ZOPPObjectives-oriented Project PlanningA planning guide for new and ongoing projects and programmes

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

Unit 04Strategic Corporate Development

GTZ

-P-F

OR

M 2

1-11

-2e

Published by:

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbHUnit 04Strategic Corporate DevelopmentDag-Hammarskjöld-Weg 1-565760 EschbornGermany

Text by:Stefan Helming, Michael Göbel

English translation by:Joan Tazir

Layout:Stefan Mümpfer - grafic works -, 60316 Frankfurt

Cover:Compliments of the project “Urban Development through LocalEffects (UDLE)”, Nepal

Eschborn 1997

This paper was written by the project teamStefan Helming and Michael Göbel on behalfof GTZ’s Strategic Corporate DevelopmentUnit (04). Thanks are expressed to the manycolleagues and friends who provided con-structive assistance.

1

In the publication “Managing the implemen-tation of German technical cooperationactivities” GTZ Directors General explainedGTZ’s mandate and role and encouragedstaff to take a flexible approach to their work.

The “Project Cycle Management (PCM)and Objectives-oriented Project Planning(ZOPP)” guideline describes the principlesalong which GTZ plans and manages itscooperation inputs.

The aim of this brochure is now to ex-plain the role of the ZOPP Objectives-ori-ented Project Planning approach. ZOPP isGTZ’s planning instrument. Its baselinefeatures are quality and process orientation.ZOPP incorporates GTZ’s many years ofcooperation experience. This publicationwill be joined by a “Methods Compass”

which explains the range of methods andtechniques available to help objectives-ori-ented project planning achieve success.

A companion publication is GTZ’sbrochure “Cooperation on the right track– Standard Procedure and how it works”,which explains the formal procedure fortechnical cooperation agreed between GTZand BMZ (German Ministry for EconomicCooperation and Development) and the con-sequences this has on procedures withinGTZ and with partner organisations.

BMZ operations

(Standardprocedure)

Other operationsfor German Ministriesand States

(Länder) Other operationsfor interna-tional finan-cing organi-

sations

ZOPP

Monitoring

ProjectProgessReview

Pro

cedures Instrum

en

ts

Corporate principles

Directives

forexpert appraisers

PRA

asse

ssm

ent

meth

od

s

Reportin

g

gearedto

comm

ission

geared to commission

analysis

Econ

omic

oth

er

Guid

efo

roffe

rs

Procedures

Procedures

GTZ Project Management

Organisatio

nal

SW

OT

Orientationframework

PCMGuideline

Procedures Methods

For many years the acronym ZOPP has stoodfor Objectives-oriented Project Planning.It has become GTZ’s trademark for partic-ipative planning procedures geared to theneeds of partners and target groups.

The ZOPP guide used for the last 10years needs to be updated. Planning is nowtaking place in a different context. GTZHead Office was reorganised and given aregional structure in 1989 and the Planningand Development Department was estab-lished. At the present time, GTZ is decentral-ising management responsibility and mak-ing in-company operations more flexible.We want to encourage staff members at alllevels to take a proactive approach to theirwork. This also applies to project planningas an ongoing management function. Staffin project countries are particularly ad-dressed, together with their counterparts.The Head Office in Eschborn will, of course,provide all the assistance necessary.

This guide does not contain new theo-ries on project planning but rather describeshow ZOPP can be used flexibly as part ofGTZ’s Project Cycle Management (PCM).Nowadays, the term “ZOPP” has a widermeaning: It no longer stands for a prede-termined sequence of binding and pre-scribed steps and methods. Instead, ZOPPshould now be understood as GTZ’s over-all planning framework. ZOPP should illus-trate the quality of planning GTZ strivesfor, but it does not dictate specific tools ormethods for individual planning steps.

This brochure is a guide for GTZ staffwho are planning new and ongoing proj-ects. It is not a “recipe book” covering all

potential planning issues. Users have tocontribute their own inputs. Nor does theguide claim to have the last word on plan-ning. On the contrary. It will have fulfilledits goal if, in the coming years, we are ableto update and improve this text by incor-porating your experiences and new ideas.

Franziska Donner

Head of GTZ’s Strategic Corporate Development Unit

2

Preface

1 THE PLANNING PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.1 Cooperation in the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.2 What is planning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.3 Complex systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2 OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.1 Why do we need objectives?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.2 What demands should objectives satisfy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.3 Goal categories in development cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Development-policy goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Overall goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Development goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Project purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.4 How to handle objectives in practical project work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3 SITUATION ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153.1 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.2 Problems and potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.3 The project environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4 THE PROJECT STRATEGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174.1 Results and alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174.2 Activities and resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174.3 Risks and assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184.4 Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5 RESPONSIBILITIES AND ROLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6 PROJECT ORGANISATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

7 PARTICIPATION AND WORKSHOPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227.1 Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227.2 Workshops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

8 THE PROJECT PLANNING MATRIX (PPM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

9 FINAL REMARKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

ANNEX 1: FURTHER READING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

ANNEX 2: THE HISTORY OF ZOPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3

Contents

1.1 Cooperation in the project

All our technical cooperation ventures usu-ally have a common basic structure: GTZ

provides inputs for partnerswanting to implement a de-velopment project. This proj-ect addresses target groupswho want to improve their

situation. The partner is responsible for itsproject. GTZ assumes the responsibil-ity of supporting the project insuch a way that the develop-ment desired by the target groupsactually takes place. This basicpattern of cooperation is illus-trated by the “three-level model”(Fig. 1).

We understand our “partners” tobe those organisations or work units withwhom we cooperate directly. They are therecipients of our advisory services andother inputs. In our project work we gen-

erally cooperate with several such partners.We understand “target groups” to be therecipients of the services provided by ourpartners.

This model applies in principle to alltypes of projects – no matter whether thepartner is a government organisation, abank, an association or a non-governmen-tal organisation, or whether the targetgroup consists of a private enterprise orpeople in a village. This basic model even

applies when we provide emergencyaid in a crisis region – although in

such events GTZ often co-assumesthe functions of partner organi-sations and provides servicesdirectly to the target groups.

Groups in society are rarelyhomogenous. They have different,

and sometimes antagonistic, econom-ic interests, social status, etc. Our part-ners’ task is to make sure that the view-points of the recipients of their servicesare integrated into the planning process in

4

THE PLANNING PROCESS

1 The planning process

TC contribution

project/programmeof the partner-country organisations

outset situationfuture situation/intended

improvements(development goal)

activities of the target groups(self-help process)

development process

Every plan iswrong, when we

look at it inhindsight

3-way cooperation:GTZ – partner – target groups

Fig. 1

The three-level

model

a differentiated manner, turningthese recipients into actors.Indeed, experience has shownthat projects are only success-ful if they lock into the targetgroup’s own efforts. We at GTZshould encourage our partners totake up these perspectives and helpbuild their capacity to do so. Target-group-orientation is a determining factor onwhether the partner organisation is suit-able for cooperation activities. An exten-sion service which does not want to knowabout the demands of its different groupsof clients cannot be promoted. Our part-ners' will and capability to enter into aconstructive dialogue with their differenttarget groups is a major criterion for selec-ting partner organisations.

German development cooperation isfinanced by the taxpayer. It is subject topolicy goals and allocation criteria, publicaccountability and control. The overridingdevelopment-policy goals of the German

government are tocombat poverty andsocial injustice, pro-tect the environmentand natural resourcesand improve the situ-ation of women. Tax-

payers expect development assistance toimprove the situation of people in partnercountries.

