Enhancing stakeholder's involvement in project monitoring among MMDAS.

ABSTRACT
This paper explores the sociocultural, economic and political factors influencing the low level of stakeholder's involvement in infrastructural project monitoring.

The literature review or secondary data revealed that, monitoring of infrastructure project is a major component of the whole project planning concept. The Structures and systems such as the National Development Planning Commission(NDPC), Regional Coordinating Council(RCC), the District Development Planning and Coordinating Unit (DPCU) and the National Monitoring and Evaluation Manual are available to promote effective monitoring and evaluation of projects, however there is gap between the these structures and the actual implementation. Hence this paper has the objective of providing ways of enhancing these structures and systems to promote effective and efficient monitoring of infrastructural projects.

Using purposive sampling technique where 30 respondents were interviewed for their views on the low level of stakeholder's involvement in infrastructural project monitoring among MMDAs. The respondents comprised of 10 head of departments who are members of the District Planning and Coordinating Unit (DPCU), 10 Assembly men and women who are active in the district and 10 community/opinion leaders who have knowledge on monitoring of projects and have played key roles in their community.

The paper reveals that the low level of stakeholder's involvement in infrastructure project monitoring among MMDAs are shaped by the lack of public education, inadequate monitoring equipment, lack of implementation of monitoring reports, lack of collaboration between management and beneficiaries, poor monitoring information dissemination.

Participants of the survey offered the following recommendations for tackling or enhancing the situation; Recognition of patriotic stakeholders/Motivation of stakeholders, Public education on the need to participate, Provision of the needed monitoring and evaluation equipment, Strict implementation of monitoring reports, Proper communication and information sharing.

The paper therefore recommends a rethinking of the overall planning and development processes that place emphasis on public participation at the local level and the basic right of stakeholders to participate during project implementation and monitoring among MMDAs.

1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Monitoring of projects plays an integral role in ensuring transparency and accountability of public funds as stipulated in the Public Procurement Act of Ghana. Literature has also shown that the structures and systems are in place to promote monitoring of project such as the National Development Planning Commission (NDPC) and the Regional Coordinating Councils (RCCs). However, the evidence are clear that there are still a lot of rejected projects across the length and breadth of the country due to poor stakeholders' involvement in project monitoring in the name of it being expensive but let us take into consideration the amount of money going waste due to rejected market stalls, boreholes, health facilities among other projects. This paper therefore is interested in investigating ways of enhancing the systems and structures put in place for monitoring of public funded project to promote value for money.

1.3. DATA AND METHODS (METHODOLOGY)
Both primary and secondary data was collected for this paper. The primary data will was collected from key stakeholders involved in project monitoring and evaluation such as development officers, assembly members, unit committee members, opinion leaders as well a community members. The secondary data was a desk study of relevant documents about stakeholder's involvement in project monitoring and evaluation

The methodology adopted for this paper was case study based purposive sampling technique encompassing documents analysis and key informant interviews conducted in the Atwima Mponua District Assembly in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. The key informants were put into clusters for representative sampling of respondents. The total numbers of clusters were three representing 30 respondents in all. 10 heads of department, 10 assembly members and 10 community members/ opinion leaders were interviewed during the survey.

The main reason behind the inclusion of primary data in writing the paper is to enable the writer support the findings on current evidence of the causes of low stakeholder involvement in project monitoring and a consensus approach in the solving the problem.

1.4 Findings
14.1. Stakeholder Involvement in Infrastructural Project Monitoring

Stakeholders contacted during the writing of the paper sought to find out the causes of the low level of stakeholder involvement in infrastructural projects monitoring among MMDAs. The survey revealed that about 36.7 percent of the responses indicated that non-enforcement of laws regarding stakeholders' involvement in the country, lack of political and personal commitments as well as low level of information available to stakeholders for participation are the key barriers for effective stakeholder involvement in project monitoring among MMDAs. This goes to support the point made earlier in the paper that the structures are in place for project monitoring but lacks enforcement and commitment. Non-enforcement and lack of commitment alone scored 30 percent from the 30 stakeholders contacted during the writing of the paper. Clearly from the above analysis indicates that lack of commitment and non-enforcement of laws are key when it comes to the issues of low involvement of stakeholder's involvement in infrastructural project monitoring and must be given scrutiny during project planning and implementation.

1.4.2 Public Education
The paper made a hypothesis by asking whether public education can be the magic for enhancing stakeholder's involvement in infrastructural project monitoring. The hypothesis tested positive since all the 30 respondents agreed that public education can be an eye opener for stakeholders to know their rights and responsibilities during project planning and implementation. The respondents indicated that most stakeholders do not show commitment to project monitoring since they do not know their rights and responsibility and think that project implementation is for those in positions especially the community stakeholders which has become centre stage in this paper.

