WAORLD BANK\ TECI-INICAL PAPER NUIMBER 56

Acton-Planninng Workshopsfor Development ManagementGuidelines

Jerry NI. Silverman, Merlyn Kettering, and Terry D. Schmidt

4 t1 1

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPERS

No. 1. Increasing Agricultural Productivity

No. 2. A Model for the Development of a Self-Help Water Supply Program

No. 3. Ventilated Improved Pit Latrines: Recent Developments in Zimbabwe

No. 4. The African Trypanosomiases: Methods and Concepts of Control and Eradicationin Relation to Development

'No. 5.) Structural Changes in World Industry: A Quantitative Analysis of Recent Developments

No. 6. Laboratory Evaluation of Hand-Operated Water Pumps for Use in Developing Countries

No. 7. Notes on the Design and Operation of Waste Stabilization Ponds in Warm Climatesof Developing Countries

No. 8. Institution Building for Traffic Management

(No. 9.) Meeting the Needs of the Poor for Water Supply and Waste Disposal

No. 10. Appraising Poultry Enterprises fcr Profitability: A Manual for Investors

No. 11. Opportunities for Biological Control of Agricultural Pests in Developing Countries

No. 12. Water Supply and Sanitation Project Preparation Handbook: Guidelines

No. 13. Water Supply and Sanitation Project Preparation Handbook: Case Studies

No. 14. Water Supply and Sanitation Project Preparation Handbook: Case Study

(No. 15.)Sheep and Goats in Developing Countries: Their Present and Potential Role

(No. 16.)Managing Elephant Depredation in Agricultural and Forestry Projects

(No. 17.)Energy Efficiency and Fuel Substitution in the Cement Industry with Emphasison Developing Countries

No. 18. Urban Sanitation Planning Manual Based on the Jakarta Case Study

No. 19. Laboratory Testing of Handpumps for Developing Countries: Final Technical Report

No. 20. Water Quality in Hydroelectric Projects: Considerations for Planning in TropicalForest Regions

No. 21. Industrial Restructuring: Issues and Experiences in Selected Developed Economies

No. 22. Energy Efficiency in the Steel Industry with Emphasis on Developing Countries

No. 23. The Twinning of Institutions: Its Use as a Technical Assistance Delivery System

No. 24. World Sulphur Survey

No. 25. Industrialization in Sub-Saharan Africa: Strategies and Performance (also in French, 25F)

No. 26. Small Enterprise Development: Economic Issues from African Experience(also in French, 26F)

No. 27. Farming Systebis in Africa: The Great Lakes Highlands of Zaire, Rwanda, and Burundi(also in French, 27F)

No. 28. Technical Assistance and Aid Agency Staff: Alternative Techniques for Greater Effectiveness

No. 29. Handpumps Testing and Development: Progress Report on Field and Laboratory Testing

No. 30. Recycling from Municipal Refuse: A State-of-the-Art Review and Annotated Bibliography

No. 31. Remanufacturing: The Experience of the United States and Implicationsfor Developing Countries

No. 32. World Refinery Industry: Need for Restructuring

( ) Indicates number assigned after publication. (List continues on the inside back cover.)

WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NUMBER 56

Actiloln-P'lannmg Workshopsfor Development MtanagemnenSt

Guidelines

Jerry M. Silverman, Merlyn Kettering, and Terry D. Schmidt

The World BankWashington, D.C., U.S.A.

Copyright © 1986The International Bank for Reconstructionand Development/THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.

All rights reservedManufactured in the United States of AmericaFirst printing December 1986

Technical Papers are not formal publications of the World Bank, and are circulatedto encourage discussion and comment and to communicate the results of the Bank'swork quicldy to the development community; citation and the use of these papersshould take account of their provisional character. The findings, interpretations, andconclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author(s) and should notbe attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or tomembers of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. Any mapsthat accompany the text have been prepared solely for the convenience of readers; thedesignations and presentation of material in them do not imply the expression of anyopinion whatsoever on the part of the World Bank, its affiliates, or its Board or membercountries conceming the legal status of any country. territory, city, or area or of theauthorities thereof or concerning the delimitation of its boundaries or its nationalaffiliation.

Because of the informality and to present the results of research with the leastpossible delay, the typescript has not been prepared in accordance with the proceduresappropriate to formal printed texts, and the World Bank accepts no resportsibility forerrors. The publication is supplied at a token charge to defray part of the cost ofmanufacture and distribution.

The most recent World Bank publications are described in the catalog NewPublications, a new edition of which is issued in the spring and fall of each year. Thecomplete backlist of publications is shown in the annual Index of Publications, whichcontains an alphabetical title list a-nd indexes of subjects, authors, and countries andregions; it is of value principally to libraries and institutional purchasers. The continuingresearch program is described in The World Bank Research Program: Abstracts of CurrentStudies, which is issued annually. The latest edition of each of these is available free ofcharge from the Publications Sales Unit, Department F, The World Bank, 1818 H Street,N.W, Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A., or from Publications, The World Bank, 66,avenue d'Iena, 75116 Paris, France.

Jerry M. Silverman is the senior organizational and management specialist in theEastern and Southern Africa Projects Department of the World Bank, Merlyn Ketteringis a project development specialist in the Development Projects Management Centerof the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Terry D. Schmidt is a research associate inthe International Development Management Center of the Urniversity of Maryland.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Silverman, Jerry M.Action-planning workshops for development

management.

(World Bank technical paper, ISSN 0253-7494no. 56)

Bibliography: p.1. Developing countries--Economic policy.

2. Economic development. I. Kettering, M1erlyn.II. Schmidt, Terry. III. Title. IV. Series.HC59.7.S4656 1986 338.9'0068 86-28215ISBN 0-8213-0864-5

ABSTRACT

Action-Planning supplements conventional planning and implementationapproaches and strengthens the institutional capacity within a developingnation to efficiently and effectively plan and manage implementation oftheir development strategies. Action-Planning is most useful whenaddressing complex programs, projects, and policy work. Conventionally,the design of development efforts is differentiated from implementation,often at the sacrifice of immediate and long-term development results. Asan alternative, this paper provides guidelines for an action-planningapproach which can be adapted to integrate design and implementationthrough an iterative, participatory process.

Action-Planning during preparation and appraisal involves officialsand beneficiaries in a participative process of planning and decision-making that strengthens design and contributes to improving capacity fromthe very beginning. Actioni-Planning used iteratively throughout design andimplementation mobilizes commitment and enhances realistic planning among acritical mass of supporters and implementors to achieve the goals ofprogramlproject or policy work. Action-Planning, in the form ofidentification and design workshops, project launch workshops and periodic(e.g., annual) workshops, activates and builds teams that can operatewithin the project, program or policy context to meet the essentialconditions for success, Local ownership of development programs isensured, effective organizations and teams are created, systems andprocedures for implementation are established and management capacities areinstitutionalized. The action-planning approach encourages managementteams at all levels to adapt concepts and tools directly applicable to theprogram/project or policy setting at hand to make operations more effectiveand, thus, builds their capacity to be self-reliant and make developmentprograms sustainable.

rU U

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOILEDGMENTS ................. ... .. . , . . ., viii

PREFACE ................................................................ ix

I. JUSTIFICATION ........... 1

Developing Institutional Capacity ...........................Phases in Institutional Development ..........................1

Design Phase ............... ........ I ...... 2Implementation Phases................................. 3

II. APPROACH...................................................... 4

Role of Facilitators ............................ 5....... 5

Role of Participants ..................................... 6Role of Resource Persons .......................... ........ 6

Pre-Workshop Preparation and Workshop Follow-Up .......... 7

Preparation .. .................................. 7Follow-up... ................ ......... 8

Workshop Approach.....*................. e.................. 8The Dynamics of Small Groups .............................. ...9

Workshop Products and Process..........................10Stages of Group Behavior ............................. .10Style of the Effective Facilitator.................... 11

The Facilitation Team.*................................ 12

Size and Composition.......... ... e............ 12Process ..... e . ................... 12Qualifications ....................................... 12

III. STRATEGY. ........................ ......................... 13

Elements of a Strategyo .................................. 13

The Institutional Environment.......... .......... 14Linking the Action-Planning Process to the Environment.... 16

Sector Reviews and Program/Project Identification.... 16

Program/Project Preparation........... ...... 17Program/Project Appraisal............................ 18

