SEA-HSD-247 Distribution: General
Development of Project Formulation Skills for Mobilization of External Resources for Health Development Report of an Intercountry Workshop Kathmandu, Nepal 22–26 January 2001
WHO Project: ICP ECP 001
World Health Organization Regional Office for South-East Asia New Delhi April 2001
© World Health Organization 2001 This document is not a formal publication of the World Health Organization (WHO), and all rights are reserved by the Organization. The document may, however, be freely reviewed, abstracted, reproduced or translated, in part or in whole, but not for sale or for use in conjunction with commercial purposes. The views expressed in documents by named authors are solely the responsibility of those authors.
CONTENTS Page
1. 2. 3. 4.
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1 OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................... 2 ORGANIZATION............................................................................................ 2 WORKSHOP STRATEGY ................................................................................ 2 4.1 Planning Phase ....................................................................................... 3 4.2 Cooperative Writing Phase ..................................................................... 3 4.3 Writing Tools: WHO Format for Writing Proposals and Paragraph Outline Approach ............................................................... 3
5. 6. 7.
WORKSHOP METHODOLOGY IN THE PLANNING AND WRITING WORKSHOPS ............................................................................. 4 WORKSHOP MODULES................................................................................ 4 SUMMARY REPORT ....................................................................................... 4 7.1 Opening Session..................................................................................... 4 7.2 Planning Workshop ................................................................................ 6 7.3 Cooperative Writing Workshop .............................................................. 8
8.
CLOSURE....................................................................................................... 9
Annexes 1. 2. 3. Programme................................................................................................... 10 List of Participants......................................................................................... 13 Formulating Sound and Aid-Worthy Project Proposals .................................. 16 Page iii
1.
BACKGROUND A project is often defined as a “coherently linked envelope of resources designed to fulfill a set of development objectives”. In fact, project documents are a key tool for mobilization of external resources for health development. The health sector has emerged as an important sector for international development investments. There is substantial room for increasing external resource flows for health in the countries of the Region. However, a major factor is the success with which the project proposals, for external funding clearly enunciating health development needs, defining objectives, setting out strategies and implementation arrangements and determining internal and external resource requirements based on a comprehensive financial analysis are formulated. Dearth of well-formulated and technically sound project proposals is one of the major constraints the countries of the Region often face in negotiating external aid for the health sector. In the national health sector, there is a shortage of manpower with sufficient professional skills for designing sound and aid-worthy project proposals for external funding. At various intercountry and country workshops the lack of capacity and skill for developing appropriate project portfolios has been mentioned as a major limiting factor in resource mobilization. The need for organizing workshops for developing skills in project formulation as a part of strengthening national capacity for resource mobilization was also emphasized at the group discussion of the 47th meeting of the WRs. Many donors found the lack of skill in this area a major constraint to effective and successful aid negotiation on the part of recipient countries or organizations. Thus, there was a clearly identified priority need to develop skills within the Ministry of Health and the WHO Country Offices for formulation of sound and aid-worthy project proposals. In view of this need of the Member Countries in the SEA Region, it was decided to organize an intercountry workshop on project formulation skill development.
Page 1
Report of an Intercountry Workshop
2.
OBJECTIVES The overall aim of the workshop was to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the Ministry of Health and WHO Country Offices in mobilizing resources to meet the needs of health development in countries. This was achieved through the following operational objectives: (1) To increase awareness and understanding of the rules and techniques of systematic, logical examination of the interrelated elements that constitute a well designed and technically sound project document using the logical framework approach; (2) To increase awareness and understanding of the techniques of writing relevant proposals based on readers’ needs, using both the WHO Format for Writing Proposals and the paragraph outline approach, and (3) To qualitatively upgrade project planning skills and proposal writing skills of the officials of the ministries of health.
3.
ORGANIZATION The five-day workshop was organized in Kathmandu, Nepal by WHO/SEARO with the assistance of the HMG of Nepal. (See Annex 1 for programme of workshop.) The participants were from the Planning/Programming Divisions of the Ministries of Health of the ten SEAR Member countries. In addition, one WHO Field Staff from each country associated with project/programme formulation and resource mobilization activities participated. The workshop was conducted with the assistance of Mr Vincent Martino and Mr Frank Little of the DANIDA Training Center, Copenhagen. (See Annex 2 for a list of participants.)
