3PCM Benefits Focused One Worldwide Approach to National
and International Development Cooperation - Short Version
First 50 Years of International
Development Cooperation Scorecard
Our Organization’s finding of the first 50 years of International
Development Cooperation (1960-2009) was released in a Scorecard. The grades
given for Policy, Program, Project implementation were rated 1/3 ‘good’; 1/3
‘flawed’ and 1/3 ‘failed’ and the grades given for Policy, Program, Project
evaluation were rated 1/3 ‘good’; 1/3 ‘flawed’ and 1/3 ‘failed’ by the
respondents.
This coincides with EC Study Finding on the same issue and was the
basis of EC DG VIII, Directorate General for Development: Evaluation Division
under the Leadership of Dr. Hellmut Eggers and later DG I, Directorate General
for External Affairs Developing of One
Worldwide Integrated Approach to Project Cycle Management, PCM between 1987 –
1993 when he retired. Although Dr Eggers coined PCM, his Original Intention was
to undertake a systematic
effort to integrate planning, financing, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation into one overall concept; was 3PCM – Policy, Program,
Project Cycle Management, which Mr. Lanre Rotimi coined in 2009.
Origin of PCM
Records show DG VIII and DG I embarked upon the Study in the mid
1980s upon realization that all Development Cooperation Agencies had similar
problems to cope with and all have to continue to learn together.
As a first step,
the Evaluation Division went back to the documentation it had reviewed in order
to identify the reasons responsible for the mediocre outcome mentioned. A first
conclusion asserted itself immediately: errors had accumulated for each
program/project judged problematic or unsuccessful, from the beginning up to the end of the entire project/program cycle,
that is to say as of the programming phase, via project/program identification, preparation and
implementation up to project/program completion and evaluation. The
Evaluation Division tried to pinpoint these weaknesses with greater precision
and eventually, with the help of professional colleagues around the world,
identified what were judged the three major root causes for the unsatisfactory
outcomes of the DG’s (as well as the other agencies’) work. These three fundamental weaknesses
subsequently proved to be of major importance for PCM since they were to be
turned into the three fundamental
principles of the approach: They are the following:
(i) Confusion
between “Beneficiaries” and “Project”.
Example: “Construction of a water supply system in region R”
instead of: “Due to the construction and functioning of a water supply system
in Region R, people in R enjoy the consumption of a sufficient quantity of
potable water (…l/pers.) during 30 years as of date D”.
Indeed,
the “engineer’s thinking” seemed to combine with the “businessman’s” and the
“politician’s thinking” to consider the construction of a road, of a hospital,
of a school and even the supply of a tractor or a truck, a good thing in
itself, irrespective of the needs of the beneficiaries. This thinking still
remains deeply ingrained in the way the development cooperation enterprise
functions today, as it permits to channel development finance in a
predetermined way so as to impress administrations, parliaments and the public
at large in donor as well as recipient countries. This “fund-channeling”
without much concern for its ultimate outcome is the very shortcut to project
failure.
(ii) “Forgetting” one or
several essential aspects in project preparation, implementation and evaluation.
Example: No analysis of socio-cultural aspects in a
water supply project: the intended beneficiaries might think that water is a
gift from God that does not need to be paid for.
Socio-cultural
aspects are just one among others each of which is essential for project
success. It will suffice to overlook even
a single one of them to jeopardize a positive project/program/policy
outcome, to make it impossible for the intervention to durably solve the
existing problems and thus to ensure its
satisfactory outcome/impact.
(iii) Failing to respect
a sound decision making discipline all along the project cycle, when passing
from a given project phase to the next.
Example: A financing decision is taken without the prior
establishment of a feasibility study.
Those
familiar with the realities in financing agencies know how powerful pressure
can become to commit and spend given amounts during given periods. They will
also be familiar with political pressures being brought to bear on these
agencies by political leaders in recipient countries who are eager to
demonstrate to their electorates that their wish to construct a road, a
hospital, a plantation, is followed by immediate action. It is all the more
surprising that the danger of these pressures for project success is so little
recognized or, if it is, so little is done to resist them. It is true that
“domestic” political pressure in donor countries often re-enforce those in
recipient countries, which may account in part as well for the feebleness of
such resistance….
