CCI - Embracing Failures Taxonomy Questionnaire

This questionnaire is designed to test the draft taxonomy of root causes of failure in conservation developed as part of the CCI project Embracing Failure in Conservation. This taxonomy is designed to be used as a tool for identifying, recording and discussing failure in a constructive way, where the primary focus is on learning, rather than apportioning blame.

To test the taxonomy we are looking for conservation practitioners who have been involved in a conservation effort that they consider to have “failed” in some way. If you meet this description then we would like you to review the draft taxonomy and test it by highlighting the root causes of failure that are relevant to their example, let us know if anything is missing and answer five additional questions to help us assess the relationships between different root causes of failure.

ANONYMITY DISCLAIMER

All information used in this project is subject to strict anonymity protocols and at no point will we ask for or share any information that could be used to identify specific individuals, locations, projects or organisations.

More information on the projects anonymity protocols can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15XpzTrYUe8MlbuH36URViPLG215fUhC8/view?usp=sharing

INSTRUCTIONS

Please review the draft taxonomy and select all the root causes of failure that apply to your example.

Root causes are arranged into six over-arching categories

1. Planning, Design or Knowledge
2. Implementation
3. Internal Governance Structures
4. Resources
5. Relationships with External Stakeholders
6. Unexpected External Events

For more information on the different causes you can view the complete draft taxonomy here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/18C6afI4PHLLbtjsmf0KybOopsxSZ8DKn/view?usp=sharing

You can select as many causes as you want, some examples may have a single cause or several. If anything is unclear or if you are unable to find a suitable category please provide this information by answering the questions at the end of page 1.

Please only enter information for one example (e.g. project/programme) at a time. If you have more than one example you would like to test please start a new questionnaire.

The questionnaire should take around five minutes to complete.

If you have any questions please contact iain.dickson@birdlife.org

Part 1 - Classifying Failures using the Embracing Failures Taxonomy

Category 1. Planning, Design or Knowledge

Causes of failure in this section relate to the way that projects are conceived and conceptualised. Taking into account knowledge inputs, design and planning.

Question Title

* 1.1. KNOWLEDGE INPUTS TO PROJECT DESIGN

1.11. ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE
Lacking sufficient information on the ecology of the conservation target for project design to be effective

1.12. SOCIAL/SOCIO-ECONOMIC KNOWLEDGE
Lacking sufficient knowledge of the social, cultural or economic conditions surrounding or relating to the conservation target

1.13. OTHER CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE
Lacking sufficient knowledge of local contexts and conditions (other than ecological or socio economic) that could affect the project

1.14. EVIDENCE OF APPROACH
Lacking sufficient evidence on the effectiveness of the proposed solution to the conservation problem that the project is trying to address

Question Title

* 1.2. PROJECT DESIGN

1.21. POORLY DEFINED CONSERVATION PROBLEM
Project design not based on the identification of a clearly defined conservation problem

1.22. THEORY OF HOW CHANGE WOULD BE ACHIEVED
The mechanism for addressing the problem proving insufficient and/or inadequate for bringing about the desired change (i.e. the project's theory of change not working in practice)

1.23. MONITORING, EVALUATION & LEARNING
Systems for capturing information on progress, effectiveness and impact not allowing effective information capture and learning

1.24. BUDGET DESIGN
Not allocating enough funding during the design phase to achieve the desired outcome

1.25. SETTING OF REALISTIC GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Setting goals/objectives beyond what could be realistically delivered with the time/resources available

1.26. TECHNOLOGY OR METHODOLOGY USED
Using inappropriate and/or inefficient methods, techniques and/or materials

Question Title

* 1.3. SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING OR EXIT STRATEGY

1.31. PLANNING FOR INEVITABLE STAFF TURNOVER
Not planning for likely changes in personnel

1.32. EXIT STRATEGY
Lacking a clear plan for disengaging from the project

Category 2. Implementation

Causes of failure in this section primarily relate to relationships and dynamics within project teams

For failures relating to the way that projects are structured See Section 3. Internal Governance Structures

Question Title

* 2.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND/OR SUPERVISION

2.11. LEADERSHIP/SUPERVISION OF PROJECT STAFF BY PROJECT MANAGER(S)
Project management not providing effective support, supervision or guidance

2.12. DELEGATION
Inadequate delegation of roles & responsibilities within the team

2.13. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Lacking necessary adaptation of approach/roles etc. when required and/or ability to detect when this was needed

2.14. SUPPORT FROM STAFF OUTSIDE THE PROJECT TEAM (INC. SENIOR MANAGEMENT)
Lacking necessary support/buy-in from senior management to the project team

2.15. BUDGET MANAGEMENT
Ineffective management of funds allocated to the project

2.16. COORDINATION
Ineffective planning, consultation and feedback between management and others involved in implementation

