I've never heard the film referred to as "monochromatic" before (at least, not as a distinguishing word from conventional B&W film), but the term "chromogenic B&W" is often applied to it. As Satinsnow says, it's a C-41 process film, so it uses dyes to form the final image rather than silver; it differs from ordinary C-41 color films in that the dyes produce shades of grey rather than colors.
Kodak's (and I believe Konica-Minolta's) chromogenic B&W film produces negatives with an orange color mask similar to that on color films. This makes it more likely that an average minilab (operated by ill-trained teenagers) will produce something resembling a conventional B&W print. Ilford's chromogenic B&W film (XP2 Super) produces a negative with a faint purple base, similar to some B&W films. This makes conventional B&W printing a bit easier, but makes it more likely that the average drug store minilab will produce prints with strong color casts. (Even the Kodak chromogenic B&W negatives can be printed on conventional B&W paper, but they're likely to require longer exposures and/or extreme paper grades or filtrations.)
As a class, these films have a reputation for fine grain and wide exposure latitude compared to conventional B&W films. Some people really like them (or at least specific varieties), but others don't. Because they use dyes for the final image, archival characteristics are a bit uncertain compared to conventional B&W films. They may scan better than conventional B&W films, and they enable use of digital ICE dust- and scratch-removal technologies, which don't work with conventional B&W films. If you're curious, by all means give a roll or two a try. You might find you like them for some things. They might also be handy if you want B&W prints fast without doing it yourself.