Working Paper on Institutionalisation of a Harmonised
Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation System in
KARI
Edited by
AN Mbabu and JO Mugah
KARI Working Paper Series Working
Paper No. 1, 1998
FOREWORD
In recent years, KARI has hosted
several workshops on monitoring and evaluation. In October
1993, a workshop was held to raise awareness on the concepts
of Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E in KARI.
A follow-up workshop was held in
November 1994 with two objectives:
-
To assess KARI's experiences
and needs for Planning, Monitoring and
Evaluation (PM & E).
-
To prioritise these needs and
to sensitise both scientists and managers
on the concepts and tools available for monitoring
and evaluation.
The workshop focused specifically
at the project level, although the process is also relevant
at the programme and institute levels.
This cumulative effect laid the foundation
for the formation of a task force consisting of representatives
from the KARI management, Centre Directors, scientists and
donors, to assist in the full institutionalisation of PM
& E in KARI. The attached working paper is the product
of a series of meetings by the Task Force, and incorporates
comments from major stakeholders. The paper lays down a
strategy and the workplan for institutionalisation of PM
& E in KARI. It is my pleasure to invite concerned parties
to support the implementation of this document. It is my
belief that KARI needs an effective system, such as the
one proposed here, to streamline its management system for
more effective and efficient generation and delivery of
appropriate technologies to target clients.
CG Ndiritu (EBS, PhD
DIRECTOR, KARI
WORKING PAPER FOR INSTITUTIONALISATION
OF A HARMONISED PLANNING, MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM
IN KARI
INTRODUCTION
-
Planning, monitoring and evaluation
are sequentially related concepts.
-
Planning defines goals that are
long-term, purposes that are medium-term and objectives
or outputs, that are short-term. It identifies activities
that need to be undertaken to accomplish outputs and
specifies the resources required to complete them. Planning
also outlines verifiable indicators for measuring success
and develops a time frame within which activities have
to be undertaken.
-
Monitoring measures the efficiency
with which inputs and budgets are converted into outputs.
-
Evaluation address the effectiveness
of outputs in delivering the purposes and goals of the
planning phase. It focuses on institutional effectiveness
in generating outputs and assesses the impact that those
outputs make towards the broader goals [sector-economy].
-
Planning, monitoring and evaluation
[PM & E] is, therefore, an integral part of the
management process. It is the responsibility of every
manager at all levels within the institution.
-
Effective PM & E ensures
that expected outputs are delivered on a timely basis
with efficient use of limited resources. Such processes
need to be a part of an institutional strategic plan
which identifies a clear purpose and goal, the products
of a series of precisely defined outputs.
-
The function of this document
is to outline the means by which KARI intends to institutionalise
a PM & E system.
Justification
8. In considering a PM & E system
for KARI, three layers of management have been identified,
namely:
a. Institutional, at the level of
the Strategic and Corporate Plans.
b. Research Programmes, medium- to
long-term delivery of Strategic and Corporate Plan outputs.
c. Projects, medium to short-term
collections of related experiments and studies.
The relationship between these layers is illustrated in
Figure 1.
9. At the institute level KARI's
current strategy emphasises client-oriented research. This
is an important development on the traditional emphasis
of strategic research thrusts. KARI's Purpose and Goal [mission],
at this level, link to broader government aims and policy
statements.
10. Within KARI's divisions, research
programmes are designed to delivery the outputs which contribute
to the overall institutional purpose and goal [mission].
11 Within each of the programmes,
there are many projects. These consist of experiments and
studies, and may cut across technical divisions.
12. KARI's four support divisions
[Human Resources, Finance, Supplies and Estate Management]
also utilise resources and contribute to the institutional
mission.
13. To plan, monitor and evaluate
the activities and outputs at these different levels requires
a system that logically links them together, ensuring that
each reflects the outputs, purposes and goals of the next.
14. One way to structure this is
through the use of a logical framework. It is the logical
framework, or logframe, which is used as a basis for the
hierarchical structure in figure 1.
15. Managerial responsibility at
each of the three levels is different, and is currently
under review. Responsibilities as they now stand, are described
in general terms below [16-21].
16. A directorate comprising the
Director, Deputy Directors, Assistant Directors and Centre
Directors takes responsibility for the Institute and operates
under the general guidance of the Board of Management. Centre
Directors represent the Directorate at research centres.
