A PROJECT MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE:
AN EVALUATION OF THE CAREBIQUE PROJECT IN MANICA, MOZAMBIQUE.
Honours Course
Development Management (OWS 03x8 )
H. Mushonga
October 2005
Schalk van Heerden 909803401
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1.Introduction.3
2.Context.
2.1Historical Narrative.4
2.2Embeddedness within Development Field.5
3.Project Life-cycle: Level of operation.8
3.1Initiate and Define.8
3.2Design and Plan.10
3.3Implement and Develop.12
3.4Terminate and Evaluate.14
4.Successes and Failures16
5.Conclusion18
6. List of References19
7.Appendices 20
1.Introduction
The project under evaluation can be classified as a micro-project. It has a specific geographical focus and is small in terms of expenditure and organisational input. Although it has a wide scope and broad objectives, small wins and concrete relationships are the most characteristic features of the initiative. Indeed the project has a personal nature that makes it unique from most other projects. There is a significant difference in the way Engineering projects are managed as opposed to Social Development projects, primarily due to less tangible goals and a human element in the latter that is hard to anticipate, control or evaluate. This essay holds that the project under discussion involves an approach that is both innovative and even more fluid or organic than mainstream social development projects. This has apparent bearing on the way in which the project is managed and therefore this evaluation can be considered more of an exploration and investigation than a clinical comparison between a project management model and a project that fits such a model. The approach will rather be to consider the different aspects and components of project management and to explore how these have been employed by the project.
A decisive factor that will be incorporated throughout this analysis is that there are no formal funding and consequently no fixed budgets from which to work in the project. Besides cost (budget); duration (time) and quality (product) are the other two central elements in project management. We shall continuously discuss how these factors are negotiated and traded of against each other in the project’s drive to fulfil its objectives. Within a basic scope of context, life-cycle and successess and failures, there are unfortunately numerous other elements of project management that can not be discussed in detail, whilst others need be omitted completely. This is significant since aspects like the characteristics and abilities of the project manager could be considered crucial in explaining a particular phenomenon or trade-off. Risk management is central in the project under discussion as is communication. A strict and accurate handling of the topic does not afford venturing into such areas, but that is not to say that they are not crucial. When a certain aspect needs crucial explanation, use shall be made of Appendices.
Firstly, a narrative overview of the project will be given, followed by discussing the wider development context in which the project is embedded. Thereafter the project life-cycle will be used to assess current levels of operations. That will be followed by a discussion on successes and weaknesses. Finally, concluding remarks will comment on the overall verdict regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the project.
2.Context
2.1Historical Narrative
To ascertain any grasp on the dynamics behind the project management principles and techniques involved in the project under discussion a thorough understanding of the historical narrative is imperative. The reason has been alluded to in the introduction and that is the unique, personal, voluntary and organic nature of the project. Throughout the essay parties involved will be described and named according to their titles or roles: the project manager will be described simply as “the Project Manager”, trustees will be referred to as Trustee 1, a co-ordinator might be called “the UJ Development Officer, etc.
The start of the project under discussion can be traced to 1997 when the Project Manager, a white, male, South African volunteered on a project in the Manica Province of Mozambique for one year. Under his guidance groups of South African students became involved in regular short term trips to Manica being participating in humanitarian initiatives assisting local missionaries and local communities. This continued for four years until 2000 when various friends decided to act out on a desire to provide more long-term and sustainable assistance to the people of Manica. The origin can be described as truly altruistic with the reason for involvement that is most often encountered, being “I feel privileged in the way I grew up and for the opportunities I received, I want to share that with those who have little opportunities.” It would appear that the historical context of Apartheid South Africa, religious beliefs and a realisation that Southern African neighbouring countries are interdependent all played a motivational role, contributing to the early involvement of South African individuals.
It was soon realised that ‘the road to failure is paved with good intentions’ and weak structure. Therefore the Carebique Upliftment Trust (CUT) was founded, with the Project Manager as Founder and three other Trustees. In Mozambique, after numerous negotiations a triangular Memorandum of Agreement was signed between the Carebique Upliftment Trust (CUT), Foundation for Community Development (FDC) and the Association for Young Farmers of Mozambique (AJAM). At this stage there was nothing but a vague scope and six mini-projects that were identified through the partners involved and in consultation with the communities of Manica. The projects were: agriculture, entrepreneurship, health, sport, a community centre and training. Following this, the Rand Afrikaans University (RAU), now University of Johannesburg (UJ), was approached to join the initiative. This was done through the Department of Community Development headed by the Senior Development Officer (hereafter UJ Development Officer). At the end of 2000 it was decided that RAU would partner with CUT and shortly afterwards a Memorandum of Agreement was signed between CUT and RAU. A relationship was established that was to form the backbone of the project.
