Entries from April 2008

Problem identification and diagnosis

April 28, 2008 · 1 Comment

Field projects in resource management often succeed when key stakeholders – farmers, policymakers, extension specialists, agriculture officials, crop scientists, NGOs, national and international agencies – are involved in defining the problem and developing a shared agenda. To ensure participation, it is essential to jointly plan the project and develop objectives with stakeholders

Rice farmers in Victoria, Laguna discuss water scarcity problems

What is problem ID?

Problem identification is the initial stage in the scaling up process. To plan this stage, one needs to: 1) formulate key research questions based on the objectives of the project, 2) determine the data requirements, and 3) state how results will be used by the team.

Planning

Planning the problem diagnosis involves the following:

  1. Talk to key informants who are knowledgeable about the area where you want to do problem diagnosis.
  2. Review reports or secondary data and documents about the sites in which you intend to work.
  3. Draw up a tentative field visit schedule.
  4. Contact persons to be visited to explore their availability.
  5. Find a local partner, preferably, someone who is knowledgeable and has status in the area, who can help organize the visits. He/she can:
  • consult with potential partners and stakeholders.
  • facilitate local formalities -seek permission and approval from local leaders and authorities
  • arrange site visits, meetings, and focus group discussions with stakeholders
  • arrange transport & accommodation in the sites
  • estimate cost of field visits and workshop transportation, accommodation, and meeting costs – refreshments, supplies, etc.

6. Pay a courtesy call to local authorities, e.g., Department of Agriculture director, local government officials, heads of other relevant institutes.

  • Explain the objectives of your visit.
  • Walk through the sites to assess situation.
  • Take photographs of the sites and various facilities of interest.
  • Conduct key informant interviews and focus group discussions with various sectors – farmers, local government, service providers, etc. — relevant to your topic.
  • In group discussions with farmers, raise these guide questions to determine if it is worthwhile to work in the area :

- Do you consider the problem facing you important enough to commit your time?
- How many farmers in the area – village, district, and province — face the same problems?
- Have you or other farmers tried to find solutions?
- Are there other groups in the community – NGOs, farmers groups – willing to commit the time and resources needed to work with you to find solutions or test appropriate technology options?

Read more …

Categories: Needs assessment
Tagged: , , ,

How to develop a communication strategy

April 22, 2008 · 4 Comments

At a meeting last week to evaluate research reports for an in-house review, the discussion thread was about the failure of research-generated technologies in the university to take off. The group bewailed the fact that none of the knowledge products has ever been widely adopted, sustained, and achieved impact. One social scientist raised a rhetorical question: “How can technologies reach the hands of the intended user when there was no attempt to promote them in the first place?” He added, “Surely, those technologies gathering dust on the shelf could not have a life of their own and diffuse without a systematic and concerted promotion effort.”

Given limited resources, I suggested that perhaps the university could focus on the most promising research product at a time and systematically promote it. Phasing will enable the extension office to pool their meager budget for extension and push the staff to think about cost-effective ways to promote knowledge products. We have done this many times over with a lot of success in Vietnam and we tagged it as the “incremental approach” to diffusion.

Within the impact planning framework, here are suggested steps to develop a communication strategy to promote a knowledge product:

  1. Formulate shared objectives with stakeholders
  2. Develop attitude and behavior change objectives
  3. Define audiences (primary, secondary)
  4. Identify key message points
  5. Select a mix of channels and tools to reach audiences
  6. Develop an identity or “brand” that is locally appropriate for the technology
  7. Develop, pretest and finalize prototype communication materials.
  8. Outline how partners will work together
  9. Develop a management plan - timeline and a budget for project implementation
  10. Plan for monitoring and impact assessment
  11. Launch and implement impact project

These steps were inspired by Ronny Adhikarya’s strategic extension campaign (SEC) framework. Ronny happens to be an old friend during our East-West Center days and he was responsible for bringing me into the mainstream of FAO-supported media campaigns work in the late 1980s to 1990s — the integrated weed management campaign in Muda Area, Malaysia, rice pest surveillance in Central Thailand and golden apple snail management in the Philippines are notable examples. From the East-West Center, Ronny moved to Universiti Sains Malaysia, then FAO Rome, the World Bank, back to FAO again as FAO Rep in Pakistan, and now he’s based in Palo Alto.

Categories: Scaling up
Tagged: , , ,

How to plan campaigns for impact

April 11, 2008 · 2 Comments

Besides the “publish or perish” mantra for scientists in most advanced research institutes, a key accomplishment that is to be reported in their yearly performance appraisal is documented impact resulting from their research initiatives. Donors also demand demonstrated impact from research activities that they funded.

