598
essential reminder to the PAs to ensure sustainability, as well as to take mitigation
measures to manage identified and new risks during implementation.
The project storytelling framework (PSF) suggests that investment in the design
of the EPINAV base story, which touched the interests of partners, would facilitate
the updating of mid- and end stories. The stakeholders themselves would update
stakeholders’ stories that constituted a project story, and the coordination team’s
task would mainly be to merge them to produce a combined and coordinated project progress report. The story facilitator’s central role would be to guide the process of collecting views from stakeholders to ensure proper documentation of
activities. Storytelling would allow the participation of beneficiaries and ensure
increased ownership and sustainability of the initiatives (Merla 2009;
Mkwizu 2016).
5 Finalisation: Final Reports and Evaluation
Completion of phased programmes presents the opportunity for the direct application of lessons learnt from the ending phase to the new one. When reviewing the
finalisation of EPINAV, it would have been natural to include a review of its predecessor, PANTIL, to establish the extent to which the lessons learnt were utilised.
This would have been achieved by introducing a storytelling presentation featuring
PA and AA characters from PANTIL to EPINAV.
Consider a scenario in which the end review of PANTIL is used to inform
EPINAV’s programme document. In a situation where the goal remained the same
from the coordination team and funder’s perspective, it would be the approaches
that would be changed. By the end of PANTIL, the PAs would have won, and most
of AAs would have joined the supporting camp. There would be a few characters
that remained in the AAs, and new ones would enter, for example, from a research
group, who would challenge the proposed approach.
The absence of PSF in the planning of EPINAV meant that the beneficiaries who
joined the AAs were missing, and this reduced the possibilities of revealing if there
were specific cases where the new phase failed to apply the lessons learnt. Even
when the coordination team considered and agreed to utilise experiences and recommendations from the ending stage, there was still a possibility of not utilising the
previous findings in their entirety. As such, the PA team would have been strengthened at PANTIL’s finalisation and the initialisation of EPINAV, because some AAs,
as well as peripheral beneficiaries or outsiders, may be motivated to become part of
the PAs in the new EPINAV.
The above scenario explains some of the reasons why the finalisation of EPINAV
may not have fully utilised previous programme lessons in the design of the next or
follow-up phases. Phased projects and programmes such as PANTIL and EPINAV
have similarities with episodic TV shows. Project members were mainly PAs with
no real presence of AAs, despite their distinct existence. Communication of project
Y. B. Mkwizu et al.
essential reminder to the PAs to ensure sustainability, as well as to take mitigation
measures to manage identified and new risks during implementation.
The project storytelling framework (PSF) suggests that investment in the design
of the EPINAV base story, which touched the interests of partners, would facilitate
the updating of mid- and end stories. The stakeholders themselves would update
stakeholders’ stories that constituted a project story, and the coordination team’s
task would mainly be to merge them to produce a combined and coordinated project progress report. The story facilitator’s central role would be to guide the process of collecting views from stakeholders to ensure proper documentation of
activities. Storytelling would allow the participation of beneficiaries and ensure
increased ownership and sustainability of the initiatives (Merla 2009;
Mkwizu 2016).
5 Finalisation: Final Reports and Evaluation
Completion of phased programmes presents the opportunity for the direct application of lessons learnt from the ending phase to the new one. When reviewing the
finalisation of EPINAV, it would have been natural to include a review of its predecessor, PANTIL, to establish the extent to which the lessons learnt were utilised.
This would have been achieved by introducing a storytelling presentation featuring
PA and AA characters from PANTIL to EPINAV.
Consider a scenario in which the end review of PANTIL is used to inform
EPINAV’s programme document. In a situation where the goal remained the same
from the coordination team and funder’s perspective, it would be the approaches
that would be changed. By the end of PANTIL, the PAs would have won, and most
of AAs would have joined the supporting camp. There would be a few characters
that remained in the AAs, and new ones would enter, for example, from a research
group, who would challenge the proposed approach.
The absence of PSF in the planning of EPINAV meant that the beneficiaries who
joined the AAs were missing, and this reduced the possibilities of revealing if there
were specific cases where the new phase failed to apply the lessons learnt. Even
when the coordination team considered and agreed to utilise experiences and recommendations from the ending stage, there was still a possibility of not utilising the
previous findings in their entirety. As such, the PA team would have been strengthened at PANTIL’s finalisation and the initialisation of EPINAV, because some AAs,
as well as peripheral beneficiaries or outsiders, may be motivated to become part of
the PAs in the new EPINAV.
The above scenario explains some of the reasons why the finalisation of EPINAV
may not have fully utilised previous programme lessons in the design of the next or
follow-up phases. Phased projects and programmes such as PANTIL and EPINAV
have similarities with episodic TV shows. Project members were mainly PAs with
no real presence of AAs, despite their distinct existence. Communication of project
Y. B. Mkwizu et al.