Abdullahi Mohamed Abdullahi Thesis Complete

Accord University
Knowledge & Vision
_____________________________________________________________________
This dissertation is submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the
Faculty of Humanities and Social Science from Accord University-Somalia.
Department of Arts
Department of Monitoring and Evaluation
Supervisor:
MR. Charles Saroufim
Submitted by:
Abdullahi Mohamed Abdullahi
MOGADISHU – SOMALIA
March 2023
MONITORING & EVALUATION SYSTEM AND PROJECT SUCCESS
A CASE STUDY OF MOGADISHU SOMALIA
Accord University Master of Law Page: 2

DECLARATION
I, Abdullahi Mohamed Abdullahi Declare This thesis is my original work and has not been
presented for a degree in any other University.
Signature -----------------------------------------------------Date----------------------------------------

SUPERVISOR APPROVAL
This proposal/thesis has been submitted for examination with my approval The Accord
University
Supervisor(s)
MR. Charles Saroufim
Signature - Date: 4/2/2023

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, heartfelt thanks to Allah, who deserves to be thanked at any time and
every condition in life. During our research, I enjoyed considerable support from so many
groups who are very important in our life, and they were really cooperative, knowledgeable,
creative, and constantly encouraging. Second, I would like to express my gratitude to Charles
Saroufim my respected supervisor, for his advice and kind assistance. Special thanks also to
my family, especially my parental love, moral assistance, advice, and guidance: I would not
reach this stage without them. I salute them all. I wish to acknowledge my colleagues,
students, and Friends who consciously or unconsciously have helped this work to be done.

Contents
DECLARATION………………………………………………………………………………
Error! Bookmark not defined.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT…………………………………………………………………….5
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………...9
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………...10
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………...11
DEFINITION OF
TERMS………………………………………..……………………...VIIError! Bookmark
not defined.
CHAPTER
ONE………………………………………...……………………………………Error!
Bookmark not defined.
1.0 Introduction ..............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.1 Background of The Study ........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3 Objectives of The Study...........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.1 General Objectives
…………………………………………………………………Error! Bookmark not
defined.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
…………………………………………………………………Error! Bookmark not
defined.
1.4 Research Questions ..................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.7 Justification of the
Study…………………………………………………………………..Error! Bookmark not
defined.
1.8 Scope of The
Study………………………………………………...……………………...Error! Bookmark
not defined.
1.9 Limitation .................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER
TWO………………………………………..……………………………………Error!
2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Theoretical Review ................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1 Tools and procedures used in Mogadishu………………………………………...……10
2.1.2 Process of M&E System and Project Success………………………………………….10

2.1.2.1. Monitoring…………………………………………………………………………...10
1.2.2. Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 11
2.1.2.3. Definition of Monitoring and Evaluation……………………...…………………….11
2.1.2.4. Resources Availability ……………………...………………………………………12
2.1.2.5. Project
Scope………………………………………………………………………...Error!
2.1.2.6. Project
Control………………………………...…………………………………….Error!
2.1.2.7.Leadership……………………………………………………………………………Er
ror! Bookmark not defined.
2.1.2.8. Projects Skills ...................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1.2.9. Principles and Guideline for monitoring
…………………………...……………….Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1.2.10. Guidelines for Project Evaluation…………...…………………………………….
Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1.2.11.Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
…………………………………………..……….Error! Bookmark not defined.8
2.1.2.12. Monitoring and Evaluation in Development

Programs…………………….………Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1.2.13. M&E Systems for Complex Organizations
………………………………………..Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1.2.14. Project
Success……………….…………………………………………………….Error! Bookmark
not defined.
2.1.3. Relation between M&E and project success
………………………………………….2Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3. Critical Review and Research Gap ………………………………..…………………….25
2.4.Summary…………………………………………………………………………………26
CHAPTER THREE………………………………………………...………………………41
3.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 41
3.1 Research Design...................................................................................................................... 41
3.2 Research Population................................................................................................................ 41
3.3 Sample Size............................................................................................................................. 41

3.4 Sampling Procedure ................................................................................................................ 42
3.5 Research Instruments .............................................................................................................. 42
3.6 Data Collection Procedure ...................................................................................................... 42
3.7.1 Before the administration of the questionnaires………………………….…………….42
3.7.2 During the administration of the questionnaires……………………….………...…….42
3.7.3 After the administration of the questionnaires…………………...…………………….42
3.8 Data Processing and analysis .................................................................................................. 30
3.9 Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................................ 30
CHAPTER FOUR…………………………………………………….…………………….44
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 441
4.0
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………….……………………….441
4.1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the
respondents…………………………...……..441
4.2 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................... 345
4.3 Tools and Methods used by M&E .......................................................................................... 50
4.4 Project Performance ................................................................................................................ 51
CHAPTER FIVE……………………………………………………...…………………….42
5.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 42
5.1 Findings................................................................................................................................... 42
5.2 Conclusion .............................................................................4Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 44
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………...…..45
APPENDIX I: INTRODUCTION LETTER..………………………………………………..48
APPENDIX 2 – QUESTIONNAIRE……….………………………………………………..61

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2. 1: Relationship Between the Variables.......................................................................... 32
Figure 4.2. 1 practical experience in monitoring and evaluation system in your organization
33
Figure 4.2.2 Do you have direct involvement in the Monitoring and Evaluation System of the
organizations ................................................................................................................................. 34
Figure 4.2.3 organization have a plan that guides monitoring and evaluation when
implementing the program/project ................................................................................................ 46
Figure 4.2.4 stakeholders involved in planning monitoring and evaluation of projects .............. 35
Figure 4.2. 5 Guided monitoring and evaluation plan activities in organization ......................... 35
Figure 4.2. 6 the monitoring and evaluation activities have ........................................................ 36
Figure 4.2. 7 separate budget is allocated for monitoring and evaluation activities .................... 36
Figure 4.2. 8 Organization use the logical framework approach (log frame) so as to plan
about M&E activities in the organization ..................................................................................... 38
Figure 4.3. 1 The tools and methods used in Monitoring and evaluation in the organization
38
Figure 4.3. 2 Do you have any difficulties in using the M&E system? ........................................ 51
Figure 4.4. 1 How do you rate the performance of your project compared to other NGOs? 40
Figure 4.4. 2 relationship between monitoring & evaluation and project performance ............... 41

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.3 1 Table1 population and sampling in the study .......................................................................... 42
Table 4. 1. 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of Respondents (N=50) .................................... 44
Table 4.2. 1 How often do you document lessons learned on the project implementation ......... 37
Table 4.3. 1 the applicability of these tools and methods used by M&E in your organization? . 38
Table 4.4. 1 In which stage do make Monitoring and Evaluation in the project 51
Table 4.4. 2 the factors necessary for improving project performance in NGOs? ....................... 52

ABSTRACT
Without project monitoring and evaluation, it is impossible to meet project objectives and
maintain a high level of employee performance. In projects, Monitoring and Evaluation is
one of the critical elements of the project management cycle. This study focuses monitoring
and evaluation on project performance in NGOs. The specific objectives of this study were:
Practices of monitoring and evaluation done by NGOs, tools and techniques use in
monitoring and evaluation and to establish the relationship between monitoring and
evaluation on project performance of non-Government organizations. The study design was
descriptive. Primary data was collected for the analysis, the target population was 33
monitoring evaluation team and 17 project team leaders; the sample of this research was
selected using a stratified random sampling method. The study found the monitoring and
evaluation plan prepared by the involvement project managers, m & e experts, team leaders
and consultants. Most respondents say, there is a separate budget for monitoring and
evaluating projects activtes and also said no specific budget allocated monitoring and
evaluating activities. The common tools and techniques are used logical frameworks, theory-
based evaluations, formal surveys, rapid appraisal, and participatory methods. The factor
affected in using the M&E system is the role of management in the operations of the M&E.
According relationship between Monitoring & evaluation and performance There is a positive
relation, (85%) of respondents are agreed there is a related m&e and project performance.
The researcher concluded that contributing to factors necessary for improving project
performance in NGOs are project planning and quality, employee skills, identification
problems in planning, and environmental scanning. The researcher recommended that all
NGOs focus on M&E to improve project performance; this is because monitoring and
evaluation assists projects in understand the environment in which they operate and how to
proceed.

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
M&E : Monitoring and Evaluation

NGOs : Non-Governmental Organizations
CPA : Critical Path Analysis
CPM : Critical Path Method
CV : Cost of Variance
CPI : Cost Performance Index
UNAIDS : United Nations AIDS Program
PASSIA : Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs
WVI : World Vision International
OECD : Economic Co-operation and Development
LFA : logical framework approach
DDG : Danish Demining Group
AVR : Armed Violence Reduction
MIS : Management Information System
IFRC : The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
UNDP : United Nations Development Programme
SPSS : Statistical Packages for Social Sciences

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.0. Introduction
In chapter one the researcher discussed the study based on the following sub-headings,
background of the study, statement of the problem, research objectives, research questions,
significance of the study, scope of the study and its limitation, and operational definitions of
terms.
1.1. Background of the Study
Monitoring and evaluation activities are said to have been born in the US in the 1950s. It was
started by one institute of higher learning by the name of "Urban Institute of the USA" that
wanted to evaluate the efficiency of government programs as compared to what the
government was promising to do. The exercise to evaluate government activities by this
higher Institute of learning was named "promise and performance" and was publicized in
1979. Since then, monitoring and evaluation programs have spread all over the world, Africa
inclusive, and it mostly attracted the attention of higher institutes of learning and research
centers (Ngarambe, 2015).
Participatory monitoring and evaluation are one of many approaches to ensure that the
implementation of the different projects within the action plan or smaller individual projects
leads to the expected outcomes, monitoring and evaluation are separate practices dedicated to
the assessment of your NGOs overall performance. Monitoring is a systematic and long-term
process that gathers information in regards to the progress made by an implemented project.
Evaluation is time-specific and it "s performed to judge whether a project has reached its
goals and delivered what is expected according to its original plan (Philip et al., 2008).
Developed countries, particularly those of the Organization for European Co-operation and
Development (OECD), have had as many as 20 or more years of experience in M&E, while
many developing countries are just beginning to use this key public management tool. The
experiences of the developed countries are instructive and can provide important lessons for
developing countries (Kusek & Rist, 2004).
Developing countries now perform regular monitoring and evaluation activities.
These range from comprehensive national evaluation systems in countries such as India and
Malaysia to basic monitoring of selected projects in many countries in Africa and the Middle

East (Tache, 2011). In Africa, the South African government has placed increasing
importance on Monitoring and Evaluation during its third term of office since democracy.
The imperative was to focus and strengthen monitoring and evaluation capacity across all
spheres of government (Mackay, 2006).
There are several Non-Governmental Organizations in Rwanda and World Vision
International is one of them. As a strong and big organization, World Vision International
Rwanda has to move with the modern trend of doing things especially the formal way of
presenting accountability both in terms of funds and performance. Monitoring and evaluation
are some of the most appropriate ways this can be done especially as an organization it has
some donors and benefactors to be accountable to. To understand this well we need to know
what monitoring and evaluation is (Ngarambe, 2015)
A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result.

