Open Rubric

© 2019 University of South Africa

All rights reserved

Printed and published by the

University of South Africa
Muckleneuk, Pretoria

DVA2601/1/2020–2024

70731357

InDesign

HSY_Style
 CONTENTS

Page

OVERVIEW OF THE MODULE vii

Learning unit 1: INTRODUCTION TO DEVELOPMENT PLANNING 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.2 PROJECTS AND PROGRAMMES 1
1.2.1 The relationship between projects, programmes, policy
and planning 2
1.3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND THE PROJECT
MANAGER 3
1.3.1 The development facilitator 6
1.4 THE PROJECT ENVIRONMENT 6
1.5 THE PROJECT CYCLE AND ITS PHASES 9
1.5.1 PHASE 1: The initial decision to engage in planning
and the creation of an organisational framework 10
1.5.2 PHASE 2: The identification of planning objectives and
targets 10
1.5.3 PHASE 3: Data collection and processing 10
1.5.4 PHASE 4: Identifying alternative courses of action 11
1.5.5 PHASE 5: Appraising plans and projects 11
1.5.6 PHASE 6: Implementation 11
1.5.7 PHASE 7: Monitoring and evaluation 11
1.6 A COMPOSITE VIEW OF THE PROJECT SEQUENCE 14
1.7 CONCLUSION 17
1.8 OUTCOMES CHECKLIST 18
1.9 READING TO CONSULT FOR THE UNIT 18

Learning unit 2: PROJECT PLANNING 19

2.1 INTRODUCTION 19
2.2 APPROACHES TO PROJECT PLANNING 20
2.3 BLUEPRINT PLANNING APPROACH 22
2.3.1 Using the logical framework in blueprint planning 22
2.3.1.1 The logical framework 22
2.3.1.2 Key elements of the logical framework 23
2.3.1.3 Critique of a blueprint approach 25
2.3.2 Project management failure in Africa’s blueprint projects 26
2.4 THE ADAPTIVE (PARTICIPATORY) APPROACH
TO PROJECT PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION 29
2.4.1 Development of an adaptive approach to project planning 29
2.4.2 Criticism of adaptive approach 30
2.5 CONCLUSION 34
2.6 OUTCOMES CHECKLIST 34
2.7 READING TO CONSULT FOR THE UNIT 34

DVA2601/1/2020–2024 (iii)
 Learning unit 3: INFORMATION AND DATA COLLECTION 35
3.1 INTRODUCTION 35
3.2 DATA AND INFORMATION 36
3.2.1 The need for information 36
3.2.2 Information for project design and appraisal 37
3.2.3 Information for managing development projects 38
3.2.4 Information for evaluating development projects 38
3.3 POLITICS OF KNOWLEDGE AND
KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION 39
3.3.1 Indigenous knowledge as a source of information 40
3.3.2 Techniques for collecting data 43
3.3.2.1 Interviews 45
3.3.2.2 Focus groups 45
3.3.2.3 Questionnaires 46
3.3.2.4 Direct observation 46
3.3.2.5 Documentary research 46
3.3.2.6 Key informant approaches 47
3.4 PARTICIPATORY METHODS OF DATA
COLLECTION AND RESEARCH 47
3.4.1 Principles of participatory methodologies 47
3.4.2 Rapid rural appraisal (RRA) and participatory rural
appraisal (PRA) 48
3.4.3 Participatory learning and action 49
3.4.3.1 PRA through the prism of critique 50
3.4.3.2 SARAR 51
3.4.3.3 Beneficiary Assessment 51
3.5 CONCLUSION 51
3.6 OUTCOMES CHECKLIST 52
3.7 READINGS TO CONSULT FOR THE UNIT

Learning unit 4: APPRAISAL TECHNIQUES 53

4.1 INTRODUCTION 53
4.2 NEEDS ASSESSMENT 53
4.3 CONSIDERING VIABILITY 54
4.4 APPRAISING PROJECTS 55
4.5 THE APPRAISAL TECHNIQUES 56
4.5.1 Cost Benefit Analysis 56
4.5.2 Social Impact Assessment 59
4.5.3 Environmental Impact Assessment 63
4.6 GENERAL COMMENTS ON ASSESSMENT
TECHNIQUES 65
4.7 CONCLUSION 66
4.8 OUTCOMES CHECKLIST 67
4.9 READING TO CONSULT FOR THE UNIT 67
(iv)
 Learning unit 5: MONITORING AND EVALUATION 68
5.1 INTRODUCTION 68
5.2 ASSESSMENT, MONITORING AND EVALUATION 68
5.3 MONITORING AND EVALUATION 69
5.4 OBJECTIVES OF MONITORING 70
5.5 OBJECTIVES OF EVALUATIONS 71
5.6 TYPES OF EVALUATION 71
5.6.1 Ongoing evaluation 71
5.6.2 Self-evaluation 72
5.6.3 Ex post evaluation 72
5.7 THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MONITORING
AND EVALUATION 72
5.8 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLANNING,
MONITORING AND EVALUATION 73
5.9 PROJECT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 73
5.10 PARTICIPATION 74
5.10.1 Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) 75
5.10.2 PM&E in a project cycle 76
5.10.3 Problems with participatory monitoring and evaluation 76
5.11 CONCLUSION 78
5.12 OUTCOMES CHECK LIST 79
5.13 READING TO CONSULT FOR THE UNIT 79

BIBLIOGRAPHY 80
ANNEXURES 81

DVA2601/1 (v)
 OVERVIEW OF THE MODULE

i) INTRODUCTION
Welcome to DVA2601 – Development Projects and Programmes! The purpose of
the module is for you to gain insight into projects and programmes as instruments
of development. The study guide provides you with the fundamental tools, skills and
techniques needed to define, plan, implement and evaluate projects and programmes.

ii) MODULE OUTCOMES

After completing this module, we expect you to be able to
• demonstrate an understanding of the interrelationship of projects, programmes
and managers in development
• evaluate the benefits and restrictions of blueprint models in project management
• demonstrate an integrated understanding of information gathering for development
projects
• analyse techniques that appraise development projects
• explain the goals for monitoring and evaluating development projects

iii) WHAT TO EXPECT FROM THE STUDY GUIDE

The study guide is divided into five units and each unit consists of the
following:
• Unit specific outcomes – these are the things you should be able to do and
understand once you have worked through the unit.
• The content in each of the units gives you information about the focus topic in
the unit.
• Activities are intended to help you engage actively with your study material and
your environment. You will also notice that we suggest how much time you
should spend on each activity. This is simply a rough estimate to help you plan
the time you spend on your studies.
• The checklist of outcomes at the end of each unit will help you determine whether
you have gained as much as possible from your reading of the unit. Where relevant,
additional reading material might be sought.
• Icons on the left-hand side of a page that inform you of the kind of activity you
will be working on. We have used the following icons:

This icon indicates the beginning of the outcomes contained in

each unit.

This icon indicates that you need to do some extra reading, usually
from your prescribed reading available on e-reserves, a catalogue
of the Unisa Library.

DVA2601/1 (vii)
 The pencil indicates that you have to write down ideas or
information.

This indicates that you have to look and listen to a video clip.

iv) USE OF VIDEOS AND POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS IN THIS

MODULE
On the last page of this guide you will find a list entitled: ‘‘Electronic sources for use by students’’.
This list contains ten items that are either video clips or PowerPoint presentations.
In the text of the study guide reference is made to the video clips or presentations,
often in the context of activities and/or assignments. Youare required to look and listen
to these electronic contributions as part of your study.

To make life easier, and with the permission of the copyright holders, the ten podcasts
are copied on a DVD disc, which is provided to you with the study guide. Simply
slip the disc into an appropriate device then look and listen.

Find these activities at the LOOK and LISTEN icon in the text.

v) PREVIEW OF THE MODULE

Having completed the first-year modules in Development Studies you will know
how complex and multi-faceted development is. Development is much more than
providing services to meet the needs of people. People are much more than their
needs: they are first of all human beings with capabilities, some inherited with their
genes and some acquired through observation, education and training. They are
therefore not just passive receivers of things but should also be doers of their own
development.

However, the world consists of rich and poor, of haves and have-nots. Some of the
rich people and rich nations feel altruistic (being selfless and wanting to help with
noble intentions) or simply feel guilty because they are rich and others are poor, and
therefore provide development aid. On the other hand, we have the have-nots, some
of whom are so defeated they would seem like they live in passivity (in some post-
colonial states, structural inequalities are such that the poor remain at the bottom
with no hope and this would seem like a passive way of living), while others cultivate
a culture of demand and entitlement, while still others go out and do small personal
and community development activities. Kelvin Doe from Sierra Leone is one example
of a young person who went out and did something for his community. At age 13,
Kelvin taught himself engineering and built a radio station where he would
broadcast news and play music. Visit this link to see Kelvin and his work: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOLOLrUBRBY.

There are reasons for helping the poor or the less advantaged: in international politics
development aid programmes are meant to buy influence or to show to another state
its goodwill toward its people. Multinational and local big companies also help the
poor by providing funding for programmes and projects; sometimes they are altruistic
but most often they have ulterior motives and use the funding as advertising or to
buy goodwill from government and local communities (see Mushenga 2012).

(viii)
 Overview of the module

vi) WHAT WE EXPECT OF YOU AS A STUDENT IN THIS MODULE

As you start this module, we assume that you can
• read academic texts with understanding
• learn from academic texts in the language of instruction
• write academic essays in the language of instruction
• study independently in a distance education environment
• appreciate academic integrity and submit for assessment work which is a product
of your own effort

We hope you will find this study guide interesting, educational and stimulating. We
would very much appreciate getting your ideas and input about the study material. It is
onlybygettingyour feedback thatwecanprovideacoursethat tries to fulfil your needs
and expectations. Please let us know what you think of the study guide and the study
material in general, how you feel about it, and why.

GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR STUDIES!

DVA2601/1 (ix)
 LEARNING UNIT 1
INTRODUCTION TO DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING

OUTCOMES
At the end of this learning unit you should be able to
• explain the relationship between plans, policies, programmes
and projects
• demonstrate an understanding of the project environment
• identify the different roles played by project managers and
facilitators
• demonstrate an understanding of the project cycle and its
phases
• compare Conyers and Hills’ project cycle with MacArthur’s
project sequence

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The first aim of this unit is to introduce you to the concepts of projects and programmes
and to help you locate these within the broader development policy and planning
framework. The second aim is to make you are aware of the environment within
which projects are established and the challenges faced by project managers. The
third aim is to introduce you to the steps taken in the process of formulating and
implementing development projects.

1.2 PROJECTS AND PROGRAMMES

In this study guide we are concerned with two important and popular development
instruments or tools that aim to plan and implement development activities, namely
projects and programmes.

a) Projects
Cusworth and Franks (1993:3) provide us with a very basic definition of the term
“project”: ‘‘A project is the investment of capital in a time-bound intervention to
create productive assets.’’ Their definition is a useful one because it is so deliberately
broad. It allows us to interpret the word ‘‘capital’’ as referring to both human resources
(which include people’s inventiveness and energy) and physical resources (including
financial resources). The productive assets, which refer to the outputs or end results
of the project, may, similarly, be human, institutional or physical. Cusworth and
Franks point out that their definition allows for actions by individuals or (our main
concern) by groups of individuals or by communities and societies as a whole. This
means that a project can refer to a vast array of development initiatives, ranging
from ‘‘those designed to enhance potential in specific groups, perhaps creating
small-scale enterprises for the rural poor, through projects intended to establish new
organisational forms and sets of procedures, for instance for delivering health care

DVA2601/1 1
 more efficiently, to projects for the construction of physical assets such as factories’’
(Cusworth & Franks 1993:3).

Cusworth and Franks (1993:34) point out that a project can be distinguished from
any other type of investment on the following grounds:
• ‘‘The investment is outside the scope of the normal day-to-day or year-to-year
expenditure and effort.’’
• ‘‘It takes place over a particular time (in other words it is ‘time-bound’).’’
• ‘‘It is intended to achieve a specific objective or set of objectives.’’
b) Programmes
Programmes are similar to projects in the sense that they are sets ‘‘... of activities
designed to facilitate the achievement of specific objectives but generally on a larger
scale and over a longer time frame’’ (Cusworth & Franks 1993:4). However, a
programme tends to be more abstract in form and usually has a wider geographic
spread (Conyers & Hills 1984:193).

1.2.1 The relationship between projects, programmes, policy and

planning
Projects and programmes are usually subsections of broader national development
plans that aim to bring about some or other desired change in a state or community.
Plans, in turn, are informed by national development policies, which are broad
ideological and normative statements in which the leaders of a particular state set out
their vision of an ideal society. The relationship between policy, plans, programmes
and projects can be illustrated by the practical example below:

The South African government published its vision, the national development plan
(NDP 2011) in November 2011. This plan states and explains the vision and goals
of government in terms of development. For a vision to be implemented enabling
policies are required which give more detail and deals with different aspects of the
vision, for instance health, education, small enterprise development, rural development
and so on. All such policies are designed (or should be) to meet the goals of the
vision and, of course, meet the requirements of the national constitution. Yet policies
are simply the legal frameworks which give authority to do things in pursuit of the
vision and goals set out in the national vision.

Government departments translate policies into plans and the plans into programmes;
programmes set tangible, doable targets, if they are any good. And programmes are
usually implemented through smaller area or local development projects.

Cusworth and Franks use the following practical example to illustrate the difference
between projects and programmes. They point out that the International Drinking
Water Supply and Sanitation Decade (which had as its main objective to provide all
people with access to safe water and sanitation facilities) led to countries embarking
on various programmes, made up of numerous projects. For example, programmes
were formulated ‘‘... consisting of a series of activities such as surveys of existing
facilities and resource potential, procurement of necessary equipment for drilling and
construction, widespread health education, training of skilled personnel’’ (Cusworth
& Franks 1993:4). Within programmes such as these, various projects were designed:
‘‘In the case of water supply ... the construction of a well for a village community
would constitute a project, as would the construction of a dam and pipeline for urban
supply’’ (Cusworth & Franks 1993:4).

2
 LEARNING UNIT1: Introduction to development planning

It can be difficult at times to distinguish between projects and programmes since

they share many characteristics. To Cusworth and Franks (1993:4) the ‘‘... important
distinction is that programmes are diverse sets of activities over a long period designed
to attain certain objectives, while projects have a defined starting and finishing time.
Projects also tend to be location-specific, though this is not invariably the case.’’

What is important to note here, is that the approach to project and programme
planning is similar. The techniques used to manage the entire planning process
ranging from obtaining data, to the final ex-post evaluation of the implementation
of both programmes and projects are similar. For this reason, the rest of the study
guide shall simply use the term ‘‘project’’ when referring to the planning and
implementation of both projects and programmes. ‘‘Project’’ is also the term you
will encounter most often in the development literature.

1.3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND THE PROJECT MANAGER

We approach this study guide largely from a project management perspective, which
can be defined as: ‘‘the planning, scheduling, and controlling of project activities to
meet project objectives’’ (Lewis 1995:2), or, as Cusworth and Franks (1993:30) put it:
... the process of getting work done through other people by the use of human
resources, materials and time to achieve objectives. The entire aim with man-
aging development projects is to ensure the smooth running of a set of events
that will reduce the development needs that created the need for development
projects in the first place. It is obvious, therefore, that the task of the project
manager will be crucial in orchestrating the different tasks involved, especially
to ensure that the scarce resources of developing states are not squandered
and that projects are established in time to meet development needs.

Up to now we have been talking about project managers without saying who they are.
You may have been wondering who we had in mind, and whether we were talking
about people at the head of development institutions or government ministries, far
removed from actions at grassroots level. With regard to some cases you may be
correct – the people just mentioned could be project managers. On the other hand,
the trend towards decentralised planning, participatory and people-centred
development means that the onus for planning development activities now also rests
squarely on the shoulders of ‘‘ordinary’’ citizens. Therefore, project managers may
include any person who, at some time or another, is actively involved in any one of
the five stages listed above.

The demands made on project managers and the challenging environments within
which they operate make it crucial that project managers know what kinds of roles
they have to fulfil.

SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY 1.1

(Spend about 30 minutes on this activity.)
Identify the different tasks a project manager is expected to perform
in a rural sanitation upgrade programme, for example. Write down
the identified tasks.
Now read the excerpt from Cusworth and Franks (1993:34–36) in
box 1.1 below to learn more about the roles of the project managers.

DVA2601/1 3
 Box 1.1: The roles of the manager (Cusworth and Franks (1993:34–36))
Most thinking about management today is moving away from the mechanistic
view developed at the time of the Scientific Management theories, towards a
more flexible and open approach which recognises the complexity of managerial
situations. In this development the idea of roles has become important in
suggesting that managers may be recognised for what they are as much as for
what they do. For instance, Mintzberg (1973) has recognised the complexity of
managers’ work by developing the idea of the multiple roles which they perform
in their work. A large number of such roles may be distinguished, but these
may conveniently be summarised into three categories, chief executive, leader
and diplomat (as shown in the figure below). Again, readers may like to extend
this figure to reflect more accurately their own situation.

Chief executive
All projects involve the execution of a variety of activities utilising physical and
human resources to achieve specific objectives. Within a project organisation
someone must have ultimate authority for control of those resources and be
accountable for the successful achievement of the objectives. This is usually the
project manager, who plays the same role in a project promoting small farmers’
poultry clubs as in one establishing a multi-million dollar irrigation scheme.
This issue of ultimate accountability sets the project manager apart from the
rest of the people working on the project. Managers must accept responsibility
for all the actions of project personnel who in turn reasonably expect that those
actions are ultimately sanctioned by them. The chief executive role of the
project manager, however, involves more than that of being accountable for the
activities of the project and for providing ultimate validation for the actions of
project personnel. It implies that the manager is expected to make things
happen, by active intervention. It is in this role that the distinction between
management and administration can most clearly be seen. The project manager
cannot wait for changes to occur, but must actually create, through the project
team, the changes required to achieve the project objectives. In this respect
the manager’s role as coordinator is crucial in coordinating the efforts of the
project team and outside institutions, and in controlling and allocating resources,
in order to achieve the objectives of the project.

4
 LEARNING UNIT1: Introduction to development planning

Leader
Closely associated with the role of chief executive, but quite distinct from it, is
the manager’s role as leader. It is in this role that managers exert authority and
influence directly over the people working either for the project or in the local
environment. In their role as leaders, project managers define the ethics, norms
and values of their project team, establishing the atmosphere of the
organisation, and the way that the various project tasks are approached. In the
brief review of the history of management at the beginning of this chapter it was
pointed out that qualities of leadership have been the subject of study and
debate over a long period. This is still the case, though the ground for debate
has shifted and modern theories of leadership pay as much attention to the
followers as to the leader. Leadership and motivation are closely associated
and are two of the basic skills in managing people.
Diplomat
The role of project manager as diplomat, reflects the fact that a key requirement
of the manager is to ‘‘manage’’ the project’s frontiers. Projects, by definition,
are intrusions upon the existing environment, in both physical and institutional
terms. The role of the manager as diplomat is to negotiate the relationship
between the project and its environment.
At one level the diplomatic role is required simply to ensure adequate support for
the project in terms of resources, supplies and services. At another it is
necessary in order to ensure the political support, without which it is likely to fail.
A common illusion of project managers is that, because the project has been
planned, appraised, negotiated and agreed prior to implementation, all
institutions and agencies in its environment will be supportive of the project goals
and approach. This is most unlikely to be the case, because other organisations
often consider new development projects as threats to their own spheres of
influence. The situation is particularly pronounced in areas where many different
projects, usually sponsored by different agencies, are attempting to achieve
different objectives and may be competing for resources. It falls to project
managers to represent their projects through contact with these other agencies.
The manager’s role as diplomat requires a high level of sensitivity, good
negotiating skills and a feel for the situation. A project manager who had been
very successful at implementing a project at a time of great political instability
and severe resource constraints remarked that the most important quality of a
successful project manager was ‘to be street-wise’, meaning the ability to be
able to understand the relationship of the project to its environment and
negotiate its direction through it.

You must be sensitive to the fact the manager is an official, accountable to the agency
or department or local government that employs her/him. This person has a job
description and performance targets to meet. This complicates his or her task,
especially if he or she is cast in the role of facilitator with an obligation of
accountability to the community.

DVA2601/1 5
 1.3.1 The development facilitator
In box 1.1 and in activity 1.1 you encountered the three roles of the project manager:
the roles of chief executive, of leader and of diplomat. There is another very important
role that the project manager has to play: that of a development facilitator.

In the context of development as a people-centred and participatory process, the role

of the project manager changed from that of pure manager to that of a facilitator of
change and processes within communities.

When we talk about development as a participatory process, behaviour, values and

attitudes conducive to development become all important. In this context the project
manager cannot afford to be someone who dominates processes. The local population
or community needs to be in control of the development process, with the project
manager acting to facilitate processes of change. This role is particularly evident in
action research, with specific reference to participatory rural appraisal (PRA). We
will return to this in learning unit 3.

Becoming a development facilitator is possibly one of the most difficult roles to

which the project manager needs to adapt. In practice this means the manager has
to step down from his/her dominant position in favour of becoming a listener, or a
learner who listens to the local community. This can be painful in terms of one’s own
development priorities and it implies a totally different power relationship between
the project manager and the local community.

1.4 THE PROJECT ENVIRONMENT

Any social setting has its own unique and specific complexity. This makes it difficult to
prescribe any particular development intervention for an individual case. Development
projects and programmes have to be tailored to local needs and circumstances. Yet
globalisation has often assumed the movement of different societies and cultures
towards conformity, which makes the temptation to intervene all the stronger.

The globalised economy and the accompanying need for conformity and uniformity
has put pressure on developing communities to accept a variety of concepts, ideas
and changes introduced from outside the community. Such externally induced
changes are not always successful. This is primarily because such development
efforts have not been grounded in the sociocultural, political and economic realities
of specific communities.

The specific context within which a project is undertaken is of critical importance to

the success of the project. This context, also referred to as the project environment,
can be divided into four broad categories:

• physical
• economic and financial
• institutional and political
• sociocultural
Box 1.2 below contains excerpts from Cusworth and Franks (1993:20–50) and explains
the environment or context within which development projects have to be designed
and implemented. Read these excerpts and then do activity 1.2.

6
 LEARNING UNIT 1: Introduction to development planning

SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY 1.2

(Spend about 40 minutes on this activity.)

The purpose of this activity is to promote an understanding of the

development environment. Write down characteristics of your
immediate environment that would require special consideration
when planning projects.

Now read box 1.2 below to learn more about the project environment
according to Cusworth & Franks.