In the Manica province, initial contacts and activities were centred around the small village of Vanduzi. However, in deciding upon a location for the base (office) of the project the town of Manica was chosen. Reasons included water and electricity supply, a larger population (30 000) and it was also the district capital and home to most of the influential leaders and role-players of the region. Preliminary initiatives were given to Agriculture since the need for assistance in Agriculture was apparent, real and communicated by the community. The project launched officially in Manica only in May, 2002 and for the first three months the offices was on a platform in the local butchery! In September 2002, a third of a house (Coccorosse) was procured and a one-year rent contract was signed. The local people chose the name Kubatsirana (helping one another) for the project, but it was later discovered that such an organisation existed elsewhere in Mozambique. Subsequently, AJAM was used and even RAU was used spontaneously by Manicans and participants. Lately RAU has been replaced by UJ and new discussions are calling for a formal name change of Centro para Consciencialização em Manica (CCM). The Project Manager has ironically remarked: “call us anything, call us the no name brand project”. It seems you don’t need a name to have a project!
A landmark event in 2002 was the launch of computer training lessons. The start was slow but at the time of writing, the ComputerSchool is the premier activity of the project. Other activities that was engaged in over time is an English School, numerous sport activities, the formation of a Music Band and regular visiting groups on annual basis. These activities are conducted under severe financial uncertainty and shortcomings. The result is that new opportunities are ceased on an ad hoc basis as resources become available. The main source of funding is individuals from Johannesburg who are connected through some line of friendships. Donations are made to the University of Johannesburg (UJ) and administrated through their system. Donationsqualify for Article 18A tax benefits, which amount to about 30% of the total value donated. The most recent development of the project is that it purchased a piece of land in town (70m x 70m) to use for the construction of a relatively large training centre, teaching facilities and accommodation. The land has been purchased and fenced, but fundraising needs to be done in order to facilitate this venture, which would be the boldest and biggest initiative of the project to date.
2.2Embeddedness within the Development Field
As mentioned the Carebique (for lack of a current name) project is a micro-project, operating in a specific geographical setting aiming to ‘raise the standard of living’ for those who are deprived of opportunity. Although the project is small, it has some big (even stubborn) ideas. It does not give hand-outs without some reciprocity of sharing, they it doesnot deal with strangers and it is sedom hurried. These are observables and it might be beneficial to explore the philosophy and theory that has been guiding their endeavours over the past five years. Amartya Sen (1999:3) states that development is the “expansion of substantial freedoms” so that people can choose to live the kind of lives that they might have reason to value. This view which refers to development as freedom to choose, links narrowly with notions of empowerment and social learning (Davids et al. 2005). It is clear that the Carebique project has at its core, the aim that individuals should become conscious, educated and powerful enough to carve out a bright future for them selves (Freire 1996 [1970]).
The project falls within the context of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). This is clearly more than mere rhetoric and the Carebique project is an exemplarily case of how neighbouring countries in Southern Africa are part of a wider community. South Africa has seen over the past decades that events in Mozambique(or recently)Zimbabwe does have a tangible effect south of the Limpopo. A milestone that occurred during the lifespan of the project was that visas between Mozambique and South Africa were abolished. This is a great boost for the project who has as one of its major informal objectives to combat racism and xenophobia through visiting groups that share cross-cultural experiences and gain information about different ways of life. The Carebique project recognises the value of indigenous knowledge and experience, but is also not in denial of the changing world that confronts the rural people of Africa. Hence groups from the USA has also visited Manica through the project, adding a unique experience and flavour to the program.
The point of the changing world that confronts the poor in Africa is particularly important. To illustrate the impact of globalisation and the integration into a capitalist market economy we can consider small scale farmers. This group is helped by the project because their importance is much greater than their capacity to fight the structural obstacles that face them. Multinational companies, especially grain (maize) merchants has such big buying power that they are manipulating regional prices and making life tough for peasant producers. Furthermore banks prefer lending to large international ventures rather than small farmers. One can also consider that a city like Maputo are using predominantly rice as a staple food because it is imported cheaper from the East than what local farmers can produce similar supplies of maize. This scenario creates the need for the poor to be equipped with language skills in English, computer skills and an understanding of market mechanisms. Numerous development experts (like Muller and Du Toit cited in FitzGerald et al.) have commented on this, yet the numbers of poor people sitting in front of computers emailing or gathering data like weather forecasts from the internet is strikingly low. Development today is much more holistic than simply feeding or clothing the poor.