The
evaluation division converted these three “Capital Errors” into as many
“Fundamental Principles”. This exercise consisted simply of turning the
“don’ts” into “do’s”, the negatives into positives. PCM is also PPPCM (3PCM to
which Mr. Rotimi has improved upon). It
applies, indeed, to projects as well as to policies, programs and policies on
both North and South Countries sides.
Projects and programs
are sometimes hard or even impossible to disentangle one from the other. If the
construction of an individual well, for instance, can certainly be viewed as a
small project in its own right, the satisfaction of a country’s needs in well
construction will probably be called a “program”. At which number of wells will
a “project” turn into a “program”? Hard to tell and depending on each concrete
case! A program is always made up of a cluster of projects, and programs will
thus eventually be implemented as a series of interconnected projects. In any
case, there are no clear cut limits.
A policy
usually will, when implemented, turn out to consist of a combination of
programs and projects, f. i. the drinking water policy in country C. It will
normally (at least in democracies…) be geared to capturing and channeling a
growing swell of public preferences and opinions. In any case, a serious policy
will not stop at an enunciation of intentions, but will also indicate the
measures to be taken in terms of concrete programs.
All
told, the application modalities of PCM, now 3PCM will require constant
adaptation as one moves from projects via programs towards policies flowing
from strategies flowing from vision, such as the 2030 Transformation Agenda for
all 193/306 UN Member States.
In
PCM, now 3PCM, it is recognized that:-
1.
Indeed,
the “engineer’s thinking” seemed to combine with the “businessman’s” and the
“politician’s thinking” to consider the construction of a road, of a hospital,
of a school and even the supply of a tractor or a truck, a good thing in
itself, irrespective of the needs of the beneficiaries. This thinking still
remains deeply ingrained in the way the development cooperation enterprise
functions today, as it permits to channel development finance in a
predetermined way so as to impress administrations, parliaments and the public
at large in donor as well as recipient countries. This “fund-channeling”
without much concern for its ultimate outcome is the very shortcut to project/program/policy
failure on both North and South Countries sides.
2.
Those
familiar with the realities in financing agencies know how powerful pressure
can become to commit and spend given amounts during given periods. They will
also be familiar with political pressures being brought to bear on these
agencies by political leaders in both North and South Countries who are eager
to demonstrate to their electorates that their wish to construct a road, a
hospital, a plantation, is followed by immediate action. It is all the more
surprising that the danger of these pressures for project/program/policy
success is so little recognized or, if it is, so little is done to resist them.
It the case of Aid Finance, is true that “domestic” political pressure in donor
countries often re-enforce those in recipient countries, which may account in
part as well for the feebleness of such resistance….
3.
The
ToR can thus be thought of as the commented table of contents of each of the
routine documents accompanying the project/program cycle, notably
project/program identification sheets, pre-feasibility studies, feasibility
studies, formal financing documents like financing proposals and conventions,
monitoring and progress reports and, last but not least, evaluation reports.
The ToR are, thus, the bridge
connecting intentions (the future) to realizations (the past). More
specifically, they are the links, always to be kept up to date and directed at
the specific tasks at hand at each given moment, that link Planning to
Evaluation in the medium and long term, and Implementation to Monitoring in the
short term. Irrespective of whether they pertain to the future or to the past,
their structure will always be essentially the same.
4.
Emphasis
will shift from detail to strategy, objectives will broaden and implementation
mechanics will require diminishing attention. But the rigor of the first PCM/3PCM
principle will be applicable to the entire continuum in equal measure. It will
be the “yeast” that penetrates the entire system and ensures the mutually
reinforcing quality of its different components.
Regretfully, after Dr. Eggers retired, EC officials with
responsibility for moving PCM forward abandoned its creator and adapted PCM to
Evaluation only and within their very limited understanding of the Concept. The
results is Fake PCM in Multiple Versions, ALL of which pale in significance
compared to the Original. Yet this Fake PCM Approach to Evaluation, in its many
versions is the most widely used Evaluation Approach in our World today. Is it
any wonder then that this Fake Version of PCM is not Working from 1993 to date
and will not work from 2018 to 2030 to help deliver SDGs/SDGs Pledge in all
193/306 UN Member States?
