3.1 Introduction
Together with Stakeholder Analysis, Problem and Situational Analysis can be another central tool in the design and management of any activity or intervention.
Problem and Situational Analysis helps to determine real - as opposed to apparent - development needs. In addition, it helps to bond programme participants together by identifying a variety of issues that may need to be dealt with, such as the roles of different partners in resolving those issues, or the timescale and resources needed to achieve a given solution.
Sometimes, for example, the analysis for a proposed activity may reveal 'upstream' issues that need to be tackled before the apparent development activity 'downstream' can take place. Or it may identify underlying issues affecting the sustainability of development benefits once the immediate activity is finished.
Problem and alternative analysis helps by:
- Building a better understanding of the underlying causes of development issues;
- Building stakeholder consensus;
- Identifying potential constraints;
- Aiding the analysis of the real causes of the problem;
- Helping establish meaningful relationships with other implementers;
- Helping establish the actual size of the problem and the likely resources needed to tackle it;
- Helping establish DFID's comparative advantage against alternative ways of solving the problem.
3.2 When and how should it be used?
Problem and Situational Analysis can be undertaken at any stage of the activity cycle. However, it is most useful at the stages of Identification, and Design and Appraisal.
The three main techniques used for Problem and Situational Analysis are:
- Problem tree analysis workshop with key stakeholders (see 3.3);
- Focus group interviews with key stakeholders (see 3.4);
- Participatory Rural Appraisal (see Chapter 7).
The first two techniques are complementary, and ideally should be used together. The third technique is covered in Chapter 7.
3.3 Problem tree analysis workshop with key stakeholders
Problem tree analysis is undertaken in a workshop setting, where a variety of stakeholders are brought together to analyse the existing situation. As with stakeholder analysis, an experienced facilitator will be needed.
The first task is to identify major problems, then the main causal relationships between them are visualised using a problem tree.
How to do it
During the Problem Analysis stage, it is important that as many possible options are examined as possible. Here, the aim is to establish an overview of the situation. Later in the process, the perspective will be narrowed and deepened in order to prepare an activity design. To do this, follow the steps outlined, using the examples in Boxes 2-5.
Box 1: Steps in undertaking a Problem and Situational Analysis
| Guidance notes and key questions | Hints |
|
Step 1: Formulate problems A. Stakeholders brainstorm suggestions to identify a focal problem, that is, to describe what they consider to be the central point of the overall problem. B. Each identified problem is written down on a separate card or Post-It. |
Post-Its are a particularly useful device, otherwise use small cards, such as 5” x 3” record cards, and display them where all participants can see them. Try only to identify existing problems, not possible, imagined or future ones. What is a 'problem'? A problem is not the absence of a solution but an existing negative state: 'Crops are infested with pests' is a problem; 'No pesticides are available' is not. |
|
Step 1: Formulate problems A. Stakeholders brainstorm suggestions to identify a focal problem, that is, to describe what they consider to be the central point of the overall problem. B. Each identified problem is written down on a separate card or Post-It. |
What is a 'focal problem'? One that involves the interests and problems of the stakeholders present. If agreement cannot be reached, then:
If no consensus can be achieved:
Whenever possible, avoid a formal vote by the participants to obtain a majority decision. |
|
Step 3: Develop the problem tree A. Identify immediate and direct causes of the focal problem. B. Identify immediate and direct effects of the focal problem. C. Construct a problem tree showing the cause and effect relationships between the problems. D. Review the problem tree, verify its validity and completeness and make any necessary adjustments. |
In developing the problem tree, the cards or Post-Its can be moved so that:
Causes and effects are further developed along the same principle to form the problem tree. The problem analysis can be concluded when the stakeholder groups are agreed that all essential information has been included that explains the main cause and effect relationships characterising the problem. |
|
Step 4: Developing the Objectives Tree A. Reformulate all the elements in the problem tree into positive desirable conditions. B. Review the resulting means-ends relationships to assure the validity and completeness of the objective tree. C. If required:
D. Draw connecting lines to indicate the means-ends relationships. |
In the objectives analysis, the problem tree is transformed into a tree of objectives (future solutions of the problems) and analysed. Working from the top, all problems are reworded, making them into objectives (positive statements). Difficulties in rewording may be solved by clarifying the original problem statement. If a statement makes no sense after being reworded, write a replacement objective, or leave the objective unchanged. Check that meeting objectives at one level will be sufficient to achieve the objectives at the next level. Problems: 'If cause is A, then the effect is B' Objectives: 'The means is X in order to achieve Y' Note: Not every cause-effect relationship becomes a means-ends relationship. This depends upon the rewording. Working from the bottom upwards, ensure that cause- effect relationships have become means-end relationships. Draw lines to indicate the means-ends relationships in the objectives tree. |