This is the context in which BMZ placescommissions with GTZ. The same applies tocommissions from international financingorganisations. The relevant issue is not that avocational training centre is up and running,but that its graduates can find jobs. Whethera water authority is working efficiently andon sound technical lines interests no-oneapart from the professionals; the aim of devel-opment activities is to ensure that peoplehave an equitable and ecologically soundaccess to water. In the final instance it isnot the services offered which count, butthe higher standard of living which thepeople can enjoy. The chain of services in

technical cooperation is illustratedin Fig. 2 (see page 6).

Every project has targetgroups i.e. recipients of the ser-vices provided by the organisa-tion implementing the project.

Depending on the type of proj-ect, these may be the actual “end

users” in the service chain as describedabove, for example the inhabitants ofurban slums or other poor groups. Inmany cases, however, the direct targetgroups of a project are only linked to these“end users” via impact chains of differinglengths, for example when the aim of aproject is to set up an environmental au-thority or a chamber of trades and industryto represent the interests of entrepre-neurs. Even in such cases there must be aclear view of the benefits which the enduser will experience.

1.2 What is planning?

Planning means that● target groups and partner organisations,● partner organisations and GTZ, ● GTZ and its clients develop a common understanding of ● the goals of cooperation: What do we

want to achieve? (chapter 2)● the outset situation: What basis are

we starting from? (chapter 3)● the strategies to achieve the goals,

the risks entailed and the criteria forsuccess: What has to change? (chap-ter 4) and

● the action plan to implement this change: Who is responsible?(chapter 5)

If the parties involvedhave been able to find hon-est and realistic answers to these questions,then the project has been well and truly“zopped”.

No project plans are objectively “right”.However, the planning can be deemed as

5

THE PLANNING PROCESS

German develop-ment cooperationis subject to policy goals andpublic control

Planning means replacingcoincidence with

error

Quality is relative

“relatively” good if the following criteriaare met:● Project management and the target

groups accept the plan as a guide fortheir actions.

● Donors accept the plan as justificationfor the use of public funds.

The planners’ job is to keep these cri-teria in mind and structure the planningprocess accordingly (planning the plan-ning).

The plan should satisfythe desires of all major actors(be a compromise of differentinterests), correspond withtheir capabilities (be feasibleand economically viable), andbe within their power (frame-work conditions).

For GTZ, the project is a limited pack-age of activities implemented by the part-ner-country organisations in order toachieve a previously determined goal. GTZdelivers a contribution to this effort. The

partners and the target groups, however,often equate a project with the activitiesand inputs of GTZ.Different views of theproject can lead tomisunderstanding onthe roles and respon-sibilities within it. Itis important, therefore, that we first clarifywith the partners and the target groupswhat we all understand by a project, andwho is responsible for what.

Very often, projects are linked intoprogrammes in order to create a greaterdevelopment impact and generate greatersynergy. This guide applies equally to proj-ects and programmes because they bothrequire similar planning inputs and thereis no rigid distinction between them. Anexample: Ministers consider that reform-ing the economy is their “project”. A de-partmental director speaks of the resulting“programme” of tax reform. Introducingvalue-added-tax is one individual projectwithin this programme.

6

THE PLANNING PROCESS

services

com

mis

sio

n

BMZ

political goalsand

award criteria example

“promotion

of small

farmers”

“establishing

an extension

structure”

“emergency

aid”

Partnerorganisation(s)

(project)End user

End user

Mediator

target groupsare chiefly

poor people

GTZPartner

organisation(s)(project)

otherorganisations End user

What people want to doWhat people areable to doWhat people areallowed to do

Clarify what the meaning of a

project is, andwho “owns” it

Fig. 2

Chain of

services in

Technical

Cooperation

Project planning is a continuous pro-cess of negotiation between project part-ners, target groups and funding agencies.The commencement of implementation

work does not meanthat planning is ter-minated. A good proj-ect is always based

on consensus: All actors agree to worktowards a common goal for a limited periodof time. The aim is not to work on thesmallest common denominator, but ratheron a clear understanding of what we wantto do together, while all parties retain theirdifferent interests and viewpoints. It is bet-ter to agree not to agree and abandon theproject approach or completely change it,rather than implement it against thegeneral wishes of major actors.

Technical cooperation al-ways intervenes in existing so-cial systems and interest net-works and also follows politicalinterests itself. An example: A

private watervendor loses a lu-crative business whenan urban area is con-nected to the publicwater supply. While

many people’s lives are improved, othersmay lose out. In such a conflict Germantechnical cooperation represents the posi-tion of the socially weaker group. Who-ever intervenes must also assume respon-sibility. Planners have to be aware of theethical responsibility they assume.

GTZ may assume the role of the “un-biased broker”, helping to make the differ-ent roles transparent and consequentlyenabling action to take place.

It must always be possible to mutuallyagree on changes to the plan. It is mislead-

ing to believe that aplan just has to bedrawn up and then

implemented. In reality, the project part-ners are continuously adjusting the detailsduring implementation. Even a project’s

basic orientation and goals can change, al-though these do usually remain valid overa longer period. This does not mean ofcourse that because of continuous plan-ning and replanning the actors forget theactual work to be done. And under no cir-cumstances should an “anything goes”atmosphere prevail. Planning generatescosts, which must always be justified bythe benefits to be reaped from replanning.

As projects are becoming more andmore geared to processes of social changeand less to technical results, planners mustincreasingly refrain from fixing budgetitems too high upstream in the projectcycle. Even when the project is very tech-nical, for example the construction of a

dam, assumptions on the founda-tions may prove wrong and the

plans must be adjusted accord-ingly.

Another important point:Hardly any planning starts from

scratch. Goals, wishes and inter-ests have usually been articulated

long before. Thishistory must be activelyincorporated into newplanning work.

By far the most planning work takesplace during ongoing project operations,when plans have to match the given situa-tion or are reviewed in the course of exter-nal evaluations or project progress monitor-ing.

Who asks the questions? Who definesthe methods to which the project processesare to be aligned? This does make a differ-ence! GTZ Head Office, the GTZ adviser,the partner, the targetgroups? Whoever man-ages the process oftenalso decides on its con-tents. Any method used will always have avalue bias because it may give preferenceto specific groups or discriminate againstthem. An example: People who can’t readand write don't stand a chance in a semi-nar when the points discussed are visual-

7

THE PLANNING PROCESS

I know itwhen I see it

(Title of an essay on quality)

To plan is to negotiate

Technical cooperation is an interventionin social systems

Blueprints are out!

Rolling planning is in!

All methods have a value bias

ised in written form. The choice of themethod to be used is a major factorwhen “planning the planning pro-cess”. Participants should reachagreement on what methodsare to be used. When recom-mending a specific method tothe partners, planning ethicsdictate that just referring to regu-lations “from above” is not theanswer.

Partner organisations often have theirown specific planning procedure. Work-

ing in a spirit of partner-ship means that each sidemust take the other’s pro-cedures as seriously as itsown. Project partners mustjointly agree on which pro-cedure to use for the coop-

eration project. GTZ can, of course, pro-vide planning consultancy services to part-ners if they wish.

1.3 Complex systems

“Technical cooperation addres-ses projects which are to raisethe performance capability ofpeople and organisations indeveloping countries” (official

definition of technical coopera-tion).The key concern is, therefore, to

bring about processes of change for peo-ple and organisations. These processes aresubject to the dynamic forces of complexsystems: “An actor is equivalent to a chessplayer having to play on a board whereseveral dozen pieces are attached to eachother with elastic bands, making it impos-sible for the actor to move one singlepiece at a time. Moreover, both players’pieces also move under their own steamaccording to rules which they do not fullyunderstand or about which they may havemade false assumptions. And on top of it

8

THE PLANNING PROCESS

ZOPP: “Zeroing in

On People andProcesses”

Seriously consider the partner’s own planning procedures

all, some pieces are obscured by fog or arevery difficult to recognise.” (Dietrich Dörner,Die Logik des Mißlingens – The logic offailure).

This illustration well reflects socialreality in many projects: Target groups andpartner organisations are not homoge-nous. Rather, they have different interestsand potentials. Large-scale farmers, small-holders and urban centres all want a safewater supply. Who will be left in thedrought if there is not enough water? Theanswer to this question lies in the politicalinfluence of the social actors.

In situations like these we have toabandon the idea that “the expert” must

have “everything un-der control”. Plannersmust be modest butalso possess what to-day is called the “abil-

ity to thrive on chaos” i.e. be able to enjoya situation of not knowing what’s going tohappen tomorrow, and be confident that,

by working together, it will be possible todecide on the “right” thing to do in termsof the project’s goals.

It is not a question of digging down tothe roots of all complex situations, becausethis causes confusionand puts the actors offthe track. The issue athand is to select thefew very important interconnections be-tween the chess pieces and to turn thecomplex picture into a simplified conceptso that action becomes possible in the firstplace. Planning theory calls this the reduc-tion of complexity. All planning methods,therefore, attempt to single out the pat-terns contained in complex relationships.We should not delude ourselves into think-ing that the pieces on the chess board arenot connected by elastic bands, or that weare versed in all the rules of the game, orthat the chess board is well illuminated. Agood dose of optimism is called for.

9

THE PLANNING PROCESS

Modesty and the ability to thrive on chaos

Planning means simplifying

2.1 Why do we need objectives?

Objectives are an orientation to guide ac-tors. Only the objectives explain why proj-ect managers can receive money from the

taxpayer. For us to developvisions and goals in the pres-ent situation, we must useour emotions, intuition andcreativity. To find our way

back from the objectives level to the pres-ent situation, we need our capacities foranalytical thinking, logic, language and com-munication.

Objectives usually remain valid for sev-eral years. But they are not infinite. Projectmanagement should periodically review

whether they are still mean-ingful and still do justice tothe desires, capabilities andpowers of the project parti-cipants – GTZ, the partner,

the target groups. Otherwise the negativeside of objectives-orientation may set in:Goals become meaningless and paralyseprogress instead of stimulating it. Fulfillingthe plan becomes an end in itself.

The ministry responsible for the proj-ect will understand and support a decisionto make plausible changes to the projectobjectives if the changed objectives areclearly meaningful and the benefits com-pensate the costs involved. In bilateral tech-nical cooperation, agreements on new ob-jectives can be approved in a modificationoffer to BMZ and in the scope of officialgovernment negotiations.

2.2 What demands should objectives satisfy?

Objectives should be realistic i.e. achiev-able using existing re-sources under the ex-isting framework con-ditions.

BMZ prescribes many policy objectivesfor bilateral development cooperation: Pov-erty reduction, environmental protectionand resource conservation, basic educationand vocational training, promotion of gen-der-and-development, promotion of privateinitiative and economic reforms. More de-tailed political guidelines are contained inBMZ’s country, sectoral and trans-sectoralconcepts. BMZ has also drawn up five cri-teria for cooperation: Observance of humanrights, orientation to a market economy,rule of law, popular participation in politi-cal decisions and development orientationof government action.

However, each individual project doesnot have to satisfy all goals. Care should betaken not to pack all political desires intoone objective, with the false aim of cover-ing against all contingencies. The best wayis to clearly describe the intention – andhence what is not intended. GTZ shouldclarify with BMZ which development-policy goals should have priority in a givenproject.

An objective is a situation in the futurewhich people consider desirable. It has be-come common practice to use the past par-ticiple e.g. “manage-ment is improved”when describing goalsin the project plan-ning matrix (see chapter 8). While this doesmake sense, because planning is based ona desired state in the future, it does not

10

OBJECTIVES

2 Objectives

Objectives are an orientation to guide actions

Objectives can also becomemeaningless

Objectives shouldbe clearly worded

Objectives should be realistic

conform to everyday language and maysound artificial or even academic. Weshould not insist that this form of speechbe used.

2.3 Goal categories indevelopment cooperation

Development cooperation differentiates be-tween the following goal categories: ● development-policy goals, ● overall goals, ● development goal, ● project purpose.

Development-policy goalsLike BMZ, partner governments have estab-lished national, sectoral or regional goalsin their development policy. If each side’sdevelopment-policy goals largely match,cooperation can prosper on a solid founda-tion.

Overall goals Governments enter into a political dialogueto negotiate on the common development-policy goals for their cooperation and thekey areas to be addressed. In this setting,the partners then define the overall goalsfor the individual projects and hencethe cooperation strategy to be fol-lowed. Projects which fall underthese overall goals can usuallybe promoted. A project can belinked to several overall goals.Overall goals provide criteria forselecting which projects are to beincluded in the cooperation schemeand also set a framework for the projectdesign.

An example: BMZ has agreed with apartner government that the overall goalof cooperation is to improve the situationof the rural and urban poor. At the sametime, NGOs are to be involved in the proj-ects and private initiative is to be strength-

ened. The project is to impact equally onmen and women. BMZ will promote a proj-ect by the Ministry of Agriculture to set upan irrigation system if it can be clearly ori-ented to one or more of these overallgoals: Is the project going to stabilisesmallholder agriculture in order to satisfythe region’s food needs? Are private orga-nisations to be involved? Such strategicissues often hide deep-reaching conflictsof power and interest – for example thedistribution of land and water. They greatlyinfluence the project design. To stabilisesmallholder agriculture it may be neces-sary to establish and monitor a pertinentlegal framework. If, in the course of imple-mentation, the irrigation project does notremain geared to smallholders, BMZ mustre-examine whether it can continue itsassistance.

Development goal 1

The development goal focuses the attentionof all actors participating in the project onthe target group’s development process.The priority of development cooperationis to achieve impacts at this level.

Projects take place in order to promoteprocesses of change. It is always specificpeople and organisations who are affected

by a project. These are not passiverecipients of project inputs but

proactive actors. They want to andmust co-decide on what direc-tion their development is totake. The function of the devel-opment goal is to give the desired

process of change a common per-spective.

The development goal describes thechange which the target groups – i.e. thepeople addressed by the proj-ect – themselves desire. Thiscan be, for example: “Allchildren in the district havecompleted primary school-ing” or: “The crime rate in

11

OBJECTIVES

1 GTZ’s offers to BMZ for project implementation do not indicate the development goal separately because the information on the targetgroups is already contained in section 2.2.3 of the offer.

An objectiveis the roof over

a commonlyentertainedwe-feeling

The developmentgoal describes

the target group’s desired improvement

to their situation

residential areas has dropped”. The devel-opment goal clearly indicates the benefitwhich the target groups expect from co-operating with the project. In the finalanalysis, cooperation is only successful ifthe development goal has been reached.

The question asked at the beginningof the planning work is: What process ofchange is to take place? What is the com-mon orientation? Planners should observeindividually who is following what goalsand whether it is possible to develop a vi-able compromise. Target groups are rarelyhomogenous. An example: In a project topromote private-sector self-help organisa-tions it becomes clear that industrialassociations and trade associationshave different interests. One sideis aiming for high import duties,the other wants lower ones.Can they define a common goalupon which both sides agree?

A common goal is the resultof a negotiated compromise betweenthe different groups. Such negotiations aretime-consuming.

The development goal must agree withwhat the target groups want to do, theirvalues and aspirations. It must also be ori-ented to what they are able to do; other-wise it just leads to disappointment anddiscouragement. And: No development pro-cess can be sustainable if it permanentlytries to swim against the tide i.e. if it ignoreswhat people are allowed to do in thegiven framework conditions.

