OCA Synthesis Report

Myanmar Education Quality Improvement
Program (My-EQIP)
Phase 1 Report: Organisational

Constraints Analysis
Submitted – 1 November 2019
Preferred citation: Myanmar Education Quality Improvement Program (My-EQIP) – Phase 1 Report:
Organisational Constraints Analysis
Key personnel contact information

Team Leader – Education Specialist: Susan Atkins
Myanmar Education Quality Improvement Program (My-EQIP)
Mobile: +95 9 795 135 465
Email: susan.atkins@myeqip.org
Address Building 13, Ministry of Education, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar
Contractor Representative: Mark Pruden

Office: +95 1 657 210
Mobile: +95 (0) 9264 779 787
Address: No. 34L/A, San Yae Twin Street, Thathana Yeik Thar Ward, Bahan Township, Yangon
Email: mark.pruden@cardno.com
This report was prepared by Vanessa Fullerton and Ben French from Oxford Policy Management Ltd.
My-EQIP is a joint initiative of the Government of Myanmar and the Government of Australia.
This publication has been funded by the Australian Government through the Department of Foreign Affairs
and Trade. The views expressed in this publication are the author’s alone and are not necessarily the views
of the Australian Government.
Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis ii

My-EQIP is a joint initiative of the Government of Myanmar and the Government of Australia
Contents
Executive summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 5
2 Approach .................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Conceptual framework ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Data collection ....................................................................................................................................... 7
3 Consolidated findings ............................................................................................................................. 9
3.1 NESP ................................................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Organisational constraints and enablers by theme ............................................................................. 14
4 Synthesis and recommendations ........................................................................................................ 19
4.1 Synthesis: analysis of key themes ....................................................................................................... 20
4.2 Synthesis: actions areas ...................................................................................................................... 21
4.3 Progress markers for change .............................................................................................................. 24
5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 25
Annex 1 Stakeholder participation in OCA meetings ........................................................................... 27
Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis iii

Tables
Table 1 Themes of enablers and constraints .................................................................................................... 6
Table 2 Reform ranking ................................................................................................................................... 21
Acronyms
ATEO Assistant Township Education Officer
CKIM Communications, Knowledge, and Information Management
DBE Department of Basic Education
DTVET Department for Technical and Vocational Education and Training
EMIS Education Management Information System
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MoE Ministry of Education
My-EQIP Myanmar Education Quality Improvement Program
NESP National Education Strategic Plan
OCA Organisational Constraints Analysis
OPM Oxford Policy Management
SQASF School Quality Standards Assurance Framework
VE-SQASF Vocational Education Quality Assurance Framework
Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis iv

Executive summary
Good technical solutions are not always good enough. Solutions need to navigate the context
around problems to move from policy to action.
The Myanmar Education Quality Improvement Program (My-EQIP), funded by the Government of Australia,
was requested by the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, Ministry of Education (MoE), to undertake an
Organisational Constraints Analysis (OCA).
An OCA seeks to establish an understanding of how an organisation is functioning – in terms of
what the interactions within the organisation are, how they happen, and who is responsible for them.
In the context of the MoE, the OCA was designed as an action research exercise, led by reform teams of
MoE officials working on specific areas of the National Education Strategic Plan (NESP) in Task Teams.
The report reflects the analysis of these teams during the period June–September 2019. Circumstances on
the ground are always changing, and some of the findings in this paper will have evolved since August 2019,
when the report was conducted.
Working through existing Task Teams1 has benefits but also limitations. The benefits are: (i) the ability
to develop policy analysis tools and skills in the MoE; (ii) the limited impact on MoE resources – particularly
significant given the competing pressure on all MoE personnel time; and (iii) the fact that the views reflected
in the report are those of the MoE personnel and not the authors’ interpretation of interview findings. The
limitations are: (i) the narrow focus of the analysis on Task Teams; and (ii) the lack of exhaustive interviews
and consultations to corroborate findings.
Analysis of the information collected was consolidated in three ways. First, against the NESP priorities
of basic education – access, quality, and inclusion; technical and vocational education and training (TVET);
and management, capacity development, and quality assurance (Section 3.1); second, against the Task
Team activities; and third, by theme (Section 3.2). The analysis aimed to identify key actions that enable
progress on NESP-priority activities. As such, it provides a set of tools, and analysis, that is practical beyond
the immediate areas of focus.
For each reform area, Task Teams identified three reform drivers: the authority for reform (what indicates
there is authorisation for reform); the acceptance of reform (what demonstrates that a department has
shared ownership of a reform); and the ability to undertake the reform. This assessment determines the
reform potential within a specific area and identifies actions that would increase one or more of the reform
drivers to enlarge the space for reform.
The emerging constraints and enablers by NESP-priority are as follows.
Management, capacity development, and quality assurance (NESP Chapter 13): three themes were
identified as the key constraints and enablers for systems change within this NESP area: (i) rules, guidelines,
policies, and systems; (ii) human resources and skills; and (iii) work culture. Three specific enablers were
identified as important for making progress within this area:
▪ Putting in place (authorisation) and disseminating (acceptance) the policies and procedures required to
improve information management and data flow.
▪ Ensuring the skills and understanding (ability) to undertake evidence-based decision making were in
place across the relevant departments.
▪ Encouraging effective cross-departmental collaboration; barriers to such collaboration were identified as
hindering progress in this NESP area.
1 Task Teams are established by the MoE with representatives from the departments with responsibility for
the reform area. They seek to develop and test the systems within the MoE to improve the governance of the
education system. Where necessary technical assistance is sought, through the task team, to strengthen
implementation capacity.
Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis 1
Basic education – access, quality, inclusion (NESP Chapter 6): two themes were identified as the key
constraints and enablers for systems change NESP area: (i) rules, guidelines, policies, and systems; and (ii)
human resources and skills. Specific enablers identified within these themes were:
▪ Approval (authorisation), dissemination (acceptance), and implementation of School Quality Standards
Assurance Framework (SQASF) guidelines.
▪ Process changes, specifically obtaining authorisation at the union, state/region, and school level for
changes to admission and budgeting processes, were identified as important to moving from the
implementation of SQASF as a policy to the use of SQASF as a tool to improve access, quality, and
inclusion.
▪ Developing the technical ability at all levels of government to implement new policies and procedures.
▪ Behaviour change related to school inspection, but inspectors, principals and teachers, towards a
collaborative problem resolution approach is an important element in addressing issues of quality and
inclusion.
TVET (NESP Chapter 11): three themes were identified as the key constraints and enablers for systems
change in this NESP area: (i) rules, guidelines, policies, and systems; (ii) human resources and skills; and
(iii) work culture. Specific enablers identified within these themes were:
▪ The provision of skills at the technical institution and departmental level to implement a modern technical
and vocational education framework.
▪ The authorisation of the Vocational Education Quality Assurance Framework (VE-SQASF), enabling the
roll-out of the TVET policy and the development of guides for departmental officials.
▪ Changes in the ways of working at the institution level as well as for Department for Technical and
Vocational Education and Training (DTVET) inspectors, requiring new skills to implement and oversee
the VE-SQASF.
Themes for organisational reform. The analysis identified six sub-themes into which it was possible to
categorise the constraints and enablers identified within the three NESP areas. These themes are a useful
way of categorising the constraints and enablers across the MOE.
▪ Rules, guidelines, policies, systems: The commentary of different departments and Task Teams
noted that there is a lack of clarity on whether authorisation for action was formal (written direction from
an authoriser) or informal (assuming implicit authorisation). When there is authorisation, acceptance
exists, and departmental officials are willing to take action to implement new processes, most notably in
the VE-SQASF work. The ability to implement new rules, guidelines, and policies is often lacking, either
due to system constraints or the lack of technical ability to make these changes.
▪ Human resources and skills: Some degree of authorisation and acceptance for the development of
human resource ability and skills is in place across the NESP areas. However, actions such as the
allocation of budget to match the staffing and training requirements were lacking, and there is more work
required to enlarge the space for change in this area. The ability to train and recruit the relevant
individuals was less present, which reflects the challenges of implementing a reform system within a
government system that has had limited exposure to international best practice for 40 years. The lack of
key skills, such as IT and language skills, within the MOE limits its ability to rapidly develop its human
resource skills. For skills development, there is a tendency to prefer formal rather than on-the-job training
– this, however, is not always as effective.
▪ Work culture: The emphasis on evidence-based decision making, quality and mentoring, and building
monitoring systems requires a shift away from centralised decision making towards the delegation of
authority and a decentralised system of management. These changes are difficult to create in any
system. In the MOE, the report finds that there is limited authorisation and ability for these changes at
present, and only moderate bureaucratic acceptance. Departments recognise the need to make
changes, but there is an understandable reluctance to change tried and tested ways of working. The
leading role of senior decision makers as the primary – and often singular – decision makers is a
significant constraint on changing the working culture.

