Results Based Monitoring and Evaluation

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sithole Humbe on October 20, 2008 at 5:55am

Hie Munya

I think the experts panel should take a lead in this Discussion. Why so, i hope and believe their experience from other countries where IRBM was successful implemented might be of necessity to your concerns. The discussion should be as practical as possible. I hope to get a new good look from the summary of this M&E summary Notes.

I can also add that the aspect of recording results ( Outputs, Outcomes & Impacts ) is not being fostered by implementing agencies. The Intergrated Performance Framework Document is literally academically crafted with no sense of practicality in it. Reporting entities will only waive the blame to economic challenges such as inflation and so forth covering up their poor performance.

My experience in public service proved to me that Public enterprises lacks accountability not by default but by design. The leadership in these enterprises claim to be political aligned hence untouchables and plunders resources will nilly.
I think the following steps should be articulated as clearer as possible where IRBM is being implemented
- Capacity building should be the first step towards behavioural change.
- Introduce change management module to whitewash the traditional approach in existence.
- Leadership in Government to recommend IRBM in its entirety both theory and practice
- Reform Units to set clear lines of accountability and responsibility and
- Leadership in Government to set up M&E Committees independent of the implementing agencies to evaluate agreed performance levels
- Explicit action plans should be drawn for poor performance and above expected performance (Modifications). Those poor managers who sits on bunches of excuses should be shown the exit door.
- There should be a clear policy for non-reporting enterprises, i think the policy must be punitive in nature. In the same policy document a section should be inserted to accomodate those who are fond of misrepresenting facts/ results. Lying is only good when it is saving a marriage not when it is killing the nation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bimerew Alemu on October 27, 2008 at 9:58am

Dear network friends!

Sorry for not being in the discussion during the last couple of weeks. This time I am interested to discuss about RBM&E and learn from our net work friends all over Africa .
The major thing we should do is establishing goals and targets, of course with good indicators, with which we can measure our results. One has to be well informed that with traditional way of thinking and working he can reach no where. To have this done each stake holder should know its responsibilities.
In our case the root problem is getting valid data on indicators of performance at local levels and sustainably getting structured flow of data and information. With in our Central Statistical Agency (CSA) has National Statistics Council is established. Efforts are also being made to establish a national statistical framework. Strengthening the CSA and establishing central data bank must be the primary work. Central, Regional, and Local Institutions must be well aware of the importance basic data on indicators to have good outcomes; which are essential in building results based M&E system.

Bimerew Alemu

From ETHIOPIA

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. Rosa Muraguri-Mwololo on November 10, 2008 at 7:44am

we have to recognise that there are people in governement who benefit tremendously from lack of M&E systems and would not like any systems of accountability in place. The greatest resistance to RBM is from these people and worse, is if they are at the top echelons of government. I feel what we need more is shared experiences on how to break down such resistance and to create good will from them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bimerew Alemu on November 10, 2008 at 9:11am

True , if leadership is not open minded and transparent the problem will continue. But commitment for cahnge is the answer. The bondage may be that strong and could take time but the only way out is to have a clear policy on how the information has to flow and strengthen institutional parts and relationships and establish transparent working system. To minimize resistance, I think changing individual champion's role is also recommended.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rwakurumbira Munyaradzi on November 10, 2008 at 9:17am

Thank you for your response which points out the issue of resistance to change. But how best can this issue of resistance to new ways of doing business be tackled? Others argue that people might resist RBM&E out of ignorance but if they get to know its benefits they will not resist. What are your views?
Dr. Rosa Muraguri-Mwololo said:

we have to recognise that there are people in governement who benefit tremendously from lack of M&E systems and would not like any systems of accountability in place. The greatest resistance to RBM is from these people and worse, is if they are at the top echelons of government. I feel what we need more is shared experiences on how to break down such resistance and to create good will from them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rwakurumbira Munyaradzi on November 10, 2008 at 9:25am

Thank you very much for your input. Do you have cases of how change management has been institutionally inculcated leading to the change of approach and attitudes by top leadership? What will be the best way of introducing it?
Bimerew Alemu said:

True , if leadership is not open minded and transparent the problem will continue. But commitment for cahnge is the answer. The bondage may be that strong and could take time but the only way out is to have a clear policy on how the information has to flow and strengthen institutional parts and relationships and establish transparent working system. To minimize resistance, I think changing individual champion's role is also recommended.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pamella Lakidi on November 11, 2008 at 1:45am

Thank you colleagues for this interesting and very important discussion. here is my contribution to it.

