hampers SASDC’s ability to 
demonstrate its value with evidence. 
Of the 14 corporate members who participated in the fieldwork6
, only 6 (i.e. 43%) report to SASDC, 
while the remainder (a majority) don’t report (Figure 10). This includes both members in good 
standing as well as other members not in good standing. 
To investigate the reasons for such low levels of reporting the assessment team asked corporate 
members, certified suppliers, and Board members to articulate SASDC’s value proposition, and 
whether they thought SASDC had met value proposition. 
PERCEIVED SASDC VALUE PROPOSITION AND CORPORATE MEMBER REPORTING BEHAVIOUR
Corporate members were asked to indicate if they thought they received value from their SASDC 
membership and their responses were then compared to their reporting behaviour (Figure 10). The 
data show that receiving value from one’s SASDC membership has no bearing on whether that 
member reports or not. However, the perception of not receiving value from SASDC membership is 
related to not reporting. 
In other words, CMs who think they receive value from the SASDC membership are equally likely to 
report or not report. But CMs who don’t feel that they receive value from their SASDC membership 
are twice as likely to not report. 
FIGURE 10. CORPORATE MEMBER’S VIEWS ON SASDC VALUE PROPOSITION AND REPORTING 
 
6 See Figure 2 on page 17 for the list of CMs who participated in fieldwork by their payment status. 
21% 21%
14%
29%
7%
7%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Reporting Not Reporting
Corporate Members' responses: "I receive value from my 
SASDC Membership" (by reporting status) N=14
No answer
Diagree or Strongly Disagree
Agree or Strongly Agree
43% (N= 6)
57% (N= 8)
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 45
The assessment shows that corporate members can be 
distinguished into two groups. 
1. Corporate members who understand the SASDC 
model, understand that they are part of the 
SASDC, and understand that it is their 
responsibility if SASDC does not deliver its core 
value proposition. These CMs have a clear 
knowledge of the SASDC services and products and make use of them to meet with SASDC 
certified suppliers and to build the capacity of their own certified suppliers. 
2. Corporate members who consider SASDC as a BBEEE service provider which has an objective 
of finding ways to help them reaching their BEE objectives. These CMs have more 
expectations, are less involved, and do not understand their role and responsibilities within 
the organization (SASDC). These CMs largely do not see value in their membership for 
various reasons: 
 Lack of knowledge of SASDC objectives and core value propositions, leading them to 
expect more from SASDC than is part of the SASDC mission. 
 Lack of knowledge about the SASDC model, and its services. These CMs do not play an 
active role and expect SASDC secretariat to meet their expectations in term of suppliers 
matching and sophisticated database. 
 Lack of knowledge about their membership of SASDC. This is caused by lack of handover 
procedure when the company appoint new person at the position dealing with SASDC. 
This can contribute to a breakdown in relationship with SASDC and affect the 
sustainability of supplier diversity initiatives. 
Among corporate members interviewed, many (54%) see SASDC’s value proposition as providing a 
facilitated service of connecting corporate members and certified suppliers. This includes the 
certification of black suppliers, which removes some of the risk of doing business with black-owned 
businesses. In addition, this value proposition includes developing the capacity of black-owned 
businesses through training workshops. Although many (60%) corporate members believe that 
SASDC is delivering on its value proposition, there is a substantial proportion (40%) who don’t and 
one of their primary reasons concerns the unsuitability of the SASDC database of certified suppliers 
to meet members’ needs as well as the accessibility of the database. 
There are currently 11 corporate members in good standing, 9 of whom were interviewed for this 
assessment. Six of these nine corporate members in good standing (66%) do not report to SASDC for 
the following reasons: 
 Lack of awareness of the need to report (N=3): Three corporate members indicated that 
they did not know it was required. One corporate indicated that they had been asked for 
information once and they had provided data, but were not aware of regular reporting 
timelines. 
 Not yet a full-fledged member (N=2). These organisations had membership fees pending; 
 Corporate confidentiality policy (N=1). 
When corporate members were asked if they had received guidance on what to report and when, 
Corporate members who don’t feel 
that they receive value from their 
SASDC membership are twice as 
likely to not report.
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 46
47% said that they did not or were unsure whether their company had received guidance on 
reporting. Half of these member representatives had either joined the company after the company 
had become a SASDC member or had recently become responsible for maintaining the relationship 
with SASDC, coming from an alternative position in the company. This highlights the need for SASDC 
to ensure that all members receive a comprehensive induction to SASDC on a regular basis and to 
facilitate handover within corporate member organisations when the key point of contact in the 
corporation changes. 
Given that membership of the Council is voluntary, SASDC relies on the goodwill of members to 
report information as required. Reporting is only likely to happen if an organisation and the relevant 
individuals are committed to the supplier diversity agenda. This highlights the need for proactively 
establishing and strengthening relationships with corporate members, both for the reason of 
ensuring the supplier diversity agenda is embedded in the institution and prioritised, but, also that 
the identified individual representative puts time and energy behind activities to achieve 
procurement reform. In the absence of these relationships, and given the voluntary nature of 
membership, corporate members and suppliers are less likely to provide reporting information as 
required, irrespective of the ease at which information can be compiled. 
Corporate members expect to receive access to SASDC-certified suppliers which provide the “right 
quality, right technical specifications, right service delivery, and right price for the right outcomes”. 
Indeed, the services used most by corporate members were the online supplier database (64% or 8 
respondents) and “meet the buyer” events (27% or 3 respondents). Likewise, certified suppliers 
cited “meet the buyer events” as the most used and beneficial activity, allowing them to connect 
directly with corporate procurement decision makers. When asked about their expected and 
perceived benefits of SASDC membership, most corporate members indicated that they are 
receiving benefits, but notably 27% interviewed indicate that they are receiving no benefit. This 
suggests that even where members may have received the service expected, it did not adequately 
address their requirements. While no direct link can be established, this could potentially go 
towards explaining low levels of reporting, so even where a member may have diversified 
procurement, the member may not associate this with the work of SASDC, as the council may not be 
forefront in their mind. 
Notably, of the two corporate members who indicated that the quality of suppliers did not meet 
their expectations, neither had used the database which other corporate members found to be 
particularly valuable. 
SASDC BOARD MEMBERS’ VIEWS ON SASDC’S VALUE PROPOSITION
The SASDC board members indicated a different value proposition from corporate members –
namely, an opportunity to join like-minded corporates in shaping the supplier diversity and 
procurement reform agenda. While the Council may not be well-known, the logos of contributing 
members appear on the SASDC website, and members continue to obtain access to SASDC services 
irrespective of whether members are in good standing. The Council had to review its targets for the 
number of corporate memberships it would secure during the period of USAID funding. This target 
was revised downwards, and while the Council has been able to secure 14 paid-up corporate 
members, the level of participation and reporting by corporates varies widely7
. Board members cite 
 
7 More information on the numbers of members and the number of lapsed membership can be found around the 
discussion of Indicator 1 on page 27. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 47
this as due to the voluntary nature of membership and the compliance-driven corporate culture of 
South Africa. There also remain a number of corporate members who have not engaged in any 
supplier diversity activities, reportedly because suppliers listed on the database do not match the 
needs of these corporates, both in terms of goods and services and geographical location. 
However, SASDC’s ability to retain and attract new corporate members is influenced by the kinds of 
services it offers and the perception of the quality of these services. At its inception, SASDC had ten 
founding corporate members. At the time of completing this assessment, six (60%) of these 
members remain and SASDC had been able to secure the participation of another eight corporate 
members, with varying stages of payment for membership fees. However, of the six founding 
members, two indicated that they were unsure whether they would renew their membership due to 
the low levels of supplier diversity activity within SASDC, and little evidence of transformation in 
procurement among corporate members. 
The Board cites all of these factors as possible reasons for the low numbers of corporate members 
and lapsed memberships. Without having a service offering that responds to the needs of corporate 
members, particularly in the context of increasing financial pressure in a difficult economy, 
corporates are making difficult choices around where to allocate resources. Of seven board 
members interviewed, three cited this as one of the reasons for low membership numbers and low 
levels of retention. Of the corporate members interviewed, 31% indicated that finances are the 
corporate members’ main constraint to active participation in SASDC activities.
The Board cites all of these factors as possible reasons for the low numbers of corporate members 
and lapsed memberships. Without having a service offering that responds to the needs of corporate 
members, particularly in the context of increasing financial pressure in a difficult economy, 
corporates are making difficult choices around where to allocate resources. Of seven board 
members interviewed, three cited this as one of the reasons for low membership numbers and low 
levels of retention. Of the corporate members interviewed, 31% indicated that finances are the 
corporate members’ main constraint to active participation in SASDC activities.
SUPPLIERS’ EXPECTED AND REALISED BENEFITS OF SASDC MEMBERSHIP
The views of SASDC certified suppliers are similar to that of the corporate members. 
Certified suppliers were asked to rank, in order of priority, the benefits they expected to receive 
from their SASDC membership and the benefits they actually receive (Figure 11). On the face of it, it 
is clear that the patterns of services that were expected and received do not differ considerably. Of 
the 50 suppliers who provided information around sales in the online survey, only 33% had secured 
any business with SASDC corporate members subsequent to joining the Council. But only half of 
these suppliers (15%) noted that this was a result of linkages with SASDC. This is a surprisingly low 
number indicating that suppliers are also not reaping the ultimate benefits of their SASDC 
membership. Nevertheless, most suppliers (80%) intend to renew their membership at their next 
membership anniversary. 
Two members of the Black Supplier Input Committee (BSIC) were interviewed as part of the 
assessment. This committee is comprised of 4 certified suppliers to represent the interests of 
suppliers, one of which sits on the SASDC Board. Two BSIC members interviewed articulated 
different views around the expected and realised benefit of their SASDC, but both agreed that the 
main benefit of SASDC is to help corporate members grow their procurement with black-owned 
businesses. This is also the most cited reason provided in the suppliers’ online survey (45%). . One 
BSIC respondent indicated that she had not been linked with SASDC corporate members, but that 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 48
she had also not asked to meet with any of the corporates. In comparison, the other respondent 
noted that he had not had any success meeting with corporates and that individuals working within 
procurement were not always aware of their organisations’ SASDC membership and it was difficult 
to identify the correct person to meet with when contacting corporate members. 
FIGURE 11. EXPECTED VS. ACTUAL SASDC BENEFITS AND SERVICES BY CERTIFIED SUPPLIERS (N=68) 
REFERRING SUPPLIERS AND CORPORATIONS TO SASDC
79% of corporate members interviewed indicated that they had referred suppliers to SASDC for 
certification, but only 50% had recommended membership to other corporates. This variance 
suggests that corporate members do not want competition for the pool of suppliers from other 
corporates, or that members see lesser value from their own membership, but that there is value to 
suppliers because of potential business, networking, and skills development. However, it is worth 
noting that the extent of referring suppliers for certification is quite low, with the majority of 
corporate members having referred fewer than 12 suppliers. 
PERCEIVED VALUE OF SASDC MEMBERSHIP AND INTENTION TO RENEW 
Both corporate members and suppliers were asked whether they intended to renew their 
membership at their next membership anniversary. 
Among eleven corporate members in good standing, 44% indicated that they are unsure whether 
they will renew their membership. This is a disturbing result for a member-run organisation. Of 
these, two are founding members (!) who believe SASDC was not doing enough to ensure existing 
members diversify their supplier base and that the SASDC needed to become more proactive in 
ensuring that SASDC corporates embrace and pursue supplier diversity. 
Connecting directly with corporate 
procurement decision-makers
A cost-effective platform to market my 
products / services to corporations
Networking with other black-owned 
businesses
Enhanced business know-how and 
capability
Connecting directly with corporate 
procurement decision-makers (36.9%)
A cost-effective platform to market my 
products / services to corporations 
(30.8%)
Networking with other black-owned 
businesses (27.7%)
Enhanced business know-how and 
capability (21.5%)
Other (6.2%)
None (23.1%)
Expected (In Rank Order) Actual
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 49
FIGURE 12. VALUE ATTACHED TO SASDC MEMBERSHIP BY CORPORATE MEMBERS 
55%
45%
Value attached to SASDC membership 
by Corporate Members (n=11)
Find value in SASDC
membership
Do not see value in SASDC
membership
* excludes corporate members who have formally withdrawn or whosepayments have been written off
Of 50 suppliers who responded to the question as to whether they receive value from their SASDC 
membership, 40% indicated that they do not receive value from their SASDC membership, and one￾third of these do not report because they had not secured any business through SASDC, and thus 
saw no reason for reporting, or because of lack of time, or because they refused to report on 
business transactions that were secured outside of SASDC corporate members. 
Though the transition from networking to secured and guaranteed business may be slow, most 
certified suppliers (80%) intend to renew their membership. Of those who will not renew, reasons 
given include (i) the low number of opportunities from corporate members resulting in suppliers 
becoming discouraged, (ii) activities and recruitment being Johannesburg-based, and (iii) the 
mismatch between the needs of corporate members and certified suppliers. 
