NZAID Tools Activity Cycle Tools 

Activity Monitoring

What to look for when assessing a monitoring system?

It is often hard to judge how effective a monitoring system will be from just looking at an Activity design document, and our engagement on monitoring issues should really form part of an on-going design and review process. Any proposed monitoring system can be checked against the “principles” on pages 5-6 of this Guideline.  Other key issues to bear in mind include:

  • Are the information needs of all of the key stakeholders being addressed?
  • Does the work-plan and other Activity documentation provide enough detailed information for monitoring purposes, and in particular are the roles and responsibilities for collecting, recording, analysing reporting and using information clearly described?
  • Are the indicators and sources of verification adequate to generate the information necessary to manage the Activity and measure progress towards results?
  • Are existing sources of information and monitoring systems being used?
  • Is the proposed volume of information collection realistic?
  • Are there adequate human and financial resources to support the implementation of the monitoring system?
  • Is key information being cross-checked by using more than one method or source?
  • Are there clear mechanisms through which intended beneficiaries can voice their opinions and receive feedback?

Common monitoring problems

An assessment of a proposed or ongoing monitoring system should check for whether any of the common problems are present and what if anything is being done to fix those problems.  A checklist of the common problems includes:

  • Over reliance on formal surveys, particularly those created especially for the Activity
  • Inadequate provision for gathering baseline information early enough in the Activity cycle
  • Insufficient attention to defining and agreeing targets, standards and success criteria
  • Over reliance on government statistics and unrealistic expectations of statistics departments’ staff
  • Over reliance on methodologies that will require external specialised expertise
  • Indicators that do not really measure progress towards outcomes
  • Indicators that will be difficult and/or costly to measure, (e.g. household income)
  • Indicators that do not disaggregate data, (e.g. by gender or socio-economic group)
  • Not enough resources allocated to capacity building or to actually carry out the data collection, analysis and reporting
  • Over emphasis on data collection and not enough attention to the management systems that are expected to make use of the information.

Methods for collecting data

The methods for collecting data should be summarised in the Activity planning or design document (e.g. the sources of verification column of the logical framework matrix)

There is confusion in many design documents between how the information will be collected and how it will be communicated.  It is common to see ‘project reports’ given as the source of verification - this does not explain how the data will be gathered before it can go into the report.

The description of the monitoring methodology should cover:

  • How the data will be collected e.g. review of government statistics, PRA (Participatory Rapid Appraisal) exercise, qualitative methods e.g. KAP survey.
  • How often the information will be collected, e.g. monthly, quarterly.
  • Who will be responsible for collecting the information, e.g. Ministry staff, village health workers, an independent NGO.

When looking at the proposed sources of verification the key questions to ask are:

  • What are the data quality issues and how will these be addressed?
  • Are there alternative existing sources of information?
  • How costly will it be to collect the information using the proposed methodology?
  • Will the information be collected frequently enough for management decision making?
  • Do those responsible for collecting the information already have the skills and resources needed to do this?