[ Interview with Sabine Müller, GTZ ]

New framework for GTZ projects:
“Impact and objectives are crucial”

Dr. Müller, what's new about AURA?
What's new is the focus on the objective and impact of a project and a great deal more flexibility in the way it is implemented. Lots of implementational details which previously had to be approved by the BMZ will now be decided by GTZ. On the other hand, we now have to commit more rigorously to achieving agreed project objectives and impact. In the past, the yardstick of GTZ's performance was how far it got through the specifications of inputs and the project planning matrix and not so much how well it achieved the project objective itself, because it was assumed that responsibility for success ultimately resided with the partner. That has now changed – and for GTZ means, above all, having to act and inform the BMZ promptly if it feels a project objective is not being achieved.


Does the introduction of AURA mean abandoning the idea that development is plannable?
Project planning will naturally continue but much of it will shift to the implementation stage. In the past, every bid submitted to the BMZ contained a detailed plan – which was often pretty nonsensical because a great deal could change before a project commenced, and that meant starting all over again from scratch. Another thing is that the importance of planning has changed. Planning is a tool but we no longer believe an objective will be achieved just because everything is done according to plan.


So has objectives-oriented project planning (ZOPP) been scrapped?
ZOPP now has a different status. It's still in the planning toolbox but no longer a philosophy. The philosophy now is to gear work to impact and objectives.


In future, you're going to have to monitor projects much more closely to ensure they are on course. How will you do that?
Firstly, there will be changes what is reported to the BMZ. We will no longer give the ministry a step by step account of what we have done; instead, we'll be focusing more on questions like: is the project progressing towards its objective, what impact it is having, what risks are present and have the framework conditions changed? Secondly, we need to adapt our evaluation procedures to meet the new requirements. Our monitoring systems are still very input-oriented. So we are currently revising our guide for project progress reviews to sharpen its impact-monitoring focus. Apart from that, we are testing a new evaluation procedure called “e-Val”, which is designed to enable us to reach all those involved in a project and collect and collate their views on the project, its impact and the achievement of objectives.


Will project work on the ground be made easier by the greater flexibility?
I don't think so. The work will be more challenging. It is a lot easier to operate within the safe framework of a PPM than to have to keep questioning whether you are on the right track. The extra flexibility also means more uncertainty and more responsibility for project staff.


So field staff need to bring a lot more skills to the job...
Yes, and they have to ask questions. In the past, we nurtured a kind of expert culture: the expert came and knew what to do. What we need, however, is someone who comes, looks and asks questions, because not everything can be planned and defined in advance.