 |
|
|
|
Flexibility versus Detailed Implementation Planning
In Ethiopia (131-ET) credit was provided for a very limited intervention - draught oxen - in order to improve the cultivation capacity of the small farmers in the highlands. The intervention was extremely successful; at MTE nearly ten times the number of loans had been made than planned, three times the incremental area had been cultivated and five times the incremental value of crops produced. This had been possible because (i) the uptake was demand driven and had a high priority with the target group; (ii) the loan conditions permitted the implementing agency to switch funding between the credit lines categories; (iii) because the intervention was narrowly focused it was easier to implement, and the implementing agency was exactly appropriate for the task, which meant it could be strengthened as required. In comparison, lack of flexibility in implementation has required changes to be made in project interventions and implementation arrangements; this was the case in Uganda (S10-UG) where the changing macro-economic climate required the project management to vary their approach to implementation, and in Mauritius (078-MT) where the project required reformulation to reflect the changed circumstances on the island before there was any real progress.
However, on a number of occasions more detailed implementation plans have been suggested, which would result in a less flexible approach. This occurred In Rwanda (150-RW) where the plans for the second phase of the project were to be compiled during the first phase; the MTE found that this had not taken place, resulting in confusion and a delay in implementation. In Burundi (024-BU) detailed specifications were to be prepared as part of the early stages of implementation, but this proved extremely difficult to arrange in practice without an external agency being involved; the MTE recommended clear and detailed plans of operation be prepared at formulation. In Ethiopia (S03-ET) the IE called for future appraisal reports to be supported by detailed implementation plans.
Whilst there appears to be a conflict between flexibility built into the implementation arrangements and the need for detailed plans (especially at the start of a project), in fact this need not be so. In the examples quoted above, the implementers want clear statements of the precise roles required of them, and the overlap and coordination of those roles, but also want to know the degree to which the specifications and tasks can be changed by management decisions taken in the field, i.e. their room for manoeuvre. The need for flexibility occurs because circumstances change, and the project management needs to react to those changes, but this does not mean a lack of precision in what is undertaken. Confusion and lack of direction hinder implementation and reduce or delay the flow of project benefits; the requirement is therefore a precise set of implementation parameters, but with the understanding that these can be adjusted to changing circumstances.
- Clear guidelines are essential for project implementation, and should be provided and explained in the implementation version of the appraisal and at the start-up workshop. The guidelines must be in agreement with the existing organisations and management practices, and any new roles or tasks need to be carefully described.
- The extent to which there is scope for adjusting roles and/or targets during implementation should be freely discussed, and the M&E system should include indicators which would "flag" the need for such changes to be made. The project management should be encouraged to optimise the implementation mechanisms, and to point out (to supervision missions) when factors outside of their control are affecting implementation performance.
- The CI, in conjunction with the project management, should periodically assess the macro-economic climate in which the project is taking place to see if the design assumptions remain valid, and if not to suggest changes.
eferences:
1. Burundi - East Mpanda Rural Development Project, 024-BU R024BUAE, Mid-Term Evaluation, 1987.
2. Ethiopia - Agricultural Credit Project, 131-ET, Mid-term Evaluation, 1988.
3. Ethiopia - Special Country Programme, SRS-003-ET S003ETBE, Interim Evaluation, 1996.
4. Mauritius - Small-Scale Agricultural Development Project, 078-MT R078MTCE, Completion Evaluation, 1994.
5. Rwanda - Birunga Maize Project, 150-RW, Mid-term Evaluation, 1990.
6. Uganda - Southwest Region Agricultural Rehabilitation Project, SRS-10-UG%S010UGAE, Mid-Term Evaluation, 1992.
