{"id":1466,"date":"2013-06-24T13:48:08","date_gmt":"2013-06-24T18:48:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/\/"},"modified":"2016-01-21T13:51:32","modified_gmt":"2016-01-21T18:51:32","slug":"monitoring-and-evaluation-lessons-from-latin-american-think-tanks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/monitoring-and-evaluation-lessons-from-latin-american-think-tanks\/","title":{"rendered":"Monitoring and evaluation: Lessons from Latin American think tanks"},"content":{"rendered":"
The\u00a0Think Tank Initiative<\/a>\u00a0organised, back in April, a workshop on Monitoring and Evaluation for Performance and Impact in Lima. It was an interesting meeting, out of which came a few (I hope) useful blog posts:<\/p>\n An internal report was prepared by the facilitator,\u00a0Beatrice Briggs<\/a>, and with her permission and that of the TTI’s, I have picked out a few interesting bits of information that I think are important to share. I’ve made an effort to keep things entirely anonymous;\u00a0Chatham House Rule<\/a>.<\/p>\n In preparation for the event, the think tanks were asked to answer a series of questions. The first one related to their M&E strengths -or what they were doing particularly well; the second to the challenges they sill faced -or what they were not doing particularly well; and the third refers to the kind of information that they were collecting. There were, of course, other questions but these are the ones I’ll be sharing in this post.<\/p>\n I have arrange some of the statements provided by the think tanks according to four categories: planning, systems and tools, learning and feedback, and human resources. A surprising finding from the process (and the workshop itself) was that most of the think tanks had a person (or more) dedicated to M&E. This is not something I often come across before. Should there be a dedicated person or is this something that everyone in the organisation should do. I feel that this responds more to pressure from funders for accountability purposes than a genuine interest for learning by the think tanks. But, let’s see.<\/p>\n Many readers will find the following statements rather typical or at least familiar to them and their organisations.<\/p>\n Planning:<\/p>\n Systems and tools:<\/p>\n Learning and reporting back:<\/p>\n Human resources:<\/p>\n Overall, my sense was that most of the think tanks had gone a long way in thinking about M&E and establishing the basic building blocks for it. Where they seem to struggle is on how to institutionalise these small yet important steps.<\/p>\n I have organised these statements according to four broad categories: general challenges, what is next?, barriers, and resources (as before, some are repeated):<\/p>\n This is interesting as some of the challenges refer to the nature of influence itself but most (and I have emphasised this here) focus on methodological and organisational challenges:<\/p>\n Nature of influence:<\/p>\n Methodological challenges:<\/p>\n Organisational challenges:<\/p>\n Some of the barriers refer to the role of individuals while others to absence of key organisational ‘institutions’.<\/p>\n People:<\/p>\n ‘Institutions’:<\/p>\n My own judgement is that a great deal of emphasis has been placed on human resources. I am yet unsure about this issue. Should think tanks, especially small ones, have a dedicated team for M&E? Given that most do not have an adequately staffed communications team, is this the best use of their resources? (The jury is out: I have written something related to this here:\u00a0\u2018Tourist\u2019 funders are unhelpful when supporting and evaluating think\u00a0tanks<\/a>)<\/p>\n Of course all these systems and tools that the think tanks have can mean very little unless we think about the kind of information that they are collecting -and for what purpose. The following table was put together by the workshop’s facilitator and it shows some interesting things:<\/p>\n I say there is an inconsistency because my own conversations with the participants suggested that. In general, think tanks are better equipped in gathering data related to activities they control but, not surprisingly, less so when it comes to assessing their influence.<\/p>\n\n
What were the think tanks already doing?<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
What were the think tanks main challenges or things that were not working so well?<\/h2>\n
1) General challenges and things that are missing:<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
2) What is next?<\/h3>\n
\n
3) Barriers:<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
4) Resources (or lack of):<\/h3>\n
\n
So what information do they collect?<\/h2>\n
\n