1. The WASH
Bottleneck Analysis Tool (BAT)
IRC Symposium 2013
Monitoring WASH Services Delivery
Addis Ababa, 9 April 2013
Theme 6: Building Coherence in Global-
Regional-National Monitoring
Andrew Trevett, Senior Adviser WASH, UNICEF
Guy Hutton, UNICEF consultant
Peter Harvey, Regional Adviser WASH, UNICEF

2. Why ‘Bottleneck’ Analysis?
• Analysis of ‘bottlenecks’ brings focus to
critical, priority issues to address
• Multiple constraints at several levels make it
hard to explain lack of progress
• Bottleneck: a factor constraining the delivery
of goods or services to a target population,
and the sustained consumption of that service
• Bottleneck analysis is not new – it
forms the basis of CSOs, GLAAS, MAF
• However, these tools only go ‘so far’

3. Why a Bottleneck Analysis Tool?
• ‘So far’…?
• Limited continuity over time (every 2-4 years)
• Scoring systems do not capture marginal changes
• Process of reaching consensus on scores
• Scoring system does not proceed to identify a
bottleneck and how it will be removed
• Costs of removing bottlenecks focus on infrastructure
costs, not enabling environment
• No mechanism to agree priorities
• Limited formal integration into
sector review process

4. Aim of WASH Bottleneck Analysis Tool
• Increase WASH sector resources and efficiency
to achieve more sustainable and equitable
outcomes, via:
– Promoting dialogue, awareness and coordination
– Providing rational, evidence-based approach for
formulating an investment strategy and
understanding impacts of investment choices
– Facilitating dialogue with sector financiers, in
particular Ministries of Finance and donors
– Tracking progress in bottleneck removal over time

5. The Intended Audiences of the BAT
• Main user: line ministries responsible for WASH,
with the support of external partners
• Other major types of user expected are:
– Ministries of Finance seeking to understand
alternative ways in which additional funds can be
utilized and the impact they have
– External partners who want to separately make their
own analysis of how their funds should be best spent.
– Sub-national levels, including service providers
• Modular approach lends flexibility

6. The Process of Tool Development
Tool (version 1.0) roll-out in priority countries
Workshop for roll-out strategy (May 2013)
Second pilot: Sierra Leone case study (March 2013)
Software development
Urban tool development
First pilot: Ghana case study (March 2012)
Rural tool and manual development
Expert Workshop, Nairobi (October 2011)
Literature Review and Initial Concept Development

7. The Initial Vision (Nairobi)
• Separate modules for
 Detailed assessment of sector enabling factors
 Identification of bottlenecks and activities for their
removal
 Costing of activities and available funds allocation
 Prioritisation, planning and sequencing
 Impact of removing bottlenecks
Urban Water Rural Water
Urban
Sanitation
Rural
Sanitation
National Sub-national
Service
provider
Community
Household

8. Scoring the enabling factors

9. Identifying bottlenecks, their causes
and activities to remove them

10. Entering the costs and funds
available

11. Prioritizing the activities

12. Allocating additional funds

13. Assessing impact on sector
coverage

14. Example of Tool Outputs
• Enabling factor scores – e.g. national level, water

15. Example of Tool Outputs
• Summary report – e.g. national level, water

16. Outputs of the Pilot tests
• Brought together different stakeholders: time
to reflect - open atmosphere of honesty, not
the usual pressure - consensus emerging
• Motivated participants to identify what they
could be doing better as institutions and
individually, and inspired them to go away and
make a greater difference
• The BAT universally seen as a crucial resource
• Tool developers given their homework

17. What the BAT does not do
• Provide key performance indicators - i.e.
benchmarking of service
• Estimate the funding gap to reach coverage
targets
• Advise on technology choice
• Build a business strategy

18. Can the BAT meet country and global
monitoring needs?
• Issues for country monitoring
– Regularity of tool application – could it be annual?
– How can it feed in to official review processes?
– Hundreds of indicators: need to select priority ones
– Further flexibility to meet country-specific needs?
• Additional issues for global monitoring
– Can indicators selected be standardized? Which?
– Reporting mechanism – who collects and compiles?
– Number of countries – will take time to roll out; not all
countries reporting to GLAAS will wish to apply tool

19. With thanks to
- Experts participating in Nairobi workshop
- Sector stakeholders in Ghana
- Sector stakeholders in Sierra Leone
- UNICEF regional and country staff
DevInfo: software tool development
Andrew Trevett and Paul Edwards, UNICEF