Importance of Monitoring and Evaluation in Complex Projects - Term Paper Example

Importance of Monitoring and Evaluation in Complex Projects Introduction Monitoring and evaluation are important for all projects of all levels. Forcomplex projects especially, they are becoming increasingly important as key issues in management. Much output is expected from resources and stakeholders expect quality and efficiency in their management. In order to meet these expectations, monitoring and evaluation are necessary. According to the International Labor Organization (ILO 2004), every project has contradictory aspects and weaknesses that have not been overcome, or have unforeseen effects (ILO 2004). Evaluation is there to bring these into light. As bared by Bako (n.d.) however, evaluation and evaluators are still seen as elements of managerial work that inflame one's nerves rather than challenge one for change. Managers are often confronted with questions and challenges both from inside and outside the organization about projects. Questions asked include proper use of resources, results in line with efforts, services meeting beneficiaries' expectations or not, and proper spending of money. To answer these questions, evaluations are undertaken by organizations but relevant information must be gathered systematically first, which is the process of monitoring. Complex projects Large-scale infrastructure projects would even more need monitoring and evaluation efforts. Examples of complex projects involve the development of power plants, telecommunications systems, water treatment facilities, ports, urban transportation systems and toll ways. Most of these are owned by private sector developers or are partnerships with public sector institutions. They are typically capital intensive, involving tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of investment (CRGP, n.d.). Complex projects, according Coffman (n.d.) compose of a subset of projects large enough financially to pose a significant risk to the organization if they are not conceived of and executed well. There is multiplicity of the parties involved in the planning, financing and execution of the projects. There is also at times complexity in the multiple nationalities of the parties(CRGP, n.d.). According to the World Bank, a separate administrative unit for monitoring is expedient where project objectives are complex, or with projects with multiple components. (WB 1989). The purpose is to serve the information needs of the implementing agency and so accordingly such unit should be integrated into the management structure (Ibid.). Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems should be of quality. At the outset, projects are required to design and implement plans for M&E as far as the Global Environment Facility (GEF, 2004) Council is concerned. To them, an issue with complex projects is their over-ambitious objectives in relation to available resources and the periods for implementation. Another is the unrealistic assumptions about either project problems or solutions (Ibid.). Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) Monitoring is mainly an internal process carried out by those implementing the project. Preferably, monitoring should involve all stakeholders as the results need to be shared with them and fed back into implementation (www.bond.org, n.d.). Monitoring is the continuous assessment of project implementation with the main objective of providing continuous feedback (WB 1989). On the other hand, evaluation is the periodic assessment of the relevance, performance, efficiency, and impact of the project, both expected ad unexpected, in relation to stated objectives. It is intended to identify project design problems, and is essentially an internal activity undertaken for project management. (Ibidl). An evaluation is an assessment of an ongoing or completed project rendered as objective as possible. The aim is to determine the relevance and fulfilment of objectives, development, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. Information in an evaluation should be credible and useful to enable learning from the lessons incorporated for the decision-making of both recipients and donors to (Bako, n.d.). While monitoring seeks to explain what is happening, evaluation attempts to explain why, and to learn and share important lessons (www.bond.org, n.d.) The International Labor Organization (ILO) however preferred to consider the two functions of monitoring and evaluation together, because they see monitoring as a tool in the service of evaluation. Monitoring provides fodder, they say, for evaluations in the form of recorded data. In addition, many methods of monitoring are similar but simplified versions of methods of evaluation. (ILO, n.d.). Monitoring and evaluating (M&E) are key factors in guaranteeing the quality