© 2023 University of South Africa

All rights reserved

Printed and published by the

University of South Africa
Muckleneuk, Pretoria

DVA2601/1/2024–2030

A 2023 revision

ii
 Table of contents
Page
OVERVIEW OF THE MODULE

i. Introduction 1
ii. Purpose of the module 1
iii. Module outcomes 1
iv. What to expect from the study guide 2
v. What we expect of you as a student in this module 2
vi. Study material for this module 2
vii. Tuition and assessment 3
viii. Orientation to using myUnisa 3
ix. Icons 5
x. Conclusion 5

LEARNING UNIT 1: INTRODUCTION TO DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

1.1 Introduction 6
1.2 Development policies 6
1.3 Development plans 7
1.4 Projects and programmes 7
1.4.1 Projects 7
1.4.2 Programmes 8
1.5 Project management and the project manager 9
1.5.1 The project manager 10
1.6 The project environment 12
1.7 Conclusion 13
1.8 Outcomes checklist 14

LEARNING UNIT 2: DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLANNING

2.1 Introduction 15
2.2 Approaches to project planning 16
2.3 The project cycle and its phases 17
2.3.1 Phase 1: The initial decision to engage in planning and the creation of an 19
organisational framework
2.3.2 Phase 2: The identification of planning objectives and targets 20
2.3.3 Phase 3: Data collection and processing 20
2.3.4 Phase 4: Identifying alternative courses of action 20
2.3.5 Phase 5: Appraising plans and projects 20
2.3.6 Phase 6: Implementation 21
2.3.7 Phase 7: Monitoring and evaluation 21
2.4 The composite view of the project sequence 21
2.5 Constraints of blueprint planning 25
2.6 Criticism of the adaptive approach 27
2.7 Conclusion 28
2.8 Outcomes checklist 29

iii
LEARNING UNIT 3: A LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 Introduction 30
3.2 The logical framework (logical framework approach/logframe) 30
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages of the logframe 33
3.4 Improvements on the shortcomings 37
3.5 Conclusion 37
3.6 Outcomes checklist 37

LEARNING UNIT 4: INFORMATION AND DATA COLLECTION

4.1 Introduction 39
4.2 Data, information and knowledge 40
4.2.1 The need for information 41
4.2.2 Information for project design and appraisal 42
4.2.3 Information for managing development projects 43
4.2.4 Information for evaluating development projects 43
4.3 The politics of knowledge and knowledge production 44
4.3.1 Indigenous knowledge as a source of information 45
4.3.2 Techniques for collecting data 49
4.4 Participatory methods of data collection and research 53
4.4.1 Rapid Rural Appraisal and Participatory Rural Appraisal 55
4.4.2 Self-esteem Associative Strength Resourcefulness Action Planning 57
Responsibility
4.4.3 Beneficiary Assessment 58
4.5 Conclusion 59
4.6 Outcomes checklist 59

LEARNING UNIT 5: APPRAISAL TECHNIQUES

5.1 Introduction 60
5.2 Needs assessment 61
5.3 Considering viability 63
5.4 Appraising projects 64
5.5 Appraisal techniques 65
5.5.1 Cost-Benefit Analysis 65
5.5.1.1 Critique of Cost-Benefit Analysis 67
5.5.2 Social Impact Assessment 68
5.5.2.1 Is Social Impact Assessment very reliable? 69
5.5.2.2 Social Impact Assessment in South Africa 69
5.5.3 Environmental Impact Assessment 70
5.6 General comments on assessment techniques 72
5.7 Conclusion 73
5.8 Outcomes checklist 73

LEARNING UNIT 6: MONITORING AND EVALUATION

6.1 Introduction 74
6.2 Monitoring and evaluation 76
6.2.1 Types of evaluation 76
6.2.1.1 Ongoing evaluation 76
6.2.1.2 Self-evaluation 76
6.2.1.3 Ex post evaluation 77
6.3 The relationship between planning, monitoring and evaluation 77

iv
6.4 Project impact assessment – ex-post evaluation 80
6.4.1 Project assessment criteria 81
6.5 Participation 82
6.5.1 Participatory monitoring and evaluation 82
6.5.2 Participatory monitoring and evaluation in a project cycle 83
6.5.3 Problems with participatory monitoring and evaluation 84
6.6 Conclusion 85
6.7 Outcomes checklist 85

v
 OVERVIEW OF THE MODULE

Contents

i. Introduction
ii. Purpose of the module
iii. Module outcomes
iv. What to expect from the study guide
v. What we expect of you, as a student, in this module
vi. Study material for this module
vii. Tuition and assessment
viii. Orientation to using myUnisa
ix. Icons
x. Conclusion

i) Introduction

Welcome to DVA2601 – Development Projects and Programmes. The purpose of this

module is for you to gain insight into projects and programmes as instruments of
development. This study guide provides you with the fundamental tools, skills and
techniques you need, to define, plan, implement and evaluate projects and
programmes.

ii) Purpose of the module

The purpose of this module is to equip you with the relevant skills, competencies and
knowledge to be able to contribute, participate and analyse project management
processes at the national and the local levels. Students who successfully complete
this module demonstrate an understanding of the interrelationship of projects,
programmes and managers in development; can analyse the different approaches to
project planning; are able to evaluate the blueprint models of project management;
have an integrated understanding of information gathering for development projects;
can analyse techniques that appraise development projects; and demonstrate an
understanding of project monitoring and evaluation, and their different approaches.

iii) Module outcomes

After completing this module, you will be able to

• demonstrate an understanding of the interrelationship of projects, programmes
and managers in development
• analyse the different approaches to project planning
• evaluate the blueprint models of project management

1
 • show an integrated understanding of information gathering for development
projects
• analyse techniques that appraise development projects
• demonstrate an understanding of project monitoring and evaluation, and their
different approaches.

iv) What to expect from the study guide

The study guide is divided into six learning units, each consisting 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 table of content in each unit provides information on the focus of that unit.
• Activities are intended to help you engage actively with your study material
and your environment.
• The checklist of outcomes at the end of each learning unit will help you
determine whether you have gained as much as possible from reading the unit.
Where relevant, you may need to access additional reading material.
• Icons on the left-hand side of the page inform you of the kind of activity you will
be working on.

v) 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 strongly recommend that you begin with your studies as soon as possible, so that
you have enough time to cover all the material in this module. Some activities require
you to engage with prescribed readings before working on the assignments.

vi) Study material for this module

Your study material for this module includes the following:

• Tutorial Letter 101 (available under the “Official Study Material” tab on the
myUnisa module site)
• Tutorial Letter DVAALLD/301 (available in English, Sepedi and isiZulu)
• Any other tutorial letters that you may receive throughout the year
• E-reserve articles on the library’s e-reserves site
• Any additional information provided on your e-tutor or myUnisa module sites

2
• Any additional electronic communications you receive (e.g., announcements
from your lecturer or e-tutor).

vii) Tuition and assessment

This is a fully online module which is delivered via myUnisa, the internet, discussion
forums and other myUnisa tools. Your lecturers will interact with you on myUnisa and
via e-mail. It is critical that you familiarise yourself with Tutorial Letter 101 (see section
vi) of this module, where you will find important information and guidelines on how to
study this module online, as well as the assessment plan. The tutorial letter is available
on myUnisa under “Official Study Material”.

Self-assessment activities

We have prepared self-assessment activities which appear throughout the learning

units. The activities require you to either give your opinion, watch videos, read sections
of the guide or articles related to the module, or to link the content in the study guide
to your everyday life, experiences and prior knowledge.

These tasks will

• make learning more interesting
• help you remember information better, as you will be actively involved in learning
by doing
• link theory and practice
• involve you in the search for answers
• acknowledge that you are an adult learner, and give you a chance to incorporate
your own knowledge into your study material
• motivate you, because they will help you check your own progress
• help you to collect and arrange information that could be used in essay-type
assignments
• give you a chance to think about interesting ideas and arguments you may come
across for the first time.

viii) Orientation to using myUnisa

You need to be able to use the various menu options on the myUnisa site, as they
will enable you to participate actively in the learning process.

The options include the following:

myUnisa menu option What you will find here

3
 Official Study Material Your study guide and tutorial letters can
be found under this option, as well as
past examination papers
Announcements From time to time, the lecturer or your e-
tutor will use this facility to share
important information about this module.
You will receive an email notification of
new announcements posted on myUnisa
Calendar This tool shows important dates (e.g.,
examination dates and deadlines for
assignments). You need this information
to help you manage your time and plan
your own schedule
Additional Resources The lecturer (or e-tutor) may use this
folder to provide additional learning
material that might help you in your
studies for this module. You will receive
an email notification when documents
are uploaded in this folder
Discussion Forum This tool allows us to hold discussions as
if we were in a contact setting. Check
your e-tutor site for any topics that s/he
might have posted. You can post any
specific queries to the lecturer (on the
main module site). There will also be a
forum for students where you can
discuss issues among yourselves, or just
support one another
Assessment Info This tool allows you to submit your
assignments electronically, and to
monitor your results. For information on
how to submit your assignments, consult
Tutorial Letter 101

When interacting online, always be mindful of, and respectful towards, your fellow
students, lecturers and e-tutors. The rules of polite behaviour on the internet are
referred to as netiquette – a term that means “online manners”.
Access the website below, to learn more about netiquette:
http://www.carnegiecyberacademy.com/facultyPages/communication/netiquett
e.html

4
Please observe the rules of netiquette during your normal, online communication with
your fellow students, lecturers and administrative staff. Remember to be courteous
when using the discussion forums. Netiquette also applies when communicating with
your lecturers and e-tutors via email or telephone.

ix) Icons

We have used the following icons in this module:

Self-assessment activity, Reflection

where you may need to write down
some information

The icon indicates the start of the The open book indicates that you
outcomes for that learning unit need to do additional reading

x) Conclusion

We hope you will find this study guide interesting, educational and stimulating. If you
have academic queries about the content of this module, do not hesitate to contact
your lecturers via email or telephone.

GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR STUDIES!

5
 LEARNING UNIT 1
INTRODUCTION TO
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
Contents
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Development policies
1.3 Development plans
1.4 Projects and programmes
1.4.1 Projects
1.4.2 Programmes
1.5 Project management and the project manager
1.5.1 The project manager
1.6 The project environment
1.7 Conclusion
1.8 Outcomes checklist

Outcomes

At the end of this learning unit, you should be able to

• explain the relationship between plans, policies, programmes and projects
• identify the different skills required for project managers
• demonstrate an understanding of the project environment.

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 facing project managers.

1.2 DEVELOPMENT POLICIES

In this study guide we are concerned with programmes and projects as instruments of
development, but we also briefly touch on the broader concepts, policies and plans
from which the programmes and projects emanate. This is simply to give you an idea
of how projects and programmes link with policy and plans. Development policy is
dealt with in much greater detail in the module DVA3703, while development planning
is addressed in the module DVA3704.

6
In defining policy, Heywood (2013: 352) simply describes it as “a plan of action”,
adding:
To designate something as a ‘policy’ implies that a formal decision has been
made, giving official sanction to a particular course of action. Public policy can
therefore be seen as the formal or stated decisions of government bodies.
However, policy is better understood as the linkage between intentions, actions
and results. At the level of intentions, policy is reflected in what government
says it will do. At the level of actions, policy is reflected in what government
actually does. At the level of results, policy is reflected in the impact of
government on the larger society.

1.3 DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Development plans, according to De Beer, Rakolojane and Treurnicht et al. (2015),

are informed by national development policies. Having set out a vision of what they
need to do – for example, to eradicate poverty – policy will then guide development
planners on how to direct the courses of action that reflect policy intentions. A good
example is the National Development Plan (NDP) 2030 of South Africa (RSA, 2011).
With a vision in mind, the NDP charts a course for the achievement of a “democratic,
non-racial, non-sexist and prosperous society” (RSA, 2011), while calling on different
sectors of society to each play their part in realising these goals.

1.4 PROJECTS AND PROGRAMMES

In this study guide, projects and programmes are dealt with as two important and
popular development instruments or tools, for use in planning and implementing
development activities.

1.4.1 Projects
Srinivasan (2014: 279) provides an easy definition of projects, derived from the
Project Management Institute (PMI). The latter defines a project as
a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service, or
result. A project is not the daily work to be completed by an employee.
Projects are not routine, repetitive tasks! Ordinary daily work typically requires
doing the same or similar work over and over, while a project is done only
once.

In their definition, Murray-Webster and Dalcher (2019, in Volden & Welde, 2022: 1)
add the time and budget dimensions to our understanding of projects, describing a
project as being “constrained to a finite timescale and budget”.
For people who work at a canteen, for instance, preparing meals for their customers
typifies their everyday work. However, if requested to prepare meals for a function
with a specific day, time and venue, this becomes a project for them. Morris (2013:

7
13) characterises projects as having the “same generic sequence. Something like:
(1) idea; (2) outline concept and strategy; (3) detailed planning; (4) execution; and
(5) completion/close-out”. Phillips, Brantley and Phillips (2012) illustrate this process
by referring to the project management lifecycle.

Table 1: Project management lifecycle (Phillips et al., 2012: 2)

Process What occurs

Initiation Project selection – go/no-go decision
Planning Identifying all the work that is to be done, scheduling,
budgeting, and much more
Execution Doing the work – building the product
Monitoring and control Evaluating and reporting project status
Closing Hand-off of project and wrap-up

1.4.2 Programmes
A programme is defined as “a group of related projects designed to accomplish a
common goal over an extended period of time” (Srinivasan, 2014: 279), with the
difference between a project and a programme lying in the size and timespan of
each.
It can be difficult to distinguish between projects and programmes, since they share
many characteristics. From the definitions provided above, you may be able to tell
which is planned first, and which is bigger in scope.
What is important to note is that, while planning for programmes is more demanding
than planning for projects, the approach to project and programme planning is
similar. Figure 1.1 illustrates the links between policy, plans, projects and
programmes. 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, in the rest of the study guide
we 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 literature on community development.

Self-assessment Activity 1.1

1. Which of the following is an example of a project?
a) Weekly delivery of new stock at a vegetable market
b) Promotion of child health and development
c) Drilling of a community borehole
d) Municipal rubbish collection

8
Feedback
Refer to section 1.4.1 for an explanation of projects. Also see further feedback at the
end of the lesson.

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY

DEVELOPMENT PLANS
(long term and perspectivist; medium term; short term; annual)

DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAMME I PROGRAMME II PROGRAMME III
(e.g., health, such (e.g., educational, (e.g., agricultural, such
as primary such as a decrease in as an increase in food
healthcare) high school attrition production)
rates)

DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT I PROJECT II PROJECT III
(e.g., training of (e.g., rural water (e.g., setting up health
caregivers) supply for improved centres such as clinics)
sanitation and access
to clean water)

DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT I PROJECT II PROJECT III
(e.g., training of small- (e.g., research on (e.g., training on crop
scale farmers on the suitable crops for management/harvesting,
efficient use of their different soil types) post-harvest care, etc.)
land)

Figure 1.1: Link between policy, plans, projects and programmes (adapted from De
Beer et al., 2015)

9
This study guide is not concerned with the processes whereby policies and plans are
formulated. Rather, it takes the existence of such policies and plans as a given. It is
concerned with attempts to turn those vague (and often idealistic) policies and plans
into concrete objectives and activities, aimed at bringing about constructive change
which will improve people’s living conditions and lives overall.

