self-training workshop for participative programming approach ….., le../../200
TRANSCRIPT
SELF-TRAINING WORKSHOP
for
PARTICIPATIVE PROGRAMMING APPROACH
….., le ../../200.
WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES
• To acquire the key concepts of the participative programming approach (PPA)
• To well identify and get familiar with the five steps of the programming logic
• To practice a participative approach from a real situation setting
• To observe the possibilities of application in your practical professional life
KEY PRINCIPLES SUPPORTING a PARTICIPATIVE APPROACH
• A continuous process of formal and unformal information exchange
• A valorisation of the traditional knowledge including oneselves responsabilities
• An iterative and evolutive process, respecting the rythm and the preoccupations of the community
• A flexibility and a creativity in the approach, as well as an inter-activity within the actors
• A transversal, dynamic and systemic approach,
• A role of transmitting for the communities, and of receiving for the facilitating team.
PARTICIPATIVE, PARTICIPATING or POWER SHARING
AUTONOMYDECENTRALISATION
Autonomous actors ; piloting tehnical teams ; management and control – searching for financing
CO-MANAGEMENT
PARTNERSHIPResponsible actors with whom we share decision makings ; support to the emerging of local organisations
CONCERTATION
NEGOCIATIONPassive actors who just give advices or ask for questions
ASSOCIATION Consulted actors who give informations
CONTRIBUTION TO Passive actors who contribute with manpower or money.
PROJECT CYCLE MANAGEMENT
OBSERVATION of the SITUATION
PROBLEM ANALYSIS
OBJECTIVES PROGRAMMING
ACTION PLAN
IMPLEMENTATIONACTIVITIES
PROGRAMMING
FOLLOW UP
EVALUATION
1
2
3
4
5
ADAPTATION
The DIFFERENT KNWOLEGES
• Knwoledge of the layman (the communities)
• Practical knowledge (the professionals)• Scientific knowledge (the experts)• Institutional knowledge (les autorities)
The fact of having different knowleges all together improves the field of experience
The GUIDANCES
• The LOBBYING
• The EXPERIENCE
• MONEY
• The « SCREENING » SOLUTIONS
Getting conscious of the guidances help avoiding manipulations and deviancy
The RANGE of PROBLEMS
NEEDSobserved by theprofessionals
Range ofPROBLEMSleading toa project
DEMANDSexpressed by
thecommunity
RESOURCES andlocal ‘KNOW-
HOW’
The RANGE of PROBLEMS (fed.)
NEEDS
DEMANDS
‘KNOW-HOW’
PROBLEMS
observed by the professionals
experienced by the community
existing locally
can lead to a project
The FIVE STAGES of PROGRAMMING LOGIC
The five stages are :Stage I – observation of the situationStage II – analysis of the problem(s)Stage III – programming of objectives and
strategyStage IV – action planStage V – evaluation of programming and
programming of evaluations
YOUR EXPECTATIONS ?
WHAT ARE YOUR SPECIFIC EXPECTATIONS AT THE END OF
THIS TRAINING WORSHOP RELATED TO PARTICIPATIVE PROGRAMMING APPROACH ?
PARTICIPATIVE PROGRAMMING APPROACH
PARTICIPATIVEThe participants are the autonomous actors of their project
PROGRAMMINGThe workshop is designed to follow the five stages of
programming logic
APPROACHLeading participants on the way of their own programming
The SWOT EVALUATION
STRENGHTS(linked to organisation – organisational & managerail factors, technical & financial
factors…- which might be controlled)
WEAKNESSES( linked to the organisation and which one has to try hard to get rid off )
OBSTACLES (linked to environmental factors – économicals, institutionals, socio-culturals,
géographics, technologicals…- which one needs to avoid)
TRIUMPHS (the « foundation stones » on which one should build the future)
The ORIGINALITY of PPA• Importance given to the analysis of problems and
their causes, validated by indicators• Implication of the maximum of actors, coming
from various areas, in the programming, the follow-up and the evaluation of the process
• The concern of identifying the determinant causes and target or « at risk » populations
• The setting of result for each activity ; the activity ends up if the result is reached
• The quick implementation of low-cost and with immediat effect activities, in order to maintain direct beneficiaries motivation.
