Project management wind energy[www.writekraft.com]

Agile project management in Renewable energy: With
special focus on opportunities of project success

Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4
1.1. Background..................................................................................................................... 4
1.2. Research Question...................................................................................................... 20
1.3. Significance Of Research........................................................................................... 21
2. Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 21
1.1. Project Management Challenges .............................................................................. 23
1.4. Agile Project Management Principles ...................................................................... 36
1.5. Challenges in implementing rural solar energy projects ....................................... 43
1.6. Success factors............................................................................................................ 45
1.7. Financing....................................................................................................................... 51
1.8. End User Financing..................................................................................................... 52
1.9. Barriers.......................................................................................................................... 55
1.10. Successful approaches to accessing financing................................................... 58
1.11. Financial viability...................................................................................................... 60
3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 65
4. Case study: Solar energy project Bhavnagar................................................................. 65
4.1. Bhavnagar background information.......................................................................... 66
4.2. Geography.................................................................................................................... 67

4.3. Solar energy project project..........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.4. Goals and stakeholders.............................................................................................. 68
4.5. System installation and maintenance....................................................................... 70
4.6. Financing....................................................................................................................... 72
5. Interviews.......................................................................................................................... 75
5.1. Pattern Particular......................................................................................................... 75
5.2. Themes related to the teams area ............................................................................ 78
5.3. Themes related to the value area ............................................................................. 79
6. Findings ................................................................................................................................ 80
7. Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 83
8. Bibliography ..........................................................................................................................86

1. INTRODUCTION
a. BACKGROUND
Agile projectmanagement is an Iterative and Incremental Development
(IID)methodologywhich first gained popularity in the manufacturing
industry. More recently it has been linked with energy development
although its principles are used in many other areas of business such as
the film and architectural industry. In Feb 2001 the Agile Manifesto was
created which stated the core beliefs of using agile methods in energy
development.This manifesto is core to all the currently popular agile
methodologies suchas SCRUM, XP, DSDM, etc. Agile is often presented
as an answer to the problems with more traditional methodologies,such as
the waterfall methodology.
Recentresearch literature suggests the current competitive priority for a
world-class firm is agility. Referring to agility as the ability to produce and
market successfullya broad range of low cost,high quality products with
short lead times in varying lot sizes, which provide enhanced value to
individual customers through customization (Stamelos, Vlahavas,
Refanidis,Tsoukias, 2006; Bensaou, 2004).Agarwal and Rathod (2006)
suggests that "projectmanagers have over the past years adopted agility
principles and approaches to more effectivelyrespond to increasing

dynamics in customerdemands (Nerur, Sridhar, Mahapatra, and
Mangalaraj, 2005).Their findings conclude that project managers should
actively adopt agile principles throughout the organization as agility
requires coordination and alignment with other initiatives to increase the
response ability of organizations.
This essay discusses Agile and Traditional Projects and the differences
between them.
The research will look at several topics such as evidence against the
"waterfall"-based projects,benefits and risks associated with iterative and
incremental system developmentin the context of projectmanagement in
renewable energy and will focus on project success.It will further analyze
evidence that supports agile developmentapproach.
The solar has blown in and out of human history for thousands of years and
has shaped the developmentof civilization. The power of the solar has
caused severe erosionand dispersed airborne diseases,and has displaced
countless people and destroyed homes,crops,and lives. However, from
the earliest recordedsailboats over 5,000 years ago that were instrumental
in developmentof trading, shipping, exploration and transportation, to the
first solarmill developedto automate the task of grinding grain and pumping
water (Taylor 1999),harnessing the power of the solar has expanded our

horizons. In India, the solar has played a strategic role in people’s lives
throughout history, dictating when they hunt, recreate, and travel. Since the
latter part of the twentieth century, harnessing the solar for utility-scale
power generation has begun to propelIndia and the world in a new
direction.
The advantages of generating power from the solar are enormous. Solar is
often an abundant local resource in many rural Indian communities. Solar is
inexhaustible (Flowers and Kelly 2005). Solar provides stable-priced power
(Poullikkas 2007). Solar is economicallycompetitive with conventional
energy sources (Weis et al. 2008).
Because it is not imported, solar provides energy security (Asif and Muneer
2007).In many areas of the world, solar provides local tax revenue
(Bolinger 2005,Del Rio and Burguillo 2008).
The state of India is endowed with strong and developable solar resources.
The greatest areas of class seven, “superior” solarresources in the entire
United States are located in India (Elliot et al. 1986).These areas are
primarily the western and coastal regions, home to communities largely
populated by rural, Indian Natives. In the summerof 2009,India doubled its
installed capacity of solar power with the completionof the 4.5 megawatt

(MW) Pillar Mountain Solar Project in Himachal. This was a significant step
for the community of Himachal. However, compared to the 29,440 MW of
installed solar power capacity nationwide (IWEA,2009),India has a small
proportionof U.S. solar power generation and is slow to integrate solar into
its electricity portfolio.
The developmentof the state’s solar resources has the potential to play a
pivotal role in reshaping India’s future by providing reliable, local, and
stable-priced powerand mitigating effects of climate change by reducing
fossilfuel emissions (Kumar 2006).Compared to the challenges induced
by rural India’s current dependence on fossilfuels,including volatile prices,
an uncertain supply, and environmental concerns,the advantages of
investing in solar power are numerous and promising.
Despite this tremendous natural asset and the immeasurable benefits it
holds, India’s solar resources remain largely untapped and underutilized. In
the 1980’s,the state underwent steps to develop rural solar power
systems,yet not a single original solar system is operational today. As with
many rural Indian projects,minimal connectionto roads and electric grids
contributed to the high costs of developing and operating these systems.
However, the failure of past solar projects is also attributable to poor local
and state management capability, insufficient methodologyfor assessing

projectfeasibility, and inadequate project coordination. Additionally, the
relevant literature points to myriad factors that contribute to the failure of
solar projects in other parts of rural India and the world, including the
degree of public support, economic feasibility,local leadership,avian
concerns,local capacity, technologyadvancements, and land ownership
issues.
Although these obstacles are prominent, India is pursuing and investing in
renewable energy developmentonce again. In response to recent spikes in
oil prices that created significant economic stresses nationwide, in 2009 the
India legislature established new energy-related programs,including the
India Renewable Energy Grant Fund. This fund provides financial
assistance for feasibility studies, energy resource monitoring, and
renewable energy construction. In addition to efforts by the legislature other
public and private sectorefforts are advancing solar technologies and
conducting economic analyses with application in rural India. For example,
the India Center for Energy and Power and the Institute for Social and
Economic Researchare conducting applied solar energy research in
economicsand technologyto support the deploymentof cost-effective
solar-dieselhybrid technologies in India.

This wealth of experience and financial and technical resources found in
the public and private sectormake them essential to the proliferation and
success of solar power developmentin India. However, these sectors
capture primarily the economic and technical factors related to solar power
and overlook the social, political, and environmental variables that are often
at the crux of any developmentprojectin rural
India. The relevant literature suggests that these factors must be an
integral part of planning efforts in order to optimize and advance solar
power developmentin rural communities. This is reinforced by the failures
of the demonstrationsolar projects in the late 70s and 80s and the ensuing
identification of predominantly social and political barriers that led to the
failures. In order to avoid a repeat of these projectfailures, additional
factors must be consideredwhen planning for and developing solar power
projects in rural India.
Wind power in India
The developmentof wind power in India began in the 1990s,and has
significantly increased in the last few years. Although a relative newcomer
to the wind industry compared with Denmark or the United States, India

has the fifth largest installed wind power capacity in the world.[1] In 2009-
10 India's growth rate was highest among the other top four countries.
As of 31 Jan 2013 the installed capacity of wind power in India was
19051.5[2][3]MW, mainly spread across Tamil Nadu (7154 MW),[4]
Gujarat (3,093 MW), Maharashtra (2976 MW), Karnataka(2113 MW),
Rajasthan (2355 MW), Madhya Pradesh(386 MW), Andhra Pradesh (435
MW), Kerala (35.1 MW), Orissa (2MW),[5][6] WestBengal (1.1 MW) and
other states (3.20 MW).[7] It is estimated that 6,000 MW of additional wind
power capacity will be installed in India by 2012.[8]Wind power accounts
for 8.5% of India's total installed power capacity, and it generates 1.6% of
the country's power.[9] India's wind atlas is available

India is the world's fifth largest wind power producer, with a generation
capacity of 8,896 MW. Shown here is a wind farming Kayathar, Tamil
Nadu.
The worldwide installed capacity of wind power reached 197 GW by the
end of 2010.China (44,733 MW), US (40,180 MW), Germany (27,215 MW)
and Spain (20,676 MW) are ahead of India in fifth position.[11]The short
gestation periods forinstalling wind turbines, and the increasing reliability
and performance of wind energy machines has made wind power a favored
choice for capacity addition in India
Suzlon, an Indian-owned company, emerged on the global scene in the
past decade,and by 2006 had captured almost 7.7 percentof market share
in global wind turbine sales. Suzlon is currently the leading manufacturer of
wind turbines for the Indian market, holding some 43 percent of market
share in India. Suzlon’s success has made India the developing country
leader in advanced wind turbine technology.
State-levelwind power
There is a growing number of wind energy installations in states across
India.

