SELF-TRAINING WORKSHOP

for

PARTICIPATIVE PROGRAMMING APPROACH

….., le ../../200.

WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES

• To acquire the key concepts of the participative programming approach (PPA)

• To well identify and get familiar with the five steps of the programming logic

• To practice a participative approach from a real situation setting

• To observe the possibilities of application in your practical professional life

KEY PRINCIPLES SUPPORTING a PARTICIPATIVE APPROACH

• A continuous process of formal and unformal information exchange

• A valorisation of the traditional knowledge including oneselves responsabilities

• An iterative and evolutive process, respecting the rythm and the preoccupations of the community

• A flexibility and a creativity in the approach, as well as an inter-activity within the actors

• A transversal, dynamic and systemic approach,

• A role of transmitting for the communities, and of receiving for the facilitating team.

PARTICIPATIVE, PARTICIPATING or POWER SHARING

AUTONOMYDECENTRALISATION

Autonomous actors ; piloting tehnical teams ; management and control – searching for financing

CO-MANAGEMENT

PARTNERSHIPResponsible actors with whom we share decision makings ; support to the emerging of local organisations

CONCERTATION

NEGOCIATIONPassive actors who just give advices or ask for questions

ASSOCIATION Consulted actors who give informations

CONTRIBUTION TO Passive actors who contribute with manpower or money.

PROJECT CYCLE MANAGEMENT

OBSERVATION of the SITUATION

PROBLEM ANALYSIS

OBJECTIVES PROGRAMMING

ACTION PLAN

IMPLEMENTATIONACTIVITIES

PROGRAMMING

FOLLOW UP

EVALUATION

1

2

3

4

5

ADAPTATION

The DIFFERENT KNWOLEGES

• Knwoledge of the layman (the communities)

• Practical knowledge (the professionals)• Scientific knowledge (the experts)• Institutional knowledge (les autorities)

The fact of having different knowleges all together improves the field of experience

The GUIDANCES

• The LOBBYING

• The EXPERIENCE

• MONEY

• The « SCREENING » SOLUTIONS

Getting conscious of the guidances help avoiding manipulations and deviancy

The RANGE of PROBLEMS

NEEDSobserved by theprofessionals

Range ofPROBLEMSleading toa project

DEMANDSexpressed by

thecommunity

RESOURCES andlocal ‘KNOW-

HOW’

The RANGE of PROBLEMS (fed.)

NEEDS

DEMANDS

‘KNOW-HOW’

PROBLEMS

observed by the professionals

experienced by the community

existing locally

can lead to a project

The FIVE STAGES of PROGRAMMING LOGIC

The five stages are :Stage I – observation of the situationStage II – analysis of the problem(s)Stage III – programming of objectives and

strategyStage IV – action planStage V – evaluation of programming and

programming of evaluations

YOUR EXPECTATIONS ?

WHAT ARE YOUR SPECIFIC EXPECTATIONS AT THE END OF

THIS TRAINING WORSHOP RELATED TO PARTICIPATIVE PROGRAMMING APPROACH ?

PARTICIPATIVE PROGRAMMING APPROACH

PARTICIPATIVEThe participants are the autonomous actors of their project

PROGRAMMINGThe workshop is designed to follow the five stages of

programming logic

APPROACHLeading participants on the way of their own programming

The SWOT EVALUATION

STRENGHTS(linked to organisation – organisational & managerail factors, technical & financial

factors…- which might be controlled)

WEAKNESSES( linked to the organisation and which one has to try hard to get rid off )

OBSTACLES (linked to environmental factors – économicals, institutionals, socio-culturals,

géographics, technologicals…- which one needs to avoid)

TRIUMPHS (the « foundation stones » on which one should build the future)

The ORIGINALITY of PPA• Importance given to the analysis of problems and

their causes, validated by indicators• Implication of the maximum of actors, coming

from various areas, in the programming, the follow-up and the evaluation of the process

• The concern of identifying the determinant causes and target or  « at risk » populations

• The setting of result for each activity ; the activity ends up if the result is reached

• The quick implementation of low-cost and with immediat effect activities, in order to maintain direct beneficiaries motivation.