1.5 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND THE PROJECT MANAGER

We approach this study guide largely from a project management perspective, which
can be defined as “the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to
project activities to meet project requirements” (PMI 2000, in Kuchta, Sukpen &
Technology, 2013: 24–25). As Naybour (2014) explains:

A key factor that distinguishes project management from just management is

that it has this final deliverable and a finite timespan, unlike management
which is an ongoing process. Because of this a project manager needs a wide
range of skills; often technical skills, certainly people management skills and
good business awareness.

1.5.1 The project manager

The person who oversees projects from their initiation to their completion, is called a
project manager. The roles and responsibilities of a project manager, as explained by
Srinivasan (2014: 280), are as follows:

… they plan, schedule, motivate, and control. However, what makes them
unique is that they manage temporary, non-repetitive activities to complete a
fixed life project. Unlike functional managers, who take over existing operations,
project managers create a project team and organization where none existed
before. They must decide what and how things should be done instead of simply
managing set processes. They must meet the challenges of each phase of the
project life cycle and even oversee the dissolution of their operation when the
project is completed.

Project managers may include any person who, at some time or another, is actively
involved in any of an organisation’s core activities. However, their role as project
manager demands that they step up and function in response to the demands and
objectives of a given project. The challenging environments within which project
managers operate make it crucial that they know what roles to fulfil, and which
require certain skills.

10
Box 1.1 provides descriptions of the skillsets a project manager should have.

Self-assessment Activity 1.2

Read the excerpt (Box 1.1) from George (2018: 189–190) to learn about the skills a
project manager should have, in order for projects to be planned and implemented
successfully. Write down what those skills are, and save them for later referencing.
(Spend about 10 minutes on this activity.)
Box 1.1: The skills a project manager should have (George, 2018: 189–190)

A project manager needs the following skills, to effectively manage a project:

a) Technical skills: A project manager’s strong technical skills should be evident to the
stakeholders of the project, if s/he is to command a strong influence – something that
is vital for soliciting project resources. A project manager must be knowledgeable of the
project area. That does not mean s/he should have absolute knowledge about the
project, or be more knowledgeable than the other team members: rather, s/he should
understand the project, interpret the technical requirements, and be able to
communicate about the project, to senior management.
b) Administrative skills: This is an important skill for project managers to have. The
project manager acts as a liaison officer who liaises with project clients, senior
management, functional departments and the project team. S/he should manage these
different stakeholders properly, in order to achieve project success. To that end, s/he
requires materials, human resources, equipment and other resources from these
stakeholders in a timely manner, in order to meet agreed project requirements.
c) Sensitivity: A project manager should be sensitive to both the internal and external
environments, and must be aware of the following:
• Relationships amongst team members; how they relate to one another, and how
vices such as jealousy, malice, rivalry and hostility are detected
• Political dimensions within and around the project, as well as with the parent
organisation
• Members of the team who are not up to the task, but are unwilling to reveal as
much.
d) Leadership skills: Project managers are leaders. This is a strong personal skill that
every successful project manager must possess. Leadership encompasses strong
interpersonal impact, exercised through proper communication, to meet organisational
goals. Leaders lead, instead of dictating. The project manager should lead by example,
setting the pace for team members to follow. S/he should possess a strong, ethical
character that helps to sharpen and direct the project team in achieving project goals.
S/he should be free of vices such as
• bribery
• the violation of project standards

11
 • the use of substandard materials
• the bypassing of project procedures
• compromising on project safety standards
Every project manager should be seen to operate beyond reproach, to have a good
reputation, and to serve the interests of the project.
e) Stress management skills: Stress is an inevitable part of project implementation.
Project managers need thick skins, to deal with stress. They cannot allow stress to
weigh them down because, if that happens, the project will “go down in flames”. A
project manager might be stressed about activities such as managing people, meeting
project deadlines, ensuring the availability of project resources, his/her future after the
project concludes, and reporting to the parent organisation, but it takes someone with
a calm and consistent approach to management, to handle these issues. Biting off more
than you can chew, is also a source of stress in any project. For that reason, project
managers are advised to take on only what they can handle (Meredith & Mantel, 2009).
f) Strong communication skills: This skill is vital for any project manager, because
s/he is at the heart of the project and, as such, will have to liaise with project
stakeholders who require regular updates on the progress made. This requires the
project manager to communicate frequently and effectively. His/her duty encompasses
writing reports for management consumption, attending management meetings to
provide project updates, negotiating with suppliers and other key role players,
instructing and supervising team members, and lobbying the functional unit for project
resources – all of which can be easily achieved, if the project manager is an effective
communicator.

1.6 THE PROJECT ENVIRONMENT

Development projects and programmes have to be tailored to local needs and
circumstances. Any social setting has its own unique and specific complexity, which
makes it difficult to prescribe any particular development intervention for an individual
case. 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,
have put pressure on developing communities to accept a variety of concepts, ideas
and changes which have been introduced from the outside. Such externally induced
changes are not always successful, primarily because those development efforts are
not grounded in the sociocultural, political and economic realities of the target
communities.

The specific context within which a project is undertaken, crucial to the success of the
project. This context – also referred to as the project environment – can be divided into
five broad categories:

12
 • Physical
• Economic
• Political
• Sociocultural
• Psychological

Self-assessment Activity 1.3

Read the chapter on the project environment (Chapter 2, section 2.7 in Watt [2016:
29–31]). Access the reading by following this link:
https://www.opentextbooks.org.hk/system/files/export/15/15694/pdf/Project_Manage
ment_15694.pdf OR https://www.opentextbooks.org.hk/ditatopic/15719
Now write down aspects of your culture that you think will determine how differently a
project will be executed in those cultural spaces. (Spend about 30 minutes on this
activity.)

1.7 CONCLUSION

In this brief introductory learning unit, you were introduced to key concepts which will
be dealt with throughout the study guide. We described projects and programmes as
the tools whereby content is given to broad statements of intent. You will have noticed
that the role of project manager requires that such an individual be skilled on multiple
levels, to manage the process successfully.

Feedback

Which of the following is an example of a project?

a) Weekly delivery of new stock at a vegetable market
b) Promotion of child health and development
c) Drilling of a community borehole
d) Municipal rubbish collection

While options (a) and (d) refer to activities that are routinely carried out, and (b) refers
to a programme which may involve various activities aimed at achieving the objective
of child health and development, option (c) is correct – it points to an activity that is
carried out once within a specific period. Drilling a borehole is thus an example of a
project.

1.8 OUTCOMES CHECKLIST

13
 Questions I can do this! I cannot do
this
(1) Explain the relationship between plans,
policies, programmes and projects
(2) Demonstrate an understanding of the
project environment
(3) Identify the different competencies required
of project managers

LEARNING UNIT 2
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLANNING
Contents

2.1 Introduction
2.2 Approaches to project planning
2.3 The project cycle and its phases
2.3.1 Phase 1: The initial decision to engage in planning and the creation of an
organisational framework
2.3.2 Phase 2: The identification of planning objectives and targets
2.3.3 Phase 3: Data collection and processing
2.3.4 Phase 4: Identifying alternative courses of action
2.3.5 Phase 5: Appraising plans and projects
2.3.6 Phase 6: Implementation
2.3.7 Phase 7: Monitoring and evaluation
2.4 The composite view of the project sequence
2.5 Constraints of blueprint planning
2.6 Criticism of the adaptive approach
2.7 Conclusion
2.8 Outcomes checklist

OUTCOMES

Once you have worked through this unit, you should be able to
• identify two types of approaches used in project planning
• outline the main arguments in favour of a participatory approach to project
planning and implementation

14
 • demonstrate an understanding of the project cycle and its phases
• compare Conyers and Hills’ project cycle with MacArthur’s project
sequence.

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The formulation and implementation of development projects and programmes is a

process, which means there are various phases or steps to follow. Normally this
process takes the form of either a spiral (where the process is constantly improved
as we learn lessons from earlier experience) or a cycle or circle (where the last step
in the process leads one automatically into the first step). In this way, lessons of
experience are fed into the process.

2.2 APPROACHES TO PROJECT PLANNING

Approaches to project planning have been evolving ever since the emergence of
development projects and programmes. In this module, however, we focus on
planning for community development projects that include infrastructure projects
as opposed to software or information technology (IT) projects, where project
planning also takes place. With this in mind, we focus on two approaches to project
planning, namely the directive approach (also known as blueprint planning) (Nolan,
2002: 8) and the interactive approach (also known as adaptive planning). A project
planning team is required to make the important decision of which approach to use.
Nolan (2002: 98) describes directive planning as an approach in which “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.” By contrast, interactive planning relies heavily on information
and learning derived from the process. Nolan (2002: 99) explains it as follows:
Interactive planning is based on the premise of uncertainty: the likelihood that
conditions, problems and solutions are not completely known at the outset.
Knowledge must be obtained as the project proceeds, and appropriate
modifications made on the basis of this learning. Linear sequence is no longer
assumed. With interactive planning, project decisions are often ‘impure’ and
made in terms of shifting and often qualitative factors. Interactive planning
requires an interaction between designers and the project environment during
the project cycle, and a structure that will permit the reassessment and
adjustment of plans previously made. Implementation often becomes creative
and experimental, requiring innovative management responses.
In Box 2.1, Nolan (2002: 98) indicates the major differences between directive and
interactive planning, in terms of how planning takes place, and the relevance of the
project environment and local knowledge.

15
Box 2.1: Directive and interactive planning: Main distinctions (Nolan, 2002:
99)

In a developing context, planning must be a learning process. No planner can cater 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 is all about. In development, there are no blueprints or
recipes for success. Importantly, different types of projects call for different
approaches. It would thus be wrong of us, as your lecturers, to acquaint you only with
the participatory and learning processes of project planning in this study guide, even
though we may be tempted to do so. Most donors and aid agencies find blueprint
planning very seductive, and require project proposals to be submitted in a rigid
framework known as the 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 very aware 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 dealt with in this
module.

Self-assessment Activity 2.1

The purpose of this activity is to distinguish between directive and

interactive planning styles. The terms “pure” for directive and “impure” for interactive,
are used. Based on the other differences between the two, as noted by Nolan (see

16
Box 2.1), explain in your own words what it means to say plans are “pure” or “impure”.
Write a paragraph on this.

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

Feedback

Consider the dictionary meanings of “pure” and “impure”. Think of a process regarded
as pure, which means it is well planned to the last detail. What plans come out of a
pure process? The assumption is that it would be very detailed, leaving no room for
mistakes. The opposite would be true for impure plans, whereby ideas and directions
are picked up “on the move”. Now go back to the activity, and explain your
understanding of directive planning as pure, and interactive planning as impure.

2.3 THE PROJECT CYCLE AND ITS PHASES

Different scholars have suggested different processes for formulating and
implementing development projects and programmes. We discuss the project cycle
proposed by Conyers and Hills (1984: 73–81) as our starting point, before moving
on to MacArthur’s (1994: 136) more complex composite diagram of what he calls the
“project sequence”. In the model proposed by Conyers and Hills (1984: 73–81),
project planning and management form a cyclical process, as opposed to Katz’s
(1975) idea of a spiral process. According to the cyclical model, the planning process
consists of interrelated phases which do not exist independently of one another. The
advantage of this model is that it provides for several 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.
Conyers and Hills originally designed their diagram to illustrate macro-level
development planning. The phases in both levels of planning (the macro level, and
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.
The model can be represented schematically as follows (Conyers & Hills, 1984: 74):

17
Figure 2.1: Conyers and Hills’ project cycle

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
encountered in practice are insufficient time, data and manpower, as well as
inadequate communication and uncertainties about role divisions. Also, note that the
project planning process is far more complicated than the diagram indicates. Some
phases are dispatched 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 used as a basis for various “rounds” of more detailed formulation.
Bear these points in mind, and do not regard the Conyers and Hills model as a
blueprint to be applied “as is” – it may need to be adapted to local circumstances.

2.3.1 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 the central
government level, to use development planning as an instrument for solving
developmental 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, as well as the
implementation of such plans. There should not only be provision for organisations
at the national level: depending on the degree of decentralisation in the planning
strategy followed, organisations should also be established at lower levels of the
government hierarchy. This is a necessary step in ensuring the availability of the

18
necessary human and financial resources to carry out the planning and
implementation effectively. You will note that, in their diagram, Conyers and Hills
(1984) place this phase beyond the periphery of the cyclical planning process, since
it is a decision that is usually made only once in each country, and therefore does
not form a regular part of the cycle.

2.3.2 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 outlines that indicate
medium- and long-term priorities.

2.3.3 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 alleviate or resolve problems. The availability of data
is probably one of the greatest problems confronting 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 return to the techniques used in
collecting, processing and storing data.

2.3.4 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 developmental 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.

2.3.5 PHASE 5: Appraising plans and projects

In this phase, 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. (More on the various possible appraisal techniques later in this study
guide.)

19
2.3.6 PHASE 6: Implementation

The implementation of plans and projects is often not deemed part of the planning
process, chiefly because professional planners are not directly involved in
implementing plans: that 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 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 the task of development planners to consider how their plans
must be operationalised – all planning should therefore make provision for
implementation.

2.3.7 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, to form 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 type of continuous evaluation is called monitoring. After completion, with the
benefit of hindsight, an evaluation of the project is done “to identify weaknesses and
mistakes made during the lifespan of [the] project” (Swanepoel & De Beer, 2011:
212).

The project cycle is a useful tool for analytical purposes, but has shortcomings
(discussed below). The project cycle is mainly used as a tool for big, centrally
designed projects; it is a tool used in blueprint or top-down project planning,
implementation and evaluation. 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 and incremental, and leaves decision making to the
community (Swanepoel & De Beer, 2016: 246–249).

2.4 A COMPOSITE VIEW OF THE PROJECT SEQUENCE

As mentioned earlier, the project planning process is much more complex than
Conyers and Hills (1984) lead us to believe. Nevertheless, by following their cycle
from start to finish, we have a good idea of the main phases/stages of project
planning. Their cycle is a simple representation, and, from that point of view, it is a

20
useful educational tool. However, their cycle omits certain key moments in the life of
a project, which means we do not have an adequate picture of all the actual phases
or stages through which large projects move. MacArthur (1994: 135) sees his
diagram of the project sequence (Figure 2.2) as an improvement on the typical
cyclical model, since “it shows ... that this is a genuine attempt to reflect reality, not
just a simplified academic model”.

Another way in which McArthur’s (1994) model is more realistic, is that it reflects one
of the main characteristics of projects, namely that they usually require considerable
funding or (as he 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 from some agency outside the
national government machinery (e.g., 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 (1994: 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 Figure 2.2, MacArthur makes
provision for 23 boxes, each of which represents a stage or event in the life of a
project. While several lines connect the boxes, other permutations 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 separated by a double line) which
MacArthur (1994: 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 (1994) admits that it may have made sense to allow for a fourth phase,
consisting of boxes 18–21, 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 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, 1994: 138).

