USAID Wildlife Asia as a case study in adaptive rigour - Ziegler, Jessica (ODI/GLAM, 2020)
This briefing note looks at how the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Wildlife Asia programme has operationalised the concepts of adaptive rigour and adaptive management as part of its approach to collaborating, learning and adapting. As described by the Global Learning for Adaptive Management (GLAM) initiative, adaptive rigour is about ensuring that the data, information, methods, processes and systems that underpin adaptive management are robust, systematic and high‑quality. Key messages When faced with programmatic complexity, it is important to take an adaptive approach driven by continuous and iterative monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL). USAID Wildlife Asia, which works to advance regional action towards ending illegal wildlife trafficking in Southeast Asia and China, has embraced this approach as a way of operationalising adaptive rigour. Throughout programming, MEL approaches should reflect the characteristics of adaptive rigour: comprehensiveness, usefulness, practicality, timeliness and support. Utilising performance monitoring and research in order to test and revise technical approaches and employing mixed methods to collect both qualitative and quantitative data, as well as looking for relevant lessons generated by others, can ensure access to the most useful information for decision-making throughout implementation. For adaptive management, it is not enough to monitor, evaluate and learn; it is also essential to pause and reflect in order to analyse and process evidence gained through MEL with colleagues and stakeholders to reach the right conclusions and make good decisions.

Adapting data collection and utilisation to a Covid-19 reality: Monitoring, evaluation and learning approaches for adaptive management - Ziegler, Jessica; Mason, Paige (ODI/GLAM, 2020)
This briefing note focuses on the remote collection and use of data for adaptive management during the Covid-19 pandemic, setting out key considerations to help practitioners think through a transition from more ‘traditional’ monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) to MEL for adaptive management (MEL4AM) that reflects the unique data collection challenges presented by Covid-19. The brief provides an overview of some key considerations in remote data collection, when this is required, and identifies other sources that address these issues in more detail. It concludes with a discussion of how to bring the information resulting from remote monitoring into decision-making to enable adaptive management. Key messages - When planning for remote data collection during the Covid-19 pandemic, first determine what information is still necessary, because data needs may have changed, e.g. if programming has pivoted or needs to pivot due to Covid-19. Then identify how the programme’s information needs align with existing data sources and what gaps remain, which will guide the need for remote data collection. - Also consider what data is ‘good enough’ for current decision-making needs in order to provide sufficient information to the right people at the right time to an acceptable standard of rigour. - There may be pragmatic reasons to reduce the number or scope of MEL activities, such as logistical constraints or ethical considerations introduced by the pandemic. - MEL activities should be accompanied by frequent feedback loops and pause points to reflect on emergent needs and challenges, information needs that have been met, and contextual changes that may affect MEL. - Be clear with decision-makers about the assumptions and gaps in the data, including proxies used and their limitations, sampling changes, and how these changes and assumptions may affect the decisions/options being discussed.

Evaluability Checklist for Post Project Evaluation - Zivetz, Laurie; Cekan, Jindra (Valuing Voices, 2020)
Considerations for planning a post project evaluation during the project, at the end, or after it has closed.

Participatory evaluation. What is it? Why do it? What are the challenges? - Zukoski, A.; Luluquisen, Mia (Community-based public health policy & practice, 2002)
Yogi Berra was right when he remarked, “If you don’t know where you’re going, you’ll wind up somewhere else.” When we collectively apply our hopes and energies to improving our communities, how do we know if we’re making the right choices along the way? How will we notice when we are spinning our wheels and what changes to make? How will we know that we are making a difference? And how will we know what success looks like to everyone in the group? By taking a community-based public health approach to our work, we create an opportunity to engage in a particular type of evaluation—participatory evaluation – that can help answer those questions. For those groups that are interested in this approach, this policy brief discusses the key concepts of participatory evaluation and some tips for applying it. We also present some real-life examples from two evaluators who work with grantees of the Partnership for the Public’s Health Initiative.

Strengthening the results chain: Synthesis of case studies of results-based management by providers - Zwart, Rosie (OECD, 2017)
This paper presents an analysis of evidence from seven case studies of results-based management by development co-operation providers. Analysis of themes from the case studies reveal six interrelated challenges which providers face in their efforts to manage for the results of development co-operation. The six challenges are: linking results to development goals, ensuring the purpose of results systems is well-defined, weighing up the benefits of aggregating and attributing results from standard indicators, enabling country ownership, using performance information alongside results information, and building and embedding a results culture. Providers continue to adopt a range of approaches to pursue a focus on results and there are many examples of good practice. The case studies suggest that in a complex development landscape some providers are prioritising the use of aggregated results information for domestic accountability, communication, and performance management over their use for learning and policy direction. In this context, the paper argues that in agency-wide results frameworks development co-operation results are often detached (or de-contextualised) from development results and discusses the implications of this, including the use of standard indicators to measure aggregated outputs. The paper uses case study evidence to discuss and suggest practical ways providers can build and maintain a strong results focus which enables analysis, insights and learning, and has achievement of development outcomes as its objective.