|
Step 5: Alternative Analysis A. Identify differing 'means-ends' ladders, as possible alternative options or activity components. B. Eliminate objectives that are obviously not desirable or achievable. C. Eliminate objectives being pursued by other development activities in the area. D. Discuss the implications for affected groups. |
The purpose of the alternative analysis is to identify possible alternative options, to assess their feasibility and agree upon one strategy for action. Possible alternative means-ends branches in the objective tree that could become activities are identified and circled. These means-end branches constitute 'alternative options'. Alternative options should be discussed in the light of the interest groups that would be affected by them and the ways in which they would be affected. |
|
Step 6: Selecting the Activity Strategy A. Make an assessment of the feasibility of the different alternatives. B. Select one of the alternatives as the activity strategy. C. If agreement cannot be reached, then:
|
In selecting the most viable alternative a series of criteria should be developed and used. These could include:
Stakeholders should also agree on other criteria to use when assessing the viability of the alternative options. These could include: Social criteria. Distribution of costs and benefits, gender issues, socio-cultural constraints, local involvement and motivation; Environmental criteria. Environmental effects, environmental costs versus benefits. Technical criteria. Appropriateness, use of local resources, market suitability. Institutional criteria. Capacity, capability, technical assistance. Economic criteria. Economic return, cost effectiveness. Financial criteria. Costs, financial sustainability, foreign exchange needs. |
Box 2: Structure of the problem tree showing causes and effects
Box 3: Problem tree analysis
Define the focal problem, its immediate and direct causes and its effects
Box 5: Alternatives analysis
Using objective criteria, analyse which objectives should be central to the activity design.
Linking the Problem Analysis with the logframe
In some situations the Problem Analysis can be used to directly identify the hierarchy of objectives in the first or left-hand column of the logframe (see Chapter 5).
3.4 Focus group interviews
Focus groups are a form of group interview used to guide, focus and inform planning and implementation of any activity, and to ensure that the activities undertaken respond to the needs of primary stakeholders. They are used to gain the views of stakeholders and to learn their perceptions about current or proposed activities.
Focus groups offer four principal advantages over other ways of working.
- They have 'high face validity': for everyone involved, the technique looks as though it can measure what it says it will (people's opinions), it's transparent (everyone can see and hear what's going on), and those using the information can easily understand the results.
- Focus groups place participants in a naturalistic, relaxed setting, assisting a higher degree of candour from participants as well as immediate cross-checking of responses from other group members.
- Focus groups give their moderators the opportunity to probe and to explore unanticipated issues and diverse experiences.
- Focus groups are rapid, low-cost data collection methods, making them especially practical for development planning and evaluation purposes.
Focus groups are not without their dangers. As with any group of people, the rules of group dynamics will apply: the views of the most voluble may overshadow those of the less talkative. And focus groups may be self-selecting, with those more confident of membership supplanting others with different but just as valid opinions. Hence the need for the careful selection of a facilitator, and for careful planning well in advance of the activity.
Focus groups can be used at each stage of the activity cycle.
In Problem and Situation Analysis, focus groups are used to understand user needs and requirements, or reactions to new or proposed product or service ideas.
During Implementation, focus groups can be used to ensure that activities are on track and performing to user standards.
At the time of Completion, focus groups can be used to determine to what extent an activity has accomplished its objectives and to identify lessons learned for improving future activities.
What is required?
Creating a focus group requires:
- 8-10 'open-ended questions' see Box 6, carefully thought through and sequenced.
- A group of 8-12 participants of similar background and experience (see below).
- A moderator with knowledge of group dynamics and facilitating skills to ask the questions.
- An assistant moderator to take notes.
- A comfortable place where everyone can sit facing each other.
- An optional inducement (such as a free lunch) to persuade people to attend.
An open-ended question is one that generates a range of responses. 'Are you well today?' presumes the answer 'yes' or 'no' and is not open-ended. 'What do you think about the workshop?' is open-ended: it invites any one of a number of answers.
Participants of similar background or experience are used to generate a variety of responses to the questions, but from people with a comparable body of experience. For example, when testing ideas for new management software, you might organise focus groups for office staff and others for field staff. The participants would have similarly broad backgrounds and knowledge, but their perspectives on the software's utility will differ.
