Diagnosing monitoring and evaluation capacity in Africa
Background: Since 2015, the Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results-Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA) has implemented more than seven diagnostic tools to better understand monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems in the region. Through the process of adapting global tools to make them more appro...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
AOSIS
2018-03-01
|
| Series: | African Evaluation Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://aejonline.org/index.php/aej/article/view/255 |
| _version_ | 1819112135697891328 |
|---|---|
| author | Caitlin Blaser Mapitsa Linda Khumalo |
| author_facet | Caitlin Blaser Mapitsa Linda Khumalo |
| author_sort | Caitlin Blaser Mapitsa |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: Since 2015, the Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results-Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA) has implemented more than seven diagnostic tools to better understand monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems in the region. Through the process of adapting global tools to make them more appropriate to an African context, CLEAR-AA has learned several lessons about contextually relevant definitions and boundaries of M&E systems.
Objectives: This article aims to share lessons learned from adapting and implementing a range of global tools in an African context, and puts forward certain key criteria for a ‘Made in Africa’ tool to better understand M&E systems in the region.
Method: This article reviews CLEAR-AA’s diagnostic tools, as well as global good practice diagnostic tools, and compares the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. It further looks at the implementation of specific tools in context and proposes components on the basis of these lessons.
Results: This review has found that most M&E tools have a heavy focus on the technical and contextual aspects of M&E but very few do a thorough job of accommodating the institutional factors. Furthermore, the relationship between the technical elements, the institutional elements and the organisational culture elements has not been made apparent.
Conclusion: A contextually relevant diagnostic tool for M&E systems will balance technical considerations of capacity, institutional factors and issues of organisational culture. Drawing on approaches from organisational change may be of help to strengthen our tool development endeavours. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-22T04:08:42Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e6f1d4d6f1514453bd54b8de5ca90697 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2310-4988 2306-5133 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-22T04:08:42Z |
| publishDate | 2018-03-01 |
| publisher | AOSIS |
| record_format | Article |
| series | African Evaluation Journal |
| spelling | doaj.art-e6f1d4d6f1514453bd54b8de5ca906972022-12-21T18:39:35ZengAOSISAfrican Evaluation Journal2310-49882306-51332018-03-0161e1e1010.4102/aej.v6i1.25590Diagnosing monitoring and evaluation capacity in AfricaCaitlin Blaser Mapitsa0Linda Khumalo1Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, University of the WitwatersrandCentre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, University of the WitwatersrandBackground: Since 2015, the Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results-Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA) has implemented more than seven diagnostic tools to better understand monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems in the region. Through the process of adapting global tools to make them more appropriate to an African context, CLEAR-AA has learned several lessons about contextually relevant definitions and boundaries of M&E systems. Objectives: This article aims to share lessons learned from adapting and implementing a range of global tools in an African context, and puts forward certain key criteria for a ‘Made in Africa’ tool to better understand M&E systems in the region. Method: This article reviews CLEAR-AA’s diagnostic tools, as well as global good practice diagnostic tools, and compares the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. It further looks at the implementation of specific tools in context and proposes components on the basis of these lessons. Results: This review has found that most M&E tools have a heavy focus on the technical and contextual aspects of M&E but very few do a thorough job of accommodating the institutional factors. Furthermore, the relationship between the technical elements, the institutional elements and the organisational culture elements has not been made apparent. Conclusion: A contextually relevant diagnostic tool for M&E systems will balance technical considerations of capacity, institutional factors and issues of organisational culture. Drawing on approaches from organisational change may be of help to strengthen our tool development endeavours.https://aejonline.org/index.php/aej/article/view/255Evaluationmethodscapacity development |
| spellingShingle | Caitlin Blaser Mapitsa Linda Khumalo Diagnosing monitoring and evaluation capacity in Africa African Evaluation Journal Evaluation methods capacity development |
| title | Diagnosing monitoring and evaluation capacity in Africa |
| title_full | Diagnosing monitoring and evaluation capacity in Africa |
| title_fullStr | Diagnosing monitoring and evaluation capacity in Africa |
| title_full_unstemmed | Diagnosing monitoring and evaluation capacity in Africa |
| title_short | Diagnosing monitoring and evaluation capacity in Africa |
| title_sort | diagnosing monitoring and evaluation capacity in africa |
| topic | Evaluation methods capacity development |
| url | https://aejonline.org/index.php/aej/article/view/255 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT caitlinblasermapitsa diagnosingmonitoringandevaluationcapacityinafrica AT lindakhumalo diagnosingmonitoringandevaluationcapacityinafrica |