Deploying small-scale pilot implementations and piloting solutions are probably the most effective ways to determine the parameters of large-scale implementations. In fact, piloting is the only way to observe the actual context of any program implementation and to identify the inherent unforeseeable challenges. But relying on a set of integrated tools to help determine in real time the impact, feasibility and scalability of such small-scale tests takes efficiency to a different level.
Instant monitoring and real-time feedback from multiple sources not only helps adjusting the pilot to best serve the program goals, but can also clearly indicate tracks to follow and matters to address at the very moment when strategy adjustments are least expensive: at the beginning of a project.

Depending on the chosen methodology and metrics, impact measuring can become a substantial burden to the projected budget, and there’s also the risk to generate a lot of numbers that don’t mean too much. However, a few good practices can help limit the exposure to these risks. For example, it must be determined what to measure, when to measure and to what end - which parameters are just "noise" and which are the ones that will actually yield a clear snapshot of the program, on which later management decisions can be reliably based. Furthermore, the measuring methodology can carry substantial costs and should be assessed along with the parameters to measure. This is because, often enough, a carefully determined set of automatically measurable parameters can be as effective (or even more effective) as a set of in-person measured ones, while the cost of automatic measurements is considerably smaller. Also, most of the automatically measured parameters can be permanently assessed, encouraging early detection and reaction.
As part of our effort to make impact assessment as accessible as possible, we can provide specialized consultancy to assist in all the matters related to effective measurements and good metrics.

Perhaps understanding what the collected data means is the key component of impact assessment. To this end, we have developed a set of interoperable tools allowing to:

• easily access the data and structure it in meaningful formats
• filter data according to own criteria
• evaluate in reference to baselines
• compare evolutions according to own criteria
• cross-validation by comparing results from multiple sources (surveys, reports, interviews)

This set of tools, used in the context of a coherent evaluation strategy, can greatly help in making sense of the collected data.

To help creating impact assessment reports in an easy-to-understand form, the data can easily be structured in charts, each with their own settings. The charts can be embedded in dashboards, thus allowing various users to keep track of the program evolution at a single glance, or can even be exported for use in print reports. Furthermore, defining charts that rely on real-time data and granting program donors, funders and stakeholders access to them is the most transparent way to demonstrate the up-to-date impact of the program and to monitor, in an easy to understand form, the evolution of parameters.

One of the main purposes of impact assessment is to reduce the guesswork in strategic and managerial decisions. Implementing programs in new contexts is bound to be riddled with unforeseeable difficulties, and, while good practices and past experience are extremely valuable tools in defining the implementation strategy, they cannot prepare a program for the constant evolution of the context and for the day-to-day adjustments the management has to implement in order to maximize the efficiency. However, constant monitoring and evaluation, followed by correct interpretation of the data, can rapidly indicate trends, show the immediate impact of certain actions, highlight the aspects that need addressing and generally help the management team in basing decisions on real data, collected from the actual beneficiaries.

Using impact assessment findings as arguments is a demonstrated method of increasing the efficiency of the advocacy efforts. This is mainly because the added credibility provided by conclusions based on actual feedback form the beneficiaries of the program is a powerful tool in negotiations with authorities and various other bodies. To make the impact data easy to understand by third parties, and thus relevant for the advocacy efforts, the advocacy specialists can rely on the visualization tools incorporated in our system, such as the easy creation of charts. Furthermore, by means of the surveys, the specialists can query the beneficiaries of the program on specific subjects known to be of interest to the authorities, and can build their efforts around such pillars.

Attracting local cost-share partners is frequently both a prerequisite and a difficulty for programs. However, using the integrated data collection methods (surveys, reports and interviews), programs no longer have to rely solely on their commercial partners’ generosity and civic sense, but they can instead build mutually beneficial partnerships. For example, programs could conduct occasional market surveys or sociological surveys on behalf of their partners in exchange for the said partners’ support for the program.

Progressively transferring the impact assessment work towards the local partners, the stakeholders, the affiliated (professional) associations or the legacy organizations is a highly effective way to increase their organizational capacity and to empower their members, which creates a volunteering environment with uniquely strong premises for sustainability. At the same time, transferring the impact assessment responsibilities towards local partners, legacy organizations or stakeholders provides the possibility for the legacy organizations or stakeholders to continue the impact assessment and associated activities even after the program will have ended.