The actual focus group should not take much longer than an hour. Analysis of the discussion and of your notes may take several hours.
Further guidance on conducting a focus group is provided in Box 6. Boxes 7 and 8 give examples of the use of focus groups in a development context.
Box 6: Guide for conducting a focus group
1. Think about the purpose of the focus group and the information you need very carefully. Do you really need the information? How will the information be used? How much is worth knowing?
2. Develop a basic set of open-ended questions. They should be sequenced so that more mundane and general questions are at the front-end. There should be a logical flow to the questions that is clear to the respondents.
Pilot test the questions to make sure they are clear. Memorise the questioning route so that you don't have to refer to it during your interview. This will keep the discussion flowing more smoothly.
3. Invite participants to your session well in advance and get firm commitments to attend. Contact people to remind them the day of the event.
4. Set up your working area and organise either a table or circle of chairs so that people can sit comfortably facing each other. Arrange for coffee, tea or lunch at the beginning of the session.
5. When people begin to arrive for the event welcome them and make them feel comfortable. When everyone has arrived, sit down and get started.
6. Open the session with thanks, a description of the purpose of the interview, any assurances about confidentiality, and an overview of the discussion topics.
7. The moderator should work through his/her questions, seeking a balanced input from all participants. Watching the time and knowing your bottom line questions, will mean that when time runs out, you have your most important information. You may need to probe for more details on important points, 'Could you tell me more about that?'
The co-moderator should take notes, highlighting key points, important themes and patterns to the discussion. Don't try to take detailed notes, this will distract you. When you're through, thank people for their time and contributions.
8. Analyse your findings. This is the key step and it should take place right after the interview while things are still fresh. Plan to spend at least an hour with the co-moderator to discuss and analyse your findings. Now is the time to make detailed notes. Use this time as an opportunity to review and critique your questions and moderator skills.
9. Decide if you need to run additional focus groups to round out or deepen your analysis.
Box 7: Focus groups for designing HIV/AIDS interventions
As part of designing an HIV/AIDS activity in Kenya, the design team needed to have a deeper understanding of various issues and constraints related to the epidemic. Before moving to a large logframe workshop (see Chapter 5) the team decided to conduct focus group interviews with potential target groups and service providers:
- People living with HIV/AIDS
- Youth
- Groups providing counselling and testing services
- Groups providing home-based care
- Business leaders, and
- Religious leaders.
Through the focus groups the team gained a much deeper understanding of HIV/AIDS-related problems, constraints and opportunities. At the same time, participants in the groups learned much about common problems they themselves were facing and their possible solutions. For example, counselling and testing groups discovered they all faced a critical issue about how to protect the confidentiality of HIV-positive clients. Through the discussion they were able to exchange ideas of how to achieve this. These issues were brought into the logframe workshop, where they were integrated in the design through an activity output dealing with improved counselling and testing services.
Source: Social Impact, 1998
Box 8: Focus groups to improve a worldwide strategy for poverty reduction
As part of a worldwide assessment of the World Bank's Poverty Reduction Strategy, focus groups were held in six countries. These involved Ministry officials, NGO leaders, academics and Bank 'watchers', and helped to generate a number of ideas and recommendations used to improve the Bank's poverty alleviation work.
What follows is the focus group interview guide, used in the two-hour discussions in each of the six countries. Before being used in the field, the guide was tested with a participant group at Bank headquarters. Interviews in local languages were conducted with the assistance of a local co-moderator.
Knowledge about the Bank's Poverty Reduction Strategy and assessment of its relevance to country conditions
How would you define the overall goal of Bank assistance in your country?
- How would you describe, specifically, the Bank's Poverty Reduction Strategy in your country?
- How relevant is this strategy for actually reducing poverty in your country?
Strengths and weaknesses of Bank assistance for poverty reduction
- What are the major strengths of the implementation of the Bank's Poverty Reduction Strategy in your country?
- What are the major weaknesses in the strategy's implementation?
- What are some of the strengths and weaknesses in the way the Bank works with others - like different levels of government, NGOs and other stakeholders -in defining and implementing its Poverty Reduction Strategy?
- How does the Bank's work on poverty in your country compare with the work of other donors?
Looking ahead
- How can the Bank improve the design of its Poverty Reduction Strategy, whether in content or process?
- How can the Bank improve the strategy's operational effectiveness?
- Finally, if you could write a 'manifesto' for priorities in poverty reduction in your country, what would be its major elements?
Source: Social Impact, 1999