Chapter 25: Practical Sheets by Type of CED Project¶

How to use these sheets. Each sheet fits on two pages. Print the ones that match your family of intervention and keep them in the CED coordinator's kit. In the operational phase, open the sheet and follow the steps in order. Don't read. Execute.

The 17 sheets are organized into 5 families:

Family M: Microfinance and financial inclusion, 4 sheets (M1-M4)
Family F: Vocational training and job placement, 4 sheets (F1-F4)
Family V: Value chains, 3 sheets (V1-V3)
Family C: Cooperatives, 3 sheets (C1-C3)
Family L: Integrated local development, 3 sheets (L1-L3)

Every sheet follows the same structure: identity · prerequisites · key steps · critical pitfalls · indicators · Rotary tools · cross-references.

Family M: Microfinance and financial inclusion¶

M1: Village Savings and Loan Association (VSLA)¶


Code	M1, Microfinance family
Definition	Self-managed group of 15-25 members who save collectively and lend to one another from their own funds
Indicative budget (Global Grant)	USD 40,000-100,000 to set up and support 10-30 groups
Duration	18-24 months (1 to 2 full savings cycles)
Typical partners	CRS (SILC method), CARE, Plan International, trained local NGOs

Prerequisites¶

Rural or peri-urban area with little access to formal MFIs
Enough community cohesion to sustain collective responsibility
Local partner experienced in facilitating savings groups
2-3 club members with microfinance experience or training

Key steps¶

Identify target communities through the CNA (Chapter 9)
Train 5-10 local Field Agents in the methodology (SILC or VSLA)
Community outreach, training of candidate groups
Phase 1: form the groups, open the savings boxes, elect the officers
Phase 2: supervised savings and credit cycle (9-12 months)
Phase 3: share-out at the end of the cycle, decision on a 2nd cycle
Phase 4: remote support during the 2nd cycle for consolidation
Endline evaluation, transition to autonomy

Critical pitfalls¶

Groups formed under pressure: without real cohesion, they dissolve quickly
Unpaid Field Agents: burnout, turnover, declining quality
Too much financial ambition: pushing contributions beyond what is possible, excluding the poorest
No transition: support stops abruptly after the 1st cycle

Indicators to track¶

Number of groups formed, average size
Survival rate at 12 and 24 months (target > 80%)
Cumulative amount saved, amount lent, internal repayment rate
Number of final beneficiaries (share of women)
Member satisfaction (annual survey)

Rotary tools available¶

CED Global Grant (lead)
District Grant for a pilot phase
No specific Packaged Grant (direct partnership with a specialized NGO)

Cross-references¶

Chapter 10 (microfinance in general), Chapter 13 (cooperatives), Chapter 17 (RAGCED)

M2: Solidarity microcredit through a partner MFI¶


Code	M2, Microfinance family
Definition	Capacity building for a qualified local MFI so it can extend its reach to the target beneficiaries
Indicative budget (Global Grant)	USD 80,000-300,000
Duration	24-36 months
Typical partners	Local MFI qualified under CPP/SPI4, Oikocredit (Packaged Grant), FINCA, Grameen, Opportunity International, VisionFund

Prerequisites¶

Partner MFI audited with SPI4 within the last 3 years, compliant with the Client Protection Principles (CPP)
Explicit targeting of usually underserved beneficiaries (rural women, young people with no capital, remote areas)
A banker or chartered accountant on the club's CED committee
A local legal framework that allows microfinance activity

Key steps¶

Due diligence on the partner MFI (SPI4 audit, rating, references)
Rotary-MFI MOU specifying the target segment and mutual commitments
Pre-loan financial education module designed or adapted
First cycle of loans disbursed to the target segment
Non-financial support (mentoring of entrepreneurs, technical training)
Quarterly monitoring of PAR 30, complaints, satisfaction
Successive phases with scale-up
Impact evaluation, transition to the MFI's regular operations

