Escribir Proyectos 1

1

An ELD Publication © Neil Kendrick I ELD Training 2009

www.projectproposalwriting.org

TNICKER CE•,TIE

OUTCOME IMPROVED LIVING CONDITIONS OF IDPS

STRATEGY

eEUCeO c.fE

,I'mprovo

LINES

START

-� PURPOSE ORGANISATION I

yr Aa.„ass

Oga:.vayVar!.tlb

V4iubn

Nartatrvo Summary

Outcomes

�f� (4111) 114*l I i'J' J'( 0011

Group B:High Influence

AeSUmJl or.

Oelocrnofy Moans ofvenfiedo Assumptons

VerAKabonIna-ton

IS THE ASSUMPTION

,?{STRUCTURE •?%EXPERIENCE

BACKGROUND I- -

V� SITUATION

3.600

hole water ding a ding an cit 20L

IMPORTANT? u✓

�rtruckingtructing

http://www.projectproposalwriting.org/

CONTENTS Module One: Introduction....................................................................................................................... 3

Why Some Proposals Fail.................................................................................................................. 4On Problem Solving........................................................................................................................... 9Glossary of Terms Used.................................................................................................................. 13

Module Two: The Logical Framework Approach: Analysis................................................................... 15What is the Logical Framework Approach (LFA)?............................................................................ 16What's a Logframe?......................................................................................................................... 18Vertical Logic................................................................................................................................... 19The Logframe Columns................................................................................................................... 21Preconditions and Inputs................................................................................................................. 25Diagonal Logic................................................................................................................................. 27The Four Core Areas of the Logframe............................................................................................. 28Overview of the Steps...................................................................................................................... 29Analysing the Situation: The Problem Tree...................................................................................... 31Stakeholder Analysis....................................................................................................................... 38Setting Objectives............................................................................................................................ 44Designing a Strategy........................................................................................................................ 48Endnote........................................................................................................................................... 65

Module Three: The Logical Framework Approach: Planning................................................................ 66Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 67The Project Goal.............................................................................................................................. 68The Project Outcome....................................................................................................................... 72Project Operations - Outputs, Activities & Inputs.............................................................................. 77The Project Context......................................................................................................................... 83Risk Analysis and Risk Management............................................................................................... 88Monitoring and Evaluation............................................................................................................... 91Final Logframe: Indonesia Case Study..........................................................................................108Final Check.................................................................................................................................... 109

Module Four: Planning the Proposal.................................................................................................. 110Mind Mapping................................................................................................................................ 111Mapping the Proposal.................................................................................................................... 113Endnote......................................................................................................................................... 127

Module Five: Writing Skills: Principles................................................................................................ 128What is Professional Writing?........................................................................................................ 129Common Problems with Proposal Writing...................................................................................... 130Writing Sends a Message.............................................................................................................. 135The Writing Process....................................................................................................................... 145

Module Six: Writing Skills: Clarity....................................................................................................... 148Measuring Clarity........................................................................................................................... 151The Fog Index................................................................................................................................ 152Improving Clarity............................................................................................................................ 158Endnote......................................................................................................................................... 176

Module Seven: Writing Skills: Organising your Ideas......................................................................... 177Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning................................................................................................ 178Presenting Your Ideas Logically..................................................................................................... 185Writing Effective Paragraphs.......................................................................................................... 188Linking the Parts Together............................................................................................................. 202Endnote......................................................................................................................................... 203

Module Eight: Putting it all Together................................................................................................... 204Drafting the Proposal..................................................................................................................... 205Final First Draft.............................................................................................................................. 225Endnote......................................................................................................................................... 229

Module Nine: Writing Style & Editing Skills.........................................................................................230Style and Language....................................................................................................................... 231The Editing Process....................................................................................................................... 238Design and Layout......................................................................................................................... 244Indonesia Case Study: Final Edit plus Layout................................................................................ 254

PROJECT PROPOSAL WRITINGAn ELD Publication © Neil Kendrick / ELD Training 2009

Not to be distributed without permissionwww.projectproposalwriting.org

2


Module One: Introduction

Welcome to the programme.

Since 1997 I’ve been working with development professionals from all fields training and coaching in project planning and proposal writing. After all this time, I can say that developing a great proposal is both an art and a science. It requires imagination and flexibility, as well as the careful application of some key tools.

In some ways, a proposal is an idea waiting to be born. It starts as a concept - a problem to be solved, a ‘what if’ feeling - and, over time, starts to take shape until before us we have a complete document that can excite our reader as much as it excites us. At some point along the way there is also the ‘Aha!’ moment - a new idea, an obstacle overcome, the ‘ingredient X’ that turns a plain idea into an original, powerful plan.

