Project Success Limiting Factors Monitoring Theory
David Jāne Molapo, Chief Executive Officer, MK Consulting Pty Ltd
Board Member, South African Monitoring and Evaluation Association
[email protected]
Abstract
The recent upsurge in the need for monitoring and evaluation of development
interventions by governments and non-governmental organizations around the
world has sparked a debate among monitoring and evaluation practitioners and
“experts” on the need to professionalize monitoring and evaluation. This has
resulted in a number of proposals being put forward by some practitioners and
“experts” about how to do it. If one looks at some fields of knowledge that are
now professionalised, one finds that these fields of knowledge got to the level of
professionalization by first developing a central theory which came about after
studies of certain behavioural patterns overtime. In the monitoring and
evaluation field there is not enough evidence that this is the approach among
those that are involved in the field’s professionalization effort.
This paper proposes a theory of monitoring that could be used to inform a
process towards professionalization of the monitoring and evaluation field. It
starts off by defining what is meant by a theory. It does this by fleshing out
different attributes of a theory and highlighting its importance in forming a solid
foundation for professionalization of the monitoring and evaluation field of
practice. This is followed by a look at current efforts in the field of monitoring
and evaluation with the aim of finding out if any of them are based on any
theory or whether what they have come up with, that are called theories of
either monitoring or evaluation do qualify as theories, and whether they provide
anything solid for professionalization of monitoring and or evaluation.
On the basis of Koskela’s definition of a theory and an approach that is
followed when developing a theory in the field of economics, the paper starts
off by first proposing a definition of monitoring and evaluation. Using the
proposed definition, the paper identifies relevant variables that reside within the
practice of monitoring and evaluation, outlines the important behavioural
patterns in the practice of monitoring and evaluation, and then proposes the
theory.
The paper proposes that monitoring and evaluation is a study of human
behaviour in the process of using resources to achieve developmental goals. On
the basis of the definition, the paper confirms inputs as the independent
variables needed for realisation of interventions’ outputs and it is only through
realisation of outputs that interventions’ development goals can be realised. The
paper concludes by postulating the theory that constant monitoring of outside
factors that could have a negative effect on an intervention’s success or limit its
success and constant monitoring of milestones of output realisation and not
inputs, because inputs tell nothing about progress, but a lot about usage, will
ensure success of any intervention.
Introduction
The ensuing debate about professionalization of monitoring and evaluation
among monitoring and evaluation proponents has sparked in my mind a
question about a universally accepted theory of monitoring and evaluation,
where one’s thinking is that for professionalization to occur there ought to be a
universally accepted theory within the field. If one looks at most disciplines that
are now professionalised, one finds that there is a certain consensus by a
majority about certain human activities that are empirically always true in
occurrence on which the theories in the disciplines are based, and there are
certain terms used whose meanings are universally accepted by the majority
who are practising in those disciplines.
For example, in economics there is a majority of economists who subscribe to
the notion that there is an inverse relationship between the price of a commodity
and its quantity demanded. This has been arrived at out of studying human
behaviour in the process of consumption of goods and services and in majority
of cases it has proven to be true, giving the demand theory a universal value as a
tool that can be used to explain and predict human behaviour in the process of
consumption of goods and services and a good tool for prediction and decision
making in whatever dimension, be it in the dimension of a decision to buy a
good or service, invest in the production of a good or service or any other
decision that one many decide to make within a given decision making context.
The following key things need to be pulled out of the foregoing two paragraphs,
one, a theory is borne out of studying a certain phenomenon and it is a model of
a real life situation and it has explanatory and predictability power about the
recurrence of certain aspects of the phenomenon. Two, in order to
professionalize any human activity there has to be at least a universal majority
consensus about validity of certain human activity behavioural patterns’
occurrence and common meanings of terms that are used by those concerned.
Going back to the above example to substantiate the point further, majority of
economists are on a common denominator that economics is a study of human
behaviour in the process of production, distribution and consumption of goods
and services, making the demand theory one tool that can be used to explain and
predict human behaviour in the consumption activity anywhere wherever it
occurs. Analogously therefore, for one to develop a theory of monitoring and
evaluation, one has to understand the necessary human behavioural patterns in
the human activities on which monitoring and evaluation are applied and single
out those that will always be true and recurring as is the case in the statement
that “the demand for a good will in majority of cases drop as its price
increases”.
