Developing an Impact-Oriented Measurement System

This guidance paper, the seventh chapter of a larger series by FSD Africa, outlines how Financial Sector Deepening (FSD) programmes can embed an Impact-Oriented Measurement (IOM) system into their operations. It argues that traditional monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in isolation cannot capture the complex interactions between evolving programmes and dynamic market contexts, necessitating a system that integrates results measurement into every stage of the programme cycle, from strategy development to independent evaluation.

• Impact-Oriented Measurement (IOM) must be integrated into core internal processes rather than treated as an isolated M&E function. Key strategic opportunities for this mainstreaming include the development and revision of the overall FSD strategy, the finalisation and review of logframes, investment decisions for specific projects, annual reviews, programme evaluations (mid-term and end-term), and specific impact assessment studies.
• Standard logframes, often used for accountability to funders, are insufficient for measuring systemic impact. While a DFID logframe may track around 20 indicators across one outcome and a maximum of 10 outputs, an IOM framework must extend beyond this to track long-term systemic changes in the behaviour, performance, sustainability, scale, and resilience of wider market players.
• FSDs are encouraged to move beyond quantitative output measures in investment decisions and instead use project appraisal reviews (PARs) to capture expected wider systemic changes. To support this, the document recommends establishing a 'systemic change monitoring group' to systematically record and review insights from public and private sources every quarter or six months.
• The guidance identifies three scenarios for incorporating independent evaluation: (a) relying on internal IOM systems with external testing, (b) a broad concurrent partnership with an independent organisation as a learning partner, and (c) periodic one-off external evaluations. Option (b) is recommended for most FSDs because it balances independence with stronger ownership and real-time learning, despite scoring lower on pure independence than one-off evaluations.
• To ensure the independence of external evaluators, the document suggests that FSD governing bodies should establish a dedicated sub-committee responsible for the recruitment and oversight of the evaluator, rather than leaving this to FSD management.

APA

FSD Africa (2016). Developing an Impact-Oriented Measurement System. https://fsdafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/11655-Impact-Oriented-Sys-Chaper-7.sv_.pdf

Chicago

FSD Africa. Developing an Impact-Oriented Measurement System. 2016. https://fsdafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/11655-Impact-Oriented-Sys-Chaper-7.sv_.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=FSD Africa |title=Developing an Impact-Oriented Measurement System |date=January 2016 |url=https://fsdafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/11655-Impact-Oriented-Sys-Chaper-7.sv_.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{fsdafrica2016developing, author = {{FSD Africa}}, title = {{Developing an Impact-Oriented Measurement System}}, institution = {FSD Africa}, year = {2016}, month = jan, url = {https://fsdafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/11655-Impact-Oriented-Sys-Chaper-7.sv_.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }