ABSTRACT

This research proposal is entitled Monitoring and Evaluation and project outcomes in
Rwanda, the case study is on nyabarongo Hydro-electric project of EDCL. The study will
have the general objective of assessing the contribution of monitoring and evaluation on
project outcomes in Rwanda and the specific objective are identifying the monitoring and
evaluation activities carried by Nyabarongo Hydro-Electric Project; analyzing the challenges
faced by monitoring and evaluation activities in Nyabarongo Hydro-Electric Project; and
establishing the contribution of monitoring & evaluation on project outcomes. This research
will be significant to the researcher, other researchers and Mount Kenya University the
government of Rwanda particularly EDCL. It will help the researcher to apply theory to
practice, to deeply understand monitoring and evaluation concepts and the researcher will
gain more knowledge in conducting research through experience in data collection, analysis
and interpretation and last this study will help the researcher to obtain a Master’s degree in
Business Administration. This study will benefit to other researchers who will need to use
this work to conduct forth researches in a similar field and after the successful completion of
this research, one copy of this will be available at MKU library to serve for future reference
in the field of monitoring and evaluation. Findings and recommendation of this study will
guide planners and policy makers in matters concerning monitoring and evaluation in
different government projects and especially in EDCL. A descriptive survey will be used to
examine the impact of monitoring and evaluation and project outcomes. The study will
employ 125 respondents as target population composed of 1 manager of the project, and 4
engineers of the project and 120 of project beneficiaries household. The sample size will be
calculated to 36 respondents. For the sampling technique we will use purposive technique for
EDCL staff and random technique for project beneficiaries. Primary data will be collected
through interview guide administered to the project manager and questionnaires administered
to engineers of the project and to the beneficiaries of the project. Secondary data will be
collected using various sources at various levels as journals, books and reports. The data
analysis will employed both quantitative and qualitative methods. The qualitative data will be
managed in a manner which will ensure that the data was broken into discernible units to be
quantified and for the quantitative data aspect, percentage and frequency will be used.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
DECLARATION.......................................................................................................................ii

DEDICATION.........................................................................................................................iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................iv

ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................................v

TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................vi

LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................ix

LIST OF FIGURE.....................................................................................................................x

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS.....................................................................x

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS..............................................................................................xi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................1

1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background of the study..................................................................................................1
1.2 Problem statement............................................................................................................5
1.3 Objectives of the study.....................................................................................................6
1.3.2 General objective............................................................................................................6
1.3.3 Specific objectives..........................................................................................................6
1.4 Research Questions..........................................................................................................7
1.5 Significance of the study..................................................................................................7
1.6 Limitations of the study....................................................................................................8
1.7 Scope of the study............................................................................................................8
1.7.1 Geographical scope.........................................................................................................8
1.7.2 Time scope......................................................................................................................8
iii
1.7.3 The content scope...........................................................................................................8
1.8 Organizations of the study.................................................................................................9

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE................................................10

2.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................10
2.1 Theoretical literature......................................................................................................10
2.1.1 Concept of monitoring and evaluation.........................................................................10
2.1.2 Project outcomes concept.............................................................................................20
2.1.3 Project management......................................................................................................28
2.2 Empirical literature.........................................................................................................31
2.3 Critical Review and Research Gap identification..........................................................35
2.4 Theoretical framework...................................................................................................35
2.4.1 Logical Model...............................................................................................................36
2.4.2 Project Monitoring and Evaluation Model...................................................................38
2.5 Conceptual framework...................................................................................................39

2.6 Summary............................................................................................................................40

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..........................................................41

3.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................41
3.1 Research design.................................................................................................................41
3.2 Target population...............................................................................................................41
3.3 Sample design....................................................................................................................42
3.3.1 Sample size.....................................................................................................................42
3.3.2 Sampling technique........................................................................................................42
3.4 Data collection methods....................................................................................................43
3.4.1 Data collection instruments............................................................................................43
3.4.2 Administration of data collection instrument.................................................................43
3.4.3 Reliability and Validity...................................................................................................44
3.5 Data Analysis Procedure....................................................................................................44
iv
3.6 Ethical Consideration.........................................................................................................45

REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………………….46

APPENDICES.........................................................................................................................51

QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEW GUIDE...................................................................52

BUDGET.................................................................................................................................59
TIME LINE.............................................................................................................................60

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 timing of monitoring and evaluation in the project life cycle.................................31

Table 3.1 Target population.....................................................................................................44

v
 LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 2.1 Project Life Cycle..............................................................................................................30

Figure 2.2Monitoring and Reporting Systems; Logical Model...........................................................38

Figure 2.3Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Cycle.......................................................................39

Figure: 2.4 Project Monitoring and Evaluation Model........................................................................40

Figure 2.5 Conceptual framework.......................................................................................................41

vi
 LIST OF ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

EARP: Electricity Access Rollout Project

EDCL: Energy Development Corporation Limited

EDPRS: Economic Devolopment And Poverty Reduction Strategy

ESSP: Energy Sector Strategic Plan

EU: European Union

EWSA: Energy Water And Sanitation

vii
GIS: Geographic Information System 

M&E: Monitoring And Evaluation

MEE: Management and Execution Efficiency

MIGEPROF: Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion

MINECOFIN: Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning

MININFRA: Ministry Of Infrastructure

MIS: Management Information System

OECD: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

PMI: Project Management Institute

PMIBOK: Project Management Institute Body Of Knowledge

REG: Rwanda Energy Group

SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Science

SWAP: Sector Wide Approach

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS

Contribution

Something done to offer solution to any problem or for reducing the increasing level of a

problem.

Evaluation

Evaluation is defined as a structured process of assessing the success of a project in meeting

its goals and reflects on lessons learnt.

Monitoring
viii
Monitoring refers to setting targets and milestones to measure progress and achievement and

whether the inputs are producing the planned outputs.

Outcomes

Outcomes are the changes, benefits, learning or other effects that happen as results of your

work. They can be wanted or unwanted, expected or unexpected.

Project

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

to respond to a need. This means that a project has definite time limits (start and finish) and

provides a new product or service which is different from similar existing products and

services.

ix
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction

This research intends to examine the Monitoring and Evaluation and Project outcomes of

nyabarongo hydro-electric project. This chapter focuses on the background of the study,

problem statement, objectives of the study, research questions, significance of the study,

limitations of the study, scope of the study and organization of the study.

1.1 Background of the study

Monitoring and evaluation became most popular especially with international organization;

they are relatively new concepts (Michael &Kruger, 2001). According to Jody and Ray

(2004) OECD countries have developed evaluation cultures and M&E systems in response to

varying degrees of internal and external pressures. For example, France, Germany, and the

Netherlands developed such a culture in response to both strong internal and external (mostly

EU-related) pressures, while countries such as Australia, Canada, the Republic of Korea, and

the United States were motivated mostly by strong internal pressures.

Interestingly, the pioneering OECD countries were motivated to adopt evaluation cultures

mostly because of strong internal pressures. These countries were also instrumental in

spreading the evaluation culture to other countries by disseminating evaluation ideas and

information, and launching evaluation organizations, training institutes, networks, and

consulting firms. By contrast many of the latecomer countries (for example, Italy, Ireland,

and Spain) tended to respond to evaluation issues primarily because of strong external

pressures. They were also heavily influenced by the evaluation culture of the pioneers, as

1
well as the evaluation culture that has taken root in the international organizations with which

their countries interact.

Robert (2012) asked: ‘What happens when you have low demand and high supply? This is

when monitoring takes over evaluation and monitoring masquerades as evaluation.’ In other

words, when monitoring is the dominant part of a government monitoring and evaluation

(M&E) system, this indicates that there is weak demand from decision-makers for evidence,

this appears to be a key issue in African government M&E systems. The supply of M&E in

Africa has to a large extent been influenced by donor demands that have stimulated the

development of M&E practice, in the absence of national government demand. Many

evaluators have been trained in a donor-orientated milieu, due to the strength of demand from

donors and the limited government system. The donor-driven orientation of M&E practice

has been recognized by the African Evaluation Association (AfrEA 2007). However, times

are changing. With increasing wealth and expectations, there are increasing demands being

placed upon government for accountability. Changes in demands for accountability are

affecting the kind of information government requires. This demand is sometimes being

filled by country-led monitoring systems, and in some countries evaluation that supplies

deeper analysis are being developed.

Zwikael ( 2002) states that project success is measured as the ability to complete the project

according to desired specification and within the specified budget and promised time

schedule, while keeping the customers and stakeholders happy. For proper project

completion both planning and execution need to be properly implemented. Some external

event may render a project unneeded and internal event may cause a project to be delayed or

2
cost more than expected. Almost all events that bear on project success can be anticipated

and monitored up accordingly. Kenzer (1989) says that project do not succeed only because

of a project monitoring and evaluation system is in place but their potential success is

ensured if these is an appropriate working monitoring and evaluation sustem effectively

utilized.

Monitoring and evaluation contribute to the project outcomes, as they 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 activities support both project managers and staff in

the process of understanding whether the project are progressing on schedule or meet their

objectives, input, activities and deadlines (Crawford& Bryce, 2003). 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 document (Belout,

1998).

