Examining Conditions that Influence Evaluation use within a Humanitarian Non-Governmental Organization in Burkina Faso (West Africa)

Abstract

Program evaluation can support capacity building and inform practice and policy. Yet long-term efforts to ensure evaluation use (EU) in the humanitarian sector are seldom documented, leaving much uncertainty about EU conditions. This study examined conditions that influenced EU by stakeholders of a humanitarian non-governmental organization (NGO) in Burkina Faso striving to base its health care program on solid evidence. It used 36 qualitative semi-structured interviews and a single case study design to document stakeholders’ (n = 26) perception of EU conditions. Analyses focussed on characteristics of five broad conditions of research use previously documented. Results demonstrate that EU was facilitated by intended users with proactive attitudes, research experience, and willingness to participate in program evaluations. Also helpful was an organizational culture that valued learning, feedback, and accountability, wherein leaders collaborated toward common goals. Evaluation-based knowledge that met information needs and that was actionable, contextualized, and quickly accessible enhanced EU. Knowledge transfer strategies promoting EU were diverse, participatory, adapted to needs, and regularly followed up. Evaluators who were trusted, experienced, credible, and adaptable, promoted EU most effectively. Conversely, EU was compromised when intended users felt distrusting, uninformed, or unable to engage in program evaluations. Knowledge contradicting expectations or deemed inapplicable impeded EU. Adapting knowledge transfer strategies required time and interactions. Initially, evaluations were not sufficiently adapted and put into plain language, which hampered EU. EU conditions are numerous and intricately interrelated, but interpersonal relationships, trust, and effective communication are key conditions for evaluators and stakeholders wishing to promote EU.

Appendix 1

2009 and 2011	Evaluation partners HS: HELP staff EE: External evaluators MoH: Ministry of Health representatives ER: Funding agency, ECHO, representatives AP: Advocacy partners
CONDITIONS	Verbatim
User
- User attitude (+ Change)	009_EE3: We are producing relatively interesting data that demonstrate very interesting effects of the project but also particular problems and to my surprise, because often it does not always work, in this case we feel an NGO and people ... (managers), very open to evaluation, very open to criticism which is rarely the case by these NGOs and a real willingness to use what we did. And in fact, we realize in the following months that they really took our recommendations into consideration. They really changed their way of doing things and their way of doing interventions. 2009_EE7: A: I would say that the receptivity of people, from the beginning they were receptive! 2009_HS23: R: Everywhere, they had submitted the (confidentiality) forms as you did to explain that people are free to participate or not, that it’s confidential and it’s just to improve and to see how the work is going, if we can improve and what we can improve. So we have not seen people withdraw or say no I do not want to participate. People were happy and they joined/adhered.
- Utility perception	2011_HS7: the R4 (sub-program) is normally is the light of Help. It is this subprogram that normally sheds light on what we are doing by capturing in analytic form the way in which we actually intervene at the level of this project .... So, this sub-program helps us to explain our intervention by hel** to identify what works and what works less well ... of course it is useful, from the moment that it helps us to explain situations and it gives arguments to do our work. Because these reports are submitted but there is also an effort of simplification. Through poster presentations and Policy Briefs, there are there are Policy Briefs that result from these studies and enable access to a wide public.
- Expertise (real) (+ change)	2011_HS22: The team was really receptive. The people, they listened. I think it’s because the field seemed impenetrable. Yes, so, people were listening with great interest, but the field seemed impenetrable, we did not understand much about it. So, a little time was necessary before people were able to understand. It’s like I said, the field of research is not given to everyone. So when we come and talk about gibberish, sometimes even the wording of the research question, people do not understand. They did not understand what the research objective was, what we were looking for, it took time for people to understand these things and personally I confess there are aspects that I did not master very well. Especially, the aspect: data production and data dissemination. At first, frankly, we did not really know what it was particularly the diffusion part, but as we went along with the implementation of certain activities, it enabled us to understand. And we even we even became actors in the diffusion activities and actors in the implementation of certain research projects. So, that helped us a lot.
