QUICK LINKS
T9a: Matrix Ranking and Scoring of Animal Welfare Issues
T9b: Matrix Ranking and Scoring of Animal Service Providers
T9c: Matrix Ranking and Scoring of Sources of Credit
This PLA tool can support identification of community priorities related to a variety of topics, and you are encouraged to adapt the tool as needed to address topics relevant to your project. Step-by-step guidance for conducting this activity has been adapted from another matrix ranking/scoring tool for the following three topics: a) Animal Related Issues, b) Animal Service Providers, c) Sources of Credit [48].
T9a: Matrix Ranking and Scoring of Animal Welfare Issues
This tool uses a matrix diagram to compare animal-related issues based on community-identified reasons/criteria[1]. Matrix scoring and ranking differs from pair-wise scoring and ranking because it scores and ranks issues based on criteria agreed by participants during the exercise, rather than identifying priorities in relation to each other. This exercise enables participants and facilitators to identify priorities and gain a better understanding of the reasons underlying community’s preferences and choices and how the decision-making process happens within the group.
| Tool purpose: | Time needed: |
| • To support animal owning communities in identifying their priority animal-related issues to address • To identification of determining factors informing animal owning communities identification of priority issues. • To understand differences in priority animal welfare issues and the criteria used to inform prioritization when activity conducted and results compared between different groups (owners/users/carers, men/women). | 2 hours |
| Materials needed: | |
| chart paper, pens/markers or chalk/coloured dust, stones, pebbles, local materials (leaves, seeds, etc.) Pictures if available. |
Keyword Search Tags
Project Phase:
Planning Phase, Implementation Phase
Approaches for Working With Communities:
Community Development Approach, Community Engagement Approach
Stages of Change:
Contemplation Stage, Preparation Stage
Project Support:
Participatory Learning and Action Tools, Needs Assessment, Gender Analysis
Specific Topics:
Animal Husbandry and Management
Matrix ranking and scoring of animal-related issues
Matrix ranking and scoring can be used to identify and understand animal-related issues based on reasons/criteria agreed by participants. The tool can similarly be used with a greater focus on animal diseases specifically.
In the example below (Figure T9a), members of animal-owning households prioritized their working animal-related issues in terms of those felt to be most problematic, scoring each issues out of five and then ranking them. The group agreed to use frequency, severity/change of death, treatment cost, potential loss of work/income, challenging to treat to score and rank each issue. They agreed that 5 would be most serious/severe and 0 would be least serious/severe. The animal-related issue that had the highest cumulative score would be ranked as the number one priority, as it has the most severe consequences for the animal-owning households.
Figure T9a Matrix scoring and ranking of working animal-related issues
As a result of this exercise, participants identified lameness (19) as being the most significant issue, with colic (16) and hoof problems (16) were the second most important animal-related issues for the community. They decided to explore these issues further in their next session to understand the root causes.
| Scoring and Ranking of Animal-related Issues | |
|---|---|
| Step 1 | Start by asking participants to prepare a list of animal-related issues. This could also be informed by previous discussions or tools. Alternatively, ask the group what animal-related issues can be or have been a problem in the past. It is important that the community come up with their own ideas and not be led by the facilitator. Ask the helper to draw a matrix and list the animal-related issues in the first column. |
| Step 2 | Ask the group which issues are most problematic and note the reasons why. Once the first reason is identified, encourage the group to think about other reasons. Try to group similar reasons together, such as loss of work and loss of income (Figure 9a). Have the helper add the reasons/criteria along the top row of the matrix. If there are too many criteria, encourage participants prioritise the most important ones. Once identified, assist participants in framing the criteria as either all positive or all negative, which will keep scoring consistent and prevent confusion. For example, criteria related to cost may be framed positively as affordable or negatively as costly. Using both positive and negatively framed criteria together (e.g. easy to address (+), costly (-) might confuse the ranking or scoring process, by mixing high scores with negative meaning and positive meaning. In T9a example, 5 = serious/severe/problematic, while 0 = non-serious/mild/non-problematic. |
| Step 3 | Ask the group to score the animal-related issues listed in the first column against each of the criteria listed along the top row using up to five seeds or stones. Allow enough time for an in-depth discussion on the reasons for chosen scores and consensus reaching. Have the helper take notes for the reasons for choosing each score. |
| Step 4 | Once completed, ask the group to total each row (issues) based on the scores. Then rank the issues with the highest ranking = 1, next highest =2, and so on. Facilitate the group to draw conclusions from the exercise by asking: • Which issue (row) had the highest and lowest scores? • Does everyone agree on the ranking? • What were the reasons for these scoring decisions (if not already identified)? • What is the significance of these scores to you? • Which issues are the highest priority to address and why? If participants express an interest in addressing their priority issues, encourage them to analyse the root causes or major contributing factors to their priority issues as a next step. |
| Step 5 | The matrix should be left with the community and prioritised issues added to a community action plan, which can be addressed later. Take a copy and add it to your project action tracker for future discussions and action planning |
Facilitation Notes
- Keep the group focused on the chosen topic, as this exercise has the potential to deviate from the original focus.
