Project Assessment and Monitoring

Chapter 18 - Using the Web for Enhancing Decision-Making: UN Project Failures in Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA)
Managing IT in Government, Business & Communities
by Gerry Gingrich (ed)
Idea Group Publishing 2003

	Brought to you by Team-Fly

It is reported in GAO (1998) that a continuous assessment of project implementation in relation to agreed policies, and of the use of public controls, infrastructure, and open accountability services by project beneficiaries must be established in SSA. This is an integral part of good management by a project-implementing agency. The essence of this is to provide continuous feedback on implementation, and to identify actual or potential successes and problems as early as possible to facilitate timely adjustments to project operation. Dambia (1991), an African expert in projects and economic development, has said that managing a development project is a complex task. The basic core of a good management work program should include the following (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Monitoring and Assessment of Aid Projects in SSA

It is also mentioned in GAO (1998) that periodic assessment of the relevance, performance, efficiency, and impact (both expected and unexpected) of a project in relation to stated objectives is essential. Three types of periodic assessment are suggested.

1. An interim evaluation is undertaken by project management during implementation as a first review of progress and a prognosis of the likely effects of the project. This is intended to identify project design problems, and is essentially an internal activity undertaken for project management.

2. Terminal evaluation, a similar process undertaken at the end of a project, is required for the Project Completion Report (PCR) or Implementation Completion Reporting (ICP). It includes an assessment of the project's effects and their potential sustainability.

3. An impact evaluation is usually undertaken several years after final disbursement, and measures changes attributable to the project in terms of both direct and indirect causality.

National authorities or donor agencies normally undertake these measures. A more public, real-time reporting would seem preferable. Monitoring is a tool that project managers use to carry out functions. Schultz (1998) asserted that due to the immense amount of corruption that exists in these countries, unless good public flow of information and allowing the public to participate (monitoring and evaluating) in aid projects, project failures would continue to exist. The creation or strengthening of monitoring activities under a project is not a temporary requirement to meet the aid agencies' information needs, but an institution-building component, which should permanently improve overall management practice both within and outside aid agencies.

Moreover, GAO (1998) suggests that monitoring and evaluation are the responsibility of the borrowing organisations in project development. The common theme that stands out in interviews with stakeholder groups is that aid organisations seem to ignore the most obvious issue of corruption. Lenders simply want their money back; they have little interest in how it is actually spent, and thus, many projects do not get completed. Project implementation agencies need to be responsible for exercising the monitoring function consistent with agreed specifications. It is common in SSA that corruption takes the place of responsibility. SSA countries need a good, independent non-corruptible monitoring system, especially in complex projects with several agencies involved.

Whether an independent monitoring and evaluation unit is necessary to carry out the monitoring function will depend upon the complexity and scope of the monitoring function and the extent of evaluation requirements. For smaller projects, the responsibility for organizing, maintaining, and using a regular flow of publicly validated information throughout implementation must be included specifically in the terms of reference of any aid type.

The need for a reliable administrative unit for monitoring will be greatest in countries with a weak management history, or where project objectives are innovative and/or complex, or in projects with multiple components. When such an independent monitoring function is created, it should be integrated into the international aid management structure, since its purpose will be to serve the information needs of the implementing country. The World Bank Report (1994) stated that, in countries where corruption is very common like in SSA, leaders must be aware or informed that the public will also be involved in project assessment and supervision internally and externally using independent sources. The range of the information system and the scale of the monitoring process must be consistent with the administrative unit and financial resources available in the country and must be independent of governmental management procedures within the country.

	Brought to you by Team-Fly