CHAPTER SIX: PRESENTATION OF THE CASE STUDY OF THE GADP
6.2 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE GADP
information (stakeholders’ opinions, fresh and new ideas), which could contribute to the project’s success.
It is hard to understand how one and the same person can be director of two organizations and distribute his time and energy evenly. In addition, one can question the quality of decisions made under these conditions. How would it be possible for him to remain principled while resolving conflicting situations, when these concern decisions linked to leadership and management issues, considering that all decision-making powers were in his own hands? Having two workplaces, his absence at the one could lead to some activities being paralysed because some important dossiers had to wait for his signature. The circumstances were not conducive for transparent processes of decision-making and problem-solving, nor did they encourage leadership accountability.
In an interview conducted with Governor K on his past experience with the GADP, the Governor said it is important that project leaders be instructed at least once a month on the objectives, activities and benefits of the project so that, when they have to sensitize the local people they know the project in and out. For the success of the project, the governor indicated, strong partnership relationships are needed between project managers, local people (target beneficiaries) and government authorities at all levels.
The fact that strong GADP leadership was established only late in 1998, when the project was approaching its end, and the frequent changes in leadership before that time, negatively influenced the realization of the project’s objectives. The GADP was active at a time when the government authority was not decentralized at provincial, district and local levels. That the project was under the supervision of the centralized government, which had the last word on important decisions, made at GADP level, was a serious impediment to the active participation of, particularly, farmers in GADP decisions.
Organizational Structure Support, Environment Restructuring, Infrastructures, Research and Development (GADP, 2001). The GADP was under the Head of the Regional Direction of Agricultural Services whose chart flow is presented in Figure 6-2.
Figure 6-1: Organizational structure of the GADP
Figure 6.2: Chart flow of Agricultural Services at Provincial level: April 1992
Regional level
Provincial level
Sub-provincial levels
District levels
Developed project zone
Source: IFAD et al. (1993) Regional Direction of Agricultural services (RDAS)
Accounting and management
Follow-up and Evaluation
ISAR
Department of R&D – Training and Popularization Vulgarization Rural engineering
Department Forest
Department Animal production
Department
Seeds Production Support
Department
Popularization department
Specialized
technicians ISAR Regional canters
Insemination team Forest team
Seed Production Support Service Specialized
technicians Service of Forests
Service of Animal production
Service of Popularization
Seed production Popularization
Figures 6-1 and 6-2 indicate that the GADP and RDAS carried out almost the same activities, which were in relation to agriculture, animal production, soil conservation and environment protection. According to the chart flow of the RDAS, the head of the RDAS was assisted by two services: Accounting and Management, and Follow-up and Evaluation. At the provincial level, he was assisted by the following Departments: Animal production, Forest, Rural engineering, Research and Development – Training and Popularization, Seed Production Support and Popularization. At the sub-provincial level, he was assisted by the Insemination team, Forest team, and Specialized technicians. At the district level, he was assisted by the following services: Animal production, Forests, Popularization, Specialized technicians and Seed Production Support. At the level of the developed project zone (GADP), he was assisted by the units of Popularization and Seed production. In the regional centers of the Rwandan Agricultural Research Institute (ISAR), the RDAS cooperated with the ISAR at the sub-provincial level. The specialized technicians of the RDAS collaborated with ISAR in the area of Research and Development, Training and Popularization. The RDAS no longer exists. The researcher did not find any details about, or even any references to RDAS activities and objectives, and how it worked with the GADP, nor in GADP documents, neither in any other source of information.
Participants in the current research had no knowledge of this organization, except that two former managers of the GADP stated that the head of the RDAS was at the same time head of the GADP.
The organizational structures of the GADP and RDAS formed a complex situation. One could not understand how the Head of the RDAS would be both the direct supervisor and Head of the GADP, which was among its partners. The partnership relationships between the RDAS and GDAP would be questionable because they competed with each other in the same region for the same stakeholders and reported to the same supervisor (MINAGRI). This situation would have contributed, to a great extent, to the poor management and weak leadership of the GADP.
The GADP was designed to achieve the following objectives: improving food security, increasing the incomes of small farmers and supporting the services of agriculture in the province of Gikongoro. To achieve this, the project intended to increase the production of livestock and expand the methods of soil conservation and fertility. The GADP also had to promote agricultural intensification regarding especially food and cash crops, and assist the cooperatives of small farmers to get access to agricultural credits (IFAD, 1993).
However, the way the GADP departments were structured and organized was not satisfactory.
Although the GADP departments are presented in Figure 6-1, more and relevant details in relation to specific activities of each department were mentioned nowhere in the documents of the GADP. It would therefore have been difficult to prepare reasonable plans, encompassing objective definitions with activity identification, scheduling and estimations of necessary resources.
6.2.2 Weaknesses of the GADP organizational structure and objectives
The department tasked with the following-up and evaluation of activities was at the same level as other departments such as Finance and Administration, and Forestry and Animal Production.
Even so, the department of Evaluation was either under the supervision of the Research or Development Department, or under that of the managing director of the project, which seems wrong as the department fulfilled a crucial role in respect to GADP management.
Other departments such as the Secretariat, Environmental Restructuring, Infrastructures, Research and Development are presented in figure 6-1 but their corresponding activities were not described in any available GADP documents. Neither figure 6-1 nor any other GADP documents indicate that there was a special department which was responsible for non- agricultural components such as bank loans and micro and small business. The implications are that these components were not adequately planned, which could be partly responsible for delays, waste of resources, inadequate coordination of the project activities and poor relations of the GADP with farmers and banks. It is difficult to imagine how the GADP could set objectives without clearly identifying departments, components and the corresponding activities which would need to be carried out to achieve the objectives. All these examples indicate that the GADP organizational structure was inadequate, affecting the whole of the GADP life cycle. The subdivision of the project into departments implies, for instance, that the project was preparing to clearly define its objectives and identify and schedule activities, and to determine roles and responsibilities, and finally to estimate the resources needed. The logical relationships, which would have been established between the project organizational structure, objectives, activities and resources for suitable planning, implementation and sustainability of the GADP in an unstable environment, are presented in Figure 6-3.
Figure 6-3: Relationships between organizational structure, objectives and resources.
Figure 6-3 indicates that the GADP management should have designed an organizational structure that allows for rational planning, which requires that the real needs of key stakeholders are determined, realistic objectives set, resources for activities objectively estimated and achievable performance indicators identified. The implementation phase of a project should not be unnecessarily complicated by problems of overestimation or underestimation of required resources. Project leadership, external environment and external stakeholders should have been taken seriously because they are all factors that significantly affect the project management in the processes of planning, implementation and closing down.
External stakeholders
The project GADP
Organizational structure
Identification
Objectives
Activities
Performance Resources indicators
Budget
Project Management
Political unrest and other environmental
Leadership
Planning
Closure
Implementation