CaseStudy bamboo processing

 
Case  Study  in  using  the  DCED  Standard  
Bamboo  processing  in  Vietnam  with  the  Prosperity  Initiative1  
 

8th  February  2011  

This  case  shows  a  programme  using  several  results  chains,  with  different  levels  of  detail,  to  
capture  its  various  interventions.  Some  of  these  interventions  are  expected  to  deliver  impact  
in   the   short   run,   while   others   will   take   longer;   all,   however,   are   linked   through   the   results  
chains  ƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞ͛Ɛultimate  goal  of  reducing  poverty.  
 

WĂƌƚϭ͗^ƵŵŵĂƌLJŽĨWƌŽƐƉĞƌŝƚLJ/ŶŝƚŝĂƚŝǀĞ͛ƐdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ  
 

Description   of   Programme:   The   Prosperity   Initiative   (PI)   aims   to   stimulate   investment   and  
encourage   policy   reforms   that   are   pro-­‐poor.   This   case   ĨŽĐƵƐĞƐ ŽŶ W/͛Ɛ ŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƐ ŝŶ
sŝĞƚŶĂŵĂŶĚ>ĂŽƐ͛ŝŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůďĂŵƐĞĐtors;  the  work  is  funded  by  a  consortium  of  donors,  
and  has  an  initial  budget  of  USD1.1M.  The  main  interventions  are:  
 
- Tailored  services  to  businesses  and  investors  to  adopt  the  most  profitable  and  highest  
impact  bamboo  processing  technologies    
- Policy  and  advisory  services  to  provincial  and  national  authorities  in  support  of  
the  bamboo  industry  and  wider  socio-­‐economic  development    
- Facilitating  the  growth  of  a  market  for  business  advice  to  bamboo  producer  
communities,  particularly  around  how  best  to  sell  high-­‐value  aged  bamboo  
 
PI   works   with   lead   catalytic   firms   in   the   bamboo   sector   by   supporting   them   with   business  
advisory  services  to  invest  and  generate  new  business,  to  contribute  towards  growth  of  the  
sector.  The  project  aims  to  increase  the  demand  for  bamboo,  which  would  increase  the  price  

that  target  groups  (small  bamboo  producers)  receive.2  
 
How   and   Why   Prosperity   Initiative   Became   Involved   with   the   Standard:   When   PI   was  
founded  in  2007,  the  organisation  needed  to  develop  a  Monitoring  &  Evaluation  framework  
that  suited  its  market-­‐based  approach.  This  was  not  easy.  In  the  words  of  Executive  Director  
:ŽŚŶ DĂƌƐŚ͕ ŵŽƐƚ DŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶ ;DΘͿ ŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ ͚ĂƌĞ ŵƵĐŚ ďĞƚƚĞƌ ƐƵŝƚĞĚ ƚŽ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƐŽĨĂŵŽƌĞƉƌĞĚŝĐƚĂďůĞĂŶĚĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶŶĂƚƵƌĞ͛͘  
 
The   DCED   Standard   appeared   to   offer   a   viable   alternative.   In   2008,   John   Marsh   and   Bob  
ĂƵůĐŚ͕W/͛ƐƉŽǀĞƌƚLJƐƉĞĐŝĂůŝƐƚ͕ũŽŝŶĞĚƚŚĞdiscussions  around  the  content  of  the  Standard.  In  
2009,  PI  sent  project  manager  Viet  Kim  Cuong  and  a  consultant,  Philipp  Essl,  to  the  ͛Ɛ  
introductory   course.   Shortly   afterwards,   Jim   Tomecko,   an   expert   on   the   DCED   Standard,  
1

We  thank  John  Marsh,  Philipp  Essl  and  Bridget  Lee  Dougherty  for  all  of  their  assistance  in  preparing  this  case  
study.
2
For  more  information  about  Prosperity  Initiative,  visit  www.ProsperityInitiative.org.


