Preconditions for Achieving Desired Sustainability in Development Projects in Pakistan
This is an article that I wrote 23 years ago; unfortunately, it remains relevant.
The word precondition suggests a checklist of "the DOs and DON'Ts". So maybe it will help if I sermonise my presentation and keep it focused on monitoring. I hope you will bear with me in this regard. There are four aspects that should be addressed to achieve the desired level of sustainability:
Inculcation of a sense of ownership;
Restructuring of the beneficiary organisation;
Improvement in the approach towards project management and execution, and;
Project monitoring.
1. Inculcation of a sense of ownership
To say that we need to increase ownership of projects would be unfair and misleading. My experience has been that counterpart organisations rarely display ownership. In most cases, it is simply not there. The question of who is to blame can easily be answered by the cliché "it takes two hands to clap" or "it takes two to communicate".
The lesson to be learnt here is that ownership must be inculcated at all levels and without exception. The best approach to take at the very beginning and nurture it throughout the project life.
What this means is that all staff members of the beneficiary organisation, all members of "the competent authority" that steer that entity, and all the allied departments that are affected by the outputs, are involved in conceiving the project. We all must have a clear understanding of the objective and purpose of the undertaking before preparing the planning documents.
In this way, they can fully grasp what is expected of them, both individually and collectively, to achieve the desired result, and are therefore in a position to completely commit to undertaking a difficult task.
Difficult because it may well mean a change in the way they think, behave and operate. If projects, start with addressing a change in the mentality of the organisation then you have already made a difference.
On the other hand, the implementing or executing agency (i.e. consultants) must go out of their way in facilitating the problem analysis and in identifying the key pivotal areas where a change may be required. The consultants must realise that; a project, formulated on a need basis, has a far better chance of success rather than one, which is formulated to cater to different agendas.
Consultants should become the change agent rather than the change itself.
Always work in conjunction with your counterparts, even if it means adjusting the speed of development to that of the target group. Don't forget it is their development that is important. At no point in time should we become so output-oriented that we start working in isolation because very soon you will have people saying "Oh! It is their project, not ours. Why should we now do this or that!" The gap that emerges will only widen and will, therefore, require a lot more time and effort to bridge and more often than you would care to imagine, the damage is beyond repair. Animosities and prejudices are the natural enemies of ownership.
An important aspect of project execution that has often been seen to undermine development objectives and therefore threatens the ownership is the creation of mini-kingdoms. At no point in time should the beneficiary organisation become so well endowed with high tech equipment, furniture and fixtures that it becomes a bone of contention with the other stakeholders in the game. Frontloading of projects just does not provide a useful motivational base.
Modest projects, housed within the organisation, and those that suffer the same difficulties as the rest of the staff members, have a better chance of being accepted and thus a more than average chance of succeeding. If you improve your working environment, do so for the rest of the organisation as well.
Buy cars, equipment and furniture locally. This practice not only makes the whole thing more sustainable but also, at the same time minimises the number of people that will try and jockey themselves into a position that would allow them to take over the "goodies" so to speak.
2. Restructuring of the beneficiary organisation
A change in the way an organisation functions may very well necessitate a change in the way the entity is structured. Before bringing about any improvements in organisational structure, be very sure to consult the authorities on the magnitude and the nature of the proposed change.
Many times you may find that what you thought a simple restructuring meant a lot of trouble in getting done because the change would require a modification of the overall government rules. Now, that is something that you simply cannot do at the implementation stage unless it’s the first aspect that you tackle. Of course, the required reorganisation should have been part of the project design; if it wasn't - don't do it - rather, it would be wise to concentrate on coming up with viable proposals and presenting change possibilities and options. Let the beneficiary organisation make the final selection from your list of "choices" and with the full knowledge of the pros and cons that such choices entail. Being solution-oriented in this regard has a fair chance of success.
In short work within the rules. Leave "changing the rules" activity to the proper authorities.
