From Hindsight to Foresight: How Evaluation Can Become Future-Informed

Dear Steven,
Dear EvalforEarth Members,

I would like to share a blog I recently authored, initially published on the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) website:

“Not Just Looking Back: Why Evaluation Needs a Forward View”
Available here: https://www.undp.org/evaluation/blog/not-just-looking-back

The reflections in this piece align closely with the ongoing discussion

The topic is very relevant, timely and thought-provoking. 

In the context of climate uncertainty and its implications for the use of evaluation findings, it is evident that retrospective evaluation is a weak predictor of future outcomes due to climate variability. Methodologically, static measurements are designed for relatively stable environments, and can no longer fit in the dynamic and volatile ecosystems we are experiencing today.

For example, in food security, the more we measure project success based on the yield increases, the more we risk overlooking critical factors such as soil depletion trends, climate shocks, and indigenous community mobility patterns, among others. As a result, findings may quickly become underutilised. It is therefore clear that yesterday’s solutions cannot remain valid for tomorrow’s problems.

Foresight Tools and Methods

Some foresight tools and methods I have encountered include Outcome Harvesting, the 3 Horizons Framework, systems mapping, scenario planning, horizon scanning, and trend analysis. These approaches are valuable because they capture uncertainty and expand thinking beyond linear outcomes, thereby supporting adaptability in programmes.

However, their application comes with challenges because they require time, skills, and facilitation capacity, which many evaluators may not yet possess. Additionally, some stakeholders perceive these approaches as less rigorous. Another constraint is that they are not often embedded in donor terms of reference, which discourages evaluators from applying them.

DAC Criteria through a Foresight Lens

Reinterpreting the DAC criteria through a foresight lens is important. For instance, we need to move from a static relevance to dynamic relevance. Traditionally, we ask whether an intervention was aligned at the design stage; however, we should also be asking whether it will remain relevant under future scenarios.

Similarly, sustainability is often framed as the continuation of benefits after programme completion. In today’s volatile context, this needs to shift toward assessing whether systems can adapt, absorb shocks, and transform. This includes examining resilience and adaptive capacity at both system and community levels.

Opportunities in Food Security, Environmental, and Agricultural Sectors

These sectors are inherently future-facing. In Kenya, since childhood, we were often reminded, “Huu ni uti wa mgongo wa uchumi”, meaning this is the backbone of our economy. Importantly, Indigenous knowledge systems already function as foresight systems.

There are significant opportunities to integrate foresight into areas such as agroecology, climate-resilient agriculture, pastoralist mobility systems, and early warning systems. Indigenous forecasting methods, such as interpreting weather patterns, seasonal cycles, animal behaviour, and land use patterns, offer valuable insights that can strengthen evaluation practice.

What Needs to Change to Integrate Foresight into Evaluation

To make foresight a regular part of evaluation, we need to strengthen skills in systems thinking, futures literacy, facilitation of uncertainty, and multidisciplinary approaches.

At the institutional level, there is a need for flexible terms of reference, adaptive and real-time evaluation designs, and learning-focused commissioning processes that allow for cumulative learning over time.

Overall, we need to shift from the narrow focus on accountability to a balanced learning and anticipation, supported by investments in digital data tools.

My conclusion

I would conclude by urging the adoption of the indigenous scenario work, that is, planning for multiple possible futures rather than assuming a single predictable path. This involves asking critical questions such as What might happen? What could change? What if things go differently?

Evaluation must evolve from a backward-looking exercise into a forward-looking decision-making tool. While hindsight helps us understand what worked and what did not, foresight allows us to anticipate risks, adapt to uncertainty, and design more resilient interventions.

One way to achieve this is by integrating real-time data systems, predictive analytics, and scenario planning into evaluation processes. For example, in climate-sensitive sectors like agriculture or water management, evaluators can use historical data alongside climate projections to guide future programming rather than only assess past outcomes.

Additionally, adopting adaptive and developmental evaluation approaches enables continuous learning and flexibility. This ensures that programs are not only evaluated at the end but are continuously improved based on emerging evidence.

Stakeholder engagement is also critical. Incorporating local knowledge and community perspectives strengthens foresight by grounding future scenarios in real-world contexts.

In essence, evaluation should shift from answering “What happened?” to addressing “What is likely to happen, and how can we prepare?” This transformation makes evaluation more strategic, responsive, and impactful in tackling complex global challenges.As an M&E practitioner, I see this shift as essential for improving development outcomes, especially in vulnerable contexts like Ghana where uncertainty is increasing.

In Benin, the policy evaluation system is currently undergoing a significant transformation. In this context, a crucial question that urgently arises is how to effectively obtain real-time data. Indeed, while many evaluation processes can draw on tools commonly used in foresight, such as risk registers, adaptive management loops, strategic questioning, and scenario planning these instruments, although valuable, do not fully substitute for rigorous and professional foresight practice. Consequently, it becomes essential to adopt a more integrated approach. Furthermore, the strong emphasis placed on shared ownership throughout the entire process from design to implementation emerges as a key strength, reinforcing both the relevance and sustainability of evaluation outcomes.

From Hindsight to Foresight: How Evaluation Becomes Useful Again
Reflections from working inside systems that don’t hold still long enough to be measured

There is a quiet tension at the centre of most evaluation work, and if you’ve spent any time inside complex environmental or climate programmes, you feel it almost immediately. We are trained—carefully, rigorously—to look backward. To assess what was delivered, what worked, what didn’t, and whether it aligned with what was originally promised. And yet the systems we are working in—food systems, climate adaptation, biodiversity governance, circular economies—are not standing still long enough for that backward glance to remain relevant.