Project purposeOnce the planners have demarcated thetargeted development process by definingthe development goal, the next question is:At what point should the project lock in,to make sure that this process is supportedmost effectively? An example: The devel-opment goal is “The people of a districtcan satisfy their drinking water needs”. Aproject could lock into the village commu-nities as its starting point if the prime issueis to use existing water resources more

economically. It could also focus on thewater supply utility if this constitutes thegreatest bottleneck. Perhaps the projectwill have to start atboth ends. The nextplanning task is thento determine what im-pact the project is toactually have on thedistrict community orthe water utility. Thisis the project purpose. In our example itcould read: “The water utility effectivelymaintains its plants and facilities”.

The project purpose describes the de-sired changes in the way people or or-

ganisations behave. The project’sinputs and services are designedto ensure that these changestake place. In this way, targetgroups are able to improve theirown situation. The project pur-

pose could also be termed themilestone on the path towards the

development goal. For a project to achieveits purpose, the people and organisationswho are to change their actions must be ac-tively involved. Plan-ning must differentiatebetween inputs whichhave to be providedand the impacts whichthese inputs are to generate. The projectcan “guarantee” that inputs are made butnot the impacts they achieve. One questionrepeatedly arises: How much responsibilitydoes project management bear? Projectmanagement must constantly monitor theimpact level, otherwise it runs the dangerof providing inputs for inputs’ sake, apply-ing the maxim “We’ve lost sight of the goalso we’ll have to double our inputs.”

Many planning experts feel a projectshould only stipulate one single projectpurpose. It seems a plausible statement thatactivities and alternatives only have a uni-form reference framework when the proj-ect has one single purpose. But often thisis nothing but a theoretical discussion.

12

OBJECTIVES

The project purpose describeshow the recipients

of the projectinputs change

their actions

A project cannotguarantee

specific impacts

ZOPP must givemore account tocommon sense

Should several project purposes be stipu-lated then the project can be divided intosub-projects.

2.4 How to handle objectives in practical project work

Projects can only be successful if targetgroups and partner organisations acceptthem and are actively committed to achiev-ing the agreed development status. Nobodycan plan a project without knowing whose

development processit is supporting andwhat the affected peo-ple themselves thinkabout this process.Figuratively speaking,

a project planning process takes the “bot-tom-up” direction. It begins with the de-claration by the target groups on whattheir needs and goals are, and the projectis generated from this. Nevertheless, thechief components of a project’s hierarchyof goals have often been set before projectplanning begins. The development-policy

goals are prescribed from outside. The par-ticipating organisations operate along setguidelines even though the actual overallgoal may only be detailed during the courseof project planning. From the planner’sviewpoint, the development-policy goalsand the overall goal have been established“top-down”. They dictate the frameworkwithin which the project can be designed.

Sufficient time and suitable methodsare required to ensure that the maximumnumber of affected people and organisa-tions can participate in planning. Broad-based, participatory, “bottom-up” planningrequires high inputs. There is often only alimited scope for taking such an approach,especially when preparing a project. Theethical issue also arises: Is it not irrespon-sible to commence a broad-based, partici-patory process which arouses so many ex-pectations, before knowing whether a proj-ect will even be implemented at all?

Planners must decide in the light ofthe given situation on how much “bottom-up” planning is necessary and feasible toensure that the target groups’ perspectiveof their development process is appropri-

13

OBJECTIVES

Project inputs

Change processby water supplier

Outset situation

• frequent interruptionsto supply

• high lossesin the piping system

• microbacterial pollution• ....• ....

GTZ inputs

Development goal

District inhabitantscan covertheir drinking waterneeds

Action by the village community

• Final users repair leakagesat the tapping points

• Local authority promotes water saving measures• Livestock farmers respect water protection areas• .....

Project purpose

The water supplier assureseffective plant maintenance

Fig. 3

Three-level

model –

a practical

example

Goals are set from “below”andfrom “above”

ately incorporated into the planning pro-cess.

Studies, statistics, community and re-gional development plans are often alreadyavailable. Planners can also interview indi-viduals who know the situation more in-timately. It is important to involve actors whoare really accepted by the target groups.The planner’s job is to critically inquire asto who has the mandate to speak on behalfof target groups and what this mandate isbased on. Non-governmental organisationswhich have been working in the region forsome time are often a good source of infor-mation.

An example: The findings from thefirst information collected could suggestthat improved primary education is a highpriority for many people in the region. Itbecomes apparent that a developmentplan aiming to achieve primary schooleducation for all children already exists forthe region. This development goal is thenan orientation for the ensuing planning

process. The question of where projectsupport is to focus is answered from theanalysis of why so many children do notcomplete primary schooling. The planningteam organises several meetings with rep-resentatives of the communities, the farm-ers’ association, a women’s organisation andthe school authority. Aclearer picture slowlyemerges: Many fami-lies don’t send theirchildren to school be-cause they need themto work on the fields.Some fathers also fear that school teachingwill tear their children away from traditionalvalues. If a project could help to bringabout changes in these areas it would prob-ably remedy major constraints on the pathtowards the development goal. Once thesestarting points have been identified, thenext planning step is to specify the projectobjectives, strategy and inputs.

14

OBJECTIVES

The clarification of objectives is amajor element ofthe participation

analysis

All project planning methods contain ananalysis of the situation in which the proj-ect is embedded:● the participants, ● the problems and potentials● the environment. The sequence in which these elements areanalysed can be decided to best fit eachparticular project.

3.1 Participants

The participants analysis focuses on themajor actors, their interests and goals and

their interrelation-ships. The aim is toobtain an insight in-to the social realityand power relation-

ships. Major actors include not just poten-tial winners but also potential losers.

The participation analysis must bringclarification in the following areas:● A false picture of other people’s views

and interests is often obtained if wedon’t ask them ourselves. Many proj-

ects are based onfalse assumptionssuch as “the popu-lation will benefitfrom safe water,

hence they will support the projecteven if they don’t appreciate the im-portance of hygiene” or “the econom-ic reforms are rational from the planners’ viewpoint, therefore officialswill support them”. If such assump-tions are incorrect, the project willfail. Conclusion: Always let each andevery affected group have a say.

● Women and men have different scopesfor action and different viewpoints.Men may reject a new water supplysystem, for example, because theyhave to pay for its costs. Women wouldwelcome such a project because iteases their workload. To ensure thattheir interests are not cast aside, plan-ners must pay special attention tomaking sure that women have a saythemselves.

● Planners should differentiate betweenactive participants and passive affect-ed parties. Many projects are gearedto turning affected parties into partic-ipants.

● We should not be taken in by the illu-sion that participants can act in a void.They are all embedded in their givensocial situation. If this is not taken in-to account there is the danger that an“island of happiness” will be createdwhich is crushed by the stronger forcesin the environment once externalsupport has ceased.

Examples of participation analysis methodsinclude2: Target-group analysis, relation-ship maps, power matrix, service interac-tion analysis, organisational analysis, partic-ipatory rapid appraisal (PRA).

3.2 Problems and potentials

Problems do not exist independently ofthe people experiencing them. Whetherpeople experience something as a prob-lem and are motivated to solve it dependson how much it troubles them. But notevery problem causes suffering. If people

15

SITUATION ANALYSIS

3 Situation analysis

Take into accountpower relationshipsand social structures

Let the people affected themselveshave a say

2 The methods indicated here and elsewhere are described in detail in GTZ’s “Method compass – a practical orientation aid for plan-ning and management tasks in the environmental sector”, published by GTZ Division 402 (see also annex 1).

do not feel that an “objec-tive” problem, such as theneed for hygienically safedrinking water, really is one

to them, they will not be committed to awater programme. This is why we talk of“felt needs”.

