Skip to main content

Step 3: Problem Analysis

For each priority problem selected, stakeholders should undertake a problem (cause-effect) analysis. This generally requires additional data. These may include summaries of analyses done on the problems or issues; data or statistics on the problem (the data should be disaggregated by age, gender, socio-economic group and other variables if possible); and results of macro-level capacity assessments, agency or community assessments and so forth. In preparing a country programme, the CCA should provide most of the problem analysis needed. However, in some cases, more than this may be available or sufficient. Also, additional analysis with specific stakeholders may be needed at the project level.



If research and data already exist, the stakeholders should rely on these. Otherwise, it may be necessary to commission new research to better understand the specific issues. Stakeholders should review the findings from any studies prior to embarking on the problem analysis. This will help inform the quality of the group’s analysis of the problems. In many planning exercises, this process takes place a few weeks after the initial problem identification meeting or workshop to allow time for research and data collection.

In some situations, the problem may have been previously identified and presented with an analysis and proposal for the funding partner to consider. A common problem in these situations is that many project proposals are presented to the funding agency with a fixed solution. Quite often, the solution presented only relates to part of a bigger problem. This is often because the agency presenting the proposal tends to be concerned with obtaining financing for the component(s) in which it has a strong interest. For example, an NGO may submit a proposal for assistance to strengthen its capacity to participate in monitoring the national election. While this may be an important project, it is likely that it would only address part of a bigger problem.

Good results-oriented programming requires that all project level proposals be subject to problem analysis to determine whether the stated problem is part of a bigger problem and whether the proposed solution will be adequate to address the challenges. The answers to these questions can sometimes be found, particularly in situations where the projects proposed are within the context of an already designed national programme(Such as poverty Reduction deeper discussions of what the larger problem is and what other actions are needed by different partners to solve that problem. The aim in asking these questions is not to slow down the process of project review and approval but to ensure that problems are analysed properly and appropriate solutions are found. These solutions may involve actions beyond the scope of the specific project. This is one of the differences between a project approach and a results focused approach to development.

level problem analysis. The main purpose of these models is to study the root causes and major effects of problems in order to better design solutions. A well-constructed cause-effect problem analysis diagram will make the process of developing a results map, covered in step 4, much easier. 

Using the problem tree model to undertake the problem analysis (deliverable five), stakeholders will generally:
  • Begin with a major issue or problem identified and write it down on the trunk of the problem tree (see Figure 6). For example, one problem identified may

be “low levels of public confidence and involvement in national and local processes of governance and decision making.”
  • Brainstorm on the major causes of the problem. It is often helpful to consider categories of causes, such as policy constraints, institutional constraints, capacity weaknesses, or social or cultural norms.
  • Brainstorm the possible causes of the problem by asking, “What is causing this to happen?” Stakeholders should try to analyse the issues at a deeper level. They should explore the extent to which the problem has underlying root causes that may be based on exclusion, discrimination and inequality.
  • Attach the answers to the roots of the tree (see Figure 6).
  • For each answer, drill down further by asking, “Why has this happened?” Stakeholders should not stop at the first level of a reason or cause but question whether there is something else behind that cause.
  • Repeat this exercise for each cause identified. Stakeholders should stop when they run out of additional reasons or ideas on what is causing the problem.
  • Once the roots of the problem tree are complete, the group should look to see if it provides a good understanding of what has caused the problem. See if there are sub-causes that are repeated on different roots. These are likely to be priority concerns to be addressed in the results framework.
In the example in Figure 6, the core problem illustrated on the trunk of the tree in the shaded box, “low levels of public confidence and involvement in national and local processes of governance and decision making,” could be considered a programme-level problem. Below the trunk, a narrower problem has been identified, “local levels of public confidence and involvement in electoral systems and processes, particularly among women, indigenous and other marginalized groups.” it might address this challenge at the country programme and projects levels. For illustrative purposes, another lower-level problem has also been identified in the shaded box “social norms, and cultural practices hinder participation by minorities in public decision-making processes.”  this challenge could also be addressed in the country programme and project levels, too. The choice of which level and type of problem to work on depends on the partners involved, their capacities and comparative advantages, and the resources available. The same steps in the problem analysis apply at all levels.

