Approaches to remote monitoring in fragile states

Provide an update to the 2013 GSDRC report ‘Remote management of projects in fragile states’, focusing on new remote monitoring approaches, tools and examples that are being used, specifically on third party monitoring approaches. In complex environments, where the root causes of conflict are often entrenched and dynamic, ensuring that the right information from multiple sources is being collected remains a challenge (Corlazzoli, 2014: 11). There is a growing but limited body of literature on remote programming in fragile and conflict-affected states (FCAS), and more specifically remote monitoring, most of which has been produced over the last ten years (Rivas, 2015). The field of remote monitoring is still not yet well-developed or defined, hence, much of the literature focuses on outlining concepts and definitions. There is limited peer-reviewed literature on this topic, and grey-literature dominates but is still relatively restricted in its strength and breadth. A number of larger, more comprehensive literature reviews have been undertaken on remote programming by others and it is recommended that these are consulted for more in-depth information (see Chaudhri, Cordes and Miller, 2017; Corlazzoli, 2014; Dette, Steets and Sagmeister, 2016; Rivas, 2015; Sagmeister and Steets, 2016). The literature mainly focuses on International Organisation perspectives, with little information on the experiences of other actors. There is also limited discussion on ethical issues such as confidential beneficiary data management, appropriate engagement strategies in high-risk environments, and the dissemination of monitoring data (Chaudhri, Cordes and Miller, 2017: 52). The lack of rigorous operational research measuring robust outcomes limits the ability to draw strong conclusions on the effectiveness of different approaches. The literature considered in this review was largely gender-blind, although some gender issues are considered in relation to new technologies.