1

Evaluation Report Template1 – v.1

I. BASIC DETAILS
Evaluability Assessment of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise
Evaluation Title: (MSME) Development Plan and Priority Programs under the MSME
Development Plan with a Process Evaluation of Government Support
Evaluation Type: Evaluability Assessment
Evaluability Assessment of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise
Project/Programme
(MSME) Development Plan and Priority Programs under the MSME
Title:
Development Plan with a Process Evaluation of Government Support
Project Start Date: December 2019 Project End Date: July 2021
Region 1 – Ilocos Norte, Region 3 – Nueva Ecija, Region 4A – Laguna,
Geographical Region 6 – Aklan, Region 7 – Cebu, Region 8 – Eastern Samar, Region
Coverage: 10 – Misamis Oriental, Region 11 – Davao del Sur, Region 13 – Agusan
del Norte
Executing United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Philippines
Agencies:
Dr. Beatriz P. Del Rosario
Dr. Ernesto O. Brown
Evaluator(s): Dr. Fezoil Luz C. Decena
Ms. Anita G. Tidon
Ms. Princess Alma B. Ani
Evaluation [Indicate duration of the evaluation.]
Duration (months):
Commissioning
Unit:

NEDA Focal Point: Contact Details:

Submission Date:

1 Drawn from multiple sources: UNEG, Norms and Standards for Evaluation, 2016; World Bank, Managing Evaluations: A How-To
Guide for Managers and Commissioners of Evaluation, 2015; ADB Guidelines for the Preparation of Country Assistance Program
Evaluations and Country Partnership Strategy Final Review and Validations, 2015; UNODC, Evaluation Handbook, 2012; UNDP,
Handbook on Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluating for Development Results, 2009; Austrian Development Cooperation, Guidelines
for Project and Programme Evaluation, 2009

2|Page
II. TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Basic Details 2

II. Table of Contents 3

III. Acknowledgements 6

IV. List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 7

V. Executive Summary 9

VI. Introduction 11

VII. Description of the Program 13

VIII. Purpose of the Evaluation 15

IX. Key Questions, Scope and Limitations 16

X. Methodology 18

XI. Findings 22
A. Findings on the Evaluability of MSMEDP and Each Component 22
Programs
B. Integration of Overall Findings 80
1. On Evaluability of MSMEDP and its Six Programs 80
2. On Program Design 80
3. On Availability of Data 83
4. On Periodicity 87
5. On Stakeholders’ Demand 88
6. On Robustness of the M&E System 89
7. On Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency and Sustainability 92
8. On Effects of the Covid-19 Pandemic 94

XII. Summary and Explanation of Findings and Interpretations 95

XIII. Conclusions and Recommendations 97

XIV. Lessons Learned, Generalizations, and Alternatives 99

XV. Annexes 100

A. Terms of reference for the evaluation 100
B. List of documents reviewed 112
C. Survey instruments 114
D. KII/FGD Guide questions 149
E. List of individuals interviewed or consulted 164
F. Documentation of conducted FGDs 166
G. National Evaluation Policy Framework (NEPF) Evaluability Checklist 186
H. Short biographies of the evaluators 187

3|Page
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary Matrix of Methodology 20

Table 2. MSMEDP Indicators and Possible Sources of Data 25
Table 3. Results Chains Linking the Various Programs with MSMEDP 26
Table 4. Logical Framework and Indicators for the KMME following the validated 29
TOC
Table 5. Validated Logical Framework for P3 31
Table 6. Validated Logical Framework for NC 33
Table 7. SSF Logical Framework 35
Table 8. OTOP Logical Framework 38
Table 9. SETUP Logical Framework 40
Table 10. KMME Program Implementation Structure 47
Table 11. Monitoring of KMME Respondents (Beneficiaries) 48
Table 12. Monitoring Activities for P3 49
Table 13. Monitoring Activities for Negosyo Center 51
Table 14. Monitoring Activities for SETUP 54
Table 15. Respondent’s Perception on KMME Effect on Business Efficiency 57
Table 16. Perception of Loan Efficiency 59
Table 17. Perception on the Training Efficiency of NC 63
Table 18. Willingness to Avail and Recommend NC to Other Clients 64
Table 19. Perception of SSF Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and 64
Sustainability
Table 20. Perception of NC Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and 66
Sustainability
Table 21. Perception of SETUP relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and 69
sustainability
Table 22. Negative and positive effect of the pandemic on the KMME beneficiary 72
respondent
Table 23. Effect of Pandemic on the Monthly Revenue of MSME KMME 72
Beneficiary Respondents
Table 24. Lessons Learned from the Lockdown 73
Table 25. Effect of Pandemic on the Monthly Revenue of MSME P3 Beneficiary 73
Respondents
Table 26. Lessons Learned from the Lockdown 74
Table 27. Revenue per Month Before and During the Pandemic 75
Table 28. Pandemic Resilience (SSF) 75
Table 29. Pandemic Resilience (SETUP) 77
Table 30. Pandemic Resilience (OTOP) 79
Table 31. Evaluability of MSMEDP and its programs 80
Table 32. Program of the Six MSMED Component Programs 80
Table 33. Data Availability of the Six MSMED Component Programs 84
Table 34. Periodicity of the Six MSMED Component Programs 87
Table 35. Stakeholder’s Demand of the Six MSMED Component Programs 88
Table 36. Status of the M&E System of the Six MSMED Component Programs 89
Table 37. Robustness of the M&E System of the Six MSMED Component 90
Programs
Table 38. Database Management of MSMED Component Programs 91

4|Page
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Results-based monitoring and evaluation framework. 11

Figure 2. Evaluability assessment framework (UNDP) 12
Figure 3. Theory of change and impact pathway 12
Figure 4. MSMEDP results framework 14
Figure 5. TOC diagram, KMME 28
Figure 6. P3 Theory of Change. 30
Figure 7. Validated Negosyo Center Theory of Change, Evaluability Assessment 32
Project in 2020
Figure 8. Negosyo Center Theory of Change, Impact Assessment Study in 2019 32
Figure 9. Theory of Change for Shared Service Facilities (SSF) Project 34
Figure 10. TOC diagram, OTOP 37
Figure 11. Theory of Change of SETUP 39
Figure 12. KMME monitoring template 43
Figure 13. Client Profile and Monitoring System (CPMS) 45
Figure 14. Negosyo Center information and reporting flow 50
Figure 15. Respondent’s perception on KMME relevance 56
Figure 16. Respondent’s perception on KMME effectiveness. 57
Figure 17. Respondent’s perception on KMME sustainability. 58
Figure 18. Respondent’s perception on P3 relevance 58
Figure 19. Respondent’s perception on P3 effectiveness. 59
Figure 20. Respondent’s perception on P3 efficiency 60
Figure 21. Respondent’s perception on P3 sustainability. 60
Figure 22. Perceived relevance of the Negosyo Center. 61
Figure 23. Perceived effectiveness of the Negosyo Center 62
Figure 24. Perceived efficiency of the Negosyo Center 62

5|Page
III. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

With particular thanks to the following: i) all the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise
Development Plan (MSMEDP) program implementers and program beneficiaries of Negosyo
Center (NC), Pondo sa Pagbabago at Pag-asenso (P3), Kapatid Mentor Me (KMME), Small
Enterprise Technology Upgrading Program (SETUP), Shared Service Facilities (SSF), and
One Town One Product (OTOP) who participated in the virtual key informant interviews (KIIs)
and focus group discussions (FGDs) for sharing their time, insights, and entrepreneurial lens
including those from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) Central, Regional and
Provincial Offices, Program Management Offices/Units (PMO/PMU) and staff, regional and
provincial coordinators, focal persons and program consultants; Department of Science and
Technolgy (DOST) Central and Regional Offices, Provincial Science and Technology
Centers (PSTC) staff/focal persons; National Economic Development Authority (NEDA)
Central and Regional Offices; ii) Theory of Change (TOC) workshop participants from NEDA-
Monitoring and Evaluation Staff (MES), DTI-Bureau of Small and Medium Enterprise
Development (BSMED), DTI-Presidential Management Staff (PMS), DOST-Regional Offices
(Ros), DOST-Planning and Evaluation Service (PES), DTI-Small Business Corporation
(SBC), DTI-P3, DTI-KMME, DTI-Negosyo Center, and United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP); iii) the Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) for their review of the draft
report as well as their critical comments, and expert advice.

Special thanks to DTI Undersecretary Blesila A. Lantayona of the DTI Regional Operations
Group (ROG), to BSMED Director Jerry T. Clavesillas, to the late DOST Undersecretary
Brenda L. Nazareth-Manzano for Regional Operations and to NEDA MES Director Violeta S.
Corpuz and NEDA Trade, Services, and Industry Staff (TSIS) Director Bien A. Ganapin for
facilitating access to MSMEDP program documents, reports, and operating units and to the
UNDP Philippines Team for their technical guidance and support.

6|Page
IV. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AIM Asian Institute of Management

BC Business Counsellor
BSMED Bureau of Small and Medium Enterprise Development
CIB Congressional Insertion Budget
COA Commission on Audit
COVID-19 Coronavirus 2019
CPMS Client Profile and Monitoring System
DAP Development Academy of the Philippines
DBM Department of Budget and Management
DOST Department of Science and Technology
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
EDT Enterprise Development Track
ERG Evaluation Reference Group
FGD Focus Group Discussion
HELP Household Enterprise Livelihood Program
KAP Knowledge, Attitude and Practices
KII Key Informant Interview
KMME Kapatid Mentor ME
LGU Local Government Unit
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
ME Microenterprise
MFI Microfinancing Institution
MSME Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise
MSMEDP Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Plan
NC Negosyo Center
NCP Negosyo Center Program
NEDA National Economic and Development Authority
NEPF National Evaluation Policy Framework
NTWG National Technical Working Group
OTOP One Town One Product
P3 Pondo sa Pagbabago at Pag-asenso
PCE Philippine Center for Entrepreneurship
PDC Post Dated Cheque
PDP Philippine Development Plan
PIDS Philippine Institute for Development Studies
PIS Project Information Sheet
PLEA Production Loan Easy Access
PMMIS Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Management
Information System
PMO/PMU Program Management Office/Program Management Unit
PSTC Provincial Science and Technology Center
R&D Results and Discussion
RF Results Framework
RO Regional Offices
ROG Regional Operations Group
RBME Results-based Monitoring and Evaluation

7|Page
S&T Science and Technology
SBC Small Business Corporation
SETUP Small Enterprise Technology Upgrading Program
SSF Shared Service Facilities
SUCs State Universities and Colleges
TNA Technology Needs Assessment
TOC Theory of Change
TOR Terms of Reference
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UPISSI University of the Philippines Institute of Small-Scale Industries
3M Money, Market and Mentorship

8|Page
V. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Plan (MSMEDP) 2017-2022 is the
sectoral plan for the growth and advancement of the MSME sector. It aims to provide greater
opportunities for entrepreneurs to start up, sustain, expand, internationalize their businesses,
and become smarter entrepreneurs. As an integral part of the Philippine Development Plan
(PDP) 2017-2022, the MSMEDP’s vision is to achieve “more globally competitive MSMEs
that are regionally integrated, resilient, sustainable, and innovative thereby performing as key
drivers of inclusive Philippine economic growth.”

In December 2019, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) called for an
Evaluability Assessment of the MSMEDP 2017-2022 in order to determine the evaluability of
the MSMEDP and its programs and provide recommendations to enhance evaluability.
Specifically, the assessment aimed to: 1) assess the evaluability of the MSMEDP; 2) assess
the evaluability of at least six flagship programs (originally five in the TOR) under the
MSMEDP (implementation level); 3) determine the efficiency and effectiveness of
government’s processes to coordinate and facilitate the development, implementation, and
monitoring and evaluation of the MSMEDP, including alignment of MSMEDP objectives with
the PDP and its results matrix (i.e. oversight level); 4) assess the perception of MSMEs on
the relevance and effectiveness of programs that cater to them; and 5) provide
recommendations that will lead to the attainment of a business environment conducive to the
success of the MSMEDP.

The evaluability assessment was cast against the UNDPs’ Results-based Monitoring and
Evaluation (RBME) framework and the National Evaluation Policy Framework (NEPF)
Evaluability Checklist. The assessment utilized secondary data from available program
documents and reports as well as primary data obtained thru survey of MSME beneficiaries,
key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) of program implementers
from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Department of Science and Technology
(DOST), and the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA). The survey covered a
total of 522 samples from programs implemented in the provinces of Ilocos Norte, Nueva Ecija,
Laguna, Aklan, Cebu, Eastern Samar, Davao del Sur, Misamis Oriental and Agusan del Norte.

The major findings of the evaluability assessment are as follows:

A. On the evaluability of the MSMEDP and its component programs

1. The MSMEDP and the six component programs are evaluable. The theory of change
(TOC) and results framework (RF) are available (reconstructed), plausible, the causal
links between the MSMEDP with its component programs are valid and the indicators
are clearly specified. The MSMEDP and its programs are fairly in- sync with the
indicators and strategies in the MSMED/PDP results framework;
2. The M&E systems of MSMEDP and its component programs are fairly robust, albeit
with plenty of rooms for improvement;
3. There exists sufficient stakeholder demand for the evaluation of MSMEDP and its
component programs; and
4. The appropriate type of evaluation for each of the programs is either TOC-based
performance evaluation or TOC- based impact assessment using mixed-method
approach.

B. On the process assessment of the six component programs

1. There is enough empirical evidence to suggest that the MSMEDP and its component
programs are relevant, effective, efficient and sustainable; and

9|Page
 2. Full-blown evaluation is warranted to demonstrate program success, as both the
MSMEDP and PDP 2017-2022 draw closer to end.

The assessment firmed up that the MSMEDP and its programs are indeed evaluable given the
reconstructed TOC and RF or impact pathways and that all six programs are relevant,
effective, efficient and sustainable. The assessment puts forward the following
recommendations:

1. The TOC narrative and RF established in this evaluability assessment should be

adopted by the various program owners as the official TOC and RF for the programs;
2. Officially harmonize the component program outcome indicators with the outcome
indicators of MSMEDP;
3. Establish the baseline and outcome targets of the component programs;
4. Address the limitations/gaps in the current M&E systems of the various programs; and
5. Initiate the preparation for the full-blown evaluation of the MSMEDP and its component
programs.

Success stories of MSMEs as they navigate for innovative enterprises and business start-
ups are truly inspiring, worth documenting and sharing among other MSMEs. Results of these
MSME narratives and entrepreneurial journeys coupled with results of future independent
and impartial evaluation of the MSMEDP 2017-2022 and its programs will be most useful in
advocating for policies and budget support and sustaining national government commitment
to advance MSMEs such as the proposed Pondo sa Pagbabago at Pag-asenso para sa
Kaunlaran (P3) Act, the OTOP Bill, and the KMME policy agenda, among others.

In the future, with government support and MSMEs’ willpower, it is hoped that MSMEs would
be able to adapt to the challenges of the “new normal” business environment.

10 | P a g e
VI. INTRODUCTION

The evaluability assessment covers the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development
Plan (MSMEDP) 2017-2022 and its six component programs, namely, Kapatid Mentor ME
(KMME), Pondo sa Pagbabago at Pag-asenso (P3), Negosyo Center (NC), Shared Service
Facilities (SSF), One Town One Product (OTOP), and Small Enterprise Technology
Upgrading Program (SETUP). The evaluability assessment was casted against the United
Nations Development Program’s (UNDP’s) Results-based Monitoring and Evaluation
(RBME) Framework (Figure 1). Unlike performance evaluation, evaluability assessment
does not cover the program performance itself. Rather, the main interest is to determine
whether the program can be evaluated in an objective, empirical and impartial means.

Figure 1. Results-based monitoring and evaluation framework.

The evaluability assessment was essentially a process assessment. The primary intent was
to gauge the extent by which a project or a program can be evaluated in a reliable and
credible fashion or whether an evaluation is worthwhile in terms of benefits, consequences,
and costs. By gauging the strength of a program and its logic, results of evaluability
assessment can be used as basis for specific changes or remedies that must be done to
ensure program success. It also included a process evaluation of the six component
programs.

The assessment strictly adhered to the technical requirements of the Terms of Reference or
TOR (Annex A) and with strict reference to the UNDP Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)
Handbook and the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA)-Department of Budget
and Management (DBM) Joint Memorandum Circular of 2015 which specified the National
Evaluation Policy Framework (NEPF) of the Philippines.

Based on UNDP’s Evaluability Assessment Framework, evaluability is assessed by

examining program design, data availability and stakeholder’s demand (Figure 2). Program
design is evaluated against clarity, coherence, and relevance. It includes an examination of
the theory of change (TOC) and results framework (RF) or impact pathway (Figure 3) for
plausibility of causal links and assumptions. The M&E system is assessed to establish

11 | P a g e
adequacy and accuracy in tracking the data needed for the evaluation while stakeholder’s
demand is examined to establish the key evaluation questions that have to be addressed and
the level of stakeholder participation in the evaluation. The NEPF Evaluability Checklist was
used to focus on the determinants of evaluability including a thorough review of the process
of program implementation and perception of MSMEs on the various programs.

Figure 2. Evaluability assessment framework (UNDP).

Figure 3. Theory of change and impact pathway.

12 | P a g e
 The MSMEDP and its component programs were reviewed to determine the availability of a
TOC and RF. It was found that while MSMEDP did not have an explicit TOC, the descriptive
narrative of the plan was adequate to establish the TOC and results framework. However,
except for NC, all the component programs of MSMEDP did not have an explicit TOC
narrative and RF. To build the TOCs and RFs, a workshop was carried out on March 6, 2020
involving the key personnel of the NEDA, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), and the
Department of Science and Technology (DOST). The initial TOCs and RFs developed
during the workshop were subsequently validated in a series of consultations with the
relevant personnel from each program.

The primary audience of the evaluability assessment are the: 1) major movers of the
MSMEDP i.e., NEDA, DTI, DOST as well as UNDP, which has been assisting NEDA in
crafting and rolling-out the NEPF; 2) the DBM, Commission on Audit (COA), upper and
lower houses of congress since public resources were used in implementing the plan; and
3) MSMEDP program implementers at the national and field levels.

The report is organized into five major sections. The first section describes the MSMEDP and
the six programs covered in the assessment. The second section defines the scope and
purpose of the assessment. The third section presents the approach and methods employed
including how the data were analyzed. The fourth section includes the discussion of
findings/results organized in two parts. The first part presents the findings/results on the
evaluability of the MSMEDP and each of its component programs along the evaluability
framework and criteria set forth in the UNDP/NEFP: (1) program design as it pertains to the
clarity of the intervention, the TOC and results framework, causal link assumptions as well as
indicators of performance; (2) data availability, sufficiency, and applicable methods of
analysis; and (3) stakeholder’s demand and utility of the evaluation to the various
stakeholders of the program. The first part also presents the findings/results of the process
evaluation of each of the flagship programs which dealt mainly on the questions of relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability. The second part provides an integration of the
over-all findings including summary matrices. The last section of the report presents the
conclusion and puts forward specific recommendations, lessons learned and generalizations.

VII. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM

The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Plan (MSMEDP) 2017-2022 is an
integral part of the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2017-2022. The PDP is founded on
the three pillars of “trabaho”, “negosyo” at “kabuhayan.” The MSMEDP is linked directly to
the “negosyo” component of the PDP and constitutes the overall plan to achieve the PDP
goals on improving business environment, business capacity and business opportunities in the
country.

Since the MSMEDP did not have an explicit theory of change (TOC), the TOC was recreated
from the plan’s descriptive narrative during the March 6, 2020 workshop. The reconstructed
TOC narrative describes the context with which the MSMEDP operates as follows:

“Micro, small and medium scale enterprises (MSMEs) in the Philippines are constrained
among others, by a generally poor business environment brought about by poor business
climate and limited access to finance; limited business capacity due to limited capacity of
management and labor as well as limited access to new technologies and innovations; and
inadequate business opportunities as reflected in limited access to market. If nationwide or at
least a significant geographical scale improvement can be made on business climate, access
to finance, management and labor capacity, access to technology /innovation and market,
there will be significant improvement in global competitiveness of MSMEs, make them more

13 | P a g e
resilient and sustainable and serve as the major drivers of inclusive economic growth in the
Philippines. With all other things held constant, these can be achieved by simplifying and
harmonizing rules related to MSMEs, simplifying and streamlining loan processes, mentoring
and training MSMEs management and labor, supporting linkages between MSMEs and large
corporations, developing lucrative business models and social enterprises and by making
technologies and market accessible”.

The MSMEDP Results Framework (RF) accompanying the reconstructed TOC is shown in Figure
4. The vision of MSMEDP is to achieve “more globally competitive MSMEs that are regionally
integrated, resilient, sustainable, and innovative thereby performing as key drivers of inclusive
Philippine economic growth”.
.

Figure 4. MSMEDP Results Framework.

It has three focus areas, namely: i) business environment, with emphasis on improving the
business regulatory requirements and procedures as well as maximizing access to finance;
ii) business capacity, with the aim of strengthening human capital development and
improving innovation and technological competitiveness of MSMEs to transform and create
new business models and enterprises; and, iii) business opportunities, with the aim of

14 | P a g e
broadening access to markets. These are cascaded into five strategic goals that are to be
achieved through the six programs covered in the evaluability assessment as follows:

1. Improved Business Climate: Establishment of Negosyo Centers (NCs) to

strengthen the country’s MSMEs as enabled by Republic Act (RA) 10644 or the Go
Negosyo Act of 2014.
2. Improved Access to Finance: Pondo sa Pagbabago at Pag-asenso (P3) Program
thru a fund managed by the Small Business Corporation (SBC) and accessed through
MFIs or cooperatives.
3. Enhanced Management and Labor Capacity: Kapatid Mentor ME (KMME), a
coaching and mentoring program tailored to help micro and small businesses scale up
their enterprise, spur economic activity and generate employment opportunities.
4. Improved Access to Technology and Innovation: Small Enterprise Technology
Upgrading Program (SETUP) aimed to encourage MSMEs to adopt technologies and
innovations, increase productivity and competitiveness; and establish or sustain
market niches.
5. Shared Service Facilities (SSF) to improve business capacity and increase MSME
productivity through better access to technology; accelerate MSME competitiveness
with improved product quality, conformity to standards as well as price
competitiveness.
6. Improved Access to Market: One Town One Product (OTOP) to promote
entrepreneurship, create jobs, promote use of indigenous raw materials with
competitive advantage, as well as local skills and talents, and drive inclusive local
economic growth.

In terms of scale of interventions, the six programs have been implemented as follows:

• From 2016 to 2019, the KMME program has covered 101 provinces and cities and
reached 30,980 MSMEs.
• As of May 31, 2020, 1,129 NCs were established all over the country, 47 percent are
located in Luzon, 25 percent in the Visayas and 28 percent in Mindanao.
• As of August 2020, the P3 Program has served all 85 provinces including the 30
poorest provinces initially targeted.
• From 2017 to 2020 a total of 526 SSF projects were established; a grand total of 2,650
SSFs were established since 2013 spread across 82 provinces and seven cities that
include Metro Manila.
• Since 2017, OTOP program has assisted 41,006 MSMEs and developed 24,199
products. As of 2020, there are 61 physical OTOP Hubs established across the
country.
• In its 17 years of implementation, SETUP has supported more than 4,000 program
beneficiaries (DAP, 2019).

VIII. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION

In 2019, the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Plan (MSMEDP) 2017-2022
was on its 3rd year or midway of program implementation. In December 2019, the United
Nations Development Program (UNDP) called for an Evaluability Assessment of Micro,
Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME) Development Plan and Priority Programs under the
MSME Development Plan with a Process Evaluation of Government Support. The main
interest of the evaluability assessment was to ascertain whether the plan and component
programs can be evaluated in an objective, empirical and impartial means.

15 | P a g e
The purpose of the evaluability assessment was to determine the evaluability of the
MSMEDP 2017-2022 and its six component programs and provide specific
recommendations to enhance evaluability. The specific objectives as prescribed in the
Terms of Reference (TOR) for this assessment were to:

1. assess the evaluability of the MSMEDP;

2. assess the evaluability of at least six flagship programs (originally five in the TOR)
under the MSMEDP (implementation level);
3. determine the efficiency and effectiveness of government’s processes to coordinate
and facilitate the development, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of
the MSMEDP, including alignment of MSMEDP objectives with the PDP and its
results matrix (i.e., oversight level);
4. assess the perception of MSMEs on the relevance and effectiveness of programs
that cater to them; and
5. provide recommendations that will lead to the attainment of a business environment
conducive to the success of the MSMEDP.

The evaluability assessment was essentially a process assessment. It aimed to enhance

the evaluability and implementation of the MSMEDP and its various programs. The primary
intent was to gauge/ ascertain the extent by which the programs or projects can be
evaluated in a reliable and credible fashion or whether an evaluation is worthwhile in terms
of benefits, consequences, and costs. The results of evaluability assessment will be used
as basis for specific changes or remedies that must be done to ensure program success.

The evaluability assessment was conducted at the height of the Corona Virus 2019 (COVID-
19) pandemic. Although not part of the original TOR, UNDP deemed it appropriate to include
in the evaluability assessment an initial assessment of the impact of COVID-19 to MSMEDP
program implementation in selected provinces and to MSMEs in general.

IX. KEY QUESTIONS, SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

Key Questions and Scope

The evaluability assessment of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Plan
(MSMEDP) and its programs made use of the National Evaluation Policy Framework
(NEPF) Evaluability Checklist to focus the investigation on aspects/criteria and key
questions which are considered determinants of evaluability as follows:

Clarity of the intervention – does the subject of evaluation have a clear logical
framework or TOC? Are the objectives, outcomes, and outputs clearly defined? Are
the indicators clearly stated?

Availability of data – is sufficient data collected against the indicators? Is there

baseline data? What methodology can be used given the available data? The in-
depth evaluability assessment is expected to delve into this evaluability criterion in
detail, assessing the robustness of administrative data collection and M&E systems
and how these link to broader national and agency-level planning and budgeting
processes.

Stakeholder interest and intended use – how can decision-makers use the evaluation
to improve program design, implementation, and resource allocation? Are there
socio- political factors that could hinder the conduct of the evaluation?

16 | P a g e
 Availability of resources for the evaluation – are there enough financial, human, and
knowledge resources to conduct the evaluation? How much is required?

The above questions were further refined through a consultative process to derive insights
and conclusions on the major evaluability criteria specified in the Terms of Reference (TOR)
as follows:

Relevance
• Are the results frameworks of the MSMEDP and its key flagship programs clearly
outlined, with well-articulated results and well-defined indicators? How well do these
results frameworks synergize with each other and with the broader PDP results
matrix?
• To what extent have the MSMEDP, its objectives, and component programs have
been relevant to the MSMEs themselves? Are there mechanisms which enable the
government to regularly assess the relevance of its programs to MSMEs?

Effectiveness
• How can M&E systems be set up to enable the measurement of the contribution of
MSMEDP and its flagship programs to the productivity, job generation, and other
relevant socio-economic outcomes? Can this contribution be assessed using available
data? What other data generation means can be utilized?
• Are the indicators and targets set in the MSMEDP reflective of the intentions of the
plans’ objectives and strategies? Are data collection systems in place to measure
achievement?
• In the perspective of stakeholders, to what extent have the MSMEDP and component
programs helped MSMEs with their needs at key stages in their life cycle?

Efficiency
• Have government interventions been implemented efficiently? What are the efficiency
constraints that remain unaddressed?
• What are the existing coordination and implementation mechanisms in implementing
the MSMEDP and its component programs? Are the implementation and coordination
mechanisms conducive for achieving expected results?
• Are the flagship programs implemented cohesively at both national and local levels?
Are the processes and structures in place capable of delivering and measuring the
intended results: from inputs, to outputs, and to outcomes?
• Was there an appropriate level of financing to implement the MSMEDP?

Sustainability
• Are the government interventions for MSMEs sustainable? Can government M&E
enable the assessment of the sustainability of benefits to MSMEs?
• How can the Department of Trade and Industry, which leads the MSME Development
Council and serves as its secretariat, strengthen its M&E systems for the MSMEDP in
a way that enables it to measure outcomes and impact of interventions rigorously?
• How can the various implementing agencies of MSME development interventions
strengthen their M&E systems and pursue evaluations to support the overall M&E
system of the MSMEDP?

Limitations of the study

1. The study was conducted at the height of the pandemic thus the difficulty in gathering field
data while primary data were gathered. Nonetheless, it took a while due to the pandemic;
2. Very long process of review of questionnaire by getting clearance from the Philippine

17 | P a g e
 Statistics Authority which considerably dragged the implementation of the survey;
3. Long and tedious process of validating the TOC and RF due to the busy schedule of the
respective program PMOs; and
4. To accommodate UNDP’s request for the inclusion of an initial assessment of the impact
of COVID-19, the research instruments had to be further refined which delayed the
conduct of the survey. It should be emphasized that the study team was able to
accommodate the request even though it was not part of the original terms of reference.

X. METHODOLOGY

The evaluability assessment involved the following steps:1) review of program documentation;
2) analysis of the information system defined in the program or related to the program and
determination of information needs; 3) interview of main stakeholders; and 4) analysis of the
program in the context of the theory of change (TOC) and impact pathway framework using
both quantitative and qualitative techniques (mixed method).

Data Sources and Sampling

Secondary data were obtained from available program documents and review of literature on
similar local and international programs, which may give credence to or refute the assumptions
of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Plan (MSMEDP) and its programs
(Annex B). Primary data were obtained thru survey of beneficiaries, key informant interviews
(KIIs), and focus group discussions (FGDs) of program implementers and stakeholders.

Given the nationwide character of the MSMEDP programs with a large number of beneficiaries
from among micro, small and medium scale enterprises, the sampling covered areas in Luzon,
Visayas and Mindanao. For each program, the top three (3) provinces in terms of program
coverage/reach were selected from which ten program beneficiaries were randomly selected.
The total samples for each program were 90 or a grand total of 540 samples.

Structured questionnaires were prepared, pre-tested and personally administered to the

survey respondents. These consisted of a set of questions intended for the evaluation of the
MSMEDP as a whole and a set of questions for each specific program.

A total of 63 KIIs and eight (8) FGDs with at least 10 KIIs and one (1) FGD per program were
carried out. The KIIs and FGDs involved program implementers from the Department of Trade
and Industry (DTI), Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and the National
Economic and Development Authority (NEDA).

The evaluability assessment covered MSMEDP program implementation in the provinces of

Ilocos Norte, Nueva Ecija, Laguna, Aklan, Cebu, Eastern Samar, Davao del Sur, Misamis
Oriental and Agusan del Norte.

On per program basis, the survey instrument and KII/FGD guide questions were appended as
Annex C and Annex D while Annex E presents the list of individuals interviewed. The
documentation of the eight (8) FGDs conducted is also appended as Annex F.

Analytical Techniques

The evaluability assessment entailed the review of existing/available TOC and results framework.
While the MSMEDP did not have an explicit TOC, the descriptive narrative of the plan was
adequate to establish the TOC and RF. Except for Negosyo Center, the other programs did
not have a TOC narrative and RF. To build the TOCs and RFs, a workshop was carried out on

18 | P a g e
March 6, 2020 involving key personnel of NEDA, DTI, and DOST. The initial TOCs and RFs
developed during the workshop were subsequently validated in a series of consultations with
relevant program personnel. The finalized reconstructed TOCs and RF are discussed in
Section 11.

In assessing the evaluability of the MSMEDP and its component programs (Objectives 1 and
2), the criteria spelled out in the NEPF/UNDP Evaluability Checklist were examined. A
consultative process was also undertaken to draw insights on the following parameters:
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability. A review of the process of program
implementation as well as gathering of initial perceptions of MSMEs were also conducted to
surface their recommendations to enhance the evaluability and implementation of the
MSMEDP and its various programs.

In determining the efficiency and effectiveness of government processes relative to MSMEDP

implementation and alignment of MSMEDP objectives with the PDP results matrix (Objective
3), the assessment entailed a thorough review of all processes employed to coordinate and
facilitate the development, implementation and M&E of MSMEDP. Analysis of efficiency and
effectiveness was done by mapping the coordination of inputs, process, and outputs. Factors
contributing to inefficiencies and factors affecting effectiveness were identified. The
perception of entities being coordinated (e.g., program implementors/key players, MSMEs,
etc.) were obtained and analyzed. The alignment of MSMEDP objectives with the PDP and
its results matrix was examined by matching the MSMEDP development logic with that of the
PDP and whether specific complementarities exist between the MSMEDP and the PDP.

In assessing the perception of MSMEs on the relevance and effectiveness of programs that
cater to them (Objective 4), an actual survey of MSMEs was undertaken. A Likert-scale was
designed to gauge the MSMEs’ level of agreement/disagreement to statements probing the
relevance and effectiveness of the subject programs. Apart from the general perception
survey, case studies of MSMEs which have already benefitted from the various programs were
carried out to build a substantial narrative on the relevance and effectiveness of the MSMEDP
programs.

The summary matrix of methodology is presented as Table 1.

19 | P a g e
Table 1. Summary matrix of methodology
Parameter Evaluation Questions Standard Measure Data Source of Data
or Elements to look for Collection
Tools
1. Evaluability Clarity of the intervention – Examination of the TOC as Review of Program
does the subject of evaluation to the context of the plan, program implementers and
have a clear logical the hypotheses of change, documents key players from
framework or theory of explicit and implicit and reports DTI, DOST,
change? Are the objectives, assumptions, evidences to NEDA
outcomes, and outputs clearly support the theory, whether Review of
defined? Are the indicators the theory is plausible, literature
clearly stated? doable, testable and
meaningful. TOC
Availability of data – is workshop
sufficient data collected Clarity, coherence and
against the indicators? Is relevance of program design NEFP
there baseline data? What and its logic based on well- Evaluability
methodology can be used defined/explicit (re- Checklist
given the available data? The constructed) TOC narrative
in-depth evaluability and results framework or Key
assessment is expected to impact pathway informant
delve into this evaluability interviews
criterion in detail, assessing
the robustness of Robustness of the M&E Focus group
administrative data collection system including well- discussions
and M&E systems and how defined outputs and outcome
these link to broader national indicators, established
and agency-level planning baselines and targets,
and budgeting processes. adequacy and accuracy of
data needed for evaluation,
Stakeholder interest and clear/detailed M&E plan i.e.
intended use – how can data collection including
decision-makers use the forms/templates, data
evaluation to improve organization and analysis,
program design, database management and
implementation, and resource performance reporting
allocation? Are there socio-
political factors that could
hinder the conduct of the Support of stakeholders and
evaluation? program implementers and
level of participation in the
Availability of resources for evaluation
the evaluation – are there
enough financial, human, and
knowledge resources to
conduct the evaluation? How
much is required?
2. Relevance Perception of program Review of Program
Are the results frameworks of
implementers and key program implementers
the MSMEDP and its key
players on program documents from DTI, DOST,
flagship programs clearly
relevance and reports NEDA
outlined, with well-articulated
results and well-defined
MSME’s level of Survey MSMEs
indicators? How well do these
agreement/disagreement to
results frameworks synergize
statements probing Key
with each other and with the
relevance and effectiveness informant
broader PDP results matrix?
of programs interviews
To what extent have the
Alignment of MSMEDP Focus group
MSMEDP, its objectives, and
objectives with PDP results discussions
component programs have
matrix, valid causal links
been relevant to the MSMEs
between the MSMEDP with Case study
themselves? Are there
its component programs and of MSME
mechanisms which enable the program
clearly-specified indicators
government to regularly beneficiaries

20 | P a g e
 Parameter Evaluation Questions Standard Measure Data Source of Data
or Elements to look for Collection
Tools
assess the relevance of its
programs to MSMEs?

3. Effectiveness Soundness of all processes Review of Program

How can M&E systems be
employed to coordinate and program implementers
set up to enable the
facilitate the development, documents from DTI, DOST,
measurement of the
implementation, monitoring and reports NEDA
contribution of MSMEDP and
and evaluation of MSMEDP,
its flagship programs to the
mapping the coordination of Process MSMEs
productivity, job generation,
inputs, process and outputs review
and other relevant socio-
economic outcomes? Can this
Factors affecting Key
contribution be assessed
effectiveness informant
using available data? What
interviews
other data generation means
Perception of entities being
can be utilized?
coordinated e.g. program Focus group
implementers/key players, discussions
Are the indicators and targets
MSMEs, etc)
set in the MSMEDP reflective
Survey
of the intentions of the plans’ Alignment of MSMEDP
objectives and strategies? objectives with PDP results
Are data collection systems in
matrix
place to measure
achievement?

In the perspective of
stakeholders, to what extent
have the MSMEDP and
component programs helped
MSMEs with their needs at
key stages in their life cycle?

4. Efficiency Soundness of all processes Review of Program

Have government
employed to coordinate and program implementers
interventions been
facilitate the development, documents from DTI, DOST,
implemented efficiently?
implementation, monitoring and reports NEDA
What are the efficiency
and evaluation of MSMEDP,
constraints that remain
mapping the coordination of Process MSMEs
unaddressed?
inputs, process and outputs review
What are the existing
Key
coordination and
Factors contributing to informant
implementation mechanisms
inefficiencies interviews
in implementing the
MSMEDP and its component
Perception of entities being Focus group
programs? Are the
coordinated e.g. program discussions
implementation and
implementers/key players,
coordination mechanisms
MSMEs, etc) Survey
conducive for achieving
expected results?
Alignment of MSMEDP
Are the flagship programs
objectives with PDP results
implemented cohesively at
matrix
both national and local
levels? Are the processes
and structures in place
capable of delivering and
measuring the intended
results: from inputs, to
outputs, and to outcomes?

Was there an appropriate level

of financing to implement the
MSMEDP?

21 | P a g e
 Parameter Evaluation Questions Standard Measure Data Source of Data
or Elements to look for Collection
Tools
5. Sustainability Perception of program Key Program
Are the government
implementers, key players, informant implementers
interventions for MSMEs
and MSMEs on program interviews from DTI, DOST,
sustainable? Can
sustainability NEDA
government M&E enable the
Focus group
assessment of the
discussions MSMEs
sustainability of benefits to
Effects of Covid-19
MSMEs?
pandemic on MSMEDP Survey
plan/program implementation
How can the DTI, which leads and MSMEs
the MSME Development
Council and serves as its
secretariat, strengthen its
M&E systems for the
MSMEDP in a way that
enables it to measure
outcomes and impact of
interventions rigorously?

How can the various

implementing agencies of
MSME development
interventions strengthen their
M&E systems and pursue
evaluations to support the
overall M&E system of the
MSMEDP?

XI. FINDINGS

The relevant findings/results of the evaluability assessment are presented in two parts. Section
A presents in detail the results of the evaluability assessment of the Micro, Small and Medium
Enterprise Development Plan (MSMEDP) and each of the six component programs. Section
B presents an integration of the over-all findings of the evaluability assessment including
summary matrices.

A. Findings on the Evaluability of the MSMEDP and Each Component Programs

This section presents the results of the evaluability assessment of the MSMEDP and the six
(6) flagship programs examined in the study. The presentation and discussion of results are
organized into two parts. The first part presents the results along the evaluability framework
of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), which considers three broad aspects of
evaluability: (1) program design; (2) data availability; and (3) stakeholder’s demand. The main
interest under program design is the clarity of the intervention, which entailed the examination
of the theory of change and results framework, causal link assumptions as well as indicators
of performance. The main concerns on data include sufficiency, availability, and applicable
methods of analysis while stakeholders demand examined the utility of the evaluation to the
various stakeholders of the program. Insights were also derived to answer the more specific
National Evaluation Policy Framework (NEPF) evaluability checklist (Annex G). The second
part presents the results of the process evaluation of the flagship programs which dealt mainly
on the questions of relevance, effectiveness efficiency and sustainability.

22 | P a g e
1. On Program Design, Data Availability, Stakeholders’ Demand and Robustness of
the M&E Systems

1a. Program Design

Theory of Change and Results Framework

A key requisite for a program to be evaluable is that it should have a clear theory of change
(TOC) and results framework (RF). The TOC and RF are crucial for a clear understanding of
what the program is all about, its goals and strategies as well as its causal links and
assumptions. The TOC and RF are important guides to any evaluation as these help establish
the context and scope of evaluation.

As part of evaluability assessment, the MSMEDP and its component programs were reviewed
to determine the availability of TOC and RF. It was found that while MSMEDP did not have an
explicit TOC, the descriptive narrative of the plan was adequate to establish the TOC and
results framework. However, except for Negosyo Center, all the component programs of
MSMEDP did not have an explicit TOC narrative and results framework. To build the TOCs
and RFs, a workshop was carried out on March 6, 2020 involving the key personnel of NEDA,
DTI, and DOST. The initial TOCs and RFs developed during the workshop were subsequently
validated in a series of consultations with the relevant personnel from each program. The
finalized TOCs and RF are discussed below.

The MSMEDP’s Overall TOC and RF

The MSMEDP is an integral part of the results matrices of the Philippine Development Plan
(PDP), 2017-2022. The PDP is founded on the three pillars of “trabaho”, “negosyo” at
“kabuhayan”, which spelled out the interventions needed to be carried out to improve,
employment, business, and livelihood in the country. The MSMEDP is linked directly to the
“negosyo” component of the PDP and constitutes the overall plan to achieve the PDP goals
on improving business environment, business capacity and business opportunities in the
country. Since the MSMEDP did not have an explicit TOC, the TOC was recreated from the
plan’s descriptive narrative during the March 6, 2020 workshop. The TOC narrative is as
follows:

“Micro, small and medium scale enterprises (MSMEs) in the Philippines are constrained
among others, by a generally poor business environment brought about by poor business
climate and limited access to finance; limited business capacity due to limited capacity of
management and labor as well as limited access to new technologies and innovations; and
inadequate business opportunities as reflected in limited access to market. If nationwide or at
least a significant geographical scale improvement can be made on business climate, access
to finance, management and labor capacity, access to technology/innovation and market,
there will be significant improvement in global competitiveness of MSMEs, make them more
resilient and sustainable and serve as the major drivers of inclusive economic growth in the
Philippines. With all other things held constant, these can be achieved by simplifying and
harmonizing rules related to MSMEs, simplifying and streamlining loan processes, mentoring
and training MSMEs management and labor, supporting linkages between MSMEs and large
corporations, developing lucrative business models and social enterprises and by making
technologies and market accessible”.

The results framework accompanying the above TOC as shown in Figure 4 presented
MSMEDP’s vision, which is to achieve more globally competitive MSMEs that are regionally
integrated, resilient, sustainable, and innovative thereby performing as key drivers of inclusive
economic growth. This vision is planned to be achieved by working on three focus areas: (1)
business environment, (2) business capacity; and (3) business opportunities. The goals under

23 | P a g e
business environment are to improve business climate and access to finance. Under business
capacity, the goals are to enhance management and labor capacities and improve access to
technology and innovation. On business opportunity the goal is to improve market access.
The respective strategies to achieve these goals are clearly laid down in the results framework,
together with cross-cutting strategies that will support the achievement of the goals in each
focus areas. The action plans in terms of policies, programs and projects are then identified
and the institutional support that would be needed are specified.

Figure 4. MSMEDP results framework

The six (6) component programs under MSMEDP included as part of the ongoing evaluability
assessment have one to one correspondence with the five strategies of MSMEDP in its general
results framework. The achievement of improved business climate is through the Negosyo
Center Program (NCP); that on improved access to loan is through P3; access to market is
through OTOP; access to technology is through SETUP; and enhancing management and
labor capacity is through KMME. The SSF program contributes both to access to technology
and improvement in labor capacity.

There are only three (3) outcome indicators for the MSMEDP: (1) increase in employment of
MSMEs; (2) percentage increase in number of registered MSMEs; and (3) proportion of small-

24 | P a g e
scale industries in total value added (Table 2). The possible sources of data for these
indicators are identified together with the baseline and target values.

Table 2. MSMEDP Indicators and Possible Sources of Data

MSMED Plan
Overall Proposed 2017-2022
Source
KPIs Indicators
Baseline Target
1 Increase in Total Employment (PSA List of 4.784 M 8.284 M
employment of Establishments)
MSME
2 Percentage increase Number of Establishments (PSA List of 896,839 20%
in number of Establishments); Number of Registered
registered MSMEs Enterprises with LGUs (LGUs);
Number of Registered MSMEs Corporations
(SEC)
3 Proportion of small- Value Added (Other Proxy) Total Sales NCC- 35.7% 50% to
scale industries CB (DTI) 55%
(enterprises) in total
value added
increased

The MSMEDP’s TOC reconstructed from the descriptive narrative of the Plan as well as its
general result framework appear to be plausible. Business environment, capacity and
opportunities are well-known pathways to business development and improving these areas
is an excellent strategy for the growth of MSMEs. In addition, the outcome indicators were
clearly specified as well as the corresponding baseline and targets. However, the outcome
indicators were not linked clearly with the outputs and intermediate outcomes of the
component programs and the assumptions needed to achieve a nationwide reach were not
explicitly indicated. This could be a major limitation in future evaluation as the issue of
attribution could not be resolved easily. For instance, an increase in the number of registered
MSMEs cannot be unambiguously attributed to MSMEDP unless there is clear evidence of
causal links between the outputs of the component program and the outcomes of MSMEDP.
It could very well be possible for the component program to be a complete failure, yet the
outcome indicator of MSMEDP can still exhibit improvement due to exogenous influences.

As part of the evaluability assessment, a more specific results chain of MSMEDP as well as
the assumptions that must be satisfied were formulated and validated by the representatives
of the implementing entities during the TOC workshop. The results chain clearly linked the six
accompanying programs with the indicated outcomes of MSMEDP (Table 3). The results
chain column describes in a nutshell how the program intervention can lead to outputs then to
intermediate outcomes and finally to the MSMEDP outcomes. On the other hand, the last
column indicates the reach, capacity, and behavior change (e.g., extent of adoption)
assumptions needed for the program interventions to reach the scale of the MSMEDP, which
is nationwide in coverage.

The reconstructed MSMEDP theory of change and results chain are crucial in gauging the
evaluability of the MSMEDP and its component programs. The three key evaluability questions
that can be derived from the reconstructed TOC and RF are: (1) do the M&E systems of the
six component programs keep track of the output and immediate outcome indicators identified
in the results chain? (2) are there indicators being tracked in the existing M&E systems of the
six programs which can serve as proxies in case the original indicators are not being tracked?
(3) are there means to establish the causal links hypothesized and the underlying assumptions
of the theory of change and results chains?

25 | P a g e
Table 3. Results Chains Linking the Various Programs with MSMEDP
Outcome Indicators
Intermediate/
Program Results Chain Output Indicators Long Term
Immediate (MSMEDP Assumptions
Outcome
Indicators)
Negosyo Simplified and harmonized • Simplified Rules • Reduced Increase in the Nationwide
Center rules/regulations will lead to Harmonized Rules transactions number of adoption of
lower transaction cost which • Number of Shortened registered MSMEs simplified or
in turn improve efficiency facilitation processing harmonized
and profitability of MSME’s assistance time Increase in rules
operation provided by • Improved employment of
Negosyo Centers efficiency MSMEs Widespread
• Number of Improved bank adoption
MSMEs assisted business of streamlined
• Type of viability loan
assistance processes
provided
P3 Streamlining of loan • Amount of loan • Amount of Nationwide/
processes will improve accessed by capital Proportion of extensive
financial inclusion, lower the MSMEs under P3 investment small- scale mentoring and
cost of credit, and • Number of MSMEs made by industries training
encourage greater MSMEs which availed MSMEs (enterprises) in
investment which will lead loans through P3 • Increased total value added
to • Average interest sales from increased MSME’s
business expansion and rate MSMEs outputs are
higher productivity • Ratio of approved • Improved mainstreame
loan applicants productivity d in large
(loan approval • Gauge the corporation’s
rate) effectivity of value chains
streamlining
the loan Widespread
process MSME’s
adoption of
SETUP Provision of SETUP • Number of • Amount of technologies
assistance enables MSMEs MSMEs assisted capital or innovations
to access new technologies, by SETUP investment
e.g., equipment, which • Total amount of made by
improves productivity and SETUP MSMEs
expands production capacity assistance • Increased
provided sales from
• Number of MSMEs
MSMEs assisted • Improved
by sector and the productivity
total amount of
assistance for
monitoring
KMME Mentoring improves • Number of • Technical
technical and management MSMEs competency
knowledge and skills which mentored enhancement
improves business • Number of • Management
efficiency/productivity MSMEs which competency
scaled up in enhancement
terms of • Productivity/
employment Efficiency
generated improvement
OTOP Participation in OTOP • Number of • Sales volume
enhances access to larger MSMEs and value of
and better markets which participating in participating
leads to greater sales OTOP MSMEs
revenue, encourages • Exporters increased
existing MSMEs to expand assisted and • Export sales
operation and create greater products generated
value addition developed/ and domestic
improved

26 | P a g e
 Outcome Indicators
Intermediate/
Program Results Chain Output Indicators Long Term
Immediate (MSMEDP Assumptions
Outcome
Indicators)
sales
generated
SSF Access to shared service • Number of • Sales volume
facility leads to expanded MSMEs and value of
output capacity of MSMEs, accessing SSF participating
lower • Number of SSFs MSMEs
processing/manufacturing established increased
cost, improved product • Employment • Productivity/
quality, improved generated Efficiency
productivity, and increased improvement
Sales • Lower
processing/
manufacturing
cost

The component programs of MSMEDP namely, Negosyo Center, P3, KMME, SETUP, OTOP
and SSF were examined extensively to answer the aforementioned evaluability questions and
evaluate the MSMEDP and its programs against the set of criteria in the NEPF evaluability
checklist. The results are discussed in the succeeding sections.

