M&E; Besides the Theory of Change and Log frame, what else?

Projects are increasingly a core method of working.

The purpose of projects and programs is to achieve results, think, package intent and a life purpose, attend to emerging problems, earn a living and shape a career, create a difference, summarize, learn, and contribute to some goals. Projects are therefore a tool for policy, science, life, and practice.

However, demonstrating how the latter will be achieved requires some kind of (desire/result)framework at the initial design stages. This framework is commonly referred to as the M&E framework. M for monitoring, E for Evaluation, and other additional acronyms such as R for research or reporting, L for Learning, and A for Adaptation. M&E as commonly referred is considerably, therefore, a core competence everyone needs across disciplines or offices. Personally, however, I find the information or knowledge is scattered, confusing, generic, rigid, and sometimes hard to apply under certain circumstances. So, in my own personal learning and practice journey, I have asked this question; Besides the log frame and TOC, what else?

Not much.

Some of the tools and or methods have been around for some time and might bear varying titles depending on the needed depth, details, or comprehension of the problem-solution/intervention, overall desired end, and implementing institution or organization. These tools or methods include the log frame, also known as the logical framework that dates back to the 1960s (Read more https://tools4dev.org/resources/how-to-write-a-logical-framework-logframe/ ), and the Theory of change (TOC) that is traced back to the 1950s (Read more https://www.theoryofchange.org/what-is-theory-of-change/toc-background/toc-origins/). So, to reduce the knowledge fog relating to results, outcomes, impact planning methods, and tools, I have tried to compile other related, alternative names or methods that exist. I will pick interest in noting any variances later, but they are;

• Logic model
• Theory of Action (TOA)
• Causal chain
• Intervention logic
• Outcomes line
• Programme logic
• Programme theory
• Outcome map(ing)
• Participatory Outcome Mapping (ROM)
• Results chain

Despite the names or methods, one might choose, the ability to enable productive and system thinking about the program, project, solution, and activity input-process-result is important. This choice is equally contextual and captured. Some interventions might be micro or for a very short span and thus, with a short results map.

There are weaknesses and gaps with any of the chosen methods in mapping out the intervention to results I tend to notice. I list some below. These gaps might seem the same, but splitting them makes it easier to see what needs remedy. They include;

• Missing out on proper linkages with the entire M&E system in a given setting. This could include the Organizational strategic plan, culture or beliefs, setup, and resources.
• Highly theoretical and lacking in pragmatism.
• Less informed by the whole project, including its budget.
• The inability to think through non-linear processes/environments and accommodate unexpected disruptions.
• Disconnected from the common 5 or so evaluation components of; efficiency, relevance, sustainability, effectiveness, impact, & and learning.
• Exclusion of the implementing individuals and character. In essence, they are part of the inputs and or assumptions.
• Miscalculated control, abilities, and power. I know, we need to win that grant and achieve that goal.
• Conceptual dramatization.
• Too much or too little information captured.

As such, I would recommend a test of the appropriateness of the chosen method and product, during design and evaluation using say, a checklist. In addition to the above-highlighted weakness, the checklist can further examine for;

• intent,
• magnitude,
• resources,
• scale or reach,
• time,
• nature and field of the project or program,
• use of previous experiences or practice lessons,
• data type.

It is recommended therefore to apply any of the above approaches to planning for the result wanted or desired, most importantly to measure whether the thoughts, ideas, and innovations make sense in theory and likely in practice.

?After you have designed a log frame, result chain, theory, or change among others, you have to design a mechanism to know whether the designed or theorized are happening through monitoring by having a monitoring plan, and at some point, in time, carry out an evaluation.

So, what is your theory of change, logic model, result chain, etcetera to climate change, biodiversity loss, poverty, social instability, unemployment, child labor and neglect, and or failing projects?

Certainly, you can develop one according to your perspective and or experience. Is it sufficient or does more need to be done to translate from perspective into action and results? The next step could include a plan.

If you have noticed, I have used a lot of commas and strokes in sentences. Well, welcome to M&E. Here similar can be different, and different can be similar.

Thank you for reading. I would be glad to hear your thoughts and comments regarding this.