In Rwanda there are policies set for implementing results based performance management in

the Rwandan Public Service based on the Results Based Management (RBM) concept. For

achieving the goals set out in Rwanda National Vision and medium term strategy will require

careful planning. The purpose of planning will be to provide orderly and coordinated

mechanisms for identification of national priorities and formulation of national programs

across all Public institutions in order to deliver Rwanda’s medium and long term

development objective. The function of planning is at the centre of the results based

performance management policy. Therefore, there are principles for Planning, Monitoring

3
and evaluation guiding. The principles outlined of this policy will apply to the planning,

monitoring and evaluation functions of Government. In addition, the following principles are

selected because of their specific significance to the planning, monitoring and evaluation

system in Rwanda. The first one is results focus Planning and monitoring and evaluation

across all levels within Government which will be driven by the need to achieve results,

consistent with Results based performance management. Accordingly, plans and M&E

frameworks at all levels will demonstrate the results they set out to achieve, and the strategies

carefully selected to achieve these results (MIFOTRA, 2009).

The second one is sustainable development Planning at all levels which will promote

sustainable development. Results for which plans are formulated at all levels will aim to be

sustainable by contributing directly to lasting impacts to the social wellbeing of Rwandans,

promoting a sustainable economy and conforming to national environmental policies. The

third principle is realism: the formulation of plans and monitoring and evaluation frameworks

at all levels must take into account the resource (human, financial or otherwise) that are or

will be available for their execution so that they are achievable within the period set for their

implementation. However, this should not limit the ambition to achieve more (MIFOTRA,

2009).

Participation is the last principles: the formulation of plans at all levels in Central and Local

Government will follow a participatory process bringing on board citizens, private sector,

civil society at all levels so that priorities relevant to all stakeholders are taken into account.

Monitoring and evaluation frameworks, developed through participatory process, will

provide the basis for reporting on the implementation of plans so that the stakeholders

receive accountability for the implementation of each plan (MIFOTRA, 2009).\

4
The energy sector is under Ministry of Infrastructure (MININFRA), one of the core mandates

of MININFRA is to carry out monitoring and evaluation of strategiques projects, programs

and strategies in the energy sector that reflect national policies and that are required to

achieve the targets set out in the ESSP. High level monitoring of energy sector performance

in line with EDPRS target will jointly done by MININFRA and MINECOFIN. The

government energy agent, currently REG, is herein mandated with the provision of accurate

and up –to – date information and reports to enable MININFRA to meet its monitoring and

evaluation role. Procedurally, the ministry will monitor and evaluate performance utilizing

results based management frameworks. In the monitoring and reporting system in

MININFRA, the sector working group acts as the main coordination forum for the sector,

providing information and evaluating progress against targets set during the bi-annual joint

sector reviews. Below this, technical working groups/tasks forces exist to deal with specific

sub-sectors/issues. Relevant stakeholders are present at all levels. Information is fed to the

coordination groups through a sector wide approach (SWAP). The SWAP secretariat is

housed in MININFRA and mandated to coordinate and provide information. On the sector

from REG’s management information system( MININFRA, 2009)

Currently REG is equipped with a management information system and database to support

planning and monitoring and evaluation of sector. It covers: development of an energy sector

baseline database annually updated; maintenance of a comprehensive set of statistics on

energy which will be useful for researchers and policy makers; designing and implementing a

system of planning monitoring and evaluation of the financial status and physical progress of

energy projects; creating a system to give regular compressive reports on execution of the

5
energy sector strategic plan. The MIS acts as the main monitoring tool and evaluation

practices such as readiness assessments, baselines estimations, indicator matrices and reports

are developed utilizing the MIS tools. REG will collaborate with the National Institution of

Statistics to ensure compatibility and synergies between national data collection surveys and

the web based MIS. The systems inform the coordination groups mentioned above. Each

project has a project manager and teams exist for GIS, MIS and monitoring and evaluation of

EARP. However, current systems are neither well integrated nor modern and information

flows between the utility and ministry are disjointed. Furthermore the focus at the ministry is

on monitoring and training and expansion are needed to set up a dedicated monitoring and

evaluation unity and seek external support. In terms of monitoring the Energy Sector

Strategic Plan (ESSP), this will be carried out on a quarterly basis in addition to regular

monitoring activities. This will result in quarterly briefs to highlight successes and makes

suggestions to improve any area where little progress is being made. Mid-year evaluation

exercises will be carried out to better inform the sector working group joint sector reviews.

An interim report and final report will be made internally, rather than externally. The

monitoring and evaluation unit within the ministry will assist in this exercise. Finally a full

assessment of the ESSP will be carried out by an independent evaluation consultancy for

accountability and transparency (MININFRA, 2009).

The current research investigates on the contribution of Monitoring and Evaluation and

nyabarongo hydro-electric project outcomes, a project of EDCL. Energy Development

Corporation Limited (EDCL) is a company that focuses on developing new energy

generation and network expansion projects to meet set targets. It is a subsidiary of the

6
Rwanda Energy Group (REG). This Company started operations in Rwanda on 14th July

2014 following an Act of Parliament being passed splitting Energy Water and Sanitation

Authority (EWSA) which was in charge of distributing power and water in Rwanda before

31st July 2014.

1.2 Problem statement

For a long period, many organizations have launched some projects in order to meet their

objectives. However, some projects failed and others meet their objectives or succeed

(Seymond, 2010). Several studies have been carried out with an aim of determining the

critical success factors which contribute to project success.

In EDCL some projects have failed and other succeeded, example among them:

- Construction of Nyirabuhombohombo micro hydropower plants project has failed due to

different issue inclunding monitoring and evaluation (EDCL, 2014).

- Construction of Gashashi and Janja micro hydropower plants project has succeeded and

monitoring and evaluation contributed to that success (EDCL, 2014).

The problem of this study is that, despite knowledge that effective M&E is a major

contributor to project success, there are still project failures. It is therefore why the researcher

chooses to study “the contribution of monitoring and evaluation on Nyabarongo Hydro-

Electric Project outcomes a project of EDCL.

1.3 Objectives of the study

The objectives will be useful in the line of the present research project, because they would

offer to the researcher the direction towards specific objectives to attain a general objective.

7
 1.3.2 General objective

This study generally will have the objective of assessing the contribution of monitoring and

evaluation on project outcomes in Rwanda.

1.3.3 Specific objectives

i. To identify the monitoring and evaluation activities carried by Nyabarongo Hydro-

Electric Project;

ii. To analyses the challenges faced by monitoring and evaluation activities on Nyabarongo

Hydro-Electric Project;

iii. To establish the contribution of monitoring & evaluation on Nyabarongo Hydro-Electric

Project;

1.4 Research Questions

The research basically wished to answer the following questions:

i. What is the monitoring and evaluation activities carried out by nyabarongo hydro-electric

project?

ii. What are the challenges faced by monitoring and evaluation within Nyabarongo Hydro-

Electric Project?

iii. Is there any contribution of monitoring and evaluation on nyabarongo hydro-electric

project outcomes?

1.5 Significance of the study

This research will be significant to the researcher, other researchers and Mount Kenya

University the government of Rwanda particularly EDCL. It will help the researcher to apply

theory to practice, to deeply understand monitoring and evaluation concepts and the

8
researcher will gain more knowledge in conducting research through experience in data

collection, analysis and interpretation and last this study will help the researcher to obtain a

Master’s degree in Business Administration.

This study will benefit to other researchers who will need to use this work to conduct forth

researches in a similar field and after the successful completion of this research, one copy of

this will be available at MKU library to serve for future reference in the field of monitoring

and evaluation.

Findings and recommendation of this study will guide planners and policy makers in matters

concerning monitoring and evaluation in different government projects and especially in

EDCL.

1.6 Limitations of the study

There will be probability of not revealing confidential information of EDCL and the

researcher will use the only available data & also rely much on secondary data that will be

available. Some of the respondents will be using only Kinyarwanda which will oblige the

researcher to translate from English to Kinyarwanda.

1.7 Scope of the study

1.7.1 Geographical scope

The study will examine the contribution of monitoring and evaluation on nyabarongo hydro-

electric project outcomes. The site is located in the Western central part of Rwanda within

the boundaries of the townships of Kibilira, Kivumu and Bulinga approximately 32km from

9
Muhanga which is on the National Highway in the Southern Province at about 50 km from

the capital city Kigali.

1.7.2 Time scope

The study will cover the period from 2009-2014

1.7.3 The content scope

The study focal point will on be how monitoring & evaluation contribute to the project

outcomes

1.8 Organizations of the study

The chapter one of this study will introduce the problem statement thereby monitoring &

evaluation; chapter two will present a review of literature, chapter three will present the

methodology & procedures used for data collection.

10
 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.0 Introduction

This chapter related to the literature review that presents the ideas and reviews of other

persons in relation to the topic identified by the researcher. It is concerned with the reviews

of other people’s works of concept of monitoring and evaluation and project outcomes.

