Results-based monitoring and evaluation (M&E) checks whether a programme is achieving its intended outcomes, not only whether it completed its activities, using a results chain, indicators with baselines and targets, and periodic evaluation. The World Bank's 2004 handbook by Kusek and Rist sets out ten steps to build such a system, and the OECD DAC's six evaluation criteria, revised in 2019, frame what an evaluation asks.
This guide is for M&E officers, programme directors, NGO and government planners, and project implementation units on projects financed by development banks.
What is results-based monitoring and evaluation?
Monitoring tells you where a programme stands against its targets at any point in time. Evaluation explains why targets are or are not being met. Kusek and Rist describe the two as distinct but complementary: monitoring is descriptive, while evaluation looks for causes.
A traditional, implementation-focused system answers "did they do it?". It counts inputs, activities and outputs.
A results-based system asks "so what?" and follows the chain through to outcomes and long-term impact. Delivering 40 workshops is an output. A measurable change in what participants do afterwards is an outcome.
Results-based M&E is the measurement side of results-based management (RBM). If you are setting up RBM across a whole organisation, start with our guide to results-based management.
What are the ten steps to a results-based M&E system?
The World Bank handbook Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System (Kusek and Rist, 2004) sets out a ten-step model for public-sector M&E. The step names are the handbook's. The other two columns are our summary and our interpretation of what each step should leave on file.
| Step | What it involves | What it should leave on file |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Readiness assessment | Who demands results data, who owns the system, what capacity exists | Readiness report and stakeholder analysis |
| 2. Agree outcomes to monitor and evaluate | Agree outcomes with the main stakeholders | Problem and objectives trees, agreed outcome statements |
| 3. Select key performance indicators | Turn each outcome into indicators | Indicator reference sheet for each indicator |
| 4. Set baselines and gather data | Find data sources, design and pilot collection methods | Baseline study and data collection tools |
| 5. Select results targets | Set targets from the baseline and available resources | Results framework or logframe with targets |
| 6. Monitor for results | Link implementation monitoring to results monitoring | M&E plan, monitoring reports, data quality checks |
| 7. Use evaluation information | Choose the type and timing of evaluations | Evaluation plan and terms of reference |
| 8. Report the findings | Present results clearly to each audience | Progress and performance reports |
| 9. Use the findings | Feed results into decisions and budgets | Management responses and action tracking |
| 10. Sustain the system | Keep roles, incentives and capacity in place | Internal audit and review records, training records |
The handbook's test for a good indicator is CREAM: clear, relevant, economic, adequate and monitorable. If an indicator fails one of the five, it will be hard to use in reporting.
Which questions should an evaluation answer?
Most evaluations are framed by the evaluation criteria of the OECD Development Assistance Committee. The DAC first set them out in 1991 and adopted a revised set in 2019. There are six, each a question:
- Relevance: is the intervention doing the right things?
- Coherence: how well does it fit with other interventions? This criterion was added in 2019.
- Effectiveness: is it achieving its objectives?
- Efficiency: how well are resources being used?
- Impact: what difference does it make?
- Sustainability: will the benefits last?
The OECD's criteria page adds two principles for their use. The criteria should be applied thoughtfully, and how they are covered depends on the purpose of the evaluation. They are lenses, not a checklist to fill in mechanically.
What does the World Bank require of a financed project?
This is where M&E stops being good practice and becomes a contractual obligation. The rules below come from the World Bank's own policy documents. Other development banks use their own frameworks, so read your financing agreement rather than assume the World Bank model applies.
For investment project financing, the Bank's policy says the borrower's legal obligations include keeping appropriate monitoring and evaluation arrangements and measuring and reporting against the project's development objectives and results. The Bank finalises the results framework and M&E arrangements after appraisal.
During implementation it reviews the borrower's monitoring of results, risks and implementation status. The borrowing country is responsible for evaluating results on completion. The Bank then prepares an Implementation Completion and Results Report (ICR), which includes the borrower's evaluation and normally goes to the Bank's Board within six months.
Program-for-Results financing, introduced in 2012, goes further. Under the current policy, funds are disbursed when verified results, set as disbursement-linked indicators (DLIs), are achieved. The borrower must keep M&E arrangements that include credible verification protocols for each DLI. A weak data trail there delays money, not only reports.
What does a project implementation unit need on paper?
For a project unit on a bank-financed operation, the M&E system has to match the legal agreement line by line. In our reading of these requirements, five documents carry most of the weight:
- A results framework that copies the agreed development objective, indicators, baselines and targets exactly, with no renaming.
- An indicator reference sheet for every indicator, giving definition, unit, data source, frequency, responsible person and calculation method.
- A reporting calendar that lists every report the agreement requires, with its due date and owner.
- A verification protocol for each DLI, stating who verifies, what evidence they need and when.
- Data quality assessment records showing that reported figures were checked against source documents.
Leadership matters as much as templates. A unit whose managers are not held to outcomes will report activities. Our guide to results-based leadership covers that side.
How AGS can help
AGS offers two kits for results-based M&E, both in editable Microsoft Word:
- RBM Monitoring & Evaluation Management System: 70 documents, including data quality and evaluation independence policies, logframe, indicator and baseline procedures, and an indicator reference sheet.
- RBME - Results-Based Monitoring & Evaluation for Bank-Financed Projects: 57 documents, including a performance measurement framework, field visit and progress report forms, and a project closure checklist.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between an output and an outcome?
An output is what the programme delivers, such as people trained or clinics built. An outcome is the change that follows, such as better practice or higher clinic use. Results-based M&E reports both but judges success on outcomes.
What is a disbursement-linked indicator?
A DLI is a result that triggers payment under World Bank Program-for-Results financing once it has been achieved and verified. The indicators and their verification arrangements are agreed in the financing documents.
Are the OECD DAC criteria only for development aid?
No. The OECD says they are now used widely across the public and private sectors, and they are reflected in its legal instrument on evaluating public policy.
How often should M&E data be reported?
As often as your M&E plan and any funding agreement require. Set the frequency for each indicator on its reference sheet so collection and reporting stay in step.
AGS provides independent documentation toolkits. This guide refers to World Bank and OECD publications for identification only. AGS is not affiliated with, endorsed by or approved by the World Bank, the OECD or any other development financier, and it does not guarantee any review, rating or disbursement outcome.
Reviewed October 2026. Facts checked against the sources current at publication.
