We may be overstating the absence of foresight in evaluation. The issue is not tools, but timing, depth, and intent.
First, Causal Layered Analysis (CLA). Most evaluations remain at litany and systems levels, rarely interrogating underlying worldviews and deep story. Yet foresight lives precisely there. If we do not challenge foundational assumptions—such as linear planning in volatile systems—evaluation, however sophisticated, simply reinforces them.
Second, risk registers and CLA (Collaborating, Learning, Adapting). These are ubiquitous and often well-executed, but largely within compliance boundaries—managing known risks and enabling incremental adaptation. They seldom question whether the plan itself still holds. Transformative value emerges only when learning loops move beyond adjustment to reframing assumptions and goals.
Third, strategic thinking. The core strategic questions - where have we come from? where are we now? where are we going? how do we get there? how do we know we arrived there? - already embed foresight, but evaluation remains anchored in the past (where have we come from?), present (where are we now? - baseline), and endpoints (how do we know we have arrived there?) while the critical foresight (where are we going?) and the bridge (how do we get there?) remain advisory. Armed with decision-grade data and insights, evaluators should strongly influence future-informed decision making.
Fourth, OECD-DAC evaluation criteria are inherently forward-looking yet applied ex-post - particularly the relevance, impact, and sustainability criteria. If rigorously embedded at design stage—through scenario stress-testing—they shift evaluation from audit to anticipatory governance, from quality control to quality assurance!
The problem is not absence of foresight, but its containment. Until evaluation consistently challenges assumptions early and in real time, we will continue to practice foresight in form, but hindsight in function.
RE: From Hindsight to Foresight: How Evaluation Can Become Future-Informed
Kenya
Gordon Wanzare
MEL/Project Management Specialist
Posted on 25/04/2026
A very thought provoking discussion!
We may be overstating the absence of foresight in evaluation. The issue is not tools, but timing, depth, and intent.
First, Causal Layered Analysis (CLA). Most evaluations remain at litany and systems levels, rarely interrogating underlying worldviews and deep story. Yet foresight lives precisely there. If we do not challenge foundational assumptions—such as linear planning in volatile systems—evaluation, however sophisticated, simply reinforces them.
Second, risk registers and CLA (Collaborating, Learning, Adapting). These are ubiquitous and often well-executed, but largely within compliance boundaries—managing known risks and enabling incremental adaptation. They seldom question whether the plan itself still holds. Transformative value emerges only when learning loops move beyond adjustment to reframing assumptions and goals.
Third, strategic thinking. The core strategic questions - where have we come from? where are we now? where are we going? how do we get there? how do we know we arrived there? - already embed foresight, but evaluation remains anchored in the past (where have we come from?), present (where are we now? - baseline), and endpoints (how do we know we have arrived there?) while the critical foresight (where are we going?) and the bridge (how do we get there?) remain advisory. Armed with decision-grade data and insights, evaluators should strongly influence future-informed decision making.
Fourth, OECD-DAC evaluation criteria are inherently forward-looking yet applied ex-post - particularly the relevance, impact, and sustainability criteria. If rigorously embedded at design stage—through scenario stress-testing—they shift evaluation from audit to anticipatory governance, from quality control to quality assurance!
The problem is not absence of foresight, but its containment. Until evaluation consistently challenges assumptions early and in real time, we will continue to practice foresight in form, but hindsight in function.
Gordon