▪ Material and financial resources: The review found that there is a general awareness of the
importance of resource access, both human and financial, but there is often a lack of authorisation for
the additional resources required to undertake the relevant activities. A key challenge was the limited
ability to identify and allocate the resources required within the MOE. This is important given the
ambitious scope of the NESP agenda and the need to sequence how resources are allocated.
▪ Culture and attitudes: as a theme, this is closely related to that of the working culture. This theme
reflects the wider societal context, over which the MOE has less direct control. Key constraints and
enablers identified in this space relate to a hierarchical system of decision making, as well as the
collective nature of behaviour change at the school level. A significant challenge facing the MOE is
creating a system of accountability that not only flows upwards to the top, but also is based upon a
collective understanding of the learning objectives of the education system reforms.
▪ Legal framework: the emphasis on the legal framework focused heavily on the basic education NESP
theme and on establishing the SQASF and VE-SQASF. In this space there was significant authority for
the changes required, while acceptance and ability remained more limited in terms of the understanding
of what these frameworks would mean and the ability to implement them.
Recommendations based on findings
Consolidating the data across NESP area and key themes, the Task Team identified eight action
areas for the MoE:
▪ Ensuring leadership and support from senior MoE officials: Leadership from senior MoE officials
plays a key role in creating the authorising environment for reform. Within the MoE’s culture, senior
leadership facilitates acceptance of the reform process. Ensuring support from the MoE leadership group
is a key enabler, for the implementation of any reform. The VE-SQASF Task Team noted that
authorisation from the Union Minister, the Director General, and external advisory bodies proved to be
important in progressing the reforms.
▪ Deconcentrating decision making: MoE officials consistently identified the key policy and
implementation decision makers as either the Union Minister or the Director General. The centralisation
of decision making, specifically for administrative and non-policy-related tasks, limits the speed at which
reforms can progress. Given the various policy challenges facing these individuals, the use of senior
management time on administrative decision making is inefficient. Deconcentrating decision-making
builds acceptance of reform and increases the ability of departments to take decisions.
▪ Allocating MoE time to reform areas: conflicting priorities create competing demands on MoE
personnel for their time. A common theme across stakeholders was that reform focal points bring their
own workloads – their monitoring and evaluation (M&E) responsibilities are added to these. Creating
acceptance and developing ability requires a clear direction on how the time of senior MoE officials
should be used.
▪ Establishing clear reporting structures around MoE priorities: this action area is linked to the de-
concentration of decision making and the effective allocation of MoE time. The NESP requires a shift in
how decisions are made and who makes these decisions. The issue of decision clarity was repeated
across Task Teams as playing an important role in creating authorisation and acceptance for change.
Clarifying reporting lines and ensuring that there is clear accountability for actions at the department
level was identified as important for building space to act when implementing new rules, guidelines, and
policies.
▪ Building cross-departmental collaboration: barriers to cross-departmental collaboration were
identified as hindering progress across NESP reform areas. The lack of clear policies and procedures
governing information management in the MoE limited acceptance and authorisation for better
information sharing. Building an understanding and acceptance of the value of cross-departmental
collaboration plays a central role in enabling NESP objectives, especially as related to more effective
management of the education system.
▪ Ensuring that training is aligned to new policies: the implementation of new policies and systems
needs to align with new skills in key departments. There was a recognition that newly introduced
processes need to be built into the formal legal framework and into the training of departmental staff to

ensure that authority and acceptance to act are maintained. Developing technical ability at all levels of
government to implement new policies and procedures is a key enabler of reform.
▪ Encouraging new behaviours in line with the NESP objectives: changing the way officials at all
levels of the education system acts represented a key enabler to implementing NESP reform. For
example, behaviour change by school inspectors is a crucial element to addressing issues of quality and
inclusion. A shift from an inspection mentality to a facilitation (or supportive) mentality is required for the
SQASF to be successful. Authorising behaviour change is extremely important, given the strong
interlinkages between authorisation and acceptance within the education system. Senior MoE leaders
play a key role in communicating the requirement to change and creating space for action. For example,
by encouraging decision making by more junior MoE personnel.
▪ Consider re-organising or restructuring departments: a considerable number of the
recommendations relate to identifying focal points, departments or units. In the short term this is a
solution to assigning departmental responsibility. In the long term it is not. Consideration for how the
MoE departments are restructured is required in short to medium term. This will support greater
prioritisation and focus within the MoE.
While the action areas listed above may seem obvious, progress in each area will to be messy.
Reform is a difficult process, with the authorisation for action, the acceptance of the change, and the
ability to make a change happen always evolving. The report recognises that at times there will be
significant amounts of authority for a change but insufficient ability to make progress on it; or that there may
be acceptance within the government ranks and the ability to implement the change, but politically it will not
be the right time. This is the nature of reform generally, and the MoE needs to be able to manage and track
this process.

1 Introduction
The MoE of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar has requested the My-EQIP, funded by the
Government of Australia, to undertake an OCA. Oxford Policy Management (OPM) undertook this
assignment and developed the OCA participatory policy toolkit for data collection. This report presents the
findings from Phase 1.
In line with the MoE’s expectation that the analysis would be based upon a policy toolkit that the MoE could
make use of an ongoing basis, the MoE led data collection with support from My-EQIP and the OPM team.
The overall objective of this approach is not to provide a one-off report but to help develop a template for
ongoing policy analysis by the MoE and build the skills required to diagnose constraints within the policy
formulation to implementation process (i.e. how policy is developed, translated into annual plans, and then
into budgets). The key outputs from the facilitation process are:
▪ a Phase 1 report that identifies the general constraints to effective and efficient service delivery; and
▪ a second phase, to be confirmed, that seeks to roll out the approach and tools allowing a focus on
specific national and sub-national issues.
The final approach is set out in Section 2, and was based on discussions with the MoE Reference Group, led
by Dr Aye Myint, Director General TVET, and agreed with My-EQIP. The emphasis in the report is on
identifying actions required to move a reform activity forwards (enablers), as well as challenges or blockages
within the MoE and the wider education sector that prevent a reform from making progress (constraints).
Section 3 consolidates the findings from the data collection exercise carried out by MoE Task Teams in line
with the NESP, drawing out six common themes under which both constraints and enablers reside. Section 4
extracts key messages and analyses from the findings to identify actions that have the potential to make
progress on key reforms possible, either by enabling activity or addressing a constraint.
It is important to acknowledge the constraints to the analysis presented here. As an intentionally participatory
exercise, the focus has been on developing the tools and understanding of the key elements of reform within
the MoE, by MoE personnel. As such, the data does not, as part of Phase 1, cover the entire MoE, nor is it
exhaustive. Where possible, data has been cross-referenced to existing reports and analysis of the
education sector and verified through consultations with the Reference Group and senior MoE leadership
(late August 2019).
The OPM team would like to acknowledge the guidance of the Reference Group, Dr Aye Myint, U Aung
Than, Daw Aye Aye Mon Oo, and Dr Choo Htun Aung. Support from the My-EQIP leadership team was also
invaluable in producing this report. The report would not have been completed without the active
participation of the MoE Task Team members and engagement by the My-EQIP support team. Finally, Dr
Tun Tun Oo has played a key role in steering and guiding this report, for which the authors are grateful.
2 Approach
An OCA aims to establish an understanding of how an organisation is functioning, in terms of what
the interactions within the organisation are, how they happen, and who is responsible for them. In the
context of the MoE, the OCA was based on a participatory action research design, with the aim of putting in
place an approach to identifying constraints to effective and efficient service delivery within and across the
systems of education in Myanmar. Specifically, the analysis aimed to identify key actions that enable
progress on NESP-priority activities. As such, it provides a set of tools, and analysis, that is practical beyond
the immediate areas of focus.
2.1 Conceptual framework

The OCA is based on two interrelated concepts: (i) identifying the constraints to, and enablers of,
action; and (ii) determining the space to act on these. This builds on an evolving understanding in
development literature about the iterative nature of reform and organisational change.

