Message-ID: <35A7C9B0.EC81D876@internet.idrc.ca> Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 16:23:12 -0400 From: Sam Lanfranco <mailto:lanfran@INTERNET.IDRC.CA> Subject: Consultants, ICT and Better Project Delivery To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------853CC8B76A14D1270F0D8B36 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bitIt can be argued that the quality failures surrounding consultancies are more a function of the process by which projects are formulated, approved and financed under donor funding than of the specific talents (or non-talents) of the
consultants hired to do the work.
Consultants come into the picture at two points. They are hired to formulate projects in the light of funding opportunities (Requests for Proposals, etc.). At that stage the consultant launders the language of the proposal to maximize the probability that the consulting company (profit
or non-profit) lands the contract. Usually none of the target group stakeholders are involved at this point, other than those paper thin "Memorandums of Understanding" which suggest that if funding is secured some group in the target country will cooperate (help spend the money?) in the project.
The proposal must contain all the right buzz words and not challenge much of the status quo, even when it is a project on (say) participatory development for strengthening civil society and governance. The proposal can sound bold in its vision so long as it is not too bold in its implementation strategy. This first stage, landing the funding, is frequently quite divorced from the actual logistics (and staffing) of the project.
Once funded the project's administering organization, a consulting company or an NGO, has to staff the project. It has its in-house administrative and management structures, more geared to dealing with the funding source than the actually management of the project. There is usually only a marginal different for NGO organizations, possibly a stronger social concern component and a weaker project management capacity than in many private companies. The company then has to hire its field staff. This is where the second problem flares up. The first was, of course, the near
complete absence of the stakeholders in the project formulation and funding approval process.
The second problem is that the project has been defined without reference to the skills, knowledge and sensitivities
of those who are going to actually execute it. I have had an
experience that I am sure many of you have had. Someone tells a consulting company that "they should talk to Lanfranco" about the project for which they just got funding. We talk and it is clear that the project is ill-formulated - but it IS funded. With that given there is little hope since the administering agency also now has a set of ‘job descriptions' which it needs to fill.
There is no real scope for re-structuring the jobs to hire the right team. The right people are reluctant to take on the assignment because (a) the logistics are wrong, and (b) the budget line items mean there is little scope for nudging
the project in better directions, involving meaningful stakeholder participation for example. The result is that the people hired are not suitable, or are suitable but overly constrained. Over time only those who are hardened by
the process, and the few for which hope springs eternal, stay in the business.
As been pointed out, if this game is played at the donor funding, implementing agency end, the same process takes place within the recipient country counterparts. Over time only those who are hardened by the process, the few for whom
hope springs eternal, and those who need a job will remain ‘in the game'.
Is there a way out of this mess? Some of us think so. Many of us believe that the internet, as a collaborative workspace and social process area, is a key element in the solution. We also believe that (via the internet) greater transparency, broader notions of accountability, and a wider
scope for participation are possible. Let me give a couple of examples that some of us believe are the first green shoots in this process.
I am on secondment from my university (York University) to the Bellanet International Secretariat at IDRC (Ottawa) http://www.bellanet.org . We were four people, now we are about eight, committed to the idea that this electronic venue (ICT) can be used to promote better collaboration, more transparency and more accountability in the activities of donors and their funded initiatives. The challenge is to increase efficiency and effectiveness, and the the pursuit of the broader goals of equity and justice which are embedded in the idea of sustainable development. We are those for whom hope springs eternal. We could be richly paid
consultants but we would rather try to tip the earth a bit in the right direction than drive a new car. We are among those for whom hope springs eternal. What do we do?
We work with donor agencies and their funded projects to increase information sharing, and (hopefully) in the process, increased transparency and broader accountability. We have a collaboration with what many would consider the ‘heart of the beast' - the World Bank. We consider it a collaborative challenge. There are those within the bank who
have the same view. In cooperation with the Bank's infoDev program, over a year ago, we mounted an on-line database of all the incoming project proposals submitted for infoDev funding. This is a database of the proposals as the arrive. Not a database of the proposals that have been funded. Some will never be funded.