USAID’S VIEWS ON CORPORATE MEMBER REPORTING 
USAID was asked to provide their thoughts on whether they believe there to be any structural or 
environmental constraints that have affected reporting by corporate members and suppliers. 
Primarily, USAID holds the view that reporting is impeded by corporate members and suppliers not 
seeing value in the process. In order to overcome this, USAID highlighted the need for better public 
relations in terms of SASDC’s successes so as to make the value of SASDC more apparent. USAID has 
in the past assisted with marketing by hiring a consultant with the view of transferring skills to an 
internal employee. 
CONCLUSIONS
The assessment data shows that membership value is influenced by whether the respondent derives 
value and benefits from their membership. This means different things for corporate members and 
certified suppliers. For corporate members, it seems to mean their ability to contribute to the 
transformation agenda and pursue their enterprise and supplier development targets. For suppliers, 
it is the opportunity to connect with corporate procurement decision-makers and to secure 
business. While many suppliers do not report because they have not secured any business, they 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 50
intend to retain their membership. 
Establishing the value of SASDC membership also requires establishing the extent to which SASDC’s 
services meet the needs of corporate members. On the face of it, it seems that current services do 
not meet this need. The SASDC database acts as a central point for connecting corporate members 
and suppliers, but as discussed in section 5.1, the range or quality of suppliers has been raised as a 
concern by corporate members. The second major service offering is training and capacity-building 
for certified suppliers. Suppliers do not value the training provided, as demonstrated by suppliers 
attaching least benefit to the opportunity to develop business know-how and capability. If supplier 
diversity is the end goal for all of these activities, there is a considerable need to strengthen these 
services so as to ensure that the need and practice of procurement reform becomes embedded 
within corporations across South Africa. 
However, there is a growing number of founding corporate members who are unsure whether to 
retain membership because of the limited benefit they derive from their membership. Where value 
is a determinant of the likelihood of people to report, it goes some way to explaining low levels of 
reporting by corporate members and suppliers who have accessed very limited procurement 
opportunities. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 51
5.3 AQ3: How familiar are SASDC corporate members and SASDC 
certified suppliers with SASDC reporting requirements? 
As part of their membership responsibilities, SASDC members are required to report their spending 
on goods and services from certified black suppliers on a quarterly basis. Corporate members’ and 
certified suppliers’ familiarity with SASDC’s reporting requirements was assessed in two ways. First, 
corporate members were asked to rate their level of understanding, while suppliers were, through 
the online survey, asked if they were required to report, and how often they were required to 
report. Second, in order to gain insight into SASDC support around reporting requirements, 
respondents were asked whether they had received guidance from SASDC. 
As discussed below, many corporate members and certified suppliers are unclear of SASDC’s 
reporting requirements. 
FAMILIARITY WITH SASDC REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Most corporate members (58%) are confident in their understanding of SASDC’s reporting 
requirements. However, a third do not know that there are any requirements to submit reports to 
SASDC (Figure 13). Similarly, most certified suppliers (52%) are aware of the requirements to report 
to SASDC, although 25% did not believe that they are required to report and 23% did not know 
(Figure 14). 
FIGURE 13. CORPORATE MEMBER’S UNDERSTANDING OF SASDC'S REPORTING REQUIREMENTS?
33% 58% 8%
What is your understanding of SASDC's Reporting Requirements? (% of 
Corporate Member Respondents )
Did not know there were any requirements to submit reports to SASDC
Confident of understanding of SASDC's reporting requirement
Unsure n=12
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 52
FIGURE 14. CERTIFIED SUPPLIERS’ UNDERSTANDING OF SASDC REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (% OF 
CERTIFIED SUPPLIER RESPONDENTS) (N=65) 
When asked about reporting frequency, there only a portion of suppliers (37%) correctly noted that 
reporting was required quarterly, while the remainder indicated annually (20%), biannually (6%), 
monthly (3%). One third of respondents were unsure or didn’t respond to the question, suggesting a 
lack of understanding (Figure 15). 
The KIIs with suppliers revealed similar results. Of the four key informants, only one was not aware 
of SASDC’s reporting requirements. Of the remaining three respondents, one noted that they are 
required to report quarterly sales, while another noted that SASDC requires reporting on their 
“monthly interaction with corporates” and their turnover. The same respondent noted that a 
person in their company is responsible for reporting and that it is done using the SASDC template. 
FIGURE 15. SUPPLIERS UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIRED REPORTING FREQUENCY (% OF CERTIFIED 
SUPPLIER RESPONDENTS) (N=65)
REPORTING GUIDANCE PROVIDED BY SASDC 
Poor reporting may be due in part to the limited extent that the SASDC Secretariat has provided 
reporting guidance to members and suppliers. Some corporate members (36%) noted that they had 
received guidance, while 29% noted that they had not. Fewer certified suppliers (28%) report having 
received guidance, but more (49%) stated that they had not (Figure 16). 
52% 25% 23%
Are you Required to Report to SASDC on the Value of your Sales in General, 
and more Specifically, with SASDC Corporate Members? (% of Certified 
Supplier Respondents)
Yes No No response n=65
3% 37% 6% 20% 11% 23%
What is the Required Reporting Frequency?
Monthly Quarterly Bi-Annually Annually None of the Above No Response
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 53
When asked to explain what kind of reporting guidance was received, nearly all corporate members 
indicated the reporting template. While it is laudable that the reporting template is so clear and 
straightforward that further guidance may not be required, there is still lack of clarity around the 
frequency of reporting. One CM respondent noted that it was unclear whether monthly or quarterly 
reporting was required, while an additional two respondents correctly noted that they had been 
reporting quarterly. 
FIGURE 16. REPORTING GUIDANCE GIVEN 
CONCLUSION
In sum, most corporate member (58%) and suppliers (52%) note that they are confident of their 
understanding of SASDC’s reporting requirements. Furthermore, most (37%) suppliers correctly 
noted that reporting is required quarterly, while 20% incorrectly noted that reporting was required 
annually. 
Only a third or less of corporate members (36%) and certified suppliers (28%) noted that they had 
received guidance on reporting. Of the corporate members who had received guidance, all referred 
to SASDC’s reporting template. Of those that had not received guidance, a number attributed this to 
being new to their positions. 
This highlights the need for the SASDC Secretariat to focus on better induction and handover within 
corporates and better training of new SASDC members. 
28%
36%
49%
29%
23%
21% 14%
Certified Suppliers
Corporate Members
Have you Received Guidance from the SASDC on what to Report, how 
and when? (% of Corporate Member and Certified Supplier 
Respondents)
Yes No No response Unsure Corporate Members: n=14
Certified Supplier: n=65
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 54
5.4 AQ4: To what extent do corporate procurement systems and 
reporting hierarchy impact results reporting? 
In most companies, the responsibility for supplier diversity (and SASDC reporting) is typically located 
within procurement and is associated with a specific position. Among the 13 corporate members 
interviewed, 92% had an identified person who was responsible for maintaining the relationship 
with SASDC, and 92% report that there is a person responsible for monitoring and reporting 
performance against targets for supplier diversity. Despite this position, reporting is constrained for 
a number of different reasons, including: 
 issues related to proprietary information (N=1) 
 the inability of corporate procurement systems to generate the required data with minimal 
effort and the time (N=2) 
 Lack of awareness of the reporting requirements (N=4). 
Furthermore, the corporate member representative who is a point of contact for SASDC is typically 
not directly responsible for reporting and is reliant on someone else collating the information, 
usually at a lower level 
With the exception of one corporate member, no members appear to have targets for procurement 
from SASDC certified suppliers. It appears that corporates do not actively track or measure their 
spending with certified suppliers. 
Given that some corporate procurement systems do not routinely tag and track business with 
certified suppliers, it necessitates manual collation and interpretation of procurement data by 
corporate member representatives. There is considerable risk to the validity of the data where the 
person responsible for reporting is different to the person managing the relationship, and this risk is 
magnified when there is not a good understanding of SASDC’s purpose, and reporting indicators. For 
this reason, it is imperative that there is a clear understanding of SASDC indicators by corporate 
members, and a thorough handover from one person to another to be conducted in collaboration 
with SASDC personnel. With a good understanding of the purpose of SASDC and its services, as well 
as the purpose of reporting, it is possible to increase the frequency of reporting. 
CONCLUSION
Corporate members routinely report on supplier diversity, which is understood from the perspective 
of B-BBEE and preferential procurement. Corporate members report internally in their respective 
organisations on procurement with black-owned suppliers – a behaviour that is driven by the B-BBEE 
codes. 
SASDC happens to be aligned with this behaviour, given the overlap in targeted procurement 
beneficiaries (>51% black owned suppliers). However, tracking and reporting on SASDC certified 
suppliers appears to be an after-thought by corporate members, where this data is only collated for 
the purpose of SASDC reporting. It appears that B-BBEE reporting ranks higher than SASDC certified 
supplier reporting, and this will continue to persist for as long as corporate members do not set 
targets for the latter. By aligning SASDC reporting to B-BBEE reporting it would remove this 
hierarchy. However, this would likely further diminish SASDC’s ability to attribute increased 
corporate member procurement from black supplier to its efforts. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 55
5.5 AQ5: To what extent do corporate data management systems and 
their interface with SASDC data management tools pose a barrier 
to accurate and timely data capture and reporting, and how can 
these be overcome? 
To assess the SASDC data management system and elucidate different barriers to the reporting 
process we inquired about: 
1. The tools used throughout the data management system, from data collection to data 
reporting. 
2. The process - how the data management is carried, the guidelines on procedures and 
standard of operations. 
3. The people involved on the data management process. 
This assessment is based on interviews with representatives of corporate members, and is thus 
based on their explanation of the data management systems in their respective corporations and 
their experience, or perception of, the SASDC data management tools8
. 
From the Systems Assessment of the SASDC Secretariat and the KIIs with corporate members and 
certified suppliers, we have determined the flow of data as depicted in Figure 17. 
FIGURE 17. DATA FLOW FROM CORPORATE MEMBERS/SUPPLIERS TO SASDC AND USAID 
 
8
Individual Systems Assessments of each corporate data management system (DMS) may have yielded a more robust 
result. However, it was agreed with USAID that it would be impractical to attempt an in-depth assessment of corporate 
data management systems.
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 56
DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING TOOLS AND PROCESS
Corporate Data Management Systems 
Figure 18 shows that corporate members generate their SASDC reports using data from their 
accounts payable (75%) or procurement systems (25%). From a data accuracy perspective, data 
from the accounts payable system is more accurate than data from the procurement system. This is 
because sometimes the value of an order on the procurement system is different from what was 
actually paid to the supplier, which in turn creates a variance between the two systems. 
FIGURE 18. DATA SOURCES FOR CORPORATE MEMBER REPORTING
In order to generate reports to SASDC, corporate members are sometimes reliant on a second 
source (e.g. an MS Excel spreadsheet or an individual’s knowledge) to add the black/women 
ownership and certified supplier dimension to the data they extract from their system. This extra 
step adds time to the reporting process. Two corporate members that found themselves in this 
situation indicated that they felt the SASDC reporting process was overly time consuming, although 
no other corporate member felt that the SASDC reporting process was time consuming. 
In two instances, the corporate members’ group structure required a data aggregation step within 
the organization, adding time to the reporting process. This is further complicated if the operating 
companies within the group use different data management systems. The impact of this on SASDC 
reporting is unknown, as neither of these corporate members report to SASDC. 
Other than the abovementioned, no other indication was given by corporate member respondents 
that their data management systems posed a barrier to accurate or timely data capture and 
reporting. 
SASDC Data Management Tools 
SASDC data management tools relates only to SASDC data collection tools – specifically, the SASDC 
corporate member reporting template and the certified supplier’s reports via Survey Monkey and/or 
email or fax. 
The CM reporting tool is an MS-Excel based template that the SASDC Secretariat emails to corporate 
members, on a quarterly basis, for them to complete. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 57
Of the 6 corporate member respondents who report (43% of the sample9
), nearly all of these (N=5) 
indicated that they had received the reporting template. Only one respondent claimed that she 
experienced problems with completing some of the fields in the template – it is unclear whether this 
is due to user error or a functionality problem within the template. The same respondent also 
indicated that the SASDC Secretariat sometimes gives too short a lead time for completing the 
report (e.g. 2 days or 1 week), which might negatively impact on timely reporting by corporate 
members. Other respondents claimed that the template was self-explanatory. 
There is little evidence to suggest that the SASDC reporting template influences the reporting 
behaviour of corporate members; in contrast, its clarity most likely facilitates the accuracy and 
timeliness of the data. 