21
MacArthur’s diagram differs from more conventional cyclical versions in three
important respects: the first is that MacArthur’s diagram allows for “exit” routes, referred
to as “abandonment”, when a project fails to continue from one stage to the next.
MacArthur (1994: 138) explains this 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 (1994: 138) sequence, is that he allows for

“projects to enter at places other than the Identification stage”. 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 (1994: 145) remarks that “[a]lthough 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”.

The omission of the operations phase is typical of Conyers and Hills’ (1984) 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,
e.g., 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 (e.g., broken water pumps) are sufficient
proof that questions of sustainability need to be dealt with by both the funders and end-

22
beneficiaries of projects. Maphosa (2016: 57) advises that “the 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”.

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

Normal Administration). MacArthur (1994: 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 section
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 irrigation schemes for
which it was responsible.

Whereas Conyers and Hills’ (1984) cyclical model refers to monitoring and evaluation
as activities that should continue throughout the establishment of a project, MacArthur
(1994) is much more specific, and makes provision for three occasions during which
evaluation takes place: the first is an ongoing evaluation that forms part of the
investment phase, box 13 of his diagram, where it may become necessary to re-plan
the project. This need may arise from an implementation phase that is so lengthy and
drawn out, that the 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 two other (more obvious) stages at which
evaluation takes place:
• Immediately after the implementation of the project – this evaluation
reflects on the experiences and lessons learnt from project implementation,
to inform future plans and projects (box 18).
• After the project has been in operation for several years – this evaluation
seeks to make a more proper assessment of the rates of return received
on the money initially invested in the project (MacArthur, 1994: 147–148).

Self-assessment Activity 2.2

(Spend 15 minutes on this activity.)

Read background information on the Medupi Power Station project, on this link:
https://www.eskom.co.za/eskom-divisions/gx/coal-fired-power-stations/medupi-
projects/
Then
a. Identify words or phrases that indicate which approach was taken in the
planning and implementation of the project.

23
 b. Write these words down, and explain why you think they support your identified
approach. Link your understanding to the explanation of the two types of
approaches discussed in this learning unit.

Figure 2.2: Composite diagram of the project sequence (McArthur, 1994)

2.5 CONSTRAINTS OF BLUEPRINT PLANNING

24
Even though MacArthur’s (1994) model allows for more possibilities than the cyclical
model (e.g., different exit and entrance points, and more distinct opportunities for
monitoring and evaluation), both resemble a fairly rigid blueprint approach to projects.
In other words, projects are systematically and carefully planned in advance, and then
implemented strictly according to the formulated plan. This kind of blueprint design is
ideally suited to the provision of a large physical infrastructure, such as an industrial
plant or a national dam. With these kinds of projects, the
• information on which to base the project is relatively easy to obtain
• circumstances can be easily controlled
• outcomes are readily achieved
• conditions are stable and predictable, and
• project is normally deemed a success, once the physical infrastructure or object
has been put in place.

In the 70s and 80s, major criticism was levelled against the blueprint approach, for the
simple reason that the blueprints did not make allowances for the conditions in which
typical development projects are undertaken. Projects in the agricultural, rural and
social sectors are, in the main, not infrastructural and capital-intensive, but are people-
centred. The emphasis in such projects is on institutional and human development,
rather than on physical and infrastructural development.

Rondinelli (1983) spearheaded the critique in the late 70s and early 80s. 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, inappropriate and often
perverse” (Rondinelli, 1983: 88). He had no doubt that the complexity of development
problems, the variety of factors to take into account and deal with during
implementation, and inherent uncertainty about the outcome of all development
projects, suggested that alternative methods of planning and implementation had to
be employed.

Rondinelli (1983: viii) believes 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”. Webb et al (2017, in Webb et al., 2018: 341) view the adaptive
approach as a “cyclical process consisting of the broad steps: plan, do, monitor, learn”
(see Figure 2.3).

25
Figure 2.3: Illustration of the adaptive management approach (Webb et al., 2018:
341)

The premise underlying the adaptive approach, is that there is little certainty about
which techniques will work in the long term, for a particular country. The illustration by
Webb et al. (2018: 341), of the adaptive management cycle, shows
the outer learning cycle where lessons inform the next formal phase of planning
and implementation. The inner learning loops are small changes that are made
based on learnings that occur between major planning reviews. The inner loops
effectively allow progress in the outer loop in both directions.

The logic is therefore that 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 a continual
dialogue between project planners, implementers and the inhabitants of the area
affected by the project (Webb et al., 2018: 341). Swanepoel and De Beer (2016: 250)
add the following:
Project planning must be viewed as an incremental process of testing
propositions about the most effective means of coping with complex social
problems. For this to be possible, planning must be incremental, and can only
be short term, objectives must be attainable in a fairly short period, planning
must be simple and singular and must involve all possible role players.

2.6 Criticism of the adaptive approach

The main assumption of bottom-up processes in project planning, implementation and

26
evaluation, is community participation. In other words, the assumption is that projects
will be small-scale, incremental, adaptive (i.e., able to make changes in any aspect of
the project at short notice) and participatory. However, being participatory includes
much more than local people helping to do the work – it means people are also
involved in making decisions on the “what”, “why” and “how” of the project. This,
according to Swanepoel and De Beer (2011: 195–196), is how communities become
masters of their own development.

To some academics and practitioners, the participatory approach is naïve, idealistic

and unable to deal with the total scope of development required. In the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21QVB42wsC8, one of the main proponents of
participatory projects, Robert Chambers, is joined by Professor Gita Sen, as they
discuss their views on participatory development with interviewer, Dr Patrick Kilby.

Self-assessment Activity 2.3

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. Listen to Chambers and Sen’s views, then write down the
advantages and limitations of participation in development projects.

2.7 CONCLUSION

In this learning unit you had an opportunity to examine two views of the project
planning process. Conyers and Hills’ (1984) cyclical model provides a cursory view of
some of the main steps in the planning process. MacArthur’s (1994) project sequence
diagram, by contrast, offers 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. We also
explored the need for project planning models to allow learning and reflection to take
place, and build opportunities for participatory project planning.

When planning and managing projects with development in mind, various techniques
ensure that the 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 thereof), it is essential to consider its/their suitability for a
particular environment and context. Where necessary, the technique(s) should be
modified and adapted to the circumstances and needs of that locality.

27
Keep in mind, also, that a technique is an instrument that has to be selected and used
as a means to an end. Do not lose sight of the fact that a technique, or the effective
application thereof, should never represent an end in itself.

We ended with a critique of the blueprint and adaptive approaches to planning. The
remainder of this study guide is devoted to techniques in the planning and
management of projects and programmes.

2.8 OUTCOMES CHECKLIST

Questions I can do this! I cannot do this

(1) Identify two types of approaches used in project
planning
(2) Describe the constraints of using the logical
framework as a blueprint in planning Africa’s
development projects
(3) Outline the main arguments in favour of a
participatory approach to project planning and
implementation
(4) Demonstrate an understanding of the project cycle
(5) Compare Conyers and Hills’ project cycle with
MacArthur’s project sequence

28
 LEARNING UNIT 3
A LOGICAL FRAMEWORK
Contents

3.1 Introduction
3.2 The logical framework (logical framework approach (LFA)/logframe)
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages of the logframe
3.4 Improvements on the shortcomings
3.5 Conclusion
3.6 Outcomes checklist

Outcomes

Once you have worked through this learning unit, you should be able to
• demonstrate an understanding of the logical framework and the logical
framework matrix
• show an understanding of the benefits and shortcomings of using a logical
framework
• discuss how the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) can be used to address
the shortcomings of the logical framework.

3.1 INTRODUCTION

In the previous unit, we looked at the two approaches used in project planning: the
directive (blueprint) and the interactive (adaptive) planning approaches. All the
methods and techniques dealt with thus far in this study guide, have sought to improve
the project experience of developing states, to ensure that scarce resources are used
effectively to satisfy urgent needs. In this learning unit we continue this task by taking
a closer look at a framework designed to help project teams structure project
objectives logically, and investigate how these objectives must be achieved. This
framework is known as the logical framework. We also introduce an article that
discusses the limitations of the logical framework, and how it can be modified.

3.2 THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK (LOGICAL FRAMEWORK APPROACH

(LFA)/LOGFRAME)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before reading the text below, watch the video clip: “The logical framework
introduction” available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LkrtEUGeng This clip

29
explains a logframe, and takes you through the different steps in the logframe matrix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The framework analysis was developed by an American consultancy firm in the late
60s. USAID was the first organisation to use it in the donor community in the early
1970s. Since then, increasing numbers of donor agencies have adopted logical
framework analysis in one form or another, to try to increase the success rate of the
projects they are funding. Indeed, many foreign aid organisations or donor agencies
insist that logical framework analysis should form part of the project design, before the
funding of a project can be considered.

The logframe consists of a four-by-four matrix, as illustrated in Table 3.1. It is arguably

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

Table 3.1: The logical framework matrix (Golini, Landoni & Kalchschmidt, 2017: 2)

Project description Indicators Sources of verification Assumptions

Overall objectives
Purpose
Results
Activities

The UK’s Department for International Development (DfID) (2003) provides more
detail on what the matrix entails (see Table 3.2).

Table 3.2: The logframe matrix explained (adapted from DfID, 2003)
Project description Indicators Sources of verification Assumptions

Overall objectives
What What sources of What external
qualitative information can be used factors are
What the project and to allow the goal to be necessary to
seeks to achieve quantitative measured? sustain the
measures objectives in the
indicate the long run?
achievement
of
objectives?
Purpose By which What sources of What external
qualitative information are available factors are
What are the and to allow for the necessary, if the

30
 intended immediate quantitative achievement of the purpose is to
effects of the judgements purpose to be contribute to
project? can measured? achievement of
What changes will achievement the goal?
the project bring of the
about? purpose be
What is the motive judged?
for undertaking the
project?
Results Quantity, What are the sources of What factors,
quality, and information to verify the beyond the
What deliverables time achievement of the project’s control,
are to be produced, outputs? might restrict the
to achieve the outputs from
purpose? achieving the
purpose?
Activities What kind What are the sources of What factors will
and quality information to verify the hinder the
What activities are of activities achievement of the activities from
to be achieved, to will be activities? creating outputs?
accomplish the produced,
outputs? and by
when?

The aim with, and advantage of, the logical framework is that it improves the way in
which projects are prepared, implemented and evaluated. The Department of Water
Affairs and Forestry (DWAF, 2005: 1) defines the LFA as “an objectives-oriented
project planning and project management tool that focuses on logical connections
between the objectives, and the outputs and activities of a project”. According to the
DWAF (2005: 9), the LFA
• defines realistic and definite objectives
• plans and implements project activities
• improves communication between stakeholders
• documents projects in a logical fashion
• provides indicators as a basis for monitoring and evaluation
• records lessons learnt during the implementation of a project.

The logical nature of the logframe, and the rigid way 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 ostensibly makes it easier for donors
to compare project proposals, and choose those they feel are worthier or more likely
to succeed.

31
It is, however, critical to keep the origins of the logframe in mind, when using it. The
logframe was not originally designed for use in development projects. Rather, it was
designed by the United States’ Department of Defense, and USAID adopted it in the
late 60s. Thereafter, it came to be regarded as an invaluable tool by numerous other
bilateral donors.

Bakewell and Garbutt (2005) acknowledge two other ways of looking at the logframe
beyond its suitability for donor-funded project proposals. Based on responses to
questionnaires and interviews, Bakewell and Garbutt (2005: 2) observe that the
logframe approach is a formal system as well as a “way of thinking”. The authors
separate the logframe matrix (the formats presented in figures 3.1 and 3.2) from the
logframe approach. The two figures may represent what we discussed in Learning
Unit 2, namely the blueprint or the rigid approach. Bakewell and Garbutt (2005: 3) add
that
a logical framework approach is concerned with the wider planning procedures
of problem analysis, the development of objectives and indicators, and
identification risks and assumption, which feed into the overall programme plan.
In the ideal world described in much of the literature that sets out the logical
framework approach, this process of programme planning is a participatory
one, involving a wide range of stakeholders to reach a consensus on a
programme of work; this may then be summarised in a logical framework.

Also, contrary to commonly held beliefs, the logframe is “improperly viewed as

‘blueprints’ – something that, once made, cannot be changed” (Solem 1987, in
Gasper, 2000: 25). As a project planning and project management tool, the logframe
preparation follows a series of processes which, in some cases, require previously
made decisions to be revisited, so that all the details – when considered together –
form a coherent whole. For instance, Golini et al. (2017: 2) explain that, after the
column on objectives is completed, the column on assumptions is filled in next, as
assumptions are dealt with during the planning phase(s). The indicator column is then
worked on, after assumptions are completed. In the process, objectives may have to
be revisited, to ensure that the assumptions and indicators speak to the stated
objectives. The process can thus be described as iterative.

3.3 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE LOGFRAME

Completing a logframe is a complex task which requires extensive training. Scholars

have observed that the application of the logframe matrix presents both advantages
and disadvantages. Golini et al. (2017: 2–3) reviewed the related literature and
compiled the information presented in Box 3A.

Box 3A: Advantages and disadvantages of the logframe matrix

32
Use thereof can offer several advantages in the various phases of a project, by
remedying many of the limitations of other tools (Gasper, 1997; Bell, 2000). In the
first phase (initiation), it helps to achieve a better problem analysis and definition of
objectives through a systematic analysis of problems, and by placing the project
within a broader context.

Next, it can be used in the planning phase to set objectives, establish measurement
systems, and identify and manage risks. It can also be used in the execution and
control phase, to monitor progress and manage scope changes and risks. Finally, it
can be used in the concluding phase to check, measure and report on the project’s
achievements.

It also offers several organisational advantages: 1) it helps to define different levels

of management responsibility, and gives greater accountability to the project
manager for the risks and the results; 2) it allows better stakeholder involvement
and communication through its simple and clear format.

Given these advantages, it has been extensively adopted not only by government
agencies, but also by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (Golini et al., 2015).

Despite its many advantages, the logframe has been also significantly criticised
(Gasper, 1997; Crawford & Bryce, 2003; Couillard et al., 2009; Ika & Lytvynov,
2011). The main limitations reported by the literature are its oversimplification,
deterministic and time-invariant logic, lack of flexibility, lack of accountability, unclear
terminology, and lack of integration with other project management tools. In
particular, it is sometimes considered to be too simple to represent the complexity
of a project, and may omit important elements (e.g., cultural aspects or the
objectives of all the stakeholders). Second, risks or variability in the variables (either
positive or negative) are not included, and the underlying logic is rather
deterministic. Another issue is the difficulty of defining the objectives: International
development (ID) projects are usually complex (meaning many internal and external
variables must be considered), hence the objectives are particularly difficult to
identify and formalise. Moreover, given the high number of stakeholders involved,
with their complex relationships and different interests, the project’s objectives may
be mixed or conflict with individual objectives. Similarly, changes in projects may
give rise to a difference between “official” and “actual” objectives.