17. At a more specific level, Assistant
Directors take charge of the technical programmes normally
based at research centres, through Centre Directors.
18. Programme Co-ordinators have
direct responsibility for specific research programmes,
and report to the Directorate.
19. Project Leaders supervise the
operations of scientific activities and report to their
Centre Directors and Programme Co-ordinators.
20. Scientists implement specific
research activities with the help of technical, administrative
and support staff, and report to project leaders.
21. At all these management levels
there are specific responsibilities which need to be standardised,
institutionalised and logically linked both vertically and
horizontally. The current structures and processes are summarised
in Annex 1.
The proposal
22. The mechanism for implementing
this plan is shown in Annex 2, in logical framework format.
The framework proposes four groups of Activities which,
if implemented sequentially, will deliver the Outputs that
the Task Force considers necessary and sufficient to institutionalise
planning, monitoring and evaluation in KARI.
23. The step-wise series of activities
will allow discrete funding of this process. The total estimated
budget to implement this proposal is #67,000 [Ksh7.6 million].
This figure is very appropriate and will vary according
to the level and number of staff involved.
ANNEX 1: OUTLINE OF CURRENT SYSTEMS
A1. This Annex outlines the institutional
procedures currently in place, and some of the Task Force's
ideas for incorporation into a standardised system of PM
& E for KARI. Procedures may only be nominally in place
and implementation is often ad hoc and of variable quality.
The intention of the proposal is to standardise and institutionalise
a range of simple, yet effective planning, monitoring and
evaluation tools and processes.
The Institute Level
A2. At the Institute level, the focus
is on the total system and its place in the agricultural
sector and the politico-economy.
A3. Planning, monitoring and evaluation
functions are based on the dual role of delivering the declared
institutional outputs and interacting with external factors
to interpret and to influence the wider sectoral and politico
economic expectations.
A4. Key to this broader view is the
development of a Strategic Plan, which is long-term and
reflects government policy statements across the agricultural
and other sectors.
A5. The implementation of the Strategic
Plan will rely on the revision of the corporate [medium-term]
Plan which reflects the activities necessary to delivery
outputs defined in it.
A6. To ensure that programmes reflect
the Strategic purpose and goal of the Institute, priority
setting among programmes will be done every 5 years. This
process should challenge each division [AD] to demonstrate
its commitment towards the Institute's mission and to articulate
the expected gains to be made by investing in the respective
programmes.
The Programme Level
A7. Several events typically represent
planning, monitoring and evaluation at the programme level;
these are:
A8. Strategic planning at the progamme
level aims to align programme goals to the Institute's purpose.
This will be done every 5 years under the leadership of
the appropriate Assistant and Centre Directors and Programme
co-ordinators.
A9. Priority setting within programmes
will be done within the context of the programme's strategic
plan. The purpose of this will be to identify, with reference
to all stakeholders, the most promising research thrusts
towards resolving the constraints facing them.
A10. Priority setting within programmes
will be done every 3 years. This process will be done under
the guidance of Programme Co-ordinators.
A11. Annual review and planning meetings,
under the leadership of the respective Assistant Directors,
Programme co-ordinators and donor representatives, are intended
to take stock of on-going activities and plan for the following
year's activities.
A12. At mid-term evaluation, programmes
will be assessed for progress made towards achievement of
purpose through the delivery of expected outputs. Constraints
and solutions will be identified.
A13. End-term reviews will be carried
out after completion of the programmes. The main purpose
of these reviews will be to ascertain the extent to which
completed outputs have contributed towards the purpose and
goal of the programmes.
The Project Level
A14. Planning, monitoring and evaluation
events at the project level are more frequent [annual or
biannual] and are more detailed because of the nature of
the activities. At this level, scientific knowledge and
client needs are blended.
A15. The PM & E process t this
level may be seen as events ensuring that research activities
link up with the programme outputs and purpose.
A16. All research activities need
to identify client needs. This will be done by rigorous
constraint analysis and problem definition under the guidance
of Project Leaders. Tools such as participatory and rapid
rural appraisals and information systems will be used.
