YouTube Instagram TikTok How it works FAQ

The fastest way to turn talking videos into clean, searchable text. Free, private and no account required.

About

Built by Rishav Raj with one goal: free transcripts for everyone.

rishav@yttotranscript.com

Transcribe

YouTube to text
YouTube with timestamps
Instagram Reels
TikTok videos

Learn

How it works
FAQ
YouTube transcripts guide

More

Chrome extension
Contact
Privacy policy
Terms of service

© 2026 YTtoTranscript. Made for creators & researchers.

Not affiliated with YouTube, Instagram or TikTok. Respect creators’ copyright.

Gestión para resultados — Transcript · YTtoTranscript

Home/Transcripts/YouTube

YouTube Transcript

Gestión para resultados

Adriana Muñoz Amores · 6,491 words · 32 min read · EN

Watch on YouTube

Share X LinkedIn WhatsApp

Below is the complete, readable transcript of Gestión para resultados by Adriana Muñoz Amores on YouTube. Read the full text, copy any part you need, or generate a transcript for any video with our free tool.

to address the topic with four subheadings, with four titles. A brief introductory note, a second point on criteria generating the new paradigm, a third point on activity, results, and a fourth point on results management in the project. Before we begin, I would like to invite you to look at this drawing. Look at that little drawing and see who can

tell me what they see there. Okay, very quickly, maybe you can take the roll or pass the floor, Adriana, and we'll listen to our colleagues tell us what they can see there. Quickly, quickly, without much. Yes. Who wants us to do it? They are, I feel like they are dancing. Pond ? Like dancing.

People dancing. That's it. Okay. People outside or inside a house. I see both sides of the story. Ah, correct. People outside or inside a house. Correct. What else? Who sees anything else? They

don't see anything else, do they ? I also see two people, whether they're dancing, arguing, or something like that, because they're very close, but not that close . Okay. Okay. Who else wants to say something?

Okay, fine, let's leave it at that. We'll come back to it at the end of the talk. I'm going to try to make this talk a little faster-paced, okay? so as not to delay too long. Um, as an introductory note, I would like to bring up what has traditionally been the concept of a project and what we

have traditionally understood by project. When we started university, they told us, "Look, a project is an ordered set of activities that aim at or are directed toward the pursuit or achievement of certain objectives or a common purpose." And then this idea of an ordered set of activities took hold of us, it was easily internalized. And

Transcribe another video

Paste any YouTube, Instagram or TikTok link to get a free transcript.

Free · No sign-up · Unlimited

Add to Chrome — transcribe in one click

you see, that idea isn't far- fetched at all. This concept of a project has been around for many years, and precisely in our universities, in our academia, we adopted this concept of a project and continue to legitimize it, unfortunately. That is, a project understood as a set of more or less ordered activities

that aim at achieving the same objective, or the same objectives. However, this paradigm is beginning to shift, it's beginning to falter, and we'll see why in the following lines. Where does this idea of a project, the one we just mentioned, originate? Well, it originates from the liberal tradition, right? Which fundamentally accompanies it. The

development of the sector, what we know today as the private sector, that is, all businesses, right? Where, from the Industrial Revolution onward, when the raison d'être of that Industrial Revolution, of that new development model that was imposed, was defined—remember that to speak of a grand model, not a model, but let's say the

great paradigm of development that pre-existed industrial development, is agriculture, right? So, when the machine appeared, new ways of understanding the world emerged, new ways of seeing the world, and the machine was going to be, let's say, the fundamental factor of change. From there comes the Industrial Revolution and with it the concept of activity

as the center of this, which later, much later, in the 1960s, would be known as a project, right? And when it was coined as such, in its definition it was understood as an ordered set of activities for a fundamental reason: because for the logic of the Industrial Revolution to operate, for it to

function, there has to be efficiency. Look, efficiency and activity are two sides of the same coin and are fundamental; that is, we have to To understand them. Activity is meaningless if a notion of efficiency doesn't exist, if it isn't created during the industrial development process . Why? Because efficiency is going to be

that cost-time relationship. And it will tell us how quickly, how rapidly, a good result is obtained in the shortest possible time and at the lowest possible cost. This notion of efficiency is absolutely a notion anchored in pre- capitalist thinking, right? From pre-capitalism to all of capitalist development, the entire concept of capital accumulation is going to be based

