Results information, which includes quantitative and qualitative data and evidence from both monitoring and evaluation, is used for learning and decision-making at every level – ranging from corporate- to project-level – alongside its use for communication and accountability.
OECD (2019[1]) Managing for Sustainable Development Results, Guiding Principle 4
There is scope to increase the use of results information. Making good use of data and results information is critical for securing domestic and international resources for national development, designing the right policies and delivering effective public services, enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of development co-operation efforts, and maximising their impact. Results information should be used to:
learn what works and what does not and make changes as needed at national, programme and project levels;
steer collective development efforts at country level;
foster domestic and mutual accountability between development partners, providing feedback to domestic stakeholders and partners on achievements, challenges, and learning; and
communicate to various audiences at national and partner-country level to raise awareness of, build public trust in and mobilise citizens into action for the SDGs.
While results information can be used in multiple ways, its actual use depends on the way quantitative and qualitative data are compiled, managed and shared, as well as on the tools, space and time given to staff and partners to use it. It is therefore important to clearly specify the purpose and ways in which results information is being used and to support knowledge management systems. In parallel, governments and development partners need to combat dis- and misinformation that hinder trust and slow down effective behaviour change (Figure 6.1).
Results information is used for learning
Results information informs decision-making and steering of development programmes
Results information supports domestic and mutual accountability
Results information is used to communicate and support transparency
Using results information to learn is vital for improving development effectiveness and maximising the impact of development co-operation programmes, even more so in times of instability. Fostering learning is needed both within and between organisations.
Strategic learning allows governments and development organisations to realign their objectives, structures and processes to ensure the more effective pursuit of overarching goals and expected outcomes.
Operational learning connects learning and adapting and enables the adjustment and refinement of ongoing and future interventions to ensure more effective performance against expected results.
Mutual learning among partners at country and sub-national levels fosters broad-based ownership, supports locally led problem solving and ensures sustainability. (MfSDR Guiding Principle 3, third key element (OECD, 2019[1])).
Learning from results information and other sources of information requires an integrated approach to collecting, assessing, sharing and using information and knowledge, accompanied by supportive organisational cultures and practices, appropriate systems and processes, and adequate tools, resources and networks (Figure 6.2).
Is results information from M&E used for learning at all levels in the ministry/development organisation?
What organisational priorities, tools and systems do you have to facilitate learning and how do you use it to inform future programming, adapt ongoing programmes and enhance mutual learning?
Create an organisational environment that supports learning:
give space and incentives for officials to learn, including through candid self-evaluation (e.g. in including a learning objective in individual staff performance objectives);
develop information-sharing systems (e.g. learning databases on evaluation findings; thematic or sector networks of experts).
Select relevant information (whatever your position in the ministry/development organisation):
ensure you have access to information that is relevant for strategic, operational, or mutual learning. To this end, leadership should resist the tendency to prioritise collecting information for accountability at the expense of information that is useful for learning;
use qualitative information (contextual narrative, stories, local knowledge) alongside quantitative data from monitoring and evaluation;
do not underestimate the usefulness of tacit knowledge based on individual skills, experience and intuition, alongside explicit knowledge that comes with M&E, research and exchanges with partners.
Foster country ownership of results information and mutual learning:
(depending on your position) foster or engage in national or sub-national co-ordination mechanisms to: i) use results information generated by national and local systems; ii) share learning; iii) foster mutual collaboration and accountability; and iv) inform joint analysis, monitoring and reporting;
hold regular dialogues among stakeholders involved in the same thematic or sector area;
design participatory approaches in problem analysis, design, planning, monitoring, evaluation and use of results.
Learn what works, but don’t forget to also learn from failures. Be open to examining what hasn’t worked, as well as what has, to make better decisions at the programming or design stage or to adapt during the course of a project.
Take stock and transfer knowledge and learning within and beyond your organisation. Ensuring that learning circulates and is not lost, whether there are staff movements (transfers) or not (retention), enables more effective programme delivery and better results:
use internal networks and external co-ordination meetings with partners to transfer learning;
draft short summaries of lessons and handover notes and store them in formal systems, such as shared drives, for learning uptake.
Foster knowledge management. Effective knowledge management facilitates organisational and mutual learning. There is no “one size fits all” solution for fostering knowledge management. Approaches and systems must be tailored to specific needs, contexts and desired outcomes. Yet it is important to embed knowledge management into strategic, operational and human-resource management, and follow specific steps (Figure 6.3):
Develop a strategic approach, with processes, capacities, tools and resources that help capture, store and disseminate knowledge.