- Expertise (perceived) (+ change + jargon)	2011_HS7: Well, when I say that sometimes there are concepts that are a little technical with which I am not very familiar it doesn’t mean that I don’t always understand what is said but I mean that I don’t go in the details. I cannot partake in a debate on whether this type of data collection strategy is reliable and it enables us to get the information we need. No, I can’t partake in such discussions because it is not at all my field. 2011_HS2: In fact, I think there is an increasing interest on my part. At the beginning, I had just arrived and even the goal of leading a project like this on the field was already a huge challenge for me, it was really a challenge to take on. And it was as if these super intelligent researchers were coming and for me, I didn’t have to get involved in the research you know, because I could only slow them down because I didn’t measure up, so there was that also separating us. And also, I wasn’t trained in research so when people spoke to me about research, or about a research protocol, I didn’t know what it was, I didn’t know what a qualitative study was or a quantitative study and the interviews you know, all of that it exceeded me. When technical terms are used it scares you, you don’t even…. Hmmm… however, it was nothing too complex, it was just terms but I felt that I wasn’t in my place.
- Participation	2011_EE8: After they more or less collaborated, you know people who say they would like to be involved. Some people would say that but between their words and their actual interest to collaborate…
- Proactiveness (+ Organisational culture)	2011_EE8: I think is linked to the development of an evaluation culture. And why he (a HELP staff member) exactly it was because he was receptive and proactive, not just saying yes yes it’s good to talk about it. He demonstrated that he is interested, he acted and did things. There was an international conference on health promotion in which we had a short session to present different research results and communications from our project and he came. He took part in the delegation and he presented, that is an example.
- Mandate	2011_HS22 (following the question: what facteurs promote people’s tendency to participate in, or to use, evaluations): I think the principal facteurs are according to the field (of work) and the other factor I believe is… hmmm the position, or the interim position that we hold, (ex. of management) when the manager was not there, and since everything usually went through her we often had the opportunity to be involved, when we replaced her.
Organisation
- Culture	2009_EE3: so the idea for me in my head is that I do an evaluation for an NGO that I know or don’t know and that it will be really really difficult because I have a long experience in evaluating NGO where often the evaluation reports are not used at all because the NGO’s are not well organized or because they don’t want to use it or etc.… 2011_HS2 (looking back on 2009): so I think that by the nature of things it was not easy to integrate the evaluation strategy to the other three (subprograms of the exemption program) as well as the three other subprograms integrate together. So the other (evaluation strategy) was a little, well a little external whereby studies would be undertaken on this or that without the feeling that there was a comprehensive plan or that it was discussed with the team. 2009_EE27: R: it’s really nice, especially the HELP team, they were always really really nice. They really helped me, they were always there when I need a hand et all. They were welcoming, smiling. It was a nice atmosphere.
- Engagement	2009_EE8: (I am) happily surprised by the continuity of their position, of their interest for these documentation/ evaluation activities that were not, let’s say, easily integrated in their usual humanitarian aid mandate at ECHO such as saving lives. Despite all of that they keep supporting us, encouraging us in spite of budgetary restrictings mostly, there was no pressure to eliminate these kinds of activities, which would be the easiest solution for them. So there is a real desire on their end, a real interest for sll of this (evaluation/documentation activities). 2009_HS (management): so we are also in a consultation group with these (other) NGOs; we see each other once a month, often more, especially with the active stakeholders and so they accompany and we do it! We really try to use the data but not only for us, it’s good because we put that in our project.
- Leadership	2009_EE3: with HELP, the follow-up story there is that when they (HELP decision makers) decided to try to replicate the same project in Burkina Faso (as in Niger) as they knew that I had worked in Burkina Faso, that it went well... so at the same time that they wrote their funding application to Echo for the Burkina project, they immediately consulted me. Usually NGOs go out looking for researchers or evaluators only once they have written their project, they have the money and need someone to do the assessment. There it was different, that’s why we managed to do all that.
- Resources (financial)	2011_HS11: I think for the participants, it had an effect. Now, this effect deserves to be maintained or uplifted. Otherwise, if we limit ourselves to one research and if there are no other partners who will finance the research, the knowledge will degrade and the effects will not be long lasting. Perhaps if at this time there was another research theme with a little funding, we will see that after two or three research projects, people will be able, without anyone behind, to properly conduct research and may be look for knowledgeable people to often read their writings/reports. But if nothing is done, these effects will disappear by then. (Q: So it would be early reinforcement?) HS11: yes! It’s good to have a foundation, but you have to work to consolidate and strengthen that foundation.
