Indicators - Revision history

Alnaucler at 19:29, 20 February 2020

2020-02-20T19:29:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, 20 February 2020
Line 173:		Line 173:

	{{NavBox Business Intelligence}}		{{NavBox Business Intelligence}}
	[[Category:~~VIE~~]]		[[Category:NAA]]

Alnaucler at 11:39, 17 July 2019

2019-07-17T11:39:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:39, 17 July 2019
Line 172:		Line 172:
	** [http://www.outcomemapping.ca/ Outcome Mapping Learning Community]		** [http://www.outcomemapping.ca/ Outcome Mapping Learning Community]

	{{NavBox ~~Hub~~}}		{{NavBox Business Intelligence}}
	~~[[Category:NoPublic]]~~
	[[Category:VIE]]		[[Category:VIE]]

Alnaucler at 11:33, 17 July 2019

2019-07-17T11:33:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:33, 17 July 2019
Line 162:		Line 162:
	\|}		\|}

	== References ~~(external links)~~ ==__NOEDITSECTION__		== References ==__NOEDITSECTION__
	* UN M&E framework for mine action [[Media:20140318(v2) - Survey Instrument for Pilot.docx \| UN Survey Instrument]]		* UN M&E framework for mine action [[Media:20140318(v2) - Survey Instrument for Pilot.docx \| UN Survey Instrument]]
	* Feinstein International Center: [http://fic.tufts.edu/assets/PIA-guide_revised-2014-3.pdf Participatory Impact Assessment: A Design Guide]		* Feinstein International Center: [http://fic.tufts.edu/assets/PIA-guide_revised-2014-3.pdf Participatory Impact Assessment: A Design Guide]
	* World Health Organization: [http://www.who.int/healthinfo/systems/WHO_MBHSS_2010_full_web.pdf?ua=1 A Handbook of Indicators and their Measurement Strategies]		* World Health Organization: [http://www.who.int/healthinfo/systems/WHO_MBHSS_2010_full_web.pdf?ua=1 A Handbook of Indicators and their Measurement Strategies]
	* Mikkel Nedergaard (DDG): ~~The Journal of ERW and Mine Action, 2014~~[http://www.jmu.edu/cisr/journal/18.1/focus/nedergaard.shtml Outcome Monitoring in Humanitarian Mine Action]		* Mikkel Nedergaard (DDG): [http://www.jmu.edu/cisr/journal/18.1/focus/nedergaard.shtml Outcome Monitoring in Humanitarian Mine Action]
	* Miscellaneous links/resources related to '''Outcome Mapping'''		* Miscellaneous links/resources related to '''Outcome Mapping'''
	** http://www.researchtoaction.org/2012/01/outcome-mapping-a-basic-introduction/		** [http://www.researchtoaction.org/2012/01/outcome-mapping-a-basic-introduction/ Outcome Mapping: A Basic Introduction]
	** http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/Publications/Pages/IDRCBookDetails.aspx?PublicationID=121		** [http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/Publications/Pages/IDRCBookDetails.aspx?PublicationID=121 Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs]
	** http://www.outcomemapping.ca/		** [http://www.outcomemapping.ca/ Outcome Mapping Learning Community]

	{{NavBox Hub}}		{{NavBox Hub}}
	[[Category:NoPublic]]		[[Category:NoPublic]]
	[[Category:VIE]]		[[Category:VIE]]

Alnaucler at 11:31, 17 July 2019

2019-07-17T11:31:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:31, 17 July 2019
Line 15:		Line 15:
	* '''Owned''' - Do the local communities and programme management agree that this indicator makes sense?		* '''Owned''' - Do the local communities and programme management agree that this indicator makes sense?

