Setting Targets: Accuracy costs more than what you think

Whoever works or has worked with monitoring and evaluation (M&E) knows that while choosing indicators these should be CREAM (Clear, Relevant, Economic, Adequate, and Monitorable), SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-bound) or MPCS (Measurable, Precise, Consistent, and Sensitive).

However, SMART and MPCS are only by chance the most efficient indicators because they do not internalize the variable economic. On the other hand, CREAM being more M&E-oriented still lacks of something that is extremely important: sustainability, which comes with more participatory interventions.

In fact, what sense will we find in a very accurate indicator when its complexity keeps main actors away from the meat of M&E? And how important is accuracy when in most cases less accurate indicators give all the information someone needs to intervene and are thus more cost efficient?

We all should agree that information is only beneficial when properly used and social transformation is not about outputs being achieved, but about making those processes sustainable through ownership. And ownership is only acquired through understanding, through self-confidence that comes with mastering the art of M&E, which is the best tool for managing the process of development.

Therefore, finding indicators, collecting and analyzing data should be accessible to the main actors of development. This trade-off of accuracy versus sustainability is hardly discussed and yet is extremely important. I would dare to say that is more important than the trade-off accuracy versus economic because the latter one hardly compromises development.