Establish fit-for-purpose data and information systems.
Foster a culture of learning which involves strong leadership roles, mapping of different stakeholders’ interests and roles, appropriate capacities and incentives, and often a change-management process to trigger behaviour change.
Some positive experiences and resources for using results information follow.
To retain knowledge of programmes and their histories, underlying rationales and relevant relationships, and to avoid reinventing systems, losing programmatic momentum and disrupting key relationships, USAID has established a knowledge retention and transfer (KRT) toolkit.
The KRT model comprises: i) a toolkit providing templates and resources to help capture, organise and transfer information – this includes a handover memo as a centrepiece of the model as well as phone calls to capture tacit information; ii) an implementation plan to co-ordinate roles and responsibilities, with hyperlinks to relevant tools and a checklist; and iii) a maturity matrix, which is a self-assessment tool to help operating units check progress in KRT and plan for improvements. It is complemented by a feedback tracker, with staff reporting back via e-mail on KRT implementation to inform improvements in the tools and support for uptake.
Source: Rivera-Reyes (2021[2]), Strengthening knowledge retention and transfer during staff training, https://usaidlearninglab.org/community/blog/strengthening-knowledge-retention-and-transfer-during-staff-transitions
Finland (2019): How do we Learn, Manage and Make Decisions in Finland's Development Policyand Cooperation, Evaluation on Finland’s Development Policy and Cooperation, 2019/3
OECD (2023): USAID Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting
OECD (2022): Learning from evaluations to improve project quality - JICA’s annual evaluation report
OECD (2022): Global Affairs Canada’s internal capacity building approach for results-based management
OECD (2021): United Kingdom REX – The Results and Evidence Exchange
OECD (2023): Good practices in knowledge management and learning
ADB (2021), ADB Knowledge Management Action Plan (KMAP) 2021-2025
IDOS/DIE (2021),
Multi-Donor Learning Partnership (2022), Return on Knowledge – How international development agencies are collaborating to deliver impact through knowledge learning, research and evidence
OECD (2019), Learning from Results Based Management evaluations and reviews
UNICEF (2021), Global Knowledge Management medium-term strategy 2021-22 - Putting knowledge to work to achieve rights and results for children
USAID Learning Lab (2023), Managing Knowledge
Data and results information are critical to steering development efforts and enhancing effectiveness and impact. They should inform both strategic and operational decision-making.
Use of data and results information can lead to better strategic decisions. Having a clear, documented picture of what was achieved in the previous term (and what was not) helps the political leadership and organisational management to design new development strategies and make evidence-based budget allocations and programming decisions. Political priorities might be reconsidered because of new evidence provided.
Use of data and results information can improve delivery and impact on the ground. Programme and project managers gain from using solid evidence (for instance, coming from past evaluations of similar types of initiatives) when designing new programmes and projects, including in making assumptions and assessing risks. In monitoring their implementation, they can use the information gathered to make decisions that will facilitate the delivery of programmes’ and projects’ outcomes, even if the context evolves.
Evidence-based strategic and operational decision-making requires that appropriate, quality results information is available on time and in the right format. It is therefore crucial to clearly define what type of information is needed at each level of the organisation and what the source of this information will be, before organising the data collection and aggregation systems – supported by adequate guidance and training – so that the right data is available on time for strategic or operational decision-making. Experience shows the importance of motivation and incentives: actual use of results information by senior management for decision-making turns an administrative task into one where people are more motivated to collect and use the results information. Still the lack of reliable and disaggregated data remains an obstacle (see Chapter 4).
Is results information from monitoring, evaluation and other sources of evidence used for decision-making at all levels in the ministry/development organisation?
What are the key obstacles that deter leadership, management and implementers from using the results information more systematically and effectively?
Ensure the right information is available at the right level and the right time, enabling a flow of information across the system, drawing on quantitative and qualitative evidence from programme-monitoring, evaluations, research, partners and other sources.
Clearly define what type of information is needed at each level of the organisation.
Specify the different types of indicators that will be used for decision-making at each level.
Identify what the source of this information will be (e.g. monitoring and evaluation systems, research departments, country national systems, external sources, etc.).
Develop clear guidance on how the data and results information should be collected, analysed and made available at the right level and the right time.
Plan evaluations so that their findings can feed into strategic decisions (e.g. new national strategy, renewal of innovative programmes).