	=== SMART & SMARTER===__NOEDITSECTION__		== SMART & SMARTER==__NOEDITSECTION__
	SMART is a mnemonic/acronym, giving criteria to guide in the setting of objectives/indicators.		SMART is a mnemonic/acronym, giving criteria to guide in the setting of objectives/indicators.
	* Specific		* Specific
Line 25:		Line 25:
	* (Reevaluate)		* (Reevaluate)

	See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria]		See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria Wikipedia article]

	== Categories/Levels of indicators ==__NOEDITSECTION__		== Categories/Levels of indicators ==__NOEDITSECTION__
Line 36:		Line 36:
	* Activity-level indicators		* Activity-level indicators

	== ~~Collection~~ of indicators ==__NOEDITSECTION__		== Examples of indicators ==__NOEDITSECTION__
	=== Indicators mentioned in the Copenhagen initiative output document ===__NOEDITSECTION__		=== Indicators mentioned in the Copenhagen initiative output document ===__NOEDITSECTION__

Line 163:		Line 163:

	== References (external links) ==__NOEDITSECTION__		== References (external links) ==__NOEDITSECTION__
	* UN M&E framework for mine action [[Media:20140318(v2) - Survey Instrument for Pilot.docx\|UN Survey Instrument]]		* UN M&E framework for mine action [[Media:20140318(v2) - Survey Instrument for Pilot.docx \| UN Survey Instrument]]
	* Feinstein International Center: ~~''Participatory Impact Assessment: A Design Guide''; available at~~ [http://fic.tufts.edu/assets/PIA-guide_revised-2014-3.pdf]		* Feinstein International Center: [http://fic.tufts.edu/assets/PIA-guide_revised-2014-3.pdf Participatory Impact Assessment: A Design Guide]
	* World Health Organization: ~~''Monitoring the Building Blocks of Health Systems: A Handbook of Indicators and their Measurement Strategies''; available at~~ [http://www.who.int/healthinfo/systems/WHO_MBHSS_2010_full_web.pdf?ua=1]		* World Health Organization: [http://www.who.int/healthinfo/systems/WHO_MBHSS_2010_full_web.pdf?ua=1 A Handbook of Indicators and their Measurement Strategies]
	* Mikkel Nedergaard (DDG): ~~''Outcome Monitoring in Humanitarian Mine Action'',~~ The Journal of ERW and Mine Action, 2014~~; available at~~ [http://www.jmu.edu/cisr/journal/18.1/focus/nedergaard.shtml]		* Mikkel Nedergaard (DDG): The Journal of ERW and Mine Action, 2014[http://www.jmu.edu/cisr/journal/18.1/focus/nedergaard.shtml Outcome Monitoring in Humanitarian Mine Action]
	* Miscellaneous links/resources related to '''Outcome Mapping'''		* Miscellaneous links/resources related to '''Outcome Mapping'''
	** http://www.researchtoaction.org/2012/01/outcome-mapping-a-basic-introduction/		** http://www.researchtoaction.org/2012/01/outcome-mapping-a-basic-introduction/

Alnaucler at 11:24, 17 July 2019

2019-07-17T11:24:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:24, 17 July 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{TOC right}}		{{TOC right}}
	~~This page summarises (internal) brainstorming on indicators.~~		Indicators can be recorded, measured or analysed in order to provide a simple and reliable means to identify achievement measure the changes connected with an intervention
	~~{{note\|Further ideas/TODOs:~~		or to help assess performance.
	* For each indicator, mention appropriate display mechanisms! --> For this, define categories of display mechanisms		Indicators can be
	* For each indicator, ~~mention if it is quantitative~~ or ~~qualitative,~~ and ~~maybe even how it could be calculated/where~~ the ~~data could be taken from.~~		* quantitative (numeric),
	* --> Define a matrix for the main indicator characteristics		* qualitative or
	* The overall goal is to ~~come up with a reference set of indicators per mine action area (Land release, MRE, Victim assistance, etc~~.)		* pseudo-quantitative in case a number is converted to a scale (e.g. 1 = poor, 5 = good).
	}}