Box 1.2: The project environment (Cusworth & Franks 1993:20–24)

[The project environment is] the whole set of people, things and institutions which
surround the project and interact with it…the environment of a project can be
described in institutional, social, political and economic terms, as well as physical
ones. The project environment includes a whole range of factors, many of which
will have a direct bearing not only on the way the project is actually being
implemented but also on its outputs and how it is subsequently operated. Of
course, each project will have its own unique environment, and there is no
definitive method for detailing the precise nature of the environment of a
particular project. It is, however, vital that managers develop their abilities to
understand the characteristics of the environment, analyse it, and then develop
coherent management strategies for dealing with it in such a way as to enhance
the chances of project success.
Characteristics of the development environment
It is commonly held that in developing countries, the environment poses special
problems for managers. Two general characteristics of the development
environment are applicable in many situations and may lead to these special
problems. The first aspect is turbulence, the tendency for unpredictable and
rapid change. Rapid change is prevalent in societies across the development
spectrum. Mass communication has indeed ensured that it is very difficult to
prevent changes in one area from influencing changes in another. In
industrialized societies, however, the effects of such changes are relatively
predictable over the short to medium term. In broad terms, people know what
to expect from changes in economic circumstances and advances in
technology, and the reactions and adaptations of organisations and society
can be foreseen with some degree of confidence. This is often not the case in
developing countries where sudden and unpredictable events are the result of
particular sets of circumstances.
The second important aspect of developing country environments is that these
countries often seem to lack resources. It is certainly true that many developing
countries are well endowed with particular resources. Generally, however, they
suffer scarcity of many other resources, which may result in project managers
facing a difficult and hostile development environment. In this environment,
project managers are often constrained by an overwhelming need to acquire and
then control the resources needed to implement their project, be they human,
financial or material. In addition, they feel compelled to devote to this task time
and energy far beyond that expended by their contemporaries in industrialized
societies.

DVA2601/1 7
 The physical environment
The physical environment refers to the natural setting of the project, its geology,
soils, landscape, climate, water resources and its ecological systems. It should
also be extended to the technologies that are, or can be, utilized for the
exploitation or conservation of the natural resources. Even projects not intended
for the utilization or transformation of the physical environment will have an
influence on that environment, and the environment, in turn, will influence the
projects in such aspects as climate, water supply, waste disposal and the like.
Managers of ‘‘physical’’ projects should be particularly sensitive to the physical
environment, not only because it can exert an overriding influence on the
progress of their project, but also because of increasing interest being shown
in environmental protection and sustainability both in the developed and the
developing world.
The economic and financial world
The economic and financial environment is of obvious significance to projects.
Projects need and utilize resources to produce assets. The resources utilized
have a cost and the assets created have a value. The economic and financial
environment affects the relative costs and values directly and hence the worth
of the project. Cost-over-runs, often associated with time delays, are frequently
encountered on all types of projects. In many instances, these costs are caused
by the constraints of the economic and financial environment.
The institutional and political environment
Project managers need to be aware of the general institutional framework within
which they are operating and of the nature of the organisations with which they
have to interact. The general institutional framework concerns matters such
as the legal systems within which these managers are operating and other
aspects of social organisation such as the land tenure and water rights system.
In dealing with other organisations, it should be borne in mind that in many
respects development projects are intrusions into the established organisational
framework. Mutually supportive interaction should take place between the
project and the organisations with which the project managers have to relate,
and conflict should be handled as it arises.
On a more general level, politics plays a vital role in determining the progress of
any project. Politics is an essential feature of human organisation and permeates
all levels of society. Development projects will necessarily reflect the political
priorities of the country within which they are being implemented. In addition, aid-
funded projects will reflect the political priorities of the funding agency and donor
governments. A political framework should therefore be considered in the project
environment.
The socio-cultural environment
Many projects are specifically designed with a view to developing human
resources as a major objective. These people-oriented projects include
agriculture, health, education, welfare, urban housing, water supply, and rural
industrialization projects. Their essential feature is that they can be implemented
only through people who are not directly part of the formal project organisation.
The project organisation provides resources, training services and infra-
structure to the population but does not control the population’s decision-making
or actions in any way. In order for such projects to be successful, therefore,
their objectives will need to be consistent with the values and practices of the
people they have been designed to assist.

Source: Adapted from Cusworth & Franks (1993:20–24)

8
 LEARNING UNIT 1: Introduction to development planning

1.5 THE PROJECT CYCLE AND ITS PHASES

Different scholars have suggested different processes for formulating and
implementing development projects and programmes. We shall discuss the project
cycle as proposed by Conyers and Hills (1984:73–81) as our starting point before
moving on to MacArthur’s (1994a:136) more complex composite diagram of what he
calls the ‘‘project sequence’’. The model can be represented schematically as follows
(Conyers & Hills 1984:74):

In the model proposed by Conyers and Hills (1984:7381), project planning and
management is viewed as a cyclic process, as opposed to Katz’s (1975) idea of a spiral
process. According to the cyclic model, the planning process consists of a number of
interrelated phases which do not exist independently of one another. The advantage
of this model is that it provides for a number of phases designed in such a way as to
link the formulation of basic policy guidelines to specific projects and programmes.
This ensures that the lessons learned from the implementation of each phase will
be incorporated into the next cycle.

Before we look at a diagram of the model and describe the various phases, a number
of important points should be noted. Remember, firstly, that Conyers and Hills
originally designed this diagram to illustrate macro-level development planning. We
have adapted this diagram slightly to show the different phases involved in the
project cycle. The phases in both levels of planning (on the one hand the macro level
and on the other hand the micro level or project cycle) are identical, apart from the
very first step which, as you will see, does not form part of the actual cycle. This step
concerns the decision to adopt planning and the establishment of an organisational
framework for planning.

Secondly, keep in mind that this is an idealised representation of the project planning
process and, because of practical obstacles, it is often not possible, necessary or even
desirable to move logically from one phase to the next. Among the obstacles

DVA2601/1 9
 often encountered in practice are insufficient time, data and manpower as well as
inadequate communication and uncertainty about role division.

Thirdly, the project planning process is far more complicated than the diagram
indicates. Some phases are despatched more quickly than others and sometimes it is
not even necessary to move from one phase to the next because the basic objectives
that have been formulated are sometimes used as a basis for various ‘‘rounds’’ of
more detailed formulation. Bear these points in mind and do not regard the model
by Conyers and Hills as a blueprint to be applied as is – it may need to be adapted
to local circumstances.

1.5.1 PHASE 1: The initial decision to engage in planning and the

creation of an organisational framework
During the first phase, a decision in principle is usually taken at central government
level to use development planning as an instrument for solving development problems
and achieving desired objectives. As soon as this decision has been made, it is the
central government’s task to establish the necessary organisational framework which
will be responsible for planning and the implementation of planning. Not only should
there be provision for organisations at national level, but depending on the degree
of decentralisation in the planning strategy to be followed, organisations should also
be established at lower levels of the government hierarchy. This is a necessary step
to ensure availability of the necessary human and financial resources to carry out
the planning and implementation effectively. You will notice that in their diagram,
Conyers and Hills place this phase beyond the periphery of the cyclic planning
process since it is a decision which is usually made only once in each country and
therefore does not form a regular part of the cycle.

1.5.2 PHASE 2: The identification of planning objectives and targets

The identification of development guidelines and overall planning objectives is
usually a political decision taken by government leaders. During this phase general
guidelines are laid down to indicate the course of a country’s development and the
framework within which development planners can formulate more specific objectives.
These guidelines are usually sketched in broad outline and indicate medium-term
and long-term priorities.

1.5.3 PHASE 3: Data collection and processing

A vital phase in the development planning of any country is the collection and
processing of data. The availability of information is indispensable for determining
the nature and scope of development problems and consequently for designing
alternative courses of action to relieve or solve problems. The availability of data is
probably one of the greatest problems encountered by development planners in the
Third World. These problems are usually traceable to a shortage of trained personnel
and financial resources as well as inadequate access to specific facilities, such as data
processing. Later in this study guide we shall return to the techniques used in
collecting, processing and storing data.

10
 LEARNING UNIT 1: Introduction to development planning

1.5.4 PHASE 4: Identifying alternative courses of action

This phase is devoted to identifying and specifying alternative courses of action
which may be adopted to solve development problems and achieve objectives. The
courses of action identified during this phase may take the form of either a written
planning document or a series of proposals for specific development programmes
or projects. There are various techniques for weighing up such proposals against
one another, ranging from professional assessments and intuitive thinking to highly
formalised, systematic and mathematical models.

1.5.5 PHASE 5: Appraising plans and projects

This is the phase during which various proposed alternatives are weighed against one
another and appraised. The advantages and disadvantages of alternative courses of
action are determined and submitted to those who will ultimately choose between
the alternatives. We shall return to the various possible appraisal techniques later in
this study guide.

1.5.6 PHASE 6: Implementation

The implementation of plans and projects is often not considered to be part of the
planning process, chiefly because the professional planners are not directly involved
in the implementation of plans, which is left to technicians and administrative staff.
In such cases the gap between theory and practice tends to become unbridgeable
and unrealistic plans are drawn up. Although planners seldom implement their plans
themselves, this does not mean that they are free to ignore the implementation
process. Implementation cannot proceed in isolation from the other phases of
planning and during this period it is actually the task of development planners to
consider how their plans are to be operationalised – all planning should therefore
include provision for implementation.

1.5.7 PHASE 7: Monitoring and evaluation

The final phase in the first cycle of development planning is the monitoring and
evaluation of the implementation of planning. Monitoring and evaluation are not,
however, procedures that are carried out once only. They should be undertaken on
a continuous basis, thus forming part of the implementation process. This phase is
intended to establish what takes place during the implementation phase, to determine
to what extent objectives have been realised, to formulate the lessons learnt from the
experience of the implementers and to solve problems as they arise. This continuous
evaluation is called monitoring. After completion, with the benefit of hindsight an
evaluation of the project is done ... ‘‘[T]o identify weaknesses and mistakes made
during the lifespan of [the] project’’ (Swanepoel & De Beer 2011:212).

The project cycle is a useful tool for analytic purposes but has shortcomings as
discussed below. The project cycle is used mainly as a tool for big, centrally designed
projects; it is a tool used in blueprint or top-down project planning, implementation and
evaluation (We return to this in learning unit 2). One of its shortcomings as a
blueprint tool is that it allows little community participation in planning,
implementation and evaluation. As a corrective to the blueprint approach an
adaptive or participatory approach is proposed. The participatory approach uses
essentially the same project cycle but is small-scale, experimental, incremental and
leaving decision making to
DVA2601/1 11
 the community (De Beer & Swanepoel 2013:71–85). Adaptive or participatory project
management is introduced in learning unit 2 and you can also refer to the DVA2602
Study Guide, where community development is dealt with in more detail.

SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY 1.3

(Spend about 40 minutes on this activity.)
Your next activity is to watch a video clip or read the text of the clip
in the box below. Listen to what Ernesto Sirolli has to say then answer
the questions listed in activity 0.2 below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look and listen by opening the following YouTube clip on the

CD: ‘‘Ernesto Sirolli: Want to help someone? Shut up and listen!’’
You can also find it on YouTube by clicking on the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSvMQ7dej9g

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or read the text in the box below:

Case study
Ernesto Sirolli: Want to help someone? Shut up and listen!
Everything I do, and everything I do professionally – my life – has been shaped
by seven years of work as a young man in Africa. From 1971 to 1977 – I look
young, but I’m not – (Laughter) – I worked in Zambia, Kenya, Ivory Coast, Algeria,
Somalia, in projects of technical cooperation with African countries.
I worked for an Italian NGO, and every single project that we set up in Africa failed.
And I was distraught. I thought, age 21, that we Italians were good people and
we were doing good work in Africa. Instead, everything we touched, we killed.
Our first project, the one that has inspired my first book, ‘‘Ripples from the
Zambezi,’’ was a project where we Italians decided to teach Zambian people how
to grow food. So we arrived there with Italian seeds in southern Zambia in this
absolutely magnificent valley going down to the Zambezi River, and we taught the
local people how to grow Italian tomatoes and zucchini and ... And of course the
local people had absolutely no interest in doing that, so we paid them to come
and work, and sometimes they would show up.
(Laughter) And we were amazed that the local people, in such a fertile valley,
would not have any agriculture. But instead of asking them how come they were
not growing anything, we simply said, ‘‘Thank God we’re here.’’ (Laughter) ‘‘Just
in the nick of time to save the Zambian people from starvation.’’
And of course, everything in Africa grew beautifully. We had these magnificent
tomatoes. In Italy, a tomato would grow to this size. In Zambia, to this size. And we
could not believe, and we were telling the Zambians, ‘‘Look how easy agriculture
is.’’ When the tomatoes were nice and ripe and red, overnight, some 200 hippos
came out from the river and they ate everything. (Laughter)
And we said to the Zambians, ‘‘My God, the hippos!’’
And the Zambians said, ‘‘Yes, that’s why we have no agriculture here.’’ (Laughter)

12
 LEARNING UNIT 1: Introduction to development planning

I decided when I was 27 years old to only respond to people, and I invented a
system called Enterprise Facilitation, where you never initiate anything, you never
motivate anybody, but you become a servant of the local passion, the servant of
local people who have a dream to become a better person. So what you do – you
shut up. You never arrive in a community with any ideas.
What we do, we work one-on-one, and to work one-on-one, you have to create a
social infrastructure that doesn’t exist. You have to create a new profession. The
profession is the family doctor of enterprise, the family doctor of business, who
sits with you in your house, at your kitchen table, at the cafe, and helps you find
the resources to transform your passion into a way to make a living.
In a year, I had 27 projects going on, and the government came to see me to say,
‘‘How can you do that? How can you do – ?’’ And I said, ‘‘I do something very,
very, very difficult. I shut up, and listen to them.’’ (Laughter)
So – (Applause) – So the government says, ‘‘Do it again.’’ (Laughter)
You have to learn how to get these people to come and talk to you. You have to
offer them confidentiality, privacy, you have to be fantastic at helping them, and
then they will come, and they will come in droves. Who is going to invent the
technology for the green revolution? Universities? Forget about it! Government?
Forget about it! It will be entrepreneurs, and they’re doing it now.
You can change the culture and the economy of this community just by capturing
the passion, the energy and imagination of your own people.
Thank you. (Applause)
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSvMQ7dej9g

After having watched the video clip, (or reading the text above)
answer the following uestions:

No Question Your
. answer
1 Why, according to Sirolli, did every
single project set up in Africa by
the Italian NGO he worked for,
fail? List at least three reasons.

2 What was the main principle of

Sirolli’s Enterprise Facilitation
system?
3 What, according to Sirolli, is the best
way to have successful projects?

4 Is Sirolli’s story about agriculture in

Zambia accurate? What have you
understood from his narration of
agriculture and the hippos?

DVA2601/1 13
 1.6 A COMPOSITE VIEW OF THE PROJECT SEQUENCE
In section 1.5 we mentioned that the project planning process is much more complex
than Conyers and Hills led us to believe. Nevertheless, by following their cycle from
start to finish, we got a good idea of the main phases or stages of project planning.
Their cycle is a fairly simple representation and, from that point of view, it is a useful
educational tool. However, their cycle omits certain key moments in the life of a
project, which means that we do not really get an adequate picture of all the actual
phases or stages through which large projects, in particular, move. MacArthur
(1994a:135) sees his diagram of the project sequence as an improvement on the typical
cyclic model since ‘‘... it shows ... that this is a genuine attempt to reflect reality, not
just a simplified academic model’’.

Another way in which his model is more realistic is that it reflects one of the main
characteristics of projects, namely that it normally requires considerable funding or,
as MacArthur calls it, investment. This financial commitment is important, and may
come from within a country (e.g. from whichever agency is responsible for
development planning within a particular state), or funding may come from some
agency outside the national government machinery – usually a foreign aid
organisation such as the multilateral World Bank, or the bilateral United States
Agency for International Development (USAID), the German development agency
(GIZ) or the Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA).

MacArthur (1994a:135) prefers to call his comprehensive diagram a ‘‘sequence’’ rather

than a ‘‘cycle’’ because he feels that ‘‘... the emphasis is on the individual project, and
not on the general process’’. As you can see from the diagram reproduced below,
MacArthur makes provision for 23 boxes, each of which represents a stage or event
in the life of a project. A number of lines connect the boxes, but obviously there are
many other permutations that are not reflected in the diagram. The flow of the
diagram is anti-clockwise, starting at the top on the left-hand side of the page, moving
downwards to the bottom of the page, and then up again on the right-hand side.

The diagram provides for three phases (each phase is separated by a double line)
which MacArthur (1994a:137) describes as follows:

I is the pre-investment phase, when the project is only a set of ideas, papers and
proposals; II is the investment phase, when financial commitment has been
made and the fixed productive assets are obtained and put in place, to establish
the productive capacity that is the essence of the investment project; and III is the
operations phase, when the investments created are used to generate the output
whose availability in the economy is the main justification of the project.

MacArthur admits that it may have made sense to allow for a fourth phase, consisting
of boxes 18 to 21, and to have called this the post-project phase, but he feels that
would have made the diagram too complex. He also did not make the eight possible
sources of project ideas (listed above box 1 in the diagram) part of the project
sequence, since he feels that they form part of the many activities that take place
outside projects – such as broader policy formulation, planning and the activities of
governments in general (MacArthur 1994a:138).

14
 LEARNING UNIT 1: Introduction to development planning

The composite diagram of the project sequence (McArthur 1994a)

DVA2601/1 15
 MacArthur’s diagram differs from more conventional cyclic versions in three
important respects. The first way in which MacArthur’s diagram differs from almost
all others is that it allows for ‘‘exit’’ routes, referred to as ‘‘abandonment’’, when a
project fails to continue from one stage to the next. MacArthur (1994a:138) explains
as follows:
The reality is that many proto-projects which are identified never reach the
stage of operation following investment. A lot of ideas are abandoned during
the Post-Identification Formulation stages, whilst others drop out following
Appraisal or because Negotiation for their financing cannot be completed.

A second innovation in MacArthur’s sequence is that he allows for ‘‘projects to enter

at places other than the Identification stage’’ (1994a:138). He explains the rationale
for this as follows:
Planning first, commitment later at the conclusion of a rational set of systematic
processes is not always the case. Political needs are one of the many reasons why
commitment to a project may be made before the project has been designed, let
alone subject to examination in Appraisal. So, the possibility is allowed here for
projects to enter the system at the Selection stage, box 6, being derived from
‘‘Unsystematic sources’’, after which they can be sent for detailed planning where
in the planners and others have to make the best of the idea that has been
announced!

In addition, allowing for more entrances enables MacArthur to make provision for
projects that may be part of larger programmes, rather than mere stand-alone projects.

The third innovation is the loops in the first, pre-investment, phase. This means that
project proposals can be ‘‘sent back’’ for reconsideration or refinement.

The entire phase III (the operations phase) presents an improvement on other project
cycle diagrams. Ironically, MacArthur (1994a:145) remarks, ‘‘Although the Operations
Phase is the ultimate reason for undertaking an investment project, it is remarkable
how many Project Cycles make no mention of this phase.’’

This omission of the operations phase is typical of Conyers and Hills’ project cycle,
but also that of funding organisations – it is almost as if the interest of funding
organisations in a project wanes once the last of its funds have been disbursed (see,
for example, Maphosa, 2016). It is particularly telling that, in her description of the
project funded by the Department of Agriculture, Maphosa bemoans the fate of
exited projects that fail to survive on their own after the end of the project cycle.
She blames this on the lack of exit plans. It is often assumed that the continued life
of the project is guaranteed by the fact that it has gone through all the stages of the
project cycle. It is assumed that the assets created by the project (e.g. a clinic) will be
run profitably, or that the assets will prove to be institutionally and financially
sustainable over a long period. However, the numerous examples of projects that
have not been sustained over time, of assets that are no longer in use, such as broken
water pumps, are sufficient proof that questions of sustainability need to be dealt with
by both funders and end-beneficiaries of projects. Maphosa (2016: 57) advises that
“[T]he realisation that exited projects struggle to sustain themselves post-funding
should prompt the need for exit plans to be incorporated into any/all stages of the
project cycle”.

16
 LEARNING UNIT 1: Introduction to development planning

An important part of the operations phase is reflected in box 16 (Transmission to

Normal Administration). MacArthur (1994a:145) explains this stage as follows:
This denotes the point at which a new project ceases to have a special identity
as a unique set of activities, and becomes part of the responsibility of a sec-
tion in the appropriate organisation that is responsible for the operation of
productive facilities. An example may be the completion of a new irrigation
scheme. While it is under construction, it would have been under the purview
of the development section of the Irrigation Department. But once completed
and commissioned, responsibility would then pass to the operations section
of the Department, who would add it to the possibly many other irrigations
schemes for which it was responsible.

Whereas Conyers and Hills’ cyclic model refers to monitoring and evaluation as
activities that should continue throughout the establishment of a project, MacArthur is
much more specific and makes provision for three occasions during which evaluation
takes place. The first is ongoing evaluation that forms part of the investment phase,
box 13 of his diagram, where it may become necessary to replan the project. This need
may arise from an implementation phase that is so long and drawn out that data on
which the project is based become invalid – or sudden changes (e.g. in the price of
primary products needed in the project or in a country’s exchange rate) may alter the
projected cost of a project so drastically that it has to be reconsidered or redesigned.
Then there are the other two more obvious stages at which evaluation takes place:
• Evaluation immediately after the implementation of the project takes place in
order to reflect on the experiences during implementation and to take note of any
lessons learnt by feeding these back into similar projects that may be undertaken
later (box 18).
• Evaluation can also take place after the project has been in operation for a number
of years. The main aim of such evaluation would be to make a more proper
assessment of the rates of return received on the money initially invested in the
project (MacArthur 1994a:147–148).

1.7 CONCLUSION
In this introductory unit, you were introduced to the key concepts that will be dealt
with in this study guide. We described projects and programmes as the tools whereby
content is given to broad statements of intent – policy statements – of governments
and development agencies. Through the planning and implementation of projects and
programmes specific development objectives are met and outputs are delivered. In
the many decades that the project approach to realising development goals has been
used, we have come to expect both successes and failures. In fact, the unacceptably
large incidence of failed projects has been the driving force in finding methodologies
to improve project planning and especially implementation. Some of the reasons of
failure can be found in the approach itself, as a result of which projects simply do
not get implemented. This is often because planners do not see the formulation of a
project and its implementation as part and parcel of the same process – the distance
between those involved in planning and those responsible for implementation is
often too great. Other reasons for failure can be traced to projects not achieving the
benefits originally intended because of poor project management and a lack of
flexibility. Ways in which to avoid failure will be addressed in later study units.

DVA2601/1 17
 You also had the opportunity to examine the two views of the project planning
process. Conyers and Hills’ cyclic model gives us a cursory view of some of the main
steps in the planning process, whereas MacArthur’s project sequence diagram
provides us with a much more comprehensive and detailed exposition. It is important
to have a thorough understanding of the different phases and to be able to locate
them within the broader project planning and management process.

