16th Meeting of Senior Fellowships Officers of the ... - Development

Administrative Issues 55
external funding and had been funded by DCAAP earnings from training only. They
included training management paradigms that deliberately integrated monitoring and
evaluation as a component function. The functional steps of the paradigm were: training
needs analysis, planning, staffing and organizing, directing and coordinating, conducting
and implementing as well as monitoring and evaluating. That paradigm emphasized that
training had been completed only when the evaluation report had been accepted by the
training manager. DCAAP emphasized monitoring and evaluation principles, methods,
tools, formulae and processes as documented in its books. In particular, that included
methods on how to gather monitoring and evaluation data, tools or tests for measuring
participants gains in knowledge, attitude, skills and practice; formulae in computing the
level of knowledge, attitude, skill, and practice of participant gained from training as well
as procedures in data organizing, processing and reporting
180. DCAAP had started sharing those documented social technologies with its participants
and other interested parties. Most of the information was presented in a booklet produced
by DCAAP entitled “Measuring Training Effectiveness”. Mr. Mercado expressed
his hope that UN could help DCAAP share the resource material in hard copy or online.
181. Mr. Mercado addressed several problems that DCAAP continued to face in encouraging
training institutions to establish training monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.
Many organization managers, and even some training managers, still needed deeper
understanding and appreciation of the value of monitoring and evaluation in improving
training efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Many managers and staff still needed to
be convinced that knowledge and attitude, the invisible fundamentals of heightened
performance, could be developed through training and could be measured through
systematic monitoring and evaluation. Many funding and implementing organizations
showed interest in the results of monitoring and evaluation. Trained staff that could
do systematic monitoring and evaluation of training programmes from planning to
reporting was very limited. Dearth persisted of simplified guide resource materials that
could be used by monitoring and evaluation staff in conducting simple but systematic
monitoring and evaluation from planning to report writing. DCAAP had further
observed, and many of its participants had confirmed that observation, that most
UN-assisted projects put much emphasis on the monitoring of inputs but not on the
monitoring of the corresponding outputs.
182. To resolve those problems Mr. Mercado came up with six suggestions in his paper. A
brief quality publication should be produced for organizations and project managers
on the value of monitoring and evaluation in training showing its potential importance
for improving the efficiency, quality, and cost-effectiveness of training programmes.
Another quality publication should be produced for managers and staff illustrating the
capacity of evaluation to measure systematically the effects of training on knowledge
and attitude of training participants. The two suggested publications could also be
combined into one advocacy material. Memoranda of Agreement between UN agen-