visited   Hanoi   to   carry   out   a   mock   audit.   Philipp   Essl   ŽǀĞƌƐĂǁ ƚŚĞ ĚĞƐŝŐŶ ŽĨ W/͛Ɛ ŶĞǁ DΘ
procedures  and  conducted  in-­‐house  training  on  the  Standard.  
 
dŚĞ ďĂŵ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ǁĂƐ ŝŶŝƚŝĂůůLJ ĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚ ŝŶ ϮϬϬϳ͕ ƉƌŝŽƌ ƚŽ W/͛Ɛ ĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ
Standard.  In  2009,  at  the  end  of  its  first  phase,  the  bamboo  project  was  re-­‐designed  in  line  
with  a  one-­‐LJĞĂƌĞdžƚĞŶƐŝŽŶďLJW/͛ƐĚŽŶŽƌƐ͘dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶƌĞĨŝŶĞĚĂŶĚƐŝŵplified  as  a  
result  of  various  challenges  and  lessons  learned  in  the  initial  phase.  In  particular,  developing  
results   chains   made   a   significant   contribution   to   helping   the   PI   team   to   develop   a   tighter  
focus  for  the  next  phase.    
 

Cost  and  Benefits  of  Working  towards  the  Standard  
 

John  Marsh  and  his  team  have  prepared  a  results  and  project  management  framework  that  
captures   the   various   components   of   the   DCED   Standard,   whilst   also   meeting   donor  
requirements  such  as  log-­‐frames.  Participation  has  included  attending  DCED  events  (approx.  
$7,000),  drafting  initial  results  chains  and  plans  with  consultancy  support  ($20,000)  and  on-­‐
going  costs,  including  a  pre-­‐audit  ($20,000).  
 
The   Standard   brings   greater   clarity   and   effectiveness   to   implementation.   By   using   results  
chains  to  examine  the  logic  of  their  interventions,  the  PI  team  has  found  it  easier  to  link  each  
activity  to  development  goals,  and  to  decide  which  ones  should  be  prioritised.  Results  chains  
have   also   been   useful   when   developing   a   new   log-­‐frame   for   the   bamboo   project.  
Furthermore,   as   a   dynamic   tool,   staff   can   update   their   results   chains   when   either   market  
conditions  or  the  project  itself  changes.  
 
ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐ ƚŽ WŚŝůŝƉƉ ƐƐů͕ Ă ĨŽƌŵĞƌ W/ ĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂŶƚ͕ ͚dŚĞ ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ ŝƐ ŵŽƌĞ Ă ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ
ŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƚŽŽůƚŚĂŶĂƌĞƐƵůƚƐŵĞĂƐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚƚŽŽů͛͘&Žƌ:ŽŚŶDĂƌƐŚ͕  the  Standard  has  also  
allowed   PI   to   better   plan   for   and   communicate   results,   both   internally   and   externally.   In  
other  words  the  cost  and  time  spent  working  towards  the  DCED  Standard  in  not  only  spent  
on  results  measurement  but  only  about  gaining  clarity  about  ŽŶĞ͛ƐǁŽƌŬ  
 
Challenges,   Responses   and   General   Lessons   Learned:   ĂƉƚƵƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ďĂŵ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͛Ɛ
ŽǀĞƌĂůů ŝŵƉĂĐƚ ŝƐ ŶŽƚ ĞĂƐLJ͕ ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJ ĂƐ ƚŚĞ ƐĐĂůĞ ĂŶĚ ƐĐŽƉĞ ŽĨ W/͛Ɛ ĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ ŚĂǀĞ ĞǀŽůǀĞĚ
and  expanded  over  time.  There  have  so  far  been  three  major  challenges.    
 
In  adopting  the  Standard  one  key  concern  was  how  to  capture  overall  impact  for  the  project,  
given  that  the  programme  was  implementing  different  actions  in  its  first  years.  Initially,  the  
team  was  unclear  about  the  likely  intermediate  impacts  of  its  interventions.  In  the  redesign,  
PI  had  to  spend  a  lot  of  time  thinking  about  how  to  capture  its  results  at  different  stages,  as  

different   activities   would   have   different   timelines   for   impact:   some   longer   term   and   some  
shorter  term.  The  process  of  drawing  results  chains  has  actually  made  staff  more  aware  of  
these  differences.    
 