Taking the analogy further, if economics deals with studying human behaviour
in production, distribution and consumption of goods and services, one first has
to define what monitoring and evaluation deal with in order for one to be able to
develop a theory which can then be the basis for monitoring and evaluation
professionalization. Mastery of theory, along with mastery of practical skills of
the field, is a hallmark of professionals. Indeed, according to Fugate and Knapp,
reliance on the theoretical is the single most important factor distinguishing a
profession from a craft.
Accroding to (Koskela 2000):
• A theory provides an explanation of observed behaviour, and contributes thus to
understanding. A theory provides a prediction of future behaviour.
• On the basis of the theory, tools for analyzing, designing and controlling can be built.
• A theory, when shared, provides a common language or framework, through which the
cooperation of people in collective undertakings, like project, firm, etc., is facilitated and
enabled.
• A theory gives direction in pinpointing the sources of further progress.
• When explicit, testing the validity of the theory in practice leads to learning.
• Innovative practices can be transferred to other settings by first abstracting a theory from
that practice and then applying it in target conditions.
• A theory can be seen as a condensed piece of knowledge: it empowers novices to do the
things that formerly only experts could do. It is thus instrumental in teaching.
Taking the example of economics again, the theory that there is an inverse
relationship between the price of a good or service and its quantity demanded
can be used to study human behaviour in the manner of explaining it and thus
understanding it. It can predict future behaviour and tools can be developed out
of it for analysing and even controlling human behaviour. The validity of the
theory has thus been tested in practice. The theory has empowered novices to do
the things that formerly only experts could do. Therefore, it is not craft.
The Current Situation in Monitoring and Evaluation
An analysis of what those that believe to be monitoring and evaluation
practitioners or experts do reveals a confluence and conglomeration of concepts
drawn from a variety of disciplines such as research, planning, economics,
project management, sociology, political science and even psychology to
mention just a number of them.
While one may argue that it does not harm for a discipline to evolve out of other
already established disciplines, there is a danger of less realisation of value
addition that what is branded as a new discipline adds other than that it is an
amorphous of other already developed disciplines. Therefore, in order to avoid
this it is important to first define the behaviour that monitoring and evaluation
attempt to study as a requirement for development of a theory for monitoring
and evaluation as articulated by Koskela above where he lists characteristics of
a theory. Before doing this I would like to highlight and give a critique of some
of the latest attempts at trying to form monitoring and evaluation into a
profession.
Development of Evaluation Guidelines: Many evaluation associations around
the world have realised the pressing need to put method in the madness that the
monitoring and evaluation practice has become in the recent past as a result of
the high evaluation skill demand by NGOs and governments. They have begun
to develop what have come to be known as evaluation guidelines which are
forms of prescripts on how evaluation should be performed. The glaring
omission in these guidelines as their name indicates is anything on monitoring.
Most of them seem to take it as a foregone conclusion that monitoring always
goes well, the only thing that has to be of worry is how best to do evaluation.
Besides the omission of monitoring in the guidelines, the development of the
evaluation guidelines in different countries around the world has brought up the
question of which guidelines should form a universal standard if any universal
one is necessary. The question though is will these guidelines help in the
professionalization of monitoring and evaluation or even evaluation alone?
Development of Practitioners Competencies: There is also an emergence of a
group of monitoring and evaluation proponents who feel that
professionalization can be achieved by developing monitoring and evaluation
practitioners’ competencies. While this sounds appealing to a certain degree, it
looks more like a Christmas tree sourcing approach. You do not have to pull it
up with the roots you can cut it at the stem and design a stand to keep it upright
so that it can stand in your preferred location in the house. Any discipline
should come out with the roots in order for it to be useful and the roots are
theory. Moreover, if there is no theory of monitoring and evaluation yet, who
has the authority to develop the competencies? Will anyone respect whatever
competences they develop if whatever they develop is not based on any tested
theory? It is highly unlikely. Those who develop the competencies will be put
on the spot to substantiate whatever they put up.