Critical pitfalls¶

Rotary as a direct lender: avoid at all costs (Chapter 10)
Subsidized interest rates: they destroy the MFI's viability and make exit impossible
Pressure on the MFI for unrealistic volumes: poorly assessed loans, over-indebtedness
No credit bureau check: multiple borrowing goes undetected

Indicators to track¶

Number of first-time borrowers
Share of women, share from rural or remote areas
Repayment, PAR 30 (target < 5%)
Additional income measured at 12 months (target > +30%)
Over-indebtedness detected (target < 3% of beneficiaries)
Complaints recorded (quality monitoring)

Rotary tools available¶

CED Global Grant (lead)
Oikocredit Packaged Grant: a simplified framework for microfinance
Talanton Impact Fund (RAGCED) for an investment component

Cross-references¶

Chapter 10 in detail, Chapter 16 Global Grants, Chapter 19 partners

M3: Women's savings group¶


Code	M3, Microfinance family
Definition	A VSLA variant targeted specifically at women, with a gender-focused economic empowerment component
Indicative budget	USD 40,000-120,000 for 15-40 groups
Duration	24 months
Typical partners	UN Women, specialized NGOs (CARE, Plan, Oxfam), local feminist NGOs

Prerequisites¶

A CNA that identified women as a priority segment, along with their specific economic barriers
A cultural context that allows women's meetings (to be checked through the CNA, not assumed)
Trained female Field Agents (representation is critical in this type of project)
Additional non-financial support (functional literacy, health, childcare)

Key steps¶

Participatory identification of communities and women leaders
Training of VSLA facilitators
Group formation with gender-specific rules (required attendance, systematic voting, rotating leadership)
First cycle with enhanced support (more frequent supervision)
Complementary component: training in the economic activity of their choice (crafts, trade, processing)
Second cycle with lighter follow-up
Possible federation of the groups after cycle 2

Critical pitfalls¶

Loans managed by husbands: check at 3 and 12 months who actually uses the loan
Domestic violence triggered by the project: women's economic success can sometimes cause tension; plan a listening mechanism
Competition in men's economic space: a latent conflict zone to anticipate
Insufficient literacy: keeping account books is impossible; build in a functional literacy component

Indicators to track¶

Meeting attendance rate (target > 80%)
Share of decisions actually made by the women themselves
Additional income controlled by the beneficiaries (not just generated)
Progress in functional literacy
Empowerment indicators (participation in household decisions, mobility)

Rotary tools available¶

CED Global Grant (lead)
Link with UN Women for a large-scale project
Gender component highlighted through alignment with SDG 5

Cross-references¶

Chapter 10, Chapter 4 (ethical principles, inclusion)

M4: Mobile money and digital financial inclusion program¶


Code	M4, Microfinance family
Definition	Introducing or strengthening the use of mobile payments and digital financial services in a target population
Indicative budget	USD 60,000-200,000
Duration	18-24 months
Typical partners	Local mobile money operator, UNCDF, GSMA Mobile Money, impact fintechs

Prerequisites¶

Sufficient mobile network coverage in the target area
An active mobile money operator with agents in the area
Basic literacy and familiarity with a simple mobile phone (or a smartphone, depending on context)
A regulatory framework that allows account opening by populations who often lack complete identity papers

Key steps¶

Diagnosis of barriers to adoption (technical, cultural, regulatory, economic)
Partnership with the operator and possibly with a complementary fintech
Training of community relay trainers
Beneficiary training sessions (individual + group)
Help with opening accounts (assistance with paperwork if needed)
First transactions with support, resolving blockages
Gradual integration of uses (merchant payments, transfers, savings, targeted credit)
Evaluation of sustained adoption at 12 months

Critical pitfalls¶

Digital exclusion: the most vulnerable can be left behind; plan human relays
Service fees: transaction costs that eat into beneficiaries' small amounts
Scams and fraud: training in online vigilance is essential
Dependence on a single operator: aim for interoperability when possible

Indicators to track¶

Number of beneficiaries who opened an account
Share who made at least 3 transactions / month at 6 months
Share who saved on the account at 12 months
Number of complaints about fraud or errors
Qualitative: emerging spontaneous uses (positive surprises)

