Chapter 20: Coordinating in the Field¶
From paper to execution¶
The concept note is approved. The Global Grant is signed. The co-financing is deposited. The funds arrive in the district's account. The international partner is on board, the partner MFI is under contract, the beneficiary cooperative is set up, the local authorities are informed. Everything is in place.
And this is exactly when most CED projects run into their first real difficulty: day-to-day operational coordination. A project that brings together a host club, an international partner club, a local technical partner, a beneficiary cooperative, end beneficiaries, local authorities, additional funders and sometimes two or three linked RAGs involves a good half-dozen actors, each with its own timelines, priorities and internal constraints.
This chapter covers what the concept note cannot foresee: the weekly mechanics that keep the project on track over time.
The seven typical actors in a CED project¶
Before talking about coordination, you need to name precisely who coordinates whom. In an average CED project, seven actors meet.
| Actor | Main role |
|---|---|
| Host club | Strategic leadership, Global Grant signatory on the beneficiary country side, relationship with the local partner and the authorities |
| International partner club | Co-signatory, co-financing, cross-border mentoring, remote financial oversight |
| Host district | TRF qualification, co-signature, project oversight, link with TRF |
| International district | Co-signature, DDF resources |
| Local technical partner | Day-to-day operator: MFI, NGO, cooperative, training center |
| Beneficiaries | Target community, active stakeholders through consultation mechanisms |
| Local public authorities | Approval, sometimes co-financing, alignment with public policy |
Depending on the project, add the other RAGs (WASH-RAG, ESRAG, etc.), partners outside Rotary (UN agency, foundation, development bank) and occasional technical subcontractors.
The coordination meeting: rhythm and format¶
Recommended frequency¶
| Project phase | Frequency of the project coordination meeting |
|---|---|
| Start-up phase (first 3 months) | Weekly |
| Cruising phase (stabilized) | Every two weeks |
| Closing phase (last 3 months) | Weekly |
| Critical phase or major incident | As needed, possibly several times a week |
The project coordination meeting is not the meeting of the club's CED committee (which is broader and covers all ongoing projects), nor the meeting of the club's board (which is more general still). It is a meeting dedicated to the specific project with the actors directly involved.
Participants by format¶
Small format (weekly during a critical phase): - CED coordinator of the host club - Project manager of the local partner - Representative of the international partner club (joining remotely)
Expanded format (every two weeks or monthly): - The three above - The host club's Finance & stewardship portfolio - Representative of the beneficiary cooperative (if applicable) - Representative of the partner MFI (if applicable)
Strategic format (quarterly): - All of the above - DRFC of the host district - Representative of the local authorities - Representative of the other partners (UN agency, foundation, etc.)
Length¶
Small meeting: 45-60 minutes maximum. Expanded meeting: 90 minutes maximum. Strategic meeting: 2-3 hours, with a tightly structured agenda.
A coordination meeting that runs past two hours loses its effectiveness: participants tune out, decisions scatter, the minutes become vague.
Standard agenda¶
- Review of action items from the previous meeting (5-10 minutes): progress, sticking points
- Overall project progress by component (15-20 minutes): 3-5 minutes per component
- Finances and co-financing (10 minutes)
- M&E indicators (10 minutes)
- Items for decision (20-30 minutes): pending trade-offs, approvals, adjustments
- Action items for the next period (5-10 minutes): who does what, by when
The CED coordinator chairs. A secretary (often the Communication portfolio) takes notes. Minutes go out within 24-48 hours.
Basic coordination tools¶
A CED project does not need sophisticated tools. It needs tools that are actually used.
Project dashboard¶
A concise dashboard, kept up to date continuously, that shows where the project stands at any moment. Typical format: a spreadsheet shared with the members of the steering committee.
| Dimension | Content |
|---|---|
| Schedule | Planned vs. achieved milestones, gap, comment |
| Budget | Budgeted, committed, disbursed, remaining to commit, by line |
| M&E indicators | Baseline, targets, current values, trend |
| Activities | List of key activities with % complete |
| Risks | Identified risks, probability, impact, mitigation measure |
| Pending decisions | Decisions to make, deadline, owner |
This dashboard is the project's logbook. It is kept up to date however rough the going gets.
Decision log¶
A chronological document where every significant decision is recorded: date, decision, people involved, rationale, impact. Often neglected at the start of a project, this log becomes decisive in the medium term: when a partner changes, a misunderstanding sets in or a disagreement emerges, going back to the decision log lets you recover the context.