A problem is often expressed as a lackof specific resources to solve the problem:“We have no loans, no seed, no legislation”.Beware of such wording! Very often, bring-ing in such “solutions” will not solve the

problem. A loan won’t helpif there isn’t a market forthe goods it is to help pro-duce. Mistaking an existingproblem for a lack of a solu-tion leads to premature state-ments being made during

the course of the planning process whichblock the view for other options. In theabove example, a loan project would notbring any progress.

Planners should use methods whichare based on the viewpoints of the affect-ed people, and specifically compare thedifferent viewpoints.

The desire to solve a problem is notalways the driving force behind change.For example, the wish to change and takeup a different profession may arise becausenew openings are attractive. Planning whichautomatically derives its goals exclusivelyfrom the existing problems is often inad-equate because it sees the future as justbeing the prolongation of the present.Potentials and visions are equally strongdrives towards change.

Methods of dealing with the problemsand potentials analysis include: SWOT, pro-blem-goal-matrix, paper computer, mindmap, scenario-writing, problem tree.

3.3 The project environment

The situation analysis should also incorpo-rate relevant factors from the project en-vironment. Factors are relevant if they in-

fluence the performance process and theanticipated impacts. The analysis of theproject environment gives an insight into themajor conditions inwhich the project op-erates. These includethe policies of thepartner country andof BMZ or other funding organisations thelegal and economic framework, technolo-gies, technical concepts, natural and geo-graphic conditions. Most of these factorsare also subject to change.

When tackling a new project, plannersfirst investigate a project environment whichis unknown to them. In ongoing projects,efforts should centre on monitoring anychanges in the project environment andpinpointing opportunities and risks. Theproject environment itself can be influencedby the project, although only to a limiteddegree. The project and its environmentmutually impact on each other.

During the course of project imple-mentation, therefore, GTZ and its partnersmust repeatedly update the situation anal-ysis. This is not as easy as it sounds, be-cause in the implementation rush almosteveryone becomes routinely blind and can’tsee the wood for the trees. We almost haveto climb aboard a helicopter and take a bird’s-eye view of the project and of our ownaction in the project. Outside help is oftenrequired to do this and it should be carriedout more frequently than the scheduledproject progress reviews. GTZ colleaguesfrom other projects or the Head OfficePlanning and Development Department,or external consultants can be called in toassist.

Examples of methods to help analyse theproject environment are: Paper computer,scenario techniques, specialised studies,politico-scientific analyses.

16

SITUATION ANALYSIS

Problems existbecause peopleexperience them

Beware: Do notmistakenly believethat the lack of a solution is the problem

What external factors

are important?

The project strategy describes how theproject plans to operate in order to achieveits goals. This includes the results to beproduced and the resources they require.The project strategy also addresses therisks entailed in this process.

4.1 Results and alternatives

Results are those products and servicesprovided by organisations implementingthe project so that the anticipated changesfor the users of the services can take place(project purpose). Results are outputs thatthe project management produces and isresponsible for.

An example: The project purpose isthat the children in a district regularlyattend lessons in the primary school. Theproject cannot guarantee that the purposewill be achieved because action by othervital players is required. Although school-ing is compulsory, sanctions by the schoolsupervisory board have failed. The parentsare not cooperating, particularly the fathersand older people are opponents. The proj-ect can guarantee the following results:(1) The schooling authority organises the

timetable in such away that children canattend school in addi-tion to doing theirwork in the fields. (2)

It revises curricula and teaching aids.Traditional norms and behaviour patternsare taken into account. (3) The local author-ity organises information programmes forthe fathers and older people and trainsteams of advisers together with non-govern-mental organisations. (4) It organises school

transport and (5) provides financial assist-ance.

“Many roads lead to Rome.” Planninghas the job of finding out which is the bestone to take. This can only be done when aclear idea has been obtained of what otheralternative procedures could be adoptedand what disadvantages and advantagesthey offer. Potential alterna-tive courses to be takenoften only become visible ifwe can break away from allconcepts to date and devel-op new scenarios on thebasis of the knowledge we have of thesituation.

To evaluate the alternatives, coopera-tion partners must agree on common cri-teria. The most favoured path is usuallythe one which allows a set goal to beachieved with the lowest inputs of capitaland operating costs. However, a wholecombination of factors have frequently tobe compared with each other and a costcomparison alone is not enough. In manyinstances the criteria used by different par-ticipants are pre-formed by their valuesand policies.

BMZ has issued basic guidelines fortechnical cooperation particularly address-ing the themes of gender, environmentand poverty reduction. GTZ assesses alter-natives on the basis of criteria drawn fromthese guidelines.

4.2 Activities and resources

Activities are the individual steps taken toachieve a result. The decision on whichactivities are necessary depends on whatplanning phase is currently being opera-tionalised. In master planning for a new

17

THE PROJECT STRATEGY

Results are theproject’s productsand services

Many roads lead toRome. The job of

planning is to findout which one is best

4 The project strategy

project or a new phase of anongoing project it is mean-ingless to plan exact detailsin advance because whenimplementation begins muchof this will have changedanyway, as events often turnout differently than expect-

ed. In this phase it is often sufficient tosummarise what the project has to do.

But: The activities are the basis for draw-ing up the specification of inputs andcosts which has to be submitted in GTZ’soffer to BMZ or to other financing organisa-tions. Nevertheless, this obligation should

not lead us to detailed plan-ning for planning’s sake.BMZ well understands thecomplex situations in proj-ects. It does not want to

deal with details of project implementation,but rather receive a transparent offer ineveryday language, which clearly illustrateshow the recommended project conceptcan be linked to development-policy goals(see 2.3).

Planning and implementation cannotbe schematically separated but go hand inhand. In practice this means that activity

planning should start withrough estimates which arethen gradually detailed inthe course of operationalplanning. Don’t be afraid of

changes during implementation. As longas the goals, the cost framework or majorelements of the concept are not changed,BMZ does not have to be involved 3.

4.3 Risks and assumptions

Risks may be inherent to the project itselfor to the project environment.

An on-project risk exists when theparticipating partners do not agree andpull in different directions. Like all exter-

nal assistance organi-sations, GTZ runs thedanger of imposing aproject concept whichthe partner may notfully agree to. Sector-specific and trans-sectoral concepts developed in the donorcountries play a major role here.

These self-made reasons for failure canbe avoided only by openness, by alwayskeeping grips on reality and by ensuringthat our work is “client-oriented”.

Another on-project risk is when thepartner does not provide its agreed inputs.We must ask why this is so. Were theseinputs not realistically defined? Or doesthe partner not fully back the concept andconsequently not really consider it neces-sary to invest that much? In extreme caseswe must consider terminating cooperationif the project is not really based on a spiritof partnership.

Off-project risks jeopardise the proj-ect, but can be influenced only slightly ornot at all by project management.

Off-project factors which must exist forthe project to be expedient and realistic aretermed assumptions. An example: Thecentral bank is providing advisory servicesto smaller banks on how to set up and oper-ate credit and loan fa-cilities for microentre-preneurs. The projectpurpose is worded as“Micro-enterprises access bank loans atmarket conditions.” One of the assumptionsfor the success of this project could bethat non-governmental organisations oper-ating in the area will not provide sub-sidised loans to the target entrepreneurs.

The project management keeps an eyeon assumptions, perhaps even monitorsthem formally in order to get a feeling forthe size of the risk. If a risk becomes dan-gerous, the project concept must be adjust-ed. In extreme cases it might be necessaryto terminate the project.

