GREG TRAXLER is an Economist and Senior Lecturer in Public Policy at the University of Washington and former Senior Program Officer at the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation. His research background includes studies of the impact of agriculture technologies and agriculture policies. Greg has been at CIAT for the past month interacting with the Impact, M&E teams and with other researchers. Greg will lead an open discussion on Monitoring and Evaluation and Impact at CIAT based on his observations over the past month. He is inviting all interested staff to hear his observations and discuss ideas for tweaking CIAT M&E to enhance capacity of CIAT to report on its progress and successes.

1. Greg Traxler
Senior Lecturer
University of Washington
July 23, 2015

2. I. Some Definitions and Greg’s Observations (25 minutes)
II. Reactions from Perla and Ricardo (5 minutes)
III. Open Discussion

3. Joe:
In preparation for CIAT’s 50th Anniversary, please prepare me a
report on 50 years of Agrobiodiversity achievements and successes.
Do not include anything that is not backed by solid evidence (data)
of research outputs and outcomes.
Andy, Deborah same request.
Elcio:
Please prepare me a report on 50 years of CIAT achievements and
successes in Latin America. Do not include anything that is not
backed by solid evidence (data) of research outputs and outcomes.
Robin, Dindo, same request.

4. 1. Monitoring (M): Continuous process that tracks inputs, activities, outputs,
and outcomes of a project during the implementation period. Requires a
Theory of Change
Outputs: the products of research.
Outcomes: the external use, adoption, or influence of outputs.
2. Evaluation (E): Assessing project results and impacts; Includes a huge
variety of evaluation objectives, approaches and formats. Examines the health
and performance of a program. Makes recommendations based on
monitoring information.
3. Impact Assessment (IA): A type of evaluation that assesses the longer
range social, environmental and economic benefits of research.
These are 3 distinct functions but united by the need for consistent effort to
collect and store of key output and outcome data.
Key questions for today’s discussion:
How are M&E data generated, curated and used at CIAT?
How is evaluation done at the Program and Institute level?

5. • To prioritize and seek funds for those research activities
that will have the greatest impact
• Must evaluate past performance to identify and attract
funding for the high impact research activities
• Evaluation strategy starts with a clear baseline and a well
defined Impact Pathway
• A clear measurement plan is essential
• Evaluation and Impact Assessments are only credible
when evidence-based
• Quality and usefulness of the system greatly enhanced
when done in close partnership among M&E, Impact
Assessment and research program staff

6. Variety of understandings among staff; may include Monitoring (M),
Evaluation (E) and Impact Assessment (IA)
Who Does M&E at CIAT?
• Researchers
• Program Coordinators/Science Officers/Research Assistants
• M&E specialists
• Impact Assessment researchers
Uses of M&E at CIAT
• Reporting to donors
• Project/Program management (e.g. Results Based Management)
• Monitoring progress at the CIAT program and institute level
• Generating impact cases that demonstrate CIAT’s successes to
external audiences (Donors) – Telling CIAT’s story and enhancing
CIAT’s reputation

7. Impact Assessment and M&E are complementary but distinct
• IA are deep studies that measure the long term impacts of CIAT research
on CGIAR system level outcome:
• Reduced poverty
• Improved food and nutrition security
• Improved natural resource systems and ecosystem services
IA is similar to other research areas
• IA researchers have the mandate to develop a research program – same
as all other scientists
• IA research studies require data and funding
• Like other researchers, IA researchers are evaluated on their research
output and scientific reputation as well as their contribution to the CIAT
mission
• M&E should ensure that the data are available to perform IA

8. • Monitoring is not research, IA is
• M&E staff mandate is to enhance the ability of CIAT to
understand and direct its work, and to tell its story to internal
and external audiences
• M&E staff mandate is to guide the definition and collection of
Output and Outcome Data
• IA uses Output and Outcome data collected over time to
measure development Impact
• Impact assessments studies are only possible when M&E
information has been captured through time
• M&E data are the baselines for IA

9. 1. Fragmented Reporting
1. M&E is project and donor driven
2. Project reporting formats, definitions and software not harmonized or
consistent through time or across donors
3. Individual project progress reports are single-use - do not present the full
picture of CIAT research achievements unless processed further
2. Limited institutional memory about past outcomes
1. Missing baseline data on research outputs and outcomes make credible
impact analysis difficult
2. Difficult to aggregate data across individual projects
3. Past project reports are not easily accessible
3. M&E fatigue
1. Relentless effort needed to collect M&E data from researchers
2. Lots of M&E reporting activity, yet many gaps in CIAT institute-level
information on research and development progress
4. Funding
1. M&E reporting is part of all projects, but strong temptation to underfund at all
levels
2. Can be funded through grant direct costs or can come out of overhead

10. • M&E staff
• Skilled and capable
• Dispersion across locations and programs makes coordination
difficult
• Researcher and staff awareness of M&E importance
• The discussion has shifted from Whether to do M&E to How to
make M&E more efficient and How to right-size M&E to CIAT needs
• Goodwill of researchers/scientists/project officers/M&E staff
• General appreciation of the importance of M&E
• Strong will to collaborate among staff
• Data management capacity
• New Data & Information Manager with experience in designing
accessible and user-friendly data systems
• Strong interest in achieving and showing impact
• General

11. • Of course – CIAT is not a collection of projects
• Currently very difficult to talk about comprehensive Institute
or even Program successes or to document CIAT prominence
• Limited accessibility of data on research outputs and
outcomes beyond the project document life cycle

12. 12
Minor adjustments to CIAT M&E approach will
increase CIAT’s ability to report on Program and Institute level
progress through a) improved coordination of existing M&E
activities, and b) better capture of existing M&E output and
outcome data.

13. 13
1. Establish an institutional memory of research progress
1. Use existing project/CRP reporting efforts to create an output and
outcome database.
2. Improve coordination and increase the efficiency of CIAT M&E
1. Increased support to researchers in interpreting project logframes and
results frameworks

15. 15
1. Clearer picture of CIAT successes. By capturing M&E data over
time, CIAT leadership will be able to report on aggregate
research progress
2. More support for researchers. Researchers will have the
support of M&E specialists as they wrestle with M&E reporting
3. Redistributed M&E burden. CIAT M&E refinements must be
done in a way that reduces the overall burden on researchers
4. Better Impact Evaluation. The new database will make impact
evaluation possible
5. Better Donor Relations. Credible evaluation evidence improves
future funding prospects

16. 16
• Suggestions
• Feedback
• Main challenges
• Ideas
• Opinions