The project requires an organized set of work efforts that are planned in a level of detail that
is
progressively elaborated upon as more information is discovered, to establish and operate an
effective project; all project managers perform several major functions. These functions
enable project managers to create a positive work environment and to provide the
opportunities and incentives. These functions are critical to the performance of any project
manager and project in general. In many projects, monitoring and evaluation is one of the
pillars that support them for effective productivity. Plans are essential but they are not set in
concrete. If they are not working, or if the circumstances change, then plans need to change
too. Monitoring and evaluation are both tools that help a project or organization know
when plans are not working, and when circumstances have changed (Kloppenborg, 2008).
In Somalia, the monitoring and Evaluation Directorate was established in 2016. It has four
units namely Performance, Monitoring and Review, Evaluation and Research, Management
Information System (MIS), and Reporting and Coordination Units. The department is at the
center of sound governance arrangements. The department is crucial for the achievement of
evidence-based policymaking, Result based decision-making, management, and
accountability within the Somali Government. The Directorate for Monitoring and Evaluation
is in charge of the overall monitoring, review, and evaluation of national plans, programs, and
projects to determine if they are achieving their intended objectives. It tracks the progress

before the implementation of national plans, programs, and projects through systematic
monitoring, reviews, assessments, and evaluations (MPIEDS 2018).
In 2009, the Danish Demining Group (DDG) published a Manual on Impact Monitoring for
staff involved in its mine action programs, which is being adapted and used by DDG's Armed
Violence Reduction (AVR) programs. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is a key component
of the s Community Safety Programme (CSP) in Somalia, although DDG acknowledges that
it needs to be strengthened. M&E takes place during the following stages of the program (1)
Participatory Needs Assessment and baseline survey (during the community entry phase), (2)
ongoing monitoring, which involves a mix of staff and volunteer reporting and monitoring
visits by national and international managers and (3) Participatory Impact Assessment, which
takes place once the nine-month CSP cycle has concluded; the M&E team uses household
questionnaires, focus group discussions and interviews with key informants (Naidoo, 2012)
First of all, monitoring and evaluation are essential for you to assess that your project is
achieving set targets. For instance, by monitoring the project's development, you will easily
understand whether strategic changes need to be made and act accordingly. Second,
Monitoring and Evaluation are relevant to donors who need to assess whether your NGO is a
reliable partner. By reviewing milestones and final outcomes of your project, donors will
decide on the accountability of your NGO, upon which further collaborations could be
established (Lewis, 2005).
1.2. Statement of the Problem
In projects, Monitoring and Evaluation is one of the critical elements of the project
management cycle. Thus, organizations especially NGOs, implement project M&E just to
adapt to demands and pressures from funding agencies rather than as a measure to contribute
to project performance (Zall Kusek & Rist, 2004). From many organizations' perspectives,
M&E is provided by organizations to track, analyze and report on relevant information and
data throughout the life cycle of a project. Monitoring and evaluation significantly improve
project performance (Kihuha, 2018). According to (International Federation of Consultancy,
2012), monitoring and evaluation help those involved with community development projects
to assess if progress is being achieved in line with expectations.
Monitoring and evaluation when carried out correctly and at the right time and place are two
of the most important aspects of ensuring the success of many projects. Unfortunately, these

two although known to many project developers tend to be given little priority and as a result,
they are done simply for the sake of fulfilling the requirements of most funding agencies
without the intention of using them as a mechanism of ensuring the success of the projects
(Otieno, 2000).
The common problem facing Somalia is how to run a project successfully and efficiently like
in many other developing countries is to determine whether they have achieved their stated
goals or not. In many NGOs, monitoring and evaluation is something that is used by a
stakeholder to assess project requirements and project performance. Thus study aims to
explore, the impact of monitoring and evaluation in non-governmental organizations and the
benefits of monitoring and evaluation in NGOs.
1.3. Objectives of the Study
1.3.1. General objective
The general objective of this study will be to assess the Monitoring and Evaluation System
and
Project Success the case of Mogadishu.
1.3.2. Specific Objectives
This study aimed to:
i. Analyze M&E tools and procedures used in Mogadishu.
ii. Assess how the process of M&E system affects the Project Success in Mogadishu.
iii. Establish the relationship between Monitoring and Evaluation system and project
success in Mogadishu.
1.4. Research Questions
To achieve the above research objectives, the key following research questions was
answered:
i. What are the M&E tools and procedures used in Mogadishu?
ii. How the processes of M&E affect the Project Success in Mogadishu?

iii. Is there any relationship between M&E and project success in Mogadishu?
1.5. Significance of the Study
This study helped to acquire knowledge about overall monitoring and evaluation system and
particularly in Mogadishu monitoring and Evaluation system. The research showed clearly if
there is a link between effective monitoring and evaluation and projects goals success or
failure and the remedy where necessary to identify monitoring and evaluation weaknesses
and recommendations given out leads to alternatives solutions.
The research showed if there was any relationship between effective monitoring and
evaluation and success or failure of development projects goals achievement.
The study showed practically how monitoring and evaluation system is being implemented
and the research findings showed more light on how effective monitoring and evaluation
relationship with projects goals achievement.
After the successful completion of the research, one copy of this research will be available
to serve for future reference in the field of monitoring and evaluation. This study contributed
to additional wide range of knowledge.
The findings will help development organization to understand the M&E system in
development projects: Effectiveness and Weakness and allocate their limited resources in the
possible best way to achieve recurring successes.
1.6. Limitation of the Study
Even though different efforts have been made, the researcher faced some challenges while
conducting this research. Lack of previous many studies on the subject as it still a new
concept in the literature. Furthermore it is obvious that the time allocated to this research is
too limited. The research expects to meet with uncooperative respondents. The respondents
had a tight agenda so they don‟t have time or if they have it the questionnaire delays for them
to be responded, others were in holidays or official mission that make the researcher to wait
till they were back. Although the researcher met different challenges when conducting this
research, the researcher assessed how the monitoring and Evaluation lead to project success.
1.7. Scope of the Study

1.7.1 Concept Scope
An effective M&E system is more than a statistical task or an external obligation. Thus, it
must be planned, managed, and provided with adequate resources. Managing research
projects for impact implies that the M&E system must be linked overall project operations, as
well as with outputs, outcomes, and impact normally summarized in the project Logframe.
The instruments necessary to build up a good M&E are (1) the use of a logical framework,
(2) the set of monitorable indicators, (3) effective training and the (4) data analysis and
processing.
1.7.2 Content Scope
The research analyzed monitoring and evaluation system (Independent variable) and project
success (dependent variable),of Mogadishu. This study aimed to gathering information about
monitoring and evaluation system effectiveness or weaknesses and its relationship with
projects success of Mogadishu.
1.7.3 Geographical Scope
The study will be conducted in Mogadishu. The study was carried in Mogadishu city only
because the information needed for this study should be found.
1.7.4 Time Scope
The study covered a period of from September 2022 to January 2023.
1.8. Definition of key terms
Monitoring planning
is part of project management that relates to the use of schedules such as Gantt charts to plan
and report progress within the project environment (PMBOK Guide, 2017)

Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring is defined as the routine continuous tracking of the key elements of project
implementation performance inputs activities and outputs, through recordkeeping and regular
reporting while evaluation is the episodic assessment of an ongoing or completed project to
determine its actual impact against the planned impact, efficiency, sustainability,
effectiveness (McCoy, Ngari, & Krumpe, 2005)
Monitoring
Its collection of project performance data with respect to a plan or a practice to produce
performance measures, and report and disseminate performance information (McCoy et al.,
2005)
Performance
This is the success in meeting pre-defined objectives, targets and goals i.e. simple terms
refers to getting the job done or producing the result that you aim at (Harish, 2010)
Performance of a project is multifaceted and may include unit cost, delivery speeds and the
level of client satisfaction (Ling,
2004).
Project
A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service or result

(PMBOK Guide, 2008)
Project Management
refers to the application of knowledge skills, tools and techniques to undertake a project
successfully to add value (PMBOK Guide, 2008)
Technique
Is a defined systematic procedure employed by a human resource to perform an activity to

produce a product or result or deliver a service, and that may employ one or more tools
(PMBOK Guide, 2008).
1.8. Conceptual framework

Independent variable
Strength of Monitoring Team
 Number of M&E team
 Frequency of monitoring
 Stakeholders representation
Dependent variable
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0. Introduction
This chapter highlights what others have already done in the related field of study. This
allows the researcher to know the areas that have been covered and the gap where to bring the
contribution by this study.
2.1. Theoretical Literature Review

2.1.1. Tools and procedures used in Mogadishu
Information supplied by Monitoring and Evaluation Systems is used as a crucial management
tool in achieving results and meeting specific targets. Such information, which reveals the
level of progress, performance and problems, is crucial to managers striving to achieve
results.
Abdullah et al. (2010), argue that these systems are actually one of the “techniques” for
managing program / project implementation, especially because they provide an early
warning to project management about potential or actual problems. Subsequently, when
problems are identified, this may raise questions about assumptions and strategy behind a
given program or project. A work plan is one the two M&E tools used by Mogadishu on an
annual or multi-year summary of tasks, timeframes and responsibilities. It is used as a
monitoring tool to ensure the production of outputs and progress towards outcomes. Work
plans describe the activities to be conducted as well as the expected outputs and outcomes.
The overall process of work planning is a comprehensive tool that helps people translates
information or ideas into operational terms on an annual basis.
The narrative and financial report is the second tool used by Mogadishu on quarterly basis to
measure the progress towards outputs which measures project success. Monitoring and
evaluation are integral parts of a country office‟s overall work plan, which encompasses
many additional areas.
Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation Systems are tools for managing and tracking
progress in programmes and projects. Contrary to Implementation-Focused Monitoring,
Hyväri (2006)argue that Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation Systems capture
information on the success or failure of development program in achieving desired outcomes,
and there is a systematic reporting on the progress towards outcomes. Results Monitoring
Systems are designed to help answer questions such as: What are the goals of the
organization? Are they being achieved? How can achievement be proven? Results-Based
Monitoring and Evaluation Systems differ from Implementation-Focused Monitoring and
Evaluation Systems in that they move beyond an emphasis on inputs and outputs to a greater
focus on outcomes and impacts. So, preference for the Results-Based Monitoring and
Evaluation Systems is justifiable on the basis of their capacity to “tell” the success or failure
as well as impacts and outcomes of programs and projects. By doing so, they have
successfully patched the holes in the former approach.