Latest Theories: A number of “theories” from international development
organizations, research and training institute practitioners have begun surfacing
to fill the void in monitoring and evaluation theory. Most of these theories are
biased towards a theory of evaluation. Whether the motive is to create a base for
professionalization of the field is not immediately obvious, but since they are
bringing something to an “empty” space they merit critique.
The Theory of Change: According to ActKnowledge,
Theories of change have been largely used as a tool for evaluation, long before
ActKnowledge or the Roundtable began refining the process. It is probably impossible to
pinpoint the first use of the term "Theory of Change," but a hint at its origins can be found in
the evaluation community among the work of notable methodologists, such as Huey Chen,
Peter Rossi, Michael Quinn Patton, and Carol Weiss. These methodologists, along with a host
of others, have been thinking about how to apply program theories to evaluation for at least
20 years.
The “theory” was popularised by Weiss who described it “as a way to describe
the set of assumptions that explain both the mini-steps that lead to the long term
goal of interest and the connections between program activities and outcomes
that occur at each step of the way”.
According to ActKnowledge
She challenged designers of complex community-based initiatives to be specific about the
theories of change guiding their work and suggested that doing so would improve their
overall evaluation plans and would strengthen their ability to claim credit for outcomes that
were predicted in their theory.
While the “theory” seems to be logically plausible because it says you need a
plan to achieve a goal by suggesting mini-steps to follow, other disciplines like
project management have adopted the same approach by insisting that every
project should have a work breakdown structure. However, experience has
shown that even the projects with the best work breakdown structures still fail.
The Outcomes Theory: This is a newly developed “theory” in the field of
monitoring and evaluation. According to Duignan, “It provides an integrated
perspective on the functioning and optimal design of 'outcomes systems'.”
According to Duignan,
Outcomes systems are the range of related systems used in various sectors, disciplines and
professions which attempt to specify or measure outcomes (also known as results, goals,
objectives, targets etc); to attribute changes in such outcomes to parties (individuals, projects,
programs, organizations, coalitions, joint ventures, governments etc); to contract or delegate
the achievement of outcomes; and to hold parties to account (reward or punish them) for
changes in outcomes. Outcomes systems are known by names such as results management,
performance management, monitoring, evaluation, evidence-based practice, contracting and
strategy. Outcomes theory provides a rigorous set of definitions and principles for analyzing
and improving such systems.
On the basis of the foregoing explanation of what outcomes theory provides it
can be seen that it aims to integrate the design and functioning of outcomes
systems. From this it can be seen that it also falls within what I have indicated
in the introduction that most current “theories” are an amorphous of collections
from other well established disciplines, hence they run the risk of not being
noticed in terms of the value that they add. Furthermore, the theory sees
outcomes as an encapsulating term for a number of concepts that are frequently
used in monitoring and evaluation including “results”. Is a result a form of
outcome or is an outcome a form of result? Perhaps an easy way of marking a
distinction between most of these terms is in realising the fact that in any
intervention there are three key stages, planning, implementation and analysis
not necessarily occurring in that order. At planning, everything is an
expectation. At this stage, things like goals, developmental objectives, outputs,
inputs, targets, indicators, sources of data and even assumptions that are put
down in a plan are all objectives because they are what we plan to attain or
realise through effort during implementation. Attainment of all the foregoing
will be manifested in results. Therefore, the outcomes will be seen in the results
of effort applied during implementation, hence, the logic that an outcome is a
form of result and not the other way round. You can have any form of result but
not have an expected outcome.