In my own work across Global Environment Facility-linked portfolios and parallel systems, I have watched this tension play out repeatedly. The formal questions—relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability—remain constant. But the world they are meant to interpret keeps shifting beneath them.

Take the United Nations Environment Programme / GEF ISLANDS programme across fourteen Pacific SIDS. On paper, it was doing what it said it would do. Infrastructure was being installed—systems for managing persistent organic pollutants, mercury, e-waste, used oil. Policies were drafted. Coordination mechanisms were established. If you stayed within the traditional frame, the evaluation could confirm delivery.

But when you step back and look at the system as it actually operates, the question changes. It becomes less about whether outputs were delivered, and more about whether the system being built will still function when the conditions change—which they inevitably will. Tourism fluctuates. Fiscal space contracts. Climate shocks disrupt infrastructure and supply chains. In that context, the real question decision-makers had was not “did this work?” but “will this hold?”

That question sits outside retrospective evaluation unless you deliberately bring it in.

The same pattern appeared in the circular economy work with the Asian Development Bank and GEF across Southeast Asia. We were looking at Extended Producer Responsibility-type systems—policy readiness, institutional arrangements, pilot implementation. All the right ingredients. But again, the fragility was not in the design. It was in the future conditions under which that design would have to operate. Commodity price fluctuations, regulatory enforcement cycles, political turnover—these are not edge cases. They are the operating environment. And yet they rarely sit at the centre of evaluation design.

Even in earlier GEF project design and evaluation work, including PIF-level advisory aligned with the Food and Agriculture Organization, the Theory of Change followed a familiar and comforting logic: outputs lead to capacity, capacity leads to improved management, improved management leads to environmental outcomes. It is clean. It is logical. It is also, in most cases, incomplete. Because it assumes a relatively stable enabling environment. It does not ask, in any structured way, under what future conditions that chain holds—and where it breaks.

Across all of this work, the same limitation keeps surfacing. Retrospective evaluation is very good at validating what has been delivered. It is much weaker at assessing what will endure. And it is largely silent on what is about to fail.

This is where foresight comes in—not as an abstract add-on, but as a practical necessity. And in my experience, it becomes most powerful not at the end of a programme, but in the middle of it—during course correction, during mid-term reviews, in those messy, uncomfortable moments where systems are clearly not behaving as expected but have not yet fully failed.

That is where I now do most of this work.

In a mid-term review, the temptation is always to stabilise the narrative. To explain variance. To adjust ratings. To recommend incremental fixes. But if you treat a mid-term review as a static checkpoint, you miss its real value. A mid-term review is the last credible moment to change direction before a programme locks itself into its own logic.

So the way I approach it is different.

I start by mapping the system not as a logframe, but as a pathway. Evidence to decision. Decision to pipeline. Pipeline to finance. Finance to implementation. Implementation to outcomes. And then I ask a simple question at each step: where is this moving, and where is it stuck?

Not in theory. In practice.

Where are decisions not being taken, even though evidence exists? Where are project concepts sitting without moving into investment-ready pipelines? Where is finance not flowing, even though priorities are clear? Where is implementation breaking down because legitimacy—particularly at the community level—is not secured?

This is not traditional evaluation terrain. But it is where programmes actually succeed or fail.

Once you see the system this way, foresight enters naturally. Because the next question is not “what has happened?” but “what happens next if nothing changes?” And then, “what happens under different plausible futures?”

In practical terms, that means stress-testing the system. Not through elaborate models, but through structured questioning. What happens to this financing model if public budgets contract? What happens to this delivery mechanism under extreme weather disruption? What happens to this policy if enforcement weakens after political change? You do not need perfect scenarios. You need plausible ones.

And then you bring that back into the evaluation.

Recommendations stop being generic—“strengthen capacity,” “improve coordination”—and become directional. Shift this part of the pipeline because it will not hold under foreseeable conditions. Rebalance this financing structure because it is too exposed to a single risk. Invest in this relationship or legitimacy mechanism because without it, implementation will stall regardless of technical design.

In other words, evaluation becomes less about judging the past and more about redirecting the future.

This is exactly the space I am working in now in the PNG Country Package context. Here, the issue is not a lack of activity. It is that movement along the system is uneven and often invisible. Decisions do not consistently translate into pipelines. Pipelines do not consistently translate into finance. Finance does not consistently translate into implementation at scale. And underlying all of it is a critical factor that traditional evaluation often underplays: legitimacy, particularly in a context where customary land ownership defines what is possible.

If you look at this through a retrospective lens, you will produce a perfectly reasonable evaluation that does very little to change outcomes. If you look at it through a forward lens—tracking where the system is likely to stall next—you begin to see where intervention actually matters.

This is not about abandoning the OECD-DAC criteria. It is about stretching them. Relevance becomes prospective—will this remain relevant under plausible futures? Sustainability becomes conditional—under what conditions does this hold? Effectiveness becomes dynamic—not just whether outcomes were achieved, but whether the system is capable of continuing to produce them.

And perhaps most importantly, evaluation shifts function. It stops being primarily a reporting mechanism and becomes a decision-support tool.

That sounds like a small shift. It is not. It requires evaluators to be more explicit about uncertainty, more engaged with system dynamics, and more willing to step slightly outside the comfort zone of purely retrospective judgment. It also requires institutions to accept that the most useful evaluation is not always the most certain one.

