This first week of discussion has made one thing very clear...the call for future-informed evaluation is not coming from a single camp or methodology. It is emerging from lived frustration across practice. Conny Rietdorf reminded us that the “L” in MEL is often the first casualty when evaluation becomes a compliance exercise rather than a space for reflection and learning. Carlos Tarazona then pushed the conversation further through FAO’s One Health evaluation, showing how retrospective analysis can be solid on the past and still insufficient for the futures now emerging. His reframing of relevance as future fitness, sustainability as resilience under change, and coherence as the ability to work across systems gave us a powerful language for thinking differently.
Other contributors sharpened the picture. Serdar Bayryyev highlighted the institutional conditions needed for this shift (i.e., capacity, practical frameworks, and organisational change). Silva Ferretti challenged us not to treat foresight as a technical fix for a deeper cultural problem, asking the more difficult question "What is evaluation for?" Alexis Adébayo grounded the discussion in climate reality, where external shocks can destabilise attribution and weaken the usefulness of findings. Rhode Early Charles reminded us that predictive analytics and foresight are not rivals but complements, especially if we can overcome fragmented data systems. Emmanuel Erick Igiha and Amy Mara brought us back to purpose. Evaluation, at its best, should help people improve, adapt, and navigate what comes next.
So the core thread emerging from Week 1 is this: the move from hindsight to foresight is methodological, yes, but also institutional and deeply cultural. It asks not only for new tools, but for a different orientation to evidence, uncertainty, learning, and change. That feels like an important place to begin.
Looking ahead: In the coming week, we will turn to the transformational imperative and examine transformative foresight through a forthcoming article in the Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation. If you are not familiar with the transformational imperative within evaluation ecosystems, I have attached a short four-page brief written by Scott Chaplowe and Joyce Mukoma.
RE: From Hindsight to Foresight: How Evaluation Can Become Future-Informed
Kenya
Steven Lynn Lichty
Managing Partner
REAL Consulting Group
Posted on 28/03/2026
Summary - Week 1
This first week of discussion has made one thing very clear...the call for future-informed evaluation is not coming from a single camp or methodology. It is emerging from lived frustration across practice. Conny Rietdorf reminded us that the “L” in MEL is often the first casualty when evaluation becomes a compliance exercise rather than a space for reflection and learning. Carlos Tarazona then pushed the conversation further through FAO’s One Health evaluation, showing how retrospective analysis can be solid on the past and still insufficient for the futures now emerging. His reframing of relevance as future fitness, sustainability as resilience under change, and coherence as the ability to work across systems gave us a powerful language for thinking differently.
Other contributors sharpened the picture. Serdar Bayryyev highlighted the institutional conditions needed for this shift (i.e., capacity, practical frameworks, and organisational change). Silva Ferretti challenged us not to treat foresight as a technical fix for a deeper cultural problem, asking the more difficult question "What is evaluation for?" Alexis Adébayo grounded the discussion in climate reality, where external shocks can destabilise attribution and weaken the usefulness of findings. Rhode Early Charles reminded us that predictive analytics and foresight are not rivals but complements, especially if we can overcome fragmented data systems. Emmanuel Erick Igiha and Amy Mara brought us back to purpose. Evaluation, at its best, should help people improve, adapt, and navigate what comes next.
So the core thread emerging from Week 1 is this: the move from hindsight to foresight is methodological, yes, but also institutional and deeply cultural. It asks not only for new tools, but for a different orientation to evidence, uncertainty, learning, and change. That feels like an important place to begin.
Looking ahead: In the coming week, we will turn to the transformational imperative and examine transformative foresight through a forthcoming article in the Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation. If you are not familiar with the transformational imperative within evaluation ecosystems, I have attached a short four-page brief written by Scott Chaplowe and Joyce Mukoma.