PREREQUISITES FOR SUCCESSFUL MONITORING AND EVALUATION

In my first two editions of this newsletter, I went straight into defining the essence of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and then delved to a presentation of the main approaches to the practice. Alas! I have now realized that many people see it as a very easy thing to do forgetting that an investment is needed to ensure successful M&E.

There are several prerequisites to having a good/successful M&E. These requirements are to help marshal the tools that one needs in the process.

First, a results chain (variously known as a logical framework, results matrix, results framework, and more) specifying the project's/programme's inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impact. This helps in linking what daily activities are being implemented and the expected changes on a people, community or a place. Often, when you look at what is being done in development, it is not clear what the intention is with regards to short term and long term changes. For a better grasp of these elements, a specification of the indicators at each level is required.

Second is the need for a well organized record keeping system. Information about a project/programme need to be well documented so as to act as the first reference point during M&E. Where good record keeping exists, the costs for the M&E are substantially reduced. Often people think of M&E in terms of primary data but this is not the case. Much can be achieved simply through analysis of existing data within an organization. I am amazed that the need for knowledge management has come late in the day within the MEAL (monitoring, evaluation, learning and accountability) movement.

The third element is to determine within the project/programme cycle how M&E will be undertaken and with what frequency. While monitoring is continuous and involves day-to-day checks at the progress of an intervention, efforts must be made to recoup these checks onto a report often quarterly, biannually or annually. An organization needs to make this clear. On the other hand, an evaluation's frequency needs to be determined and a decision made whether evaluations will be internal or externally done by independent persons. The role of the beneficiaries (I like referring them as primary stakeholders) should also be defined such that they become active participants assuming that they were equally involved during the planning and implementation stages of the intervention.

The fourth aspect is to be clear at a very early point on the responsibility for M&E. Often this function is left for nobody leading to a lot of haste and confusion when the time come for the exercise. Organizations are in most case confused on whether to have dedicated M&E staff or not. While departmentalizing M&E appears a good move, this should only be for coordination purposes. The reason is that M&E as a learning and decision making process necessitates integration into the implementation process and hence the participation of all staff. Every department and section within an organization should reflect M&E activities in its work plan.

The fifth requirement is to decide the main methodology and approach of M&E. Last week I covered the M&E approaches focusing on quantitative and qualitative traditions. It is important for an organization to think its ontological emphasis (how it looks at the issues it is handling) and hence discern a particular methodological approach for its M&E. For instance, an organization dealing heavily on objective and observable phenomena (water, agriculture, forestry, medical health, education) is obviously going to lean towards the quantitative approach. Conversely, those dealing with issues of beliefs, perceptions, attitudes, practices, cultures and other subjective realities will subscribe to the qualitative approach. However, in reality a mix of the approaches is more realistic.

The sixth prerequisite is to be clear on the reporting styles and mechanisms. It is important to be clear what types of reports will be generated and for who. A report for technical audiences would be different from a popular version for the primary stakeholders. Similarly, a report for the board will be very different from one for the donor(s) and partners. This helps with anticipating what data needs to be gathered to populate those reports and also the find of communication investments to be deployed.

Seventh, and finally, is setting aside a budget for M&E. I have been asked on what is a realistic budget for M&E. My response is that a maximum of 3% of the project value is adequate budget. A common mistake is to set figures in an ad hoc manner. Budgeting for M&E needs to be realistic in terms of reasonable time for data collection and analysis, current costs for travel, field costs of accommodation and subsistence, required gadgets including tablets and good quality cameras, appropriate equipment and software, and other practical needs.

This piece has been about ensuring adequate preparation for M&E. Usually, poorly prepared M&E results in poorly executed processes leading to shallow and incomplete reports that unfortunately end up being blamed on the M&E staff and later on external consultant(s). Even if a project is very well designed and implemented but with poor M&E preparations, it might turn out to be a bad project because, and as often said by results-based management actors, what is not reported does not exist. Conversely, a poorly designed project in terms of point (1) above cannot be well monitored and evaluated.