4.
WORKSHOP STRATEGY The workshop was conducted in two phases in order to achieve the objectives.
Page 2
Development of Project Formulation Skills for Mobilization of External Resources for Health Development
4.1
Planning Phase During the first three days of the programme, the participants concentrated on making good plans, i.e. outlining a health project – its ultimate goal, objectives and the strategy for achieving them. A tentative sequence or timetable for the project activities, indicating how and when the health objectives would be met was also prepared. The first operational goal of the workshop was to increase awareness and understanding of the rules and techniques of systematic logical examination and presentation of the interrelated elements that constitute a well-designed and technically sound project idea. Course Material: Logical Framework Approach (LFA), A Flexible Tool for Participatory Development, DANIDA 1996. The planning workshop was based on the above book which was distributed on the first day of the course. However, other interpretations of LFA as given in the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) Handbook for Objectives Oriented Planning – Norad 1996 and EU’s book: Project Cycle Management, an Integrated Approach to Logical Framework 1993 were also discussed and the strengths and weaknesses compared.
4.2
Cooperative Writing Phase In the second phase, good sound project ideas were translated into a proposal format that met the needs of national authorities and donors. The focus was a shift to practical matters, i.e. what was relevant to write up. The starting assumption was that information in proposals should match national authorities/donor priorities, focus and funding area.
4.3
Writing Tools: WHO Format for Writing Proposals and Paragraph Outline Approach WHO has developed a format for writing project proposals. In the WHO format it is suggested that it may help to make a detailed outline of a proposal before actually beginning to write. It is also suggested that the Proposal Summary may be the most important section of the entire document and
Page 3
Report of an Intercountry Workshop
might, in fact, be the only part of the document that some reviewers read. Taking these assumptions as the starting point for the Cooperative Writing workshop, the group then planned a proposal that fulfilled the needs of national authorities and donors. Planning a relevant proposal document implied doing an analysis of the readers’ needs, determining concrete objectives, designing the sequence of the contents, making a summary and finally writing up the proposal itself.
5.
WORKSHOP METHODOLOGY IN THE PLANNING AND WRITING WORKSHOPS The facilitators introduced a number of structured thinking activities to the group from the Logical Framework Approach, WHO Format for Writing Proposals and the paragraph outline approach to proposal writing. The group then considered the selected case study. During these active phases of the course, the trainers asked the group to make decisions about what they think should be done with regard to the situation outlined in the case. Participants were asked to contribute actively with their own ideas, share experience and look for patterns while analyzing and making decisions on the case study.
6.
WORKSHOP MODULES The workshop comprised theoretical presentations, simulations of project negotiation with donors, facilitated discussions and some practical application of the tools and framework to the actual presentation and negotiation situations. During the course of the workshop, efforts were made to achieve the objectives of the Workshop.
