RE: Evaluability Assessments: An invitation to reflect and discuss

Dear Amy,

Thanks for posting. I remember well reading Rick D's Synthesis of the Literature back in 2013. I had four observations: 

1. Rick says: "Many problems of evaluability have their origins in weak project design. Some of these can be addressed by engagement of evaluators at the design stage, through evaluability checks or otherwise".  A great point. Too often is it the case that theories of change and/or results frameworks are either developed without any decent enough problem analysis; 
2. And it's to tell  - Any competent person would be able to spot these and recommend improvements to the coherence and validity of what is to be evaluated - they used to call this an ex ante or appraisal. Mr Quinn Patton has usefully re-introduced such an assessment through developmental evaluation. In this context one would have to question the need for a special / separate evaluability assessment;  
3. What about monitoring ? - ie. management involvement at design and implementation. An Evaluator's perspective and info needs of them and donors are but just one thing. M and E serve different objects, answer different questions at different times and have different requirements for comparative analysis; and 
4. If the results - outputs, outcomes and impacts - of the entity being evaluated are not relevant to those in need  - as opposed to those in power- then it matters little whether it can be evaluated or even approved in the very first place. No? An obvious point I know.

Finally, some help: You quoted Michael Scriven as saying: "evaluability is analogous to requiring serviceability in a new car and may be thought of as “the first commandment in accountability”. I know this must be a significant saying, but I don't understand/get it and its importance. What do you think he means? 

Best wishes and thanks again,

Daniel