The Logical Framework: Most of the terminology that is used in monitoring
and evaluation has been borrowed from the Logical Framework tool of
planning. The Logical Framework was developed on the notion that a well
planned project is easier to implement and has higher chances of success than
one that has not been. Indeed the framework has stood the test of time in the
implementation value that it has brought to many an intervention. Most
monitoring and evaluation practitioners have been attracted to the tool due to
some of its aspects that make monitoring and evaluation easy such as indicators
which make it possible for evaluators to know which indicators of performance
to collect data on in order to gauge performance. Despite this seemingly big
value that it has brought to the field of monitoring and evaluation, the Logical
Framework has a number of drawbacks which have most probably led to the
development of the change and outcomes theories treated above. One of the key
drawbacks is that it makes a sweeping assumption that in any intervention there
are certain external factors that cannot be controlled as a result certain positive
assumptions have to be simply made about them. It is like saying “pray” that
they do not disrupt an intervention or remain favourable to the intervention
throughout its implementation. It is also like saying they are insurmountable
risks. What about if one could devise a plan to monitor and manage them during
intervention implementation? Would this not ensure success of an intervention?
The foregoing discussion confirms one key thing, that most efforts in the field
of monitoring and evaluation are still trying to put down what might distinguish
monitoring and evaluation from other fields and these efforts are diverse in their
approaches and fundamental meanings of concepts that they use to explain
scenarios. The key fundamental thing to note is that the developers of these
theories do not seem to subscribe to Fugate and Knapp’s thinking that theory is
the single most important factor distinguishing a profession from a craft, hence
making what the attempts are suggesting seem more as crafts than theories
because they do not meet Koskela’s criteria of what a theory should entail and
be able to do.
On the basis of Fugate, Knapp and Koskela’s perspectives on the importance of
theory in professionalizing any field of practice and what a theory should look
like and be able to do the section that follows begins a suggestion on a theory of
monitoring.
A Definition of Monitoring and Evaluation
On the basis of the economics analogy alluded to above monitoring and
evaluation can be defined as a study of human behaviour in the process of
using resources to attain certain developmental goals. Let us elaborate on
this definition further. It is an indisputable fact that everything on earth
behaviours in one form or another. Therefore, monitoring and evaluation
concentrates only on the study of human behaviour. There are other studies that
concentrate on plants, animals, soil, the four elements and even the spiritual
aspects of human beings.
It is important to elaborate on the word “study”. As in economics or any other
field the word study does not only refer to comprehension it extends to
application of what has been learned and revision on the basis of new
realisations and findings out of application of what has been learned. It is in this
context in which the use of the word in the preceding definition of monitoring
and evaluation should be understood. Therefore, it also encapsulates mental
prowess or authority on the subject of human behaviour in resource use to attain
certain development goals on the part of one who claims to be an expert in the
field of study.
Variables in the Process of Using Resources to Attain
Developmental Goals
The human activity of using resources in developmental interventions to
achieve certain developmental goals is a function of a number of variables the
main of which are resources and technology. An output of a developmental
intervention is an intermediate objective towards achievement of a long term
developmental goal. Therefore, if an output of an intervention is realised there is
a high likelihood that its goal will be achieved.
Observed Behaviours in the Use of Resources to Attain
Developmental Goals
1. When human beings use resources to attain any developmental goal there is
a proportional relationship between the amount of resources they use and the
amount of output they realise. More resources use results in increased
output. However, quality of the output is not automatically gained.
Therefore, the word “output” should be understood as a result of effort from
using resources.
2. When human beings acquire resources there is an inversely proportional
relationship between the price of the resources and their quantities
demanded. Human beings will demand more quantities of resources as their
price goes down. If the price of needed resources to use to achieve a certain
goal increases their quantity demanded will decrease. If this relationship
holds reduction in resources acquisition as a result of increased prices has a
negative effect on the realisation of an output and the converse is true.
3. When human beings apply sophisticated methods (technology) to implement
an intervention there is an exponentially proportional relationship between
technology and output. Use of better technology in doing things by human
beings will result in increased outputs and of better quality. Put another way,
technology will result in efficient use of resources to achieve the same level
of output.
Therefore, it can be postulated that output which is a form of intermediate result
in the context of an intervention is a function of inputs, which can be presented
in notation, as follows:
Output = ∫ (resources, technology) or inputs
Resources are anything that money can buy. Technology should be looked at as
human inventiveness which connotes an adroit manner of doing something.
Resources and technology perceived together can be termed inputs because they
are what have to be expended for an output to be realised.
