I am a Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) expert with over 15 years of related work experience gained in international and national Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Governments in East and West Africa. My MEL experience has been in the roles of management, advisory, consultancy, and volunteerism.
Posted on 09/10/2023
Dear Jean and colleagues.
Thanks for clarifying that the discussion is not only limited to programs but also includes projects or any humanitarian or development intervention. Very informative and rich discussion. I am learning a lot in the process!
When I say "when something is too complicated or complex, simplicity is the best strategy" in the context of Evaluations, I mean we do not need to use an array of, or several methodologies and data sources for an evaluation to be complexity-aware. We can keep the data, both quantitative and qualitative lean and focused on the evaluation objectives and questions. For example, use of complexity-aware evaluation approaches such as Outcome Harvesting, Process Tracing, Contribution Analysis, Social Network Analysis e.t.c does not necessarily mean several quant and qual data collection methods have to be applied. For example, in OH, you can use document review and KII to develop outcome descriptors then do a survey and KII during substantiation. I have used SNA and KII to evaluate change in relationships among actors in a market system. I have used SNA followed by indepth interviews in a social impact study of a rural youth entrepreneurship development program. In essence, you can keep the data collection methods to three ( The three legged stool or the triangle concept) and still achieve your evaluation objectives with lean and sharp data. A lot has been written on overcoming complexity with simplicity in different spheres of life, management, leadership e.t.c.
On the issue of who decides on the methodology, evaluator or program team? From my experience, a MEL plan is very clear on the measurements and evaluation methods. And, MEL plans are developed by the program team. Evaluators are asked to propose an evaluation methodology in the technical proposals to serve two purposes - that is to assess their technical competence and to identify the best fit with the evaluation plan. Topically, the evaluator and program team will consultatively agree on the best fit methodology during inception phase of the evaluation and this forms part of the inception report which is normally signed off by the program team.
My thoughts.
Gordon
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