The determination of constraints and enablers of action is based upon a three-layered framework that builds
on a wide-ranging literature of organisational and capacity assessment.2 The approach takes the mandate
and functions of an organisation as the starting point and investigates its ability to perform these functions
across three elements: context, structures, and people. These are defined as:
▪ Context: constraints and enablers are related to how policy is formulated and translated into law,
regulations, and budgets; this category also covers constraints related to the political decision-making
process and the more informal cultural hierarchy of the MoE.
▪ Structures: constraints and enablers are related to how policy is translated into action. For example, are
enough funds made available, or do departments have the right structures and HR resources to
implement their functions? Understanding these at an organisational level is critical to implementing the
NESP.
▪ People: the personal incentives and cultural norms and beliefs that govern how civil servants interact
with the policy making and policy implementation culture. Cultural respect for hierarchy and an
unwillingness to question and challenge can constrain effective decision making.
Building on the data collected, a further sub-categorisation emerged from themes identified in the data. This
produced six implementation enablers (Step 1 in the data collection – see Section 2.2) set out in Table 1.
Table 1 Implementation enablers and constraints
▪ Culture/attitudes: beliefs, behaviours, and attitudes within the wider

Informal norms environment. Not specific to the MoE but present in the day-to-day
Context functioning of the MoE.
Formal rules ▪ Legal framework: the legal framework within which the MoE
operates.
▪ Rules, guidelines, policies, and systems: instructions and
Processes processes followed by MoE personnel that impact the way the MoE
Structures functions. These exist within the legal framework.
Resources ▪ Material or financial resources: the infrastructure, personnel

(people, not skills), and budget that the MoE requires to function.
Technical ability ▪ Human resources and skills: the availability and skills of individual
personnel, related to their technical function.
People
Functional ability ▪ Work culture: behavioural practices, attitudes, and culture of
working within the MoE.
The second framework utilised in the analysis was the authority, acceptance, and ability framework (Step 2
in the data collection – see Section 2.2). Building on the work of Matt Andrews (2008) and Woolsey-Biggart
and Guillen (1999), this framework recognises that reform is less about technical solutions and more about
the social-organisational space – in other words the way an organisation (in this case, a government
department) functions.3 This framework is intended to identify a space for reform, encouraging technical
teams (insiders and outsiders) to consider where they have ‘reform space’ and how they can create or
enlarge this. It can be used to map how formal and informal channels help open reform space in a
government department. The three components of the framework4 are:
▪ Authority: represents the support needed to enable a reform or change. This may be political,
bureaucratic, or personal.
▪ Acceptance: this is the recognition by those who are doing the change or who are impacted by the
change that the change is necessary. Without acceptance, resistance is the norm.
▪ Ability: this is the practical element of reform, time, money, skills, etc., enabling a reform process to
progress.
2 See: UNDP (2007). Capacity assessment methodology user’s guide. World Bank. (2017). World Development Report
2017. Governance and the Law.
3 Woolsey-Biggart, Nicole. and Mario. F. Guillén. 1999.
4 Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., and Woolcock, M. (2017). Building state capability: Evidence, analysis, action. Oxford
University Press.

The report’s data collection process (described in Section 2.2) was structured around these conceptual
frameworks. The analysis makes use of these two conceptual reference points to understand where the
greatest need for action and reform is, and where there is the greatest space to act (where authority,
acceptance and ability are most present). Finally, the analysis acknowledges that reform is a dynamic
process in which authority, acceptance, and ability are constantly changing (see Box 1). The report seeks to
identify actions that increase reform space, by addressing one or more of the three elements of reform.
Box 1 A case example of an evolving reform trajectory
The implemention of a Medium-Term Budget Framework aimed to strengthen budget management from
2003 to 2010 hightlights how fluid the reform space can be, and how important it is to be constantly re-
evaluating where reforms are positioned within this space. The Ministry of Finance led this intervention,
and the eventual result was signficant reform progress, but only during a very narrow window, and not
without signficant effort. The key elements in this process were:
1. 2003–04: Senior policymakers support reform,

some well-conceived analysis, awareness-raising on
the need for reform within key units, but no progress
on implementation.
2. 2004–05: Piloting in a small number of pilot

ministries, increased acceptance, and continued
political authority. But the budget system unaffected.
No systemic change.
3. 2005–06: Ability building in Ministry of Finance

through pilots, and acceptance builds. But acceptance
is quickly lost as key officials are moved before
implementation can occur. No systemic change.
4. 2007–08: Policy concerns are increasingly

focused on security and macroeconomic issues and
move away budget reform; loss of political authority
and acceptance. No systemic change.
5. 2008–09: Change of key personnel and renewed

political support. Rapid implementation of the reforms
first proposed in 2006. Acceptance, authority, and
ability all in place.
6. 2010–12: External support scaled down.

Difficulties in recruiting the necessary technical
specialists from within the civil service lead to
concerns about sustainability.
Throughout this process, the space to act (reform space) fluctuated, as demonstrated by the
graphics above. The key was recognising when there was enough support for reform and being
able to act. When considering the space to act for NESP reforms, it is important to look for ‘reform
movements’, but it is equally important to be working to build reform space consistently, by cultivating
ability, acceptance, and authority.
2.2 Data collection

The OCA was led by a MoE Reference Group, headed by Dr Aye Myint, Director General TVET, with
membership from senior MoE personnel;5 this provided overall guidance and leadership for the analysis. To
5Reference Group members: Dr Choo Htun Aung, Director Minister’s Office; U Aung Than, Deputy Director Minister’s
Office; and, Daw Aye Mon Oo, Director Department of Education Research, Planning and Training.

collect data, the My-EQIP Task Team structure was used to reduced duplication and competing demands on
MoE time, while enabling the analysis process to be trialled. Task Teams were sensitised to the tools in early
July 2019. Each Task Team conducted a one-day work planning and OCA session in August 2019, during
which the Task Team worked through the three OCA tools. Each session was facilitated by the My-EQIP
Government Liaison, the My-EQIP Deputy Team Leader, or a member of the OPM team. The information
provided during these exercises was collected, processed, and analysed by the OPM team.
The process consisted of three steps, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Steps in OCA process
Each step was associated with a specific diagnostic tool, aligned to the analytical framework (see the
process report for further details). The steps were:
▪ Step 1 – identify NESP implementation enablers: starting with their NESP objectives, Task Teams
were asked to identify their specific activities within this priority area and then identify the constraints and
enablers that either prevent or facilitate progress towards this objective. This tool relates to the first
framework discussed in Section 2.1.
▪ Step 2 – assess the space to act: based upon the identified enablers, an analysis of the space to act
(using the change space tool) was undertaken. This analysis seeks to identify where reform potential is
the highest, and where further support or ability is required to create the conditions for reform. This tool
relates to the second framework discussed in Section 2.1.
▪ Step 3 – identify the actions required: based upon the available evidence, the Task Team were asked
to identify activities that would positively contribute to their reform space, by increasing authority, ability,
or acceptance.
These steps were undertaken by the MoE Task Teams with a focus on three essential NESP transformation
shifts, covering: basic education – access, quality, inclusions; TVET; and, management, capacity
development, and quality assurance). See Figure 1. The report reflects an analysis of the understanding of
these teams collected during the period (June–September 2019). Circumstances on the ground are always
changing, and some of the findings in this paper are likely to have evolved in the past.

Figure 2 NESP transformations covered
Working through existing Task Teams provides several benefits but also creates some limitations. The
benefits are the ability to provide useful policy analysis tools to the MoE and the limited impact on MoE
resources; it is particularly significant given the competing pressure on all MoE personnel time that the views
reflected in the report are those of the MoE personnel and not the authors’ interpretation of interview
findings. The limitations are the narrow focus of the analysis to the existing areas of support of the Task
Teams, and the lack of exhaustive interviews and consultations
The following sections present the synthesis of the analysis by NESP area, while the detailed findings for
each Task Team are presented in Error! Reference source not found.. To ensure consistency between
each Task Team, a review and comparison of the evidence collected was undertaken as part of the analysis.
To ensure that the final data present was consistent between groups, some data was re-coded or re-
classified by the authors. In general, modifications were made only where information could not be verified
against existing evidence, or where the assessment provided based upon the available evidence appeared
to be an outlier in comparison against other groups’ assessments (for example, where a Task Team ranked
reform authority as high, but then described a lack of support from the Union Minister and/or Director
General). The result is data that is broadly consistent against a common comparative set.
Box 2 Task Team feedback on the organisational constraint analysis toolkit
As part of the process, a feedback survey was administered to MoE Task Team participants; 19 MoE
personnel provided feedback. The key findings from this feedback were:
▪ 100% of respondents found either or both of the change space (Step 2) or implementation enablers
(Step 1) tools useful to their work planning.
▪ 77% of respondents indicated that they felt they would be able to use the tools in their work, outside of
the Task Teams.
▪ 64% of respondents had heard about the tools from colleagues, although only 25% of respondents
had been shown the tools by them.
Written feedback indicates that participants founds the tools useful, and that they could see the value in
work planning. Some participants noted that the tools were merely interesting and unlikely to be used
regularly, while others felt that more training or support would be required.
3 Consolidated findings
This section consolidates the findings from each NESP focus area and looks at the six implementation
constraints and enablers as identified in Section 2.1. It consolidates the data collected to identify the reform
potential for each of these areas (as assessed by authority, acceptance, and ability), and draws out the
actions that were identified as increasing the space to act in these reform areas.

