The Need for Monitoring and Evaluation

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have used monitoring and evaluation, or mergers and acquisitions, to evaluate programs for decades. For the European Union, United Nations, World Bank and other development banks, M&E is involved in their organizational processes. Many have also published M&E toolkit to promote understanding and uptake. Associations in countries such as the Swiss Evaluation Association (SEVAL) have also promoted M&A policies and government funded programs. There is usually not one set of models to choose from when evaluating a program, but several. Procedures for monitoring the progress of projects are rarely established. It is therefore not surprising that the quality of these control procedures can vary considerably. By quality we mean locality, relevance, reliability, accuracy, user-friendliness and in any case reliability. If tracking procedures do not have these characteristics, they are unlikely to improve performance or increase accountability. This article examines the monitoring of projects in three industrial sectors: government, NGOs and construction. The version was chosen because it has a history of successful use of an external project screen. Differences in project monitoring, evaluation and management will be discussed, as well as in results-based management (RBM) and how it can be used in the context of project monitoring and evaluation. Here are examples of approaches and tools that can be used. We describe a nine-step project monitoring process, the opportunities required for success, and the potential risks of that success. The development of outsourcing has sparked an interest in the evaluation and monitoring of projects. How can an entity know how a project is progressing – if the outsourcing has left it with no internal knowledge in the field? The truth is – it can’t happen. The government is increasingly using outside contractors for design, construction and even supervision. It is now feared that the pendulum has gone too far. A recent investigation of the U.S. Federal Government’s Deepwater Project found that the client did not have engineering and procurement experts. (Karp, 2007, p. A16) Heads of government are now concerned that entrepreneurs have been given too much control and that the House does not have enough experience. The use of new technology can lead to a situation like outsourcing. One of the most documented errors is the implementation of ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) systems. ERP systems replace old existing systems with new technology. No client organization has experience with what the end result will look like or how you will get there. The customer depends on the supplier and the system integrator. This category can include new technologies such as VoIP, wireless or new technologies. If an internal company does not have sufficient knowledge to assess progress, it is entirely up to the supplier. This dependence has sometimes turned out to be wrong. Another reason to watch out for is that there is more money. Projects are multiplying – but the results are not necessarily better. In the oil and gas industry, rising oil prices have exacerbated the impact, but evidence shows that projects often fail to return to baselines. Booz Allen’s research found that over 35% of projects required at least 10% more in terms of cost, program, or both. And for large projects (costing over $ 1 billion), the numbers were worse: around 40%. (Boz Allen, 2006, p. 3). There is also increasing pressure from government and NGOs to prove the value of money. Data and sponsors demand transparency and accountability. The increase in the number of NGOs has led to competition for charities. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (ODA) found that performance-based reporting improved the ability of NGOs to compete for funding, leading skeptics or lawmakers to believe that the agency’s programs give significant results. to have and deliver value. (Binendijk, 2000, p. 7) On the contrary, if such programs offer no value, they will be examined more carefully. With the spread of the Internet, this control has become easier. The failure is becoming more and more evident. To improve results, more institutions will try to monitor projects, including many of the aforementioned projects. No one has used RBM. The TNS project used an external meter, which was introduced in 1997 and costs less than 22 million. However, it was not clear who to address the matter to. The issue was raised with choral company TNS plc, which responded with bonds that could be used to raise funds. But it was not really the responsible place. (ESC Commission, 2001) US government projects in Florida use an internal team created in 1997 to oversee information technology projects. A special steering committee will be set up to assess the projects. Before the Aspire project, PeopleSoft, the host team, did not have a complete knowledge of materials, but was familiar with project management and technology. Wisconsin’s work in the United States had an external monitor, but subsequent evaluations revealed that roles and responsibilities had never been defined. Successful salespeople hired people who lacked the professional knowledge and hands-on approach. (Virchow Krauss, 2004, p. 5) RBM addresses the issues that have arisen: clear definitions of roles and responsibilities, expertise in the field and use of practical approaches. The construction makes it possible to know how the surveillance can be effective. Imagine building a vacation home in Spain but living near London. Will you be sure that a broker represents your interests? More importantly, is this your lender? The answer is probably no. “Your lender will likely wait until you hire a project supervisor. This project monitor evaluates change orders, visits websites, identifies precautionary issues and periodically reviews a schedule. It monitors progress monthly, monitors progress periodically. , critical paths and maybe even progress photos In case of absence, he or she will be your representative to ensure that your interests (and your lender) are represented. An example of successful project monitoring is Project King’s Gate at Regency Homes of Scotland Bank of Ireland signed an agreement with an architectural firm to oversee the project, the site posed two challenges: The land that was part of the Eastfield Playgrounds was a hidden area because it was contaminated by chromium deposited and decommissioned in the early 1990s. (SLC, 2005) Vo before development had to go through a complete disinfection process. ntral was problematic because it was too long. Monitor was able to resolve these issues during the pre-programming period, avoiding contract delays and costs. The pre-contract period was long due to two issues, but the on-site work went as planned. Spending has increased from the original budget, but not dramatically, mainly due to the problem of repression. The construction of the 111 apartments will be completed in July 2007 at a final cost of 10 million euros. Turnkey contracts for commonly used facilities are another example where project oversight is commonly used and has benefits. A turnkey contract creates a situation where the customer is completely dependent on the supplier for the delivery of a turnkey installation. Surveillance provides calm in many ways. This ensures that progress keeps pace with actual progress, reducing the risk of non-compliance and increasing the likelihood of hidden deviations at the end of the project. On-site screen visits can improve workplace safety. (Sweet, 1999, pp. 125-126) In construction, monitoring engineering and project progress is considered an important control. (Kimans, p. 94) Outsourcing does not eliminate the need for control. It changes the way the organization ensures that controls are implemented and enforced effectively. All projects have problems. It is important to have adequate monitoring methods in place to identify problems, identify appropriate adjustments and integrate them into the project management system.