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

  1. Planning, monitoring and evaluation are sequentially related concepts.

  2. 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.

  3. Monitoring measures the efficiency with which inputs and budgets are converted into outputs.

  4. 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].

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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:

    • Strategic planning

    • Priority setting

    • Annual review and planning meetings

    • Mid-term and end-term project reviews

    • Field and open days

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