With peak wind power generation at close to 7000 MW, Tamil Nadu is one
of the wind power hubs of South Asia. Tamil Nadu generates 40% of
India's wind power.[14] Major districts with wind farms are Coimbatore,
Kanyakumari, Tiruppur and Kanchipuram. The Government of Tamil Nadu
in the recent times has been criticized for lack of propermanagement,
irregular and long pending payment of arrears to the windmill investors, this
has led to the new projects moving to other states for investment and the
state is no-longer a preferred destination forwind energy investments
India is keen to decrease its reliance on fossilfuels to meet its energy
demand. Shown here is a wind farm in Muppandal,Tamil Nadu
Gujarat(3,093 MW)
Gujarat government’s focus on tapping renewable energy has led to sharp
rise in the capacity to generate power using wind energy in the last few

years. According to officialdata, wind power generations capacity in the
state has increased a staggering ten times in just six years.
As per C-WET data, the total installed capacity in Gujarat stood at 3093
MW.[17]
Maharashtra(2976 MW)
Maharashtra is third only to Tamil Nadu and Gujarat in terms of generating
in India. In Satara Company named Suzlon Energy Ltd. has its wind power
plant.
Rajasthan (2355 MW)
2356 MW as per the news reported by Times of India, Dated 31.3.2012.
In considerationof unique concept,Govt. of Madhya Pradesh has
sanctioned another 15 MW project to Madhya Pradesh Windfarms Ltd.
MPWL,Bhopal at Nagda Hills near Dewas under consultation from
Consolidated Energy Consultants Ltd. CECL,Bhopal.All the 25 WEGs
have beencommissioned on 31.03.2008 and under successfuloperation.
Kerala
The first wind farm of the state was set up at Kanjikode in Palakkad district.
The Agency for Non-conventional Energy and Rural Technology(ANERT),
an autonomous body under the Departmentof Power, Government of

Kerala, is setting up wind farms on private land in various parts of the state
to generate a total of 600 MW of power. The agency has identified 16 sites
for setting up wind farms through private developers.
Orissa (2.0MW)
Orissa a coastal state has higher potential for wind energy. Current
installation capacity stands at 2.0 MW. Orissa has a windpower potential of
1700MW.The Govt. of Orissa is actively pursuing to boostWind power
generation in the state. however it has not progressed like other states
primarily because Orissa having a huge coal reserve and number of
existing and upcoming thermal power plants, is a power surplus state.
West Bengal(2.10MW)
The total installation in WestBengal is 2.10 MW till Dec 2009 at Fraserganj,
Distt- South 24 Paraganas. More 0.5 MW (approx) at Ganga Sagar,
Kakdwip, Distt - South 24 Paraganas. Both the project owned by West
Bengal Renewable Energy DevelopmentAgency(WBREDA),Govt. of WB
and project was executed on turnkey basis by Utility PowertechLimited
(UPL).
Projects in India

India's LargestWind power production facilities (10MWand greater)
Power Plant Producer Location State
Total
Capacit
y (MWe)
Vankusawade Wind
Park
Suzlon Energy
Ltd.
Satara District.
Maharashtr
a
259
Cape Comorin
Aban Loyd
Chiles
Offshore Ltd.
Kanyakumari Tamil Nadu 33
Kayathar Subhash Subhash Ltd. Kayathar Tamil Nadu 30
Ramakkalmedu Subhash Ltd.
Ramakkalmed
u
Kerala 25
Muppandal Wind
Muppandal
Wind Farm
Muppandal Tamil Nadu 22

Total
Capacit
y (MWe)
Gudimangalam
Gudimangala
m Wind Farm
Gudimangalam Tamil Nadu 21
Puthlur RCI
Wescare
(India) Ltd.
Puthlur
Andhra
Pradesh
20
Lamda Danida
Danida India
Ltd.
Lamba Gujarat 15
Chennai Mohan
Mohan
Breweries &
Distilleries Ltd.
Chennai Tamil Nadu 15
Jamgudrani MP
MP Windfarms
Ltd.
Dewas
Madhya
Pradesh
14

Total
Capacit
y (MWe)
Jogmatti BSES BSES Ltd.
Chitradurga
District
Karnataka 14
Perungudi Newam
Newam Power
Company Ltd.
Perungudi Tamil Nadu 12
Kethanur Wind
Farm
Kethanur Wind
Farm
Kethanur Tamil Nadu 11
Hyderabad APSRT
C
Andhra
Pradesh State
Road
Transport
Corporation.
Hyderabad
Andhra
Pradesh
10

Total
Capacit
y (MWe)
Muppandal Madras
Madras
Cements Ltd.
Muppandal Tamil Nadu 10
Shah Gajendragarh MMTCL Gadag Karnataka 15
Shah Gajendragarh
Sanjay D.
Ghodawat
Gadag Karnataka 10.8
Acciona
Tuppadahalli
Tuppadahalli
Energy India
Private Limited
Chitradurga
District
Karnataka 56.1
Poolavadi Chettinad
Chettinad
Cement Corp.
Ltd.
Poolavadi Tamil Nadu 10

Total
Capacit
y (MWe)
Shalivahana Wind
Shalivahana
Green Energy.
Ltd.
Tirupur Tamil Nadu 20.4
Dangiri Wind Farm Oil India Ltd. Jaiselmer Rajasthan 54
Barriers
Initial costfor wind turbines is greater than that of conventional fossilfuel
generators per MW installed. Noise is produced by the rotor blades. This is
not normally an issue in the locations chosen for mostwind farms and
research by Salford University shows that noise complaints for wind farms
in the UK are almost non-existent.
Future

The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) has fixed a target of
10,500 MW between2007–12,but an additional generation capacity of only
about 6,000 MW might be available for commercialuse by 2012.[8]
The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) has announced a
revised estimation of the potential wind resource in India from 49,130 MW
assessedat 50m Hub heights to 102,788 MW assessedat 80m Hub
height. The wind resource at higher Hub heights that are now prevailing is
possiblyeven more.
b. RESEARCH QUESTION
The primary research questionto be asked then is:
How can Agile projectmanagementtechniques contribute to and
constrain the successfuldeploymentand developmentof solar power
projects in ruralIndia?
Through case studies, interviews, and surveys, this research examines the
factors that impact solar power developmentin rural India. These factors
include coordination and interaction between local and state entities, local
capacity, state policies,local leadership,confidence in technology,
environmental concerns, local support of projects,structure and size of
electric utility, and community population. Such factors are likely to be

unique to each community. Even so, they presentan important potential to
identify
Solar-dieselhybrid systems combine solar turbines with dieselgenerators
to generate electricity and understand the thresholds that are essential for
developing solar power. This research provides a crucial perspective into
what is not fully understood about the successfuldevelopmentof solar
power in rural India.
c. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH
This research contributes to the general knowledge of projectsucess solar
power projects in rural India, based primarily on the local contexts. The
purpose is explicitly to provide information on usage of agile project
management techniques that can aid rural communities in the development
of solar power projects,as well as to provide recommendations to agencies
and organizations working with solar power in rural India in order to
maximize the advancement of solar as a renewable power source.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
First, a literature review will be conducted on the various aspects of agile
projectmanagement techniques. Further review will be conducted identify
the primary factors that promote or obstruct solar power developmentin

rural India and rural so that project successfactors can be identified.The
literature review consisted of an examination of government documents,
academic literature, organizational reports,and differentofficialstatistics
regarding the cost of electricity and projectfunding.
This study is designed to examine the relationship between Agile project
management practices and specific energyprojectmanagement
challenges. This literature review includes five sections.The first section
presents the energy project management challenges based on surveys and
scholarly studies.The second sectiondemonstrates why traditional project
management methods do not address those challenges.The third section
introduces the fundamental principles of Agile projectmanagement. The
fourth sectionexplains how Agile projectmanagement practices map to
Declaration of Interdependence methods.The fifth section discusses the
need for a new study of Agile projectmanagement. The sixth section
introduces a conceptualframework as the basis of this study. The last
sectionsummarizes the chapter.

1.1. ProjectManagementChallenges
Survey studies such as those by the Standish Group, Project Management
Institute
(PMI), VersionOne,and scholarly studies suchas Glass (1998),Ford
(2004),Schwaber
(2004),and Johnson (2006)show that energy projectmanagers face many
major challenges. This is true whether they are using traditional or Agile
projectmanagement practices in Agile or non-Agile organizations. These
challenges fall into 19 major areas:
(a) scarce resources competition,(b) project management incompetence,
(c) issues related to organizational culture, (d) lack of accountability, (e)
insufficient team skills, (f) cross-functional teams, (g) poor planning, (h)
poor quality, (i) lack of tools, (j) unclear scope or vision, (k) lack of customer
involvement, (l) scheduling issues, (m) scope changes,(n) risk
management, (o) uncertain dependencies,(p) technologyissues,(q)
resistance to change, (r) lack of properprocesses,and (s) lack of
organizational support.
Out of 19 major projectchallenge patterns, two of them appear in all three
surveys which were conducted by Standish, Project Management Institute,

and VersionOne:lack of customerinvolvement and resistance to change
(see AppendixF). The Standish Group, a WestYarmouth, Massachusetts-
based consulting group specializing in research on information technology
investments, conducted a survey in 1994 and highlighted its top 10 project
management challenges in which lack of user input is the top challenge
(”The Chaos Report,” 1994).PMI’s 2004 survey ranked inconsistent
approaches to managing projects as its top challenge (“Deliverables,”
2004).One of the mostrecent surveys was conducted in June 2007 by
VersionOne,an Atlanta, Georgia-based companyproviding enterprise
projectand lifecyclemanagementsolutions for agile development.Version
One’s findings indicate that general resistance to change is one of the five
major barriers to an organization adopting Agile practices (“Survey Result,”
2007).
Four researchstudies of projectmanagement relevant to this study include
those from Glass (1998), Ford (2004), Schwaber (2004),and Johnson
(2006).Each of these studies also identified patterns of challenges to
energy project management. Glass nicknamed troubled energy projects as
“runaway projects” and characterized them as over budget,behind
schedule,and having difficultybuilding the energy they were chartered to
deliver. He concluded that the challenge is to get these out of

controlprojects backon track. Ford also lists the top 10 challenges,
although most are more related to traditional projectmanagement. Ford’s
study shows that traditional project management had more challenges
associated with uncertainty such as unrealistic deadlines, scope changes,
uncertain dependencies,and poor risk management. Schwaber identifies
eight major challenges to Agile projectmanagement from his experiences
teaching projectmanagement practitioners. Schwaber notes that a top-
down, hierarchical command and control organization is one of the most
prevalent obstacles to Agile projectmanagement.
Unlike the other studies, Schwaber lists organizational culture as oneof the
impediments as well. Johnsonoffers 10 lessons learned from chaotic
projects.Johnson ranks lack of user involvement as the number one
reason or challenge for projectfailure or success.A summary of these
findings is shown in AppendixG, describing recent scholarly studies of
projectmanagement challenges for their challenges related to 19 challenge
patterns. Although each study explains projectmanagement challenges in
differentways, there are many similarities among these four studies.
A total of 60 projectmanagement challenges were culled into19 project
patterns from these studies. Those projectmanagementchallenges are
ranked and shown in Table 1, the results of challenge patterns. The top

three projectmanagementchallenges are: (a) scarce resources
competition,(b) unclear scope or vision, and (c) lack of customer
involvement. The results of 60 challenge patterns were ranked from one to
seven. On the basis of this ranking, projectmanagement practitioners can
identify the mostand least significant challenges to Agile project
management. Project management practitioners can also use this ranking
to prioritize what challenges they should focus on first.