Program/Project Implementation Planning.o............ 18

Program/Project Launch.......................... ..... 19Training ........ ............. o............ 19

Management Team Training............. .......... 19

Technical Skills Training..........*.............. 21

- vi -

IV. PREPARI S ACTION-PLANNING WORKSHOPS ............................ 21

Sponsorship ............................................... 22Group Size................................................ 23Participant Selection ........................... 23Workshop Length........................................ 24Location ............................................... 24Workshop Facilities ....................................... 25Designing Workshop Content and Process ...................... 27

Guidelines for Workshop Design ......................... 27Clarifying Workshop Objectives ........... 28Preparing Detailed Design and Agenda .................. 28Preparing Materials .................................. 29

V. CONDUCTING ACTION-PLANNING WORKSHOPS .......................... 29

Creating and Maintaining an Active Learning Climate....... 30Maintaining Appropriate Relationships..................... .. 30Monitoring Progress ................................... 30

The Agenda............... ................ 30Participation .......................... 32

Daily Climate Setting ............................... 32Summarizing and Processing Learning....................... 33Building Group Spirit ............................ 33Daily Closing ............................................ .33Managing Small Work Group Tasks ......................... 33

Small Group Composition .............................. 34Group Instructions ....................... 35Monitoring Small Group Progress ..................... 35Preparation for Reporting Back ..................35

Managing Plenary Reporting Back Sessions .................. 36Processing Small Group Results ..................... 36Charts and Visuals............................... 36Reporting Back .................... 36Providing a Context ............................. 36Enforcing Time Limits ................................ .37Moderating Discussion . ...................... 37Retention of Products ................................ 37

Processing the Learning ................................... 38The Facilitation Team Approach............. 41

Morning Meetings ..................................... 41Anticipating Activities and Maintaining

Workshop Flow.........................o....... 41Team-Teaching Approach ............................... 41Performance Critiques........................... 42Evening Meetings .......................... 42

Workshop Evaluation ................................ ... ... 43

- vii -

VI. ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS.......e...... *. 43

Administrative Requirements.............................. 43Invitations...................................*.....* 44Venue, Subsistence, and Supplies...................... 44Logistic Support..... ............................... 45

Financing................. ............................... 45

VII. POTENTIAL RISKS .. . *e *c *e§ e .............................. 46

Participation as Threat ................................... 46Unrealistic Local Expectations.. ..................... 47Unacceptable Proposals ....................... 47Involvement of Beneficiaries..........................., 47Inappropriate Design and Facilitation Skills .............. .48

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY.. .............. ... .................... ... 49

ANNEXES

A. Illustrative Cases ...................... 55B. Descriptive Agendas: Examples ...................... 58C. Annotated Agendas: Examples.......................... .... 62

D. Workshop Evaluation Questionnaires: Example............... ... 71

FIGURES

1. Problems and Constraints on Project Management:The Three Arenas of Action ......... e................ .......... 15

2. Training Room Layout.t . .................................... 26

- viii -

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This text--especially Sections II, IV, and V--borrows heavily from"The Action-Training Approach to Project Improvement: Guidelines for theTrainer" by Merlyn Kettering of DPMC and Terry D. Schmidt of theInternational Development Management Center of the University of Maryland.In3tial revisions of that text, plus additional material, were written byJerry M. Silverman of the World Bank in order to address some of thebroader implications and applications of the "Action-Planning" approach tocurrent operational concerns of that specific institution. The finalversion of these Guidelines is a result of a review by various individualswithin both DPMC and the World Bank.

The authors owe a debt of gratitude to a multitude of professionalpractitioners of the approach outlined in this Guide. At the risk ofoverlooking the work of many people in the field, the authors want to takethis opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of the following personsto either the art of workshop design and practice or to program andmanagement inititatives and support.

Design and Practice. Noora Alcauter (Mexico), Klaus Bethke (FAO),Mochtar Buchori (Indonesia), Lauren Cooper (World Bank), John Hannah(Development Alternatives, Inc.), Angeles Hernandez (Mexico), GeorgeHonadle (Development Alternatives, Inc.), Marcus Ingle (University ofMaryland), David Kidd and John King (consultants), Talala Mbise (Tanzania),David Olson and Wilfred Owens (consultants), Robert Satin and Turid Sato(World Bank), William Smith and Rene Springuel (consultants), ChamroenTansomboon (Thailand), R. Moses Thompson -z-nd Richard Vittitow(consultants), Robert Youker (World Bank), and Robert Zimmerman(consultant).

Program and Management Support. Ridwan Ali (World Bank), CharlesAlton (USAID/Indonesia), Macdonald Benjamin (IFAD), Robert Dakan(USAID/Indonesia), Colin Dickerson (IFAD), John English (World Bank), JohnFoti (USAID/Thailand), Frank Gillespie (USAID/Thailand and Indonesia),Brian Gray and Ezedine Hadj-Mabrouk (World Bank), Martin Hanratty(USAID/Indonesia), Roy Hewson (World Bank), Abraham Hirsch(USAID/Indonesia), Arturo Israel and Francis Lethem (World Bank), BaumanMansuri (IFAD), Robert Milford (World Bank), Fernando Menendez (Mexico),Bengt Nekby (World Bank), Janet Pauley (USAID/Tanzania), Hadi Shams andShiv Saigal (IFAD), Jayasankar Shivakumar (World Bank), Adnan Tongul(IFAD), Horst Wagner, Harry Walters and E. Diane White (World Bank) andJerry Wood (USAID/Thailand).

Responsibility. None of the persons named above is responsible forthe final content; the authors take that responsibility. Nor do theguidelines or views presented herein necessarily reflect the official viewsof che World Bank, USDA/DPMC, AID or the University of Maryland.

ix -

PREFACE

This reference guide is written primarily for officials of publicand private development institutions who might want to use an "Action-Planning" approach to program or project design and implementation. Action-Planning is a practical, flexible, effective way to design programs/projects while simultaneously increasing commitment and improving themanagement capacity of those responsible for actual implementation andoperations.

These guidelines are the resul'.. of two complementary streams ofthought and practice. One stream has been the World Bank's increasing use,since 1982, of "Action-Planning Workshops" at all stages of the projectcycle and the extension of the approach in 1985 to program design at themacro-economic and institutional development levels. A variety of Bankdocuments have been prepared which directly or indirectly describe theoperational utility of the approach. The reader might, in particular,refer to Technical Assistance and Aid Agency Staff: Alternative Techniquesfor Greater Effectiveness, No. 28 in this series of Technical Papers(1984). The other stream has been the development of "Action-TrainingWorkshops" and "Team Planning Meetings" by the Development ProjectsManagement Center (DPMC) of USDA.1 The similarity of the two approaches--independently prepared by different organizations--attests to their utilitybased on real world experience in the field.

The specific objective of this reference guide is to assistprogram/project officers to prepare for and implement successful Action-Planning Workshops. In addition, it should also be useful for stimulatingnew ideas and guiding the efforts of those responsible for the design andconduct of Action-Planning workshops in the field.

1, Founded in 1976, DPMC's primary purpose is to create more effectivemanagement technologies for the less developed countries. DPMCreceives funding for research and dissemination through thePerformance Management Project from AID7s Office of Rural andInstitutional Development, Science and Technology Bureau. Overthe past nine years DPMC has applied and adapted action-trainingapproaches to prepare teams who will go overseas to work withmission and Host Government officials, to collaboratively designprojects, to plan the launching of projects at the earliest stagesof implementation following approval of donor final.cing, and toperiodically evaluate the re-plan ongoing efforts.

I. JUSTIFICATION

Devel2Rin& Institutional Ca-acity

The Action-Planning approach is directed toward improving theborrowers' institutional capacity to efficiently and effectively plan andmanage the implementation of their development strategies. The approachsupplements conventional development planning and implementationtechniques. It is a powerful means for achieving seven fundamentalobjectives:

(a) Identifying local perceptions of problems and constraints tobe addressed by development programs/projects;

(b) Revealing values and attitudes to which the program/projectapproach must be adapted;

(c) Arriving at a procedural, analytical, and operationalframework that meets the development goals of the country;

(d) Mobilizing a critical mass of local supporters andimplementors for the development strategy as a whole orparticular program/project elements of the strategy;

(e) Generating sufficient commitment and ownership by appropriatesupporters and implementors;

(f) Starting a process for team functioning to be used throughoutplanning, implementation and evaluation; and

(g) Improving the capacity of project or program management teamsto plan and manage on an on-going basis duringimplementation.

