Thank you for launching this topic, which provides an opportunity to clarify these two aspects: monitoring and evaluation which are very often the subject of discussion in development initiatives.
Monitoring and evaluation are two elements that complement each other to better guide the project/program towards the results and objectives of development. However, one cannot cancel the other as a good monitoring is an assurance for a good evaluation.
The formulation of indicators is an important step in that it targets the project evaluation monitoring device. Well formulated, these indicators also reflect the criteria of effectiveness, sustainability, efficiency, effects/impacts. Coherence and relevance, in particular to the needs and aspirations of the beneficiary communities, also involve the application of a participatory analysis mechanism to integrate the interests of all stakeholders. When carried out well in the field, coherence/relevance analysis is also an opportunity to integrate equality/equity aspects into the monitoring and evaluation indicators (project dashboard).
In my view, the results-based indicators (RBM) favour the establishment of operational and realistic monitoring. I have found that project tracking devices are generally focused on carrying out activities. This model is easier to achieve but gives less chance of directing planning towards the intended results and also does not make it easier for evaluators because the data produced is not sufficient to assess the analysis elements and compare them to the field results. Now, with increasingly reduced budgets, the duration and quality of evaluations suffer. This lack of assessment generally leads to differences of opinion between project managers and evaluators, as you will agree that an evaluator, regardless of his/her competence, will not have access to all the necessary elements of assessment for a good evaluation. Hence the need for an adequate, effective and integrated monitoring system.
I recommend that agricultural projects provide the means for good field analysis during the planning phase and that they pay more attention to the issue of indicators and monitoring mechanism by integrating the evaluation criteria. Also, periodic synthesis and analysis of monitoring data is important and provides technical opportunities to better correct project inadequacies prior to evaluations.
RE: Peut-on se contenter de l'évaluation seule pour s'assurer de l'atteinte des ODD?
Thank you for launching this topic, which provides an opportunity to clarify these two aspects: monitoring and evaluation which are very often the subject of discussion in development initiatives.
Monitoring and evaluation are two elements that complement each other to better guide the project/program towards the results and objectives of development. However, one cannot cancel the other as a good monitoring is an assurance for a good evaluation.
The formulation of indicators is an important step in that it targets the project evaluation monitoring device. Well formulated, these indicators also reflect the criteria of effectiveness, sustainability, efficiency, effects/impacts. Coherence and relevance, in particular to the needs and aspirations of the beneficiary communities, also involve the application of a participatory analysis mechanism to integrate the interests of all stakeholders. When carried out well in the field, coherence/relevance analysis is also an opportunity to integrate equality/equity aspects into the monitoring and evaluation indicators (project dashboard).
In my view, the results-based indicators (RBM) favour the establishment of operational and realistic monitoring. I have found that project tracking devices are generally focused on carrying out activities. This model is easier to achieve but gives less chance of directing planning towards the intended results and also does not make it easier for evaluators because the data produced is not sufficient to assess the analysis elements and compare them to the field results. Now, with increasingly reduced budgets, the duration and quality of evaluations suffer. This lack of assessment generally leads to differences of opinion between project managers and evaluators, as you will agree that an evaluator, regardless of his/her competence, will not have access to all the necessary elements of assessment for a good evaluation. Hence the need for an adequate, effective and integrated monitoring system.
I recommend that agricultural projects provide the means for good field analysis during the planning phase and that they pay more attention to the issue of indicators and monitoring mechanism by integrating the evaluation criteria. Also, periodic synthesis and analysis of monitoring data is important and provides technical opportunities to better correct project inadequacies prior to evaluations.