Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 24 2009, 1:13 PM EDT | chachabooth | 60 words added, 9 words deleted |
| Jun 24 2009, 12:44 PM EDT | chachabooth | 13 words added, 2 words deleted |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
Why monitoring?
Monitoring plays a central part in LPI’s management of its conflict transformation programmes. Without monitoring, one is often unable to track changes and measure the progress that it makes in building the capacities of its partners or on the changes that the work with partners produces in the conflict context.
A good monitoring system helps to inform day-to-day decision making and helps to ensure that decisions and activities are moving towards expected results. At the same time monitoring also helps to ensure that well informed changes can be made to programme design, including the expected results, and budget in case the implementation of the programme no longer leads to the desired results. The working environment in peacebuilding is one of rapid changes, capacity to manoeuvre and manage change is therefore very important both in order to stay relevant, not become counter-productive and in order to not endanger staff or partners. The same is valid for LPI’s partners in the field. A good monitoring system is essential for such capacities to adapt to a shifting environment to grow and develop. Monitoring also provides important information for mid-term and final evaluations. Brought together, continuous monitoring and evaluation lay the foundation for a fruitful learning process and a higher degree of accountability towards its beneficiaries and donors.
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
Forms of monitoring
Monitoring can take on different lenses, i.e. track changes in different dimensions. The three most important forms - context, implementation and assumptions monitoring - are described below.
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:
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.
These three forms of monitoring can be seen as interlinked with each other and also as placed within three different control spheres as seen as in the figure below. In this figure all the mentioned aspects have an effect on each other, at the same time as the degrees of influence lessen the further out from the centre you get. The implementing organisation will be able to monitor all of the dimensions, but will have the biggest control and influence on how it chooses to change its implementation of activities and its theories of change in response to that monitoring.
Forms of monitoring and level of control/influence.
How to do monitoring?
Doing monitoring is based on the steps described earlier throughout this resource kit, namely: Theories of Change, results chains, indicators and baseline study. The results chain, together with your indicators, can be used as a guide for monitoring, in particular the implementation monitoring. If you include theories of change in your monitoring, this may help you to keep track on this dimension as well.
The data that you collected in the baseline study establishes a point of comparison. It is good to plan how you want to monitor your project/programme from the beginning. A monitoring plan can help to structure the process. Below, find an example framework that could be used for monitoring:
(Implementation) monitoring plan
With this plan, the collection of data can be organised. This is, however, only the first step. Once the data has been collected, it needs to be interpreted and incorporated in decision-making processes. Also, this table does not include context monitoring or monitoring of assumptions. A good tool for monitoring can also be programme team reflection/monitoring sessions, facilitated and prepared by one staff member assigned for the PMEL process. This can also be a platform to discuss monitoring data and look at its implications for programme implementation. In Besides looking at quantitative indicators these sessions,sessions Theoriescould ofbe Changeprepared by asking all team members to use self-assessment tools or alternatively by asking them to identify the most significant changes that have taken place within the programme. Such sessions can easily also be criticallyconducted consideredwith aspartners well.and techniques for both self-assessment and for identifying most significant changes are described in the next section.
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. A number of approaches have been developed that take this into account. Among them are:
A basic principle for learning from monitoring is to ask questions and to confront yourself with possibly uncomfortable perspectives!
References:
Church, Cheyanne/Rogers, Mark M., Designing for Results. Integrating Monitoring and Evaluation in Conflict Transformation Programs (Chapter 6), Search for Common Ground/United States Institute of Peace/Alliance for Peacebuilding, 2006. <http://www.sfcg.org/programmes/ilr/ilt_manualpage.html> (accessed 14 April 2009).
Rick Davies/Jess Dart, The 'Most Significant Change' (MSC) Technique. A Guide to Its Use, April 2005. <http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf> (accessed 8 May 2009).
Lederach, J. P., et. al. , Reflective Peacebuilding: A Planning, Monitoring, And Learning Toolkit, Notre Dame, The Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame and Catholic Relief Service South East Asia Regional Office 2007, pp. 57-62. <http://kroc.nd.edu/sites/default/files/reflective_peacebuilding.pdf> (last accessed 26/03/2009)
Monitoring plays a central part in LPI’s management of its conflict transformation programmes. Without monitoring, one is often unable to track changes and measure the progress that it makes in building the capacities of its partners or on the changes that the work with partners produces in the conflict context.
