Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) are key drivers to make progress in public investment activities. At the national, sector, and subnational levels, M&E can give unique information regarding the performance of government policies, programs, and projects. It can tell us what works and what don’t, as well as why.
M&E also gives data on a government's performance, as well as the performance of specific ministries and agencies, as well as managers and their workforce. Highlighting examples of good practice and poor practice can help improve performance. With a focus on government performance, a number of governments have established formal systems for monitoring and assessing their performance on a regular, scheduled, and systematic basis, with the goal of improving it. In light of the above scenario, development partners in Bangladesh also wanted to ensure proper and judicious expenditure in development projects to meet the desired output. Because development partners have been financing a large amount of money in development projects in the country.
This was one of the driving forces behind the establishment of IMED (Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation Division) in Bangladesh. The staff of IMED along with outsourced firms employed by IMED, conduct monitoring and evaluation tasks for ADP projects. Different development plans in Bangladesh have given special importance to reform the present M&E system of IMED and to transform it into a result-based M&E management being equipped with IT for ensuring efficient and transparent services. Henceforth roles and capacity of IMED and its relevant agencies in contributing projects’ performance should be measured to find out any gap existing in the activities of IMED. The research was developed with applying mixed approach. The interviewees are mainly staff of IMED, while the respondents (N=41) are the employees of 16 ADP projects of Bangladesh Railway,LGED and Power Division, and of two evaluation units of LGED (Local Government Engineering Division) and DOICT (Directorate of Information and Communication Technology). Simon Priest’s model on process evaluation and outcome evaluation of program were used to validate the analytical framework of the research. In most cases both sides (interviewees and respondents) opinions were compared to cross check each other’s views.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Background of the Study
1.3 Statement of the Problem
1.4 Significance of the Research
1.5 Rationale of the Study
1.6 Objective of the Research
1.7 Research Questions
1.8 Focus Area of the Study
1.9 Chapter Outline
2. Review of Literature and Theoretical Framework
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Conceptualization Monitoring and Evaluation
2.2.1 Monitoring
2.2.2 Evaluation
2.2.3 Major functions of monitoring and evaluation
2.2.4 Monitoring & Evaluation Framework and components
i. Input
ii. Process/Activity
iii. Output
iv. Outcome
v. Impact
2.3 How M&E Systems Improve government performance
2.4 Roles and Importance of M&E system
2.4.1 Decision making
2.4.2 Capacity building
2.4.3 Performance of projects/programs
2.4.4 Impact of skills on M&E systems
2.4.5 M&E affects good governance
2.4.6 Institutionalization of M&E
2.4.7 Result based M&E Systems
2.5 Global Context
2.5.1 OECD Countries
2.5.2 Scenario in developing countries
2.6 Literature in Context of Bangladesh
2.7 Summary of the Literature Review
2.8 Research Gap
2.9 Theoretical Framework
2.10 Models of Evaluation
2.10.1 The Programming Sequence
2.10.2 Process evaluation model on program
2.10.3 Outcome evaluation model on program
2.11 Some other different theories and models of evaluation
2.12 The reasons behind choosing the Priest’s model for this research
2.13 Analytical Framework for the Study
2.13.1 Describing variables and measurable indicators
2.13.1.1 Rules, guidelines & procedures for project monitoring & evaluation
2.13.1.2 Tools and Techniques used for project monitoring & evaluation
2.13.1.3 Capacity of IMED in project monitoring & evaluation
2.13.1.4 Staff’s qualification of IMED
2.13.1.5 Efficiency and effectiveness of IMED & Evaluation
2.14 Operationalization of Independent Variable
2.15 Operationalization of Dependent variables
2.16 Summary of the chapter
3. Methodology
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Qualitative Method
3.3 Quantitative Method
3.4 Mixed Method
3.5 Sampling
3.6 Data Collection Method
3.7 Primary Sources
3.7.1 Semi structured in-depth interview
3.7.2 Survey Questionnaire
3.7.3 Secondary Sources
i. Rules of Business of IMED
ii. Annual Performance Agreement (APA)
iii. Strategic Plan of IMED (2008-13)
iv. Annual Report of IMED
v. Monitoring Manual/Guidelines
vi. PMIS (Project Management Information System) user Manual
vii. Monitoring Formats
viii.In depth monitoring Report
ix. Impact Evaluation Report
3.8 Unit of Analysis
3.9 Summary of the chapter
4. IMED: AN OVERVIEW OF ITS STRUCTURES AND FUNCTIONS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Implementation monitoring in Bangladesh: Origin, present state and focus of IMED
