From Guidance to Practice: Reflections on the Evolving Systems MEL Journey

This blog reflects on a core moment in our Systems MEL journey: the prototype testing of the Guidance. We share what we’re learning: not only about the content, but also about the assumptions, tensions, and possibilities that shape how Systems MEL is practiced, supported, and by whom. These insights, grounded in practitioner feedback and our own reflections, have not only refined the Guidance, but also deepened our understanding of the evolving field it serves.

Reflections on the Systems MEL Journey

What We Learned as a Team

When we reflect on the Systems MEL journey, we are referring to more than the evolution of the Guidance. We are also referring to the shared journey of a diverse team, grappling with ambiguity, listening actively, and learning from each iteration. Over the past 18+ months, the Guidance has taken shape through a participatory process involving workshops, pilots, internal discussions, and feedback loops. This process offered not only technical input, but also illuminated how our assumptions, worldviews, and communication styles shaped the work.

From the outset of the initiative, team members brought different intentions to the work. One colleague reflected, “I came in thinking we needed a navigational tool to help people already working in Systems MEL find their way”. Another saw it differently: “I really wanted to help bring more practitioners into the Systems MEL space”. This mix of starting points has been both a challenge and a strength. Some of us brought deep systems thinking and/or MEL experience; others were newer to the space. What we share is a commitment to creating something useful, practical, and inclusive. That has required not only technical thinking, but also curiosity, openness, and adaptability.

How the Guidance Evolved

The development of the Guidance has followed an iterative process: rooted in content drafting, testing, and refinement. Between mid-March and early May 2025, we conducted two rounds of testing: one with a selected group of practitioners, and another focused specifically on content tailored for food systems practitioners. Using a mix of surveys and feedback sessions, we tested the core content, logic, and structure, intentionally streamlined to ensure both efficiency and meaningful engagement.

Feedback highlighted that the language, metaphors and mental models we use are shaped by implicit assumptions, especially about what Systems MEL is and who it serves. This pushed us to reflect on how our own framing of “advanced” practice may privilege certain ways of knowing. It also challenged us to examine how our mental models and positionality shape not just the Guidance, but what and who we consider part of the Systems MEL field.

In fact, some of the most grounded and transformative systems work may be happening in grassroots, Indigenous, or local-based contexts, initiatives that fully embody systems principles but fall outside dominant (and “often Eurocentric”, as stated by a Guidance tester) frameworks and terminology. We surfaced blind spots, not only in content but in the collaborative process itself. The Guidance is evolving, and so are we.

Who Are We Doing This For? Revisiting Our Assumptions about the Audience

As we shared in this previous blog, one of the earliest and most persistent challenges in developing this Guidance has been defining the audience. We initially framed the Guidance for practitioners and organizations working systemically on complex development challenges. But feedback highlighted just how diverse that group really is in capacity, context and familiarity with either systems thinking or MEL.

Some organizations operate with dedicated MEL teams. Others rely on program staff to carry the MEL function informally. Some are new to systems approaches, while others have been practicing them for years, albeit under different labels.

Feedback also reminded us that accessibility extends beyond language  it includes how ideas are structured, sequenced, and made relatable. It also showed us that the Guidance will likely be shared across roles and contexts: by funders with grantees, by practitioners with their teams and by organizations supporting others on this journey.

As a result, we are focusing on:

• Reducing technical jargon and explaining concepts in simpler language.
• Including concrete examples that reflect diverse contexts and capacities.
• Clarifying entry points for those who are new to Systems MEL, without oversimplifying the practice.

We recognize that many people are already engaging with Systems-informed MEL, even if they don’t use that terminology. Our aim is to meet practitioners at their current level of practice and support their progression.

Taking this feedback into account, we’ve clarified that the Guidance is intended for both those implementing Systems MEL directly at project, program, and portfolio levels — and those in enabling roles, such as funders, implementing partners, and learning facilitators. The content is designed to be clear and actionable for immediate use, while remaining adaptable to a wide range of capacities and learning needs.

Surfacing tensions

Adopting Systems MEL isn’t just about bringing in new tools or frameworks. It means rethinking the fundamentals: how change actually happens, what we consider valid evidence, and the real purpose of learning.

In doing so, practitioners encounter real tensions, not just in technical approaches, but in the cultural, structural and political environments in which their work is embedded. These tensions often show up in subtle ways, shaping what is possible and what is resisted.

In our previous blog, we began mapping these tensions by contrasting programmatic MEL and Systems-informed MEL. Through the feedback we received, we realized that even within our own team, we had been approaching these tensions from different angles. Some see them as technical design dilemmas, others as deeply embedded organizational or cultural issues.
These reflections helped us surface our own assumptions and better understand the real-world complexity practitioners face. Over time, ongoing experience and dialogue have revealed key tensions that characterize this work.

Through ongoing discussions and feedback, we learned the importance of framing tensions not as fixed opposites but as dynamic spaces that practitioners continuously navigate. We recognized the need to provide practical support — such as examples, reflective questions, and tools like polarity management — to help teams engage with these tensions in their day-to-day work.

This reflection also clarified the core challenges Systems MEL addresses and highlighted the value of introducing these tensions earlier in the Guidance as a framing device. Ultimately, this section is as much a reflection of our own evolving understanding as it is a synthesis of field feedback.

Going forward, we are strengthening this content by:

• Reframing tensions as coexisting dynamics, not either/or choices.
• Providing practical examples and prompts for team reflection.
• Connecting the tensions more clearly to the rationale for shifting MEL practice.

Letting Go of the Search for “Best Practice”

There is often implicit pressure in guidance development to identify best practices or present step-by-step pathways. However, what we are learning, both through our own process and through tester feedback, is that Systems MEL does not lend itself to universal frameworks or linear approaches.

Instead, we are focusing on creating a digital tool: resources that help practitioners explore, experiment and adapt based on their specific contexts and capacities. As one reviewer noted, this Guidance is most useful when it helps teams orient, ask better questions and adjust their practice; not when it prescribes fixed answers.

This approach means:

• Framing principles as prompts for reflection, rather than as rigid prescriptions.
• Offering a range of entry points that acknowledge different levels of readiness and experience.
• Embracing uncertainty, plurality and emergence as core features of systems change work; not problems to solve, but realities to engage with.

Several reviewers emphasised what’s most helpful is not a polished model, but something they can “give to a grantee” “use with their team” or “adapt for their setting”. This has (re)affirmed our ambition: not to finalize a static product, but to create a tool that evolves with the field and remains responsive to practice.

Moving Forward: Navigating, Not Prescribing

We are finalizing the Guidance while continuing to test and refine its content through ongoing experimentation — culminating in the release of its digital version in September.

At the same time, we recognize that we are only one part of a much larger conversation. Systems MEL is already being explored, practiced and adapted in many contexts, some of which may not use this terminology, but fully embody its principles.

We’d love to hear from you. If you’d like to share reflections, offer insights from your practice, or stay engaged with this work, please reach out to us at contact.sandbox@undp.org.

Systems MEL is not a fixed destination. It is a practice in motion. We hope you’ll walk with us, shape what comes next, and grow the field together.