2.17. PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOO FAR REMOVED TO FUNCTION EFFECTIVELY
Management of the project too far removed to provide necessary support, direction or oversight

Question Title

* 1.3. SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING OR EXIT STRATEGY

1.31. PLANNING FOR INEVITABLE STAFF TURNOVER
Not planning for likely changes in personnel

1.32. EXIT STRATEGY
Lacking a clear plan for disengaging from the project

Question Title

* 2.3. INTERNAL CORRUPTION
Relating to the act of corruption by project staff. For corruption by individuals outside the project see 5.41. Corruption (External to Project Staff)

2.31. CORRUPTION BY IMPLEMENTING PROJECT STAFF
Corruption by staff directly involved in implementation and/or employed by the implementing organisation

Category 3. Internal Governance Structures

Causes of failure in this section relate to the way that conservation projects are structured

For failures relating to relationships between those involved in the project see Section 2. Implementation and Section 5. Relationships with external stakeholders

Question Title

* 3.1. PROJECT GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES

3.11. MANAGEMENT/GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES LACKING KEY ELEMENTS
Elements of project management and/or governance structures either missing and/or not functioning effectively

3.12. CLARITY OF ROLES/RESPONSIBILITIES (GOVERNANCE)
Roles & responsibilities of those involved in the project not clearly defined

3.13. CLARITY OF LEGAL STRUCTURES
Legal structures set up to facilitate the functioning of the project not clearly defined

3.14 COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GOVERNANCE LEVELS
Lacking effective communication between levels of project governance

Question Title

* 3.2. SYSTEMS & STRUCTURES FOR IDENTIFYING RISK/MISMANAGEMENT

3.21. SYSTEMS FOR IDENTIFYING AND DEALING WITH RISK/MISMANAGEMENT
The project lacked the proper structures and procedures necessary to identify and deal with risk and/or mismanagement

Question Title

* 3.3. SYSTEMS & STRUCTURES FOR LEARNING

3.31. SYSTEMS & STRUCTURES FOR LEARNING
Governance structure not allowing for necessary learning and adaptation

Category 4. Resources

The reasons in this category relate primarily to the existence and availability of resources

For mismanagement of resources see Section 2. Implementation

Question Title

* 4.1. FUNDING

Reasons relating to availability and adequacy of funding available
For mismanagement of funds see 2.15: Budget Management

4.11. FUNDING DELAYS
Delay(s) in receiving funding from donors/funders

4.12. FUNDING REALLOCATION
Funding reallocated to cover other areas of work within organisation

4.13. ABILITY TO SECURE NECESSARY CO-FUNDING
Project did not receive/raise co-funding needed for implementation

4.14. FUNDING LEVELS
Funding received was insufficient to complete project

4.15. ABILITY TO ENSURE SUSTAINABILITY OF FUNDING AND/OR RESOURCES
Unable to ensure continuity of funding/resources to support work beyond initial investment

Question Title

* 4.2. HUMAN CAPACITY AND EXPERTISE

4.21. STAFFING LEVELS
Insufficient staff numbers to carry out effective implementation

4.22. STAFF WORKLOAD
Staff involved in implementation unable to work effectively due to overly high workload

4.23. ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN
Burden of administration (e.g. reporting, financial management, recruitment etc.) negatively affected implementation

4.24. TECHNICAL EXPERTISE
Lack of necessary knowledge/skills/experience etc.

4.25. ABILITY TO MAINTAIN SUFFICIENT EXPERTISE
Loss of essential knowledge/skills/experience and inability to effectively replace this

Question Title

* 4.3. PHYSICAL RESOURCES

4.31. SUFFICIENT PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Lack of the physical resources needed to implement the project

4.32. MAINTENANCE OF PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Resources/materials used in the project not maintained to the level required

Category 5. Relationships with External Stakeholders

External stakeholders are defined as those who are involved in the project but are not part of the core, implementing team (e.g. local authorities, communities, collaborating organisations)

For issues relating to relationships within project teams see 2. Implementation

Question Title

* 5.1. DONOR SUPPORT

5.1. DONOR SUPPORT
Loss of, change in or disconnects in support and/or engagement by the project donor

Question Title

* 5.2. SUPPORT FROM KEY STAKEHOLDERS

5.21.SUPPORT FROM OR ACCESS TO, KEY GOVERNMENT BODIES / DECISION-MAKERS
Lack of support/buy-in from existing relevant government agencies/individuals

5.22. CHANGE IN KEY GOVERNMENT BODIES / DECISION-MAKERS
Loss of/inability to ensure continuity of existing support resulting from a change in relationship with relevant government agencies/individuals