Phases in Institutional Development

A program or project of institutional development can be dividedinto three reinforcing sets of activities: (i) identification,preparation, and appraisal; (ii) start-up implementation; and (iii) ongoingimplementation. These three phases of activities can benefit enormouslyfrom agreement among all parties to a program or project about procedures,analytical frameworks, and other means to operationalize developmental andpolitical criteria for decision making.

Nevertheless, the distinction between "design" on the one hand and"implementation" on the other hand should not be rigid for at least tworeasons:

-2-

(a) By its very nature, a program to improve institutionalcapacity must be implemented over a long period within achanging environment. Thus, the program must be designed toallow continuous modification, based on learning andinnovative problem-solving, rather than on the routineapplication of solutions determined during an earlierplanning and design phase.

(b) In the context described above, initial planning and designactivities should themselves be viewed as the first phase ofimplementation through the direct involvement of those whosecapacity is to be improved.

The conventional approach to institutional design--whichdistinguishes between the design and implementation phases--normally placeslocal professionals and potential beneficiaries in the role of informantsand the foreign professional in the role of designer. Only after a projectis negotiated and agreements signed (i.e., after the project is "designed")are local professionals and potential beneficiaries given active roles.Further, "implementation" is sometimes carried out under the leadership offoreign "experts".

The alternative approach outlined here views initialidentification, preparation, and appraisal as an integral part of a multi-stage implementation process based on iterative planning. In all phases alarge variety of interdependent environmental factors must be considered;e.g., finance, economics, social conditions, policy, management,technology, human resource development and institutional development.These all must be integrated so they support and reinforce each other'scontribution to the achievement of objectives. In some cases, a carefulbalancing of trade-offs among different factors must take place. Action-Planning is an effective means to integrate relevant considerations frommany different disciplines and interests. The dialogue and learning thattakes place makes it more likely that the interests of the differentstakeholders2 are satisfied sufficiently, so that implementation of theactivity is widely understood and supported. Participants contribute toeach other's knowledge to further the goals of the group. For example, theWorld Bank representative and officials of the borrowing country,participating together in an Action-Planning Workshop, are more likely toshare their respective knowledge, skills, and creativity and then becommitted to subsequent decisions and actions. Therefore, theparticipation of local officials and other beneficiaries in that processfrom the very beginning should be viewed as part of the capacity-buildingprogram.

Design Phase. The purpose of the initial design process is toestablish preconditions acceptable to both the donor and the recipientgovernment for the commencement of a formal project or program and,perhaps, the establishment of soMe new supporting policy initiatives.Regarding the institutional aspects of a program or project, the objectivesduring each of the three stages in the design process should be viewed asfollows.

2/ The word "stakeholder" is used throughout this paper to mean aninterested or concerned party.

-3-

(a) Identification: Identify and establish appropriaterelationships with external entities whose actions are likelyto affect program/project performance directly or indirectly(p. 16-17).

(b) Preparation: Choosing, from among options, appropriateorganizational structure, control, and coordination patterns(p. 17-18).

(c) Appraisal: Specifying the detailed organizationalarrangements and designing the learning process (p. 18).

These three pre-implementation stages are the time to mobilizecommitment among a critical mass of supporters and implementors to thegoals of the program/project. These goals should be stated in broad termsalong with appropriately detailed plans. Shared expectations should becreated so that both the broad and detailed strategies will be reconsideredas the project proceeds through a process of periodic reviews and re-planning.

Implementation Phases. One of the valuable applications ofAction-Planning is to help new projects begin effectively. When applied tonew programs/projects, Action-Planning helps to:

(a) Shift ownership from designers to implementors;

(b) Develop the organization and create effective teamwork andoperating procedures;

(c) Establish a management system for effective implementation;and

(d) Improve the implementation skills of the management team andcreate internal capacity for self-reliance.

These necessary conditions for successful implementation do notoccur automatically. In the rutsh to implement, building these conditionsis often ignored by management teams which have technical proficiency butlimited managerial experiknk!e. But if they are not established, the resultis predictable and inev -le; confusion, delay, low achieveement, andwasted resources will plague implementation efforts.

The Action-Planning process does not attempt to teach a single"system" for managing implementation, which may be inconsistent with otherorganization systems, processes, or cultures. Rather, it helps themanagement team develop an effective approach which fits the projectcontext and their personal experience; hopefully within a framework thatgives a high priority to social and economic growth (p. 19-20).

Personnel who manage development efforts are usually selected fortheir technical abilities, not their management skills. But thetechnician-made-manager faces responsibilities he is not equipped tohandle. Even technical roles include a management component. Managerial

-4-

skills are essential, but usually lacking. Traditional management coursesare not the solution. Ke- persons cannot be released to attend longtraining courses and typically only a portion of what they learn in suchcourses applies in the specific program/project context.

The effectiveness of Action-Planning workshops is multiplied manytimes if, following program/project launch, they are conducted on aregularly scheduled basis during implementation (p. 20-21). In addition toproviding a vehicle for cumulative improvemernt of planning and managementskills, recurrent workshops also serve as a mechanism for monitoring theperformance of the organization and making whatever adjustments might benecessary to the implementation plan on a rolling basis.

Action-Planning Workshops create an expectation that decisionsabout the future are conditional and must be reviewed by the group as thefuture unfolds. Regular review sessions must be scheduled to take stock ofdevelopments by comparing actual experience with plans; with re-planningtaking place as needed. Such follow-up efforts can make a difference in anumber of ways. First, they can reinforce the new patterns of behavior andthe use of new tools that have been learned. Second, they can help groupmembers avoid a relapse into previous patterns of behavior and sustain themomentum of the workshop. As influential outsiders, facilitators can helpmuster support from higher authorities.

Action-Planning Workshops introduce management concepts andspecific tools which have direct applicability to the project at hand. Theyimprove management skills in problem solving, decision making, planning andmonitoring, by facilitating a process of learning concepts and applyingthem immediately to the program/prof,^,ct. Tools are introduced just priorto their need by the work group. For example, a responsibility chart isintroduced when work assignments of the project/program are being made.After practice exercises by the individuals and/or the group, theresponsibility chart is considered by the team for use in the assignment.The rate and intensity of learning is heightened by the relevance and theimmediate applicability of what is learned to the task at hand. Theprecise extent and mode of application is left to the group. They are inthe best position to determine how the logic and form of management toolscan best be used in their environment. The approach encourages managementteams to adapt concepts and tools to make their operations more effectiveand, thus, builds their capacity to be self reliant (p. 20-21).

II. APPROACH

Action-Planning workshops differ from traditional planning andmanagement training in several ways. They should be based on carefulconsideration of the perceived needs of the key stakeholders of theprogram/project. They focus on teams rather than individuals. They areparticipative, practical, "learn by doing" programs which simultaneouslybuild team management capacity while producing results of immediate value(i.e., operationally useful program/project designs and implementation

-5

plans). They involve minimum formal lectures, maximum participantactivity, and extensive use of small groups for discussion, problem-solvingand decision-making. They should be designed to create a climate wherepeople of different disciplines and interests listen to each other andattempt to integrate relevant expertise and experience -- technical,social, politicall financial, and economic. At the end of each workshop,participants will have produced useful products directly related to theirwork. As important, they will have learned management concepts anddiscovered effective ways to operate as a team throughout theprogram/proj ect.

The unique features of Action-Planning can be further explained bydescribing the role of facilitators, the role of participants, the role ofresource persons, and the approach.

Role of Facilitators

The role performed by Action-Planning Facilitators dilfers fromthe role performed by "teachers". In a traditional teaching environment,the teacher is the expert; students are presumed to have little knowledge.The job of the teacher is to fill the students with wisdom by lecturingwhile the students carefully listen and diligently take notes.

Action-Planning facilitators, by contrast, recognize that allparticipants bring to the workshop some valid experience and expertise thatrelates to project management. The facilitators' role is not to be the"expert", but to create an active learning climate in which knowledge isdiscovered through discussion and mutual exploration.

This approach assumes that most of the information theparticipants need to solve the issue at hand already exists somewherewithin the group. The facilitator's job is to work with the group todiscover the needed information, "process" the experience by which theysolve the issue (p. 33, 36, 38-41), and guide the team in recognizingeffective problem-solving procedures that can be used in the future. Whenneeded information is not available to the group, such information isidentified and steps are taken for the group to obtain it.