TOC and RF of the MSMEDP Programs

The evaluability assessment found that except for Negosyo Center, the MSMEDP component
programs did not have theories of change. Similar to MSMEDP though, it was possible to
construct a TOC narrative based on the rationale of the programs and the strategies being
pursued. In contrast to the MSMEDP however, the component programs did not have results
framework, which would be a major evaluability constraint. Nevertheless, the evaluability
assessment still attempted to reconstruct both the theory of change and results framework,
albeit it took several consultations and validation with the implementing agencies of the
various programs.

Kapatid Mentor Me (KMME)

In the case of KMME, the absence of a logical framework was already pointed out in an earlier
assessment conducted by the World Bank. In the later part of 2019, a KMME Strategic Plan
2020-2022 was drafted articulating the program’s overall vision of “prosperous, inclusive and
entrepreneurship-driven local economies creating sustainable jobs and promoting competitive
production and trade”. Balance scorecard was adopted covering four areas—external
stakeholders, internal processes, people and program, and finance. The framework was still
on draft status as of the time of evaluability assessment.

Through consultations and validation exercises, the assessment formulated the following TOC
narrative for KMME: “If MSMEs are capacitated on basic business operations, skills and
knowledge through trainings, mentoring and coaching, and learning by doing, then there will
be improvements in the productivity of business enterprises as a result of more efficient
production and administrative systems, thereby resulting to business expansion, job creation
and sustainability that benefits the community”. A diagrammatic depiction is provided in Figure
5.

27 | P a g e
 IMPLEMENTATION EXPECTED RESULTS
RATIONALE

Mentoring Training Improvement in productivity

MSMEs need to be of business enterprises as a
capacitated to ensure Outreach Learning result of more efficient
availability of skills needed by doing production systems due to
for business operations improvement in knowledge
and skills

Figure 5. Theory of Change for Kapatid Mentor Me (KMME)

A key causal link, albeit implicit assumption of the TOC is that mentoring, training, outreach
and learning by doing will lead directly to improvement in productivity/efficiency of the
business. This assumption is plausible as the literature is replete with evidence that the
knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) pathway is the most viable pathway in effecting
behavioral change.

The assumption that training/mentoring will translate to productivity will of course depends on
the effectiveness of the training/mentoring itself. This was recognized early on by the program
implementers of KMME. By examining the context of the program, the evaluability
assessment found that during the earlier phase of the program, the mentors were not
entrepreneurs, hence, were not talking out of experience and it was difficult for the mentees
to relate with their mentors. This was immediately addressed by revising the modules and
piloting it in selected areas (Laguna and Mandaluyong). The revised modules, which is now
the popular 3M (money, market and, mentorship) is proven to be more effective based on
feedback from the mentees.

The validation of the implicit and explicit assumptions through KIIs, FGDs and survey
highlighted that program success is dependent on the commitment of mentees, the credibility
of mentors, the quality of the modules, sustained assistance from the other units of DTI, strong
partnership between Philippine Center for Entrepreneurship (PCE) and the other coordinating
units, sustained program funding and ease of meeting the requirements of the program.

The logical framework consistent with the formulated TOC is presented in Table 4. The
output, outcome and impact indicators are clearly specified and are considered good metrics
of the performance of the program. In addition, while the baseline values have not been
established, it appears these can be obtained from an earlier survey (2016-2017) of KMME
graduates. Moreover, the program reach can easily be established from the number of
trainees/mentees of the program.

28 | P a g e
Table 4. Results Framework for the Kapatid Mentor Me (KMME)
Means of Risks and Available/ Not
Indicators Targets
Verification Assumptions Available
IMPACT
MSME Number of Increased CPMS
efficiency MSMEs with sales
and improved
productivity productivity
improved Number of 68% of the Increased Funds for Available
leading to MSMEs with 2,096 profits survey is Source: Survey
sustained increased respondents available Results on the
operations profits progress of
2016-2017
KMM
Graduates;
CPMS
OUTCOME
Improvement Number of positive Survey Results Available
in knowledge feedbacks from Source:
and skills MSMEs Survey
Results
on the
progress of
2016-2017
KMM
Graduates
OUTPUT
Trainings, Number of MSMEs 7,778 Post Regular Available
Mentoring participating in selected Activity monitoring Source: Post
, mentoring/trainings mentees Report activity Activity
Outreach /outreach conducted Report
programs
Timely
Number of MSMEs 7,337 Post availability of Available
completing the graduated Activity funds Source: Post
mentoring/trainings/ mentees Report Activity
outreach programs Availability of Report
Number of 343 Post competent and Available
mentoring/ Batches/ Activity willing resource Source: Post
trainings/outreach Runs Report persons Activity
programs Conducted Report
conducted
Number of All regions Post Available
sites/locations of and 101 Activity Source: Post
mentoring/trainings/ cities Report Activity
outreach programs reached Report
INPUTS
Amount of funds Post Available
Activity
Report
Number of mentors Post Activity Available
Report

29 | P a g e
Pondo sa Pagbabago at Pag-Asenso (P3)

The TOC narrative formulated during the TOC workshop and validated in a series of
consultations with the program implementers states that, “if MSMEs have access to affordable
and easy credit that is comparable to the informal lending schemes in terms of interest rates
and documentary requirements, and MFIs are provided capacity to manage credit portfolio,
then there will be reduced dependence on loans from informal moneylending schemes that
charge usurious interest rates, leading to more capital for business operations, thereby
resulting to increased income and improved productivity and potential employment generation.
The TOC diagram is provided in Figure 6.

Rationale
Implementation Scheme Expected Results
MSMEs shy away from
Retail/ Direct lending from Reduced dependence on
formal financial institutions
SBC or Credit Delivery informal moneylenders with
due to complicated loan
Partners usurious rates, leading to
processes and documentary
more capital for business
requirements. Instead, they Wholesale lending through operations. This will result in
source credit from informal MFIs (for members) increased income, improved
moneylenders who charge
productivity, and potential
usurious rates
employment generation.

Figure 6. Theory of Change of Pondo sa Pagbabago at Pag-Asenso (P3)

The primary causal link assumption is that access to reasonably priced credit will improve
productivity/efficiency and that such access is possible by improving the flexibility of MFIs to
manage loan portfolio. This is highly plausible as earlier studies by the Agricultural Credit
Policy Council (ACPC) in 2017 empirically showed that access to credit improves productivity
and that MFIs were more effective conduits in providing credit assistance.

The validity of the TOC is further supported by an earlier Assessment Report (2019 report
submitted to Congress), which showed that the number of MFIs acting as conduits for the P3
program increased from 56 at the start of the P3 implementation in 2017 to 176 in 2018 and
finally to 409 in 2019. Although the assessment did not provide in-depth analysis on the
improvements in capacity, the increase in the loans managed by the MFIs (PhP 5,115 M
cumulative line availment and PhP 3,922 M releases) provides indication of the quality of their
loan management capabilities.

The survey of beneficiaries of the program validated the causal link assumption on the
importance of access to credit. The large majority (74%) of respondents claimed they
participated in the program as they needed additional capital for their business. The low
interest rate appears to have motivated 54% of the respondents to access the loan facility of
P3 while the fast approval of loans was the primary motivation of 24 percent of the
respondents. The ease of requirements was also a major motivation for 31 percent of the
respondents.

It was learned from the KIIs and FGDs however, that many potential beneficiaries were still
unaware of the program. This underscores the need for greater information dissemination on
the assistance being provided under P3. Other factors identified as crucial for the success of
the program are the provision of marketing assistance by DTI to ensure greater market access
for the products of P3 beneficiaries and the continued funding of the program by the

30 | P a g e
Department of Budget and Management (DBM).

The results framework of P3 is shown in Table 5. The output and outcome indicators are
clearly specified, although the absence of baseline and targets will be a challenge in future
evaluation. This was already identified during the workshop and series of consultations with
SBC (the program owner) and were indicated as part of the risk and assumptions in the
logframe.

The link between P3 and MSMEDP is clear as the impact indicators on MSMEs with improved
productivity and number of MSMEs with increased profits directly relate with the three major
outcome indicators of the MSMEDP.

Table 5. Validated Results Framework for Pondo sa Pagbabago at Pag-Asenso (P3)

Available/
Sources of Risks and
Indicators Not
Verifications Assumptions
Available
IMPACT
Improved MSME Number of MSMEs with Impact Availability of
income and improved productivity Assessme resources and
productivity, Number of MSMEs with nt Study support for
leading to potential increased profits conduct of IA
employment Available
generation and baseline data
sustained
operations
OUTCOME
Improved access Percent of MSMEs availing of PSA Available
to financing from credit from formal sources baseline data
formal sources
Reduced Percent of MSMEs availing PSA
dependence from credit from informal sources
informal credit
sources
OUTPUT
MSMEs availing Provinces reached by P3 SBC P3 Regular Available
credit from P3 Number of MSMEs availing P3 Dashboard updating of Available
increased MFI dashboard
Financial Number of financial institutions partners Available
institutions engaged in P3 credit retailing Regular
providing credit to (cooperatives, MFIs, monitoring
MSMEs associations, and rural banks) conducted
increased
Interest rates Pass on rates of P3 financial
from credit institutions
reduced
INPUTS
Amount of P3 loan Amount of loans granted to SBC-P3 Regular Available
MSMEs, by partner institution, and reports monitoring
total activity
Number of MSMEs with loans SBC-P3 conducted
from P3, by partner institutions reports
Documentary Number of loan processes/steps, SBC – P3 Regular
requirements by P3 partner institutions reports monitoring
and steps for Number of documentary activity
loans reduced requirements, by P3 partner conducted
institutions

31 | P a g e
 Negosyo Center (NC)

The Negosyo Center is the only component program of MSMEDP, which has an established
TOC even prior to the evaluability assessment. The assessment validated the existing TOC
during the March 6, 2020 workshop and in a series of KIIs with heads and staff from
agencies/units such as the program management unit of Negosyo Center and the coordinators
in the regions and provinces.

The TOC narrative states that, if MSMEs have access to institutions that will assist them in
navigating the regulatory requirements and provide support services for development, then it
is not tedious and costly to establish business, and there is easy access to information and
support services for MSMEs, thereby resulting to conducive business climate fostering
business growth and development, and promoting inclusive growth, poverty reduction and job
generation. The validated TOC is shown in Figure 7. The TOC for the Negosyo Center used
in the Impact Assessment Study in 2019 is also presented in Figure 8.

RATIONALE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEME EXPECTED RESULTS

The Negosyo Center Program is To establish "Negosyo Centers" in all provinces,

responsible for promoting ease 1. Foster natural development
cities, and municipalities, the following are the
of doing business and facilitating pre-requisites to launching: 2. Promote inclusive growth
access to services of Micro,
Small, and Medium Enterprises 3. Reduce poverty.
(MSMEs). a) Public-private partnership forged 4. Promote job generation and
Republic Act No. 10644 inclusive growth through the
otherwise known as the "Go b) Package of services offered well-defined; development of MSMEs
Negosyo Act," seeks to c) Office refurbished based on the prescribed 5. Promote ease of doing business
strengthen MSMEs to create "one-look"; and facilitated access to services for
more opportunities in the d) Facilities/furniture are in place (dedicated MSMEs
country. computer, Reception/Receiving Area, Training 6. Provide technology transfer,
Room, Meeting Room, etc. based on the type of production and management training,
Negosyo Center and physical look; and marketing assistance for MSMEs
e) Staff/Business Counselors deployed;
f) Required signages installed; and
g) Printed materials such as flyers,
brochures, entrepreneur magazines, etc.,
made available

Figure 7. Validated Negosyo Center Theory of Change, Evaluability Assessment Project in 2020

Figure 8. Negosyo Center Theory of Change, Impact Assessment Study in 2019

32 | P a g e
The essential causal link assumption is that assistance in navigating regulatory requirements
and accessing support services will reduce the cost of doing business and promote the growth
and development of MSMEs. This assumption is plausible considering that business
transaction costs are high in the country, especially search cost (cost of information search)
as well as the costs associated with contracting.

The survey of NC beneficiaries validated the importance of NC’s causal link assumption. The
primary motivation of most beneficiaries (57%) was to access information/knowledge on
business operations. Almost half (47%) of the respondents wanted to explore new business
opportunities while others were motivated by the assistance provided in processing business
permits and documents (43%); access to trainings (38%); and new knowledge on technical
operations (36%).

Results of the KIIs and FGDs suggest that the theorized change could likely be achieved if the
current staff complement can be improved. As the target of having one Business Counsellor
(BC) in every NC remains unachieved, the services that the centers can provide will remain
limited. In Region 10 for instance, one BC is handling three to four NCs. While the program is
nationwide, the assumption on program reach in the MSMEDP may not be realized if limitation
on staff complement will not be addressed. The survey of beneficiaries revealed that 31
percent of the respondents were already pointing out the lack of personnel in the NCs and the
very small space available (44%) as the major limitations of the program.

The validated results framework is shown in Table 6. The output and outcome indicators are
well-specified except for the absence of baseline and targets, which will be a major constraint
in future evaluation. The outcome indicators are consistent with the indicators of the MSMEDP,
particularly the growth in sales which can be directly related to the MSMEDP indicator on
increase in value added. In addition, the indicator on the growth in the number of employees
may directly feed into the MSMEDP indicator of increase employment in MSMEs.

Table 6. Validated Results Framework for Negosyo Center

Sources of Risks and Available/ Not
Indicators
Verifications Assumptions Available
IMPACT
MSME stepped Upward steps achieved Randomly Risk: Status Available
upward in its in DTI’s 5-Level MSME sampled NC quo Assumption:
business Development Track clients/responde Digital or Online
development nts; NC and DTI study Available
journey Personnel baseline
OUTCOME
MSMEs grew by Growth Randomly Updated Available
availing services in sales (%), sampled NC information
and appropriating employees (No.) and clients/
them in their own asset size (%) respondents;
businesses NC and DTI
Personnel
OUTPUT
NCs, based on NCs ability to deliver Reports of Regular Available
typology, mandated services Negosyo updating of
performed effectively (range of Centers dashboard
mandated services delivered) Nationwide
functions and and efficiently summarized Regular
services. (delivery within set by the monitoring
timeline). Provincial conducted
and Regional
Focal
Persons

33 | P a g e
 Sources of Risks and Available/ Not
Indicators
Verifications Assumptions Available
INPUTS
No. of No. of NCs NC Report Regular Available
services established No. of monitoring
provided MSMEs established activity
No. of clients conducted
served
No. of trainings and
seminars conducted
Human Number of BCs to NC Report Regular monitoring Available
resources support the operation activity conducted
support of NCs
Availability of staff

Shared Service Facilities (SSF)

The SSF did not have a theory of change or results framework prior to the evaluability
assessment. The assessment team constructed the TOC and RF during the March 6, 2020
workshop with the implementers from the program rationale and other program documents.
The TOC narrative states that, if improved innovations in the form of machineries, tools,
equipment, knowledge and skills training under a shared system or common use are to be
made available to the MSMEs, then their production system will improve, production volume
will increase and the quality of their product will be enhanced to conform to standards, thereby
resulting to increase in their sales and income generated. The TOC diagram is shown in
Figure 9.

RATIONALE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEME EXPECTED RESULTS

MSMEs are considered growth engines Setting and Updating of Guidelines Outcomes:
of the Philippine economy. However, Project Identification by the
Provincial Offices Increased MSME access to
performance of MSMEs are constrained
mechanized/advanced
by various factors such as limited Project Visit and Site Inspection by technology
financial capacity, poor market the POs
information and lack of access to Increase in production volume
Project Proposal Review, Evaluation,
innovative techniques and advanced Improved product quality and
technology. This hinders them to Approval (Regional Technical Working
Group, National Technical Working conformity to standards
realize their full potential, break into
bigger domestic or international Group (NTWG), ROG Undersecretary) Wider market for the product
markets, and grow in a highly Procurement of Goods
competitive environment. Project Implementation/ Impacts:
Collaborative programs involving the Establishment
government and the private sectors At least 10% increase in the
have been introduced to address these Project Monitoring number of beneficiaries assisted at
challenges. One of these is the Shared Transfer of Ownership the end of the usufruct period
Service Facilities (SSF) Project. SSF Collaboration with government and At least 10% increase in sales and
Project is meant to improve MSME private stakeholders or/income generated at the end of
competitiveness by providing them with the usufruct period
machinery, equipment, tools, systems,
accessories and other auxiliary items,
skills and knowledge under a shared
system.

Figure 9. Theory of Change for Shared Service Facilities (SSF) Project

The TOC is plausible considering that MSMEs are often constrained to adopt technologies,
especially processing/manufacturing machineries due to high cost. In addition,
equipment/machineries are indivisible and have operating capacities far more than what
would be needed by individual MSMEs. The sharing scheme is therefore a viable strategy and
could really be expected to positively impact on MSME’s performance. The causal link

34 | P a g e
assumption also appears adequate as what is really needed is to just increase the access to
technologies to realize the positive effect on production or manufacturing performance of
MSMEs.

Results of the survey of beneficiaries validated the TOC and causal links of the program.
Almost half (48%) of the respondents indicated they participated in the program to improve
their production operation,19 percent to standardize and improve the quality of their product
while one third (32%) wanted to improve the production operation of other MSMEs engaged
in similar business within the community by sharing the service facilities with them.

The results framework is shown in Table 7. The output, outcome and impact indicators are
well specified, and the targets are indicated. While the baseline values are not indicated this
will not be a major limitation as the indicators are periodically tracked in the M&E system of
the program. The indicator on increase in sales or income generated can be linked directly to
the MSMEDP indicator on increase value added. This indicates that the SSF program can
contribute directly to the targets of MSMEDP.

The SSF is being implemented nationwide which satisfies the reach assumption in the
MSMEDP’s results chain. The intended beneficiaries are the MSMES that are already in the
mainstream market but lack access to needed technologies. The survey of these MSMEs
conducted as part of evaluability assessment showed almost half (48%) of the surveyed
MSMEs were willing to participate in the program to improve their production operation.

Table 7. Validated Results Framework for SSF

Available/
Indicators Sources of Verifications Risks and Assumptions Not
Available
IMPACT
At least 10% increase in the Monitoring Reports Regular monitoring Available
number of beneficiaries assisted at activity conducted;
the end of usufruct period Logbook of project co- Updated logbook of
operators project beneficiaries
At least 10 percent increase in Monitoring Reports Regular monitoring
sales and/or income generated at activity conducted
the end of usufruct period
Financial records of Updated financial
project co- operators records of project
beneficiaries Monitoring
of MSME users
conducted by project co-
operators
OUTCOME
Increased MSME access to Monitoring Reports The SSF is properly managed Available
mechanized/advanced Approved project by the co-operator, in full
technologies proposals which should operation.
Increase in production volume contain the baseline
Improved product quality data and targets
Increase in markets Sales Report/ Financial
Statements
OUTPUT
No. of SSFs established No. DTI reports There are no delays Available
of MSMEs assisted No. of submitted by the in procurement.
other users assisted regions
Employment generated
Funds Utilized Status of Funds Available
provided by DTI-
Financial Service

35 | P a g e
 Available/
Indicators Sources of Verifications Risks and Assumptions Not
Available
INPUTS
Capital Outlay (CO) funds for the GAA Timely release of funds;
procurement of equipment Congressional Qualified suppliers of
Insertion Budget equipment; Good projects
(CIB) are identified; aligned with
Continuing budget region’s priorities.
MOOE for the operating expenses GAA Timely release of funds
of the Project (e.g., insurance of CIB
equipment, travelling of DTI staff, Regular budget
monitoring Regular monitoring of activity
expenses, representation, conducted
training, supplies, etc.)
Cooperator’s counterpart: Monitoring reports Eligible co-operators
- Building are available in the
- Personnel area.
- Working capital Co-operator’s readiness to
provide equity and
capacity to sustain the
SSF.
Business Manual of Operation Monitoring reports Available
jointly prepares by DTI and
Cooperator
Trainings/ Consultancy services Monitoring reports Availability of qualified
given by Experts to improve experts
technical capacity

One-Town-One-Product (OTOP)

The OTOP program did not have a clear theory of change and results framework prior to
evaluability assessment. The assessment team reconstructed the TOC and RF together with
the program implementers. The formulated TOC states that, “If the mind-set of MSME
operators can be changed by way of capacitating them with a package of assistance like
product development, technology updating , capacity building activities, intellectual property
assistance, brand equity development, access to finance, and marketing and promotion with
the goal of improving their products in the area of design, packaging and labelling, increasing
shelf life, use of new packaging, among others, then this would result to better production and
brand capability and greater capacity of MSMEs to produce better products compliant to
standards, thereby creating new and better product offerings with significant improvement in
product quality, design, packaging and labelling, and marketability. The TOC diagram is
provided in Figure 10.

36 | P a g e
 RATIONALE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEME
EXPECTED RESULTS
Issuance of policies and guidelines
Come up with new and better Preparation of Guidelines New and better product offerings
products with significant
with significant improvement and
improvement in innovation
OTOP Next Gen innovation in product quality,
(quality, design, standards
Selection of products & MSMEs/ development design, marketability
compliance, marketability,
product capability and brand) OTOPreneurs Increase in domestic sales
Capacity building with package of Increase in export sales
Address OTOPreneurs’ limited assistance, covering product More enterprises with online
technical development, design, standards presence and participation in
knowledge/innovation on marketplaces
compliance (ACT); implementation of
product development, design, More OTOPreneurs assisted and
standards, etc. Interventions; showcase products
capacitated
through trade fairs and other venues;
More OTOPreneurs participating in
Address the lack of market sell
the global value chain
access for OTOP products
OTOP Hub
Need to address the difficulty Provision of physical facilities
of MSMEs in accessing both
local and international market Provision of virtual links for physical
facilities
Provision of market access platform

Figure 10. Theory of Change for One Town, One Product (OTOP)

Unlike the other program components of MSMEDP which provide specialized type of
assistance, OTOP is a general program intended to provide all types of support to MSMEs.
The pathway though is through building capacity to enable MSMEs to level up, be standards
compliant and access new and bigger markets. Among the MSMEDP component programs,
evaluating OTOP may prove to be most challenging owing to the enormity of the program and
the wide range of assistance provided. It is reasonable to assume though, that clients of OTOP
would have greater chance of succeeding as the assistance can come as a package, therefore
may address the constraints of MSMEs in a more holistic manner.

The TOC and causal links were validated through a survey of 90 OTOPreneurs from nine
provinces. Results confirmed the wide array of OTOP assistance as 82 percent of respondents
were assisted in product development, 71 percent in packaging, 64 percent in labelling, 61
percent were provided management training, 57 percent in marketing and a significant number
(more than 40%) were provided assistance in product design, branding and even intellectual
property. Majority of the respondents claimed the program was able to address their
constraints on capital, technical know-how, limited business skills and the low competitiveness
of their business.

The results framework is shown in Table 8. The output and outcome indicators are specified,
but the baseline values have not been established. However, this probably will not be a
problem as all the outcome indicators are derivable from the existing M&E system of the
program.

The outcome indicators of the OTOP program can directly feed to the outcome indicators of
the MSMEDP, especially the improved domestic and export sales of the OTOP clients which
may form part of the increase value added indicator in the MSMEDP. Owing to its nationwide
scale, the OTOP program also satisfies the reach assumption of the MSMEDP

37 | P a g e
Table 8. Validated Results Framework for One Town One Product
Sources of Available/ Not
Indicators Risks and Assumptions
Verifications Available
IMPACT
Improved socio-economic
Survey Cooperation in providing data Available
welfare of OTOPreneurs
OUTCOME
Improved OTOP products sold in
Monitoring reports Receptiveness of consumers Available
the market
Domestic sales generated (food and non-
Monitoring reports Production capacity Available
food) by OTOPreneurs
Export sales generated (food and non- Cooperation of exporter to provide
Monitoring reports Available
food) by OTOPreneurs accurate and up to date information
OTOP Hub sales generated (food and Continuous operations of the Hub;
Monitoring reports Available
non-food) customer traffic; volume sold
OUTPUT
OTOPreneurs trained on product
development and marketing (food and Monitoring reports Receptiveness of OTOPreneurs Available
non-food)
Willingness and financial
Products developed or improved capacity of OTOPreneurs to
Monitoring reports Available
(food and non-food) commercialize the
design/prototypes
Exporters assisted Monitoring reports Sustained market Available
Commitment of the
OTOPreneur/ OTOP Hub
OTOP Hub established Monitoring reports Available
operator (the one who will
establish the Hub)
Change in administration;
Commitment from LGUs and other Monitoring
continuity of support from other Available
agencies reports
LGUs or agencies (DOST)
Enhanced skills and knowledge of
Perceptiveness of OTOPreneurs Not Available
OTOPreneurs
Surveys and
New products, brands and designs number of If no physical or virtual trade fairs
Available
promoted inquiries from mounted
buyers
Surveys and
Increased brand awareness of products number of Brand recall for brands that require
Available
developed inquiries complex requirements
from buyers
INPUTS
Implementation guidelines and
OTOP Philippines Overlapping of duties and
policies including program
Program Brief responsibilities in the organization Available
organization
Program budget Financial records Yearly request for budget
Available
Participating MSMEs and
their Monitoring reports Commitment of MSMEs
Available
counterpart/commitment
Training and consultancy services
provided by experts for product
development/design/technology Monitoring reports Availability of experts
Available
updating/standards development/
marketing
Affected by the pandemic
(physical assistance in forms of
Provision of assistance to establish
Monitoring reports face-to-face capacity training and
OTOP Hubs Available
site visit is limited due to the
pandemic restrictions)

38 | P a g e
Small Enterprise Technology Upgrading Program (SETUP)

Similar to the other MSMEDP component programs, SETUP did not have an explicit statement
of its theory of change and results framework. However, the descriptive narrative of the
program as well as information from relevant documents were adequate to construct the TOC
and results framework in consultation with the DOST representatives who are managing the
program.

The TOC narrative states that “ if MSMEs could be provided with a wide range of S & T
solutions like technology transfer and commercialization; consultancy services ; packaging
assistance; technology trainings; laboratory and testing services; and innovation fund (iFund);
then MSMEs will be empowered to apply innovation in their firms, move up the technology
scale, and become more competitive; thereby improving their productivity, substantially
generating value-added products and employment to increase the country’s overall
manufacturing growth.” The TOC diagram is shown in Figure 11.

Rationale Implementation Scheme Expected Results

SETUP is a nationwide strategy of the DOST - Conduct of TNA of potential - Mechanized/automated

to boost MSME productivity and clients/firms production line to increase
competitiveness through technological production capacity
innovations. It provides a wide range of - Submission of
intent/proposal to avail of the - Improved product quality
S&T solutions like technology transfer and
commercialization; consultancy services SETUP assistance - Generated employment
(MPE, CAPE, food safety, energy audit and - Review of the proposal by - Enhanced competitiveness
cleaner production); packaging assistance; the RTEC - Capacitated workers
technology trainings; laboratory and - Approval of the proposal
testing services; and innovation Fund - Increased income
(iFund). This program is aimed at - Signing of the MOA - Improved firm's productivity
empowering MSMEs so they may apply - Release of iFund
innovation in their firms, move up the
- Payment of refund rental
technology scale, and become more
competitive thereby improving
productivity, substantially generating
value-added products an employment to
increase the country's overall
manufacturing growth.

Figure 11. Theory of Change of Small Enterprise Technology Upgrading Program

(SETUP)

The TOC is clearly plausible as it is anchored on S&T which is a well-established driver of

business growth and development. It is also in the application of new and improved
technologies that businesses in the Philippines, especially the small ones are usually lagging
behind their counterparts in more advanced countries. Technologies are major sources of
productivity growth and are the primary means to achieve competitiveness especially in highly
globalized markets. This was validated in the survey of beneficiaries which showed the need
for new technologies/technical knowledge as one of the major motivations in joining the
program.

The primary causal link assumption that access to technology and other S&T solutions can
lead to productivity growth is valid, ceteris paribus/all other things held constant. Most cases of
technological failure are due to exogenous factors, especially unfavorable input and output
market conditions (e.g., increase in the cost of fuel or electricity which makes mechanized
operations more costly).

39 | P a g e
 The logical framework is given in Table 9. The MSMEDP indicators as indicated in the
MSMEDP 2017-2022 are the number of MSMEs assisted and the amount of investments per
year. Others as indicated in the log frame are: number of S & T interventions (PREXC); number
of MSMEs, LGUs, HEIs, communities and other customers assisted (PREXC); percentage
increase in productivity generated (PREXC); and percentage increase in employment
generated (PREXC).

Table 9. Results Framework for SETUP

Medium-term Long-term
Activities/Processes/
Inputs Outputs consequences related to consequences of the
Strategies/Methodologies
program goals/objectives program
SETUP Fund provided Project proposal of MSME New technologies to Efficiency improved Competitiveness
Human Resource reviewed and approved improve efficiency and Product quality and increased
hired/tapped Technology Needs product quality applied2 marketability improved1 Clients/customers
Project management team Assessment conducted Existing standards Productivity increased1 increased2
Consultants/ experts Appropriate equipment such as Percentage decrease in Capability to serve wider
Training provider procured/transferred cGMP/HACCP1 rejects3 market increased1
Counterpart fund from the Innovation fund released complied Increase in gross sales4 Access to bigger market
MSME which will implement S&T interventions such as Cost-effective/ Increase in volume of (domestic and
the recommendations consultancy, training, environmentally safe production2 international market)
provided packaging and labelling technologies adopted1 Diversification of product increased1
DOST-developed Technology assistance, testing and S&T interventions lines1 Employment generated
(option) commercialized calibrations services, and provided Expansion of product lines1 increased3 (new
product development MSME assisted employments only)
assistance, provided Firms graduated from3:
Micro to Small
Small to Medium
Medium to Large
Indicators as indicated in the MSMEDP 2017-2022
Number of firms assisted and
amount of investments per A list of activities per No. of MSMEs, LGUs, Percentage increase in Percentage increase in
year program may be printed for HEIs, communities and productivity generated employment generated
presentation/validation of other customers (PREXC) (PREXC)
Number of MSMEs assisted the participants. assisted (PREXC)
by sector and the total
amount of assistance for No. of S&T interventions
monitoring (PREXC)

Sources of verifications: Regional Technical Project Information Sheet SETUP Impact

--------------------------- Evaluation Committee Assessment
DOST GAA/Budget Project proposal Report
Project documents Memorandum of Project Information
Agreement between Sheet
SETUP and Cooperator
Technology Needs
Assessment Form
Project Information Sheet
Risks and assumptions: The cooperator The firm decides whether to The firm decides whether
implements the project expand its product lines, to access wider markets,
Required funds provided All documentary and in accordance with the volume of production, or increase capitalization or
through the AA eligibility requirements approved schedule of expand operation. hire more people.
have been complied and activities and according
met by the firm. to the identified and External events, such as External events, such as
approved technological inflation, pandemic, and inflation, pandemic, and
The firm owner has good interventions. disasters, may affect the disasters, may affect the
leadership qualities and The cooperator repays outcomes. outcomes.
marketing skills. the cost of project for a
period of three years The firm owner has good The firm owner has good
and monitoring of the leadership qualities and leadership qualities and
performance of firm is marketing skills. marketing skills.
continuous within the Monitoring ends after full Monitoring ends after full
said period. refund rental payment. refund rental payment.
The cooperator has
good leadership
qualities and marketing
skills.

1
Source: 2016 SETUP Briefer
2
Source: Revised SETUP Guidelines
3
Source: Regional Offices Strategy Map

40 | P a g e
1b. On Data Availability

The MSMEDP has three major outcome indicators: (1) increase in the number of registered
MSMEs; (2) increase in employment of MSMEs; and (3) increase in the proportion of small-
scale industries (enterprises) in total value added. The causal links between the component
programs and the MSMEDP were reviewed and validated to establish how the programs could
contribute to the attainment of the MSMEDP goals as gauged using the three major indicators.
Having established the causal links, the next concern in evaluability assessment is availability
of data.

Four important areas were examined in establishing the availability of data in the six MSMEDP
component programs: (1) indicators being tracked and data being collected; (2) means of
collecting data; (3) forms the data are available; and (4) periodicity.

Indicators being tracked and data being collected

The primary concern of the assessment was whether the indicators of the component
programs are harmonized with those of the MSMEDP. This means the indicators being tracked
in the component programs should be able to clearly translate to the indicators of the overall
plan or should at least serve as a reasonable proxy. The data being collected should relate to
a piece of information that could quantitatively or qualitatively define the indicators being
tracked.

Means of collecting data

The interest was on ways of collecting data, including the procedures and instruments used as
well as how data are organized and stored.

Forms the data are available

Refers to whether data are available in hard or soft copies, in systematized database or in
scattered loose files, etc.

Periodicity

Refers to whether baseline data are available, frequency of data collection and whether regular
updating is done. Regularity depends on the requirement of the program as mandated by its
program management and funding source.

1b.1. Indicators being tracked and data being collected

This section summarizes the various indicators and data being tracked by the six component
programs and relates these with what indicators are supposed to be tracked to clearly link the
component programs with the MSMEDP (see again Table 3). The complete enumeration of
the indicators and data being collected in the M&E system of each program is provided in the
individual program reports (see annexes).

For KMME, the major indicators being tracked are the size of capital, sales, and personnel of
the MSMES. All these indicators could directly translate to the MSMEDP indicators, especially
on increase in employment and increase in MSME’s value added. The KMME and MSMEDP
are therefore in-sync with respect to the indicators being tracked.

The KMME M&E system collects a wide array of data from its beneficiary MSMEs. Among
the data being collected which relate directly with the program’s major indicators are the asset

41 | P a g e
size of the MSMEs, sales data, number of products/service lines, number of customers
penetrated in both the domestic and export markets and number of employees. If collected
religiously, these data should be adequate to track the program’s major indicators.

Similar to KMME, the P3 major program indicators are size of capital, sales, and personnel.
These directly relate with the MSMEDP indicators. However, while the data on these are
available these are not organized in a databank but instead are found in the application
papers only for both the retail and wholesale schemes. In addition, the data are not
aggregated at the MFI and SBC level, which could be a challenge in future evaluation.

In the case of SSF, the key performance indicators are the number of MSMEs assisted,
number of jobs created, total sales value and the amount of investments generated. All of
these are in-sync with the MSMEDP indicators. The data collected by the program includes
sales generated, jobs/employment generated, total investments, number of SSFs established
and facilities provided, number of MSMEs assisted, number of operational, partially
operational and non-operational SSFs, status of the facilities, number of SSFs turned
over/donated to cooperators and amount disbursed, among others.

The major indicators of the Negosyo Center program are the number of NCs established,
number of MSMEs served, number of trainings facilitated, number of marketing events
organized, and financing fora conducted. The indicators on asset size, employment
generation and the growth in sales and profitability/income levels are also being monitored,
which makes the program in-sync with MSMEDP.

The OTOP program probably has the largest number of indicators being tracked and data
being collected, obviously owing to the enormity of the program. The program indicators are
classified by services provided such as training, trade fairs, etc. Among the indicators, the
number of MSMEs assisted, number of jobs generated, and the amount of sales generated
by the MSMEs directly relate with the MSMEDP indicators.

For SETUP the major indicators include productivity/efficiency improvement, employment

generated, gross sales generated and number of MSMEs assisted. A wide array of data is
being collected to track these indicators and for management use. All the major indicators of
the program directly relate with the MSMEDP indicators.

1b.2. Means of Collecting Data

The most important means of collecting primary data is through the application form of
program applicants. In all the six component programs, applicants are required to fill-out an
application form which gathers basic personal and business information. Simple business
proposals which are required in accessing certain program assistance such as loans also
serve as a rich source of primary data for the various programs.

In the case of KMME for instance, a one-page data capture form is required that gathers
information including business name and branch, contact details, gender, form of ownership,
major business activity and product/service line. The information gathered related to the
indicators include initial capitalization, asset size classification, and number of employees. In
addition, the KMME Operations Manual has a monitoring template that requires the Mentees
to submit the form 6 months after graduation (Figure 12).

42 | P a g e
 Figure 12. KMME Monitoring Template

Similarly, for OTOP, data are gathered from the company information sheet and product
information sheet. Tracking the status of the business is available for every client if both
company and product information sheets are regularly updated. However, there is no system
to consolidate the data as these are not organized in a databank for easy retrieval.

For SETUP, the technology needs assessment (TNA) serves as an important means of
collecting data, especially baseline data. In addition to the TNA, the pre-implementation

43 | P a g e
project information sheet (PIS) is also required for submission before the release of project
funds. The Pre-PIS asks for the baseline data prior to the assistance such as: total assets,
current employment, total volume of production, gross sales, total assets of the firm and pre-
implementation assistance obtained from DOST.

In the case of P3 and SSF, data are gathered from the project proposals submitted by the
proponent. This includes sales, production, and market data prior to the project. Updating the
data, however, is a problem since the cooperators are often reluctant to divulge information.
With regards to Negosyo Center, the business counsellors (BCs) play an important role in the
updating of data as they are monitoring the MSMEs upward steps towards the 5-level
enterprise development track (EDT). The BCs access and update the Client Profile and
Monitoring System (CPMS) of DTI which maintains all data related to assistance provided to
MSMEs.

It appears that in all the six component programs, there is an effective and easy means to
collect initial data from the MSMEs. It is therefore possible to establish the baseline values in
case the programs will be evaluated in the future. The difficulty though is in the updating of
the data. Such updating is accomplished through a monitoring system designed to gather
data while the assisted projects are in progress or even beyond. However, securing the
participation of clients in providing updated information remains a challenge.

Some programs are trying to address the problem on data updating by requiring their clients
to make a pledge of commitment (especially the component programs under DTI) which,
among others include the provision of updated information when needed. Success on this
however, seems limited as experienced by some programs. In the case of KMME for instance,
the pledge of commitment which requires the mentee to update their information every three
months for two years is not religiously being followed. On a positive note though, mentees
usually update their information if they avail of other DTI programs in a different DTI database
called the Client Profile Monitoring System (CPMS).

1b.3. Forms the Data are Available

All six component programs maintain databases where data are stored and managed. How
the data are organized of course differ depending on the program. In the case of KMME, data
are inputted into an online mentee database that forms part of the KMME database called the
Data Catalogue. This is a spreadsheet provided by the KMME national office for the provincial
and coordinators to use.

With regards to SSF, the project management office (PMO) maintains a database of
information by geographic location (municipality, province, and region), industry clusters, by
type of cooperator, and by requested equipment, and reported on monthly, quarterly, and
annual basis.

Similar with OTOP, its PMO maintains a data base of all information required in the program’s
work and financial plan. The database is built from the information provided by the regional
offices based on the template given by the PMO.

The DTI maintains the Client Profile and Monitoring System (CPMS) (Figure 13). It is an Excel
database which contains the profile of the MSMEs being assisted by the DTI. It stores
information about the MSME, including profile and other details of the owner or beneficiary of
the assistance; profile of the MSME, including asset size, financial capital, sales, markets;
type of assistance being provided; and level or stage of business which can be used for the
enterprise development tracking (EDT). The system is not specific to KMME but is used for
other Negosyo Center programs.

44 | P a g e
The DOST also used to maintain a national database for SETUP. However, the database is
now being maintained at the regional and provincial offices since the time the program has
been devolved to the regional offices. At the provincial level, the provincial science and

technology centers (PSTCs) maintain electronic databases (non-online) and distinct project
files for their implemented projects, which includes SETUP.

Figure 13. Client Profile and Monitoring System (CPMS)

1b.4. Periodicity

As mentioned earlier, establishing baseline values is possible in all the six component
programs, although the level of difficulties may vary depending on whether the data are
already neatly organized in a database or still have to be retrieved from hard copies of
documents such as application forms, business proposals, etc.

The next important question is whether the data are being collected on a regular interval to
track the progress of the indicators over a given period. It was learned from KIIs and FGDs
that in the case of KMME, the monitoring template which is supposed to be the means to
update data at least on a yearly basis is not being used. This would have been an effective
avenue for generating data, particularly for MSMEs not availing of other DTI programs. The
KMME also has Mentee Success Story Documentation Sheet which traces the mentees’
journey before, during and after the KMME program participation. However, the
documentation varies across regions or provinces and there is no regularity of submission.

Monitoring appears to be done more intensively and data are collected more frequently in

45 | P a g e
programs that provide loan assistance. Examples of this are the SETUP and P3 programs. In
the SETUP program, the common data being monitored weekly or monthly include refund
rates and liquidation status as well as sales and status of technology acquisition, among
others. In the case of P3, its dashboard is regularly updated and contains among others, data
on total loans released and the number of micro-enterprises availing P3 loans.

In the case of the Negosyo Center, it was learned from the KIIs and FGDs that the program
dashboard is regularly updated since it is used by the business counsellors in tracking the

MSMEs movement or upward steps to achieve the 5-level Enterprise Development Track
(EDT). Similarly, in the case of OTOP, at least yearly updating is done as data are used in
annual planning as reference to what has been accomplished. However, it was learned from
the KIIs that the company and product information data are not regularly updated since the
company information sheet which contain these data are not updated. It would therefore be
difficult to track the status of the MSMEs supported by OTOP.

Data updating appears to be better for SSF as its PMO maintains a database of all relevant
information by geographic location (municipality, province and region), industry clusters, by
type of cooperator, and by requested equipment, and make a report on this on a monthly,
quarterly and annual basis.

1c. Stakeholders’ Demand

The MSMEDP and its component programs are part of the broader PDP, 2017-2022. It is
important to gauge the extent by which the goals have been achieved as the medium-term
development plan draws to a close. An evaluation of the major components of the plan such
as the MSMEDP is therefore high in the agenda of the national government.

The key stakeholders that would be interested in the evaluation are NEDA, DTI, and DOST,
which have been the major movers of the MSMEDP and the component programs. The DBM,
the upper and lower houses of congress and COA would also be interested as considerable
amount of public resources have been used in supporting the plan and its various programs.
The final results, particularly on the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and
impact are some of the general areas of interest of these stakeholders.

During the KIIs and FGDs, the program implementers both at the national and field levels have
expressed the view that an evaluation is warranted so that specific enhancements can be
identified and put in place. This is despite the fact that three of the programs, namely KMME,
SSF and SETUP had already been subjected to an earlier evaluation. In the case of KMME
an evaluation was done by the Asian Institute of Management (AIM) in 2019. However, it failed
to cover the most important aspect on the number of SMEs which were able to scale-up as a
result of the program. The SSF was evaluated by the Philippine Institute for Development
Studies (PIDS) in 2016, but the evaluation was considered preliminary and was done prior to
the MSMEDP. The impact of SETUP was evaluated by the Development Academy of the
Philippines (DAP) in 2019, but this covered the period when program implementation was still
centralized at the DOST. A performance evaluation of SETUP under the decentralized
implementation structure could yield valuable insights to further improve the program.

1d. Robustness of the M&E System

This section presents the assessment of the robustness of the M&E systems in place for the
six MSMEDP component programs. The robustness of the M&E system is the single most

46 | P a g e
important determinant of the accuracy and integrity of the data, thus should be given adequate
attention in any evaluability assessment. In this report, data integrity refers to the adequacy of
the M&E system to generate accurate data and a reasonable level of assurance that the
system of data collection is free from biases that may cast doubt on the data collected. More
detailed discussions on this can be found in the individual evaluability program reports
annexed to this main report.

1d.1 KMME M&E System

The KMME M&E system is lodged with the Program Management Team (PMT) which, in the
program structure is at the strategic level of program management (Table 10). It was validated
through KIIs that that the program structure reflects the direction of target setting (top-down),
data collection and report submission (bottom-up), and monitoring and evaluation (all levels).

Table 10. KMME Program Implementation Structure

Regular
Level Committee Composition Meetings Key Functions
Policy Project DTI (OSEC, Annually Sets directions, issues
Steering OUS- ROG & policies, allocates
Committee BSMED) PCE resources, approves plans,
GN controls over-all results
NSMEDC,
Senate BA
Office
Strategic Program DTI-ROG OAS Quarterly Prepares/recommends
Management and BSMED plans, policies, resources
Team OCE-GN Communicates and
coordinates
Monitors and evaluates
Operational Regional DTI-NC To be agreed Implements approved
Steering DTI ROs/POs, policies and plans,
Committee PCE- communicates and
GN & coordinates, monitors and
Partner evaluates
Organizatio
ns
Source: KMME Operations Manual.

Ideally, the M&E activities for the KMME includes checking targeted outputs of the program;
conducting baseline profiles; reviewing the quality of deliverables; measuring actual physical
output versus financial utilization; conducting site visits; and measuring outcomes based on
key performance indicators. Thus, an evidenced-based reporting system is established. This
involves generation of monthly reports and quarterly consolidated report covering physical
outputs including number of batches launched, number of participants, number of enrollees
and number of graduates, as well as fund utilization. The PCE also generate reports on the
number and complete roster of mentors and status of the PCE targets. During the KIIs,
provincial and regional coordinators claimed that these reports are regularly being submitted.

The BSMED is tasked to be the lead for monitoring and evaluation, including the development
of a concise evaluation process. The vision is to monitor the progress of the mentees after
graduation, and more importantly focus on key result areas such as growth in sales volume
and revenue, profitability and cash flow, employees, and capacity. An annual evaluation and
planning are conducted, together with external consultants, to evaluate attainment of targets
and adjust program approaches, whenever necessary. During these planning and evaluation
sessions, mentees are oftentimes invited to provide feedback.

47 | P a g e
The Client Profile and Monitoring System (CPMS) is the principal database for the KMME M&E
system. The limitation of the CPMS however, is the use of Excel as its programing and
database tool. In most of the KIIs, issues on speed of processing and consolidation at the
Regional Level were pointed out by the key informants. It is also possible that the high number
of entries per province over time will eventually cause problems to the system. The program
score card under the KMME Strategy Map has recognized this problem and has proposed the
digitization of processes and its optimal functionality.

As part of evaluability assessment and to validate whether indeed beneficiaries of the program
are being monitored, questions on this were included in the survey of KMME respondents. It
was found that a large majority (82%) of respondents were being monitored mostly monthly
and quarterly by the DTI personnel (Table 11). The respondents also shared that they are
being requested to provide data and documents for updating their records in the database.

Table 11. Monitoring of KMME Respondents (Beneficiaries)

Item Number reporting Percent (%)
Being monitored by KMME
Yes 74 82
No 16 18

How often being monitored

Weekly 6 7
Monthly 27 30
Quarterly 21 23
Yearly 9 10
Others 9 10

Entity/Person monitoring
DTI 4 4
Others 5 5

1d.2. P3 M&E System

The M&E system of P3 encompasses three levels—SBC, MFI, and credit delivery partner.
The Small Business Corporation (SBC) is the program owner. It established a program
monitoring unit to handle the M&E of P3 and its other lending programs. However, it has yet
to implement actual monitoring of P3 and it was learned from the KIIs and FGDs that the field
personnel of SBC were not even aware of the activities of the unit.

What is closely being monitored in P3 is the financial aspect of the program particularly
pertaining to payments of loans. Regular monitoring is done on the following indicators: (1)
number of beneficiaries, loan amount, covered areas, number of provinces reached, and
volume of assistance. Other indicators include purpose of the loan, beneficiaries, and
utilization rate. For direct retail scheme, monitoring is being done for the first 6 months and
quarterly thereafter. For the wholesale scheme, monitoring is done during audit and field
validation, as well as payment monitoring through PDCs issued by the MFIs.

