This term in FRE490 with Professor Christopher Bennett, we learned about Monitoring and Evaluation for Time Response. In short, it’s a process used to evaluate the effectiveness of a development project and create suggestions. In learning this process and completing a project for designing an M&E.
When we first began the class, Professor Bennett asked each of us what we wanted to do with our studies. To that end, I was still a little stumped on how my goals for sustainability and business would connect to development.
The further we continue into the term, I’ve discovered that the process of development projects is highly interchangeable with other sectors. Monitoring and Evaluation is a progress indicator, and having internal (and external) checks to a business, problem or project is crucial. However, I think the most valuable insight I’ve gained from this class is in addressing the design of projects.
Projects are meant to solve problems in a world of interconnectedness involving people, places, and the environment. However, in beginning planning development projects, there are some key lessons that seem to occur that have changed how I, myself, begin to solve problems:
1. Many projects and development ideas take place with more developed countries “sweeping in” to help less developed countries – taking over land, resources and time for solutions that may not be the best for the people. Problems are contextual and contingent on the environment around them – projects are imbedded in interconnected community of ecology, sociology and geography. Throughout the course, we’ve learned of many projects that have failed to involve the beneficiaries to design the project and create sustainable solutions.
This, I think, is mind blowing! Projects have a less chance of succeeding in practice if development projects do not consult the citizens of the area. The very people that they are benefitting. It’s like giving someone flu medicine without actually knowing if they’re symptoms are from the flu.
2. Many development projects neglect the resources, systems and knowledge that is already available. By design, a project may set out to create a solution that already exists. For example, when evaluating a project on Jakarta’s Waste Management System, my group discovered that the system neglected the scavengers who would sort trash and look for reusable and recyclable material. The system created from the project wasn’t very effective at sorting through waste materials, but it further impeded on the livelihoods of the scavengers who would a) gain a small income from sorting these materials and b) provide a service that was needed (waste diversion).
Some questions I’ve learned to ask: What if recommended infrastructures and practices impede on cultural traditions? What if the community practices methods that are best for the region? What does the community think is important to develop and create? What do they already know? What is missing when we take this into account? What exists that can fill this gap but doesn’t right now?
In designing projects, we should look at every avenue – not just in creating a solution. Rather, we are outside, looking in. We are puzzle solvers. We need to see what the shapes look like before we try to put them together or create a piece that may not fit at all.
I think that as future problem solvers of the world, we must keep this in mind. Whether in less developed countries or more developed countries, solving problems and designing projects should address the most important and relevant concerns for those benefitting – and in addressing them, should also respect that they are assets. Local community and people are not stationary beings that problems solvers act upon. They, no, we are assets in creating our future. Involve us and we’ll learn to create positive changes.