ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND BEHAVIORAL STUDIES

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANAZATION

ASSISTED EDUCATIONAL PROJECTS IN ADDIS ABABA CITY
ADMINISTRATION

BY:
BIRHANU SINTAYEHU

JUNE 2016
ADDIS ABABA
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANAZATION
ASSISTED EDUCATIONAL PROJECTS IN ADDIS ABABA CITY
ADMINISTRATION

BIRHANU SINTAYEHU

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

PRESENTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT

FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATIONAL
LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA
JUNE2016
 ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

This is to Certify that the thesis Prepared by BIRHANU SINTAYEHU, Entitled: The
Implementation Of Non-Government Organization Assisted Educational Projects In Addis
Ababa City Administration Education Bureau and Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts (Educational Leadership And Management)
Complies with the Regulation of the University and Meets the Accepted Standards with Respect
to Originality and Quality.

Signed by the examining committee:

Jeilu Omer (PhD) ___________ ___________ __________

Examiner Internal Signature Date

Abdulaziz Hussien (PhD) ___________ ___________ __________

Examiner External Signature Date

Zenebe Baraki(PhD)________________ ___________ __________

Advisor Signature Date

Kenenissa Dabi (PhD)___________ ___________ _________

Chairman of Department or Signature Date
Graduate Program Coordinator
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My greatest and most heartfelt thanks goes my thesis advisor, Dr. Zenebe Baraki, for his
invaluable professional advice, intellectual guidance, unreserved suggestions, careful attention,
and constructive comments throughout the completion of this research. His patience and support
throughout the process of the study has been highly appreciated.

My sincerest and deepest appreciation to my fiancé, MekdesMulluye, who has supported me in

every aspect of my life.
I also would like to extend my warmest appreciation to my aunt, Aster Alemu, and all of my
family for their moral and financial assistance throughout my schoolwork. Thank you to my
colleagues and spiritual brothers and sisters for their active support, advice, praying,
communication, and hospitality.

Special thanks to each project participant and the City Government of the Addis Ababa
Education Bureau, Indigenous and International NGO’s Educational Projects.

Thank you, Katie Flores, for your constructive comments, guidance, and careful attention during
my study. Last but not least, I would like to thank W/ro Aynyhe for carefully editing and neatly
typing the manuscript.

I
 Table of Contents
Contents Page
Acknowledgement ……………………………………………………………………...…….I
Table of Contents.....................................................................................................................II
List of Tables...........................................................................................................................V
Lists of Figures……………………………………………………………………………...VI
Acronyms and Abrivations…................................................................................................VII
Abstract................................................................................................................................VIII

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study ................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 6
1.3 Study Objectives ............................................................................................................. 9
1.3.1 General Objective ..................................................................................................... 9
1.3.2 Specific Objectives ................................................................................................... 9
1.4 Significances of the Study ............................................................................................... 9
1.5 Delimitations of the Study............................................................................................... 9
1.6 Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................ 10
1.7 Definition of Key Terms ............................................................................................... 10
1.8 Organization of the Study ............................................................................................. 11

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITRATURE
2.1 The Origin, Meaning and Significances of Educational Project ................................... 12
2.2 The Concept of the Project Cycle ................................................................................. 16
2.3 Educational Project Implementation ............................................................................. 20
2.3.1 Planning Implementation of Project ....................................................................... 22
2.3.2 Controlling and Coordinating of Project Implementation ...................................... 24
2.4 Monitoring and Evaluation............................................................................................ 26
2.4.1 Project Monitoring .................................................................................................. 27
2.4.2 Project Evaluation................................................................................................... 27
2.4.3 Disparities & Complementary Features of Monitoring & Evaluation ................... 30

II
 2.5 Problems in Educational Project Implementation ......................................................... 31
2.6 An Action to Mitigate the Educational Project Implementation Problems…..………..37
2.7 The Concept of NGOs and Its Role in the Development .............................................. 39
2.7.1 Definition of NGOs ................................................................................................ 39
2.7.2 Historical Development of NGOs in International Perspective ............................. 40
2.7.3 The Emergence and Development of NGOs in Ethiopia ....................................... 41
2.7.4 Code of Conduct and Regulatory Framework for NGOs in Ethiopia .................... 41
2.7.5 The Practice of NGOs in Project Implementation .................................................. 42
2.7.6 Contribution of NGOs in Developmental Activities .............................................. 43

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Description of the Study Area ...................................................................................... 44
3.2 Research Design ........................................................................................................... 46
3.3 The Research Mothod .................................................................................................. 48
3.4 The Population ............................................................................................................. 48
3.5 Sources of Data ............................................................................................................ 48
3.6 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size ....................................................................... 48
3.7 Data Collection Tools and Pilot Test ........................................................................... 49
3.8 Procedures .................................................................................................................... 51
3.9 Method of Data Analysis.............................................................................................. 51
3.10 Ethical Consideration .................................................................................................. 52

CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRITATION
4.1 General Characteristics of the Respondents .................................................................. 52
4.2 Perception on the Project Implementation Processes .................................................... 55
4.2.1 Planning for the Project Implementation and level of Stakeholders Participation . 56
4.2.2 Preconditions for Project Implementation .............................................................. 59
4.2.3 Project Success Factors for Implementing the Projects.......................................... 62
4.2.4 Capacity of the Project Managers for Project Implementation .............................. 65

III
 4.3 Perception of Respondents on the Project Objectives Attainment ................................ 68
4.3.1 Familiarity of Stakeholders with Project Objectives .............................................. 68
4.3.2 Participation of Stakeholders’ on the Overall Projects Works ............................... 71
4.4 Education Projects M&E to Rectify the Problems on Educational Projects ................. 75
4.4.1 Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms ................................................................ 75
4.4.2 Regularly Follow-up Mechanisms of the Projects ................................................. 76
4.4.3 Major devices of Monitoring and Evaluation…………..………………………………….78

4.4.4 Major Devices of Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................ 79

4.5 Major Challenges that Affect the Implementation of the Educational Projects ............ 80
4.5.1 The Problems that Faced at Starting Time of the Projects ..................................... 80
4.5.2 Problems that faced at Middle of the Project Implementation ............................. 83
4.5.3 Problems that Faced at Finishing onTime of the Projects ...................................... 86

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 90
5.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 94
5.3 Recommendations……………………………………………………………………..96
References
Annexes

IV
 List of Tables

Table No Table Title Page

Table1: Major Disparity of Monitoring and Evaluation……………………………………………30

Table2: Characteristics of the Respondents ………………………………………………………..53

Table3: Characteristics of the Respondents ………………………………………………....……..54

Table4: Involvement of Respondents in the Design and Planning of the Projects………………...56

Table 5: Planning For the Project Implementation………………………………………………...57

Table 6: Time Scheduling before Actual Project Implementation Commencement……………....60

Table 7: Project Success Factors…………………………………………………...……………....62

Table 8: Measuring Project Managers Capacity during Implementing Projects…………………....65

Tabl9: Howmuch the Stakeholders holders Knows About Project Objectives?................................68

Table 10: Stakeholders’ Involvement on the Projects……………………………………..……......72

Table 11: Practices of the Monitoring and Evaluation……………………………………...............75

Table 12: Monitoring Projects on a Regular Basis………………………………………….............77

Table13: Time Interval for Applying M &E……………………………………………………..…79

Table14: Delays of the Projects at the Starting Time……………………………………...………..80

Table15: Reasons for the Delays on the Starting Time of the Project……………………………...81

Table 16: Problems Encounter during the Project Implementation………………………………..83

Table17: Problems that Confronted During the Middle of the Project Implementation…..............84

Table18: Difficulties that Hindered Finishing the Project on Time……….......................................86

Table20: Difficulties that Delayed Finishing the Project on Time…………………………………87

V
 List of Figures

Page

Figure 1: The 1978 Baum’s Simple Version of Project Cycle………………………………….17

Figure 2: A New Concept of the Project Cycle…………………………………………….......19

Figure 3: Administrative Map of Addis Ababa…………………………………………………47

Figure4:Bar graph of Time scheduling before actual project implementation commencement..61

Figure5: Line graph of Project Manager’s managing Cabability……………………………….67

VI
 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AA Addis Ababa
AABE Addis Ababa Education Bureau
AABoFED Addis Ababa Bureau of Finance and Economic Development
ACARTSD Africa Center for Applied Research and Training in Social Development
ARM Annual Review Meeting
DPPC Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission
DPSA Development Project Studies Authority
ECA Economic Commission for Africa
EEA Ethiopian Economic Association
EMI Ethiopian Management Institute
ESDP Education Sector Development Program
Freq. Frequency
GEQIP General Education Quality Improvement Program
GTP Growth and Transformation Plan
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MD Mean Difference
MOFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
MoE Ministry of Education
NGO Non-Government Organization
NPDPM National Policy on Disaster Preparation and Management
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science
Sq. Km. Kilometer Square
UNDP United Nations Development Program
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WANGO World Association of Non-Governmental Organizations
WB The World Bank

VII
 Abstract

This research aims to determine whether the prearranged educational investments and other
planned activities organized by NGOs underAddis Ababa City Administration Education Bureau
achieve their objectives within their predetermined time frames and budgets or not . To do this,
cross sectional descriptive survey design and a mixed research method were employed.
Quantitative data collected via structured and unstructured questionnaires withproject
department heads (n=17), executive officers (n=7), educationalexperts (n=24)with total
fromAAEB (n=48), andproject execution officers (n=44) and projectmanagers (n=22) with total
from NGOs (n=66) and qualitative data collected via semi-structured interviews (n=24) &
(n=22) from AAEB and NGOs respectively with total 46 interviewee.Additionally, institutional
documents were reviewed to inform the study.Simple random technique was used to select
execution officers & experts and purposive sampling techniques was applied for acquisition of
department head and project managersfrom Both AAEB and NGOs respectively to collect
quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data were analyzed via SPSS V.20 computer
software and qualitative data were analyzed by narration of themes.The major findings of the
study has indicatedonthe status of the major projects implementation processes; degree of
involvement of stakeholders in plan and design of projects were less, the extent of planning for
project implementation was midway, key stakeholders were not involved in the planning as
expected and project managerswere averagely capable to manage overall projects. Furthermore,
findings of the study has revealed aims and objectives of the projects were not entirely decided
by stakeholders, there were gap between intended and achieved objectives, risks of the projects
were considered only some extents before commencement of project and need assessment were
not conducted properly before project starts.In addition, findings of the study has indicated that
there were challenges that hindered the implementation of projects at starting time of the
projects, middle of the projects and finishing on a time of the projects.Even though the problems
were averagely serious at all stages, degree of being seriousness were more critical at finishing
time of the projects.Moreover, the findings of the research underlined that the involvement of
stakeholders in M&E was less and no skilled expert in M&E of projects implementation, more
concern was given for formal M&E system.On basis of the findings obtained and conclusions
reached at the recommendation given for instance key stakeholdersadvised to participation on
planning, designing and deciding project objectives and aims to termination of the projects,
consider the risks of projects and made need of assessment before commencement of the project
implementation andassign right project managers at right position at right time and regularly
updates managers’ skill by offering necessary training, more concern given to finishing time of
the project to mitigate problems, formulatesystematic follow-p mechanisms, arrange intensive
training in project implementation for those experts, create awareness for beneficiaries,offer
training for M&E offers and use both formal and informal M&E interchangeably.

VIII
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

This chapter deals with the background, statement of the problem, basic questions,
objectives, significance, delimitation, limitations, definition of key terms, and organization of
the study.
1.1 Background of the Study

All sectors such as education, health, agriculture, industry, mining, transport, energy, etc.,
need appropriate investments to attain their specific developmental goals. Like all others that
require development interventions, education always has several projects to initiate and
speedup all sorts of improvements. For years, project concepts and their values were unclear
to many school communities and education experts, thus resulting in a long period of trial
and error. Gradually, the Educational Project has become a tool that enables every
community member to have a school that corresponds to its own expectations and
characteristics.
“Work performed by an organization can be classified as projects and routine activities ‟‟
(Mantel et al, 2001:3). Performing these activities Ineffective ways contributes for
underutilization of budget, wastage of material and time, underperformance of the task and it
frustrates donors in supporting for future development of the sector as well as resources are
scarce in any country whether it was developed or developing. The life of a project is usually
divided into several consecutive stages. Cracknell (2001:95) describes project sequences as
“identification, preparation, appraisal, negotiation, implementation and evaluation and it is
often known as the project cycle, because each stage is the logical successor of the preceding
one, while the last stage prepares the first of the next cycle.” It has to be noted that whenever
project preparations are made, activities may not go according to the plan. Deviations may
take place due to external and/or internal circumstances, as well as changes in principal
actors. Consequently, the project implementation may take on a life of its own.

Project implementation begins at the actual pre-investment and ends when the project
becomes fully functional (Baum and Tolbert 1985:334-335). But from the time early
beginning to fully operational, it faced numbers of ups and downs to hinder its

1
implementation. During this time, all aspects of work or activity are monitored as it proceeds.
It includes the procurement of all required investments and logistics, e.g. procurement of
equipment, furniture, curriculum development, staff training, technical assistance,
miscellaneous services, project monitoring, and evaluation (Magnen 1991: 30). Again,
balancing these issues when implementing projects; needs great effort and techniques unless
project become fail. On the other hand, implementation is the stage that will appear once
financing is secured and a final go-ahead given to proceed with the implementation of a
given project, inter organization linkages for its smooth implementation are stream lined and
a project office is set up (DPSA 1990:30).According to Baum and Tolbert (1985:357),
project objectives can only be realized upon successful implementation. Because of this, it is
interesting that the concept of implementation has been unexplored by both academics and
those individuals involved in project development.

Project implementation is the process that establishes the standards, techniques, and tools
used to ensure that requirements are well-defined and reflect endorser performance needs.
This stage ensures “the products are thoroughly tested; that development costs are properly
managed; and that the criteria for implementation, training, modification, and documentation
are well defined and appropriate” (Gardiner, 2005:18). Therefore, it is essential to formulate
preliminary project standards before undergoing implementation. More simply, Problems
may arise in any stage of a project, especially if it is inappropriately planned. Ineffective
project implementation contributes to an underutilization of budget, wastage of material and
time, and underperformance of intended tasks and/or goals. In addition, donors may become
frustrated, thus potentially affecting support for future development. Effective project
planning is essential, especially when working in countries in which resources are scarce, i.e.
developing countries. In Ethiopia, for example, commonly encountered problems are related
to financial, managerial and institutional, technical, and political conditions. According to
Gittinger (1996:183):
Of the 32 different projects reviewed from the global level by the World Bank in 1981,
only five (16%) were completed without delay or with delays of 10% or less. Of the
twenty seven projects experiencing serious delays, fourteen (44%) were completed
within 50% more time, 6 were completed in from 50-100% more time, and seven took

2
 more than twice as long to complete as scheduled at appraisal. Regarding costs, he
states the average increase was 29%. Of the 32 projects, only twelve (37.5%) were
completed with cost increase of 10% or less, 5 were within the range of 10-59% cost
over-run, 6 were in the range of 50-100% over-run and 5 cost twice or more than the
appraisal estimate.
This clearly indicated that project not implemented within predetermined time and budget as
planned due to unknown different factor and this study try to see these factors.

Contribution of donors in education sector development is very significant. The government

of the FDRE has given priority to reform of educational system by working collaboratively
with donors. MoE (2010:104) states that:
The total donor financing to education is currently (2009/10) estimated at around
$340m: Education‟s national share of the Protection of Basic Services (PBS) scheme-
$167m. On-budget support to the education sector (e.g. GEQIP)–approx. $100m off-
budget support to the education sector – approx. $73m as off-budget support may not
be in line with government priorities, it is estimated that currently the current donor
contribution to ESDP IV is around $310m. The latter figure clearly shows that the
contribution of donors in education sector development is very significant.

MoE (2015/16-2019/20:128) states, “Educational project financing gap is estimated on the

basis of the assumptions identified, on the shares of education in the budget. Public spending
on education in Ethiopia has increased by 70% in real terms between 2003 and 2012.”

The above ideas clearly indicated that Ethiopian government alone to found education
difficult and have to collaboratively work with different partners like NGOs. The national
education budget is given a greater allocation than other social institutions. In addition to
government support, Wogayehu (2014:50) reported that 67% of non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) maintained development projects in the educational sector. Therefore,
analogy of aforementioned text obviously indicated that budget resources for education are
expected to increase. Thus, financial gap of the education sector is filled by the educational
projects and government alone can‟t fill all necessary educational requirements all over the

3
country. Therefore, implementing functional and successful educational projects is a crucial
task in Ethiopia, generally, and in Addis Ababa, specifically. so, objectives can be achieved
on time and on budget. Education sector review report (PHRD 1996) also indicated that
“until 1995 NGOs contribution in Ethiopia did not exceed 10%.” In 1997, Ethiopian
government launched the first five-year ESDP with the framework of education and training
policy as part of a 20-year plan to achieve educational goals. In the year of the program the
World Bank, African Development Bank, 12 foreign donors‟ governments and organizations,
and Ethiopian-based NGOs participated in covering the financial expenditure of the program.

Training policy of the Ethiopia recognizes the importance role of NGO as ally in education
sector in complementing government effort. In this respect recently in Ethiopia, both
international and Indigenous NGOs were currently working on educational projects in
different aspects. However, the level of partnership between government and NGOs were not
such powerful. “Even though these NGOs are supporting education project in the different
parties of the countries, But no such strong collaboration between these NGOs and
government regarding with policies and procedures with respect to planning, approving and
implementing affects the issue” (MoE 2005:25). According to World Bank report (2001), it
is also illustrated that, “although the impact is still restricted, developing countries in Africa
consistently obtain more external assistance from different donors to address equity, access,
quality and relevance of education for a nation whole. Among the many reasons the capacity
to implement and manage education project in these countries is low or poor and they finally
end up with the received aid not being used as efficiently as they could have been.” Article
43.2 of the Constitution of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (proc. 1, 1987) states
that citizens have the right to participate in the national development and, in particular, to be
consulted with respect to polices and projects affecting their communities. Despite this
declaration, a majority of local NGOs do not consult the communities about the projects
being executed in their area (AABoFED, 2013).

Despite international involvement, reports created during project termination periods reveal
there is a gap what should be done versus what is actually done. Verspoor et al. (1990) state
that “for instance, an evaluation report made from developing countries of Africa on

4
education project there is consistently serious problem of implementation which is caused by
poor implementation.” Similarly, Baum and Tolbert (1985), and Magnen (1991) maintain
related views as “management or institutional problems, such as lack of coordinated work
and working staff, and lack of particularly encountered in educational projects are often root
causes implementation delays and cost overruns.” Besides, Baum and Tolbert (1985) have
argued that “delays in project implementation, cost overruns, reduction in the range of the
project, and postponed implementation are the major difficulties occur at the implementation
stage of projects. So, it could be summarized that implementing projects is not an essay task
and full of ups and downs and it need serious attention from implementing bodies. Moreover,
Mussie Tesfaw (2014:87-88) states on his study findings as follows:
No feasibility study was conducted before the initiation of the educational projects;
the key stakeholders were not involved in the planning stage of the educational
projects, delays in starting projects, accomplishing the project activities according to
the plan, and lack of project monitoring
Again the above findings claimed that there are serious problems on feasibility study,
stakeholders‟ involvements and monitoring and evaluation system. On other hand, need
assessment, feasibility studies are very crucial task for project design and preparation stages.
M&E is very essential tool to check and balance project implementation and progress of
project too.

To sum up, all above literature such as national documents, researches and personal
experiences evidently indicated that the implementation of educational projects had being
experienced many problems, such as during implementation, discussions that have been done
between the project assistances and beneficiary might not come with the same conclusions
and project supporters take too much time to go to the next step, mutually Planning, timely
implementation, periodically monitoring and evaluation processes have not taken place on a
time.
Since education is a core component for over all development of the country; therefore, its
educational project implementation should guarantee effectiveness in a sustainable manner.
This study aims to assess the Implementation of NGOs Assisted Educational Projects in
Addis Ababa City Administration Education Bureau.

5
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Efforts to accurately assess the impact of discrete projects have often been hindered by the
cumulative effect of a number of common weaknesses including: lack of clarity concerning
the precise project objectives and how they may best be assessed; poor or non-existent
baseline data; inadequate monitoring and project completion reports; and the low priority
given to assessment and the related problems of inadequate in-house skills (NORAD, 2013).

NGOs working in the education sector in Africa, such as those in Ethiopia, tend to believe
that governments are inefficient in providing education for all members of society. As
UNESCO (1995: 75) has reported that “failure of governments to adequately supply quality
schooling in most African countries”. Conversely, governments argue that their shortcomings
are not due to inefficiency but rather lack of resources. (USAID, 2002: 12). Numerous
strategies have been suggested for education improvement. The cooperation of parents,
private organizations, NGOs, individuals, and other stakeholders in the community is
required to overcome existing problems. The Ethiopian government has begun focusing on
issues of quality, access, and equity in relation to education throughout the country. In most
educational projects, deviations may result due to constraints in project inputs, unclear or
absent work procedures, socio-cultural and political factors, assumptions not considered or
anticipated during design, as well as many other technical reasons (USAID, 1997:27). This
statement has also been strengthened by (UNESCO, 1995: 35) as follows: "... many projects
have failed in the past because of unrealistic objectives. Thus, over the years of their
existence, NGOs had actively and extensively supported the school program by
implementing education projects”. As the result of this, many NGOs have been the founders
of education institutions, constructed new schools, furbished and upgraded the old schools,
supplied books and teaching materials, and trained school personnel in their involvement in
education. Similarly, Alemayehu (2000:86) has reported that “community participation in the
affairs of project was limited only to labor and material support”. It shows that community
was not actively participating in the project works and their participation only at material and
labor.

6
Regarding time, cost and project progress reports, Gebru Ayehubzu (2002 :84 )has
reported that :
Only seven percent of the projects are completed at and below 12 months. The
average completion time is 29 months. No project is concluded according to its
budget breakdown. Only 32% of the projects are completed as planned financially in
aggregate. Sixteen percent of the approved fund is not utilized by the projects. Sixty-
eight percent of this unutilized fund is not returned to the account donors. The results
of more than 62% of the projects are shelved. Most of the reports are poorly
presented. They are shallow and do not indicate clearly what the project team has
done. Sixty-five percent of the projects are completed, 14% and 21% are discontinued
and ongoing respectively.
The above paragraph clearly indicated that there were gaps on cost management, time
management and lack of project evaluation and monitoring system and this study aimed to
asses these gaps and suggest the recommendation. Likewise, a study conducted in Addis
Ababa (Nibretu 1998:111) has stated that “most common problems by NGOs education
implementation are mainly financial, managerial and institutional, technical, and political
problems.” A financial problem may be due to the increment of general salaries prices,
tariffs, interest rates and losses due to fluctuation in foreign exchange rate. In addition, cost
overruns resulting from price variation cause delay of implementation and may negatively
impact project implementation. Thus, study going to focus pushing factors for these
problems in depth and breadth. However, experience of NGOs in implementing educational
projects within the poor countries revealed that projects tackled shortcomings, difficulties,
and failures due to the above mentioned reasons. These hindrances call for research to
understand the implementation planning stage, to monitor and evaluate the actual
implementation, and to better understand the technical designs of NGO projects. From the
above analysis we can understand that, there are enormous problems in project
implementation. Particularly in developing countries like ours, the nature and degree of
problems varies from sector to sector, from project to project, from region to region and
from area to area. However, for the convenience of our discussion we can broadly divide the
commonly encountered project implementation problems into four categories. These are
financial, managerial & institutional, technical, and political.

7
A limitations of the past studies, Majority of the study s‟ findings were focused on problems
rather than showing pushing factors for these problems. This study shows pushing factors
beyond problems. (MoE 2005), (AABoFED, 2013), (Nibretu 1998:111)& (Alemayehu
.D,2000) couldn‟t not shows the degree of seriousness of major challenges that hinder the
implementation & they didn‟t see it in-depth and breadth, so this studies try to fill these
gaps. Gebru Ayehubzu (2002), Damte(2001:114), scope and delimitation very vague and this
study going to topic in-deepth . Finally, (Nibretu 1998:111), (Alemayehu 2000) & Mussie
Tesfaw (2014), data analysis tools which they were used not sufficient for describing data
and they had been not seen their analysis and interpretation in different perspectives. This
study tries to fill this gap.

This research aims to determine whether prearranged investments and other planned
activities revolving around educational programs are actually realized as well as to determine
whether their objectives are achieved within their original predetermined time frames and
budgets. The presented study attempts to identify the problems and constraints affecting the
implementation of educational projects assisted by NGs in City Government of Addis Ababa
Education Bureau and offers solutions for future goals and projects.

To do so, this research seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What are the major project implementation processes followed by NGOs under city
government of Addis Ababa Education Bureau?
2. To what extent have the identified projects attained the expected objectives?
3. To what extent are education projects monitored and evaluated to rectify the
problems?
4. What are the major challenges that affect the implementation of educational projects
in the city government of Addis Ababa Education Bureau?