The figures presented in this section are intended to identify areas within the assessed reform space in the
NESP focus areas and against the implementation constraints. They provide an indication of where further
work is required to generate the environment necessary for reform. In themselves, these should be in line
with the MoE’s own understanding of the constraints and enablers faced in day-to-day activities, given that
they are drawn from working group discussions. It is important to note that the space to act is constantly
changing and it should not be assumed that any reform will consistently have acceptance, authority, and
ability. Instead, the MoE, when considering its reform activities, needs to ask which of these areas requires
greater support and emphasis. These areas are identified in each section.
3.1 NESP
The OCA focused on three NESP transformations, as explained in Section 2. This section presents the
findings for each of these areas, identifying the key constraints and enablers to NESP implementation, and
identifying the space to act within each area.
Management, capacity development, and quality assurance (Chapter 13): this sets out a vision for
strengthening education sector management, structures, systems, and tools. This chapter focuses on how
evidence-based decision making, planning, and monitoring play a significant role in creating a modern
education system and why they are central to the successful implementation of the NESP. Key activities
assessed under this chapter were the Department Annual Implementation Plans and the Departmental
Annual Progress Reports, education management information system6, and establishing the capacity for
evidence-based decision making.
The following three implementation constraints and enablers identified in this NESP area were: rules,
guidelines, policies and systems; human resources and skills; and work culture. Specific enablers identified
within these themes were:
▪ Putting in place (authorising) and disseminating (acceptance) the policies and procedures required to
improve information management and data flow. The lack of data sharing between departments was a
key constraint, as was the need for a policy decision to authorise data sharing.
▪ Ensuring the skills and understanding (ability) to undertake evidence-based decision making was in
place across the relevant departments. Limitations in data analysis and processing constrain effective
communication and M&E, and limit data quality.
▪ Encouraging effective cross-departmental collaboration. Limitations in communication and coordination,
a global problem in bureaucracies, is a barrier to making progress on improving departmental planning
and monitoring of NESP implementation. The lack of an effective cross-department, MoE-wide
coordination mechanism is an important barrier to ensuring there is effective authorisation for actions,
with repercussions for inaction. At present, the MoE Executive Committee makes decisions on hundreds
of agenda items in its bi-weekly meeting, limiting strategic oversight.
6The education information management system covers the information systems required to manage the
education sector, including: human resource management information, school data, etc.
Figure 3 Space to act – management, capacity development, and quality assurance
Authorisation is the primary

factor required to strengthen
implementation in the
management, capacity
development, and quality
assurance area. The focus was
on support (informal as well as
formal) from key decision
makers to authorise the
activities required to progress
activities under this NESP
theme. Ability within the MoE,
relating to both the way in which
work happens, as well as the technical skills required, was also a key focus for improving implementation.
Acceptance, ranked as medium here, would increase following efforts to increase authority and ability.
Figure 3 depicts these findings.
Three common actions were important for building authority and ability within the MoE. These were:
▪ Establishing a dedicated M&E unit that brings together existing monitoring functions with a clear
mandate for monitoring and evaluating the NESP. This would increase both authorisation and
acceptance of these activities, as well as provide a focal unit or department where ability can develop.
▪ Identifying departmental focal points for monitoring and information management; this involves creating
an authorised group of civil servants able to focus on evidence-based policymaking and the
communication of data between departments.
▪ Focusing on improving data flows at all levels, specifically the quality of information collected to provide
more effective reporting and monitoring.
Basic education – access, quality, inclusion (Chapter 6): this provides for the development of a national
school-based quality assurance system through the SQASF. This also incorporates actions to address
inclusion (one of the nine key challenges set out in Chapter 2). Improvements in school leadership and
management, supported by school improvement plans, with regular reporting and monitoring of schools’
performance, is expected to improve access, quality, and inclusion in the education system. In terms of
inclusion, the NESP sets out four work areas: equitable access to basic education; school quality
improvement; empowering and strengthening parent–teacher associations; and ensuring inclusion of all
children.
The following two implementation constraints and enablers were identified in this NESP area: rules,
guidelines, policies, and systems; and human resources and skills. Addressing issues of school
management requires an emphasis on work culture as a third area, while issues of inclusion require cultural
and attitudinal change. Specific enablers identified within these themes were:
▪ Approval (authorisation), dissemination (acceptance), and implementation of SQASF guidelines. This
step is a key enabler across themes, creating space for further reform at the school level. MoE officials
identified SQASF dissemination beyond schools to parents as a crucial element in its successful
implementation.
▪ Process changes, specifically obtaining authorisation at the Union, State/Region, and School level for
changes to admission and budgeting processes was identified as important to moving from the
implementation of SQASF as a policy to the use of SQASF as a tool to improve access, quality, and
inclusion.
▪ Developing the technical ability at all levels of government to implement new policies and procedures
was a key enabler. Strengthening technical ability and understanding is a key step in implementing the
SQASF and addressing issues of inclusion.

▪ Behaviour change by school inspectors is an essential element in addressing issues of quality and
inclusion. A shift from an inspection mentality to a facilitation, or supportive, mentality is important to
enable effective improvement where a change in teachers’ and principals’ attitudes is required.
Figure 4 Space to act – basic education: access, quality, inclusion
Ability is the primary factor

identified as requiring
strengthening in the basic
education – access, quality,
inclusion area. The ability to
make use of the SQASF and to
apply the framework to address
school management, and
access and inclusion issues,
was a common constraint under
this NESP theme. This is
particularly important as
changes within school
management require changes in behaviours based upon deep-rooted cultural beliefs and values. This
constrains acceptance. Acceptance of the SQASF and for work in this area was present, as was the
authorisation necessary to implement the framework. Work in these areas is required to maintain the
momentum for change. Figure 4 depicts these findings.
Two common actions were identified within this NESP area as important for building ability and maintaining
authority and acceptance within the MoE:
▪ Communication and outreach at the school and district level will be an important activity to build
understanding of the changes implemented under this NESP area (the SQASF).
▪ Ensuring budget flexibility and allocating financial and human resources to align with the priorities
identified through the SQASF. The SQASF implementation requires a shift in resource allocation to
address the needs identified. Through this the quality, access, and inclusion objectives of the NESP can
be realised.
TVET (Chapter 11): this focuses on the vision for TVET. Specifically, it envisages that all TVET institutions
under the Department for TVET (DTVET) are implementing a VE-SQASF. This will strengthen the quality
and relevance of TVET institutions through the VE-SQASF quality assurance system, which is formed of a
TVET National Qualification Framework, a national skills standard, a competency-based curriculum, and the
accreditation of individuals and institutions. The VE-SQASF Task Team in the MoE is leading the process of
developing the VE-SQASF.
The following three implementation constraints and enablers were identified: rules, guidelines, policies and
systems, human resources and skills, and work culture. Specific enablers identified within these themes
were:
▪ The provision of skills at the technical institution and departmental level (ability) to implement a modern
technical and vocational education framework – specifically ensuring that resources are allocated to
develop the individual skills required to undertake the required training, and to address issues identified
in the VE-SQASF.
▪ The authorisation of the VE-SQASF, enabling the roll-out of the TVET policy and the development of
guides for departmental officials.
▪ Changes in the ways of working at the institution level as well as for DTVET inspectors; this requires new
skills for implementing and overseeing the VE-SQASF.

Figure 5 Space to act – TVET
Ability is the primary factor

required to strengthen
implementation in the TVET
area. There has been limited
implementation to date in this
NESP area and there is a
recognition that developing the
skills to implement and engage
with the VE-SQASF will take
time. Authority comes from the
support of the Director General
DTVET and the Minister, with
acceptance developed through
the work of the Task Team with the department. School visits by the department revealed an interest at the
school level in implementing this new framework (this can be verified independently). Figure 5 depicts these
findings.
Three common actions were identified within this NESP area as important for building ability, and for
maintaining and increasing authority and acceptance within the MoE. These were:
▪ Continued interaction with the Director General and Union Minister on the VE-SQASF, including on the
roll-out to maintain a clear mandate for these reforms.
▪ The provision of training and further support at the school level to ensure understanding and acceptance
of the VE-SQASF as well the wider NESP reform objectives.
▪ Department- and school-level training on the use of the framework to assess progress, addressing
issues related to effective monitoring and reporting systems.
Box 3 Lessons from developing the VE-SQASF
The VE-SQASF reform work constructively highlights the importance of the themes that emerge in
this section. For background, the VE-SQAF was originally part of the wider SQASF work covering all
schools. DTVET staff recognised the value and potential of developing a specific VE-SQASF and obtained
the Director General’s agreement to develop the framework within the department. A new Task Team was
formed for DTVET, consisting of six officials from DTVET, six principals from technical high schools, and
three principals from the technical institutes. It was led by the Director TVET. The members of the VE-
SQASF team worked hard to build broad acceptance of the reform, securing approval at the school level
and from the National Accreditation and Quality Assurance Committee and NESP.
The following lessons emerge from the VE-SQASF case study:
▪ A limited and focused reform team provided the basis for close working, building acceptance and
ensuring the ability to address emerging problems. ‘We select only vocational education person […]
six members from the department and six members from the government technical high schools.’
▪ Focused on building acceptance for the reform agenda. ‘Our members principals are in faraway
places (not in Nay Pyi Taw) when we are about to go for first pre-pilot testing […] We took more time
to meet with them.’
▪ Authorisation comes from the Director General and the team has a clear mandate. ‘Have to
report to DG [Director General] and Deputy Director General [DDG] and no further approval
necessary.’ And: ‘We had one activity. We already informed them in the survey periods about what
they have been doing in terms of school and their managements to the department. We organised a
workshop for GTHS principals when VE-SQASF was drafting. We invited director level personnel and
other invite-worthy personnel for internal communication.’
▪ The presence of acceptance and authorisation make building ability, using departmental
systems, feasible. ‘The Department Director General has already accepted that this is important and
all the sections. Everyone accepts the existence and importance of the framework. Departmental

routines and norms will be there in actual implementation and we are not sure whether systematic
approach can over the norms or not.’
3.2 Organisational constraints and enablers by theme

