# data[].attributes.body
Based on my experience I have faced a few challenges that I will try to summaries below

Lack of ownership by main stakeholders - Several times I have faced an overall acceptance for evaluations, but when push comes to show, the actual buy in for learning from the results of the evaluations and willingness to implement the recommendation has overall been low. This may be a lack of inclusion of stakeholders which has lead to a low true buy-in. Also, M&E has been seen in isolation and an add-on, rather than an inclusive part of a project implementation.

Unclear project objectives and lack of indicators - The M&E processes that I have been part of myself has often faced that the projects that are supposed to be monitored have had a lack of clear objectives and non-existing indicators, and lack of baselines. This has lead to difficulties to actually prove that change has happened and whether the project has been really successful or not. Furthermore, CD elements in humanitarian projects have most often been limited to training of individuals. This has often resulted in anecdotal discussions on what was good and was less successful, without clear link to actual results achievement (e.g. focus has tended to be put on inputs and outputs and not much focus on outcomes and impact).

Sensitivities - At times I have also faced (as the presentation and also Chris Jung mentions) that M&E is often a way to please donors rather than activities with the aim to promote active learning environments. Problem identification can also often lead to sensitivities and I have more and more started to use the approach focusing on what we did good. An aspect of this, is that there is a risk that MSB partners may be honest in their reflections as they may believe that it may affect the possibility for further engagement from MSB.

Methodology - I have most often face very limited knowledge and capacity in terms of methodology for M&E. E.g. several monitoring activities and evaluations have major flaws in the methodology which hampers the usefulness of these processes and products. This can also be explained by the fact that several monitoring systems/approaches/tools have been used for similar projects, which has lead to low possibility to compare results between projects.

# data[].attributes.body
Effective M&E effort in a project will consume a significant portion of its budget so planning for it must be specifically and adequately included at the project design stage.  In an environment of scarce resources, the temptation will be to allocate more to activities and less to M&E.

M&E requires skills built from specialized training, experience and domain knowledge, which project implementers also need, so availability of M&E practitioners may suffer. On the opportunity side, the project independence that M&E should have can be met by older practitioners with long experience in project implementation.

The LFA approach which designs M&E into a project by defining performance measures and expectations may make project execution less flexible in situations where scope, context and/or conditions change unpredictably.  The challenge is to express M&E criteria to accommodate change. Theory-based evaluation may be more appropriate but has its challenges too, e.g., difficult-to-manage complexity.

Results-based evaluation ultimately should include impact assessment but impacts often don't manifest for years after the activity outputs are complete, when no resources remain to do the assessment.

# data[].attributes.headline
- Effective M&E effort in a project will consume a significant portion of its budget so planning for it must be specifically and adequately included at the project design stage.  In an environment of scarce resources, the temptation will be to allocate more to activities and less to M&E.- M&E requires skills built from specialized training, experience and domain knowledge, which project implementers also need, so availability of M&E practitioners may suffer. On the opportunity side, the project independence that M&E should have can be met by older practitioners with long experience in project implementation.- The LFA approach which designs M&E into a project by defining performance measures and expectations may make project execution less flexible in situations where scope, context and/or conditions change unpredictably.  The challenge is to express M&E criteria to accommodate change. Theory-based evaluation may be more appropriate but has its challenges too, e.g., difficult-to-manage complexity.- Results-based evaluation ultimately should include impact assessment but impacts often don't manifest for years after the activity outputs are complete, when no resources remain to do the assessment.

# data[].attributes.subject
- Effective M&E effort in a project will consume a significant portion of its budget so planning for it must be specifically and adequately included at the project design stage.  In an environment of scarce resources, the temptation will be to allocate more to activities and less to M&E.- M&E requires skills built from specialized training, experience and domain knowledge, which project implementers also need, so availability of M&E practitioners may suffer. On the opportunity side, the project independence that M&E should have can be met by older practitioners with long experience in project implementation.- The LFA approach which designs M&E into a project by defining performance measures and expectations may make project execution less flexible in situations where scope, context and/or conditions change unpredictably.  The challenge is to express M&E criteria to accommodate change. Theory-based evaluation may be more appropriate but has its challenges too, e.g., difficult-to-manage complexity.- Results-based evaluation ultimately should include impact assessment but impacts often don't manifest for years after the activity outputs are complete, when no resources remain to do the assessment.