The facilitator helps the team discover more effective norms. Forinstance, if a project manager views his role as providing the best ideasand making all the decisions, then capable members of the team (especiallyjunior ones) may be reluctant to contribute their knowledge and ideas. Theresult is a less effective team. In this situation, the facilitator shouldencourage junior members to participate and introduce the norm that theteam works best when everyone contributes, If lhe trust level with theproject manager is high, the facilitator might also privately counsel himon the value of actively seeking opinions and suggest ways to do so withoutdiminishing his authority. Sometimes, however, encouraging the activeparticipation of junior staff in the direct presence of supervisors canhave negative results (p. 46).

-6-

In any event, the facilitator acts as a catalyst for theparticipants' learning; helping them to discover principles they can use tobe more effective in solving the issues at hand and in addressing similarfuture issues. Occasionally the facilitator plays an instructor role bysuggesting an approach or explaining the use of a particular managementtool. He/she may present a brief lecture on, for example, how to setobjectives. Such mini-lectures are used at key points in the workshop togive the participants a framework for tackling specific issues andproducing useful results.

The role of a coach of a sports team provides a good analogy tothe facilitator's role. The players, not the coach, must perform on thefield. The coach can help each player discover his talents and give tipson how to use them more effectively. He can suggest plays for the team,then critique their performance. But it is the players who do the job ontne field; the coach sits on the sidelines. A major difference is that thefacilitator works him/herself out of the job while building local talent.

Facilitation skills are not the equivalent of common sense.Rather, they are technical skills acquired through training and extendedpractice. Consultants employed as facilitators should be carefullyselected based on previously demonstrated performance. It is a falseeconomy to assign that role to just anyone who might be available or toassume that trainers or consultant personnel qualified in other capacitiescan adequately serve (p. 11-12, 27-42).

Role of Participants

In Action-Planning workshops, the primary responsibility forachieving results rests with the participants, not with the facilitators.The participants may initially be uncomfortable with this notion, as itcontradicts their previous experience with workshops. But the facilitatormakes it clear by his/her actions that participants are not attending aspassive recipients of information, but as the primary producers ofinformation, decisions, and agreements. Once this is understood andparticipants become actively involved, their discomfort normally disappearsand they produce effective work.

Role of Resource Persons

The most senior Government Officers and aid-agency staff need notbe full-time participants in Action-Planning Workshops. Their busyschedules may limit their availability, but they can serve in valuableroles as Resource Persons. They can set guidelines, including planningpremises, review plans, and provide feedback. It is important to have acontinuing two way dialogue in which guidelines and planning premises arereviewed carefully and reconsidered in light of the desired ultimate goalsand potential tradeoffs.

Facilitators are concerned with the process of the workshops. Theygive instructions and "process" the results (p. 33, 36, 38-41). However,they do not take positions on content; it is not their responsibility to doso. Thus, to the extent that policy directives or procedural requirementsare an important part of the learning expected to occur, it is useful to

-7-

have appropriate officials and technical staff present in order to answerquestions or take an active part in plenary discussion (p. 12). At thesame time, it is also important that the presence of specific resourcepersons should be timed for appropriate points in the schedule so as toavoid wasting their time and runnirng the risk of undue interference in thework of the participants. The importance of resource persons -- bothsenior decision-makers and technical specialists -- is reflected by themany references to their role throughout the remaining text.

Pre-Vorksh22,Preparation and WorkshoR FolloD-Up

It is useful to think of the Action-Planning Workshop asconsisting of three segments, namely Preparation, the Workshop, and Follow-up.

In this section we will sumarize the Preparation and the Follow-up segments. The major part of the paper deals with the Actual Workshop(p. 29-43). A more detailed description of the Preparation phase isprovided below (p. 21-29).

Pr1Earation. The purpose of the Preparation Segment is to preparethe groundwork for the design and implementation of the workshop. A-workshop always has clients (persons) with whom it is important to reachspecific understandings i n advance about what results are expected, whatwould be considered as "success", and what limitations will be placed onthe effort. This is, in effect, a charter for the effort. If the proposedconditions are incompatible with an Action-Planning Workshop, then eitherthey should be renegotiated, or a different approach should be adopted suchas a briefing, lecture or consultation.

Generally, it will be necessary to interview key stakeholders todetermine whether conditions are suitable for an Action-Planning Workshopto accomplish both learning and doing. A skilled facilitator from theoutside has great advantages in carrying out such interviews. By askingopen-ended but structured questions after establishing a friendly andconfidential relationship, the facilitator can often obtain expressions offeelings, perceptions, and points of view that the interviewee mighthesitate to make known to his colleagues and particularly his superiors.Large differences in perceptions by different stakeholders have importantimplications for the duration, the scope and the design of the Action-Planning Workshop. Detailed knowledge of the points of view ofindividuals, for example, may indicate the desirability of particularsequencing and grouping of individuals for small group work. Thefacilitator shares the overall results of the interviews with the clients,anticipating their implications for the design and conduct of the workshop.For example, where there are strong negative feelings about existingarrangements, those in authority must be prepared to permit the airing ofsuch feelings in open exchanges. The experience with such situations hasbeen that after the venting of such feelings in open exchanges, thedifferences in perceptions give way to the imperatives of common interestswithin the group. If the authorities cannot tolerate such initialexpressions, then an Action-Planning Workshop may not be the mostappropriate approach.

-8-

Where interviews indicate a wide divergence of views among thosein authority, these may need to be addressed prior to having an Action-Planning Workshop at the working level. An initial meeting of thosepersons, conducted by a skilled neutral facilitator, to narrow theirdifferences has proven to be an effective method for managing suchsituations.

In any case, information obtained during the Preparation Segmentis important for refining the design and focussing discussions anddecisions during the workshop. It may be necessary, for example, to limitthe scope of the Action-Planning Workshop or shift the agenda to make itmore practical and relevant for the existing situation.

Follow-uR. A substantial Follow-up Segment is generally essentialto successful action-planning. The workshop generates excitement,enthusiasm and commitment, but needs nurturing to realize its fullbenefits. Without adequate follow-up the progress made during the workshopis easily dissipated. The planning process initiated during the workshopusually results in partial or incomplete plans which need to be made morespecific by the teams in the course of their ongoing work. Furthermore,some of the techniques introduced may be relatively new for theparticipants. There is a common need for review and reinforcement so thatthe use of these techniques are appropriately adapted and institutionalizedin their respective organizations.

It is very useful for the facilitators or some resource persons tovisit the participants, teams, and their superiors to maintain the momentumof the workshop by helping the participants over the rough spots that areinevitable in the first use of any new techniques and processes in anorganization. The follow-up of the facilitators in the organization can domuch to assure the long term success of what was achieved in the workshop.

In some cases, follow-up will involve further Action-Planningworkshops and working sessions to help overcome internal barriers to thesuccess of continuing efforts. Finally, follow-up provides thefacilitators with invaluable feedback on the approaches and techniques theyhave used, so they can adjust future workshops to achieve more relevant andbetter results.

WorkshoR Approach

Adults learn differently than children. Children learn by rotememorization and repetition; adults must be able to relate the material totheir experience. Action-Planning workshops are based on principles ofeffective adult learning. Some important principles of adult learning arediscussed below.

(a) Learning is most effective when the concepts are relevant.Traditional management training courses are limited in thatmuch of what is taught does not apply on the job. Action-Planning concentrates on basic principles and tools which are

-9-

directly relevant to the participants' own effectiveness.The workshop is designed to accomplish some specificobjectives which are agreed to by participants from thebeginning. The formal information "taught" is limited tothese specific objectives.

(b) Learning is most effective when it is aplied immediately.Action-Planning combines the teaching of management conceptswith their immediate application to the program/project.Even the best management concepts will be forgotten if notused. Application reinforces learning. Participants remembermuch more of what is learned because the learning is directlyrelevant to the task and reinforced through immediate use.

(c) Learning is most effective in an activer than a assiveenvironment. Action-Planning workshops emphasize smallgroups to discuss issues, solve problems, and make decisionswhich they present to the large groups. Traditional learningmodes focus on lectures and other passive approaches.Learning occurs best in an environment which is stimulating,challenging, participatory, and interesting -- the Action-Planning environment.