It is an early warning system to all and sundry who are stakeholders, at risk of gain or loss as a result of the proposed project. We also run the INFODEV-L list on behalf of infoDev and one proposal, even before it hit the in-basket, was subjected to savage criticism on-line. We urged the proposers to ‘stand and take it' on the grounds that it would make a better project, or kill a bad one, and that there was much to be learned all around. At one point an African participant in the discussion vowed to try to bar
the project, and project personnel, from his country.
That discussion was not, as is this one, a general discussion about the frustrations of projects and consultants. It was about a project in its proposal stage. Here-to-fore there has been no transparency around the application stage. InfoDev deserves an award from somewhere for agreeing to pioneer a transparent project in-basket. Those of us involved hope that this ‘best practice' idea becomes a lesson learned and spreads throughout the donor-funding project proposal process. In Canada some are looking to institute the idea for funding initiatives at the
national level.
There are other initiatives underway, including the Global Knowledge Partnership (GKP) which is designed to try to capture and share lessons learned, and GK-AIMS (See the Collaborative Planning Tools page on the Bellanet site). It is being designed to provide access to Organization Profiles/Programs, Projects/Activities, and a Document Repository. Part of Bellanet's contribution is do this keeping the technology in the background, allowing participants to maintain their own entries, and using dynamic web-page generation so that scarce development resources are not tied up in massive data gathering and web page design exercises. As with the infoDev (in-basket) proposal database, we hope others will steal our ideas, as well as use what is there for increased sharing of knowledge
and increased accountability. We are more than keen to collaborate on strategy and logistics with regard to our expertise in these areas.
I will close with an example of where people could go from here. We (Bellanet) see this electronic venue as a collaborative workspace and a very important social process venue. We do not believe in those education strategies which
call for a computer on every student's desk any more than we
believe that the solutions to urban living involve a car for
every person. We do believe that access to and the uses of this electronic venue are important for sustainable development, democracy and good governance, and justice and equity.
One area where there is wide scope for south-south cooperation today (now) is about the sharing of expertise in
the development and maintenance of local servers (hosting local content and local workspaces) and in projects involving telecentres. Between Linux, and Apache, and applications like the Arachne internet browser that runs on older DOS based machines, there is an ability to mount and sustain extensive networks of local servers where all the consulting is pro bono (free) and between users, much as have been the refinements for Linux. As well, the learning curve and levels of skills needed mean that each Linux based
operation can itself be a local training site to propagate the skills and knowledge.
The building of this local capacity is the natural complement to the infoDev on-line project proposal database,
and the GK-AIMS "who-is-doing-what" initiatives. The later increase transparency. The former increase the scope for accountability and real participation.
And where are the consultants in all of this? They won't disappear, they will (as a group) be rehabilitated. Those with local knowledge and wisdom will have participated in project design and in personnel selection. Much of what is now treated as consultant-specific skills will have become common knowledge, reducing costs and increasing efficiency. Only those consultants, those agencies, and those local counterparts offering real added-value will be earning a living by providing their skills and expertise. Will that day come? Among those of us for whom hope spring eternal, we
may not know for sure, but we do have a sense of which way to push and the determination to be as transparent about it as possible. Success depends on how many are pushing, and in
transparent dialogue around the desired direction.
Sam Lanfranco <mailto:lanfran@bellanet.org> Senior Program Specialist, http://www.bellanet.org/
--------------853CC8B76A14D1270F0D8B36 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Sam Lanfranco Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard fn: Sam Lanfranco n: Lanfranco;Sam org: Bellanet adr: PO 8500/IDRC;;250 Albert Street;Ottawa;Ontario;K1G 3H9;CANADA email;internet: mailto:lanfran@internet.idrc.ca title: Senior Program Specialist tel;work: (613) 236-6163 ext 2263 tel;fax: (613) 567-5349 tel;home: (416) 816-2852 x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE end: vcard
--------------853CC8B76A14D1270F0D8B36--