I have observed over my 6 years of working in the development world that people will always resist change. However, when the change is introduced systematicatically and with appropriate education people can shift positions: from resistors to supporters. Therefore, in order to help the "top guys who benefit from lack of M&E systems" to come on board, one needs to study the environment in which they operate and identify one, two or more aspects which affect negatively too, these very guys benefitting from lack of M&E systems. Use these aspects as an entry point to them so that they will see that RBM is good for them too. You see peopl always look for "what is in it for me?" the popular FM called "Wiii-FM" which EVERY HUMAN will tune into. Once we have identified such points of advantage, then we can customize the educational, communicational avenues to address these resistors of change in such a way that they can become our converts on RBM.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bimerew Alemu on November 11, 2008 at 2:56am

Thank you for the interesting cases you are raising.

Fundamental change can only be ensured through a concious, well designed behavioural and institutional transformation. New thinking and flexible working environment should be created. The bottom line is result or accomplished goal. In our case at least at Government Institutions Levels the approach is that every one is to be evaluated by the result he has contributed in line with the preset targets. All his customers can evaluate him. The other major change we have been conducting during the last decade is by way of deepening and broadening the decentralization process paving the ground that lower echelons are the centers of socioeconomic development and ensuring their autonomy on resources such as budget. This is good to show that decision making is not the mandate of only top management of the system; but all tiers of the government hierarchy and the stakeholders as a whole have to be involved.
Therefore, believing that change is inevitable, it has to be led conciously , systematically and in a wholistic way.

Best regards
Bimerew Alemu
From Ethiopia

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Samer Hachem on November 11, 2008 at 5:31am

When I used to work in the private sector the same resistance to change was visible as soon as the discussion about evaluating results and more generally performance was started. The way we used to handle this discussion was indeed to show the "what's in it for me" and to present the whole process not only from the control side but more as a negotiation process where in front of accountability for results there had to be accountability for means and support to reach the results.
From my little experience in the public sector, the same principle applies but the complexity of political processes makes the accountability for means and support far less tangible in general and relatively to accountability for results. Besides, changing behavior from the point of view of M&E has to rely on many change drivers outside this process due to the complexity of the political and institutional system. Decentralization is and important one, as are for example strong control institutions, good HR policies and in general modernization of the public service for the sake of the citizen of course, but also and importantly for the sake of the civil servant.
I cannot conclude better from this point of view than the previous post: "[change] has to be led conciously , systematically and in a wholistic way", or, said in my words, the change approach has to take the form of strategy encompassing all government institutions and processes. This actually leads me to the question of how best to support this change and how best to allocate resources for that objective and I would like to offer 2 thoughts. First, considering the change "systematically and in a wholistic way", it seems to me reasonable to focus on a few drivers that may not be directed related to M&E first, depending on the context but with one of them often being improved HR policies in the administration. Second, the role of development partners in supporting this change is important and I believe this support should be far more visible in helping to focus on these few priority areas chosen by the country -evolving over time- than by imposing heavy even if theoretically sound M&E procedures in unprepared contexts as sometimes seen.
Best regards,
Samer Hachem

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ledule Bosch on November 12, 2008 at 1:43pm

Hi Munyaradzi,

Ultimately, it is the demand for accountability and transparency that creates a sustainable system for M&E. The following aspects are highlighted as areas that will promote results-based M&E system:

1.Champion who can lead the advocacy for, development of and sustainability of results-based M & E system;
2 An environment that is in a state of readiness in terms of incentives and demands for designing and building a results-based M&E system;
3. Roles and responsibilities clearly defined and existing structures for assessing performance with clear lines of authority are in place;
4. Capacity development requirements for M&E system, for example technical and data management capacity that co-ordinates M & E efforts within national, district and local, subject and area expertise, data processing and statistical expertise (in relation to both supply and demand side of M&E);
5. Accountability, thus enhancing performance;
6. At least 5-10 % budget for the institutionalization of M & E and a
formalised link with other international, regional and national departments, appropriate line ministries, NGOs, or research institutions to enhance and align operations and efforts;
7. Establishment of multi-sectoral working groups with the various departments, agencies and sectors to provide consensus on various aspects of RBM & E design and implementation;
8 Strong stakeholder participation and consultative processes that ensures that citizens are actively holding government accountable;
9 Knowledge management to ensure that lessons is shared with other projects, programmes and policies, across government, NGO, donor sectors.
10 Substantial investment in the engineering for M&E in terms of skills and expertise and requisite knowledge to hone the politics of monitoring and evaluation. Under-engineering the system has a potential of undermining M&E initiatives.