It covers theoretical literature, empirical literature, Critical Review and Research Gap

identification, Theoretical framework, Conceptual framework, Summary.

2.1 Theoretical literature

A well functioning monitoring and evaluation system is critical part of good

project/programme management accountability. Timely and reliable monitoring and

evaluation provides information to: support project/programme implementation with

accurate, evidence based reporting that informs management and decision making to guide

and improve project/programme outcomes, contribute to organizational learning, knowledge

sharing by reflecting upon and sharing experiences and lessons so that we can gain the full

benefit from what we do and how we do it. Uphold accountability and compliance by

demonstrating whether or not our work has been carried out as agreed and in compliance

with established standards (Aubel, 2004).

2.1.1 Concept of monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring refers to setting targets and milestones to measure progress and achievement and

whether the inputs are producing the planned outputs. In other words, monitoring sees

whether the project is consistent with the design. Monitoring also is a recurring action to

compare actual versus planned performance to determine cost and time estimates at

completion and if necessary to take preventive and corrective actions based on such estimates
11
(Francis, 2008). Crawford and Bryce (2003) argue that monitoring is an ongoing process of

data capture and analysis for primarily project control with an internally driven emphasis on

efficiency of project. The authors define efficiency in this context as doing the right thing

that is: efficient conversion of inputs to outputs within budget and schedule and wise use of

human, financial and natural capital. This definition emphasizes the fact that monitoring is

geared mainly to project control. According to Alberto and Timur (2013), evaluation is

defined as a structured process of assessing the success of a project in meeting its goals and

reflects on lessons learnt.

Shapiro (2004) emphasizes the fact that evaluation compares the project impact with what

was set to be achieved in the project plan and further argues that evaluation examines how

the project impacts were achieved and what went wrong or right for the benefit of

organizational learning. The emphasis of this approach to evaluation is on impact of the

project after implementation. It does not recognize the midterm evaluations that tend to look

at the continued relevance and sustainability of the project and the impacts that the project

has had even before completion.

According to the same author, monitoring in construction area is used to establish baseline

trends and conditions, measure the impacts that occur during project construction and

operation, check their compliance with agreed conditions and standards facilitate impact

predictions and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Therefore, compliance and effects

of monitoring permit only reactive impact management, since they detect violation or

adverse changes after the fact. The benefit to conduct an evaluation has been observed

differently by different people. Alberto and Timur (2013) argue that conduct an evaluation is

12
considered as a good practice in managing an intervention. For them the monitoring phase of

project evaluation allows contractors to track progress and identify issues early during

implementation, thus providing to constructions companies an opportunity to take corrective

action or make proactive improvements as required. The end of project evaluation allows

companies to manage projects and programs based on the results of activities it undertakes,

and therefore provides accountability to those that fund projects (Mansuri & Rao, 2003).

Evaluation also allows contactors to repeat activities that have been demonstrated to work

and they can improve on or let go activities that do not work (Bower & Finegan, 2009). The

same authors confirm that evaluation is not just about demonstrating success, it is also about

learning why things don’t work. As such identifying and learning from mistakes is one of the

key parts of evaluation. Monitoring and evaluation though usually taken as common

functions are distinct. The distinction is described thereafter: monitoring usually happens

during the implementation phase of the project and involves tracking the inputs, activities

and the outputs. On the other hand evaluation usually happens after implementation, after

project closeout and involves determing whether the outcomes and goals were achieved

( Muzinda, 2007).

2.1.1.1 Types of monitoring

IFRC, (2010) provides a summary of the different types of monitoring commonly found in a

project/programme monitoring system. It is important to remember that these monitoring

types often occur simultaneously as part of an overall monitoring system. The results

monitoring tracks effects and impact, this is where monitoring merges with evaluation to

determine if the project/programme is a target toward its intended results (outputs, outcomes,

13
impacts) and whether there may be any untended impact (positive or negative).for example, a

psychosocial project may monitor that its community activities achieve the outputs that

contribute to community resilience and ability to recover from a disaster; process activity

monitoring tracks the use of inputs and resources, the progress of activities the delivery of

outputs. It examines how activities are delivered, the efficiency in time and resources. It is

often conducted in conjunction with compliance monitoring and feeds into evaluation of

impact. For example, a water and sanitation project may monitor that targeted households

receive septic systems according to schedule.

Compliance monitoring ensures with donors regulation and expectation results, grant and

contract requirements, local governmental regulation and laws and ethical standards. For

example, shelter project may monitor that shelter’s adhere to agreed national and

international safety standards in construction; context (situation) monitoring tracks the

settings in which the project/programme operates, especially as it affects identified risks and

assumptions but also any unexpected consideration that may arise. It includes the field as

well as the larger political, institutional, funding and policy context that affect the

project/progamme. For example, a project in a conflict prone area may monitor potential

fighting that could not only affect project success but endanger project staff and volunteers

(IFRC, 2010).

Beneficiary monitoring tracks beneficiary perceptions of project/programme, including their

participation treatment access to resources and their overall experience of change. Sometimes

referred to as beneficiary contract monitoring, it often includes a stakeholder’s complaints

and feedback mechanism. It should take account of different population groups, as well as

14
the perception of indirect beneficiaries. For example, cash for work programme assisting

community members after a natural disaster may monitor how they feel about the selection of

programme participants, the payment of participants and the contribution the programme is

making to the community (IFRC, 2010).

Financial monitoring accounts for costs by inputs and activity within predefined categories of

expenditure. It is often conducted in conjunction with compliance and process monitoring.

For example, livehoolds project implementing a series of micro enterprises may monitor the

money awarded and repaid and ensure that implementation is according to the budget and

time frame; organizational monitoring tracks the sustainability, institutional output and

capacity building in the project/programme and with its partners. It is often done in

conjunction with the monitoring processes of the larger, implementation organization. For

example, a national society’s headquarters may use organizational monitoring to track

communication and collaboration in project implementation among its branches and chapters

(IFRC, 2010).

2.1.1.2 Different ways of doing evaluation

In evaluation we look at efficiency, effectiveness and impact. There are many different ways

of doing evaluation. According to Cousin (1992) some of the more common terms you may

have come across are: self-evaluation, which involves an organization or project holding up a

minor to itself and assessing how it is doing, as a way of learning and improving practice. It

takes a very self-reflective and honest organization to do this effectively. But it can be an

important learning experience. Participatory evaluation, this is a form of internal evaluation.

The intention is to involve as many people with a direct stake in the work as possible. This

15
may mean project staff and a beneficiary working together on the evaluation, if an outsider is

called in, it is to act as a facilitator of the process, not an evaluator.

Rapid participatory Appraisal: originally used in rural areas, the same methodology can in

fact be applied in most communities. This is qualitative way of doing evaluation. It is semi-

structured and carried out by an interdisciplinary team over a short time. It is used as a

starting point for understanding a local situation and is a quick, cheap useful way to gather

information. It involves the use of secondary data review, direct observation, semi-structure

interviews, key information, group interviews, games, diagrams, maps and calendars. In an

evaluation context, it allows one to get valuable input from those who are supposed to be

benefiting from the development work. It is flexible and interactive (Cousin, 1992). And

finally external evaluation: this is an evaluation done by a carefully chosen outsider or

outsider team. Interactive evaluation: this involves a very active interaction between an

outside evaluator or evaluation team and the organization or project being evaluated.

Sometimes an inside may be included in the evaluation team ( Cousin,1992).

2.1.1.3 Role of monitoring and evaluation

According to Otieno (1999), monitoring and evaluation are viewed as related, but they are

distinct functions, projects are monitored so as to: assess the stakeholders’ understanding of

the project; minimize the risk of project failure; promote systematic and professional

management; and assess progress in implementation. It should further be recognized that, to

be an effective management tool, monitoring should be regular but should take into account

the risks inherent in the project/program and its implementation.

16
Evaluation has several roles which include the following: it assists to determine the degree

of achievement of the objectives; it determines and identifies the problems associated with

programme planning and implementation; it generates data that allows for cumulative

learning which, in turn, contributes to better designed programmes, improved management

and a better assessment of their impact. The key words in this scenario are “lessons learned”;

and it assists in the reformulation of objectives, policies, and strategies in projects /

programmes (Otieno,….)

2.1.1.4 Steps involved in the design of monitoring and evaluation

Kunuar (2004) argued that involving potential users in the design of the monitoring and

evaluation system will help clarify their informational requirements and also ensure support

for the system and utilization of its findings. The following steps involved in setting up a

monitoring and evaluation system illustrate the importance of close consultation between

designers and users. The first step is preparation a logical framework: it is essential to know

what the program/project is intended to do and how it is expected to operate before forming

opinion on how it should be monitored and evaluated. A careful description of the objectives

and work plans must be the first step in designing the procedures for monitoring and

evaluation. Such a methodical description will result in logical framework for the

programme/project (Kunuar 2004).