Examining Traditional ProjectManagement Best Practices
Examples of traditional projectmanagement practices are summarized in
the
Guide to the ProjectManagement Body of Knowledge (PMBoK) (2004)first
published in the 1980s by the Pennsylvania-based ProjectManagement
Institute (PMI). The PMBoK was an effort to standardize traditional project

management best practices and establish guidelines for the certification
ofprojectmanagement professionals (PMPs). Even though a new version
of the PMBOK was published in 2004,the latest version of PMBoK still
emphasizes the importance of traditional project management practices,
such as Gantt Charts and work breakdown structures (WBSs).Both Gantt
Charts and
WBSs were popular as part of project management methodologiesin the
1950s,though some of these techniques were created as early as 1900
(DeCarlo, 2004).After more than a century, a controversy formed as to
whether traditional projectmanagement practices were applicable to
contemporaryenergy developmentprojects (Beck,1999). DeCarlo (2004)
asserts that traditional projectmanagement, which is characterized by a
linear approach to productdevelopment,is not effective in today’s energy
projectmanagement environment, and should be abandoned altogether.
DeCarlo maintained that traditional projectmanagementworks only if the
projectcontext is stable and certain. For example, a detailed blueprint
works for a constructionproject, and a business plan can be executed for
starting a fast food franchise without too much risk. In other words, a well-
planned, time-tested,and step-by-step processmay indeed be applicable
in a highly stable environment.However, managing energy development

projects is more like managing chaos (Highsmith, 2004),and in many
cases,it is more like striking out into the unknown. Furthermore,in today’s
environment, it has become commonplace forprojectsponsors to cut
projectbudgets and shorten projecttimelines due to increasing competitive
market demands and global competition.A well-defined projectplan is valid
only until the projectsponsorpresses the change button. DeCarlo’s (2004)
view is that a well-defined projectplan is needed only if the future is
predictable.In the energy projectenvironment, developmentand marketing
work in parallel. The energy projectrequirements are never finalized until
they are released,changes are inevitable, and project managers cannot
rationalize those changes. They must continuously acceptthe changes,
and also the reality of change itself (DeCarlo).
DeCarlo (2004)identified five major reasons why traditional project
management is not working: (a) traditional projectmanagement is past-
oriented and cannot fit into the current changeable world; (b) traditional
projectmanagement is task-oriented (It focuses onmanaging tasks and
pushes people to comply with their assigned tasks. Furthermore, it does
not focus on encouraging people to discoverthe bestsolution or cultivate
discoveryof new innovations); (c) traditional project management makes
people the servants of the process and documents,but not the actual

status of the project(Project managers spend most of their time in
preparing and updating documents);(d) traditional project management
controls people’sminds (Pre-defined plans control the projectteam’s
activities. People not only lose their ability to adapt to change, but
alsobeginto resist the change); and (e) traditional project management
focuses onthe traditional triple constraint (e.g., delivering the projecton-
time,within budget, and within scope).Within these constraints, traditional
projectmanagement results in a gap between actual performance and the
delivery of valuable products that customers want and need.
Agile ProjectManagementFoundation
If traditional projectmanagement activities cannot adapt to swift changes
and market demands,organizations need to find a new project
management paradigm to survive in the modern energy development
environment. Agile projectmanagement may indeed be that modern
energy project management paradigm. The purpose of this study is to
examine whether Agile projectmanagement practices could be applied to
overcome specific typesof projectmanagement challenges.Agile project
management practices are categorized into six Declarations of
Interdependencevalue areas: (a) individuals, (b) teams, (c) value, (d)

customers,(e) uncertainty, and (f) context (“Declaration,” 2005).The six
Declaration of
Interdependencevalues are derived from Agileprojectmanagement
principles,which are based on values and principles of Agile methods. The
relationship among these components is shown in Figure 3, indicating the
foundation upon which Agile projectmanagement practices are based.
Figure 3. The foundation of Agile projectmanagement (APM) practices.
1.2. Agile Values and Principles
Agile values are derived directly from Agile methods (Manifesto, 2001).
Stated very simply, Agile methods are energy developmentapproaches
based on meeting customerneeds by eliminating waste. Poppendieckand
Poppendieck(2003)list seven areas of waste fromtheir studies of lean
energy development:(a) failure to integrate into the production

environment; (b) producing unnecessary documentation; (c) implementing
unwanted features; (d) assigning people to multiple projects,minimizing
resource and time utilization; (e) delays in startinga project,in staffing,or in
finalizing requirements documents;(f) moving artifacts or handing off
documents to another person;and (g) undiscovered defects.
Over the past decade,Agile methodologieshave evolved into a variety of
different energy developmentmethods (Abrahamsson, Salo, Ronkainen, &
Warsta, 2002),although this study does not intend to focus any particular
method. In early 2001,a group of industry experts representing different
Agile methodologies,such as eXtreme Programming,Scrum, DSDM,
Adaptive Energy Development,Crystal Methods, Feature-Driven
Development,and others, formed the Agile Alliance (“Join the Agile,” n.d.).
As a result of trying to find a commonground between their various energy
developmentmethods,they outlined four broad values and 12 principles
(“Manifesto,” 2001).For analytical and illustrative purposes,the 12
principles are artificially paired with the four values as shown in Appendix
H, mapping Agile principles to Agile Manifesto. Each element of the Agile
Manifesto contains a primary and a secondaryvalue (“Manifesto”).The
focus is on the primary value, which is usually started first, according to the
17 Agile experts who signed the Agile Manifesto in 2001.For example, in

the first element of the Agile Manifesto, the primary value, individuals and
interactions, is more important than the secondaryvalue, processes and
tools. This element contains three Agile principles:(a) build projects around
motivated individuals, give them the environment and support their need,
and trust them togetthe job done;(b) the mostefficientand effective
method ofconveying information to and within a developmentteam is face-
to-face conversation; and (c) the best architectures, requirements,and
designs emerge from self-organizing teams.
1.3. Declaration of InterdependenceValues
The job of energy projectmanagement isto lead energy development
teams to implement energy products to both satisfytheir employer’s
objectives and meettheir customer’s needs (Martin, 2003).A communityof
Agile projectleaders followed the Agile Alliance path and met in 2005 to
create six Declaration of Interdependence statements as Agile project
management values (“Declaration,” 2005).The Agile projectleaders define
successfulprojects as the ones that achieve increasing return on
investment, deliver reliable results, expectuncertainty, unleash creativity
and innovation, boostperformance,and improve effectivenessand
reliability (“Declaration”). They state that the Declaration of
Interdependencevalues were derived from the primary values of the Agile

Manifesto (“Declaration”). The links between the Agile Manifesto’s primary
values, Declaration of Interdependencestatements,and Declaration of
Interdependencevalues are shown in AppendixI, linking Agilevalues,
Declaration of Interdependence statements,and Declaration of
Interdependencevalue areas. For example,the primary Agile value,
individuals and interactions, contains two Declaration of Interdependence
value areas, individuals and teams. The Declaration of Interdependence
value area on value itself is derived from an emphasis on increasing value
by delivering workable products.The Agile value on customercollaboration
is consistentwith Declaration of Interdependencevalue area on customers.
The Agile value on responding to change has evolved into two Declaration
of Interdependencevalue areas, uncertainty and context, because Agile
leaders need to manage uncertainty through specific organizational
strategies,processes and practices.
The Declaration of Interdependencerejects the notion that successful
projects are the only ones that deliver within scope,time, and budget.The
Agile projectleaders believe that successfulprojects are measuredby
Declaration of Interdependence values derived from an interdependentset
(“Declaration,” 2005). Interdependence means project teams, their
customers,and their stakeholders work together by using appropriate

methods to achieve projectsuccess.These methods are used to
achievethe Declaration of Interdependenceobjectives.Both methodsand
objectives are derived from six
Declaration of Interdependence statements as shown in AppendixJ,
Declaration of
Interdependenceobjectives,methods,and major Agile project
management practices.For example,the Declaration of Interdependence
statement on “We unleash creativity and innovation by recognizing that
individuals are the ultimate source of value and creating an environment
where they can make a difference” contains the two objectives,unleash
creativity and innovation and two methods as follows:(a) recognizing that
individuals are the ultimate source of value and (b) creating an environment
where they can make a difference. Declaration of Interdependencevalues
provide a guideline for energy projectmanagement practitioners to create
bestpractices for specific challenges within their own environments.
Content analysis based on keywords reveals that each Declaration of
Interdependencestatement contains three components:(a) value areas,
(b) objectives,and