18

THE PROJECT STRATEGY

Activities are theindividual stepstaken to achieve a result. They allowan estimate to bemade of the resources needed

Decide on the right degree of planning detail

Planning and implementation go hand in hand

3 Modification offers are described in “Cooperation on the right track - Standard Procedure and how it works” (GTZ, 1997)

On-project risks:Do we want

the same as ourpartner does?

Assumptions – howhigh are the risks?

Risk analysis methods include: Mindmap, problem tree, relationship map, as-sumption assessment grid.

4.4 Indicators

Indicators describe what is exactly meantby the project's goals, the results and theassumptions and how to recognise them

when they have beenachieved. Indicatorsgive information onthe level of achieve-ment and the project’scriteria for success.

They are a path-marking for project man-agement in “monitoring and evaluation”.Indicators cannot be pre-fabricated, theyhave to be customised. They are the resultof an agreement and reflect the commonview of participants. Wherever precise in-dicators are not set up, misunderstandingsand conflicts occur during implementa-tion because the participants have differentinterpretations of the level to be achieved,or the scope of the goals.

Our partners may be satisfied with ageneralised definition of the quality of goals,whereas we want to “exactly define” whathas to happen. In such cases we should tryand find a practicable solution. It wouldbe wrong for GTZ advisers to define indi-cators “because they have to do so” in asituation where the partner is not inter-ested in such indicators and, therefore,does not keep to them.

Indicators should describe the majorfeatures of a goal, a result or an assumption.They must be unbiased. Un-biased means, for example,that the number and durationof courses held cannot indi-cate whether training wassuccessful. A good indica-tor would be to state the quality deficits inproduction.

Indicators can refer to physical out-puts (e.g. harvest yields) or changes in anorganisation (e.g. partner’s planning isimproved).

19

THE PROJECT STRATEGY

Agree on the levelto be achievedand the criteria for success

Indicators describemajor features

of goals, results and assumptions

The three-level model (see chapter 1.1)distinguishes between the activities of GTZ,its partner organisations and the targetgroups. Target groups are responsible for

the development process,the partners are respon-sible for the results, andGTZ is contributing to thepartner’s project. This does

not exclude GTZ from assuming respons-ibility for a defined part of the results andproject management if this is importantand expedient for sustainability.

In planning, the aim is to find out ● how far target groups can alter their

situation on their own and wherethey need project support;

● how far the partners can generatetheir outputs by their own means andwhere they need GTZ support.

In this way a clearer specification is ob-tained of the responsibilities of the differ-ent actors.

When deciding who is to do and beresponsible for what, the roles and mutualexpectations of the partners must be clari-fied together.● Should the GTZ team be “advisers” or

“doers”? Clarifying this role is moredifficult than it seems be-cause the GTZ adviser andmanager of the Germancontribution to the projectalso controls GTZ’s funds.

● How is responsibility for managementfunctions like project planning, oper-ations planning, monitoring and eval-uation, reporting, project progressmonitoring divided between the GTZteam and the partner?

● How will the project cooperate withother projects?

● Who “owns” the plan? Who failed if aproject flops? Who carries the blame?Who receives the praise when theproject is successful?

● Who pays what? Who gets what? Forexample: Who can use the cars andfor what purpose?

These questions cannot have one-offanswers. Many issues can only be tackledwhen they arise. It is useful to record anyagreements made onthese points in writing.But a real live agree-ment is more impor-tant than a writtencompromise. In manyprojects it has provenexpedient to bring in off-project advisersto tackle sensitive cooperation issues andclarify roles and responsibilities. A singleinvestment in relationships often brings afar higher return than a whole series ofsector-specific actions.

Methods to deal with responsibilityand roles include: SWOT, service-interac-tion-analysis, team workshop.

RESPONSIBILITIES AND ROLES

5 Responsibilities and roles

Each actor is responsible forhis/her process

Do the actors’ expectations reallymatch each other?

Roles develop and change.

They have to be repeatedly

reviewed

20

The partner organisations have re-ceived a mandate to implementthe project from a politically re-sponsible body, usually a minis-try, which, together with BMZ,is also responsible for the con-tents of the government arrange-ment. GTZ receives its commissionsfrom BMZ or other funding organisations.

Many different organisations may partic-ipate in a project – government and non-governmental, public-benefit and private-sec-tor, grassroots and supporting organisations,

manufacturing and ser-vice organisations. Eachone follows its owngoals and interests andhas its own organisa-tional culture. Bring-ing these varied inter-

ests under one roof is often not aneasy matter.

GTZ wants to find partners ● who really want the project,● who are accepted by the

different target groups andcapable of effectively cooper-

ating and communicating with them,● who already possess the legal pre-

requisites to implement the project.

Methods to analyse the project organi-sation include: Organisational analysis, func-tion analysis, relationship map, and othermethods also used in the participationanalysis.

21

PROJECT ORGANISATION

6 Project organisation

ZOPP is

when GTZ advisers

deliberate with their

partners on the

project’s

objectives

Numerous actorsparticipate andmust be networked into the project organisation

Fig. 4

The organi-

sational

landscape of

an irrigation

system(Source: W. Huppert,

K. Urban, 1994)

Waterusers

association

Waterusers(private

company)

Water-using

community

Project

GTZ

Co-operative

Charityorgani-sation

Inputsupplier

(privatecompany)

Irrigationoperating

organisation(main system)

Governmentirrigationauthority

7.1 Participation

In development cooperation participationis often a goal in its own right. When affect-ed parties become participants and takethe improvement of their living conditionsinto their own hands, development hasalready been achieved.

At each planning step the issue onhand is to decide on who should participateand in what way: Who can provide infor-mation and good ideas that will improve

planning? Who must partic-ipate in the planning pro-cess because he or she hasto be informed of what’shappening in the project?And above all: On whose

commitment will project success depend?Participation allows project concepts togrow out of the viewpoints of the affectedpersons.

Participation builds up loyalty to theproject concept. Whoever considers theproject to be his/her “own baby” will alsosupply the promised inputs.

This is where the limits of participationbecome clear: Only those people shouldparticipate in decision-making who are

really affected by a projectand who contribute to itssuccess. In other words:Those who bear responsibil-ity have the right to co-decide. But participation

does not automatically mean being includ-ed in decision-making. Often it is “only” aquestion of information and consultation.

In many cases, therefore, differentgroups or persons have to participate indifferent phases of planning, and partici-pation is graded according to the given

planning depth. Participation does not meanthat people can co-decide on somethingthat they will not contribute to or be re-sponsible for. Otherwise the resultingplans would be unrealistic and have littlerelevance for action.

Feigned participation is worse thanno participation at all. If, for example, agroup in a workshop draws up a conceptbelieving that they willbe responsible for thisdecision but the con-cept is subsequentlychanged at a higher level, this can spell theend of the group’s motivation and cooper-ation. Therefore: Consider carefully whois to have the right of say on what subject.And do not arouse false expectations.

7.2 Workshops

Workshops are proj-ect management toolsfor specific purposes.Workshops can beheld to● transfer information and knowledge;● improve working relationships within

the team;● support management functions such

as planning and evaluation.

Workshops supplement other types ofwork such as meetings or desk work butthey do not replace them. They are oneelement in the process and are not the pro-cess itself.

Workshops are high energy phases inthe project. They are relatively expensiveand time-consuming. Workshops can beused to intensively deal with specific sub-

22

PARTICIPATION AND WORKSHOPS

7 Participation

and workshops

Beware of solutionsnot reached with the participantsthemselves

Participation doesnot automaticallymean a right to co-decide

Do not feign participation

Workshops are not an end in themselves

jects which are difficult to tackle in every-day project work. The energy generated ina workshop should not be squandered onbanalities.

