Page - (000080) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

4.4 Getting to theRightMix CCAFS was clearly committed to an outcome-focused R4D program from its inception. It became increasingly clear that a logframe approach (LFA) was not themost ideal way of doing R4D differently. In particular, whenmoving from a ChallengeProgramtoaCGIARResearchProgramwith increasingcomplexitiesof partnerships, engagement andCGIARintegration, the limitsof a logframebecame apparent (as described in section 4.5.1). The program’s vision of contributing towards development outcomes increasingly required a different approach: one that acknowledged the importanceof stakeholder engagement and capacity devel- opment.Asa result,monitoring theannual contributionofCCAFSand itspartners towards development outcomesbecomes increasingly complex. While a wide range ofMEL approaches andmethodologies with an outcome focus exist (e.g. PIPA,OutcomeMapping,OutcomeHarvesting), none provides a blue-print solution that can just be rolled out. The approaches were designed to address the particular needs of a specific programor organization. Thus, to adapt these approaches to a new program, it is key to select the right mix of elements creating a conceptual framework in support of the program’s specific TOC and MEL requirements. Springer-Heinze et al. (2003) advocate a holistic approach to impact evaluation and programmonitoring with quantitative and qualitative ele- ments, based on an impact pathway that can accommodate different stakeholder views, allows for reflection, and emphasizes capacity of research organizations. Cummings (1997) compares RBM, LFA and Project LifecycleManagement and would welcome more discussions and learning among the different approaches. According toBazeley (2004), ‘The“mixing”maybenothingmore thana side-by- sideor sequential useof differentmethods, or itmaybe that differentmethods are being fully integrated in a single analysis’. Applying amix ofmethodologies in a programmaticMELframework raises certain terminological, definitional, paradig- matic andmethodological issues, including over-interpretation of numbers, single dimensionality, anddisregarding ‘outliers’ fromtheanalysis (Bazeley2004).How- ever, mixed methods also provide opportunities to address the respective short- comings of any singlemethod as applied in practice. CCAFS in its early years workedwith various logframe elements in planning and reporting.Limitationsof themore traditionalLFAresulted inexperimentation with elements of TOC thatwere integratedwithin the logframe, in order tomore effectively capture the complexity of activities, partners and anticipated outcomes of theprogram.The limitationsof this singlemethodapproach resulted inCCAFS deciding tooperationalizeamodularMELapproach,described in thenext section. Thefindings andanalysis section explainsCCAFS’s approachover time.With the limitations in mind CCAFS is aiming for a more holistic approach in line with Springer-Heinze et al. (2003). 4 Pathway to Impact: Supporting andEvaluatingEnablingEnvironments for. . . 61