I find this discussion pertinent and your point of view on the relevance of this combination with the ultimate goal of meeting the information needs in the decision-making process.
In my opinion, depending on the projects or programs that vary in their typologies and scale of intervention in terms of themes and/or geography, the relevance of this combination can be questioned in order to better respond to the needs of decision making.
If we take the example of state or even political programs, monitoring is the strongest element, given the permanent demand for information to make immediate decisions. However, it should be noted that at any given moment, the observation or analysis made on the basis of monitoring data to make decisions is nothing other than an "evaluation", I can even say extraordinary, similar to the ordinary evaluations predefined in an M&E system (baseline, midterm, final evaluation and impact evaluation). So I think that it would be a question of revising the periodicity of the classic evaluation and instead of monitoring and evaluation we are in a situation of monitoring-evaluation that is to say a simplified evaluation as permanent as the monitoring in a parallel way with a periodicity defined by the needs of information in the process of decision making while taking into account the urgencies in the process ....