Enhance staff capabilities in collecting, analysing and using data as well as in conducting or commissioning evaluations, including by providing appropriate training.
Foster staff engagement through setting up information systems in a way that allows users to review their results data and to see how it feeds into the whole data set at sectoral, regional and corporate levels.
Make sure incentives go from individual to corporate levels, linking individuals’, teams’, divisions’, and directorates’ accountabilities and contributions to organisational results.
Use results information to inform programming decisions and budget allocations. In addition to the benefits that management will gain from evidence-based decisions, it is important that leadership sets an example in making good use of information collected throughout the organisation.
Ensure that appropriate results information (e.g. annual results reports aggregating and analysing data collected throughout the organisation, strategic evaluation recommendations, etc.), is available on time for strategic decisions.
Tailor both the content and format of the information to the needs of targeted decision-makers (e.g. political leadership, top-level managers, executive boards), favouring short, strategic briefing notes with clear points and an annex providing background documentation.
Communicate throughout the organisation on the actual use of results information by leadership, and the ways in which it has helped advance the organisation’s mission.
Purposely design and implement monitoring and evaluation activities with the end-user in mind.
Avoid making monitoring and evaluation too technical.
Set and revise monitoring and evaluation needs using an iterative process alongside updating the theory of change/logical framework.
Provide adequate guidance, strengthen staff capabilities and give staff time for the ongoing interpretation of evidence and creation of processes for continuous improvement (e.g. documenting evidence-informed conversations).
Make it explicit that programme and project managers are expected to leverage learning for: i) adapting deliverables and arranging resources as required, based on evidence and learning, to achieve the desired outcomes; ii) improving similar types of projects; and iii) influencing future programming.
Develop an organisational environment conducive to adaptive management approaches (see Section 3.3).
Promote evaluative thinking as a capacity and process that is embedded throughout implementation. Evaluation is not only relevant at the start and end of an intervention. Monitoring practices can shift towards being more evaluative – asking “why” questions – alongside collecting monitoring data. Increasingly, some donors and their partners are experimenting with learning partners, who are independent and can play a role in asking these “why” questions, helping to ensure that evidence and data is being acted upon on an ongoing basis, rather than simply being collected. This can also provide a useful check on the rigour of the approaches being used (Ramalingam, Wild and Buffardi, 2019[3]).
Make the case for investing in results frameworks to leadership and decision makers. Leadership has a key role in fostering the results agenda and building an organisational culture of results and learning. The following points can help you explain how the strategic use of results approaches, tools and systems at all levels within the organisation can be a game changer in the actual practice of development co-operation, and a catalyst for more effective and better co-ordinated approaches at country level, which are crucial to maximising the impact of development efforts. There is strong evidence that institutions that have invested in results approaches and systems aligned to the Guiding Principles on Managing for Sustainable Development Results are able to:
Sharpen the focus on sustainable development across the institution.
Develop coherent and mutually reinforcing government approaches and strategies.
Navigate complex, cross-sector development challenges.
Align more easily to countries’ policies and systems.
Adapt to evolving situations.
Co-ordinate with other partners on the ground.
Engage more frequently in partnerships.
Report and communicate on the results achieved and their contribution to sustainable development.
Some positive experiences, lessons and resources for using results information follow.
A number of donors are experimenting with different approaches to designing and measuring core results indicators, such as:
Bedrock indicators. These are a core set of benchmark indicators that remain fixed throughout the programme (i.e. at the outcome and impact level), with greater flexibility at lower levels of the results chain (e.g. outputs, activities).
Open-ended/basket indicators. A ‘basket’ is like a menu of indicators, of which the programme is expected to achieve a selection, while ‘open-ended’ indicators aim to achieve a degree of tangible reform in a given area without pre-specifying exactly what this will look like.
Learning/adaptive practice indicators. These attempt to measure processes of learning and adaptation, usually by counting the number of learning activities undertaken or adaptation measures (such as the volume of evaluation reports produced during a programme, the percentage of theory of change templates that were modified throughout a programme, or whether an intervention has been stopped or restructured if found to be unsuccessful). Such indicators have not yet been able to assess the quality of a programme’s learning process very effectively.
Measuring risks and assumptions. This involves the measurement of assumptions made at the outset of a programme and the level of risk associated with its activities. For example, USAID’s ‘context indicators’ measure programmes’ political, social and economic conditions.
