LECTURER ONE

OVERVIEW OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT CYCLE

1.1 Introduction
Thank you for your interest in studying monitoring and evaluation of projects which is an
indispensable management function. You can call it “M & E” – it is much easier. In this lecture
we will try to review a few background issues on the projects that you covered in the unit LDP
604: Project planning, design and implementation. This will give us a good foundation to discuss
Project Monitoring and Evaluation.

1.2. Objectives
At the end of this lecture you should be able to;
1. Define a project

2. Define the project management cycle

3. Describe the major stages of the project management

cycle

4. Explain the element of a project document

1.3 Definition of a project

In the previous unit on project planning design and implementation you may realize that the
term project was defined differently by different experts. Let us single out a few definitions and
try to understand them in the context of Monitoring and Evaluation.
Singh and Nyandemo (2004) define a project as an endeavor in which human, material and
financial resources are organized in a novel way to undertake a unique scope of work of a given
specification within constrains of cost, time and the prevailing environment, so as to achieve
beneficial change defined by quantitative and qualitative objectives. On the other hand
International Standard Organization (ISO) 10006 looks at the project as a unique process that
consists of a set of coordinated and controlled activities with start and finish dates undertaken to
achieve an objective conforming to specific requirements, including the constrains of time, cost
and resources.
In the two definitions it is clear that project involves resources which include human, material
and financial among others. It also involves tasks defined in terms of activities that are organized
in a unique way to achieve a set of predetermined objectives. Other issues that come out clearly
are the timeliness of the projects and the aspect of coordinating and controlling of activities to
achieve the desired objectives. We can therefore conclude that:
 Activities that comprise a project are intentionally designed to achieve certain ends in
consideration of available resources and time.
 Objectives therefore become the major target of each and every activity.
 Monitoring of the project activities is therefore very important to ensure that they are
implemented as planned.
 It is important to ensure that the activities produce the intended results at the end of the
project cycle.

WRITTEN AND COMPILED BY DR. MUCHELULE (PhD) Page 1

  It is also important to ascertain the changes brought to the project beneficiaries in terms
of quantitative and qualitative data.
It is only when this is achieved that we can conclude that the project has fulfilled its
objectives. Evaluation of projects therefore becomes not only important to projects but a
part and parcel of project design.
Activity 1.4
1. From the two definitions Singh and Nyandemo (2004) and ISO
(2006), identify the elements that calls for monitoring and
evaluation

1.5 Project cycle

A project cycle is a sequence of continuous events which a project follows. The events, stages or
phases can be divided into several equally valid ways depending on the executing agency or
parties involved. For instance in 1970s the World Bank identified five stages in which a project
undergoes namely project identification, project formulation, project appraisal, implementation
and project evaluation. This model has given rise to many variations of stages in project cycle for
instance Ogula (2002) proposes five stages as reflected in fig.1 below:
Fig. 1: Project life cycle

Problem
identification

Feedback Monitoring & Project design

Evaluation

Project
implementation

Source: Ogula (2002) Monitoring and Evaluation of Educational Projects and Programmes.
Nairobi. New Kemit Publishers

From the above demonstration of stages in project cycle it is clear that monitoring and
evaluation forms a very key component. For instance in figure 1 above it is implied that at all the
stages of project cycle monitoring and evaluation is required. For instance:

1). At the problem identification or project conceptualization stage one needs to undertake project
needs analysis in which data is collected and evaluated to identify the needs of the communities;
possible project ideas to satisfy needs identified are also evaluated and closely analyzed (filtered)
to finally arrive at the indented projects.

WRITTEN AND COMPILED BY DR. MUCHELULE (PhD) Page 2

2). Formulation of the project also involves evaluation to some extent. Project objectives
formulation is a participatory activity that requires careful evaluation by all project stakeholders.
Cost and benefit analysis of each and every activity is done to give the final activity that will be
included in the project. The purpose is to arrive at the activities that have the highest impact in
terms of fulfilling the project objectives.

3). Implementation stage involves rolling out the project activities. This calls for monitoring to
ensure that the activities are implemented as planned.

4). At the end of the project cycle, the terminal evaluation is done to determine the impact of the
whole project to the project beneficiaries.

Take Note
We can therefore conclude that Monitoring and Evaluation is a very
important component of project design and project life cycle

1.7 Components of Project design

At this point, we need to examine the components of a project design and see how they all
hinge on monitoring and evaluation. It is important to note that a well designed project should
have a written document which is logical and complete.

Lets us look at some of the components of a project design. The project document has the
following;

Statement of project: Describe the areas that emerged during the need assessment and that the
project seeks to address.

Project strategy: Explain clearly the beneficiaries of your project. Show the beneficial changes to
be brought by the project. Indicate the partners/ stakeholders involved and show how the project
will deliver its benefits to the intended group.

Goals/ purpose/vision: This is the ultimate objective of the project. It is the long term objective
e.g. to ensure that every youth at Kwa kavoo village is self employed by 2015.

Objectives/mission: State the immediate achievement at the end of the project e.g at the end of
the project 400 youth from Kwa kavoo village will have been trained on how to run their own
small businesses.

Outputs: Describe the products that would result from the project activities

Activities: Show all the activities which will be undertaken to produce the desired output e.g
workshops, developing training manual/ modules.

Inputs: Give a full range of the resources needed (human, financial, technical etc) to carry out the
activities in terms of costs.

WRITTEN AND COMPILED BY DR. MUCHELULE (PhD) Page 3

Indicators: State the end result /changes achieved at the end of a project. Indicators are shown by
the objectives and outputs of a project.

1.8 Summary
When you view a project in many perspective the most notable
aspect that one may not fail to notice is the ability of the project
to produce results that can be measured and thus provide a
change from one state of being to a desired state. This Lecture
provided definition of a project and highlighted on project
management cycle with a view of demonstrating that monitoring
and evaluation is part and parcel of a project design. The lecture
also elaborates on the components of the project design.

Activity 1.9: Self assessment questions

1. Explain the components of a good project document

2. Describe the main stages in project life cycle

1.10 Further reading

Chandra Prasanna (2005) projects: planning analysis, financing
implementation and review (5th ed). Tata Mc Graw – Hill
publicity Company Limited, New delhi.

Kohli, U. T Chitkara, KK (2008). Project management

Handbook. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing company Limited,
New Delhi

UNCRD (1998) “Introduction to project cycle (PMC)” Fourth

African Training course on local and regional development
planning and management : module 7 training material, Nairobi
UNCRD

WRITTEN AND COMPILED BY DR. MUCHELULE (PhD) Page 4

 LECTURE TWO

BASIC CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

2.1 Introduction
After looking at the overview of projects, we will now focus on in-depth understanding of
the major concepts of Monitoring and Evaluation, and Social Research.

2.2 Lecture Objectives

At the end of this lecture you should be able to:
1. Define the terms Project Monitoring and Evaluation
2. Explain why there is need for project monitoring and
evaluation
3. Discuss project monitoring
4. Discuss project evaluation
5. Explain the relationship between project monitoring and
evaluation
6. Differentiate between Social Research and Evaluation

CONTENT

2.3 Concepts of project Monitoring and Evaluation

2.3.1 Concept of project monitoring

 Project Monitoring is a continuous process of collecting, analyzing, documenting, and

reporting information on progress to achieve set project objectives. It helps identify trends
and patterns, adapt strategies and inform decisions for project or programme management.
 Project monitoring is a continuous and periodic review, and overseeing of the project to
ensure that input deliveries, work schedules, target outputs and other required action
proceed according to plan (UNFPA, 1990).

 Monitoring is a continuous process of collecting information at regular intervals about on-

going projects or programmes concerning the nature and level of their performance.

WRITTEN AND COMPILED BY DR. MUCHELULE (PhD) Page 5

 Monitoring is an on-going activity which aims at tracking project progress against planned
tasks to ensure that the project is moving towards the right direction at the right time. It
aims at providing regular, oversight of the implementation of an activity in term of inputs
delivery, work schedules, and targeted outputs among other desired results.

Through routine data gathering, analysis and reporting, project monitoring aims at providing
project management staff and other stakeholders with information on whether progress is being
made towards achieving project objectives. In this regard, monitoring represents a continuous
assessment of project implementation in relation to project plans, resources, infrastructure and use
of services or products by project beneficiaries. Let us try to discuss the importance of project
monitoring.
1. Project managers and their stakeholders (including funding agencies) need to know the
extent to which their projects activities are implemented as per the plan. Meeting the set
objectives and leading to their desired effect.
2. Monitoring and to some extent evaluation builds greater transparency and accountability in
terms of use of project resources. All project stakeholders develop confidence in the
project when they know that resources are well spent on the planned project activities.
3. Information generated through Monitoring exercise, provides project managers and staff
with a clearer basis for decision-making. This decision concerns the continuing or
discontinuing certain activities that may be expensive to implement and which may be
having less impact as far as achieving project objectives.
4. Future project planning and development is improved when guided by lessons learned
from project experience. Documented results of previous monitoring activities may serve
as good lessons for future project implementation.
5. Monitoring allows the project manager to maintain control of the project by providing
him/her with information on the project status at all times.
6. Project monitoring alerts managers to actual and potential project weaknesses, problems
and shortcomings before it is too late. This provides managers with the opportunity to
make timely adjustments and corrective actions to improve on the program/project design,
work plan and implementation strategies. In short, monitoring activities must be
undertaken throughout the lifetime of the project.
Effective monitoring needs adequate planning; baseline data; reliable indicators of performance
and results; practical implementation mechanisms that include actions such as field visits,
stakeholder meetings, documentation of project activities, regular reporting etc. Project monitoring
is normally carried out by project management staff and other stakeholders

2.3.2 The concept of project Evaluation

 Project Evaluation is a periodic assessment, as systematic and objective as possible, of an
on-going or completed project, programme or policy, its design, implementation and
results. It involves gathering, analysing, interpreting and reporting information based on
credible data. The aim is to determine the relevance and fulfilment of objectives,
developmental efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.
 Project evaluation can be viewed as the process of systematic collection, analysis and
interpretation of project related data that can be used to understand how the project is
functioning in relation to the project objectives. It is a process of ascertaining decision
areas of concern selecting appropriate information and collecting and analyzing
information in order to report summary data useful to decision makers in selecting among

WRITTEN AND COMPILED BY DR. MUCHELULE (PhD) Page 6

 alternatives (Alkin, 1969). Project evaluation is a necessary component that must be
included in the project design.

Evaluation is a systematic approach to attribute changes in specific outcomes to program

activities. It has the following characteristics:
Conducted at important program milestones

Monitoring and Evaluation-MSc-Lecture Notes- May-August 2016 -pnk Page

1

WRITTEN AND COMPILED BY DR. MUCHELULE (PhD) Page 7

 Provides in-depth analysis
Compares planned with actual achievements
Looks at processes used to achieve results
Considers results at outcome level and in relation to cost
Considers overall relevance of program activities for resolving health problems
References implemented activities
Reports on how and why results were achieved
Contributes to building theories and models for change
Attributes program inputs and outputs to observed changes in program outcomes
and/or impact
As we continue with our discussion and understanding project evaluation, we will realize that in
lecture five, various scholars have attempted to define evaluation differently according to the
purpose of evaluation results and evaluation models employed. Most of the definitions are
geared towards justifying the evaluation models that they subscribe to, but their definition does
not go beyond the above definition. We shall examine this later, for now, let us focus on various
reasons why it is important for us to carry out project evaluation.

1. First and foremost, project evaluation provides managers with information regarding
project performance. You will realize that, sometimes during project implementation,
project plans may change significantly. In this case evaluation may come in handy to
verify if the program is running as originally planned. In addition, evaluations provide
signs of project strengths and weaknesses and therefore, enable managers to improve
future, planning, delivery of services and decision making.
2. Project Evaluation assists project managers, staff and other stakeholders to determine in a
systematic and objective way the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of activities
(expected and unexpected) in light of specific objectives.
3. Mid-term evaluations may serve as a means of validating the results of initial assessments
obtained from project monitoring activities.
4. If conducted after the termination of a project, an evaluation determines the extent to
which the interventions were successful in terms of their impact and sustainability of
results.
5. Evaluations assist managers to carry out a thorough review and rethinking about projects
in terms of their goals and objectives and means to achieve them.
6. Evaluation can be used to generate detailed information about project implementation
process and results. Such information can be used for public relations, fundraising, and
promotion of services in the community as well as identifying possibilities for project
replication.
7. Evaluation improves the learning process- Evaluation results should be documented to
help in explaining the causes and reasons why the project succeeded or failed. Such
documentation can help in making future project activities more relevant and effective.

8
There is need for all project stakeholders to have a clear knowledge and understanding of
Monitoring and Evaluation. This is because knowledge of M&E helps project staff to improve
on their ability to effectively monitor and evaluate the progress of the projects. It also enables
them to strengthen the performance of their projects thus increasing the impact of the project
results to beneficiaries. With basic orientation and training in monitoring and evaluation, project
staff can implement appropriate techniques to carry out a useful evaluation of their projects.
Project staff with knowledge in monitoring and evaluation can be in a good position to vet and
evaluate external evaluators’ capacity to evaluate their projects - Program/project evaluations
carried out by inexperienced persons might be time consuming, costly and could generate
impractical or irrelevant information.

Project Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and Evaluation is a process of continued gathering of information and its analysis, in
order to determine whether progress is being made towards pre-specified goals and objectives,
and highlight whether there are any unintended (positive or negative) effects from a
project/programme and its activities.

Take Note
 As in monitoring, evaluation activities must be planned at the
program/project level. Baseline data and appropriate indicators of
performance and results must be established.
 Project strengths and weaknesses might not be interpreted fairly when
data and results are analyzed by project staff members that are
responsible for ensuring that the project is successful. It is preferred
therefore, that the management recruits an external evaluation consultant
to lead the evaluation process.
 If the management does not have an expert to carry out the evaluation
and cannot afford to hire an external evaluator or prefers to use its own
resources in carrying out the evaluation, it is recommended that it
engages an experienced evaluation expert to advice on developing the
evaluation plan, selecting evaluation methods and analyzing and
reporting results.

2.3.3 Relationship between Monitoring and Evaluation

You will realize that form above discussions of project monitoring and evaluation we can
comfortably conclude the two serve the project managers differently. However, sometimes you
may find it difficult to separate the two concepts since they are closely related. The two support
each other. Now let us see how the two concepts are related;

9
 1. Through routine tracking of project progress, monitoring can provide quantitative and
qualitative data useful for designing and implementing project evaluation exercises.
2. Through the results of periodic evaluation monitoring tools and strategies can be refined
and further developed.
3. Good monitoring may substitute evaluation in cases where:
-projects are short-term
-projects are small-scale
4. The main objective of Monitoring is to obtain information that can be used in improving
the process of implementation of an ongoing project, however, when a final judgment
regarding project results, impact, sustainability and future development is needed, an
evaluation must be conducted.
5. Project evaluations are less frequent than monitoring activities, considering their costs
and time needed.
It is important to understand that project monitoring can be different from project evaluation in
some aspect. The table be low shows a summary of the differences between project monitoring
and project evaluation.

Table 2.1 Comparison between Monitoring and Evaluation

Item Monitoring Evaluation

Frequency Periodic, Regular Episodic

Main Action Keeping track/Oversight Assessment

Basic Purpose Improving efficiency, Improve effectiveness,

adjusting work plan impact, future
programming

Focus Inputs/outputs, process Effectiveness, relevance

outcomes work plans impact, cost-effectiveness
Information Sources Routine systems, field Same plus surveys and
observations, progress studies
reports, rapid assessments

Undertaken by Project Managers, Program managers

community workers, Superiors
community (beneficiaries) Funders
supervisors External evaluators
Funders Community (beneficiaries)

10
Source: A UNICEF, Guide for Monitoring and Evaluation; making a difference? New York,
1991, p3

Kurze and Rist (2004) identifies other complementary roles of Monitoring and Evaluation as

Indicated in table 2.2

Table 2.2: Complementary role of monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring Evaluation

• Clarifies program objectives • Analyzes why intended

results were or were not
achieved
• Links activities and their resources to • Assesses specific causal
objectives contributions of activities
to results
• Translates objectives into performance • Examines implementation process
indicators
and sets targets

• Routinely collects data on these indicators, • Explores unintended results

compares actual results
with targets
• Reports progress to managers • Provides lessons, significant
and alerts lights them accomplishment or program potential,
to problems and offers recommendations for
improvement
2.4 The difference between Research and Evaluation

We would like to introduce a concept of ‘social research’ which you well known from the
Research Methods unit you covered in your first year. The discussion of the concept of project
evaluation may have left you wondering how different the concept is from research. In this
section we will attempt to highlight on the differences between evaluation and social research

Activity

1. On a piece of paper, try to note down the meaning of

Research

2. Using the definition that you wrote down, try to list down

11
 at least three similarities and differences between social
research and Evaluation

3. Compare your answers with our discussion below

Social research is an inquiry that is based on logic through observation and involves the
interaction between ideas and evidence. Ideas help social researchers make sense of evidence and
use such evidence to test, extend or revise existing knowledge or facts. Social research is based
on logic through observation and involves the interaction between ideas and evidence. Ideas
makes social researchers make sense of evidence and use such evidence to test, extend or revise
existing knowledge or facts. Social research thus attempts to create or validate theories through
data collection and analysis and its goals are exploration, description, prediction, control and
explanation

Take Note
Research is a process that involves systematic collection, analysis and
interpretation of data with the purpose of describing, explaining,
predicting and controlling a phenomenon.

From the above description of social research we can note that research shares some aspects with
evaluation in that they both are concerned with generation of knowledge and are both aimed at
finding answers to significant inquiry questions. In addition, both employ scientific approaches
of inquiry which is systematic in nature. However, the two concepts differ to some extent as
shown below;

1. Evaluation findings are concerned with phenomena which are not generalized beyond
their application to a given project or program while research aims at generalizing
findings to the population
2. Research and evaluation are undertaken for different reasons. Research satisfies curiosity
by advancing knowledge while evaluation contributes to the solution of practical
problems through judging the value of whatever is evaluated
3. Research seeks conclusions while evaluation leads to decisions
4. Research is concerned with relationships among two or more variables while evaluation
describes the objects of evaluation
5. The researcher sets his own problems. Evaluations are normally commissioned by clients
6. Evaluation follows the set standards of Feasibility, Propriety, Accuracy and Utility while
7. research does not.

Purpose/Importance of Monitoring and Evaluation

Support project/programme implementation with accurate, evidence-based reporting that
informs management and decision-making to guide and improve project/programme
performance.