Many years ago, a crop scientist and I carried out a qualitative follow-up of the sweet potato varieties that were generated by an IDRC-funded research program. To do that, we traveled around the Philippines and tracked down diffusion and multiplier effects. We did many key informant interviews with households who grew the new varieties. The story was predominantly a happy one as the crop has benefited many families who needed a crop with a short growing period, particularly, the Mayon volcano eruption refugees, upland dwellers, among many others.

However, impact claims are sometimes blurry in terms of definition and scale as the lines between output, outcome and impact are often assumed to be understood.

Actiivity, output, outcome and impact

When can one say that one’s R&D effort has impact? For many communication specialists, it is often easy to fall prey to inappropriate impact claims such as: production of 5,000 posters, publishing 50 leaflets, producing a video, etc.  The table below will help us differentiate between activity, output, income and impact.

Giving farmers leaf color charts (LCC)

Activity

Farmers using leaf color chart to decide when and how much nitrogen (N) to apply

Output

Farmers changing the amount of N applied to rice crop

Outcome

Farmers yield increase because of LCC use

Poverty level reduced

Impact


In an earlier post on “Evaluating communication campaigns” I presented an impact planning framework which has guided our work in this area. I’m posting it again here for emphasis:

The framework is a tool to help partners to arrive at clear statements of:

- desired impact or change
- target audience
-variables to be monitored
- methods to measure them
- expected consequences of impact
- approaches to be adopted

Impact planning framework

The lack of impact in some projects may be because they were not planned to create impact. Impact may be viewed as creating change and to achieve the desired effects, we have found planning framework below to be useful in designing and managing activities in the project.

1. Brief description of the technology

2. Impact or change desired: (e.g., reduce early season

insecticide sprays by 25%; change farmers’ beliefs in leaffolder

management by 30%)

3. Target audience: (e.g., 20,000 farmer households in Tan Tru

and Tan Thanh districts, Long An Province, Vietnam)

4. Variables to be monitored: (e.g., farmers’ insecticide use; farmers’ target pests’ crop stages when farmers spray’ insecticide sales; belief index)

5. Methods to be used for each variable: (e.g., farmer surveys; focus group interviews; participant observation; assessments of attitudes)

6. Consequences of change: (e.g., reduced insecticide

expenditure; reduced disruption to ecological balance; reduced

health risks due to insecticide spraying

7. Change motivations: (e.g., save $$$; time; labor; better

health)

Categories: Scaling up
Tagged: ,

Impact evaluation of a media campaign

April 11, 2008 · No Comments

Yesterday, I was at a validation forum in which results of research supported by public funds were presented. One of the projects which is relevant to Devcompage was about impact, rate and spatial dissemination of agricultural technologies. Effectiveness of communication strategies used was measured through perception data, categorized into highly effective, effective, and so on — while their assessment of communication strategies was a mere listing of diffusion methods used — meetings, agro-fairs, radio program and techno-demo. What the report terribly lacked were objective indicators of media effectiveness and a more informed analysis of the diffusion and uptake of agricultural technologies covered by the study. The ACIAR scoping study on policy linkages could very well provide the overall context that will help one understand diffusion and adoption of agricultural technologies in the Philippines.

The next day, I received a copy of the impact evaluation report on a media campaign in Vietnam. Undertaken by two IRRI staff –Dr. Debbie Templeton, former impact specialist, and Zenaida Huelgas, associate scientist — this impact evaluation report is a fine example of how the use of an assessment framework, objective indicators, and careful analysis could provide scientific rigor. The report titled, “Three Reductions, Three Gains (3R3G) Technology in South Vietnam: Searching for Evidence of Economic Impact” presented evidence of adoption of 3R3G in terms of lowering seed rates and the resulting changes in farm production/cost structure and farmer profits were measured.

What is impact evaluation?

The World Bank independent evaluation group defines impact evaluation as the systematic identification of the effects – positive or negative, intended or not – on individual households, institutions, and the environment caused by a given development activity such as a program or project. Alternatively, we can say that Impact evaluation is an approach which measures the outcomes of an intervention apart from other possible factors. It is intended to determine whether the program had the desired effects on individuals, households, and institutions and whether those effects can be attributed to program intervention. Impact evaluations can also ascertain unintended consequences, whether positive or negative, on beneficiaries.

External review team visit fertilizer omission plots demonstration, Sragen, Central Java

Impact evaluations can be costly Rigorous impact evaluations can be costly. The World Bank has estimated that the average cost of a rigorous impact evaluation can run up to US$200,000 considering the cost of consultants. But the World Bank Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) came up with a booklet that details how one can conduct quality impact evaluations under budget, money and time constraints. The IEG website is a gold mine of useful and reliable information on monitoring and evaluation which must be bookmarked by all Devcompage readers.

Categories: Monitoring & evaluation
Tagged: ,