Conceptual IME model for construction project delivery
The chapter conceptualizes monitoring and evaluation as a five-factor model. The chapter asserts that the M&E of projects will require the involvement of all parties to the project (stakeholder), sufficient budgetary allocation, technical capacity and training, effective leadership and communication. An empirical literature review approach was adopted and the frequency of reviewed factors indicated the importance of the factor in facilitating effective M&E of the construction process. The review informs that the five-factor conceptualized IME model potentially will result in the desired project outcomes: timely completion of projects, conformity to specification, achieving project cost, stakeholder satisfaction, health & safety, value for money, environmental performance and end user and client satisfaction. The knowledge gained will help in the understanding of the elements and components of the M&E system relating or influencing each other to facilitate the achievement of project targets and goals.
Several factors influence the effective implementation of monitoring and evaluation. These factors are broadly seen as inputs and processes. Musomba et al. (2013) studied the factors affecting the effectiveness of M&E of constituency development fund projects in Kenya which established four independent variables that influence the effective M&E to affect project success. The study indicates that the level of training, budgetary allocation and stakeholder participation as well as political influence had a greater chance to ensure good M&E. In a similar study, the efficacy of M&E functions in achieving project success in Kenya was investigated by Kamau and Mohamed (2015). The study broadly categorized the factors that influenced M&E into three. First, the study talks about the strength of the monitoring team and the environment that will ensure effective M&E of projects such as funds’ availability, use of technology in M&E, stakeholder representation and the frequency of M&E. The second category is the approach to M&E which also describes the tools that will be used to ensure M&E are effective. Tools such as the basic research, internal audits, balanced scorecard and the log frame matrix are discussed. Finally, the influence of politics is acknowledged as affecting the effective implementation of M&E (Kamau & Mohamed, 2015).
Other factors such as human resources, the project organizational culture, stakeholders and advocacy substantially influenced the effective M&E system of public health programmes studied among school-based handwashing programmes in Kwale County, Kenya (Otieno Okello, 2015). Stakeholder participation or involvement as well as political influence were identified as influential factors in the success of M&E (Mwangi, Nyang’wara & Ole Kulet, 2015; Waithera & Wanyoike, 2015). Mwangi et al. (2015) further identified the technical capacity of the M&E team and budgetary allocation as important influencing factors to the practice of M&E. The level of training of M&E staff and continuous training of staff on M&E were also identified as necessary factors (Musomba et al., 2013; Waithera & Wanyoike, 2015). In addition, Hardlife and Zhou (2013) found that the availability of resources such as time, sufficient finances, adequate skilled personnel, technical competence regarding the application and utilization of an M&E system and a favourable administrative culture significantly influence the success of an M&E system.
Mugo and Oleche (2015) studied the M&E of development projects and economic growth in Kenya and identified the training of the personnel on M&E, stakeholders’ participation, institutional guidelines and the amount of budgetary allocation as noteworthy factors determining the successful implementation of an M&E system in development projects in Kenya. A study conducted in Ghana identified barriers to the implementation of M&E such as weak institutional capacity, lack of resource and budgetary allocation and the weak institutional approach to M&E. These were factors that militate against the effective implementation of M&E of projects in the Ghanaian construction industry (Tengan & Aigbavboa, 2016).
In other studies, Crawford and Bryce (2003) acknowledged that for M&E to be effective to mitigate poor project performance, demonstrate accountability and promote organizational learning, project M&E information systems (ISs) are imperative. Kimweli (2013), studying the role of M&E practices in the success of donor-funded food security intervention projects in Kibwezi District, Kenya, bemoaned the failure of M&E toward achieving food security to the exclusion of the community in the M&E process. Again in Nairobi County, Kenya, a study to determine the effectiveness of the M&E of government-funded water projects revealed that budgetary allocation, monitoring team capacity, stakeholder involvement and management skill influence the successful completion of donor water projects owing to inadequate M&E (Ogolla & Moronge, 2016).
Seasons (2003) also studied the realities of M&E in municipal planning. In his study, six factors were outlined as determinants of the effectiveness of M&E practice. Limited resource allocation for M&E was mentioned. He referred to the need for enough time to undertake the effective evaluation, adequate funds for the M&E and the required competence and expertise. The planning process influenced the effectiveness of M&E. He asserted that it appears to be the case that M&E are usually forgotten during the planning stage of the project or programme
Conceptual IME model for construction 71 implementation. That is, M&E are not planned for before projects or programmes get underway, resulting in dire consequences for the project outcome. Appropriate indicators served as the benchmark to measure performance, the ultimate of the M&E process. In the absence of appropriate indicators, M&E are ineffective. The political realities influence M&E. The intention of conducting M&E is paramount to its success. The study revealed that M&E were carried out merely for political exigencies and not for the effectiveness and efficiency of the goal or objective of the project or programme. The important determinant is the causality or relationship between goals and outcome. Difficulty in establishing the link between the inputs and outcomes due to unplanned factors such as changes in market conditions and political decisions rendered the M&E process ineffective and, finally, the organization culture towards M&E influenced its success.
Mugambi and Kanda (2013) carried out a study to determine factors affecting the M&E of community-based projects. The study identified the relationship or involvement of stakeholders, budgetary allocation, the M&E process and communication. Mulandi (2013) studied the performance of M&E systems in selected non-governmental organizations in Kenya. The study revealed data quality, human capacity, the use of the logical framework and utilization of M&E findings as factors that influence the performance of M&E systems regarding access and the provision of accurate and quality information. Moderating variables, stakeholder participation and funding as well as extraneous variables and donor priority are required to ensure that the above-mentioned factors caused the required performance of M&E systems (Mulandi, 2013). Similarly, Muiga (2015) studied influencing factors regarding the use of M&E systems in public projects where it was found that training levels, budgetary allocation, stakeholder participation and political interference induced the M&E systems in public projects. Before the study by Muiga (2015), Oloo (2011) identified the level of training, institutional framework, budgetary allocation and stakeholder participation as important factors influencing the effectiveness of M&E of constituency development fund projects in the Likoni constituency with a politically influenced environment as a moderating variable.