Evaluating development projects/programmes is a sensitive activity. There is often a lot at stake. Often, commissioners are not ready to assume the results of evaluations. This reality means that only certain actors are committed to the accuracy of the evaluation results, while others see them as an exposure or sanction of their management inefficiency. When we are lucky enough that a part of the actors responsible for the implementation of the project/programme are willing to have the results communicated, we are in a happy situation. In these cases, the technical analyses and recommendations of the evaluator, previously given and clarified to a few key actors, must be precise and clear in order to allow relevant decisions to be taken. It must be admitted that evaluation plays an important role in improving the quality of project/programme implementation in order to increase its contribution to development.
To my knowledge, project implementers have often wanted the evaluator to be actively involved in communicating the results, in order to give them the highest possible level of credibility. Stakeholders, including project managers, have more trust in the evaluator's technical findings and statements.
To improve the quality of communication, it would be desirable for the evaluator to be responsible for post-evaluation work, in which the results are put into a communicable form for decision-makers, partners and beneficiaries. For greater certainty, the cost of this communication could be included in the evaluator's remuneration and specified in the terms of reference of the call for applications which recruited him/her. This would ensure that the results are reported systematically and in good form. But the commissioners and those responsible for the implementation of the project must be in agreement. This is the real challenge.
RE: Reporting evaluation results or communicating evaluation results?
Hello everyone,
Evaluating development projects/programmes is a sensitive activity. There is often a lot at stake. Often, commissioners are not ready to assume the results of evaluations. This reality means that only certain actors are committed to the accuracy of the evaluation results, while others see them as an exposure or sanction of their management inefficiency. When we are lucky enough that a part of the actors responsible for the implementation of the project/programme are willing to have the results communicated, we are in a happy situation. In these cases, the technical analyses and recommendations of the evaluator, previously given and clarified to a few key actors, must be precise and clear in order to allow relevant decisions to be taken. It must be admitted that evaluation plays an important role in improving the quality of project/programme implementation in order to increase its contribution to development.
To my knowledge, project implementers have often wanted the evaluator to be actively involved in communicating the results, in order to give them the highest possible level of credibility. Stakeholders, including project managers, have more trust in the evaluator's technical findings and statements.
To improve the quality of communication, it would be desirable for the evaluator to be responsible for post-evaluation work, in which the results are put into a communicable form for decision-makers, partners and beneficiaries. For greater certainty, the cost of this communication could be included in the evaluator's remuneration and specified in the terms of reference of the call for applications which recruited him/her. This would ensure that the results are reported systematically and in good form. But the commissioners and those responsible for the implementation of the project must be in agreement. This is the real challenge.
Thank you.
Dr Emile N. HOUNGBO
[Original contribution in French]