- Resources (time)	2011_HS11: However, the difficulty at one point was that the members of the action research team did not have the time since there were those of the ECD (équipe cadre de district/district management team) and at some point, the research was suffering terribly, since they could no longer move forward because they also had all the activities of the district too. So it was necessary to send reminder letters, to call, to send mails, to even review the planning of the various research stages to further postpone, to allow the people to advance. So I think there has been a change in the timeline twice.
- Communication	2009_HS: often he’s embarrassed because people come here, and then, they do things, he does not even know, they even take decisions and everything and so it is, but it’s a matter of communication even among us too I believe. Yes!
- Objectives	2009_HS2: no I think, in fact, all the evaluations are not incorporated in the daily work, these are things that come one at the time; we say we will evaluate that then we will evaluate that etc. There are some evaluations that require a lot of work and it’s true, I feel like, I feel it’s an extra work load but those that do not require additional work is when they are aware that it is useful etc. And sometimes they have trouble because evaluations can disrupt our activities we are planning to do. For example, in the health subprogram for example, the supervisions etc. They had trouble understanding that all our vehicles were needed for this evaluation study, they did not understand, since for them, the feeling they had was that the evaluation is more important than our own activities, those we do every day etc. and it did not go down very well.
- Needs conscensus	2011_HS7: I’m more at the stage where the studies begin (…), right at the start, we discuss these with the Université de Montréal to clarify the interest of exploring these themes for us, for our project…
Knowledge
- Aligned with need	2011_HS7: R4 (the evaluation strategy subprogram) It’s us, we are the ones making the request, we are the ones who need R4 (the evaluation strategy). It’s very complementary what we do. That said, it is us who must facilitate the work of R4 so that they can give us the information we need as answers to all the questions that arise around the user-fee exemption program.
- Accessible	ER: (following the question: you have access to the documentation that is produced to HELP?) Yes it is shared. We ourselves receive and try to dissiminate that at the level of the actors and our key partners. Each time we receive the documents so when there are people who pass when we go somewhere also with our advocacy work we try to put the documents on the table and discuss the points that are in the documents we are really on this advocacy every day.
- Applicable	2009_HS7: We had, EE3, I believe an evaluator who did a field study, even before we got the final results and who said at the HELP level, people do not have the information that the access to care is free in some villages. And so, there are women who still go to health facilities and who pay. This is very good information for us. It is true that in our indicators it was said that all target groups have free access to 90% care. But if we’re told “no, no, it’s not true because we have seen people who do not have access” that’s good information. We must know why, that, it interests us, to look and see that there are flaws in our system. So we decided, we will formalize the information, we will write a roadmap where we will explain who has access to care, what are the terms, when a patient arrives how it is done, and we will give to all health workers, we will post the information in all health facilities. We will do a program on the radio and then we will explain in addition to the work that the facilitators do every day by going to the villages to sensitize the community. We will redo all this. Like that nobody will say I was not aware. But if we had not had this feedback we would not get it! 2011_HS10: And it’s like a training that leads to the development of a protocol and the execution of action research and so there were various themes each chose the theme in relation to what he could identify in his district as a problem and he formulates the theme of the research.