8
1.3 Study Objectives
1.3.1 General objective
The general objective is to assess Implementation of NGOs Assisted Educational Projects in
Addis Ababa City Administration Education Bureau.
1.3.2 Specific objectives
1. Assess the contribution of NGOs for improving education system in AAEB.
2. Assess the implementation process of educational projects by NGOs under AAEB
3. Assess the gaps of the intended and actual implementation of educational projects.
4. Identify the major challenges that affects the operations of educational projects
5. Identify monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ratify implementation problems

1.4 Significance of the Study

Many organizations use projects as means to accomplish their tasks. Project implementation
is the application of knowledge to obtain desired results. This study is useful to provide
insight for experts, department heads and higher officials in City Government of Addis
Ababa Education Bureau regarding project initiation, planning, implementation and
controlling, and close out of educational projects. Furthermore, the presented findings and
suggested solutions may be valuable for those involved in implementing education projects
in the city government of Addis Ababa education Bureau. More specifically, the study has
the following importance:
 The results of this study may help the NGOs‟ & City Government of Addis Ababa
Education Bureau‟s decision makers and experts to make revisit and refine their
strategies and policy guides for effective education projects implementation.
 It may help to examine the effort made by NGOs in undertaking the educational
project implementation and to assess the strengths and weaknesses of institution in
the effort they exerted in improving the quality of primary education.
 The result of the study may be used as a footprint for these desires to engage in
future study on related subject.
1.5 Delimitation of the Study
This study is delimited in the City Government of Addis Ababa Education Bureau which has
17 departments and subunits directly involved in implementing educational projects. This is
because under each department there is educational project. These educational projects are
9
funded and managed by NGOs. Educational projects that are financed by the Ethiopian
government are not observed in this study. The observed projects include indigenous and
international educational projects which have been functional from 2014 to present. In this
regard, the results of the study can only be generalized for educational projects currently
operated and implemented under the City Government of Addis Ababa Education Bureau.

1.6 Limitation of the Study

Addis Ababa city government host about 700 NGOs, of which 224 are local and 476
international that signed formal project operational agreement with the respective bureaus of
the city government (AABoFED, 2014). Due to resource constraints, the research addresses
only 40 indigenous and international nongovernmental organizations that are currently
collaborating with the city government of Addis Ababa Education Bureau with intentions
focused on education. As a result, the research finding may not be generalized for all
nongovernmental organizations executing development projects in Addis Ababa. Other
limitation of the study was it not corporate community and beneficiaries of the projects.

1.7 Definition of Key Terms

NGO: Non-government organization that is an independent, voluntary, nonprofit, and
value-based society/association/foundation working toward the betterment of a
target society.
Project: A unique process consisting of a set of coordinated and controlled activities
aimed to assist school community to achieve an educational objective with
specific requirements associated with time, costs, and resources under Addis
Ababa City Administration.
International NGOs: Non-governmental organizations that are registered under foreign
law. They may work in one or more country and may have international
headquarters in Ethiopia or elsewhere.
Indigenous NGOs: Non-governmental organization that has originated in Ethiopia or
Addis Ababa. It is registered under Ethiopian law and serves Ethiopian and/or
Addis Ababa‟s community.

10
 Implementation: The project stage that covers the actual development or construction
of a project until the point at which it becomes fully operational (Baum and
Tolbert, 1985).
1.8 Organization of the Study
The study is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the current problems and
questions. Chapter 2 presents a review of relevant literature on the topic at hand. Chapter 3
discusses research design and methodology. Chapter 4 presents the study results and analysis.
Chapter 5 summarizes the major findings of this study and offers solutions for future
projects.

11
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITRATURE

Introduction

This chapter presents the related literatures on the study so as to have an insight in to the
research topic that Status of Implementation and problems of Educational projects designed
by Indigenous and International NGOs under the City Government of Addis Ababa
Education Bureau and briefly expose the readers to some of the major areas of the subject
matter under consideration. The following topics will be examined under this chapter: the
origin, meaning and significances of the educational project, the concept of the project cycle,
educational project implementation, monitoring and evaluation, problems in educational
project implementation, action to be taken to mitigate the project implementation problems
and the concept of NGOs and its role in the development.

2.1 The Origin, Meaning and Significances of Educational Project

The notion that investment or any economic or social activities can and should be planned
and executed in the form of specific object is itself a relatively new phenomenon. Regarding
to this, the World bank described as “though the uses of the term project in a general sense of
a plan, design or scheme for doing something can be traced back for several countries”
(Baum &Tolbert 1985:6).

World Bank claims to have played a decisive role in developing and applying the project
concept. Hence, (Baum and Tolbert 1985:6) have stated that “the articles of agreement
adopted at the Bretton woods conference in 1944, on which the work of the Bank rests,
stipulate that loans made or guaranteed by the Bank shall, except in special circumstance,
before the purpose of specific projects of reconstruction or development.” So, the concept
was only related with the development.

But an early review by the Bank‟s legal staff regarding to the use of the term “Project” in
various places in the articles, concluded that it was ambiguous. In order to ensure this, the
executive directors debated whether the first three loans made for general reconstruction
purposes to frame, the Netherlands and Denmark in the late 1940sconstituted specific

12
projects or had to be justified under the term special circumstances. In the last analysis, it was
concluded the loans disbursed for the three countries mentioned above were not for specific
projects. In any cases however, the executive directors and management, during occasional
discussions of the clause on specific projects over the years have been concerned more in
identifying the conditions that would contribute special circumstance than with defining a
specific project. This is because the exceptions in some causes received more attention than
the rule. Nevertheless, it was the intention of the Bank from the beginning to interpret the
concept of project broadly to mean the use of the scarce resources for a specific productive
purpose and still continues to be the prevailing view.

The origin of the project concept is only in the post war period, beginning in the 1950s, the
development practitioners and academicians have focused on project as the units into which
investment in all sectors could be packaged. Successful project work does not necessarily
require a universally accepted definition of a project since one exists in the real world. This
dilates that the great variety of activities is grouped under the term project.

According to the World Bank, a project can be defined as “a discrete package of investment,
policies and institutional and other actions designed to achieve a specific development
objectives or set of objectives with in a designed period” (Baum and Tolbert 1985: 1465).
There are also other definitions provided by the different authorities and organizations.
According to Magnen (1991:14), “a project is a set of investment and of other planned
activities, which are aimed at achieving specific objectives with in a predetermined time
frame and budget.” Hence, this definition consists of four important component investment,
planned activities, specific objectives, time frame & budget. As (Carmichael, 2004:34- 35;
Gardiner, 2005:119) has stated:

Projects can be either technical or non-technical. A technical project is associated

with an engineering endeavor, which requires mechanical skill and specialist
technical knowledge, and non- technical projects involve a group of people doing
non-technical activities such as „moving to a new office‟, or „going to shopping.
Therefore, projects are authorized for different reasons and it needs different professional and
non-professional skills. Likewise, Project Management Institute (PMI, 2000), cited in
Gardiner (2005:9) has described that major reasons that projects are usually authorized: “A

13
market demand, a customer request, a crisis and a social need (for example, a non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) in a developing country authorizes a project to provide
potable water systems, latrines and sanitation education to low income communities suffering
from high rates of cholera.” Therefore, since educational project striving to solve social
problems, it should be authorized.
Another definition given by the development project studies Authority ((DPSA) 1990:6)
“generally understood in the area of development plan formulation and implementation is
that a project is a proposed undertaking involving complex of economic activities in which
scarce resources are committed in expectation of benefits that exceed the resources.” It is to
be understood that resources and benefits are to be interpreted broadly in various aspects.
According to DPSA, the concept “Proposed” is intended to emphasize the point that the
focus in this definition is on pre investment activities such as the conduct of the studies and
appraisals.

In any case, due to the difficulty to give a universally accepted definition of a project as has
been indicated above, it is easier to describe then to define a project to make this issue more
clear DPSA (1990:7) has put it as the “understanding gained in the process is much deeper, it
may highly biased that a good deal of confusion can be avoided by describing a project
accurately instead of trying to define it elegantly.”

According to Turner, (1999:3) has stated “project is an endeavor in which human, financial
and material resources are organized in a novel way to undertake a unique scope of work, of
given specification, within constraints of cost and time, so as to achieve beneficial change
defined by quantitative and qualitative objectives.”

Projects are always focused on delivering specified products to meet a specified Business
Case. The benefits are stated in the project's Business Case. Benefits can take many different
forms; financial, in the form of additional profit or avoided costs Strategic, by providing a
plat form to move towards one of the organizations strategic aims, Legislative, by fulfilling
some absolute requirement laid down by head office or a government body. During any
project there are often opportunities to discover new benefits, which may enhance the
project's product or indeed impact on another project. However, any deviations from the

14
original Business Case must be controlled through the Project Board (PRlNCE2, 2004:24).
Projects make an essential contribution to the development of an organization. A project
should be more than just a good idea. It should always support the strategic goals of the
organization and satisfy the interests of the community. Otherwise, it consumes resources
and it fails to add value (Gardiner, 2005:10). still, Mac Lachlan (1996:2), cited in Gardiner
(2005:1), defined a project as “A project is a task with a beginning, middle and an end, which
you as a manager need to complete.” It is essential to have a clear picture of a project before
dealing specifically with project implantation. Different writers have explained the meaning
of „project‟ at different times, besides, some projects will have maximize products and others
will increase services so as people will solve problems by designing short, middle and longer
programs and projects.

A project is designed to achieve the required results of the task and it is organized to produce
new products for the benefits of an organization. The Project Management Institute (PMI), in
Meredith and Mantel (2000:8), has defined a project as “A temporary endeavor undertaken to
create a unique product or service.‟‟ It means that no two projects are alike; every project has
some elements that make it different. A variety of projects can be found in different
organizations. Hamilton (1997:69) defines a project as: “Any series of activities and tasks
that together achieve pre-determined deliverables in accordance with a quality definition
have defined start and end dates, intermediate milestones, funding limit, and utilize resources
such as equipment, materials, people, etc.”
As it is seen from the above definitions a project is a complex effort to achieve a specific
objective within a schedule and budget secured. It is also unique, and is usually not repetitive
in its nature and has to be finalized within a specific period of time. Covey (1999), cited by
Phillips et al. (2002:4), defines a project by saying; “a complex series non-routine tasks
directed to meet a specific goal.” This shows projects are different from routine activities.
The British Standards Institution (BS 6079-1, 2000:2), cited in Gardiner (2005:1), defines a
project as follows: “A project is a unique set of coordinated activities, with a definite starting
and finishing point, undertaken by an individual or organization to meet specific objectives
within defined schedule, cost and performance parameters.” Thus, the tasks of the project
have to be coordinated from the beginning to the end to get the required results and achieve

15
goals that are specified. The achievements of goals and objectives require a budget based on
the specification of the project. Most of the authors‟ definitions are interrelated and show that
projects are unique activities to be done to achieve organizational goals and objectives.
Projects are useful to achieve organizational goals and objectives as effectively as possible
within the required Budget, time and specification. Projects are designed in order to fix the
responsibility and authority for the achievement of an organizational goal on an individual or
small group when the job does not clearly fall to a routine task (Mantel, et al, 2001: 2).

To sum up, a project should be always to be targeted to support the strategic goals of an
organization. What and where ever the sources of the project or the reasons for designing
projects, competition and a global market have created a demand for better, faster and more
cost effective projects to file the gaps of the country generally and to achieve the
organizational goals particularly.
2.2 The Concept of the Project Cycle

Project work is thought to be taken place in several distinct stages. These stages are
community referred to as the “project cycle”. Each stage of the project is closely linked to
one another and it follows a logical progression. That is to say, every project passes through
sequences of the stages. The concept of the project cycle was first developed by Baum in
1970. The first project cycle of Baum includes stage like identification, project preparation,
project appraisal, and supervision (implementation). Eight years later Baum added evaluation
to the sequences (Cracknell, 2001:95). Thus, the 1978 Baum‟s simple version of the project
cycle looked like figure1:

16
Figure 1: The 1978 Baum’s Simple Version of Project Cycle

2. Preparation

The
Project
Cycle

Sources: Cracknell, 2001:95

Baum and Tolbert (1985:334-335) describes the above mentioned stages as follows:

I. Identification: the first phase of the cycle is concerned with identifying project
ideas that appear to represent a high priority use of the country‟s resources to
achieve important development objectives. Such project ideas should meet an
initial of feasibility.
II. Preparation: this is appoint at which a firm decision can be made whether or not
to proceed with project idea.it require progressive refinement of the design of the
project in all its decisions like the technical, economic, financial, social
,institutional and so on. The distinction identification and preparation is often
blurred in practice and their relative importance can vary greatly depending on the
character and history of each project.

17
 III. Appraisal: external agencies or government (the extent of formal appraisal varies
widely in accordance with government practices) require a formal process of
appraisal to assess the overall soundness of the project and its readiness for
implementation before funds are committed or approving loan.
IV. Negotiation: it is known that the appraisal stage usually closes with negotiation
between representative of the MoE and of the financial decision- makers. The
negotiations results an agreement as to the project‟s objectives, design, content
and mode of financing. The MoE representative obviously have a better chance of
having their point of view accepted if the project documentation is well prepared
and if they are perfectly familiar with the different approach (Magnen 1991: 30)
V. Implementation: the implementation stage covers the actual development or
construction of the project, up to the point at which it becomes fully operational.
It includes monitoring of all aspect of the work or activities as it proceeds and
supervision by “over sight” agencies within the country or by external leaders
which are the concern of this thesis.
VI. Evaluation: the ex post evaluation of a completed project seeks to determine
whether the objectives have been achieved and to draw lessons from experiences
within the project that can be applied to similar projects in the future. This subpar
of the project includes ongoing, impact and other types of evaluation.

Since 1978, there have been many other versions of the project cycle. Craknell (2001:96)
has suggested that “Mac Arthur‟s version captures most comprehensively all of the many
stages and inter-linkage between the initial project identification and the eventual ex post
evaluation.” This version of the project cycle (sequence) is slightly unusual compared with
other versions in that it runs anti-clockwise and it is divided in to three phases: pre-
investment, investment and operations. However, donors who have developed the project
cycle started to challenge its rigidity. In the line with this, Cracknell (2001:96) indicates that
“donors adopt different attitude to the rather rigid concept of the project cycle. The new
approach recognizes that in real life people centered projects are unlikely to be successfully
implemented without involvement of the people and how that there is widespread acceptance
of the participatory methods.”

18
The project cycle composes four stages namely listening, piloting, mainstreaming and
demonstrating. Cracknell (2001:98) describes each stage as follows:

Listening: one listen to all the stakeholders to find what best meets their needs.

Piloting: when various alternatives are explored on small scale to learn lessons and to reduce
the risks that are associated with moving into unknown.

Demonstration: when one further develops projects and tests out the various components of
the proposed package looking for a consensus in the light of the previous discussion and pilot
projects

Mainstreaming: devoted to adaption, on a large package of project proposals that best fits
the needs of the beneficiaries, often using NGOs or private sector institutions as agent for
implementation.

Figure2: A New Concept of the Project Cycle

Sources: Picciotto and Weaning (in Cracknell 2001)

All in all, each stage of the project is the logical successor of the preceding one, while the last
stage prepares the first of the next cycle. In practice the distinctions between the various
stages are not always sharply drawn. On the other hand, projects financed by international
sources generally follow the cycle quite closely. The board outline of the cycle is also
followed by most education projects. The experience up to now shows that considering a

19
project as a cycle contributes to the development of detailed and exhaustively studied project
and implementation.

Starting from proposal up to implementation, projects pass as through different stages. Buam
and Tolbert (1985) and Magnen (1991) states “a project goes through a series of identifiable
stage, which is called project cycle involving identification, preparation, appraisal and
implementation stages.” Generally, a single project has to pass though all these five stages to
be completed and each stage has its own activities and process to be accomplished. As this
study is concerned with the fourth stage of the project cycle, project implementation is
treated in detail under.

2.3 Educational Project Implementation

Project implementation involves realizing the planned activities into operational activities.
Hamilton (1997:80) has explained project implementation “Executing refers to the
coordination of resources to achieve the “requirement.”” Project implementation depends on
the plan which lists the different requirements for the project. This phase is the practical
phase of the project. According to Gardiner (2005:29), “this is the phase in a project where
the expenditure is at its greatest and the sponsor expects to see project outcomes arriving on
time and meet or exceed expectations.” The implementation stage is the execution of the
project plan accordingly.
The implementation of the project has to be monitored by collecting sufficient data to make
sure that the project team implements the plan correctly. The implementation of the project is
based on the plan and the design of the project. Turner (1999:294) has described the
implementation stage of project management as follows:
During this stage, most of the work to deliver the objectives (build the facility) is
undertaken, and thus most of the expenditure made. The stage is started by
completion of detailed design…. Work is authorized by the project manager, and
allocated to teams or the individuals. As work is done, progress measured to ensure
the desired results are achieved; that is the required facility is delivered within the
constraints of quality, cost and time, and that this will achieve the required benefits.‟

20
The implementation stage of project is doing the work and coordinating of the resources to
be used for the achievement of the project objectives. The success in managing the
implementation of the project depends on efficient use of resources.
According to Baum and Tolbert (1985: 582) states “implementation is the process of putting
what has been planned into action.” At the same time, project should be designed with a view
to how they will be implemented. In view of this, “educational project implementation or
management includes the implementation of all investments and other actions provided for
by the project curriculum developed, construction of the buildings, introduction of different
services and innovations, expanding and renovating existing facilities, purchase of
equipment, training of staff, technical assistance, research or reform of the administration
institutions, and other miscellaneous services” (Magnen, 1991:30).
Hence, there must be a close match between a project objectives and the capacity of local
institution to implement, operate, and maintain it. To accomplish the task, it is the almost
requirement that good project performance is usually visible. The influence of the quality of
implement on project performance is usually visible. Baum and Tolbert (1985: 369) have
stated that “many projects in in serious difficulties during implementation have been turned
around by the appointment of a competent manager.” If this is done, care should be taken that
it does not delay the development of local managerial capacity but rather factors it through
counterpart on the job training arrangements. “The best long term solution however, lies in
the education and training of more managers” (Solomon, 2004:51). On the other hand, the
technical design of a project has implications for how the project is implemented. The
approach of implementing and educational project differ s with technology it uses. For
instance, Baum and Tolbert (1985: 359) have stated that “the implementation of a project that
uses an advanced and capital intensive technology may be relatively simple to organize since
it requires a small number of highly skilled staff and can be structured a long a well-
established pattern applicable in many countries.” On the other hand, project using
intermediate or labor- intensive technologies may require a more elaborate organization and
management since them usually different tasks over a wide geographical area.

Another way of looking at how a project design influences the way it is implemented should
be managed is to distinguish between project that can be and cannot be “blue-printed”.
However, Baum and Tolbert further argued, the project for which is most difficult to have

21
blue print are these that are people oriented and require a large number of participants to
change their behavior. For this, the state of the art and the knowledge generally available
during preparation and appraisal don not allow a precise definition of the tasks required
implementation and their sequences such projects include provision of primary or non-formal
education projects in urban areas. Project implementation is one among the identified stages
of project cycle. A project must be implemented as it is planned. Awelu (2007) has make
clear “planning is a means to an end and implementation is a way how well the purpose of
the plan is being achieved.”

On the other hand, Keeling, (2000) has expressed “project implementation as an execution
and a period of concentrate activities where plans put in to actions in which each activity is
monitored and controlled and coordinated to achieve project objective so that work efficiency
will be directly related to the quality plans.” Having similar ideas, Buam and Tolbert (1985)
have believed that “implementation of a project is said to be gain when resources are
committed.” At the implementation stage of a project, among the necessary conditions
required for success is that availability of the necessary resources needed to transform the
plan in to action. In addition, according to Shifaraw (2003) states “administration process in
the implementation is a cumbersome task that will affect the implementation.” Therefore,
administration should necessarily maintain constant check to ensure the proceeding plan in
the light of truck.

2.3.1 Planning Implementation of a Project

Once a project is planned, it has to be implemented. Unless a plan is implemented, it remains

more blue print which is only statement of intent that is the basis for action but don‟t itself
produce action. The best education project that can be achieved will be relatively
meaningless, useless it is implemented. In relation to this, Mcknnon (1973:12) has clearly
stated that “… whatever other features are taken into account in assessing its worth is
indispensable that the project plan feasible that it can be carried out”.

Implementation is therefore, occur and it is a way how well the purpose of the plan is being
achieved. The fact is that project or program implementation is a process of transforming
plan in to action, it is not random activity but it has its own strategies and methods which
involve various tasks and activities. “At the implementation stage of a project, one of the

22
necessary conditions required for success is that availability of the necessary resources
needed to transform the plan into action. In other words, during implementation, resources
should be provided in desired quality and quantity” (Shiferaw, 2003:26). The resources are
human, materials and programming of them in an indispensable task.

Effective plan implementation requires administers talents, skills and abilities in coordination
efforts towards the object envisaged. The administration of process in the implementation
stage is a cumbersome task in that will affect the implementation. Therefore, administers
should maintain constant check to ensure the proceeding plans in the right path. This idea
shows that “a comprehensive plan that is prepared with greater perfection does not
necessarily guarantee for implementation and in deeds administers effort during management
of the implementation process” (Mcknnon, 1973:15). “Setting action plan is the stage where
one has to organize a detailed time table showing when each activity will be carried out
including the assigning of responsibilities” (World Bank, 2000). Along this line, according to
Shiferaw (2003), “implementing strategies for realizing plan are: public information,
formation of management body to control and monitor the progress of the plan, and plan
elaboration by preparing specification plan.” At the implementation stage of the project, one
of the necessary condition of the required for success is that availability of the necessary
resources needed to transform the plan into action.

Effective plan implementation requires administrative talents, skills and abilities in

coordination effort towards the object envisaged. The administration of the process in the
implementation stage is a cumbersome task in that will affect the implementation. Therefore,
administrative should necessarily maintain constant check and to ensure the proceeding plan
in the right path.

Similarly, Forojalla (1973-80) has stated that administrative function in the following way:
public information, participation of other organizing, organizing the process of
implementation itself, and plan elaboration by reducing the plan into component units for
action by carrying our activities such as programming, project identification and detailed
time sequencing of project activities. “The first step to realize (implement) the planned
development activities or programs is preparation of implementation plan. Implementation
plan is a plan, which will be used as a device for effective and efficient implementation”

23
(World Bank, 2000). Implementation plan comprises information regarding the resources
needed to complete each activity, the required sequence of activities and duration of the
project in general and of each activity in particular. It also indicates the expected start and
finish time of each activity. This shows that whether the task to be carried out is narrow or
wide easy or complex, one has to give due consideration whenever dealing with the
preparation of implementation plan. Single portion of a project does not be left to chance.

2.3.2 Controlling and Coordinating in Project Implementation

It is important to control the progress of the project during the implementation phase. Project
control is the process of ensuring that the project delivers everything it is supposed to deliver
in the planning stage of the project. Controlling a project is a comparison of baseline plans
and contracts with actual implementation, and deciding what to do when the two do not
match. In this case re-planning is the best remedy to resolve the problem of implementation.
“To know when corrective action is required, inspection, interim progress reviews, testing
and auditing are the common ways to keep abreast of project progress” (Meredith and
Mantel, 2000:462). Controlling is applied to keep the work on time by putting additional
effort into critical jobs which are at risk of running late. To maintain effective control of
projects certain criteria and steps have to be followed. Spinner (1997:64) states the following
four stages of controlling a project once it gets underway:
Periodically reviewing the performance of each project activity on the schedule,
Measuring and evaluating its performance against the planned project objectives,
Taking the necessary action on critical activities that are affecting project
performance; and Communicating overall progress to management and project team
through meetings, memos, and written reports and Controlling the implementation of
the activities is to assess the achievement and correct the problem.
Gardiner, (2005:284) states “the information generated during initiation, scheduling,
budgeting and procurement planning become inputs for the control phase”. It is essential to
check and recheck the implementation of the project. The most important tool in this process
is the plan that was developed to define the three parameters of the project- specifications,
schedule and budget. These are the standards against which performance is measured.
Controlling involves three steps: establishing standards, monitoring performance and taking

24
corrective action. If the project deviates from the original specifications, the project outcome
may fail to meet performance standards. The heart of the control process is monitoring the
work in progress. It is the way of knowing what is going on- how it compares with plan.
With effective monitoring, it is possible

In view of this, especially, an education project managed by many organizations; by the staff
itself, by the external aid sources or NGOs financed it, by the another public body, or by the
combined efforts of these parties. In this regard ensuring effective coordination in
implementation when several agencies or organization are responsible for different
components of a project is inherently difficult. “In order to provide valid answers to these
pitfalls, from the very outset the project objectives should give enough attention and efforts
to ensure that all the concerned parties who will be engaged in the implementation and
practical operations so as to share a common view of the objective of the strategy for meeting
them” Baum and Tolbert (1985: 340).

In order to facilitate coordination among the various tasks and their executers, first and
foremost, mutual commitment and support is needed between the relevant political
authorities and the ultimate beneficiaries, whose active participation is often important for
the success of a project. Similarly, “the same applies to the external agency or NGOs that
may be expected to help finance the project” (Solomon 2004: 51).nevertheless, the lack of
such coordination or failure to reach a mutual understanding of a project‟s objectives and to
secure a firm commitment from the parties concerned will have adverse effect on the
implementation of the programs for the enhancement of the nation‟s educational
development.

Accordingly, to ensure commitment, an internal consensus should build as early as possible

and some coordination mechanism must be found to maintain it during implementation.
“Among these that should considered as the basic requirements are clear definitions of the
responsibilities of the participating agencies and adequate orientation for them to cooperate
achieving the project‟s objectives” ( Magnen, 1991:112-114). Moreover, probably the most
important reasons for the success of project is appropriate design and adequate preparation
that particularly adapted to local political, administrative, economic cultural conditions, and
other related factors emerge as essential ingredients of successful implementation.

25
Finally, project implementation or coordination is not and end itself. At end of this stage, the
new entities should be able to function on their own, without additional investment or
assistance. For that reason, the process has to be checked regularly and the outcomes have to
be weighted in terms of the intended objectives.

2.4 Monitoring and Evaluation

“The basic aim of monitoring and evaluation is to assess whether the objectives of the
original project have been attained, and if not why. Hence, as a result of undertaking proper
monitoring and evaluation, major achievements and problems are identified,
recommendations for remedial actions made and lessons of experience draw” (DPSA
1990:35). “The experience of development projects is fraught with problems; their
implementation has frequently run into serious difficulties and their results are far from
always having met the hopes placed in it” (Magnen, 1991). Studying past experience,
specialists have become aware that the lack of reliable information on the implementation
conditions and results of programmes and projects was often at the heart of repeated
problems and failures. Specialists noted that in the absence of appropriate information:
Managers can neither detect improper functioning, nor of course take early decisions and
decision-makers can neither analyze the causes of problems, nor choose more appropriate
objectives and implementation strategies on the basis of good understanding. The need to
develop and apply practical M&E system is increasingly recognized as an indispensable tool
for programme/project management, both to support the implementation and to get feedback
for the design of new initiatives (EMI, 2014).