So how hard is it? A lot of people seem to make it more difficult than it is. I’m going to put the logic into Logical Framework and take the mystery out of writing for you and you will see developing an effective project proposal for what it really is - a creative and simple process.

All the ideas in this toolkit have been field-tested with organisations ranging from UN agencies, through international NGOs right down to the smallest grassroots community-based organisations; through coaching and training, in Nepal, Turkey, Laos and Thailand, with participants from all sectors and nationalities; with scientists, foresters, child rights activists and lawyers; with experts and those who ‘didn’t have a clue’. The results were the same - anyone with an idea and who is willing to follow the process laid out here can develop an effective proposal.

Although we don’t have the advantage of working face-to-face - though who knows? Perhaps some day we will - rest assured this toolkit is as complete as it gets. It goes into greater depth on each point covered in our training courses. It’s not a book ‘about’ proposal writing. It’s full of clear explanations PLUS tasks to apply what you learn immediately both to an extended case study as well as to your own on-going proposal.

Wishing you the very best of success!

Neil Kendrick Director ELD Training (UK) www.eld.org.uk



3


http://www.eld.org.uk/

Why Some Proposals Fail

The problem being faced / need for the project has not been explained properly

No project can be supported if the donor cannot understand why it’s necessary. Sometimes this may be because the problem actually isn’t very relevant to the donor, or they don’t see it as serious (see next point), but often it’s because it’s poorly communicated.

Your explanation may be flawed because the chain of cause and effect hasn’t been adequately explained, and the reader can’t follow the logic: or it might be because it takes forever to get to the main point.

It’s important to explain the Core Problem first. We will discuss this in more depth in the sections on Analysing the Situation and drafting the Situation Analysis.

The issue does not strike the reader as significant

This doesn't mean that the issue itself is not significant - just that the donor can't see it.

This could be due to the last point, where the problem is not explained properly. However, poor explanation is usually because we have failed to go 'one step further' when describing the consequences of the problem. As development practitioners and community mobilisers we can see clearly how important the issues we are facing are; but often conveying this importance to those who make decisions is difficult. We may have satisfied ourselves that the issue is significant, but haven't taken that extra step to explain to our reader why this issue needs to be addressed.

End users (communities) have not been involved in the planning

Few proposals will be successful if the relevant communities and end-users haven't been consulted and listened to. Whether the project is a large-scale irrigation project that needs to take into account existing irrigation practices, social dynamics and local peoples' ownership and capacity for maintenance, or whether it's a village-level campaign against child marriage, all projects need to involve stakeholders in identifying problems and agreeing on solutions.



4


The proposal is poorly written and hard to understand

During this programme we will address some of the core problems caused by poor writing. First, let me say it's not about a lack of vocabulary or poor grammar. If anything, it's the opposite: you don’t need an incredible command of English to draft a good proposal, and, often, writers who have a lot of language ‘skill’ merely end up confusing their readers.

Poorly written can mean:

• Lack of clear objectives - it takes forever to get to the point or the main message is hard to find, leaving the reader to work through lots of unnecessary information to extract the objective of the writing.

• Poor organisation of ideas - key points are buried in paragraphs, or absent. • Unclear writing - too many abstract nouns and unnecessary words, phrases

and emphasising words can cause the reader mental strain, as can sentences and paragraphs that run on longer than necessary.

The proposal’s outcomes do not reflect the donor's area of concern

Don't give up hope here. Obviously, if the donor isn't interested in your particular project, or if their mandate doesn't cover your proposed idea, it seems like a dead end. So why did you submit that exact proposal to that donor in the first place?

This problem can be avoided by first investigating your target donors’ current and upcoming priorities. No, they're not secret. Most can be found online from the donors' web sites, along with proposal submission guidelines. After all, they want to receive the right proposals, too, and they are always looking to say 'yes'. What good is their money without your skills to create positive change? And if the information isn't easy to find, just ask.

If it's clear that your project has absolutely nothing to do with the donor's field of interest, let it go. But, before you do, analyse the problem through your donor's eyes. For example, let's say that you intend to provide water and sanitation (WATSAN) facilities to local communities. It's not just a WATSAN project, though, is it?

What are the benefits of improved access to safe water? To name just a few, we have improved health / improved livelihoods, reduced migration, reduction of women's labour leading to greater involvement in community decision making ... so, while our project’s outcomes might not appear to fall within the donor’s area of interest, the project goal can still match their requirements.

