PMEPME This presentation looks specifically at the monitoring of projects/ programmes. It follows on from a more general introduction to PME systems.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
HOW TO EVALUATE A MOBILITY PROJECT Training Unit 11.1 Procedures, tools and roles for the evaluation of a mobility project.
Advertisements

Technical skills and competences
Guidance Note on Joint Programming
EuropeAid PARTICIPATORY SESSION 1: 3 topics Each table chooses its topic: o Managing reality (Blue) o Assessing performance (Yellow) o Monitoring & reporting.
PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT
PM E This presentation looks specifically at evaluation. It is based on the positioning document validated by the Programme Board of Directors on 4th.
OECD/INFE High-level Principles for the evaluation of financial education programmes Adele Atkinson, PhD OECD With the support of the Russian/World Bank/OECD.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MANAGING AUTHORITIES AND THE PAYING AGENCIES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES Felix Lozano, Head of.
THE PME This presentation is a very general introduction to PME. It will be progressively revised, so please let us have your comments. Version 1 – January.
Results-Based Management: Logical Framework Approach
Project Cycle Management (PCM)
CONTACT SEMINAR November 2008 Project management tools.
5.5.2 Monitoring and Evaluation 1 Monitoring and Evaluation UPA Package 5, Module 5.
Codex Guidelines for the Application of HACCP
CASE STUDIES IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT
TEMPUS IV- THIRD CALL FOR PROPOSALS Recommendation on how to make a good proposal TEMPUS INFORMATION DAYS Podgorica, MONTENEGRO 18 th December 2009.
1 Framework Programme 7 Guide for Applicants
May 12 th Monitoring and Project Control. Objectives Anticipated Outcomes Express why Monitoring and Controlling are Important. Differentiate between.
Session 0. Introduction: Why and key concepts Benedetta Magri, Bangkok, 2-5 September 2013.
Developing a result-oriented Operational Plan Training
1 RBM Background Development aid is often provided on a point to point basis with no consistency with countries priorities. Development efforts are often.
Monitoring and Evaluation in MCH Programs and Projects MCH in Developing Countries Feb 10, 2011.
Project design & Planning The Logical Framework Approach An Over View Icelandic International Development Agency (ICEIDA) Iceland United Nations University.
KEYWORDS REFRESHMENT. Activities: in the context of the Logframe Matrix, these are the actions (tasks) that have to be taken to produce results Analysis.
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION Conditions of Work and Employment Programme (TRAVAIL) 2012 Module 13: Assessing Maternity Protection in practice Maternity.
Project Cycle Management presentation
Module 2 Stakeholder analysis. What’s in Module 2  Why do stakeholder analysis ?  Identifying the stakeholders  Assessing stakeholders importance and.
LOGICAL FRAMEWORK by Lorelyn T. Dumaug.
Monitoring & Evaluation: The concepts and meaning Day 9 Session 1.
EEA Grants Norway Grants Annual Programme Report Template Brussels, 20 November
1 PROJECT CYCLE MANAGEMENT Gilles Ceralli TR Methodology – HI Luxembourg 06/2008.
1 of 27 How to invest in Information for Development An Introduction Introduction This question is the focus of our examination of the information management.
IPA Funds Monitoring and Evaluation December Bölgesel Rekabet Edebilirlik Operasyonel Programı’nın Uygulanması için Kurumsal Kapasitenin Oluşturulmasına.
December_2009 Partnership building. December_2009 Partnership building within the partnering process COREGROUPCOREGROUP FORMAL LAUNCH $ $ $ $ $ cost centre.
Participatory Planning Project Cycle Management (PCM)
Shelter Training 08b – Belgium, 16 th –18 th November, 2008 based on content developed by This session will look at how to prepare Shelter Training for.
Project Management Learning Program 7-18 May 2012, Mekong Institute, Khon Kaen, Thailand Writing Project Report Multi-Purpose Reporting.
Supporting Researchers and Institutions in Exploiting Administrative Databases for Statistical Purposes: Istat’s Strategy G. D’Angiolini, P. De Salvo,
PME (3) This third presentation on PME highlights the importance of this type of process in attaining certain of the objectives targeted by aid to development.
Screen 1 of 22 Food Security Policies – Formulation and Implementation Policy Monitoring and Evaluation LEARNING OBJECTIVES Define the purpose of a monitoring.
THE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER for Central and Eastern Europe Integrated planning and Assessment of National Development Plan of the Czech Republic.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNECE Transport Division 1 TRANS-EUROPEAN RAILWAY (TER) PROJECT 2 nd Expert Group Meeting (Budapest, 23 September.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Consultant Advance Research Team. Outline UNDERSTANDING M&E DATA NEEDS PEOPLE, PARTNERSHIP AND PLANNING 1.Organizational structures with HIV M&E functions.
Quality Assessment of MFA’s evaluations Rita Tesselaar Policy and operations Evaluation Department Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
EVALUATION OF THE SEE SARMa Project. Content Project management structure Internal evaluation External evaluation Evaluation report.
Module 4 – Evaluation: General Characteristics. 25/02/20162 Overview of the Module Definitions Purposes Milestones Stakeholders A win-win exercise.
IPSP Outcomes Reporting Framework What you need to know and what you need to do.
Logical Framework Approach 1. Approaches to Activity Design Logical Framework Approach (LFA) – Originally developed in the 1970s, this planning process.
Session 2: Developing a Comprehensive M&E Work Plan.
BTEC Nationals – Unit 5 Construction Technology and Design in Construction and Civil Engineering.
- 1 - Case Elaboration. Design Closing XPMR PMR Definition of Results RS Risk Analysis RA PMR n every 6 months Execution Multiannual Planning PEP.
Folie 1 Sarajevo, October 2009 Stefan Friedrichs Managing Partner Public One // Governance Consulting Project Management in the Public Sector Monitoring.
Improved socio-economic services for a more social microfinance.
Developing a Monitoring & Evaluation Plan MEASURE Evaluation.
TAIEX-REGIO Workshop on Applying the Partnership Principle in the European Structural and Investment Funds Bratislava, 20/05/2016 Involvement of Partners.
Monitoring and Evaluation Systems for NARS organizations in Papua New Guinea Day 4. Session 10. Evaluation.
Building an ENI CBC project
Monitoring and Evaluation Systems for NARS Organisations in Papua New Guinea Day 3. Session 9. Periodic data collection methods.
Workshop to develop theories of change
Lithuanian Standards for Evaluation of EU Structural Funds
SUPPORT TO PUBLIC FINANCE MANAGEMENT REFORM IN GEORGIA
Helene Skikos DG Education and Culture
CATHCA National Conference 2018
The Estonian experience with ex-ante evaluation – set-up and progress
OGB Partner Advocacy Workshop 18th & 19th March 2010
Project intervention logic
Integrating Gender into Rural Development M&E in Projects and Programs
Presentation transcript:

