Amy, thank you for this. You've laid out the landscape beautifully. What strikes me most about your framing is the word transformation. You're not describing a tweak to evaluation methodology… you're describing a fundamental shift in what evaluation is for. Moving from verdict to navigation...from accountability to anticipation.
The four pillars you identify are each compelling on their own. But I think what makes them powerful is how they reinforce each other. Scenario analysis without stakeholder participation risks becoming a technical exercise disconnected from lived realities. Real-time monitoring without a learning culture just generates data that no one acts on. Together, though, they start to describe something that feels genuinely different: evaluation as an ongoing, living conversation with the future.
One question your post raises for me: Who drives this transformation? Evaluators can advocate for forward-looking approaches, but much depends on whether commissioners and decision-makers are willing to fund and use them. In your experience, where has the appetite for prospective evaluation been strongest, and what has made the difference?
Your contribution also makes a nice segue to our focus next week on the transformational imperative. Really glad you're part of this discussion.
RE: From Hindsight to Foresight: How Evaluation Can Become Future-Informed
Kenya
Steven Lynn Lichty
Managing Partner
REAL Consulting Group
Posted on 27/03/2026
Amy, thank you for this. You've laid out the landscape beautifully. What strikes me most about your framing is the word transformation. You're not describing a tweak to evaluation methodology… you're describing a fundamental shift in what evaluation is for. Moving from verdict to navigation...from accountability to anticipation.
The four pillars you identify are each compelling on their own. But I think what makes them powerful is how they reinforce each other. Scenario analysis without stakeholder participation risks becoming a technical exercise disconnected from lived realities. Real-time monitoring without a learning culture just generates data that no one acts on. Together, though, they start to describe something that feels genuinely different: evaluation as an ongoing, living conversation with the future.
One question your post raises for me: Who drives this transformation? Evaluators can advocate for forward-looking approaches, but much depends on whether commissioners and decision-makers are willing to fund and use them. In your experience, where has the appetite for prospective evaluation been strongest, and what has made the difference?
Your contribution also makes a nice segue to our focus next week on the transformational imperative. Really glad you're part of this discussion.