(c) methods.The three components can be viewed in AppendixJ,
Declaration of
Interdependenceobjectives,methods,and major Agile project
management practices.
Each Declaration of Interdependence statementincludes one objective and
consists of one to three methods.For example, in the team value area,
there are two methods,establishing group accountability and building a
viable team that shares responsibilityfor team effectiveness.Project
management practitioners use these methods to take actions to achieve
the six Declaration of Interdependence objectives.
1.4. Agile ProjectManagementPrinciples
With the core values of the Agile Manifesto in mind, DeCarlo (2004),
Highsmith
(2004),Augustine (2005),and Leach (2005) proposea set of Agile Project
Management principles to help projectteams, their customers,and their
stakeholders work togetherto deliver the greatestpossible value to
customers.This study examines those studies of Agile project
management principles related to the six Declaration of Interdependence
objectives:(a) unleashing creativity and innovation to deliver reliable

results, (b) boosting performance,(c) increasing return on investment, (d)
delivering reliable results,
(e) expecting uncertainty, and (f) improving effectiveness.A summary of
studies related to Agile projectmanagement principles is shown in
AppendixK for the scholarly studies of Agile projectmanagement principles
and practices.A discussionof Agile projectmanagement principles and the
six Declaration of Interdependence objectives is presented as follows.
Unleashing creativity and innovation (individuals). The Agile project
management principles related to unleashing creativity and innovation are
people-oriented principles in two respects,cultivating individuals and
providing an environment for individuals. According to DeCarlo (2004),
people-oriented values mean taking care of people’s well-being first,
maintaining people’squality of life, communicating honestly, and
encouraging innovation. Highsmith’s (2004)principle on encouraging
exploration aims to inspire individuals to reach their goals, visions, and
ability to innovate. Augustine
(2005)states that his principle related to encouraging emergence and self-
organization seeks to help projectleaders build on their own personal
strengths in order to manage commitments through personal interactions.

Boosting performance (teams). The objective aimed at boosting
performance focuses onfostering team commitments and forming a self-
disciplined team (Augustine, 2004).Augustine also aligns people with
commongoals to eschew competitionand fostercooperation.DeCarlo
(2004)proposesleadership by commitmentto self-mastery,which is based
on encouraging leaders to gain and sustain team membercommitment.
The principle of self-masteryis based on asking leaders to bind themselves
together with their teams in order to be entrusted to them. Highsmith (2004)
proposes building adaptive teams that blend with responsibilities,self-
discipline,and self-organizing structures.
Leach (2005)focuses on team-building through four phases: forming,
storming, norming, and performing.In addition, Leach emphasizes that
team leaders must guide the team towards its goal with dynamic and
continuous efforts throughoutthe life of the project.
Increasing return on investment (values). The conceptof Agile project
management principles to achieve increasing return on investment lies in
delivering workable and valuable products,sharing openinformation,
eliminating waste, and using the right solutions (DeCarlo, 2004;Highsmith,
2004;Augustine 2005;Leach, 2005;Schwaber, 2004).DeCarlo states that
values based on sharing fast failures, delivering early value, and results

orientation help teams reach the goal ofdelivering valuable products.
DeCarlo defines the fast failures value as giving customers an early
indication of unachievable projectobjectives long before losing all
investments. Customers usually benefitfrom early value if the development
team can give them something to use as soon as possible.DeCarlo
remarks that leaders should focus more on delivering results, rather than
on tracking tasks. Sharing information can also help achieve the value
objective,according to DeCarlo. He emphasizes setting up real-time
communication and keeping projects transparent to all stakeholders.
Similarly to DeCarlo’s concept,Augustine (2005)proposes his principle of
encouraging emergence and self-organization by suggesting that delivering
valuable products results in an open flow and exchange of information
among project team members and customers.Highsmith (2004) notes that
delivering customer-value lies in creating innovative products.Dealing with
competitionand creating innovative products not only sustains market
share, but also increases potential return on investment. For example, the
Apple company, headquartered in Cupertino, California, revived its leading
role in the IT industry because of its successfuland innovative iPod product
line. Highsmith notes that eliminating waste involves tailoring or removing
unnecessary processesto reduce production costs.For example, if the

documentapproval process doesnot add any value for delivering valuable
products,it is a waste of productioncosts.Leach (2005)takes a different
approach to eliminate waste by implementing a visual project flow to
eliminate scheduling waste. The visual flow includes three areas: to-do,
checked out, and tests passed on a white board. The requirements are
written mostly on index cards and posted in the to-do area. Developers and
testers move the index cards around when they have completed their
tasks. Another way to increase return on investment is what Leach
identifies as building the right products or implementing the right solutions
to meetcustomer’s needs.
Delivering reliable results (customers).The objective of delivering reliable
results focuses in on obtaining clear product visions from customers and
collaboration and interaction with customers.DeCarlo (2004) notes that
clarifying projectobjectives helps teams understand their goals of
delivering early projectresults quickly. Leach (2005)proposes that using a
projectcharter as a guiding vision leads to projectsuccess.Highsmith
(2004)and Augustine (2005)emphasize that productvisions guide energy
developmentteams to deliver the best customer-value.
DeCarlo (2004)recommends checking with customers frequently, and
determining if they are receiving valuable responses to their requests.He

interacts with customers to determine their satisfaction with project
progress.Forexample, if the projectwastes a lot of effortto get only a little
value, it isa good time to ask the customerthe question, “Is it worth it to
develop the product?” Highsmith (2004)maintains that Agile teams should
constantly seek customerinvolvementand always seek feedbackfrom
customers if the right productis being developed forthe right market.
Augustine (2005)notes that customers actually drive or direct the process
on Agile projects and create and maintain shared expectations.
Expectuncertainty (uncertainty). The objective of managing uncertainty is
to respond to changes. Studies from Highsmith (2004), Augustine (2005),
and Leach (2005) focus on Agile management principles related to
accepting changes, accepting adaptive actions, and employing iterative
feature delivery. Highsmith states that only by accepting change, can
projectteams move on to implementing successfulprojects.Highsmith
notes that responding to change lies in employing iterative processesto
deliver partial products.
Incremental developmenthelps discoverearly designdefects and create
innovative energy products.Augustine proposes instituting learning and
adaptation with adaptive leadership to track and monitor project
uncertainty. Augustinebelieves that changes are both dangerous and

beneficial.The danger arises from uncontrolled projects.Beneficialchange
comes from creating new business opportunities due to acceptance of
changes. Augustine’s Agile project management principle is to adopt
change, not to use corrective actions to control changes. Leach proposes
the principle of managing variation. He uses the notion of inserting buffer
time into projectschedules as a means of managing projectuncertainty
and variations.
Improve effectiveness and reliability (context). When providing context for
achieving the improved effectivenessand reliability objective,DeCarlo
(2004),Highsmith (2004),Augustine (2005), and Leach (2005)suggest
keeping simple rules andbuilding customervalue-centered organization
principles.DeCarlo notes that a rule of keeping it simple coupled with a
flexible project modelare needed forimproving effectiveness.Highsmith
states that achieving the objective of improved effectivenessand reliability
requires projectmanagers and teams to simplify processeswith a minimum
set of rules. Augustine also encourages interaction among people and self-
organization by following simple rules and processes.He implements a set
of simple,adaptable, and methodicalrules that allow Agile teams to deliver
business value rapidly and reliably.

Leach suggests establishing a simple projectmanagement system to
effectivelykeep team momentum focused on projectsuccess.Another way
to achievethe effectivenessand reliability objective is to build a customer
value-centered organization, according to DeCarlo and Highsmith.
Although DeCarlo (2004),Highsmith (2004), Augustine (2005),and Leach
(2005)propose unique Agile projectmanagement principles. Their goals
are to help teams determine what practices are appropriate. Furthermore,
they encourage teams to create new practices when they are needed,
generate new practices that are necessary,and evolve existing practices
into Agile projectmanagement practices based on their principles.
1.5. Challenges in implementingruralsolar energyprojects
A rural solar energy projectcan be defined as a projecttaking place in a
remote area of a country where generally there is no access to electricity
from a national grid. It is often deemed uneconomicalby the local utility to
extend the grid to these areas due to low population density and the area in
question may be so remote and geographicallyisolated that it is not
physically possible to install power lines in the region even if the
government would back up the utility financially. The first step in any rural
electricity planning is thus to determine the point at which it will be more
economicalto consider an off-grid option rather than single-mindedlyaim

for the grid extension. The decisionis oftendone on the national
government level as a part of the rural developmentand electrification
planning (World Bank 2008). In addition to simply considering rural
electrificationas a financial decision,it should also be an important part of
any regional socio-economic developmentplanning for rural areas. The
isolated rural areas are often very poor and disadvantaged due to lack of
energy services which would enable further economic and human
development.The lack of access to clean, reliable energy services acts as
a catalyst in a vicious cycle of poverty, with diminished local opportunities
and migration of the rural population to urban areas (UNDP 2010).
Taking into considerationthe numerous challenges in the areas where
these rural solar energy systems are being installed, it is not surprising that
the methods of implementation have to be well thought of and suitable for
the area. In mostcases successfulimplementation methods cannot be
directly copied from one project to the next, but have to be designed forthe
particular requirements of each area, often to the level of each community
within the projectarea. In the next section ofprojectsuccessfactors the
general implementation “bestpractises” will be covered and discussedin
more detail.

