PCM

Project Cycle Management (PCM)

Since recently, a rumor trickles through the scene, which sounds like: "GTZ replaces ZOPP through PCM!", and: "PCM is nothing else than ZOPP - old vine in new bottles!" Both statements are principally wrong but bear - like all rumors - a true core. So, what's that all about?

In the middle of the eighties, GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit) - the main agency for execution of the Technical Collaboration of the German Government, introduced a standardized project planning method. This method consisted of consecutive steps for appraisal, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of projects. This steps were mediated and facilitated by a planning tool that was called ZOPP (Zielorientierte Projektplanung - Objectives Oriented Project Planning). The ZOPP was meant to structure the planning approach into stakeholders analysis, problem analysis, objectives and alternatives analysis and into the project planning matrix (PPM), also known as Logical Framework Approach.

The planning procedure was formalized, and a series of planning workshops were made obligatory for the live cycle of every project. Soon after introduction of ZOPP everybody mistook the workshops with the method without considering the ZOPP as a flexible tool, but as a rigidly structured 3-days or 5-days seminar that started with the participation analysis and ended with the formulation of indicators and assumptions.

During the last ten years, many GTZ advisors and consultants working for GTZ got acquainted with the ZOPP workshop approach; and the monitoring and reporting system was totally adapted to the outcome of the workshop. If a project failed to achieve its planned results, blame could be placed on the external assumptions which had not be met. Nevertheless, since the introduction of ZOPP, critique had never stopped, and at the beginning of the nineties, time was due for a change.

The GTZ recently has introduced a new concept of project management that might have significant consequences for the work of consultants, and which could change the general approach to project planning and implementation. It followed the earlier step of the European Union. This concept which received the label "Project Cycle Management" (PCM) aims at initiating not less than a paradigm shift for the comprehension of "technical assistance" and should not leave anybody untouched of those who deal with development assistance.

The PCM concept incorporates the application of project planning and appraisal tools like ZOPP, PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal), gender-analysis and others. These tools are not replaced by PCM but put into a flexible context of a planning cycle.

The core of the philosophy of Project Cycle Management is based on the principle that the initiative for a technical cooperation project must be born from a self-help development process, in which only the genuine actors, are involved.

Figure 1: Project Cycle Management

Only if the actors are unable to effect the transfer from the present problem state to the desired state, a national governmental or non-governmental organization might interfere and assist the process for a limited period of time. This is called a project.

Only if the national organization of the partner country is short of the required skills and inputs for the project, the German government might interfere and support the project through technical assistance. A project supported by GTZ always is mediated by the partner organization to the beneficiaries.

This philosophy is not new. In fact it has been the official language of German development policy for the last twenty years, but new is that the GTZ has put it into the focus of the attention. In the past and in the present, projects in most cases have been strongly influenced by the perception of German experts. Official programmes called for participation of beneficiaries, and new tools were introduced that seemed to secure involvement of target groups. However, participation was often reduced to a symbolic application of participatory rural appraisal (PRA). The validity and the applicability of this method often was not related to the context but used as a blueprint approach.

There is a constant inherited conflict that runs through nearly all projects: target groups and partner organizations often, if not mostly have a different perception of projects, different desires, different technical concepts. If partner organizations would plan projects on their own, those would look different. UNDP has already introduced its new concept of "national execution" of projects. I had the opportunity to observe such a project in Thailand, which was, among other components, to support small-scale milk production. The project had highest support - the king of Thailand himself. Although officially it was called a "poverty alleviation project", the main rationale was to reduce the Thai dependency on imports of dairy products. Therefore the project was not questioned for a long time. Through heavy subsidizes to feedstuffs, extension, animal health services, and credits, production was economically feasible for a period of time. However, the high performance breeds introduced were not adopted to the extreme climate and the restricted feeding during the long dry season; their milk yield was sub-optimum. Finally, the prices for concentrate feeds which were constantly rising, exceeded the limit that allowed feasible production. Farmers who in the past were either forced or attracted through the subsidies started to protest and refused to continue dairying.

If there is any economic or moral sense justifying development assistance, one question should be allowed:

Are we (the experienced experts from the North) smarter?

Sitting in my German office, I really don't know. Working in a particular concept as a consultant, of course, I am convinced that I am; otherwise I could not justify to work for a salary which is sometimes hundred times higher than the salary that my counterpart receives.

If I look at the results of development aid of the last decades, I doubt that we are smarter. Maybe we are better sometimes, and our solar cookers look very fancy, but our project approaches often were not really accepted by the "target groups" and our partners. This relates to mainstream and so-called "alternative" project approaches. We all know that the predominant view of partner governments and partner organizations is: "We don't love the foreign experts, but we accept them as long as there is money involved."

Despite of all different approaches that have been tried out since social-democratic values form the base of development assistance - AT, participation, etc. - sustainability of projects which are based on foreign experts or volunteers has not improved significantly.

There are some challenging questions for the coming years to be answered:

• What can we do to increase acceptance of advisory service?
• How can we make ourselves better understandable to our partners, making them truly believe that we come with best intentions?
• Do we, the experts, have to change radically our concept of Technical Assistance?
• How can we and our partners work together as a real great team, sharing responsibility and using all our creativity?

In this sense, the task of consultants in development assistance will be more process oriented. Ideally, they could be unbiased observers, who visit a project periodically, facilitate real participation of all actors and help to bring peoples brains and hearts together - not only including the poor farmers, but also the national experts and bureaucrats. Such a consultant would first of all need social competence and secondly the ability to move to a meta-level, i.e. to step back and to critically assess the roles of the participants - including his/her own. The long-term advisers acting as team leaders in German Technical Assistance projects will in many cases be overburdened with the triple responsibility of giving technical advise, organizing personnel and material inputs, and managing social processes. Consultants might in future act as process supervisors and personal coaches to project managers.

The Objective Oriented Project Planning method is released from its straitjacket and positioned into a process. That means that planning workshops will not be obligatory any more within the project cycle - the German teamleader or backstopper can decide . If workshops are conducted, the decision on the applied methods is up to the moderator. They have to be chosen according to the status of the project. At a certain period of time, it might be necessary to do a problem analysis in a workshop, at a different point of time, a group might work on the project vision or elaborate the project planning matrix. But things could be done also without workshops, e.g. in small project groups. For example, a stakeholders analysis will require detailed studies which might include application of tools like PRA and gender analysis. The project team is free to apply other tools like vision sharing, future conferences, etc. However, the project planning matrix will most likely remain as an important tool of quality control and as a base for operational planning, monitoring and evaluation . Indicators will become a base to reach a common understanding on the project quality between advisers and partners ("What is it that we want to achieve?").