This is under maintenance, please use the Acceptance environment


Key elements

At the formulation stage, the first description of a monitoring system is required in the Action Document template. This should be discussed as early as possible, preferably as soon as the implementing partner is identified and at the latest during contracting or in the inception phase.
The key principles for designing a monitoring system are:

  • to build on local systems wherever possible (harmonise with partner systems and align with those of other development partners);
  • to keep users' information needs clearly in mind (amount, level of detail and aggregation of monitoring information);
  • to plan sufficient time, resources and budget for monitoring and reporting in the Action Document and in subsequent contractual documents.

Checklist - Key elements of a monitoring system

Information needs 

  • Who are the primary information users?
  • Have their information needs been identified and prioritised?
    This could include the logframe, activities, risks/assumptions which may entail monitoring the context, organisational capacity and management, finances, compliance with laws, beneficiary feedback, etc.

Governance structure for results monitoring and reporting

  • Who are the stakeholders involved and what are their roles and responsibilities in terms of data collection, quality checks, data analysis, dissemination, report drafting, and using monitoring/results data for decision-making?
  • Do all relevant actors within the governance structure know and understand their roles and responsibilities?
  • If further downstream partners are involved: Who will determine the downstream partner's monitoring capacity? Who will take corrective action when needed (including on the costs), and collect and where needed ensure quality, analyse and aggregate information for reporting to the Commission?
  • Are there any gaps in the governance structure? If yes, how is implementing partner addressing the gaps?
  • Does day-to-day monitoring and reporting adhere to the described governance structure?
  • What are the incentives to monitor (feedback, recognition, reward)?

Physical capacity

  • What are the existing physical resources available for monitoring (e.g. vehicles for implementing partner monitoring visits, computers/mobile phones/cameras for data collection and analysis)?
  • Does the implementing partner use a specific information system to store, analyse and disseminate monitoring data?
  • Will photographic or other evidence of results be provided for progress reports?

Human capacity

  • What are the existing human resources available for monitoring?
  • Is there a person responsible for monitoring (e.g. in charge of collecting and analysing data, reporting on results) with the requisite skills (in terms of monitoring/reporting, statistics, software)?
  • What time has been allocated for monitoring and reporting tasks?
  • If specific assessments/surveys are needed, what are the implementing partner's capacities for conducting these types of studies (based on experience, staff with appropriate skills, etc.)?
  • What are the possibilities for continued development in this area?

Financial capacity

  • What are the existing financial resources available for monitoring?
  • What is the source of funding and budget allocated for monitoring within the given intervention? Is it sufficient?
  • Are the necessary human, physical and financial resources appropriately planned for (usually not to exceed 3-5 % of the budget)?
  • If specific studies/surveys are needed, have adequate resources/budget been planned? Is the planning adequate to provide the necessary information when it is needed?

Data sources and collection methods

  • Has already available data been taken into consideration and assessed in terms of reliability and timeliness?
  • Have data collection methods been defined (e.g. formats, procedures and schedules for data collection and recording)?
  • Is there an appropriate balance between quantitative and qualitative information?
  • Are the collecting and recording methods robust and aligned to relevant national or international standards/methodologies?
  • Are there significant information gaps? If yes, where? If these are critical, how will they be filled?
  • Has external monitoring been foreseen where necessary?

Data analysis

  • Who undertakes analysis of the available data and at what level within the reporting hierarchy?
  • Are there formats and procedures for data analysis, reporting and dissemination?
  • Are the analysis methods robust and aligned to relevant national or international standards/methodologies?
  • Is the nature of the analysis appropriate and useful (e.g. are comparisons made between planned and actual results)?

Use of monitoring data

  • Which process will be used for decision-making? Is this process linked with the organisational setup?
  • Is there a review system enabling the analysed data and reports to be used for participatory decision-making? Who is involved, and is the intervention's system coordinated with other development partners?
  • Are decision-making points and levels clearly defined?
  • Is the data analysis and reporting process aligned with the decision-making points? Will up-to-date data be needed when it is required?

Reporting and dissemination

  • Are the existing formats for data recording and reporting adequate?
  • Do users understand how to use these?
  • What is the timing/frequency of reporting?
  • Have the relevant stakeholders and key data users been included in dissemination?
  • Are monitoring data used for lessons learned and knowledge sharing?


The main elements of the monitoring system can be formally described in a monitoring plan attached to either the proposal for the intervention or the inception report. As a good practice, it is recommended that the monitoring plan be:

  • agreed upon with all partners preferably before implementation begins;
  • reviewed periodically during implementation to ensure its relevance.

Assessing implementing partners' monitoring capacity

Monitoring an intervention requires the right staff and systems. It is important to avoid unnecessary duplication in monitoring arrangements or the creation of parallel systems. In this regard, the operational manager needs to examine counterpart systems to ensure that coordinated and harmonised approaches are developed.
One of the key tasks for operational managers is to review implementing partners' existing internal monitoring systems. The implementing partner's ability to perform tasks and answer questions about the monitoring system should be assessed, including capacity to support downstream partners where necessary. Internal monitoring capacity and resources available to the operational manager should also be considered.
There are many approaches and tools available to assess capacity, such as SWOT analysis, spider diagrams and institutional capacity assessments. This analysis preferably should be done in the early stages of formulation to ensure timely identification of any issues, so appropriate remedial or capacity development activities can be included in the corresponding provisions and budgets.
Once monitoring strengths and weaknesses are identified, corrective action may need to be taken before or during implementation. This could take the form of additional training or capacity building for implementing partners, recruitment of staff with the appropriate skills, recruitment of professional advice and support, reducing the complexity of monitoring requirements or contracting with an external organisation to conduct monitoring.