Every workshop is like a small project:The project partners deliberate and reflecton what they want to achieve and howthey can achieve it. The decision on whois to attend the workshop, how long it

should last and whatworksteps are to beplanned, depends onthis basic deliberation.Each workshop should

be tailored to reach its specific target – forexample using the right location, catering,accommodation, relaxing and livening-upelements, facilitation, working language,seating arrangements, visualisation etc.

A different group of participants willbe invited depending on whether the aimis to disseminate information, consult im-portant interest groups, take decisions orrelieve group tensions. It is often advisableto invite different participants at variousphases of the workshop.

In ZOPP, workshops are very suitablefor consolidating information, crystallisinga common understanding of a given situa-tion, underlining interests and viewpoints,and deciding on the next steps to betaken. Workshops have also proven suc-cessful to clarify needs or solution strate-gies directly with the affected people, orto inform funding organisations on majorresults of planning and pending decisions.

Project management is responsible forworkshops and cannot transfer responsibil-ity to external workshop facilitators. Externalexperts who support project managementin planning should sometimes be more thanmere facilitators. “Process consultant” is amore appropriate descriptor for them.

Planning is a job to be carried out inpartnership. Partnership is not served ifGTZ prescribes the workshop, draws up alist of participants and arrives with ready-made concepts. The partners may then beheard to say “we’ve been zopped”.

Visualisation techniques in workshopshave proven very successful i.e. colouredcards and pinboards. Communication is im-proved when hearing is supplemented byseeing. Visualisation prevents any thoughtsfrom being forgotten, and raises the chancethat attention will be paid to opinions andviewpoints of participants who wouldotherwise not speak up.

Some appropriate methods to deal withworkshops are: Facilitation, visualisation,group work, video.

23

PARTICIPATION AND WORKSHOPS

Workshops shouldbe planned likesmall projects

ZOPP has to be

freed from mystery

and mist

What details have to be recorded duringthe project cycle depends on the informa-tion needs of the participating organisa-tions and people.

The partner government and BMZ havethe task of development-policy decision-

making, overall control andprovision of funding. In re-turn they need transparentand clear data on the ratio-nale and objectives of theproject, the strategy and thecosts involved. The partner

organisations and GTZ are responsible forensuring that in the scope of cooperation,the inputs are provided in line with thecommission and in agreement with thegiven corporate principles. For this purposethe management of these organisations need“aggregated” information on the course ofthe project and its impacts.

The closer anyone stands to the proj-ect on the ground, the more informationthey require. Detailed information on proj-ect operations and impacts is only requiredby the partner’s project managementand the GTZ team on site. The tar-get groups and other participantsin the project need informationon what is exactly expected ofthem and what they can expectof others.

The project planning matrix(PPM) has proven expedient in pro-viding information particularly for actorsat a distance or at the political level. TheAmerican original matrix was called thelogical framework. It provides “at oneglance” an insight into the major elements

of the plan and how they relate to eachother. It is used in some form or another bypractically all development cooperationorganisations. It is also used for in-housedecision-making at GTZ.

It is seldom possible to present allplanning information in one single projectplanning matrix. And often this is not evennecessary because seldom do all participantsneed all the information. An expedient vari-ant of the matrix to provide basic infor-mation on the project is explained in Fig. 5.

The terms used in this matrix 4 weredescribed in chapters 2 to 4. There aremany different ways of using the matrix.For a programme, for example, it could beexpedient to draw up an overall matrixand then use a sepa-rate matrix for eachcomponent. Or theproject and the Ger-man contribution could be described intwo separate project planning matriceswhose contents would, of course, be close-ly linked (i.e. a PPM for the German con-

tribution). This has the advantage ofclearly differentiating the respon-

sibilities in cooperation.If alternative ways of sum-

marising planning are alreadybeing successfully used in agiven situation they can also be

taken on. The information canthen be transferred into a project

planning matrix outside the participativeplanning process, if it is assured that agree-ments are not then unilaterally changed.

The project planning matrix aims tomake planning transparent. The logical links

24

THE PROJECT PLANNING MATRIX (PPM)

8 The project

planning matrix (PPM)

The project planning

matrix is the tip of the ice-

berg which becomes visible

to donors. Only divers wear-

ing the right goggles and

who can hold their breath

long enough can see the

real project

Who has to recordwhat and for whomdepends on the needs of the different actors

4 In GTZ's offers to BMZ only four project planning levels are given i.e. overall goal, project purpose, results and activities. The devel-opment goal level is not explicitly described.

The PPM is not rigid

between its cells helpin reviewing the plan’splausibility. We always

have to be aware of the danger that theattempt to find a logical relationship betweenresults and goals will become too far fetchedfrom practical reality.

Practical hints for work with PPMs:● When something is written into the

project planning matrix, it gives theimpression that it is now a “highertruth”.

● A plan written as a narrative can givethe impression of being complete.

25

THE PROJECT PLANNING MATRIX (PPM)

The PPM shouldcreate transparency

Strategy Indicators Assumptions Indicators of the assumptions

Overall goal:Superior strategic goal for the project

Development goal:The changed situation designedby the targetgroups

How to recognisewhether the devel-opment goal hasbeen achieved

Project purpose:Change in actionsof the users of theproject's services

How to recognisethat the project purpose has been achieved

Matters outside the influence of the target groupswhich must happenfor them to achievetheir developmentgoal

How to recognisethat the assumptionhas taken place

Results: Productsand services gener-ated by the projectmanagement

Major characteris-tics of the results

Matters outside theproject which musthappen if the pro-ject purpose is tobe achieved

How to recognisethat the assumptionhas taken place

Activities to achieve theresults

Quantities and costs

Fig. 5

Project

planning

matrix

When moulding the plan into a proj-ect planning matrix, however, gapsbecome visible e.g. in the indicatorcells. Everyone suddenly begins tolook just at what is missing. This canbe a good sign because it shows thatthe orientation is not complete, but itcan also have a paralysing effect if, forwant of perfecting the plan, we don’tstride into action.

● A matrix which is just carried alongunchanged for many years is often

not worth the paper it is written on.Changes can be made at any pointwhatsoever. The deeper the level ofplanning, the more frequent are thechanges.

26

THE PROJECT PLANNING MATRIX (PPM)

27

FINAL REMARKS

There is often an enormous step between aguide and practical action. Whoever readsthis text hoping for more practical hints andplanning tools may be a little disappointed.Other readers may welcome the guide’sopen character because it turns away fromrigid rules and schematic procedures andhelps them develop their own ideas on howto shape a planning process. Perhaps some

readers feel that the information given is notdetailed enough. The guide has been limitedto providing a common platform for differ-ent positions, where practitioners them-selves can design and further develop ZOPP.

9 Final remarks

GTZ An enterprise in development

GTZ Managing the implementation of German technical cooperation activities (1995)

GTZ, Unit 04 Project Cycle Management (PCM) and Objectives-orientedProject Planning (ZOPP) – A guide (1995)

GTZ, Unit 04 Cooperation on the right track – Standard Procedure and how it works (1997)

GTZ, Unit 04 Forster, Reiner / Osterhaus, Juliane: Target-group analysis – What for, When, What and How (1996)A brief review of issues, methods and reference literature

GTZ, Unit 04 Forster, Reiner (ed.): ZOPP marries PRA? Participatory Learning and Action – A Challenge for our Servicesand Institutions. Workshop Documentation (1996)Constructive criticism of ZOPP, although not always flattering

GTZ, Unit 04 Mabille, Yvonne: Dare-to-share fair. A documentation (1995)Report on the dare-to-share marketplace for exciting ideas

GTZ, Unit 04 Osterhaus, Juliane / Salzer, Walter: Gender-differentiation in the project cycle – a guide for planning, monitoring and evaluation (1995)On the little difference that makes all the difference

GTZ, Division 402 Methodenkompaß, Eine praktische Orientierungshilfe fürPlanungs- und Managementaufgaben im Umweltbereich, 1996,402/21 d PVI (currently in German only)Compilation of participation and dialogue-oriented analysisand planning methods which fit well into a ZOPP environ-ment. Although specifically addressing the environmental sec-tor, they can nevertheless be put to good use in all sectors

Huppert, Walter Analysis of Service ProductionUrban, Klaus GTZ, forthcoming

28

ANNEX 1: FURTHER READING

Annex 1: Further reading

1. GenesisZOPP’s history began when GTZ wasestablished as a corporation under privatelaw in 1975. The general intention ofmaking technical cooperation more flex-ible and efficient was reflected not only inGTZ’s legal status as a company, but alsoby the introduction of modern manage-ment instruments. Interest soon centredon the well-known logical frameworkapproach (LFA) as a comprehensive man-agement tool on which to base planning,implementation and evaluation.

