FAROL Method · Ministry: ______________ · Country: ______________ · Date: ______ Completed by: ______________ · Political sponsor: ______________
1. Political context (week 1)
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Who asked for the programme? (name, role) | |
| What win does the Minister need, and by when? (elections, reshuffle, public pledge) | |
| Who signs ministerial orders? Is authority delegated? | |
| National digital agency: approves, blocks or ignores? | |
| Active donors in the ministry (WB, AfDB, EU, UNDP)? Programmes under way? | |
| Previous digitisation attempts — what, by whom, why did they fail? |
2. Follow the money (week 1)
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Top 5 own-revenue sources (fees, licences, fines) | |
| Revenue collected vs. estimated potential (where is the leakage?) | |
| Where is cash handled? Who touches the money? | |
| Visible operating cost: FTEs on manual tasks, paper, archiving, travel | |
| Budget available: source, amount, fiscal year, direct-award threshold |
3. Follow the queue (week 2)
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Top 10 services by volume (transactions/month) | |
| Actual average time per service (application → delivery) — observed, not declared | |
| Number of trips a citizen makes per service | |
| Points of discretion (where an official decides alone, with no written criteria) | |
| Service with most complaints / media attention |
4. Current state (week 2)
| Dimension | Situation |
|---|---|
| Existing systems (name, age, owner, condition) | |
| Master registries: do they exist? on paper? duplicated? | |
| Connectivity at premises (HQ + front offices) | |
| Power: frequent outages? generators? | |
| Available payment rails (mobile money, banking, references) | |
| Existing agent/counter network reusable as assisted channel (post offices, mobile money, local government) | |
| Data the state already holds about the citizen (for once-only — do not ask again) | |
| Legal basis for electronic acts: exists? is a ministerial order enough? | |
| Staff with digital aptitude identifiable (names) |
5. Service prioritisation matrix (A2, week 3)
Score each candidate service 1–5. Effort is scored inverted (5 = easy).
Score = (Volume × 2) + (Revenue × 2) + (Visibility × 1.5) + (Ease × 1) + (Simple legal basis × 1)
| Service | Volume (×2) | Revenue (×2) | Visibility (×1.5) | Ease (×1) | Legal basis (×1) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | ||||||
| 2. | ||||||
| 3. | ||||||
| 4. | ||||||
| 5. | ||||||
| 6. | ||||||
| 7. | ||||||
| 8. | ||||||
| 9. | ||||||
| 10. |
Tie-breaker: pick the service whose win the Minister can show on television.
6. Beacon service selected
| Field | Answer |
|---|---|
| Service | |
| Day-90 target metric (time) | from ____ to ____ |
| Day-90 target metric (revenue/volume) | from ____ to ____ |
| Steps in current process → steps after the cut (principle A) | ____ → ____ |
| Legal basis needed (order to draft — feeds A3) | |
| Top 3 risks + mitigation | 1. 2. 3. |
| Explicit kill criteria (what, measured when, triggers stopping) |
7. Stakeholder map
| Name | Role | Power (H/M/L) | Position (ally / neutral / resistant) | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
8. Phase 0 exit — gate checklist
- Business case (A4) written using the numbers from sections 2–3
- Beacon service validated with the sponsor
- Draft ministerial order (A3) submitted for signature
- P1 budget identified and committed
- Seconded local staff named (min. 3)
- Order signed ← without this, P1 does not start
FAROL Method · Artefact A1 v1 · © Duarte Clemente