Full Library

Today’s critical challenges are complex and require system level change. Issues like ending poverty, reversing biodiversity collapse, creating more equitable and sustainable food systems, or ending health inequalities, will not respond to neat siloed technical interventions. These are not problems we can tackle head on. Rather, we need to change the conditions (systems) that create these problems. Consequently, many of the most ambitious philanthropic foundations are adopting ‘systems change’ approaches to their work. There is a critical need to better understand the impact of systems change interventions. This is for two reasons: 1) without being able to understand our impact we can’t learn about the efficacy of efforts and focus on doing more helpful action and less unhelpful action, and 2) without effective monitoring and evaluation it is hard to galvanise resources, whether as money, time, or enthusiasm. Traditional monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) approaches and practices struggle to respond to complexity. Many of today’s MEL approaches have been developed to serve funders keen to ‘prove’ the efficacy of their work and hold grantees accountable. This paradigm has produced approaches like ‘logical frameworks’ that seek to create a linear logic between intervention, outputs, outcomes and impact. Such approaches often pay scant regard to the activity (intentional or otherwise) of other actors in any system, and don’t adapt well to the characteristics of complex problems such as emergence, uncertainty, and interdependency. There is a fast-developing body of practice on MEL for systems change. A growing number of practitioners are experimenting with complexity informed approaches to MEL, and UNDP is pioneering an open-source set of tools and ideas.ii Wasafiri is contributing to this innovation by developing a MEL approach that builds on our (open access) Systemcraft Framework. iii Emerging approaches for systems change MEL are underpinned by some key principles. There is growing consensus on the need to be pragmatic and flexible, not just because it is a new field for many that requires a degree of mindset and behaviour change and different ways of working. MEL approaches for system change primarily focus on improving and learning and on identifying ways to adapt and pivot. This contrasts with linear approaches to implementation and measurement. Learning questions guide and co-exist alongside indicators to support continual learning and adaptation. These shifts will require a shift in relationships between funders and implementers from measuring and accountability to greater flexibility and patience, close engagement and learning together. There is pressure to show impact in less time. Reduced time horizons, increasing impatience and integration of new sets of agendas in development programming present challenges in the context of systems change. In an increasingly resource constrained context and amid growing global uncertainty (e.g. current global politics, emergencies like COVID, economic instability, rapid technological advancement), it is unclear which direction donors will take, i.e. an even greater focus on value for money and impact, and/or willingness to explore innovative approaches and learning in uncertain territory. Wasafiri’s approach for systems MEL builds on Systemcraft. This is a diagnostic and design tool for systems change, that has been used globally across a broad range of systems and interventions. This paper summarises our approach to MEL for systems change. It aims to provide a short introductory overview and form a ‘conversation starter’ to initiate a practical dialogue on current practices, experiences, and learnings with MEL for systems change. It introduces some concepts and appropriate tools for measuring systems change and poses some key questions for further discussion. We aim to engage with funders and practitioners working on complex problems who are in the process of or planning to develop their approach to and practices for MEL, who are interested to learn, share and explore. We welcome your inputs, either in response to this document, via a call, or during online webinars that we will convene in 2025.