MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Strengthening Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development (SEED) November 06, 2018 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Hayley Alexander, with contributions from Basem Adly, Youmna Khalil, Soheir El-Sherif, Amany Youssef and Ahmed Okasha under The QED Group, LLC Egypt SIMPLE project. SIMPLE FOR USAID MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE STRENGTHENING ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT (SEED) ACTIVITY November 06, 2018 Task Order AID-263-I-15-00001/72026318F00005 Submitted by: The QED Group, LLC 1820 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22209, USA Tel.: +1. 703.678.4700 www.qedgroupllc.com Egypt Office: The QED Group, LLC 1A Nadi El Etisalat off Ellaselky Street, New Maadi, 11435, Cairo, Egypt Office: +2090 2 25226697 PHOTO CAPTION: Photograph taken at the Tech Space at one of the partner incubators of Nile University. DISCLAIMER: The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States government. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation (SIMPLE) evaluation team was tasked with conducting the midterm performance evaluation of USAID/Egypt’s Strengthening Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development (SEED) project. The evaluation team thanks the organizations and individuals who contributed to our understanding of this project, in particular, the SEED management team, most notably the Chief of Party, Ron Ashkin, and Monitoring and Evaluation Manager Iman Elibyary, for their strong support and assistance. The evaluation team also thanks Ingi Lotfi, Senior Economist, of the USAID Office of Economic Growth, and Seba Auda, Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Manager, of the USAID Program Office, for their valuable feedback and support to the evaluation process. And, of course, we are greatly appreciative of the SEED stakeholders (see Annex IX) and beneficiaries who participated in this research and took the time to offer their valuable inputs. USAID.GOV MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SEED | iii CONTENTS ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................... IV BIOGRAPHIES ........................................................................................................................................... V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................VII EVALUATION PURPOSE.............................................................................................................................................................. VII BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................................................................. VII METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................VIII DATA COLLECTION LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES ................................................................................................IX CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................X SEED MIDTERM EVALUATION RESULTS REPORT............................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS ........................................................................................ 2 PROJECT BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 4 DATA COLLECTION LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES ................................................................. 7 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................ 9 ANNEXES.................................................................................................................................................. 32 ANNEX I: STATEMENT OF WORK......................................................................................................... 1 ANNEX II: TABLES AND GRAPHS........................................................................................................ 37 ANNEX III: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................. 51 ANNEX IV: DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE.................................................................................... 54 ANNEX V: TIMELINE............................................................................................................................... 62 ANNEX VI: BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 63 ANNEX VII: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS............................................................................ 65 ANNEX VIII: USAID CRITERIA TO ENSURE QUALITY OF EVALUATION REPORT (FROM ADS 201)........................................................................................................................................................... 173 ANNEX IX: COMPONENT C ROI CALCULATION.......................................................................... 174 ANNEX X: SEED RESULTS FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................ 176 ANNEX XI: DATA COLLECTION ISSUES ......................................................................................... 177 ANNEX XII: SEED PERFORMANCE STANDARD MEASUREMENTS............................................. 178 ANNEX XIII INDICATORS TRACKER ................................................................................................ 181 ANNEX XIV: ANALYSES PERFORMED TO ADDRESS THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS......... 182 USAID.GOV MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SEED | iv ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS B2B Business to Business BDS Business Development Services CEA Cost Effectiveness Analyses CEOSS Coptic Evangelical Organization for Social Services ABA Alexandria Business Association CIB Commercial International Bank CoP Chief of Party CSPRO Census and Survey Processing System DQA Data Quality Assessment DCED Donor Committee for Enterprise Development EQ Evaluation Question ERRADA Egyptian Regulatory Reform and Development Activity FRA Financial Regulatory Authority GoE Government of Egypt ICT Information Communication and Technology IP Implementing Partner ISO International Standards Organization KII Key Informant Interview M&E Monitoring and Evaluation ME Margin of Error MEL Monitoring Evaluation and Learning MENA Middle East and North Africa MFI Microfinance Institution MIS Management Information System MSME Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise MSMEDA Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Agency NGO Non-Government Organization OSS One-Stop-Shop QED The QED Group LLC, Arlington, VA RIED Relevance Impact Engagement Do no Harm RFA Request for Assistance RIA Regulatory Impact Assessment ROI Return on Investment SEED Strengthening Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development SIMPLE Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation SME Small and Medium Enterprise SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences SRC Social Research Center TA Technical Assistance ToR Terms of Reference ToT Training of Trainers USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government WEN Women’s Entrepreneurship Network WISE Workforce Improvement and Skills Enhancement Program Y1 Q2 Year 1, Quarter 2 Y2 Q4 Year 2, Quarter 4 Y4 Q1 Year 4, Quarter 1 USAID.GOV MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SEED | v BIOGRAPHIES Ahmed Okasha is a statistician who holds a PhD from the School of Computing, University of Kent, in the UK, and an MSc. in Statistics from the Faculty of Economics and Political Science at Cairo University in Egypt. He works at the latter as an Assistant Professor. He has also worked at various organizations and research centers for more than 15 years as a Statistician, including the Social Research Center (SRC) at the American University at Cairo, Die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, The Arab League- Population Policies and Expatriates and Migration and International Organization for Migration through a local contractor. He helped plan labor market observatories in Egypt by developing and implementing training modules related to labor market indicators, developing questionnaires, data entry and database tools and statistical analysis and writing statistical report workshops. He coached six observatories’ teams. Soheir El Sherif is an economist with 35 years of experience in socioeconomic research, capacity building and project evaluation. She holds a PhD in project evaluation methodologies and empirical analysis. Her professional record demonstrates expertise in applying national and sector-level cost￾benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. Both approaches are applied in the framework of results-based monitoring and evaluation and aimed-at concluding evidence-based policy recommendations. She worked on several projects sponsored by bilateral and multilateral development organizations, including USAID, CIDA, DFID, GIZ, the Netherlands Development Agency, SDC, KfW, JETRO, EC, WB Group, UNDP and UNIDO. In 2016 and 2017, she was assigned by SIMPLE/QED to conduct cost-benefit analysis in the context of two evaluation activities for USAID-funded programs, namely, the Final Performance Evaluation of the Leadership for Education and Development Scholarship Program (LEAD), and the Midterm Evaluation of the Workforce Improvement and Skills Enhancement (WISE) Program. She is certified by UNIDO as an instructor in project evaluation, using COMFAR III Expert software. Youmna Khalil is a development practitioner and an M&E specialist. She has more than 15 years of experience in working for regional and international development organizations in the MENA region. For the last 10 years, she has served as an M&E specialist and consultant on various types of social￾economic projects related to rural and community development, education, youth, economic empowerment for women and girls, financial education, microfinance, health, housing rehabilitation/cultural heritage, vocational training and crafts development. She is currently teaching monitoring and evaluation at the American University in Cairo. Youmna has a solid background in managing, monitoring, assessing and evaluating projects activities by using and applying quantitative and qualitative research methods and analytical and writing skills, especially in examining policies and practices in local and global contexts. She conducted multiple regional and national baseline studies and midterm/final project evaluations and she has experience with international organizations such as USAID, CIDA, GIZ, the Embassy of Finland, Plan International, IFAD and the US Department of State. Amany Youssef is an M&E specialist who holds a PhD from Cairo University’s Faculty of Economics and Political Science, and a Masters degree in Public Administration from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. She is active in various professional societies, acting as a board member for the Egyptian Union of Microfinance and the SME Investment Fund Co. She worked at the Social Fund for Development for 12 years as General Manager and head of the Microfinance Central Sector, where she leads the planning process and strategy development of SMEs. She also worked as Deputy General Manager of Planning and International Cooperation Central Sector and has helped broker numerous international agreements between the Egyptian government and international bodies USAID.GOV MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SEED | vi that aim to create job opportunities for youth and female heads of households and other underprivileged sectors in Egypt. Before the Fund, she held various strategic positions, including serving as a Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation Consultant for the World Food Program as well as for the Social Protection Initiatives Project funded by the World Bank. Bassem Adly is an enterprise development specialist, socio-economic researcher and social development practitioner with 20-plus years of experience conceptualizing, evaluating, planning and implementing projects. He has worked on programs in social development, villages and communities’ development, microfinance, agricultural and SME enhancement for regional and international organizations, including Care International, Save the Children, UN agencies (UNICEF, UNDP, WFP, UNAIDS, ILO), Plan international, CEOSS, the Social Fund for Development and others. He played an essential role in introducing the Village Saving and Loan Association (VSLA) methodology in the Arab world. He is an experienced trainer and technical assistance provider in microfinance, SME development; social development, and marginalized communities and vulnerable groups development. He has developed training manuals in areas related to money management, financial literacy and FMI management. He has extensive experience in monitoring and evaluation techniques and qualitative social science needs assessment. He has worked in Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Jordan, South Sudan, Chad and Lebanon and other African and Arab countries. Team Leader Hayley Alexander is a private sector development specialist who holds an MBA and has 30 years of experience, 18 of them outside the United States managing economic development programs for Deloitte Touche Emerging Markets (later Cardno Emerging Markets), often in a Chief of Party or Team Leader capacity. He has engaged in long-term project postings in seven countries, with work experience in 15 throughout Eastern Europe, Africa, The Middle East and Southeast Asia. He became an independent consultant in 2013, performing short-term technical assistance assignments in private sector development, institutional strengthening and improved competitiveness programs. Recent experience has been centered on SME competitiveness and value chains, enabling environment assessments, BDS & institutional capacity development, entrepreneurship, regulatory reform analyses and monitoring & evaluation systems. USAID.GOV MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SEED | vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVALUATION PURPOSE The midterm evaluation of the Strengthening Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development Project (SEED) aims to provide USAID/Egypt with insights into the performance of SEED from its start on November 1, 2015 through the second quarter of SEED’s third program year (April 2018). The evaluation aims to: 1) Determine whether SEED’s programmatic activities are achieving their intended purpose and results, 2) Assess the efficiency of SEED’s operating structure in achieving those results, and 3) Assess the effectiveness of SEED’s approach to implementing sustainable models to stimulate entrepreneurship and develop micro, small, and medium enterprises. The evaluation team addressed four evaluation questions: 1. To what extent is SEED on track to achieve its purpose with regard to: a. Improving the availability of financial and non-financial services to entrepreneurs and MSMEs? b. Building the capacity of local organizations? c. Strengthening selected value chains to facilitate linkages with MSMEs? d. Contributing to a better business environment for entrepreneurs and MSMEs? 2. Has AECOM established appropriate and effective operational structures to achieve SEED’s results? 3. What risks and opportunities exist regarding the sustainability of SEED’s development interventions, and how likely are their occurrence? Are SEED’s interventions undertaken to date sustainable? 4. Based on the gender analyses of SEED, were the activities and approaches implemented appropriately to address gender differences/gaps? How can those gender gaps be further minimized? BACKGROUND SEED was launched at the end of 2015 and funded to operate for three years with an option for one additional year. SEED’s overarching objectives are to assist Egyptian MSMEs to achieve growth resulting in higher rates of employment, particularly among women, youth and disadvantaged populations. SEED services to MSMEs are rendered indirectly via Egyptian-based partners and stakeholders, a strategy that intends to ensure that sustainability remains in view and local capacity building is achieved. SEED lists more than 60 key stakeholders and partners through which it provides services designed to build capacity and improve the ability of MSMEs/entrepreneurs/startup businesses to compete and grow. SEED’s structure was established with three primary and four cross-cutting components, plus a grants program. All were designed to leverage stakeholder/intermediaries with integrated technical assistance to strengthen and support MSME beneficiary development and growth. Primary SEED components: Component A: Strengthening entrepreneurship skills and opportunities for growth; providing entrepreneurship and MSME business development services through local organizations, such as incubators and accelerator programs. USAID.GOV MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SEED | viii Component B: Improving MSME access to financial and nonfinancial services, mainly by building local capacity in business development services and financing organizations to deliver services to entrepreneurs and MSMEs. Component C: Integrating MSMEs into value chains to expand backward and forward linkages; helping MSMEs in selected value chains (dairy, ready-made garments, automotive, plastics, fisheries) participate in matchmaking events, exhibitions, and other B2B events. Cross cutting components: Improve employment opportunities for women and youth. Improve the business enabling environment for MSMEs. Implement communication and marketing to enhance program objectives. Provide information, communication and technology services to stakeholders. SEED’s services to MSMEs are rendered indirectly via Egyptian-based partners and stakeholders to ensure sustainability remains in view and local capacity building is achieved. This approach requires partners who are technically strong, well-networked, geographically dispersed and, perhaps most importantly, committed to undertake impactful economic development objectives. SEED presently lists slightly more than 60 key stakeholders and partners through which it provides services designed to build capacity and improve the ability of MSMEs/entrepreneurs/startup businesses to compete. SEED’s overarching objectives are to assist Egyptian MSMEs to increase their sales and grow, resulting in higher rates of employment, particularly among women, youth and disadvantaged populations. METHODOLOGY The mid-term performance evaluation of SEED involved a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods used to collect and analyze both primary and secondary data. Primary data sources included responses from key informant interviews with SEED stakeholders, partners and MSME beneficiaries, and SEED technical and managerial staff. See Annexes: II and IX. Secondary data sources included contractual, M&E, technical, and management process documents requested of SEED, as well as, GoE and donor reports. See Annexes: VI, XI and XIII. Data collection methods and tools were selected to ensure sufficient variation to reach the geographically dispersed populations of SEED stakeholders and beneficiaries. The SMIPLE team relied on the following data collection methods: Qualitative: • Key informant interviews (KIIs) for stakeholders/partners with a mix of open and closed-ended questions. Four tools were developed: 1) BDS/OSS/incubators/financial institutions 2) government entities 3) USAID/AECOM subcontractor 4) large value chain companies. • Group discussion protocol for beneficiaries with open-ended questions. Two questionnaires were developed in a single tool: 1) 11 questions for startups and 2) 13 questions for ongoing MSMEs. USAID.GOV MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SEED | ix • Validation workshop small group meetings with component leaders to validate or invalidate core findings; in some cases, these meetings also supported new findings. • Desk review of documents provided by SEED and local institutions. Quantitative: • Pencil-and-paper questionnaires for beneficiaries, also with a mix of question types but with more closed than open-ended. Two tools were developed: 1) MSMEs involved in component A and component B activities and 2) SMEs involved in component C activities. • Telephone interview protocol for beneficiaries with one questionnaire derived from and shorter than the pencil-and-paper beneficiary questionnaires. • Analysis of performance data measurements from SEED indicators and performance standards. Sampling was undertaken differently for stakeholders than beneficiaries. SEED provided a list with 63 stakeholders, which resulted in 59 distinct entities after eliminating redundancies. Sampling from this group was not necessary, as the team elected to attempt to reach the entire known population. SEED also provided two lists of beneficiaries, components A and B in one list and component C in the other. Both files contained duplications and missing contact information. After cleaning the A and B beneficiaries list, 345 initial beneficiaries were reduced to 188 distinct individuals, 63 of which were selected through purposive sampling, because the beneficiary lists provided by SEED were grouped according to different types of SEED support activities (components A & B), but available information was inconsistent across each category. The component C list was reduced from 263 to 199 distinct individuals from which 67 were random sampled. Then 188 plus 199 became the known population. The sampling resulted in a 95% confidence interval (CI) with a 5% margin of error (ME) for components A & B, while a 3% ME was actually achieved because the number of respondents reached exceeded the sample target. For component C, a 95% CI and a 5% ME were targeted. The ME was later recalculated to 10%, as fewer respondents were reached than targeted. The approach to data collection was determined by the target respondent population sizes and the number of days available to complete the data collection phase. Face to face meetings and questionnaires administered by telephone were concentrated in ten governorates possessing a combination of the highest SEED activity levels and for which stakeholders and beneficiaries with complete contact information were available: Greater Cairo/Giza, Alexandria, Assiut, Aswan, Qalyoubia, Gharbia, Minya, Suez, Menoufia and Beheira. Note: Sohag was initially targeted but no respondents were achieved there. The telephone interviews were used to augment the face to face interviews to achieve higher response rates. DATA COLLECTION LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES Logistical challenges hampered scheduling efforts from the outset for two primary reasons: SEED has no regional presence or offices from which to work or organize meetings, and some SEED stakeholders/intermediaries proved uncooperative, as they had not been given notice that an evaluation was taking place. These factors made arranging meetings more difficult and time-consuming than expected, both in and outside of Cairo. The timing of Ramadan and Eid el Fitr also represented a challenge to the evaluation team, as the holidays shortened respondents’ workdays and eliminated at least two full days of data collection. To mitigate these challenges, the evaluation team added three USAID.GOV MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SEED | x telephone survey specialists and asked the three enumerators to also conduct telephone research with beneficiaries at the end of workday meetings with SEED stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS EQ1a: To what extent does available evidence suggest SEED is on track to achieve its purpose improving availability of financial and non-financial services to entrepreneurs and MSMEs, especially in disadvantaged areas and taking gender and youth needs into consideration? EQ1a. Summary: SEED is strengthening technology transfer offices and undertaking entrepreneurship programs in schools and universities. They are also providing initial capacity building in incubator operations and ToT in entrepreneurship, which are widely acknowledged as very useful. However, SEED needs to continually assess and ensure delivery of progressive services addressing the development needs of its stakeholders and beneficiaries over a longer time frame – not just for initial capacity building – and carry out needs analyses prior to any new interventions. The resulting training and consulting products must take into account the varying requirements of stakeholders and beneficiaries as they grow and develop, thereby ensuring the availability of highly adaptable materials for continuation. Such consulting products and training materials should be designed for longitudinal use and not cease to be implemented after one or two initial sessions. Moreover, access to finance activities are not meeting expectations and immediate efforts – such as a new program being organized in cooperation with Commercial International Bank (CIB) – are urgently required to get this component up to speed. With regards to gender, youth and disadvantaged objectives, the component A incubation and entrepreneurship activities are, by design, reaching women and youth. Yet, disadvantaged populations in outlying governorates with limited access to economic opportunities are not receiving services commensurate with those in more prosperous regions. Recommendation EQ1a.1: SEED conduct an updated assessment and develop a strategic process for incubator and service provider capacity building beyond the initial phase of support, with consideration to specialization, maturity level and structure. Then it should produce customizable materials for training use with incubators and services provider partners at various stages of development. Timing: Y3 Q4 for assessment and strategic process; Y4 Q1 for customizable materials and follow-on training. Recommendation EQ1a.2: SEED develop new nonfinancial services products for incubator and service provider use (with their MSME beneficiaries) beyond basic entrepreneurship training that are adaptable with practical application to MSME life cycle growth stages, e.g., access to finance, digital marketing, ISO quality. Timing: Y3 Q4 for product development; Y4 Q1 for first ToT. Recommendation EQ1a.3: SEED organize a meeting with supported incubators and services providers to brainstorm the means to get more new enterprises through the support process, including expanding incubation throughput capacity and acceleration services (startup weekends, boot camps, business plan competitions). Timing: Y4 Q1 for organizing a meeting, developing an action plan. Recommendation EQ1a.4: In coordination with the Financial Regulatory Authority (FRA), SEED develop a Terms of Reference (ToR) to select pilot MFI(s) to conduct a financial needs analysis for micro and small enterprises. Based on the needs analysis, design practical training methodologies to improve financial inclusion, conduct initial ToT with the pilot MFI(s), then USAID.GOV MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SEED | xi expand to additional MFIs. Timing: Y3 Q4 to meet FRA, develop ToR, select MFI(s); Y4 Q1 to conduct needs analysis, design training, pilot ToT; if option year is awarded, expand to other MFIs. Recommendation EQ1a.5: Urgently apply and prioritize internal SEED resources to move forward with the planned CIB activity to develop specialized financing products for individual SEED value chains. This type of activity should be implemented then replicated, as it is critically more outcome-oriented than SEED’s previous capacity building efforts to stimulate MSME access to finance. EQ1b. To what extent does available evidence suggest that SEED is on track to achieve its purpose with regard to building the capacity of local organizations? EQ1b. Summary: While the evaluation team acknowledges that SEED has conducted six BDS capacity building workshops, which are important, visible capacity building outcomes are minimal. This stems in part from the dogged pursuit of a quasi-governmental partnering model to establish BDS centers offering services below commercial rates to MSMEs. While the concept to offer discounted services is pragmatic, in theory, SEED’s singular approach has yet to result in a functional network of BDS offices and there are no assurances that it will. SEED therefore needs to run a parallel effort in which the commercial consulting industry is engaged to assist MSMEs at discounted rates, possibly one in which the commercial consulting industry is engaged to assist MSMEs at discounted rates. SEED also cannot be content with supporting OSS centers strictly to the stage of registering enterprises but should instead take the effort to the next critical level by building OSS capacity to fully formalize a business and then diligently promote the expanded services across all SEED components (in each respective region where capacity has been built). Recommendation EQ1b.1: SEED begin targeting development-minded private sector BDS providers and NGOs offering nonfinancial services to MSMEs in parallel with the ongoing Nilepreneur BDS initiative. This is needed to diversify the existing approach and better normalize and expand MSME access to commercially available consulting services providers. SEED should issue a request for assistance (RFA) with clear guidelines to publicly and transparently identify BDS providers with an interest in economic and social development, and with the vision to offer discounted commercial pricing to help grow the very MSMEs who will comprise their future client base. Timing: Y3 Q4 for design framework to leverage commercial BDS; Y4 Q1 to issue RFA; Y4 Q2 to pilot indirect assistance through five commercial BDS providers with small sliding subsidies (from the grants budget) for qualifying MSME clientele. Recommendation EQ1b.2: SEED analyze the process through which two original Tamayouz centers achieved licensing functionality (under a previous program), then devise an action plan and select one of three SEED supported OSS centers as a pilot in which to build capacity for new business licensing. Timing: Y3 Q 4 to analyze steps and government agencies involved in the original Tamayouz center licensing; Y4 Q1 to select a pilot OSS center in cooperation with government stakeholders and begin pilot capacity building. EQ1c. To what extent does available evidence suggest that SEED is on track to achieve its purpose with regard to strengthening selected value chains to facilitate linkages with MSMEs? EQ1c. Summary: SEED component C has been slow to develop momentum but is accelerating and shifting focus to efficiently strengthen selected value chain enterprises and linkages – including establishing 142 MSME linkages with large buyers to date. Of seven total SEED M&E indicators and SEED performance standard measurements, SEED is on track or overachieved four and underachieved three. USAID.GOV MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SEED | xii Recent activities identify new interventions that address larger numbers of stakeholders and achieve multiple programmatic objectives in individual activities, e.g., a newly planned intervention with food processor Daltex that cuts across gender, environmental, employment and export development objectives. This and continuing the trend of expanding matchmaking and B2B events, but with more BDS support and reduced payments purely for participation fees, will more directly link SEED technical assistance (TA) efforts to SME sales and employment gains and ensure SEED is impactful in the long term It should be noted that the evaluation team is confident in the voracity of the conclusions developed in the initial value chain assessments and, therefore, the selection of sectors for SEED support. The value chain assessments were first and foremost a tool for SEED to select value chains to work with, versus a deliverable for its stakeholders, which was by design and not a criticism of the assessments or of SEED. Recommendation EQ1c.1: If an option year is awarded, SEED increase the number of large value chain companies to a number – per selected SEED value chain sector – large enough to develop a critical mass, wherein sector-wide outcomes may be felt by industry members. It should link SME beneficiaries to component B BDS stakeholder/intermediaries for continuing SME assistance that improves their ability to meet large buyer purchase specifications and requirements. Timing: upon notice of option year award. Recommendation EQ1c.2: SEED expand value chain matchmaking, exhibitions and B2B linkage events leveraging component B capacity building to seek and work with BDS stakeholder/ intermediates (development-minded private consulting firms, NGOs) to engage SME participants in pre￾and post-event BDS mentorship and strengthening. SEED should begin shifting subsidies away from simply paying for exhibition attendance fees, which impart no technical value, and instead partially subsidize pre- and post-event BDS services for SME participants. This may be done on a sliding subsidy basis (for SMEs requesting continuing support) and paid for either from a reprogrammed grants budget or via the savings from reduced event participation fees. Prior to instituting such a program, components B and C should jointly study the feasibility of BDS subsidies and determine the willingness of target beneficiaries to pay varying levels of discounted rates. Timing: Y3 Q4 to conduct a feasibility study and survey beneficiaries; Y3 Q4 to seek local partners to provide discounted services to matchmaking/exhibition SME candidates; Y4 Q1 (assumes a no-cost extension is awarded) to support first new SME exhibition participants with BDS support. Recommendation EQ1c.3: If an option year is awarded, SEED systematically seeks out more activities that involve larger numbers of end beneficiaries and multiple cross-cutting objectives, such as the new intervention with the food processor Daltex, as a means to efficiently achieve a more outcome-oriented set of interventions. It should immediately seek additional activities with Daltex to broaden involvement beyond the current planned waste reduction intervention. Timing: upon notice of option year award. EQ1d. To what extent does evidence suggest that SEED is on track to achieve its purpose with regard to contributing to a better business environment for entrepreneurs and MSMEs? EQ1d Summary: SEED interventions are contributing to some improvements in the Egyptian enabling environment, particularly when they shift their focus to outcome-oriented activities that measurably achieve bottom line results for MSMEs, the best example being support to increased SME access to government procurements under Law No. 5. SEED’s activities are centered on building capacity in and opportunities for public private dialogue. However, considerably sharper SEED focus is required to USAID.GOV MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SEED | xiii achieve a higher level of success, which may be brought about by systematic use of regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) and a more concentrated effort with fewer public-sector bodies. However, we do recommend a further expanded relationship with ERRADA, who seem eager to increase collaboration with SEED, while broadening cooperation with private-sector advocacy groups. Recommendation EQ1d.1: SEED take a more strategic and systematic approach to identify actionable entry points for realistic policy achievements and use RIAs to properly assess enabling environment interventions prior to determining any involvement. Then it should narrow the activities focus to one or two intensive interventions and with more non-governmental stakeholder inclusion during advocacy or policy drafting efforts. In this vein, SEED needs to continue support to Law No. 5, both in promoting its importance and following through to ensure implementation, which would directly affect SME access to government procurements and impact growth with reasonable attribution to SEED. Timing: begin Y3 Q4 and thereafter. EQ2. Has AECOM established appropriate and effective operational structures to achieve SEED’s results? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the operational structures? Did the operational structures allow the project to respond to requests from stakeholders quickly and satisfactorily? Does the M&E system provide necessary data to estimate the benefits stream from component C interventions compared to cost? If not, what additional data need to be tracked? EQ2 Summary: Inadequate cross-component coordination and output-focused measurements have reduced SEED’s efficiency from the outset, making it more difficult to see overarching objectives and engage stakeholders/beneficiaries in multiple component activities. Twenty-nine of 39 performance standard measurements and half of the SEED indicators represent outputs. However, recent changes in management have significantly strengthened operating and M&E systems, while increasing awareness among technical staff of critical higher level programmatic objectives. Nonetheless, SEED’s Cairo-centric structure has reduced its reach to outlying regions, particularly among disadvantaged populations. Despite some stakeholders complaining about program delays, all routinely speak highly of SEED staff responsiveness. Recommendation EQ2.1: USAID seek to simplify new project design operating mandates by reducing the number of technical components to the minimum required for inter-component synergy toward common objectives. Moreover, it should ensure that contractor management plans devote time to elaborate internal operating structure designs that efficiently coordinate and cross-sell. Timing: during design and negotiation phases of new economic development programs. Recommendation EQ2.2: For future economic development programs, USAID consider reviewing the wording efficacy of standard indicators and ensure contractors develop M&E plans with indicators (and performance standards, if used) that balance outputs and outcomes, with outcome indicators present in each technical component. It is also important to use unambiguous phraseology and quantifiable measures, where feasible. Timing: during forthcoming new program design and award phases. Recommendation EQ2.3: In the event an option year is awarded, SEED should provide all stakeholders/intermediaries with a refresher briefing to understand SEED’s strategic framework, where they fit and what other cross-component activities in which they may be able to participate. Infographics and other means should be employed to clarify the SEED framework, its high￾level objectives and the component integration necessary to achieve them. Timing: upon notice of option year award. USAID.GOV MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SEED | xiv Recommendation EQ2.4: For IPs with multiple stakeholders, USAID create a prerequisite to establish an MIS system (internal) to manage and report all stakeholder and beneficiary data, each with a unique identifier number to allow intra-project coordination and avoid data duplication. Timing: during forthcoming new program design and award phases. Recommendation EQ2.5: USAID ensure any new or follow-on program design (post-SEED) emphasizes the need for a regional office structure or carefully selected regional strategic alliances with clear selection criteria, e.g., gender expertise, local influence, a development mindset, M&E reporting capacity. Timing: during forthcoming new program design and award phases. Recommendation EQ2.6: SEED build on its recent efforts to establish a systematic basis to calculate ROI with more diligent and systematic collection of sales/income and employment data. Also, it should establish an ROI manual with clear definitions and the rationale for attribution percentages used. Timing: Y3 Q4 through the end of the contract term. EQ3. What risks and opportunities exist regarding the sustainability of SEED’s development interventions and how likely are their occurrence? Are SEED’s interventions sustainable? EQ3 Summary: SEED has not prioritized either intervention sustainability or institution sustainability (via local capacity building). The latter is pragmatic in the sense that there are strong stakeholder/ intermediary institutions available to work with who do not require capacity building for sustainability. However, there are others, such as SEED supported incubators, for which sustainability is less certain. For them, institution and intervention sustainability are closely intertwined; if they do not become sustainable, then nor will the SEED interventions, performed through them. The sustainability of SEED’s interventions will also likely increase if the newly established business development portal for MSMEs is widely recognized as a place where business is done and knowledge is shared for continued use. As noted in sections 1a and 1c, SEED will improve its chances for intervention sustainability with an approach that emphasizes continuing capacity building, i.e., not stopping after one activity but offering ongoing support as organizations and their beneficiaries grow and develop. Recommendation EQ3.1: USAID consider requiring contractors to design and implement sustainability indicators to ensure that interventions and other activities, such as strategic partner selection, include sustainability criteria. Examples for strategic partner selection sustainability include: revenue stream diversification, hiring a number of full time staff, membership base growth (associations). Timing: design phase of new economic development programs. Recommendation EQ3.2: SEED nurture and strengthen its new knowledge platform for use by all components’ stakeholders with special emphasis and resourcing to widely promote its use via social media and other means for networking, cross-selling between component activities and to sustain knowledge transfer and lessons learned between stakeholders and beneficiaries. Timing: Y3 Q4 through the end of the contract term (with or without an option year award). EQ4. Based on the gender analyses of SEED, were the activities and approaches implemented appropriately to address gender differences/gaps? How can gender gaps be further be minimized? EQ4 Summary: As SEED does not consistently disaggregate gender data nor track baselines upon which to compare (see also section 2), it is not possible to prove that gender differences or gaps were appropriately addressed by the project. It is conceivable – if WEN becomes operational – that SEED’s USAID.GOV MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SEED | xv gender legacy will be cemented in the sustainable and successful networking activities that WEN may undertake under a strong mandate to eliminate gender gaps. However, at this stage, such a legacy is premature and indeterminable. Recommendation EQ4.1: If an option year is awarded, SEED update its gender situation analysis to develop clear targets supporting outcome-oriented gender mainstreaming with responsible stakeholders, specific activities, reporting requirements, a clear process and awareness building to reinforce the need to address gender gaps. Timing: upon notice of option year award. Recommendation EQ4.2: SEED continue efforts to mentor and establish WEN with a mission of gender gap reduction and a sustainable business model but emphasizing a stronger, better elaborated services mix for members. It should ensure the Gender Manager informs and cross￾sells WEN activities among all SEED components and links WEN to the SEED networking platform. Timing: Y3 Q4 onward. 1 SEED MIDTERM EVALUATION RESULTS REPORT INTRODUCTION USAID’s Economic Growth Office recognizes the critical role of MSMEs in the development of Egypt’s private sector. In an environment in which companies of 50 or fewer employees comprise more than 80% of Egypt’s employed workforce, MSMEs are a clear target for economic development initiatives designed to further stimulate employment growth. [USAID SEED Mid-Term Evaluation Statement of Work, 2017] As economic development continues to move forward in Egypt, its impact on the country’s populace has been less socially inclusive than the government, civil society and the international community have striven toward. Women continue to lag behind men in access to employment opportunities in private￾sector firms and there are fewer female entrepreneurs. Youth unemployment rates outstrip those for people over the age of 29, which remains a concern for the Government of Egypt (GoE) due to the implications for social unrest. Moreover, as is the case in many countries in a similar state of development as Egypt, e.g., Lebanon, Tunisia, Jordan, and Morocco, economic development initiatives have been less effective in reaching rural, disadvantaged populations than they have in large urban centers. All of these factors are made more complex by a less than ideal business enabling environment, which while showing gradual signs of improvement, does not adequately incentivize MSMEs to formalize or foster growth once they’ve joined the formal sector. One Stop Shop (OSS) business registration centers exist in all governorates, yet their capacity to effectively assist aspiring entrepreneurs is inconsistent. And the OSSs remain underutilized due to a lack of awareness about their services and a pervasive anxiety, on the part of entrepreneurs, about relying on government agencies for assistance that adds value. Meanwhile, many MSME managers lack the core skills to effectively plan for business growth, manage ensuing growth, produce high-quality products and services to compete with foreign offerings, understand markets and buyer needs, and/or manage supply chains in a manner that expands linkages with needed suppliers and new customers. Further destabilizing to the enabling environment is the fact that government institutions are, in a broader sense, in a constant state of flux, as the recent dissolution of government has once again shown. Many advocacy and policy initiatives with government partners therefore persist as a kind of moving target, while public-sector personnel come and go, and policies shift or transgress accordingly. The SEED project was born of each of these realities and designed with individual components to emulate a normalized business life cycle that achieves broad-based, gender and youth inclusive employment. The goal of SEED is therefore to strengthen the development of entrepreneurship and micro-, small-, and medium-enterprises (MSMEs) by improving their access to business development services and financing, while improving the enabling environment. Specifically, SEED addresses entrepreneurs and MSME development through five main objectives: 1) stimulating entrepreneurship and innovation, 2) enhancing formalization of private enterprises, 3) improving business development services to MSMEs, especially those owned by women and youth, 4) integrating entrepreneurs and MSMEs into progressive value chains, and 5) addressing enabling environment policy reform initiatives that are aligned with the Government of Egypt’s (GoE) socioeconomic development strategy. 2 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS The midterm evaluation of the Strengthening Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development Program (SEED) aims to provide USAID/Egypt with insights into the performance of SEED from its start on November 1, 2015 through the second quarter of SEED’s third program year (April 2018). The evaluation aims to: 1) determine whether SEED’s programmatic activities are achieving their intended purpose and results, 2) assess the efficiency of SEED’s operating structure in achieving those results, and 3) assess the effectiveness of SEED’s approach implementing sustainable models to stimulate entrepreneurship and develop micro-, small-, and medium-enterprises. The findings and recommendations resulting from this evaluation will be used by USAID/Egypt to influence the future design of entrepreneurship and MSME development activities as well as to assist the implementing partner to introduce in-course corrections. The evaluation team was fielded by Services to Improve Performance Management Enhance Learning and Evaluation (SIMPLE) and has addressed four evaluation questions: 1. To what extent does the available evidence suggest that SEED is on track to achieve its purpose with regard to: a. improving the availability and accessibility of financial and nonfinancial services to entrepreneurs and MSMEs, especially in disadvantaged areas, and taking gender and youth needs into consideration; b. building the capacity of local organizations; c. strengthening selected value-chains to facilitate linkages with MSMEs; and d. contributing to a better business environment for entrepreneurs and MSMEs? What factors contributed to success? What were the challenges? How can implementation be adjusted to address those challenges and speed up the interventions that have lagged behind (if any)? 2. Has AECOM established appropriate and effective operational structures to achieve SEED’s results? (Operational structure is examined in terms of organizational chart of the project and the jobs roles and responsibilities of the implementing team as stated on project documents and in operation. This includes the M&E system in terms of what it measures and how the measurement is done to monitor implementation activities against periodic targets, long-term objectives and project goals. Part of this is investigating the effectiveness and efficiency of SEED processes and measuring them against targets. The attitudes of stakeholders and beneficiaries about relevant SEED activities are an important part of the operational structure that will be part of the evaluation measurements.) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the operational structures? Did the operational structures allow the project to respond to requests from counterparts and stakeholders quickly and satisfactorily? Does the current M&E system provide the necessary data to estimate the benefits stream from interventions under component C as compared to cost? If not, what additional data need to be tracked? 3. What risks and opportunities exist regarding the sustainability of SEED’s development interventions, and how likely are their occurrence? Are SEED’s interventions undertaken to date sustainable? 4. Based on the gender analyses of SEED, were the activities and approaches implemented appropriately to address gender differences/gaps? How can those gender gaps be further minimized? The findings, conclusions and recommendations of this performance evaluation are organized sections to address each of the preceding evaluation questions. Recommendations are specific, supported with factual data and realistic in terms of time frame, and they are actionable. 