and rationality of programs implementation. However, they serve their function only if there is guarantee of independence in implementing them and if the mechanisms for their implementation are properly established (Nared and Ravbar, n.d.) To Woodhill (2000), M&E improve and support management, generate shared understanding and knowledge, and support learning. Moreover, they are also intended to build the capacity of those involved, to motivate stakeholders, ensure accountability, and foster public and political support. For development activities, Mackay (n.d.) thinks M&E provide government officials, development managers, and civil society with better means for learning from experience. They also demonstrate accountability to stakeholders. Consequently, M&E, effectiveness, impact, relevance, and sustainability can be determined (Bako, n.d.). The principal intention of monitoring is to identify all deviations from established goals. It is accomplished by collecting and analyzing statistical and developmental data. Quantitative as well as qualitative indicators are used, but quantitative indicators take precedence over qualitative indicators (Nared and Ravbar, n.d.) Monitoring produces timely, accurate and adequate information about the impact of a project. Appropriate monitoring provides the least data necessary for analysis and uses the simplest data collection methods (www.bond.org). Meanwhile, aaccomplishment of the objectives depends on a periodic monitoring (Illinois River plan, n.d.). On the other hand, evaluation takes an objective look at what one has been doing, identifies the reasons for both success and failure, and how future work can learn from both. It is normally carried out at the end of the project. However, an evaluation can be carried out either at a specified time. With complex projects, it is done at the end of a phase. Evaluation is a means by which those administering the project are held accountable to both beneficiaries and funders (Ibid.). Bako (n.d.) states that evaluation improves organizational development on strategic, tactical and operational levels. Strategically it helps in matching short-term and long-term organizational objectives. Tactically it contributes to the use of resources for a better fulfilment of objectives; and operationally, it helps to build more realistic time schedules and budgets. One of the functions of evaluation is to serve as an aid for decision-making. The results accordingly, must serve to direct the implementation or pursuit of a project. (ILO 2004). In case adjustments have to be made, ILO (2004) says the safer route is to take the middle road. It will be very useful, however, to understand the reasons and causes for the project's "malfunction". (Ibid.) Evaluation brings with it a number of opportunities. It provides the opportunity for one to continue thinking about what is being decided and done, to prevent major distortions of the objectives adopted; to obtain results that can be used to foster innovation, and not to repeat the same mistakes, among others (ILO 2004). At the same time, there are some risks in evaluation (Ibid.).The evaluation may be conducted in order to control people and their professional activities; it may just be a mere accounting and administrative exercise; it may give no elements of criticism and serve to justify the decisions made; it may be a speculative endeavor far from reality; it can be mechanically and remotely applied without considering the general and local context; it may fall victim to political manipulation. It may also be left to one protagonist alone; it may be allocated insufficient time and resources (ILO 2004). Conclusion In the cyber age, there are many information technology tools that can help simplify M&E efforts. However, complex projects carry with them inherent complications that go with bulk and legal jurisdiction. Therefore, with such heightened level of involvement, M&E are all the more important to complex projects. This may call for closer watch on present-day M&E to cope with the demands of high technology and the net of international relationships that business has fostered. For example, the focus on unwarranted quantitative indicators in M&E, the highlighted practice of justifications in spending in projects, the focus on fund-raising before meaningful implementation of projects, and the listless acceptance of evaluation results.. More important yet are the risks in evaluation that the ILO (2004) mentioned, more specifically political manipulation and control of others if not done properly. Earlier, Nared and Ravbar (n.d.) said that the principal intention of monitoring is to identify deviations from established goals and that this is accomplished by collecting and analyzing data where quantitative indicators take precedence over the qualitative. Woodhill (2000), however, backs