There are various reasons that make the monitoring activities important and the progress
report necessary. The monitoring is a crucial part of the project management as it is carried
out to observe the progress of the project implementation in order to ensure if inputs,
activities, outputs and project assumptions are proceeding according to the plan and if they
are progressing forwards achieving the project objective. Monitoring is also a tool to identify
problems that may occur during the project implementation, therefore the corrective measures
could be taken before the project is affected adversely. Moreover, as a result of the
monitoring, the progress reports provide a major information input to the project reviews.
(Chinnanon, 2002).
2.1.2. Process of M&E System and Project Success

2.1.2.1. Monitoring
Monitoring is a routine, ongoing, internal activity which is used to collect information on a
program activities, outputs, and outcomes to track its performance. As a process
monitoring systematically collects data against specified indicators at each stage of the
project cycle. Hence there is evidence-based reporting on project progress at every stage,
relative to respective targets and outcomes. And it can be distilled from the foregoing that
monitoring is a detective tool, continuously generating information that enables project
managers to make adjustments during the implementation phase of a project. So, it follows
then, that for the tool to provide accurate, valid and consistent information usable to project
managers, it must be well-designed and functioning smoothly. Poorly designed or weak
monitoring systems will automatically be poor detectors of project performance status.
Problem areas will go unnoticed, and subsequently, appropriate adjustments will not be made
where they should. In a way, such a system will not be of any good use to any organization,
because ideally a good monitoring system should produce continuous streams of current,
valid and timeous data to project management, aiding their day-to-day decision processes on
project. (Kusek, 2004)
2.1.2.2. Evaluation
There are many definitions of evaluation proposed in development literature and M&E
guides. It usually refers to infrequent in-depth studies that seek to understand changes in a
certain situation as a result of a development effort, primarily in order to assess overall merit.

In addition to this judgment-oriented evaluation, Utilization-Focused Evaluation also
promotes improvement-oriented and knowledge creation-oriented evaluation, which is
gaining more interest in the development sector as it encompasses a focus on learning –
practical learning for improvement and theoretical learning to add knowledge. (Gemunden et
al, 2005).
Evaluation relates to longer-term objectives and aims to establish a summary of activities that
have taken place, whether these activities have achieved their desired objectives, and the
extent to which they have had an impact on the lives of the intended beneficiaries. Some
people argue that evaluations should be undertaken by external actors so as to ensure
objectivity and credibility of results, while others promote the idea of engaging the intended
beneficiaries in participatory evaluation or the project implementers in self-evaluation.
(Estrella and Gaventa, 1997).
Evaluation involves the application of rigorous methods to assess the extent to which a
sustainable investment project has achieved its defined impact objectives . Evaluation is
being regarded as a set of activities aimed to determine as systematically and objectively as
possible, the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and impact (both intentional and
unintentional) of a project in the context of its stated objectives. Just as monitoring, the
evaluation process can be divided into three types of evaluation: ex-ante evaluation; mid-term
evaluation and ex-post evaluation. Each of these types shows that evaluation is a continuous
process, as well as monitoring. According to the classical approach, monitoring and
evaluation are clearly defined as distinct activities while the modern approach deals with the
two activities as inseparable components of the same system. (Thomas and Fernandez, 2008)
2.1.2.3. Definition of Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring and evaluation is the process of collecting and analyzing information about the
project that tells you whether you are on track to reach your objectives, and whether or not
the project achieved or contributed to the desired impact.
In order to know whether or not you are on track to achieving your project‟s objectives, you
must monitor the project during implementation as well as evaluate its impact at the end of
the project. Monitoring the progress of the project allows you to adapt the project as needed
to ensure that you attain your objectives. It is necessary to plan for monitoring and evaluation

when you design your project; this will help you both to design an effective project and
ensure that you plan (and budget) for appropriate monitoring and evaluation activities.
(Starling, 2010)
The body of social science known as evaluative research is the systematic collection of
information on the design, implementation and effect of projects on targeted populations.
(Rossi et al 2004). Ideally, the process is divided into an ongoing monitoring system and
periodic evaluations with some special studies designed to answer specific questions about
the project. Monitoring and evaluation are distinct, though related efforts, with different
overall objectives, and, therefore, require differently designed systems.
2.1.2.4. Resources Availability
Ashrafi and Hartman (2002) " stated that one of the most important factors in project success
is the availability of resources, including material and human resources, to ensure that there
are sufficient resources for a project and that the resource allocation can be effectively
applied to the project. Project Budget & Time – project budget and time are absolute
requirement to be met in the process of ERP implementation. Inadequate budget and time
will cause a failure of implementation in this system.
2.1.2.5. Project Scope
According to project management body of knowledge PMBOK (2004) “The preparation of a

detailed project scope statement is critical to project success”. Scope, as a measurable
concept, has been considered as either a criterion or 15 factors.
In fact, a project scope with clearly defined goals and objectives has been verified as a
dimension for project success by (Rose, 2005).
2.1.2.6. Project Control
Time, cost and quality are usually grouped together and known as the "Project Control
Mechanism." This is because they allow a project manager or project team to monitor and
control the project, leading it to success. In fact, “Project control”, which is introduced by

some researchers as a project success factor . (Lester, 2007) directly controls and monitors
some key project success criteria such as the Project‟s Time, Cost, Quality, Change and
especially Scope.
2.1.2.7. Leadership
In all projects almost all activities are dependent on human resources. In other words, it is fast
becoming accepted wisdom that it is people who deliver projects and indeed people, who are
directly involved in a project, facilitate achieving project goals and consequently "Project
Success". A project team and its members are a key part of the human resource list of a
project. Nguyen and Lan (2004) have introduced some project success factors, which are all
related to having a competent project team.
2.1.2.8. Projects Skills
The skills and capacities needed for monitoring and evaluation are the same as those expected
for other key office functions - principally strategic planning, teamwork, analytical abilities,
learning and advisory skills and good formulation skills.
The new framework, does, however, require a change in mindset and behaviors of staff and
partners. One consequence is less focus on inputs and implementation tasks and greater focus
on results (outcomes and outputs).
Offices that find it necessary to continue to monitor inputs and detailed implementation
should ensure that this is not done to the detriment of addressing the results.
2.1.2.9. Principles and Guideline for monitoring
As part of the project management, monitoring of inputs, activities and outputs should be
implemented for the whole duration of the project. Assumptions that were made within the
project logical framework should be monitored to ascertain their effect on the achievement of
the stated outputs and objectives. The work plan indicates which activities are ongoing and
should be monitored for the project progress. The monitoring plan should set measurable
indicators of inputs, the activities and outputs to be used as milestones or performance
standard for monitoring. (Fortune, 2006).
2.1.2.10. Guidelines for Project Evaluation

As evaluation is concerned with the effects or the immediate objectives and goals, it is not
taken so regularly or frequently as monitoring. Obviously, one of the objectives to be
evaluated is the achievement of higher productivity. In this case of farmers, after some of the
farmers have received training and delivery of production inputs such as good seed, fertilizer
and pesticide. In this case, there is a need to evaluate the effects of that output such as to what
extent does the productivity of those farmers increase? Is the increase in productivity as much
as expected? If not why? Can corrective actions be identified? And can adjustments be made
to project implementation? Once the above -mentioned information are available and the
expectation of evaluator are not being achieved, then it is needed to investigate the reasons
for it, whether any external conditions constraints the effect. The purpose of on-going
evaluation such as inception and interim is to identify any problems, which constrain the
effects and try to solve them. The project management itself conducts this type of on-going
evaluation. The midterm evaluation is more systematic and is conducted by the external
evaluator. This also permits the project management to make mid-course corrections in the
way the project implemented. (Chinnanon, 2002).
2.1.2.11. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
M&E planning should begin during or immediately after the project design stage. Early
planning will inform the project design and allow for sufficient time to arrange for resources
and personnel prior to project implementation. M&E planning should also involve those
using the M&E system. Involvement of project staff and key stakeholders ensures feasibility,
understanding, and ownership of the M&E system. The plan should also discuss the purpose
of data collection and analysis in terms of specific monitoring and evaluation functions. Some
key functions of monitoring include compliance, process, results, context, beneficiary, and
organizational monitoring. Typically, a project will use a combination of these monitoring
functions and design data collection and analysis accordingly. For project assessments, the
discussion should identify not only the methods used, but the timing of the assessment event
(i.e., baseline studies, annual reviews, midterm and final evaluations), and the rationale for
selecting evaluators with specific skill sets and independence (i.e., internal versus external
evaluators).(Caldwell, 2002)
It is probably fair to say that planning systems are generally further developed than M&E
systems in most complex organizations. Planning is often considered integral to M&E, which

is why many organizations talk about PME (planning, monitoring and evaluation) systems.
But whilst good planning may be essential for good M&E, planning is also undertaken for a
range of other purposes that have little to do with M&E. This is sometimes a problem for
system designers, who may find it difficult to make desired changes to planning systems in
order to facilitate good M&E. However, the development of consistent planning processes at
different levels of an organization is one of the most common ways in which an
organization‟s M&E system can be tied together.
Indeed, it is relatively common for a complex organization‟s M&E system to be focused

around the planning and reporting stages. The definition, collection, analysis and use of data
(the monitoring and evaluation itself) then becomes a „black box‟ with staff at different levels
completely free to develop their own practices and procedures provided that sufficient
information is generated to report against plans.( Belassi and Tukel, 1996).The Monitoring
and Evaluation plan (M&E plan) is a document used by the project team to help plan and
manage all Monitoring and Evaluation activities throughout a particular project cycle. It also
should be shared and utilized between all stakeholders and sent to donors. It keeps track of
what you should monitor, when you should monitor, who should monitor, and why you
should monitor. The M&E plan should have a rigid flexibility; rigid enough that it is well
thought out and planned but also flexible to account for changes that can improve or identify
better monitoring and evaluation practices. This is especially important in the ever-changing
and fast-moving conflict environment. (Belassi and Tukel, 1996).
In short, the M&E Plan is used for the purposes of management and good practice. It is a
critical tool for planning, managing and documenting data collection. The M&E Plan keeps
track of the progress we are making, monitors the indicators being used as well as their
results. In this way it contributes to the effectiveness of the monitoring and evaluation system
by assuring that data will be collected and on schedule. Additionally, it works to build
ownership and of the M&E system by the project team, creating additional responsibility and
accountability for the success of the M&E activities. (Belassi and Tukel, 1996).
2.1.2.12. Monitoring and Evaluation in Development Programs
Monitoring and evaluation, or M&E, is a sometimes maligned and frequently misunderstood

