Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PSMI
_______________________________________________
Date: ________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
specific questions are proposed for each standard. These are intended
to help the respondents (project staff using this PSMI to self-evaluate
their own project, or senior managers to judge the compliance of a
project with these standards) to consider the meaning of each
standard, and to help in determining how well a project currently
meets the standard. Though a rating scale is included for each
standard, what may be more valuable is to document the evidence by
citing or making reference to project documents (e.g. proposal,
logframe, detailed implementation plan, M&E plan, etc.) and to
comment on what the project is or will be doing to more adequately
meet a particular standard.
The quantitative rating provides a measurement along a scale from
does not meet at all to adequately to exemplifies a particular
standard. These can help determine whether or not a project meets a
standard well enough for approval at time of initial design. (Note: the
minimum threshold levels will probably be different for immediate
emergency projects, longer-term emergency and rehabilitation
projects, and long-term development projects.) These scaled indicators
can also help measure progress by a project towards more fully
meeting each standard as it matures over time. Remember: more than
just giving a numerical rating, it would be helpful to write a comment
on why and in what way a project does or does not meet a particular
standard.
The pattern used in this PSMI for each standard will be as follows:
a) The Project Standard
b) The descriptive paragraph(s)
c) One or more leading questions, including requests to cite or make
reference to where this topic is addressed within the project
documents.
o Space (within the Word template) for entering the
response.
d) A scaled rating giving an estimated quantification of how well this
standard is currently met, based on the above considerations (circle,
or, in the Word template, delete all except the chosen score).
Rating score for Standard #x: 1 2 3 4 5
e) Request for comments on a) why the project currently may not fully
meet this standard, and/or b) what is planned to more adequately
meet it in the future.
o Comment:
Response:
Response:
Comment:
Response:
Response:
Comment:
Response:
2. How well do you think this standard has been met with
regard to participation of the target population?
Rating score for Standard #3-a: 1 2 3 4 - 5
3. How much and in what ways were (or are) representatives
of partner organizations or other stakeholders involved
in the design, implementation, monitoring and/or
evaluation of this project? Describe or cite references in
project documents.
o
Response:
4. How well do you think this standard has been met with
regard to partner organizations?
Rating score for Standard #3-b: 1 2 3 4 - 5
5. Please add a comment on why this project may not
currently meet this standard as well as it should (with
regard to target population and/or partner organizations),
and/or what will be done to more adequately meet the
standard in the future.
o
Comment:
Response:
Response:
Response:
Response:
Response:
Response:
Comment:
Response:
Response:
Response:
Response:
Response:
Response:
Response:
Comment:
Response:
Response:
Response:
Comment:
Response:
Response:
Response:
Comment:
Response:
Response:
Comment:
Response:
Response:
Comment:
Response:
Response:
Comment:
Response:
Response:
Response:
Comment:
Response:
Response:
Response:
Comment:
Response:
Response:
Comment:
Original draft developed by CI Design, Monitoring & Evaluation Advisory Committee (DMEAC) in Atlanta
10/99; this revised version based on recommendations by IEI-II workshop participants in Wood
Norton, UK, 31 August 2001 and follow-up communications. Final version approved by CI
Programme Working Group (PWG) 5 April 2002 for recommendation to the CI Board in May.
2
These standards refer specifically to CARE projects (whether implemented directly or through partners).
However, where there are specific longer-term programme plans these standards should apply to them as
well.
3
This should not be taken literally to mean and be restricted to the classical 4X4 LogFrame matrix; rather
more broadly interpreted to refer to logic model a summary graphical or matrix depiction of the logic of
the project design.