Monitoring and evaluation: Five reality checks for adaptive management

This webpage outlines five key areas to enhance M&E for adaptive management in international development programs.

It emphasizes larger, flexible M&E budgets, broader staff involvement, competency development, and adaptive evaluation methods like outcome harvesting.

This webpage discusses the integration of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) into adaptive management in international development programs. It emphasises the need for M&E to be central in these programs, ensuring responsiveness to changing environments. The resource identifies five critical areas where M&E can enhance the adaptive capacity of programs, focusing on budgeting, flexibility, involvement of staff, competencies, and appropriate evaluation methods. M&E practitioners working in fragile and conflict-affected (FCV) settings will find the recommendations particularly relevant, as these environments require flexible and responsive approaches to program management.

Key features

1. We need bigger M&E budgets: Adaptive programs require larger M&E budgets due to the need for more data collection and in-depth analysis. Standard M&E allocations (5-10%) are insufficient. The author mentions programmes that have allocated 20-30% of their total budget to M&E. Proper analysis and decision-making take time and resources.
2. We also need adaptive M&E budgets: M&E budgets must be flexible, with funds allocated after initial data collection to allow for adaptation. A rigid budget structure hinders the ability to adjust M&E based on emerging needs, limiting the effectiveness of adaptive management.
3. We need more people involved in monitoring and analysis: M&E cannot be confined to M&E teams; technical staff should also participate in data analysis and decision-making. Involving more staff ensures that feedback loops are effective and that adaptive changes are informed by real-time data.
4. We need to ensure that (managers and technical) staff have the right competencies: Managers and technical staff must have the skills to handle uncertainty, accept failures, and adapt plans accordingly. Adaptive management requires staff who can move away from a "proving success" mindset and acknowledge when things aren’t working, then adjust strategies accordingly.
5. We need to select evaluation approaches carefully: Traditional evaluation methods, like mid-term or impact evaluations, may not be suitable for adaptive programs. Approaches like outcome harvesting or developmental evaluation, which focus on learning and involve implementing organizations in design, are better suited to the fluid nature of adaptive programming.

How would you use the resource?

This resource is particularly useful for M&E practitioners and program managers working in FCV contexts where programs need to adapt to rapid changes. The recommendation to allocate a higher M&E budget and ensure flexibility allows practitioners to respond more effectively to emerging issues and opportunities. Additionally, it provides guidance on involving a broader range of staff in the monitoring and evaluation process, fostering a collaborative and responsive program environment. The focus on alternative evaluation approaches such as developmental evaluation can help practitioners select methods that are more suitable for dynamic and complex contexts.

Why are we recommending it?

This resource is valuable because it offers actionable recommendations on how to make M&E more effective within adaptive management frameworks, particularly in challenging environments like FCV settings. By promoting evaluation approaches that are responsive to change, it supports the real-time adaptation needed to manage programs effectively in fragile and conflict-affected areas.