- Consciously or unconsciously, there may be a tendency for facilitators to include their own criteria, rather than those of the community. Encourage participants to come up with their own criteria and avoid inserting your own ideas. Some criteria may seem strange. If participants consider it important, it needs to be respected and rationale understood.
- Depending on the context, at the planning phase consider carrying out this activity separately between men and women or different groups of people (e.g. owners, users, carers) and compare the results. Differences in the roles people play in animals’ lives and/or how they depend on their animals to meet different needs can influence how people prioritize issues and make choices to act. Discuss any differences in their responses and reasons for those differences.
- Encourage participants to explore the root causes of welfare issues or challenges prior to planning actions; this will promote the identification of more effective and sustainable solutions. This can be part of discussions at the end of the activity or see next steps for recommended follow-up activities to support root cause analysis.
- Criteria should be either all positive or all negative: mixing positive and negative criteria can be confusing.
Next Steps
This activity can be followed by:
- T21 Animal Welfare Practice Gap Analysis, T26 Animal Welfare Cause and Effect Analysis and/or T25 Problem Animal to explore the identified root causes of priority animal-related issues or challenges.
- T15 Cost-Benefit Analysis to:
- Explore the costs and benefits to people and animals of different solutions to prioritized issues, including preventative and treatment options, thereby helping to generate motivation to take action
- Generate greater motivation to address non-prioritized issues by helping participants’ frame issues in terms of risks and opportunities
T9b: Matrix Ranking and Scoring of Animal Service Providers
This tool uses a matrix diagram to compare resource and service providers based on pre-determined criteria[1]. Matrix ranking and scoring differs from pair-wise ranking because it ranks or scores issues or items based on criteria agreed by participants during the exercise, rather than identifying priorities in relation to each other. This exercise enables participants and facilitators to identify priorities for animal-related resource and service providers and gain a better understanding of the reasons underlying community’s preferences and choices, and how the decision-making process happens within the group. Try to conduct this activity separately with owners, users and carers, including both men and women, or other relevant groups if they are likely to have different priorities.
| Tool purpose: | Time needed: |
| • To identify priority resource and service providers • To understand criteria animal-owning communities use to make choices in their use of resources and services • To compare differences in animal and resource service provider priorities and the underlying rationales informing choices between different groups (e.g. men and women, owners/users/carers). | 2 hours |
| Materials needed: | |
| Chart paper and markers or using sticks, stones, straw, local resources |
Keyword Search Tags
Project Phase:
Planning Phase, Implementation Phase
Approaches for Working With Communities:
Community Development Approach, Community Engagement Approach
Project Support:
Participatory Learning and Action Tools, Needs Assessment, Gender Analysis
Specific Topics:
Animal Health and Services
Matrix scoring of animal-related service providers
Service providers available in the locality are scored or ranked (see Figure T9b and T9c) against criteria participants identified as important to informing their use preferences. This exercise may be used to compare several providers of the same service (e.g. all the feed sellers) or may also be used to compare providers of different services (e.g. farrier vs agrovet vs community animal health worker etc.) Refer back to the results of T3 Venn diagram to understand the rationale for why participants rely on the animal resource and service providers. Consider using this activity to build upon the priorities identified in T8: Pairwise ranking of animal-related service and/or resource providers. However, the activity can be just as effective for prioritizing issues if used independently.