5.23. COMMUNITY SUPPORT
Not enough support from local communities in and around project

5.24. UNINTENDED IMPACTS ON COMMUNITY
Unintended impacts resulting from the project negatively affected delivery

5.25. ENGAGEMENT OF LAND-HOLDERS
Lack of support from stakeholders owning/controlling land relevant to the project/programme/intervention
Or
Loss of/inability to ensure continuity of existing support from stakeholders owning/controlling land relevant to the project/programme/intervention

5.26. ABILITY TO BUILD/CATALYSE SUPPORT FROM GENERAL PUBLIC
Inability to build support from general public in relation to the project's conservation goals

5.27. ENGAGEMENT WITH RELEVANT ALLIED STAKEHOLDER ORGANISATIONS (NGOS, ACADEMIA, PRIVATE SECTOR)
Dysfunctional/non-existent relationships with stakeholder organisations supportive of the project's aims and/or working to achieve similar outcomes

5.28. ENGAGEMENT WITH RELEVANT OPPOSED STAKEHOLDER ORGANISATIONS (NGOS, ACADEMIA, PRIVATE SECTOR)
Dysfunctional/non-existent relationships with stakeholder organisations not supportive of the project's aims and/or working to achieve opposing outcomes

Question Title

* 5.3. STAKEHOLDER AGENDAS

5.31. CONFLICTING AGENDAS AMONG PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS
Key stakeholder agendas not aligned or in opposition to each other

Question Title

* 5.4. CORRUPTION AND ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES

Relating to acts of corruption by non-project staff. For corruption by project staff project see 2.3. Internal Corruption

5.41. CORRUPTION (EXTERNAL TO PROJECT STAFF)
Corruption carried out by individuals not directly working on the project

5.42. ILLEGAL ACTIVITY (EXTERNAL TO PROJECT STAFF)
Illegal activity carried out by individuals not directly working on the project

Category 6. Unexpected External Events

External events that can't be predicted and/or influenced by the project

Question Title

* 6.1. ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS

6.11. CLIMATE/WEATHER
Climactic conditions and/or weather events

6.12. OTHER NATURAL DISASTERS
Failure due to natural disasters other than those caused by weather/climate

6.13. WILDLIFE DISEASE
Failure due to diseases affecting wildlife (either directly affecting species targeted by the project or other non-targeted species which affected the project in some way)

Question Title

* 6.2 HUMAN EVENTS

6.21. CONFLICT/INSECURITY
Failure due to conflict and/or insecurity

6.22. DISEASE AFFECTING HUMANS AND/OR DOMESTICATED ANIMALS OR PLANTS
Failure caused by cases or outbreaks of diseases affecting humans and/or domesticated animals and/or plants

CCI - Embracing Failures Taxonomy Questionnaire

Question Title

* 1.1. KNOWLEDGE INPUTS TO PROJECT DESIGN

Question Title

* 1.2. PROJECT DESIGN

Question Title

* 1.3. SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING OR EXIT STRATEGY

Question Title

* 2.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND/OR SUPERVISION

Question Title

* 1.3. SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING OR EXIT STRATEGY

Question Title

* 2.3. INTERNAL CORRUPTIONRelating to the act of corruption by project staff. For corruption by individuals outside the project see 5.41. Corruption (External to Project Staff)

Question Title

* 3.1. PROJECT GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES

Question Title

* 3.2. SYSTEMS & STRUCTURES FOR IDENTIFYING RISK/MISMANAGEMENT

Question Title

* 3.3. SYSTEMS & STRUCTURES FOR LEARNING

Question Title

* 4.1. FUNDINGReasons relating to availability and adequacy of funding availableFor mismanagement of funds see 2.15: Budget Management

Question Title

* 4.2. HUMAN CAPACITY AND EXPERTISE

Question Title

* 4.3. PHYSICAL RESOURCES

Question Title

* 5.1. DONOR SUPPORT

Question Title

* 5.2. SUPPORT FROM KEY STAKEHOLDERS

Question Title

* 5.3. STAKEHOLDER AGENDAS

Question Title

* 5.4. CORRUPTION AND ILLEGAL ACTIVITIESRelating to acts of corruption by non-project staff. For corruption by project staff project see 2.3. Internal Corruption

Question Title

* 6.1. ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS

Question Title

* 6.2 HUMAN EVENTS

Question Title

* Were any of your reasons for failure not currently captured in the taxonomy? If so please provide a brief generic description

Question Title

* Was the taxonomy simple to use? Is there anything that we could do to improve it as a tool for identifying and recording reasons for failure?

* 2.3. INTERNAL CORRUPTION
Relating to the act of corruption by project staff. For corruption by individuals outside the project see 5.41. Corruption (External to Project Staff)

* 4.1. FUNDING

Reasons relating to availability and adequacy of funding available
For mismanagement of funds see 2.15: Budget Management

* 5.4. CORRUPTION AND ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES

Relating to acts of corruption by non-project staff. For corruption by project staff project see 2.3. Internal Corruption