Improving Development Project Implementation through Effective Communications
The success or failure of externally funded development projects, whether in Africa or other developing regions, depends very much on effective communications between the stakeholders, funding agencies, host governments and project beneficiaries. As Hart (2006) notes, ‘development project implementation involves interaction among diverse actors from local stakeholders trying to improve their condition, to development practitioners implementing strategies to help make the improvements possible, and various other actors in between’. Unfortunately, as observed in TenStep, Inc. (2012), ‘many of the problems that surface on a project are actually the results of poor communication’. According to Panos (2007), ‘communication involves processes of dialogue, exchange of information and resources, and the capacities that enable understanding, negotiation and decision making’. Simply put, communication gives the project beneficiaries a voice – or empowers them – so that they can participate effectively in discussions of projects or programmes that affect them. Despite efforts to address the problem of programme communication by various development and humanitarian agencies, this remains a serious challenge. The examples cited below clearly illustrate how communications issues continue to affect project implementation. What becomes abundantly clear is that even though these case studies span over two decades, they share one common element of weakness; namely poor communication and inadequate empowerment of the stakeholders.
Snapshots of three case studies
In the early 1980s, a UNDP-funded project in Sierra Leone aimed to introduce an irrigation programme for an agricultural region of the country. It began after a six-month search for a qualified expert to serve as project manager. The contract for the first expert recruited was not extended largely because of the envy and resentment of his local counterpart. A further seven months elapsed before another expert could be found and put in post. After three months, however, the local staff told their director that they found the new project manager impossible to work with, as he was arrogant and communicated poorly. The director reported this to the minister concerned, recommending that the expert’s contract be terminated, which it was. By that time, however, the project had such a poor record that it was cancelled. In all, there had been virtually no communication on the firing of the project manager either among the government officials concerned or between them and UNDP until the decision was taken to terminate the expert’s contract (personal communication, 1985). Cultural differences played a part but not to the same extent as the considerations outlined above.
The second example concerns a project in Lesotho designed to bolster land management and conservation techniques funded by the World Bank (1988–1995). The project was to have been implemented by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Agriculture. By the end of 1992, however, despite extensive restructuring, it was clear that there were major problems of communication and coordination between the two implementing ministries (see World Bank, 1995). In fact, the World Bank evaluation report of 1995 found that the level of implementation of the project was low because of capacity weakness in the two ministries and in the village development councils. In particular, there was reluctance on the part of the two ministries to work together and significant difficulties in reaching the targeted mountain districts. Moreover, the project had suffered from conflicting approaches: the “food for work” and the management training proved problematic and should have been assessed before implementation (World Bank, 1995). This tension added to the bad faith between senior officials in the two ministries, which could have been corrected through improved communication.
The third example is drawn from an UNDP funded project in Lesotho designed to support youth employment and environmental conservation (Kakonge and Sibanda, 2009). The project established a national environmental youth corps and spent time before its launch raising awareness both among government officials and in the communities where it would operate. It began as a pilot in four of the ten districts in the country, with only modest funding guaranteed initially. There was excellent communication between the UNDP office, the relevant government ministries, local authorities and the target communities. Furthermore, the project enjoyed the support of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who helped by mobilizing funds from the Government of the Netherlands, and it also received in-kind contributions from the Government of South Africa and the local business community (Kakonge and Sibanda, 2009). In addition, the local administration, chiefs and community leaders agreed that to reduce costs the corps members could be recruited from the localities where the project would be operating, which proved cost-effective. The project was very successful and within four years expanded to the whole country. The Government decided to take over its funding by using income from the sale of water to South Africa under the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. Because of the success of the project, its experience was replicated in several other African countries (personal communication, 2003).
Immediate lessons and exigent concerns
The present section will examine lessons that can be drawn from the case studies cited above. Each of these lessons speaks to our theme of the role played by vertical and horizontal communication in development projects. Notable among them is the case of Sierra Leone, where the prescribed minimum standards regarding basic communication were not met. Simply put, project implementation needs to be underpinned by two-way communication between government officials, project management and all stakeholders. For example, the project manager should have recognized the cultural differences (including nuances of language, gender perceptions and local rituals) among his staff before making any drastic decisions. The counterpart staff thought that the project manager was rude and arrogant and they decided not to collaborate with him. Mehta (2002) confirms that cultural considerations are very important in project communication, adding that what may be common practice in one culture may not be as easily understood by other cultures. One way to address this problem, according to Mehta, is through face-to-face interaction – although, as a joint Food and Agriculture Organization and World Bank (2007) report recently recommended, communication should involve listening as well as talking.