Preparing such framework requires the undertaking of the following three main tasks:

definition of the content of objectives what is the project intended to do, definition and

premises (hypothesis) underlying the program/project plan, selection of indicators of

program/project inputs, activities and outcomes indicators of program/project performance

and outcomes depend on objectives pursued and strategies adopted, which vary from

17
program to program. The logical framework is a crucial instrument for monitoring and

evaluation as well as an important program/project planning device (Kunuar 2004).

The second step is specifying information requirement, what to measure: data collection for

monitoring and evaluation can be quite expensive, hence caution must be exercised to

determining areas to be covered. Only those data, which are absolutely necessary for rational

decision making on the program/project should be collected. The third step is timing of

research, when and how often to collect data: as emphasized before in order to produce

relevant timely and accurate data, monitoring an evaluation activities must be designed as a

continuous process of data collection analysis and judgment. The heart of systematic

monitoring and evaluation is that the replication of the case studies included in the base line

survey. Only through the approach can accurate assessment of the relationship between

program resources, activities and results to be obtained. In essence the replication consists of

returning to previously studies sampling units, periodically collecting data measurement

deriving conclusion from them about progress made in project implementation and achieving

stated objectives (Kunuar 2004).

The forth one is communicating monitoring and evaluation results, how to report findings:

reporting of result is one of the most crucial phases in the monitoring and evaluation process

since it is here that the link between research and decision making on the project must be

established. And finally, whether and to what extent monitoring and evaluation actual serve

as tool for rationalizing decision makers. The following reporting procedures will enhance

the utilization of monitoring and evaluation findings (Kunuar 2004).

18
2.1.1.5 Challenges of monitoring and evaluation

According to Camacho (2007), monitoring and evaluation challenge are: Measuring impact:

the measurement of impact is challenging, can be costly and is widely debated. This does not

mean that we should not try to measure impact; it is an important part of being accountable to

what we set out to achieve. However, we should be cautions and understand some of the

challenges in measuring impact. Typically, impact involves longer term changes and it may

take months or years for such changes to become apparent. Furthermore, it can be difficult to

attribute observed changes to an intervention versus other factors (called attribution). Despite

these challenges, there is increasing demand for accountability among organizations working

humanitarian and development. Therefore, careful consideration should be given to its

measurement, including the required period resources and specialized skills.

Another challenge is the back of time reserved for learning and knowledge sharing

throughout an M&E process. In order to take the challenge, there should be a process of

learning and change among project managers and team members, in order to identify key

success factors. Resistance should be addressed through dialogues, reflection and action

which can lead to the empowerment of individuals and the team as a whole (Fals , 2001).

Many times, there is little interest in application of M&E as well as varying levels of

understanding of M&E among some stakeholders which affect level of participation and

involvement in the programmatic activity. This can be addressed by involving all relevant

stakeholders right from the design of the programmatic activity proposal to implementation.

Through these practices participants are able to appreciate the gap in the M&E system and

19
therefore the need to address to them. This hence help to improve their interest, participation

and finally ownership of the entire M&E system thus strengthening intervention (Peter &

Hilary,2001). Disharmony in the way people conducted M&E is also a challenge; Central to

this lack of mandatory tools and frameworks expected of all projects. The analysis of projects

documents often show only annual reports and in some instance evaluation reports. The

capacity to develop M&E frameworks and indicators, and to plan for M&E, has been

lacking. This is also extended to include the confidence to experiment with new approaches

or techniques (Kusek & Rist, 2001).

Promote training and evaluation, training activities and evaluation may serve as a basis for a

training needs assessment. Depending on the information available, you might use that

information to build training needs assessment. The challenges that surfaces is managing the

scope of evaluation .It is so easy to add a question here and there and then later , find

ourselves faced which more data than we can analyze . This types of situation can lead many

of us to feel overwhelmed or discouraged and subsequently to put off or avoid compiling the

results altogether .Data collected with a clear purpose in mind enable us to focus on what we

really want and need (Catalano& Al,1998).

Challenging also is the lack universal metrics for measuring success .The success of

adaptation intervention is therefore difficult to quantify and often cannot be directly

compared across different locations (Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997). There is uncertainty in

the inherent climate projections and associated uncertainty in climate impact. Uncertainty is

inherent climate predictions and the rate and magnitude of climate impacts. A growing of

20
researches argues that there will always be some level of irreducible uncertainty in our

understanding of the future climate. Yet uncertainty cannot be obstacles to make climate –

related decisions. Decisions makers who are integrating climate change risks into plans and

policies guidance and support on how to effectively plan for adaptation despite uncertainty

are relevant for adaptation (Spearman & McCray, 2001).

2.1.2 Project outcomes concept

According to Frimpong (2003) projects are time-phase efforts that have a shorter duration

than programs. Keeling (2000) define a project as a temporary endeavor which is undertaken

to create a unique product or service to respond to a need. This means that a project has

definite time limits (start and finish) and provides a new product or service which is different

from similar existing products and services. Outcomes are the changes, benefits, learning or

other effects that happen as results of your work. They can be wanted or unwanted, expected

or unexpected (Sally & Jean,).

2.1.2.1 Factors influencing project outcomes

Project manager’s competence: most attributes appearing in this factor focus mainly on

coordinating the ability and report of the project manager, the trust imposed in the project

team by the delegating authority to project team members, the technical capacity, positive

attitude and leadership. Thus a project manager is the key person at the site who, within a set

of guidelines kept in place by the top management allocate resources and makes regulations

decision at the site level. Sometimes more involvement of project manager in site activities

can lift the morale of team members and they start working with full zeal and enthusiasm to

achieve the desired quality level (Bryan & Dodds, 1997). Jha (2004) argues that a competent

manager organizes resources through constant persuasion with his or her higher ups, takes

21
active part in construction control meetings held at the site level, acts as a catalyst in training

the human resources in the skill demanded by the project, and he or she makes their people

committed to the project through effective leadership and by acting in non partisan ways. All

these attributes can be thought of originating from a project manager’s competence.

Top management support: is essential for achieving desired quality mainly on account of four

issues. It is the top management prerogative to set all the regulation issues (including quality

regulation) and control resources. In addition, top management arranges training of human

resources involved in the project and he/she has a big role to play in identifying the project

manager. Top management support practically is the most of all factors. It can be seen that

the top management controls all the key factors and hence its support is highly desired for the

quality compliance ( Jha, 2004).

Client’s involvement and competence: clients play an important role in achieving the desired

quality level, not only are responsible for the preparation of clear and unambiguous

specification but they must also monitor the actual work at the site. it is well recognized that

having the client’s inspectors work with the contractor to establish good quality control

produce before the work is done, is much more effective than walking around after ( Bryan &

Dodds 1997). In addition, if any case of any discrepancies or deviation from the specification

is observed it should be communicated immediately to the concerned person. If the

owners/clients a desired quality job, they should stick to the specification since any

relaxation in quality performance even for few times, can set a bad precedence. Thus

22
competence of the client plays a prominent role in defining the expected level of quality from

the contractor organization; hence the factor truly justifies its importance (Collins, 1996).

Employee commitment and empowerment: organization demonstrates empowerment by

allowing its project managers to take full responsibility and make decision for their project.

Project managers are allowed to make financial decisions but must ensure that the project

budget is not exceeded. They should refer the issue back to the top management of the

organization if they are not sure of the appropriate decision. Employees may be encouraged

to present improvement and cost saving suggestion to management and to a certain degree is

allowed to self implement solutions. When employees first join organization, they are

oriented to the philosophy of the company of commitment to never ending improvement.

They are informed of the strategic goals of the company and made to feel that they are part of

team (Brower, 1995).

Training should be extended to the employees of organization instead of being only extended

to top management. Some organization in Japan are more willing to spend time and money

on training employees in the management of total quality management principles, problem

solving and most importantly teamwork and are able to achieve the quality systems

management and the success of their project (Love, Li, Irani & Holt, 2000).

Organization supplier relationship: as for evaluation supplier in order to identify if the

organization should offer more jobs to them in the future organization monitors the

percentage or the number of orders that were delivered late. Organization should have a

vendor evaluation form for all suppliers’ subcontractors in terms of delivery and work

23
performance. It is better when organization have a few suppliers with whom it works closely

and the partnership is based on the quality of their work and their actions in documenting

improvement processes for continuous improvement in quality standards (Love, Li, Irani &

Holt, 2000).

2.1.2.2 Factors for measuring construction project outcomes

Different authors have identified how construction project outcomes can be measured.

Atkison, (1999) mentioned cost saying that the overrun is unavoidable in construction project

and the fluctuation cost is a very important aspect of the overall cost of the project at any

phase. This provides a good indication of how the project cost is affected by the project

external environment, the managerial cost. Example the cost of engaging the services of the

project manager or consultant and the project team, is essential a fixed one (a percentage of

the contract sum) and many vary with adjustments in this sum due to changes in certain

parameters of the project and its environments. E.g. time, scope, price fluctuations and so on

(Environmental and social costs are essential in the outcomes of a project and depend partly

on the extent to which the project impacts on both the environment and society and how

much the client spends on mitigating the effects.

