Monitoring and Evaluation Reads (https://www.iedunote.

com/monitoring-and-evaluation)

Monitoring and Evaluation: Definition, Process, Objectives,

Differences
Monitoring and evaluation are both tools and strategy which help a project know when plans are
not working, and when circumstances have changed.
They give the management the information it needs to make decisions about the project, and
about the changes that are necessary for strategy or plans. In this sense, monitoring and
evaluation are iterative.

What is Monitoring and Evaluation?

Although the term “monitoring and evaluation” tends to get run together as if it is only one thing,
monitoring and evaluation are, in fact, two distinct sets of organizational activities.
Monitoring is the periodic assessment of programmed activities to determine whether they are
proceeding as planned.
At the same time, evaluation involves the assessment of the programs towards the achievement
of results, milestones, and impact of the outcomes based on the use of performance indicators.
Both activities require dedicated funds, trained personnel, monitoring and evaluation tools,
effective data collection and storage facilities, and time for effective inspection visits in the field.
What it follows from the discussion is that both monitoring and evaluation are necessary
management tools to inform decision-making and demonstrate accountability.

Evaluation is not a substitute for monitoring, nor is monitoring a substitute for evaluation.
Systematically generated monitoring data are essential for a successful evaluation.

Monitoring Definition

1
Monitoring is the continuous and systematic assessment of project implementation based on
targets set and activities planned during the planning phases of the work and the use of inputs,
infrastructure, and services by project beneficiaries.

It is about collecting information that will help answer questions about a project, usually about
the way it is progressing towards its original goals, and how the objectives and approaches are
taken may need to be modified.

It provides managers and other stakeholders with continuous feedback on implementation,

identifies actual or potential successes and early indications of the progress, problems, or lack
thereof as early as possible to facilitate timely adjustments and modification to project operation
as and when necessary.

Monitoring tracks the actual performance against what was planned or expected by collecting
and analyzing data on the indicators according to pre-determined standards.

If done properly, it is an invaluable tool for the good management and provides a useful base for
evaluation. It also identifies strengths and weaknesses in a program.

The performance information generated from monitoring enhances learning from experience
and improves decision-making.

It enables you to determine whether the resources available are sufficient and are being well
used, whether the capacity you have is sufficient and appropriate, and whether you are doing
what you planned to do.

Monitoring information is collected in a planned, organized, and routine way at specific times, for
example, daily, monthly, or quarterly.

At some point, this information is needed to be collated, brought together, and analyzed so that
it can answer questions such as:
 How well are we doing?
 Are we doing the right things?
 What differences are we making?
 Does the approach need to be modified, and if so, how?

Example

This example is drawn from the World Bank Technical paper entitled “Monitoring and Evaluating
Urban Development Programs: A Handbook for Program Managers and Researchers” by
Michael Bamberger.

The author describes a monitoring study that, by way of rapid survey, was able to determine
that the amount of credit in a micro-credit scheme for artisans in Brazil was too small.

The potential beneficiaries were not participating due to the inadequacy of the loan size for their
needs. This information was then used to make some important changes in the project.

2
Bamberger defines it as: “an internal project activity designed to provide constant feedback on
the progress of a project, the problems it is facing, and the efficiency with which it is being
implemented.”

Evaluation Definition

Evaluation, on the other hand, is a periodic in-depth time-bound analysis that attempts to
assess systematically and objectively the relevance, performance, impact, success, or the lack
thereof and sustainability of the on-going and completed projects about stated objectives.

It studies the outcome of a project (changes in income, better housing quality, distribution of the
benefits between different groups, the cost-effectiveness of the projects as compared with other
options, etc.) to inform the design of future projects.

Evaluation relies on data generated through monitoring activities as well as information obtained
from other sources such as studies, research, in-depth interviews, focus group discussions,
etc.

Project managers undertake interim evaluations during the implementation as the first review of
progress, a prognosis of a project’s likely effects, and as a way to identify necessary
adjustments in project design.

3
In essence, evaluation is the comparison of actual project impacts against the agreed-upon
strategic plans.

It is essentially undertaken to look at what you set out to do, at what you could accomplish, and
how you accomplished it.

Example

Once again, we refer to Bamberger, who describes an evaluation of a co-operative program in

El Salvador that determined that the co-operatives improved the lives of the few families
involved but did not have a significant impact on overall employment.

Formative and Summative Evaluation

The task of evaluation is two-fold: formative and summative.

Formative evaluation is undertaken to improve the strategy, design, and performance or way
of functioning of an on-going program/project.

The summative evaluation, on the other hand, is undertaken to make an overall judgment
about the effectiveness of a completed project that is no longer functioning, often to ensure
accountability.

We usually seek to answer the following questions informative evaluation:

 What are the strengths and weaknesses of the program?