When one is planning and managing projects with development in mind, there are
various techniques to ensure that necessary and relevant data will be collected,
different alternatives will be carefully weighed or appraised, implementation will be
efficient, and planning will be constantly monitored and evaluated.

1.8 OUTCOMES CHECKLIST

Questions Can do Cannot do

(1) Explain the relationship between plans,

policies, programmes and projects.

(2) Demonstrate an understanding of the

project environment.

(3) Identify the different roles played by project

managers and facilitators.

(4) Demonstrate an understanding of the

project cycle and its phases.

(5) Compare Conyers and Hills’ project cycle

with MacArthur’s project sequence.

1.9 READINGS TO CONSULT FOR THE UNIT

E-reserves: Articles by Hart (2005); Lane (2005); Kumar (2002),
Nel (2001)

18
 LEARNING UNIT 2
PROJECT PLANNING

OUTCOMES
Once you have worked through this unit, you should be able to
• identify two types of approaches used in project planning
• describe constraints of using logical framework as a blueprint
planning tool in Africa’s development projects
• outline the main arguments in favour of a participatory
approach to project planning and implementation

2.1 INTRODUCTION
In learning unit 1 we mentioned that the formulation and implementation of
development projects and programmes is a process. We illustrated the argument
using various phases or steps which showed spiral or cyclic processes and the last step
of the process automatically leading into the first step. In this way, lessons from
experience are fed into the process. In addition to the project cycle model proposed
by Conyers and Hills (1984), we looked at a more complex project sequence by
MacArthur’s (1994a).

One of the challenges of a project cycle, however, is that it is more relevant for big,
centrally designed projects. For this reason, the project cycle is often used in blueprint
or top-down project planning, implementation and evaluation.

The main objectives of unit 2 include the following:

(a) introduce you to two approaches used in project planning – namely, blueprint
or directive planning and adaptive or interactive planning
(b) offer a critique on the use of the blueprint approach which is the main cause
of failure of international development projects implemented in Africa
(c) briefly present the adaptive project planning which is regarded as an alterna-
tive to the directive blueprint approach

Following the introduction of the two approaches, the critique of the blueprint offers
you an opportunity to identify its limitations in the participation of local communities
during planning, implementation and evaluation of projects or programmes. The
argument provides an overview of the key elements of logical framework (also known
as logframe) and highlights its shortcomings when implemented in development
projects. This shortcomings form basis of failure of project management in the World
Bank-funded projects in Cameroon, Chad and South Africa (Ika, 2012).

The last section of the unit proposes a more flexible adaptive approach, which is
centred on interactive planning. The difference with this more participatory approach,
is that while the same project cycle is used, project planning is at a smaller scale, is
experimental and incremental, and allows for participation in decision making by
the community (De Beer & Swanepoel 2013:71–85). Please note that the discussion
of adaptive or participatory project management in this unit is limited. For a denser

DVA2601/1 19
 discussion you should also refer to Study Guide DVA2602, which is one of the
modules of the Department of Development Studies dedicated to offering a more
in-depth discussion of community development.

2.2 APPROACHES TO PROJECT PLANNING

In learning unit 1 we provided a working definition of the term ‘planning’, which
encompassed outlining the project phases, from obtaining data to post-evaluation of
the implementation of projects and or programmes. Muriithi and Crawford (2003)
highlight that the project plan entails carrying out implementation as well as ensuring
that the completed facility is commissioned and handed over to the owner – which
happens in the fourth phase of the project.

One of the important decisions a project planning team is required to take is to

decide on the approach to use, which a decision linked to the position that the plan
should be fulfilled at any cost Aune (2010:687). Nolan (2002:98) distinguishes two
broad planning styles: directive planning and interactive planning. These are
illustrated in Box 2.1.

Nolan (2002:98) describes directive planning in the following manner:

Directive planning is sometimes called blueprint planning. Detailed plans are

drawn up in advance, and implementation occurs in a linear, sequential fashion.
Project decisions taken during design and implementation are relatively ‘pure’
and can be made in terms of a few controllable variables, usually of a quantitative
nature.

The author distinguished the directive, from interactive planning in the following
manner:

Interactive planning is based on the premise of uncertainty: the likelihood that

conditions, problems and solutions are not completely known at the outset.

20
 LEARNING UNIT 2: Project planning

The interactive planning is founded on the basis that knowledge is obtained as the
project proceeds, and that appropriate modifications can be made ‘frequently’ on
the basis of this learning.

Unlike the directive approach which portrays features of Western principles through
imposing knowledge on local project environments (Magaisa 2004; Noyoo 2007),
in interactive planning project decisions are often ‘impure’ and made in terms of
shifting and often qualitative factors. The planning thus requires an interaction
between designers of the project and the project environment (context) during the
project cycle, as well as a structure that allows for (re)assessment and adjustment of
plans previously made. Project implementation approached in this manner often
becomes creative and experimental, requiring innovative management responses.

Colonial and other postcolonial blueprint projects often base project ideas based on
egoistic motives. The Afrocentrism of decoloniality scholarships and rights-based
development pursue project plans that promote local learning. The argument is that
no planner can provide for all possible eventualities. Even if we intend building a
clinic, which may seem to be a straightforward construction project, we will have
to take flexibility into account and make provision for participatory processes and a
learning approach. This is what being a development practitioner means. In
development, there are no recipes for success. Instead, we need to reflect constantly
to be truly reflective development practitioners. To engage in reflective practice
means to engage with a ‘‘process of gradual, interactive problem solving, where
techniques are applied, the results are assessed, and the learning gained is applied to
subsequent actions’’ (Schon, in Nolan 2002:104). Using this approach embraces
local contexts and knowledge as significant elements in the formulation, as well as
modification of project plans.

SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY 2.1

(Spend about 40 minutes on this activity.)

The purpose of this activity is to distinguish between directive and

interactive planning styles.

Refer to the excerpt from Nolan (2002:99) in box 2.1 above in which
the author outlines the main distinctions between the directive and
interactive planning styles.

Examine the figure carefully. Then explain in about one page which
planning style you think is better suited to project planning in a
development context, and why?

After presenting your arguments on the type of planning style you

would choose, keep your notes safe while you continue to learn
extensively about the blueprint or directive planning.

Review your notes and affirm your project planning style after you
have completed activity 2.2.

It would be wrong of us as your lecturers to acquaint you only with participatory and
learning processes of project planning, even though we may be tempted to do so.

DVA2601/1 21
 We therefore want to draw your attention to an unsettling reality which points to
the preference of blueprint planning by most donors and aid agencies. As a result,
most donors still emphasise on the need to submit project proposals which are
formulated using a rigid logical framework. As a reflective development practitioner,
you will need to be aware of the advantages of this framework because you may be
asked to use it in proposals for funding. However, you also need to be mindful of
the framework’s disadvantages and the ways in which it can be manipulated to make
it more flexible and people-centred. These are just some of the issues which we
present in the following sections.

2.3 BLUEPRINT PLANNING APPROACH

In learning unit 1, the presentation of MacArthur’s sequence model put it in a more
preferred position compared to the cyclic model, as sequence allows for more
possibilities (e.g. different exit and entrance points and more distinct opportunities
for monitoring and evaluation). However, both models resemble fairly rigid blueprint
approaches to project implementation. In other words, projects are systematically
and carefully planned in advance, and then implemented strictly according to the
formulated plan. These types of blueprint designs are suited to large physical
infrastructure projects, such as industrial plants or national dams. In some cases,
however, even the process and human capital-based projects can be implemented
in a blueprint style (Ika 2012).

One of the advantages of using a blueprint approach is that it is relatively easy to

obtain the necessary information on which to base the project as the circumstances
can be easily controlled and the outcomes readily achieved. The conditions are also
fairly stable and predictable. The project is normally announced to have been a
success once the physical infrastructure or object has been put in place.

2.3.1 Using the logical framework in blueprint planning

The logical framework is a good example that qualifies a blueprint approach in
projects. You will notice that although it is viewed as having many advantages in
project management, it also has faced numerous criticisms.

2.3.1.1 The logical framework

Before you start reading the text below first look and listen to
the following videoclip: ‘‘Terry Schmidt introduces the logical
framework – with San Diego dogs!’’ This clip shows a logframe
workshop where the process of compiling a logframe is
illustrated. After watching and reading below you should return
and watch the video once more – it will take about 12 minutes.
Find the link to the videoclip at: https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=IX09_y4O1aI.

A logical framework is a good example where a blueprint approach is used in the

project. The framework analysis was developed by an American consultancy firm in
the late 1960s and was first used in the donor community by the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) in the early 1970s. Since then more
and more donor agencies have adopted logical framework analysis in one form or
another to try to increase the success rate of projects they are funding. Indeed, many

22
 LEARNING UNIT 2: Project planning

foreign aid organisations or donor agencies insist that logical framework analysis
should form part of the project design before funding a project can be considered.

The aim of the logical framework and its advantage is to improve the way in which
projects are prepared, implemented and evaluated. MacArthur (1994b:87) gives us
the following succinct description of what logical framework analysis (also known
as the logframe) does:

Logframe can be used as a tool to define and clarify the objectives of a project,
or any other intervention, to be included in a project explicitly, from an early
stage, so as to strengthen the logic of the planning at different levels of a project’s
performance, and the evaluation of progress when the plans are implemented.

A word of caution: When considering using the logframe, we should always keep in
mind its origins. Originally, the logframe was not designed for use in development
projects. The United States Department of Defence designed it and the United
States Agency for International Development adopted it in the late 1960s. It was
soon regarded as an invaluable tool by numerous other bilateral donors, such as the
United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and the European Union. The very logical
nature of the logframe, the neat manner in which it seems to ‘‘package’’ development
objectives, inputs, actions and outcomes makes it attractive to donors who need to
allocate funding to numerous and diverse projects. When applications for funding are
received in the form of a logframe, it makes it ostensibly easier for donors to compare
project proposals and choose those they feel are worthier or more likely to succeed.
As a basis for project proposals, the logframe dominates the funding arena. One
example will suffice to illustrate this: ‘‘[A]t the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
(KARI) completion of a logframe is currently required for at least three-quarters of
all research proposals submitted to donors each year’’ (Odame 2001:1).

Despite its many shortcomings (to which we will return in section 2.3.1.3), the
United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) also requires
logframes for funding applications. Any project proposal exceeding GBP 100,000
has to include a logframe (Pasteur 2001:1).

2.3.1.2 Key elements of the logical framework

It has been argued that it is the very simplicity of logframe analysis that has made it
so extremely popular among aid agencies, and has made it part of the essential skills
a project designer or project team should possess.

A logframe consists of a four-by-four matrix which ‘‘... summarises the project,

A matrix is a rectangular
arrangement of items
records the assumptions which underpin the strategy adopted, and outlines
written in rows, which are how the project may be monitored, all arrayed according to a hierarchy of
read from top to bottom, objectives or an ends-means continuum’’ (Wiggins & Shields 1995:3). The
and columns, read from left original framework, as designed in the 1960s, looked as follows (Coleman in
to right. Wiggins & Shields 1995:3).

DVA2601/1 23
 The Logframe Matrix (Source: DFID 2003)

Project structure Indicators of Means of Important

achievement verification risks and
assumptions

GOAL What are the What sources of What external

qualitative and information can factors are
What the project
quantitative be used to allow necessary to
seeks to achieve.
measures that the goal to be sustain the
indicate the measured? objectives in the
achievement long run?
of objectives?

PURPOSE What are the What sources What external

qualitative and of information factors are
What are the
quantitative are available necessary if
intended immedi-
judgements to be provided the purpose is
ate effects of the
by which to allow for the to contribute to
project? What
achieve-ment achievement of achievement of
changes will
of the purpose the purpose to the goal?
the project bring
can be judged? be measured?
about? What is
the motive for
undertaking the
project?

OUTPUTS Quantity, What are the What factors out

quality and sources of of the project’s
What
time. information control may be
deliverables are
to verify the liable to restrict
to be produced in
achievement the outputs
order to achieve
of the achieving the
the purpose?
outputs? purpose

ACTIVITIES What kind What are the What factors will

and quality sources of hinder the
What activities
of activities information activities from
to be achieved to
and by when to verify the creating outputs?
accomplish the
will they be achievement of
outputs?
produced? the activities?

24
 For a full understanding on how a logframe is applied in a project, refer to Annexure 1,
which is found at the back of this study guide. In this example Cusworth and Franks
(1993) present the plan of a typical rural water supply project.

2.3.1.3 Critique of a blueprint approach

One of the benefits of the logframe is that it allows for the feasibility of the project to
be checked for internal coherence and for external plausibility. What this means is that
we can clearly see, by examining the narrative summary, whether the project is logical
in terms of its stated objectives and in terms of where it fits into a more comprehensive
programme. It also allows us to determine external plausibility by ensuring that the
project design team clearly stipulate the assumptions that they take as their starting
point. It makes it more likely that very risky projects will be given more careful
consideration before scarce resources are allocated.

A second benefit is that it will help project managers to define tasks and accountability
and that it clearly lists the indicators or measures against which the project will be
monitored and evaluated.

A third benefit relates to communication: ‘‘[I]t conveys the essence of the project in
a single diagram, a useful at-a-glance summary for those interested’’ (Wiggins &
Shields 1995:4).

In the 1970s and 1980s major criticism was levelled against such a blueprint approach
for the simple reason that the blueprints did not allow for the conditions in which
typical development projects are undertaken. Projects in agriculture, rural and social
sectors are people-centred and not infrastructural and capital-intensive. The emphasis
in people-centred projects was on institutional and human development, rather than
physical and infrastructural development.

Rondinelli (1983) spearheaded the critique in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Some
of the points of criticism he raised are that ‘‘... existing methods, procedures and
requirements that place strong priority on comprehensive planning and design during
the preparatory stages of the project cycle are misplaced, in appropriate and often
perverse’’ (Rondinelli 1983:88). He has no doubt that the complexity of development
problems, the variety of factors that must be considered and dealt with during
implementation, and the inherent uncertainty about the outcome of all development
projects suggest that alternative methods of planning and implementation must be
employed.

Pasteur (2001) provides a useful critique of the disadvantages of logframes. Her

critique is quoted in the excerpts appearing in Box 2.2 below.

26
 LEARNING UNIT 2: Project planning

Box 2.2: The main disadvantages of logframes

Disempowering nature of logframes: Who are logframes for? The completion
of a logframe is a requirement of most development agencies in order for
‘‘partners’’ to qualify for funding. Hence it is an imposed procedure, thus
maintaining a relationship of control and domination that does not reflect
principles of participation and partnership.
The conceptual approach for a logframe is a Western one and highly culture
specific and its parameters for planning are formal and fixed. This does not
encourage ownership of the logframe as an approach, and its near universal
adoption among agencies discourages partners from developing more
appropriate planning methods.
Methodology is lacking: The logframe, by itself, is not sufficient for either
planning or management. Alone, it cannot identify or select the most appropriate
projects; nor can it provide guidance on the means to achieve project ends;
and it makes no judgments about the value of what is being done, or about the
relation between costs and benefits. It requires an accompanying methodology.
DFID encourages the involvement of beneficiaries and project partners in the
formulation of the logframe, but in practice, this is not often the case. They are
more frequently produced either by a member of a donor agency staff; by a
select group of high-level agency and partner staff; or even by logframe
consultants. This too reduces ownership of a particular project logframe and
diminishes its usefulness.
Without wide participation by members of all partner organisations in the
processes of planning and production of a logframe, the principles and priorities
of each party will not be fully reflected in the final plan. The logframe,
furthermore, conceals differences in interest of the various actors involved,
hence, dangerously ignoring potential areas of conflict that may jeopardise the
success of the intervention.
Inflexibility: The development environment is complex, open and constantly
shifting. The logframe, however, allows little room for flexibility and dynamism.
The very spatial format of the logframe leads to rigidity and oversimplification. It
assumes a fairly consistent environment, and though it allows some
assumptions to be expressed, it neither suggests ways to ensure assumptions
are realistic, nor offers alternatives in case they are not. The logframe also limits
expression of temporal dynamism. It assumes that all project contingencies can
be foreseen from the start, and that there will be a predictable, linear, logical
progression from activities to outputs to purpose to goal. Once these are
‘‘logframed’’ there is no further opportunity for additional thinking and adaptation:
it is assumed that implementation will proceed, machinelike, without any further
need for reflection, judging or deciding. This, of course, is clearly not the case,
particularly in process approaches.
(d) Rigid reporting: Using the logframe as a reporting tool can be problematic in
a number of ways. Setting formal indicators at an early stage and making them
explicit in the framework can be good for accountability, however, it also reduces
flexibility and increases the tendency for indicators to become targets.
Logframes also seem primarily to be concerned with quantitative indicators and
lacking in qualitative measures of progress.

26
 Furthermore, they seem to be aimed less at learning (are we going in the
right direction, what do we need to do to improve?), and more at policing
and upward accountability (if you have not achieved these targets then why
not?) Policing approaches are not supportive of partnership relationships
and they tend to repress potential for learning and improving.

Source: Pasteur (2001:2–4)

2.3.2 Project management failure in Africa’s blueprint projects

While several scholars have criticised blueprint approaches (Rondinelli 1976; 1983),
developing countries continue to implement these projects. Table 2.2 indicates large
infrastructural projects implemented in Chad-Cameroon and South Africa. These
projects feature several challenges at structural, institutional and managerial levels.

26
 LEARNING UNIT 2: Project planning

TABLE 2.2
Why do projects fail? A glance at two major projects of the World Bank in
Africa and their problems (Source: Ika, 2012)

World Specific/ Structural/ Institutional / Managerial/

Bank Arica Overall Contextual Sustainability Organizational
Projects Objectives Problems Problems Problems

The Chad- Build a 1000- Chad and Chad and Cameroon Chad and
Cameroon km pipeline Cameroon (rigidity): Asymmetry Cameroon
Pipeline (project of power between (rigidity);
Reduce
Project context): Chad project planners/ Difficulties
poverty and
is a landlocked implementers and involving
(US$4 improve Chad’s
country at the beneficiaries beneficiaries and
billion) institutional
heart of Africa taking their voices
capacity Chad and Cameroon
with a history into account
(project context): Lack
of civil war and
of political and Chad and
political
institutional capacity Cameroon
violence that is
to reduce poverty by (monitoring
faced with a
delivering services to of indicators):
resources
the poor, paid for by Escalation of
curse (e.g., 60,
oil revenues (oil World Bank
000
revenues were requirements
children die of
used by the Chadian with regard to
malnutrition
government to the
every year)
purchase arms and environmental
military equipment) assessment
Chad and
Cameroon
Monitoring
challenges to
ensure that oil
revenues would
be used to deliver
services to the
poor

The South South Africa South Africa is (South Africa) South Africa
Africa (targets one of the most rigidity: Asymmetry (rigidity):
Medupi coal upfront) Build energy-intensive of power between Difficulties
plant project a 4,800-MW economies project planners/ involving
(US$3 coal-fired power of the world implementers and beneficiaries and
billion) plant facing an beneficiaries taking their voices
electricity crisis into account.
Alleviate The project largely
since early
poverty and benefits major Poor consideration
2008 (power
increase industries that of health, water
shortages
electricity consume electricity scarcity, and
and rolling
access to the below cost rather pressures to local
blackouts) due
poor than the poor who services at the
to demands
suffer the negative project design
for power
environmental phase
exceeding
impacts of the project
supply

Ika (2012:26) argues that while the knowledge about logframe is one of the
contributions made by international development (ID), poor project management
remains associated with Africa’s underdevelopment. This means that as part of the

DVA2601/1 27
 project management, the logframe method also has some distinct shortcomings.
Possibly the most obvious is the very rigid nature of the logframe, as it does not
always fit in comfortably with current adaptive methods of project planning, especially
when it comes to the implementation phase.

The author identifies three categories of challenges of ID: structural/contextual

problems, institutional/sustainability problems, and managerial/organisational
problems (Ika, 2012:31-32). According to Ika (2012:31-32) the following happens in
ID project management:

Structural/contextual problems include political (contradictions between the

political agenda and the development agenda of both donors and recipients),
economic (resource constraints and macroeconomic policy concerns such as
domestic price regulations and tight budgetary restrictions), physical/ geographic
(climate, location, flora, fauna, terrain, land, and natural resources), sociocultural
(religion, language, gender roles, and other culturally distinct traditions), historic
(ethnic origins, patterns of collective action, colonialism, and previous
experience with development efforts), demographic, and environmental issues.

Institutional and sustainability problems include endemic corruption,

capacity building setbacks, recurrent costs of projects, lack of political support and
institutional capacity to deliver sustainable outcomes, lack of implementation
capacity by donors and recipients, incompatibility between countries and donors’
management systems, overemphasis on highly visible quick results from donors
and political actors, and risk of collusion between the principal (agency
bureaucrats or project supervisors) and the agents (project managers) with a
double moral hazard at stake (a conflict of interest potentially detrimental to the
effectiveness of aid and an asymmetric information that renders difficult the
evaluation of donors and recipients countries’ activities).

Managerial/organisational: projects failures may be attributed to imperfect

project design; a blurred delineation of objectives; an inadequate beneficiary
needs analysis; an insensitivity of project supervisors and managers to the needs
of beneficiaries; a lack of consensus on project objectives; differing and somewhat
contradictory agendas among stakeholders or even “dirty” politics; a lack of
project management skilled personnel; poor stakeholder management; delays
between project identification and start-up; delays during project implementation;
cost overruns; poor risk analysis; difficulties involving local beneficiaries due to
literacy, distance, and other communication problems; coordination; monitoring
and evaluation failure.

SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY 2.2

(Spend 20 minutes on this activity.)

On reading the article by Ika (2012), you will notice the debates on
organisational and developmental challenges, which are centred on
the use of logical framework and subsequent failures of international
development projects.

28
 LEARNING UNIT 2: Project planning

Using the main disadvantages of logical framework presented to you

in Box 2.2 above, identify related challenges in the two projects which
are funded by the World Bank.

Main disadvantages Cameroon-Chad South Africa Energy

of logical framework Pipeline Project Project

According to Ika (2012:34) “the traditional top-down approach that

dominates development interventions fails to take into account major
decision-makers, fails to address the problem of rationality, and fails to
account for the lack of local commitment that leads to projects being
considered ‘donor’ projects rather than ‘local’ projects”. The author
further argues that project management tools and approaches in ID
have yet to be tailored or at least harnessed to the cultural context of
Africa.

You have now acquired a good understanding of the limitations of

logframes. However, as with most techniques used in project
planning and management, the lack of opportunities for participation
and people-centred development is a serious concern in the use of a
logframe. To learn more about a practical approach that combines
the rigid logframe (LF) with Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) to
include local communities in project planning, read the article by
Aune available on e-Reserves.