If I am honest, many of the most valuable insights in my work have come from the moments where we did exactly that—where we stopped asking “what was?” and started asking “what if?” Where we followed the system forward instead of backward. Where we treated uncertainty not as something to be minimised, but as something to be worked with.

That is where evaluation becomes useful again.

Because in a world that is no longer stable—and is not going to be—the question is not whether we can perfectly understand the past.

It is whether we can act, intelligently and in time, in the face of what comes next.

Reflections from my experience in complex adaptation contexts:
Drawing from my work on community‑ and nature‑based adaptation initiatives in Southern Africa and beyond, I believe evaluators sometimes overstate the absence of foresight in evaluation. The challenge is rarely the lack of tools, but rather timing, depth, and intent. Climate disruption, ecosystem degradation, shifting geopolitical conditions, and cascading crises are no longer background noise; they actively shape development pathways and community decisions in real time. Yet foresight is often introduced late in the evaluation cycle, applied superficially, or treated as a technical add‑on rather than a strategic lens. When evaluation is not explicitly designed to engage with uncertainty, power dynamics, and interacting risks from the outset, it struggles to reflect the true complexity of adaptation systems.

In practice, this becomes clear when evaluating climate and nature‑based adaptation interventions. An evaluation that only looks backwards is like navigating by a map of where you’ve been, in terrain that is constantly reshaping itself. Integrating foresight means adapting tools we already know how to use, such as scenario planning, participatory approaches, and forward‑looking Theories of Change, to ask not only what has worked, but what may work under different future conditions. Embedding adaptive management, with regular feedback loops and real‑time data, allows evaluations to remain relevant as contexts shift. Most critically, community perspectives, through co‑evaluation, anchor foresight in lived realities, surfacing local knowledge about risks, trade‑offs, and opportunities. When intent is truly future‑informed, evaluation moves beyond the rear‑view mirror to act as a compass and horizon scanner, helping decision‑makers identify adaptation pathways that are resilient to cascading shocks and ultimately more just, sustainable, and humane.

It can be journey from Hindsight to Foresight rather collaborating two i.e. Hindsight and Foresight need am=n inclusive list of questions which are frames to capture hindsight aspects of evaluations normally in relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, and impact, but foresight mostly captured around sustainability. In my experiences we have tried to incorporate question related to both hindsight and foresight linked to all the six and overarching, cross-cutting issues so a matrix is developed.    

Building on my earlier reflection, I think the case for future-informed evaluation becomes even more compelling when we look at it through an East African lens. Across the region, programmes are not just operating in “complex contexts"; they are operating in structurally shifting systems. Climate variability, mobility (including refugee dynamics), demographic pressure, and decentralised governance are not external risks; they are core features of the system itself. In such contexts, the limitation of retrospective evaluation is not only that it looks backward but also that it often assumes a level of system stability that simply does not exist.

For example:

• In arid and semi-arid areas, repeated drought cycles can completely reshape livelihood systems within the lifespan of a programme
• In refugee-hosting regions, policy shifts and funding flows can rapidly alter service delivery structures
• In devolved governance systems, priorities and implementation capacity can vary significantly across counties and over time

What this means in practice is that programme performance becomes highly sensitive to system shifts, making static evaluation benchmarks less meaningful. Taking this further into the Kenyan context, I’ve seen a recurring pattern: Programmes are often designed with relatively fixed theories of change, but are implemented within highly dynamic county-level ecosystems, politically, institutionally, and socially. By the time evaluation assesses “effectiveness” or “sustainability,” the underlying assumptions (on which those criteria are based) may no longer hold. This creates a subtle but important risk, we end up evaluating how well a programme performed in a past version of the system, rather than how well it is positioned for the system that is emerging.

To respond to this, I think future-informed evaluation in Kenya (and similar contexts) needs to move toward a few deliberate shifts:

• From static baselines to dynamic reference points
  Baselines should not be treated as fixed anchors, but revisited as systems evolve
• From endline judgement to continuous sensemaking
  Particularly at county level, where political economy and implementation realities shift rapidly
• From “attribution under control” to “contribution under uncertainty”
  Recognising that outcomes are increasingly co-produced by multiple interacting system actors
• Stronger integration of political economy and climate foresight into evaluation design
  Not as separate analyses, but as core to how we interpret findings

Ultimately, in contexts like Kenya, future-informed evaluation is not a methodological upgrade, it is a practical necessity for relevance. It allows evaluation to answer a slightly different but more useful question: Not just “Did this work?” but “Will this continue to work, and under what conditions?”

I would be interested to hear from others working in devolved or climate-vulnerable systems; "How are you adapting evaluation approaches to account for sub-national variability and rapidly shifting implementation contexts?"