1.6. Success factors
The early rural solar energy projects were generally short-term donor-
financed demonstrationprojects which were set up to test and showcase a
certain technology. Often there was no continuity planned after the initial
projectimplementation phase or the plan was to boostthe solar industry in
the donating country by making sure the replacementsystems and spare
parts were only available through the initial technology provider. As such, a
large number of projects completed in developing countries during the
1970’s and 1980’s might have initially beensuccessfulbut they were not
self-sustaining and often not replicable in any other location (Martinot,
Chaurey et al. 2002).
Since the general failure of the early projects several studies have taken
place trying to determine what the factors are that will make for a
successfulproject,and whether or not there are any universal truths that
can be applied to projects in any country. Some of the now generally
accepted success factors have beengathered into Table 1 and will be
discussedbelowin more detail.
If there was one single failure that could be pointed out in the early rural
solar electrificationprojects,it would be the complete lack of community
involvement in all of the project phases.With the knowledge available

today it seems surprising that the end users were not consulted in the
projectplanning phase, nor were they generally involved in the installation
or maintenance. The available literature on rural solar project success
factors,for example (Martinot, Cabraal et al. 2001;Beckand Martinot 2004;
Reddyand Painuly 2004;Balint 2006;Richards 2006;Alazraque-Cherni
2008),routinely highlights community involvement as the single most
important factor in achieving successand making a project self-sustaining.

Community involvement is not only important in the initial project design
and planning phases but it will need to continue all through the projectuntil
the systems are installed, running and commerciallyviable. The community
leaders can oftenbe approached through local or regional organizations
that already have a presence in the area and the leaders can then be
consulted on how to best organize their community in assessing the needs
and financial means of the community(World Bank 2008). It is important to
hear from the community what are their needs and expectations regarding
energy services,so that the correcttechnologycan be chosen to provide
the services needed.Involving the community in the planning will also help
to ensure that once the system is in place the end users within the
community will be familiar with the technology and are aware ofpossible
limitations of the system. Helping the community get organized around the
initial planning will also help later on when a community body needs to be
set up for collectionof payments, arranging for maintenance and other ad
hoc duties related to the properfunctioning of the installed system (Peters,
Cobb et al. 2005).Institutional factors are in practice often the ones that
may influence the initial planning and overall successof a rural solar
energy project the most. As energy services and providing electricity to the
communities have historically been the sole responsibility of national

governments,the entire renewable energy industry is still very much
influenced by the myriad of policies and subsidy structures that are in place
in differentcountries (Reinmüller and Adib 2002;World Bank 2008;UNDP
2010).In most countries there are also strong lobby groups in favour of
fossilfuels and centralized grid extensions against which the renewable
energy (RE) projects must be competing. A successfulprojectwill need to
secure the support of a regional and/or national governmentprior to
commencementof the project,not only to make sure there won’t be any
issues later on regarding the installed technologies,but also to ensure any
desired financial back-up from the government. There can oftenbe a slight
discontinuity in financing betweenthe initial project funding running out and
the projectbeing fully commercially viable and self-sustaining, and this is
where government funding is often needed (World Bank 2008).The
financing in general is looked at in more detail in section3.3.
After the initial need and demand assessments have been completed,
there is need to conduct a thorough technical assessmentof the planned
site, the available RE resources as well as all of the technologies suitable
for the particular specifications of the community. Where the early rural
electrificationprojects chose the technologyfirst and then proceeded from
there, the technology itself is nowadays known to be less important to the

success ofa projectthan the other factors(Peters,Cobb et al. 2005).
Nevertheless,there is need to do a thorough site assessment,so that the
technology chosenwill match the available resource. In the rural
electrificationprojects the technologyis in practise rarely able to funct ion
at its optimal level of performance as the aim is to maximize the reliability of
the system rather than simply focus on the maximum efficiency (Richards
2006).A more important aspect than a highly efficienttechnical
performance is also to ensure that the technologychosen will match the
energy service needs of the end users as well as the characteristics of the
planned site.
Ultimately, in order to be consideredsuccessful,a rural solar energy project
will need to be determined so by the end user. As the end user needs,
desires and situations vary greatly from projectto project, a simplified
indication of success canbe the providingof the end user a way to meet
their particular energy needs in a way that is affordable and sustainable in
the long term. The end users will need to be able to pay for the system
providing the desired service and the system will need to be operating in a
way that does not endan ger the future wellbeing of the environment, the
end user or any other parties involved in providing the service(Laumanns
and Reiche 2004;Ilskog and Kjellström 2008).

1.7. Financing
A multitude of studies, for example (Martinot, Chaurey et al. 2002;
Sonntag-O'Brien and Usher 2004;San Segundo Hernández and Rodríguez
Monroy 2007;World Bank 2008), have concluded financing to be the most
crucial factor in a successfulrural solar energy project. From the early
donor-led charitable aid modelwhere the end users were oftengiven the
system free of charge the trend has been to movetowards more
commercialend user financing models in the past couple of decades.
The end users are now expected to at least contribute a significant amount
towards the costof their systems,if not fully pay for them, and the entire
energy service system in the community is expected to eventually become
self-sustained. In this sectionthe basic end user financing models used in
Solar Home System (SHS) dissemination are looked at in more detail. The
sectionwill also cover some of the barriers commonlyfound in financing
rural solar energy projects.Some suggestedfinancing mechanisms are also
covered togetherwith discussionon long termfinancial viability of a rural
solar energy project.

1.8. End User Financing
There are a various end user financing models currently in place around
the developing world, with each modelhaving a multitude of variations
depending on the particular needs of the end user community. In Table 2
the most commonconcepts have been listed and they are discussed in
more detail below.

The most straightforward way for an end user to obtain electrificationwould
be a directcash purchase (without credit) of the Solar Home System
(SHS). In practice this approach will only work for the more affluent
members of the rural communities due to the high cost of these systems.
This initial capital cost is the area where most donor-funded financing is
needed.In the directpurchasing model,if the end user cannot afford an
outright payment for the SHS, the outside funding will be channelled to the
end user as a credit arrangement available via a microfinance institute
(MFI) (Adib, Gagelmann et al. 2001).The end user will obtain a loan from
the MFI, which will enable a direct cash purchase of the system from the
supplier.
It is possible that the end user might be de emed unsuitable for a loan by a
MFI or, as the case often is, there might not be a suitable MFI operating in
the particular area. In these cases there can be an option of leasing
(renting) the system from a supplier or an independentleasing agent that
will act as a middlemanbetween the end user and the supplier.The
funding from an outside source (or donor) will be channelled to the leasing
agent, or the leasing agent may be able to obtain financing from a
commercialbank which can be used for purchasing the SHS

(Reinmüller and Adib 2002).The end user will enter into an agreement with
the leasing agent and the ownership of the system will stay with the leaser
until the system has been paid off completely(at which point the end user
becomes the owner of the system). For the duration of the leasing
agreementthe leasing agent is responsibleforthe system maintenance,
while this responsibilitywill transfer to the end user once the system has
been fully paid (Sonntag-O'Brien and Usher 2004).An often used financing
modelis called fee-for-service,which enables the end user to enjoy the
energy services provided by the SHS without ha ving to purchase the
system. This is similar to the leasing model,but without the end user ever
gaining the ownership of the system. The modelis often facilitated through
an (Rural)
Energy Service Company ((R)ESCO), a local utility or a village energy
committee formed forthis purpose.The ESCO or other facilitating body
supplies the end user with the SHS and is responsible formaintaining the
systems as well as collecting the monthly fee from the end user. Any
funding from an outside source for the initial purchase of the SHS can be
channelled directly to ESCO,or there can be a MFI involved if the facilitator
is a village committee or other non -commercialbody(Nieuwenhout, Dijk et
al. 2001;Reinmüller and Adib 2002).

1.9. Barriers
As the barriers to renewable energy systems in developing countries have
been extensively covered in the literature, by (Beck and Martinot 2004;
Laumanns and
Reiche 2004;Reddyand Painuly 2004;Wupperthal Institute 2006;
Alazraque-Cherni 2008) among others, it is not seen necessaryto cover
the topic in too much detail in this context. In orderto clarify the challenging
context of rural solar energy financing and the hurdles along the way to a
successfulproject,some of the main barriers and challenges in regards to
the financing are briefly discussed inthis section.
One of the main barriers in rural solar energy financing is gaining the initial
access to low-cost and long-term financing (Karekezi 2002). As discussed
in section3.2 the challenges of gaining financial supportfrom the national
government can be difficultto overcome in the presence of often
mismatched subsidystructures and rural electrification policies.In
developing countries the main source of rural electrificationfinancing often
comes in the form of aid from an international donor organization. While
this type of funding is oftenvery low-cost (as it is a grant donation rather
than a loan), the real problem is the one-time, short-term nature of the
funding. Even the longer term donor-funded projects tend to only run for a

maximum of a few years and this is often too short of a time to facilitate the
multitude of social and economicalchanges needed to make a projectself-
sustaining and commercially viable (World Bank 2008).
On the other hand the wide-spread presence and availability of
international grants and donations can badly distort the renewable energy
markets in the developing countries, if care is not taken to make sure there
are cost recoverymechanisms and active creation of commerciallyviable
renewable energy markets (Martinot, Chaurey et al. 2002).In this context
the availability of low-cost financing is only creating more barriers rather
than solving them. The rural electrification market is considereda very
high-risk, low-margin business where the transaction costs (i.e. project
planning, creation of financing and fee collectionmechanisms,negotiating
with local authorities etc) are generally around
10-20%,while in more traditional industry projects these costs can be as
low as 2-3% (Rogers,Hansen et al. 2006). This kind of a business
landscape is not ideal in attracting traditional commercialfinancing for the
projects,and more positive examples of viable commercialbusiness
models are sorely needed in order to slowly educate the commercial
financiers. The lack of knowledge within the financial sectorabout the
nature of renewable energy projects in gene ral is a severe hindrance in

gaining suitable financing for a rural solar energy project(Rogers,Hansen
et al. 2006;Alazraque-Cherni 2008).
Most of the challenges in rural solar electrificationfinancing are so-called
macro-barriers, in that they are more imminent in the higher levels of
decision-making and initial projectplanning (Alazraque-Cherni 2008).
These types of barriers are generally to do with national or international
policies and can be impossibleto change within the context of a single
project. The challenge is to find the most suitable financing mechanism for
any particular project which would have the highest potential to deliver a
viable electrificationsolution in the presence ofthe macro-barriers of the
particular projectarea.
In the other end of the financing spectrum is the so-called micro-barrier of
the end users’ ability to pay forthe energy service provided. In developing
countries where the end users often have limited or no access to regular
income this is often the biggest challenge which ultimately need to be
considered whendeciding on the suitable financing method (Adib,
Gagelmann et al. 2001;Laumanns and Reiche 2004;Alazraque-Cherni
2008;OECD and IEA 2010).

