Results Based Monitoring and Evaluation

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rwakurumbira Munyaradzi on November 20, 2008 at 1:00am

Thank you very much for the incisive input. I think it's one of the lessons we have learnt in my country and we will try and embark on systematic change management in our reform agenda.

Pamella Lakidi said:

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 Rwakurumbira Munyaradzi on November 20, 2008 at 1:05am

Hie Samer

I was very motivated when I read your response. At the end of the day I think this issue needs champions, people who are not faint-hearted and who are ready to sacrifice not for self-aggrandizement but for the common good. Indeed the reform agenda is a difficut and arduous process whose results take long to show and change agents have to be aware of that and some may not live to see the fruits of their sweat. All the same, thank you for your input.
Goaba Mosienyane said:

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 Rwakurumbira Munyaradzi on November 20, 2008 at 1:30am

Hi Mr Sithole

I hope the approach will not be as confrontational as it sounds in your submission. What are the possible tactics that can be used to rope in government systems to embrace management of change?
Sithole Humbe said:

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

Permalink Reply by Paul Ntiati on August 11, 2009 at 1:01am

People in government many of them have benifited for lack of result based monitorting and evaluation. one primary concern is that eveluation is a necessary tool for development and not for reprimand. There should be ways of letting them understand that this is improtant for there organization and even for self development.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Ntiati on August 24, 2009 at 2:14am

First and foremost is for organization and individual to integrate RBM&E in there day to day function and place it as a core value in their activities. Secondly to see it a way for measuring results rather than an perceived negative assessment for tool. Thirdly, RBM& E should be classified as a learning tool rather than an assessment tool or what is your take on this?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page