At the MFI level, data collection and M&E system vary depending on the MFI’s own systems,
processes, and procedures. Eight cooperatives serving as MFIs were interviewed during the
KIIs and FGDs. These cooperatives were from Ilocos Norte, Nueva Ecija, Laguna, Eastern
Samar, Aklan, Davao del Sur and Agusan del Sur. All of these cooperatives shared their
experiences on the field validation conducted by the SBC after the liquidation of the first draw
down of funds. The Cooperative staff were not involved during the SBC validation, but assisted

48 | P a g e
the Corporation in locating the end-borrowers. The Cooperative is monitored by SBC every 6
months, but the focus was on financial data.

The Cooperatives also conduct their own monitoring of their borrowers, usually coinciding with
collection activities. For ACC, collection is done daily, hence monitoring is also daily. The
supervisors check if the business is doing well; if the business has grown and if they still have
supplies. If they are doing well, then they can increase the loan amounts during loan renewal.
There is no systematic monitoring system in place in the cooperatives to monitor outputs and
impacts of any of their loans on the members businesses. It must be noted, however, that
there is baseline data collected and submitted to SBC, although this is not consolidated.

A more extensive case analysis was carried out on the Cebu Multipurpose People’s
Cooperative (CPMPC) to determine the M&E system at the level of credit delivery partner.
The Cooperative manages the P3 loans in Cebu for both members and non-borrowers alike.

As of July 2020, there were 350 P3 borrowers processed by the CPMPC with loan amounts
ranging from P5,000 to P150,000, with a payment term of six months to one year. However,
this includes those from the credit loan windows other than the P3 such as the RECREATE
loan for working capital or purchase of fixed assets for business use, Household Enterprise
Livelihood Program (HELP), Feeds Financing Program, Farm Financing Program, Production
Loan Easy Access (PLEA), as well as other loan programs. The SBC monitors the coop every
month, where information about the borrower is uploaded by the coop into the SBC system.
The cooperative checks the borrower status every time they renew the loans, especially if the
loan amount has been increased.

As part of the validation being carried out under the evaluability assessment, ninety
beneficiaries of P3 were asked whether they are being monitored by the program. The large
majority (59%) confirmed they were being monitored, but mostly in relation to payment or
collection of their loans (Table 12). The frequency of monitoring is either monthly as shared
by 40 percent of the respondents or quarterly according to 21 percent of the respondents.

Table 12. Monitoring Activities for P3

Number
Item Percent (%)
reporting
Being monitored
Yes 53 59
No 37 41
Frequency of monitoring
Daily 6 11
Weekly 9 17
Monthly 21 40
Quarterly 11 21
Others (Semi-annual, depends, once) 6 12
Entity/Person monitoring
P3 personnel (SBC) 0 0
Lending institution (Cooperative) 79 88
DTI 11 12
Required during monitoring
Data 19 21
Documents 25 28
Payment 65 72
Others (N/A, Status, Livelihood) 7 8

49 | P a g e
1d.3. Negosyo Center M&E System

At the national-level, the M&E for NC is being done by the NC-Project Management Unit which
is under the DTI Regional Operations Group (ROG). The PMU also provides report to BSMED
on the status of NC implementation especially during the MSMEDP Council Meeting. Report
of the PMU is a consolidated report of all regional reports.

At the Regional level, the NC is under the Business Development Division. A Regional
Coordinator is assigned to spearhead and oversee the operations of the NCs in the region.
The RC is directly coordinating with the NC Provincial Coordinators who coordinate with the
Business Counsellors (BCs). Figure 14 shows the information and reporting flow in monitoring
the implementation of NC. In some areas like Region 8, another layer of monitoring is done
by a BC Cluster Head who monitors a group of BCs in certain areas or districts.

Important databases used in monitoring NC include the dashboard used by BCs to monitor
their monthly activities and services provided and the CPMS used to capture MSME
information. The CPMS includes the EDT level which the BC assign to a specific MSME based
on initial assessment and indicators. However, the KIIs indicated some issues in the use of

CPMS such as the numerous data field requirements, dependability on internet connectivity,
double counting of some entries and other technical issues.

Figure 14. Negosyo Center information and reporting flow.

The survey of NC beneficiaries, 53 percent of the respondents indicated that they are being
monitored by the NC staff either monthly (43%), quarterly (10%) or yearly (6%) (Table 13).
During the KIIs, it was pointed out that BCs act as the focal DTI person in the locality such
that they are performing activities outside the mandates of NCs. BCs are also tapped to
perform price monitoring especially during times of calamities or state of emergency; they also
coordinate conduct of activities in the barangay such as the provision of support for the
Negosyo sa Barangay initiative; and other promotional activities of DTI programs/projects.

Planning is also done annually to present the accomplishments and discuss the targets for the
operation of NCs. The ROG, Regional Directors and Coordinators with the support from NC
PMU agree on the targets to be accomplished which include the number of NCs to be
established in each region until NC is established in all provinces, cities and municipalities in
the country.

50 | P a g e
Table 13. Monitoring Activities for Negosyo Center
Number Percent
Item
reporting (%)
Being monitored by NC
Yes 42 47
No 48 53
Frequency of monitoring
Daily 1 1
Weekly 3 3
Monthly 18 43
Quarterly 9 10
Yearly 5 6
Others (semi-annual, every other 6 7
month, depends)
Entity/Person monitoring
LGU 2 2
Lending institution 0 0
DTI 40 44
Others (DAR, MAR) 1 1

1d.4. Shared Service Facilities (SSF) M&E System

The SSF Project is under the supervision of the DTI-Office of the Undersecretary for Regional
Operations Group (ROG). An SSF Project Management Office in BSMED was created whose
tasks are to coordinate the monitoring and evaluation of the project, generate and consolidate
the periodic reports from the DTI Regional Offices, and provide secretariat support to NTWG
and technical support in the procurement of the needed facilities.

The regional and provincial offices serve as the project’s implementing arm. The SSF Focal
Person in the province, apart from leading the approval of SSF projects and having them
implemented by Cooperators, has to closely monitor the status of implementation, collect the
required data, process and consolidate the data and have these submitted to the regional focal
person. The regional SSF focal person also conducts field visits but not on regular basis.

There is no M&E plan, hence the conduct of M&E may differ among regions and provinces. In
the case of Central Luzon, a monitoring team from DTI Provincial and Regional Offices
undertakes the M&E. The team is composed of the Provincial Account Officer and Chief, and
Regional Account Officer and Chief. The team tracks the status of approved SSF projects and
the data gathered are inputted in the SSF database from which reports are generated for
submission to the PMO. In Cebu, the Negosyo Center Business Counselors conduct the
monthly monitoring and submit the reports to the provincial officer using the prescribed
monitoring form.

In all other areas covered by the evaluation, there is only one Trade Promotion Officer
designated as SSF Focal Person in the region and another in the province, both of whom may
and may not be supported by a contractual staff. The focal person often handles other projects
like OTOP and KMME.

Data gathered are inputted in Excel using the prescribed template. These are then submitted
to the regional office for consolidation. With the current situation, data are generated from
Cooperators through phone interviews and text messaging. The provincial reports are also
submitted online. Before the pandemic, processed data are submitted in hard and soft copies.
These physical reports are submitted to the regional office monthly and quarterly. The regional
office consolidates the data which are then submitted to the SSF-PMO.

51 | P a g e
The SSF-PMO conducts annual evaluation of the project during its planning activity. The
internal audit office, ROG Management and BSMED conduct regular monitoring visits to
established SSF projects to assess the overall project implementation and management
including determination of areas of improvement as well as identifying best practices.

Still, the PMO sees the need to constantly revisit the M&E system to come up with enhance
data collection scheme. This is because the project was conceptualized without a thorough
study, hence a monitoring system was not well established. At the moment, there are three
types of monitoring being done:

a. Financial monitoring as part of the budget preparation and approval process, SSF-
PMO conducts extensive and regular monitoring of the utilization of the project funds;

b. Physical progress monitoring as part of compliance to the MSMED Plan and the
Philippine Development Plan where the SSF Project is enrolled as a major project for
MSME development, SSF-PMO conduct regular monitoring of the physical count of
the established SSFs with a set target by the end of the plan period; and

c. Technical monitoring and spearheading and coordinating the impact assessment such
as those conducted by PIDS and UPISSI (UP Institute of Small-Scale Industries).

Within the provincial and regional offices, internal evaluation is being done to determine the
critical issues to be resolved and the plan of action to be done. Lack of manpower in the
implementing units is one critical issue as this is a key element for efficient implementation of
the SSF.

1d.5. One-Town-One Product (OTOP) M&E System

Data collected serve as evidence of performance of each initiative funded by the program.
Yearly targets are laid down as foundation for comparison to what was actually accomplished.
A comprehensive evaluation of what these numbers signify is accomplished annually, making
it easier to map out trends and gauge a project’s impact.

Results of these evaluations are used by the PMO to assess whether or not the budget
allocated to the program is maximized to its fullest potential. If, for example, the results are
not up to par, then the program head would propose more initiatives which would exhaust all
possible means to cover areas in which the program may be lacking in.

The program sometimes experiences gaps in its monitoring and evaluating system. Whenever
there is a staff turnover, data collected by previous PMO staff may not be readily accessed.
However, great effort is exerted to fill in these gaps, most notably in consistently updating and
innovating the templates used for monitoring as the situation demands.

In the case of monitoring, gaps may also occur due to departures of contractual employees.
Aside from the challenges posed by turning over the data, the workforce would sometimes
experience shifts in dynamics that would make it difficult for the team to be consistently in
alignment. But then, the broad objectives of the program are made clear to all staff at the PMO
which motivates them to continue the program’s commitment to assist the MSMEs.

52 | P a g e
1d.6. SETUP M&E System

The DOST Regional Offices (RO) assume the main responsibility in monitoring the projects
especially since the SETUP funds were already devolved to their offices. Before this,
monitoring was done by the national office. Results of KIIs suggest that the current monitoring
arrangement is better. Monitoring of all approved projects is the main responsibility of the
DOST RO thru the PSTC. This process starts from the release of funds up to the end of the
project when the beneficiary has refunded the financial assistance (iFund) provided.

The regional office has a Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation and Management Information
System (PMMIS) Unit which is responsible for the M&E activities in the region. It sets annual
M&E activities in the provinces and reports its findings to the top management. Part of the
regular function of PSTCs is the monitoring of its Programs and Projects, including SETUP.
The PSTCs regularly conduct site visits to the projects or through phone calls to gather
relevant data regarding project implementation. They also submit Semestral Status Reports
and the annual Project Information Sheets (PIS).

Monitoring Forms: The Regional Offices use standardized monitoring forms which are filled
out and submitted quarterly. A PSTC KII mentioned his office has enhanced the form for
internal use to suit their specific needs.

The 2019 SETUP Guidelines (Revision 2.0) states that the following M&E reports shall be
prepared on a periodic basis for the program: 1) semestral progress report, 2) project
information sheet as prescribed in the MOA, 3) completion report by the PSTC, 4) audited
financial report by the Finance and Administrative Services, and 5) annual summary of refund
performance report.

The PSTCs maintain electronic databases (non-online) and distinct project files for their
implemented projects. These provide real-time data and snapshots of the project status. A
SETUP M&E milestone was reported by a key informant from Visayas citing that their PSTC
already introduced an online system monitoring. However, the system has to be made more
user- friendly and more responsive to the needs of the monitoring office. One particular
problem is the difficulty in encoding data. To date, DOST has started streamlining an
Information and Monitoring of Projects, Services and S&T Interventions (IMPRESSION) IT
System developed by DOST IVA which is a centralized tool for monitoring, documentation,
and management of SETUP, Grants-in-Aid (GIA), and other projects of the DOST nationwide.

The common data being monitored weekly or monthly include sales, employment, status of
technology acquisition, refund rates and liquidation status, among others. These are also used
as basis by the PSTCs in determining the needed actions to take. For instance, if the
beneficiary is unable to acquire the technology during the prescribed period of one (1) year,
the PSTC verifies the problem, writes a demand letter to the firm to act on it or makes request
to the regional office to adjust the project duration if reasons are justifiable.

Survey respondents affirmed (94 percent) that DOST monitors them monthly (40 percent) and
quarterly (48 percent), and that data, documents and payments/refunds are required (Table
14). A key informant respondent (from a province in Luzon) shared that PSTC monitors status
of refund. The post-dated checks issued by beneficiaries at the start of the project are
monitored for availability of funds before these are deposited in the bank. There is an
associated penalty for payment default, albeit clients are normally spared, and extension is
provided for justifiable cases. During COVID -19 however, DOST gave a moratorium of 5
months for refunds. Prior to the pandemic, refund rate is about 85 percent according to many
KII respondent implementors.

53 | P a g e
Table 14. Monitoring Activities for SETUP
Item Number Percent
reporting (%)
Being monitored by SETUP
Yes 82 94.25
No 5 5.75
Frequency of monitoring
Weekly 2 2.30
Monthly 35 40.23
Quarterly 42 48.28
Yearly 3 3.45
Others (Once, Semi-annual, 5 5.75
depends)
Entity/Person monitoring
DOST 81 93.10
DTI 6 6.90
Required during monitoring
Data 63 72.41
Documents 61 70.11
Payment 52 59.77
Others (attendance to training, 10 11.49
reports)

In a recent 2018 COA audit report, inadequate monitoring and thorough evaluation of the
factors that will ultimately impact on the success or failure of the project, such as ready building
facility that will house the SETUP equipment, financial capacity of the proponent, appropriate
equipment technology, and potential market of the product resulted in defaulted refund
payments of several proponents/beneficiaries, premature termination of the projects, and
pullout of equipment.

COA found Php 461.150 M that is "already past due for almost one to over 10 years." Many
businesses, it turned out, failed despite the SETUP funding and therefore were not able to
repay the DOST. According to COA, termination of contract agreements by various
beneficiaries was due to the following: weak market demand, health problems of the owners,
internal conflicts within the organization, low sales, and others which ultimately led to non-
payment of their obligation to the government (COA, 2018).

DOST responded to the COA findings and clarified that over the years, SETUP has been an
effective vehicle for promoting the adoption of DOST-developed technologies. Among the top
DOST-developed technologies that were adopted by SETUP firms are the iron-fortified rice
and complementary foods (rice-mongo curls and food blends), thermally processed instant
food products, and squash noodles and bread developed by DOST-FNRI; muscovado sugar
production, salt iodization machine, bioreactor technology, and plastic densifier developed by
DOST-ITDI; and kiln dryer of FPRDI, among many others.

Despite the many successes that the program has achieved so far, the Department
acknowledges that the implementation is not without problems.

As pointed out by the COA in their 2018 Audit Report, an accumulated balance of SETUP
accounts recorded under the Department’s Other Receivables account amounting to Php
461.15M were already past due for almost one to over ten years, of which Php 251.04M were
reported with delinquent/defaulting proponents.

It must be noted, however, that this reported overdue receivables of Php 461.15M is only 9.59
percent of the total SETUP investment of Php 4.806B from 2002 to 2018 while the reported
amount with delinquent/defaulting proponents only comprises 5.22 percent of said investment.

54 | P a g e
It has to be clarified further that, as reported by COA, Php 6.22M out the Php 251.04M came
from delinquent accounts for over three months to 20 months only. The same COA report also
stated that some of the firms failed to make refund payments because their
equipment/businesses were affected by typhoon, which is a fortuitous event. Regional offices
have already endorsed some of the delinquent accounts to the Office of the Solicitor General
for legal remedies.

Out of the Php 4.806B SETUP investments from 2002 to 2018, Php 2.234B (or 46%) were
funded during the last three years (2016-2018) and these are for projects that are still on-
going and are well within the 3-year refund period. DOST’s partial data for the total refund
payments collected as of December 31, 2018 is already Php 3.192B. SETUP is the only
government program (which helps MSMEs acquire technologies) that returns funds to the
national treasury.

The list below shows the M&E gaps identified during the KIIs and FGD and the 2018 COA
report:

• Non-compliance of beneficiaries in the submission of report. They tend to submit

reports immediately only in the pre-implementation of the project and before the
fund release but tend to neglect it after the release of funds.
• For the SETUP Team, manpower is still the gap (understaffed). High turn-over rate
of the staffs as they are under contract of service.
• Effect of the COVID situation. SETUP Team cannot regularly communicate with
the beneficiaries due to weak internet connection and restrictions on field/site visits.
• Difficult indicators to collect/estimate: The indicator “increase in productivity before
and after the assistance” is difficult to collect for regional staff as they have limited
training on this. The indicators end up being merely based on the perception of the
enterprise owner.
• Intensify collection efforts of repayment of iFund by sending demand letters and
take appropriate legal action against the defaulting proponents for their failure to
settle or refund their obligations on time, as per memorandum of agreement
(COA,2018).

2. On Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency and Sustainability

A preliminary evaluation of program performance was carried out to deepen the assessment
of the evaluability of the MSMEDP component programs. The performance parameters
examined were relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability. There are at least two
reasons why preliminary performance evaluation could inform an evaluability assessment.
First, by initially gauging the performance of the program, its readiness for a full-blown
evaluation could be better examined. Second, by making a preliminary assessment of
performance, the key evaluation questions that should be pursued in a full-blown performance
evaluation could be more effectively identified.

The preliminary assessment of the programs against the parameters of relevance,

effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability was done by determining the perceptions of the
program beneficiaries on these. This was done by providing the respondents with statements
relating to the parameters of interest and gauging their level of agreement or disagreement
using a 5-point Likert scale. Reasons to substantiate the response were also gathered from
the respondents. Ninety randomly picked program beneficiaries served as the samples per
program for a total of 540 samples for the six programs.

55 | P a g e
2a. Kapatid Mentor ME (KMME)

2a.1. Relevance

On relevance, Figure 15 shows that the distribution of the respondent’s response is extremely
skewed to the Likert scores of 4 to 5, which means there is high agreement among the
respondents that the KMME program is relevant to them. Majority of the respondents shared
that the program enhanced their management capability and business operation. The
knowledge gained from the modules on mindset and values of a successful entrepreneur
provided them a guide on setting and attainment of business goals. Equally important are the
modules on product development, finance and operations management which enabled the
entrepreneurs to fully realize the potential of their business. This supported the findings of the
KMME Impact Assessment Study of AIM (2018) that KMME provided mentees suggestion on
how to navigate the business world, enhanced the entrepreneurial skills for the long term,
provided knowledge on proven approaches to prevent or address problems when they arise,
created more positive work environment that led to reduction in turnover rates, influenced
growth of sales, market share and productivity.

The formulation of the Business Improvement Plans is one of the important modules cited, as
this provided them with the tool to guide them in their business venture. The formulation of
the plans served as an eye opener for budding entrepreneurs and provided recommendations
on how to handle their businesses. The business plan is formulated with the guidance of the
mentor-entrepreneurs who shared their practical knowledge and skills.

Strongly agree

Agree
Mentor ME is relevant to my business
Neutral
Mentor ME enabled me to improve my
management capability
Disagree
Mentor ME can help MSMEs in
improving business operations
Strongly disagree

Figure 15. Respondent’s perception on KMME relevance

2a.2. Effectiveness

The large majority of respondents also consider the KMME program as effective as gauged
by their willingness to recommend the program and apply the knowledge they learned (Figure
16). The modular sessions provided them with effective business knowledge and principles
and the program served as venue to widen their network and join forces (Figure 16) with their
co-mentees so that they can become a more “powerful” block in the supply chain. After the
conclusion of the modular part of the program, mentees organize and even register
themselves as a group. For instance, the La Union Group established a rolling store and
coordinated very actively with the LGUs. As another example, the Pangasinan Entrepreneurs
Association claimed they now have a bigger bargaining power and a stronger voice in
business negotiations. As new-found allies, mentees maintain close contact with their mentors
and co-mentees after the training. For the online batches, the feedback is fast since queries
are posted through the chat box. Also, once MSME has undergone KMME, it becomes easy
to hone them as they adopt easily to other programs.

56 | P a g e
 Strongly agree
Mentor ME helped my business grow

Agree

Mentor ME enabled me to network with

Neutral important business contacts and
stakeholders

Figure 16. Respondent’s perception on KMME effectiveness

2a.3. Efficiency

The respondents gave dichotomous views on the efficiency of program delivery. On one hand,
there were mentees who believe the face-to-face KMME was efficient. On the other hand,
there were those who think it is costly and the on-line KMME is a less costly alternative. In both
modalities though, the respondents acknowledge that the mentors are paid minimal honoraria
and that they appreciate the commitment and dedication demonstrated by their mentors,
despite the very small financial reward.

The respondents also related program efficiency, particularly training efficiency, with the
improvement in their businesses as a result of the program (Table 15). The survey showed
that the respondents believe the program improved the following aspects of their business:
management operations (96%), product or service quality (90%), labor efficiency (84%),
lowered production cost (68%) and shortened the production process (59%).

Table 15. Respondent’s Perception on KMME Effect on Business Efficiency

Number Percent
Perception
reporting (%)
Improved efficiency in management 86 96
operations
Improved quality of products and/or services 81 90
Improved labor efficiency 76 84
Lower cost of production 61 68
Shorter production process 53 59

2a.4. Sustainability

The respondents have positive view on the sustainability of the program (Figure 17). They
believe funds from government will be sustained as the program is quite relevant and
successful. The program also proved to be resilient as demonstrated by the shift to an on-line
mode due to the pandemic, yet the program continues to deliver on its mandates. One
consideration though is the need to ensure a constant supply of mentors, albeit some regions
think they might run out of mentees to invite. Other factors for sustainability include sustaining
stakeholder interests, and the continued relevance of the modules to the needs of the mentees
as well as the current business climate.

57 | P a g e
 Strongly agree
I will recommend the program to other
MSMEs

Agree I will apply the knowledge gained from

the program

Neutral The program is being monitored

regularly

I will avail of trainings from KMME again

Disagree

Figure 17. Respondent’s perception on KMME sustainability

2b. Pondo sa Pagbabago at Pag-asenso (P3)

2b.1. Relevance and Effectiveness

As gathered from the KIIs and FGD, the P3 program implementers on the ground believe that
the program is relevant and effective in terms of providing loans to its targeted beneficiaries.
This is especially true for the wholesale scheme with the MFIs, whose borrowers are the small
livelihood enterprises in the public markets, ambulant stores located near the schools and sari-
sari stores. The program was able to cater to the needs of these microenterprises (ME) by
providing them with their needed capital to enable them to continue on their businesses at
lower interest rates that can compete with the usurious lending rates.

The survey results validated the views of the implementers. The respondents perceive the
program as relevant as it addresses their need for low interest credit which they use to improve
business operations (Figure 18). Respondents also perceived that the program is also effective
as it lessened their dependence on informal credit source which charge usurious rates (Figure
19). Informal credit sources include family/friends and 5-6 money lenders. The minimum
documentary requirements to avail of P3 loans are business permit or barangay certification
of existence of business, and identification card. In comparison, 5-6 money lenders require
collaterals for loans.

Strongly agree

Agree
The P3 program is an important
source of capital
Neutral
P3 is relevant to my business
Disagree
P3 can help MSMEs in improving
Strongly disagree business operations

Figure 18. Respondent’s perception on P3 relevance

58 | P a g e
 Strongly agree

Agree
The loan I obtained from P3 has
Neutral help me avoid borrowing from
lenders with usurious rates
The capital I obtained from P3
Disagree
has helped my business grow
Strongly
disagree

0 20 40 60
Percent Reporting

Figure 19. Respondent’s perception on P3 effectiveness

2b.2. Efficiency

There is room for improvement in the implementation of the program with regards to efficiency.
Its implementers believe that although the interest rates are competitive, it is difficult to
compete with the 5-6 lending scheme in terms of speed of loan releasing, documentary loan
requirements and payment collection. Although P3 requires minimal documents, this still
depends on the amount of loan. Some borrowers still have difficulty complying with the
documents on time, especially the business permit or barangay certification and the feasibility
plans required by some cooperatives and MFIs. This hinders the timely delivery of the loans,
or the release of loans when they are most needed. Many borrowers also prefer weekly or
monthly payment over the daily payment required by some cooperatives and MFIs so they
can still use the capital. For retail borrowers, the issue of paying in the designated payment
centers has been raised, especially if they have to pay in the banks, as this takes up most of
their time that would otherwise have been used in business. There is also the issue of lack of
manpower for marketing, validation, and monitoring of beneficiaries.

At the wholesale level, however, where monitoring and collection for the P3 loan is treated just
like their other loan windows, efficient implementation was reported. However, the M&E
system needs to be developed, especially because this is a continuing program and reports
have to be made to the Congress to account for the funds.

At the respondent level, the loans from P3 improved the efficiency in management operations
(63%), improved the quality of their products and services (56%), improved labor efficiency
(44%) and lower cost of production (31%) (Table 16).

Table 16. Perception of Loan Efficiency

Number Percent
Efficiency indicator
reporting (%)
Lower cost of production 28 31
Shorter production process 18 20
Improved quality of products and/or services 50 56
Improved labor efficiency 40 44
Improved efficiency in management operations 57 63

Majority of the respondents agree/strongly agree that the requirement for P3 loans are easy
to comply, and that this provided their business access to capital with affordable interest rates
(Figure 20).

59 | P a g e
 Strongly agree

The requirements of the program is

Agree easy to comply

Neutral P3 provided my business access to

capital with affordable interest rates

Disagree

Figure 20. Respondent’s perception on P3 efficiency

2b.3. Sustainability

According to SBC, the yearly GAA provisions and the high repayment rate ensures the
sustainability of the program. Although the program currently suffers from a high default rate
due to the pandemic, historical trends have shown that the system of collection and
repayment, especially for the wholesale, will have funds for reflows for relending.

The start of the program, P1 B funds was released in 2017, the same amount in the
succeeding years. The flexibility of the program design has been repeatedly demonstrated.
During the Marawi conflict, P3 had a special rehabilitation program. The program also
transitioned to P3 CARES to address the issue of closures of small businesses and the influx
of overseas Filipino workers affected by the health pandemic. With the strong support of
government, the additional funds for P3 through the Bayanihan Act 1 and 2 would be important
to sustain the program.

In terms of perception about the P3 program sustainability, respondents said they will
recommend the program to other MSMEs, the programs are being monitored regularly and
that they will avail of the program again (Figure 21).

Strongly agree

Agree
I will recommend the program to
other MSMEs
Neutral
The program is being monitored
regularly
Disagree
I will avail of loans from P3 again
Strongly disagree

Figure 21. Respondent’s perception on P3 sustainability

2c. Negosyo Center (NC)

2c.1. Relevance

60 | P a g e
 In terms of relevance, KII and FGD participants indicated that they considered NC as a very
relevant initiative from DTI. It shares a common goal with LGUs that is to improve the business
climate in their localities by providing guided and easy process of business name registration
and access to support services such as trainings and seminars and information on how to
improve/develop enterprises. The services offered are necessary to cater for an enabling
environment for MSMEs to grow and develop. Majority (59%) of the survey respondents agree
to strongly agree that NC improved business climate in the area and that it has supported
MSMEs’ business operations (62%). They also perceived NC to support expansion and
competitiveness of MSMEs through the promotional activities and advocacy initiatives (Figure
22).

40
35
1. Negosyo Center (NC) improved business climate in the area 1. Negosyo Center (NC) improved business climate in the area
30
2. NC helped MSMEs in improving business operations 2. NC helped MSMEs in improving business operations
25
3. NC improved management capability through coaching,
20
mentoring and advisories 3. NC improved management capability through coaching,
4. NC supported expansion of mentoring and advisories
15
MSMEs through promotional activities, advocacy and linkages 4. NC supported expansion of
5. NC made MSMEs competitive
10 MSMEs through promotional activities, advocacy and linkages
5. NC made MSMEs competitive
5
0
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Figure 22. Perceived relevance of the Negosyo Center

Through NCs, MSMEs are able to participate in promotional activities such as trade fairs or
events where MSME products are displayed and promoted. MSMEs are also able to learn
product innovations and technologies during these promotional events. The NC’s
effectiveness (Figure 23) was measured in terms of its contribution to the improvement of
MSMEs management capability and networking. It was noted that MSMEs, after availing
services of NC, were able to expand their network and business contacts which provided
potential business opportunities. NCs were also perceived to widen networks and opened
opportunities to link with government and agencies and private institutions. This would imply
effectiveness of referrals and information dissemination business/investment potential. The
respondents also reported improvement in the technical and management processes of
MSMEs.

61 | P a g e
 40
1. NC fast-tracked business
35 registration

30
2. NC enabled me to network with
important business contacts and
25 stakeholders
20 3. NC improved my management
capability and decision-making and
15 networking
4. NC assistance increased business
10 assets and helped grow business

5
5. NC made services for my business
0 more accessible
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
disagree agree

Figure 23. Perceived effectiveness of the Negosyo Center

2c.2 Efficiency

Efficiency of NC operations and services was measured in terms of the time allocation and
documents requirements in registering the business. Respondents indicated that they have
experienced faster and more informed process in complying to mandatory requirements. The
clients are informed of the necessary requirements in securing business name registration.
They are also informed of the other requirements needed for business registration. During
inquiry or walk-in application, clients can be given orientation on the requirements needed for
business name registration. Clients can also be given initial information regarding possible
conflict (e.g., duplication or business name already existing) on the proposed business name.
In addition, respondents emphasized on the reduce cost due to knowledge acquired from
seeking services of NCs (Figure 24).

45
40
35
1. NC streamlined procedures for
30 registration of MSMEs
25
2. NC requirements are easy to
20 comply
15
3. Acquired knowledge from NC
10 reduced the cost of operations
5
0
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
disagree Agree

Figure 24. Perceived efficiency of the Negosyo Center

Further, NC trainings were also perceived as efficient (Table 17). In general, respondents
reported that trainings provided were able to improve business processes such that business
registration was hastened (64%); shortened the process to operate a business (50%) and
promote efficiency in management (58%). Production costs were lowered (40%), improvement
in quality of products and services was achieved (58%) and lower costs of production (40%).

62 | P a g e
Marketing improvement was also observed through improved strategies and increased in
number of potential markets.

Table 17. Perception on the Training Efficiency of Negosyo Center

Number Percent
Perception
reporting (%)
Hasten/ease the process of business registration. 58 64
Lower cost of production 35 39
Shorter process to operate a business 45 50
Improved quality of products and/or services 52 58
Improved efficiency in management operations 54 60
Improved marketing strategies 52 58
Increased number of potential markets. 42 47

2c.3. Sustainability

The sustainability of NC is subject to several factors which include budget or funding, human
resources, and political and institutional influences.

The operation of the NC is still considered under the locally funded projects of DTI; hence, the
budget allocation shares with other projects of DTI. It is important that NCs budget be
institutionalized under GAA. Budget is also related to the second concern on NC sustainability,
that is availability of adequate number of staff or personnel to manage and man the NCs. It
was recognized that the business counselors are important in the proper operation of NCs. In
fact, DTI invest in the capacity building of BCs to ensure that services will be appropriately
provided and MSMEs will be guided. The BCs undergo series of trainings with modules
designed to equip them of skills and knowledge to provide the necessary assistance requested
by MSMEs.

Another important consideration on personnel is the availability of budget to sustain the

employment/engagement of the BCs. It was emphasized that some BCs provide support to
several NCs since the program has limited budget allocation to provide one BC for every NC.
Also, the tenurial status of BCs, that is job order basis, provide no security in terms of
employment. This resulted to fast turnover of BCs. In some instances, the BCs are pirated by
the base-agency where NC is located. To address, there is an ongoing initiative to provide
incentives to BCs through contract of service wherein other mandatory benefits can be
received such as leave credits, social security, Pag-ibig and PhilHealth. Continuous capacity
development is also recommended to improve skills and knowledge.

On political and institutional influences, since majority of the NCs are LGU-based, the change
in political administration can also post issues to sustainability of NCs. Hence, memorandum
of agreement (MOA) is forged between DTI and LGU prior to the establishment of NC. In some
areas, LGU Resolution is also enacted/passed to ensure that the NCs are adopted and that
local executive understand the responsibilities as a base or collaborating agency. As a
strategy, Provincial or the Regional Coordinators reorient the LGUs on what is Negosyo
Center every time there is change in local political administration.

There is also current move in crafting the National Sustainability Plan for Negosyo Center
which will stipulate the strategies on how the center will be sustained and the targets to sustain
its achievements/accomplishments. The Plan was initially discussed in November 2019.

Further, the sustainability of a program is also dependent on the support of MSME clients.

63 | P a g e
Respondents were asked on their willingness to avail again services of NC, of which 88%
positive response on willingness. Eighty-seven percent of the respondents are also
recommending the services of NC to other clients (Table 18).

Table 18. Willingness to Avail and Recommend NC to Other Clients

Item Number reporting Percent (%)
Will avail again 79 88
Will not avail again 11 12
Will recommend 78 87
Will not recommend 12 13

2d. Shared Service Facilities (SSF)

Cooperator’s perception of the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of the

SSF is reported in Table 19 and discussed in this section.

Table 19. Perception of SSF Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Sustainability

Strongly Strongly
Statements Disagree Neutral Agree
disagree agree
% Reporting
A. Relevance
SSF can help MSMEs in improving 0 0 9.33 21.33 69.33
business operations and address current
problems through
provision of service facilities
SSF enabled me to improve my 0 0 13.33 37.33 49.33
management capability
SSF is relevant to my business 0 0 12.00 29.33 58.67
SSF made me competitive 0 0 16.00 25.33 58.67
B. Effectiveness
SSF improved my management 0 0 14.67 36.00 49.33
capability and the technical capability
of my employees
The assistance provided by SSF 0 0 9.33 24.00 66.67
helped MSMEs to grow their business
SSF standardized and improved the 0 0 8.00 26.67 65.33
quality of
MSME products
C. Efficiency
SSF enabled me to network with 0 1.33 17.33 36.00 45.33
important business contacts and
stakeholders
The requirements of the program 0 2.67 14.67 36.00 46.67
are easy to comply
D. Sustainability
I will promote SSF and 0 0 5.33 28.00 66.67
continuously encourage MSMEs to
use the SSF
The program is being monitored by DTI 0 2.67 14.67 25.33 57.33
regularly

2d.1. Relevance

The project implementers perceived that the project is very relevant considering that 99.5
percent of business enterprises in the country are MSMEs and one of the identified challenges

64 | P a g e
is the lack of access to better technology/innovation. The SSF project provides the venue to
address their needs in order to improve their production operation and improve their
productivity. There are many testimonials proving that the project is able to help the MSMEs.
In Cebu, for instance, the manager of the multipurpose cooperative producing processed dairy
claims that the entity increased its production of processed milk by 10 to 15 percent and is
able to supply milk regularly to its clients in the city. In Nueva Ecija, the cooperator who
engages in production of clay pots claims to be benefiting from the project as major producer
and supplier of pots in his municipality because of the gardening craze resulting from the
pandemic. In Marikina, the SSF project managed by the Philippine Footwear Federations, Inc
is able to revitalize the footwear industry in Marikina by enabling shoe manufacturers access
to technology and machinery that introduce efficiency in selected stages in shoe production
such as automated leather stitching and laser-aided engraving, among others. In Davao del
Sur, the manager of a cooperative producing processed peanuts claims that its members are
benefiting from the project as workers in the processing plant and as suppliers of raw peanuts.

On the part of the surveyed respondents, majority strongly agree that SSF can help MSMEs
in improving business operations and address current problems through the provision of SSF;
it is relevant to their business, and it made them to be competitive as earlier shown in Table
19.

2d.2. Effectiveness

In terms of achieving its objectives, the implementers believe that the project is effective (Table
18). However, it cannot be attributed to SSF alone as there are other programs implemented
simultaneously targeting improved MSME operations. For instance, DOST’s SET-UP project
and DA’s Philippine Center for Postharvest Development and Mechanization also provide
grants to MSMEs for equipment purchase.

The project has been able to help the input suppliers particularly farmers who have been given
the opportunity to provide the needed materials to the Cooperators such as those in Mindanao
and Cebu. On the part of cooperator-respondents, the project enabled them to improve their
management capability and the technical capability of their employees (Table 18). It also
helped other MSMEs to improve and expand their business and it was able to standardize and
improve the quality of their products.

2d.3. Efficiency

The project is utilizing the government bidding and procurement process and with this scheme,
getting the best quality at least cost for every project is assured. However, the quality is
sometimes an issue in bidding and procurement as there had been instances wherein the
equipment delivered were substandard or did not match with the production capacity, process
and specification needs of the cooperator.

One implementer mentioned that despite the budget cut and delay in fund release, their office
made necessary adjustments in order to pursue their planned activities. On the part of
cooperators, their participation in the project enabled them to network with important business
contacts and other stakeholders.

2d.4. Sustainability

The project has sustained financial support from Congress since 2013. Understandably, the
2020 SSF budget was cut due to the pandemic. The Php 100M Capital Outlay fund for 2020
was released by the DBM, upon approval by the President, only on October 28, 2020. As of
December 31, 2020, the amount of Php 69.14M was utilized. The 2020 Appropriations were
extended and shall be available for release, obligation and disbursement until June 30, 2021

65 | P a g e
as provided for under RA No. 11519 (An Act Extending the Availability of Appropriations under
Republic Act No. 11494, Otherwise Known as the “Bayanihan to Recover as One Act”). With
this, the amount of Php 30.86M or 31 percent of the total CO allocation for 2020 is still
available until year end. For FY 2021, the Php 500M was released to the DTI Regional Offices,
while the Php 45M will be released by the DBM on a later date.

On the other hand, the cooperators interviewed would like the project to continue and
disclosed that they will promote SSF and encourage MSMEs in their locality to use the service
facilities.

2e. One Town One Product (OTOP)

Cooperator’s perception of the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of the

OTOP is reported in Table 20 and discussed in this section

Table 20. Perception of NC Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Sustainability

Strongly Strongly
Statements Disagree Neutral Agree
disagree agree
% Reporting
A. Relevance
OTOP can help MSMEs in improving 0 1.11 14.44 31.11 53.33
business operations and address
current problems through appropriate
science
solutions
OTOP enabled me to improve my 1.11 1.11 24.44 25.56 47.78
management capability and technical
capability of my staff
OTOP enabled me to improve my 2.22 0 34.44 34.44 51.11
marketing ability
OTOP is relevant to my business 0 0 12.22 24.44 63.33
OTOP made me competitive 0 0 14.44 25.56 60.00
B. Effectiveness
The assistance provided by OTOP 0 1.11 15.56 32.22 51.11
helped my business grow
OTOP standardized and improved 0 1.11 11.11 34.44 53.33
the quality of my products OTOP
enabled me to effectively market
my product
C. Efficiency
OTOP enabled me to network with 1.11 0 14.44 37.78 46.67
important business contacts and
stakeholders
The requirements of the program are 1.11 1.11 24.44 35.56 37.78
easy to comply
D. Sustainability
I will continuously apply the 0 0 10.00 32.22 57.78
strategies/innovations introduced by
OTOP to upgrade my business
The program is being monitored by 1.11 2.22 22.22 30.00 44.44
DTI regularly
I will recommend the program to other 0 0 11.11 17.78 71.11
MSMEs

66 | P a g e
2e.1. Relevance

Implementers in regions and provinces perceived that OTOP Next Gen is relevant since it is
able to address the needs of the MSMEs. These needs include development of new products,
formulation of new product design, product labeling, product packaging and product
marketing.

For the PMO, OTOP Next Gen is relevant as it largely offers free assistance in Product
Development, namely in areas such as, but not limited to, Design Services and Intervention,
Packaging and Labeling, FDA, Nutrifacts and Testing Assistance. The TPOs are trained
appropriately in order to be of support to MSMEs when it comes to understanding intellectual
property and regulations in food and safety.

Various technology procedures, materials, and processing technologies are disseminated in

the form of free Technology-Updating seminars. The development of the human aspect of
OTOP is also encouraged by the OTOP Next Gen program. MSMEs’ entrepreneurial and
management skills are further enhanced through Capacity Building training programs.

The project is able to level up the MSMEs in terms of improving their ability or skill in promoting/
marketing their products. Their success is ensured via product promotion through multimedia
campaigns, trade fairs, and development of marketing collaterals.

To more than half of the surveyed OTOPreneurs (53%), OTOP Next Gen can help MSMEs
improve their business operation and address current concerns on product improvement. It
enabled them to improve their management skills and the technical capability of their staff
through the trainings they went through. It made them competitive, it improved their market
ability (Table 20).

For OTOP Hubs, the PMO and implementers perceive them as relevant since they provide
venues for products that are in the pipeline of product development and improvement while
already deemed acceptable in terms of quality and design. The Hub strikes a balance between
ensuring utmost quality and compliance to standards (including FDA permits) while providing
an incubation area for start-ups, cooperatives, youth entrepreneurs and the like who are still
processing the needed certifications, permits, and licenses.

2.e.2. Effectiveness

To the PMO and implementers, OTOP Next Gen is effective in levelling up the local products
made by OTOPreneurs which is OTOP Next Gen’s focal purpose. The strategies like the ACT
sessions in Phase 1 that offer one-on-one consultations has been providing various touch
points between the OTOPreneurs and a pool of experts and designers. The program was able
to enjoin experts from the Department of Science and Technology, Department of Agriculture
and TESDA, among others, to participate as ‘consultants’ or evaluators. Availability of experts
is a challenge though. Implementers in the regions pointed to the need of coming up with an
experts’ pool composed of highly trained individuals which can be tapped to provide
assistance especially in areas far from Metro Manila and major urban centers where there is
high concentration of experts.

The prototypes developed during the ACT sessions are further improved on Phase 2. Efforts
are concentrated on various forms of product development such as such as re-designing a
product’s packaging and labeling, increasing a product’s shelf life, experimenting with new
materials or design or use of new packaging. Marked product improvement is expected during
this period. To more than half of the surveyed OTOPreneurs (53%), their participation in the
program enabled them to standardize and improve their product and enabled them effectively
to market them.

67 | P a g e
The trade fairs participated in by the OTOPreneur is deemed effective in providing venue to
their improved products to get recognition and an indication that their business will eventually
grow and expand. Their presence in the market is an indicator that they have established
themselves as a manufacturer. Attendance to trade fairs give them opportunities to present
their products to prospective buyers, observe and learn from other entrepreneurs how the
products on display can find their way in mainstream market and above all, an opportunity to
establish a network of prospective buyers which was also validated by about half surveyed
respondents (47%).

The actual accomplishments consistently meet the annual targets, oftentimes surpassing
them. This indicates that OTOP Next Gen’s mechanisms/strategies/processes are effective in
achieving positive results desired by the program

With respect to OTOP Hub, the PMO and implementers noted that MSMEs who have met the
requirements needed to attract the market targeted by Hubs have generated revenue by
having their products sold in an established physical store. The scope of their products’ reach
is broadened with its attachment to the OTOP name, supporting their business in gaining a
reputable reputation and better brand recognition to the general public.

2e.3. Efficiency

To OTOP PMO, the resources provided for this program has been enough to generate results
above and beyond what is expected. However, if OTOP is to be institutionalized by the
government, more appropriate funding may be needed in order to further surpass previous
accomplishments.

The four major program phases have definitely been instrumental in ensuring objectives are
met within the time frame given. The periodic nature of the MSME Development Track imbibes
a sense of progress and eschews tangible evidences of growth, displaying its capability in
delivering and measuring efficiency.

With regards to OTOP Hub, this component of the program has been successful as a
distribution platform which affirms the effectiveness of OTOP Next Gen’s initiatives in product
development. The financing is appropriate but to be able to adapt to the new normal, a portion
of the budget is currently being allocated to the creation of virtual hubs instead of focusing on
purely physical hubs.

2e.4. Sustainability

The program has been receiving government allocation and has been generating investments
through the years are indications of its sustainability. To PMO and implementers, the
interventions, and strategies to implement the program are deemed sufficient to ensure
sustainability beyond program implementation. A well-thought-out communication strategy
within the OTOP team assists in ensuring everyone is in alignment with a project’s objective,
helping the team work together with a singular, clear goal in mind. The joint collaboration with
various stakeholders such as LGUs helps in the sustainability of the project.

The surveyed OTOPreneurs indicated that they will continuously apply the strategies and
innovations introduced by OTOP and will recommend participation to the program to other
MSMEs.

68 | P a g e
2f. Small Enterprise Technology Upgrading Program (SETUP)

Cooperator’s perception of the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of

SETUP is reported in Table 21 and discussed in this section.

Table 21. Perception of SETUP relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability

Strongly Strongly
Statements Disagree Neutral Agree
disagree agree
% Reporting
A. Relevance
SETUP can help MSMEs in improving 0 0 8.05 27.59 64.37
business operations and address current
problems through appropriate science
solutions
SETUP enabled me to improve my 0 0 14.94 31.03 54.02
management capability
SETUP is relevant to my business 0 1.15 6.90 25.59 66.67
SETUP made me competitive 0 0 9.20 31.03 59.77
B. Efficiency
SETUP helped me be productive even 2.30 8.05 20.69 29.89 39.08
during the pandemic
SETUP enabled me to network with 1.15 5.75 28.74 29.89 34.48
important business contacts and
stakeholders
The requirements of the program are 0 6.90 27.59 29.89 35.63
easy to comply
C. Effectiveness
The assistance provided by SETUP 0 0 11.49 29.89 58.62
helped my business
grow and increased my income
SETUP standardized and improved the 0 0 4.60 32.18 63.22
quality of my products
SETUP increased my production 0 0 8.05 32.18 59.77
capacity
SETUP generated more employment 1.15 2.30 20.69 29.89 45.98
SETUP enabled me to penetrate new 0 0 26.44 28.74 44.83
markets
SETUP enabled me to develop new 0 1.15 16.09 35.63 47.13
products and services
D. Sustainability
I will continuously apply the 0 1.15 10.34 32.18 56.32
strategies/innovations introduced by
SETUP to upgrade my business
The program is being monitored by 0 0 10.34 33.33 56.32
DOST regularly
I will recommend the program to other 0 0 6.90 24.14 68.97
MSMEs
SETUP program is flexible and 0 0 11.49 36.78 51.72
introduces innovation through time

2f.1. Relevance

It was learned from the KIIs that the SETUP implementers believe the program is quite
relevant as S&T is a key driver business growth. The interventions being provided by the
program are intended to increase the productivity and competitiveness especially of MSMEs.
The relevance of the program was confirmed by the survey results where majority of survey
respondents (Table 21) stated that SETUP is relevant to their business (67%); it can help

69 | P a g e
them improve business operations and address current problems (64%); made them
competitive (59%) and enabled them improve their management capability (54%).

2f.2. Effectiveness

Majority of the survey respondents believe that SETUP is effective as it helped them
standardize and improve the quality of their products (63%); increase their production capacity
(60%); help the business grow and increase their income (59%) (Table 21). Nearly 50 percent
believe that SETUP enabled them to develop new products and services, generate more
employment and penetrate new markets.

On the other hand, COA 2018 findings gave a different view of SETUP citing issues related to
premature termination of contracts with firm beneficiaries resulting from weak market linkage,
inappropriate equipment/technology acquisition, low sales, among others, which ultimately led
to non-payment of their obligation to the government (COA, 2018).

2f.3. Efficiency

The program implementors acknowledged that limited operational and seed funds for
technology acquisition force SETUP implementers to prioritize MSMEs with greater need and
to identify the most feasible intervention that will result in higher expected outputs and impact.
The program is also still finding ways to cope in the new normal, for instance by adopting
virtual technology needs assessment. The implementers mentioned the problem in complying
with the required documents and refund payment as constraints in the efficiency of the
program.

The program beneficiaries provided areas for improvement to enhance the efficiency of the
program. This includes further streamlining the documentary requirements, simplify the
process of collection of refunds and enhance the program’s M&E system.

2f.4. Sustainability

According to KII implementors, the national government recognizes the importance of SETUP
in the development of MSMEs through technology upgrading thus sustained funding can be
expected. The MSMEs also have distinct need for the services that only SETUP can provide

3. On effects of the Covid-19 pandemic to MSMEs

The vulnerability assessment of MSMEDP was conceived and crafted prior to the onslaught
of the current pandemic. As a result, the research design did not include an investigation of
how the pandemic is affecting the various MSMEDP programs included in the assessment and
their beneficiaries. This would be a major flaw in the assessment as the pandemic is proving
to be the most important challenge besetting the programs and the programs’ clients. To
address this, an assessment of how the pandemic was impacting on the various programs and
how the programs were responding to the crisis was included in the study.

The clients of MSMEDP and its component programs are mostly micro and small enterprises
with extremely limited capacity to weather a crisis as serious as the one associated with the
pandemic. The pandemic has been impacting adversely on both demand and supply which
squeezes small businesses to their limits. On the demand side, drop in employment and
increasing underemployment considerably dampen product demand. On the supply side,
physical restriction in the movement of people and goods is disrupting the supply chains. All

70 | P a g e
small businesses are vulnerable to this kind of shock thus, means to make them more resilient
should be of foremost concern if the whole MSMEDP is to succeed.

