Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 36

Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating

Programmes and Projects











Introduction to Key Concepts, Approaches and
Terms

Working Draft
Version 1 March 2000




Global Monitoring and Evaluation Initiative



Jim Woodhill
IUCN M&E Facilitator for
East and Southern Africa
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approaches and Terms
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
IUCN The World Conservation Union
Founded in 1948, The World Conservation Union brings together
States, government agencies and a diverse range of non-
governmental organizations in a unique world partnership: over
900 members in all, spread across some 138 countries.
As a Union, IUCN seeks to influence, encourage and assist
societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and
diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources
is equitable and ecologically sustainable.
The World Conservation Union builds on the strengths of its
members, networks and partners to enhance their capacity and to
support global alliances to safeguard natural resources at local,
regional and global levels.
The IUCN Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Initiative
Through an approach which fosters questioning and reflection
and engages stakeholders at the regional and global levels, the
IUCN M&E Initiative aims to:
develop a common understanding of M&E within IUCN
develop a reflective culture within IUCN
improve project/programme design and implementation
through the use of methods and tools in project, systems
and institutional assessments
assess the relevance of the Unions work against the
broader picture of ecosystem and human wellbeing
improve learning processes and reporting of lessons
learned
put an overall M&E System in place for the Union.
Publications from the M&E Initiative are available on-line on the
IUCN website http://iucn.org/themes.html
Acknowledgements
Written by Jim Woodhill IUCN Monitoring and Evaluation
Facilitator for East and Southern Africa.
Email jwoodhill@ozemail.com.au
: (2000) IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
Reproduction of this publication for educational and non-
commercial purposes is authorised without prior permission from
the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes is
prohibited without the prior written permission of the copyright
holder.
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approaches and Terms
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
Contents


1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1
2 APPROACHES TO PLANNING MONITORING AND EVALUATION............................................... 2
3 KEY PLANNING, MONITORING AND EVALUATION CONCEPTS................................................. 3
3.1 A PARTICIPATORY LEARNING APPROACH..................................................................................................... 3
3.2 THE MANAGEMENT CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................... 4
3.3 PROGRAMME AND PROJECT CYCLE ............................................................................................................... 6
3.4 PROGRAMME AND PROJECT LOGIC................................................................................................................ 6
3.5 OBJECTIVE HIERARCHIES AND ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................................... 8
3.6 ACCOUNTABILITY AND CONTROL................................................................................................................ 15
3.7 KEY ASPECTS OF EVALUATION.................................................................................................................... 16
3.8 DEVELOPING AN OVERALL M&E STRATEGY/PLAN.................................................................................... 17
3.9 DEVELOPING AND MONITORING EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND INDICATORS ........................................... 19
3.10 OPEN ENDED EVALUATION ACTIVITIES.................................................................................................. 21
4 LOGICAL FRAMEWORK APPROACH (LFA) AND ZOPP................................................................ 23
5 RESULTS BASED MANAGEMENT......................................................................................................... 27
5.1 CIDA RBM TERMINOLOGY......................................................................................................................... 28
5.2 USAID ROA TERMINOLOGY....................................................................................................................... 32
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 1
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
1 Introduction
This document has been developed to assist IUCN staff and partners
navigate their way through the terminology that surrounds the practice of
planning, monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) in environment and
development programmes and projects. It should be considered a working
draft and will be revised and improved on the basis of feedback from those
who use it. A separate glossary of terms accompanies this document.
There is no question that planning, monitoring and evaluation are fields
littered with terminology that is often unclear and which is used with
different meanings by different groups. This problem cant be solved by this
document, however, what it can do is to help explain the different
approaches to PM&E and how terms are used by different organisations.
Unfortunately confusion around terminology often makes PM&E seem
much more complex and difficult than is actually the case. In fact there are
really only a handful of key concepts that need to be understood about
PM&E. If these concepts are understood then it is easy to make sense of the
different terminology and to translate terms between different approaches to
PM&E.
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is often considered as a separate function
and responsibility from planning. However, if a project is poorly planned it
is very difficult to monitor and evaluate. Very often M&E staff and
specialists find themselves having to go back to basic planning principles
before they can assist with M&E. Hence the attention in this document to
planning and M&E.
Within IUCN it would simplify the difficulties of confusing terminology if a
standard set terminology could be used. The Global M&E Initiatives is
working towards such a set of concepts and terms. However, the reality is
that IUCN will always be working with different donors who demand the
use of their particular approach and terminology. This means that it will
always be necessary for staff to understand the underlying concepts of
PM&E and be able to translate between the approaches and terminology of
different donors and partner organisations.
The confusion about PM&E can also be reduced by understanding clearly
the way concepts and terms are used by different approaches and donors.
Consequently the later part of this document explores a number of
approaches in some detail.


Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 2
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
2 Approaches to Planning Monitoring and Evaluation
Broadly there are three main approaches to PM&E in use by the major donor
agencies:
1. The logical framework approach (LFA) which is the most common
and widely used.
2. The German ZOPP, a close derivative of LFA. The acronym stands
for the German equivalent of objective oriented project planning.
3. Results Based Management (RBM) or managing for results, which
has become the favoured model of the Canadians and Americans in
recent years.
However, even within each approach there are often differences in the use of
terminology and many adaptations have been made as different groups put
the approaches into practice. Further, those within agencies who should
understand the approach being used are often not as clear in their
understanding as would be ideal. This difficulty is compounded when
agencies are in a transition from one approach to another.
However, while there are certainly differences between the approaches, the
underlying principles of PM&E that they are each trying to promote are
remarkably similar. In essence, they are:
1. To develop programmes and projects based on a thorough
understanding of the situation in which an intervention is planned.
2. To involve stakeholders in a participatory process of programme or
project design and evaluation.
3. To develop a set of clear logical objectives that can realistically be
achieved within a particular timeframe and within an allocated
budget and which will make a significant and sustained contribution
to a higher level development objective.
4. To make explicit the cause and effect (means ends) relationships and
external factors that underpin the programme or project and which
must hold true if planned activities are going to lead to desired
results and impacts.
5. To establish a monitoring and evaluation system, including
indicators, which will show if the objectives have been achieved and
provide information to support effective management and learning.




Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 3
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
3 Key Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Concepts
3.1 A Participatory Learning Approach
The approach to PM&E adopted by IUCN is one that emphasises the
participation of stakeholders in continually learning how to improve
performance. Monitoring and evaluation is seen very much as a learning
process and not as an external top down policing function. It is recognised
that given the complexity of conservation and natural resource management
and an extremely rapidly changing wider environment an adaptive approach
to programme and project management is essential. PM&E should be seen
as a process of helping people to learn how to do things better.
Consequently the theory and practice of adult learning is very important to
the monitoring and evaluation approach being developed within IUCN.
Given the breadth of this field in itself, the glossary will not attempt to cover
it in any detail. However, when using the glossary it will help to keep in
mind the idea of a participatory learning approach to monitoring and
evaluation.
A participatory learning approach also means that there is much more to
M&E than just identifying and monitoring quantitative indicators. Learning
implies understanding, analysis, questioning, being critical and trying to
explain why things have worked or failed. Certainly quantitative indicators
are important and can be helpful but very often they provide only a small
part of the information needed for learning. Also for higher level objectives
or goals, such as improving protected area management or community well-
being it is just simply not possible to develop simple quantitative indicators
that have any real meaning. Unfortunately there is a widespread view that
developing an M&E plan for a programme or project is primarily about
developing a set of such quantitative indicators. This document explicitly
challenges this perception. For example, well-facilitated review meetings
with staff, or the use of qualitative inquiry methods with beneficiaries, will
often provide much more valuable information for learning.
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 4
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
3.2 The Management Context
PM&E are essential functions of good management and should enable a
programme or project to achieve a high level of performance as illustrated in
the box below.
It is important to see monitoring and evaluation as tools to be integrated into
all aspects of programme and project management, as illustrated in the next
box. The starting point is to ask; what information is required for effective
management and what sort of M&E system is required to provide it?
Management Functions and M&E
Functions
Monitoring
&
Evaluation
Staffing
Staffing
Organising
Organising
Controlling
Controlling
Leading
Leading
Planning
Planning
PM&E
(learning)
Performance
PM&E - Critical Tools for Management
Management
should support
resulting in
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 5
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
Unfortunately M&E is often erroneously viewed as an annoying task of
simply providing donors with the information they require. Certainly
accountability to funding bodies is one function of an effective M&E system
but it is certainly not the only or the most important function. A list of
purposes for M&E is given below.