1.10. Successfulapproaches to accessingfinancing
As the initial capital costcan be very high in rural solar energy projects,
improving the access to initial seed financing can be the best way to
encourage the growth of a projectinto a commerciallyviable business.
Organizations like Rural Energy Enterprise Development(REED),initiated
by UNEP, can help a budding solar energy business access the initial seed
financing by taking higher financial risks than conventional commercial
financing institutions. In addition to providing a better access to financing
REED and other such facilitators like the US-based non-profit organization
E+Co can help a start-up business with additional supportive services such
as business and financial planning as well as managerial and
organizational training (Rogers,Hansen et al. 2006).The source of
financing for such facilitators is ultimately donations from international aid
organizations and developmentaid from governments. Thus the
responsibilityof changes in the financing mechanisms ultimately lies with
the donor organizations as they have the power to decide which way the
financing is channelled so that it bestreaches and develops rural
solarprojects (Sonntag-O'Brienand Usher 2004). As mentioned in the
previous section,the cost of attracting and facilitating financing for rural
electrificationprojects is generally very high and thus it makes sense to

combine small decentralized projects into a larger loan program. This
approach is oftenused by the World Bank, for example in the Asia
Alternative Energy Program (ASTAE)or the Global Environment Facility
(GEF) supported PERZA program in Central America (see chapter 4 for
details on PERZA)(Sonntag-O'Brien and Usher 2004). These programs
have beenused as a financing umbrella under which various projects have
been taking place in several differentcountries. The financing becomes
easier for the individual projects to obtain o nce they have been accepted
under such an umbrella program.
Available local creditwould be an ideal way of obtaining financing for a
rural solar electrificationproject, but often this is not available at all, or the
local commercial financing institute will considerthe risk too high. When
donor financing is available, an existing local financing institute could be
utilized as an intermediary only, which lessens or removes the risk. In doing
so the local financing institute gains valuable experience in the new area of
RE business and can develop suitable ways of working without having to
carry the bulk of the financial risk. In order to achieve this, the donor
organization needs to know the local financing structure and be able to
work togetherwith them (Sonntag-O'Brien and Usher 2004).This can often
be too large of a challenge, especially when the donor organization is new

to a particular area or when the projectis only due to run for a short term in
which case the effortof creating local contacts and cooperationmodels
may be beyo nd itsscope. Successfulexamples of this approach are
IREDA and IDCOL organizations located in India and Bangladesh,
respectively.These organizations were form ed to act as an intermediary
between the international donor organizations and the local financing
institutions, thus enabling the small local organizations to enter the RE
market by securing and funnelling the financing from the international
donors on behalf of them (Beck and Martinot 2004;Urmee 2009).
1.11. Financialviability
The term viability in this context is taken to mean that the financing for a
projectis secure even after any initial donations or other types of financing
have ended.In practise the only way often to ensure this is that the project
has been able to establish self-sustaining means of financing either by
becoming a commercial enterprise or establishing a fully independent
revolving fund. A revolving fund is most often initialized with a donation
given for this purpose.A suitable, although often relatively large, amount of
money is set aside, from where small loans to the end users can be
facilitated. The idea is that the terms of the loan repayments and interest
rates are in sync with the size of the fund, so that the small interest

replenishes the fund and any existing loans are repaid in such time that
allows the new loans to be given out as required and the fund never runs
out. In practise this has often been a difficult balance to achieve
(Wupperthal Institute 2006).It can also be challenging to obtain a large
enough initial donation for the
fund to be able to operate flexibly. The need for loans has to be well-
balanced and evenly scattered over a large period of time in order to be
able to operate the fund. A sound commercial micro, small or medium sized
enterprise (MSME, or simply SME) can be the best way to ensure the
financial viability of a rural solar project, but this has often beenthe hardest
goal to achieve. Donor-financed programs have historically failed to make
the transfer from a short term projectto a long term viable market-oriented
business.This can be understood when looking at the way the projects
have beenconducted in the early days, when the mismanagedfinancing
from the donors may have contributed to distorting the markets as well as
creating false expectations in the end users. In the end there would have
been no longer an incentive to set up businesses to facilitate the rural solar
electrificationas communities got used to receiving the energy services
free as a part of technology demonstrationprojects (Rogers,Hansen et al.
2006).From the early days the understanding of the importance of making

projects financially viable in the long term has increased.Although some of
the mechanisms used in projectfinancing may still not be ideally geared
towards encouraging market-based commercialapproaches,the
understanding and willingness to find better solutions exists (Martinot,
Chaurey et al. 2002).
There are some particularly successfulexamples of solar energy SMEs
found in Central America. In Bhavnagar there are two commercially
operating companies selling and installing SHSs and other solar products
in rural areas. Managua-based Tecnosolstarted selling small solar PV
systems in 1998 and has since branched into large PV systems,solar
thermal, solar and small hydro applications as well (Tecnosol2010).
Empresade Comunicaciones (ECAMI) was founded in 1982 in Managua
as a rural telecommunications companybut since 2004 it has solely
concentrated on solar PV, solar thermal and small solar. They have
recently started to branch int o microfinancing as well, since they noticed
that the lack of available financing to the end users was negatively affecting
their business (ECAMI 2009).Another successful example is Soluz Inc,
which is based in the United States but has operations and subsidiaries in
Honduras and Dominican Republic. They have developed their own Rural
Energy Delivery Company (REDCO) modelselling SHSs commerciallyin

rural areas (Soluz 2010). In order for the SMEs to be able to function the
end users will need to have access to financing and be earning at least a
modestincome to be able to purchase the SHS on a commercialbasis. In
practice a commercialoperation
is oftennot possiblewithout a for m of public-private partnership financially
supporting both the SME as well as the end users, until the rural
economies mature. A key factor in ensuring the financial viability of a
projectis to take a long-term view in all of the projectaspects.From early
on there is a need to plan for longer than just the first few years of the initial
p roject. This means engaging in a dialog with the local and national
government bodies which often hold the key to whether or not a projectis
viable in the long term. The government can back up long term, low interest
loans which go beyond the initial projectinstallation stages.In several
studies the conceptof public-private partnerships is hailed as the only
viable long term solution (Martinot, Chaurey et al. 2002;RodríguezMonroy
and San Segundon
Hernández 2008).This partnership can take a form of a market facilitation
organization (MFO), as was the case in India with IREDA.In the absence
of existing organizations (or lack of government resources)the various

NGOs already involved in the rural solar projects may need to take on the
role of MFO to ensure projectcontinuity and viability.
As mentioned in the previous section, the international and national donor
aid organizations have a key role in rural solar energy projects from the
initial capital costs to the long term projectviability (Rogers,Hansen et al.
2006).The majority of the funding in any stage of the project is channelled
through these organizations both as donations and loans, which gives the
donor organizations the power to influence on how the projects are
organized in terms of long term financial viability. Monroy and Hernández
(2008)call for a “climate of cooperation” to bring together the various
contributors to any renewable energy project and get them to agree on a
commoncode of practice on how to bestconduct projects from planning
and installation through to the long term viable enterprises.Due to the
multitude of players in any projectfrom international, national, local and
community levels, this is not an easy task. The existence of such
organizations as UN and World Bank, with their various institutions, can
help in wide disseminationof lessons learned as well as in creating some
level of commonpractices.The problem with such big organizations is that
while they try to take care of the big picture it is impossible to handle the
small details in various countries and regions. As also mentioned

previously, a single modelof financing and organizing a projectis not likely
to work for the myriad differentlocations and communities around the
developing world.
3. METHODOLOGY
A mixed method approach will be used to pursue the research objectives.
Following the literature review, the approach consists of two different
components;case studies,and interviews. Each of these had a specific
purpose.The case studies will identify distinguishing factors that enabled a
particular community to bring a solar projectto fruition. The interviews will
capture additional perspectives onthe factors that advance or obstruct
solar power projects.
4. Case study: Bhavnagar
This fourth chapter covers the Solar energy project in rural Bhavnagar
which is used as a case study to mirror the success factors and financing
methods found in the literature review. Section4.1 covers general
background information for Bhavnagar and the region where Solar energy
project is working, while section 4.2 presents the project Solar energy
project was chosenas a case study due to the relatively short history and

small size of the organization. It was thought that such an organization
would still be in improve the successfulnessand financial viability of its
projects. The organization was initially found through the researcher’s
personal connections in Bhavnagar and the project management was
helpful and eager to take part in the study, when approached.
As covered in more detail in section4.2, Solar energy project’s goal is to
improve the quality of life of the communities in the poorestand most
isolated part of Bhavnagar. They are hoping to do this by taking a holistic
community development(HCD) approach which is centred on providing
sustainable energy services to the communities.This in turn is done by
installing solar home systems (SHS) to individual households in addition to
a small community battery charging station with a hybrid solar-solar
system. The solar systems will be studied in more detail, while the solar
turbines as a technology are outside the scope of this study. The solar
turbines will be mentioned only as a part of the holistic approach, together
with the other community developmentactivities.
a. Bhavnagar background information
This section paints the background for the case study project by explaining
the basic socio-economic and geographicalbackground of Bhavnagar, as
well as the current energy status of the country. The region where Solar

energy project is working is covered in more detail to give the reader an
understanding of the particular challenges communities and NGOs in the
area are facing.
b. Geography
Bhavnagar is a city in Gujarat of the Central, bordering with Rahasthan in
the north and Maharashtra in the south. The city is limited by the Indian
Ocean in the west. As the city is located around a latitude of 13N and a
longitude of 85W,the climate is hot and humid all year round with a rainy
seasonover the summer months from June to September (CIA 2010). The
goal of the project is to create off-grid solutions to rural electrification
throughout Bhavnagar and strengthen the government’s experience in off-
grid solutions (World Bank 2010).The projecthas mainly been focusing on
large-scale hydro power and as the BAR area is relatively flat the available
hydro resource is not very good for large-scale generation and thus, there
are currently no PERZA projects within BAR (FADCANIC2006).
The available renewable energy resources are good for solar, solar and
micro-hydro. As Bhavnagar is located in the tropics, the available solar
irradiation is very good,averaging around 4.5-5 kWh/m²/day (SWERA
2003).