7. 7.1
SUMMARY REPORT Opening Session The workshop was inaugurated by Dr B.D. Chataut, Director-General of the Department of Health Services, Ministry of Health, Kathmandu. In his
Page 4
Development of Project Formulation Skills for Mobilization of External Resources for Health Development
inaugural address, Dr Chataut congratulated WHO for organizing this workshop at a very appropriate time when there was a strong need for external resource mobilization for the health sector. Dr Klaus Wagner, WHO Representative to Nepal read out a message from Dr Uton Muchtar Rafei, Regional Director, WHO/SEA Region. In his address, the Regional Director noted that despite remarkable achievements in health and incredible technological developments, the countries of the Region were yet to tackle the challenges of equity in health care, health security for the vulnerable groups of populations, gender inequity in access to services, malnutrition, health of the aging population, environmental degradation, poverty-related diseases, changing lifestyles for better health and many more emerging and reemerging diseases, for which enormous and incremental resources were needed. While it was necessary to mobilize all available national resources and make the best use of them, there was an urgent need to augment the flow of external resources for the health sector. He underscored the importance of genuine efforts for collaboration and coordination amongst all external partners to support the national health programmes. The Regional Director emphasized that both the Ministries of Health and WHO work hand in hand to make full use of the available opportunities to generate financial, technological and human resources for health development in the Region. He mentioned that WHO had worked with its Member Countries to strengthen their national capacity for external resource mobilization. A sound project proposal is a key element in the process of resource mobilization. A shortage of manpower with sufficient skill for formulating sound and aid-worthy project proposals had been a limiting factor for resource mobilization in the countries. He hoped that the workshop would provide the participants with a useful learning experience in the project formulation process as well as knowledge of improved techniques and skills in writing aid-worthy project proposals. The Regional Director expressed satisfaction that the faculty of the DANIDA Training Centre, Copenhagen, specialized in this particular area of skill development, could facilitate this workshop. Dr Wagner stressed the need for preparing technically sound proposals so that donors could decide whether or not to fund them. The opening session concluded with a briefing of the participants by the moderators, Mr Vincent Martino and Mr Frank Little on the objectives, programme and methods of the conduct of the workshop. Page 5
Report of an Intercountry Workshop
7.2
Planning Workshop The workshop process was based on DANIDA’s Logical Framework Approach (LFA). Its tools for planning, namely, focus on context, problems, objectives, choice, action and monitoring and evaluation were used during the simulation. The LFA as well as LF Matrix was introduced to the participants followed by discussions with regard to their use in and adaptation to the simulation exercises. Each participant received a copy of the manual on LFA published by DANIDA Training Center for use as a resource book. In view of the emerging common health risk in SEAR countries, HIV/AIDS was chosen as the simulation topic to launch an effective campaign by the ministries of health of the Member countries to improve services to vulnerable groups affected by HIV/AIDS. The participants were initially divided into three groups. The first group dealt with drug distribution and accessibility of vulnerable groups to treatment facilities. The second group looked into the monitoring system of drug distribution, while the third group addressed the issue of accountability and transparency in utilization of resources. All the three groups identified problems in their respective areas and tried to provide solutions to each of these problems. Focusing on “Context”, analytical work was done in five groups on stakeholder mapping, policy concerns, uncertainty and high risk list, values and principles. In stakeholder analysis, critical target groups, government and other decision-makers, donor and funding agencies, service groups including NGOs and support providing groups were identified as the probable stakeholders. In analyzing the policy considerations, political, economic, social, legal, environmental and intersectoral aspect were highlighted and discussed in details. Focusing on the uncertainty and high-risk list, the group identified types of affected population, social factors including poverty, life-style, other causes, priorities and solution to the problems.
Page 6
Development of Project Formulation Skills for Mobilization of External Resources for Health Development
In the exercise on values and principles, values respected and shared personally and nationally were identified. The participants were then divided into groups named after each of the ten SEAR Member Countries and worked as a country team on each of the elements of the LFA. Each group conducted their group work, building problem tree, objective tree, scenario development and adapting them to LF Matrix and its elements namely – project elements, indicators and assumptions. The groups then worked on the organization of problems. The areas considered in this exercise were – safe blood transfusion, awareness campaign, including IEC, surveillance, training, resource and monitoring. Each group dealt with issues preventing the achievement of a desired situation, identified problems and developed problem clusters or trees. In the area of safe blood transfusion, issues such as low community participation; inadequate use of disposable syringes and needles; commercial donors; unauthorized blood banks; absence of blood transfusion policy; low awareness about HIV/AIDS transmission; lack of testing and screening facilities; donor information; skilled manpower; financial resources; research and blood storage facilities and available modern technology were identified and addressed. Policy, strategy, sustainability, evaluation and activities of the programme in the area of awareness campaign, including IEC were emphasized and the need for identification of the target groups stressed. Focusing on surveillance, factors like inadequate data, strategies, funds and political commitment, shortage of testing kits, cultural and geographical problems, absence of priority on surveillance, insufficient training and number of health workers and limited private sector involvement in the process were identified. Action, strategy and policy in various aspects of training activities were highlighted. Details of human, financial, physical and community resources, including tied aids, donor fatigue, poor management, transparency and accountability in the area of resources mobilization were discussed. Various
Page 7
Report of an Intercountry Workshop
aspects of political decision-making in mobilizing domestic resources also came up for discussion. Focusing on objectives, each group concentrated at the levels of action, strategy and policy in tackling HIV/AIDS in their respective countries. The groups developed objective clusters or trees and also worked on shared objectives based on the objectives identified by each group. Working on the “Choice Focus”, each group analyzed resources, developed scenarios, compared scenarios, chose and designed a strategy on development and immediate objectives. In the scenario development exercise, immediate objectives, strategy, ownership, primary target group and main problems of the proposal were discussed. Focusing on action, each group identified development objectives, outputs, activities, inputs and assumptions in the format of LF Matrix, which comprised these elements.