Purposes of Monitoring and Evaluation

Ensuring planned results are achieved

Improving and support management

Generating shared understanding

Generating new knowledge and support learning

Building the capacity of those involved

Motivating stakeholders

Ensuring accountability

Fostering public and political support


Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 6
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
3.3 Programme and Project Cycle
The diagram below illustrates a generic programme or project cycle. It
emphasises the importance of starting with detailed scoping, situation
analysis and design stages. It also illustrates the importance of considering
M&E at all stages in the cycle. Importantly it also illustrates the need for
constant cycles of planning, acting, monitoring and evaluation (in other
words learning) during implementation.
3.4 Programme and Project Logic
There is an overall logic to any programme or project as illustrated below.
This logic can be described as follows. First, there is a situation that a group
of stakeholders wish to improve the reasons for a programme or project.
This situation is defined, to a significant extent, by the problems and visions
of the stakeholder groups. There may or may not be common perceptions of
what the problems are or what would actually constitute an improvement,
which is why participatory approaches to planning are so important.
Developing a detailed and holistic situation analysis is a critical aspect of
programme or project planning.
The understanding of the situation will lead to a programme or project plan.
This will usually include:
The goal a summary of what in the long term the programme or
project is contributing towards related to impact.
The Programme/Project Cycle
Organisation
Mission
Financing and
contracting
Final Evaluation
Gov/Donor
Goals/Policies
Beneficiary
Needs
Plan
Act
Monitor
Evaluate
Implementation
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Scoping
Formulation /
Design
M&E
Strategy
Mobilisation and
Implementation Planning
M&E
Plan
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 7
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
The Purpose a summary statement of overall what the programme
or project should achieve given its timeframe and resources the
overall outcome.
A set of Results the main things that must be achieved for the
programme or project to realise its purpose, there may be several
levels of results. Results are also referred to as outputs and outcomes.
A set of Activities what must actually be done for the results to be
realised.
A set of Inputs the resources required for the activities to be
undertaken.
The programme or project is then implemented according to this plan
involving a process of inputs being used to undertake activities that lead to
actual results. Of course few projects go exactly as planned and there will
need to be constant cycles of planning, acting, monitoring, evaluating, re-
planning and so on. In some cases it may be necessary completely revise the
original plan.
The actual results should lead to a set of impacts that will improve the
original situation. In most projects there will also be unanticipated impacts
that may be positive or negative, which are also important to track.
Understanding this basic logic of a programme or project is the starting point
for understanding PM&E.
The Situation to
Improve
Problems and Visions
Plan
(Goal, Purpose,
Results
and Activities)
Inputs Activities Actual Results
Reasons
for Programme
Project
Programme
Project
and
Implementatio
Process
IMPACT
Project/Programme Make Up and Logic
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 8
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
3.5 Objective Hierarchies and Assumptions
Any programme or project has an objective hierarchy, as shown below. This
maps out the way low level tasks or activities contribute to higher level
objectives and how meeting these objectives leads to the achievement of the
overall purpose or goal of a project or programme. Such a hierarchy of
objectives is also referred to as the intervention logic or the narrative
summary of a programme or project. It shows the cause and effect, or means
ends relationships of an intervention. Developing a clear logical objective
hierarchy is fundamental to good programme and project design and
essential for M&E. It is called an objective hierarchy because any level
within it can be seen as being an objective. Higher level objectives are, or
should be, a consequence of achieving lower level objectives. Alternatively
it could be considered a results hierarchy. Although as will be shown later a
distinction is sometime made between an objectives hierarchy being what is
planned to be achieved and a results hierarchy being what is actually
achieved.
An objective hierarchy can be thought of as like the structure of a tree, with
the leaves or twigs being the detailed activities or tasks (low level
objectives) and the trunk being the overall goal (highest level objective) and
the branches being different intermediate level objectives. In theory there
can be many levels to an objective hierarchy, larger and more complex
programmes or projects require more levels than do small simple projects.
In practice, most planning approaches find four or five levels adequate. For a
programme one might imagine the trunk and main branches as being the
programme objectives and the sub-branches twigs and leaves as being the
projects that contribute to the programme objectives. In a very large project,
it may be helpful to think of having sub-projects. For a complex programme
Objective Hierarchy
Purpose
Goal
Key
Result
Key
Result
Sub
Result
Sub
Result
Sub
Result
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
Key
Result
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
Sub
Result
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
Sub
Result
Sub
Result
Sub
Result
Sub
Result
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
Assumptions
(hypotheses)
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 9
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
with large projects, it is conceivable that it may be necessary to have a
programme, project and sub-project level of planning and each of these
levels having six levels of an objective hierarchy. In the end, planning needs
to be taken down to sufficient detail to enable day to day workplans for
activities and tasks. A well-developed objective hierarchy makes it clear
what must be done to achieve results and in reverse, along with indicators,
what results are achieved from completing activities.
An objective hierarchy also has a sideways logic. The outputs, products or
results from one strand of the hierarchy will often be critical inputs into
another strand. The conventional representation of an objective hierarchy
(as shown above) does not illustrate this sideways flow leading to the
criticism that such an approach to design is too linear and restrictive.
However it is equally possible to map out a project from a systems
perspective showing a series of interconnecting systems that have inputs and
outputs. It is important that the linear criticism is not used as an excuse for
poorly developed intervention logic.
Certainly, for complex programmes it will not always be possible to arrive at
a simple hierarchical logic, such as the one illustrate above, that adequately
expresses all the dimensions that need to be communicated. There may need
to be a number of parallel logics or a matrix structure to the programme
framework. A detailed discussion of this is beyond the scope of this
document.
To assist in the planning process different levels within an objective
hierarchy are given different terms (goal, purpose, outcomes, outputs,
results, specific objectives, activities, etc). It is the lack of consistency in the
way terms are used for the different levels in an objective hierarchy that
creates much of the PM&E confusion. However, as long as the concept of
different levels in a hierarchy is understood and the meaning of different
terms is understood by the stakeholders within a particular context, it doesnt
really matter what they are called. Some examples of different objective
hierarchies that have a different number of levels and which use different
terminology are given on the next page.


Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 10
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative

Assumptions
An objective hierarchy should reflect cause and effect relationships between
lower and higher level objectives. The lower level activities/objectives are
the means for achieving the ends of the higher level objectives. There
will always be assumptions about the cause - effect (means ends)
relationships in an objective hierarchy and these assumptions should be
made explicit in the design of a programme or project.
There are two types of assumptions, which are often confused in the logical
framework approach to planning. The first type of assumption is that related
to the internal logic of the programme or project. For example a project
design might be based on an assumption that by reducing poaching in an
area an endangered species will be preserved. This may be a correct
assumption or it may be incorrect because the main threat to the species
might in fact be reduced habitat or disease.
The second type of assumption relates to the external factors or external
environment that must exist for a project to succeed. For example, for a tree
planting project it may be assumed that rainfall will not be significantly
below average. For any project it will be assumed that there will be
sufficient political stability for the project to operate effectively.
For either type of assumption it is often helpful to identify, what are referred
to as, killer assumptions. These are the assumptions that if they are wrong
the project will fail completely.
Examples of Different Objective Hierarchies
Goal
Activities
Outputs
Purpose
Vision
Activities
Objectives
Goal(s)
Goal
Outputs
Outcomes
Purpose
Activities
Activities
Vision
Strategic
Objectives
Mission
Goals
Key
Result
Areas
Results
Goal
Key
Results
Purpose
Activities
Sub
Results
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 11
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
Good project design looks very carefully at assumptions and makes them
explicit. Likewise an important part of M&E is checking on the validity of
original assumptions.
Sorting Out Objective Hierarchy Terminology
Objective hierarchy terminology, as already mentioned, is the source of most
of the confusion around PM&E. To help sort this out it will be helpful to
discuss some basic ideas about different levels in an objective hierarchy
before getting too caught up in the terminology.
At the highest level of an objective hierarchy it is helpful to place the
programme or project within the context of some larger human endeavour.
For example an integrated conservation and development project may be
contributing towards the protection of the ecological, economic and cultural
values of a particular forest. However the project itself will not be able to
fully realise this highest level objective or goal, it can only make a
contribution. This level provides clarity about why a programme or project
is being undertaken. It helps to provide a sense of vision about the future for
those engaged with a programme or project. This level is commonly
understood as the goal for a programme or project. Some planning
frameworks call this level the vision and reserve the goal for the next level
down.
Impact is generally used to refer to the extent to which a programme or
project in fact does make a contribution towards the goal. However this may
not occur during the life of a programme or project and where others are also
contributing it may be difficult to desegregate the contributions made by one
initiative from those of another. This makes impact evaluation particularly
difficult, but nevertheless important.
Below this top level of an objective hierarchy is what can be considered the
purpose of a programme or project. This is overall what a programme or
project should achieve if it is successful. It is generally considered helpful to
try and summarise the purpose as a single statement to ensure focus and
clarity. For example to develop the institutional frameworks and human
and organisational capacity for sustainable forest management. This is
what a programme or project should be able to achieve within its available
resources and implementation period. If planning for an organisation this
level will usually be called the mission of the organisation.
Below this level are a series of major outcomes or results that need to be
achieved for the purpose to be realised. These should be the actual
observable changes in for example behaviour, institutions, economic
circumstances or physical conditions. Again these should be achievable
within the resources and timeframe of the programme or project. For
example, staff within the forest department effectively carrying out their
responsibilities. In the LFA this level is subsumed into the purpose level
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 12
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
and it is argued that there are outcomes at the purpose level. Other planning
frameworks refer to this level as the main objectives.
Each of these major outcomes or results arise from the logical consequence
of the programme or project delivering a set of products or services outputs
which arise directly from programme or project activities. For example
forestry department staff trained in the skills required to carry out their
responsibilities.
Not all planning frameworks make this distinction between outcomes and
outputs. It is this middle level of an objective hierarchy where terms and
concepts are most problematic. While outcomes generally refer to the higher
order changes or effects that arise from delivering outputs, which are
generally considered as tangible or concrete products and services, the
distinction is not always so clear cut. There is not a neat dividing line
between what can be considered outputs and are outcomes. In fact rather
than there being just two cause and effect steps there may be many, ie there
are also higher and lower level outputs and outcomes. While a slightly
artificial, the output and outcome distinction is still helpful in summarising
what can be expected to result at different levels within an objective
hierarchy. However, it needs to be remembered that it is a shorthand
summary and like all categorisations an approximation of reality.
This ambiguity around outputs and outcomes is why IUCN finds it less
confusing to talk of key-results and sub-results within the objective
hierarchy. The relationship between these terms is illustrated below.