	~~== Important meeting notes ==__NOEDITSECTION__~~
	* Indicators ~~cannot be isolated! They always have to~~ be ~~put in context with outcomes/objectives/etc.~~
	* ~~Approach: cause-effect~~ (~~"what leads to what"~~)
	* ~~Short~~-~~term objective:~~ in ~~MINT/Geoportal, get started with output indicators and validate them with Russell~~ (~~are they good ones? could they be presented in a better way? etc~~.)
	* Mid-term objective: GICHD publication on (outcome) indicators, their development, etc. ~~by mid-2015~~

	== ~~Examples of dimensions of change relevant to mine action ==__NOEDITSECTION__~~
	~~From a document distributed during the Copenhagen workshop in 2013~~.
	~~Examples of dimensions of change relevant to mine action (outcome level):~~
	* Changes relating to land and land use
	* Changes relating to safety / risk from mine and ERW
	* Changes relating to national capacity to address mine and ERW problems
	* Changes relating to gender
	* Change in the support to mine and ERW victims

	== Principles for the development of indicators ==__NOEDITSECTION__		== Principles for the development of indicators ==__NOEDITSECTION__
	~~=== From a presentation from DDG: ===__NOEDITSECTION__~~
	* '''Valid''' - Does the indicator directly represent the change it is intended to measure? Is the change within the scope of the project?		* '''Valid''' - Does the indicator directly represent the change it is intended to measure? Is the change within the scope of the project?
	* '''Objective''' - Is the definition precise, simple and unambiguous about what is to be measured?		* '''Objective''' - Is the definition precise, simple and unambiguous about what is to be measured?
Line 32:		Line 15:
	* '''Owned''' - Do the local communities and programme management agree that this indicator makes sense?		* '''Owned''' - Do the local communities and programme management agree that this indicator makes sense?

	=== ~~Other approaches?~~ ===__NOEDITSECTION__		=== SMART & SMARTER===__NOEDITSECTION__
	SMART ~~- SMARTER:~~		SMART is a mnemonic/acronym, giving criteria to guide in the setting of objectives/indicators.
	* Specific		* Specific
	* Measurable		* Measurable
Line 45:		Line 28:

	== Categories/Levels of indicators ==__NOEDITSECTION__		== Categories/Levels of indicators ==__NOEDITSECTION__
	~~This is just to have different sets~~ of ~~indicators, for~~ different levels/purposes~~/areas...~~		Indicators are of different types / levels / purposes

	* Output-level indicators		* Output-level indicators
	* Outcome-level indicators		* Outcome-level indicators
	* Performance indicators		* Performance indicators
	* Impact-level indicators?		* Impact-level indicators
	* Activity-level indicators?		* Activity-level indicators

	== Collection of indicators ==__NOEDITSECTION__		== Collection of indicators ==__NOEDITSECTION__
	~~This is an initial collection of indicators encountered so far in the mine action context. '''It is not yet an assessment regarding their applicability/usefulness/relevance!'''~~		=== Indicators mentioned in the Copenhagen initiative output document ===__NOEDITSECTION__

	=== Indicators mentioned in the Copenhagen initiative output document: ===__NOEDITSECTION__

	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
Line 180:		Line 161:
	Estimate number of firearm related accidents		Estimate number of firearm related accidents
	\|}		\|}

	~~=== Indicators mentioned in the UN M&E framework: ===__NOEDITSECTION__~~
	In the UN M&E framework for mine action, indicators are targeted to measure the progress towards the UN-specific mine action objectives. They address two levels: vision-level and strategic objectives. The latest document describing those indicators is this one: [[Media:20140318(v2) - Survey Instrument for Pilot.docx\|UN Survey Instrument]]

	~~=== Inspirational indicators from WHO document ===__NOEDITSECTION__~~
	~~Cf. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/systems/WHO_MBHSS_2010_full_web.pdf?ua=1 -- write a summary here after going through the document.~~