A good monitoring system helps to inform day-to-day decision making and helps to ensure that decisions and activities are moving towards expected results. At the same time monitoring also helps to ensure that well informed changes can be made to programme design, including the expected results, and budget in case the implementation of the programme no longer leads to the desired results. The working environment in peacebuilding is one of rapid changes, capacity to manoeuvre and manage change is therefore very important both in order to stay relevant, not become counter-productive and in order to not endanger staff or partners. The same is valid for LPI’s partners in the field. A good monitoring system is essential for such capacities to adapt to a shifting environment to grow and develop. Monitoring also provides important information for mid-term and final evaluations. Brought together, continuous monitoring and evaluation lay the foundation for a fruitful learning process and a higher degree of accountability towards its beneficiaries and donors.
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 | 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. |
Forms of monitoring
Monitoring can take on different lenses, i.e. track changes in different dimensions. The three most important forms - context, implementation and assumptions monitoring - are described below.
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?
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.
These three forms of monitoring can be seen as interlinked with each other and also as placed within three different control spheres as seen as in the figure below. In this figure all the mentioned aspects have an effect on each other, at the same time as the degrees of influence lessen the further out from the centre you get. The implementing organisation will be able to monitor all of the dimensions, but will have the biggest control and influence on how it chooses to change its implementation of activities and its theories of change in response to that monitoring.
Forms of monitoring and level of control/influence.
How to do monitoring?
Doing monitoring is based on the steps described earlier throughout this resource kit, namely: Theories of Change, results chains, indicators and baseline study. The results chain, together with your indicators, can be used as a guide for monitoring, in particular the implementation monitoring. If you include theories of change in your monitoring, this may help you to keep track on this dimension as well.
The data that you collected in the baseline study establishes a point of comparison. It is good to plan how you want to monitor your project/programme from the beginning. A monitoring plan can help to structure the process. Below, find an example framework that could be used for monitoring:
(Implementation) monitoring plan
| Monitoring focus: Result (on different levels: outcome, output) | Indicators | Means of Verification/Information source/Data collection tool | Frequency of data collection | Who collects data? |
With this plan, the collection of data can be organised. This is, however, only the first step. Once the data has been collected, it needs to be interpreted and incorporated in decision-making processes. Also, this table does not include context monitoring or monitoring of assumptions. A good tool for monitoring can also be programme team reflection/monitoring sessions, facilitated and prepared by one staff member assigned for the PMEL process. This can also be a platform to discuss monitoring data and look at its implications for programme implementation. In Besides looking at quantitative indicators these sessions,sessions Theoriescould ofbe Changeprepared by asking all team members to use self-assessment tools or alternatively by asking them to identify the most significant changes that have taken place within the programme. Such sessions can easily also be criticallyconducted consideredwith aspartners well.and techniques for both self-assessment and for identifying most significant changes are described in the next section.
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. A number of approaches have been developed that take this into account. Among them are:
- The Most Significant Change (MSC) Technique
- Outcome mapping
A basic principle for learning from monitoring is to ask questions and to confront yourself with possibly uncomfortable perspectives!
References:
Church, Cheyanne/Rogers, Mark M., Designing for Results. Integrating Monitoring and Evaluation in Conflict Transformation Programs (Chapter 6), Search for Common Ground/United States Institute of Peace/Alliance for Peacebuilding, 2006. <http://www.sfcg.org/programmes/ilr/ilt_manualpage.html> (accessed 14 April 2009).
Rick Davies/Jess Dart, The 'Most Significant Change' (MSC) Technique. A Guide to Its Use, April 2005. <http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf> (accessed 8 May 2009).
Lederach, J. P., et. al. , Reflective Peacebuilding: A Planning, Monitoring, And Learning Toolkit, Notre Dame, The Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame and Catholic Relief Service South East Asia Regional Office 2007, pp. 57-62. <http://kroc.nd.edu/sites/default/files/reflective_peacebuilding.pdf> (last accessed 26/03/2009)
