Research question
Routine monitoring tracks implementation and selected measures. Evaluation asks questions about the merit and effects of an intervention. Knowledge management concerns how information remains accessible and usable.
Source and findings
OECD identifies relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability as evaluation criteria. These are dimensions of judgement, rather than a specification for a software platform. OECD, Evaluation criteria
Interpretation
Monitoring, evaluation and knowledge management answer related but distinct questions. No single information system substitutes for an evaluation design.
Separating functions in an evidence system
A count of services delivered may be appropriate for routine monitoring. Explaining whether access improved requires information about the population, barriers and observation period. Judging whether an intervention was worthwhile may require an additional comparison, economic analysis or consideration of unintended effects. These questions can use some of the same records while requiring different analytical methods.
Organisations should therefore specify what each evidence product is intended to establish. A dashboard should identify its indicator definitions; a synthesis should describe its source selection; an evaluation should explain its design and limitations. Integrating records can reduce fragmentation, but it cannot repair a missing baseline or create a credible counterfactual by itself. The distinction is methodological, rather than a claim about any vendor.
Limits of the evidence
This is a conceptual distinction informed by evaluation guidance, not a comparative trial of information systems.