In the examples below, the services of five local animal health service providers were compared by participants within a community using a matrix scoring exercise.
Figure T9b Matrix scoring of preferences for local animal health service providers
Participants identified six criteria which they agreed were important to choosing a service provider: quality service, timely response, affordability, close proximity (distance), offers credit/repayment and friendliness/good relationship. They then scored each of the five service providers against each criteria using five seeds. Through a final discussion, participants decided to invite the prioritized health service provider to their next meeting to strengthen their relationships and negotiate a group rate for the service.
An example of the activity conducted using a ranking approach, rather than a scoring approach is also provided below for reference. The criteria are listed from top to bottom, with service providers listed from left to right. Participants were then asked to rank each service provider, against each of the criteria. The best service provider scored for the criteria was given a 1. Since there are five service providers, they would be ranked 1-5. In this example, some service providers were ranked equally and provided the same rank.
Figure T9c Matrix ranking of local animal health service providers
| Matrix Ranking and Scoring of Animal-related Service Providers | |
|---|---|
| Step 1 | Ask participants to identify a list of resource or service providers commonly used. You may wish to refer to results from the T3 Venn diagram activity to help create the list of relevant animal-related resource and service providers for this discussion if available. |
| Step 2 | Next, ask participants to discuss which resource or service providers they prefer to use over others, and ask what their reasons for this preference are. Have participants list all the criteria they identify as informing their preferences for difference service providers. The group can add as many criteria as possible they feel necessary, although if there are many criteria listed, encourage participants to sort out which are the most important ones. Once identified, assist participants to reframe the criteria as needed to ensure they are either all positive or all negative. For example, a criterion related to cost may be framed positively as affordable, or negatively as costly. It is important that all criteria used either be all positive, or all negative, to ensure consistency in scoring and avoid confusion that can result when calculating final scores or ranking at the end of the activity. |
| Step 3 | Matrix Scoring: For matrix scoring, draw a matrix on the ground with the service providers listed from top to bottom in the first column, and the criteria informing preferences for use across the top row from left to right. Then ask participants use up to ten seeds or stones to score each service provider against each criterion. Matrix Ranking: For matrix ranking, rather than using seeds to score each service provider against each criterion, draw a matrix on the ground with the criteria listed from top to bottom in the first column, and the service providers for ranking across the top row from left to right. Ask the group to rank all the items based on the first criterion they have chosen. Then rank them all based on the second criterion and so on, until the full list of items has been compared against all the agreed criteria. Allow enough time for in-depth discussion and analysis of the reasons for ranking or scoring and enough time to come to consensus. |
| Step 4 | When the ranking or scoring is complete, facilitate the group to draw conclusions from the exercise by asking questions. The following guiding questions may be useful for facilitating this discussion: • Who scored/ranked highest and lowest? Why? • What is the significance of these scores to you? • Do those results reflect the service providers you must rely on now? If not, why not? • Are you satisfied that the providers you currently rely on are the best options for meeting the needs of you and your animal? • Are there any issues preventing you from increasing your reliance on the high scored/ranking service providers? What would you suggest would need to be different to enable you rely on these service providers? • How might you be able to better access or strengthen your relationship with these high scored/ranked service providers? |
| Step 5 | Any identified priority issues or actions can be added to the community action plan for later discussion and action planning. The matrix should be left with the community. Take a copy and add any actions to take or follow up on to your project action tracker for future reference and planning. |
Facilitation Notes
- It is very important that the facilitator keep the group focused on the chosen topic, as this exercise has the potential to deviate from the original focus.
- Consciously or unconsciously, there may be a tendency for facilitators to include their own criteria, rather than those of the community. Encourage participants to come up with their own criteria and avoid inserting your own ideas. Some criteria may seem strange. If participants consider it important, it needs to be respected and rationale understood.
