External Evaluation of Consultancies 2025 Report Brief

Photo by Pawel Czerwinski on Unsplash

• In 2023-2024, the ITCILO significantly expanded its strategic consultancy portfolio to meet the evolving needs of ILO constituents and institutional clients.
• Consultancy services are considered a strategic growth area for the Centre. The decision to take on consultancy projects is made based on alignment with the Centre's strategy and priorities.
• The Centre has established a comprehensive Master Results Chain for its various service categories, including advisory services. According to this framework, advisory services progress from inputs, through outputs, out-takes, to outcomes and ultimately impact. This results chain is designed to systematically align consultancy work with the Centre's broader strategic objectives.

• This evaluation examines the strategy consultancies delivered by the ITCILO to assess their relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability, in accordance with the OECD/DAC evaluation criteria and UNEG Norms for Evaluation.
• The scope encompasses a representative sample of ten strategy consultancies implemented by the Centre between 2023 and early 2025, spanning Africa, the Americas, Asia, and interregional contexts.
• The consultancies were delivered in a variety of institutional environments in response to specific needs, by providing tailored technical support aimed at enhancing service delivery and supporting strategic planning processes.
• The consultancies were delivered to ILO constituents and other institutional clients as part of the Centre's portfolio diversification strategy outlined in the 2022-25 Strategic Plan. They engaged a diverse range of clients, including employers’ organizations, government ministries, ILO country offices, UN agencies, and specialized training institutions.
• These assignments included institutional capacity assessments, advisory services on digital transformation strategies and digital capacity improvement, and performance reviews.

Types of strategy consultancies at the ITCILO

The evaluated strategy consultancies represent a diverse yet coherent portfolio of institutional capacity development interventions.

While tailored to distinct client needs and contexts, the consultancies can be broadly categorized into five types, each addressing specific dimensions of organizational transformation.

These categories reflect the Centre’s integrated approach to institutional strengthening, which combines strategic foresight, digital innovation, and participatory methodologies.

The evaluation utilizes the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle aligned with the Guidelines for auditing management systems ISO 19011:2018. It uses a mixed-methods approach, integrating both quantitative and qualitative data. This approach allowed for the triangulation of findings from different sources, enhancing the validity and reliability of conclusions. Data collection was conducted through:

• Desk research including a comprehensive review of relevant documentation.
• Semi-structured interviews with a total of eleven stakeholders.

• The consultancies demonstrated high responsiveness to constituent needs and alignment with ILO strategic priorities, including promotion of decent work, digital innovation, and capacity development. Tailored approaches and context-sensitive solutions were key strengths.
• While consultancy services appear to be a strategic priority for ITCILO, there is a need to strengthen and standardize quality assurance processes. The organization has developed frameworks, but awareness and implementation vary significantly across programs.

The delivered strategy consultancies are firmly anchored in the broader mandate and strategic priorities of the ILO. This alignment ensures that each intervention contributes meaningfully to the ILO’s overarching mission of promoting decent work and social justice, while reinforcing institutional capacities at the national and sectoral levels.

The consultancies demonstrate a strong degree of responsiveness to the needs of ILO constituents and other institutional clients. Across diverse contexts and institutional settings, the consultancies were found to align well with identified priorities, emerging challenges, and specific capacity development requirements.

The customization is a defining strength of the Centre's strategy consultancy portfolio. Rather than applying standardized models, the Centre consistently tailors its methodologies, recommendations, and deliverables to reflect the unique characteristics of each client organization. This emphasis on customization enhances the Centre's ability to deliver relevant and implementable solutions, strengthening its position as a trusted partner in institutional capacity development.

• The evaluated consultancies show varying levels of integration with other ITCILO and ILO activities, with some demonstrating strong synergies while others operate with minimal connections to broader institutional initiatives yet in alignment with the Centre’s mandate and the ILO Policy or Enabling Outcomes.
• Rather than integration for its own sake, the emphasis is on strategic coherence. The consultancies largely demonstrate relevance and complementarity in advancing the ILO’s objectives.