Rotary tools available¶

CED Global Grant (often CED + UNCDF for the technical components)

Cross-references¶

Chapter 10, Chapter 19 (UNCDF, tech partners)

Family F: Vocational training and job placement¶

F1: Training center for a technical trade¶


Code	F1, Training family
Definition	Creating or strengthening a vocational training center with a technical workshop
Indicative budget	USD 120,000-400,000
Duration	30-36 months (including ramp-up)
Typical partners	ILO / ITC-ILO, UNIDO, public training centers, local companies in the sector

Prerequisites¶

Validated market demand (CNA + consultation with businesses)
Occupational standard aligned with the national certification framework
Premises available (owned or on a secure long-term lease)
A lasting host organization identified (NGO, cooperative, public mandate)

Key steps¶

Detailed technical study (workshop, equipment, curricula)
Agreement with the host organization and the authorities
Construction or fit-out of the premises
Equipping the technical workshop (machinery, tools, consumables)
Recruiting and training the trainers
First pilot cohort (15-25 trainees)
Methodological adjustment
Successive cohorts at cruising speed
Post-training placement tracked at 6, 12, 24 months
Self-sustaining business model by the end of the project

Critical pitfalls¶

Training not matched to market demand: systematic CNA and employer consultation
Unqualified trainers: formal recruitment, built-in training of trainers
Obsolete technical workshop: a replacement budget planned, industrial donations to seek
A free center that wipes out local private providers: impact study, appropriate pricing
No post-training support: support for 6-12 months after certification

Indicators to track¶

Number of trainees certified per cohort
Placement rate at 6, 12, 24 months (target > 60%)
Average income of those placed
Employer satisfaction (survey 6 months after hiring)
Financial viability of the center (% of costs covered by revenue)

Rotary tools available¶

CED Global Grant (lead)
Multi-area combination: CED + Basic Education and Literacy

Cross-references¶

Chapter 11 in detail, Chapter 14 (infrastructure), Chapter 21 (sustainability)

F2: Youth apprenticeship program¶


Code	F2, Training family
Definition	A work-study training system linking a training center with host companies
Indicative budget	USD 80,000-250,000
Duration	24-36 months
Typical partners	Local trade associations, chambers of trades and crafts, committed companies, Junior Achievement, GIZ dual-training programs

Prerequisites¶

Enough local businesses to take on apprentices
A legal framework that allows apprenticeship (apprentice status, legal pay)
Trades chosen for demand
Structured teaching support (not just learning by doing)

Key steps¶

Identify promising trades and host companies
Sign agreements with 15-30 companies
Recruit and select apprentices (priorities: young people without diplomas, women, vulnerable groups)
Initial training (work-study split 20-30% center / 70-80% company)
Teaching follow-up by a trained apprenticeship mentor
Interim and final certification aligned with the national framework
Placement support (retention in the company or self-employment)
Capitalization and long-term anchoring with a trade association

Critical pitfalls¶

Companies that use apprentices as cheap labor: real teaching supervision is essential
Improvised methodology with no design: use ILO/ITC-ILO tools
Apprenticeships in saturated sectors: continuous adjustment to market changes
No pay, not even a token amount: excludes the poorest, who cannot afford it

Indicators to track¶

Number of apprentices recruited, diversified, certified
Retention rate in the company at 6 and 12 months after certification
Number of participating companies renewing their commitment
Satisfaction of apprenticeship mentors
Replicability in other sectors or areas

Rotary tools available¶

CED Global Grant
Link with Junior Achievement networks for the entrepreneurship dimension

Cross-references¶

Chapter 11, Chapter 20 (multi-stakeholder coordination)

F3: Adult career change¶


Code	F3, Training family
Definition	A short course for career change or upskilling for adults already working
Indicative budget	USD 50,000-150,000
Duration	18-24 months
Typical partners	Continuing education providers, VAE (validation des acquis de l'expérience, the French recognition of prior learning), professional chambers, ILO