7.3
Cooperative Writing Workshop In the cooperative writing workshop section, the participants performed group work on proposal writing using the WHO Format for Writing Proposals and the paragraph outline technique which included the tools for proposal-writing and focussed on the users of the proposal, impact objectives, contents of the proposal, paragraph, proposal summary and proposal text. In this process, LFA was applied as a practical exercise. In the analysis of key users/readers of the proposal, background knowledge, beliefs, values, interests and expected response to the proposal were considered. The prospective key users might include the health secretary, social development technical officer/donor, local representative of donor agency, public health director, budget and finance officer, planning analyst, external resources, task manager, national economic and social board. In the exercise on focus on impact objectives of the proposal, the groups tried to determine which concrete key actions were required from the key users after they had read the proposal. Focusing on the contents of the proposal, each group strove to generate items to be included in the proposal
Page 8
Development of Project Formulation Skills for Mobilization of External Resources for Health Development
and to arrange these items in a logical manner. Working on paragraph writing by drafting, the groups drafted appropriate “topic sentences” for each item of their proposals. It was emphasized that the proposal summary being an important part of a proposal should be written before writing the body of the proposal. In the same vein, equal emphasis was also laid writing the concluding statement of the proposal, as it could be used to reiterate the problem and to plead for continuity of the project for its sustainability. In the end, the country groups prepared country-specific proposals based on the lessons learnt over the week. As a part of simulation and role play, each of these proposals was then presented to and negotiated with the prospective donors who were represented by other country teams. The donor group inquired about various aspects of each of the proposals and made observations. The proposals were revised accordingly in view of the comments made by the donor groups.
8.
CLOSURE The session ended with the completion of a written evaluation (see Annex 3 for a summary of the evaluation). The highlights of the entire proceedings of the workshop were compiled in a document and distributed to all the participants at the meeting.
Page 9
Report of an Intercountry Workshop
Annex 1 PROGRAMME Monday, 22 January 2001 08:30 hrs. 09:00 hrs. Registration of participants Inaugural session – Regional Director’s message Welcome address by local organizers/secretariat Introduction of participants Presentation of agenda and norm setting Planning Workshop Logical Framework Approach - Tools for Planning: – Focus on Problems – Focus on Objectives – Focus on Context – Focus on Choice – Focus on Action – Monitoring and Evaluation 09:45 hrs. Introduction to DANIDA’s Book: LFA - A Flexible Tool for Participatory Development Introduction to workshop simulation and roles 10:00 hrs. Initial Focus Question of the Simulation and Role Play How can we, the Ministry of Health in Country X, launch an effective campaign to improve services to vulnerable groups affected by HIV/AIDS? Focus on context Stakeholder mapping Policy concerns Uncertainties and high risk list Values and principles session Focus on objectives Identifying objectives
Page 10
Development of Project Formulation Skills for Mobilization of External Resources for Health Development
Tuesday, 23 January 2001 Focus on problems Issues preventing the achievement of a desired situation Identifying problems Developing Problem Clusters or Trees. Focus on objectives (revisited) Movement from problems to objectives Developing objective clusters or trees. Focus on choice Analyzing resources Developing scenarios Comparing scenarios Choosing and designing a strategy (Immediate and development objective) Wednesday, 24 January 2001 Focus on action (Project planning matrix) Identifying outputs Developing activities Identifying inputs Identifying assumptions Monitoring, evaluation and reporting Designing TOR for Project Monitors Six system design question Thursday, 25 January 2001 Cooperative Writing Workshop – – – – – – – WHO format for writing proposals and paragraph outline technique: Tools for proposal writing Focus on the users of the proposal Focus on the impact objectives Focus on the contents of the proposal Focus on the paragraphs Focus on the proposal summary
Focus on the users of the proposal Analyzing the “key” users’ background knowledge, beliefs, and information needs.
