Rethinking the Relationship betweenEvaluation and PerformanceMeasurement/Monitoring – and RBMRobert LaheyPresentation to t...
RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 2Talking PointsComplementarity? – the theory vs the practiceSome observations –...
RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 3Two Tools to Measure ‘Performance’E – Evaluation (Evaluators)M – Performance M...
RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 4The Theory M supports E E supports M Various notions of ‘complementarity’* In...
RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 5The Practice Complementarity? Taken advantage of? Can and do organizations (an...
RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 6The Good E supporting M – derivation of performanceframeworks, relevant indicat...
RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 7The Bad M not supporting E to the level expected (bycentral authorities & senio...
RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 8The Ugly Cases where E being ignored as an importanttool to measure & understan...
Some Conclusions Some level of complementarity(opportunities) But, limits to this – much relates to practicalimplementat...
RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 10Some Considerations for the GovernanceModel that M&E Supports Both M and E - k...
RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 11Potential Uses/Users for M&E InformationM ELearning – Internal Use Learning – I...
The Practice – M, E and RBM Is there a coordination of M and E to supportRBM? Some Differences:* Different players in th...
RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 13Focus of M and E – largely on‘Accountability’ for External AudiencesM ELearning...
RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 14Rethinking the Relationship between M, Eand RBM – Measurement Considerations H...
RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 15Rethinking the Relationship between M, Eand RBM – Governance Model What should...
RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 16Contact CoordinatesRobert LaheyREL Solutions Inc.Ottawa, CanadaTel.: (613) 728-...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

CES 2013 conference - Rethinking the Relationship between Monitoring and Evaluation

309 views

Published on

Presentation at CES Toronto 2013 Evaluation Conference by Robert Lahey

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
309
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CES 2013 conference - Rethinking the Relationship between Monitoring and Evaluation

  1. 1. Rethinking the Relationship betweenEvaluation and PerformanceMeasurement/Monitoring – and RBMRobert LaheyPresentation to the Canadian Evaluation SocietyAnnual ConferenceToronto: June 10, 2013
  2. 2. RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 2Talking PointsComplementarity? – the theory vs the practiceSome observations – Canada; InternationalexperienceSome considerations for RBM
  3. 3. RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 3Two Tools to Measure ‘Performance’E – Evaluation (Evaluators)M – Performance Measurement/Monitoring(Program Managers)Continuum for measuring ‘performance’(results chain)
  4. 4. RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 4The Theory M supports E E supports M Various notions of ‘complementarity’* Informational * Sequential* Organizational * Methodical* Hierarchical Reference: New Directions for Evaluation, No. 137,Spring 2013
  5. 5. RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 5The Practice Complementarity? Taken advantage of? Can and do organizations (and governments) use theM&E information in a coherent system? Observations: from Canada; Internationally Experience to date? - good, bad & ugly
  6. 6. RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 6The Good E supporting M – derivation of performanceframeworks, relevant indicators Moving the focus up from activities to include‘results’ A more systematic, structured & results-oriented approach to understanding program,theory & articulating expected results ‘Methodical complementarity’
  7. 7. RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 7The Bad M not supporting E to the level expected (bycentral authorities & senior officials) To a large extent ‘results’ still not beingmeasured by M – for a variety of reasons:* lack of data to populate indicators* methodological issues re measuring outcomes* Managers not equipped to carry out M (resource,skill & time constraints)
  8. 8. RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 8The Ugly Cases where E being ignored as an importanttool to measure & understand performance Unrealistic expectations re the ability of M todeliver cost-effective approach to measuringoutcomes Dumbing down of performance reporting* Observations vs understanding
  9. 9. Some Conclusions Some level of complementarity(opportunities) But, limits to this – much relates to practicalimplementation issues Extent that M can support E is probablyoverstated Importance of informing/educating seniorofficials – in terms meaningful to themRELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 9
  10. 10. RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 10Some Considerations for the GovernanceModel that M&E Supports Both M and E - key tools to generateperformance information to support RBM ‘Results’ information - various uses & users:* Learning/Knowledge * Internal Needs* External Needs* Accountability * Internal Needs* External Needs
  11. 11. RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 11Potential Uses/Users for M&E InformationM ELearning – Internal Use Learning – Internal UseLearning – External Use Learning – External UseAccountability – Internal Accountability – InternalAccountability - External Accountability - External
  12. 12. The Practice – M, E and RBM Is there a coordination of M and E to supportRBM? Some Differences:* Different players in their production* Different timelines* (Potentially) serving different purposes* Operational disconnect between the two?RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 12
  13. 13. RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 13Focus of M and E – largely on‘Accountability’ for External AudiencesM ELearning – Internal Use Learning – Internal UseLearning – External Use Learning – External UseAccountability – Internal Accountability – InternalAccountability - External Accountability - External
  14. 14. RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 14Rethinking the Relationship between M, Eand RBM – Measurement Considerations How should E support M? M support E? Appropriate role for Evaluators? ProgramManagers? Is something missing within organizations todeliver on the measurement needs of RBM? Are organizations/governments willing toresource to the level needed? Move from silos to ‘knowledge strategy’
  15. 15. RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 15Rethinking the Relationship between M, Eand RBM – Governance Model What should be the appropriate balance forboth M and E re:* Uses: a focus on ‘accountability’ vs ‘knowledge’?* Users: Internal vs External? More clarity likely needed around ‘uses’ withinorganizations Capacity building of ‘users’
  16. 16. RELahey@rogers.com - CES Conference 2013 16Contact CoordinatesRobert LaheyREL Solutions Inc.Ottawa, CanadaTel.: (613) 728-4272E-mail: RELahey@rogers.com

×