Prerequisites¶

Target group identified (informal workers, employees in transition, women returning to work)
Destination trades in demand
A format compatible with working life (evenings, weekends, distance)
Possibility of recognition of prior learning where relevant

Key steps¶

Diagnosis of career-change needs (targeted CNA)
Course design (2-6 months depending on the trade)
Recruitment of specialized trainers
Outreach to target groups (social relays, unions, associations)
Training sessions with continuous assessment
Aligned certification or certificate of completion
Post-training support (résumé, interviews, job search or setting up a business)
Follow-up at 6 and 12 months

Critical pitfalls¶

Schedules incompatible with family or work obligations
Trainers who are too theoretical: favor experienced practitioners
No official recognition: an in-house certificate carries little weight with employers
Graduates left alone after training: 30% drop out of putting skills into practice without support

Indicators to track¶

Course completion rate
Rate of application of acquired skills at 6 months (target > 70%)
Additional income among those who apply them
Satisfaction of employers hiring the graduates

Rotary tools available¶

CED Global Grant
District Grant for short pilot courses

Cross-references¶

Chapter 11

F4: Women's entrepreneurship incubator¶


Code	F4, Training family
Definition	A full support program for women with plans for an economic activity
Indicative budget	USD 100,000-300,000
Duration	30-36 months
Typical partners	UN Women, specialized women's NGOs, partner general incubators, MFIs

Prerequisites¶

A CNA that identifies a pool of women with business projects or ideas
A legal context that allows women to start businesses (inheritance, economic rights)
Complementary skills on the club's CED committee (lawyer, HR director, woman entrepreneur)

Key steps¶

Call for applications, selection on motivation and potential
Entrepreneurship training (ILO Start and Improve Your Business training design or equivalent)
Individual support from a mentor (often a club member)
Access to suitable microcredit or a start-up grant
Workspace or access to shared services (legal, accounting, sales)
Tapering follow-up over 18-24 months
Evaluation of the survival of the businesses created at 24 months

Critical pitfalls¶

Overly demanding selection: excludes the most vulnerable, who need the support all the same
Unrealistic business expectations: not every project will succeed; plan for ~30% not lasting
Unmanaged family pressure: psychosocial support is sometimes needed
Mentor with no real availability: define the mentor's mandate precisely

Indicators to track¶

Number of applications received vs projects selected
Number of projects actually launched
Survival rate at 24 months (target > 60%)
Income generated by the women whose businesses last
Indirect effects (jobs created, mutual support among women)

Rotary tools available¶

CED Global Grant
Link with microfinance (M2 or M3)
Possible link with Talanton for more ambitious projects

Cross-references¶

Chapter 11, Chapter 10, Chapter 18 (UN Women)

Family V: Value chains¶

V1: Agri-food value chain with local processing¶


Code	V1, Value chain family
Definition	Organizing an agricultural value chain with value added through local processing (cassava, mango, shea, cocoa, peanut, etc.)
Indicative budget	USD 150,000-400,000
Duration	30-36 months
Typical partners	TechnoServe, Root Capital, Heifer, FAO, UNIDO, specialized national NGOs

Prerequisites¶

An identified value chain with validated market demand
Producers who can be organized into a cooperative (see C1)
A technical partner experienced in that specific value chain
Diversified outlets (local markets + export or premium)

Key steps¶

Full ValueLinks value chain study
Setting up or strengthening a farmers' cooperative
Improving upstream practices (inputs, farming techniques)
Investing in a processing unit (installation, bringing up to standard)
Training in processing and business management
Connecting with diversified buyers
Possible certification (fair trade, organic, GI)
Commercial and financial consolidation

Critical pitfalls¶

Processing unit with no operating model: an empty building (see Chapter 14)
Cooperative created without training: an empty shell (Chapter 13)
Certification with no market: an extra cost never recovered
A single dominant buyer: dangerous dependence