One reflection I would add to this discussion is that the “hindsight vs foresight” framing is useful, but perhaps still incomplete. From practice, the deeper issue is not only that evaluation is retrospective, but that it is often temporally rigid in systems that are inherently adaptive. In many of the programmes I’ve worked on, particularly in fragile and climate-affected contexts, you can have an intervention that is highly “effective” at midline, but fundamentally misaligned with the direction the system is moving. By the time endline evaluation happens, the system has shifted, and the findings, while technically valid, have already lost decision-making value. This aligns with what the paper describes as a temporal mismatch between evaluation and reality. What this suggests is that integrating foresight is not just about adding tools like scenario planning or horizon scanning. It is about reconfiguring when and how evaluative judgement happens. 
A few practical shifts that I have found useful:

• Embedding evaluative thinking into adaptive cycles rather than discrete evaluation moments
  (e.g., linking MEL systems with real-time decision points, not just reporting milestones)
• Testing theories of change against multiple plausible futures, not just validating them against past evidence
  (this helps avoid reinforcing linear assumptions in non-linear systems)
• Reframing key criteria
  • Relevance → not just alignment with current needs, but fitness under plausible future conditions
  • Sustainability → not durability of results, but resilience under stress and change
• Blending predictive analytics with foresight
  In my experience, this combination is underutilized, quantitative trend analysis helps anchor plausibility, while foresight expands the space of what we consider possible.

I also want to echo a point raised earlier in the discussion: the constraint is not primarily methodological, but institutional and cultural. As long as evaluation is commissioned primarily for accountability, even the most sophisticated foresight tools risk being absorbed into compliance logic. So perhaps the shift is less about moving from hindsight to foresight, and more about moving from: evaluation as judgement → evaluation as navigation under uncertainty. 
Maybe also pose this, how do we redesign evaluation commissioning and incentives so that future-informed insights are not just produced, but actually used in decision-making cycles?

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

Background and Rationale (East African Context)

Food security, environmental sustainability, and agricultural development programmes across Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania are increasingly operating within conditions defined by systemic uncertainty. Climate variability—manifested through recurrent droughts and erratic rainfall—alongside land degradation, demographic pressures, and evolving geopolitical dynamics, has moved from being a peripheral concern to a central determinant of programme performance.

Despite this evolving context, evaluation practices in these sectors remain predominantly retrospective. They continue to emphasize accountability against fixed, pre-defined objectives, often established under assumptions that no longer hold. This creates a significant temporal misalignment:

• Programme design is based on initial conditions and assumptions 
• Evaluation assesses outcomes against those original assumptions 
• Decision-making occurs in a context that has fundamentally shifted 

This disconnect has tangible implications. For instance:

• A food security initiative designed under assumptions of stable rainfall may be evaluated following a drought, yet still judged against its original targets 
• Agro-processing investments are assessed based on production outputs, without adequately accounting for disruptions in supply chains or raw material availability 

As a result, evaluation findings may accurately describe past performance but offer limited value for informing future decisions in dynamic environments.

At the same time, leading organizations such as World Food Programme, Food and Agriculture Organization, and CGIAR are increasingly incorporating foresight-oriented approaches, particularly within resilience-building and anticipatory action frameworks.

However, across East Africa:

• Evaluation professionals often lack formal exposure to foresight methodologies 
• Foresight remains insufficiently embedded in evaluation design processes 
• Practical tools and integration frameworks are still underdeveloped 

This discussion is intended to address these gaps by exploring how foresight can be systematically integrated into evaluation practice.

Week 1: Understanding the Limitations of Retrospective Evaluation

Focus

To establish a foundational understanding of why conventional evaluation approaches are inadequate in volatile and rapidly changing environments.

East African Perspective

Within the region, retrospective evaluations frequently:

• Validate known failures, such as crop losses or food shortages 
• Provide limited influence on future programme design and adaptation 

Illustrative Examples

• Drought response initiatives in Ethiopia assessed only after crisis escalation 
• Fertilizer subsidy programmes evaluated without incorporating climate variability 
• Food distribution systems responding reactively to shortages rather than anticipating them 

Core Insight

Retrospective evaluation effectively answers:

“To what extent were planned objectives achieved?”

However, it fails to address the more critical question:

“Were the original assumptions and plans still valid under changing conditions?”

Discussion Emphasis

• The impact of climate shocks on the relevance of past-based evaluations 
• The declining utility of evaluation findings over time 
• The disconnect between evaluation outputs and real-time decision-making needs 

Week 2: Transformative Foresight in Agricultural and Food Systems

Focus

To examine how foresight approaches enable transformational change rather than incremental improvements.

East African Perspective

Agricultural systems across the region are undergoing structural transitions characterized by:

• A shift from subsistence farming toward market-oriented production 
• Increased exposure to climate-related risks 
• Growth of agro-processing and value-added industries 

Application of Foresight

Foresight methodologies can support:

• Anticipation of changes in crop suitability due to evolving climate conditions 
• Identification of future food demand patterns driven by urbanization and population growth 
• Design of resilient agro-processing and supply chain systems 

Illustrative Example

• Forecasting fluctuations in maize production linked to rainfall variability 
• Promoting alternative crops such as sorghum and millet based on future climate projections 

Week 3: Advancing Toward a Transformative Evaluation Paradigm

Focus

To explore how integrating foresight into evaluation can create a more adaptive, future-oriented paradigm.

East African Perspective

Evaluation systems must evolve to address:

• Complex, interrelated risks (climatic, economic, and political) 
• The need for long-term resilience rather than short-term performance metrics 

Implications for Evaluation Criteria

Applying a foresight perspective reshapes traditional evaluation dimensions:

• Relevance
  Moves beyond alignment with past needs toward alignment with anticipated future risks and opportunities 
• Sustainability
  Extends beyond continuity after funding to include resilience under future shocks and uncertainties 
• Effectiveness
  Expands from measuring output delivery to assessing adaptability and responsiveness to change 

Illustrative Example

In a food processing facility:

• Traditional evaluation focuses on production volumes achieved 
• Foresight-informed evaluation assesses the system’s capacity to sustain operations amid fluctuations in raw material supply 

Core Insight

Evaluation evolves into:

A mechanism for adaptive management and strategic learning, rather than solely a tool for accountability

Week 4: Operationalizing Foresight within Evaluation Practice

Focus

To translate conceptual frameworks into practical tools and methodologies applicable in real-world contexts.