on the notion of efficiency. The more efficient we are, the more developed we are. Although the word "development" will appear much later, let's say that we will be more developed . But that's where we come from; we drag this notion of efficiency to this day, and we still believe it. We believe that if we are not efficient, we are not

developed, and vice versa, we are not developed because we are not efficient, right? They begin to appear Major social phenomena legitimize and also begin to question this model, this concept. Then comes World War II and cybernetics, and Bertalanffy with the concept of systems, which you studied previously . Systems engineering and systems theory emerge from the

contributions of Autof. And from the perspective of what we, as people in the field of social sciences, have been working on, when we receive the first materials on projects, what comes to us is obviously already packaged, already fully formed. We receive a series of tools, right? Tools and techniques for project management and direction.

And among those tools, one that you know very well— imagine how many years it's been around since 1915—is the famous Gantt chart. Who among you hasn't made a Gantt chart, a Gantt diagram, to create a work schedule? It's been around since 1915 , imagine that. I mean, it's absolutely... Nothing. Back in 1941, people from the Goodar

Company developed the break-even line method. The American aviation industry has been talking about the notion of a learning curve since the 1940s. The United States Navy developed tools like the milestone method. Hmm. You 've seen the milestone method applied in countless charts and documents. And from the 1950s onward, within this world of

tools, people started talking about the PT CPM method, for example, the Critical Path Method, and the PT CPM evaluation program. Long before computers appeared and their use became widespread, we learned this on the ground in university. They taught us to make diagrams, like this one you see here, where each little circle is an

activity—excuse me, an event—and each little arrow is an activity. So, there's always an activity between two events. There's an initial event and a final event, linked by... An activity. There are two types of activities: real ones and fictitious ones. And CPM consists of drawing the critical path, that is, the sequence of a

set of activities that cannot be extended beyond a certain number of days or hours and that also cannot be shortened by more than a certain number of days or hours. And that was what was called the critical path. And this was done manually, marking the earliest and latest times above each event .

Earliest and latest times in each case. And the one where it didn't matter to us at the beginning, 40 out of 40, was what marked the critical path. And this, of course, was done—I repeat, I remember doing it in the 80s—when they were just starting to use the huge IBM hard drives in computers

with operating disks, in a disk format that you had to insert into the machine. 5.15 GB, well, that doesn't exist anymore. Suddenly, applications started to appear . With the advance of digitization Applications began to appear. Today we have project management software, Super Project Timeline, Microsoft Project, a huge number of tools, all of which

have the same purpose: to organize activities over time so that we can be efficient. But what kind of projects were we talking about? We were talking about industrial projects, right? We were talking about projects where you input the raw materials. There's a large black box that processes the raw materials, and at the end of that

black box, results emerge—that is, materials with specific added value. In other words, it's the concept of industrialization. That's what I want to emphasize in this part of the talk. It's precisely the prevailing concept of industrialization that will shape our understanding of projects as ordered sets of activities aimed at achieving a goal. Agreed? This is very

important. There's nothing else up to that point. Nothing else. In Latin America, we're in the 1960s, back in the In 1960, precisely as a result of the emergence of the Cuban Revolution, challenged by Fidel Castro and his team in Cuba, and under the fear on the part of the United States that a large part of

Latin America, which had been left completely battered after World War II, could also fall into the communist or socialist bloc of countries, as Cuba was already doing in the early 1960s, a program called the Alliance for Progress was conceived during the John Kennedy administration. It was signed in Punta del Este, Uruguay, in 1962.

And then they began to think about projects to recover, just as had been done in Europe. Immediately after World War II, with the Marshall Plan, a kind of Marshall Plan for Latin America was proposed, known as the Alliance for Progress, and then projects followed. But what projects? Projects exactly the same, industrial projects, right?