As set out in Section 2, the analysis identified six sub-themes into which it was possible to
categorise the constraints and enablers identified within the three NESP areas. These themes are a
useful way of categorising the constraints and enablers across the MoE. The mapping, in this section, of the
space to act within each theme provides an indication of the scope for MoE officials to address these issues.
The activities that enable change differ by department and NESP area; this section attempts to draw out
overlapping actions within each theme to identify the structural (MoE-wide) blockages to reform.
Rules, guidelines, policies, systems: consultations identified a general agreement that authorisation
existed, in general, for changes and the introduction of new rules, guidelines, and policies. The commentary
of different departments and Task Teams noted that there is a lack of clarity on whether authorisation for
action was formal (written direction from an authoriser) or informal (assuming implicit authorisation). When
there is authorisation, acceptance exists, and departmental officials are willing to take action to implement
new processes, most notably in the VE-SQASF work. However, the ability to implement new rules,
guidelines, and policies is often lacking, either due to system constraints or the lack of technical ability to
make these changes.
Figure 6 Space to act – rule, guidelines, policies, systems
Figure 6 presents the

consolidated reform space for
rules, guidelines, policies, and
systems. Interventions that
increase authority and ability
should be prioritised in this area.
Common issues that emerged
as constraints and enablers in
this theme were:
▪ Decision clarity: ensuring
that there are clear and
articulated decisions on new
rules, guidelines, and
policies to authorise the implementation of these new policies. The issue of decision clarity was a
common theme across Task Teams; it was seen as playing a key role in creating the authorisation and
acceptance for change. This issue emerged from the question of data management, and who is
responsible for these processes, to the roll-out of the SQASFs.7
▪ Guidelines and procedures for new systems: these were seen as playing a central role in the
implementation of new policies and systems, providing the basis of acceptance of the new approach and
a framework for training to develop implementation ability. The importance of articulating what has
changed, and who does what in the system, was identified in various Task Teams – in particular,
Communications, SQASF, and M&E and Planning.
▪ Clear reporting lines: new processes also require routine monitoring. Clarifying reporting lines and
ensuring that there is clear accountability for actions at the department level was important for building
the space to act when implementing new rules, guidelines, and policies. Often Task Teams referred to
this as ensuring that appropriate structures were in place. The importance of ensuring that departments
were authorised to act was a consistent theme in the commentary from Task Teams. For example, for
data management, data sharing across departments requires clarity on who is accountable for enabling
7This challenge is also identified in reporting on the My-EQIP programme (see My-EQIP Monitoring and Evaluation
Report, October 2018–March 2019, p. 7).

this to happen, and at what level. Right now, this is escalated to the Executive Committee (consisting of
the Union Minister and the Director Generals).
The following interventions address the constraints and enablers identified above:
▪ Creating focal points: allocating departmental focal points, with formal authorisation from the Director
Generals and Union Minister. Establishing focal points in this manner creates authority and acceptance.
This system also provides for clear reporting lines and the allocation of responsibility. The caveat here is
that the focal points require formal appointment and must have a clear role description. For example, the
M&E Task Team has been successful with this model.
▪ Gaining formal approval of key policies: formal ministerial and senior leadership approval for new
rules, guidelines, policies, and systems was important for generating acceptance and authorising action.
▪ Aligning training with new policies: providing training, on the job and more formally, around new
policies and guidelines was a common theme through which new rules, guidelines, policies, and systems
could gain acceptance and develop departmental ability for implementation.
Human resources and skills: this was identified as a key theme in each of the NESP reform areas. This
theme considers whether there are enough members of staff capable of undertaking the tasks required by
the NESP. Some degree of authorisation and acceptance for the development of human resource ability and
skills is in place across the NESP areas. However, actions such as the allocation of budget to match the
staffing and training requirements were lacking, and there is more work required to enlarge the space for
change in this area. The ability to train and recruit the relevant individuals was less present, which reflects
the challenges of implementing a reform system within a government system that has had limited exposure
to international best practice for 40 years. The lack of key skills, such as IT and English language skills to
engage externally to the MoE, limits the MoE’s ability to rapidly develop its human resource skills. For skills
development, there is a tendency to prefer formal rather than on-the-job training – this, however, is not
always as effective.
Figure 7 Space to act – human resources and skills

human resources and skills.
Interventions to increase ability
need to be prioritised. Common
issues that emerged as
constraints and enablers in this
theme were:
▪ Aligning training to new
procedures at all level of
government: the NESP
requires many MoE
departments to change the way
they function. Management, capacity development, and quality assurance outcomes were identified as
requiring significant support to provide training on evidence-based policymaking. Data analysis and
management, as well as data use in decision making, is an important skill across Task Teams.
▪ Identification of departmental focal points: this was identified as playing a significant role in
establishing both authorisation and acceptance for specific roles and functions. As above, focal points
provide a visible indication of the acceptance of reforms and allocate individuals who are authorised to
develop the skills necessary to undertake them. Moreover, in reform areas without an identified focal
point(s), or where the reform itself is wide-reaching, MoE personnel and Task Team members
highlighted this as a challenge in coordinating activities and being authorised to take actions forwards.
Diffuse ownership of the reform agenda clearly hinders sustained progress.

▪ Allocation of personnel to reform areas: given the ambition of the reforms proposed under the NESP
and the number of interventions required (led by the government and supported by development
partners), ensuring sufficient allocation of personnel to take on new functions and carry out reform
activities is a concern, and requires a clear intervention to enable reform. Specifically, prioritising staff
time towards new areas of work and deprioritising non-reform activities is a solution to the staffing
limitations faced by the MoE.
Work culture: the NESP, specifically Chapter 13, requires a meaningful change in the MoE’s ways of
working. The emphasis on evidence-based decision making, quality and mentoring, and building monitoring
systems requires a shift away from centralised decision making towards the delegation of authority and a
decentralised system of management. These changes are difficult to create in any system. In the MoE, the
report finds that there is limited authorisation and ability for these changes at present, and only moderate
bureaucratic acceptance. Departments recognise the need to make changes, but there is an understandable
reluctance to change tried and tested ways of working. The leading role of senior decision makers as the
primary – and often singular – decision makers is a significant constraint on changing the working culture.
Figure 8 Space to act – work culture

work culture. Interventions
focused on authority and ability
are the priority in this area.
Common issues that emerged
as constraints and enablers in
relation to this theme were:
▪ Centralised decision
making: as noted, decision
making is focused on the
Union Minister and Directors
General. The expectation
that Director Generals or the Union Minister will take decisions on administrative as well as policy issues
delays reform activities and prevents collaboration within the MoE.
▪ Reward and recognition mechanisms: many of the changes required within the work culture,
specifically under the human resource and skills themes, relate to changes in behaviour. New skills in
themselves are not enough to remove the constraint, but a change in work culture is also required. Task
Teams identified the reward and motivation systems as important to enabling or constraining the
development of the necessary skills and behaviours required to implement the NESP. For example,
under VE-SQASF and SQASF there was a recognition that Assistant Township Education Officers
(ATEOs) would need to be shift their behaviours from verification to mentoring and support.
▪ Decentralisation of decision making: this involves encouraging departments and districts to make
decisions within a set of pre-agreed criteria. The SQASF and VE-SQASF provide a valuable framework
through which to begin these discussions. This could support a process of more regular reporting and
briefing to the MoE’s senior leadership.
▪ Set and agree realistic objectives for change: changing the working culture is complex and requires
sustained resources, skills, and training. Buy-in and support from leaders can be instrumental in
achieving a working culture change. Introducing a transformational change such as the SQASF
necessarily implies changes in deeply embedded working practices – this takes time and is not a
straightforward process. Early recognition of the size of this task is crucial. Progress requires sustained
support – from the Union Minister to the school level. The clear identification of objectives and
timeframes will help to sustain momentum and set realistic goals for how much progress and change
should occur.