2.4 THE ADAPTIVE (PARTICIPATORY) APPROACH TO PROJECT

PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
Rondinelli (1983: viii) believes that the problems accompanying a rigid blueprint
planning approach can be decreased by using ‘‘... an adaptive approach that relies on
adjunctive and strategic planning, on administrative procedures that facilitate
innovation, responsiveness and experimentation, and on decision-making processes
that join learning with action’’.

2.4.1 Development of an adaptive approach to project planning

In an adaptive approach, successive stages of experimentation, pilot, demonstration
and replication or production are used towards project planning; this is also known
as the learning process planning mode. See the diagram below.

DVA2601/1 29
 An illustration of successive stages of adaptive approach
(Source: Cusworth & Franks 1993:9)

The premise underlying this approach is that there is little certainty about which
techniques will work in the long term for a particular country. Selected techniques
are applied and exposed to regular field tests, after which project activities are
designed in accordance with what was learnt in the field. The result is that project
planning is rendered more flexible by modifying and adapting projects as more
knowledge is acquired about the environment. One of the main premises of the
learning process approach is that there should be continual dialogue between project
planners, implementers and the inhabitants of the area affected by the project (see
Korten 1980:480–511; Sweet & Weisel 1979:127–130). In addition, such an adaptive
approach has the advantage of consisting of continuous cycles of action, reflection
and adaptation, to which Den Heyer (2002:525) refers as ‘‘learning loops’’.

2.4.2 Criticism of adaptive approach

The main assumption of bottom-up processes in project planning, implementation
and evaluation is community participation in the project. In other words, the
assumption is that projects will be small-scale, incremental, adaptive (that is, able to
make changes in any aspect of the project at a short notice), and participatory.
However, being participatory includes much more than local people helping to do
the work; it means that people are also involved in making decisions on the ‘what’
‘why’ and ‘how’ parts of the projects. In this way, the community becomes masters
of their own development (Swanepoel & De Beer 2011:195–196).

To some academics and practitioners, however, the participatory approach is naıve

and idealistic: in short, it is impossible to deal with the total scope of development
required. In the following link to the short videocast, one of the main proponents of
participatory projects, Robert Chambers, briefly gives his views on why the community
should be in charge of their own development. One of his critics, Teddy Brett from
the London School of Economics, thinks Chambers’ approach has a limited
contribution to make.

30
 LEARNING UNIT 2: Project planning

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click on the link to hear the discussion: www.open.edu/openlearn/

society/international- development/international-studies/
participatory-development-action?=33feee961b and then go to
track 13 ‘‘Approaches to development’’. Now listen to the podcast
or read the text below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(OER used with acknowledgement to the Open University of London)

International development: challenges for a world in transition

Approaches to development
Narrator:
Development is obviously about alleviating poverty. But it’s also about value
systems. Whose notions of social progress should prevail? What ideas about
human well-being are universally acceptable? What space should be found
for locally specific hopes, aspirations and ways of seeing? One of the most
influential thinkers, who’s engaged with these questions, is Robert Chambers.
His ideas have been fundamentally important to non-governmental
organisations and to government officials wanting to pursue grass roots or
participatory approaches. But they also have had an increasing impact on the
big official aid programmes. And within the World Bank. In this programme,
we’re going to look at Chambers thought provoking and controversial views
about different kinds of knowledge and different experiences of reality. For
Chambers, development requires that people own their development agenda.
And do now have it thrust upon them. Here he is introducing his ideas at a
workshop held in central Asia.
RC:
One of the ways we express this is in terms of handing over the stick. The stick
is a symbol of authority. Sometimes it can be used for diagramming. Sometimes
to initiate a process. You may start drawing with a stick and then you hand it over
to somebody. So that they are in command of the process, and it’s theirs. And
they’re making the decision. And then you can stand back.
The outsider becomes redundant. The activity just takes place with its own
momentum, because people often become very enthusiastic. Because it’s fun
and it’s interesting, and it’s also useful.
Narrator:
Well this sounds great. But will it really change the world. Teddy Brett of the
LSC is one of Chambers’ severest critics.
TB:
I think Chambers’ views have been very interesting in changing the way people
think about development and getting people to take the ideas of local people
more seriously. However, I have to say that I have some really major concerns
about them. Most of the things that Chambers is talking about, have to do with
small-scale local development activities.
Now these are no doubt important. But poor people and local areas also depend
completely on things like the operation of national road systems, railways, and
the overall economy. So although local knowledge is very important, it has to be
put into a context where we’ve got to be very careful about trying to rubbish the
importance of external knowledge.

DVA2601/1 31
 Narrator:
Chambers’ method for finding out about and engaging with local knowledge is
usually referred to as ‘participatory rural appraisal’, or ‘PRA’, reflecting the fact
that it evolved from studies of the rural poor; although nowadays it’s also
commonly used in urban areas.
For Chambers, empowerment cannot be achieved through imposing external
knowledge, but must be grounded in local understandings.
RC:
The best people to assess empowerment, are the people who may or may not
be empowered. One of the slogans if you like which is used in PRA, is ‘Ask them’.
The immediate question then is who’s them? If we’re thinking about our
participatory approach to development, that maybe has an agenda to improve
the position of marginalised young women. Isn’t there a factor here of actually
disempowering maybe powerful men within that population?
Male:
You’re absolutely right, that it’s a very problematical area. If there’s a process
of interaction between an outside agency or outside people, and a community.
It often has to start with the local power structure. But over time, it’s possible
to work in ways which gradually involve more and more of the people who are
disempowered. Or even to meet them. And very often to meet them, and have
separate meetings with them. It’s a question of time and process. It’s not
something that can be done rapidly, very often. That’s one dimension. The
other dimension is thinking about power itself. We have a tendency partly
because of the syntax that we use with power, to regard it as a commodity. So
you gain power, or you lose power, or you surrender power. It makes it sound
as though it’s good to have more, and worse to have less. In the reality of
human interactions and satisfactions and fulfilment. This is very misleading.
Disempowering yourself in a formal sense, can be very, very rewarding. This
actually is perhaps one of the biggest challenges for the 21st century. To find
better ways to enable those who are powerful to gain satisfaction from exercising
less power. So when you raise this question in the context of the community. I
would say ‘Yes’: there may be powerful interests that are threatened. The
question is whether they have, as it were, a better nature. Another side of them.
Which is the side which is to do with generosity, to do with being respected
within the community. For being an open and generous person. Who can gain
from what informal terms might seem to be disempowerment? Because others
are being empowered.
(CLEAR FOCUS PRODUCTIONS)

In the clip you find two arguments: the one says that participatory development is
real development because the community directs their own development. The other
argument says no, this is too small-scale to make an impact and we still need large,
top-down projects to provide – for instance –infrastructure on a regional and
national level. Is there room for both these arguments? Now read the section below
where blueprint and participatory planning are discussed and contrasted.

Despite the inherent learning in adaptive planning, very little learning seems to take
place, and the same mistakes are made repeatedly in development projects. Biggs
and Smith (2003) argue that the culture of an organisation influences a project cycle
management in that management styles and individuals (the human factor) play a
large role in determining whether or not learning takes place and project planning
is improved.

32
 LEARNING UNIT 2: Project planning

Despite misgivings that may exist about whether an adaptive approach actually leads
to active learning or not, it is clear that such an adaptive approach to project planning
and management is essential. But, as Cusworth and Franks (1993:10) explain:
It does not change the basic concept of a project as a time-bound investment
to achieve specific aims. The need or opportunity for such investment must
still be identified, the investment must still be prepared and implemented
(perhaps with successive stages of experimentation and modification if an
adaptive approach is followed), and then the systems or facilities operated to
create benefits.

From a practical point of view, it seems that a combination of the blueprint

and the adaptive approach is likely to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate
the uncertainties of project planning in developing states. This can be done by
‘‘... breaking the project idea down into discrete and distinct stages, defining
a clear set of objectives for each stage, and allowing changes in approach and
technique between stages’’ (Cusworth & Franks 1993:10).

However, although an adaptive approach has distinct advantages over a more rigid
cyclical approach, there are serious concerns about the extent to which such approaches
allow for popular participation. Long (2001:64; 79) explains why participation is
crucial in any development effort:
Poor people know best their own economic and social needs and problems,
and have insights and ideas about what might be done to solve them. There-
fore, one would expect that by now participation of the poor and marginalised
would be an integral element of the work of all international donor agencies,
recipient governments, NGOs and other private development organisations,
which develop projects designed to benefit the poor. In fact, the reality is quite
the opposite (Long 2001:64).

What is revealed when analysing donor practices is that project cycles and procedures
do not allow for the time and flexibility needed to carry out a participatory project.
This is particularly so in the early phases of a project: trust must be established
between the poor and the donor or government representatives; lengthy processes
of information gathering and consultation must take place; and changes need to be
made based on new information or changing circumstances (Long 2001:79).

In the e-reserves, Lane (2005) gives a critique of various planning models, among
which is the blueprint approach discussed in detail in the study guide.

He focuses on the rigid and inflexible blueprint approach, which he feels does not
allow for participation. The other more flexible approach is the synoptic approach,
which he feels allows for what he terms ‘‘tokenistic’’ participation. He argues that
other variants of the synoptic approach such as mixed planning and incrementalism
as well as recent approaches such as transactive planning and communicative theories
did not go far enough in attaching greater importance to participatory planning. His
conclusion is that current thinking on planning has changed. There is agreement
that while there is no single best method to planning, the model used will determine
the role of the public in the process. The definition of the problem, the kinds of
knowledge used in planning practice as well as the decision-making context will
determine the extent of public participation.

DVA2601/1 33
 In his review of past and current debates on planning, Lane situates participation at the
project planning. He argues that ‘‘... whereas participation was previously considered
a decision-making adjunct, all schools of the contemporary era view participation as
a fundamental element of planning and decision-making’’ (Lane 2007:296).

While the article is a useful critique of the various planning models and advocates
for participatory approaches to planning, it makes assumptions about participation.
It views participation as a remedy for the inadequacies or weaknesses of the more
rigid blueprint approaches.

2.5 CONCLUSION
In this unit you had the opportunity to examine the views of the project planning
process. By comparing directive and interactive project planning models, we explored
the importance of allowing learning and reflection to take place and for building
opportunities for participatory project planning.

When one is planning and managing projects with development in mind, there are
various techniques to ensure that necessary and relevant data will be collected,
different alternatives will be carefully weighed or appraised, implementation will be
efficient, and planning will be constantly monitored and evaluated. You should note
that this is simply intended as an introduction to the various techniques, not as a
blueprint for planning and managing development projects and programmes.
Before deciding on a specific technique or combination of techniques, it is essential to
consider its suitability for a particular country or context. Where necessary, it should
be modified and adapted to the circumstances and needs of that country or context.

2.6 OUTCOMES CHECKLIST

Questions Can do Cannot do

(1) Identify two types of
approaches used in
project planning.
(2) Describe constraints of
using the logical
framework as a blueprint
planning tool in Africa’s
development projects.
(3) Outline the main
arguments in favour of a
participatory approach to
project planning and
implementation.

2.7 READING TO CONSULT FOR THE UNIT

E-reserve articles by Nel (2001), Aune (2000) and Ika (2012)

34
 LEARNING UNIT 3
INFORMATION AND DATA COLLECTION

OUTCOMES
Once you have worked through this unit, you should be able to
• explain the need for information in the different stages of
project design and management
• critically review the use of indigenous and Western knowledge
in data and information collection
• describe research methods that can be used to obtain
information, with special emphasis on their respective
advantages and disadvantages

3.1 INTRODUCTION
The key to any development project is to identify the actual problem, to make sure
that one gets to the root cause of the problem, and to make sure that one understands
the processes or events that have led to the creation of the problem. Lewis (1995:1)
puts this idea across clearly when he says: ‘‘A project is a problem scheduled for
solution. This definition forces us to recognise that projects are aimed at solving
problems and that failure to define the problem properly is what sometimes gets us
into trouble.’’ The author also reminds us that ‘‘... a desired objective is not a problem’’
(Lewis 1995:2). In other words, we have not identified a problem when we say that we
want to increase production in the sugar growing area of KwaZulu-Natal. This is an
objective. Lewis (1995:2) explains as follows: ‘‘The key to a problem is that there is
an obstacle that prevents you from closing the gap (achieving your objective) easily.’’

[Please note: The problem in the sugar fields example formulated here is in addition
to the debate on agriculture and streamflow reduction activities such as sugar being
allocated more water resources (Farolfi & Perret 2002)].

Instead, the formulation of the objective is thus focused on the low yields which
have been observed over the past few years. This then is the obvious problem and
the one we would pay attention to, that we should seek to eradicate. But we also need
to ask ourselves what obstacles stand in our way of achieving this objective easily.
The answer to that would need quite a bit of research, as it could include numerous
factors, such as low rainfall over a number of years, lack of irrigation, insufficient
fertilisers or importation problems, which led to a lack of pesticides at a crucial
moment – or our research may simply show that yields were not as low as we had
originally thought. Instead, flash floods may have washed away the two main routes to
the local market, which meant that the sugar cane did not reach the markets in time.

To identify correctly the problems that need to be solved by means of projects and
programmes, to ascertain the correct objectives, and to determine the best sequence
in which to act, requires thorough research. This unit presents the different stages in
the life of a project when information and data are needed. We further present local or

DVA2601/1 35
 indigenous knowledge (IK) as a pivotal framework underlying identifying information.
The rest some of the unit discusses various sources of data collection techniques to
use based on the type of research (i.e. whether qualitative or quantitative).

3.2 DATA AND INFORMATION

Sterkenburg (1990:229), and Conyers and Hill (1984:88) distinguish between data
and information as follows:
• Data refers to any type of factual material that may be available and implies that
the material is recorded.
• Information refers more specifically to data of a particular kind and in a particular
form, which is useful for planning purposes and for the ultimate planning decision.

Visit this link to learn more about the differences between data
and information: https://salespop.net/sales-management/
difference-between-data-and-information/

3.2.1 The need for information

In development practice there are different needs, and different levels of needs, for
information. Rondinelli (1983:79) notes that international aid organisations and
administrators in developing countries are often reluctant to compile information
which may expose shortcomings. They are so obsessed with time schedules and
achieving predetermined objectives that they tend to neglect more important goals.
Lack of relevant information is cited as one of the major obstacles in planning and
managing development projects. Other problems include low administrative
capacity, political intervention, poor understanding of social and cultural conditions,
ineffective control of participants’ behaviour, and failure to define objectives clearly
at the outset (Rondinelli 1983:80).

Not all the facts gleaned are equally relevant. Information should be collected with a
particular objective in mind. As Moris (1981:31) puts it: ‘‘An organisation’s need for
information derives from its activities.’’ An enormous amount of time and energy
can be wasted on gathering worthless information. Management should therefore
exercise careful judgment in deciding what would be useful and relevant information.

Different kinds of information are required for selecting, planning, developing and
concluding a project. The information required during the various stages comes
from different sources: people in local communities who are affected by the problem,
existing databases, reports and publications, special research for the appraisal of
project proposals, routine reports while a project is under way, ongoing planning
documents, audit reports, monitoring reports by aid organisations, and final evaluation
reports at the conclusion of a project. Different techniques are followed to compile
the various kinds of information (Moris 1981:32; Mickelwait 1979:179–186).

Bryant and White (1982:136) distinguish different hierarchies of information needs,

namely those for project organisations, aid organisations (or the central government
where no aid organisations exist) and political groups who are not in favour of the
project. Although project personnel have to devote considerable time to the compiling
of information required by aid organisations, central government and politicians,
this information is mostly of little use to the management of the project.

36
 LEARNING UNIT 3: Information and data collection

Clearly, then, information – both the need for it and its collection – is a theme that
is woven into all the phases of development planning. In the sections that follow, we
give you a broad overview of the different planning phases during which information
is needed, and we discuss the type of information and the problems experienced
with it. Because each of the phases is important in its own right and can stand on its
own, we deal with each separately, as indicated earlier in the unit. Thus, to gain a
full picture of appraisal, monitoring and evaluation, you will have to page back to
this unit from time to time.

3.2.2 Information for project design and appraisal

According to Mickelwait (1979:185–186), information requirements for project design
relate to technical and organisational factors.

Information on technical specifications includes the following:

• information that promotes understanding of the project environment, such as
information on the human, social, economic, cultural, political and physical
environments
• information that will enable the project team to adopt an appropriate strategy,
such as information on the intended beneficiaries (or target groups), technological
advances, and the project’s anticipated benefits
• information that will ensure consistency of the project strategy with sectoral,
regional and national goals

Information on organisational specifications includes the following:

• information for designing an appropriate project structure, such as information
on the existing organisational network, administrative capacity, personnel position
and support services
• information to ensure effective management of the project, such as information
on the inputs required from various institutions, and requirements for cooperation
and coordination
• information for assessing and monitoring progress
Although the last category relates to the implementation of the project, it should be
attended to in the project design phase.

It may be assumed that any project proposal will bring about some form of change.
It also implies a particular kind of action concerning the compiling and analysing of
relevant information. At the outset of a project it is necessary to
• define the purpose and objectives of the project clearly with a view to putting it
into operation
• establish criteria for continually monitoring progress and ultimately evaluating
the project
• collect base data in order to plan it properly and to assess the results at its conclusion
When a development project is being considered, a procedure known as project
appraisal is adopted to determine its economic, social and environmental viability.
We will deal with this issue in much greater detail later in this study guide (see learning
unit 5).

DVA2601/1 37
 3.2.3 Information for managing development projects
Project managers, overall supervisors and planners require different types of
information. Managers are interested in the optimal utilisation of precious research
time and ask researchers for only the information that is needed for management
purposes. The information generated in this way is wholly inadequate for the
purposes of overall supervision and planning. Managers who refuse to accede to
continual requests for more information are accused of crisis management and of
being reluctant to divulge what they are doing. In this way they are pressurised into
following predetermined plans and demonstrating that they are doing so (Moris
1981:45).

To manage a project, information is needed on at least three interconnected levels:

• for the development of the project
• for reports by personnel to management with a view to monitoring the project
• for ongoing planning of implementation
The information collection procedures should be such that data are stored from the
very first day with a view to ongoing evaluation and final assessment.

If a learning process approach is followed, a considerable amount of time during

the project development phase will be devoted to designing working methods and
identifying tasks for achieving the objectives. This approach calls for a two-way flow
of information and constant communication between the community and the
project team.

Report-backs by personnel are valuable for continual monitoring, evaluation and

implementation planning. However, there is disagreement about how frequently these
reports should be given and about their format (Moris 1981:41). See learning unit 5
for a discussion of the difference between monitoring and evaluation.

3.2.4 Information for evaluating development projects

The information required to evaluate a project is collected during all the stages of the
project (see learning unit 5). Evaluation means finding out what has happened and
why. Since different kinds of action can take place in any project, evaluating the
course of events can be an extremely complicated procedure. Moris (1981:32)
classifies project appraisal (before a decision is made to launch a project) under
evaluation. Project appraisal includes financial analysis and (mainly economic) cost-
benefit analysis, while the ongoing and the final evaluation are aimed at establishing
the impact and achievements, respectively, of a project. The methodology of project
appraisal differs vastly from that of other forms of evaluation: project appraisal
depends chiefly on econometric methods, while other forms of evaluation make use
of experimental, survey and qualitative research methods, especially participatory and
people-centred methodologies.

Procedures for compiling, disseminating and utilising information with a view to

monitoring and assessing a project should already be established in the design phase.
Thus, at a very early stage clarity is needed about a project’s specific objectives and
the indicators of success. An evaluation of a project’s impact and success calls for
base data, in other words data on the situation prior to the project’s implementation.
Without base data it is extremely difficult to assess a project’s impact.

38
 LEARNING UNIT 3: Information and data collection

Predetermining specific objectives for a project means that development is not seen
as a process that has no boundaries, and that the population affected by the project
will not be permitted to change its course or even its subsidiary goals. If they were
allowed to do so, the ultimate goal of the project would be finally established at the
end, and not at the beginning. Evaluation would then take place in accordance with
that ultimate goal. Base data would still be required, but it would be difficult to build
information gathering procedures in at the early stages of planning. Indigenous
expertise would have to be considered.

In formulating specific indicators for evaluation purposes, it is useful to consider

various criteria of effectiveness. In addition to criteria of economic and financial
effectiveness, Bryant and White (1982:149–150) list the following:
• the extent to which a project develops institutions that will be able to organise
and maintain the new services over time
• the project’s effectiveness in reaching specific target groups
• the amount of behavioural change that occurs (e.g. do farmers adopt the new
technology?)
• the extent to which the organisation has learned from the project experience and
altered its decision-making processes
• the extent to which the project succeeds in mobilising people and expanding
their awareness of their capacities

Each indicator of a project’s impact and success represents a research topic of major
or minor importance. It stands to reason, therefore, that designing procedures to
acquire the necessary information calls for special research skills. We will return to
evaluation later in the study guide.

3.3 POLITICS OF KNOWLEDGE AND KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION

We have now looked at information needs at different stages of the project cycle,
from the planning and the management through to the evaluation of development
projects. Now we would like to reflect on the politics that comes with knowledge
and the production of knowledge. We call it politics because it is a contested realm.
For instance, the “poor” are often characterised as voiceless, not because they cannot
talk or have opinions, but because their ideas are not listened to. Often, they are not
even given a chance to speak. They are not viewed as a worthy source of information
and thus their development has to be planned without them in a top-down fashion.
This does not only apply to ‘poor’ individuals, poor nations are also treated the same,
with international organisations and some countries from the North “dictating” the
route of development for countries of the South.

For a very long time the Western ways of knowing have been considered superior
to all other knowledge systems. There are many other ways of knowing and the
recent calls for the decolonisation of knowledge and the education system as part
of the demands of the #FeesMustFall movement have provided room for the
acknowledgement of other “knowledges”. Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) are
regaining their prominence and challenging Western Knowledge systems (WKS)
which are always accompanied by Western imperialism, its way of life, and its bias
(Noyoo 2007: 168). Instead, IKS advocates for local solutions to local problems. It
is important to note that due to power being intertwined with knowledge, power
dynamics are at play every time one mentions IKS or WKS.

DVA2601/1 39
 Due to the persistent global domination of WKS, this ultimately means that power
and other forms of benefit such as economy, lie with the West while such knowledge
systems are detrimental to local communities (Noyoo 2007: 168). This is because
WKS are characterised as scientific and technological, while the IKS are perceived
as being primitive Magaisa (2004:43) and based on mere repetition (Nkondo 2012).
Apusigah argues that amid the era of globalisation, which has a venomous effect on
people, cultures and the environment in Africa, it would probably make sense to
return to indigenous knowledge and cultural values to achieve sustainability
(Apusigah 2011).

