Steve, thank you for this thoughtful engagement and for bringing in Michael Quinn Patton’s work, which I also find highly relevant to this discussion.
I very much agree with your reading that a foresight lens does not necessarily require a parallel methodology, but can be embedded in how we interpret and apply existing frameworks. In that sense, your point about a “more honest application” of the DAC criteria resonates strongly with my own experience particularly in contexts like One Health, climate change adaptation, and agrifood system transformation, where systems are evolving even as we evaluate them.
At the same time, Silvia’s intervention pushes this one step further in an important way. I share the concern that if evaluation remains anchored in a compliance-oriented logic, even well-integrated foresight risks being instrumentalised used to anticipate within predefined boundaries rather than to genuinely question them. The distinction she draws between evaluation as verification versus exploration is, I think, exactly right.
In my view, however, the real constraint on integrating foresight is often not at the level of tools or criteria but much earlier, at the stage of evaluation conceptualisation.
In the FAO One Health case, the ability to incorporate a foresight perspective was enabled by an in-depth preliminary analysis and literature review conducted at the design stage. Without that early investment, it would have been significantly harder to introduce a meaningful forward-looking dimension later on. By the time questions, scope, and methods are fixed, the evaluation architecture is already path-dependent—ironically mirroring the very dynamics we are trying to assess.
So perhaps the discussion can be nuanced in three directions:
I agree with you, Scott, that criteria can be reinterpreted.
I agree with Silvia that culture and purpose are decisive.
And I would add that timing is equally critical.
If foresight is to be more than an add-on, it needs to be designed in from the outset, not retrofitted.
This has practical implications for commissioners. If we are serious about developmental or formative approaches, foresight needs to be reflected in:
the initial scoping work,
the framing of evaluation questions, and
the evidence gaps we choose to prioritise.
In that respect, the approach we often use at FAO, a question-driven, utilization-focused design, guided but not constrained by OECD DAC criteria does offer some flexibility. It allows us, at least in principle, to embed forward-looking dimensions early on, provided that the conceptual groundwork is strong enough.
So perhaps the challenge is not only to rethink criteria or embrace foresight tools, but also to shift attention upstream: to how evaluations are commissioned, framed, and intellectually grounded before they even begin.
RE: From Hindsight to Foresight: How Evaluation Can Become Future-Informed
Italy
Carlos Tarazona
Senior Evaluation Officer
FAO
Posted on 27/03/2026
Steve, thank you for this thoughtful engagement and for bringing in Michael Quinn Patton’s work, which I also find highly relevant to this discussion.
I very much agree with your reading that a foresight lens does not necessarily require a parallel methodology, but can be embedded in how we interpret and apply existing frameworks. In that sense, your point about a “more honest application” of the DAC criteria resonates strongly with my own experience particularly in contexts like One Health, climate change adaptation, and agrifood system transformation, where systems are evolving even as we evaluate them.
At the same time, Silvia’s intervention pushes this one step further in an important way. I share the concern that if evaluation remains anchored in a compliance-oriented logic, even well-integrated foresight risks being instrumentalised used to anticipate within predefined boundaries rather than to genuinely question them. The distinction she draws between evaluation as verification versus exploration is, I think, exactly right.
In my view, however, the real constraint on integrating foresight is often not at the level of tools or criteria but much earlier, at the stage of evaluation conceptualisation.
In the FAO One Health case, the ability to incorporate a foresight perspective was enabled by an in-depth preliminary analysis and literature review conducted at the design stage. Without that early investment, it would have been significantly harder to introduce a meaningful forward-looking dimension later on. By the time questions, scope, and methods are fixed, the evaluation architecture is already path-dependent—ironically mirroring the very dynamics we are trying to assess.
So perhaps the discussion can be nuanced in three directions:
If foresight is to be more than an add-on, it needs to be designed in from the outset, not retrofitted.
This has practical implications for commissioners. If we are serious about developmental or formative approaches, foresight needs to be reflected in:
In that respect, the approach we often use at FAO, a question-driven, utilization-focused design, guided but not constrained by OECD DAC criteria does offer some flexibility. It allows us, at least in principle, to embed forward-looking dimensions early on, provided that the conceptual groundwork is strong enough.
So perhaps the challenge is not only to rethink criteria or embrace foresight tools, but also to shift attention upstream: to how evaluations are commissioned, framed, and intellectually grounded before they even begin.