Material and financial resources: these were identified across the NESP areas reviewed as central to
enabling NESP implementation. In any resource-constrained environment, the ability to obtain and hold onto
resources is a strong indication of authorisation and acceptance. The review found that there is a general
awareness of the importance of resource access, both human and financial, but there is often a lack of
authorisation for the additional resources required to undertake the relevant activities. A key challenge was
the limited ability to identify and allocate the resources required within the MoE. This is important given the
ambitious scope of the NESP agenda and the need to sequence how resources are allocated.
Figure 9 Space to act – material or financial resources

material and financial resources.
Interventions that increase
authority and ability remain a
priority in this area. Common
theme were:
▪ Appropriate staffing of
reform teams: ensuring that
departments allocate the right
and enough staff to reform
activities in NESP-priority areas, including Task Teams.
▪ Managing development partner interventions in line with NESP objectives: ensuring that
development partners complement NESP objectives, and that MoE time spent on these development
partner objectives fully supports the NESP implementation and does not duplicate or distract from NESP
implementation.
The following interventions were identified as playing an important role in addressing the constraints and
enablers identified above.
▪ Establishing units with clear mandates: creating authorisation to utilise resources within the
government system to undertake NESP reform activities.
▪ Create budget flexibility: ensuring budget flexibility in the annual planning process – this would be an
important reform to enable sufficient resource allocation in line with NESP priorities.
Culture and attitudes: as a theme, this is closely related to that of the working culture. This theme reflects
the wider societal context, over which the MoE has less direct control. Key constraints and enablers
identified in this space relate to a hierarchical system of decision making, as well as the collective nature of
behaviour change at the school level. A significant challenge facing the MoE is creating a system of
accountability that not only flows upwards to the top, but also is based upon a collective understanding of the
learning objectives of the education system reforms.

Figure 10 Space to act – culture and attitudes

culture and attitudes.
Interventions that increase
authority and ability remain a
priority in this area. The common
issues that emerged in this
theme were:
▪ Limited responsibility and
accountability: this applies
to the implementation of key
reform agendas. A lack of
understanding of the reform
agenda or officials having enough clarity or authorisation to take action limits departments’ ability to take
ownership over reform agendas. The VE-SQASF is a positive example; here, authority and
understanding have been present at the departmental level, encouraging uptake of the framework within
DTVET.
▪ Societal perceptions limit acceptance of the inclusion agenda: an underlying societal trend related
to ethnicity, gender, and disability challenges the MoE’s work on creating an inclusive school
environment. Officials at all levels lack the ability to engage with these issues, and acceptance at the
district level remains low.
The following interventions address the constraints and enablers identified above.
▪ Clear departmental leads: authorising clear focal points in departments was a key element to
addressing cultural constraints that cause departments to wait for authorisation before taking reform
actions forwards.
▪ Communication and outreach strategies: aligning with the ongoing work on the SQASF and VE-
SQASF outreach related to inclusion remains an important element of NESP reform activities, if
education access is to be made open to all young people in Myanmar.
Legal framework: the emphasis on the legal framework focused heavily on the basic education NESP
theme and on establishing the SQASF and VE-SQASF. In this space there was significant authority for the
changes required, while acceptance and ability remained more limited in terms of the understanding of what
these frameworks would mean and the ability to implement them.
Figure 11 Space to act – legal framework

legal frameworks. Interventions
that increase the ability to
implement legal changes remain
a priority in this area. Common
theme were:
▪ Securing authorisation
for reform activities: this is an
important enabler for any
changes to the legal framework.
This authorisation would come through the NESP.

▪ Translating the legal framework into rules, policies, guidelines, and systems: this requires
sufficient ability to translate the legal requirements into operational guidance – a constraint specifically
identified by the SQASF Task Team, which noted its main authorisers were the Union Minister, the
National Accreditation and Quality Assurance Committee, and the National Education Policy
Commission. Authorisation at this level is challenging but plays a key role in enabling the system to
make progress.
There were no specific interventions identified in this theme as being critical to addressing the constraints
and enablers set out above.
Box 4 Lessons from developing management information systems
The work on communication, knowledge, and management information systems provides a useful
illustration of the themes that emerge in this section. For background, early work on the communications
systems struggled to gain traction and support from within the MoE. A significant amount of effort was put
into organising a forum in late June 2019 that has been viewed as very successful and helped to build
support for the strengthening of communications systems. The forum and the engagement of the Union
Minister have created more authority for the activities in this space. However, reforms are still perceived to
be slow, and there is limited acceptance of the reform agenda from different departments in the MoE.
The following lessons emerge from the communication and management information systems case study:
▪ Limited authorisation below the Union Minister may have led to limited departmental
engagement. ‘We don’t really need the decisions from the directors of the departments. We only need
the Union Minister approval once the Task Team agree to conduct an activity.’ And: ‘Director Generals
and Deputy Director Generals couldn’t participate consultation meetings and only Deputy Staff
Officers and three or four Deputy Director Generals attend meetings. Presence of all Director
Generals would make the discussion more alive.’
▪ Challenging, non-specific objectives for reform have created confusion. ‘I would say they didn’t
see CSTT as important. In terms of priority, we are not the first for sure. Some participants are just
adding to the numbers by their departments. Some just attend the meetings without even saying a
word […] Looking at this, most departments do not really prioritise CSTT activities as their priority
activities.’
▪ Acceptance of information reforms has proven difficult. Building a shared understanding of the
objectives of the reform agenda has taken time and is not yet complete. ‘A department, from our
assessment, thought the report might pose a threat to the responsible department and rejected to
generate the report.’
▪ Broad group of stakeholders to consult, across multiple levels of the MoE, limits authorisation
and acceptance. Directors General not aware of activities – there is a ‘need to publish weekly or
monthly release regarding […] activities for awareness. Maybe regular fact sheets would be great for
awareness. It would be difficult for directors to send something to DG [Director General] […] Maybe
then DGs are aware of what we are doing in Task Teams. Department reports might have some
procedural challenges. Official letters might aware them about what’s going on. There are not even
five departments who have great awareness.’
4 Synthesis and recommendations

The findings above are from the daily activities of the MoE, working through Task Teams with support from
the My-EQIP programme. The process drew heavily on MoE personnel responses and used discussions and
exercises within the context of the My-EQIP programme, which narrows the focus of some of the findings to
work planning and My-EQIP activities.8 This section identifies the common observations and
recommendations for the MoE from across these findings, with the objective of identifying enablers and
constraints that the MoE can act on.
8 To obtain more detailed findings, a more intensive process of interviews and consultations would be required.

This first sub-section consolidates the analysis of the key themes. The second and third sub-sections review
the common constraints and enablers and identify a set of progress markers for reform.
4.1 Synthesis: analysis of key themes

As set out in the approach, the identified themes are aligned to the three core aspects of an organisational
system: the organisational context (legal framework and culture/attitudes); the structure (rules, guidelines,
policies, systems, and material or financial resources); and people (human resources and skills, and work
culture). Figure 12 captures the frequency which these themes occurred. What is noticeable about this
graphic is that structural and people enablers are significantly more represented than contextual factors. In
fact, structures (43%) and people (43%) represent 86% of the total reported constraints and enablers.
Context makes up the balance (14%). There are obviously overlaps between some of these themes. For
example, there is some overlap between work culture and culture and attitudes, which will clearly interact
with each other. Equally rules and guidelines are aligned to the legal framework and thus are closely related.
Figure 12 Organisational constraints and enablers by theme
Despite this, the emphasis on structural and

people themes indicates a focus on embedding
systems change, rather than an emphasis on
policy change, which is positive. There is also a
clear indication that work culture (19%), the
intangible area of how people work, is an
essential element in the reform picture.
It is relevant to note that material and financial
resources, interpreted here as additional
personnel in a department or more resources for
activities, was not among the top three
constraints. This is a positive signal, suggesting
that staffing does not represent the major barrier
to reform, even if further training is a key
element of the reform programme.
The themes broadly align with the wider
literature in recognising that changes in the
education system require changes to the rules
and ways of working in the education sector, as well as improvements in the technical skills to implement
reforms. Most noticeable in the feedback is the emphasis on enabling decision making – both in securing
authorisation from the top of government (the Union Minister and Director General), but also in the process
of collaboration in the MoE. This is a recurring observation, picked up in Section 4.2.
Table 2 below presents the themes, ranked by frequency of reference, along with reform potential (those
reforms with the greater space to act). What is noticeable in the table is the consistently low rating of ability
across each of the themes, while acceptance remains constant and authority fluctuates.
It is important to highlight the interaction between the three aspects of the reform space. While ability was
perceived to be most limiting factor, an examination of the data highlights the importance of creating an
effective authorising environment for the actions required – for example, ensuring that the legal framework is
in place to enable rules, policies, procedures, and systems to effective. Achieving this requires authorisation
of the policies and legal framework, as well as an acceptance of the need to take these actions within the
relevant departments.
Authorisation plays a key role in driving reforms in Myanmar and is the most variable criterion. In Sections 3
and 4.2, the question of securing authorisation is addressed. Where authorisation is the highest tends to be
where there is a clear lead or focal point for the reform activity. Where this is not in place, authorisation
remains less consistent and lower.