3.3.1 Indigenous knowledge as a source of information

However, much data and information are required of the broad context of a project,
In simple terms,
epistemology
much detailed data and information of the local context is required for accurate needs
of development identification, planning, implementation and evaluation of projects. Most often such
means knowledge local knowledge is not available on international, regional or national databases and
about knowledge
of development.
other information inventories. Local knowledge is per se local and must be locally
gathered, sorted, indexed and interpreted.

Indigenous knowledge has been defined by Senanayake (2006: 87) as “unique

knowledge confined to a particular culture or society...local knowledge, folk
knowledge, people’s knowledge, traditional wisdom or traditional science”. Local
ways of knowing are informed by lived experiences which are passed down to other
generations through mostly oral means (that is, as the spoken word). These have,
however, been looked down upon by the West who saw indigenous knowledge systems
as non-scientific to the extent of ignoring them as if non-existent Nkondo (2012).

Indigenous knowledge, however, plays a significant role in development projects, as

one-size-fits-all approaches do not always work. Edwards (1989:116) associates Africa’s
characterisation with deterioration rather than development with the irrelevance of
foreign advisors’ information sources which is mostly their scientific publications
presented at conferences. It would seem as though the vast amount of information
made available by these advisors in scientific publications and at conferences simply
has no effect. Edwards ascribes this state of affairs to the distance between the
possessor of the information and those to whom information has to be conveyed.
This distance can be a figurative or a literal one. From a literal perspective distance
refers to the phenomenon that advisors or experts operate from centres or urban
areas far removed from the scene of project action. Figuratively speaking, distance
refers to the technical nature of the knowledge an advisor or expert possesses. The
more technical information he or she has, the greater the distance or knowledge gap.
Edwards (1989:118) remarks somewhat cynically: ‘‘The idea that development
consists of a transfer of skills or information creates a role for the expert as the only
person capable of mediating the transfer of these skills from one person or society
to another.’’

However, this situation has certain important consequences for the epistemology
of development. Edwards (1989:119–120) mentions several of these consequences:
• The role and status of the technocrat contributes directly to the devaluation of
indigenous knowledge, which is based on the population’s own experience.
Knowledge is too often associated with formal education and training. In
formal education and training, knowledge packages which are often very technical
are conveyed to people without any questioning of their appropriateness to certain

40
 LEARNING UNIT 3: Information and data collection

situations. Indigenous networks of production, barter and mutual support, which

have evolved over the centuries and which could form the basis for development,
are sometimes destroyed by plans for commercial production. This results in
development that cannot be sustained over time.
• The technocratic approach to development ignores the role of people’s feelings in
development. Research is undertaken away from the ‘‘... everyday context within
which an understanding of these emotions can develop’’ Edwards (1989:121). An
understanding of actual, daily problems will, however, not be attained unless this
context is understood.
• The assumption that development springs from the transfer of technical knowledge
does not leave room for an organic developmental process of enrichment,
recognition of the power of the people and participation – a long process of ‘‘...
experiment and innovation through which people build up their skills, knowledge
and self-confidence necessary to shape their environment in ways which foster
progress towards goals such as economic growth, equity in income distribution,
and political freedom’’ Edwards (1989:119–120).

The power that scientific research, expressed in scientific terms, lends to knowledge,
leaves local populations vulnerable. Thus far research has been largely an anti-
participation activity. Recently participatory research has received more and more
attention and increasingly technocrats subscribe to it.

Two important issues come to the fore in the article by Edwards (1989). First is the
fact that in the past developmental research was conducted in such a way that there
was a lack of understanding between local populations and researchers, and that this
gap should be bridged – change and understanding are, in fact, an integrated historical
process. Secondly, the reigning research paradigm is questioned and reflection is
called for on matters such as objectivity, the distance between researcher and research
object, and the identification of variables and causality by the ‘‘objective’’ researcher.

Against the background of these serious methodological questions, research must

nevertheless continue to be conducted on a day-to-day basis to collect information
for development. The methodological problems are not alleviated by an insistence
on cost-effectiveness in research. The pursuit of cost-effectiveness can mean that
normal research procedures are reduced and can make researchers feel that their
scientific reputations are at stake.

By economising on information, both research methods and data analysis are

structured by the utilisation of existing data. There are various sources of existing
data, such as previous research results, existing scientific knowledge (summarised in
theories and approaches) and indigenous knowledge. Box 3.1 below details some
aspects of indigenous knowledge.

DVA2601/1 41
 Box 3.1 Some significant aspects of indigenous knowledge
(Senanayake 2006)
(a) Indigenous knowledge is local. It is rooted to a particular place and set of
experiences, and generated by people living in those places. The result of
this is that transferring the indigenous knowledge to other places runs the risk
of dislocating it.
(b) Indigenous knowledge is orally-transmitted, or transmitted through imitation
and demonstration. The consequence is that writing it down changes some
of its fundamental properties. Writing, of course, also makes it more portable
and permanent, reinforcing the dislocation referred to in (a).
(c) Indigenous knowledge is the consequence of practical engagement in eve-
ryday life, and is constantly reinforced by experience and trial and error. This
experience is characteristically the product of many generations of intelligent
reasoning, and since its failure has immediate consequences for the lives of
its practitioners its success is very often a good measure of Darwinian fitness.
It is tested in the rigorous laboratory of survival.
(d) (a) and (c) support a further general observation, that it is empirical rather than
theoretical knowledge. To some extent, its oral character hinders the kind of
organization necessary for the development of true theoretical knowledge.
(e) Repetition is an essential characteristic of tradition, even when new knowl-
edge is added. Repetition aids retention and reinforces ideas; it is also partly
a consequence of (a) and (b).
(f) Tradition could be considered as ‘a fluid and transforming agent with no real
end’ when applied to knowledge and its central concept is negotiation. Indig-
enous knowledge is, therefore, constantly changing, being produced as well
as reproduced, discovered as well as lost; though it is often represented as
being somehow static.
(g) Indigenous knowledge is characteristically shared to a much greater degree
than other forms of knowledge. Therefore, it is sometimes called `people’s
‘science’. However, its distribution is still segmentary and socially clustered.
It is usually asymmetrically distributed within a population, by gender and age
and preserved through distribution in the memories of different individuals.
Specialists may exist by virtue of experience.
(h) Although indigenous knowledge may be focused on particular individuals and
may achieve a degree of coherence in rituals and other symbolic constructs,
its distribution is always fragmentary. Generally, it does not exist in its totality
in any one place or individual. It is devolved in the practices and interactions
in which people themselves engage.
(i) Despite claims for the existence of culture-wide (indeed universal) abstract
classifications of knowledge based on non-functional criteria where indig-
enous knowledge is at its densest and directly applicable, its organization is
essentially functional.
(j) Indigenous knowledge is characteristically situated within broader cultural
traditions; separating the technical from the nontechnical, the rational from
the non-rational is problematic.
Source: Senanayake 2006: 87–88

At present more and more attention is being paid to indigenous knowledge, but
unfortunately the pressure to economise on information is such that indigenous
knowledge is not receiving the attention it deserves. Data that could be obtained
from the poor, the illiterate or those who live in remote areas are often not gathered.
Yet, ironically, it is precisely those who have learnt to survive with virtually nothing
at their disposal who possess valuable knowledge.

42
 LEARNING UNIT 3: Information and data collection

We shall return to methods or techniques that can be used to ensure optimal

incorporation of indigenous knowledge when examining rapid and participatory
rural appraisal.

3.3.2 Techniques for collecting data

Before examining some of the techniques that could be used to collect data, it is
necessary first to consider a few decisions that may assist the project manager or
project team to decide on which technique (or techniques) to use.
Firstly, it is important to decide at the outset what form the data should take. Here
we can distinguish between quantitative data which refer to, say, population figures
and agricultural production statistics, and qualitative data which relate to such
aspects as the nature of agricultural systems and social customs. Quantitative data
are usually expressed as statistics, while qualitative data are usually published in the
form of narrative reports or descriptions.
The two major research approaches to data collection are presented in Box 3.2.

Box 3.2 Qualitative and quantitative research

The major divide in research is between qualitative and quantitative research
methods. Qualitative research is more concerned with establishing deep
meanings and quantitative research is more with numbers (Law et al. 2013:23).
‘A quantitative approach asks how many people share a particular characteristic
or hold a particular view. A qualitative one looks more at what people think and
feel and why’ (Law et al. 2013:23).
These approaches can co-exist; some research projects contain some elements
of both these approaches. When this happens, it is referred to as a mixed
method.

Secondly, the frequency of data collection is important and we need to consider how
regularly data must be collected. Many types of data have to be collected at regular
intervals. Population censuses are examples of this. At the other end of the scale are
geological data, which remain reasonably constant and therefore do not need regular
updating.
Thirdly, we need to distinguish between primary and secondary data when deciding
on the physical collection of data. In simple terms, primary data are usually obtained
from the intended beneficiaries or anyone else who might have a stake in the project
to be undertaken. Primary data are facts which must be collected by means of
surveys such as a population census, usually requiring field work. In addition, these
are raw facts that must be processed before they can be used for project planning.
Secondary data generally consist of previously classified and processed information
and are obtained from secondary sources such as books, articles, maps, files and
unpublished reports. Before starting to collect primary data, planners usually try to
ascertain whether secondary data are available. Using the latter would be one way
in which planners can economise on data. Unfortunately, in developing states
secondary data are often under-utilised because they are not always readily available
and storage techniques are ineffective.
Next, we shall look at some data collection techniques. The suitability of such
techniques is determined by two factors: the type of data required and the availability
of resources such as labour, money and time.

DVA2601/1 43
 Table 3.1 was reproduced from the United Nations (1993:2.5–12.5-2) and gives a compact summary
of the techniques, the sources of information, advantages and disadvantages.

TABLE 3.1
Primary sources of data collection

METHOD DEFINITION SOURCES ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

First hand Primary Lacks Can be expensive if
exposure of the sources artificiality of lots of exposure is
Direct project team to like project other methods; required; difficult to
observation the behaviour beneficiaries gives assessor standardize data
or phenomenon good exposure
being assessed

SECONDARY SOURCES

Systematic Libraries; Already Not always

reading of needs scholars; collected; low available on topics
Documentary
data compiled by officials; level of effort to needed; can be
research
secondary specialized analyse dated; usually
sources agencies incomplete
Sorting and Ministry Available Many contain
analysing data bases; in most line gaps; usually
Statistics and information from planning ministries; easy unaggregated;
planning data extant data bases departments; to obtain; can requires specialist
statistics be voluminous to analyse it
centres
Interviewing of People or Economical; Informants may
knowledgeable agencies relies on inject their own
Key
secondary which are in knowledgeable biases
informant
sources a position to informants
approach
know about
the subjects

PRIMARY SOURCES

Soliciting and Primary Goes right to Can be expensive;

recording sources the source of requires some
Interview information by like project the information special interviewing
asking questions beneficiaries skills

Small group Primary Introduces Somewhat of an

discussion sources element of artificial setting for
focuses on like project spontaneity such a discussion,
Focus group
development beneficiaries since may inhibit some
problems discussion is
unguided
Published list Primary or When well Difficult to
of questions to secondary done, it obtains construct; requires
Questionnaire
be answered by sources highly reliable high degree of skill
every informant data

44
 LEARNING UNIT 3: Information and data collection

SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY 3.1

(Spend about 20 minutes on this activity.)

The purpose of this activity is to help you select data collection

techniques.

You are a member of South Africa’s Culture of Learning Programme.

This programme ‘‘... aims to address issues such as low school
attendance, poor examination results and the breakdown of discipline,
and to bring back the culture of learning’’ Van der Waldt & Knipe
(1998:157). You are tasked to obtain data on the reasons for low school
attendance. Which of the data collection techniques listed above
would you use, and why? Write down your answer n on a separate
piece of paper.

Now read the sections below, which explain the different data collection
techniques and how they are used. Compare that with the answer you
had given for this activity.

3.3.2.1 Interviews
One of the most basic methods used to elicit information from primary sources –
in other words, people who will be directly affected by the proposed project – is to
interview them. ‘‘Interviewing is a systematic process of soliciting and recording
information by asking questions’’ United Nations (1993:2.15). There are numerous
techniques that can be used within the broad framework of interviews – some
interviews may be based on rigid and highly structured questions which simply
require that the interviewer reads the question to the respondent and then records
the answer on the questionnaire. The findings of such questionnaires can be collated
and analysed by computer. Sometimes the interviewer may use a semi-structured
interview guide or schedule that contains broad areas of interest to be covered. This
type of interview contains open-ended questions which allow the respondent to
elaborate on and qualify answers. A third option is that the interviewer may decide
to have a completely spontaneous interview without a structured set of questions or
areas to be covered.

3.3.2.2 Focus groups

An interview technique that is rapidly gaining popularity among social scientists is
the focus group. As the name indicates, a group of intended beneficiaries (primary
sources) are gathered in one place for a set period (an hour or two), and are asked to
discuss certain issues that have a direct bearing on the proposed project. A member
of the project formulation team usually sits in to make notes of the discussion. The
United Nations (1993:2.16) describes the advantages of the focus group technique
as follows:

This approach has the advantage that informants talk about their own development
problems in their own words. It overcomes the risk of ‘‘putting words in their mouths’’,
which are inherent in most interviews and survey questionnaires. The focus group
focuses a small group discussion on development problems without guidance of an
interviewer or questionnaire.

DVA2601/1 45
 3.3.2.3 Questionnaires
A questionnaire can be a valuable instrument to obtain a broad overview – a
‘‘snapshot’’ – of demographic, infrastructural and socio-economic data of a community
or area. However, a questionnaire must be carefully designed to ask questions
unambiguously and in a non-threatening way. The respondents may hesitate to
provide honest answers, for instance, on their income, political views or perceptions
about power structures. Therefore, a questionnaire should always be tested in a pilot
survey to determine whether the information obtained is accurate and useful for the
purpose designed.

3.3.2.4 Direct observation

Direct observation is a technique used to collect information directly from the field
by visiting the area and by taking in visually what is happening or what the state of
affairs is. We can distinguish here between direct observation and participant
observation.

Direct or informal observation requires that ‘‘... the project formulation team actually
go to the field and gather the necessary data first hand by directly observing people’s
behaviour (e.g. the incidence of various diseases during one week in a district health
centre), or taking direct measurements of natural phenomena (like average rainfall
in a certain region over a certain period of time)’’ United Nations (1993:2.17). It is
essential, though, that direct observation be supplemented with key informant
interviews as various factors may create a false ‘‘reading’’ of what is happening in a
community (Schönhuth & Kievelitz 1994:80).

When a planner makes use of the technique of participant observation, he or she

does not obtain data from formal surveys or in a detached manner, but from active
participation in the activities of the community or organisation concerned. We may
distinguish between cases where the aim is primarily to participate in the activities, so
that data collection is actually of secondary importance, and cases where the primary
aim is to collect information and participation is merely a means to that end. As an
example of the former, an agricultural extension officer may be asked, in the course
of his or her normal activities, to probe the people’s attitudes towards a particular
project. The approach generally adopted by anthropologists is an example of the latter.

Participant observation is an extremely effective technique and has great potential for
obtaining in-depth knowledge about the structure and functioning of a community.
Its main drawback is that it is very time-consuming. However, Schönhuth and
Kievelitz (1994:81) point out that if the planner is familiar with the area under
observation, good results can be obtained in as little as two to three months. They
add: ‘‘The most important documentation instrument is the taking of notes every
evening, recording the results of talks, observations and impressions of each day’’.

3.3.2.5 Documentary research

The United Nations (1993:2.13) defines documentary research as ‘‘... the systematic
reading and analysis of needs data and information provided by secondary sources’’.
It describes the latter as ‘‘secondary sources because the authors of the reports
generally do not represent the project beneficiaries about whom they are writing’’.

46
 LEARNING UNIT 3: Information and data collection

Another source of secondary data would be statistics and planning data, which is
normally collected by the central statistical organisation to be found in most states,
and stored not only by them but also by most government ministries. These data are
often routinely collected and usually not compiled in a form that would be useful
for specific project planning. The raw data would need a great deal of analysis and
interpretation, which is time-consuming. The United Nations (1993:2.14) explains:

When something, Analysis of statistics and planning data entails finding extant data bases, gaining
such as data, is
extant, it means
access to them, and organising their contents into a form which is useful for needs
that it currently assessment. If this is the kind of data collection which the project formulation team
exists, although decides to do, then it would benefit from at least the temporary assignment of a data
it may be old or
dated.
specialist to the project formulation team.

3.3.2.6 Key informant approaches

Doing interviews with key informants is an important variant of interviews. Various
interview techniques can be used to obtain information from people other than the
intended beneficiaries of a project or programme. The United Nations (1993:2.14)
describes the key informant approach to data gathering as ‘‘... systematic interviewing
of select people who are in a position to have first-hand knowledge of the beneficiaries
of a development project’’. The most important advantage of such an approach is
that one would be able to gain a great deal of information about a specific group of
people without having to interview all of them personally.

3.4 PARTICIPATORY METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND

RESEARCH
Participatory methods of data collection and research were first developed in the
late 1970s, and were a direct reaction to expensive, time-consuming and staff-
intensive conventional surveys which tended to generate unmanageable amounts of
data, but very little of immediate interest to grassroots projects. The methods go by
different names and started off as Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), later renamed as
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and also Participatory Learning and Action
(PLA). As shown below, the approach mainly aims to allow people in communities
to share their knowledge in a way that put them in charge. Robert Chambers talks
of ‘‘handing over the stick’’ – a metaphor to say that the power of the researcher is
transferred to the community. However, participatory methods and techniques hold
not only advantages but also disadvantages. In spite of its common-sense logic,
various criticisms have been expressed about these approaches. You are introduced
to these in the sections below.

3.4.1 Principles of participatory methodologies

In box 3.3, we have reproduced the six principles most of these methodologies have
in common.

DVA2601/1 47
 Box 3.3: Common principles of participatory methodologies

• A defined methodology and systematic learning process. The focus is on

cumulative learning by all the participants, which include both professional
trainees and local people. Given the focus of these approaches as systems of
joint analysis and interaction, their use has to be participative.
• Multiple perspectives. A central objective is to seek diversity, rather than
simplify complexity. This recognises that different individuals and groups
make different evaluations of situations, which lead to different actions.
• People’s views contain a large amount of interpretation, bias and prejudice
and this implies that there are multiple possible descriptions of any real-
world activity. Everyone is different and important.
• Group learning process. All these methodologies involve the recognition
that the complexity of the world will only be revealed through group analysis
and interaction. There are three possible mixes of investigators: those from
different disciplines, those from different sectors and those from the outside
(professionals) and the inside (local people). Within each of these are other types
of mix, for example not all local people in a ‘community’ are the same.
• Context specific. The approaches are flexible enough to be adapted to suit
each new set of conditions and actors, and so there are multiple variants.
• Facilitating experts and stakeholders. The methodology is concerned with
the transformation of existing activities to try to improve people’s situation.
The role of the external ‘‘expert’’ is best thought of as helping people carry out
their own study and so achieve something.
• Leading to change. The participatory process leads to debate about change,
and debate changes the perceptions of the actors and their readiness to
contemplate action. The process of joint analysis and dialogue helps to define
changes which would bring about improvement and seeks to motivate people to
take action or implement the defined changes. This action includes local
institution building or strengthening, so increasing the capacity of people to
initiate action on their own in the future.
Source: Pretty et al. 1995:56–57

The principles underlying these methodologies are clearly ones that reflect the
realisation that development is a people-centred process and does not merely consist
of the transfer of infrastructure and technological knowledge.

3.4.2 Rapid rural appraisal (RRA) and participatory rural appraisal (PRA)
Rapid rural appraisal (RRA) and participatory rural appraisal (PRA) are probably the
best known and most influential methods of collecting data in a cost-effective way.
These methods (rapid and participatory rural appraisal) are therefore alternatives to
more comprehensive, methodologically justifiable research. These techniques are not
just cheaper, but their results are also available far more quickly. This kind of appraisal
can also be repeated frequently, for example for continuous monitoring if necessary.

This section takes a closer look at PRA as a methodology for developmental practice,
explains what the methodology is about and how it is applied in practice. Most
importantly, through using articles by Kapoor (2002) and Chambers (2002) – the
pioneer of PRA – the section seeks to expose you to some of the contending views
on PRA.

48
 LEARNING UNIT 3: Information and data collection

However, we also need to note the limitations of the two articles. Whereas the article
by Kapoor provides a critique of the PRA methodology, this is done without an equal
acknowledgement of the good that PRA has brought to bear with its principle of ‘‘the
poor, weak, vulnerable and exploited should come first’’. In addition, as you will see
when reading the article, Kapoor’s reference to Habermas’ communicative rationality
as recourse to the limitations of the PRA methodology is equally not a panacea. For
example, in the absence of visual techniques the PRA method employs problem-
ranking, listing, card-sorting and so on. If these techniques were not employed,
language could have become a serious barrier to deliberations in both illiterate and
multilingual communities. Without such visual techniques, exhaustive debate could
be compromised and the legitimacy of decisions taken could be questioned.

In contrast, the article by Chambers leans heavily on the techniques of the PRA
methodology – perhaps to justify its success. Though the article attempts to show
some of the methodology’s shortcomings, this is done in a very superficial manner,
negating the importance of theoretical limitations which Kapoor mentions so
eloquently. So, by reading both of these articles, you are likely to form a more
balanced opinion of the discourse on PRA. You will then be able to come to your
own conclusion about PRA as a development method.

SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY 3.2

(Spend about 30 minutes on this activity.)

The purpose of this activity is to allow you to briefly assess PRA.

Read the articles by Kapoor (2002) and Chambers (2007) in the e-
reserves to get an idea on their perspectives on PRA. Then describe some
limitations and risks in using PRA.

3.4.3 Participatory learning and action

Participatory learning and action (PLA) is today the preferred term for participatory
research methodologies, which would include techniques such as rapid rural and
participatory rural appraisal mentioned above. The more conventional research
techniques relied on so heavily in the past – such as questionnaires and surveys –
were characterised by their strong extractive character. By this we mean that people’s
inputs were sought, but their participation was limited to answering questions. They
were not in a position to influence what was happening or about to happen as a result
of the research, because the research findings were seldom made available to them
or checked for accuracy Pretty, Guijt, Scoones & Thompson (1995:61). Even RRA
was at times extractive in the sense that people participated in projects by being
consulted. Very often the problems and the solutions were still being defined by outside

DVA2601/1 49
 experts, and local people were, at best, consulted. Yet professional project planners
were not obliged to modify the identified problems or solutions on the basis of what
they had gleaned from local people’s inputs. Today there is increasing emphasis on
the kind of participation that would lead to empowerment. Pretty (1995:61) and his
co-authors refer to this kind of participation as ‘‘interactive participation’’ and as
‘‘self- mobilisation’’. These two terms are defined in box 3.4 below:

Box 3.4: How participation influences empowerment (Source: Pretty et

al 1995:61)
Interactive participation
People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and the formation
of new local institutions or the strengthening of existing ones. It tends to involve
interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple perspectives and make use
of systematic and structured learning processes. These groups take control
over local decisions, and so people have a stake in maintaining structures or
practices.
Self-mobilisation
People participate by taking decisions independent of external institutions to
change systems. They develop contacts with external institutions for resources
and technical advice they need, but retain control over how resources are used.
Such self-initiated mobilisation and collective action may or may not challenge
existing inequitable distributions of wealth and power.