# data[].attributes.body
S

Effective M&E effort in a project will consume a significant portion of its budget so planning for it must be specifically and adequately included at the project design stage.  In an environment of scarce resources, the temptation will be to allocate more to activities and less to M&E.

M&E requires skills built from specialized training, experience and domain knowledge, which project implementers also need, so availability of M&E practitioners may suffer. On the opportunity side, the project independence that M&E should have can be met by older practitioners with long experience in project implementation.

The LFA approach which designs M&E into a project by defining performance measures and expectations may make project execution less flexible in situations where scope, context and/or conditions change unpredictably.  The challenge is to express M&E criteria to accommodate change. Theory-based evaluation may be more appropriate but has its challenges too, e.g., difficult-to-manage complexity.

Results-based evaluation ultimately should include impact assessment but impacts often don't manifest for years after the activity outputs are complete, when no resources remain to do the assessment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sidney Tupper- Effective M&E effort in a project will consume a significant portion of its budget so planning for it must be specifically and adequately included at the project design stage.  In an environment of scarce resources, the temptation will be to allocate more to activities and less to M&E.- M&E requires skills built from specialized training, experience and domain knowledge, which project implementers also need, so availability of M&E practitioners may suffer. On the opportunity side, the project independence that M&E should have can be met by older practitioners with long experience in project implementation.- The LFA approach which designs M&E into a project by defining performance measures and expectations may make project execution less flexible in situations where scope, context and/or conditions change unpredictably.  The challenge is to express M&E criteria to accommodate change. Theory-based evaluation may be more appropriate but has its challenges too, e.g., difficult-to-manage complexity.- Results-based evaluation ultimately should include impact assessment but impacts often don't manifest for years after the activity outputs are complete, when no resources remain to do the assessment.

# data[].attributes.subject
Sidney Tupper- Effective M&E effort in a project will consume a significant portion of its budget so planning for it must be specifically and adequately included at the project design stage.  In an environment of scarce resources, the temptation will be to allocate more to activities and less to M&E.- M&E requires skills built from specialized training, experience and domain knowledge, which project implementers also need, so availability of M&E practitioners may suffer. On the opportunity side, the project independence that M&E should have can be met by older practitioners with long experience in project implementation.- The LFA approach which designs M&E into a project by defining performance measures and expectations may make project execution less flexible in situations where scope, context and/or conditions change unpredictably.  The challenge is to express M&E criteria to accommodate change. Theory-based evaluation may be more appropriate but has its challenges too, e.g., difficult-to-manage complexity.- Results-based evaluation ultimately should include impact assessment but impacts often don't manifest for years after the activity outputs are complete, when no resources remain to do the assessment.

# data[].attributes.body
How do I handle the situation if there is a risk that the budget will be overdrawn?

# data[].attributes.body
How do I handle misunderstandings?

# data[].attributes.body
How do I get all stakeholders involved?

# data[].attributes.body
Did the project make any change?

# data[].attributes.body
Can you see any impact, contribution, obstacles??

# data[].attributes.body
How is the situation before?

# data[].attributes.body
When is it needed?

# data[].attributes.body
Who is the recipient?

# data[].attributes.body
What is needed?

# data[].attributes.body
As I see it a challenge is the knowledge limitation. You can use a lot of resources and time to get an comprehensive report but you will need skilled individuals and like I said resources. On the other hand you can do an overview which gives you the scope but not the full picture. It would cost less and perhaps not be as complicated.
But another big hurdle is how to actually use and communicate the gathered information. As I see it there is an idea in some organization not to admit to mistakes and make everything to a success story. Thus hoping to get more funding from donors in the future. However by not admitting to ones mistakes how can you learn?

# data[].attributes.body
From my perspective, and having worked together with CD experts in quite a number of projects, I see challenges and difficulties on various levels:

1. What is to be monitored? In many cases an "M&E Expert" was sent by the country office to the field office, usually when the project was already going on (which in itself is an indicator for the importance of M&E). In one case, this expert had his own conception about the indicators, which was probably derived from the logframe in the funding application but during time had changed.

2. When things do not go as planned, especially in the United Nations this is often seen as a problem, and as Faisal writes, as failure. Which may impact the UN person's promotion scheme and thus is not very popular.