A17. Once the project justification
is sufficiently formulated, it will be presented to the
Centre Proposal Preparation Committee [CPPC/Pre-CRAC] headed
by the Centre Director and will include all the scientists
in the centre. The Committee will review progress of on-going
activities and all the new proposals and identify those
to be submitted to the Centre Research Advisory Committee
[CRAC].
A18. The CRAC consists of farmer
representatives, extension representatives [governmental
and non-governmental], agro-industrialists and other stakeholders.
The Centre Director will convene this committee under the
chairmanship for the Provincial Director of Agriculture;
the Centre Director will also provide the secretariat.
A19. The purpose of this committee
will be to ensure that each of the new research proposals
addresses issues of relevance to the clients and complies
with agreed resource allocation resulting from the priority
setting process.
A20. Once research proposals meet
the test of relevance, they will further be developed to
meet the rigorous of good science. The proposals will then
be presented before Scientific Committees [SCs], which may
comprise representatives from the universities, international
research organisations, the donor community, and governmental
and non-governmental organisations. The committee will be
convened by the appropriate Assistant Director.
A21. Once the proposals meet the
criteria of relevance and scientific rigour, they will then
be submitted to the Research Co-ordination Committee [RCC]
for resource allocation. The RCC will be convened by the
Deputy Director[s] and attended by all the Assistant Directors.
It is here that proposed projects will be rationalised in
view of available resources. The proposals that are recommended
for funding by this committee will then be submitted for
approval by the KARI Board of Management.
A22. The Board of Management will
evaluate the merit of the proposed research portfolio and
the corresponding budgetary implications. If they agree
that the proposed research agenda conforms to the Institute's
mission and are satisfied that resources are available,
then they will approve the workplan and budget for implementation.
A23. After approval of workplans
and budgets by the Board, resources will be allocated by
Centre Directors according to workplans.
ANNEX 2: PLANNING, MONITORING
AND EVALUATION
Logical Framework to implement
institutionalised PM & E in KARI [9 July, 1998].
|
Narrative Summary
|
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
|
Means of Verification
|
Risks and Assumptions
|
|
Goal
Institutional capacity strengthened
|
The conversion of physical, financial and
human resource capital into appropriate
technology is significantly increased
|
Reports of internal and external programme
reviews.
Reports of interviews with donor agencies
and stakeholders.
KARI Annual Reports
Donor Reports
|
Collaboration with other national and regional
institutions is established.
Staff levels are maintained and motivated.
Experiences are documented and transferred.
|
|
Purpose
A fully functional and sustainable planning,
monitoring and evaluation [PM & E] capacity
is established in KARI.
|
Relevant planning, monitoring and evaluation
formats and procedures are institutionalised
two years after project completion.
Resources allocated to priorities at institutional,
programme and project levels.
|
Reports from PM & E unit
KARI Annual Reports
Donor Reports
PM & E Manual
|
PM & E is integrated into the decision
making process at different levels.
|
|
Narrative Summary
|
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
|
Means of Verification
|
Risks and Assumptions
|
|
Outputs
1. Appropriate planning methods standardised
and implemented at institutional, programme
and project levels.
2. Appropriate monitoring methods standardised
and implemented t institutional, programme
and project levels.
3. Appropriate evaluation and ex-post impact
assessment methods standardised and implemented
t institutional, programme and project levels.
|
1.1 Tthe concept of the logical framework
and other key management tools, adopted
with 50% of research proposals at project
and programme levels presented in logframe
format with referenced key management information
sources by 2000.
1.2 KARI Strategic Plan presented
in logframe format by the end of 1998.
1.3 KARI Corporate Plan developed
in logframe format, incorporating all KARI
activities to address the Strategic Plan
Outputs, by end of 1999.
2.1 Formal monitoring of the KARI corporate
Plan completed by 2003.
2.2 60% of programmes monitored on a biennial
basis by the year 2000, and 100% by 2003.
2.3 60% of projects monitored every six
months by 1999, and 100% by 2001.
3.1 KARI Strategic Plan evaluated by 2003.
3.2 60% of programme evaluated mid-term
by 2001 and 100% by end of 2004.
3.3 60% of projects evaluated mid-term
by 1999 and 100% by 2002.
|
KARI Annual Reports
Strategic Plan
Corporate Plan
Project progress reports
Research activity and programme proposals.
