IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/idsxxx/v41y2010i6p36-44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Three Approaches to Monitoring: Feedback Systems, Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation and Logical Frameworks

Author

Listed:
  • Alex Jacobs
  • Chris Barnett
  • Richard Ponsford

Abstract

This article compares key attributes, strengths and weaknesses of three different approaches to monitoring development interventions: the logical framework approach, participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) and feedback systems. Academic and practitioner literature describes how logframes meet the needs of senior decision‐makers to summarise, organise and compare projects. PM&E meets the needs of field staff to work sensitively with intended beneficiaries and support their learning and empowerment. Feedback systems appear to link the two, providing performance data for managers and creating incentives for implementing staff to focus on their intended beneficiaries. Feedback systems build on the rich heritage of PM&E and are compatible with logframes. They may help provide a manageable and effective approach to accountability that links the means and the ends of development interventions. Feedback systems are at an early stage of development. There is a lot to learn about how and where they work best.

Suggested Citation

  • Alex Jacobs & Chris Barnett & Richard Ponsford, 2010. "Three Approaches to Monitoring: Feedback Systems, Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation and Logical Frameworks," IDS Bulletin, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 41(6), pages 36-44, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:idsxxx:v:41:y:2010:i:6:p:36-44
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/idsb.2010.41.issue-6
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katsutoshi Fushimi, 2022. "Perceived Home and Host Country Institutional Environment Pressures by Bilateral Development Cooperation Agency's Constituents," Working Papers 228, JICA Research Institute.
    2. Farrell, Leanne A. & Hamann, Ralph & Mackres, Eric, 2012. "A clash of cultures (and lawyers): Anglo Platinum and mine-affected communities in Limpopo Province, South Africa," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 194-204.
    3. Hall, Matthew, 2014. "Evaluation logics in the third sector," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 46365, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Natascha Mueller-Hirth, 2012. "If You Don't Count, You Don't Count: Monitoring and Evaluation in South African NGOs," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(3), pages 649-670, May.
    5. Katsutoshi Fushimi, 2024. "Institutional Environment Pressures Perceived by Bilateral Development Cooperation Agency's Constituents," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 217-235, March.
    6. Juanjo Balaguer, 2024. "Participatory Video and Impact: Analysis of the Living Cultures Indigenous Fellowship," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 36(2), pages 496-514, April.
    7. Boadu, Evans Sakyi & Ile, Isioma, 2019. "Between power and perception: Understanding youth perspectives in participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) in Ghana," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:idsxxx:v:41:y:2010:i:6:p:36-44. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0265-5012 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.