- Purpose and scope of the framework within the target organization;
- Development of indicators (if not provided) from the project/programme objectives;
- Establishing the baseline data for the indicators and setting targets for the same;
- Identifying the information needs, data collection methods and designing data collection instruments;
- Agreeing on frequency of data collection and assigning responsibilities for data collection;
- Establishing the appropriate data analysis procedures
- Designing reporting formats
- Identifying stakeholders whom to share progress reports with
- Reviewing the prevailing environment within the organization to undertake M&E and providing the necessary recommendations which should boarder on, for instance, on issues of budget adequacy for M&E, relevant capacity to undertake M&E and even attitude towards M&E (is it being appreciated or it is being done, maybe, because it is a donor requirement)

Could I get in touch with Martin J Opolot.. looks like I can learn something from him regarding this.

In the end, the planning for an evaluation should be set out and reasoned in your M+E plan. This plan should involve all stakeholders and participant representatives to determine if an evaluation is needed, and if so, what type of evaluation it will be etc. Key decisions on evaluations should be made at the start of the project, rather than waiting at the end – such as how the monitoring will link and support any planned evaluation.
Regards, Murray

The link to the AcT Programme document can be found here:
http://www.accountability.or.tz/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Theory-of-Change.pdf

Last year the inaugural RBM&E Forum hosted some 100 delegates from around Asia-Africa, and beyond. This year the Forum Program focuses on RBM&E Measurement issues, especially effectiveness and Value for Money. Get involved – Speakers, Workshop Facilitators, Poster Session presenters, and snapshot Favorite Methods and Tools presenters now being called for. See http://www.learnmandeforum.com for details then email us with any questions- form@learnmande.com. (We regret we do NOT provide scholarships this year).

A difficult read indeed. Like you I found the paper useful in how it highlighted the signifiance and value of understanding intra-project differences. However, i do not agree fully with how the authors relate it to a type of counterfactual. The requirements for comparative analysis are about understanding who among the intended beneficiaries are responding to the support on offer and how this varies (by type of support, place, type of household etc..). Collectively these define the decision uncertainities that Lawrence Salmen (1989) and Dennis Casley (1987) wrote about.

In sum, I am not sure about how the “little e” will fly or what added value this brings to whom when the authors mistakently understand the key difference between M&E to be located on the continuum of a results chain. All they have concluded is about how good monitoring is not just about cataloguing spend, effort and throughput: it’s about listening to beneficiary stories about how they have responded to and what they think about support aid offers, and how this varies……