Creating the Conditions for Transformative MEL – the 3Ps 

There is growing consensus that meaningful Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) must be intentional, resourced, fit-for-purpose, and focused on utilization. When we talk about MEL that responds to complexity and uncertainty, the conversation often jumps straight to conceptual and methodological innovations. However, what can truly unlock the potential for complexity-aware and systems-informed MEL to support learning and adaptation are a set of organizational enablers – that create preconditions for advancing newer ways of doing MEL, and shape organizational MEL culture and practice. 

Even the most innovative MEL approaches will face the same pitfalls as traditional methods unless we also tackle the deeper cultural shifts needed to help organizations writ large (and not just MEL practitioners) navigate complexity and manage uncertainty. MEL is often still perceived through the lens of a single program or even a portfolio, but ultimately operates within an organization (or an ecosystem) – which are themselves complex adaptive systems. 

If we see complexity-aware and systems-informed MEL as an organizational cause, three organizational levers of change to institutionalize MEL are key – people, processes, and products. I’m calling this the 3Ps, and providing a set of actions for each P.  

1. People

In unpredictable contexts, leadership and team behaviours shape learning cultures that enable organizations to sense, reflect, and respond. Systems-informed MEL needs leaders (allies) who see MEL as a way to visualize interrelationships, test assumptions, and surface emergent patterns, and not just tick off indicators. And so, what does that mean in terms of possible actions at an organizational level?  

Actions:

• Hiring for MEL Mindset: If a robust and systems-informed MEL culture is what we are aspiring for, assessing ‘culture fit’ during hiring is a no-brainer. Job descriptions (JD) – regardless of role and title – should emphasize ability to seek out evidence, learning orientation, and adaptive intent as important attributes in candidates. USAID Learning Lab has a helpful guide on hiring adaptive employees, and highlights practical ways to screen for desired qualities, including how to spot cues for adaptive mindsets during an interview.  
• Leaders champion MEL for the team: Leaders must actively promote MEL as essential to surfacing issues and guiding decision-making, helping their teams to adapt and improve continuously. Over time, this behaviour culminates into the weaving of MEL into the organization's fabric, fostering a mindset where MEL is embraced by everyone, not just the MEL specialists. A case study on "building learning cultures" from the Fiji team at DFAT’s Market Development Facility (MDF) highlighted staff attitudes and behaviour, including “manager’s behaviour” as crucial success factors that shaped MDF team’s learning culture. Learning cultures in turn make it possible for ongoing learning (rather than only in an episodic fashion) helping navigate ever-evolving operating contexts.  

2. Processes 

Amenable organizational processes are important to create enabling conditions for systems-informed and complexity-aware MEL. Key organizational processes like work planning, budgeting, and contracting should be agile to help MEL insights prompt decisions in complex environments, without having to run into organizational red-tape. In workshops that I ran with a large donor agency in 2023, a clear tension emerged: technical and program teams felt that contracts teams were overly attached to rigid legal language and contractual fidelity (and resistant to agile and dynamic approaches), while contracts teams expressed frustration that technical teams were unwilling to engage with the contractual processes necessary to enable adaptive management if complex and less predictable contexts so demanded. When organizational processes themselves are geared towards iteration and rapid feedback loops, MEL can get methodologically creative to tackle complexity. 

Actions:

• Flexible Work Planning: A “living document” approach to work planning (beyond just annual refreshes) allows MEL to guide iterative course corrections, based on real-time insights and enhanced situational awareness. This requires moving away from rigid adherence to work plans (and a list of deliverables) that teams can have a tendency to follow, without attempting collaborative sensemaking /reflections.  
• Agile Budgeting and Contracting: MEL should not be constrained by rigid planning or fixed contracts. If MEL insights suggest a shift, whether reallocating resources, adjusting timelines, or modifying activities, organizations should have the flexibility to adapt without being bogged down by bureaucratic or process constraints. An ODI report does a deep dive into contracts for adaptive programming and provide practical suggestions on shaping contracts to enable MEL for adaptive management (MEL4AM). Because systems-informed and complexity-aware MEL is only valuable when it’s actually used, organizational processes must enable rather than obstruct its uptake and usability.

3. Products 

While actions discussed above pertaining to people and processes are part of creating the enabling environment, MEL in its design and delivery of products also need to step up to be more user-centric. All MEL products should essentially be use-driven. They should be more than methodologically rigorous in tackling complexity or reflecting systems thinking; they must still be actionable and relevant to intended users. Too often MEL is locked into jargon that leaves decision-makers uninterested, and this is more the case when MEL practitioners want to advance the frontiers. Secondly, for MEL to be real-time, systems-aware, and complexity-responsive, we should really start to rethink the use of static, retrospective evaluations like mid-term reviews (MTR) and end-term evaluations that no longer meet the needs of programs that deliver at a time when complexity, uncertainty, and rapid change is a norm (or some say we have only now found language for it, but that’s a different discussion). MEL should be continuous, feeding actionable insights into the system in real time, not just at predetermined intervals.

Actions:

• Start with the ‘L’ and devise fit-for-purpose M&E: Traditional tools like rigid log frames that lock programs into fixed outcomes and indicators (which are then retrospectively assessed/ evaluated) are increasingly ineffective. Instead, looking at ‘learning questions’ as the starting point for MEL, and assess what data gathering and analysis are necessary to answer them, will drive MEL’s uptake. The C4D Evaluation Framework suggests operationalizing this through a questions-driven M&E plan – which is participatory, realistic and learning-based. 
• Actionable, jargon-free MEL products: MEL products should be easily digestible, and always offer actionable insights. The goal should be to create products that offer clear, actionable insights, easily interpretable by program managers, field staff, and decision-makers alike. For example, the nuance between complicated and complex or systems and network is good conceptual fodder for MEL, but being able to unpack it for a non-MEL audience is what will help operationalize those nuance and drive practice.