In  the  end,  after  experimenting  with  a  few  variations  of  results  chain,  it  was  decided  that  PI  
would  consider  adopting  a  hierarchy  of  results  chains  to  capture  all  actions  that  contribute  
ƚŽ W/͛Ɛ ƐĞĐƚŽƌ ůĞǀĞů ŐŽĂůƐ͘  YƵŽƚŝŶŐ ĨƌŽŵ W/͛Ɛ ƌĞƐƵůƚƐ ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚ ĨƌĂŵĞǁŽƌŬ͕ ͚&Žƌ ĞĂĐŚ
sector   or   sub-­‐sector   that   PI   engages   in,   a   sector   level   results   chain   is   drafted.   During   the  
project   development   phase   (business   case)   PI   drafts   an   overall   project   results   chain   that  


summarizes  the  overall  project  strategy,  as  well  as  the  various  project  components  that  the  
project  contains.  
 
Based  on  the  project  results  chain,  project  managers  develop  results  chains  for  each  project  
component,  which  provide  more  details  to  the  project  strategy  and  underlying  impact  logic.  
Depending   on   the   complexity   and   scope   of   project   components   ʹ   as   well   as   allocation   of  
management   responsibilities   ʹ   more   than   one   project   component   can   be   captured   in   one  
ƐŝŶŐůĞĐŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƌĞƐƵůƚƐĐŚĂŝŶ͛͘      
 
dŚĞ ƐĞĐŽŶĚ ŵĂũŽƌ ĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞ ǁĂƐ ƚŽ ĐĂƉƚƵƌĞ ŚŽǁ W/͛Ɛ ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞ ŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƐ ĂŶĚ ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞ
strategies  all  contribute  towards  reaching  the  same  desired  goal  of  poverty  reduction.  Here  
again   using   the   hierarchy   of   results   chains   helped   staff   to   capture   all   the   actions   that  
ĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞƐ͛ ƐĞĐƚŽƌ-­‐level   goals.   This   hierarchy   of   results   chains   is  
ĞdžƉůĂŝŶĞĚŝŶĚĞƚĂŝůŝŶƚŚĞ͚ƌƚŝĐƵůĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĞZĞƐƵůƚƐŚĂŝŶ͛ƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘  
 
Finally,   PI   conducted   industry   level   baseline   surveys   at   the   outset,   to   measure   household  
level  impact  data,  in  an  attempt  to  establish  benchmarks  in  line  with  the  longer-­‐term  impact  
objectives.   These   surveys   were   not   linked   to   specific,   shorter-­‐term   project   interventions.  
When   programme   staff   drafted   results   chains   for   individual   shorter-­‐term   interventions,   it  

was  not  clear  how  each  of  these  interventions  translated  into  impact.  It  became  clear  that  
the   general   household   surveys,   while   interesting,   did   not   allow   PI   to   attribute   impacts   to  
interventions.  
 
 

WĂƌƚϮ͗WƌŽƐƉĞƌŝƚLJ/ŶŝƚŝĂƚŝǀĞ͛ƐtŽƌŬƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ͗  
 

1.
Articulating  the  Results  Chain:  PI  has  devised  the  structure  for  all  its  results  chains  
and  is  finalising  the  results  chains  for  all  its  interventions.  The  main  reason  for  the  delay  in  
finalising  results  chains  is  that  the  project  has  been  restructured  recently  under  a  one-­‐year  
extension,  which  started  in  July  2010.  The  focus  for  the  project  documentation  with  donors  
was   the   logframe   and   associated   indicators,   which   has   been   completed   and   agreed.   Draft  
results  chains  were  developed  during  this  process,  and  fine-­‐tuning  is  taking  place  to  finalise  
the   results   chains   and   incorporate   other   elements   of   the   DCED   Standard.     In   fact,   drafting  
the   results   chain   has   been   helpful   in   this   re-­‐strategising   process   and   in   developing   the  
logframe   itself,   because   senior   project   staff   have   used   it   in   their   key   meetings   to   think  
through  how  their  activities  can  be  used  to  generate  highest  impact,  and  how  to  select  the  
most  appropriate  indicators.  
 