This usually forms a small part of the cost of government building project (except when there

is a massive civil engineering works and road construction) not only because of their sizes

and complexities but also because there are not many enforceable laws in these regard (Ofori,

2001). The same author believed that the position of incidental costs relating to accidents and

injuries are covered by insurance of which premium is paid by the contractor to indemnify

the client, except where those incidents are caused by the negligence of the client.

24
Quality is another measure of project outcomes: indicators of quality are noted in this order:

Engineers /Architects approval and disapproval records, material test, records number and

extend of variation, service test records, number and extent of reworks. The most important

indicators of the quality are what the consulting Archetects / Engineers say about the parts as

constructed. Architects/ engineers approvals on key aspects of the project before continuing

are an important prerequisite throughout the project execution. This is also supported by

requirements in government’s conditions of contract. The availability of such a record or lack

of it is an important indicator of the construction (Chung, 1999). While assessing quality

records show that all materials used in construction project has been tested and approved by

the supervisory team, particularly the architect, Engineer and, sometimes the project manager

(Pheng, 2004). This is also seen as an important testimony of the quality of the construction

project.

The same author argue that the number and extent of variation orders have the potential of

affecting not only the integrity but also the quality of the construction when these are

extensive , they end up by affecting the vision, homogeneity and the unity of the parts

as ,originally designed. Chung (1999) add on extra point , that records show all the services

have been tested and approved as functional after installation , the number and extent of

rework . In a situation where there is poor on time supervision, and always find themselves

asking the contractor to open up, demolish and re-do the affected parts as required by

contract conditions. This negative production activity has worse effect on the construction

than variation. All these indicators of quality are directly within the control of the project

team and project manager and are controllable throughout the project phases.

25
Atkinson (1999) believes that the most influential indicators of measuring outcomes of the

project is the time for completion of major works. Major works are those parts of the project

which takes a lot of the time to complete and which must be completed before other parts of

the project can continue. According to him they are critical works and depend on the project

being executed. A key motivation is that such major works are milestones at which payment

certificates can be raised and therefore practitioners attach special importance to them. The

control of indicators is on behalf of the project manager (consultant and project team as far as

they are able to ensure a good management and execution efficiency (MEE). The time for

payment of certified work is a key influencer of the duration of the project due to the rampant

delay in payment to contractors. In the extreme case, this results time overruns and

contractors suspend works until they receive payment. Sometimes contractors have no choice

to abandon the project as a result for the delayed payment could be identified as a major

cause of project time.

Overruns (Frimpang & al, 2003). The same authors also talked about time for valuation and

certification. For them ,this depend on both the contractor and the consultant (Architect and

the quantity surveyor ) this time is influenced by disagreements about performance and

compliance issues as well as issues of the relationship between the contractor and the project

supervisor team. Authors note that, post- award negotiations and delays in evaluation and

extensive system of controls accounts for the overall delays in construction. They also talked

about incidental time which is related with incidental cost. This comprises the time taken to

address such issues as accidents, inclement weather, industrial action and litigations and

others.

26
Management and execution efficiency (MEE): is represented by its indicators, efficiency of

the project team, supervision of contract, decision making process, communication and

reports, inspection and approval of works and site meeting regularity. Generally, the MEE is

seen as the most immediate metric with which the success of the project manager/consultant

and project team is measured. The MEE has a visible bearing on all the other criteria. This is

base first on the qualification, capacity and experience of the team members. Secondly, it has

to do with their diligence to work (Austen & Neale, 1994).

Mostly, unsuccessful projects are projects that management team have not shown enough

dedication and consistency in MEE. This is usually due to their commitments to other

projects running in parallel. MEE could be seen in three levels, the caliber of management‘s

team, the supervision of the contractor, and the management of the project in that order of

important. The success of these functions has a direct impact on the quality and success of

project (Levy, 2006). Environmental and social impact: environmental impact factor is

represented by four indicators, compliance with regulations, investment on environmental

issues, number of employees on environmental tasks and number of reported incidents. This

factor is heavily dependent on the client’s organization as a key factor. For each project,

these measures demand a complete client’s commitment from the outset and it is a measure

that should indicate the environmental consciousness of projects (Egan, 1998).

The social impact factor is defined by number and types of community institutional structure

affected, economic (employment/income characteristic), political (size and structure of

distinct/ municipal), educational(schools, change in student population, attendance), health

27
(Change in health conditions), religious and other interested groups, number the population

affected, infrastructure, land use, patters and cultural, historical and archeological resources.

This factor is a measure that expected to ensure the social consciousness of clients during

project execution. The position of these on the assessment scale shows that these aspects of

the industry are just receiving the needed attention (Fotmoso, Tzortzopoulos & liedthe,

2002).

Client’s satisfaction across project life cycle: during the project life cycle, clients express

their satisfaction levels at different stages within the project progresses a well as practitioners

(Ryd, 2004). During the use stage, both clients and practitioners satisfaction is higher when

the project has become a product. Within the confines of the project life cycle, satisfaction is

measured within six months defect liability period beginning from the date of handing over.

Within this period the client’s satisfaction is given real meaning depending on whether there

appeared zero defects on one extreme (confirming high quality work) or multiple defects on

all parts of the building on the other extreme in terms of indicating poor quality work( Ryd,

2004). On the execution stage, clients satisfaction is highly linked with those expectations,

they have from their service providers together with their assessment of management and

execution efficiency of the project. The level of satisfaction at this stage increases the

motivation of the clients regarding decisions to continue, suspend, alter or abandon the

project altogether, all things being equal (Ryd, 2004).

During the commissioning stage, client’s satisfaction is closely linked with the government

intention to indicate good governance. This especially so, when the project is one which is

28
being undertaken in response to the public’s expressed long awaited need (Njoh, 1993). The

inception stage, client’s satisfaction is related on how quickly and efficiently the design team

performed and it is climaxed by the delivery of completed design reflecting client’s exact

vision on time and with cost ceilings. Clients are interested in both development satisfaction

and use satisfaction as noted by ( Njoh, 1993). Lathan(1994), recommends that government

as clients should be seen to be playing active role in the developmental processes of the

project, setting demanding standards and ensure best practice.

2.1.3 Project management

According to Trish (2007), a project goes through four distinct value added stages from its

start point to its end point. Each stage has its own start and end point and each has a specific

target to achieve, that is to say that each stage within a project is a project in its own right.

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

Business case Project delivery Project delivery Benefits delivery

development planning

Figure 2.1 Project Cycle

Stage one: business case development, the project start point is usually an idea within the

business. For example, an identified needs of a change to the statusquo or a business

requirement for survival. At this stage, the project management processes should be

challenging whether this the right project to be progressing. Stage two: this stage is all about

planning and project management processes, one used to determine how deliver the project

right. Stage three: effective delivery is all about control and management of uncertainty. This

stage is therefore focused on the controlled delivery. To deliver it right. Stage four: the final

29
stage involves integrating the project into the business; allow the project to become part of

the normal business process.

2.1.3.1 Monitoring and evaluation and project management processes

In order to locate and embed monitoring and evaluation as project management processes,

the Project Management Institute Body of Knowledge (PMIBK) divides project life cycle

into five major stage namely: initiation, planning, implementation, control and project close

out (PMI, 2004).

Table 2.1 Timing of monitoring and evaluation in the project life cycle

PMI project life cycle stages Timing of monitoring and evaluation

Project initiation

Project planning Monitoring

Project implementation

Project control Evaluation

Project close out

Source: PMI, 2004

Monitoring is a function that happens during the implementation stage of the project life

cycle. Information from monitoring facilitates the control function of the project. It is

important that the monitoring happens continuously and effectively thought out the project

implementation process to enable the project manager to adequately control the project. This

is very important if the project manager is quickly diagnosing problems that may hinder

project success and hence seek remedy.

30
Kyriakopoulos, (2011) simplified project lifecycle into four main stages which are project

initiation, planning stage, execution stage and closing out. Each stage of project life cycle

requires different effort from the management. Likewise each stage in the project life cycle

requires different level of effort in terms of monitoring and evaluation effort. The same author

asserts that during initiation stage, management effort in terms of monitoring and evaluation

is minimal since the project is in the early stages. During the planning stage monitoring and

evaluation effort of the project is higher than the initiating stage since the project is gaining

some momentum.

During execution stage the management effort in most aspects including monitoring and

evaluation is at its maximum. The execution stage is the most risky stage where the

probability of not achieving project success is at its peak due to numerous project activities.

It is during this stage that the project M&E team should be most active in monitoring and

providing timely feedback. Finally during closing down the monitoring and evaluation just

like other management activities is less intensified as compared to the execution stage. Most

of the monitoring activities during this stage involves reporting on the project outcome and

preparing for future projects.

2.2 Empirical literature

Different scholars talk about monitoring and evaluation and have done research on

monitoring and evaluation. In this empirical review, we will talk about their findings.

Mackay (2007), while discussing about how to build monitoring and evaluation to support

better government, he argued that Colombia’s monitoring and evaluation system managed by

the department of national planning was not effective. One of the system’s main components

was performance information database containing about 500 performance indicators to track

31
the government’s performance against all the 320 presidential goals. For each performance

indicator, the publicly available database records the objectives, the strategy to achieve the

objectives baseline performance, annual targets and the amount spent by the government.