12
 Contribute to organizational learning and knowledge sharing by reflecting upon and
sharing experiences and lessons.
Uphold accountability and compliance by demonstrating whether or not our work has
been carried out as agreed and in compliance with established standards and with any
other stakeholder requirements
Provide opportunities for stakeholder feedback,.
Promote and celebrate project/program work by highlighting accomplishments and
achievements, building morale and contributing to resource mobilization.
Strategic management in provision of information to inform setting and adjustment of
objectives and strategies.
Build the capacity, self-reliance and confidence stakeholders, especially beneficiaries and
implementing staff and partners to effectively initiate and implement development
initiatives.

Characteristics of monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring tracks changes in program performance or key outcomes over time. It has the
following characteristics:
a) Conducted continuously
b) Keeps track and maintains oversight
c) Documents and analyzes progress against planned program activities
d) Focuses on program inputs, activities and outputs
e) Looks at processes of program implementation
f) Considers program results at output level
g) Considers continued relevance of program activities to resolving the health problem
h) Reports on program activities that have been implemented
i) Reports on immediate results that have been achieved

Key benefits of Monitoring and Evaluation

a. Provide regular feedback on project performance and show any need for ‘mid-
course’ corrections
b. Identify problems early and propose solutions
c. Monitor access to project services and outcomes by the target population;
d. Evaluate achievement of project objectives, enabling the tracking of progress
towards achievement of the desired goals
e. Incorporate stakeholder views and promote participation, ownership and
accountability
f. Improve project and programme design through feedback provided from baseline,
mid-term, terminal and ex-post evaluations
g. Inform and influence organizations through analysis of the outcomes and impact
of interventions, and the strengths and weaknesses of their implementation,
enabling development of a knowledge base of the types of interventions that are
successful (i.e. what works, what does not and why.
h. Provide the evidence basis for building consensus between stakeholders

13
2.0. Summary
This lecture provided a discussion on the concepts of monitoring and
evaluation. In these discussions, the need for undertaking project monitoring
and evaluation is discussed. The lecture also examines the relationships, c
and complementary roles played by monitoring and evaluation in projects.
Finally the lecture concludes by focusing on the concept of social research.
The similarities and differences between the concept of social research and
M&E is examined.
Activity 1.5: Self assessment questions

1. Define the following terms;

a) Monitoring and;
b) evaluation
2. Explain why there is nee monitoring and evaluation
3. Discuss the concept project monitoring
4. Discuss project evaluation
5. Explain the relationship between monitoring and evaluation
6. Identify the core concerns of evaluation

14
 LECTURE THREE

LEVEL OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION

3.0 Introduction
Welcome to this lecture which is going to take you through various levels of monitoring and
evaluation. First and foremost the lecture will attempt to discuss the concept of ‘project
evaluator’. The lecture will then explore the core concern of monitoring and evaluation and then
highlight on various levels of monitoring and evaluation.

3.1 Lecture Objectives

At the end of this lecture you should be able to;
1. Differentiate between internal and external evaluator
2. Explain the advantages using internal and external
project evaluator.
3. Outline key questions that evaluators are concerned with
when evaluating projects
4. Describe levels of Monitoring evaluation

3.2 Project Evaluators

In lecture two we discussed the concepts of monitoring and evaluation. In this section we are
going to discuss the concept of project evaluators a concept that is closely related with what we
discussed in the previous lectures.

Activity

1. In your own wards what do you think a project evaluator

is?

Let’s now focus on what you wrote in the attempt to answer the above question. It is clear that
for one to be called project ‘evaluator’, he or she must be qualified and experienced in carrying
out monitoring and evaluation. We can therefore conclude that project evaluators are individuals
with skills, knowledge and hands on experience involving theories and practices in monitoring
and evaluation. These individuals may either be within the projects or outside the project. In
general, there are two types of project evaluators: external evaluators what we commonly refer to
as consultants, and internal evaluators – those within the project. All these evaluators are at the
disposal of the project manager only that he or she must determine what type of evaluator would
be most beneficial to the project. Let us now try to examine possible option that a project
manager can explore in terms of choosing and utilizing project evaluators;

15
 1. External Evaluator

External evaluators are contracted from outside the project. These may include qualified and
experienced individuals, agency or organization with credible track record concerning
evaluation. These evaluators often are found in the universities, colleges, hospitals, consulting
firms, or within the home institution of the project. Because external evaluators maintain their
positions with their organizations, they generally have access to more resources than internal
evaluators (i.e., computer equipment, support staff, library materials, etc.). In addition, they may
have broader evaluation expertise than internal evaluators, particularly if they specialize in
project evaluation or have conducted extensive research on your target population. External
evaluators may also bring a different perspective to the evaluation because they are not directly
affiliated with your project. However, this lack of affiliation can be a drawback. External
evaluators are not staff members; they may be detached from the daily operations of the project,
and thus have limited knowledge of the project’s needs and goals, as well as limited access to
project activities.

2. Internal Evaluator

A project manager may have an option of assign the responsibility for evaluation to one of the
staff members or to hire an evaluator to join the project as a staff member. This internal evaluator
could serve as both an evaluator and a staff member with other responsibilities. Because an
internal evaluator works within the project, he or she may be more familiar with the project and
its staff and community members, have access to organizational resources, and have more
opportunities for informal feedback with project stakeholders. However, an internal evaluator
may lack the outside perspective and technical skills of an external evaluator.

3. Internal Evaluator with an External Consultant

A final option combines the qualities of both evaluator types. An internal staff person conducts
the evaluation, and an external consultant assists with the technical aspects of the evaluation and
helps gather specialized information. With this combination, the evaluation can provide an
external viewpoint without losing the benefit of the internal evaluator’s first-hand knowledge of
the project. This may be an appropriate option but it may be too expensive.

3.2.1 The Evaluator’s Role

Whether you decide on an external or internal evaluator or some combination of both, it is

important to think through the evaluator’s role. As the goals and practices of the field of project
evaluation have diversified, so are the evaluators’ roles and relationships with the project they
evaluate

16
 Take note.

It is important to note that the idea of multiple evaluator roles is a

controversial one. Those operating within the traditional project
evaluation tenets still view an evaluator’s role as narrowly confined to
judging the merit or worth of a program.)

In most cases the project manager will draft the roles of a project evaluator depending on the
nature of the evaluation and the kind of the information required. The roles will also be based on
the option of the evaluator that the project manager deems fit. For those evaluators that are
recruited as part of the staff of a project their roles may be defined by job specification and
description, while the external evaluators roles may be specified by term of reference (TORs).

Depending on the primary purpose of the evaluation and with whom the evaluator is working
most closely (funders vs. program staff vs. program participants or community members), an
evaluator might be considered a consultant for program improvement, a team member with
evaluation expertise, a collaborator, an evaluation facilitator, an advocate for a cause, or a
synthesizer. If the purpose of evaluation is to determine the worth or merit of a project, the
project manger may look for an evaluator with methodological expertise and experience. If the
evaluation is focused on facilitating project improvements, an evaluator with a good
understanding of the project and is reflective may be suitable. If the primary goal of the
evaluation is to design new projects based on what works, an effective evaluator would need to
be a strong team player with analytical skills.

3.3 Core concern of project evaluators

After discussing the concept of evaluators, let us now focus on the core concern of evaluations.
All experience and experts in evaluation have certain aspects of concern that they would want to
establish or understand whenever they are given a project evaluation task. These aspect are as
follows;
1. Project Progress: The project evaluator will be concerned with continual development of
the project towards the achievement of the planned objectives.

2. Project Adequacy: Project adequacy means that the project objectives, inputs or activities
are enough for the purpose indented

3. Project Relevancies: Relevancy is related to how the project’s objectives and activities
respond to the needs of indented beneficiaries.

4. Validity of the project design: validity of project design assesses the extent to which the
project design;

17
 i. Sets out clear immediate objectives and indicators of their achievement,

ii. Focuses on the identified problems and needs and clearly spell out the strategies to
be followed for solving the problems and meting identified needs,

iii. Describes the main inputs , outputs and activities needed to achieve the objectives

iv. Stated the means of verification of achievements of objectives and valid

assumptions about the major external factors affecting the project

5. Project effectiveness: Effectiveness refers to the extent to which a project produces the
desired result. Effectiveness measures the degree of attainment of the pre-determined
objectives of the project. A project is effective if its results are worthwhile.

6. Project efficiency: this is an expression of the extent to which the methods used by the
project, or activities are the best in terms of their cost, resources used, time required and
appropriateness of the task. It examines whether there was an adequate justification for the
resource used and identifies alternative strategies to achieve better results with the same
inputs.

7. Project impact: Measurement of impact is concerned with determining the overall effect
of a project activities in terms of socio-economic and other aspects of the community

8. Project cost –effectiveness analysis: This refers to the evaluation of alternatives according
to both their costs and their effect with regard to producing an outcome or a set of
outcomes

9. Project sustainability: sustainability examines the extent to which the projects strategies
and activities are likely to continue to be implemented after the termination of the project
and the withdrawal of external assistance.

10. Project Unintended outcomes: Unintended outcomes are unforeseen negative or positive
effects of a project. For example an adjacent community benefiting as a result of a project
implemented in the neighboring community.

11. Project alternative Strategies: Alternative strategies to solving the identified needs or
problems are analyzed and recommended for the next phase of the project, normally if the
original strategy is found inappropriate.

12. Project cost benefits: Cost benefit analysis compares the financial costs of a project to the
financial benefits of that project. It is normally conducted on more than one project

18
 Activity
1. Now close your text book and try to list down some of the
aspect of projects that you need to focus on when assessing
projects

2. Try to define them

3. Open the text book and try to compare what you have done
with what is in the text book

4. Make correction in your notes where necessary

3.4 Levels of evaluations

After looking at various concerns of evaluations, let us now focus on levels of monitoring and
evaluations. A project of a National concern with multiple beneficiaries requires that its effects
be monitored and evaluated at different levels. These levels include community, district, national
and donor among others. Monitoring and evaluating of such project at the mentioned level is
very important since each level is unique. Due to this uniqueness, it is possible for an evaluator
to apply different monitoring and evaluation methods befitting each level. These may bring about
unique project results and effects depending on each level. To some extend these results
complement other findings that may be experienced at a higher level.
Take Note
Consider that the government of Kenya has acquired funds from World
Bank aimed at investing in construction of health centers in order to
improving access to medical care by all Kenyans. This can be regarded as
a National project with multiple stakeholders. The lowest level that that
can determine the effects of the project is at the community level. If
access to medical care has been achieved at the community level, the
effects can be felt at the District level and then the Province and even
Nationally. The total effects will contribute to achievement of the project
objectives.

Let us now discuss each of the levels mentioned above:

1. Monitoring and evaluation at community level
This is done at grassroots and zonal level because this is where the implementation and
utilization of the benefits of the projects take place. The major purpose of monitoring and
evolution at this level is to improve the implementation and management of projects.
The objectives for monitoring and evaluation at this level include;
 Ensuring that project activities are implemented in time
 Experts have been contracted to provide consultancy on the project

19
 Ensure that project inputs are available and utilized in the right way as planned
The activities for monitoring and evolution at this level include:
 Identify community’s needs
 Organize the needs in order of priority
 Develop projects to address those priority areas
 Identify teams and their roles to spearhead the projects
 Design work plans and their performance standards
 Compare what is happening with what was planned, to determine whether the project is
on schedule as planned
 Involve the local community to ascertain the quality of the projects
The monitoring teams should ensure that they make frequent visits to the project sites to observe,
and discuss with everyone involved in the projects. This should be captured in field visit reports.
This information can be utilized to improve the implementation of the project or stored for future
use.
2. Monitoring and evaluation at District and Local Authority level
The monitoring and evaluation team should get information from the teams at local levels. It is
important for the team to monitor and evaluate the outcome of the project. They should also
monitor and evaluate the increase in strength, capacity and power of the target community to
stimulate its own development. With the above example, the team should be able to establish
whether the community will be able to maintain and manage the even health centers even when
the donor funding is withdrawn.
The objectives of Monitoring and evolution at this level include:
 Supporting the improvement in project performance
 Measuring the applicability of the way the project was designed in relation to community
strengthening
The methods used include routine monitoring and supervisory support by the district project
coordinator, community development assistance, other technical staff, and politicians
The major issues to consider in the routine monitoring include:
 Levels of actual community, local authorities, districts and donor contributions (in terms
of funds, materials, time and expertise)
 Timely implementation and quality of projects
 Appropriate use and accountability of community and donor resources; levels of
community involvement in the project
 Community involvement in projects
 Timely use of information generated through the community routine monitoring and
evaluation
National and Donor Level
At the national or country level, there are two main stakeholders,
a) The ministry or agency that is implementing the intervention or project – the government
interest in projects is to ensure national wide community development. Their interests

20
 will be to ensure community participation in projects that caters for their interests. Major
involvement of the government agencies (Ministry of Agriculture) will be to ensure that
the project evaluation methodology is well known to the community. The evaluation will
be concerned with the impact of the project to a wider target group- This will involve the
contribution of the agricultural project to the economic development of the country as a
whole.
b) Any external Nation or international donors – the major concern is the effectiveness of
the projects. Their major focus is the percentage of output attained as a result of the
projects

3.5 Summary
The lecture explores various levels of evaluation by first looking at the
concept of evaluator and types of evaluator that the project manager can
exploit in terms of project evaluation. The lecture also provides an insight on
what project managers should look at when selecting types of evaluators for
project evaluation. Core concerned for project monitoring and evaluation
have also been discussed. The effects of project that of National concern can
be assessed adequately as per certain levels. This lecture using relevant
illustration discussed the levels of project monitoring. The lecture also
demonstrates how project monitoring and evaluation activities differ as per
each level of monitoring and evaluation.

3.5 Self Assessment questions

1. Explain the options that a project manager has in deciding the
type of evaluator that will handle project evaluation activities?
2. Outline key questions that evaluators are concerned with when
evaluating projects?
3. With illustrations discuss ways in which monitoring and
evaluation varies as per levels of project evaluation?

21
 LECTURE FOUR
TYPES OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION
4.1 Introduction
In lecture three we discussed the concept of evaluator, core concerns of evaluation and
various levels of evaluation. We also established that monitoring and evaluation varies with
different levels of evaluation, however the levels complement each other. In this lecture we
shall examine in details various types of monitoring and evaluation.

4.2Lecture objectives
At the end of this lecture you should be able to:
1. Explain types of project monitoring
2. Describe types of project evaluations

4.3 Types of monitoring

You recall that in lecture one, we learned that among the main components of a project design
included project purpose which the ultimate objective of the project is; project objectives which
state the immediate achievement at the end of the project; project outputs which describe the
2.10 Further reading
Worthon, B,R., Sanders, J,R and Fitzpatric J.L (1997);
Programme evaluation- Alternative approaches and practical
guidance (2Ed): New York, Longman Inc.

UNICEF (1991), Guide for Monitoring and Evaluation; making a

difference? New York

Ogula, P (2002) Monitoring and Evaluation of Educational

Projects and Programmes. Nairobi. New Kemit Publishers

kind of products produced by the project; Project activities which show all actions that will be
undertaken to produce the desired output; and project inputs that give a full range of the
resources needed (human, financial, technical etc) to carry out the project activities. During the
implementation of the project, all these aspects of the project must be monitored closely. Figure
4.1 shows the types of monitoring that a project manager can employ in monitoring the above
mentioned components.

22
Figure 4.1 Key Types of Monitoring

Impact
Results Result
Monitoring

Outcomes

Output

Activities Implementation
Implementation Monitoring

Inputs
Activity

1. Look at the figure 4.1 keenly.

2. Using a project of your own choice, outline at least four

aspect that you will monitor at both implementation and
result stage

Figure 5.1 shows two main types of monitoring: implementation monitoring and results
monitoring. Let use examine each one of this types of monitoring.

1. Implementation Monitoring: This is concerned with tracking the means and strategies
used in project implementation. It involves ensuring that the right inputs and activities are
used to generate outputs and that the work plans are being complied with in order to
achieve a given outcome. Implementation monitoring as the name suggests is the type of
monitoring carried out during the roll out of project plans. Figure 4.1 clearly shows that
the main concern of implementation monitoring is the inputs, activities and outcome. It
involves determining both the amount of activity and the compliance to the plan’s
standards. The question regarding amounts of activities is addressed for the entire project

23
 rather than for an individual activity. The other concern of project managers is on
whether planned inputs are utilized for intended purpose. This sort of monitoring is
normally done annually to determine if the planned projects and activities are completed
on time and then use that information to better interpret the ‘effectiveness of the
projects’ - monitoring results.

2. Results Monitoring: This looks at the overall goal/impact of the project and its impacts
on society. It is broad based monitoring and aligns activities, processes, inputs and
outputs to outcomes and benefits. Ideally, all monitoring should be results based.Now, let
us focus on the second type of monitoring otherwise known as results monitoring. When
you look at figure 4.1 carefully, you will notice that the monitoring for results is a stage
higher than implementation monitoring. It defines the expected results in terms of project
outcome and project impact. A single project activity may be divided into different
milestones. The milestones can be referred to as segments of an overall result.
Monitoring for result therefore means that the project managers’ major concern is
whether the project has attained the milestones that lead it to the overall results.

3. Activity based monitoring: This focuses on the activity. Activity Based Monitoring
seeks to ascertain that the activities are being implemented on schedule and within
budget. The main short coming of this type of monitoring is that activities are not aligned
to the outcomes. This makes it difficult to understand how the implementation of these
activities results in improved performance.
4. Process (activity) monitoring : Tracks the use of inputs and resources, the progress of
activities, how activities are delivered – the efficiency in time and resources and the
delivery of outputs

5. Compliance monitoring: Ensures compliance with, say, donor regulations and expected
results, grant and contract requirements, local governmental regulations and laws, and
ethical standards.
6. Context (situation) monitoring: Tracks the setting in which the project/programme
operates, especially as it affects identified risks and assumptions, and any unexpected
considerations that may arise, including the larger political, institutional, funding, and
policy context that affect the project/programme.
7. Beneficiary monitoring: Tracks beneficiary perceptions of a project/programme. It
includes beneficiary satisfaction or complaints with the project/programme, including
their participation, treatment, access to resources and their overall experience of change.

24
 8. Financial monitoring: Accounts for costs by input and activity within predefined
categories of expenditure, to ensure implementation is according to the budget and time
frame.
9. Organizational monitoring: Tracks the sustainability, institutional development and
capacity building in the project/programme and with its partners.