PEOPLE
Overall, the vast majority of corporate members (N=12, 92%) noted that they have a designated 
senior member of staff who is responsible for maintaining the relationship with SASDC. There was 
however some variation in terms of the positioning of the member of staff as well as the size of the 
team responsible. For example, five corporate respondents noted that they were personally 
responsible for reporting. One corporate respondents furthermore noted that while they are 
personally charged with managing the SASDC relationship, they are unsure of their responsibilities 
vis-à-vis this role. Adding to this, one respondent highlighted that there had been a staff member 
responsible, but that there had been a lot of changing within the company with regards to whose 
responsibility the relationship was. 
An additional two respondents stated that there is a designated team for managing the SASDC 
relationship. Of these, one respondent noted that there is an internal steering committee, which 
has just been formed, that functions across all business units, and that SASDC assists with policy 
formulation. The other respondent noted that while there is someone responsible for the 
relationship, this person works with the enterprise development unit of their company. 
Furthermore, two respondents noted that there was a designated staff member, but that they were 
looking to expand their team for additional support, with one looking to hire a transformation 
manager and another, to include the company’s government relations manager. Finally, the only 
company to report that it does not have a designated member of staff is one that has withdrawn its 
membership from SASDC. 
From the perspective of SASDC, two staff members are responsible for corporate member relations, 
while a third staff member is charged with recruiting new companies to SASDC. 
These findings, summarised in Figure 19¸ show responses disaggregated by the membership 
payment status of corporate respondents. Of the corporate respondents where payment was 
pending or payment was up to date, all respondents noted that there was a member of staff in place 
to manage the SASDC relationship. Conversely, of the two corporate respondents where payment 
had been written off, one did not have a member of staff in place to manage the SASDC relationship 
while the other did not. 
 
9
 N = 13 (the corporation that had withdrawn its membership was excluded, since there is no legitimate expectation of 
reporting by either the withdrawn member or SASDC, and additionally, the person interviewed was new to the corporation 
and unaware of SASDC).
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 58
FIGURE 19. CORPORATE STAFFING AND SASDC RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT? 
Similar to the trend regarding designating staff to manage the SASDC relationship, overall corporate 
members agreed that they have staff in place to monitor, evaluate, and report their performance 
against procurement targets. Figure 20 below shows that most corporate member respondents in 
good standing (73%) agree or strongly agree that there are staff members in their companies 
responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting. However, corporate members not in good 
standing are much less likely (only 9%) to have staff to perform these functions. 
These results imply that corporate members fulfil these functions regardless of their levels of 
compliance. It is likely that this is because these functions exist independently of SASDC’s 
requirements, and fall within existing company mandates and roles. 
Within the SASDC Secretariat, there is a team that gathers information, consolidates analyses, and 
contextualises it for reporting to the SASDC board and USAID. Within SASDC there is a weekly status 
meeting that provides feedback and input on opportunities, threats, and weaknesses that face the 
organisation. 
Despite corporate members’ designated staff for managing the SASDC relationship, as well as to 
monitor, evaluate, and report on their procurement progress, only 54% of corporate members in the 
sample report to SASDC. It appears that the biggest driver of not reporting is the finding that 33% of 
corporate member respondents did not know there were any requirements to submit reports to 
SASDC, and a further 8% (1 corporate member) was unsure of all the SASDC reporting 
requirements10
. 
 
10 N = 12 (excludes the member that had withdrawn membership, and another respondent that provided an ambiguous 
answer). 
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Payment Pending Payment up to
Date
Payment Written
Off
Corporate SASDC
Is there a designated senior manager who is 
responsible for maintaining the relationship with 
SASDC?
No
Yes
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 59
FIGURE 20. CORPORATE STAFFING AND SASDC REPORTING 
It’s worth noting that for those who were unaware of their reporting obligations, it would appear 
that this was may have been a function of a change of the SASDC representative within the 
corporate member (3 of the four corporations in this category were in this situation). This however 
further shows the importance of strengthening SASDC’s communication to, and tracking of, its 
members and suppliers 
Having an appointed person responsible for the SASDC relationship is insufficient to improve 
reporting. The appointed person should find value on the SASDC membership, understand the 
benefit his organization can gain by being an active SASDC member; and understand why reporting is 
important for SASDC and for his organisation. 
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In light of the afore-mentioned findings and observations, we can make the following preliminary 
recommendations. The SASDC Secretariat should elaborate and disseminate guidelines and 
standards of operation relating to the SASDC data management process, including: 
 Asking corporate members to prefer data from their Accounts Payable system over their 
Procurement System; 
 Encouraging corporate members to create the necessary tags in their systems, to readily 
identify black/women owned and certified suppliers; 
 Ensuring that there are no functionality problems with the SASDC reporting template; 
 Ensuring timely dispatching of the template to corporate members, to give them adequate 
time to complete; 
 Better communicating reporting requirements to corporate members, and design a process 
to mitigate the problems associate with changing corporate member representatives. 
9.09% 9.09%
63.64%
9.09%
9.09%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Payment Pending Payment up to Date Payment Written Off
Corporate
There are staff members responsible for monitoring and 
reporting the CM's performance against targets for 
procurement with CSs ?
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 60
The Corporates should: 
 Appoint specific people to SASDC reporting 
 Communicate change whenever there is a new appointment of the SASDC representative 
and follow the SASDC handover procedure (to be elaborated). 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 61
5.6 AQ6: To what extent do SASDC corporate members under-report 
because of their concerns about providing access to proprietary 
information? What other concerns do SASDC corporate members 
have about reporting to the SASDC? 
In seeking to gain an understanding into why corporate members do not report to SASDC, and 
particularly whether these reasons relate to concerns over providing access to proprietary 
information, three questions were asked: 
1. Why Corporate Members do not report to SASDC, 
2. What impedes corporate members in reporting to SASDC, and 
3. What USAID believes to be the structural and environmental barriers were that affected 
reporting. 
In addition to helping to answer AQ6, responses to these questions were also used to answer AQ3, 
AQ4, and AQ5. 
In response to why a corporate member does not report, only one member indicated that they did 
not report because of their corporate confidentiality policy. This corporate member and two other 
respondents also indicated that they were uncomfortable sharing information with the market on 
their progress around supplier spending. Another corporate member made reference to a corporate 
confidentiality policy, but this did not affect their willingness to report. The respondent indicated 
that they provide reports to SASDC, but these reports are devoid of supplier names. 
Corporate confidentiality was hinted at by another corporate member who does not report to 
SASDC. The respondent indicated that the corporate member does not share names of suppliers 
because it is part of their competitive edge. However, the reason for not reporting was not related 
to this issue, but rather due to the fact that the respondent claimed to be unaware of the 
requirement to report to SASDC. This respondent shared his corporate spend data with the 
assessment team (without supplier names) when requested. 
When asked to identify impediments to reporting, two corporate member respondents felt that the 
process was overly time consuming. This experience appears to be function of the two step process 
these two respondents undertake to report to SASDC, due to their internal corporate member data 
management system. 
Another corporate member claimed that she experienced problems with completing some of the 
fields in the SASDC reporting template – it is unclear whether this is due to user error or a 
functionality problem within the template. The same respondent also indicated that the SASDC 
Secretariat sometimes gives too short a lead time for completion (e.g. 2 days or 1 week). 
In sum, 6 of the sampled corporate members (43%) indicated a potential impediment to reporting to 
SASDC (besides not knowing that reporting was required). However, these potential impediments 
appear to have resulted in only 1 of the 6 not reporting at all, and 1 other corporate member 
reporting intermittently. Furthermore, concerns over providing access to proprietary information do 
not appear to be a barrier to reporting. Rather, concerns over the time required appear to be more 
of a concern. Overall however, corporate members do not appear to see any impediments to 
reporting. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 62
5.7 AQ7: How can the SASDC performance management system be 
improved to address constraints and limitations to reporting? 
As indicated in section 4 above, SASDC does not have clear documentation on their data 
management system, nor clear guidelines talking to the data management process – from data 
collection and consolidation at corporate member level to SASDC’s data collation, processing, and 
reporting to USAID. There is a need for clear documented guidelines and standards of operation. 
The SASDC Secretariat reported that no budget was set aside to establish an M&E structure, which in 
normal circumstances would address such issues and guide the development of the DMS. Due to 
the need for performance management reporting, an immature data management system was 
hastily created to allow corporate member activities with suppliers to be monitored and reported. 
This needs to be strengthened. 
At the most basic level, SASDC should strive to establish a strong data management system and 
process allowing: 
1. Easy access and comprehensive data collection and reporting tools. 
2. Clear and comprehensive guidelines and standard of operation guiding the data 
management process. 
3. Clear assignment of reporting responsibility at corporate member level and follow up 
procedure at SASDC Secretariat level. 
The constraints and limitations to reporting are multi-layered. Below are a list of issues and 
preliminary recommendations: 
TABLE 19. ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATION AROUND THE SASDC DMS
Issue
Interpreted effect on 
reporting
Estimated 
severity of 
effect Recommendation
Turnover of SASDC 
representatives at 
corporate members
New representatives 
(where designated by 
the corporate 
member) do not know 
about SASDC reporting 
requirements , which 
results in non￾reporting
High SASDC Secretariat staff should increase the 
regularity of their contact with members, with a 
minimum number of touch points per 
month/quarter. 
Design a process to mitigate the problems 
associated with changing corporate member 
representatives.
Reporting can be 
time consuming
Corporate members do 
not report
Medium Encourage corporate members to create the 
necessary tags in their systems, to readily identify 
black/women owned and certified suppliers.
Ensure that there are no functionality problems 
with the SASDC reporting template.
Consider align SASDC reporting with B-BBEE 
reporting.
The lead time from 
the request to the 
due date for 
reports is 
sometimes short
Corporate members do 
not report
Low Ensure timely dispatching of the reporting 
template to corporate members, to give them 
adequate time to complete.
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 63
Issue
Interpreted effect on 
reporting
Estimated 
severity of 
effect Recommendation
Corporate 
members have 
confidentiality 
policies
Corporate members do 
not report, or provide 
reports with partial 
information
Low Sign confidentiality agreements between SASDC 
members and the Secretariat.
Explicitly indicate to members that reporting 
without identifying suppliers is acceptable.
Corporate 
members do not 
understand the 
purpose of 
reporting 
Corporate members do 
not report, or 
begrudgingly do so
Medium The Secretariat needs to clearly communicate why 
reporting is necessary and the purpose for it is 
used. Furthermore, SASDC needs to decisively 
deal with and communicate how to treat 
reporting on transactions where the business 
relationship may have pre-dated SASDC and in 
those instances where there isn’t an obvious link 
between the deal and SASDC activities.
Corporate 
members do not 
see value in their 
membership
Corporate members do 
not report, largely 
because they have let 
them membership 
lapse
High SASDC needs a renewed clarity of purpose and 
vision, which maximizes the unique position it 
holds in the market and accounts for the realities 
of limited financial and human resources within 
the Secretariat. 
SASDC should communicate that the value that 
members derive depends greatly on their 
behaviour and attitude. Members need to “own” 
their organization, and not view it as an arms￾length service provider.
Consideration should be given to members 
reporting on indicators that drive their 
participation and the success of the organization 
e.g. numbers of suppliers referred for 
certification; amount invested in developing the 
capacity and capability of certified suppliers; 
numbers of “meet the buyer” events held etc.
Certified suppliers 
do not see value in 
their certification, 
in particular due to 
the lack of 
transactions with 
corporate members
Certified suppliers do 
not report
High SASDC should make a concerted and explicit effort 
to create success with a few suppliers. 
SASDC should better communicate success stories, 
explaining what has made these suppliers 
successful. SASDC should communicate that the 
value to suppliers is actually latent, and the value 
they derive depends greatly on the behaviour and 
attitude of the suppliers.
Certified suppliers should not be required to 
report, as it can escalate dissatisfaction levels. At 
most, perhaps a simple multiple selection 
question: “Did you do business this month with 
any of the following corporate members?”
Some corporate 
members draw 
their reports from 
their Procurement 
System
Value of transactions 
reported by not be 
100% accurate 
Low Ask corporate members to prefer data from their 
Accounts Payable system over their Procurement 
System.
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 64
5.8 AQ8: What is the actual rand/dollar amount spent by SASDC 
corporate members on procurement from certified suppliers to 
date? 
Using the data verification factors (DVFs) and error rates presented in Section 4.3, Table 20 provides 
a list of the estimated South African Rand values for assessment indicators 6 to 11. In calculating the 
estimated actual Rand spend, the reported data is multiplied by the error rate and then 
added/subtracted (depending on a finding of under- or over-reporting) to the reported data to 
determine the estimated actual Rand value. 
Viewing this data in graphical form (Figure 21) shows that Corporate Members only use certified 
suppliers for a fraction of their B-BBEE procurement. While there are many reasons for this, 
including the fact that there is lots of missing data, it does point to the fact that that there is 
significant scope for SASDC to enhance linkages between its pool of suppliers and its corporate 
members. 