	~~=== Indicators mentioned in a discussion about operational efficiency ===__NOEDITSECTION__~~
	~~From a discussion between Helen, Rana and Elisabeth:~~
	* % of areas worked on that had mines
	* % of areas worked on that had UXOs
	* Average size of cleared area
	* Average size of surveyed area

	~~=== Comment from Russell about approaches and learning from other people's experience ===__NOEDITSECTION__~~

	The key issue (I would go as far as to say the over-riding issue) about getting indicators into common use is the widespread negative perception by field operators. Mention indicators and the reaction is something like "that's all nonsense, no-one in the field has time to go around collecting page after page of data that is never going to be used anyway". This is almost a direct quote from a reaction I had from a colleague who is relatively positive about GIS and other technology, and seems to sum up the most common reaction.

	~~As a result, it seems likely that the biggest problem to overcome is perception and acceptance, and technical issues are the second issue. In terms of an approach this means things like:~~
	* go for quick wins with indicators that may not be overall so useful but are very easy to data collect and produce obvious results so that people start to change the perception
	* try to find out the biggest issue that needs addressed in a given situation (i.e. which indicator is most requested) and decide if this is a feasible problem or not. If not feasible then ruthlessly set it aside and look at next most urgent. What we choose _not_ to do is going to be important. (ref to Steve Jobs: "there is no shortage of good ideas, but you have to say no to all of them if you are going to work on the best ideas"). Don't be distracted by unrealistic expectations.
	* in looking at indicators from other parallel development areas, we should focus not on the "technical" fit of the indicator to mine action as our first criterion, but at how well the indicator is accepted in the field. Build up a library of these and then look for common factors and characteristics in why and how they are accepted (and also maybe the timescale and process from first use to acceptance). If our main problem is perception then that must be addressed analytically as far as possible.
	* accept that indicators are partial and indicative and generally only indicative of anything when it is too late, but that this is _far_ better than the alternative of working blind, hearsay and widespread accepted myths and lies about effectiveness and impact. This is a tough challenge as most people will be far happier to continue with what they have always done even if it is wrong than to change to something which we know is only partially accurate.
	* "doing the right job" is more important than "doing the job right" so look at how other sectors address the "right job" issue.

	== References (external links) ==__NOEDITSECTION__		== References (external links) ==__NOEDITSECTION__
			* UN M&E framework for mine action [[Media:20140318(v2) - Survey Instrument for Pilot.docx\|UN Survey Instrument]]
	* Feinstein International Center: ''Participatory Impact Assessment: A Design Guide''; available at [http://fic.tufts.edu/assets/PIA-guide_revised-2014-3.pdf]		* Feinstein International Center: ''Participatory Impact Assessment: A Design Guide''; available at [http://fic.tufts.edu/assets/PIA-guide_revised-2014-3.pdf]
	* World Health Organization: ''Monitoring the Building Blocks of Health Systems: A Handbook of Indicators and their Measurement Strategies''; available at [http://www.who.int/healthinfo/systems/WHO_MBHSS_2010_full_web.pdf?ua=1]		* World Health Organization: ''Monitoring the Building Blocks of Health Systems: A Handbook of Indicators and their Measurement Strategies''; available at [http://www.who.int/healthinfo/systems/WHO_MBHSS_2010_full_web.pdf?ua=1]
	* Mikkel Nedergaard (DDG): ''Outcome Monitoring in Humanitarian Mine Action'', The Journal of ERW and Mine Action, 2014; available at [http://www.jmu.edu/cisr/journal/18.1/focus/nedergaard.shtml]		* Mikkel Nedergaard (DDG): ''Outcome Monitoring in Humanitarian Mine Action'', The Journal of ERW and Mine Action, 2014; available at [http://www.jmu.edu/cisr/journal/18.1/focus/nedergaard.shtml]
	* Miscellaneous links/resources related to '''Outcome Mapping''' ~~(please update as you find useful material):~~		* Miscellaneous links/resources related to '''Outcome Mapping'''
	** http://www.researchtoaction.org/2012/01/outcome-mapping-a-basic-introduction/		** http://www.researchtoaction.org/2012/01/outcome-mapping-a-basic-introduction/
	** http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/Publications/Pages/IDRCBookDetails.aspx?PublicationID=121		** http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/Publications/Pages/IDRCBookDetails.aspx?PublicationID=121