ASSERTION - INDICATOR« With PPA, the problems are expressed as
assertions and later on validated through surveys and indicators »
• Assertion :proposal (which in its form can be negative or positive) that one puts forward and that one maintains is true (Petit Robert)
• Indicator : variable having the purpose of measuring or assessing a state, an evolution.
Stage I – OBSERVATION of the SITUATION
• The objective Respond to the question : who is/will be the project
bearer ? Analyse the present sutuation / results already
achieved Identify the existing relations and networks Mobilise the actors on priority problems.
• The proposed tool : the systemic representation
SYSTEMIC REPRESENTATION
Institutional Partners
Opérationnal Partners
PROJECT BEARER(S) PROBLEMS
EFFECTS
REALISATIONS
(dated)
SWOT ANALYSIS of SYTEMIC REPRESENTATION
S Oroject bearer
Partners
Problems/ effects
realisations
-----------
----------
---------
---------
W Oroject bearer
Partners
Problems/ effects
realisations
-----------
----------
----------
----------
O -----------
----------
---------
----------
T Oroject bearer
Partners
Problems/ effects
realisations
------------
-----------
-----------
-----------
Oroject bearerPartnersProblems/ effectsrealisations
PPA stage I (fed)MOBILISATION AROUND PRIORITY PROBLEMS
The objectives : – identify problems – Get agreement on the two or three problems
considered as priority ones
The proposed tools :– The « round sheets » method– The consensus– The priorisation grid
PROBLEM DEFINITION
A problem is a situation where a human being feels a lack, a difficulty, a discomfort, an insatisfaction, a frustration in front of an established fact.
The fact of expressing it, gives energy to fight against it.
The problem formulationExample :
“there is no water ”however, there is water but it is not drinkable
“there is no drinking water ”however, there is drinking water but not a regular supply
“there is no regular supply of drinking water”however some people have a regular supply of drinking water because they live close to boundary springs
situated at the head of river system
“it is difficult for persons living far from the border springs situated at the head of the river system to have regular access to drinking water”
however the problem only really exists during the dry season
“ during the dry season, it is difficult for people living far from border springs situated at the head of the river system, to have regular access to drinking water”
The PRIORISATION GRID
CRITERIA
PROBLEM
NUMERIC IMPORTANCE
of the PROBLEM
REPERCUSSION
of the PROBLEM
ENVISAGED
MANAGEMENT
of the
PROBLEM
PERCEPTION of the
IMPORTANCE
of the PROBLEM
PROBLEM
N°1 XX X XX XXX
PROBLEM
N° 2 XXX XX XX XXX
PROBLEM
N° 3 XXX XX X XX
Stage I (end) : the VALIDATION
• Has each participant the feeling that his advice has been taken into account ?
• Does each participant consider that the systemic representation is in accordance with his environment ?
• Had each participant positionned himself within the group ?
• Do all participants recognize the considered problems as priotrity ones ?
• Are all participants in agrement with the choice made on programming ?
• Are all participants ready to continue the programming workshop ?
Stage II
PRIORITY PROBLEMS ANALYSIS
The objective : Identify and analyse the causes and the determinant mécanismes of the priority problem(s)
The tools : – Looking for the causes and effects : the
« round sheets » method– Analysis of causes and mécanismes : the
« causal tree »– The validation : looking for indicators
PRIORITY PROBLEMS ANALYSIS (fed)
The steps : – Identify, analyse and validate the effects and
the determinant mécanismes of the priority problem(s)
– Build the « causal tree » of causes and effects while using assertions
– looking for validation’s indicators– Identify the determinant causes as well as the
« at risk »population.