3.4.3.1 PRA through the prism of critique

Although the noble intentions of the theory and techniques of PRA are well-
documented, the methodology is not sacrosanct as it comes with flaws both at a
theoretical and a technical level. These limitations are identified both by Chambers
himself (2002) and his critics. At a theoretical level the legitimacy, justice and
difference in PRA is questioned.

In view of the unequal power relations that play themselves out between the PRA
facilitator – a symbol of authority – and the community or participants, Kapoor
(2002) argues that the legitimacy and justice in the theory is lost. He contends that
the discretionary powers bestowed upon the facilitator and the status or authority
embedded in that position vis-á-vis communities of lower esteem compromise the
three elements referred to earlier by Kapoor (2002:101–117).

Again, the statement ‘‘Putting the first last’’ (attributed to Chambers) evokes criticism.
Kapoor argues that ‘‘... it means that those who are upper and powerful step down,
disempower themselves and empower others; it implies that uppers now have to give
up something and make themselves vulnerable’’. The question now becomes, will the
privileged indeed interpret the statement as Kapoor does – as losing privilege – or in
a more humanitarian or philanthropic way, which Chambers believes to be possible?

At a technical level, Chambers (2007) identifies some of the limitations in his theory.
Among these challenges are the behaviour and attitudes of all involved and the
quality and feasibility of the exercise. However, Kapoor takes these technical
challenges much deeper.

50
 LEARNING UNIT 3 : Information and data collection

At this level, Kapoor argues that the informality of the participatory procedures can
raise doubt and mistrust on the part of local communities, thereby thwarting the
objectives of the whole exercise. Secondly, as a result of the absence of homogenous
communities and by extension of consensus, voting becomes the standard arbiter
for contending choices and decision making. Here, Kapoor warns of issues such as
patriarchy and the value systems entrenched in some communities that may
involuntarily coerce certain sections of communities to make choices not necessarily
beneficial to themselves, but with the intention of maintaining the status quo or
appeasing dominant community structures or members.

As an antidote to the coercive climate in the decision-making process, Kapoor draws

on Habermas’ theory on deliberative democracy. He argues that there should be more
open public deliberations, rather than voting, and that this process will gradually
predispose people to seeking the good for all. He further claims that reasoned
public deliberation helps everyone to reach an expanded view – a move from mere
agreement to rational consensus.

In addition to PRA, two of the methodologies for participatory planning and

information gathering are Self-esteem Associative Strength Resourcefulness Action
Planning Responsibility (SARAR) and Beneficiary Assessment (BA). We will briefly
discuss these methodologies in the following sections.

3.4.3.2 SARAR
Like the PRA and BA, SARAR is a participatory social assessment method that
was developed in the 1970s in Asia. It stands for Self-esteem Associative Strength
Resourcefulness Action Planning Responsibility. SARAR has been described as a
methodology ‘used mostly for purposes of raising awareness and empowering
communities to plan local level development activities and to organise for the
implementation of these activities” Rietbergen-McCracken & Narayan (1998: 8).

3.4.3.3 Beneficiary Assessment

As we have mentioned a number of times in this study guide, the inputs, ideas and
perceptions of the beneficiaries of development projects are crucial. The World
Bank uses a specific set of techniques to ensure beneficiary involvement. It refers
to this set of techniques as ‘‘beneficiary assessment’’ and describes it as a “method
of information gathering which assesses the values of an activity as it is perceived
by its principal users’’ Rietbergen-McCracken & Narayan (1998:1).

3.5 CONCLUSION
In this unit we introduced you to some of the most important techniques that can
be used to obtain information on which to base decisions regarding development
problems and needs, their causes, and possible solutions. The techniques range from
the more conventional extractive methods that aim to extract (as the name implies)
information from people without necessarily enabling them to become part of the
transformation process, to participatory learning in action where respondents and
professional planners become part of an interactive process that would lead not only
to problem identification, but also to action.

DVA2601/1 51
 3.6 OUTCOMES CHECKLIST

Questions Can do Cannot do

(1) Explain the types of information

required for designing, managing,
monitoring and evaluating development
projects.

(2) Explain the need for information in the

different stages of project design and
management.

(3) Describe research methods that can be

used to obtain information, with special
emphasis on their respective
advantages and disadvantages.

(4) Critically review the underlying

principles and the techniques of PRA
and SARAR as data gathering tools.

3.7 READINGS TO CONSULT FOR THE UNIT

E-reserves: Articles by Apusigah (2011); Kapoor (2002); Chambers

(2007)

52
 LEARNING UNIT 4
APPRAISAL TECHNIQUES

OUTCOMES
At the end of this learning unit you should be able to
• demonstrate an understanding of cost benefit analysis (CBA),
its purposes and advantages
• demonstrate an understanding of social impact assessment
(SIA), its purposes and advantages
• demonstrate an understanding of environmental impact
assessment (EIA), its purposes and advantages
• compare the advantages and disadvantages of CBA, SIA and
EIA

4.1 INTRODUCTION
In the previous unit we examined some of the techniques that can be used to obtain
data about situations. These help us to identify problems and their underlying causes
and to propose solutions or, to put it differently, start formulating development
projects. In this unit we introduce you to the three most commonly encountered
appraisal techniques in developing (and developed) states. These are cost-benefit
analysis, social impact assessment and environmental impact assessment. Each of
these is a specialist and specialised field of study. Our intention, therefore, is not to
teach you how to do these assessments yourself, but to make you aware of their
uses, advantages and disadvantages.

4.2 NEEDS ASSESSMENT

As you will remember from MacArthur’s projects sequence (see learning unit 1), a
project idea can come from a variety of sources. It could arise from any of the
following:
• A specific government policy. The South African Basic Education programme,
for example, gave rise to numerous projects such as e-learning, which introduced
digital learning to schools in 2013, OR, the No more mud schools and adult
literacy projects.
• A problem encountered in a specific community, such as the SAFE (Sanitation
Appropriate for Education) initiative following deaths of primary school children
due to use of pit latrines at school.
• Day-to-day government department activities. The Department of Agriculture
may decide that it is concerned with food security in the KwaZulu-Natal Province
and may embark on food security projects involving unemployed women and
out-of-school youths.
• Existing successful projects and the desire to replicate them elsewhere in the
country.
• Internationally agreed-upon development foci. Here a recent example is the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which all member states of the United

DVA2601/1 53
 Nations agreed upon in 2015. These broad goals have led to the identification
and formulation of numerous development strategies, programmes and projects
across the developing world.

The problems mentioned above are fairly straightforward and could be dealt with by
one or two carefully chosen projects. However, often needs assessments in developing
states reveal fairly broad and general problems, with more than one underlying cause.
A typical problem of rural areas in developing states is that the standard of living
among the people is usually low. Let us take this as our starting point in looking at
how problems and objectives are identified and prioritised.

A needs assessment, supported by one or more of the research methodologies

described in learning unit 3, may reveal that the causes of low rural living standards
are low income, poor health and high levels of illiteracy. If a project team were to
start brainstorming about possible projects to address these causes, they could come up
with a vast range of possibilities to eradicate each of the underlying causes. These
could include projects to increase agricultural production, such as irrigation,
agricultural extension and creating more facilities for marketing surpluses; projects
to improve the health status of the people, such as improved health education,
improving the supply of running water and reducing water pollution at existing
water points; and projects to increase educational levels, such as providing more
educational facilities to both adults and children, improving the quality of teachers
and printing more textbooks with larger sections featuring local history and
geography.

It is obvious from the examples given above that, while it would be impossible to find
a single-project solution to all three problems, it would be equally impossible to try
to embark on all of these projects. Some very difficult choices will have to be made.
These will need to be based on a preliminary assessment, which will help to define
and delimit those projects eventually examined in greater detail. In other words, it
will help the project team to organise and prioritise projects. This can be done by
drawing up a simple table reflecting the key elements of any needs assessment:
• the problem
• the underlying causes of the problem
• the solution or solutions
• intended beneficiaries
• possible consequences of the decision
Such preliminary assessments, which can be undertaken for each of the proposed
projects, are important. The section dealing with the intended beneficiaries is of
particular importance because it helps the project team to ascertain the impact that
the project is likely to have on their lives and environment. It is also useful to identify
the beneficiaries right from the beginning to create mechanisms for them to become
part of a participatory learning and action process or, at least, to ensure peoples’
functional participation in the project.

4.3 CONSIDERING VIABILITY

Once the project team has a number of objectives and loosely formulated project
ideas on the table, the next logical step is to examine these ideas for viability. The
viability of a project will determine whether it is worth pursuing it as an option, or
whether it should be abandoned as an idea before large amounts is spent on detailed
assessments.

54
 LEARNING UNIT 4: Appraisal techniques

One of the first ways in which the potential viability can be assessed, is by asking
six questions United Nations (1993:2.22):
• Is the need significant? The needs assessment will already have indicated the
importance of the need, but its significance in terms of national development
priorities now has to be ascertained.
• Are resources available? The project team should have a good idea as to whether
it will be possible to find the necessary resources (including financing, equipment
and technical assistance).
• Is time sufficient? The project team must be able to make fairly accurate projections
about the amount of time needed to plan and implement the project.
• Is the decision environment favourable? The project team should be able to assess
whether they will get the needed support for the project – this includes support
from the beneficiaries, decision makers and donors.
• Is the project feasible? It is important to ascertain at a very basic level whether it
is likely that the project can be made to work. The project team needs to take
into account technical, financial and political considerations.

One popular technique to assess viability is known as SWOT analysis. The word
SWOT is derived from the first letters of the words that make up the key elements
that influence decisions about a proposed projects’ viability:
• S = Strengths
• W = Weaknesses
• O = Opportunities
• T = Threats
Each project will have its own strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. By
listing each of these, the project team will get a good indication of the viability of a
proposed project. A strength of a project could be the fact that it ties in very closely
with the main development concerns and priorities of the government, or that it is
politically desirable. A weakness could be that similar projects elsewhere in the
developing world have failed, and that it may be difficult to obtain foreign funding.
An opportunity could be that a neighbouring country is experiencing the same
technical development problem (such as a new and hardy strain of fungus on tomato
plants), and that the two countries could pool their research efforts and findings. A
threat to an agricultural project could be, for example, that El Niño is expected to
bring about unseasonable drought and heat, and that a natural phenomenon such as
this could threaten the success of the project right from the start.

The advantage of SWOT analysis is that it forces the project team also to consider
opposition (in the form of weaknesses and threats) to projects that may otherwise
seem to be desirable. This leads to a more ‘‘honest’’ and also systematic assessment
of proposed projects.

4.4 APPRAISING PROJECTS

As you will have seen up to now, project teams are constantly engaged in decisions
regarding the desirability, viability and feasibility of proposed project ideas. The final
and complete appraisal of projects takes place after a project has reached a fairly
advanced stage of project design.

The appraisal of alternative projects proposed by the project team is an important

element of the planning process. It takes place after the planner has tested the

DVA2601/1 55
 viability of alternatives. Such testing is a technical process during which the planner
ascertains whether
• the options contain intrinsic contradictions
• an option is suited to its proposed environment
• an option conforms to prevailing standards and principles
• the project proposal is sufficiently viable and flexible
• the proposal will actually help to solve the problem
After this initial testing has been carried out, the options which satisfy these
requirements are appraised so as to consider the implications of each. Conyers and
Hills (1984:132) mention that during the appraisal, attention is given to the following
matters:
• the nature and scope of the resources to be deployed
• the nature and scope of induced results – both positive and negative
• where the results will be felt and whom they will affect
• the duration of results
• the relationship between the deployed resources, the results of the project, and
the extent to which the planning activities achieve the objectives; in other words,
whether maximum output has been achieved in terms of inputs provided

The reason why planning proposals are appraised and the findings recorded is to
enable submission of all the factual information to those who have to make the final
choice between the alternatives. There is a wide variety of techniques for appraising
the options. We will discuss three of these in this unit.

4.5 THE APPRAISAL TECHNIQUES

4.5.1 Cost-benefit analysis

Cost-benefit analysis (hereafter referred to as CBA) is a widely used technique for
appraising economic development planning activities. CBA is a systematic technique
used to analyse whether a potential investment decision is economically justified.
The OECD (2018: 38) have the following to say about this technique:

CBA involves comparing costs and benefits of a given “change” in a common unit,
which conventionally are money values, reflecting how much those affected by a
project or policy value these changes.

According to Mullins, Botha, Mosaka, Jurgens and Majoro (2014: 14), CBA is a useful
tool in deciding the “relative merits of alternative projects in order to reach a high
degree of economic efficiency in the application of funds”. The main objective of
CBA, therefore, is to assist in social decision making and to ensure that society’s
resources are allocated as efficiently as possible Boardman, Greenberg, Vining &
Weimer (1996:2).

According to Boardman et al (1996:2), the main features of CBA include

• a systematic categorisation of impacts as benefits (pros) and costs (cons)
• valuing in monetary terms (assigning weights)
• then determining the net benefits of the proposal relative to the status quo (net
benefits equal benefits minus costs)

56
 LEARNING UNIT 4: Appraisal techniques

In practical terms this means that the team responsible for the CBA will have to
follow the steps listed below:
• Decide whose benefits and costs count.
• Select the portfolio of alternative projects.
• Catalogue potential (physical) impacts and select measurement indicators.
• Predict quantitative impacts over the life of the project.
• Monetise all impacts.
• Discount for time and find present values.
• Sum: add up the benefits and costs.
• Perform sensitivity analysis (in an attempt to deal with uncertainty).
• Recommend the alternative with the largest net social benefits Boardman et al
(1996:7).

Government planners, politicians and project teams all use CBA as a tool to justify,
in economic terms, their decision to intervene – in other words, to start or continue
with a project. CBA can be undertaken at different times. Boardman et al distinguish
between the following kinds of CBA:
• Ex ante CBA (also known as standard CBA) is undertaken before a project is
started. It ‘‘... assists in the decision about whether scarce social resources should
be allocated by government to a specific policy, whether programme, project,
or regulation. Thus, its contribution to public policy decision making is direct,
immediate, and bureau specific’’ Boardman et al (1996:3).
• Ex post CBA is done at the end of a project. ‘‘At the end all of the costs are ‘sunk’
in the sense that they measure how much has already been given up to do the
project; also, there is less uncertainty about what the actual costs and benefits
were. The value of such analyses is broader and less immediate’’ Boardman et al
(1996:3). The advantages of such analyses are that they provide information about
that specific intervention and they also help decision makers learn lessons about
the type of intervention that will inform their decisions later. As examples,
Boardman et al cite many CBAs that were done in the 1960s and 1970s to determine
the costs of economic regulation. This led the government of the United States
of America to adopt deregulation policies in the 1980s.
• In medias res CBA is done during the life of a project, in other words, while the
project is under way. Such analysis is fairly common, but very seldom leads to
the discontinuation, or abandonment of a project. It is argued that ‘‘costs tend to
come before benefits in investment projects, and the subsequent benefits will
usually exceed the subsequent costs’’ Boardman et al (1996:3).
• Comparative CBA takes place when ex ante predictions are compared with either
ex post measurements, or, more typically, with in medias res estimates for the
same project. This is the most useful CBA tool as it gives decision makers the
best and most accurate information on the costs and benefits of a specific project.
Unfortunately, this is not a tool often used.

DVA2601/1 57
 Boardman et al (1996:4) provide us with a useful comparison of the purposes of the
various CBAs in the form of a table, which we have reproduced below.

CLASS OF ANALYSIS

VALUE Ex ante In medias Ex post Ex ante/ex res

post or ex ante/
in medias
res comparison

Resource Yes – helps If low sunk Too late – the Same as in

allocation to select costs, can project is over medias res
decision for best project still shift or ex post
this project or make resources. analysis
‘‘go’’ If high sunk
versus costs, usually
‘‘no-go’’ recommends
decisions, if continuation
accurate

Learning Poor Better – Excellent – Same as in

about value estimate reduced although some medias res
of a specific – high uncertainty errors may or ex post
project uncertainty remain. May analysis
about future have to wait
benefits and long for study
costs

Contributing Unlikely to Good – Very useful Same as in

to learning add much contribution – although medias res
about increases as may be or ex post
actual value performed some errors analysis
of similar later. Need and need
projects to adjust for to adjust for
uniqueness uniqueness.
May have to
wait long for
project
completion

Learning No No No Yes, provides

about information
omission, about these
forecas- ting, errors and
measure- about the
ment and accuracy of
evaluation CBA for similar
errors in CBA projects

Despite the desirable aims of CBA mentioned earlier in this section, we need to
remember that CBA is not infallible and may at times create a false picture. Various
points of criticism have been raised against this technique:
• The impression is sometimes created that CBA is an exact measuring instrument,
whereas it can only work with easily quantifiable elements. Hence, the degree of

58
 LEARNING UNIT 4: Appraisal techniques

uncertainty involved in choices is underestimated, and choices made on the basis

of normative values are not considered Mayer (1985:52).
• The problem of the distribution of costs and benefits among the various subgroups
in a community is not considered Carley & Bustelo (1984:141).
• It may happen that not all costs or benefits are considered: for instance, those
which are at all doubtful may be omitted Tisdell (1985:17).
• CBA is not a ‘‘neutral’’ tool. Deciding what constitutes costs and benefits depends
on the perspective of the people involved in the process. With reference to
government employees, Boardman et al (1996:19) point out that ‘‘bureaucratic
perceptions of what constitutes ‘benefits’ and ‘costs’ appear to be based primarily
on their bureaucratic role; specifically, whether they are ‘analysts’, ‘spenders’, or
‘guardians’ ’’.

4.5.2 Social impact assessment

Social impact assessment (SIA) refers broadly to investigations into the impact of
planning activities on the social and cultural facets of human existence. Techniques
of this type were developed during the 1970s as a reaction to the CBA technique’s
one-sided emphasis on economic implications. These techniques appraise the impact
of development plans, projects and programmes on demographic, socioeconomic,
institutional, psychological and community factors.

Plans and projects that are appraised simply in terms of their economic costs and
benefits may be less successful from a social point of view than was initially
believed. For example, Greenwood (1980:11) points out that the social heterogeneity
of communities was not sufficiently considered in the endeavour to bring about a Green
Revolution in India. The new technology that was introduced to these communities
was more readily utilised by the more progressive peasant farmers and this merely
aggravated existing inequalities in the distribution of wealth among individuals. Had
any of the above-mentioned techniques been used at the time to determine the
possible social effect of the new technology, this complication could have been
avoided.

According to Branch, Hooper, Thompson and Creighton (1984:6), these techniques

were used to assess the effects of change for the following reasons:
• to predict the ability and/or willingness of a group or community to adapt to
changing circumstances
• to define and understand the problems or issues underlying a particular change
• to anticipate and assess the possible impact of change on people’s quality of life
• to explain the meaning and importance of the anticipated change
• to identify opportunities or requirements that could soften the effect, in other
words to increase the positive effects and decrease the negative ones

In the final instance, therefore, the purpose of SIA techniques is

‘‘... to estimate the effects of a proposed action on the social organization of a

community and on the well-being of people over both the short- and the long-
term,’’ Branch et al (1984:25).

In some instances, the social effects may be limited; for instance, a decision on where
to put a transmission line would affect few people. But when it comes to large-scale
projects or programmes, the resources and social organisation of communities may
be directly affected. This, in turn, may have significant consequences for individuals,

DVA2601/1 59
 and a thorough investigation is therefore required. Most SIA studies look at the
following types of social impact:
• demographic impact, including problems related to moving home, a change in
the population composition, and the employment multiplier effect (i.e. the fact
that the creation of jobs in one sector usually leads to the creation of jobs in
other sectors)
• socioeconomic impact, especially changes in income and possible income multiplier
effects, taxes and tariffs
• institutional impact, for example the demand for local financial and administrative
services in respect of housing, sanitation, schools, health services, and recreational
facilities
• psychological and community impact, especially on things that are difficult
to measure, such as social integration, community networks and solidarity in
the community Carley & Bustelo (1984:5)

SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY 4.1

(Spend about 50 minutes on this activity.)

The purpose of this activity is to encourage you to find out about SIA
in your area. Contact the project team of a project currently under
way in your area. Interview a member of the team to find out whether
they have done SIA and which variables they used.

Burdge (1994:45–47; 52–61) came up with a comprehensive list of

what he calls social impact assessment variables and made provision
for five different categories of variables. We list these categories and
the 26 social impact assessment variables in the box below.

In your interview with a member of a team on a project in your area,

how many of the variables identified by Burdge have they taken into
consideration? Box 4.1 below lists the variables identified by Burdge.
Compare the list you wrote down with the one listed in the box.

Box 4.1: Social impact assessment variables

Population impacts
Population change (the movement of people into or out of a specific area
as a direct result of the project).
Influx or outflux of temporary workers (the temporary movement of people
into or out of an area because of the project).
Presence of seasonal (leisure) residents. (A permanent but seasonal
change in the population of the area because of the project, e.g. a dam,
such as the Katse dam in Lesotho, may lead to an increase in tourism
facilities which may change the population during vacation periods.)
Relocation of individuals and families (the number of people who are
relocated, voluntarily or involuntarily, because of the project, e.g. to make
way for a new dam).

60
 LEARNING UNIT 4: Appraisal techniques

(5) Dissimilarity in age, gender, and racial and ethnic composition (the
introduction of a sizeable group of people dissimilar to the resident
population in one or more of these characteristics).
Community/institutional arrangements
(6) Formation of attitudes towards the project (the feelings, beliefs or positions
expressed by residents about the project).
(7) Interest group activity (the formation of groupings stating positions for or
against the project).
(8) Alteration in the size and structure of local government (a change in the
number and type of positions necessary to operate local government
activities within the affected area).
(9) Presence of planning and zoning activity (the presence of an organisation
that may take decisions regarding the use of land).
(10) Industrial diversification (the number and variety of private sector industries
in the area).
(11) Enhanced economic inequities (the degree to which employment
opportunities match the job skills of unemployed people in the area).
(12) Change in employment equity of minority groups (similar to 11, but with
emphasis on low-income people, younger persons, ethnic groupings and
women).
(13) Changing occupational opportunities (the degree to which the project
may alter the occupational profile of the area).
Conflict between local residents and newcomers
(14) Presence of an outside agency (permanent residence in the area of the
project proponent not previously a member or presence in the area).
(15) Introduction of new social classes (the appearance – or disappearance – of
a group of people that either expand an existing social class or establish
a new social class based on educational level, income or occupation).
(16) Change in the commercial/industrial focus of the community (a change in
the traditional focus of the community).
(17) Presence of weekend residents (recreational) (the influx of people who
do not have permanent homes in the community).
Individual and family level impacts
(18) Disruption in daily living and movement patterns (changes in the routine
living and working arrangements because of noise, visual environment,
transportation routes, and so on).
(19) Dissimilarity in religious practices (introduction of a sizeable group of
people with religious values, beliefs and practices that differ from those
of the resident population).
(20) Alteration in family structure (an increase or a decrease in one or more
of the family status categories because of the project). (A typical example
of this in South Africa is the large number of single-sex hostels in mining
compounds, which lead to the large numbers of single men, or men who
live away from their families.)
(21) Disruption in social networks (the termination or disruption of normal
community social interaction because of the project, e.g. a new highway
that runs through an established communal living area).

