Action guidelines

A. Far Persons with Disability

· PWDs must maintain regular monitoring of the performance of the enterprise. As the proverb goes: "A stitch in time saves nine."

· In monitoring, they must maintain an open mind about being criticised for their limitations, and be prepared to amend or repair damage.

· The same applies to evaluation, except that it has to be much more rigorous and planned in detail.

· They should employ external evaluators where necessary. However, they must retain full internal control of the enterprise and the processes of transformation.

B. For the Government

· It should monitor the quality performance of IGPs.

· It should ensure that foreign funded projects do not destroy or impair local initiative.

C. For NGOs, INGOs and Donors

· They should not use evaluation as a policing tool.
· They should encourage participatory evaluation.
· They should ensure that evaluation is built into the project proposal.
· They should use lessons learnt from monitoring and feedback.
· They should use the services of local evaluators.

Some Areas fur Further Discussion

In spite of the obvious advantages of regular monitoring of the performance of IGPs, it is seldom done. What explains this refusal to utilize one of the most useful tools of management? Could it be linked with a dictatorial style of management?

How does a dictatorial style of management affect the monitoring and evaluation of the project?

What is the difference between monitoring and evaluation? What different objectives do they fulfil?

What are the advantages of "participatory evaluation"? When may an outsider evaluator be called upon to help with an evaluation process?

Look at the examples given in Chapter 8 again, and consider the reasons for their success or failure.