(d) Learning is most effective when the conepts are comatiblewith individual experience. The planning, organizing, andmanagement concepts used in Action-Planning workshops providea framework to which trainees can fit their individualexperience. Rather than being seen as a complex subjectwhich only senior officials or donor agency staff mustunderstand, management is understood to be part of every teammember's job.

(e) Responsibility for learning belongs to the participants, notthe trainer. The facilitator shifts responsibility for thelearning process and for workshop outcomes to theparticipants. The climate for participants assumingresponsibility for learning is established at the beginningand reinforced throughout the workshop.

(f) The training process involves both teaching and learning. InAction-Planning workshops, everyone teaches and everyonelearns (including the facilitators?). The Action-Planningapproach builds multi-disciplinary perspectives throughproblem-solving work groups comprised of individuals fromdifferent backgrounds. This helps overcome the myopia causedby individual technical specialty and organization focus,

The Dynamics of Small Groups

Two types of dynamics--task and process--occur simultaneouslyduring workshops. Task (also called problem-solving) dynamics refer togetting the work done. Discussing ideas, proposing solutions, and makingdecisions are examples of task behavior. At the same time, processdynamics occur. These deal with how people interact with each other andthe manner in which the tasks for which they are responsible are perfomed.

- 10 -

Ensuring that everyone can speak, testing for group consensus, andresolving conflicts are typical process dynamics.

Totally task-oriented groups may produce results, but there willbe little personal commitment to them. On the other hand, totally process-oriented groups may enjoy the workshop immensely, but accomplish littleuseful work. The facilitator mtust ensure that both task and processdynamics occur. He/she may sometimes have to adjust 'he workshop toprovide the necessary balance if the group tends too far in one directionor the other.

WorkshoR Products and Process. Workshop designers andpractitioners must be concerned with both product (what is achieved) andwith process (how it is produced). While workshops must produce specificwork products, the facilitator does not solve problems for the group. Forexample, if there is spirited discussion of which agency should beresponsible for certain tasks, the facilitator resists the temptation tomake substantive decisions or recommendations.

Rather, he/she suggests principles by which the group can decide.The group might be asked to explore the implications of the variousalternatives and solicit criteria for deciding. When the group hasdecided, the facilitator "processes" the results to make them aware of howthey decided, and explores how else the team might use that approach in thefuture. By making decisions on substantive work issues using effectiveprocesses, the group develops the confidence and capacity to addresssimilar issues in the future. For this reason, the facilitator givesprimary attention to the process of decision-making, not to the outcome ofthe decisions. On the other hand, the substantive information produced byparticipants in Action-Planning workshops is important data of immensevalue to decision-makers; especially during design phases and thesupervision and replanning of implementation.

Stages of Group Behavior. Workshop groups almost always gothrough four sequential stages of behavior:

(a) Forming -- coming together, getting to know each other andthe facilitator;

(b) Storming -- initially resisting the workshop and thefacilitators, testing the behavior code, and determiningrewa.rds and penalties;

(c) N2rminz -- developing a group spirit, feeling good about theworkshop, developing trust in the facilitators and eachother; and

(d) Performing -- tackling the work that needs to be done.

Action-planning workshops are designed to rapidly move through thefirst two stages and swiftly get to "nonming" and "performing".Facilitators should observe the changes in dynamics which occur over theseveral days of the workshop. On the first day, people may be tentativeand reserved as they test out the workshop and each other. But as bonds of

friendship and trust develop, the group takes on its own spirit and

character. There will be a point -- 8ometimes on the first day, but

usually on the second or third -- when things "click" and a results-

oriented atmosphere can be sensed. Thus, since the "storming" stage is

normal and is to be expected, it is important that facilitators and

sponsors of the workshops do not panic and prematurely change the content

and process as planned initially for that reason alone.

Style of the Effective Facilitator. Conducting Action-Planning

workshops is a demanding, intensive experience. When workshops go well,

facilitators will feel stimulated and satisfied. When they do not seem to

be going well--especially during the "storming stage"--it is natural for

discouragement and disappointment to set in.

The difference between successful and unsuccessful workshops most

often boils down to the climate set by the facilitator. He/she creates an

effective climate by being:

(a) Self-confident -- able to guide the workshop withoutdominating, to be a "catalyst" rather than a "commander";

(b) Enthusiastic -- actively looking forward to the workshop and

projecting that enthusiam to others;

(c) Flexible -- able and willing to adjust the workshop design in

response to his/her observations and participant concerns;

(d) Results-oriented -- knowing what results the group wants to

accomplish and aiming -oward those results;

(e) Personable and friendly -- interested in people, not aloof ordistant, and willing to get to know participants as

individuals;

(f) Good-humored and humble -- willing to make jokes abouthimself /herself, to be modest, and not elevatinghimself/herself above the group;

(g) Multifaceted -- capable of playing simultaneous roles as

advisor, catalyst, listener, devils advocate, teacher,friend;

(h) 2pen to feedback -- encouraging participants to comment on

what is useful and what is not, monitoring the climate,accepting criticism from participants and theco-facilitators; and

(i) Sensitive to feelings -- recognizing the emotional intensitythat some participants may experience, helping them

acknowledge and deal with their feelings.

- 12 -

The Facilitation Team

Size and CoMosition. Conducting Action-Planning workshopsrequires a team approach rather thea individual facilitators. Ideally,there should be three facilitators for a group of approximately fortyparticipants.

Facilitators should be "outsiders" with no direct program/projectinvolvement. Outside facilitators can be perceived as neutral and can helpresolve disagreements in a way that an interested party could not. Thefacilitation team can be a combination of consultants or staff unconnectedwith the specific program/project. This role should not be played by theprogram or project officer, manager, or trainers from within implementingagencies (p. 5-6).

If an overseas consultant is used, local persons should also beincluded on the facilitation team. There will usually be follow-upworkshops, and it is difficult and expensive to continually use overseasconsultants. A good mix for a three person team might be two experiencedconsultants and a less experienced, but loca'lly based, consultant forinitial workshops with the ratio changing to all locally based consultantsfollowing several iterations through the progi:am/project cycle. Part ofthe task of the experienced facilitator is to develop the skills of theless-experienced facilitators working with him/her. Thus, an additionalbenefit is that, as a spin-off from the participation of less-experiencedlocally based facilitators, their institution (whether a university,institute, or local consulting firm) indirectly receives TechnicalAssistance through participation in the introduction of Action-Planningfacilitation techniques.

Process. The facilitation team should candidly discuss theirperceptions and expectations regarding:

(a) Areas they feel confident about;

(b) Areas they do not feel confident about:

(c) The main skills each has as a facilitator;

(d) The weaknesses each may have as a facilitator; and

(e) Expectations about how the team will operate.

Qualifications. Facilitators need not have technical experiencein the subject matter at hand. In fact, the generalist trainer is oftenbest, Facilitators who are also experts in the substance of the project(be it health, agriculture, or whatever) may get too involved in thetechnical details of the project instead of focussing on their essentialclimate-setting role. Nevertheless, because the results of the workshopmost often must be translated into a document acceptable'to decision-makersand technical staff, resource persons with substantial expertise who areassigned the responsibility for preparing such documents should be presentthroughout the workshop (p. 6-7).

- 13

III. STRATEGY

Elements of a Strateg

Because every program and project is, in some important aspect,unique, each will have a different improvement strategy based on. theissues, organizations, and individuals potentially involved. The matter isfurther complicated by the differing immediate objectives and issuesaddressed at the different stages of the program/project cycle.Nevertheless, from a process point of view, most strategies will include acombination of:

(a) Workshops -- intensive sessions tailored to the specificstrategy and functions of program/project planning andmanagement.

(b) Seminars -- more conventional in-service management trainingprograms to teach key skills and subjects (such as officeadministration, financial management).

(c) Consultation -- ad hoc techlical assistance support to assistin addressing issues not suited to a workshop approach(primarily with senior government officers).

The full strategy need not and should not be identified at thestart. Decisions about the nature, sequence, and participants of futureworkshops, seminars, and consultations are best answered after eachsuccessive workshop. The strategy should grow and evolve, with the fuelfor growth being the participation of appropriate personnel during eachworkshop and consultative experience.