Stakeholders often find it helpful to also show and discuss the effects of the problem. In this case, branches can be created on the problem tree to illustrate how the problem affects the region, country or community. The process involves:
  • Identifying the most direct effects of the problem—They can be classified using the same categories as were used for the analysis of the causes, such as policy constraints, institutional constraints, capacity weaknesses, or social or cultural norms.
  • Identifying the main indirect effects of the problem—For example, because of the low levels of public confidence in processes of governance, few people pay their taxes, a direct consequence or effect, which could lead to other indirect problems.
  • Discussing whether the problem affects men and women differently—Both men and women should have an opportunity to comment during the discussions.
  • Discussing whether particular groups, such as marginalized populations (persons with disabilities, indigenous groups, etc.) are affected—Asking whether their rights and interests are affected.
In the project tree example, the effects of the higher-level problem are captured in the boxes above the trunk. For a lower level (such as project level) tree, the effects would begin with the immediate boxes above the shaded boxes. In both cases, one of the shared effects would be the low voter turnout among marginalized groups.

The main difference in a problem tree diagram for a programme, as opposed to a project, is that the programme-level diagram would normally have a wider range of root causes than the project-level diagram. In other words, the higher the level of the problem identified, the more causes there are likely to be. For example, in the programme-level tree in Figure 6, the problem is stated as low levels of public confidence and involvement in both governance and decision-making. As such, the causes involve problems with not only the electoral processes and systems but also the capacity of the government to engage citizens through other means. Hence, at this level, there will need to be an analysis of both sets of problems. In contrast, the project-level analysis would focus on the causes and effects of only the problem related to the electoral process.

While programme-level problems generally have a wider set of root causes and a more elaborate problem tree, many large or complex projects may also have elaborate problem trees with a wide range of root causes. Even in the causes, whether a project or lower-level problem is the starting point, the analysis should nonetheless lead to the identification of higher-level effects of the problem.

Through this process of looking up at the problem tree, stakeholders are likely to identify other causes of the effect of the problem and may conclude that the immediate solution to the project-level problem identified may not be adequate to address some of these other causes of the higher level effects. For example, assuming a situation where a project identifies weaknesses in the electoral process and systems as a major problem, and identifies the effect would be the low levels of public confidence in the electoral process. In examining this effect, stakeholders should assess what other factors may be contributing to it. In doing so, they may decide to either undertake a bigger project, or they may seek to influence other partners and non-partners to take other actions to solve that high-level effects.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring Definition

Monitoring - Definition  Monitoring is the systematic and continuous collection, analysis, and use of information for quality control and decision-making related to the projects. It involves the ongoing and routine review of projects to verify whether they are developing according to plan and budgetary requirements and whether adjustments may be needed to achieve intended goals.  Purpose of Monitoring  The primary aim of monitoring is to improve the quality of projects during implementation. Through monitoring, ineffective efforts are identified and rectified, and remarkably effective actions are appreciated.  Monitoring enables us to answer these questions and then make important decisions to improve the quality of projects and their implementation:  Are project inputs (finance, personnel, materials, etc.) available on time and in the right quantities and quality?  Are activities being implemented according to the project design and on schedule  Ar...
1 comment
Read more

Definition (Planning)

Planning can be defined as the process of setting goals, developing strategies, outlining implementation arrangements, and allocating resources to achieve those goals. It is important to note that planning involves looking at several different processes: Identifying the vision, goals, or objectives to be achieved. Formulating the strategies needed to complete the vision and goals Determining and allocating the resources (financial and other) required to achieve the vision and goals Outlining implementation arrangements, which include the arrangements for monitoring and evaluating progress toward achieving the vision and goals The expression “failing to plan is planning to fail.” While it is not always true that those who fail to plan will eventually fail in their endeavors, there is strong evidence to suggest that having a plan leads to greater effectiveness and efficiency. Not having a plan—whether for an office, program or project—is in some ways similar to attempting to build a hous...
Post a Comment
Read more

Objectives of Project Evaluation

It is impor tant to evaluate the outcomes that a project achieves and to feedback the evaluation results, lessons, and recommendations obtained for more effective and efficient implementation of development assistance. The harsh economic and fiscal situations at home have generated a strong call to the organization for more effective and efficient implementation and to ensure accountability. The enhancement of evaluation has drawn attention as one of a major improvement measures. In addition, there are changes in the political landscape such as the adoption of public sector evaluation by ministries and the reorganization of agencies into Independent Administrative Institutions (IAI) that ask for improvements of the evaluation system.  Evaluation is a tool for judging as objectively as possible the relevance and effectiveness of organization’s cooperation activities at four different stages during the project cycle: ex-ante, mid-term, terminal, and ex-post. The primary objectivethe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Step 4: Creating the Vision of the future

Based on the problem analysis, stakeholders should engage in a process of formulating solutions. This exercise may simply involve rewording the problems and their causes into positive statements or objectives. However, stakeholders should first engage in a visioning process before rewording the problems. The aim of this process is to visualize what the future would look like if the problems were resolved. The benefits of doing a visioning process before rewording the problems include the following: Visioning brings energy to the group. Rather than immediately beginning another detailed process of working on each problem, groups can be energized by thinking positively about what the future would look like if these problems were solved. This exercise encourages creativity and helps ensure that the process is not too analytical and methodical. TIP  Visioning process to have prior knowledge or understanding of the results chain or logical framework model. In fact, in the initial stages...
1 comment
Read more