Page 11
Report of an Intercountry Workshop
Focus on the impact objectives of the proposal Determining which concrete “Key” actions are required from the “Key Users” after they have read the proposal. Focus on the Contents of the Proposal Generating items to be included in the proposal, clustering items, ordering the items into a logical flow Friday January 26, 2001 Focus on the paragraph Drafting a “Topic Sentence” for each item of the proposal. Focus on the summary Writing up the proposal summary Focus on the concluding statements of the proposal Closing Session – Winding down Evaluation of the planning workshop and the cooperative writing workshop. Appreciations Final remarks by local organizers/secretariat
Page 12
Development of Project Formulation Skills for Mobilization of External Resources for Health Development
Annex 2 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Bangladesh Ms Begum Hasmat Ara Senior Assistant Chief Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Bangladesh Secretariat Dhaka Mr M.A.N. Siddique Senior Assistant Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Bangladesh Secretariat Dhaka Dr Ohn Kyaw WHO Management Officer C/o WR, Bangladesh Dhaka Dr George John Komba-Kono WHO Medical Officer (DHS) C/o WR, Bangladesh Dhaka Bhutan Planning Officer (PPD) Mr Kinley Penjor Asstt Health Department Ministry of Health and Education Thimphu Mr Norbu Wangchuk National Programme Officer C/o WR Bhutan Thimphu DPR korea Dr Ri Chang Bom Senior Official Department of Science and Technology Ministry of Public Health Pyongyang Dr Pak Tong Chol WHO National Programme Officer WHO, Pyongyang India Mr Om Vir Singh Veerwal Department of ISMH (Information Support Management) Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Government of India New Delhi Indonesia Ms Nasirah Bahaudin Chief, Division of International Cooperation Bureau of Planning Ministry of Health and Social Welfare Jakarta Dr (Mr) Asyikin Iman Hidayat Dahlan Chief, Division of Policy Analysis Bureau of Planning Ministry of Health and Social Welfare Jakarta Ms Antarini Antoyo Staff Bureau of Planning Ministry of Health and Social Welfare Jakarta Mr Mohamed Rasheed Programme and Administrative Officer C/o WR, Indonesia Jakarta Dr Stephanus Indradjaya WHO National Consultant C/o WR, Indonesia Jakarta
Page 13
Report of an Intercountry Workshop
Maldives Mr Abdul Raheem Hassan Assistant Under Secretary Ministry of Health Male Dr S. Puri Medical Officer C/o WR, Maldives Male Myanmar Dr Myo Thein Assistant Director Department of Health Government of the Union of Myanmar Ministry of Health Yangon Dr Than Oo State Health Director Kayah State Department of Health Government of the Union of Myanmar Ministry of Health Yangon Dr Anton Fric Public Health Administrator C/o WR, Myanmar Yangon Nepal Dr Shyam Prasad Bhattarai Chief, PPFA & M Division Ministry of Health Kathmandu Mr Arjun Bahadur Singh Chief Foreign Aid Section Ministry of Health Kathmandu Prof. A.M. Das Planning Officer C/o WR, Nepal Kathmandu
Dr Shailesh K. Upadhyay Liaison Officer C/o WR, Nepal Kathmandu Sri Lanka Ms Asoka P. Munasinghe Deputy Director General (Administration) Department of Health Services “Suwasiripaya” 385 Deans Road Colombo 10 Dr A.P.P. Somarathna Medical Officer Preventive Health Care Ministry of Health “Suwasiripaya” 385 Deans Road Colombo 10 Dr Lokky Wai Management Officer C/o WR, Sri Lanka Colombo Thailand Dr Chuchai Sornchumni Senior Medical officer Provincial Hospital Division Office of the Permanent Secretary Department of Health Bangkok Ms Nonglug Chawalpaiboon Senior Policy and Plan Analyst Bureau of Environmental Health Department of Health Bangkok Ms Noppavan Janejai Senior Medical Scientist National Institute of Health Department of Medical Sciences Ministry of Public Health Bangkok Mr Richard B. Kalina Management Officer
Page 14
Development of Project Formulation Skills for Mobilization of External Resources for Health Development
