Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is an important topic in the development domain, where Web 2.0 applications can help to share development results easier, offer new ways to measure it and get potentially more timely and accurate data. If one looks at the potential of Web 2.0 for M&E, then it is helpful to look at its different levels and tools. Information technologies have been used in the past for M&E, but the participatory web offers new ways to include more people in the process, make it more transparent and get a wider external view on a development project.
Quick and Easy: Combing data in a central spreadsheet
One easy way is the use of an online spreadsheet tool, where indicators are centrally stored and people operating out from different locations can access and add results. This allows for the most-updated data to be stored on one document accessible from everywhere. The icollaborate blog has a nice post about such a case from a South African organization.
The spreadsheet includes among others the following:
- “A worksheet with operational definitions of indicators used
- A worksheet where overall target and baseline figures were filled
- A worksheet with some graphical representations, e.g. some key results expressed as a ratio of targets, compared with the time past. See second picture.”
Such an approach allows also to add data from other sources such as the World Bank thus enabling the creation of a M&E mashup spreadsheet. New data are included in real-time, potentially from all sorts of sources. For example, percentage of Internet users can be included thanks to a cooperation between Google and the World Bank.
As a follow-up step these data can be visualized through various gadgets, in diagram or map formats, and published online. Last but not least the Google spreadsheet can be extended through a question form, which delivers additional information from surveys.
The two way conversation
Monitoring and evaluation approaches often cannot rely solely on indicators such as figures. For example, the issue of poverty is often very complex and involves many hardly quantifiable indicators. How can these be measured? One way are qualitative interviews. One idea that the Open Source Water Alliance AKVO and the mobile reporter had, is to broadcast directly from the project to find out about the project success or failure. Social media or user generated content can certainly give perspective on project issues from different stakeholders. For example, project failure or success can be read by donors. Kiva works with direct feedback from beneficiaries, and Globalgiving tries to makes the most of the project process transparent and offers donors the opportunity to engage. Hopefully, we can expect more examples of a direct dialogue to prove impact. Another approach to a more transparent project cycle comes also from AKVO and is called Really Simple Reporting (RSR), where they “ensure that this process of monitoring and reporting stays really simple.”
Citizen monitoring
Another promising approach works through mobile phones. For example, Stop Stock-Outs collects the status of medical stocks at pharmacies and hospitals in Southern Africa. These , which are mandated by law to a maintain a minimum stock. Citizens can participate through SMS and the results are shown transparently on map in the Internet. It is done through the Ushahidi software, but there are various mobile data collection tools such as RapidSMS and FrontlineSMS, which can be used to collect statistics from anywhere, for example, by health workers.
Another approach is taken by the Citizen Water Initiative, which hands out low-cost water testing kits to obtain water quality results across a country. Residents of different locations can make use the kits and are offered easy ways to upload and share the results.
These examples show the different ways to approach monitoring and evaluation through Web 2.0 applications. Although these may have their own limitations, they can certainly enhance the transparency and offer new channels to include different perspectives on project progress, not possible before, and complement frequently inaccurate and unsatisfactory data sets.
Author: Christian Kreutz
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Thomas Bjelkeman-Pettersson, December 16, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
written by Tom Zeppenfeldt, December 14, 2009
We are currently working on a real life case where we have almost 120 indicators, for which data are entered in about 60 places in 7 west-african countries (francophone and anglophone) and for which the level of detail for planning is different from that for realization (country vs. province). The number of users is such that we really need an authorization system that is more sophisticated than Google offers.
There are many ways to integrate Web 2.0 for M&E in development. You can have people propose and/or rate indicators or comment on indicator values, or share M&E data using a system of subscriptions, and send alerts via twitter when threshold values are reached. We also tried a M&E system linked to a wiki that contained information on how data should be collected or interpreted.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Christian Kreutz, December 14, 2009
I believe we must get a lot more creative in reporting about development projects and their results.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Thomas Bjelkeman-Pettersson, December 11, 2009
At Akvo.org we are looking at how we can introduce the best of what we have learned working with this in the last decade with companies, into the development aid sector. The only limiting factor I can see at the moment is actually money. We have the right people to start doing this stuff, but we don't have the money to pay for it. But I know that it would be hugely beneficial to implement modern management techniques and tools in this space. So it would be well worth any investment one would have to do. This has been shown, again and again, in the commercial sector.
So, part of my work is getting this financed, so we can move development aid monitoring and reporting into the 21st century.
(If this is a double post I apologise, as the first one didn't show.)
-
- +0
-
-
written by Thomas Bjelkeman-Pettersson, December 11, 2009
At Akvo.org we are looking at how we can introduce the best of what we have learned working with this in the last decade with companies, into the development aid sector. The only limiting factor I can see at the moment is actually money. We have the right people to start doing this stuff, but we don't have the money to pay for it. But I know that it would be hugely beneficial to implement modern management techniques and tools in this space. So it would be well worth any investment one would have to do. This has been shown, again and again, in the commercial sector.
So, part of my work is getting this financed, so we can move development aid monitoring and reporting into the 21st century.
-
- +0
-
-
Having worked in this type of environment for many years, I completely agree with you, but I have also seen incredible improvements in how organisations operate if you get all the components right. And yes, it does get closer to project management. The idea that Monitoring and Evaluation should not be tightly coupled with how a project is performing _today_ is an outdated way of working. If you have information that comes in _today_ that shows a project is underperforming, and you can see why, of course you are going to take action as soon as possible. Then your M&E will be much more valuable, compared to the M&E tools I see today, which have data which is 6-12 months out of date.