Key Tools and Their Application in East Africa

1. Horizon Scanning

Systematic monitoring of emerging trends, including climate patterns, market dynamics, and policy changes

• Example: Early detection of drought risks or food price volatility 

2. Scenario Planning

Development of multiple plausible future scenarios, such as:

• Stable climatic conditions 
• Severe drought 
• Market or supply chain disruptions 

3. Three Horizons Framework

• Horizon 1: Existing agricultural systems 
• Horizon 2: Transitional innovations (e.g., irrigation expansion, technology adoption) 
• Horizon 3: Long-term climate-resilient systems 

4. Causal Layered Analysis

Multi-level examination of challenges:

• Surface: Immediate food shortages 
• Structural: Supply chain inefficiencies 
• Cultural: Dependence on specific crops 
• Foundational: Underlying beliefs and policy narratives 

Regional Application Areas

Foresight-informed evaluation can be applied to:

• Irrigation and water management projects 
• Agro-processing investments 
• Food distribution and logistics systems 

Discussion Objectives (Contextualized)

• Enhance understanding of foresight methodologies within evaluation practice 
• Strengthen the assessment of resilience, sustainability, and long-term impact 
• Facilitate knowledge exchange based on regional experiences in climate adaptation and food systems 
• Identify practical and resource-efficient entry points for integrating foresight into evaluation 

Guiding Questions (East Africa Focus)

• In what contexts have retrospective evaluations failed to capture evolving climate or market realities? 
• What early warning indicators (climatic, supply-related, or price-based) could enhance evaluation relevance? 
• How might foresight approaches reshape the evaluation of: 
  • Food security programmes 
  • Agricultural investments 
  • Agro-processing performance 
• What institutional barriers exist (capacity, data systems, organizational culture)? 
• How can foresight be integrated into evaluation without significant resource burdens? 

Conclusion

Within East Africa, integrating foresight into evaluation is no longer optional—it is a practical necessity.

In sectors defined by uncertainty:

• Food security strategies cannot depend on static assumptions 
• Agricultural investments must anticipate variability and disruption 
• Evaluation must actively inform future-oriented decision-making rather than merely document past outcomes 

The future effectiveness of evaluation in Ethiopia and across East Africa will depend on its capacity to guide decisions proactively—anticipating challenges before they materialize, rather than reacting after the fact.

From Hindsight to Foresight: Reframing Evaluation as a Future-Informed Strategic Tool

An Ethiopian and East African Perspective

1. Executive Context

Across Ethiopia and the broader East African region, evaluation practices remain predominantly retrospective. Institutions—ranging from public enterprises such as Ethiopian Electric Power to manufacturing industries, food processing companies, and development programs—continue to rely heavily on post-event assessments that diagnose past failures but rarely shape future decisions in a meaningful way.

While such hindsight-driven approaches provide accountability and documentation, they fall short of enabling anticipatory governance. In environments characterized by operational volatility, supply chain uncertainty, and infrastructure constraints, evaluation must evolve from a record-keeping exercise into a forward-looking decision system.

2. Conceptual Shift: From Retrospective Analysis to Predictive Insight

Traditional evaluation frameworks are anchored in:

• Compliance verification 
• Performance auditing 
• Post-implementation review 

These approaches, though necessary, are inherently reactive. They identify deviations after they have already imposed financial, operational, or reputational costs.

A future-informed evaluation paradigm, by contrast, emphasizes:

• Early detection of risk patterns 
• Continuous performance intelligence 
• Scenario-based planning 
• Real-time decision support 

This transition represents a shift from “What happened?” to “What is likely to happen—and how should we respond now?”

3. Strategic Relevance in the Ethiopian Context

3.1 Infrastructure and Energy Development

Large-scale initiatives in Ethiopia—particularly within organizations like Ethiopian Electric Power—are marked by extended timelines, technical complexity, and dependency on external expertise. Recurring challenges such as drilling inefficiencies, procurement delays, and coordination gaps are frequently documented but insufficiently internalized.

A foresight-oriented evaluation model would enable:

• Anticipation of operational bottlenecks before escalation 
• Data-driven forecasting of delays and cost overruns 
• Structured integration of lessons into subsequent project phases 

]3.2 Manufacturing and Industrial Operations

Within manufacturing environments—such as plastic pipe production—quality assurance systems often function as end-point filters rather than proactive control mechanisms.

Retrospective evaluation typically identifies:

• Product non-conformities 
• Process deviations 
• Equipment failures 

However, a future-informed approach would:

• Utilize process analytics to detect early signals of variation 
• Establish predictive quality indicators 
• Integrate evaluation outputs directly into production control systems 

This transformation is critical for enhancing operational efficiency, reducing waste, and maintaining consistent product standards.

3.3 Development Programs and Public Sector Initiatives

In countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania, evaluation systems within donor-funded and public programs are frequently compliance-driven. Reports are produced to satisfy external requirements rather than to inform internal strategic adaptation.

