1
Module 5 - Evaluation Report
MNGT 4711
Problem Opportunity Definition
Sections of the local community are hostile towards the project and this might delay project progress and
completion.
Ideas Generated
IDEA 1. Allocate more resources to stakeholder engagement. When available resources are allocated
strategically they will attract the best local talent and goodwill.
IDEA 2. Link the project to the larger national government water supply plan and strategy. Linking the
project to the national government plan and strategy will give the project a strong partner and increase
local trust
IDEA 3. Flatten and open the organizational structure to attract more local talent. This will make it easier
for local talent to apply to join organization as well as increase local trust.
IDEA 4. The core of our communication plan and strategy must be flexible enough to be adjusted to fit
different circumstances as well as reach out its tentacles and reach more people. Tentacles in this case
represent the different communication channels and mediums
IDEA 5. Use social media platforms to create quick-spreading webs of local supporters and advocates by
creating online campaigns and social groups led by local social media influencers.
Tip: Group/cluster together all ideas generated in Mod4 and end up with a few workable ideas.
SMART Model
Only five of the ideas considered most applicable to the problem at hand were evaluated using the
SMART model. They were labelled idea 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, as they appeared in the list above the smart model.
The second idea (Idea 2) was picked to win: Link the project to the larger national government water
supply plan and strategy. Linking the project to the national government plan and strategy will give the
project a strong partner and increase local trust. The reasoning behind picking idea 2 to win was informed
by the fact that linking our project to the national government overall water supply system improvement
strategy and planning would effectively increase its score in several variables. For instance, the cost
would be lower (thus higher score) because the government would already have laid the ground work for
public-private partnerships of this nature. Moreover, the local community would be more prone to
supporting the project once the government was associated with it. Of course other variables were
affected negatively – for instance, local involvement might be used as a negotiating token by government
agencies involved in which case too much local involvement might lead to project leadership loosing too
much control.
SMART CHART Weights IDEA 1 IDEA 2 IDEA 3 IDEA 4 IDEA 5
Go/No- Sustainability No Go Go Go Go
Go
Variables Length of
implementatio Go Go Go Go No
n period
, 2
Other Cost .22 9 1.9 8 1.7 6 1.3
variables 8 6 2
(Non-no- Cultural .20 8 1.6 7 1.4 3 .60
go compatibility
variables Involvement of .15 2 .30 5 .75 3 .45
) locals
Impact on .14 6 .84 5 .70 8 1.1
other areas of 2
project
Staff involved .10 5 .50 7 .70 7 .7
Easy to .19 4 .76 4 .76 5 .95
understand &
implement
TOTAL 100 Reject! 5.98 5.37 5.14 Reject!
Idea 2 had the highest points of the five ideas evaluated in this model. Ideas 1 and 5 did not make it past
the Go or No-Go variables test. The former failed the sustainability test. Increasing the money allocated to
the stakeholder engagement part of the project would work only in the short term but eventually become
unsustainable over the long-term. Moreover, there are assurances that donors would accept to increase
funding towards a part of the project which is considered secondary to the actual project implementation.
Similarly, idea 5 requires too long to implement for the required output to be achieved. In my application
of the SMART model, I found the allocation of ratings on the other variables to be the most difficult of the
whole process. For example, on the impact on other programs variable it was confusing deciding what the
higher score was; was it when the option had higher negative or positive impact? Although positive
impact was eventually used as the primary variable, it was confusing especially with the ideas developed
for a problem in a non-profit project.
Probability Tree
In the probability tree below only the winning idea in SMART model above was analyzed – IDEA 2. The
primary question in the tree was What is the probability that the idea will be supported by stakeholders?
The probability it would be supported was primarily informed by its score on both the smart model, 5.98,
and the value tree. This was rounded off to 60% plus ten percent attained from the fact that this idea had
significant benefits over the others. So the total probability was calculated at 70%. The probability that it
would not be adopted was 30%. If it was adopted the probability that it would work was 60% - i.e. .70 * .85
= .60 or 60% probability. If the idea is supported by majority of the stakeholders, its probability of not
working is only 11%. If not supported by stakeholders, the probability of working is 17% achieved through
(.30 x .55), whereas the probability of not working is 14% achieved thus (.30 x .45). As such the
probability that the idea will work is 77% - i.e. (.60 + .17.) = 77%.
