In response to Silva's comments below (also sent to email server)
"Hi Silva
Let me address some of your points
1. "All projects can and should be evaluated"
Yes but WHEN? EA recommended delays can give time to address data, theory and stakeholder concerns time to be resolved and thus lead to a more useful evaluation
Yes, but HOW? Approaches need to be proportionate to resources and capacities and context. EAs can help here
2. Re "Some project designs are manifestly unevaluable, and some M&E frameworks are manifestly inadequate at first glance." and your comment that.. "We are confusing the project documentation with the reality of the work."
It would be an extreme position to argue that there will be no instances of good practice (however defined) on the ground in such circumstances (i.e where there are poor designs poor M&E frameworks).
But It would be equally extreme to argue the other way, that the state of design and data availability has no relationship to outcomes on the ground at all. If you do take that position the decision to evaluate is effectively a gamble, with someone's time and resources.
At some stage someone has to decide how much money to spend when and how. EAs can help inform those decisions
3. Re ""Can the program be evaluated with a standard toolbox" (which is what evaluability risks becoming) "
I would like to see some evidence for this claim
As counter evidence, at least of intention, I refer you to this diagram, from the Austrian Development Agency EA guide, and to the reference to the jigsaw nature of an EA, in the sense of having to fit different needs and capacities together, rather than following any blueprint
RE: Evaluability Assessments: An invitation to reflect and discuss
United Kingdom
Rick Davies
Evaluation Consultant
Posted on 29/07/2024
In response to Silva's comments below (also sent to email server)
"Hi Silva
Let me address some of your points
1. "All projects can and should be evaluated"
Yes but WHEN? EA recommended delays can give time to address data, theory and stakeholder concerns time to be resolved and thus lead to a more useful evaluation
Yes, but HOW? Approaches need to be proportionate to resources and capacities and context. EAs can help here
2. Re "Some project designs are manifestly unevaluable, and some M&E frameworks are manifestly inadequate at first glance." and your comment that.. "We are confusing the project documentation with the reality of the work."
It would be an extreme position to argue that there will be no instances of good practice (however defined) on the ground in such circumstances (i.e where there are poor designs poor M&E frameworks).
But It would be equally extreme to argue the other way, that the state of design and data availability has no relationship to outcomes on the ground at all. If you do take that position the decision to evaluate is effectively a gamble, with someone's time and resources.
At some stage someone has to decide how much money to spend when and how. EAs can help inform those decisions
3. Re ""Can the program be evaluated with a standard toolbox" (which is what evaluability risks becoming) "
I would like to see some evidence for this claim
As counter evidence, at least of intention, I refer you to this diagram, from the Austrian Development Agency EA guide, and to the reference to the jigsaw nature of an EA, in the sense of having to fit different needs and capacities together, rather than following any blueprint
regards, rick