Take Note
Take an example of a Bore hole project that has a general purpose of
providing clean and safe drinking water to the community, the milestone
can be considered as:
 Securing funds for the project
 Sensitizing the community
 Putting together a steering management committee
 Procuring the consultancy for the project
 The actual sinking of the bore hole
 Commissioning of the bore hole
All the above milestones lead to the final result which is complete
borehole that can provide clean and safe water to the community. These
milestones are arranged in order of priority leading towards the overall
results. Achieving of the first one leads to the achievement of the second
milestone. The achievement of each milestone gives us an assurance of
achieving the overall results.

4.4 Types of evaluation

We have discussed the concept of monitoring in chapter one and two, in this section we will
focus on various types of evaluation. You should note that types of evaluation are very different
from the models of evaluation that we will examine in subsequent lectures. In this section we are
going to discuss three types of evaluations.

1. Ex-Ante Evaluation (Need Assessment)

Conducted before the implementation of a project as part of the planning. Needs assessment
determines who needs the program, how great the need is, and what might work to meet the
need. Implementation(feasibility)evaluation monitors the fidelity of the program or technology
delivery, and whether or not the program is realistically feasible within the programmatic
constraints. According to Singh and Nyandemo (2004), ex-ante evaluation is pre-project
evaluation undertaken before the implementation of a given project in order to assess the
development needs and potentials of the target group/region to test project hypothesis or
determine the feasibility of a planned project. This kind of evaluation is carried out during the
planning phases of a project. During such evaluation, the following key questions need to be
addressed:
 What has the project set out to achieve?

25
  What are the objectives of the project?
 Who are the intended beneficiaries and how are they to benefit?
 What are the main intended inputs (financial, technical, manpower e.t.c)?
 What are the main intended outputs?
 How do the outputs relate to the objectives?
 What is the implementation plan?
 Have the alternative methods of achieving objectives considered?

Take Note
The following areas should be addressed at this stage of evaluation:
 Needs assessment to determine who needs the project and how
great is the need
 Evaluability assessment to determine whether the evaluation is
feasible and how stakeholders can help to shape its usefulness
 Project structure conceptualization-defines project or
technology, the target population and possible outcomes
 Project implementation evaluation- determines the fidelity of
the project or technology delivery
 Process evaluation- investigates the processes required to deliver
the project including alternative delivery procedures

2. Formative evaluation
Conducted during the implementation of the project. Used to determine the efficiency and
effectiveness of the implementation process, to improve performance and assess compliance.
Provides information to improve processes and learn lessons. Process evaluation investigates
the process of delivering the program or technology, including alternative delivery procedures.
Outcome evaluations investigate whether the program or technology caused demonstrable
effects on specifically defined target outcomes. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis
address questions of efficiency by standardizing outcomes in terms of their dollar costs and
values.Formative evaluation is conducted during the development and implementation of a
project in order to provide project managers with information necessary for improving the
project. This types of evaluation is sometime referred to as Mid-term evaluation.

In general, formative evaluations are process oriented and involve a systematic collection of data
to assist decision-making during the planning or implementation stages of a project. They usually
focus on operational activities, but might also take a wider perspective and possibly give some
consideration to long term effects. While staff members directly responsible for the activity or
project are usually involved in planning and implementing formative evaluations, external
evaluators might also be engaged to bring new approaches or perspectives (Nadris, 2002).
Questions typically asked in those evaluations include:
1. To what extent do the activities and strategies correspond with those presented in the
plan? If they are not in harmony, why are there changes? Are the changes justified?

26
 2. To what extent did the project follow the timeline presented in the work plan?
3. Are activities carried out by the appropriate personnel
Other issues addressed by formative evaluations include:
1. To what extent are project actual costs in line with initial budget allocation?
2. To what extent is the project moving towards the anticipated goals and objective of the
project?
3. Which of the activities or strategies are more effective in moving towards achieving the
goals and objectives?
4. What barriers were identified? How and to what extent were they dealt with?
5. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the project?
6. To what extent are the beneficiaries of the project active in decision making and
implementation?
7. To what extent do project beneficiaries have access to services provided by the project?
What are the obstacles?
8. To what extent are the project beneficiaries satisfied with project services
3. Ex-post evaluation: Conducted after the project is completed. Used to assess sustainability
of project effects, impacts. Identifies factors of success to inform other projects. Conducted
sometime after implementation to assess long-term impact and sustainability.

4. External evaluation: Initiated and controlled by the donor as part of contractual agreement.
Conducted by independent people – who are not involved in implementation. Often guided
by project staff

5. Internal or self-assessment: Internally guided reflective processes. Initiated and

controlled by the group for its own learning and improvement. Sometimes done by
consultants who are outsiders to the project. Need to clarify ownership of information
before the review starts
6. Real-time evaluations (RTEs): are undertaken during project/programme implementation
to provide immediate feedback for modifications to improve on-going implementation.
7. Meta-evaluations: are used to assess the evaluation process itself. Some key uses of
meta-evaluations include: take inventory of evaluations to inform the selection of future
evaluations; combine evaluation results; check compliance with evaluation policy and
good practices; assess how well evaluations are disseminated and utilized for
organizational learning and change, etc.
8. Thematic evaluations: focus on one theme, such as gender or environment, typically
across a number of projects, programmes or the whole organization.
9. Cluster/sector evaluations: focus on a set of related activities, projects or programmes,
typically across sites and implemented by multiple organizations
10. Impact evaluations: is broader and assesses the overall or net effects -- intended or
unintended -- of the program or technology as a whole focus on the effect of a
project/programme, rather than on its management and delivery. Therefore, they typically
occur after project/programme completion during a final evaluation or an
11. Summative evaluation
Conducted at the end of the project to assess state of project implementation and achievements
at the end of the project. Collate lessons on content and implementation process. Occur at the

27
end of project/programme implementation to assess effectiveness and impact. Summative
evaluation (also called outcome or impact evaluation) addresses the first set of issues from
those discussed above. They look at what the project has actually accomplished in terms of its
stated goals. There are two approaches under this type of evaluation.
1. End Evaluation that aims at establishing the project status at the end of the project cycle.
For example when external aid is terminated and there is need to identify the possible need
for follow- up activities either by donor or project staff.
2. Ex-post – these evaluations are carried out two to three years after external support is
withdrawn. The main purpose is to assess what lasting impact the project has had or is
likely to have and to extract lessons of experience. This type of evaluation is sometimes
referred to as impact evaluation.
Summative evaluation questions include:
 To what extent did the project meet its overall goals and objective?
 What impact did the project have on the lives of the beneficiaries?
 Was the project equally effective for all the beneficiaries?
 What components were the most effective?
 What significant unintended impacts did the project have?
 Is the project replicable?
 Is the project sustainable?
For each of those questions qualitative data and quantitative data can be useful.
Take Note
The following areas should be addressed at this stage of evaluation:
 Outcome evaluation-to investigate whether the programme or
technology caused demonstratable effects on specifically defined
target outcome
 Impact evaluations- to assess the overall or net effects intended
or untended of the project or the technology as a whole
 Cost effectiveness and cost benefits analysis – to address
questions of efficiency by standardizing outcomes in terms of
their dollar costs and values
 Secondary analysis – to reexamine existing data to address new
questions or use methods not previously employed
 Meta-analysis –to integrate the outcome estimates from multiple
studies to arrive at an overall or summary judgment on an
evaluation questions

4.5 Summary

Using illustrations as shown by figure 4.1 the lecture introduces you to two
types of monitoring implementation(inputs, activities, outputs) and Results

28
monitoring(outcomes ,impacts). Three types of evaluation namely, Ex-Ante,
Formative and Summative evaluation are also discussed in details.

4.6 Self Assessment questions

1. Identify and explain two major types of project monitoring
2. Outline and examine types of project evaluations

2.10 Further reading

Singh, K.D & Nyandemo, S.N (2004). Aspect of Project Planning,
Monitoring, Evaluation and Implementation. Duhra Dune. Bishen
Singh Mahendra Pal Singh

Ogula, P (2002) Monitoring and Evaluation of Educational

Projects and Programmes. Nairobi. New Kemit Publishers

Worthon, B,R., Sanders, J,R and Fitzpatric J.L (1997);

Programme evaluation- Alternative approaches and practical
guidance (2Ed): New York, Longman Inc.

UNICEF (1991), Guide for Monitoring and Evaluation; making a

difference? New York

29
 LECTURE FIVE

MONITORING AND EVALUATION THEORIES AND MODELS

5.1 Introduction
In our previous lecture we learned that different evaluations can have different demands
depending on core concerns of the evaluators. This has made different scholars devise different
ways of approaching various evaluations activities. In this lecture we are going to look at some
of the evaluation models and approaches that have been employed over years in project
evaluation.
5.2 Lecture objectives
At the end of this lecture you should be able to;
1. Differentiate between evaluation model and evaluation
theories
2. Outline at least five models employed in evaluations of
projects
3. Form a structure for placing different evaluation needs in
terms of methodologies
4. Distinguish between different models used in project
evaluation
5. Outline at least five advantages and disadvantages of
various evaluation Models

5.3 Meaning of models and theories

5.3.1 Definitions of Theories and Models?
According to Dorin, Demmin and Gabel, (1990) a theory provides a general explanation for
observations that are made over time. A theory attempts to explain and predict behaviour based
on observations, and conclusions are based on the data that is systematically collected, analysed
and interpreted. The theories are based on conclusions and observations that have stood the test
of time and conditions and thus are established beyond all doubt. This not withstanding, a theory
may be modified depending on new observations Theories seldom have to be thrown out
completely if thoroughly tested but sometimes a theory may be widely accepted for a long time
and later disapproved.

5.2.2 What is a Model?

Dorin, Demmin and Gabel, (1990) defined a model as “ A mental picture that helps us
understand something we cannot see or experience directly. Scriven (1974) argues that the term

30
“model” is loosely used to refer to a conception or approach or sometimes even a method (e.g.,
naturalistic, goal-free) of doing evaluation ‘Models’ are to ‘paradigms’ as ‘hypotheses’ are to
‘theories’, which means less general but with some overlaps.

5.2.3 Evaluation Theories

Some scholars (Hamlin, Kirkpatrick) link theories of evaluation to different learning theories.
They argue that the main goal of evaluation is learning. There are three basic theories of
learning. They are behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism. Each of these is briefly
described below:

5.2.3.1 Behaviourism
Behaviourists believe in the stimulus response pattern of condition behaviour. According to the
behaviourist theory of learning, “a child must perform and receive reinforcements before being
able to learn”. Behaviourism is based on observable changes in behaviour. As a learning theory
as a ‘black box’ in the sense that responses to stimulus can be observed quantitatively, totally
ignoring the possibility of thought processes occurring in the mind?

5.2.3.2 Cognition
The cognitive theory of learning is based on the thought process behind the behaviour
“Cognitive theorists recognise that much learning involves associations established
through contiguity and repetition. They also acknowledge the importance of
reinforcement, although they stress its role in providing feedback about the correctness of
responses over its role as a motivator. However, even while accepting such
behaviouristic concepts, cognitive theorists view learning as involving the acquisition or
reorganization of the information.” (Good and Brophy, 1990, p. 187). After
understanding the differences between evaluation models and evaluation theories let us
try to discuss the various evaluation models that are commonly used in evaluations of
projects.

1.4 Common evaluation models used in project evaluation

1.4.1 Objective oriented Models
You may recall that in your previous unit of project panning, design, and implementation you
defined project objectives as statement of intent that outline what the project intends to achieve
in both quantitative and qualitative terms in a specified period of time. Objective oriented
Model’s concern is whether project objectives have been realized. The distinguishing feature of
an objective –oriented evaluation approach is that the purposes of project activities are specified.
After which the evaluation efforts is focused on the extent to which those purposes are achieved.
Consider an NGO that has an objective of improving the community’s life through sensitization.

31
 Take Note
The government plans to initiate road construction projects in highly
agriculturally productive areas of Kenya. The purpose of the project is to
improve access of the community to basic social services such as schools,
and health services and also to increase access of the community to a
ready market for their farm products. Objective oriented evaluation
model will focus on the extent to which the project improved the
community access to basic social services. The evaluation will also seek
to establish the extent at which the project increased community access to
the market for their products.
The objective oriented approach was developed in 1930s and was credited with the works of
Ralph Tyler. Tyler regarded evaluation as the process of determining the extent to which the
objectives of a project are actually attained. He proposed that for one to evaluate a project he or
she must:
1. Establish broad goals or objectives of that project
2. Classify the goals or the objectives
3. Define those objectives in measurable terms
4. Find situations in which achievement of objectives can be shown
5. Develop or select measurement techniques
6. Collect performance data
7. Compare performance data with measurable terms stated
These can be conceptualized in the model below:
Figure5. 1 Tyler’s Model

Project Goals
Objective

Actual performance
Activities specified Standards
Performance
standards

Specified
Discrepancy

32
From this figure it is clear that the purpose of objective oriented model of evaluation is to
determine the extent to which the objectives of a project have been achieved and emphasis is on
the specification of objectives and measuring outcomes. To determine the outcome between
project specified performance standards and actual project performance there is need to perform
pre-tests and post test to determine the extent to which the objectives have been achieved.
Advantages of objective – oriented model
1. It is easy to assess whether the project objectives are being achieved
2. The model checks the degree of congruency between performance and objective
3. The model focuses on clear definition of the objectives
4. It is easy to understand in terms of implementation
5. It produces relevant information to the project
Disadvantages of the model
1. It tends to focus on terminal rather than on-going programme performance
2. It has a tendency to focus directly and narrowly on objectives with the little attention on
the worth of the objectives
3. It neglect the value of the objectives themselves
4. It neglect the transaction the occurs within the project being evaluated
5. It neglect the context in which the evaluation is taking place
6. It ignores important outcomes other than those covered by the objectives
7. It promotes linear, inflexible approach to evaluation
8. There is a tendency to oversimplify project and tendency to focus on terminal rather than
on –going and pre-project information
9. It does not take unplanned outcomes into account. This is because it focuses on the stated
objectives.
10. It does not pay enough attention to process evaluation. In other words it does not consider
how the activities that lead to achievement of project objectives are carried.
5.4.2 Management Oriented Approaches
The management oriented evaluation model is more concerned with providing information that
can help project managers make crucial decision about the project. The rationale of the
management –oriented evaluation approach is that evaluation data is an essential component of
good decision making. Management oriented model of evaluation manifest in various ways. Let
us discuss some of these approaches.
5.4.2.1 The Context –Input- Process –Product evaluation model (CIPP)
The purpose of this model is to provide relevant information to decision makers for judging
decision alternatives. The proponent of this model is Daniel Stafflebeam who argues that
evaluation should assume a cyclical approach whereby feedback is continuously provided to the
decision makers. The models highlights different levels of decision makers and how, where and
in what aspects of the project the results will be used for decision making. The model assumes
that the decision maker is an audience to whom management oriented evaluation is directed

33
(Worthen, et al, 1997). The model has various types of evaluation that must be accomplished.
Let us analyze each one of them.
.
1. Context Evaluation
Context evaluation is the most basic type of evaluation under CIPP model. Its purpose is to
provide a rationale for determining of objectives. Specifically, it defines the relevant
environment, identifies unmet needs and unused opportunities and diagnoses the problems that
prevent needs from being met and opportunities from being used. Diagnosis of the problems
provides an essential basis for developing objectives whose achievement results in project
improvement.
2. Input evaluation
The purpose of input evaluation is to provide information for determining how to utilize
resources to meet project goals. This is accomplished by identifying and assessing relevant
capabilities of the responsible agency, strategies for achieving project goals, and designs for
implementing a selected strategy. The end product of input evaluation is an analysis of one or
more procedural designs in terms of cost benefit. Specifically, alternative designs are assessed
concerning staffing, time, budget requirements, potential procedural barriers, the consequences
for not overcoming these barriers and the possibilities and the cost of overcoming theme,
relevant of design to the project objectives, and overall potential of the design to meeting the
objectives. Essentially, the input evaluation provides information to decide if outside assistance
is required to meet the objectives.
3. Process Evaluation

Process evaluation is necessary to provide periodic feedback to persons responsible for

implementing plans and procedures. Process evaluation has three main objectives
i. To detect or predict defects in the procedural designs or its implementation during the
implementation stages
ii. To provide information for project design
iii. To maintain record of the procedures as it occurs
There are three strategies that should be followed during process evaluation. The first is to
identify and monitor continuously the potential source of failure in a project. This include, but
not limited to, interpersonal relationships among staff and students, communication channels,
logistics, understanding s and agreement within the intent of the project by person involved in
and affected by it , and adequacy of the resources, physical failures, staff and time schedules.
The second involves projecting and serving pre-project decisions to be made by project
managers during the implementation of a project. The third process evaluation strategy is to note
main features of the project design.
4. Product evaluation
The purpose of product evaluation is to measure and interpret attainments not only at the end of a
project cycle, but as often as necessary during the project. The general method of product
evaluation includes devising operational definitions of activities, measuring criteria associated

34
with the objectives of the activity comparing this measurements with predetermined absolute of
relative standards and making rational interpretations of the outcomes using the recorded
context, input and process information.
Strengths of CIPP
1. It provides data to administrators and other decision makers on a regular basis.
2. It is sensitive to feedback.
3. It allows for evaluation to take place at any stage of the programme/project.
Limitations of CIPP
1. It lays little emphasis on value concerns.
2. Decision-making process is unclear.
3. Evaluation may be costly in terms of funds and time if this approach is widely used.

5.4.2.2 Alkins Model (UCLA)-The UCLA Evaluation Model

The UCLA (University of California at Los Angeles) model was developed by Alkini (1969).
The conceptual framework for the UCLA model closely parallels that of the CIPP. According to
Alkin, evaluation is the process of ascertaining the decision areas and concern, selecting
appropriate information and collecting and analyzing information in order to report summary
data useful to decision makers in selecting among alternatives (Alkin, 1969).
The model has the following five steps (Worthen and Sanders 1997:5).
i) System assessment – which provides information about the state of the system. This
is similar to context evaluation in the CIPP model
ii) Project planning which assist in the selection of particular project likely to be
effective in meeting specified project needs. (Very similar to input evaluation)
iii) Project implementation which provides information about whether the project was
introduced to the appropriate group in the manner intended.
iv) Project improvement which provides information about how a project is functioning,
about whether the interim objective are being achieved and whether unanticipated
outcomes are appearing This is similar to process evaluation in the CIPP model
v) Project certification which provides information about the value of the project and its
potential for use elsewhere (Very similar to product evaluation).
Both the CIPP and UCLA frameworks for evaluation appear to be linear and sequential, but the
developers have stressed that such is not the case. For example, the evaluator would not have to
complete an input evaluation or a systems assessment in order to undertake one of the other types
of evaluation listed in the framework. Often evaluators may undertake ‘retrospective’ evaluations
(such as a context evaluation or a system assessment) in preparation for a process or project
improvement evaluation study, believing this evaluation approach is cumulative, linear and
sequential: such steps are not always necessary. A process evaluation can be done without
having completed context or input evaluation studies. At other times, the evaluator may cycle
into other type of evaluation if some decisions suggest that earlier decisions should be reviewed
(Sanders et al, 1997: 102).