The Problem Tree tool (which you will see later) has many different kinds of ‘fruit’ (positive impacts) beyond the immediate change (core issue). You can develop your analysis and draft a slightly different proposal for each donor, in each case, where needed, focusing on the outcomes and impacts that do fall within the donor's objectives.



5


I will give one interesting true example here to illustrate this. One bilateral aid agency in a conflict- ridden developing country was instructed from its headquarters to stop all activities except for those related to conflict reduction / mitigation.

Not one single project was dropped. The only change was in the way each project was described. A rooftop garden project concluded that 'improved access to food reduces conflict in communities' where previously it had been focused on improved nutrition. A small adjustment in the logic, and the project continued to be supported.

The proposal asks for more funding than the donor can provide

In this case, you should definitely have done your homework and known in advance. However, consider, if you are asking a small donor for the whole grant, whether you could take a different approach. With smaller donors, requesting a percentage of the grant is acceptable. As many projects will be funded by several partners, it's also often easier to get these smaller grantmakers on board first. As your supporters increase in number, you will find other organisations willing to step in and fill the major funding gap.

This isn't quite as simple as it seems, though. As mentioned earlier, different donors will have different objectives. When you are making a budget for your project, break down the project costs by outcome, so that the donors know exactly what they are supporting. For example, one outcome may commit 20% of your resources, another 30%. This way, donors can see the tangible results of their support.

The project has not been coordinated with other organisations

This does NOT mean your organisation can't 'go it alone'. Partnership can be full of difficulty, and it's sometimes the 'lone wolf' NGO that can achieve its objective better than several NGOs together, especially for small, targeted and specialised interventions.

However, for maximum results and to avoid overlap, you have to coordinate your project and align your strategy with the current reality. Show how your work complements the work of others; fills a gap or meets an unaddressed need; and also identify potential overlaps and conflicts of interest. Find out as much as you can about what's going on through research, observation, talking and, most of all, listening to communities and other organisations. Demonstrate that you fully grasp how your proposed project fits in with current reality.

Other organisations can be:

• Local government bodies • Civil Society Organisations • Grassroots bodies community-based organisations and community groups • Other NGOs working in the same sector or same geographical location



6


The donor is not assured of the organisation's capabilities

This isn't the end of the world either. We ourselves failed to win one project because we didn't have the human resources / technical skills at the time of submission. Make sure you research the availability of such resources and convince the donor you can bring on board the right people once the funding is there.

If your organisation lacks the relevant experience, then consider partnering with an NGO that has. They may support you with advisors, offer to monitor progress and steer strategy, or coordinate activities.

Just because you haven't done it before, doesn't mean you can't. After all, for everything that was done there was always a first time. Look at that title again: the donor hasn't been assured. Assure them.

The project is too ambitious

The donor’s concern may not just be related to human resources / skills. Perhaps the Outcomes appear too ambitious. Maybe you are taking on something far bigger than you can handle.

To make projects more manageable (and, ultimately, appear more achievable and therefore more likely to be funded) consider reducing:

• Number / Range of Outcomes - take the most important part and focus on those.

• Geographical Coverage - you may want to scale down the total area your project aims to cover, at least in its first phase. After all, if it's successful, then it can be replicated on a larger scale.

• Target Group - are you trying to cover too much of the population? Can a smaller initial target group be proposed? It can always be extended to other end-users at a later time.

Look at your Outcomes again. Are they too vague or wide-reaching - ending world hunger rather than improving the nutritional status of children aged 0-5 in XYZ province? Outcomes must be SMART (Specific-Measurable-Appropriate-Realistic-Timebound).

The last thing you can do in this case is look at partnership with other organisations. Can their capacity help you to meet your objectives and thus convince your donor that it can be done?



7


The writer did not follow the guidelines

If you're guilty of this, there's not much I can say. Guidelines are there for a purpose, and the purpose is NOT to prevent you from telling all the great and wonderful things your project will achieve.

They exist so that:

• You can stay focused on what's important. • Donors can cross-compare different submissions when allocating limited

funds.

Guidelines are not optional. Find out what they are and follow them every time you draft your proposal. However at the planning stage, only look briefly at the guidelines. We should try to avoid fitting our ideas and the current reality into the donor’s framework for now. Just get an idea of what they want and then follow the process of project planning. ALWAYS develop your proposal based around the current reality: and fine-tune your plan / proposal according to the guidelines later. The guidelines are guidelines for submission - not guidelines to thinking.