3 PROJECT BACKGROUND The Strengthening Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development (SEED) activity began November 1, 2015 and runs through October 31, 2018 with an option for one additional year. The USAID SEED contract is implemented by AECOM and has a value of just over $22,900,000. SEED’s overarching objectives are to assist Egyptian MSMEs to increase their sales and grow, resulting in higher rates of employment, particularly among women, youth and disadvantaged populations. SEED operates under the theory of change that if MSMEs are developed, and entrepreneurship is supported, Egypt’s economy will be more competitive and inclusive. In keeping with this strategy, SEED interventions are designed to achieve the following results (see also Annex XI: SEED Results Framework): Result. A1. Stimulated entrepreneurship among women and youth Result. A2. Improved availability and accessibility of entrepreneurship services with focus on business incubators and accelerators Result. B1. Improved availability and accessibility of effective and efficient BDS Result. B2. Improved availability and accessibility of financial products and services Result. C1. Integrated MSMEs into progressive value chain To address each of these results, SEED’s structure was established with three primary and four cross￾cutting components plus a grants program. All were designed to leverage stakeholder/intermediaries with integrated technical assistance to support MSME beneficiary development and growth. Primary SEED components: Component A: Strengthening entrepreneurship skills and opportunities for growth; providing entrepreneurship and MSME business development services through local organizations, such as incubators and accelerator programs. Component B: Improving MSME access to financial and nonfinancial services, mainly by building local capacity in business development services and financing organizations to deliver services to entrepreneurs and MSMEs. Component C: Integrating MSMEs into value chains to expand backward and forward linkages; helping MSMEs in selected value chains (dairy, ready-made garments, automotive, plastics, fisheries) participate in matchmaking events, exhibitions, and other B2B events. Cross-cutting components: Improve employment opportunities for women and youth. Improve the business enabling environment for MSMEs. Implement communication and marketing to enhance program objectives. Provide information, communication and technology services to stakeholders. There is also a grants component, under which a total of four grants were awarded, three to private sector enterprises (two for component C and one for component A) and one to a quasi-governmental competitiveness council (for the Enabling Environment component). 4 SEED’s capacity building design provides services to MSMEs indirectly via Egyptian-based partners and stakeholders to ensure sustainability remains in view and local institutional capacity is built. This approach requires partners who are technically strong, well networked, geographically dispersed and, perhaps most importantly, committed to undertake impactful economic development objectives. SEED presently lists slightly more than 60 key stakeholders and partners through which it provides services designed to improve the ability of MSMEs/entrepreneurs/start-up businesses to compete and grow. The project identifies beneficiaries in 14 governorates, evenly dispersed between Upper and Lower Egypt. The evaluation team targeted and reached respondents in ten of these governorates. A central office in Cairo handles all technical programs and project administration for all regions. Further details of SEED’s operating structure are provided as findings henceforth; however, it is contextually important to comment on leadership changes that have occurred since the outset of the project. The first Chief of Party (CoP) left SEED during the second program year, which led to the installment of a caretaker manager, who was in turn replaced with another CoP two years into the three-year project. The leadership changes impacted SEED’s ability to maintain programmatic focus among its staff members during the project’s first two years. However, the situation has strengthened significantly under the tenure of the current CoP, who has brought new vigor and clarity to address and pursue the project’s overarching objectives. The start of the third program year, in November 2017, has witnessed acceleration in project interventions consistent with reaching SEED’s higher-level objectives; namely growth in MSME sales and employment. This recent increase in activity meant that evaluating the SEED project only through November 2017, as was the original intention, would have resulted in ignoring many significant developments in SEED’s evolution. For this reason, the team requested and received approval to change the evaluation time frame end date from November 2017 to April 2018. Table A (below) reflects the management strengthening now occurring and efforts to build on SEED’s existing core strengths. Table A: SEED strengthened management practices under new leadership SOURCES: Y2 ANNUAL REPORT, Y2 QR1&2, VALIDATION WORKSHOP COP AND COMPONENT MANAGERS. METHODOLOGY The mid-term performance evaluation of SEED involved a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods used to collect and analyze both primary and secondary data. Triangulation was accomplished within the research tools themselves (similar questions asked in different ways), between respondent types (service 5 providers versus recipients) and between data sources (secondary to corroborate primary). Please also refer to Annex XIV. Primary data sources included responses from key informant interviews with SEED stakeholders and partners, MSME beneficiaries, and SEED technical and managerial staff. See Annexes: II and IX. Secondary data sources included SEED contractual, M&E, technical, and management process documents, as well as, GoE and donor reports. See Annexes: VI, XI and XIII. Data collection methods and tools were selected to ensure sufficient variation to reach the geographically dispersed populations of SEED stakeholders and beneficiaries. The SMIPLE team relied on the following data collection methods: Qualitative: • Key informant interviews (KIIs) for stakeholders/partners with a mix of open and closed-ended questions. Four tools were developed: 1) BDS/OSS/incubators/financial institutions 2) government entities 3) USAID/AECOM subcontractor 4) large value chain companies. • Group discussion protocol for beneficiaries with open-ended questions. Two questionnaires were developed in a single tool: 1) 11 questions for startups and 2) 13 questions for ongoing MSMEs. • Validation workshop small group meetings with component leaders to validate or invalidate core findings; in some cases these meetings also supported new findings. • Desk review of documents provided by SEED and local institutions. Quantitative: • Pencil-and-paper questionnaires for beneficiaries, also with a mix of question types but with more closed than open-ended. Two tools were developed: 1) MSMEs involved in component A and component B activities and 2) SMEs involved in component C activities. • Telephone interview protocol for beneficiaries with one questionnaire derived from and shorter than the pencil-and-paper beneficiary questionnaires. • Analysis of performance data from SEED indicators and performance standards. Telephone interviews were used to supplement data collection methods as difficulties were initially encountered achieving the planned sampling rates for component C beneficiaries (see Table A for planned versus actual response rates). The difficulties are elaborated in a following section, Data Collection Limitations and Challenges. While online surveys were considered for use, it became clear the beneficiary data provided by SEED did not consistently reveal locations (governorates) and contact information (email addresses) for beneficiaries, both of which are necessary for sampling and conveyance of a link for online survey access. Therefore, no attempt was made to conduct an online survey. Sampling was undertaken differently for stakeholders than beneficiaries. SEED provided a list with 63 stakeholders, which resulted in 59 distinct entities after eliminating redundancies. Sampling from this group was not necessary, as the team elected to attempt to reach the entire known population. SEED also provided two lists of beneficiaries, components A and B in one list and component C in the other. Both files contained duplications and missing contact information. After cleaning the A and B beneficiaries list, 345 initial beneficiaries were reduced to 188 distinct individuals, 6 63 of which were selected through purposive sampling, because the beneficiary lists provided by SEED were grouped according to different types of SEED support activities (components A & B), but available information was inconsistent across each category. The component C list was reduced from 263 to 199 distinct individuals from which 67 were randomly sampled. Then 188 plus 199 became the known population. The sampling resulted in a 95% confidence interval (CI) with a 5% margin of error (ME) for components A & B, while a 3% ME was actually achieved, because the number of respondents reached exceeded the sample target. For component C, a 95% CI and a 5% ME were targeted. The ME was later recalculated to 10%, as fewer respondents were reached than targeted (see Table B). The approach to data collection was determined by the target respondent population sizes and the number of days available to complete the data collection phase. Consideration was also given to the scheduling complications anticipated during Ramadan and the loss of two data collection days due to the Eid el Fitr holiday, further described in the forthcoming section: Data Limitations and Challenges. To mitigate these factors, the evaluation team elected to further divide the proposed two-team structure into four teams to accomplish twice the number of meetings in the available time. Figure 1: Targeted governorates in Upper and Lower Egypt Face to face meetings and questionnaires administered by telephone were concentrated in ten governorates possessing a combination of the highest SEED activity levels and for which stakeholders and beneficiaries with complete contact information were available: Greater Cairo/Giza, Alexandria, Assiut, Aswan, Qalyoubia, Gharbia, Minya, Suez, Menoufia and Beheira. Note: Sohag was initially targeted but no research respondents were achieved there. The telephone interviews were used to augment the face to face interviews to achieve higher response rates. (see Figure 1). Qualitative data analysis involved thorough content analysis by a multidisciplinary and experienced team, including an enterprise development specialist, a senior economist (PhD), two senior M&E specialists, a statistician (PhD), three trained enumerators and an international private-sector development consultant (team leader). The team shared and collectively analyzed the results of a document desk review, responses from key informant interviews, beneficiary group discussions and a validation workshop with the implementing partner to verify findings, generate conclusions and formulate recommendations. Table B: Sample frame and respondents achieved 7 Quantitative data analysis involved analysis of implementing partner M&E data plus beneficiary responses from pencil and paper and telephone questionnaires using frequency distributions (how many answered a or b), cross tabulation (types of answers by respondent category), and tables/graphs generated via Excel and SPSS. Isolation of key demographics was also done to reveal patterns in responses by beneficiary profile, primarily by gender, youth, and disadvantaged groups to inform tailored implementation adjustments (see Annex XIV for more details). Quality assurance measures: • All research protocols and questionnaires were piloted before use. • All respondents were offered the opportunity to respond in Arabic when meeting with the team leader. Only a small number – those with strong skills – responded in English. • Data entry was supervised by the team statistician checking for internal consistency while undertaking data cleaning using CSPRO & SPSS. • All data from pencil-and-paper questionnaires were digitized using double entry to reveal keystroke errors. • Data analysis workshops were convened regularly during the data collection phase to reveal insights and inform data collection team members of emerging trends. • A validation workshop was held with the implementing partner, including one-on-one meetings with individual managers and component leaders. • Ongoing quality assurance reviews were conducted by senior SIMPLE and QED home office. DATA COLLECTION LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES Two desk reviews were required which compressed the team planning phase. Altering the evaluation time frame ending point from November 2017 to April 2018 was an appropriate decision, because it allowed the evaluation team to reflect on significant changes in SEED project momentum that had transpired since the end of 2017. However, it also created a significant challenge for the team by greatly compressing the desk review and team planning phases. The desk review was initially completed during the scheduled five-day time frame leading up to the team planning workshop, but it was redone once it became apparent a significant share of SEED’s program activities had occurred after November 2017. In effect, the desk review needed to be completed twice, with the latter effort extending well into the team planning workshop phase as responses to new SEED activity reports continued to trickle in. The additional desk review resulted in a more compressed data collection planning phase for the evaluation team but did not compromise or limit the accuracy of the data presented herein. Other challenges presented below are categorized as 1) logistical 2) Ramadan/Eid-related and 3) resulting from SEED data management issues. Logistical challenges and some stakeholders being unaware of the evaluation team’s mission hampered scheduling efforts from the outset for two primary reasons: SEED has no regional presence or offices from which to work or organize meetings, and there is an apparent lack of relationship building between SEED and some of its stakeholders/intermediaries. The latter problem is evidenced by the fact that the evaluation team’s scheduler was exposed to logistical complications and/or negative stakeholder comments in at least seven instances (see Annex XII). These factors made arranging meetings more difficult and time consuming than expected, both in and outside of Cairo. Following the initial team meeting between SEED management and the SIMPLE evaluation team, a consensus was reached that SEED would make the first contact with stakeholders to notify them of the forthcoming meeting requests. It was also agreed that stakeholders would be asked to assist in setting 8 up meetings with beneficiaries. However, when the evaluation team scheduler began making what were intended to be follow-up calls, it became apparent some stakeholders were being contacted for the first time. This irritated some stakeholders, delayed meetings with others and, in some cases, virtually eliminated any chance of contacting their beneficiaries. In one series of emails, a stakeholder cc’d the SEED Component A Manager three times over the course of 10 days seeking confirmation that he should meet with the evaluation team, yet he apparently never received a response. Moreover, with no SEED regional offices through which to coordinate, the team sometimes had difficulty finding meeting venues, as even cafes were often closed during Ramadan. Such logistical and coordination challenges led to fewer beneficiary pencil-and-paper questionnaires being completed as well as fewer group discussions, which could have resulted in a research limitation. However, as regional logistical challenges began to mount, the evaluation team elected to increase its reliance on telephone contacts, at which point the perseverance of the telephone interviewers compensated for fewer pencil and paper questionnaires. The timing of Ramadan and Eid represented a challenge to the evaluation team, as the holidays shortened respondents’ workdays and eliminated at least two full days of data collection. Typically, at least three meetings per day would be feasible during the data collection phase. However, due to the logistical difficulties among SEED stakeholders (noted previously) and data collection taking place during Ramadan, only two meetings per day per team were usually feasible. This situation resulted in increased scheduling difficulties and fewer respondents, which again required a greater dependence on telephone contacts. To mitigate these challenges, the evaluation team added three telephone questionnaire specialists and asked the three enumerators to also conduct calls between meetings. Duplications, incomplete information and a delay in the receipt of beneficiary lists created difficulties for the evaluation team. Many requested reports and documents were in fact received expediently. However, the main problem involved inconsistencies in the content of beneficiary lists and some information such as needed to calculate ROI were slow coming in. The CoP and M&E Manager were very responsive to our requests for information, while other staff were less consistent. The new management has undertaken significant improvements by which M&E data are collected and tracked; however, the legacy of a system wherein each component uses multiple spreadsheets to track its own activities and beneficiaries has been slow to change. There is no central MIS that cross-cuts all departments, which would allow a unique identifier for each stakeholder and beneficiary. This leads to difficulties in developing basic reports (i.e. by stakeholder, by beneficiary, by region, by activity type) because data are not standardized, often incomplete and/or duplicated across various reports. This complicated the evaluation team’s task, because considerable cleaning and sorting of beneficiary lists was necessary. These factors created a data limitation, as some beneficiaries were not selected for sampling simply because contact information was incomplete. It is therefore possible that the findings based on beneficiaries’ responses might have been somewhat different had these difficulties not been encountered. This is because a true random sample of beneficiaries – generally preferred for high data reliability – was not feasible. Instead, the team needed to select beneficiaries based on the availability of complete contact information or find it through other means, which also occurred. Nonetheless, it is the evaluation team’s opinion that the diversity of respondents reached (virtually all stakeholders and beneficiaries according to the types of services accessed, and from different governorates) warrants a high degree of confidence in the results obtained. 9 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS The following section describes the core findings, conclusions and recommendations derived from and attributed to SEED stakeholders and beneficiaries. Each section begins with an evaluation question (EQ) followed by individual conclusions that address it. Conclusions and recommendations concerning SEED’s interaction with different types of stakeholders/partners are combined, where feasible, under a single EQ discussion to offer an integrated approach and avoid duplication in recommendations. Capacity building needs for incubators, for instance, is largely dealt with under EQ1a rather than EQ1b. Each conclusion is supported by its own set of findings [note, the parenthetical information following each finding identify sources of information]. Finally, at the end of each EQ section are one or more recommendations based on the conclusions therein. EQ1a: To what extent does available evidence suggest SEED is on track to achieve its purpose: improving availability and accessibility of financial and nonfinancial services to entrepreneurs and MSMEs, especially in disadvantaged areas and taking gender and youth needs into consideration? Conclusion 1a.1: Operational capacity building for incubators is considered very useful by incubator managers but stops after one stage, whereas incubators indicate continued capacity building is required over a longer time frame with more advanced (customizable) modules for incubator development. Finding 1a.1.1: SEED provided one round of incubation capacity building workshops and one study tour, but there is no indication of any continuing services beyond the initial phase. [Y1&2 Annual Reports, Y3 Q2] Finding 1a.1.2: Incubator capacity building training is seen as very useful and practical by 100% (nine of nine) of incubators. However, as both startups and newly operating incubators received identical support, 44% (four of n=nine) indicated the materials were too generic for continued use beyond the startup phase, but required as incubators grow and develop. [Incubator KIIs] Conclusion 1a.2: One of the main SEED training products for the provision of nonfinancial services through component A involves entrepreneurship training delivered through incubators, which, similarly to incubator capacity building, was well-received by the participants but only implemented during the startup phase. No strategies or methodologies exist to continue services to micro- and small￾enterprises at different business life cycle stages, either during incubation or post-incubation. Success in extending MSME access to upgraded products will depend upon SEED securing qualified and timely short-term expertise for new product development and ToT for intermediaries, which proved challenging during SEED’s first two years. Finding 1a.2.1: Incubators require tailored products and continued assistance beyond initial entrepreneurship for use with their incubatees: 56% (five of n=nine) of incubators indicated they need mentorship and networking, 56% (five of n=nine) need business growth methodologies, and 56% (five of n=nine) need post-incubation services. [Incubator KIIs] Finding 1a.2.2: Beneficiaries also indicated the need for additional services: 56% (72 of n=129) said they require BDS but cannot presently access what they need, 71% (81 of n=114) expressed a need for business advisors, and 75% (49 of n=65) need expanded incubation services. [Beneficiary Questionnaire] Finding 1a.2.3: 75% of beneficiaries (51 of n=68), asked about their experience with incubation services, described their satisfaction as high or very high. [Beneficiary Questionnaire] 10 Finding 1a2.4: SEED faced challenges during its first two years mobilizing short-term resources for capacity building, especially with incubators. [Incubator KIIs, Validation Workshop] Conclusion 1a.3: Incubation, boot camps and business plan competitions are building blocks to generate interest in entrepreneurship and business startups; yet the numbers of those completing such acceleration activities are too small to achieve meaningful progress toward higher level outcomes or impact resulting in employment and sales. Success in this instance will be measured by increased throughput – greater numbers of accelerated entrepreneurs – and the ability to track their eventual contribution to employment gains among beneficiaries, both of which have been challenges for SEED. Finding 1a.3.1: Incubation terms for microenterprises vary from six months to four years and include from four to 10 participants at a time, and 44% (four of n=nine) of incubators interviewed had not put any new enterprises through a complete cycle. [Y2 Annual Report, Incubator KIIs] Finding 1a.3.2: Along with incubation, the boot camps, business plan competitions and startup weekends are the most common component A services, with two to six finalists per session. The highest throughput example encountered, E-Youth, completed 12 sessions with 30 finalists selected for acceleration services, equaling 2.5 finalists per session. [Service Provider KIIs] Finding 1a.3.3: SEED has achieved 29% (294) of its target of 1,000 people receiving new or better employment with six months remaining in the project’s term. [Y2 Q2] Conclusion 1a.4: The subcomponent addressing access to financial services has, from the outset, lacked a strategic approach to improve widespread access to MSME lending. One of SEED’s biggest interventions, financial literacy training for 200 Agricultural Bank employees, illustrates this, as it mainly involved delivering a guide to the types of SME lending products which exist rather than illustrating, in practical terms, the means for micro and small businesses to actually access financing. However, a recent agreement with Commercial International Bank (CIB) indicates a more pragmatic approach to improving access to finance will soon be underway, one that involves the design and implementation of lending products tailored to specific SEED value chains. This is important, as SEED beneficiaries value access to finance above all other services. SEED’s main challenge has been and will continue to be achieving enough influence with CIB and other financial institutions to actually change their lending model behavior toward SMEs by assuming elevated levels of perceived risk. Finding 1a.4.1: There is no evidence of situation analyses to determine the types of financial products required by MSMEs, e.g., the financial literacy training materials used with 200 Agricultural Bank employees detail differences in financial products but do not address practical money management or financial practices for growing small businesses. [Y1&2 Annual Reports, Financial Literacy Training Materials] Finding 1a.4.2: The access to finance component has recently agreed to work through Commercial International Bank (CIB) to offer technical assistance (TA) in product development to 12 banks, mainly for lending products customized for selected SEED value chains. [Y3 Q2 Report] Finding 1a.4.3: The number of MSME managers benefitting from financial literacy programs is shown as 1,030, which exceeds the targeted 1,000. [Y3 Q2 Report] Finding 1a.4.4: Funding (financing) remains the most sought-after service among SEED beneficiaries (see Table C). [Beneficiary Questionnaire] 11 244 45 12 10 22 10 5 39 83 27 6 3 5 2 3 6 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Cairo Alexandria Gharbia Qalyoubia Assiut Minya Aswan Other Population Sample Conclusion 1a.5: As further discussed under EQ 4 (gender), SEED has not consistently disaggregated and tracked activities for gender, youth or disadvantaged populations. Therefore, it is possible SEED is having more success reaching all three populations than its indicators suggest. Based solely on indicator targets for component A, attribution issues notwithstanding (see EQ 2 conclusions), achievements for gender and youth appear reasonably on track, though clearly less so for disadvantaged populations. Finding 1a.5.1: Based on component A indicators and performance standard measurements alone, SEED is achieving a majority of gender and youth targets but lagging in achievements for the disadvantaged (See also Annex XIII: SEED Performance Standards and Indicators). • Indicator 1.1.2 Female participants in SEED activities: 38% achieved versus 40% targeted (95% completion) [Y3 Q2 Report Annex IV]. • Performance Standard Measurement A1.1 Workshops for women: 20 took place versus 17 targeted (118% completion) [Y3 Q2 Report Annex III]. • Performance Standard Measurement A1.2 Networks established for women: one was formed of two targeted (50% completion, though the term established is questionable as the Women’s Entrepreneurship Network is established in name but not regularly meeting or providing member services) [Y3 Q2 Report Annex III]. • Performance Standard Measurements A1.8 – A1.10 Outreach activities to raise awareness of programs for women and youth: nine of nine targeted, one of three targeted, and five of six targeted (83% average completion) [Y3 Q2 Report Annex III]. • Performance Standard Measurements A2.8 – A 2.9 Services for disadvantaged: one of two targeted mobile training modules developed and zero of one targeted InfoMatch mobile tools developed (33% average completion) [Y3 Q2 Report Annex III]. Finding 1a.5.2: Beneficiaries reached through sampling are educated and exhibit demographics not normally associated with disadvantaged populations; 91% completed university or post￾graduate studies (107 of n=118), and they are urban-based, with 81% in Cairo or Alexandria (110 of n=135). See also Figure 2 and Figure B-4 in Annex II. [Beneficiary Questionnaire] Figure 2: SEED beneficiary urban vs. rural residence N % Networking 36 25% Funding 46 31% E-Marketing/E-Commerce 33 23% Capacity Building 19 13% Technical Assistance 10 7% Improve requirements to form a company 1 .5% Mentorship 1 .5% Total 146 100% Table C: Beneficiary responses to the single most important service they require 12 Recommendations for EQ1a Note: all Y4 Q1 recommendations assume the award of a SEED no-cost extension through April 2019. Recommendation EQ1a.1: SEED conduct an updated assessment and develop a strategic process for incubator and service provider capacity building beyond the initial phase of support, with consideration to specialization, maturity level and structure. Then produce customizable materials for training use with incubators and services provider partners at various stages of development. Timing: Y3 Q4 for the assessment and strategic process; Y4 Q1 for the customizable materials and follow-on training. Recommendation EQ1a.2: SEED develop new nonfinancial services products for incubator and service provider use (with their MSME beneficiaries) beyond basic entrepreneurship training. They should be adaptable with practical application to MSME life cycle growth stages, e.g., access to finance, digital marketing, ISO quality. Timing: Y3 Q4 for product development; Y4 Q1 for the first round of ToT. Recommendation EQ1a.3: SEED organize a meeting with supported incubators and services providers to brainstorm the means to get more new enterprises through the support process, including expanding incubation throughput capacity and acceleration services (startup weekends, boot camps, business plan competitions). Timing: Y4 Q1 to organize the meeting and develop an action plan. Recommendation EQ1a.4: In coordination with the Financial Regulatory Authority (FRA), SEED should develop a Terms of Reference (ToR) to select pilot MFI(s) to conduct a financial needs analysis for micro- and small-enterprises. Based on the needs analysis, it should design practical training methodologies to improve financial inclusion, conduct initial ToT with the pilot MFI(s) and expand to additional MFIs. Timing: Y3 Q4 to meet FRA, develop ToR, select MFI(s); Y4 Q1 to conduct needs analysis, design training, pilot ToT; if option year is awarded, expand to other MFIs. Recommendation EQ1a.5: Urgently apply and prioritize internal SEED resources to move forward with the planned CIB activity to develop specialized financing products for individual SEED value-chain members. This type of activity should be implemented then replicated, as it is critically more outcome-oriented than SEED’s previous capacity building efforts to stimulate MSME access to finance. Timing: Y3 Q4. EQ1a. Summary: SEED is strengthening technology transfer offices and undertaking entrepreneurship programs in schools and universities. They are also providing initial capacity building materials in incubator operations and ToT in entrepreneurship, which are widely acknowledged as very useful. However, SEED needs to continually assess and ensure delivery of progressive services addressing the development needs of its stakeholders and beneficiaries over a longer time frame – not just for initial capacity building – and carry out needs analyses prior to any new interventions. The resulting training and consulting products must take into account the varying requirements of stakeholders and beneficiaries as they grow and develop, thereby ensuring the availability of highly adaptable materials for continuation. Such consulting products and training materials should be designed for longitudinal use and not cease to be implemented after one or two initial sessions. Moreover, access to finance activities are not meeting expectations and immediate efforts – such as the new program being organized in cooperation 13 with Commercial International Bank (CIB) – are urgently required to get this component up to speed. With regards to objectives related to gender, youth and disadvantaged populations, the component A incubation and entrepreneurship activities, by their nature, are reaching women and youth. Yet, disadvantaged populations in outlying governorates with limited access to economic opportunities are not receiving services commensurate with those in more prosperous regions. Component A challenges include: securing qualified and timely STTAs for capacity building; achieving enough influence with banks to change their lending behavior and; identifying the most pressing product development needs for partners serving MSME beneficiaries, when neither may fully understand those needs themselves. EQ1b. To what extent does available evidence suggest that SEED is on track to achieve its purpose with regard to building the capacity of local organizations? Conclusion 1b.1: SEED has invested substantial time and effort contributing to the Nilepreneur activity, which involves a joint initiative between the Central Bank of Egypt, The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Agency (MSMEDA), and Nile University to develop BDS center capacity around the country and allow MSMEs to access professional business development services. However, to date, no BDS centers are functioning and support to alternative private or commercial BDS services for MSMEs are just recently being stepped up. Success will be achieved, in part, if the formidable challenges of coordinating the three large Nilepreneur entities to improve MSME access to BDS can be overcome. Finding 1b.1.1: Little evidence exists of attempts to leverage private sector BDS providers with development mindsets or NGOs offering BDS services to MSMEs, though SEED indicates efforts are now underway with several NGOs. [Y1&2 Annual Reports, SEED response comment] Finding 1b.1.2: A well thought-out mobile application for BDS providers exists with aspirations for a minimum of 100 users in the near term, but with little indication that it is yet being used by its intended audience – BDS providers and customers. [Y3 Q2, Validation Workshop – ICT Manager, Mashro3i Concept Note, Feb, 2018] Finding1b.1.3: The concept to coordinate with Nilepreneur and others to establish BDS centers around the country has been ongoing since mid-2017, and Nilepreneur indicates BDS offices will soon be functioning; however, they do not yet exist, and SEED continues to pursue an institutional BDS model via multiple partners without inclusion of commercial services providers. [Y2 Annual Report, Y3 Q2, BDS KIIs – CBE/Nilepreneur/CEOSS/ ABA] Figure 3: Respondents’ need for business development services 42% 56% 21 The distribution of respondents about how would you describe your need for business development services (BDS)? We require BDS and we are able to access all of the services we need We require BDS but are unable to access all of the services we need 14 Finding 1b.1.4: 56% of beneficiaries require BDS services but are unable to access what they need (72 of n=129) (See Figure 3). [Beneficiary Questionnaire] Conclusion 1b.2: SEED is significantly underachieving its target of assisting One Stop Shops (OSS) and is unlikely to reach it. SEED has also missed opportunities for cross-selling between components to promote OSS services to SEED beneficiaries more broadly. Finding 1b.2.1: SEED supported 3 OSS centers representing 25% of its target of 12 centers. [Y1 Annual Report, Y3 Q2 report] Finding 1b.2.2: 53% of beneficiaries answering the question rate the need for improved understanding of starting a business by accessing OSS services “high” or “very high” (30 of n=57). [Beneficiary Questionnaire] Conclusion 1b.3: Building capacity to assist MSMEs joining the formal sector will not be achievable without SEED supported OSS centers offering full formalization services, including licensing, which they presently do not. Two of the original Tamayouz/OSS centers established under a predecessor program achieved the capacity to fully formalize businesses, hence, it is possible. Formalization is an important objective, as an estimated 80% of Egypt’s MSMEs are not registered. The main challenge has been the difficulty achieving concurrence among the various government entities necessary to make strategic changes to OSS services offerings. Success, therefore, will be measured in identifying and persuading the agencies necessary to adopt service mix changes to a small number of OSSs. Finding 1b.3.1: Some 80% of Egypt’s 2.5 million MSMEs are informal. [Evaluation Statement of Work, MTI Industry and Trade Development Strategy 2016] Finding 1b.3.2: OSS centers provide two services, tax card issuance and registration, but licensing is not offered except for two Tamayouz/OSS centers established under a previous technical assistance program with capacity built to include licensing and allow full formalization. [OSS KIIs] Finding 1b.3.3: Licensing is required to achieve full formalization, though adopting such services requires the concurrence of multiple government agencies. [OSS KII, Component B Manager Validation Workshop, USAID KII] Conclusion 1b.4: SEED is underperforming with respect to multiple component A & B capacity building-related indicators, particularly for the benefit of disadvantaged populations, and it is unlikely to achieve them during the base period. One challenge, as further detailed under the response to EQ2, has involved the limited reach SEED is able to achieve without a regional office presence. Table D: Capacity building targets versus achieved Selected SEED Capacity Building and Access to Services Targets versus Achieved Target Achieved BDS centers established 18 0 OSS centers assisted 12 3 Disadvantaged targeted with access to BDS services 3000 0 Targeted financial literacy ToT sessions delivered 10 6 Mobile technology tools for the disadvantaged developed 3 1 15 Finding 1b.4.1: Two-and-a-half years into the three-year program, multiple SEED capacity building and access to services targets are not being met: zero of 18 BDS centers established; three of 12 OSS centers assisted; zero of 3,000 MSMEs accessing BDS services; six of 10 targeted financial literacy ToT sessions delivered, one of three mobile technology tools targeted to the disadvantaged (see Table D below, see also Annex XIII: SEED Performance Standard Measurements and Indicators). [Y3 Q2 Report] Recommendations for EQ1b Recommendation EQ1b.1: SEED begin targeting development-minded private sector BDS providers and NGOs offering nonfinancial services to MSMEs in parallel with the ongoing Nilepreneur BDS initiative. This is needed to diversify the existing approach and better normalize and expand MSME access to commercially available consulting services providers. SEED should issue a request for assistance (RFA) with clear guidelines to publicly and transparently identify BDS providers with an interest in economic and social development and with the vision to offer discounted commercial pricing to help grow the very MSMEs who will comprise their future client base. Timing: Y3 Q4 for design framework to leverage commercial BDS; Y4 Q1 to issue RFA; Y4 Q2 to pilot indirect assistance through five commercial BDS providers with small sliding subsidies (from the grants budget) for qualifying MSME clientele. Recommendation EQ1b.2: SEED analyze the process through which two original Tamayouz centers achieved licensing functionality (under a previous program), then devise an action plan and select one of three SEED supported OSS centers as a pilot in which to build capacity for new business licensing. Timing: Y3 Q 4 to analyze steps and government agencies involved in original Tamayouz center licensing; Y4 Q1 to select pilot OSS center in cooperation with government stakeholders and begin capacity building. EQ1b. Summary: While the evaluation team acknowledges that SEED has conducted six BDS capacity building workshops, which are important, visible capacity building outcomes are minimal. This stems in part from the dogged pursuit of a quasi-governmental partnering model to establish BDS centers offering services below commercial rates to MSMEs. While the concept of offering discounted services is pragmatic, in theory, SEED’s singular approach has yet to result in a functional network of BDS offices and there are no assurances that it will. SEED therefore needs to run a parallel effort, possibly one in which the commercial consulting industry is engaged to assist MSMEs at discounted rates. SEED also cannot be content with supporting OSS centers strictly to the stage of registering enterprises but take the effort to the next critical level by building OSS capacity to fully formalize a business and then diligently promote the expanded services across all SEED components (in each respective region where capacity has been built). Component B challenges include: orchestrating and continually moving the three main Nilepreneur partners forward despite bureaucratic obstacles; achieving concurrence between government entities necessary to expand the OSS services mix and; overcoming the lack of regional presence to reach out to disadvantaged populations. EQ1c. To what extent does available evidence suggest that SEED is on track to achieve its purpose with regard to strengthening selected value chains to facilitate linkages with MSMEs? Conclusion 1c.1: Value chain linkage activities between SMEs and large companies in automotive and dairy are unlikely to achieve impact during SEED’s base period as they remain in the planning phase. A useful matchmaking activity has been undertaken in plastics, however, and once these activities are fully underway, they represent the strongest entry point among the core SEED components toward achieving overarching SME sales and employment gains. This is due to the small-to medium-size nature of component C beneficiaries and their resilience to grow in difficult market conditions in which micro and 16 startup companies may fail. It is not clear why the large value chain activities have been slow to develop; however, eventual success will be measured foremost by sales increases, not simply linkages made. Finding 1c.1.1: Three of four large value chain companies interviewed (from automotive, dairy, and plastics) indicate SEED supported activities are in the planning phase two-and-a-half years into the project term, and there are few outcomes to assess. However, once exception, according to the Plastics Technology Center, is a SEED activity that SEED linked plastic pipe suppliers with a large telecom buyer. [Large Value Chain KIIs, Government KII] Finding 1c.1.2: Four of four large value chain companies also believe the integration activities SEED proposes will lead to increasing their purchases from locally sourced SMEs (not microenterprises) and that Egyptian SME sales and employment gains will result. [Large Value Chain KIIs] Finding 1c1.3: In difficult economic circumstances, small- and medium-sized enterprises, such as those targeted by component C activities, are more stable in contributing to employment growth than micro and startup enterprises. [Desk Review – Do SMEs Create More and Better Jobs?, EIM Business & Policy Research, 2013] Conclusion 1c.2: SEED demonstrated strength organizing B2B, matchmaking, and exhibition initiatives to expand SME supplier and buyer linkages. In fact, six buyers’ conferences have been completed, whereas four were planned. Event participants are assisted with subsidies for entry and marketing support is provided to beneficiaries before events are held. No post-event technical support was revealed which could otherwise be very impactful, as SMEs often require assistance adhering to large company buyer specifications and requirements. Finding 1c.2.1: Services rated as highly needed to very highly needed by SEED beneficiaries: 84% (90 of n=107) to attend exhibitions; 83% (88 of n=107) to participate in matchmaking events. [Beneficiary Questionnaire] Finding 1c.2.2: Six buyers’ conferences have been held, however, no evidence exists of support provided to SMEs after matchmaking events are held, only of SEED subsidizing fees for event participants, while sales and marketing support is offered beforehand. [Y1&2 Annual Reports, Y3 QR2, Quasi-government KII] Finding 1c.2.3: SEED conducts M&E follow-up and data capture after matchmaking events and exhibitions but acknowledges no systematic technical interventions are provided. [Validation Workshop Component C Manager, Y3 Work Plan] Finding 1c.2.4: 67% (62 of n=92) of SMEs rate their need for training to better understand how to access backward and forward value chain partner linkages (suppliers, distributors, customers) as “high” or “very high” (see Table E). [Beneficiary Questionnaire] 17 Table E: SMEs rating as high or very high a need to understand how to access value chain linkages Conclusion 1c.3: Component C, more than components A or B, has the potential to enable SEED to achieve multiple cross-cutting objectives, including: employing women and youth, strengthening disadvantaged communities, adopting innovative environmental processes, achieving international quality standards and supporting exports. Recently proposed support to the food processor, Daltex, cuts across gender, environmental, employment and export development objectives, and offers a strong example for future target initiatives. When a small to medium-sized enterprise is able to improve quality, connect to new markets, add regional production or warehousing and/or expand its product line, rapid increases in sales and local employment are feasible. For such activities, the core success factor is the ability to work in a more integrated manner with large value chain partners to ensure a broader swathe of indicators are positively affected, e.g., sales, disadvantaged employment, exports, environment. Finding 1c.3.1: One large value chain stakeholder raised the need for assistance in developing degradable plastics for Egyptian production, which is described as an emerging segment important for domestic and export markets to address worldwide concern for the environmental protection of the oceans. [Large Value Chain KII] Finding 1c.3.2: SEED has recently embarked on an activity to reduce the waste generated by a large processor of fruit and vegetables (Daltex) for export to large European supermarket buyers. The SEED stakeholder is training grower-suppliers in ISO standards, reducing pesticide use and restructuring to grow organically, all with the outcome of increased exports. This activity supports sizeable numbers of suppliers and multiple programmatic objectives (environmental, sales, exports, employment, value chain linkages and international quality standards) and therefore achieves numerous development outcomes. [Value Chain KII] Conclusion 1c.4: However, component C is well behind and very unlikely reach the target for its one outcome-oriented indicator: 3.1.1 Number of USG supported enterprises integrated with larger supply chains. Finding 1c.4.1: Indicator 3.1.1 Number of USG supported enterprises integrated with larger supply chains has achieved 27% of its target (41 of n=150), while SEED is 83% of the way through the base program term. [Y3 Q2 Report] Recommendations for EQ1c Recommendation EQ1c.1: If an option year is awarded, SEED increase the number of large value chain companies to a number – per the selected SEED value chain sector – large enough to develop a critical mass wherein sector-wide outcome may be felt by industry members. SEED should link SME beneficiaries to component B BDS stakeholder/intermediaries for continuing SME assistance that N % No Need 3 3.3 very low 3 3.3 Low 5 5.4 Average 19 20.7 High 23 25.0 Very High 39 42.4 Total 92 100.0 18 improves their ability to meet large buyer purchase specifications and requirements. Timing: Upon notice of option year award. Recommendation EQ1c.2: SEED expand value chain matchmaking, exhibitions and B2B linkage events leveraging component B capacity building to seek and work with BDS stakeholder/ intermediates (development-minded private consulting firms, NGOs) to engage SME participants in pre and post-event BDS mentorship and strengthening. SEED should begin shifting subsidies away from simply paying for exhibition attendance fees, which impart no technical value, and instead partially subsidize pre- and post-event BDS services in marketing and product development for SME participants. This may be done on a sliding subsidy basis (for SMEs requesting continuing support) and paid for either from a reprogrammed grants budget or the savings from reduced event participation fees. Prior to instituting such a program, components B and C should jointly study the feasibility of BDS subsidies and determine the willingness of target beneficiaries to pay varying levels of discounted rates. Timing: Y3 Q4 to conduct a feasibility study and survey beneficiaries; Y3 Q4 to seek local partners to provide discounted services to matchmaking/exhibition SME candidates; Y4 Q1 (assumes a no cost extension is awarded) to support first new SME exhibition participants with BDS support. Recommendation EQ1c.3: If an option year is awarded, SEED systematically seek out more activities involving larger numbers of end beneficiaries and multiple cross-cutting objectives, such as the new intervention with the food processor Daltex, as a means to efficiently achieve a more outcome-oriented set of interventions. SEED should immediately seek additional activities with Daltex to broaden its involvement beyond the current planned waste reduction intervention. Timing: Upon notice of option year award. EQ1c. Summary: SEED component C has been slow to develop momentum but is accelerating and shifting focus to efficiently strengthen selected value chain enterprises and linkages – including establishing 142 MSME linkages with large buyers to date. Of seven total SEED M&E indicators and SEED performance standard measurements, SEED is on track or overachieved four and underachieved three. Recent activities identify new interventions that address larger numbers of stakeholders and achieve multiple programmatic objectives in individual activities, e.g., the newly planned intervention with the food processor, Daltex, which cuts across gender, environmental, employment and export development objectives. This and continuing SEED’s trend of expanding matchmaking and B2B events, but with more BDS support and reduced payments purely for participation fees, will more directly link SEED technical assistance (TA) efforts to SME sales and employment gains, and ensure SEED is impactful in the longer term. It should be noted that the evaluation team is confident in the voracity of the conclusions developed in the initial value chain assessments and, therefore, the selection of sectors for SEED support. The value chain assessments were first and foremost a tool for SEED to select value chains to work with, versus a deliverable for its stakeholders, which was by design and not a criticism of the assessments or of SEED. Component C challenges include: more quickly ramping up support to large value chain companies to effect linkages in the contract time remaining (again, reasons why this was a challenge in the two previous years remain unclear), and weaning MSME event participants off subsidized fees in favor of technical assistance in marketing and product development. EQ1d. To what extent does available evidence suggest that SEED is on track to achieve its purpose with regard to contributing to a better business environment for entrepreneurs and MSMEs? Conclusion 1d.1: SEED’s demand-driven approach to business environment reforms reflects a government agenda and, as a result, is appreciated by government stakeholders. However, non￾government stakeholders are less satisfied, due in part to an apparent lack of strategic vision or a systematic process to select and move forward with policy-related interventions, e.g., there is no 19 evidence of consistent use of Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) before undertaking new activities. Moreover, private-sector stakeholders are not regularly updated about the status of policy interventions, which reinforces SEED’s perceived government-centric approach. A key challenge has involved attempting to balance the need to be highly responsive to government stakeholders while maintaining focus on core MSME-advancing objectives. Success has occurred when greater focus is achieved without alienating partners (see also finding 1d.2.3.). Finding 1d.1.1: There is no evidence that regulatory impact assessments are systematically used to evaluate the strength of an intervention before undertaking it. [Y1&2 Annual Reports, Technical Reports] Finding 1d.1.2: The views of nine private-sector stakeholders specifically referenced a lack of clarity on the status of laws in which SEED has been involved (others were not involved in policy activities or did not make any comment). (nine of n=19) [Service Provider KIIs] Finding 1d.1.3: The views of The Ministry of Trade and Industry, The Egyptian Regulatory Reform and Development Activity, The Federation of Egyptian Industries and The Egyptian National Competitiveness Council all indicated SEED is responsive to their needs. [Government KIIs] Finding 1d.1.4: 37% (7 of n=19) of nongovernmental organizations (incubators and services provider stakeholders) reported problems with enabling environment activities, including: lack of representation in workshops, being overruled by government representatives, inaccurate representation of their views and not being made aware of status changes. Note: There was no direct question for interviewees concerning this issue; instead, it arose during interviews, which indicates it is a strong concern for at least one-third of respondents. [Service Provider KIIs] Conclusion 1d.2: The Egyptian Regulatory Reform and Development Activity (ERRADA) has shown a willingness to work with SEED to advance MSME related policies and represents a logical partner for a more balanced set of interventions involving less general capacity building and increased provision of technical expertise. One SEED enabling environment effort, support to Law No. 5, was based on advocacy support toward a very practical and measurable outcome of increased sales for MSMEs. Finding 1d.2.1: The focus of enabling environment interventions has been directed to awareness and capacity building and less on focused advocacy initiatives. [SEED Y1&2 Annual Reports, Y3 Q1&2] Finding 1d.2.2: ERRADA is interested to engage more with SEED on MSME related policy interventions, particularly where expertise in technical areas is available. [ERRADA KII] Finding 1d.2.3: SEED supported multiple seminars on Law No. 5 on SME access to public procurement, designed to stimulate SME sales and employment. [Federation of Egyptian Industry & ERRADA KIIs] Recommendation for EQ1d Recommendation EQ1d.1: SEED take a more strategic and systematic approach to identify actionable entry points for realistic policy achievements and use RIAs to properly assess enabling environment interventions prior to determining any involvement. Then narrow the activities focus to one or two intensive interventions and with more non-governmental stakeholder inclusion during advocacy or policy drafting efforts. In this vein, SEED needs to continue support to Law No. 5, both in 20 promoting its importance and following through to ensure implementation, which will directly affect SME access to government procurements and impact growth with reasonable attribution to SEED. Timing: Begin Y3 Q4 and thereafter. EQ1d Summary: SEED interventions are contributing to some improvements in the Egyptian enabling environment, particularly when they shift their focus to outcome-oriented activities that measurably achieve bottom line results for MSMEs, the best example being its support to increase SME access to government procurements under Law No. 5. SEED’s activities are centered on building capacity in and opportunities for public private dialogue. However, considerably sharper SEED focus is required to achieve higher levels of success, a focus brought about by the systematic use of regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) and a more concentrated effort with fewer public-sector bodies. We do, however, recommend further expanding the relationship with ERRADA, who seem eager to increase collaboration with SEED, and broadening cooperation with private-sector advocacy groups. Enabling environment component challenges include: maintaining a balance between satisfying the demands of multiple government partners with the need for focus and, relatedly, shifting from a reactive posture (what do you need from SEED?) to a proactive one (SEED can assist you in the following areas) and; a future challenge involves expanding and gaining the trust of new private sector partners. EQ2. Has AECOM established appropriate and effective operational structures to achieve SEED’s results? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the operational structures? Did the operational structures allow the project to respond to requests from counterparts and stakeholders quickly and satisfactorily? Does the current M&E system provide necessary data to estimate the benefits stream from interventions under component C as compared to cost? If not, what additional data need to be tracked? Note: References are made throughout this section to “performance standards/measurements” and “M&E indicators,” each distinct from the other. Performance standards are technical assistance targets which trigger prime contractor fee payments. M&E indicators are USAID contractual targets used to evaluate contractor achievements against objectives. The Yr3 Q2 report (concurrent with the evaluation team’s work) listed 26 performance standard measurements. However, a total of thirty-nine performance standard measurements exist and are reflected in this evaluation report. Conclusion 2.1: SEED’s organizational structure appears adequate and logical, though its output￾oriented performance standards and broad programmatic mandate have reduced the focus of project staff members on high level M&E objectives during the first two program years. They also created a silo effect within SEED’s operational structure wherein each component tended to narrowly address its specific targets leading to a lack of cross-selling between all components and less overall project efficiency. Despite this, SEED’s new management is succeeding in reorienting project staff away from the silo tendency toward a more strategic outlook. Finding 2.1.1: Of 39 SEED performance standard measurements, 29 are outputs. The SEED performance standard measurements comprise targets which trigger performance fees payable to the contractor once achieved and therefore flow downward to relevant technical staff (see Table F, see also Annex XIII). [Scope of Work, Y1&2 Annual Report, Annex 3 in Y3 Q2, M&E Plan, CoP Validation Workshop] 21 Table F – SEED performance standard measurements and status Finding 2.1.2: SEED’s scope includes eight distinct technical components (including grants). [Y1&2 Annual Report, Y3 Q2] Finding 2.1.3: 53% of SEED stakeholders (10 of n=19) providing MSME services indicated little knowledge of SEED activities outside their specific SEED component interaction but indicated interest to better understand SEED’s other activities. [Service Provider KIIs] Finding 2.1.4: The majority of SEED technical staff (five of n=nine) reported new clarity in the organization in understanding SEED’s objectives and their strategic fit within the overall framework, which is attributed to the new management, regular management meetings, budgetary clarity and a need to achieve outputs and impact. [Validation Workshop] Finding 2.1.5: The SEED organizational structure is flat and apportions technical activities under the CoP while administrative activities fall under the DCoP. Component reporting shows an apparently reasonable number of subordinates reporting to any one manager. [SEED supplied 2018 Organization Chart} Finding 2.1.6: Two recent stakeholders to join SEED had a clear understanding of SEED’s scope, breadth of activities and overall purpose. [The Start Institution & Daltex KIIs] Conclusion 2.2: SEED M&E indicators are often vaguely worded, raising opportunities for confusion in data collection and/or misleading analysis and attribution. Terms such as “benefitting from,” “able to,” “significantly expanded,” “improved” and “supported by” may be interpreted in multiple ways. And, terms such as “availability and accessibility of” and “offered assistance” do not belong among indicator phraseology as they do not require that an output, outcome or impact be achieved. Some of these are standard USAID M&E indicators and, as such, beyond the control of SEED. 22 Finding 2.2.1: SEED indicators include the following terms: “benefitting from” (used in three different indicators), “able to launch new products,” “significantly expanded,” “designed to increase access to,” “improved management practices,” “supported by enterprise assistance,” “availability and accessibility of” and “offered assistance.” (See Annex XIII SEED indicators 1.1.2, I.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 2.1, 2.1.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2) [Y3 Q2 Annex IV] Conclusion 2.3: SEED’s early M&E data collection and management efforts were not systematic or supported by rigorous methods that were likely to achieve high levels of reliability. In some cases, this led to questionable reporting of actual outputs achieved to date and/or spurious attribution. However, during the first two quarters of 2018, a more robust and systematic process has been implemented to ensure any proposed new initiatives are inherently designed to reflect desirable M&E outcomes and/or impact. Finding 2.3.1: During the first 18 months of the project, no systematic beneficiary data collection was undertaken, and multipliers were used to calculate approximate beneficiary reach. SEED has since corrected this issue. As related by a SEED manager: “For the loan officer training with Agricultural Bank during early project times, we didn’t have enough historic data to back up the number of clients the loan officers reached before SEED’s involvement with them, hence the flawed attribution percentage where we had to estimate all clients reached by all loan officers – not those additionally reached after SEED’s training. Now we have better relationships with partners, which allow enough time to collect historic and baseline data to measure the “additionally of SEED”, i.e.: how many clients the loan officer reached before and after SEED so accurate percentages of attribution are reported according to Donor Committee for Enterprise Development (DCED) standards.” [Validation Workshop] Finding 2.3.2: 387 distinct beneficiaries were identified by SEED (after duplications were removed from beneficiary lists provided for components A, B & C); yet the M&E tracker identifies: 4988 entrepreneurs attended events, 2,288 accessed mentorships, 574 launched business models. [Y3 Q2 Report] Finding 2.3.3: The data quality analysis performed by SIMPLE indicates several data collection and management issues: lack of documentation, inconsistent definitions across different stakeholders, lack of baseline information for comparison and the possibility of double counting. [SIMPLE DQA 2017] Finding 2.3.4: Beginning in early 2018, SEED has been systematically assessing new initiatives using quantitative tools, which allow technical staff to evaluate proposed interventions according to quantifiable criteria linked to SEED’s expected outcomes. Example tool: Relevance, Impact, Engagement, Do no Harm (RIED) uses four attributes to assess a proposed initiative. It begins with a high-level filter: Is this initiative directly relevant to what we do? It then looks at whether or not the intervention is likely to achieve a measurable impact, what level of engagement is required from which entities and if it is likely to achieve results without distortion or damage to other program objectives. [Desk Review REID Methodology, Validation Workshop CoP & M&E Manager] Finding 2.3.5: There is no internal centralized management information system (MIS) within SEED, which has led to inconsistencies in beneficiary contact data and intervention tracking for individual stakeholders/beneficiaries. This is evident from the beneficiary lists received by the evaluation team. There is also no means to sort stakeholders/beneficiaries according to project-wide interventions with which they have been involved or intervention types by governorates. Instead, there has been a reliance on individual Excel spreadsheets without unique identifiers for stakeholders or 23 beneficiaries. [Desk Review – SEED Beneficiary and Stakeholder Lists Provided, Validation Workshop M&E Manager] Conclusion 2.4: Without any regional office structure and presence, SEED has demonstrated a tendency to rely on Cairo-based initiatives resulting in lower levels of program activity in dispersed governorates and fewer initiatives for disadvantaged populations with limited access to economic opportunities. Finding 2.4.1: 58% of beneficiaries (68 of n=116) who answered a question about their location are Greater Cairo-based and 82% (95 of n=116) are based in Cairo or Alexandria. [Beneficiary Questionnaire] Finding 2.4.2: 82% of stakeholders (52 of n=63) are Cairo-based. [SEED Stakeholder List] Finding 2.4.3: Services specifically designed for disadvantaged populations (performance standard measurements A2.8 – A 2.9) are not meeting targets two-and-a-half years into the three-year project term: one of two mobile phone training modules developed and zero of one InfoMatch mobile tools developed – both designed for remote use by people with limited access to services (33% average completion). [Y1 Q2 Report] Figure 4: Consulting and assistance needs ranked as “very high” by beneficiaries in urban centers vs. disadvantaged governorates with less economic activity Finding 2.4.4: Of 11 incubators considered actively supported by SEED, a total of four are located outside Greater Cairo (one each in Alexandria, Assiut and Qena). [SEED Stakeholder Lists] Finding 2.4.5: SEED maintains no regional office presence. [USAID and SEED CoP KIIs] 24 Finding 2.4.6: SEED beneficiaries outside of the major urban centers of Cairo and Alexandria express a much higher level of unmet needs for BDS services than SEED’s urban-based beneficiaries (see Figure 4). [Beneficiary Questionnaire] Conclusion 2.5: SEED is consistently referred to as responsive by its stakeholder/intermediaries and, when questions arise, SEED staff are able to be reached without difficulties. Yet, stakeholders also express frustration over what they see as broken promises and delays in activities. Clarity at the outset of any new engagement, especially with new partners, is required. Finding 2.5.1: 73% of service providers stakeholders who answered a question about responsiveness (27 of n=37) indicated SEED staff are very responsive to stakeholder inquiries. [Stakeholder KIIs] Finding 2.5.2: Eight of nine incubators indicate extensive time lags between initial capacity building and receipt of equipment to operate as promised, some as long as one year. Moreover, 60 days of TA support to incubators was promised but never materialized, and without explanation. [Incubator KIIs] Finding 2.5.3: Four grants were awarded, each requiring more than one year from RFA to award. [Y1&2 Annual Reports, Y3 Q1] Conclusion 2.6: SEED has developed a methodology and approach to estimate intervention-specific return on investment (ROI) for component C value chain interventions. However, calculations are made without including indirect costs and there is little supporting justification for SEED attribution percentages which are referenced. In the absence of actual benefit-related data (income and employment generation), consistent calculation of ROI will not be possible. Finding 2.6.1: The calculation of direct costs for ROI estimations is linked to individual interventions; however, indirect costs are not taken into consideration. [Intervention Logics and Measurement Plans] Finding 2.6.2: Benefits are calculated based on anticipated income and employment; however, the justification for percentages of forecasted attribution (regarding technical, marketing, or other forces) is not documented. [Intervention Logics and Measurement Plans] Finding 2.6.3: SEED intervention data on actual income and employment generated could not be produced when requested; it was explained that data have not been systematically collected. One exception is data collected on deals concluded by SEED-supported MSME participation in ready￾made garment (RMG) sector exhibitions (See Annex X: Component C ROI). Recommendations for EQ2 Recommendation EQ2.1: USAID seek to simplify new project design operating mandates by reducing the number of technical components to the minimum required for inter-component synergy toward common objectives. Moreover, it should ensure contractor management plans devote time to elaborate internal operating structure designs that efficiently coordinate and cross-sell. Timing: During design and negotiation phases of new economic development programs. Recommendation EQ2.2: For future economic development programs, USAID consider reviewing the wording efficacy of standard indicators and ensure contractors develop M&E plans 25 with indicators (and performance standards, if used) that are balanced between outputs and outcomes, with outcome indicators present in each technical component’s activities. It is also important to use unambiguous phraseology that are quantifiable, where feasible. Timing: During forthcoming new program design and award phases. Recommendation EQ2.3: In the event an option year is awarded to SEED, provides all stakeholders/intermediaries with a refresher briefing to understand SEED’s strategic framework, where they fit and what other cross-component activities they may be able to participate in. Infographics and other means should be employed to clarify the SEED framework, its high-level objectives and the component integration necessary to achieve them. Timing: Upon notice of option year award. Recommendation EQ2.4: For IPs with multiple stakeholders, USAID creates a prerequisite to establish an MIS system (internal) to manage and report all stakeholder and beneficiary data, each with a unique identifier (number) to allow intra-project coordination and avoid data duplication. Timing: During design and negotiation phases of new economic development programs. Recommendation EQ2.5: USAID ensure any new or follow-on program design (post-SEED) emphasizes the need for a regional office structure or carefully selected regional strategic alliances with clear selection criteria, e.g., gender expertise, local influence, a development mindset and M&E reporting capacity. Timing: During design and negotiation phases of new economic development programs. Recommendation EQ2.6: SEED build on its recent efforts to establish a systematic basis to calculate ROI with more diligent and systematic collection of sales/income and employment data. Also, establish an ROI manual with clear definitions and rationale for attribution percentages used. Timing: Y3 Q4 through the end of the contract term. EQ2 Summary: Inadequate cross-component coordination and output-focused measurements have reduced SEED’s efficiency from the outset, making it more difficult to see overarching objectives and engage stakeholders/beneficiaries in multiple component activities. Twenty of 26 performance standards and half of the SEED indicators represent outputs. However, recent changes in management have significantly strengthened operating and M&E systems, while increasing awareness among technical staff of critical higher level programmatic objectives. Nonetheless, SEED’s Cairo-centric structure has reduced its reach to outlying regions, particularly among disadvantaged populations. Despite some stakeholders complaining about program delays, all routinely speak highly of SEED staff responsiveness. Challenges include: further orienting the SEED organization toward outcomes when many indicators and performance standards are not changeable and expanding regional reach late in the project wherein it is not practical to now establish a regional presence. EQ3. What risks and opportunities exist regarding the sustainability of SEED’s development interventions and how likely is their occurrence? Are SEED’s interventions undertaken sustainable? Conclusion 3.1: Intervention sustainability is unclear because SEED implements capacity building with limited attention to financial sustainability as a required element. Moreover, without quantifiable sustainability measurements among SEED indicators, intervention sustainability will be ad hoc and not systematically measurable. 26 Finding 3.1.1: Neither the SEED indicators nor the M&E plan includes sustainability targets and, therefore, there are no means to measure intervention sustainability progress (see recommendation 3.1 for sustainability target indicator examples). [MEL plan, Y3 Q2 Report] Finding 3.1.2: A sustainability plan was conducted in the early stages of the project; however, it does not elaborate which partners are expected to take over which activities. [SEED Sustainability Plan] Finding 3.1.3: Three of four grantees are private sector and none have developed a business model for sustainability, despite being listed as a SEED criterion in grant documentation. [Grantees KIIs, Validation Workshop, Grant Documentation] Conclusion 3.2: Institutional sustainability is also unclear, as SEED’s contribution to stakeholder sustainability is negligible, partly due to SEED working with mature stakeholders with alternative stable revenue streams. This may be a pragmatic reaction to a market reality, but it does not contribute to the objective of building institutional sustainability. In at least two instances for which institutional capacity building for sustainability was required, SEED overlooked these needs and did not address them. Finding 3.2.1: 82% service providers stakeholders (31 of n=38) cannot indicate any measurable SEED contribution to sustainability and all indicate the availability of other revenue sources which existed prior to SEED involvement. [Service Providers KIIs] Finding 3.2.2: Two initiatives took place with MFIs in Aswan regarding the design of new financial products, but both lacked sustainable financial resources themselves, which were not addressed and made moving forward impossible. [Aswan MFI KIIs] Finding 3.2.3: MSME access to finance to improve sustainability has consistently been underrepresented in terms of practical interventions undertaken – those tracked and reported are mainly capacity building in nature – and despite SEED indicating 8,709 people benefitting from financial services, there is little evidence that the majority of those have secured any financing as a direct result of SEED efforts. [Y1&2 Annual Reports, Y3 Q2 Report, Validation Workshop M&E Manager] Conclusion 3.3: Networking for gender and youth has been supported, but beyond these little systematic SEED networking has been undertaken, nor was there a platform to facilitate such a process. This has meant that SEED service providers have not been able to easily leverage other intermediaries or beneficiaries to increase sustainability enhancing knowledge sharing, capacity building, and/or customer and supplier leads. It has also meant that incubators, specifically, have not received the support they need to formalize a network, and thereby their chances for knowledge sharing. A positive step is SEED’s contribution to the creation of a new knowledge sharing platform for MSMEs, though there is little clarity yet concerning the likelihood of widespread use. Finding 3.3.1: 53% of MSME service providers (10 of n=19) indicated a strong interest in becoming networked to other SEED activities, stakeholders and beneficiaries. [Service Provider KIIs] Finding 3.3.2: Five of nine incubators participating in the SEED study tour indicated an attempt to organize a formal network. SEED provided one session on legal structure then the activity stopped, leaving the network to collapse. [Incubator KIIs] 27 Finding 3.3.3: There has been no knowledge sharing external platform for use by SEED stakeholders and beneficiaries until the recent development of a portal designed for this purpose. The portal aspires to bring together knowledge, services and opportunities for MSMEs; however, as it was just launched in 2018, it is as yet unclear what the level of SEED stakeholder or beneficiary traffic is likely to be or how well it will be marketed. [Y2 Annual Report, Y3 Q2&3 Reports, Validation Workshop ICT Manager & Marketing Manager] Finding 3.3.4: Twenty gender and youth networking events have been conducted leading to the formation of one women’s network. [Validation Workshop Gender Manager] Conclusion 3.4: As noted in section 1a, capacity building interventions by component A for incubator development as well as ToT undertaken for entrepreneurship are both considered very useful by stakeholders and beneficiaries alike. The weakness is the lack of continuation or follow-through for either one of them, as was similarly described in section 1c for matchmaking and exhibition activities. Intervention follow-through and continuing access to services will enhance sustainability for stakeholders and beneficiaries alike. Finding 3.4.1: See Findings 1a.1.1, 1a.1.2, 1c.2.2 and 1c.2.3. Recommendation for EQ3 Recommendation EQ3.1: USAID consider requiring contractors to design and implement sustainability indicators to ensure interventions and other activities, such as strategic partner selection, include sustainability criteria. Examples for strategic partner selection sustainability include: revenue stream diversification, number of full-time staff, membership base growth (associations). Timing: Design phase of new economic development programs. Recommendation EQ3.2: SEED nurture and strengthen its new knowledge platform for use by all components’ stakeholders, with special emphasis and resourcing to widely promote its use via social media and other means for networking, cross-selling between component activities and to sustain knowledge transfer/lessons learned between stakeholders and beneficiaries. Timing: Y3 Q4 through the end of the contract term (with or without an option year award). EQ3 Summary: SEED has not prioritized either intervention sustainability or institution sustainability (via local capacity building). The latter is pragmatic in the sense there are strong stakeholder/ intermediary institutions available to work with who do not require capacity building for sustainability. However, there are others, such as SEED supported incubators, for which sustainability is less certain. For them, institution and intervention sustainability are closely intertwined – if they do not become sustainable then the SEED interventions through them will not either. The sustainability of SEED’s interventions will also likely increase if the newly established business development portal for MSMEs is widely recognized as a place where business is done, and knowledge is shared for continued use. And, as noted in sections 1a and 1c, SEED will improve its chances for intervention sustainability with an approach that emphasizes continuing capacity building, i.e., not stopping after one activity but offering ongoing support as organizations and their beneficiaries grow and develop. Challenges include: overcoming the marketing and promotion obstacles facing start-up apps and knowledge platforms to achieve widespread use among target MSMEs and their stakeholders. 28 EQ4. Based on the gender analyses of SEED, were the activities and approaches implemented appropriately to address gender differences/gaps? How can those gender gaps be further minimized? Conclusion 4.1: The evaluation team was unable to attribute tangible outcomes from the 20 reported SEED gender awareness and mainstreaming workshops conducted by SEED during the first two years of the project. Finding 4.1.1: Through the second program year, data for gender initiatives are generally not disaggregated, though the MEL Plan indicates that will change. [Y2 Annual Report, MEL Plan] Finding 4.1.2: 66% of stakeholder service providers (25 of n=38) either cited no gender activities or none supported by SEED. [Service Provider KIIs] Finding 4.1.3: Component C: None of the large value chain linkage companies (four of n=four) could reference any SEED gender focus or activity. [Large Value Chain KIIs] Finding 4.1.4: Grants: One of four grantees was able to identify gender specific activities; however, they were not attributed to SEED but rather a previous donor. [Service provider KIIs] Finding 4.1.5: Gender awareness workshops included an action plan for stakeholders; however, aside from follow-on support to WEN, actual implementation was left to individual stakeholders. SEED is planning to hold another workshop for stakeholders to gauge what has been achieved in terms of gender. [Validation Workshop Gender Manager] Finding 4.1.6: Sampling of SEED beneficiaries resulted in 24% female respondents and, therefore, female viewpoints (see Figure 5 below). [Beneficiary Questionnaire] Figure 5: Percentage of female versus male beneficiary respondents Conclusion 4.2: Continued SEED support to the Women’s Entrepreneurship Network (WEN) is fundamental to promote activities that reduce gender gaps and empower women in the workforce by linking them to others with similar needs. However, as WEN is not yet fully operational, it will require close mentoring to develop into a workable network able to add value to its members. Finding 4.2.1: Some success has been achieved in adding planning capacity to three nascent women's groups, including WEN, but all are still in early stages of development. WEN was conceptualized during meetings organized in October and December of 2017 and planned for formal launch in mid-2018 with the following objectives: [Y1&2 Annual Reports, Y3 Q2, Three Women’s Network KIIs] • Create a networking and referral platform among the public/private stakeholders in addition to the active international and national civil society and actors with a shared vision of supporting women entrepreneurs in Egypt. 29 • Improve the services of its member organizations and women entrepreneurs. • Reach women outside major cities. • Articulate policy needs to the GoE through the mobilization of prominent businesswomen and leaders in the economic development arena. • Publish a directory of financial and BDS services and a calendar of events for entrepreneurs. • Cooperate with youth networks, incubators, universities, and schools for networking and activities. Finding 4.2.2: WEN interventions have thus far been focused on strategic planning and networking, but as yet, there is no clearly articulated link to how these will generate higher incomes and employment for women. [WEN Concept Paper, Validation Workshop Gender Manager] Finding 4.2.3: There is a lack of systematic coordination between the gender component and existing SEED stakeholders, e.g., no women incubatees were aware of WEN or any SEED networking efforts for women (six of n=six). [Beneficiary GDs] Finding 4.2.4: 57% of respondents (21 of n=37) who answered the question rate their need to access to gender-focused business strategies and financial products as “high” or “very high.” [Beneficiary Questionnaire] Recommendations for EQ4 Recommendation EQ4.1: If an option year is awarded, SEED update its gender situation analysis to develop clear targets supporting outcome-oriented gender mainstreaming with responsible stakeholders, specific activities, reporting requirements, a clear process and awareness building to reinforce the need to address gender gaps. Timing: Upon notice of option year award. Recommendation EQ4.2: SEED continue efforts to mentor and establish WEN with a mission of gender gap reduction and a sustainable business model, but emphasizing a stronger, better elaborated services mix for members. Ensure the Gender Manager informs and cross-sells WEN activities among all SEED components and links WEN to the SEED networking platform. Timing: Y3 Q4 onward. EQ4 Summary: As SEED does not consistently disaggregate gender data nor track baselines upon which to compare (see also section 2), it is not possible to prove that gender differences or gaps were appropriately addressed by the project. It is conceivable – if WEN becomes operational – SEED’s gender legacy will be cemented in the sustainable and successful networking activities that WEN may undertake under a strong mandate to eliminate gender gaps. However, at this stage, such a legacy is premature and indeterminable. Challenges include: ensuring continued momentum in WEN’s formation and not allowing it to wither due to lack of impetus, leadership and sense of purpose for its members. Lessons Learned 1. The development needs of stakeholders and beneficiaries need timely and routine analysis prior to considering any new interventions. Resulting training and consulting products must take into account the varying requirements of stakeholders and beneficiaries at different stages of development and be adaptable for longitudinal use and not cease after one or two initial sessions. 30 2. Access to finance activities, by their very nature, must demonstrate a direct line to increased financing for MSME beneficiaries and not simply involve capacity development for its own sake. 3. Incubation and acceleration activities are inherently strong in attracting women and youth as participants and beneficiaries. Despite what may be termed as typical difficulties getting large numbers of beneficiaries through such programs, the high levels of participation by women and youth merit their continuation, especially if the means can be found to increase throughput. 4. A development project with countrywide aspirations, especially in which disadvantaged rural populations are targeted, cannot effectively reach and impact them without either 1) a regional office structure or 2) carefully selected strategic regional partner alliances. 5. Pursuit of lengthy and unpredictable individual initiatives, such as attempts to corral governmental and quasi-governmental partners to establish infrastructure, must be matched with parallel activities – preferably private-sector driven – in the event the primary initiatives do not come to fruition. 6. Value chain activities that identify and target new interventions with the potential to address large numbers of stakeholders, and achieve multiple programmatic objectives at once, are sensible and allow a more efficient use of developmental project resources, as with the analogy that selling one car to an individual requires a similar effort as selling 100 cars to a fleet buyer. Moreover, USAID has experienced positive results with value-chain components in economic development programs, as summarized in a midterm evaluation of the Serbia Private Sector Development Project: “USAID has learned across the world that a focus on well-chosen value chains can shift the economic picture for a country in a relatively short time.” [Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for USAID Private Sector Development in South and Southwest Serbia Project, April 2016] 7. Matchmaking and B2B activities demonstrably lead to MSME sales and employment and thereby strong attribution toward high level objectives. 8. The most outcome and attribution-oriented enabling environment activities are those which eventually lead to MSME sales increases. In a sense, this criterion may be used as a filter conducting future regulatory impact assessments and, if an eventual line to MSME sales cannot be derived, the initiative may not be a strong candidate for implementation. 9. In order to secure the confidence and backing of the private sector during enabling environment policy reform initiatives, the private sector needs to be included as an equal partner to the government. Otherwise, projects are seen as simply supporting the misconceived notion that government interests deserve priority over those of the private sector. 10. A high ratio of output indicators to outcome indicators will assuredly lead to a project that loses sight of its overarching purpose; a balance must be struck in the design and negotiation phases. 11. If institutional capacity building and enhanced sustainability are in fact core objectives, it is not sufficient to simply select the strongest local organizations available as implementing partners. Rather, a mix of strong partners and those with potential to grow and develop should be sought and their capacity built. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to separate financial sustainability from intervention sustainability – meaning the bottom line value an activity creates for a stakeholder or beneficiary must be considered prior to undertaking that activity. 12. A large program interconnected with multiple stakeholders possesses value as a powerful network in its own right, and one that stakeholders and beneficiaries may leverage and benefit from, e.g., through 31 knowledge-sharing or value chain/supplier/customer linkage building. However, without a managed platform or tool left behind to perpetuate such a network, it will die. 13. Gender mainstreaming is a lengthy process, in fact, generational. Women’s networks comprise important infrastructure and supporting them is very sensible. However, without continued, parallel gender awareness efforts across all of a project’s components, efficient mainstreaming opportunities will certainly be lost. 32 ANNEXES 1 ANNEX I: STATEMENT OF WORK MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE STRENGTHENING ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT (SEED) ACTIVITY I. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION The purpose of this mid-term evaluation is to provide USAID/Egypt with an external evaluation of the performance of the USAID activity, Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development (SEED) from its beginning on November 1, 2015 to the end of September 2017. To do so, the evaluation will: ● Determine whether SEED’s activities are contributing to achieving SEED’s intended purpose and results; ● Assess the efficiency of the implementing partner’s operating structures in achieving results; ● Assess the effectiveness of SEED’s approach in implementing sustainable models to stimulate entrepreneurship and develop micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs); The primary audience for this evaluation is the USAID/Egypt and Mission management. Secondary audiences include the implementing partner of SEED, other implementing partners, SEED stakeholders, the Government of Egypt (GOE), relevant donor groups, and the private sector. Findings and recommendations of this evaluation will be used by USAID/Egypt to reach direct decision about future interventions for entrepreneurship and MSMEs development. II. SUMMARY INFORMATION Activity Name Strengthening Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development Implementer AECOM Cooperative CA # 263-0300 Agreement/Contract # Contract # AID-263-C-16-00003 Total Estimated Ceiling of the $22,908,530 Evaluated Activity (TEC) Life of Activity November 2015 – October 2018 Active Geographic Regions Nationwide Development Objective(s) Egyptian Economy is More Competitive and Inclusive (DOs) USAID Office Economic Growth Office 2 III. BACKGROUND A. Description of the Problem, Development Hypothesis(es), and Theory of Change Description of the Problem: MSMEs are the backbone of any economy, especially in Egypt. Enterprises with fewer than 50 employees constitute over 80% of private sector employment in Egypt, and over 70% is in microenterprises with fewer than 10 employees. MSMEs, however, account for only 10% of total capital accumulation and only an estimated 25% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The MSME contribution to GDP is disproportionately small because MSME formation in Egypt is slow. The World Bank reports that enterprise formation in Egypt is slow, representing only 4% of the average enterprise formation in the world. And, if MSMEs succeed in forming formally, their probability of growing is low. Moreover, the enabling environment is such that, over time, existing firms are polarized between few large firms, on the one hand, and many small and informal firms, on the other; with medium-sized firms - the main driver of investment, innovation, and productivity - missing in the business landscape. Enterprises that operate informally in Egypt constitute nearly 82% of total firms, while informal employment constitutes nearly 40% of the total. Such a high level of informality distorts competition and leads to low rates of innovation. MSMEs shy away from formalization due to, among others, the complicated, costly and time consuming procedures for registering their businesses, securing operating licenses, registering property, and complying with complex tax and other reporting requirements, with tax evasion being the key driver of informal enterprises. Through direct engagements with entrepreneurs and enterprises in its assistance programs, USAID gained better understanding of what particular factors impinge on enterprise formation, growth, and expansion. A critical factor affecting the competitiveness of MSMEs—especially their ability to form forward and backward linkages with lead firms—is access to stable supply of public inputs including government business services that are timely, effective, and efficient. Recognizing that outmoded administrative practices and wide discretion in opaque administrative decision-making opened opportunities for corruption, and impacted entrepreneurs and enterprises first and foremost in the area of business registration, licensing, and permitting, USAID established “One Stop Shop” (OSS) business service centers called “Tamayouz Centers” as a way of streamlining bureaucratic processes. This approach has proven to be an effective way to facilitate both the ministerial approval processes necessary for a registration certificate (which makes a business a formal, legal entity) and the approval processes for the municipal permits and operating licenses. The goal was to integrate as many government services as practical and possible under an OSS in order to streamline the bureaucratic procedures, improve efficiency, avoid redundancy of transactions, enhance transparency, and reduce “unofficial costs”. These efforts have reduced business registration processing time from 37 to 8 days and cut official costs from 66% to 10% of per capita income. With USAID assistance, the Alexandria Tamayouz Center, opened in June 2012, is the first implementation of this new approach and is a model for future centers across Egypt. The second Tamayouz Center opened in Qalyoubia in June 2013 and demand for more centers is growing rapidly. Two additional Centers opened in 2014, one in Port Said and the other in Sohag, the first in Upper Egypt. 3 The experience of business enterprises in the Tamayouz Centers enabled them to connect their bottom line business interest to the success of policy reform interventions that improve government business services. As a result, they emerge as a unique constituency that can clearly articulate and effectively advocate for a more broad policy reform to improve the general business enabling environment. The momentum of this successful targeted reform is also reaching the bureaucracy, which now has adopted in the national level the concept of one-stop shop to improve public business services as a way of encouraging investment in the newly proposed investment law. MSME innovation is at the heart of productivity improvement, which can be a main driver of long￾term economic growth in Egypt and can be critical to the ability to acquire and sustain competitive advantage in a global economy. Science, technology and engineering- based innovation drives new industry, introduces new processes, creates new jobs and is critical for addressing social, economic and environmental challenges. Despite being acknowledged in the region for its universities and considerable number of researchers and advanced degree holders, Egypt has not leveraged these assets enough to foster a flourishing knowledge-based, learning economy that develops and brings innovations to market. The economic and policy environment necessary to facilitate innovative MSME activities is not sufficient in Egypt. Weak intellectual property management and limited technology transfer and commercialization opportunities provide little incentives for MSMEs to innovate. In Egypt, MSMEs and entrepreneurs also lack sufficient market information. They lack the capacity to tap sources of relevant information. Information is not available about industry needs, production facilities, competitors, suppliers, Business Development Service (BDS) providers, and financial services. Moreover, given their limited scale and resources, MSMEs and entrepreneurs are unlikely to invest in market research or employ the marketing talents that larger firms can easily recruit. Most private and public organizations and associations supporting MSMEs, and the MSMEs themselves, also lack the ability to articulate and adequately communicate their challenges to policy makers. They lack the skills and resources to articulate and translate MSME challenges into positive concrete proposals that they can present to policy and decision makers. These organizations and associations lack the necessary research capability to properly identify the problem and they lack the organizational capacity to undertake an advocacy campaign. As a result, priority policy agenda do not directly address the real challenges that MSMEs face. A 2012 report by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) for Egypt estimated the total entrepreneurial activity (TEA) rate to be 7.82% of which women represent only 14%. The TEA rate measures the percent of population actively trying to start a business or already owning and managing a business that is less than three and a half years old. According to the report, entrepreneurship is positively perceived in Egypt, yet few adults have the intention of starting a business. ”Necessity-driven entrepreneurship” is the main motive of early stage Egyptian entrepreneurs. The GEM report estimated that nascent entrepreneurs who are actively trying to start a business account for 3.1% of the adults in Egypt. Owners of young businesses that are between four and 42 months old make up 4.9% of the adults in Egypt. These businesses are concentrated in consumer oriented services, such as retail trades, hotels and restaurants. More 4 than 99% of all business start-ups and young businesses are operating in sectors classified as using no or low levels of technology. The GEM report highlights that the low rate of entrepreneurship in Egypt can be improved through the educational system by providing students with entrepreneurship education and training. An important factor for nurturing the development of entrepreneurial and innovative ideas in the private sector is the support of successful startup and early-stage business incubators. Incubators are proven to help entrepreneurs survive and grow during start up, when the risk of external factors impeding success is high. Incubators provide client entrepreneurs with rentable space, management and organizational training, positive interaction between tenant entrepreneurs, common shared resources, and other business support services necessary for transforming the entrepreneurs’ innovative ideas into real businesses. Incubation in itself is a nascent industry in Egypt. Many associations and universities are in the process or are planning to establish incubators, each for its sector of specialization, to support youth and women in their communities and to enhance innovative ideas related to their specific industries. These associations, however, do not have the necessary knowledge and skills to develop and manage incubators. Incubation best practices are not widespread in Egypt, with the existence of few successful incubators. Most incubators in Egypt lack the expertise, business model, or networks of stakeholders to be successful in efficiently fostering start-up businesses. The ecosystem of investors supporting early￾stage business enterprises in Egypt is still in a very nascent stage of its development, including angel investors and venture capitalist. As a result, early- stage businesses may face challenges in securing outside equity capital to launch their business enterprises. Compounded by the inherent high risk associated with early-stage ventures, entrepreneurs end up using internal financing first, until their business models are validated and can attract outside equity or credit financing for growth and expansion. In general, cost of finance is not prohibitive in Egypt, but financing problems are more acute for small enterprises, especially those in the early-stage of development. MSMEs lack the basic characteristics to qualify for financing from commercial banks partially because they are informal and do not maintain the appropriate records, documents, and collateral to receive financing. According to the World Bank Enterprise Survey (2008), only 14% of medium firms and 5% of small firms had bank loans or credit line, and about 90% of MSMEs rely on internal financing for their investments. As the economic activities of the MSME sector begin to recover, its growth can be accelerated with a suite of financial products that needs to be expanded and designed with their particular requirements in mind, to include equity financing (angel investment and venture capital), leasing, factoring, credit guarantees, mezzanine financing, franchising, and credit financing (mobile banking and credit unions). The proliferation of financial products can make the financial markets more complex and increasingly sophisticated, to become a challenge to the level of business and financial literacy of MSMEs. Improving their financial literacy will ensure matching of their financial requirements with suitable financial products, and promote growth and smooth functioning of markets and the economy. Development Hypothesis and Theory of Change: SEED’s overarching programmatic goals link to USAID/Egypt’s mission to expand entrepreneurship skills and opportunities. 