BUCSBIN from the project management perspective
Authors: Kimmo Paajanen & Kari-Pekka Heikkinen
How it all started
BUCSBIN is a university development project in Nepal, coordinated by the Oulu University of Applied Sciences (Oamk) and funded by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland in cooperation with the Finnish National Agency for Education. The BUCSBIN project preparation started in Oamk in 2015, when lecturer Blair Stevenson initially played an important role as chief architect. The first important contacts were made through the Slush startup networking event in Helsinki. Gradually the idea of a development cooperation project between Finland and Nepal was born, and the concept paper for the project was written. The current project manager, Kimmo Paajanen, joined at the stage when the project application was finalised for sending to the funder. It took approximately six months for funding to be approved. The trainers Ulla-Maija Seppänen and Janne Karjalainen were responsible for the planning and content of the training programs. As the project progressed, the need for more Finnish teachers was identified, and Eija Mämmelä and Kari-Pekka Heikkinen were appointed to the project.
Cultural differences
Kimmo: The differences between the cultures of Nepal and Finland emerged quickly. A typical Finnish thinking based on leadership and equality was not readily applicable in Nepal. From my perspective, based upon hearing Nepalese experiences, in a typical general development project the operation model is hierarchical; the funder representatives give instructions — without asking opinions from other participants in the project. Of course, it would be easy to follow such a model, but unfortunately it wouldn’t bring the desired sustainable change. You need to go deep into the principles and learn how the destination country and culture works if you want to make a permanent change.
Kari-Pekka: The differences between the cultures was clearly visible at the first meeting in Taivalkoski, Finland, where the Nepalese teacher training planning was started. The premise for the Finnish participants, was to start by reviewing the operating principles and start planning the Nepalese teacher training programs together. At the same time, the Nepalese participants waited for the Finns to offer concrete plans and copy them as such for their own use. From these two perspectives, two options came up, firstly, to give the ready-made Finnish materials to copy, a faster, yet less effective approach in this cultural context or secondly, to plan the training with the Nepalese participants using the principle to learn by doing, a slower, yet more effective commitment in the long-term. Fortunately, the right choice was made and the second option was selected, providing three years of development where the Higher Education Institutes in Nepal now execute training planning independently.
Management training
Kimmo: One of the activities of the BUCSBIN project was for the Nepalese partners to visit Finland, where the focus was on learning about the activities of Finnish society. These partners were senior management level professionals who develop training programs in their own organisations. Management training included visits to the local administration in Oulu and ministries and the parliament in Helsinki. The reason for reviewing the Finnish model was helping to understand the Finnish way of governance and how to utilise it in ongoing reform of the Nepalese model. Visitors also wanted to increase their knowledge about the Finnish model of public-private partnerships, by visiting the universities, local businesses and business incubators, as well as entrepreneurship associations. The assumption was to have a good impact on the capacity building of target universities and project partners by showcasing Finnish examples. In general, management training is considered to be important; better quality can be achieved through open information sharing. Visits also gave visions and ideas for new ways of working.
Kari-Pekka: Finnish society is built by investing in education and knowledge. As there are cultural differences and hierarchies, adaptability is required — developed teacher training models should be carefully adapted from one culture to another. The training model should take into account local, existing structures, resources and culture. The central question to be kept as a guiding principle while developing the training is; “How can we apply what we have seen to our own society?”. Applying and finding the way should be one’s passion, relying on one’s own eyes and ears, courage to implement, test and modify, and enjoying the journey of discovery. Consideration should also be given to a more efficient use of existing resources. In Finland, the lack of resources is mainly related to the low population, whereas, in Nepal the issue is most often money or infrastructure. In the absence of resources, cooperation between all stakeholders is needed. For this to succeed, trust is required between each stakeholder.
Kimmo: However, management training (as described above) has not been just about visiting and getting to know each other. Cultural differences have highlighted that “learning by doing” is an active concept within the Finnish education models, yet in Nepalese education this concept is rarely used. Therefore, management training has included this concept of active learning by doing. An example of this activity is the Project Steering Group, which has been conducted through regular online meetings. The management team has become familiar with various meeting practices; agendas, schedules, votes and minutes. In addition to talking and dialogue, action has been taken in the form of ensuring all tasks have been executed.
Meeting with the Minister
Kimmo: One of the most memorable moments of the project was when we met Nepal’s Minister of Labour. A large number of stakeholders were invited to the event, with people from the ministry and elsewhere in the national and regional governments, universities and the private sector. The aim of the meeting was to have a discussion on cooperation between public administration, universities and private parties. In addition, we were able to present the BUCSBIN project; its background, progress and the results achieved.
