Sustainability Planning and Monitoring

ORGANIZING AND INTERPRETING THE DATAFigure 6Example of maximum and actualaggregated community score for effectivefinancing in one community200The facilitator then encourages the group toconsider why the achieved scores are high, low orin-between as compared to the maximumpossible. When a degree of consensus begins toemerge, the facilitator steers the discussion towardswhat can be done to improve the situation.1005.3 Strengths andweaknesses analysis0Max. scorepossibleCommunity “X”in community “X” shown in Figure 6 is, forexample, derived from adding the two scores forcoverage of operation and maintenance costs(lighter section of bars) and universality andtimeliness of payments (darker section of each bar).The facilitator helps community “X” to see thattheir aggregate score for effective financing barelymakes the mid-point (in this case at 100 out ofthe aggregate maximum score of 200), and thatunless the users of the water system improve theirfinancing performance, the system is likely tobecome unsustainable. The relative length of thesections of the stacked bar shows that what theyneed to most improve is the universality andtimeliness of user paymentsTo obtain an overall picture of strengths andweaknesses in a particular community system, theassessment team presents the overview of therespective community scales and scores (see Figure7) to a community review assembly at the end ofthe process. The facilitator helps identify wherestrengths and weaknesses are, by asking peopleto identify which scores are considerably higherand lower respectively than the benchmark at themid-point, which is the minimum score levelrequired to indicate a sustainable system.Facilitators crosscheck with the communitygathering whether the picture correctly summarizesthe situation. Discussion then proceeds to howthe weaknesses can be addressed, what localgroups can do to improve the situation, and whatresources and opportunities may be available totap, both locally and further afield.The facilitators help the groups to visualize theoutcomes of the aggregation and compare theresult with the maximum score. Visualization maytake the form of a simple bar diagram, a piechart, or any other visual that is easily understood.The diagram is drawn on paper or created on thefloor with different lengths of rope, pieces of paperor cloth, depending on what is locally availableand what the group can easily understand.Once the group grasps the idea, repetition of theprocess is easy. Groups have even come up withbetter alternatives to express the analysis visually.Community score for system quality converted tobar chart by villagers in Indonesia53