XVIII.   Capacity Monitoring and Evaluation

18.1      While the Organisation Workplan and a performance management system will be introduced as part of the Capacity Development Strategy to provide support to results-based monitoring at individual and organisational levels, the Strategy itself must have a monitoring and evaluation framework.

18.2     Capacity development is a non-linear and complex process and, in this case, many aspects of the Strategy remain undeveloped. It will therefore be particularly important to revisit the basic assumptions and approaches on which the Strategy is premised and an objective monitoring system will provide the necessary guidance on what is working and what more needs to be done. By combining this monitoring work with a participatory evaluation process it will also be possible to identify where a switch in focus or approach may be beneficial and how this might be achieved.

18.3     Indicators must be developed, applied and interpreted with a large dose of common sense, and they must be combined with other forms of assessing progress (considered below). In developing specific capacity development indicators, consideration needs to be given to the following issues:

1. The indicators should be broadly consistent with the conventional SMART approach: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timebound;

2. Indicators should be closely aligned with the organisational workplan. The generic workplan (Annex Two) includes an indication of capacity support that is required to perform a task, together with provision for a capacity-specific indicator.

3. Indicators should be clearly linked to this Strategy, they should be limited in number and not represent an additional burden (e.g. data collection/analysis). The monitoring process must not take on a life of its own;

4. Contrary to the conventional wisdom on establishing higher end (output) level indicators, capacity indicators should initially focus on monitoring the strengthening of processes, as this is where the sustainability of change will be achieved;

5. Indicators might be a mix of short-term (inputs to the process) that are associated with longer-term (more focused on results) indicators, which will allow causation to be asserted by disentangling multiple forms of support;

6. As the implementation phase matures, different kinds of indicators may need to be selected to reflect the different stage of CRDB's capacity evolution;

7. Thought should be given to developing indicators of sustainability, although this is subjective and challenging.

18.4      This approach, rather than focusing on monitoring how capacity is manifested as organisational outputs will allow for a better understanding on what support has been provided and how effective It has been, while the latter approach may lead to short-cuts at the expense of sustainability, while also being unable to disentangle the impact of multiple inputs.

18.5      Some of the indicators that might be considered, include:

1. Meetings – monthly management and Department meetings held, minutes posted, decisions/actions routinely followed up in next meeting. Retreats held on quarterly basis (for training and monitoring);

2. Reorganisation – dialogue with staff to finalise structure and staffing levels (including possible need for a new Sub Decree), new structure implemented, new structure assessed;

3. Performance management – staff trained, system established, quarterly evaluations made;

4. Monetary Incentives – system established, manual produced, staff trained, incentives paid (on time) based on evaluations;

5. Non-monetary incentives & motivation – use of staff surveys to monitor morale, to assess team spirit and to gauge related workplace issues;

6. Training – training plans developed for all staff, plans agreed and funded, training awarded, training completed;

7. Monitoring – staff trained in monitoring techniques, Retreats held to monitor work, agreed changes incorporated into revised Capacity Development Strategy

8. Sustainability – all capacity indicators should be augmented with a check for sustainability and any risk of capacity dissipating or otherwise being lost.

18.6     Most of the indicators above are considered to be input or process indicators. At a later time, it will be necessary to consider results or output indicators that link the provision of capacity development inputs (e.g. training) to the performance of tasks in the Organisational Workplan (e.g. the production of the Development Cooperation Report) and, ultimately, to progress in the implementation of the RGC H-A-R Action Plan (e.g. establishment of a TA policy, more programme-based approaches etc).

18.7     It will therefore be necessary that CRDB give further consideration to the development of capacity indicators, both now and especially in the future; indeed, asking the question "what does this indicator tell us?" should itself be a routine part of the monitoring exercise.

18.8     The process of discussing and developing these indicators will in itself stimulate thought about the linkages between activities, processes and outputs in terms of developing a shared vision of strengthened and sustainable capacity. This 'cause and effect' exercise will in itself help to prioritise a result-based approach to the implementation of the Strategy (the exercise will also be beneficial in supporting results-based work in other aspects of CRDB work).

18.9     The monitoring process should be undertaken primarily by senior management and discussed, on a quarterly basis as a high priority agenda item at the management meeting that takes place immediately before a staff retreat. The retreat itself should afford an opportunity to support a participatory monitoring process; it is critical that perspectives on organisational reform be provided across all levels of CRDB. The training section also noted that endowing staff with the skills to understand and apply performance management, results-based and monitoring concepts will be an important pre-condition for effective implementation and monitoring of the Capacity Development Strategy.

18.10   Support to the monitoring, and particularly evaluation, process should also be provided externally. This will provide objectivity, impartiality and an injection of new ideas. This support might include using national consultants acquainted with organisational change, or the facilitation of more formal participatory institutional assessments.

18.11   Finally, the monitoring and evaluation exercise should be seen as a useful management tool, it should not be burdensome. The course of capacity development will be long and winding and it will therefore be necessary to pause at regular intervals to take bearings with the aid of dedicated monitoring tools. Based on a rigorous evaluation, it will then be possible to chart a new course.

| Content | Back | Top | Next |

Home | 8^th CG Meeting | 7^th CG Meeting | Partnership and Harmonization TWG | GDCC | Policy Documents Guidelines | Donor Dev. Coop. Pgm. | NGO