Quick communication group¶
WhatsApp, Signal, Teams, Slack: the tool matters little, as long as all participants are on it and the rules are clear. A group dedicated to the project (not to the club in general), limited to the relevant people, moderated (one message = one useful piece of information, no chitchat). For important decisions, follow up with a formal email.
Shared folder¶
All project documents accessible to all authorized stakeholders. Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, SharePoint: it does not matter. What matters is a filing structure that is rigorously maintained:
Project [Name]
├── 01-Design
│ ├── Concept note v1, v2, vfinal
│ ├── Community Needs Assessment
│ └── Budget
├── 02-Partnerships
│ ├── MOU international partner club
│ ├── MOU local partner
│ └── Letters of support
├── 03-Implementation
│ ├── Coordination meeting minutes
│ ├── Dashboard current version
│ └── Monthly reports
├── 04-Finances
│ ├── Expense register
│ ├── Supporting documents by month
│ └── Financial reports
├── 05-M&E
│ ├── Baseline
│ ├── Midline data
│ └── Endline
├── 06-Communication
│ ├── Photos with consent forms
│ ├── Rotary Showcase posts
│ └── Media
└── 07-Stewardship
├── Progress report year 1
├── Progress report year 2
└── Final report
This simple structure beats ten elaborate folders kept without discipline.
Managing asynchronous communication¶
Most CED projects involve at least two time zones (host club and international partner club). Asynchronous communication becomes the norm.
Ground rules¶
| Rule | Rationale |
|---|---|
| Clearly distinguish urgent from important | A question that can wait 48 hours does not call for an emergency call at 3 a.m. the partner's time |
| Group your requests | Rather than ten micro-messages, one structured message with several points. It respects the recipient's time |
| Give context in every message | Someone reading later must understand without digging through earlier exchanges |
| Set a realistic deadline | Not "as soon as possible" but "ideally reply before Friday 3 p.m., X time" |
| Acknowledge important messages | Even a "got it, I'll get back to you within 48 hours" prevents worry |
| Go back over the points at regular meetings | Asynchronous exchanges get lost quickly. The coordination meeting takes stock of them |
The silence trap¶
In a multicultural project, a partner's silence can mean many things: unspoken disagreement, an internal problem, work overload, a hierarchy slowing things down, or even a silent breakdown. An attentive CED coordinator actively checks in when a partner goes quiet: a direct phone call, an open question, not an impersonal reminder email.
The 6 coordination pitfalls specific to CED¶
Pitfall 1: Diluted responsibility¶
Several actors assume that someone else will do the task. Result: nobody does it.
Mitigation: a RACI matrix at every meeting, continuous dashboard updates, explicit assignments.
Pitfall 2: Mission creep along the way¶
The project slowly drifts from its original purpose. New needs emerge, components get added, the target group widens. Six months in, the project is doing something other than what was budgeted.
Mitigation: return regularly to the approved concept note. Any major deviation is documented, formally decided and reported to TRF if it affects the budget or the results.
Pitfall 3: The invisible beneficiary¶
With so much coordination among partners, you lose touch with the real beneficiaries. Decisions are made without checking that they make sense on the ground.
Mitigation: at least one field visit per quarter by the CED coordinator, with direct meetings with beneficiaries, independently of the local partner. Complaint channels that beneficiaries can reach directly (not filtered through the intermediary MFI or cooperative).
Pitfall 4: The untreated latent conflict¶
A disagreement between partners (over priorities, procedures, the share of resources) goes unspoken. It grows until it bursts into open conflict six months later.
Mitigation: time set aside for strategic discussion at the quarterly meetings. Do not let tensions simmer. Call on an outside mediator (RAGCED, the DRFC, a member of the TRF Cadre) if needed.
Pitfall 5: CED coordinator burnout¶
The coordinator ends up carrying too much alone: partner relations, financial management, documentation, representation, trade-offs. He or she cracks or resigns mid-project.
Mitigation: real delegation to the CED committee (three clearly separate portfolios); do not accept a coordinator who also holds four portfolios. Organized backup when the coordinator goes on vacation or goes through a busy period at work.
Pitfall 6: The annual rotation of presidents¶
The club president changes. The new president does not have the same understanding of the project. Decisions slow down, external relationships start over, the project loses two months.
Mitigation: a formal, documented briefing between the outgoing and incoming president (Chapter 5, succession plan). A CED coordinator who stays in place beyond the presidential year. A stable Foundation Chair.