Second 50 Years of
International Development Cooperation Scorecard
Over the past nine years, in the second 50 years of International
Development Cooperation (2010 – 2059) we observe that lessons relating to global
Development Cooperation appear not to have not been learned on all 193/306 UN
Member States Governments – Executive, Legislature, Judiciary at all tiers and
UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF, WTO (ITO) – Headquarters, Regional Offices and
Country Offices sides since the Scorecard remain the same. The Scorecard
authors contend that unless “community
to global stakeholders jointly agree to face new direction and adopt new
priorities” by “addressing all fundamental issues” the same scores may
be repeated by SDG 2030 target date and by 2059 end of second 50 years of
International Development Cooperation.
They submitted that if the SDG targets are to be met by 2030 then
all community to global stakeholders in the implementation and evaluation of
domesticated SDG aligned and harmonized with National Development Plan in each
of the 193/306 UN Member States, there is need for all relevant community to
global stakeholders to jointly work towards achieving International Development
Cooperation Scorecard of grades given for Policy, Program, Project
implementation rated 90% ‘good’; 5% ‘flawed’ and 5% ‘failed’ and the grades
given for Policy, Program, Project evaluation rated 90% ‘good’; 5% ‘flawed’ and
5% ‘failed’ in 2030. For the Scorecard authors, the key lies in “transformative
change” at community, sub-national, national, sub-regional, regional and global
levels, guided by the UN SDGs, indicators and corresponding criteria (2018-
2030).
2018 Year 3 of Implementation:
Turning Point for Transformative Change?
In 2018 Year 3 of Implementation of SDG, with 12 ½ years to end
2030 target date for delivery on SDGs/SDGs Pledge and noting that all National
and International Partners are still in MDG Mode rather than SDG Mode, the
stage for global initiatives to promote "integrated approaches to the interrelated,
interdependent, interlinked and interconnected political, cultural, economic,
financial, social, environmental, security, peace, religious, moral, social
economy and social enterprise – especially cooperatives, communication, legal,
technology, service delivery, technical and related challenges confronting the
world" has been set.
The time is now for all community, sub-national, national,
sub-regional, regional and global stakeholders to jointly focus on triangular relationship
between health and nutrition; education and training and enterprise and jobs
aligned with National Development Plan and domesticated SDG with appropriate
feasibility study that turn current 'SDGs vision and words’ into new ‘SDGs
vision and words with action and accomplishment' in each of the 193/306 UN
Member States thereby sustaining the planet through meaningfully involving the
people to improve prosperity, promote peace and strengthen partnerships for
delivery on the SDG Pledge which states that No Goal would be considered met if
it is not met by all Peoples in all countries by end 2030 target date.
3PCM
in Brief
Principle 1 –
Master Principle: Deliver Sustainable Benefits to Target Groups
Instrument 1 – Format of Logic Framework Analysis (LFA)
Practice 1 -
Concentrate on Essentials
PIP (Principle, Instrument, Practice) 1 in One Word: LFA
Principle 2 – Consider Lessons Learnt and Integrate to all
Dimensions and Stages
Instrument 2 – Format of Terms of Reference, ToR
Practice 2 - All Inclusive Dynamic ToR
PIP 2 in One Word: ToR
Principle 3 – Sound Decision Making for Beyond Ideas
Concept Actualization
Instrument 3 - Format of Phases and Decisions
Practice 3 -
Dynamic Integration and Strategic Communication
PIP 3 in One Word: Accomplishment
Principle 4 –
Getting Everyone Involved
Instrument 4 – Master Tool Box
Practice 4 - Leave No One Behind
PIP 4 in One Word: Participation
3PCM Database
·
Building Bridge between Lessons Learning and Lessons Forgetting
·
Ensure Systematic Long Lasting Feedback
3PCM Database in One Word: Communication
3PCM SDSR-MCOP (Sustainable Development for Successful Results
Multidisciplinary Professionals Community of Practice)
·
Assembly of Champions
·
Community of Practice
·
Multi Stakeholder Partnership / Platform
3PCM SDSR-MCOP in One Word: Partnership
The One
Worldwide Integrated 3PCM Approach Overview: Building Bridge:
From
“Development Cooperation Learning” to
“Development Cooperation Doing”
a)
Development Policies, Programmes and Projects (3Ps) in all North and
South Countries, should always support (poor) people in each Country to improve
their standard of living. They should, employing a somewhat more technical
language, always (that is without exception!) serve to create Sustainable
Benefits for their Target Groups (SBTG).