Monitoring and evaluation of development interventions provides government officials,

funders, and civil society with better means for learning from past experience, improving
service delivery, planning and allocating resources, and demonstrating results as part of
accountability to key stakeholders. Monitoring and evaluation is a critical and donor often
required means of determining whether or not development assistance programs are
achieving their planned targets (USAID, 2012). Though different scholars made effort to
define monitoring and evaluation, yet there is often confusion about what it entails. The next
sub section defines the terms monitoring and valuation separately, Explain why we engage in
monitoring and evaluation and clarify what both entails

26
2.4.1 Project Monitoring
Project monitoring is about collecting sufficient data to make sure that the project team
implements the plan correctly. “Project control is the process of ensuring that the project
delivers everything it is supposed to physical products and assets, quality products,
documentation and deliverables such that there is complete assurance on delivery integrity”
(APM, 2000: 35; ISO 10007, 1995) Cited in Gardiner (2005:285). “Monitoring is closely
related to change management and configuration management”(IPMA, 1999: 46). The
elements that make up project monitoring are focused on the: Selection of control measures,
observation of activities, collection of control data and comparison of control data with
planning information, such as that contained in schedule, budget and risk management plans.
Monitoring is a key in helping remedy situations before the damage becomes severe. The
project design must address the essential information needs of those who manage and
implement the project. In most cases, educational projects particularly those with innovative
or experimental features should include some procedures for ongoing monitoring or
evaluation mechanism, which otherwise the loss will be greater than the benefits to be
accrued. As defined by USAID (2012), Monitoring is an ongoing process that indicates
whether desired results are occurring or not. It aims to measure progress toward planned
results, usually through preselected indicators. Magnen(1991:118) defined Monitoring as a
system of continuous information for the use of a project manager. In view of monitoring,
implementation is seen as a continuous learning process where experience gathered is
analyzed and fed back into planning and updated implementation approaches.
Monitoring is not a difficult fast and it does not cost to men. Thus, the World Bank states as
“monitoring can be a relatively straight forward and inexpensive system that provides an
early warning to project management about potential or actual problem” (Baum and Tolbert
1985:382). However, if a monitoring system can be so elaborate and time consuming, then it
can be a counterproductive. Monitoring should be based on a set of simple indicators that can
be collected & processed in time for management to necessary action. For instance, some
indicators are construction costs and enrolments on education projects.

2.4.2 Project Evaluation

Evaluation is aimed at making a judgment on the value of an output or of an activity or
project. “It simply means to assess the value of something” (Feverstein 1988:2) and

27
“evaluation is the determination of a thing‟s value” (worthen Balaine 1987:22). In education,
evaluation is the formal determination of the quality, effectiveness or value of a program,
product, project, process, objective or curriculum. If we assume that decisions have always
been a part of education, it can be said that evaluation has always had a role to play in the
system. Evaluation can be seen informal or formal. According to worthen Blaine (1987:12)
“informal evaluation or the way in which people form impressions or perceptions about
which educational alternatives are best, is as much a part of education as teaching itself.”

On the other hand, formal evaluation or the use of accurate information and criteria to assign
values and justify value judgments has a much longer and more distinguished history them is
generally recognized. There are two basic distinctions in educational evaluation studies
formative & summative. worthen Blaine (1987:34) has stated that:

Formative evaluation is conducted during the operation of the program to provide

program directors evaluative information useful in improving the program. On the
other hand, summative evaluation is conducted at the end of the a program to provide
potential consumers, with judgments about that program‟s worth or men it for
instance, after the curriculum packages completely developed, a summative
evaluation might be conducted to determine how effective the package is with a
national sample of typical schools, teachers and students at the level at which it was
developed.

Besides, evaluation has to be planned to get the required result of the evaluation process. We
will describe evaluation as the processes of negotiating an evaluation plan; collecting and
analyzing evidence to produce findings; and disseminating the findings to identified
audiences for use in describing or understanding an evaluated; or making judgment and/or
decisions related to that evaluated /the object of an evaluation. So, evaluation has to be
planned before collecting data and producing findings about the object to be evaluated. Based
on the evaluation results corrective action should be taken for better achievement of project
objectives.
Evaluation can broadly be seen in two ways: - In periods of evaluation and persons
conducting the evaluation. In terms of the periods of evaluation four types of evaluation are

28
commonly distinguished: Ex-ante evaluation, mid- term evaluation, terminal evaluation and
ex-post evaluation, details of each presented below:
1. Ex-ante evaluation (Start-up evaluation): A form of evaluation conducted prior to
startup of implementation of a project/program. It is carried out in order to determine the
needs and potentials of the target group and its environment, and to assess the feasibility,
potential effects and impacts of the proposed programme/project. At a later stage the effects
and impacts of the programme/ project can be compared with this base line data (EMI, 2014).
2. Mid-term evaluation: This type of evaluation takes place while the implementation of the
planned project is on-progress. Such evaluations are conducted relatively early in the midway
of the project life and are usually external assessments. What distinguishes it from terminal
and ex-post evaluations is that correction to the current project still can be made on the basis
of findings and recommendations (EMI, 2014).
3. Terminal/Summative evaluation: It is conducted when the funding for the intervention
or the whole project activity comes to an end. But this may not mean that the services and
inputs being supplied by the programme/project terminate. In the terminal evaluation, in
addition to the existing records, documents and outputs, an inquiry should be made for
secondary data that are relevant for comparison. Recommendations from terminal evaluation
are primarily directed to improve the planning and design of future projects.
4. Ex-post /Impact evaluation: It is designed as in-depth studies of the sustainable impact of
a programme/project that has been already executed. It is carried some time (in most cases 3-
5 years) after the programme/project activity has been terminated in order to determine its
impact on the target group and the local area. However, it is rarely done due to lack of
willingness to fund from the financers of the program/project.
On the other hand based on persons evaluating, scholars classified evaluation into two:
internal and external.
1. Internal evaluation:
It is performed by persons who have a direct role in the programme/project. On-going or
formative evaluation can be done by the management team or persons assigned from the
implementing agency. Majority of local nongovernmental organizations engaged in this type
of evaluation because it cuts expenses.
2. External evaluation:

29
The type of evaluation carried out by persons from outside the programme/project. Terminal
and ex-post evaluations often conducted by external evaluators. In most cases in local NGOs
evaluation is conducted by the funding agencies. Donors often prefer external evaluators
because it is believed that they can bring a range of expertise and experience that might not
be available within the organization, and they may have more independence and credibility
than an internal evaluator.
In general monitoring and evaluation is a management tool that helps to judge if work was
going on in the right direction, whether progress and success could be claimed, and how
future efforts might be improved. It assists organizations to extract, from past and ongoing
activities, relevant information that can subsequently be used as the basis for programmatic
fine-tuning, re-orientation and planning (UNDAF, 2011, 58).

2.4. 3 Disparities & Complementary Features of Monitoring & Evaluation

Although monitoring and evaluation are essential component of development intervention
usually described as one and the same functions, the two have major differences. Monitoring
as depicted in Table 1, is a basic part of project management objectively focus on
determining efficiency so as to facilitate an early adjustment, is a continues feedback system,
involve tracking of inputs, process, output and work plan, whose result primarily used by
project implementers. Evaluation on the other hand objectively focuses on assessing impact,
carried out periodically, and its result usually is used by donors and other stakeholders in
future program/project design.
Table 1: Major Disparities between Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring Evaluation
Objectives To determine the efficiency. To determine whether objectives set were
realistic or
To facilitate an early adjustment not and assess impacts of project activities
Frequency Continuous Periodical
Focus Inputs, process, output & work Relevance or impact and cost-effectiveness
plan
Analysis Simple In-depth & Comparative
Primary users Mainly project implementers External such as donors, Government
Type of data Primarily quantitative Primarily qualitative
Actors Internal Internal/external
Analysis Simple In-depth & Comparative
Source: - USAID/Ethiopia, Performance Monitoring Workshop Handout, March 1997

30
2.5 Problems in Educational Project Implementation

It is obvious that any project will be not successfully implemented as planned. Some project
might fail because of any internal and external factors. In relation to this issue, many argue
that mot problems have managerial nature. Fisher and Others (1996) has stated that “most
problems that clearly presented and perceived everywhere at the project implementation
stage are those resulting from inefficient project management.” likewise, Buam and Tolbert
(1985), and Magnen (1991) have forwarded similar view as “management or institutional
problems, such as lack of coordinated work and working staff, and lack of supervision and
follow up , particularly encountered in educational projects are often root causes
implementation delays and cost overruns.” Generally, Buam and Tolbert (1985) have argued
that “delays in project implementation, cost overruns, reduction in the range of the project,
and postponed implementation are the major difficulties occur at the implementation stage of
projects.”

There are problems that constrained the implementation of projects in the development
process and every project is not completed smoothly. Therefore, projects may fail to be
completed within the envisaged time frame due to various reasons. As sukhamoy chakrauarty
(1987:41) has stated that an implementation failure may be said to arise of one or more of the
following condition hold:
Firstly, it is because of the fact that planning authorities are plainly inefficient in
gathering the relevant information within the needed range of precision. Secondly, in
the most cases planning authorities respond with considerable time laps when the
underlying situation changes. Thirdly, the agencies through which the planning
authorities are supposed to implement plan have little or no capacity or in some cases
there is no motivation to carry out them.
In any case, it is necessary to distinguish between problems that are symptoms and those that
are underlying causes. The lack of funds could be the result of a shortage of resources in the
part of the government, an administrative mix up or inefficient procedure that delayed the
allocation of the funds or a lack of political commitment. The lack of political commitment
in part of the government could cause by bureaucratic infighting or by the class among
pressure groups and this clash could stem from cultural factors or other factors.

31
The following implementation problems are derived from reports of World Bank project
officers and of project and of project staff in developing countries (Baum and Tolbert
1985:371):
The identification of the factors leading to unsatisfactory performance is based on
operational experience of the World Bank. However, it suffers from mixing proximate
and deeper causes. Two third of the Bank-assisted projects have been changed while
they were in the implementation stage for various reasons but the most common these
are delays created from the donor side or inefficient procedures followed by the
implementers, cost overrun that force a reduction the scale of the project design
change in priorities that materialized during implementation or external factors such
as sudden decline in the world price of the project‟s out puts.

Project implementation problems are varied and complex or their nature but the major ones
observed in most of the project are categorized into four major groups according to the
World Bank. These include the financial, managerial and institutional technical and political.

Financial problems

The financial problems can be seen in two ways: funds may not be available at the
commandment of the project or a shortage may occur during the full implementation period.
Although project and programs are well prepared and endorsed by the government of the
recipient country and by the donor agencies, the committed funds may not be released right
at the time agreed up on by the two parties. Dalliance of the first disbursement may occur and
this in turn will disrupt the planning period. This has been clearly indicated by the second
annual review meeting report deliberation of ESDP/ HSDP that was held in ECA conference
Hall from march 13-15, 2000 by saying that “fund from external source were not available as
expected and even when second the satiation rate was low due to lack of implementation
capacity”(ARM of ESDP/HSDP, 2000:15).

On other hand, in most cases, the financial shortages occur frequently during the
implementation stage of projects for project supporting revenue earning activities, the most
frequent financial problems are pressure on the costs because of the general salary and price
increases, difficulties in raising prices, tariffs of interest rates; and also losses due to the
fluctuation in foreign exchange rates. The circumstances result in operating losses or a low

32
financial rate of return so that the agency is not able to meet its mobilizations or finance its
expanded operation in the future. For other types of projects including educational projects,
inadequate allocations of budgeting funds and to somewhat looser extent of foreign exchange
are the most common problems observed in addition, rising of costs could also frequently
occur in most projects.

When planning is not sufficiently done or non-existent, the implementation of the projects
and programs on supported by external aid is difficult and the results will not be as expected
liquidity problems may arise on the part of the funding agencies due to irregularity in the
flow of contributions from member states.

Difficulties may also arise on the part of the receiving country of meeting the recurrent costs
of new educational facilities or services initiated by external funded projects and programs.
Local institution for the coordination of external aid from the various sources are virtually
nonexistent which means that the assistance received from abroad is not assimilated in an
orderly organized manner and hence a good deal of it is wasted. “It can even happen that a
government is unable to spend more money received before the expiration date of project”
(Hallak Jacques 1990:282)

The financial shortage in the implementation stage of projects has its own negative impacts:
its cost could be increased the service or the product the output for that matter will not be
available at the planned time, lack of funds has often meant that contractors or consultants
could not be on time, spare parts could not be obtained and generally the project will be
delayed. Thus, “it can be said that a project can be under cut or condensed to an early demise
simply through the lack of an adequate budgeting instrument" (Hallak Jacques 1990:99).
Consequently, governments have been forced to make difficult choices among equally
important areas in allocating education investment. Furthermore, the public and private
agencies have been affected not only because of the resulting increases in the project costs
but also because governments could resist granting the tariff and interest rate increases
necessary to cover the cost .the long term reasons for finical difficulties are manly but a few
are outside the control of the project or the agency service, as a reduction in world price of a
commodity or a country- wide economic crisis. Other reason may also be a reflection of
political decisions. The problem of financial resources may rise from a basic miss-much

33
between the national investment program of a government and the financial resources
available to implement the project. When this is the case, the financial flows from the public
to the project will be interrupted.

Cost overruns are both a cause and an effect of financial problems. It has a paramount
important to distinguish between cost overruns that reflect change in the scope of the
projects, those that derive from a change in the technical design or specifications and those
that are the result of the price fluctuation and or currency adjustments. Some of these
overruns may reflects real change in the costs benefits while others do not and this may have
different implications for the outcome of the projects. One of the essential factors that
explain overruns are implementation delays and given inflation results in higher financial
outlays. Thus, a vicious circle is set in motion i.e. delays include higher costs, which in view
budgetary constraints means that funds are in adequate for project implementation. This in
turn, causes again more delays and further cost increases.

The other causes of the overruns stem from implementation problems. This can be
manifested in various forms such as: inadequate management, insufficient project
preparation, deficient technical design, the intervention of the policies and procurement
problems. Hence, the results will be higher costs than would be expected. On the other hand,
understanding the volume of the work required or necessary time to complete the work is one
of the most common problems particularly when adequate physical and price contingencies
have no provided. Hence, the appropriate action that should be taken to avoid cost overruns
largely coincides with those necessary for avoiding delays and ensuring successful
implementation. Therefore, "in effect cost overruns are a barometer of the implementation
process (Buam and Tolbert 1985:373).

2. Management Problems

Managerial problems are the most pervasive in a sense that they encompass what are usually
considered as institutional problems. The lack of managerial ability can make itself felt at
three levels. “These are manifested in government administration and this affects all projects
in a country; in the upper and middle management of the project or implementing agencies;
and at the provincial or local states or local level” (Buam and Tolbert 1985:373). Due to the
managerial problems, many educational projects, programs, policies and reforms are failing.

34
This is clearly stated by the Richard Sack and Mahieddine Saidi (1997:9) has indicated that
“the ministries‟ administrations or managements are unable to implement the educational
projects and programs; they are often unable to manage efficiently the existing or additional
resources that the programs entail.” The other aspects of this problem are a shortage of the
people with specific skills such as accountants, technician with general administrative
capabilities, in adequate management, accounting reporting systems and procedures; in ill-
defined organizational set up; low salaries and poor staffing policies and lack of coordination
among agencies.

Managerial or institutional problems are mostly the root causes of implementation delays and
cost overruns. Implementation delays may result among other things inadequate planning,
delays in land acquisitions failure to obtain necessary legislation, prolonged bidding and
contracting procedures, insufficient project supervision, and slow responses to change in the
policy environment and low staff morale and productivity.

The success of the donors‟ educational program and projects mainly depend up on the
soundness of the management that prevails in the system. In other words, the more soundness
of the management, the more efficient system will be and the greatest will be the
achievement of donor assisted educational programs and projects. However, effective
management is not their top priority of most governments. Regarding to this, Richard Sack
and Maheddine Saidi(1997:10) has stated the importance of management as follows:

The success of the educational programs and projects is absolutely crucial to

the future of individuals and countries. If the job is poorly done, scarce
resources are wasted and worse still; the costs in terms of wasted lives and
generation are huge and irreparable. Effectiveness and success in education
system is an imperative. Yet, in spite of this, one often has the impression that
effective management is rarely a top priority for policy makers.

Sound and effective management is a key instrument in achieving the goal of the institution
or organization and bring about development for the region under references in particular and
for the nation in general. As it is the clearly stated by World Bank (1998:12), “sound
management consists of the institutions and policies that will lead to rapid development and
poverty reduction in particular country.”

35
It is thus, important to consider all the managerial problems that impede the smooth
functioning of the project, which otherwise the effectiveness of project operation will be
reduced.

3. Technical problems

Many problems can arise in constructing civil works, in operating equipment or procuring it.
These may include or unexpected soil conditions that will jeopardize any constructing
activities, poor quality of materials, technical defects on design, mistakes in the installation
and startup of equipment ,inappropriate technology and unsuitability of imported equipment
for the local conditions. In people oriented activities such as the provision of the health and
education ,the lack of the approaches fully tested for the particular circumstances of a region
or a country is another technical or design problems. When there is a technical failure, all
investment would not achieve the desired goal. Hence as ( Hallak Jacques 1990:101) has
stated clearly “technically bellow the point referred to as the critical mass, investments are
unlikely to affect the system efficiently.”

When errors are committed in the preparation of the original design of a project and in the
underlying estimates and projections, then benefits will be minimized to a minimum. In
many cases, problems stem from the difficulty of defining appropriate solutions. However,
some technical problems are the result of a calculated risk.

4. Political problems

When government‟s commitment at all levels is absent, weak or changing, obviously project
implantation suffers. A rapid rotation of political appointees in some areas considerably
influences success in project implementation. Project management has to take into account
the potential impact of such political and administrative factors, anticipate the problems in so
far as possible, and modify the implementation path accordingly.

Even in the absence of such obvious disruptions as wars and serious internal upheavals,
political problems are at the heart of many of the difficulties experienced by projects.
Government commitment has al-ready been discussed; when it is absent, weak, or variable,
project implementation suffers. The public administration of a country is closely linked with

36
its political machinery, and it is almost impossible to disentangle political problems from the
administrative difficulties encountered by a project entity in its relations with the rest of the
public sector.
Other problems:

Donor condition ties, lengthy project approval and fund disbursement procedures of
donors/financing agencies, low community involvement in project planning and
implementation, etc. are other contributing factors in delay of implementation

2.6 An Actions to Mitigate the Educational Project Implementation Problems

We shall consider first the principal factors that account for successful projects, and then
those that lead to problems and difficulties during implementation. This twofold discussion is
necessary because, as will be seen, the reasons for success are not always symmetrical with
those for failure.

Few projects, especially in developing countries have been highly successful. This means
that they have been completed on time, at or reasonably close to the original cost estimates,
and with the expected benefits realized or even exceeded. Most projects are, however,
experienced shortcomings in one or more of these respects, and sometimes in all of them.
The following are some of the principal factors that could account for successful projects,
and then those that lead to problems and difficulties during implementation.

1. Political Commitment: - strong and sustained commitment by all levels of the

government body (national, regional, zonal, wereda, & kebele) to the project‟s objectives is
the first and probably most important reason for success. According to Baum and
Tolbert(1985:366) states “this is a complex matter, not always readily discernible, that
applies not only to projects supported by international development agencies but also to those
financed from the country's own resources” By political or government commitment we
mean that the continuing interest and active support of these agencies and individuals who
are in a position to influence attainment of the project‟s objectives whether through the
allocation of human, financial and other resources or through the workings of the
administrative and political apparatus. To support this ideas, Baum and Tolbert (1985:366)
have stated as follows: “commitment is a dynamic concept. The coalition can change, at

37
times drastically, during the several or more years of project implementation. The main
supporter may retire or resign, or the political makeup of the administration shift. Thus, a
coalition has to be not only powerful but enduring.” This does not mean that a project, for
which there is a full commitment will not face problems owing Commitment or the absence
of it, will have more effect on some kinds of projects than on others. For example, in our
country road, agricultural, and education development projects have received greater
attention and commitment by the present government than the previous regime. As a result,
the success in these sectors is significant. It is strongly advisable that stakeholders‟
participation and consultation during project preparation would help to ensure commitments
i.e. to incorporate the main influencing agencies and actors in the preparation and appraisal
process would enhance more the success in implementation. A careful monitoring of the
political environment is one of the duties of a good project manager.
2. Simplicity of Design: - Selection of proper project design is central to successful project
implementation. “Projects with relatively simple and well-defined objectives based on
proven and appropriate technologies or approaches, have a better chance of being
implemented successful" (Baum and Tolbert 1985:368). Experience has shown that, the
major success factors in some rural development programmes and projects appear to have
been the appropriateness of the technologies proposed for the specific local conditions, the
complementarities of recommended inputs, and the strength of the support systems, etc. A
good example with this regard is the success achieved in the widely adaptation of agricultural
extension programme in our country.

3. Careful Preparation: - In some areas, there is a wide tendency to start projects before
they have been sufficiently prepared. Indeed the extent of preparation that is feasible varies
according to the type of project. “Although the extent of preparation that is feasible or
desirable varies according to the type of project, certain actions should always be undertaken
during preparation; if they are ignored or short-circuited, the likelihood of implementation
difficulties mounts” (Baum and Tolbert 1985:369). For example, the preparation of a school
farm irrigation project is sometimes considered to be completed when a design is prepared.
During implementation, there may be problems with the school community in using
irrigation water or difficulties in soil salinity which may result in large increase in cost.
Therefore, careful preparations includes not only matters such as detailed engineering and

38
land acquisition but also other technological packages, socio-economic factor, environmental
issues, organizational arrangements and other supporting services. To support above ideas,
Baum and Tolbert (1985:366) has indicated that “among the aspects of preparation most
likely to be neglected are the organizational and institutional arrangements. Projects with a
clear and well-defined institutional setup and with the right managerial arrangements have
greatly enhanced prospects for success”
For big projects, like that of rural development, pilot project is sometimes important to test
proposed activities and approaches under local conditions. This would not only improve
success in implementation but also help to save both time and money that might be
unnecessarily spent.

4. Good Management: - The influence of the quality of management on project

implementation performance is usually visible. Many projects in serious of difficulty during
implementation have been turned around by the appointment of a competent manager. What
are the qualities of good manager and management? Superior performance in managerial job
is associated with performing satisfactorily „key areas‟ of the job and working in unfavorable
environment. A „key area‟ can be defined as a major component of a managerial job as such
importance that failure to perform satisfactorily will endanger the whole job. To strength the
above concepts, Baum and Tolbert (1985:370) point to as “a problem for many developing
countries is that they do not have enough qualified managers to run all the projects or
activities under way, so that attracting a manager to a particular project is at the expense of
another one.”

Good managers are not likely to be attracted if the package of remuneration and incentives is
inferior to what they can obtain elsewhere. Projects characterized by strong political
commitment have attracted good managers. Good managers, in turn, attract good staff and
are alert to the importance of doing so.

2.7 The Concept of NGOs and Its Role in the Development

2.7.1 Definition of NGOs
World Association of Non-Governmental Organizations defines a non-governmental
organization (NGO) as it is considered to be a non-state, nonprofit, voluntary organization.
NGO is generally independent from government influence and either not established by a

39
government or intergovernmental agreement or, if established in such a manner, is not
independent of government influence (WANGO, 2010). World Bank (1995) defines Non-
Governmental Organizations as private organizations that pursue activities to relieve
suffering, promote the interests of the poor, protect the environment, provide basic social
services, or undertake community development. In another dimension, Liebenberg (2000)
refers NGOs to autonomous, privately set up, nonprofit- making institutions that support,
manage or facilitate development action by providing socio-economic activities to the needy.
NGOs can be either local or international. Local NGOs are the one that operate in one
country while international NGOs operate in two or more countries. For the purpose of this
study, NGOs will be taken to refer to registered, independent, non-profit organizations that
facilitate development to needy communities.

2.7.2 Historical Development of NGOs in International Perspective

Hyden (2006) have explored out that international aid agency (NGOs), first appeared in the
second half of the 19th century; organizationally anchor into Red Cross initiatives. Since then
NGOs have shown three distinctive orientations; the first kind focused on delivery of relief
services directly to the needy (e.g. distributions of food, shelters or health service). Then
NGOs changed their approach to building „self-reliance‟ and local development (action)
follow to the „development‟ debate of the 1980s. In its third orientation, particularly since
1990, the efforts of the international development agencies have tried to advance changes in
policy and institution; particularly focusing on the issue of development and „governance‟. A
study made by Jean Pierre (2007) identifies that NGOs contributes through different ways in
Europe. They often work in partnership with persons living in poverty and social exclusion,
with public institutions and local structures to facilitate access by the poor to different social
services. The first category of important organizations of Africans formed in the 1910s to
1920s were welfare associations which brought black workers together in urban areas and on
the mine compounds. (Kagoro,2004 as cited in Takure, 2009). The World War I era saw the
development of organizations like burial societies, mutual aid assistance and was mainly
composed of black people who were in the towns and mining compounds (Takure, 2009). As
argued by Dorman cited in Daina (2012), a transformation occurred which saw previously

40
political organizations turn to development, following the government‟s lead in
reconstruction and de-radicalization.