up the ILO, saying, "There is a widespread view that developing an M&E plan for a programme or project is primarily about developing a set of such quantitative indicators." As ILO (2004) pointed out, and seconded by the World Bank (1989), focus on quantitative indicators may deprive people of their rights for decision-making. According to the World Bank (1989), monitoring is verily an integral part of good management by an agency implementing projects. Borrower agency or not, an institution with a monitoring component stands as permanently improving its overall management practice. ILO (2004) explains that evaluations are often motivated by administrative and financial obligations and are carried out of a project to justify spending. The effect is that of limiting the results, and not really providing any guidance for decisions to stakeholders (Ibid.). In South Eastern European countries, Bako (n.d.) records of incomplete, neglected or superficial monitoring and evaluation, which are the main weakness of project management hereabouts.. Managers and organizers, he said, are often more concerned with fund-raising than effectively implementing a project according to standards of quality and cost-effectiveness. "Let's get the money and than we'll see," is heard all too often. (Ibid.). Evaluation is meaningless if it is not conceived and seen as an instrument for guiding decisions. The evaluation is useful only to the extent that it facilitates decision-making. To produce fruitful results, the people performing the evaluation must be aware of the challenges and the consequences of the evaluation they are going to conduct. On the part of mangers and organizers, if one knows how to apply and how to accept what has been evaluated rationally in the projects, then evaluation shall have its full meaning. References "Implementation and Monitoring," Chapter 5, Illinois River NW&FRComplex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. December 7, 2005, Available at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/IllinoisRiver/final_ch5.pdf. "Monitoring/Evaluation." International Labor Organization (ILO). 2004 December 8, 2005, Available at: http://www.ilo.org/ciaris/pages/english/tos/download/actcycle/feedback.pdf. "Project Monitoring and Evaluation," Operational directive, World Bank (WB) operational manual. November 1989. December 8, 2005, Available at: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/0/6E513837E22B8C9A8525672C007D08F2OpenDocument. "Report of the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit. Agenda" Item 6, Global Environment Facility (GEF) Council. May 19-21, 2004. December 8, 2005. http://www.gefweb.org/C.23.3_Report_of_the_M_E_Unit_FINAL.doc. "The Legacy of Failed Global Projects. Testing the Legal Paradigm." Collaboratory for Research on Global Projects at Stanford (CRGP). December 8, 2005. Available at: http://crgp.stanford.edu/news/presentations/gcr/issues.doc. "What is monitoring and evaluation" www.bond.org. [Online]. December 7, 2005. Available at: http://www.bond.org.uk/pubs/guidance/4monitorandevaluate.pdf .[BOND is the network of over 290 UK-based non-governmental organisations (NGOs). BOND aims to improve the extent and quality of the UK and Europe's contribution to international development, the eradication of global poverty and the upholding of human rights.]. Bako, R, "Developing skills of NGOS." Evaluation and Monitoring, Edited by Ildiko Simon and Cerasela Stancu, The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe. December 7, 2005, Available at: http://www.rec.org/REC/Programs/NGO_Support/PDF/EvaluationMonitoring.pdf. Coffman, B. S, "Facilitating Collaboration in the Design Stage of Complex Multi-stakeholder Projects." Sente Corporation. December 7, 2005, Available at: http://www.senteco.com/Facilitating%20Complex%20Projects.pdf. Mackay, K, (Task manager, 2nd Ed), Monitoring and Evaluation. Some Tools, Methods & Approaches. The World Bank Washington, D.C. December 8, 2005, Available at: http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/oed/oeddoclib.nsf/24cc3bb1f94ae11c85256808006a0046/a5efbb5d776b67d285256b1e0079c9a3/$FILE/MandE_tools_methods_approaches.pdf.[html version]. Nared, J. and Ravbar, M, "Starting Points for the Monitoring and Evaluation of Regional Policy in Slovenia," Development wheels The Babi mill on the Mura River, December 8, 2005, Available at: http://www.zrc-sazu.si/gi/acs/Nared_Ravbar_43.pdf.[html version]. Woodhill, J, (IUCN M&E Facilitator for East and Southern Africa), "Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating Programmes and Projects." Introduction to Key Concepts, Approaches and Terms, Working Draft. Global Monitoring and Evaluation Initiative. Version 1 - March 2000. December 7, 2005, Available at: http://www.iucn.org/themes/eval/documents2/pme_concepts/pme_concepts_terms_00.PDF. Read More