PME: Project and Programme Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluation ... and learning
A former PME cynic
I am a self-confessed born again PME evangelist. Like many of those who have "seen the light" I was once highly sceptical about the value of PME (in particular the "E" part of the acronym. I could always see the wisdom in flexible planning frameworks and focused monitoring). In my early days as a project manager I treated evaluations as an exercise in compliance, form filling in, box ticking, call it what you will. "Useful evaluation" sounded like an oxymoron to me in those dark days. It was right up there with such classics as "just war", "military intelligence" and "anarchist leader"! In my defence, the evaluations I had encountered resembled those referred to by Michael Quinn Patton in his "Rant on Widespread Evaluation Nonsense" (See page 66-67 of Patten (2010), Developmental Evaluation). The following excerpt from the aforementioned rant summed up my feelings about evaluation at the time:
I am a self-confessed born again PME evangelist. Like many of those who have "seen the light" I was once highly sceptical about the value of PME (in particular the "E" part of the acronym. I could always see the wisdom in flexible planning frameworks and focused monitoring). In my early days as a project manager I treated evaluations as an exercise in compliance, form filling in, box ticking, call it what you will. "Useful evaluation" sounded like an oxymoron to me in those dark days. It was right up there with such classics as "just war", "military intelligence" and "anarchist leader"! In my defence, the evaluations I had encountered resembled those referred to by Michael Quinn Patton in his "Rant on Widespread Evaluation Nonsense" (See page 66-67 of Patten (2010), Developmental Evaluation). The following excerpt from the aforementioned rant summed up my feelings about evaluation at the time:
Thus do little-qualified and ill-prepared teams descend on programs and ask questions prepared at some distance from the program by a contract administrator who is following a standard accountability and compliance protocol. This assures objectivity, which is important for credible accountability – objectivity in this case being synonymous with complete ignorance about what is going on and the questions asked being irrelevant to the local situation and context. What better ways to assure objectivity and independence than ignorance and irrelevance?
To Logframes ... and beyond
In 1999 I wrote my first logframe - for the $750,000 World Bank-Global Environment Facility Medium-Sized Project for the restoration of Round Island, Mauritius. That's when I started to see the potential of PME as a force for good and not (just) a dastardly device designed to complicate the lives of project managers the world over. It was my first logframe of many, containing my first M&E plan of many, accompanied by my first Gantt chart of many.
The clear and simple logic of the logframe appealed to me and I enthusiastically facilitated training courses and one-to-one sessions to teach fellow project managers the theory and practice of the logical framework approach. But despite my best efforts many of those who I had trained struggled to implement the approaches we had worked through together. This stimulated me to ask two questions:
Those I spoke to also had issues with the logframe. Firstly there was the fact that the typical assumptions stated in the logframe (low staff turnover, institutional support, political stability, etc.) were often not met. So how does this affect implementation? Another commonly stated issue was the difficulty in demonstrating the link between project outputs, outcomes and impacts - how could those implementing the project ascribe cause and effect to such complexity.
These issues stimulated my search for complementary PME approaches that could reinforce or even replace the logframe as a planning model I talk about my (re)discovery of Outcome Mapping in 2010 in the section on my spiral path so I won't elaborate too much here. Suffice it to say my searches uncovered a plethora of tools, techniques and approaches too numerous to list. A wonderful resource through which to discover the richness of PME approaches is the BetterEvaluation Rainbow Framework. It would probably take several lifetimes to master all the tools in the evaluation rainbow but I am convinced that the issue is not about which methods are better but about which methods or mixtures of methods are applicable in any particular context.
So in work as in life I am an pluralist, happy to sample from the rich buffet of approaches available based on needs and circumstances ... and always willing to adapt to change!
Some of the planning, monitoring and evaluation activities I have been involved in are listed below:
In 1999 I wrote my first logframe - for the $750,000 World Bank-Global Environment Facility Medium-Sized Project for the restoration of Round Island, Mauritius. That's when I started to see the potential of PME as a force for good and not (just) a dastardly device designed to complicate the lives of project managers the world over. It was my first logframe of many, containing my first M&E plan of many, accompanied by my first Gantt chart of many.
The clear and simple logic of the logframe appealed to me and I enthusiastically facilitated training courses and one-to-one sessions to teach fellow project managers the theory and practice of the logical framework approach. But despite my best efforts many of those who I had trained struggled to implement the approaches we had worked through together. This stimulated me to ask two questions:
- Are the difficulties encountered to do with my teaching (implementation failure)?
- Are there inherent qualities in the logframe that do not resonate with some people (theory failure)?