35
Strengths
1. It provides administrators and other decision makers with useful information.
2. It allows for evaluation to take place at any stage of the programme. It is holistic.
3. It stresses timely use of feedback by decision makers.
Limitations
1. It gives preference to top management.
2. The role of value in evaluation is unclear.
3. Description of decision-making process is incomplete.
4. It may be costly and complex.
5. It assumes that important decisions can be identified in advance.
5.4.2.3 Provu’s Discrepancy Model:
Some aspect of the model is directed towards serving the information needs of project managers.
It is system oriented and it focuses on input, process, and output at each of five stages of
evaluation: project definition, project installation, project process, project products, and cost-
benefit analysis.
5.4.2.4 Utilization- focused evaluation:
This approach was developed by Patton (1986). He emphasized that the process identifying and
organizing relevant decision makers and information users is the first step in evaluation. In his
view the use of evaluation findings require that decision makers determine what information is
needed by various people and arrange for that information to be collected and provided to those
people. He recommends that evaluators work closely with primary intended users so that their
needs will be met. This requires focusing on stakeholders’ key questions, issues, and intended
uses. It also requires involving intended users in the interpretation of the findings, and then
disseminating those findings so that they can be used. One should also follow up on actual use. It
is helpful to develop a utilization plan and to outline what the evaluator and primary users must
do to result in the use of the evaluation findings. Ultimately, evaluations should, according to
Patton, be judged by their utility and actual use
5.4.2.5 System analysis approach:
The approach has been suggested to be linked to management – oriented evaluation model.
However, most system analysis may not be evaluative oriented due to their narrow research
focus.
5.5 Expertise - Oriented Evaluation Approaches
The expertise oriented approaches to evaluation depend primarily on professional expertise to
judge an educational activity, programme or product. Some scholars regard evaluation as a
process of finding out the worth or merit of a programme. Stake (1975), for example, views
evaluation as being synonymous with professional judgments. These judgments are based on the
opinion of experts. According to these approaches, the evaluator examines the goals and
objectives of the programme and identifies the area of failures or successes.
5.6 Consumer oriented evaluation approache

36
Some theorists consider evaluation a consumer service. They stress that although the needs of
project funder and mangers are important, they are often not the same as those of consumers.
The main proponents of this theory are Michael Scrivens. A consumer-oriented evaluation
approach typically occurs when independent agencies, governmental agencies, and individuals
compile educational or other human services products information for the consumer. Such
products can include a range of materials including: curriculum packages, workshops,
instructional media, in-service training opportunities, staff evaluation forms or procedures, new
technology, and software. The consumer-oriented evaluation approach is increasingly being used
by agencies and individuals for consumer protection as marketing strategies are not always in the
best interest of the consumer. Consumer education typically involves using stringent evaluation
criteria and checklists to evaluate products.

The consumer-oriented evaluation approach is typically applied to education products and

programs. It is typically used by government agencies and other independent educational
consumer advocates (i.e. the Educational Products Information Exchange), with the common
goal to make more product information available. Although this approach can be used for any
consumer product, in the public sector it is typically used for educational products and programs.
Advantages of using a consumer-oriented evaluation approach
1. Has made evaluations available on products and programs to consumers who may
have not had the time or resources to do the evaluation process themselves
2. Increases the consumers’ knowledge about using criteria and standards to objectively
and effectively evaluate educational and human services products
3. Consumers have become more aware of market strategies
Disadvantages of using a consumer-oriented evaluation approach
1. Increases product costs onto the consumer
2. Product tests involves time and money, typically passed onto the consumer
3. Stringent criteria and standards may curb creativity in product creation
4. Concern for rise of dependency of outside products and consumer services rather than
local initiative development
5.7 Adversary oriented evaluation approaches (Judicial).
Judicial or adversary-oriented evaluation is based on the judicial metaphor. It is assumed here
that the potential for evaluation bias by a single evaluator cannot be ruled out, and, therefore,
each “side” should have a separate evaluator to make their case. For example, one evaluator can
examine and present the evidence for terminating a project and another evaluator can examine
and present the evidence for continuing the project. A “hearing” of some sort is conducted
where each evaluator makes his or her case regarding the evaluand. In a sense, this approach
sets up a system of checks and balances, by ensuring that all sides be heard, including alternative
explanations for the data. Obviously the quality of the different evaluators must be equated for
fairness. The ultimate decision is made by some judge or arbiter who considers the arguments
and the evidence and then renders a decision.

37
Example of this model includes multiple “experts” otherwise known as blue-ribbon panel, where
multiple experts of different backgrounds argue the merits of some policy or project. Some
committees also operate, to some degree, along the lines of the judicial model. As one set of
authors put it, adversary evaluation has “a built-in metaevaluation” (Worthen and Sanders,
1999). A metaevaluation is simply an evaluation of an evaluation.

By showing the positive and negative aspects of a program, considering alternative

interpretations of the data, and examining the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation report
(metaevaluation), the adversary or judicial approach seems to have some potential. On the other
hand, it may lead to unnecessary arguing, competition, and an indictment mentality. It can also
be quite expensive because of the requirement of multiple evaluators. In general, formal judicial
or adversary models are not often used in project evaluation.
5.8 Goal free Evaluation Approach
According to this approach, project goals and objectives should not be taken as given. Like other
aspects of the project or activity, they should be evaluated. In addition, the evaluator focuses on
the activity rather than its intended effects. In goal free evaluation, the evaluator is not limited to
the goals of the project; he or she focuses on actual outcomes.
5.9 Naturalistic and participation oriented approaches
This approach stresses firsthand experience of project settings and activities. It involves intensive
study of the project as a whole. Stake calls it responsive evaluation i.e. what people do naturally.
Evaluators are expected to be responsive to project realities and to the reactions. They are also
expected to be responsive to concerns and issues of participants rather than being preordinate i.e.
strictly following a prescribed plan. In this approach, the evaluator studies project activities as
they occur naturally, without manipulating or controlling it. Naturalist evaluation tends to be
based on project activity rather than project outcomes. Naturalistic evaluators use collaboration
of data through cross-checking and triangulation to establish credibility.
5.10 Participatory evaluation approach
This model is also called collaborative or stakeholder-based evaluation model. Proponents of
this model contents that since different parties have an interest in the outcomes of the evaluation
they should always be involved in the design and conduct of evaluations. Stakeholder-based
evaluation is expected to yield two positive outcomes, realistic and more effective results and
improved utilization of the findings. However, this approach should be used sparingly because
of the requirements of confidentiality and credibility that dictate the distancing of the evaluator
from the evaluated (Scriven, 2001, p. 28). Using a collaborative approach is also costly in time
and money. Moreover, different stakeholders tend to have conflicting expectations.
5.11 Summary
This lecture has attempted to distinguish between evaluation model and
evaluation theories. The lecture has also outline and analysed various
evaluation models giving where necessary the advantages and
disadvantages of each. From the analysis of the various models and

38
 approaches used in evaluation you can clearly trace and locate each
model of evaluation in terms of its applicability in the evaluation of
projects.
4.12 Self Evaluation questions

3. Distinguish between evaluation theory and evaluation models

4. Discuss the advantages of using a model in monitoring and evaluation.
5. What are the main differences between objective-oriented and
management-oriented evaluation approaches

4.13Further Reading
Patton, M.Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new
century text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Phi Delta Kappa National study committee on evaluation; (1971):
Educational evaluation & decision making; Illinois: F.E
Peacock Publishers, INC.
Worthon. B.R, Sanders. J.R and Fitzpatric J.L (1997); Programme
evaluation- Alternative approaches and practical guidance
(2Ed): New York, Longman
Fitpatrick, J.L., Sanders, J.R., & Worthen, B.R. (2004). Program evaluation
: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York: Pearson.
Guba, E.G., and Lincoln, Y.S. (1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. London:
Sage Publications.
Madaus, G. F., Scriven M., & Stufflebeam (eds) (1983). Evaluation Models:
Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation.
Boston: Kluwer – Nijhoff.
Scriven, M (1974). Pros and Cons about Goal-free Evaluation. In W. J. Popham
(Ed.), Evaluation in Education: Current Applications. Berkeley,
CA: McCutchan.
Stake, R.E., et.al. (1975). Evaluating the Arts in Education. A Responsive
approach. Columbus: O. H. Charles E. Meril.
Stufflebeam, D., (Ed.,) (1971) Educational Evaluation and decision-making.
Itasca K: F.E. Peacock.
Tyler, R.W. (1950). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Worthen, B.R. & Sanders, J.R. (1973). Educational Evaluation: Theory and
Practice. Belmont, C.A.: Wadsworth.
Worthen, B.R., Sanders J.R. and Fitz, Patrick J.L. (1997). Programme
Evaluation. New York: Longman.

39
 LECTURE SIX

INDICATORS FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION

6.1 Introduction
In the previous lecture we discussed monitoring and evaluation theories and models. In this
lecture we are going to discuss indicators for monitoring and evaluation. More specifically, we
will attempt to define the term ‘indicator’ and then examine various types of indicators. The
importance of indicator in monitoring and evaluation will also be discussed. We will later
examine the characteristics of good indicators, and steps that a project manager can follow in
selecting SMART indicators for monitoring and evaluation.
6.2 Lecture objectives
By the end of this lecture you should be able to:
1. Definition the term indicator
2. Explain the importance of indicators in monitoring and evaluation
3. Outline categories of indicators used in monitoring and evaluation
4. Explain types of indicators
5. Discus the characteristics of good indicators
6. Describe steps in selecting SMART indicators
7. Describe the vertical and horizontal logic used in logical framework

6.3 The concept of Project Indicators

In this section we are going to attempt to define the term ‘Indicator’, and then discuss the
importance of indicators in project monitoring and evaluation.
6.3.1 Definition of an indicator.

An indicator is a specific, observable and measurable characteristic that can be used to show
changes or progress a programme is making toward achieving a specific outcome. There should
be at least one indicator for each outcome. The indicator should be focused, clear and specific.
The change measured by the indicator should represent progress that the programme hopes to
make.

An indicator should be defined in precise, unambiguous terms that describe clearly and exactly
what is being measured. Where practical, the indicator should give a relatively good idea of the
data required and the population among whom the indicator is measured. Indicators do not

40
specify a particular level of achievement -- the words “improved”, “increased”, or “decreased”
do not belong in an indicator.

An indicator is a sign showing the progress of a situation. It is a basis for measuring progress
towards the objectives. A specific measure, that when tracked systematically over time indicates
progress (or no progress) toward a specific target. An indicator asks the question: - How will we
know success when we see it? You can also consider an indicator as road signs that show
whether you are on the right road, how far you have traveled, and how far you are yet to travel to
reach your destination.
Take Note
In other words project indicators can be viewed as benchmarks or milestones
that show progress towards project objective

6.1 Activity
Imagine moving between two major towns in your country - say town A to
town B (Use example of towns that are familiar with you)
1 List down some of the landmarks and signs (Indicators) that make you
know that you are heading towards Town B.
2 What do you think is the importance of those indicators to other
travellers moving in the same direction as you
3 Try to link your answers in question two with the discussion in section
6.3.2
6.3.2 Importance of project indicators in project monitoring and evaluation
Indicators play very important roles in project monitoring and evaluation. Let’s now focus on
some of these importances.
1. Indicators measure progress in project inputs, activities outputs, outcomes and goals
2. Indicators enable you to reduce a large amount of data down to its simplest form. (for
instance a project to sink borehole with an aim of improving access of a certain
community to safe drinking water may have outcome indicator reduced to ‘ the percent of
households in that community with safe drinking water)
3. When compared with targets or goals, indicators can signal the need for corrective
management action. For instance, if in the project of sinking the borehole for the
community was supposed to be completed in the duration of one year and it happens to
overrun the duration, (One year in this case serves as a time indicator in which the project
should be completed) Project managers need to make quick corrective decision to ensure
that the project is within its completion time.
4. Indicators can evaluate the effectiveness of various project management action
5. Indicators can provide evidence as to whether the objectives are being achieved
6. Indicators provide the qualitative and quantitative details to a set of objectives
6.4 Classification and types of indicators

41
Indicators can be classified in three categories as follows;
1. Quantitative indicators; these types of indicators provides hard data to demonstrate
results achieved. They also facilitate comparisons and analysis of trends over time.
Quantitative indicators are statistical measure that are expressed in numbers, percentages,
rates, ratio e.t.c
2. Qualitative indicators: these are indicators that provide insight in changes in
organizational process, attitudes, beliefs, motives and behaviuors of individuals. They
imply qualitative assessments, compliance with, quality of, extent of, level of e. t c.
Qualitative indicators must be expressed quantitatively (in figures) in order to illustrate
change.
3. Efficiency indicators: These tell us whether we are getting the best value for our
investment. In order to establish such indicator, we need to know the market, i.e. the
current price of desired output considering quantity and quality aspects. Efficiency
indicators are unit cost measures expressed in cost per unit of client , students, schools
e.t.c
6.4.1 Types of indicators
The above classifications of indicators give rise to various types of indicators. The main
criterion for differentiating them is the level at which the project is assessed e.g output, outcome,
or impact. Some of the types of indicators are discussed below;

1. Input indicators:
These are quantified statements about the resources provided to the project. They rely on
management, accounting and other resource’s used in the development of the project. They use
management records illustrating the use of resources by the project. Because indicators use the
functioning of the organization at the input level, a good accounting system is needed to keep
track of expenditures and schedules developed to track timelines. Input indicators are used
mainly by managers closest to the tasks at the implementation level and are consulted frequently,
probably as often as daily or weekly. They focus on the use of funds personnel, materials and
other inputs necessary to produce the intended outputs of project activities. These indicators can
utilize the relevance and performance criteria applicable at implementation level

2. Process indicators
The term ‘process; is used to imply all that goes on during the implementation phase of
the project. Process indicators therefore are those indicators that measure the progress of the
project during implementation. That is, the extent to which stated objectives are being achieved.
The indicators capture information from project management records from the field or project
sites. They are based on cost, timelines and the scope of the project. They apply at the relevance
and performance criteria of the project. Examples include: date by which building site clearance
must be completed, latest date for delivery of fertilizers to the firm store, number of health
outlets, number of women receiving contraceptive, status of procurement of school textbooks.

42
 3. Output indicators
Outputs are tangible products of project activities. They show the immediate output of the
project availed after each of the tasks conducted at the project implementation. They are the
results of activities performed by different components of the project and use quantitative ways
of measuring physical entities or some sort of qualitative judgment on timed production of
outputs. Decision on the performance of the project is determined by reading the output
indicators. They show the worth of the project strategy, more so where the outputs are weak and
poor, then the project effectiveness is cynical and hence needs adjustment. Therefore, output
indicators will use the effectiveness criteria to show the performance of the project. Outputs
include; physical quantities, improved capacities, services delivered, systems introduced,
milestones achieved, legislation passed, awareness campaigns affected etc. Examples may
percentage of community members attending community workshop, number of buildings
constructed by the project.

4. Impact indicators
Impact is the positive or negative long-term changes that can be attributed to the project
intervention. When developed, they forecast long –term effects of the project on the target
population after some duration from the project completion. Precisely impact refers to medium
or long-term development changes expected on the beneficiaries or target region upon project
completion. They are at a higher level of project process. Impact depends on data gathered from
beneficiaries. To obtain early indication of impact, a survey of beneficiary perception about
project services is conducted. Measures of change often involve complex statistics about
economic or social welfare and depend on data that is gathered from the beneficiaries.

5. Exogenous indicators
These are indicators that cover factors outside the control of the project but which might
affect its outcome. They include risks and the performance of the sector in which the project
operates. Data collection for monitoring and evaluation cover a wider external environment if
expected to impinge on the projects performance not withstanding additional burden on the
projects monitoring and evaluation effort. Exogenous indicators will help in checking the project
assumptions and risks that are likely to affect the project. Example is during project
implementation, policy decision about currency exchange rates can adversely affect profitability.
Management should carefully monitor and alert project participants about deteriorating situations
if the indicators of environment dictate so.

6. Proxy indicators
These refer to indirect measures or signs that approximate or represent a phenomenon in
the absence of a direct measure. Cost, complexity or the timeliness of data collection may

43
prevent results from being measured directly. Proxy indicators are expected to provide reliable
estimation of the direction of movement of the ideal but un attainable indicators for example,
number of children fully immunized is a reliable proxy for infant mortality from immunizable
diseases because immunization is known to be highly infective. The proxy indicators that qualify
as a measure must have strong causality link to the direct measure and should be measurable on
regular basis. It can supplement available information by obtaining data from related topics or
different sources. These is often the case for outcomes in behavioral change, social cohesion and
other results that are difficult to measure. For example, if ethnicity in target villages is
unavailable, you can complement the data by use of data on the mother tongue or spoken
language. Therefore, caution should be taken when interpreting proxy indicators because over
reliance on indicators that can be manipulated by individuals like mother tongue may lead to
wrong interpretation.

Take Note
1. Indicators only indicate:-
 An indicator will never completely capture the richness
and complexity of a system
 Indicators are designed to give ‘slices’ of reality
 They might provide the truth but they rarely give the
whole truth
2. Indicators encourage explicitness in that they forces us to be clear
and explicit about what we are trying to do
3. Indicators usually rely on numbers and numerical techniques
 Indicators should not just be associated with faulty
finding: they can help us understand our performance be
it good or bad
 Well designed measurement systems identify high
performers (from whom we can learn), as well as
systems (or parts of the systems), that may warrant
further investigation and intervention

6.4.2 Characteristics of good indicators

After looking at the types of indicators, let us ask ourselves: What does a good indicator look
like? What qualities does it display? Here are some of the characteristics of a good indicator:
Validity
This is accurate measure of behaviuor practice or task. Data may not be valid if
 Inaccurate measurement tools are used in collecting data
 Sample is unrepresentative (not from correct target population or small sample size)
 Data is incomplete
 Evaluators are biased

44
Reliability
The indicator is reliable when it consistently measures what it purports to measure in the same
way even when used by different evaluators.
Precise:
Indicator should be operationally defined in clear terms and should be context specific,
subjective, or specified with clear yard sticks. This reduces confusion between indicators
Independent
Indicators should be non-directional and un-dimensional, depicting a specific definite value at
one point in time. Example of directional could be healthier families or policy improvement. In
this indicator you will realize that the result is one. Example of mult-dimension indicators could
be sustainability or quality. The characteristic of independent captures the idea that the value of
the indicator should stand alone. It is best to avoid ratio rate of increase or decrease, or other
directional definition.
Objectively verifiable indicator
An indicator is said to be objectively verifiable if;
 it shows the right direction (progress or failure of the project)
 it produces the same value in repeated measures/calculation on the same observation
 it leads to the same conclusions if underlying situations are similar or same
 its interpretation is independent of evaluator or researcher
Integrity
Indicators should be truthful.
 For example number of HIV positive tested by ELISA against the number of HIV
positive tested by RAPID HIV CHECK
 To improve service delivery you train service providers; what indicator would be more
truthful – number of providers trained or number of trained providers?
 How truthful can an indicator be on self reported sexual behaviour?