Strategically the project can be categorised as participative with a strong focus on sustainability, social learning and empowerment. This is seen in the democratic decision making processes, a focus on skills development and mutual learning through real-life engagement. New initiatives are decided on at grass-root level and those with the responsibility to do the work also has the authority to perform it in a free and autonomous way. The Carebique project has strived to assist people in what they want to do. This required major flexibility and makes centralised planning and control difficult. It does elevate one of the major project management principles, namely communication. Thus a development initiatives becomes not a mere project but a conversation or a dialogue that recognises that “people can lead their own change process. They can be the actors, not merely the subjects of change” (Gran cited in Davids et al. 2005).
The project under investigation can thus be positioned as a micro-project within the SADC that has a qualitative focus to assist the poor in realising opportunities through participative means in a relational context.
3.The Project Life-Cycle as evaluative framework for analysing levels of operation.
In this section a general description will be given of the project life-cycle as a part of project management. Thereafter each cycle shall be described individually and followed by an application of the specific principles and techniques utilised or neglected by the Carebique project. It should be mentioned that the current evaluation is of a project that is still in operation and therefore still in the middle of its life-cycle. There are benefits to evaluating only concluded projects, but a midcourse evaluation could provide positive stimuli for the project under investigation.
A focus on project management considers the intentional directing and administration of a specific venture to meet specific goals over a specific timeframe. The major difference between general management and project management is the unique and temporal nature of projects with the accompanying risks implicit in such endeavours. Project management aims at the optimisation of three variables that leads to delivering the highest quality with the least money over the shortest period. This off course is easier said than done. Due to constant changes and risks the management of a project is an intricate and fluctuating enterprise.
Due to the above mentioned uncertainties implicit in project management, various tools and disciplines are adopted to reduce risk and improve efficiency and productivity. The ordering of the project in a chronological lifecycle is one such discipline that all project managers utilises to add structure to their efforts. The lifecycle is thus a division of all the project management activities into different groupings that has a progressive linear correlation. A myriad of practitioners and academics have produced a myriad of divisions for the project lifecycle; in this study the following stages, adapted from Steyn et al (2003) will be employed: Firstly, initiate and define, secondly, design and plan, thirdly, implement and develop and lastly, terminate and evaluate. See Annexure A for a clear lifecycle illustration. Following is a cycle by cycle investigation:
3.1Initiate and Define (Also called Concept and Initiation)
The first phase in the project lifecycle is focussed on initiating and defining the objectives and scope of the project. It often starts with either a visionary idea or a given mandate. In this first phase the project becomes official and the project leader is chosen, often confirmed by the project charter. The scope should be established and the shareholders identified. Steyn et al (2003:66) gives the criteria for a ‘smart’ scope which is: specific, measurable, agreed, realistic and time-bound. This phase of project management sets the pattern and course of the whole project and is thus extremely influential. That is the reason for the high value placed on strategic considerations. Kotter (1996) insinuates repeatedly that management alone is not sufficient to ensure the realisation of the mandate or vision; he states that leadership is the secret because of the leader’s ability to illumine the vision and inspire energetic action towards it.
The Carebique project conforms to the typical S-curve that characterises most projects. The initial phase is even exaggeratedly low on both output and expense levels. Simply put, it took a long time to really get started. In fact the idea that ‘a bunch of kids considered going to a Portuguese speaking country without formal training and experience seemed not only uncertain and risky, but suspicious and crazy. To lend credibility and a vehicle through which negotiations could be conducted, the Carebique Upliftment Trust (CUT) was founded in 2002. This was an early milestone. Much time was invested to identify and ‘sell’ potential stakeholders like RAU (UJ), FDC and AJAM. The mentioned signing of Memorandums of Agreement with these institutions represented additional milestones that were reached. With the strategic alliances in place a general Project Proposal was drawn up. The Project Proposal had as its aim to translate the vague objectives into specific goals, that is, six mini-projects. The Project Proposal did attempt a proof of feasibility, but retrospective evaluation shows that guessing and assumptions were too easily included. The Project Proposal did not deal directly and honestly with the ambiguities and risks inherently involved in a unique and pioneering initiative.