PMEPME This presentation looks specifically at the monitoring of projects/ programmes. It follows on from a more general introduction to PME systems. Version 1 – Avril 2003

Monitoring 1. Importance and risks 2. Approach 1.Stakeholders 2.Indicators 3.Field of observation 4.Criteria 3. Tools 1.For collecting data 2.For analysing information 3.For summarising information 4. Bibliography

Importance and risks

Monitoring is the energising factor in a PME system A project starts with an analysis of the requests made, the needs identified and local resources and know-how. Its programming consists of specifying who ? does what? when ? how ? why ? Monitoring is the periodic supervision of how an action is being implemented The evaluation is for assessing the quality of an action, for drawing conclusions from the experience and for reporting on the action to the stakeholders concerned. The logical framework is the basic tool for presenting a project and working on its programming, monitoring and evaluation

« Monitoring is the art of procuring the information necessary for taking those decisions that govern the orientation of work underway, as quickly and as inexpensively as possible» (GTZ, 1997) Or, to quote Catherine Care on the subject of sharing knowledge : “Stop rowing and start steering” « Arrêtez de ramer et prenez le gouvernail »

The risks (1)  Too much information kills the information! An surplus of information prevents it from being stored accurately. There is not enough time and resources for analysing and utilising the information. Too detailed information can prevent the identification of or hide the important trends DDC, 1997

The risks (2)  Too little information prevents us : from anticipating and therefore mobilising the resources needed for the action; from reporting on the implementation of activities to the parties concerned (beneficiaries, partners, funding bodies, donors…).

Monitoring system

The essential questions to ask The two biggest questions are : who needs the monitoring information? What information is really needed? On this basis, we can determine :  Who should participate in devising the monitoring system?  How should the information be collected, analysed and presented?  What degree of detail is required?  How long and how often should the information be collected and analysed? GTZ,1997

The monitoring system stakeholders During programming and implementation the stakeholders define and measure... indicators for keeping in touch with reality … the indicators for keeping in touch with reality… fields of observation …in the different fields of observation… criteria …according to different angles of analysis (criteria). LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

A - Who are the stakeholders concerned? Those potentially concerned by the definition and implementation of the monitoring system are: Within HI : In the field:project manager, project team, field programme director, administrator… At head office:desk officer, technical co-ordination unit, financial controller, HR service.. Outside of HI : Local stakeholders, Project partners, Local collectivities, Public institutions, technical services Institutional funding bodies …

A relatively complex internal stakeholders ’ map Project manager Directeur de programme Administrator Responsable de programme Financial controller Methods and Techniques Section Directeur opérationnel des programmes RH Logistique Board/ AC Technical management Sections This diagram gives an idea. It is not exhaustive …due to a lack of space Stakeholder Line management Diagram of the flow of information Terrain Head Office And all these people need precise and specific information … And that ’s without counting the external stakeholders (partners, institutions, funding bodies, donors…).