TABLE 20. ESTIMATED ACTUAL SPEND ON PROCUREMENT FROM CERTIFIED SUPPLIERS
Ind 
# Indicator DVF
Error 
Rate Result
Amount 
Reported (ZAR)
Estimated Actual 
Value (ZAR)
6. CS: Rand value of sales 0.98 +1.5% Over-report 950,915,940 931,897,621
7. CS: Rand value of sales to 
corporations 1.11 -11% Under-report 422,538,044 469,017,229
8. CS: Rand value of sales to 
SASDC corporate members 0.87 +13% Over-report 56,843,464 49,453,814
9. CM: Total value of 
procurement
3.40 -240% Significant 
under-report
2,155,756,570 7,329,572,338
10. CM: Value of procurement 
from certified suppliers 1.38 -31.8% Under-report 106,552,811 147,042,879
11. CM: Value of procurement 
from women owned firms 0.62 +38% Over report 36,081,110 22,370,288
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 65
FIGURE 21. AMOUNT REPORTED VS. ESTIMATED ACTUAL AMOUNT
ZAR 932 
ZAR 469 
ZAR 49 
ZAR 7 330 
ZAR 147 ZAR 22 0
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
Certified Suppliers Certified Suppliers Certified Suppliers Corporate Members Corporate Members Corporate Members
Ind 6. Rand value of
sales
Ind. 7 Rand value of
sales to corporations
Ind 8. Rand value of
sales to SASDC
corporate members
Ind 9. Total value of
procurement ( B-BBEE)
Ind 10. Value of
procurement from
certified suppliers
Ind 11. Value of
procurement from
women owned firms Million ZAR
Estimated Actual Value compared to Reported Values (ZAR)
Amount Reported (ZAR) Estimated Actual Value (ZAR)
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 66
6 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS 
The Assessment’s foregoing findings can be summarised as follows: 
Less than half of SASDC corporate members report. But this is likely due to a number of factors. 
SASDC corporate members and certified suppliers do not have a uniform understanding of the core 
objective of SASDC and its products and services. This is not in itself a problem, as it is likely that 
there will be a diversity of views from a heterogeneous group of stakeholders. However, it becomes 
problematic when stakeholders have expectations of SASDC that cannot legitimately be met, which 
in turn negatively affects perceptions on membership value and willingness to report. If SASDC is 
viewed by corporate members as an arms-length B-BBEE service provider, then dissatisfaction with 
“the service” is the likely result.
Perceptions of poor value, by corporate members and certified suppliers, can be addressed by a 
combination of refreshing the positioning of SASDC and through better communication efforts. 
 SASDC needs a renewed clarity of purpose and vision. It should avoid competing with for￾profit entities that are operating in the “B-BBEE market”, and maximise its unique position 
as a corporate member driven organisation that is committed to substantial and sustainable 
procurement from black suppliers and is not a special interest/lobby group. 
 SASDC should make a concerted effort to create success with a few certified suppliers, and 
better communicate these successes. Furthermore, SASDC needs to effectively 
communicate to its corporate members the value they should expect to derive and the 
active role that members need play in realising that value. 
To further maximise perceived value, SASDC should focus its product/service offering to those that 
are most in demand – namely, securing and maintaining the quality of the database of certified 
suppliers. To improve information on certified suppliers, so as to help overcome potential 
reservations by corporate members, SASDC should consider adding a rating of suppliers to the 
database, which would be influenced by: 
 the degree of interaction with SASDC; 
 the extent of capacity building and technical assistance received from SASDC; and 
 feedback from corporate members on the specific supplier’s performance and number of 
purchase orders/contracts received by corporate members. 
There is insufficient familiarity and understanding of SASDC’s reporting requirements. This is most 
likely driven by the high turnover of SASDC representatives within corporate members. This results 
in low institutional memory vis-à-vis SASDC requirements and inhibits the ability of corporate 
members to get traction and thereby extract value. The SASDC secretariat must increase the 
regularity of its contact with corporate members and design a handover process that mitigates the 
negative impact of corporate member representative transitions. 
Other, less severe, influences on corporate member reporting include the interface between SASDC 
and the corporate data management systems and B-BBEE reporting hierarchy. Some corporate 
member’s accounts payable or procurement systems are not able to readily generate reports based 
on SASDC indicator requirements, with priority given to data associated with statutory B-BBEE 
reporting. SASDC should encourage its members to create the necessary “tags” in their 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 67
finance/procurement systems, to facilitate reporting on procurement from SASDC certified 
suppliers. Furthermore, consideration should be given to aligning SASDC indicator definitions with 
prevailing statutory B-BBEE definitions, as far as possible, and to crafting indicators for corporate 
members that help drive their active participation in SASDC. 
The Assessment found that concerns by corporate members about providing access to proprietary 
information are not a binding constraint to reporting. Some corporate members that expressed this 
concern showed a willingness to provide reports that are devoid of key identifying information. 
SASDC should make a special effort to sign confidentiality agreements with corporate members and 
explicitly state that members can report without indicating the certified suppliers’ names.
It is feasible that corporate members and certified suppliers do not understand the purpose of 
reporting, which in turn results in some members/suppliers not reporting or reporting begrudgingly. 
SASDC should clearly communicate to its corporate members and certified suppliers, on a regular 
basis, why reporting is necessary. Furthermore, SASDC should decisively deal with the reporting 
protocol for business relationships that pre-date SASDC involvement or where there is no obvious 
link between the deal and SASDC activities. 
The data verification results strongly suggest that Corporate Members only use certified suppliers for 
a fraction of their B-BBEE procurement, and that there is significant scope for SASDC to enhance 
linkages between its pool of suppliers and its corporate members. However, state owned 
enterprises, such as Rand Water, are now required to procure their suppliers through the National 
Treasury’s central procurement e-government platform. This reinforces the importance of SASDC’s 
linkages with the DTI and National Treasury, particularly for corporate members that are state 
owned enterprises. 
Finally, the SASDC secretariat should ensure that it enables cost and time efficient reporting by 
members and suppliers, and secures the integrity of the received, analysed, and stored data. The 
secretariat should ensure that there are no functionality problems in its reporting template, and that 
requests for data from corporate members are dispatched in a timely fashion, and perhaps consider 
reducing the frequency of reporting. The SASDC secretariat should strengthen its data management 
system and processes, prioritising those issues that threaten data protection and accuracy. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 68
APPENDIX 1 TERMS OF REFERENCE 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 69
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 70
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 71
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 72
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 73
APPENDIX 2 DATA COLLECTION TOOLS 
The Assessment involved several interview guides including: 
 The USAID KII Interview Guide (Table 21) 
 The Board of the SASDC Interview Guide (Table 22) 
 The SASDC Corporate Member Interview Guide (Table 23) 
 The Certified Supplier Interview Guide (Table 24) 
 The BSIC Interview Guide (Table 25) 
 Online Survey Tool (Table 26) 
TABLE 21. USAID KIIINTERVIEW GUIDE
Question Answer Options
Name of Assessor 1 First Name; Last Name
Name of Assessor 2 First Name Last Name
Name of Assessor 3 First Name Last Name
Name of Assessor 4 First Name Last Name
Date of KII Month Day Year
Respondent Group
1. What were your expected outcomes from the grant to SASDC?
2. Can you identify any particular constraints that may have affected 
achievement of grant outcomes?
3. In your opinion, where has SASDC been particularly successful (in 
respect of USAID funding objectives?)
4. What do you think has impeded faster growth in corporate 
memberships?
5. What have been the particular issues related to reporting identified 
for the SASDC grant?
6. What are the reasons that have been provided by SASDC for the low 
levels of reporting?
7.1 Do you think there are any structural/environmental constraints that 
have affected reporting by CM/suppliers?
Yes/No
Please elaborate
8.1 Have any changes/amendments been made by SASDC to facilitate 
more comprehensive reporting?
Yes/No
9. How has this affected levels of reporting?
TABLE 22. SASDC BOARD INTERVIEW GUIDE
Question Answer Options
Date of Interview Month Day Year
Name of Assessor 1 First Name Last Name
Name of Assessor 2 First Name Last Name
Name of Assessor 3 First Name Last Name
Name of Respondent Group
1. What do you think is SASDC's core value proposition for corporations?
2. Is SASDC delivering on this value proposition? Yes/No/Unsure
3. What do you think has impeded faster growth in corporate 
memberships
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 74
4. Have there been any particular challenges in retaining members? 
(Refers to 'lapsed' members)?
Yes/No/Unsure
Please elaborate.
5. What do you think are the main reasons why corporate members have 
formally withdrawn their membership?
6. Additional comments?
TABLE 23. SASDC CM INTERVIEW GUIDE
Questions Answer Options
Date of Interview Month Day Year
First Name Last Name (Optional)
First Name Last Name (Optional)
First Name Last Name (Optional)
Name of Corporate Member
1. How does your corporation define black-owned 
businesses?
2. How does your corporation define women￾owned suppliers?
3. What are the sources of the data on value of 
transactions?
4.1 If there are 2 data management systems, are 
the systems integrated?
Yes/No/Unsure
4.2 How are the systems integrated?
5. What do you believe is the core objective of 
SASDC?
 To grow the South African economy through BEE 
 To help corporate members grow their procurement 
with black-owned suppliers 
 To create jobs through targeted procurement 
opportunities 
 To provide capacity building to black-owned businesses
Please elaborate
6. What do you think is SASDC's core value 
proposition for corporations?
 To support members to develop enterprise supplier 
development strategies that uphold principles of 
supplier diversity
 To improve brand image with government, suppliers 
and the community to provide a facilitated service that 
supports connecting certified black suppliers and 
corporate members
 To reduce the risk of using new black-owned suppliers 
in their procurement process
Please elaborate
7. Is SASDC delivering on its value proposition? Yes/No
Please elaborate
8. What are the SASDC products and services 
available to corporate members?"
 Meet the Buyer Events 
 Annual Conference 
 Annual Business Opportunities Fair 
 Networking and Knowledge Sharing 
 Database of Certified Black-owned Suppliers
Please elaborate
9. Which SASDC products and services have you  Meet the Buyer Events 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 75
Questions Answer Options
made use of? Do not prompt with options  Annual Conference 
 Annual Business Opportunities Fair 
 Networking and Knowledge Sharing 
 Database of Certified Black-owned Suppliers
10. What key benefit did you expect to derive 
from SASDC when you initially became a member?
11. What benefit are you actually deriving from 
your membership?
12. Is there a designated senior manager who is 
responsible for maintaining the relationship with 
SASDC?
Please elaborate Yes/No
13. There are staff members who are responsible 
for monitoring and reporting the corporate 
member's performance against targets set for 
procurement with certified suppliers?
Strongly Agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly Disagree
Please elaborate
14. How would you rate this statement: "I receive 
value from my SASDC corporate membership"?
Strongly Agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly Disagree
Please elaborate
15. What benefit would you like to derive from 
your membership that you are not currently 
receiving?
16. Have you referred any Black suppliers to 
SASDC for certification?
Yes/No
Please elaborate
16.1 If YES, how many black suppliers have you 
referred?
17. Have you recommended corporate 
membership to other corporations?
Yes/No
Please elaborate
18. Do you plan to renew your corporate 
membership at your next membership 
anniversary?
Yes/No/Unsure
18.1 If you do not intend to renew, or are unsure, 
why do you feel this way?
19. Is there anything that impedes your ongoing 
participation as a member? Please elaborate
20. What is your understanding of the SASDC's 
reporting requirements?
 I am confident of my understanding of SASDC's 
reporting requirement 
 I am unsure of all the requirements around submitting 
reports to SASDC 
 I did not know there were any requirements to submit 
reports to SASDC
21.1 Have you received guidance from the SASDC 
on what to report, how and when?
Yes/No/Unsure
21.2 What reporting guidance have you received 
from SASDC?
In membership document 
 Received reporting template
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 76
Questions Answer Options
Please elaborate
22. Why does your organization not report to the 
SASDC? (Only ask this question in the instance 
where the corporate member has never reported)
 Didn't know it was required 
 Time consuming (e.g. difficulty in gathering data from 
multiple sources, "coding" the data, completing the 
form etc.)
 Not a priority 
 Data required by SASDC is not routinely 
collected/accessible within CM reporting system
 Corporate confidentiality policy
 Mismatch between corporate internal reporting cycle 
and SASDC reporting cycle 
 Internal data access rights (i.e. the corporate member's 
representative does not have access to the necessary 
data)
 Transactions in corporate system are not tagged to 
enable reporting e.g. no tag at all (no tag on black or 
women ownership or SASDC certified) tagged 
according to BEE contributor level (not black 
ownership status)
 Use a different definition of black-owned from SASDC 
e.g. >26%
 Competitive rivalry 
 Lack of cooperation from business units that host the 
data 
 Have not yet procured from SASDC certified suppliers 
 No-one has been assigned the responsibility 
 Not applicable
23. Is there anything that impedes your ability to 
report to the SASDC?
 Didn't know it was required 
 Time consuming (e.g. difficulty in gathering data from 
multiple sources, "coding" the data, completing the 
form etc.)
