2. LITERATURE REVIEW
3.6 Results and Discussion
3.6.3 Root cause analysis: fishbone “ishikawa” diagram
For this study, 23 causal sub-factors were identified and categorized into 5 distinct factors namely:
Maintenance, People, Institutions, Policies, and Environment,. The categories were similar to other studies carried out in different industries (Odeh & Battaineh, 2002; Long et al., 2004; Assaf & Al- Hejji, 2006; Gündüz et al., 2012). The factors and sub-factors were visualized using the Fishbone
“Ishikawa” Diagram (Figure 3.15):
Maintenance related factors. These were identified as causal drivers for accelerated infrastructure dilapidation. IMT led to farmers being responsible of O&M. Literature documents the effects of IMT on infrastructure (Johnson III, 1997; Vermillion, 1997; Fujiie et al., 2005). Based on the literature, the study extracted four sub-factors and these were:
water users’ unwillingness to contribute to the scheme, none existence of an O&M programme, water users failure to pay for water, and management’s disinterest in infrastructure management (Figure 3.15).
People driven factors. Factors comprised of the second group of causal drivers. Horst (1998) argued that the human dimension is the epicentre of infrastructure management.
The argument identified eight sub-factors namely: insufficient manpower, a lack of formal education, no participation, no training, no reporting of damaged infrastructure, negligent irrigators, no reporting of unlawful behaviour and lack of financial contribution (Figure 3.15).
Institutions related factors. These were identified as another set of factors that cause infrastructure deterioration. Institutional arrangements in schemes are either farmer led or agency led. Studies have revealed that institutions are at the center of the infrastructure handling and management (Lam, 1998; Chereni, 2007; Denby et al., 2017). Based on this literature, six sub-factors were: identified and these were unaccountability, unfair election process, none existence of WUAs and IMCs, unsustainable stakeholder intervention, ineffective implementation of the constitution and disharmony between WUAs and traditional councils (Figure 3.15).
56
Policy related factors. These were the fourth group of causal factors. Several studies have identified policy issues as having an impact on infrastructure condition (Cherlet & Venot, 2013; Manzungu & Derman, 2016). From this category, three sub-factors were identified and these were: ineffective water management laws, ineffective irrigation policies and poor rule enforcement (Figure 3.15).
Environment related factors. These were identified as the fifth group of factors that contribute to infrastructure deterioration. Literature reveals how environmental and naturally occurring hazards have a negative impact on infrastructure (Mirza, 2003; Smith, 2013). Based on the literature, the study identified two sub-factors such as vegetative growth and induced soil failure (Figure 3.15).
After the RCA, the identified causal factors were quantified using RCI. The RCI ranked the causal factors and the results are shown in Table 3.7. Based on the ranking for TFIS and MRIS, the top six causal factors as perceived by technical experts (Table 3.7) were: water users unwilling to participate in O&M (RCI = 0.93), waters users unwilling to contribute financially to scheme maintenance (RCI = 0.926), recklessness of water users (RCI = 0.93), none existence of an O&M plan (RCI = 0.89), lack of compliance (RCI = 0.85) and lack of formal education (RCI = 0.40).
The top six causal factors as perceived by the extension (Table 3.7) workers were: non-existence of WUAs and IMCs (RCI = 0.87), WUAs and IMCs ineffectiveness in implementing constitution (RCI = 0.800), none existence of an O&M programme (RCI = 0.80), incapacitated scheme managers (RCI= 0.800) farmers unwilling to pay for water use (RCI = 0.67) and lack of formal education (RCI = 0.40). Table 3.7 shows a comparative assessment of the quantified causal factors by the two groups.
57
Problem:
Dilapidated Infrastructure
Environment Maintenance
Institutions
Policies Manpower/People
No formal education
No financial contribution towards scheme maintenance Reckless irrigators
No participation No training
Insufficient manpower: No Bailiffs
Unfair election process
Unsustainable stakeholder intervention
Unaccountability
Non-existence of IMC & WUAs
Ineffective water management laws Ineffective irrigation policies Poor rule enforcement
Management disinterest in infrastructure management
Water users’ failure to pay for water
Water users unwilling to contribute to scheme
Vegetative growth Soil failure
Reporting unlawful behaviour
Figure 3.15 Fishbone "Ishikawa" Diagram for TFIS and MRIS.
None existence of an O&M programme
Not reporting damaged infrastructure Disharmony between WUAs
and traditional councils
Ineffective implementation of constitution
58 1
Extension workers Technical experts
(𝑅𝐶𝐼𝑒𝑤) Rank (𝑅𝐶𝐼𝑡𝑒) Rank
Factor group Sub-factor causing deterioration
Maintenance None existence of an O&M programme 0.8 2 0.9 4
Water users unwilling to contribute to scheme maintenance 0.5 11 0.9 8
Uncommitted management 0.5 8 0.9 4
Water users not willing to pay for water use 0.7 5 0.8 12
People Water users unwilling to report unlawful behaviour 0.60 7 0.7 17
Water user not willing to contribute financially to the scheme 0.47 11 0.9 1
Water users unwilling to participate in O&M 0.33 17 0.9 1
Water users lacking irrigation training 0.47 11 0.9 8
A lack of formal education for the water users 0.40 16 0.2 23
Water users not reporting damaged infrastructure 0.33 17 0.9 4
Scheme managers incapacitated by insufficient labour 0.80 2 0.9 4
Recklessness of water users 0.53 8 0.9 1
Institutions None existing WUAs and IMC 0.8 1 0.8 12
WUAs and IMC ineffective in implementing the constitution 0.8 0 0.8 11
Unfair election process in the scheme 0.3 5 0.6 22
Unsustainable stakeholder intervention 0.5 3 0.8 12
Disharmony between farmer organisations and traditional council 0.5 3 0.7 19
Unaccountable institutions 0.3 5 0.8 12
Policies No compliance 0.3 17 0.9 8
Ineffective irrigation water laws 0.3 17 0.7 21
Ineffective irrigation water policies 0.2 23 0.7 19
Environment Vegetative growth 0.8 5 0.8 12
Soil failure on embankments 0.6 8 0.7 17
2
Table 3.7 RCI and Ranking of causal factors by extension workers and external stakeholders after Gündüz et al. (2012) for TFIS and MRIS.
59
The results indicated some convergence points from both stakeholders. The two groups showed similar positions with respect to the factors shown in Table 3.8.
Table 3.8 Converging points for the two stakeholders
Relative Causal Index
Factor Sub-factor Technical
experts (𝑅𝐶𝐼𝑡𝑒)
Extension workers (𝑅𝐶𝐼𝑒𝑤) Maintenance None existence of an O&M programme 0.9 0.8
Water users unwilling to report unlawful behaviour 0.8 0.7
Farmers not willing to pay for water use 0.7 0.6
People Scheme managers incapacitated 0.9 0.8
lack of formal education 0.4 0.4
Institutions None existence of WUAs and IMCs 0.8 0.9
WUAs and IMCs ineffective in implementing constitution
0.8 0.8
Disharmony between farmers and traditional councils 0.7 0.6
Environment Soil failure on embankments 0.7 0.6
Vegetative growth 0.8 0.8