L&F+MEL+meeting+groupwork+on+framework

Livestock and Fish Monitoring, evaluation and learning planning meeting

Group work on improving the MEL framework document

Objective of the group discussions: what has to be done to improve the MEL framework? Participants were divided into three groups to discuss different sections of the framework and highlight the gaps and inconsistencies and further give concrete suggestions for improvements.

What has to be done to improve the MEL framework?
 * **[|Group 1]: Organisational performance**
 * pp.1-17** || **Group 2: Learning and reflection; outcome and impact monitoring pp.17-25** || **Group 3: Knowledge management, research agenda and terminologies pp.25-end** ||
 * Patricia Rainey || Lucy Lapar || Raymond Brandes ||
 * An Notenbaert || Michael Kidoido || Stuart Worsley* ||
 * Keith Child || Malcolm Dickson || Nils Teufel ||
 * Kathleen Colverson* || Tom Randolph || Jane Poole ||
 * Harrison Rware || Isabelle Baltenweck* || Alessandra Galie ||
 * Dorine Odongo || James Rao || Joyce Wanderi ||
 * Facilitators

A work plan and a budget is needed for this || Need a section on data management : where does it fit in the graphic? ||
 * Group 1: organizational performance- reviewing page 1 to page 17 of the framework**
 * **Gaps and inconsistencies** || **Concrete suggestions for improvements** ||
 * The CRP is not an organization, but a program || Change from organizational performance to program performance ||
 * What is MEL and how does it contribute to the Theory of Change of L&F? || Include this in the introduction ||
 * Attributions vs contribution || Expand relevance to L&F ||
 * Figure 3 on performance needs to reflect on the relevance to L&F ||  ||
 * Who is the MEL team? || Identify and include more stakeholder involvement ||
 * How do we influence the consortium to adapt and learn on evaluations? || Need to include a paragraph to capture this ||
 * What is the vision or mission of MEL? || Need a paragraph to capture this: could come from the results of ice breaker ||
 * How is MEL supporting research functions and capacity development of L&F partners? || Need to have a help desk: portfolio document for PPMC
 * Projects must budget for evaluations and M&E plan || Include a statement on this ||
 * Portfolio monitoring : what is the contribution of projects to L&F framework and IDOs || Include a paragraph to capture this ||
 * How do all L&F themes contribute to MEL framework? ||  ||
 * How to involve stakeholders (development) in developing the MEL framework ||  ||
 * Influence rather than mandate || Need a graphic to illustrate this and how the VC activities contribute to L&F IDOs and the consortium wide IDOs and SLOs ||
 * Portfolio quality report should be portfolio performance report: how does this contribute to other required reports? || Include a paragraph on how all the data collected will be used.
 * There are obvious overlaps between groups || The figure on page 10 should capture the interaction between and among the different five components ||


 * Group 2: Learning and reflection outcome and impact monitoring – reviewing pp. 17-25**
 * **Gaps & Inconsistencies** || **Concrete suggestions for Improvement** ||
 * Technology development (basic research) including international public goods (IPG) || Agree on an impact pathway for technology discovery ||
 * Integrate approach/partnership/VC – what can we learn? ||  ||
 * Some elements are missing, so a new structure is required || Proposed new structure:

Presentation of the different approaches for learning and reflections; a) Theory of Change & Innovation Platforms b) Reflective monitoring c) Impact Assessment d) OM etc

Application to research components and by L&F ‘Themes’: a) Technology discovery b) Identification of best bets c) Pilot testing of best bets d) etc.. x) Stakeholder involvement || Intermediate IDOs to be more project based IDOs – L&F evaluations ||  || Learning and reflections Outcomes and impact reflection ||   ||
 * Reflexive monitoring in IS research, there’s confusion ||  ||
 * 2 points needed;
 * Re-organise the 2 components, (to decrease the overlaps)

There is need to expand ‘Evidence Base’ concept || Rethink and enlarge boundaries ||
 * Group 3: Knowledge management, research agenda and terminologies reviewing pp. 25 to end**
 * **Gaps & Inconsistencies** || **Concrete suggestions for Improvement** ||
 * Communications – illustrations on figure 6 are inconsistent with the description in the text || Revise, align and add ||
 * There is need for wider ‘learning’ (not just Theory of Change and how to change learning.
 * Link to other L&F components – Knowledge management, communications, capacity development and ILRI KM || The figure on page 10 should be revised for more clarity, add and enlarge boundaries and show interactions between the different components ||
 * Research indicator – Bank missing but some overlaps with DIB || Rethink holistically and translate needed systems and links ||
 * Research agenda missing for MEL how change happens, addressing development challenges, how does learning influence future R&D || Need to define a MEL research agenda and influence other themes ||
 * MEL Team – add lessons learned || Combining research agenda of MEL and other themes and projects within L&F ||
 * Definitions and Glossary**
 * Need to have the following terms defined:**
 * Sustainability
 * Align document with definitions
 * Expand activities and broaden it to show who is tasked with doing what
 * Learning – using evidence to change understanding and practice
 * Add Research for Development
 * Scaling up/out – align or scaling and roll-out
 * Global Public Goods/International Public Goods (GPGs/IPGs)
 * Knowledge Management versus Information Management
 * Comments:**
 * There is need to expand our boundaries and the concept of learning is needed and how MEL feeds into that
 * MEL is both research based as well as support to the L&F research
 * Phases of L&F are assumptions. Thus, it is better to align MEL to activities and overarching framework than phases of L&F?
 * What should the framework not do? What are the boundaries of MEL?
 * Need to include linked projects and external partners who need to implement the framework
 * Think about who is missing in this room


 * __MEL boundaries__****__ : what can the MEL team do/not do?__**
 * Who are the partners outside the boundary?
 * The boarders/space within which MEL operates will change or move over time, and there is need to define how to identify this change
 * Who is the audience? Different stakeholders and participants require different MEL outputs
 * Prioritization : What are we required to do? Meet donor and reporting requirements and monitor our progress internally.
 * The way the framework is coming out, it's like the MEL team is responsible for the learning . Should this be the case?
 * T o what degree is the framework embedded to the themes across the whole CRP?
 * Improve focus of our theme and VC strategies and harmonize those with the consortium strategies
 * Have and agree on key principles in conducting M&E in the value chains, with some flexibility and deviation as well. There are about 160 projects some with M&E and others without; how to bring together?
 * M&E is only done when it’s a main requirement by donor, otherwise as researchers this normally is not a main thing.
 * Requirements for consortium are separate tasks quantitative – mapping of bilateral projects, evidence based
 * IDOs are already defined – setting principles that exist in bilateral projects is not quite difficult.

Reconstitute the existing MEL committee and expand it: retain the core group, but invite experts in different fields as needed
 * Way forward for improving the MEL framework (Keith Child)**