Measurable
One should be able to quantify an indicator by using available tools and methods. An evaluator
should consider whether tools and methods for collecting or calculating the indicator information
are available.
Timely
An indicator should provide a measurement of a period of time of interest with data available for
all appropriate intervals. Timelines considerations include:
- Reporting schedules
- Recall periods
- Survey schedules
- Length of time in which project change can be detected
Programmatically important

45
This implies that indicator should be linked to an impact or to achieving the project objectives
that are needed for impact

Take Note
When designing indicators, effort should be made to link them to
project activities. Failure to do so renders the indicator ineffective in
terms of providing information useful in measuring the performance
of the project.

Disaggregated if possible
It is important to disaggregated project output by either gender, age, location or any other
dimensions suitable for the project. This is very important for better management and reporting.
Projects often require different approaches for different target groups and therefore
disaggregated indicator could help decide whether or not specific groups participate in and or
benefit from projects.
Feasible
Data can be gathered over a specific time period and at an acceptable level of effort and cost
Comparability:
This assists in understanding results across different population groups and project approaches

6.4.3 Steps in selecting SMART indicators

After examining the characteristics of indicator, we now need to discuss the steps a project
manager can follow in selecting SMART indicators. The term ‘SMART’ mean Specific,
Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Time bound. In other words, when selecting indicators,
you need to ensure that they satisfy the SMART criterion.
Step One:
Clarify the result statement. Identify what needs to be measured. Good indicators start with result
statements. Start with overall objective or goal or work backward

Step Two
Develop a list of possible indicators. With the help of project stakeholders try brainstorm all the
indicators listed at each level of results. This brainstorming can be internal, consultation with
experts, seeking experiences of other similar organizations or pre-existing resources.

Step Three
Assess each possible indicator in terms of:
Measurability- can it be quantified and measured by some scale
Practicability – can data be collected on timely basis and at reasonable cost
Reliability- can it be measured repeatedly with precision by different people
Relevance– is the indicator attributed to your organization

46
Management usefulness- Does the project staff and audience feel that the information provided
by the measure is critical to decision-making
Directness/Precision – does the indicator closely track the result it is intended to measure?
Sensitivity – does it serve as early warning of changing conditions
Capability of being disaggregated- can data be broken down to by gender age location or other
dimension e.g. class tribe where appropriate

Step Four
Select the best indicators:
Based on your analysis and the context, narrow the list to the final indicator that will be used in
the monitoring system. Ensure that every element of the indicator and how it is measured is
defined. There should be an optimum set that meets management needs at a reasonable cost
You should limit the number of indicators used to track each objective or result to a few (two or
three) while remembering your target audiences both external and internal.

6.5 Indicators and Logical Framework

From the previous discussion, we learned that indicators help us assess progress of the
project and also quantify the achievement of the project results. This makes indicators important
aspect of project planning and implementation. In this section we are going to discuss the central
role indicators play in logical framework (Log-frame) which is considered as a key project
planning, monitoring and evolution tool. We will start by examining the concept of log-frame.

6.5.1 Logical framework

Log-frames have now been in use for more than 30 years, and their overall structure has
changed very little since they were first developed. When USAID first began to use log-frames,
they served mainly as guides to project design and to make evaluation possible, by clearly
identifying objectives and indicators. Now they serve as a guide to understanding logical project
structure and the expected impacts and results. They make evaluation of projects possible.
Uses of Log framework
1. Log-frame helps improve the quality of projects design. The framework requires that
project objectives are specified in clear terms. It requires the use of performance
indicators and assessment of risks.
2. Summarizing design of complex activities
3. Assisting the preparation of detailed operation plans
4. Providing an objective basis for activity review, monitoring and evaluation
Advantages of Log frame
 Ensures that decision makers ask fundamentals questions and analyze assumptions and
risks
 Engages stakeholders in the planning and monitoring process

47
  When used dynamically it is an effective management tool to guide the implementation
of monitoring and evaluation
Disadvantages
 If managed rigidly, it stifles creativity and innovation
 If not updated during implementation, it can be a static tool that does not reflect changing
conditions

6.5.2 Components of logical framework

For us to understand the components that characterizes the logical framework, it is
imperative that we focus on elements that are presented in logical framework that shows
vertical order flow (Vertical Logic) and those represented in a horizontal flow (Horizontal logic)

6.5.2.1 Horizontal Logic

Horizontal logic is the logic that goes across the matrix and describes how the
achievement of objectives will be measured or verified (indicators), how this information will be
obtained (Means of Verification), what external factors could prevent the project from achieving
the next level objectives (assumptions).

a) Narrative summary column

These contain the following three strategic elements: resources, purpose and goals. The first
two levels i.e purpose and resources are specific to the project itself. The logic that links them
can be illustrated with the following questions: What resources (inputs/activities usually in dollar
amount) will have to be invested in the project in order for the women and men from targeted
population groups to benefit from the achievement of the project purpose?
It is important that we, not only design projects to achieve meaningful results but also for the
benefits of the society at reasonable costs. The purpose statement of the project must identify the
intended beneficiaries. The first two levels of the narrative summary are essential to the strategic
planning process and must be taken into consideration in a results oriented logical framework.
Although the purpose is the reason or basic motive why the project is to be undertaken, it should
be defined in the context of broader strategic planning. A result –oriented logical framework thus
serves project level management purposes by ensuring that projects are identified, selected,
designs and approved within the context of a strategic planning framework at all levels of the
project.

b) Means of Verification:
Information for the means of verification (MOVs) column should be developed at the
same time as the indicators. It provides information to help justify the achievement of the project
at the indicator level. The means of verification is like the exhibit to help verify what has been
said to have been done by the project manager at various project levels. During the process of the
project, care should be taken to keep these exhibits which are in the forms of registers, receipts,

48
records, notices, memos, e.t.c. It can also be data previously captured by various means which
can be available when needed in the cause of evaluation. Means of verification should clearly
specify the anticipated source of information, the methods to collect that data, such as sample
surveys, administrative records, workshops or focus group, observation, Participatory Rural
Appraisal (PRA) techniques or Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) techniques. MOVs should also
specify those who are responsible for data collection e.g. project staff, independent survey teams
e.t.c. Also they should indicate the frequency with which the information should be provided (eg
Monthly quarterly, annually etc) and the format required to collect the data. The means of
verification is either more or less structured depending on the intervention logic level. At the
lower level, monitoring and evaluation relies more on secondary information than primary.
Secondary information is captured from such items as receipts; register records etc. which is
more applicable at the lower level of the matrix. At the upper level, which measures the project
impact relies on the interviews questionnaires etc which are more primary. This is well
illustrated by figure 6.1
Figure 6.1 means of verification stage
Primary Data
GOAL

Upper Level
PURPOSE

OUTPUTS

ACTIVITIES
Lower Level

Secondary data
c) Assumptions
Assumptions are conditions external to the project that may affect the progress or success
of the project and over which the project management has little control. They are stated as
positive conditions that need to exist to permit progress of the project to the next level e.g. price
changes, rainfall, political situations etc.
An assumption needs to be relevant to the project or otherwise relevant to the level of the
objectives to allow the project to progress to the next level. Contrary to a risk, which is negative
statement of what might prevent objectives project from being achieved; assumptions are a
positive statement of a condition that must be met in order for project objectives to be achieved.
It is important to note that assumptions are not delicate community problems. If the assumptions

49
prove that they will impede on the project moving to the next level, it is extremely significant to
capture them and strategically manage the project to bypass these problem or otherwise, redesign
or terminate the project.
Assumptions are normally forecast and should be relevant and probable. Therefore, the
decision to select an assumption depends on some sort of value judgment on the part of the
evaluator. This can be based on the normal occurrences of risks or events. If something rarely
happens as risks, then the assumption is based on the rare occurrence aspects. The chance of that
thing happening is treated as rare. As a suggestion, the best way to go about the assumption is by
probably giving a percentage chance of something happening or not happening. Several aspects
can be evaluated in this way and those with higher risks are definitely denoted. These can help
the evaluator make valid judgment on assumption than can affect the project.
For instance, if a project is located in an arid region you will not assume that the climate
will be conducive for growing maize where maize has never grown. You may also not assume
that it is going to rain in March when there is rare rain in that month. Provisionally, estimate that
the assumption has a chance of happening before deciding on it as a problem. From your
estimate if it has no chance of not happening do not bother about it. Logical framework demands
that all hypotheses, assumptions and risks relevant to a project are made explicit. This then
further demands that the appropriate action is considered (necessary taken) before problems
materialize and affects the project. Some factors to consider include:
1. How important are the assumptions?
2. How big are the risks?
3. Should the project be redesigned?
4. Should some elements of the proposed project be abandoned?
In logical framework, relationships between the assumptions and the intervention logic are
presented as causal, one step leading to the next. If one step is not completed successfully then
the next will not be achieved.
The casual relationship between the intervention logic elements and assumptions is as follows:
 if the preconditions are complied with, then the activities can be started;
 if the activities are realized, and if the assumptions at the activities level have come true,
then the outputs will be realized;
 if the outputs are realized, and if the assumptions at the results level have come true then
the project purpose would be realized
 if the project purpose is realized and if the assumption and the project purpose level have
come true, then the goal will have been significantly be contributed to
Consider the following figure;

50
Figure 6.2 Flow of the logic in Horizontal logic

GOAL

AND IF
PURPOSE ASSUMPTION

OUTPUTS ASSUMPTION
AND IF

ASSUMPTION
ACTIVITIES
AND IF
ASSUMPTION
VERTICAL LOGIC

The vertical logic has four levels where each lower level of activity must contribute to the
next higher level. It elucidates between the casual relationships between the different levels
of objects and specifies the important assumptions and uncertainties beyond project
management control. The capacity of the project to move to the next higher level will be
determined by the assumptions, which are concrete determinant factors of the project
proceeding from one lower level to the next higher level all the way to the goal as the
highest level. Each level has a set of the logical framework items referred to as objectives.
The items are the intervention logic, with its corresponding means of verification,
objectively verifiable indicators and the assumptions. As a set the items are addressed by the
logic framework sequentially upwards from the lower level to the higher level. For example,
project activities contribute to the achievement of project outputs. The achievement of the
project outputs lead to the achievement of project purpose and finally the purpose contribute
to the goal of the project. The goal of the project is the ultimate aim of the project; the
reason for the project existence. The description in the matrix involves a detailed breakdown
of the sequence of causality. This can be expressed in terms of
1 if inputs are provided, then the activities can be undertaken;
2 if the activities are undertaken, then outputs will be produced;
3 if outputs are produced, then the purpose will be supported, and;
4 if the purpose is supported, this should then contribute to the overall goal

51
Figure 6.3 Logic in the objectives

THEN
GOAL

PURPOSE THEN
IF

OUTPUTS
THEN IF

ACTIVITIES
IF
Each level thus provides the justification for the next level for instance the goal helps justify the
purpose, the purpose the output, the output the activities and the activities the inputs
Logical Framework Matrix
After determining all the necessary items to be entered into the log frame matrix, it is developed
by drawing a table with four columns and four rows. The first rows enter the item names, goal,
purpose output and activities. Append appropriate information besides each of the items in the
first column. Remember as mentioned earlier, they are written down wards but read upwards.
The next are the indicators corresponding to each of the first column items. The indicators vary
depending on the level they are corresponding to. The various types of indicators mentioned
earlier in this chapter are indicated at each of the levels. For instance the input indicators appear
at the input level while the output at the output level, the purpose indicators at the purpose level
and lastly the impact indicators at the goal level.

Next is the means of verification (MOV). The MOV also fall into each level. Incidentally, the
MOVs vary according to the levels appropriate for data collected. At the lower levels there is
more secondary information in the form of receipts, documents. At the upper level there is more
of primary information collected through such tools as questionnaires, interview etc

Table 6.1 Logical framework

Project description Indicators Means of Assumptions

Verification
Goal: the broader What are the Source of Factors are
development impact quantitative ways of information and necessary for
to which the project measuring or methods used sustaining
contribute qualitative ways of objectives in the

52
 judging whether long run
these broad
objectives are being
achieved (Estimated
time)
Purpose: the What are the Source of Conditions
development quantitative measure information and necessary for the
outcome expected at or qualitative methods used achievements of the
the end of the evidence by which project’s purpose to
project achievement and reaching the project
distribution of impact goal
and benefits can be
judged (estimated
time)
Outputs: the direct What kind and Source of Factors if not
measurable outputs quantity of outputs information and present are liable to
(goods and services) and by when will methods used restrict progress
of the project they be produced from outputs to
(quantity, quality and achievements of
time) project purpose
Activities: activities Implementation/work Source of Factors that must be
that must be project targets. Used information and realized to obtain
undertaken to during monitoring methods used planned outputs on
accomplish the schedules
output
See Appendix A ‘ Awendo OVC Scholarship Project’ for practical example of a logical
framework
6.10 Summary
The lecturer provides definition of indicators used in project
monitoring and evaluation and their importance. It also provides a
detail analysis of the characteristics and their categories. It is clearly
explained in this lecture that it is important for project managers to
understand steps to be followed in selecting SMART indicators if
relevant and useful information is to be collected. The lecture also
shows the indicators as a central factor in the logical framework
which is regarded as one of the key tools for project planning and
even project monitoring and evaluation. In-depth understanding of
the logical framework is also provided in terms of both vertical and
horizontal logic.

53
6.11 Self Evaluation questions

1. Explain the difference between project indicators and project

objectives
2. Describe the four roles played by project indicators.
3. Explain Five characteristics of project indicators
4. What are the main differences between horizontal logic and
vertical logic as used in Logical Framework

6.12 Further Reading

Jody Zall Kusek Ray C. Rist (2004), A Handbook for Development
Practitioners, Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and
Evaluation System. Washington. The International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank
(http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/guide/annexc/c.htm: Managing for
impact for Rural Development; A Guide for Project M&E)

54
 LECTURE SEVEN

SETTING UP A MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM

7.1 Introduction
After understanding what the indicators are and how they link to the whole monitoring and
evaluation process, we now need to look at how we can establish a monitoring and evaluation
system. It is important to understand that Monitoring and Evaluation is a vital rational integrated
system within the project that must be planned, managed and resourced.
7.2 Lecture objectives
By the end of this lecture you should be able to:
1. Define the terms Monitoring and Evaluation system
2. Explain how M&E links to project strategy and operations
3. Outline factors to consider when setting up an M&E system
4. Discus at least two models used in setting up an M&E system

7.3 Overview of setting up the M&E System

You will recall from the module LDP 604 on project design and implementation that among the
key components of project cycle is project Monitoring and Evaluation. Monitoring and
Evaluation therefore, must be developed at the project planning stage.
7.3.1 M&E as a System
A system is an organized or complex whole, an assemblage or combination of things or parts
performing as a complex or unitary whole. This definition conveys three very important ideas:
Take Note
The first concept is that of interdependence. That is to say the parts that make
up a system are interdependent i.e. if change occurs in one part or set of parts, it
affects all other parts. This effect on each part or set of parts in a system may be
direct or indirect
The second concept is that of holism. That is to say, the system should be considered
as a functioning whole. Changes in parts of the system and in the functioning of the
elements of the system should be considered from the standpoint of the systems
overall performance.
Finally is the concept of synergism. This refers to the fact that the interactive
effects of the parts of the system working together create an effect greater than
the effect of the parts acting separately. This means that, as each part performs its
role within the system it enhances the performance of other parts and hence the
total performance of the system

A well-functioning M&E system integrates the formal data commonly associated with the task of
M&E, together with informal monitoring and communication such as field staff sharing their
experiences of project implementation over a cup of tea. M&E system therefore is an integral

55
system of reflection and communication supporting project implementation that should be
planned for and managed throughout the projects’ life. It is therefore disastrous for project
managers to view M&E as a statistical task or a tedious external obligation of little relevance to
those implementing projects. From the previous lecture we have seen that it is hard to separate
Monitoring from evaluation. Therefore it is not wise to separate project monitoring functions
from project evaluation functions such that high – level impact – related assessments are
subcontracted, while project staff focuses only on tracking short term activities. This limits the
opportunities to learn since short term activities forms part of the long and high level impact of
the project.
To ensure that the M&E provides integrated support to those involved in project
implementation, the project manager requires:
1. Create an M&E process that will lead to clear and regular learning for all those
involved in project strategy and operations.
2. Understand the link between M&E and management functions
3. Use existing processes of learning, communication and decision making among
stakeholders as the basis for project oriented M&E.
4. Put in place the necessary conditions and capacities for M&E to be carried out.
7.4 Linkage of M&E system to project strategy and operations
In the above section we have seen how M&E forms an integral system which assists in project
implementation. In this section we are going to focus on how M&E links up to all the operations
within the project to satisfy the project objectives.
Figure 7.1: How M&E Links to Project strategies

The Project Strategy: Plan what will be achieved and how it

will be achieved
Bas Bas
is is
for Refinement for
M Detailed
& operation Plans
E Information Implementation
Developing an
S
Y
S Field Data
Gathering Project Outputs,
T
M Outcomes and
Impacts
Improvements through M&E
Reflecting

Communicating
56
Source: IFAD (2002) setting up a M&E System; Managing for impact in Rural Development A
guide for Project M&E; http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/guide/toc.pdf