 Not a priority 
 Data required by SASDC is not routinely 
collected/accessible within CM reporting system
 Corporate confidentiality policy
 Mismatch between corporate internal reporting cycle 
and SASDC reporting cycle 
 Internal data access rights (i.e. the corporate member's 
representative does not have access to the necessary 
data)
 Transactions in corporate system are not tagged to 
enable reporting e.g. no tag at all (no tag on black or 
women ownership or SASDC certified) tagged 
according to BEE contributor level (not black 
ownership status)
 Use a different definition of black-owned from SASDC 
e.g. >26%
 Competitive rivalry 
 Lack of cooperation from business units that host the 
data 
 Have not yet procured from SASDC certified suppliers 
 No-one has been assigned the responsibility 
 Not applicable
Please elaborate.
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 77
Questions Answer Options
24. Can you provide any specific feedback as to 
what changes could be made so that corporate 
members can readily report on procurement with 
black suppliers?
TABLE 24. CERTIFIED SUPPLIER INTERVIEW GUIDE
Questions Answer Options
Name of Assessor First Name Last Name
Name of Respondent (optional) First Name Last Name
Date of KII Month Day Year
Name of Certified Supplier
1. What is your understanding of the objectives of SASDC?
2. What is your understanding of the SASDC products and services 
that are available to certified suppliers?
3. Which SASDC products and services have you made use of?
4. What key benefit did you expect to derive from SASDC when 
you initially became a certified supplier?
5. What benefit are you actually deriving from your certification?
6. Have you accessed new business opportunities from SASDC 
corporate members since being certified? (note, this does not 
assume that certification necessarily played a role in this new 
business)
Yes/No/Unsure
Please elaborate.
If YES, would you say that you can attribute accessing these new 
business opportunities to your involvement with SASDC?
Strongly Agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly Disagree 
Not Applicable
Please elaborate.
7. What is the total number of sales in your business made since 
joining SASDC?
8. What is the total number of sales your business made with 
SASDC corporate members between 2012-2015?
9. What is the total rand value of your business' sales (i.e. total 
revenue) between 2012-2015?
10. What is the total rand value of your business' sales to 
corporations between 2012 and 2015?
11. What is the total rand value of your business' sales to SASDC 
corporate members between 2012-2015?
12. Have you recommended SASDC certification to other 
suppliers?
Yes/No/Unsure
Please elaborate
13. Do you plan to renew your certification at your next 
certification anniversary?
Yes/No/Unsure
If you do not intend to renew, or you are unsure, why do you feel 
this way?
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 78
Questions Answer Options
Please elaborate
14. How would you rate this statement: "I receive value from my 
SASDC certification"
Strongly Agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly Disagree 
Not Applicable
Please elaborate
15. Have you referred any Black suppliers to SASDC for 
certification?
Yes/No/Unsure
Please elaborate
If YES, how many black suppliers have you referred?
16. What is your understanding of the SASDC's reporting 
requirements?
17. Have you received guidance from the SASDC on what to
report, how and when?
Yes/No/Unsure
Please elaborate
18. Precisely how has your involvement in SASDC resulted in your 
company doing business with corporate members?
19. What this "extra" business meant for your company: (Please 
do not prompt for answers)
 Hiring additional staff 
 Higher revenues and/or profits 
 The ability to pay off loans or take on 
new loans 
 The ability to recover from a loss￾making position 
 The ability to move to bigger and/or 
better located premises 
 The ability to buy new equipment and 
machines 
 Learning new and better ways of 
interacting with customers and 
delivering service/product
Please elaborate.
What these various additional benefits meant for your business in 
general?
TABLE 25. SASDC BSIC INTERVIEW GUIDE
Questions Answer Options
Date of Interview Month Day Year
Name of Assessor First Name Last Name
Name of Respondent (optional) First Name Last Name
Respondent Group
1. What is your understanding of the core objective of SASDC?
2. What key benefit did you expect to derive from SASDC when 
you initially became a member/certified supplier?
3. What benefit are you actually deriving from your 
membership/certification?
4. What is the role of the BSIC within SASDC?
5. Have you communicated any issues related to services/benefits Yes/No
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 79
to SASDC?
Please elaborate.
How were these issues dealt with?
TABLE 26. ONLINE SURVEY – CERTIFIED SUPPLIERS 
Questions Answer Options
Kindly note that:
 Your participation in this survey is entirely voluntary;
 Your responses to these questions will remain anonymous and you will not be contacted by SASDC for 
further information;
 The completion of your name and contact details is entirely optional; and,
 In all instances, corporate/corporations refers to large companies.
 This survey should take no longer than 20 minutes to complete.
1. Name
Company Name
Company Address City/Town
Province
Postal Code
Email Address
Phone Number
2. Date of Completion of this Survey DD/MM/YY
3. Date of initial SASDC Certification DD/MM/YY
4. What do you believe is the core objective of SASDC?  To grow the South African economy 
through BEE
 To help corporate members grow their 
procurement with black-owned suppliers
 To create jobs through targeted 
procurement opportunities
 To provide capacity building to black￾owned businesses
5. Please rate your understanding of the SASDC products and services 
available to certified suppliers.
 Linkage facilitation
 Networking and knowledge sharing
 Technical assistance and professional 
development
6. Which SASDC products and services have you made use of? Multiple 
selections allowed
 "Meet the Buyer" Events
 Annual Conference
 Annual Business Opportunities Fair
 Capacity Building and Skills Workshops
 Database of other Certified Black 
Businesses
 None of the above
 Other (please specify)
7. What are the benefits, in rank order that you expected to derive from 
SASDC when you initially became a certified supplier? (1 = highest 
ranking and 4 = lowest ranking)
 A cost-effective platform to market my 
products/services to corporations
 Enhanced business know-how and 
capability
 Networking with other black-owned 
businesses
 Connecting Directly with corporate 
procurement decision-makers
8. Have you accessed new business opportunities from SASDC Corporate 
Members since being certified? (NOTE: this does not assume that 
certification necessarily played a role in this new business)
 Yes
 No
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 80
Questions Answer Options
9. If YES, would you say that you can attribute these new business 
opportunities to your involvement with SASDC?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree
 Disagree
 Strongly Disagree
10. What benefits have you derived from your certification with SASDC? 
Multiple selections allowed.
 A cost effective platform to market my 
products/services to corporations
 Enhanced business know-how and 
capability
 Networking with other black-owned 
businesses
 Connecting directly with corporate 
procurement decision-makers
 None of the above
 Other (please specify)
11. Do you plan to renew your certification at your next certification 
anniversary?
 Yes 
 No
Why? 
12. Have you recommended SASDC Certification to other suppliers?  Yes
 No
13. How would you rate this statement: "I receive value from my SASDC 
Certification"?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree
 Disagree
 Strongly Disagree
Your understanding of SASDC reporting requirements:
14. Are you required to report to SASDC on the value of their sales in 
general, and more specifically, with SASDC corporate members?
 Yes
 No
What do you understand to be...
15. ....the required reporting frequency?  Monthly
 Quarterly
 Bi-annually
 Annually
 None of the above
16....the required data to be reported? Multiple Selections Allowed  My total rand value of business' sales
 My total rand value of sales to corporates
 My total rand value of sales to SASDC 
corporate members
 My total number of number of sales 
(orders/contracts) secured
 My total number of sales 
(orders/contracts) made with SASDC 
corporate members
17. Have you received guidance from SASDC on what to report, how and 
when?
 Yes
 No
18. Is there anything that impedes your ability to report to SASDC?
Your Business' Accomplishments
19. What is the overall total number of orders/contracts your business 
has secured since joining
SASDC?
What is the total number of orders/contracts your business has secured 
with SASDC corporate members by calendar year:
 2012?
 2013?
 2014?
What is the overall total rand value of your business' sales (i.e. total 
revenue) by Calendar Year 
 2012?
 2013?
 2014?
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 81
Questions Answer Options
What is the total rand value of your business' sales to corporations (large 
companies) by calendar year 
 2012?
 2013?
 2014?
What is the total rand value of your business' sales to SASDC corporate 
members by calendar year 
 2012?
 2013?
 2014?
Thank you
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 82
APPENDIX 3 DETAILED ASSESSMENT APPROACH AND 
METHODOLOGY 
Sampling of Members and Suppliers 
Figure 22 illustrates the sampling methodology applied for data collection with Corporate Members 
and Certified Suppliers. 
FIGURE 22. SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
CORPORATE MEMBERS
Based on the corporate members’ membership payment status at the SASDC, four clusters were 
identified, namely: 
 Payments up to Date; 
 Payments Pending; 
 Payments Written Off; and, 
 Corporate Members who have withdrawn their membership. 
Within the ‘Payments up to date’ and ‘payments pending’ clusters, purposeful sampling was applied 
to include 14 corporate members in the total sample. 
In the ‘Payments written off’ and ‘corporate members who have withdrawn their membership’ 
clusters, random sampling was applied to include an additional 8 corporate members. 
SASDC CERTIFIED SUPPLIERS
Based on discussions held with USAID in the inception phase and the requirement of certified 
supplier success stories, the CEO of SASDC was asked by the assessment team to identify 5 certified 
suppliers for key informant interviews. Therefore, purposeful sampling was applied to identify the 5 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 83
certified suppliers. These key informant interviews will focus specifically on eliciting success stories 
about the programme. 
The online survey will be disseminated to the total population of certified suppliers, that is, 341 
certified suppliers. 
Data Collection Tools and Process 
DOCUMENT AND DATA REVIEW
The assessment team received a variety of documents from USAID and SASDC, including founding 
documents, policies, the USAID Cooperative Agreement and subsequent modification, the 
Performance Monitoring Plan, corporate member and supplier information, a sample of quarterly 
reports submitted to USAID among others. 
The review of these documents assisted the team in identifying possible reasons for low levels of 
reporting, and weaknesses in the SASDC’s data management system that should be probed further. 
The key informant interview and focus group discussion guides were informed by the information 
gathered as part of the document review. The assessment team received a number of quarterly 
reports for the three year period, and was able to review other reports and data at SASDC, as 
available, during the Data Quality Assessment. 
SEMI-STRUCTURED KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS (KIIS) 
The SASDC Secretariat, twenty two (22) SASDC Corporate Members, and 341 certified suppliers were 
the focus of this assessment although the assessment team sought out other stakeholders as 
indicated in Table 27. 
TABLE 27. LIST OF RESPONDENTS INTERVIEWED 
1 USAID
2 SASDC Secretariat
3 SASDC Corporate Members
4 SASDC Certified Suppliers
5 Black Supplier Input Committee
To efficiently collect data from the many key informants relevant to this assessment, the assessment 
team administered 15 KIIs with Corporate Members, two with members of the Black Supplier Input 
Committee and four with certified suppliers. The interviews included an accompanying Likert scale 
question to “quantify” the qualitative feedback on key indicators, e.g. the extent to which SASDC 
corporate members and certified suppliers understand SASDC objectives and products and services. 
Our proposed data collection tools (see Appendix B) contain these Likert scale questions which asked 
respondents to rate their agreement with particular statements using a four point scale, and a sub￾set of more open-ended questions where respondents were able to elaborate on their answers. This 
scale will also assist in aggregating the data upwards for the full respondent group (corporate 
members and board members). 
The qualitative KIIs were intended to gather information that relates to how respondents 
understand and view SASDC’s value proposition, the benefits of being affiliated to SASDC, how this 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 84
understanding influences the likelihood of reporting, barriers to reporting within participating 
Corporate Member organisations, and suggestions of improvements that can be made to facilitate 
more complete and accurate reporting. Key respondents for these KIIs included: 
 SASDC Representatives 
 CPO or equivalent 
 Supply Chain Managers 
 Black Supplier Input Committee (BSIC) members 
 SASDC Board members 
GROUP INTERVIEWS/FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 
The assessment team proposed conducting a group interview with members of the Black Supplier 
Input Committee (BSIC) and members of the SASDC Board of Governors. Due to the diverse 
geographical locations, both of these interviews were conducted by teleconference. 
The assessment team conducted a group interview/FGD with the Board to gather strategic level 
input, with the understanding that the questions asked in such a discussion will be very high level, 
with some questions designed to compare and contrast views with corporate member responses 
and other questions relevant to their role as SASDC Board members. Documents obtained from 
SASDC indicated that many of the Board members were also the founding members, and should 
have the institutional memory to be able to reflect on any changes in the data collection and 
reporting processes which may have happened as a means of trying to address the problem of low￾levels of reporting. 
The assessment team also proposed convening a group interview/FGD with the Black Supplier Input 
Committee, a smaller group that provides some representation of the large number of certified 
suppliers who are registered with SASDC. This group discussion focused specifically on obtaining 
feedback related to the value of SASDC membership, the understanding of the SASDC offering, 
access to business and procurement opportunities as a result of being certified by SASDC and the 
ease with which suppliers are able to provide data. 
