Pain Associated with Project Failures and Complexities

Introduction

In the light of my topic I would first like to look at the decision making processes, aligning them to various theories ranging from compensatory to non compensatory theories. Compensatory theories refer to Subjected expected utility theory (SEU), prospect theory, additive difference while the non compensatory refer to lexicographic choice, elimination by aspect and satisficing. Compensatory theories have a heavy cognitive assumption regarding value trade offs while the non compensatory have a low value tradeoff component. Then I will associate these theories to the pain associated with project failures and complexities. This article will take quite some time to complete, so kindly come back to look at it time and again. The examples I will give in this article are all from Kenya. But they form a very important learning occassion. Then my analysis follows and a conclusion is made.

Theoritical overview

I begin by explaining the compensatory theories. The SEU evaluates the decision making process in reference to a strict axiomatic approach. If all the axiom are satisfied the decision maker is presumed to be rational and a utility function can be assigned to him. The decision maker in this aspect is presumed to take the decision that will yield the highest utility to him. The prospect theory evaluates the decision with respect to a reference point. It is usually mapped in the four quadrants of the cartesian coordinates. Gains are in the positive side of the quadrants while losses are in the negative side of the quadrant. The reference point which is the origin is characterised with a kink separating the gains and the losses. The curve for the losses is much steeper than the one for gains. So in essence the gains being too sharp for a decision maker, he would try to in as much as possible to maximixe the gains. The additive difference theory is concerned with a way to chop a complex lots of information down to the essence of the problem at hand. It pursues this through puting like outcomes together and getting their summation which in essence becomes the basis for decision making.

The non compensatory theories as mentioned above include lexicographic, satisficing and elimination by aspects. The lexicographic theory treats a problem in an ordered dictionary manner. It makes a specific reference to the user and their needs i.e. what is needed to solve a set of specific problems that pop up for a set of user situations. Satisficing theory on the other hand tries to fit the decision into the specifications and sets minimal and maximal standards or specifications. It assumes that the decision process might be subjected to a particular range that would be acceptable. Elimination by aspects theory consideres a sequential process of making a choice. Faced with a set of decisions, at each stage individuals will eliminate all options not having a given attribute until only one option remains.

Specific Scenarios

Case One: Riruta Environmental Service (RES)

In the year 1999, a project was started by two footbal teams known as Yassets and Kamagera in Riruta Satelite in Nairobi. This project was an income generating project based on solid waste management project known as Riruta Environmental Service (RES). Yassets Footbal Club contained youngsters from middle class families while the Kamagera had youth who had difficulties in upbringing and several of them had been former street children. In the begining the project was started to silicit for support from Riruta for Yassets footbal team. While Yassets were going around Riruta cleaning, they attracted the attention of Kamagera who joined them in the garbage cleaning exercises. This experience was good for Yassets as it started endearing them to the community. In 2000, RES got some sponsors who were interested in it. Hence it officially became a serious organization and the initial members forming it being Yassets and Kamagera members. Unfortunately the members were so young and did not have the required skills such as marketing and serious management skills. These skills had to be sought out of the two teams. The recruited members did not possess the same spirit of the young RES founders and sought either to fight them or teach them opportunistic behavior. On the other hand when it came to role division Yassets members preffered to work in the management of the project while the Kamagera members preferred the actual field work of collecting garbage from the estates.

RES members being so naive and young trusted so much on the donors. They revised their policies and gave so much power and influence to the sponsors. The assets of the project were being bought in the name of the sponsors. In the long run the sponsors took over the making of important decisions about the project without consulting the project members. The founding members were all thrown out of the project as the sponsor replaced the project with new members. Once the new members came in, they were not always feeling safe as the donor influence in the project has been too big. In a period of seven years the project has had more than 10 coordinators. RES lost the support of the community and became a stand alone tower in Riruta Satelite. In most of the cases they find themselves sidelined and it has been labelled as "Riruta Historical Injustice." The project members have made various attempts to meet the donors to solve the impasse but it has never been successful. There is hope that one day this problem might be solved so that the project may attain its full potential and initial goodwill it had. On the other hand the youngsters who were the original members of the project have always contemplated taking serious action against the project but since some of the people employed in the project are their friends, they have always decided to hold on. It is not clear however how much resilience these founding members have. One member expressing his strong sentiments about RES said, "justice will be achieved. If we cannot do it, our children will."