This results in:

• Limited institutional learning 
• Repetition of ineffective interventions 
• Weak linkage between evaluation findings and policy reform 

3.4 Food Sector and Agro-Processing Systems

The food sector—encompassing agriculture, agro-processing, and distribution—is one of the most critical yet vulnerable systems in Ethiopia and across East Africa. Evaluation practices in this sector are typically reactive, focusing on post-harvest losses, food safety incidents, or market shortages after they occur.

Key challenges include:

• Post-harvest losses due to poor storage and logistics 
• Food safety risks from contamination and inconsistent processing standards 
• Supply-demand mismatches driven by climate variability 
• Weak cold-chain infrastructure 

A foresight-driven evaluation approach would enable:

• Early prediction of crop yield fluctuations using seasonal and historical data 
• Monitoring of storage and transport conditions to prevent spoilage 
• Predictive food safety controls integrated into processing lines 
• Market intelligence systems to anticipate shortages or surpluses 

For example, instead of reacting to grain spoilage or dairy contamination, processors can implement real-time monitoring of temperature, humidity, and hygiene indicators to prevent losses before they occur.

4. Structural Constraints to Forward-Looking Evaluation

Several systemic barriers hinder the transition toward foresight-driven evaluation:

Institutional Culture

Evaluation is often perceived as punitive rather than developmental, discouraging transparency and critical reflection.

Data Infrastructure Deficiencies

Fragmented, manual, and inconsistent data systems limit the ability to generate timely and actionable insights.

Organizational Silos

Knowledge remains compartmentalized, preventing cross-functional learning and coordinated response.

Short-Term Operational Pressures

Immediate delivery targets frequently override investments in long-term analytical capability.

5. Operational Framework for Future-Informed Evaluation

To institutionalize foresight, organizations should adopt the following integrated approach:

5.1 Reposition Evaluation as a Decision Instrument

Evaluation outputs must be explicitly linked to future planning, resource allocation, and operational adjustments.

5.2 Develop Predictive Performance Indicators

Shift from static metrics to dynamic indicators capable of signaling emerging risks, such as:

• Process variability trends 
• Equipment reliability patterns 
• Supply chain disruption signals  
• Food safety deviation indicators (e.g., temperature excursions, contamination risks) 

5.3 Institutionalize “Forward-Looking Lessons”

Move beyond retrospective “lessons learned” toward actionable “lessons applied,” with defined ownership and implementation timelines.

5.4 Embed Scenario-Based Planning

Systematically evaluate potential disruptions—financial, technical, environmental, or logistical—and predefine response strategies.

5.5 Establish Continuous Feedback Mechanisms

Implement real-time monitoring systems and routine performance reviews to ensure adaptive management.

6. Applied Illustration

Energy Sector (Geothermal Development)

Rather than conducting isolated post-project reviews, a foresight-driven system would:

• Monitor drilling efficiency metrics in real time 
• Analyze historical failure patterns 
• Predict and mitigate operational disruptions 

Manufacturing (HDPE Pipe Production)

Instead of relying on final product inspection, organizations should:

• Implement statistical process control 
• Monitor critical parameters continuously 
• Trigger early interventions before defects materialize 

Food Sector (Agro-Processing and Supply Chain)

Instead of reacting to:

• Product spoilage 
• Contamination incidents 
• Market shortages 

Organizations should:

• Use predictive models for crop supply and demand 
• Implement HACCP-based real-time monitoring systems 
• Track cold-chain performance continuously 
• Forecast logistics disruptions (fuel, transport delays, weather impact) 

Result:

• Reduced food loss 
• Improved food safety compliance  
• Stabilized market supply 
• Enhanced consumer trust 

7. Strategic Imperatives for Ethiopia

To advance toward future-informed evaluation, the following priorities are essential:

1. Digital Transformation of Data Systems
   Transition to integrated, real-time data platforms across manufacturing, energy, and food systems 
2. Capacity Building in Predictive Analytics
   Equip professionals with skills in data interpretation, forecasting, and risk modeling 
3. Integration of Evaluation and Planning Functions
   Ensure evaluation findings directly inform strategic and operational decisions 
4. Promotion of a Learning-Oriented Culture
   Encourage openness, accountability, and continuous improvement 
5. Cross-Sectoral Knowledge Integration
   Facilitate structured knowledge sharing between energy, manufacturing, and food sectors 

8. Conclusion

Retrospective evaluation, while necessary, is no longer sufficient in addressing the complexities of Ethiopia’s development trajectory. The ability to anticipate, adapt, and respond proactively will define institutional effectiveness in the years ahead.

Transforming evaluation into a future-informed system is not merely a methodological enhancement—it is a strategic imperative.

Sustainable progress will depend not on how effectively institutions document the past, but on how intelligently they prepare for the future.

To try to answer the question, and to build on what the document already proposes, one key condition is ensuring that the process is co-owned by the people who will use and live with the findings. This condition helps make the work ethical, participatory, useful, and institutionally embedded at the same time. This is part of a broader shift from hindsight to foresight, actively shaping future-informed decisions.

When stakeholders help define the questions, shape the methods, interpret the results, and commit to follow-up, the evaluation is less likely to be extractive, more grounded in real needs, and more likely to inform actual decisions.

This also aligns with many First Nations approaches in Canada, where evaluation and project review are often community-driven and closely tied to local priorities, consent, and accountability. While the exact process can vary depending on the Nation and on funding or governance arrangements, the underlying principle remains that decisions should not be imposed from outside.

In short, the key condition is shared ownership from design to use. Proposed solutions for future risks must respond to future needs and help shape the future people want. When this happens, ownership becomes a reality, not just an aspiration.