c. Goals and stakeholders
The initial goal of the projectwas to develop 3 communities within the
Bhavnagar Autonomous Region(BAR). The approach used by Solar
energy project was to bring electricity generated by renewable energy
technologies (solar and solar) to the communities,together with
educational and organizational assistance.This in turn is hoped to
eventually assist in developing a viable economygenerating income for the
community to maintain the energy systems as well as improve the quality of
life for these communities.
The communities chosen to take part were Gujaratis, Gujaratis and Set Net
Point (see Figure 2 for a map), which have a population of 150-500 people
each. None of these communities had any energy infrastructure in place
before the project, thus no access to electricity. Candles, simple home-
made kerosene lamps and a few poor quality torches were the only means
of lighting, all of which were too expensive to be used on regular basis. The
communities are only accessible by river or sea, which makes them very
isolated. The distance between these communities and Bhavnagar is 50-
100km,which takes several hours to travel on small boats on rough seas.

In order to be able to function in these communities Solar energy project
sought to cooperate with the governing body of the local indigenous
groups,GTR-K (Gobardhan Territorial Region).The three communities
were chosenin cooperationwith GTR-K,based on where there already
was a suitable presence inthe area from both GTR-K and Solar energy
project collaborators. Gujaratis is one of the key communities in the
southern part of BAR and was the most willing and eagerto utilize the help
from Solar energy project.Gujaratis is the largest and the mostorganized
of the three communities,while Set Net Point is the smallestcommunity
with some tensions between the local groups due to a recent death of a
respectedcommunity leader. There the desire for community
empowermentand involvement gained by installing the solar-solar hybrid
system is still seen to be relatively fragile.
With the help of GTR-K leaders and village elders Solar energy project was
able to set up village committees in each of the community, to maintain the
electricity systems and oversee the microcreditlending program. In addition
to the village committees the end users were also taking part in the
planning and installation through general village meetings (asamblea
comunal), which were held monthly as the Solar energy project project
personnelvisited the village from Bhavnagar. This ensured the end users

were fully aware of the projectsteps and knowledgeable of the systems to
be installed.
d. System installation and maintenance
The typical system installed by Solar energy project consisted of a main
village battery charging station with a hybrid solar-solar system consisting
of a locally manufactured 1kW solar turbine and one or two 100W solar
panels connected to a bank of eight 6V batteries. The charging station
hybrid system also provides electricity for the village school,church and
health clinic. In order to be able to utilize the charging station the end users
would purchase a Home Lighting System (HLS) which included a
12V/105Ahsealed lead-acid battery, a charge controller and a few compact
fluorescent(CFL)or LED light bulbs utilizing DC current. The HLS could be
installed with an additional DC plug for small appliances such as a radio ,
re-chargeable lantern, mobile phone etc. People living in more remote parts
of these communities,without easy access to the charging station,
purchased a similar HLS kit but with an addition of a small 14W individual
solar panel for charging the battery (Craig 2007; Solar energy project
2009).During this projectaround 100 systems were installed, and the
overall amount of beneficiaries (through lighting of the schools,churches
and health clinics, in addition to homes)is estimated to be around 1500

(Grigsby Vergara 2010). Figures 3-5 show the systems components listed.
As each of the communities was worked with separately one at a time,
some of the components in differentcommunities varied slightly depending
on what was available at any particular time. The system cost was also
affected bywhether or not an individual PV module was installed, the
capacity of the battery required, the amount of light bulbs/plugs requested
and the amount of cabling and other miscellaneous items needed. Each of
the installed HLS kits was put together according to the end user needs
and ability to pay. Also if a certain part was considered not to be good
enough by the Solar energy project standard, it was replaced with an
alternative option for the next phase of installations. The cost of
components listed below is thus only indicative, with the average total cost
of the HLS system being around 200-250 USD
The maintenance of the village charging station as well as the home
system was entrusted to the village energy committee,with the help of the
Solar energy project technicians. Selected individuals from the village
energy committee were trained at the Solar energy project Bhavnagar
headquarters in system installation, repair and maintenance, in order to
enable them to deal with the mostcommonissues that may arise between
the monthly community visits by Solar energy project.After the initial

installation a Solar energy project technician continues to be available t o
the communities and every time a community is visited by Solar energy
project personnelthere is a technician accompanying the crew.
As it is not yet possible to obtain solar panels, specific charge controllers or
batteries manufactured in Bhavnagar, all of the spare parts for the solar
system will need to be imported from abroad, typically from China. These
were generally ordered in bulk directly from the manufacturer or through a
local retailer Tecnosolwhen only a few items or spare parts were needed.
The CFL and LED light bulbs are available for purchase in Managua, but as
the members of the communities are generally not able to travel to the
capital, Solar energy project maintains a small stock at the Bhavnagar
headquarters, together with a stock of spare parts for the solar system. The
solar turbines are manufactured in Bhavnagar from locally available
materials, thus obtaining spare parts for them is easy an d fairly
inexpensive. The solar turbines generally require much more onsite
maintenance than the solar panels, making them more expensive.
e. Financing
The project received funding for three years (2007-2010)from a Dutch
international aid organization Hivos. This funding was enough to cover the
full cost of the solar panels, solar turbines and the home electrificationkits,

as well as the project related overheads,e.g. logistics of personneland the
system components.Despite the donor covering the full cost of the energy
systems the end users were required to pay 20% of the cost of the HLS.
These payments were deposited into the communal fund for the future
maintenance and spare part expenses. From their earlier energy and
community developmentprojects with these communities Solar energy
project had learned that a fee for service approach was not suitable there,
and in order for the end users to appreciate and maintain the system well,
they had to pay for and own the system outright.
As typical HLS set up would costaround 200-250 USD, the end user would
pay around 40-50 USD for the system upfront and the ownership of the
system was transferred over to the end user. In addition to that the
households located close to the charging station would pay around 0.80 US
cents for each recharge of their battery. The initial payment was beyond
what the households could afford to pay in one installment, so Solar energy
project facilitated access to a local micro-finance institute
The Associationfor the Developmentand Promotion of the Indian Coast
(ADEPHCI).With help from Solar energy project a finance committee was
set up in each village to apply for the loan, collectthe payments within the
village and administer the repayment to ADEPHCI,so that there was no

need for each household to apply for the loan separately. The financial
committee also administered the battery recharge payments which were
collected into a communal fund to pay for future maintenance and repair
costs of the system.Currently the initial system and battery recharge
payments alone are not enough to make the financing self-sustainable.
Without means of generating extra income the villages cannot afford any
additional payments, and some are regularly struggling with the small
recharge fees. Solar energy project is currently working on securing further
funding from Hivos to maintain the installed systems and continue with the
organizational and capacity building work done in the communities. The
aim is to be able to secure future funding until economic opportunities
outside of these
communities can be explored,which in turn will help finance the
maintenance and expansion of the installed energy systems. Benefiting
from the economic opportunities outside of the communities,such as
selling fish or agricultural produce in Bhavnagar, will require overcoming
various institutional hurdles, which Solar energy project alone has no
controlover. These are discussedfurther in chapter 5.

5. Interviews
When analyzing the effective Agile projectmanagement practices,the
ratings were redistributed into four sub-areas based on 4 scales: S (slightly
agree), W (somewhat agree), A (agree), and R (strongly agree). The
results show that 33% ofthe interviewees agreed that Agile project
management practices are effective while 28% said they strongly agreed.
Furthermore, 26%said they somewhat agreed and 13% said they slightly
agreed.
As describedin chapter 3, the ineffectiveness categorywas transformed
into pattern ineffectiveness(I) and the categoryneither effectiveness nor
ineffectiveness has become patternneutral (N). The effectivenesscategory
was divided into particular (P), alternative (A), and sequence (S) to
distinguish among the differentpatterns. The patterns were composedof
Agile projectmanagementpractices and specific project management
challenges (see AppendixS for understanding how 52 themes were
categorized in five patterns).
a. Pattern Particular
All interviewees respondedthat they could use a particular Agile project
management practice to solve their specificprojectmanagement challenge.
Pattern particular (P) is an effective pattern, which contains 21

differentprojectmanagement challenges and 14 differentAgile project
management practices from the six Declaration of Interdependence areas.
The data presentation for the six areas begins with individual, and
proceeds on to teams, value, customers,to uncertainty, and context.
Themes relatedto the individuals area
Agile projectmanagement practices consisting of hiring the rightpeople,
training and pair programming, and decentralizing control were
implemented by three projectmanagement practitioners to deal with
differentprojectmanagement challenges. When overcoming the challenge
of projectmanagement incompetence,RW indicated her company was
hiring the right people who have the knowledge in Agile project
management to replace those who were using old or ineffective
methodologies whenher organization was transitioning to Agile
methods.RW confidently said, “They hired people from India and they have
people from their Sydney office.They continue to look for the right people
in the U.S.”
The other challenge describedby RW was lack of people who understood
how to use the developmenttool. RW said through the use of training and
pair programming, her company was seeking lower costand customized

