CMI suffers from certain limitations in our abilities to do everything that we want. We are two people, and though we get support from our wonderful partners, we are the ones that have to travel
I mention this because if we had greater resources we might have a different view, but at the moment I am of the view that the methodology is better for academic purposes than NGOs (at least in
The results of the methodology – or at least one result – are validated impact reports. This will show the NGOs and donors and others how the NGOs are achieving the aims they seek. The problem is that lot of the NGOs are trying to do some form of this but don’t have the time to track it and devote resources throughout the year.
My fear is that they will go through all of this and produce this information but won’t or can’t (because of resources) devote energy to appreciating the value of the data. And in the end, this data will all be useful for academic interests – papers on whether impact reporting is something NGOs are interested in and whether mapping outcomes helps NGOs focus.