ASSERTION - INDICATOR« With PPA, the problems are expressed as

assertions and later on validated through surveys and indicators »

• Assertion :proposal (which in its form can be negative or positive) that one puts forward and that one maintains is true (Petit Robert)

• Indicator : variable having the purpose of measuring or assessing a state, an evolution.

Stage I – OBSERVATION of the SITUATION

• The objective Respond to the question : who is/will be the project

bearer ? Analyse the present sutuation / results already

achieved Identify the existing relations and networks Mobilise the actors on priority problems.

• The proposed tool : the systemic representation

SYSTEMIC REPRESENTATION

Institutional Partners

Opérationnal Partners

PROJECT BEARER(S) PROBLEMS

EFFECTS

REALISATIONS

(dated)

SWOT ANALYSIS of SYTEMIC REPRESENTATION

S Oroject bearer

Partners

Problems/ effects

realisations

-----------

----------

---------

---------

W Oroject bearer

Partners

Problems/ effects

realisations

-----------

----------

----------

----------

O -----------

----------

---------

----------

T Oroject bearer

Partners

Problems/ effects

realisations

------------

-----------

-----------

-----------

Oroject bearerPartnersProblems/ effectsrealisations

PPA stage I (fed)MOBILISATION AROUND PRIORITY PROBLEMS

The objectives : – identify problems – Get agreement on the two or three problems

considered as priority ones

The proposed tools :– The « round sheets » method– The consensus– The priorisation grid

PROBLEM DEFINITION

A problem is a situation where a human being feels a lack, a difficulty, a discomfort, an insatisfaction, a frustration in front of an established fact.

The fact of expressing it, gives energy to fight against it.

The problem formulationExample :

 

“there is no water ”however, there is water but it is not drinkable 

“there is no drinking water ”however, there is drinking water but not a regular supply 

“there is no regular supply of drinking water”however some people have a regular supply of drinking water because they live close to boundary springs

situated at the head of river system 

“it is difficult for persons living far from the border springs situated at the head of the river system to have regular access to drinking water”

however the problem only really exists during the dry season 

“ during the dry season, it is difficult for people living far from border springs situated at the head of the river system, to have regular access to drinking water”

The PRIORISATION GRID

CRITERIA

PROBLEM

NUMERIC IMPORTANCE

of the PROBLEM

REPERCUSSION

of the PROBLEM

ENVISAGED

MANAGEMENT

of the

PROBLEM

PERCEPTION of the

IMPORTANCE

of the PROBLEM

PROBLEM

N°1 XX X XX XXX

PROBLEM

N° 2 XXX XX XX XXX

PROBLEM

N° 3 XXX XX X XX

Stage I (end) : the VALIDATION

• Has each participant the feeling that his advice has been taken into account ?

• Does each participant consider that the systemic representation is in accordance with his environment ?

• Had each participant positionned himself within the group ?

• Do all participants recognize the considered problems as priotrity ones ?

• Are all participants in agrement with the choice made on programming ?

• Are all participants ready to continue the programming workshop ?

Stage II

PRIORITY PROBLEMS ANALYSIS

The objective : Identify and analyse the causes and the determinant mécanismes of the priority problem(s)

The tools : – Looking for the causes and effects : the

« round sheets » method– Analysis of causes and mécanismes : the

« causal tree »– The validation : looking for indicators

PRIORITY PROBLEMS ANALYSIS (fed)

The steps : – Identify, analyse and validate the effects and

the determinant mécanismes of the priority problem(s)

– Build the « causal tree » of causes and effects while using assertions

– looking for validation’s indicators– Identify the determinant causes as well as the

« at risk »population.