3a. Kapatid Mentor ME (KMME)

The program launched a digital KMME called the Kapatid Mentor Me Online Project. This is
a practical delivery mechanism for the same mentorship modules, with an emphasis on how
to survive in spite of the setbacks the MSMEs are experiencing. Utilizing digital technology
via Zoom, the modules were transformed for online learning, with an expanded panel of
evaluators for the business improvement plans to include representatives from banks, online
market platforms and other business support organizations. The program addresses the
urgent need for the continued access of mentees to Money, Market and Mentorship (or the
3Ms) without compromising the safety of the stakeholders involved and the overall
effectiveness of the comprehensive KMME Programs.

The KMME-Online has 4 objectives (1) to provide a platform for existing and aspiring
entrepreneurs to learn and be inspired from the entrepreneurial journey of the mentors
online;(2) to be the channel for capacity building on an online platform using the KMME
modules and canned lectures via webinar; (3) to provide an avenue for business mentorship
of wait listed MSMEs across the regions and enhance their resiliency through crisis; and (4)
to inspire the MSMEs to adapt their business strategies, e.g., rebuild/repurpose/retrofit, in
responding to the challenges of the “new normal” business environment.

The applicants are screened using the same qualifications as the face-to-face modules. This
time, however, mentees must have the tools to enable them to communicate online, such as
a laptop/desktop or mobile phone, a stable internet connectivity, a headset or earphones,
and a personal Facebook account where all announcements will be posted.

Limitations encountered included internet connectivity issues, power interruption, topics are
too compressed, although many said that they prefer online since this will not take them away
from their businesses. In terms of presentation, new presentation format and videos were
prepared by some mentors, which help the mentees because many of them are visual
learners; technical orientations were conducted to enable the implementors (technical
directors and facilitators) to adjust to the virtual learning platform.

Previously, selection of mentees was based on priority industry, but due to pandemic, any
industry is welcome to join the program. The program has the same modules, but coaches
are added for the BIP. Also, mentors added strategies on how to adopt to the challenges
during pandemic. According to KMME coordinators, many MSMEs have closed down during
the lockdown, particularly those falling under “non-essential” category, while some had to
reduce the number of their employees to cope and others shifted to manufacturing masks or
to essential industries.

Table 22 provides some details on the negative and positive effect of the pandemic on the
KMME beneficiary respondents. Most are mostly negative, however, a few positive effects
are noted, such as generating more sales in the agriculture/marine and aquatic industries,
expansion of new businesses in the form of new markets in the food and food processing
industry, increase demand for pots due to plant hobbyists and increase demand for food
packaging materials due to increased food deliveries.

71 | P a g e
Table 22. Negative and positive effect of the pandemic on the KMME beneficiary
respondents
Type of Industry Negative Effect Positive Effect
Agricultural/Marine/Aquaculture • Business is slow • Generated more sales
• Closure
• DOST facility grant put on hold
• Travel restrictions led to
inaccessibility of raw materials and
delivery of goods
Food and Food Processing • Bake or process only when there • Expanded to new
are orders Unable to promote markets
products • Opened 2 new
• Closures branches
• No more trade fairs
Catering Services • Very few clients for catering •
closure
Furnitures, gifts and handicrafts • No demand, no buyers • Increase demand of
• Logistics is a big problem – gardening pots
shipping and courier services for • Innovations resulted to
inputs • increase in sales
Metals & Engineering • Closures
Personal Hygiene • very few customers in barber
shops no events resulted to less
demand in parlor services
Weaving • Less demand
Wine making • Closures
Retailing • Less customers • Increase demand in
food packaging
materials

On the effect of the pandemic on the monthly revenue of the MSMEs, KMME beneficiary
respondents reported an overall average decrease of 57 percent (Table 23). The values
“during pandemic” refers to value of sales one month before the survey, where survey period
covering November 2020 to January 2021. Many of the MSMEs within each type of industry
also closed down, hopefully temporarily, including the wine-making industry. Also hit hard by
the lockdowns are the catering services, and the metals and engineering (referring to junk
shops and motor repair shops). The food and food processing industry shrunk by 38 percent
despite the common notion that this is the least hit by the pandemic. This is because many
MSMEs were not able to cope due to less financial capital and mobility issues, among others.
It is only the agriculture/marine/aquaculture industry which grew by 37 percent and this is
because they were able to continue to supply their goods and are also given unrestricted
permission to pass through areas.

Table 23. Effect of Pandemic on the Monthly Revenue of MSME KMME Beneficiary
Respondents
During Before %
Type of Industry Difference
Pandemic (Php) Pandemic (Php) Change
Agricultural/Marine/ 69,569.33 50,956.83 18,612.49 37%
Aquaculture
Food and Food Processing 120,201.21 192,360.23 (72,159.02) -38%
Catering Services 66,666.67 291,666.67 (225,000.0 -77%
0)
Furnitures & Handicrafts 71,028.25 133,839.58 (62,811.33) -47%
Metals & Engineering 25,000.00 97,500.00 (72,500.00) -74%
Personal Hygiene 42,166.67 69,333.33 (27,166.67) -39%

72 | P a g e
 During Before %
Type of Industry Difference
Pandemic (Php) Pandemic (Php) Change
Weaving 200,000.00 600,000.00 (400,000.0 -67%
0)
Wine making - 30,000.00 (30,000.00) -100%
Retailing 225,000.00 240,000.00 (15,000.00) -6%
Others 23,500.00 54,285.71 (30,785.71) -57%
Average 73,328.15 131,442.59 (58,114.44) -44%
Does not include: 1 enterprise with Php 3M sales

The respondents shared some of the lessons from the lockdown, hopefully to be learned and
help them cope in the new normal (Table 24). These include being always ready and resilient,
having savings or emergency funds, the need to adjust and cope, and being innovative,
creative and have new ideas.

Table 24. Lessons Learned from the Lockdown

Number Percent
Lesson
reporting (%)
Always be ready and resilient 18 20
Must have savings or emergency 16 18
funds for contingency
Need to adjust and cope 9 10
Be creative/innovative/new ideas 11 12
Need to have contingency plan 8 9

3b. Pondo sa Pagbabago at Pag-asenso (P3)

In general, MSMEs under all types of industry experienced a drastic decrease in monthly
revenues during the pandemic by 44 percent (Table 25). In fact, 16 MSMEs reported closing
down during the lockdown, especially those under the construction and manufacturing
industries. Even those under the agriculture, aquaculture, and fishing MSMEs reported a 57
percent decrease in revenues due to decreased demand and challenges related to
transportation and other logistics.

Table 25. Effect of Pandemic on the Monthly Revenue of MSME P3 Beneficiary

Respondents
During
Before Lockdown %
Type of Industry Lockdown Difference
(Php) Change
(Php)
Accommodation and food services 117,463 30,647 (86,815) -74
Activities of households as employers 31,000 14,875 (16,125) -52
Agriculture, aquaculture and fishing 21,539 9,280 (12,259) -57
Construction 100,050 (100,050) -100
Manufacturing 65,000 (65,000) -100
Other service activities 94,690 20,083 (74,607) -79
Transportation and storage 400,000 150,000 (250,000) -63
Wholesale and retail, repair of motor 250,000 175,000 (75,000) -30
vehicles
Average 131,442 73,328 (58,114) -44%

According to the beneficiaries, they learned the importance of savings or emergency funds
(50%), the need to be always ready and resilient (21%) by being pro-active, explore new

73 | P a g e
markets, take risk; the need to diversify, look for alternatives and be resourceful (7%) and the
need to have a contingency or strategic plan (4%). Others indicated to have more faith,
patience and be positive, avail government aid programs and trainings, practice cost-cutting
measures, and wait for opportunities to come (Table 26).

Table 26. Lessons Learned from the Lockdown

Number Percent
Lessons Learned
reporting (%)
Must have savings/emergency fund 50 50
Follow Health and Safety Protocols 10 10
Always be ready/Be resilient 21 23
Need for contingency plan/strategic plan 4 4
Be resourceful/Look for alternative/diversify 7 7
Have faith, patience and be positive 4 4
Avail Government Aid Programs and Trainings 1 1
importance of physical and mental health 2 2
Not applicable 2 2
Practice cost-cutting measures 1 1
There are other opportunities to come 1 1

3c. Negosyo Center (NC)

During the pandemic, many of the Negosyo Centers experienced decreased in sales and
income (21%) and stopped their operations (16%). Services offered were limited. Among the
key MSMEs highly affected were under the service sector. The key informants reported that
many restaurants and personal care businesses such as salons, barbershops, spa and gyms
have shut down their operations. Tourism sector was greatly affected which included MSMEs
operating hotels, inns and resorts, transportation services, and restaurants. On the other hand,
food business and agriculture have flourished especially those that provided delivery services.
In agriculture, the increased in demand for plants due to the “plantito/plantita” craze opened
opportunities for MSMEs on this sector to grow.

To support the business operation of MSMEs, NCs provided seminars and trainings to assist
the MSMEs to recalibrate and adjust operations of their businesses to adopt to the minimum
safety protocols due to Covid-19. The objective is to assist the MSMEs to shift or pivot their
operations with consideration of the risks and conditions in the new normal. The capacity
building activities were done online through webinars. Among the selected topics included
marketing strategies using online platforms, promotion of financial support that can be availed,
and introduction of business opportunities. Online platforms and digital marketing offer good
opportunity to expand market of MSMEs. A study conducted by Rakuten in 2020 indicated
that a great number of consumers shifted to online platforms in buying basic needs such as
food and medicines and purchasing other items such as cosmetics, clothing, and other
personal hygiene products among others. In providing immediate response to inquiries and
information needs of MSMEs, BCs answer through SMS or text messages. Social media
accounts such as Facebook is also useful and provided cost effective means of
communication and exchange of information.

3d. Shared Service Facilities (SSF)

The pandemic hampered the project’s monitoring activities that require face-to-face
meetings. Scheduled summits/conferences/trainings were cancelled. The implementation of
the Php 500M SSF capital outlay allocated in the 2020 budget of the DTI to fund the
procurement of new facilities was discontinued in order to contribute to the response
measures.

74 | P a g e
Many SSFs remained operational at the onset of the pandemic. The SSF FabLabs organized
themselves on March 20, 2020 in coordination with its global partners in fabrication. They
fabricated the PPEs, face masks and aerosol boxes which were barely available then. Face
masks and alcohols were likewise produced by many SSFs nationwide. The DTI has been
supporting them particularly the regional offices, along with local government units (LGUs), in
procuring the needed materials.

As the situation worsened and quarantine measures were put in place, the challenges caused
by the pandemic may have left most Cooperators limited capacity to produce given low
demand for their products and the financial struggles they face with no income coming in.
Reduction in their income is expected (Table 27). Based on the survey, there were more
Cooperators (45%) whose monthly income is less than Php 10,000 during the pandemic
compared to 29 percent before the pandemic. Those in the income range of Php10,000-
50,000 similarly had a decrease in monthly revenue from 35 to 27 percent.

Table 27. Revenue per Month Before and During the Pandemic
Before During
Revenue Percent Percent
Number Number
(%) (%)
less than 10,000 22 29.3 34 45.3
10,000 - 50,000 27 36.0 20 26.7
50,001 - 100,000 8 10.7 8 10.7
100,001 - 500,000 10 13.3 7 9.3
more than 500,000 8 10.7 6 8.0

The lessons learned by SSF cooperators from this situation are summarized in Table 28. The
major lesson is the need to always be ready and resilient. They also realized that they should
be resourceful, save up for emergency fund, follow health and safety protocols, be flexible,
learn to adjust and cope up, have a contingency plan, learn online selling, have patience and
be positive, be creative/innovative, diversify and stay healthy.

To cope up with the challenges, they do online marketing or find other means of
income/venture into other business. Others simply keep their faith, assess their priorities,
continue operating, implement cost-cutting measures, seek financial assistance, be
considerate and lend a helping hand. Most of them are highly educated – 57 percent are
college graduates, 12 percent have master’s degrees and 9 percent have doctoral education-
and they seemed hopeful, think clearly and positively, are creative, resilient and are able to
respond to the challenge.

Table 28. Pandemic Resilience (SSF)

Number Percent
Perception
reporting (%)
How are you affected by the pandemic?
Decreased sales/Slowed business/Limited Customers 26 34.7
badly/hugely affected 18 24.0
Travel restrictions/Delivery difficulties/Less Buyers 11 14.7
Stopped Operations 10 13.3
Financial Struggle/No income 9 12.0
Continued Operations 2 2.7
Availed assistance from Government Agencies 1 1.3
Be resourceful 1 1.3
Cost-cutting measures 1 1.3
Improved sales/Increased Production 1 1.3

75 | P a g e
 Number Percent
Perception
reporting (%)
Limited supply of materials 1 1.3
Low Productivity 1 1.3
Members inactivity 1 1.3

Lessons learned from the situation

Always be ready/Be resilient 21 28.0
Be resourceful/Look for alternative 9 12.0
Follow Health and Safety Protocols 9 12.0
Must have savings/emergency fund 9 12.0
Need for adjustments and coping up 7 9.3
Need for contingency plan/strategic plan 5 6.7
Digitalization/Online Selling 4 5.3
Have patience and be positive 4 5.3
Be more creative/innovative 2 2.7
Diversify 2 2.7
importance of physical and mental health 2 2.7
Should have networks (customer care and suki) 2 2.7
Sustainability of raw materials 2 2.7
Be a risk taker/Explore new markets 1 1.3
Be competitive 1 1.3
Be considerate. Care for employees. 1 1.3
There should be other income options 1 1.3

How did you cope up with the challenges brought by the pandemic?
Digitalization, Networking and Online Selling 16 21.3
Venture into other businesses/Find other income 16 21.3
source/be resourceful and creative/diversify
Have faith 6 8.0
Acceptance/Adjustments 4 5.3
Financial assistance and savings 4 5.3
Promotions and marketing strategies 4 5.3
Assess the situation/Priorities 3 4.0
Continue operations/work 3 4.0
Implement cost-cutting measures 3 4.0
Follow Health and Safety Protocols 3 4.0
Be considerate and lend a helping hand 2 2.7
Change supplier (location wise) 2 2.7
Engaged in farming 2 2.7
Availed Government Aid Programs and Trainings 1 1.3
Being patient and focused 1 1.3

3e. SETUP

At the firm level, the pandemic affected raw materials supply, production capacity, market
access and repayment of iFund to DOST. The beneficiaries reported difficulties in securing
raw materials and disruptions in the supply chains.

At the height of the pandemic, the volume of sales per month for all products declined (Table
28). In terms of monthly revenues, those earning less than Php 10,000 before the pandemic,
doubled from 13 to 26 percent during pandemic; those earning between Php 10,001 to Php
100,000 increased by 30 percent. Those earning more than Php 100,000 to Php 500,000
before pandemic were reduced by half, while those earning more than Php500,000 were
reduced by one third during pandemic.

76 | P a g e
Thirty percent of the survey respondents reported having been adversely affected in terms of
decreased sales/slow business/limited customers (Table 29), while ten percent stopped
operation. They learned a number of lessons such as: always be ready/be resilient, must have
savings, diversify, among others. Their coping strategies include continuing operations, cost
cutting measures, look for other alternatives and other income sources, as well as believing
in themselves and the Higher Being.

Table 29. Pandemic Resilience (SETUP)

Number Percent
Perception
reporting (%)
How are you affected by the pandemic?
Badly/hugely affected 27 28.13
Cost cutting measures 1 1.04
Decreased sales/Slowed business/Limited Customers 28 29.17
Financial Struggle/No income 5 5.21
Follow protocols 1 1.04
Improved sales 1 1.04
Limited supply of materials 4 4.17
Neutral 9 9.38
Open for new opportunities 1 1.04
Postponement of expansion 1 1.04
Reduced production 5 5.21
Stopped Operations 10 10.42
Travel restrictions/Delivery difficulties/Less Buyers 3 3.13

What lessons have you learned from the situation?

Always be ready/Be resilient 12 13.48
Be a risk taker/Explore new markets 4 4.49
Be more creative/innovative 4 4.49
Be resourceful/Look for alternative 2 2.25
Believe in self and higher being; Have faith 5 5.62
Change is inevitable; as well as loss in business 2 2.25
Contentment 1 1.12
Cost-cutting measures 2 2.25
Diversify 5 5.62
Do not depend/Don't give up on business 1 1.12
Follow protocols of safety 6 6.74
Government should do their job with help of the people 2 2.25
Have patience and be positive 2 2.25
importance of physical and mental health 4 4.49
Lockdown allow you to dominate local market 1 1.12
Must have savings/emergency fund 13 14.61
N/A 9 10.11
Need for adjustments and coping up 5 5.62
Need for contingency plan/strategic plan 5 5.62
Should have networks (customer care and suki) 3 3.37
There are other opportunities to come 1 1.12

How did you cope up with the challenges brought by the pandemic?
Acceptance 1 1.15
Adaptability to changes 2 2.30
Being creative/innovative/flexible 1 1.15
Being patient and focused 3 3.45
Being resourceful/Looking for alternatives 6 6.90
Believe in self and higher being 9 10.34
Continue operations/work 12 13.79

77 | P a g e
 Number Percent
Perception
reporting (%)
Cost-cutting measures 10 11.49
Digitalization and Online Selling 2 2.30
Following protocols of safety 4 4.60
Hard to cope up/still struggling 1 1.15
N/A 9 10.34
Promotions and marketing strategies 2 2.30
Proper communication and availing of Government 5 5.75
programs
Proper communication with customers (Networks) 3 3.45
Think positive 6 6.90
Trainings on how to adapt, skill and development 2 2.30
Venture into other businesses/Find other income 7 8.05
source
Work adjustments (rotation) 2 2.30

3f. OTOP

The pandemic led the PMO and provincial and regional offices to do things out of the ordinary.
As mobility has become a problem, planned activities have to be adjusted. Physical trade fairs
have been cancelled. Virtual trade fairs were conducted using PLDT platform – Pasinaya (1st
virtual for OTOP) nationwide followed by PLDT Kaasenso (OTOP Virtual Trade Fairs) funded
by PLDT and OTOP PMO.

OTOP Hub implementation was delayed in most areas due to budget cut. Most stores had to
undergo temporary closure in compliance with government regulations during the extended
community quarantine. Some have difficulty running their business in the early months of the
pandemic because the store’s location no longer attracts the same foot traffic as before.
Procurement of products from other regions also became more difficult since supply chains,
shipping and coordination were disrupted. These posed as challenges that were unforeseen
when this component of the program was conceived. More and more hubs are now linked to
virtual hubs for survival. By June 2020, most hubs have gradually reopened, but for them to
adapt to the situation, the PMO launched the OTOP e-Hubs and Blended Hubs which act as
virtual portals wherein consumers can gain access to OTOP products online. With this, the
verifiable outputs were adjusted as discussed earlier.

Regional and Provincial offices are conducting webinars to introduce e-commerce/social

media marketing (e.g., Pay Maya, Food Panda, Go Global, Go Online) to beneficiaries.
Facebook on OTOP has been set up. Virtual trade fairs are being initiated. Trainings are done
through webinars (packaging and labelling, marketing, better and effective negotiations, etc.).
Webinars, however, are scheduled closely making MSMEs and DTI staff exhausted.

One third of the surveyed MSMEs reported that they were badly affected (32%). Decreases
in sales and slow business were reported by 28 percent (Table 30). Some have stopped
operation (11%). Others encountered difficulty in product delivery, financial struggles/no
income, and limited supply of the needed materials. These are the ones who scaled up but
then the pandemic came, and the product is not yet ready for the market as reported by the
OTOP Focal person in Laguna.

The pandemic tested their resilience as they learned a lot from the crisis. They learned the
importance of readiness (18%), to have savings and emergency fund (14%), to have a
contingency plan/strategic plan (12%), to adjust and cope up, not to depend on others and not

78 | P a g e
to give up, to be risk takers, exploring new markets, diversifying, having patience, and being
resourceful and creative.

Table 30. Pandemic Resilience (OTOP)

Number Percent
Perception
reporting (%)
How are you affected by the pandemic?
Badly/hugely affected 29 32.2
Decreased sales/Slowed business/Limited Customers 25 27.8
Stopped Operations 11 12.2
Travel restrictions/Delivery difficulties/Less Buyers 10 11.1
Financial Struggle/No income 5 5.6
Improved sales 4 4.4
Limited supply of materials 3 3.3
Hard to transact business and in banks 1 1.1
Lessons learned from the situation
Always be ready/Be resilient 16 17.8
Must have savings/emergency fund 13 14.4
Need for contingency plan/strategic plan 11 12.2
Need for adjustments and coping up 8 8.9
Do not depend/Don't give up on business 6 6.7
Be a risk taker/Explore new markets 5 5.6
Have patience and be positive 5 5.6
Diversify 4 4.4
Be more creative/innovative 3 3.3
Be resourceful/Look for alternative 3 3.3
Importance of food security 2 2.2
importance of physical and mental health 2 2.2
There are other opportunities to come 2 2.2
A lot 1 1.1
Products should be accessible 1 1.1
Should have networks (customer care and suki) 1 1.1
Sustainability of raw materials 1 1.1
How did you cope up with the challenges brought by the pandemic?
Being resourceful/Looking for alternatives 10 11.1
Digitalization and Online Selling 9 10.0
Venture into other businesses/Find other income 8 8.9
source
Continue operations/work 7 7.8
Adaptability to changes 5 5.6
Assessing the situation, following rules 5 5.6
Engaged in farming 5 5.6
Being patient and focused 4 4.4
Proper communication with customers (Networks) 4 4.4
Acceptance 3 3.3
Believe in self and higher being 3 3.3
Diversify 3 3.3
Hard to cope up 3 3.3
Promotions and marketing strategies 3 3.3
Avail Government Aid Programs and Trainings 2 2.2
Being creative/innovative/flexible 2 2.2
Cost-cutting measures 2 2.2
Engagement to deliveries 1 1.1

79 | P a g e
B. INTEGRATION OF OVER-ALL FINDINGS ON THE EVALUABILITY OF MSMEDP AND
ITS SIX PROGRAMS

1. On the Evaluability of MSMEDP and its Programs

The over-all findings on the evaluability of MSMEDP and its six component programs are
summarized in Table 31.

Table 31. Evaluability of MSMEDP and its Programs

Evaluability Aspect Over-all MSMEDP
Program Design MSMEDP TOC was recreated from the plan’s descriptive narrative during
the March 6, 2020 workshop since there was no explicit TOC for MSMEDP.
Data Availability All programs are generally in-sync with the MSMEDP indicators examining
indicators being tracked and data being collected, means of collecting data,
forms the data are available, and periodicity.
Periodicity Establishing baseline values is possible in all the six component programs,
although the level of difficulties may vary depending on whether the data are
already neatly organized in a database or still have to be retrieved from hard
copies of documents such as application forms, business proposals, etc.
Stakeholders’ Demand NEDA, DTI, and DOST- as major movers of the MSMEDP and its program;
DBM, the upper and lower houses of congress and COA, as considerable
amount of public resources have been used.
Robustness of the M&E The M&E systems of MSMEDP and its component programs are fairly
system robust, albeit with plenty of rooms for improvement.

2. On Program Design

The over-all findings on the program design of the six MSMEDP component programs are
summarized in Table 32 as follows:

Table 32. Program Design of the Six MSMEDP Programs

KMME P3 NC SSF OTOP SETUP
No explicit No explicit TOC Has TOC No explicit No explicit TOC No explicit TOC
TOC narrative narrative and narrative and TOC narrative narrative and narrative and
and results Results Results and Results Results Results
framework Framework Framework Framework Framework Framework

Assessment Assessment team Assessment Assessment Assessment

team together together with the team together team together team together
with the program owners with the with the program with the
program constructed the program owners program
owners TOC and results owners constructed the owners
constructed framework constructed the TOC and results constructed the
the TOC and TOC and framework TOC and
results results results
framework framework framework

The MSMEDP did not have an explicit TOC narrative, but the descriptive narrative of the plan
was adequate to establish the TOC and results framework. To build the TOCs and RFs, a
workshop was carried out on March 6, 2020 involving the key personnel of NEDA, DTI, and
DOST. The initial TOCs and RFs developed during the workshop were subsequently validated
in a series of consultations with the relevant personnel from each program.

The MSMEDP’s TOC reconstructed from the descriptive narrative of the Plan as well as its
general result framework appear to be plausible. Business environment, capacity and
opportunities are well-known pathways to business development and improving these areas is

80 | P a g e
an excellent strategy for the growth of MSMEs. In addition, the outcome indicators were clearly
specified as well as the corresponding baseline and targets. However, the outcome indicators
were not linked clearly with the outputs and intermediate outcomes of the component programs
and the assumptions needed to achieve a nationwide reach were not explicitly indicated. This
could be a major limitation in future evaluation as the issue of attribution could not be resolved
easily. For instance, an increase in the number of registered MSMEs cannot be unambiguously
attributed to MSMEDP unless there is clear evidence of causal links between the outputs of
the component program and the outcomes of MSMEDP. It could very well be possible for the
component program to be a complete failure, yet the outcome indicator of MSMEDP can still
exhibit improvement due to exogenous influences.

As part of the evaluability assessment, a more specific results chain of MSMEDP as well as
the assumptions that must be satisfied were formulated and validated by the representatives
of the implementing entities during the TOC workshop. The results chain clearly linked the six
accompanying programs with the indicated outcomes of MSMEDP (Table 3). The results chain
column describes in a nutshell how the program intervention can lead to outputs then to
intermediate outcomes and finally to the MSMEDP outcomes. On the other hand, the last
column indicates the reach, capacity, and behavior change (e.g., extent of adoption)
assumptions needed for the program interventions to reach the scale of the MSMEDP, which
is nationwide in coverage.

There were only three outcome indicators for the MSMEDP: (1) increase in employment of
MSMEs; (2) percentage increase in number of registered MSMEs; and (3) proportion of small-
scale industries in total value added. The possible sources of data for these indicators were
identified together with the baseline and target values. As part of the evaluability assessment,
a more specific results chain of MSMEDP as well as the assumptions that have to be satisfied
were formulated and validated by the representatives of the implementing entities during the
TOC workshop. The results chain clearly linked the six accompanying programs with the
indicated outcomes of MSMEDP.

The reconstructed MSMEDP theory of change and results chain were crucial in gauging the
evaluability of the MSMEDP and its component programs. The evaluability assessment also
found that except for Negosyo Center, the MSMEDP component programs did not have
theories of change. Similar to MSMEDP though, it was possible to construct a TOC narrative
based on the rationale of the programs and the strategies being pursued. In contrast to the
MSMEDP however, the component programs did not have results framework, which would be
a major evaluability constraint. Nevertheless, the evaluability assessment reconstructed both
the theory of change and results framework, albeit it took several consultations and validation
with the implementing agencies of the various programs.

The six component programs under MSMEDP have one to one correspondence with the five
strategies of MSMEDP in its general results framework. The achievement of improved
business climate is through the Negosyo Center Program (NCP); that on improved access to
loan is through P3; access to market is through OTOP; access to technology and facilities is
through SETUP and SSF; and enhancing management and labor capacity is through KMME.

In the case of KMME’s TOC and RF, a key causal link, albeit implicit assumption is that
mentoring, training, outreach and learning by doing will lead directly to improvement in
productivity/efficiency of the business. This assumption is plausible as the literature is replete
with evidence that the knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) pathway is the most viable
pathway in effecting behavioral change. The validation of the implicit and explicit assumptions
through KIIs, FGDs and survey highlighted that program success is dependent on the
commitment of mentees, the credibility of mentors, the quality of the modules, sustained
assistance from the other units of DTI, strong partnership between PCE and the other
coordinating units, sustained program funding and ease of meeting the requirements of the

81 | P a g e
program. The output, outcome and impact indicators are clearly specified and are considered
good metrics of the performance of the KMME program. In addition, while the baseline values
have not been established, it appears these can be obtained from an earlier survey (2016-
2017) of KMME graduates. Moreover, the program reach can easily be established from the
number of trainees/mentees of the program.

For P3, the primary causal link assumption is that access to reasonably priced credit will
improve productivity/efficiency and that such access is possible by improving the flexibility of
MFIs to manage loan portfolio. This is highly plausible as earlier studies by the Agricultural
Credit Policy Council (ACPC) in 2017 empirically showed that access to credit improves
productivity and that MFIs were more effective conduits in providing credit assistance. The
survey of beneficiaries of the program validated the causal link assumption on the importance
of access to credit. The results frame of P3 clearly specified the output and outcome indicators,
although the absence of baseline and targets will be a challenge in future evaluation. This was
already identified during the workshop and series of consultations with SBC and were indicated
as part of the risk and assumptions in the logical framework. The link between P3 and MSMEDP
is clear as the impact indicators on MSMEs with improved productivity and number of MSMEs
with increased profits directly relate with the three major outcome indicators of the MSMEDP.

The Negosyo Center is the only component program of MSMEDP which has an established
TOC even prior to the evaluability assessment. The assessment validated the existing TOC in
a series of KIIs with heads and staff from agencies/units such as the program management unit
of Negosyo Center and the coordinators in the regions and provinces. The essential causal
link assumption is that assistance in navigating regulatory requirements and accessing support
services will reduce the cost of doing business and promote the growth and development of
MSMEs. This assumption is plausible considering that business transaction costs are high in
the country, especially search cost (cost of information search) as well as the costs associated
with contracting. The survey of NC beneficiaries validated the importance of NC’s causal link
assumptions. The primary motivation of the majority of beneficiaries (57%) was to access
information/knowledge on business operations. Almost half (47%) of the respondents wanted to
explore new business opportunities while others were motivated by the assistance provided in
processing business permits and documents (43%); access to trainings (38%); and new
knowledge on technical operations (36%). The output and outcome indicators of NC are well-
specified except for the absence of baseline targets, which will a major constraint in future
evaluation.

The SSF did not have a theory of change or results framework prior to the evaluability
assessment. The assessment team constructed the TOC and RF with the implementers from
the program rationale and other program documents. The TOC is plausible considering that
MSMEs are often constrained to adopt technologies, especially processing/manufacturing
machineries due to high cost. In addition, equipment/machineries are indivisible and have
operating capacities far more than what would be needed by individual MSMEs. The sharing
scheme is therefore a viable strategy and could really be expected to positively impact on
MSME’s performance. The causal link assumption also appears adequate as what is really
needed is to just increase the access to technologies in order to realize the positive effect on
production or manufacturing performance of MSMEs. Result of the survey of beneficiaries
validated the TOC and causal links of the program. Almost half (48%) of the respondents
indicated they participated in the program to improve their production operation,19 percent to
standardize and improve the quality of their product while one third (32%) wanted to improve
the production operation of other MSMEs engaged in similar business within the community
by sharing the service facilities with them. The output, outcome and impact indicators are well
specified, and the targets are indicated. While the baseline values are not indicated this will
not be a major limitation as the indicators are periodically tracked in the M&E system of the
program. The indicator on increase in sales or income generated can be linked directly to the

82 | P a g e
MSMEDP indicator on increase value added. This indicates that the SSF program can
contribute directly to the targets of MSMEDP.

The OTOP program did not have a clear theory of change and results framework prior to
evaluability assessment. The assessment team reconstructed the TOC and RF together with
the program implementers. Unlike the other program components of MSMEDP which provide
specialized type of assistance, OTOP is a general program intended to provide all types of
support to MSMEs. The pathway though is through building capacity to enable MSMEs to level
up, be standards compliant and access new and bigger markets. In its RF, the output and
outcome indicators are specified, but the baseline values have not been established. However,
this probably will not be a problem as all the outcome indicators are derivable from the existing
M&E system of the program.

The outcome indicators of the OTOP program can directly feed to the outcome indicators of
the MSMEDP, especially the improved domestic and export sales of the OTOP clients which
may form part of the increase value added indicator in the MSMEDP. Owing to its nationwide
scale, the OTOP program also satisfies the reach assumption of the MSMEDP. Similar to the
other MSMEDP component programs, SETUP did not have an explicit statement of its theory of
change and results framework. However, the descriptive narrative of the program as well as
information from relevant documents were adequate to construct the TOC and results
framework in consultation with the DOST representatives who are managing the program. The
primary causal link assumption that access to technology and other S&T solutions can lead to
productivity growth is valid, ceteris paribus (all other things held constant). Most cases of
technological failure are due to exogenous factors, especially unfavorable input and output
market conditions (e.g., increase in the cost of fuel or electricity which makes mechanized
operations costlier).

3. On Availability of Data

Four important areas were examined in establishing the availability of data in the six MSMEDP
component programs: (1) indicators being tracked and data being collected; (2) means of
collecting data; (3) forms the data are available; and (4) periodicity. Findings on the availability
of data of the six MSMEDP component programs are summarized in Table 33.

83 | P a g e
Table 33. Data Availability of the Six MSMEDP Component Programs
KMME P3 NC SSF OTOP SETUP
Size of capital, Size of capital, number of NCs Number of MSMEs Probably has Major indicators
sales, personnel sales, established, assisted, number of the largest track
personnel number of MSMEs jobs created, total number of productivity/effic
Indicators directly served, number of sales value, amount indicators iency/improvem
related with the • Number of trainings of investments being ent,
program’s major organized facilitated, number generated tracked and employment
indicators: in a of marketing data being generated,
• Asset size databank events organized, Program indicators collected gross sales
• Sales data’ but are and number of are as follows: generated and
• Number of found in financing fora Program number of
products/service the conducted • sales generated indicators MSMEs
lines application • jobs/employment are classified assisted.
• Number of papers Indicators on generated by services
customers only for asset size, • total investments provided All the major
penetrated in both the employment • number of SSFs such as indicators of the
both the retail and generation and established and training, program directly
domestic and wholesale the growth in facilities trade fairs, relate with the
export markets schemes sales and provided etc. MSMEDP
• Number of • Not profitability/income • number of indicators
employees aggregated levels are also MSMEs assisted Indicators
at the MFI being monitored • Number of directly
and SBC operational, related with
level, partially the
which operational program’s
could be a SSFs major
challenge • Status of the indicators
in future facilities • number of
evaluation • Number of SSFs MSMEs
turned- assisted
over/donated to • number of
cooperators jobs
• Amount generated
disbursed • amount of
sales
generated

3a. Indicators being tracked and data being collected

For KMME, the major indicators being tracked are the size of capital, sales, and personnel of
the MSMES, among others. All these indicators could directly translate to the MSMEDP
indicators, especially on increase in employment and increase in MSME’s value added. The
KMME and MSMEDP are therefore in-sync with respect to the indicators being tracked.

The KMME M&E system collects a wide array of data from its beneficiary MSMEs. Among the
data being collected which relate directly with the program’s major indicators are the asset
size of the MSMEs, sales data, number of products/service lines, number of customers
penetrated in both the domestic and export markets and number of employees. If collected
religiously, these data should be adequate to track the program’s major indicators.

Similar to KMME, the P3 major program indicators are size of capital, sales, and personnel.
These directly relate with the MSMEDP indicators. However, while the data on these are
available these are not organized in a databank but instead are found in the application papers
only for both the retail and wholesale schemes. In addition, the data are not aggregated at the
MFI and SBC level, which could be a challenge in future evaluation.

84 | P a g e
In the case of SSF, the key performance indicators are the number of MSMEs assisted,
number of jobs created, total sales value and the amount of investments generated. All of
these are in-sync with the MSMEDP indicators. The data collected by the program includes
sales generated, jobs/employment generated, total investments, number of SSFs established
and facilities provided, number of MSMEs assisted, number of operational, partially
operational and non-operational SSFs, status of the facilities, number of SSFs turned
over/donated to cooperators and amount disbursed, among others.

The major indicators of the Negosyo Center program are the number of NCs established,
number of MSMEs served, number of trainings facilitated, number of marketing events
organized, and financing fora conducted. The indicators on asset size, employment generation
and the growth in sales and profitability/income levels are also being monitored, which makes
the program in-sync with MSMEDP.

The OTOP program probably has the largest number of indicators being tracked and data
being collected, obviously owing to the enormity of the program. The program indicators are
classified by services provided such as training, trade fairs, etc. Among the indicators, the
number of MSMEs assisted, number of jobs generated, and the amount of sales generated
by the MSMEs directly relate with the MSMEDP indicators.

For SETUP the major indicators include productivity/efficiency improvement, employment

generated, gross sales generated and number of MSMEs assisted. A wide array of data is
being collected to track these indicators and for management use. All the major indicators of
the program directly relate with the MSMEDP indicators.

3b. Means of collecting data

The most important means of collecting primary data is through the application form of
program applicants. In all the six component programs, applicants are required to fill-out an
application form which gathers basic personal and business information. Simple business
proposals which are required in accessing certain program assistance such as loans also
serve as a rich source of primary data for the various programs.

In the case of KMME for instance, a one-page data capture form is required that gathers
information including business name and branch, contact details, gender, form of ownership,
major business activity and product/service line. The information gathered related to the
indicators include initial capitalization, asset size classification, and number of employees. In
addition, the KMME Operations Manual has a monitoring template that requires the Mentees
to submit the form 6 months after graduation.

Similarly, for OTOP, data are gathered from the company information sheet and product
information sheet. Tracking the status of the business is available for every client if both
company and product information sheets are regularly updated. However, there is no system
to consolidate the data as these are not organized in a databank for easy retrieval.

For SETUP, the technology needs assessment (TNA) serves as an important means of
collecting data, especially baseline data. In addition to the TNA, the pre-implementation project
information sheet (PIS) is also required for submission before the release of project funds.
The Pre-PIS asks for the baseline data prior to the assistance such as: total assets, current
employment, total volume of production n, gross sales, total assets of the firm and pre-
implementation assistance obtained from DOST. SETUP data base is included in the DOST
national database known as IMPRESSION (Information and Monitoring of Projects, Services
and S&T interventions) IT System.

85 | P a g e
In the case of P3 and SSF, data are gathered from the project proposals submitted by the
proponent. This includes sales, production, and market data prior to the project. Updating the
data, however, is a problem since the cooperators are often reluctant to divulge information.
With regards to Negosyo Center, the business counsellors (BCs) play an important role in the
updating of data as they are monitoring the MSMEs upward steps towards the 5-level
enterprise development track (EDT). The BCs access and update the Client Profile and
Monitoring System (CPMS) of DTI which maintains all data related to assistance provided to
MSMEs.

It appears that in all the six component programs, there is an effective and easy means to collect initial
data from the MSMEs. It is therefore possible to establish the baseline values in case the programs will
be evaluated in the future. The difficulty though is in the updating of the data. Such updating is
accomplished through a monitoring system designed to gather data while the assisted projects are in
progress or even beyond.

Forms the Data are Available

All six component programs maintain databases where data are stored and managed. How the data
are organized of course differ depending on the program. In the case of KMME, data are inputted into
an online mentee database that forms part of the KMME database called the Data Catalogue. This is a
spreadsheet provided by the KMME national office for the provincial and coordinators to use.

With regards to SSF, the project management office (PMO) maintains a database of
information by geographic location (municipality, province, and region), industry clusters, by
type of cooperator, and by requested equipment, and reported on monthly, quarterly, and
annual basis.

Similarly, with OTOP, its PMO maintains a data base of all information required in the
program’s work and financial plan. The database is built from the information provided by
the regional offices based on the template given by the PMO. These are reported monthly,
quarterly and annually.

The DTI maintains the Client Profile and Monitoring System (CPMS). It is an Excel database
which contains the profile of the MSMEs being assisted by the DTI. It stores information about
the MSME, including profile and other details of the owner or beneficiary of the assistance;
profile of the MSME, including asset size, financial capital, sales, markets; type of assistance
being provided; and level or stage of business which can be used for the enterprise
development tracking (EDT). The system is not specific to KMME but is used for other
Negosyo Center programs.

The DOST also used to maintain a national database for SETUP. However, the database is
now being maintained at the regional and provincial offices since the time the program has
been devolved to the regional offices. At the provincial level, the provincial science and
technology centers (PSTCs) maintain electronic databases (non-online) and distinct project
files for their implemented projects, which includes SETUP. A DOST nationwide data base
known as IMPRESSION (Information and Monitoring of Projects, Services and S&T
interventions) IT System was developed by DOST IVA. IMPRESSION IT System is a
centralized tool for monitoring, documentation, and management of SETUP, Grants-in-Aid
(GIA), and other projects of the DOST nationwide. DOST has already started streamlining
IMPRESSION IT System in the M &E system of the Regional Offices.

86 | P a g e
3c. Periodicity
As mentioned earlier, establishing baseline values is possible in all the six component
programs, although the level of difficulties may vary depending on whether the data are
already neatly organized in a database or still have to be retrieved from hard copies of
documents such as application forms, business proposals, etc. Findings on the periodicity
of the six MSMEDP component programs are summarized in Table 34.

Table 34. Periodicity of the Six MSMEDP Component Programs

KMME P3 NC SSF OTOP SETUP
Data gathered: Data gathered: Data gathered: Data gathered: Data gathered: Data gathered:
• Monitoring • Progarm • Program • Database • Database • Refund
template dashboard dashboard using the using the rates and
• Mentee monitoring monitoring liquidation
Success Story template template status,
Documentation sales and
Sheet status of
technology
acquisition
Frequency: Frequency: Frequency: Frequency: Frequency: Frequency:
• At least
annually but Regularly Regularly Regularly Regularly Weekly or
not being used monthly
(according to
KIIs and FGDs)
• Traces
mentees
before, during
and after
KMME
program
participation
Remarks: Remarks: Remarks: Remarks: Remarks: Remarks:

KIIs and FGDs: Contains among Used by the Reported on a Reported

this is not being others, data on business monthly, monthly;
used. However, total loans counsellors in quarterly and Updating status
the documentation released and the tracking the annual basis depends on
varies across number of MSMSEs submission by
regions or microenterprises movement or MSMEs
provinces and availing P3 loans upward steps to
there is no achieve the 5-
regularity of level Enterprise
submission Development
Track (EDT)

The next important question is whether the data are being collected on a regular interval to
track the progress of the indicators over a given period. It was learned from KIIs and FGDs
that in the case of KMME, the monitoring template which is supposed to be the means to
update data at least on a yearly basis is not being used. This would have been an effective
avenue for generating data, particularly for MSMEs not availing of other DTI programs. The
KMME also has Mentee Success Story Documentation Sheet which traces the mentees’
journey before, during and after the KMME program participation. However, the documentation
varies across regions or provinces and there is no regularity of submission.

Monitoring appears to be done more intensively and data are collected more frequently in
programs that provide loan assistance. Examples of this are the SETUP and P3 programs. In
the SETUP program, the common data being monitored weekly or monthly include refund rates

87 | P a g e
and liquidation status as well as sales and status of technology acquisition, among others. In
the case of P3, its dashboard is regularly updated and contains among others, data on total
loans released and the number of micro-enterprises availing P3 loans.

In the case of the Negosyo Center, it was learned from the KIIs and FGDs that the program
dashboard is regularly updated since it is used by the business counsellors in tracking the
MSMEs movement or upward steps to achieve the 5-level Enterprise Development Track
(EDT). Similarly, in the case of OTOP, data is generated monthly, quarterly and annually based
on the template provided. These are reported by province and region. However, it was learned
from the KIIs that the company and product information data sheet may not be regularly
updated and organized. It would therefore be difficult to track the status of each MSME.

Data updating appears to be better for SSF as its PMO maintains a database of all relevant
information by geographic location (municipality, province and region), industry clusters, by
type of cooperator, and by requested equipment, and make a report on this on a monthly,
quarterly and annual basis.

4. On Stakeholders’ Demand

The key stakeholders that would be interested in the evaluation are NEDA, DTI, and DOST,
which have been the major movers of the MSMEDP and the component programs. The DBM,
the upper and lower houses of congress and COA would also be interested as considerable
amount of public resources have been used in supporting the plan and its various programs.
The final results, particularly on the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and
impact are some of the general areas of interest of these stakeholders. Findings on
stakeholders’ demand of the six MSMEDP component programs are summarized in Table 35.

Table 35. Stakeholders Demand of the Six MSMEDP Component Programs

KMME P3 NC SSF OTOP SETUP
Has already Has not NC had its Has already been Has not been Has already
been subjected been impact subjected to earlier subjected to been subjected
to earlier subjected assessment evaluation by the earlier to evaluation by
evaluation by the to earlier study in 2019 Philippine Institute evaluation the
Asian Institute of evaluation for Development Development
Management Studies (PIDS) in Academy of the
(AIM) in 2019. 2016, but the Philippines
However, it evaluation was (DAP) in 2019,
failed to cover considered but this covered
the most preliminary and was the period when
important aspect done prior to program
on the number of MSMEDP. An impact implementation
SMEs which assessment was was still
were able to conducted by UP centralized at
scale-up as a Institute of Small the DOST. A
result of the Scale Industries. performance
program Data were presented evaluation of
on the number of SETUP under
cooperators and SSF the
established and decentralized
amounts disbursed implementation
but no detailed structure could
estimation of benefits yield valuable
to stakeholders was insights to
done. further improve
the program

88 | P a g e
During the KIIs and FGDs, the program implementers both at the national and field levels have
expressed the view that an evaluation is warranted so that specific enhancements can be
identified and put in place. This is despite the fact that three of the programs, namely KMME,
SSF and SETUP had already been subjected to an earlier evaluation. In the case of KMME
an evaluation was done by the Asian Institute of Management (AIM) in 2019. However, it failed
to cover the most important aspect on the number of SMEs which were able to scale-up as
a result of the program. The SSF was evaluated by the Philippine Institute for Development
Studies (PIDS) in 2016, but the evaluation was considered preliminary and was done prior to
the MSMEDP. The impact of SETUP was evaluated by the Development Academy of the
Philippines (DAP) in 2019, but this covered the period when program implementation was still
centralized at the DOST. A performance evaluation of SETUP under the decentralized
implementation structure could yield valuable insights to further improve the program.

5. On Robustness of the M&E System

The over-all findings on the status of the M&E systems of the six MSMEDP component
programs are summarized in Table 36.

Table 36. Status of the M&E System of the Six MSMEDP Component Programs
KMME P3 NC SSF OTOP SETUP
Majority (82%) of Has yet to PMU provides Regional and Data collected PMMIS sets
survey implement consolidated provincial offices serve as annual M&E
respondents actual report to serve as the evidence of activities in the
were being monitoring of BSMED on the project’s performance of provinces and
monitored mostly P3 status of NC implementing each initiative reports its findings
monthly and implementation arm. funded by the to the top
quarterly by the Field personnel especially program. management.
DTI personnel of SBC were during the SSF Focal
not even aware MSMEDP Person in the Yearly targets PSTCs monitors
The respondents of the activities Council province closely are laid down as programs and
also shared that of the unit Meeting monitor the foundation for projects, including
they are being (based on KII status of comparison to SETUP status.
requested to and FGD) 47% of implementation, what was
provide data and respondents collect the actually PSTCs regularly
documents for Currently indicated they required data, accomplished. conduct site visits
updating their closely being are being process and or phone calls to
records in the monitored: monitored by consolidate the The program gather relevant
database financial aspect the NC staff data and have sometimes data regarding the
of the program either monthly these submitted experiences project
particularly (20%), quarterly to the regional gaps in its implementation.
pertaining to (10%), yearly focal person. monitoring and
payments of (6%) or evaluating PSTCs submit
loans varies/depends No M&E plan, system, e.g., Semestral Status
(11%) hence the staff turn-over. Reports and the
conduct of M&E However, great Annual Project
may differ effort is exerted Information Sheets
among regions to fill these (PIS).
and provinces gaps, most
notably in 94% of survey
consistently respondents said
updating and that DOST
innovating the monitors them
templates used monthly (40%) and
for monitoring quarterly (48%),
as the situation and that data,
demands documents and
payments/refund
are required

89 | P a g e
The findings on the robustness of the M&E systems of the six MSMEDP component programs
are summarized in Table 37.