PI  intends  to  create  results  chains  at  three  or  four  different  levels.  The  first  is  a  sector-­‐level  
results   chain,   incorporating   systemic   change.   Secondly,   project-­‐level   results   chains   are  
drafted.   These   show   how   the   different   components   of   the   project   combine   for   overall  
impact.  The  third  set  of  results  chains  are  at  the  component-­‐level.  Component-­‐level  results  
chains  show  how  different  groups  of  activities  within  one  programme  component  together  
lead   to   higher-­‐level  change.     As   component   results   chains   are   drafted   to   some   extent   at  a  
conceptual   level,   more   detailed   intervention   results   chains   are   sometimes   drafted   in  
addition.  Project  and  intervention  managers  often  find  intervention  results  chains  the  most  

ƵƐĞĨƵů͘dŚĞĚŝĂŐƌĂŵďĞůŽǁƐŚŽǁƐW/͛ƐŚŝĞƌĂƌĐŚLJŽĨƌĞƐƵůƚƐĐŚĂŝŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŝŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůďĂŵ
sector   in   Vietnam   and   Laos.   Annex   1   gives   examples   of   project-­‐level   and   component-­‐level  
results  chains.  


 

 
 
Already   in   the   project   design   phase,   each   staff   member   is   involved   in   drafting   their  
respective   results   chain.   This   ensures   that   staff   can   use   the   results   chains   as   a   practical  
instrument  to  guide  their  work.  
 
Results   chains   have   been   updated   and   improved   over   time.   For   example,   PI   originally  
projected   the   amount   that   target   firms   would   invest,   without   linking   this   explicitly   to   its  
outputs   (e.g.   deals   made,   services   provided).   Closing   this   gap   has   helped   to   clarify   the  
ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͛ƐůŽŐŝĐ͘  
 
2.
Defining   Indicators   of   Change:   PI   aims   to   integrate   the   indicators   used   in   its   log-­‐
ĨƌĂŵĞŝŶƚŽŝƚƐƌĞƐƵůƚƐĐŚĂŝŶ͘dŚŝƐǁŝůůĚĞĞƉĞŶƚŚĞĞdžƉůĂŶĂƚŝŽŶŽĨW/͛ƐŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞŐLJďLJ
providing  additional  information  on  indicators,  means  of  verification,  assumptions  (risks)  and  
required   resources.   This   will   also   help   them   to   measure   what   is   important   and   to   avoid  
duplication  of  work.      
   
PI  aims  to  measure  the  long-­‐term  impact  of  its  various  activities  on  poverty  reduction.  This  is  
difficult   to   do   with   a   high   degree   of   scientific   rigour,   however,   because   many   factors  
contribute   to   poverty.   As   suggested   in   the   Standard,   PI   also   measures   how   many   people  
benefit  from  its  interventions,  plus  the  additional  jobs  and  additional  income  going  to  poor  
people  as  a  result  of  its  interventions.  The  PI  team  use  these  indicators  to  establish  whether  

their   work   is   achieving   its   goals.   PI   develops   projections   for   the   following   standardised  
impact  indicators:    
 

WƌŽĚƵĐĞƌƐ͛ŝŶĐŽŵĞĨƌŽŵƐĂůĞƐ  


dĂƌŐĞƚŐƌŽƵƉƐ͛ŝŶĐŽŵĞĨƌŽŵƐĂůĂƌŝĞƐ  
Total  number  of  new  waged  jobs  created  (Full-­‐time  Equivalent)  
%  of  new  jobs  going  to  female  workers  
Total  Income:  the  sum  of  all  household  income  from  sales  and  wages.  
 