Figure 7.1 shows how the M&E fits in within the project. The figure focuses on the elements of
M&E and how it links with two components of the project: project strategies and operations. Let
us now discuss some elements as shown in figure 7.1.
1. Project Strategy: project strategy is considered as the plan for what will be achieved and
how it will be achieved. This forms a starting point for project implementation and
setting up an M&E system. The strategy is the basis for working out the project
operations required to implement activities efficiently and effectively.
2. The completion of project activities leads to a series of actual outputs, outcomes and
impacts. Comparing the actual outputs, outcomes and impacts with what was planned in
the project strategy and understanding the differences in order to identify changes in the
strategy and operations is the core function of M&E system
3. It is clear from figure 7.1 that M&E system consist of four interlinked parts
The first parts consist of: Developing an M&E system. This is done by identifying the
information need to guide the project strategy, ensure effective operations and meet
external reporting requirements. There is need for one to decide on how to gather and
analyze this information and document a plan for M&E system. The process of working
out on how to monitor and evaluate a project, inevitably raises questions about project
strategy itself, which can help improve the initial design. Setting up an M&E system with
a participatory approach builds stakeholders’ understanding about the project and starts
creating a learning environment.
The second part is Gathering management information. This is regarded as the
implementation of the M&E system. Information can be gathered through informal as
well as structured approaches. Information comes from tracking which outputs, outcomes
and impacts are being achieved and checking project operations (e.g. activity
completions, financial management and resource use). After you start on gathering
information and management, you will have the capacity to solve some problems or you
will have a lot of ideas that may lead to revising the initial M&E plan.
o The third part of the M&E is that of involving project stakeholders on a critical
reflection process for improvement of the activity. Once the information has been
collected it needs to be analyzed and discussed by the project stakeholders. This may
happen formally – for example during an annual project review workshop. Or it may
happen informally – for example talk to project beneficiaries about the project during
field visits. In these reflections and discussions, you will probably notice information
gaps. This can trigger adjustment on the M&E plan to ensure the necessary
information is being collected.
o The fourth part of the M&E system is the communication of M&E results to the
people who need to use it. This is the part that determines the success of the M&E

57
 system. The part includes reporting to the funding agencies but it is broader. For
example, problems experienced by field staff need to be understood by project
managers. Project progress and problems must be shared with project participants to
enable you to find solutions together. Reports to funding agencies need to balance the
success and mistakes, and above all, be analytical and action-oriented. Some of those
who are to use the information may have been involved in collecting data or
analyzing part of it. However you need to plan on how to inform those who were not
involved.
4. The results from M&E must improve the project strategy and operations. The senior
management with the support of project staff is responsible for this. Sometime the
improvement may be immediate depending on the availability of resources and
sometimes improvement may require negotiation between key project stakeholders. Or
there may be need to change the sequence of certain activities and thus require time to be
effected.
7.5 Factors to be considered before constructing M&E system
The readiness assessment is a diagnostic tool that can be used to determine whether the
prerequisites are in place for building an M&E system. The following factors must be considered
before setting up an M&E system.
i) Potential Pressures Are Encouraging the Need for the M&E
It is important to know where the demand for creating an M&E system is emanating from
and why. Are the demands and pressures coming from internal, multilateral, or international
stakeholders, or some combination of all these? These requests will need to be acknowledged
and addressed if the response is to be appropriate to the demand. To some extent internal
demands may arise from calls for reforms in public sector governance and for better
accountability and transparency. Anti-corruption campaigns may be a motivating force.
Externally, pressures may arise from the donor community for tangible development results for
their investments. International organizations investing in development projects, such as the
European Union, expect a feedback system on public sector performance via M&E for each of
the accession countries. The competitive pressures of globalization may come into play, and the
rule of law, a strong governance system, and clearly articulated rules of the game are now
necessary to attract foreign investment. Financial capital and the private sector are looking for a
stable, transparent investment climate, and protection of their property and patents, before
committing to invest in a country. There are multitudes of pressures that project management
may need to respond to, and these will drive the incentives for building a results-based M&E
system.
ii) Project staff attitude towards M&E System?
Champions in an organization implementing projects are critical to the sustainability and success
of an M&E system. Within a given organization implementing projects, there are individuals or
groups who will likely welcome and champion such an initiative, while others may oppose or
even actively counter the initiative. It is important to know who the champions are and where

58
they are located in the organization. Their support and advocacy will be crucial to the potential
success and sustainability of the M&E system. However, if the emerging champion is located
away from the center of policymaking and has little influence with key decision makers in that
particular organization, it will be difficult, although not impossible, to envision an M&E system
being used and trusted. It will be hard to ensure the viability of the system under these
circumstances.

Viability is dependent upon the information being viewed as relevant, trustworthy, useable, and
timely. M&E systems with marginally placed champions who are peripheral to the decision
making process will have a more difficult time meeting these viability requirements. Information
from assessment on the champions of M&E system will help the Project manager together with
the stakeholders come up with the roles and responsibilities that must be stated prior to the
development of the system. Clearly identify those who Will be involved in the design,
implementation and reporting and allocate them such responsibilities. This will ensure that there
is staff for the supervision of the system by assigning the responsibilities and roles. It will be
clear as to who will do what.
iii) Ownership, utilization and sustaining of M&E system
Frequently, a careful institutional assessment should be made to assess the real capacity of the
users to actually create, utilize, and sustain the system. A carefully done readiness assessment
helps provide a good understanding of how to design the system to be responsive to the
information needs of its users, determine the resources available to build and sustain the system,
and assess the capacities of those who will both produce and use the information. Understanding
these issues helps to tailor the system to the right level of complexity and completeness. For a
results-based M&E system to be effectively used, it should provide accessible, understandable,
relevant, and timely information and data. These criteria drive the need for a careful readiness
assessment prior to designing the system, particularly with reference to such factors as ownership
of the system, and benefits and utility to key stakeholders. From a technical perspective, issues to
be addressed include the capacity of the organization to collect, analyze and interpret the data,
produce reports, manage and maintain the M&E system, and use the information produced.
Thus, the readiness assessment will provide important information and baseline data against
which capacity-building activities—if necessary— can be designed and implemented.
Furthermore, there is an absolute requirement to collect no more information than is required.
Time and again, M&E systems are designed and are immediately overtaxed by too much data
collected too often—without sufficient thought and foresight into how and whether such data
will actually be used.

iv) Better Resource Allocation for maximum project impact

Monitoring and evaluation is not an end unto itself. It is a tool to be used to promote good
governance, modern management practices, innovation and reforms, and better accountability.
When used properly, these systems can produce information that is trustworthy, transparent, and

59
relevant. M&E systems can help policymakers track and improve the outcomes and impacts of
resource allocations. Most of all, they help organizations make better informed decisions and
policies by providing continuous feedback on results. Experience shows that the creation of a
results-based M&E system often works best when linked with other public sector reform
programs and initiatives, such as creating a medium-term public expenditure framework,
restructuring public administration, or constructing a National Poverty Reduction Strategy.
Linking the creation of M&E systems to such initiatives creates interdependencies and
reinforcements that are crucial to the overall sustainability of the systems. The readiness
assessment can provide a road map for determining whether such links are structurally and
politically possible.

v) Handling Negative Information Generated by the M&E System

It is difficult to have a functioning M&E system in an organizational or political climate
characterized by fear. M&E systems will inevitably (even if infrequently) produce data that may
be embarrassing, politically sensitive, or detrimental to those in power. In a similar way, the
information can also be detrimental to units and individuals in an organization. If it is clear from
the readiness assessment that only politically popular or “correct” information will be allowed to
emanate from the M&E system, the system is vulnerable and compromised from the beginning.
It will not be seen as credible by those outside the organization. It will come to be seen as a
hollow exercise. In such a political setting, it is important to build the system carefully and
slowly. Finding units that will risk potentially detrimental information—including unfavorable
information about their own performance—is perhaps the best that can be achieved. If such units
are not present, there is little rationale or justification for proceeding further to design such a
system. Organizations willing to use performance information to make policy generally have
achieved some level of democracy and openness. But even in these organizations, there is often a
reluctance to measure and monitor because of fears that the process will bring bad news to
leadership and stakeholders alike. There are real political limitations to be recognized in building
such systems. Not all barriers can be addressed simultaneously in the design of the system.
However, not recognizing the presence of these barriers and addressing them as soon as possible
creates the risk of a level of resistance greater and longer than may have been necessary. It is a
strategic decision as to how much time and energy should be spent on removing barriers as
opposed to using that same finite time and energy to strengthen champions and support emerging
opportunities. We strongly lean toward the latter.

vi) Assess Existing Capacity to Support an M&E System

The basic concern of the project manager is to assess whether there are any
organizational units or departments, or individuals within the organization that already have
monitoring and evaluation capacity and that can undertake evaluations. An effective and
monitoring system should have competent staff to manage and oversee the system. To ensure
that the system works effectively consider developing the capacity of the people selected to

60
manage it. It is important to assess organization’s capacity to monitor and evaluate. As part of
the preparation an appropriate organization structure should be identified. This would provide
the management team the authority to determine the course of the system and t o avoid the
confusion on whose authority the system is working. The project manager needs also to scout
capacities from outside the organization, such as NGOs, universities, research institutes, and
training centers that may provide part of the necessary technical capacity to support the
organizations’ M&E system if there be any need. It is important for the project manager to assess
the following as they manifest in the project: Technical skills; Managerial skills; Existing data
systems and their quality; Technology available; Fiscal resources available; Institutional
experience

7.6 Models for Setting up an Effective M&E System

Although experts differ on the specific sequence of steps in building a results-based
M&E system, they all agree on the overall intention of the system. For example, different experts
propose four or seven-step models. Regardless of the number of steps, the essential actions
involved in building an M&E system are to:
1.Formulate outcomes and goals
2.Select outcome indicators to monitor
3.Gather baseline information on the current condition
4.Set specific targets to reach and dates for reaching them
5.Regularly collect data to assess whether the targets are being met
6.Analyze and report the results.
You will notice that all the above will feature to a large extent in the two models that we
are going to discuss below.

7.6.1 A Six step model for setting up an M&E system

Other experts urge that six key steps should be considered while setting up an effective M&E
system. These include:
1. Establishing the purpose and the scope on M&E system. Under this one should ask,
why do we need M&E and how comprehensive should be our M&E system?
2. Identifying performance questions, information needs and indicators. The question to
be raised is what do we need to know to monitor and evaluate the project in order to
manage it well?
3. Planning information gathering and organization – how will the required information
be gathered and organized?
4. Planning critical reflection processes and events – how will we make sense of the
information gathered and use it to make improvements?
5. Planning for quality communication and reporting – how and to whom do we want to
communicate what in terms of our project activities and processes?

61
 6. Planning for the necessary conditions and capacities – what is needed to ensure that
our M&E system actually works?
Although these factors have been extensively examined by the Kuzek and Rist (2004) model,
there is need to look at them keenly. It is imperative to note that a good project appraisal report
will include an indicative M&E framework that provides enough details about the above
questions to enable budgeting and allocation of technical expertise, giving funding agencies an
overview of how M&E will be undertaken, and guide project and partner staff during project
start-up phase. Let briefly focus on what each step entails.
1).Purpose and scope of M&E system: Clear definition of the purpose and scope of the
intended M&E system helps when deciding on issues such as budget levels, number of indicators
to track, type of communication needed. Specifying the purpose also helps to make clear what
can be expected of the M&E system as it forces you to think about the nature of the project and
the implications for information needed to manage it well.
2). Performance questions, information needs and indicators: it may be difficult for a project
manager to list quantitative indicators directly from the project objectives in the log frame
matrix. This is because some objectives are so complex to the extent that they cannot be
summarized in terms of one or a few indicators. Also, while it might be possible for quantitative
information to be found that show if objectives are being met, it does not necessarily explain
why and if this can be attributed to the project, therefore multiple source of quantitative and
qualitative information are critical to explain what is happening and look closely at the
relationship between different pieces of information, rather than single indicator.
Working with performance questions to guide indicator analysis will give you a more
integrated and meaningful picture of objective achievements. Answering these questions requires
descriptive analysis and qualitative information. Starting by identifying performance questions
makes it easier to recognize which specific indicators are really necessary. Sometimes a
performance question may be answered directly with a simple quantitative indicator. However,
very often the question can only be answered by a range of quantitative and qualitative
information.
Table 7.1 Tasks needed when detailing the M&E plan based on a project appraisal report
M&E Design Steps Outputs in project Tasks during project Start up to
appraisal develop detailed M&E system
(M&E Framework)
1. Establish the purpose Broadly define purpose and Review purpose and scope with key
and scope scope of M&E in project stakeholders
context
2. Identify performance List of indicative key  Assess the information needs and
questions, indicators questions and indicators for interest of all key stakeholders
and the goal, purpose and output  Precisely define all questions,
information needs levels indicators and information needs
for all levels of objective hierarchy

62
  Check each bit of information for
relevance and end-use
3.Plan information Generally describe  Plan information gathering and
gathering & information gathering and organizing in details i.e (who will
organizing organizing methods to enable do what, use which methods to
resource allocation gather/synthesize what
information, how often and when,
where, with whom, with what
expected information product)
 Check the technical and resource
feasibility of information needs,
indicators and methods
 Develop formats for data collection
and synthesis
4. Plan for Broad description of key  Make a precise list of all key
communicating audiences and type of audiences, what information they
and Reporting information that should be need, when they need it and in
communicated to them to what format.
enable resource allocation  Define what is to be done with the
information – simply send it,
provide a discussion for analysis,
seek relevance feedback for
verification e.t.c
 Make a comprehensive schedule
for information production,
showing who is to do what by
when in order to have information
needy on time
5. Plan critical reflection General outline of processes  Precisely detail which
processes and events and events methods/approaches are to be used
with which stakeholder group and
for what purpose
 Identify who is responsible for
which reflective events
 Make a schedule that integrate all
the key events and
reporting/decision making
moments.
6. Plan for the necessary Indicative staff levels and  Come to precise description of: the
conditions and capacities types, clear description of number of M&E staff, their

63
 organization structure of responsibilities and linkages,
M&E, indicative budget incentive needed to make M&E
work, organizational relationships
between key M&E stakeholders,
the type of information
management system to be
established and detailed budget
7.6.2 A Ten Step Model for Setting up an M&E system
Kuzek and Rist (2004) argues that the above model for setting up an M& E systems is defective
in that it ignores some key factors that makes the system not impressive to the key project
implementers. He adds that the models do not cater for organizational, political and cultural
factors. He proposes a 10 Step model which differs from others because it provides extensive
details on how to build, maintain—and perhaps most importantly—sustain a results based M&E
system. There 10-steps proposed by Kuzek and Rist (2004) are briefly discussed below:
Step 1: Conducting a readiness assessment
This model differs from other approaches in that it contains a unique readiness assessment. Such
an assessment must be conducted before the actual establishment of a system. The readiness
assessment is, in essence, the foundation of the M&E system. Just as a building must begin with
a foundation, constructing an M&E system must begin with the foundation of a readiness
assessment. Without an understanding of the foundation, moving forward may be fraught with
difficulties and, ultimately, failure. Readiness Assessment can be considered as an analytical
framework to assess the project’s capacity and willingness to monitor and evaluate its project’s
goals.
Step 2: Agreeing on Outcomes to Monitor and Evaluate
This stage will be described in detail in lecture eight. However what we need to know is that the
outcomes help the project stakeholders ‘Know where you are going before you get moving”. It
is important that all project stakeholders agree on what outcomes to monitor and evaluate.
Clearly defined outcomes provide a foundation for designing and building sustainable M&E
system. They also help in Budgeting for outputs, and general management of the outcomes. The
outcomes are usually not directly measured they are only reported on. At some level outcomes
must be translated to a set of key indicators.

Step 3: Selecting Key Indicators to Monitor Outcomes

You will recall that in lecture six we discussed indicators as a specific measure, that when
tracked systematically over time indicate progress (or not) toward a specific target. We also
discussed the importance of an indicator, types of indicator, characteristics of good indicators,
and steps a project manager can explore in selecting SMART indicators. It is important to note
that selecting of indicators is a key step in developing an M&E system. All indicators emanate
from outcomes agreed upon by all the project stakeholders. The most compelling question to ask
yourself when selecting key indicators is, how will we know success when we see it?

64
Step 4: Baseline Data on Indicators
Step 4 of the model relates to establishing performance baselines—qualitative or quantitative—
that can be used at the beginning of the monitoring period. The performance baselines establish a
starting point from which to later monitor and evaluate results. The baseline provides a
measurement ‘to find out where we are today’. This stage will be discussed in details in lecture
eight. Other steps as suggested by Kuzek and Rist (2004) include;
Step 5 which builds on the previous steps and involves the selection of results targets, that is,
interim steps on the way to a longer-term outcome. Targets can be selected by examining
baseline indicator levels and desired levels of improvement.
Step 6 of the model, includes both implementation and results monitoring. Monitoring for results
entails collecting quality performance data, for which guidelines are given;
Step 7 deals with the uses, types, and timing of evaluation. Reporting findings;
Step 8, looks at ways of analyzing and reporting data to help decision makers make the necessary
improvements in projects, policies, and programs;
Step 9 which talks more on using M&E findings and emphasizes the importance of generating
and sharing knowledge and learning within the organizations; and ,Finally,
Step 10, covers the challenges in sustaining results-based M&E systems including demand, clear
roles and responsibilities, trustworthy and credible information, accountability, capacity, and
appropriate incentives.

6.8 Self Evaluation questions

1. Explain why M&E is considered as a ‘system?
2. Discuss factors that you will consider before setting up an
M&E system
3. Critically examine a Six Step Model for designing an M&E
system with a view to point out any possible limitations to this
model.

7.9 Summary
In this lecture M&E system is regarded as one of the most important aspect
of project design. The Lecture starts by defining the M&E system and
linking the system to project strategy and operations. It also explores factors
that a project manager will need to consider before setting up and M&E
system. Two models of setting up an M&E system are also discussed.

65
 LECTURE EIGHT
MEASURING OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
8.1 Introduction
In lecture seven we discussed the basic models for setting up M&E system. During this
discussion we realized that the decision on outcomes and setting of targets was key in the build
up of M&E system. Despite the fact that indicators were discussed earlier in this lecture, it is
important for you to understand that one cannot set indicators before determining outcomes. This
is because it is the outcomes—not the indicators—that will ultimately produce the project
benefits. In this lecture we are going to discuss outcomes and baseline targets as foundations of
measuring of project performance indicators.

8.2 Lecture objectives

At the end of this lecture you should be able to;
1. Define outcome, baseline and targets for monitoring
and evaluation
2. Discuss factors to be considered when setting up the
outcome and target to monitor and evaluate
3. Explain the overall process of setting and agreeing on
outcome to monitor and evaluate
8.3 Setting the project outcome to monitor
Outcomes will demonstrate whether success has been achieved. In short, outcomes will show
which road to take. Setting outcomes is essential in building a results-based M&E system.
Building the system is basically a deductive process in which inputs, activities, and outputs are
all derived and flow from the setting of outcomes. Before discussing the process of setting up
project M&E outcomes it is important to look at the factors that a project manger should consider
while choosing which outcome to monitor.