The « ROUND LEAVES » METHOD

Each member of a group take a sheet of paper and write the problem which appears to be priority for him/her (2 to 3 mn maximum) ;

To follow, each participant gives his own shet of paper to his right neighbour, read what is writen, and write the second priority problem while responding to the question : WHY ? …and so on and on until the subject is considered over.

Each group organises itself to designn a president and a rapporteur ; the president gives a sheet at each member ans one starts to take joint steps and decides which problems reach consensus witin the group. Each problem kept by the group is written by tre rapporteur on a small paper ( one problem per paper)

To follow, the individual papers are equitably distributed to each participant ; a first person reads a problem, and one starts to regroup the problems in homogeneous families ; the rapporteur regroups various problems packs ; for each familiy, the group has to reach a consensus on a formulation, existing or to be re-written, which translate in the best way the agreed priority problem

We finish with 3 or 4, or more priority problems, written on different individual papers and translated under a «SITUATION DESCRIPTION  »..

EFFECT

RELATION

CAUSE

Rehabilitation

care is too

expensive

Rehabilitation services are

not performing

satisfactorily

There are not enough rehabilit

ation services

They are not able to

follow a complete education

al programm

e

It is impossible to find training

adapted to the disabilities that

disabled persons present

Disabled persons are too

slow in their work

In order that they can work, it is necessary

to make changes in the

business

They don't have enough skills to be able to work

like others

Disability is a divine

punishment

By mixing with disabled

persons, people think that they risk becoming

like them

People are afraid of disabled persons

Disabled persons do not have sufficient abilities to be active

in the community

The community is reluctant to accept disabled persons

Disabled persons do not have the required professional skills

Disabled persons do not always have

the necessary functional abilities to

have an activity

They are rejected and isolated by

others

Disabled persons are not sufficiently integrated into

their community

They cannot meet their

family's needs

People think that it doesn't pay to employ

disabled persons

They feel belittled within their family

Disabled persons arouse

pity

They are often neglected/aband

oned by their partner

You hardly ever see disabled persons

EXAMPLE OF PROBLEM TREE OR CAUSAL TREE

Stage II (fed) LOOKING for INDICATORS

Indicator: Variable used for measuring or assessing a state, an evolution (Petit Robert)

Why identifying the indicators at this stage? The construction of the causal tree is based on a collection

of assertions that must be checked thoroughly

To allow the problem, the causes and the effects to be better qualified, or reformulated

To guarantee the relevance of the project

A « good » indicator must be PERTINENT and MEASURABLE

DETERMINANT CAUSES/« AT RISK » POPULATIONS

• Determinant causes : most often, the causes which are determinant are those which repeat themselves in several roots and/or at several levels of the tree. If the determinant causes are not so obvious, it will be necessary to decide on the causes to which priority should be given (in time or mobilisation of means)

• « At risk » populations : are the people, or groups of people, most exposed to these determinant causes. These populations might be characterised by their geographic situation, their sex/ age, and any other characteristic enabling them to be precisely identified.

Stage II (end) - The Validation• Have we go all around the problem ?• Are all the participants in agrement with :

• The determinant causes ?• The identification of « at risk » areas and

populations ?

• Do the choosen indicators allow the validation of the identified causes ?

• Do we have the means to collect the indicators (surveys to be implemented) ?

• Does each participant get the feeling that one’s advice has been taken into consideration ?

Stage IV – PROGRAMMING of OBJECTIVES and STRATEGIES

Objectives : To establish a pyramid of objectives according to the

general objective, intermediary objective and specific objective method.

Using specific objectives, define a certain number of generic activities as well as the expected results.

Observe if programming activities are achievable and fight well against the determinant causes ;

Observe if the general objective well respond to the priority problem

Identify the activities which might be implemented rapidly and with immediat effects.

