Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| May 15 2009, 7:54 AM EDT | chachabooth | 661 words added |
| May 15 2009, 7:39 AM EDT | chachabooth |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
What is monitoring and how does it differ from evaluation?
Monitoring is the continuous process of gathering information about programme implementation and using this information in decision-making. It takes place as the poject/programme is running. Monitoring is different from evaluation with regards to when it takes place, what information is gathered and what decisions are informed (see table below). Nevertheless, monitoring and evaluation are closely connected. Monitoring lays the basis for evaluation.
Table: Monitoring and Evaluation compared
Monitoring can take on different lenses, i.e. track changes in different dimensions. The three most important forms are context, implementation and assumptions monitoring.
a) Context monitoring
Conflict transformation/peacebuilding interventions take place in dynamic and shifting environments. Monitoring the context – or conflict analysis – enables to take pro-active decisions as well as to safeguard the security of your staff, partners and participants. Conflict analyses should for this purpose be continuously updated. The focus should be here on actors and escalating and de-escalating factors. Also, the international context of the conflict should be monitored closely. Key informants that have access to a wide range of information are vital for updating conflict analyses. This could be local civil society actors (partners), journalists, local leaders, academics, etc. Informal meetings among programme staff and key informants can be a very good opportunity to make sense of recent developments and inform programme implementation. Based on the updated conflict analysis, the following questions can help to guide management decisions:
- Are our assumptions about the context still valid? Do we have to change them?
- Are our interventions still strategic?
- Have new opportunities or constraints for our engagement emerged?
- If the conflict context has changed considerably, why are we still doing the same things?
b) Implementation Monitoring
This form of monitoring looks at how the implementation of the project/programme is running. Thereby it is possible to see whether the project/programme is making progress. Often this is done by comparing planned activities with the activities that are carried out and by looking at the outputs of these activities. However, implementation monitoring can go beyond this and look also at higher-level results. The indicators for these higher level results are useful here. According to Church and Rogers, there are two ways to measure progress even if the results are only to be achieved by the end of project/programme implementation: 1) Ration the magnitude of change: Maybe some progress will be made towards a higher-level result, while it will only be fully achieved at the end of a programme/project. 2) Monitor steps within the process: You may want to monitor steps within a longer process.
c) Monitoring assumptions/theories of change
This form of monitoring is asking the question whether the project is having the desired influence, is leading to the change in the conflict anticipated in the theory of change? Here, we need to look at our theories of change and discuss them in light of implementation and context monitoring.
How to do monitoring?
How can we learn from monitoring?
While the monitoring of indicators is important, the sheer focus on pre-defined indicators does not guarantee that we learn from monitoring. Monitoring systems can be designed in a way that enables both measuring of results through indicators and more “qualitative” forms of monitoring. Inspiration for such systems can be taken from for instance:
- The MSC technique
- Outcome mapping
Ask a lot of questions!
Monitoring is the continuous process of gathering information about programme implementation and using this information in decision-making. It takes place as the poject/programme is running. Monitoring is different from evaluation with regards to when it takes place, what information is gathered and what decisions are informed (see table below). Nevertheless, monitoring and evaluation are closely connected. Monitoring lays the basis for evaluation.
Table: Monitoring and Evaluation compared
| Monitoring | Evaluation | |
| Implemented throughout the programme or project: continuously, frequently, periodically | When? | An event, implemented at certain stages of programme implementation |
| Informs day-to-day decision making; enables management decisions throughout implementation LEARNING | Purpose | Informs future programming. Deepens understanding, why and how things have happened. LEARNING |
| Tracks progress towards results achievement; observes changes in the context | Focus | Looks at the overall picture. What has happened and why? Determines relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact etc. |
| Usually carried out internally, by programme staff as well as partners and participants | Who does it? | External consultants or programme staff, together with partners, participants. |
Monitoring can take on different lenses, i.e. track changes in different dimensions. The three most important forms are context, implementation and assumptions monitoring.
a) Context monitoring
Conflict transformation/peacebuilding interventions take place in dynamic and shifting environments. Monitoring the context – or conflict analysis – enables to take pro-active decisions as well as to safeguard the security of your staff, partners and participants. Conflict analyses should for this purpose be continuously updated. The focus should be here on actors and escalating and de-escalating factors. Also, the international context of the conflict should be monitored closely. Key informants that have access to a wide range of information are vital for updating conflict analyses. This could be local civil society actors (partners), journalists, local leaders, academics, etc. Informal meetings among programme staff and key informants can be a very good opportunity to make sense of recent developments and inform programme implementation. Based on the updated conflict analysis, the following questions can help to guide management decisions:
- Are our assumptions about the context still valid? Do we have to change them?
- Are our interventions still strategic?
- Have new opportunities or constraints for our engagement emerged?
- If the conflict context has changed considerably, why are we still doing the same things?
b) Implementation Monitoring
This form of monitoring looks at how the implementation of the project/programme is running. Thereby it is possible to see whether the project/programme is making progress. Often this is done by comparing planned activities with the activities that are carried out and by looking at the outputs of these activities. However, implementation monitoring can go beyond this and look also at higher-level results. The indicators for these higher level results are useful here. According to Church and Rogers, there are two ways to measure progress even if the results are only to be achieved by the end of project/programme implementation: 1) Ration the magnitude of change: Maybe some progress will be made towards a higher-level result, while it will only be fully achieved at the end of a programme/project. 2) Monitor steps within the process: You may want to monitor steps within a longer process.
c) Monitoring assumptions/theories of change
This form of monitoring is asking the question whether the project is having the desired influence, is leading to the change in the conflict anticipated in the theory of change? Here, we need to look at our theories of change and discuss them in light of implementation and context monitoring.
How to do monitoring?
How can we learn from monitoring?
While the monitoring of indicators is important, the sheer focus on pre-defined indicators does not guarantee that we learn from monitoring. Monitoring systems can be designed in a way that enables both measuring of results through indicators and more “qualitative” forms of monitoring. Inspiration for such systems can be taken from for instance:
- The MSC technique
- Outcome mapping
Ask a lot of questions!
