Difference between revisions of "Indicators"
| Line 195: | Line 195: | ||
* Average size of cleared area | * Average size of cleared area | ||
* Average size of surveyed area | * Average size of surveyed area | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Comment from Russell about 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 secondary. In terms of an approach this means | ||
| + | - go for quick wins with indicators that may not be overall so useful but are very easy to data collect and produce obvious results | ||
| + | - 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). | ||
| + | - 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. | ||
== References (external links) ==__NOEDITSECTION__ | == References (external links) ==__NOEDITSECTION__ | ||
Revision as of 15:23, 26 June 2014
This page summarises an initial, internal brainstorming on indicators.
 |
THIS IS WORK IN PROGRESS! |
 |
Further ideas/TODOs:
|
Important meeting notes
- 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
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
From a presentation from DDG:
- 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?
- Reliable - Is the data needed to measure the indicator consistent or comparable over time?
- Practical - Can data be collected easily, on a timely basis and at reasonable costs?
- Useful - Will the indicator data be useful for programme decision-making and learning?
- Owned - Do the local communities and programme management agree that this indicator makes sense?
Other approaches?
SMART - SMARTER:
- Specific
- Measurable
- Achievable
- Relevant
- Time-bound
- (Evaluate)
- (Reevaluate)
See [1]
Categories/Levels of indicators
This is just to have different sets of indicators, for different levels/purposes/areas...
- Output-level indicators
- Outcome-level indicators
- Performance indicators
- Impact-level indicators?
- Activity-level indicators?
Collection of indicators
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:
| Outcomes | Indicators |
|---|---|
Physical and Psychological Safety
|
|
Land Use and Livelihoods
|
|
National Mine Action Ownership
|
|
Indicators mentioned in DDG's publication on output monitoring
| Objective | Indicator | Evidence to collect at baseline and impact assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Increase in productive use of released land |
|
|
|
Enable resettlement and return |
|
|
|
Improve access to markets and natural resources |
|
|
|
Do no harm |
|
|
|
Reduced violence and conflict |
|
|
|
Reduced threats from explosive remnants of war |
|
|
|
Improved security provision and conflict management |
|
|
|
Reduced treats from SALW |
|
Estimate number of firearm related accidents |
Indicators mentioned in the UN M&E framework:
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: UN Survey Instrument
Inspirational indicators from WHO document
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
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 learning from other people's experience
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 - go for quick wins with indicators that may not be overall so useful but are very easy to data collect and produce obvious results - 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). - 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.
References (external links)
- Feinstein International Center: Participatory Impact Assessment: A Design Guide; available at [2]
- World Health Organization: Monitoring the Building Blocks of Health Systems: A Handbook of Indicators and their Measurement Strategies; available at [3]
- Mikkel Nedergaard (DDG): Outcome Monitoring in Humanitarian Mine Action, The Journal of ERW and Mine Action, 2014; available at [4]
- Miscellaneous links/resources related to Outcome Mapping (please update as you find useful material):