A brief analysis shows that the project today has members who do not bear the burden of success or failure of the project at heart as the original members. The members are not very clear of their future in this project and they are each and everyday not sure of what the original members will do and whether they will one time come to claim their right in the project or not. The donors on the other hand are not very much affected by what happens to the project. They only respond in ways that suits their momentary needs. This has had a bad effect of creating division between the original members of the project and the present members. Lastly, the founders of the project. They are devastated and they are not happy at all whenever they see that the project that they formed is heading to its own death for problems that they are to willing to help solve. Of course, just like in the Kenyan scenario, if the present "Riruta Historical Injustice" is not solved then the project will always be skeletone. The sad conclusion is that the biggest pain and complexity associated with RES has led to a derail in the achievement of its objectives.

Case two: Employment and Enterprise Program (EEP)

In the year 2003, Employment and Enterprise Program (EEP) was formed in Riruta Satelite as a micro finance to empower the poor as a collaboration between a Western Donor and a local development Consultancy body in Kenya. In the first years the relationship between the donor and the consultants were good as the representative of the donors knew how to handle intercultural differences. When this manager was changed then there were problems between this consultancy and the donors. These problems will be discussed later.

In EEP's portfolio of clients there were former street children, and all people considered to be "economic outcasts" within the Dagoreti Region. While relationships were good, the repayment rate was higher and there was little interference of the donor into the project. This gave the project implementers legitimacy and they were respected by the clients. The clients took their responsiblities seriously. With the change of management within the donor ranks, the new manager came in with a know it management style. He wanted to centralise the management of the project to himself and hence formed personal relationships with the project staff and made it impossible for the consultancy to manage EEP. Sometimes the consultants would be told by project members that "this is what we were told by the donor." And the consultants would not go further even though they knew that the directions were completely wrong. The donors would also bring in students from abroad as interns in the project. Instead of these students working and learning they became bosses and started prescribing to the project. The worst moment reached when the activities of the donor were considered to be dangerous even for the consultancy as the consultancy had really been weakened even to carry its own work. The consultants moved in very strongly and communicated their decision. The donor seeing this strength decided to withdraw.

In analysing this, it can be seen that strong donor implementer partnership in implementing a project has an effect of weakening the implementer and ultimately the project in question. In the long run, the project ends up surviving but without accomplishing any of its original objectives. In essence therefore when coming together "minimal standards and requirements" of the partnerships have to be stipulated very well. It is unfortunate that the implementers are always on the weaker position, when infact they tend to understand fully the context in which they would like to intervene. The weakness of implementers would therefore not allow them to risk breaking away with their donors even at the expense of ultimately killing their project. Another example is given of a refugee school intervention where a donor asked those loyal to him to break away from those opposed to him and they went and formed a parallel intervention. The disenting group remained and they continue with their work though with minimal resources but with alot of dignity. When interracting with one of the disenters she told me, "I cannot sell my integrity for money. I also do not understand the objective of this particular donor and I am happy he is working with people who understand him. Let them go, my initiative will has survived and will survive out of my resilience and hardworking spirit and not out of free gifts."

Case three: A Donor Foundation

Then there is this case of a donor foundation which came to Kenya without having done any feasibility studies of how it would intervene. The relationship with this foundation with Kenya began by friendship between a person in Kenya and a representative of the donors. So when the foundation reprsentative came to Kenya, he started giving money out to anyone coming to him with a project. There was no structured way in which the projects were analysed. This increased opportunistic behavior from people who were just looking for cheap money.

The result is the fact that so much money was wasted and could not be accounted for. Some of the projets initiated started failing one by one. Some of the project managers too became too opportunistic and they too aked for moneys that they now find it very difficult to account for.

Analysis of this case is very simple. The donor here made it too easy for the burden of failure not to be accounted for by the recipients. It is possible that in this circumstance the donor will feel blackmailed and cheated. But it is a fact that he has created the opportunity that allows him to be cheated. The result here would be to in the long run come up with a conclusion that "I would never invest in Kenya again." However, whatever the decision, it is always important to work within a specific frame of reference.

References

1. Steinbrunner. J.D; The Cybernetics Theoryof Decision, Chapters 2-4
2. Coombs H. C., Dawes M. R., and Tversky A.; Mathematical Psychology: An elementary introduction, Chapter 5
3. Laurent R. A. (2006) Elimination by Aspects and Probabilistic Choice, Journal of Economic Sciences