Proofs on validity of Observed Human Behaviours
Consider a situation where a certain group of individuals want to address a
problem of lack of shelter (goal). They then decide to build a house (output) to
solve the problem. In order to build the house they have to take into
consideration a number of things the main of which are the following:
 Suitable land to build it on
 The type of house they want to build with all the specifications of how
big, size of windows, doors etc. The house plan should encapsulate all
these on paper
 Skill/technology
 Identify the supplier of all the consumable resources they need
 Prices of all that they have to buy
 Natural factors beyond their control
With all the above in place and natural factors within their control it is possible
for them to realise the output and achieve their goal.
Proofs
1.
The relationship between inputs and output
Consider the following hypothetical data collected from building the house by
the group of individuals alluded to above.
Table 1:
Observed Data on Construction of a House
Quantity of Inputs Used
(Number of Bricks)
500
600
1000
1500
2100
2700
3100
Amount of Output Realised
(Wall Hieght in Metres)
2
2.2
3.7
5.7
8
8.5
11
The data in Table 1 above has been used to plot the graph in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1:
Directly Proportional Relationship between Inputs and Outputs
Construcion of a House
Amount of Output Realised
(Wall HIeght in Metres)
12
11
10
8
8
5.7
6
3.7
4
2
8.5
2
2.2
500
600
0
1000
1500
2100
2700
3100
Quantity of Inputs Used
(Number of Brikcs)
Looking at Figure 1 above it can be seen that as more bricks were used the
height of the wall also increased steadily signifying a directly proportional
relationship between inputs utilisation and the output realised.
2.
The relationship between prices of resources and quantity demanded
Consider the hypothetical data below that has been collected by observing the
price fluctuation of bricks purchased and the quantity fluctuation of bricks
demanded in building the house at different price levels.
Table 2:
Observed Data on Construction of a House
Price of Bricks
(Rands)
400
380
320
330
220
230
120
Quantity of Inputs Demanded/Used
(Number of Bricks)
500
600
1000
1500
2100
2700
3100
As was the case in with the data in Table 1, the data in Table 2 was used to
develop the graph depicted in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2:
The Inversely Proportional Relationship between prince and quantity
demanded
Demand for Bricks
450
400
400
380
Price of Bricks
(Rands)
330
320
350
300
220
250
230
200
120
150
100
50
0
500
600
1000
900
2100
2000
3100
Quantity Demanded
(Number of Bricks)
Looking at Figure 2 above it can be seen that as the price of bricks increased
overtime the quantities of bricks demanded declined steadily overtime. If one
concentrates on the price pattern between R320 and R220, it can be seen that as
the price increased from R320 to R330 the quantity demanded declined from
1000 units to 900 units. As soon as the price declined to R220 the quantity
demanded increased to R2100.
3.
The relationship between resources use and output
Table 3 below is the same as table 1. The only difference is that a hypothetical
technology factor of 1 has been applied which has resulted in the height of the
wall increase by a factor of 1 assuming that a technology factor of 1 has an
output increase factor of 1.
Table 3:
Observed Data on Construction of a House with Technology
Quantity of Inputs Used
(Number of Bricks)
500
600
1000
1500
2100
2700
3100
Amount of Output
Realised
(Wall Height in Metres)
2
2.2
3.7
5.7
8
8.5
11
Amount of Output
Realised with Technology
(Wall Height in Metres)
3
3.2
4.7
6.7
9
9.5
12
Technology
Factor Applied
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
The graph is Figure 3 below has been derived from the data in Table 3.
Figure 3:
The exponentially proportional relationship between technology use and
output
Construction of a House
Amount of Output Reallised
(Wall Hieght in Metres)
14
12
12
11
10
9
8
8
6.7
5.7
6
4
9.5
8.5
2.12.2
3.2
2.2
500
600
4.7
3.7
Without Technology
With Technology
2
0
1000
1500
2100
2700
3100
Quantity of Inputs Used
(Number of Bricks)
Figure 3 is a comparative analysis of use of resource without technology and
with technology. It can be seen that holding the quantity of inputs used constant
and applying technology to increase inputs’ efficient use output has increased
by a technology factor of 1. That is, 2.1/2.2 = 1. This has occurred throughout
up to where the wall is 12 metres in height, 11/12 = 1. The technology applied
could be anything from a quicker method of moving bricks to bricklayers to
picking up a brick in a certain direction that does not require it to be twirled
before being placed on top of another brick on the wall.
