CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews literature relevant to the study. It presents the theoretical framework underpinning the research and examines empirical studies on factors influencing the utilization of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) findings.
2.2 Theoretical Review
This study is guided by the General Systems Theory (GST), developed by Bertalanffy (1934, cited in Tamas, 1987). GST provides an analytical lens to explain the relationship between planning and performance. According to Bertalanffy (1968), a system is an assemblage of interconnected components that function together as a unified whole.
Key characteristics of a system include:
It is composed of parts, sub-parts, and sub-systems.
Its parts are interdependent, meaning changes in one part influence others.
The relationships among parts exist in the context of the entire system.
The system operates within an interdependent framework.
A system functions by transforming inputs into outputs. Inputs—such as information, materials, finances, and human resources—are drawn from the environment, processed through the system, and returned as outputs in the form of goods or services (Bertalanffy, 1968). This transformation process, known as the input-output model, ensures the system’s survival.
GST has been applied across fields such as community development and organizational planning. In the context of this study, inputs include technical, technological, and quality aspects of M&E systems, while the outputs refer to the effective utilization of M&E data by public health units.
2.3 Conceptual Review
This section synthesizes literature aligned with the study objectives and conceptual framework, focusing on technical capacity, financial capacity, and quality of evaluation findings.
2.3.1 Technical Capacity
Adequate Personnel
Sustaining an effective M&E system requires building sufficient human resource capacity. Developing skilled evaluators demands more than short-term workshops; it requires a combination of formal training, on-the-job experience, mentoring, and professional development across both public and private sectors (Acevedo et al., 2010).
Human capital, when well-trained and experienced, is vital for producing quality M&E results. Effective management of M&E personnel in terms of both quality and quantity is therefore essential (World Bank, 2011). However, limited availability of competent staff has been a major challenge in implementing effective M&E systems (Koffi-Tessio, 2002). Since M&E is a relatively new professional field, there remains high demand for skilled practitioners, harmonized training programs, and technical support (Görgens & Kusek, 2009).
The UNDP Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation for Development Results (2009) stresses the importance of ensuring that staff possess technical expertise. Effective M&E requires not only technical training but also skills in research, project management, and capacity building (Nabris, 2002). Numerous manuals and toolkits have been developed to equip NGO staff with practical M&E skills, enabling them to implement results-based management effectively (Hunter, 2009; Shapiro, 2011).
Qualified Personnel
An M&E system cannot function without skilled professionals capable of executing assigned tasks. Human capacity assessments and structured capacity development programs are necessary to address skills gaps (Görgens & Kusek, 2010). The UNAIDS framework for functional M&E systems highlights the need for adequate, well-trained staff supported by continuous training, coaching, mentorship, and leadership development (UNAIDS, 2008).
Experienced Personnel
M&E conducted by untrained or inexperienced staff often leads to inefficiencies, high costs, and unreliable results (Nabris, 2002). Studies across CSOs in the Pacific reveal that lack of technical skills and weak organizational capacity are widespread challenges (UNDP, 2011). White (2013) further notes that inadequate staffing and high burnout rates among M&E personnel reduce organizational effectiveness. Similarly, Mibey (2011) recommends prioritizing capacity building to strengthen M&E implementation, citing the Kenyan Kazi kwa Kijana project.
2.3.2 Financial Capacity
Availability of Funds
Financial capacity refers to the availability of sufficient funds to support M&E activities (USAID, 2015). Adequate, timely, and accountable financing is critical for effective M&E operations. Evidence from Ghana indicates that, despite progress in establishing national M&E systems, severe financial constraints limit sustainability (CLEAR, 2012).
Timeliness of Funds
Delayed or inadequate funding undermines M&E effectiveness. Koffi-Tessio’s (2002) study in multiple African countries revealed that financial constraints often prevented M&E systems from meeting mandatory requirements.
Accountability
Accountability in resource use is equally critical. Gamba’s (2016) study on malaria control projects in Uganda showed that insufficient funding and weak management support severely limited effective monitoring and evaluation outcomes.
2.3.3 Quality of Evaluation Findings
Timeliness
The quality of M&E findings is determined by the extent to which systems meet required standards (Mulandi, 2013). High-quality evaluations rely on diverse data sources, including both primary and secondary data (Gebremedhin, Getachew & Amha, 2010). Frequent and well-timed data collection reduces uncertainty and helps track trends more effectively (Kusek & Rist, 2004; Mulandi, 2013).
Methodological Rigor
Valid and reliable M&E results depend on methodological soundness and user ownership of the system (Cornielje, Velema & Finkenflugel, 2008). However, weak institutional capacity, poor baseline data, and lack of focus on impact-level outcomes remain common criticisms of M&E systems in development projects (IFAD, 2008).
Relevance
Relevance ensures that findings inform decision-making and program improvement. Spooner and Dermott (2008) found that in some NGOs, lack of feedback mechanisms, limited research skills among staff, and minimal resources dedicated to data analysis hindered effective use of M&E results.