- Timely	2009_ HS11: (discussing the action research project) well, it’s simple since there is first the training and the themes had already been determined for each team and a blueprint of the procedures had already been explained so that each team could follow the procedures. Well, I was responsible for ensuring that the teams get to work immediately and follow the steps that had been planned. However, the difficulty at one point was that the members of the action research team did not have time since it involved people from ECD (district management team) and at some point, the research was suffering terribly, since they had their work activities for the district too so they could no longer move forward with the research. So it was necessary to send reminder letters, to call, to send mails, to even review and modify the planning of the various stages, to give time allowing people to advance. So I think the timeline planned was modified twice. s
KT Strategy
- Fits needs	2009_ER31: A: Yes we share all the information and every time there is a document that comes out, it is in relation to this document that we try to review the whole advocacy strategy and its implementation. So these are documents that we use a lot at our organization (OE). It is very useful and very relevant to us; to advance in our advocacy because so long as we do not have documents of evaluations that have been realized that enable us to work with the partner, to see what has been done and what still must be done, we will not advance. So for us it is very important. 2009_ER20: I’m pretty comfortable with the pace of things because what is being published is on relevant and interesting topics. I know of other projects where systematic reviews are undertaken but the topics, quality and interest of the publications were suffering. But I’m pretty comfortable with how it’s going and I would not want to comment otherwise on it. Because it’s also part of that trust that we have, there’s no lack of interest to publish when it’s needed and when it’s relevant. You see? 2011_HS22: That is to say that the recommendations, there should incentives to the implementation of the recommendations, for the leaders of HELP. That is, it should lead to recommendations for HELP in general. In fact, there should even be a more active incentive to implement this recommendation. However, it’s true that I am not even aware of a recommendation that has not been implemented but... Q: I’m not sure I understand, to apply? R: That’s it! How to do it, how to apply/implement it, what opportunity can we have for ... here, that’s it. Q: It’s not like one needs to show why would be important? R: no Q: So more showing how to implement? A: How and even follow-up to remind them. Q: Do a follow-up? A: Yes, Follow-up on the implementation of the recommendations. It is to attract attention. It’s true, it’s too much to ask them perhaps, but as they are involved in the projects, it’s one of the benefits of having them next door. 2011_HS11: Yes, it answered information needs. And I think it was really a good opportunity. In any case, the factors that facilitated these studies is that they were conducted on our own field, that means that studies were opening doors to allow us to look better inside, so it was the field of study was very well targeted, it really seemed like a mirror. It reflected the true image of the thing we are trying to understand and because it was very easy to import results from somewhere else or at least tell us the results achieved when we did this and so forth. So the studies were realistic and specific to our work context.
- Tailored to EPs	2011_HS2 (looking back to 2009) here I think that by nature it was not easy to integrate this component (evaluation strategy) to the 3 others (part of the exemption program), as well as the 3 other project components were well integrated, intermingled in fact even in terms of their activities which came together. The other (evaluation) was a little bit, like a little bit external. So then they came to study this or that without the feeling that it was planned in common or discussed with the team.
- Adapted	2011_EE8: I think there are limitations in the end because we do different things, etc. Their responsibility is the implementation. It’s not the, documentation. And, with people there is what you say and what you do. Effort is needed certainly, it is now clear that reports were not worth sending. Because nobody read them, but it was not only internally (HELP), it was also external (partners).
- Interpersonal relationships	2009_ER20: Because it’s also part of that trust, there’s no lack of interest in publishing when it’s needed and when it’s relevant. You see? We do not have this type of relationship, it is not a contractile relationship that can be found elsewhere where there is a certain quota of publications required, for example. We are not at all in this situation. 2009_MoH14 (discussing relations with HELP): It’s just for that, since it’s more of a fraternal relationship than a working relationship, because, and by the way it makes things easier. 2009_HS10: It also makes it so that the teams who conducted the research together, it makes a connection and then it allows interpersonal relationships to build and that facilitates more mingling and easy communication between HELP and its partners.
- Exchange mechanisms	2011_HS2: HS2: Yes. Even before I left Ouaga, I was more and more involved from the moment they felt that I was interested, from the moment that when they sent me an email I took the time to answer point by point and they felt that so instead of sending me an email they sent me 5 and then it was 10 they felt that there was a return so it’s positive. 2009_MoH25: the intervention by Help and then often the studies. We made this accessible in all health centers... but as here people have a phobia of reading, they do not want to read so often it means that people do not have the information and yet the information is delivered in their lockers. (Q: did you take a time to read these documents?) Yes a lot. And then with the meetings they were organizing and they came and were presenting what was done ... (They were saying here) you remember we came in between such times, we asked for this and that and it is this person who has ... when he (an evaluator) came to Dori and presented the results of his studies, I was there, so all that there are meetings that, as I said ... that allows us to lend ourselves more to the studies and such activities.
- Common language	2009_HS23: R: Yes, and I was explaining clearly, she had evaluators, but since I explained clearly the women understood me better! Q: Did you speak in the same language as they? R: yes yes, peuhl. 2011_HS22: The team was really receptive. The people, they listened. I think it’s because the field seemed impenetrable. Yes, so, people were listening with great interest, but the field seemed impenetrable, we did not understand much about it. So, a little time was necessary before people were able to understand. It’s like I said, the field of research is not given to everyone. So when we come and talk about gibberish, sometimes even the wording of the research question, people do not understand. They did not understand what the research objective was, what we were looking for, it took time for people to understand these things and personally I confess there are aspects that I did not master very well. Especially, the aspect: data production and data dissemination. At first, frankly, we did not really know what it was particularly the diffusion part, but as we went along with the implementation of certain activities, it enabled us to understand. And we even we even became actors in the diffusion activities and actors in the implementation of certain research projects. So, that helped us a lot.