Table 2 Reform ranking
Frequency (where Authority Acceptance Ability Reform potential

1 is most (average of
frequently authority,
Theme
mentioned) acceptance, and
ability, where 5 is
the highest)
Rules, guidelines, 1 Medium / low Medium Medium / low 2
policies, systems
Human resources 2 Medium Medium Low / medium 3
and skills
Work culture 3 Low Medium / low Low 5
Material or 4 Low / medium Medium Low 4
financial resources
Culture and 5 Low / medium Medium Low 4
attitudes
Legal framework 6 High Medium Medium 1
4.2 Synthesis: actions areas

Building on the findings in Section 3, seven action areas were identified as playing a key role in
addressing organisational constraints and further enabling the implementation of the NESP. These
areas are relevant across the constraints and enablers identified in this report and are specifically related to
building the authorisation for reform, the acceptance of reform, and the ability to undertake reform.
Ensuring leadership and support from senior MoE officials: The critical role of senior leadership was
identified in each reform area. Ensuring support from the leadership group is a key enabler, within the
current MoE environment, to implementing any reform. The VE-SQASF Task Team noted that authorisation
from the Union Minister, the Director General, and external advisory bodies proved to be important in
progressing the reforms. It would not have been possible to build a consensus for the VE-SQASF without the
leadership of the Director General.
Leadership from senior MoE officials plays a key role in creating the authorising environment for reform.
Within the MoE’s culture, senior leadership also facilitates acceptance of the reform process. Two actions
were identified as playing a key role in establishing authorisation and acceptance from senior MoE officials:
▪ Regular interaction on priority issues: routine interaction at the Union Minister and Director General
level plays an important role at maintaining focus on key departmental priority issues. This was clear in
the case of VE-SQASF, where routine interaction with the Director General helped to ensure support for
work in this reform area. Communications also demonstrated the value of this regular interaction,
especially in the lead up to the June 2019 forum, where ministerial support played a key role in creating
the authorising environment for a discussion on the key management information systems required by
the MoE.
▪ Alignment with the NESP objectives: a focus on NESP priorities is an important tool in aligning reform
activities with identified government policies. This confers authorisation on the activity and plays an
important role in aligning support for key actions.
Deconcentrate decision making: as Error! Reference source not found. shows, MoE officials
consistently identified key policy and implementation decision makers as either the Union Minister or the
relevant Director General. The centralisation of decision making, specifically for administrative and non-
policy-related tasks, limits the speed at which reforms can progress. For example, the communication team
noted that the guest list for the communication forum was put together by the Union Minister and Director
General. Given the various policy challenges facing these individuals, the use of senior management time on
administrative decision making is not efficient. At present, consultations found that ‘all decisions need to be

signed off by the Minister and the Executive Committee’.9 This finding is supported by the literature, which
recognises that there is a legacy of top-down policymaking and implementation, reducing the incentives for
reform or individual action.10
Deconcentrating decision-making builds acceptance of reform and will increase the ability of departments to
take decisions. This is particularly important in the context of Myanmar’s devolved education system, with the
dual reporting nature of the education sector.11 The clear authorisation of policy-level decisions from senior
management, and devolved decision making to administer and implement these policies, with appropriate
reporting, would unblock and align activities across departments. The positive benefits of this approach can
be seen in the SQASF, where authorisation for reform activities was agreed with the Union Minister, and
implementation has been led by the department as part of the NESP framework.
Deconcentrating decisions authorises and enables departments to progress reforms. Two activities were
identified as supporting the process of deconcentrating decision making:
▪ Establishing reform teams or units with clear mandates: authorise departments to form small units
that have a mandate for a key element of NESP reform activities. Ensure these departments have the
right personnel and are authorised to take decisions, as in the case of the SQASFs. Where mandates
have not been clear, for example on the research and evidence agenda, there has been limited
progress.
▪ Maintaining a regular reporting and communication system: make sure of reporting tools to hold
Directors and Deputy Directors accountable for the activities they are required to undertake. A lack of
engagement was consistently stressed as preventing progress. For example: ‘When we invite them
[Directors General], they just send a representative who cannot make decision and the result was they
always request for decisions to be made by their department.’
Allocate MoE time to reform areas: conflicting priorities create competing demands on MoE personnel for
their time. A common theme across stakeholders was that reform ‘focal points have their own workloads –
their M&E responsibilities are added to these. This leads to a lack of engagement – for example, they are
meant to support with pilots but cannot get the time to join.’12 The lack of prioritisation of reform activities,
and insufficient time allocated to these activities, limits the development of department ability, as personnel
just go through the motions. It also prevents acceptance of reforms, as these issues become just another
task to complete.
Creating acceptance and developing ability requires a clear direction on where the time of senior MoE
officials should be used. The NESP provides a clear framework for this, but it also requires a clear direction
on what to stop doing. Actions identified were:
▪ Identify clear departmental focal points or reform units: authorising clear focal points in departments
was consistently seen as providing a clear direction for departmental priorities. This, however, needs to
be supported by a reduction in other responsibilities from these officials.
▪ Develop clear prioritisation by Executive Committee: this was not explicitly mentioned by Task
Teams, but prioritisation needs to be authorised from the senior management, and the Executive
Committee has the potential to provide clear guidance on key MoE priorities.
Establish clear reporting structures around MoE priorities: this action area is closely linked to the de-
concentration of decision making and the effective allocation of MoE time. Implementing the NESP requires
a shift in how decisions are made and who makes these decisions, away from centralised decision making
towards deconcentrated decision making. A consistent theme across the reform areas was the need to
ensure that there are clear and articulated decisions on new rules, guidelines, and policies, as well as clarity
on reporting structures for new systems. The issue of decision clarity was repeated across Task Teams as
playing an important role in creating the authorisation and acceptance for change.
9 Stakeholder interviews, July 2019.

10 Political Economy of Basic Education in Myanmar, p. 5
11 State and Region Governments in Myanmar – The Asia Foundation (just the administrative section), October 2018.
12 Stakeholder interview, July 2019.

Clarifying reporting lines and ensuring that there is clear accountability for actions at the departmental level
was identified as important for building space to act when implementing new rules, guidelines, and policies.
Often Task Teams referred to this as ensuring appropriate structures. The Reference Group noted that the
systems are often very confused, with numerous system changes required to fully implement the NESP. An
example is the data management work, where data sharing across departments requires clarity on who is
accountable for enabling this to happen, and at what level. Right now, this is escalated to the committee of
the Director General.
The actions identified under deconcentrate decision making and allocate MoE time to reform areas are also
relevant to this area. The key ability that requires further development relates to developing an effective and
regular departmental reporting structure against priority activities within the NESP, building on the
Management Systems work. Identifying a department to play the coordination role for the Executive
Committee and manage MoE strategy would further develop this area.
Build cross-departmental collaboration: Barriers to cross-departmental collaboration were identified as
hindering progress across the NESP reform area. Limitations in communication and coordination, a global
problem in bureaucracies, were cited as a barrier to making progress on improving departmental planning
and monitoring NESP implementation. The lack of clear policies and procedures governing information
management in the MoE limited acceptance of and authorisation for better information sharing.
Building an understanding an acceptance of the value of cross-departmental collaboration plays a central
role in enabling the NESP objectives, especially as these are related to more effective management of the
education system. Two activities were identified as playing an important role in building acceptance and
ability:
▪ Clear rules and guidance on data sharing: having clear ways of working for data sharing and cross-
government coordination was identified as important in creating an authorising environment and an
acceptance of cross-departmental working.
▪ Departmental focal points: this is important for developing a shared way of working across the MoE –
in particular, to address organisational cultural constraints that cause departments to wait for
authorisation before taking reform actions forwards.
Ensure that training is aligned to new policy: the implementation of new policies and systems needs to
align with new skills in key departments. There was a recognition that newly introduced processes should be
built into the formal legal framework and into the training of departmental staff to ensure authority and
acceptance to act are maintained. When this is not done, this disconnect becomes a constraint on change.
The management, capacity development, and quality assurance NESP outcome was identified as requiring
significant support to provide training on evidence-based policymaking. Data analysis and management, as
well as data use in decision making, are important skills required across Task Teams.
Developing technical ability at all levels of government to implement new policies and procedures is a key
enabler of reform. Achieving this requires that training is aligned to new policies at all levels of government.
For example, ensuring that the skills and understanding is present to manage a more evidence-based
decision-making process is critical to implementing this system. The following actions were identified as
important for building acceptance of this approach:
▪ Appropriate staffing of reform teams: making use of reform teams to ensure these are staffed
appropriately to develop departmental skills and to solve the issues in front of them. This requires
ensuring enough authority to authorise key decisions within the reform working group.
▪ Develop training in line with policy: making use of Task Teams and reform groups to develop new
policies and trainings at the same time. Training should be conducted before a policy is implemented to
increase departmental buy-in for the policy.
Encourage new behaviours in line with the NESP objectives: changes in the way officials at all levels of
the education system act represented a key constraint to implementing NESP reform. For example,
behaviour change by school inspectors is an important element in addressing issues of quality and inclusion.
A shift from an inspection mentality to a facilitation or supportive mentality is required for the SQASF to be

successful. These changes in ways of working take time and are a key element in enabling the reforms set
out in the NESP; however, until behaviour shifts, they remain a constraint on implementing new approaches.
Creating an authorising environment for behaviour change is extremely important. This leads to a supported
acceptance of new ways of working, as well as encouraging MoE personnel to build their abilities. The
following actions were identified as being important to build authorisation and ability:
▪ Adopting alternative reward and recognition mechanisms: finding options to recognise successful
behaviour changes, and reward those who align their activities and priorities with the NESP; making use
of the departmental hierarchy to praise departments that are succeeding in changing behaviours in line
with the NESP.
▪ Communication and outreach: ensuring communication from senior levels of government is a key
element of behaviour change.
Consider re-organising or restructuring departments: a considerable number of finding relate to the
importance of identifying focal points and creating departments or units, to take manage NESP reform areas.
These are short term solutions. To effectively embed the changes required to implement the NESP structural
re-organisation is required. For example, the role of monitoring, evaluation and planning requires a single
departmental home, rather than having two independent departments responsible for monitoring and
evaluation. Equally, aligning the planning function and the Minister’s office, would provide greater strategic
guidance for NESP implementation.
Structural changes will require authorisation and acceptance within the MoE to successfully implement a re-
organisation. The ability to implement these functions is developed through on-going work delivered by focal
units and departments. The following action would help to build acceptance and authorisation:
▪ Develop a strategic roadmap to align departmental functions to the NESP vision: make use of the
existing focal points, and units identified to support the NESP, to establish a transition plan or roadmap
for how these units and focal points will become key functions within the MoE. This vision may relate to
the change in some department functions. It would also provide a framework to bring on-going NESP
activities into the day to day functioning of the MoE.
4.3 Progress markers for change