The information required by each stakeholder should be clearly defined Each stakeholder must define the information that is essential to him/her. This will be done as part of the PME exercise currently underway.

B - What is an indicator ? Objectively verifiable indicator Measurable indicators that show whether the objectives at the three highest levels of the logical framework have been attained. The OVI are the starting point for developing an appropriate monitoring system. UE, 2001

The characteristics of a good indicator A good indicator should be specific – measure what its supposed to measure measurable available at an acceptable cost relevant vis-a-vis a given objective and cover it have an fixed term. UE, 2001

For each indicator, who does what? When? Who ?When ? IndicatorDefines Measures Management (presentation, transmission, archiving…) Decision- making

C – The fields of observation Project / Process Input human, partner, financial, material resources … Environment A project or a process can be schematised as follows : 1st level of results of activities 2nd level of results of activities 3rd level of results of activities Output InputImpact Results

What have we achieved? What stage are we at? Results monitoring What goal(s) have we (not) achieved ?How did we do it? What helps or hinders our work? What are thelong-term repercussions of our work? Process monitoring Context monitoring Impact monitoring The questions to ask: DDC, 1997

Fields of observation matrix Results … planned…unplanned Process …favourable… unfavourable Impact …desired… undesired Context Favourable influencesUnfavourable influences

D - The criteria Producti on factors Project / Process Actual results Expected results Environment Efficacy = actual results / expected results Impact = actual results/ environment Efficiency =actual results /resources (actually) implemented Time Durability = actual result or process / time Relevance = input/ process/ output/ environment Heeren, 2002

To sum up, Results ( service offers, local capacity building …) Process (mobilisation of human resources, financial management…) Context Impact Indicators for assessing the criteria (efficacy and efficiency mainly / impact, relevance and durability to a lesser extent) The stakeholders should together draw up management charts that provide them with a clear vision of exactlywhat stage they are at. The project manager ’s management chart should be based on his/her project’s logical framework, the FDP ’s chart should be based on his/her programme’s strategy.. P M E

Type of information PeriodicityCollectorUtilisationTransmission Campaign reportMonthlyMinistryEfficacy of the programme WHO Governments SurveyAnnualProjectImpactMinistry WHO Who reportTwice a yearMinistry/ ProjectMonitoring production factors WHO (Geneva) Financial reportThree times a yearProject accountantMonitoring production factors WHO Governments Annual reportAnnualProject managerEfficacy of the project WHO Ministry A matrix such as the one below is not only for identifying the indicators, but also for identifying the form the information should take, the periodicity, use and circulation.. A matrix like this is only useful if it remains simple. Exemple de système d’information de gestion pour un projet d’immunisation OMS de Sahelia (In : DW Brinkerhoff & JC Tuthill, 1991)

Tools…

… for collecting information There are many methods for collecting information : –Monitoring sheets, –Individual interviews, –Enquiries, surveys, –Observation methods in the field, –Work meetings –…–…

… for analysing data  Before starting to collect information, it is essential to define what it is to be used for and how it will be processed.  There are many internal and external documents providing analysis tools.  For example, you could refer to the internal document on partnerships for analysing stakeholders ’ strategies.

… for summarising information  At HI we are snowed under with information, not always analysed.  It is essential to provide information that has been analysed and summarised.  One of the main results expected of the PME exercise is in fact the definition of those indicators that are essential to the different stakeholders (FPD, DO,TC, ODP…).

… and always bear in mind : « The quality of monitoring can be measured by the extent to which it facilitates the taking of decisions on project management and implementation. If they do not improve the implementation of the project, any modifications made to the internal monitoring of the project are unjustified. » GTZ

Bibliography The references given here specifically concern monitoring. They are available from the documentation centre or on the internet. Bibliographical references on the PME are given in the general PME presentation available from the Methodology TC unit.

 DDC, July 1997, Monitoring –keeping in touch with reality, 58p.  F3E/ Europact, 2002, monitoring a development project– Approach, systems, indicators, 84p. Available on the F3E website  GTZ, Monitoring in a project, 28p.

END