Where performance targets were not met, the manager responsible for meeting targets was

required to prepare a statement explaining the underperformance.

Mark (2007) has conducted a research in Bostwana on monitoring and evaluation practices

and challenges of Gaborone based local NGO’s implementing HIV/AIDS project which have

these objectives: to identify the best practices in monitoring and evaluation of HIV/AIDS

projects from literature; to determine the extent of resourcing provided to the Gaborone

based local NGOs implementing HIV/AIDS projects; to identify the nature of activities

carried out on the HIV/AIDS projects implemented by these local NGOs ;determine how

monitoring and evaluation practices of the local NGOs implementing HIV/AIDS projects

compare with the best practices; identify the challenges faced by the NGOs in the monitoring

and evaluation of the HIV/AIDS projects. The study findings showed that the project

implemented by the NGO were not effectively monitored and evaluated. The study also

unearthed the lack of funding faced by the NGOs in this area of HIV/AIDS. This was mainly

as a result of lack of expertise in this area.

Rono (2002), while analyzing the impact of structural adjustment programs on Kenyan

society found out that the monitoring and evaluation directorate in collaboration with other

stakeholders, planned a comprehensive programme to raise awareness on the role of

monitoring and evaluation for sustainable development. The programmed aimed to create

32
demand for monitoring and evaluation results and use among all stakeholders in the public

sector, agencies and departments and among non state actors at both the national and

devolved levels. According to the same author, these activities endeavor to show new case

and emerging knowledge on monitoring and evaluation including good practices that support

managing for development results, and it was found that monitoring and evaluation plays a

constructive and effective intermediation role between project sponsors, beneficiaries and

other stakeholders wherever members serve as evaluators

Similarly, Wicker (2004), conducted a research on securing right to access to adequate

housing in South Africa discovered that the South African government recognized that, to

ensure that tangible results are achieved, the way that it monitors, evaluates and reports on its

policies and projects is crucial. The government was found to be in the process of refining

the system of monitoring and evaluation, to improve the performance of the system of

governance and the quality of the outputs, proving an early warning system and a mechanism

to respond speedily to problems, as they arise. Among other things, this necessitated an

improvement of the statistical and information base and enhancing the capacity of the policy

coordination and advisory services unit. This was a government’s a commitment to carry out

an obligation arising from that people’s contract. Since then there has been an increased

focus on monitoring and evaluation in South Africa. Several departments are putting in place

better capacity for monitoring and evaluation or are developing monitoring and evaluation

systems.

33
Eric (2013), conduct a research on monitoring and evaluation and achievement of

development project goals in Rwanda case study of Umutara Community Resources and

infrastructure development project in Nyagatare district with the purpose of analyzing if the

monitoring and evaluation system used has made any contribution in achieving set project

goals, investigate if proper monitoring and evaluation as a project implementation tool

necessarily leads to achieving project goals, to assess the results of monitoring and evaluation

used in this system. He observed that monitoring and evaluation practices, most of the project

officers reflect more accountability to donors, followed by their own organizational

objectives and less towards communities they are working for. The study shows that there are

different levels of monitoring; one of those levels of information and monitoring in an

organization was its field staff. Despite their highly appreciable and committed efforts, this

tier of monitoring and evaluation remain s the main constraint in information flow. However

this is due to the fact that field staff were most under paid, les trained, less skilled, works in

hard conditions and suffer from extreme workload and demands both from communities and

hierarchy in the organization. As they were to perform many tasks at the same time,

monitoring does not remain sole priority.

Annick (2013), in his research about monitoring and evaluation and project performance in

Rwanda, a case study of public policy information monitoring and advocacy project in

PRIMA with objectives of assessing monitoring and evaluation practices in PRIMA, examine

the role of project managers in carrying out monitoring practices and to determine the

PRIMA project performance due to effective monitoring and evaluation. This study revealed

that there are documents explaining monitoring and evaluation procedures within PRIMA but

34
the problem is who have access to those documents. PRIMA project uses action plans and

budget as tools used for monitoring and evaluation. In addition, the evaluation is frequently

carried out within PRIMA to provide information for funding agencies and to meet external

accountability requirements.

However, it is an expresses concern that the information provided by monitoring and

evaluation neither influence decision making during project implementation nor during the

planning of ongoing project development and new initiatives. Monitoring is not informed

clarity about learning, or how it can be designed and how it access in relation to to

evaluation. Concerning the role of project managers in carrying out monitoring and

evaluation practices, monitoring and evaluation is drafted by an M&E specialist in NPA

(Norwegian People’s Aid) who involves the project coordinators and the program manager.

While analyzing the relationship between M&E practice and project performance, the study

revealed that the effectiveness and efficiency of M&E enable continuous and systematic

process of collecting and analyzing data for PRIMA. Finally, it was discovered that M&E

helps to find out if the PRIMA project is running as initially planned and the information

generated through M&E provides project managers with a clear basis decision making

Consequently M&E system of PRIMA is satisfactory because a great deal of useful

information is housed in it.

2.3 Critical Review and Research Gap identification

Different scholars and researchers reviewed and talk about monitoring and evaluation and

project but there is a gap in their research. Rono states that monitorimg and evaluation plays

a constructive and effective intermediation role between project sponsors, beneficiaries and

35
other stakeholders but he didn’t demonstrate its contribution to the project outcomes. Wicker

says that monitoring and evaluation system helps to improve the performance of the system

of governance and the quality of outputs, he is research was about the governance system not

about an infrastructure project. Eric while analyzing the contribution of monitoring and

evaluation to the project set target in Rwanda, he says that staff were to perform many tasks

at the same time and monitoring and evaluation does not remain sole priority but he didn’t

show the contribution of monitoring and evaluation to the project sets target.

Annick discovered that monitoring and evaluation helps to find out if project is running as

initially planned and information generated provides to the project manager a clear basis

decision making, she doesn’t talk about monitoring and project outcomes. Many researchers

have talk about monitoring and evaluation but no other research has been conducted on

monitoring and evaluation and project outcomes and especially in EDCL on nyabarongo

hydro-electric project. Thus the findings of this research will gives us the real picture on

monitoring and evaluation and its contribution to the project outcomes in Rwanda and

precisely on nyabarongo hydro-electric project.

2.4 Theoretical framework

According to Nannei (2011), the aim of monitoring and evaluation framework is to create

evidence for informed decision making, mainly at policy level, and to provide information

for accountability and performance improvement. Monitoring and evaluation frameworks:

assist in understanding and analyzing a program, help to develop sound monitoring and

evaluation plans and implementation of monitoring and evaluation activities, articulate

program goals and measurable short, medium and long-term objectives, define relationship

36
among inputs activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts, clarify the relationship between

program activities and external factors, demonstrate how activities will lead to desired

outcomes and impacts, especially when resources are not available to conduct rigorous

impact evaluation. There are different theories and models that explain how to practice

monitoring and evaluation, the logical model and project monitoring and evaluation model

are among them and they are very important because they explain clearly how monitoring

and evaluation is a carried out.

2.4.1 Logical Model

Nannei (2011) states that having decided to adopt the principles of result-based management

to design the monitoring and reporting framework, the priority is to define clearly the results’

chain, in order to be able to identify the objectives of the future actions and plan activities to

reach them as the figure below is showing it.

Inputs/actions Outputs Short- term Long-term Impact

outcomes outcomes

ource:Nannei

Figure 2.2 : Monitoring and Reporting Systems; Logical Model

Nannei (2011) Logical Model is based on output and outcome indicators and tries to identify

longer term changes (or impact) that the strategy will produce, linking them to impact

37
indicators that will be defined over time. The output indicators derive from the

implementation plan. He added that the M&E framework has three main components: the

results’ chain, the planning, monitoring and evaluation cycle (management cycle), the M&E

plan. The purpose of the results chain is to build a logical relationship between the expected

results at different programmatic levels, it is built on the principle of aggregation of results,

which implies that the aggregation of results at one level should make it possible to achieve

the expected result of the higher level

Planning, monitoring and evaluation cycle

Or management cycle

Informed
decision
Planning and
making/plannin
g Implementing
planning

learning& Short-
term&long- monitoring
improving

evaluating
Reporting
results

Figure 2.3: Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Cycle

Source: Nannei (2011)

As for the management cycle shows that steps that each implementing stakeholder shoul take

in order to develop and implement effective action plans. Considering the links in term of

38
outcomes and impact. According to the M&E plan, it links implementation whereby

stakeholders implement their action plans according to their timing and procedures, in order

to produce the outputs identified and make sure that the induce the changes envisaged in the

short and long term course for monitoring and reporting and each expected result (output,

outcome and long term change or impact) generated by actions that all the stakeholders will

carry out, will be measured using the progress indicators. In the measurement during which

the definition of the implementation plan and the corresponding M&E framework, output

indicators have to be identified (Nannei, 2011).