2.7.3 The Emergence and Development of NGOs in Ethiopia

In their study on CSOs/NGOs in Ethiopia, Dessalegn, et.al (2008) explained two important
aspects in the evolution of the voluntary sector in Ethiopia that have had an enduring impact
on the sector: one was that until very recently the sector consisted of a small number of
organizations, and the second that they have operated under difficult and sometimes tiring
circumstances. The Imperial and Derg regimes were unwilling to tolerate independent citizen
activism and to allow autonomous non-state organizations.
Since 1991 the change in the regime has brought about some progress in the government
approach towards NGOs. The operational environment for civil society is believed to have
improvement under the current regime (EEA, 2005). For the facilitation of the NGOs sector,
the current government of Ethiopia has issued policy statement in 1995 and entitled ´the
national policy on disaster prevention and management (NPDPM) that define NGOs and
viewed as partners in development process. Since 1995 in accordance with national policy,
Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission (DPPC) become the focal point in the
coordination and monitoring of NGOs and the ministry of Justice is responsible for
registration process.
Because of different reasons like a relatively better policy environment, the increasing local
socio-economic problems that the country is facing and in correlation to the international
trends there is a booming of the NGOs sector in general. However, scholars argued that,
although, the government has showed some progress still the less hostile environment has not
been eradicated. The rules and regulations for the establishment and operation of NGOs are
being continually revised and amended. Still civic advocacy organizations have greater
difficulty in registration and fund mobilization than developmental and humanitarian NGOs
and few of them are engaged in policy advocacy and lobbing issues. (Jeffers and Daniel,
2004 & Spring and Groelsema, 2004).

2.7.4 Code of Conduct and Regulatory Framework for NGOs in Ethiopia

A clear indicator of a more sophisticated carriage on the part of the NGO community in

41
Ethiopia is provided by the adoption of the Code of conduct for NGOs at the culmination of a
collaborative effort on the part of diverse leaders of the sector. The code is meant as a
proactive statement of principles by the sector and serves as a symbol that it is capable of
self-regulation, monitoring, and evaluation (Jeffrey, 2007). The code of conduct for NGOs in
Ethiopia was formally adopted in March 1999, when the overwhelming majority of NGOs
operating in the country swore to uphold its principles and its formation is considered one of
the major achievements for the sector since the onset of the contemporary era for NGOs in
1991 (Debebe, 2012). The regulatory framework for CSOs/NGOs in Ethiopia is in a state of
transformation. The provisions of the 1960 Civil Code and a 1966 Internal Security Act
issued by the then Ministry of Interior were used to govern the establishment and operation
of the whole range of „civil society organizations‟. On January 6, 2009, the Charities and
Societies Proclamation No. 621/2009 of Ethiopia was enacted and defines two categories of
formal CSOs in Ethiopia: Charities and Societies (Debebe, 2010). Ethiopian Charities or
Societies are institutions formed under the laws of Ethiopia, whose members are all
Ethiopians, generate income from Ethiopia and are wholly controlled by Ethiopians. These
organizations may not use foreign funds to cover more than 10% of their operational
expenses. Similar institutions that receive more than 10% of their resources from foreign
sources or whose members include Ethiopian residents are designated Ethiopian Resident
Charities or Societies. Foreign Charities, on the other hand, are those formed under the laws
of foreign countries, or whose membership includes foreigners, or foreigners control the
organization, or the organization receives funds from foreign sources (Chasa, 2011).
The provisions of the Proclamation are applicable to charities or Societies that operate in
more than one regional state or Societies whose members are from more than one regional
state; foreign Charities and Ethiopian Resident Charities and Societies even if they operate
only in one regional state; and, charities or Societies operating in the City Administration of
Addis Ababa or Dire-Dawa. This research identified and target implementation status and
problems of educational project implementation in Addis Ababa as local NGOs.

2.7.5 The Practice of NGOs in Project Implementation

NGOs operate both in the rural and urban areas where there is a need to meet according to
their objectives to attain. But in most cases these organization tend to focus on poorer

42
communities that have that have focused problems even to meet their basic needs and often
who were located in hardly accessible areas such areas usually characterized by limited
existence, absence, or ineffective of government programs

In addition to the aforementioned facts, NGOs have strongly grassroots link that contribute to
incorporate and integrate local inputs in to their efforts. In some cases there is a possibility of
NGOs themselves to be a part of that community in which they operate. In others, they may
come as outsiders to the society .whether they have emerged out of the community or come
from a far, local control of programs are essential features of strong NGOs.

On the other hand, even though some NGOs are accused for their uneconomical utilization of
resources and hiring expatriates for jobs that can be easily handled by national with
reasonable payments, which in most cases by far less than those foreigners slavishly paid for,
(Nibretu, 1998:111), “cost effectiveness and efficient are the most important quality of strong
NGOs.” This effectiveness is believed to emanate from their commitment to use low cost
technologies and streamlined services, and how staff cost which enable them to function
efficiently on low budgets. Further, NGOs are more flexible than government service; they
may have greater creatively to the local needs. They have also more access to transfer
technologies developed elsewhere and adapt them to local condition.

2.7.6 Contribution of NGOs in Developmental Activities

A study conducted on CSOs/NGOs in Ethiopia pointed out that CSO/NGOs are widely
distributed and can be found in all Regions of the country. For example, Oromia and Addis
Ababa have more operational NGOs (229 and 217, respectively), the study also indicated that the
large of NGO resources have gone into human development (health, education, child welfare)
and agriculture and food security. More concretely, social development involves comprehensive
human resources development; raising living standards and quality of life, improving health,
education and human welfare, ensuring social justice and equality, and providing adequate social
security for all segments of the population (ECA, 1985). Social development include- reduction
or elimination of poverty, equitable distribution of income and wealth, employment creation,
health and nutrition, education and training, housing and ancillary services, social security and
welfare (Mohammed, 1991, p.20).
Unfortunately, Africa lacks behind in terms of social development. Families and individuals in
absolute poverty are found in Sub-Sahara African. The greatest concentration is in the least

43
developed countries of Africa (Aliyu, 2003). The participation of CSOs/NGOs in the overall
development effort of the country has had a significant impact: on the lives of the poor and the
disadvantaged, and the broad range of basic services made accessible to them; on the country‟s
economy and the development programs; on the process of democracy building, access to justice
and good governance; on public awareness and empowerment; on the capacity of government
agencies especially at the Woreda and Kebele levels. (Dessalegn et.al, 2008) Elleni
Tadesse(2007) indicated that in Ethiopia, after the 1990s the role of NGOs has shifted from
mainly relief activities to integrated development model. Followed this international trend donors
and NGOs have started shifting their attention from relief to rehabilitation and later to
community-based development programmes. This shows that NGOs have started to the provision
of employment and income generating activities which is part of development.

44
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this chapter was to provide an overview of the research methodology and
design that was used to carry out the study. The outline includes description of the study area,
the research methodology, research design, the population, sources of data, sample and
sampling techniques, data gathering instruments, procedures of data collection and data
analysis techniques were treated.

3.1. Description of the Study Area

The study was carried out in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Located at 9° ′48′′N latitude and 38 ° 44
′24′′E longitude, Addis Ababa can be found in the central Ethiopian highlands and covers
540 km2. Addis Ababa is the capital city of Ethiopia as well as the African Union. Various
national and international organizations‟ headquarters can be found within the city.

The total population of the city is estimated to 3,048,631 (1,595,968 females and 1,452,663
males). Addis Ababa is comprised of 10 subcities (Addis Ketema, Akaki-Kality, Arada,
Bole, Gulele, Kirkos, Kolfe-Keranio, Lideta, Nifasilk Lafto, and Yeka) which are further
divided into 116 woredas (AA year book, 2014).

The first modern school, Menilik II, was opened in 1908 (AA year book, 2014).Since then, a
number of schools at different level had opened and became operational. Currently,
According to AABoE of 2004 E.C annual report here were a total of 2,221 schools in the city
of which 1,050 kindergarten, 760 primary schools, 188 secondary schools (9-12), 265
alternate basic education centers and one College of Teacher Education.

Addis Ababa reported to have a high concentration of nongovernmental organizations

following Oromiya National Regional state (Rahimto, 2008). The total population of local
nongovernmental organizations in the study period signed appropriate project agreement and
were operational with the Addis Ababa as extracted from a report produced by NGO support
desk of Addis Ababa Bureau of Finance and Economic Development was 224

45
(AABoFED,2014). Among these nongovernmental organizations, currently 40 local and
international NGOs that annexed end of the study were running educational project
collaboratively with the City Government of Addis Ababa Education Bureau. So, this study
was treated wholly theses NGOs currently working collaboratively under the umbrella of
AAEB.

46
Figure 3: Administrative Map of Addis Ababa

KEY SUB-CITIES:

1. Nefas Silk Lafto

2. Kolfe keranyo
3. Addis ketema
4. Gulele
5. Arada
6. Lideta
7. Kirkos
8. Yeka
9. Bole
10.Akaki Kaaliti

Source: https://www.google.com.et/search=adminstrative+maps+of+addis+ababa

3.2 Research Design

The cross sectional descriptive survey design was employed to conduct the study. To draw
representative sample from Population and to collect data from selected respondents at single
point of a time based on purpose (Quirk 1979:45). It is found helpful to obtain enough
information about the current practices of the implementation of NGO financed education
projects executed on education and to study the general situation of the problem broadly and
convenient to describe the existing situation of topic was studied particularly.

47
3.3 The Research Method
Mixed research method was employed to conduct this study. When combined both
quantitative and qualitative data, these two types of data provide a comprehensive
understanding (Creswell 2012:535). Qualitative data were collected via semi structured
interviews. Quantitative data were collected via structured and unstructured questionnaires.

3.4 The Population

All nongovernmental organizations, 23 local and 17 international NGOs with a total 40 that
annexed E end of the study were running educational project collaboratively with the Addis
Ababa City Administration Education Bureau. So, this study treated wholly these NGOs
currently working collaboratively under the umbrella of AAEB.

3.5 Sources of Data

Primary and secondary sources of data were used to obtain information about the subject
under the study. Primary data were collected from all departments and subunits from City
Government of Addis Ababa Education Bureau, and Indigenous and International NGOs‟
coordinators and executive officers that are currently implementing educational projects.
Moreover, official documents detailing educational project in the City Government of Addis
Ababa Education Bureau are considered as secondary sources.

3.6 Sampling techniques and sample size

23 local and 17 international NGOs with a total 40 which cooperatively working with the
City Government of Addis Ababa Education Bureau (Appendix E), among these 40 NGOs,
22 (55%) were selected for this study (Appendix F) via simple random sampling techniques
since all NGOs are equally importance for the study and they implementing educational
projects (Cohen et al. 2007:102). Two experts from each of the 22 randomly selected NGOs
(n=44) were randomly selected to participate in the study as well as each of the
organizations‟ program coordinators (n=22) via purposive sampling techniques. In addition,
24 experts from AAEB were selected via random sampling techniques (Cohen et al.
2007:102). Purposive sampling techniques “they are key informants” (Cohen et al. 2007:102)
were used to select the 17 department heads and 7 project execution offices of the AAEB.

48
Leedy and Ormrod (2005:164) have stated that “in simple random sampling technique each
member of the population is equally necessary for study.” So, student researcher used simple
random technique to give independent chance for all subject. Purposive sampling technique
was used because the department heads and projects managers were key informants who
have been directly involved with the implementation of the educational projects.

In brief, total respondents who participated in the study were 17 department heads, 7 project
execution offers and 24 educational experts with a total of (n= 48) from AABE and 22
Project Coordinators and 44 project executive officers with a total of (n=66) from NGOs.
Overall, 114 respondents were participated from both AAEB and NGOs currently working
under AAEB. Regarding interview guides, it prepared to AAEB, department heads 17 and
project execution officers 7 with a total (n=24) and NGOs, project managers (n=22) with a
sub-total (n=46).

3.7 Data Gathering Instrument and Pilot Test

3.7.1 Data Gathering Instruments

The data gathering tools employed in the study were questionnaires, semi-structured
interviews, and document analysis.

The questionnaires prepared for both AAEB (n=48) and NGOs (n=66) workers with total
114. The questionnaires consisted of two parts. The first portion collected general
background information from each of the participants. The second, and the largest part, was
composed of structured and semi-structured questions. In relation to this, Kothari (2004:100)
states “structured questionnaires are definite, concrete and pre-determined questions and
designed to expected respondent to answer from given alternatives. The questions are
presented with exactly the same wording and in the same order to all respondents.” Open-
ended questions allow for free responses in the respondents‟ own wards and prepared by
expecting to get more information from respondents (Best and Khan, 2003).

Semi-structured interview prepared to AAEB, department heads 17 and project execution

officers 7 with a total (n=24) and NGOs, project managers (n=22) with total (n=46). At
49
times the interviewee may also ask certain questions and the interviewer responds to these,
but usually the interviewer initiates the interview and collects the information. Best and
Kahn, (2003 :88)haves stated that “[they] can permit the exploration of issues, which might
be too complex to investigate though questionnaire and also justify as it allows better
flexibility for the interviewer and interviewee had have better chance to explain more
explicitly that he/she knows on the issue”. Moreover, they allow a researcher to obtain in-
depth information that may not be easily secured by questionnaires.

Document analysis was conducted with overall records of sample‟s organizations documents
like portfolio, short and long term plan and reports, feedback, guidelines, modules and
manuals were assessed by using structured check list which formulated by student researcher
as indicated Annex I. The main purpose of this was to cross-check information which
collected from via quantitate and qualitative data various sources and to obtain information
that is may not have been revealed via the questionnaires and interviews.

3.7.2 Pilot Test

Prior the actual collection of data, a pilot study was launched. The questionnaires and
interview guides were piloted to check whether they can generate the expected information
and to identify any issues that may arise during the data collection process. A pilot test were
conducted to check whether the prepared tools can generate the desired information (validity)
and to judge its internal consistency (relevance). This is because to identifying difficult
and/or vague questions and concepts and to make change based on the results of the tests.
Festinger etal. (2005:158) has stated that “to increase the accuracy and usefulness of findings
by eliminating or controlling as many confounding variables as possible, which allows for
greater confidence in the findings of a given study.” To these in effect 8 copies of designed
questioners were hand delivered to 8 executives of local NGOs and AAEB by using
availability sampling techniques. Two NGOs‟ project coordinators and two department heads
purposively be interviewed 5 interview guides questions.

The result of the pilot test shows that the reliability alphas for overall project implementation
status and problems of educational projects practice in past couple years, and the challenges
NGOs faced while carrying out project implementation. The result of the test shows that the

50
reliability of cronbach‟s alpha was 0.93. & alpha fails at acceptable range (muij 2004:73).
Content Validity cheeked by face validity by same respondents; as assumption they are going
to judge whether the instruments looks ok to them (muij 2004:66).

Finally, the content validity edited and corrected by adviser‟s and respondents‟ comments as
follows. Firstly, based on the comments wording &terminology were edited and unclear issue
omitted. Secondly, language modifications were made on interview guideline. Originally
Semi-structure interviews were prepared in English for both AAEB and NGOs workers.
However, after pilot somehow AAEBs‟ workers couldn‟t understand interview guideline and
researcher decided to interview them in Amharic, and again when he made interview them,
they easily understand and responded. Upon completion, Amharic interviews were translated
into English. In short, the questionnaires and interview guides were appropriately altered to
reflect the results of the pilot study.
3.8 Procedures
A literature review was conducted to identify previous researches on the topic and establish
to a theoretical framework. From this review, questionnaires were developed. These
questionnaires were prepared in English with the assumption that respondents were can
understand English. Student researcher then contacted the City Government of Addis Ababa
Education Bureau as well as the appropriate NGOs that were involved in the implementation
of educational projects. Upon contact, Student researcher explained the aim of the study and
got permission to collect data.

3.9 Method of Data Analysis

The data gathered through questionnaires and semi structured interviews. The data was
processed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS V.20).Major statistical
tools were used to analyze data such as Percentage, Frequencies, Mean, Standard deviation,
weighted mean, mean differences and Independent-Samples T test, were used to guide the
analysis and interpretations of the findings. In addition, the data analysis involved review of
documents, and responses gathered by means of interviews made with the project
implementing experts at AAEB and donors in qualitative terms. The qualitative data after
being collected were edited and organized based on the necessity the research required. There

51
was a systematic and intensive data analysis phrase by phrase of field notes for semi
structured interviews and to identify common themes that ran through the research.

The documents analysis was conducted on overall records of documents like portfolio, short
and long term plan and reports, feedback, guidelines, modules and manuals by using
structured check list. The main purpose of doing this was simply to cross check information
from various sources and to obtain information that is not reveal using questionnaires and
interview. This was supported the researcher to consolidate and complement information
gathering through different means.

3.10 Ethical Consideration

The researcher gives particular consideration to ethical principles developed by this and other
scholars, particularly to ensuring and informing consent and developing confidentiality,
maintaining anonymity and other related ethical issues. Cohen et al. (2007) have stated “in
research full attention should be given for moral and ethical issues.” To give due concern for
respondents moral and ethical issue, student researcher receiving an official letter of
cooperation from Addis Ababa University, Department of Educational Planning and
Management, the researcher appropriately communicated with all participating institutions
and individual participants. Per procedure, consent was secured after explaining the purpose
of the study and by emphasizing its significance. Finally, researcher assured participants‟
freedom from any harm. Participants were ensured that their participation was confidential
and strictly for academic purposes.

52
 CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRITATION

The first portion of this chapter discusses the demographic characteristics (e.g. gender, age,
marital status, education, occupation, total service years and experience in project
implementation) of study participants. The second portion of the chapter presents analysis
and interpretation of the collected quantitative and qualitative data as described in Chapter
3.
4.1 General Characteristics of the Respondents
Questionnaires were distributed to a total of 114 individuals. Of these individuals, 48 were
directly associated with AAEB (17 department heads, 7 project managers, and 24 education
experts) while 66 were associated with indigenous and international NGOs (22 project
coordinators and 44 project executive officers). Of the total number of questionnaires
distributed to the groups, 44(91.67%) and 60( 91%) were appropriately filled and returned by
the experts of AAEB and NGOs educational project workers respectively were incorporated
in the study. Interview data were collected using interviews from the 17 department heads, 7
project executive officers of the AAEB and 22 Educational Project managers of NGOs with
total of both groups 46. Finally, documents which were taken as primary data from
educational projects were incorporated to triangulate the study.

Table 2: Characteristics of the Respondents by their Gender, Age and Qualification.

No By Type of respondents Total
Response items Variables AAEB NGOs
No % No % No %
1 Gender of the ABEB‟s Male 25 56.8 40 66.7 65 62.5
experts and NGO‟s Female 19 43.2 20 33.3 39 37.5
workers Total 44 100 60 100 104 100
2 Age of the ABEB‟s <20 Years 6 13.6 3 5 9 8.7
experts and NGO‟s 21-30 Years 12 27.3 27 45 39 37.5
workers 31-40 Years 15 34.1 18 30 33 31.7
41-50 Years 10 22.7 8 13.3 18 17.3
>51 years 1 2.3 4 6.7 5 4.8
Total 44 100 60 100 104 100
3 Marital status of the Married 23 52.3 29 48.3 52 50
ABEB‟s experts and Single 21 47.7 31 51.7 52 50
NGO‟s workers Divorced - - - - - -
Total 44 100 60 100 104 100
Source: (own Field data, 2016)

53
Table 2 and Figure 4 shows respondents' demographic. Of the 114 participating individuals,
66 (62.5%) and 39 (37.5%) were males and females, respectively. These data can be further
broken down based on the group in which the participants are a member. Twenty-five male
and 19 female respondents are associated with AAEB while 40 male and 20 female
participants are associated with NGOs. In both groups, majority of project implementers
were male.
The distribution of participant ages showing at both AAEB and NGOs were indicated as
follows: 9 individuals (8.7%) 20 years and below; 39 individuals (37.5%) between 21- 30
year; 33 individuals (31.7%) between 31-40 years; 18 individuals (17.3%) 41-50 between
years; and 5 individuals (4.8%) > 50 years. This implies that majority of the respondents put
down the age range between 21-30 and 31-40 years. In short, project implementers in both
groups neither too older nor too youth. Item 3 depicts that the marital status of the
respondents in which among ABEB 23 (52.3%) were married while 21(47.7%) were
unmarried. On the other hand, in NGOs 29(48.3%) were married and 31(51.7%) unmarried.
This clearly indicated as in AAEB respondents who have married were greater in a number
than unmarried and vise-versa. Generally, in both groups the married and unmarried ratio
was 50 % each. There were none as divorced.
Table 3: Characteristics of the Respondents by Qualification and Service Years
No By Type of respondents Total
Response items Variables AAEB NGOs
No % No % No %
1 Grad12/10 complete - - 2 3.3 2 1.9
Educational TTI(10+1/12+1 - - - - - -
qualification of the Diploma Graduate 8 18.2 7 11.7 15 14.4
ABEB‟s experts and First degree 27 61.4 24 40 51 49
NGO‟s workers Masters 9 20.4 25 41.7 34 32.8
PhD - - 2 3.3 2 1.9
Total 44 100 60 100 104 100
2 Total service years <5 Years 7 15.9 14 23.3 21 20.2
of the ABEB‟s 6-10 Years 14 31.8 25 41.7 39 37.5
experts and NGO‟s 11-15 Years 12 27.3 10 16.7 22 21.2
workers 16-20 Years 8 18.2 8 13.3 16 15.4
>21 Years 3 6.8 3 5 6 5.8
Total 44 100 60 100 104 100
3 Service years at <5 Years 28 63.6 42 70 70 67.3
Project 6-10 Years 6 13.6 14 23.3 20 19.2
implementation of 11-15 Years 6 13.6 3 5 9 8.7
the ABEB‟s experts 16- 20 Years 4 9.1 1 1.7 5 4.8
and NGO‟s workers >21 Years - - - - - -
Total 44 100 60 100 104 100
Source: (own Field data, 2016)

54
Regarding educational qualifications of the total respondents, 2(1.9%) were PhD holders.51
(49%) and 34 (32.8) were qualified for their first Degree and MA/MSc degree respectively.
Again, 14.4% were Diploma and while only one12 complete. With regard to responses of
subgroups in AAEB, 27(61.4%) were qualified for their first Degree and 9 (20.4%) were
qualified their MA/MSC respectively and the rest few numbers 8(18.2%) were qualified
diploma and no one grade 12/10th. Concerning NGO project respondents, 25(41.7%) had
their second degree and 24(40%) had first degree. In addition, 7(11.7%) were diploma
holders and 2(3.3%) were PhD holders. In short, 81.7% of the NGOs‟ workers were Second
and first degree holders whereas as in ABEB majority of the respondents or 61.4% of them
were first degree holders.

Table 3 Item 2 portrays the total service years of the respondents. It indicated that 21(20.2%)
were less than 5 years while 39 (37.5%) 6-10 years. In addition, 22(21.2%) were 11-15
Years, 16(5.8%) 16- 20 years and 6(15.4%) were >21 Years. As regards to each group of the
respondents AABE and NGOs, 31.8 % and 41.7 % were places range between 6-10 years and
it take majority part. This shows that total service years of majority of the respondents
between 6-10 years. Thus, we can conclude that majority neither novice nor old hand.

In the same Table Item 3 reveals that the service years at project implementation of the
respondents. Regarding of the service years at project implementation, dissemination of
respondents showed that 70(67.3%) were <5years and 20(19.2%) 6-10 years. In addition,
9(8.7%) were 11-15 Years, 5(4.8%) 16- 20 years and no one was >21 Years. Accordingly,
the distribution of the subjects, majority of respondents 70(67.3%) were found under the
service year 5 and below on implementation of the projects. Therefore, majority of projects
were implemented by beginner experts.

4.2 Perception on the Project Implementation Processes

4.2.1 Planning for the project implementation and level of stakeholders participation
4.2.1.1 Level of stakeholders’ participation in design and planning

As indicated in Table 4 below, the respondents were asked their perspectives on planning for
the project implementation.

55
Table 4: Involvement of respondents in the design and planning of the projects
Type of respondents Total
N Items AAEB NGOs No %
No % No %
1 Have you been involved in the design and planning of the project?
Yes 25 56.8 37 61.7 62 59.6
No 14 31.8 18 30.0 32 30.8
Not Shure 5 11.4 5 8.3 10 9.6
Total 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0
Source: (own Field data, 2016)

Table 4 represents that the degree of the involvement of respondents in the design and
planning of the projects. The statistics of distribution of entire respondents indicated that
62(59.6 %) participated in the design and planning of the projects. Whereas, 32 (30.8%) not
participated. Likewise, 10(9.6%) responded as not Shure. Concerning specific respondents
like AAEB, 25(56.8%) participate in planning and designing of the projects. In contrast,
14(31.8%) and 5 (11.4%) not involved and not Shure respectively in the planning and design
of the projects. Moreover, in regarding NGOs, 37(51.7%) participated and 18(30%) were not
involved. Similarly, 5(8.3%) were not Shure whether they participated or not. In short, even
though, majority of the respondents were involved in the design and planning of the projects,
it was not such inspiring. Good project should be participatory and comprehensive of all
stakeholders in the design and planning. To support this, Baum and Tolbert (1985: 340) have
quoted that “from the very outset the project objectives should give enough attention and
efforts to ensure that all the concerned parties who will be engaged in the implementation
and practical operations so as to share a common view of the objective of the strategy for
meeting them.” In addition, Turner (1999:294) has stated “Work is authorized by the project
manager, and allocated to teams or the individuals.” So, actual practice of participation of
stakeholders contradicts with theory and the level of their participation below the
expectation.

4.2.1.2 Trends of planning for the project implementation

As showed in Table 5, the respondents were asked to rate their perceptions on planning for
the project implementation. T-test was conducted on the two groups (AAEB & NGO‟s).

