Part III: A systematic change perspective Building Block 8: Monitoring of implementation Relevant questions • Do we know whether we are making progress? How do we know? • Which information would we need in order to assess progress? What are adequate indicators? • How do you get this information? By which methods and techniques? Who collects this information? • What process is needed to answer systemic questions such as: Why is something happening? How did it happen? What are the implications? What needs to happen next? Preliminary remarks on monitoring of implementation and evaluation Monitoring and evaluation are nowadays a standard component of managing programmes and projects in public and private institutions, and have strongly entered the field of human rights in recent years. In its ‘Analytical self-assessment tool’, The SPT explicitly mentions that an NPM strategy should include an ‘analysis of how and why both success and failures in effectiving (sic) change have occurred’ as well as a ‘consideration for the need to develop alternative strategies or approaches’.309 This encapsulates well the basic idea behind monitoring and evaluation: to see what works and to adjust strategies if there is a need. Monitoring and evaluation share some common characteristics that are briefly dealt with here. Relevant information must be generated in order to see whether there is progress towards achieving results (monitoring as an on-going function) or whether one’s objectives have been achieved (evaluation as a selective exercise at specific intervals or the end of a project). In the broad field of policy influencing, including human rights, monitoring and evaluation face specific challenges, in particular with regard to finding adequate ways of measuring what is - per se – very difficult to measure. As indicated above, ‘theory of change’-approaches have been developed partly as a response to these challenges, and such a change perspective could also be successfully used to inform the monitoring and evaluation of the NPM’s work. Furthermore, the following conceptual and terminological distinctions are necessary here: • ‘Monitoring of implementation’ as used in the area of project and programme management refers to checking whether an organisation is advancing towards its self-defined objectives. It is obviously different from monitoring of state institutions. • Monitoring and evaluation, as used here, is therefore also different from measuring of implementation of NPM recommendations. Monitoring and evaluation look at ways to understand one’s own performance and impact on human rights. Measuring of implementation of its recommendations rather looks at understanding state action in implementing. However, some of the challenges regarding methodology, in particular the definition and use of indicators, remain essentially the same. It would be far beyond the scope of this section to specify more in detail how monitoring of implementation works or describe the tools for doing this. Rather, only some main elements should be mentioned and reference to interesting tools made. Concept and rationale of monitoring Monitoring can be seen as the ongoing process by which stakeholders obtain regular feedback on the progress being made towards achieving their goals.310 Its main objective is to reposition oneself and adjust the strategy in case of not progressing towards achieving desired results. SPT, UN Doc CAT/OP/1, para 5. UN Development Programme ‘Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation of Results’ (2009) <http://web.undp. org/evaluation/handbook/ch1-1.html> accessed 12 June 2015. 309 310 - 107 -