A large number of people are likely to be involved with apotential program/project when you count the persons directly involved onthe management team, staff of participating ministries, consultants,advisory and policy groups, regional and local level personnel, donor andbudget agency representatives, and so forth. The various "layers" ofpersons potentially involved can be viewed as an onion, with a small centercore surrounded by progressively larger levels of personnel, each moredistant from and less actively involved.

However, pushing that metaphor further, it is important that thecorrect onion is ultimately selected. The choice has a profound effect onlthe future program/project's management structure, functions, andprocedures. Unfortunately, insufficient attention is normally given to theaselection of the lead implementation agency(cies) at the initial stages ofthe design process (p. 17,22). Nor is sufficient attention paid to theidentification of other agencies whose actions--or absence of action--canaffect implementation.

- 14 -

The Institutional Environment

The institutional environment requires special attention duringthe early design phase. Effective implementation of a program/projectdepends not only on the internal strength of design and organizationalstructure, but also on its relation to the broader framework of nationalpriorities and policies, and organizational and institutional patterns andpractices. Consequently, though some problems can be resolved by aprogram/project's management team itself, others are caused by factors overwhich they have little or no control. Thus, in order to addressenvironmental effects on implementation, it is useful to distinguishbetween three "Arenas of Action" as illustrated in Figure 1. These threeArenas are:

(a) The Public Policy and Bureaucratic Environment;

(b) The Project Organization; and

(c) The Individual Within the Organization.

From the perspective of the management team, some characteristicsof the Environment can be '"influenced"; i.e., change can occur as aconsequence of actions by the program/project in combination with theactions of others. These combined actions can be systematic in the sensethat program/project activities are consciously integrated with theprescribed actions of other organizations. However, combined actions canalso be simply the sum of uncoordinated activities carried outindependently by various organizations, in which case the outcome--whetherpositive or negative--is unpredictable, Other characteristics of theenvironment can only be "appreciated" by the management team, ire., theprogram/project organization has no control over these elements. Thus,"appreciated" elements are constraints; factors to which the managementteam must adapt rather than change.

In most casesj, the arena defined by the organizational boundariesof the program/project itself is assumed to be under "control". However,depending on the extent to which personnel incentives are outside thecontrol of the management team (e.g., salaries and benefits established bya government civil service commission), it might not have complete controlover the actions of its own staff.

Data produced in a variety of action-planning workshops in Easternand Southern Africa in the agriculture, education and public enterprisesectors clearly illustrate that no single institution within any countryhas "control" over all of the critical variables affecting the performanceof functions necessary for the achievement of overall public investmentobjectives nor, even, the achievement of sectoral or individual projectobjectives. Thus, it is clear that in almost all cases individualorganizations are limited to the exercise of influence rather than control.Three important lessons should be drawn from that insight:

(a) The natural human tendency to define a management problem interms of insufficient control and, therefore, the solution, asexpansion of control rather than of influence is a recipe forfailure;

- 15

FIGURE 1I

PROBLEMS AND CON STRAINTS ON PROJECT MANAGEMENTThe Thr@e Arenas of Action

4 s9G >OLICY AND,,

0 IN IVI ULS m ZSKILLS z

Sustoinability Institution-Building

* Wotd Bink-30374

- 16 -

(b) Strategies and tactics for effectively exercising influenceare substantially different from those which are required forattempts at expansion or exercise of control; and

(c) Strategies for improving implementation performance oforganizations require coordinated efforts directed atreinforcing improvements in all three "Arenas of Action".

Therefore, such strategies are not likely to be fully successfulif they focus solely on improving the management or technical skills ofprogram/project staff and/or the organization and procedures of theimplementing organization. Conversely, policy changes alone are unlikelyto improve implementation performance. All three "Arenas of Action", whiledifferent from each other, are closely linked.

Linking the Action-Planning Process to the Environment

Action-Planning Workshops can be a key element in a strategy forexpanding influence rather than attempting to exercise unattainablecontrol. Such workshops bring together local participants from a varietyof interdependent stakeholder organizations to focus on the relation of theproject or program to conditions of the local environment as well as theirown. By bringing a large number of participants together in an Action-Planning Workshop and conducting a set of exercises which require them toaddress specific work related questions in a systematic manner, the"expert" facilitates a process of local clarification, negotiation,creative innovation, and acceptable compromise. Further, the workshopintegrates the knowledge of the expert (which is focussed primarily ontechnical and process issues) with that of professionals actually involvedin operations and potential beneficiaries (whose advantage is inunderstanding local conditions and attitudes). Through this integration,workshops also serve as mechanisms for informal on-the-job training. Duringthe pre-implementation phases of the project cycle, that training focuseson developing skills in problem identification and project planning. Duringimplementation, team management skills are emphasized. Illustrative casesare described in Annex A.

Sector Reviews and Program/Project Identification. In the courseof Sector Reviews and Program/Project Identification, when problems andconstraints affecting the optimization of performance within a particularsector or sub-sector are identified, an attempt should be made to adapt tothe "appreciated environment"; i.e., tfhe environment composedi of thoseentities that can affect a program/project's performance but are unlikelyto be either controlled or influenced by those who will become responsiblefor program/project management. It is important to identify those entitieswhich compose the appreciated environment and the possible conflicts ofinterest among them, Accurate information on such matters allows for theidentification of supporters and likely inhibitors, candidates forimplementing the program/project, and potential problems to be resolved andconstraints to iwhich adjustment must be made.

-17-

The initial workshops at the identification stage are bestsponsored by a staff Ministry (e.g., Planning or Finance) rather than aline Ministry (e.g., Agriculture, Health or Public Works). If from theoutset of the process a specific line Ministry is selected as sponsor ofthe process, the assignment of responsibilities for implementation can beprejudiced. With a line Ministry in charge of identification,responsibilities wry not be freely shared with other agencies even wheresuch arrangements .e more appropriate. Whereas staff agencies may have asimilar tendency, they cannot implement without a large measure ofcooperation from the relevant line agencies.

Further, the criteria for selecting participants in the workshopsat this point should be as broad as possible. Technical expertise shouldnot be the main qualification required of participants in workshops at theidentification stage. The need is for adequate representation of the broadrange of groups whose interests will be potentially affected byorganizational change. Not until the preparation and appraisal phases doesa distinction need to be made between external supporters of the processand those directly engaged in the subsequent program/project.

As well as assisting operational staff directly, participation byofficial resource persons or consultants (p. 6-7,12) and observation bydecision-makers of workshop discussions, negotiations and compromises canprovide unusual insight into problems as perceived at the operational leveland, thus, can identify useful lines of further inquiry.

Action Planning Workshops which focus on the identification ofpurposes and problems--in combination with more conventional methods--provide a process for surfacing a frequently mentioned obstacle toorganization design; i.e., the accommodation of the differing purposes ofthe Aid Agency(ies), the Borrower, Intermediary Organizat±ons, andBeneficiaries. They also serve as a mechanism for identifying a set ofprogram/project components and a means for implementing them that willsatisfy the purposes shared by the donor and various groups within theclient government. Information of that kind is necessary if fundamentaldisagreements are not to be "swept under the rug", only to surface duringimplementation. A key ingredient that can be supplied by an action-planning workshop is a climate that encourages a readiness to consider thepoint of views of relevant stakeholders.

Program/Project Peparation. The preparation of programs/projectsshould inclfude a choice of appropriate organizational structures andplanning and management systems. Although responsibility forprogram/project preparation is, according to World Bank and many otherdonor agencies' official policy, supposed to reside with the potentialrecipient government and consultants hired by them, the fact remains thatmany governments do not take the initiative in drafting detailed projectproposals. Thus, aid agency staff or consultants often prepare suchproposals themselves, either in response to the identification of problemsor constraints and a generalized proposal by governments, or in response totheir own assessment of problems and constraints. It is not surprisingthat this is especially common for the institutional aspects ofprcgrams/projects.

- 18 -

Client governments often lack the procedures and the staff to planand design sophisticated projects/programs nor have they staff with thenecessary skills to design, in detail, a programmatic response toidentified problems and constraints. Indeed, many proposedprograms/projects are themselves designed to develop that capacity.Further, the preparation of proposals with the detail and within theformats required by the World Bank and other aid agencies is itself aspecialized activity; the requirements of which differ from donor to donor.Thus, it is also simply easier for governments, once they have identifiedor acknowledged a set of problems and constraints and suggested a responsein general terms or acquiesced to a response proposed by others, to simplyleave preparation of the detailed design to aid agency staff. Workshops canbe used to counter that tendency by drawing government personnel into thedetailed design process without simply leaving it to their own initiative(and the resulting i!sk of lack of progress).