Holding other factors constant, the above relationships can be tested with
empirical data and the behaviour they present will always hold creating a model
that can be used to explain and predict behaviour in other forms of activities
other than building a house where resources are used to achieve a goal. The
above relationships are important because they advise on what results have to be
expected out of certain behaviours during acquisition of inputs by those
involved in interventions that are geared towards realisation of certain results.
As such they become an integral basis for developing a monitoring and
evaluation theory.
Monitoring Theory – A Proposal: Empirically Untested
On the basis of the foregoing definition of monitoring and evaluation and the
tested true patterns about human behaviour in the acquisition and use of
resources to attain certain goals, I now attempt to formulate a theory of
monitoring below.
Monitoring can only be deemed to have taken place well when an intervention
that was being implemented has led to the realisation of results that were
planned before hand. The conventional way of monitoring is to routinely track
key elements of an intervention such as inputs and outputs. However, looking at
this way of monitoring very closely is it really useful to monitor inputs? Use of
inputs implies progress but does not necessarily mean expected progress.
Realising that half of a stack of bricks has been used up says nothing about the
height of the wall that has been built except if certain things had been held
constant. Some of the bricks could have been thrown away as waste.
However, realising that half of the expected height of the wall has been built
immediately tells one that the house is halfway to completion and most
probably half of construction material such as bricks has been used up. The
same logic goes about time. Realising that one has taken 5 weeks to build a
portion of a house says nothing about how far one has gone in terms of the
amount of house that has been built or remains to be built to finish it. However,
by looking at the amount of house built one can tell how far one is towards
completing the house. What this means is that monitoring of time and other
resources is not important in telling anything about progress of implementation
of an intervention because they tell little about the amount of progress made in
realising the expected result. They are better as indicators of amount of usage as
opposed to indicators of progress. Therefore, spending a lot of effort monitoring
time spent and amount of resources used has a limitation in telling progress and
quality of results, which are critical success factors.
One logical way of looking at time and money or resources money buys is as
delimiters. This means that the best way of monitoring an intervention is to
concentrate on the degree of progression as evidenced in the expected results.
Concentrating on progress made in working towards realising the expected
results is the one that dictates how much more of inputs in the form of time and
resources are still needed to reach the final form of the expected result. This
implies that what should be done is simply to insure that there are enough
inputs.
However, given the fact that both time and money are not in limitless supply
due to competing issues that require human effort and resources in other spheres
of life, estimating them on the basis of past experience should always be
common practice. This should happen at planning and they should be
understood as intervention delimiters and not indicators of progress made.
Another factor that has to be taken into account at planning is to identify what I
call “Success Limiting Factors” or SLFs. These are factors outside an
intervention but which are critical in determining its success. For example, what
are possible SLFs in building a house? The following are the key ones; drying
up of resources supply, negative factors to staff working on building the house,
unfavourable weather, country political instability and escalation in prices of
input resources. Constant monitoring of these is sure to create certainty in
achieving anticipated progress and the ultimate expected result in the form of a
house. It is important to note that the fewer SLFs are the better. Therefore,
every effort has to be made during planning or before implementation starts that
those SLFs that can be eliminated are eliminated. It needs to be revealed though
that some of the SLFs may be force majeure. In the case of these, alternative
ways of doing the work under such SLFs should be decided a priori so as to
hype the mood when the SLFs do take effect.
Putting the foregoing in another way, the monitoring expert or intervention
manager should play an intervention protector role during its implementation.
Consider the process of raising a baby to illustrate the point. Does it make sense
to concentrate on the baby in terms of feeding, bathing, changing diapers at
utter oblivion to the possible external dangers in the environment in which the
baby is? The baby could receive all the undivided attention in the world in terms
of provision of resources it needs for growth but if this is done at the neglect of
possible external dangers to its well being, the baby is most likely not to reach
maturity stage expected by the mother. For example, the wall of the house in
which the mother and the baby are in could collapse for some reason and crash
the mother and the baby to death or the baby could be bitten by an intruder
snake while in its crib and die because the mother did not take time to clean the
house properly etc.
