From the experiences during the implementation of Phases 1 and 2 of SCORE several important lessons can be derived. These are listed below:
Although the SCORE training and in-company support visits generate value for SMEs, the SCORE programme is not yet generating sufficient proof of this value, beyond anecdotic (but powerful) case studies and testimonials. The Key Performance Indicators in the M&E system do not provide clear and reliable information on results and effects at the company level and aggregated information is of limited use. The experiences obtained in over 750 companies should provide sufficient research material to analyze and systematize results and effects. Possible subjects for research are for example the different effects in specific sectors, company size, degree of insertion in supply chains and degree of unionization in companies.
The experience in SCORE is that a centralized approach on trainer’s certification is slow and cumbersome and also costly. The SCORE team at ILO headquarters has agreed to decentralize this approach so that trainer’s certification can be done more quickly and by the national stakeholders in SCORE. Also the approach on quality monitoring and control of trainer’s performance and re-certification is currently undergoing changes. The expansion and replication of SCORE training should not be slowed down. However, the national and global SCORE teams need to closely monitor the effects of these changes to avoid that quality and contents of SCORE training are compromised. This refers to another lesson learned: in the SCORE methodology the trainers are the core instruments to transfer content and to facilitate changes at the company level.
In several of the SCORE countries, the teams and partners have learned that the market demands and characteristics require more flexibility in the supply of the SCORE module portfolio. This flexibility is needed to ensure that SCORE delivery can be done against full or at least considerable cost-recovery. Different models and combinations of modules are now being introduced and tested in different SCORE countries. While these changes are logic and needed, these should be applied in such a way that the SCORE training supply and approach remains recognizable and specific. This also requires maintaining to a certain extent the modular set-up and the obligatory start with module 1.
The SCORE experiences in the different countries and sectors have shown that SMEs are much more multiform than theory suggests. The bracket of 50-250 employees in SMEs as prescribed in the SCORE planning documents, in practice proves not be so relevant and it is also regularly not followed. The experiences in different contexts have shown that SCORE training can effectively be applied in smaller companies, as is done in the Tourism Sector in South Africa, and also in larger companies, such as manufacturing and textile and garment factories in China.
After 7 years of implementation, it is fair to say that SCORE at the international level is a multi-sector programme, with wide and diverse experience in different sectors. This experience can help the SCORE headquarter team and SCORE country teams to learn from other countries and other sector experiences. This can enable a fast track approach towards reaching out to SMEs in other sectors in the SCORE countries to further expand and replicate the SCORE approach.
While the SCORE programme in all countries has been effective in involving the enterprise owners (employers), the participation of trade unions is much lower and sometimes (in Colombia) trade unions take a critical position towards SCORE. This hampers active tripartite involvement. All stakeholders, including the trade unions, have learned and understand that SCORE is functional in reaching out to the (largely non-unionized) SME-sector and that it can bring important changes in management-workers dialogue and cooperation. SCORE cannot be a first and immediate step towards unionization, because enterprise owners will not buy into SCORE if this is the case. But also without SCORE can have positive effects on formalizing employers-workers relations in the long term. Increased involvement of unions may not be feasible at the enterprise level, but is all the more relevant at the level of sector identification, risk analysis and also training of trainers.
The SCORE teams at the country level have indicated that there are considerable challenges in the M&E system. Many of these are mentioned in the chapter Conclusions and also Recommendations. But under Lessons Learned one aspect is worth mentioning again: an M&E system that is geared towards aggregation and synthetisation of results under a number of Key Performance Indicators at global level is not so useful for steering, fine-tuning and innovating country and sector specific approaches, because the value of SCORE is country and sector and even company specific.
A specific lesson learned here is that the indicator of job-creation as a core indicator for impact of the SCORE programme may not be the best indicator to capture the most important values of SCORE. The experience has shown that in several companies SCORE has beneficial effects on quality of work and it reduces inhuman and low-quality work and by doing so it regularly does not generate net-employment and can even reduce employment. Taking away indecent work has a negative employment effect but this should still be considered a positive development impact. Therefore, job-creation as an indicator needs to be used with caution and at best should be considered a proxy-indicator.
The experiences of the SCORE country teams have shown that communication and networking around the SCORE project is needed to achieve more visibility and to create more and better perspective for further rolling out SCORE services in different sectors and at the national level (and eventually in new SCORE countries). While there is a global communication strategy in place and communication and marketing is also an output area in the country plans, not enough time and effort is dedicated to external communication and coordination as establishing partnerships and maintaining them requires constant investments in this area.