technology to trim out the use of 20 years old platforms (e.g., computers).
Two other projectmanagement practitioners also agreed that training and
pairprogramming were an effective Agile project management practice. LB
stated that one way to makethe practice work on her scarce resources
competitionchallenge was to pair one energy technologywith one
evaluating body. In this way, “the evaluater could quickly identify the issue”.
MV said the practice helped him resolve his unique resource issue.When
the unique resource was a subject matter expert allocated to multiple
teams, the expert needed to attend many Scrum meetings. It was an issue
that the expert did not have time to work, but rather attend meetings.
Through training and pair programming,the expert was able to train junior
developers,so they could use the expert for attending meetings.
When BS’s organization was transitioning to Agile,he said his organization
had to abandon all centralized controls to becomea flat organization. BS’s
example of decentralized control practices was related to how his
developmentteam dealt with organizational cultural issues.BS said his
developmentteam was very centralized on developmentefforts and the
layer by layer control was not effective in solving any developmentissues.
His team started to showincreases in productivity when they broke through
the centralized controls and treated everyone equally. BS emphasized,“in

order to accommodate the Agile fashion, they must use decentralized
control.”
b. Themes relatedto the teams area
In the teams area, Agile project management practices emphasizing
commitmentand leadership and building self-organizing teams were
implemented by five project management practitioners to deal with three
differentprojectmanagement challenges. RW and JY both experienced a
lack of accountability issue.RW said her company was building a new
leadership team to institute leadership commitments.JY said her problem
was that the customer’s team was not fully committed to her projects.By
continuing to emphasize the importance of commitments,she has seen
more inputs from the customerteam than everbefore.BM used the same
practice, but in the challenge relating to team resistance to new leadership
style. When BM took over a new team, the team resisted the new
leadershipstyle,because the team was used to the old one. Through
emphasis on the commitmentand leadership practice, BM convinced his
inherited team to implement these practices.He urged his team to work
together to establish a new leadership paradigm.
BS was encountering a cross-functionalteam issue. BS said the issue was
that the resources allocated across multiple teams led to resources not

being available when the teams needed them. One way to deal with
thisissue was to build a self-organizing team.
BS said, “The team needs to have all of the resources they need to do the
work. They are not necessarilycross-functional, but they are a part of the
team and have responsibilities.”
c. Themes relatedto the value area
Agile projectmanagement practices on prioritizing the feature lists for
return on investment, eliminating waste, and using right tools were
implemented by fourprojectmanagement practitioners to deal with three
differentprojectmanagement challenges. SK said “we did do a good job on
prioritization” to optimize our return on investment. SK continued to address
his other challenge on the high costs.He said, “What we have done for
eliminating waste is that we actually offshore.We pass off our designs by
the end of the day, so they can work on them during the day when it is
night-time in the U.S.”
EP and GG commentedon their success onusing the right tools to deal
with their commonchallenge of lack of propertools. EP said his Agile team
is using “organic tools” and explained:

We use 3-by-5 cards. We use word templates.We have a Sprint sheet, but
we don't use it every Sprint. We have a capacity management sheet to
show available resources forthe project.We also block off times on the
calendar for important dates. We use those kinds of tools. Welike to use 3-
by-5 cards and a magnetic board. A lot of people are using them. GG
reflected that the right tools help in dealing with his challenge. GG said, “It
is a new tool and we need to know how to use it; because it is better than
no tool. What we use is PVCS tracker,” a communicationtool for basic
progresscontrolof issues,tasks, and changes (“ProductOverview,” n.d.).
GG continued, “We don'thave a lot of flexibility. It is very useful.”
6. Findings
The major findings are the identification of Agile project management
practices that may be used to address specificenergy projectmanagement
challenges. This includes the effectivenessratings of the Agile project
management practices and the conceptualframework. Aftercomparing the
ratings of the Agile project management practices with the initial conceptual
framework introduced in chapter 2. First, the data and subsequentanalysis
resulted in a total of 52 themes and the initial conceptualframework only
introduced 16 themes. Second,the data and subsequentanalysis resulted

in five relationship patterns between Agile project management practices
and specific projectmanagementchallenges. The initial conceptual
framework introduced only two patterns from the literature review.
The purpose of this study was to determine if Agile projectmanagement
practices could be used to address specific energyprojectmanagement
challenges. For each theme, questions were asked to determine ifan Agile
projectmanagement practice could be used to address a specific energy
projectmanagement challenge. The proportionof
themes expanded as a result of this study. Thatis, the greater the number
of participants, the greater the number of new themes discovered.This is
probably due to the rather diverse nature of projects,environments, and
experiences of projectmanagement practitioners interviewed for this study.
For example, thirty-three themes were rated by only one project
management practitioner.
Another surprising finding was that Agile project management practices
associated with the initial conceptualframework derived from the literature
review were all rated effectivelyby the projectmanagement practitioners
(as shown in AppendixV for the effectivenessrating results of the Agile
projectmanagement practices). The focus was to compare the final

conceptual framework to the initial conceptualframework derived from the
literature review. The comparisonof challenges from literature review and
the additional challenges collected from the data collected is shown in
Figure 13 for what specific challenges were added to the list. In general,
Agile projectmanagement practices in each area can handle more
challenges as compared to those in the literature review. For example, the
practice of hiring the right people can be used to deal with project
management incompetence based on the literature review and insufficient
team skills based on the data collected.

7. Conclusion
Based on the research findings, the researchquestions were adequately
addressedto the greatest extent possible.The objectivesofthis study were
adequately satisfied.The research methodologywas found to be useful for
collecting data and helping energy projectmanagement practitioners
transform their experiencesinto useful essences and conscious thoughts.
And, more importantly, a useful conceptualframework was expanded and
produced based on the information in the literature review. One of the goals
of this study was tohelp energy projectmanagement practitioners diagnose
their problems bydesigning a conceptual framework for mapping
Agile projectmanagement practices to specificprojectmanagement
challenges.
However, it was imperative to develop an approach for rating both the Agile
projectmanagement practices as well as the specific energyproject
management challenges themselves,in order to help energy project
management practitioners selectthe best choices foraddressing practical,

real-world issues.In doing so, this study made the first step in a positive
direction, not only to help the participants of this study, but energy project
management practitioners in general. This was one of the fundamental
goals and objectives of this study. And, this study made positive
contribution in this regard.
The three questions posed in the beginning of the research were to
investigate the successfulnessof the Solar energy project project, how
could the projectbecome financially self-sustainable and whether or not
there was anything the donor organization/project management could do in
the early stages of the projectto ensure the viability.
In terms of the projectsuccessit was found that the project,as a part of the
larger organizational goals of Solar energy project, was indeed a very good
start and a first step in the long road to improving the quality of lives in the
three communities.As the projecthas only been running for three years
and the financing for its continuation is still unsure, there cannot yet be any
definite conclusions drawn on the long-term overall successfulnessand
viability of the installed solar energy systems and their influence on the
communities.When measured against the success factors from literature
which were outlined in chapter three, it can be concluded that the projectin
on the right track, although there are still various hurdles to overcome,most

of which have to do with institutional and financial matters, on which Solar
energy project has very little influence. There were some areas noted by
the projectmanagement, where Solar energy project could improve on its
own processes and ways of doing things. Some of the main areas of
improvements needed were in the pre-installation phase, as more detailed
diagnostics and planning would be necessary to save time and money later
on during the installation phase. To tackle this issue Solar energy project is
currently working on creating a modelwhich they could use as a blueprint
or a checklist for future projects in the area.
Regarding financial viability and self-sustainability it can be concluded that
the projectis not there yet and is likely not going to be for quite some time
still. Financial self-sustainability will require overcoming vast socio-
economic challenges that affectnot only these communities but the entire
BAR region, and the scope of those challenges is beyond what Solar
energy project alone can do. The possible future financing from World Bank
seems promising though, not only for allowing Solar energy project to
continue working with the communities it already has a strong presence in,
but also for the possibilityof expanding the cooperationwith World Bank
and the regional and national governments.As World Bank is also the main
funder of the large PERZA projectin Bhavnagar, there could be a chance

to get some of the future Solar energy project projects accepted as PERZA
projects.In any case this might help to raise awareness at the regional and
national governmentlevel to the work Solar energy project is doing in BAR
communities.This could in turn advance improvements in the missing
infrastructure and other social and economic challenges.
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Agarwal, N., Rathod, U. (2006). Defining‘success’for energy
projects:an exploratoryrevelation.International Journal of Project
Management. pp. 358–370.
 Bensaou B.M. (2004). CollaborationSupportTechnologies in
InterorganizationalRelationships:an EmpiricalInvestigationin Buyer-
SupplierJointDesign Activities.Journal of ProductInnovation
Management. pp. 66-114.
 Cockburn, A. (2007). AgileEnergy Development:The Cooperative
Game.2ndEdition. The AddisonWesleyAgile Energy Development
Series.
 Coopers,P. (2004). Boosting Business Performancethrough
Programme. International Journal of ProjectManagement. pp. 128-
146.

Project management wind energy[www.writekraft.com]

Project management wind energy[www.writekraft.com]

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to Project management wind energy[www.writekraft.com]

Similar to Project management wind energy[www.writekraft.com] (20)

More from WriteKraft Dissertations

More from WriteKraft Dissertations (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Project management wind energy[www.writekraft.com]