The preparation process should, itself, be divided into segments.The first segment should include a workshop which reviews the informationgenerated during the identification phase and concludes with theidentification of planning data required, data sources, methods forcollection and analyses, and responsibilities. Appropriate participants inthis workshop should have been identified -- implicitly if not explicitly--during the previous identification stage workshop. A logical outcome ofthe assignment of responsibilities for data collection and ana?lyses is thetransformation of workshop working groups into planning task fo7:ces. Thus,the second segment of the preparation process is the implementation of theworkshop action plans by those task forces. The third segment might beanother workshop in order to review, assess, and prioritize therecommendations of the various task forces. Based on those conclusions, aPreparation Report can be finalized.

ProgramlProject Appraisal. The content of workshops which can beused during appraisal will not be described in detail here. It will varysomewhat depending on local conditions, the results of workshops conductedduring Identification and Preparation, and the time available. To specifyorganizational arrangements and an action plan ideally requires ten days.However, persons using the workshop method should be flexible and preparedto adjust content and schedules according to circumstances. It is betterto conduct an abbreviated workshop than not to have one at all--even if allthat can be accomplished is the initiation of a dialogue between partiesinvolved in the design and implementation process.

Program/Project Implementation Planning. Appraisal Reports donot, in fact, provide practical guidance for day-to-day management ofprograms/projects. In operational terms, appraisal reports are, in effect,reviews of feasibility studies and other work, whose purpose is to provideinformation on objectives, components, costs, economic rate of return, andmanagement structure to enable those responsible for approving a grant orloan to make a decision regarding it. Thus, appraisal reports are notwritten primarily for the implementation management team.

- 19

The design of operational guidance for program/project managers isnot made any easier by the long implementation period which characterizesmost of these contemporary efforts, notably in agriculture, and by thenecessary blurring of the once clear distinction between implementation andoperational phases.

In order to provide necessary flexibility, detailed implementationplans should be prepared on a regularly scheduled recurrent basis andshould cover tasks to be completed during the following phase; however longis appropriate for the specific type of program/project (e.g., foragriculture, annually). The first phase Action Plan should cover theperiod beginning with the completion of negotiations. It should beprepared by the borrower, assisted as necessary by consultants, and, ifnecessary, financed retroactively or by an advance from the equivalent ofthe World Bank's Project Preparation Facility (PPF). It should be carriedout concurrently with the last stages of preparation and appraisal.Finally, it should be reviewed by the appraisal mission and might beimcluded as an annex to the appraisal report. The First Annual Plan couldthus assist the appraisal mission in assessing the feasibility of projectimplementation arrangements.

Program/Project Launch. Inasmuch as the entire management teamwould not normally be in place or even designated at the time the initialimplementation plan is prepared, a subsequent "Program/Project Launch"workshop should be conducted by the entire management team to review andrevise that plan--with consultant assistance if necessary--as soon aspossible after the management team is together, but no later thanimmediately after loan or grant effectiveness. It is at this point thatthe process should branch into two training streams: (i) Management TeamTraining, and (ii) specialized, technical skills training.

Training

Management Team Training. Training of individual staff members inspecialized techniques of operational planning and management as adiscrete/separate activity will not likely have a significant impact on theperformance of the program/project organization. For improvement to occurthrough enhanced planning and management techniques, the emphasis should beon management teams rather than individuals.

If an organization is to be more--rather than less--than the sumof its parts, it is important What persons responsible for achieving itsobjectives work together in a mutually reinforcing manner. If well-trainedmanagers work in isolation from each other, their individualresponsibilities might be formulated and executed in a logically consistentmannero However, the execution of those responsibilities will oftencontradict other rationally formulated actions by other managers actingindependently. A multitude of planning and management options exist whichare internally logical and appropriate. However, when different managersin the same organization choose different options, significantinefficiencies result. Thus, the issue is most often not whether what eachmanager does is inherently right or wrong. Rather, the requirement is thatthe same formulation and execution option is selected by all the managerson the management team and implemented by them together. Therefore, it ismore important to "train" members of the management team together in a

- 20 -

directly operational way, on-the-job, by bringing them togeather in orderto: (i) formulate specific activities and tasks to be performed by theorganization and (ii) assign those activities and tasks to each other basedon a clear common understanding of the relationships between them.

The Program/Project Launch Workshop is the first step in themanagement team training process. At this point, strategies for assistingnew programs/projects should begin with an intensive three to five dayimplementation planning workshop with key operational staff to establishthe detailed aspects of management activities, procedures, and assignmentof responsibilities. Certain relatively simple management techniques canhelp teams plan more systematically and serve as important tools ofcommunication. Such tools (work breakdown structure, scheduling,budgeting, monitoring reports) can be introduced as the need arises in theteam's plans and can be applied immediately. In such contexts learning ishighly motivated.

The first workshop should primarily involve operational personnel,who are most directly involved with implementation, rather than seniorlevel policy personnel (e.g., key representatives of all participatingagencies, consultants, advisor(s], and, depending on circumstances, theProject Manager). The latter groups might be invited, as resource persons(p. 6-7), to the last half-day for presentations and discussion.

The intensive planning workshop for core staff may be followed byother sessions over time for other "layers" of the program/projectorganization. After the first workshop, the team will be in a goodposition to identify follow-up activities; generally involving furtherworkshops, training seminars, and consultation, with the topics andparticipants changing over time.

Subsequent implementation management and planning workshops shouldbe conducted on a regularly scheduled basis. The review of previous plansand preparation of the next plan should be prepared by the management teamand reviewed by appropriate supervisors and decision-makers. Though thelatter might give guidance with regard to the process, they should not beinvolved in detailed planning. They should, however, give close attentionto the relationship between the annual plan and: (i) the program/project'sconcept and objectives; (ii) ita components and activities as appraised;and (iii) proposed policy and institutional changes. Changes in componentsor activities should be carefully reviewed to make sure that they areconsistent with the ultimate objectives.

Each annual plan should identify tasks, specify their sequence andtiming, assign resonsibilities to individual members of the managementteam, and explicitly identify problems which have arisen in the course ofimplementation (e.g., in financing, staffing, or technical issues callingfor changes in the details as appraised). The result provides supervisorswith data they need to monitor implementation and an opportunity to reviewthe proposed changes in the light of the original concept and objectives.However, because the plan is prepared by the management team, it is moreoperational and less theoretical.

-21-

In this manner, primary emphasis is placed on assisting theimplementors in carrying out the program/project; particularly inJdentifying problems that arise in the course of implementation and helpingthe management team to solve or resolve them.

Technical Skills Training. In addition to the management skillsof the team as a whole, organizational performance depends on the skillcapacities of individual staff members. These capacities are best enhancedin "Action-Learning" workshops where specific skills needed on the job arelearned and "learning and doing" are combined. When a large number ofproject/program staff or persons within the same country from a number ofdifferent projects/programs require training in the same technical skills,the following techniques can be used: (i) on site or in country action-learning courses in which skills are applied directly to the respectivetrainees responsibilities with guidance of the instructors; (ii) follow-upconsultation by instructors; (iii) informal on-the-job training throughinteraction with and programmatic guidance by consultants; (iv) formalshort-term training; and as a last resort; (v) formal long-term degreetraining. While these alternatives are not mutually exclusive, there isconsiderable scope for effective use of action-learning workshops andfollow-up to develop capacity for technical training that spans a number ofprojects, programs and sponsors.e/

IV. PREPARING ACTION-PLANNING WORKSHOPS

Several of the steps described in this Section will have beenstarted during the on-going dialogue between senior decision-makers,facilitators, and resource persons (p. 7-8,22-23). In addition, a flexibleattitude must be taken toward the application of these guidelines inspecific circumstances and within the context of local conditions.Variations will also be necessary depending on the stage of the cycle atwhich workshops are introduced and whether or not the workshop has beenpreceded by one or more in a series. Nevertheless, the discussion in thisSection will, in most respects, be generally applicable.