3. The attitude of the CD experts deployed plays a big role. There is a definite partition between "death by Powerpoint" and CD. A (not so) fictitious dialogue in a project a couple of years ago:
CD Expert A: "Yay! 200 community leaders trained in the use of disaster risk maps today!" (gives CD expert B a high-five).
Disaster Waste Expert: "200, in a day. Wow. How do you know all of them understood what you explained?"
CD Expert A: "Err, sorry?"
Disaster Waste Expert: "Are you sure all of them are able to read a map?"
CD Expert A: walks away.

4. Concentration on figures instead of impacts by M&E experts deployed to the teams on the ground, based on a logical framework analysis (LFA) or results-based management (RBM) approach. Outcome mapping looks at changes in behaviour and long-term impacts beyond the duration of the project, but at times may be incompatible with an M&E system established or required by a donor.

# data[].attributes.body
The main challenge to M&E in the context of capacity development projects that I faced on my disaster-recovery missions was that the top management (which was related to accountability to donor) was pushing to focus on the quantitative result which created a risk-averse culture. Problems are considered as failure and need to be hidden, instead of using it as a valuable lesson for capacity development.

# data[].attributes.headline
  Contribution to knowledge building-Ghada

# data[].attributes.subject
  Contribution to knowledge building-Ghada

# data[].attributes.body
how to use the outcomes of the M&E to contribution to knowledge building

# data[].attributes.headline
Soso Bagashvili: The challenge is that less emphasis are made on learnings from any applied important processes in capacity development, that will translate in improved individual, organizational, institutional behaviors in a longer-term. Measuring processes can be overlooked in M&E frameworks and plans, or simply there may not be sufficient resources available to monitor or evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of applied processes. Therefore, that should be given sufficient attentions thus resources and reflected in M&E frameworks and plans. That can improve the overall effectiveness of similar undertakings in the future in similar contexts. Although contextualization of the processes remains important. In addition, measuring positive impacts made on the institutional capacities and enabling environment may be another challenge for those organisations involved in capacity development, that may not necessarily remain in the operational area or country for sufficient period of time for such understakings. Therefore, right mechanisms and counterparts need to found and capacitated in a timely manner in order to enable those to reflect and measure such impacts. Such measurements may be done remotely through partners on the ground, thus help applying the learnings in practice in the future. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Soso Bagashvili: The challenge is that less emphasis are made on learnings from any applied important processes in capacity development, that will translate in improved individual, organizational, institutional behaviors in a longer-term. Measuring processes can be overlooked in M&E frameworks and plans, or simply there may not be sufficient resources available to monitor or evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of applied processes. Therefore, that should be given sufficient attentions thus resources and reflected in M&E frameworks and plans. That can improve the overall effectiveness of similar undertakings in the future in similar contexts. Although contextualization of the processes remains important. In addition, measuring positive impacts made on the institutional capacities and enabling environment may be another challenge for those organisations involved in capacity development, that may not necessarily remain in the operational area or country for sufficient period of time for such understakings. Therefore, right mechanisms and counterparts need to found and capacitated in a timely manner in order to enable those to reflect and measure such impacts. Such measurements may be done remotely through partners on the ground, thus help applying the learnings in practice in the future. 

# data[].attributes.body
The main challenges to M&E are more about purpose and politics than technical concerns. I took two key points from the module presentation and readings, and both are related to why M&E is important and how to choose the right methodology based more on context than technical paradigm.

First, there has been an important shift in priorities for M&E away from a quantitative tool to satisfy donor accountability. Expanding the purpose of M&E to include learning for improvement is a key difference in philosophy, but I have not yet seen this well executed in CD projects. Too often, M&E is still used to validate a project and justify future funding, rather than as a central way to dissect failures and create lessons learned.

The second, and perhaps more difficult, challenge is that the long timeframes necessary to see CD impact mean that methodological pluralism is crucial to examining both short and long-term impact. The ODI Background Note brilliantly sets out the need for a varied range of M&E methodologies and approaches. It also explains why the CD process is heavily political, therefore the impact will sometimes require a change in political climate before being realized. If a CD project shifts the enabling environment so that stakeholders can take advantage of a window of opportunity several years in the future, this is an important impact to capture. But it's not one that traditional or even modern M&E tools are designed to measure.