Section 4.2 identified common constraints and enablers required to make progress on the NESP agenda.
This section focuses on the reform journey, recognising that no enabler of reform is always able to make
progress, just as no constraint is always a barrier to progress. Instead, reform is messy, with the
authorisation for action, the acceptance of the change, and the ability to make a change happen always
evolving. At times, there will be significant amounts of authority for a change but insufficient ability to make
progress on it. Alternatively, there may be acceptance within the government ranks, and the ability to
implement the change, but politically it will not be the right time. This is the nature of reform on a global
scale.
What is important from the perspective of the NESP is that the MoE, and donors, have a clear picture of
where the reforms are and how much momentum they have – in other words, how much space there is to act
on a specific set of reforms. One way of assessing this is to identity ‘progress markers’. These are action
undertaken or outcomes achieved that visibly indicate when progress in a specific area has been made.
Looking across the NESP, this section consolidates progress markers under the headings of authority (e.g.
what indicates there is authorisation for reform), acceptance (e.g. what demonstrates that a department has
bought into a reform), and ability (e.g. what indicates there are sufficient skills in place to take action).
Authority: looking across the various reforms and Task Teams, the following indicators are proposed:
▪ Minister or Director General approves establishing a network of focal points, or a reform unit, in a reform
area;
▪ Minister or Director General requires regular reporting on a specific reform agenda;
▪ Policy guidelines signed off by Minister; and

▪ Minister or Director General increases budget allocations to the reform area.
Acceptance: looking across the various reforms and Task Teams, the following indicators are proposed:
▪ policies and process guidelines developed by the relevant department and not by an external technical
assistance team;
▪ policy and process guidelines rolled out and implemented, with department officials actively leading the
roll-out;
▪ departmental personnel can explain the reform agenda and the rationale for its implementation;
▪ internal coordination demonstrated on an ongoing (routine) basis;
▪ information flow observed in regular, MoE-led reporting on the NESP;
▪ district and school-level officials and teachers are aware of new policies;
▪ departments allocate funding to NESP-priority areas, with an observable change from historic resource
allocation;
▪ teachers and principals of educational institutions view the reforms positively; and
▪ improvements in data collection systems to improve confidence in data used in analysis, as led by the
MoE.
Ability: looking across the various reforms and Task Teams, the following indicators are proposed:
▪ focal points appointed in all departments, with regular focal point meetings;
▪ better quality briefings and reporting from M&E and planning focal points produced on a regular basis;
▪ training sessions provided to relevant departments aligned to NESP policy priorities;
▪ providing leadership and management training at the district and school level;
▪ regular attendance and participation by the same individuals in focal groups or Task Teams; and
▪ human resources allocated to NESP-priority areas.
5 Conclusions
This report has consolidated and synthesised the findings emerging from the research conducted by MoE
personnel and the My-EQIP support teams. The analysis reflects the consolidated lessons of MoE personnel
who are working to implement the NESP reform agenda. As set out in the introductory section, the
assignment’s two objectives were to provide a toolkit for MoE personnel to identify key constraints and
enablers for reform, and to use the information collected to identify the constraints to effective and efficient
service delivery.
Beyond the key actions (section 4) the process of data collection and participatory research identified a set
of broader lessons that the MoE and My-EQIP may wish to consider:
▪ Develop skills for policy analysis in the MoE. In line with the My-EQIP approach of learning-by-doing,
the use of the Task Teams and other MoE teams for data collection is an opportunity for such learning.
Tools developed for this assignment form the backbone of good policy analysis for any public sector
organisation and may be useful in the MoE on a longer-term basis.
▪ Reflect on how development partner programmes embed their activities in the MoE. The tools, in
particular the change space analysis, provide a useful benchmark as to whether a development partner
programme is gaining traction within the MoE, and whether it is focused on building the systems and
abilities in the MoE required to embed this change – or whether it is simply providing a solution outside
of the MoE system. Regularly revisiting these tools within the MoE, and in context of development
programming, proves valuable to assessing progress and understanding what has changed.
▪ Align and prioritise. The change space analysis tool may be useful as part of the annual work plan
process in the future to prioritise and focus interventions in areas where there is space to act.
Beyond the lessons and actions that have emerged from Phase 1 of the assignment, there are two areas
where further analysis may be relevant during Phase 2:

▪ Analysing the process for de-concentration/decentralisation. Given the scope and scale of the
decentralisation programme, deeper analysis of the changes at a sub-national level would be a key area
for further analysis of the constraints to reform.
▪ Understanding information flow within the MoE. A process mapping would help to build on the
findings in Phase 1, which indicate that information flow can be a significant constraint to effective reform
activity at present.

Annex 1 Stakeholder participation in OCA meetings
Summary of attendance lists for the task team OCA meetings
No. Date Activity M F Operational Senior Consultant Executive MOE My-EQIP DFAT Total
1 11-Jul-19 TWG Meeting 18 34 18 33 0 1 25 26 1 52
2 09-Aug-19 M&E Core Team Meeting 3 10 2 11 0 0 7 6 0 13
3 15-Aug-19 SQASF Team Meeting and Workshop 4 10 9 5 0 0 10 4 0 14
4 28-Aug-19 VEQASF team Meeting for Annual Work Plan 2019-2020 2 6 3 4 1 0 5 3 0 8
5 29-Aug-19 Research Task Team Meeting 0 21 13 6 1 1 17 4 0 21
6 21-Aug-19 CSTT Finalize to Questionaire of CSA P2 9 9 10 7 1 0 13 5 0 18
8 02-Oct-19 FGD for OCA with VEQASF 3 3 1 5 0 0 5 1 0 6
9 02-Oct-19 FGD for OCA with CSTT 5 3 4 3 1 0 5 3 0 8
53 108 63 83 5 10 102 57 2 161
Total


OCA Synthesis Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OCA Synthesis Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

OCA Synthesis Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Myanmar Education Quality Improvement

Phase 1 Report: Organisational

Key personnel contact information

Contractor Representative: Mark Pruden

Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis ii

Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis iii

CKIM Communications, Knowledge, and Information Management

DBE Department of Basic Education

DTVET Department for Technical and Vocational Education and Training

EMIS Education Management Information System

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MoE Ministry of Education

My-EQIP Myanmar Education Quality Improvement Program

NESP National Education Strategic Plan

OCA Organisational Constraints Analysis

OPM Oxford Policy Management

SQASF School Quality Standards Assurance Framework

VE-SQASF Vocational Education Quality Assurance Framework

Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis iv

Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis 2

Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis 3

Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis 4

2.1 Conceptual framework

Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis 5

Table 1 Implementation enablers and constraints

▪ Culture/attitudes: beliefs, behaviours, and attitudes within the wider

Resources ▪ Material or financial resources: the infrastructure, personnel

Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis 6

Box 1 A case example of an evolving reform trajectory

1. 2003–04: Senior policymakers support reform,

2. 2004–05: Piloting in a small number of pilot

3. 2005–06: Ability building in Ministry of Finance

4. 2007–08: Policy concerns are increasingly

5. 2008–09: Change of key personnel and renewed

6. 2010–12: External support scaled down.

2.2 Data collection

Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis 7

Figure 1 Steps in OCA process

Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis 8

Box 2 Task Team feedback on the organisational constraint analysis toolkit

Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis 9

Authorisation is the primary

Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis 11

Figure 4 Space to act – basic education: access, quality, inclusion

Ability is the primary factor

Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis 12

Ability is the primary factor

Box 3 Lessons from developing the VE-SQASF

Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis 13

3.2 Organisational constraints and enablers by theme

Figure 6 Space to act – rule, guidelines, policies, systems

Figure 6 presents the

Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis 14

Figure 7 Space to act – human resources and skills

Figure 7 presents the

Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis 15

Figure 8 Space to act – work culture

Figure 8 presents the

Phase 1 Report: Organisational Constraints Analysis 16

Figure 9 Space to act – material or financial resources