- Depending on the context, at the planning phase consider carrying out this activity separately between men and women or different groups of people (e.g. owners, users, carers) and compare the results. Differences in the roles people play in animals’ lives and/or how they depend on their animals to meet different needs can influence how people prioritize issues and make choices to act. Discuss any differences in their responses and reasons for those differences. If this activity is carried about by a single gender group (men’s or women’s group), information gathered from this activity can help inform your gender analysis and planning.
- Encourage participants to explore the root causes of welfare issues or challenges prior to planning actions; this will promote the identification of more effective and sustainable solutions. This can be part of discussions at the end of the activity or see next steps for recommended follow-up activities to support root cause analysis.
- Criteria should be either all positive or all negative: mixing positive and negative criteria can be confusing.
- Facilitators must be clear about the specific topic being examined to keep the group focused.
Next Steps
- This activity can be followed by T21 Animal Welfare Practice Gap Analysis, T26 Animal Welfare Cause and Effect Analysis and/or T25 Problem Animal to explore the identified root causes of priority animal-related issues or challenges.
- Use understandings gained about what motivates animal owning communities to choose one resource or service provider over another to inform the design of projects and/or strategies.
T9c: Matrix Ranking and Scoring of Sources of Credit
This tool has been adapted from another matrix ranking/scoring tool to use a matrix diagram to compare sources of credit based on pre-determined criteria [48]. Matrix ranking and scoring differs from pair-wise ranking because it ranks or scores based on criteria agreed by participants during the exercise, rather than identifying priorities in relation to each other. This exercise enables participants and facilitators to identify priorities and gain a better understanding of the reasons underlying community’s preferences and choices for credit providers, and how the decision-making process happens. Try to conduct this activity separately with owners, users and carers, including both men and women, or other relevant groups if they are likely to have different priorities.
| Tool purpose: | Time needed: |
| • To identify animal owning communities preferences for sources of credit and the criteria important to determining their priorities • To generate motivation amongst animal owning communities members to form a community savings group to improve access and availability of financial resources to meet their household and animal needs • To compare differences in priorities for sources of credit and the underlying rationales informing different groups’ priorities (e.g. men and women, owners/users/carers) | 2 hours |
| Materials needed: | |
| Chart paper, pens/markers or chalk/coloured dust, stones, pebbles, local materials (leaves, seeds, etc.) |
Keyword Search Tags
Project Phase:
Planning Phase, Implementation Phase
Approaches for Working With Communities:
Community Development Approach
Behavioural Drivers (COM-B):
Opportunity
Project Support:
Participatory Learning and Action Tools, Needs Assessment, Gender Analysis
Specific Topics:
Livelihoods,
Group Formation / Strengthening
Matrix ranking and scoring of sources of credit
In this adaptation of the tool, different sources of credit can be analysed against agreed criteria that group members consider important to deciding which source of credit to use to borrow money. Rather than ranking across each criteria, this example ranked credit sources at the end, to allow participants to provide greater details they felt important to distinguishing between different sources of credit within the matrix itself. This exercise can also be used to motivate community members to form a self-help/savings group if one does not already exist.
T9d Scoring & ranking of different sources of credit
The credit source analysis was carried out with a self-help group in an animal-owning community. Upon completing the chart, the group revealed the following:
- Two guarantors are required for credit eligibility from money lenders and banks, whereas only one guarantor is required co-operative societies.
- Banks and co-operative societies require land as collateral to be eligible for loans, whereas money lenders do not require land - they accepting jewellery as collateral instead.
- Individuals can access interest-free loans from relatives.
- Money lenders have the highest interest rate (6%), but can provide loans very quickly.
- Banks and co-operative societies have a lower interest rate (3-4%), but the application and approval process takes a long time.
- Only loans from self-help groups offer a 1% return of interest, and also offer a relatively low rate of interest (2%) in comparison with money lenders, banks and cooperative societies, as well a quick turnaround for accessing money.
- Borrowing credit from money lenders and/or relatives can be high risk/stressful, as they often come with unrealistic timelines and heavy pressure to return money quickly, and are much less forgiving if repayment is late.