b)
SBTG should thus be the Objective all of the 3Ps actors (Political
Leaders, Organizations involved, the Target Groups themselves, Planners,
Implementers, Monitors and Evaluators, as well as all other supportive
stakeholders in international institutions; North and South Countries alike,
should unite to realize.
c)
Development Evaluation, it has been said, is for (i) Accountability
and (ii) for Learning. That is true as far as it goes. But there is a third element
missing without which (i) and (ii) above will be entirely useless: (iii)
Improved 3Ps effectiveness. That goes without saying? Alas! It doesn’t! There
is a Gulf between Learning and Doing. Why?
d)
Evaluations of Development Cooperation Interventions (the 3Ps) are
One-Off Affaires: They concern, in general, a concrete case among the 3Ps: a
given Development Cooperation Policy, Program or Project. Widening this
case-by-case perspective, they can also pertain to countries, regions, themes,
sectors or instruments. But they are always restricted to the specific
Development Cooperation 3P Intervention(s) or Topic(s) under review. They serve
to improve, each time, that specific Development Cooperation effort and they
are conceived and timed accordingly. What they fail to do, by their very
nature, is to serve the accumulation of Development Cooperation Evaluation
Learning: in each specific instance, the Evaluation may have served to improve
the Effectiveness of the case under review, after which that learning tends to
be forgotten again.
e)
As a consequence, the Terms of Reference for each specific P (for its
Identification, its Planning, its Implementation/Monitoring and for all of its
Evaluations) tend to be conceived “ab ovo”: each time again, from scratch. And
even if some of the actors mentioned in point (8b) above may fall back on
previous experience or remember a case similar to the one they are dealing
with, their work cannot possibly profit from the accumulated Evaluation
Learning that has been and continues to be produced by Development Evaluators
around the World. And how could this be otherwise, as Lesson Forgetting follows
“pari passu” Lesson Learning, thus preventing Lesson Learning Accumulation and
its use in Operational Development Cooperation Work/Practice, to occur in the
first place? Such accumulation/use simply isn’t part of the system.
f)
The “Master Assessment Framework” (“MAF”), complete with its Data-Base16
(still to be developed!), is the tool designed to make such “accumulation/use”
an integral part of the system. It is a tool in the making, still to be
reviewed and improved systematically by professional wisdom around the World.
If selected for Admission to this Doctoral Program, it would be attached in its
present form to Pilot Program Bid documents, as it could help to improve
client’s “internal” as well as “external” Development Cooperation Work Practice
worldwide.
g)
Policy, Program, Project
Cycle Management, 3PCM which has MAF mentioned above as one of its instruments,
is the Approach that will be deployed in the implementation of the Pilot
Program ToR in ways that achieve increasing convergence between Development Cooperation Evaluation: Intention and Reality.
3PCM 4 Principles and Corresponding 4 Instruments /
Tools in More Detail
1.
The First 3PCM Principle
or Master Principle states: “The Specific Objective (or the Purpose) of
Development Cooperation Projects, Programs and Policies must always be expressed in terms of Sustainable Benefits
for the “Intended Beneficiaries” (or “Target Group”), using 3PCM Grammar.
The 3PCM Instrument
corresponding to the 3PCM Principle or Master Principle – Logical Framework Matrix / Analysis
2.
The second 3PCM
Principle states: All of the
essential criteria for successful development cooperation project / program /
policy preparation, implementation and monitoring, evaluation and assessment,
as taught by experience, should be considered.
The 3PCM Instrument
corresponding to the 3PCM Second Principle – TOR: Terms
of Reference built on Logframe and guiding entire 3PCM Initiative and 3PCM
Training / Continuing Professional Education from start to finish.
3.
The Third 3PCM
Principle states: There
should be sound decision making discipline all along the development
cooperation project / program / policy cycle.
The 3PCM Instrument
corresponding to the 3PCM Third Principle – Format of
Phases and Decisions
4.
The fourth 3PCM Principle states: All stakeholders relevant for successful
development cooperation: project / program / policy research, planning,
statistics, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, learning, results and
assessment, as taught by experience, should be fully included as soon as
possible from inception right through all relevant stages up to completion and
closure.