field or discipline that has grown up on the fringes of international development work. M&E

systems support development by generating relevant, accurate, and timely information that is
used to improve program design and decision-making and thus enhance impact. M&E in the
field of development supports making evidence-based decisions in the implementation of
development interventions, or programs (projects), through rigorous but cost-effective
approaches to collecting and using quality data on program performance, results, and impact.
In conflict or post-conflict situations, or when supporting conflict resolution or related
development efforts, the very volatility defining the peace-precarious environment requires
interventions and related M&E activities to be carefully planned around avoiding unintended,
undesired, and/or counterproductive side-effects. Given challenges that exist to the
implementation of strong M&E systems even under normal development circumstances,
consideration of special peace-precarious challenges broadens our understanding and adds to
the potential to improve practices across the spectrum.(Catherine, 2006)
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) has become a crucial aspect within the management
processes of international development programs. Donors provide funds based on program
proposals (planning) and require regular monitoring of progress and evaluation of
development results and impacts. Most development programs apply a project cycle
management approach – a cyclical process of identification/design, planning,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
Although a substantive amount of knowledge and expertise on M&E for development has
been built up during recent decades, mainstream M&E practices are contested and critically
analyzed by development practitioners and researchers. (Hunter , 2009)
The processes of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are essential in the management of
development programs and have become a separate field of expertise within the development
sector. Quite a substantial amount of the annual budget (two to fifteen percent) of a
development program is typically spent on M&E related activities such as writing proposals,
designing programs, developing program frameworks, compiling action plans, collecting
data, writing reports, developing and maintaining information systems and carrying out
evaluation studies. Although a vast body of M&E knowledge and expertise has been
developed and institutionalized during recent decades, mainstream M&E practices continue
to be critically analyzed by development practitioners and researchers. New methods and
approaches, alternative practices and changing paradigms are emerging from frustrations with

certain M&E models, from M&E systems that no longer seem relevant or effective, from new
insights and perspectives on social change and development processes, or as a result of
innovations by those who like to experiment with new approaches . (Hunter , 2009)
2.1.2.13. M&E Systems for Complex Organizations
According to Jones (2011) a sustainable investment project may be described as a discrete

investment activity, with a specific starting point and a specific ending point, intended to
accomplish specific economic, social and environmental objectives simultaneously.
It comprises a well-defined sequence of investments, which are expected to result in a stream

of specific benefits over time.
Almost all development organisations are expected to have systems that enable them to
collect, analyse, summarise and use information. However, whilst there is a large and
growing range of resources covering monitoring and evaluation (M&E), there is little
guidance or support for those wishing to design M&E systems. The guidance that is available
tends to focus on systems at project or programme level, rather than at country, regional or
international levels. This paper attempts to redress this imbalance by describing a
methodology that can be used to design an M&E system within a complex organisation. A
complex organisation, in this context, is an organisation that works on different levels to
achieve its goals. Typically, a complex organisation will run or support different projects in
different programmes across more than one country or region. The complex organisations
used as examples in this paper include international NGOs (INGOs) and global networks
based mostly in Europe. However, the methodology can be applied to any organisation
carrying out different types of work in different locations. Before outlining the methodology
it is important to clarify what is meant by an M&E system. M&E systems mean different
things to different people, and there are no standard definitions. Some people do not like the
term, and prefer to talk about M&E frameworks or approaches. In this paper an M&E system
(or framework or approach) is understood as „a series of policies, practices and processes that
enable the systematic and effective collection, analysis and use of monitoring and evaluation
information‟. As with any design work, people approach the design of M&E systems in
different ways. There is no blueprint that will suit every situation. For some, design is more
an art than a science, and is about being imaginative and innovative, and thinking outside the
box. Others take a more pragmatic approach. The methodology outlined in this paper is

largely mechanical in nature, and is based on my experiences in helping develop M&E
systems for complex organisations over the past decade.
Almost all development organizations are expected to have systems that enable them to
collect, analyzes, summarize and use information. However, whilst there is a large and
growing range of resources covering monitoring and evaluation (M&E), there is little
guidance or support for those wishing to design M&E systems. The guidance that is available
tends to focus on systems at project level, rather than at country, regional or international
levels. The methodologies used to design an M&E system within a complex organization are:
planning system, indicators, baseline information, participation. (Simister, 2009)
2.1.2.14. Project Success
Project success is measured as the ability to complete the project according to desired
specifications, and within the specified budget and the promised time schedule, while keeping
the customer and stakeholders happy. For proper project completion both planning and
execution need to be properly implemented. Control is used as the monitoring mechanism to
ensure that each of the two phases is properly implemented, corrective actions being
introduced where there are undesired discrepancies between the project‟s plan and its
execution.(Zwikael, 2002)
Project success depends on many factors both within and outside the control of the project
team. One of the aspects that is within the control of the project team is the monitoring and
evaluation.
Almost everything we do in life requires a close monitoring. We take many of our daily
routines for granted but all require follow up for their completion. Projects are no different,
just the scale and complexity of the undertaking. Projects may be millions/billions of dollars
in cost, years in development/construction and need a monitoring system of how they are
being executed. There are many reasons why projects fail to meet their objectives.
Some external events may render a project unneeded. Internal events may cause a project to
be delayed or cost more than expected. Almost all events that bear on project success can be
anticipated and monitored up accordingly. Projects do not succeed only because of a project
monitoring and evaluation system is in place but their potential success is ensured if there is
an appropriate working M&E system effectively utilized. (Kerzner, 1989)

According to Crawford (2002) project success is an important project management issue, it is
one of the most frequently discussed topics and there is a lack of agreement concerning the
criteria by which success is judged (Pinto and Slevin 1988; Freeman and Beale 1992;
Shenhar, Levy, and Dvir 1997; Baccarini 1999).
A review of the literature further reveals that there is, in fact, a high level of agreement with
the definition provided by Baker, Murphy, and Fisher (1988), that project success is a matter
of perception and that a project will be most likely to be perceived to be an “overall success”
if: …….the project meets the technical performance specifications and/or mission to be
performed, and if there is a high level of satisfaction concerning the project outcome among
key people on the project team, and key users or clientele of the project effort.
There is also a general agreement that although schedule and budget performance alone are
considered inadequate as measures of project success, they are still important components of
the overall construct. Quality is intertwined with issues of technical performance,
specifications, and achievement of functional objectives and it is achievement against these
criteria that will be most subject to variation in perception by multiple project stakeholders.
Murphy, Baker and Fisher (1974) used a sample of 650 completed aerospace, construction,
and other projects with data provided primarily by project managers on the factors
contributing to project success. Theirs have been the most cited, used, extensive and
authoritative research in the area of project success factors. They found ten factors that were
found to be strongly linearly related to both perceived success and perceived failure of
projects, while twenty-three project management characteristics were identified as being
necessary but not sufficient conditions for perceived success Baker, Murphy, and Fisher
(1988).
Pinto and Slevin (1987, 1988) and Morris and Hough (1986, 1987) also did an important
work on project success factors in the 1980s. While Morris and Hough (1986, 1987) drew
primarily on literature and case study analysis of major projects, Pinto and Slevin (1987,
1988) based their findings on the opinions of a usable sample of 418 PMI members
responding to questions asking them to rate the relevance to project implementation success
of ten critical success factors and four additional external factors (Slevin & Pinto 1986).
Therefore, one can conclude that there are umpteen number of factors that may have a
bearing on project success. They may differ from one project to another. Following section
describes the role of a project manager in achieving project success.

The successful project manager should have the following skills and competencies: flexibility
and adaptability, preference for significant initiative and leadership, aggressiveness,
confidence, persuasiveness, verbal fluency, ambition, activity, forcefulness, effectiveness as a
communicator and integrator, broad scope of personal interests, poise, enthusiasm,
imagination, spontaneity, able to balance technical solutions with time, cost, and human
factors, well organized and disciplined, a generalist rather than a specialist, able and willing
to devote most of his or her time to planning and controlling, able to identify problems,
willing to make decisions, able to maintain a proper balance in use of time… (Archibald,
1976).
Turner & Müller (2004, 2005) have been studying the impact of project leader and his/her
leadership style on project success. The research is still in progress. In the words of Turner &
Müller (2005), “the literature on project success factors has largely ignored the impact of the
project manager, and his or her leadership style and competence, on project success. This
may be because most of the studies asked project managers their opinion and the respondents
have not given due consideration to their own impact on project success. Or, it may be
because the studies have not measured the impact of the project manager and, thus, not
recorded it. Or, it may be because the project manager has no impact. However, that last
conclusion is in direct contrast to the general management literature, which postulates that the
leadership style and competence of the manager has a direct and measurable impact on the
performance of the organization or business. Thus, the authors have been commissioned by
the Project Management Institute to study whether the leadership style and competence of the
project manager is a success factor on projects and whether different styles are appropriate on
different types of projects.”
Almost everyone is familiar with projects perceived as successful by those involved in their
implementation, while the very same projects have been poorly received by customers (Pinto
& Slevin 1988). There are other projects that consumed excessive resources and were
considered internal failures, but were later hailed as successful by their customers and
become a source of revenue for the company for many years (De Wit, 1986). The
combination of a changing organizational environment and changing project characteristics
make the role of the project leader difficult (Krahn & Hartman, 2004. Within this
environment, a competent project manager is frequently regarded as having a significant
impact on overall project success (Ammeter & Dukerich, 2002; Smith, 1999; Sutcliffe, 1999)