The « ROUND LEAVES » METHOD
Each member of a group take a sheet of paper and write the problem which appears to be priority for him/her (2 to 3 mn maximum) ;
To follow, each participant gives his own shet of paper to his right neighbour, read what is writen, and write the second priority problem while responding to the question : WHY ? …and so on and on until the subject is considered over.
Each group organises itself to designn a president and a rapporteur ; the president gives a sheet at each member ans one starts to take joint steps and decides which problems reach consensus witin the group. Each problem kept by the group is written by tre rapporteur on a small paper ( one problem per paper)
To follow, the individual papers are equitably distributed to each participant ; a first person reads a problem, and one starts to regroup the problems in homogeneous families ; the rapporteur regroups various problems packs ; for each familiy, the group has to reach a consensus on a formulation, existing or to be re-written, which translate in the best way the agreed priority problem
We finish with 3 or 4, or more priority problems, written on different individual papers and translated under a «SITUATION DESCRIPTION »..
EFFECT
RELATION
CAUSE
Rehabilitation
care is too
expensive
Rehabilitation services are
not performing
satisfactorily
There are not enough rehabilit
ation services
They are not able to
follow a complete education
al programm
e
It is impossible to find training
adapted to the disabilities that
disabled persons present
Disabled persons are too
slow in their work
In order that they can work, it is necessary
to make changes in the
business
They don't have enough skills to be able to work
like others
Disability is a divine
punishment
By mixing with disabled
persons, people think that they risk becoming
like them
People are afraid of disabled persons
Disabled persons do not have sufficient abilities to be active
in the community
The community is reluctant to accept disabled persons
Disabled persons do not have the required professional skills
Disabled persons do not always have
the necessary functional abilities to
have an activity
They are rejected and isolated by
others
Disabled persons are not sufficiently integrated into
their community
They cannot meet their
family's needs
People think that it doesn't pay to employ
disabled persons
They feel belittled within their family
Disabled persons arouse
pity
They are often neglected/aband
oned by their partner
You hardly ever see disabled persons
EXAMPLE OF PROBLEM TREE OR CAUSAL TREE
Stage II (fed) LOOKING for INDICATORS
Indicator: Variable used for measuring or assessing a state, an evolution (Petit Robert)
Why identifying the indicators at this stage? The construction of the causal tree is based on a collection
of assertions that must be checked thoroughly
To allow the problem, the causes and the effects to be better qualified, or reformulated
To guarantee the relevance of the project
A « good » indicator must be PERTINENT and MEASURABLE
DETERMINANT CAUSES/« AT RISK » POPULATIONS
• Determinant causes : most often, the causes which are determinant are those which repeat themselves in several roots and/or at several levels of the tree. If the determinant causes are not so obvious, it will be necessary to decide on the causes to which priority should be given (in time or mobilisation of means)
• « At risk » populations : are the people, or groups of people, most exposed to these determinant causes. These populations might be characterised by their geographic situation, their sex/ age, and any other characteristic enabling them to be precisely identified.
Stage II (end) - The Validation• Have we go all around the problem ?• Are all the participants in agrement with :
• The determinant causes ?• The identification of « at risk » areas and
populations ?
• Do the choosen indicators allow the validation of the identified causes ?
• Do we have the means to collect the indicators (surveys to be implemented) ?
• Does each participant get the feeling that one’s advice has been taken into consideration ?
Stage IV – PROGRAMMING of OBJECTIVES and STRATEGIES
Objectives : To establish a pyramid of objectives according to the
general objective, intermediary objective and specific objective method.
Using specific objectives, define a certain number of generic activities as well as the expected results.
Observe if programming activities are achievable and fight well against the determinant causes ;
Observe if the general objective well respond to the priority problem
Identify the activities which might be implemented rapidly and with immediat effects.
Stage III(fed) – The Methodology It is the causal tree which will allows us to construct
this pyramid. The upper levels of the roots are used for identifying the objectives, the medium levels for identifying activities, and the lower levels for identifying the tasks and resources to be mobilised.
The general objective is directly formulated in a positive way based on the problem.
For each activity, to define an expected result within a certain time period
To build a summary table with activities, their indicators, the source of indicators and the expected results
To analyse the cohérence of the programming in a whole – objectives and activities are well responding to the problems and their identified causes.
A « GOOD » OBJECTIVE ?
• An objective must be S.M.A.R.T.– Spécific : has to precisely respond to the identified
problem(s) and causes – Measurable : should have a concrete indicator
allowing one to measure the ongoing realisation – Acceptable : should have been discussed and accepted
by the direct beneficiaries and partners to the project – Réalistic : should be adapted to the local and
environmental conditions of the project realisation – Set up on Time : must be achieved in the time frame
decided for the project.
GENERAL OBJECTVE
STRATEGIE GLOBALE
du PROJET
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
To improve the
financial accessibilit
y of rehabilitatio
n care
To improve the performance of rehabilitation
services
To expand the number of
rehabilitation facilities
To develop and improve
the education of
disabled children
To improve the
accessibility of disabled persons to
professional training centres
ACTIVITIES
Construction and equipping
of new services
Initial training of rehabilitation staff
EXPECTED RESULTS
At the end of the first year
of the project, each province
will have rehabilitation
and prosthesis services
At the end of the second year of the
project, 12 physiotherapists and 8 technicians will be qualified and assigned to the rehabilitation
services
To improve the integration of disabled persons into their community
To improve the functional and professional skills of disabled persons
EXAMPLE OF A PYRAMID CONSTRUCTED FROM THE PROBLEM TREE
INTERME-DIATE OBJECTIVES
OPERATIO-NAL
STRATEGY
To make the community more willing to integrate disabled persons
Example : Disabled Persons• General objective : To contribute to a better life style of
disabled persons into their community• Intermediary objective : improvre the integration of
disabled persons
• Objectifs spécifiques : 1. To improve the quality of kinesitherapy health services
in favor of disabled persons2. To expand the number of rehabilitation facilities with
priority to disabled persons3. To sensitize people versus risks linked to the use of
contaminated water (polio prevention) 4. To improve the accessibility of disabled persons to
professional training centers
Stage III(end) : the VALIDATION :
• Do activities allow reaching expected results ?
• Do activities allow reaching objectives ?
• Are expected results for implementing activities well balanced with involved means ? (rentability)
• Do defined objectives permit to reach the priority problem(s) and its causes ?
• Do available means (human ressources, equipments, financial) allow to achieve programming activities ?
• Are used indicators objective, measurable, easy to collect and read, non-subjective ?
Phase IV – The ACTION PLAN
The objective : : Prepare the implementation of programmed and priority activities (at short, middle and long term) ? to identify the HUMAN resourcesTo tify the MATERIAL and FINANCIAL
resources To identify and choose the ORGANISATIONAL
MEANS for the implementing of activitiesTo establish the TIMEFRAME of the project.
Stage IV : the methodology• The column headings reading from left to right guide the
development of the programming (It is above all, the logic and its development which prevails ; a box or a line can remain empty in the tool, the important thing being to ask the question for each column heading).
• After summing up the needed human resources for each activity, to define in quantity and quality the number of people needed for the whole programme (+ training needs)
• To identify the organisational means for implementing the activities, and to evaluate their cost
• To establish financing needs while identifying owner’s equity
• To programm each activity in a certain time frame.
Indicative grid for the action plan programming (1)
Forces
Activity
Expected
Result
Result’s
Indicator
Source of indicator
Task positive négative
The possible negative effects of
the activity
Pré-
conditions
Indicative grid for the action plan programming (2)
Human Resources Activities Tasks Who ? With who ?
Material Resources
Financial Resources
Chronogramm (when ?)