Given the complexity of ID projects it is likely that, in the course of a project, several
changes will occur in terms of activities and the desired outcomes. The logframe
appears to be rigid to the objectives and activities stated at the outset, because it
lacks a “time perspective”. Furthermore, it has been criticised for not always
straightforwardly identifying a causality effect among its levels. Moreover,
relationships may change during the project’s execution. Also, unclear terminology

33
 can cause problems: many users may find it difficult to understand the differences
among the various levels (e.g., purpose, goal and outcome). Another issue is the
lack of integration with other project management tools, since PCM (project cycle
management) and LF do not substitute traditional project management tools (e.g.,
work breakdown structure, Gantt chart). A final limitation is the lack of accountability:
the logframe does not show who is responsible for what.

Source: Golini et al. (2017: 2–3)

In Learning Unit 2, we introduced you to Robert Chambers in one of the self-

assessment activities – he is well known as a proponent of participatory development.
He would thus want to see projects and programmes putting the poor first, prioritising
their inputs. The logframe, for him, does not present that opportunity and, together
with Jethro Pettit, he wrote the following critique (see Box 3B).

Box 3B: Logframe – a critique

Logical framework analysis (logframe) and its variants as a required method for
planning and monitoring illustrate how procedures can reinforce relationships of
power and control. With origins in management practices for infrastructure projects,
the logframe embodies a linear logic associated with things rather than people, with
simple and controlled conditions, and with closed systems. It has what has been
called vertical and horizontal logic, required in a matrix form. The vertical logic down
the matrix is concerned with ends and means – with objectives, goals and purposes,
then outputs, then the activities intended to achieve the outputs. The horizontal logic
across the matrix is from narrative summary to objectively verifiable indicators and
means of verification. A final vertical column is used to identify assumptions about
the external environment that enable or hinder the realisation of activities, outputs
and purpose.

In many instances, in its time, the logframe has served well to focus attention on the
links between activities and their intended effects, and, hence, to sharpen
interventions. For example, at the UK Department for International Development
(DfID), the logframe was found to be useful in shifting the focus from technology to
people, and in demanding evidence of the connections between proposed activities
and their impacts on poverty. This signals that certain procedures have their time
and place; but changing conditions may require their reassessment and
replacement. In its heyday, logframe gave rise to a small army of practitioners who
trained others in the technique, and then helped them carry it out. Some agencies
have now abandoned it or do not require it – although there are indications that a
new generation of policy makers favour it as a requirement for funding proposals.
Most critics of the logframe recognise the value of thinking through some of the
vertical logic of a project, but find the experience of using it costly and

34
 disempowering. Donor-induced logframe meetings rarely include poor people, yet
participatory poverty assessments present much evidence that the priorities of poor
people often differ from those perceived by outsiders and local elites. Often,
expatriates dominate, and the language is English. The idea in ZOPP (Ziel-
Orientierte Projektplanung), a close relative of the logframe developed by the
German aid agency, Deutsche Gesellschaft for Technische Zusammenarbeit, is that
stakeholders should brainstorm until they agree on one single core problem. This
involves a reductionism that flies in the face of multiple and changing realities.
Logframe analysis more generally inhibits process and participation, and is often
experienced as rigid and constraining. When the actual and sensible activities being
undertaken differ from those in the frame, reporting can become a nightmare, and
the eventual external ‘purpose-to-outcome’ evaluation can be perceived as a
looming threat, rather than an opportunity to learn and do better.

The common experience has been a control orientation that discourages innovation
and learning, and reinforces unequal power relations. The reluctance of
disempowered recipients to tell powerful donors how bad they find the logframe and
how it generates frustration and anger, seems likely to have been a factor in
prolonging its life. External practitioners, well-meaning intermediaries and some
NGOs have found a niche industry in supplying expertise to prepare and report on
logframes for others, sparing them those demotivating and time-consuming tasks.
‘How-to’ guides have been produced for contexts, especially problematical for
logframes. Whatever their merits, these are liable to perpetuate the logframe, the
myths that surround it, and the unequal power relations that it induces and sustains.

Adapted from Chambers and Pettit (2004).

Self-assessment Activity 3.1

The purpose of this activity is to check your understanding of the text. Read
the contribution by Aune (2000), which is available as a prescribed e-reserves article.
The text outlines how planning takes place using the LFA and the PRA. In tabular
form, list the advantages and disadvantages of the logframe.

Advantages Disadvantages

35
3.4 IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SHORTCOMINGS

The logical framework comes across as a typical example of a blueprint, with the four
walls in which specific information pertaining to the project are required. Blueprint
planning methods are known for their silence on the participation of project
beneficiaries, and the LFA is no exception. Aune (2000) explains the seven-step
procedure for planning using an LFA, and explains step 1, participatory analysis, as a
process that is quite technical, and does not involve project beneficiaries.
[The] main groups are analysed with regard to main problems, interests,
potentials, and linkages. A decision is taken on whose interests and what
problems are to be given priority. (Aune, 2000: 688)

Aune (2000) recommends combining the LFA with a participatory approach; the PRA,
by using the
LFA for giving the overall structure of the planning process and the checklist of
factors to consider, while PRA is used in discussions and decision making at
the grassroots level. (Aune, 2000: 688)

Read the article by Aune (2000) on the e-reserves for an idea of his
perspectives on the LFA and PRA. Then, describe the advantages of combining the
two.

3.5 CONCLUSION

In this learning unit, you were introduced to the LFA as a tool to improve and ensure
greater logic in the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of
development projects. You also examined some of the strengths and weaknesses of
the logframe. While it appears to have many shortcomings, the UK’s DfID requires
logframes for funding applications. The DWAF also presents the logframe as a tool for
effectively planning and managing projects. We also introduced you to the article by
Aune (2000), in which he suggests combining the non-participatory LFA approach with
the PRA.

3.6 OUTCOMES CHECKLIST

Questions I can do I cannot do

this! this
(1) Explain what is meant by a logical framework
(2) Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the
logical framework approach (LFA)
(3) Demonstrate an understanding of how the PRA can

36
be used together with the LFA

37
 LEARNING UNIT 4
INFORMATION AND DATA COLLECTION

Contents

4.1 Introduction
4.2 Data, information and knowledge
4.2.1 The need for information
4.2.2 Information for project design and appraisal
4.2.3 Information for managing development projects
4.2.4 Information for evaluating development projects
4.3 Politics of knowledge and knowledge production
4.3.1 Indigenous knowledge as a source of information
4.3.2 Techniques for collecting data
4.4 Participatory methods of data collection and research
4.4.1 Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
4.4.2 SARAR
4.4.3 Beneficiary Assessment
4.5 Conclusion
4.6 Outcomes checklist

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
• recognise indigenous and Western knowledge as sources of data
and information
• describe the different methods for obtaining data and
information
• assess the methods of engaging with indigenous communities,
when seeking to obtain information.

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Solving problems by means of projects and programmes requires thorough research

in the correct identification of problems, the ascertaining of correct objectives, and in
determining the best sequence in which to act. Phillips et al. (2012: 7) recognise the

38
importance of having correct information for projects, stating:
Some projects fail because the appropriate data could not be collected, was
not available, or there was no specific responsibility to collect the data… Data
collection must be carefully planned. If a particular data set is not readily
available, it should be developed from the specifications of those who must
collect it and present it to the project management team.

This unit presents the different stages in the life of a project, when information and data
are needed. We further present local or indigenous knowledge (IK) as a pivotal and vital
source of information in the cycle of a project. The rest of the unit discusses various
sources of data-collection techniques to use, based on the type of research approach
(i.e., qualitative or quantitative).

4.2 DATA, INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE

“Data” and “information” are often confused, and are even used interchangeably in
daily practice. However, they are different. As Pohl (2001: 1) explains, “[d]ata are
defined as numbers and words without relationships”. Conversely, information
involves pieces of data (Pohl, 2001). Turban et al. (1999, in Braf, 2002: 74) describe
data as “elementary descriptions of things, events, activities, and transactions that are
recorded, classified, and stored but not organised to convey any specific meaning”.
Nake (2002: 48) views the concept of knowledge as “a person’s lived life. It is total,
whole, and inseparable.” What the authors describe, is illustrated in Figure 4.1.
Additional literature discusses the transferability of knowledge, and the differences
between information and knowledge. Braf (2002), for instance, deals with the question
of the “difference between having knowledge and being knowledgeable – and having
information and being informed”. In this unit, it is vital to understand these three
concepts, to help you recognise their application in the different stages of a project life
cycle.

39
Figure 4.1: Data, information, knowledge (Pohl, 2001: 1)

Self-assessment Activity 4.1

Visit this link to learn more about the difference between data and information:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIjSY05JE9Q, then compare the information with
that given in section 4.2.

Feedback

Refer to section 4.2, and identify the differences.

4.2.1 The need for 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, research for the appraisal of project proposals,
routine reports while a project is underway, ongoing planning documents, audit reports,
monitoring reports by aid organisations, and final evaluation reports at the conclusion of

40
a project. Different techniques are followed to compile the various kinds of information
(more on this later).
The need for information and its collection are themes that are woven into all the
phases of development planning. In the sections that follow, we offer a broad overview
of the different planning phases during which information is needed, and discuss the
type of information and the problems experienced with it. We deal with each phase
separately, as each is important in its own right, and can stand on its own. Thus, to
gain a full picture of appraisal, monitoring and evaluation, you have to return to this unit
from time to time.

4.2.2 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 information that

• promotes understanding of the project environment (e.g., on the human, social,
economic, cultural, political and physical environments)
• 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
• will ensure consistency of the project strategy with sectoral, regional and national
goals.

Information on organisational specifications includes information

• for designing an appropriate project structure (e.g., on the existing organisational
network, administrative capacity, personnel position and support services)
• to ensure the effective management of the project (e.g., on the inputs required from
various institutions, and requirements for cooperation and coordination)
• 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 compilation and analysis of
relevant information. At the outset of a project, it is necessary to achieve the following:
• 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 baseline data, in order to plan the project properly and assess the results at
its conclusion.

41
When a development project is being considered, a procedure known as project
appraisal is adopted to determine its economic, social and environmental viability.
(This is dealt with in more detail in Learning Unit 5.)

4.2.3 Information for managing development projects

Project managers, overall supervisors and planners require different types of
information. Managers are interested in the optimal use of precious research time, and
ask researchers for only the information 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 continued requests for
more information are accused of crisis management, and a reluctance to divulge their
actions. In this way, they are pressured 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
• reports by personnel to management, with a view to monitoring the project
• ongoing planning of implementation.

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. There is disagreement, however, on the frequency and
format of such reports (Moris, 1981: 41) (see Learning Unit 5 for a discussion on the
difference between monitoring and evaluation).

4.2.4 Information for evaluating development projects

The information required to evaluate a project is collected during all stages of the project.
Evaluation involves finding out what happened, and why. Given that different kinds of
activities can take place in any project, evaluating the course of events can be extremely
complicated. For Moris (1981: 32), project appraisal (before a decision is made to launch
a project) falls under evaluation. Project appraisal includes financial analysis and
(mainly economic) cost-benefit analysis, while the ongoing and 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:

42
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 (i.e., on the situation prior to project implementation). Without baseline data,
assessing a project’s impact is extremely difficult.

Predetermining specific objectives for a project means that development is not seen as
a process without 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 goal of the project would be finally established at the end, not at the
beginning. Evaluation would then take place in accordance with that goal. Base data
would still be required, but it would be difficult to build information-gathering procedures
into the early stages of planning. Indigenous expertise would have to be considered.

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. (More on evaluation later in
the study guide.)

4.3 THE POLITICS OF KNOWLEDGE AND KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION

We have now looked at information needs at different stages of the project cycle –
from the planning through to the evaluation of development projects. Now we reflect
on the politics that come with knowledge and the production thereof. 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 do not 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, therefore their
development tends to be planned without them, in a top-down fashion. This does not
only apply to “poor” individuals: low-income nations are 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, Western ways of knowing were considered superior to all other
knowledge systems. There are many other ways of knowing, and recent calls for the
decolonisation of knowledge and the education system, as part of the demands of
the #FeesMustFall movement, have provided room for other “knowledges” to be
acknowledged. Indigenous knowledge systems (IKSs) are regaining their

43
prominence and challenging Western knowledge systems (WKSs), which are
always accompanied by Western imperialism, its way of life and its biases (Noyoo,
2007: 168). Instead, IKS advocates for local solutions to local problems. Importantly,
due to power being intertwined with knowledge, power dynamics are at play every
time one mentions IKS or WKS. This is because WKSs are characterised as
scientific and technological, while the IKSs are perceived as primitive (Magaisa,
2004: 43) and based on mere repetition (Nkondo, 2012).

Read the excerpt from Hlabangane (2021), in Box 4.1, in which she explains the
politics of knowledge through the prism of coloniality of knowledge.

Box 4.1: Coloniality of knowledge, power and being (Hlabangane, 2021: 166)
Decolonial thinking is an invitation to unmask and deconstruct received knowledge
about many aspects of our naturalised life. Central to decolonial epistemic
perspectives is the need to shift the geography of reason away from the
fundamentals of Eurocentric thinking, to include other knowledge systems. The
fundamentals of Eurocentric knowledge are based on a binary system that
excludes certain knowledge systems, while elevating others. This is not a simple
and innocent matter of knowledge systems vying for ascendancy in a world order
just for the sake of it. On the contrary, the site of knowledge production and vetting
has been a subject of, and basis for, violence, discrimination and domination. The
repression and imposition of knowledge speak to one’s legitimate place in the
world order. Knowledge is thus a mechanism that justifies domination and
conquest. From this point of view, knowledge is an important place to start, to
understand relations of differently positioned people, nations and continents in the
current world order.
The prisms through which people are understood, the rewriting of their cultures,
knowledge systems and ways of being, all amount to what Grosfoguel (2007),
Maldonado-Torres (2007) and Mignolo (2007) call coloniality of knowledge. This
means that the primacy of place that is accorded Western ways of knowing and
being, which are then imposed in understanding other knowledges and ways of
being, constitutes coloniality of knowledge. These other ways of knowing and
being are rendered unintelligible when filtered through Western sensibilities that,
for example, set greater store by the mind in juxtaposition with and preference to
the body and spirit, that prioritise instrumental/rational pursuits such as profit which
lead to individualism, and that conceive of nature and culture as dichotomous
entities, with culture gaining mastery over nature. While these ways of being and
knowing have been exalted to represent the epitome of evolution, so to speak,
they are in fact particular to a certain way of thinking. More than that: they
undergird a particular sociopolitical agenda.

44
4.3.1 Indigenous knowledge as a source of information
Much data and information are required in the broad context of a project, and much
detailed data and information on the local context are required for accurate needs
identification, and the planning, implementation and evaluation of projects. Often, such
local knowledge is not available on international, regional or national databases and
other information inventories. Local knowledge is, per se, local, and must be locally
gathered, sorted, indexed and interpreted.