• The evaluated consultancies demonstrate varied levels of synergy with other capacity development services, both within the Centre and with external partners.
• Such synergies can significantly enhance project value, particularly where expertise from different programmes is intentionally combined.
• Most consultancies continue to operate within individual programmes, with only three of the ten evaluated consultancies explicitly documenting cross-departmental collaboration in their methodology or implementation.
• While spontaneous collaboration occasionally occurs through personal networks or overlapping mandates, systematic mechanisms to foster, track, and reward such collaboration remain underdeveloped.
• Strengthening cross-programme integration, particularly through shared planning tools, joint consultancy design frameworks, and coordinated client engagement, represents a clear opportunity to enhance both efficiency and strategic coherence.

• Several consultancies contributed to specific SDGs, particularly SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).
• Many of the consultancies contain minimal information on alignment with broader UN system initiatives.

• Most consultancies achieved their primary objectives in terms of delivering agreed outputs, with substantial contributions to ILO's strategic outcomes.
• The consultancies supported a range of ILO priorities including "strong, representative and influential tripartite constituents and effective social dialogue," "full and productive employment for just transitions" (the most frequently addressed outcome), "sustainable enterprises for inclusive growth and decent work," "enhanced knowledge, innovation, cooperation and communication to advance social justice," and "improved leadership and governance."
• While the quality and completeness of deliverables varied across projects, most demonstrated clear alignment with these strategic outcomes.
• Objectives for the Centre strategy consultancies are typically co-developed with the client, though the degree of co-creation can vary depending on the consultancy type, institutional context, and pre-existing relationships. This collaborative approach ensures that objectives are not only aligned with institutional mandates and context but also increase the ownership and sustainability of the resulting outputs.

The evaluated consultancies demonstrate varying degrees of capacity strengthening outcomes, with most showing evidence of enhanced individual and institutional capabilities, though the depth and documentation of these outcomes varies across projects.

The limited information on differential effectiveness across beneficiary groups suggests this may be an area for improvement in the Centre's consultancy approach. More systematic analysis of how outcomes vary across different stakeholder groups could enhance understanding of consultancy impacts and guide future interventions.

• Common success factors across the initiatives included strong stakeholder engagement, committed leadership within client institutions, and effective alignment with sectoral or market-specific needs. Participatory approaches that fostered ownership and validation among diverse actors were particularly impactful.
• Projects also benefited from the availability and use of quality national data, standardised yet adaptable methodologies, and clarity of process design. Robust internal coordination, combined with timely technical support and capacity-building from external partners, further enabled successful implementation and sustained results.
• Common challenges across the initiatives included political instability and institutional transitions in client countries, which often disrupted continuity and decision-making.
• Technical and human capacity limitations within beneficiary institutions further constrained the implementation and sustainability of activities.
• Several projects experienced significant data related issues, including fragmentation, lack of disaggregation, and insufficient systems for evidence-based planning.
• Siloed institutional structures and overlapping mandates created coordination challenges, while weak mechanisms for follow-up and institutional learning reduced the long-term impact of workshops and advisory services.
• Financial constraints and technological barriers, such as inadequate digital infrastructure or limited access to necessary tools hampered both client institutions and the Centre’s capacity to maintain consistent engagement and support.

The evidence suggests that roles and responsibilities are generally well-defined across the consultancies, though the level of detail and formality varies.

• The implementation arrangements are generally well-structured across the consultancies, with phased approaches, clear methodologies, and regular client engagement.
• The consultancies are showing a range of approaches adapted to specific consultancy needs and contexts.

• The cross-programme coordination within the Centre varies significantly across consultancies, with some showing effective collaboration while others operate primarily within the individual programmes.
• For most consultancies, there is limited evidence of systematic cross-programme coordination within the Centre. Staff interviews generally indicated limited collaboration.

• Interviewees report that the Centre's resource allocation practices for strategy consultancies are generally pragmatic and responsive to project complexity. 
• While detailed budget data and efficiency metrics are inconsistently documented across projects, the evaluation identified emerging patterns and several examples of both effective allocation and operational challenges.
• Resource allocation practices appear to be well-adapted to the size, scope, and structure of each consultancy.
• Interviewees emphasized the flexibility of the Centre's internal systems which allows for timely contracting and budget management.
• Not all initiatives achieved optimal financial execution. In some cases, reallocation of budgets to other expenditure categories was noticed.
• Overall, resource allocation strategies were tailored to the specific needs and contexts of each project, rather than adhering to a standardized funding formula.
• Revenues generally covered or exceeded costs, with financial margins adjusted based on client characteristics and the type of services provided. This reflects a flexible and demand-responsive financial model where resources follow complexity allowing the Centre to maintain financial sustainability while delivering tailored advisory services.