56
 To assess the results recorded and compare mean of the groups, the scale values organized
by equal interval such as Mean < 1.5 completely disagree, 1.5< mean <2.5 slightly agree,
2.5<mean < 3.5 agree to some extent, 3.5< mean<4.5 agree for the most part and mean > 4.5
completely agree
Table 5: planning for the project implementation

Independent-Samples T test

Type of Std. MD 95% Confidence

Sr. respondents Freq. Mean Deviation P-Value Interval
No Items /workers Lower Upper

1 The plan was AAEB 25 2.70 1.112 .0053

appropriate and NGOs 37 3.20 1.132 -.495 -.937 -.054
easy forMissed value 42 - -
implementation Total 104 2.99 1.145
2
Key stakeholders AAEB 25 2.11 1.185 .037
were involved in NGOs 37 2.62 1.209 .003 -.506 .512
the planning of Missed value 42 - -
the project Total 104 2.40 1.219
3 The project AAEB 25 2.89 1.298 .107
closeout program NGOs 37 2.88 1.290 -.471 -1.048 .106
was planned at Missed value 42 - -
the start of the
project Total 104 2.88 1.287
4 The risks of the AAEB 25 2.49 1.470
project were NGOs 37 3.02 1.455 .026 -.495 -.938 -.053
considered by the Missed value 42 - -
plan Total 104 2.82 1.473
5 The cost of the AAEB 25 2.89 1.243
project was NGOs 37 3.54 1.281 .037 -.503 -.974 -.032
clearly estimated Missed value 42 - -
in the plan Total 104 3.21 1.290

As can be seen in the Table 5 item 1 portrays that the plan was appropriate and easy for
implementation. Both AAEB and NGOs have rated mean 2.70 and 3.2.respectively and
which indicates they agree to some extent. In addition, P=0.053>0.05 it has indicated that
there was no significant mean differences for the groups.

57
Respondents were asked Table 5 item 2 which depicts whether key stakeholders were
involved in the planning of the project or not. Accordingly to the respondents of AAEB by
mean value of 2.11 which shows they were slightly agree. Whereas, NGOs were rated 2.62
which means they were agree to some extent. Thus, weighted mean of the two groups were
2.4 which indicated that both groups slightly agree. In addition to this, P=0.037 > there was
no significant mean difference between the two groups. This indicated that little bite degree
of the involvement of stakeholders were more in NGOs and less in the City government of
Addis Ababa Education Bureau. However, in both organizations involvement of stakeholders
in the design and plan of project implementation were insufficient.

Regarding item 3 that represents the project closeout program was planned at the start of the
project in the Table, AAEB workers were rated mean value 2.89 and NGOs‟ worker were
valued 2.88. This showed that both groups were agreed to some extent. In addition to this,
weighted mean also testimonies as they were agree to some extent. Likewise, P- value=
1.07>0.05 point out that there was no significant mean differences between two groups. In a
short, we can conclude that at both AAEB and NGOs the projects closeout period was
planned at the starting time of the project to some extent.

Table5 item 4 and 5 portrays that the risks of the project were considered by the plan and the
cost of the project was clearly estimated in the plan. There was no significant mean
differences between the AAEB and NGOs workers in the statements like, and P = .026>0.05
and .037>0.05 respectively on the above mentioned statements. Regarding item 4, the
respondents of AAEB and NGOs were reacted mean as 2.49 and 3.02 respectively. This
clearly indicated that the risks of the project were considered by the plan more In NGOs than
AABE. But, item 5 the cost of the project was clearly estimated in the plan the mean value
of AAEB were 2.8 which were agree to some extent and NGOs were reacted 3.45 mean
value similar to the above they were agree to some extent. In brief, risks of the projects were
considered by the plan and the cost of the project were clearly estimated in the plan were
some extent at NGOs that AAEB.

In generally, designing and planning of the project implementation 30.76% of the

respondents were not filled the questionnaire due to some of them were not participated and

58
others were not Shure whether they were involved on designing and planning or not.
However, majority of the respondents at both groups were involved.

To sum up, overall mean value of the cumulative items were 2.86 and implied that majorities
of the respondents were agree to some extent in the planning and designing of the project for
implementation. According to World Bank (2000), “implementation plan is a plan, which
will be used as a device for effective and efficient implementation.” Therefore, planning is
initial and fundamental task for project implementation. If the planning goes wrong, nothing
goes right. To support this, Awelu (2007) has indicated that “make clear, planning is a means
to an end and implementation is a way how well the purpose of the plan is being achieved”

4.2.2 Preconditions before project implementation

As pointed out in Table 6 below, the respondents were asked their understandings on
preconditions before for the project implementation. T-test was conducted on the two groups
(AAEB & NGO‟s). To assess the results recorded and compare mean of the groups, the scale
values organized by equal interval such as Mean < 1.5 completely disagree, 1.5< mean <2.5
slightly agree, 2.5<mean < 3.5 agree to some extent, 3.5< mean<4.5 agree for the most part
and mean > 4.5 completely agree.

59
Table 6: Time scheduled to meet actual plan before project implementation commencement

Independent-Samples T
Test
MD 95% Confidence
Type of Interval
Sr. respondents/ Freq. Mean Std. P-Value Lower Upper
No Items Worker Deviation
1 44 2.39 1.104 .074 -.430 -.904 .043
Human and material AAEB
resources Were assigned
60 2.82 1.269
on time NGOs .
Total 104 3.06 1.069
2 44 2.89 .993 .163 -.297 -.716 .122
AAEB
The project was get
official approval on time NGOs 60 3.18 1.112

Total 104 3.06 1.069

3 44 3.14 1.002 .277 -.230 -.649 .188
AAEB

The schedule was easy 60 3.37 1.104

NGOs
to revise
Total 104 3.27 1.063
4 44 2.68 .983 .127 -.352 -.805 .102
AAEB
All work items were
included in the schedule 60 3.03 1.262
NGOs

Total 104 2.88 1.160

5 44 3.27 .899 .517 .123 -.252 .497
AAEB
The sequence of work
clearly shown in the 60 3.15 .988
NGOs
schedule
Total 104 3.20 .949

As it can be seen in the Table 6 item 1, AAEB workers‟ were replied on human and material
resource were assigned on time by mean value 2.39 which shows they were disagree. Unlike
wise, NGOs workers‟ for the same item responded as 2.82 meaning they were undecided
whether human and material resources assigned on a time or not. Similarly the weighted
mean of the both groups also indicated that 3.06 it means they were responded as undecided.
In the same way, P=0.071>0.05 there were no significant mean differences between the
groups. So, Both AAEB and NGOs undecided on human and material resources whether
assigned on a time or not

60
In regarding item 2 which portrays the project was get official approval on time at the Table
6 , both AAEB and NGOs were reacted mean as undecided; 2.89 and 3.18 respectively. Both
groups‟ weighted mean were lays under 3.06 and it again assure that they were undecided.
Likewise, P=.163>0.05 and it clearly describes that there were no significant mean
differences between the groups.

Table 6 Item 3, 4, and 5 the responses of both groups‟ mean were positions under undecided
whether the schedule was easy to revise, all work items were included in the schedule and
the sequence of work clearly shown in the schedule or not . In addition, the weighted mean
also 3.27, 2.88 and 3.20 respectively convinced above ideas. As well, the P- values of above
mentioned respective items were also assured that directly above thoughts which means
.277> 0.05, .127>0.05 and .517>0.05 respectively. This means there were no significant
mean differences between the two groups on their agreement. Thus, both groups respondents
were reacted as they were undecided whether the schedule was easy to revise, all work items
were included in the schedule and the sequence of work clearly shown in the schedule or not.
This clearly indicated that there was gap on scheduling before actual project implementation
commencement and no precondition readiness. The following bar graph summarizes above
analysis briefly as follows:

Figure4: Bar graph shows Time scheduled before actual project implementation
commencement

0.798
Std. Deviation

3.01
Mean

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

As it can be seen in the Figure6, short summary of the time scheduling before actual project
implementation commencement and it assure that majority of respondents reacted as
undecided on mean 3.01. Thus, we can conclude that there was not as much of pre time
scheduling at the both groups before actual project implementation commencement.

61
 4.2.3 Project success factors for implementing the projects
As can be seen on the Table 7 below, it prepared you to identify most and least important
project success factor; Please rank them from most success factor to lest success factor that
most closely matches your perception by only writing number space provided.
Table 7: Project success factors

1st success 2nd success 3rd success 4th success 5th success Total
Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor
Types
No Items of respondents No % No % No % No % No % No %

Simplicity of AAEB 11 10.6 8 7.7 5 4.8 16 15.3 4 3.8 44 100

1
design NGOs 25 24 12 11.5 6 5.8 13 12.5 4 3.8 60 100
Both AAEB&NGOs 36 34.6 20 19.2 11 10.6 29 27.9 8 7.7 104 100
11 10.6 5 4.8 100
AAEB 10 9.6 16 15.3 2 1.9
44
Good
2
management NGOs 11 10.6 21 20.2 3 2.88 19 18.2 6 5.8 60 100
Both AAEB&NGOs 21 20.2 32 30.8 8 7.7 35 33.7 8 7.7 104 100

AAEB 10 9.6 14 13.4 11 10.6 4 3.8 5 4.8 44 100

Careful NGOs 21 20.2 28 26.9 9 1 .96 1 .96 60 100
3
preparation 31 29.8 42 40.4 20 19.2 5 4.8 6 5.8 104 100
Both AAEB&NGOs
AAEB 8 7.7 2 1.9 4 3.8 3 2.88 27 25.9 44 100
Political NGOs 5 4.8 2 1.9 7 6.7 5 4.8 41 39.4 60 100
4
commitment 13 12.5 4 3.8 11 10.6 8 7.7 68 73.1 104 100
Both AAEB&NGOs

AAEB 1 .96 4 3.8 21 20.2 12 11.5 6 5.8 44 100

Community
3 2.88 33 31.7 60 100
5 involvement NGOs 3 2.88 15 14.4 6 5.8
in project Both AAEB&NGOs 4 3.8 7 6.7 54 51.9 27 26.0 12 11.5 104 100
Source: (own Field data, 2016)

As indicated in the Table 7 item 1 which depicts simplicity of the design among project
success factor and 36 (34.6%) of the respondents from both AAEB and NGOs workers
ordered as first success factors. In addition, 20(19.2%) and 11(10.6%) respondents were well
ordered as second and third project success factor correspondingly. Moreover, 29(27.9%) and
8(7.7%) respondents were respectively replied as 4th and 5th success factor. Therefore, the
replies from majority of the respondents indicated as simplicity of the design should be first
project success factor. To support this, according to suggestion of Baum and Tolbert

62
(1985:368) Projects with relatively simple and well-defined objectives and based on proven
and appropriate technologies or approaches have a better chance of being implemented
successfully.
The reaction of the respondents regarding item 2 from Table 7 which revealed good
management and the respondents were arranged as 22(21.2%) were 1st success factor,
34(33.5%) 2nd success factor, 8(7.7%)3rd success factor , 35(33.7%) 4th success factor and
8(7.7%) 5th success factor. Therefore, majority of the respondents were reacted as good
management should be 4th success factor for the project implementation.

Additionally, the Table 7 item 3 that represents Careful preparation and the respondents of
both AAEB and NGOs were ordered as the following: 31(29.8%) 1st success factor,
42(40.4%) as 2nd success factor, 20(19.2%) 3rd success factor, 5(4.8%) 4th success factor
and 2(1.9%) 5th success factor. In short, we can draw the meaning from above analysis as
careful preparation should be 2nd success factor for project implementation.

Besides, Table 7 item 4 which indicate Political commitment, and the respondents of both
AAEB and NGOs workers were ordered as the next. 11(10.6%) were 1st success factor,
2(1.9), 2nd success factor 11(10.6%), 3rd success factor 8(7.7%), 4th success factor and
76(73.1%) 5th success factor. In general, we can conclude from overhead examination as
political commitment should be 5th or last but not least success factor for project
implementation. However, according to Baum and Tolbert (1985:366) “this is a complex
matter, not always readily discernible, that applies not only to projects supported by
international development agencies but also to those financed from the country's own
resources”
Moreover, the last item in Table 7 which shows community involvement and the respondents
of both AAEB and NGOs were well-ordered as the follows: 4(3.8%) were 1st success factor,
5(4.8%), 2nd success factor 54(51.9%) , 3rd success factor 27(26.0 %), 4th success factor and
10(9.6%) 5th success factor. In general, we can draw implication from above analysis as
community involvement in project should be 3rd success factor for project implementation.

Interviews were offered to the project coordinators of NGOs and department heads of the
AAEB on most success factor for project implementation and most of them were reflected as,

63
stronged and sustained commitment by all levels of the government bodies‟ probably most
important reason for success. Interviewee X whom head of department of AAEB has spoken
that:
political or government commitment I mean that the continuing attention and active
support of these agencies and individuals who are in a position to influence
attainment of the project‟s objectives whether through the allocation of human,
financial and other resources or through the workings of the administrative and
political apparatus.

However, over all analysis clearly indicated as genuine project success factors were ordered
as follows: simplicity of design, careful preparation, and community involvement in a
project, good management and political commitment. More clear summaries were
generalized under following graph as follows:

64
4.2.4 Capacity of the project managers for project implementation
As specified in Table 8 further down, the respondents were asked their viewpoints on
capacity of the project managers for project implementation. To assess the results recorded
and compare mean of the groups, the scale values organized by equal interval such Mean <
1.5 highly incapable, 1.5< mean <2.5 slightly capable, 2.5<mean 3.5 averagely capable, 3.5<
mean<4.5 capable and > 4.5 highly capable

Table 8: Measuring project Managers capacity during implementing projects

Independent-Samples T test

MD 95% Confidence
Type of Std. Interval
respondents/Wo Freq. Mean Deviation P-Value Lower Upper
rkers
No Items
1 44 3.11 1.146 .347 -.203 -.629 .223
AAEB
Prepare and maintain
a project work plan 60 3.32 1.033
NGOs
Total 104 3.23 1.081
44 2.64 1.416 .073 -.464 -.971 .044
Maintain national AAEB
2 and local 60 3.10 1.189
information NGOs
Total 104 2.90 1.304
AAEB 44 3.16 1.670 .272 -.341 -.953 .272
3 Ability to manage
staff NGOs 60 3.50 1.467

Total 104 3.36 1.557

AAEB 44 3.32 1.394 .633 -.132 -.678 .414

Mobilize project
4 resources properly 60 3.45 1.383
NGOs
Total 104 3.39 1.382
44 3.45 1.422
Handle overall AAEB
project funds 60 3.63 1.207 .491 -.179 -.691 .334
according to plan NGOs
5
Total 104 3.56 1.298
44 2.75 1.037
Properly handle AAEB
materials and other 60 3.07 1.118 .144 -.317 -.744 .110
facilities NGOs
6
Total 104 2.93 1.091
AAEB 44 3.00 1.141
Maintain
communications in 60 3.23 .998 .270 -.233 -.651 .184
all direction NGOs
7
Total 104 3.13 1.062

65
In the above Table 8 which prepared to assess project managers managing ability and first
item portrays prepare and maintain a project work plan. The reaction of both AAEB and
NGOs were reacted weighted mean 3.23 which indicated that managers were averagely
capable to prepare and maintain a project work plan. Regarding the mean value of the both
AAEB and NGOs were such as 3.11 and 3.32 respectively and again both groups mean lays
under managers were averagely capable to coordinate projects. Similarly, the result of
independent sample t-test values for the item indicates that there was no statistically
significant difference between the means of the two groups as obtained p values .347 was
greater than 0.05. To sum up, project managers at both groups were averagely capable to
prepare and maintain a project work plan.
Regarding item 2 Table 8 the respondents were asked either mangers were maintain national
and local information or not, and majority of the both groups replied as weighted mean 2.9
that mangers were averagely capable on the issue. Each group responses support also above
realty 2.64 and 3.10 respectively AAEB and NGOs. Likewise, p=0.73>0.05 which means
there were no significant mean differences between the groups. In general, to maintain local
and national information project managers were averagely capable.
In Table 8 items 3, 4, 6 and 7 were represents ability to manage staff, mobilize project
resources properly, properly handle materials and other facilities and maintain
communications in all direction respectively. Both non-government organizations‟ and City
government of education bureaus‟ workers were reacted such as 3.36, 3.39, 2.93 and 3.13
respectively for the above mention items and which gave clear image of managing ability of
project managers were averagely capable and weighted mean lays positions under2.5<mean
3.5 that means they averagely capable. By the same token, P value of the all items such
as.270, .633, .144 and .272 > 0.05 .The result of independent sample t-test values for all
items indicates that there is no statistically significant difference between the means of the
two groups and as obtained p values which ranges from .270 to .633 were greater than 0.05.
Therefore, in both non-government organizations and City government of education bureaus,
the project managers managing capacity to manage staff, mobilize project resources properly,
properly handle materials and other facilities and maintain communications in all direction
the results of investigation clearly shows as they were averagely capable to manage. But it
not satisfactory as needed to be. According to Carmichael (2004:4), a good manager by

66
saying that, “It is often said that good project managers make it happen; poor project
manager watch it happen.” A project manager is a key person for the project. If the project
manager is poor, there will be underperformance of the project. The effectiveness of a project
manager is an important concern for the success of the project and the development of the
organization. Furthermore, Baum and Tolbert (1985:370)stated as A problem for many
developing countries is that they do not have enough qualified managers to run all the
projects or activities under way, so that attracting a manager to a particular project is at the
expense of another one. In brief, Buam and Tolbert (1985:373) have suggested that “due to
the managerial problems, many educational projects, programs, policies and reforms are
failing.”
Item 5 in the Table 8 which prepared to measure whether managers can handle overall
project funds according to plan or not. The respondents of the AAEB were reacted as mean
value 3.45 which indicates managers still averagely capable to manage over -all project fund
according to plan. On other hand, the respondents of NGOs were responded as on the same
item as mean value3.63 which means project managers were capable. We can draw the
meaning from above examination as NGOs‟ managers were more capable to handle overall
project funds according to plan than AAEB‟ project managers. As a whole, both groups‟
weighted mean 3.56 which means both groups managers were averagely capable to handle
overall project funds according to plan. Moreover, P=.491>0.05 which indicated that there
were no significant mean differences between the groups. Following graph precisely
summarize the above facts as:
Figure 5: Line graph of Project Manager’s or coordinator’s managing and coordinating ability

3.5
3
Mean Value

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Std.
Mean Deviatio
n
Project Manager’s or
coordinator’s managing 3.22 0.958
and coordinating ability

67
Briefly, Project Manager‟s or coordinator‟s managing and coordinating ability and
respondents‟ responses were assured as project managers were averagely capable to manage
or coordinate overall project in both AAEB and NGOs while implementing educational
projects as whole. However, Baum and Tolbert (1985: 369) states, “many projects in serious
difficulties during implementation have been turned around by the appointment of a
competent manager.” So, since they were not competent enough, implementation of projects
were on serious. Regarding interview, majority of the interviewees were responded as there
was such strong management for implementing the projects.

4.3 Perception of respondents on the project objectives attainment

4.3.1 Familiarity of stakeholders with project objectives
As showed in Table 9 lower than, the respondents were asked their standpoints on how much
knows the shareholders about project objectives.
Table 9: How much the stakeholders knows about project objectives?
No Type of respondents Total
AAEB NGOs
No % No % No %
No Items
1 Do you know the objective of the project?
Yes 33 75.0 50 83.3 83 79.8
No 4 9.1 4 6.7 8 7.7
Not Sure 7 15.9 6 10.0 13 12.5
Total 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0
2 Were feasibility studies conducted before the initiation of the project?

Yes 24 54.5 43 71.7 67 64.4

No 12 27.3 6 10.0 18 17.3
Not Sure 8 18.2 11 18.3 19 18.3
Total 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0
3 Were risks of the project considered before commencement of project?
Yes 18 40.9 37 61.7 55 52.9
No 10 22.7 8 13.3 18 17.3
Not Sure 16 36.4 15 25.0 31 29.8
Total 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0
4 Do you think that the project has achieved its intended objectives?

Yes 22 50.0 36 60.0 58 55.8

No 6 13.6 9 15.0 15 14.4
Not Sure 16 36.4 15 25.0 31 29.8
Total 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0
5 Were aims and objectives of the project decided?
Yes 22 50.0 35 58.3 57 54.8
No 14 31.8 12 20.0 26 25.0
Not Sure 8 18.2 13 21.7 21 20.2
Total 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0
6 Was need assessment conducted before project objective was set?
Yes 22 50.0 39 65.0 61 58.7
No 11 25.0 7 11.7 18 17.3
Not Sure 11 25.0 14 23.3 25 24.0
Total 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0

68
As it can be seen, six items in the Table 9 that were prepared to know how much
stakeholders were familiar with a project. The first items was do you know the objective of
the project? And majority of the respondents were 83(79.8%) of both City government of the
educational bureau and no-governmental organizations were replied as they had clear picture
of project objectives. On the other hand, 8(7.7%) and 25(24%) of the both groups were don‟t
knew and not sure whether they knew or not the object of the project respectively. In
regarding to the each group, AAEB were responded as 75% knew the project‟s objectives,
9.1% were don‟t knew the objectives and 15% of the respondents were not sure. Moreover,
83.3% of the NGOs‟ workers knew the project objective and 6.7% and 10% were
respectively not knew and not sure the objectives of the projects.

Interview respond by majority of the project coordinators in NGOs and Department heads in
AAEB were also assured as stakeholders clearly understood and knew about project
objectives and goals. Therefore, more NGOs‟ workers were familiar with project objectives
than AAEB workers. In short, mainstream of the stakeholders knew the objectives of the
projects.

Regarding item 2 at the same Table which portrays were feasibility studies conducted before
the initiation of the projects and 64.4% of the entire respondents were responded yes it were.
In contrast, 17.3% of the respondents were responded as no feasibility studies and 18.3% of
the subjects were replied as they were not sure whether there was feasibility studies
conducted before the initiation of the projects or not. According to individual group
responses, 54.4% of AAEB were yes there were feasibility studies. In contrary, 27.3 were no
feasibility studies at all and 18.2% were not sure. In cases of NGOs 71.7%, 10.% and 18.3%
were responded as yes there were feasibility studies, no and not sure respectively. Thus, still
there was feasibility studies conducted before the initiation of the projects more in NGOs
than AAEB. Majorities of the projects were initiated after feasibility studies were conducted.

In Table 9 item 3 widely held of the respondents which 55(52.9%) of both City government
of the educational bureau and no-governmental organizations were answered as risks of the
projects were considered before commencement of project. Conversely,18(17.3%) and
31(29.8%) of the both groups were reacted as risks of the projects were not considered
before commencement of project and not sure respectively. In about to the each group,

69
AAEB were answer back as 40.9% were reacted risks of the projects were considered before
commencement of project, 22.7% answered no and 36.4% of the respondents were not sure.
Also, 61.7% of the NGOs‟ workers replied risks of the projects were considered before
commencement of project and 13.3% and 25% were respectively risks of the projects were
not considered before commencement of project and not sure the whether the risks of the
projects were considered before commencement of project or not . As a result, risks of the
projects were more considered before commencement of project more in NGOs than AAEB.
In brief, both City government of the educational bureau and no-governmental organizations
were considered risks of the projects before commencement of project to the some extent and
some extent risks of the projects were not considered before commencement of project.
Regarding interview, the department heads and project managers were asked the procedures
followed to minimize risks. Six department heads and ten educational project coordinators
said the risk was planned beforehand. The other eleven department heads and twelve
educational project coordinators explained there was no formal plan to minimize risks, but
they considered some issues beforehand. Some of the procedures considered to minimize
risks were: Arranging different meetings and discussion program, Sharing information with
stakeholders, preparing activity, financial and cash request formats and arranging training on
how to use these formats, so as to minimize risks, however, two department heads explained
that “If the risks were pre-planned, the projects could not face such kind of disaster.” By
forecasting some of the risks, delays in the implementation of the project could be avoided.

As regards of item 4 at the same Table, 58(55.8%) of the entire respondents were returned as
that the project has achieved its intended objectives. In divergence, 15(14.4%) of the
respondents were responded as the project has not achieved its intended objectives and
31(29.8%) of the subjects were reacted as they were not sure whether the project has
achieved its intended objectives or not. Rendering to individual group replies, 50% of AAEB
were yes the project has achieved its intended objectives. In contrary, 13.6% were the project
has not achieved its intended objectives at all and 36.4% were not sure. In cases of NGOs
60%, 15% and 25% were responded as yes the project has achieved its intended objectives,
no and not sure respectively. Therefore, the project has achieved its intended objectives more
in NGOs than AAEB.

70
As it can be seen in Table 9 item 5 total of the respondents of both City government of the
educational bureau and no-governmental organizations which 57(54.8%) were reacted on
aims and objectives of the projects were decided by stakeholders. On the contrary, 26(25%)
and 21(20.2%) of the both groups were countered as were reacted aims and objectives of the
projects were not decided by stakeholders and not sure respectively. In regarding to the each
group, AAEB were responded as 50% were reacted aims and objectives of the projects were
decided by stakeholders, 31.8% answered no and 18.2% of the respondents were not sure.
Likewise, 58.3% of the NGOs‟ workers replied aims and objectives of the projects were
decided by stakeholders and 20% and 21% respectively were replied as aims and objectives
of the projects were not decided by stakeholders and not sure whether the aims and
objectives of the projects were decided by stakeholders or not. So, aims and objectives of the
projects were decided by stakeholders more in NGOs than AAEB. In a few words, aims and
objectives of the projects were decided by stakeholders both City government of the
educational bureau and no-governmental organizations averagely.

With regard to last item that portrays a need assessment was conducted before project
objective in the Table 10 and 61(58.7%) from the whole respondents were reacted. Unlike
wise, 18(17.3%) of the respondents were reacted as a need assessment was not conducted
before project objective was set and 25(24.8%) of the subjects were reacted as they were not
sure whether a need assessment was not conducted before project objective was set or not.
Rendering to separate group replies, 50% of AAEB were yes a need assessment was not
conducted before project objective was set. In contrary, 25% a need assessment was not
conducted before project objective was set at all and 25% were not sure. In cases of NGOs
65%, 11.7% and 23.3% were responded as yes a need assessment was conducted before
project objective was set, no and not sure respectively. Therefore, a need assessment was
conducted before project objective was set more in NGOs than AAEB and both groups
conducting a need assessment before project objective was set above the average.

