Dear colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to reflect a bit further on this: indeed, management approaches influence the credibility and quality of evaluations. From where I stand, an evaluation manager that is available to their team and that knows the organization/donor well is an asset.
Purpose of an evaluation manager: support the evaluation until publication; promote learning.
In addition to managing evaluations (recruit teams, set workplans, meet deadlines) the manager’s purpose is to guide and facilitate the evaluation process and to provide support continuously, from inception through ensuring organization or donor specific requirements are included (conditions for these to be met), to data collection by facilitating more delicate meetings or accessing documentation, to Quality Assurance. All these are crucial to the evaluation’s goal: to be useful and shared i.e. published.
When support is unavailable, the onus is on the externally hired evaluation team to either meet the expectations or to fail to have their work accepted and published: this is not to hide or thwart the evaluation team’s work, but simply because the evaluation does not meet minimum standards. Hence for the evaluation manager to ensure an evaluation proceeds smoothly, establishing initial expectations is foundational (particularly at onboarding and inception phases).
Furthermore, evaluation teams require a mix of both evaluation and technical expertise. The evaluation manager serves as additional evaluative expertise. This is an opportunity for independent consultants and technical experts as Independent Evaluation Offices must value accountability (i.e. publishing the evaluation) vis-à-vis learning (which includes, among others, fostering national capacities particularly where these are weak): the presence of an evaluation manager helps align competencies and experiences in the evaluation team and helps guide younger/emergent evaluators.
Provided evaluation independence is maintained (as posited), in more complex evaluations, a more active involvement of the evaluation manager may be warranted.
The key is to include the evaluation manager’s involvement in the design stage of the evaluation, so that, as mentioned above, expectations are clear on all sides. There are different logics for this.
In addition to evaluation, the evaluation manager may also have specific technical expertise useful to complement the evaluation team: his/her active participation is therefore an asset, particularly when there may be budgetary or other limiting factors: disagreements between external consultants and internal teams, the manager's active participation may be considered a mitigating strategy.
Or, for example in the case of a corporate evaluation commissioned to the independent office, the evaluation manager can contribute or even lead the evaluation. Having a team with a representative of the office of evaluations may help the intended audience (such as other units within the organization, other organizations, certain country offices) hear/ adopt evaluation findings better: active participation of the evaluation manager is a strategic choice.
The degree of involvement is evaluation-specific, and a function of evaluation design and resources (financial, time, and HR).
RE: Management matters: exploring the link between management models and the use of evaluations
Italy
Anne Clémence Owen
Evaluation Specialist
FAO
Posted on 14/05/2024
Dear colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to reflect a bit further on this: indeed, management approaches influence the credibility and quality of evaluations. From where I stand, an evaluation manager that is available to their team and that knows the organization/donor well is an asset.
Purpose of an evaluation manager: support the evaluation until publication; promote learning.
In addition to managing evaluations (recruit teams, set workplans, meet deadlines) the manager’s purpose is to guide and facilitate the evaluation process and to provide support continuously, from inception through ensuring organization or donor specific requirements are included (conditions for these to be met), to data collection by facilitating more delicate meetings or accessing documentation, to Quality Assurance. All these are crucial to the evaluation’s goal: to be useful and shared i.e. published.
When support is unavailable, the onus is on the externally hired evaluation team to either meet the expectations or to fail to have their work accepted and published: this is not to hide or thwart the evaluation team’s work, but simply because the evaluation does not meet minimum standards. Hence for the evaluation manager to ensure an evaluation proceeds smoothly, establishing initial expectations is foundational (particularly at onboarding and inception phases).
Furthermore, evaluation teams require a mix of both evaluation and technical expertise. The evaluation manager serves as additional evaluative expertise. This is an opportunity for independent consultants and technical experts as Independent Evaluation Offices must value accountability (i.e. publishing the evaluation) vis-à-vis learning (which includes, among others, fostering national capacities particularly where these are weak): the presence of an evaluation manager helps align competencies and experiences in the evaluation team and helps guide younger/emergent evaluators.
Provided evaluation independence is maintained (as posited), in more complex evaluations, a more active involvement of the evaluation manager may be warranted.
The key is to include the evaluation manager’s involvement in the design stage of the evaluation, so that, as mentioned above, expectations are clear on all sides. There are different logics for this.
In addition to evaluation, the evaluation manager may also have specific technical expertise useful to complement the evaluation team: his/her active participation is therefore an asset, particularly when there may be budgetary or other limiting factors: disagreements between external consultants and internal teams, the manager's active participation may be considered a mitigating strategy.
Or, for example in the case of a corporate evaluation commissioned to the independent office, the evaluation manager can contribute or even lead the evaluation. Having a team with a representative of the office of evaluations may help the intended audience (such as other units within the organization, other organizations, certain country offices) hear/ adopt evaluation findings better: active participation of the evaluation manager is a strategic choice.
The degree of involvement is evaluation-specific, and a function of evaluation design and resources (financial, time, and HR).