8.3.1 Factors to consider when choosing outcomes to monitor and evaluate

There are several factors that a project manager should consider while choosing the outcome to
monitor and evaluate. Some of the factors include:
1. Goals of the projects and Existing priorities
What are the strategic priorities? What are the desired outcomes? These are the questions
that every organization, every level of government, and the interested parties in civil society
should be asking themselves and others. We focus primarily on how this relates to the national
government.
Every country has finite budgetary resources and must set priorities. Consequently, it is
important to keep the following distinction in mind: One budgets to outputs and manages to
outcomes. There are many issues to consider in choosing outcomes to monitor and evaluate. For
example, outcomes could be linked to international economic development and lending issues,
including a National Poverty Reduction Strategy, a National Development Plan, and even

66
Millennium Development Goals. At the country level, there could already be some stated
national, regional, or sectoral goals. Also, political and electoral promises may have already been
made that specify improved governmental performance in a given area. In addition, there may be
citizen polling data indicating particular societal concerns. Parliamentary actions and authorizing
legislation are other areas that should be examined in determining desired national goals. There
may also be a set of simple goals for a given project or program, or for a particular region of a
country. From these goals, specific desired outcomes can be determined. It should be noted that
developing countries may face special challenges in formulating national outcomes.
2. Stakeholder interest
When setting outcome it is important to capture the stakeholders’ interest. it is important to note
that the projects outcomes target to fulfill felt needs of the society/organizations. In order to
capture the stakeholders’ interests there is need to launch a participatory process involving key
stakeholders in the formulation of the outcomes.
3. Available capacity
Available capacity in terms of finances and other resources such as human resource and
technological capacity are important factors that should be considered while formulation of the
project outcomes. A project performance is only realized in an environment where adequate
resources interact in an effective and efficient way to achieve the desired outcome. It will be
needless to formulate outcomes that will never be realized due to lack of capacity.
8.3.2 The Overall Process of Setting and Agreeing upon Outcomes
After looking at factors that you need to consider when choosing outcome to monitor, let’s now
discuss the process of setting and agreeing upon outcome to monitor. In order to jump start the
process of setting the outcome to monitor, you need to know where you are going, why you are
going there, and how you will know when you get there. There is a political process involved in
setting and agreeing upon desired outcomes. Each part is critical to the success of achieving
stakeholder consensus with respect to outcomes. The following are the steps involved in setting
and agreeing upon outcome to monitor;
1. Identify Specific Stakeholder Representatives
Who are the key parties involved around an issue area (health, education, and so forth)? How are
they categorized, for example, NGO, Government, donor? Whose interests and views are to be
given priority?
2. Identify Major Concerns of Stakeholder Groups
Use information gathering techniques such as brainstorming, focus groups, surveys, and
interviews to discover the interests of the involved groups. Numerous voices must be heard—not
just the loudest, richest, or most well-connected. People must be brought into the process to
enhance and support a democratic public sector.
3. Translate Problems into Statements of Possible Outcome Improvements
It should be noted that formulating problems as positive outcomes is quite different from a
simple reiteration of the problem. An outcome oriented statement enables one to identify the
road and destination ahead. We encourage outcomes to be framed positively rather than

67
negatively. Stakeholders will respond and rally better to positive statements, for example, “We
want improved health for infants and children,” rather than “We want fewer infants and children
to become ill.” Positive statements to which stakeholders can aspire seem to carry more
legitimacy. It is easier to gather a political consensus by speaking positively to the desired
outcomes of stakeholders.
4. Disaggregate to Capture Key Desired Outcome
Outcomes should be disaggregated sufficiently to capture only one improvement area in each
outcome statement. A sample outcome might be to “increase the percentage of employed
people.” To know whether this outcome has been achieved, the goal needs to be disaggregated
to answer the following: Agreeing on Outcomes to Monitor and Evaluate
Table 8.1 shows an example of formulating various concern identified by stakeholders into
positive and desired outcomes.
Figure 8.1 Developing Outcome statements

NEGATIVE STATEMENT POSITIVE STATEMENT

(Problems) (Desired Outcomes)

Farmers yields per acre is Equip farmers with modern

too low and thus return to techniques in farming
their investment

Increase employment
Idle youth in the rural opportunities for the youth
areas due to few in the rural areas
employment opportunities

No longer safe for children Improve safety in the

to walk to school alone community for children to
walk to school.

From the figure above the problem is translated in desired outcomes. However, there is need
to disaggregate the positive statement by considering the following questions: For whom?;
Where? How much? By when? If we take an example from figure 8.1; ‘increase
employment opportunities for youth in rural areas’ we can disaggregate this outcome to
“increase employment among youth in the rural sector by 20 percent over the next four
years.” It is only through disaggregating the outcome and articulating the details that we will
know if we have successfully achieved it. Simplifying and distilling outcomes at this point

68
 also eliminates complications that may arise later when we start to build a system of
indicators, baselines, and targets by which to monitor and evaluate. By disaggregating
outcomes into subcomponents, we can set indicators to measure results.

8.4 Setting Baseline and Gathering data on indicators

After focusing on the process of selecting key performance indicators to monitor outcomes, we
now need to examine the next level of the foundations of measuring the project indicators, and
that is; Setting baseline and gathering data on indicators. Establishment of baseline data -
establishing where we are at present relative to the outcome we are trying to achieve. One cannot
determine project Performance in the future (set targets) without first establishing a baseline. The
baseline is the first measurement of an indicator. It sets the current condition against which
future change can be tracked. For instance, it helps to inform decision-makers about current
circumstances before embarking on projecting targets for a given program, policy, or project. In
this way, the baseline is used to learn about current or recent levels and patterns of performance.
Importantly, baselines provide the evidence by which decision-makers are able to measure
subsequent policy, program, or project performance.

8.4.1 Establishing Baseline Data on Indicators

Establishing baselines is the third part of the performance framework. Baselines are derived from
outcomes and indicators. A performance baseline is information—qualitative or quantitative—
that provides data at the beginning of, or just prior to, the monitoring period. The baseline is used
as a starting point, or guide, by which to monitor future performance. Baselines are the first
critical measurement of the indicators. Figure 8.2 contains an example of baseline data for an
Education project:
Figure 8.2 Developing Baseline Data for Educational project
OUTCOME INDICATORS BASELINE TARGETS
Nation’s children 1. Percent of eligible 1. In 1999, 75% of
have better access to urban children children ages 3 – 5
pre-school enrolled in pre- 2. In 2000, 40% of
programme school education. children aged 3 -5
2. Percent of eligible
rural children
enrolled in pre-
school education
Primary school Percent of standard 6 In 2002, 75% scored
learning outcome for children scoring 70% 70% or better in
children improved or better on a Maths, and 61%
standardized Maths scored 70% or better
and Science tests in science.

69
 There are eight key questions that should be asked in building baseline information for
every indicator. (These questions continue to apply in subsequent efforts to measure the
indicator.)
1. What are the sources of data?
2. What are the data collection methods?
3. Who will collect the data?
4. How often will the data be collected?
5. What is the cost and difficulty to collect the data?
6. Who will analyze the data?
7. Who will report the data?
8. Who will use the data?

8.5 Selecting Targets to Monitor and evaluate

A target is can be defined as a specified objective that indicates the number, timing and location
of that which is to be realized (IFAD, 2002). In essence, targets are the quantifiable levels of the
indicators that a country, society, or organization wants to achieve by a given time. For example,
one target might be “all families should be able to eat two meals a day, every day, by the year
2005.” One method of establish targets is to start with the baseline indicator level, and include
the desired level of improvement (taking into consideration available resources over a specific
time period, for example, 24–36 months), to arrive at the performance target. In so doing, the
starting point will be known, as will the available resources to make progress toward that target
over a particular period of time. This will give the target performance.

8.5.1 Factors to Consider When Selecting Performance Indicator Targets

There are a number of important factors to consider when selecting performance indicator
targets. First and foremost one needs to take baselines seriously. There must be a clear
understanding of the baseline starting point; for example, an average of the last three years’
performance, last year’s performance, average trend, data over the past six months, and so forth.
In other words, previous performance should be considered in projecting new performance
targets. One might observe how an organization or policy has performed over the previous few
years before projecting future performance targets.

Another consideration in setting targets is the expected funding and resource levels—existing
capacity, budgets, personnel, funding resources, facilities, and the like—throughout the target
period. This can include internal funding sources as well as external funding from bilateral and
multilateral donors. Targets should be feasible given all of the resource considerations as well as
organizational capacity to deliver activities and outputs. Most targets are set annually, but some
could be set quarterly. Others could be set for longer periods. However, setting targets more than
three to four years forward is not advisable. There are too many unknowns and risks with respect

70
to resources and inputs to try to project target performance beyond three to four years. In short,
be realistic when setting targets.
The political nature of the process also comes into play. Political concerns are important.
What has the government or administration promised to deliver? Citizens have voted for a
particular government based on articulated priorities and policies that need to be recognized and
legitimized in the political process. Setting targets is part of this political process, and there will
be political ramifications for either meeting or not meeting targets. Setting realistic targets
involves the recognition that most desired outcomes are longer term, complex, and not quickly
achieved. Thus, there is a need to establish targets as short-term objectives on the path to
achieving an outcome. So how does an organization or country set longer-term, strategic goals to
be met perhaps 10 to 15 years in the future, when the amount of resources and inputs cannot be
known? Most governments and organizations cannot reliably predict what their resource base
and inputs will be 10 to 15 years ahead. The answer is to set interim targets over shorter periods
of time when inputs can be better known or estimated. “Between the baseline and the . . .
[outcome] there may be several milestones [interim targets] that correspond to expected
performance at periodic intervals” (UNDP 2002, p. 66). For example, the Millennium
Development Goals ( MDGs) have a 15-year time span. While these long-term goals are
certainly relevant, the way to reach them is to set targets for what can reasonably be
accomplished over a set of to four-year periods.
The aim is to align strategies, means, and inputs to track progress toward the MDGs over
shorter periods of time with a set of sequential targets. Targets could be sequenced: target one
could be for years one to three; target two could be for years four to seven, and so on.
Flexibility is important in setting targets because internal or external resources may be
cut or otherwise diminished during budgetary cycles. Reorientation of the program, retraining of
staff, and reprioritization of the work may be required. This is an essential aspect of public
management.
If the indicator is new, be careful about setting firm targets. It might be preferable to use
a range instead. A target does not have to be a single numerical value. In some cases it can be a
range. For example, in 2003, one might set an education target that states “by 2007, 80 to 85
percent of all students who graduate from secondary school will be computer literate.” It takes
time to observe the effects of improvements, so be realistic when setting targets. Many
development and sector policies and programs will take time to come to fruition. For example,
environmental reforestation is not something that can be accomplished in one to two years.
Finally, it is also important to be aware of the political games that are sometimes played
when setting targets. For example, an organization may set targets so modest or easily achieved
that they will surely be met. Another game that is often played in bureaucracies is to move the
target as needed to fit the performance goal. Moving targets causes problems because indicator
trends can no longer be discerned and measured. In other cases, targets may be chosen because
they are not politically sensitive.

71
 8.6 Summary
The lecturer discusses Outcomes, baseline data, targets and the
foundation of measuring project indicators. It examines various
factors to be considered when choosing outcomes to monitor and
evaluate and also factor to consider when selecting targets. The
lecture also outlines the overall process of setting and agreeing of
on outcomes to monitor. In details and with illustrations, the
lecture also looks at how outcomes, baseline and targets are set
for effective monitoring and evaluation

8.7 Self Evaluation questions

1. Explain factors you will consider when setting up outcomes and
targets to monitor and evaluate?
2. Discuss factors that you will consider before setting up an M&E
system
3. With relevant examples show how the outcomes, baseline and
target are set for effective M&E?

8.9 Further Reading

Jody Zall Kusek Ray C. Rist (2004), A Handbook for Development
Practitioners, Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and
Evaluation System. Washington. The International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank
(http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/guide/annexc/c.htm: Managing for
impact for Rural Development; A Guide for Project M&E)

72
 LECTURE NINE

MONITORING AND EVALUATION STANDARDS

9.1 Introduction
Credibility of any evaluation is measured against standards of quality established by the
International Community of Evaluators. This lecture will introduce you to commonly agreed
standards that you can apply while planning for evaluation up to the implementation stage. The
lecture covers; utility standards, feasibility standards, propriety standards and accuracy
standards.
9.2 Lecture objectives
At the end of this lecture you should be able to;
3. Identify the utility standards
4. Explain the feasibility standards
5. Describe the propriety standards
6. Discuss accuracy standards

9.3 Utility Standards

Before you plan to does an evaluation make sure you have the information needs of the
project users. It is important to ask yourself the following questions:
 Who has interest in this evaluation?
 Who are the beneficiaries of the evaluation?
 What are the characteristics of the evaluator?
 How is the data going to gathered and reported?
 What impact is the evaluation going to have on the interested parties?
Once you can answer the above questions successfully, continue reading the brief note on the
various standards that you should consider when planning an evaluation process.

9.3.1 Stakeholder identification

A sound and fair evaluation should address the interests and needs of those involved or
affected by the evaluation. For example the planners, designers, implementers of the project,
target group, development partners, decision makers, evaluators and the general public.

9.3.2 Credibility of the evaluator

Evaluation can only achieve maximum credibility and acceptance if it was carried out by
an evaluator who is trust worthy, who displace high degree of integrity, professionally
competent, able to give independent judgment, good communicator and sociable.

9.3.3 Section of the information

73
 The information surrounding the evaluation should be carefully selected. Information
collected should be responsive to the interest and needs of the stakeholders. Therefore it is
important to gather enough information that would answer all pertinent questions about the
project

9.3.4 Transparency of assessment

Describe all the procedures used in data collection and interpretation carefully so that the bases
for value judgment are clear

9.3.5 Clarity of the report

Describe clearly the project that is being evaluated. Give simple definitions that can be
understood by the intended user.

Take Note
All stages of evaluation should be describe; context, purpose, questions,
procedures, funding etc.

9.3.6 Timeliness of the project

All reports should be presented in good time for use by the intended groups.

Take Note
Interim and final reports are equally important for they may have an
impact on the future action of the target group. Reporting is important.

9.3.7 Evaluation impact

In order to increase evaluation impact on the users, involve the stakeholders at different stages of
evaluation

9.4 Feasibility Standards

You have to ensure that feasibility standards are observed to check on the manner in
which evaluation was carried out. The major question to ask yourself is, was the evaluation
realistic, cost effective, prudent, thoughtful e.t.c
Let us review various standards under feasibility standards;

9.4.1 Practical procedures

74
 Under this standard it is important to ensure that the evaluation process embraces
practical methods and instruments. If this is adhered to the evaluation process will guarantee
production of the needed information and disruption will be minimized. To validate the
evaluation methods and instruments there is need to involve all the stakeholders.

9.4.2 Political viability

When planning and conducting an evaluation, it is important to take into account the interest of
all interested groups. This ensures maximum cooperation that guarantees smooth running of the
activity and generation of unbiased evaluation results.

9.5 Propriety standards

A sound and fair evaluation is bound by legal and ethical standards. The evaluation process
should be hinged on sound ethical consideration to ensure the welfare of the stakeholders and
participants. The rights of the participants and beneficiaries should be respected by the
methodology and procedures of the evaluation process. The following standards should be
considered.
9.5.1 Formal Agreement
Avoid gentleman agreements’ and insist on putting all agreement in writing. This will bind the
formal parties so that they are obligated to adhere to all conditions of the agreement or to
renegotiate it. When preparing formal agreements ensure that you spell out clearly what is to be
done, how it will be done, by who and when. Budgets, time, personnel, design, methodology,
and report content are also regulated in formal writing

9.5.2 Protection of individuals’ rights

An evaluation design and methodology should respect and protect the rights and the
welfare of the stakeholders and participants. For instance the instrument should at all cost avoid
items that will cause physical, physiological and even psychological damage to the participants.
On the other hand the evaluation findings that are perceived to have a negative effect to the
beneficiaries must be justified beyond any reasonable doubt before dissemination is done.

9.5.3 Human Interactions

Evaluation should respect human dignity and worth in the interaction with other persons
associated with an evaluation so that participants are not threatened or harmed. It is therefore
necessary to be familiar with the cultural practices of the intended group i.e. beliefs customs
manners e.t.c

9.5.4 Complete and fair assessment

The evaluation should be complete and fair in its examination and recording of strengths
and weakness of the programme being evaluated so that strengths can be build upon and
weakness can be addressed. The evaluation exercise depends on the methodology which is

75
constrained with available resources in terms of time and budget. These are factors that ensure
the exercise is complete and fair. Therefore any issues that may cause difficult in the process of
evaluation should be discussed and agreed upon before the exercise.

9.5.5 Disclosure of findings

The formal parties to an evaluation should ensure that the entire findings of the
evaluation along with pertinent limitations are made accessible to the persons affected by the
evaluation and any others with express legal rights to receive the findings.

9.5.6 Conflict of interest

As a project manager, you need to deal with conflict of interest openly and honestly so
that it does not compromise the evaluation process and results.

Take Note
The evaluation interests can be categorized into:
1. Donors interests;
2. Top management interests;
3. Stakeholders interests and;
4. The evaluators interests
All of the above interests will always want to influence the evaluation
findings. This is a source of dilemma on the side of the evaluator

The integrity of the evaluation cannot be compromised just to accommodate conflicts of interest

9.5.7 Fiscal responsibility

The evaluators allocating and expenditure of resources should reflect sound
accountability procedures. The evaluators should be prudent and ethically responsible in
management of the resource assigned to the evaluation exercise to the satisfaction of the
stakeholders

9.6 Accuracy standards

The accuracy standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey
technically adequate information about the features that determine the value of the programme
being evaluated. The standards involved include the following:

9.6.1 Programme documentation

Describe and document clearly and accurately the project being evaluated. The description
should be sufficiently detailed to ensure an understanding of programme aims and strategies.

76
 Take Note
Details on writing of evaluation study will be discussed later.

9.6.2 Context Analysis

The context in which the evaluation exists should be examined in enough detail so that its
likely influence on the programme can be identified. This will help in the accurate interpretation
of the evaluation findings and assessing the extent to which they can be generalized.

9.6.3 Described purposes and procedures

The purposes and procedure of the evaluation should be monitored and described in
enough details so that they can be identified and assessed. The purpose of describing and
clarifying the purpose and procedures of the evaluation is to help the evaluator focus on issues
that are of greatest concern to stakeholders. This ensures that time and resources are used as
efficiently and effectively as possible.

9.6.4 Defensible information sources

The sources of information used in programme evaluation should be described in enough
details so that their adequacy can be assessed. The criteria used for selecting sources should be
stated clearly so that users and other stakeholders can interpret the information accurately and
assess if it might be biased.

9.6.5 Valid and reliable information

The information gathering procedures implemented should provide assurance that the
interpretation arrived at is valid and reliable. Validity and reliability can be see as the extent to
which methodologies and instrument measure what they are intended to measure and can
produce the same results if repeatedly applied.