Database-Based Monitoring/Tracking

In this approach to monitoring, achievements in terms of numbers (of inputs, activities and outputs) are collected and stored in the project/central databases regularly and presented in an identified frequency against the contractual targets in order to establish whether the project . is leading towards achieving its targets. This approach to monitoring authenticates the progress of the project toward the intended targets. It is important to remember the following when conducting database-based monitoring: The reports drawn on the overall target population, but not sampled; Mostly captures quantities only; Not field-based. Usually performed in the capital office; Types-and-scope-of-monitoring, the officer/staff are responsible for the final products; however, database staff must coordinate necessary data gathering, storing, and analysis. M&E practices two types of tracking under this approach to monitoring in general: Indicator Tracking: Tracking contractual indicators is cruc...
Post a Comment
Read more

Types and Scope of Monitoring

  Types and Scope of Monitoring  While there are several types of monitoring, M&E mainly focuses on performance monitoring, that is, the monitoring of project inputs, activities/processes, outputs, and outcomes in the field.              Inputs: checking that the resources needed for the intervention are mobilized as planned. Example Indicators: The tools are available in sufficient quality and quantity to enable an efficient CFW process The funds are available on time to the money vendors to enable timely cash distribution to the beneficiaries Activities/Processes: checking that project activities are carried out as planned; assessing the implementation method. Example Indicators:     A complaints response mechanism is operational in the areas of interventio % of selected households meets the targeting criteria  % of targeted households receiving the correct amount  % households reporting good or fair s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Planning Process

This chapter provides step-by-step guidance on how to undertake planning for results. It focuses on the tasks involved in planning for desired results and includes  considerations  for operationalizing results. As noted earlier, monitoring and evaluation are closely related to planning. Therefore, in planning, it is essential to consider not only intended results   but also how results, and the process of achieving them, will be monitored and evaluated. In particular, planning needs to ensure that planned  gives initiatives  are evaluation-ready. Planning can be done in many different ways. This chapter is designed to make the persons involved in planning more comfortable with the main steps involved in preparing a plan that can be implemented, monitored, and evaluated. The actions and approaches recommended generally apply to all planning processes, whether for a global, regional, or country program; a project; or ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Step 5: Creating Dradft Results Map

This step provides guidance on how to create a draft results map using what is commonly referred to as a ‘results mapping technique’.  Developing the draft results map can be time- consuming but is extremely worthwhile. The fundamental question that stakeholders in the planning session should answer is “What must be in place for us to achieve the vision and objectives that we have developed in the particular problem area?” Creating a set of positive results A good starting point in creating a results map is to take each major problem identified on the trunk of the problem tree and reword it as the immediate positive result with longer-term positive results or effects. For example, if the problem were stated as “low public confidence and involvement in governance” the immediate positive result could be “greater public confidence and involvement in governance.” This could lead to longer term positive results such as “wider citizen participation in elections, particularly by women, in...
Post a Comment
Read more

Finalizing the result frame work

At this stage of the process, stakeholders should be ready to begin converting the results map into a results framework. In many situations, a smaller group of stakeholders is engaged in this undertaking. However, the wider group can participate in preparing a rough draft of the framework, using simple techniques and without going into the details and mechanics of RBM terminologies CREATING THE DRAFT RESULT FRAMEWORK Table 5 provides a starting point for converting the results map into a draft framework for  programme and project documents. It shows how to translate some general terms and questions used in the planning session into the common programming language. The table can be used to produce an initial draft of the results framework with all or most stakeholders. It can be particularly helpful at the project level or in situations involving a diverse group of stakeholders. FORMULATING STRONG RESULTS AND INDICATORS Having a smaller group of persons with greater familiarity wit...
Post a Comment
Read more

Types of Project Evaluation

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs “Report on Improvement of ODA Evaluation System,” released in March 2000, classified ODA evaluation into three levels: policy-level, program-level, and project-level, as shown in Figure 1-1-2. The report called for enhancement of policy- and program-level evaluation. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs conducts policy-level evaluations such as Country Assistance Program and Sector-specific Initiatives, as well as program-level evaluation by sectors and schemes. JICA conducts program- and project-level evaluations. How to evaluate JICA’s management cycle is illustrated in Figure 1-1-3. There are two cycles: the “small cycle” (project cycle) and the “large cycle” (program cycle)-The information source is from JICA. 
1 comment
Read more