Theory in Practice

With so much theory around adaptive management available, it can be daunting to try to put it into practice in a holistic way. Much of what I know about adaptive management relates to the actual implementation of a program or project itself. Who knew that the planning process would end up being complex and adaptive in its own right? 

I recall the first time I had to develop a logframe. I had no idea what I was supposed to do. I couldn’t see how the boxes all linked together, I felt that the information it contained was repetitive, I had no idea what my colleagues were talking about when they carried on about ‘assumptions.’ I wanted to cry. I wanted to quit. I was pretty sure this was something I never wanted to have to work on again. 15 years later, I have a far different view of logframes. Once I had understood them – once someone had decoded them for me – I understood their utility. They are a project organizational tool; they are an accountability tool; and they are basically the (over)simplification of projects aiming to address complex issues. However, while I appreciate their utility in some respects, I am also aware of just where they fall short.

A few months ago, my colleagues and I invested significant amount of time to design a project that championed local ownership, accountability to beneficiaries and adaptive management. We were explicit about our methodologies and about how the results would be defined by the beneficiaries during the inception phase of the project: our philosophy was that success would be more likely to be achieved if the beneficiaries could decide what success looked like – for them. Beyond the jargon, the proposal was good. Good enough to be approved by the donor and for us to get excited about a project with a truly adaptive management approach. But when it came time to sign the contract, the dreaded ‘payment by results’ phrase magically appeared. Out of nowhere, we were told we needed to have ‘pre-defined results’ before the project could move ahead.

It’s amazing how I feel completely inundated with blog posts and academic papers and policy briefs on moving M&E in a direction that accommodates complexity and systems thinking; embracing adaptive management and political economy analysis (PEA). Only a year ago, what felt like a handful of knowledgeable people testing the waters with some (much needed) discussion on how M&E in development programming needs to change now feels like a bit of a tidal wave. Or maybe it’s only me, because I’m actively looking for information and have gone down a bit of a rabbit hole on adaptive management in development.

Back with some exciting news!  'Making M&E Work in Development Programme: A Practitioner's Handbook' is a product of more than 15 years in development, and 10 years in M&E. It's purpose is many: as an introduction to M&E in development programming to people new to the field; as a training handbook; and as go-to guide for established development practitioners that understand M&E but struggle with operationalizing the M&E framework for their project or programme.  The book is available through Amazon and other online websites. You can purchase it here: https://www.amazon.com/Making-Work-Development-Programmes-Practitioners-ebook/dp/B07PK5RBKS/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=denika+blacklock&qid=1556249243&s=gateway&sr=8-1-spell

You can now purchase my new book on Amazon Kindle edition here Paperback edition here Happy reading!

Originally posted on the Australian Evaluation Society Blog ( AES Blog )   November 2018 By Denika Blacklock I have been working in development for 15 years and have specialised in M&E for the past 10 years. In all that time, I have never been asked to design an M&E framework for or undertake an evaluation of a project which did not focus entirely on a logframe. Understandably, it is a practical tool for measuring results – particularly quantitative results – in development projects. However, as the drive for increased development effectiveness and, thankfully, more accountability to stakeholders has progressed, simply measuring what we have successfully done (versus what we have successfully changed or improved) requires more than just numbers. More concerning is the fact that logframes measure linear progression toward preset targets. Any development practitioner worth their degree can tell you that development – and development projects – is never linear, and a...