Objective and Results Hierarchies

Objective Hierarchy - what is


planned to be achieved

Results Hierarchy - what is
actually achieved
(also called impact or
hierarchy and results
Actual Overall Result
Outcomes
Actual Key Results
Outcomes
Actual Sub Results
Outputs
Goal
Purpose
(Planned)
Key Results
(Planned)
Sub Results
Activities
Impact
Outputs
Outcomes
Outcomes
Outcomes
Outputs
This is where
M&E terminology
can becomes very
confusing
Inputs
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 13
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
The lowest level of an objective hierarchy is the activity level. For detailed
work planning it will often be necessary to break activities down the sub-
activities and/or tasks that will occur, for example over a particular year or
quarter.
From an M&E perspective it is very helpful to think in terms of impacts,
outcomes and outputs. However it is not necessary to limit impact questions
to the goal level of the objective hierarchy or outcome questions to the key-
result/outcome level of the hierarchy. This is easiest explained with an
example. Take the sub-result of a large integrated conservation and
development project - sustainable livelihood activities adopted in target
villages. An activity of this sub result may the promotion of bee keeping.
The real reasons for this may be to try and reduce the negative effects of
wild honey collection on a forest. The impact of such an activity would
relate to the extent to which a reduction of wild honey collection leads to an
improvement in the ecological values of the forest. The outcomes may
include the reduced level of actual wild honey collection, the level of success
adoption of bee keeping and extent to which bee keeping increases
household/village income. The outputs would be the number of farmers
trained in bee keeping, the formation of a bee keeping group, the provision
of hives or the development of a honey processing facility. In other words
even down to the activity level of an objective hierarchy it is possible to
examine impacts, outcomes and outputs.
In development work objective hierarchy thinking has been very much
influenced by the logical framework approach which has emphasised the
output level of planning and subsumed the outcome level into project
purpose. The idea was to focus on the tangible products and services that a
particular project management team should be directly responsible for
delivering. This has problems that manifest themselves in two ways. One,
the higher level results or outcomes that a project needs to achieve are not
made explicit and project management becomes very activity/output driven
and hence may not adapt its implementation strategy to achieve higher level
results when circumstances change. Two, in trying to overcome this
problem and attempting to focus on higher level achievements outputs come
to be used as essentially equivalent to outcomes. These issues relate to the
questions of accountability and control that will be discussed in the next
section.
The following table summarises the key terms discussed above.




Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 14
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
Term Definition
Goal The longer term, high level improved situation that a
programme or projects is contributing towards. The goal
helps explain why a programme or projects is being
undertaken. Generally the goal can only be achieved
through the combined efforts of others and a programme
or project cannot be solely responsible for the goal being
realised. Sometimes the term goal is used to refer to the
highest level direct results of a programme or project (ie it
is used interchangeably with what in this table is defined
as the purpose). Vision is sometimes used in place off
goal. Example The ecological, economic and cultural
values of XXX forest protected for current and future
generations.
Impact The extent to which a programme or project, or some part
of it, actually makes a contribution towards the goal.
Impact is concerned with intended and unintended and
positive and negative contributions.
Purpose Overall what a programme or project, within the
timeframe and resources available, should achieve.
Example XXX forest being used and managed in a
sustainable way.
Outcome The observable changes in, for example, behaviour,
institutions, economic circumstances or physical
conditions that need to result from a programme or project
in order for it to realise its purpose and make a
contribution to the goal. Result or key result is also used
interchangeably with outcome. Example Forestry
officers carrying out their responsibilities competently and
effectively.
Output The direct services or products that must be delivered for
the outcomes to realised. Result or sub result is also used
interchangeably with output. Example Forestry officers
trained to develop collaborative management agreements
with local communities.
Result Used to refer generally to both outputs and outcomes.
There can be lower (sub) and higher (key) level results.
Example as for outcome and output.
Objective Used generally to refer to anything that should be
achieved by a programme or project. Example as for
purpose, outcome output depending on use.
Activity Specific actions that need to be undertaken for outputs to
be produced or outcomes/results/objectives to be realised
Example Training workshop on collaborative
management conducted.
Sub Activity
/ Tasks
A detailed breakdown of activities to the level required for
yearly/quarterly/weekly/daily workplanning.




Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 15
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
3.6 Accountability and Control
As you move up an objective hierarchy it becomes increasingly difficult to
directly control external factors that influence the achievement of results or
the goal of a programme or project. For example, a goal of a project might
be to improve the capacity of a government department responsible for
conservation. Part of this project might involve training. The project can
directly control the hiring of a training venue, the preparation of materials,
the provision of a trainer, and the notification of potential participants. It has
less control over whether potential participants will actually attend and
considerably less control, if any, over whether the skills the participants
learn will actually be used back in the organisational setting.
The issue of accountability and control relates very closely to the notion of
assumptions. For example assumptions will have been made that the
participants would use there skills back in the organisational setting
otherwise there would be not rationale for the project (or at least that
particular project activity).
There are two dimensions of accountability and control that are very
important to distinguish. The first relates to what a programme or project
management team should be accountable for if they have been given a plan
to implement. In this case they can really only be held accountable for
carrying out the activities and for the products or services that flow directly
from these activities - ie the outputs. The second dimension relates to the
overall accountability of a programme or project, which rests with those who
design, fund or have overall management responsibility. At this level there
should be accountability for the higher level results (outcomes) and the
purpose, even though the achievement of these is dependent on actions by
others over which there may be no direction control by the programme or
Within
project
control
Beyond
project
control
Goal
Activities
Purpose
Key Results
(Outcomes)
Sub Results
(Outputs)
Tasks
what overall
the project can
reasonably be
accountable for
achieving
Ends
what the project
is contributing
towards
Means
Adapted from Materials Developed by ITAD
The Limits of Control and Accountability
what is
within the
direct
management
control of a
project
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 16
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
project. However, the programme or project has been established on
assumptions that these actions by others will occur and the programme and
should be held accountable for the assumptions within the design.
Traditional logical framework approaches tend to emphasise the former and
suggest that the purpose of a project is outside the control of a management
team. Results based management approaches tend to emphasise managing to
achieve the higher level objectives (results).
3.7 Key Aspects of Evaluation
In developing any monitoring and evaluation system there are five aspects of
evaluation to consider as illustrated below. If you can provide information
on each of these you will be able to judge the overall performance of a
programme or project.
Relevance - Was/is the programme or project a good idea given the
situation to improve? Was the logic of the intervention logic correct? Why
or Why Not?
Effectiveness - Have the planned results been achieved? Why or Why Not
Efficiency - Have resources been used in the best possible way? Why or
Why Not?
Impact - To what extent has the programme or project contributed towards
its longer term goals? Why or Why Not? Have there been any unanticipated
positive or negative consequences of the project? Why did they arise?
Sustainability - Will there be continued positive impacts as a result of the
programme or project once it has finished? Why or Why Not?
The Situation to
Improve
Problems and Visions
Plan
(Goal, Purpose,
Results
and Activities)
Inputs Activities Actual Results
4. IMPACT
Key Aspects of Evaluation
3. Efficiency
1. Relevance
2. Effectiveness
5. Sustainability
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 17
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
3.8 Developing an Overall M&E Strategy/Plan
To effectively monitor and evaluate any programme or project it is necessary
to develop an overall M&E strategy or plan. A common failing for many
projects is that the only reference to M&E is the list of indicators and
monitoring mechanisms in the logical framework matrix table. This just
does not provide enough information to guide the actual implementation of a
M&E system. The boxes below illustrate the process for developing and the
general content for an M&E plan.

Steps for Developing an M&E Plan
1. Establish use and scope of M&E system
2. Check project objectives and logic
3. Establish overall evaluation requirements and questions
4. Establish requirements for regular monitoring of implementation
and progress towards desired results
5. Test overall M&E strategy with potential users and refine 3 and 4
5. Establish the information and indicators needed for 3 and 4
6. Develop and test regular data gathering / monitoring mechanisms
7. Design open-ended and/pr periodic evaluation activities
8. Design information management system
9. Design a learning and feedback process
10. Decide how to evaluate the evaluation
- key evaluation questions
- focussing questions for learning lessons
- indicators and monitoring mechanisms
- open-ended evaluation activities
- participation and responsibilities
Contents for an Overall Project M&E Plan
Purpose and scope
Overview of approach (concepts, terminology, methods)
General project evaluation activities - eg ...
Annual internal reviews
external reviews
M&E details
Goal level (impact)
Purpose level
Results level
Appendices - eg ...
Budget
Details on indicators, monitoring mechanism, reporting
Gnat chart of key M&E activities over project life
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 18
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
A few points are worth emphasising:
1. It is important to be clear about the overall purpose and scope of the
M&E system. In particular it should be clear who needs what sort of
information for what reasons, how extensive or minimal M&E needs to
be, and what resources are available. For example a project that has a
learning or action research focus will require a more comprehensive
M&E system than a project that is simply implementing a physical
works programme.
2. The overall system that will be needed for M&E to be effective must be
considered. This includes designing evaluation questions and indicators
that are relevant and practical, training staff in monitoring techniques,
developing monitoring forms and reporting processes, establishing an
information management system and establishing how information will
be analysed, reported and used.
3. It is particularly critical to design learning processes in which staff,
beneficiaries, partners and donors participate. For example, annual
review meeting. Information from the M&E system should stimulate,
inform and support this learning process.
4. The whole M&E system must be developed around the use of
information. If information can't be used its collection is a waste of
time. Yet, it is remarkable how much fragmented and often unusable
data is collected by projects in the name of carrying out M&E.
5. It is important to recognise the difference between regular monitoring of
progress vs periodic and in-depth evaluation of some part of or the entire
programme or project. Regular progress monitoring will generally focus
more on output level indicators and the achievement of established
milestones or targets. Periodic in-depth evaluation examines whether
outputs are leading to expected outcomes and impacts, explores reasons
why and should assesses the effectiveness of the process of the
programme or project.
6. Responsibilities for M&E must be very clear and explicit in any terms of
reference, in job descriptions and be a core part of any staff performance
monitoring and appraisal system. If staff are asked to undertake M&E
work but it is not formalised as part of their core responsibilities it will
inevitably slip to the bottom of the work pile and never get done.
7. Make the M&E plan visual so everyone is aware about it and of their
responsibilities.





Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 19
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative

3.9 Developing and Monitoring Evaluation Questions and Indicators
A good M&E plan should clearly articulate the key evaluation questions that
need to be asked for each level of the objective hierarchy. To answer these
evaluation questions it will be necessary to identify information needs. The
necessary information may come from specific quantitative or qualitative
indicators, general project records, generally available information or from
specially designed evaluative or action research activities.
Traditionally a lot of emphasis has been placed on the development of
quantitative indicators as the key element in developing an M&E plan.
Starting at this point tends to narrow down and straitjacket an M&E system
and reduce its usefulness particularly in relation to supporting learning. For
good reason it is often very difficult or even impossible to develop sensible
quantitative indicators for the goal purpose and outcome levels of a
programme or project. Very often when quantitative indicators have been
developed for these levels they are either impractical to monitor or provide
relatively useless information in terms of overall evaluation of the result.
There is no question that indicators and in particular quantitative indicators
are an important part of an M&E system and wherever practical they should
be used. However, an M&E system will be far more useful if it is designed
around the broad evaluation questions rather than narrowly focused
indicators.
In thinking about evaluation questions and indicators it is important to make
the distinction between evaluation and monitoring. It will often be necessary
and helpful to have some simple indicators that show regular progress
towards a result and which are monitored regularly. Output indicators are
Visualising an M&E Plan
Q1 Q3 Q2 Q4
Year 1
Q1 Q3 Q2 Q4
Year 3
Q1 Q3 Q2 Q4
Year 2
Develop M&E
plan with
stakeholders
Preparation
for mid term
Mid term
review
Training in use
of reporting
system
Annual Review
and Planning
workshop
Annual Review
and Planning
workshop
PRA with
participating
communities
Preparation for
annual review
(performance and
lessons learnt)
Phase two
preparation
Key Meetings
Report Due
(Illustrative Only)
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 20
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
particularly useful in this regard. This is the ongoing monitoring of progress
that is required to manage a programme or project and which should show
early warning signs of problems. Evaluation is a more in depth and probing
assessment of the whole situation that should explore the reasons for success
or failure. This generally occurs less frequently. Different types of
information and indicators may be required for regular monitoring vs in
depth evaluation. These two different but related aspects should be reflected
in the description of an M&E plan for a particular result.
To effectively monitor and evaluation progress towards any particular result
(objective) in a programme or project the following steps will generally be
appropriate:
1. Identify the key evaluation questions for each level and result in the
objective hierarchy.
2. For each question identify what information or indicators will be
required to answer the question.
3. For each piece of required information or indicator establish:
The methods and frequency for gathering the information or
monitoring the indicator.
The baseline information required for comparison.
What preparation and resources are required for the data to be
collected, collated and analysed, for example data collection and
analysis forms, training of staff, data base design, external
expertise.
Who is responsible for carrying out each of the above and by
when.
4. For each question, or a set of questions, establish what overall analysis is
required and how the resulting knowledge will be used and what change
processes need to be in place to learn from and respond to the
knowledge.
5. Decide on an overall monitoring and evaluation plan for the particular
result. For example, how often will an overall evaluation of progress be
made and what indicators or information will be used to regularly
monitor progress and how often?




Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 21
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative

3.10 Open Ended Evaluation Activities
A good evaluation system should give adequate attention to what shall be
termed here open ended evaluation activities. These are all the aspects of
evaluation that complement an indicator based approach. Such open ended
activities (examples of which are given below) are necessary for the
following reasons:
1. There will often be unintended positive or negative results and
impacts from a project that will be missed by an evaluation that just
focuses on monitoring predetermined indicators.
2. Monitoring indicators alone often not provide an understanding of why
objectives have or have not been met. This requires discussion and
analysis with project staff and partners.
3. Monitoring indicators alone will not lead to understanding and learning
by programme or project staff and partners.
4. For complex or messy objectives it may not be possible to develop a
easily measurable indicator and the achievement of the objective may
have to be demonstrated through more anecdotal information.
5. Monitoring indicators provide only limited capacity for evaluation of
the success or otherwise of the process of the project.

Detailed Result M&E Plan
Evaluation
Questions
Required
Information
and
Indicators
Data
Gathering
Methods,
Frequency
and
Responsibilit-
ies
Baseline
Information
Requirements
Status and
Responsibilit-
ies
Required
Forms,
Planning,
Training, Data
Management,
Expertise,
Resources
and
Responsibilit-
ies
Analysis,
Reporting,
Feedback and
Change
Processes
and
Responsibilit-
ies
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 22
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
Examples of Open-Ended Evaluation Activities
Annual Review and Planning Processes
Monthly and/or Quarterly Review and Planning Processes
Open Ended Impact Assessment
PRAs
External Reviews
Peer Reviews
Stakeholder Meetings
Regular Staff Meetings
Analysing and Documenting Lessons Learnt
Conference Presentations and Papers
Advisory Committee Functions
Independent Assessments
Staff Performance Reviews
Implementing Partner Performance Reviews
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 23
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative

4 Logical Framework Approach (LFA) and ZOPP
The logical framework approach (LFA) and ZOPP have evolved from the
1960s as methodologies for improving the systematic planning of
development projects. Over time, they have evolved from simply a
framework for structuring project objectives to more sophisticated, process
orientated, approaches for involving stakeholders in project design and
management.
LFA and ZOPP are based around the following programme/project
development steps:
1) Systemic and participatory analysis of the situation in which some
intervention is anticipated
2) Clearly identifying the problem(s) to be addressed and identifying
the causes and effects of the problem(s). This is usually done by
developing a problem tree.
3) Using the situation analysis and problem identification steps to
consider intervention alternatives and to develop a logical hierarchy
of activities and objectives that will enable the problems to be
overcome.
4) Identifying the assumptions that underlie the logic of the objective
hierarchy ie being explicit about why it is assumed that particular
lower lever activities or objectives will lead to higher level ones.
Associated with this is identifying the external risks that may lead to
these assumptions not being realised and hence the project not
succeeding.
5) Establishing the indicators that will be used to verify that project
objectives have been achieved.
6) Developing the means by which information for the indicators will
be collected and analysed.
Various groups and facilitators have integrated an extensive range of
participatory planning methodologies and tools with the basic LFA/ZOPP
framework and quite sophisticated planning workshops have been
developed. There are numerous LFA/ZOPP manuals and documents.
The objective hierarchy for LFA and ZOPP usually has the following levels
and terms:
Goal the long term objective, change of state, or improved
situation towards which the programme or project is making a
contribution.
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 24
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
Purpose the immediate project objective ie the observable changes
in performance, behaviour or status of resources that should occur as
a direct result of the programme or project.
Results (Outputs) the products, services or results that must be
delivered by the project for the purpose to be achieved.
Activities the specific tasks that must be undertaken for the results
to be achieved
The outcomes from such a planning processes are summarised in a project
planning matrix (PPM) or logframe table as illustrated below. It is important
to distinguish between the logical framework approach and the project
planning matrix. Often poorly planned projects, that in fact do not reflect an
LFA approach, are summarised in such a matrix.
Different terminology is used by different donors and other groups for both
the logframe objective hierarchy and the headings for the columns in the
project planning matrix. The main terminology used by the key donors is
summarised below. Its also worth remembering that the staff of
development agencies arent always themselves familiar with the correct
definitions of some of the terms they are using. Different parts of the same
organisation may be using the same terms in different ways. Sometimes, the
adoption of new terminology within these organisations takes some time to
reach all of the employees.
Outputs is the most commonly used term for the level between activities and
purpose, however the term results is now becoming more widely used, partly
reflecting the move towards results based management approaches an partly
because there is some confusion within the M&E terminology about the
meaning of outputs. IUCN has decided to use the term result rather than
Objective
Hierarchy
Indicators Monitoring
Mechanisms
Assumptions
and Risks
Activities
Goal
Purpose
Results
(Outputs)
Project Planning Matrix (PPM)
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 25
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
output. The project planning matrix is usually only shown with one level of
results (outputs) however it is understood that there can be several levels of
results (ie key results and sub results) for a large and complex programme or
project.
Conventionally it has been understood that the inputs, activities and results
are within the direct control of a project, while the purpose and goal is
beyond direct project control. However this is a blurred rather than clear
line and depends on whether one is concerned with overall project
accountability (design, funding, eventual impact) or the just the
accountability for project implementation. With complex projects that need
to be adaptively managed even this distinction becomes blurred.
LFA and ZOPP have become widely accepted as useful and necessary tools
for project planning, however, they do have their weaknesses that include:
focussing too much on problems rather than opportunities and
vision;
being used too rigidly and leading people into a blueprint approach
to project design and implementation;
limited attention to problems of uncertainty where a learning and an
adaptive approach to project design and management is required;
the tendency for poorly thought through sets of activities and
objectives to be entered into a PPM table giving the appearance of a
logical framework, when in fact the key elements of the analytical
process have been skipped;
the simple logic of the LFA is often not appropriate to programme
level planning where it may be necessary to deal with a number of
parallel or cross cutting logics.
Despite these limitations and provided due attention is given to the
participation of stakeholders, and it is not used to rigidly the LFA/ZOPP
approach remains a very valuable tool for project planning and management.

Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 26
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
Comparison of LFA Terminology Used by Different Donor Agencies


CIDA DANIDA DFID EC FINNIDA GTZ SIDA
World
Bank
UNDP
Goal
Goal is
becoming
the
standard
term at this
level.
Goal Goal Goal
Overall
Objective
Overall
Objective
Overall Goal
Development
Objective
Country
Assistance
Strategy-
related Goal
Development
Objective
Purpose
Purpose or
Immediate
Outcome
are the
main
alternatives
at this level
Purpose
Immediate
Objective
Purpose Purpose Purpose Purpose
Project
Objective
Project
Development
Objective
Immediate
Objective
Results
At this
level, the
alternatives
are outputs
or results.
Outputs Outputs Outputs Results Results Results Results Outputs Outputs
Activities
Activities
are used by
all
Activities Activities Activities Activities Activities Activities Activities Activities Activities
(Source: ITAD Ltd Draft Glossary Developed for IUCN)

Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 27
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
5 Results Based Management
Over recent years (Canadian) CIDA and USAID, in particular, have moved
to what has been called a results based approach and away from any explicit
use of the LFA. This development has arisen for two reasons. First because
it was recognised that more attention needs to be given to the actual
management of programmes and projects if planned results are to be
achieved. Second because there has been growing pressure from donor
governments for donor agencies to demonstrate more explicitly the impacts
of development assistance.
While RMB and logical framework approaches do have slightly different
emphasis the underlying principles are quite similar. In essence they both
attempt ensure logical project design, that results are actually achieved and
that there are mechanisms for monitoring projects and demonstrating what
has been achieved.
Part of the reason for a movement away from the logical framework
approach was a perception that it was too ridged and did not provide for
enough flexibility in project implementation. Also the move to results based
approaches is an attempt to link development projects more explicitly to an
overall development strategy for the donor, the country or the region. Donor
agencies have become interested in showing the collective impact of their
entire portfolio of development assistance.
There is also a strong theme within the results based management of
managing a project to ensure higher lever results or project purpose are
achieved. This reflects an explicit recognition of the need for adaptive
project management.
CIDA defines Results Based Management (RBM) as:
a management approach that centres on the establishment of a process and
environment where individuals work together to accomplish expected results.
The RBM process allows project managers to allocate or reallocate scarce
project resources based on performance information and incorporates lessons
learned into project management.
USAID defines Results Orientated Assistance (ROA) or what is also referred
to as Managing for Results (MFR) as:
A grant or cooperative agreement awarded to a Development Partner to
achieve results that contribute to USAIDs performance goals.
There are three principal elements of ROA:
1) a results orientated programme description
2) a performance measurement system
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 28
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
3) responsibility for performance
The ROA approach of USAID is designed to show how a particular project
contributes to the overall development assistance goals that have been set by
USAID and approved by the US Congress.
The main difference between RBM/ROA and LFA/ZOPP is that RMB/ROA
places as much emphasis on management and M&E as it does on the design,
while LFA/ZOPP has tended to focus more on planning and design.
The RBM/ROA approaches are specifically designed to enable project
managers to cope with change and uncertainty and move away from blue
print development planning. For example, USAID states:
Overly prescriptive input-related detail should be avoided, in order to
preserve subsequent flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances on the
ground during implementation of the activity
However, some experiences with USAID would suggest that this principle is
yet to be fully integrated into the various departments and processes that deal
with project approval. At times one will find different understanding
between the planning departments and the financial management and
contracting departments of agencies, the former saying flexibility and
adaptive management is fine while the latter demands much great rigidity.
In essence there is no particular conflict between LFA and results based
approaches, and LFA can be used in a perfectly complementary way within a
RBM context.
To further understand Canadian CIDAs RBM and USAIDs ROA it will be
helpful to examine briefly some of the processes and terminology used by
each.
5.1 CIDA RBM Terminology
The basic framework of RBM is set out on the following page.
RBM is defined by the following characterists and processes:
stakeholder participation;
defining expected results;
identifying performance indicators
identifying critical assumptions and performing risk analysis
organisational learning
performance reporting

The monitoring and evaluation aspect of RMB is referred to as a
Performance Measurement Strategy (or Plan) (PMS).
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 29
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative

RBM uses the following terminology and definitions:
Result: a describable or measurable change in state that is derived from a
cause and effect relationship
Developmental result: an actual change in the state of human development
that is the logical consequence of a CIDA investment in a developing
country, measurable at output, outcome and impact levels.
Operational result: the administrative and management product of an
agency, its programs or projects.
Goal: the highest level objective that links a programme/project to a wider
set of strategies being undertaken to address a specific problem.
Purpose: the second level objective that defines specifically what the
programme, project or service is delivering and who are the beneficiaries.
Activities: the coordination, technical assistance and training tasks organised
and executed by the project personnel that transform inputs into results.
Inputs: the human organisational and physical resources contributed directly
or indirectly by the stakeholders of a project.
Impact (corresponds to project goal): a long term developmental result,
linked to the goal or vision, that is the logical consequence of achieving a
combination outputs and outcomes.
Outcome (corresponds to project purpose/component): a medium term
developmental result that is the logical consequence of achieving a
combination of outputs.
Output (corresponds to project activities): a short term developmental result
that is visible, concrete and tangible and is the logical consequence of project
activities.
Results chain: the sequence of results (or result hierarchy) from outputs to
outcomes to impacts.
Performance Indicators: qualitative or quantitative measures of project
inputs/activities (operational results) and outputs, outcomes and impact used
to monitor progress towards the achievement of expected result
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 31
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
RESULTS-BASED MANAGEMENT
Defining Expected Results

































Results Chain














Developmental Results
An actual change in the state of human development that is
the logical consequence of a CIDA investment in a
developing country

Program / Project Management














Operational Results
The administrative and management
product of an agency, its programmes
or projects

Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact
The human
organisation and
physical
resources
contributed
directly by the
stakeholders of a
project
The coordination,
technical
assistance and
training tasks
organised by
project personnel
A short-term
developmental
result that is the
logical
consequence of
project
activities
A medium-term
developmental
result that is the
logical
consequences of
achieving a
combination of
outputs
A long-term
developmental
result that is the
logical
consequence of
achieving a
combination of
outputs and
outcomes
Introduction to PM&E Concepts, Approach and Terms 32
Working Draft Version 1 March 2000 IUCN Global M&E Initiative
5.2 USAID ROA Terminology
USAID uses very similar terminology to that defined above in relation
RBM, however in the Results-Orientated Assistance Sourcebook there is no
clearly laid out set of key terms and definitions.
ROA uses the following hierarchy of results (objectives):
In relation to M&E ROA uses the following terms and definitions:
Performance: effectiveness in converting inputs to outputs, outcomes and
impacts.
Performance monitoring: a process of collecting and analysing data to
measure the performance of a programme, process, or activity against its
expected results.
Performance monitoring plan: a detailed plan for managing the collection
of data in order to monitor performance.
Evaluation: a relatively structured analytic effort undertaken selectively to
answer specific management questions regarding USAID-funded programs
or activities. In contrast to performance monitoring, which provides ongoing
structured information, evaluation is occasional. Evaluation focuses on why
results are or are not being achieved, on unintended consequences, or on
issues of interpretation, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact or
sustainability.
ROA Term Accountability for
Performance
Comments
Agency Goal USAID Agency
Agency Objectives USAID Agency
Mission/Operating
Unit Strategic
Objective
Mission and/or
Washington-based
Operating Unit SO
Teams
It is important recognise
that these top three
levels relate to USAIDs
own objectives and sit
above those of a
funded project.
Intermediate Result(s) Development
Partner(s)
Outcomes Development
Partner(s)
Outputs Development
Partner(s)
Activities, Strategies,
Processes
Development
Partner(s)
These levels are
established by the
development partner (in
cooperation with
USAID) and define the
funded project.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi