How can CGIAR support the roll-out of the Guidelines with the evaluation community and like-minded organizations?
I believe that CGIAR can help like-minded organizations use the guidelines by emphasizing its best feature—flexibility.
Flexibility is necessary. The guidelines were informed by the work of CGIAR, which is tremendously varied. A common evaluation design would not be appropriate for CGIAR. Neither would it be appropriate for most like-minded organizations.
Flexibility is a middle ground. Instead of using a common evaluation design, each project might be evaluated with one-off bespoke designs. Often this is not practical. The cost and effort of individualization limits the number, scope, and timeliness of evaluations. A flexible structure is a practical middle ground. It suggests what like-minded organizations and their stakeholders value and provides a starting place when designing an evaluation.
Flexibility serves other organizations. The very thing that makes the guidelines useful for CGIAR also makes it useful to other organizations. Organizations can adopt what is useful, then add and adapt whatever else meets their purposes and contexts.
Perhaps CGIAR could offer workshops and online resources (including examples and case studies) that suggest how to select from, adapt, and add to its criteria. It would not only be a service to the larger community, but a learning opportunity for CGIAR and its evaluation efforts.
John Gargani
How can CGIAR support the roll-out of the Guidelines with the evaluation community and like-minded organizations?
I believe that CGIAR can help like-minded organizations use the guidelines by emphasizing its best feature—flexibility.
Flexibility is necessary. The guidelines were informed by the work of CGIAR, which is tremendously varied. A common evaluation design would not be appropriate for CGIAR. Neither would it be appropriate for most like-minded organizations.
Flexibility is a middle ground. Instead of using a common evaluation design, each project might be evaluated with one-off bespoke designs. Often this is not practical. The cost and effort of individualization limits the number, scope, and timeliness of evaluations. A flexible structure is a practical middle ground. It suggests what like-minded organizations and their stakeholders value and provides a starting place when designing an evaluation.
Flexibility serves other organizations. The very thing that makes the guidelines useful for CGIAR also makes it useful to other organizations. Organizations can adopt what is useful, then add and adapt whatever else meets their purposes and contexts.
Perhaps CGIAR could offer workshops and online resources (including examples and case studies) that suggest how to select from, adapt, and add to its criteria. It would not only be a service to the larger community, but a learning opportunity for CGIAR and its evaluation efforts.