The economy of Latin America had to be improved, the the condition of the poor in Latin America through projects. Projects are improvement units, they are purposes of improvement and, in this sense of development, without going into that yet, obviously, and there are a whole bunch of other uses, right? And institutes appear, universities appear, there's

the Haitian School in Boston, which is one of the most famous and prestigious universities in the world. Having a master's degree from MIT is truly a sign of great prestige, and from the development that MIT has, or rather, the connection that MIT has with the management teams of Latin America, specialized institutions emerge, and in

Latin America, specifically in Central America, the Central American Institute of Business Administration is established, which obviously develops, supports, and trains important contingent groups of people from the business world, since they continue to understand this concept of development as what we just explained, right? And so this reaches us with a great ambivalence in the

terminology. So, now you, as a social work student, when you come across The projects, uh, suddenly they introduce , so to speak , concepts that start to fall apart, that we do n't like very much, that don't seem right to us, and that are investment projects. Then you ask yourself, "But I studied social work, I'm

going to work with people, [clears throat] I'm going to work with groups of people, I'm going to work with men and women, with boys and girls, uh, in a hospital, in a specific institution or in a specific community, and do I do investment projects? I mean, do I dedicate myself to building bridges or constructing buildings or

roads?" Already. And it turns out that all the language that reaches us when we talk about projects is precisely the language of these projects that reflects these prominent concepts, that of investment projects, where the design and formulation of the project goes through a pre-feasibility study, later a feasibility study. When we do the pre-feasibility study, we put together

market studies, technical studies, and economic studies. And when we talk about project evaluation, we talk about economic evaluation, financial evaluation, and also social evaluation, with a very small chapter there known as the famous shadow prices. But the main focus, when talking about projects, the main focus, the most important aspect of the attention and the

courses on projects that we received, is fundamentally the handling of two tools. One called IRR, the internal rate of return, right? And the other one is the net present value, the NPV of the projects, which allows us to measure the profitability of the project, that is, to determine through a couple of arithmetic operations if what I am calling a

project is going to be profitable and attractive. Look how interesting, damn it. So it turns out that this is the crux of the paradigm that we have traditionally, I repeat, understood as a project. But now you say, "Listen, what good is this to me if I work with the indigenous women of the No Burgue region of

Chiriquí in Panama?" Oh, dear. How that top spins on my fingernail. And that's precisely where the challenge lies. So we have to realize that this notion of activity is behind that concept of project, right? This notion of activity has to be questioned. Hm. And we enter a conceptual crisis after many years of

developing international cooperation; international cooperation agencies, countries, even governments say, "Hey, but we've been fighting poverty for years." Do you remember? Some of you, I imagine, work for IMAS. The Mixed Institute of Social Aid, which was founded in Costa Rica, if I remember correctly, in the early 70s, was established by Father Armando Alparo under

the government of Don Pepe Filip the Elder, who gave it its current form . When IMAS was created, its statutes and charter clearly state that it is an institution designed to close the gap between rich and poor. I remember very well that when Limas celebrated its 30th anniversary, I don't know if it was around that time, there was a

famous presentation event, and the CEO at the time said, "Look, not only have we failed to close the gap between rich and poor, but it has become so enormous, so vast, so wide, that we would need another 100 years to do all this, because Limas was established with a time horizon that, if I

remember correctly, was for 40 years . So, he was saying , we would need another 100 years to continue working to close this gap. What did he mean? He meant, well, this issue of poverty is becoming increasingly unmanageable, you know? And indeed, it's somewhat the same situation for Latin America in general, but we are beginning

to witness some changes, right?, changes that tell us that inequity, injustice, and inequality are facets, are aspects of poverty." It's not poverty understood exclusively in terms of income, but rather from a variety of perspectives, right? And a series of premises we've been working with are starting to create a crisis. The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is going to start

working on a very interesting concept called results-based management. Back in the 1990s, the CIDA, as it was called at the time, began to be questioned. It was a kind of ministry and reported directly to the Canadian Parliament. And then the members of Parliament, so to speak, the members of Congress, the Canadian representatives, came and told the

agency, "Look, the agency has been supporting developing countries to eradicate poverty for over 50 years, but it hasn't been achieved, and the situation is much more serious." We can't continue working with the models we've been using." What were the models we've been working with? We've been working, a little bit, with some technical tools. Among

them, the most widely used, the most famous technical tool, is the very famous logical framework, which you've heard about on several occasions. The United States, through USAID, the United States Agency for International Development, had already given shape to the logical framework, right? And the Canadians said in the 90s, well, look, something is failing here because