# data[].attributes.headline
Key challenges of M&E in developing countries in Asia are as follows (Shesh Kafle):

# data[].attributes.subject
Key challenges of M&E in developing countries in Asia are as follows (Shesh Kafle):

# data[].attributes.body
- Less emphasis on M&E while designing and implementing CD programs
- No enough budget, staff and time allocated for M&E
- No follow up with the findings received from M&E processes
- No adoption or follow of M&E findings in new project design.

# data[].attributes.headline
 Module 12 – Monitoring & Evaluation for Learning Thoughts                        Author: Thomas McKnight 17 November 2016Monitoring and Evaluation’s emergence and entry into the Program management cycle scheme beginning in the late 1980s and early 1990s and gradual recognition and incorporation as a professional discipline into the humanitarian agency system though having evolved as a specialized skill set, tasked to meet donors’ demand for quantifiable humanitarian return on investment (HROI) reporting, represents a continued management science evolutionary track progression impacted by ongoing framework, policy, and systems lessons learned adjustments. I raise the matter of current M&E staffing within our aid delivery institutions – some dedicated to development with access to relatively stable enabling environments and functioning at individual, organizational and institutional levels where peace, as a prerequisite are conducive to capacity development vs. complex emergency environments where one plants an opportunistic capacity development seed of hope where possible; where peripherally based clients and partners lack knowledge or training opportunities; fail to collect and report disaggregated age and gender data for numerous reasons.  In many institutions M&E representation is either limited, non-existent or overstretched to support the quantitative cluster system and other stakeholders’ needs.  South Sudan, divided by political, ethnic and tribal conflict is an example. As we explore CD frameworks with expectation to develop capacity in this latter setting I question as critical as quantitative knowledge, skills and capacity building is it will be awhile, if ever before implementing M&E for Learning becomes cross operationalized. The main challenges in this context is having an environment peace and stability.  On the other hand Somaliland (Hargeisa) having seceded from greater Somalia since 1991; formed their own government; adopted a relief-recovery-development continuum tract, possesses a National Development Plan and vision that “by the year 2030, Somaliland will be contributors of aid instead of being recipients of aid’ created a secure and stable enabling environment. Of the 26 government ministries  and a micro view of  the MoNP&D’s five departments (Admin), (Planning), (Statistics), (Development) and (Coordination) under its jurisdiction, comprising 21 offices, the following offices highlight part of the enabling environment infrastructure that  guided the government’s transformation from relief to recovery and placed the country on a development track. Notwithstanding ongoing   legislative, policy and systems reform and development activity summarize Hargeisa’s current investment and development climate. •	Procurement & Logistics•	Accounting & Finance•	Personnel ***•	National Planning & Policy ***•	National Planning Commission Secretariat ***•	Institute for Statistics and Public Policy Research•	Census and Surveys•	Social Statistics•	Management Information Center•	GIS•	Regional Planning and Development•	Regional Planning & Development•	Regional NGO Coordination & Development•	Regional Statistics •	Monitoring & Evaluation Though unrecognized as a sovereign nation by the international community this is a unique ‘M&E for Learning’ opportunity, having case study – adaptive learning and replication potential for Greater Somalia (Mogadishu), Puntland (Garowe) and other East African, Horn of Africa neighbors.        With traditional M&E quantitative systems having been implemented and overseen by the Ministry of National Planning and Development in collaboration with UNDP Somalia, bench marks, lessons learned experiences, inventories of public, private stakeholders and institutional memory to draw upon only strengthen future capacity development initiatives.  This is however dependent upon this location remaining stable and its government administration team remaining in office and/or processes handover with minimal alteration. The UNDP manual on measuring capacity that provided the framework for M&E’s quantitative blueprint would equally contribute to the M&E for Learning capacity building initiative as a continued policy, practices, and systems evolutionary process.   