Stage III(fed) – The Methodology It is the causal tree which will allows us to construct

this pyramid. The upper levels of the roots are used for identifying the objectives, the medium levels for identifying activities, and the lower levels for identifying the tasks and resources to be mobilised.

The general objective is directly formulated in a positive way based on the problem.

For each activity, to define an expected result within a certain time period

To build a summary table with activities, their indicators, the source of indicators and the expected results

To analyse the cohérence of the programming in a whole – objectives and activities are well responding to the problems and their identified causes.

A « GOOD » OBJECTIVE ?

• An objective must be S.M.A.R.T.– Spécific : has to precisely respond to the identified

problem(s) and causes – Measurable : should have a concrete indicator

allowing one to measure the ongoing realisation – Acceptable : should have been discussed and accepted

by the direct beneficiaries and partners to the project – Réalistic : should be adapted to the local and

environmental conditions of the project realisation – Set up on Time : must be achieved in the time frame

decided for the project.

GENERAL OBJECTVE

STRATEGIE GLOBALE

du PROJET

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

To improve the

financial accessibilit

y of rehabilitatio

n care

To improve the performance of rehabilitation

services

To expand the number of

rehabilitation facilities

To develop and improve

the education of

disabled children

To improve the

accessibility of disabled persons to

professional training centres

ACTIVITIES

Construction and equipping

of new services

Initial training of rehabilitation staff

EXPECTED RESULTS

At the end of the first year

of the project, each province

will have rehabilitation

and prosthesis services

At the end of the second year of the

project, 12 physiotherapists and 8 technicians will be qualified and assigned to the rehabilitation

services

To improve the integration of disabled persons into their community

To improve the functional and professional skills of disabled persons

EXAMPLE OF A PYRAMID CONSTRUCTED FROM THE PROBLEM TREE

INTERME-DIATE OBJECTIVES

OPERATIO-NAL

STRATEGY

To make the community more willing to integrate disabled persons

Example : Disabled Persons• General objective : To contribute to a better life style of

disabled persons into their community• Intermediary objective : improvre the integration of

disabled persons

• Objectifs spécifiques : 1. To improve the quality of kinesitherapy health services

in favor of disabled persons2. To expand the number of rehabilitation facilities with

priority to disabled persons3. To sensitize people versus risks linked to the use of

contaminated water (polio prevention) 4. To improve the accessibility of disabled persons to

professional training centers

Stage III(end) : the VALIDATION :

• Do activities allow reaching expected results ?

• Do activities allow reaching objectives ?

• Are expected results for implementing activities well balanced with involved means ? (rentability)

• Do defined objectives permit to reach the priority problem(s) and its causes ?

• Do available means (human ressources, equipments, financial) allow to achieve programming activities ?

• Are used indicators objective, measurable, easy to collect and read, non-subjective ?

Phase IV – The ACTION PLAN

The objective : : Prepare the implementation of programmed and priority activities (at short, middle and long term) ? to identify the HUMAN resourcesTo tify the MATERIAL and FINANCIAL

resources To identify and choose the ORGANISATIONAL

MEANS for the implementing of activitiesTo establish the TIMEFRAME of the project.

Stage IV : the methodology• The column headings reading from left to right guide the

development of the programming (It is above all, the logic and its development which prevails ; a box or a line can remain empty in the tool, the important thing being to ask the question for each column heading).

• After summing up the needed human resources for each activity, to define in quantity and quality the number of people needed for the whole programme (+ training needs)

• To identify the organisational means for implementing the activities, and to evaluate their cost

• To establish financing needs while identifying owner’s equity

• To programm each activity in a certain time frame.

Indicative grid for the action plan programming (1)

Forces

Activity

Expected

Result

Result’s

Indicator

Source of indicator

Task positive négative

The possible negative effects of

the activity

Pré-

conditions

Indicative grid for the action plan programming (2)

Human Resources Activities Tasks Who ? With who ?

Material Resources

Financial Resources

Chronogramm (when ?)