9.6.6 Systematic review of information

The information collected analyzed and reported in an evaluation should be systematically
reviewed and any error found should be corrected.

9.6.7 Analysis of Quantitative and qualitative data

The information collected should be processed and analyzed in a systematic way so that the
evaluation questions can be effectively answered.

77
Take Note
All data analysis should follow rules of methodological soundness.

9.7 Summary
1. This lecture extensively examines various standards used in
monitoring and evaluations. Identify the utility standards
2. Explain the feasibility standards
3. Describe the propriety standards
4. Discuss accuracy standards

9.7 Self assessment test

1. Identify at least four utility standards used in evaluation
2. Explain the feasibility standards as used in evaluation
3. Examine the propriety standards
4. Discuss accuracy standards that are used in evaluation exercise

9.7 Further Reading

Ogula, P. (2002). Monitoring and Evaluation of Educational Projects
and programme, Nairobi. New Kemit Publishers

78
 LECTURE TEN

MONITORING AND EVALUATION METHODS AND TOOLS

10.1 Introduction
After exposing yourself to different aspects of evaluation, the next task as an evaluator is
to design an evaluation exercise. At this juncture you will be required to have knowledge of
various methodology and tools that you will use to conduct the evaluation. In this lecture we are
going to discuss, key monitoring and evaluation methods, factors to consider when selecting the
monitoring and evaluation tools and preparation of monitoring and evaluation document
(proposal).

10.2 Lecture Objectives

1. Identify the key monitoring and evaluation methods and tools

2. Explain the factors to consider when selecting monitoring and
evaluation methods
3. Develop a monitoring and evaluation document (proposal)

10.3 Key monitoring and evaluation approaches and tools

Evaluation often produces controversial results. These might be criticized, especially in
terms of whether the data collection method, analysis and results lead to reliable information and
conclusions that reflect the situation.
Methods of data collection have strengths and draw backs. Formal methods (surveys,
participatory observation, direct measurements etc) used in academic research would lead to
qualitative and quantitative data that have a high degree of reliability and validity. The problem
is that they are expensive. Less formal methods (field visits, unstructured interviews etc) might
generate rich information but less precise conclusions, especially because some of those methods
depend on subjective views and intuitions.
There are two main evaluation approaches that an evaluator can consider when designing
an evaluation method. Some authors call them evaluation paradigms. These are quantitative and
qualitative. Let us discuss each of the approaches mentioned above:
10.3.1 Quantitative Approach
Quantitative approach of evaluation is a school of thought that certain groups of
evaluators view as the best for evaluating projects. They believe that evaluations that peruse this
kind of approach produce valid and reliable evaluation results. Quantitative approach is a
systematic collection, analysis and interpretation of numerical data for the purpose of explaining,
predicting or controlling evaluation phenomena. Some of the widely used designs in this

79
approach include: survey designs, cross-sectional design, longitudinal design, ex-post facto
design, experimental design, and quasi-experimental design. We know that you have covered
this design in the Research Method module. For the purpose of reminding ourselves, we will
briefly discus each of the above mentioned designs as below:

10.3.1. 1 Survey Design

This designs attempts to systematically collect, analyze and interpret numerical data from
members of a project stakeholders in order to determine the current status of project target
population, with respect to one or more variables. There are two types of survey designs; sample
surveys and census surveys. Data is normally analyzed using frequencies, percentages, means,
standard deviations, ANOVA, and Chi-square

10.3.1.2 Cross –Section Design

In this design, subjects at various stages of development are simultaneously studied.
Suppose for example an evaluation is interested in the level of effects of a project that is
implemented at different phases: the result from each phase would be different from the other.
Therefore the overall project results can be attained by evaluating each phase and making
conclusions.

10.3.1.3 Longitudinal design

In this design the evaluator studies the same project (target population) over a period of
time. Using the above example the evaluator will evaluate the effects of a programme at each
phase and studies the effects of the project as it progresses from one phase to the other.

10.3.1.4 Correlation studies

This involves collecting data in order to determine whether and to what degree the
relationship exists between two or more quantifiable variables

10.3.1.5 Ex-Post Facto Design (Casual Comparative)

It attempts to determine the cause of reasons for existing differences in the status or
behavour of different groups of individuals. The design is ex-post facto design because the
evaluator attempts to identify the major factor which has led to a difference in two groups of
individuals after both the effect and the alleged cause have already occurred and are studied by
the evaluator in retrospect.

10.3.1.6 Experimental design

In an experimental study, the evaluator manipulates at least one independent variable,
controls other variables and observes the effects on one or more dependent variables
(manipulation of independent variables involves determining which group of subjects get which
treatment). Independent variables typically manipulated may include types of inputs exposed to

80
project target groups or even the kind of services rendered to the groups by the project. The
experimental evaluation involves two groups, an experimental group and a control group. The
experimental group receives a new novel treatment, while the control either receives a different
treatment or the usual treatment. The control group is needed for comparison purpose.
The experimental design can be in form of true-experimental design, factorial design, or
even quasi-experimental design.

10.3.2 Qualitative approach

This is another school of thought that a section of evaluators view as the best for
evaluating projects. They believe that evaluations that peruse this kind of approach produce valid
and reliable evaluation results. Qualitative approach is a systematic collection, analysis and
interpretation of narrative data for the purpose of explaining, and gaining insight and
understanding of evaluation phenomena.It provides descriptions and accounts of social events
and object of an evaluation in its natural setting. This implies that an evaluator using this
approach to evaluate projects, should look at it in view of:
 Field work: referring to the mode of data collection that is in the field rather than in the
laboratory
 Naturalistic – meaning that data should be collected where the events take place
 Ethnographic – implying that the evaluation should be descriptive in nature. Culture of
the project beneficiaries should also be described and necessary linkages made
 Symbolic interactions – this holds that, the ‘human experience is mediated by
interpretations’ implying that meaning given to objects, events or situations are
interpretations from the responsible individuals given the occasions and environment.
Thus definitions and settings of the occurrences are important to figure out the
meanings and the process behind them.
 Phenomenological – this points to the subject matter to be investigated. The evaluator
should try to understand how people go about describing the behaviour in their
respective world. The evaluator should exercise a high degree of common sense during
data collection process. This is because micro- issues of data collection are of
importance and can influence the direction of an evaluation results.
 Orientational – the evaluation should begin with a presumed general pattern (theoretical
or ideological perspective) which is then described and explained by the data gathered
(Patton, 1990). Thus the evaluator goes into the field knowing the most important
variables and concepts that will direct the focus and interpretation of the evaluation
findings.
Some of widely used designs under this approach include case study, ethnography,
phenomenology, biography, grounded theory etc

10.3.2.1 Case study design

81
 This design attempt to examine an individual or unit in depth as an endeavour to describe
the behaviours or events and the relationships of these behaviours or events to the subject’s
history and environment. The emphasis of the design is to understand why an individual does
what he/she does and how behaviour changes as the individual responds to the environment
Case study design aims at a comprehensive, systematic and in-depth gathering of
information about a case of interest. In such a study raw case data is assembled, a case record is
constructed and ultimately a case study narrative is produced. Types of Case studies include:
 Historical Organizational case study – this is a study that traces the historical
development of an organization/project over time. It relies on document review
and interviews
 Observational case study – this is mostly used to study the interaction of group
of people over a period of time. Their major data collection technique is
participant observation.
 Situation analysis – in this form of case study a particular event is studied from
the view point of all major participants. The collective views of the participants
are synthesized by the evaluator to provide an understanding of the subject under
study.

10.3.2.2 Ethnography Design

This design can be defined as a study of human societies, institutions and social
relationships by getting ‘inside them’. In this case the evaluator accesses the social world of
people or group being studied for the purpose of tying to understand their ‘shared meaning’ and
‘taken-for-granted assumptions’. The purpose of ethnography evaluation is to describe a social
unit as it exists in its natural setting. The major data gathering technique in this design include
participants’ observation. Visual recording of events e.g diagrams, photographs and video tape
may be used.

10.3.2.3 Phenomenological Design

This design describes the meaning of a lived experience. The evaluator sets aside all the
prejudgments and collects data on how individuals make sense out of a particular experience or
situation. The techniques used in data collection in this design is long interviews directed
towards understanding the subjects perspectives on their every day lived experience with the
phenomenon (McMillan and Schumacher, 2001). Phenomenological study studies enable readers
to feel that they understand more fully the concept related to the particular experience.

Take Note

The evaluator can use a mixture of the above approaches in order to

source for the best findings. A report that has both qualitative and
quantitative data is very rich.

82
10.4 Selecting Monitoring and evaluation tools
Monitoring and evaluation may use various tools for data collection such as format
interviews, literature review, questionnaire and surveys, in-depth interview, focus group
discussions, document reviews, field work reports case studies, participants’ observations,
community meetings.
These tools have advantages and disadvantages as illustrated below
Table 10.1 Evaluation methods and tools

Methods Descriptions Advantages Disadvantages/challenges

/purpose
Literature search Gather background Economic and Difficult to assess validity
information on efficient way of and reliability of
evaluation methods obtaining secondary data
used others information
Questionnaires and Oral interviews or  Produce reliable Demanding and could be
surveys written questionnaires information costly
of a representative  Can be Might not get careful
sample of completed feedback
despondence anonymously Wording can bias clients
 Easy to compare responses
and analyze Data is analyzed for
 Can be groups and are
administered impersonal
easily to a large Surveys may need
number of people sampling experts
 Collect a lot of Provide numbers but do
data in an not get the full story
organized manner Open ended data may be
 Many sample difficult to analyze
questionnaire
already exist
Interviews To fully understands  Give fool range Can be hard to analyze
someone’s and depth of and compare
impressions or information and Interviewers can bias
experiences or learn yield rich data responses
more about their and details and Can be expensive and
answers to new insights time consuming
questionnaire  Can be flexible Need well qualified and
Individuals or group with the client highly trained
interviews could be  Permit face-to- interviewers

83
 organize to assess face contact with Interviewee may distort
perceptions views and respondent and information through
satisfaction of provide recall errors
beneficiaries opportunity to Selective perception and
explore topics in desire to please
depth Flexibility can results in
 Allows inconsistencies across
interviewer to interviews
probe explain or Volume of information
help clarify too large and may be
questions difficult to reduce data
increasing the
likelihood of
useful responses
 Allow interviewer
to be flexible in
administering
interviews to
particular
individuals or
circumstances
Document Review Impression of how  Give impression Often takes a lot of time
programme operates and historical Information may be
without interrupting information incomplete. Quality of
the programme by  Does not interrupt documentation might be
review of applications programme or poor
finances, memos, clients routine in Need to be clear about
minutes etc. programme purpose
 Information Not a flexible means to
already exist get data. Data restricted
 Few biases about to what already exists
information
Observations Involves inspections,  Well-suited for Dependent on observer’s
field visits and understanding understanding and
observation to process views, interpretation
understand process, operation of the Has limited potential for
infrastructure/services programme while generalization
and their utilization they are actually Can be difficult to
occurring interpret exhibited
Gathers accurate  Can adapt to behaviuors

84
 information about events as they Can be complex to
how a programme occurs and exist categories observations
actually operates in natural, Can influence behaviour
particularly about unstructured and of programme
processes flexible setting participants
 Provide direct Can be expensive and
information about time consuming
behaviour of Needs well qualified,
individuals and highly trained observers
groups and all content experts
 Permits evaluator Investigators have little
to enter into and control of the situation
understand
situations/context
 Provide good
opportunity for
identifying un
anticipated
result.
Focus Groups A focus group brings  Efficient and Can be hard to analyze
together a reasonable in responses.
representative of 8 – terms of cost Need good facilitators
10 People who are  Stimulates the Difficult to schedule 8 -
asked a series of generation of new 10 people
questions related to ideas
the task at hand  Quickly and
reliably gets
Used for analysis of common
specific complex impressions
problems in order to  Can be an
identify attitudes and efficient way to
priorities in sample get a wide range
groups and depth of
information in a
Explore a topic in shot time
depth through group  Can convey key
discussion e.g. about information about
reactions to an programme
experience or  Useful in project
suggestions, design and in

85
 understanding assessing the
common complaints impact of a
e.t.c project on a given
set of
stakeholders
Case study In-depth view of one  Well-suited for Usually time consuming
or a small number of understanding to collect, organize and
selected cases processes and for describe.
formulating Represents depth of
To fully understand hypothesis to be information, rather than
or depict tested later breadth
beneficiaries’  Fully depicts
experience in a client’s
project, and conduct experience in
comprehensive programme input,
examination through process and
cross comparison of results
cases  Powerful means
to portray
programme to
outsiders
Key informants Interviews with  Flexible, in- Risk of biased
interviews persons who are depth approach. presentation/interpretatio
knowledgeable about  Easy to n from informants
the community implement /interviewer
targeted by the  Provides Time required to select
project information and get commitment may
concerning be substantial.
A Key informants is a causes, reasons Relationship between
person (or group) and/or best evaluator and informants
who has unique skills approaches from may influence type of
or professional back – an ‘insider’ point data obtained.
ground related to the of view Informants may interject
issue/intervention  Advice/feedback own biases and
being evaluated, is increases impressions
knowledgeable about credibility of
the project study
participants and / or  May have side
has access to other benefit to solidify
information of relationships

86
 interest to the between
evaluator evaluator,
beneficiaries and
other stakeholders
Direct measurement Registration of  Precise Registers only facts and
quantifiable or  Reliable and not explanations
classifiable data by often requiring
means of analytical few resources
instrument

Source: Information on common qualitative methods is provide in earlier user friendly

Handbook for project evaluation (NSF 93-152

10.5 Preparation of monitoring and evaluation plan (proposal)

An evaluation plan is a framework that clarifies key elements of a proposed evaluation. Ideally,
this is a stage that involves evaluation proposal preparation. Before one embarks on serious
evaluation proposal development, one needs to ask the following questions:
 What are the goals and objectives of the project?
 What approach should be emphasized in this evaluation?
 Are separate evaluation studies necessary and feasible?
 How should the terms of reference be prepared?
 When should evaluation take place?
 How much will the evaluation cost?
 Who are to be involved in evaluation, and in what ways?
 What advance information is required?
 How will the findings be produced and disseminated?

10.6 Stages in preparation of M&E plan(proposal)

There are many ways of writing an M&E proposal. The most common way are explained
below;

1. Preliminary pages
Title page may contain: the name of project, programme or theme being evaluated; the
Country/ies of project/programme or theme; name of the organization to which the report is
submitted; names and affiliations of the evaluators and the date. Finally in the preliminary pages
we have table of contents and acronyms and abbreviations

Step Two

87
 This constitutes chapter one of the proposal that contains the introduction to the evaluation
which may include the following areas:
i) Context of the evaluation: Briefly describe the project to establish whether it is new,
developing or firmly established
ii) Purpose of the evaluation: After describing the context of evaluation make a
statement of need and then state the purpose of the evaluation. Before writing the
purpose consider the following:
 why is this evaluation important?
 what are the implication of the evaluation and how does it relate to the
future work of the area?
iii) Evaluation question and objectives: These are derived from the statement of the
purpose of the evaluation. Examples of evaluation questions are
 Are the planned activities actually being carried out?
 Is the programme achieving its intended objectives
 How does the project compare with alternative strategies for achieving the
same ends?
Examples of evaluation objectives may include to:
 Determine the effect of the project to the beneficiaries
 Extent to which project objectives have been achieved
 The impact of the project
iv) Significance of the evaluation: The evaluator should first identify the decision areas
of the project and explain how the results of the evaluation will guide the
effectiveness of the projects. The evaluator will also require identifying key project
stakeholders and explaining how the evaluation findings will be important to them.
v) Limitation and Delimitation of the evaluation: A single evaluation may not cover
all the aspect of interest. It can be limited to certain type of projects, geographical
areas etc. These should be stated and justified. This section describes the limits or the
scope of the study. The evaluator should give reasons why they are not extending
beyond the determined scope
vi) Assumption of the evaluation: An evaluator should indicate those factors that
operate in his/her study out of which he/she will assume that will not affect the
evaluation results. Such factors should be those the evaluator can do nothing about
through sampling or studying and therefore has to accept to live with them. For
Example, an evaluator will assume that the evaluation participants will give honest
and frank answers.
vii) Definition of the significant terms: This should be restricted only to those terms
which may convey different meanings to different people. Such definitions are
sometimes called operational definitions. There are other terms which are not
observable but which can only be inferred by subject behaviour when faced with a
specific situation. Such terms are called constructs

88
 viii) Evaluation Model: Evaluator needs to look at the entire evaluation and make
decision on the type of evaluation model that fits it (see lecture Four).
ix) Conceptual framework: The evaluator needs to explain a framework that shows the
interrelationship of independent and dependent variables under the evaluation. These
helps in focusing the evaluation.
x) Outline of the final evaluation report: All the chapters for writing the evaluation
report must be highlighted on
2. Step three
This is referred to as chapter two. It contains the description of the project being
evaluated. These may include:
 Historical summary of the highlights of the projects or group of activities to be
evaluated
 Day the project was started
 Philosophy behind the programme
 Types of beneficiaries for who the project is designed
 Project out come
 Project scheduling
 Content
 Administrative and management procedures

3. Step Four
This is known as chapter two of the proposal. It entails review of previous Evaluation studies
related to the evaluation. The section is very important because it helps one to understand various
methods of evaluation that were used elsewhere and the kind of results that were realized

4. Step Five
This step entails the methodology that will be used in the evaluation. It constitutes chapter
three which is concerned with Evaluation design and methodology. It touches on:
 Evaluation Design
 Target population and sample
 Description of the sample
 Description of the instruments
 Data collection
 Data analysis plan
 Work Plan
 Budget

89
10.6 Self assessment test
1. Identify various method of collecting data
2. Explain the characteristics of good data collection instruments
3. State the advantages and limitations of different types of methods and
tools of data collection
4. With relevant examples explain the steps involved in preparation of
M&E proposal

10.7 Summary
It is important to note that when conducting an Evaluation, the methods
and tools that one chooses define the quality of the results to be achieved.
This lecture therefore disuses two approaches that a project manager can
employ in designing a monitoring and evaluation plan. The two methods
include qualitative and quantitative techniques. The lecture also provides
an in-depth outlook of subcomponent of each of the above methodology
and tools that are used in the evaluation of projects. The lecture finally
examines various components of a project evaluation proposal Identify
the key monitoring and evaluation methods and tools.

10.7 Further Reading

Patton, M, Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods.
Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications. Inc

McMillan J, and Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in Education: A

conceptual Introduction (5 Ed). New York: Longman.

90