we keep talking about projects, yes, but poverty isn't decreasing, it's not changing, it's just getting wider and wider . Right? And then a new notion begins to take hold, which is the notion of results-based management, but it does n't do so on its own; there are also a lot of other movements and

other institutional phenomena that begin to appear. As early as the 80s, people started talking about New Management, right? And that new management, that New Management, was A new management approach applied and applicable to public sector institutions. And then, when the concept of projects is no longer confined exclusively to the use of a tool

like the logical framework, which remains very useful and very good, these organizations, especially, I repeat, the Canadian International Development Association (CIDA), say that what we have to do is not change tools, but change strategy. So, the problem isn't instrumental, the problem is strategic. Hmm. And when they say it's strategic, it starts to

get to the heart of the matter because, what is, what was the motive, what was the reason for the project's existence? As we were saying, it was the activity. They say, "No, look, it's not the activity, it 's not what you do, it's what you achieve, it's what you accomplish." That should be the center.

What you achieve should be the focus of our concern, what is accomplished, and then this notion of results-based management appears, which establishes this change. It's not what we do, but what we achieve, and it's already beginning to establish itself as a new paradigm. If you like, in 2005 there was a meeting in Paris, France,

of international cooperation agencies called Aid Effectiveness and there the notion of results management was enshrined and established as a notion of general use. What are the criteria that generate this new paradigm? Well, fundamentally it is the expansion and consolidation of the notion of development, uh, human development, sustainable development. Important theorists have already appeared

in Latin America; we cannot fail to mention under any circumstances Manfred Marnif, Antonio Elizalde, and Martín Copain, who develop the notion of human-scale development. Hopefully tomorrow, if Adriana invites us and offers us a coffee, we can talk about the concept of step-by-step development. These criteria generating the new paradigm are the management models for development,

the reforms of the public sector, and the concern for effectiveness for development. I will briefly touch upon these three elements only to clarify where we are and consequently what we mean by project. Peter Drocker was already talking about management by objectives and management by results in the 1950s, although it wasn't exactly the same

notion of management for results that was coined in 2005. But it still focused on activity as its central analysis . Already. Uh, I remember that my dad was an accountant, he was an accountant who studied by correspondence. We lived in Guanacaste, in Tilarán, in Arenal de Tilarán. There was no Arenal lake yet, nor was there

electric light at that time. My father loved numbers from a very young age . So, I studied by correspondence with Gentle School and one other school. I think that was Castro Caros, one of those places that was there. And then he began to study accounting, which at that time was not called accounting, but

bookkeeping. I know I'm speaking a language that's probably exotic to some of you, but that's what accounting was called here in Costa Rica: bookkeeping. So, people who graduated as bookkeepers did so because they handled the accounting books of a company, right? My dad used to take him by the light of a carburetor, he carried the

accounting books of my grandfather, who had a freight business in a cart. Already. Well, the thing is that it was the activity, it was the activity that was recorded, it was the efficiency of the activity, it was how many tamogas of sweets were taken on the day of such and such a month, from Tilarán to Bebedero

in Cañas. How many were brought back and what was their value, what did they cost? And how much was being made? Development was always understood as a concept of efficiency par excellence, right? And then, at a more instrumental institutional level, we come to all these models we were talking about: the Gana diagram, the PERPM, the organizational charts, the

logical framework that is being developed from the work that Practical Concepts contributes to A&D. This is fundamental. Later on , you see, the logical framework is so important that when the logical framework arrives in Europe, the Germans grab it. Germans, who have been extremely rigid and square in their way of thinking, say, wow, how wonderful.