Evinek at 12:48, 22 June 2018

2018-06-22T12:48:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:48, 22 June 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{TOC right}}		{{TOC right}}
	This page summarises (internal) brainstorming on indicators.		This page summarises (internal) brainstorming on indicators.

	~~{{Under construction\|THIS IS WORK IN PROGRESS!}}~~
	{{note\|Further ideas/TODOs:		{{note\|Further ideas/TODOs:
	* For each indicator, mention appropriate display mechanisms! --> For this, define categories of display mechanisms		* For each indicator, mention appropriate display mechanisms! --> For this, define categories of display mechanisms

Evinek at 12:46, 22 June 2018

2018-06-22T12:46:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:46, 22 June 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{TOC right}}		{{TOC right}}
	This page summarises ~~an initial,~~ internal brainstorming on indicators.		This page summarises (internal) brainstorming on indicators.

	{{Under construction\|THIS IS WORK IN PROGRESS!}}		{{Under construction\|THIS IS WORK IN PROGRESS!}}

Alnaucler at 13:31, 15 February 2016

2016-02-15T13:31:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:31, 15 February 2016
Line 218:		Line 218:
	{{NavBox Hub}}		{{NavBox Hub}}
	[[Category:NoPublic]]		[[Category:NoPublic]]
			[[Category:VIE]]

Rgasser at 14:35, 26 June 2014

2014-06-26T14:35:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:35, 26 June 2014
Line 204:		Line 204:
	* try to find out the biggest issue that needs addressed in a given situation (i.e. which indicator is most requested) and decide if this is a feasible problem or not. If not feasible then ruthlessly set it aside and look at next most urgent. What we choose _not_ to do is going to be important. (ref to Steve Jobs: "there is no shortage of good ideas, but you have to say no to all of them if you are going to work on the best ideas"). Don't be distracted by unrealistic expectations.		* try to find out the biggest issue that needs addressed in a given situation (i.e. which indicator is most requested) and decide if this is a feasible problem or not. If not feasible then ruthlessly set it aside and look at next most urgent. What we choose _not_ to do is going to be important. (ref to Steve Jobs: "there is no shortage of good ideas, but you have to say no to all of them if you are going to work on the best ideas"). Don't be distracted by unrealistic expectations.
	* in looking at indicators from other parallel development areas, we should focus not on the "technical" fit of the indicator to mine action as our first criterion, but at how well the indicator is accepted in the field. Build up a library of these and then look for common factors and characteristics in why and how they are accepted (and also maybe the timescale and process from first use to acceptance). If our main problem is perception then that must be addressed analytically as far as possible.		* in looking at indicators from other parallel development areas, we should focus not on the "technical" fit of the indicator to mine action as our first criterion, but at how well the indicator is accepted in the field. Build up a library of these and then look for common factors and characteristics in why and how they are accepted (and also maybe the timescale and process from first use to acceptance). If our main problem is perception then that must be addressed analytically as far as possible.
	* accept that indicators are partial and indicative and generally only indicative of anything when it is too late, but that this is _far_ better than the alternative of working blind, hearsay and widespread accepted myths and lies about effectiveness and impact.		* accept that indicators are partial and indicative and generally only indicative of anything when it is too late, but that this is _far_ better than the alternative of working blind, hearsay and widespread accepted myths and lies about effectiveness and impact. This is a tough challenge as most people will be far happier to continue with what they have always done even if it is wrong than to change to something which we know is only partially accurate.
	* ~~remember that~~ "doing the right job" is more important than "doing the job right" ~~and~~ look at how other sectors address the "right job" issue.		* "doing the right job" is more important than "doing the job right" so look at how other sectors address the "right job" issue.