4.3.2 Participation of stakeholders’ on the overall projects works

As specified in Table 10 further down, the respondents were asked their insights on
Participation of stakeholders‟ on the overall projects works.

71
To assess the results recorded and compare mean of the groups, the scale values organized
by equal interval such as Mean < 1.5 completely disagree, 1.5< mean <2.5 slightly agree,
2.5<mean < 3.5 agree to some extent, 3.5< mean<4.5 agree for the most part and mean > 4.5
completely agree

Table10: stakeholders’ Involvement on projects

Independent- Samples T test

Std. 95% Confidence

Type of Freq Mean Deviation P-Value MD Interval
respondents/ .
Workers Lower Upper

No Items
1 The goals and objectives 44 3.30 1.047 .592 -.121 -.569 .326
AAEB
of the
60 3.42 1.197
project were decided By NGOs
stakeholders
Total 104 3.37 1.133
2 44 3.75 .943 .928 -.017 -.380 .347
The principal participants AAEB
in the project were
60 3.77 .909
decided NGOs
Total 104 3.76 .919
3 The time frames that AAEB 44 3.25 1.123 .284 -.250 -.710 .210
when the project be
started and finished were 60 3.50 1.200
NGOs
decided by stakeholders
Total 104 3.39 1.169
4 44 2.98 1.131 .677 -.089 -.514 .335
The process of project be AAEB
executed was determined
by stakeholders 60 3.07 1.039
NGOs
Total 104 3.03 1.074
5 44 2.95 1.033
Time of project being AAEB .152 -.279 -.662 .104
launched was determined
60 3.23 .927
by stakeholders NGOs
Total 104 3.12 .978
6 44 2.86 1.002
All stakeholders clearly AAEB
understood their 60 3.38 .958 .009 -.520 -.904 -.135
responsibility NGOs
Total 104 3.16 1.006

The reaction of the entire respondents on Table item 1 which portrays on the goals and
objectives of the project were decided by stakeholders and 3.37 weighted mean which
implies that they were undecided. In addition, AAEBs‟ and NGOs‟ workers separately

72
responded as mean 3.30 and 3.42 respectively and again it represents both groups were
undecided to on the goals and objectives of the project were whether decided by stakeholders
or not. Similarly, P value of the both groups was .592>0.05 which indicated as no significant
mean differences between the groups. Therefore, we can‟t say goals and objectives of the
project were decided by stakeholders or not.

In the same Table 10 item 2 that depict the principal participants in the project were decided
and both city government of the educational bureau and no-governmental organizations were
responded as weighted mean places 3.76 which point to agree on the principal participants in
the project were decided. In addition, isolated groups of respondents of AAEB and NGOs
were mean value 3.75 and 3.77 respectively. Both groups reaction till shows that they were
agree. Moreover, P= .928>0.05 and it shows that there is no statistically significant
difference between the means of the two groups.

Table 10 Item 3, 4, 5 and 6 the replies of both groups‟ mean were positions under undecided
whether the time frames that when the project be started and finished were decided by
stakeholders, the process of project be executed was determined by stakeholders, time of
project being launched was determined by stakeholders and all stakeholders clearly
understood their responsibility or not. In addition, the weighted mean also 3.39, 3.03, 3.12
and 3.16 respectively which assure above thoughts. In addition, the P- values of the above
one-to-one items were also gave the clear picture of above thoughts such as .284> 0.05,
.677>0.05, .009>0.05 and .152>0.005 correspondingly. The results of independent sample t-
test values for all items were indicated that there was no statistically significant difference
between the means of the two groups. Thus, both groups respondents were replied as they
were undecided whether the time frames that when the project be started and finished were
decided by stakeholders, the process of project be executed was determined by stakeholders,
time of project being launched was determined by stakeholders and all stakeholders clearly
understood their responsibility or not.
Majority of the project coordinators in NGOs and Department heads in AAEB were reflected
on interview, there were not as much of stakeholders‟ participation and support during need
assessment, planning, monitoring and evaluation, implementation of the project.

73
One local NGO manger stated that:

The management teams and core implementers were simply invites stakeholders at
the beginning to create awareness to some extent and end of projects implementation;
report tall activities for them and give opportunities to reflect their suggestion on
overall project works rather than inviting them on need assessment, planning,
monitoring and evaluation, implementation of the projects

This clearly indicated that there was gap on stakeholders‟ Participation on the projects and
degree of participation of stakeholders at both AAEB and NGOs were intermediate.
Gardiner, (2005:119) has stated that “when stakeholders are satisfied and have a good
relationship, the project moves towards a successful outcome.” In addition, Buddy and Paton,
cited by Harrin (2007:111), stakeholders as “individuals, groups, or institutions with an
interest in the project and can affect the outcome.” In brief, a degree of participation of the
stakeholders in educational project implementation is less when we compare with theoretical
standards.

74
4.4 Education projects monitoring and evaluation to rectify the problems on
educational projects

4.4.1 Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms

As showed in Table 11 below, the respondents were asked their views on monitoring and
evaluation mechanisms. The respondents were asked to show their level of agreement by
selecting given alternatives as follows:
Table 17: Practices of the Monitoring and Evaluation
Type of respondents Total
AAEB NGOs
No Items No %
No % No %
1 Are there monitoring and evaluation mechanism functioned by your organization?
Yes 36 81.8 50 83.3 86 82.7
No 5 11.4 5 8.3 10 9.6
I don't know 3 6.8 5 8.3 8 7.7
Total 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0
2 What forms of the monitoring and evaluation mechanism currently used?

Mostly informal 7 15.9 11 18.3 18 17.3

Mostly formal 24 54.5 23 38.3 47 45.2
mostly mixed 13 29.5 26 43.3 39 37.5
Total 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0
3 Who were Salient stakeholders involved in M&E?
Directors only 2 4.5 3 5.0 5 4.8
Senior staff only 6 13.6 5 8.3 11 10.6
All staff 14 31.8 23 38.3 37 35.6
All staff and community
5 11.4 6 10.0 11 10.6
representative ( )
Mostly Management teams and
17 38.6 23 38.3 40 38.5
sometimes all staff
Total
44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0

Source: (own Field data, 2016)

As indicated in the Table11 item 1which revealed how much both organizations were
practicing monitoring and evaluation to realizes project implementation. The reaction of the
majority respondents from entire population 82.7 % responded as they were applying. To
strengthen this, “the need to develop and apply practical M&E system is increasingly
recognized as an indispensable tool for programme/project management, both to support the
implementation and to get feedback for the design of new initiatives” (EMI, 2014). On the
other hand, 9.6 % were said no and 7.7% they were not sure. Therefore, both AAEB and
NGOs were applying M&E.

75
The second items on the same Table which prepared to identify forms of the monitoring and
evaluation mechanism currently applying and the respondents were reacted as 17.3% mostly
informal, 45.2% mostly formal and 37.5% mostly mixed.

Concerning interview that portrays on applicability of the formal monitoring and evaluation
mechanism widely held of the project coordinators of the NGOs and department heads at
AAEB were spoken as they were widely exercising. So, we can conclude as both AAEB and
NGOs primarily used formal M&E, secondly used mixed and at last option informal M&E
and more it demonstrated as below in figurative forms.

The last items in the Table 11 ready to assess who take part in monitoring and evaluation,
38.5% were reacted as Mostly Management teams and sometimes all staff, 35.6 were
responded as all staff, 10.6% were replied as senior staff only and All staff and community
representative and 4.8% were reacted as directors only. This give clear picture of the
management team and sometimes all staff mostly participate in M&E. But this contradict
with ideas of , Jerry & Anne (2008) which M & E as a process in which primary and other
stakeholders collaborate and take an active part in assessing and evaluating the performance
and achievement of a project or an intervention.
4.4.2 Regularly follow-up mechanisms of the projects

As can be seen in the Table 12 further down, the respondents were asked their
understandings on regularly follow-up mechanisms of the projects. To assess the results
recorded and compare mean of the groups, the scale values organized by equal interval such
as Mean < 1.5 completely disagree, 1.5< mean <2.5 slightly agree, 2.5<mean < 3.5 agree to
some extent, 3.5< mean<4.5 agree for the most part and mean > 4.5 completely agree.

76
Table 12: monitoring projects on a regular basis
Independent- Samples T test

Type of Std. 95% Confidence

respondents Freq. Mean Deviation P-Value MD Interval
/Workers Lower Upper
No Items
AAEB 44 3.34 1.569 .099 -.476 -1.042 .090
The activities
1 accomplished according 60 3.82 1.334
to the plan NGOs

Total 104 3.62 1.450

AAEB 44 3.11 1.351 .180 -.353 -.872 .166
The performance
2 monitored according to 60 3.47 1.295
NGOs
the schedule and plan
Total 104 3.32 1.324

AAEB 44 3.23 1.344 .125 -.373 -.850 .105

The implementations of
the project were started
3 on time 60 3.60 1.108
NGOs

Total 104 3.44 1.221

AAEB 44 3.34 1.200 .290 -.242 -.694 .210
The project was
terminated on time
4 according to the plan 60 3.58 1.109
NGOs

Total 104 3.48 1.149

AAEB 44 3.34 1.346
Corrective actions was .047 -.509 -1.011 -.008
taken when problems NGOs 60 3.85 1.219
arose
Total
5 104 3.63 1.293
AAEB 44 3.45 1.355
.142 -.379 -.886 .128
The quality of the
NGOs 60 3.83 1.237
project was monitored
.
6
Total
104 3.67 1.296
AAEB 44 3.27 1.515
The project budget was .037 -.561 -1.088 -.033
controlled to accomplish NGOs 60 3.83 1.196
7
the tasks
Total
104 3.60 1.362

As showed in the Table 12 items 1,5 6 that portrays the regularly follow up mechanisms of
the projects on items such as project were accomplished according to the plan, corrective
actions was taken when problems arose in implementing the project, the quality of the project
was monitored and the project budget was controlled to accomplish the tasks . All items were

77
weighted mean 3.62, 3.63, 3.67 and 3.60 respectively and the mean under 3.5< mean<4.5
agree. Similarly, independent sample t-test values for all items indicates that there is no
statistically significant difference between the means of the two groups as obtained p values
.099, .047, .142 and .037 which ranges from.037 to .099 were greater than 0.05. However,
when we compare independent mean between AAEB and NGOs, all means of the former
were 2.5<mean 3.5 undecided and the later were3.5< mean<4.5 agree. It indicated that
regularly follow up mechanisms of the projects on above mentioned items medium in entire
respondents. However, when we compare mean values of two independent groups, follow up
mechanisms of the projects were better in NGOs than AAEB.

Regarding items 2, 3 and 4 in the same Table, again it share common identity on entire
groups and they responded on items such as the performance of the project was monitored
according to the schedule in order to manage deviation from the plan, the implementations of
the project were started on time and the project was terminated on time according to the plan
with weighted mean 3.32, 3.44 and 3.48 respectively which indicated that undecided. In the
same way, independent sample t-test values for all items indicates that there is no statistically
significant difference between the means of the two groups as obtained p values, .180, .290
and .125 which ranges from.125 to .290 were greater than 0.05. It indicated that regularly
follow up mechanisms of the projects on above mentioned items, not decided to say
whether it was going well or not.

Briefly, the follow up mechanisms of the projects were undecided to say regularly follow up
mechanisms whether being existed or not. As indicated on the Figure, the means values of
the entire population were 3.54 and it indicated that follow up mechanism were lays under
unsure position at both organizations.

4.4.3 Major devices of Monitoring and Evaluation

As showed on Appendix G Table 19, the respondents were asked their opinions on major
devices of Monitoring and Evaluation. To assess the results recorded percentage interval applied
like > 75% mostly used, between 74-50% moderately used and <49% slightly used

As it can be indicated in the Table 20, 11 items portrays to identify what kinds of monitoring
and evaluation devices were AAEB and NGOs currently using to manage educational project
implementation. To manage the analysis of above mentioned items, the researcher divides the

78
M &E devices in to three categories based on the evidences and data which collected from
respondents. Firstly, mostly used M& E devices such as urgent meeting (83.7%),
Observation of activities (83.7%), Written report (96.2%), Oral report(80.8%) and Open
discussion (86.5%) and all were >75% which indicates the devices were mostly used at both
groups . Secondly, moderately used M& E devices such as progress report (72.1%), follow
up studies (64.4%), questionnaires (68.3%), interview (74.0%) and review document (72.1%)
that were in between 74 and 50 % which indicates both groups were moderately used.
Finally, a slightly used M& E device was only experimental and control groups (31.7%)
which below the 49%. Over-all, written report, open discussion special meeting, observation
and oral report were highly and frequently used M&E devices at both AAEB NGOs .

4.4.4 Time Interval for applying M &E

As displayed in Table 13 below, the respondents were asked their perspectives on time
interval for applying M &E.
Table13: Time Interval for applying M &E
AAEB NGO Total
Time of interval Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
End only 2 4.5 - - 2 1.9
11 18.3
Beginning and end 15 34.1 26 25.0

32 53.3
Periodically 22 50.0 54 51.9

17 28.3
Continually 5 11.4 22 21.2

60 100.0
Total 44 100.0 104 100.0

Source: (own Field data, 2016)

Regarding time of the interval for conducting Monitoring and evaluation which portray on
the Table 13, AAEB workers replied as 22(50%) M&E conducted periodically. Secondly,
15(34.1%) were responded as beginning and end. Few respondents from the same group
responded as end only and continually like 2(4.5%) and 5(11.4%) respectively. On the other
hand, NGOs workers replied on the same item, they responded as 32(53.3%) and 17(28.3%)
conducted M&E periodically and continually respectively. In addition, no one reacted as
M&E conducted at end only and 11(18.3) were replied as it applied beginning and end.
Therefore, as reaction of majority respondents indicated, M&E being conducting in both
AAEB and NGOs periodically 54(51.9%) and continually22 (21.2%).

79
4.5 Perception on challenges that affect the implementation of the Educational projects
4.5.1 Problems that Faced at Starting Time of the Projects

As designated in Table 14 below, the respondents were asked their opinion on do you think
that projects were delayed at the starting time?
Table14: Delays of the projects at the starting time

Type of respondents Total

No Items AAEB NGOs

No %
No % No %
1
Was the project delayed at the starting time?
Yes
36 81.8 51 85.0 87 83.7
No
4 9.1 6 10.0 10 9.6
Not Applicable
4 9.1 3 5.0 7 6.7
Total
44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0
Source: (own Field data, 2016)
The Table 14 portrays whether the project delayed at the starting time or not and 87(83.7%)
of the respondents were replied as yes it delayed at the starting time. Whereas, 10(9.6%)
replied as projects were not delayed at the starting time and 7(6.7%) responded the issue not
applicable, because of projects which they were implementing was already started couple of
years before.

4.5.1.1 Reasons for the delays on the starting time of the Project
As specified in Table 15 further down, the respondents were asked their views on reasons for
the delays on the starting time of the Projects. To assess the results recorded and compare
mean of the groups, the scale values organized by equal interval such as Mean < 1.5 Very
serious, 1.5< mean <2.5 Serous, 2.5<mean 3.5 averagely serous, 3.5< mean<4.5 Less
serious and >4.5 not at all problem.

80
Table15: Reasons for the delays on the starting time of the Project

Independent- 95%
Samples T test Confidence
Type of Interval
respondents Std.
No Items /Workers Freq. Mean Deviation P-Value Lower Upper

AAEB 36 3.55 1.501 -.720 .478

.689

1 Project personnel not 51 3.67 1.537

appointed on time NGOs
87 3.62 1.516
Total

17 - -
Missed Values

AAEB 36 3.66 1.509 -.382 .734

Inflexible pre-conditions NGOs 51 3.48 1.347

of loans and grants .533
2
87 3.56 1.413
Total
17 - -
Missed Values
AAEB 36 2.70 .954 -.746 .022

Negotiation from local 51 3.07 .989

3 authorities in relation to NGOs .064
infrastructure and other
facilities used for project Total 87 2.91 .986
implementation
17 - -
Missed Values

AAEB 36 2.41 .972 .001 -1.077 -.305

4
Delay of budget release NGOs 51 3.10 .986
and/or disbursement
87 2.81 1.034
Total

17 - -
Missed Value
AAEB 36 3.23 1.327

Implementing agencies NGOs 51 3.12 1.403 .685 -.429 .651

were not ready to start the
5 project on time Total 87 3.16 1.366

Missed Values 17 - -

81
As can be seen in the Table 15 item 1 which represents projects‟ personnel not appointed on
time and majority of the both AAEB and NGOs workers were responded on weighted mean
3.62 which indicated that the problem was less serious. Independent mean values of both
groups were 3.55 and 3.67 respectively and again it support above statement. P- Value also
clearly showed as, .686>0.05 and it means there was no significant mean difference between
the groups. Therefore, project personnel appointed on a time at both AAEB and NGOs when
starting time of the project implementation and no such problems on the subject.

The reaction of the entire respondents on Table 15, item 2 was 3.56 weighted mean which
implies that inflexible pre-conditions of loans and grants problems were less serious in the
both groups. In addition, AAEB‟ and NGOs‟ workers separately responded as mean 3.66 and
3.48 respectively and it represents as the problems was less serious in AAEB and averagely
serious on NGOs. Similarly, P value .533>0.05 and it indicated as no significant mean
differences between the groups. Therefore, pre-conditions of loans and grants problems were
less serious in the both groups.

As recognized in the above Table 15 ,item 4 which prepared to ask delay of budget release
and/or disbursement of the both AAEB and NGOs workers were answered on weighted
mean 2.81 which point out the problem was averagely serious. Independent mean values of
both groups were 2.41 which indicated as the problem was serious at AAEB and 3.10 that
showed the problem was averagely serious at NGOs and the responses of the respondents
were paradox between the groups. In addition to above statement, P= also clearly showed as,
.001<0.05 and it means there was significant mean differences between the groups. To sum,
delay of budget release and/or disbursement problems serious at AAEB and averagely
serious at NGOs at starting time of the project implementation.

In the Table 15, Items 3 and 5 come backed of both groups‟ weighted mean 2.91 and 3.16 on
negotiation from local authorities in relation to infrastructure and other facilities used for
project implementation and implementing agencies were not ready to start the project on time
respectively and the problems were averagely serious at both groups. In addition, the
independent mean AAEB and NGOs in item 3 and 5 also indicated 3.07 and 2.91, and 3.23
and 3.12 correspondingly. In both cases it shows the problems were averagely serious.
Moreover, P values of the two items which .064 and 165> 0.05 and it indicates that there was

82
no statistically significant difference between the means of the two groups. In brief, the
problems of negotiation from local authorities in relation to infrastructure and other facilities
used for project implementation and implementing agencies to start the project on time were
averagely serious at both City government of Addis Ababa education bureau and non-
governmental organization. Buam and Tolbert (1985) have argued that “delays in project
implementation…postponed implementation are the major difficulties occur at the
implementation stage of projects.”

In brief, the mean values of the entire population was 3.21 and it declare that the problems
listed in the form of the items in the Table 15 were averagely serious at starting time of the
educational project implementation.

4.5.2 Problems that Faced at Middle of the Projects Implementation

As it can be seen in Table 16 below, the respondents were asked their views on problems that
confronted during the middle of the project implementation.

Table 16: Problems encounter during the project implementation

Type of respondents Total
AAEB NGOs
No Items No % No % No %
1 Was any Problems encounter during the project implementation?
Yes 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0
No - - - - - -
Not Applicable - - - -- -- --
Total 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0

Source: (own Field data, 2016)

As indicated on Table 16, respondents were asked as was any Problems encounter during the
project implementation and all respondents that 104(100%) replied as yes it was.

4.5.2.1 Problems that confronted during the middle of the project implementation

As specified in Table 17 below, the respondents were asked their outlooks on problems that
confronted during the middle of the project implementation. . To assess the results recorded and
compare mean of the groups, the scale values organized by equal interval such as Mean <
1.5 Very serious, 1.5< mean <2.5 Serous, 2.5<mean 3.5 averagely serous, 3.5< mean<4.5
Less serious and >4.5 not at all problem.

83
Table17: Problems that confronted during the middle of the project implementation

Type of
respondent/ Freq. Mean Std. Independent- 95%
Samples T test Confidence
Workers Deviation
Interval
No Items

P-Value Lower Upper

44 3.14 1.579 .045 -1.147 -.014
AAEB
Lack of people with
1 special skills 60 3.72 1.329
NGOs
Total 104 3.47 1.461
44 2.48 1.389 -1.129 -.016
AAEB
Shortage of financial
2 and material resources 60 3.05 1.431
NGOs .044
Total 104 2.81 1.435
44 2.55 1.022 -.534 .358
AAEB
3 Lack of moral and .697
initiation by staff 60 2.63 1.207
NGOs

Total 104 2.60 1.128

44 2.57 1.149 -.539 .475
AAEB
Lack of commitment
4 .901
and attention by donors 60 2.60 1.380
NGOs
Total 104 2.59 1.282
44 3.11 1.715
AAEB -.445 .873
Corruption of project
5 resource 60 2.90 1.644 .522
NGOs

Total 104 2.99 1.669

AAEB
44 2.25 .991 .019
Less attention given by
6 -.885 -.082
government 60 2.73 1.039
NGOs
Total 104 2.53 1.042

As indicated in the above Table 17 item 1 which represents how does affect lack of people
with special skills in the project implementation and majority of the both AAEB and NGOs
workers were indicated their level of agreement on weighted mean 3.47 which indicated that
the problem was averagely serious. On other hand, independent means values of both groups
were 3.14 of AAEB which shows the problem was serious and 3.72 of NGOs which the
problems become averagely serious. P= also clearly showed as, .045>0.05 and it means there

84
was no significant mean differences between the groups. So, lack of people with special
skills in the project more serious in AAEB and averagely serious in NGOs middle of the
project implementation.

Respondents‟ reaction in the Table 17 item 2 that portrays the shortage of financial and
material resources were averagely serious indicated by weighted mean 2.81 of the both
AAEB and NGOs workers. On other hand, Independent means values of both groups were
2.48 of AAEB which shows the problem was serious and 3.05 of NGOs that the problems
become averagely serious. P= also clearly showed as, .044>0.05 and it means there was no
significant mean differences between the groups. So problems of shortage of financial and
material resources were serious in AAEB and averagely serious in NGOs middle of the
project implementation.

Regarding items 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the same Table that portrays the problems such as of lack of
moral and initiation by staff, lack of commitment and attention by donors, corruption of
project resource and less attention given by government. The results of the analysis were
indicated as problems were averagely serious showed on weighted mean 2.60, 2.59, 2.99 and
2.53 correspondingly of the both AAEB and NGOs workers. By the same token, independent
means values of both groups were realizes the problems were as an averagely serious.
Likewise, the results of significant level values for all items indicates that there were no
statistically significant difference between the means of the two groups as obtained p values
.697, .901, .522 and .019 respectively for overheads items which ranges from .019 to1.901
and were greater than 0.05. To sum up, problems of lack of moral and initiation by staff, lack
of commitment and attention by donors, corruption of project resource and less attention
given by government were averagely serious at both City government of Addis Ababa
education bureau and non-governmental organization during intermediate of the project
implementation.

To sum, the mean values of the whole respondents was 3.21which is similar with the
problems encountered was starting time of the projects and it speak out that the problems
listed in the form of the items in the Table 17 were till an averagely serious at middle of the
educational project implementation.

85
4.5.3 Problems that Faced at Finishing on time of the Projects

As showed in Table 18 below, the respondents were asked their perceptions on difficulties
that hindered finishing the Project on time.

Table 18: Difficulties that hindered finishing the Project on time

Type of respondents Total
AAEB NGOs
No Items No %
No % No %

1 Were any Difficulties that hindered finishing the Project on time?

Yes 40 90.9 54 90.0 94 90.4
No 1 2.3 2 3.3 3 2.9
Not Applicable 3 6.8 4 6.7 7 6.7
Total 100.
44 100.0 60 100.0 104
0
Source: (own Field data, 2016)

As can be seen on Table 18, respondents were asked whether any difficulties that hindered finishing
the projects on time or not and 94(90.4%) responded as yes it was. Whereas, 3(2.9%) replied as
the projects were not encounter any difficulties that hindered finishing the projects on time and 7(6.7%)
reacted as not applicable at all on their projects due to their project was on going or not
finished yet.

4.5.3.1 Reasons that hindered finishing the Project on time

As showed in the Table 20 further down, the respondents were asked their insights on
difficulties that hindered finishing the project on time. To assess the results recorded and
compare mean of the groups, the scale values organized by equal interval such as Mean <
1.5 Very serious, 1.5< mean <2.5 Serous, 2.5<mean 3.5 averagely serous, 3.5< mean<4.5
Less serious and >4.5 not at all problem.