Another aspect that I would to touch on is implementation process. Some
monitoring practitioners identify process as one of the aspects that have to be
monitored. Who needs to understand the finer details of a process of building a
house? Is it the monitoring expert/intervention manager or the bricklayer? It
should be the bricklayer. He is the one who is mixing quantities after quantities
of consumable resources to literally form the house structure. Therefore, process
monitoring should be left to the man next to the action. The monitoring
expert/intervention manager’s role should be to monitor possible SLFs and
incessantly devise ways of dealing with them before they affect the
intervention’s smooth implementation. He should also monitor output
realisation progress and use this to determine the type of resources needed,
especially if all the resources planned a priori experience an unforeseen nonexpend where they have to be expended. Not every grain of sand will up as part
of building mortar or not every brick will end up as part of the house wall.
Therefore, while the mother in the above example is like the bricklayer by being
close to the action, the father or other members of the family should be there to
contribute in manners diverse such as making sure that nothing external
disrupts, endanger or even cause death to the mother and the child (the
intervention) in its process of growth. The father or other members of the family
could be looked at as the monitoring expert or the intervention manager.
Therefore, I postulate a theory that constant monitoring of outside factors that
could have a negative effect on an intervention’s success or limit its success and
constant monitoring of milestones of output realisation and not inputs, because
inputs tell nothing about progress, but a lot about usage, will ensure success of
any intervention.
Steps in Applying the Model
Step 1:
Define the Problem
A problem is a negative state of affairs. It is normally expressed in negative
terms. For example, Masebamabanani farm produce perishes before it gets to
the market due to the long haulage distance between the farm and the market.
Step 2:
Conceptualisation of Possible Solutions
A solution is a positive state of affairs. It is normally expressed in positive
terms. In the Masibambanani example, the best solution is one that will present
an opposite of the problem. That is, the one that will ensure that
Masebambanani farm produce gets to the market in good condition. When
developing the most viable intervention the preceding statement should be
stated as the objective of the intervention as follows, to ensure that
Masebabanani’s produce gets to the market in good condition. The higher order
goal should be to increase their income. The following are a number of possible
interventions that can be implemented to achieve the objective, purchase of
refrigerated haulage trucks, development of a high speed train service, a plane
service etc. Using relevant methods decide on the most worthwhile solution to
implement. The type of possible solution to choose to implement as an
intervention will be brought to finer details by the findings of a situation
analysis done. The best solution identification step involves what one could call
a pre-appraisal or ex-ante evaluation based on the data gathered from a
situational analysis. In doing this step, the type and volume of resources and the
amount of time that will be needed have to all be decided. Expressed in another
way, develop a full project plan, technical as well as financial.
Step 3:
Identify all Success Limiting Factors (SLFs)
After the plan has been developed, make a detailed list of all the possible SLFs
to the intervention, identify their sources in terms of data available on them and
determine their behaviour and frequency of fluctuation. Eliminate all those that
can be eliminated before the intervention starts by revising the intervention
plan. Develop possible remedies for those SLFs that are force majeure. Have
SLFs plan outside the intervention plan.
Step 4:
Monitor All SLFs and Results Realisation Progress Being
Made During Implementation
Monitor all SLFs constantly. Be proactive as opposed to reactive. Run in front
of their occurrence as opposed to reacting to their occurrence. This is very
important because it gives one enough time to develop appropriate remedial
measures for those SLFs which can be predicted and which may have not been
foreseen during planning. For example, using the same railway line construction
example above, it is important to constantly call the gravel producing supplier
company to find out if their supply of gravel wont be interrupted any time in the
near future than to wait for them to make a call that they may experience a
production problem or have just experienced a machinery break down. Another
way of dealing with this could be to have another supplier on standby. Not
doing this type of contingency type B planning or having an evolving SLFs plan
but trying to gain comfort from a contract with all binding clauses signed with
the supplier poses possible problems to the construction of the railway line
because construction will be stopped while the contractual supplier gets his act
together or meetings are being held to bring contractual obligations to his
attention. There is even a possibility of termination of the contract leading to
even more delays if not abandonment of the railway line system construction
altogether.