BMZ had requested GTZ to test thelogical framework approach in projects asearly as the seventies. After initial positiveexperiences had been gathered, GTZ appliedit in a pilot phase in 1980/81 and furtherdeveloped LFA into the ZOPP (zielorien-tierte Projektplanung) Objectives -orientedProject Planning system. ZOPP containednew steps such as participation analysis,problem analysis and objectives analysis.Teamwork in interdisciplinary workshopsin which GTZ, its partner organisations andthe target groups all took part, becamestandard procedure.

Even a new professional profile wascreated – the ZOPP workshop facilitator.Hundreds of workshop facilitators weretrained in Germany and in partner coun-tries.

ZOPP workshops used visualisationtechniques such as small coloured cards toexpress the different worksteps and results.

2. Logical frameworkGTZ incorporated the logical frameworkor logframe approach into ZOPP. The orig-inal logframe had 16 cells containing themajor elements of the management-by-ob-jectives approach to project implementa-tion. The matrix cells are organised in fourcolumns along a logical structure. The left-

hand column contains the project’s devel-opment hypothesis and the “overall goal”,“project purpose”, “results” and “activities”,all connected by “if-then”-links. The secondcolumn contains “objectively verifiable in-dicators” for the overall goal, the projectpurpose and the results. The third columnallocates “sources of verification” for theindicators and the fourth column containsthe “assumptions” for each planning level.The cell containing the “specification ofinputs and costs” is attached to the “activi-ties” cell. Project management is respon-sible for the “results”, “activities” and “speci-fication of inputs/costs” cells (i.e. the man-ageable dimensions).

3. IntroductionA GTZ in-house organisational instructionformally introduced ZOPP into projectplanning on a provisional basis in 1983,and ZOPP became binding when it enteredGTZ’s organisational manual as regulationNo. 4211 in 1987, forming an integral partof the project cycle.

By the end of 1988, GTZ had trainedall managers and staff concerned with proj-ect implementation, and also its sub-con-tractors, in the ZOPP method and how touse it. Mastering ZOPP became an essentialpre-condition for promotion and careers.Even to date, intensive ZOPP training pro-grammes are carried out at all levels bothin Germany and abroad.

ZOPP became a GTZ trademark in itspartner countries.

When GTZ re-organised along regionallines in 1989, and the Planning and Devel-opment Department was created, respon-sibility for applying ZOPP changed, butnot its contents or its binding character.Gradually and in coordination with itsprincipal commissioning body, BMZ, GTZorganised all project management instru-

29

ANNEX 2: THE HISTORY OF ZOPP

Annex 2: The history of ZOPP

ments along the ZOPP structure. For ex-ample, project briefs, project progressreports and progress reviews were allstructured to match ZOPP.

4. DisseminationGTZ encountered positive reactions fromits project partners. The words “the donorsare beginning to listen to us for the firsttime” were often heard. The strict logicalstructure, the orientation to problems andthe trans-hierarchical participative approachto work were particularly well received.Many partner organisations began to applyan approach similar to ZOPP in their ownorganisations.

Other international cooperation insti-tutions such as NORAD, DANIDA, the ADB,the European Union, Japan’s FASID and theSwiss DEH became interested in thismethod. ZOPP in its various forms hasbecome a regular feature on the curriculaof numerous universities, particularly instudies relating to developing countries.

5. CriticismIn the nineties, several critical points becamethe subject of debate both in the generalproject environment and at GTZ itself.Although this was not intended by eitherthe ZOPP documents or training courses,many ZOPP seminars had become sche-matic rituals which did not sufficientlytake into account the varied situationsencountered in different projects.

ZOPP workshop participants sometimesgot the feeling they were passive objects ina “workshop screenplay” which they couldnot fully understand. Many staff members,partners and representatives of target groupsexperienced ZOPP as being an instrumentof power dictated by GTZ Head Office.People felt they had been “zopped”. Theartificial workshop situations generated proj-ect concepts which merely amounted to acoincidental reflection of the specific work-shop day rather than being really feasible

and realistic plans and representing a sus-tainable and workable compromise. Formany people involved, ZOPP came downto just a workshop and coloured cards andhad little to do with the practical reality ofeveryday project work.

By reducing project planning just toworkshops, too little attention was paid totarget-group participation in planning andto obtaining differentiated perceptions ofthe varied viewpoints of the affected peo-ple – and this was quite contrary to ZOPP’sreal intention.

For numerous planning officers ZOPP’srigid orientation to problems paralysedtheir efforts, because this approach madeit necessary to take a retrospective, back-ward-looking view of the situation, tempt-ing to emphasise the search for who wasto blame.

Between 1992 and 1995 GTZ activelytackled these mis-developments in theZOPP system. An in-house project was setup entitled “Planning and Sustainability”.In the scope of this project GTZ betterdefined what it understands by quality inproject management, it flexibilised theprocedure for project preparation anddeveloped its “project cycle management”.

6. Further developmentParallel to the unsatisfactory applicationsof ZOPP and also in order to specificallyaddress the critical voices heard, numer-ous new forms of project planning weredeveloped in practice. Creative workshopfacilitators incorporated “non-scheduled ele-ments” into workshops, changed the se-quence of the ZOPP steps, deleted stepsor introduced completely new ones. ZOPPbegan to live, in an uncoordinated andself-organised way.

As an alternative to the original ZOPPprocedure, new sequences were developed,e.g. the SINFONIE®‚ 12-step toolbox whichaims to help better understand the systemicrelationships and develop strategies foraction in complex systems.

30

ANNEX 2: THE HISTORY OF ZOPP

GTZ decided to “deregulate” in-houseprocedures. As early as 1990 hints on howto use ZOPP more efficiently and flexiblywere incorporated into its organisationalmanual. In 1996, regulation 4211 was re-placed by a guide on “Standard Procedure”(see annex 1). Finally, in the course of thecorporate decentralisation process (1996to 1998), GTZ’s Directors General decidedto deregulate all organisational projectdirectives except those to which GTZ wasbound by outside rules. Project steps cannow be designed flexibly in agreementwith all involved.

From 1993 to 1996 BMZ carried out areview of ZOPP in theory and practice.The findings: ZOPP should be retained atall events. But its concept and implemen-tation should be reviewed. ZOPP mustbecome more realistic and better accountfor social contexts.

31

ANNEX 2: THE HISTORY OF ZOPP

32

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

– German Technical Cooperation –

Dag-Hammarskjöld-Weg 1-5Postfach 518065726 Eschborn, GermanyTelephone: ++49(0)61 96 79-0Telex: 4 07 501-0 gtz dTelefax: ++49(0)61 96 79-1115Internet: http://www.gtz.de