Table 37. Robustness of the M&E System of the Six MSMEDP Component Programs
KMME P3 NC SSF OTOP SETUP
M&E led by M&E M&E handled M&E handled M&E handled M&E conducted
BMSED encompasses 3 by the Project by the SSF by the Project on the ground
levels: SBC, Management Project Management by DOST
MFI, and credit Unit which is Management Unit Provincial
delivery partner under the DTI Office created Science and
Regional by BSMED. Technology
Program Operations PMO Center (PSTC).
Owner: SBC, Group coordinate the
SBC Program M&E of the The DOST
Monitoring Unit project, Regional
to handle the generate and Offices through
M&E of P3 and consolidate the Planning,
its other lending the periodic Monitoring and
programs reports from Evaluation and
the DTI Ros, Management
P3 M&E MFI provide Information
Level: Data secretariat in (PMMIS) Unit
collection and support to assumes main
M&E System NTWG and responsibility.
vary depending technical
on the MFI’s support in the SETUP
own systems, procurement database is
processing and of the needed included in the
procedures. facilities DOST national
database known
Majority of the as
beneficiaries IMPRESSION
(59%) were (Information and
being Monitoring of
monitored, but Projects,
mostly in Services and
relation to S&T
payment or Interventions) IT
collection of System
their loans. The
frequency of
monitoring is
either monthly
(40% of
respondents) or
quarterly (21%)

In the case of KMME, the BSMED is tasked to be the lead for monitoring and evaluation,
including the development of a concise evaluation process. The vision is to monitor the
progress of the mentees after graduation, and more importantly focus on key result areas such
as growth in sales volume and revenue, profitability and cash flow, employees, and capacity.
It was found from the survey of beneficiaries that a large majority (82%) of respondents were
being monitored mostly monthly and quarterly by the DTI personnel. The respondents also
shared that they are being requested to provide data and documents for updating their records
in the database.

90 | P a g e
For SSF, an SSF Project Management Office in BSMED was created whose tasks are to
coordinate the monitoring and evaluation of the project, generate and consolidate the periodic
reports from the DTI Regional Offices, and provide secretariat support to NTWG and technical
support in the procurement of the needed facilities. The regional and provincial offices serve
as the project’s implementing arm. The SSF Focal Person in the province has to closely
monitor the status of implementation, collect the required data, process, and consolidate the
data and have these submitted to the regional focal person. However, there is no M&E plan,
hence the conduct of M&E may differ among regions and provinces.

In the case of OTOP, data collected serve as evidence of performance of each initiative funded
by the program. Yearly targets are laid down as foundation for comparison to what was actually
accomplished. A comprehensive evaluation of what these numbers signify is accomplished
annually, making it easier to map out trends and gauge a project’s impact. The program
sometimes experiences gaps in its monitoring and evaluating system. However, great effort is
exerted to fill in these gaps, most notably in consistently updating and innovating the templates
used for monitoring as the situation demands.

For SETUP, the DOST Regional Offices (RO) assume the main responsibility in monitoring
the projects especially since the SETUP funds were already devolved to their offices. Previous
to this, monitoring was done by the national office. Results of KIIs suggest that the current
monitoring arrangement is better. Monitoring of all approved projects is the main responsibility
of the DOST RO thru the PSTC. This process starts from the release of funds up to the end
of the project when the beneficiary has refunded the financial assistance provided.

The regional office has a Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation and Management Information
System (PMMIS) Unit which is responsible for the M&E activities in the region. It sets annual
M&E activities in the provinces and reports its findings to the top management. Part of the
regular function of PSTCs is the monitoring of its Programs and Projects, including SETUP.
The PSTCs regularly conduct site visits to the projects or through phone calls to gather
relevant data regarding project implementation. They also submit Semestral Status Reports
and the annual Project Information Sheets (PIS).

Survey respondents affirmed (94%) that DOST monitors them monthly (40%) and quarterly
(48%), and that data, documents and payments/refunds are required.

The over-all findings on the database management of MSMEDP programs are summarized
in Table 38.

Table 38. Database Management of MSMEDP Component Programs

KMME P3 NC
Client Profile and Monitoring Regular monitoring is done on the Important databases
System (CPMS) following indicators: • Dashboard used by BCs to
• Principal database for the • Number of beneficiaries monitor their monthly activities
KMME M&E system’ • Loan amount and services provided
• Limitation: Use of Excel as its • Covered areas • CPMS used to capture MSME
programming and database • Number of provinces reached information
tool • Volume of assistance • Includes the EDT level which
• Issues on speed of processing • Direct retail scheme-first 6 the BC assign to a specific
and consolidation at the months and quarterly MSME
regional level were pointed out thereafter • Issues encountered:
by the key informants • Wholesale scheme-during numerous data field
• High number of entries per audit and field validation, as requirements, dependability on
province over time will well as payment monitoring the Internet connectivity,
eventually possibly cause through PDCs issued by the double counting of some
problems to the system MFIs entries and other technical
issues

91 | P a g e
The Client Profile and Monitoring System (CPMS) is the principal database for the KMME M&E
system. The limitation of the CPMS however, is the use of Excel as its programming and
database tool. In most of the KIIs, issues on speed of processing and consolidation at the
Regional Level were pointed out by the key informants. It is also possible that the high number
of entries per province over time will eventually cause problems to the system.

In the case of P3, the M&E system encompasses three levels—SBC, MFI, and credit delivery
partner. The Small Business Corporation (SBC) is the program owner. It established a program
monitoring unit to handle the M&E of P3 and its other lending programs. However, it has yet
to implement actual monitoring of P3 and it was learned from the KIIs and FGDs that the field
personnel of SBC were not even aware of the activities of the unit.

What is closely being monitored in P3 is the financial aspect of the program particularly
pertaining to payments of loans. Regular monitoring is done on the following indicators: (1)
number of beneficiaries, loan amount, covered areas, number of provinces reached, and
volume of assistance. Other indicators include purpose of the loan, beneficiaries, and
utilization rate. For direct retail scheme, monitoring is being done for the first 6 months and
quarterly thereafter. For the wholesale scheme, monitoring is done during audit and field
validation, as well as payment monitoring through Post Dated Cheques (PDCs) issued by the
MFIs.

At the MFI level, data collection and M&E system vary depending on the MFI’s own systems,
processes, and procedures. The survey confirmed that majority (59%) of beneficiaries were
being monitored, but mostly in relation to payment or collection of their loans. The frequency
of monitoring is either monthly as shared by 40 percent of the respondents or quarterly
according to 21 percent of the respondents.

For NC program, the M&E is being done by the Project Management Unit which is under the
DTI Regional Operations Group (ROG). The PMU also provides report to BSMED on the status
of NC implementation especially during the MSMEDP Council Meeting. Report of the PMU is
a consolidated report of all regional reports.

Important databases used in monitoring NC beneficiaries include the dashboard used by BCs
to monitor their monthly activities and services provided and the CPMS used to capture MSME
information. The CPMS includes the EDT level which the BC assign to a specific MSME based
on initial assessment and indicators. However, the KIIs indicated some issues in the use of
CPMS such as the numerous data field requirements, dependability on internet connectivity,
double counting of some entries and other technical issues. The survey of NC beneficiaries
showed that 53 percent of the respondents indicated they were being monitored by the NC
staff either monthly (43%), quarterly (10%) or yearly (6%).

6. On Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency and Sustainability

A preliminary evaluation of program performance was carried out to deepen the assessment
of the evaluability of the MSMEDP component programs. The performance parameters
examined were relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability. There are at least two
reasons why preliminary performance evaluation could inform an evaluability assessment.
First, by initially gauging the performance of the program, its readiness for a full-blown
evaluation could be better examined. Second, by making a preliminary assessment of
performance, the key evaluation questions that should be pursued in a full-blown performance
evaluation could be more effectively identified.

92 | P a g e
Using the Likert scale, results of the survey of beneficiaries showed that in all the six programs
and in all the parameters of performance, the response distribution is extremely skewed to the
Likert scores of 4 to 5, which means there is high agreement among the respondents that the
programs are relevant, effective, efficient and sustainable.

For KMME, respondents claimed the modular sessions provided them with effective business
knowledge and principles and the program served as venue to widen their network and join
forces with their co-mentees so that they can become a more “powerful” block in the supply
chain. The survey showed that the respondents believe the program improved the following
aspects of their business: management operations (96%), product or service quality (90%),
labor efficiency (84%), lowered production cost (68%) and shortened the production process
(59%). The respondents also have positive view on the sustainability of the program. They
believe funds from government will be sustained as the program is quite relevant and
successful.

Similarly, with P3, the respondents perceive the program as relevant as it addresses their
need for low interest credit which they use to improve business operations. The program is
also effective as it lessened their dependence on informal credit source which charge usurious
rates. The beneficiaries claimed the assistance of P3 improved the efficiency in management
operations (63%), the quality of their products and services (56%), labor efficiency (44%) and
lowered cost of production (31%). It was suggested though, that further streamlining of the
documentary requirements is needed.

With regards to the NC program, the survey respondents said the services offered by the
program are necessary. Majority (59%) perceived that NC improved business climate in the
area and that it has supported MSMEs’ business operations (62%). They also believe NC is
effective in supporting the expansion and competitiveness of MSMEs through the promotional
activities and advocacy initiatives. It was noted that MSMEs, after availing services of NC,
were able to expand their network and business contacts which provided potential business
opportunities. The respondents reported that in general, the trainings provided were able to
improve business processes such that business registration was hastened (64%); shortened
the process to operate a business (50%) and promoted efficiency in management (58%).
Production costs were lowered (40%), improvement in quality of products and services (58%)
and lower production costs (40%) were achieved. Marketing improvement was also observed
through improved strategies and increased in number of potential markets.

In the case of SSF, the beneficiaries perceive the program to have addressed their needs to
improve production operation and productivity. There were several testimonials proving that
the program was able to help the MSMEs.

Similarly, in the case of OTOP, majority (53%) of beneficiaries believe the program helped
MSMEs improve their business operation and address current concerns on product
improvement. It enabled them to improve their management skills and the technical capability
of their staff through the trainings provided.

With regards to SETUP, the beneficiaries of the program stated that SETUP is relevant to their
business (67 percent); it can help them improve business operations and address current
problems (64 percent); made them competitive (59 percent) and enabled them improve their
management capability (54 percent). Majority of the survey respondents believe that SETUP
is effective as it helped them standardize and improve the quality of their products (63
percent); increase their production capacity (60 percent); help the business grow and increase
their income (59 percent). Nearly 50 percent believe that SETUP enabled them to develop
new products and services, improve their management capability and technical capability of
their employees, and generate more employment. and new markets.

93 | P a g e
7. On the Effects of the Covid-19 Pandemic

The KMME program launched a digital KMME called the Kapatid Mentor Me Online Project.
This is a practical delivery mechanism for the same mentorship modules, with an emphasis
on how to survive in spite of the setbacks the MSMEs are experiencing. Utilizing digital
technology via Zoom, the modules were transformed for online learning, with an expanded
panel of evaluators for the business improvement plans to include representatives from banks,
online market platforms and other business support organizations.

KMME beneficiary respondents reported an overall average decrease in sales of 57 percent.

Many of the MSMEs within each type of industry also closed down. Also hit hard by the
lockdowns were the catering services, and the metals and engineering (referring to junk shops
and motor repair shops). The food and food processing industry shrunk by 38 percent despite
the common notion that this is the least hit by the pandemic. Lessons learned from the crisis
include being always ready and resilient, having savings or emergency funds, the need to
adjust and cope, and being innovative, creative and have new ideas.
In the case of P3, its beneficiaries under all types of industry experienced a drastic decrease
in monthly revenues during the pandemic by 44 percent. In fact, 16 MSMEs reported closing
down during the lockdown, especially those under the construction and manufacturing
industries. Even those under the agriculture, aquaculture and fishing MSMEs reported a 57%
decrease in revenues due to decreased demand and challenges related to transportation and
other logistics. According to the beneficiaries, they learned the importance of savings or
emergency funds (50%), the need to be ready and resilient (21%) by being pro-active, explore
new markets, take risk; the need to diversify, look for alternatives and be resourceful (7%) and
the need to have a contingency or strategic plan (4%).

Similarly, many of the Negosyo Centers experienced decreased in sales and income (21%)
and stopped their operations (16%). Services offered were limited. Among the key MSMEs
highly affected were under the service sector. The key informants reported that many
restaurants and personal care businesses such as salons, barbershops, spa and gyms have
shut down their operations. Tourism sector was greatly affected which included MSMEs
operating hotels, inns and resorts, transportation services, and restaurants. On the other hand,
food business and agriculture have flourished especially those that provided delivery services.
In agriculture, the increased in demand for plants due to the “plantito/plantita” craze opened
opportunities for MSMEs on this sector to grow.

In the case of SSF, the pandemic hampered the project’s monitoring activities that require
face-to-face meetings. Scheduled summits/conferences/trainings were cancelled. The
implementation of the P500M SSF capital outlay allocated in the 2020 budget of the DTI to
fund the procurement of new facilities was discontinued in order to contribute to the response
measures. Many SSFs remained operational at the onset of the pandemic. Others fabricated
the PPEs, face masks and aerosol boxes which were barely available then. Face masks and
alcohols were likewise produced by many SSFs nationwide.

SETUP beneficiaries reported difficulties in raw materials supply, production capacity, market
access and repayment of iFund to DOST. At the height of the pandemic, the volume of sales
per month for all products declined. In terms of monthly revenues, those earning less than
PhP10,000 before the pandemic, doubled from 13 percent to 26 percent during pandemic;
those earning between PhP10,001 to PhP100,000 increased by 30 percent. The revenue of
those earning more than PhP100,000 to PhP500,000 before pandemic were reduced by half,
while those earning more than PhP500,000 were reduced by one third during pandemic.

94 | P a g e
With regards to OTOP, the pandemic led to the cancellation of face-to-face trade fairs and
were replaced by virtual ones. Most stores had to undergo temporary closures. One third of
the surveyed MSMEs reported that they were badly affected (32%). Decreases in sales and
sluggish business were reported by 28 percent. Some have stopped operation (11%). Others
encountered difficulty in product delivery, financial struggles/no income, and limited supply of
the needed materials. The pandemic tested their resilience as they learned a lot from the
crisis. Among these are the importance of readiness (18%), saving for emergency fund (14%),
to have a contingency plan (12%), to adjust and cope up, not to depend on others and not to
give up.

XII. SUMMARY AND EXPLANATION OF FINDINGS AND

INTERPRETATIONS

A. On the evaluability of MSMEDP and its component programs

1. The MSMEDP and the six component programs are evaluable.

The TOC and results framework are available (reconstructed), plausible, the causal links
between the MSMEDP with its component programs are valid and the indicators are clearly
specified.

The MSMEDP and its component programs are fairly in- sync with the indicators and strategies
in the MSMED/PDP results framework.

The output and outcome indicators of component programs are well-specified, except for the
absence of baseline and targets. Baseline values can be established with varying difficulties
depending on the program. In the case of KMME, baseline can be established from an earlier
survey (2016- 2017) of KMME graduates. In SSF, OTP, NC and P3, the baseline values are not
indicated and indicators are periodically tracked. For SETUP, baseline values can be mined
from documents on technology needs assessment.

2. The M&E systems of MSMEDP and its component programs are fairly robust, albeit
with plenty of rooms for improvement.

Enhancements are needed in the M&E systems of the component programs. The monitoring
template of KMME is not being used. The KMME also has Mentee Success Story
Documentation Sheet which traces the mentees’ journey before, during and after KMME
program participation. However, the documentation varies across regions or provinces and
there is no regularity of submission.

A monitoring template for OTOP is provided and regularly updated. However, the company
and product information sheet are not regularly updated and there is no system to organize
the information in a databank for easy retrieval, making it difficult to track the status of the
MSMEs supported by the program.

Monitoring is done more intensively and data are frequently collected in loan assistance
programs such as SETUP and P3. However, the data being collected frequently are limited to
those related to the loans, such as repayment, liquidation. refunds, etc. In the case of P3, the
M&E unit established by SBC is yet to carry out actual performance monitoring of the program.

95 | P a g e
The Client Profile and Monitoring System (CPMS) is the principal database for the DTI
supported programs. However, it uses Excel as its programming and database tool, thus the
issue on speed and capacity.

3. There exists sufficient stakeholder demand for the evaluation of MSMEDP and its
component programs.

Key stakeholders from NEDA, DTI, and DOST have been the major movers of the MSMEDP
and its programs. The DBM, COA, the upper and lower houses of congress would also be
interested as public resources were used in implementing the plan.

Program implementers both at the national and field levels look forward to specific
enhancements in the programs, despite the fact that previous evaluation have been
conducted for KMME (done by AIM in 2019), for SSF (done by PIDS in 2016), and for SETUP
(done by DAP in 2019).

4. The appropriate type of evaluation is either TOC-based performance evaluation or

TOC-based impact assessment using mixed-method approach.

TOC-based performance evaluation is appropriate for KMME, SSF and SETUP as they have
been evaluated previously for impact. TOC-based impact assessment is appropriate for P3,
NC and OTOP as these have not been evaluated yet for impact.

The key evaluation questions should cover the program design, i.e., validating the TOC,
results framework, and causal link assumptions, as well as program performance as gauged
against relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact.

B. On the process assessment of the six component programs

1. There is enough empirical evidence to suggest that the MSMEDP and its
component programs are relevant, effective, efficient, and sustainable.

Results of the survey of beneficiaries showed that in all the six programs and in all the
parameters of performance, the response distribution is extremely skewed to the Likert scores
of 4 to 5, which means there is high agreement among the respondents that the programs are
relevant, effective, efficient and sustainable.

KMME respondents claimed they were provided with effective business knowledge, wide
network that could become a “powerful” block in the supply chain. P3 beneficiaries perceive
the program addressed their need for low interest credit and lessened their dependence on
informal credit sources. NC services were viewed as necessary in improving business climate,
supporting MSMEs’ business operations and competitiveness. Very positive feedback was
also provided by the beneficiaries of SSF, OTOP and SETUP.

2. Full-blown evaluation is warranted to demonstrate program success.

Since the MSMEDP is an integral part of the PDP, a full-blown independent and impartial
evaluation of the component programs is warranted as the PDP draws to a close.

96 | P a g e
XIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The assessment firmed up that the MSMEDP and its programs are evaluable following the
NEPF Evaluability Checklist with the reconstructed TOC and RF/impact pathways and that
all six (6) programs are relevant, effective, efficient and sustainable.

The assessment puts forward the following recommendations:

1. The TOC narrative and results framework established in this evaluability assessment
should be adopted by the various program owners as the official TOC and RF for the
programs.

All the component programs, except for the Negosyo Center did not have a TOC narrative and
clear RF. Since the TOCs and RFs reconstructed by the assessment team were validated by
the various program implementers, these should be officially adopted to serve as bases for
future program evaluation.

2. Officially harmonize the component program outcome indicators with the outcome
indicators of MSMEDP.

The program outcomes and MSMEDP outcome indicators are generally in-sync. While the
MSMEDP has specific and quantified outcome targets, the component programs do not have
such targets, thus not clear how much of the MSMEDP targets are expected to come from the
various programs.

3. Establish the baseline and outcome targets of the component programs.

All the component programs do not have baseline and target values for the outcome
indicators. These should be established as the programs will eventually be assessed covering
the 2017-2022 implementation period of the MSMEDP. The 2016 values of the outcome
indicators should at least be established as the baseline.

4. Address the limitations/gaps in the current M&E systems of the various programs.

The assessment concludes that the M&E systems of the component programs are robust with
identified limitations or gaps. These include the need to promote the use of the KMME
monitoring template and a more regular submission of the story documentation sheet; the
regular updating of the product and company information data of OTOP and organize these
in a data bank; include program performance data in the monitoring of P3 and for the M&E
unit established by SBC to start carrying out more vigorously its M&E function; and to start
upgrading the CPMS for greater capacity and faster processing speed.

5. Initiate the preparation for the full-blown evaluation of the MSMEDP and its
component programs, may include benchmarking in order to compare best
practices.

The assessment also proposed the following action points: i) For Recommendation 1,
request an issued resolution by the MSMED Council/Secretariat for adoption of the
constructed and validated TOCs for P3, KMME, SSF, SETUP and OTOP; ii) For
Recommendations 2 and 3, adopt the established log frame, linking the component PAPs’
outcome indicators as contributory to main MSMEDP/PDP outcomes/goals on the succeeding
cycle of the MSMED Plan and the Philippine Development Plan 2023-2028 Results Matrix;
and iii) For Recommendation 4, harmonization and uniformity of monitoring template used,

97 | P a g e
regular dates of submission, organize information in a data bank, vigorously carry out M&E,
and upgrade monitoring systems.

For each of the component programs, the assessment outlines the following M&E
recommendations:

Responsible
Program M&E Recommendations
Unit
KMME Annual KMME monitoring template should be utilized. (Note: Given BSMED- ROG
difficulty in gathering 100% survey responses, response rate should
be reported.)

The Mentee Success Story Documentation Sheet should be

consistently followed through for every KMME training session.
Response rate should be reported. Data collected should be stored in
electronic format/database.
P3 Include program performance data in the monitoring of P3 and for the DTI, SBC
M&E unit established by SBC to start carrying out more vigorously its
M&E function.
NC Start upgrading the CPMS for greater capacity and faster processing DTI NC
speed.
SSF Additional Manpower. Transform baseline data into an electronic DTI, PMO
database for easy retrieval.

OTOP Periodically (e.g. quarterly/annually) cascade survey to update BSMED-ROG

company information sheet of OTOP beneficiaries. Response rate
should be reported.

Consolidate gathered OTOP information in a databank.

SETUP A nationwide data base known as IMPRESSION (Information and DOST -
Monitoring of Projects, Services and S&T interventions) IT System SETUP, PSTC
was developed by DOST IV-A. It is a centralized tool for monitoring,
documentation, and management of SETUP, Grants-in-Aid (GIA),
and other DOST projects nationwide; could be used for M&E activities
considering limited staff for technical and financial monitoring. DOST
has already started streamlining IMPRESSION IT System in the M &E
system of its Regional Offices, hence the need for full implementation
of IMPRESSION in all regions.

Data on financial performance of SETUP could be useful and of

interest to policy makers who have supported SETUP through the
years. An estimate of the return of investments (ROI) could be
meaningful for future support to SETUP program variants.

98 | P a g e
XIV. LESSONS LEARNED, GENERALIZATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES

The evaluability assessment suggested that the MSMEDP 2017-2022 and its programs are
successful. Such success could be demonstrated through an independent, external and
impartial assessment or full-blown evaluation that should be able to quantify the outcomes of
the programs and relate these to the outcomes of the MSMEDP in particular and the PDP
2017-2022 in general.

Success stories of MSMEs as they navigate local and international marketplaces for
innovative enterprises, services, and start-up business activities are truly inspiring, worth
documenting and sharing among other MSMEs. Positive results of these MSME narratives
and entrepreneurial journeys coupled with the results of the external evaluation of the
MSMEDP and its programs could be used in advocating for policies that will institutionalize
and sustain national government support to MSMEs such as the proposed Pondo sa
Pagbabago at Pag-asenso para sa Kaunlaran (P3) Act, the OTOP Bill, and the KMME policy
agenda, among others.

While the Covid-19 pandemic disrupted business operations and hampered business
transactions of most MSMEs, it also created an opportunity for MSMEs to adapt to their
changing circumstances e.g. use of online market platforms to sustain their business,
expanding their business to respond to new markets such as in food delivery, food processing,
food packaging, production of plant pots for increasing plant hobbyists, increased demand for
agriculture and marine products, and shift in production of PPEs, face masks, alcohols and
aerosols. The pandemic also created opportunities for MSMEs to use online learning,
coaching and mentoring platforms to ensure their access to money, market and mentorship.
MSME support programs also transitioned to e-commerce platforms and virtual learning
modes to enhance business resiliency.

In the future, it is hoped that the MSMEs will be able to respond to future challenges,
pandemic or otherwise, health or non-health related, as they gleaned from the lessons
learned from covid lockdown situations e.g. being ready and resilient, having savings or
emergency funds, being creative and innovative, having a business contingency plan, among
others.

The pandemic has changed the landscape of business operations and industry particularly
with respect to digital applications in business, ICT solutions and higher level of
mechanization. As such, there is a need to level-up the operations of MSMEs in order to, not
only survive, but further enhance their competitiveness and resiliency.

With government support and MSMEs’ willpower, proactive decisions, and collective actions,
it is hoped that MSMEs would be able to rebuild, repurpose, retrofit their business strategies
and adapt and respond to the challenges of the “new normal” business environment.

99 | P a g e
XV. ANNEXES

Annex A. Terms of Reference for the Evaluation

EVALUABILITY ASSESSMENT OF MICRO, SMALL, AND MEDIUM
ENTERPRISE (MSME) DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRIORITY PROGRAMS
UNDER THE MSME DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH A PROCESS EVALUATION
OF GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

A. Project Title

Using Strategic Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) to Accelerate the Implementation of the Philippine
Development Plan (PDP) 2017-2022 (Strategic M&E Project; 00103908 / 00105719)

B. Background and Rationale

The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) Philippines have embarked on a partnership to strengthen the conduct of
evaluations of priority government programs under the PDP. Financed by the NEDA and implemented
with full UNDP Country Office support, the Strategic M&E Project will help strengthen the M&E
capacities of NEDA and key government agencies to support the achievement of the Philippine
Development Plan (PDP) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through evidence-based
decision making. Under the project, independent evaluations are commissioned on key themes and
programs relevant to the PDP and the SDGs. The results of the evaluations are envisaged to inform
how policies and programs are designed and implemented to achieve the desired results of the PDP
and contribute to strengthening the government’s M&E systems.

Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in the Philippines comprise 896,893 or 99.5% of the
900,914 total establishments, with bulk being microenterprises. In terms of categories, nearly half are
engaged in wholesale and retail trade, while the rest delve in accommodation and food service,
manufacturing, and others. The sector provides employment opportunities to about 4.8 million people
and accounts for 61.6% of total employment. To spur the sector’s development, the government has
been undertaking policies and programs which are reflected in the MSME Development Plans
(MSMEDPs). Coinciding with the cycle of PDPs, the latest iteration of the MSMEDP for 2017-2022 was
formulated and approved by President Rodrigo R. Duterte in April 2018.

Aligned with the government’s goal of advancing employment, business, and livelihood under the PDP
2017-2022, the MSMEDP (Annex 1) has three (3) three focus areas, which are further cascaded into
five (5) Strategic Goals. Under business environment, the MSMEDP aims for 1) Improved Business
Climate and 2) Improved Access to Finance. Under business capacity, the Plan aims for 3) Enhanced
Management and Labor Capacities and 4) Improved Access to Technology and Innovation. Finally,
under business opportunities is 5) Improved Access to Market. The Plan also presents institutional
support measures that cut across the strategic goals, including effective coordination and intensified
planning, budgeting, and M&E of MSME development interventions. Thirty (30) “flagship” government
programs and projects fall under the strategic goals.

How effective are these interventions to support MSME development throughout their life cycle, from
establishment to scaling up? NEDA, through UNDP, is commissioning a process evaluation of the
MSMEDP 2017-2022 with the goal of building towards a rigorous assessment of the Plan’s outcomes
and impact by the end of the Plan cycle. Such an evaluation will ascertain the efficiency of government’s
processes and systems to coordinate the MSMEDP as well as to monitor and evaluate MSME
development programs and projects’ contribution to higher-level outcomes, including increasing
economic productivity and boosting employment.

The evaluation will include evaluability assessments of at least five (5) flagship programs that represent
the MSMEDP 2017-2022 Strategic Goals. Such evaluability assessments will help prepare for future
impact evaluations on the said programs by reviewing the clarity of results frameworks, robustness of
data collection systems, stakeholder support, feasibility and availability of resources.

100 | P a g e
UNDP thus requires the services of a Firm to undertake the evaluation. The UNDP Strategic M&E Team
will be utilizing the pre-qualified list of firms under the solicitation – EOI-018 which was conducted in
August 2019. The pre-qualified list can be used for three years. The Firm will form a team composed of
a project lead, technical adviser, and three (3) other evaluators at the minimum. It will report to and seek
guidance from an Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) that is composed NEDA, DTI, DOST and other key
government agencies, with participation from UN agencies and other partners. The ERG will provide
direction and input to the design, implementation, and finalization of the evaluation; as well as facilitate
management responses and action planning to the evaluation’s recommendations.

C. Objectives of the Evaluation

The main objectives of this evaluation are to (1) assess the evaluability of the MSMEDP, and at least
five flagship programs under the MSMEDP which represent the pillars of the current MSMEDP (i.e.,
implementation level), and to the extent possible, (2) determine the efficiency and effectiveness of
government’s processes to coordinate and facilitate the development, implementation, and monitoring
and evaluation of the MSMEDP, including alignment of MSMEDP objectives with the PDP and its results
matrix (i.e., oversight level); (3) as part of the evaluability assessment, assess the perception of MSMEs
on the relevance and effectiveness of programs that cater to them. Such assessments are aimed to
build towards the readiness of MSME development interventions for future impact evaluations. Of
special interest is on how well do government interventions graduate MSMEs to the next category, i.e.,
from micro to small, small to medium, and medium to large.

The Evaluability Assessments of the MSMEDP and at least five flagship programs under the MSMEDP
will entail an in-depth assessment of the following evaluability criteria spelled out in the draft Guidelines
to the National Evaluation Policy Framework (NEPF, Annex 3), and may be guided by other references,
including the attached UNDP template (see Annex 4). The Firm may also introduce its respective
methodologies and approaches to assessing and strengthening evaluability and evaluation capacity.

1. Clarity of the intervention – does the subject of evaluation have a clear logical
framework or theory of change? Are the objectives, outcomes, and outputs clearly
defined? Are the indicators clearly stated?

2. Availability of data – is sufficient data collected against the indicators? Is there baseline
data? What methodology can be used given the available data? The in-depth evaluability
assessment is expected to delve into this evaluability criterion in detail, assessing the
robustness of administrative data collection and M&E systems and how these link to
broader national and agency-level planning and budgeting processes.

3. Stakeholder interest and intended use – how can decision-makers use the evaluation
to improve program design, implementation, and resource allocation? Are there socio-
political factors that could hinder the conduct of the evaluation?

4. Availability of resources for the evaluation – are there enough financial, human, and
knowledge resources to conduct the evaluation? How much is required?

Following the results of the evaluability assessment, and the identification of at least five flagship
programs under the MSMEDP, which represent the pillars of the current MSMEDP (i.e., implementation
level) which are evaluable, the evaluation seeks to answer the following questions to the extent feasible
(see also Annex 1). The inception phase of this contract is expected to further prioritize and refine these
questions through a consultative process:

Relevance
▪ Are the results frameworks of the MSMEDP and its key flagship programs clearly outlined,
with well-articulated results and well-defined indicators? How well do these results
frameworks synergize with each other and with the broader PDP results matrix?
▪ To what extent have the MSMEDP, its objectives, and component programs have been
relevant to the MSMEs themselves? Are there mechanisms which enable the government
to regularly assess the relevance of its programs to MSMEs?

101 | P a g e
 `Effectiveness
▪ How can M&E systems be set up to enable the measurement of the contribution of
MSMEDP and its flagship programs to the productivity, job generation, and other relevant
socio-economic outcomes? Can this contribution be assessed using available data? What
other data generation means can be utilized?
▪ Are the indicators and targets set in the MSMEDP reflective of the intentions of the plans’
objectives and strategies? Are data collection systems in place to measure achievement?
▪ In the perspective of stakeholders, to what extent have the MSMEDP and component
programs helped MSMEs with their needs at key stages in their life cycle?

Efficiency
▪ Have government interventions been implemented efficiently? What are the efficiency
constraints that remain unaddressed?
▪ What are the existing coordination and implementation mechanisms in implementing the
MSMEDP and its component programs? Are the implementation and coordination
mechanisms conducive for achieving expected results?
▪ Are the flagship programs implemented cohesively at both national and local levels? Are
the processes and structures in place capable of delivering and measuring the intended
results: from inputs, to outputs, and to outcomes?
▪ Was there an appropriate level of financing to implement the MSMEDP?

Sustainability
▪ Are the government interventions for MSMEs sustainable? Can government M&E enable
the assessment of the sustainability of benefits to MSMEs?
▪ How can DTI, which leads the MSME Development Council and serves as its secretariat,
strengthen its M&E systems for the MSMEDP in a way that enables it to measure outcomes
and impact of interventions rigorously?
▪ How can the various implementing agencies of MSME development interventions
strengthen their M&E systems and pursue evaluations to support the overall M&E system
of the MSMEDP?

D. Scope of Services and Methodology

The Firm will form a team composed of a project lead, technical adviser, and three (3) other evaluators
at the minimum. It will report to and seek guidance from an Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) that is
composed NEDA, DTI, DOST and other key government agencies, with participation from UN agencies
and other partners. The ERG will provide direction and input to the design, implementation, and
finalization of the evaluation; as well as facilitate management responses and action planning to the
evaluation’s recommendations.
Under the overall guidance of the UNDP in collaboration with the ERG of the study, and reporting
directly and regularly to the Strategic M&E Project Coordinator of UNDP, the Firm shall undertake the
following:

1. Preparatory work, including:

a. Design an overall analytical framework and methodology for the evaluability
assessment of the MSMEDP and of at least five (5) flagship programs, and the
formative evaluation of the MSMEDP;
b. Collate, review, and synthesize relevant literature and documents which shall
inform the design of the methodology for the evaluation;
c. Scope out, review, analyze existing data on MSME development, including official
statistics and administrative data from program and project implementation;
d. Prepare tools for the key informant interviews and focus group discussions;
e. Propose other data gathering and analysis tools as may be relevant.

2. Data gathering and analysis, including:

a. Conduct key informant interviews and focus group discussions;
b. Design and undertake a perceptions survey or other methodology that gauges the

102 | P a g e
 relevance and effectiveness of programs to MSMEs.
c. Undertake other data gathering and analysis tools, as may be proposed by the
Firm, to address the evaluation questions.

3. Reporting of Results:
a. Draft and revise the Inception Report and Draft Evaluation Report in line with
NEDA and UNDP quality assurance standards;
b. Prepare and submit a Final Report, subject to review by the ERG for this study,
including the raw and processed data used in building the report;
c. Present results to and consider feedback from the ERG at key stages of the
research, and provide feedback to the ERG on the evaluation process; and,
d. Communicate and consult with NEDA and UNDP and other stakeholders and
incorporate their comments in the evaluation report.

4. Presentation and Use of Results

a. Provide recommendations for strengthening M&E systems and undertaking future
rigorous evaluation of the MSMEDP and its component flagship programs;
b. Present the preliminary or final results of the evaluation in a public forum;
c. Condense the findings in a one-page summary and a five (5)-page executive
summary;

The Evaluability Assessment of the MSMEDP and of at least five (5) flagship programs will entail an in-
depth assessment of the following evaluability criteria spelled out in the draft Guidelines to the National
Evaluation Policy Framework (NEPF, Annex 3), and may be guided by other references, including the
attached UNDP template (see Annex 4). The Firm may also introduce its respective methodologies and
approaches to assessing and strengthening evaluability and evaluation capacity.

1. Clarity of the intervention – does the subject of evaluation have a clear logical
framework or theory of change? Are the objectives, outcomes, and outputs clearly
defined? Are the indicators clearly stated?

2. Availability of data – is sufficient data collected against the indicators? Is there baseline
data? What methodology can be used given the available data? The in-depth evaluability
assessment is expected to delve into this evaluability criterion in detail, assessing
the robustness of administrative data collection and M&E systems and how these link
to broader national and agency-level planning and budgeting processes.

3. Stakeholder interest and intended use – how can decision-makers use the evaluation
to improve program design, implementation, and resource allocation? Are there socio-
political factors that could hinder the conduct of the evaluation?

4. Availability of resources for the evaluation – are there enough financial, human, and
knowledge resources to conduct the evaluation? How much is required?

The minimum five (5) flagship programs for Evaluability Assessment will be selected in consultation
with NEDA, DTI, and the ERG. The key programs for assessment may include:

1. Improved Business Climate – establishment of Negosyo Centers by the Department of

Trade and Industry (DTI) that facilitate doing business and access to services for
MSMEs. DTI received a budget of PHP 582.4 million in 2019 to set up such centers
nationwide.

2. Improved Access to Finance – various government financial institutions offer wholesale

and retail lending facilities for MSMEs. These include the Pondo sa Pagbabago at Pag-
asenso (P3) which had PHP 1.5 billion in budgetary support in 2019.

3. Enhanced Management and Labor Capacities – various training, coaching and

mentoring programs are being implemented by DTI, such as through the Negosyo

103 | P a g e
 Centers, the Kapatid Mentor ME in partnership with Go Negosyo, and the SME Roving
Academy.

4. Improved Access to Technology and Innovation – programs implemented by

government to provide MSMEs with technology to boost their productivity and upgrade
their products include the Shared Service Facilities (SSF) of the DTI and the Small
Enterprise Technology Upgrading Program (SETUP) of the Department of Science and
Technology (DOST). These received budgets of PHP 308 million and PHP 582 million,
respectively, in 2019.

5. Improved Access to Market – DTI and other agencies help MSMEs promote and market
their goods and services through programs such as the One Town One Product
(OTOP) Next Generation, which received PHP 90 million in 2019.

The process evaluation of the overall implementation and coordination of the MSMEDP may be
undertaken through a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methodologies that are
appropriate to the subject matter. The selection of methodologies shall be informed, apart from the
evaluability assessment, by a review of relevant literature in the Philippines and in other country
contexts on the effectiveness and impacts of government interventions to develop MSMEs as well as
the efficiency of governance mechanisms to coordinate such interventions.

E. Expected Outputs

The Firm is expected to deliver the following:

1. An Inception Report. This describes the subject of the evaluation, outlines in detail the
evaluation methodologies to be utilized, and sets forth the approach to be taken to
assure quality and cultivate ownership in the exercise. The Inception Report will include
an Evaluation Matrix (template to be provided) that outlines how the Firm will collect
and analyze data to answer all evaluation questions. Finally, it must include a work plan
and timeline. The evaluation designs and proposed methodologies specified in the
Inception Report must reflect the evaluation plan, budgets, and operational
environments, and the extent to which methods
lead to collection of reliable data and analysis that provide a basis for reaching valid
and reliable judgements. An inception workshop to be participated in by representatives
of key stakeholders, which include, but may not be limited to ERG members will be
organized by the Firm to support the development of the inception report. Firm will
shoulder all costs related to the inception workshop.

2. An Interim Draft Evaluability Assessment and Interim Draft Evaluation Report. The
evaluability assessment of the MSMEDP and the five priority programs should be
completed, following the template to be provided or prepared by the Firm. Meanwhile,
the evaluation report will outline the evaluation purpose, scope and rationale, and the
methodologies applied including the limitation that these may come with. Prior to
finalizing the report, the should share to NEDA and UNDP and stakeholders and
facilitate a validation/meeting workshop. The report will also be shared with the ERG
members and other stakeholders for review. Based on the outline agreed upon during
the inception stage, the draft report provides an initial consolidation of the findings and
recommendations of the study based on the data gathered and analyzed so far.

3. A Final Draft Evaluability Assessment and Final Draft Evaluation Report. The
proposed measures to address gaps found in the Evaluability Assessment should be
submitted:
a. Unclear results framework – development of program theories of change (TOCs),
M&E plans, and indicators, with focus on linking program TOCs with the PDP and
MSMEDP.
b. Lack of relevant data – development of data collection methodologies and tools
for the agency, aligned with the statistical development plan.
c. Weak demand and use – identification of use plans for the evaluations.

104 | P a g e
 Communication and stakeholder engagement support in disseminating findings.
d. Limited resources – costing of future impact evaluations and M&E capacity build-
up requirements, which can be submitted for future funding.

Meanwhile, the Final Draft Evaluation Report must reflect the TOR and Inception
Report and outline evaluation questions and the Firm answers to these alongside other
findings and conclusions that the teams may have obtained. The report will also outline
interim lessons learned, recommendations, and proposed follow-up actions. It should
follow the UNEG evaluation report guidance. The report refines and completes the
consolidation and synthesis of the findings and recommendations of the study based on
all the data gathered and analyzed. This report will be routed to key stakeholders for
comment.

4. A Final Evaluation Report which makes necessary refinements or adjustments to the

report based on the feedback to be provided by the NEDA, DTI, and other implementing
agencies. At this stage, the recommendations to strengthen M&E for the MSMEDP and
the evaluability of the flagship programs should be finalized, in consultation with the
ERG and other stakeholders concerned. The Firm shall also:

a. Present the evaluation report to a public forum, as decided upon by NEDA. In

doing so, they shall prepare a presentation slide deck;

b. Produce condensed versions of the report, namely: i) a one-page summary of the

key findings of the study; ii) a maximum five (5)-page executive summary.

The Firm is expected to deliver the said outputs according to the following indicative schedule or another
schedule as proposed. The total contract shall ideally be six (6) months, although an alternative time
frame may be proposed within a maximum tolerance of three (3) months.

Deliverables / Outputs Target Due Dates Review & Approvals

Required
Inception Report Draft within two (2) weeks Strategic M&E Project
with attachments/ annexes from the start of the Firm Coordinator, in consultation
agreement with relevant NEDA and
Revised, with matrix of key inputs UNDP officials and the ERG
from ERG, with feedback Revised within one (1) week
from presentation to ERG
Interim Draft Evaluability Within twelve (12) weeks
Assessment and Interim Draft from the start of the Firm
Evaluation Report agreement

A matrix of key inputs from the Within one (1) week

ERG, with feedback from presentation to
ERG

Final Draft Evaluability Within eighteen (18) weeks

Assessment and Final Draft from start of the Firm
Evaluation Report agreement

Refinement of the final draft with Within two (2) weeks from
matrix of key inputs from the ERG presentation to ERG
and the peer reviews, with
feedback

105 | P a g e
 Final Evaluation Report with Within twenty-four (24)
Management Response, weeks from the start of the
communication plan, condensed Firm agreement
versions & public presentation

F. Key Performance Indicators and Service Level

1. Timely delivery of quality outputs for the evaluation according to the timetable.

2. Effective communication and collaboration with stakeholders of the study,

including but not limited to the ERG and its members and implementing
agencies subject to the case study.

3. Effective use of quantitative and qualitative research methodologies that are

appropriate to the evaluation study, including introduction of innovative tools
and techniques as well as identification/use of non-traditional sources of data.

4. Usefulness and relevance of the study findings and recommendations to the

needs of the NEDA, DTI, and other stakeholders.

G. Governance and Accountability

1. The ERG of the MSME study is chaired by NEDA-Trade, Services and

Industry Staff (TSIS) and composed of the NEDA-Monitoring and Evaluation
Staff (MES) and composed of DTI-Bureau of MSME Development (BSMED),
other DTI offices, and other relevant government offices and stakeholders,
with the technical support of UNDP. The ERG shall provide overall direction,
guidance, and input to the conduct of the study. The Firm shall be required to
submit and present the evaluation team’s Reports to the ERG, through the
UNDP Project Coordinator; attend meetings convened by the ERG on the
study; and consider the inputs of the ERG and its members as indicated in
Section E of this contract;
2. The Firm shall be directly supervised by the Project Coordinator of the NEDA-
UNDP Strategic M&E Project, with whom all outputs shall be submitted and
through whom all communications shall be coursed or copied. The Project
Coordinator shall review and approve the outputs submitted by the Firm in
consultation with NEDA and the ERG;

3. The Firm may be required to coordinate with the Director of NEDA-TSIS,

Director of the NEDA- MES, and other relevant NEDA officials and staff; and
the Senior Policy Advisor, the Institutions and Partnerships Outcome Lead,
and other officials and staff of UNDP;

4. In conducting their research, data gathering, and fieldwork, the evaluation

team shall coordinate with the NEDA, DTI, other relevant government
agencies, directly or through UNDP. The NEDA and UNDP shall provide the
necessary endorsements, including endorsement letters and calls, to the
agencies to be covered by the research;

5. The Firm shall also report to/coordinate with the ERG and their members and
shall take note of and act on their recommendations and suggestions unless
these are not feasible or are otherwise disapproved by NEDA and UNDP.

6. The UNDP Project Team will provide the administrative and secretariat
assistance to the ERG in carrying out its functions.

106 | P a g e
 7. The Firm is expected to have its own work spaces, computers/laptops, and
other facilities and equipment. Please note that any assets to be procured for
this project (e.g. software, tools) will have to be handed over to UNDP once
the project has been completed. List of these assets should be included in the
financial proposal.

H. Expected Duration of the Contract

1. The Firm will be hired for six (6) months, with a tolerance of three (3) months,
in accordance with the timetable in Section E above.

2. The target start of work date is 2 December 2019 and the end date of the
contract is 1 June 2020. The contract may be terminated earlier if all the
outputs have been submitted satisfactorily and accepted.

I. Duty Station

1. The Firm shall be based in the Philippines or have a representative office in

the Philippines for the duration of the study. The Firm shall be required to
travel to selected sites in the Philippines for fieldwork, data gathering, and
consultations.

2. The research team of the Firm and its lead investigator/project manager may
be asked to report physically to Manila and when physical participation in
activities, such as consultations with stakeholders and ERG meetings, will be
necessary.

J. Professional Qualifications of the Successful Firm and its Key Personnel

1. Proponents invited to this tender are from a pre-qualified list of M&E Firms
with the following specific-thematic area of expertise/ qualifications:
a. Extensive experience in research in economic development, particularly
entrepreneurship; governance, particularly government efficiency.

2. Proposers shall establish a specific evaluation team from its pool of

specialists, complete with names and CVs (only CVs of additional team
members that perform roles in support of the evaluation team, including but
not limited to technical advisers, research assistants, field coordinators,
among others, whose inclusion will be evaluated based on relevance and
value- added to the project)

The Project Lead, Technical Adviser, and three (3) Evaluators shall meet the following
relevant qualifications in addition to the already established requirements during the
pre-qualification:

a. Project Lead – shall perform the function of project manager/coordinator

and/or lead evaluator/investigator as the proposer sees fit. The project
lead shall be an incumbent employee of the Firm (i.e., officer, fellow,
faculty member, etc.) who shall be the main point of contact of the Firm
to UNDP, NEDA, and the ERG and its members. He/she shall regularly
report progress to the stakeholders through UNDP on project progress.

The Project Lead shall ideally be sourced from the pool of staff or
resources submitted by the firm during the pre-selection exercise, though
not necessarily. He/she shall possess the following minimum
qualifications:
At least a Master’s Degree in economics, political science, social
science, public administration, business management, or other

107 | P a g e
 relevant fields. A doctorate degree as well as specialized training in
M&E, project management, etc. are advantageous;
At least two (2) years of work or consultancy experience in the
monitoring and evaluation of development programs and projects,
with preference to those with demonstrated specialization/
experience in impact evaluations;
Demonstrated knowledge of and experience in the application of
various quantitative and qualitative research methodologies, with
demonstrated specialization in either quantitative or qualitative
research, or both.;
Fluency in English required, and in Filipino desired.

b. Technical Adviser – shall provide strategic guidance and intellectual

leadership to the project through his/her expertise on MSME
development, entrepreneurship, economic governance, and other
relevant fields in the design and implementation of appropriate
methodologies, tools, and techniques to the evaluation, as well as in the
analysis of the data gathered and formulation of policy recommendations.
The technical adviser is also expected to assure the quality of
deliverables and engage strategic stakeholders.

He/she shall possess the following minimum qualifications:

At least a Master’s Degree in economics, political science, social
science, public administration, management, or other relevant fields.
A doctorate degree as well as specialized training in M&E, project
management, etc. are advantageous;
At least four (4) years of work or consultancy experience in policy
research, monitoring and evaluation of programs particularly in
economic development;
Demonstrated knowledge of and experience in the application of
various quantitative and qualitative research methodologies,
specializing in either or both;
Fluency in English required; and in Filipino and the vernacular preferred.

c. Evaluators – shall support the Project Lead and the Technical Adviser in
delivering components of the project. The minimum three (3)
Evaluators to be tapped for the
evaluation team may be incumbent employees of the institution,
personnel seconded from other organizations, or consultants hired for the
purpose.

The evaluators shall ideally be sourced from the pool of staff or resources
submitted by the firm during the pre-selection exercise, though not
necessarily. They shall each have the following minimum qualifications:
At least a Bachelor’s Degree in economics, political science, social
science, public administration, business management, or other
relevant fields. A higher degree as well as specialized training in M&E,
project management, etc. are advantageous;
At least two (2) years of work or consultancy experience in the
monitoring and evaluation of development programs and projects,
with preference to those with demonstrated specialization/
experience in evaluations. Having a higher degree removes this
minimum requirement. Previous work in the public and/or
development sector is advantageous;
Fluency in English required, and in Filipino desired

It is preferred that the evaluators have their respective specializations that

are relevant to the evaluation at hand.

108 | P a g e
K. Scope of Price Proposal and Schedule of Payments

1. The contract price shall be a fixed output-based price regardless of

extension of the herein specific duration. Payments shall be made upon
submission and acceptance of the outputs as specified in Part E. Acceptance
of the outputs shall be based on how these meet evaluation quality standards
and address stakeholder requirements.

