IATI TAG 2017

The Dutch MFA was the first donor to start requiring IATI data as a means ofreporting progress on ongoing programmes. More organisations had to represent their theory of change and M&E frameworks in IATI. What are challenges they face, and approaches they take?

I want to kick off with experiences and observations based on supporting various partnerships to improve their data quality, and on learning and consultation sessions with (mainly Dutch) NGOs:

• How to work with results on lobby and advocacy: what kind of indicators to use? What about the risk to fall back to purely “output-oriented progress management”?
• How do organisations standardise their indicators? How do they divide responsibilities in a partnerships?
• How to connect results across “theory of change fault lines”: how can you work with results data of your implementing partners when they have indicators that do not match your own?
• What about confidential results? And how to link to other data sets used as evidence?

We can do a lot with the standard: perhaps we need to develop guidelines similar to those of the Dutch MFA on how to represent for instance core funding, or partnerships, to create a common practice around results.

How do others work with results data right now? Let's share experiences, approaches, and lessons learned!