Step 5:
Identification and Constant Monitoring of Results Realisation
Progression
Identify critical indicators /milestones of results realisation progression. The
following are some examples of critical milestones of results realisation
progression in the building of a railway transportation system as the decided
viable solution in the Masibambanani example above;
 approval of a project proposal/plan,
 successful securing of appropriate route land,
 sourcing of all the consumable inputs needed to construct the railway
transport system,
 Commencement of construction
 Results milestone realisation 1
 Results milestone realisation 2
 Results milestone realisation n
Monitor the above throughout the implementation stage.
The theory can be presented as below.
PLANNING STAGE
Intervention Implementation Plan





SLFs Strategic Plan
Goal (SMART)
Developmental Objective (SMART)





Expected Output
Performance Indicators
Human and Financial Resources (Budget)

Output SLF 1
Output SLF 2
Output SLF 3
Output SLF 4
Output SLF n
Human and Financial
Resources (Budget)
Output Realisation Progression Plan





Output Milestone 1
Output Milestone 2
Output Milestone 3
Output Milestone 4
Output Milestone n
IMPLEMENTATION STAGE
SLFs Constant Monitoring
Output SLF 1
Output SLF 2
Output SLF n
Results Realisation Constant Chain Monitoring
Output
Milestone 1
Output
Milestone 2
Output
Milestone 3
Output
Milestone 4
Output
Milestone n
As indicated in the proposed theory above it is by constantly monitoring SLFs
and the milestones of results realised that will ensure overall success of an
intervention. Monitoring of inputs only gives degree of usage and they say
nothing about progress made in terms of quality and quantity. Therefore, the
schema above has to be understood in a simple manner. The blue circles
indicate constant monitoring which means that it is SLFs and results Milestones
realisation that have to be monitored constantly during intervention
implementation in order to attain intervention’s success. The black lines on the
schema indicate the interdependency that exists between results milestones and
SLFs that have been identified as likely to affect the results milestones
realisation.
The point where the lines intersect indicates that one SLF can affect realisation
of more than one milestone of the expected result. The overlap of the blue
circles in the results realisation chain below indicate that monitoring is a
continues process and there will be less of it at early stages towards results
realisation milestone and more of it closer to the result realisation and lesser of
it after the milestone has been hit, following an erratic pattern with troughs and
crests as realisation of results milestones progresses, with the trough being at
the beginning from the left of the results chain where the circumference of the
first circle begins and where the circles intersect and crests being at the areas
that give the diameter of each circle.
References
ActKnowledge, www.theoryofchange.org/background/basics.html
Duignan,
Paul.
Introduction
to
Outcomes
http://knol.google.com/k/paul-duignan-phd/introduction-to-outcomes
theory/2m7zd68aaz774/3.
Theory.
Fugate M. & Knapp J. 1998. The development of bodies of knowledge in the
professions (Study for the Project Management Institute). Princeton, New
Jersey, US.
Koskela, Lauri & Gregory Howell. 2002. The underlying theory of project
management is obsolete. Http://www.usir.salford.ac.uk/.../2002,pdf.
Koskela, Lauri. 2000. An exploration towards a production theory and its
application to construction. Espoo, VTT Building Technology. 296 p. VTT
Publications; 408. WWW: http://www.inf.vtt.fi/pdf/publications/2000/P408.pdf
Koskela, Lauri & Gregory A. Howell. 2002. The theory of project management
- problem and opportunity. Working paper. VTT Technical Research Centre of
Finland & Lean Construction Insitute.
Author contact information
David Jāne Molapo, Chief Executive Officer, MK Consulting Pty Ltd, 747
Frederick Street, Noordwyk ext 5, Midrand 1687, Johannesburg, Republic of
South Africa, Phone +27 741138522, e-mail [email protected]