Page 1 of 14

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 10, No. 12

Publication Date: December 25, 2023

DOI:10.14738/assrj.1012.16130

Kanyamuna, V., Simui, F., Mubita, A., & Musanda, P. (2023). Essentials of Functional Whole-of-Government Monitoring and

Evaluation Systems: The Zambian Case. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(12). 370-383.

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

Essentials of Functional Whole-of-Government Monitoring and

Evaluation Systems: The Zambian Case

Vincent Kanyamuna

School of Humanities and Social Sciences,

Department of Development Studies,

University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia

Francis Simui

Institute of Distance Education,

University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia

Aurick Mubita

School of Humanities and Social Sciences,

Department of Social Work and Sociology,

University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia

Paul Musanda

School of Humanities and Social Sciences,

Department of Development Studies,

University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia

ABSTRACT

Since the turn of the 21st century in the year 2000, it has become increasingly

impossible to design and implement a development intervention, be it a project,

programme or policy without articulating a sound monitoring and evaluation

framework. More demanded are functional monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

systems. It is for that reason that governments, civil society organisations, non- governmental organizations, bilateral and multilateral agencies have all adopted

the agenda of strengthening their systems for M&E. Among others, known benefits

from implementing sound M&E include enhancing accountability, feedback and

learning. This paper articulates essentials development agencies, and their

respective stakeholders need to put in place for their M&E systems to function well.

More so, focus is on building stronger whole-of-government M&E systems.

Essentially, a typical M&E system would have two sides, both of which would be

crucial for a successful and functional whole-of-government M&E system. These are

the supply-side and the demand-side. In addition, there are known essentials

deemed crucial to a successful whole-of-government M&E system. These include the

political and technical issues associated with implementing country systems for

M&E. Another essential is the ownership of M&E systems. Further, the paper also

presents a comprehensive section showing the fundamental ten steps for building

a functional whole-of-government M&E system. When these aspects are understood

by governments and carefully institutionalised across structures, M&E would prove

to be a useful tool to promote accountability, feedback and learning. It also goes

Page 3 of 14

372

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 12, December-2023

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

system that will meet the development expectations of players and stakeholders in the

economy and beyond.

The significance of functional national level M&E systems is that benefits are widespread,

including giving crucial decision-making information in the course of policy, programme and

project implementation. When used properly, information from these systems could help to

stimulate development debate through constructive brainstorming on challenges affecting an

intervention. In that regard, development managers obtain valuable information for

improving their deliverables, thereby assuming control and ownership of development

processes [2,46].

Since government business is generally implemented across the country, a functional

WoGM&ES is needed to help with resource allocation to the neediest areas through evidence- based data and information and results-focused feedback loops [12]. Once this is achieved, it

is envisaged that the Zambian Government’s predictability in terms of positive public service

delivery should be well anchored on a results-based management approach and the capability

of sustaining the desired national development path should be pursuable realistically.

A strong view is held among M&E advocates and practitioners that countries should always

deliberately try to lead and sustain the building of their WoGM&ESs. It is even preferred that

such systems should be owned and led by key stakeholders in the country so that external

stakeholders such as donors do not enforce their interests [52]. Elements such as determining

what is to be evaluated, which evaluation questions must be asked, which methods should be

used and which analytical approaches should be employed are important for countries to own

and control. In addition, the manner in which M&E findings are communicated, shared and

used is supposed to be in the jurisdiction of the government and its internal structures.

DEMAND AND SUPPLY SIDES OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems comprise two parts: the supply side and demand

side. From the supply side, information that feeds into decision-making processes is

generated and disseminated to those that use it on the demand side of the system. Therefore,

a good match is required between the supply and demand sides when building and sustaining

systems for M&E [16, 17, 48].

The supply side involves human skills and capacity development, including adapting

appropriate technologies and tools and supporting institutional frameworks [15]. In other

words, the supply side of an M&E system generally refers to a range of systemic and

institutional aspects such as data collection, capacity, sequencing, leadership, coordination,

regulation and oversight [42]. Further, the demand side is concerned with the use of M&E

information by actors that include governmental agencies, parliaments, NGOs, civil society

organisations, research institutions, universities, the donor community and the general

population [23, 42,24]. Similarly, this means that the ways in which these entities are involved

to stimulate demand for information could be useful in strengthening the demand side of an

M&E system [3,47]. Therefore, care should be taken by ensuring that M&E standards,

procedures, tools and principles conform to local requirements. For instance, indicator

choices are better developed when they are anchored on country-specific values and norms.