Indicators to track¶

Volumes processed, prices obtained by producers
Additional income per producer household
Number of jobs created in processing
Viability of the managing cooperative
Diversified market access (at least 3 buyers)

Rotary tools available¶

Multi-area CED Global Grant (CED + Environment + sometimes WASH)
Link with Root Capital once the cooperative is mature

Cross-references¶

Chapters 12, 13, 14

V2: Crafts and fair trade¶


Code	V2, Value chain family
Definition	Organizing a craft value chain with access to fair trade markets
Indicative budget	USD 80,000-250,000
Duration	24-30 months
Typical partners	World Fair Trade Organization, International Cooperative Alliance, craft NGOs (e.g., the Artisans du Monde networks)

Prerequisites¶

Existing, recognized craft know-how
Ability to deliver consistent quality (or an improvement plan)
Possible access to a market that can pay (local premium, tourist, export)
Possible collective organization of the artisans

Key steps¶

Diagnosis of the know-how and production conditions
Strengthening technical and quality skills
Setting up a cooperative or artisans' group
Developing a brand identity
Access to sales channels (fair trade shops, e-commerce, trade fairs)
Fair trade certification if relevant
Export capacity or moving upmarket

Critical pitfalls¶

Inconsistent quality: loss of premium markets
Volumes too small for serious export channels
Predatory middlemen: direct contracting is essential
Dependence on a single foreign designer: better to promote local design

Indicators to track¶

Number of artisans trained and active
Volumes sold, average prices obtained
Share of sales on premium markets
Artisans' income
Survival at 24 months

Rotary tools available¶

CED Global Grant

Cross-references¶

Chapters 12, 13

V3: Market access for small producers¶


Code	V3, Value chain family
Definition	Helping isolated or poorly connected producers reach better-paying markets
Indicative budget	USD 60,000-200,000
Duration	24 months
Typical partners	Market access NGOs (TechnoServe, Root Capital), existing farmers' cooperatives, traceability fintechs

Prerequisites¶

Producers identified, volumes that can be aggregated
A destination market identified with higher prices
Minimal transport or logistics infrastructure
Ability to contract between producers and buyers

Key steps¶

Diagnosis of access barriers (transport, price information, contracting, volumes)
Collective organization of producers (producer group, cooperative)
Market price information (bulletins, text messages, rural radio)
Negotiating contracts with reliable buyers
Investment in shared logistics (storage, transport)
Sales capacity (training in negotiation and selling)
Diversifying outlets

Critical pitfalls¶

Main buyer changing strategy: diversification is mandatory
Underestimated logistics costs: negative margins
Producers selling outside the contract when prices spike temporarily: governance to clarify

Indicators to track¶

Average prices obtained by producers (before / after)
Volumes sold through the scheme
Additional income per producer
Number of active buyers (target at least 3)
Contracts lasting over 24 months

Rotary tools available¶

CED Global Grant

Cross-references¶

Chapters 12, 13

Family C: Cooperatives¶

C1: Agricultural production cooperative¶


Code	C1, Cooperatives family
Definition	Creating or strengthening a cooperative of agricultural producers (OHADA SCOOP-CA type, a cooperative with a board of directors, or equivalent)
Indicative budget	USD 100,000-300,000
Duration	30-36 months
Typical partners	National federation of cooperatives, ICA, Heifer, TechnoServe, FAO, OHADA (if West/Central Africa)

Prerequisites¶

A motivated core of at least 15-30 producers
An economically viable value chain
A well-understood cooperative legal framework (OHADA Uniform Act on Cooperatives, AUSCOOP, or equivalent)
A local partner lawyer

Key steps¶

Diagnosis and identification of the core group
Training in cooperative principles (ICA) and governance
Drafting and registering the bylaws
Start-up capital (shared equipment)
First cycle of economic activity
Accounting and sales support
Consolidation (or a second cycle with reinforcement)
Operational and financial autonomy at 24-36 months

Critical pitfalls¶

Shell cooperative (Chapter 13)
Elite capture
Unsuitable legal form (e.g., a SCOOPS, the simplified cooperative, where a SCOOP-CA would be sturdier)
No exit strategy from Rotary cofunding