The evaluation procedure is inadequate

There are no excuses here, either. Accountability is everything, so make sure your plan includes a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system. At each level of achievement (Outputs, Outcome and Goal) you need Indicators (often called Objectively Verifiable Indicators, or OVI) which can be measured transparently and reliably. Your Indicators will need to be specific about the amount of change, quality of change, time frame, target group and location.

Explain how frequently M&E will be carried out; who will conduct it; and the methods that will be used. Also, include how you will communicate the results - to whom, how and how often.



8


On Problem Solving

Successful proposals are focused on solving problems.

Unfortunately, many organisations seem to be focused on activities rather than positive change. It's natural. ‘What we do’ takes up a lot of our energy, and sometimes, as a result, we lose sight of the destination.

Many times people have asked me to examine their potential project ideas - and, so often, these are all Activities, or just one action. For example, ‘We plan to set up a home for street children’ or ‘We will raise awareness about contraceptive use among Commercial Sex Workers’.

Now, there's nothing wrong with Activities - of course not. But none of these defines a problem to be solved or describes a positive situation as the end result. Thinking only in terms of Activities, however 'good' and 'right' they may be, can have a negative effect on the success of any project plan or proposal. Problems include:

You are unable to justify the proposal to the donor. Working backwards from Activities to explaining the problem can be hard work; and the logic is often difficult to justify. (And, sometimes the logic just isn't there.) It's much easier to start with the problem and select the Activity - if it is appropriate - at the proper stage of project planning.

It demonstrates poor strategic thinking. The development of a proposal that is based around Activities - even if we can successfully backtrack to identifying a problem -will never be as convincing as one developed around the problem itself without bias to one particular solution. A proposal developed from a problem-solving approach is convincing. One that has been developed to justify an Activity will always ‘ring false’.

The Activity may not be the most effective one to create the change. From habit, we may be continuing to use methods that bring about only partial or temporary success. You may be omitting other methods that can get better results or could supplement your core Activities to ensure success. Starting from a predetermined Activity prevents us from seeing other, more effective or more creative ways to address the problem.

As we will discuss in the analysis stage, effective proposals and effective project plans are all about solving problems. They're about looking at the existing situation with an open mind, without bias towards one solution or another.



9


Even if, at the end of the process, your solution is the Activity you had in mind all along, by following the stages of project planning and proposal development as we recommend, you will:

• Be better able to justify your proposed solution. • Understand better how what you will do will bring about the positive change

you promise to deliver.

Finally, let me add a note to 'realists'. A lot of people dismiss certain solutions before they even start. ‘We can't do it’ - ‘We don't have the skills’ - ‘It will cost too much’ ... the concept of limited capacity to deliver stunts their thinking before they even begin. There is no such thing as 'cannot be done' - if the problem is worth solving, and if the proposed solution makes sense, it can always be done. There will always be donors who will support sound ideas.

Definition of a Problem

This isn't a glossary of terminology - though you will find one of those (the terms we use in this toolkit) at the end of this introduction.

Before we undertake our Problem Analysis, let's actually define those two words -'problem' and 'analysis' - so we know (i) what we are expecting to identify (the problem) and (ii) what we are going to do to make sense of it (the analysis).

We are going to offer a two-part definition of a ‘problem’. Here’s the first part: a problem is ‘an existing negative situation’.

Is this an oversimplification? Perhaps it is. But bearing this in mind will help us to avoid mistakes such as describing problems in terms like these:

‘There is no health post in the village’

‘There is no road linking the community to nearby markets’

Both the examples above are not, in themselves, problems. Let's expand our definition of a problem a little. The second part of our definition is that a problem is ‘not the absence of a solution’.

Both the examples suggest that there is a single, predefined 'solution' - a health post, a road - before the situation has been analysed. There are two dangers with expressing our ideas like this.

Firstly, by expressing the problem in terms of a solution, we close off our thinking to other possible solutions. It's like we are merely reacting to the situation by recommending a knee-jerk response. True, it may be a solution that is commonly accepted, or may have given good results in other places / times. But each proposed solution must respond to the unique situation we are addressing.



10


Secondly, donors will, at some level, assume that you have not really thought all the possibilities through; and that you are pushing your organisation's agenda. Remember, proposal writers are problem solvers first and implementers second: we 'sell' the problem first, then the solution, and finally our ability to carry that out. By focusing only on the existing negative situation, we show ourselves to be neutral.

Looking specifically at what is wrong with the two examples:

‘There is no health post in the village’

This suggests that we have already decided there should be a health post, no matter what. However it raises questions such as what is the current health status of the residents? Does the situation justify a health post? What current health practices exist? What are the other options that could be considered?

