I have followed this discussion with interest, and it seems to me that the point one tries to make here is that evaluation ought to bring about a desirable change in the way a policy/strategy/tactic i.e., a field implementation is intended to attain its objective. Otherwise, evaluation would be just ‘much ado about nothing.’ Be it an impressive report or a set of colourful graphics. Here, I cannot agree more with Sylva.
Other participants have already noted several obstacles to progress such as political expediency, incompetence, corruption, indifference among the decision-makers, lack of resources, unacceptable donor interference, etc. All these assume that a given evaluation has been understood, but ...
We can hardly take this ‘understood’ for granted; I think this is the point Sylva is raising here. If I am right, the question then is what precise form an evaluation ought to take in order to facilitate such an understanding while hoping that it might induce the policy makers/strategists/field planners to revise their approach towards achieving a pre-determined goal.
In other words, evaluation would then guide the revision of the previous approach towards attaining the same objective. This process may have to be repeated as other conditions influencing achievement of a goal could change. An extreme example of such an influence is the present Corona infection.
Here, we have identified two basic problems:
How to make ‘planners’ understand an evaluation.
How to induce them to revise their plans in line with an evaluation. It seems that this is far more difficult, especially in view of the obstacles we have just mentioned earlier.
However, restricting ourselves to our first question, I might suggest an evaluation take the form of a short critique of the generic actions a plan embodies. As a concrete example, let us saya plan suggests that in order to improve public health, the authorities plan to put up an ultra-modern cardiac unit in the capital of a country. The donor is full of enthusiasm and endorses the project. Meanwhile, the country involved hardly offers primary health care to its citizens.
Here, in my view, the pre-project evaluation would be short and lucid, and would run as follows:
“This project would have an extremely limited beneficial effect on the public health of the country, and it is proposed that the available funds and human resources are deployed to provide primary health care at centres ocated at X, Y, Z etc.” This is something that has actually happened and I have suppressed the country and donor’s names. I do not think the actual evaluation report looked anything like my version, but it must have been impressive in its thickness and uselessness.
So, are the evaluators willing and able to concentrate on the practical and guide the hands that feed them towards some common good with few lucid jargon-free sentences?
RE: Reporting and supporting evaluation use and influence
Greetings!
I have followed this discussion with interest, and it seems to me that the point one tries to make here is that evaluation ought to bring about a desirable change in the way a policy/strategy/tactic i.e., a field implementation is intended to attain its objective. Otherwise, evaluation would be just ‘much ado about nothing.’ Be it an impressive report or a set of colourful graphics. Here, I cannot agree more with Sylva.
Other participants have already noted several obstacles to progress such as political expediency, incompetence, corruption, indifference among the decision-makers, lack of resources, unacceptable donor interference, etc. All these assume that a given evaluation has been understood, but ...
We can hardly take this ‘understood’ for granted; I think this is the point Sylva is raising here. If I am right, the question then is what precise form an evaluation ought to take in order to facilitate such an understanding while hoping that it might induce the policy makers/strategists/field planners to revise their approach towards achieving a pre-determined goal.
In other words, evaluation would then guide the revision of the previous approach towards attaining the same objective. This process may have to be repeated as other conditions influencing achievement of a goal could change. An extreme example of such an influence is the present Corona infection.
Here, we have identified two basic problems:
However, restricting ourselves to our first question, I might suggest an evaluation take the form of a short critique of the generic actions a plan embodies. As a concrete example, let us saya plan suggests that in order to improve public health, the authorities plan to put up an ultra-modern cardiac unit in the capital of a country. The donor is full of enthusiasm and endorses the project. Meanwhile, the country involved hardly offers primary health care to its citizens.
Here, in my view, the pre-project evaluation would be short and lucid, and would run as follows:
“This project would have an extremely limited beneficial effect on the public health of the country, and it is proposed that the available funds and human resources are deployed to provide primary health care at centres ocated at X, Y, Z etc.” This is something that has actually happened and I have suppressed the country and donor’s names. I do not think the actual evaluation report looked anything like my version, but it must have been impressive in its thickness and uselessness.
So, are the evaluators willing and able to concentrate on the practical and guide the hands that feed them towards some common good with few lucid jargon-free sentences?
Cheers!
Lal.