MEL in Capacity Strengthening

The process of systematically tracking, assessing, and learning from capacity strengthening initiatives.

The need to demonstrate the effectiveness of capacity strengthening initiatives and prove their value.

The challenge of isolating the impact of training on an organization's capacity.

The three common pitfalls of measuring capacity strengthening.

The ability to track and analyze the effectiveness of capacity strengthening initiatives with a balanced approach.

The primary objective of MEL for funders - ensuring funds were used effectively and that intended outcomes were achieved.

The necessity of realistic expectations about measurable outcomes in capacity strengthening.

The importance of continuous improvement through learning from the MEL process.

The process of tracking, assessing, and learning from capacity strengthening initiatives.

The process of evaluating the quality of the intervention itself by examining input, feedback, and repeat business.

A MEL system designed primarily to serve the interests of the donor organization, potentially hindering partner ownership and jeopardizing the capacity-strengthening process. This often results in the needs of the partner being overlooked in favor of the funder's priorities.

A MEL system where partners are empowered to define their own goals and strategies, fostering genuine ownership of the capacity-strengthening process. This enables partners to determine their own direction for progress and improvement.

The ability to adapt and change in response to challenges and opportunities. It's the capacity to learn and improve over time.

Clearly defining the main client (partner or funder) for a MEL system ensures that the system's design and purpose align with their needs and priorities. This eliminates ambiguity and avoids misalignment between stakeholders.

Acknowledging the complexity of capacity strengthening and adopting a practical approach. It avoids overpromising unrealistic outcomes and focuses on achievable milestones.

A complex MEL system, even with the best intentions, can be overwhelming and ineffective, often hindering the capacity-strengthening process.

The process of capacity strengthening is driven by the partner and the capacity strengthening provider, creating a direct accountability relationship. The funder's role is secondary, providing support and trust.

Capacity is a complex and subjective concept, making it difficult to define and measure. It's essential to recognize that different stakeholders may have varying interpretations of capacity.

Collecting evidence after capacity strengthening to understand the impact on an organization's ability to achieve its priorities.

Reviewing documents, conducting interviews, and facilitating workshops to gather information about an organization's capacity strengthening journey.

The percentage of organizations reporting improvement in their capacity to address their priority areas of change.

Assessing the impact of capacity strengthening across a portfolio of organizations by considering individual experiences and aggregate results.

Using pre- and post-organizational assessments to compare changes in capacity within a group of organizations.

The challenges of using standardized organizational assessment tools due to variations in cultural contexts and organizational realities.

Understanding how capacity strengthening contributes to an organization's overall growth and success over time.

A situation where an organization invests in building their own skills and capacity without external pressure.

The process of regularly examining and analyzing how well funding for capacity strengthening is being used.

The crucial need for organizations to openly acknowledge limitations and adjust their plans to avoid overwhelming their partners.

A crucial factor for successful capacity strengthening: ensuring that the monitoring and evaluation system doesn't add more burden to the partners.

The practice of funders actively using the findings from their monitoring, evaluation, and learning activities to make improvements.

The ability of organizations to clearly and confidently refuse requests or demands.

The impact of funding on the organizational change outcomes.

The challenge of determining the specific contribution of capacity strengthening initiatives to overall positive change.

Traditional organisational assessments (OA) often focus on measuring tangible aspects like strategies and plans, neglecting the crucial influence of factors like power dynamics and interpersonal relationships on behaviour. This limited approach ignores the complexities of actual change and the nuances of human interaction.

The simple act of ranking or rating an organisation's capacity can be subjective, prone to bias based on different stakeholder perspectives. Additionally, these perspectives can change over time, making pre- and post- assessments unreliable.

Establishing a direct link between capacity strengthening interventions and improved organisational performance can be challenging. Isolating the specific contribution of an intervention amidst other influencing factors can be difficult.

Instead of relying on potentially flawed pre- and post-assessments, conducting a retrospective review through methods like interviews and outcome harvesting can provide more meaningful insights into actual change.

To enhance the value of OA, incorporating a component of attribution - examining the influence of capacity strengthening interventions on observed changes - can provide deeper understanding.

Complementing quantitative assessments like scorecards with qualitative methods, such as outcome mapping, capturing stories of change, and case studies, offers a richer perspective on organisational transformation.

Instead of just measuring, grant makers can actively engage with partners, encouraging feedback and open communication. This fosters trust and facilitates learning throughout the capacity building process.

Indicators of a successful capacity strengthening intervention include partners expressing more confidence, becoming more self-critical, and engaging in constructive pushback. This indicates a shift towards ownership and independent thinking.