DVA2601/1 61
 Perceptions of public health and safety (perceptions, attitudes or beliefs
that people’s physical health and safety or mental well-being may be
negatively affected by the project).
Change in leisure opportunities (an increase or decrease in recreational
opportunities because of changes in the management of natural resources
in the project area).
Community infrastructure needs
Change in community infrastructure (an increase or decrease in the
demand for and supply of infrastructure and services in the area).
Land acquisition and disposal (the number of hectares of land that will
either change classification or ownership because of the project).
Effects on known cultural, historical and archaeological resources (the
destruction or alteration of resources because of the project).

Adapted from Burdge (1994:52–60)

According to Vanclay (2005), social impact assessment (SIA) came into being in the
1970s due to an increasing demand as a result of the National Environment Policy
Act in the USA, for social issues to be considered in environmental impact
assessment. It is from this basis that the guidelines governing the technique were
developed. Vanclay refers to this as a codification stage.

In basic terms, SIA refers broadly to investigations into the impact of planning
activities on the social and cultural facets of the relevant context.

Like CBA, SIA also has many problems that may thwart its effective implementation
and that have led to criticism from various sources. These include the following:
• Data collection in developing states is notoriously difficult. SIA predictions and
projections are often based on inadequate information.
• There are numerous techniques that can be used in SIA, some of which are
very complex. It may be difficult to document and evaluate methodologies used.
• SIA analysts do not always have the necessary training in social and economic
theory to be able to undertake the task efficiently.
• SIA reports are seldom audited or evaluated. The reliability and validity of many
SIA reports remain unchecked.
• SIA cannot address the cumulative effects of multiple projects because SIA is seen
as a single event and does not form part of a wider process of planned change.
• SIA is a potentially effective monitoring, mitigation and management tool, but
is more often than not used simply as a tool to provide approval for a project
Burdge & Vanclay (1995:44–45).

The case study by Du Pisani and Sandham (2006) examines how social impact
assessment is used together with environmental impact assessment in South Africa.
The authors provide a history of SIA in South Africa and the legislation surrounding
SIA. The authors evaluate SIA practices and legislation in the light of international best
practice, and conclude that the use of SIA in South Africa reflects typical problems
found in SIA usage in other countries. Du Pisani and Sandham discuss problems with
the concepts used in SIA, with how different factors are weighted, with the types of
expertise drawn on in the assessment, and with the lack of public participation in SIA
processes. The authors nevertheless argue that SIA is crucial to defending ordinary

62
 LEARNING UNIT 4: Appraisal techniques

people’s welfare, and suggest various improvements in participation, concepts and

legislation; and they advocate better training.

The article by Du Pisani and Sandham is useful because it considers a particular

context of SIA practice – the context of South Africa – and their recommendations
are practical and easy to apply. The authors are aware that impact assessment is usually
carried out by people who are not themselves disadvantaged and who may be out of
touch with the lives of poor citizens. Their emphasis on real community participation
and the intelligent use of weightings and concepts is therefore very valuable.

4.5.3 Environmental Impact Assessment

In the 1960s techniques were developed in the United States of America to appraise
the impact of development plans and projects on the physical environment. When
EIA is applied, the area of the physical environment affected by the project is usually
considered, the probable impact of the project is determined and these results are
analysed and interpreted. It is also important that these techniques be used to
determine whether the effects will be direct or indirect, positive or negative, whether
the effects will be experienced over the long or the short term and whether or not
they will be reversible.

Although international agencies encourage the use of EIA techniques in Third

World countries, there is often resistance because some of these countries consider
the effect of projects on the environment to be relatively unimportant. According
to Bowonder, Prasad and Reddy (1987:11), it is often argued that less developed
countries need not pay attention to environmental factors; the extent of poverty and
underdevelopment in these countries is appalling and these factors should be given
priority. Ruddle and Rondinelli (1983) have, however, pointed out the need for using
EIA techniques in Third World countries. They maintain that during the 1940s and
1950s the natural resources were thoughtlessly exploited when attempts were made
to maximise economic growth. In many developing countries the problem continues
in the present day. International mining companies continue to extract resources
that benefit their home countries at the expense of the host nations. The argument
for weighing concerns for the environment versus concerns for people’s socio-
economic well-being is therefore a concern worthy listening to. Think of the
protests against the proposed titanium mining behind the homes of the Xolobeni
villagers in South Africa’s Eastern Cape Province for fear of the potential impact
on the villager’s immediate environment. A documentary made by UNESCO-IHE
Water Management for instance asks whether environmental impact assessment is a
useful tool or just another fashion. To understand UNESCO-IHE’s viewpoint you
can watch their video clip found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_
detailpage&v=CJWUR2x_aGk (Environmental impact assessment: useful tool or
just another fashion?). The clip discusses the importance of doing an EIA but also
identifies some of the weaknesses and frustrations caused by EIAs to local people.

Clearly little attention was paid to conserving and renewing resources, and there was
little regard for the physical, social and economic consequences of their depletion
and destruction in the past. Current concerns over water quality due to acid mine
drainage in the Gauteng and Mpumalanga Provinces in South Africa attest to the
recklessness of mining companies and lack of consideration for not only the future
of water but the livelihoods of people in contaminated areas. It has, however,
become increasingly obvious that careful transformation of natural resources – in

DVA2601/1 63
 ways that do not destroy or severely deplete those that are renewable – is essential
for sustained development.

The next quotation from Ruddle and Rondinelli clearly reflects the need for EIA
investigations in Third World countries:

Without careful management, the renewable resources that had sustained the
poor, even at subsistence levels, was severely threatened. Moreover, the inabil-
ity or unwillingness of governments in developing nations to use abundantly
available resources for development, deprived villagers of commercially-viable
renewable resources that could have increased their income and improved
their living conditions Ruddle & Rondinelli (1983:15).

EIA can be important and valuable for a variety of reasons. It can, for example
• lead to the withdrawal of unsound projects
• lend greater legitimacy to sound projects
• be of critical importance in the final selection of a site for a project
• lead to a reformulation and reconsideration of project plans Ortolano & Shepherd
(1995:8–9)

EIA, like CBA and SIA, has been subject to criticism, such as the following:
• It may be difficult to implement EIA satisfactorily because of poor baseline data
and a lack of qualified personnel and support services. The additional costs needed
to obtain good data and to train personnel may be prohibitively high.
• Certain EIA methods and techniques may be inappropriate to developing states
because of factors such as the tropical climate or inadequate technology.
• EIA may get little support from a legal and institutional point of view, for example,
the legal level of emissions may be set at a lower level than in developing states,
or they may not be enforced Brew & Lee (1996:80).
• EIA, like CBA and SIA, may simply be ignored as decision makers opt for
politically and economically advantageous projects Ortolano & Shepherd (1995:15).
• The value of EIA is limited because it is applied mainly to projects and not to
wider-ranging programmes and national policies Ortolano & Shepherd (1995:17).
• Whereas SIA allows for participation – even if it is simply functional, rather than
transformative – EIA seldom allows for adequate participation.

Awareness of the centrality of environmental issues in ensuring sustainable development

has been raised considerably over the years by presenting various World Summits
on Sustainable Development (WSSD) such as the one held in Johannesburg, South
Africa, in 2003. This awareness has led to a marked increase in the acceptance of
environmental impact assessments and environmental assessments in general. These
environmental assessments have also been influenced by the contemporary discourse
on participatory development. Therefore, the techniques used in environmental
assessments had to undergo changes to make them suitable for implementation at
local or community level.

SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY 4.2

This activity requires that you reflect on the discussions on
environmental impact assessment in the context of development in
African countries as formerly colonised nations. Read the snapshot
below from an Engineering News article written in July of 2018.

64
 LEARNING UNIT 4: Appraisal techniques

On a piece of paper, write down some arguments for and against the
perceptions captured in the snapshot about the different reasons for
community-based protest action.

Some of the issues that you might have written down in response to the above snapshot
concerns the difference in focus between communities in developed and those in
developing countries. It would seem as if, in developing countries, the communities
are still worried about basic needs, jobs, houses and service delivery issues, while in
developed countries their concern is about the impacts of mining on the environment.
Even within the same country such differences may exist and those who appraise
development projects will need to weigh impacts on affected communities.

4.6 GENERAL COMMENTS ON ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES

Bear in mind that the techniques described here have to be used as instruments to
assist planners in choosing between identified alternatives. In practice it will rarely
happen that only one of these techniques is selected – usually two or even all three
are used. Although one can expect planners to decide on an alternative that promises
the greatest benefits pro rata to the inputs made, you should remember that decision
making has political implications as well, and that planners may decide on an
alternative which does not necessarily offer the greatest economic, social or
environmental benefits but which has the greatest political value or advantage.

Also take note of Moris’s (1981:33) sharp criticism of project appraisal methodology.
He maintains that it is basically the same as blueprint planning, yet it is widely applied.
He contends that it is not consistent with Third World development problematics:
officials find the procedure confusing, frequently certain information is simply
unavailable, many of the political and social benefits cannot be measured, and
certain factors such as low administrative capacity and the exceptionally short life
of capital equipment in Third World communities are not taken into consideration.
Moris (1981:33–34) concludes:

DVA2601/1 65
 In technologically backward countries the appraisal technology fosters bad
data, unrealistic time horizons, and the anticipation of benefits which may not
occur.

If the methodology of project appraisal is not rooted in blueprint planning, indigenous

values, development objectives and knowledge systems will have to be taken into
consideration in project appraisal and in any subsequent phase of the development
project. Richards (1981:10) mentions farmers in Sierra Leone whose long-established
methods of determining the usability of new varieties of rice are made superfluous
by expensive scientific research. He also questions whether scientific agricultural
research always generates new knowledge or whether it merely formalises existing
traditional oral knowledge by putting it through scientific publications channels.

For now, it is important to know that developers are beginning to look at indigenous
knowledge with new respect. The methodological problem of bridging the gap
between indigenous knowledge systems and ‘‘scientific knowledge’’ is not yet in the
past but one issue the decolonial approach* is working on.

*Decolonial approach – this approach is not discussed in this unit or study

guide but is an important approach which helps one appreciate that there are
many ways of knowing and that the Western (read scientific) way of knowing
is not the only way. There are many other knowledge systems which are right
and progressive in their own right.

4.7 CONCLUSION
In this unit we introduced you to the three best known and most often used techniques
in project appraisal: cost-benefit analysis, social impact assessment and environmental
impact assessment. We pointed out that each of these techniques have certain
limitations, and that an integrated approach is needed to ensure that as many factors
as possible are considered when the final decision about projects is made. We have
also introduced a teaser right at the end, the idea of a decolonial approach which
you should read on in your own spare time.

66
 LEARNING UNIT 4: Appraisal techniques

4.8 OUTCOMES CHECKLIST

Questions Can do Cannot do

(1) Demonstrate an understanding of cost

benefit analysis (CBA), its purposes and
advantages.

(2) Demonstrate an understanding of social

impact assessment (SIA), its purposes
and advantages in the social analysis of
projects.

(3) Demonstrate an understanding of

environmental impact assessment (EIA),
its purposes and advantages.

(4) Compare the advantages and

disadvantages of CBA, SIA and EIA.

4.9 READINGS TO CONSULT FOR THE UNIT

E-reserves: Articles by Spaling (2003); Nardini (1997); Du Pisani
& Sandham (2006)

DVA2601/1 67
 LEARNING UNIT 5
MONITORING AND EVALUATION

OUTCOMES
Once you have worked through this study unit, you should be
able to
• discuss the differences and importance of monitoring and
evaluation
• demonstrate the need for participatory monitoring and
evaluation
• demonstrate an understanding of the differences between
participatory monitoring and evaluation and conventional
monitoring and evaluation
• demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between
planning, monitoring and evaluation

5.1 INTRODUCTION
Each project is a social experiment, generating important new knowledge about what
works and what does not in a specified cultural context. Assessment is therefore a
crucial part of project development (Nolan 2002: 200). Assessment may take one of two
forms: monitoring or evaluation. Although there is a clear link between monitoring
and evaluation, the nature of their relationship is not clearly understood, since they
function differently and have different purposes. This unit assesses the importance
of monitoring and evaluation as key sources of data in projects. The emphasis is on
monitoring and evaluation, and how the involvement of local people can reveal
insights and information inaccessible by any other means. According to Cracknell
(2000:23), participatory monitoring and evaluation requires the following changes:
an evaluator becomes a facilitator, a judgmental style becomes one of learning, a
restrictive mode becomes one of empowering, and the focus shifts from once-off
reporting to ongoing reporting. This means that accountability is moved upward to
facilitators and downward to the local people (individuals, groups, organisations and
institutions) who influence projects directly or indirectly and who are affected by a
project’s decisions or developments (Estrella 2000:1). It is widely argued that a top-
down approach to monitoring and evaluation is aimed at reaching the objectives of
policy makers. It is therefore essential for monitoring and evaluation to be more
participatory so that stakeholders can participate in the process. This allows the
projects to be more effective by allowing different stakeholders to participate in
their own development, including the marginalised as well as ensuring that the
voices of the minorities are included.

5.2 ASSESSMENT, MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Assessment consists of four components Nolan (2002:201):
• framing (deciding what to look at, how and why)
• implementation (collecting the data)

68
 LEARNING UNIT 5: Monitoring and evaluation

• analysis (turning the data into information)

• use (applying what has been learned)
In the figure below, Nolan provides a clear and succinct summary of the components
and the kinds of questions we ask ourselves in determining the framework for project
assessment:

A framework for project assessment Source: Nolan 2002:201

5.3 MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The definitions of M&E

Monitoring
Monitoring – sometimes also called formative assessment – tracks progress
during project implementation. It looks at whether project inputs are being
delivered and used as planned, and whether they do what they were expected to
do. Monitoring information falls into three broad categories: information on
resources; information on activities; and information on results.
Monitoring helps check key assumptions and hypotheses, identifies difficulties
at an early stage, develops data on trends, accounts for resource use, and points
to where things may be changed or improved. Monitoring focuses on whether
things are happening on time, within budget, and to standard.
In essence, monitoring asks the question, ‘‘Did we follow our project design?’’

DVA2601/1 69
 Evaluation
Evaluation – sometimes also referred to as summative assessment – makes
judgments about project outcomes and impacts, especially because these concern
stakeholders. Evaluation also looks at unplanned or unanticipated results of the
project.
Evaluation, unlike monitoring, looks at the bigger picture to make judgments
about the worth of the entire project, within context. Has the project been
successful in achieving its goals? Were these goals worthwhile? Are the results
owing to the project or to some other set of factors? What side-effects or
unanticipated consequences were there? What are the pros and cons of doing a
project in this way? How does this way compare with other possible alternatives?
What, finally, did we learn from this experience?
Evaluation, therefore, does not ask, ‘‘Did we follow our plan?’’ but rather: ‘‘Was
our plan a good one?’’ It is possible to have a plan that proceeds like
clockwork, but is totally ineffective at producing the expected changes. Projects
may succeed on one level, only to fail on another. An example would be a project
that succeeds in terms of its original goals and objectives, but may generate a host
of negative second-order effects later on. Another example can be a project that
succeeds initially, but then cannot be sustained.
Source: Nolan 2002:203–204

5.4 OBJECTIVES OF MONITORING

• Monitoring a project is important because it documents the projects progress
from its implementation to the end of the project.
• Monitoring provides a way in which the relationship between the implementers
and the beneficiaries can be assessed on a continuous basis.
• Monitoring encourages transparency and accountability.
• Monitoring allows for a project’s progress to be tracked, including the intended
and unintended outcomes of the project, lessons can be learned throughout the
monitoring process, and it creates a platform for improvements to be done.

Accountability is often considered the most important reason for monitoring (Bakewell,
Adams & Pratt 2003:4). During the monitoring processes accountability works in
two ways:
• Accountability to the donors – Development projects are often funded by donors
who need to be continuously informed about how the funds are being used and
if the funds are being used responsibly. Being accountable to the donors also
includes being transparent to the donors about the progress of the project and
whether or not the project is yielding the desired results and impacts.
• Accountability to project users – The people that are running the projects serve
as representatives of the community or of the beneficiaries of the development
project. Thus, the people running the project have the responsibility to show
what they have been doing, how they have been doing it and what outcomes were
yielded from the project. The community members are entitled to know how
resources were used for the project and why (Bakewell et al 2003:4).

70
 LEARNING UNIT 5: Monitoring and evaluation

Lines of Accountability Source: Bakewell et al 2003:4

5.5 OBJECTIVES OF EVALUATION

According to Cracknell (2000:54), evaluation has two conflicting objectives, namely
accountability and lesson learning.
• Accountability is concerned with improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the
project, that is, to assess whether the project is successful or not. Cracknell (2000:54–55)
argues that this objective looks at whether a project has succeeded, not why the project
was or was not successful.
• Lesson learning: This objective studies selected successes and failures with a view to learning
why some actions were successful and others were not. This ensures that the relevant lessons
are learnt and acted upon. In other words, this objective views evaluation as a way of
learning useful lessons to improve future performance (Cracknell 2000:55).

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) can be used to assess the status of the project and
the progress made towards achieving the objectives. M&E allows people to learn from past
experiences; these lessons can be incorporated i n the next stages of work. Monitoring
and evaluation make it easier to review the progress made in implementing the plan, to
identify any factors that might be affecting (positively or negatively) the way the work is
carried out and to decide how adjustments can be made to a project to respond to the changing
needs of the project. Monitoring and evaluation are about showing you where you are
going in a project. The primary purpose of monitoring and evaluation is to serve the
implementing team and project decision makers. It does this by giving the data that
is needed to steer the plan towards the successful achievements of its objectives.

5.6 TYPES OF EVALUATION

There are a number of different types of evaluation, such as ongoing evaluation,
built-in evaluation, self-evaluation, ex post evaluation and impact evaluation.

5.6.1 Ongoing evaluation

Projects may run into serious problems during the implementation stages, which means that
the original objectives and the problem the project was originally intended to deal with
must be looked at. Outsiders should be used to review the possible risks of the project
(Cracknell 2000:71).

DVA2601/1 71
 5.6.2 Self-evaluation
This process means that the operational staff must evaluate their own activities, which
is contrary to the general principle that evaluators should not have had any previous
involvement i n the activities they are evaluating. This type of evaluation can be
advantageous to small projects, since the cost implications are minimal. Self-
evaluation looks at the effectiveness and efficiency of the project, rather than those
aspects which outside evaluators might be concerned about (Cracknell 2000:73).

5.6.3 Ex post evaluation

The term ex post evaluation refers to evaluations that take place after the implementation
p r o c e ss has been completed (Cracknell 2000:74). Evaluation d o e s not have to take place
after the implementation of the project, that is, ex post. Itmay take place at any time after
the activity has commenced.

Monitoring and evaluation allow project managers to review a project’s work and to assess
the quality of the progress being made, namely what has happened and how to learn from
past mistakes. Monitoring and evaluation are becoming more and more important in
the project cycle.

5.7 THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MONITORING AND

EVALUATION

Although monitoring and evaluation are intertwined and go hand in hand, they are
quite different in their definitions and in their different processes. Below is a table
that summarises the differences between monitoring and evaluation.

TABLE 5.1 The differences between monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring Evaluation
A formative assessment of a project A summative assessment of a project

Done continuously through the Done at the end of a project

project

Measures progress towards achieving Measures the overall outcomes/impact of

set objectives and outcomes the project

Monitoring processes include writing Evaluation processes include

reports, regular meetings and periodic extraordinary meetings, additional data
reviews collection
processes and recommendations for
changes in the future

76
 5.8 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLANNING, MONITORING
AND EVALUATION
A close relationship exists between planning, monitoring and evaluation. The process
of planning is very important for any developmental project. It is during the planning
phase that development projects are mapped out and conceptualised. The planning
processes of any developmental project should be inclusive of all stakeholders involved
the project. A project plan that is being drawn up should include the following:
• a detailed problem statement
• an analysis of the problem, with possible solutions
• a description of what the project will aim to achieve in an attempt to provide
solutions

Thus, it is important to note that the way in which the project will be monitored
and evaluated should be considered during the project planning and design. The
planning stages of the project will influence the type of monitoring and evaluation
that will take place (Bakewell et al 2003:14).

5.9 PROJECT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Various criteria may be used to assess the success or performance of a project. The
most common criteria relate to the efficiency and effectiveness of a project, but in the
context of development we are equally concerned about the extent to which learning has
occurred. Below we have reproduced seven criteria that are most commonly and typically
used in both monitoring and evaluation.

Effectiveness: How well does it work? Do project technologies and arrangements actually
function to produce the intended results? If there areproblems with producing results,
why is this? What could be done to fix things?

Efficiency: How much does it cost? If results are forthcoming, how expensive are they
in terms of the various resources (time, money, personnel, equipment, and so on)that must
be used? Are these levels of cost sustainable?

Appropriateness: Do people like it? Are the results of the project acceptable to all
stakeholders? Any stakeholders? If they are not, why not? Could the results be made
acceptable? How?

Adequacy: If the project is producing benefits, how are they distributed? Do all
stakeholder groups benefit? Do all benefit equally? Are any groups left out? If so why
is this occurring? Can it be corrected?

Side effects: In addition to anticipated project benefits, are there other, unanticipated
consequences of the project? Are these positive or negative? Who is affected by these, and
why? Should corrective action be taken? If so, what?

Learning: What new knowledge has been gained through the project? Who has learned
what, and why is this important or significant? How will this learning b e used in the
future?

Replicability: Given the experience of this project, can it be done again

elsewhere? If so, what if anything should be changed or improved? If not, why not? Do
better project models or options exist?