Indigenous knowledge, as defined by Senanayake (2006: 87), is “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 the next generation,
through mostly oral means (i.e., the spoken word). These ways have, however, been
looked down upon by the West, which views indigenous knowledge systems as non-
scientific, to the extent of ignoring them as if they were non-existent (Nkondo, 2012).

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

especially because, in one way or another, local communities are more familiar with
their surroundings than those who are passing through, or are only in the area for
the sake of a project. An account of Ernesto Sirolli’s experience in Zambia is a case
in point. Often, projects are brought to communities in the belief that those
communities which will benefit from the projects cannot help themselves, or have no
idea what to do, to help themselves. It is vital to realise that experts can work with
local communities to learn more about the physical, sociocultural, political and
economic environments of those communities.

Ernesto Sirolli provides insights into the importance of indigenous knowledge in a

story entitled, “Want to help someone? Shut up and listen!” Find his YouTube clip at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSvMQ7dej9g or read the text in Case study 4.1.

Case study 4.1

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.

45
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)

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

46
 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

At present, attention is increasingly being paid to indigenous knowledge.

Unfortunately, the pressure to economise on information is such that indigenous
knowledge still does not receive the attention it deserves. Data that could be obtained
from underprivileged individuals or communities, are often not gathered.
Paradoxically, individuals who have adapted to life with limited resources, possess
valuable knowledge and resilience.

Self-assessment Activity 4.2

From the case study above, find a sentence or phrase which supports the
idea that Sirolli and the NGO he worked for, assumed that local communities did not
know how to better themselves. Justify your selection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, consider the following sentences:

Sentence 1: ‘‘Thank God we’re here.’’ (Laughter) ‘‘Just in the nick of time to save
the Zambian people from starvation.’’ And …
Sentence 2: ‘‘Look how easy agriculture is.’’

In sentence 1, an assumption was made that, without Sirolli and his NGO, the Zambian
people would have no idea how to get food for themselves, hence the “Thank God we
are here”. In sentence 2, Sirolli reflects on how they thought Zambians must be lazy.
In other words, they thought “if agriculture is this easy, these people must be lazy”. Of
course, later they realised why agriculture was not being practised in that area. Based
on their unfounded assumptions and failure to inquire from local people, they went
ahead with a project that was not suited for the area.

4.3.2 Techniques for collecting data

Before examining some of the techniques that can be used to collect data, let us first
to consider a few decisions that may help a project manager or project team decide

47
on which technique(s) to use.

First, it is important to decide at the outset what form the data should take. Here, we
can distinguish between quantitative data (which refer, e.g., to 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 4.2.

Box 4.2: Quantitative and qualitative research

Ashley, Takyi and Obeng (2016), explain quantitative and qualitative approaches
to research as follows:
“Inquirers resort to the use of the quantitative design when they seek to provide a
numerical description of social phenomena (p. 43)
A quantitative researcher may ask: "Will insurance companies expand their scope
of investment if they are deregulated, controlling for the effects of increased profit?"
Such a question may be answered with a "yes" or "no." (p. 62)
Investigators employ the qualitative method when the underlying objective is to
explore and understand individuals’ interpretation of social phenomena... Qualitative
research questions are usually introduced with words such as what and how (pp.
61–62).

Second, the frequency of data collection is important, and we need to consider how
regularly data must be collected. Many types of data must be collected at regular
intervals (e.g., population censuses). At the other end of the scale are geological
data, which remain reasonably constant and do not need regular updating.

Third, 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. When using quantitative data, primary data are facts which must
be collected by means of surveys (e.g., a population census), which usually require
field work. In addition, the raw facts (data) 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 is one way in which planners can economise on data. Unfortunately,

48
in developing states, secondary data are often underutilised because they are not
always readily available, and storage techniques are ineffective.

Next, we look at some data-collection techniques. The suitability of a technique is

determined by two factors: the type of data required and the availability of resources
(e.g., labour, money and time).

Table 4.1, reproduced from Campbell et al. (2013: 21), summarises several data-
collection techniques, the kind of information they provide, and their advantages and
disadvantages.

Table 4.1: The pros and cons of data-collection techniques

Good for Advantages Disadvantages

assessing

Survey Knowledge A quick and Writing a good survey is

Attitudes inexpensive way to more difficult than
Intentions obtain information people realise
Behaviours from many people
It is easy to be flooded
It is easy to be with surveys. Inputting
consistent in how the data takes longer than
surveys are expected
administered
Behaviours are self‐
Analysing surveys is reported (and may be
relatively straight- biased)
forward
Focus Attitudes In‐depth information Results are influenced
group Opinions by group dynamics;
Interpretations Discussions among a requires skill in group
diverse group of people facilitation
can reveal insights you
would not obtain from Interpreting group
individuals discussions can be
challenging
Relatively low cost and
little time investment
Interviews Attitudes In‐depth information Time intensive
Opinions
Interpretations Participants may Being consistent across
Motives disclose information interviews is challenging

49
 Experiences and details they would
not write about Requires good
on a survey, or talk interviewing skills
about in a focus group
Interpreting the
interviews can be
challenging
Observation Behaviours Records actual Requires clear
Environments behaviours versus self‐ definitions of what you
reports are looking for

Gives insight into Requires good

interactions between observation skills and
individuals and their consistency across
physical and social observations
settings
Archival Behaviours Monitor actual Missing data are
data behaviours problematic

Few or no scheduling Record-keeping

issues; consent not practices may
usually required change over time

Self-assessment Activity 4.3

The purpose of this activity is to help you select data-collection techniques. Let’s say
you are a member of a youth forum concerned with how teenagers are dropping out
of school and becoming involved in destructive behaviours. Your task is to obtain data
on the reasons for teenage social degeneration. Which of the data-collection
techniques listed above would you use, and why? Write down your answer on a
separate sheet of paper.

Now read the sections below, which explain the different data-collection techniques and
how they are used. Compare that with the technique you selected earlier.

Interviews
One of the most basic methods used to elicit information from primary sources (i.e.,
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 [UN], 1993: 2.15). Numerous techniques can be
used within the broad framework of interviews – some interviews may be based on

50
rigid and highly structured questions which simply require the interviewer to read the
question to the participant, and then record his/her answer on the questionnaire. The
findings of such questionnaires can be collated and analysed by a computer.
Sometimes the interviewer uses 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 participant to elaborate on, and qualify, his/her
answers. A third option is that the interviewer decides to conduct a completely
spontaneous interview, without a structured set of questions or areas to be covered.

Focus groups
As the name indicates, the intended beneficiaries (primary sources) are gathered as
a group, in one place, for a set period (an hour or two) and 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 on the discussion.
Focus group discussions provide an opportunity to gain insights into, and an in-depth
understanding of, the perspectives, experiences, and preferences of the intended
beneficiaries. They enable participants to share their thoughts, opinions, and ideas
related to the project, allowing for exploration of various viewpoints and the
identification of common themes, concerns and aspirations among the participants.
The information gathered from focus group discussions can be used to refine project
goals, strategies, and interventions, ensuring that they are better aligned with the
needs and aspirations of the intended beneficiaries. Additionally, these discussions
can uncover valuable insights that may not have been apparent through other data-
collection methods, enriching the overall understanding of the project's potential
impact and effectiveness.

Questionnaires
A questionnaire is a tool employed to collect quantitative data through surveys. It
can be a valuable instrument to obtain a broad overview – a “snapshot” – of the
demographic, infrastructural and socioeconomic 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 will be accurate, useful and
aligned to the intended purpose.

Direct observation
Direct observation is a technique used to collect information directly from the field, by
visiting the area and taking in visually what is happening, or determining what the

51
state of affairs is. Here, we distinguish 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 firsthand 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). (UN, 1993: 2.17)

It is essential 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, s/he 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 objective
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, during his/her
normal activities, to probe participants’ attitudes towards a particular project. This
approach is generally adopted by anthropologists.

Participant observation is an effective technique which 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: “The most important
documentation instrument is the taking of notes every evening, recording the results
of talks, observations and impressions of each day.”

Documentary research
The UN (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”.

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 UN (1993: 2.14) describes the

52
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
the researcher gains a great deal of information about a specific group of people,
without having to interview all of them.

4.4 PARTICIPATORY METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND

RESEARCH
Participatory methods of data collection and research were first developed in the late
70s, 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 in grassroots projects. The methods go by different
names, starting off as Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), later renamed as Participatory
Rural Appraisal (PRA) and also Participatory Learning and Action (PLA), which is
today the preferred term for participatory research methodologies that include
techniques such as RRA and PRA.
The more conventional research techniques relied on so heavily in the past – such
as survey questionnaires – were noted for 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 able 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 et al., 1995: 61). Even RRA
was at times extractive, in the sense that people participated in projects by being
consulted. Very often the problems and solutions were defined by outside experts,
and local people were, at best, consulted. Yet professional project planners were not
obliged to modify the identified problems or solutions based on what they had
gleaned from local people’s inputs. Today, there is increasing emphasis on the kind
of participation that leads to empowerment. Pretty et al. (1995: 61) refer to this as
“interactive participation” and “self-mobilisation”. These two terms are defined in Box
4.3.

Box 4.3: 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
(Pretty et al., 1995: 61).
Self-mobilisation

53
 People participate by taking decisions independent of external institutions, to
change systems. They develop contacts with external institutions for resources
and technical advice, 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 (Pretty et al., 1995: 61).

Participatory approaches mainly aim to allow people in communities to share their

knowledge, in a way that puts them in charge. Chambers (1994) talks of “handing over
the stick” – a metaphor to indicate that the power of the researcher is transferred to the
community. However, participatory methods and techniques hold not only advantages
but also disadvantages. Despite their common-sense logic, various criticisms have
been expressed about these approaches (see your prescribed readings for more on
this).

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

4.4.1.1 Participatory Rural Appraisal

To explain the origins of PRA methods, we introduce you to the work of Beazley and
Ennew (2006), who believe that, central to the participatory approach is the idea of
involving those who will be affected by a programme in “defining the research
questions and taking part in both collecting and analysing the data” (Beazley & Ennew,
2006: 191). In Box 4.4, Beazley and Ennew elaborate on PRA.

Box 4.4: Example of PRA

Probably the most influential and popular participatory research approach is based
on methods – developed over two decades ago by Robert Chambers and his
associates at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex –
known as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). PRA techniques are primarily
visual, designed for use with illiterate rural communities, although they are now
increasingly being used in urban communities. They are frequently labelled
‘qualitative’ and are called ‘participatory methods’, but both terms are misnomers.
First, as discussed, it is difficult to designate any research techniques as
qualitative or quantitative, because describing and counting are fundamentally
interdependent components of research. Second, no method is inherently

54
‘participatory’ – it depends how a method is used. If community members design
and use a questionnaire to research a problem of their choosing, this is a
participatory process. ‘Participatory methods’ are not participatory if a researcher
chooses both the research questions and research technique (e.g., a visual
method), takes the collected data away to a distant university, and analyses them
with no further discussion with the research subjects.

PRA has had considerable success in gathering information on the lives and views
of people who lack power and whose opinions are seldom sought. It is based on the
proposition that people construct social meanings and that every individual,
regardless of education and status, is capable of research, analysis and planning.
This philosophical principle leads to the ideological assertions that, in practice,
• people should be active agents in their own lives
• research should respect research participants’ own words, ideas and
understandings
• researchers and research participants are equal
• research methods should be flexible, exploratory and inventive
• both researchers and research participants should enjoy the research.

The most significant principles of participatory research have to do with the

behaviour and attitudes of researchers, including being self-critically aware, not
rushing, and helping participants to express themselves in their own way and to
formulate their own analyses (Chambers, 1994). The researcher’s role is to act as
a facilitator, to establish trust, listen, learn and, as far as possible, ‘hand over the
stick’, or control, to participants (Chambers, 1994). As a result, all the people and
organisations that will be affected by the information collected are fully involved in
the research process. The collective name of these people and organisations is
‘stakeholders’ because they have a stake (interest) in the research and its
outcome(s). For example, stakeholders in research on infant mortality include
women, men, communities (parents, grandparents, children and young people),
midwives, traditional birth attendants, village heads, health workers, doctors,
government agencies, donors, intergovernmental organisations (such as Unicef,
Unesco and the WHO), non-governmental organisations and the media.
Participatory research, therefore, is about ‘giving everyone who has a stake a voice
and a choice’ (Cornwall, 2003: 1325).

The strength of using participatory approaches is that researchers are able to gain
access to people and bring their problems to public notice. It is unlikely that
satisfactory assessments of vulnerable groups could be made using any other
approach. This kind of research takes more time, and costs more money, than

55
 household surveys or questionnaires, but is cost-effective in the long run because
the results are more relevant and lead to more successful interventions. It also often
generates more precise information, and helps to gain insights into how
communities ‘think’.

For example, participatory research was carried out in a village in Lombok for an
AusAID-funded maternal health project. A government-trained midwife (from Java)
was asked to ‘map’ where all the pregnant women and newborn infants were in her
village, which she completed confidently. The research team later asked the women
in the village to draw their own map. When the two maps were compared, it was
found that the midwife did not know of all the infants and pregnant women, because
not all of them had presented themselves to her. By using participatory techniques,
a variety of reasons were given for not going to the Javanese midwife, including
cultural differences, preference for the traditional birth attendant, a lack of transport,
and fear of the Indonesian biomedical approach to pregnancy and birth (including
the practice of compulsory episiotomies).
Source: Adapted from Beazley and Ennew (2006: 191–193)

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), both of which
are briefly discussed below.

4.4.2 Self-esteem Associative Strength Resourcefulness Action Planning

Responsibility (SARAR)
Like the PRA and BA, SARAR is a participatory social assessment method,
developed in the 70s in Asia. SARAR, as a methodology, is “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).
The YouTube video with the link below explains and illustrates how SARAR is done.
Follow the link to watch the ten-minute video, so you can assess for yourself how
SARAR can be used to plan development activities.

56
YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc4jb_xnBng

4.4.3 Beneficiary Assessment (BA)

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

Watch the YouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhNowRIfy34&list=PLaR-
chIMneHZQjHYybNCAdpXIn6YcmGuU&index=6 on the "Rehabilitation and
Improvement of Water Resources in Borana", a project in Ethiopia, for further
information on BA and how it is done.

Self-assessment Activity 4.4

The article by Mubita et al. (2017) discusses the importance and limitations of
participation. Read it with the purpose of identifying what these authors see as the
advantages and disadvantages of participation. Make a list, and save it for later use.
By now you should have a folder, on your device, in which to save your academic work
and important information related to this module. Name this document “Participatory
research – advantages and disadvantages”.

57
4.5 CONCLUSION
In this learning unit, we introduced you to the concepts of data, information and
knowledge. We explained the types of information required for the different phases
of the project cycle, and introduced you to the most important techniques to use, 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 will lead not only to problem
identification, but also to action). The learning unit also discussed the role of
indigenous knowledge in development projects. The videos we referred to, are a
useful addition to the written texts. You can watch and listen while on the move, and
search for other educational videos that help to explain related concepts and
processes.