5 SEED operates under the theory of change that if MSMEs are developed and entrepreneurship supported (TIPE GO), Egypt’s economy will be more competitive and inclusive (DO). As such, SEED interventions are designed to achieve the following results: R. A1. Stimulated entrepreneurship among women and youth R. A2. Improved availability and accessibility of entrepreneurship services with focus on business incubators and accelerators R. B1. Improved availability and accessibility of effective and efficient BDS R. B2. Improved availability and accessibility of financial products and services R. C1. Integrated MSMEs into progressive value chain This will be supported either directly, through direct support services, training sessions, capacity building activities and coordination of networking activities, or indirectly, through targeted direct interventions – in partnership with partner firms and resource partners – to provide “best practices” examples of business development services, MSME management or advocacy for policy reform. SEED RESULTS FRAMEWORK: Development Hypothesis: If capacity to stimulate entrepreneurship and innovation is increased, availability to financial and non-financial services is improved and MSMEs are integrated into progressive value chain then employment and income of MSMEs and entrepreneurs will increase. Critical Assumptions: - Economy and the political situation remain stable - GOE remain committed to reforms and sector improvements - USAID funding remains consistent and other projects are brought online R 1: Entrepreneurship Skills and R 2: Financial and Non-Financial R 3: Integrated MSMEs to Opportunities Strengthened Services Improved Progressive Value Chains Sub-R 1.1: Stimulated Sub-R 2.1: Improved availability Sub-R 3.1: Integrate MSMEs to entrepreneurship among women and accessibility of effective and progressive value chains and youth efficient BDS Sub-R 1.2: Improved availability Sub-R 2.2: Improved availability and accessibility of and accessibility of financial entrepreneurship services products and services 6 B. Summary Activity to be evaluated Results To Date: Component A: • SEED provided more than 1,000 entrepreneurs with mentorship services through startup weekends, business plan competitions, entrepreneurship boot camps, road shows, and entrepreneurship rallies. These events were conducted in six governorates; namely, Cairo, Alex, Sohag, Assiut, Aswan, and Mansoura. As a result, 237 entrepreneurs launched their business models and 72 startups were able to introduce their new products to market. • SEED built the capacity of 3 pilot incubators to become best practice models. This included twinning capacity to replicate their practices in other incubators. As a result, 50 entrepreneurs benefited from the improved services and better outreach provided by these pilot incubators. 7 • SEED trained existing incubator managers to improve financial sustainability of incubators in two governorates: one in Cairo to cover Delta, Cairo, and Suez, and one in Assiut to cover incubator participants from most of Upper Egypt governorates, including Aswan, Luxor, Qena, and Assiut. • SEED helped 201 entrepreneurs in accessing incubation services by building the capacity of existing incubators that in turn offered better services to entrepreneurs. • SEED started a comprehensive 3-month training program plus one-on-one consultation sessions for 15 organizations planning to establish new incubators. This program supported these organizations in drafting the strategy, business plan, and implementation plan for the establishment of their incubators. Based on this training, SEED selected 9 organizations that it will fully support to start their own incubators. SEED is currently purchasing equipment for four incubators to start operating by fall 2017. • In partnership with the Academy of Scientific Research and Technology (ASRT), SEED trained the staff of 34 Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs), located in public and private universities in Egypt, to improve market research conducted by university professors and promote demand-driven innovative solutions for market needs. Training was conducted in Cairo, Tanta, and Sohag to cover all TTOs nationwide. • SEED built the mentorship capability of the Alashanek ya Balady (AYB) association. With improved capacity, the AYB opened a branch in a new location, which is fully dedicated to BDS services for startups and micro Enterprises (with potential growth into Medium-sized enterprises) and startups. Component B: • SEED built the capacity of several Microfinance Institutions to improve business practices and governance. As a result, these MFIs provided better business development services (BDS) to 570 micro-enterprises within 3 months following the SEED assistance. • SEED built the capacity of public and private banks and MFIs in retailing a wider suite of financial products and services such as leasing, factoring, credit guarantees, franchising, angel investment and venture capital, mobile banking, Islamic finance, and credit unions. As a result, 8,709 clients received improved financial services and acquired financial products more suited in meeting their financing needs. • SEED offered two capacity building training programs to 32 BDS organizations in Assuit, Sohag, Menia, Alexandria, and Aswan. These training programs were followed by an in-depth program to 10 BDS providers on how to market non-financial services to MSMEs that is based on research and needs assessments of targeted MSMEs. As a result, 33 SMEs were offered services that improved their management practices. • To improve access to information for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), SEED created a directory of active and impactful business development service (BDS) providers. The directory lists BDS providers by type of service offered, SMEs served, sectoral focus, and affiliation (public/private). This directory will be the main input in a mobile app that SEED is creating to make it accessible for the public, especially women and disadvantaged communities. • At the request of the Central Bank of Egypt (CBE), SEED started a technical assistance program with the Egyptian Agriculture Bank to establish SMEs’ departments in the Bank’s branches. SEED provided the questionnaire that the Bank used to assess thousands of its employees. Based on this assessment, SEED, through its partnership with 8 the Egyptian Banking Institute (EBI) is training about 400 staff to be employed in the SMEs’ departments nationwide. Component C: • SEED established the SME Supplier Development Program (SSDP) within the MTI’s Industrial Training Council (ITC). This will serve as a central location for large companies to support and expand their pool of MSME suppliers. • SEED built the capacity of 13 SMEs and members of the Federation of Egyptian Industries (FEI) in activating commercially viable forward and backward linkages, to integrate SMEs in progressive value chains. • SEED signed an MOU with Giza Systems Education Foundation (GSEF – private CSR initiative) to promote the utilization of technology in Upper Egypt governorates and provide IT training to entrepreneurs and MSMEs. This initiative is to support innovation and access to technology in Upper Egypt through a small-scale mobile bus, offering digital fabrication equipment for youth to develop their technology driven-solutions/innovations. SEED supported the launch of the activity in Sohag. • SEED drafted a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategy for the Federation of Egyptian Industries (FEI) based on three focus group discussions with various stakeholders. Once this strategy is approved by FEI BOD, SEED will provide technical assistance to build the capacity of the CSR unit at FEI to provide services to their member companies which dedicate CSR funds for development. • Through the Egyptian Chamber of Apparels and Home Textiles (ECAHT), SEED supported 20 RMG SMEs to participate, for the first time, in the international RMG B2B Exhibition “Mothers and Kids” held at Cairo International Convention Center in the period of January 20-22, 2017. The 20 SMEs supported by SEED were able to present their quality products to hundreds of large domestic and foreign buyers. The supported SMEs have concluded deals/purchase orders for the summer season in total of 497 orders. • As part of its activities to integrate MSMEs in value chains, SEED supported a Franchising matchmaking event, on February 18, that targeted SMEs and entrepreneurs. Fifteen (15) international and local franchisors presented their brands and franchise agreements to over 100 potential small investors and entrepreneurs (who will form small firms if they sign the franchise agreement). The franchised sectors included readymade-garment (RMG), dairy, auto parts, restaurants, real estate services, health, and education. The event included about 45 one-on-one sessions between the franchisors and small investors/entrepreneurs. • SEED trained about 100 participants from 30 SMEs on backward linkages within selected value chains. Business Environment: • SEED provided technical assistance to the Egyptian Regulatory Reform and Development Activity (ERRADA) to review all laws that affect MSMEs and to put together a list of recommendations to be considered by the Ministry of Trade and Industry in drafting the new MSMEs law. • SEED invited MSMEs stakeholders to discuss findings of the MSMEs-related laws’ review and consultants’ recommendations for regulatory reform. Three discussion sessions 9 • were held for different types of stakeholders (public, private, and NGOs) to discuss findings and get stakeholders’ feedback. • SEED provided three, one week training programs on the business environment for MSMEs. One week targeted representatives from the private sector and two weeks targeted the government. Grants: • The SEED project issued a Request for Application (RFA) on July 22nd, 2016 soliciting proposals related to the promotion of entrepreneurship and the development of MSMEs. SEED received 132 concept note proposals, which were screened to about 20 acceptable ones. Applicants were notified and applicants with acceptable concept notes were requested to submit full proposals for final evaluation. • SEED conducted financial assessment of the grants’ applicants whose concept notes were accepted by SEED evaluation committee. This resulted in 12 applicants submitting full proposals during the second quarter. SEED evaluation committee met in March 2017, approved four grants, and sent clarification questions to the rest of the applicants. SEED signed 6 grants during the second year third quarter, 2 of which started implementation and 4 are waiting for GOE approval. Second Year: Expected Fourth Quarter Results: • SEED will support the restructuring of the new MSME Development Agency, including building the staff capacity in entrepreneurship, business development services, value chain integration, policy reform, and information dissemination. • SEED will continue improving access to finance for MSMEs in cooperation with the Egyptian Financial Supervisory Authority (EFSA), the Financial Services Institutes, MFIs, banks, leasing, and factoring companies. • SEED will continue training and building the capacity of BDS providers. During this period, SEED should support organizations in establishing BDS units to serve SMEs in various governorates. • SEED will support the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Egyptian Industries in establishing 6 one-stop-shops for registering companies. Some of these one-stop-shops will include licensing of industrial companies in coordination with the Industrial Development Authority (IDA). SEED will also support IDA in establishing one-stop-shops for industrial licenses. • SEED will support of the Ministry of Trade and Industry in establishing an Entrepreneurship Team that will be the base for an entrepreneurship department in the new MSMEs Development Agency to provide needed services for entrepreneurs. • SEED will support of the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Central Bank of Egypt in establishing BDS hubs affiliated to banks and other financial institutions. • SEED will continue its support to ERRADA in regulatory reform. New laws considered by the GOE are: Franchising law, incubators’ law, a unified companies’ law, moveable guarantees law, etc. 10 Contract Modifications: First modification – July 28, 2016: The purpose of the first modification was mainly to: (1) separate the FT800 local currency fund that will be used for social insurance costs for CCN employees, locally purchased international airfare, and other domestically purchased airfare for based and option years; (2) realign the budget; (3) revise provisional NICRA; (4) update key personnel names; and (5) include a quarterly fee payment schedule. Second modification – January 16, 2017: The purpose of the second modification was to reflect the revised provisional billing rates for 2016 and include provisional billing rates for 2017. Third modification – April 2017: The purpose of the third modification was to update accounting and appropriation information to reflect a swap in funding without changing the obligated amount. C. Summary of the Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Plan Life of Project Targets: As per SEED contract award, the following deliverables are stated under each Result for the contractual period (3 years) of SEED. These deliverables were developed based on the results obtained thus far by projects working in the area of entrepreneurship and competitiveness, as well as through the incorporation of data derived from our background and context analyses. Deliverables for the base period will be for the 36 months ending in October 2018, but can be updated as the project progresses, in close coordination with project and mission staff. As stated in the SEED Award contract, the deliverables are defined as follows: Deliverables for Result A.1 ▪ 17 workshops to facilitate the establishment of women and youth networks and the mentoring platform ▪ 2 combined network of female and youth entrepreneurs ▪ Entrepreneurship innovation and financial education offerings at 15 high schools ▪ 1 university pilot entrepreneurship awareness program ▪ 8 universities developing an awareness program ▪ 9 Business Plan competitions ▪ 3 career fairs ▪ 6 start-up weekends Deliverables for Result A.2 ▪ 6 workshops on improved incubator management and service delivery ▪ Identify and implement international best practices in 3 pilot incubators ▪ 4 training modules on incubator management training of trainers’ module on the lean start up model for incubator staff ▪ 1 Study Tour ▪ 8 capacity building programs for GOE-funded technical incubators like TIEC or the TTOs. ▪ 2 Mobile phone training modules developed 11 ▪ 1 InfoMatch mobile tool developed ▪ 6 workshops to build the capacity of the relevant GOE entity tasked to support the ecosystem. Deliverables for Result B.1 ▪ 12 new Tamayouz/OSS centers supported and/or started ▪ 6 capacity building training programs for BDS providers ▪ 3 training modules (e.g. mobile phone or internet based, audio, and text) to help BDS providers meet the needs of disadvantaged populations ▪ 1 comprehensive BDS directory (to be periodically updated throughout life of project) ▪ 3 mobile technology tools ▪ 3000 people with additional access to services ▪ 1 public-private dialogue designed ▪ 2 policy modules and training sessions on evidence-based policy analysis. Deliverables for Result B.2 ● 1 loan guarantee agreement facilitated through DCA or CGC ● 6 Investment Linkages Forums for MSMEs to obtain non-traditional financing (e.g. crowdsource funding, angel investment, venture capital) ● 10 ToT sessions on financial literacy to financial service providers ● 1 financial products database for SFD, EFSA, or others as applicable ● 3 financial literacy modules to support operations at financial institutions/MFIs; EBI and/or the Financial Services Institute (FSI) in adding simplified financial literacy modules to its MSME portal ● 4 training and capacity building programs designed and delivered to EFSA Deliverables for Result C.1 ● Analysis of 3 to 5 value chains for MSME integration ● 3 MIS strengthened / developed with sector/industry associations and/or relevant GOE entities ● 4 MSME buyer conferences, organized by sector/industry associations, at which MSMEs market their goods to large firms ● 5 capacity building training sessions on backward and forward linkages for sector/industry associations ● 1 digital sub-sector specific directory with buyer and supplier contact information developed ● CSR initiatives (in the amount of $500,000) launched to facilitate training for MSMEs and/or investment in equipment and software ● 3 ToT modules on policy advocacy for sector/industry associations and GOE counterparts SEED M&E Plan: System: SEED’s M&E system is composed of the following instruments: results framework, indicator definitions, data collection and validation methodologies, and database-driven reporting mechanisms. The M&E System focuses on collecting, verifying, consolidating and analyzing information at the indicator level. 12 Setting Baseline: SEED will set a performance baseline according to ADS 200- 6, by measuring the value of a performance indicator before the implementation of its activities. Some indicators that measure new impacts resulting from SEED activities are assigned baseline values of zero. For the others, the value will be included after the baseline data is collected, or determined at the beginning of an intervention. SEED will utilize this baseline information to develop the strategy of intervention, report results and measure impact. Data Collection: SEED will collect data through program records, baseline survey/data, reports by subcontractors/partners, government records, and records of implemented activities. SEED will also develop an ICT platform for the beneficiaries to be able to access and use various services electronically. Process: The M&E Manager will receive data from a variety of sources at SEED level and partners level, as well as conducting periodic reviews of international benchmarking studies (i.e. from the World Bank, IMF, etc.). All data is reviewed and centralized before being reported as a final product. The first review is an at-desk validation of the figures reported. If discrepancies are encountered, the M&E Manager will consult the technical team, resource partners, beneficiaries and others as needed and ask for an explanation and insure corrections are made. The M&E Manager will also carry out regular follow-up of SEED interventions in terms of sustainability and improvement of beneficiaries. The precise nature of these impact studies will depend on the indicators being tracked. Some impact studies may rely on informal/rapid surveys, while others may focus more on interviews, group discussions or spot reviews of secondary data. Data Storage: SEED will develop a database to provide detailed reports of indicators, as required. This system will allow the M&E Manager to deliver up-to-date information on program results in terms of indicators. Data entry, editing and reporting features are the responsibility of the M&E Manager and while others will be able to see it, they will be unable to edit it. SEED’s M&E data will be stored in both electronically on the SEED server (with regular backups) and in hard copy files maintained by the M&E Manager. The implementing partner, AECOM’s web￾based system “OneSource” will serve as the program’s secure, electronic storage site. Scanned and/or e-versions of all supporting documentation corresponding to each IR will be saved and cataloged here, and will provide a mirror copy of what will be stored securely in hard copy files in SEED M&E Manager’s office. Relevant Documents for the Evaluators: The COR, through USAID/Egypt’s Economic Growth Office, will provide the evaluation team with relevant activity documents, including: 1. TIPE Bilateral Agreement and amendments 2. SEED original contract and amendments 3. SEED work plans 4. Quarterly and annual reports 5. Bi-weekly reports 6. Monitoring and evaluation plan and results 7. SEED Gender Assessment 8. Egypt Competitiveness Project ECP reports 13 9. Cost benefit analyses report to select the value chains. 10. Environmental Mitigation plan. 11. Sustainability Plan 12. Relevant technical reports In addition to the above list, the evaluator document review must consider other secondary literature determined relevant by the evaluation team to distill best practices in other countries with similar economic context. IV. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation will answer the following questions to assess the performance of the USAID SEED activity during its first two years of implementation: 1. To what extent does available evidence suggest that SEED is on track to achieve its purpose with regard to: a. improving availability and accessibility of financial and non-financial services to entrepreneurs and MSMEs, especially in disadvantaged areas and taking gender and youth needs into consideration; b. building the capacity of local organizations; c. strengthening selected value chains to facilitate linkages with MSMEs; and d. contributing to a better business environment for entrepreneurs and MSMEs? What factors contributed to success? What were the challenges? How can implementation be adjusted to address those challenges and speed up the interventions that have lagged behind (if any)? 2. Has AECOM established appropriate and effective operational structures to achieve SEED’s results? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the operational structures? Did the operational structures allow the project to respond to requests from counterparts and stakeholders quickly and satisfactorily? Does the current M&E system provide necessary data to estimate the benefits stream from interventions under component C as compared to cost? If not, what additional data need to be tracked? 3. What risks and opportunities exist regarding the sustainability of SEED’s development interventions and how likely is their occurrence? Are SEED’s interventions undertaken to date sustainable? 4. Based on the gender analyses of SEED, were the activities and approaches implemented appropriately to address gender differences /gaps? How can those gender gaps be further be minimized? V. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Questions Suggested Data Suggested Data Data Analysis Sources (*) Collection Methods Methods 1. To what extent does - Monitoring and - Desk review Analyze results of available evidence Evaluation reports and survey and key 14 suggest that SEED is data - Surveys and focus informant interviews on track to achieve its group discussions purpose with regard - Annual and To the extent possible, to: Quarterly reports - Key informant data and information - improving interviews need to be availability and - Stakeholders, disaggregated by accessibility of beneficiaries, and gender, firm size, and financial and non- counterparts location financial services to entrepreneurs and - SEED long term staff Identify constraints MSMEs, especially in TIPE Gender that: disadvantaged areas assessment and SEED a. remained binding and taking gender and gender analyses report even with SEED's youth needs into intervention; consideration; b. are outside of the - building the capacity scope of SEED to of local organizations; address impeded - strengthening entrepreneurs from selected value chains successfully launching to facilitate linkages and sustaining start-up with MSMEs; and businesses. - contributing to a better business Identify constraints environment for that: entrepreneurs and a. remained binding MSMEs? even with SEED's What factors intervention; contributed to b. are outside of the success? What were scope of SEED to the challenges? How address impeded can implementation be MSMEs from growing adjusted to address their income and those challenges and employment. speed up the interventions that have lagged behind (if any) 2. Has - Monitoring and - Desk review of Analyze results of AECOM established Evaluation reports and internal procedures survey and key appropriate and data informant interviews effective operational - Surveys and focus structures to achieve - Annual and group discussions To the extent possible, SEED’s results? What Quarterly reports data and information are the strengths and - Key informant need to be weaknesses of the - Stakeholders, interviews disaggregated by operational beneficiaries, and gender, firm size, and structures? Did the counterparts location operational structures allow the project to - SEED long term staff respond to requests from counterparts and - Home Office Staff stakeholders quickly 15 and satisfactorily? Does the current M&E system provide necessary data to estimate the benefits stream from interventions under component C as compared to cost? If not, what additional data need to be tracked? 3. What risks and - Monitoring and - Desk review Analyze results of opportunities exist Evaluation reports and survey and key regarding the data - Surveys and focus informant interviews sustainability of group discussions SEED’s development - Annual and To the extent possible, interventions and how Quarterly reports - Key informant data and information likely is their interviews need to be occurrence? Are - Stakeholders, disaggregated by SEED’s interventions beneficiaries, and gender, firm size, and undertaken to date counterparts location sustainable? - SEED long term staff Identify opportunities that: a. were created through SEED interven tion; b. presented independent of SEED interventions stimulated entrepreneurs to successfully launching and sustaining start-up businesses. Identify opportunities that: a. were created through SEED interven tion; b. presented independent of SEED interventions incentivized MSMEs to grow their income and employment. 4. Based on the TIPE Gender - Desk review gender analyses of assessment and SEED SEED, were the gender analyses report - Surveys and focus activities and group discussions 16 approaches Monitoring and implemented Evaluation reports and - Key informant appropriately to data interviews address gender differences /gaps? - Annual and How can those gender Quarterly reports gaps be further minimized? - Stakeholders, beneficiaries, and counterparts Evaluators will use a mix of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods to answer the questions of interest in this evaluation. All person-level data should be disaggregated by sex. The evaluation must follow the principles and guidelines for high quality evaluations outlined in the USAID Evaluation Policy (Updated October 2016) https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/USAIDEvaluationPolicy.pdf The above evaluation design and methodology matrix is illustrative. The evaluation team must include in the proposal an updated matrix and must propose specific qualitative and quantitative data collection and analyses methods to be utilized to appropriately answer the listed evaluation questions, including data collection and analysis plans and the strengths and limitations of the proposed methods. The team must aim to collect data using a sample size that is valid and representative. Data Collection Methods: The evaluation team must develop data collection tools that are consistent with the evaluation questions to ensure high quality analysis. The evaluation team is required to share data collection tools with the USAID Evaluation Program Manager for review, feedback and/or discussion with sufficient time for USAID’s review before they are applied in the field. The evaluation team must complete the review of all debriefing materials cited in the “Relevant Documentation” section prior to the team leader’s arrival in Egypt.” The evaluation team may also review additional resources to the extent necessary to perform its work. Data collection methods may include a combination of the following: • Desk review of relevant documentation: USAID/Egypt will provide the Evaluation Team with soft copies of the activity related documents before arrival to Cairo. All team members shall review these documents in preparation for the initial team planning meeting. • Key informants interviews - sample size will be determined by the evaluation team; and • Group discussions with beneficiaries and other counterparts and stakeholders. • Case Studies to include success stories with the beneficiaries who received technical assistance and capacity building from SEED. • Surveys with beneficiaries/entrepreneurs. • Secondary analyses of baseline data and progress data. 17 Interviews and Site Visits: Fieldwork will take place in 5 governorates; e.g., Cairo, Alexandria, Mansoura, Assiut, and Aswan. The evaluation team will select those governorates based on a clear set of criteria. Selection will be final upon USAID approval. Key Informant and Group Interviews will include, but may not be limited to: • USAID/Egypt Office of Economic Growth COR. • SEED technical staff and AECOM Home Office. • Counterparts: Ministry of Trade and Industry senior staff, Ministry of Investment/General Authority for Investment (GAFI) staff, Ministry of Finance staff, and the Academy for Scientific Research (ASRT) • Stakeholders: NGOs (such as CEOSS, ENCC, ABWA, BWE21, and Daquahlia Businessmen Association), Universities (such as Cairo University, Ain Shams University, and others), sub-contractors (such as Finbi) and sub-grantees. • Beneficiaries: entrepreneurs, NGOs, Academia, and local businesses (women and men). The team must aim to collect data using a sample size that is valid and representative. The evaluation team must provide a more detailed explanation of the proposed methodology for collecting data. A list of interviewees and key stakeholders will be provided by USAID prior to the assignment’s inception. Data Quality Standards: The evaluation team must ensure that the data they collect clearly and adequately represents answers to the evaluation questions, is sufficiently precise to present a fair picture of performance, and is at appropriate level of details. The Data Quality Standards must adherer to ADS 201 standards of validity, integrity, reliability, precision, timeliness Data Limitation: USAID expects that all issues affecting validity be discussed and documented during the evaluation planning. Measures to mitigate these issues will be addressed with all team members and USAID in the implementation phase and detailed in the final report. Data Analysis Plan: Prior to the start date of data collection, the evaluation team must develop and present, for USAID/Egypt review and approval, a data analysis plan that details how focus groups and key informant interviews will be transcribed and analyzed; what procedures will be used to analyze qualitative and quantitative data from key informant and other stakeholder interviews; and how the evaluation will weigh and integrate qualitative data from these sources with quantitative data from performance indicators and the activity performance monitoring records and secondary and primary data from service providers records (BDS, incubators, One Stop Shops, and financial intermediaries) to reach conclusions about the areas of this mid-term evaluation. Logistics: USAID will provide overall direction to the evaluation team, identify key documents, and assist in facilitating a work plan. USAID will assist in arranging meetings with key stakeholders identified by USAID prior to the initiation of field-work. The evaluation team is 18 responsible for arranging other meetings as identified during the course of this evaluation and advising USAID/ Egypt prior to each of those meetings. The evaluation team is also responsible for arranging transportation as needed for site visits in and around Cairo and other governorates. The evaluation team will be responsible for arranging its own work/office space, computers, internet access, printing, and photocopying. The evaluation team is also responsible for procuring and paying for translation services for interviews, reports and any other evaluation related task. Evaluation team members will be required to make their own lodging and travel payments. USAID personnel will be made available to the team for consultations regarding sources and technical issues, before and during the evaluation process. VI. DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS o USAID Team Planning Meeting: A team planning meeting must be held in Egypt at the outset of the evaluation. This meeting will allow USAID/Egypt to discuss the purpose, expectations, and agenda of the assignment with the Evaluation Team. In addition, the team will: - Finalize team members’ roles and responsibilities; - Review and make recommendations for improving the precision of evaluation questions; - Review and finalize the assignment timeline; - Present and discuss data collection methods, instruments, tools and guidelines; and - Review and clarify any logistical and administrative procedures for the assignment. o Work Plan: A well-written, detailed methodology and data analysis plan (evaluation design, data analysis steps and detail, operational work plan) must be prepared by the team and discussed with USAID during the planning meeting. An interview schedule will be submitted as part of the work plan. USAID will provide the evaluation team with an initial list of interviewees, from which the evaluation team can work to create a more comprehensive list. The evaluation team will construct an interview schedule that includes different stakeholders, and then share with USAID the updated lists of interviewees and schedules as meetings/interviews take place and informants are added to/deleted from the schedule. A final list must be sent to USAID within three working days after the USAID Team Planning Meeting. The evaluation team should submit the Work Plan and evaluation methodology to the Evaluation Manager for approval. o Evaluation Design: Prior to the team planning meeting, the evaluation team must submit to the Evaluation Manager an evaluation design (which will become an annex to the Evaluation report). The evaluation design will include: (1) a detailed evaluation design matrix that links the Evaluation Questions in the SOW to data sources, methods, and the data analysis plan; (2) draft questionnaires and other data collection instruments or their main features; (3) the list of potential interviewees and sites to be visited and proposed selection criteria and/or sampling plan (must include calculations and a justification of sample size, plans as to how the sampling frame will be developed, and the sampling methodology); (4) known limitations to the evaluation design; and (5) a dissemination plan. 19 Data collection instruments will be shared with USAID’s Evaluation Program Manager for review, feedback and/or discussion and approval prior to start of fieldwork. o Skype Meeting with the Evaluation Manager: The evaluation team is expected to hold a meeting with the Evaluation Manager through Skype to discuss the status of data collection, any issues, and/or preliminary findings. o Skeletal Report and Debrief to Evaluation Manager and SEED COR: The evaluation team must present a skeletal report of main findings, conclusions and recommendations to the Evaluation Manager and the SEED COR within 7.5 weeks of the start of data collection. This debrief will be scheduled as agreed upon during the Team Planning Meeting. o Pre–Final presentation by the evaluation team: The evaluation team must present their final findings to the USAID/Egypt Office of Economic Growth and the Program Office the next day of submission of the skeletal report. o Final presentation by the evaluation team: Prior to the team leader’s departure, the evaluation team must present their final findings to the USAID/Egypt Mission within 5 business days after submitting the draft skeletal report. The Mission debriefing must include a discussion of achievements and issues as well as recommendations for the future activities designs and implementation. The team must consider any USAID/Egypt comments and revise the draft report as appropriate o Draft Evaluation Report: The evaluation team must submit a draft evaluation report within 10 business days after receiving USAID comments on the skeletal evaluation report. The draft evaluation report should be consistent with the guidance provided in Section IX: Final Report Format. The report will address each of the questions identified in the SOW and any other issues the team considers to have a bearing on the objectives of the evaluation. Any such issues can be included in the report only after consultation with USAID. o Mission Peer Review: The team leader will submit a draft report of findings as per the attached timeline, conclusions and recommendations to QED/SIMPLE for review and comment. Once the initial draft evaluation report is submitted and the pre-final presentation is held, the draft report must undergo a peer review and the Mission will have 10 business days in which to review and comment on the initial draft, after which point the Evaluation Manager will submit the consolidated comments to the evaluation team. The team must consider all USAID/Egypt comments when submitting the final evaluation report. o Final Report and data sets: QED will submit the final evaluation report to the USAID Evaluation Manager within five working days from receiving USAID’s comments. The written report must clearly describe findings, conclusions and recommendations for future programming. The submission date for final evaluation report will be determined in the evaluation work plan. The final report must be submitted within five business days from receiving USAID’s comments. The final report must not exceed 30 pages in length (not including appendices, lists of contacts, etc.). The format must include an executive summary, table of contents, glossary, methodology, findings, and conclusions. The report must be submitted initially in English, electronically, and later, an Arabic translation of the Executive Summary must be submitted within seven business days. All project evaluation 20 data and records will be submitted in full and should be in electronic form in easily readable format, organized and documented for use by those not fully familiar with the intervention or evaluation, and owned by USAID. At the time of submission of the final English language report, the survey instruments, interviews and data sets must be submitted on a flash drive to the evaluation program manager. USAID/Egypt intends to disseminate the report within USAID and to stakeholders. All quantitative data collected by the evaluation team must be provided in machine￾readable, non-proprietary formats as required by USAID’s Open Data policy (see ADS 579). The anonymized data should be organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the activity or the evaluation. USAID will retain ownership of the survey and all datasets developed. o Arabic Translation of the Executive Summary: After approval of the final report, the evaluation team must submit the Arabic translation of the Executive Summary within 5 working days from approving the evaluation report. o Infographics English and Arabic: After approval of the final report, the evaluation team must submit a maximum of two page infographic summarizing the main findings and other relevant information. USAID will have to review and approve. The infographic must be finalized within 6 working days from approving the evaluation report. o Debriefing with GOE counterparts: A debriefing with GOE counterparts will take place after the evaluation team has submitted the final report. The Evaluation Team will present the major findings of the evaluation to the GOE project counterparts and other relevant stakeholders. VII. EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION The team shall include the following personnel and all efforts should be made for the team to be comprised of a balanced number of male and female members. Key Personnel Evaluation Team Leader: The team leader should be an international expert with extensive experience in leading evaluation teams, and conducting monitoring and evaluation for activities related to promoting entrepreneurship and development MSMEs. Previous experience in conducting evaluations in the Middle East region is highly desirable. The team leader should have a background in economics and statistics with over 10 years of experience in designing monitoring and evaluation systems, leading data collection teams, analyzing data and summarizing findings. Team members: 1) Senior Enterprise Development Expert (Key): The Evaluation Team shall include a local Enterprise Development Expert. It is strongly recommended that the following characteristics be reflected in this Expert: fluency in Arabic and English languages; 8-10 years of past experience in monitoring and evaluation of enterprise development projects; extensive field experience in Egypt or the MENA region; strong written and verbal communication skills. 21 2) Mid-level Monitoring and Evaluation Expert (Key): The Evaluation Team shall include a local Monitoring and Evaluation Expert. The following characteristics must be reflected in this expert in order to maximize use of time and effectiveness of the survey: fluency in Arabic and English languages; 4-5 years past experience in monitoring and evaluation of enterprise development projects focusing on entrepreneurship and MSMEs; extensive field experience in Egypt; and strong written and verbal communication skills. 3) Senior Economist (Key): The Evaluation Team shall include a local Senior Economist. It is strongly recommended that the following characteristics be reflected in this Expert: fluency in Arabic and English languages; 8-10 years of past experience in economic data analysis and sustainable microeconomic and business models; extensive field experience in Egypt or the MENA region; strong written and verbal communication skills. 4) Non Key -The Local Logistics Coordinator: A local consultant will serve as local logistics coordinator. The person should be fluent in written and spoken Arabic. He/she will provide logistical, administrative, and clerical support to the team. He/she will have at least four years of experience in an administrative support role. All team members will be required to provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing any existing conflict of interest. The evaluation team shall demonstrate familiarity with USAID’s evaluation policies and guidance included in the USAID Automated Directive System (ADS) in Chapter 200. VIII. EVALUATION SCHEDULE Work is to be carried out over a period of approximately 17 weeks. Each week will be a 6 working day week. The following will be conducted: 1. Desk Review 2. Preparation for data collection tools 3. Team planning meeting with USAID including submission of the draft schedule of data collection interviews, draft methodology, and data analyses plan 4. Submission of final methodology, final schedule of data collection interviews and data analysis plan 5. Conduct data gathering 6. Conduct compilation and analysis 7. Oral Debriefing session with USAID 8. Draft Report and Executive Summary in English 9. USAID will provide written comments to the evaluation team as the per the draft report peer review outcome. USAID reviews within 5 business days from draft report submission 10. Final Report in English 11. Executive Summary in Arabic 12. Infographic in English 13. Infographic in Arabic 22 Illustrative Schedule Timing Proposed Activities from award date Important (Anticipated Considerations/Constraints Duration) 1 and half week Preparation of the work plan and 10 days LOE evaluation design 1/2 week USAID review of the work plan and Take into account availability evaluation design in the Mission 3 WORKING DAYS (in parallel to Get government approval to be able to Take into account government work plan travel to selected governorates and approval requirement for the preparation) preparations for data collection international team leader 0.17 week In-Briefing – Team planning meeting 1 day with USAID. 4 weeks Data Collection from selected Take into account the number governorates of sites, methods, sectors, etc. 3 weeks Data Analysis Take into account the number of sites, methods, sectors, etc. 0.5 week Skeletal Report of main 2 days findings/conclusions/recommendation 0.5 week USAID provides preliminary comments 2 days 0.25 week Pre-Final Presentation to USAID OEG 1 day PROG 0.5 week QED addresses the comments and revise 1 day presentation 0.25 week Presentation to the Mission 1 day 1 and ½ week Report writing Take into account the number of sites, methods, sectors, etc. 10 working days 1 week USAID review of Draft Report and the Take into account availability Executive Summary in the Mission 10 workings days) not to include in LOE , we include the timeline. 1 week Incorporate USAID comments and 6 working days prepare Final Report 1 week Translation of Executive summary and 6 working days for the two Submission of English Infographic 1 week Translation of Infographic 3 working days 1 week Presentation to the GOE and 2 working days Stakeholders 23 Estimated LOE in days by activity for a team of four LOE for LOE for LOE for LOE for Local LOE for Local Total Expat Local Task Enterprise Senior logistics LOE in Team Developmen M&E Economist Coordinato days Lead t Expert Expert r Travel to Egypt 2 0 0 0 0 2 Document review/desk review/draft work plan, 6 6 6 0 0 18 methodology and data collection tools Preparations for travel and organizing data collection (contracting 0 0 1 1 1 3 translators, vehicles, etc.) In-brief, Evaluation Design (including 6 6 6 4 0 22 meetings with USAID) Preparations for data 1 1 1 0 1 4 collection (scheduling) Data collection days for 24 24 24 24 24 120 5 governorates Data analysis(6 *3) 18 18 18 10 0 64 Skeletal Report and Briefing to the 2 2 2 2 0 8 Evaluation Manager and EG Office Final Presentation to 2 2 2 2 2 10 the Mission Draft final report and receiving comments from the EG Office 10 8 8 8 0 34 [including time for translation] Mission collects comments from various offices 10 days for 0 0 0 0 0 0 USAID but zero effort for the evaluation team Final report incorporating USAID 6 2 2 2 0 12 comments (Expat from 24 outside Egypt) De-briefing to GOE 0 2 2 2 0 6 Counterpart Infographics and translation of the 1 2 2 2 0 7 Executive Summary Expat depart Egypt 1 0 0 0 0 1 Totals 79 73 74 57 28 311 25 IX. FINAL REPORT FORMAT The evaluation final report should include an executive summary; background of the local context and the strategies/projects/activities being evaluated; the evaluation purpose and main evaluation questions; the methodology or methodologies; the limitations to the evaluation; findings, conclusions, and recommendations. For more detail, see “How-To Note: Preparing Evaluation Reports” and ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements. An optional evaluation report template is available in the Evaluation Toolkit. The executive summary should be 5-8 pages in length and summarize the purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, and recommendations and lessons learned (if applicable). The executive summary should also be translated in Arabic. The evaluation methodology shall be explained in the report in detail. Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (e.g., selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.) The annexes to the report shall include: ● The Evaluation SOW; ● All data collection and analysis tools used in conducting the evaluation, such as questionnaires, checklists, and discussion guides; ● All sources of information, properly identified and listed, including secondary literature review; ● Signed disclosure of conflict of interest forms for all evaluation team members, either attesting to a lack of conflicts of interest or describing existing conflicts of; ● Any “statements of difference” regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team; and ● Summary information about evaluation team members, including qualifications, experience, and role on the team. In accordance with ADS 201, the contractor will make the final evaluation reports publicly available through the Development Experience Clearinghouse within three months of USAID formal written approval of the final report (English only), executive summary (English and Arabic) and corresponding infographics (English and Arabic). 26 X. CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT Per ADS 201maa, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report, draft and final evaluation reports will be evaluated against the following criteria to ensure the quality of the evaluation report. 1 ● Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to objectively evaluate the strategy, project, or activity. ● Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly, and succinctly. ● The Executive Summary of an evaluation report should present a concise and accurate statement of the most critical elements of the report. ● Evaluation reports should adequately address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or the evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with USAID. ● Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information properly identified. ● Limitations to the evaluation should be adequately disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). ● Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions. ● Findings and conclusions should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. ● If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes or impact, they should also be separately assessed for both males and females. ● If recommendations are included, they should be supported by a specific set of findings and should be action-oriented, practical, and specific. XI. OTHER REQUIREMENTS The final evaluation report must be submitted to USAID/Egypt’s Evaluation Program Manager in electronic format (Microsoft Word) as well as printed and bound copies (five copies in English and two in Arabic for the executive summary. The Arabic translation of the executive summary must be submitted to USAID within 7 working days after USAID formal written approval of the evaluation report. The entire report must be no longer than 30 pages, single- spaced in Gill Sans MT font, size 12 type font. The evaluation report is not to exceed the 30 page and will serve as the document of reference for creating an Infographics version (English and Arabic) of the evaluation report. All data and materials are to be surrendered to and will remain the property of USAID. All quantitative data collected by the evaluation team must be provided in machine-readable, non￾proprietary formats as required by USAID’s Open Data policy (see ADS 579). The data should be organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the project or the evaluation. USAID will retain ownership of the survey and all datasets developed. 