Today's class prompted me to think along these lines.
Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority (PPWSA) deserve praise for their efforts.
In 1992 it provided poor-quality piped water at very low pressure (0.2 bar) for only 10 hours per day to only 20% of the city's residents. Non-revenue water was extremely high at 72% due to illegal connections, manipulation of bills and physical leakage. Tariffs were extremely low, there was no metering and less than half of the amounts billed were collected. Staff were underpaid and demoralized. The utility then underwent a dramatic turnaround: Staff engaged in corrupt activities were fired, bill payment was enforced, illegal connections were regularized, metering was introduced and the utility gained autonomy from the municipality in financial and personnel matters. In the next fourteen years the customer base multiplied by nine reaching over 90% of residents, service quality improved from intermittent to continuous supply of safe drinking water at good pressure of 2 bar, and non-revenue water was cut to only 6%. Tariffs were increased and the utility went from being bankrupt to making a modest profit. It now has motivated, well-paid staff. According to one observer, in 2012 its "public image is excellent". The key to its success laid in "leadership, professionalism, integrity (and) commitment" as well as "community participation and information sharing (...), good governance, transparency and accountability. (read more here)
So, does that answer the question regarding whether this can be replicated elsewhere?
Perhaps an easier way to understand this would be with a (rather painful) sports analogy. Apart from Shiv Sundar Das (2 Test match centuries; both against Zimbabwe; both at Nagpur; identical number of boundaries), no other example comes to mind of batsmen being able to reproduce a carbon copy of their efforts. Everything might click on a certain day, while it can all go wrong the next day, despite attempts to ensure that the circumstances are similar.
That precisely is the problem. It is easy to conduct financial analysis in the comfort of one's rooms with advanced modelling software - but the complex social milieu which consists of several inextricably intertwined factors (social, cultural, political, geographical to name but a few) make it extremely difficult to replicate real world situations. What the crude cricketer-example (no offence to S.S. Das) tries to illustrate is that (and I am purloining cricket commentator terminology) 'On any given day, anything is possible'. The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.
So, is it then possible to model a solution based on the experience in Phnom Penh, considering how certain things are beyond (even) our control?
That is probably not the question to be asked since such model-based solutions impinge on the space for creative and novel solutions. It is also not just a case of being dealt the best possible hand. A more relevant factor is how one looks at the options available, assesses the risks involved, and perhaps most crucially, plays the cards one is dealt. It can pay off- and people will praise you; or you can end up with egg on your face- and people will vilify you. But ultimately, if you don't sit at the table and ask for the cards to be dealt, you will never know the outcome. It is better to have lived and died than to have not lived at all.
Then what can be learnt from this experience if everything boils down to a high stake game of cards?
Well, (and this is the dodgiest argument of the lot) human resilience in the face of atrocious social conditions, coupled with the exemplary leadership of Ramon Magsaysay Award winner (2006) Ek Sonn Chan, can be seen as that perfect mix of elements that should encompass a successful project (apart from the numbers and economic projections; not to mention the expectations attached to the project). Without Ek Sonn Chan at the helm to orchestrate everything, would everything have panned out the way it did? As mentioned in class, (the delays in the Chennai Metro Rail Project), problems arise in the absence of such a maestro who can pull the strings and ensure steady progress. Capacity building should thus be a priority: Not just for any such singular attempt to be successful, but also to ensure that in the larger scheme of things, the institutional setup is in place to assure the success of future endeavours across all fields. Even if one particular project does not meet targets, a highly motivated and dedicated skilled workforce will be an embarrassment of riches and will never amount to surplus- if you play your cards right.
-Ranjeet
Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority (PPWSA) deserve praise for their efforts.
In 1992 it provided poor-quality piped water at very low pressure (0.2 bar) for only 10 hours per day to only 20% of the city's residents. Non-revenue water was extremely high at 72% due to illegal connections, manipulation of bills and physical leakage. Tariffs were extremely low, there was no metering and less than half of the amounts billed were collected. Staff were underpaid and demoralized. The utility then underwent a dramatic turnaround: Staff engaged in corrupt activities were fired, bill payment was enforced, illegal connections were regularized, metering was introduced and the utility gained autonomy from the municipality in financial and personnel matters. In the next fourteen years the customer base multiplied by nine reaching over 90% of residents, service quality improved from intermittent to continuous supply of safe drinking water at good pressure of 2 bar, and non-revenue water was cut to only 6%. Tariffs were increased and the utility went from being bankrupt to making a modest profit. It now has motivated, well-paid staff. According to one observer, in 2012 its "public image is excellent". The key to its success laid in "leadership, professionalism, integrity (and) commitment" as well as "community participation and information sharing (...), good governance, transparency and accountability. (read more here)
So, does that answer the question regarding whether this can be replicated elsewhere?
Perhaps an easier way to understand this would be with a (rather painful) sports analogy. Apart from Shiv Sundar Das (2 Test match centuries; both against Zimbabwe; both at Nagpur; identical number of boundaries), no other example comes to mind of batsmen being able to reproduce a carbon copy of their efforts. Everything might click on a certain day, while it can all go wrong the next day, despite attempts to ensure that the circumstances are similar.
That precisely is the problem. It is easy to conduct financial analysis in the comfort of one's rooms with advanced modelling software - but the complex social milieu which consists of several inextricably intertwined factors (social, cultural, political, geographical to name but a few) make it extremely difficult to replicate real world situations. What the crude cricketer-example (no offence to S.S. Das) tries to illustrate is that (and I am purloining cricket commentator terminology) 'On any given day, anything is possible'. The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.
So, is it then possible to model a solution based on the experience in Phnom Penh, considering how certain things are beyond (even) our control?
That is probably not the question to be asked since such model-based solutions impinge on the space for creative and novel solutions. It is also not just a case of being dealt the best possible hand. A more relevant factor is how one looks at the options available, assesses the risks involved, and perhaps most crucially, plays the cards one is dealt. It can pay off- and people will praise you; or you can end up with egg on your face- and people will vilify you. But ultimately, if you don't sit at the table and ask for the cards to be dealt, you will never know the outcome. It is better to have lived and died than to have not lived at all.
Then what can be learnt from this experience if everything boils down to a high stake game of cards?
Well, (and this is the dodgiest argument of the lot) human resilience in the face of atrocious social conditions, coupled with the exemplary leadership of Ramon Magsaysay Award winner (2006) Ek Sonn Chan, can be seen as that perfect mix of elements that should encompass a successful project (apart from the numbers and economic projections; not to mention the expectations attached to the project). Without Ek Sonn Chan at the helm to orchestrate everything, would everything have panned out the way it did? As mentioned in class, (the delays in the Chennai Metro Rail Project), problems arise in the absence of such a maestro who can pull the strings and ensure steady progress. Capacity building should thus be a priority: Not just for any such singular attempt to be successful, but also to ensure that in the larger scheme of things, the institutional setup is in place to assure the success of future endeavours across all fields. Even if one particular project does not meet targets, a highly motivated and dedicated skilled workforce will be an embarrassment of riches and will never amount to surplus- if you play your cards right.
-Ranjeet
1 comment:
This is an excellent summary of the Phnom Penh case. Leadership and Autonomy were I think the key to the success of the project.
Post a Comment