Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning (MEL) Lead

Position: Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning (MEL) Lead — The Global Risks Forum (GRF) / Nexus Governance System
Type: Governance performance measurement, learning loops, and correction accountability role (non-executive; strictly non-executing)
Board: Officers may be considered for Board/Trustee nomination after serving in good standing (where permitted by governance rules and independence constraints)
Location: International (distributed, hybrid)
Term: 3 Years
Time commitment: ~12–25 hours per month (build-year cadence; surge periods around quarterly cycle close, public reporting, and major corrections)
Apply here: https://therisk.global/work/job/monitoring-evaluation-learning-mel-lead/

Context and Purpose

Standards and recognition systems earn trust when they can prove they work: decisions close on time, disputes are fair and predictable, corrections happen transparently, and recognition maintains meaning over time. Without measurement, governance becomes performative. Without learning loops, errors repeat and legitimacy decays.

The Global Risks Forum (GRF) stewards the standards-and-recognition pillar of the Nexus governance system: recognition states, conformance levels, evidence quality levels, claim rules, dispute clocks, and due-process discipline. GRF must be able to measure its own governance performance—cycle time, procedural integrity, correction quality, participation legitimacy, and enforcement consistency—without turning measurement into surveillance or compromising safety.

The MEL Lead is accountable for GRF’s performance and learning system: defining metrics, producing quarterly reporting packs (public-safe + restricted), running retrospectives, and converting lessons into instrument changes, process improvements, and training—so GRF improves over time and can demonstrate trustworthiness under scrutiny.

This is governance—not execution. The role does not evaluate countries, grade governments, or run program performance audits for external parties. It measures GRF’s governance system performance and learning.

Key Responsibilities

• Define and maintain GRF’s governance KPI framework: cycle time, closure quality, dispute SLA performance, correction timeliness, enforcement consistency, participation health, and concentration/capture indicators.
• Produce quarterly MEL packs: public-safe report plus restricted operational annex (where required), with trend tracking and clear corrective actions.
• Maintain measurement integrity: clear definitions, consistent collection, and avoidance of misleading precision.
• Run quarterly learning loops: retrospectives after recognition cycles, dispute clusters, and major enforcement events; identify root causes and recurring failure modes.
• Convert lessons into improvements: propose instrument revisions, SOP changes, training updates, and tooling improvements; track adoption and effectiveness.
• Maintain a “corrections ledger” for governance: what was corrected, why, what changed, and how the correction propagated.
• Monitor representation legitimacy and participation health: seat completion, attendance, contribution quality, geographic/constituency balance, and fatigue risk.
• Monitor integrity risk indicators: sponsor concentration, COI hotspots, recusal rates, enforcement delays, and claims misuse patterns.
• Support membership growth by identifying where the participation model is failing and proposing fixes that preserve neutrality and independence.
• Coordinate with Secretariat, Records/Register, COI/Ethics, Safeguards, and Communications Integrity functions to ensure measurement is consistent, safe, and actionable.
• Ensure safe publication posture for metrics: avoid exposing sensitive participants, creating perverse incentives, or revealing exploitable vulnerabilities.
• Maintain “stop-the-line” escalation triggers when governance performance falls below minimum thresholds (e.g., repeated missed dispute clocks, systemic record defects).

Compensation, Remuneration, and Expenses

• Governance authority is not paid. Compensation is never linked to recognition outcomes, dispute results, enforcement actions, standards outcomes, market outcomes, or influence.
• Operational workload may be compensated (where permitted). If build-year operational work is required (KPI design, reporting pack production, retrospectives), any compensation must be scoped, deliverable-based, independently approved, auditable, and never linked to recognition outcomes or enforcement decisions.
• Expenses may be reimbursed where documented, pre-approved, and policy-compliant.
• Continued service depends on remaining in good standing and meeting disclosure and integrity obligations.

Opportunities for Leaders to Join

• Build the performance and learning spine of a global standards-and-recognition institution designed to improve transparently over time.
• Institutionalize correction discipline: not “post-mortems,” but durable fixes that prevent repeated failure modes.
• Help a whole-of-society forum demonstrate legitimacy with measurable governance performance—not claims.
• Strong performance positions leaders for senior stewardship roles and board consideration (without implying entitlement).

Leaders Profile

We are seeking senior leaders (typically 10–20+ years) with credibility across one or more of:

• Monitoring and evaluation leadership in high-scrutiny institutions, standards bodies, or complex governance systems.
• Performance measurement frameworks, operational excellence, or governance analytics.
• Learning systems design: retrospectives, root-cause analysis, and continuous improvement operations.
• Audit-linked reporting and disclosure governance (public-safe measurement under constraints).

Capabilities and Mindset

• Measurement integrity: precise definitions, consistency, and avoidance of misleading metrics.
• Correction-positive: treats errors as inputs to institutional improvement with traceable fixes.
• Systems improvement orientation: identifies root causes and closes loops, not just reports problems.
• Handling maturity: knows what should not be published and how to report safely.
• Strong writing: produces clear, decision-driving reports rather than dense dashboards.

Eligibility, Membership, and Independence

• Holds a primary role outside the officer seat (unless otherwise permitted) and can sustain the expected cadence.
• Willing to fully disclose relevant interests and comply with conflict-of-interest and recusal requirements.
• Not placed in a situation where service creates unmanageable conflicts or compromises neutrality.
• Accepts confidentiality, handling discipline, and communications integrity expectations.
• Commits to remain in good standing (participation, disclosures, and applicable contribution obligations).