Ms Ledule Bosch
South Africa

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Goaba Mosienyane on November 18, 2008 at 8:15am

Samer Hachem said:

When I used to work in the private sector the same resistance to change was visible as soon as the discussion about evaluating results and more generally performance was started. The way we used to handle this discussion was indeed to show the "what's in it for me" and to present the whole process not only from the control side but more as a negotiation process where in front of accountability for results there had to be accountability for means and support to reach the results.
From my little experience in the public sector, the same principle applies but the complexity of political processes makes the accountability for means and support far less tangible in general and relatively to accountability for results. Besides, changing behavior from the point of view of M&E has to rely on many change drivers outside this process due to the complexity of the political and institutional system. Decentralization is and important one, as are for example strong control institutions, good HR policies and in general modernization of the public service for the sake of the citizen of course, but also and importantly for the sake of the civil servant.
I cannot conclude better from this point of view than the previous post: "[change] has to be led conciously , systematically and in a wholistic way", or, said in my words, the change approach has to take the form of strategy encompassing all government institutions and processes. This actually leads me to the question of how best to support this change and how best to allocate resources for that objective and I would like to offer 2 thoughts. First, considering the change "systematically and in a wholistic way", it seems to me reasonable to focus on a few drivers that may not be directed related to M&E first, depending on the context but with one of them often being improved HR policies in the administration. Second, the role of development partners in supporting this change is important and I believe this support should be far more visible in helping to focus on these few priority areas chosen by the country -evolving over time- than by imposing heavy even if theoretically sound M&E procedures in unprepared contexts as sometimes seen.
Best regards,
Samer Hachem

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sithole Humbe on November 19, 2008 at 7:04am

Hie Colleques

I have been quite for some weeks after this discussion started. The discussion has taken a position where Mr. Munyaradzi wants a solution to " Resistance to Change " at the Top Level.

Just yesterday, Dr. Rassapan was at it again in my Country emphasizing the challenges associated with Developing Countries. The second point he highlighted was lack of M&E systems. M&E and MIS i believe should be tackled tactfully because i think from the discussion we are running away from obvious answers to problems associated with Developing countries.

Change management i know that it is a process. Management change and change management are not the same. Yes, to some point i beleive change management requires a fundamental and gradual application rather than radical. To some point, 72% of Top leadership resists to change in an environment where they are benefiting now than later. The reason to resist new dimensions or the way of doing things emanate from the fact that they have "buried interests" to protect which in their thoughts might be the passports to Hague Court.
The environment which protects dealers, thieves, corrupt officials, smugglers of mineral resources and cars can not be conducive to preach corporate governance, accountability of resources and reporting for results. In my country, every citizen is quadrillionaire while the productivity level is below 10% at national level. If a street kid is asked where he/she obtained that quadtrillion overnight do you thing a factual answer is going to be obtained ?. This is the situation in most countries where corruption/ bribery is believed to be the way of living. In that country, accountability and responsibility would always found lacking.

People need to accept that macroeconomic and political factors only do not nudge implementation of adopted policies and programmes. Change of leadership in itself does not bring with itself change for the better. Institutional memory is fundamental for the continuity of a system. Leadership style need regular modification just like any other system which operates in an open system/market. Leadership need to modify socio-cultural beliefs and psychological factors and at least modernize their visionary capabilities.

Most managers/ leaders in Government instititutions with the exception of Health, Central Statitics and National Registration hate quantitative and qualitative indicators used in M&E reporting. Data and information gathering/ collection is found lacking in Government Instutitions for reasons attributed to resource constraints and incapacity. The other challenge in my country for example is lack of political will. Civil servants are mere speculating just like any other person. The future of the Department/ Ministry is uncertain. The leadership in these Ministries / Department are not settled as regards their future. 80% of the calender year witnessed no operational outputs focussed on. Employees are busy strategizing on survival as a result of food shortages, money scarcity in banks, etc.

The solution to resistance to change i propose is Management Change as a process spanning for a maximum of 24 months. Leadership at top level should be rotated based on merit/ performance. Performance based contracts should be fostered and at the same time moving away appointments based on Political affiliations. The civil service should be highly professionalised , political polarized and results focussed.

The immediate soultion where resistant to change is emminent is to remove the top leadership by replacing them with qualified personnel who are results-driven. The old guards needs to be shown the exit door through incentiving them with farms, farming inputs or other less jobs requiring less decision making roles.
If all th

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page