2. The following components should be included, as a minimum, in the financial

proposal:
a. Professional fees/salaries/honoraria of the evaluation team
b. Other professional fees and salaries
c. Travel, lodging, and allowances for field work
d. Communication
e. Workshops and meetings, including the Inception Workshop and associated costs
f. Materials, reproduction, subscriptions
g. Management and operational costs
h. Others as may be relevant to the scope of work – software, tools, etc.
3. *Please note that any assets to be procured for this project by the firm will
have to be handed over to UNDP once the project has been completed. List
of these assets should be included in the financial proposal.

4. The Firm shall receive payments based on the following schedule or another
relevant schedule as proposed, but in no case shall the total contract be
longer than nine (9) months:

Period Deliverables/ Outputs Target Due Percentage of Lump-

from Start of Sum Price
Contract
Inception Inception Report Within 4 10%
Refined and accepted weeks
Draft Report Interim Draft Within 12 weeks 30%
Evaluability
Assessment and
Interim Draft
Evaluation Report
Period Deliverables/ Target Due from Percentage of Lump-Sum
Outputs Start of Price
Contract
Final Draft Within 18 weeks 30%
Evaluability
Assessment and
Final Draft
Evaluation Report
Final Final Report Within 24 30%
report weeks

L. Criteria for Evaluation of the Offer

1. The selection process will follow a cumulative scoring of 70% technical and 30%
financial.

109 | P a g e
 2. The minimum passing score of the technical proposal shall be 70%. Technical
proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria and corresponding
points. Only firms that obtained minimum technical score of 700 out of 1000
points will be included in the financial evaluation.

3. All firms that have been pre-qualified for the M&E roster will be evaluated
based on the following:

Summary Proposal TECHNICAL Evaluation Points

Obtainable

1 Experience specific to the requirement 210

2 Proposed methodology, approach and implementation plan 400

3 Management structure and key personnel 390

Total 1000

Section 1. Experience specific to the requirement Points

Obtainable
1 Evidence of successfully completed economic development and governance 210
works/contracts done in the past five years. (60 points for 1 project; 120
points for 2 projects, 180 points for 3 projects, 210 for 4 or more projects)
Total Section 1 210

Section 2. Relevance of methodology/ies to be used in establishing the outputs Points

Obtainable
2.1 Understanding of the requirement: Have the important aspects of the task 100
been addressed in sufficient detail? Are the different components of the
project adequately weighted relative to one another?
2.2 Description of the Offeror’s approach and methodology for meeting or 200
exceeding the requirements of the Terms of Reference
2.3 Assessment of the implementation plan proposed including whether the 100
activities are properly sequenced and if these are logical and realistic
Total Section 2 400
Section 3. Management Structure and Key Personnel Points
obtainable

3.2 Qualifications of key personnel proposed

Project Lead 120
At least a Master’s Degree in economics, political science, 60
3.2 a social science, public administration, business management,
or other relevant fields. 49 points for Master’s degree, extra
points for additional degree

110 | P a g e
 At least two (2) years of work or consultancy experience in the 60
monitoring and evaluation of development programs and
projects, with preference to those with demonstrated
experience in impact evaluations. -49 points for 2 years’
experience, extra points for additional years of experience
specific to impact evaluations

Technical Advisor 120

At least a Master’s Degree in economics, political science, 40 120
social science, public administration, management, or other
3.2 b relevant fields. A doctorate degree as well as specialized
training in M&E, project management, etc. are advantageous
- 28 points for Master’s degree, extra points for additional
degree
At least four (4) years of work or consultancy experience in 40
policy research, monitoring and evaluation of programs
particularly in economic development –28 points for 4 years’
experience, extra points for additional years of experience
economic development

Demonstrated knowledge of and experience in the application 40

of various quantitative and qualitative research
methodologies, specializing in either or both
- 10 points for each study/ publication in the last five years
that apply quantitative or qualitative research methodologies

3.2 c Evaluators (3) = 50pts X 3 evaluators 150

At least a Bachelor’s Degree in economics, political science, 25

social science, public administration, business management,
or other relevant fields. - 18 points for bachelor’s degree,
extra points for additional degree

At least two (2) years of work or consultancy experience in the 25

monitoring and evaluation of development programs and
projects, with preference to those with demonstrated
specialization/ experience in evaluations. Having a higher
degree removes this minimum requirement. Previous work in
the public and/or development sector is advantageous
– 18 points for 2 years’ experience, extra points for additional
years of experience in the public and/or development sector

Total Section 3 390

4. In the combined scoring, the Financial Proposal will be computed as a ratio of the
Proposal’s
offer to the lowest price among the proposals received by UNDP.

M. Annexes to the TOR

1. Annex 1: MSME Development Plan

2. Annex 2: Evaluation Plan for the MSME Development Plan

Please also refer to the National Evaluation Policy Framework (hyperlink here)
and the UNDP Handbook on Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluating for
Development Results (hyperlink here)

111 | P a g e
 Annex B. List of Documents Reviewed

Program Documents
KMME
• Final 2019 National Calendar of KMME as of 03122019
• Negosyo Angat Lahat!
• DTI Annual Report 2018
• Kapatid Mentor Me Program (KMMP): Taking the Philippine
Agrineurship to the Next Level by Mr. Jose Alvaro Severino
“Jas” Nito, Go Negosyo

P3
• Committee Report No. 683 submitted by the Committee on
Small Business and Entrepreneurship Development and the
Committee on Appropriations on Mar 21, 2018 Re: House
Bill No. 7446 Recommending its approval in substitution of
House Bills Numbered 5158 and 5920 Sponsors:
Representatives Peter “Sr. Pedro” M. Umbria, Karlo Alexei B.
Nograles, Angelina “Helen”D.L. Tan, M.D. and Jocelyn S.
Limkaichong
• Pondo sa Pagbabago at Pag-asenso (P3): Expanding
Microfinance. DTI
• House Bill No. 1069. An act providing a socialized
microfinancing program for micro enterprises thereby
promoting entrepreneurship introduced by representatives
Jocelyn S. Limkaichong and Christian S. Unabia
• National Microfinance Institutions as of October 2019
• Local Microfinance Institutions as of October 2019
• Strategy for Accelerated P3 Implementation

NC
• Established Negosyo Centers as of May 31, 2020
• 2019 Negosyo Center Impact Assessment – Conclusions by
Lorenzo F. Templonuevo, PhD
• 2019 Negosyo Center Impact Assessment – Capacity
Building of NC Regional Focal Persons on Data Collection
(21 June 2019, Makati City)
• 2019 Negosyo Center Impact Assessment – Capacity
Building of NC Regional Focal Persons 2: Validating and
Reflecting on Findings and Conclusions (5 Sep 2019, Makati
City)
• 2019 Negosyo Center Impact Assessment – Paradigm in a
Flash by Lorenzo F. Templonuevo, PhD

SSF
• Joint Circular No. 2014-01. Guidelines on the Implementation
of the Shared Services Facilities (SSF) under the FY 2014
Budget of the Department of Trade and Industry
• Preliminary Assessment of the Shared Service Facilities.
Erlinda M. Medalla, Fatima del Prado, Melalyn C. Mantaring,
and Angelica B. Maddawin. Discussion Paper Series No.
2016-08

112 | P a g e
 Program Documents
OTOP
• DTI One Town One Product (OTOP) Philippines
• Economic Promotion through One-Town One Product. Dr.
Eric S. Parilla.
• One Town One Product. Japan External Trade Organization
(JETRO) Manila. March-April 2009 Volume 10 number 3

SETUP
• 2018 SETUP Projects
• DOST Energy Audit and SETUP Program for MSMEs by
Julius Caesar V. Sicat, PhD
• Effects of Small Enterprises Technology Upgrading Program
of the Department of Science and Technology – Philippines
on the Productivity of Beneficiary Enterprises in
CALABARZON by Jan Danica S. Asma
• Outcome 2 #SETUP Empowering MSMEs for World-Class
Products. Science and Technology Information Institute,
Department of Science and Technology
• Project Monitoring and Evaluation System for SETUP. Venus
D. Retuya and Concepcion L. Khan
• DOST Case Studies of SETUP
• DOST’s Program for small business called out for wasting
millions by Lian Buan (Rappler, July 22, 2019)
• Impact Assessment of the Small Enterprises Technology
Upgrading Program of the Department of Science and
Technology by DAP/DOST (2019)

113 | P a g e
 Annex C. Survey Instruments

Annex C1. Survey Instrument for KMME

PSA Approval No. NEDA-2027-03 Expires on 31 August 2021

NEDA-MSME Form 3 Questionnaire No: KMME_________

Evaluability Assessment of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise (MSME)

Development Plan and Priority Programs under the MSME Development Plan
with a Process Evaluation of Government Support: Kapatid Mentor ME

This study aims to assess the evaluability of Kapatid Mentor ME (KMME) program implemented by
the Department of Trade and Industry. KMME is one of the flagship programs of the MSME
Development Plans and Priority Programs under the MSME Development Plan. Our research team
is conducting an evaluability assessment of the KMME to determine if there are concrete benefits that
can be derived from it, if the objectives are being attained and the processes are being followed, and
if adjustments are needed in the program implementation. This assessment shall also determine the
relevance, sustainability and acceptability by the stakeholders, and their perceptions about the
program.

This researcher/evaluator has no involvement in the KMME. In addressing the objectives of this
evaluability assessment, data about the project is being gathered from different sources. You, as
KMME beneficiary, are one of sources. In particular, you are the ultimate determinant of the
benefits to be derived from the project.

There is no right or wrong answer. Our only request is your sincere and honest response to every
question asked. Your name and contact number will be recorded in case a follow through is needed.
Rest assured that your identity and answers will be kept confidential and secured in compliance
with the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173). All the information that we will be collecting will be
used solely for the purpose of the study.

Thank you very much.

BIEN A. GANAPIN
Director
Officer-in-Charge
Trade, Services, and Industry Staff
National Economic and
Development Authority

Province: _________________ Date: ________________

I. PROFILE OF RESPONDENT
Name (Last Name, First
Name, M.I.)
Contact Number
Age as of last birthday
Sex [ ] Male [ ] Female
[ ] Single/Never Married [ ] Separated
[ ] Married [ ] Annulled
Civil Status
[ ] Common-law/Live-in [ ] Unknown
[ ] Divorced

114 | P a g e
 [ ] 0 - Early Childhood Education
[ ] 1 - Primary Education
[ ] 2 - Lower Secondary Education
[ ] 3 - Upper Secondary Education
Highest Educational
[ ] 4 - Post-Secondary Non-Tertiary Education
Attainment
[ ] 5 - Short-Cycle Tertiary Education or Equivalent
[ ] 6 - Bachelor Level Education or Equivalent
[ ] 7 - Master Level Education or Equivalent
[ ] 8 - Doctoral Level Education or Equivalent
II. ABOUT THE ENTERPRISE
Registered Name
(Insert the business name of the
enterprise. If there is no
business name, enter the name
of the owner with surname first
followed by the given name and
the business activity)
Years of operation
Category (based on [ ] Micro (less than PHP3M) [ ] Small (PHP 3-15M) [ ] Medium (PHP
asset size) 15-100M)
[ ] Agriculture, forestry and fishing
[ ] Mining and quarrying
[ ] Manufacturing
[ ] Electricity, gas, steam and air-conditioning supply
[ ] Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities
[ ] Construction
[ ] Wholesale and retail; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles
[ ] Transportation and storage
[ ] Accommodation and food service activities
[ ] Information and communication
[ ] Financial and insurance activities
Nature of enterprise [ ] Real estate activities
[ ] Professional, scientific and technical activities
[ ] Administrative and support service activities
[ ] Public administration and defense; compulsory social security
[ ] Education
[ ] Human health and social work activities
[ ] Arts, entertainment and recreation
[ ] Other service activities
[ ] Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods-and-services-
producing activities of households for own use
[ ] Activities of extraterritorial organizations and bodies

[ ] Own capital
[ ] Borrowed from family/relatives
Source of capital [ ] Borrowed from informal sources
[ ] Borrowed from formal sources (Please specify _________________________)
[ ] Others, please specify _________________________________________
Amount of capital
(PhP)
Number of Part-time Male ____________ Part-time Female ____________
employees Full time Male __________ Full-time Female ___________
Number of
branches
III. PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
What type of products and/or services do you offer?
[ ] Agricultural/Marine/Aquaculture (specify) __________________________________________
[ ] Food Processing (specify) _____________________________________________________
[ ] Gifts. Decors, Handicrafts (specify) _______________________________________________
[ ] Furniture (specify) ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Metals and Engineering (specify) ________________________________________________
[ ] ICT (specify) _________________________________________________________________
[ ] Pharmaceuticals, Health and Wellness Products (specify) _____________________________
[ ] Halal Products and Services (specify) _____________________________________________

115 | P a g e
[ ] Others (please specify): ________________________________________________________

Local _________________________________________________
Major markets
International ____________________________________________
Volume of sales per month (before
Product 1: _______ Product 2: _________ Product 3: __________
pandemic)
Volume of sales per month (during
Product 1: _______ Product 2: _________ Product 3: __________
pandemic)
Revenue per month before the
pandemic (PhP)
Revenue during the previous
month of operation (PhP)

IV. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

What module did you attend? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] The Entrepreneur [ ] The Enterprise, all topics
[ ] The Enterprise, some topics only [ ] Sustaining the enterprise, all topics
[ ] Sustaining the enterprise, some topics only [ ] Others,
specify_______________________________
Did you attend the graduation? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If not all topics attended, state reason

Where did you get an information about the program Kapatid Mentor ME? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Relatives/ family members [ ] Government officials/ workers
[ ] Friends/ acquaintance [ ] Printed materials (e.g. posters, flyers, leaflets)
[ ] Colleagues/ workmates [ ] Social media announcements
[ ] Others ____________________________

What is your motivation for joining the program Kapatid Mentor ME? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] New knowledge in business operations [ ] Refresher course in technical operations
[ ] New knowledge in technical operations [ ] Networking
[ ] Refresher course in management [ ] Business opportunity
[ ] Others ____________________________

How were you selected as program beneficiary? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] By application [ ] Others , please specify _______________________
[ ] By recruitment
[ ] By referral

What are the requirements in joining the program Kapatid Mentor ME? (Mark all that applies)

[ ] Number of years in business. Specify ________ [ ] Size of business (asset)

[ ] Registrations/Business Permits [ ] Others, specify
_________________________________
[ ] Very Easy [ ] Easy [ ] Neutral [ ] Difficult [ ] Very
Ease of meeting the requirements
Difficult
What are the steps in applying for the program?
1. _____________________________________ 4.
_____________________________________
2. _____________________________________ 5.
_____________________________________
3. _____________________________________

How long did it take to apply for the

program?

116 | P a g e
Ease of processing the program [ ] Very Easy [ ] Easy [ ] Neutral [ ] Difficult [ ] Very
application Difficult
V. RELEVANCE
What challenges have you encountered in the operation of your business before joining the program? (Mark
all that applies)

Challenges Addressed by the Program

[ ] Financial concerns [ ] Yes [ ] No

[ ] Difficulty in business registration [ ] Yes [ ] No

[ ] Technical knowledge [ ] Yes [ ] No

[ ] Issues on the location of business [ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Supply of materials necessary for production [ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Competition [ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Lack of knowledge on business management [ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Others (please specify): _____________________________ [ ] Yes [ ] No
Overall, did the trainings meet your
[ ] Yes [ ] Partially [ ] No
expectations?
Did the training modules meet your expectations?
[ ] The Entrepreneur [ ] Yes [ ] Partially [ ] No
[ ] Yes [ ] Partially [ ] No
[ ] The Enterprise, all topics [ ] Yes [ ] Partially [ ] No
[ ] The Enterprise, some topics only [ ] Yes [ ] Partially [ ] No
[ ] Yes [ ] Partially [ ] No
[ ] Sustaining the enterprise, all [ ] Yes [ ] Partially [ ] No
topics
[ ] Sustaining the enterprise, some
topics only
[ ] Others, specify
After your involvement with the program, is/are there:

1. A significant increase in income? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much (in percent)?

________________
2. Additional jobs created? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, how many?
____________________
3. New markets explored? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, please specify:
__________________
4. An expansion in your business operation? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much?
__________________
5. Improved competitiveness [ ] Yes [ ] No
VI. SUSTAINABILITY
Are you being monitored by the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes,
1. By whom? ___________________________________
2. How often? [ ] Daily [ ] Monthly [ ] Yearly
[ ] Weekly [ ] Quarterly [ ] Others (please specify):
________________________

What is being required from you as beneficiary/participant of the program? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Data (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
[ ] Documentations (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
[ ] Payment (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
[ ] Others (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)

Were you able to form networks as a result of participating with the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, to which of the following entities were you able to reach out? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Local Government Units [ ] Financial institutions
[ ] Assistance providers [ ] Input markets

117 | P a g e
[ ] Output markets [ ] Other (please specify):
_____________________________________

If given the chance, will you again avail of the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Reason

Are there follow-up activities after the training/graduation? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, please specify

Will you recommend the program to other SMEs? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Reason

VII. EFFICIENCY
Did the training help you achieve the following?
1. Lower cost of production [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much?
__________________
2. Shorter production process [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much?
__________________
3. Improved quality of products and/or services [ ] Yes [ ] No
4. Improved labor efficiency [ ] Yes [ ] No
5. Improved efficiency in management operations [ ] Yes [ ] No
VIII. PERCEPTION
Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly
Agree
Disagree Agree
A. Relevance
1. Mentor ME help can help SMEs in improving
business operations.
2. Mentor ME enabled me to improve my
management capability.
3. Mentor ME is relevant to my business.
B. Efficiency
1. Mentor ME enabled me to network with
important business contacts and
stakeholders.
2. The requirements of the program is easy to
comply.
C. Effectiveness
1. Mentor ME improved my management
capability.
2. The knowledge gained from Mentor ME helped
my business grow.
D. Sustainability
1. I will avail of other trainings from Mentor ME
again.
2. The program is being monitored regularly.
3. I will apply the knowledge gained from the
program.
4. I will recommend the program to other SMEs.
IX. OPINIONS ON GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

118 | P a g e
In general, what are your comments on the implementation of the program? Please elaborate.

What are your recommendations to further improve the program?

PANDEMIC RESILIENCE
How are you affected by the pandemic?

What lessons have you learned from the situation?

How did you cope up with the challenges brought by the pandemic?

119 | P a g e
Annex C2. Survey Instrument for P3
PSA Approval No. NEDA-2027-02 Expires on 31 August 2021

NEDA-MSME Form 2 Questionnaire No: P3_________

Evaluability Assessment of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise (MSME)

Development Plan and Priority Programs under the MSME Development Plan
with a Process Evaluation of Government Support

This study aims to assess the evaluability of Pondo sa Pagbabago at Pag-Asenso (P3) program
implemented by the Department of Trade and Industry. P3 is one of the flagship programs of the
MSME Development Plans and Priority Programs under the MSME Development Plan. Our research
team is conducting an evaluability assessment of the P3 to determine if there are concrete benefits
that can be derived from it, if the objectives are being attained and the processes are being followed,
and if adjustments are needed in the program implementation. This assessment shall also determine
the relevance, sustainability and acceptability by the stakeholders, and their perceptions about the
program.

This researcher/evaluator has no involvement in the P3. In addressing the objectives of this
evaluability assessment, data about the project is being gathered from different sources. You, as
P3 beneficiary, are one of sources. In particular, you are the ultimate determinant of the benefits
to be derived from the project.

There is no right or wrong answer. Our only request is your sincere and honest response to every
question asked. Your name and contact number will be recorded in case a follow through is needed.
Rest assured that your identity and answers will be kept confidential and secured in compliance
with the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173). All the information that we will be collecting will be
used solely for the purpose of the study.

Thank you very much.

BIEN A. GANAPIN
Director
Officer-in-Charge
Trade, Services, and Industry Staff
National Economic and
Development Authority

Province: _________________ Date: ________________

I. PROFILE OF RESPONDENT
Name (Last Name, First
Name, M.I.)
Contact Number
Age as of last birthday
Sex [ ] Male [ ] Female
[ ] Single/Never Married [ ] Separated
[ ] Married [ ] Annulled
Civil Status
[ ] Common-law/Live-in [ ] Unknown
[ ] Divorced
[ ] 0 - Early Childhood Education
Highest Educational [ ] 1 - Primary Education
Attainment [ ] 2 - Lower Secondary Education
[ ] 3 - Upper Secondary Education

120 | P a g e
 [ ] 4 - Post-Secondary Non-Tertiary Education
[ ] 5 - Short-Cycle Tertiary Education or Equivalent
[ ] 6 - Bachelor Level Education or Equivalent
[ ] 7 - Master Level Education or Equivalent
[ ] 8 - Doctoral Level Education or Equivalent
II. ABOUT THE ENTERPRISE
Registered Name
(Insert the business name of the
enterprise. If there is no
business name, enter the name
of the owner with surname first
followed by the given name and
the business activity)
Years of operation
Category (based on [ ] Micro (less than PHP3M) [ ] Small (PHP 3-15M) [ ] Medium (PHP
asset size) 15-100M)
[ ] Agriculture, forestry and fishing
[ ] Mining and quarrying
[ ] Manufacturing
[ ] Electricity, gas, steam and air-conditioning supply
[ ] Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities
[ ] Construction
[ ] Wholesale and retail; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles
[ ] Transportation and storage
[ ] Accommodation and food service activities
[ ] Information and communication
[ ] Financial and insurance activities
Nature of enterprise
[ ] Real estate activities
[ ] Professional, scientific and technical activities
[ ] Administrative and support service activities
[ ] Public administration and defense; compulsory social security
[ ] Education
[ ] Human health and social work activities
[ ] Arts, entertainment and recreation
[ ] Other service activities
[ ] Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods-and-services-
producing activities of households for own use
[ ] Activities of extraterritorial organizations and bodies
[ ] Own capital
[ ] Borrowed from family/relatives
Source of capital [ ] Borrowed from informal sources
[ ] Borrowed from formal sources (Please specify _________________________)
[ ] Others, please specify _________________________________________
Amount of capital
(PhP)
Number of Part-time Male ____________ Part-time Female ____________
employees Full time Male __________ Full-time Female ___________
Number of
branches
III. PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
What type of products and/or services do you offer?
[ ] Agricultural please specify: ________________________
[ ] Manufacturing please specify: ________________________
[ ] Machinery
[ ] Others (please specify): ________________________
Local _________________________________________________
Major markets
International ____________________________________________
Volume of sales per month (before Product 1: _______ Product 2: _________ Product 3:
pandemic) __________
Volume of sales per month (during Product 1: _______ Product 2: _________ Product 3:
pandemic) __________

121 | P a g e
Revenue per month before the
pandemic (PhP)
Revenue during the previous
month of operation (PhP)

IV. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

Where did you get an information about the program Pondo sa Pagbabago at Pag-asenso? (Mark all that
applies)
[ ] Relatives/ family members [ ] Government officials/ workers
[ ] Friends/ acquaintance [ ] Printed materials (e.g. posters, flyers, leaflets)
[ ] Colleagues/ workmates [ ] Social media announcements
[ ] Others, please specify ____________________________
What is your motivation for joining the program Pondo sa Pagbabago at Pag-asenso? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Source of additional capital [ ] Ease of requirements and process
[ ] Main source of capital [ ] Fast approval of application
[ ] Low interest offered [ ] Fast release of loan
[ ]Others, please specify ____________________________
How were you selected as program beneficiary? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] By application [ ] Others, please specify ___________________
[ ] By recruitment
[ ] By referral
What are the requirements in joining the program Pondo sa Pagbabago at Pag-asenso? (Mark all that
applies)
[ ] Number of years in business. Specify ___________ [ ] Size of business (asset)
[ ] Starter kit from MFI/NGO [ ] Others, specify
_______________________________
[ ] Registrations/Business Permits

[ ] Very Easy [ ] Easy [ ] Neutral [ ] Difficult [ ] Very

Ease of meeting the requirements
Difficult
What are the steps in applying for the program?
1. _____________________________________ 4.
_____________________________________
2. _____________________________________ 5.
_____________________________________
3. _____________________________________

How long did it take to apply for the

program?
How long did it take to for the loan to
be released?
Ease of processing the program [ ] Very Easy [ ] Easy [ ] Neutral [ ] Difficult [ ] Very
application Difficult
V. RELEVANCE
What challenges have you encountered in the operation of your business before joining the program? (Mark
all that applies)

Challenges Addressed or not by the Program

[ ] Financial concerns [ ] Yes [ ] No

[ ] Difficulty in business registration [ ] Yes [ ] No

[ ] Issues on the location of business [ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Supply of materials necessary for production [ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Competition [ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Others (please specify): ________________ [ ] Yes [ ] No

After your involvement with the program, is/are there:

1. A significant increase in income? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much (in percent)?

________________
2. Additional jobs created? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, how many?
_____________________

122 | P a g e
3. New markets explored? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, please specify:
__________________
4. An expansion in your business operation? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much?
__________________
5. Improved competitiveness [ ] Yes [ ] No
VI. SUSTAINABILITY
Are there capacity building activities
[ ] Yes [ ] No
provided by the program?
Are you being monitored by the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes,
1. By whom? ___________________________________
2. How often? [ ] Daily [ ] Monthly [ ] Yearly
[ ] Weekly [ ] Quarterly [ ] Others (please specify):
________________________

What is being required from you as beneficiary/participant of the program? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Data (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
[ ] Documentations (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
[ ] Payment (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
[ ] Others (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
Were you able to form networks as a result of participating with the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, to which of the following entities were you able to reach out? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Local Government Units [ ] Financial institutions
[ ] Assistance providers [ ] Other (please specify):
_____________________________________
[ ] Inputs and output markets
If given the chance, will you again avail of the program [ ] Yes [ ] No

Reason

Will you recommend the program to other SMEs? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Reason

VII. EFFICIENCY
Loan details Under P3 Before P3 Other source (simultaneous with P3)
Source (specify MFI)
Amount (PhP)
Duration (mm/yyyy to
mm/yyyy)
Interest Rate per
month (%)
Amortization (PhP)
Was the loan able to help you achieve the following:
1. Lower cost of production [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much?
__________________
2. Shorter production process [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much?
__________________
3. Improved quality of products and/or services [ ] Yes [ ] No
4. Improved labor efficiency [ ] Yes [ ] No
5. Improved efficiency in management operations [ ] Yes [ ] No
VIII. PERCEPTION
Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly
Agree
Disagree Agree
E. Relevance
5. P3 can help SMEs in improving business

123 | P a g e
 operations.
6. P3 is relevant to my business.
3. The P3 program is important source of
capital.
F. Efficiency
2. P3 provided my business access to capital
with affordable interest rates.
2. The requirements of the program is easy to
comply.
G. Effectiveness
2. The capital I obtained from P3 has helped
my business grow.
3. The loan I obtained from P3 has helped me
avoid borrowing from lenders with
usurious rates.
H. Sustainability
2. I will avail of loans from P3 again.
2. The program is being monitored regularly.
3. I will recommend the program to other SMEs.

IX. OPINIONS ON GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In general, what are your comments on the implementation of the program? Please elaborate.

What are your recommendations to further improve the program?

X. PANDEMIC RESILIENCE
How are you affected by the pandemic?

What lessons have you learned from the situation?

How did you cope up with the challenges brought by the pandemic?

124 | P a g e
Annex C3. Survey Instrument for NC

PSA Approval No. NEDA-2027-01 Expires on 31 August 2021

NEDA-MSME Form 1 Questionnaire No: NC_______

Evaluability Assessment of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise (MSME)

Development Plan and Priority Programs under the MSME Development Plan
with a Process Evaluation of Government Support: Negosyo Center

This study aims to assess the evaluability of Negosyo Center program implemented by the
Department of Trade and Industry. Negosyo Center is one of the flagship programs of the MSME
Development Plans and Priority Programs under the MSME Development Plan. Our research team
is conducting an evaluability assessment of the Negosyo Center to determine if there are concrete
benefits that can be derived from it, if the objectives are being attained and the processes are being
followed, and if adjustments are needed in the program implementation. This assessment shall also
determine the relevance, sustainability and acceptability by the stakeholders, and their perceptions
about the program.

This researcher/evaluator has no involvement in the Negosyo Center. In addressing the objectives
of this evaluability assessment, data about the project is being gathered from different sources.
You, as Negosyo Center beneficiary, are one of sources. In particular, you are the ultimate
determinant of the benefits to be derived from the project.

There is no right or wrong answer. Our only request is your sincere and honest response to every
question asked. Your name and contact number will be recorded in case a follow through is needed.
Rest assured that your identity and answers will be kept confidential and secured in compliance
with the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173). All the information that we will be collecting will be
used solely for the purpose of the study.

Thank you very much.

BIEN A. GANAPIN
Director
Officer-in-Charge
Trade, Services, and Industry Staff
National Economic and
Development Authority

Province: _________________ Date: ________________

I. PROFILE OF RESPONDENT
Name (Last Name, First
Name, M.I.)
Contact Number
Age as of last birthday
Sex [ ] Male [ ] Female
[ ] Single/Never Married [ ] Separated
[ ] Married [ ] Annulled
Civil Status
[ ] Common-law/Live-in [ ] Unknown
[ ] Divorced

125 | P a g e
 [ ] 0 - Early Childhood Education
[ ] 1 - Primary Education
[ ] 2 - Lower Secondary Education
[ ] 3 - Upper Secondary Education
Highest Educational
[ ] 4 - Post-Secondary Non-Tertiary Education
Attainment
[ ] 5 - Short-Cycle Tertiary Education or Equivalent
[ ] 6 - Bachelor Level Education or Equivalent
[ ] 7 - Master Level Education or Equivalent
[ ] 8 - Doctoral Level Education or Equivalent
II. ABOUT THE ENTERPRISE
Registered Name
(Insert the business name of the
enterprise. If there is no
business name, enter the name
of the owner with surname first
followed by the given name and
the business activity)
Years of operation
Category (based on [ ] Micro (less than PHP3M) [ ] Small (PHP 3-15M) [ ] Medium (PHP
asset size) 15-100M)
[ ] Agriculture, forestry and fishing
[ ] Mining and quarrying
[ ] Manufacturing
[ ] Electricity, gas, steam and air-conditioning supply
[ ] Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities
[ ] Construction
[ ] Wholesale and retail; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles
[ ] Transportation and storage
[ ] Accommodation and food service activities
[ ] Information and communication
[ ] Financial and insurance activities
Nature of enterprise [ ] Real estate activities
[ ] Professional, scientific and technical activities
[ ] Administrative and support service activities
[ ] Public administration and defense; compulsory social security
[ ] Education
[ ] Human health and social work activities
[ ] Arts, entertainment and recreation
[ ] Other service activities
[ ] Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods-and-services-
producing activities of households for own use
[ ] Activities of extraterritorial organizations and bodies

[ ] Own capital
[ ] Borrowed from family/relatives
Source of capital [ ] Borrowed from informal sources
[ ] Borrowed from formal sources (Please specify _________________________)
[ ] Others, please specify _________________________________________
Amount of capital
(PhP)
Number of Part-time Male ____________ Part-time Female ____________
employees Full time Male __________ Full-time Female ___________
Number of
branches
III. PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
What type of products and/or services do you offer?
[ ] Agricultural/Marine/Aquaculture (specify) __________________________________________
[ ] Food Processing (specify) _____________________________________________________
[ ] Gifts. Decors, Handicrafts (specify) _______________________________________________
[ ] Furniture (specify) ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Metals and Engineering (specify) ________________________________________________
[ ] ICT (specify) _________________________________________________________________
[ ] Pharmaceuticals, Health and Wellness Products (specify) _____________________________

126 | P a g e
[ ] Halal Products and Services (specify) _____________________________________________
[ ] Others (please specify): ________________________________________________________

Local _________________________________________________
Major markets
International ____________________________________________
Volume of sales per month (before
Product 1: _______ Product 2: _________ Product 3: __________
pandemic)
Volume of sales per month (during
Product 1: _______ Product 2: _________ Product 3: __________
pandemic)
Revenue per month before the
pandemic (PhP)
Revenue during the previous
month of operation (PhP)

IV. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

Where did you get information about the program Negosyo Center? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Relatives/ family members [ ] Government officials/ workers
[ ] Friends/ acquaintance [ ] Printed materials (e.g. posters, flyers, leaflets)
[ ] Colleagues/ workmates [ ] Social media announcements.
[ ] Others, please specify: _______________
What is your motivation for joining the program Negosyo Center? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Assistance in processing business permits and documents [ ] Market information
[ ] New knowledge in business operations [ ] Networking
[ ] New knowledge in technical operations [ ] Business opportunity
[ ] Refresher course in management [ ] Trade promotion (trade fares)
[ ] Refresher course in technical operations [ ] Financing facilitation
[ ] Product development [ ] Investment promotion
[ ] Access to trainings (i.e. production, management, marketing, etc.)
[ ] Others, please specify ________________________

Assistance provided to the firm (Mark all that applies)

[ ] Business advisory
[ ] Assistance/facilitation in business registration
[ ] Product development
[ ] Access to market
[ ] Access to finance
[ ] Investment promotion
[ ] Capacity building trough trainings/seminars/skills enhancement.
Identify key trainings provided: ___________________________________________
[ ] Packaging and labelling
[ ] Information systems
[ ] Promotional activities
[ ] Market linkages/trade promotion (e.g. finding exhibitors)
[ ] Others, please specify: __________________________________________________
How were you selected as program beneficiary? (Mark all that applies)

[ ] By application [ ] By referral
[ ] By recruitment [ ] Others, specify ______________________________
What are the requirements in joining the program? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Willing to apply technological improvements in existing operation
[ ] Certification of Business Registrations/Permits from DTI, SEC, CDA, etc.
Please identify other registration certifying body, if any: _______________
[ ] Audited Financial Statements
[ ] Accomplished Application Form from Negosyo Center
[ ] Project proposal
[ ] Technology needs assessment
[ ] Projected financial statements
[ ] Others, specify ______________________________
[ ] Very Easy [ ] Easy [ ] Neutral [ ] Difficult [ ] Very
Ease of meeting the requirements
Difficult
What are the steps in applying for the program?
1. _____________________________________ 4.
_____________________________________

127 | P a g e
2. _____________________________________ 5.
_____________________________________
3. _____________________________________

Ease of accessing or applying for the [ ] Very Easy [ ] Easy [ ] Neutral [ ] Difficult [ ] Very
services from Negosyo Center? Difficult
How long did it take to seek services from
Negosyo Center?
Ease of processing the program [ ] Very Easy [ ] Easy [ ] Neutral [ ] Difficult [ ] Very
application Difficult
What are the challenges in accessing or applying for the services from Negosyo Center? (Mark all that
applies)

[ ] Lack of personnel or business counselors (BCs)

[ ] Lack of technical expertise of BCs
[ ] Far location/inaccessible centers due to distance
[ ] Lack of facilities (e.g. computers for search, registry, etc.)
[ ] Others, specify _________________________________

V. RELEVANCE
What challenges have you Are these Did the assistance provided meet your
encountered in the operation of your challenges expectations?
business before joining the program? addressed by Indicate:
(Mark all that applies) the program? Y for Yes
Indicate: P for Partially
Y for Yes N for No
N for No Please explain your answer
[ ] Financial concerns ___: Explain:
_______________________________
[ ] Competition ___: Explain:
_______________________________
[ ] Difficulty in business registration ___: Explain:
_______________________________
[ ] Lack of knowledge on business ___: Explain:
management _______________________________
[ ] Technical knowledge ___: Explain:
_______________________________
[ ] Support to promotion, ___: Explain:
advertisement, etc. _______________________________
[ ] Issues on the location of business ___: Explain:
_______________________________
[ ] Lack of knowledge about the ___: Explain:
market _______________________________
[ ] Supply of materials necessary for ___: Explain:
production _______________________________
[ ] Others (please specify): ___: Explain:
_________________ _______________________________
After your involvement with the program, is/are there:

1. Ease Of Doing Business [ ] Yes [ ] No

2. Lessen Bureaucratic Process [ ] Yes [ ] No
3. New Markets Explored [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, please specify:
_________________________
4. An Expansion In Your Business Operation [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much (in percent)?
________________
5. Increased Sales [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much (in percent)?
________________
6. Improved Profitability [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much (in percent)?
________________
7. Increased Asset Size [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much (in percent)?
________________
8. Improved Competitiveness [ ] Yes [ ] No
9. Improved Employment [ ] Yes [ ] No

128 | P a g e
 VI. SUSTAINABILITY
Are you being monitored by the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes,
1. By whom? ___________________________________
2. How often? [ ] Daily [ ] Monthly [ ] Yearly
[ ] Weekly [ ] Quarterly [ ] Others (please specify):
________________________

What is being required from you as beneficiary/participant of the program? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Data (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
[ ] Documentations (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
[ ] Payment (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
[ ] Others (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
Were you able to form networks as a result of participating with the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, to which of the following entities were you able to reach out? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Local Government Units [ ] Financial institutions (e.g. banks, MFIs, etc.)
[ ] Assistance providers [ ] Input markets
[ ] Output markets [ ] Investors
[ ] Other (please specify): _____________________________________

What are the services contributed to the sustainability of your enterprise/business? How?

If given the chance, will you again avail of the program [ ] Yes [ ] No
Reason

Will you recommend the program to other SMEs? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Reason

VII. EFFICIENCY
Did the program help you achieve the following:
1. Hasten/ease the process of business registration [ ] Yes [ ] No
2. Lower cost of operation. [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much?
__________________
3. Shorten process to operate a business [ ] Yes [ ] No
4. Improved quality of products and/or services [ ] Yes [ ] No
5. Improved labor efficiency [ ] Yes [ ] No
6. Improved efficiency in management operations [ ] Yes [ ] No
7. Improved marketing strategies [ ] Yes [ ] No
8. Increased number of potential markets. [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much?
__________________
VIII. PERCEPTION
Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly
Agree
Disagree Agree
I. Relevance
7. Negosyo Center (NC) improved business
climate in the area.
8. NC helped MSMEs in improving business
operations.
9. NC improved management capability
through coaching, mentoring and advisories.
10. NC supported expansion of MSMEs through
promotional activities, advocacy and

129 | P a g e
 linkages.
11. NC made MSMEs competitive.
J. Efficiency
3. NC streamlined procedures for registration of
MSMEs.
2. NC requirements are easy to comply.
3. Acquired knowledge from NC reduced the
cost of operations.
K. Effectiveness
4. NC fast-tracked business registration.
4. NC enabled me to network with important
business contacts and stakeholders.
5. NC improved my management capability and
decision-making and networking.
6. NC assistance increased business assets
and helped grow business.
7. NC made services for my business more
accessible.
L. Sustainability
3. I will promote services offered by NC to other
MSMEs.
4. The program is being monitored by DTI/LGUs.
IX. OPINIONS ON GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In general, what are your comments on the implementation of the program? Please elaborate.

What are your recommendations to further improve the program?

X. PANDEMIC RESILIENCE
How are you affected by the pandemic?

What lessons have you learned from the situation?

How did you cope up with the challenges brought by the pandemic?

130 | P a g e
Annex C4. Survey Instrument for SSF
PSA Approval No. NEDA-2027-04 Expires on 31 August 2021

Questionnaire No: SSF ______

NEDA-MSME Form 4

Evaluability Assessment of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise (MSME)

Development Plan and Priority Programs under the MSME Development Plan
with a Process Evaluation of Government Support: Shared Service Facility

This study aims to assess the evaluability of Shared Service Facility (SSF) program implemented by
the Department of Trade and Industry. SSF is one of the flagship programs of the MSME
Development Plans and Priority Programs under the MSME Development Plan. Our research team
is conducting an evaluability assessment of the SSF to determine if there are concrete benefits that
can be derived from it, if the objectives are being attained and the processes are being followed, and
if adjustments are needed in the program implementation. This assessment shall also determine the
relevance, sustainability and acceptability by the stakeholders, and their perceptions about the
program.

This researcher/evaluator has no involvement in the SSF. In addressing the objectives of this
evaluability assessment, data about the project is being gathered from different sources. You, as
SSF beneficiary, are one of sources. In particular, you are the ultimate determinant of the benefits
to be derived from the project.

There is no right or wrong answer. Our only request is your sincere and honest response to every
question asked. Your name and contact number will be recorded in case a follow through is needed.
Rest assured that your identity and answers will be kept confidential and secured in compliance
with the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173). All the information that we will be collecting will be
used solely for the purpose of the study.

Thank you very much.

BIEN A. GANAPIN
Director
Officer-in-Charge
Trade, Services, and Industry Staff
National Economic and
Development Authority

Province: _________________ Date: ________________

I. PROFILE OF RESPONDENT
Name (Last Name, First
Name, M.I.)
Contact Number
Age as of last birthday
Sex [ ] Male [ ] Female
[ ] Single/Never Married [ ] Separated
[ ] Married [ ] Annulled
Civil Status
[ ] Common-law/Live-in [ ] Unknown
[ ] Divorced

131 | P a g e
 [ ] 0 - Early Childhood Education
[ ] 1 - Primary Education
[ ] 2 - Lower Secondary Education
[ ] 3 - Upper Secondary Education
Highest Educational
[ ] 4 - Post-Secondary Non-Tertiary Education
Attainment
[ ] 5 - Short-Cycle Tertiary Education or Equivalent
[ ] 6 - Bachelor Level Education or Equivalent
[ ] 7 - Master Level Education or Equivalent
[ ] 8 - Doctoral Level Education or Equivalent
II. ABOUT THE COOPERATOR
Type of Cooperator

[ ] Non-Government Organization [ ] People’s Organization

Type and
[ ] Cooperative [ ] Industry/Trade Association
Business Name
[ ] Local Government Unit [ ] Academe
of the Entity
[ ] Corporation [ ] Individual entrepreneur

Name of Entity ________________________________________________________

Year Established
Amount of capital
per SSF (PhP)
Female
Full-time
Number of Part-time
employees Male
Full-time
Part-time
Revenue per month before the pandemic
(PhP)
Revenue during the previous month of
operation (PhP)
IV. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
Where did you get an information about the program Shared Service Facility? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Relatives/ family members [ ] Government officials/ workers
[ ] Friends/ acquaintance [ ] Printed materials (e.g. posters, flyers, leaflets)
[ ] Colleagues/ workmates [ ] Social media announcements
[ ] Other sources (specify)__________________________________
What is your motivation for joining the program Shared Service Facility?
[ ] To improve the production operation and increase income
[ ] To standardize and improve the quality of the product
[ ] To improve the production operation of other MSMEs engage in similar business within the community
by sharing the service facilities with them
[ ] Others (specify) ___________________________________________________

How were you selected as program beneficiary? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] By application [ ] By referral
[ ] By recruitment [ ] Others, specify
______________________________
What are the requirements in joining the program Shared Service Facility? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Capability to provide support such as suitable facilities for machinery/equipment to be used, personnel,
working capital
[ ] Strategic location to serve the SSF beneficiary
[ ] Registrations/Business Permits/Audited Financial Statements (if NGO, PO, Coop or other association)
[ ] Others, specify ______________________________
[ ] Very Easy [ ] Easy [ ] Neutral [ ] Difficult [ ]
Ease of meeting the requirements
Very Difficult
What are the steps in applying for the program?
1. _____________________________________ 4.
_____________________________________
2. _____________________________________ 5.
_____________________________________
3. _____________________________________

132 | P a g e
How long did it take to apply for the
program?
[ ] Very Easy [ ] Easy [ ] Neutral [ ] Difficult [ ]
Ease of processing the program application
Very Difficult

Assistance provided to the firm

V. RELEVANCE
What challenges have you encountered in the operation of your business before joining the program? (Mark
all that applies)

Before joining the program, did you encounter challenge relating to finances in the operation of your
business? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, is this challenge addressed by the program? [ ] Yes [ ]No
Did the assistance meet your expectations? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ]Partially

Before joining the program, did you encounter challenge relating to difficulty in business registration? [ ]
Yes [ ] No
If yes, is this challenge addressed by the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Did the assistance meet your expectations? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Partially

Before joining the program, did you encounter technical knowledge problems in the operation of your
business? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, is this challenge addressed by the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Did the assistance meet your expectations? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Partially

Before joining the program, were there issues on the location of your business? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, is this challenge addressed by the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Did the assistance meet your expectations? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Partially

Before joining the program, did you encounter challenge relating to competition in the operation of your
business? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, is this challenge addressed by the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Did the assistance meet your expectations? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Partially

Before joining the program, do you lack business management skills in the operation of your business? [
] Yes [ ] No
If yes, is this challenge addressed by the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Did the assistance meet your expectations? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Partially

What other challenges did you encounter in the operation of your business before joining the program?
_______________
Were these challenges addressed by the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Did the assistance meet your expectations? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Partially

After your involvement with the program, is/are there:

1. A significant increase in income? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much (in percent)?

__________________
2. Additional jobs created? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, how many?
____________________
3. An expansion in your business operation? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much?
__________________
4. Improved competitiveness [ ] Yes [ ] No

133 | P a g e
 VI. SUSTAINABILITY
Are you being monitored by the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes,
1. By whom? ___________________________________
2. How often? [ ] Daily [ ] Monthly [ ] Yearly
[ ] Weekly [ ] Quarterly [ ] Others (please specify):
________________________

What is being required from you as cooperator of the program? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Data (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
[ ] Documentations (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
[ ] Payment (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
[ ] Others (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
Were you able to form networks as a result of participating with the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, to which of the following entities were you able to reach out? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Local Government Units [ ] Financial institutions
[ ] Assistance providers [ ] Input markets
[ ] Output markets [ ] Other (please specify):
_____________________________________
Do you think SSF should be a continuing program of DTI?
[ ] Yes [ ] No

Reason

Will you recommend the program to other MSMEs? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Reason

VII. EFFICIENCY
Did the program help you achieve the following:
1. Lower cost of production [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much?
__________________
2. Shorter production process [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much?
__________________
3. Improved quality of products and/or services [ ] Yes [ ] No
4. Improved labor efficiency [ ] Yes [ ] No
5. Improved efficiency in management operations [ ] Yes [ ] No
VIII. PERCEPTION
Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly
Agree
Disagree Agree
M. Relevance
12. SSF can help MSMEs in improving business
operations and address current problems through
provision of service facilities
13. SSF enabled me to improve my management
capability
14. SSF is relevant to my business
15. SSF made me competitive
N. Efficiency
8. SSF enabled me to network with important business
contacts and stakeholders
2. The requirements of the program is easy to comply
O. Effectiveness
5. SSF improved my management capability and the
technical capability of my employees
6. The assistance provided by SSF helped MSMEs to
grow their business

134 | P a g e
7. SSF standardized and improved the quality of
MSME products
P. Sustainability
5. I will promote SSF and continuously encourage
MSMEs to use the SSF
6. The program is being monitored by DTI regularly

IX. OPINIONS ON GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In general, what are your comments on the implementation of the program? Please elaborate.

Have you observed any weakness in the implementation of OTOP Next Gen? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, what are these?

What are your recommendations to further improve the program?

X. PANDEMIC RESILIENCE
How are you affected by the pandemic?

What lessons have you learned from the situation?

How did you cope up with the challenges brought by the pandemic?

135 | P a g e
Annex C5. Survey Instrument for OTOP
PSA Approval No. NEDA-2027-06 Expires on 31 August 2021

NEDA-MSME Form 6a Questionnaire No: OTOP Next Gen ______

Evaluability Assessment of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise (MSME)

Development Plan and Priority Programs under the MSME Development Plan
with a Process Evaluation of Government Support: OTOP Next Gen

This study aims to assess the evaluability of OTOP Next Gen implemented by the Department of
Trade and Industry. OTOP Next Gen is one of the flagship programs of the MSME Development
Plans and Priority Programs under the MSME Development Plan. Our research team is conducting
an evaluability assessment of OTOP Next Gen to determine if there are concrete benefits that can be
derived from it, if the objectives are being attained and the processes are being followed, and if
adjustments are needed in the program implementation. This assessment shall also determine the
relevance, sustainability and acceptability by the stakeholders, and their perceptions about the
program.

This researcher/evaluator has no involvement in OTOP Next Gen. In addressing the objectives of
this evaluability assessment, data about the project is being gathered from different sources. You,
as OTOP Next Gen beneficiary, are one of sources. In particular, you are the ultimate determinant
of the benefits to be derived from the project.

There is no right or wrong answer. Our only request is your sincere and honest response to every
question asked. Your name and contact number will be recorded in case a follow through is needed.
Rest assured that your identity and answers will be kept confidential and secured in compliance
with the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173). All the information that we will be collecting will be
used solely for the purpose of the study.

Thank you very much.