4.2.1 Vision of IMED
4.2.2 Mission Statement of IMED
4.2.3 Functions of IMED
4.2.4 Organizational Structure and manpower of IMED
4.2.5 Ongoing projects in IMED
4.3 Projects’ Monitoring & Evaluation procedures followed by IMED
4.3.1 In-depth monitoring of selected ongoing projects
4.3.2 Impact evaluation of completed projects
4.3.3 Usage of PMIS Software
4.3.4 E-PMIS (Electronic Project Management Information System) software
4.4 Strategic Plan of IMED
4.4.1 Vision of the strategic plan
4.4.2 Mission of the strategic plan
4.4.3 Strategic Goals
i. Short-term objectives
ii. Medium-term objectives
iii. Long-term objectives
4.5 Planning and Managing Development projects in Bangladesh: IMED’s roles
4.5.1. National Parliament
4.5.2. National Economic Council
4.5.3. Executive Committee of National Economic Council (ECNEC)
4.5.4. Planning Division
4.5.5. Economic Relations Division (ERD)
4.5.6. Planning Commission (PC)
4.5.7. Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation Division (IMED)
4.6 Summary of the chapter
5. DATA PRESENTATION & ANALYSIS
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Clients’ satisfaction
5.3 Impact of recommendations on projects’ performance
5.4 Learning on Project Management
5.5 Coordination of work between IMED and projects
5.6 Timeliness of service delivery by IMED
5.7 Independent variables and their effect on Dependent Variable
5.7.1 Rules, procedures/processes followed by IMED for project monitoring and evaluation
i. Annual Performance Agreement (APA)
ii. Strategic Plan
iii. Annual Report of IMED
iv.Other Reports
v. Guidelines for project monitoring and evaluation
vi.Monitoring procedures
5.7.2 Tools used for project monitoring and evaluation
i. PMIS (Project Management Information System) Software
ii. Monitoring Formats
5.7.3 Outsourcing of consultant firms
5.7.4 Competency/Professionalism of IMED employees
5.7.5 Staff Knowledge
5.7.6 Necessity for other organizations’ engagement for monitoring and evaluation
5.7.7 Institutional capacity of IMED
5.7.8 Power and scope of IMED in to project monitoring regard and evaluation
5.7.9 Overall capacity of IMED
5.7.10 Integrity of IMED staff
5.7.11 Unwilling to monitor properly
5.8 The ways to improve the capacity of IMED for project monitoring & evaluation
5.9 Summary
6. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Revisiting the research objective and questions
6.3 Findings pertaining to the research questions
6.3.1 Effectiveness of monitoring & evaluation processes
6.3.2 Capacity of IMED to monitor and evaluate ADP projects
6.4 General Findings
6.5 Relationship between variables and findings
6.5.1 Independent variables
A. Rules, guidelines and procedures for project monitoring and evaluation
B. Tools and Techniques
C. Capacity of IMED
i. Institutional capacity
ii. Power and scope
iii. Outsourcing
D. Staff’s Qualification
6.5.2 Dependent Variable
Efficiency and Effectiveness of IMED and Evaluation
i. Clients’ satisfaction
ii. Impact of recommendation on projects’ performance
iii. Learning on Project management
iv. Coordination of works between IMED and projects
v. Timeliness of Service delivery
6.6 Theoretical Implications
6.7 Limitations of the study
6.8 Scope for future research
6.9 Conclusion
Objectives and Focus Areas
The primary research objective is to comprehensively evaluate the performance and institutional contribution of the Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation Division (IMED) regarding its mandate to oversee and refine public investment projects in Bangladesh, specifically focusing on its effectiveness in ADP project monitoring.
- Assessing the effectiveness of the current monitoring and evaluation processes within IMED.
- Examining the institutional capacity, technical knowledge, and expertise of IMED personnel.
- Analyzing the correlation between IMED's oversight activities and the overall quality and timeliness of development project outcomes.
- Reviewing the integration and practical application of digital tools like PMIS in the monitoring lifecycle.
- Investigating the coordination dynamics between IMED and other executing ministries of the Government of Bangladesh.
Excerpt from the Book
1.1 Introduction
Governments and organizations around the world are under continual and increasing pressure to respond to demands for good governance, accountability and transparency, improved development effectiveness, and the delivery of tangible results from internal and external stakeholders. Stakeholders interested in improved performance include governments, parliaments, individuals, the private sector, non-governmental organizations (NGO), civil society, international organizations, and donors. As the need for increased accountability and results has grown, so has the need for a practical and usable results-based monitoring and evaluation system to support management policies, programs, and projects (Ergens and Kusek, 2010:01). This raises alarming questions about the effectiveness of the government's monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system in all areas.
