In an international cooperation project or an evaluation mission, one often receives an incomplete Terms of Reference (ToR) the day before a steering committee meeting. Vague objectives, an overflowing scope, poorly defined deliverables: the document meant to frame the mission becomes the first source of blockage. Writing a solid project ToR is like laying the tracks before launching the train.
RACI Matrix in a ToR: Clarifying Responsibilities Before Launch
Guides on terms of reference detail the sections to be filled out. However, the distribution of responsibilities among stakeholders remains the point that derails field missions: poorly allocated responsibilities among stakeholders. There are ToRs where three different people think they are responsible for validating the final report, without any of them being explicitly designated.
You may also like : How to Write a Lease Agreement for Commercial Premises?
Integrating a RACI matrix directly into the ToR solves this problem. For each deliverable or key task, four roles are assigned: Responsible (who executes), Approver (who validates), Consulted (who gives input), Informed (who receives information). The systematic adoption of dynamic RACI matrices in ToRs helps reduce project failures, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa where delays due to unclear responsibilities are still common.
It is recommended to make this matrix adaptable: roles can change between the diagnostic phase and the restitution phase. Specifying this dynamic in the ToR avoids governance conflicts during the mission. To better understand how to create a project ToR with this level of detail, one should think of the document as a management tool, not as an administrative formality.
Further reading : How to Apply to the University of Poitiers: Key Steps for a Successful Application
Writing Specific Objectives of a ToR: The Field Method
A ToR with an objective like “improve local governance” does not allow anyone to work. The project team does not know what is concretely expected, and the final evaluation becomes a rhetorical exercise.
Each specific objective must describe an observable result. Starting from the field situation: what change do we want to see at the end of the mission? Formulating in terms of concrete deliverables forces precision.
Differentiating General Objective and Operational Objectives
The general objective provides the strategic direction. The specific objectives describe measurable results. Confusion between the two levels is common in poorly written ToRs.
- The general objective answers “why this mission exists” (for example: strengthening the budget monitoring capacities of a local authority)
- The specific objectives answer “what deliverables or concrete changes are expected” (training 15 agents on the monitoring tool, producing a methodological guide validated by the technical committee)
- Result indicators, associated with each specific objective, allow for unambiguous verification of achievement at the end of the mission
This distinction seems basic. In practice, we still see project ToRs funded by international donors where the general objective and operational objectives are confused in a single line.
Sustainability Clauses and Risk Management in a ToR
Since the revision of Regulation (EU) 2021/241 on the recovery and resilience mechanism, ToRs funded by the EU must integrate environmental sustainability clauses. This is no longer optional: a ToR without an environmental component can be rejected at the assessment stage.
At the same time, risk management in a ToR is no longer limited to financial risks. In Southeast Asia, terms of reference now include mandatory climate risk management protocols, marking a divergence from Western standards that are still focused on the budgetary aspect. This trend is gradually gaining ground in Francophone projects.
What to Include in the Risk Section
The risk section of an effective ToR is not just a copy-paste table from a previous project. We identify the risks specific to the mission, assess their probability and impact, and plan operational mitigation measures.
- Calendar-related risks: rainy season, election periods, unavailability of institutional interlocutors
- Methodological risks: non-existent baseline data, limited access to intervention areas, sampling bias
- Governance risks: change of interlocutor during the mission, validation blocked by a level not foreseen in the RACI
- Environmental risks: carbon impact of field deployment, compliance with donor requirements on sustainability
Feedback varies on this point depending on the donors. Some require a detailed risk analysis from the ToR, while others ask for it in the inception report. Checking the terms of the call before writing avoids unnecessary work.
Scope and Deliverables of the ToR: Setting Boundaries from the Start
A ToR without a clear scope generates scope creep: the mission gradually expands, resources no longer keep up, and the final report is delayed. Defining what is out of scope is as useful as listing what is included.
The ToR specifies the expected deliverables with their format (Word report, PowerPoint presentation, database), their approximate volume, and their submission timeline. For each deliverable, it indicates who validates and within what timeframe. Without this precision, the restitution phase drags on.
Budget and Resources in the Terms of Reference
The resources section of the ToR outlines the human, logistical, and financial means mobilized. It mentions the composition of the project team, the profiles sought, the estimated number of working days, and planned travel. The budget can be included in the ToR or in an annex document depending on the donor’s practices.
A well-written ToR protects both the client and the service provider. It sets a reference framework that can be invoked in case of disagreement over the scope or the quality of deliverables. When one invests two days in drafting a structured ToR, one often saves ten in negotiations and amendments during the mission.