Those I spoke to also had issues with the logframe. Firstly there was the fact that the typical assumptions stated in the logframe (low staff turnover, institutional support, political stability, etc.) were often not met. So how does this affect implementation? Another commonly stated issue was the difficulty in demonstrating the link between project outputs, outcomes and impacts - how could those implementing the project ascribe cause and effect to such complexity.
These issues stimulated my search for complementary PME approaches that could reinforce or even replace the logframe as a planning model I talk about my (re)discovery of Outcome Mapping in 2010 in the section on my spiral path so I won't elaborate too much here. Suffice it to say my searches uncovered a plethora of tools, techniques and approaches too numerous to list. A wonderful resource through which to discover the richness of PME approaches is the BetterEvaluation Rainbow Framework. It would probably take several lifetimes to master all the tools in the evaluation rainbow but I am convinced that the issue is not about which methods are better but about which methods or mixtures of methods are applicable in any particular context.
So in work as in life I am an pluralist, happy to sample from the rich buffet of approaches available based on needs and circumstances ... and always willing to adapt to change!
Some of the planning, monitoring and evaluation activities I have been involved in are listed below:
|
2016-present
2016 2015
2014 2013 2013 2013 2012 2012 2012-2015 2012 2012 |
Training team member (with Richard Smith and Goele Scheers): Development of courses in Outcome Harvesting.
Facilitator: Outcome Harvesting Training for the International Federation of Red Cross/Red Crescent Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Group. Lead Evaluator: Mid-term review of the IUCN Invaz'Iles Project: Preparation and testing of a comprehensive model for preventing and managing the spread of invasive species
Outcomes and impacts assessment of activities implemented under the Indian Ocean Commission's Call for Proposals scheme for ReCoMaP (Regional Programme for the Sustainable Management of the Coastal Zones of the Indian Ocean Countries) Lead Developer: Project benefit, monitoring and evaluation system for the Cameroon Biosecurity Project Lead Developer: Planning, monitoring and evaluation system for the Centre for Pollination Studies - India Consultant: Final evaluation of the Search for Common Ground's The Team Tanzania Project for Gender Equality (click here for the evaluation report including annexes, 1823 KB) Facilitator: Developing a project planning monitoring and evaluation system for the Cameroon Biosecurity Project - Yaoundé, Cameroon (click here for project partner workshop PowerPoint presentation, 11928 KB) Facilitator: Developing a planning monitoring and evaluation system for the Centre for Pollinator Studies (India) - Exeter, UK (click here for CPS PME Plan, 2769 KB) Technical Advisor: Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation for the Centre for Pollination Studies - India Consultant: Review of ten years of Outcome Mapping adaptations and support (click here for report, 1473 KB) Consultant: Final evaluation of the Child Protection in Crisis Network for the Oak Foundation (click here for report, 733 KB) |
|
2011
2011 2011 2010 2010 2010 2010 2009 2009 |
Facilitator: Building BioNET's future - Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (click here for report, 3302 KB)
Team Member: Summative evaluation of SDC’s support to BioNET using Outcome Harvesting Trainer: Outcome Mapping training course for conservation practitioners in Kenya - Nairobi, Kenya (click here for training course programme, 222 KB) Facilitator: Development of a strategic plan for BioNET-EAFRINET - Kampala, Uganda (359 KB) (click here for the strategic plan (360KB) Facilitator: Development of a strategic planning framework for BioNET-ASEANET - Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (514 KB) Facilitator: Strategy meeting of BioNET-NAFRINET - Tunis, Tunisia (click here for report, 313 KB) Trainee: Outcome Mapping for Project and Programme Planning, Overseas Development Institute - London, UK Facilitator: BioNET global strategic planning meeting - London, UK (click here for report, 668 KB) Consultancy Team Member: Development of the UNEP-GEF Cameroon Biosecurity Project (click here for project document, 236 KB) |
|
2009
2008 2006 2005 2001-2002 1992-present |
Consultancy Team Member: Development of the UNDP-GEF Mauritius Protected Area Network Project (click here for project document, 1272 KB)
Consultant: Preparation of grant proposal for CABI for submission to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - Strengthening seed supply systems in support of rural development and poverty alleviation in Africa Trainee: Qualified in the PRINCE2® project management system at foundation and practitioner levels Facilitator: CABI Africa professional staff strategic review Trainer: Development of Global Environment Facility project proposals and logical frameworks for stakeholders in the Indian Ocean Region Principal author or significant member of project development team for 23 successful project proposals with budgets of $US20,000 or above, helping to raise approximately $US42 million |
