- Home
- About us
- ILAC Activities
- Resources
- ILAC Publications
- ILAC Briefs
- ILAC Sourcebook
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Chapter 6: Introduction Part 2
- Chapter 7: Innovation histories
- Chapter 9: Culture study as a tool for change
- Chapter 12: Collaborative agreements
- Chapter 13: Facilitation as a foundation skill for ILAC
- Chapter 14: Learning alliances
- Chapter 15: Institutional histories
- Chapter 16: Engaging Scientists through Institutional Histories
- Chapter 18: Horizontal evaluation
- Chapter 19: Appreciative inquiry
- Part 3 - Cases and experiences
- Part 4 - Challenges and strategies
- About the authors
- Glossary
- References
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Presentations by ILAC Team
- Working Papers
- Journal Articles
- Newsletter
- Reports
- ILAC Library
- Tools and methods for M&E
- Appreciative inquiry
- Biophysical measurements
- Case study
- Content analysis
- Contribution analysis
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Creative expression
- Diaries, journals and logs
- Dreams realised or visioning
- Expert review
- GIS mapping
- Graphing results
- Group assessment
- Historical trends and timelines
- Horizontal evaluation
- Impact evaluation
- Benefit-cost methods
- Case studies
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE)
- Difference-in-difference
- Econometric methods
- Ex-post comparison of project beneficiaries with a control group
- Instrumental variables
- Integrated partial indicators
- Mathematical programming
- Modified peer review
- Partial indicators of impact
- Patent analysis
- Pipeline comparison
- Production function approach
- Propensity score matching
- Quasi-experimental design, involving the use of matched control and project groups
- Randomization
- Rapid assessment or review, conducted ex post
- Regression discontinuity design
- Simulation method
- User surveys
- Impact flow diagram
- Innovation histories
- Institutional history
- Institutional linkage diagram
- Interviews
- Learning alliances
- Learning-oriented evaluation
- M&E Frameworks
- M&E wheel (or "spider web")
- Mapping (sketch)
- Matrix scoring
- Most significant change
- Net-Map
- Non-random sampling
- Observation
- Outcome mapping
- Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis
- Participatory methods
- Performance indicators
- Photographs and video
- Problem and objectives trees
- Random sampling
- Ranking and pocket charts
- Rapid appraisal methods
- Relative scales or ladders
- Rich pictures (or mind maps)
- SWOT
- Seasonal calendars
- Semantic differentials
- Social mapping or well-being ranking
- Sociograms
- Stakeholder analysis
- Survey
- Systems (or inputs-outputs) diagram
- Theory-Based Evaluation
- Transects
- Evaluation studies and reports
- Evaluating capacity development
- Partnership
- Seminars
- Video Room
- Links to other sites
- E-learning courses
- ILAC Publications
- Contact
- Blog
M&E wheel (or "spider web")
Fri, 08/01/2008 - 08:31 — Cristina Sette
The following text is drawn from Guijt and Woodhill (2002).
M&E wheel (or "spider web")
The purpose of this method is to provide a visual index that helps in assessing the issue being monitored or evaluated in terms of its ideal, or in comparing two or more monitoring sites and how they change over time. This method can also be used to measure how well a project is meeting anticipated targets, or how an organisation’s capacities change, over time. From an M&E perspective, the spider web provides a visual means of measuring changes in ratings on chosen indicators.
The spider web can be used to help represent different organisations’ capacities by grouping the organisations according to sector, for example, in order to assess their overall status or training needs within that sector. However, it only gives an indication of perceptions and direction of change, not precise measurements.
If the wheels are made on overhead transparencies with a standardised size of wheel, the evaluations of several organisations/project areas/etc. or of the same situation over time can be overlaid to see very clearly how they differ or have changed.
Changes in the average opinion or points per indicator form the basis of discussing why such changes have occurred. The larger the point system is, the more complex it can become and also the more meaningless the discussion, as people may not be able to indicate exact numeric differences, for example deciding between 28 or 29 points within a range of 0 to 50. On the other hand, if people are scoring on a scale of 1 to 3, then it will be much easier to reach a general consensus, but then the answer will only serve as an extremely general indication.
Source: Guijt, I. and J. Woodhill (2002). Managing for Impact in Rural Development : A guide for project M & E. Rome, Italy: International Fund for Agricultural Development http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/guide/index.htm
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page