Indicators to track¶

Number of members, general assembly attendance rate
Board composition (diversity)
Business volumes, margins, patronage refunds distributed
Survival rate at 24 and 36 months
Compliance with the 7 ICA principles

Rotary tools available¶

CED Global Grant (lead)
Link with a cooperative federation or Root Capital once mature

Cross-references¶

Chapter 13 in detail

C2: Savings and credit cooperative (COOPEC)¶


Code	C2, Cooperatives family
Definition	Strengthening (or, more rarely, creating) a financial cooperative in which members save and borrow, comparable to a credit union
Indicative budget	USD 100,000-400,000
Duration	36 months (COOPECs are heavy structures)
Typical partners	WOCCU (World Council of Credit Unions), national microfinance regulator, CGAP

Prerequisites¶

A regulatory framework that authorizes COOPECs
An existing COOPEC to strengthen (rather than creating one ex nihilo)
Capable governance and staff
Strong financial skills on the club's CED committee

Key steps¶

Diagnosis of the partner COOPEC (or of the need to create one)
Capacity building (MIS, accounting, risk management)
Training of managers and staff
Expanding services (savings, credit, transfers, possibly insurance)
Bringing into prudential compliance
Opening up to new target members (women, young people, isolated rural residents)
External evaluation at 24 and 36 months

Critical pitfalls¶

COOPEC without effective regulation: systemic risk
Growth that is too fast: deteriorating portfolio quality
Unqualified managers: improvised, inadequate management
Conflict between professionalization and democracy

Indicators to track¶

Number of members, savings collected, loans disbursed
PAR 30 (target < 5%)
Operational self-sufficiency (target > 100%)
Governance (general assembly, board, rotation)
Compliance with the CPP and SPI4 standards

Rotary tools available¶

CED Global Grant
Expertise from the TRF Cadre of Technical Advisers (CED)

Cross-references¶

Chapters 10, 13

C3: Multi-activity crafts cooperative¶


Code	C3, Cooperatives family
Definition	A cooperative bringing together artisans from different trades, with shared services
Indicative budget	USD 80,000-200,000
Duration	24-30 months
Typical partners	Chambers of trades and crafts, crafts federations, ICA

Prerequisites¶

An existing base of artisans
A shared interest in pooling (workshop, equipment, marketing, training)
A cooperative legal framework that allows multiple activities

Key steps¶

Diagnosis of pooling needs
Training in cooperation (ICA)
Legal structuring (a SCOOPS is often suitable)
Investing in shared services (workshop, machines, showroom)
Launching the services
Collective sales capacity
Consolidation over 2 years

Critical pitfalls¶

Mixing up activities in accounting and operations
Disparate skills: hard to define a relevant common service
Too many activities, not enough depth

Indicators to track¶

Usage rate of the shared services
Improved individual business activity
Member satisfaction

Rotary tools available¶

CED Global Grant

Cross-references¶

Chapter 13

Family L: Integrated local development¶

L1: Covered market / community market hall¶


Code	L1, Local development family
Definition	Building or renovating a covered market with community governance
Indicative budget	USD 100,000-300,000
Duration	24-30 months
Typical partners	Municipality, traders' cooperative, local architects, regional development agencies

Prerequisites¶

A viable business model (rents covering costs)
Land available and legally secured
A management structure identified (traders' cooperative + municipality)
A location consistent with existing flows (not imposed)

Key steps¶

Technical and architectural study
Community validation (consultation of traders, customers, neighbors)
Permits and administrative authorizations
Construction or renovation
Opening with formalized governance
Support for the managing cooperative
Indicator tracking at 12-24 months

Critical pitfalls¶

Empty building if the business model was not validated
Disputes over stall allocation
Unfair competition with the long-standing informal market
No budget set aside for maintenance

Indicators to track¶

Stall occupancy rate
Traders' sales (before / after)
Foot traffic
Self-financing of operations

