or this assignment, you are reviewing a project proposal from the perspective of the potential funder of that project. You will select one of the proposals provided and write a 3,000 word critical analysis of that proposal. A critical analysis in this case is essentially an essay that reflects on the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal document submitted (i.e. the clarity of writing, completeness) and the strengths and weaknesses of the project design (using the nine criteria for project design noted in the instructions below). Ultimately, you will summarise – from a donor’s perspective – if you feel this project should be funded as is, funded contingent upon changes being made in the project design or not recommended for funding due to an ‘unsalvageable’ project design.
Task
A few tips as you begin the process:
- The proposals are ‘real-life’ project grant applications used previously in different contexts. They represent a wide array of sectors and populations of focus. They also vary widely in detail and length – so please do be mindful to select the proposal for critique that best connects with your interests and/or experience, in order for you to most clearly demonstrate your understanding of core project design and management concepts.
- Remember: in a critique – it is your voice and your critical, creative analysis and synthesis of the themes that you are seeing in the proposal that is desired. Please seek to avoid merely summarising what is in the project proposal.
- What is desired for each of your sections in which you critique the proposal against the nine core elements is content that clearly communicates these elements:
- Your opinion on the strength, flaws, adequacy, merit, etc. of the proposal content in regards to the various PDM ‘lenses’ you will apply. Lead with your critique and be clear regarding what your own opinion is of the proposal content.
- Why you have formed your opinion: In other words – what evidence (or content) from the project proposal itself are you basing that critique on; what is either in the proposal that is shaping your opinion OR what is missing that you feel should be there?
- Why each element actually matters: In other words – why does it matter if the project design is strong or weak in the particular lens you are reflecting on (i.e. the degree and type of stakeholder engagement). You are essentially making a very brief case for the best practice in regard to that element. Use literature – best practice guidelines, articles, reports, etc. – to help you make your case. Remember, this is your opportunity to help the partner who has applied to you for funding to grow in their own understanding of good project design, so your thoughts here can be instructive for them. It completely acceptable (and encouraged even) to use literature from the PDM course itself to help make your case, however, you may also use external sources you have identified if they help you make your case and align with the course concepts. This final part of your ‘critique’ for each of the nine elements need not be long; even 1-3+ sentences could be enough. What matters here is to show your command of the concept itself, the reason it matters for those we are seeking to support in our work and that you have command of key sources you can engage to support your work.
- Original, creative thinking: not all of the subjects covered in the PDM module are mentioned in guidelines for the nine sections below – so do feel free to creatively engage additional elements that you feel bear a significance to the quality of the project design. You will note from the matrix below that the highest marks tend to be attributed to those that apply some innovation, original thinking and synthesis (defined generally here as taking the elements of your critique and sifting and filtering them together to discern unified, higher–level themes that you can recommend to the partner who applied for funding to aid their learning).
Step 2
Analyse the project proposal according to these nine PDM ‘lenses’ or factors in separate sections, closing with a 500 word summary of the rationale for your decision and providing references to sources you have used to make your case.
- Introduction: briefly introduce your critique, what proposal you are critiquing and what lenses you will be applying in your review. Then move to the assessment of:
- Project Rationale: The degree to which there is a clear articulation of need and a causal analysis in the proposal.
- Stakeholder Engagement & Coordination: Evidence of partnership and stakeholder engagement in the project design processes (assessments and planning).
- Project Logic & Indicators: Clarity of the project logic in the logframe or theory of change, and targeted indicators of success. In other words, the planned actions are likely to lead to the desired goal and the indicators will measure success appropriately.
- Evidence of Best Practices: The degree to which the proposed project is gender-sensitive, conflict-sensitive, engages community capacities and is disability inclusive.
- Sustainability: The degree to which the benefits (i.e. improved health, changed practices, improved systems) of the proposed project are likely continue after the project.
- Organisational Capacity: The capacity of the organisation to manage and deliver.
- Feasibility: The proposed project’s feasibility to achieve what is being proposed within the timeframe and overall budget available and in light of changing contextual constraints.
- Monitoring and Evaluation: The clarity and completeness of the plan to monitor and evaluate the project and its impacts.
- Risk Analysis & Management: The degree to which risks to the project are thoroughly analysed and management steps are planned that will mitigate the risk.
- Recommendation for funding (up to 500 words): The analysis should close with a 500 word (max) recommendation section that should summarise your advice on whether or not to fund the work. In the case of not recommending funding, this should provide a rationale for this decision that could be shared with those proposing the work. In the case of a recommendation for funding, this should identify any conditions or recommendations to be made to the applicants that they would need to address before beginning the work.
- References: The analysis should provide at least five and ten (5-10) references that provide the evidence-base for your critique.