4.6 OUTCOMES CHECKLIST

Questions I can do I cannot do

this! this
(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 the research methods that can be
used to obtain information, with special
emphasis on their respective advantages
and disadvantages
(4) Critically review the advantages and
shortcomings of participatory data-collection
techniques

58
 LEARNING UNIT 5
APPRAISAL TECHNIQUES
Contents

5.1 Introduction
5.2 Needs assessment
5.3 Considering viability
5.4 Appraising projects
5.5 The appraisal techniques
5.5.1 Cost–benefit analysis
5.5.1.1 Critique of cost–benefit analysis
5.5.2 Social impact assessment
5.5.2.1 Is SIA very reliable?
5.5.2.2 Social impact assessment in South Africa
5.5.3 Environmental impact assessment
5.6 General comments on assessment techniques
5.7 Conclusion
5.8 Outcomes checklist

OUTCOMES
At the end of this learning unit, you should be able to
• demonstrate an understanding of the purposes of a cost–
benefit analysis (CBA), social impact assessment (SIA) and
environmental impact assessment (EIA)
• discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using
appraisal techniques
• analyse the way in which social impact assessment is
implemented, using South Africa as a case study

5. 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 propose solutions to (or, put differently, to 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
(CBA), social impact assessment (SIA) and environmental impact assessment (EIA).
Each of these is a specialist and specialised field of study. Our intention is not to teach
you how to do these assessments yourself, but to make you aware of their uses,
advantages and disadvantages.

59
 5.1 NEEDS ASSESSMENT
As you will remember from MacArthur’s projects sequence (see Learning Unit 2), a project
idea can come from a variety of sources, including 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: The Covid-19 pandemic may
have given rise to a number of orphans, resulting in the need for an orphanage to
take care of those children, and prevent a rise in child-headed households.
• Day-to-day government department activities: The Department of Agriculture
may decide that it is concerned about food security in KwaZulu-Natal, and embark
on food security projects involving unemployed women and out-of-school youths.
• Existing successful projects: There may be a desire to replicate them elsewhere
in the country.
• Internationally agreed-upon development foci: An example is the sustainable
development goals (SDGs), which all member states of the UN 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 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 4, 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, 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 (e.g., irrigation, agricultural extension and
the creation of more facilities for marketing surpluses); projects to improve the health
status of the people (e.g., improved health education and running water supply, or
reducing water pollution at existing water points); and projects to improve the levels of
education (e.g., 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) (see Figure 5.1).

60
Figure 5.1: Needs assessment to address low rural living standards

It is obvious from the examples (given above) that, while it would be impossible to find a
single-project solution to the problem, it would be equally impossible to try to embark
on all of these projects. Some very difficult choices will have to be made, based on a
preliminary assessment which will help to define and delimit those projects. 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
✓ Underlying causes of the problem
✓ The solution(s)
✓ The 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
particularly crucial, as 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 the very least, to ensure peoples’
functional participation in the project. Beneficiaries’ involvement can be achieved
through a beneficiary assessment (see Learning Unit 4).

61
 5.2 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 as an option, or whether it should
be abandoned as an idea, before large amounts are spent on detailed assessments.

One of the first ways in which the potential viability can be assessed, is by asking
five questions (UN, 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 of whether
it will be possible to find the necessary resources (including financing,
equipment and technical assistance).
❖ Is the 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 it will receive the necessary support for the project – this
includes 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 for assessing viability, is a SWOT analysis, which is derived
from the first letters of the words that make up the key elements that influence decisions
about the viability of a proposed project:
❖ S = Strengths
❖ W = Weaknesses
❖ O = Opportunities
❖ T = Threats

Each project will have its own strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. By
listing each, the project team will have 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
government’s main development concerns and priorities, 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 community buy-in. An opportunity could
be that a neighbouring country is experiencing the same technical development
problem (e.g., 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 unseasonable drought
and heat, and that a natural phenomenon such as this could threaten the success of

62
the project from the start.

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

Self-assessment Activity 5.1

Choose any of the identified solutions in Figure 5.1, and assess the viability of having
a project based on that solution, to address the central problem of low rural living
standards. Use the table below as a template for the SWOT analysis.

SWOT analysis
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

5.3 APPRAISING PROJECTS

As you will have realised, 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 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

63
Hills (1984: 132) mention that, during the appraisal, attention is given to the following:
❖ The nature and scope of the resources to be deployed
❖ The nature and scope of induced results (positive and negative)
❖ Where the results will be felt and whom they will affect
❖ The period of time for which the results will be applicable
❖ 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 the maximum output has been achieved in terms of inputs provided.

Planning proposals are appraised and the findings recorded, to enable the submission
of all the factual information to those who have to make a final choice between the
alternatives. A wide variety of techniques is available for appraising the options, but only
three of these are discussed here.

5.4 THE APPRAISAL TECHNIQUES

5.4.1 Cost–benefit analysis

Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is a widely used technique for appraising economic
development planning activities. CBA is a systematic technique for analysing
whether a potential investment decision is economically justified. Hwang (2016:
76) explains CBA as follows:
[It] compares the benefits and costs associated with an investment project or a
policy. A benefit and cost are defined in terms of change of human welfare or
utility, and are measured by individuals’ willingness to pay for a benefit and
willingness to accept a cost. Upon this calculation, the rationale for the use of
CBA in policy decision-making relies on the assumption that CBA gets rid of the
worst projects (Wildavsky, 1966), thereby creating better and neutral results for
decision-making (Ackerman & Heinzerling, 2002). The essence of CBA is that
(1) individual preferences are well represented; (2) social choice is the
aggregation of individuals; and (3) if benefits exceed costs, the project or policy
is potentially worthwhile.

Consider a rural housing programme that includes projects aimed at supplying toilet
systems for each household – being rural, options could include pit toilets or flush
toilets, for example. While flush toilets may eradicate the problem of young users
falling into pit toilets, there are costs associated with water use for flush toilets. Toilet
system projects therefore require that the costs and benefits of the different toilet
options be weighed up. Chadburn et al. (2013: 9) explain that “the principles of CBA
are applied to everyday decisions – people and organisations regularly weigh up the
costs and the benefits of activities ….”

Conyers and Hills (1984: 135) explain that CBA involves identifying, measuring and
placing a monetary value on all the costs and benefits of a particular project proposal,

64
and then comparing these costs and benefits as an aid to the decision-making
process. Nas (2016: 2) adds that the use of CBA ensures that “all potential gains and
losses from a proposed public project are identified, converted into monetary units,
and ranked on the basis of project selection criteria, to determine [whether] the
proposal is efficient and desirable from society's perspective”.

According to Spiller and Deng (2013), the following are CBA’s main features:
• “Costs and benefits are, as far as possible, expressed in monetary terms and
hence are directly comparable with one another.
• Costs and benefits are measured from the perspective of all individuals in a
community affected by a public policy or project, rather than any particular
party, organisation or group.”

In practical terms, the team responsible for the CBA will thus 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 (i.e., to start or continue with a project).
CBA can be undertaken at different times. Boardman et al. (1996) 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 help decision makers learn lessons about the
type of intervention that will inform their decisions later. As examples, Boardman
et al. (1996) cite many CBAs done in the 60s and 70s, to determine the costs of

65
 economic regulation. This led the government of the United States of America to
adopt deregulation policies in the 80s.
➢ In media res CBA is done during the life of a project (i.e., while the project is
underway). Such analyses are fairly common, but very seldom lead 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 media 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.

5.4.1.1 Critique of CBA

Despite the desirable aims of CBA (mentioned earlier) it is not infallible, and may at
times create a false picture. Various points of criticism have been raised against this
technique:
• Benefits are not always quantifiable and can therefore not be measured in
terms of cost. The World Bank Group (2010: 13) gives an example of such
projects in “education, health, technical assistance and environment”.
Chadburn et al. (2013: 7) suggests that “CBA can never be used as a stand-
alone decision-making tool, but rather needs to sit within a wider context of
qualitative assessment”.
• There is no scope for factoring in the “social worth of benefits going to, or costs
borne by, different income or social groups” (Asian Development Bank [ADB],
2013: 18).
• It may happen that not all costs or benefits are taken into account: 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’”.

CBA can be resource-intensive and time-consuming, involving the comprehensive

assessment of both the costs and benefits associated with a project, which requires
collecting and analysing extensive data. Community or small-scale projects often have
limited resources and capacities, making it challenging to allocate the necessary time,
expertise, and financial resources to conduct a rigorous CBA.

Self-assessment Activity 5.2

66
 Visit this link to learn more about CBA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkPUFcZYfMU

Now answer the following two questions, based on that video:

a) In what year did Jules duPuit develop CBA?
b) What name is given to the appraisal when costs and benefits are assessed from
the point of view of the affected stakeholder?

Listen once more to the video (it is 2 mins 16 secs long [2:16]), and you will get the
answer to the first question at 0:08 (time of the video). For the second question, listen
from 1:45–2:01, for the full explanation.

5.4.2 Social impact assessment

Social impact assessment (SIA) refers broadly to investigations into the impact which
planning activities have on the social and cultural facets of human existence.
Techniques of this type were developed during the 70s, in reaction to the CBA
technique’s one-sided emphasis on economic implications. These techniques appraise
the impact which development plans, projects and programmes have 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. Vanclay (2017), for instance, discusses how projects can result in the
displacement of communities. As Cannon (2019) reports, a dam being constructed in
southern Ethiopia for electricity supply to cities, as well as for irrigation, led to the
“displacement and loss of livelihoods of indigenous groups”. Although the Grand
Ethiopian Renaissance Dam has its benefits, it also has social impacts. For more
information on this, watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8IHmn0Kn68&t=168s

SIA techniques are therefore applied “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 example, a decision on where to
put a transmission line, would affect a few people. But when it comes to large-scale
projects or programmes such as the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, the resources
and social organisation of communities may be directly affected. This, in turn, may have
significant consequences for individuals, and a thorough investigation is therefore
required. According to Barbour (2007: 10), SIA involves the following key activities:

67
 • Describing and obtaining an understanding of the proposed intervention (type,
scale, location), the communities likely to be affected, and determining the
need and scope of the SIA
• Collecting baseline data on the current social environment and historical
social trends
• Identifying potential alternatives
• Identifying and collecting data on the SIA variables and social change
processes related to the proposed intervention, which requires consultation
with affected individuals and communities
• Assessing and documenting the significance of the social impacts associated
with the proposed intervention
• Assessing the alternatives and identifying potential mitigation measures, and
• Developing a monitoring and evaluation programme.

Self-assessment Activity 5.3

The purpose of this activity is to encourage you to find out more about SIA
practice. Find out about projects happening around you: small, medium -size
or big. Observe what the project entails: Where is it? What is being done?
What are the objectives? What type of impacts may be felt by the community
(positive or negative)?

NB: Remember to observe in a scholarly and respectful manner

5.4.2.1 Is SIA very reliable?

Like CBA, SIA also has many problems that may thwart its effective implementation, and
this has garnered criticism from various sources. Burdge and Vanclay (1995: 44–45),
amongst others, critique social impact assessment. Vanclay (2020: 129) points to the
existence of “many limitations to the effectiveness and the management of social
issues in projects”, mentioning corruption as one such issue. Read the important article
by Vanclay (2020), to learn more about the problems arising from the implementation
of SIA.

5.4.2.2 Social impact assessment in South Africa

The case study by Du Pisani and Sandham (2006) examines how social impact
assessment is used in South Africa, together with environmental impact assessment.
The authors provide a history of SIA in South Africa and the legislation surrounding it.
Having evaluated SIA practices and legislation in the light of international best practice,
they conclude that its use in South Africa reflects typical problems found in other

68
countries. Du Pisani and Sandham (2006) also 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. They
nevertheless argue that SIA is crucial to defending ordinary people’s welfare, and
suggest various improvements in participation, concepts and legislation, in addition to
advocating better training.

The article by Du Pisani and Sandham (2006) 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.

5.4.3 Environmental impact assessment

In the 60s, techniques were developed in the States to appraise the impact which
development plans and projects have 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,
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), less developed countries arguably need
not pay attention to environmental factors; the extent of poverty and
underdevelopment in those countries is appalling, therefore those factors should be
given priority. By contrast, Ruddle and Rondinelli (1983) point to the need to use EIA
techniques in Third-World countries, maintaining that, during the 40s and 50s,
natural resources were thoughtlessly exploited in an attempt to maximise economic
growth.

Third-world countries thoughtlessly exploiting natural resources?

Wood (2015: iv) argues that:

The politics of the global imperial era are having real-world environmental
consequences globally, especially in the former colonies. Indifferent
administration by overseas imperial powers transparently sought to enrich their

69
 home country with little to no thought about the long-term environmental or
political consequences for the colony. One of the main objectives of global
imperialism, from the first Spanish colonies to the last of the British and
Portuguese colonies, was the enhanced profitable extraction of resources.

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. In the past, 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. Current concerns over
water quality due to acid mine drainage in the Gauteng and Mpumalanga provinces
of South Africa attest to the recklessness of mining companies, and their lack of
consideration for not only the future of water, but also the livelihoods of people in
contaminated areas. For these reasons it has become increasingly obvious that the
careful transformation of natural resources – in ways that do not destroy or severely
deplete those that are renewable – is essential for sustained development. Some
communities are vigilant and resist the takeover of their environmental spaces. An
example is the Xolobeni villagers of the Eastern Cape, who have for years been
resisting the proposed titanium mining investment by an Australian company. While
the mining investment would have created jobs for a lot of people, a court judge ruled
in favour of the community’s decision to refuse to allow mining in their community
(Mahlatsi, 2018: 621).

A documentary made by National Science Foundation explains the different points

of view on the impact which mining activities have on communities and the
environment. To listen to these viewpoints, visit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NgQj1nZGXo
(Mining the Bushveld: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT | NSF IRES South Africa |
Documentary).

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 critically important in the final selection of a site for a project, and
• lead to a reformulation and reconsideration of project plans. (Ortolano & Shepherd,
1995: 8–9)

EIA, like CBA and SIA, has been subject to criticism. Sikdar (2021) lists some of the
challenges with EIA, with a particular focus on issues in developing countries:

(i) Non-availability of adequately trained persons

(ii) EIA is often looked upon as a legal or administrative requirement
(iii) EIA tries to justify a project decision already made, and is concerned mainly

70
 with remedial measures
(iv) Early consideration of project alternatives is rarely attempted
(v) EIA models [which are] suitable for the temperate climates of many developed
countries are often applied without necessary modification in developing
countries with tropical or sub-tropical climates, leading to erroneous results and
interpretation
(vi) near total absence of an environmental database, and
(vii) a lack of political will. (Sikdar, 2021: 266)

Self-assessment Activity 5.4

Read section 4, "Who should participate?" in Glucker et al. (2013: 109), in which the
authors unpack participation in EIA processes, and then answer the following multiple-
choice questions:
(1) Which of the following is a term used to define those who should
participate?
(a) focus members (b) stakeholders or citizens (c) interested parties
(2) Which two sets of authors are opposed to the idea that the public has
similar interests?
(a) Burton, and Scott and Ngoran (b) Hughes and Petts (c) Dietz and Stern, and
Petts
(3) When more people and groups participate, it becomes ….
(a) easy to identify and solve the problem (b) difficult to meet their expectations
(c) a democratic EIA process.