BIEN A. GANAPIN
Director
Officer-in-Charge
Trade, Services, and Industry Staff
National Economic and
Development Authority

Province: _________________ Date: ________________

I. PROFILE OF RESPONDENT
Name (Last Name, First
Name, M.I.)
Contact Number
Age as of last birthday
Sex [ ] Male [ ] Female
[ ] Single/Never Married [ ] Separated
[ ] Married [ ] Annulled
Civil Status
[ ] Common-law/Live-in [ ] Unknown
[ ] Divorced
[ ] 0 - Early Childhood Education
Highest Educational
[ ] 1 - Primary Education
Attainment
[ ] 2 - Lower Secondary Education

136 | P a g e
 [ ] 3 - Upper Secondary Education
[ ] 4 - Post-Secondary Non-Tertiary Education
[ ] 5 - Short-Cycle Tertiary Education or Equivalent
[ ] 6 - Bachelor Level Education or Equivalent
[ ] 7 - Master Level Education or Equivalent
[ ] 8 - Doctoral Level Education or Equivalent
II. ABOUT THE ENTERPRISE
Registered Name
(Insert the business name of the
enterprise. If there is no business
name, enter the name of the
owner with surname first followed
by the given name and the
business activity)
Years of operation
Category (based on [ ] Micro (less than PHP3M) [ ] Small (PHP 3-15M) [ ] Medium (PHP
asset size) 15-100M)
[ ] Agriculture, forestry and fishing
[ ] Mining and quarrying
[ ] Manufacturing
[ ] Electricity, gas, steam and air-conditioning supply
[ ] Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities
[ ] Construction
[ ] Wholesale and retail; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles
[ ] Transportation and storage
[ ] Accommodation and food service activities
[ ] Information and communication
[ ] Financial and insurance activities
Nature of enterprise
[ ] Real estate activities
[ ] Professional, scientific and technical activities
[ ] Administrative and support service activities
[ ] Public administration and defense; compulsory social security
[ ] Education
[ ] Human health and social work activities
[ ] Arts, entertainment and recreation
[ ] Other service activities
[ ] Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods-and-services-
producing activities of households for own use
[ ] Activities of extraterritorial organizations and bodies
[ ] Own capital
[ ] Borrowed from family/relatives
Source of capital [ ] Borrowed from informal sources
[ ] Borrowed from formal sources (Please specify _________________________)
[ ] Others, please specify _________________________________________
Amount of capital
(PhP)
Number of Part-time Male ____________ Part-time Female ____________
employees Full time Male __________ Full-time Female ___________
Number of
branches
III. PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
What type of products and/or services do you offer?
[ ] Food Products (specify) ___________________________________
[ ] Gifts, Decors, Handicrafts (specify) ____________________________
[ ] Furniture (specify) _____________________________________
[ ] Metals and Engineering (specify) _____________________________________
[ ] Pharmaceuticals, Health and Wellness Products(specify) ________________________
[ ] Halal Products and Services ( specify) ________________________________________
[ ] Others (please specify): ________________________
Local _________________________________________________
Major markets
International ____________________________________________

137 | P a g e
Volume of sales per month (before Product 1: _______ Product 2: _________ Product 3:
pandemic) __________
Volume of sales per month (during Product 1: _______ Product 2: _________ Product 3:
pandemic) __________
Revenue per month before the
pandemic (PhP)
Revenue during the previous
month of operation (PhP)

IV. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

Where did you get information about the program OTOP Next Gen? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Relatives/ family members [ ] Printed materials (e.g. posters, flyers, leaflets)
[ ] Friends/ acquaintance [ ] Social media announcements
[ ] Colleagues/ workmates [ ] Others
[ ] Government officials/workers

What motivated you to join the program OTOP Next Gen? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] New knowledge in business operations [ ]Refresher course in technical operations
[ ] New knowledge in technical operations [ ]Networking
[ ] Refresher course in management [ ]Business opportunity
[ ] Others, please specify ____________________________

How were you selected as program participant? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] By application [ ] By referral
[ ] By recruitment [ ] Others, please specify
______________________________
What type of assessment was done by DTI for you to qualify in OTOP Next Gen?

[ ] Has existing business on manufacturing

[ ] Attended trainings on entrepreneurship
[ ] Participated in trainings on KMME
[ ] Willing to apply technological improvements in existing operation
[ ] Registrations/Business Permits/Audited Financial Statements
[ ] Project proposal
[ ] Technology needs assessment
[ ] Projected financial statements
[ ] Others, please specify ______________________________
[ ] Very Easy [ ] Easy [ ] Neutral [ ] Difficult [ ]
Ease of meeting the requirements
Very Difficult
Under OTOP Next Gen what steps did you go through during product development? What trainings did you
attend?
1. _____________________________________ 4.
_____________________________________
2. _____________________________________ 5.
_____________________________________
3. _____________________________________
How long did it take to improve your products? ________________________

[ ] Very Easy [ ] Easy [ ] Neutral [ ] Difficult [ ]

Ease of product development
Very Difficult
[ ] Very Easy [ ] Easy [ ] Neutral [ ] Difficult [ ]
Ease of market development
Very Difficult

138 | P a g e
What assistance were provided by OTOP Next Gen? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Capacity building
[ ] Product Development
Specify the service provider ________________________________________
[ ] Design services and intervention
Specify the service provider ________________________________________
[ ] Packaging
Specify the service provider ________________________________________
[ ] Labeling
Specify the service provider ________________________________________
[ ] FDA registration and Nutrifacts testing
Specify the service provider ________________________________________
[ ] Entrepreneurial/Management training
Specify the service provider ________________________________________
[ ] Intellectual Property Assistance
Specify the service provider_________________________________________
[ ] Brand Equity and Development
Specify the service provider ________________________________________
[ ] Market Platform and Promotion (market awareness, readiness, entry, expansion)
Specify the service provider ________________________________________

Other assistance provided not mentioned above

[ ] None
[ ] Specify assistance ______________________________________________
Service provider ________________________________________________

V. RELEVANCE
What challenges have you encountered in the operation of your business before joining the OTOP Next Gen
program?

Before joining the OTOP Next Gen program, did you encounter challenge relating to finances in the
operation of your business? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, is this challenge addressed by the program? [ ] Yes[ ] No
Did the assistance meet your expectations? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Partially

Before joining the OTOP Next Gen program, did you encounter challenge relating to difficulty in business
registration?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, is this challenge addressed by the program? [ ] Yes[ ] No
Did the assistance meet your expectations? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Partially

Before joining the program, did you encounter technical knowledge problems in the operation of your
business? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, is this challenge addressed by the program? [ ] Yes[ ] No
Did the assistance meet your expectations? [ ] Yes [ ] No[ ] Partially

Before joining the program, were there issues on the location of your business? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, is this challenge addressed by the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Did the assistance meet your expectations? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Partially

Before joining the program, were you challenged with availability of supply of materials in the operation of
your business?
[ ] Yes [ ]No
If yes, is this challenge addressed by the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Did the assistance meet your expectations? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Partially

Before joining the program, did you encounter challenge relating to competition in the operation of your
business?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, is this challenge addressed by the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Did the assistance meet your expectations? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Partially

139 | P a g e
What other challenges did you encounter in the operation of your business before joining the OTOP Next
Gen program? ________________________________________________
Were these challenges addressed by the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Did the assistance meet your expectations? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Partially

After your involvement with the program, is/are there:

1. A significant increase in income? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much (in percent)?

__________________
2. Additional jobs created? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, how many?
____________________
3. New markets explored? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, please specify:
__________________
4. An expansion in your business operation? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much?
__________________
5. Improved competitiveness [ ] Yes [ ] No
6. Developed your capacity and marketing strength? [ ] Yes [ No] If yes, how?
.
VI. SUSTAINABILITY
Are you being monitored by the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes,
1. By whom? ___________________________________
2. How often? [ ] Daily [ ] Monthly [ ] Yearly
[ ] Weekly [ ] Quarterly [ ] Others (please specify):
________________________

What is being required from you as beneficiary/participant of the program? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Submit required data to DTI (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
[ ] Documentations (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
[ ] Payment (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
[ ] Complete required trainings (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
Were you able to form networks as a result of participating with the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, to which of the following entities were you able to reach out? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Local Government Units [ ] Financial institutions
[ ] Assistance providers [ ] Input markets
[ ] Output markets [ ] Other (please specify): ________________________

Do you participate in trade fairs? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, in what fairs?
[ ] Provincial
[ ] Regional
[ ] National
[ ] International

What have you gained in participating in such trade fairs?

[ ] Increased my sales volume and improved my income
[ ] Met new buyers and expanded my market outlets
[ ] Decided to expand my business operation

Do you think OTOP Next Gen should be a continuing program of DTI? [ ] Yes [ ] No

State your reason

140 | P a g e
Will you recommend other MSMEs to participate in OTOP Next Gen? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, reason:
[ ] To improved their products in terms of quality, acceptability, design and packaging, standards
compliance and marketability
[ ] To enhance their capacity to market their products in terms of effective selling, negotiation skills,
awareness of needs of buyers,
[ ] For them to have wider market for their products locally and abroad (market expansion)
[ ] In general, to improve their business operation
[ ] Others, specify __________________________

If no, reasons:
[ ] Too many requirements in terms of paper works
[ ] Costly, many MSMEs cannot afford
[ ] Takes time needed for product improvement
[ ] Too many trainings required

In general, what do you think are the objectives of OTOP Next Gen?
[ ] To capacitate the MSMEs in product development and improve their skills in marketing their products
[ ] To come up with improve product offerings through quality and product development, design and
packaging
[ ] For the OTOP products to be market-oriented and innovation driven

VII. EFFICIENCY
Did the program help you achieve the following:
1. Lower cost of production [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much?
__________________
2. Shorter production process [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much?
__________________
3. Improved quality of products and/or services [ ] Yes [ ] No
4. Improved labor efficiency [ ] Yes [ ] No
5. Improved efficiency in management operations [ ] Yes [ ] No

VIII. PERCEPTION
Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly
Agree
Disagree Agree
Q. Relevance
16. OTOP can help MSMEs in improving
business operations and address current
problems through appropriate science
solutions.
17. OTOP enabled me to improve my
management capability and technical
capability of my staff
18. OTOP enabled me to improve my marketing
ability
19. OTOP is relevant to my business.
20. OTOP made me competitive.
R. Efficiency
9. OTOP enabled me to network with important
business contacts and stakeholders.
2. The requirements of the program is easy to
comply.
S. Effectiveness
8. The assistance provided by OTOP helped
my business grow.
9. OTOP standardized and improved the quality
of my products.
10. OTOP enabled me to effectively market my
product
T. Sustainability

141 | P a g e
7. I will continuously apply the
strategies/innovations introduced by OTOP
to upgrade my business.
8. The program is being monitored by DTI
regularly.
9. I will recommend the program to other
MSMEs.
IX. OPINIONS ON GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Have you observed any weakness in the implementation of OTOP Next Gen? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, what are these?

What are your recommendations to further improve the program?

X. PANDEMIC RESILIENCE
How are you affected by the pandemic?

What lessons have you learned from the situation?

How did you cope up with the challenges brought by the pandemic?

142 | P a g e
Annex C6. Survey Instrument for SETUP

PSA Approval No. NEDA-2027-05 Expires on 31 August 2021

NEDA-MSME Form 5 Questionnaire No: SETUP_________

Evaluability Assessment of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise (MSME)

Development Plan and Priority Programs under the MSME Development Plan
with a Process Evaluation of Government Support: Small Enterprise
Technology Upgrading Program

This study aims to assess the evaluability of Small Enterprise Technology Upgrading Program
(SETUP) implemented by the Department of Science and Technology. SETUP is one of the flagship
programs of the MSME Development Plans and Priority Programs under the MSME Development
Plan. Our research team is conducting an evaluability assessment of the SETUP to determine if
there are concrete benefits that can be derived from it, if the objectives are being attained and the
processes are being followed, and if adjustments are needed in the program implementation. This
assessment shall also determine the relevance, sustainability and acceptability by the
stakeholders, and their perceptions about the program.

This researcher/evaluator has no involvement in the SETUP. In addressing the objectives of this
evaluability assessment, data about the project is being gathered from different sources. You, as
SETUP beneficiary, are one of sources. In particular, you are the ultimate determinant of the
benefits to be derived from the project.

There is no right or wrong answer. Our only request is your sincere and honest response to every
question asked. Your name and contact number will be recorded in case a follow through is needed.
Rest assured that your identity and answers will be kept confidential and secured in compliance
with the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173). All the information that we will be collecting will be
used solely for the purpose of the study.

Thank you very much.

BIEN A. GANAPIN
Director
Officer-in-Charge
Trade, Services, and Industry Staff
National Economic and
Development Authority

Province: _________________ Date: ________________

I. PROFILE OF RESPONDENT
Name (Last Name, First Name,
M.I.)
Contact Number
Age as of last birthday
Sex [ ] Male [ ] Female

143 | P a g e
 [ ] Single/Never Married [ ] Separated
[ ] Married [ ] Annulled
Civil Status
[ ] Common-law/Live-in [ ] Unknown
[ ] Divorced
[ ] 0 - Early Childhood Education
[ ] 1 - Primary Education
[ ] 2 - Lower Secondary Education
[ ] 3 - Upper Secondary Education
Highest Educational Attainment [ ] 4 - Post-Secondary Non-Tertiary Education
[ ] 5 - Short-Cycle Tertiary Education or Equivalent
[ ] 6 - Bachelor Level Education or Equivalent
[ ] 7 - Master Level Education or Equivalent
[ ] 8 - Doctoral Level Education or Equivalent
II. ABOUT THE ENTERPRISE
Registered Name
(Insert the business name of the
enterprise. If there is no business name,
enter the name of the owner with surname
first followed by the given name and the
business activity)
Years of operation
Category (based on [ ] Micro (less than PHP3M) [ ] Small (PHP 3-15M) [ ] Medium (PHP
asset size) 15-100M)
[ ] Agriculture, forestry and fishing
[ ] Mining and quarrying
[ ] Manufacturing
[ ] Electricity, gas, steam and air-conditioning supply
[ ] Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities
[ ] Construction
[ ] Wholesale and retail; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles
[ ] Transportation and storage
[ ] Accommodation and food service activities
[ ] Information and communication
[ ] Financial and insurance activities
Nature of enterprise
[ ] Real estate activities
[ ] Professional, scientific and technical activities
[ ] Administrative and support service activities
[ ] Public administration and defense; compulsory social security
[ ] Education
[ ] Human health and social work activities
[ ] Arts, entertainment and recreation
[ ] Other service activities
[ ] Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods-and services-
producing activities of households for own use
[ ] Activities of extraterritorial organizations and bodies
[ ] Own capital
[ ] Borrowed from family/relatives
[ ] Borrowed from informal sources
Source of capital
[ ] Borrowed from formal sources (Please specify
_________________________)
[ ] Others, please specify _________________________________________
Amount of capital
(PhP)
Number of Part-time Male ____________ Part-time Female ____________
employees Full time Male __________ Full-time Female ___________
Number of branches
III. PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
What type of products and/or services do you offer?
[ ] Agricultural/Marine/Aquaculture (specify) ______________________________________
[ ] Food Processing (specify) _________________________________________________
[ ] Gifts, Decors, Handicrafts (specify) __________________________________________
[ ] Furniture (specify) ______________________________________________________
[ ] Metals and Engineering (specify) ____________________________________________
[ ] ICT (specify) ___________________________________________________________

144 | P a g e
[ ] Pharmaceuticals, Health and Wellness Products (specify) ________________________
[ ] Halal Products and Services ( specify) ________________________________________
[ ] Others (please specify): ___________________________________________________

Local
_______________________________________________
Major markets __
International
____________________________________________
Product 1: _______ Product 2: _________ Product 3:
Volume of sales per month (before pandemic)
__________
Product 1: _______ Product 2: _________ Product 3:
Volume of sales per month (during pandemic)
__________
Revenue per month before the pandemic
(PhP)
Revenue during the previous month of
operation (PhP)
IV. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
Where did you get an information about SETUP? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Relatives/ family members [ ] Government officials/ workers
[ ] Friends/ acquaintance [ ] Printed materials (e.g. posters, flyers, leaflets)
[ ] Colleagues/ workmates [ ] Social media announcements
[ ] Science and Technology Caravan [ ] Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
[ ] Trade Fairs [ ] Others ____________________________
What is your motivation for joining SETUP? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] New knowledge in business operations [ ]Refresher course in technical operations
[ ] New knowledge in technical operations [ ]Networking
[ ] Refresher course in management [ ]Business opportunity
[ ] Others ____________________________
How were you selected as program beneficiary? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] By application [ ] By referral
[ ] By recruitment [ ] Others, specify ______________________________
What are the requirements in joining SETUP? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Existing business
[ ] Willing to apply technological improvements in existing operation
[ ] Registrations/Business Permits/Audited Financial Statements
[ ] Project proposal
[ ] Technology Needs Assessment (TNA)
[ ] Letter of intent to avail of SETUP assistance, stating commitment to refund the iFund support and cover
the insurance cost for the acquired equipment
[ ] Fully accomplished DOST TNA Form o1, “Application for Technology Needs Assessment”
[ ] Copy of business permits and licenses issued by LGUs and other government offices
[ ] Certificate of registration with DTI, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or Cooperative
Development Authority (CDA)
[ ] Articles of incorporation for cooperatives and associations as proponent
[ ] Board/Legislative Council Resolution authorizing the availment of the assistance and designating
authorized signatory for the funding assistance for corporations, cooperative, SUCs, and LGUs
[ ] Financial statements for the past three (3) years for small and medium enterprises and at least one (1)
year foe micro-enterprises
[ ] Sworn affidavit that none of the incorporators/officials or applicant is related to the approving authority
(Regional Director) up to the third degree of consanguinity and affinity and that the proponent has no
bad debt.
[ ] Projected financial statements
[ ] Complete technical specifications and design/drawing/picture of equipment to be acquired, as
determined in the TNA Report
[ ] Three (3) quotations from suppliers/fabricators for each equipment to be acquired
[ ] Others, specify ______________________________
[ ] Very Easy [ ] Easy [ ] Neutral [ ] Difficult [
Ease of meeting the requirements
] Very Difficult
What are the steps in applying for the program?
1. _____________________________________ 4.
_____________________________________
2. _____________________________________ 5.
_____________________________________
3. _____________________________________

145 | P a g e
How long did it take to apply for the program?
[ ] Very Easy [ ] Easy [ ] Neutral [ ] Difficult [
Ease of processing the program application
] Very Difficult
Assistance provided to the firm (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Proposal preparation
[ ] Technology Needs Assessment (TNA)
[ ] Access to and acquisition of appropriate technology
[ ] Innovation-Enabling Fund or iFund (financial assistance for acquiring appropriate technology)
[ ] Capacity building and technical trainings
[ ] Consultancy and technical advisory services
[ ] One Expert (1E) Program
[ ] Manufacturing Productivity Extension Program (MPEX)
[ ] Consultancy for Agricultural Productivity Enhancement (CAPE) Program
[ ] Food Safety (FS) Program
[ ] Cleaner Production Program
[ ] Energy Audit (EA) Program
[ ] Packaging and Labelling Assistance
[ ] Subject Matter Specialists
[ ] Technical Training Programs
[ ] OneLab Program
[ ] Human Resource Training
[ ] Product Development, Calibration and Testing
[ ] Packaging and labelling
[ ] Information System and Technology Solution
V. RELEVANCE
What challenges have you encountered in the Are Did the assistance provided meet your
operation of your business before joining the these expectations?
program? (Mark all that applies) challeng Indicate:
es Y for Yes
addresse P for Partially
d by the N for No
program Please explain your answer
?
Indicate:
Y for Yes
N for No
[ ] Financial concerns ___: Explain:
___________________________
[ ] Competition ___: Explain:
___________________________
[ ] Difficulty in business registration ___: Explain:
___________________________
[ ] Lack of knowledge on business ___: Explain:
management ___________________________
[ ] Technical knowledge ___: Explain:
___________________________
[ ] Issues on the location of business ___: Explain:
___________________________
[ ] Supply of materials necessary for production ___: Explain:
___________________________
[ ] Others (please specify): ___: Explain:
_________________ ___________________________
______________________________________
__
After your involvement with the program, is/are there:

1. A significant increase in income? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much (in percent)?

________________
2. Additional jobs created? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, how many?
____________________
3. New markets explored? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, please specify:
__________________
4. An expansion in your business operation? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much?
__________________
5. Improved competitiveness [ ] Yes [ ] No

146 | P a g e
 VI. SUSTAINABILITY
Are you being monitored by the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes,
1. By whom? ___________________________________
2. How often? [ ] Daily [ ] Monthly [ ] Yearly
[ ] Weekly [ ] Quarterly [ ] Others (please specify):
________________________

What is being required from you as beneficiary/participant of the program? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Data (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
[ ] Documentations (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
[ ] Payment (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
[ ] Others (Specific details:
______________________________________________________)
Were you able to form networks as a result of participating with the program? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, to which of the following entities were you able to reach out? (Mark all that applies)
[ ] Local Government Units [ ] Financial institutions
[ ] Assistance providers [ ] Input markets
[ ] Output markets [ ] Other (please specify):
_____________________________________
If given the chance, will you again avail of the program [ ] Yes [ ] No
Reason

Will you recommend the program to other SMEs? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Reason

VII. EFFICIENCY
Did the program help you achieve the following:
1. Lower cost of production [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much?
__________________
2. Shorter production process [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, by how much?
__________________
3. Improved quality of products and/or services [ ] Yes [ ] No
4. Improved labor efficiency [ ] Yes [ ] No
5. Improved efficiency in management operations [ ] Yes [ ] No
VIII. PERCEPTION
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
Disagree Agree
U. Relevance
21. SETUP can help MSMEs in improving
business operations and address current
problems through appropriate science
solutions
22. SETUP enabled me to improve my
management capability
23. SETUP is relevant to my business
24. SETUP made me competitive
25. SETUP helped me to be productive even
during the pandemic.
V. Efficiency
10. SETUP enabled me to network with
important business contacts and

147 | P a g e
 stakeholders
2. The requirements of the program is easy to
comply
W. Effectiveness
11. SETUP improved my management
capability and the technical capability of my
employees
12. The assistance provided by SETUP helped
my business grow and increased my income
13. SETUP standardized and improved the
quality of my products
14. SETUP increased my production capacity.
15. SETUP generated more employment.
16. SETUP enabled me to penetrate new
markets.
17. The program enabled me to develop new
products and services.
X. Sustainability
10. I will continuously apply the
strategies/innovations introduced by SETUP
to upgrade my business
11. The program is being monitored by DOST
regularly
12. I will recommend the program to other
MSMEs
13. SETUP program is flexible and introduces
innovation thru time.
IX. OPINIONS ON GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In general, what are your comments on the implementation of the program? Please elaborate.

What are your recommendations to further improve the program?

X. PANDEMIC RESILIENCE
How are you affected by the pandemic?

What lessons have you learned from the situation?

How did you cope up with the challenges brought by the pandemic?

148 | P a g e
 Annex D. KII/FGD Guide Questions

Annex D1. Guide Questions for MSMEDP Council

I. Knowledge on MSMEDP

1. What is your understanding on MSMEDP and its goals and objectives?

2. What are the roles/functions of your agency as Council-member?

Get a narrative of the understanding of what MSMEDP. Describe provisions of the

MSMEDP pertaining to the Council-member (e.g. roles, functions and provisions re
expected roles and functions of the member agency.

II. Role of Agency in the Implementation of MSMEDP

1. What are the vision, mission and goals of the member-agency?

2. How are these vision, mission and goals align with the objectives/goals of MSMEDP?

Assess the perspective of the agency in meeting the VMG of MSMEDP (e.g. improved
business climate, improved access to finance, enhanced management and labor capacities,
improved access to technology and innovation, improved access to market, etc.)

1. What are the roles and functions of the agency as member of the MSMEDP Council?
Are the expected roles and functions align with the mandates of the member-agency?
2. Discuss organizational structure or unit/office involve in performing the roles and
functions of the member-agency as indicated in the MSMEDP.

III. Performance of the Member-Agency

1- What are the programs/projects/plans/activities in implementing the MSMEDP? What

are the trainings, support services, linkages and networks provided? Discuss how are
these programs/projects/plans/activities able to achieve the VMG of MSMEDP.
2- Describe the implementation strategies and process of planning and implementing
programs/projects/activities.
a. What are the technical assistance provided by the Council in developing
the implementation strategies and process?
b. Can the Council influence the direction of the program implementation?
3- How would you rate your agency in terms of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency in
meeting the VMG of MSMEDP? (Likert scale, 5 being the highest). Discuss the
reasons and cite examples/instances behind the rating.
4- What are the issues in planning and implementing the
programs/projects/plans/activities under MSMEDP? Check for possible issues on
overlapping functions, programs, activities among member-agencies. Is there
convergence or harmonization of programs/projects/plans/activities among member
agencies? What are the mitigating measures to address the problems?

149 | P a g e
IV. MSMEDP

1- How do you see the implementation of the six key programs of DTI and DOST
(Negosyo Center, Kapatid Mentor Me, Pondo sa Pagbabago at Pag-asenso (P3), One
Town One Product (OTOP), Shared Services Facility (SSF), Small Enterprise
Technology Upgrading Program (SET-UP)) in achieving the goals of MSMEDP

2- What are the expected or perceived contributions of each program?

3- Do you think the programs achieved its objectives and deliverables?

V. Monitoring and Evaluation

1- Is there established monitoring and evaluation protocol for MSMEDP?

2- What are the indicators of progress/success?
3- Who conduct the M&E of activities?
4- How are gaps being addressed? How are good practices/results disseminated?

VI. Sustainability

1- Is there sustainability plan established for MSMEDP?

2- What is the role your agency in crafting the sustainability plan?
3- How did you implement the sustainability plan?
4- Is the M&E plan linked with the establishment of the sustainability plan.
a. How is the M&E system related in achieving sustainability of the programs?
b. Are the issues identified during the M&E able to provide feedback to the Council
in terms of planning for the future activities and budgeting?
5- What are the necessary factors/requirements (e.g. infrastructure, policies, budget, etc.)
to sustain the success/progress of MSMEDP?

150 | P a g e
Annex D2. Guide Questions for KMME

1. What is the motivation for coming up with the Mentor ME?

2. What are the goals of the Mentor ME?
3. What are the assumptions of the program?
4. Did these assumptions materialize during the implementation of the program?
If not, are there changes in the assumptions?
If not, are there changes in the overall framework of the program?
5. What is the structure of the program?
Implementation structure
- Organizational structure
- Responsibility centers
- Respective TORs
Process followed in the implementation
- What are the inputs needed (funds? manpower?)
- What implementation protocols/procedures followed
- What verifiable outputs are being followed/collection of data for OVI?
6. Monitoring and evaluation system
- What is the M&E plan used or followed?
- Is there a dedicated unit for M&E?
- What are being monitored? Ask for specific indicators/data.
- Is baseline data collected? (data on beneficiary status before being recipient of the
program)
- Do you carry out evaluation?
- If yes, what types and how often?
- How are results of M&E used for decision making?
7. Gaps in implementation
8. Gaps in M&E
9. Perception on
- relevance
- effectiveness
- efficiency
- sustainability
- impact

151 | P a g e
Annex D3a. Guide Questions for P3 (Conduits)

1. Tell us something about your organization (goals, programs, funding and sources,
beneficiaries).

2. What do you think are the goals of P3?

3. What is the motivation for the conduits in accessing funds from P3 in your area?

4. How does the attainment of the goal of your program contribute to the attainment of the
P3 goals? ( or relation of the conduit and the P3) and vice versa

5. What are the factors necessary (assumptions) for the successful implementation of the
P3 program?

6. Did these assumptions (factors) materialize during the implementation of the program?
If not, are there changes in the assumptions?
If not, are there changes in the overall framework of the program?

7. What is the structure of the program at the conduit level?

Implementation structure
- Organizational structure with respect to P3 implementation

Process followed in the implementation

- From conduit conduit to SBC

o Describe the process of application, evaluation and approval process
o Describe the terms
o Describe the collection and payment system
o Describe the overall experience
- From MSMEs to conduit
o Describe the process of application, evaluation and approval process
o Describe the terms
o Describe the collection and payment system
- What are the inputs needed (funds? manpower?)

8. Monitoring and evaluation system

- Between conduit and SBC

o What is the M&E plan used or followed? Do you have an operations manual
being followed?
o Is there a dedicated unit for M&E?
o What are being monitored? Ask for specific indicators/data. (request for copy
of form if any);
o How is monitoring done?
o Is baseline data collected? (data on beneficiary status before being recipient of
the program)
o Does SBC carry out evaluation?
o If yes, what types and how often?

- Between conduit and SMEs

152 | P a g e
 o What is the M&E plan used or followed? Do you have an operations manual
being followed?
o Is there a dedicated unit for M&E?
o What are being monitored? Ask for specific indicators/data. (request for copy
of form if any);
o How is monitoring done?
o Is baseline data collected? (data on beneficiary status before being recipient of
the program)
o Does the conduit carry out evaluation?
o If yes, what types and how often?

9. Gaps in implementation (issues and concerns, both SBC and MSME level)

10. Gaps in M&E (issues and concerns, both SBC and MSME level)
(eg. Ask the respondent think is still needed if there are problematic areas in question #6)

11. Perception on
- Relevance (program addresses the needs of the target beneficiaries)
- Effectiveness (program is attaining its goals or objectives)
- Efficiency (program is implemented at the least cost and time possible
- sustainability (program funding is always available)
- impact (effect of the program on the livelihood of beneficiaries)

12. What was the effect of the ECQ/MECQ on the program?

- Effect on loan applications
- Effect on loan processing
- Effect on loan releasing
- Effect on loan collection
- Others

13. What was the response of P3 to mitigate the effects of the ECQ/MECQ on the
beneficiaries?
- Actions taken to help the existing beneficiaries
- Actions taken to assist the potential beneficiaries
- New credit programs
- Others

153 | P a g e
Annex D3b. Guide Questions for P3 Program Implementors

1. What is the motivation for coming up with the P3?

2. What are the goals of the P3?
3. What are the assumptions of the program?
4. Did these assumptions materialize during the implementation of the program?
If not, are there changes in the assumptions?
If not, are there changes in the overall framework of the program?
5. What is the structure of the program?
Implementation structure
- Organizational structure
- Responsibility centers
- Respective TORs
Process followed in the implementation
- What are the inputs needed (funds? manpower?)
- What implementation protocols/procedures followed
- What verifiable outputs are being followed/collection of data for OVI?
6. Monitoring and evaluation system
- What is the M&E plan used or followed?
- Is there a dedicated unit for M&E?
- What are being monitored? Ask for specific indicators/data.
- Is baseline data collected? (data on beneficiary status before being recipient of the
program)
- Do you carry out evaluation?
- If yes, what types and how often?
- How are results of M&E used for decision making?
7. Gaps in implementation
8. Gaps in M&E
(eg. Ask the respondent think is still needed if there are problematic areas in question #6)
9. Perception on
- Relevance (program addresses the needs of the target beneficiaries)
- Effectiveness (program is attaining its goals or objectives)
- Efficiency (program is implemented at the least cost and time possible
- sustainability (program funding is always available)
- impact (effect of the program on the livelihood of beneficiaries)

10. What was the effect of the ECQ/MECQ on the program?

- Effect on loan applications
- Effect on loan processing
- Effect on loan releasing
- Effect on loan collection
- Others

11. What was the response of P3 to mitigate the effects of the ECQ/MECQ on the
beneficiaries?
- Actions taken to help the existing beneficiaries
- Actions taken to assist the potential beneficiaries
- New credit programs
- Others

154 | P a g e
Annex D4. Guide Questions for Negosyo Center

I. Background of establishing Negosyo Center

1- What is your understanding of the Program Negosyo Center (NC)? For the
respondent to discuss knowledge on NC including goals, objectives, provisions,
implementation strategies, assumptions, indicators (success, deliverables etc.)

2- When did you establish the NC?

3- Who were the key persons/institutions in the establishment of NC?

4- Support received in establishing NC. Discuss the role of LGU and other
agencies/institutions in the establishment of NC in the area.

II. NC Operation

1- What is the motivation for establishing the NC in your area?

Get a narrative of the business climate in the area that motivated the establishment
of NC. Elicit the objectives/goals in establishing NC in the area.

Establish the baseline condition of the business environment in the area prior to the
establishment of NC.

2- How are the goals and objectives of NC align with the motivations/goals of the LGU
at the municipality/province level?

Did the objectives/assumptions materialize during the implementation of the

program? Highlight changes if any and factors that contributed to the changes.

Were the revisions/changes made documented and indicated in the logical

framework?

3- What is the type of NC? Discuss the type of NC by level whether Basic, Full Service
and Advanced.

Discuss if the NC has movement from Basic to Advanced and how was this
achieved. What were the changes in terms of support (financial, human resources,
facilities, type of services provided, etc.)

4- What is the structure of the program?

a. Organizational structure (human resources requirement, TOR established).
Who provides the salaries of the staff (role of LGU). Are the business
counselors (BCs) regular or job order? Indicate implication to program
implementation.

b. Implementation strategies/procedures/protocols (document indicators or

MOVs for the procedures.

c. Policies crafted to support the NC (e.g. ordinance, resolutions)

155 | P a g e
5- What are the types of businesses/enterprises supported? (i.e. agriculture,
manufacture, etc.) Scale of business (micro, small, medium). Indicate number (collect
secondary data on list of MSMEs, types, etc.)

6- Monitoring and evaluation (Look for M&E protocol, forms)

a. Is there established monitoring and evaluation protocol for NC?

b. What are the indicators of progress/success/MOVs?
c. Who conduct the M&E activities?
d. How are the results from M&E used? Were the results used as basis for
changes/revisions in implementation? How are gaps being addressed? How
are good practices/results disseminated?

7- Sustainability
a. Is there sustainability plan established for NC?
b. Who/what units were involved in crafting the sustainability plan?
c. How are you implementing the sustainability plan?
d. What are the necessary factors/requirements (e.g. infrastructure, policies,
budget, human resources, etc.) to sustain the success/progress of NC?
i. What are the possible implications of potential changes in policies or
agencies running the NC?
ii. Implications of BCs who are usually on job order? How are initiatives
sustained?

156 | P a g e
Annex D5. Guide Questions for SSF

1. What is the motivation for coming up with the SSF Program?

2. What are the goals of the SSF Program?
3. What are the assumptions of the program?
4. Did these assumptions materialize during the implementation of the program?
If not, are there changes in the assumptions?
If not, are there changes in the overall framework of the program?
5. What is the structure of the program?
Implementation structure
- Organizational structure
- Responsibility centers
- Respective TORs
Process followed in the implementation
- What are the inputs needed (funds?manpower?)
- What implementation protocols/procedures followed
- What verifiable outputs are being followed/collection of data for OVI?
6. Monitoring and evaluation system
- What is the M&E plan used or followed?
- Is there a dedicated unit for M&E?
- What are being monitored? What specific indicators/data?
- Is baseline data collected? (data on beneficiary status before being recipient of the
program)
- Do you carry out evaluation?
- If yes, what types and how often?
- How are results of M&E used for decision making?
-
7. What are the gaps in implementation?

8. What are the gaps in M&E?

What do you think are still needed if there are problematic areas in question #6?

9. What is your perception on

- Relevance (program addresses the needs of the target beneficiaries)
- Effectiveness (program is attaining its goals and objectives)
- Efficiency (Program is implemented at the least cost and time possible)
- Sustainability (funding is always available; mentoring and training can go on even with
minimal funding, etc)
- Impact (effect of the program on the MSME – positive, negative, etc)

10. What was the effect of the ECQ/MECQ on the program

- Effect on implementation of ongoing activities
- Effect on implementation of activities scheduled during the lockdown
-
11. What was the response of the SSF program to mitigate the effects of help the
MSMEs
- Actions taken to help the SSF Cooperators and beneficiaries
- Adjustments taken by the program (e,g. other arrangements)

157 | P a g e
Annex D6. Guide Questions for OTOP Program Implementors (OTOP
Hub and OTOP Next Gen)

1. What is the motivation for coming up with OTOP Philippines?

In Calabarzon , same in other provinces, in terms of training ahead.

2. What are the goals of the OTOP Next Gen and OTOP-Hub?

3. What are the assumptions of

a. OTOP Next Gen?
b. OTOP-Hub?

4. For OTOP Next Gen

4.1. Did these assumptions materialize during the implementation of the program?

If not, are there changes in the assumptions?

If not, are there changes in the overall framework of the OTOP Next Gen?

4.2. What is the structure of the OTOP Next Gen?

Implementation structure of OTOP Next Gen

- Organizational structure
- Responsibility centers
- Respective TORs

Process followed in the implementation of OTOP Next Gen?

- What are the inputs needed (funds? manpower?)

- What are implementation protocols/procedures followed?
- What verifiable outputs are being followed/collection of data for OVI?

Mechanism for sustainability

5. For OTOP Hub

5.1. Did the assumptions materialize during the implementation of OTOP-Hub?
If not, are there changes in the assumptions?
If not, are there changes in the overall framework of the OTOP Hub?

5.2. What is the structure of the OTOP Hub?

Implementation structure of OTOP Hub

- Organizational structure
- Responsibility centers
- Respective TORs

Process followed in the implementation of OTOP Hub?

- What are the inputs needed (funds? manpower?)

- What are implementation protocols/procedures followed?
- What verifiable outputs are being followed/collection of data for OVI?

158 | P a g e
 Mechanism for sustainability

6. Monitoring and evaluation system

- Is there an M&E plan used or followed?

- Is there a dedicated unit for M&E of OTOP?
- What data are being monitored?( Ask for specific indicators/data for OTOP Next
Gen and OTOP-Hub)?
- Are the data being monitored reflective of the objectives and strategies of OTOP
Next Gen and OTOP-Hub?
- Is baseline data collected? (data on beneficiary status before becoming recipient
of the OTOP Next Gen and OTOP Hub)
- Can these data be used to assess the contribution of OTOP Next Gen and
OTOP-Hub to MSME in terms of productivity, job generation and
socioeconomic impacts?
- Do you carry out evaluation of OTOP Next Gen and OTOP-Hub? If yes, what type
of evaluation and how often? (e.g. Mid-year evaluation, yearly evaluation)
- How are results of M&E used for decision making?
- Have you observed any gap in your M&E system?
-
7. Gaps in implementation

8. Perception on OTOP-Hub

Relevance (addresses the needs of the beneficiary)

Is OTOP-Hub project able to address the challenges faced by cooperators in

operating the business specifically in the aspect of
a. Financial assistance
b. technical assistance
c. improving management skills
d. assistance in location of the hub
e. steady supply of products to be sold

How relevant is OTOP-Hub for the MSMEs themselves?

Is a mechanism in place to assess the relevance of OTOP-Hub to the

MSMEs?

Effectiveness ( the program is attaining its goals and objectives)

1. Is OTOP-Hub able to boost the sale of local products produced by

MSMEs particularly the OTOPreneurs? Is it able to provide a wider
audience for these local products? To what extent is it able to help?
2. Are the implementation and coordination mechanisms/strategies/
processes/structures favorable towards achieving the expected results of
OTOP-Next Gen?

Efficiency (Program is implemented at the least cost and time possible)

.
1. With the project’s implementation processes and structures in place,
would you say that the intended results (from inputs, to outputs, and to
outcomes) have been achieved?

159 | P a g e
 2. Are the resources adequate to generate the expected results as
planned? Which particular resource/input is inadequate? Are these
being addressed? What is the appropriate level of financing to implement
OTOP-Hub?

Sustainability (funding is always available; mentoring and training can go on

even with minimal funding, etc)

1. Can the project’s M&E system enable the assessment of sustainability of

benefits from OTOP-Hub?
2. Are the interventions provided sufficient to ensure the sustainability of
OTOP-Hub beyond the project implementation? What are these
interventions?
3. With insufficient foot traffic among OTOP-Hub brought about by COVID-
19 pandemic, what alternative solutions are provided by the PMO/DTI to
ensure the continuity of the business? If none, what do you perceive as
solutions to ensure continuity?

9. Perception on OTOP- Next Gen

Relevance (addresses the needs of the beneficiary)

Is OTOP Next Gen project able to address the challenges faced by
cooperators in operating the business specifically in the aspect of
a. Financial assistance
b. technical assistance
c. improving management skills
d. assistance in location of the hub
e. steady supply of products to be sold

How relevant is OTOP-Next Gen for the MSMEs themselves?

Is a mechanism in place to assess the relevance of OTOP Next Gen to the

MSMEs?

Effectiveness ( the program is attaining its goals and objectives)

1. Is OTOP Next Gen able to level up local products in the areas of design,
quality, volume, among others?
2. What problems did you encounter with your local government and private
sector partners? How were these resolved?
3. Are the implementation and coordination mechanisms/strategies/
processes favorable towards achieving the expected results of OTOP-
Next Gen?

Efficiency (Program is implemented at the least cost and time possible)

1. Are the project’s implementation processes and structures capable of
delivering and measuring the intended results (from inputs, to outputs,
and to outcomes)?
2. Are the resources adequate to generate the expected outputs as
planned? Which particular resource/input is inadequate? Are these
being addressed? What is the appropriate level of financing to implement
OTOP Next Gen?

160 | P a g e
 Sustainability (funding is always available; mentoring and training can go on
even with minimal funding, etc)
1. Can the project’s M&E system enable the assessment of sustainability of
benefits from OTOP Next Gen?
2. Are the interventions provided sufficient to ensure the sustainability of
OTOP Next Gen beyond the project implementation? What are these
interventions?

10. What was the effect of the ECQ/MECQ on the program?

- Effect on implementation of ongoing activities

- Effect on implementation of activities scheduled during the lockdown

11. What was the response of the OTOP program to mitigate the effects to help the
MSMEs?

Actions taken to help the OTOP Cooperators and beneficiaries

161 | P a g e
Annex D7. Guide Questions for SETUP

1. What is the motivation for coming up with the SETUP?

2. What are the goals of the SETUP?
3. What are the assumptions of the program?
4. Did these assumptions materialize during the implementation of the program?
If not, are there changes in the assumptions?
If not, are there changes in the overall framework of the program?
5. What is the structure of the program?
Implementation structure
- Organizational structure
- Responsibility centers
- Respective TORs
Process followed in the implementation
- What are the inputs needed (funds? manpower?)
- What implementation protocols/procedures followed
- What verifiable outputs are being followed/collection of data for OVI?
6. Monitoring and evaluation system
- What is the M&E plan used or followed?
- Is there a dedicated unit for M&E?
- What are being monitored? Ask for specific indicators/data.
- Is baseline data collected? (data on beneficiary status before being recipient of the
program)
- Do you carry out evaluation? If yes, what types and how often?
o Do you conduct mid-term review/evaluation (data collection on the status of
the project implementation)
- How are the results from M&E used? Were the results used as basis for
changes/revisions in implementation? How are gaps being addressed? How are good
practices/results disseminated?
-
7. Gaps in implementation
8. Gaps in M&E
9. Perception on
a. Relevance
- SETUP can help MSMEs in improving business operations and address current
problems through appropriate science solutions
- SETUP enables MSMEs to improve their management capability
- SETUP is relevant to businesses
- SETUP can make MSMEs competitive
b. Efficiency
- SETUP enables MSMEs to network with important business contacts and
stakeholders
- MSMEs could easily comply to the requirements of SETUP
c. Effectiveness
- SETUP could improve the management capability and the technical capability
of the MSME employees
- The assistance being provided by SETUP could help businesses grow
- SETUP standardized and improved the quality of my products
d. Sustainability
- The strategies/innovations being introduced by SETUP can be continuously
applied to upgrade businesses
- The program is being monitored by DOST regularly
- SETUP can be recommended to other MSMEs

162 | P a g e
10. What was the effect of the ECQ/MECQ on the program?