86
 Table 20: Difficulties that delayed finishing the Project on time
Independe 95%
No
Type of nt T test Confidence
respondents/ Std. Interval
Items
Workers Freq. Mean Deviation P-Value Lower Upper
AAEB 40 3.00 1.570 .310 -.932 .298
1 Technical capacity problems of
NGOs‟ and AAEB‟ to implement NGOs 54 3.32 1.557
the project Total 94 - -
Missed value 10 3.18 1.563
AAEB 40 3.16 1.569 -.666 .518
2
complexity of program and NGOs 54 3.23 1.454
increasing number of beneficiaries .804
of the project Total 94 - -
Missed value 10 3.20 1.497
AAEB 40 2.80 1.456 -.852 .209
Lack of Commitment of the NGOs 54 3.12 1.263 .233
3
implementers to submit physical
Total 94 - -
and financial report
Missed value 10 2.98 1.351
AAEB 40 2.68 1.459 .202 -.936 .200
Lack of hurried financial procedures NGOs 54 3.05 1.431
4 of donors implementers and the
government Total 94 - -
Missed value 10 2.89 1.448
AAEB 40 2.75 1.433 -.706 .340
.488
5 Lack of timely monitoring and NGOs 54 2.93 1.247
evaluation by AAEB and NGOs Total 94 - -
Missed value 10 2.86 1.325
AAEB 40 2.75 1.123 .457
NGOs 54 2.92 1.124
6 -.609 .276
Seasonal difficulty Total 94 - -
Missed value 10 2.85 1.121

AAEB 40 2.14 1.250

7 Delay in disbursements of funds NGOs 54 2.72 1.427 .033 -1.114 -.047
from donors side
Total 94 - -
Missed value 10 2.47 1.379
AAEB 40 3.27 1.208 .849
8 -.501 .413
NGOs 54 3.32 1.127
High staff turn over Total 94 - -
3.30 1.156
Missed value 10

In the Table 20 there were 8 items prepared to assess the problems that hindered finishing the
projects on time. According to respond that rated by respondents, the weighted mean of all
items found between 2.5<mean 3.5 which was averagely serous except item number 7 which
was 2.47 delay in disbursements of funds from donors side. The items which asked the
respondents were such as technical capacity problems of NGOs‟ and AAEB‟ to implement
the project, complexity of program and increasing number of beneficiaries of the project,

87
lack of Commitment of the implementers to submit physical and financial report, lack of
hurried financial procedures of donors implementers and the government, lack of timely
monitoring and evaluation by AAEB and NGOs, seasonal difficulty, delay in disbursements
of funds from donors side and high staff turnover and weighted mean of the overhead items
were 3.18, 3.20, 2.98, 2.89, 2.86, 2.85, 2.47 and 3.30 respectively and all items‟ weighted
mean in between 2.5<mean 3.5 which were averagely serous expect the item number 7. By
the same token, Independent means values of both groups were realizes the problems were as
an averagely serious except item 7. Likewise, the result of significant level values for all
items indicates that there was no statistically significant difference between the means of the
two groups as obtained p values, .310, .804, .233, .202, .488, .457, .849 and .033
respectively for overheads items which ranges from .033 to 0.849 were greater than 0.05.
Hence as ( Hallak Jacques 1990:101) stated clearly, technically bellow the point referred to
as the critical mass, investments are unlikely to affect the system efficiently. To sum up,
problems mentioned above that hindered finishing the Projects on time were averagely
serious at both City government of Addis Ababa education bureau and non-governmental
organization during intermediate of the project implementation.

To sum up, analysis results recapitulates the problems hindered finishing the Projects on time
were averagely serious of the project implementation. As indicated on the Figure, the means
values of the entire population were 2.83 and it indicated that the problems which listed in
the form of the items in the Table 20 were averagely serious.

Regarding interview on problems encountered during implementation of the Project, widely

held of the project coordinators of the NGOs and Department heads at AAEB were
pronounced as donor condition ties, lengthy project approval and fund disbursement
procedures of donors/financing agencies, low community involvement in project planning
and implementation…etc. They have been suggested as solution for these problems were
incorporating the main agencies and actors in the project implementation. Moreover,
Interviewee Y whom project expert claimed that “the main agencies and actors of the
projects should be participated at preparation, design, management and implementation,
appraisal process and thereby to engage their interest and anticipate and deal with their
objections”.

88
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter deals with summary of the major findings, the conclusion drawn from the
findings and recommendations of the study. In the first section, brief summary, on the
general study and the major findings were presented. Then, conclusions drawn from the
findings were made. Finally possible recommendations were given based on the major
findings of the study.

To state once more, the main objective of this study is to assess Implementation of NGOs
Assisted Educational Projects in Addis Ababa City Administration Education Bureau. The
specific objectives of the study are:
1. Assess the contribution of NGOs in improving education system in AAEB
2. Assess the implementation process of NGO educational projects under AAEB
3. Assess the gaps of the intended and actual implementation of educational projects
4. Identify the major challenges that affect the operations of educational projects
5. Identify monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ratify implementation
problems
These objectives aided in the creation of the following research questions:
1. What are the major project implementation processes followed by NGOs under city
government of Addis Ababa Education Bureau?
2. To what extent have the identified projects attained the expected objectives?
3. To what extent are education projects monitored and evaluated to rectify the
problems?
4. What are the major challenges that affect the implementation of educational projects
in the city government of Addis Ababa Education Bureau?
To answer these basic questions, the researcher employed descriptive survey method and a
mixed research design. Thus, extensive data was collected and used to confirm findings from
different data sources through triangulated data sets and consequently to validate the
generalizability of the study. The quantitative data was collected from total of 114
respondents of the both AAEB and indigenous and international NGOs. Among these, 17
department heads,7 project execution offers and 24 educational experts from AABE with

89
total 48 and 22 Project Coordinators and 44 project officers from NGOs with total subject 66.
The qualitative data were collected using interviews from the 17 department heads, 7 project
executive officers of the AAEB and 22 Educational Project managers of NGOs. Finally,
documents which were taken as primary data from educational projects were incorporated to
triangulate the study.

Descriptive statistics and SPSS v. 2.0 computer software were adopted. To analyze
quantitative data, following statistical tools such as percentage, frequencies, mean, standard
deviation, weighted mean, mean differences, and independent samples T test, were used to
guide the analysis and interpretations of the findings. Moreover, the qualitative data were
interpreted and analyzed by specific themes. Documents collected from AAEB and NGOs
were analyzed to cross-check information from various sources and to obtain information
that may not have been reveal using questionnaires and interview.

Finally, based on the analysis and interpretation, the following findings can be summarized
within the scope specified for this study.

5.1 Summary

General Characteristics of the Respondents

The characteristics of the respondents by their sex revealed that 66 individuals (62.5%)
and 39 individuals (37.5%) were males and female respectively. Thus, of the total
respondents, males constitute the larger proportion from both AAEB and NGOs. In
addition, the distribution of age respondents showed that 9 individuals (8.7%) aged 20
years and below; 39 individuals (37.5%) aged between 21- 30 years; 33 individuals
(31.7%) aged between 31-40 years; 18 individuals (17.3%) aged between 41-50 years;
and 5 individuals (4.8%) aged > 50 years. This implies that majority (69.2%) of the
respondents were between 21-30 and 31-40 years old. The distribution of respondents‟
marital status shows there was an equal proportion of married and unmarried respondents
amongst AAEB and NGOs. Regarding educational qualifications of the total respondents,
2 individuals (1.9%) had a PhD; 51 (49%) and 34 (32.8%) individuals had a bachelor‟s

90
 and a master‟s degree, respectively. Fifteen (14.4%) individuals had their diploma and 1
(1.19) individual completed 12th grade.

In brief, 81.7% of the NGOs workers were first and second degree holders while a
majority of the respondents from AAEB (61.4%) were first degree holders. In regards to
the total service years of the respondents,21 individuals (20.2%) had less than five years‟
experience and 39 individuals (37.5%) had 6-10 years‟ experience. In addition, 22
individuals (21.2%) had 11-15 years, 16 individuals (5.8%) had 16- 20 years, and 6
individuals (15.4%) had over 21 years of experience. This shows that total of service years
of a majority of the respondents is between 6-10 years. Lastly, service years of the
respondents at project implementation, their reaction clearly showed that 70(67.3%) were
<5years and 20(19.2%) 6-10 years. In addition, 9(8.7%) were 11-15 Years, 5(4.8%) 16- 20
years and no one was >21 Years. Majority of respondents 70(67.3%) were found under
the service year 5 and below on implementation of the projects. Therefore, widely held of
project were implemented by beginner experts.

2. The major projects implementation processes and status were:

I. Results show that a majority of the respondents were somehow involved in the
design and planning stages of projects; however, it was not satisfactory In other
words, only 59.6% of the respondents were involved in the design and planning of
the projects and 40.4% did not participate at all. In addition, stakeholders are not
involved in these stages. Therefore, their degree of involvement is not
satisfactory.
II. As statistical results revealed on trends of planning for the project
implementation, majorities of the respondents were agree to only some extent
planning was done for project implementation. Likewise, as the qualitative data
was indicated that practices of the planning for implementation were not such
strong.
III. Time scheduled for project implementers before actual project implementation
commencement; statistical results clearly indicated as majority of respondents
undecided whether it scheduled or not. Thus, there was not as much of pre time
scheduling before actual projects implementation commencement. Similarly, as

91
 the interview result specified that there was gap on scheduling before actual
project implementation commencement and no precondition readiness.
IV. Results show project success factors ordered in manner of importance: 1)
simplicity of design; 2) careful preparation; 3) community involvement in a
project; 4) good management; and 5) political commitment. However,
interviewees‟ reactions clash with quantitative data, first and most success factor
for project implementation according to their reflection; strong and sustained
commitment by all levels of the government bodies‟.
V. As statistical results showed, project managers‟ were averagely capable to
manage overall projects. Likewise, qualitative data confirmed the lack of strong
project implementation management.
3. The degree to which expected objectives relates to achieved objects:
a) Results show 79.8% of stakeholders understood projects objectives while 20.2%
of the stakeholders did not know the objectives of the projects.
b) Results show 64.4% of projects conducted feasibility studies before their official
launch whereas 35.6% of projects did not.
c) Results show that both AAEBs NGOs considered project risks before their
commencement to only some extent.
d) Results show that only 55.8% projects achieved their intended objectives. On the
other hand, 44.2% projects did not achieve their intended objectives. There is
clearly a gap between intended and achieved objectives.
e) Results show that 54.8% of the projects had aims and objectives that were decided
by stakeholders while 45.2% of projects did not.
f) Results show that 58.7% of projects assessed needs before setting project
objectives. In contrast, 41.3% of projects did not consider needs before setting
project objectives.
In short, results show stakeholders‟ participation and support on need assessment, planning,
monitoring and evaluation and overall project implementation were average.
4. Monitoring and evaluation to rectify the projects implementation problems:

a) Majority of the respondents revealed that they were applying monitoring and
evaluation to realized project implementation.

92
 b) Results show that the forms of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms being
applied at the time of study were as follows: 17.3% mostly informal, 45.2%
mostly formal, and 37.5% mostly mixed. Therefore, formal monitoring and
evaluation mechanisms were widely being exercised at the time of study.
c) The results of the analysis indicated that members of stakeholders who involved
in M&E, first and most the management team and sometimes all staff mostly
participate in M&E, secondly, all staff, thirdly, senior staff only, fourthly, all
staff and community representative and lastly, directors only. Most of prominent
of stakeholders who involved in M&E were the management team and sometimes
all staff.
d) Regarding project follow up mechanisms, results show that a majority of
respondents were undecided in whether or not regular follow up mechanisms
existed. This indicates that follow up mechanisms are generally weak.
e) Results show that major devices of monitoring and evaluation were mostly used
such as urgent meeting (83.7%), observation of activities (83.7%), written report
(96.2%), oral report (80.8%), and open discussion (86.5%).

f) Regarding timing intervals for conducting monitoring and evaluation mechanism,

results show that a majority of respondents reacted as periodically 51.9% and
continually 21.2%. On the other hand, 2% stated M&E was conducted only at the
end and 25% revealed it as conducted at both beginning and end. Therefore, time
interval that has been conducting monitoring and evaluation were periodic and
continues.

5. The major challenges that affect the implementation:

Results indicate problems arose throughout every stage of project implementation. The
degree of issues faced at each stage, however, were quite different. For example,
according to all respondents, problems incurred at middle of project implementation were
common since all of the observed projects were currently being implemented. However,
for the projects that started a couple of years prior, not applicable starting period
problems. Likewise, for the projects that was being implementing yet not finished
couldn‟t talked about finishing problems and such problems were not applicable at all.

93
 Even though the problems were averagely serious at all stages, degree of being
seriousness were more critical at finishing time of the projects. Baum and Tolbert (1985),
argue that project delays at finishing time, cost overruns, reduction in the range of the
project, and postponed implementation are the major difficulties occur at this stage.
Qualitative data results indicate donor condition ties, lengthy project approval, fund
disbursement procedures of donors/financing agencies, low community involvement in
project planning and implementation were the major complications while implementing
educational projects. Interviewers suggested as solution for these problems were
incorporating the main agencies and actors in the project implementation.
Project documents were not archived properly, lessons learned from the projects were not
documented for future use, and achievements of the goals and objectives of the educational
projects indicated gapes. This means, the mechanisms of recording of document was not
well-organized.

5.2 Conclusions
Depending on the major findings of the study the following main conclusions were drawn:

Degree of the involvement of the stakeholders in plan and design were not satisfactory, no
precondition readiness, & project managers‟ were averagely capable to manage overall
projects. There is no of strong management manpower for project implementation. Therefore,
it is possible to conclude that project implementation processes are not on right track to some
extent. There were gap between intended and achieved objectives, aims and objectives of the
projects were not fully decided by stakeholders, & need assessment were applied & risks of
the projects were considered only for some extent both City government of the Educational
Bureau and Non-governmental organizations averagely, need assessment were applied only
for some extent, there was gap on stakeholders‟ participation on the projects and degrees of
their participation were less.
As the results of the study revealed on applying monitoring and evaluation to rectify the
problems of the implementation educational projects, Management team and sometimes staff
conduct M&E by formal means, & regularly follow up mechanisms of monitoring were not
fully existed. The major challenges that affect the implementation problems were faced at

94
starting time, middle and finishing on a time were averagely serious. Even though the
problems were averagely serious at all stages, degree of being seriousness were more critical
at finishing time of the projects. This is because of cost overrun, inflation or increase of
foreign currency, less community participation, lack of timely M&E, corruption, and
improper management of project funds (wastage).

In a few words, projects that designed by NGOs under City Government of Addis Ababa
Education Bureau; the status of project implementation processes is moderate and problems
which faced at the beginning, middle, and end of project implementation were average in
their degree of seriousness & practices of M&E were insufficient.
5.3 Recommendations
The following recommendations are offered in an effort to improve Implementation of NGOs
Assisted Educational Projects in Addis Ababa City Administration Education Bureau.
1. The degree of stakeholder involvement in the planning and designing of projects is
less at Educational Projects that Designed by NGOs in the City Government of Addis
Ababa Education Bureau. Thus, AAEB and NGOs should consider involving
stakeholders in project planning and designing before the actual implementation takes
place. In addition, planning for project implementation was midway. Thus, it is
important to recommend that AAEB and NGOs complete the planning stages before
projects implementation commences. Also, as this study found out, participation of
key stakeholders for the educational projects were not involved in the planning stage
of the educational projects. As a result, it is suggested that AAEB and NGOs
educational projects think over for the participation of key stakeholders from
planning to termination of the project. Moreover, project managers were averagely
able manage their projects. Thus, it is suggested that AAEB and NGOs should be
proactive to assign appropriate project managers at appropriate positions and
regularly updates managers‟ skill via training workshops. Additionally, in regards to
project success factors, it is recommended that project initiators and policy makers
take the following into consideration when formulating projects: design as the 1st
project success factor, careful preparation as the 2nd project success factor,
community involvement in a project as the 3rd project success factor, good

95
 management as the 4th project success factor and political commitment as the 5th
project success factor.
2. Project aims and objectives were not fully decided by stakeholders at both AAEB and
NGOs. Hence, it is recommended that principal project owners from the NGOs and
AAEB should consider involving stakeholders when they decide project objectives
and aims. There is a gap between intended and achieved objectives. It is
recommended that AAEB, Sub-city Education Bureau, Woreda Education Office, and
School Leaders formulate follow-up mechanisms cooperatively with the NGOs.
Project risks were considered before commencement of project only some of the time
and need assessments were not conducted properly before project initiation. It is
recommended that educational projects of NGOs under AAEB consider project risks
before project commencement and need assessments should be completed before
implementing any project.
3. There is little involvement of stakeholders in M&E activities of Educational Projects
that are designed by NGOs under City Government of the Addis Ababa executed
projects. As a means of fostering sustainability, beneficiaries should be more
involved in activities of M&E. There is a critical lack of expertise in the monitoring
and evaluation of project implementation. It is recommended that individuals
participating in educational projects receive appropriate and regular training,
regardless of their position. Furthermore, the findings of the study revealed that
greater concern was given for a formal M&E system. Thus, it is suggested that
educational projects implemented by NGOs under city government of the Addis
Ababa should use both formal and informal forms of the M&E interchangeably.
4. This study revealed major challenges that affect the implementation of educational
Projects in the in City Government of Addis Ababa Bureau. These problems were
faced at starting time of the projects, middle of the projects, and timely completion of
the projects. It is recommended that these issues be clarified at the stage of project
agreement. It is also recommended that the AAEB and NGOs collaboratively arrange
intensive training in project implementation for experts and department heads who
are engaged in project implementation. Doing so will aid in effectively implementing
projects and will offer support to those in charge. AAEB and NGOs should create

96
 awareness for Sub-city Education Bureaus‟ project implementers, Department heads
and Educational project representatives to commit them to the effective
implementation of the project. It is also recommended that MoE make strategies for
the effective coordination of resources between donors of educational projects and
AAEB project managers. Moreover, the study indicated that the educational projects‟
budget were not controlled to accomplish the project as planned, the educational
projects‟ activities were not accomplished based on the set plan, projects were not
terminated/closed out on time, all records were not collected and/or archived properly
once termination was complete, and the resources allocated to the project were not
properly coordinated in an organized manner. It is recommended that AAEB project
executers, NGOs program or project managers, and Ministry of Finance and
Economic Development (MoFED) take the leading role in controlling the budget to
accomplish the tasks, terminating/closing out projects on time, and allocating
resources to projects. This will aid in properly coordinating projects in an organized
manner.
The project documents were not archived properly, the lessons learned from the projects
were not documented for the future use and the achievements of the goals and objectives of
the educational projects indicated gapes. It is also recommended that the NGOs currently
working under City- Government of Addis Ababa Education Bureau and Addis Ababa
education Bureau itself organizing the projects record documents and the lessons learned
from the educational projects be organized so as to be used for future implementation of
other projects.

97
References

AABoFED.(2014). NGOs Partinership Joint Forum Report. Addis Finance , 36-38.Mega

Printing P L C

AACGCB.(2014). Addis Ababa City 2005 EFYyear book. Addis Ababa: Brana Printing Press.

ACARTSD. (1980). Report of Africa Center for Applied Research and Training in Social
Development. Ibadan: African Centre for Applied Research and Training in Social
Development.

Aliyu, A. (2003). Africa Renaissance: Poverty Eradication the Role of Management.

Magazine of Nigeria Institute of Management, 39 (1), 5-15.

Alleviation. Rout ledge.

AweloAbdi, (2007). The practice and problems of donor assisted educational projects in the
provision of primary education in Oromia regional state. AAU

Baum W. C and S. M. Tolbert. (1985). Investing in Development: Lessons of World Bank

Experience. Washington, D.C: Oxford university press

Best, W. and Kahn, V. (2003).Research in Education. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India.

Carmichael, D.G. (2004).Project Management Framework.Lisse: A.A Balkema Publishers.

Cresswell, J. W. (2009).Designing and Conducting Mixed Method Research. U.S.A.: SAGA

Publication.

DainaNyathi. (2012).An evaluation of poverty alleviation strategies implemented by

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Zimbabwe: a case of binga rural district
University of Fort Hare: Republic of South Africa.

Damte, D.(2001).An Assessment of Donor-Assisted Educational Projects in Some Selected

National Regional States of Ethiopia. AAU
Dawson, C. (2002). Practical Research Methods: A user- Friendship Guide to Mastering
Research.Magdalen Road, Oxford OX4 1RE. United Kingdom.
Debebe,H.(2012).Contributions of Charities and Societies for the achievement of the MDGs&
PRSP in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: unpublished

Dessalegn, R. Akalewold, B. and Yoseph, E. (2008). CSOs/NGOs in Ethiopia: Partners in

Development and Good Governance. Addis Ababa.

Develop Project Studies Authority (1990). Guidelines to Project Planning in Ethiopia,

Addis Ababa: Office of the National Committee for Central Planning.

DPPC, (1995). National Policy on Disaster Preparation and Management: "NPDPM" A.A:
DPPC

ECA. (1985). 1985 Report of Economic Commission for Africa. Lagos

EEA. (2005). Civil Society Perspectives on their role and Impact in Poverty Reduction in
Ethiopia: Report produced by Ethiopian Economic Association /Ethiopian Economic
Policy Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

ElleniTadesse. (2007). Civil Society and Food Security: a case of NGOs role in Ethiopia rural
marketing, Bologna University.

Ethiopian Management Institute. (March, 2014). Project planning, Implementation, Monitoring

and evaluation Training manual. Addis Ababa: Unpublished./EMI/

exclusion in Europe.

Federal Ministry of Education (2000). 'Education Sector Development ProgramII : 1993 EC -

1997 EC (ESDP II)'.

Federal Ministry of Education (2008), 'Education Statistics Annual Abstract: 2004 (2011/12)'.

Federal Ministry of Education (2008).'General Education Quality improvement Package

(GEQIP) 2001 EC - 2005 EC, Plan'.
Federal Ministry of Education (2010). 'Education Sector Development Program IV (ESDP IV)'.

Federal Ministry of Education (2015/16). 'Education Sector Development Program V (ESDP V)

Festinger,D. ,DeMatteo, D. and Marczyk, G.(2005).Essentials of Research Design and

Methodology.John Wiley and sons, Inc.
Feverstein M.(1988). Partners in Evaluation: Evaluating Development and Community
Programmes with the Participants, Landon: the Macmillan Publisher Ltd.

Fisher et al (1996).Project implementation and management. New Delihi: Tata McGraw- Hill

Foster M. (2000). New Approach to Development cooperation: what can we learn from
experience with implementing Sector Wide Approaches? Working Paper 140, centre for
Aid and public expenditure, overseas Development Institute, London, UK.

Gardiner P.D. (2005). Project Management: a Strategic Planning Approach. New York: Palgrave

Gardiner P.D. (2005). Project Management: a Strategic Planning Approach. New York:
Palgrave MacMillan.

GebruAyehubzu (2002) Project Management: A Case Study on Industrial Research Projects

Sponsored by the Ethiopian Science and Technology Commission

Gidron, B. and Quarles van Ufford P. BedriKello, A. (2002). Research for Policy Series 12:

Grung C. (2006). National Education Sector Developments Plan: a Result - based planning
handbook. French: UNESCO

Hallak Jacques (1990). Investing in the Future: Setting Educational Priorities in the Developing
World, Paris UNESCO

Hamilton, A. (1997). Management by Projects: achieving success in a changing world. Dublin:

Oak Tree Press.

Harrin, E. (2007).Project Management in the real world.Swindon: British Computer Society.

Hartford: Kumarian Press.
Heintz, S. (2006).The Role of NGOs in Modern Societies and an Increasingly Interdependent
World. Annual Conference of the Institute for Civil Society: Guangzhou, China:
Zhongshan University

https://www.google.com.et/searchq=adminstrative+maps+of+addis+ababa

Hyden, G. (2006). Civil Society What is Next article, Development Dialogue June 2006-
WhatNext, Volume 1, Dag Hammarskjold Foundation ,Uppsala PP: 183-201.
Ibrahim, S and Hulme, D. (2010). Has Civil Society Helped the Poor? A Review of the

Jean-Pierre Golle. (2007).The contribution of NGOs to the fight against poverty and social

Jeffres, W and Daniel, B. (2004). Non-Governmental Organizations and Rural Poverty

Jerry, A. & Anne, G. (2008).Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation in

Practice.INTRAC-Praxis Paper 21, 9-11: Unpublished.

John R. Campbel. (2001). The Changing role of NGOs in the Provision of relief and
rehabilitation Assistance: Northern Ethiopia and Eritrea working paper, Overseas
Development Institute, Regent's college London UK.

Keeling Ralph (2000). Project management: an international perspective .London:Macmillan

Press.

Kothari,.C.R (2004). Research Methodolgy Methods and Techneques(2nd Revise Edn) New Age
International (p) Ltd. Publisher

Leedy, P. D. and Ormrod, J. E. (2005).Practical Research, Planning and Designing.(8th.ed.)

New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. MacMillan.

Liebenberg.S.(2000).Non-governmental organizations as agents of development. West

Magnen Andre (1991) . Education Projects: Elaboration, Financing and Management. Paris:
UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.

Mantel, et al (2001).Project management in practice. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Matenga,C .R. (2001). The Orientation and Practice of Northern NGOs: Implications for
African Development.University of Zambia, Lusaka.

Meredith J R. and Mantel S.J. (2000).Project Management: A managerial Approach. New

York:John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Milton

Meredith, J R. and Mantel, S.J., Jr (1989). Project Management: A Managerial Approach. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

MoE, (1994). FDRE: Education and Training Policy. Addis Ababa: St.George Printing press.
MoE, (2004). Program Implementation Manual (2003/04) Revised Version: Revised Draft for
Annual Review Meeting March 2004. Addis Ababa.

MoE, (2005). FDRE: Education Sector Development Program III. Addis Ababa.
BerhanenaSelam Printing Enterprise

MoE, (2010). FDRE: Education Sector Development Program IV. Addis Ababa.

MoFED, (2006). The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia: Guidelines for the Preparation of
Public Sector Project. Addis Ababa: MOFED Printing Service.

MOFED, (2007).Guidelines for Monitoring and Evaluation of Public Sector Projects.

Addis Ababa:

MoFED, (2010). Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) Draft, Addis Ababa

National Regional States of Ethiopia MA Thesis: Addis Ababa University

NGOs dealing with refugee resettlement in Ethiopia, Royal Tropical Institute

MussieTesfaw (2014).The Management of Donor Supported Educational Projects: In the
Ministry of Education. AAU

NibertuKebede.(1998). "Nongovernmental organizations and their economic contribution to

Ethiopia: an assessment of road construction in projects in A.A". Addis Ababa
University (Unpublished master thesis)

Owen, J.M. (1999). Program Evaluation: Forms and Approaches. London: SAGE Publications.
Philiphs J. J. and et al. (2002). The project Management Scorecard: Measuring the Success of
Project Management Solutions. Amsterdam: Franklin Covey Co.