as well as being critical to other project elements, such as the success of the project team,
including team members‟ motivation and creativity (Rickards, 2001). This strong link with
success ensures that project manager competencies are of particular interest.
According to Cooke-Davies (2002), performance predicts success and success factors affect
performance. In order to identify the „real‟ success factors of construction projects, Cooke-
Davies highlighted the importance of the stakeholders in relation to the construction project
performance. This corroborates Slevin and Pinto (1986) argumentthata project is only
successful to the extent that it satisfies the needs of its intended user. They identify the fact
that the element of success in a project refers to efficiency and effectiveness measures.
Efficiency measures correspond to the strong management and internal organizational
structures (adhere to schedule, budget and specification) and effectiveness measures refer to
user satisfaction and the use of the project. In addition, efficiency would only be achieved
through having standard,systems and methodology.
2.1.3. Relation between M&E and project success
The monitoring and Evaluation systems can be assessed against the three criteria‟s for it to
become successful; for example high utilization, good quality M&E system and
sustainability. As note M&E information was used intensively in budget analysis and
decision making.
It was also used intensively to impose program improvements on ministries and agencies.
Last but not least, it was also used in reporting government performance to the congress and
civil society (Mackay, 2007).
The concepts of monitoring and evaluation are usually approached together, as a function of
project management, which provides a real perspective upon the stage of the financed project,
in order to make all the adjustments necessary in the project implementation process.
Monitoring and evaluation are regarded as core tools for enhancing the quality of project
management, taking into account that in short and medium run managing complex projects
will involve corresponding strategies from the financial point of view, which are supposed to
respect the criteria of effectiveness, sustainability and durability. Monitoring activity supports
both project managers and staff in the process of understanding whether the projects are

progressing on schedule or meet their objectives, inputs, activities and deadlines. (Crawford
and Bryce, 2003)
Monitoring and evaluation are regarded as core tools for enhancing the quality of project
management, taking into account that in short and medium run managing complex projects
will involve corresponding strategies from the financial point of view, which are supposed to
respect the criteria of effectiveness, sustainability and durability (Lim and Mohamed ,1999).
Monitoring activity supports both project managers and staff in the process of understanding
whether the projects are progressing on schedule or meet their objectives, inputs, activities
and deadlines (Solomon and Young, 2007). Therefore, monitoring provides the background
for reducing schedule and cost overruns (Crawford and Bryce, 2003), while ensuring that
required quality standards are achieved in project implementation. At the same time,
evaluation can be perceived as an instrument for helping planners and project developers to
assess to what extent the projects have achieved the objectives set forth in the project
documents (Belout, 1998).
Monitoring and evaluation is an integral part of the project‟s design, implementation and
completion (Chaplowe, 2008).
Monitoring and evaluation entails tracking the performance of programmes, policies, and
projects with ongoing assessments of costs, deliverables, and timelines to ensure that
implementation is accomplished as planned (Haque &Khan 2014).
Monitoring and evaluation as a management tool for efficient governance has become an
important source of learning to improve planning, service delivery, and ideal
appointment of resources (Abrahams,2015).
With the arrival of globalisation, there are developing requirements for social entities and
associations around the globe to be more receptive to the requirements of stakeholders for
competitive governance, transparency, accountability, more viable improvement, and
conveyance of substantial outcomes (Haque & Khan,2014).
Although monitoring and evaluation are not of inherent value by themselves, the information
they provide is significant to improving performance (Mackay, 2010), which helps in
learning from what/how we are doing or have done by focusing on efficiency, effectiveness,
impact, relevance and sustainability (Hunter, 2009).

Naidoo (2011) argued that a sound M&E should not just improve compliance, it should also
enhance the reflective capacity of organisations, whilst Simultaneously increasing
transparency, accountability and supporting a culture of learning.
Monitoring and evaluation systems vary with type, sector and country of application (Pearce,
Robinson & Subramanian, 2002; Fitzgerald, Posner & Workman, 2009).
Rural areas in Africa remain severely disadvantaged without sustainable water supply
projects. Only 47% of the rural population of sub-Saharan Africa has access to an
improved water source (WHO/UNICEF2015). Regionally, poor performance of projects
has been attributed to the lack of project monitoring and evaluation practices including
planning
(Ihuah & Kakulu, 2014).
Sustaining a functional rural water supply infrastructure has been a challenge in Sub-Saharan
Africa. In Tanzania, nearly half of rural water points are not functional and about 20% of
newly
constructed water points become non-functional within one year due to lack of monitoring
and
evaluation practices and specifically planning.
Rural citizens soon return to traditional, unimproved water sources and endanger their health
and well-being (Gine & Perez-Foguet, 2008). The performance and sustainability of water
supply
projects have been prophesied as a promising direction for a variety of communities in Kenya
(Dube, 2012).
Formal monitoring and evaluation systems as practiced in Kenya have not fully been
incorporated in the government projects control systems (Abdulkadir,2014). Kenya‟s Vision
2030 has an ambitious target of ensuring universal access to water and improved sanitation
services y the year 2030. This aspiration is also reflected in the Kenya Environmental
Sanitation and Hygiene Policy(KESHP) 2016-2030 that aims at ensuring 100 % access to
improved sanitation services by 2030(Republic of Kenya, 2016)
The monitoring and evaluation flow focuses on human resources as key factors for
implementing, monitoring and evaluating a sustainable investment project; as a consequence,
the flow states the assumption that the process of defining monitoring procedures,as well as
the process of delegating monitoring responsibilities(which are corresponding to a

participatory management approach completed with a human resources evaluation) lead to a
consensus among the main stakeholders of a project on the specific indicators to be used for
monitoring and evaluation purposes; the monitoring and evaluation flow involves, before
entering the Project Implementation Stage, an informational audit, in order to effective
redesign the information flows taking into account the types and sources of data needed and
the methods of data collection and analysis required based on the indicators; afterwards, the
Pre-Project Stage ends up with the Gantt Chart and the Logical Framework Matrix, which are
still the most useful instruments for performing an impact monitoring and a mid-term
evaluation (Pollack, 2007).
The main difficulties in obtaining better results when using the monitoring and evaluation
flow refer to: the lack of experience in applying most of the project management tools , the
insufficient budget for monitoring and evaluation activities, the mentality of most project
managers regarding the fact that monitoring and evaluation are bureaucratic activities, which
claim lot of time and are useless, being performed as such;
the inappropriate mix of methods and techniques, which are being used by project managers,
without taking into account the three stages of monitoring and evaluation related to the
project life cycle; using impact monitoring in pre-project stage is useless, while using it
during post-project stage is irrelevant and using compliance monitoring in pre-project stage is
impossible, while using it during implementation stage is irrelevant; the lack of clearness in
stating measurable objectives for the project and its components, which leads to the
impossibility of defining performance indicators; the lack of a structured set of indicators,
covering the economic, social and environmental outputs generated by the project and their
impact on beneficiaries; the lack of a coherent methodology for collecting data and managing
project record, so that the data processed are compatible with previous statistics and are
available at reasonable costs; the lack of concern of the project managers to use in their
baseline monitoring processes information gathered from other similar project‟s compliance
monitoring processes. (Pinto and Slevin, 1988)
Participatory monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) is a part a wider historical process which
has emerged over the last 20 years of using participatory research in development. PM&E
draws from various participatory research traditions, While PM&E offers many potential
benefits in terms of project or program success, if it is carried out poorly or inappropriately,

time and resources may go to waste and problems may very well go unnoticed, subsequently
hindering project performance and community building. In order to guard against these
inherent dangers, there also seems to be broad agreement in the literature regarding the need
for systematic and participatory procedures to monitor and evaluate the PM&E process itself.
(Chan et al., 2002)
The active participation of service users in planning, monitoring and evaluation processes has
now become part of development orthodoxy. As a result, most complex organizations at least
encourage staff at different levels, and the partners with which they work, to involve service
users in M&E wherever possible. Service user participation is considered beneficial for two
reasons: firstly, because it helps generate better M&E data and analysis, and secondly, under
a rights-based perspective, because it is considered that service users have the right to be
involved in all areas of work that have an influence over their lives.(Simister, 2009).
2.3. Critical Review and Research Gap
The international community agrees that monitoring and evaluation has a strategic role to
play in project success. The aim is to improve relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of
project success. (IFAD, 2001). Given this international community aim, why then is
monitoring and evaluation not playing its role to lead a project success? What are the factors,
in addition to the evidence, influencing the Project success when monitoring and evaluating
it. The research gap of this study is to assess the monitoring and evaluation system and
projects success the case of Mogadishu Somalia.
(Zwikael,2002) said that Project success is measured as the ability to complete the project
according to desired specifications, and within the specified budget and the promised time
schedule, while keeping the customer and stakeholders happy but he didn‟t mention when
M&E System leads to project success.
(Belassi and Tukel, 1996) said that the Monitoring and Evaluation plan (M&E plan) is a
document used by the project team to help plan and manage all Monitoring and Evaluation
activities throughout a particular project cycle. It also should be shared and utilized between
all stakeholders and sent to donors. It keeps track of what you should monitor, when you
should monitor, who should monitor, and why you should monitor. The M&E plan should
have a rigid flexibility; rigid enough that it is well thought out and planned but also flexible

to account for changes that can improve or identify better monitoring and evaluation
practices. This is especially important in the ever-changing and fast-moving conflict
environment.
He didn‟t mention how M&E System can be designed contribute directly to project success.
There are six steps involved in designing M&E system:
(1)Establishing the purpose and scope of the M&E system- why do we need M&E and how
comprehensive should M&E system be?
(2)Identifying performance questions, information needs and indicators- what do we need to

know in order to monitor and evaluate the project so that it can be managed effectively?
(3)Planning information gathering and organizing – How will the required information be
gathered and organized?
(4)Planning critical reflection process and events – How will we make sense of the outcome
of the information gathered and how will it be used to make improvements in project
implementation?
(5) Planning for quality communication and reporting – How and to whom do we want to
communicate project results? What project activities and processes do we need to
communicate?
(6)Planning for the necessary conditions and capacities – What resources and capacity do we
need to ensure that our M&E system works effectively? These steps help to ensure that M&E
is a relevant guide for project intervention strategy for all key stakeholders. This way, the
M&E can contribute directly to project success. Fail to have a strategic M&E system leads to
fail of projects.
2.4. Summary
The literature review of this research is summarized by saying that M&E system lead to
project success when the three indicators are verified, the project is completed on time,
providing good quality and stakeholders are satisfied with the project.
Monitoring provides the background for reducing schedule and cost overruns, while ensuring
that required quality standards are achieved in project implementation and, on the other hand,
the evaluation can be perceived as an instrument for helping planners and project developers

to assess to what extent the projects have achieved the objectives set forth in the project
documents, we could identify a close connections between these two processes, which should
be approached as functions of project management. Monitoring and evaluation functions of a
project are encompassing many processes, which present clear interdependencies which
require them to be performed in essentially the same order. The research states this close
relationship between the monitoring and evaluation processes within project management, as
well as the intimate connection between these processes and the project life cycle.