Handling local political pressure¶
A CED project can come under political pressure: a local elected official who wants to steer how the benefits are distributed, a political party trying to exploit the program, a community leader trying to capture the funding, a journalist looking for a critical angle.
A few principles for handling it:
Anticipate, do not react¶
Identify early on the actors likely to want to exert influence. This political dimension belongs in the CNA (Chapter 9) and in the stakeholder mapping (Chapter 8).
Set the rules in writing from the start¶
Written beneficiary selection criteria, formal governance, public lists, accessible complaint mechanisms. The more formal and transparent things are, the less pressure can succeed.
Never give in to individual pressure¶
If a local notable asks for a relative to be included outside the criteria, the answer is no, even if the political cost seems high. A single exception sets a precedent that kills the project's credibility.
Document every attempt¶
Every episode of political pressure is recorded in the decision log: date, actor, request, coordinator's response. This record is a protection in case of an incident later on.
Turn to the club president or the DG if it escalates¶
When the pressure goes beyond the CED coordinator's level, the club president takes over. If that is not enough, the district governor (DG). The coordinator does not have to handle this kind of tension alone.
Do not panic over the media¶
A journalist who wants to write a critical article is an ordinary actor. The response: transparency, documentation, structured communication. No secrets, no refusals, but no overreaction either.
The international partner club's field visit¶
When the international partner club sends a field mission to the host country, several pitfalls lie in wait:
| Pitfall | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Mission too long or too costly | Short mission (3-5 days), focused on specific objectives |
| Humanitarian tourist role | Packed agenda, meetings with beneficiaries, no self-congratulatory photo sessions |
| Decisions made abroad imposed during the mission | A mission to listen and support, not to impose. Decisions made over time, not on the back of a napkin |
| Project disrupted during the mission | Mission planned with the host club, balanced workload, no excessive demands on the local partner |
| Poor external communication | Photos and stories approved by the host club and the local partner before release |
A well-prepared mission strengthens the cross-border relationship. A poorly prepared one damages it for a long time.
Photo documentation and communication¶
The project produces communication material throughout its life. Three absolute rules:
Consent, every time¶
No identifiable photo of a beneficiary without his or her explicit, informed consent. For children, written parental consent, on a form kept for five years. The rule is restated in the partnership MOU.
Dignity in all circumstances¶
No humiliating before/after shots, no staging of poverty, no "pitiful" photos to raise funds. The project documents work, change and moments of normal life, not destitution.
Approved release¶
Every external publication (Rotary Showcase, social media, news media, thank-you letters to donors) goes through a light but systematic approval: the host club's CED coordinator + the local partner. Five minutes of approval prevent lasting mistakes.
Indicators of good coordination¶
How do you know whether coordination is working? A few indicators you can use at the quarterly reviews:
- Meeting deadlines: % of project milestones reached on time
- Quality of minutes: circulated in < 48 hours, rate of corrections requested
- Meeting vitality: attendance rate of key participants > 80%
- Budget / spending gap: under 10% unless formally revised
- Time to resolve pending decisions: average < 15 days
- Partner satisfaction: a simple survey twice a year (satisfaction and suggestions)
- Team turnover: stability of key contacts
Project coordination checklist¶
At project start¶
- Steering committee set up with a written mandate
- Coordination ground rules formalized (frequency, agenda, participants)
- Project dashboard started
- Decision log opened
- Shared folder structured and accessible
- Quick communication channel created
- RACI matrix by activity approved
Monthly¶
- Dashboard updated
- Coordination meeting held, minutes circulated
- Decision log updated
- Alert sent to the DRFC and RAGCED in case of a major gap
Quarterly¶
- CED coordinator field visit
- Full M&E review
- Detailed budget review
- Review of risks and any adjustments
- Expanded strategic meeting
Annually¶
- Progress report submitted to TRF
- Internal project evaluation (strengths, weaknesses, adjustments)
- Partner satisfaction survey
- Handover briefing if the president or coordinator changes
Coordination is a profession¶
Field coordination of a CED project is not a side task handed off to the CED coordinator. It is the core of the job, the skill that separates clubs that deliver from clubs that get bogged down. It can be learned, it improves with experience, and it can be passed on.
A CED coordinator who has led a Global Grant to completion gains multi-stakeholder coordination skills worth several years of experience on the job or consulting market. That is one reason CED work transforms Rotarians: beyond the benefits for the communities served, it builds skills that few other commitments offer.
Part IV is now complete. The club has its partners, its funding and its coordination in place. Part V turns to the decisive phase of sustainability, documentation, debriefing and scaling up.