5.5 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 technique 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
that does not necessarily offer the greatest economic, social or environmental benefits,
but has the greatest political value or advantage.

It is also important to take note of the contexts within which appraisals are used.
Marara et al. (2011) explain (with a particular focus on EIA) that the socioeconomic
and political situations within the countries of implementation play a crucial role in how
appraisal techniques work. Thus, arguably, the “analysis for determining the
effectiveness of their systems should be undertaken within a relevant framework,
taking into account the specific requirements of those countries” (Marara et al., 2011).

71
Contextual differences give rise to, for instance, EIA practice where SIA is embedded
in the process, making it one appraisal in countries where it is called ESIA –
Environment and Social Impact Assessment. In South Africa, SIA is an extension of
EIA, but in ways that some scholars criticise, while others see benefits in the
combination.

5.6 CONCLUSION
In this learning unit we introduced you to the three best-known and most frequently
used techniques in project appraisal: CBA, SIA and EIA. We pointed out that each of
these has 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 also alerted you to relevant readings that you will find useful
as you seek to better understand these techniques.

5.7 OUTCOMES CHECKLIST

Questions I can do I cannot do

this! this
(1) Demonstrate an understanding of CBA, its
purposes and advantages
(2) Demonstrate an understanding of SIA, its
purposes and advantages in the social
analysis of projects
(3) Demonstrate an understanding of EIA, its
purposes and advantages
(4) Compare the advantages and
disadvantages of CBA, SIA and EIA

72
 LEARNING UNIT 6
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Contents

6.1 Introduction
6.2 Monitoring and evaluation
6.2.1 Types of evaluation
6.2.1.1 Ongoing evaluation
6.2.1.2 Self-evaluation
6.2.1.3 Ex post evaluation
6.3 The relationship between planning, monitoring and evaluation
6.4 Project impact assessment – ex post evaluation
6.4.1 Project assessment criteria
6.5 Participation
6.5.1 Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E)
6.5.2 PM&E in a project cycle
6.5.3 Problems with participatory monitoring and evaluation
6.6 Conclusion
6.7 Outcomes checklist

OUTCOMES
Once you have worked through this learning unit, you should be
able to
• discuss the differences between, 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.

6.1 INTRODUCTION

In this learning unit, we have almost come full circle. In Learning Unit 1, we introduced
you to the concepts of policy, plans, projects and programmes. Next, we introduced
you to the different approaches to planning (units 2 and 3). Data-collection methods
formed the focus of Learning Unit 4. While Learning Unit 5 introduced you to three
appraisal techniques, in this final unit for the module, we introduce you to two methods
used to assess projects and/or programmes.

73
We have come full circle because, if you look at the traditional project cycle and its
steps, that is the path this module has followed (Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1: Side-by-side view of the traditional project cycle and the steps in the
units in this module

We unpacked the steps of the project cycle, introducing you to the different phases.
We skipped the implementation stage, however, not because it is of least concern, but
simply because implementation is determined by the type of project, and each project
is different. As Swanepoel and De Beer (2016: 259) explain:
Although the implementation process has a number of definite steps, the
content is specific to each project and may vary greatly. Because a specific plan
has to be implemented, the mode of implementation differs from project to
project. Like planning, implementation is a situation-specific, step-by-step affair,
unique to each project.

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 which are inaccessible by any other
means. According to Cracknell (2000: 23), participatory monitoring and evaluation
require the following changes: an evaluator becomes a facilitator, a judgemental style

74
becomes one of learning, a restrictive mode becomes one of empowering, and the
focus shifts from once-off 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 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, vital for monitoring and evaluation to
be more participatory, so that stakeholders can take part in the process – that allows
projects to be more effective, since different stakeholders participate in their own
development – that includes the marginalised – while ensuring that the voices of
minorities are heard.

6.2 MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Box 6.1: The definitions of M&E

Monitoring
Monitoring describes the ongoing process of generating information about progress
being made towards the achievement of results. The preoccupation of monitoring
is, therefore, to produce information that allows us to track the performance of
developmental interventions.

Evaluation
Evaluation refers to “an assessment of value”. In the case of developmental
initiatives, this value is often related to intended results, which may be interim or
ultimate. Monitoring and evaluation are complimentary. While monitoring may be
able to track performance, it is unlikely to establish the causes of good or poor
performance. To allow us to determine attributions or contributions for changes that
are being realised, or for performance levels being attained, it is important to
undertake evaluations.

Source: Ile, Eresia-Eke and Allen-Ile (2019)

6.2.1 Types of evaluation

There are several different types of evaluation, including ongoing, built-in, ex post,
impact and self-evaluation.

6.2.1.1 Ongoing evaluation

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

75
6.2.1.2 Self-evaluation
This process means that operational staff must evaluate their own activities, which is
contrary to the general principle that evaluators should not have had any previous
involvement in 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 a project, rather than those
aspects about which outside evaluators might be concerned (Cracknell, 2000: 73).

6.2.1.3 Ex post evaluation

Ex post evaluation refers to evaluations that take place after the implementation
process has been completed (Cracknell, 2000: 74). Evaluation does not have to take
place after the implementation of the project, that is, ex post. It may take place at any
time after the activity has commenced.

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

6.3 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLANNING, MONITORING AND

EVALUATION

A close relationship exists between planning, monitoring and evaluation. The process
of planning is vital for any development project. It is during the planning phase that
development projects are mapped out and conceptualised. The planning processes of
any development project should be inclusive of all stakeholders involved in that
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, and
• A description of what the project aims 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 take place
(Bakewell et al., 2003: 14). There may, however, be political and technical challenges
to monitoring and evaluation, as Kusek and Rist (2004) explain in Box 6.2.

Box 6.2: Political and technical challenges to building a results-based M&E

system

Various political and technical challenges are involved in the building of results-

76
based systems. Political obstacles are often the most difficult to overcome.

The political side of M&E: Implementing results-based M&E systems poses many
political challenges in OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development) and developing countries alike. Above all, it takes strong and
consistent political leadership and will – usually in the form of a political champion –
to institute such a system. Bringing results-based information into the public arena
can change the dynamics of institutional relations, budgeting and resource
allocations, personal political agendas, and public perceptions of governmental
effectiveness. Strong, vested interest groups may also perceive themselves to be
under attack. There may be counterreformers within and outside the government
who actively oppose such efforts. Thus, the role of a political champion is key to
ensuring the institutionalisation and sustainability of results-based M&E systems.

Results-based M&E systems are essential components of the governance structure,

and are thus fundamentally related to the political and power systems of
government. M&E systems provide critical information and empower policymakers
to make better-informed decisions. At the same time, providing such information
may lessen or otherwise constrain the number of options available to politicians,
leaving them less room to maneuver in their policies.

In democracies, information on project, programme and policy results is increasingly

essential, and is expected in the normal course of government operations. It is
assumed that such information can help and guide policymaking. However, M&E
systems may pose special challenges for countries previously ruled by centralised,
authoritarian political regimes. Instituting M&E systems that will highlight outcomes
— both successes and failures — and provide greater transparency and
accountability may be especially challenging – and even alien – to such countries.
It may require a longer time for the political class, citizenry and culture, to adapt and
change.

Finally, one cannot build strong economies on weak governments. Results-based

M&E systems can help to strengthen governments by reinforcing the emphasis on
demonstrable outcomes. Getting a stronger grasp on the workings and outcomes of
economic and governmental programmes and policies can contribute to poverty
reduction, lead to higher economic growth, and aid in the achievement of a wide
range of development goals.

The technical side of M&E — building institutional capacity

Designing and building a reporting system that can produce trustworthy, timely and
relevant information on the performance of government projects, programmes and
policies, require experience, skill and real institutional capacity. This capacity, in a

77
results-based reporting system, must include (at a minimum) the ability to
successfully construct indicators; the means to collect, aggregate, analyse and
report on the performance data in relation to indicators and their baselines; and
managers with the skill and understanding to know what to do with the information
once it arrives.

Building such capacity in governments, for these systems, is a long-term effort.

Some developing countries currently lack the basic capacity to successfully
measure inputs, activities and outputs. All countries will, however, eventually need
to be able to technically monitor and track at each level of the results-based M&E
system – at the input, activity, output (implementation), outcome and impact (goal)
levels.

Statistical capacity is an essential component of building results-based M&E

systems. Information and data should be valid, verifiable, transparent and widely
available to the government and interested stakeholders – including the general
public. This may be difficult for some governments that would prefer not to disclose
and share data for political reasons, or are seeking to hide corruption.

Technically trained staff and managers, and at least basic information technology,
are also a must. In some cases, donor-supported technical assistance and training
will first be necessary, for the country to produce a minimum of information and data
to start building an M&E system. For example, a recent assessment found that
capacity building for key national officials in results-based M&E and performance-
based budgeting will be needed in the Arab Republic of Egypt (World Bank, 2001c).
In Colombia, government officials have commissioned an external evaluation of
major projects, while simultaneously building internal evaluation capacity.

Sometimes a great deal of data are collected in a country, but there may not be
much understanding of how to use those data. Collecting and dumping large
amounts of data on managers is not helpful. Providing mounds of data and no
analysis will not generate the information needed, to improve programmes.

How much information and data are enough? Obviously, decision makers seldom
have all the information they need when they need it. This is a common dilemma
with respect to managing in any organisation. Even without perfect data, though, if
the M&E system can provide some analytic feedback, it will help policymakers make
better-informed decisions.

Source: Kusek and Rist (2004: 20–22)

Self-assessment Activity 6.1

78
 After reading the excerpt above from Kusek and Rist (2004), in two
sentences explain why M&E systems are important for governments.

6.4 PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT – EX POST EVALUATION

Ex post evaluation is explained (in section 6.1.1.3) as the project assessment that
takes place after the project plans have been executed. When looking at the traditional
project cycle, you may picture that happening as the circle closes, that is, at the end
of the project cycle. A number of such assessments are done on public or government-
funded projects, to determine what impact that the project has had. Such impact
assessments often answer the following questions:
• Was the intended objective achieved?
• Are the results directly linked to the project, or are they the results of other
factors?
• Are there any unintended outcomes – positive or negative – as a result of the
project?
• Can the project be seen as the most effective intervention method?
• Are the project impacts the same across all beneficiaries? (Maphosa, 2010: 30)

To illustrate that impact assessments are necessary to avoid the same mistakes from
being repeated in new projects, below is a case study of an agricultural project.

Case study 6.1: Vukuzenzele Agricultural Project

The Gauteng Department of Agriculture introduced a poverty relief programme,

where identified communities would receive grants for household food security
projects. A group of women and men in Refilwe township heard about this and
approached their councilor for assistance with becoming part of the programme. In
1998, a business plan for an agricultural project was approved for funding with a
grant totaling R60,438.00. This is how the Vukuzenzele Agricultural Project came
about, with a membership of 25 women and 12 men. However, when the project
was finally launched in 1999, half the women and men had dropped out, leaving the
project with 15 women and six men.

The Vukuzenzele project, run on two hectares of land, had been provided with an
irrigation system, a borehole, fencing, a water tank, electricity, fertiliser and seeds.
With the irrigation system, the project had water all year round. The Vukuzenzele
members also received additional assistance from De Beers mining in the form of
seedlings, chicks and chicken feeds, as well as training from Technikon Pretoria on
organic farming and another basic course on vegetable production. The project was
going so well that, in 2000, the members received the Female Farmer of the Year
award, as well as a bronze medal from the French Agriculture minister, as well as a

79
 cash award of R10 000 and several other certificates of recognition. The project was
able to feed some orphanages and even to sell surplus produce, making it possible
for members to receive monthly dividends. Plans to diversify their activities were
already in the implementation phase, with additional structures for a piggery project.

By 2009, the Vukuzenzele Agricultural Project was a picture of bleakness, with a

pumpkin plant here, overgrown grass there, beds of spinach here, a handful of
carrots and pest-infected peach trees there. The poultry infrastructure was no longer
in use. Project membership had also dwindled to only five women. The water for
irrigation was still there, the tank also still in shape, but project funding had been
exhausted, and the members were now on their own.

Source: Adapted from Maphosa (2010).

6.4.1 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 the project work? Do project technologies and
arrangements function to produce the intended results? If there are problems with
producing results, why is this? What could be done to fix things?
Efficiency: How much does it cost to run the project? If results are forthcoming, how
expensive are they in terms of the various resources (time, money, personnel,
equipment, and so on)? Is the cost sustainable?
Appropriateness: Do community members find the project beneficial? Are the results
of the project acceptable to all stakeholders? Are there any stakeholders? If not, why
not? Are the results acceptable? Why/why not?
Adequacy: If the project is producing benefits, how are they distributed? Do all
stakeholder groups benefit? Do they all benefit equally? Are any groups left out? If so,
why is this happening? 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 measures be taken? If so, what should be the
focus?
Learning: What new knowledge has been gained through the project? Who has
learned what? Why is learning important? How will this learning be used in the future?
Replicability: Given the experience of this project, can it be replicated elsewhere? If
so, what (if anything) should be changed or improved? If not, why not? Do better
project models or options exist?

80
6.5 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/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, and
will increasingly deepen, once community members become more confident and more
involved in monitoring and evaluation (Bakewell et al., 2003: 13).

6.6.1 Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E)

PM&E aims to raise awareness of weaker or more marginalised groups, and often
raises sensitive issues related to responsibility, accountability and performance.
According to Estrella (2000: 7), PM&E can be used beyond the community and the
project level: it can also be used by larger institutions to improve institutional
accountability and organizational development, and thus strengthen participation in
democratic processes in the larger society.

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 increasingly involved in M&E. It is important that participation in M&E be
inclusive, and not restricted to dominant stakeholders (Bakewell et al., 2003: 13).
Table 6.1 shows the process of participation, and how it gradually becomes part of
PM&E.

Table 6.1: The process of participation

Type of participation Description

1. Passive participation This stage involves stakeholders merely responding

to requests for information, and not playing any other
role in M&E processes
2. Increasing involvement These stages involve stakeholders volunteering
information and playing a role in demonstrating how

81
 the information can be used for optimal results
3. Active participation This stage involves stakeholders actively deciding
how to collect and use information. Stakeholders
play a role in data collection and analysis
4. Ownership/empowerment Stakeholders play a key role in deciding how to
measure the progress of the project and which
indicators to use. They can also hold the
implementers of the project(s) to account

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

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

As Estrella (2000: 7) points out, PM&E may be used for improving project planning
and implementation. In this case, it is used as a project management tool to provide
stakeholders and project managers with information to determine whether the
objectives of the project were met, and whether the resources were used fruitfully.
When done properly, participatory evaluation promotes empowerment, confidence,
self-esteem and independence.

According to Estrella (2000: 10), the literature raises the following points regarding the
practice of PM&E:
• The concept of participation needs to be clarified
• Appropriate methodologies 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.