Princes2, (2004). Managing Successful Projects: Office of Government Commerce.

Quirk,T.J.(1997). Psychological Research: How to Do It? New York: Association for supervision
and curriculum development

Richard Sack and MahieddineSaidi (1997). Fundamentals of Educational Planning, Paris:

UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning
 Roles and Contributions of Civil Society to Poverty Reduction.Book world poverty
institute working paper.

Sang H. (1995). Project Evaluation: Techniques and Practices for Developing Countries.
Alder shot Ashagate Publishing Limited.

ShiferawTsegaye (2003).The practice of plan preparation and implementation of at sidama zone

educational department level. Master thesis , Addis ababa university: AAU

Solomon Mangistu (2004)..Project with People: The principle of the participation in Rural
development.Geneva:ILO.

Spinner, M.P (1997). Project Management: Principles and Practices. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall
International, Inc.

Spring and Groelsema. (2004). Enhancing Civil Society Organizations and Women's
Participation in Ethiopia: A Program Design for Civil Society and Women's
Empowerment, USAID Ethiopia.

SukhamoyChakravarty. (1987). Development Planning: The Indian Experience, New York :

Oxford University Press

Takure, S. M. (2009).An Analysis of the History of State-NGO Relations and the Implications an
Organisational Performance.University of Bologna.

TGE, (1994), Education and Training Policy, Addis Ababa: EMPDA.

Todaro, M. (1977).Economic for a developing world, Longman group.
Turner,J.R. (1999). The Hand Book of Project-Based Management: Improving the Processes for
Achieving Strategic Objectives. London: The McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

UNDAF. (2011).Implimentation Manual for UN agencies assisted program in Ethiopia.

Addis Ababa: Unpublished.

UNDP.(2009). Hand book on planning, Monitoring and Evaluation for develompentresualts.

New York, USA: Colonial communications corp.

USAID /IQPEP, (2011).Year 2 Annual Reports, July 2010-June 2011.

USAID. (2012). Ethiopia: United Nations Development assistance Framework(2012-

2015),Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. Addis Ababa: Unpublished.
WANGO. (2010). what are Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)?From NGO handbook,
World Association of Non-Governmental Organizations (WANGO).

WorldBank.(1995).
WorkingwithNGOsfrom:http://www.globalissues.org/article/25/nongovernmentalorgani
zations-on-development-issues.(Accessed January, 2015).

Worthen , Blaine R. (1987). Educational Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical

Guidelines, New York: Utah State University.

ZenebeAyele. (2006). Job creation for unemployed youth a case study of two NGO's in Addis
Ababa.MA thesis in Addis Ababa University.
 ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND BEHAVIORAL STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
(Appendix A)

Questionnaires to be filled by:

1. NGOs’ workers (Project managers or coordinators and project officers), and
2. AAEBs’ (department heads and experts) who have been involved currently in the
educational project implementation.

Dear Respondent,

I am a graduate student in the Department of Educational Planning and Management, Addis

Ababa University. Currently, I am undertaking a research entitled ‘Implementation Status and
Problems of Educational Projects Designed by NGOs: In the City Government of Addis
Ababa Education Bureau.’ You are one of the respondents selected to participate in this study.
Please assist me in giving correct and complete information to present a representative finding on
the current status and problems of the implementation of educational projects under the city
government of Addis Ababa Education Bureau. Your participation is entirely voluntary and the
questionnaire is completely anonymous.

Finally, I assure you that the information that you share me will be kept confidential and only
used for the academic purpose.
Direction:

Please read each item carefully and record your genuine opinion on the basis of your
exposure and knowledge in the project.
Please do not consult others while responding the items
Please answer all questions in their order and do not leave any item related to you un
answered
It is not necessary to write your name or sign on the questionnaire
Please return the completed questionnaire to the designated person/ supervisory.
Thank you in advance for your kind cooperation!!
Part I. General /personal Information on Personal Data
Name of the organization that you work for__________________________________
Your current job position________________________________

1.1. Sex: 1. Male ( ) 2. Female ( )

1.2. Age:
1. 20 years and below ( ) 3. 31-40 years ( )
2. 21-30 years ( ) 4. 41 and above years ( ) 5. >50 years
1.3. Marital status: 1. Married ( ) 2. Single ( ) 3. Divorced ( )
1.4. Educational qualification

1. 12 grade complete ( ) 3. Diploma graduate ( )

2. TTI graduate ( ) 4. First Degree ( )
5. Second degree ( ) 6. Doctorate Degree ( )
7. Please specify if any other…………………………………………..
1.5. Field of specialization /profession
Major Minor other

1.6 Total service years:

1. < 5 Years ( ) 3. 11-15 Years ( )

2. 6-10 Years ( ) 4. 16-20 Years ( ) 5. >21 years ( )
1.7 Service years at project implementation
1. < 5 Years ( ) 3. 11-15 Years ( )
2. 6-10 Years ( ) 4. 16-20 Years ( ) 5. >21 years ( )
Part II. Perception on the Project implementation processes
2.1 planning for the project implementation
1. Have been involved in the design and planning of the project?
A) Yes ( ) B) No ( ) C) Not sure
If Yes go to a Table1 with specific issues raised and if No go to 2.2:

Table 1: Please read following sentences, then use a tick mark “” to indicate your level
of agreement /disagreement. Use the following rating scale:

1= I completely disagree (CD) 4= I agree for the most part (AM)

2= I slightly agree (SA) 5=I completely agree (CA)

3= I agree to some extent (AE)

No Rating scales
To what extent do you agree with task done CD SA AE AM CA
1 2 3 4 5
1 The plan was appropriate and easy for implementation
2 Key stakeholders were involved in the planning of the project
3 The project closeout program was planned at the start of the
project
4 The risks of the project were considered by the plan
5 The cost of the project was clearly estimated in the plan

2.2 Time scheduling before actual project implementation start

Table 2: Please read following statements, then use a tick mark “” to indicate your
level of agreement /disagreement. Use the following scales: 1= I Strongly Disagree (SD), 2=I
Disagree (D), 3=I Undecided (U), 4=I Agree (A) and 5=I Strongly Agree (SA)

No Rating Scales
Contents of the plan were aligned with schedule SD D U A SA
1 2 3 4 5
1 Human and material resources were assigned on time
2 The project was get official approval on time
3 The schedule was easy to revise
4 All work items were included in the schedule
5 The sequence of work clearly shown in the schedule
2.3 Project success factors

Table 3: The following elements are the universal accepted project successes factors and it prepared
you to identify most and least important project success factor when implementing your project, please
rank them from most success factor to lest success factor that most closely matches your perception
by only writing number space provided.
1. Simplicity of Design 4. Political Commitment
2. Good Management 5. community involvement in project
3. Careful Preparation

First success factor______________ Fourth success factor______________

Second success factor____________ Fifth success factor_______________

Third success factor______________

--
2.4 Project Manager’s or coordinator’s managing and coordinating ability
1……………….2)………….. 3) ………………4) ………………5)…………………..
Table 4: Please read following sentences, then use a tick mark “” to indicate your
level of agreement /disagreement. Please use following Scale options to respond items as: Highly
incapable (HI) =1, Slightly Capable (SC) =2 averagely capable (AC) = 3 Capable (C) = 4 and highly
capable (HI) =5

Rating scales
No Manager capability to manage project
HI SC AC C HC

1 2 3 4 5
1 Prepare and maintain a project work plan
2 Maintain national and local information

3 ability to manage staff

4 Mobilize project resources properly
5 Handle overall project funds according to plan
6 Properly handle materials and other facilities
7 Maintain communications in all direction

Part III: Perception on the project objectives attainment

3.1 Familiarity of stakeholders with project objective
1. Do you know the objective of the project?
A) Yes ( ) B) No ( ) C) Not sure
2. If your answer for item No1 above is ‘yes’, please specify / state the ONE MAJOR AND TWO
SPECFIC objective of the project you know?
Major: _____________________________________________________________________
Specific 1: _____________________________________________________________________
Specific 2: _____________________________________________________________________
3. Was feasibility study conducted before the initiation of the project?
A) Yes ( ) B) No ( ) C) Not sure ( )
4. Were risks of the project considered before commencement of the project?
A) Yes ( ) B) No ( ) C) Not sure ( )
5. Do you think that the project has achieved its intended objectives?
A) Yes ( ) B) No ( ) C) Not sure ( )
6. Were aims and objectives of the project decided? A) Yes ( ) B) No ( ) C) Not sure ( )
7. Was need assessment conducted before project objective was set?
A) Yes ( ) B) No ( ) C) Not sure ( )

3.3 stakeholders’ Participation on the project

Table5: Please read following sentences, then use a tick mark “” to indicate your level
of agreement /disagreement. Use following rating scales: 1= I Strongly Disagree (SD), 2=I
Disagree (D), 3=I Undecided (U), 4= I Agree (A) and 5= I Strongly Agree (SA)

No Rating Scales
Stakeholders ‘participation to decide and identify work focus SD D U A SA
based on time frame
1 2 3 4 5
1 The goals and objectives of the project were decided By
stakeholders
2 The principal participants in the project were decided
3 The time frames that when the project be started and finished were
decided by stakeholders
4 The process of project be executed was determined by stakeholders
5 Time of project being launched was determined by stakeholders
6 All stakeholders clearly understood their responsibility

Part IV. Education projects monitoring and evaluation to rectify the problems on educational projects

4.1Monitoring and evaluation impressions

1. Are there monitoring and evaluation mechanism put forward by the project
A. Yes ( ) B. No ( ) C. I don’t know ( )
2. If yes for the above question, are the monitoring and evaluation mechanism mostly informal (for
example, discussion between staff members, between directors and staff) or formal ( such as staff
meeting, report , workshops , analysis by special unit or person)
A. Mostly informal ( ) B. Mostly formal ( ) C. Mixed ( )
3. Who participate in meetings, discussion or decision concerning monitoring and evaluation?
A. Directors only ( ) C. All staff ( )
B. Senior staff only ( ) D. All staff and community representative ( )
E. Mostly management teams and Same times staff
Please specify if any other_______________________________________________________
4.2 Regularly follow up mechanisms of the project
Table 12: Please read following sentence, then use a tick mark “” to indicate your
level of agreement /disagreement. Use following rating scales 1=I Strongly Disagree (SD), 2=I
Disagree (D), 3=I Undecided (U), 4= I Agree (A) and 5= I Strongly Agree (SA)

Respondents
No Regularly follow up mechanisms of the project while
SD D U A SA
implementing
1 2 3 4 5
1 The activities of the project were accomplished according to the plan
2 The performance of the project was monitored according to the
schedule in order to manage deviation from the plan
3 The implementations of the project were started on time
4 The project was terminated on time according to the plan
5 Corrective actions was taken when problems arose in implementing
the project
6 The quality of the project was monitored
7 The project budget was controlled to accomplish the tasks

4.3 Major devices of monitoring and evaluation

Table 19: Which of the following mechanisms are included in the monitoring and evaluation procedure?
(Check all which apply)
No Devices of monitoring Availability Time to employ
and evaluation Yes No Beginnin End Beginnin Periodically continuall
g only only g and end y
1 Progress report
2 Special meeting
3 Follow up studies
4 Designation of
experimental and control
groups
5 Questionnaires
6 Review document
7 Interview
8 Observation of activities
9 Written report
10 Oral report
11 Open discussion

Part V: Perception on challenges that affect the implementation of the Educational projects
5.1 Reasons for the delays on the starting time of the Project
1. Was the project delayed at the starting time?
A) Yes ( ) B) No ( ) C) Not Applicable
If Yes go to a Table15 with specific issues raised and if No go to 5.2:
Table 15: Please read following sentence, then use a tick mark “” to indicate your level
of agreement /disagreement. Use following rating scales 1= Very serious (VS), 2=Serous (S),
3=averagely serous (AS), 4=Less serous (LS) and 5= Not at all problems (NP)

No Rating Scales

Reasons for the delays on the starting time of the Project NP LS AS S VS

5 4 3 2 1
1 Project personnel not appointed on time
2 Inflexible pre-conditions of loans and grants
3 Negotiation from local authorities in relation to infrastructure and
other facilities used for project implementation
4 Delay of budget release and/or disbursement
5 Implementing agencies were not ready to start the project on time
6 Seasonal difficulty

5.2 Problems that confronted during the middle of the project implementation

1. Was any Problems encounter during the project implementation?

A) Yes ( ) B) No ( ) C) Not Applicable
If Yes go to a Table 17 with specific issues raised and if No go to 5.3:

Tale 17: Please read following sentence, then use a tick mark “” to indicate your level
of agreement /disagreement. Use following rating scales 1= Very serious (VS), 2=Serous (S),
3=averagely serous (AS), 4=Less serous (LS) and 5= Not at all problems (NP)

No Rating Scales
problems that confronted during the middle of the project NP LS AS S VS
implementation
5 4 3 2 1
1 Lack of people with special skills
2 Shortage of financial and material resources
3 High turnover of staff and government officials
4 Lack of moral and initiation by staff
5 Lack of commitment and attention by donors
6 Corruption of project resource
7 Less attention given by government

4.3 Reasons that hindered finishing the Project on time

1. Were any Difficulties that hindered finishing the Project on time?
A) Yes ( ) B) No ( ) C) Not Applicable
If Yes go to a Table20 with specific issues raised and if No go to 5.5:
Table 20: Please read following sentence, then use a tick mark “” to indicate your level
of agreement /disagreement. Use following rating scales 1= Very serious (VS), 2=Serous (S),
3=averagely serous (AS), 4=Less serous (LS) and 5= Not at all problems (NP)

No Rating Scales
Reasons that hindered finishing the Project on time NP LS AS S VS

5 4 3 2 1
1 Technical capacity problems of NGOs’ and AAEB’ to implement the
project
2 complexity of program and increasing number of beneficiaries of the
project
3 Lack of Commitment of the implementers to submit physical and
financial report
4 Lack of hurried financial procedures of donors implementers and the
government
5 Lack of timely monitoring and evaluation by AAEB and NGOs
6 Seasonal difficulty
7 Delay in disbursements of funds from donors side
8 High staff turn over

5.5 Please you are kindly requested to list down some other factors that constraints educational
project during an implementation

1: __________________________________________________________________________________

2: __________________________________________________________________________________

3:___________________________________________________________________________________
 ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND BEHAVIORAL STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
(Appendix B)
Interview Guideline for only:
1. NGOs’ workers (Project manager or coordinator), and
2. AAEBs’ (department heads and project execution officers) who have been involved currently in the
project implementation and management.

A) General Information
Name of the organization that you work for_________________________________________
Your current job position_______________________________________
B) Guiding Questions for the Interview
1. Is there strong management and coordinating man power to implementing the projects?
2. Is there community participation and support during implementation of the project? If yes
in what ways they contribute? And if no why?
3. In your past experience, what do you think most success factor for project
implementation?
4. Do you think as all stakeholders clearly understand and know about project objectives
and goals? If yes how and if no why?
5. To what extents project meet intended and anticipated objectives?
6. To what extents stakeholders participate at the project on :
3.1 Need assessment?
3.2 Planning?
3.3 Implementation?
3.4 Monitoring and evaluation?
7. Have you faced any problems at the starting time of the Project, the middle of the
project implementation and finishing time of the Project? And if yes what are these
problems?
7.1 The problems that faced starting time of the Project
7.2 The problems that faced during middle of the project implementation
7.3 The problems that faced finishing time of the Project

8. What do you suggest as solution for these problems?

9. Are there best practices and lesson learnt from project implementation? And if yes what
are these?
10. Is there formal monitoring and evaluation mechanism? If yes how and if no why?
 Addis Ababa City Administration Education Bureau Organizational Structure (updated)
Addis Ababa Education Bureau Head
Executive Secretary
Ethics Moni- Education Head Counselor
toring Unit Legal Service unit

Education Input Supply & Education Quality, Leadership

Learning -Teaching Vice Head & Organization Vice Head

Education Research, Meas- Information Com- Curriculum Preparation

Teachers and Educa- Teachers, Education General Educa-
urement and Examination munication Technol- and Implementation tion Leadership Devel- Institution and Leaders tion Inspection
Preparation Core Process ogy Core Process Core Process opment Core Process Professional License and Core Process
Relicensing Core Process

Information Commu- Radio Education & Lis- Change Management and Perfor- Cross-Cutting Issues
nication Technology tenership Program Prep- mance Monitoring, and Measure- Unit
Sub Process aration Sub-Process ment Sub-Process

Property
Education Internal Gender Procure- Human Commu-
Pay- Administra-
Study, Audit Main- ment Plan Resource nication
ment & tion & Gen-
Plan and Service stream- Preparation Administra- Affairs eral Service
Account and Perfor- tion
Budget Support- ing Sup- Supportive
Sup- mance Sup- Supportive
Supportive ive Unit portive Process
portive portive Pro- Process Process
Process Process Process
Sub City Education Office

Prepared by Education Study,

Woreda Education Office
Plan and budget Supportive
Process, 2ዐዐ7 E.C.
School
 Appendix E
Lists of Indigenous and International NGOs that currently working collaboratively with
City Government of Addis Ababa Education Bureau
1. Almaz Ashene Children and Family support Association,
2. Arat kilo child care and community development
3. Association of Women in the Avenue of Development /AWAD/
4. Bridge for Life Ethiopia
5. Bright Future
6. CAMARA Technology improvement Education
7. Children's Hope chest
8. Church of Christ Development Program
9. Community Based integrated sustainable Development organization (CBISDO)
10. Embracing Hope Ethiopia
11. Emmanuel Home for Destitute children & Vocational Training center
12. Ethiopian school meal initiative
13. Fana Association for Individuals with learning and communication difficulties
(FAILCD Ethiopia)
14. Forum for African Women Educationalist /FAWE/ - Ethiopia Chapter
15. Good Neighbors Ethiopia Gospel Deliverance Church Children & Youth Help
Association
16. Hibir Capacity Development and Self defance organization
17. Hiwot Ethiopia
18. Retrak Ethiopia
19. HUMEDICA E.V
20. Institute of International Education
21. International Leader ship Acadamy
22. Kids Care childrens Walfare Association
23. Kore Great Hope Charity
24. Love for children & Family Development charitable organization
25. Merkato Child and Family Charitable society
26. Mission for community development program
27. Mission for Community Development
28. Mothers and Children Multi sectoral Development Organization
29. Ratson Women, Youth and Children Development
30. Right to play
31. School readiness initiative
32. Selam YeEthiopia zafoch tenkebakabi mahber
33. Shegere Child and fimily Development charitable society
34. Sign Language Training and Social Service Association (SLTSSA)
35. Splash International
36. Together Ethiopian Resident charity Organization
37. World vision International Ethiopia
38. Worled together Ethiopia
39. Voluntary service
40. Yechristianawi Wendmamoch Betkristian Ye Hitsnat Erdata Dirijit
 Appendix F
Selected Sample of Indigenous and International NGOs that currently working
collaboratively with City Government of Addis Ababa Education Bureau on Education

No "Name of " Project cost Objective

Charity organization" (Total Budget) "

1. AlmazAshene Children and Family Support 4,821,568.79 Improving the lives of children and the child
Association, care institution and disadvantageous group of
community eventually helps them to grow in
to a responsible , self-reliant and productive
citizen of the country

2. Arat Kilo Child Care and Community 8,840,419.83 To contribute to the creation of better future
Development and better living condition to destitute
children, their guardians and un Employed
youth
3. Association of Women in the Avenue of 16,492,259.00 To reduce vulnerability of HHs to HIV/AIDS
Development /AWAD/ and mitigate its impacts and improve the
overallwell-being of people living with HIV &
their families
4. Bridge for Life Ethiopia 4,350,000.00 Increasing the number of preschool educated
and competent children by care and
support….
5. Bright Future 11,308,749.00 to play a part in the overall plan of the
government for achieving the millennium
development goal by creating opportunity
access for child and material health, Education
and food to the needy children and guardians
in Gulelesc
6. Camara Technology Improvement 8,471,900.00 Contribute to the advancement of school &
Education colleges ICT programs in A.A
7. Fana Association for Individuals with 4,736,004.00 To create and improve awareness of learning
Learning and Communication Difficulties( and communication difficulties and train and
FAILCD Ethiopia) support to be able to access and manage
children with these difficulties in Addis Ababa
8. Forum for African Women Educationalist 15,109,716.55 200 girls and boys acquiring essential
/FAWE/ - Ethiopia Chapter knowledge and skills through quality
education to enable them to access better
livelihoods and contribute to house hold,
community and national development
9. Hibir Capacity Development and Self 4,530,443.72 To capacitate the youth in the target areas of
Defance Organization the project and enable them to be competent
citizen in every endeavors in their life
10. Hiwot Ethiopia 26,512,059.00 improve the situation of children and youth so
as to live healthy & productive life in A.A
11. Retrak Ethiopia 53,875,450.00 No child forced to live on the street

1
12. Kids Care Children Welfare Association 8,053,163.92 improve the situation of O,A,D children and
mothers by reducing their hazardous living
conditions as well as to facilitate the
educational needs and services for school- age
children who belong to destitute families
13. Merkato Child And Family Charitable 28,369,516.20 To improve the living conditions of
Society disadvantaged children & youth living in W
6&7 of A. ketema sub city through improving
health education & income generating skill
14. Mission for Community Development 6,435,000.00 to contribute towards the life improvement
of Vulnerable children and their mothers
through SHG and school structures
15. Right to Play 15,834,100.00 To enhance the quality of ECCD services and
quality of education in selected primary
schools in three sub cities of A.A
16. SelamYeethiopiaZafochTenkebakabiMahber 3,911,009.90 to promote participatory eco school and
community interventions by planting and
conserving trees for environmental
conservation and protection at micro level so
as to balance the ecosystem and insuring
environmental sustainability at macro level
17. Shegere Child and Fimily Development 25,271,863.17 To contribute for the improvement of child
Charitable Society care & development in woreda 7 of gulele sub
city so as to help deprived excluded and
vulnerable children have the capacity to
become young adults parents &leaders who
bring lasting and positive change in thier
community
18. Sign Language Training and Social Service 5,129,229.60 To enable deaf & youth to improve living
Association ( SLTSSA) conditions in A.A at 5 sub cities & selected
schools for the deaf through creating access
to inclusive education, health Psychological
family environment &awareness creation
19. Splash International 6,809,472.00 To change the lives of Vulnerable children in
impoverished urban areas by providing clean
safe ranking water to orphans schools
children hospitals street shelters
20. Together Ethiopian Resident Charity 10,649,067.00 To contribute to the inclusion of visually
Organization impaired children & youth, women &men
equally in to education and profession & to
provide them with educational support
21. World Vision International Ethiopia 111,567,747.70 "To contribute to the sustained
well-being of children with in families and
communities especially the most vulnerable
(Gulele) ,Ethiopians fostering the attainment
of child education and well-being (Improving
education services & capacity Building ),
Enhanced HHs livelihood of targeted HHs
(lideta)"
22. Youth Voluntary Service 17,459,350.00 To release children from poverty by upgrading
their living standard…

2
 Appendix G

Table 20: Tools of Monitoring and Evaluation

Type of respondents Total

No Items AAEB NGOs No %

No % No %

1 Availability of Progress report

Yes 30 68.2 45 75.0 75 72.1

No 14 15 25.0 29 27.9
31.8
Total
44 100.0 60 100.0 104
100.0

2 Availability of Special meeting

Yes 35 79.5 52 86.7 87 83.7

No 9 20.5 8 13.3 17 16.3

Total 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0

3 Availability of Follow up studies

Yes 22 50.0 45 75.0 67 64.4

No 22 50.0 15 25.0 37 35.6

Total 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0

4 Availability of Designation of experimental and control groups

Yes 18 40.9 15 25.0 33 31.7

No 26 59.1 45 75.0 71 68.3

Total 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0

5 Availability of Questionnaires

Yes 27 61.4 44 73.3 71 68.3

No 17 38.6 16 26.7 33 31.7

Total 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0

6 Availability of Review document

Yes 28 63.6 49 81.7 77 74.0

No 16 36.4 11 18.3 27 26.0

Total 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0

7 Availability of Interview

Yes 29 65.9 46 76.7 75 72.1

 No 15 34.1 14 23.3 29 27.9

Total 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0

8 Availability of Observation of activities

Yes 34 77.3 53 88.3 87 83.7

No 10 22.7 7 11.7 17 16.3

Total 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0

9 Availability of Written report

Yes 40 90.9 60 100.0 100 96.2

No 4 9.1 - - 4 3.8

Total 44 100.0 60 100 104 100.0

10 Availability of Oral report

Yes 36 81.8 48 80.0 84 80.8

No 8 18.2 12 20.0 20 19.2

Total 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0

11 Availability of Open discussion

Yes 36 81.8 54 90.0 90 86.5

No 8 18.2 6 10.0 14 13.5

Total 44 100.0 60 100.0 104 100.0

 ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND BEHAVIORAL STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

Appendix I
Structured Cheek List Format for Document Analysis of AAEB & NGOs on
Educational Projects

1. Minutes recorded when designing, planning & implementing & M&E of

projects
2. Trends and practices of keeping project portfolio, guideline & feedback for
designing, planning, implementing & M&E of projects
3. Organizations’ a short term plan and a long term plan for project
implementation
4. Kept recorded best practices and lesson learnt from project implementation
5. kept recorded problems that faced when implementing projects,
DECLARATION
I undersigned, declare that this study is my original work, has not been presented for a degree in
any other university and that all sources of materials used for the Thesis have been duly
acknowledged.

Name: Birhanu Sintayehu

Signature: ______________________
Date : ________________

This Thesis has been submitted for examination by my approval as a university advisor.

Name: Zenebe Baraki (PHD)

Signature: __________________
Date of Approval: ____________