The logical framework appeared and we adopted it. They adopt it, the Germans say so, and they change it, they add some elements to it, and that's where the famous SOP method comes from, which in German means goal- oriented project planning method . This break we were talking about came in '96 from the Canadian

Development Agency, right? And in 2005 in Paris this new language was already adopted, the language of the results-based question . HRBM stands for result management, right? and that it has an emphasis on the country's performance results rather than very short-term achievements. So, here some of the preliminary notions that were being made, that were in

vogue, begin to fall apart. Look how interesting. I don't know if you've had the chance to see when the president of the country delivers on May 1st, now it's May 2nd, if I remember correctly, the results of the government's management during the last year, and sometimes these were speeches, in the past they were

tedious speeches that lasted 4, 5, 6 hours giving an account of everything that was done in each ministry, right? And then there were immeasurable lists of activities. And then he said, we graduated 17,000 police officers in the handling of gender relations. We have 5,000 schools with the ecological flag, we have 13,000 linear km of

paved roads, etc., etc., etc. And we have and we count on and we did this, we did that, they were activity reports, they were activity reports. So the question is, hey, are those the activities you did? And what did he achieve? For example, someone might ask, if you have graduated 3,000 small schools with the

ecological flag, have you achieved a change in the waste management behavior of the communities? For example, you achieved new social structures around sustainability in those communities. Oh, really? So, this paradigm shift, what I'm doing is trying to illustrate where the change is going, moving from activity to larger processes called results. This paradigm shift makes us

deeply question what you are achieving, what you are accomplishing from this multitude of activities, because we continue to account for activities and it is not by chance, and I must say this with all honesty, although I love academia very much, it is not by chance that within academia we also continue to repeat like parrots

the concept of activity. Already. And I did it, says A, B, C. Okay. But the question is, what did you achieve? That 's the question that needs to be asked. Well, when this question is imposed not as an instrument, but as a new strategy, as a new approach, this results-oriented approach to projects begins to become widespread

, right? And so this new approach will immediately connect us with the need to define clear goals, concrete goals that are measurable and limited in number and must be able to be expressed in terms of direct effects, or impacts. And there it will appear, uh, in more instrumental terms, the famous chain of

results, products, effects, impacts. I was telling you that this process of establishing, of implementing the results-based management paradigm, goes hand in hand with these reforms, the new management, the public sector reforms that had already been promoted since the late 1970s when the concept of public value appeared . Do you remember that concept of

public value? You have it today much more precise and more elaborate, you have already internalized it. Now, the attention that an official, a female official, provides from a window, for example, at the social security office, the attention goes beyond simply providing me with the sheet of paper with the information I was looking for; it's

not just about giving me the sheet that says to call this phone number or go to this website. No no. It's also the way that official treats me , the way she greets me, the way she looks at me, the way she smiles. Yes, all of that is part of the public value, so that when I

leave this position I will leave happy, satisfied, because there are observable changes in the service, in the provision of the service that the state is giving me, right? That is what is called public value. That's the added value, but since it's not added value in production, since it's not putting a bronze alloy on an

iron pipe, but rather adding this ingredient, as UNICEF calls it, very interesting. UNICEF calls it warmth, right ? It's about adding a touch of warmth to what we do, right? to do it as a more humane treatment. This is the famous public value that the reforms of public administration have been promoting since the late

1970s, and where we are going to generate a change from a linear model to a slightly broader, more participatory model based on efficiency and effectiveness, certainly, but in a non-linear way. No, not that it falls from top to bottom, what the Americans called the trickle-down effect, but rather as a participatory effect. And there comes another big change, another big

element which is the concern for the effectiveness of development, which we have already discussed. Hey, for the first time, countries agreed on the Millennium Development Goals, remember? And then with the sustainable development goals, right? Today, countries around the world are generally committed to the Sustainable Development Goals. A total of 18 major goals have been defined, and each goal is broken down

into indicators, sub-goals, and dimensions of analysis. Whole countries are working towards the Sustainable Development Goals, and this allows us to rank the level of performance of the countries. In other words, by this point in the game, in the year 2023, the image of results-oriented management has taken hold so much that today we already have

a fairly, not entirely, but quite established language of results around the most critical dimensions of what we understand as development. First there were the Millennium Development Goals, now the Sustainable Development Goals, and I would say that this points very well to this paradigm shift, right? We have therefore moved from the eminently industrial concept of

industrial development that was eminently based on activity to a concept of development where we are looking for results and that is accompanied by these other institutional trends at a general level. And so when we talk about results, we talk about ownership, about the leading role of the partners, about alignment, about them being the same, uh, that there is