The #EvalforEarth discussion comes at exactly the right time. Many evaluations still tell us how projects performed yesterday, while leaders increasingly need evidence on how systems can survive tomorrow. 

Across food security, agriculture, climate resilience, and governance, one lesson repeatedly emerges: outcomes are shaped less by individual projects than by the systems in which they operate—institutions, incentives, partnerships, learning cultures, and political ownership. Strong projects often fail inside weak systems; modest interventions can succeed when embedded in adaptive and trusted institutions.

This is why retrospective evaluation alone is no longer enough. It may accurately assess past outputs and efficiency, yet miss the critical forward-looking questions:

• Will this programme remain relevant under climate shocks or market volatility?
• Can institutions adapt when assumptions change?
• Are partnerships resilient under stress?
• Will gains endure after funding ends?

Strategic foresight offers practical tools to strengthen evaluation: horizon scanning, scenario planning, Three Horizons, and causal layered analysis. These methods can help evaluators move from static judgement to dynamic learning.

Three practical entry points:

1. Design stage – stress-test theories of change against multiple future scenarios.
2. Evaluation stage – assess adaptive capacity, institutional resilience, and system coherence—not only current performance.
3. Recommendation stage – offer options robust across plausible futures, not just ideal conditions.

Perhaps we also need to reinterpret OECD-DAC criteria through a future lens:
Relevance = future fit
Sustainability = resilience under shocks
Impact = contribution to long-term system transformation

The future of evaluation is not abandoning hindsight. It is combining hindsight, insight, and foresight so evidence can guide action in an uncertain world.

In their writings, Rose Thompson Coon et al. highlight the need to rethink evaluation in order to incorporate a forward-looking, even futuristic, dimension. Indeed, whilst evaluation enables lessons to be learnt, it does not always provide immediate avenues for their operational application once the intervention has ended. Without an in-depth literature review and uptake by other researchers or designers of future projects, the lessons learned from intervention evaluations tend to be forgotten once the interventions have ended. Thus, evaluation reports would benefit from incorporating more in-depth analyses, enabling this forward-looking and future-oriented vision of development to be better taken into account.

It is quite hard to comment on an article that is not fully accessible :-(

Powerful perspective. Moving from hindsight to foresight is exactly where evaluation must evolve using data not just to report, but to anticipate and improve outcomes. This is critical for effective programme design

We can definitely become better at being "forward-looking": understanding likely patterns, more intentional in interrogating likely consequences. But always escaping the temptation to make this "THE plan". Because what matters is having direction and agility, better capacity to see and feel junctures... not a pre-set future. 

The deeper question is: what is evaluation for? If it exists mainly to confirm compliance (i.e. to verify that a plan was executed as designed, that the Theory of Change held....) then adding foresight methods changes nothing. We will simply be anticipating the future in service of the same backward-looking logic and the same set of horizons. Always in "compliance mode." Before we ask how evaluation can get better at anticipating the future, we need to ask a prior question: are we willing to set evaluation free from the obligation to confirm the plan?

The paper offers  one option for evaluating new speculative ventures which are not under control of the public. Using foresight methods instead of past performance can also backfire.

 I recently evaluated blended finance funds, the performance of the funds was not as expected due to a set of factors driven from research on management and business development like know your customer. Our subject experts always tried to developed new scenarios for the future under which the facilities would work better. Foresight tools are applied within the existing evaluation system based on evaluation departments or institutions and methods which in most cases lack hard technical / subject-related  skills and resources improve the evaluation system. Alternatives to the current evaluation system should be explored like participatory process for policy formulation and implementation like stakeholder groups in specific policy areas providing  feedback on specific policies. This way future oriented  reflexive and learning systems are created using feedback loops. Here future programming is  included by stakeholders. Examples are the Brazilian policies for family agriculture or nutrition which are shaped by stakeholder commissions at all levels. 

Evaluation can no longer be content with being a mere act of measurement or a snapshot frozen in time; its true purpose lies in its ability to bring about lasting transformation. By moving beyond its traditional monitoring function to become a lever for change, it acts as a catalyst for self-reflection, compelling stakeholders to confront their practices with the reality of the results. To evaluate without transforming would be like making a diagnosis with no intention of treating the condition, rendering the exercise fruitless and purely bureaucratic. On the contrary, an evaluation focused on progress enables the identification of areas for improvement and sources of innovation, turning mistakes into learning opportunities and judgement into a tool for support.

From an ethical and strategic perspective, this transformative dimension is essential to avoid inertia and ensure the effectiveness of the actions undertaken. In a constantly changing environment, evaluation must serve as a dynamic compass: it does not merely look back to validate achievements, but propels organisations or individuals towards the future by adjusting their trajectories. In short, evaluation only achieves its full value when it becomes an “empowering” process, capable of changing behaviours and optimising systems to deliver real and tangible impact.

I really appreciate the insights shared, especially the focus on adaptive learning and forward-looking evaluation. I would also argue that one critical limitation lies in how evaluation knowledge is produced and communicated. This time, my comment is less focused on methodology and more on offering my perspective in response to your question Steven about what needs to change for evaluation to truly contribute to transformation.

Evaluation reports are often written by evaluators, using technical and methodological language that mainly speaks to other evaluators or technically trained audiences. As a result, these reports tend to be most appealing and useful to those who already understand that language.