1 See ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements and the Evaluation Report Review Checklist from the Evaluation Toolkit for additional guidance. Economic Growth Office December 2017 27 XII. ANNEXES ANNEX 1: LOGFRAME LOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE SEED PROJECT Intervention logic Objectively verifiable Sources and means of Assumptions indicators of achievement verification Goal, - Increase - 1000 persons received - Employment Tracking - Increased employment Overall employment and new employment or sheet for all beneficiaries will generate objective income of better employment from all the project businesses, increase MSMEs and activities (tools: reports GDP and create entrepreneurs (including better self- from project partners, positive movement in employment) surveys, focus groups, the economy. phone calls) - Revenue growth - 30 % of revenue - Baseline assessment of illustrates sales growth in firms revenue for each firm increase and SEED will work with. development of the receiving USG Post assessment after market. assistance the intervention to measure revenue growth. (tools: reports from project partners, make use of a questionnaire through surveys, interviews, phone calls) - Increasing economic NOTE: this assessment growth and a - 30% of employment or baseline data will be strengthening job collected through the market growth in firms firms or MSMEs SEED is receiving USG partnering with. assistance - Baseline for employment statistics in each firm SEED will support. Post￾employment assessment to measure the growth after SEED’s assistance. (Tools: reports from project partners, make use of a questionnaire through surveys, interviews, phone calls) Purposes, R1: R 1: Indicator 1) 2000 USG R1: indicator 1): specific Entrepreneurship supported entrepreneurs - Tracking sheet for Improved business & objectives, skills and launched and/or grew their attendees of financial skills, as well as long term opportunities business models entrepreneurial incubators with improved outcomes expanded workshops, networking and diversified services will events and business plan help and motivate competitions to track entrepreneurs to start and 28 R 1: Indicator 2) 100 start-up enterprises supported and able to introduce new products to markets their progress ( tracking grow their business will be through online models. questionnaire, post￾workshops/events focus groups, phone calls, one to one meetings) - Reporting system Increased GOE capacity to (technical & financial) for understand and respond to the youth and women policy constraints will make network. (The reporting it easier for entrepreneurs system will be filled to start and run their offline or online by the business. entrepreneurs; members of the youth and women network. The report will have a set of indicators customized for each project to be able to measure the growth. - Reporting system for the associations and organizations supported through grants to measure their own growth and their entrepreneurs’ network growth - Tracking for the 150 enterprises which will be integrated in a larger supply chain R1: indictor 2): - Tracking sheet for attendees of entrepreneurial workshops, startups weekends and business plan competitions to track their progress ( tracking will be through online questionnaire, post- workshops/events focus groups, phone calls, one to one meetings) - Reporting system (technical & financial) for the youth and women network. (The reporting system will be filled offline or online by the 29 R 1: Indicator 3) 50 entrepreneurship events provided by USG assistance R 1: Indicator 4) 5000 entrepreneurs attended events and programs provided through USG assistance R 2 : indicator 1) 1050 private sector firms have improved management practices as a result of USG assistance startups; members of the youth and women network. The report will have a set of indicators customized for each startup to be able to measure their growth in term of products. - Reporting system for the associations and organizations supported through grants, to measure and assess the startups, which they are supporting. - Tracking for the Increased effectiveness of supported startups by the BDS providers & financial 3 pilot and 8 replicated associations will help incubators to count and MSMEs build business and assess their progress in management skills. term of introducing new products to market R 1: Indicator 3) & indicator 4): - Tracking sheet for all the entrepreneurship events which will contains the 50 entrepreneurship event, attendees’ names disaggregated by gender, age, governorate - Evaluation forms filled by the attendees, which measure their satisfaction on the events. R 2: indicator 1) Number of firms who directly benefited from SEED trainings, mentoring and coaching. In addition, number of firms who benefited from BDS Providers, OSSs and Financial Institutions that - Improved were supported through understanding of SEED market opportunities a Tools: pre & post prerequisite to assessment applied on any integration into value technical support from SEED chains 30 R 2: Financial and Non-Financial services expanded R 2 : indicator 2) 2000 microenterprises supported by USG enterprise assistance R 3 : indicator 1) 150 USG supported enterprises integrated with larger supply chains R 3: indicator 2) 20 private sector/associations received training on CSR programs that facilitate MSMEs training and investment in equipment and software. R 3: Integrated MSMEs to progressive value chains (training, mentoring, coaching, etc.). Tracking sheet for BDS providers: data will be gathered through surveys, reports, phone calls. Data will be disaggregated by gender, age (women or man owned firms) R2: indicator 2) Number of microenterprises receiving assistance through MSME Support Organization and then we add a definition for this in the Overarching Definitions section - Number of microenterprises benefited from supported BDS. Tools: reports from supported BDS. - Number of microenterprises supported by the selected grantees. Tools: quarter report from grantees. R 3: indicator 1) Copy of the signed contract between the MSMEs and the large firms will be gathered or signed sheet between the same two will be collected. R 3: indicator 2) Database for associations received training on CSR programs. Data will be collected through registration forms of trainings. 31 Sub- R 1.1 – Stimulated R 1.1: indicator 1) 3000 people Purposes, entrepreneurship accessed mentorship programs specific among women and objectives, youth Outputs R 1.1: indicator 2) 40% of female report an increase access to productive economic resources R 1.2: indicator 1) 8 incubators established or significantly expanded as a result of USG R 1.2 – Improved assistance availability and accessibility of entrepreneurship services, with focus on business incubators & R 1.2: indicator 2) 1000 accelerators entrepreneurs benefitted from incubators established or significantly assisted through USG activities R 2.1: indicator 1) 18 new BDS Centers established as a result of USG assistance R 2.1– Improved availability and accessibility of R 2.1: indicator 2) 20 BDS effective and providers were offered USG R1.1: indicator 1): Number of people will be counted through USAID’s SEED supported tools. Data will be disaggregated by gender, age and governorate. R1.1: indicator 2) record tracking for all females benefited from SEED activities (trainees, mentors, trainers, workers who receive training to improve their skills, females how get employed after getting those trainings, females how owned firms that received BDS and financial services). Tools: trainings & events registration forms, surveys or phone calls to track who is employed, Database for firms ‘owners that received BDS and financial services. R1.2: indicator 1) Tools: Incubators record sheet, incubators quarter reports. Data will be disaggregated by legal framework (University, NGO, associations, GOE), type of incubation program, governorates. R1.2: indicator 2) Tools: Database of entrepreneurs who benefited from new incubators established Tools: newly established incubators quarter reports. Data will be disaggregated by gender, age and governorate. R2.1: indicator 1) Tools: Database of existing and newly established Monitoring reports for BDS - Positive examples of successful entrepreneurs will stimulate women and youth’s interest in entrepreneurship - Improved business and skill among women and youth will stimulate women and youth’s interest in entrepreneurship and build confidence their ability to succeed as entrepreneurs - Incubators with improved and diversified services will better meet entrepreneurs’ needs - Specialized tools, coupled with outreach, will help disadvantaged communities overcome the cultural and spatial constraints to accessing incubator and accelerator services - Increased effectiveness of BDS providers will help MSMEs build business - Increased information on services and tools tailored to BDS providers will increase 32 efficient BDS assistance who starts providing uptake of BDS, leading services. Data will be to more MSMEs having disaggregated by location the business and and sector. financial skills to R 2.1: indicator 3) 12 of one￾succeed. stop shops (OSS) assisted R2.1: indicator 2) - Increased availability of and/or replicated through SEED Tools: record of BDS effective One-Stop activities providers assisted through shops will lead to training, IT solutions, etc. increased formalization data will be disaggregated by of MSMEs sector, governorate. R 2.1: indicator 4) 3000 R2.1: indicator 3) enterprises and MSMEs Tools: Record of newly accessed BDS services established OSSs and BDS supported by SEED centers Photos before & after, R 2.1: indicator 5) 4 days documentaries, case studies. Data will be disaggregated required to formalize a business by governorate. at Tamayouz Centers receiving USG support R 2.1: indicator 4) Tools: Supported OSS records/supported OSS reports. R2.1: indicator 5) Record tracking for supported Tamayouz center, random sample surveys - Increased capacity of gathered from beneficiaries banks, MFIs, investors, of supported Tamayouz and GOE to provide centers to measure finance will help satisfaction from the service MSMEs sustain and provided and days required grow registering a new company. R 2.2: indicator 1) Database sheet for - R 2.2: indicator 1) 5000 clients beneficiaries from supported Improved financial R 2.2– Improved financial services providers literacy will help availability and benefited from financial services through (financial literacy MSMEs take accessibility of provided through USG-assisted trainings, campaigns, advantage of available financial products financial intermediaries, nontraditional finance products and better run and services including non-financial promotional events, financial business institutions or actors capacity building assistance. R2.2: indicator 2) - Improved skills and R 2.2: indicator 2) 1000 tools are needed if Pre & post assessment for MSMEs are to MSMEs managers and MSMEs managers and capitalize on identified entrepreneurs benefitting from entrepreneurs who attended opportunities in value the financial literacy programs the financial literacy chains trainings, campaigns, events. 33 Conducting surveys, phone - Increased access to calls to their clients to finance will allow measure their satisfaction MSMEs to purchase from the service provided the inputs, hire the after receiving financial staff, and invest in the literacy programs. technology to capitalize on market R 3.1: indicator 1) opportunities Copy of the signed contract - Strategic partnerships R 3.1 – Integrated R 3.1: indicator 1) 150 USG between the MSMEs and the will form the basis of MSMEs to large firms will be gathered sustainable integration progressive value supported enterprises integrated or signed sheet between the of MSMEs into value chains with larger supply chains same two will be collected. chains R 3.1: indicator 2) - Increased GOE R 3.1: indicator 2) 20 private Database for associations capacity to understand received training on CSR and respond to policy sector/associations received programs. Data will be constraints will ease training on CSR programs that collected through registration MSMEs’ integration facilitate MSMEs training and forms of trainings. into progressive value investment in equipment and chains. software. 34 ANNEX 2: List of Governorates that SEED is working in City/ Governorate Type of Services Provided by SEED Cairo Business Plan Competitions, Incubators, BDS Alexandria Startup weekend, Business Plan Competitions, Incubators, BDS Sohag Networking events, BDS, OSS Assuit Incubators, BDS Aswan Business Plan Competitions. Financial Literacy, BDS Mansoura – Daqahleya Business Plan Competitions, OSS Luxor Networking events Mahala Kobra City & Tanta – Gharbeya Career Fair, Incubators Menya BDS Beni suef BDS Banha - Qalyoubia BDS & OSS Qena Incubators Suez Incubators Damietta Incubators 35 ANNEX 3: List of Counterparts and stakeholders - Academia Based Entrepreneurship Centers in various Universities - Ahead of the Curve (ATC) - Ain Shams University - Alashanik ya Baladi (AYB- SD) - Al-Azhar University in Qena - Al Esnawy for Information Technology and E-Trading - Alexandria Chamber of Commerce - Alexandria Businessmen Association (ABA) - Alexandria Businesswomen Association (ABWA) - Andalusia - Arab Academy for Scientific Research - Arab Academy for Science, Technology & Maritime Transport (AAST) - Arab Young Businessmen Association - Assuit Businessmen Association (ASBA) - Assiut University - Aswan Businessmen Association (ASBA) - Aswan Chamber of Commerce - AWTAD - Banque du Caire - Businesswomen of Egypt 21 (BWE 21) - Cairo Chamber of Commerce - Cairo University - Coptic Evangelical Organization for Social Services (CEOSS) - Egyptian Businessmen Association (EBA) - Egyptian Business women association (EBWA) - Egyptian Financial Supervisory Authority (EFSA) - Egyptian Junior Business Association (EJB) - Egyptian National Competitiveness Council (ENCC) - Egyptian Regulatory Reform and Development Activity (ERRADA) - Egyptian Textile Center (ETC) - Enpact - Entrepreneurship Business Forum in Alexandria - Etisal/EBNY - El-Kalla Foundation - Etijah - E-Youth - Federation of the Egyptian Industries (FEI) - General Authority for Free zone Investment (GAFI) - Ministry of Trade and Industry and Affiliated authorities/agencies (MTI, ITC, TTOs, etc.) - Markade - INJAZ - The British University in Egypt (BUE) - The Egyptian Center for Public Policy Studies (ECPPS) - Principal Bank for Development and Agriculture Credit (PBDAC) - The America University in Cairo Entrepreneurship Center (AUC) 36 - Suez University - Giza Systems Foundation - Startup Weekend - Heliopolis University in Cairo - Qalyoubia Chamber of Commerce - Sohag Chamber of Commerce - Mansoura Chamber of Commerce - Egyptian Banking Institute (EBI) - Industrial Training Council (ITC) - Knowledge Economy Foundation (KEF) - MTI, ICTI, Food Technology Center - US Soy Export Council (USSEC) - National Council for Women (NCW) - World Fish - The Ministry of Information Technology and Communication and Affiliated Agencies (TIEC) - Ministry Of Education (The Research Development and Innovation Programmed, an EU Funded Project which is managed by Ministry) - Ministry of Youth - Ministry of International Cooperation - Masr. Bokra - The American Chamber of Commerce - The Federation of Industries - The Middle East Council for Small Business & Entrepreneurship (MECSBE) - International Council For Businesses - Heya initiative - Masr El- Khair NGO, and in particular GESR program that aims at establishing innovation centers across Egypt - German University in Cairo Entrepreneurship - Nile University - Tanmeya - Reefy - EBI associated programs - KI Angel - Tamkeen - Union Capital - Lead Foundation - Innovety - Ispark - Hult Prize - Nahdet El- mahrousa - Horizon Interactive Company (Grantee) - Together Foundation (grantee) 37 ANNEX II: TABLES AND GRAPHS TABLE1: DATA FIELD SUMMARY RESPONDENT TYPE INITIAL POPULATION SIZE ADJUSTED POP. SIZE* TARGET POP./SAMPLE NUMBER AND % ATTAINED NUMBER OF TRIALS TO REACH Stakeholders (KIIs) 65 59 59 56 (95%) 60 SME beneficiaries Components A&B 354 188 63 86 (134%) 27 face-to￾face (paper and pencil) + 59 Phone surveys 90 SME beneficiaries Component C 263 199 67 49 (73%) All phone surveys 80 *After cleaning for duplication, completing missing data (where possible), and reorganizing the population frame by governorate and service TABLE 2: WHETHER RESPONDENTS SAW IMPROVED ACCESS FINANCIAL OR NONFINANCIAL BUSINESS SERVICES SINCE 2016 N % VALID % No improvement since the beginning of 2016 11 8.1 9.0 Some improvement since the beginning of 2016 97 71.9 79.5 Don’t know 8 5.9 6.6 Not applicable 6 4.4 4.9 Total 122 90.4 100.0 System Missing 13 9.6 Total 135 100.0 TABLE 3: RESPONDENTS’ NEED FOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES N % VALID % We require BDS and we are able to access all of the services we need 54 40.0 41.9 We require BDS but are unable to access all of the services we need 72 53.3 55.8 38 N % VALID % Don’t know 2 1.5 1.6 Not applicable, because we do not require any business development services 1 .7 .8 Total 129 95.6 100.0 System Missing 6 4.4 Total 135 100.0 TABLE 4: WHAT TYPES OF SERVICES RESPONDENTS SAID THEY NEED Entrepreneurshi p training Access to business mentors and advisors Access to expanded incubator services Access to technology transfer services (transferring know-how to entrepreneurs to commercialize new technology Improved understanding of starting a business by accessing OSS services N % N % N % N % N % No Need 6 5.8 1 .9 2 3.1 1 1.1 3 2.2 very low 3 2.9 1 .9 2 3.1 3 3.2 0 0 Low 3 2.9 6 5.3 2 3.1 3 3.2 1 .7 Average 16 15.5 22 19.3 8 12. 3 16 17.0 12 8.9 High 39 37.9 32 28.1 18 27. 7 28 29.8 8 5.9 Very High 34 33.0 49 43.0 31 47. 7 41 43.6 22 16.3 Don’t know 2 1.9 3 2.6 2 3.1 2 2.1 11 8.1 Total 103 100. 0 114 100.0 65 100 .0 94 100.0 57 42.2 39 TABLE 5: WHAT TYPES OF SERVICES RESPONDENTS SAID THEY NEED Support to attend sector exhibitions/ conferences Career fairs to find new employees Training to better understand how to access backward and forward value chain linkage partners Access to an online directory to find value chain partners New matchmaking events to introduce large companies to MSMEs to add them as suppliers MSME platform allowing companies to promote themselves online to buyers as suppliers Gender focused business strategy and financial products N % N % N % N % N % N % N % No Need 5 4.7 7 10.6 3 3.3 4 5.3 3 3.7 1 1.9 1 2.7 very low 0 0 1 1.5 3 3.3 2 2.7 0 0 1 1.9 2 5.4 Low 0 0 3 4.5 5 5.4 4 5.3 2 2.4 3 5.6 6 16.2 Average 12 11.2 15 22.7 19 20.7 11 14.7 8 9.8 6 11.1 7 18.9 High 20 18.7 17 25.8 23 25.0 21 28.0 18 22.0 7 13.0 10 27.0 Very High 70 65.4 23 34.8 39 42.4 32 42.7 50 61.0 36 66.7 11 29.7 Don’t know 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.3 1 1.2 0 0 0 0 Total 107 100.0 66 100.0 92 100.0 75 100.0 82 100.0 54 100.0 37 100.0 TABLE 6: WHAT IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT BDS SERVICE SEED COULD OFFER TO HELP GROW YOUR BUSINESS? N % Networking 36 27% Funding 46 34% E-Marketing/E-Commerce 33 24% Capacity Building 19 14% Technical Assistance 10 7% Improve requirements to form a company 1 1% Mentorship 1 1% Total 146 108% 40 TABLE 7: RESPONDENTS’ SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES Business incubatio n Technolog y Transfer Office Technology Innovation and Entrepreneurs hip Center MSME Devel. Agency Federatio n of Egyptian Industries TAMAYO UZ One￾Stop Shop Governme nt tenders under law 89 N % N % N % N % N % N % N % No Need 1 1.5 9 36.0 7 25.9 6 42.9 11 33.3 11 68.8 9 60.0 Very low 1 1.5 0 0 1 3.7 2 14.3 0 0 1 6.3 2 13.3 Low 4 5.9 1 4.0 5 18.5 1 7.1 1 3.0 0 0 1 6.7 Avera ge 11 16.2 5 20.0 8 29.6 1 7.1 7 21.2 2 12.5 1 6.7 High 33 48.5 4 16.0 4 14.8 2 14.3 5 15.2 2 12.5 2 13.3 Very High 18 26.5 6 24.0 2 7.4 2 14.3 9 27.3 0 0 Total 68 100. 0 25 100. 0 27 100.0 1 4 100. 0 33 100. 0 16 100. 0 15 100. 0 TABLE 8: HOW MANY RESPONDENTS EXPECT TO CONTINUE USING SERVICES AFTER SEED ENDS Business incubati on Technolo gy Transfer Office Technology Innovation and Entrepreneurs hip Center MSME Devel. Agency Federati on of Egyptian Industrie s TAMAYO UZ One￾Stop Shop Governme nt tenders under law 89 N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Yes 52 80.0 16 64.0 17 65.4 5 35.7 23 69.7 5 29.4 5 31.3 No 10 15.4 8 32.0 8 30.8 6 42.9 9 27.3 11 64.7 11 68.8 Unsur e 3 4.6 1 4.0 1 3.8 3 21.4 1 3.0 1 5.9 0 68.8 Total 65 100. 0 25 100. 0 26 100.0 1 4 100. 0 33 100. 0 17 100.0 16 100.0 41 TABLE 9: DID SEED INTERVENTIONS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INCREASE SALES? N % Valid % Yes 53 39.3 47.3 No 59 43.7 52.7 Total 112 83.0 100.0 System missing 23 17.0 Total 135 100.0 TABLE 10: WHICH SERVICE HELPED MOST TO INCREASE SALES? N % Valid % E-Marketing 5 3.7 9.1 Client/consumer analysis 11 8.1 20.0 Marketing 14 10.4 25.5 Capacity building 15 11.1 27.3 Networking 8 5.9 14.5 No changes 2 1.5 3.6 Total 55 40.7 100.0 System missing 80 59.3 Total 135 100.0 TABLE 11: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SALES INCREASES N % Valid % < 25% 14 44% 44% From 25-50% 7 22% 22% From 50-75% 8 25% 25% 75 and more 3 9% 9% Total 32 100% 100% 42 TABLE 12: DID ANY SEED INTERVENTIONS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INCREASE EMPLOYMENT? N % Valid % Yes 41 30.4 38.3 No 66 48.9 61.7 Total 107 79.3 100.0 System missing 28 20.7 Total 135 100.0 TABLE 13: WHICH SERVICE HELPED MOST TO INCREASE EMPLOYMENT? N % Valid % Client/consumer analysis 11 8.1 36.7 Technical assistance 2 1.5 6.7 Capacity building 10 7.4 33.3 Understand market dynamics 4 3.0 13.3 Business plan 1 .7 3.3 Law consultation 2 1.5 6.7 Total 30 22.2 100.0 System missing 105 77.8 Total 135 100.0 TABLE 14: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT INCREASE N % Valid % <5 workers 19 63% 63% 5 and more workers 11 37% 37% Total 30 100% 100% TABLE 15 BENEFICIARIES’ RATINGS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF UNDERSTANDING VALUE-CHAIN LINKAGES N % No Need 3 3.3 43 TABLE 156: WERE SEED SERVICE PROVIDERS’ RESPONSIVE TO YOUR QUESTIONS AND NEEDS DURING SEED SUPPORTED EVENTS? N % Valid % Yes 98 72.6 83.8 No 7 5.2 6.0 Don’t know 12 8.9 10.3 Total 117 86.7 100.0 System missing 18 13.3 Total 135 100.0 TABLE 1716: DO YOU SEE ANY EVIDENCE THAT YOU WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE SERVICES SEED HAS BEEN PROVIDING? N % Valid % Yes 83 61.5 70.9 No 18 13.3 15.4 Don’t know 16 11.9 13.7 Total 117 86.7 100.0 System missing 18 13.3 Total 135 100.0 TABLE 18: WHY RESPONDENTS EXPECT TO STILL HAVE ACCESS TO SERVICES AFTER THE SEED PROGRAM HAS FINISHED N % Valid % Availability of space & the incubator 10 7.4 19.6 very low 3 3.3 Low 5 5.4 Average 19 20.7 High 23 25.0 Very High 39 42.4 Total 92 100.0 44 Availability of other BDS service providers 16 11.9 31.4 Availability of networks 12 8.9 23.5 Availability of staff 5 3.7 9.8 Lack to reach disadvantaged communities 2 1.5 3.9 Request support 1 .7 2.0 The success of the project 1 .7 2.0 Lack of services 3 2.2 5.9 Advanced services 1 .7 2.0 Total 51 37.8 100.0 System missing 84 62.2 Total 135 100.0 TABLE 19: ANNUAL SALES TURNOVER IN EGYPTIAN POUNDS N % Valid % Less than 50,000 19 14.1 38.8 50,001 – 250,000 5 3.7 10.2 250,001 – 500,000 8 5.9 16.3 500,001 or higher 17 12.6 34.7 Total 49 36.3 100.0 System missing 86 63.7 Total 135 100.0 45 FIGURE 1: POPULATION AND SAMPLE BY GOVERNORATE FIGURE 2: RESPONDENTS BY GENDER FIGURE 3: RESPONDENTS BY AGE 244 45 12 10 22 10 5 39 83 27 6 3 5 2 3 6 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Cairo Alex Gharbia Qluobia Assuit Menya Aswan Other Population Sample 76% 24% Male Female 55% 45% Less than 3 0 years old 30 years or older 46 FIGURE 4: RESPONDENTS BY EDUCATION LEVEL FIGURE 5: RESPONDENTS BY WHETHER OR NOT THEY STARTED THEIR BUSINESS WITH SEED’S ASSISTANCE FIGURE 6: RESPONDENTS BY HOW MUCH IMPROVEMENT THEY’VE SEEN IN THEIR ABILITY ACCESS FINANCIAL OR NONFINANCIAL BUSINESS SERVICES 9% 77% 14% Completed secondary school (high school) Completed university Completed post graduate studies 20% 80% Started with SEED assistance My business already existed 9% 79% 8 6 No improvement since the beginning of 2016 Some improvement since the beginning of 2016 Don’t know Not applicable 47 FIGURE 7: RESPONDENTS BY NEED AND ACCESS TO BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FIGURE 8: WHICH SEED INTERVENTION HELPED MOST TO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INCREASE YOUR SALES? 42% 56% 2 1 We require BDS and we are able to access all of the services we need We require BDS but are unable to access all of the services we need Don’t know Not applicable, because we do not require any business development services 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 5 11 14 15 8 2 48 FIGURE 9: REASONS RESPONDENTS WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE ACCESS TO SERVICES ONCE THE SEED PROGRAM HAS FINISHED FIGURE 10: ENTREPRENEURSHIP NEEDS RANKED "VERY HIGH" IN DISADVANTAGED GOVERNORATES 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 .0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Entrepreneurship training Access to business mentors and advisors Access to expanded incubator services Access to technology transfer services Improved understanding of starting a business by accessing OSS services 31.8% 42.6% 42.0% 38.9% 37.7% 37.0% 45.0% 66.7% 70.6% 45.5% Cairo/Alex/Giza Other Governorates 49 FIGURE 11: BDS NEEDS RANKED "VERY HIGH" IN DISADVANTAGED GOVERNORATES FIGURE 12: ENTREPRENEURSHIP NEEDS RANKED "VERY HIGH" BY GENDER .0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% Sector exhibitions/ conferences Career fairs Training to access backward and forward value chain linkage partners Access to an online directory to find value chain partners New matchmaking events to add companies as suppliers Access to an MSME platform to promote online to buyers Access to focused business strategy/financial Products 61.8% 29.8% 35.1% 42.2% 58.5% 63.4% 17.2% 83.3% 66.7% 80.0% 45.5% 70.6% 76.9% 75.0% Cairo/Alex/Giza Other Governorates .0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Entrepreneurship training Access to business mentors and advisors Access to expanded incubator services Access to technology transfer services Improved understanding of starting a business by accessing OSS services 32.5% 43.5% 53.3% 41.1% 34.8% 38.1% 41.4% 35.0% 52.4% 40.0% Male Female 50 FIGURE 13: BDS NEEDS RANKED "VERY HIGH" BY GENDER FIGURE 14: POTENTIAL INCREASES IN SALES AND EMPLOYMENT PER BENEFICIARIES IN COMPONENTS A AND C .0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Sector exhibitions/ conferences Career fairs Training to access backward and forward value chain linkage partners Access to an online directory to find value chain partners New matchmaking events to add companies as suppliers Access to an MSME platform to promote online to buyers Access to focused business strategy/financial Products 65.9% 34.0% 39.7% 43.3% 56.3% 60.5% 20.0% 64.0% 38.5% 50.0% 40.0% 77.8% 81.3% 50.0% Male Female .0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Potential to increase in Sales Potential to increase in Employment 51.5% 42.2% 40.9% 32.6% Compoment C Component A 51 ANNEX III: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS TABLE 17: DATA FIELD SUMMARY Respondent Type Initial Population Size Adjusted Pop. Size* Target Pop./Sample Number and % attained Number of trials to reach Stakeholders (KIIs) 65 59 59 56 (95%) 60 SME beneficiaries Components A&B 354 188 63 86 (134%) 27 face-to￾face(paper and Pencil) + 59 Phone surveys 90 SME beneficiaries Component C 263 199 67 49 (73%) All via phone surveys 80 Data Collection Methodology Data collection methods and tools were selected to ensure sufficient variation to reach the geographically dispersed populations of SEED stakeholders and beneficiaries. The SIMPLE team relied on five data collection methods: • Key informant interviews (KIIs) for stakeholders/partners with a mix of open and closed￾ended questions. Four tools were developed: 1] BDS/OSS/incubators/financial institutions 2] Government entities 3] USAID/AECOM subcontractors 4] large-value chain companies. • Pencil and paper questionnaires for beneficiaries also with a mix of question types but with more closed than open-ended questions. Two tools were developed: 1] MSMEs involved in component A and component B activities and 2] SMEs involved in component C activities. • Group discussion protocol for beneficiaries with open-ended questions. Two questionnaires were developed in a single tool: 1] 11 questions for start-ups and 2] 13 questions for ongoing MSMEs. • Telephone interview protocol for beneficiaries with one questionnaire derived from and shorter than the pencil and paper beneficiary questionnaires. • Validation workshops involving small group meetings with component leaders to validate or invalidate core findings. In some cases, these meetings also illuminated new findings. Telephone interviews were used to supplement data collection methods, as difficulties were initially encountered in achieving the planned sampling rates for component C beneficiaries (see Figure 1 for planned versus actual response rates). The difficulties are elucidated in a following section, Data Collection Limitations and Challenges. While the team considered using online surveys, it became clear that the beneficiary data provided by SEED did not consistently reveal governorates and email addresses for beneficiaries, both of which are necessary for sampling and conveyance of a link for online survey access. Therefore, no attempt was made to conduct an online survey. 52 Data Collection Limitations and Challenges Two desk reviews were required, which compressed the team planning phase. Altering the evaluation time frame ending from November 2017 to April 2018 was an appropriate decision, because it allowed the evaluation team to reflect on significant changes in SEED program momentum that took place since the end of 2017. It also, however, created a significant challenge to the team by greatly compressing the desk review and team planning phases. The desk review was initially completed during the scheduled five-day time frame leading up to the team planning workshop, then redone once it became apparent that a significant share of SEED’s program activities had occurred after November 2017. In effect, the desk review needed to be completed twice, with the latter effort extending well into the team planning workshop phase, as requests for new SEED activity reports continued to trickle in. The additional desk review resulted in a more compressed data collection planning phase for the evaluation team, but it has not compromised or limited the accuracy of the data. Other challenges are categorized as 1] logistical 2] Ramadan/Eid-based and 3] resulting from poor SEED data management. Logistical challenges and some stakeholders being unaware of the evaluation team’s mission hampered scheduling efforts from the outset for two primary reasons: SEED has no regional presence or offices at which to work or hold meetings, and there is an apparent lack of relationship-building between SEED and some of its stakeholders/intermediaries. This is evidenced by the fact that the evaluation team’s scheduler was exposed to uncooperative stakeholders and/or negative comments in at least seven instances. These factors made arranging meetings more difficult and time consuming than could have reasonably been predicted, both in and outside of Cairo. After the initial team meeting between the SEED and the evaluation teams, a consensus was reached that SEED would make the first contact to its stakeholders to notify them of the forthcoming meeting requests. It was also agreed that during these initial contacts by SEED, stakeholders would be asked to assist in setting up meetings with beneficiaries. However, when the SIMPLE scheduler began making what were intended to be follow-up calls, it became apparent in some cases that stakeholders were being contacted for the first time. This irritated some stakeholders, delayed others, and in some cases, virtually eliminated any chance of contacting their beneficiaries. In one series of emails, a SEED stakeholder/intermediary and two evaluation team members copied a SEED Component A Leader three times in 10 days in a attempt to get her to respond to her own stakeholder, which she never did. Such logistical and coordination challenges led to fewer beneficiary pencil and paper questionnaires being completed as well as fewer group discussions. This could have limited research, because considerably more telephone interviews were required. However, due to the perseverance of the evaluation team’s telephone interviewers and their success in reaching respondents, the impact of the dearth of pencil and paper respondents became negligible. The timing of Ramadan and Eid also represented a challenge to the evaluation team, as the holidays shortened respondents’ workdays and eliminated at least two full days of data collection. Typically, at least three meetings per day would be feasible during the data collection phase. However, due to the logistical difficulties encountered with SEED stakeholders (noted above) and the shorter work days of Ramadan, only two meetings per day, per team, were generally feasible. This situation caused increased scheduling difficulties and fewer daily respondents, which put a greater weight on telephone contacts. To mitigate these challenges, the evaluation team added three telephone questionnaire specialists and asked the three enumerators to also conduct calls between meetings. 53 Duplications, incomplete information and delays receiving beneficiary lists and other documentation occurred throughout the process. The CoP and M&E Manager were very responsive, while other staff were less consistent. The new management has undertaken significant improvements by which M&E data are collected and tracked; however, the legacy of a system wherein each component uses multiple spreadsheets to track its own activities is slow to change. There is no central MIS that cuts across all departments allowing, for instance, a unique identifier for each stakeholder and beneficiary. This leads to difficulties developing basic reports (by stakeholder, beneficiary, region, activity type), because data are not standardized, often incomplete and/or duplicated across various reports. It also complicated the evaluation team’s task, because considerable cleaning and sorting of beneficiary lists was necessary. These factors created a data limitation, as some beneficiaries were not selected for sampling simply because contact information was incomplete. 54 ANNEX IV: DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE Data Collection Schedule Field￾work Day # Six-day Work Week Gov. Gov. Gov. Gov. Activity Team A Activity Team B Activity Team C Activity Team D (Sat. - Thu.) Team A (Hayley, Mohamed) Team B (Bassem, Mariam) Team C (Youmna, May) Team D (Amany, Soheir) Data Collection Dates Day 1 Sunday, June 3 Cairo Cairo Cairo Cairo 10:30 AM - KII Nissan - (Mohamed Shaltoot) 1:00 PM - KII GM - (Shady Baher + Mohamed Abdel Rahman + Khaled Abdel Rahman) 10:00 AM - KII Horizon Interactive - (Manal Abou Elgheet 01223400932) 2:00 PM - KII Egyptian Center for Public Policies Studies (ECPPS) - (Ahmed Abdel Wahab 01006853706) 11:00 AM - KII Ispark - (Mostafa Hashisha 01094822556) 55 Day 2 Monday, June 4 Cairo Cairo Cairo Cairo 10:30 AM - KII FINBI - (Ahmed Naguib 01227965125) - 8 El Sad El Aaly st., Dokki 1:30 PM - KII British University Egypt (BUE) - (Ahmed Saleh 01067855866) - Suez road, EL Sherouk City, Gate 1, Building D, floor 1, room 207 10:00 AM - KII Telecom Egypt - (Medhat Shaheen 01021622688) - Maadi Satellite Station, El Nadi El Gedid st., Maadi 11:00 AM - KII Fashion and Design Centre - (Aida Zayed 01222270040) - 8 Sharekat st., Textile Holding Co., floor 2, Abdeen 3:00 PM - KII Yalla Nsadar - (Tarek Hosny 01225013834) - 6th of October City - District 6, Egyptian Export Development Authority Building 10:30 AM - KII Academy of Science Research & Technology (ASRT) - (Amr Farouk 01066187220) - 101 Kasr Al Aini st., Cairo 2:00 PM - KII Istebdaa Yomkem - (Tamer Taha 01006011223) - 24 Hussein Hegazi st., off Kasr El Aini st., beside B-TEC Day 3 Tuesday, June 5 Cairo Aswan (Travel to Aswan in the morning) Cairo Cairo 11:00 AM - KII MSMEDA - (Heba Gamea) 12:00 - KII USAID - (Ingi Lotfi) 10:00 AM - KII Aswan Businessmen Association - (Mamdouh Sakr 01000074818 - 01111127136) - Atlas, Building 8, floor 1 12:00 - KII Aswan Fishermen Association 11:00 AM - KII Yadawee Company - (Hisham El-Gazzar 01006688860) - (Ramy Hassan 01063222587) - Block 90, Touristic District 4, 6th October City 1:00 PM - KII Nile University - (Mohamed Gouda 01114156734) - Juhayna Square, Sheikh Zayed 10:00 AM - KII Credit Guarantee Company (CGC) - (Nagla Bahr 02 33379402) - 92, Tahrir st., Saridar Tower, Dokki Travel to Alexandria Tuesday by Car (5 June) - Team A and C 56 Day 4 Wednesday, June 6 Alexandria Aswan Alexandria Cairo 1:00 PM - icealex (Ahmed Bastawy 01063422046) - (Manar 01228127242) - 47, Al Iskandar Al Akbar st., off Sotar Tram Station, Azarita, beside Mobil Petrol Station 1:00-2:00 PM KII with Mangt Team 2:30-3:30 (1st group) 4:00-5:00 (2nd group) GD + Survey 10:00 AM - KII ABA MFI - (Magdy Mousa 01223120655) (Ibrahim Melook 01147981877) - 52, El Horreya road, Fouad st., floor 2 1:00 PM - KII Alex Business Women Association (ABWA) - (Alia 01223383958) - 47 Victor Emmanuel st., Smouha, infront of zahran market cancelled 11:00 AM - KII Ministry of Trade and Industry - Dalia Salem - Senior Assistant Minister for Inter. Cooperation Affairs 1:00 PM - KII Arab Academy of Science & Technology (AAST) - (Wael El Dessouki 011110905111) - Sheraton Heliopolis Travel to Cairo (6 June) - Team B and C May 5 Thursday, June 7 Alexandria Cairo Cairo Cairo 10:00 AM - KII Plastics Technology Center (PTC) - (Nagwa El Menawy 01065521034) - 25, Zaki Attallah st., Vectoria 11:00 AM - KII CEOSS - (Ireny 01280303597) - Block 1331, Dr. Ahmed Zaki st., Elnozha Elgedida 11:00 AM - EBNI Cairo - (Ashraf Ali 01006222105) - 22, Desouk st., off El￾Imam Ali, Almazah, Heliopolis KII + Entrepreneurs/MSME s GD + Survey 11:00 AM - KII Ministry of Investment, General Authority for Free Zone Investment (GAFI) - (Eman Moustafa 01008722154) 3, Salah Salem st., next to Ard El Maared, Nasr City 1:30 PM - KII Hult Prize - (Amr Mashaly 01000440564), AUC, New Cairo Travel to Cairo (7 June) - Team A 57 Day 6 Saturday, June 9 Team Meeting - CDS Office Fieldwo rk Day # Six-day Work Week Gov. Gov. Gov. Gov. Activity Team A Activity Team B Activity Team C Activity Team D (Sat. - Thu.) Team A (Hayley+ Mohamed) Team B (Bassem+ Mariam) Team C (Youmna+ May) Team D (Amany+ Soheir) Data Collection Dates Travel to Assiut and Sohag (Monday June 10) - Team B Day 7 Sunday, June 10 Cairo Sohag Qualiubya Banha+ Shubra Cairo 10:00 AM - KII StartUp Weekend - (Mahmoud El Kilany 01144088390) - (Wessam Ahmed 01114545878) - Office under renovation/ meeting at workingspace: 90, road 9, Maadi 1:00 PM - KII TetraPak - (Marwa Salem 01091505980) - Block 72, City Center, floor 3, Teseen st., beside Banking Center, New Cairo 12:00 - KII OSS I - Eng. Ahmed Elnazer, Chairman 1:30 PM - KII OSS I staff 9:30 AM - KII OSS III - (Islam Abdel Haq 01224654020) - Saad Zaghloul sq., Banha 11:30 AM - KII OSS II - Eastern Shubra, Bahteen, 10:00 AM - KII Central Bank of Egypt (CBE) - (Nermine El Tahry) - 54, El Gomhoreya st., Downtown, floor4, room 412 12:00 - KII Egyptian Regulatory Reform and Development Activity (ERRADA) - (Ahmed Abdel Hameed 01000778853) - 2, Latin America, Garden City, Cairo “MTI building” 58 Day 8 Monday, June 11 Cairo Assiut Gharbiya Tanta (Meeting will be held in Cairo, National Research Centre) Cairo 10:30 AM - Debriefing - QED Rep office 12:30 - KII Egyptian Chamber of Apparel and Home Textile Industries (ECAHT) - (Mahmoud Safwat 01277755525 - 01202729999) - 53, ElGezerah Towers, Cornish Maadi, beside ElSalam Hospital 10:00 AM - KII with Ahmed Abbas, Assuit Businessmen Association 11:30 AM - KII with Wael Kheirldien, ITTU GM, Assuit University 12:30 - KII with Mohamed Yassin, Hemma Incubator, Assuit University 1:30 PM - Survey with Hemma Incubatees 2:30 PM - GD with Hemma Incubatees (MSMEs) 10:00 AM - Tanta Textile - (Tamer Hamouda 01222122277) - National Research Centre, 33, El Buhouth st., Dokki, "Textile Industry Researches" KII + Entrepreneurs/MSME s GD + Survey 9:30 AM - KII Textile Development Center - (Wael Radwan 01007921822 - 27930992) - 27 A, Abdel Khalek Tharwat, Downtown 12:00 - KII Chamber of Chemical Industries - (Diaa ElDine Khalifa 01006054004) - (Aliaa Aly 01062747405) 1195 Nile Cornish st., Federation of Egyptian Industries, floor 7, Ramlet Boulaq 59 Day 9 Tuesday, June 12 Cairo Travel from Assiut to Cairo - Flight arrives Cairo Airport 09:10AM Cairo Cairo 10:30 AM - KII Food Export Council - (Tameem El Dawy 01000861400) - 69 B, road 15, infront of Embassy of Maqdounia, Maadi 1:00 PM - KII RITSEC (Startup Institute) - (Noha Rabie 01005251505) - 11 A, Hassan Sabry st., Zamalek 11:00 AM - KII Ain Shams University (Maged Ghoneima 01067937770), Faculty of Engineering, Abdou Basha, Abaseya, "New Building", room 934 1:30 PM - KII Cairo University, Faculty of Economics & Political Sceince - (Heba Zaki 01227339384), floor 2, room 40 10:00 AM - EYouth (Mustafa Abdel Latif 01220302038) - 14 Gawad Hosny st., Abdeen, floor 6 KII + Entrepreneurs/MSME s GD + Survey 10:00 AM - KII Egyptian National Competitiveness Council (ENCC) - (Heba Zayed 01001407613) - 77, Syria st., floor 7, Mohandeseen 1:00 PM - KII Industrial Development Agency (IDA) - (Hussein ElGarhy 01006031222) - MoF Towers, Abbasseya, Tower 5, floor 14 Day 10 Wednesday, June 13 Cairo Cairo Cairo Cairo 10:00 AM - Heliopolis University - (Islam Mohamed 01007200116) - Belbeis Desert road, El-Nahda, El Salam KII + Entrepreneurs/MSM Es GD + Survey 11:00 AM - KII Agricultural Bank (Basma) - Nadi ElSaied st., Dokki 1:00 PM - KII Nileprenure - (Sahar Monier) - Nile University, Juhayna Square, Sheikh Zayed 10:00 AM - Injaz (Rafik Samy 01001088355) - 52, Maadi Corniche, Al Sharifain Building, floor 9 GD + Survey (cancelled) KII completed on phone 10:30 AM - KII Industrial Development Agency (IDA) - (Amany Moamen 01001648895) - Plot 42, North Tesaeen st., New Cairo 1:00 PM - KII Federation of Egyptian Industries - (Hoda Al Marghany 01223729869) - 1195 Nile Corniche, Boulaq, Floor 3 60 Day 11 Thursday, June 14 Cairo Cairo Cairo Cairo 10:30 AM - KII Daltex Corporation - (Hend Kassab 01220670198) - 42, Wadi ElNile st., floor 2, Mohandeseen 4:00 PM - KII CIB (Noha Shaker 01000059976) KII completed on phone 10:00 AM - Nahdet Misr - (Maged Harby 01004777786) - 21, Ahmed Oraby st., floor 4, Mohandseen KII + Entrepreneurs/MSME s GD + Survey 10:00 AM - KII Financial Regulatory Authority (FRA) - (Khaled Nashar) - (Christine Bishara 01224455825) 136B - smart village, Banks area Confirmed on phone 12:30 - KII National Council for Women (NCW) - (May Mahmoud 01223947444) - 11, Abd El Razik El￾Sanhory st., Makram Abeid, Nasr City Eid vacation 15, 16, 17 June Day 12 Monday, June 18 Cairo Cairo Cairo Cairo KII SEED Management (COP) KII SEED Management (Component A) KII SEED Management (Enabling Env.) KII SEED Management (Component A) KII SEED Management (ICT) KII SEED Management (Component C) KII SEED Management (M&E Manager) KII SEED Management (Gender Manager) 61 Day 13 Tuesday, June 19 Cairo Cairo Cairo Cairo KII 10th of Ramadan Investors Association - (Eng. Zakria Morkos 01090044321) - 10th of Ramadan City, infront of ElKafrawy Garden 62 ANNEX V: TIMELINE 63 ANNEX VI: BIBLIOGRAPHY List of External Documents Reviewed for the Evaluation Work Ministry of Trade and Industry. Industry and Trade Development Strategy, Washington DC: 2016. Women Output WEN Steering Committee Memorandum, Washington DC: December, 2017. USAID. USAID Final Performance Evaluation of Tackling Youth Employment in Tunisia. Washington DC: June, 2016. Washington DC: Midterm Performance Evaluation of the Biz + Program, Sri Lanka. December, 2017. _____. Performance Evaluation of Regional Economic Growth (REG) Project, Eastern Europe. Washington DC: October, 2017. _____. Final Performance Evaluation of the USAID Jordan Youth for the Future (Y4F) Project. Washington DC: November, 2014. _____. Midterm Evaluation of USAID Micro and Small Enterprise Program (MSEP), Macedonia. Washington DC: November, 2015. _____. USAID/Morocco Gender Analysis (Final) 2018. Washington DC: March, 2018. _____. Midterm Performance Evaluation for USAID Private Sector Development in South and Southwest Serbia Project (PSD). Washington DC: April, 2016. _____. Midterm Evaluation of USAID Private Sector Development in South and Southwest Serbia Project (PSD). Washington DC: October, 2007. _____. Midterm Evaluation of USAID Youth: Work Jordan (YWJ) Project, Washington DC: July, 2011. SEED Annual and Quarterly Reports AECOM. SEED Annual Report, Year 2. Washington, DC: USAID, December, 2016. _____. SEED Annual Report, Year 2. Washington, DC: USAID, 2017. _____. SEED Quarterly Report, Year 3, Quarter 2. Washington, DC: USAID, May, 2018. _____. SEED Quarterly Report, Year 3, Quarter 1. Washington, DC: USAID, March, 2018. _____. SEED Quarterly Report, Year 1, Quarters 1 & 2. Washington, DC: USAID, May, 2016. SEED Activity Documents AECOM. SEED Monitoring & Evaluation Plan. Washington DC: 2016. _____. SEED Final Draft MEL Plan 2018, Washington DC: April, 2018. _____. SEED Monitoring and Evaluation Component Roles. Washington DC: 1.3.0, May 2018 _____. SEED Stakeholders Listing, May 2018. _____. SEED Financial Literacy Program Manual: Washington DC: Volume 1: Non-Bank Financial Services and Volume 2 Bank Financial Services, 2017. _____. SEED Intervention Process Flow 1.0.0. Washington DC: May, 2018. _____. SEED REID Screening Tool 1.0.0. Washington DC: May, 2018. _____. SEED Midterm Evaluation Statement of Work (SOW). Washington D.C: _____. SEED Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (AMELP). Washington D.C: _____. SEED Business Plan Competition & Startup Weekend Tracker 3.2.0. Washington D.C: May, 2018 _____. SEED Summary Analysis of Value Chains and Priorities for Interventions. Washington D.C: September, 2016. 64 _____. SEED Deliverables Definition Reference Sheet – Performance Standards 1.6.0. Washington D.C: May, 2018. _____. SEED Job Descriptions and Organization Chart. Washington D.C: May, 2018. _____. SEED Year 3 Work Plan Narrative Final. Washington D.C: May, 2018. _____. SEED Sustainability Plan Final. Washington D.C: January, 2018. _____. SEED Gender Action Plan Draft. Washington D.C: April, 2018. SIMPLE. SEED Data Quality Analysis, March 4, 2018 Alexander, Hayley. SIMPLE Memorandum of SEED Validation Workshop. June, 2018 65 ANNEX VII: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS Following is the full text (translated into English) of surveys, interview protocols, and discussion protocols used by the evaluation team during data collection. These instruments are listed below. Paper and Pencil Questionnaires and Telephone Surveys Tool 1 MSME Beneficiaries Questionnaire Tool 2 Value-Chain MSMEs Questionnaire Tool 3 MSME Beneficiaries Telephone Survey Key Informant Interview Protocols Tool 4 Protocol for Key Informant Interview with Incubators/BDS/OSS/Financial Institutions Tool 5 Protocol for Key Informant Interview with Government Organizations Tool 6 USAID Meeting Key Informant Interview Protocol Tool 7 Protocol for Key Informant Interview of Large Businesses Value Chains Group Discussions Tool 8 Startups/Youth/Entrepreneurs/MSMEs Group Discussion The Arabic version of these instruments follow the English version. 66 TOOL 1: MSME BENEFICIARIES QUESTIONNAIRE Quest. ID Questionnaire for MSME beneficiaries (not for value chain beneficiaries) Date of the meeting: ______/________/______ Time of the meeting: Hour Interviewer/ other team members: Notes taken by: Place of meeting: Introduction Thank you for agreeing to meet with us today. USAID/Egypt has contracted this evaluation team through the SIMPLE Project (Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation) to conduct a mid-term evaluation of the USAID SEED program (Strengthening Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development). We are part of this evaluation team and this visit is part of the evaluation work. You have been asked to participate in this discussion because you are considered an important stakeholder in SEED’s activities. Your participation in this discussion will contribute to the evaluation findings and recommendations for the assessment team. The evaluation will be used to recommend implementation adjustments in SEED’s remaining performance period including how to address current challenges and further strengthen the activity. In this respect, the evaluation team confirms that the information you provide in this meeting will be handled by only the evaluation team in complete confidentiality and that reporting of the study will be anonymized. The discussion should require between 30 and 45 minutes, and your participation in this meeting is totally optional. Thank you for your valued contribution to this important initiative. 1. Beneficiary Demographics and SEED Engagement 1. Name of company (if any) 2. Name of interviewee 3. Title 4. Gender Male .……………………………………….……..… ….. 1 67 Female ………………………………….………….... … 2 5. Age 6. Location (Governorate) 7. Type of company Producer/manufacturer………………..……. ……1 Distributor…………………………………… ………..…2 Retailer…………………………..…………… …………..3 Service……....................................................4 Other ___________________________……5 8. Number of employees 9. Number of female employees 10. Annual sales turnover in Egyptian pounds 11. Main type(s) of interaction with SEED (Circle all that apply) • Received training or technical assistance for an ongoing business…………………………………… ..…..1 • Received entrepreneurship or start up help………………………….…………… ……..…2 • Participated in sales or linkage events……………………….…………... ……….3 • Other____________________...........4 12. Duration of involvement with SEED: (month/year to month/year or continuing) _______/________ to _______/________ 13. If involvement with SEED is not continuing, please briefly indicate 1 or 2 reasons why? __________________________________ __________________________________ ________ 2. Section 2: Access to Financial and Nonfinancial Services [EQ1a & EQ1b] [EQ4] Serial Question Answer Skip Financial Services 2.1 How would you describe your need for financial services from banks, MFIs, investors, consultants and financial intermediaries? EQ1a We require financial services and are able to access all of the services we need 1 68 We require financial services but are unable to access all of the services we need 2 2.7 Don’t know 3 Not applicable because we don’t require any financial services 4 2.2 Have you seen any improvement in your ability to access financial services since the beginning of 2016? EQ1a, EQ1b No improvement since the beginning of 2016 1 Some improvement since the beginning of 2016 2 Don’t know 3 Not applicable 4 2.3 Which types of financial services do you most require now or in the coming year? (Circle all that apply) EQ1a, EQ1e Microfinance loans (less than 100,000 LE) 1 Short term credit or cash flow financing 2 Long term credit for investment in facilities, machinery or equipment 3 Equity and angel investors to invest in your company 4 Consulting assistance for business plans and/or feasibility studies to help access credit 5 Other_________________________ _____ 6 Don’t know 7 Not applicable 8 2.4 Which of the following financial services provided by the SEED program have you used and how would you rate their usefulness in helping you access financing? (Circle any that apply then rate according to 0 being not useful and 5 being most useful) EQ1a, EQ1e Service Usefulness scale (5 is most useful) a. Investment linkage forums 0 1 2 3 4 5 69 b. Financial literacy training 0 1 2 3 4 5 c. Financial modules presented during entrepreneurship training 0 1 2 3 4 5 d. Events to link MSMEs with financial providers or investors 0 1 2 3 4 5 e. Linkages with consultants or financial intermediaries 0 1 2 3 4 5 f. I have applied for or received a grant 0 1 2 3 4 5 g. Other ___________________________ __________ 0 1 2 3 4 5 h. Not applicable because we have not used any SEED financial services ………………………….