Due to the difficulty with obtaining a mutually convenient time to speak with Board members, the 
group discussions were conducted telephonically. Two teleconferences were conducted, with three 
participants in each. 
Two members of the BSIC were interviewed. The first interview was conducted telephonically with a 
member of the BSIC based in Nelspruit. The second interview was undertaken with the head of the 
Black Supplier Input Committee (BSIC) in Johannesburg. 
Due to the difficulty with obtaining a mutually convenient time to speak with Board members, the 
group discussions were conducted telephonically. Two teleconferences were conducted, with four 
participants in the first, and three participants in the second teleconference. 
ONLINE SURVEY
An online survey tool was developed and disseminated to 341 SASDC certified suppliers who have 
not been sampled for semi-structured interviews. Questions in the online survey were directly 
related to the indicators included in the assessment. The assessment team received email addresses 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 85
for the certified suppliers to be emailed the web link to the survey. The online survey software also 
generated automated follow up reminders to those suppliers who had not yet responded to the 
online survey. 
Of the 341 invitations that were disseminated, 65 certified suppliers responded to the survey. 
CASE STUDIES
Five certified suppliers were recommended by the CEO of the SASDC Secretariat, as potential “good 
news stories” for SASDC. They were selected based on the success they have achieved through their 
involvement with SASDC. Three of these certified suppliers were paid a site visit, with a range of 
questions posed around their involvement in SASDC, how this resulted in new business, and what it 
meant for their firms. One other certified supplier was recommended by Barloworld, as a potential 
case study, and a site visit was also made to the supplier in question. 
DATA COLLECTION APPROACHES FOR SPECIFIC RESPONDENT GROUPS
Table 28 outlines which assessment approach was used with the different respondent groups: 
TABLE 28. THE APPROACH TO BE APPLIED TO EACH RESPONDENT GROUP
No. Respondent Group Approach
1. SASDC Secretariat KII and Full DQA
2. USAID KII
3. At Corporate Member Level:
3.1 Payments up to date KII and Data Verification
3.2 Payment pending KII and Data Verification
3.3 Payment Written Off KII
3.4 Withdrew Membership KII
4. Sampled SASDC Certified Suppliers KII
5. Non-sampled SASDC Certified Suppliers Online Survey
6. SASDC Board Focus Group Discussion
7. Black Supplier Input Committee KII
At the SASDC Secretariat 
KIIs plus the full DQA methodology were applied. Targeted KII respondents include SASDC 
Secretariat staff members. The full DQA includes both a data verification exercise and a 
comprehensive Data Management System (DMS) assessment which examines four functional areas: 
 M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 
 Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines 
 Data Collection and Reporting Forms/Tools 
 Data Management Processes 
At USAID 
The Contracting Officer from the Regional Economic Growth Office was interviewed as part of the 
inception process. This KII gathered high level information about the history of the grant, challenges 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 86
and successes, reporting issues which had been identified previously and if or how these had been 
addressed. 
At Corporate Members: 
With Payments up to Date or Payments Pending 
Only the data verification component of the full DQA exercise was applied at this level. In addition, 
the assessment team conducted a KII with sampled corporate members. 
With Payments Written off or Memberships Written off 
At this level, the assessment team met with identified corporate member representatives who were 
willing to participate in the assessment. 
At a Sample of Certified Suppliers 
The Assessment Team held key informant interviews with four suppliers to gather information for 
the preparation of case studies related to success stories. 
At Non-Sampled Certified Suppliers 
Online surveys were distributed to the non-sampled certified suppliers. 
At the SASDC Board and the Black Supplier Input Committee (BSIC) 
Group discussions took place with the Board and individual KII with members of the BSIC. 
DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT (DQA) 
Khulisa’s DQAs are based on the broadly implemented methodology used by the Global Fund in its 
performance contracting model. 
The DQA involves two procedures: (1) an assessment of the data management system in five 
functional areas (i.e. “Systems Assessment”), and (2) a physical verification of data reported over the 
period extending from April 2012 to March 2015 (i.e. “Data Verification”). Combined, these two 
procedures allow for a determination of the adequacy of data management systems/processes, the 
quality of data produced within these systems/processes (against specified data quality criteria), and 
the adequacy of human and physical resources to produce quality data. Specifically, the data 
verification component allows for the calculation of Data Verification Factors (DVFs) which when 
converted into Error Rates can be used to estimate the actual rand value of transactions between 
CMs and CSs. 
Both procedures also include interviews with key staff involved with the data management system, 
and this qualitative data is used to complement the quantitative procedure. The two procedures are
interlinked for enhanced understanding of identified 
data quality shortcomings. For example, where the 
data recount during Data Verification identifies 
inaccuracies (e.g. over-reported or under-reported 
data), the associated Systems Assessment provides 
explanations for the inaccuracies, as well as the 
necessary remedies for improvement. 
At the Secretariat. To verify the reported SASDC data, 
both the Systems Assessment and the Data Verification 
Systems Assessment
Data Verification
Data 
Quality 
Review
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 87
components of the DQA were conducted at SASDC Secretariat. A group interview was conducted 
with key staff at the Secretariat to get an understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, 
and threats of the Secretariat’s data management system. A follow-on interview was conducted 
with the CEO of the Secretariat so as to fill in the knowledge gaps of the group interview. At the 
same time, the Assessment Team was given access to the SASDC database. 
At USAID. None of the DQA procedures were performed at this level. However, the ‘reported data’ 
in this assessment were the numbers reported by the SASDC to USAID and were found in the 
quarterly SASDC reports to USAID. 
At the Corporate Member Level. Only the data verification component of the traditional DQA was 
conducted at the Corporate Member level and this activity was highly dependent on CMs submitting 
their procurement data to the Assessment Team. Khulisa requested procurement data from 14 
Corporate Members, but received data from only 6 CMs, while one CM submitted a B-BEE 
certificate. However, the procurement data from the 6 CMs was not in a standardized format with 
different levels of disaggregation. 
At the Certified Supplier Level. None of the DQA procedures were performed at this level. 
Indicators Assessed 
USAID selected eleven (11) performance indicators to be verified for data quality (see table below). 
For each indicator assessed, the reporting period examined was April 2012 to March 2015. 
INDICATORS ASSESSED
s DQA Indicator
Corresponding SASDC 
PMP Indicator
SASDC 
Indicator 
#
SASDC PMP Indicator 
Definition
Corresponding 
SASDC PMP Data 
Point
1 Number of 
corporate 
members
Number of 
Corporations joining 
the SASDC
6.2.8 Corporations registered with 
SASDC to improve their 
supplier diversity practices 
and good governance
# of corporation 
members
2 Number of 
applications 
received
Number of Suppliers 
Certified with the 
SASDC
6.2.2 Black bona-fide business 
enterprises certified with 
the SASDC to receive 
possible procurement 
opportunities and support 
to improve their business
# of applications 
received
3 Total number of 
certified 
suppliers
Number of Suppliers 
Certified with the 
SASDC
6.2.2 Black bona-fide business 
enterprises certified with 
the SASDC to receive 
possible procurement 
opportunities and support 
to improve their business
Total # of Certified 
Suppliers
4 Total number of 
sales
Number of sales made 
by Certified Suppliers
6.2.4 A sales contract is defined as 
a discrete order, where 
delivery is completed, 
invoice issued and against 
which payment is affected.
Total # of sales 
contracts 
supported
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 88
s DQA Indicator
Corresponding SASDC 
PMP Indicator
SASDC 
Indicator 
#
SASDC PMP Indicator 
Definition
Corresponding 
SASDC PMP Data 
Point
5 Number of sales 
to SASDC 
corporate 
members
Number of sales made 
by Certified Suppliers
6.2.4 A sales contract is defined as 
a discrete order, where 
delivery is completed, 
invoice issued and against 
which payment is affected.
Of which sales to 
Corporate 
Members
6 Rand value of 
sales
Number of sales made 
by Certified Suppliers
6.2.5 Cumulative value of sale 
contracts supported
Rand value of sales
7 Rand value of 
sales to 
corporations
Number of sales made 
by Certified Suppliers
6.2.5 Cumulative value of sale 
contracts supported
Rand Value of 
Sales to 
Corporations
8 Rand value of 
sales to SASDC 
corporate 
members
Number of sales made 
by Certified Suppliers
6.2.5 Cumulative value of sale 
contracts supported
Rand value of sales 
to SASDC Member 
Corporation
9 Total value of 
procurement
Value of corporate 
procurement from 
black owned suppliers
6.2.9 Cumulative value of 
procurement from 
Certifiable Suppliers
Value of 
procurement
10 Value of 
procurement 
from certified 
suppliers
Value of corporate 
procurement from 
black owned suppliers
6.2.9 Cumulative value of 
procurement from 
Certifiable Suppliers
Value of 
procurement from 
Certified Supplier
11 Value of 
procurement 
from women 
owned firms
Value of corporate 
procurement from 
black owned suppliers
6.2.9 Cumulative value of 
procurement from 
Certifiable Suppliers
Value of 
procurement from 
women 
empowered firms
Tools used 
Khulisa conducted the Data Verification Exercise using the 
Global Fund DQA tools11 which involved two separate 
protocols: Protocol 1 (P1) which is an assessment of the 
data management system in five functional areas (i.e. 
“Systems Assessment”), and Protocol 2 (P2) which is a 
physical verification of data reported in the last reporting 
period (i.e. “Data Verification”) against established data 
quality criteria. In addition, 
Each data collection tool is further defined below. 
P1: SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE 
The Systems Assessment documents the presence or 
absence of five functional areas for an M&E system as 
presented in the box to the right. All five functional areas 
contain a series of questions geared towards assessing the quality of the data management and 
 
11 http://www.theglobalfund.org/documents/monitoring_evaluation/ME_DQA_Tools_en/ 
TWO PROCEDURES OF DQAs
Systems Assessment: examines 5 
functional areas of an M&E system:
1. M&E Capabilities, Roles & 
Functions 
2. Indicator Definitions and 
Reporting Guidelines 
3. Data-Collection & Reporting 
Forms and Tools
4. Data Management Processes 
5. Links with National Reporting 
System
Data Verification: Trace and 
verification of reported data across 
the data management system 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 89
reporting systems. 
The questions are answered using the following categories: “yes-completely”, “partly”, “no-not at 
all,” and “not applicable”. Each of the responses is assigned a numerical value from 3 (yes, 
completely) to 1 (no, not at all) to calculate an average score for each functional area. Responses 
coded “not applicable” are not included in the calculation of the final score. 
DESCRIPTION OF FUNCTIONAL AREAS ASSESSED UNDER THE SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT 
Functional Areas Summary Questions
M&E Structure, 
Functions, and 
Capabilities
Are key M&E and data-management staff identified with clearly assigned 
responsibilities? 
Have the majority of key M&E and data-management staff received the required 
training? 
Indicator Definitions and 
Reporting Guidelines
Has the Project clearly documented (in writing) what is reported, to whom, how, and 
when reporting is required? 
Do operational indicator definitions meet relevant standards? Are they consistently 
followed at all service points? 
Data-collection and 
Reporting Forms / Tools 
Are there standard data-collection and reporting forms that are systematically used? 
Are source documents kept and made available in accordance with a written policy? 
Data Management 
Processes 
Do clear documentation of collection, aggregation, and manipulation steps exist? 
Are data quality challenges identified and are mechanisms in place for addressing 
them? 
Are there clearly defined and followed procedures to identify and reconcile 
discrepancies? 
Links with overarching 
Reporting Systems 
Does the Project’s data reporting system link to the overarching M&E system in the 
countries if applicable?
P2: DATA VERIFICATION PROCEDURE 
The Data Verification procedure relies on comparisons between different source documents to 
determine the level of accuracy of reporting at each level. For the eleven performance indicators 
being assessed, the figure below presents the main DQA checks that were carried out. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 90
DATA VERIFICATION EXERCISES CONDUCTED IN THE SASDC ASSESSMENT
Analytical Outputs 
The P1 Systems Assessment produces quantitative results for each of the five functional areas 
described above. Each functional area is give a score between 0 and 3, and for this Verification 
Exercise, these were then converted to percentages. The percentage values for each functional area 
were then displayed in spider graphs. 
The P2 Data Verification procedure produces quantitative results around the data quality criteria of
Accuracy (or precision): Accuracy is measured through the Data Verification Factor (DVF). The DVF 
is calculated as the verified (or recounted) data divided by reported data. 
𝑫𝒂𝒕𝒂 𝑽𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓 = 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒏𝒖𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒔/𝒓𝒆𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒏𝒖𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒔
The DVF gives an indication of whether the data was over- or under-reported, i.e.:
 A DVF = 1.0 represents accurate reporting, 
 A DVF > 1.0 represents an “under-report” as more data were found in the partner’s database 
than was reported in PIMS, 
 A DVF < 1.0 represents an “over-report” because less data were found in the partner’s 
database than was reported in PIMS. 