C/o WR, Thailand Bangkok Dr Somchai Peerapakorn National Professional Officer (Programme) C/o WR, Thailand Bangkok Mr Narintr Tima RTG/WHO Programme Monitoring and Evaluation Officer C/o WR, Thailand Bangkok Facilitators Mr Vincent Martino DANIDA Training Centre, Copenhagen Denmark Mr Frank Little DANIDA Training Centre, Copenhagen Denmark Secretariat WHO/SEARO Mr S.G. Muktader External Cooperation Officer
Dr Khallilur Rahman STP-ECU Dr Lin Aung STP-EHA WHO Country Office Dr Klaus Wagner WHO Representative to Nepal Kathmandu Mr Kiran Bahadur Shrestha Assistant II C/o WR, Nepal Kathmandu Ms Liu Yingle Administrative Officer C/o WR, Nepal Kathmandu Mr Subhash Pokrel Report Writer Resource Person Dr Robert J. Kim Farley WHO Representative to India New Delhi
Page 15
Report of an Intercountry Workshop
Annex 3 FORMULATING SOUND AND AID-WORTHY PROJECT PROPOSALS Summary of Evaluation Report: Purpose: This report assesses the workshop course and makes recommendations for future action in respect to this course. Conclusions and recommendations: The assessment is that the course was successful and that this kind of training is needed in the future. Recommendations are made as to how the course can be further developed and consolidated. Structure: The report is based on the course participants’ evaluations, both written and oral. These evaluations are at Hornnbækhus and are available upon request. The conclusions below are based on the Workshop Evaluation Questionnaires and the course co-ordinator’s own assessment. The overall objective of the workshop was to allow participants to become familiar with a range of tools and techniques relevant to a welldesigned and technically sound project proposal. Participants’ overall impression of the course in relation to the above objective. – – – – – Page 16
5 participants wrote excellent 13 participants wrote very good 7 participants wrote good 3 participants wrote satisfactory 1 participant wrote less than satisfactory
Development of Project Formulation Skills for Mobilization of External Resources for Health Development
(36 participants were actively involved in the workshop activities. From Thursday, the Nepal delegation began preparing for a WHO Retreat to be held in Nepal and could not be present for the remainder of the Workshop.) The 29 evaluations received reveal that the course was successful in improving knowledge and awareness in Planning and Proposal Writing techniques. It was also successful in improving knowledge, awareness and activation of certain specific personal skills that would be useful in the planning context. Furthermore, it conveyed the idea that planning skills and writing techniques as well as the way in which donor meetings are designed and conducted in terms of presenting proposals to donors contribute to a successful outcome. The course was less successful in giving feedback to participants on their individual and group skills in planning and writing. The assumption that participants would have a pool of experience that could be shared and adopted as a working standard proved to be difficult in the country specific working groups. The North Korean group had, for example, only two members. The evaluations further reveal considerable participant learning insights as they felt that the course was in general good, relevant and necessary and that it should be continued. The course coordinator would concur with these findings. Furthermore, the desire of a number of participants to be “told how to do things” actually reveals the uncertainty that many expressed with regard to planning and proposal writing and confirms the need for a course like this. Participant impressions of the course in relation to six workshop objectives: (1) It was the intention of the workshop to introduce Logical Framework Approach as a project planning tool using Danida’s Logical Framework Handbook so that participants become acquainted with the LFA tools and can, at the end of the course, appreciate the conceptual thinking. – 22 participants said this objective was fully or largely achieved. – 7 participants said this objective was moderately achieved.
