This discussion paper starts from the premise that monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) as a performance measurement practice also has the potential to be a dynamic tool that can facilitate and support socio-economic transformation. This can only happen, however, if there are two major shifts in the field of MEL – the practice itself, and the systems within which it is practiced. When the practice of MEL is embedded within a hierarchical management structure and positioned in a routinised and default compliance framework then it loses its potential to be a progressive element of government planning and programming. It turns the wheels of government systems but fails to see new possibilities while struggling to deal with complex challenges where conflicting interests and incomplete information make establishing shared facts and understanding difficult.
