BRACED M&E Online Discussion - Answering your questions on the M&E Guidance Notes
During this one-hour session, the Knowledge Manager will respond to Implementing Partners' questions and feedback on the BRACED M&E Guidance Notes. The discussion will primarily be based on the written feedback already received from Implementing Partners. It will take place on Tuesday 28 April from 10-11 am UK time (GMT+1) (noon to 1 pm Nairobi time).A French translation 'button', using Google translate, will be available to enable the participation of French-speaking colleagues.
-
What does the KM envision in terms of survey/evaluation work on project sites? By when? Who is going to lead them? Is there going to be joint planning for these studies? -
Hi all, Mark Langworthy from Mercy Corps Kenya/Uganda project
-
In order to enable implementation of the guidance by project field staff we need a practical checklist/quick reference to the mandatory and suggested M&E guidance.
-
Q - Are there key entry points at which guidance can be sought on project-level M&E frameworks and plans (prior to formal submission to the FM)?
-
Q - It would be useful to receive further details about the areas of synergy and continuity between KM and FM, specifically in relation to M&E and the learning agenda.
-
Q - Some of you had questions about the nature and timing of the project mid-term and final evaluation guidance and requirements.
-
Q - Many of you responded positively to the BRACED M&E Framework presented and indicated a level of engagement with specific parts/all of it. However, there are some strong concerns about how much work it will be to report against the Areas of Change, 3As and Evaluative Monitoring (Annexes 2-4).
-
Ok -thanks for this input Catherine. I suggest we take a short moment to review some of the specific questions. Then we can move on... -
Can we ask the ITAD team to briefly respond to the questions below?
-
-
Thanks for the responses in the threads - please scroll down if you had a specific comment to find your answer.
-
-
Ok, I'll continue with the headline clarifications and KM colleagues will continue to answer the follow up questions that are coming up
-
Q - How will the evidence and learning from project and programme M&E be compiled and shared by the KM?
-
Ok - lets move on. Catherine - more headline questions?
-
Q - Can you clarify if the guidance on KPI1 and KPI4 from the interim KM is going to be available in French?
-
You also asked for clarity of the support you can expect from the KM on research, learning and communication (not just M&E), including field visits.
-
excuse me, i just can in. is there any sound conversation???
-
We appreciate this is a lot of information to take in. We are trying to cover as many of your questions are we can in the time. I'll now hand over to Paula and we'll continue answering your follow up questions as the discussion progresses
-
When (exactly) will the revised versions of the toc and logframe be available?
-
Hi all. A comment received from most of you: Gender is not well integrated into the M&E guidelines.
-
While the ITAD team will respond to the remaining open questions, I suggest we can move on to the next topic.
-
Moving on to the ToC: • The theory of change was broadly received positively as it provides a clear explanation of the programme theory of change. A little further explanation is required in how and how often the KM will update the theory of change.
-
Q - Has there been any thought on how to best represent the integrated nature of our projects with the programme theory of change format?
-
Q - Can you please confirm if the note 2 Programme Theory of Change is (not) the final version?
-
Q - Guidance note mentions a “periodic review” of the theory of change, when do you expect this to happen?
-
-
ok - lets have a short moment to review answers to your questions.
-
I see there are some questions still needing to be answered...
-
Ok - we are moving on. We will spend the next 40 minutes on technical clarifications.
-
I am finding the forum a little difficult to follow - so many questions/answers happening at the same time. They are all very good questions but difficult to keep up - I look forward to the minutes/summary! -
-
The Areas of Change (AoC) was broadly received positively as a useful and flexible tool for IPs to understand and report on the processes by which resilience is improved in a qualitative and explanatory way. A little further explanation is required in how you report against it in practice.
-
Q - How do IPs report against the Areas of Change in practice / how do we use the template?
-
What about the concepts of “boundary partners” and “progress markers” – do you strongly advise us to follow them?
-
Q - How much additional work do you think reporting against the areas of change will generate for IPs?
-
Q - How do the areas of change relate to the programme logframe?
-
Ok - this is a lot to take in. Lets take a moment to read and reflect.
-
Can you all take a moment and review the questions and comments, before we move on?
-
Shall we move onto the 3As and colleagues will continue to answer the questions
-
Dear All- as we are moving through the question we need a bit more time to read and respond. We will extend this forum for another 15 minutes. If you have to leave earlier - you follow the transcript.
-
-
-
IPs have engaged with the 3As framework thoroughly and we have received extremely thoughtful feedback/questions. Some IPs have found this to be a helpful framework that helps contextualise the outcomes of the interventions taking place. Others have doubts on the manner in which this framework aligns with their existing plans and processes. -
We have two important clarifications:
(i) The 3As framework is not meant to replace the plans/processes/protocols that projects have already put in place.
(ii)
This framework is not part of the ‘compliance requirements’ from projects but is a voluntary approach that will support the KM to develop programme-wide learning from BRACED. This framework will help us ensure that the outcomes from projects are getting the attention/visibility that they deserve. -
Q- It can be very subjective whether an outcome is anticipatory, adaptive, and absorptive.
-
Q- We have already adopted a framework (for instance the Resilient Livelihoods Framework) relevant for our approach, what to do with the 3As approach?
Website designed & managed by:
© 2018 | Terms of Use