G.T.Z (ص 158)

غرض

عنوان

G.T.Z (ص 158)

المحتوى

1. Purpose and Contents of this Guide
“In future, project progress will mainly be reviewed by the projects themselves and in re-
sponse to specific events. Although-no longer a regulatory instrument, PPR.nevertheless
5 certain standards and a few rules iat must pe adhered to. ©
This guide summarizes those points that atlane to be taken. into account, together with
those that must be observed when preparing and implementing a PPR. PPRs imple-
mented in the manner described in this guide comply with the professional standards
GTZ demands and expects of this instrument.
Chapter 2 defines the PPR instrument and its place in GTZ's quality management.
Chapter 3 contains tried-and-tested aids from hands-on implementation: checklists for
the preparation and implementation of a PPR, an estimation of the time requirements, a 6
list of frequently observed weak points and a sample of terms of reference for a contract
for appraisers/consultants. The structure of the PPR report, which constitutes one of the
set rules for GTZ operations, is given in the Annex.
2. The definition of a PPR and its place in quality management
2.1 Purpose
Within our overall corporate concept on quality management, PPR is a key element of
quality assurance during project implementation. On the surface, this is no different to
former times when head office and the commissioning party were mainly interested in
finding out whether a project had done what it was commissioned to do during planning. &
However, development cooperation takes place under conditions in which the meticulous
observance of a plan is no guarantee for success. Today, the willingness to leam and a
flexible response to changing circumstances are absolutely indispensable. Quality as-
surance can no longer rely solely on a comparison of the present situation with planned
targets. Even though it is still important to compare a project's current status with plan-
ning, the focus needs to shift to project results and impact.
Greater emphasis on evaluating project impact derives from a change in our under-
standing of quality. In the past, when asked to define quality, our company came up with
a whole range of different answers, most of which had an absolute, normative character:
quality should be measured against the extent to which poverty has been reduced, the
environment has been protected, women have been promoted etc.
In the meantime, such normative-type thinking has given way to the realization that, in
the context of development cooperation, we can only achieve what our “clients” consider
important themselves. Therefore, by quality we now mean the compliance of our services
with what our clients (commissioning parties, partners and target groups) want. Our qual-
GTZ, Internal Evaluation, January 1999
Scanned with
١ © CamScanner’

هو جزء من

G.T.Z

تاريخ

1980

مجموعات العناصر

Generated Pages Set

أرشيف بلدية البيرة