 What is the progress towards achieving the desired outputs and outcomes
 Are the selected indicators pertinent and specific enough to measure the outputs?
 What is happening, that was not expected?
 How are staff and clients interacting?
 What are implementers’ and target groups’ perceptions of the program?
 How are the funds being utilized? How is the external environment affecting the internal
operations of the program?
 What new ideas are emerging that can be tried out and tested?
Questions that one asks in the summative evaluation are:

 Did the program work? Did it contribute towards the stated goals and outcomes? Were
the desired outputs achieved?
 Was implementation in compliance with funding mandates? Were funds used
appropriately for the intended purposes?
 Should the program be continued or terminated? Expanded? Replicated?

4
Apart from the questions raised above in formative and summative evaluation, more often, we
raise the following questions in the evaluation process to gain knowledge and a better
understanding of the mechanisms through which the program results have been achieved.

 What is the assumed logic through which it is expected that inputs and activities will
produce outputs conducive to bring ultimate change in the status of the target population
or situation?
 What types of interventions are successful under what conditions?
 How can outputs/outcomes best be measured?
 What lessons were learned?
 What are policy options available as a result of program activities?

Conventional and Participatory Evaluation

Evaluation can broadly be viewed as being participatory and conventional.
A participatory approach is a broad concept focusing on the involvement of primary and other
stakeholders in an undertaking such as program planning, design implementation, monitoring,
and evaluation.
This approach differs from what we know as a conventional approach in several ways. The
following section adapted from Estrella (J997) is designed to compare these two approaches of
evaluation.

Conventional Evaluation
 It aims at making a judgment on the program for accountability purposes rather than
empowering program stakeholders.
 It strives for the scientific objectivity of Monitoring and Evaluation findings, thereby
distancing the external evaluators from stakeholders.
 It tends to emphasize the need for information on program funding agencies and
policymakers rather than program implementers and people affected by the program.
 It focuses on the measurement of success according to predetermined indicators.
Participatory Evaluation
It is a process of individuals and collective learning and capacity development through which
people become more aware and conscious of their strengths and weaknesses, their wider social
realities, and their visions and perspectives of development outcomes.
This learning process creates conditions conducive to change and action.
 It emphasizes varying degrees of participation from low to high of different types of
stakeholders in initiating, defining the parameters for, and conducting Monitoring and
Evaluation.
 It is a social process negotiation between people’s different needs, expectations, and
worldviews. It is a highly political process that addresses the issues of an entity, power,
and social transformation.
 It is a flexible process, continuously evolving and adapting to the program-specific
circumstances and needs.

5
 Core Objectives of Monitoring and Evaluation
While monitoring and evaluation are two distinct elements, they are decidedly geared towards
learning from what you are doing and how you are doing it by focusing on many essential and
common objectives:
1. Relevance
2. Efficiency
3. Effectiveness
4. Impact
5. Sustainability
6. Causality
7. Alternative strategy
These elements may be referred to as core objectives of monitoring and evaluation.

Types of Evaluation
There are several ways of doing an evaluation. Some of the more common methods you may
have come across are;

1. Self-evaluation
2. Internal evaluation
3. Rapid participatory appraisal
4. External evaluation
5. Interactive evaluation

6
 Differences between Monitoring and Evaluation
The important differential characteristics of monitoring and evaluation are;

Monitoring Evaluation

Periodic: at essential milestones, such as the

mid-terms of the program implementation; at
Continuous process
the end or a substantial period after program
conclusion

Keeps track; oversight; analyzes and In-depth analysis; Compares planned with
documents progress actual achievements.

Focuses on inputs, activities, outputs, Focuses on outputs to inputs; results to cost;

implementation processes, continued processes used to achieve results; overall
relevance, likely results at outcome level relevance; impact, and sustainability.

Answers why and how results were achieved.

Answers what activities were implemented
Contributes to building theories and models for
and the results achieved.
change.

Alerts managers to problems and provides Provides managers with strategy and policy
options for corrective measures. options.

Internal and/external analysis by program

Self-assessment by program managers,
managers, supervisors, community
supervisors, community stakeholders, and
stakeholders, donors, and/or external
donors.
evaluators.

Monitoring and Evaluation Process

Monitoring and evaluation enable us to check the bottom line of development work.
In development work, the term bottom line means whether we are making a difference in the
problem or not, while in business, the terms refer to whether we are making a profit or not in
doing the business.
In monitoring and evaluation, we do not look for a profit; rather, we want to see whether we are
making a difference from what we had earlier. Monitoring and evaluation systems can be an
effective way to
1. Provide constant feedback on the extent to which the projects are achieving their goals;
2. Identify potential problems and their causes at an early stage and suggest possible
solutions to problems;

7
 3. Monitor the efficiency with which the different components of the project are being
implemented and suggest improvement;
4. Evaluate the extent to which the project can achieve its general objectives;
5. Provide guidelines for the planning of future projects;
6. Improve project design and show the need for mid-course corrections;
7. Incorporate the views of the stakeholders;
8. Show need for mid-course corrections.

The process inherent in the monitoring and evaluation system can be seen in the following
schematic flow chart;