Page 17
Report of an Intercountry Workshop
(2) It was the intention of the workshop to share different ideas about the topic from different countries, learn about people who are here, explore the breadth of opinions, create trust and explore different values. – 16 participants said this objective was fully or largely achieved. – 11 participants said this objective was moderately achieved. – 2 participants said this objective was achieved to a small extent. (3) It was the intention of the workshop to practice applying problem analysis, objective analysis and scenario development techniques in small groups. – 22 participants said this objective was fully or largely achieved. – 6 participants said this objective was moderately achieved. – 1 participant said this objective was achieved to a small extent. (4) It was the intention of the workshop to practice making a proposal sound, internally consistent, complete, and SMART, using an LFA matrix that allows monitoring and evaluation to take place. – 15 participants said this objective was fully or largely achieved. – 10 participants said this objective was moderately achieved. – 4 participants said this objective was achieved to a small extent. (5) It was the intention of the workshop to enable participants to practice the paragraph outline techniques in conjunction with the WHO Format for Writing Proposals for designing aid-worthy countryspecific project proposals. – 19 participants said this objective was fully or largely achieved. – 6 participants said this objective was moderately achieved. – 4 participants said this objective was achieved to a small extent. (6) It was the intention of the workshop to create an environment where participants experienced the challenge of working in an interdisciplinary team using tools not only for analysis and planning but also to foster communication and promote dialogue. – 17 participants said this objective was fully or largely achieved. – 7 participants said this objective was moderately achieved. – 5 participants said this objective was achieved to a small extent.
Page 18
Development of Project Formulation Skills for Mobilization of External Resources for Health Development
An assortment of comments taken from the Evaluation Questionnaires: – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Course was too short (This was written by almost everyone) I particularly like scenario development We needed more examples We needed more time for writing proposals Examples from book not directly related to presentations Time too short on each topic Not enough feedback to groups. Facilitators didn’t tell us if we were right or wrong. Every one should have a chance to write topic sentences, not just WHO staff More comments from facilitators based on their experience Clearer relationship between LFA book and WHO Format Workshop documents not as important as facilitator leadership and presentations Country groups good but mixed groups with a hypothetical case with options would have lead to more interactive dynamism Facilitators could have adhered more closely to LFA Book It would have been better if the facilitators had made a summary after each session. The objectives should have included something about the programme/sector approach More time on proposal writing WHO representatives should have been separated Documents not coherent. Too much jumping around More feedback by facilitators
Conclusions It is not an exaggeration to say that the objectives stated above for a four and one-half day course for 35 participants were ambitious. It was both a planning workshop and a writing workshop. The evaluations reveal that these objectives were not fully achieved. Participants experienced the course much like an express train with very few stops. All, however, felt the course should be continued. Taking these objectives seriously and addressing the comments of the participants in relation to these objectives, it appears we need to be even more efficient in the use of participant time. I believe there are three major Page 19
Report of an Intercountry Workshop
directions we should move to use the existing time frame in a more efficient way and to decrease the gap between our espoused objectives and participant perceptions. These directions would be: • Improved workshop materials that would be perceived by the participants to more closely relate LFA planning techniques, paragraph outlining and WHO proposal writing. These materials would follow the session outline and incorporate facilitator presentation materials. The jumps and bumps on the express train that participants said they felt would, I believe, be reduced considerably. A one-case approach. This would allow the many groups to compare their results with each other and more importantly allow more individual feedback and instructions from the facilitators. Our working assumption that each of the 10 country-specific groups had a pool of experience to share would be less critical. Adjustments in the sequence of the sessions to get to the heart of LFA faster.
•
•
In conclusion, it appears that the objectives of the workshop were the right ones. All participants felt the course should be continued. However, it was felt that the course could be even better with improved workshop documents and a one-case approach.
Page 20