132. To address these concerns, we aim to do the following during the strategy period: the APRM. No country has undergone the follow-on review that is supposed to take place two years after the base review. It is almost natural that even the type of data will be different between the base review and any subsequent reviews; the latter will be simpler and easier to administer. So this issue needs to be approached with care. Having said that the need to simplify and further rationalise the selfassessment questionnaire is particularly a real and pressing one. As such a revision of this otherwise vital document needs to be one of the priority tasks for us to take on. (i) Prepare and submit for approval to the APRM Committee of Focal Points detailed terms of reference, along with human resource and budgetary requirements, for such unit to be established within the APRM Secretariat; (ii) Recruit appropriate experts and launch the unit; (iii) Develop new tools and approaches for followup, monitoring and evaluation, submit for approval and implement once approved; 134. One thing the APRM has that others do not is comprehensive and up-to-date information and analysis about national policies and practices of governance in all four thematic areas. Properly utilised, the potential opportunities that emanate from this APRM niche are highly significant. A proper utilisation of this resource needs to be guided by a well-thought strategy. (iv) Publish the first M&E reports; (v) As indicated elsewhere, develop in-house capacity to monitor and report on the actions taken by reviewed countries in respect of specific recommendations; (vi) Launch research and analytical work, which may be done in house or through qualified external consultants; 135. We are in the fortunate position that we have a draft knowledge management strategy in place (from November 2015) and a knowledge management division has already been established. Much of this section draws on the key recommendations of the knowledge management strategy. (vii) Present analytical reports and their recommendations for consultations before relevant APRM organs, including the APRM Committee of Focal Points and the APRM Panel; and (viii) Submit consensus proposals that emerge from these consultative exercises, if any, to the appropriate decision making body should such become necessary. 136. With the above thoughts in mind, the action points to achieve the desired outcomes include: (i) Revise and/or update, as necessary, and implement the Knowledge Management and Communications (KM&C) Strategy (NB: implementation of KM&C strategy would effectively mean implementation of most of the action points outlined below); Outcome 6: Enhancement of Research & Development Capacity and Improvement of Operational Tools 133. The experience with the 17 completed country review processes and published reports shows the enormity and complexity of the APRM review exercise. It is highly resource intensive, exceptionally detailed and comprehensive, and some of the requirements are difficult to implement. This has led to calls for simplification of the review exercise, including revision and simplification of the self-assessment questionnaire, and in some cases even limiting the scope of the reviews to some, and not all, of the four thematic areas. The call is understandable, but the context needs to be appreciated properly. The experience so far is limited to what is often called the base review – i.e. the very first review of countries that have joined (ii) Undertake a comprehensive review of all the documents, including the country selfassessment questionnaire, and accompanying processes with a view to simplifying the review exercise and injecting a degree of efficiency without compromising the quantity and quality of necessary data and analysis needed in order for the APRM to achieve its objectives; (iii) Progressively increase the amount of reviewrelated work, including the preparation of issue papers in different thematic areas, conducted by APRM Secretariat staff and proportionately decrease the amount carried out by external consultants; –28–