Development is more than achieving targets: Lessons from DPRK

I recently had the unique experience of spending time in DPRK (North Korea). I was evaluating two separate projects – standard stuff related to OECD DAC, results, gender and inclusion, lessons learned etc. After my first visit to the communities where activities were being implemented, I was asked what I thought. ‘Same thing, different country,’ was my response. To be fair, once you get past the hoopla about DPRK, the development needs at the community level are pretty much the same as any other least developed country or fragile state. Geography and culture influence what you do and how, but the issues that need addressing are similar.

As with any development project, there are challenges, and within the geo-politically-influenced operating context of DPRK, the added challenges surrounding sanctions and banking channels put pressure on project staff to do everything perfectly, with zero tolerance for even the slightest administrative error in procurement and activity implementation. The hurdles that the project staff face in getting things done speaks volumes to the slowness at which things actually happen. And yet, important activities are implemented, real progress is made, and meaningful change effected.

But sometimes it takes an outsider to see this. 

The entire time I was in DPRK I was compelled to reiterate the accomplishments of the project staff despite the immense operational and implementation challenges they faced. I was repeatedly hearing about the challenges and delays, and not nearly enough satisfaction on the part of the project team about what they had achieved at that point. From my perspective, the issue was project targets. Defined during the project development phase, many were unlikely to be achieved due to procurement or geopolitical issues. On the M&E dashboard, despite many green sections, there were quite a few yellow and red sections. It gave the project team a sense that they were not doing enough.

As an outsider, my conclusions focused on what had been achieved in spite of the challenges the project team was up against. The project was managed very well, it was managed efficiently, and there was excellent adaptative management capacities within the project team. And most important, in my opinion? The activities that had been implemented were already having a huge – positive – impact in the communities where those activities had taken place. Hospitals, clinics and kindergartens had 24-hour electricity and efficient heating. Life saving services could be provided by hospitals 24 hours a day, seven days a week (which had not happened in many years). Children could attend school during winter months in a comfortable environment, reducing the risk of illness due to exposure to the cold. In every case, improved heating options and better insulation was improving the air quality in all public buildings (no more open coal and wood burning stoves filling the buildings with smoke). These are life changing, and in many cases life-saving, changes resulting directly from the activities of the project. But because this was only part of the overall project target, with other targets unlikely to be achieved, there was a perception of underachievement or even failure which was undeserved.

I used my reports to underscore the importance of looking beyond the ‘tick the box’ nature of success in project implementation – to see the forest and not just the trees. As evaluators, we have to be aware of how important what has been achieved in a project is, just as much as what has not. Granted, there are always caveats to this: if a project has underperformed because of poor management or poorly conceived project design, then we need to be more critical of what has not been achieved and why. 

However, I learned an important lesson while in DPRK. The achievement of project targets should not necessarily define whether the project has been a success. Sometimes a project will not achieve its targets, but even some progress in better than none (if it is sustainable) and unintended outcomes can be just as important, and sometimes more so, than stated objectives. Evaluators have to be critical but flexible, too, and in a world where failures receive far more attention than successes, we need to ensure we are playing our part in highlighting the positive changes that are being made, no matter how small.