- Timing	2011_HS2: then the results did not come, it’s as if in monthly meetings for example we did not update on the progress of activities etc. ... and people had trouble understanding where it was at, what was happening with all the data they came to take, where was it going, what was it going to be used for, etc...
- Participatory	2009_HS9: HS9: Yes it is a very participative process and that is the particularity because throughout the process, they participated in the analysis of the situation to identify all the problems and they also participated in the process, from defining their protocol and chosing the data collection material. And they went, even went to find employees or they themselves supervised the data collection and the analysis was also done by them and they drew the conclusions, that allows them to appreciate the relevance of what they drew as conclusion and actions that can be, that can be recommended from these results. We think that it is the interest of this approach.
- Monitoring	2009_HS9: for the process, there was a follow-up to find out if the teams had followed the different steps. Now once the last activity, the presentation of the results had taken place in July so, there would be the follow-up, it would be after, seeing that the teams implement the conclusions they drew from their research. That’s probably later that they should do it.
Evaluator(s)
- Interpersonal skills	ER20: In fact we contacted (a senior evaluator) because he was known as a specialist of the field internationally because of his publications and his commitment and I think that I put forward his commitment. He is someone who apart from the fact that he is extremely talented and has a huge list of publications it is also someone who, for us, who is a collaborator who really, eh how they say, someone who is without pretence. Someone who really wants to dig deeper together on the relevance but is also someone who is very nice to work with and so it makes a lot of things easier. And I think he has trust in us over the months and years. At least that’s how I feel it.
- Collaborative attitude	2011_EE8: After we collaborate, well I do not know what people can say about the project, but afterall we cannot wish for too much integration because the R4 component (evaluation strategy) is different from components 1, 2 and 3 (HELP projects) which are all directly related to the implementation of the exemption. So they have an obligation, and they are all together speaking from a geographical point of view, but they are working on the same thing, in the implementation of the project. We do something different, so at a given moment, it’s normal also that there are distinctions. We do not participate directly in the implementation, it’s normal and we do not complain. They are not directly involved in evaluation activities and to some extent it is normal. What I mean is that I’m not against integration, but at the same time, it’s normal, so we should not try to exaggerate in the other direction and sometimes from the moment when we ask ourselves the question of integration, there are people who... who can think that they do not do enough things together, with..., but everyone has their own field of activity, their own responsibility also.
- Communication (change) or communication clash	HS 2: For example, (one of the evaluators) from what I see since the beginning of the project so far, I see a very strong evolution of his ability even to share and translate these activities so that everyone understands. When I see his presentations from his beginnings and those from now I find that he has really improved. 2009_HS (concerning the lack of communication with the evaluators): yes and then information that must be shared, you can not send us someone and then say here and then there are evaluators who arrive and who want to sit at the desk there! And nobody knows what they are doing! In fact it’s something that is written somewhere in the big project document, we said we’ll do this, that’s good and we have to do it to get results, that’s clear, but when they plan to come we have to what phase is about to happen and why!
- Mentoring	2011_HS10: they accompanied us to elaborate the protocols and to accomplish them. That’s a little they way that I see it ... So it’s not like a protocol that is emailed to you and that you co-write. It’s more of a supported activity like that over time. 2011_HS11: I think for the participants, it had an effect. Now, this effect deserves to be maintained or uplifted. Otherwise, if we limit ourselves to one research and if there are no other partners who will finance the research, the knowledge will degrade and the effects will not be long lasting. Perhaps if at this time there was another research theme with a little funding, we will see that after two or three research projects, people will be able, without anyone behind, to properly conduct research and may be look for knowledgeable people to often read their writings/reports. But if nothing is done, these effects will disappear by then. (Q: So it would be early reinforcement?) HS11: yes! It’s good to have a foundation, but you have to work to consolidate and strengthen that foundation.