A neutral way to express this could be:

‘Children of community X are vulnerable to preventable diseases’

or

‘Infant morbidity is a serious problem in community X’

Looking at the second example - ‘There is no road linking the community to nearby markets’ - again, here we have a statement that assumes that there must be a road. Mentally, we (and the donor) could backtrack to work out that the problem is related to the economic status of the community but, again, it's unsatisfactory. The whole problem is described through the eyes of the implementer (the NGO or consortium that plans to build the road) rather than through the eyes of the end-user (the community that is facing the problem).

A neutral way to express this could be:

‘People of community X have limited access to …’ - how it finishes will depend on the problem the ‘road’ (if that’s our solution) will address - access to markets / economic opportunity, health care, etc.

So, remember: a problem is ‘an existing negative situation and NOT the absence of a solution’.



11


Definition of Analysis

Analysis is ‘the process of breaking a complex topic into smaller parts to gain a better understanding of it’.

There are various tools we can use. What is important is that each we use is acceptable (valid for decision makers), effective (gets the best results) and efficient (relatively easy to use, fast and easy to understand).

The key problem analysis tool for proposal writers is the Problem Tree - which is a key stage in the Logical Framework Approach (LFA). It's easy to develop, widely accepted, and the results can be easily transposed when building the Logframe. (Note that when we discuss LFA we are talking about the approach - the process of developing the project plan - and when we say Logframe we mean the end result of the planning, the presentation of the plan in a four-by-four table.)



12


Glossary of Terms Used

The exact language used in development varies from decade to decade, organisation to organisation and person to person. Some terms are commonly understood, others mean different things to different people. Below are some of the terms we use in this toolkit with brief explanations.

Activity The basic work done to make a project happenAlternatives A tool for strategy selection where we compare the relativeAnalysis strengths and weaknesses of various approaches in order to

find the best combinationApproach One way of addressing a problemAssumption Something that must be true for the project effects to move

to the next levelCore Problem In problem analysis, the central issue to which all other

aspects of the problem are related; may be different fordifferent groups at different times

Effect In this toolkit, ‘effect’ is used in its generic meaningEnd-user Any individual or group that will be, through design,

positively affected by project implementation; sometimes referred to as ‘target group’ or ‘beneficiary’

Evaluation The systematic measuring of whether a project has beensuccessful

Goal The highest level change to which the project will contribute;not usually guaranteed by the project as many externalfactors beyond the project’s scope are also present

Impact Used by many organisations as a synonym for GoalIndicator A precise way of measuring project achievementsInputs What we need to implement activities - money, time,

equipment, people, resources LFA Logical Framework Approach - a systematic method of

designing projects Logframe The end result of the Logical Framework Approach; a matrix

that summarises the project M&E Monitoring and Evaluation - the systematic gathering and

analysis of data to ensure efficient delivery of project Inputs and measure project success

Monitoring The systematic gathering and analysis of data to ensureefficient delivery of project Inputs

MOV Means of Verification - the sources of data for M&Eactivities

Narrative The first column of the Logframe which describes the eventsSummary / changes at each level



13


Objective When capitalised, refers to the Objective of the project, i.e.what the project promises to deliver at its end; synonymous with Outcome When in lower case, is used in its general sense, synonymous with ‘purpose’ - e.g. ‘the objective of the writing’, ‘the organisation’s objectives’, etc.

Objectives A stage of the LFA where problems are restated as positiveAnalysis results and tested for logicOutcome Used here with the same meaning as Objective, i.e. what

the project will deliver by its end Outputs Sometimes referred to as Results, these are the end results

of Activities OVI Objectively Verifiable Indicators - a precise way of

measuring project achievementsPM&E Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation - where end-users

themselves set Indicators and participate in monitoring andevaluating projects themselves

Precondition A situation which must exist before the project can beginResult When capitalised, synonymous with Output

When in lower case, is used in its general sense Risk Similar to Assumption; a Risk is something that may happen

to hinder moving to the next level of results which is outsidethe project’s direct control

Situation The problem analysis stage of LFAAnalysisStakeholder Anyone affected by the projectStakeholder Analysis of all parties affected by the project and theiranalysis relative influence and interestStrategy The combination of approaches which are the foundation of

project design Target Group Synonymous with ‘end-user’



14


ROPOSAI. W a practical toolkitfor development professionals

To order your complete copy of

4.

PROPO5PL WRITING

(as PDF download, ;DROM or Trainer Edition CD)

please visit:Making the Indicator Specific

�

A

-www. j ip oy Sk

i .or /order. htm Problem Zree

http://www./

Escribir Proyectos 1

Documents

Transcript of Escribir Proyectos 1