Chronogramm of activities

Year 1 Year 2 T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4

Activity 1 : Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 ---------

Activity 2 : Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 ---------

--------- --------- --------- ---------

The logical framework - EUVérify indicators

Logic of Intervention

Indicators

Sources of

Vérification

Assumptions

Global Objectives

Specific Objectifs

expected Results

R E V I E W the O B J E C T I V E S

Activities

V E R I F Y the A S S U M P T I O N S

Pré- conditions Pré- conditions

Stage IV(end) – the validation

• Do the human, material and organizational means allow the implementation of programmed activities ?

• Are the participants in agreement with their allocated working task and responsabilities ?

• Did each participant get the feeling that his advice has been taken into consideration ?

Stage V – ÉVALUATE the PROGRAMMING and PROGRAMM the ÉVALUATIONS

The objectives– Evaluate during the programming workshop – Evaluate at short term (at the end of the

workshop and in the month following the workshop)

– Evaluate at middle term (within the 3 or 6 months following the workshop)

– Evaluate at long term (at half time and at the end of the implementing phase).

Stage V (fed) : What is an evaluation ?

• What is an evaluation ?– It is a periodical checking of the project success – It deals with efficacy, pertinence, impact and

viability of the project, in relation with defined objectives

– It is centered on results coming from specific and global objectives

– It analyses the effects of the activities implemented during the project

– It verifies the planning of the project.

Evaluation is not :

• A hidden investigation

• A useless luxury

• An inquisition without dialogue

• A verdict without appeal

• An intrusion to steal power

• A programming workshop.

The follow-up ?

By contrast with evaluation, the FOLLOW-UP :

– is an activity of permanent and systematic management

– compares the evolution of the project with the planning

– is dealing with all the levels of the project management – takes into consideration the formal and unformal

communication relationships– is dealing with resources, activities and results.

The evaluation, what does it respond to ?-

EVALUATION

CONFIRMATION REDIRECT

STOP

An evaluation, in short ?

• A photo, a statement

• A diagnosis, an appreciation

• Recommandations, a decision making tool.

« Evaluate to evolve »

The evaluation criteria• Criteria or view angles to appréciate the action

– EFFICACY : compares results with objectives– EFFICIENCY : compares results with human,

material and financial involved resources + qualitative appreciation of used methodology

– IMPACT : analyses all the positive, negative, forecasted or unexpected effects

– STRATEGY or CONCEPTION : analyse the pertinence of the solution adopted through the project in relation with the initial problem

– VIABILITY : analyse the opportunities for the project to be continued after the external aid had finished.

Who evaluates ?Phases Sponsor Projet

team

external

Evaluator

Project

Partner

beneficiaries

Décision to evaluate X XElaboration of criteria X X XChoice of timing steps X X X X XChoice of evaluation type(internal,external, participatory, auto-évaluat.)

X X X

Choice of evaluators X (X)Collect/ use of informations X X X (X)Participation to restitutions X X X X XDecision making X X

When to evaluate ?Planning Evaluation

1- analysis of needs

2 – choice of priorities

3 – determination of objectives

Evaluation ex-anteStrategic evaluation

4 – implementation planning (activities, resources, chronogramm)

Tactical evaluation

5 – implementation of the

programm

Opérational evaluation

6 – expecting results Evaluation ex-post :

• of results• of the impact & viability

The interest of evaluation ?In short, what does evaluation aiming at ?• Firstly to manage

To estimate the value of resultsTo analyse the past and to programm the future• To who ? – the project team and the beneficiaries

• Next to informMost of the actors of the project• To who ? – all the actors

• Finaly to controlControl the realisation of actions• To who ? – the sponsor

Your final evaluation of the self-training workshop

• Evaluation is related to :– the workshop planning– the pertinence of the working methodologies– the programming approach– the workshop organisation in relation with timing– the benefits to the participants

• Evaluation adresses you complementary demands, your comments and suggestions (free)