convergence between the donors and the harmonization partners, that the donors do not step on each other's toes, but that they are working harmonically. I remember, I had to work for Canadian cooperation and people would come to present us with a project that was three little pages that had already been presented to UNESCO, that had been

presented to the ILO and they didn't realize it. And there was no communication between the cooperation agencies . Today they are communicating and are completely immersed in each other. Well, this concept also speaks of mutual responsibilities, right?, of results-oriented management. So this commitment, which focuses on what we are achieving rather than what we

are doing, will lead to leadership as the engine of change, people as the critical success factor and not things, and organizational management centered around processes. We organize ourselves by processes, not by labels. H is not the Human Resources Department, nor the Accounting Department, nor the Audit Department of the Institution, but rather the processes

carried out in accordance with the Constitution of achievements of this institution, the decisions made based on facts and evidence. You've already seen these models, haven't you? They're becoming much more common now. Well, demonstrate this decision-making to me with facts, facts and evidence, the use of tracking, evaluation, monitoring and continuous improvement systems and collaboration

as a key success factor. These are the elements that in some way constitute this paradigmatic change from activity to management for results. And as I announced, you can now visualize it under the scheme of a result chain, and that formerly our quecer ended here . We reported on how much of the budget I had and what I did with the

budget, what I carried out, and that's where my accountability speech ended . Already? And it shows, Cos. No, now the question is, don't tell me what he did. Tell me what you achieved. What did he achieve in the short term? What will it achieve in the medium term? And what does it achieve in the long term? What are

the products, effects, and impacts? That's what's known as the results chain, right? And it's very interesting, we can continue talking about this. It's a whole discussion, and hopefully the projects you formulate will already be project formulations that account for this, for the results, and that the indicators—and this is very important— that the indicators you use are

product indicators, impact indicators, and not process indicators, right? No, indicators. I held three meetings a month with the students from work, that's useless. That's useless . I already need to account for how many meetings I had. I can no longer measure development based on processes, based on activity. I need to see, well, what did you accomplish? What

percentage of schools, or what percentage of primary school teachers, changed the curriculum and incorporated the topic of environmental development into the curriculum? What percentage of the children you, as a social worker, help to get what's called the... what's it called? This program in Limas de Avancemos. Hm. No, no, that 's not the question, it's not how many kids

enjoy Avancemos, it's show me what proportion of kids stay in school as a result of the Avancemos program. Hm. Because remember, it was a program that was created precisely to guarantee the children's connection to the school or to prevent them from leaving the school and to keep them from going to work with

their families. Already? So, prove the effectiveness of that program to me, not by telling me how many children the program reaches, nor how much money is distributed among the children, but by telling me what percentage of school retention we are achieving in Guanacaste, in Limón, in Puntarenas, throughout the country. Already. So the indicators

will be the backbone of the products, effects, and impacts. And of course, these indicators will lead us to the second major topic, which is the importance of monitoring and evaluating projects, because the monitoring system will be crucial in order to measure products, effects, and impact. So now, you, as a social worker, can no longer do what

your ancestors did. Their ancestors used to wash their hands here after completing their tasks and say, "Oh, no, no, no. You see, social transformations are so long-term, they last so long, that I can't account for the social changes. You see, that argument is no longer acceptable. You, a 21st-century social worker, actively working

in program X, Y, or Z of institution A or B in 2023, 2024, or 2025, are now absolutely obligated to account for the results of your project . You can no longer limit yourself to doing and doing and doing activities without knowing what the results are. So, in this new institutional framework in which you are to

work, you will be totally linked to obtaining results. Well, we are changing, aren't we? The model. Hm. Here is a graph that illustrates the matter. So, if I have 5,000 liters of water as an input, the salary for a risk manager plus... The activity is pouring 500 liters of water onto the cloud. Okay.