Module 5 - Evaluation Report
MNGT 4711
Problem Opportunity Definition
Sections of the local community are hostile towards the project and this might delay project progress and
completion.
Ideas Generated
IDEA 1. Allocate more resources to stakeholder engagement. When available resources are allocated
strategically they will attract the best local talent and goodwill.
IDEA 2. Link the project to the larger national government water supply plan and strategy. Linking the
project to the national government plan and strategy will give the project a strong partner and increase
local trust
IDEA 3. Flatten and open the organizational structure to attract more local talent. This will make it easier
for local talent to apply to join organization as well as increase local trust.
IDEA 4. The core of our communication plan and strategy must be flexible enough to be adjusted to fit
different circumstances as well as reach out its tentacles and reach more people. Tentacles in this case
represent the different communication channels and mediums
IDEA 5. Use social media platforms to create quick-spreading webs of local supporters and advocates by
creating online campaigns and social groups led by local social media influencers.
Tip: Group/cluster together all ideas generated in Mod4 and end up with a few workable ideas.
SMART Model
Only five of the ideas considered most applicable to the problem at hand were evaluated using the
SMART model. They were labelled idea 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, as they appeared in the list above the smart model.
The second idea (Idea 2) was picked to win: Link the project to the larger national government water
supply plan and strategy. Linking the project to the national government plan and strategy will give the
project a strong partner and increase local trust. The reasoning behind picking idea 2 to win was informed
by the fact that linking our project to the national government overall water supply system improvement
strategy and planning would effectively increase its score in several variables. For instance, the cost
would be lower (thus higher score) because the government would already have laid the ground work for
public-private partnerships of this nature. Moreover, the local community would be more prone to
supporting the project once the government was associated with it. Of course other variables were
affected negatively – for instance, local involvement might be used as a negotiating token by government
agencies involved in which case too much local involvement might lead to project leadership loosing too
much control.
SMART CHART Weights IDEA 1 IDEA 2 IDEA 3 IDEA 4 IDEA 5
Go/No- Sustainability No Go Go Go Go
Go
Variables Length of
implementatio Go Go Go Go No
n period
, 2
Other Cost .22 9 1.9 8 1.7 6 1.3
variables 8 6 2
(Non-no- Cultural .20 8 1.6 7 1.4 3 .60
go compatibility
variables Involvement of .15 2 .30 5 .75 3 .45
) locals
Impact on .14 6 .84 5 .70 8 1.1
other areas of 2
project
Staff involved .10 5 .50 7 .70 7 .7
Easy to .19 4 .76 4 .76 5 .95
understand &
implement
TOTAL 100 Reject! 5.98 5.37 5.14 Reject!
Idea 2 had the highest points of the five ideas evaluated in this model. Ideas 1 and 5 did not make it past
the Go or No-Go variables test. The former failed the sustainability test. Increasing the money allocated to
the stakeholder engagement part of the project would work only in the short term but eventually become
unsustainable over the long-term. Moreover, there are assurances that donors would accept to increase
funding towards a part of the project which is considered secondary to the actual project implementation.
Similarly, idea 5 requires too long to implement for the required output to be achieved. In my application
of the SMART model, I found the allocation of ratings on the other variables to be the most difficult of the
whole process. For example, on the impact on other programs variable it was confusing deciding what the
higher score was; was it when the option had higher negative or positive impact? Although positive
impact was eventually used as the primary variable, it was confusing especially with the ideas developed
for a problem in a non-profit project.
Probability Tree
In the probability tree below only the winning idea in SMART model above was analyzed – IDEA 2. The
primary question in the tree was What is the probability that the idea will be supported by stakeholders?
The probability it would be supported was primarily informed by its score on both the smart model, 5.98,
and the value tree. This was rounded off to 60% plus ten percent attained from the fact that this idea had
significant benefits over the others. So the total probability was calculated at 70%. The probability that it
would not be adopted was 30%. If it was adopted the probability that it would work was 60% - i.e. .70 * .85
= .60 or 60% probability. If the idea is supported by majority of the stakeholders, its probability of not
working is only 11%. If not supported by stakeholders, the probability of working is 17% achieved through
(.30 x .55), whereas the probability of not working is 14% achieved thus (.30 x .45). As such the
probability that the idea will work is 77% - i.e. (.60 + .17.) = 77%.