CHAPTER THREE
3.0 Introduction
This chapter describes the methodology used by the researcher in order to attain the purpose
of this research which is examining the effect of monitoring and evaluation on project
performance. The chapter covered the research design, research population, sample size,
sampling procedure, instruments used or collecting data, methods of data analysis, data
processing and analysis, and ethical consideration.
3.1 Research Design
The research was used descriptive research which is suitable for such kinds of research
problems. According to (Cooper & Schindler, 2000), a descriptive research finds out who,
what where, when and how much. Descriptive research is designed to obtain data that
describe the characteristics of the topic of interest in the research, as this study was designed
to obtain its research on the facts and information of the influence of Monitoring and
Evaluation on project performance in NGOs
3.2 Research Population

Population refers to the entire group of people, events, or organizations that a researcher
wants to study. The population of this research is the 55 NGO staff operating in Hargeisa
County (Consortium 2016). According to some of the mangers NGOs, each project has one
project manager and two monitoring and evaluation team. The target population is staffs are
110 members monitoring and evaluation team and 55 project managers. Therefore total are
165 personnel which is a staffs of 55 NGOs. Which have completed a project between 2021
and 2022 and are in the process of monitoring and evaluating them using a defined M&E
system.
3.3 Sample Size
The researcher used the Rule of Thumb formula to calculate the sample size. If the
population is less than or equal to 1000 take 30% of the population. 165 *0.30=50
In this study, a sample size of 50 was used. This sample was composed of 33 monitoring
evaluation team and 17 project mangers, all selected from the 55 NGOs that are registered
NGOs that are registered Mogadishu

Table 3.3 1Table1 population and sampling in the study
NGOs Target Sample Sampling Data collection

Population method instrument
1. M&E team 110 33 Stratified Questionnaire
2. Project Managers 55 16 Stratified Questionnaire
TOTAL 165 50
3.4 Sampling Procedure

The process of selecting to get a sufficient number of elements from a population
(Raval,2009). It also refers to the techniques and procedures to be applied in choosing a
sample. The sample of this research was selected using probability sampling – stratified
random sampling method to get the correct number of the monitoring evaluation team and
project managers
3.5 Research Instruments

This research was use different instruments for collecting data; the process of data collection
and analysis in the research is mainly supported through techniques that include structured
questionnaires and observation designed together to collect information.
3.6 Data Collection Procedure
3.7.1 Before the administration of the questionnaires

The researcher was request an introduction letter. The research ws addressed to the
authorities of the university understudy for him to be permitted to conduct the study. The
letter will contain the criteria for selecting the respondents and the request to be provided
with the list of qualified academic administrators.
3.7.2 During the administration of the questionnaires

Specifically, the researcher and his assistants will be seriously particular in requesting the
respondents the following: (1) to answer all questions hence should not leave any item
unanswered; (2) to avoid biases and to be objective in answering the questionnaires.
3.7.3 After the administration of the questionnaires

The data collected will be organized, collated, summarized, statistically treated, and drafted
in tables using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).

3.8 Data Processing and analysis
The research was the collect procedure consisted of both quantitative and qualitative methods
by visiting target group. Thus, data from the completed questionnaire was edited, categorized,
coded, and entered into the computer SPSS and summarized using simple frequency tables
and percentage distribution for analysis. Based on the qualitative analysis, the researcher
based on the collected information from the respondents to establish patterns and
relationships with the area being studied. Quantitatively the researcher summarized data
using descriptive statistics like graphs, percentages, and frequencies, which enabled the
researcher to describe the distribution of scores and measurements meaningfully. Using these
techniques, the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of the findings make it easy for the
researcher to comprehend and draw conclusions based on the findings.
3.9 Ethical Considerations
Ethically the study gives an important consideration for the participants during data
collection, the study will be carried out with the permission of the respondents it will protect
any respondent‟s name during the study and keep any information confidential. Ethically the
study considers the participant‟s dignity, the information will be used for academic purposes,
finally, the researcher makes sure of the suitability of data collection in acceptable research
standard which is match setting of objectives of the research.

CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.0 INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses on the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of findings from the
collected
data through questionnaire. The data was presented in tables and figures, from which
percentages and frequencies were ascertained to provide the foundation for analysis and
interpretation. During data collection, the researcher distributed 50 questionnaires, and all
questionnaires were returned.
4.1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents
Table 4. 1. 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of Respondents (N=50)
Gender Frequency Percent

Male 27 55%
female 22 45%
Total 49 100.0%
Educational Level
primary 0 0%
secondary 0 0%
diploma 2 2%
degree 17 33%
Master‟s degree 31 62%
Total 50 100.0%
Age
Less than 25 years 12 24%
26 -35 years 25 50%
36 -45 years 12 24%
46 -50 years 1 2%
51 above years 0 0%
Total 50 100.0%
Marital Status
Single 26 52%
Married 22 44%
Divorced/Separated 2 2%
Total 50 100.0%

From the table, we can see that most of the respondents (55%) were male, followed by
female
(45%) in terms of gender. The table indicates that the marital status of respondents that most
of the respondents were single (52%) followed by Married respondents (44%) and
divorced/Separated (2%)
According to the table above that most of the respondents were having Master‟s degree (62
%) of the respondents, (34 %) of the respondents are degree, and (4%) of the respondents
are diploma.
The above Table indicates that most of the respondents were from the age group between 26-
35 years (50 %) followed by 36- 45 years (24%), less than 25 the least are (24%) and 46-50
years are (2%).
4.2 Monitoring and Evaluation
6%
yes
no
94%
Figure 4.2.1 practical experience in monitoring and evaluation systems in your

organization
This figure shows practical experience in monitoring and evaluation systems. Almost 94% of
respondents have practical experience in monitoring and evaluation system, where 6% does
not have practical experience in monitoring and evaluation system.

No
6%
Yes Yes
94%
No
Figure 4.2. 2 Do you have direct involvement in the Monitoring and Evaluation System
of the organizations
This figure shows the Direct involvement in the Monitoring and Evaluation System. Almost
94% of respondents are involved, where 6% are not involved in the monitoring and
evaluation system.
No
38%
Yes
62%
Yes No
Figure 4.2.3 organizations have a plan that guides monitoring and evaluation when
implementing the program/project
From 50 respondents, 24 (62%) respond that a monitoring and evaluation plan to carry out
monitoring and evaluation can refer. Only 38% of the respondents say that there is no
monitoring and evaluation plan. Because of some projects are too small, and some others do
not know how to design.

yes no Partially
120.0%
95.9%
100.0%
83.7% 83.3%
80.0%
58.7%
60.0%
40.0% 32.6%
20.0% 8.2% 8.2% 10.4% 8.7%

6.3%
2.0% 2.0%
0.0%
Project managers Team leaders monitoring and evaluation Consultants
experts
Figure 4.2.4 stakeholders involved in planning monitoring and evaluation of projects
This figure shows the different stakeholders involved in the planning, monitoring, and
evaluation of projects. Among these stakeholders that most respondents replied that they
were involved most in monitoring and evaluation planning are project managers, team
leaders, and monitoring and evaluation experts monitoring and evaluation experts.
Consultants are also involved in the planning of M and E next to team leaders.
100.0% 94.0%
87.7%
90.0%
80.0% 75.5%
70.0% 66.0% 65.3%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0% 30.4%
30.0% 23.4%
20.0% 14.3%
8.2% 10.2% 10.6%
10.0% 2.0% 4.0% 4.1% 4.3%
0.0%
Data to be Frequency of An individual in Plan for Individuals for
collected data collection charge of M&E dissemination of specific M&E
findings activities
yes no Partially
Figure 4.2.5 Guided monitoring and evaluation plan activities in organization

This figure shows Guided monitoring and evaluation plan activities in the organization. Data
to be collected, frequency of data collection, individuals in charge of M and E, and Plan for
dissemination.

A separate budget not special budge I have no idea
6%
19%
75%
Figure 4.2. 6 the monitoring and evaluation activities have
As shown in the above chart, 75% of the respondents respond that there is a separate budget
for monitoring and evaluating projects. 19% of the respondents have No special budget is
considered for monitoring and evaluation of projects. Only 6% of the respondents said that I
have no idea
Less than 5% 5 - 10 % More than 10% not specific
15%
44% 12%
29%
Figure 4.2. 7 separate budget is allocated for monitoring and evaluation activities

As shown in the above chart, 44% of the respondents said no specific monitoring and
evaluating projects. (29%) of the respondents have more than 10%, (15%) of the respondents
are less than 5%, and only 12% of the respondents said 5-10% allocated for monitoring and
evaluation activities
No
4%
Yes
96%
Figure 4.2. 8 Organization use the logical framework approach (log frame) to plan
M&E activities in the organization
This figure shows that the organization uses the logical framework approach (log frame).
Almost 96% of respondents use the logical framework approach, and only 4% do not use the
logical framework approach.
Table 4.2. 1 How often do you document lessons learned on the project implementation
No of projects Frequency Percent

All projects 7 64%
for some projects 3 27%
Few projects 1 9%
Never 0 0%
Total 100%
This table shows the lessons learned document is done after the end of the project evaluation
of projects. In this study, respondents are asked to share their experience on the
documentation of lessons learned. 64% of the respondents agree that lessons learned
document is done for
all projects, 27% of the respondents for some projects and 9 % of the respondents are few
projects.

4.3 Tools and Methods used by M&E
Cost-Benefitand Cost-Effectiveness 7.25%
Public Expenditure Tracking Survery 7.73%
Participatory Method 10.14%
Rapid Appraisal 10.14%
Formal Surveys 14.01%
Theory-Based Evaluation 14.49%
Logical Framework 18.36%
Performance Indicator 17.87%
0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00% 20.00%
Figure 4.3. 1 The tools and methods used in Monitoring and evaluation in the
organization
This figure shows that the tools and methods used in Monitoring and evaluation in the
organization. Most respondents replied that the tools and methods used are performance
indicators, logical frameworks, theory-based evaluations, and formal surveys. Some
respondents also said Rapid Appraisal and Participatory Method are also used to monitor and
evaluate the organization. Only a few respondents are said public expenditure tracking survey
and cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness are used.

Table 4.3. 1 the rating applicability of these tools and methods used by M&E in your
organization?
Responses Frequency Percent

Very Easy 23 47%
Easy 13 27%
Difficult 8 16%
Very Difficult 5 10%
Total 49 100%
This table shows the rate of the applicability of these tools and methods used by M&E in the
organization. (47%) of the respondents indicated that the applicability of the tools and
techniques were very easy. 23% of the respondent indicated that it was easy, 16% of the
respondents are difficult and very difficult, while a minority (10%).
30%
70%
Yes no
Figure 4.3. 2 Do you have any difficulties in using the M&E system?
As shown in the figure above, 70 % of respondents do not have difficulties using the M&E
system. 30% of respondents are having difficulties with the M&E system because there lack
The role of management in the operations of the M&E.
4.4 Project Performance

Table 4.4. 1 In which stage do make Monitoring and Evaluation in the project

In planning 12 24%
In the implementation of a project 10 20%
In the closing phase of the project 8 16%
all stages of the project said above 20 40%
Total 50 100%

This table shows the stage that makes Monitoring and Evaluation in the project. (40%) of the
respondents are told to do all the stages of the projects that are made Monitoring and
Evaluation. 24% of the respondents are told in the planning, 20% of the respondents said in
the implementation. Only 16% of the respondents are said to be in the closing phase of the
project.
Table 4.4. 2 the factors necessary for improving project performance in NGOs?