……………………………… …..…………………. 1 2.6 2.5 For those service(s) in Q2.4 which received a rating of 3 or less, indicate how you believe SEED could make them more useful to your needs. EQ1a, EQ1e Service How to make the services more useful a. Investment linkage forums ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ____________ b. Financial literacy training ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ____________ c. Financial modules presented during entrepreneurship training ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ____________ d. Events to link MSMEs with financial providers or investors ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ____________ e. Linkages with consultants or financial intermediaries ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ____________ f. I have applied for or received a grant ___________________________________ ___________________________________ 70 Nonfinancial Business Development Services (BDS) Explain nonfinancial BDS are any services provided to MSMEs and entrepreneurs to help grow their businesses but do not involve any financing. These are typically provided by consultants, trainers, business associations, NGOs, incubators, educational institutions and legal and accounting professionals. Serial Question Answer Skip 2.7 How would you describe your need for business development services (BDS)? EQ1a We require BDS and we are able to access all of the services we need 1 We require BDS but are unable to access all of the services we need 2 Don’t know 3 Not applicable, because we do not require any business development services 4 3.1 2.8 Have you seen any improvement in your ability to access to BDS since 2016? EQ1a, EQ1b No improvement since 2016 1 Some improvement since 2016 2 Much easier to access since 2016 3 Don’t know 4 Not applicable 5 2.9 Which of the following types of entrepreneurship or early stage business services do you most require now or in the coming year? (Circle up to 3 most important services then rate them according to need) EQ1a, EQ1d, EQ1e Service 0 = no need, 5 = highest need Don’t know a. Entrepreneurship training 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ___________________________________ ____________ g. Other ______________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ____________ h. Don’t know ………….……………………………………… ………. 1 2.6 Briefly describe the one service you would most like SEED to start offering to help you access finance and grow your business? EQ1a, EQ1e __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ ______________________________ 71 Serial Question Answer Skip b. Access to business mentors and advisors 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 c. Access to expanded incubator services 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 d. Access to technology transfer services (transferring know-how to entrepreneurs to commercialize new technology) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 e. Improved understanding of starting a business by accessing OSS services 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 f. Other 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 h. Not applicable, because we don’t need any of these services ………………………………………………… ……………………… 1 2.10 Which of the following types of specialized business services do you most require now or in the coming year? (Circle up to 3 most important services then rate them according to need) EQ1a, EQ1c, EQ1e Service 0 = no need, 5 = highest need Don’t know a. Support to attend sector exhibitions/ conferences 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 b. Career fairs to find new employees 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 c. Training to better understand how to access backward and forward value chain linkage partners (suppliers, distributors, customers) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 d. Access to an online directory to find value chain partners (suppliers, distributors, customers) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 e. New matchmaking events to introduce large companies to MSMEs to add them as suppliers 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 f. Access to an MSME platform allowing companies to promote themselves online to buyers 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 g. Access to gender focused business strategy and financial products 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 72 Serial Question Answer Skip h. Other 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 i. Not applicable, because we don’t need any of these services ………………………………………………… …………….……… 1 2.11 Please identify up to five SEED BDS services or events that you have used or participated in then rate their usefulness in helping to grow your business. EQ1a, EQ1e Service Usefulness scale (5 is most useful) a. __________________________________ __________________________________ __________ 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. __________________________________ __________________________________ __________ 0 1 2 3 4 5 c. __________________________________ __________________________________ __________ 0 1 2 3 4 5 d. __________________________________ __________________________________ __________ 0 1 2 3 4 5 e. __________________________________ __________________________________ __________ 0 1 2 3 4 5 f. We have not used any SEED business development services ………………………………….………… ……………………1 2.14 2.12 For those service(s) in the previous question which received a rating of 3 or less, indicate how you believe SEED could make them more useful to your needs. (Use the same a-e items above in the corresponding spaces here) EQ1a, EQ1e Service How to make the services more useful a. _______________________________________ _______________________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ ___ b. _______________________________________ _______________________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ 73 Serial Question Answer Skip _____ c. _______________________________________ _______________________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ _____ d. _______________________________________ _______________________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ _____ e. _______________________________________ _______________________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ _____ 2.13 Since 2016, have you noticed any trend in the quality or effectiveness of services provided by Egyptian BDS companies that you have worked with? EQ1a, EQ1b Services have improved.…………..1 Services have not improved.…… 2 Don’t know ……………….…………… 3 2.14 Briefly describe the single most important BDS service you would like SEED to start offering to help grow your business? EQ1a, EQ1e ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ _____ Improving the Business Environment [EQ1d] Serial Question Answer Skip 3.1 EQ1a, EQ1b, EQ1d, EQ1e Please identify each activity or service below, if any, that you have used since the beginning of 2016. Then indicate the approximate month and year of use, your satisfaction with the service, and if you will continue with it after SEED ends. (Circle all services that apply) Service or activity Approx. month/ year of most recent use 3.2 Satisfaction with the service or activity (5 is highest) 3.3 Continue with the service after SEED ends a. Business incubation Month Year / 0 1 2 3 4 5 Yes …………………….………. 1 No ………………………….…. 2 Unsure 74 Serial Question Answer Skip …………..…………. 3 b. Assistance from a Technology Transfer Office Month Year / 0 1 2 3 4 5 Yes ………………….….….…. 1 No ………………….….…..…. 2 Unsure ………….……….…. 3 c. Assistance from a Technology Innovation and Entrepreneurship Center Month Year / 0 1 2 3 4 5 Yes ………………….……..…. 1 No ………………….…………. 2 Unsure …………..……….…. 3 d. Assistance from the MSME Development Agency Month Year / 0 1 2 3 4 5 Yes ………………….….…..…. 1 No ………………….……....…. 2 Unsure ………….….…….…. 3 e. Assistance from the Federation of Egyptian Industries Month Year / 0 1 2 3 4 5 Yes ………………..………..…. 1 No …………………....…….…. 2 Unsure ……….……..………. 3 f. Assistance from a TAMAYOUZ One Stop Shop Month Year / 0 1 2 3 4 5 Yes ………………….…...……. 1 No …………………..…..….…. 2 Unsure ………….……..……. 3 75 Serial Question Answer Skip g. Access to government tenders under Law 89 Month Year / 0 1 2 3 4 5 Yes ……………….……...……. 1 No ……………………...….…. 2 Unsure …………….…..……. 3 4 Goals, success factors, SEED structure [EQ1e] [EQ2] [EQ3] [EQ4] [overarching SEED indicators] Serial Question Answer Skip 4.1 EQ1e, EQ3 Have any SEED interventions directly or indirectly increased your sales? Yes …………………………………………. 1 No ……………………………………………. 2 4.3 4.2 EQ1e, EQ3 a. If yes, briefly describe the most important one? b. What is the annual percentage increase? ___________________________ ___________________________ 4.3 EQ1e, EQ3 Have any SEED interventions directly or indirectly increased your employment? Yes …………………………………………. 1 No ……………………………………………. 2 4.6 4.4 EQ1e, EQ3 a. If yes, briefly describe the most important one? b. What is the total additional number of employees? ___________________________ ___________________________ 4.5 EQ1e, EQ3, EQ4 a. How many women? B. How many youth? 1 2 4.6 EQ1e Overall, what has been the most significant challenge you have faced receiving and implementing SEED assistance? (Only one) ___________________________ ___________________________ 4.7 If you indicated a significant challenge in Yes 4.9 76 Serial Question Answer Skip EQ1e the previous question, has it been resolved? …………………………………………. 1 No ……………………………………….…….2 Partially ………………………………………3 4.8 EQ1e If you indicated “no” or “partially” to the previous question, briefly describe the most important action SEED should undertake to correct and minimize such challenges going forward? ___________________________ ___________________________ 4.9 EQ2 During SEED supported events, were the service providers responsive to your questions and needs? Yes …………………………………………. 1 No ……………………………………….…….2 Don’t know …………………………………3 4.111 4.13 4.10 EQ2, EQ1e If no, briefly describe the most important action the service providers should undertake to improve their accessibility. ___________________________ ___________________________ 4.11 EQ3 Once the SEED program has finished, in one or two years, do you see any evidence that you will continue to have access to the same services they have been providing? Yes …………………………………………. 1 No ……………………………………….…….2 Don’t know …………………………………3 4.12 EQ3 Please explain why you have reached this conclusion. ___________________________ ___________________________ 77 1- KII with Incubator/BDS/ OSS/Financial Institutions Date of the meeting: _______/________/________ Time of the meeting: _______:_______ Interviewer/ other team members: Notes taken by: Introduction Thank you for agreeing to meet with us today. We are conducting a mid-term evaluation of the USAID SEED program (Strengthening Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development). You have been asked to participate in this discussion because you are considered an important stakeholder in SEED’s activities. USAID/Egypt has contracted the assessment team through the SIMPLE Project (Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation) to conduct this assessment. Your participation in this discussion will contribute to the evaluation findings and recommendations for the assessment team. The evaluation will be used to recommend implementation adjustments in SEED’s remaining performance period including how to address current challenges and further strengthen the activity. In this respect, the evaluation team confirms that the information you provide in this meeting will be handled by only the evaluation team in complete confidentiality and that reporting of the study will be anonymized. The discussion should require between 30 and 45 minutes, and your participation in this meeting is totally optional. Thank you for your valued contribution to this important initiative. Background Information 14. Name of organization 15. Name of interviewee 16. Gender 17. Tittle …………………………………… …………………………………… …………….. Male …….………….. 1 Female .…………..… 2 …………………………………… …………………………………… ……………………….. …………………………………… …………………………………… …………….. Male …….………….. 1 Female .…………..… 2 …………………………………… …………………………………… ……………………….. …………………………………… …………………………………… …………….. Male …….………….. 1 Female .…………..… …………………………………… …………………………………… ……………………….. 78 2 …………………………………… …………………………………… …………….. Male …….………….. 1 Female .…………..… 2 …………………………………… …………………………………… ……………………….. 18. Location (Governorate) Greater Cairo ……………………………..…………1 Alex …………………………………………...… ……….2 Other ………………………………………...…… …….3 19. Type of services offered (more than one if needed) Incubation ………………………………………….1 Networking Events …………………..……….…2 Financial Literacy ….….….………..….…………3 OSS. .…………………………..…………….….. ………4 BDS ………………………………………….… ……….…5 Other …………………………………………… ……..6 20. Number of employees 21. Number of female employees 22. Type of organization Consulting firm ……………………………………… 1 incubator …………………………………………… … 2 OSS …………………………………………… ………… 3 BDS …………………………………………… ………… 4 79 MFI/ Financial Service provider ………………5 23. Duration of involvement with SEED: _______/________ to _______/________ 24. If involvement with SEED is not continuing, briefly why? ________________________________ ____ Seria l Question Answer Skip 25. How did you become involved with SEED? EQ1b, EQ1e, EQ2 SEED approached us …………………..…….…. 1 Invited by SEED in one of its event ………. 2 Personal relation ………………..…….……….. 3 Applied for grant announced by SEED …..4 Other:-------------------- ……………………………5 26. How would you describe the relationship with SEED? (Circle all that apply) EQ1b, EQ2 We are an implementing partner for SEED activities (we provide assistance to others) A We are a SEED grant recipient) B We receive SEED capacity building for our organization C We are a coordinating partner (we help facilitate SEEDs activities) D Other_______________________ ___ Z 27. Please specify/list your engagements with SEED and rate their usefulness. (Circle all that apply – only those noted by the interviewee) EQ1b SEED-supported activity Usefulness scale (5 is the most useful) a. Staff capacity training and workshops 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Outreach and promotion 0 1 2 3 4 5 c. New product development and product upgrades 0 1 2 3 4 5 80 Seria l Question Answer Skip d. Equipment 0 1 2 3 4 5 e. Strategic planning 0 1 2 3 4 5 f. Management best practice 0 1 2 3 4 5 g. Study tours 0 1 2 3 4 5 h. Grants 0 1 2 3 4 5 i. Other _____________________________________ 0 1 2 3 4 5 28. Have you experienced any improvements in your organization’s capabilities to deliver services as compared to 2016? EQ1b, EQ1e No improvement since 2016 1 Some improvement since 2016 2 Don’t know 3 Not applicable (we didn’t start operation yet) 4 29. If it is a financial organization (MFI, NGO, MF Company and bank), ask the following questions: Did your organization expand any of the following activities during the last two years? (Circle all that apply) EQ1a, EQ1b, EQ1e Activity Yes No Comment s Financial literacy training for end beneficiaries 1 2 Investment linkages / equity for SMEs 1 2 New financial product/s (product development) 1 2 Changes in procedures to better match clients’ needs 1 2 Others: ------------------------ 1 2 30. To what extent did the activities of your organization contribute to the following SEED objectives (see list below) toward the development of MSMEs in Egypt? (Please indicate with 5 as the strongest contribution) EQ1a, EQ1b, EQ1d, EQ1e, EQ4 Objectives contribution scale (5 = strongest contribution) a. increased access of youth and women to start-up their business 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. Increased access to financial services 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 c. provide MSMEs with needed nonfinancial services that helps to grow 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 d. increased number of employment 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 Seria l Question Answer Skip e. increased volume of sales 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 f. increased number of women employment 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g. increased youth employment 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 h. other:------------------------------ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. What are the major regulatory barriers that affect your fields of activity? EQ1d _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________ 32. What are the essential regulatory reforms you require in the legal and regulatory framework, that would improve and enhance the services delivered to MSMEs? (Provide 1 to 2 of the most important reforms from their organization’s standpoint) EQ1d, EQ1e _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________ 33. Which entities are leading the advocacy for such reforms? EQ1d _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________ 34. Currently, does your organization play an advocacy role? EQ1d, EQ1e Yes ………….………………………………… ………. 1 No …………………………………………… ………….2 35. Is SEED supporting you in this role? EQ1d, EQ1e Yes ………….………………………………… ………. 1 No …………………………………………… ………….2 36. Overall, what has been the most significant challenge you have faced receiving and implementing SEED assistance? (Only one) EQ1e _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ 82 Seria l Question Answer Skip _______________ 37. Do you regularly report to SEED about problems your organization face during implementation? EQ1e Yes ………….………………………………… ………. 1 No …………………………………………… ………….2 38. Are SEED technical and support staff easily accessible when you need to reach them? EQ2 Yes ………….………………………………… ………. 1 No …………………………………………… ………….2 Q 27 39. If no, briefly describe the most important action SEED should undertake to improve their accessibility EQ2 _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________ 40. If ‘Yes’, what are they? EQ2 _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________ 41. Have you had an activity/intervention that was specifically designed for women? EQ4 Yes ………….………………………………… ………. 1 No …………………………………………… ………….2 Q 31 42. What did these include? EQ4 _______________________________ _______________________________ ________ 43. What was the result of these activities? EQ4 _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________ 44. Please describe challenges (if any), which you/your _______________________________ 83 Seria l Question Answer Skip organization faced in the course of addressing gender-related issues within the implementation of SEED-supported activities. EQ1e, EQ4 _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________ 45. How can SEED or its partners assist you to mitigate the gender-related challenges you described? EQ1e, EQ4 _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________ 46. Has your organization improved its ability to sustain its services beyond the time horizon of SEED support? EQ3 Yes ………….………………………………… ………. 1 No …………………………………………… ………….2 If no, end. 47. If ‘Yes’, please highlight reasons/factors for sustainability based on the three ranges (read through entire list) EQ1e, EQ3 Items Ranges (1) Not exist (2) in planning (3) exist (4) Don’t know a. Clear updated business plan 1 2 3 4 b. Adequate costing structure 1 2 3 4 c. Availability of well-trained staff with clear job descriptions 1 2 3 4 d. Availability of policy and procedures manuals 1 2 3 4 e. Stable source(s) of non-government revenue 1 2 3 4 f. Secured sources of funding (government budget) 1 2 3 4 g. Others______________________________ _ 1 2 3 4 48. Which of the items in the previous question did SEED specifically assist you with? EQ1e, EQ3 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ 84 Seria l Question Answer Skip ___________________________________ ________________ ___________________________________ ____ TOOL 2: VALUE-CHAIN MSMES QUESTIONNAIRE Quest ID: 7- Questionnaire for Value Chain MSMEs / KII Date of the meeting: ______/________/______ Time of the meeting: Hour Interviewer/ other team members: Notes taken by: Introduction Thank you for agreeing to meet with us today. USAID/Egypt has contracted this evaluation team through the SIMPLE Project (Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation) to conduct a mid-term evaluation of the USAID SEED program (Strengthening Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development). We are part of this evaluation team and this visit is part of the evaluation work. You have been asked to participate in this discussion because you are considered an important stakeholder in SEED’s activities. Your participation in this discussion will contribute to the evaluation findings and recommendations for the assessment team. The evaluation will be used to recommend implementation adjustments in SEED’s remaining performance period including how to address current challenges and further strengthen the activity. In this respect, the evaluation team confirms that the information you provide in this meeting will be handled by only the evaluation team in complete confidentiality and that reporting of the study will be anonymized. The discussion should require between 30 and 45 minutes, and your participation in this meeting is totally optional. Thank you for your valued contribution to this important initiative. 85 Explain that it is important to understand his/her position in the value chain and the particular challenges and opportunities which occur when managing and coordinating suppliers, distributors and final customers. It’s all about becoming more competitive. 3. Beneficiary Demographics and SEED Engagement 49. Name of organization 50. Name of interviewee 51. Title 52. Gender Male .……………………………………….……..… ….. 1 Female ………………………………….………….... … 2 53. Age 54. Location (Governorate) 55. Type of company Producer/manufacturer………………..……. ……1 Distributor…………………………………… ………..…2 Retailer…………………………..…………… …………..3 Service……....................................................4 Other ___________________________……5 56. Industry (write in as described) Fishery………………………………………… ……………1 Dairy………………………………………… ………………2 Automotive…………………………………… …………3 Plastics………………………………………… …………..4 Ready-made garments……………………………..5 Other______________________................6 86 57. Number of employees 58. Number of female employees 59. Annual sales turnover in Egyptian pounds 60. Main type(s) of interaction with SEED (Circle all that apply) • Backward and forward linkage training……………..…………………… ……..…..1 • Participated in matchmaking events ….2 • Participated in exhibitions/shows….……3 • Other____________________..............4 61. Duration of involvement with SEED: (month/year to month/year or continuing) _______/________ to _______/________ 62. If involvement with SEED is not continuing, please briefly indicate 1 or 2 reasons why? __________________________________ __________________________________ ________ 1. Markets & System efficiency [EQ1c] [EQ1e] Serial Question Answer Skip 2.1 Are large businesses (with 300 or more employees) among your customers now? EQ1c Yes .……………………………………………… ……..…….. 1 No ………………………………………….….… ………....… 2 2.4 2.2 Do you sell to more large customers (with more than 300 employees) now than you did during 2016? EQ1c Yes .……………………………………………… ……..…….. 1 No ………………………………………….….… ………....… 2 2.4 2.3 If yes to the previous question, please estimate the percentage of sales revenues to large customers during 2016 and now EQ1c 2016 …………..% Now ……………. % 2.4 How often do you meet your buyer(s) to discuss business related matters and exchange new information? (Check only one frequency for the 2016 column and one frequency for the now column) EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ3 Frequency 2016 Now Weekly Monthly Quarterly Others 2.5 What percentage of the contracting arrangements between you and your buyers are formal (written) contracts versus verbal agreements? (Estimate for both 2016 and now) EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ3 87 Serial Question Answer Skip Percentage of all sales contracts that are formal (written) 2016 …………..% Now ……………. % 2.6 How would you describe the typical relationship between you and your buyers today? (Select one) EQ1c, EQ1e Buyer generally dictates the terms 1 Equal-power relationship between us 2 2.7 Which of the following services would you say your buyers provide you with more now than they did in 2016? (Circle all that apply) EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ3 Loans Yes No Don’t know Training 1 2 3 Marketing support Equipment Maintenance services 2.8 What are the two most critical constraints or obstacles you face that prevent you from expanding your value chain to reach new suppliers and customers (these may include access to market information, financing, production technology, regulations, or even knowledge of value chains)? EQ1c, EQ1e __________________________________ __ __________________________________ __ __________________________________ __ __________________________________ __ 2.9 If you indicated any value chain constraints or obstacles in the previous question, what kinds of services would you like to see the SEED program provide to reduce these constraints? EQ1c, EQ1e __________________________________ __ __________________________________ __ __________________________________ __ __________________________________ __ 2. Business Involvement in SEED-related activities [EQ1c] Serial Question Answer Skip 3.1 Please identify up to three specific SEED value chain services you have used or events you have participated in then rate their usefulness in helping to grow your business. (The rating is based on 0 = not useful and 5 = very useful) EQ1c, EQ1e Service Usefulness scale (5 is most useful) Don’t know or cannot remember a. _______________________ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 88 Serial Question Answer Skip _______________________ b. _______________________ _______________________ c. _______________________ _______________________ 2.2 For those service(s) in the previous question which received a rating of 3 or less, please briefly comment how you believe SEED could make them more useful to your needs. (Use the same a-c items above in the corresponding spaces here) EQ1c, EQ1e Service How to make the services more useful a. __________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ ________________ b. __________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ ________________ c. __________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ ________________ 3.3 Has any member of your company participated in or received any value chain services from other international programs or service providers since the beginning of 2016 – not including value chain services provided by SEED? EQ1c Yes .……………………………………………… ……..….. 1 No ………………………………………….….… ………..… 2 4.1 3.4 If yes, above, please identify the name of the program, what organization offered it, and the year. EQ1c 3.4a Name of the value chain service or event 3.4b Organization who provided the service 3.4c Year service was provided 1. ______________________ _______________________ _ 89 Serial Question Answer Skip 2. ________________________ _______________________ _ 3. ________________________ _______________________ _ 5 Goals, success factors, SEED structure [EQ1e] [EQ2] [EQ3] [EQ4] [overarching SEED indicators] Serial Question Answer Skip 4.1 Have any SEED interventions directly or indirectly increased your sales or do you expect this to occur? EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ3 Yes .……………………………………………… ……..….. 1 No ………………………………………….….… ………..… 2 4.3 4.2 If yes, briefly describe how SEED intervention(s) have resulted in increased sales or are expected to. EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ3 __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ ____________ 4.3 Have any SEED interventions directly or indirectly increased your employment or do you expect this to occur? EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ3 Yes .……………………………………………… ……..….. 1 No ………………………………………….….… ………..… 2 4.5 4.4 If yes, briefly describe how SEED intervention(s) have resulted in increased employment or are expected to. EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ3 __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ ____________ 4.5 Is the increased employment expected to be equally divided between women and men? EQ4 Yes, equal employment between men and women 1 4.7 No, more employment for men 2 No, more employment for women 3 4.6 How did the interventions help you hire more women? EQ1e, EQ4 __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ ____________ 4.7 Have any SEED interventions helped you hire more youth? EQ4 Yes .……………………………………………… 4.8 90 Serial Question Answer Skip ……..….. 1 No ………………………………………….….… ………..… 2 4.7a Please explain how. EQ1e, EQ4 __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ ____________ 4.8 Overall, what has been the most significant challenge (if any) you have faced receiving and implementing SEED assistance? EQ1e __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ ____________ 4.9 If you indicated a significant challenge to the previous question, has it been resolved? EQ1e Yes .……………………………………… ………… 1 4.11 No .……………………………………… ………… 2 partially.……………………………… …………… 3 4.10 Briefly describe what SEED should do to correct and minimize such challenges in future? EQ1e __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ ____________ 4.11 Have you experienced any delays in receiving SEED assistance that have reduced their effectiveness? EQ1e, EQ2 Yes .……………………………………………… ……..….. 1 No ………………………………………….….… ………..… 2 4.13 4.12 Which types of assistance were delayed and what do you think the primary causes were? EQ1e, EQ2 Types of assistance for which delays were experienced Primary causes of delays a. ______________________ ______________________ 91 Serial Question Answer Skip b. ______________________ ______________________ c. ______________________ ______________________ 4.13 Are SEED technical and support staff easily accessible when you need to reach them? EQ1e, EQ2 Yes .…………………………………… …………… 1 4.15 4.15 No .…………………………………… …………… 2 Don’t know.……………………………… …… 3 4.14 Briefly describe what you think SEED should do to improve their accessibility. EQ1e, EQ2 _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ ________________ 4.15 Once the SEED program has finished, in one or two years, do you see any evidence that SEED is planning for its departure in a way that will enable you to continue to have access to the same types of services they have been providing? EQ3 Yes .…………………………………… …………… 1 No .…………………………………… …………… 2 Don’t know.……………………………… …… 3 4.16 Please explain why you have reached this conclusion (pertaining to the previous question). EQ3 _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ ________________ TOOL 3: MSME BENEFICIARIES TELEPHONE SURVEY Quest. ID Telephone Beneficiary Survey for MSMEs 92 Date of the meeting ______/________/______ Time of the meeting Hour Telephone Interviewer Introduction Thank you for agreeing to speak with me today. Before I proceed, have you responded to any survey about the SEED program during the previous two weeks? USAID/Egypt has contracted our evaluation team through the SIMPLE Project (Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation) to conduct a mid-term evaluation of the USAID SEED program (Strengthening Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development). You have been asked to provide your views because you have participated in SEED’s program activities through intermediary services providers. Your participation will contribute to the evaluation findings and recommendations, and will be used to recommend implementation adjustments in SEED’s remaining performance period including how to address current challenges and further strengthen the activity. Your responses will be kept anonymous and should require less than 15 minutes to complete. Thank you for your valued contribution to this important initiative. 4. Beneficiary Demographics and SEED Engagement 63. Name of company (if any) 64. Name of interviewee 65. Title 66. Gender Male .……………………………………….……..… ….. 1 Female ………………………………….………….... … 2 67. Age a. Less than 30 years old.....…………………………1 b. 30 years or older………………………………………2 68. Education level Completed primary school or less..…….…..…1 Completed secondary school (high school)..2 Completed university…………………………………3 Completed post graduate 93 studies..…………….4 69. Location (Governorate) 70. Number of employees 71. Number of female employees 72. Duration of involvement with SEED: (month/year to month/year or continuing) _______/________ to _______/________ 73. Did you start your business with SEED’s assistance or did it already exist? Started with SEED assistance………………1 My business already existed……………….2 Interviewer Explain you will ask some questions about their experience using services provided with SEED program support. • We refer to financial services as those that help them access money for growth. • Nonfinancial services, also known as business development services (BDS), are any services provided to MSMEs and entrepreneurs to help grow their businesses. These are typically provided by consultants, trainers, business associations, NGOs, incubators, and others. 5. Section 2: Access to Financial and Nonfinancial Services [EQ1a & EQ1b] [EQ4] Serial Question Answer Skip 2.1 Thinking back to 2016, have you seen any improvement in your ability to access financial or nonfinancial services that you need for your business? EQ1a, EQ1b No improvement since the beginning of 2016 1 Some improvement since the beginning of 2016 2 Don’t know 3 Not applicable 4 2.2 How would you describe your need for business development services (BDS)? EQ1a We require BDS and we are able to access all of the services we need 1 We require BDS but are unable to access all of the services we need 2 Don’t know 3 Not applicable, because we do not require any business development services 4 3.1 2.3 Which of the following types of entrepreneurship or early stage business services (if any) do you most require now or in the coming year? (Circle up to 3 most important services then rate them according to need) EQ1a, EQ1d, EQ1e Service 0 = no need, 5 = highest need Don’t know a. Entrepreneurship training 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 94 b. Access to business mentors and advisors 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 c. Access to expanded incubator services 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 d. Access to technology transfer services (transferring know-how to entrepreneurs to commercialize new technology) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 e. Improved understanding of starting a business by accessing OSS services 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 f. Other 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 h. Not applicable, because we don’t need any of these services …………………………………………………… …………………… 1 2.4 Which of the following types of specialized business services do you most require now or in the coming year? (Circle up to 3 most important services then rate them according to need) EQ1a, EQ1c, EQ1e Service 0 = no need, 5 = highest need Don’t know a. Support to attend sector exhibitions/ conferences 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 b. Career fairs to find new employees 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 c. Training to better understand how to access value chain linkage partners (suppliers, distributors, customers) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 d. Access to an online directory to find value chain partners (suppliers, distributors, customers) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 e. New matchmaking events to introduce MSMEs (explain MSME) to large companies to add them as suppliers 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 f. Access to an MSME online platform allowing companies to promote themselves on the internet 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 g. Access to gender focused business strategies and financial products 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 h. Other 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 95 i. Not applicable, because we don’t need any of these services …………………………………………………… ………….……… 1 2.5 Briefly describe the single most important service you would like SEED to start offering to help grow your business? EQ1a, EQ1e ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ __ 3. Improving the Business Environment [EQ1d] Serial Question Answer Skip 3.1 EQ1a, EQ1b, EQ1d, EQ1e Please identify each activity or service below, if any, that you have used since 2016. Then indicate the approximate month and year of use, your satisfaction with the service, and if you will continue with it after SEED ends. (Read each to confirm if they have used it then circle all services that apply) Service or activity Approx. month/ year of most recent use 3.2 Satisfaction with the service or activity (5 is highest) 3.3 Continue with the service after SEED ends a. Business incubation Month Year / 0 1 2 3 4 5 Yes …………………….………. 1 No ………………………….…. 2 Unsure …………..…………. 3 b. Assistance from a Technology Transfer Office Month Year / 0 1 2 3 4 5 Yes ………………….….….…. 1 No ………………….….…..…. 2 Unsure ………….……….…. 3 c. Assistance from a Technology Innovation and Entrepreneurship Center Month Year / 0 1 2 3 4 5 Yes ………………….……..…. 1 No ………………….…………. 2 Unsure …………..……….…. 3 d. Assistance from the Month Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 Yes 96 MSME Development Agency / ………………….….…..…. 1 No ………………….……....…. 2 Unsure ………….….…….…. 3 e. Assistance from the Federation of Egyptian Industries Month Year / 0 1 2 3 4 5 Yes ………………..………..…. 1 No …………………....…….…. 2 Unsure ……….……..………. 3 f. Assistance from a TAMAYOUZ One Stop Shop Month Year / 0 1 2 3 4 5 Yes ………………….…...……. 1 No …………………..…..….…. 2 Unsure ………….……..……. 3 g. Access to government tenders under Law 89 Month Year / 0 1 2 3 4 5 Yes ……………….……...……. 1 No ……………………...….…. 2 Unsure …………….…..……. 3 6 Goals, success factors, SEED structure [EQ1e] [EQ2] [EQ3] [EQ4] [overarching SEED indicators] Serial Question Answer Skip 4.1 EQ1e, EQ3 Have any SEED interventions directly or indirectly increased your sales? Yes …………………………………………. 1 No ……………………………………………. 2 4.3 97 4.2 EQ1e, EQ3 a. If yes, briefly describe the most important one? b. What is the annual percentage increase? ___________________________ ___________________________ 4.3 EQ1e, EQ3 Have any SEED interventions directly or indirectly increased your employment? Yes …………………………………………. 1 No ……………………………………………. 2 4.6 4.4 EQ1e, EQ3 a. If yes, briefly describe the most important one? b. What is the total additional number of employees? ___________________________ ___________________________ 4.5 EQ1e, EQ3, EQ4 a. How many women? B. How many youth? 1 2 4.6 EQ2 During SEED supported events, were the service providers responsive to your questions and needs? Yes …………………………………………. 1 No ……………………………………….…….2 Don’t know …………………………………3 4.8 4.7 EQ2, EQ1e If no, briefly describe the most important action the service providers should undertake to improve their responsiveness. ___________________________ ___________________________ 4.8 EQ3 Once the SEED program has finished, in one or two years, do you believe you will continue to have access to the same services they have been providing through intermediaries? Yes …………………………………………. 1 No ……………………………………….…….2 Don’t know …………………………………3 4.9 EQ3 Please explain why you have reached this conclusion. ___________________________ ___________________________ 4.10 Please provide the range of your annual sales turnover in Egyptian pounds. I will Less than 98 read these to you. This will only be used to help us analyze peoples’ responses by how large their enterprises are. 50,000………………………………………1 50,001 – 250,000………………………2 250,001 – 500,000……….……………3 500,001 or higher…………….……….4 99 TOOL 4: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW WITH INCUBATORS BDS/OSS/FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS 2- KII with Incubator/BDS/ OSS/Financial Institutions Date of the meeting: _______/________/________ Time of the meeting: _______:_______ Interviewer/ other team members: Notes taken by: Introduction Thank you for agreeing to meet with us today. We are conducting a mid-term evaluation of the USAID SEED program (Strengthening Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development). You have been asked to participate in this discussion because you are considered an important stakeholder in SEED’s activities. USAID/Egypt has contracted the assessment team through the SIMPLE Project (Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation) to conduct this assessment. Your participation in this discussion will contribute to the evaluation findings and recommendations for the assessment team. The evaluation will be used to recommend implementation adjustments in SEED’s remaining performance period including how to address current challenges and further strengthen the activity. In this respect, the evaluation team confirms that the information you provide in this meeting will be handled by only the evaluation team in complete confidentiality and that reporting of the study will be anonymized. The discussion should require between 30 and 45 minutes, and your participation in this meeting is totally optional. Thank you for your valued contribution to this important initiative. Background Information 74. Name of organization 75. Name of interviewee 76. Gender 77. Tittle …………………………………… …………………………………… …………….. Male …….………….. 1 Female .…………..… 2 …………………………………… …………………………………… ……………………….. …………………………………… …………………………………… …………….. Male …….………….. 1 Female .…………..… 2 …………………………………… …………………………………… ……………………….. 100 …………………………………… …………………………………… …………….. Male …….………….. 1 Female .…………..… 2 …………………………………… …………………………………… ……………………….. …………………………………… …………………………………… …………….. Male …….………….. 1 Female .…………..… 2 …………………………………… …………………………………… ……………………….. 78. Location (Governorate) Greater Cairo ……………………………..…………1 Alex …………………………………………...… ……….2 Other ………………………………………...…… …….3 79. Type of services offered (more than one if needed) Incubation ………………………………………….1 Networking Events …………………..……….…2 Financial Literacy ….….….………..….…………3 OSS. .…………………………..…………….….. ………4 BDS ………………………………………….… ……….…5 Other …………………………………………… ……..6 80. Number of employees 81. Number of female employees 82. Type of organization Consulting firm ……………………………………… 1 incubator …………………………………………… … 2 OSS …………………………………………… ………… 3 101 BDS …………………………………………… ………… 4 MFI/ Financial Service provider ………………5 83. Duration of involvement with SEED: _______/________ to _______/________ 84. If involvement with SEED is not continuing, briefly why? ________________________________ ____ Serial Question Answer Skip 85. How did you become involved with SEED? EQ1b, EQ1e, EQ2 SEED approached us …………………..…….…. 1 Invited by SEED in one of its event ………. 2 Personal relation ………………..…….……….. 3 Applied for grant announced by SEED …..4 Other:-------------------- ……………………………5 86. How would you describe the relationship with SEED? (Circle all that apply) EQ1b, EQ2 We are an implementing partner for SEED activities (we provide assistance to others) A We are a SEED grant recipient) B We receive SEED capacity building for our organization C We are a coordinating partner (we help facilitate SEEDs activities) D Other_______________________ ___ Z 87. Please specify/list your engagements with SEED and rate their usefulness. (Circle all that apply – only those noted by the interviewee) EQ1b SEED-supported activity Usefulness scale (5 is the most useful) a. Staff capacity training and workshops 0 1 2 3 4 5 102 Serial Question Answer Skip b. Outreach and promotion 0 1 2 3 4 5 c. New product development and product upgrades 0 1 2 3 4 5 d. Equipment 0 1 2 3 4 5 e. Strategic planning 0 1 2 3 4 5 f. Management best practice 0 1 2 3 4 5 g. Study tours 0 1 2 3 4 5 h. Grants 0 1 2 3 4 5 i. Other _____________________________________ 0 1 2 3 4 5 88. Have you experienced any improvements in your organization’s capabilities to deliver services as compared to 2016? EQ1b, EQ1e No improvement since 2016 1 Some improvement since 2016 2 Don’t know 3 Not applicable (we didn’t start operation yet) 4 89. If it is a financial organization (MFI, NGO, MF Company and bank), ask the following questions: Did your organization expand any of the following activities during the last two years? (Circle all that apply) EQ1a, EQ1b, EQ1e Activity Yes No Comment s Financial literacy training for end beneficiaries 1 2 Investment linkages / equity for SMEs 1 2 New financial product/s (product development) 1 2 Changes in procedures to better match clients’ needs 1 2 Others: ------------------------ 1 2 90. To what extent did the activities of your organization contribute to the following SEED objectives (see list below) toward the development of MSMEs in Egypt? (Please indicate with 5 as the strongest contribution) EQ1a, EQ1b, EQ1d, EQ1e, EQ4 Objectives contribution scale (5 = strongest contribution) a. increased access of youth and women to start-up their business 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. Increased access to financial services 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 c. provide MSMEs with needed nonfinancial services 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 103 Serial Question Answer Skip that helps to grow d. increased number of employment 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e. increased volume of sales 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 f. increased number of women employment 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g. increased youth employment 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 h. other:------------------------------ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 91. What are the major regulatory barriers that affect your fields of activity? EQ1d _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________ 92. What are the essential regulatory reforms you require in the legal and regulatory framework, that would improve and enhance the services delivered to MSMEs? (Provide 1 to 2 of the most important reforms from their organization’s standpoint) EQ1d, EQ1e _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________ 93. Which entities are leading the advocacy for such reforms? EQ1d _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________ 94. Currently, does your organization play an advocacy role? EQ1d, EQ1e Yes ………….………………………………… ………. 1 No …………………………………………… ………….2 95. Is SEED supporting you in this role? EQ1d, EQ1e Yes ………….………………………………… ………. 1 No …………………………………………… ………….2 96. Overall, what has been the most significant challenge you have faced receiving and implementing SEED assistance? (Only one) EQ1e _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ 104 Serial Question Answer Skip _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________ 97. Do you regularly report to SEED about problems your organization face during implementation? EQ1e Yes ………….………………………………… ………. 1 No …………………………………………… ………….2 98. Are SEED technical and support staff easily accessible when you need to reach them? EQ2 Yes ………….………………………………… ………. 1 No …………………………………………… ………….2 Q 27 99. If no, briefly describe the most important action SEED should undertake to improve their accessibility EQ2 _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________ 100. If ‘Yes’, what are they? EQ2 _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________ 101. Have you had an activity/intervention that was specifically designed for women? EQ4 Yes ………….………………………………… ………. 1 No …………………………………………… ………….2 Q 31 102. What did these include? EQ4 _______________________________ _______________________________ ________ 103. What was the result of these activities? EQ4 _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________ 105 Serial Question Answer Skip 104. Please describe challenges (if any), which you/your organization faced in the course of addressing gender-related issues within the implementation of SEED-supported activities. EQ1e, EQ4 _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________ 105. How can SEED or its partners assist you to mitigate the gender-related challenges you described? EQ1e, EQ4 _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________ 106. Has your organization improved its ability to sustain its services beyond the time horizon of SEED support? EQ3 Yes ………….………………………………… ………. 1 No …………………………………………… ………….2 If no, end. 107. If ‘Yes’, please highlight reasons/factors for sustainability based on the three ranges (read through entire list) EQ1e, EQ3 Items Ranges (1) Not exist (2) in planning (3) exist (4) Don’t know a. Clear updated business plan 1 2 3 4 b. Adequate costing structure 1 2 3 4 c. Availability of well-trained staff with clear job descriptions 1 2 3 4 d. Availability of policy and procedures manuals 1 2 3 4 e. Stable source(s) of non-government revenue 1 2 3 4 f. Secured sources of funding (government budget) 1 2 3 4 g. Others______________________________ _ 1 2 3 4 108. Which of the items in the previous question did SEED specifically assist you with? EQ1e, EQ3 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ 106 Serial Question Answer Skip ___________________________________ ________________ ___________________________________ ____ TOOL 5: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS: GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS Quest ID: 2- Key informant interviews – Government organizations Date of the meeting: ______/________/______ Time of the meeting: Hour: From: To: Interviewer/ other team members: Notes taken by: Participants: #, Name, Post (Business cards of participants to be collected and submitted to SIMPLE attached to original notes document) 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- Introduction: Thank you for agreeing to meet with us today. USAID/Egypt has contracted this evaluation team through the SIMPLE Project (Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation) to conduct a mid-term evaluation of the USAID SEED program (Strengthening Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development). We are part of this evaluation team and this visit is part of the evaluation work. You have been asked to participate in this discussion because you are considered an important stakeholder in SEED’s activities. Your participation in this discussion will contribute to the evaluation findings and recommendations for the assessment team. The evaluation will be used to recommend implementation adjustments in SEED’s remaining performance period including how to address current challenges and further strengthen the activity. 