Donor Reports.
Programme reviews.
|
Appropriate resources available for priority
programmes
|
|
Narrative Summary
|
Objectively Verifiable Indicators and
Means of Verification
|
Risks and Assumptions
|
|
Activities
1. Tools, processes and information
needs assessment.
1.1 Identification of consultant.
1.2 Agree terms of reference for consultant
1.3 Prepare briefing document for consultant
on past activities and current status of
PM & E in KARI
1.4 Consultant and taskforce interaction
and briefing.
1.5 Development and implementation of sample
survey for three management levels [institutional,
programme and project].
1.6 Consensus building workshop for information,
tools and process needs.
1.7 Development and presentation of report
on the information, tools and process needs.
2. Design and develop tools and processes
for planning, monitoring and evaluation.
2.1 Taskforce to design and develop plan
to implement recommendations in the tools,
process and information needs report [1.7
above].
2.2 Consensus building workshop for taskforce
plan.
2.3 Develop terms of reference for tools
and processes consultant.
2.4 Consultant to design tools and processes
for planning monitoring and evaluation.
2.5 Consensus building workshop for tools
and processes.
2.6 Development of document on tools and
processes, to be used in production of planning,
monitoring and evaluation manual.
3. Training needs assessment and training
in the use of planning, monitoring and evaluation
tools and processes.
3.1 Taskforce to identify groups and personnel
for training.
3.2 Taskforce to identify trainers and consultants
for implementing training
3.3 Development of training programme.
3.4 Impact assessment.
4. Implementation of planning, monitoring
and evaluation
4.1 Taskforce to identify the institutional
roles of KARI staff members in the agreed
planning, monitoring and evaluation processes.
4.2 Development of a planning, monitoring
and evaluation support group, including
staffing levels, personnel and terms of
reference.
4.3 Production of draft implementation manual
for planning, monitoring and evaluation.
4.4 Consensus building workshop to discuss
and finalise manual.
4.5 Disband taskforce.
|
Inputs and Budget
Inputs required are consultancy services,
workshop materials, subsistence, travel
and per diems for staff on training, publication
costs for manuals and training materials,
transport costs for data collection.
Approximate budget requirements [#stg]
Consultancy time and costs 45,000
Workshop costs [staff costs, materials].......
15,000
Training costs 5,000
Data collection 1,000
Manual production and publication .............10,000
Total [#stg] 76,000
|
|
A24. During implementation, the reporting
will be quarterly and annual. Quarterly reports will include
progress at activity to output level, constraints, proposed
solutions for constraints, workplans and budgets for the
following quarter. Annual reports will dwell on expected
outputs and research highlights.
A25. Monitoring will normally be
biannual by Programme Leaders.
May 13, 1998.
Annex 3: MEMBERS OF THE PM &
E TASKFORCE
Core Members
Dr. A.N. Mbabu, AD, Socio-economics
Dr. H. Recke, KARI/EU
Mr. J. Mungai, KARI/MIAC
Mr. P.S. Gachanja, CD, Embu
Mrs. J. Kiragu, KARI, Naivasha
Mr. D. Kilambya, KARI, NARL.
Mrs. L. Kimani, AD, Training
Mr. H. Ondatto, Ag. AD, Training
Invited Members
Mr. J. Sutherland, KARI/DFID
Dr. R.M. Kiome, AD, Soil & Water
Ms. K. Margo, KARI/NLO
Mr. L. Sprey, KARI/NLO
Dr. J. Wafula, AD, animal Health
Dr. J. Wamuongo, Donor Co-ordination Office
Ms. A. Nyaga, Senior Supplies Officer
Mr. A. Okech, ARF, KARI HQ.
Mr. H. Langat, KARI HQ
Mr. J. Weindaba, CA, KARI HQ
Mr. S. Ndei, SPO, KARI HQ
Mr. J.P. Karanja, Principal Maintenance Superintendent
Mr. W.S. Wesonga, Estates Manager, KARI
Secretariat, PM & E Unit
Mrs. M. Chemweno - KARI HQ
Mr. N. Mutisya - KARI HQ
Mrs. G.W. Ongoma - KARI HQ
Mr. V. Waireri - KARI HQ
Mr. P.N. Mwangi - KARI HQ
|