The Problem with RBM

 We have all seen solid projects that are doing good work but have serious problems communicating their results to the people supporting them or the organizations funding them. Even good projects can have problems with results-based monitoring and evaluation. This is not a project problem. It is a problem with RBM.  When capable people do not use an idea that could serve them well, the problem is usually not with the people, but with the way the idea is being communicated.

RBM frameworks and results-based monitoring and evaluation systems, such as managing for development results, are too often developed  in isolation from the realities of what happens on the ground. The terms for results, as they are presented in these RBM frameworks by a host of different donor agencies and government departments, are too often simply bureaucratic jargon.  Academic in appearance, or vague in meaning, the RBM terms are hard to interpret and implement in the real world where line agencies and their partners work.

Some examples: 

• Resources
• Inputs
• Activities
• Outputs
• Outcomes (immediate, intermediate and ultimate),
• Impact
• Risk
• Risk Management
  
• Assumptions
• Indicators (for activities, results and risk)
• Targets
  
• Measures
• Baseline data
• Results chains
• Logic Model
  
• Logical Framework
• Results Framework
  
• Performance Measurement Framework
• Performance Monitoring Framework
  
• Monitoring and evaluation system
• Outcome evaluations
• Development effectiveness reviews
• Impact assessment
  

Monitors, analysts and evaluators trying to use Results-Based Management do not find this terminology any easier than the project managers or implementors.

Despite some efforts to come up with common RBM definitions, the most commonly used terms in RBM -- "Outputs", "Outcomes", and "Impacts" -- in practice mean different things for different agencies, in different cultures, and most certainly, in different languages.

The term "Results” is often used synonymously with "goals" and "objectives" and therefore expressed in an ambitious, vague, or long-term manner.

Project planners and implementers, busy with the practical issues of delivering complex services, simply do not have time -- or often the inclination -- to work their way through unclear, confusing and, in the case of an organization with multiple funding agencies, often conflicting terminology. Although several donor agencies are now trying to improve their RBM frameworks,  the procedures and terms are becoming longer and more complex, rather than shorter, simpler and more practical.

One donor agency training session on RBM, for example, included PowerPoint presentation with 153 slides, and almost a thousand lines of dense text.  From what we know of how adults learn, this is not an effective means of encouraging understanding or motivating people use a new idea.

Given the problems, it is no wonder people on the application end of international development programming ask whether results-based management is worth the trouble it often causes them.

But it is reasonably easy to deconstruct RBM, to break down the logjam of dense terminology into its components, to make the tasks of planning, managing and reporting by results simple -- and even enjoyable -- to the for the people doing it.

Next:  Simple, Field-based RBM