Another aspect of restructuring that does not get the required attention or is done too late - meaning after the introduction of new technology is the reinvestment in staff capabilities and capacities. Always look for ways to invest in the skills of your team. This approach and mentality inculcates a better sense of respect for each other and thus goes a long way in the development assistance program.
3. Improvement in the approach towards project management and execution
Throughout the project life, work on identifying staff members that have management capabilities and continually invest in developing the required skills that would enable such team members to become leaders. I do realise that often we are quite often burdened with weak or unprofessional managers; do not try and push or massage them out because this will not work. You will only create more problems for yourself than you care to imagine. Furthermore, you will create lobbies that will undermine the project. Rather you should still keep that person in the programme and try and set his/her workload to remote activities of the project. At no time should you get involved in power politics!
Synchronise planning; report writing and documentation with the formats and time frame of the counterpart organisation. Bridge the gap between the various report forms and formats required and produce them jointly, even if it means sitting with the concerned authority and painstakingly going through the subject point by point. If you prepare documents in isolation, these will never be shared or owned by the counterpart staff, either in concept or context.
4. Project monitoring
The past and current practices of external monitoring of development assistance projects in Pakistan must change. Over the last fifty years, we have implemented projects in a variety of themes and sectors, and, have also conducted a variety of external monitoring. However, the conventional approach to the surveillance of projects must change. The methodology must improve and mature to a holistic and inclusive approach; doing so would enable the adoption of systems and practices that are proactive, consultative, interactive and participatory (CIP) monitoring. This CIP approach will improve the quality of monitoring and will also enhance communication between all concerned parties; improper communication often causes more damage to working relationships than one cares to imagine, and thus deteriorates the effectiveness of monitoring.
In the final analysis, knowing the project and therefore arming oneself with the ability to make correct choices concerning all aspects of the project and its impacts is not something easily acquired. It is not merely 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 applies to its inception, implementation, completion, and quite often to the 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 practical and timely interventions. Simply put, external monitoring and evaluation activities should be participatory and should address all issues related to project execution, completion and impact; the most important issues being:
Project inception and planning (starting out);
Initiation (getting established);
Execution (consolidating, staying on course, and midlife turbulence);
Institutional linkages, quality of networking and communication (impact);
Duplication of initiatives and ideas;
Human resources development (impact);
Completion and handing over (retirement).
In my opinion, biannual monitoring is more favourable than either mid-term reviews or annual reviews. To support my statement, I quote Professor C. Northcote Parkinson, the author of "Parkinson's Law":
"The person who has become devoted to paperwork has lost his initiative. He is dealing with things that are brought to his notice, having ceased to notice anything for himself. He has been essentially defeated in his job".
We need to get out there more often than you think it necessary. The reality of a project situation is not visible from a distance. Sometimes this is not even visible to the very people involved in the project execution. Coming in to visit the project and evaluate its' progress annually or halfway into its' life is not the best way. Monitors are not able to grasp everything they read see and hear in a short span of just ten to fifteen days; even if this was achieved it takes an impressive level of effort and work. By coming in twice a year, you decrease the annual distance and become more productive. Recommendations made biannually are more doable and thus sustainable. One year down the line recommending structural or operational changes is sometimes just too late.
The new approach to monitoring can install an early warning system that will help circumvent possible disasters. Furthermore, this brings to light a significant role of monitors, which is to perform a mirror function to the project.
Lastly, the role of a monitor in the project scenario is that of a stakeholder and thus, monitoring should also include solution-oriented interventions and recommendations.
To conclude, I have this to say:
Get into the system and get to know it well. Don't fight it for it does not pay to do so. Adopt the "worm’s eye view" rather than just the "birds-eye view". Improve the system from within not from the outside.
To this, I would like to add the following words of wisdom of Mr Harold Geneen, a former Chief of I.T&T:
"I think it is an immutable law of business that words are words, explanations are explanations, promises are promises - but only performance is reality"
I will welcome any comments and feedback on this article as an enabling gesture. Therefore please feel free to do so – it will be appreciated. I can be reached at tawawalla@gmail.com