1.4.3. Motivations for Stakeholders
It has become difficult for scholars to pinpoint exactly which causes the low level of stakeholders' participation in project monitoring among MMDAs. The paper sought the views of respondents whether motivations of stakeholders can increase their morals to participate in project monitoring among MMDAs. About 50 percent of the respondents said they do not think given motivations in the form of cash or materials will motivate them but will rather generate confusion in project planning and implementation. The rooted their debate on the premise that government lack the needed resources to fully implement its mandate so bringing the issue of motivation will possibly increase the burden on government's limited resource. On the other hand, about 50 percent also agreed that giving motivation to stakeholders will increase their commitment levels since they think there will be something when they participate. They based their choices on the following; it will enable those who have been motivated to work effectively and efficiently, it will increase productivity and participation in project planning and monitoring and development of much commitments towards their assigned duties and responsibilities

CHALLENGES OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURAL PROJECT MONITORING AMONG MMDAS

The 30 respondents contacted during the survey revealed the following challenges with regards to monitoring of infrastructure projects among MMDAs;

1. Lack of collaboration between management and beneficiaries. Respondents indicated that the needed level of collaboration among stakeholders does not exist. This issue is prominent due to the fact that project managers who are mostly educated turn not to respect the project beneficiaries who actually know what they need and how it should be provided. No wonder we see a lot of rejected projects in the country.

2. Lack of implementation of monitoring report. The respondents also expressed their disappointment on how monitoring reports are implemented. They complained that contributions made during monitoring sessions were not implemented which increased the apathy level of stakeholders.

3. Inadequate monitoring logistics. .Another challenge the respondents expressed was the inadequate nature of monitoring logistics like vehicles. They indicated that it has become cumbersome to involve all the key stakeholders when these logistic are not adequate hence monitoring is always based on the available stakeholders.

4. Poor monitoring information dissemination: Dissemination of information amongst stakeholders was described as poor. They indicated that most of the stakeholders do not have access to the right information needed for their participation. This challenge has to do with community level stakeholders and some opinion leaders who may not be educated to understand the technicalities when it comes to project management. They are not also given the information on the form that they will understand and participate.

5. Partisan politics crippling the enthusiasm of stakeholders: Partisan politics was also identified as one of the challenges causing the low level of stakeholder's involvement in project monitoring among MMDAs. The issue of this is for party A or B is crippling the enthusiasm of stakeholders who are not sympathisers of the ruling party or who are neutral would not get involved fully with the notion that the success of project will bring glory to the ruling party, hence they would not participate. This becomes serious with the current politics of blame game in the country.

6. Inadequate financial support from central government: the views of the 30 respondents also indicated that financial resources needed for effective and efficient stakeholders' involvement were inadequate. They argued that for all stakeholders to get involved in project monitoring, then there is the need for adequate financial resources to cater for their transportation and feeding since all stakeholders would not be living close to the project location.

MEASURES TO PROMOTE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURAL PROJECT MONITORING AMONG MMDAS

The paper investigations revealed the following as measures when implemented or followed can enhance the level of involvement of stakeholders in project monitoring among MMDAs;

1. Public education on the need to participate: Public education was identified as a cutting edge for enhancing the apathy levels of stakeholders in infrastructural project monitoring and evaluation. Participants argued that providing public education to stakeholders will increase their knowledge level in project monitoring and what role they need to play during the implementation and monitoring of infrastructural projects. This public education is very vital for "local stakeholders" (community members) who do not normally understand their role in the implementation and monitoring of development projects in their communities.

2. Provision of the needed monitoring and evaluation equipment: Effective monitoring of infrastructural projects comes with some equipment such as vehicles for efficient and effective monitoring of infrastructural projects. If these materials are not available, they only way with the implementing body is to do the monitoring alone which does not promote effective monitoring of projects. Therefore, the appropriate authority must always make sure that, the required monitoring equipment are always available at the right time and place as well to ensure effective and efficient infrastructural projects monitoring to provide value for money.

3. Strict implementation of monitoring reports: Another way of enhancing stakeholders' involvement in project monitoring recommended was the strict implementation of monitoring reports. Participants stated that some actions recommended during monitoring sessions are not implemented appropriately. This weakens the zeal of those who contributed in such sessions and they see no need to participant in similar session causing the low level of stakeholders' involvement in project monitoring. Members of the District Planning Co-ordination Unit (DPCU) complained that writing a monitoring report without implementation is like not doing anything at all. They are therefore not motivated to ensure an all inclusive monitoring exercise since the results of such sessions are not implemented. It is therefore advisable to ensure strict implementation of monitoring reports.

4. Recognition of patriotic stakeholders/Motivation of stakeholders: The respondents also indicated that recognition or motivation of patriotic stakeholders will be a way of fuelling the zeal in stakeholders to get involved in infrastructural project monitoring. These recognition/ motivations could be in the form citations, materials gifts, and free access to some public places or facilities in their communities. This will make them put on more efforts and also encourage those who do not participate to participate.

5. Proper communication and information sharing: Information and communication is the backbone for any informed participation and decision -making. Information concerning the project such type of project, funding source, cost of the project, the role of each stakeholders, the chain of command among others should be communicated to every stakeholder using the appropriate platform and medium.

1.9. CONCLUSION
The findings from this study point to a number of things. First, there are political issues that have the potential to constrain the achievement of the objectives of project monitoring among MMDAs. Secondly, there are also attitudinal issues with involvement in infrastructural project monitoring among MMDAs. Finally there are financial and logistical challenges with the low level of stakeholder's involvement in project monitoring among MMDAs.

From the foregoing, an important entry point in addressing the low level of stakeholders' involvement in infrastructural projects monitoring among MMDAs should be reconsideration of the level public education on participation. This can be done through rethinking of the overall planning and development processes that place emphasis on public participation at the local level and the right of stakeholders during project implementation and monitoring among MMDAs.