107 In this respect, the evaluation team confirms that the information you provide in this meeting will be handled by only the evaluation team in complete confidentiality and that reporting of the study will be anonymized. The discussion should require between 30 and 45 minutes, and your participation in this meeting is totally optional. Thank you for your valued contribution to this important initiative. Relationship of Your organization with SEED Serial Question Answer Skip 1. How did you become involved with SEED? EQ1d, EQ2 SEED approached us …………………..…………..…….…..1 Invited by SEED to one of its events ……………..…..2 Personal relationship with SEED team member ...3 No one contacted us, we contacted SEED…………..4 Applied for grant announced by SEED ……………....5 Other:_____________…………………………… …………..6 2. Which statements best explain the nature of your relationship with SEED and how long have you been partners? (Circle all that apply) EQ1d, EQ2 We are a coordinating partner (we help facilitate SEEDs activities and open doors) 1 We are a SEED grant recipient 2 We receive SEED capacity building for our organization 3 We are an implementing partner for SEED activities (we provide assistance to others) 4 Other__________________________ 5 3. What specific types of support has SEED offered to your organization and how would you rate them? (Circle all that apply then rate the services with 5 = most useful to you) EQ1b, EQ1d, EQ1e SEED-supported activity Usefulness scale (5 is the most useful) a. Staff capacity training and workshops 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Help with outreach and promotion 0 1 2 3 4 5 c. New product development and product upgrades 0 1 2 3 4 5 d. Technology or equipment support 0 1 2 3 4 5 108 Serial Question Answer Skip e. Strategic planning 0 1 2 3 4 5 f. Management best practice 0 1 2 3 4 5 g. Grants 0 1 2 3 4 5 h. Other _________________________ __________ 0 1 2 3 4 5 i. Not applicable because we have not used any SEED capacity building services ……………………………………………… ……………….. 1 4. In your opinion, which 2 or 3 factors would you use to measure SEED’s success once their program has finished? EQ1d, EQ1e _____________________________________ ___ _____________________________________ ___ 5. What do you think SEED’s biggest challenges are to achieve the success factors mentioned above and how can they be solved? EQ1d, EQ1e _____________________________________ ___ _____________________________________ ___ 6. Has SEED had an impact on your organizational capacity and improved your ability to function at a higher level? EQ1b, EQ1d Yes …………………………………………………… ……………..1 No …………………………………………………… ……………...2 q8 7. If yes, please explain EQ1b, EQ1d _____________________________________ ___ _____________________________________ ___ 8. To what extent (if any) has SEED increased your capacity to be responsive to (please explain): a. gender issues b. youth EQ4 Gender:_______________________________ __ _____________________________________ ___ Youth:_________________________________ 109 Serial Question Answer Skip _ _____________________________________ ___ 9. To what extent will you able to continue the same types of services without the support of SEED? EQ1b, EQ3 _____________________________________ ___ _____________________________________ ___ 10. Are SEED technical and support staff easily accessible when you need to reach them? EQ1e, EQ2 Yes …………………………………………………… ……………..1 No …………………………………………………… ……………...2 Q12 11. If no, briefly describe the most important action SEED should undertake to improve their accessibility. EQ1e, EQ2 _____________________________________ ___ _____________________________________ ___ 12. Have you received any SEED activity/intervention that was specifically designed for women? EQ4 Yes ………….………………………………………… …………. 1 No …………………………………………………… …………….2 Q14 13 What were the one or two main activities/interventions for women and what results were achieved? EQ4 _____________________________________ ___ _____________________________________ ___ _____________________________________ ___ _____________________________________ ___ 14. Please describe challenges (if any), which you/your organization have _____________________________________ ___ 110 Serial Question Answer Skip faced while addressing gender￾related issues. EQ4 _____________________________________ ___ _____________________________________ ___ _____________________________________ ___ 15. What type of assistance would you most like SEED to provide in future? EQ1b, EQ1d, EQ1e _____________________________________ ___ _____________________________________ ___ _____________________________________ ___ _____________________________________ ___ 16. And finally, do you believe SEED’s presence will have led to increased growth and employment for MSMEs, and why do you feel this way? EQ1e _____________________________________ ___ _____________________________________ ___ _____________________________________ ___ _____________________________________ ___ Thank you for your time and for the useful insights and assessments you provided. These will significantly help the evaluation team with the formulation of actionable recommendations; May we contact you for additional information? TOOL 6: USAID MEETING KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 3- USAID Meeting Protocol Date of the meeting: ______/________/______ Time of the meeting: Hour: From: To: Interviewer/ other team members: Notes taken by: Participants: #, Name, Post (Business cards of participants to 1- 2- 111 be collected and submitted to SIMPLE attached to original notes document) 3- 4- 5- Questions & Discussion Points 1) How would USAID rate the strength of the three components in terms of meeting program objectives, as of today? EQ1a, EQ1b, EQ1c 2) Does there appear to be sufficient interaction and coordination between the three main components? EQ1a, EQ1b, EQ1c, EQ2 3) What is USAID’s opinion about the SEED’s progress with the cross-cutting gender component? How much success to you believe the project has had in minimizing gender gaps? EQ4 4) The Value Chain component appears to be taking on a more prominent role in near term project planning; what do you think is the reason for this? EQ1c, EQ1e 5) It appears Youth has diminished in importance as a cross cutting component; do you agree with this and is it in line with USAID’s expectations? EQ1e, EQ2 6) The business capacity component (B) has put considerable emphasis into basic training of advocacy skills, which seems less than optimal for Egypt’s years of experience with similar training. But it also appears there is increasing emphasis on support to specific laws, e.g., franchising, which is more practical. Interested to hear what USAID’s priorities for business capacity are at this stage. EQ1d 7) What do you believe the most pressing challenges facing SEED are and does it appear they will be able to overcome them in the time remaining? EQ1e 8) There is considerable emphasis on determining the effectiveness and efficiency of SEED’s operating structure (in the evaluation scope of work). Are there particular reasons for this from your standpoint and are there any priority structural improvements you would like to see? EQ1e, EQ2 9) We see the program is increasing in momentum and there have been many training, matchmaking and capacity building events. What is less clear, at this stage and before the field data collection begins, is the extent to which activities are sustainable. What is USAID’s observation about the sustainability of program activities to date? EQ3 10) What would you like SEED’s legacy to be; how should people describe the program’s accomplishments once it has finished? EQ1e 11) The issue of indirect provision of service, as SEED is doing now, versus the growing trend toward more proactive facilitation of BDS consulting interventions with MSMEs. EQ1b 112 TOOL 7: PROTOCOL FOR KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW OF LARGE BUSINESSES’ VALUE CHAINS 4- KII Protocol for Large Businesses’ Value Chains Date of the meeting: ______/________/______ Time of the meeting: Hour: From: To: Interviewer/ other team members: Notes taken by: Participants: #, Name, Post (Business cards of participants to be collected and submitted to SIMPLE attached to original notes document) 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- Introduction Thank you for agreeing to meet with us today. USAID/Egypt has contracted this evaluation team through the SIMPLE Project (Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation) to conduct a mid-term evaluation of the USAID SEED program (Strengthening Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development). We are part of this evaluation team and this visit is part of the evaluation work. You have been asked to participate in this discussion because you are considered an important stakeholder in SEED’s activities. Your participation in this discussion will contribute to the evaluation findings and recommendations for the assessment team. The evaluation will be used to recommend implementation adjustments in SEED’s remaining performance period including how to address current challenges and further strengthen the activity. In this respect, the evaluation team confirms that the information you provide in this meeting will be handled by only the evaluation team in complete confidentiality and that reporting of the study will be anonymized. The discussion should require between 30 and 45 minutes, and your participation in this meeting is totally optional. Thank you for your valued contribution to this important initiative. Explain that because the SEED program is designed to improve linkages between MSMEs and larger companies, it is important for the evaluation team to understand the dynamics of the challenges from 113 both the large company and MSME sides. The intent is to help large to MSME linkages occur and lead to greater competitiveness for all. We are particularly interested in recent developments, last two years, since the SEED program has become operational. 3. Demographics and background 109. Name of organization 110. Name of interviewee 111. Gend er 112. Title Male Female …………………………………… …………………………………… …………….. 1 2 …………………………………… …………………………………… ……………………….. …………………………………… …………………………………… …………….. 1 2 …………………………………… …………………………………… ……………………….. …………………………………… …………………………………… …………….. 1 2 …………………………………… …………………………………… ……………………….. …………………………………… …………………………………… …………….. 1 2 …………………………………… …………………………………… ……………………….. 113. Location (Governorate) Greater Cairo ……………………………..…………1 Alex …………………………………………...………….2 Other ______________________.........….3 114. Type of SEED sponsored activities company has participated to date (indicate all that apply) Corporate social responsibility (CSR) workshops……….1 Networking, linkage and B2B Events with MSMEs.......2 Supply chain management assistance………………….……3 Other: ___________________________……………..……4 115. Number of employees 116. Number of female employees 117. Type of industry Dairy …………………………………………………….……… 1 Plastics ………………………………………………….…… 2 Fisheries 114 ……………………………………………………… 3 Automotive Parts…………………………………………… 4 Ready Made Garments……………………………………5 Other ______________________......................6 118. Duration of involvement with SEED: _______/________ to _______/________ 119. If involvement with SEED is not continuing, briefly why? ____________________________________ 4. Markets & System efficiency Serial Question Answer Skip 2.1 What is the approximate percentage of your suppliers, by total number of suppliers that are locally based in Egypt, comparing 2016 with now? EQ1c, EQ1e Share of locally based suppliers (of total number of suppliers In 2016 ………… % Now ……………. % 2.2 What is the approximate percentage of your suppliers, by total value of intermediate inputs purchased) that are locally based in Egypt, comparing 2016 with now? EQ1c, EQ1e Share of locally based suppliers (by value of total inputs) In 2016 ………… % Now ……………. % 2.3 How do you interact with your local MSME suppliers(s)? EQ1c, EQ1e In 2016 Now Directly ……………. % ……………. % Through intermediaries ……………. % ……………. % 2.4 Typically, how often do you meet your local MSME suppliers(s) to discuss business-related matters and exchange new information? (Check only one frequency per 2016 column and one per Now column) EQ1c, EQ1e Frequency In 2016 Now Weekly Monthly Quarterly 115 Serial Question Answer Skip Others 2.5 What type of relationship would you say you have between you and your local SME suppliers? (Select only one) EQ1c, EQ1e Type of relationship You generally need to stipulate the terms and conditions 1 You have an equal-power relationship with most suppliers 2 2.6 Comparing 2016 with now, do you generally provide any of the following types of information or business intelligence to your suppliers? (Please indicate all that apply in both columns) EQ1c, EQ1e In 2016 Now New market trends they need to understand 1 2 Quality standards requirements 1 2 New recommended technologies to adopt 1 2 Available business services to assist them 1 2 Costs and prices they need to achieve 1 2 No, we do not make any of this generally available 1 2 2.7 Comparing 2016 with now, do you generally provide any of the following types of services to your suppliers? (Please indicate all that apply in both columns) EQ1c, EQ1e Type of Service In 2016 Now Loans Training Marketing support Equipment Maintenance services 2.8 Again, comparing 2016 with now, and looking at your base of local MSME suppliers, How do you evaluate the flexibility of your local MSME suppliers in responding to requests and changes in your orders? (Select: 0 = don’t know, 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = average, 4 = high, 5 = very high) EQ1c, EQ1e In 2016 Now Changes in quantities 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Changes in terms of payment 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 116 Serial Question Answer Skip Changes in schedules of delivery 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Other type of change (please specify) ________________ 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 2.9 Please explain up to 3 constraints (if any) that currently limit the business growth of your local MSME suppliers in your value chain context (these may include access to market information, financing, production technology, regulations, or even knowledge of value chains). (Identify the constraint then suggest a proposed solution) EQ1c, EQ1e Constraint Proposed solution a. _____________________________ __ _____________________________ ___ _____________________________ __ _____________________________ ___ b. _____________________________ __ _____________________________ ___ _____________________________ __ _____________________________ ___ c. _____________________________ __ _____________________________ ___ _____________________________ __ _____________________________ ___ 5. Experience with SEED Serial Question Answer Skip 2.1 How do you generally evaluate the benefits to your business as a result of participating in SEED activities aimed at expanding linkages and use of local very low …………………………………………………………… ….…. 1 117 Serial Question Answer Skip SMEs? (Select one rating) EQ1c, EQ1e low …………………………………………………………… ………....... 2 average ……………………………………………………………. ….…. 3 high …………………………………………………………… ………..…. 4 very high …………………………………………………………… ……. 5 3.2 Please briefly explain your rating from the previous question. What two or three factors working with SEED have led you to this conclusion? EQ1c, EQ1e __________________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________ ______ 3.3 Have you added any local SME suppliers as a result of SEED activities? EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ3 Yes …………………………………………………………… ……….…. 1 No …………………………………………………………… ……….…... 2 3.5 3.4 If you answered yes above, how would you rate the performance of local SMEs which SEED has introduced you too compared to your other local SME suppliers? (Circle all that apply and then rate according to 0 = SEED SMEs generally worse than our other local suppliers, 1 = about the same as our other local suppliers, 2 = generally better than our other local suppliers) EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ3 Ares of performance Don’t know a. Fulfilling contract terms 0 1 2 3 b. Meeting delivery deadlines 0 1 2 3 c. Quality of products 0 1 2 3 d. Communication and responsiveness to changes in orders 0 1 2 3 e. Pricing 0 1 2 3 f. Other ___________________________________ __ 0 1 2 3 118 Serial Question Answer Skip 3.5 Please specify the name and date (month/year) of any events and activities – organized by SEED – that you can recall your management, staff, or partners were involved in. EQ1c SEED activity Approximate month and year ___________________________________ __ _____/_______ ___________________________________ __ _____/_______ ___________________________________ __ _____/_______ ___________________________________ __ _____/_______ ___________________________________ __ _____/_______ 3.6 Please specify the name and date (month/year) of any other value chain events and activities – not organized by SEED – that you can recall your management, staff, or partners were involved in. EQ1c SEED activity Approximate month and year ___________________________________ __ _____/_______ ___________________________________ _____/_______ 119 Serial Question Answer Skip __ ___________________________________ __ _____/_______ ___________________________________ __ _____/_______ ___________________________________ __ _____/_______ 3.7 Did your organization participate in SEED interventions that addressed gender? EQ1c, EQ4 Yes ………………………………………………… ……….…. 1 No ………………………………………………… ……….…... 2 3.9 3.8 Have you taken any management decisions concerning women that were influenced by SEED interventions? Please describe. EQ1c, EQ4 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ __________________________ 3.9 Please describe challenges (if any), which your organization faces in addressing gender-related issues and improving conditions for women. EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ4 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ __________________________ 3.10 Referring to the previous question, what role should SEED play to mitigate these challenges? EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ4 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ __________________________ 3.11 Did your organization participate in SEED interventions that addressed youth and youth employment? EQ1c, EQ4 Yes ………………………………………………… ……….…. 1 No ………………………………………………… ……….…... 2 3.12 Does your company have a Corporate Social Yes 120 Serial Question Answer Skip Responsibility (CSR) strategy? EQ1c, EQ1e ………………………………………………… ……….…. 1 No ………………………………………………… ……….…... 2 3.13 3.13 What are the constraints impeding development of your company’s CSR initiatives? (Circle all that apply) EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ4 Lack of knowledge Yes No 1 2 Lack of institutional assistance 1 2 Lack of specific legislation on CSR 1 2 Business benefits not immediate 1 2 High costs 1 2 Lack of corporate skill 1 2 Other: ---------------------------------- --------- 1 2 3.14 What are the top three reasons your company adopted CSR practices? EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ4 Corporate- image enhancement 1 Selection and evaluation of suppliers 2 Value-chain control 3 Code of conduct for suppliers 4 Commercial advantages to new markets 5 Benefit in relationship with institution finance and community 6 Other: ------------------------------------------- - 7 3.15 Have SEED supported activities encouraged and influenced your company to adopt and/or reactivate any CSR practices? If ‘yes’ please support with examples? EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ3, EQ4 Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know 3 N.A. 4 3.15a Examples: EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ3, EQ4 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ __________________________ 3.16 Do you believe SEED’s presence has led to MSMEs growth in employment or sales revenues or will lead to increased growth in the coming one to two years? EQ1c, EQ3 Yes ………………………………………………… ……….…. 1 No ………………………………………………… 121 Serial Question Answer Skip ……….…... 2 3.17 Please briefly indicate why you believe this and offer one or two examples. EQ1c, EQ3 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ __________________________ 122 TOOL 8: STARTUPS/YOUTH/ENTREPRENEURS/MSMES GROUP DISCUSSION Protocol for Group Discussion (GD) with start-ups/youth/entrepreneurs and MSMEs Date of the meeting: ______/________/______ Time of the meeting: Hour: From: To: Interviewer/ other team members: Notes taken by: Participants: #, Name, Post (Business cards of participants to be collected and submitted to SIMPLE attached to original notes document) 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- Introduction Thank you for agreeing to meet with us today. USAID/Egypt has contracted this evaluation team through the SIMPLE Project (Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation) to conduct a mid-term evaluation of the USAID SEED program (Strengthening Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development). We are part of this evaluation team and this visit is part of the evaluation work. You have been asked to participate in this discussion because you are considered an important stakeholder in SEED’s activities. Your participation in this discussion will contribute to the evaluation findings and recommendations for the assessment team. The evaluation will be used to recommend implementation adjustments in SEED’s remaining performance period including how to address current challenges and further strengthen the activity. In this respect, the evaluation team confirms that the information you provide in this meeting will be handled by only the evaluation team in complete confidentiality and that reporting of the study will be anonymized. The discussion should require between 30 and 45 minutes, and your participation in this meeting is totally optional. 123 Thank you for your valued contribution to this important initiative. Eval Ques Start-ups/youth/entrepreneurs Ongoing MSMEs 1a 1) Which SEED activities and events have you participated in? 1) Which SEED activities and events have you participated in? 2) Which activities and events (if any) were most useful to you in terms of getting your business going? 2) Which of these services (if any) were the most useful in terms leading to business growth and eventually employing more people? 3) Have you been able to access services you need with SEED’s help? 3) Have you found that access to the business development services (BDS) you need has improved with SEED’s involvement? 1b N/A 4) Have you noticed any change in the quality of BDS that you have used after involvement with SEED? 1c N/A 5) Have you been involved in any SEED value chain activities? If yes, have any led to actually obtaining new customers or new suppliers? 1d 4) What regulatory obstacle has been most challenging to you? Has SEED been able to help you overcome this? 6) What 1 or 2 regulations do you believe most need to change to enable you to grow your company and employ more people? Are you aware of any SEED activities in regulatory reform? 1e 5) What is the greatest challenge you have faced working with SEED? 7) What is the greatest challenge you have faced working with SEED? 2 6) Do you find SEED staff accessible and responsive to your needs? Please explain further (whether your answer is yes or no). 8) Do you find SEED staff accessible and responsive to your needs? Please explain further (whether your answer is yes or no). 3 7) What do you think will happen when the SEED program ends, will the services you are receiving now continue? Is there any plan to have other organizations take them over? 9) What do you think will happen when the SEED program ends, will the services you are receiving now continue? Is there any plan to have other organizations take them over? 4 8) Have you received any services from SEED designed especially for women? What was the result? 10) Have you received any services from SEED designed especially for women? What was the result? 9) Have you received any services from SEED designed especially for youth? What was the result? 11) Have you received any services from SEED designed especially for youth? What was the result? 124 -6 استبيان للشركات الصغيرة والمتوسطة الحجم تاريخ المقابلة: ______/________/______ وقت المقابلة: الساعة: الباحث : المدون: مكان إجراء المقابلة المقدمة نشكركم للموافقة على إجراء هذا اللقاء. لقد قامت هيئة التنمية الدولية األمريكية بتكليف مشروع خدمات تحسين األداء وتعزيز أنشطة التقييم والتعلم SIMPLEبإجراء تقييم منتصف المدة لبرنامج ٍSEED. ويسعدنا أن نقدم أنفسنا باعتبارنا أعضاء فى فريق التقييم إلج راء هذا اللقاء الذى يمثل أهمية لعملية التقييم. ونود فى هذاالشأن التأكيد على أهمية النقاش معكم باعتباركم من المشاركين فى أنشطة البرنامج، إذ سيكون إلسهاماتكم بآلراء والمقترحات أهمية كبيرة فى إجراء عملية التقييم وصياغة المقترحات المتصلة بالبرنامج. كما سيتم االستناد إلى نتائج هذا التقييم فى وضع التوصيات التى تتعلق بآداء البرنامج خالل الفترة المتبقية من تنفيذه بهدف مواجهة التحديات الر اهنة وتعزيز األنشطة التى يتضمنها البرنامج. كما نؤكد على أن جميع المعلومات الواردة منكم بهذه الدراسة ستستخدم بواسطة أعضاء فريق التقييم فقط ألغراض التقييم وبدوناإلفصاح عن أسماء المشاركين، وأن مشاركتكم في هذا اللقاء اختيارية تماما. ومن المتوقع أن يستغرق اللقاء فترة تتراوح بين 30 و 45دقيقة مع التأكيد علي سرية البيانات وأنها لن تستخدم لغير أغرا ض هذا التقييم. نجد شكرنا المسبق إلسهاماتكم القيمة فى إنجاز أهدا ف هذا اللقاء. .1 البيانات األساسية 120. أسم الشركة / المنشأة 121. االسم : 122. المنصب : 123. النوع: ................................................1 ذكر........................ 2………………………..………………… أنثى..................... 124. السن: 125. المحافظة: 125 126. طبيعة نشاط الجهة: إنتاج/تصنيع .................. .. .................... 1 ... … تجارة جملة ................................................. 2 تجارة تجزئة ................................................. 3 خدمات................................................... ... 4 أخرى ___________________ 5 ..…………… 127. عدد العاملين 128. عدد العا الت 129. قيمة المبيعات السنوية )بالجنيه المصري( 130. مجاالت التعاون معبرنامج SEED التدريب أو المساعدة الفنية لمشروعك الحالي1................ بناء القدرات في مجال ريادة األعمال...................... 2 المشاركة في أحداث الترويج والتسويق 3..................... أخرى........................................................ 4 .. 131. مدةالتعاون مع SEED( شهر / سنة إلى شهر / سنة) إلى ________/_______ _______/________ إذا لم يكن التعاون مع البرنامج مستمراً 132. يرجى اإلشارة بإيجاز إلى سبب أو سببين؟ .2 الوصول إلى الخدمات المالية وغير المالية - الخدمات المالية م السؤال اإلجابة النتقاال ت 126 م السؤال اإلجابة النتقاال ت 2.1 كيف تصف حاجتك إلى الخدمات المالية من البنوك ومؤسسات التمويل متناهي الصغر والمستثمرين واالستشاريين والوسطاء الماليين؟ نحن بحاجة إلى خدمات مالية ونتمكن من الوصول إلى جميع الخدمات التي نحتاجها 1 Q2.7 نحن بحاجة إلى خدمات مالية ولكننا غير قادرين على الوصول إلى جميع الخدمات التي نحتاجها 2 ال اعرف 3 ال ينطبق ألنا ال نطلب أي خدمات مالية 4 2.2 هل الحظت أي تحسن في قدرتك على الوصول إلى الخدمات المالية منذ بداية عام 2016؟ ال يوجد تحسن منذ بداية عام 2016 1 بعض التحسن منذ بداية عام 2016 2 ال اعرف 3 ال ينطبق 4 2.3 ما هي أنواع الخدمات المالية التي تحتاجها حاليا أو في السنة القادمة؟ ()ضع دائرة حول كل ما ينطبق قروض التمويل متناهي الصغر )أقل من 50،000 جنيه( نعم ال 2 1 تمويل قصير األجل أو تمويل التدفق النقدي 1 2 ائتمان طويل األجللالستثمار في المرافق أو اآلالت أو المعدات 2 1 حقوق الملكية ورأس المال المخاطر ال الك الستثمار في شركتك 2 1 الخدمات االستشارية لخطط األعمال و / أو دراسات الجدوى للمساعدة في الوصول إلى االئتمان 2 1 اخري.................................................... ....... 6 ال اعرف 7 ال ينطبق 8 2.4 حدد بوضع دائرة علي أي من الخدمات المالية التالية التي قدمها البرنامج تم استخدمها وكيف تقيم مدى فائدتها في مساعدتك على ال ِّ وصول إلى التمويل؟ )ضع دائرة حول كل ما ينطبق ، ثم قيم وفقاً لكون 0 غير مفيد و 5 أكثر فائدة( 127 م السؤال اإلجابة النتقاال ت الخدمات مقياس الفائدة )5 مفيد للغاية( .1 لقاءات الترويج لالستثمارات 0 1 2 3 4 5 .2 التدريب على التثقيفالمالي 0 1 2 3 4 5 .3 المواد التدريبية علي الموضوعات المالية في مجال ريادة األعمال 5 4 3 2 1 0 .4 لقاءات لربط الكيانات متنا هية الصغر والصغيرة والمتوسطة بمقدمي الخدمات المالية أو المستثمرين 5 4 3 2 1 0 .5 التشبيك مع االستشاريين أو الوسطاء الماليين 0 1 2 3 4 5 .6 التقدم للحصول علي منحة 0 1 2 3 4 5 .7 اخرى _____________________________ ________ 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 8 ال ينطبق ألننا لم نستخدم أي خدمات مالية من SEED ………….……… 1 .………………………….. Q2.6 2.5 بالنسبة إلى تلك الخدمات المذكورة في سؤال )2.4( التي حصلت على تقييم 3 أو أقل ، وضح كيف يمكن البرنامج ان يجعلها أكثر فائدة الخدمات كيفية جعل الخدمات أكثر فائدة .1 لقاءات الترويج لالستثمارات __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ ____________ .2 التدريب على التثقيف المالي __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ ________________ .3 المواد التدريبية علي الموضوعات المالية في مجال ريادة األعمال __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ ________________ 128 م السؤال اإلجابة النتقاال ت .4 لقاءات لربط الكيانات متنا هية الصغر والصغيرة والمتوسطة بمقدمي الخدمات المالية أو المستثمرين __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ _______________ .5 التشبيك مع االستشاريين أو الوسطاء الماليين __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ ________________ .6 التقدم للحصول علي منحة __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ ________________ .7 اخرى ______________________________ _______ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ ________________ .8 ال أعرف نعم 1 .………………………………… ال .…………………………………… 2 2.6 اشرح الخدمة التي ترغب أن تري برنامج SEEDيقدمها لتساعدك في الحصول علي التمويل االزم لتنمية أعمالك؟ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ ______________________________ 129 - خدمات غير مالية لتطوير األعمال خدمات تطوير األعمال هي أي خدمات مقدمة للمشاريع الصغيرة ومتنا هية الصغر وأصحاب المشاريع للمساعدة في تنمية أعمالهم. وعادة ما يتم توفيرها من قبل االستشاريين والمدربين وجمعيات األعمال والمنظمات غير الحكومية والحاضنات والمؤسسات التعليمية والمهنيين القانونيين والمحاسبين م السؤال االجابة النتقاالت 2.7 كيف تصف حاجتك لخدمات تطوير األعمال؟ نحن بحاجة إلى خدمات تطوير األعمال ، ونحن قادرون على الوصول إلى جميع الخدمات التي نحتاجها 1 نحن بحاجة إلى خدمات تطوير األعمال ولكننا غير قادرين على الوصول إلى جميع الخدمات التي نحتاجها 2 ال اعرف 3 ال ينطبق ذلك ، ألنا ال نطلب أي خدمات تطوير األعمال 4 Q2.14 2.8 هل الحظت أي تحسن في قدرتك على الوصول إلى خدمات تطوير األعمال منذ عام 2016؟ ال يوجد تحسن منذ عام 2016 1 بعض التحسن منذ عام 2016 2 أسهل بكثير للوصول منذ عام 2016 3 ال اعرف 4 ال ينطبق 5 2.9 أي من األنواع التالية من خدمات ريادة األعمال التي تحتاجها في القريب العاجل أو في السنة القادمة؟ )ضع دائرة حول اهم الث خدمات ثم قم بتقييمها حسب الحاجة( الخدمات 0=ال حاجة ، 5 = أعلى حاجة ال اعر ف ا. التدريب على ريادة األعمال 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ب. الحصول علي النصح واإلرشاد في مجال مشروعك الخاص 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 ج. الوصول إلى المزيد من خدمات الحاضنات 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 د. الوصول إلى خدمات نقل التكنولوجيا )نقل المعرفة إلى رواد األعمال من أجل تطبيق التكنولوجيا الجديدة في مجال األعمال 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 ه.االلمام بخدمات الشباك الواحد للبدء في تنفيذ مشروعك الخاص 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 و. اخري، تذكر---------------------------------------- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 130 م السؤال االجابة النتقاالت - . ال ينطبق ، ألننا ال نحتاج إلى أي من هذه الخدمات ... ............................... 1 2.10 أي من أنواع خدمات االعمال المتخصصةالتالية التي تحتاجها حاليا أو في السنة القادمة؟ )ضع دائرة علي 3 خدمات مهمة ثم قم بتقييمها حسب الحاجة( الخدمة 0=ال حاجة ، 5 = أعلى حاجة ال اعر ف ا. دعم حضور معارض / مؤتمرات متخصصة 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ب. معارض التوظيف إليجاد العمالة المطلوبة 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ج. التدريب على فهم أفضل لكيفية الوصول إلى شركاء السل اإلمداد في االتجاهين )الموردين ، الموزعين ، العمالء( 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 د. استخدام دليل خاص بشركاء سلسلة االمداد عبر اإلنترنت )الموردين ، الموزعين ، الع الء( 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 ه. ربط أصحاب المشروعات الصغيرة و المتوسطة بأصحاب المشروعات الكبرى عبر لقاءات التشبيك 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 و. الوصول إلى مواقع الكترونيه تسمح للشركات الصغيرة والمتوسطة لترويج عن نفسها للمشترين 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 ز. الوصول إلى استراتيجية األعمال والمنتجات المالية التي تركز على المرأة. 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 ح. اخري، تذكر -------------------------------- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 . ال ينطبق ، ألننا ال نحتاج إلى أي من هذه الخدمات ............. ...................... 1 2.11 برجاء تحديد خمس خدمات غير مالية قد حصلت عليها و/ أو استخدمتها بواسطة برنامج SEED ، برجاء تقييم مستوي المنفعة )االستفادة( العائدة عليك من استخدام تلك الخدمات في تنمية مشروعك الخدمات 0=غير مفيدة علي األ الق ، 5 = مفيدة جداً 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 131 م السؤال االجابة النتقاالت 5 4 3 2 1 0 Q2.14 5 4 3 2 1 0 ال ينطبق النني لم احصل علي اي من الخدمات غير المالية 2.12 بالنسبة إلى تلك الخدمات المذكورة في سؤال )2.12( التي حصلت على تقييم 3 أو أقل ، وضح كيف يمكن البرنامج ان يجعلها أكثر فائدة الخدمات كيف تجعل الخدمات أكثر فائدة ا. _________________________________ _________________________________ ____________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ __________ ب. _________________________________ _________________________________ ____________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ __________ ج. _________________________________ _________________________________ ____________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ __________ د. _________________________________ _________________________________ ____________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ __________ ه. _________________________________ _________________________________ ____________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ __________ و. _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _______________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ __________ 2.13 منذ ٢٠١٦ ، هل الحظت أي اتجاه عام في جودة أو فعالية لمقدمي خدمات تطوير األعمال الذين عملت معهم؟ نعم يوجد تحسن ....... ................ 1 ال يوجد تحسن 132 م السؤال االجابة النتقاالت 2.…………………… ال أعرف .............................. 3 14 2. اشرح خدمات تطوير األعمال األكثر أهمية التي ترغب في أن يبدأ البرنامج بتنف ذها لتنمية مشروعك؟ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ _________________ 3 .تحسين بيئة األعمال م السؤال االجابة 3.1 الرجاء تحديد كل نشاط أو خدمة أدناه والتي استخدمت ها منذ بداية عام .2016 ثم حدد اخر استخدام ل ها ) الشهر وسنة ( ، ومدي رضاكم عن الخدمة ، وإذا كنتم ستستمرون في استخدام ها بعد انت هاء البرنامج. )ضع دائرة حول كل ما ينطبق) الخدمة أو النشاط شهر / سنة –)اخر استخدام ل ها( 3.2 مدي رضاكم 3.3 االستمرار في استخدام الخدمة بعد إنت هاءالبرنامج. ا. حاضنات األعمال السنة الشهر / 0 1 2 3 4 5 نعم .......................... 1 ال ............................ 2 غير متأكد ................... 3 ب. خدمات نقل التكنولوجيا السنة الشهر Month Year / 0 1 2 3 4 5 نعم ........................... 1 ال ............................ 2 غير متأكد ................... 3 ج. مركز االبتكار التكنولوجي وريادة األعمال السنة الشهر 0 1 2 3 4 5 نعم ....... ................... 1 ال ............................ 2 غير متأكد ................... 3 د. جهاز تنمية المشروعات السنة الشهر 0 1 2 3 4 5 نعم ........................... 1 133 متنا هية الصغر والصغيرة والمتوسطة / ال ............................. 2 غير متأكد ..................... 3 ه. اتحاد الصناعات المصرية السنة الشهر / 0 1 2 3 4 5 نعم ..... 1 .………………… ال .….……………...…… 2 غير متأكد ..................... 3 و. خدمات الشباك الواحد ) تميز( السنة الشهر Month Year / 0 1 2 3 4 5 نعم ........... 1 .….………… ال .….………...………… 2 غير متأكد ..................... 3 ز. الحصول علي المناقصات الحكومية بموجب قانون 89 السنة الشهر Month Year / 0 1 2 3 4 5 نعم ..... 1 .………………… ال ............................. 2 غير متأكد .................... 3 .4 ألهداف وعوامل النجاح وهيكل البرنامج [EQ1e] [EQ2] [EQ3] [EQ4] م السؤال االجابة النتقاالت 4.1 هل أدت أي من أنشطة البرنامج إلى زيادة في المبيعات بشكل مباشر أو غير مباشر ؟ نعم ........................................ 1 ال ..........................................2. 4.3 a4.2. أذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم ، وضح أهم نشاط وكيف أدي إلى زيادة المبيعات ؟ 134 م السؤال االجابة النتقاالت b4.2. م ا هي نسبة الزيادة السنوية في المبيعات؟ 4.3 هل أدت أي من أنشطة البرنامج إلى زيادة في التوظيف بشكل مباشر أو غير مباشر ؟ نعم ........................................ 1 ال ..........................................2. 4.6 a4.4. ذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم وضح أهم نشاط وكيف أدي إلى زيادة في التوظيف أو تتوقع زيادتها b4.4. كم عدد الوظائف الجديدة التي اضفت ها؟ 4.5 برجاء تحديد عدد الوظائف موزع علي: عدد الوظائف للمرأة عدد الوظائف للشباب 1 2 4.6بشكل عام، ما هو اكبر تحدي واجهته من قبل برنامجSEED ؟ )واحد فقط( 4.7 اذا أشرت إلى تحدي كبير في السؤال السابق، فهل تم حله؟ نعم .............................................. 1 ال ..............................................2. جزئيا...........................................3.. 4.9 4.8 إذا أشرت إلى "ال" أو "جزئيا" في السؤال السابق ، اشرح بإيجاز ما يجب على SEEDفعله لتصحي ح هذه التحديات وتقليل ها في المستقبل؟ 4.9 أثناء وجود برنامج SEED هل كانت المؤسسة التي تتعامل معها أكثر استجابة في التعامل مع احتياجات نمو اعمالك؟ نعم............................. .... 1................ ال................................... 2................ ال اعرف......................... .... 3............. 4.11 4.11 135 م السؤال االجابة النتقاالت 4.10 إذاكانت االجابة "ال"، اقترح ما يمكن عمله لتحسين مستوي االستجابة من مقدمي الخدمات التي تتعامل معهم. 4.11 بعد انت هاء البرنام ج، هل تعتقد انك ستستمرفي الحصول علي نفس أنواع الخدمات التي يقدم ها البرنامج؟ نعم............................. .... 1................ ال................................... 2................. ال اعرف....................... .. 3................. 4.12 يرجى توضيح لماذا وصلت إلى هذا .االستنتاج 136 Quest ID: -7 استبيان الشركات الصغيرة والمتوسطة )Chain Value) تاريخ المقابلة: ______/________/______ وقت المقابلة: الساعة: الباحث: المدون: تقديم نشكركمللموافقةعلى إجراء هذا اللقاء. لقدقامت هيئةالتنميةالدولية األمريكيةبتكليفمشروع خدماتتحسين األداء وتعزيزأنشطةالتقييم والتعلم SIMPLEبإجراء تقييم منتصف المدة لبرنامج ٍSEED. ويسعدنا أن نقدم أنفسنا باعتبارنا أعضاء فى فريق التقييم إلج راء هذا اللقاء الذى يمثل أهمية لعملية التقييم. ونودفى هذالشأنالتأكيد على أهميةالنقاش معكمباعتباركم منالمشاركينفى أنشطةالبرنامج، إذسيكون إلسهاماتكم اآلراء والمقترحات أهمية كبيرة فى إجراء عملية التقييم وصياغة المقترحات المتصلة بالبرنامج. كما سيتم االستناد إلى نتائج هذا التقييم فى وضع التوصيات التى تتعلق بآداء البرنامج خالل الفترة المتبقية من تنفيذه بهدف مواجهة التحديات الر اهنة وتعزيز األنشطة التى يتضمنها البرنامج. ً ونظرا ألنالبرنامج مصمملتحسين الروابطبينالمشروعات متنا هيةالصغر والصغيرة والمتوسطة – من جانب - والشركاتالكبيرة – من جانب آخر،فمن األهميةبمكان أنيتعرففريقالتقييم علىالتحدياتالتىتواجه كل من الجانبين،بهدف المساعدة علىتدعيم الروابطوزيادةالقدرة التنافسيةللجميع. كمايهمنابوجه خاصالتعرفعلى التطوراتفى مجال روابطسالسلالقيمة اللالعامين األخيرين،منذ أنبدأالبرنامجفيالعمل. كما نؤكد على أن جميع المعلومات الواردة منكم بهذه الدراسة ستستخدم بواسطة أعضاء فريق التقييم فقط ألغراض التقييم وبدوناإلفصاح عن أسماء المشاركين، وأن مشاركتكم في هذا اللقاء اختيارية تماما. ومنالمتوقع أنيستغرق اللقاءفترةتتراوحبين 30 و 45دقيقة معالتأكيد عليسريةالبيانات وأنهالنتستخدملغير أغراض هذاالتقييم. نجددشكرناالمسبق إلسهاماتكمالقيمةفىإنجاز أهداف هذا اللقاء. .2 البيانات األساسية .133اسم الشركة .134اسم المسئول الي تمت مقابلته .135العنوان .136النوع ذكر .……………………………………….…… 1..…….. أنثي … ………………………………….…………. 2...… .137 السن 137 .138المحافظة .139طبيعة نشاط الشركة -1 إنتاج/تصنيع -2توزيع/تجارة جملة -3تجارةتجزئة -4 خدمات -5 أخرى ------- .140قطاع النشاط ثروة سمكية.................................................... 1 منتجات ألبان .......................... ... 2 ................... صناعة مغذية للسيارات....................................... 3 منتجات الستيكية .......................................... 4.. البس جاهزة......................... ..... ..... ..... ........... 5 أخرى 6 ..............______________________ .141عدد العاملين .142عدد العا الت .143قيمة المبيعاتالسنويةبالجنيهالمصري .144المجال الرئيسيللمشاركة فى برنامج SEED( ضع دائرة حولكل ماينطبق( التدريب علي خدمات االمداد والتوريد في سلسلة القيمة... 1 المشاركة فى لقاءات التشبيك وتطوير األعمال ......... 2. شارك في المعارض / العروض ... ................... 3 أخرى ____________________............... 4 .145مدة المشاركة مع) :SEEDشهر / سنة إلى شهر / سنة أو مستمر( _______/________ to _______/________ .146إذا لم تكن المشاركة مع SEEDمستمرة ، يرجى اإلشارة بإيجاز إلى سبب أو سببين؟ _______________________________ _______________________________ ______________ 138 [EQ1c] [EQ1e]( والنظام األسواق كفاءة .6 مسلسل السؤال اإلجابة النتقال 2.1 هل تندرج الشركاتالكبيرة )300 موظف أو أكثر( ضمن ع الئكم حالياً؟ EQ1c نعم .…………………………………………… 1………..…….. ال ………………………………………….…. 2…………....… 2.4 2.2 هل تقومون حالياً بالتوريد للشركات الكبيرة )أكثر من 300 موظف( ،أكثر مقارنة بعام 2016؟ نعم .…………………………………………… 1………..…….. ال ………………………………………….…. 2…………....… 2.4 2.3 إذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم على السؤال السابق ، فيرجى تقدير النسبة المئوية إليرادات المبيعات للشركات الكبرة خالل 2016 و االن c1EQ …………..% 2016 االن % ................ 2.4 كم عدد المرات التي تقابلون فيها الشركات التى تقومون بالتوريد إليهالمناقشة األمورالمتعلقةباألعمال وتبادل المعلوماتالجديدة؟ )اجابة واحدةلعمود عام 2016 اجابة واحدلعمود اآلن c1EQ) و e1EQ و3EQ حالياً التكرار 2016 نعم ال نعم ال أسبوعي 1 2 1 2 شهريا 1 2 1 2 كل ٣شهور 1 2 1 2 اخري ............................ 1 2 1 2 2.5 ما هينسبة العقود الرسميةبينكم وبين الشركات التى تقومون بالتوريد إليها مقارنة مع االتفاقات الغير الرسمية؟ )تقدير لعامي 2016 واآلن( EQ3 ،EQ1e ،EQ1c النسبة المئوية لجميع عقود البيع الرسمية )المكتوبة( 2016 ..%............ االن % ................ 2.6 كيفتصفون طبيعةالالقةبينكم وبين الشركات التى تقومون بالتوريد إليها؟ )اختر واحدة( c1EQ، EQ1e االشروط واألحكام يتم تحدي دها من قبل المشترى 1 القةقائمة على التكافؤ 2 2.7 أي من الخدماتالتاليةترون أن الشركات التى نعم ال ال أعرف 139 مسلسل السؤال اإلجابة النتقال توردون إليهاتوفرها لكم اآلنبدرجة أكبر مماقدمته في عام 2016؟ )ضع دائرة حول كل ما ينطبق( القروض 1 2 3 التدريب 1 2 3 دعم التسويق 1 2 3 االالت والمعدات 1 2 3 خدمات الصيانة 1 2 3 2.8 ما هي أهمالعقبات )اذكر اثنين( التيتواجهكم والتي تمنعكم منتوسيعسلسلة اإلمداد/القيمة الخاصةبكم للوصول إلى موردين وعمالء جدد )قديشملذلك الوصول إلى معلوماتالسوق أوالتمويل أو تكنولوجيا اإلنتاج أو األنظمة أوحتى معرفة السل القيمة(؟ ، e1EQ _______________________________ _____ _______________________________ _____ _______________________________ _____ _______________________________ _____ 2.9 فى حالة اإلشارة إلى عقباتفيسلسلة اإلمداد/ القيمةفيالسؤالالسابق ، ما هي أنواعالخدماتالتي ترغبفي أنيضطلعبهابرنامج SEEDلتقليل هذه EQ1e ، EQ1cالقيود؟ _______________________________ _____ _______________________________ _____ _______________________________ _____ _______________________________ _____ .7 تجربة التعاون مع البرنامج SEED] c1EQ[ مسلسل السؤال اإلجابة النتقال 3.1 يرجى تحديد ثالًثة خدمات لسلسلة االمداد/القيمة الخاصة بـ SEED التي استخدمتها أو لم تشارك فيها ، ثم قيّم مدى فائدتها في المساعدة على تنمية نشاطك . )يعتمد التصنيف على 0 = غير مفيد و 5 = مفيد جداً( c1EQ EQ1e ، الخدمة مقياس الفائدة )5 مفيد للغاية( ال أعرف أو ال أتذكر a. _____________________ _____________________ ____ 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 b. _____________________ _____________________ ____ 140 مسلسل السؤال اإلجابة النتقال c. _____________________ _____________________ ____ 3.2 بالنسبة إلى الخدمة في السؤال السابق التي حصلت على تقدير 3 أو أقل ، الرجاء التوضيح كيف SEEDيمكن أن يجعلها أكثر فائدة. )استخدم نفس ترتيب العناصر c-a أ اله في األماكن المقابلة هنا( c1EQ ، e1EQ الخدمة كيفية جعل الخدمات أكثر فائدة _________________________ .a _ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ____________________________ .b _________________________ _ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ____________________________ ______________________________ _________________________ .c ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ____________________________ 3.3 هلشارك أي من العاملينفيشركتكمفي انشطة وفعاليات مرتبطة بسلسلة اإلمداد/القيمةتم تنظيمها من قبل مؤسسات دولية أخرى )منذبداية عام 2016( - غير المقدمة منSEED ؟ نعم .………………………………………… 1…………..…. ال …………………………………………. 2….…………..… 4.1 3.4 إذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم ، أ اله ، يرجى تحديد اسم البرنامج ، والمنظمة التي عرضته ، والسنةc1EQ . a3.4اسم خدمة أوالفعالية المرتبطة بسلسلة اإلمداد/القيمة b.4المنظمة التي قدمت الخدمة c3.4السنة _____________________ ______________________ .4 ___ ______________________ .5 __ _____________________ ___ 141 مسلسل السؤال اإلجابة النتقال ______________________ .6 __ _____________________ ___ 7 هيكل البرنامج و ألهداف وعوامل النجاح و SEED overarching] [4EQ] [3EQ] [2EQ][e1EQ[ indicators] مسلسل السؤال اإلجابة النتقال 4.1 هل أدت أية أنشطةلبرنامج SEEDبشكلمباشر أو غيرمباشر إلى زيادة مبيعاتكم؟ أو هلتتوقعون EQ3 ،EQ1e ، EQ1cحدوثذلك؟ نعم .…………………………………………… 1………..…. ال ………………………………………….…. 2…………..… 4.3 4.2 إذاكانت اإلجابةبنعم ،اشرح كيف أدت هذه األنشطة المقدمة من برنامج SEED إلىزيادةالمبيعات EQ1c , EQ1e , EQ3 _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ ________________________ 4.3 هل أدت أية أنشطةلبرنامج SEEDإلىزيادةفرص العمل بشكلمباشر أو غيرمباشر أو هلتتوقعون EQ3 ،EQ1e ، EQ1c حدوثذلك؟ نعم .…………………………………………… 1………..…. ال ………………………………………….…. 2…………..… 4.5 4.4 إذا کانت اإلجابة بنعم ، اشرحکيف أدت هذه ألنشطة SEEDإلی زيادةفرص العمل أوتوقع ها. EQ3 ،EQ1e ،EQ1c _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ ________________________ 4.5 هل من المتوقع مع زيادة التوظيف أن تتكافء فرص التوظيف بين الرجل والمرأة؟4EQ نعم ، فرص متكافئة بين الرجل والمرأة 1 ال، توظيف أكثر للرجال 2 4.7 ال، توظيف أكثر للمرأة 3 4.6 كيفساعدت أنشطة SEEDفيزيادةفرص العمل للمرأة؟ EQ4 ،EQ1e _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _____________________ a4.6 يرجى توضيح كيف. _______________________________ _______________________________ 142 مسلسل السؤال اإلجابة النتقال _______________________________ _______________________________ ________________________ 4.7 هل ساهمت أية أنشطة لبرنامج SEEDفيزيادة فرص العمل للشباب؟ نعم .…………………………………………… 1………..…. ال ………………………………………….…. 2…………..… 4.8 a4.7 يرجى توضيح كيف. EQ1e, EQ4 _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ ________________________ 4.8 بشكل عام ، ما هوالتحدي األكبر )إن وجد( الذي واجهته من قبل برنامجSEED ؟ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ ________________________ 4.9 إذاكانت هناك تحديات، هلتمحلها؟ نعم .…………………………………… …………… 1 4.11 ال ………………………….………… …………… 2 ْجزيا .…………………………………… ……… 3 4.10 ماالذيينبغيلبرنامج SEED القيامبهلتصحيح هذه التحديات وتقليلهافيالمستقبل؟ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ ________________________ 4.11 هل واجهت أي تأخير في تلقي مساعدة منالبرنامج وأدت الى تقليلفعاليت ها؟e1EQ، 2EQ نعم .…………………………………………… 1………..…. ال ………………………………………….…. 2…………..… 4.13 143 مسلسل السؤال اإلجابة النتقال 4.12 أنواع المساعدة التي حدثت لها تأخير األسباب الرئيسية للتأخير ______________________ ______________________ .a ______________________ ______________________ .b ______________________ ______________________ .c 4.13 هل يمكنك التواصل مع فريق الدعم الفني للبرنامج بسهولة عندما تحتاج إليهم؟ EQ2 ،EQ1e نعم ……………….………………… ……………… 1 4.15 ال 4.15 .………………………………… ……………… 2 ال أعزف .………………………………… … 3 4.14 مإذاكانت االجابة "ال"، اقترح ما يمكن عمله لتحسين إمكانية التواصل معهم e1EQ ، 2EQ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ____________________________ 4.15 بعد انت هاء البرنام ج، هل تعتقد انك ستستمرفي الحصول علي نفس أنواع الخدمات التي يقدم ها البرنامج؟3EQ نعم .………………………………… ……………… 1 ال .………………………………… ……………… 2 ال أعرف 3 4.16 يرجى توضيح لماذا وصلت إلى هذا االستنتاج.(3EQ.______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ _____________________ -6 استبيان للشركات الصغيرة والمتوسطة الحجم )لقاء تليفوني( 144 تاريخ المقابلة: ______/________/______ وقت المقابلة: الساعة: الباحث : المدون: مكان إجراء المقابلة تقديم نشكركم للموافقة على إجراء هذا اللقاء. لقد قامت هيئة التنمية الدولية األمريكية بتكليف مشروع خدمات تحسين األداء وتعزيز أنشطة التقييم والتعلم SIMPLEبإجراء تقييم منتصف المدة لبرنامج ٍSEED. ويسعدنا أن نقدم أنفسنا باعتبارنا أعضاء فى فريق التقييم إلج راء هذا اللقاء الذى يمثل أهمية لعملية التقييم. ونود أن نؤكد على أهمية النقاش معكم باعتباركم قد شاركتم فى أنشطة البرنامج، عن طريق جهات أخرى متعاونة مع البرنامج. إذ سيكون إلسهاماتكم اآلراء والمقترحات أهمية كبيرة فى إجراء عملية التقييم ومواجهة المعوقات وتعزيز أنشطة البرنامج. كما نؤكد على أن جميع المعلومات الواردة منكم بهذه الدراسة ستستخدم فقط ألغراض التقييم وبدوناإلفصاح عن أسماء المشاركين، علما اختيارية تماما. ً بأن مشاركتكم في هذا اللقاء ومن المتوقع أن يستغرق اللقاءفرة ال تتجاوز 15دقيقة، نكرر شكرنا المسبق إلسهاماتكم القيمة فى إنجاز هذا اللقاء. .3 البيانات األساسية 147. أسم الشركة / المنشأة 148. االسم : 149. المنصب : 150. النوع: ................................................1 ذكر........................ 2………………………..………………… أنثى..................... 151. السن: 152. المستوى التعليمى اتمام التعليم االبتدائى1................. اتمام التعليم الثانوى..2 اتمام التعليم الجامعى3 اتمام دراسات عليا4 153. المحافظة: 154. عدد العاملين 155. عدد العا الت 156. مدةالتعاون مع SEED( شهر / سنة إلى شهر / سنة) إلى ________/_______ _______/________ 157. هل كانت بداية نشاط شركتكم فى نفس تاريخ بداية المشاركة مع برنام سيد أم أنها كانت موجودة قبل عبر طريقة مساعدة من SEED كان المشروع موجود 145 ذلك؟ .2 الوصول إلى الخدمات المالية وغير المالية الخدمات المالية م السؤال اإلجابة النتقاال ت EQ1a, EQ1b 2.1 بالمقارنة بالوضع فى عام 2016 ، هل ترى حدوث تحسن فى قدرتكم على الوصول إلى الخدمات المالية أو الخدمات غير المالية فى مجال تطوير األعمال التى تحتاجونها ألنشطتكم؟ ال يوجد تحسن منذ بداية عام 2016 1 بعض التحسن منذ بداية عام 2016 2 ال اعرف 3 ال ينطبق 4 2.2 كيف تصف حاجتك لخدمات تطوير األعمال؟ نحن بحاجة إلى خدمات تطوير األعمال ، ونحن قادرون على الوصول إلى جميع الخدمات التي نحتاجها 1 نحن بحاجة إلى خدمات تطوير األعمال ولكننا غير قادرين على الوصول إلى جميع الخدمات التي نحتاجها 2 ال اعرف 3 ال ينطبق ذلك ، ألنا ال نطلب أي خدمات تطوير األعمال 3.1 4 2.3 أي من األنواع التالية من خدمات ريادة األعمال التي تحتاجها في القريب العاجل أو في السنة القادمة؟ )ضع دائرة حول اهم الث خدمات ثم قم بتقييمها حسب الحاجة( الخدمات 0=ال حاجة ، 5 = أعلى حاجة ال اعر ف ا. التدريب على ريادة األعمال 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ب. الحصول علي اإلرشاد والتوجيهفي مجال مشروعك الخاص 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 ج. الوصول إلى المزيد من خدمات الحاضنات 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 د. الوصول إلى خدمات نقل التكنولوجيا )نقلالمعرفة إلى رواد األعمال من أجل تطبيق التكنولوجيا الجديدة في مجال األعمال 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 ه.االلمام بخدمات الشباك الواحد للبدء في تنفيذ مشروعك الخاص 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 و. اخري، تذكر----------------------------------------- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 . ال ينطبق ، ألننا ال نحتاج إلى أي من هذه الخدمات ... ............................... 1 2.4 أي من أنواع خدمات االعمال المتخصصةالتالية التي تحتاجها حاليا أو في السنة القادمة؟ )ضع دائرة علي 3 خدمات مهمة ثم قم بتقييمها حسب الحاجة( الخدمة 0=ال حاجة ، 5 = أعلى حاجة ال 146 اعر ف ا. دعم حضور معارض / مؤتمرات متخصصة 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ب. معارض التوظيف إليجاد العمالة المطلوبة 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ج. التدريب على فهم أفضل لكيفية الوصول إلى شركاء السل اإلمداد في االتجاهين )الموردين ، الموزعين ، العمالء( 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 د. استخدام دليل خاص بشركاء سلسلة االمداد عبر اإلنترنت )الموردين ، الموزعين ، الع الء( 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 ه. ربط أصحاب المشروعات الصغيرة و المتوسطة بأصحاب المشروعات الكبرى عبر لقاءات التشبيك 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 و. الوصول إلى مواقع الكترونيه تسمح للشركات الصغيرة والمتوسطة لترويج عن نفسها للمشترين 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 ز. الوصول إلى استراتيجية األعمال والمنتجات المالية التي تركز على المرأة. 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 ح. اخري، تذكر -------------------------------- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 . ال ينطبق ، ألننا ال نحتاج إلى أي من هذه الخدمات ................................... 1 EQ1a, EQ1e نرجو اإلشارة إلى أهم الخدمات التى ترغبون فى أن يبدأا برنامج سيد فى تقديمها للمساعدة على نمو نشاطكم. 3 .تحسين بيئة األعمال م السؤال االجابة 3.1 الرجاء تحديد كل نشاط أو خدمة أدناه والتي استخدمت ها منذ بداية عام .2016 ثم حدد اخر استخدام ل ها ) الشهر وسنة ( ، ومدي رضاكم عن الخدمة ، وإذا كنتم ستستمرون في استخدام ها بعد انت هاء البرنامج. )ضع دائرة حول كل ما ينطبق) الخدمة أو النشاط شهر / سنة –)اخر استخدام ل ها( 3.2 مدي رضاكم 3.3 االستمرار في استخدام الخدمة بعد إنت هاءالبرنامج. ا. حاضنات األعمال السنة الشهر / 0 1 2 3 4 5 نعم .......................... 1 ال ............................ 2 غير متأكد ................... 3 ب. خدمات نقل التكنولوجيا السنة الشهر Month Year / 0 1 2 3 4 5 نعم ........................... 1 ال ............................ 2 غير متأكد ................... 3 ج. مركز االبتكار التكنولوجي وريادة األعمال السنة الشهر 0 1 2 3 4 5 نعم ....... ................... 1 ال ............................ 2 غير متأكد ................... 3 السنة 0 1 2 3 4 5 نعم ........................... 147 د. جهاز تنمية المشروعات متنا هية الصغر والصغيرة والمتوسطة الشهر / 1 ال ............................. 2 غير متأكد ..................... 3 ه.اتحاد الصناعات المصرية السنة الشهر / 0 1 2 3 4 5 نعم ..... 1 .………………… ال .….……………...…… 2 غير متأكد ..................... 3 و. خدمات الشباك الواحد ) تميز( السنة الشهر Month Year / 0 1 2 3 4 5 نعم ........... 1 .….………… ال .….………...………… 2 غير متأكد ..................... 3 ز. الحصول علي المناقصات الحكومية بموجب قانون 89 السنة الشهر Month Year / 0 1 2 3 4 5 نعم ..... 1 .………………… ال ............................. 2 غير متأكد .................... 3 .4 ألهداف وعوامل النجاح وهيكل البرنامج [EQ1e] [EQ2] [EQ3] [EQ4] م السؤال االجابة النتقاالت 4.1 هل أدت أي من أنشطة البرنامج إلى زيادة في المبيعات بشكل مباشر أو غير مباشر ؟ نعم ........................................ 1 ال ..........................................2. 4.3 a4.2. أذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم ، وضح أهم نشاط وكيف أدي إلى زيادة المبيعات ؟ b4.2. م ا هي نسبة الزيادة السنوية في المبيعات؟ 4.3 هل أدت أي من أنشطة البرنامج إلى زيادة في التوظيف بشكل مباشر أو غير مباشر ؟ نعم ........................................ 1 ال ..........................................2. 4.6 a4.4. ذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم وضح أهم نشاط وكيف أدي إلى زيادة في التوظيف أو تتوقع زيادتها b4.4. كم عدد الوظائف الجديدة التي اضفت ها؟ 148 4.5 برجاء تحديد عدد الوظائف موزع علي: عدد الوظائف للمرأة عدد الوظائف للشباب 1 2 4.6 أثناء وجود برنامج SEED هل كانت المؤسسة التي تتعامل مع ها أكثر استجابة في التعامل مع احتياجات نمو اعمالك؟ نعم............................. .... 1................ ال................................... 2................ ال اعرف......................... .... 3............. 4.11 4.11 4.7 إذاكانت االجابة "ال"، اقترح ما يمكن عمله لتحسين مستوي االستجابة من مقدمي الخدمات التي تتعامل معهم. 4.8 بعد انت هاء البرنام ج، هل تعتقد انك ستستمرفي الحصول علي نفس أنواع الخدمات التي يقدم ها البرنامج؟ نعم............................. .... 1................ ال................................... 2................. ال اعرف....................... .. 3................. 4.9 يرجى توضيح لماذا وصلت إلى . هذا االستنتاج 4.10 نرجو ذكر القيمة التقريبية لمبيعاتكم السنوية بالجنيه المصرى. الغرض م ن هذا السؤال هو تصنيف اإلجابات تبعاً لحجم الشركة. اقل من 50,000………………………………………1 50,001 – 250,000………………………2 250,001 – 500,000……….……………3 500,001 or higher…………….……….4 -1 )KII )مقدمي خدمات تطوير االعمال)الشباك الواحد –مؤسسات التمويل – حاضنات االعمال( تاريخ المقابلة ______/________/______ وقت المقابلة الساعة: 149 الباحث / أعضاء الفريق اآلخرون المدون المقدمة نشكركم للموافقة على إجراء هذا اللقاء. لقد قامت هيئة التنمية الدولية األمريكية بتكليف مشروع خدمات تحسين األداء وتعزيز أنشطة التقييم والتعلم SIMPLEبإجراء تقييم منتصف المدة لبرنامج ٍSEED. ويسعدنا أن نقدم أنفسنا باعتبارنا أعضاء فى فريق التقييم إلج راء هذا اللقاء الذى يمثل أهمية لعملية التقييم. ونود فى هذا الشأن التأكيد على أهمية النقاش معكم باعتباركم من المشاركين فى أنشطة البرنامج، إذ سيكون إلسهاماتكم بآلراء والمقترحات أهمية كبيرة فى إجراء عملية التقييم وصياغة المقترحات المتصلة بالبرنامج. كما سيتم االستناد إلى نتائج هذا التقييم فى وضع التوصيات التى تتعلق بآداء البرنامج خالل الفترة المتبقية من تنفيذه بهدف مواجهة التحديات الر اهنة وتعزيز األنشطة التى يتضمنها البرنامج. كما نؤكد على أن جميع المعلومات الواردة منكم بهذه الدراسة ستستخدم بواسطة أعضاء فريق التقييم فقط ألغراض التقييم وبدوناإلفصاح عن أسماء المشاركين، وأن مشاركتكم في هذا اللقاء اختيارية تماما. ومن المتوقع أن يستغرق اللقاء فترة تتراوح بين 30 و 45دقيقة مع التأكيد علي سرية البيانات وأنها لن تستخدم لغير أغرا ض هذا التقييم. نجد شكرنا المسبق إلسهاماتكم القيمة فى إنجاز أهدا ف هذا اللقاء. بيانات اساسية: مسلسل السؤال الجواب االنتقال .158اسم المنظمة/الجهة اسم الشخص الذي أ النوع 160. اللقب 161. ُ .159 جريت معه المقابلة ……………………………… ……………………………… ……………………….. ذكر ....................... 1 أنثى 2........................ ………………………………… ………………………………… …………………………….. ……………………………… ……………………………… ……………………….. ذكر ....................... 1 أنثى 2........................ ………………………………… ………………………………… …………………………….. ……………………………… ……………………………… ……………………….. ذكر ....................... 1 أنثى 2........................ ………………………………… ………………………………… …………………………….. ……………………………… ……………………………… ……………………….. ذكر ....................... 1 أنثى ………………………………… ………………………………… …………………………….. 150 2........................ .162الموقع(محافظة) القاهرة الكبرى.... 1 ……………………………..………… األسكندرية ……………………………………...… 2 ………. أخرى .. ………………………………………... 3 …………. .163نوع الخدمات المقدمة )أكثر من واحدة إذا لزم األمر) الحاضنة ........................ نعم ال 2 1 التشبيك... ............ ........ 1 2 التثقيف المالي..... ................ 1 2 خدمات الشباك الواحد............. 1 2 خدمات تطوير األعمال .......... 1 2 أخرى.............................. 1 2 .164عدد الموظفين /العاملين .165عدد الموظفات / العا الت .166نوع المنظمة شركة استشارية1............................................ حاضنة أعمال 2............................................. خدمات الشباك الواحد 3..................................... خدمات تطوير األعمال 4 .................................. مؤسسة التمويل األصغر / مزود الخدمة المالية 5 ........ .167مدة المشاركة مع SEED to________ /_______ 151 _______/________ .168اذا لم تستمر المشاركة مع SEED , وضح بإختصار _____________________________ ______ .12كيف تعرفت علي برنامج SEED برنامج SEEDقام باالتصال بنا 1........................ تمت دعوتنا في أحد فعالياتSEED 2................... القة شخصية 3.......................................... طلبت الحصول على المنحة التي أعلنته 4.......SEED اخرى 5................................................... .13 كيف تصف الالقة مع SEED ؟ ضع دائرة حول كل ما ينطبق نحن شريك تنفيذى ألنشطة SEED )نحن نقدم المساعدة آلخرين( نعم ال 2 1 أنفذ اتفاقية منحة من SEED 1 2 نتلقى بناء قدرات لمنظمتنا من SEED 2 1 نحن شريك منسق )نساعد في تسهيل أنشطة(SEED 2 1 أخرى ............................... 2 1 .14 ما هي األنشطة و الفعاليات التي شاركت فيها مع برنامج SEED( حدد ما ينطبق من القائمة التالية( ، و ما هو تقييمك لتلك األنشطة من حيث مستوي االستفادة األنشطة المقدمة من برنامج SEED مستوي االستفادة )5 هو األكثر فائدة ( .1 تدريب قدرات الموظفين و ورش العمل 0 1 2 3 4 5 .2 الترويج و الوصول للعمالء 0 1 2 3 4 5 152 .3تطوير منتج جديد 0 1 2 3 4 5 .4 دعم التكنولوجيا أو المعدات 0 1 2 3 4 5 .5 تخطيط استراتيجي 0 1 2 3 4 5 .6 أفضل ممارسات اإلدارة 0 1 2 3 4 5 .7 زيارة دراسية للخارج للتعرف علي أفضل الممارسات 5 4 3 2 1 0 .8 منح 0 1 2 3 4 5 .9 اخرى ____________________________ _______ 5 4 3 2 1 0 .15 هل تري أي تحسينات في قدرات مؤسستك على تقديم الخدمات مقارنة بالتوضع في عام 2016 ال يوجد تحسن منذ أ 2016 1 بعض التحسن منذ عام 2016 2 ال اعرف 3 ال ينطبق )لم نبدأ التشغيل بعد( 4 .16 إذا كانت إحدى المؤسسات مالية )مؤسسات التمويل متناهي الصغر و الصغير، وشركات التمويل متناهي الصغر والصغير والبنوك التجارية( ، فاطلب األسئلة التالية: هل قامت منظمتك بتوسيع أي من األنشطة التالية خالل العامين الماضيين؟ )ضع دائرة حول كل ما ينطبق( نشاط نعم ال تعليقات التدريب على التثقيف المالي للمستفيدين النهائيين 1 2 روابط االستثمار / حقوق الملكية للشركات الصغيرة والمتوسطة 1 2 منتج / منتجات مالية جديدة )تطوير المنتج( 1 2 التغييرات في اإلجراءات لمطابقة احتياجات الع الء بشكل أفضل 2 1 اخرى------------------------ : 1 2 .17 إلى أي مدى ساهمت أنشطة منظمتك في تحقيق أهداف برنامج SEED( انظر القائمة أدناه( نحو تطوير المشروعات متنا هية الصغر والصغيرة في مصر؟ )يرجى اإلشارة إلى الرقم 5كأقوى مساهمة( األهداف مقياس المساهمات )5 = أقوى مساهمة( ال أعرف ال ينطبق .1 زيادة وصول الشباب و المرأة لبدء أعمالهم الخاصة 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 .2 زيادة فرص الحصول إلى الخدمات المالية 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .3 تزويد مؤسسات األعمال الصغيرة والمتناهية الصغر بالخدمات غير المالية االزمة التي تساعد 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 153 على النمو .4 زيادة عدد العمالة 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .5 زيادة حجم المبيعات 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .6 زيادة عدد النساء العا الت 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .7 زيادة عمالة الشباب 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .8 آخرى:------------------------------ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .18 م ا هي الحواجز التشريعية و التنظيمية الرئيسية التي تؤثر على مجاالت نشاطك؟ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _________________________ .19 ما هيإلصالحات التنظيمية األساسية التي تحتاجهافي اإلطار القانوني والتنظيمي ، والتي من شأنها تحسين الخدمات المقدمة إلى المشروعات متناهية الصغر والصغيرة والمتوسطة؟ )اذكر 1 - 2 أهمإلصالحات من وجهة نظر منظمتكم( _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _________________________ .20 م ا هي الكيانات التي تقود الدعوة لمثل هذه اإل الحات؟ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _________________________ .21 ً في الوقت الحالي ، هل تلعب مؤسستك دورا في مجال حشد التأييد لتعديل، تفعيل أو اقتراح تشريعات لتحسين بيئة أعمال المشروعات الصغيرة؟ نعم 1--------------------------------------- ال 2---------------------------------------- .22 هل تدعمك SEED في هذا الدور؟ نعم 1--------------------------------------- ال 2---------------------------------------- .23بشكل عام ، ما هو التحدي األكبر الذي واجهته في التعامل مع أو في تنفيذ أنشطة مع برنامجSEED ؟ )واحد فقط( _____________________________ _____________________________ 154 _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _________________________ .24 هل تقدم تقارير منتظمة إلى SEED حول المش الت التي تواجهها مؤسستك أثناء التنفيذ؟ نعم 1--------------------------------------- ال 2---------------------------------------- .25 هل يمكن الوصول بسهولة إلى موظفي الدعم الفني والموظفين التابعين لـSEEDعندما تحتاج إليهم؟ نعم 1--------------------------------------- ال 2---------------------------------------- Q27 .26 إذا لم يكن األمر كذلك ، فاشرح بإيجاز أهم إجراء يجب أن تتخذه SEEDلتحسين إمكانية التواصل الفعال معهم؟ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _________________________ .27 إذا االجابة نعم، برجاء اعطاء مثال؟ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _________________________ .28 ه ً ل كان لديك نشاط / خدمة تم تصميمه خصيصا للمرأة؟ نعم 1--------------------------------------- ال 2---------------------------------------- Q31 .29 وما هو محتو اها؟ _____________________________ _____________________________ ____________ .30 م ا هي نتيجة / النتائج المترتبة علي تقديم تلك األنشطة؟ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _________________________ .31 م ا هي التحديات )إن وجدت( التي واجهتك أنت و/ أو منظمتك في سياق معالجة القضايا المتعلقة بتمكين المرأة في العمللتنفيذ األنشطة التي يدعمها .SEED _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _________________________ 155 .32 ما هي مقترحاتك لبرنامج SEEDللمساعدة في مواجهةتلك التحديات المتعلقة بتمكين المرأة في العمل ؟ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _________________________ .33 هل تري أن الخدمات التي تقدمونها سوف تستمر بعد نهاية العمر الزمني لبرنامج SEED نعم 1--------------------------------------- ال 2---------------------------------------- انتهت .34 إذا كانت اإلجابة "نعم" ، فيرجى توضيح األسباب / عوامل االستدامة استنادا إلى المستويات ال الث التالية عوامل االستدامة المستويات ال اعر ف غير موجود في التخطيط موجود .1 خطة العمل واضح ومحدثة 1 2 3 4 2 . هيكل تكاليف مبني علي اساس واضح 1 2 3 4 .3 توافر موظفين مدربين تدريبا جيدا مع وصف وظيفي واضح 4 3 2 1 .4 توافر أدلة السياسات واإلجراءات 1 2 3 4 .5 مصادر ثابتة / مؤكده من اإليرادات غير الحكومية 1 2 3 4 6 .مصادر التمويل المضمونة )موازنة حكومية( 1 2 3 4 .7 اخرى _______________________________ 4 3 2 1 .35 أي من المجاالت و العوامل السابقة قد س اهم برنامج SEEDفيه مع منظمتكم. _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ ________________________ _________________________________ ______ 156 Quest ID: -2 )KII )المنظمات الحكومية تاريخ المقابلة: ______/________/______ وقت المقابلة: الساعة من الى الباحث: المدون: المشاركون: # ، االسم ، المسمي الوظيفي )بطاقات العمل للمشاركين الذين يتم جمعهم وإرسالهم إلى SIMPLE مرفقة بوثيقة ال الحظات األصلية( .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 المقدمة: نشكركم للموافقة على إجراء هذا اللقاء. لقد قامت هيئة التنمية الدولية األمريكية بتكليف مشروع خدمات تحسين األداء وتعزيز أنشطة التقييم والتعلم SIMPLEبإجراء تقييم منتصف المدة لبرنامج ٍSEED. ويسعدنا أن نقدم أنفسنا باعتبارنا أعضاء فى فريق التقييم إلج راء هذا اللقاء الذى يمثل أهمية لعملية التقييم. ونود فى هذا الشأن التأكيد على أهمية النقاش معكم باعتباركم من المشاركين فى أنشطة البرنامج، إذ سيكون إلسهاماتكم بآلراء والمقترحات أهمية كبيرة فى إجراء عملية التقييم وصياغة المقترحات المتصلة بالبرنامج. كما سيتم االستناد إلى نتائج هذا التقييم فى وضع التوصيات التى تتعلق بآداء البرنامج خالل الفترة المتبقية من تنفيذه بهدف مواجهة التحديات الر اهنة وتعزيز األنشطة التى يتضمنها البرنامج. كما نؤكد على أن جميع المعلومات الواردة منكم بهذه الدراسة ستستخدم بواسطة أعضاء فريق التقييم فقط ألغراض التقييم وبدوناإلفصاح عن أسماء المشاركين، وأن مشاركتكم في هذا اللقاء اختيارية تماما. ومن المتوقع أن يستغرق اللقاء فترة تتراوح بين 30 و 45دقيقة مع تكرار التأكيد علي سرية البيانات وأنها لن تستخدم لغير أغرا ض هذا التقييم. نجد شكرنا المسبق إلسهاماتكم القيمة فى إنجاز أ هداف هذا اللقاء. القة منظمتك معSEED Seri al السؤال االجابة تخطي السؤال رنامج ً كيف أصبحت مشترك ب 1. ا مع SEED؟ EQ1d, EQ2 تم االجتماع مع أعضاء برنامج SEED 1 تمت دعوتنا في أحد فعالياتبرنامج SEED 2 القة شخصية 3 157 Seri al السؤال االجابة تخطي السؤال لم يتصل بنا احد, تم االتصال منخاللنا ببرنامج SEED 4 طلبت الحصول على المنحة التي أعلنتها برنامج 5 SEED اخرى 99 2. كيف تصف الالقة مع برنامج SEED EQ1d, EQ2 نحن شريك تنفيذى ألنشطةبرنامج SEED )نحن نقدم المساعدة آلخرين( 1 مستلم منحة منبرنامج SEED 2 نتلقى بناء قدرات لمنظمتنا من برنامج SEED 3 نحن شريك منسق مع البرنامج )نساعد في تسهيل ألأنشطة( 4 اخرى __________________________ 5 3. بشكل ً أكثر تحديدا ، ما هو الدعم الذي تم تقديمه من برنامج SEED لمنظمتك وما هو تقييمك للبرنامج؟ )ضع دائرة حول كل ما ينطبق( e1EQ ,d1EQ ,b1EQ نشاط مدعوم من برنامج SEED مقياس الفائدة )5 هو األكثر فائدة( .1 تدريب قدرات الموظفين و ورش العمل 5 4 3 2 1 0 .2 التواصل والترويج 0 1 2 3 4 5 .3 تطوير منتج جديد ودعم المنتج الحالي 5 4 3 2 1 0 .4 دعم التكنولوجيا أو المعدات 0 1 2 3 4 5 .5 تخطيط استراتيجي 0 1 2 3 4 5 .6 أفضل ممارساتاإلدارة 0 1 2 3 4 5 .7 منح 0 1 2 3 4 5 .8 اخرى ____________________ _______________ 5 4 3 2 1 0 158 Seri al السؤال االجابة تخطي السؤال -9 ال ينطبق ذلك ألننا لم نستخدم أي من خدمات بناء قدراتبرنامج SEED …………………………………………… ………………….. 1 4. من وجهة نظرك ، م ا هى العوامل التي سوف تستخدمها لقياس مدى نجاح برنامج SEEDبعد انتهاء البرنامج؟ EQ1d, EQ1e )3 او 2 اذكر) __________________________________ ______ __________________________________ ______ 5. ما هى أكبر التحديات التي تواجهبرنامج SEEDفي تحقيق عوامل النجاح المذكورة أعاله وكيف يمكن EQ1d, EQ1eحلها؟ __________________________________ ______ __________________________________ ______ 6. هل أثربرنامج SEEDعلى القدرة التنظيمية لمؤسستكم و/ أو أدت الي تحسين قدرتك على العمل ؟ ,b1EQ EQ1d -1نعم -2 ال 8q 7. إذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم، رجاء التوضيح EQ1b, EQ1d __________________________________ ______ __________________________________ ______ 8. إلى أي مدى )إن وجد( قام برنامج SEEDبزيادة قدرتك على االستجابة في )يرجى توضيح ذلك(: ا. تمكين المرأة في العمل ب.توفير فرص العمل للشباب4EQ تمكين المرأة في العمل_________________________: __________________________________ ______ توفير فرص العمل للشباب __________________________________ ______ 9. إلى أي مدى ستتمكن من االستمرار في تقديم نفس أنواع الخدمات بعد انتهاء برنامج SEED ؟3EQ __________________________________ ______ 159 Seri al السؤال االجابة تخطي السؤال __________________________________ ______ 10. هل يمكن الوصول بسهولة إلى موظفي الدعم الفني والموظفين التابعين البرنامج EQ1e, EQ2إليهم؟ تحتاج عندماSEED -1نعم -2 ال Q12 11. لو كانت اجابة ال ،اشرح أهم إجراء يجب أن اتخاذه من برنامج SEED لتحسين إمكانية الوصول إليهم ,e1EQ. EQ2 __________________________________ ______ __________________________________ ______ 12. هل شاركت في أنشطة أو فعاليات لـ برنامج SEEDتم تصميمها خصيصاً للمرأة ؟4EQ -1نعم -2 ال 14Q 13. ما هو النشاط الرئيسي أو التدخل الـذي تم للمرأة وما هي النتائج التي تحققت؟ ) أذكر 1 أو 2( EQ4 __________________________________ ______ __________________________________ ______ __________________________________ ______ __________________________________ ______ 14. يرجى وصف التحديات )إن وجدت( التي واجهتك / واجهت منظمتك أثناء معالجة القضايا المتعلقة بتمكين المرأة في سوق العمل 4EQ __________________________________ ______ __________________________________ ______ __________________________________ ______ __________________________________ ______ 160 Seri al السؤال االجابة تخطي السؤال 15. ما نوع المساعدة التي ترغب أن يوفرها برنامج SEEDفي المستقبل؟ EQ1b, EQ1d, EQ1e __________________________________ ______ __________________________________ ______ __________________________________ ______ __________________________________ ______ 16. هل تعتقد أن وجودبرنامج SEEDقد أدى إلى زيادة النمو وزيادة فرص العمل للمشروعات المتناهية الصغر والصغيرة والمتوسطة ، ولماذا ؟e1EQ __________________________________ ______ __________________________________ ______ __________________________________ ______ __________________________________ ______ نشكرك على وقتك وعلى التقييمات المفيدة التي قدمتها. و هذا سوف يساعد فريق التقييم بشكل كبير في صياغة توصيات قابلة للتنفيذ ؛ هل يمكننا االتصال بك للحصول على معلومات إضافية؟ -4 مقابلة لمناقشة موضوع سالسل اإلمداد/القيمة مع الشركات الكبيرة 161 تاريخ المقابلة: ______/________/______ وقت المقابلة: الساعة من الى القائم بإجراء المقابلة: القائم بتدوين المناقشة: المشاركون: # ، األسماء، المسميات الوظيفية )بطاقات العمل للمشاركين : يتم جمعها وإرسالها إلى SIMPLE وإرفاقها بوثيقة ال الحظات األصلية( .6 .7 .8 .9 .10 تقديم نشكركم للموافقة على إجراء هذا اللقاء. لقد قامت هيئة التنمية الدولية األمريكية بتكليف مشروع خدمات تحسين األداء وتعزيزأنشطة التقييم والتعلم SIMPLEبإجراء تقييم منتصف المدة لبرنامج ٍSEED. ويسعدنا أن نقدم أنفسنا باعتبارنا أعضاء فى فريق التقييم إلج راء هذا اللقاء الذى يمثل أهمية لعملية التقييم. . ً ونظرا ألن البرنامج مصمم لتحسين الروابط بين المشروعات متنا هية الصغر والصغيرة والمتوسطة – من جانب - والشركات الكبيرة – من جانب آخر، فمن األهمية بمكان أن يتعرف فريق التقييم على التحديات التى تواجه كل من الجانبين، بهدف المساعدة على تدعيم الروابط وزيادة القدرة التنافسية للجميع. كما يهمنا بوجه خاص التعرف على التطورات فى مجال روابط سالسل القيم خالل العامين األخيرين ، منذ أن بدأ البرنامج في العمل. ونود فى هذ الشأن التأكيد على أهمية النقاش معكم باعتباركم من المشاركين فى أنشطة البرنامج، إذ سيكون إلسهاماتكم اآلراء والمقترحات أهمية كبيرة فى إجراء عملية التقييم وصياغة المقترحات المتصلة بالبرنامج. كما سيتم االستناد إلى نتائج هذا التقييم فى وضع التوصيات التى تتعلق بآداء البرنامج خالل الفترة المتبقية من تنفيذه بهدف مواجهة التحديات الر اهنة وتعزيز األنشطة التى يتضمنها البرنامج. كما نؤكد على أن جميع المعلومات الواردة منكم بهذه الدراسة ستستخدم بواسطة أعضاء فريق التقييم فقط ألغراض التقييم وبدوناإلفصاح عن أسماء المشاركين، وأن مشاركتكم في هذا اللقاء اختيارية تماما ومن المتوقع أن يستغرق اللقاء فترةتتراوح بين 30 و 45دقيقة مع التأكيد علي سرية البيانات وأنها لن تستخدم لغير أغرا ض هذا التقييم. نجد شكرنا المسبق إلسهاماتكم القيمة فى إنجاز أهدا ف هذا اللقاء. . 162 1.بيانات أساسية مسلسل السؤال اإلجابة النتقال 169. اسم الشركة 170. اسم المسئول الذي تمت مقابلته .171 النوع .172 المسمى الوظيفى ذكر أنثى ……………………………… ……………………………… ……………………….. ………………………………… 2 1 ………………………………… …………………………….. ……………………………… ……………………………… ……………………….. ………………………………… 2 1 ………………………………… …………………………….. ……………………………… ……………………………… ……………………….. ………………………………… 2 1 ………………………………… …………………………….. ……………………………… ……………………………… ……………………….. ………………………………… 2 1 ………………………………… …………………………….. 173. المحافظة القاهرة الكبرى1..................................................... اإلسكندرية2......................................................... أخرى ______________________............... 3. 174. مجاالت مساندة برنامج SEEDالتي شاركت فيها الشركة حتى األن؟ )يرجى ذكر كل ما ينطبق( ورش عمل حولالمسؤولية االجتماعية للشركات1................... لقاءت األعمال والفعاليات مع الشركات اوالصغيرة والمتوسطة2.... مساندة إلدارة سلسلة اإلمداد/القيمة 3................................... آخرى4..................................................................: 175. عدد العاملين 176. عدد العا الت 177. قطاع النشاط منتجات األلبان ............................... .. . ................... 1 الستيك......................................... 2....................... الثروة السمكية3.......................................................... صناعة مغذية للسيارات .............................................. 4 ال البس الجاهزة5....................................................... أخرى6................................................................... 163 مسلسل السؤال اإلجابة النتقال 178. مدة المشاركة مع SEED )شهر / سنة إلى شهر / سنة( ________/_______ الي ________/_______ 179. إذا لم تكن المشاركة في البرنامج مستمرة ، يرجى اإلشارة بإيجاز إلى سبب أو سببين لذلك؟ ____________________________________ .2 كفاءة األسواق والنظام مسلسل السؤال اإلجابة النتقال 2.1 ما هي النسبة التقريبية للموردين الموجودين ً مع عام ً محليا في مصر ، مقارنة 2016في الوقت الحالي؟ EQ1c, EQ1e حصة الموردين المحليين )من مجموع عدد الموردين( في عام %...........................................:2016 اآلن%.......................................................: 2.2 م ا هي النسبة التقريبية للتوريدات الحالية من الموردين المحليين )منسوبة إلى القيمة اإلجمالية لل دخالت الوسيطة التى قمتم بشرائها( ، مقارنة 2016؟ ً مع عام EQ1c, EQ1e حصة الموردين المحليين )حسب قيمة إجمالي لمدخالت( في عام %.............................................:2016 اآلن%........................................................: 2.3 ماهى آليات التعامل مع الشركات المحلية الصغيرة والمتوسطة الموردة لشركتكم؟ EQ1c, EQ1e في عام 2016 اآلن تعامل مباشر % ................ % ................ م خالل وسطاء % ................ % ................ 2.4 ً عادة ، كم عدد المرات التي تقابلون فيها الموردين المحليين من الشركات الصغيرة والمتوسطة لمناقشة األمور المتعلقة باألعمال وتبادل المعلومات الجديدة؟ 164 مسلسل السؤال اإلجابة النتقال EQ1c, EQ1e حالياً التكرار في عام 2016 نعم ال نعم ال أسبوعيا 1 2 1 2 شهريا 1 2 1 2 كل ٣شهور 1 2 1 2 آخرى ......................... 1 2 1 2 2.5 ما نوع الالقة التي بينكم وبين الموردين المحليين لشركتكم )الشركات الصغيرة والمتوسطة؟ )اختر واحدة فقط( EQ1c, EQ1e نوع الالقة الشروط وا 1 ً عادة, نقوم بإمالء إلحكام لدينا القات متكافئة من حيث القوة مع معظم الموردين 2 2.6 مقارنة مع األوضاع فى عام 2016 ، هل تقدمون إلى مورديكم -بشكل عام - ًأيا من األنواع التالية من صور المساندة أو المعلومات التجارية ؟ )يرجى اإلشارة إلى كل ما ينطبق في ال العمودين( EQ1c, EQ1e في عام 2016 اآلن اتجاهات السوق الجديدة التي يحتاجون إلىاإللمام بها 1 2 متطلبات معايير الجودة 1 2 التكنولوجيات الجديدة الموصى بانتهاجها 1 2 خدمات األعمال المتاحة لمساندتهم 1 2 بيانات التكاليف واألسعار الخاصة بمنتجاتهم 1 2 ال ً نوفر أيا من هذا بشكل عام 1 2 2.7 بالمقارنة مع األوضاع فى عام 2016 ، هل تقدمون – ً بصفة عامة أيا من أنواع الخدمات التالية إلى مورديكم؟ )يرجى اإلشارة إلى كل ما ينطبق في ال العمودين( EQ1c, EQ1e نوع الخدمة في عام 2016 اآلن نعم ال نعم ال قروض 1 2 1 2 تدريب 1 2 1 2 165 مسلسل السؤال اإلجابة النتقال دعم التسويق 1 2 1 2 معدات 1 2 1 2 خدمات صيانة 1 2 1 2 2.8 مقارنة مع األوضاع فى عام 2016 ، كيف تقيمون مدى مرونة الموردين المحليين من الشركات الصغيرة والمتوسطة في االستجابة ألوامر التوريد وللتغييرات فيها؟ (حدد: 0 = اليوجد ، 1 ً = منخفض جدا ، 2 = منخفض ، 3 = متوسط ، 4 = مرتفع ، 5 ً = مرتفع جدا) EQ1c, EQ1e في عام 2016 االن التغييرات في الكميات 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 التغييرات من حيث أساليب السداد 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 التغييرات في جداول ا لتسليم 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 نوع آخر من التغيير )يرجى التحديد(________________ 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 2.9 يرجى شرح ما يصل إلى الثة عقبات )إن وجدت( التي تحد حاليا من نمو األعمال لمورديكم المحليين من الشركات الصغيرة والمتوسطة في سياق سلسلة اإلمداد/القيمة الخاصة بكم )قد تشمل هذه الوصول إلى معلومات السوق ، والتمويل ، وتكنولوجيا اإلنتاج ، واللوائح ، أو حتى معرف سالسل اإلمداد/القيمة(. EQ1c, EQ1e نوع العقبة الحلول المقترحة d. ___________________________ ___________________________ _________ ___________________________ ___________________________ _________ e. ___________________________ ___________________________ ________ ___________________________ ___________________________ _________ ___________________________ 166 مسلسل السؤال اإلجابة النتقال f. ___________________________ ___________________________ _________ ___________________________ _________ .3 تجربة التعاون مع برنامج SEED مسلسل السؤال اإلجابة النتقال 2.1 كيف تقيمون الفوائد التي تحققت فى مجال أعمالكم كنتيجة المشاركة في أنشطة البرنامج الهادفة إلى تعزيز الروابط مع الموردين من الشركات المحلية الصغيرة والمتوسطة؟ EQ1c, EQ1e منخفض جدا ............................................. 1 منخفض ........................... ... ... ... ... ....... ...... 2 معدل ........................................................ 3 متوسط ..................................................... 4 عالي جدا ................................................. 5 3.2 ما العوامل التي استند إليه ا هذا التقييم ؟ EQ1c, EQ1e ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________ 3.3 هل تمت إضافة موردين محليين من الشركات الصغيرة والمتوسطة كنتيجة ألنشطة البرنامج EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ3 نعم ...................... .... ......................................... 1 ال ..................... ................ ............................... 2 3.5 3.4 إذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم أ اله ، كيف تقيمون أداء الشركات الصغيرة والمتوسطة المحلية التي قدم لها البرنامج ،مقارنة بمورديك المحليين اآلخرين من الشركات الصغيرة والمتوسطة؟ ضع دائرة حول كل ما ينطبق ثم تم تقييمه وفقا 0 = الشركات الصغيرة والمتوسطة بشكل عام أسوأ من موردينا ً ل = تقريبا 2 = أفضل بشكل عام من الموردين المحليين ً المحليين اآلخرين ، 1 مثل الموردين المحليين اآلخرين ، (اآلخرين EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ3 مجاالت األداء أسوأ تقريباً مثل أفضل ال اعرف A. الوفاء بشروط العقد 0 1 2 3 B. مواعيد التسليم 0 1 2 3 167 مسلسل السؤال اإلجابة النتقال C. جودة المنتجات 0 1 2 3 D. التواصل واالستجابة للتغيرات في أوامر التوريد 0 1 2 3 E. التسعير 0 1 2 3 F. آخرى 0 1 2 3 3.5 يرجى تحديد االسم و التاريخ )شهر/ سنة( ألي فعاليات وأنشطة -نظ مها البرنامج - والتي شارك فيها إدارتكم أو فريق c1EQالعمل لديكم أو شركاؤكم. نشاط SEED الشهر التقريبي والسنة ________________________________ _____ _____/_______ ________________________________ _____ _____/_______ ________________________________ _____ _____/_______ ________________________________ _____ _____/_______ ________________________________ _____ _____/_______ 3.6 يرجى تحديد االسم و التاريخ شهر/ سنة( ألي فعاليات وأنشطة اخري لم ينظ مها البرنامج في مجال سلسلة اإلمداد/القيمة والتي شاركتم فيها إدارتكم، أو فريق العمل لديكم، أو شركاؤكم 168 مسلسل السؤال اإلجابة النتقال EQ1c النشاط/الفعالية الشهر/ السنة ________________________________ _____ _____/_______ ________________________________ _____ _____/_______ ________________________________ _____ _____/_______ ________________________________ _____ _____/_______ ________________________________ _____ _____/_______ 3.7 هل شاركتم في فعاليات أو أنشطة برنامج SEED التي تناولت قضايا تمكين المرأة؟ EQ1c, EQ4 نعم ............................................. 1 ال .................... .............................. 2 3.9 3.8 هل اتخذتم أي قرارات إدارية تتعلق بالمرأة في العمل كنتيجة ألنشطة البرنامج؟ EQ1c, EQ4 نعم ............................................. 1 ال .................... .............................. 2 3.9 3.8أ يرجى الشرح ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ 3.9 يرجى وصف التحديات )إن وجدت( التي تواجهها ________________________________ 169 مسلسل السؤال اإلجابة النتقال شركتكم في معالجة وتحسين ظروف المرأة في العمل. EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ4 ________________________________ ________________________________ 3.10 باإلشارة إلى السؤال السابق ، م ا هو الدور الذي يجب أن يلعبه البرنامج للتخفيف من هذه التحديات؟ EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ4 ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ 3.11 هل شاركتم فى فعاليات و أنشطة البرنامج التي ركزت على الشباب وتوفير فرص العمل لهم ؟ EQ1c, EQ4 نعم ............................................... 1 ال ................... ................................. 2 3.12 هل لدى شركتكم استراتيجية للمسؤولية االجتماعية ؟ EQ1c, EQ1e نعم ............................................... 1 ال ................. ................................... 2 3.16 3.13 ماهى القيود التي تواجه تطوير مبادرات المسؤولية االجتماعية للشركة؟ (ضع دائرة حول كل ما ينطبق) EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ4 نقص المعرفة نعم ال 2 1 ضعف المساندة المؤسسية 1 2 غياب تشريع محدد بشأن المسؤولية االجتماعية للشركات 2 1 عدم تحقق نتائج واضحة فى المدى القصير 2 1 ارتفاع التكاليف 1 2 افتقار الشركات إلى المهارات االزمة 1 2 آخري..................................: 1 2 3.14 ما أهم الثة أسباب النتهاج شركتكم لممارسات المسؤولية االجتماعية؟ EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ4 تعزيز صورة الشركة 1 اختيار وتقييم الموردين 2 إدارة عمليات التوريد )السل اإلمداد/ القيمة( 3 إعداد مدونة قواعد السلوك للموردين 4 مزايا تجارية لألسواق الجديدة 5 االستفادة في الالقة مع مؤسسات التمويل والمجتمع 6 آخري.................................: 7 3.15 هل ساعدبرنامج SEED على قيام شركتكم بانتهاج و/ أو إعادة تنشيط أية ممارسات للمسؤولية االجتماعية ؟ إذا كانت اإلجابة "نعم" ، يرجى تقديم أمثلة. نعم 1 ال 2 170 مسلسل السؤال اإلجابة النتقال EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ3, EQ4 ال اعرف 3 ال ينطبق 4 a3.15 األمثلة: EQ1c, EQ1e, EQ3, EQ4 ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ 3.16 هل ترى أن مساندة البرنامج قد أدت إلى نمو الشركات الصغيرة والمتوسطة من منظور التوظيف أو إيرادات المبيعات أو أنها ستؤدي إلى زيادة النمو في غضون عام إلى عامين؟ EQ1c, EQ3 نعم ............................................ 1 ال ................. ................................ 2 3.17 لماذا وصلت إلي هذا الرأي؟ برجاء اعطاء امثلة ان وجد EQ1c, EQ3 ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ --5 حلقة نقاش مع الشركات الناشئة / الشباب / رواد األعمال والشركات الصغيرة ومتناهية الصغر تاريخ المقابلة: ______/________/______ 171 وقت المقابلة: الساعة من-الي الباحث: المدون: المشاركون: # ، واالسم ، والبريد )بطاقات العمل للمشاركين الذين يتم جمعهم وإرسالهم إلى SIMPLE مرفقة بوثيقة ال الحظات األصلية( 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- المقدمة نشكركم للموافقة على إجراء هذا اللقاء. لقد قامت هيئة التنمية الدولية األمريكية بتكليف مشروع خدمات تحسين األداء وتعزيز أنشطة التقييم والتعلم SIMPLEبإجراء تقييم منتصف المدة لبرنامج ٍSEED. ويسعدنا أن نقدم أنفسنا باعتبارنا أعضاء فى فريق التقييم إلج راء هذا اللقاء الذى يمثل أهمية لعملية التقييم. ونود فى هذ الشأن التأكيد على أهمية النقاش معكم باعتباركم من المشاركين فى أنشطة البرنامج، إذ سيكون إلسهاماتكم اآلراء والمقترحات أهمية كبيرة فى إجراء عمليةالتقييم وصياغة المقترحات المتصلة بالبرنامج. كما سيتم االستناد إلى نتائج هذا التقييم فى وضع التوصيات التى تتعلق بآداء البرنامج خالل الفترة المتبقية من تنفيذه بهدف مواجهة التحديات الر اهنة وتعزيز األنشطة التى يتضمنها البرنامج. كما نؤكد على أن جميع المعلومات الواردة منكم بهذه الدراسة ستستخدم بواسطة أعضاء فريق التقييم فقط ألغراض التقييم وبدوناإلفصاح عن أسماء المشاركين، وأن مشاركتكم في هذا اللقاء اختيارية تماما. ومن المتوقع أن يستغرق اللقاء فترة تتراوح بين 30 و 45دقيقة مع التأكيد علي سرية البيانات وأنها لن تستخدم لغير أغرا ض هذا التقييم. نجد شكرنا المسبق إلسهاماتكم القيمة فى إنجاز أهدا ف هذا اللقاء. السؤال الشركات لناشئة / الشباب / رواد األعمال المشاريع متناهية الصغر والصغيرة والمتوسطة a1) 1م ا هي نشاطات SEEDالتي شاركت فيها؟ (1م ا هي نشاطات SEEDالتي شاركتفيها؟ (2ما هي األنشطة والفعاليات )إن وجدت( التي كانت مفيدة لك أكثر في مشروعك؟ (2أي من هذه الخدمات )إن وجدت( كانت هي األكثر فائدة من حيث نمو مشروعك وفي النهاية توظيف عدد أكبر من الناس؟ (3 هل تمكنت من الوصول إلى الخدمات التي تحتاج إليها بمساعدةSEED ؟ (3 هل وجدت أن الوصول إلى خدمات تطوير األعمال التي تحتاج إليها قد تحسنت بعد االشتراك في البرنامج ؟ 172 السؤال الشركات لناشئة / الشباب / رواد األعمال المشاريع متناهية الصغر والصغيرة والمتوسطة b1 A/N 4 ) هل الحظت أي تغيير في جودة خدمات تطوير األعمال الغير مالية التي استخدمتها بعد االشتراك مع SEED؟ c1 A/N 5 ) هل شاركت في أي من أنشطة سلسلة اإلمداد/ القيمة الخاصة بـ SEED؟ إذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم ، هل أدى ذلك إلى الحصول على عمالء أو موردين جدد؟ d1 4 )م ا هي العوائق التنظيمية/التشريعية التي واجهتك ؟ هل تمكنت SEED من مساعدتك على التغلب عليها؟ 6( م ا هي اللوائح/التشريعات التي تعتقد أنها بحاجة إلى التغيير لتمكينك من تنمية مشروعك وتوظيف المزيد من األشخاص؟ هل أنت على علم بأي أنشطة لـ SEEDفي هذا المجال؟ e1 5 )ما هو أكبر تحد واجهته في العمل مع SEED؟ 7( ما هو أكبر تحد واجهته في العمل مع SEED؟ 2 6 ( هل تجد سهولة في التواصل مع موظفي SEED وتلبية احتياجاتك؟ يرجى التوضيح أكثر )سواء كانت إجابتك نعم أو ال(. 8 ( هل تجد سهولة في التواصل مع موظفي SEED وتلبية احتياجاتك؟ يرجى التوضيح أكثر )سواء كانت إجابتك نعم أو ال(. 3 7(في اعتقادك،ما سيحدث عندما ينتهي برنامج SEED . هل ستتوقف الخدمات التي تتلقاها اآلن؟ هل هناك أي خطة لجعل منظمات أخرى تديرها؟ 9( في اعتقادك، ما سيحدث عندما ينتهي برنامج SEED . هل ستتوقف الخدمات التي تتلقاها اآلن ؟ هل هناك أي خطة لجعل منظمات أخرى تديرها؟ 4 8 ( هل تلقيت أي خدمات من SEED مصممة ً خصيصا للمرأة؟ ماذا كانت النتيجة هذه الخدمات؟ 10 ( هل تلقيت أي خدمات من SEED ً مصممة خصيصا للمرأة؟ ماذا كانت النتيجة هذه الخدمات؟ 9 ( هل تلقيت أي خدمات من SEED مصممة ً خصيصا للشباب؟ ماذا كانت النتيجة هذه الخدمات؟ 11 ( هل تلقيت أي خدمات من SEED ً مصممة خصيصا للشباب؟ ماذا كانت النتيجة هذه الخدمات؟ 173 ANNEX VIII: USAID CRITERIA TO ENSURE QUALITY OF EVALUATION REPORT (FROM ADS 201) The evaluation team has adhered to the following principles during all phases of evaluation planning, data collection and analysis. • Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to objectively evaluate the strategy, project, or activity. • Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly, and succinctly. • The Executive Summary of an evaluation report should present a concise and accurate statement of the most critical elements of the report. • Evaluation reports should adequately address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or the evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with USAID. • Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information properly identified. • Limitations to the evaluation should be adequately disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). • Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions. • Findings and conclusions should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. • If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes or impact, they should also be separately assessed for both males and females. • If recommendations are included, they should be supported by a specific set of findings and should be action-oriented, practical, and specific. 174 ANNEX IX: COMPONENT C ROI CALCULATION SEED Component C Intervention Logic Outputs Level Component C Intervention Output-level Measurement 1 Market Information System (MIS) # of MSMEs registered 300 2 RMG Digital Directory Egyptian Textile Center (ETC) # of search results 1,000 within first year 3 Exhibitions # of Supported MSMEs in the exhibitions 48 4 Matchmaking # of MSMEs Participants # of Large buyers 40 8 5 Job Fairs - No. of enterprises participating in 2 job fairs - No of job seekers in 2 job fairs - No of job opportunities offered in 2 job fairs 40 600 300 6 CSR % of average awareness increased of large businesses to develop CSR programs to support MSMEs potential suppliers 70% 7 Capacity Building – Training % of knowledge acquired due to the applied capacity building programs 70% 8 Capacity Building – PTC Technology Center - # of training hours '- # of trained personnel from PTC & MSMEs 30 12 9 Capacity Building – Fashion and Design Center '-# of MSMEs supported by the FDC to produce good quality products by end of intervention 10 175 SEED – Component C Measurement Plan Component C Intervention SEED Direct Expenditure (LE '000) Attribution Estimated ROI Income Employment 1 Market Information System (MIS) 2,000 100% 150% N.A 2 RMG Digital Directory Egyptian Textile Center (ETC) 500 100% 50% N.A 3 Exhibitions 1,200 50% 225% 112% 4 Matchmaking 1,800 100% 200% N.A 5 Job Fairs 200 20% N.A 500% 6 CSR 300 30% 300% N.A 7 Capacity Building – Training 2,000 60% 300% 75% 8 Capacity Building – PTC Technology Center 1,000 25% 500% 5% 9 Capacity Building – Fashion and Design Center 4,000 50% 262% 32% SEED – Component C Support for MSMEs Participation in RMG Exhibitions Values of Confirmed Deals Exhibition No. of Supported MSMEs SEED Investments (LE) Value of Confirmed Deals (LE'000) Average Confirmed Deals per Company (LE'000) ROI Cairo Kids and Mother Jan. 2017 20 180 2,510 126 1394% Cairo Kids and Mother Aug. 2017 14 130 1,625 116 1250% Cairo Kids and Mother Jan. 2018 8 92 1,792 224 1948% Total 42 402 5,927 141 1474% 176 ANNEX X: SEED RESULTS FRAMEWORK 177 ANNEX XI: DATA COLLECTION ISSUES June 3 – The evaluation Team’s scheduler was told by the Component A Manager she had called a stakeholder (Injaz) to make an introduction. However, no call was made which meant the stakeholder’s director became angry when he received a call to set up a meeting. He had no idea what the call was about and said he was generally unhappy with SEED’s lack of communication. He then apologized to our scheduler for getting angry with her. When he had still heard nothing a week later, he emailed SEED (copied evaluation team members, June 10). June 3 – SEED was aware of our intent to meet with Nile University incubator, yet they ignored the fact that we also needed to meet Nilepreneur located at Nile University (we were initially unaware), necessitating a return was visit, making for an inefficient use of time. June 4 – SEED gave our scheduler was given an address for the incubator IceAlex. But when she tried to contact Ice Alex, she was told it had moved from that address more than a year ago. June 7 – The Component B Manager told our team member that getting a meeting in Minya was unlikely, because SEED had no one there with whom to coordinate. June 7 – We were strongly advised to meet with an incubator with offices in Alexandria and Cairo, but the staff there informed us that there were no operations in Alexandria yet, while could only come up with two beneficiaries for us to meet in Cairo. June 10 – An Egyptian standards organization representative told our scheduler that his boss informed him that “no SEED people are allowed in our office without specific clearance from The Ministry of Trade and Industry, even Egyptian staff.” He was irate with SEED. June 12 – One of our evaluation teams began a KII with a Cairo stakeholder that had recently completed an event with SEED. We asked if SEED had informed her about the reason for the meeting. She replied: “No, the first time I heard anything about your evaluation was two days ago when your scheduler called me.” Stakeholders made multiple similar remarks, though they were not previously documented. 178 ANNEX XII: SEED PERFORMANCE STANDARD MEASUREMENTS Performance Measurement # Performance Standard Performance Measurement Target Cummulative Achieved to Date Progress Toward Target Balance Due A.1.1 Workshops 17 20 118% 0 A.1.2 Networks Established 2 1 50% 1 A.1.3 New entrepreneurship and financial literacy program delivered in high schools across Egypt. High Schools 15 0 0% 15 A.1.5 Certificate Program Piloted 1 2 200% 0 A.1.6 Universities Certificate Developed 8 0 0% 8 A.1.8 Business Plan Competitions 9 9 100% 0 A.1.9 Career Fairs 3 1 33% 2 A.1.10 Start-Up Weekends 6 5 83% 1 SEED Performance Standard Achievement - Base Period as of end-July 2018 Component A Entrepreneurship Skills and Opportunities Intermediate Result A.1 Stimulated entrepreneurship among women and youth Women and youth entrepreneurship networks established and strengthened to coordinate the efforts of existing women and youth organizations in Egypt University entrepreneurship program designed and implemented Outreach campaign to raise awareness of available services and programs for female and youth entrepreneurs. 179 A.2.1 Workshops 6 12 200% 0 A.2.3 Pilot Incubators Designed 3 3 100% 0 A.2.4 Study Tour 1 1 100% 0 A.2.5 Incubators Replicated 8 5 63% 3 A.2.7 Training Modules Designed 4 2 50% 2 A.2.8 Mobile Phone Training Modules Developed 2 1 50% 1 A.2.9 InfoMatch Mobile Tool Development 1 0 0% 1 A.2.10 Capacity Building Workshops Delivered to TTOs 6 3 50% 3 A.2.12 Workshops Delivered to TIEC 2 0 0% 2 A.2.13 Workshops 6 4 67% 2 A.2.15 Strategy Developed 1 1 100% 0 B.1.1 Increase and replicate Tamayouz Centers/ OSS through twinning. Tamayouz Centers/OSS 12 3 25% 9 B.1.3 Trainings Delivered to BDS Providers 6 6 100% 0 B.1.5 Online BDS Directory 1 1 100% 0 B.1.6 Mobile Technology Tools 3 1 33% 2 B.1.7 # of People with Additional Access to Services 3000 0 0% 3000 B.1.9 Public Private Dialogue Module Designed 1 1 100% 0 B.1.10 Evidence Based Policy Module Designed 3 3 100% 0 Provide entrepreneurship services that meet the needs of disadvantaged populations. Intermediate Result A.2 Improved availability and accessibility of entrepreneurship services, with focus on business incubators and accelerators Incubators strengthened and managed according to international best practices. Support incubators and accelerators with technology commercialization. Build the capacity of MTISME to fulfill its expanded mandate. Component B Financial and Non-Financial Services Intermediate Result B.1 Improved availability and accessibility of effective and efficient BDS Assist BDS in improving their services New tools introduced for expanded BDS services to disadvantaged areas. Increased capacity among BDS providers and associations to advocate for policy change 180 B.2.1 Facilitate loan guarantee agreement through DCA or CGC. Loan Guarantee MOU 1 1 100% 0 B.2.2 Broker relationships between MSMEs and crowdfunding organizations, angel investment, and venture capital. Investment Linkages Forums 6 5 83% 1 B.2.4 Training of Trainer Sessions Delivered 10 6 60% 4 B.2.5 Financial Literacy Modules 3 3 100% 0 B.2.6 Financial Products Database 1 1 100% 0 B.2.7 Build capacity of Egyptian regulators to respond to policy constraints. EFSA Workshops Delivered 4 3 75% 1 C.1.1 Selection of value chains for MSME integration. Analysis of at Least 3 Value Chains Conducted 1 1 100% 0 C.1.2 Market information system(s) strengthened to improve MSME access to information in selected value chains. Information Technology System Developed or Strengthened 3 0 0% 3 C.1.3 MSME Buyers Conference Delivered 4 6 150% 0 C.1.5 Sector/Industry Member Directory 1 0 0% 1 C.1.6 Strengthen sector/industry associations on backward and forward linkages. Training Sessions Delivered 5 6 120% 0 C.1.8 CSR initiatives launched to facilitate training for MSMEs and investment in equipment and software. Dollar Value 500000 475000 95% 25000 C.1.10 Increased GOE and industry capacity to respond to policy constraints. Modules Developed 3 3 100% 0 Increase financial literacy including capacity building to use financial products among MSMEs. Intermediate Result B.2 Improved availability and accessibility of financial products and services Component C Integration of MSMEs in Value Chains Intermediate Result C.1 Integrated MSMEs into Progressive Value-Chains Improved MSME understanding of market and opportunities for MSMEs in value chains. 181 ANNEX XIII INDICATORS TRACKER 182 ANNEX XIV: ANALYSES PERFORMED TO ADDRESS THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS THE DATA ANALYSIS PROCESS ACCORDING TO THE INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS The four evaluation questions are highly interrelated in terms of their use in assessing the effectiveness and performance of the SEED project. The data sources for each evaluation question are also, for the most part, identical. The same process, as described below, was therefore used to identify findings, develop conclusions and create recommendations for all four evaluation questions. DATA ANALYSIS WORKSHOP AND PROCESS Data were analyzed from two broad types of respondents: 1) key stakeholders and partners who either perform a business development role or oversee one – mainly government for the latter and 2) beneficiary MSMEs who will lead transformative economic growth. Stakeholder and partner data were qualitatively analyzed. The results of interviews were summarized in a master Excel spreadsheet, which was a compilation of the individual spreadsheets used in the field by each of the four data collection teams. The spreadsheets featured rows of individual entities who the teams met with and columns of questions they addressed. Individual worksheets (under tabs) provided data entry fields for each specific data collection tool used, which depended upon the type of entity being met (government, business development services provider, etc.). Once the data collection phase was complete, the leaders of each of the four data collection teams: the economist, the enterprise development specialist, the senior monitoring and evaluation specialist, and the team leader, plus the statistician and the other monitoring and evaluation specialist, conducted a data analysis workshop (June 16 – 25). During the data analysis workshop, the team collectively undertook systematic content analysis. Each team leader first, with an enumerator, summarized their own data by reviewing the columns for each question (answered by every respondent). The process involved noting commonly used phrases, identifying frequently raised issues, and highlighting insightful remarks. The entire team then met as a group to project the spreadsheets on a screen and discuss them by each type of respondent (government, business development services provider, large value chain company, etc.). Each respondent type typically required half a day for discussion until concurrence about important themes, results and trends was achieved. During the latter half of the data analysis workshop, the statistician shared the frequency responses from the pencil and paper and telephone questionnaires completed by SEED beneficiaries. These were summarized in a single Excel spreadsheet showing the number of responses to each question and sub￾question. The team collectively reviewed the frequency responses for each question then agreed on the key issues and patterns identifiable from the number of beneficiaries answering in a similar manner. This was also the point at which the team asked the statistician to run cross tabulations to further ascertain if patterns in the way questions were answered could be established according to the profile of the respondent. This revealed, for instance, disadvantaged rural governorates have a higher likelihood of 183 indicating a “very high need” for BDS and other services, particularly incubation services and technology transfer assistance, than their urban counterparts. The cross tabulation analysis also identified that women tend to need access to technology transfer and entrepreneurship training more than their male counterparts. These two findings, while not particularly revealing within the framework of analyzing SEED’s project performance, should be of great interest to SEED in terms of the design of future technical assistance initiatives. The statistician was then asked to develop graphics (charts and tables) for further consideration by the group and possible inclusion in the final debrief presentation and/or final draft report. An important supporting mechanism to the data analysis process was the manner in which the validation workshop with the implementing partner was conducted. After a summary of key findings was presented to the core SEED technical managers, the evaluation team and SEED personnel were able to meet together in small groups for intensive discussions about unresolved issues and questions. The output from these meetings was very useful to the evaluation team as it enabled cross-checking to validate findings and in some cases revealed new information. OVERARCHING DATA ANALYSIS PRINCIPLES Qualitative analysis of key informant interviews: Thorough content analysis by a multidisciplinary and experienced team, including an enterprise development specialist, a senior economist (PhD), two senior M&E specialists, a statistician (PhD), three trained enumerators and an international private-sector development consultant (team leader). Quantitative analysis of beneficiary responses: Analysis of frequency distributions (how many answered a or b), cross tabulation (types of answers by respondent category), and tables/graphs generated via Excel and SPSS. Triangulation within the research tools themselves (similar questions asked in different ways), between respondent types (service providers versus recipients) and between data sources (secondary to corroborate primary). Isolation of key demographics, primarily gender, youth, and disadvantaged beneficiaries to inform tailored implementation adjustments.