The 3PCM Instrument
corresponding to the 3PCM Fourth Principle – MAF:
Master Assessment Framework
3PCM 4
Practices
1.
The First 3PCM Main
Practice states: “The Essential Message conveyed by 3PCM 4
Principles 4 Instruments / Tools and 4 Practices should be familiar to All
Agents bearing responsibility along the Chain of Service Delivery of
Development Cooperation Projects, Programs, Policies”.
2.
The Second 3PCM Main
Practice states: “The TOR must always BRIDGE the Gulf between the
Essential Message of 3PCM on one hand and operational real life practice, on
the other hand”.
3.
The Third 3PCM Main
Practice states: “It should
be well understood that it is not
sufficient to teach 3PCM. Training, indeed, is only one of the necessary
activities leading to one of the necessary outputs, to wit the acquisition of the
required development cooperation project / program / policy design, execution
and evaluation competencies – Hard Competencies – Learning and Skills and Soft
Competencies – Character, Courage and Mindset: necessary but not sufficient. This type of training – Continuing
Professional Education, appropriate to each Professional level, is a “project” in its own right and not just as
another training exercise. That is within 3PCM Approach: the 3PCM Initiative
is an Integral part of 3PCM Training / Continuing Professional Education and
3PCM Training / Continuing Professional Education is an integral part of 3PCM
Initiative”.
4.
The Fourth 3PCM Main
Practice states: “The Essential Focus of the 3PCM Initiative
and 3PCM Training / Continuing Professional Education should always be to
create Sound Political, Economic, Social, Cultural and Religious Space for
effective and efficient Pro Poor Institutional Reform and Pro Poor Economic Growth
within Chain of Service Delivery of Development Cooperation Project, Program,
Policy Intervention”.
3PCM:
One Worldwide Database
The
question of how to ensure effective organizational learning, making sure
lessons learned are heeded, absorbed and not “lost” (especially those learned
from evaluations), has always exercised the professional minds of those
involved in development co-operation but has not yet found a really
satisfactory answer. One could fill
whole libraries with evaluation reports gathering dust in forgotten filing
cabinets without having been put to operational use. Is there a solution to
this intractable problem of the lack of systematic, long-lasting feedback?
Yes,
this will involve a review of the “Basic Format” for its application to each of
the major development sectors
of Infrastructure, Industry, Agriculture, Public Health, Education etc… and
then adapt each of the resulting
“Formats” to the specific conditions of given Region, Sub-region,
Country, Sub-national or Community location context.
Write
extensive “comments” to each of these sector formats. Proceed similarly with
the major development instruments,
like stabilization mechanisms for counterbalancing price oscillations on world
markets for primary products exported by developing countries; like “structural
adjustment” and direct budgetary support, like trade promotion operations; like
co-financings with non-governmental organizations; etc… Proceed, again,
similarly with important “cross-cutting” development
themes, like: “Environment”, “Gender Issues”, Good Governance etc… per
Sector, Service, Issue and Region, Sub-region, Country, Sub-national, Community
with assorted extensive “comments”.
It is clear that this process will lead to the
creation of an extensive “Development Cooperation Library” that today, of
course, will assume the form of a Worldwide “e-Database, to be established,
reviewed, kept up to date and shared among organizations interested.
This
e-Database would have to be managed by specialists of the different sectors,
instruments and themes in question who would have to make sure that it is kept
up to date, systematically incorporating evaluation results as they become
available and also making sure they receive due attention in the planning, the
implementation/monitoring and evaluation of new development cooperation
interventions. That would be an
effective guarantee against systematic “forgetting” of “lessons learned” that
today is the rule, not the exception.
Periodic
up-dating this e-Database would also have to include revisions of the very
structure of the Material included in the “e-Database of Identification
Information System; Management Information System; Geodesign Information System,
Risk Management Information System and Manpower Information System”: If, for
instance (as has happened in recent years), price and other stabilization
mechanisms go “out of fashion”, to be replaced by, say, “Partnership Global
Budget Support”, the e-Database structure would have to reflect such important
change. That way, the e-Database would resemble more a living and evolving
organism rather than a cold and rigid machine.