6.6.2 PM&E in a project cycle

A project cycle is a very simple yet useful concept because every project passes
through a sequence of stages, including project identification, preparation, appraisal
and supervision/implementation. According to Cracknell (2000: 95), the project cycle
was originally developed and used by donor agencies to help them manage their aid-
funded projects. MacArthur regards his version of the project cycle as “different” from
other published versions, since it 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

82
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.

6.6.3 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, problems are encountered in
implementing the participatory approach.

Not all beneficiaries are literate; in such cases, the participatory approach will have to
be limited, to help those people. Cracknell (2000: 335) asserts that visual forms of
communication (videos, maps, models or photographs, etc.) should be used to
encourage the 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 service
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, which poses a threat
to the system. In some instances, women are not allowed to participate because of
their cultural backgrounds. In this case, their involvement should be taken into
consideration so that they can make an input to the projects affecting them (see the
article by Kanji [2004]). It is imperative to ensure full participation on the part of the
beneficiaries, from the start of the project.

Read the articles by Kanji (2004) and Plottu and Plottu (2010), to learn more
about the gendered constraints to participation, and the advantages and
disadvantages of participatory evaluation, respectively.

83
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-assessment Activity 6.2

Read the article by Boadu and Ile (2019) (on the e-reserves) which
highlights the issue of power in participatory monitoring and evaluation, then explain
the case study’s specific challenges in implementing a participatory approach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.7 CONCLUSION

Monitoring and evaluation are integral processes in a project cycle, and the most
important element thereof is participation. Participatory monitoring and evaluation
have a highly significant impact on communities and stakeholders. This process
encourages communities to become actively involved throughout the development
process – from planning, to implementation, monitoring and evaluation. These
communities can become better decision makers and managers. Developing local
capacities is crucial, as communities are required to demonstrate both efficiency and
effectiveness.

6.6 OUTCOMES CHECK LIST

Questions I can do this! I cannot do this

(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

84
References

Ashley, E.M., Takyi, H. & Obeng, B. 2016. Research methods: quantitative and
qualitative approaches to scientific inquiry. Accra, Ghana: Advent Press.

Asian Development Bank. 2013. Cost-benefit analysis for development: a practical

guide. The Philippines: Asian Development Bank

Aune, J.B. 2000. Logical Framework Approach and PRA – mutually exclusive or
complementary tools for project planning? Development in Practice, 10(5): 687–690.
DOI: 10.1080/09614520020008850

Bakewell, O., Adams, J. & Pratt, B. 2003. Sharpening the development process: a
practical guide to monitoring and evaluation. Oxford: INTRAC.

Bakewell, O. & Garbutt, A. 2005. The use and abuse of the logical framework
approach. Sida-SEKA – Resultatredovisningsprojekt [Online]. Available at:
https://www.alnap.org/system/files/content/resource/files/main/the-use-and-abuse-of-
the-logical-framework-approach.pdf [Accessed 1 August 2023].

Barbour, T. 2007. Guideline for involving social assessment specialists in EIA

processes. Western Cape: Department of Environmental Affairs and Development
Planning.

Beazley, H. & Ennew, J. 2006. Participatory methods and approaches: tackling the
two tyrannies. In: Desai, V. & Potter, R. eds., Doing development research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 189–199.

Boadu, E.S. & Ile, I. 2019. Between power and perception: understanding youth
perspectives in participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) in Ghana. Evaluation
and Program Planning, 77: 1–8.

Boardman, A.E., Greenberg, D.H., Vining, A.R. & Weimer, D.L. 1996. Cost-benefit
analysis: concepts and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

85
Bowonder, B., Prasad, S.S.R. & Reddy, R. 1987. Project siting and environment
impact assessment in developing countries. Project Appraisal, 2(1).

Braf, E. 2002. Knowledge or information - what makes the difference? Organizational

Semiotics, 94: 71–90.

Branch, K., Hooper, D.A., Thompson, J. & Creighton, J. 1984. A guide to social
assessment: a framework for assessing social change. Boulder, Co: Westview.

Burdge, R.J. & Vanclay, F. 1995. Social impact assessment. In: Vanclay, F. &
Bronstein, D.A., eds. Environmental and social impact assessment. Chichester: Wiley.

Campbell, R., Greeson, M., Karim, N., Shaw, J. & Townsend, S. 2013. Evaluating the
work of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) programs in the criminal justice
system: a toolkit for practitioners. Research report submitted to the US Department of
Justice. [Online]. Available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-42523-008
[Accessed 20 August 2023].

Cannon, J. 2019. Dam in Ethiopia has wiped out indigenous livelihoods, report finds.
Mongabay Series: Indigenous Peoples and Conservation. [Online]. Available at:
https://news.mongabay.com/2019/06/dam-in-ethiopia-has-wiped-out-indigenous-
livelihoods-report-finds/ [Accessed 2 August 2023].

Chadburn, O., Anderson, C., Venton, C.C. & Selby, S. 2013. Applying cost-benefit
analysis at a community level: a review of its use for community-based climate and
disaster risk management. London: Oxfam. [Online]. Available at:
https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/303558/rr-cost-
benefit-analysis-tearfund-010313-
en.pdf;jsessionid=0B8224085636391080209C14E7FBB6C8?sequence=12
[Accessed 2 August 2023].

Chambers, R. 1994. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): analysis of experience. World

Development, 22(9): 1253–1268.

86
Chambers, R. & Pettit, J. 2004. Shifting power to make a difference. In Groves, L. &
Hinton, R., eds., Inclusive aid: changing power and relationships in international
development. London: Earthscan.

Conyers, D. & Hills, P. 1984. An introduction to development planning in the Third

World. Chichester: Wiley.

Cracknell, B.E. 2000. Evaluating development aid: issues, problems and solutions.
London: Sage.

De Beer, F.C., Rakolojane, M.J., Treurnicht, S.P., Mokgupi, W.K., Plaatjie, S.R.,
Stewart, P.D.S. & Cornwell, L. 2015. Projects and programmes as instruments of
development: Only study guide for DVA2601. Pretoria: Unisa.

DfID (Department for International Development). 2003. Logical frameworks. In: Tools
for development: a handbook for those engaged in development activity. London:
DFID, pp. 5.1–5.9.

Du Pisani, J.A. & Sandham, L.A. 2006. Assessing the performance of SIA in the EIA
context: a case study of South Africa. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
26(8).

DWAF (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry). 2005. Logical framework approach
project planning: preparing and documenting a project. Pretoria: DWAF.

Estrella, M., ed. 2000. Learning from change: issues and experience in participatory
monitoring and evaluation. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Gasper, D. 2000. Logical frameworks: problems and potentials. Rotterdam: Erasmus

University. [Online]. Available at: https://www.alnap.org/system/files/content/
resource/files/main/the-use-and-abuse-of-the-logical-framework-approach.pdf
[Accessed 15 July 2022].

George, C. 2018. Unravelling the critical role of project manager in project

87
management success. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 9(3):
189–194.

Glucker, A.N., Driessen, P.P.J., Kolhoff, A. & Runhaar, H.A.C. 2013. Public
participation in environmental impact assessment: why, who and how? Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 43: 104–111.

Golini, R., Landoni, P. & Kalchschmidt, M. 2017. The adoption of the logical framework
in international development projects: a survey of non-governmental organizations,
International Journal of Project Management, 33(3). DOI:
10.1080/14615517.2017.1354643

Heywood, A. 2013. Politics, 4th ed. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hlabangane, N. 2021. The underside of modern knowledge: an epistemic break from

western knowledge. In Steyn, M. & Mpofu, W., eds., Decolonising the human.
Johannesburg: Wits University Press, pp. 164–185.

Hwang, K. 2016. Cost-benefit analysis: its usage and critiques. Journal of Public
Affairs, 16(1): 75–80.

Ile, I.U., Eresia-Eke, C. & Allen-Ile, C. 2019. Monitoring and evaluation of policies,
programmes and projects, 2. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Kanji, N. 2004. Reflections on gender and participatory development. Participatory

Learning and Action, 50: 53–62.

Katz, S.M. 1975. Striving for the heavenly society: the tactics of development.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.

Kuchta, D., Sukpen, J. & Technology, W.U. 2013. Culture and project management.
Journal of Intercultural Management, 5: 23–38.

Kusek, J.Z. & Rist, R.C. 2004. A handbook for development practitioners: ten steps to

88
a results-based monitoring and evaluation system. Washington, DC: World Bank.
[Online]. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/dac/peer-
reviews/World%20bank%202004%2010_Steps_to_a_Results_Based_ME_System.p
df

MacArthur, J.D. 1994. The project sequence: a composite view of the project cycle.
In: MacArthur, J.D. & Weiss, J., eds., Agriculture, projects and development: papers
in honour of David Edwards. Aldershot: Avebury.

Magaisa, A.T. 2004. Knowledge protection in indigenous communities: the case of

indigenous medical knowledge systems in Zimbabwe. PhD thesis. University of
Warwick, UK.

Mahlatsi, M.L.S. 2018. The peasants revolt: analysing the role of the democratic state
in the struggle for land and environmental justice in Xolobeni, Eastern Cape, South
Africa. Journal of Public Administration, 53(2): 615–631.

Maphosa, B. 2010. An evaluation of the impact of state water provision on rural

development: The case of the Vukuzenzele Project. Master’s dissertation. University
of South Africa.

Maphosa, B. 2016. Alleviating poverty through resource provision: the case of a South
African agricultural project. International Journal of African Renaissance Studies,
11(1): 45–63.

Marara, M., Okello, N., Kuhanwa, Z., Douven, W., Beevers, L. & Leentvaar, J. 2011.
The importance of context in delivering effective EIA: Case studies from East Africa.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(3): 286–296. DOI:
10.1016/j.eiar.2010.10.002

Mickelwait, J.R. 1979. Information strategies for implementing rural development. In:
Honadle, G. & Klauss, R., eds., International development administration. New York:
Praeger.

89
Moris, J.R. 1981. Managing induced rural development. Bloomington, Ind: Indiana
University.

Morris, P.W.G. 2013. Reconstructing project management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons.

Mubita, A., Libati, M. & Mulonda, M. 2017. The importance and limitations of
participation in development projects and programmes. European Scientific Journal,
13(5).

Nake, F. 2002. Data, information, and knowledge: a semiotic view of phenomena in

organizations. Organizational Semiotics, 94: 41–50.

Nas, T.F. 2016. Cost-benefit analysis: theory and application. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.

Naybour, P. 2014. Project management: an introduction. Association for Project

Management (APM). Blog, 14 May. Available at: https://www.apm.org.uk/blog/project-
management-an-introduction/

Nkondo, M. 2012. Indigenous African knowledge systems in a polyepistemic world:

the capabilities approach and the translatability of knowledge systems. Paper
presented at the Southern African Regional Colloquium on Indigenous African
knowledge systems: methodologies and epistemologies for research, teaching,
learning and community engagement in higher education. Howard College Campus,
University of KwaZulu-Natal.

Nolan, R. 2002. Development anthropology: encounters in the real world. Cambridge,

MA: Westview Press.

Noyoo, N. 2007. Indigenous knowledge systems and their relevance for sustainable
development: a case of southern Africa. In: Boon, E.K. & Hens, L., eds., Indigenous
knowledge systems and sustainable development: relevance for Africa. India: Kamla-
Raj Enterprises.

90
Ortolano, L. & Shepherd, A. 1995. Environmental impact assessment. In: Vanclay, F.
& Bronstein, D.A. eds., Environmental and social impact assessment. Chichester:
Wiley.

Phillips, J.J., Brantley, W. & Phillips, P.P. 2012. Project management ROI: a step-by-
step guide for measuring the impact and ROI for projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.

Plottu, B. & Plottu, E. 2011. Participatory evaluation: the virtues for public governance,
the constraints on implementation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 20: 805–824.

Pohl, J. 2001. Transition from data to information. San Luis Obispo, CA: Collaborative
Agent Design Research Center.

Pretty, J.N., Guijt, I., Scoones, I. & Thompson, J. 1995. A trainer’s guide for
participatory learning and action. London: International Institute for Environment and
Development.

Rietbergen-McCracken, J. & Narayan, D. 1998. Participation and social assessment:

tools and techniques. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Rondinelli, D.A. 1983. Development projects as policy experiments: an adaptive

approach to development administration. London: Methuen.

RSA (Republic of South Africa). 2011. A review of the National Development Plan:
advancing implementation – towards a more capable nation. Pretoria: National
Planning Commission.

Ruddle, K. & Rondinelli, D.A. 1983. Transforming natural resources for human
development: a resource systems framework for development policy. Tokyo: United
Nations University.

Schönhuth, M. & Kievelitz, U. 1994. Participatory learning approaches; rapid rural

appraisal; participatory rural appraisal: an introductory guide. Rossdorf: TZ

91
Verlagsgesellschaft.

Senanayake, S.G.J.N. 2006. Indigenous knowledge as a key to sustainable

development. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2: 87–94.

Sikdar, P.K. 2021. Environmental impact assessment. In: Sikdar, P.K., ed.,
Environmental management: issues and concerns in developing countries. Cham:
Springer. [Online]. Available at: https://0-doi-org.oasis.unisa.ac.za/10.1007/978-3-
030-62529-0_12

Spiller, M. & Deng, Y. 2013. Cost-benefit analysis – key features and future directions.
International Symposium for Next Generation Infrastructure, 1–4 October,
Wollongong, Australia.

Srinivasan, R. 2014. Managing projects. In: Strategic business decisions. New Delhi:
Springer. [Online]. Available at: https://0-doi-org.oasis.unisa.ac.za/10.1007/978-81-
322-1901-9_12

Swanepoel, H. & De Beer, F.C. 2011. Community development: breaking the cycle of
poverty. 5th ed. Lansdown: Juta.

Swanepoel, H. & De Beer, F.C. 2016. Community development: Breaking the cycle of
poverty. 6th ed. Lansdown: Juta.

The World Bank Group. 2010. Cost-benefit analysis in World Bank projects.
Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World
Bank.

Tisdell, C. 1985. Project evaluation and social cost-benefit analysis in LDCs: awkward
issues for a useful approach. Development Southern Africa, 2(1).

UN (United Nations). 1993. Managing the development project: a training curriculum.

New York: UN Department of Development Support and Management Services.

92
Vanclay, F. 2017. Project-induced displacement and resettlement: from
impoverishment risks to an opportunity for development? Impact Assessment and
Project Appraisal, 35(1): 3–21.

Vanclay, F. 2020. Reflections on social impact assessment in the 21st century. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(2): 126–131.

Volden, G.H. & Welde, M. 2022. Public project success? Measuring the nuances of
success through ex-post evaluation. International Journal of Project Management.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.06.006

Watt, A. 2016. Project management. Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong.

Webb, J.A., Watts, R.J., Allan, C. & Conallin, J.C. 2018. Adaptive management of
environmental flows. Environmental Management, 61: 339–346.

Wood, L. 2015. The environmental impacts of colonialism. BSU Honors Program

Theses and Projects, item 119. [Online]. Available at:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/48835717.pdf

93