- Adaptable (change + communication)	2009_HS2: But now it’s really improved, after that, even the evaluator was aware of that, but sometimes it’s a little rushed ... well, we discussed in meetings etc. as they were aware also they said good, now we will communicate better, so now, even when they discuss between themselves for example in Ouagadougou they leave us a copy so that we see what is going on... by internet, by email, or even skype! 2011_EE: (on the need to adapt the KT): we will adapt and try to adjust our strategies including our products (publications, presentations) etc., to circumvent these difficulties. The example of the evaluation reports is significant. The reports people do not read them so we have to see about writing 4 page notes (ex. policy briefs). Now if partners do not read 4 pages, well! Not reading a report we can understand, but 4 pages, we could always say good we could do otherwise, we could make a film every time we need to transfer information (knowledge), video clips for people to watch us, a song, dance or whatever.
- Credible expertise	2009_ER20: And it became a regional project where they really reinvested and they needed a hel** hand from more specialists to help with the protocol because it’s a country where it was not yet known, and we started with other partners on the same topic on the user-fee exemption and we got in touch with him (the principal evaluator) who we knew because he had already published, it’s not a big world, but it’s a specialist and that’s how the project has evolved.
- Network	HS10 (follows questions about the benefits of participating in the evaluations): it allowed me to update my knowledge and skills in the field. Then I was able to take advantage of the mingling with the other people on the team.
- Resources (institutional)	2009_HS: There are two organizations that are particularly concerned: it is (an NGO partner of HELP) and HELP. Because they planned it as part of their project the others joined in, they did not have these kinds of activites planned in their project and thus as it was planned by (the other NGO) and by HELP there were budgets and resources. The idea, the principle is: there is a principle of the use of resources to carry out these activities considering that it is mainly HELP and (the partner NGO) and after HELP acts as a motor organization because we have a planned this a little more so we have a little more resources; it is because we have a partnership with the University of Montreal, so HELP is the engine behind all of this… we figured, it is better to use external resources otherwise we risk drowning and not doing things well, not do it in time, or not being capable to do it. Therefore we sought the services of an external evaluator.
- Geographical distance	2011_HS2: So that’s the team that based in Dori because the project was at Dori but the R4 component that was studying it even if there were a lot of missions to Dori was still based in Ouaga, so it’s also a geographical distance. Between us we can exchange information, I went in the offices of some and even had informal discussions over a drink here and there but that made everything more cemented unlike the R4 component that even if they made the effort to share the information it was through written documents that arrived via the internet so here we read or we do not read and it was not in the same rhythm as the field team.
Other coded conditions
Change - evolution	2011_HS2: It’s all those who were not used to being in contact with that for which it caused a change. Now at the level of the partners it’s the same, there are some health workers who were involved and when you discuss with them they really say: we saw the evaluators come to take our data, “take our data” it’s even the expression they use, they came to take our data and go away etc. ... But after having participated in presentations, having seen that it served for something, having seen the results, it encouraged them to collaborate more even next time. 2011_HS2: (Q: Can you describe at this point the level of integration of the evaluation strategy (R4) in the exemption project)?: It is a good question because it has evolved a little I think over time, I do not know if I have to go back so far in time but at the beginning it was very separated actually, people had a hard time figuring out what the R4 was doing, and then as we said last time, it was often students who came to do their study and then they left without explaining exactly what it was. It was planned at the level of Ouaga and decided at the level of Ouaga and the research protocols were done at the level of Ouaga and then it happened at the level of Dori only when the logistics were needed on the field, in the end it was felt like that but it was not necessarily the case. Because there were documents circulating that were not necessarily read at the field level. In any case, it was very separate, it felt like that, whatever, to whomever the fault. And I also think that the two principal evaluators they did a lot of work to make it more and more integrated, but it was not easy because it was really different. The problems, the objectives differed a bit and it’s really when they started to involve the team members well and then also when the field team started to understand also the interest behind these studies, when they also started to see the results because when we take the household survey for example it was very long before having usable results but that’s where it started to integrate.
Clash - challenges	2011_HS10: Not catastrophic, but there are always difficulties. I think that once we had major difficulties where the budget that was planned, for example, was totally underestimated. So we had to request a supplementary budget and there we had to explain a lot a lot of times ... once we conducted a study, but we had not taken into account the season of the study, I think it was the rainy season and it was complicated, the vehicles got bogged down and the evaluators could not reach with their motorcycles the villages that had been sampled. Well it’s logistical difficulties like that.