Australia’s DFAT reshaped its performance assessment system to boost monitoring, evaluation, research, learning and adaptation (MERLA) across its development programme. DFAT considers that regular and systematic MERLA is essential to: i) assess programmes’ effectiveness and efficiency; ii) support adaptive management of investments; iii) provide the basis of reporting to Parliament and the public; and iv) contribute to dialogue with development partners.
Other members of the Results Community have upgraded their dashboards to provide managers with more user-friendly, real-time access to visually compelling project and portfolio data that they can drill down into to serve their management needs.
Finland (2019), How do we Learn, Manage and Make Decisions in Finland’s Development Policy and Cooperation
USAID (2023), USAID Collaborate, Learn and Adapt (CLA) framework
ODI (2019), Making adaptive rigour work: principles and practices for strengthening MEL for adaptive management
Rogers, P., and Macfarlan, A. (2020), An overview of monitoring and evaluation for adaptive management and What is adaptive management and how does it work?
OECD (2021), Achieving SDG results in development co-operation - Summary for policy makers
UNFPA (2022), The A-Compass: The UNFPA adaptive management model
Taxpayers, parliaments, citizens and partners expect to know how governments and development organisations are allocating their funds and whether their work is making a difference. This is why domestic accountability has, to a large extent, driven the RBM systems of many development organisations.
This has raised a number of issues:
i) the selection of indicators is influenced by their expected use, which is often reporting back to the legislative body (or the relevant governing body), resulting in a tendency to set too many indicators at the corporate level and too little for useful learning and decision-making at other levels;
ii) the demand for accountability risks leading to incentives for meeting short-term targets at the expense of pursuing longer-term outcomes;
iii) political considerations also often influence the definition of indicators, without considering how the information will be used or the related methodological implications. There are cases where the pressure to measure certain indicators, despite the lack of a clear methodology or gaps in data, has produced inadequate results information.
Besides domestic accountability, mutual accountability is crucial to delivering development effectiveness. It should be pursued at country, programme and project levels, and involve regular and structured dialogue with governments and local authorities and among development partners. MfSDR Guiding Principle 3 calls for development organisations to foster mutual accountability when engaging in partnerships, with a clear understanding of the common goal and each party’s contribution to achieving shared outcomes and sharing risks, while regularly assessing the effectiveness of the partnership. (MfSDR Guiding Principle 3, fourth key element (OECD, 2019[1]).
In what ways are you providing feedback to domestic stakeholders and partners on achievements?
Revisit your overarching indicator framework to define the number of standard indicators set for accountability purposes: a limited number of indicators might be sufficient for accountability at the corporate level, but more context-based indicators, as well as performance indicators, are needed for steering and learning at country, programme and project levels.
Streamline reporting requirements for accountability purposes and clearly specify their function. In doing so, you will avoid over-burdening partners with unhelpful data-collection processes:
Minimise reporting requirements for accountability purposes to what is actually useful at national or corporate level.
Harmonise your reporting requirements with those of other partners.
Make such requirements clear and easy to access.
Use governments’ monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks to the greatest extent possible.
Set clear objectives and roles: when engaging in partnerships, ensure there is a clear understanding of the common goals and each party’s contribution to achieving shared outcomes and sharing risks.
Define common outcome indicators: each partner may have different input and (short-term) output indicators, but they should agree on the outcome indicators that will measure progress towards the common objective(s).
Agree on the monitoring system that will track how the intervention is progressing towards delivering the expected results.
Regularly assess the effectiveness of the partnership: this can be done through regular, formal stocktaking, complemented with e-mail exchanges. Assessments should draw on qualitative and quantitative information from the M&E system as well as from the evaluations themselves, and on partner countries’ own data, systems and results frameworks.
Global Affairs Canada’s (GAC) Architecture for Results for International Assistance. To better balance accountability and learning, GAC introduced this results “nesting model” with a limited number of key corporate performance indicators and complementary indicators, that can be aggregated from project to portfolio level.
To strengthen the use of results data for reporting on project, programme and portfolio performance, many organisations have set up workshops and training to ensure that reporting requirements and the use of results data are clear for staff and partners. A few organisations have also used new methodologies for rating and incorporating the progress of ongoing activities toward delivering targets in the project results framework, or have digitalised different types of management tools and systems to help staff with project management and reporting (e.g. a digital grant-management assistant, which makes it easier to access and navigate through the different rules and regulations). They have also adjusted staff incentives to encourage more candid reporting of project results data and useful lessons.