Chronogramm of activities
Year 1 Year 2 T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4
Activity 1 : Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 ---------
Activity 2 : Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 ---------
--------- --------- --------- ---------
The logical framework - EUVérify indicators
Logic of Intervention
Indicators
Sources of
Vérification
Assumptions
Global Objectives
Specific Objectifs
expected Results
R E V I E W the O B J E C T I V E S
Activities
V E R I F Y the A S S U M P T I O N S
Pré- conditions Pré- conditions
Stage IV(end) – the validation
• Do the human, material and organizational means allow the implementation of programmed activities ?
• Are the participants in agreement with their allocated working task and responsabilities ?
• Did each participant get the feeling that his advice has been taken into consideration ?
Stage V – ÉVALUATE the PROGRAMMING and PROGRAMM the ÉVALUATIONS
The objectives– Evaluate during the programming workshop – Evaluate at short term (at the end of the
workshop and in the month following the workshop)
– Evaluate at middle term (within the 3 or 6 months following the workshop)
– Evaluate at long term (at half time and at the end of the implementing phase).
Stage V (fed) : What is an evaluation ?
• What is an evaluation ?– It is a periodical checking of the project success – It deals with efficacy, pertinence, impact and
viability of the project, in relation with defined objectives
– It is centered on results coming from specific and global objectives
– It analyses the effects of the activities implemented during the project
– It verifies the planning of the project.
Evaluation is not :
• A hidden investigation
• A useless luxury
• An inquisition without dialogue
• A verdict without appeal
• An intrusion to steal power
• A programming workshop.
The follow-up ?
By contrast with evaluation, the FOLLOW-UP :
– is an activity of permanent and systematic management
– compares the evolution of the project with the planning
– is dealing with all the levels of the project management – takes into consideration the formal and unformal
communication relationships– is dealing with resources, activities and results.
The evaluation, what does it respond to ?-
EVALUATION
CONFIRMATION REDIRECT
STOP
An evaluation, in short ?
• A photo, a statement
• A diagnosis, an appreciation
• Recommandations, a decision making tool.
« Evaluate to evolve »
The evaluation criteria• Criteria or view angles to appréciate the action
– EFFICACY : compares results with objectives– EFFICIENCY : compares results with human,
material and financial involved resources + qualitative appreciation of used methodology
– IMPACT : analyses all the positive, negative, forecasted or unexpected effects
– STRATEGY or CONCEPTION : analyse the pertinence of the solution adopted through the project in relation with the initial problem
– VIABILITY : analyse the opportunities for the project to be continued after the external aid had finished.
Who evaluates ?Phases Sponsor Projet
team
external
Evaluator
Project
Partner
beneficiaries
Décision to evaluate X XElaboration of criteria X X XChoice of timing steps X X X X XChoice of evaluation type(internal,external, participatory, auto-évaluat.)
X X X
Choice of evaluators X (X)Collect/ use of informations X X X (X)Participation to restitutions X X X X XDecision making X X
When to evaluate ?Planning Evaluation
1- analysis of needs
2 – choice of priorities
3 – determination of objectives
Evaluation ex-anteStrategic evaluation
4 – implementation planning (activities, resources, chronogramm)
Tactical evaluation
5 – implementation of the
programm
Opérational evaluation
6 – expecting results Evaluation ex-post :
• of results• of the impact & viability
The interest of evaluation ?In short, what does evaluation aiming at ?• Firstly to manage
To estimate the value of resultsTo analyse the past and to programm the future• To who ? – the project team and the beneficiaries
• Next to informMost of the actors of the project• To who ? – all the actors
• Finaly to controlControl the realisation of actions• To who ? – the sponsor
Your final evaluation of the self-training workshop
• Evaluation is related to :– the workshop planning– the pertinence of the working methodologies– the programming approach– the workshop organisation in relation with timing– the benefits to the participants
• Evaluation adresses you complementary demands, your comments and suggestions (free)