Error rates were then calculated using the verification factor as follows: 
𝑬𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 (%) = (𝟏 − 𝒅𝒂𝒕𝒂 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓) 𝒙 𝟏𝟎𝟎
The error rate provides a direction of the error (over- or under-reporting) as well as the magnitude, 
as shown in the table below. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 91
EXAMPLE OF ERROR RATE CALCULATION
Data Analysis Process 
DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT
The analysis of the two protocols was carried out per the discussion above. 
KII, FGD, AND ONLINE SURVEY 
Subsequent to completing data collection, all evaluators cross-checked (cleaned) all data and 
address any inconsistencies or gaps. 
Themes for analysis were informed by the eight assessment questions outlined in the Terms of 
Reference. Questions were mapped to each of these themes and will be triangulated with data 
collected through the recounts. 
Information collected through the online survey directed at certified suppliers was aggregated into 
Excel and analysed using identified variables. The survey software produced a statistical output and 
visual representations of the data. 
The process of combining and analysing data is known as triangulation. Triangulating multiple data 
sources provides depth to the analysis, and a more balanced view of the assessment. Combining 
both quantitative and qualitative data also provides a cross-check for validity. 
Qualitative data was analysed using a code book, to identify major themes, with sub-themes for 
each assessment question. The assessment team agreed on themes and sub-themes together in 
advance of starting to code the data for analysis. Once these themes were identified, individual 
evaluators coded data using the themes. 
There are a small number of cases where participants were unable to answer the questions. Where 
the questions were deemed to be not applicable to the respondent, the sampling size that was used 
for calculating frequencies and percentages was reduced. 
Partner
a b c = (a/b) d=1-c x 100
Actual No. in 
Partner National 
Database
Actual No. in 
USAID 
Database 
Verification 
Factor Error Rate
1 4 191 4 102 1.022 -2.2%
2 40 126 44 930 0.893 10.7%
3 16 546 23 870 0.693 30.7%
4 7 010 7 930 0.884 11.6%
5 7 477 11 831 0.632 36.8%
6 93 778 87 375 1.073 -7.3%
7 15 753 21 856 0.721 27.9%
8 3 242 9 797 0.331 66.9%
Grand 
Total 188 123 211 691 0.889 11.1%
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 92 
APPENDIX 4 LIST OF RESPONDENTS FOR THE FIELDWORK 
Actual vs. Intended Fieldwork 
# Planned Fieldwork Intended Activity Actual Fieldwork
Other stakeholders
1 USAID KII USAID
2 SASDC Board (11 
members)
One FGD FGD1 (Brendan Raju; Renee Horne; Gary 
Joseph)
FGD2 (Sibongile Shongwe; Matthew 
Govender; Lillian Karuri-Magero)
3 SASDC Secretariat 
DQA
Systems Assessment 
Data Verification
Systems Assessment 
Data Verification
4 BSIC One FGD
4.1 SwiftAir 
International
KII
4.2 Sebata Group of 
Companies
Did not participate
4.3 Tshego Fentse 
Facilities & 
Engineering
Did not participate
4.4 Nozihle Cleaning 
Services
Telephone-based KII
TOTAL Fieldwork Activities 4 6 (150%)
Corporate Members
Corporate Members in Good Standing
5 Cummins SA Pty 
Ltd
KII
Data Verification
KII 
Data Verification
Spend Report Submitted
Reported Procurement
6 Foskor (Pty) Ltd KII
Data Verification
KII
Data Verification
Spend Report Not Submitted
Reported Procurement
7 Rand Water KII
Data Verification
Did not participate
8 Barloworld Ltd. KII
Data Verification
KII only
Data Verification
Spend Report Not Submitted
Reported Procurement
9 Shell (SA) KII
Data Verification
KII only
Data Verification
Spend Report Submitted
Reported Procurement
10 Transnet KII
Data Verification
Did not participate
11 Absa Bank Limited KII
Data Verification
KII
Data Verification
Spend Report Not Submitted
Reported Procurement
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 93
# Planned Fieldwork Intended Activity Actual Fieldwork
12 Sasol Ltd KII
Data Verification
KII only
Data Verification
Spend Report Not Submitted
Reported Procurement
13 IBM SA Pty Ltd KII
Data Verification
KII
Data Verification
Spend Report Not Submitted
No Reported Procurement
14 Afrox KII
Data Verification
KII only
Data Verification
Spend Report Submitted
Reported Procurement
15 Pfizer KII
Data Verification
KII only
Data Verification
Spend Report Submitted
No Reported Procurement
16 Barloworld Motor Retail (KII only)
TOTAL Fieldwork Activities 22 19 (86.4%)
Corporate Members with Payments Pending
16 Johnson Controls 
Facilities 
Management
KII
Data Verification
Did not participate
17 Airports Company 
South Africa
KII
Data Verification
KII
Data Verification
Spend Reports Not Submitted
Reported Procurement
18 Cisco Systems KII
Data Verification
KII only
TOTAL Fieldwork Activities 6 3 (50%)
Reasons for Deviation from the Original Sample 
The main reasons for the differences between the planned and actual fieldwork are as follows: 
The main reasons for the differences between the planned and actual fieldwork are as follows: 
1. Discrepancy between Corporate Members and Certified Suppliers reported by SASDC versus 
those recounted during the Assessment: 
Actual data collection was highly influenced by the number of active (at the time of the assessment) 
corporate members and certified suppliers. During the recount exercise, major discrepancies were 
uncovered in terms of their number of certified suppliers and corporate members as per Table 2. 
This means that at some point over the period under review the population reported by SASDC was 
accurate, i.e. corporate members: n=25; and, certified suppliers: n = 313. However, at the time of 
the assessment, the number of active corporate members stood at 12 and the number of active 
certified suppliers stood at 146. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 94
TABLE 29. SASDC REPORTED NUMBER OF MEMBERS VERSUS RECOUNTED NUMBER OF MEMBERS
Respondent Category Reported Verified
Corporate Members 25 12
Payment up to Date 11 11
Payment Pending 3 3
Payments Written Off 11 11
Withdrawn Membership 5 5
Certified Suppliers 313 146
Suppliers with expired certification (Jan-Mar 2015) 6
Suppliers with expired certification prior to 2015 183
Suppliers without membership data 10
Suppliers on SASDC database 345
2. Unavailability of Identified Key Informants: 
This was found across all respondent types. Reasons given by the different respondent groups 
included: 
 The key informant no longer working at the Corporate Member 
 The Corporate Member was not aware of the SASDC at all and felt that they could not 
provide meaningful information 
 Compulsory travel or work commitments meant that it was impossible to participate. 
Less frequently, but still prevalent it was found that respondent types refused to participate. 
 Online Supplier Survey Response Rate 
The platform ‘Survey Monkey’ was able to generate a list of respondents who had not participated in 
the survey. Eight email reminders were sent to those who had not participated at all. At the end of 
the data collection phase, the assessment team telephoned those respondents who had only 
partially completed the survey so as to understand why they had not completed and submitted the 
survey. Those who needed assistance were given guidance so as to successfully complete the 
survey.
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 95
APPENDIX 5 CERTIFIED SUPPLIER CASE STUDIES 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 96
Case Study: SASOL and Libra Landscape 
A 3-year contract from Sasol spurs Libra Landscape’s Growth 
HISTORY OF LIBRA LANDSCAPE 
In 2005, Eskom’s Horticulture Services Department decided to outsource their services. This 
affected many employees, including Ms Lebo Ramakuela, who had worked at Eskom for 9 years. Ms 
Ramakuela, a young black South African horticulturist, and her colleague Christo Saaiman, a 
landscape technologist, saw an opportunity to create a company to deliver horticultural services to 
Eskom. They became business partners and started Libra Landscape (http://libralandscape.co.za/), 
focusing initially on horticulture, landscaping, and maintenance services, and later expanding to 
cleaning services. 
In 2012, Ms Ramakuela was introduced to SASDC during an exhibition that took place at Gallagher 
Convention Centre in Midrand. She was impressed by SASDC’s offering to black businesses, in terms 
of exposure to large corporations and training opportunities, and became a SASDC certified supplier. 
She enthusiastically used various SASDC opportunities to build the capacity of Libra’s employees and 
to promote the company. 
Through the SASDC certification and membership, Libra has taken each and every opportunity to 
develop their service offering to potential clients. Ms Ramakuela states that within the landscaping 
industry, it is crucial to be current with industry requirements and standards, such as occupational 
health and safety. Libra, therefore, activity participated in SASDC capacity building and other 
services to develop its knowledge base and improve service delivery. 
The key benefits that Libra has derived from its SASDC membership are (in order of importance): 
1. The SASDC certification process.
2. The significance attached to the SASDC certification process by Corporate Members.
3. The training and capacity building workshops provided by the SASDC.
4. The SASDC provided a platform wherein Libra was able to promote their business to potential 
corporates.
THE SASOL – LIBRA LINKAGE
Prior to becoming a certified supplier in 2012, Libra had several successful contracts with SASDC 
Corporate Members, including Rand Water (2009) and Afrox (2011). But after joining SASDC, they 
secured their biggest and most significant business linkage with a SASDC corporate member in 2014 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 97
– a 3-year contract with Sasol. “This is the biggest growth our company has had up to now”, Lebo 
shared. “Our SASDC certification is inspiring trust in us by other corporate members to give us 
much bigger jobs and responsibilities”. 
Ms Ramakuela attributes the weight attached to the SASDC certification, as well as the ongoing 
SASDC training and development, to Libra’s ability to effectively secure the Sasol linkage. 
From Sasol’s perspective, SASDC provided a mechanism for identifying qualified suppliers. Sasol 
noted “SASDC is a source of competent black-owned businesses. We have a very stringent pre￾requisites for suppliers to procure with us, and many need capacity building. We offer some 
capacity building but SASDC also does this.” 
FIGURE 23. TIMELINE OF KEY EVENTS OR LIBRA AND SASOL
THE IMPACT OF THE SASOL CONTRACT ON LIBRA LANDSCAPE
As a result of the Sasol contract, Libra’s turnover increased by more than 50%, and the company was 
able to open an additional branch in November 2014, hire 50% more staff, and acquire new assets 
including: computers, office furniture, motor vehicles, and gardening equipment. Libra has also sent 
staff on occupational health and safety training and promoted existing staff into supervisory 
positions. 
In addition, because Sasol has had difficulty finding local suppliers in their geographic area(s), Libra 
Landscape decided to open an office in Secunda, where Sasol has significant operations, to meet 
SASOL needs locally. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 98
FIGURE 24. THE IMPACT OF THE SASOL LINKAGE ON LIBRA REVENUE
FIGURE 25. THE IMPACT OF THE SASOL LINKAGE ON LIBRA'S STAFF COMPLEMENT
R 2 951 847.00
R 1 316 220.00
R 4 636 897.00
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
2013 Before Sasol 2014 2015- SASOL Impact
Libra Revenue Increase
150
220
0
50
100
150
200
250
2012-2013 Before SASOL 2014-2015 During SASOL
Libra Employees growth
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 99
Case Study: Rand Water and Reba Chemicals 
Rand Water issued a multi-year contract to Reba Chemicals to supply 
water treatment chemicals. 
HISTORY OF REBA CHEMICALS 
Initially established in 1982 after recognizing a gap in the availability of industry chemicals in South 
Africa, Reba Chemicals (http://www.rebachemicals.co.za/) was sold in 2008 to its current owner and 
Managing Director, Mr Freddy Motau. 
Reba Chemicals manufactures a wide range of products, including water treatment chemicals, 
inorganic metal salts, and industrial acids. The company currently employs 18 staff and exports its 
products to Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Swaziland, and Mozambique. 
REBA CHEMICALS AND SASDC
According to Mr Motau, SASDC invited Reba to one of their seminars in 2011. During the seminar, 
Reba was invited to go through the SASDC certification process to become a certified supplier that 
would appear on the SASDC database. Around the same time, Rand Water (a SASDC Corporate 
Member) advertised a tender invitation for a supplier of water treatment chemicals. Reba applied 
for this tender and since their business was already on the SASDC supplier database as certified 
suppliers, the result was a smooth and successful business linkage that extended from 2011 to 2014. 
The key benefits that Reba has derived from its SASDC membership are (in order of importance): 
1. The certification process 
2. Appearing on SASDC’s list of suppliers of bona-fide black owned businesses
3. The ability to connect directly with SASDC Corporate Member procurement decision-makers
5. Enhanced strategic business management.
THE RAND WATER – REBA LINKAGES
As a result of the Rand Water contract, Reba Chemicals was able to move into bigger premises 
wherein they are able to manufacture and store chemicals for various industries. Additional staff 
were retained and sent on industry-specific training so as to improve service delivery. 
Reba Chemicals was also able to settle an existing loan and take on an additional loan so as to 
expand their business into Africa. Lastly, Reba was able to devote more resources to strategic 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 100
planning and the direction of their business, and have spent a considerable amount of time 
gathering market intelligence so as to better place their business. 