To meet the government's developmental mission and long-term initiatives, M&E systems must be strengthened so that trustworthy information on progress and deviations in achieving developmental goals may be provided. M&E is a powerful public management tool that may help governments and organizations achieve better results. Governments require effective performance systems in the same way as they require good financial, human resource, and accountability systems (Kusek and Rist, 2004: xi).
Monitoring and evaluation has taken a critical turn in various countries to meet the above demands, particularly in a bid to achieve the desired goal by improving project management efficiency, accountability, and transparency, and their "result-oriented performance management system" is becoming the preferred option. Bangladesh is not different from that. As a result, several initiatives are being made to improve the efficiency of its development investments. And one major drive is the introduction of the Annual Performance Agreement (APA)1 by the Prime Minister’s Office. It is a tool to assess with a specific ‘target with value’ to understand the progress of the planned activities by the concerned departments (M&E Policy Study, 2019: 01).
Summary of Chapters
CHAPTER I: The first chapter introduces the research context, highlighting the significance of effective monitoring and evaluation systems for public management and defining the specific research objectives and questions.
CHAPTER II: This theoretical chapter conceptualizes monitoring and evaluation, reviewing global best practices and relevant evaluation models to establish an analytical framework for assessing IMED.
CHAPTER III: The third chapter details the research methodology, emphasizing a mixed-methods approach that integrates qualitative insights from interviews with quantitative data collected through structured survey questionnaires.
CHAPTER IV: This descriptive chapter provides an overview of IMED, tracing its historical evolution and outlining its current organizational structure, functions, and the mechanisms used to monitor ADP projects.
CHAPTER V: This chapter presents the empirical findings gathered through fieldwork, providing detailed data analysis on stakeholder satisfaction, technical tools, and institutional capacity based on statistical results.
CHAPTER VI: The final chapter synthesizes the research findings, offers conclusions regarding the effectiveness and capacity of IMED, and makes recommendations for policy improvements and future academic inquiry.
Keywords
IMED, Monitoring, Evaluation, Public Investment, Annual Development Program, Mixed Methods, Results-Based Management, Institutional Capacity, Project Performance, Stakeholder Satisfaction, Bangladesh, PMIS, Data Analysis, Accountability, Governance.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research study?
The research primarily evaluates the role and operational efficiency of the Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation Division (IMED) of the Ministry of Planning in Bangladesh, specifically examining how it oversees ADP-funded public projects.
What are the primary themes addressed in this work?
The study centers on public management, institutional evaluation, administrative capacity, result-based monitoring frameworks, and the efficacy of government reporting mechanisms in infrastructure development.
What is the main objective of the thesis?
The central research goal is to assess the overall contribution of IMED to the monitoring and evaluation of public development projects in Bangladesh and to identify potential gaps in its operational effectiveness.
Which scientific methodology is implemented by the researcher?
The thesis utilizes a mixed-methods approach. This includes a quantitative survey of 41 respondents from various project-implementing agencies, complemented by qualitative semi-structured in-depth interviews with key officials and former staff of IMED and the Planning Commission.
What topics are analyzed in the main body of the work?
The analysis covers the structural overview of IMED, the effectiveness of their monitoring procedures/tools (such as PMIS), the competence of staff, institutional capacity for field oversight, and the impact of recommendations on subsequent project performance.
Which specific keywords best characterize this publication?
Key terms include IMED, Monitoring, Evaluation, Annual Development Programs (ADP), mixed methods research, institutional capacity, public sector performance, and project management.
How does IMED currently manage the monitoring of development projects?
IMED primarily monitors projects through regular field reviews, the collection of progress reports, and the utilization of the PMIS (Project Management Information System) software, though the study notes significant challenges in fully leveraging these digital tools.
What are some of the key conclusions regarding IMED’s institutional capacity?
The study concludes that while IMED possesses adequate legal authority, its institutional capacity is only average and requires growth in manpower, modernized digital infrastructure, and the inclusion of more technical expertise to handle complex infrastructure projects effectively.
- Quote paper
- Mohammad Hythar (Author), 2021, Role of Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation Division in Project Monitoring and Evaluation. Selected ADP Projects of Bangladesh Railway, LGED and Power Division, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1400404