Measuring  Changes  in  Indicators:  Although  PI  is  not  yet  at  a  stage  where  it  measures  
changes   in   indicators,   PI   has   designed   a   method   for   measuring   changes   in   indicators   in   its  
Results  and  Project  Management  Framework.  This  methodology  aims  to  conform  with  good  
research   practices,   as   outlined   in   the   Standard.   It   includes   quick   household   surveys,   semi-­‐
3.

structured  interviews  and  focus  groups,  as  well  as  available  secondary  data  on  poverty.  

 
PI  has  a  poverty  scorecard  methodology,  which  allows  for  the  classification  of  households  as  
poor,  near-­‐poor,  or  non-­‐poor,  based  on  a  number  of  non-­‐monetary  poverty  indicators  that  
are  covered  in  a  brief  interview  with  a  household  member.  PI  piloted  this  method  in  its  first  
firm-­‐based   impact   assessment,   carried   out   in   early   2009.   It   will   next   be   applied   to   partner  
firms  which  make  investments,  both  to  capture  baselines  and  to  measure  the  impact  of  the  
investments  that  these  firms  make.  
 
Results  Chain
4.

Estimating   Attributable   Changes:   PI   has  
Attribution  Methods
Level  of  change
prepared  a  draft  attribution  measurement  plan,  
but  has  not  yet  tested  it.    The  plan  is  illustrated  
‡ Case  studies
Poverty  impact
‡ Quasi-­‐experimental   (household  
in  the  diagram.  As  more  programmes  apply  the  
income)  surveys
Standard,   John   Marsh   hopes   that   there   will   be  
more   examples   of   how   programmes   have   dealt  
‡ Case  studies
with  the  issue  of  attribution.    
Outcome
‡ ^ĞĐƚŽƌƐƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌƐ͛ ŽƉŝŶŝŽŶƐ
(Enterprise/government  
 
‡ Quasi-­‐experimental   surveys          
&  sector  level)
‡ Trend  analysis
5.
Capturing  Wider  Changes  in  the   System  
or   Market:   ^LJƐƚĞŵŝĐ ĐŚĂŶŐĞ ŝƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ ŝŶ W/͛Ɛ
sector-­‐level   results   chains.   The   project  
‡Case  studies
Output
‡ ^ĞĐƚŽƌƐƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌƐ͛ ŽƉŝŶŝŽŶƐ
considers,   for   example,   how   increased   demand  
ĨŽƌ ďĂŵ ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚ ďLJ W/͛Ɛ ŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƐ

would  also  increase  the  price  that  target  groups  
receive   for   their   bamboo.   In   practice,   it   has   proven   difficult   to   establish   precise   causal  
ƌĞůĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŝƉƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶW/͛ƐŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƐLJƐƚĞŵŝĐŝŵƉĂĐƚ͘dŚĞƐŝnjĞŽĨW/͛ƐďƵĚŐĞƚĂŶĚƚŚĞ
likelihood  that  the  project  will  end  in  mid-­‐2011  mean  that  PI  is  unlikely  to  measure  systemic  
change  in  detail.  
 
6.
Tracking   Programme   Cost:   W/͛Ɛ ĂĐĐŽƵŶƚŝŶŐ ƐLJƐƚĞŵ͕ ŵĂŶĂŐĞĚ ďLJ ƚŚĞ ŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ
ŵĂŶĂŐĞƌ͕ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐĂůůƚŚĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞ͛ƐĐŽƐƚƐĂŶŶƵĂůůLJ͘  
 
7.
Reporting   Results:   PI   has   developed   a   corporate   reporting   system   to   measure   its  
effectiveness.   This   system   also   measures   compliance   with   the   DCED   Standard   and   with  
donor   requirements.   The   system   includes   time   reporting   for   staff,   and   regular   strategic  
review  meetings,  once  or  twice  per  year.  


Annex  1:  Sector-­‐level  and  Component-­‐level  Results  Chain  for  PI͛s  work  in  industrial  bamboo  
 
Sector-­‐level:  
 


Component-­‐level,  relating  to  Business  and  Investment