- Effect on implementation of ongoing activities

- Effect on implementation of activities scheduled during the lockdown

11. What was the response of SETUP to mitigate the effects to help the MSMEs?
- Actions taken to help the SETUP beneficiaries

163 | P a g e
 Annex E. List of Individuals Interviewed
Date of Interview Name Position
Kapatid Mentor ME
Sept. 10, 2020 Ms. Cynthia Rivera Regional Coordinator for Region 1
Sept. 11, 2020 Ms. Laura Jaraplasan Regional Coordinator for Region 4A
Sept. 18, 2020 Ms. Laura Jaraplasan Provincial Coordinator for Laguna
Sept. 21, 2020 Ms. Ma. Corazon Racela Provincial Coordinator for Ilocos Norte
Sept. 30, 2020 Ms. Juliet Banogon Regional Coordinator for Region 7
Sept. 30, 2020 Ms. Claire Clarez Espacia Provincial Coordinator for Cebu
Oct. 2, 2020 Ms. Alren Gem Gay Neri Regional Coordinator for Region 10
Oct. 7, 2020 Ms. Jesusa Abear Provincial Coordinator for Misamis
Oriental
Oct. 21, 2020 Ms. Eunice Flores/ Ms. Coordinator for Region 11 and
Julienne Campaner Provincial Coordinator, Davao del Sur

P3
Aug. 20, 2020 Ms. Venus Albay SBC Corporation representative
Sept. 18, 2020 Ms. Grace Dalangin Coordinator for Nueva Ecija
Sept. 21, 2020 Mr. Arell Bañez Coordinator for Northern Luzon
Sept. 25, 2020 Mr. Francisco Buenavides Coordinator for Visayas
Oct. 2, 2020 Mr. John Riel Tan Coordinator for Cebu
Oct. 7, 2020 Ms. Caroline Macabenta Coordinator for Mindanao
Oct. 9, 2020 Ms. Jayssabel Veloso Coordinator for Davao del Sur
Oct. 14, 2020 Mr. Arnold Suaybaguio Baug CARP Beneficiaries MPC
Oct. 16, 2020 Mr. Eric Abistado Cebu People’s MPC
Oct. 21, 2020 Mr. Mark Cris Pascual Allies Credit Cooperative

Negosyo Center
Sept. 17, 2020 Mr. Aaron Galang Coordinator for Region 3
Sept. 24, 2020 ARD. Daria R. Mingaracal Coordinator for Region 1
Sept. 24, 2020 Ms. Teresita F. Tawingan Coordinator for Region IVA
Sept. 29, 2020 Ms. Jill Maestre Coordinator for Region 10
Oct. 8, 2020 Ms. Eunice A. Flores/ Coordinator for Region 11 and
Ms. Julian Campaner Provincial Coordinator, Davao del Sur
Oct. 9, 2020 Ms. Yolanda O. Gallenero/ Ms. Coordinator Region 6 and Provincial
Jade Gonzales Coordinator Iloilo City
Nov. 6, 2020 Ms. Juliet Banogon Coordinator for Region 7
Dec. 17, 2020 Mr. Artemio Almazan Coordinator for Region 8

SSF
August 13, 2020 Ms. Cynthia Dela Cruz/ DTI BSMED (SSF PMO)
Ms. Michelle Rea
Sept. 17, 2020 Mr. Leif Samiano Regional Coordinator for Region 4A
Oct. 5, 2020 Ms. Donna Jane Rojo Regional Coordinator for Region 10
Oct. 6, 2020 Ms. Jobelle Raut Regional Coordinator for Region 1
Oct. 22, 2020 Ms. Elezenda N. Añinon Regional Coordinator for Region 11
Oct. 28, 2020 Mr. Jose Antonio Toledo Regional Coordinator for Region 3
Oct. 30, 2020 Mr. Mark Aristotle Cabagnot Provincial Coordinator for Cebu
Nov. 3, 2020 Ms. Ermelinda Pollentes Regional Coordinator for Region 6
Nov. 25, 2020 Ms. Bea Kathryn Cobias Provincial Coordinator for Davao del
Sur
Nov. 27, 2020 Ms. Hazel Napolis Regional Coordinator for Region 8

164 | P a g e
Date of Interview Name Position
Dec. 9, 2020 Mr. Kevin Yaptenco Academe-based SSF Cooperator

One Town One Product

Sept. 10, 2020 Mr. Clarke Nebrao OTOP Consultant and PMO Staff
Sept. 10, 2020 Ms. Lomarie Linglingay Galvan Regional Coordinator for Region 4A
Sept. 10, 2020 Ms. Laura Jaraplasan Provincial Coordinator for Laguna
Sept. 21, 2020 Ms. Ma. Corazon Racela Provincial Coordinator for Ilocos Norte
Oct. 2, 2020 Ms. Alren Gem Gay Neri Regional Coordinator for Region 10
Oct. 27, 2020 OIC PD Ma. Dinda Tamayo Regional Coordinator for Region 6
Oct. 28, 2020 Ms. Ma. Rita Fe O. Garcia Regional Coordinator for Region 3
Oct. 30, 2020 Ms. Ma. Elena Gabato Provincial Coordinator for Cebu
Nov. 16, 2020 Mr. Gian Paolo Brilata Regional Coordinator for Region 8
Nov. 19, 2020 Ms. Meriam Sarabillo Provincial Coordinator for Davao

SETUP
Sept. 23, 2020 Mr. Trinidad Sager PSTC Laguna
Sept. 24, 2020 Mr. Jonathan Viernes PSTC Ilocos Norte
Sept. 25, 2020 Dr. Arnaldo T. Amosco Jr. PSTC Eastern Samar
Sept. 30, 2020 Engr. Tristan Abando PSTC Cebu
Oct. 2, 2020 Engr. Junelyn Louvena B. Ruiz PSTC Misamis Oriental
Oct. 6, 2020 Dir. Alexander Madrigal SETUP DOST Region 4A
Oct. 6, 2020 Ms. Emmie Bagsit SETUP DOST Region 4A
Oct. 6, 2020 Ms. Lyn Fernandez SETUP DOST Region 4A
Oct. 7, 2020 Ms. Meriam Boquia PSTC Agusan del Norte
Oct. 8, 2020 Dr. Emelyn Flores ARD of DOST Region 6
Oct. 9, 2020 Ms. Lea G. Mayol PSTC Davao del Sur/DOST Region 11
Oct. 16, 2020 Engr. Elman Torres PSTC Nueva Ecija
Oct. 16, 2020 Ms. Dyna Tibubos PSTC Aklan

MSMED
Sep. 3, 2020 Dir. Jerry Clavesillas MSMED Council – DTI BSMED

165 | P a g e
 Annex F. Documentation of FGDs

Annex F.1. KMME

KMME Program Management Unit Focus Group Discussion
DTI Regional Operations Group
Philippine Center for Entrepreneurship – Go Negosyo
DTI CARAGA and Provincial Offices
Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Norte, Surigao del Sur, Dinagat Island)

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION – KAPATID MENTOR ME

Date: August 19, 2020 and October 23, 2020

GOALS OF KMME IN THE REGION AND PROVINCES

• KMME is a national program so there is no specific objective goals and objectives for
the provinces. There are just different targets
• When KMME started, they focused on the food processors
• The KMME Program started in 2016 and launched in 2017. Motivation is to assist
MSMEs. While DTI provided seminars and trade fairs, there was no pathway type of
assistance, no continuum. The mentors and lecturers were not enterpreneurs and not
talking out of experience. The mentees cannot use the examples cited by the
mentors because the mentees cannot relate to it as these are not based on
experience. A gap needed to be filled.
• Based on this, a pathway type of continuum was drawn by PCE up by coming up with
a module covering various stages. The modules were piloted in Laguna and
Mandaluyong. After the pilot run, consultations were made, revisions of the modules
based on the result of the run and the consultations, then roll out. DTI and PCE
worked together through a MOA. At the start, no guidelines were drawn, and the
program was adjusted based on the gaps and feedback for improvement. Feedback
includes the need to have modules on access to market, more mentorship hence the
focus on 3Ms: money, market and mentorship - access to capital, access to market
and continuous training
• To capacitate the MSMEs, enhance their entrepreneurial and management skills to
scale up business operations

FACTORS NECESSARY FOR SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION (ASSUMPTIONS)

• The budget is higher during face-to-face sessions given the logistics and travel costs
• Internet connection is important in the implementation of KMME in the new normal
• The downloading of information on the implementation and the guidelines is also a
factor in successful implementation
• There should be close monitoring to the mentees
• Passion of the mentees, as they want to be capacitated particularly on the aspects of
taxation, financing and entrepreneurial skills.
• Passion of MSMEs (strong, selfreliant) mentors that has actual experience to be able
to provide advise that is based on reality; modules (OK but difficult to understand or
internalize in one day); nursemaiding of DTI; continuous assistance from DTI provincial
office or NCs so they wont be left on their own (follow ups); funding for the MSMEs,
“nothing is free, you must have counterpart”
• Coordination with program stakeholders especially PCE as they have the connection
to the right organization whom to tap to serve as mentors; Mentors who guide the
mentees in the BIP; budget

166 | P a g e
STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAM
• As of now, KMME is lodged in the SME Development Division of regional office with 4
staff
• For face-to-face implementation, the coordinator and one staff are assigned
• The coordinators for KMME is also assigned for NC
• The regional reports from the provinces consolidates reports for submission to ROG
• SMERA (SME Roving Academy) is the source of budget for KMME before

MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM

• No. of runs, no. of mentees selected for the current batch, no. of mentees graduated,
KMME program promo activities (tv and radio interviews, guestings)
• Database is encoded to online excel file (2017-2020 database of mentees for KMME)
– Data catalogue/KMME catalogue
• Indicators are monitored in CPMS
• If MSME will apply for a program, their records will be updated in the CPMS. If they do
not avail other programs, then their data would not be updates (specifically the data on
sales)
• There have been assessments in the provinces among mentees
• Agusan del Sur had video documentation of success stories and posted them to
Facebook pages
• Enterprise Development Track is the updated version of SMERA – same goals
• As of now, EDT is integrated in CPMS
• The data from the database is submitted to BSMED through email. There is no real-
time updating of the system
• There is validation in the level of provincial office of the data submitted to regional
before forwarding to head office
• Evaluation process of KMME
• So far, there is still no evaluation of the program done in the regions
• There has been an impact assessment for NC

GAPS IN IMPLEMENTATIONS AND M&E

• The program has good objective. Although, there should be constant follow ups to
the MSMEs to encourage them to pursue their businesses

PERCEPTION
• Relevance and Effectiveness
• Malaking tulong ang KMME, marami ring success stories at umangat
• Efficiency
• For the online, generally efficient naman ang cost and time. Although there are
sessions that needs longer time (based on mentees) to further grasp the topic

EFFECT OF ECQ/MECQ
• Shifting to online
• Generally, based on discussions, many of the MSMEs find it difficult to adjust tot he
pandemic. Most are affected in the operation and sales.
• Even food industry is affected specially the restaurant owners

OTHER NOTES
• The demographics is a factor in the implementation since there is screening for the
participants of the program
• Currently in the middle of second run in CARAGA

167 | P a g e
• Hope that the KMME program will continue because of its perceived benefits to the
MSMEs
• Types of MSMEs are covered but mostly on food industry, (resto, innovative food),
industry (driving academy, spa, computer supplies; hopes that the KMME program will
continue as this has positive impacts. Based on the BIP, MSMEs have reached and
even exceeded their goals and some are now giving back.
• Need more funds for continuity of KMME
• Cebu Chamber is the partner organization of PCE, mentor accreditation has been
facilitated; Program should be sustained, because MSMEs are assisted in terms of
business direction; online platform is better even after pandemic; other topics like
digitization and e commerce can be added to the modules
• Sees the need to improve M&E – systematic
• Difficulty in online training is the internet connectivity

168 | P a g e
Annex F.2. P3
Conduits:
Bankerohan Vendors Credit Cooperative
SUMAPI Multipurpose Cooperative
IBON Multipurpose Cooperative
GLEDCO Multipurpose Cooperative
SNPOSA Multipurpose Cooperative

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION – PONDO SA PAGBABAGO AT PAG-ASENSO

Date: November 27, 2020

BACKGROUND OF THE CONDUIT

• IBON MPC
o Started in 2003 as cooperative with 23 members, now 5550 members
o The fade up share capital started in 2006, now around 17M with total assets of
around 144M
o Membership is multi-sectoral and started with grassroots because the
barangay is more on service providers like tricycle drivers, laundrywomen,
vendors and sari-sari store owners.
o Started in barangay-based and expanded in municipal based and the provincial
wide operations (there is a recent amendment to expand the coverage to region
6)
o As of now there are 6 outlets in the province of Aklan (main office in Numancia,
Aklan and there is branch in Kalibo)
o Source of funds: capital investment of members in fade-up share is around
17M, time and regular deposits, kiddie savings form lab coop
o Latest count of credit liabilities is around 20M
o There were statutory funds
o Due to high demand of products, the coop looks for external sources like SBC
and LandBank and DA-ACPC (around 60M from the government)
o The coop operates a rice processing center which is also a donation from DA
and they are recipient from pre- and post- harvest machineries
o 15M credit line in P3 for the second cycle (10M in the first credit line)
• SUMAPI MPC
o Started in 2006, with initial members of 100 with fade up capital of 62500
o Already going 14 years as a cooperative
o Twice registered, one was for RA 6938 and then under RA 9520
o Office in Sta. Cruz, Laguna
o Goals: (1) to increase the income capacity of members and to awaken them
through trainings and quality services; (2) provide an affordable financial
service and ensure the equal return of their investment and savings; (3)
strengthen our membership and capitalization to provide additional program
and services; (4) propagate the spirit of cooperative, unity and responsibility to
members and covered villages and barangay including the promotion of
protecting the environment and natural resources through community activities
and services
o Programs: savings, laboratory cooperative (for children of members that are 17
years old and below), credit program (micro, for women, and SMEs, relending
or wholesale intended for coconut farmers, agri-aqua for farmers with high
value crops, for fisherfolks, rice farmers with max 3 hectares), small amount for
rice trading
o Source of fund: shared capital (initial is 500 up to 2500 per member), savings,
regular and time deposit, income from income generating projects, outside

169 | P a g e
 borrowings (from financial institution), they are also a lending conduit of ACPC
in their PLEA program
o Currently with members of more or less 2500
o Fade up capital as of end of October is around 7.8M
o Currently, the credit line is about 5M (they are now just have been renewed for
another 5M)
• GLEDCO MPC
o Operating in Ilocos Norte
o Started as an LGU-based coop but due to growth, they opened it to associates
to non-government employees
o As of now, there are 2500 members to which half are government employees
of Laoag and half is microfinance, barangay officials, tricycle drivers, mixed-
group and depositors
o Considered biggest cooperative in Ilocos Norte
o Total assets already reached 1B mark as of now
o Main service is loan to government employees in Laoag and microfinance for
businesses, farmers, fisherfolks etc.
o They operate 5 different gasoline stations, groceries, cafeteria of city hall, water
station, 3 soft drinks dealership business among others
o P3 is just one of the sources of funds. P3 is mostly used for microfinance
operating salons, barbershops, farmers, fisherfolks
o Credit line in P3: 40M was approved but currently, 20M is availed to be totally
paid by December this year (first cycle)
o Sources of funds: capital build up of members because they are required to
pay monthly for the capital build up and financial institutions like Landbank and
DBP
• SNPOSA MPC
o Coop has lending, merchandising and catering
o Source of income: service fee, processing deducted in loans
o Source of funds for re-loaning aside from P3: from LandBank
o Total number of members: 540 as of now
o Total capitalization: 9M+
o Asset is 24M
o Started in December 2009

MOTIVATION IN AVAILING THE P3 PROGRAM

• IBON MPC
o Maganda ang layunin ng P3; how it is discussed as a program to liberate the
MSMEs in usurious lending is very attractive
o Transitioning from loan sharks and then to loans with 2% a month is a big thing
o In the coop, the cost of fund is low for P3 compared to other external sources
o The program helps the cooperatives and also the MSMEs
• SUMAPI MPC
o Two reasons for availing the P3 program: (1) since there is a goal to provide
the affordable financial services of the members; (2) the coop is really
challenged given that there is still no coop in Laguna who have availed the
program so they tried to see if they would pass in the standards of SBC and to
check if the coop’s path is still on the right track
• GLEDCO MPC
o The interest given by SBC is low so it is more possible for the cooperative to
offer it to the MSMEs at a low or affordable rate
• SNPOSA MPC
o Members are usually farmers, fisherfolks and businesses (sari-sari store)

170 | P a g e
 o The coop opened microfinancing and livelihood loans which is quite similar to
P3

FACTORS FOR THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF P3

• IBON MPC
o Policy systems and procedures in the implementation of P3
o They see to it that the right person is implementing the guidelines of P3
o The personnel assigned should have the necessary trainings
o Logistics is also a factor
o The evaluation should be risked-based
o The term and mode of payment is customized based on the cash flow of the
MSME
o There is an interview to evaluate the project cash flow and the borrower; CI to
the borrower is done
o The coop looks as to whether the business is still on trend
o MSMEs whose business are about food and agriculture are timely
o The coop allows daily, weekly and monthly (they don’t go beyond monthly)
o 3-month term is given specially to stores
o As of now, P3 is flexible in terms of loans. They can extend up to 2 years
o They really look into cash flow, sustainability and profitability of the project
o Range of amount credited to members (10K to 100K)
o Assigned collectors were hired after the P3 program was approved to do
collections in the field. There were also walk-in payments
o There were defaults but just temporary
• SUMAPI MPC
o The process for the P3 loan in the coop is patterned on the existing micro loans
offered
o Orientation, group meeting, group cohesiveness, mapping and then CI
o DTI registration is required
o Loan approval is strict from 10K to 15K as they were mostly microenterprises
o 6 months to 1-year term is given to the borrowers
o Collection is done through walk-in and there are also collections done in the
field
o There is schedule per day, week or month depending on the terms signed
• GLEDCO MPC
o One of the requirements for the members which is also required by CDA is that
the members should have TIN which is also a challenge for the coop
o The loaning process and implementation for the P3 program is different than
other loans offered by the coop. The GLEDCO is used to payroll-based loaning
while the P3 program needs to go out for collection
o The challenge for this is that there are also borrowers without permanent
location so it is difficult to collect payments
o The collection for P3 is more strenuous as they really have to go through the
barangays which needs additional logistics
o Collection for P3 is customized per client, whether daily or weekly, but for
farmers it is seasonal

PROCESS IN THE APPLICATION PROGRAM APPLICATION

• IBON MPC
o Letter of intent was submitted supported by board resolution
o Requirements are: 3 years financial report, aging of loans receivable, target
beneficiaries of P3 funds, validation of would-be borrowers and their
projects/business

171 | P a g e
 o After draw-down, there is promissory note sent to the coop
o There is also loan agreement
o Documentary requirement asked: registration, certificate of good standing,
mayor’s permit
• SUMAPI MPC
o Authority to investigate was asked from the coop
o Certificate of good credit standing from financial institutions
o For draw down, submitted are: request letter, prospective borrowers
o Upon release requested from the coop are: interim financial statement, aging
of account, schedule of end borrowers, PN disclosure, amortization schedule,
post-dated checks
• GLEDCO MPC
o For the second cycle, the identification and personal information of officers are
required
• SNPOSA MPC
o The coop applied for accreditation to DTI and then they were referred to SBC
o Application form was submitted to DTI. They were offered 3M
o 1.5M+ during the second cycle (ongoing)
o Seminars with member borrowers are conducted and then those interested can
apply.
o CI for the members are done to see if they really do have an existing business,
this is also the basis of the release of loans
o Documentary requirements: if less than 20K – certification from the barangay
that they have an existing business and loan application

EFFECT OF ECQ/MECQ
• IBON MPC
o During pandemic, specially in March and April, collection is really affected
o Personal visits were done to see if the MSMEs really can’t pay based on their
cash flow. Kung kaya ng cash flow, payment will continue
o SBC initiated and reached out that the amortizations for March and April are
not included to PDC
o In Bayanihan, the people slowly adapted to the COVID situation that is why
even though there is moratorium on the collection, the MSMEs voluntarily paid
• SUMAPI MPC
o In the coop, there is a moratorium released, also a memo from CDA, for the
postponement of amortization for 60 days and another 30 days from the
Bayanihan Act
o A letter was sent by the coop to SBC during the lockdown because there were
accounts that are due. Around June, there was an agreement because the
coop asked if they can use the funds from the P3 loan since SBC still can’t
collect them due to Bayanihan Act provisions
• GLEDCO MPC
o Collection activities were lessened
o Establishments are visited to see if they can still pay
o Payment to SBC is continuous although there is moratorium
• SNPOSA MPC
o Income of MSMEs is negatively affected so collection is also affected
o Transport of goods have been difficult

172 | P a g e
PERCEPTION
• IBON MPC
o The program is very relevant because of the problem on the high lending rate
(from loan sharks). The cooperative is able to buy-out the small businesses.
Instead of paying for the interest from the 5-6, they can now have it as their
income.
o For the coop, the increase in income and savings of the members is a big factor
in the attainment of the goals of the organization and sustenance of
businesses\
o High impact to the local economy and household income. This also has helped
the coop in terms of income
• SUMAPI MPC
o Based on feedback from members, instead of lending from shark loans, they
choose to avail the P3 loan through the cooperative as it has less interest and
viable as well as the term and mode of payment
o Impact of the program: Most of the borrowers uses the loans for sustenance of
the business and now that the interest is less, they can earn more income which
they can’t do when borrowing from 5-6
• GLEDCO MPC
o Malaki ang naitulong ng P3 dahil yung mga dating maliit na negosyo ay nag-
improve (lumaki ang mga sari-sari stores, nagexpand ang fisherfolks in terms
of pinapalaking isda, expansion sa piggeries)
• SNPOSA MPC
o The program helped the end borrowers through uplifting their lives
o Some of the businesses expanded although some did not

OTHER NOTES
• IBON MPC
o 20% of the members who availed the P3 were randomly selected for the
auditing done by SBC
o After draw down, time is allotted for the release of the loans to the borrowers.
Upon submission of the coop to SBC specifying the amount, the list of
borrowers, that is when they select samples for the auditing
o During the auditing, the coop assists the SBC staff in locating the borrowers
• SUMAPI MPC
o Two teams conduct auditing: one is particular in the law of the loan, schedule
of release of loans in the area and the amount; another team is assigned on
the system such as PN disclosure, proper filing (if followed), if the disclosures
tally with that of SBC’s
o From region and head office are the ones conducting the field auditing
o Current end borrowers for P3: more or less 180+
• GLEDCO MPC
o Current end borrowers for P3: estimate is around 400 members
• SNPOSA MPC
o 200K is the highest loan amount – this would need collateral (no collateral for
less than) with 1-year term
o Collaterals are usually real properties
o Collection is done through walk-in. Members pay through the tellers in the coop
o For micro, there were collectors assigned for payment through field. This is
done weekly
o 50 plus members avail P3 loan
o There is just one remaining unpaid account
o If there were defaults, there were follow ups, personal collection is done and if
necessary, meeting with barangay officials are held

173 | P a g e
Annex F.3. NC
NC Project Management Unit:
Director Emma C. Asusano
Ms. Maricor R. Banaga
Ms. Lovely Joy Chan

Regional Coordinator for CARAGA and Provincial Coordinators

Ms. Fritzie Rose G. Ilagan
Ms. Althea Acevedo
Ms. Jasmin Faelnar
Ms. Nichol May Fortun
Ms. Charmaine Jonice Nabio
Ms. Cora dela Peña
Mr. Renato Corvera
Ms. Berna Theresa Vasquez

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION – NEGOSYO CENTER

Date: August 18, 2020 and October 23, 2020

BACKGROUND OF ESTABLISHING NC
• First NC in CARAGA was established in 2015
• 44 NCs as of May 2020
• The target is 73 NC established
• NCs are with MOA with LGUs
• For SDS, they started in root areas. Another consideration is the request of Mayors
• In ADN, started with cities and the bigger municipalities far from cities. The more willing
the LGU, the easier it is to establish NCs

Other Notes:
• The FGDs and KIIs revealed that NCs have become a one-stop-shop and served as
the mini DTI in the localities. It was specifically pointed out that, through NCs,
programs of DTI have become more visible and accessible to MSMEs and clients
even in far flung areas. The NC’s one look and its proximity to areas most accessible
to MSME clients is very strategic to promote the Center’s services and features. Also,
the respondents affirm the observation indicated in the NCIA Report that doing
business has become easier for MSMEs due to relevant and useful NC services,
client-oriented BCs, entrepreneurial empowerment through skills training and
provision of business information and improved access to services such loans facility
and possible investment opportunities.
• Based from the FGDs and KIIs, these information is available in the Client Profile and
Monitoring System (CPMS), the database use and updated by BCs to capture all the
assistance provided to MSMEs. This database, however, is only available for internal
monitoring of DTI.
• In terms of relevance, KII and FGD participants indicated that they considered NC as
a very relevant initiative from DTI. It shares a common goal with LGUs that is to
improve the business climate in their localities.
• The KIIs and FGDs also validated the TOC and affirmed the NC Program’s
objectives, implementing scheme, and the expected results.

174 | P a g e
Annex F.4. SSF
SSF Cooperators
Academe (Central Luzon State University), LGU Peñaranda, Greenminds Inc. (Association),
Cooperative (CEFEDCO)

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION – SHARED SERVICE FACILITIES

Date: January 7, 2021

BACKGROUND OF THE SSF

• LGU
o Project of SSF: Pottery started in March 2015
o Turned over to DTI and DTI provides support through seminars and printing
o No transportation since LGU refused to give support to SSF; Due to this,
difficulties in buying materials arise
o Has at least 12 employees/workers that share profits made through pottery
• Association
o Partner with DTI for 7 years
o Products are processed peanuts and organic peanuts
o Established as an NGO then eventually a social enterprise
o Dealing with group of about 20 farmers that they trained for organic farming
o Promote peanuts (Pili Peanut) as way of rehabilitating the soil
o Developed more products with the equipment provided by DTI since not all
equipment are affordable
• Cooperative
o Products are: UHT products, choco milk, fresh milk, white cheese, whipped
cream and other dairy products
o 29 years in operation
o Looking for fundings and grants providing new machines to be able to help
MSMEs improve their products then they applied in SSF
o Farmers are the owners of the cooperative
• Academe
o Started food processing SSF in 2019
o No production of products but rather the objective is to help neighboring
MSMEs in the province to use the facility if they don’t have the capacity to buy
o Granted 4 food processing facilities: Vacuum Fryer (vegetable chips), Spray
Drier (Calamansi to calamansi powder), Freeze Dryer and Vacuum Packaging
Machine
o Stopped operation since pandemic

MOTIVATION IN AVAILING THE SSF

• LGU
o Every month - sales and employment status
o DTI also provides seminars and moral support
• Association
o Organic farming; organic peanuts
o DTI provided; made it much more accessible
o With new equipment, new variants of products such as peanut butter avvvvv
o Expand; masyadong reliant sa weather or clinet yung tanim ng peanuts;
basically more partner farmers
o Data submitted to DTI: monthly data - employment and sales via email
o and they visit the site and check on the equipment (quarterly)
• Cooperative

175 | P a g e
 o 29 years in operation; chairman is looking for agencies willing to help or grant
MSMEs to provide machines and products; need na mapalitan; as a
cooperative, maraming farmers; continuously looking for machines and
funding; DTI through SSF Program grants machines needed
o Helped a lot with SSF especially with production of milk
o 500 L before in a day (8 hours); with new machine (exchanger and
homogenizer)- 1000L or more in a day (8 hours)
o Sales dependent on the volume of milk given by the farmers to be processed
by CEFEDCO
o Monthly monitoring of machines; 1st grant 2015; based on the record submitted
- sales was increased
• Academe
o Purpose of the facilities to help in using machine; rent out because they don’t
have the capacity; granted 4 food processing equipment (vacuum fried -
vegetable chips, spray dried
o No sales in terms of product
o Income from rental fees submitted monthly (template provided by DTI)

FACTORS FOR THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF SSF

• LGU
o Materials are available however transportation
o Support from LGU should be continuous
o Accepts limited orders only due to the lack of pottery makers
• Association
o Application process was easy with the facilitation of DTI; However,
procurement process took around 8 months to 1 year
o If stable market for a product, more farmers and good supply
• Cooperative
o Farmers
o As long as there is market to be able to maximize the machine given by DTI
• Academe
o Dependent on the willingness of MSMEs to rent
o Tuloy tuloy na monitoring of DTI para magmaterialize
o Dependent on the kind of SSF
o Matching the needs of MSMEs
o Procurement- no DTI staff to check the technical side of the procured gamit; no
in house engineer; relies on what the end user has to say but technicality
feature of the machine
o Researchers also use facility

PROCESS IN THE APPLICATION PROGRAM APPLICATION

• LGU
o Pottery
• Association
o Easily produced requirements
o Natagalan procurement process more than 8-month to almost a year
o Process of approving the equipment easy but procurement long
o Monthly data (employment and sales) and visitations done to check on the
equipment
• Cooperative
o DTI helped a lot with the SSF especially in production part
• Academe
o Application and delivery of machines took about 4 months

176 | P a g e
 o Procurement problem: No staff from DTI to check the technical. No in-house
engineer. They rely on what the end-user has to say.

EFFECT OF ECQ/MECQ
• LGU
o Tumaas ang pottery dahil maraming nahihilig sa halaman
o Maraming mahilig magtanim
o Nagkaproblema nung nakakuha ng reject na lupa
o Problem i transpo
o Tuloy tuloy lang continued op
• Association
o About 50% reduction of sales because most of the outlets are malls; malls were
closed during the start of the pandemic; lugi pa rin if ever konti lang nagpupunta
mall
o Now they are open; however, volume of people are not the same as before
o Manila market di pa rin napadala
o Eventually, now, resume, manila started ordering
o Irregularities of cargo
o Regular na ang courier so nagpapadala na ulit
o Mindanao relies on the usual market and buyers
o Tried to use online platform
o Around 60% production as of now
o Undergone online e-commerce
• Cooperative
o Malakas production through online selling
o Some became resellers; unti unting nawala nung bumalik na sa work
o Main customers- coffee shops-closed due to lockdown; walang masupplyan;
humina dito
o Everyday farmers extract milk raw then process and cater to customers
o Humina around 50% pero bumabawi na as of now since milk is a basic need
o House to house selling, some are walk in and also online
o Government agencies also get milk; big effect
• Academe
o Totally closed; campus will not operate since bawal po pumasok sa campus
since march 2020; clients not allowed

PERCEPTION
• LGU
o Okay and maganda dulot
o Mga naturuan magtayo ng pottery and what to do
o Helpful to people in Penaranda because they are given jobs especially pre-
pandemic
• Association
o Program is good and helpful but the concern is the maximization
o Group is organic and therefore limited to the area specified; in result,
significantly low supply; as of now, expanding and looking or more farmers
o Overall impact for Micro enterprises - very okay to have assistance like this
from the government
o Growing of crops is dependent on the weather
• Cooperative
o
• Academe
o Difficulty to deal with MSMEs who want to use the facility

177 | P a g e
 o DTI refers CLSU then MSMEs only until first meeting
o Academe- equipment lang ang mapapahiram, gasul and other consumables
hindi na; so pag nakakausap di na binabalikan
o Vacuum fryer 5 to 10 kilos per batch
o Needs more advertisement

OTHER NOTES
• LGU
o They can learn pottery and work at LGU Penaranda
o SSF may be used, payment only for the water and electricity consumption
• Association
o Better if government will have an active collaboration for a certain project on
where to put the SSF - Department of Agriculture (promotion of certain
products, in this case, peanuts), Department of Science and Technology
(technology development, processes for production)
o Problem: Supply part, Sustainability
• Cooperative
o SSF is really helpful for MSMEs
o Equipment is also shared with members of the COOP; not by letting them
handle it but through buying raw milk from the farmers
• Academe
o DTI is very generous and also with providing needs
o Most SSF has production, except for academe; easier to utilize the equipment;
challenge for academe because intended for others not for the academe
o Recommend: close coordination with DTI to materialize and encourage
MSMEs to utilize equipment within the academe with minimal fees (for power
consumption and utility)
o Also join exhibits, trade fairs, guest in radio for promotion
o SSF Mostly used by students for their thesis

178 | P a g e
Annex F.5. OTOP
DTI Provincial Offices (Aklan, Nueva Ecija and Misamis Oriental)

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION – ONE TOWN ONE PRODUCT

Date: January 13, 2021

BACKGROUND OF THE OTOP

• In 2002, OTOP used to have selection of products anchored on Local Government
Units
• It evolved to OTOP Next Gen which gave way for the inclusivity of all products with
competitive advantage and passed the criteria

FACTORS FOR THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF OTOP

• 2019 - Memorandum on implementation of SAT (Screening Assessment Triage); More
intensive product development
• March 12, 2018 - ROG Issuance of Memorandum on OTOP Next Gen Assessment,
Consultation and Triage (ACT) Implementation Guidelines (Phase 1)
• Memorandum on IMAC (Intensified Product Market Access and
Development/Promotions, Capacity Building and Costing) implementation (Phase 2)
• OTOP Hub guidelines for implementation, standard look

PROCESS IN THE APPLICATION PROGRAM APPLICATION (Monitoring and Evaluation)

• Output needed: prototypes
• Number of trainings conducted and MSME beneficiaries assisted through trainings
• Monitoring done through phone calls and/or facebook messenger since the start of the
pandemic; some visitations but not as frequent
• Monthly accomplishment for OTOP Next Gen
• Around 2019 to 2020, indicators for export sales were added (report)
• Mostly recommended by Negosyo Center
• Electronic Client Performance Monitoring System (ECPMS)
• Data disaggregation done quarterly for all programs not just OTOP

EFFECT OF ECQ/MECQ
• OTOP Hubs closed operations
• Held virtual trade fairs such as Pasinaya, PLDT Kaasenso, and Regional Annual Trade
Fairs instead of Physical Trade Fairs; Coordinated by OTOP PMO

PERCEPTION
• Multitasking is a constraint since most are not focused on just OTOP Next Gen

OTHER NOTES
• Pushing for OTOP to be part of the law; presented in congress
• Availability of experts is a major concern

GAPS
• Expectation: product development for MSMEs however, it is hard to handle with limited
manpower
• Multitasking is a constraint due to the number of programs handled; not focused on
OTOP
• Limited pool of experts based in the province; mostly in Manila

179 | P a g e
Annex F.6. SETUP
DOST Region 4A
Office of Regional Director and Office of Assistant Regional Director for Technical
Operations

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION – SMALL ENTERPRISE

TECHNOLOGY UPGRADING PROGRAM
Date: October 6, 2020

PROFILE OF RESPONDENT

• Ms. Emmie Bagsit

• Chemist
• 23 years in DOST CaLaBarZon, almost 15 years in Laboratory as Head
• Management and Administrative Function as Supervising SRS, Assistant
Regional Director for Technical Supervision
• Division Chief (plantilla position) - Chief Science Research Specialist
• 6 to 7 years involved in the implementation of SETUP national program of DOST,
SETUP Supervision (signing of MOA, recommendation of result of technical
evaluation of proposals)
• She will evaluate the proposal first before the approval of the Regional Director

• Ms. Lyn Fernandez

• 19 years in DOST CaLaBarZon
• SETUP started in the Region on 2002, Ms. Fernandez was already part as
contractual from the start
• Regional Project Monitoring Office (RPMO) linked with the Provincial Office
• Receives all the requests of the proponents, from evaluation process to approval
until implementation
• Conducts initial evaluation from the recommendation of the provincial directors.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

• From PSTC to RPMO Chief then for final approval of Regional Director

Evaluators are outside DOST CaLaBarZon – Research Institute of DOST, private

organizations, from academe (UPLB).

EVOLUTION OF SETUP

• Per Regional Director Madrigal, DOST commissioned the SETUP Impact

Assessment conducted by DAP, submitted in the office of Under Secretary.
Results was presented to the Regional Directors (RDs) but there’s still no face-to-
face forum about it in the RPMOs to discuss the result. Copies of the report was
given to the RDs, salient points and salient recommendations. There are still
clarifications from the level of Under Secretary and Assistant Secretary, there are
data that should still be reanalyzed.

180 | P a g e
Gauge on how to measure (numerical value) Regional GDP as additional indicator for
evaluation

Ms. Bagsit recommended to look for the numerical value/gauge on how to measure the
contribution of the program to the regional GDP, how does it help the economy of the region
and how does it contribute to the economic development of the program? This should be an
additional indicator to be able to evaluate objectively the program.

Economists have their own methodologies, variables, and parameters to measure this. The
present data or information that is being gathered should be reviewed to see if the GRDP can
already be measured by the available data of the program.

5 Priorities in Region IV-A

• Food, Metal, Health and wellness, Agriculture, and Aquaculture

• Priority sectors are incorporated in the guidelines of SETUP, 11 priority sectors
imbedded in the guidelines. It just so happened that most of the MSMEs present
in the region or province came from the food sector, metals and engineering,
agriculture, etc. All the 11 sectors are priority of the regional and provincial office.
• Other agencies that are also assisting MSMEs were also consulted in the selection
of the 11 priority sectors of SETUP.
• Majority of the projects in Region IV-A are classified in the Food Processing Sector.
Laguna and Cavite has high number of assistance with Metals and Engineering
Sector (fabricators and support industries).
• Priority sector 11 includes other regional priority sectors approved by the RDC
(approved regional industry cluster).
• 2019 SETUP Guidelines (SETUP 2.0) includes new industry sector like the energy
and creative industry.

Linkage with other agencies

• RDC has sectoral committees, SETUP is under the Committee on Economic

Development being chaired by the DTI, wherein DOST is actively participating. If
there are changes in the national or regional policies/priorities, DOST participates
as member of the committee. DOST also regularly report the contribution of the
SETUP program/totality of the DOST program in the MSME development.

Aside from SETUP there are still other assistance that DOST provides to MSMEs.
SETUP is a program for single proprietorship/corporation. Cooperatives and LGU-
facilitated groups established has different assistance being provided by DOST.

DOST has the Community-based Program for “nano” corporations, group of

organizations of “very” micro enterprise like groups of women (Grupo ng mga
Kababaihan), group of fisher folks, and group of differently abled organized by the
LGUs (association or people’s organization). This program is a grant while SETUP
has repayment. Community-based project is funded thru GIA – no repayment. This
is differentiated with SETUP because SETUP beneficiaries are corporation or
single proprietorship ownership. DOST is hoping that beneficiaries of the
Community-based program will eventually grow, graduate from CBP, and become
feeder for the SETUP program.

181 | P a g e
 Thru the years, there are less than one percent CBP graduate who also availed
SETUP (not a significant number, very very small number). One classic example
is the existing project in Laguna, a Rice and Corn Milling who is a CBP project
awardee that ventured to bigger production after he graduated that’s why they
availed the SETUP program. There is also another beneficiary in Batangas with
Tamarind product and SASA of Talisay (smoked bangus product).

People’s Organization can avail twice for CBP, if they ventured to a bigger
production and equipment, DOST will assess the firm if they can now avail the
SETUP program; if they are now capable to pay for refund.

Certain indicators to say that the graduate CBP beneficiary can now avail SETUP

• Beneficiaries’ capability to refund (equipment are lease to own)

REFUND COLLECTION

During project implementation, the first year (1 year) is dedicated in purchasing, installing,
commissioning, and testing of equipment. Beneficiaries are given 1 year for this process.
Repayment will start after this 1 year.

Beneficiaries will give post-dated checks after the MOA signing, corresponding with their
refund amount for the project. Refund/repayment schedule is already attached in the MOA.

PSTC reminds all SETUP beneficiaries for their monthly dues for the beneficiaries to be able
to deposit fund in the account.

The program has deferment/re-scheduling of refund for events like force

majeure/uncontrollable situation. There is also a deferment or consideration if the equipment
acquired are not working.

MARKET PENETRATION/EXPORT MARKET

This data can be extracted from DAP Impact Analysis.

SETUP TRANSITIONING FROM FIRM-BASED TO INDUSTRY LEVEL APPROACH

The program is still not fully transitioned; it is still in the early stage of transitioning. At this
point, they started to determined industry sectors like metals and engineering, food,
agriculture, and electronics (SETUP 2.0 Project). Project proposal and documents are with
the NPMO – Office of USec. Manzano. An industry level focus group discussion (FGD) was
already conducted as well as Road Mapping for the transitioning of firm-based to industry-
based approach.

Cost of Science and Technology assistance or intervention increased from Php1M to Php 3M
(SETUP 2.0).

SETUP 4.0 – approach is still on the industry but the top management are looking into
automation of the processes of the industry.

If SETUP 4.0 will be adopted, will the baseline information being gathered will be
adjusted or enhanced? According to Dir. Madrigal, the existing baseline information will still
be used. The existing and future SETUP applicants will be classified based on the MSME
stage (Industry 1.0 to 4.0) then DOST will equally appropriate interventions required. The basic

182 | P a g e
information will stay and will be used to classify MSMEs. The roadmaps will be part of the
information that will back up the intervention requirement in support for the SETUP 4.0.
Conduct and results of FGDs are also used to support SETUP 4.0.
MSMEs will be classified depending on its category, from:
micro to small
small to medium
medium to large

The team studied the industries, what would be the approach for the entire industry for them
to be able to graduate into a higher level (target goal Industry 4.0). No industry will be left
behind, there will just be different approach for intervention depending on the classification or
needs of the particular industry.

The roadmap will be helpful because at the end of the day, DOST will look at the stages of the
growth of the industry so that they would be able to assess the growth pattern and growth
level of that particular industry.

Classification of MSMEs are based in the indicators being used also by DTI: capitalization and
number of employees.

PERCEPTION

Score 1-5 (5 as the highest)

a. effectiveness

Scored 6 or 7 in terms of effectiveness of the program. Sometimes, other companies withhold

information in terms of capitalization maybe because of taxation reason, some owners do not
disclose this information.

PSTC observes more on visual indicators (ex. At the start they only have tricycle but eventually
were able to buy bigger vehicle). If this will be used as basis for rating, we will give a score of
8 to 9.

There is a big discrepancy if we look into the asset-based from small to medium. We can also
rate the effectiveness of the program if the beneficiary became compliant to certain licenses
(ex. GMP compliant, etc.).

SETUP also provides training and consultancies to help MSMEs.

Good basis/indicator for the success or impact of SETUP:

• Compliance to FDA, GMP, etc.
• Market range increased
• Increased productivity
• Lessen waste
• Lessen reject

Common indicators across regions indicating effectiveness of SETUP. Dir. Madrigal

shared that SETUP is not only technology intervention, each one has its own effectiveness.
This requires deeper study (survey) or even analysis of data or impression. There is an
ongoing study on how effective is the energy audit, MPEX, etc. You can rate effectiveness
based on the data from each intervention. You cannot quantify in one intervention only.

Effectiveness thru management or delivery of assistance. DOST is looking at several

perspectives at the part of the MSME Plan; how effective they have utilized the assistance,

183 | P a g e
how effective they managed the equipment, and how effective they maximize the output of the
interventions.

In the management side, program effectiveness can be looked at how effective is the
monitoring of the intervention, monitoring the deficiencies, how effective in providing the
assistance in other interventions supports.

Mostly the parameters are being collected by the RPMO from the client as well as in house
and are submitted in the database system. There is no national analysis but regional analysis
only. The evaluation or analysis are the basis to further improve/guidance to new beneficiaries
or ongoing beneficiary.

Missing variables or parameters that are regularly being collected that can help further
the evaluation to be undertaken by the NPMO/RPMO: Dir. Madrigal mentioned about the
information about what particular sector should be focused depending on the market trends
and existing landscape of the industry. If he will decide to give a project fund to a certain
industry, how will he back up his decision? How to balance metal industry to food industry? –
Looking at the different perspectives of the benefits (export vs. local expansion/business).

b. relevance of SETUP amid COVID

Rating for relevance depend on the sector. Metals and engineering had lower operation. The
food sector (4.5 to 5) increased operation and did not avail moratorium for the payment
because they are still earning money. Handicrafts decreased operation. Furniture, gifts
housewares (3). Agriculture (4-5), DA helped in marketing.

c. sustainability

Is there a policy that was crafted to sustain the aims of SETUP at a national level? Are
there local ordinances that put SETUP institutionalized at the LGU level thru funds from
LGU era?

There would be difficulty in LGU fund to support SETUP. Funding the business sector is not a
direct responsibility of LGUs. They will have difficulty in providing support to private sectors
contrary to governments rules and regulations. LGU’s focus is more on livelihood (more
beneficiaries but not only one enterprise).

Personally, Dir. Madrigal supports the SETUP program but the management of the program
in terms of financial should not be part of the regular function of DOST. This should be
separated from technical, DOST should concentrate with the technical intervention and
assessment needs of industry/MSME. There should be conduit financing and collecting
institution.

DBM still appreciates SETUP. “Nagbabalik ng pera, at walang natatapon na pera sa SETUP”.
SETUP will still be there because it helps MSMEs a lot.

d. efficiency

Collection is a very tedious process. Management of fund and collection should be separated
from the regular function of DOST. Separate technical management from financial
management. There should be a third party in place.

In terms of efficiency on fund management, this will depend on the proposal applications. Big
firms avail in Region IVA, while other regions have many applicants consisting of small firms.
The Region is still efficient in terms of fund management.

184 | P a g e
The region practices to have buffer proposals for backup/reserve purposes.

The region has enough manpower for the program.

NATIONAL LAWS/POLICY TO BE REVISITED/DRAFTED TO ADDRESS SETUP

SUSTAINABILITY

There are no initiatives done from the national level regarding this. Dir. Madrigal shared that
policy formulation may take off thru SETUP 4.0. Policy in purchasing/getting important
equipment, there should be incentive in equipment interventions needed by industries. Timely
implementation of the project is affected by the equipment purchase.

In terms of financial resources, there should be a law/policy about enterprise development

thru SETUP. There should also a law/policy supporting the manpower needs of the
institution/program. If we want to continue the program, we have to beef up the Regional
Offices.
There is an existing PSTC Bill that will upgrade manpower but this is still in the process.

185 | P a g e
Annex G. National Evaluation Policy Framework (NEPF) Evaluability
Checklist

186 | P a g e
Annex H. Short Biographies of the Evaluators

Dr. Beatriz P. Del Rosario (Project Lead)

Dr. del Rosario has more than 30 years of professional experience in research development
and management (planning, priority setting, monitoring and evaluation, network coordination,
proposal preparation, platform building, policy dialogues) in the Philippine National Research
System (NARS) in various capacities: as Officer - in Charge of the Philippine Council for
Agriculture, Aquatic and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD) , Deputy
Executive Director for Research , Director of Planning Division, Farming Systems Division,
and Soils Division); Secretariat of PCARRD’s Task Force on Vision 2020 and Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Technical Advisory Committee Chair.

She has more than 20 years’ experience as an external evaluator and reviewer of institutions,
programs and projects particularly of the CGIAR centers, World Bank, Department for
International Development (DFID), Consortium of Rice Research in Asia (CORRA), Plant
Resources of Southeast Asia (PROSEA), Promoting Local Innovations (Prolinnova) of the
Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR), and Young Professionals for Agricultural
Research and Development (YPARD). Moreover, she has more than 15 years’ experience in
multi-stakeholders, multi-sectoral platform building, networking, facilitation and capacity
building at the regional and international levels.

Dr. Ernesto O. Brown (Co-Project Lead cum Technical Adviser)

Dr. Brown has led the conduct of over 30 impact assessment, performance evaluation,
baseline, mid-term, and endline studies, which included among others the following: Endline
Study of the USDA-Winrock International Philippine Cold Chain Project, Baseline Study of the
Winrock International Building Safe Agricultural Food Enterprises in the Philippines,
Evaluation of Philippine American (Phil-Am) Fund Activity, Evaluation of the Impact of ACPC
Agricultural Microfinance Program; Mid-Term Program Assessment of the Agriculture and
Fisheries Financing Program; Evaluation of the State of Financial Inclusion among Small
Farmers and Fisherfolks, Performance Evaluation of the Farmer Information Technology
Service (FITS) Program; Performance Evaluation and Impact Assessment of the Swine
Performance Monitoring Project; and Performance Evaluation and Impact Assessment of
PCARRD GIA Program;

Dr. Brown’s technical competence is also reflected in the development and implementation of
sound socio-economic database management scheme for policymakers and development
workers which he spearheads as Chief Science Research Specialist and Director of the Socio-
Economics Research Division of PCAARRD. At PCAARRD, he was instrumental in the
development of an ex-ante economic evaluation protocol for R&D projects in agriculture and
natural resources that was published as PCAARRD Book Series 2007 and co-authored a
PCAARRD publication titled “Impact Assessment of Research, Development and Extension
Projects in Agriculture: A Simplified Approach.” He was also at the helm of establishing the
protocol in conducting and evaluating the desirability of R&D projects to the end users and to
the society as a whole. He also developed a simplified approach in conducting a feasibility
analysis of agri-related technologies which may be used in technology promotion by
agricultural extension workers.

187 | P a g e
Dr. Fezoil Luz C. Decena (Evaluator 1)

Dr. Decena has broad experience in evaluation and impact assessment of research and
development programs, policy research, policy analysis and advocacy, project analysis,
feasibility studies, and marketing. Specifically, Dr. Decena has led the conduct of Mid-Term
Assessment of the Sikat Saka Program; the Ex-ante Economic Analysis of Livestock
Biotechnologies for Water Buffalo and Goat, and an In-house Research on the Assessment
of the Implications of Honoraria as an incentive mechanism in implementing R&D projects.
Moreover, as part of the evaluation team, Dr. Decena was involved in the conduct of Endline
Study of the USDA-Winrock International Philippine Cold Chain Project, Baseline Study of the
Winrock International Building Safe Agricultural Food Enterprises in the Philippines,
Evaluation of Philippine American (Phil-Am) Fund Activity, ACPC Evaluation of the State of
Financial Inclusion among Small Farmers and Fisherfolks, and Socio-economic Impact
Assessment of Bt Corn Adoption in Isabela and Bukidnon.

Dr. Decena is also a certified internal auditor and her wealth of auditing experience equipped
her to provide technical assistance and expert advice in the conduct of the evaluation and
other research studies.

Ms. Anita G. Tidon (Evaluator 2)

Ms. Tidon is a trained socio-economist who brought into the team her rich experience in impact
assessment of research and development projects, process documentation, preparation of
feasibility studies, field surveys, data processing and packaging of reports gained from her
stint as associate in a consulting firm involved in agriculture and natural resources
development. She brought these experiences with her when she transferred to PCAARRD-
DOST wherein she spearheaded the preparation of profitability analysis of technologies like
coco sugar and 25-head dairy cow module and in assisting the technical research divisions in
preparing the financial analysis aspects of, conduct of market studies on small producer
groups and in coordination supply chain studies in her capacity as head of the R&D monitoring
unit of the socio-economics research division. She also coordinated trainings on financial and
economic analysis of R&D projects for agricultural researchers.

Ms. Tidon was also involved in several impact assessment projects such as the following: Ex-
ante Economic Analysis of Livestock Biotechnologies for Ewine, Impact Assessment of the
PCARRD Human Resource Development Program, Impact Assessment of the Techno Gabay
Program, Economic Evaluation of All Non-University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB)
ACIAR-Funded Projects, and Adoption/Diffusion Processes, Persistence and Socio-Economic
Impacts of New Inputs and Peanut Varieties. She was also the project leader of Midterm
Review of the PCARRD Medium Term Plan (2000-2004). In 2013, she spearheaded the
preparation of the PCAARRD book series on impact assessment of research, development
and extension projects in agriculture which serves to streamline the conduct of impact
assessment studies funded by PCAARRD and DOST.

Moreover, as part of the evaluation team, Ms. Tidon was involved in the conduct of Endline
Study of the USDA-Winrock International Philippine Cold Chain Project, Baseline Study of the
Winrock International Building Safe Agricultural Food Enterprises in the Philippines,
Evaluation of Philippine American (Phil-Am) Fund Activity, and ACPC Evaluation of the State
of Financial Inclusion among Small Farmers and Fisherfolks.

188 | P a g e
Ms. Princess Alma B. Ani (Evaluator 3)

Ms. Ani has professional experience on impact assessment of research and development
projects, performance evaluation, project monitoring and evaluation, and policy analysis and
advocacy. She has broad experience in the conduct of participatory activities such as focus
group discussions, key informant interviews and in supervising field data gathering activities.

She led the conduct of performance evaluation of the PCAARRD-DOST R&D Management
Information System (RDMIS), assessment of the implications of honoraria as an incentive
mechanism in implementing R&D projects and the evaluation of the status and prospects of
the soybean industry in the Philippines. She also provided assistance in the conduct of
Evaluation of Philippine American (Phil-Am) Fund Activity, Evaluation of the Philippine Cold
Chain Project implemented by Winrock International and funded under the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA), process documentation of the People’s Survival Fund
project in Gerona, Tarlac; and Mid-Term Program Assessment of the Agriculture and Fisheries
Financing Program.

At PCAARRD, she leads a study that aims to assess the market potential of mussel in
Marinduque, involves in PCAARRD’s technology foresight initiative, serves as lead person in
the gender mainstreaming initiatives and development of mentoring system for R&D
management.

189 | P a g e