Auditing of Development Projects: The Monitoring Paradox

"Vision building and sharing precipitates multiple and mutual centres of responsibilities" - Syed Ayub Qutub, Teacher, Mentor par execllance

Quality assurance entails the understanding of multiple and mutual stakes and rights

Introduction and background

Monitoring is an essential part of every organisation be it an institution or a development project, and any management structure in the set up is incomplete, and sometimes useless, without the monitoring element. Yet, monitoring has been considered to be one of the most neglected and least understood areas of management activity. Some people feel organisational monitoring is a necessary nuisance, a kind of costly managerial activity needed in the present world of uncertainty, especially in Pakistan. The universal opinion, however, is that timely feedback is crucial to the success of any organisation or project.

Many people use monitoring in different contexts and the word itself appears to be a threatening word for many. There is a general feeling that freedom is good and monitoring is bad. But this is a misconception. In terms of management pertaining to an organisation or development project, monitoring has an entirely different meaning. monitoring and evaluation through efficient mechanisms is the essence of good management and is concerned with ascertaining that planning, organising, and directing functions result in the attainment of development objectives.

Monitoring precipitates unfavourable decisions and their consequences, and restores development and efficiency, especially when done with a consultative and participatory approach involving all stakeholders. Well-defined proactive monitoring (and evaluation) is an effective counterpart to planning even though it may often appear that planning is glamorous and monitoring is annoying. Without such mechanisms, planning becomes merely a dream. Planning and monitoring are so entwined that it becomes difficult to determine where one leaves off and the other begins. In fact, planning without corresponding internal and external monitoring is apt to hollow hopes.

In development assistance projects, many people at different levels in the management chain use the term 'monitoring' with a variety of connotations. Donor agencies, team leaders, consultants, financial specialists and accountants use it, each viewing monitoring from different angles. This is because the term 'monitoring' has a serious shortcoming of having different meanings at different contexts. However, in development project scenarios its usage is limited to the task of evaluating performance and taking necessary and (timely) corrective actions for the purpose of achieving project objectives. The requirement of monitoring is generally recognised in this sense but unfortunately the implementation of the monitoring function is (often) inappropriate and archaic almost to the extent of becoming negative. This is why it is now necessary to review past practices of achieving monitoring of development projects.

Monitoring and evaluation of development projects in Pakistan

Traditionally in Pakistan, the scope of "monitoring & evaluation" of projects has been restricted to time bound field visits while attempting to review progress made by projects over large execution/implementation time spans. In such situations the monitors & evaluators become unintentionally alienated from the project in terms of the real-time circumstances through which the project has had to steer itself. This creates an unnecessary and troublesome barrier to the desired level of information flow, which is crucial for a fair and accurate report. This situation further leads to an unwarranted and deteriorated level of communication, poor understanding of circumstances, and a disturbed development harmony, often at the cost of the beneficiary institution. In such monitoring scenarios the reporting efficiency is further reduced if monitoring teams only comprise of foreigners that are by definition unfamiliar with the local culture and traditional work practices. Furthermore, these professionals miss out on important aspects surrounding facts since the discussions and interviews are often limited to just the English language.

Pakistan has a number of reputable donor agencies engaged in the business of development assistance programmes through grants. This intervention either takes the shape of institutional building, infrastructure enhancement, technical assistance or any combination of the three. Experience has shown that pure institutional strengthening projects often find themselves in problems and as a result planned objectives become long in the coming or in most cases are completely lost. Such unproductive interventions not only cost a lot of money but are also expensive in terms of consumed human resources and time, not to mention the pessimistic feelings that creep up when new projects are being formulated.

A case can be argued that such inadequacies are the result of inappropriate formulation, or tendering processes based on over ambitious formulation, or inadequate planning and resource utilisation. A case can even be made mentioning the inappropriate level of counterpart (beneficiary) involvement, support or facilitation. However, one must not forget that it is often inefficient monitoring that contributes to the incomplete delivery of projects. Old and archaic monitoring styles have proved, time and again, to be ineffective and disabling to the project processes and thus the delivery of goals. Furthermore, even well structured M&E activities will fail if they are spaced too far apart or are introduced late into the implementation of a project.

Thus, it is clear that past and current practices of external monitoring and evaluation of development assistance projects in Pakistan need a radical change in terms of strengthening of systems and consistency of efforts. Monitoring and evaluation for the new century must be dynamic, timely, and most importantly, process enabling. This new approach will improve upon the quality of monitoring and will also improve communication between all stakeholders, since improper communication often causes more damage to working relationships than one cares to imagine, and thus deteriorates the effectiveness of monitoring. Proactive interventions of this nature will bring across the role of the M&E system (and thus its Team) as an important stakeholder in the overall project scenario.

In the final analysis, knowing the project and therefore arming one self with the equipment to make correct choices concerning all aspects of the project and it's impact is not something simply acquired.

It is not simply a matter of answering questionnaires, adding up finances and drawing flattering conclusions. Project-knowledge is a process that continues as long as the project is alive. In fact, this is applicable to its inception, implementation, completion, and quite often post-harvest period.

One should always be aware of the fundamental changes in project-life that will affect its execution and successful completion, and should therefore be prepared to make sensible and timely interventions.

Such interventions involve keeping the project activities and functions on right track and aligned with plans and goals. In other words, monitoring systems are closely linked to the planning function of project management at every level. After project goals are translated into plans, the plans are translated into specific tasks for designated individuals and groups. The monitoring structure then monitors the specific activities of individual team members and groups working towards the delivery of the goals and objective. Of course, without an adequate set of controls, the best-laid plans of project managers will inevitably go astray. Monitoring activities, therefore, must be consistent with project planning and aware of the frame conditions in which the project is embedded.

With the present set up and configuration of demand driven development assistance to Pakistan it is now high time for the introduction of an enabling approach in external monitoring and evaluation. Stakeholders should work with specialist organisations that deliver this level of monitoring and evaluation with the highest integrity and quality.

The methodology proposed draws heavily on valuable M&E experiences of auditing development projects sponsored by Netherlands Embassy in Pakistan, especially in the private sector. The underlying approach, especially in the use of SWPO[1] based interviews and participatory workshops, has proved useful in airing problems, finding solutions to the problems, and in improving communication within the project and amongst key stakeholders. Most importantly the approach has facilitated an increased ownership of projects amongst stakeholders.

Of course the application of any such methodology has to be culture specific for regions, countries and more importantly for the individual organisation. Eventually specific variants of the approach have been developed for Pakistan to improve upon the quality of monitoring and evaluation.

[1] SWPO – Strengths, Weaknesses, Potentials and Obstacles