# data[].attributes.subject
 Module 12 – Monitoring & Evaluation for Learning Thoughts                        Author: Thomas McKnight 17 November 2016Monitoring and Evaluation’s emergence and entry into the Program management cycle scheme beginning in the late 1980s and early 1990s and gradual recognition and incorporation as a professional discipline into the humanitarian agency system though having evolved as a specialized skill set, tasked to meet donors’ demand for quantifiable humanitarian return on investment (HROI) reporting, represents a continued management science evolutionary track progression impacted by ongoing framework, policy, and systems lessons learned adjustments. I raise the matter of current M&E staffing within our aid delivery institutions – some dedicated to development with access to relatively stable enabling environments and functioning at individual, organizational and institutional levels where peace, as a prerequisite are conducive to capacity development vs. complex emergency environments where one plants an opportunistic capacity development seed of hope where possible; where peripherally based clients and partners lack knowledge or training opportunities; fail to collect and report disaggregated age and gender data for numerous reasons.  In many institutions M&E representation is either limited, non-existent or overstretched to support the quantitative cluster system and other stakeholders’ needs.  South Sudan, divided by political, ethnic and tribal conflict is an example. As we explore CD frameworks with expectation to develop capacity in this latter setting I question as critical as quantitative knowledge, skills and capacity building is it will be awhile, if ever before implementing M&E for Learning becomes cross operationalized. The main challenges in this context is having an environment peace and stability.  On the other hand Somaliland (Hargeisa) having seceded from greater Somalia since 1991; formed their own government; adopted a relief-recovery-development continuum tract, possesses a National Development Plan and vision that “by the year 2030, Somaliland will be contributors of aid instead of being recipients of aid’ created a secure and stable enabling environment. Of the 26 government ministries  and a micro view of  the MoNP&D’s five departments (Admin), (Planning), (Statistics), (Development) and (Coordination) under its jurisdiction, comprising 21 offices, the following offices highlight part of the enabling environment infrastructure that  guided the government’s transformation from relief to recovery and placed the country on a development track. Notwithstanding ongoing   legislative, policy and systems reform and development activity summarize Hargeisa’s current investment and development climate. •	Procurement & Logistics•	Accounting & Finance•	Personnel ***•	National Planning & Policy ***•	National Planning Commission Secretariat ***•	Institute for Statistics and Public Policy Research•	Census and Surveys•	Social Statistics•	Management Information Center•	GIS•	Regional Planning and Development•	Regional Planning & Development•	Regional NGO Coordination & Development•	Regional Statistics •	Monitoring & Evaluation Though unrecognized as a sovereign nation by the international community this is a unique ‘M&E for Learning’ opportunity, having case study – adaptive learning and replication potential for Greater Somalia (Mogadishu), Puntland (Garowe) and other East African, Horn of Africa neighbors.        With traditional M&E quantitative systems having been implemented and overseen by the Ministry of National Planning and Development in collaboration with UNDP Somalia, bench marks, lessons learned experiences, inventories of public, private stakeholders and institutional memory to draw upon only strengthen future capacity development initiatives.  This is however dependent upon this location remaining stable and its government administration team remaining in office and/or processes handover with minimal alteration. The UNDP manual on measuring capacity that provided the framework for M&E’s quantitative blueprint would equally contribute to the M&E for Learning capacity building initiative as a continued policy, practices, and systems evolutionary process.   

# data[].attributes.body
How do we handle disagreements

# data[].attributes.body
What are we going to do with the results from the M&E

# data[].attributes.body
Decide, toghether, what to M&E

# data[].attributes.body
Agree with all stakeholders who is going to perform M&E

# data[].attributes.body
Determine a timeschedule for M&E

# data[].attributes.body
What kind of tools are you going to use?

# data[].attributes.headline
Challenges to M & E for learning in CD projects (Peter Medway)

# data[].attributes.subject
Challenges to M & E for learning in CD projects (Peter Medway)

# data[].attributes.body
In general the measurement of soft capacity development, for example the effectiveness of leadership, or the strengthening of collaboration in a network, is more difficult than measuring quantitative outputs. However, the course has made the case for the application of non-linear learning processes that can cope with measurement in an unstable and changing context. Methodological pluralism is encouraged. In many project settings the skills and experience to manage such an approach may be lacking and, given the commitment of time and resources needed to be continually reflective, maintaining all stakeholders commitment  may be difficult. One major challenge for M & E for learning is that findings cannot be easily generalised - each context is unique - so it can be difficult to apply our insights more broadly to policy and practice, creating a positive impact on the enabling environment. Further, the accountability vs learning paradox can create challenges. Most development workers today are well-versed in and accept the requirements of (mainly upward) accountability, However, an unbalanced bias towards accountability can make projects more risk averse and less transparent, in direct opposition to the values required for a successful learning approach, where failure can represent a great learning opportunity. Skills, culture and value changes are needed for all stakeholders in a CD project in order to really benefit from the M & E for learning approach.