Nimble adaptation: Tailoring monitoring, evaluation, and learning methods to provide actionable data in complex environments

Abstract

This chapter examines good practices in implementing effective Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) systems within complex international development Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) programs, which are characterized by challenges of non‐linearity, limited evidence of theories of change, and contextual and politically contingent nature of outcomes. The chapter presents three cases of MEL systems in complex projects implemented by Pact across distinct and diverse operating contexts – Zimbabwe, Cambodia, and Somalia – to illustrate those projects’ MEL approaches that enabled continuous adaptation. The authors analyze the cases to respond to two questions: (1) What are the key elements of effective adaptive management‐focused MEL systems in complex environments? (2) What is practical guidance for designing and enabling complexity‐responsive and effective adaptive management‐focused MEL systems? The case studies illustrate three key elements: (1) Information gathering that closely links context, research, and performance data; (2) Systems for reflection that offer scheduled learning moments of varying frequency and intensity, as well as multiple feedback mechanisms; and (3) Enabling structures that promote adaptive mindsets and attitudes within project teams.

Evaluating programming that thinks and works politically: Challenges and emerging practice

“…Typical activities may include facilitating and brokering conversations among contesting actors, sometimes outside donors’ typical interlocutors, and scanning the environment for contextual shifts and how programming can adapt. Managers of TWP frequently devolve decision‐making as different actors are delegated authority to scan, learn, and pivot as part of regular adaptation to large social forces (for a more complete description of adaptive management, see Serpe et al., 2022).…”

Equitable evaluation in remote and sensitive spaces

“…It is impossible to equally address or even identify all the elements of remote and sensitive operating environments, given the context‐specific nature of these challenges. Implementing DRG programs in these often‐volatile environments requires flexibility (Serpe et al., 2022) as civic actors try to take advantage of whatever political space exists. Therefore, monitoring and evaluation within such environments is a process of iterative analysis, trust‐building, acknowledging limitations, and prioritizing the digital, physical, and psychosocial safety of partners and participants (for a related discussion, see Rybiy & Kovats, 2022).…”

Evaluating a woman's leadership journey and impact by adapting contribution mapping and analysis tools

“…VVGP's tool is useful for program evaluation and the DRG sector because of its: Adaptive methodology: The method's adaptability in an environment where it was not physically possible to collect information without jeopardizing the technique or participation (for more discussion on adaptive management and MEL in DRG, see Serpe et al., 2022). Utility and value to support a program's TOC: This technique is most useful when there is a clear TOC so that data aligns to provide evidence of the different results and strategies (for more discussion on the value of TOCs to DRG, see Krueger & Wright, 2022).…”

“…1. Adaptive methodology: The method's adaptability in an environment where it was not physically possible to collect information without jeopardizing the technique or participation (for more discussion on adaptive management and MEL in DRG, see Serpe et al, 2022).…”