DonorsDonors.htmlDonors.htmlshapeimage_1_link_0
Employmentshapeimage_2_link_0
ContractorsContractors.htmlContractors.htmlshapeimage_3_link_0
New ways of businessNew_ways_of_business.htmlNew_ways_of_business.htmlshapeimage_4_link_0
HomeWelcome.htmlWelcome.htmlshapeimage_5_link_0
Is this you?Is_this_you.htmlIs_this_you.htmlshapeimage_6_link_0
NewsNews.htmlNews.htmlshapeimage_7_link_0
Mission & VisionMission_%26_Vision.htmlMission_%26_Vision.htmlshapeimage_8_link_0
ServicesServices.htmlServices.htmlshapeimage_9_link_0
InnovationsInnovations.htmlInnovations.htmlshapeimage_10_link_0
Contact usContact_us.htmlContact_us.htmlshapeimage_11_link_0
ActionsActions.htmlActions.htmlshapeimage_12_link_0
 

Procedures to acquire employment

There is a concern that the whole current process is wrong, examples are:

  1. The processes for project identification & ToR are input driven rather than results and outputs driven

  2. ToRs are often lacking quality in terms of:

  3. Required outputs,

  4. Prerequisite investments and/or structural changes in organizational development and capacity building are ignored, making it impossible for the project to succeed,

  5. The relation between tasks to be performed and required competencies of experts 

  6. ToRs are frequently not aligned with actual conditions

  7. Expert profiles in ToRs tend to be rigid, standardised and quantitatively focused, rather than actual competence-based

  8. The selection procedure does not allow for the selection and deployment of the best team

  9. The current processes block contractors from becoming competitive on the basis of their actual skills and experience

  10. Bid-evaluators lack technical competence for assessing key methodological issues

  11. Project design and evaluation of bids are driven by process rather than content

  12. Bid evaluation is not related to modern management insights, for instance in selecting teams rather than individuals

  13. The current CV system/assessment of experts is inappropriate for assessing the quality of an expert:

  14. Acquired competencies are not identified

  15. Quantities (years of “experience”) are more important than the quality of experience

  16. There are apparently no systems to assess and value comparable experience

  17. There is currently no acceptable system of performance evaluation

  18. Referees collection and proof of employment are arbitrary and bureaucratic rather than functional

  19. The processes of bid development and evaluation are not transparent:

  20. There is no timeframe

  21. And no information

  22. Apart from the SoE&A the current processes to get employment depend too much on influences that are not under control by the consultant, such as

  23. Bid development

  24. Consortia members

  25. Other experts

  26. Other external factors

  27. Again, apart from the SoE&A, procedures are too lengthy, without sanctions on evaluators who miss their own deadlines, with easy extension of procedures and no sanctions on delays.

TACU is constantly taking action to improve the odds on employment for experts; actions vary from developing better alternatives, pressure on donors, political pressure, surveys and seeking media attention.