The
establishment and periodic review of this e-Database would also allow
submitting 3PCM itself to constant challenging by professional debate and by
evaluations and thus lead to its systematic improvement. It would be a treasure
of knowledge to be created, to be kept up to date and to be exploited by all.
Together with the “Four 3PCM Principles”, the “Four 3PCM Tools or Instruments”
and the “Four 3PCM Practices”, it would become the method’s tenth cardinal
point, and a “point” of impressive dimensions it would be…: the “3PCM Database”.
3PCM SDSR-MCOP One Worldwide
Community of Practice
3PCM One Worldwide Database
need to be started and nurtured by Worldwide Academics, Researchers,
Professionals and Practitioners operating within Institutional Architecture
that effectively link each Community in each of the 193/306 UN Member States
with UNO Headquarters New York, each UNO Entity Headquarters, Regional Offices
and Country Offices; WBG Headquarters Washington; Regional Offices and Country Offices;
IMF Headquarters. The BIG Issue of IMF Visible Presence at Regional Offices and
Country Offices, in the same way that WBG Regional Offices and Country Offices
MUST be meaningfully addressed now.
This robust Institutional Architecture
– 3PCM SDSR MCOP – Sustainable Development for Successful Results Multi Stakeholder
Community of Practice is a Unique Forum of Grassroots and Advance Professionals
and Practitioners from Public Sector, Private Sector, International
Institutions, Academic Institutions, CSOs’/NGOs and other Stakeholder Groups
who are Researchers, Planners, Statisticians, Implementers, Monitors,
Evaluators, Communicators, Politicians, Journalists and Beneficiaries with
responsibility for specific National or International Sustainable Development:
Policy, Program, Project Intervention, 3PI and 3PI Training as One in specific
Community, Sub-national, National, Sub-regional, Regional or Global location
context. SDSR-MCOP is both Virtual Network MSP (Multi Stakeholder Partnership /
Platform) and Physical Network MSP. SDSR MCOP Institutional Architecture will
be at Community, Sub-national, National, Sub-regional, Regional and Global
levels and SDSR MCOP will have 8 Pillars- Applied Knowledge; Opportunities;
Networking; Development Communication; Development Change; Capacity Building;
Standards Regulation.
The 3PCM Master Tools Box currently has 15
Instruments / Tools. This in addition to ToR, LFA and Format of Phases and
Decisions make up the full complement of 3PCM Instruments / Tools available at
this time.. These are:-
1. All Inclusive ToR
2. All Embracing LFA
addressing all provisions in (1)
3. All Embracing Format of
Phases and Decisions addressing all provisions in (1) and (2)
4. Master Assessment
Framework, MAF
5. Master Budget Framework,
MBF
6. Master Competencies
Framework, MCF (Hard and Soft Competencies)
7. Quality of Service
Framework, QSF
8. Measures of Success
Framework, MSF
9. Master Commissioning
Framework, MCF (Procurement)
10.
Kirkpatrick Evaluation Framework
11.
Mindset Reprogramming Framework
12.
Citizens and Leadership Development Framework
13.
360 Degree Feedback
14.
Psychometric Tests
15.
Risk Management
16.
Geodesign
17.
Data Management
18.
COMBI / CABS
3PCM is
Dynamic and so should there emerge in the future New Instruments / Tools that
need to be included, once its Value Added is established, this would be done.
More detailed information on the 4
Principles, 4 Instruments / Tools and 4 Practices are set out in the Long
Version of this Paper. This include further details on Frameworks and Processes
within 3PCM Benefits Focused Approach and is available to Service Providers,
Managers, Commissioners and Policy / Decision Makers, who demonstrate genuine
interest towards deploying the art and science of 3PCM in their daily work and
in ways that continuously improve Learning, Performance and Results in the work
towards achieving Global / National Visions Ambitions of International
Institutions, Developed Countries and Developing Countries.
Contact:
Director General
Economic Alliance
Group
Affiliate Members: International
Society for Poverty Elimination (Global NGO);
ER and Associates
Limited (International Development Cooperation Consultants)
New End Hunger, Malnutrition and Poverty, NEHMAP Initiative (Global
Social Enterprise) etc
M: +234-8162469805
Website: www.nehmapglobal.org
February 2012.
Updated June 2018.