76
 SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY 5.1
Monitoring and evaluation.mp4

By way of revision now listen to the lecture ‘‘Monitoring and evaluation.

mp4’’ by James Wolf. This videoclip gives an overview of ‘‘Using the
logic model framework to develop monitoring and evaluation questions
and indicators’’. It therefore is an ideal opportunity to review what
you have learned up to now. You will note that the presenter spends
about 90 seconds in his introduction settling in and talking about
thanksgiving. Then he starts with the real work ... Note: keep paper
and pen ready for you will be asked by the presenter to do two
activities.

Now click on the link: https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=CszDMlXjz8E

In the videoclip Wolf (2011) states the reasons why we monitor and evaluate and why
these processes are important. M&E are processes in which projects are assessed,
analysed and reported on, in order to improve their performance and overall objectives.
Wolf (2011) states that we monitor and evaluate, in order to learn what works and
why, to make informed decisions, to ensure the efficient use of resources, to track
progress, and to assess the impact of the project and to satisfy donors. Wolf (2011)
makes references to monitoring and evaluation indicators and you are required to
develop indicators of your own. In so doing keep in mind the different outcomes that
exist for monitoring and evaluation. There are process indicators which measure the
activities that are carried out in order to meet the objectives, and outcome indicators
that measure the impact of the project. Monitoring and evaluation indicators are
markers that are selected in order to measure the success of the project. After you
have developed your own M&E indicators as per the activity, listen to the videoclip
again and compare your M&E indicators and questions pertaining to the inputs and
outputs of the projects to those that Wolf (2011) gives as examples in the videoclip.
Determine whether you were able to develop good process and outcome indicators
of your own.

5.10 PARTICIPATION
Greater participation brings previously marginalised sections of society into
relationships with modern economic, political and social institutions in a viable and
equitable way. Participation should be based on a person’s awareness of his or her
social entitlements and economic opportunities – a move away from dependency to
self-reliance, and a chance to actively participate in decision-making processes. Active
participation is desirable, because it can reduce the cost of project development and
implementation, and thus promote greater sustainability.

Development projects involving people are beneficial in some respects, since

participation is limited and controlled, that is, people remain without any real
influence in the development process.

Participation in monitoring and evaluation must be at the core of both processes.

Participation in monitoring and evaluation will increasingly deepen once community
members become more confident and more involved in monitoring and evaluation
Bakewell et al. (2003:13).

76
 5.10.1 Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E)

Development is generally conceptualised as a process of directed change which leads

to economic growth and a broad basis of social reconstruction. The community can
only grow if it is involved; community growth becomes possible once the cumulative
process of directed change starts influencing the entire social structure. In other
words, participation in development projects is imperative. People should be given
the opportunity to participate freely in decision-making processes and thus help to
shape their futures. People must feel that they own the development process.

Participation has become a critical concept in development and there is a growing

need to consider the needs of poor and marginalised people. This section, therefore,
looks at monitoring and evaluation as a critical part of the participatory development
process since it requires the participation of people as a means to strengthen learning,
accountability and effectiveness. It needs all stakeholders to get involved in the
project, since no development is possible without real participation.

There is no single definition of PM&E. Estrella (2000:5) argues that the problem in
defining PM&E lies in the difficulty of clarifying the concepts monitoring,
evaluation and participation. The terms ‘‘monitoring’’ and ‘‘evaluation’’ are
sometimes used interchangeably. PM&E aims to raise awareness of the weaker or
more marginalised groups and often raises sensitive issues such as responsibility,
accountability and performance. According to Estrella (2000:7), PM&E can be used
beyond the communities and the project level. It can also be used by larger
institutions to improve institutional accountability and organisational development
and thus strengthen participation in democratic processes in the larger society.

Participation is a central feature of the PM&E process, which includes redefining

objectives and using results Alzate (2000:97). Although participation is considered
central to PM&E, it is not instantly achieved; it is a gradual process that ultimately
leads to people gaining more confidence and becoming increasing involved in M&E.
it is important that participation in M&E is inclusive and not restricted dominant
stakeholders Bakewell et al. (2003:13). Below is a table of the process of participation,
and how it gradually becomes part of PM&E.

TABLE 5.2
The process of participation

The process of participation

1. Passive participation This stage involves stakeholders merely responding

to requests for information and not playing any other
role in the M&E processes.
2. Increasing Involvement These stages involve stakeholders volunteering
information and playing a role in demonstrating how
the information can be used for optimal results.

3. Active participation This stage involves stakeholders actively deciding on

how to collect information and how to use it.
Stakeholders play a role in data collection and data
analysis.

76
 4. Ownership/empowerment Stakeholders play a key role in deciding how to
measure the progress of the project and which
indicators to use. Stakeholders can also hold the
implementers of the projects to account.

PM&E is important because it includes different stakeholders, the minorities and

the marginalised. Its main objective is to empower the beneficiaries of the different
development projects that are being implemented. PM&E also leads to positive
interaction between the community members and the implementers of the projects;
it also leads to joint-learning and giving community members a voice, which allows
them to be their own agents of change.

Estrella (2000:7) points out that PM&E may be used for improving project planning
and implementation. PM&E, in this case, is used as a project management tool to
provide the stakeholders and project managers with information to check whether the
objectives of the project were met and whether the resources were used fruitfully.

According to Estrella (2000:10), the literature studies raise the following points
regarding the practice of PM&E:
• The concept of participation needs to be clarified.
• Appropriate met hodolog ies must be identified.
• A capacity for PM&E needs to be developed and promoted.
• The use of PM&E and institutional learning needs to be upgraded and promoted.

5.10.2 PM&E in a project cycle

A project cycle is a very simple, but useful concept based on the fact that every project passes
through a sequence of stages, like project identification, project preparation, project
appraisal and supervision or implementation. According to Cracknell (2000:95), the
project cycle was originally developed and used by donor agencies to help them to manage
their aid-funded projects. MacArthur regards his version of the project cycle as ‘‘different’’
from other published versions, since his version focuses on the project itself Cracknell
(2000:95). MacArthur’s version is designed to be used by donors and developing countries
to assist them in their investment decisions.

Cracknell (2000:97) asserts that this kind of project cycle is based on the idea that one can
identify a project and then implement it according to a pre-arranged sequence of events.
These projects fail because they are initiated by donors rather than being ‘‘owned’’ by the
intended beneficiaries. The new approach recognises that, in real life, people-centered projects
are unlikely to succeed if implemented in that way. Cracknell (2000:98) emphasises that
participatory methods acknowledge that projects can no longer be imposed on beneficiaries,
but have to result from a process of participatory discussion with them – they must own
the projects.

5.10.3 Problems with participatory monitoring and evaluation

According to Cracknell (2000:335), a participatory approach is an indispensable tool
that ‘‘... improves the effectiveness and ensures the relevance of the project’s activities,
increases overall efficiency during implementation, and enhances the sustainability of
the results after the projects have terminated’’. However, there are problems encountered
76
 LEARNING UNIT 5: Monitoring and evaluation

in implementing the participatory approach. Not all beneficiaries are literate; in such
as case, the participatory approach will have to be limited to help these people. Cracknell
(2000:335) asserts that visual forms of communication, that is, videos, maps, models or
photographs, etc, should be used to encourage participation of illiterate people. In this
way, communities will be able to visualise their objectives, check their progress, verify
their achievements and re-adjust their results accordingly.

Lack of commitment on the part of the partner institutions and supporting services
organisations can hamper the implementation of participation programmes. Cracknell
(2000:338) argues that this is due to misconceptions about the concept ‘‘participation’’.
The beneficiaries should always be given a chance to express their views and should not
be overpowered by superiors.

Very few women participate in these participatory approaches and this poses a threat
to the system. In some instances, women are not allowed to participate because of
their cultural backgrounds. In this case the involvement of women should be taken
into consideration so that they can make an input to the projects that affect them.
It is imperative to ensure full participation of the beneficiaries from the start of the
project.

SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY 5.2

Gramya: Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PME) in UDWDP

Once again, by way of revision, look and listen to a case study where
in a World Bank project participatory monitoring and evaluation
(PME) was followed. The video in which participants in the project
appear is described as follows: ‘‘The film is an attempt to share the
Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) activity conducted on
six categories namely level of awareness about the project, participation,
inclusiveness and equity, transparency, creation of assets and financial
management in Uttarakhand Decentralised Watershed Development
Project (UDWDP) [in India]. The UDWDP is a World Bank funded
watershed project – popularly known as Gramya – which is under
implementation. The objective of the project is to improve the
productive potential of natural resources and increase incomes of
rural inhabitants in degraded watersheds of the state through socially
inclusive, institutionally and environmentally sustainable approaches’’.

Now click on the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1sSs8XN9cU.

After having watched the video, write a paragraph to answer the following question.

(1) Note how many women participate in this project. If you think about the lack
of women’s participation discussed above, why do you think it was different in
this project?

After having watched the video clip on the Gramya project, you were required to
write a short paragraph explaining the increased participation of women in this
particular project. Compare the paragraph you have written with the one below, and
see whether you have grasped the important points about including vulnerable
groups through participatory M&E.

It was different for this project because the Gramya watershed project included
women. Women were included in the watershed project not only as beneficiaries but
DVA2601/1 77
 as the project planners, users, implementers and managers of the project. The use
of participatory monitoring and evaluation for the project allowed the community
to grow by allowing all community members (men and women) to be part of their
own development process. PM&E considers the needs and the voices of the poor
and marginalised people; hence the active involvement of women in this particular
project. The participation of different diverse groups in PM&E strengthens the
scope of the project, the learning of the community members, as well as the overall
accountability and effectiveness of the project. The involvement of women in this
project also ensured that this particular project was inclusive, which is important
because inclusivity promotes the empowerment, confidence, self-esteem and
independence of the community members.

SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY 5.3

(Spend about 40 minutes on this activity.)

Read the article by Vernooy, Qiu and Jianchu on t he e-reserves and answer the
questions that follow. The article differentiates between the conventional
and the participatory approaches to monitoring and evaluation. A case
study of China forms part of the article. In this case study the participation
of the local people was used as the core means to empower them.

Vernooy et al. (2006) on pages 392–396 give examples of how PM&E was used and
executed in practice.

Refer to Vernooy (2006:401) where he gives a comprehensive comparison between

conventional M&E and participatory M&E. Vernooy(2006) also refers to the use of
PRAs such as group discussions, interviews and rankings. These methods are used
for participatory M&E because they allow for the inclusion of all community
members. Vernooy (2006) continues to describe how participatory monitoring and
evaluation can capacitate the local people with reference to the case study on China. See
Vernooy (2006:406) for an in-depth description.

Answer the following questions on a separate piece of paper:

(1) Discuss the difference between conventional and participatory monitoring and
evaluation as well as the PRA methods used for the abovementioned case study.
(2) Describe how participatory monitoring and evaluation can capacitate the local
people with reference to the case study on China.

5.11 CONCLUSION
Monitoring and evaluation are the integral processes in a project cycle, and the most
important element of monitoring and evaluation is participation. Participatory
monitoring and evaluation have a very significant impact on communities and
stakeholders. This process encourages communities to become actively involved
throughout the development process, from planning, implementation, monitoring
and evaluation. The communities are able to become better decision makers and
managers.

Developing these local capacities is crucial, as communities are required to demonstrate

efficiency and effectiveness.

78
 LEARNING UNIT 5: Monitoring and evaluation

5.12 OUTCOMES CHECK LIST

Questions Can do Cannot do

(1) Discuss the difference between

monitoring and evaluation.

(2) Explain why it is necessary to

monitor and evaluate projects.

(3) Demonstrate the need for

participatory monitoring and
evaluation.

(4) Discuss the problems associated

with participatory monitoring
and evaluation.

5.13 READINGS TO CONSULT FOR THE UNIT

Vernooy, Qiu & Jianchu (2006), Cornwall (2003)

DVA2601/1 79
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Made available on myUnisa under ‘Additional Resources’

ELECTRONIC SOURCES FOR USE BY STUDENTS

(1) Sirolli, E. 2012. Want to help someone? Shut up and listen!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSvMQ7dej9g
(2) De Beer, F. 2015. McArthurs’ what? PowerPoint presentation with a
voice-over.
(3) International development: challenges for a world in transition
www.open.edu/openlearn/society/international-development/
international- studies/participatory-development-action?=33feee961b
(4) What is an information system? http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLC
nMet96WqvNkJ0SzRF0HHmnBiG Fydmqe&v=Qujsd4vkqFI&feature=pl
ayer_detailpage
(5) Collection of data can improve nation building – Modi. Pt1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRxJw35cxJU
(6) Environmental impact assessment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30MCbIe5OAg
(7) Environmental impact assessment: useful tool or just another fashion?
https://www.youtube.com/
watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CJWUR2x_aGk
(8) Terry Schmidt introduces the logical framework - with San Diego dogs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX09_y4O1aI
(9) Monitoring and evaluation.mp4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CszDMlXjz8E
(10) Gramya: participatory monitoring and evaluation (PME) in UDWDP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1sSs8XN9cU

80
 ANNEXURES

Annexure 1: Project Framework

THE PROJECT FRAMEWORK (TYPICAL RURAL WATER PROJECT)

Narrative Assumptions Indicators Means of
summary verification
Goals Improved Health education Reduction in Hospital
health will be available deaths and and clinic
of rural regarding cleanliness, sickness statistics
population sanitation, etc. due to
Social
waterborne
Other environmental surveys
diseases
factors not
contributing to ill
health

Purposes Increased Rural population will Utilisation of Records

consumption wish to use pumps, wells of pump
of safe water rather than rely on breakdowns
Per capita
traditional sources and
consumption
downtime
Pumps will operate of water
satisfactorily and can
Number
be maintained
of completed
wells
Outputs 100 wells Accessible Number Field
drilled and groundwater is of completed inspection
installed with available in the wells
Project
handpumps project area
records
Suitable locations for
wells can be found
Inputs Resources (Assumptions (These areas are a
regarding acquisition specific concern of project
• skilled
and ofprojectsshould be management)
unskilled covered explicitly by
labour project design and
• finance planning)
• materials
and
equipment

DVA2601/1 81
 The project framework
The ‘‘project framework’’ (or ‘‘logical framework’’ as it is sometimes known) was
initially developed primarily as a tool to assist with the design, preparation and
evaluation of projects. Many donor agencies have since adopted variants of
the framework as a basis for planning, appraising and subsequent evaluation
of the projects they support. Project managers, though they have a somewhat
different responsibility towards the project, are able to use the idea of the project
framework equally as much as donor agencies. It serves as an aid to help them
clarify the project objectives, as a tool to increase their understanding of its
various components and as a basis for establishing a monitoring system.
The project framework defines clearly the project objectives in such a way that
logical linkages are established between a hierarchical set of sub-objectives,
each set of which ultimately contributes to the final developmental aim of the
project. The objectives are described in a vertical column showing project inputs
being transformed into project outputs, which contribute to project purposes
and ultimately project goals. This column, called the ‘‘narrative summary’’, is
linked to a second column that defines the main assumptions on which the
linkages between inputs, outputs, purposes and goals are based. The third
column identifies quantitative indicators, which measure the achievement of
the objectives of the project at its various levels. A final column defines the
means of measuring such project indicators. The framework is thus like a matrix
that has both a vertical and horizontal logic. A simplified project framework
relating to a rural water supply project is shown earlier in Annexure 1 and is
discussed below. Readers may like to follow this discussion by drawing up a
project framework for their own project.
Narrative summary
The main objectives of the project in the narrative summary context are
defined as project goals, purposes, outputs and inputs. Goals define the broad
development objectives that, for most projects, tend to be described in economic
or demographic terms either at a national or regional level. In our example, the
project goal is an improvement in health in the rural population. Examples of
goals for other projects might be an improvement in the balance of trade or in
rural standards of living. Project purposes are generally described in terms of
the factors that contribute to the achievement of the overall objectives, for
example, increased consumption of safe water, production of goods for export
or improvement in the levels of nutrition among poor families. (In some
versions of the project framework, ‘goals’ and ‘purposes’ are called ‘impacts’
and ‘effects’ respectively.)
Project outputs contribute to the achievement of project purposes. They may
not be sufficient by themselves to achieve these purposes: outputs from other
projects may also be required, or other conditions should be satisfied before
project purposes are achieved. The use of the word ‘output’ can give rise to
some confusion, since it is often used to mean the physical outcome of a
production process. In this context, however, project outputs refer to the
tangible physical and institutional structures established through the project.
It is the operation of these structures that enables the project purposes to be
achieved. Examples of project outputs include wells for the provision of safe
water, factories that are established to produce a particular product, clinics
providing advice and medication to expectant women, and irrigation schemes
that allow farmers to increase production and employ more labour.

82
 Annexures

The project inputs are the resources required to establish and produce the
project outputs. These include finance, skilled and unskilled labour, materials,
capital equipment and technical assistance, among others.
The narrative summary lies at the heart of the project framework. It is particularly
useful for managers in helping them to clarify project objectives and define
project strategy.
Clarity of objectives at each level is important for successful project execution:
without such clarity there can be no definition of the plan and no effective
exercise of management. The vertical logic of the framework also forces
managers to ask the question ‘in what way does this particular activity contribute
to project purposes’, and thus raises the possibility of other methods of achieving
these purposes, in effect requiring from the manager careful analysis and
definition of the project strategy itself. This may be especially relevant to
adaptive, people- based projects, in which managers may have considerable
latitude in determining strategy.
The causal links between inputs, outputs, purposes and goals return us to the
role of policy formulation and its link with project development … Policy-makers
determine the developmental goals to which project purposes contribute, and
policy may also determine the soundness or otherwise of the assumptions made
concerning the logical causative links of the narrative summary. Project
managers may well contribute to the policy debate and even be instrumental in
formulating policies but in their capacity as project managers, they are
particularly concerned with the transformation of project inputs to outputs. This
transformation is, in fact, the project. The project (the time-bound investment of
capital to produce assets) ceases when the transformation of inputs into outputs
is complete. The contribution of project outputs to the achievement of purposes
takes place when the assets have been created and are in operation. Project
managers may be in a position to exert some influence on how this takes place
but the main focus of managerial interest for project managers lies in the efficient
and effective transformation of inputs into outputs.
Assumptions
The relationships between the project goals, purposes, outputs and inputs are
represented in the project framework as a vertical logic from the mobilization
of resources to the attainment of development targets at sectoral, regional or
national level. However, the feasibility of this logic is based on various
assumptions, which are also defined in the framework, in a second vertical
column associated with the narrative summary. These assumptions relate first
to complementary outputs from other projects that are necessary to support
links in the chain of project objectives. For instance, in the example, increased
provision of clean water will not lead to improved rural health unless it is
accompanied by a health education effort, which may well be the intended
output of another project. Second, the assumptions relate to conditions in the
environment that should be satisfied before the causative links will operate.
Thus, locations for wells must be found, which are suitable not only in physical
terms but also socially and culturally. Suitability may be affected by such
factors as landownership and traditional patterns of water collection, over
which project managers have little influence, and which therefore form part of
the project environment.

DVA2601/1 83
 Assumptions are made at each level of the project framework regarding the
conditions necessary for the successful transformation of project inputs into
outputs, the contribution of outputs to purposes and purposes to goals. It is
therefore consistent to make no assumptions at the lowest level regarding the
acquisition of project inputs, since this lies entirely within the managerial
interest. This is not necessarily to say, therefore, that the task of resource
acquisition is easy for project managers, but rather that this task is an integral
part of their overall responsibility. Without inputs there can be no outputs, and
an essential feature of the managers’ job is to acquire and control the
necessary inputs.
Experience indicates that, where projects fail, the assumptions made by
planners and managers have often proved invalid for some reason. Farmers fail
to achieve expected yields, the volume of water available on an irrigation scheme
falls below expectation, clinics remain unused for lack of trained medical staff.
The main assumptions indicated in the project framework are those that
establish the causative nature between the project inputs, outputs, purposes and
goals. If for any reason these become invalid, there will be a profound effect on
the outcome of the project.
Indicators and means of verification
The narrative summary represents the causative linkages between the main
project elements in a progression that begins with resource inputs and ends with
the attainment of development goals. If, however, these elements are to have
more than just a theoretical basis, they need to be redefined in practical terms.
The project framework attempts to do this through the identification and
quantification of indicators, which measure achievement at the different levels.
Thus, the framework includes a column in which an attempt is made to identify
the indicators that describe those elements in the narrative summary. As far
as possible, the indicators should be precise and quantifiable, in order that
there can be no ambiguity about success or failure in achieving them. In the
example, the number of wells drilled and completed is a precise measure of
the achievements of project outputs. The target number will, of course, be
changing over time and the project framework must reflect this. The advantage
of identifying indicators of elements of the project in the narrative summary is
that it provides planners and managers with a clear set of targets at each level
of the project and it ensures that progress can be measured against the
targets. In this, there is a close link with the growing interest in the use of
performance indicators in a wide variety of managerial situations. Indicators
also make possible the comparison of project inputs with the completion of
project outputs and achievement of project purposes and goals, thus providing
the basis for project evaluation. They would help to show, for instance, whether
a rural water supply project did actually contribute to increased health in the
population. If not, causes could be identified and improvements made on the
existing system and future projects.

84
 Annexures

The means of actually measuring the indicators completes the framework, again
using a vertical logic. This can be used to establish the basis for a monitoring
system, both for the project itself and for the subsequent operation of the
system. In some cases, verification will be a straightforward process involving
inventories of assets and facilities. Verifying that project purposes and goals are
being achieved may, by contrast, be much harder. It will probably involve some
sort of field survey and primary data collection exercise, and will also require
the establishment of the baseline situation, against which improvements can
be measured. The means of verification must be feasible within the context of
the project: in particular, resources in terms of project inputs may often be
needed if the measuring system is to be effective.
This brief review of the project framework would not be complete without
mention of some of the limitations of the concept. The project framework does
not substitute the rigorous processes of project formulation and appraisal. For
instance, it does not describe alternatives, nor ensure that the project approach
taken up in the framework is optimal. It does not describe how the transformation
of project inputs to outputs and outputs to purposes will actually take place. It
remains the responsibility of managers to ensure that the transformation takes
place efficiently and effectively. Projects are dynamic undertakings and the
project framework describes the situation at a particular time. There is a
danger, as there is with many other management aids (organization charts and
implementation plans, to name but two), that the framework will be drawn up
once and then left untouched to become increasingly irrelevant. This danger
can, of course, be avoided by a commitment to update the framework if the
situation changes sufficiently to warrant it.
In spite of these limitations, however, the project framework remains an invaluable
aid for the planner, and particularly the project manager, in encapsulating the
project succinctly, identifying project approaches and strategy, assessing the
relationship of the project to its environment, and in defining the key elements
of the monitoring system. The description of the project framework for the rural
water project has deliberately been kept simple for illustrative purposes. In
practical situations the framework for even comparatively simple projects will
be considerably more complicated than that shown earlier in Annexure 1.
Source: Cusworth & Franks 1994:15–20

DVA2601/1 85