Some development partners are promoting more light-touch, agile reporting, using simple templates for strategy-testing, or designing faster processes for approving novel and more experimental interventions. In giving greater flexibility and autonomy to partners in creating and using results frameworks, grant arrangements are more conducive to the use of these approaches, which facilitate faster approvals and adaptation while satisfying donors’ risk management needs.
The Global Partnership Monitoring process provides evidence on progress in implementing effective development co-operation commitments at the country, regional and global level, supporting accountability among all development actors. Led by the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC), it offers an opportunity for strategic dialogue among all development stakeholders at country level, building on the findings of monitoring at national level.
The United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework (UNSDCF) articulates the UN’s collective response to supporting governments in addressing national priorities and gaps in the pathway towards sustainable development. Co-signed by the government and the UN country team, it includes a detailed results framework, and is accompanied by a monitoring, reporting, evaluation and learning plan, thereby fostering mutual accountability.
Several countries have also instituted development co-operation frameworks to enforce mutual accountability mechanisms. An illustration is Tanzania’s development co-operation framework, which runs until 2024-25, and defines the overall objectives and principles surrounding the development partnership as well as the undertakings committed to by the various partners supporting Tanzania’s development.
In a few countries, development partners use high-level co-ordination mechanisms (e.g. the Key Political Partners Group in Nigeria) to drive critical agendas through effective political dialogue and pursue a mutual accountability approach with government at national and sub-national levels.
Development communication today is central to achieving core organisational and policy objectives. Demonstrating that development efforts lead to positive and sustainable change can help build political and public support and foster active engagement towards sustainable development. For this purpose, development communicators pursue four goals:
raising awareness about sustainable development;
changing attitudes, building trust and support for sustainable development;
seeking advice and consulting citizens for feedback and advice; and
promoting action and encouraging citizens to adopt sustainable behaviours and engage in communities.
Beyond domestic purposes, transparency is a prerequisite to build mutual trust and learn collectively at country level. Therefore, MfSDR Guiding Principle 3 invites development organisations to promote transparency, sharing their results frameworks and ensuring that results information and data are available to all involved stakeholders and the broader public – including to specific target groups – using understandable language and appropriate communication channels (MfSDR Guiding Principle 3, fifth key element, (OECD, 2019[1])).
Governments and development partners also need to equip themselves to combat mis- and disinformation that affect sustainable development in many ways. Most directly, such falsehoods discourage citizens from adopting sustainable behaviours like getting vaccinated or reducing their carbon emissions. More indirectly, mis- and disinformation reduce people’s trust in institutions that are trying to make sustainable development happen. This lack of trust is also a challenge for international development actors. Despite their efforts to communicate about their results and fight corruption, many people still believe that development aid is wasted.
Do you have elements of a development communication strategy to foster public support and engagement in sustainable development activities?
Are your results frameworks, information and data of high quality, timely and publicly available?
To raise public awareness and foster critical engagement and support for sustainable development:
Identify the various audiences in the general public, including:
influencers (e.g. CSOs, foundations, local authorities) who can help mobilise people and promote action for sustainable development; and
watchdogs (e.g. parliaments, media) who can help meet commitments on accountability and build public trust in development work.
Frame narrative and tailor messaging to your audience and communication purposes (i.e. explaining issues, showing results, highlighting shared goals and values or inspiring people into action). This ensures the message will be listened to and acted upon. In doing so:
combine timely data with reliable stories
avoid jargon
don’t reinforce stereotypes
don’t hide the truth
don’t moralise
Select communication channels depending on your audience. Using appropriate channels – whether they relate to the media, public spaces or digital communication – is important to reach the targeted audience. In doing so, also keep the purpose and budget in mind. Do not hesitate to go multi-channel to resonate with audiences in different places at different times.
Use diversified formats depending on your audience, e.g. articles, videos, podcasts, etc. Do not hesitate to use visual formats such as infographics, as they can improve understanding and connect with an audience faster.
Engage in selected partnerships. In campaigning jointly with others (e.g. civil society, multilateral organisations, businesses and municipalities), you can benefit from their expertise and networks, maximising outreach and potential impact.
Develop internal communication skills and secure a decent budget for development communication. Digital, editorial, analytical and outreach skills are needed, requiring competent staff and adequate training. Don’t hesitate to value communication skills and develop training as important means to motivate communicators.
