telephone, and were used to collect input at key points throughout the program as
well to harvest outcomes and collect evidences of the change process.
7
The implementation of the approach was developed after consultation with the
key-stakeholders involved. Interviews and questionnaires captured the
key-challenges and constraints to be tackled regarding drought management, as
well as their vision and commitments to the change process.
Following the structure of the Drought NLTA described in its concept note, the
change process for each group of partners was grouped under two key-areas (the
National and Regional tracks, described above) and for each of these two broader
areas, one ambitious long-term outcome was designed (Institutional Change Outcomes), describing the deepest possible transformations the Drought NLTA could
influence, without losing sight of the reality of the context and what can be
realistically achieved.
Although outputs (as well as inputs and activities) were described in the RF and
monitored along the process, the key-focus of the approach has been the design,
monitoring, and evaluation of outcomes.
To monitor the program, outcomes were ‘harvested’ through individual and
group interviews, and examining of project documents and related materials to
capture the (intended and unintended) relevant political and institutional changes
generated throughout the process; allowing the WB team to understand its influence
beyond the scope of the program and beyond its outputs. The harvesting of outcomes is not guided by the RF, but compared to it after the harvesting, allowing the
identification and acknowledgment of unpredicted/unplanned direct and indirect
outcomes (promoted by partners and by partners’ partners). Similarly, designed
indicators were monitored and provided support to the harvested outcomes. The
findings were validated with the management team.
The final steps of the process are the selection of more relevant outcomes and
substantiation. The substantiation requires that knowledgeable, independent third
parties review the description and confirm the outcomes and the contributions of the
program. In the Drought NLTA, the substantiation will be performed after the final
harvesting of outcomes (fall/winter of 2015/2016). Substantiation represents an
additional source of evidence that helps confirm the harvested outcomes –
reinforcing the triangulation process.
7 The harvesting and analysis of outcomes can benefit significantly from opportunities to gather
partners and the program team around the table to a shared reflection process, adding another layer
of credibility to overcome the risk of reporting outcomes without evidence. It is possible to
implement the approach by replacing this step of the process with a group or individual interviews,
as it was adopted in the Drought NLTA, but the process may lose some of its richness by placing
the collection and analysis in the hands of a single person.
316
E. Bretan and N.L. Engle
well to harvest outcomes and collect evidences of the change process.
7
The implementation of the approach was developed after consultation with the
key-stakeholders involved. Interviews and questionnaires captured the
key-challenges and constraints to be tackled regarding drought management, as
well as their vision and commitments to the change process.
Following the structure of the Drought NLTA described in its concept note, the
change process for each group of partners was grouped under two key-areas (the
National and Regional tracks, described above) and for each of these two broader
areas, one ambitious long-term outcome was designed (Institutional Change Outcomes), describing the deepest possible transformations the Drought NLTA could
influence, without losing sight of the reality of the context and what can be
realistically achieved.
Although outputs (as well as inputs and activities) were described in the RF and
monitored along the process, the key-focus of the approach has been the design,
monitoring, and evaluation of outcomes.
To monitor the program, outcomes were ‘harvested’ through individual and
group interviews, and examining of project documents and related materials to
capture the (intended and unintended) relevant political and institutional changes
generated throughout the process; allowing the WB team to understand its influence
beyond the scope of the program and beyond its outputs. The harvesting of outcomes is not guided by the RF, but compared to it after the harvesting, allowing the
identification and acknowledgment of unpredicted/unplanned direct and indirect
outcomes (promoted by partners and by partners’ partners). Similarly, designed
indicators were monitored and provided support to the harvested outcomes. The
findings were validated with the management team.
The final steps of the process are the selection of more relevant outcomes and
substantiation. The substantiation requires that knowledgeable, independent third
parties review the description and confirm the outcomes and the contributions of the
program. In the Drought NLTA, the substantiation will be performed after the final
harvesting of outcomes (fall/winter of 2015/2016). Substantiation represents an
additional source of evidence that helps confirm the harvested outcomes –
reinforcing the triangulation process.
7 The harvesting and analysis of outcomes can benefit significantly from opportunities to gather
partners and the program team around the table to a shared reflection process, adding another layer
of credibility to overcome the risk of reporting outcomes without evidence. It is possible to
implement the approach by replacing this step of the process with a group or individual interviews,
as it was adopted in the Drought NLTA, but the process may lose some of its richness by placing
the collection and analysis in the hands of a single person.
316
E. Bretan and N.L. Engle