	== References (external links) ==__NOEDITSECTION__		== References (external links) ==__NOEDITSECTION__

Rgasser at 14:31, 26 June 2014

2014-06-26T14:31:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:31, 26 June 2014
Line 196:		Line 196:
	* Average size of surveyed area		* Average size of surveyed area

	=== Comment from Russell about learning from other people's experience ===__NOEDITSECTION__		=== Comment from Russell about approaches and learning from other people's experience ===__NOEDITSECTION__

	The key issue (I would go as far as to say the over-riding issue) about getting indicators into common use is the widespread negative perception by field operators. Mention indicators and the reaction is something like "that's all nonsense, no-one in the field has time to go around collecting page after page of data that is never going to be used anyway". This is almost a direct quote from a reaction I had from a colleague who is relatively positive about GIS and other technology, and seems to sum up the most common reaction.		The key issue (I would go as far as to say the over-riding issue) about getting indicators into common use is the widespread negative perception by field operators. Mention indicators and the reaction is something like "that's all nonsense, no-one in the field has time to go around collecting page after page of data that is never going to be used anyway". This is almost a direct quote from a reaction I had from a colleague who is relatively positive about GIS and other technology, and seems to sum up the most common reaction.

	As a result, it seems likely that the biggest problem to overcome is perception and acceptance, and technical issues are ~~secondary~~. In terms of an approach this means things like:		As a result, it seems likely that the biggest problem to overcome is perception and acceptance, and technical issues are the second issue. In terms of an approach this means things like:
	* go for quick wins with indicators that may not be overall so useful but are very easy to data collect and produce obvious results		* go for quick wins with indicators that may not be overall so useful but are very easy to data collect and produce obvious results so that people start to change the perception
	* try to find out ~~what~~ the biggest issue that needs addressed is (i.e. which indicator is most requested) and decide if this is a feasible problem or not. If not feasible then ruthlessly set it aside and look at next most urgent. What we choose _not_ to do is going to be important. (ref to Steve Jobs: there is no shortage of ~~very~~ good ideas, but you have to say no to all of them if you are going to work on the best ideas).		* try to find out the biggest issue that needs addressed in a given situation (i.e. which indicator is most requested) and decide if this is a feasible problem or not. If not feasible then ruthlessly set it aside and look at next most urgent. What we choose _not_ to do is going to be important. (ref to Steve Jobs: "there is no shortage of good ideas, but you have to say no to all of them if you are going to work on the best ideas"). Don't be distracted by unrealistic expectations.
	* in looking at indicators from other parallel development areas, we should focus not on the "technical" fit of the indicator to mine action as our first criterion, but at how well the indicator is accepted in the field. Build up a library of these and then look for common factors and characteristics in why and how they are accepted (and also maybe the timescale and process from first use to acceptance). If our main problem is perception then that must be addressed analytically as far as possible.		* in looking at indicators from other parallel development areas, we should focus not on the "technical" fit of the indicator to mine action as our first criterion, but at how well the indicator is accepted in the field. Build up a library of these and then look for common factors and characteristics in why and how they are accepted (and also maybe the timescale and process from first use to acceptance). If our main problem is perception then that must be addressed analytically as far as possible.
			* accept that indicators are partial and indicative and generally only indicative of anything when it is too late, but that this is _far_ better than the alternative of working blind, hearsay and widespread accepted myths and lies about effectiveness and impact.
			* remember that "doing the right job" is more important than "doing the job right" and look at how other sectors address the "right job" issue.

	== References (external links) ==__NOEDITSECTION__		== References (external links) ==__NOEDITSECTION__