Employee skills 15 30%
Identification problems in planning and 13 26%
Implementation
Improve Project Planning and Quality 17 34%
Environmental scanning 5 10%
Total 50 100%
This table shows the factors necessary for improving project performance in NGOs. 34% of
the respondents are said to improve project planning and quality, 30% of the respondents are
said Employee skills. 26% of the respondents are said Identification problems in planning
and Implementation. Only 10% of the respondents said environmental scanning. The
researcher realized that all the factors necessary for the improvements in project performance
of
NGOs exist Hargeisa hence meaning that it is a development institution in terms of increased
performance
Better Poor Not sure
12%
12%
76%

Figure 4.4. 1 How do you rate the performance of your project compared to other
NGOs?
This figure shows that the rate the project performance in NGOs. 75% of respondents are said
the rate of the project performance was better. 12% of respondents are said I have no idea,
12% of respondents are poor.
Not Sure
No 10%
5%
yes
85%
Figure 4.4. 2 relationship between monitoring & evaluation and project performance
This figure shows the relationship between Monitoring & evaluation and performance using
perception and opinions of respondents; (85%) of respondents agree there is a related m&e
and project performance. In comparison, 10% of respondents said they are not related. Only
5% of the respondents said there is no relationship between Monitoring & evaluation and
performance.

CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 Introduction
In this chapter, the researcher presents the summary of the findings based on respondent‟s
views. The summary of the findings is presented in line with the objectives of the research.
The researcher also presents the conclusion of the study, gives recommendations.
5.1 Findings
This chapter presents the summary, the research findings in view of the research objectives,
the findings in connection to Monitoring & evaluation and performance of NGOs. The
response collected from 50 respondents are analyzed and presented in this chapter. Regarding
Monitoring and Evaluation System, (94% ) of respondents are involved Monitoring and
Evaluation System. According to the monitoring and evaluation plan, (62%) of the
respondents indicated that there is monitoring and evaluation plan to refer while doing
monitoring and evaluation. Project managers, M & E experts, team leaders and consultants
are involved in the preparation of monitoring and evaluation plan. According to the budget
for monitoring and evaluation the response shows that 75% of the respondents indicate that
there is a separate budget. Regarding separate budget is allocated for monitoring and
evaluation 44% are said no specific budget allocated monitoring and evaluating activities.
The document Lessons learned is a document that is done after completing project
monitoring and evaluation at the end of the project. The documented provided the positive
and negative experiences in the process of the project are documented in the lessons learned
document. Regarding, 64% of the respondents replied that lessons learned document is done
for all projects.
NGOs used different tools and techniques in their M&E systems. The most common tools
and techniques are used logical frameworks, theory-based evaluations, formal surveys, rapid
appraisal, and participatory methods. The tools and techniques the highest factor contributing
to the difficulties faced in the use of the M&E system is the role of management in the

operations of the M&E. A big number of the project managers and M&E staff. also indicated
that the applicability
of the tools and techniques was compared to 47% and 27% that indicated that it was easy and
very easy respectively. From the qualitative method, respondents revealed a relationship
between Monitoring & evaluation and project performance in NGOs (85%) of respondents
are agreed there is a related m&e and project performance. In comparison, 10% of
respondents said they are not related. The researcher led to understand that Monitoring &
evaluation and performance in NGOs are related. According to factors necessary for
improving project performance in NGOs, 34% of the respondents are said to improve project
planning and quality, 30% of the respondents are said Employee skills. The researcher
concludes the most of respondents agree there is a relationship between monitoring and
evaluation and project performance in NGOs
5.2 Conclusion
The researcher concluded In NGOs projects there is monitoring and evaluation plan prepared
by the involvement project managers, monitoring and evaluation experts, team leaders and
consultants. However, a small number of respondents stated that there is no monitoring and
evaluation plan and they do not refer to it because of the size of the project is too small.
Regarding the budget for monitoring and evaluation, as most respondents say, there is a
separate budget for monitoring and evaluating projects and also said no specific budget
allocated monitoring and evaluating activities.
The common tools and techniques are used logical frameworks, theory-based evaluations,
formal surveys, rapid appraisal, and participatory methods. The factor affected in using the
M&E system is the role of management in the operations of the M&E. The NGOs should
therefore be flexible to allow modification of their M&E systems, including tools and
techniques used as well as consider experiences from other organizations. The researcher
concluded that contributing to factors necessary for improving project performance in NGOs
is project planning and quality, Employee skills, Identification problems in planning, and
environmental scanning. The contribution of Monitoring and evaluation to NGOs are
improved performance. There is a positive relationship between Monitoring & evaluation and
performance of NGOs.

5.3 Recommendations
The researcher recommended that all NGOs focus on M&E to improve project performance;
this is because monitoring and evaluation assists projects in understand the environment in
which they operate and how to proceed. Monitoring and evaluation are used to ensure that the
project is planned and right and finally achieves its objective. The results from monitoring
and evaluation and lessons learned can also be necessary for proper planning and
accomplishment of other projects that will be undertaken in the future. Based on the research
assessment of monitoring and evaluation in NGOs projects, the following recommendations
are forwarded so that the projects can have better performance in the monitoring and
evaluation in particular and effeteness of projects in general. NGOs shall have a separate
budget for the monitoring and evaluation of projects. monitoring and evaluation should have
flexible systems to allow modification of the monitoring and evaluation systems, including
tools and techniques used as well as consider experiences from other organization.

REFERENCES
Uncategorized References
Abalang, J. (2016). Assessment of performance of monitoring and evaluation systems at CARITA Torit
in South Sudan.
Abalang, J. J. S. S., Nairobi. (2016). Assessment of Performance of Monitoring and Evaluation
Systems at Caritas Torit.
Anderson, A. (2005). An introduction to theory of change. The Evaluation Exchange 11 (2): 12. In.
Aune, B. (2000). Logical framework approach and Participatory Rural Appraisal mutually exclusive or
complementary tools for planning. 10, 5.
AusAID, A. A. (2006). Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Good Practice Guide Retrieved from
http://www.ausaid.gov.au/ngos/pages/ancp.aspx
Bank, W. (2004). Monitoring & Evaluation: some tools, methods and approaches. Retrieved from The
World Bank, Washington, D.C.:
Chaplowe, S. G. (2008). Monitoring and evaluation planning. American Red Cross/CRS M&E Module
Series, American Red Cross and Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Washington, DC and Baltimore,
MD.
Chong, S. J. J. o. E. I. M. (2008). Success in electronic commerce implementation.
Consortium , S. N. (2016). Somalia NGO Consortium Annual Report. Retrieved from Somalia NGO
Consortium: http://somaliangoconsortium.org/membership/current-members/
Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2000). Business Research Methods. Saddle Brook. In: NJ: McGraw-Hill.
CPWF. (2012). M&E guide: Theories of change. Retrieved from
https://sites.google.com/a/cpwf.info/m-e-guide/background/theory-of-change
Crawford, P., & Bryce, P. J. I. j. o. p. m. (2003). Project monitoring and evaluation: a method for
enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation. 21(5), 363-373.
FHI , F. H. I. (2011). Monitoring and Evaluating Behavior Change Communication Programs.
Retrieved from USAID: http://teampata.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Monitoring-and-
Evaluating-Behaviour-Change-Communication-Programs.pdf
Fitzgerald, M., Posner, J., Workman, A. J. J. R., & Institute, T. (2012). A Guide to Monitoring and
Evaluation of NGO Capacity Building Interventions in Conflict Affected Settings.
Gilliam, A., Barrington, T., Davis, D., Lacson, R., Uhl, G., Phoenix, U. J. E., & Planning, P. (2003).
Building evaluation capacity for HIV prevention programs. 26(2), 133-142.
Guijt, I., & Woodhill, J. J. I. F. f. A. D. (2002). A guide for project M&E: Managing for impact in rural
development.
Gyorkos, T. J. A. t. (2003). Monitoring and evaluation of large scale helminth control programmes.
86(2-3), 275-282.
Hosley, C. J. W. R. h. s. g. c. a. c. i. m.-g. b. t.-o.-c. (2005). Whats Your Theory–Tips for Conducting
Program Evaluation-Issue 4.
IFRC, I. F. o. R. C. (2011). Project/programme monitoring and evaluation (M&E) guide. Retrieved
from Red-Cross Internationnal:
International Federation of Consultancy, I. (2012). Project Management. Retrieved from World Bank:

James, C. J. C. R. (2011). Theory of change review.
Jaszczolt K, P. T., Stanislaw A. (2010). Internal Project M&E System and
Development of Evaluation Capacity – Experience of the World Bank – Funded Rural
Development Program. Retrieved from World Bank:
Kelly, K., & Magongo, B. (2004). Report on assessment of the monitoring and evaluation capacity of
HIV/AIDS organisations in Swaziland: National Emergency Response Council on HIV/AIDS.
Kihuha, P. (2018). Monitoring and Evaluation Practices and Performance of Global Environment
Facility Projects in Kenya, a Case of United Nations Environment Programme. Doctoral
Dissertation, Kenyatta University,
Kissi, E., Agyekum, K., Baiden, B. K., Tannor, R. A., Asamoah, G. E., & Andam, E. T. (2019). Impact of
project monitoring and evaluation practices on construction project success criteria in
Ghana. Built Environment Project and Asset Management.
Kloppenborg, T. J. (2008). Project Management: A Contemporary Approach: Organize, Plan, Perform:
Thomson Learning EMEA, Limited.
Kusek, J. Z., & Rist, R. C. (2004). Ten steps to a results-based monitoring and evaluation system: a
handbook for development practitioners: World Bank Publications.
Lewis, J. P. (2005). Project planning, scheduling, and control: A hands-on guide to bringing projects in
on time and on budget (Third Edition ed.): Irwin.
Mackay, K. (2006). Institutionalization of monitoring and evaluation systems to improve public sector
management. Retrieved from
McCoy, K. L., Ngari, P. N., & Krumpe, E. E. (2005). Building monitoring, evaluation and reporting
systems for HIV/AIDS programs.
Miller, D. S. J. D. (2010). Handbook of Disaster and Emergency Policies and Institutions. 2(34), 586-
588.
MPIEDS , m. o. p. i. a. e. d. s. (2018). M&E Department. Retrieved from
http://mop.gov.so/index.php/the-ministry/directorates/me-department/
Muchelule, Y. W. (2018). Influence of Monitoring Practices on Projects Performance of Kenya State
Corporations. JKUAT-COHRED,
Müller, R., & Turner, R. J. E. m. j. (2007). The influence of project managers on project success
criteria and project success by type of project. 25(4), 298-309.
Nabris, K. (2002). Civil Society Empowerment: Monitoring and Evaluation. Based on a PASSIA
Training Course, Jerusalén, Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International
Affairs.
Naidoo, V. S. (2012). Danish Demining Group Community Safety Programme, Somaliland, Mine
Action and Armed Violence Reduction Case Study, septembre 2012, CIDHG. In.
Ngarambe, C. (2015). INFLUENCE OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION ON PERFORMANCE OF NON
GOVERMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS IN RWANDA: A CASE OF WORLD VISION INTERNATIONAL.
Mount Kenya University,
Nirere, V. (2014). MONITORING AND EVALUATION AND PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN RWANDA A
CASE STUDY OF HAND IN HAND PROJECT IN CARE INTERNATIONAL IN RWANDA. Mount
Kenya University,
Otieno, F. (2000). The roles of monitoring and evaluation in projects. Paper presented at the 2nd
International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries: Challenges facing the
construction industry in developing countries.
Philip, R., Anton, B., Bonjean, M., Bromley, J., Cox, D., Smits, S., . . . Monggae, F. J. F. I. E. S. G. (2008).
Local Government and Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) Part III Engaging in
IWRM Practical Steps and Tools for Local Government.
PMBOK Guide, I., P.M. (2008). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®
Guide)–Sixth Edition: Project Management Institute.

PMBOK Guide, I., P.M. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®
Guide)–Sixth Edition: Project Management Institute.
Reijer, P., Chalimba, M., & Nakwagala, A. A. (2002). Malawi goes to scale with anti-AIDS clubs and
popular media. 25(4), 357-363.
Rietbergen-McCracken, J., & Narayan-Parker, D. (1998). Participation and social assessment: tools
and techniques (Vol. 1): World Bank Publications.
Rossi, P. H. J. E. r. (2012). Evaluating with sense: The theory-driven approach. 7(3), 283-302.
Rumenya, H., Kisimbi, J. M. J. J. o. E., & Management, P. (2020). Influence of Monitoring and
Evaluation Systems on Performance of Projects in Non-Governmental Organizations: A Case
of Education Projects in Mombasa County, Kenya. 5(2), 46-66.
Seith, S. a. P. I. (2012). Evaluation and Theory of change. Presented at workshop on randomized
evaluation to improve financial capability innovation for
poverty action (ipa)
Shadish, W. R. J., Cook, T. D., & Leviton, L. C. (1991). Chapter 2: Good theory for social program
evaluation. Foundations of Program Evaluation: Theories of Practice Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tache, F. J. E. S. M. (2011). Developing an integrated monitoring and evaluation flow for sustainable
investment projects. 14(2), 380-391.
Uitto, J. I. J. G. e. c. (2004). Multi-country cooperation around shared waters: role of monitoring and
evaluation. 14, 5-14.
UNDP. (2012). Development Assistance Framework for the Republic of South Sudan, 2011-2012.
Retrieved from United Nations Country Team (South Sudan), UNCT:
https://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/en/2012/development-assistance-framework-republic-
south-sudan-2012-2013-5483
Verweire, K., Van Den Berghe, L., & Berghe, L. (2004). Integrated performance management: a guide
to strategy implementation: Sage.
Wanjiru, W. E., & Kimutai, G. J. U. t. (2013). Determinants of Effective Monitoring and Evaluation
Systems in Non-Governmental Organizations within Nairobi County, Kenya.
Whitaker, B. J. J. S. (2002). The Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs
(www. passia. org). 3(2), 301-302.
Workie, T. (2018). Assessing The Practice Of Project Monitoring And Evaluation: The Case Of
Commercial Bank Of Ethiopia Projects. (Master ), ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY, Retrieved from
https://nadre.ethernet.edu.et/record/12042/export/hx#.YM-UYOFR3Dc
Zall Kusek, J., & Rist, R. (2004). Ten steps to a results-based monitoring and evaluation system: A
handbook for development practitioners. In: The World Bank.

APPENDIX I: INTRODUCTION LETTER
Dear respondents, I am a Master of Monitoring and Evaluation student at Accord University.

Therefore, I request you to fill this questionnaire with the information to the best of your
understanding. The information you are providing will be kept secret, and it is purely for
academic purposes only.
Take your time while answering the information in order to come up with a well thought
answers.
Thank you in advance.

Appendix 2 - Questionnaire
FACE SHEET PART 1: Profile of the Respondents 1: Gender
1. Male
2. Female
2: Educational Level
Primary
Secondary
Diploma
Degree
Master‟s degree
3: Age
Less than 25 years
26 -35 years
36 - 45 years
46 - 50 years
51 above years
5: Marital Status
Single
Married
Divorced/Separated
Widowed
Section A
1. Your position in the organization
1. Top Management 3. Project Team Leader
2. Middle Management 4. M&E Expert
5. Other Expert

2. Is there practical experience in monitoring and evaluation system in your organization
Yes No
3. Do you have direct involvement in the Monitoring and Evaluation System of the
organizations?
Yes No
Section B: Monitoring and Evaluation Practices

1. Does your organization have a plan that guides monitoring and evaluation when
implementing the program/project?
Yes No
2. If your answer is no for the above question what is the reason behind not having the
plan?
We don‟t know how to design Projects are too small
Not important to us
3. Which of the following stakeholders do you think were involved in the planning of the
monitoring and evaluation of the activities of your organization?
yes no Partially
Project managers
Team leaders
Middle and top management
Consultants
4. Which of the following aspects were specified in the plan that guided monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) activities of your organization?
Yes No Partially
Data to be collected
Frequency of data collection
An individual in charge of M&E
Plan for dissemination of
findings
Individuals for specific M&E
activities
5. In your organization the monitoring and evaluation activities have:

A separate budget not special budge I have no idea
6. If a separate budget is allocated for monitoring and evaluation activities, what percentage
of the total project budget allocated for this purpose?
Less than 5% 5-10% More than 10% not specific

7. Does your organization use the logical framework approach (log frame) so as to plan
about M&E activities in your organization?
(Log frame: provide a streamlined linear interpretation of a project‟s planned use of
resources and its desired ends)
Yes No
8. How often do you document lessons learned on the project implementation?
For all projects for some projects
For a few projects Never
Section C: Tools and Methods used by M&E

1. What are some of the tools and methods used in Monitoring and evaluation in your
organization
1. Performance Indicator 2. Logical Framework 3. Theory-Based

Evaluation
4. Formal Surveys 5. Rapid Appraisal 6. Participatory Method
6. Public Expenditure Tracking Survey 7. Cost-Benefit and Cost-

Effectiveness
2. How would you rate the applicability of these tools and methods used by M&E in your
organization?
Very Easy Easy Difficult Very difficult

3. Do you have any difficulties in using the M&E system?
Yes No
2. a) If yes, what do you think is contributing to the difficulty?
Tick where appropriate

Selected Tools and techniques
The role of management to the operations of the M&E
The adequacy of M&E training
Technical expertise of the staff

Section D: Project Performance
1. In which stage do make Monitoring and Evaluation in the project
a) In planning
b) In the implementation of a project
c) In the closing phase of the project
d) In all stage of the project said above
2. What are the factors necessary for improving project performance in NGOs?
a) Employee skills
b) Identification problems in planning and Implementation
c) Improve Project Planning and Quality
d) Environmental scanning
3. How do you rate the performance of your project compared to other NGOs?
a) Poor
b) Better
c) Not sure
4. The following are monitoring and evaluation actictivies carried out by NGOs led to
project performance.
a) Collect and analyzing data
b) Review progress
c) Identification problems in planning and Implementation
d) All the above
e) None the above

5. Do you think there is a relationship between monitoring & evaluation and project
performance
a) Yes. b) No. c) Not sure

Abdullahi Mohamed Abdullahi Thesis Complete

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abdullahi Mohamed Abdullahi Thesis Complete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accord University

Knowledge & Vision

Department of Monitoring and Evaluation

MR. Charles Saroufim

Abdullahi Mohamed Abdullahi

Accord University Master of Law Page: 2

presented for a degree in any other University.

Abdullahi Mohamed Abdullahi

Accord University Master of Law Page: 3

MR. Charles Saroufim

Signature - Date: 4/2/2023

Accord University Master of Law Page: 4

Accord University Master of Law Page: 5

Accord University Master of Law Page: 6

2.1.2.12. Monitoring and Evaluation in Development

Accord University Master of Law Page: 7

Accord University Master of Law Page: 8

Accord University Master of Law Page: 9

Accord University Master of Law Page: 10

Table 3.3 1 Table1 population and sampling in the study .......................................................................... 42

Table 4. 1. 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of Respondents (N=50) .................................... 44

Accord University Master of Law Page: 11

Accord University Master of Law Page: 12

M&E : Monitoring and Evaluation

Accord University Master of Law Page: 14

1.1. Background of the Study

Accord University Master of Law Page: 15

A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result.

Accord University Master of Law Page: 16

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Accord University Master of Law Page: 17

1.3. Objectives of the Study

1.3.1. General objective

Project Success the case of Mogadishu.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

This study aimed to:

i. Analyze M&E tools and procedures used in Mogadishu.

1.4. Research Questions

i. What are the M&E tools and procedures used in Mogadishu?

Accord University Master of Law Page: 18

1.5. Significance of the Study

1.6. Limitation of the Study

1.7. Scope of the Study

Accord University Master of Law Page: 19

1.7.2 Content Scope

1.7.3 Geographical Scope

1.7.4 Time Scope

The study covered a period of from September 2022 to January 2023.

1.8. Definition of key terms

Accord University Master of Law Page: 20

A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service or result

Is a defined systematic procedure employed by a human resource to perform an activity to

1.8. Conceptual framework

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Theoretical Literature Review

Accord University Master of Law Page: 22

Accord University Master of Law Page: 23

2.1.2. Process of M&E System and Project Success

Accord University Master of Law Page: 24

2.1.2.3. Definition of Monitoring and Evaluation

Accord University Master of Law Page: 25

2.1.2.4. Resources Availability

2.1.2.5. Project Scope