472-Project Framework.Pdf

~I I :1 I Project Framework I Introduction I Project Children on the Agenda (COTA) had its ongm m a brief personal I discussion in January 1992 in Delhi between a Programme Officer from the Bernard van Leer Foundation (BVL) and Hon. Director Project ACCESS, MSSRF, who at I the time had just initiated the process of setting up the State branch of FORCES in Tamil Nadu. The discussion covered some of the ideas on developing the network for I the promotion of child care services in Tamil Nadu. Because of the scale, uniqueness and complexity of the concept it was realised that developing it into a project. proposal I would take some time and effort. It was then decided to write up a proposal for a small one-time grant-in-aid for preparation of a project proposal, which was " . I submitted it to BVL in April 1992. This was approved formally in June 1992 and the I preparation phase was undertaken from July 1992. A consultant was appointed to integrate the findings, a series of brainstorming I meetings were held with various potential partners and network members and the outlines of a project proposal began to emerge by about October 1992. This was I submitted to BvL and revised over the next few months through a series of I interactions between MSSRF and BvL, mostly by letter, fax and phone, but also by personal interaction during a visit to Madras by the Programme Officer, who was able I to provide useful and concrete guidelines. The final proposal was again submitted in April 1993, received formal approval in June 1993 and was formally launched on I July 1, 1993. At this stage, and at the suggestion of BvL it was named as Children on the Agenda. I I I I I 2 Children on the Agenda I Brief history I I Project COT A was launched on July 1, 1993 and closed formally on December 31, 1997. During this four and a half year period, it has gone through three distinct I phases: I a. Initial phase (July 1993 to April 1995) b. Mid-project phase (April 1995 to December 1996) I c. Consolidation and completion phase ( January - December 1997) I a. This phase was from the launch up to the completion of the midterm evaluation I which started in January 1995 and was integrated by April 1995. The start up was slow, as was to be expected in a project of this nature. The first meeting orthe I Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was held in August 1993, and in the same •• month, the first major policy seminar under the auspices of TN-FORCES was also I conducted and the report prepared. Staff recruitment was-completed by November I 1993 and project activities were slowly developed. This was a phase of intense experimentation. with considerable exploration as well as constant discussions and I evaluation internally. In the first year, the level of expenditure was also very low, since activities were only being slowly planned out and carried out. It was felt by I both the Project Director and the staff that the mid-term evaluation was too soon, as the project was still in its initial phase and could not be considered 'mid-term'. I However, the evaluation, conducted by an experienced professional turned out to be a. very useful, insightful and productive exercise, carried out as it was in a I participatory manner. This helped in revising the goals and strategies, tightening up the planning and implementation process and procedures and leading to more I effective, goal-directed and focused activities(Project objectives in Annexure 1). I I II I Project Framework 3 I I b. The second phase, from April 1995 up to December 1996, can be termed as one of consolidation and peak activity. During this phase, the tempo of activities was I at its height, but at the same time proceeded in a smooth, well-planned, coordinated and linked free flowing sequence, since the various difficulties had been sorted out I in the course of internalising and applying the lessons of the mid-term evaluation. Even though this period saw some changes among the staff, several new faces, I and above all a change of Project Coordinator, there was no negative impact on II either the quantity or .quality of work. The greatest achievement, internally, was the smooth transition from one Project Coordinator to another in June 1996, with no noticeable impact in efficiency or effectiveness, as a result of careful preparation . I Project expenditure was maintained at a consistent and reasonable level. However, it I was also realised that because of savings due to various reasons such as cost- efficiency, sharing of costs by network members etc. there would be funds available Ii at the end of the three-year period to continue the work, and a no-cost extension for one year was applied for ( up to June 1997) and approved. During this period also, 11 the network Convenbr for the next phase was identified and the new Convenor I,. was announced in December 1996. During the last phase, (January December 1997) the thrust was on I consolidation and completion of all projected and planned activities and on managing the smooth transition from one Convenor to another. With regular reviews, close I monitoring and working to deadlines, all assignments were completed. Only one important activity, the completion of the study of child care workers, has had to be I carried over. A few minor activities also could not be completed for reasons beyond our control such as bureaucratic delay or change of officials in the concerned I Government Department. The work of network management began to be shared with the new Convenor, though still financed and implemented by COT A, since the new I Convenor did not yet have funds or staff for the purpose. At the same time, the activity of process documentation of all aspects of the project was launched, the I major one, process documentation of the network component, being entrusted to a I consultant, while all the others were handled by the project staff. A second no-cost I I I 4 Children on the Agenda I extension was sought and approved, and funds were fully spent by the end of the year, II with tight financial management in the last two months. During this period also, steps were taken to begin preparation of a project proposal for the next phase. The first I proposal was submitted to BvL in July 1997, and went through a series of revisions. It was finally approved in November 1997 and formally launched as Operation I Resource Support( DRS) from January 1, 1998. I The process I In addition to the bare bones of the narrative, outlined above, there are several important aspects of this project which would not only help to understand its dynamic I and functioning, but also throw light on the process of project development,. with implications both for understanding the dynamics of the process and for future work I in this direction. Some of these are discussed below. I At the outset, it must be reiterated that the project was an unique one, and nothing like it had beer1earlier encountered, even by BvL in any country. It was hence I in every sense an innovative, experimental and unique project-a daring vision, seemingly plausible, yet with no precedents, no fixed guidelines, and no standards or I criteria for evaluation. Hence, the manner of functioning at first was, and had to be, highly exploratory and open-ended in nature. Everything was being done for the.first I time; nothing could be predicted; everything had to be by trial and error, while at the same time it was realised that errors could be costly, especially in terms of I relationships with network members, where a single mistake could lead to long-term adverse consequences. While goals and strategies had been conceptualised, their translation into activities was a more difficult tark. The kind, nature and amount of I activities that could be taken up could not be clearly visualised; they had to be tried out and a pattern allowed to emerge. Similarly even monitoring indicators and criteria I for evaluation had to be developed anew and put in place early on, and then modified from time to time to adapt to the reality. In this sense, therefore, the entire project I can be said to be a textbook example of the "process-oriented' approach as opposed to a target-oriented approach. Inventing the project as we went along, the process I itself was the project. I I I -I Project Framework 5 I I The two important pillars through whose interaction the process of unfolding, and of eventual flowering, took place, were on the one hand the project staff and on I the other, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and a few other Resource I Persons who had played a consistent role in its development. The staff I It is difficult to overestimate the key role played by the staff in the development of I the project, especially at the earlier more fluid stages. The vision, the skills, interests, experiences and understandings they brought to their jobs, the combination of I complementary strengths and weaknesses at particular points of time, all of these significantly influenced the choice of activities, the extent and pace, within the I framework of the accepted goals and strategies, just as their motivation dynamism , harmonious cooperation and hard work lay behind the effectiveness and efficiency of I implementation.

Load more