Rotary tools available¶

CED Global Grant, often multi-area (CED + WASH for sanitation facilities)

Cross-references¶

Chapter 14 in detail

L2: Community seed bank¶


Code	L2, Local development family
Definition	A collective system for conserving, reproducing and distributing well-adapted seeds
Indicative budget	USD 40,000-120,000
Duration	24-30 months
Typical partners	FAO, food sovereignty organizations, national agricultural research institute

Prerequisites¶

Local varieties worth promoting (adapted to climate change, superior quality)
Relay producers (farmer seed growers) who can be mobilized
A seed regulatory framework that allows reproduction

Key steps¶

Diagnosis of relevant varieties
Organizing the network of farmer seed growers
Building or fitting out a storage facility
Training in selection, conservation, reproduction
Production and distribution cycle
Collective governance (often a cooperative)
Long-term anchoring through a link to an agricultural value chain

Critical pitfalls¶

Hostile seed framework (plant breeders' rights, protected varieties)
Insufficient quality on reproduction
No commercial outlet

Indicators to track¶

Volume of seed produced, distributed
Number of producers benefiting
Yields among beneficiaries
Survival at 24 months

Rotary tools available¶

CED + Environment Global Grant (often combined)

Cross-references¶

Chapters 12, 14

L3: Business incubator / rural fab lab¶


Code	L3, Local development family
Definition	A facility that hosts and supports young businesses, with shared services (accounting, legal, sales) and possibly shared technical equipment (fab lab)
Indicative budget	USD 100,000-300,000
Duration	30-36 months
Typical partners	Local universities, chambers of commerce, incubator networks (ANIMA, AfriLabs), UNIDO

Prerequisites¶

A pool of potential entrepreneurs in the area
A market that can pay for the incubated products and services
A partner experienced in incubation
A tax framework favorable to micro-enterprises

Key steps¶

Diagnosis of the local entrepreneurial ecosystem
Program design (selection, support, services)
Fit-out of the premises + technical equipment if a fab lab
Recruiting and training a support team
First cohort of 10-20 entrepreneurs
Individual support + shared services
Graduation from the incubator at 12-18 months
New cohort, capitalization

Critical pitfalls¶

Incubator with no mentoring: an empty shell
Tech sectors with no ecosystem: isolated entrepreneurs
Unviable incubator business model

Indicators to track¶

Number of businesses supported
24-month survival rate of graduated businesses
Jobs created by these businesses
Cumulative sales
External recognition of the incubator

Rotary tools available¶

CED Global Grant
Possible link with Talanton for the more ambitious spin-offs

Cross-references¶

Chapters 11, 14

How to use these sheets¶

For a CED coordinator who is just starting¶

Read all 17 sheets in one sitting to identify the family that fits the club's area diagnosis (Chapter 3) and the directions identified by the CNA (Chapter 9). Some sheets will clearly not fit the context; others will jump out as relevant.

For a CED coordinator in the middle of a project¶

Print the sheet or sheets that match your project and file them in the kit. They are designed as operational reminders, not as exhaustive manuals.

For a CED committee at a strategy workshop¶

Hand out the 17 sheets to a committee trying to frame a future project. Ask each member to pick the 3 most promising sheets for the club. Compare the choices, discuss, converge.

For a club that wants to broaden its work¶

The sheets can suggest combinations the club had not thought of: a microfinance project (M2) linked with a women's incubator (F4), an agricultural cooperative (C1) linked with an agri-food value chain (V1) and a covered market (L1). Combinations are the rule, not the exception.

The limits of these sheets¶

The 17 sheets do not replace the methodological chapters of Part III (the CED families in depth) or the chapters of Part IV (implementation). They are operational summaries, useful only once you have absorbed the full chapters. A club that starts out using only the sheets takes serious risks: the nuances, the pitfalls and the conditions for success are in the chapters.

Part VII, which follows, brings together the operational appendices: forms, contact directory, the glossary already written, online resources. With these appendices, the CED coordinator has a complete document kit, ready to print and use.