A similar problem could be observed with regard to the Lesotho Land Management and Conservation Project, where there were very few participatory and deliberative processes involving dialogue. In fact, owing to inter personal differences between the top officials of the two ministries co-hosting the project, there were hardly any communication and coordination efforts made between the participating ministries. Moreover, the period of political instability, particularly the changes in South Africa during 1993 and 1994, affected project implementation through changes in government structures which had an impact on some decision making processes (World Bank,1995). As has been pointed out by, among others, the Asian Development Bank (2011), ideally in such situations it is essential to have regular and continuing consultation and coordination meetings with all the agencies and organizations involved in implementing the project. Such consultation and coordination meetings, in the case of the Lesotho Land Management and Conservation Project, were clearly non-existent between the ministries involved, and even when faced with a failing project, efforts to work together and communicate (i.e. meetings) were completely avoided. This, in turn, resulted in the cancellation of the most-needed funds to improve the living standards of the poor people in the targeted districts, who were not even involved in the decision making process.
An exigency apparent in the above examples is the need to ensure, during the pilot phases for complex projects, that all parties fully understand their own obligations and are aware of others’ expectations. This concern was raised by the evaluation report of the Lesotho Land Management and Conservation Project (World Bank, 1995). Given that the target districts were in a mountainous region of the country that is not easily accessible, there should have been consultations and dialogue between the two government ministries and the donors about other options. This situation is not unique. The report by Clarke and Ustrowski (2009) on a workshop organized in Ghana about the communication problems between the ministries of health and finance in Africa recommended that the relations between those institutions should be addressed through an institutionalized dialogue mechanism that fosters discussion and creative solutions. This would also apply to the Sierra Leone irrigation project, where the communication challenges had more to do with personalities than with the practical and technical side of the work. Interestingly, this problem is not unusual. For example, FAO/WB (2007) noted that natural resource management experts or scientists often do not have a mindset oriented towards social development and participation or skills in communication for development. This is also the case where researchers fail to communicate effectively with illiterate farmers and semi-literate extension officers (IICD, 2011). As a result, the researchers’ contribution amounts to no more than a theoretical exercise or purely academic interest. By carrying out a pilot phase, it might have been possible to determine the precise project requirements, including commitment to the full-scale project.
Concluding remarks
The examples cited above demonstrate that many problems that surface during project or programme implementation are due to poor communication that lead to differences in expectations. With few notable examples, such as the Lesotho environment and youth project, which empowered the country’s youth and communities through effective communication, the projects took a top-down approach in which dialogue or communication with stakeholders and beneficiaries was conducted via government officials. Yet, one would expect that African policy makers and their development partners should recognize the critical role of the target beneficiaries as part of the effective communication loop in programme and project implementation.
When all is said and done, academics and practitioners neglect communication at their peril. It is not incidental that both at the high level forum on aid effectiveness in Busan, Republic of Korea, in 2011, and at the conference on ‘Delivering as One’, in Tirana in 2012, there was general recognition that communication and the ability to share critical information are key in reducing transaction costs and empowering stakeholders. Accordingly, to be effective, communication must be participatory, inclusive and responsive to contemporary challenges. Although there is no single recipe or formula for good communication, to achieve this goal communication channels should be mainstreamed into all projects and programmes from the very outset and upheld throughout their implementation. This, in turn, will create an enabling environment where development partners, African governments, civil society and project beneficiaries are able to acquire and share relevant information, develop mutual understanding, enhance participation and take action to ensure successful project or programme implementation. This issue, which has long been simmering on the development agenda, has now become critical and demands innovative approaches and solutions from the international community, African governments, development practioners, academicians, and others.
Dr. John O. Kakonge, Special Adviser, South-South News, New York, NY, USA
References
Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2011). “Improving Project Success through Effective Communication and Participation”, Learning Lessons. Manila, Philippines.
Clarke, G. and Ostrowski, C. (2009). Improving Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Health Relationships for Increased Health Funding. Global Health Initiative, Policy Brief, Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars. Available from http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Policy%20Brief.pdf.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Bank (FAO/WB) (2007). World Congress on Communication for Development: Lessons, Challenges, and the Way Forward. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Hart, S. (2006). Communicating Development across Cultures: Monologues and Dialogues. In: Development Project Implementation. United States of America: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Kakonge, J.O. and Sibanda, H. (2008). “International Experiences with Environmental Youth Corps: Lessons from Lesotho, Journal of Environmental Extension, vol. 7, pp. 1-9.
International Institute for Communication and Development(IICD) ( 2011)More Effective Information flow between researchers, extension officers, and farmers in Zambia.
Mehta, A. (2002). Communication in Project Management 1. Available from http://www.pmiglc.org/comm/articles/0410_mehta_comm.pdf .
Panos ( 2007) At the heart of Change: the role of communication in sustainable development. Panos, London, UK
TenStep, Inc. (2012). “Poor project communication will cause many projects to end
unsuccessfully”, Project Management Tips. Available from http://www.projectkickstart.com/downloads/tips11-poor-project-communication.cfm.
World Bank (1995). Lesotho Land Management and Conservation Project (Credit 1897-LSO): Implementation Completion Report. Available from http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1995/12/19/000009265_3961019170305/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf.