Kari-Pekka: At the meeting the different stakeholders were at the same table, talking together with a common intention: they wanted to learn from the Finnish public-private partnership model how to solve common problems. The meeting also showed just how influential the members of our project were; the people from the Ministry of Labour, the business community and the local government were all sitting at the same table — even on the only day-off of the week, Saturday! The event was long and had lots of Nepali talk. The concrete result was a joint statement on the state of affairs and how to proceed. This in itself was an achievement in a country where cooperation between stakeholders is difficult and distrust exists between different players.
What we have learned
Kimmo: From the beginning, my role in the project has been an enabler, my responsibility is to keep the wheels running and the project rolling forward. However, the management level operation and the experience gained from the project have changed me as a person and this change has been significant. The purpose of the development cooperation project is to increase capacity and change the operating environment in the target country, Nepal. But at the same time, it also changes the perspectives of all the people involved. Personally, the project has opened up a new way of understanding the significance of the need for sustainable development work. This happens, when you see real conditions in the target country. The project has also drastically widened my personal perspective towards the world, I can no longer think of things using only logic. In challenging situations, it would be easy for the uncertain project manager to retreat behind the mask and be a “great leader” and not take into consideration what is happening around him. However, the needs of the target country are at different levels, the challenges are completely different from what you are normally used to seeing. The change has been so radical that the true significance of the project is likely to be understood over time only.
Kari-Pekka: I have worked several years in Asia with the Japanese and Chinese people in the past for business, but this was my first development project for society. Previous development projects in business have been product development projects aimed at the company’s business. I also understand that while in Nepal, I have been in a bubble all the time and seen only the privileged part of the country and society. I don’t think I have actually seen the real Nepal. Still, when I have moved around in the capital, I have seen big differences. Elsewhere in the country, the differences will surely be even greater: for example, the infrastructure is basically not in order and we are often missing the normal basics. How do you adjust your own behaviour in such circumstances? Since basic necessities are not there, we finally get to the root causes. At the end of the day, the technical conditions are irrelevant, you cannot hide behind the tools — or lack of them. This challenges the ability of trainers not only to understand the context of the situation but also to shape the pedagogy. An exercise, method or tool that was previously designed and worked well in Finland may not work in the new environment.
Kimmo: Why are we as Europeans always so busy that we don’t have time to get to know other cultures, environments and ways of operating that are different from our own? A thorough understanding of cultural aspects such as religion, traditions, and history, would open up a better understanding to learn and execute new practices. We should learn these differences in the Western world, for example, instead of staring at a clock, we should live in the moment. Our fast-paced lifestyle kills good things, such as creativity and understanding deeper meanings of life. Getting to know another culture would prevent the wrong assumptions when working with different cultures.
Kari-Pekka: If a cliche of construction building analogy is used, this project could be described as follows. It is not worth trying to export a house built in Finland to Nepal exactly as it is, because the site conditions, people’s needs, climate, culture, available materials, construction tools and infrastructure are different. A more sustainable result is gained by training required skills to local builders. Finnish trainers can build the house groundings together with the Nepalese and train the principles of housing structures. By such a way Nepalese teachers can start to apply the principles to the prevailing local needs and circumstances.
Plans are changing fast
Kimmo: Unexpected things make a difference. Logistics, infrastructure, mobility, electricity and internet connectivity problems cause interruptions and additional challenges. Backup systems are required, preferably several of them are needed. The last sudden and unexpected crisis of the coronavirus outbreak brought radical changes to the project’s entire action plan. The global crisis has escalated now, at a time where the Nepalese partners are already working with a great deal of autonomy without the Finnish presence.
Kari-Pekka: A lot of time goes into logistics and things happen when they happen. The clock hardly dictates the rhythm. I bet all Finns have learned a new concept of time for themselves, moving from clock based to calendar based.
Conclusion
Kari-Pekka: I am positively surprised at how the training has been received in Nepal. It has been surprising to see how our way of operating in another culture has been received with enthusiasm, even considered to be revolutionary. I believe there’s a global need to train change makers in all levels of society. In addition, the effectiveness of the education model at different levels, contexts and environments has been delighting. Learning by doing and experimenting is a major change in pedagogy and is reflected by enthusiasm and results of the students.
Kimmo: I believe that the project and the work in Nepal will not finish, even though the funding for this project will eventually run out. Apparently, the both higher education institutions, Kathmandu University and King’s College, have seen a higher value in the activity than they have been used to in previous development projects. Changes in the curricula of universities and new operational environments will have a long lasting impact. The associated partners, Idea Studio and YoungInnovations, have also used the results of the project in their own activities. Idea Studio took parts of the model and modified it, to its own operations. YoungInnovations has utilised the pedagogical model in internal training as well as in customer events.
Articles and blog posts on the project’s impact have been published. More information for those who are interested can be found at: https://medium.com/bucsbin
