Part Three:

Project Implementation, Monitoring And Evaluation

The previous commentaries have firstly introduced the country’s long and vast experiences in development planning, covering both the long-term perspective plans and the medium 5-year development plans (which is further implemented through the annual budgets), and a series of the other types of plans - regional plans, master plans, and so forth. In the previous commentary, we have highlighted the accompaniment of the plans, namely the overarching development policies and policy framework. In this third commentary, we shall focus on programme and/or project implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

The plans and policies are there, well thought out, well written, thorough and comprehensively prepared. But plans and policies when formulated will remain mere statements of intention and facts unless they are implemented. And they remain on the shelves together with the office documents. Fortunately, accompanying the documented intentions, hopes, aspirations, objectives, strategies and policies of the plans are the programme and project lists, which will contain the names of the programmes and projects, project costs and funding allocation ( the latter reflects the quantum of funds made available for implementing the projects during the Plan period), as well as reflecting priorities accorded to the project in terms of importance and urgency.

Plan intentions and implementation realities at times tend to be divergent. Gaps between plans, objectives and targets vis-a-vis plan performance and achievements can occur, and these can be attributed to various factors. Notwithstanding these gaps or shortfalls, plan implementation performance in the country have generally been satisfactory as testified by the robust growth and development over the years.

In recent times, however, there has been a growing hue and cry (perhaps a big worry and concern) about less than satisfactory level of project implementation in the country. For despite the substantial amount of funds allocated to implement the programmes and projects, not all the funds are spent. Some projects are not implemented, some are implemented in the middle or later part of the plan period and thus not completed by the end the Plan period. Some others encounter difficulties at various stages of plan implementation viz, the longer than expected period to determine project sites or acquiring the sites, the late release of funds, the long period taken to plan the design and tender the projects, the problems faced by contractors in mobilising and implementing projects - some facing cash-flow problems; some facing insufficient manpower and lack of equipment; some contracting works to sub-contractors and the latter subcontracting them further - and therein often lies unresolved contractual problems. There are others who blame rainy days and the inclement weather; others apportion the blame to the many “holidays”. The list goes on and on.

Are these excuses real or sheer myths? Is it not possible for us to achieve 100 per cent performance or better? Do implementing agencies have the capability and capacity to implement these plans or are there other extenuating factors that hamper the plan implementation? The list of issues would seem to be long enough to call for a conference, symposium, seminar or workshop on project implementation to deliberate on them, with all stakeholders participating. Or it would summon conducting training courses. Very often project implementation are left solely to the project executors / implementors i.e. the agency or department entrusted, to work together with the contractors or sub-contractors. Would it not be the business and concern of others who are also interested and who will possibly be the final project beneficiaries, in being involved in project implementation monitoring?

Projects can be small involving relatively small amount of funds ( Minor Rural Projects), or medium size ranging from a few million ringgit, while some are big, involving tens of million ringgit or hundreds of millions. The latter categories are perhaps of even greater concern. A big or large size project is likely to involve detailed planning and preparation before its implementation. Very often, given the magnitude of the projects, decision- making at various levels become critical - and here is another area where project implementation can be affected. Where decision making is remote, outside, external or distanced, then it can also happen that project implementation can be affected. Delays in decision making regarding the decision to go ahead, the decision to determine mode of implementation and the decision to negotiate and award project are all critical, and can affect and impact on whether the projects are to be implemented on time or otherwise. Admittedly, when the projects are technically and financially complex, a longer time taken to decide on project implementation can be readily and easily understood. However, when preparatory and administrative arrangements are completed, it is hard to comprehend further delays, as delays over a long period (six months to one year or more) can affect even the design and/or scope of the project. These are some of the dilemmas of project implementation, and constitute the unending woes of the agency overseeing the projects. It is even more disparaging and agonizing when, in the absence of project implementation tracking, planners and decision makers are left in a vacuum and in the lurch, to inform the interested public who are in need of the project.

Non-implementation, delay in implementation, uncompleted projects, unused or unspent funds and the resultant poor or low implementation performance means a “loss” to all - to the country and the State, to the area or region to be developed, and to the contractors and the beneficiaries. There are “opportunity costs” forgone, and any delay from one Plan period to another, merely means intergenerational or intertemporal transfer of “opportunity costs” of development.

With the lessons experienced and learnt during the Seventh Malaysia Plan (1996-2000), it is therefore most significant that the State has taken a bold and decisive step to focus on project implementation as a matter of priority during the Eighth Malaysia Plan (2001-2005). With the setting up of a central Project Implementation Monitoring Unit (PIMU), at the State Secretary’s Office, the Ministry, Departmental/Agency level as well as at the Divisional level, it is hoped that project implementation performance will be considerably improved during the Eighth Malaysia Plan. Let project implementation monitoring be a battle cry for all during the Plan period. As a reminder, monitoring of course refers to the gathering of information about the projects, and in the case of project implementation monitoring, refers to the generation of project outputs especially on crucial problem areas, and offers timely signals and warnings in implementation problems.

This does not only mean that we know what projects are implemented, or not implemented, know those agencies that have not taken the preparatory work to get project implementation started, those agencies that have not secured the funds, as well as projects where decision making outside are still not known, but it will also signal that we are playing the roles of referees and linesmen, blowing our whistles and raising the offside flags. All ministries, departments and agencies will need to put up regular project implementation reports, on a weekly, monthly, quarterly, half-yearly, and annual basis. Heads of Departments must make regular field visits to see the projects under implementation within their purview. The key tasks here are the preparation of reports and to undertake field visits regularly. Unless these are done, we will never know what happen to the programmes and projects on the ground, and at best may only be relying on hearsay reports.

Readers may not be fully aware of the fact that we will know and in fact already know the early status of the 8MP projects now as these are contained in the Development Project Monitoring System (DPMS). Have a visit to the Sarawak Government Homepage (for those having access) and you will see where your agency stand. There is also the Project Implementation Tracking System (PITS) designed to tell the “health” of the project as these will be diagnosed from time to time.

Evaluation constitutes the final phase of the project cycle. Evaluation can focus on en vivo and ex-post exercises. En vivo or ongoing evaluation provide indicators on project effects and impacts. Ex post evaluation provides a final assessment as to whether projects implemented have met the project objectives and to draw lessons learnt. The 8MP can obviously benefit from ex post evaluation of the 7MP, provided the various agencies have undertaken their evaluation seriously. World Bank or Asian Development Bank projects often undergo this evaluation and reappraisal process. We shall just make a general reference on evaluation here, as it will be covered in detail in the next part of our Commentary.

will appear in the next issue.