The Monitor's Role - Verification and Learning

Published on: Sun Dec 01 2024 by Ivar Strand

The Monitor’s Role: Verification and Learning, Not Judgment and Punishment

Introduction

In any monitoring engagement, there is an inherent and unavoidable tension. The implementing partner (IP) is responsible for delivering a project, while the monitor is responsible for independently verifying its progress and outputs. How this tension is managed is a critical determinant of the monitoring exercise’s success.

When monitoring is perceived by an IP as a punitive audit designed to find fault, a counterproductive dynamic emerges. Fear of judgment leads to defensiveness, which in turn can lead to opacity, information hoarding, and a reluctance to discuss real-world challenges. This dynamic degrades the quality of data and defeats the purpose of the exercise.

The monitor’s role must therefore be framed around two distinct but complementary functions: objective verification for the purpose of accountability, and collaborative learning for the purpose of project improvement. Experience has shown us that separating these functions from judgment is essential for a productive partnership.

1. The Two Mindsets of Monitoring

The approach a monitor takes is governed by their mindset. We see two archetypical models, with profoundly different outcomes.

• The “Auditor” Mindset (Judgment-Focused) This approach is narrowly focused on identifying deviations from a pre-approved work plan. The primary question is “What went wrong?” and the main activity is documenting shortcomings. Communication is often formal and unidirectional, culminating in a report that delivers findings. The implicit role is that of a critic, and the outcome is often perceived by the IP as a pass/fail judgment. This mindset breeds fear and discourages transparency.

• The “Learning Partner” Mindset (Improvement-Focused) This constructive approach is focused on understanding the operational reality. The guiding questions are “What is happening, and why?” and “What can we learn from this to improve?” It positions the monitor as a critical friend whose goal is to help the project succeed. Communication is a two-way dialogue, and findings are discussed collaboratively to understand context and identify solutions. The outcome is not a verdict, but a shared understanding and a path toward corrective action.

2. Principles of Constructive Verification

Adopting a learning mindset does not imply a reduction in rigor. Verification must remain objective and evidence-based. The difference lies in how the process is conducted and how findings are communicated. At Abyrint, our approach is built on several core principles.

• 1. Objectivity Without Accusation. Findings must be grounded in impartial evidence. However, their presentation should be neutral and non-accusatory. A monitor should state observations about the project, not deliver indictments of the partner. The language should be “We observed that 7 of 10 distribution points were operational,” not “You failed to open 3 distribution points.” This frames the finding as a verifiable fact, not a personal failure.

• 2. Contextualize All Findings. A key task for a monitor is to understand and report on the “why” behind the “what.” A reported delay in activities is an incomplete piece of information. Was the delay caused by unexpected security issues, supply chain disruptions, or staff shortages? Presenting a finding along with its operational context demonstrates a deeper understanding and shifts the focus from blame to the shared reality of a challenging environment.

• _3. Frame Feedback Around Corrective Action. The primary purpose of identifying a deficiency is to enable its correction. Therefore, every finding should serve as the starting point for a forward-looking conversation. Once a fact is verified, the immediate question should be, “How can we, as a collective team, address this?” This transforms the monitor from a critic into a collaborative problem-solver.

3. The Tangible Value of a Learning-Oriented Approach

This shift in mindset is not a “soft” skill with intangible benefits; it produces concrete improvements in the quality and utility of the monitoring exercise.

• Higher Quality Data: In a trust-based relationship, IPs are more likely to be transparent about challenges and setbacks. This leads to more accurate and honest data, giving donors a true picture of the project’s status.
• Faster and More Effective Problem-Solving: A collaborative dialogue allows for issues to be discussed and addressed as they are identified, rather than weeks or months later in a formal report. This accelerates the project’s ability to learn and adapt.
• Stronger and More Resilient Partnerships: A constructive approach builds social capital and trust between the donor, the monitor, and the IP. This makes the entire implementation structure more resilient and better able to navigate the inevitable challenges of operating in complex environments.

Conclusion

The mindset of the monitor is one of the most critical variables in any third-party monitoring engagement. While the function of verification must remain scrupulously objective, it should be decoupled from an atmosphere of judgment. By framing the role as that of a learning partner, monitors can fulfill their duty of accountability while simultaneously contributing to programmatic improvement.

The ultimate measure of a monitor’s success is not the number of flaws they find, but the number of problems that are collaboratively identified, understood, and solved.