Tool 2
Guide for Measuring in Partnership
This exercise will help partners understand what is realistic together and agree on a meaningful shared measurement approach..
Download the working file
If you used Tool 1, bring forward the program purpose. If not, begin here by aligning on shared questions and what decisions data should support. More than one outcome may be relevant. The partnership does not have to measure everything; focus on the outcome question or questions that are useful enough and feasible enough to pursue together
1. Understand the context
For this partnership/program, work with your partners to plot approximately where the program is today. The purpose is to align on the realities of the program and begin conversations about where the program is headed.
| Dimension | Plot approximately where you are | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product supply | Variable / excess | Planned / predictable | |
| Program Relationships | Newer / | Established / | |
| Partners Involved | many partners | Fewer sustained | |
| Visibility after products are received | Limited / periodic / sampled | Regular / repeated | |
| Existing data | Sparse / fragmented | Routine / aligned | |
| Reporting frequency | periodic | longitudinal | |
| Staff resources for measurement | Few to no dedicated staff | Dedicated staff and technical support | |
| Budget considerations | No allocated M&E budget | Full M&E budget | |
| Ability to influence measurement together | Limited | Strong | |
| Strategic tie | Excess product / operational | Purposefully tied to a broader impact strategy | |
2. Compare perspectives
Understand partner needs and perspectives. Relabel the partner columns as needed. Differences are useful information for designing a workable approach.
| Question | Partner 1 | Partner 2 | Partner 3 | What do we need to align? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Are outputs enough for this program? | ||||
| How would this evidence be useful for us? | ||||
| Why does this program tie into a larger impact strategy? | ||||
| What decision will the evidence inform, and how will it be useful? | ||||
| What evidence already exists? | ||||
| What type of data can we realistically access or collect? | ||||
| Which partners have capacity for which measurement tasks? | ||||
| What resources may be available? | ||||
| What support may be required? | ||||
| What burden would new collection create, if any? |
Measurement capacityHave an open discussion about which partners are best positioned for which tasks—standardizing, collecting or accessing data, managing and calculating metrics, gathering qualitative information and stories, interpreting findings, and using or communicating results? Where would support make the work more realistic and who is willing to commit in what timeframe?
Given these conditions, what kind of measurement is realistic for this partnership?
Capacity and budget are part of measurement design
If a measurement approach requires new downstream reporting, partners should discuss the resources needed before assigning responsibility. Capacity includes staff time, systems, data access, technical skills, travel, translation, connectivity, supervision, analysis, and the ability to act on the findings. Budget should be explicit when additional work is being requested.
QuestionIs this information already collected?
Why it mattersReuse existing evidence before creating a new reporting requirement.
QuestionWhat additional work would be required?
Why it mattersMake staff time and operational burden visible.
QuestionWho has the systems and skills to do the work?
Why it mattersDo not assume the partner closest to the data has the capacity to compile or analyze it.
QuestionWhat will it cost?
Why it mattersMeasurement may require direct budget, not only goodwill.
QuestionWho will fund or support the added work?
Why it mattersShared outcomes should not shift unfunded work downstream.
QuestionWill the evidence be useful to the local partner?
Why it mattersData should support local planning, negotiation, learning, or advocacy as well as upstream reporting.
QuestionCan a lighter approach answer the question?
Why it mattersSampling, periodic observation, or fewer fields may be more proportionate.
3. Agree on the approach
| We agree on... | Decision |
|---|---|
| Question we are trying to answer | |
| AMI impact area / priority indicator | |
| Existing evidence we will use | |
| Additional evidence genuinely needed | |
| Who provides what | |
| Who compiles / calculates | |
| Who adds qualitative context | |
| Who interprets the findings | |
| Reporting period / frequency | |
| Capacity or technical support needed | |
| Budget required and who covers it | |
| How local partners will use the findings | |
| How findings will be returned / shared | |
| When we will revisit the approach |
These next steps can be developed incrementally. Start with what the program and partnership can support now, identify where you’d like to ultimately end up and strengthen it as the evidence, relationships, and capacity develop.
