Hi and many thanks for such a useful post, and great to see how it has provoked so many varied and interesting responses from other community members.
While I do not have any resources cum text book answers in mind, my experience has taught me three things:
1. Crudely put - i apologise - there are two types of lessons, each with their own questions a well phrased lesson needs to answer : what went well for whom and how; what did not go quite so well, for whom and why?. An adequate balance is not always struck between the two, perhaps due to the power dynamics between those that fund, that do and among those intended to benefit from development aid; implied from this
2. To be clear and search for who has learnt what from whom, why this is important and what is the consequence? Of course, providing discretion and opportunity to learn from those that matter most - the intended clients - is important, yet so is it the responsibility of senior managers, who often know little about the practical consequences of their decisions on the ground, so to say, to do the same for form those who deliver the support. Their silence often stifles learning among them; and so, too, the programme's or organisation's capacity to adapt. (And it's an obvious point, yet worth mentioning: evaluation also needs to generate lessons on the performance of those that fund. This is politically a tricky and messy ask as they commission evaluations and fund what is being evaluated. The main point point holds, however: they seldom make themselves available in being held to account to those that matter most; rather to their respective treasury or finance ministries.) ho hum!
3. It is through doing this, listening to those on the ground, with an emphasis on the assumptions less so indicators, that generates the most revealing lessons. In other words, exploring the unknowns. Not doing so hampers success; it also encourages failure.
I've shot my bolt, yet hope some of the above is helpful.
RE: How to define and identify lessons learned?
Dear Emilia,
Hi and many thanks for such a useful post, and great to see how it has provoked so many varied and interesting responses from other community members.
While I do not have any resources cum text book answers in mind, my experience has taught me three things:
1. Crudely put - i apologise - there are two types of lessons, each with their own questions a well phrased lesson needs to answer : what went well for whom and how; what did not go quite so well, for whom and why?. An adequate balance is not always struck between the two, perhaps due to the power dynamics between those that fund, that do and among those intended to benefit from development aid; implied from this
2. To be clear and search for who has learnt what from whom, why this is important and what is the consequence? Of course, providing discretion and opportunity to learn from those that matter most - the intended clients - is important, yet so is it the responsibility of senior managers, who often know little about the practical consequences of their decisions on the ground, so to say, to do the same for form those who deliver the support. Their silence often stifles learning among them; and so, too, the programme's or organisation's capacity to adapt. (And it's an obvious point, yet worth mentioning: evaluation also needs to generate lessons on the performance of those that fund. This is politically a tricky and messy ask as they commission evaluations and fund what is being evaluated. The main point point holds, however: they seldom make themselves available in being held to account to those that matter most; rather to their respective treasury or finance ministries.) ho hum!
3. It is through doing this, listening to those on the ground, with an emphasis on the assumptions less so indicators, that generates the most revealing lessons. In other words, exploring the unknowns. Not doing so hampers success; it also encourages failure.
I've shot my bolt, yet hope some of the above is helpful.
Best wishes and thanks again,
Daniel