Rand Water found “SASDC’s certification of black owned or women owned suppliers to be robust 
and helpful in identifying qualified suppliers like Reba. In addition, SASDC’s annual conference and 
business opportunity fairs are very useful for corporate members seeking B-BBEE suppliers”. Rand 
Water indicated that both SASDC’s and its own supplier development initiatives help to build the 
capacity of suppliers. Rand Water also indicated that it “would recommend Reba Chemicals to any 
of the water utilities in South Africa”. 
FIGURE 26. TIMELINE OF KEY EVENTS FOR REBA AND RAND WATER
Over the last few years, Reba Chemicals has grown substantially over the years and has evolved into 
an exporter of its manufactured products. In order to meet different industry specifications and 
needs, Mr Motau has sent his staff on specialist training. He is also looking into the possibility of 
acquiring or merging with other small businesses operating in this space. 
Mr. Motau spends a significant portion of his time doing market research to gain insights into the 
industry so as to inform strategic decisions, and is looking into expanding Reba’s operations 
elsewhere in Africa. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 101
Case Study: Shell South Africa and Nozihle Cleaning Services 
Shell’s contract with Nozihle Cleaning Services spurred growth and 
expansion
HISTORY OF NOZIHLE CLEANING SERVICES 
Nozihle Cleaning Services (Nozihle) 
(http://www.nozihlecleaningservices.co.za/) provides tailored cleaning, 
gardening, and hygiene services, specialising in environmentally￾friendly methods. Based in Nelspruit, Mpumalanga, Nozihle was 
established in 2003 by Ms Dolly Mbuyane, initially on a part-time basis, 
with operations being-scaled up to a full-time basis in 2007. The 
company currently has more than 100 employees and has won several 
awards, including being a Finalist in the 2011 Award for Small 
Enterprises given by the Lowveld Chamber Business and Tourism (LCBT) 
and Nedbank, and a winner in the 2012 Mpumalanga Productivity 
Awards. 
NOZIHLE CLEANING SERVICES AND SASDC
Nozihle joined SASDC in January 2011 when the Council was 
established, and has since made use of a number of SASDC’s services 
including its ‘meet the buyer’ events, and the annual 
conference/business opportunity fair. Ms Mbuyane noted that these 
events were helpful, particularly the contractor’s forum held at Rand 
Water and organised by SASDC. “The value in this forum was in 
meeting other certified suppliers and developing knowledge around health and safety standards”. 
Ms Mbuyane has been an active SASDC member and has been part of the Black Supplier Input 
Committee (BSIC) whose role is to provide SASDC corporate members with key insights into the 
certified suppliers’ experience of SASDC and how to maximise the success of SASDC’s business 
linkage function. 
The key benefits that Nozihle has derived from its SASDC membership have been (in order of 
importance):
1. The provision of a cost-effective platform to market their products and services
2. The ability to connect directly with corporate procurement decision-makers
3. The ability to network with other black-owned businesses
4. Enhanced business know-how and capabilities
CEO, Dolly Mbuyane was a finalist 
for Mpumalanga’s 
Businesswoman of the Year 
(2011), a Runner-Up for the SEDA 
Small Business Stars Award 
(2012), the Mpumalanga 
Provincial Survey Leaders and 
Achiever Award (2013 and 2014), 
and the Winner of the South 
African Women’s Entrepreneurs’ 
Network Ligug Lami Award for 
Mpumalanga
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 102
SHELL AND NOZIHLE CLEANING SERVICES 
The establishment of the linkage between Shell and 
Nozihle began in August 2015 when SASDC requested 
that Nozihle update their company profile for SASDC’s 
records. Shortly thereafter, Nozihle was contacted by 
Shell who were looking to source cleaning services. 
Shell had established target areas within which they 
wanted to expand their procurement from black and 
women-owned businesses; one of these areas being 
cleaning services. 
Shell’s Transformation Specialist in Procurement 
approached SASDC and requested the profiles of 
certified suppliers that offer cleaning services. Based on 
this, Shell reached out to Nozihle with a request for 
quotation (RFQ). 
In conjunction with the tender process, Shell carried out 
a gap assessment of Nozihle, focusing on areas where 
Shell could provide capacity development assistance. 
One gap identified by Shell was in the area of Health, 
Safety, Security, and Environment (HSSE). 
Nozihle tendered and received Shell contracts in 
Polokwane (Limpopo), Nelspruit (Mpumalanga), and 
Emalahleni (Mpumalanga), but they were not successful 
in receiving contracts at Shell sites in Gauteng or 
KwaZulu-Natal. This was based on Shell’s assessment 
that Nozihle should start with smaller sites, and focus on 
capacity building and scaling up of their operations. 
Since the linkage with Shell, Nozihle has benefitted from the in-house capacity building provided by 
Shell, which has committed human, financial, and technical resources to develop its suppliers. Ms 
Mbuyane noted that the exposure that Nozihle received from SASDC has been invaluable in terms 
of developing the confidence to do business with large companies. 
In Ms Mbuyane’s view, SASDC was essential in establishing the linkage between Nozihle and Shell. 
This sentiment is echoed by Shell’s Transformation Specialist in Procurement who noted that SASDC 
is Shell’s first port of call when seeking black and/or women-owned suppliers. To the extent that 
black or women owned businesses approach Shell directly, Shell refers them to SASDC, as SASDC’s 
certification includes a portion of the initial vetting that Shell would otherwise have to do. 
Furthermore, Shell finds SASDC to be a useful intermediary when the company would anonymously 
like more information on a potential supplier – without having to disclose that Shell is looking for a 
new supplier. In addition to establishing the linkage between Nozihle, Shell, noted that “SASDC was 
helpful in introducing Nozihle to potential sub-contractors for its larger projects”. 
From Shell’s perspective, SASDC is particularly beneficial because “…Shell’s procurement team is 
very small and for us to be sourcing suppliers – for us it is quite difficult. I think it is a very good 
partnership.” Shell went on to say that the addition of Sebastian Preston to the SASDC team has 
been instrumental in strengthening the partnership, noting that “Sebastian has been great in 
2003
2007
2011
2015
Nozihle Cleaning Services is 
established by Dolly Mbuyane, 
on a part-time basis
Nozihle Cleaning Services 
becomes operational on a full -
time basis
Nozihle Cleaning Services joins 
SASDC
August 
SASDC asks Nozihle to update 
their profile, which is done
September
Nozihle is approached by Shell, 
negotiations are held and the 
contract is signed
October
Nozihle begins their contract 
with Shell in Polokwane and 
Emalahleni
FIGURE 27. TIMELINE OF KEY EVENTS
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 103
matching our needs with suppliers already in the database as well as finding other suppliers that 
might meet our needs.” Shell now only sources its black-owned suppliers, such as Nozihle, through 
SASDC and has referred about 30 suppliers to SASDC over the last few months. 
THE IMPACT OF THE SHELL CONTRACT ON NOZIHLE
As a result of the Shell contracts in 
Polokwane, Nelspruit, and 
Emalahleni, Nozihle was able to 
hire more staff and buy additional 
equipment. 
The company is also expecting a 
considerable bump in revenue for 
the 2015/2016 financial year. 
From a staffing perspective, 
Nozihle was able to employ an 
additional nine members of staff –
two in Nelspruit and Polokwane, and five in Emalahleni. 
From a revenue perspective, Nozihle grew by 1% between the 2012/13 and 2013/14 financial years. 
Between the 2013/14 and 2014/15 financial years, revenue growth improved considerably –
increasing by 41%. The biggest jump is however expected in the 2015/16 financial year. Ms 
Mbuyane forecasts that, in large part due to the contract with Shell, Nozihle’s revenue will increase 
by 71% this year when compared to the previous financial year. 
FIGURE 28. GROWTH IN NOZIHLE STAFFING AND REVENUE12
 
12 2015/2016*: Forecast
1 1
1 1 3
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
Number of New Employees Emalahleni
5 Nelspruit
2 Polokwane
2
Cleaner
Gardener
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 Annual Turnover (ZAR Million) 2015/2016*
12.00 2014/2015
7.45 2013/2014
5.28 2012/2013
5.25
As a result of the Shell contract, Nozihle was able to hire more staff and purchase 
more equipment. 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 104
Case Study: Foskor and Deltron Consulting Pty (Ltd) 
A contract from FOSKOR fuels Deltron Expansion 
HISTORY OF DELTRON CONSULTING 
Deltron Consulting was started in 2012 and currently has offices in both Johannesburg and Durban. 
The Durban office is responsible for all coastal projects in KZN, Eastern Cape, and Western Cape. 
Deltron Consulting (http://www.deltron.co.za/index.html) is a professional services company that 
operates as an Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Management Company based in 
Johannesburg, with a second premises in Kwa-Zulu Natal. The KZN operation enables Deltron to 
service Foskor, a large phosphate and phosphoric acid producer based in Richards Bay. . 
Foskor’s services are collaborative solutions that incorporate:
The company recently acquired level 1 BEE status. Deltron has 46 staff members, most of whom are 
previously disadvantaged individuals as elaborated on in Table 1 below. 
TABLE 30. STAFF BREAKDOWN OF DELTRON CONSULTING
Category N=
Women 14
Men 32
Youth 38
Disabled 2 
African 41
Coloured 3
Indian 1
White 1
Deltron CEO Chris Ndlovu holds a BSc degree in Electrical Engineering, a Diploma in Project 
Management, a Post graduate Diploma in Engineering, a Professional Electrical and Electronics 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 105
degree, as well as a Master of Commerce in Leadership and Strategy. 
Before founding Deltron Consulting, Mr Ndlovu worked as a lead engineer at Sasol in 1999. He then 
became an Electrical and Instrumentation Services Manager at Mondi Uncoated Fine Paper in 2003, 
were he was promoted to Deputy Business Unit Manager in 2007. He left Mondi in 2008 to join 
Igoda Projects where he was a Senior Electrical Engineer. In 2011, he became the Executive 
Manager of Sebata Institute where he worked for just less than two years before becoming the CEO 
of Deltron Consulting in 2013. 
Deltron Consulting plays a huge role in developing youth by providing them with exposure to the 
corporate environment and equipping them with the necessary skills for their career paths. In 2014, 
Deltron received an Ekurhuleni Municipality award for The Best Corporate Citizen and Partner for 
Youth Development. Currently, Deltron has ten interns, with one intern being retained as a 
permanent employee. 
DELTRON AND SASDC
Deltron joined SASDC in 2014, and through its membership has also benefited from supplier 
development training that it received in 2014. This training has contributed to the company going 
on to secure contracts with numerous corporates– Foskor, Absa, Rand Water, Anglo Platinum, and 
Cummins. 
Deltron met Foskor representatives at SASDC’s Annual Conference during the allocated networking 
slot. As a certified supplier, Deltron has participated in capacity-building workshops, the NMSDC 
international conference and makes use of the SASDC web portal. 
DELTRON AND FOSKOR
In 2014, Foskor launched its new Supplier Development Initiative which allows for the identification 
of black suppliers for Foskor’s core functions. This programme complements one of SASDC’s core 
functions of supporting its corporate members in establishing sustainable business practices that 
demonstrate supplier diversity. 
The establishment of its Supplier Development Initiative is aligned to Foskor’s view that the core 
objective of SASDC is “to provide capacity building to black-owned businesses”. Foskor notes 
however that their actual benefits of membership have been less than what was expected, but that 
SASDC has facilitated access to a broader range of suppliers. Foskor has, in addition, referred about 
10 black suppliers to SASDC for certification, including Deltron. 
Deltron is wholly black owned and has a level 1 B-BBEE accreditation. Foskor selected Deltron in 
2014 as one of ten suppliers to undergo an intensive four-month Foskor training programme 
intended to optimise the efficiencies of the selected suppliers and ensures growth and business 
sustainability. The Foskor training and the business linkage has fostered Deltron’s growth, and is 
attributed to the securing of contracts with other large companies such as Absa, Rand Water and 
Anglo Platinum. 
Since joining SASDC and establishing its business relationship with Foskor, Deltron has been able to 
create 10 new jobs. In addition, it was able to acquire its own office space in La Lucia Ridge, 
Data Quality Assessment of M&E System of SASDC Capacity Building Program 
P a g e | 106
Umhlanga13. Its sustained growth has resulted in an expanded client base which includes Engen, 
Umgeni Water, Uphongolo, Hibiscus Coast Municipality and Cummins, a global power leader and 
engine manufacturer, a SASDC founding corporate member, and a member of the US National 
Minority Supplier Development Council. 
Through their relations with Foskor, Delton also established a joint venture with DEC in 2014, which 
would see the implementation of R700m worth of capital projects in Richards Bay. The project has a 
life span of 3-4 years with R200m of projects being completed in the 2014/2015 financial year and 
R500m worth of the projects being completed over the long term. 
 
13 Prior to this, Deltron offices were as being housed under the Sebata Group office in Durban, where it was execution 
partner to Sebata for the Transnet National Ports Authority projects.