To promote transparency:
Share your results frameworks. This applies to all levels, from national/headquarters to project level. In sharing their results frameworks, stakeholders get clarity on who does what in a specific geographic area, sector or domain. At national level, the analysis of results frameworks can help governments guide development efforts, assessing where there are gaps or risks of ineffective overlaps. Sharing results frameworks at programme and project level can foster harmonisation, with newcomers aligning their sets of indicators to the ones already used by other stakeholders.
Make your results data public, ensuring that results information and data are available to all involved stakeholders, other development partners working in the same sectoral or thematic area, and the broader public – including to specific target groups. In doing so:
make sure that qualitative information complements quantitative data, providing the context and contributing to explaining why and how the results were achieved or not;
avoid hiding what does not work;
use language that is understandable by the audience;
use appropriate communication channels and formats (e.g. national reports and web portals at national or headquarter level, leaflets at project level).
Use results information to inform dialogues at country, programme and project levels, seeking feedback from the involved stakeholders and other partners. This will build trust with your counterparts and partners. It will also help you to shape future strategies, programmes and projects.
Document any feedback received during these dialogues. Qualitative knowledge is as important as quantitative data to analyse situations. It needs to be communicated and transferred to colleagues and partners, e.g. in the form of short summaries.
Plan the preparation of high-level results reports well in advance. In doing so, ensure they are prepared in an inclusive way and will be released in time to influence national or global processes (e.g. ahead of the UN High-level Political Forum when preparing SDG Voluntary National Reviews).
Segment your audience further, using surveys and social media analytics to develop a more refined set of audience profiles. Besides socio-demographic factors, such profiles can take into consideration people’s differing attitudes to sustainable development, lifestyles and personal interests, moral values and preferences, and media habits.
You can then better understand how specific audiences engage with development and which channels they use, and further tailor communication messaging and tools.
You can also get closer to your audience using formats such as podcasts, interactive microsites and mobile apps that allow communicators to reach targeted groups without intermediaries.
Transparency on spending and results - the Dutch portal on development co-operation activities
Going digital - the "Norwegian development aid - statistics and results" portal
USAID’s Dollars to Results
Norway’s NORAD results platform
Spain’s SDG contributions platform
Inter-American Development Bank’s Development Effectiveness Overview 2022
Asian Development Bank’s 2022 Development Effectiveness Review
OECD (2014), Engaging with the Public - Twelve lessons from DAC Peer Reviews and the Network and DAC Development Communicators
OECD DevCom Toolkit (2023), Guidance and advice for SDG communicators
Fighting Mis- and Disinformation, 7 steps for development communicators, OECD/DEVCOM, 6 December 2022
Communicating for gender equality, 7 principles identified by Felix Zimmermann, OECD DevCom Co-ordinator
The SDG Communicator Blog with stories and examples on different topics and countries
The #Act4SDGs website, the global mobilisation to inspire citizens to take action on the SDGs
The #2030isNow campaign by the European Commission Directorate-General for International Partnerships on Twitter
Find visual assets and messages on the #FlipTheScript campaign on the Trello board
Is it clear which information will be used for each purpose and who should have access to this information?
Is there appropriate training and clear guidance on how the data and results information should be collected, analysed and made available at the right level and the right time?
Does your information system enable using qualitative information alongside quantitative data?
Are you equipped to take stock of learning and transfer knowledge inside and outside your organisation?
Are you tailoring the content, format, and channel of the information to each targeted audience?
Do the organisational environment and staff incentives support learning, including learning from failures?
Are you using results information to inform dialogue with partners and counterparts at country level, including through using co-ordination mechanisms?
Are you providing clear guidance on reporting requirements, and harmonising and streamlining those requirements?
Are your data and results information available to all involved stakeholders, other development partners working in the same sectoral or thematic area, and the broader public?
[1] OECD (2019), Managing for Sustainable Development Results: Guiding Principles, Best Practices in Development Co-operation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/44a288bc-en.
[3] Ramalingam, B., L. Wild and A. Buffardi (2019), Making adaptive rigour work: principles and practices for strengthening MEL for adaptive management, https://odi.org/en/publications/making-adaptive-rigour-work-principles-and-practices-for-strengthening-mel-for-adaptive-management/ (accessed on 16 April 2024).
[2] Rivera-Reyes (2021), Strengthening Knowledge Retention and Transfer During Staff Transitions | USAID Learning Lab, https://usaidlearninglab.org/community/blog/strengthening-knowledge-retention-and-transfer-during-staff-transitions (accessed on 29 April 2024).