3/ Such an approach has been used in both the AID sponsored Sahel RegionalFinancial Management Project and the IFAD/World Bank/AfricanDevelopment Bank, financed Agricultural Management Training for Africa(RMTA) program. The pattern in both projects is similar. With someslight variations between them, managers of different projects andprograms attend a workshop which includes some training in financialand program management. At a later point, various members of theirsenior technical staff (e.g., their accountants) attend a workshopfocusing on their specific functions. Following that specifictraining, the managers join their technical staff member inreviewing specific plans for carrying out their specific functionin the project or program. This type of workshop would appear to beapplicable to any specialized skill that is required for a number ofprojects or programs.

- 22 -

There are seven key points in workshop preparation:

(a) Sponsorship;

(b) Group size;

(c) Participant selection;

(d) Workshop length;

(e) Location;

(f) Facilities; and

(g) Developing the workshop design.

SponsoEArhi

Action-Planning Workshops conducted during the initialidentification phases of a program/project (p. 16-17) should normally besponsored by a staff Ministry (Finance or Planning) of Government (p. 16).During preparation, appraisal, and initial implementation planning, theline ministry (e.g., Agriculture, Health, Public Works) responsible for therelevant sector (which will normally also be the implementing agency ofGovernment) should be the sponsor (p. 17-18). Program/project launchworkshops and subsequent recurrent planning workshops (p. 19-21) should besponsored by the Program/Project Manager.

It is particularly important that formal arrangements are made bythe appropriate host-agency within government at each stage of the processand that the workshops are clearly perceived locally as sponsored byGovernment or the most senior levels of private organizations. Seniorofficials should select the individuals to attend workshops and the resultsof the workshops should be shared with them. Unless workshops are approvedby senior officials of government (or other relevant institutions), theyshould not be held. The purpose and benefits of workshops should beclearly understood in advance by the senior officials of sponsoringagencies. They should completely understand the justification and strategyproposed. Staff (or consultants) proposing to use the workshop methodshould make whatever adjustments are necessary; keeping in mind that, if adistorted sample of participants is selected or permission is not grantedfor the workshop because senior officials feel threatened by it (p. 46),such behavior is also important data for design and supervision purposes.These are minimum conditions for success,

The most effective workshops are those that are "owned" by SeniorOfficials. Ownership develops when the workshop is a direct response tothe articulated needs of these officials and there is sufficientinteraction between workshop participants and officials as plans evolve.Such interaction starts with officials establishing guidelines and planning

- 23 -

premises, participants testing these in the workshop and responding to thedecision makers, participants referring relevant policy questions andoptions to officials for decisions as these arise, and presenting the finalproduct of the workshop to officials for consideration and modification, ifnecessary.

Group Size

In order to determine the appropriate number of participants for aparticular Action-Planning Workshop, consideration must be given to thetrade-off between the representation of as broad a range of policy,organizational, and technical viewpoints as possible on the one hand andlogistical complexities on the other hand. The former consideration tendstoward a decision for large numbers; the latter for smaller numbers.

The experience of workshop facilitators varies. As a generalrule, it is probably safe to say that less than 15 persons is too little,more than 45 too many. Individual working groups within workshops shouldhave no less than 5 persons and no more than 8 persons. More than 8 is toomany for everyone to participate; less than 5 provides insufficientlydifferent viewpoints. Thus, in a range of 15-45, the number of individualworking groups can be from a minimum of 3 to a maximum of 7. Workinggroups from different projects or programs provide the advantage ofcovering the elements of management common to all projects or programs andsharing a knowledge of differences.

As the process moves from identification, through preparation,appraisal, initial implementation planning, and launch to recurrentplanning, consideration should move from ensuring the diversity of view-points to ease of logistics by successively reducing numbers--i.e., atidentification, 45 is a good number; for annual planning, a maximum of 20is normally sufficient.

Particigant_Selection

Criteria for selecting participants includes both the practical--what key operational personnel should be here?--and the political--who mustbe invited because their cooperation is needed?

During program/project design phases, experience with workshops incountries in the Caribbean, Latin America, Middle East, Asia, and bothWestern and Eastern Africa suggests that workshops are most effective whenparticipants are close to each other in rank or social status, Thus,although it might seem a good idea to include participants from the"bottom" (e.g., farmers) to the "top" (e.g., senior government officials inthe capital city) in the same workshop so that they can communicatedirectly with each other, in practice the presence of the latter could beexpected to inhibit the participation of the former. Once implementationhas begun--at program/project launch--participation in workshops isnormally limited to the management team; among whom the potential disparityin rank or status would not--in any event-be as great.

24 -

Where participation is desired across a broad range of theorganizational hierarchy, it is useful to organize separate workshops fordifferent levels of participants. For example, in several countries, aseries of three workshops have been conducted during the same phase of theprogram/project cycle; the first for beneficiaries and field levelofficers, the second for district and provincial level officers and thethird for senior government officials. In some of these cases, thefacilitation team communicated the results of earlier workshops to theparticipants in the following workshop. In other cases, a few of theparticipants from previous workshops were selected to report the results tothe more senior staff in subsequent workshops. Yet another alternative isto invite senior people to open the workshop and include a half-day"execiitive session at the end in which they are briefed on workshopresults and presented issues for review or decision.

Worksho' Length

The optimum length for an initial problem identification workshopat the identification stage of the program/project cycle is between two andthree days. Shorter workshops are less productive as participants needtime to become comfortable with each other and the tasks. Longer workshopsare seldom possible because--at this stage--the types and range of peoplerequired cannot be away from their primary responsibilities for that long.

An initial preparation phase workshop need last only three days ifan earlier workshop was conducted at the identification stage; otherwisefive full working days is recommended. The purpose of that workshop isproduction of a workplan for the preparation of the program/projectproposal. A second two day workshop should be held approximately 30 daysprior to scheduled completion of the proposal to review the draft withappropriate decision-makers prior to finalization. Program/Project Launchand subsequent Implementation Workshops -- the purpose of which are toprepare the initial and subsequent implementation workplans for successivephases, also require about five days.

At both the preparation and implementation planning stage,workshop participants are normally involved directly in the design orimplementation of the program/project in any event. Therefore, thequestion of being 'away from the job" should not arise; the work done inthe workshops is an integral part of their jobs.

Location

It might not be possible to select the workshop location ofchoice. It might be necessary to use a specific organization's facilities.However, when there is a choice, an interruption-free location away fromthe office should be selected so participants cannot slip away to attend toother business. If several organizations are involved, it may beappropriate to rotate locations and hold later workshops on eachorganization's home ground.

If the budget permits, a hotel should be selected in a locationthat represents a weiLcome change of pace for participants. But be aware ofthe drawbacks. Workshops at seaside resorts or locations with evening

- 25 -

entertainment often result in a group of participants who are daydreamingabout the sandy beach or dragging themselves to the workshop in themorning, exhausted from the festivities of the evening before. To reducethis problem, free time should be scheduled as a reward for hard work(which, in turn, adds to the length of the workshop).

Worksho02 Facilities

The layout of the room(s) in which the workshop will be conductedaffects learning. Before the workshop begins, the layout should bearranged to stimulate discusslon. The traditional classroom style of neatrows of tables all facing the same direction should be avoided; thatarrangement limits discussion. Tables should be arranged so participantscan easily see each other by turning their heads.

The workshop room(s) should have the following features:

(a) Good lighting and ventilation;

(b) Walls to which charts can be taped;

(c) Curtains or shades to darken the room when needed;

(d) Adequate table space to spread out charts and papers;

(e) Movable tables large enough for 5 to 8 individuals and theirworking materials;

(f) Room for side tables for materials and registration; and

(g) Space to set up coffee and snacks.

The ideal layout is a large "U" shaped table with charts aroundthe outside. This format permits the facilitator to walk into the "U" andlets participants see each other. Tables for subgroup work should be setup around the edges. Having both a large U-shaped table for presentationsessions and small tables for work groups makes it easy to move betweensmall group and plenary group activities.

If there is not enough room for both a "U" and subgroup tables,the tables can either be moved back and forth for the large and small groupsessions, or small tables can be arranged in a fan-like pattern (Figure 2).Crowding should be avoided; each participant should have adequate space forpapers and a notebook. A separate table should be placed at the side ofthe room for workshop materials and handouts. If the presence of resourcepersons (p. 6-7) is expected, a table should be set aside for them.

The facilitators should not sit behind a large table; tablescreate both a physical and psychological communication barrier. Most ofthe time, facilitators should be standing and walking around the roomrather than sitting behind a large table. A small table should beavailable for facilitators' working papers and,