And I throw it from the cloud. I throw it from the cloud, but the water doesn't reach the plants. Okay, but I am doing the activity, I am throwing it, I am being aware of this, but I am not being aware of the effect of the result. There is no result. What percentage of the plants recovered

as a result of my activity? That is the big question. The change in the model lies in that, what we do versus what we achieve. What do we achieve from our projects and programs? There it is . Like the famous case of the little horse, right? We can't be aware of what we

do, of what we achieve. We pull the horse, we push it, we put the water there in the trough, and the horse sits down on its saddle and says, "No, I don't want to drink water." Okay, but when I convince it to drink the water, it regains its energy and is ready to work again. Yes,

but sometimes we get stuck here in this process. We get stuck here, on a linear level, assuming that there will be other reasons, like magical or esoteric ones, or external factors, that will account for the results tomorrow. That has changed, and now we are compelled to account for the results today. Well, and here are a series of clues. I

often use this: what if, for example, participants openly talk about their dependence on cigarettes? So here we say, have the participants talk about their dependence on cigarettes. That doesn't improve people's lives. What I want is for the participants to quit smoking. Now, people in the program will learn to repair computers. Learning to repair

computers if they don't have computers to repair makes no difference to people. People in the program will get a job repairing computers. These are the achievements, these are the results. The emphasis is on our client's results, and so, well, this will absolutely force us to make our project proposals—and you are now talking about projects— In

social work, we're now making our project proposals proposals for change, and this leads us to a new conceptual framework for the project. Previously, we considered this type of project merely as a set of activities, right? Now, the project is a unit that intervenes upon recognizing an initial, unsatisfactory situation, aiming for an improved situation—what

planners call the target image— demonstrated by the achievement of results. In other words, the project is a unit of transformation, a unit of change. It's no longer just a collection; it's not that it does n't have activities—of course, the project has activities— but it can no longer be defined as an ordered set of activities.

It has to be defined as a proposal for change, a proposal for transformation, okay? And as a proposal for transformation , this project is obligated to account for the extent to which the initial situation has changed and the extent to which it is approaching the desired situation. Do you realize this? And when do you do it? Through

indicators. Indicators, means of verification, identified risk factors , Right? Basically, that's what I wanted to share with you, in a very theoretical way, of course, about this paradigm shift, and well, to reconnect you with the little drawing we were reading at the beginning. Two classmates already made comments at the beginning; one of them said she saw

people dancing, that it looked like they were dancing. Another classmate said it was two people in a house that could be seen from the inside or the outside. This is by Mafre Maxniti and Antonio Lizalde, authors of human-scale development. I didn't invent this; they used this model and presented it in several countries, both

in the West and the East, to people in rural communities, especially with this same question: what do you see in this drawing? Most people in our Western countries said what Tania said—no, excuse me, but I don't remember her name—what she said was, " We see two people in a house that can be seen

from the inside or the outside." That's what most people in our countries answered, but when they took this drawing to some African communities—well, some, not all, but some of them—they started to see different things. Right. Here we see, it does indeed look like a structure, right? It's a structure there, and you can see the vertices there. Here's

a wall, and from the inside, it looks like this is a window, right? A window in the wall, and below it are two people. One looks younger than the other, a child; there's probably an adult. Right. And that answers people. Well, if you change the perspective, you say, "Ah, from the outside, they're outside, there's

the wall, or they're inside, and here's the window." But I repeat, some African communities took the drawing, and what people said was, "What do you see there?" Look, what we see there is very simple. It's a tree. That's a tree. Under the tree are two people; one of them is carrying a basket on their head.

And now, why... What are they seeing? Well, it turns out their houses aren't square like ours; they don't have corners like these, like yours and mine. Their houses are round. When your house is round, you stop using these schemas as references to understand what you mean by house, by construction, by wall. So, what's the closest reference point

? A tree. It's clear. And there are two people, one of them carrying a basket on top of the... We see reality based on our ways of experiencing it. We already construct reality. We, human beings, construct. Here I invite you, for example—I know you've probably already done so—to learn a little about Moscovich's theory of

social representations , because it will be present in our projects. We develop, we formulate our proposals for transformation based on the way or ways in which we understand our reality. And then let's be flexible enough, broad enough in our criteria, so that our projects are truly proposals for change and transformation, so that we do

n't fall into that cardinal sin of continuing to believe... That a project is a set of activities, and that I do activity A, Z, X, Y, and W. Because that's very easy. That's very easy. If we study social sciences, if we like it, if we become attached to it , if we develop a passion for what we

do, we will be obliged to move forward with proposals for change, with proposals for transformation. I'm telling you, Adriana.