• The documentation provides limited information on actual resource utilization during implementation of the consultancies. While planning documents outline intended resource allocation across projects, the evaluation found inconsistent tracking of how these resources were ultimately deployed.
• Staff interviews revealed diverse approaches to resource management demonstrating how the Centre's flexible administrative framework enables adaptation to project complexity.

• Available evidence suggests that many consultancies delivered strong value for investment based on the quality of deliverables, efficiency of execution, and positive client feedback.
• Despite these positive indications, staff interviews also revealed concerns about the underlying financial model for consultancies. Imbalance between time investment and financial return may reflect the  labour-intensive nature of consultancies, especially when accompanied by extensive co-design and follow-up.
• Although many consultancies appear to deliver strong value in terms of outputs and client satisfaction, the current financing structure may require review to ensure sustainability as the portfolio expands.

• The limited information on administrative processes suggests this may be an area that receives less attention in consultancy documentation and evaluation.
• The available evidence indicates generally functional administrative processes with some challenges in timely approvals, reporting, and accessing expertise.

The available evidence indicates opportunities for standardisation, better knowledge sharing, improved digital tools, and more effective in-person collaboration.

• Several institutional and contextual conditions emerged as critical for the long-term sustainability of strategy consultancies. While most consultancies delivered high-quality outputs and generated momentum for reform, some important gaps remain, either because they were beyond the scope of the consultancy or due to limited follow-up capacity on the client side.
• The documentation of these risks and gaps was uneven across consultancies. While some final reports included structured risk assessments or recommendations for post-project action, others lacked detail on unresolved issues or institutional responsibilities. This variability underscores the need for more systematic approaches to exit strategies, sustainability planning, and client follow-up.

Many consultancies incorporated mechanisms for replication and scale-up, particularly where methodologies were standardized and designed for broader application.

• Several of the strategy consultancies contributed to broader policy change, institutional strengthening, and improvements in service delivery.
• The lasting impact of these consultancies was most evident where they were embedded into national policy frameworks, underpinned by strong institutional ownership and supported by scalable tools and processes.
• Not all consultancies reached this level of durability. Some faced limitations due to insufficient follow-up, political volatility, or constrained resources, highlighting the need for more systematic sustainability planning across the portfolio.

• Strategy consultancies generally receive positive feedback from stakeholders, though clients identified a few areas for improvement at the institutional level, including stronger coordination with ILO country offices, clearer communication of service offerings beyond training, and more robust documentation of outputs.
• Consultancy benefits were widely reported across projects, with client testimonials highlighting satisfaction with the Centre’s technical support, adaptability, and relevance of outputs.
• Institutional capacity improvements were most clearly evidenced in projects with measurable outcomes.

• Impact pathways were strongest where consultancy outputs were systematically integrated into organizational operations.
• Client ownership emerged as a critical driver, particularly in cases where institutions independently expanded or adapted the Centre-developed tools.
• Despite notable successes in technical delivery and stakeholder engagement, institutional integration of consultancy outputs was uneven across the portfolio. While some projects saw clear adoption of tools, frameworks, and strategies within client institutions, others remained at the planning or pilot stage, hindered by structural constraints or a lack of follow-through mechanisms.
• Several patterns demonstrate how institutional readiness, coordination mechanisms, and external environments significantly influence sustainability outcomes regardless of technical quality. Many barriers were predictable, highlighting the need for more robust implementation planning and risk assessment during design phases.
• the variability in integration reflects a deeper need for institutional readiness assessments, context-sensitive delivery strategies, and more deliberate planning for post-project sustainability. Future consultancies should include structured approaches to stakeholder capacity, political economy analysis, and integration risk, ensuring that outputs not only respond to demand but are also deliverable and maintainable within the institutional realities of the client.