programmatic goals/frameworks are prefilled by the program team, while projects map their individual contributions into these. Second, an MEL support pack
provides practical mechanisms and tools to ensure a balanced quantitative and
qualitative monitoring.
Assessment and bonus: Feedback loops, spaces for justification of changes and
learning are weaved into the P&R to allow for systematic and strategic adaptive
management throughout. Evaluation and synthesis are done from the regional
and thematic perspectives after project reporting, to facilitate reporting to
funding agencies, but also to minimize double counting of outcome target
numbers and facilitate learning and knowledge brokerage across the program
portfolio and beyond. Evaluation criteria include traditional output focused
criteria, as well as progress towards outcomes, partnership and learning. Incentive mechanisms are being introduced, recognizing that these do not always have
to relate to budgetary bonuses.
Institutional transformation and learning: Through feedback loops and reflexive
spaces the program’s evaluative learning-oriented culture is also built into the
system to ensure that the program is not only capturing ‘are we doing the right
thing?’, ‘are we doing it right?’, but also ‘how do we know we are getting it
right?’ (Kristjanson et al. 2014; van Epp and Garside 2014).
Chapter 14 (Adaptation Processes in Agriculture and Food Security: Insights
from Evaluating Behavioral Changes in West Africa) of this book describes an
example of how this has been operationalized in a regional program of CCAFS.
4.12 Implications for Policy, Practice and Research
In this section we list some practical implications for a research-for-development
organization that is considering moving to an approach based on RBM and TOC
(Schuetz et al. 2015).
Working along TOCs and impact pathways has major implications for M&E.
It implies a move to contribution rather than attribution, to acknowledge the role
and inputs of partners and other actors both in achieving outcomes and in providing
evidence for those outcomes. Building in triple-loop learning can make a major
contribution to reflection and to supporting adaptive management, so that project
teams can better deal with uncertainty. At the same time, not everything can be
measured; this highlights the need for narratives that can complement and support
more quantitative information.
As part of creating a program enabling environment, embracing the three
thirds principle facilitates investment into solid science, critical partnerships,
ownership and buy-in by partners, and capacity enhancement at all levels both
internally and externally. CCAFS has been pushing the boundaries of R4D and has
been serious about taking on the expanded CGIAR mandate to deliver outcomes,
see Fig. 4.6.
72
T. Schuetz et al.
provides practical mechanisms and tools to ensure a balanced quantitative and
qualitative monitoring.
Assessment and bonus: Feedback loops, spaces for justification of changes and
learning are weaved into the P&R to allow for systematic and strategic adaptive
management throughout. Evaluation and synthesis are done from the regional
and thematic perspectives after project reporting, to facilitate reporting to
funding agencies, but also to minimize double counting of outcome target
numbers and facilitate learning and knowledge brokerage across the program
portfolio and beyond. Evaluation criteria include traditional output focused
criteria, as well as progress towards outcomes, partnership and learning. Incentive mechanisms are being introduced, recognizing that these do not always have
to relate to budgetary bonuses.
Institutional transformation and learning: Through feedback loops and reflexive
spaces the program’s evaluative learning-oriented culture is also built into the
system to ensure that the program is not only capturing ‘are we doing the right
thing?’, ‘are we doing it right?’, but also ‘how do we know we are getting it
right?’ (Kristjanson et al. 2014; van Epp and Garside 2014).
Chapter 14 (Adaptation Processes in Agriculture and Food Security: Insights
from Evaluating Behavioral Changes in West Africa) of this book describes an
example of how this has been operationalized in a regional program of CCAFS.
4.12 Implications for Policy, Practice and Research
In this section we list some practical implications for a research-for-development
organization that is considering moving to an approach based on RBM and TOC
(Schuetz et al. 2015).
Working along TOCs and impact pathways has major implications for M&E.
It implies a move to contribution rather than attribution, to acknowledge the role
and inputs of partners and other actors both in achieving outcomes and in providing
evidence for those outcomes. Building in triple-loop learning can make a major
contribution to reflection and to supporting adaptive management, so that project
teams can better deal with uncertainty. At the same time, not everything can be
measured; this highlights the need for narratives that can complement and support
more quantitative information.
As part of creating a program enabling environment, embracing the three
thirds principle facilitates investment into solid science, critical partnerships,
ownership and buy-in by partners, and capacity enhancement at all levels both
internally and externally. CCAFS has been pushing the boundaries of R4D and has
been serious about taking on the expanded CGIAR mandate to deliver outcomes,
see Fig. 4.6.
72
T. Schuetz et al.