Developing an Impact-Oriented Measurement System

The document provides a framework for FSD programmes to move beyond basic accountability indicators in logframes toward a system that measures systemic market change. It recommends integrating IOM into strategy development, investment decisions, and annual reviews, while advocating for a collaborative partnership with an independent learning partner to balance rigour with operational learning.

• Standard monitoring and evaluation (M&E) performed in isolation are insufficient to capture the complex changes resulting from the interaction between FSD programmes and dynamic market contexts; therefore, impact orientation must be embedded across the entire project cycle, including design, implementation, and review.
• FSDs should move beyond using logframes solely for accountability to funders. While logframes typically track a limited set of outputs and outcomes, an IOM framework extends this to track systemic changes in market player behaviour, performance, sustainability, and the implementation of enabling macro-level rules and norms.
• Investment decisions should be informed by the potential for an intervention to contribute to systemic market change, rather than relying only on quantitative output indicators. The document suggests adapting project appraisal reviews (PARs) to capture expected systemic changes and qualitative indicators.
• To prevent the loss of valuable qualitative data and emerging trends, FSDs are encouraged to establish 'systemic change monitoring groups'. These groups systematically record insights from public and private sources to assess financial market changes every quarter or six months.
• The guidance identifies three scenarios for independent evaluation: relying on internal IOM systems with external testing (Option a), a collaborative partnership with an external learning partner (Option b), or periodic one-off evaluations (Option c). Option b is recommended for most FSDs as it balances ownership and real-time learning with external expertise.
• To ensure the credibility and independence of 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} }