2.4.2 Project Monitoring and Evaluation Model

project location,sector, problem, project intensions project useable mechanism, project harddoes

issues and challenges goals&wishes ways &means

Project Project Project Projec

identifica objectives strategies t
tion activit
ies

Projec
t
inputs

National Projects Project Project

policy impacts outcome output
objectiv s
e

National policy statements the well being of differentes Generated short term

e.g:vision 2020,EDPRS,MDGs, choice opportunity alternatives

39
 party platforms

Figure: 2.4. Project Monitoring and Evaluation Model.

Source: Ndabananiye, 2015

This shows that for project outcomes, M&E should be carried out in a systematic process

starting by project identification up to the project long term objectives policy or vision

2.5 Conceptual framework

This is a tool intended to assist the researcher to develop a pattern of interconnected variables

which are involved in the case understudy. In this research the study is about the contribution

of monitoring and evaluation on nyabarongo hydro-electric project in EDCL Rwanda. The

conceptual framework is built on aspects of monitoring and evaluation, factors measuring

project outcomes and intervening variables which serves as a linking up the dependent

variables and independent variables. These indicators will assist the researcher in designing

the research instruments, collecting, analyzing and interpreting data.

Figure 2.5: Conceptual framework

Independent variable Dependent variable

MONITORING&EVALUATION PROJECT OUTCOME

INDICATORS Measures of outcomes

 Cost
 Economics
 Time
 Efficiency
 Quality
 Effectiveness
 Client’s satisfaction

Intervening
 variables
Political influence

 economical

 social
40
 technological

 environment

 legal
2.6 Summary

This review of the related literature explains five main points such as theoretical literature,

0empirical literature, theoretical framework and conceptual framework. In theoretical

literature the researcher has given concepts of monitoring and evaluation which include

definition of monitoring and evaluation, its difference, types of monitoring, different ways of

doing evaluation, steps in designing monitoring and evaluation, role of monitoring and

evaluation, challenges of monitoring an evaluation, concepts of project outcomes which

include factors influencing project outcomes and factors for measuring construction project

outcomes. Empirical literature is about monitoring and evaluation system around the world

according to different authors. The critical review and research gap identify the gap of those

authors cited in the empirical literature. The theoretical framework in which we talk about

theories of monitoring and evaluation and lastly conceptual framework that explains

independent, dependent and intervening variables.

41
 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

This chapter will describe the research methods which will be used in the study. These

methods will be used to collect data up which findings, interpretation and conclusion will be

drawn. It will cover: research design, target population, sample design, data collection

methods, data analysis procedure and ethical consideration.

3.1 Research design

A descriptive survey will be used to examine the impact of monitoring and evaluation and

project outcomes. It will help to specify clearly what the researcher wants to find out and

way of doing it. The researcher will use both qualitative and quantitative methods.

Qualitative method is concerned with qualitative phenomena that related to quality and kind

which include views, opinions, feelings, perception and intention of different people. It will

help to discover the reality, motives and desires by using questionnaires. Quantitative method

is based on the measurement of quantity or amount applicable to phenomena that can be

expressed in terms of quantity. It will allow the researcher to focus on variables that will be

expressed mathematically which will enable her to analyze and get exact information.

3.2 Target population

Lawrence (1990) stated that population is the total of persons or thing from which samples

are taken for measurement. In this research, the target population will be 125 persons, 1

manager and 4 engineers of EDCL and 120 households beneficiaries, the total will be 125

persons.

42
Table 3.1 Target population

Target population Number

Manager 1

EDCL Engineers 4

Beneficiaries 120

Total 125

Source: Researcher

3.3 Sample design

This section will give information about sampling techniques and sample size which will be

used in this study.

3.3.1 Sample size

William (1990) defines a sample size as a number of objects in the sample. The sample itself

is defined as all the population or case selected to take part in the study.

According to Mugenda and Mugenda (2002), the 30% of the target population is an adequate

representation of the sample size. For EDCL employees, we will use purposive technique and

choose the total of employees because the number is manageable which is 1 manager and 4

engineers and for beneficiaries we will take 30% of the total population and use the simple

random technique to choose the sample. The 30% of the population will be 120* 30% =

30.6= 31 household. The sample size for this study will be 36 persons.

3.4 Data collection methods

3.4.1 Data collection instruments

For data collection, questionnaire method and interview guide will be used to collect primary

data; it will be both closed ended and open questions. The closed ended are the ones that
43
have lots of tick boxes for respondents to fill in, whereas open question have a few open

question and lots of white space for people to express their views (Fisher, 2007).

3.4.2 Administration of data collection instrument

The main instruments which will be administered will be questionnaire but before

administration of them, the researcher will first introduce herself to EDCL through an

introductory letter from MKU School of business and economics allowing her to start data

collection process. To collect the primary data we will use questionnaire as an instrument and

during the administration of questions the researcher will request the respondent to answer all

questions, to avoid bias. For this study the questionnaires will be set basing on the indicators

suggested in the independent and dependent variables and will be given to the respondent

from the target population. The researcher will give the respondent reasonable days to answer

questions and will collect the questionnaires after being filled and check for completeness.

As argued by Kothari (2004), secondary data are those already available, they refer to the

data which have already been collected and analyzed by someone else. Secondary data will

be collected using various sources at various levels as journals, books, reports, etc.

3.4.3 Reliability and Validity

Mugenda and Mugenda (1999), validity is the accuracy and meaningfulness of inferences

which are based on research methods whereas reliability is a measure of the degree to which

a research instrument yield consistent results or data after repeated trials.

To verify the validity, the researcher will discuss the items in the research instrument with

the supervisor to have a common understanding and ensure that questions and content are

valid. To verify the reliability, the researcher will use the pilot study method; the

questionnaires will be used to some few respondents to check if they will be answered

44
consistently. Then, the researcher will ensure the reliability of the tools by checking whether

respondents have answered rightly as the researcher want it to be and also check to see if

questions will not be ambiguous and it will be easy to change the questionnaire which will

not match with the study.

3.5 Data Analysis Procedure

Data analysis is the process of systematically applying statistical and /or logical techniques to

describe all illustrate condense and recap and evaluate data. It can take the form of simple

descriptive statistics or more sophisticated statistical inference (Shamoo and Resnik, 2003).

Quantitative and qualitative data analysis will be used, qualitative data will be managed in a

manner which will ensure that the data was broken into discernible units to show patterns and

trends and the use of excel will allow for this data to be quantified. Quantitative data will be

analyzed trough SPSS application and word processing to highlight the relationship between

monitoring and evaluation and project outcomes. Data will be presented and summarized

using frequency and distribution tables and percentages based on the objectives.

3.6 Ethical Consideration

Throughout the whole research process, there will not be any deviation from the acceptable

research practices and norms relating to facts, honesty and objectivity in research work. The

information which will be collected from respondent will be kept with confidentiality and

will be used only for academic and research purpose. To facilitate the respondents to offer

the information easily the researcher will preserve the ambiguity to them by not mentioning

any names of those who will participate in the study.

45
REFERENCES

AfrEA 2007 , Making evaluation our own: Strengthening the foundations for Africa-rooted

and Africa led M&E: Summary of a special conference stream and recommendations to

AfrEA’, in A. Abandoh-Sam et al. (eds.), Evaluate development, Develop Evaluation: A

Pathway to Africa’s future, Author, Niamey.

Alberto ,M.& Timur, N.(2013), Earned value based performance Monitoring of facility

construction project.Journal of facilities management.

Atkison, R.(1999) Project management :cost,time and quality ,two best guesses and a

phenomenon. It’s time to accept other success criteria. International journal of

project management.

Aubel J. (2004).strategic report,participatory m&e for hygiene improvement beyond the

toolbox: what else is required for effective PM&E. Washington: office of health,

infection diseases and nutrition, bureau for Global health US Agency for

International Development.

Bower,D.C.& Finegan,A.D. ( 2009). New approaches in project performance evaluation

techniques. International journal of managing projects in business.

Brower, M, C (1995). Empowering team what, why and how ”empowerment in organization.

Project Management journal.

Bryan ,S. & Dodds,B.( 1997). Developing managers in the project oriented organization.

Journal of Europian Industrial Training.

46
Camacho. (2007). Challenges and key success factors to integrating learning

and change in monitoring and evaluation of development projects.

Case study of on where agriculture project in eastern Cuba

Knowledge Management for development journal 4(1),21-30.

Catalano, R, Bergland ,M, RAyan ,J, Lonc zak , H., and Haukins ,J.(1998).

Positive development in the United States :Research finding on

evaluation of positive youth development programs. New York:

McGraw Hill.

Chung,H.W ( 1999) understanding quality assurance in construction, a practical guide to iso

9000. New York:press university.

Collins, J,F,C.(1996), Quality: the ball in your court. New delhi: Mc Graw Hill.

Cooper, M. (1998) Human development :family, place, culture. North Ryde, NSW, Australia:

Mc Graw –hill.

Cousin, J. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation educational evaluation and policy

analysis. Pp 397-418, vol 14,no 4.

Crawford,P.and Bryce,P. (2003). Project M&E: A method of enhancing the efficiency and

effectiveness of Aid project implementation. International journal of project management.

EDCL, (2014). Completion Report.

Egan, J (1998), Rethinking construction, department of environment, transport and the

regions.UK: chapman &hall.

Fals, B. (2001), Participatory (Action) Research in social theory: origins and

challenge: In: Hand look of Action Research (Eds:peter Reason and Hilary

Bradley).

47
Formoso, C, Tzortzopoulos,P & Liedthe, R ( 2002), A model for managing the product

development process in house building. engineering, construction and architecture

management.

Francis, W. ( 2008), Participatory M&E of community projects. New York: publication

Africa.

Frimpong,Y, Oluwaye , J and Crawford, L (2003), Causes of delay and cost overruns in

construction of Roads projects in developing countries. International journal of project

management.

International Federation of Red Cross (2010), Project program monitoring and evaluation.

Red Cross.

Jha, K.N.(2004). Factors’ for the success of a construction project: an empirical study

Delhi: Mc Graw-hill.

Jody Zall Kusek & Ray C. Rist (2004) Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and

Evaluation System.

Keeling .R (2000). Project Management. An international, perspective. London: Mc Millan

Press.

Kothari, C.R (2004). Research methods&techniques (2nd ed) Mumbai, new sage

International ltd.

Kunuar, D. (2004). Aspect of project planning, monitoring, evaluation and implementation.

New Delhi.

Kursk, J, and Risk ,C.(2001). Building a performance Based Monitoring and

evaluation system: The challenges facing developing countries Evaluation

of Australia.

48
Kyriakopoulos, G.L (2011). Project management prosperity: a second half of the 20th century

literature review. Journal of management and sustainability.

Lathan, M.(1994). Construction team, joint review of procurement and contractual

arrangement in the UK, New York: Adventure Works Press.

Lawrence, G. (1990). The research for social work. London: Alexandria press House.

Levy,S,M( 2006). Project management in construction, Delhi: Mc.Graw-hill.

Love,P.E.D; Li,H.; Irani Z. and Holt,G.D.( 2000), Rethinking total quality

management:toward a framework for facilitating learning and change in construction

organization. Journal of managing service quality.

Mackay, K.(2007). How to Build M&E Systems to Better Support Government, World Bank,

Washington.

MIFOTRA. (2009). Result Based Performance Management (RBM) Policy for Rwanda

Public Service.

MININFRA. (2012). Annual report.Kigali.

MININFRA. 2015). Energy sector strategic plan.

Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion (2009). Monitoring and evaluation system for

strategic plan of action for orphans and other vulnerable children. Kigali republic of

Rwanda.

Mugisha Eric (2013). Monitoring and evaluation and achievement of development project

goals in Rwanda/ Kigali MKU.

Muzinda, M (2007). Monitoring and evaluation practices challenges of Gaborone based

local NGos implementing HIV/AIDS project in Bostwana.

49
Nannei, C. (2001). Monitoring and evaluation framework for the Global Strategy and Plan of

Action on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property.

National Environment Youth Project: selecting tactics to implement strategic. Kigali:

national environmemt youth project press house.

Ndabananiye, A. (2015). Monitoring and evaluation and project success. Kigali MKU

Njoh,A,J. (1993). A client satisfaction based model urban public service delivery

organizational effectiveness. Journal of engineering, construction &architectural

management.

Ofori,P. ( 2001). Indicators for measuring construction industry development. Journal of

building research and information.

Otieno, FAO (1999). Company Analysis. University of Durban-Westville, South Africa.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), (2005). Paris

Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action, Author, Paris.

Pheng, L.S (2004). Implementing total quality management in construction firms.

Picciotto, R. (2012). Country-Led M&E Systems.

Project management institute (2004). A guide to the project management body of

knowledge.3rd ed. Newtown square.

Rajasthan, K. (2005). Research methodology. United kigdom: Cambridge University press.

Rono, J.K (2002). The impact of structural adjustment programs on Kenyan Society. In

Journal social development Africa.

Rudakemwa, A.N.(2013). Monitoring and evaluation and project performance.

Ryd, N. (2004). Facilitating construction briefing from client’s perspective. Journal of

surveying &real estate research.

50
Shapiro, J. (2004). Monitoring and evaluation. Johannesburg:civicus.

Wicker, E. (2004). Grootbom’s legacy: securing the right to access to adequate housing in

south Africa. Economic, social and cultural rights series…

William, M. (1990). The research methodology in social work. New York: peacoch

Publishers.

Zwikael, S.G. (2002). Impact of theproject manager on project management planning

process.

Kenzer, H.(1989). Project management a system approach to planning, scheduling and

controlling 3rd edition.

51
 APPENDICES

52
QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEW GUIDE

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR THE PROJECT MANAGER

SECTION A: background information

Qn 1. Age of respondent

How old are you?

Qn 2. Educational background

What is your level of education?

Qn 3. Working experience

For how long have you been a staff of EDCL?

SECTION B: Monitoring and evaluation activities

Qn 4. Does EDCL have a M&E procedures?

a. Is the procedures documented?

b. Who is involved in the documentation of procedures?

c. Are the procedures implemented as documented?

Qn 5. M&E activities are part of the project schedule?

a. How do you disseminate M&E findings?

Qn 6.For how long EDCL avail resources for starting a project plans implementation?

Qn 7. Have EDCL provide training to the field coordinator before starting a project?

Qn 8. Which types of monitoring do you carry out on nyabarongo hydro-electric project?

Qn 9. How often nyabarongo hydro-electric project finance is monitored?

53
a. Every week

b. Every month

c. Three month

d. Six month

e. Twelve month

f. Never

Qn10. How often do you monitor and control the activities of the field staff?

a. Every week

b. Every month

c. Three month

d. Six month

e. Twelve month

f. Never

Qn11. How often do you compare planned project activities schedule against actual

schedule?

a. Every week

b. Every month

c. Three month

d. Six month

e. Twelve month

f. Never

Qn 12. What are evaluation activities carried out on nyabarongo hydro-electric project

Qn 13.When is evaluation conducted?

54
a. Quarterly

b. Mid term

c. End of the year

d. End of the project

Qn 14. Is the budget project adequate successfully complete the project activities during

implementation phase?

Qn 15. Does the project finished on the time planned?

Qn 16. Is the quality adequate successfully as planned?

Qn 17. Are resources available to complete the project on time?

SECTION C: challenges faced by monitoring and evaluation activities

Qn 18. Have you faced challenges in monitoring and evaluation nyabarongo hydr0-electric

project?

explain…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Qn 19. How did you resolve those challenges?

SECTION D: contribution of monitoring and evaluation on a project outcomes

Qn 20. What is the contribution of monitoring on nyabarongo hydro-electric outcomes?

Qn 21. What is the contribution of evaluation on nyabarongo hydro-electric outcomes?

55
QUESTIONNAIRES ADDRESSED TO PROJECT STAFF

SECTION A: background information

Qn1. Age of the respondent

How old are you?

a. 20-24

b. 24-30

c. 30-34

d. Over 34

Qn 2. Educational background

What is your level of education?

a. PHD

b. Masters

c. Degree

d. Professional training

Qn3. Working experience

a. Two years

b. Two to three years

c. Above three years

56
SECTION B: Monitoring and evaluation activities

Fill the table below according to your opinion

Question Strongly agree agree disagree Srtonglydisagree Don’t

know

Are you satisfied with M&E system

of EDCL?

Is financial and narrative report done

on time?

Is project evaluation done on time?

Does EDCL has a M&E procedures

well documented and known by its

employees?

Are resources available to complete

the project on time

Does the M&E system collect

information relevant to the objective

of the project?

SECTION C: challenges faced by monitoring and evaluation activities

Question Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know

57
Is there any challenge faced by

monitoring and evaluation

activities?

SECTION D: Contribution of monitoring and evaluation on project outcomes

Question Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know

Is there any relationship

between M&E system and

project outcomes

M&E explain the reason why

project activities succeed or fail

and it helps the organization to

identify problems &their causes

Formation we generate through

M&E provides a clear basis for

decision making

By learning lessons from

mistakes we might have made,

we will empowered to improve

our future project planning and

implementation

Helps to find out if the project

is running as initially planned

58
QUESTIONNAIRES FOR BENEFICIARIES

Qn1. Age of the respondent

How old are you?

e. 20-24

f. 24-30

g. 30-34

h. Over 34

Qn 2. Educational background

What is your level of education?

a. Degree

b. Secondary

c. Primary

d. No education

Qn3. What is the contribution of nyabarongo hydro-electric project in your development?

a. Job

b. Electricity

c. Any other contribution

59
 BUDGET

S/N ACTIVITIES RWF

1. Literature reviews 30,000

2. Data collection 80,000

3. Data processing 30,000

4. Typing, printing and binding 60,000

TOTAL 200,000

60
 TIME LINE
S/N ACTIVITIES OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR

1 project submitted

2 Literature review

3 Research methodology

4 Data collection

5 Data processing

6 Data analysis and

interpretation

7 Conclusion and
recommendation

8 Typing, printing and

binding

9 Project defense

61