Through this exercise, the group realised that the best source of credit would be from a self-help group. This prompted the group to decide to establish a self-help group to start saving money together, so they could begin lending money amongst members to help meet the needs of their animals and families. As a result of establishing a savings groups, group members were able to being quickly accessing low-interest loans with low stress, the only condition for accessing loans from the group was that they had to be an official group member in good standing in terms of meeting the established savings contribution requirements.
| Analysis of sources of credit using ranking | |
|---|---|
| Step 1 | Start by asking participants to discuss the different sources of credit and what is needed to access those sources. You can initiate the discussion by asking whom they might owe money to now or who they have borrowed from in the past. Draw a matrix either on the ground or on chart paper and list the sources of credit in a column. |
| Step 2 | Have the group discuss the reasons for choosing one source of credit over another. List the criteria considered when selecting a source of credit along the top row of the matrix. Examples of selection criteria might include: • Accessibility (ease of access) • Eligibility or collateral required • Interest rate charged • Interest rate returned (from contributions to a savings group) • Availability / timeliness of accessing loans • Loan repayment flexibility (instalments vs one lump sum) • Threat or stress associated paying back the loan The group can add as many criteria as they feel are relevant. If there are many criteria listed, encourage participants to prioritise the most important ones. |
| Step 3 | Have the group fill in the matrix criteria for each source of credit. Once identified, assist participants in framing the criteria as either all positive or all negative, which will keep scoring consistent and prevent confusion. For example, criteria related to accessibility may be framed positively as ‘ease of accesses, or negatively as ‘difficult to accesses. Using both positive and negatively framed criteria together e.g. easy to access (+), difficult to access (-) might confuse the ranking or scoring process, by mixing high scores with negative meaning and positive meaning. |
| Step 4 | Upon completion, ask the group to total each row based on the scores that they have assigned each criterion. If a self-help is identified as a credit option, consider ranking the sources of credit in addition to scoring. If a self-help group is not an option, it is not necessary to rank the sources of credit. In this case, it might be an appropriate time to introduce the option of a self-help group. Then, have the group rank the scores if a self-help group was identified, with the number one (1) having the highest score, number two having the second (2) highest score and so on. |
| Step 5 | Ask the group to draw conclusions from the exercise by asking: • What are some reasons for needing credit? • Which sources of credit are used most often to meet your needs? Do you use any of these sources of credit to help you meet the needs of your animals as well e.g. to pay for health services, or purchase feed or equipment? If have self-help groups have not been identified as a source of credit, then consider these discussion questions: • Based on the criteria and the results of this exercise, are you satisfied that the sources of credit you currently rely on are the best options to meet your credit needs? • What are the benefits of starting or joining a group like for example self-help group or animal welfare group or saving and credit cooperatives? |
| Step 6 | The matrix should be left with the community and opportunities to learn more about group formation and collective action activities added to a community action plan, which can be addressed later. Take a copy and add it to your project action tracker for future discussions and action planning. |
Facilitation Notes
- It is very important that the facilitator keep the group focused on the chosen topic, as this exercise has the potential to deviate from the original focus.
- Consciously or unconsciously, there may be a tendency for facilitators to include their own criteria, rather than those of the community. Encourage participants to come up with their own criteria and avoid inserting your own ideas. Some criteria may seem strange. If participants consider it important, it needs to be respected and rationale understood.
- Depending on the context, at the planning phase consider carrying out this activity separately between men and women or different groups of people (e.g. owners, users, carers) and compare the results. Differences in the roles people play in animals’ lives and/or how they depend on their animals to meet different needs can influence how people prioritize issues and make choices to act. Discuss any differences in their responses and reasons for those differences.
- Encourage participants to explore the root causes of welfare issues or challenges prior to planning actions; this will promote the identification of more effective and sustainable solutions. This can be part of discussions at the end of the activity or see next steps for recommended follow-up activities to support root cause analysis.
- Criteria should be either all positive or all negative: mixing positive and negative criteria can be confusing.
- Facilitators must be clear about the specific topic being examined to keep the group focused.
Next Steps
- This activity can be followed by T15 Cost-Benefit Analysis to explore the costs and benefits to people and animals of different solutions to credit sources, including alternative sources, thereby helping to generate motivation to take action.
- Use understandings gained about what motivates animal owning communities to inform the design of projects and/or strategies.