Let’s develop the idea further.
Let’s start by explaining what an object is: it’s the narrowest part of the reality that we want to deal with in the territory.
In other words, your institution must clearly delimit and understand which problem it is dealing with, how, where, in how long, which stages and which internal and external environments are involved in this process.
Let’s develop this idea further.
But for us at Socialsistems, this assumption is wrong.
However, it is important to check, before describing the object, which public policy is being affected, either positively or negatively, by the work carried out by the institute.
Every action funded by the state must necessarily have an impact on a public policy, even more so when we are talking about the implementation of actions carried out in the community and which must account for the public resources used to generate some success.
Come on, we need to understand where we’ve come from and where we’re going.
Normally, the responsibility for describing the object of the project is attributed to those who draw it up, the Civil Society Organizations (CSOs).
But for us at Socialsistems, this premise is mistaken, because it is the executive instrument, here called the MROSC regulatory ordinance or the agency’s normative act, that should define the object of implementing public policy in the specific area.
We think the problem starts here.
Let’s look at this example: you have been asked to carry out an object related to professional education, domestic violence, people in vulnerable situations or people living on the streets.
In the description of the object, you will try to present the elements inherent to your work, where you will carry out the action, for how many people and how.
We think the problem starts here.
Imagine that you have described an object with the following characteristics: to carry out interventions in a vulnerable area located in such-and-such a zone, serving 100 socially vulnerable people from the 1st to the 30th of month X. At first glance, it seems perfect and even innocent, as you will deliver what has been agreed and evidenced in the Official Gazette, as the legislation requires.
However, let’s look at the problems inherent in a poor description of the object:
future administrative and economic implications that usually happen to institutions and that we consider unsustainable for proper accountability.
What’s worse, this is the path to accountability that the state establishes before the CSO even starts implementing the object.
You see, there are two main problems: time and place of intervention.
Let’s go back to the example: imagine that the publication in the Official Gazette has been made and you are going to start the operation in the territory indicated in the description of the object. But, through an oversight, you have forgotten that it is the rainy season and, precisely on those days, a storm occurs that leaves the area of intervention impassable, making it impossible to carry out the proposed intervention.
How do we get out of this force majeure situation?
The team has already been hired, the supplies have already been purchased… and so on.
You can request a postponement of the execution of the object, but once it has been published in the Official Gazette, it is not easy to move the execution of the object, because the published object is immutable.
How long can you request a postponement of the deadlines and what should you do with the team of collaborators you have hired?
This is not a simple decision, because every decision has positive and negative effects that need to be considered.
And we can add another equally serious situation: inputs can be perishable and must be consumed within a certain timeframe.
This is a tragic situation, but one that is very common and experienced by third sector institutions.
We need to design a logic of legal compliance that is taken into account by the Administration, but which is not so rigid.
Realize that these are situations beyond your control and provoked by the Administration, because there is a very restrictive documentary matrix and legal framework with little flexibility, which leads the institution to spend more time worrying about the execution of the budget than the actual solution to which it was invited to participate.
Although the legal hierarchy is important, we need more flexibility.
Let’s go further: the document should not just copy the decree, but should detail how the object is to be carried out, which public policy is being affected and what scenario is being sought to change.
The physical and financial timetable is a separate element and should not contaminate the execution of the object.
In the EX-ANTE methodology, it is necessary to identify the conditions causing the problem in order to understand what interventions are possible.
The project design must be recognized by everyone: government and society.
Your institution, as a specialist in that problem, must have its knowledge valued.
In this logic, the sectoral ordinance or normative act must integrate the entire public policy implemented by the unit (secretariat or body).
As well as indicating how to implement the object, it is essential to explain which public policy will be affected and which scenario is being transformed.
The physical-financial timetable is a separate element and should not interfere with the execution of the object, as many try to do.
The EX-ANTE methodology requires us to identify the conditions that cause the problem.
Article 4 of Decree No. 8.726/2016 reinforces the need for the federal public administration to establish clear criteria for defining the object, targets and result indicators.
It is increasingly clear that the body must define its scope of action by means of an ordinance or normative act.
Criticism should not focus on the object of the project itself, but rather on how it is defined.
The object of the project is only a confirmation of the public policy that will be implemented.
The responsibility for defining the object should not be transferred to the institutions.
The existing manuals and ordinances do not offer a clear methodology for defining the object of a unit, making it difficult to control, size and account for.
The previous texts present methodologies that can help define the object of the project.
First and foremost, however, the object of the executing unit’s public policy must be well defined.
The project design must be transparent and recognized by everyone.
The EX-ANTE methodology makes it possible to identify the conditions causing the problem and the possible interventions.
When thinking about the project, we must relate it directly to an existing public policy.
This stage must be included in the strategic planning of the requesting area and be part of the PPA, LOA and PLOA.
When defining the project, it is important to recognize the knowledge and expertise of civil society institutions.
They have in-depth knowledge of the territory and the community, which is fundamental to the success of the project.
In short, a clear and objective definition of the project’s purpose is fundamental to guaranteeing the efficiency and effectiveness of the actions.
There needs to be alignment between the project and public policies, as well as greater flexibility in the implementation processes.