What I find interesting is that most projects have communication plans that clearly identify who needs what information, how it should be shared, and why. However, this logic is rarely applied when writing evaluation reports. Different stakeholders have very different needs depending on how they interact with the project, and a single report cannot effectively serve all of them.

To me, evaluation reports should be seen as a starting point, not the final product. The data and findings should serve as inputs into multiple targeted knowledge products, developed by communication experts or sector specialists (health, education, economic development, etc.), that speak directly to specific audiences. These tailored outputs would translate evaluation insights into formats and messages that are relevant and actionable, supporting implementation, positioning, and donor engagement.

In addition, while I understand the rationale behind lean data approaches, they can sometimes be too restrictive. Focusing only on what is needed for indicators or donor requirements may limit opportunities to explore emerging issues or strategic areas more deeply. Sector specialists could play a role here by collecting additional data for learning, positioning, thought leadership, or future programming, as long as there is clear accountability for why that data is being collected and how it will be used. Every question has a cost, but it can also bring real value if it is intentional.

Overall, if evaluation is meant to support transformation, it is not just about improving methods or tools. It is also about making sure that the knowledge we produce is usable, relevant, and accessible to the people who need it. We need to better understand our audiences and what they need.

In African and low-resource health systems, evaluation too often serves as a post-hoc accountability exercise rather than a tool for systemic transformation. From decades of practice in health systems strengthening, the first and most critical shift must occur in mindset - how we perceive the purpose and ownership of evidence. Evaluators and decision-makers frequently operate with a compliance mindset, producing reports that satisfy external donors but fail to capture the nuanced realities on the ground. Recently, in Lagos State, Nigeria, routine monitoring in the maternal health program had focused narrowly on facility births. But, by adopting a learning-oriented approach - examining quality of care, patient experience, and referral patterns, it was uncovered that 42% of women bypassed local clinics due to perceived low-quality services. Targeted staff training and resource reallocation subsequently increased facility-based deliveries by 17% within a year.

Similarly, Community-Led Monitoring in another Nigerian district revealed a 40% barrier from hidden transport costs, despite reports showing 95% patient “satisfaction.” These insights highlight those methods and criteria, however technically sound, that follow effectively only after the mindset evolves to prioritize adaptive, locally-informed learning over extractive reporting.

Evidence from the recent Q1/2026 ‘Life & Health’ dialogues of Afrihealth Optonet Association (AHOA) shows districts using integrated digital platforms and participatory evaluation achieved a 15% rise in immunization coverage - proof that embedding evaluation in real-time problem-solving, not just retrospective reporting, produces tangible health impact.

Sustainability and long-term development hinge on this alignment. Transformative evaluation is not about better spreadsheets or fancier dashboards; it is about decolonizing intent, ensuring data serves local solutions, and fostering a culture of critical inquiry. In constrained African health systems, the mindset shift is the fulcrum upon which all methods, criteria, and institutional reforms pivot toward lasting, systemic change.

If this weeks question is "If evaluation is to contribute to transformation, what exactly must change first…our methods, our criteria, our institutions, our underlying mindset, or something else?" I will repeat my point below...there is a potentially serious misalignment between the predictive nature of a theory of change as used by evaluators and the need for preparedness in a very uncertain world, A singular view of the future versus a plural view of the futures

[By the way, the display structure for this kind of dialogue should be branching, not a single line]

And please lets not toss the word "transformational" around too lightly. Putin and Trump and other despots are all keen on transformation of one kind or another. What about incremental improvements, or perhaps even just surviving, as an objective ? :-) Inflation take many forms, including changes in our vocabulary. e.g In the past we just had "details", but now we have "granularity" Wow....things really are getting better...or are they?

Hello everyone,

I’m delighted to be taking part in this discussion. Having a background in philosophy, I will no doubt be asking questions of a different nature. Steven Lichty asked: “If evaluation is to contribute to transformation, what needs to change first… our methods, our criteria, our institutions, our underlying mindset, or something else?”

I don’t think we should frame the question in this way. Transformation is not a linear process where we move from a first stage to a second, then to a third, and so on. On the contrary, several things happen simultaneously, and where each of us starts depends on ourselves, on what we are evaluating, and on the perceived purpose of the evaluation. In other words, what matters is the feedback loop between the assessment and the people it concerns.

Our team recently assessed a building. It met the requirements for LEED certification. To our surprise, it exceeded the LEED criteria. We incorporated these additional features into our assessment (our method is quite flexible in this regard). We then used this assessment to formulate recommendations for further improvements. Thus, the assessment method included these recommendations, and these led to a conversation about feasibility, implementation, timing, importance, and so on. This conversation, in turn, feeds back into the assessment and the recommendations. The conversation also leads those involved in the assessment to ask themselves in-depth questions about themselves, who they are and what they wish to become within the context of the institution. Thus, criteria, institutions and mindsets all evolve simultaneously through our assessment and feedback process.

When the future is looking more uncertain than ever it may be useful to think about preparedness more than prediction. To enhance preparedness we need to be thinking about mutliple versions of the future, not just one, and these versions need to be sufficiently diverse. Having generated those futures how can we then evaluate them? I would be interested to hear from others what they think might be relevant criteria to apply. To kick off, I suggest the criteria may fall into two broad categories: 1. Cognitive: Criteria relating to how we are thinking about the future, 2: Behavioral: Criteria relating to how repond to those futures before and after they are realised

Is it possible to respond to contributions and pick a conversation? I could not find the option to do so. And starting a new message breaks the flow!