i have more than five years field experiences
Posted on 12/12/2025
Advanced Message for the Global Impact Evaluation Forum 2025
Colleagues, partners,
Our goal is to create alliances for successful action. This necessitates a fundamental change: integrating impact evaluation (IE) as a strategic compass for real-time navigation instead of viewing it as a recurring audit of the past.
- Linking Evidence and Action: From Feedback Loops to Reports
Better feedback systems, not better reports, will increase the connection between evaluation and decision-making. Three procedures need to be institutionalized by the UN and its partners:
- Light-touch, embedded IE units: Within programmatic arms, such as humanitarian clusters or nation platforms, small, committed teams use predictive analytics and quick mixed methods to evaluate hypotheses during implementation rather than after.
- Decision-Based Costing: requiring a specific, significant budget line for adaptive management and real-time evidence gathering in every significant program proposal. As a result, evidence becomes an essential part of the program rather than an afterthought.
- Leadership Dashboards: Going beyond narrative reports, these dynamic, data-visualization tools allow executives to view the "vital signs" of a portfolio and make course corrections by comparing key impact indicators versus theory-of-change milestones.
- Localizing Evidence: Inverting the Credibility Hierarchy
The implicit hierarchy that favors exterior "rigor" over local relevance must be dismantled in order to represent local goals and contexts.
- Co-Design from Inception: Local stakeholders, including governments, community leaders, and CSOs, must collaborate to create the assessment questions and define "impact" in their particular context. This is shared ownership, not consultation.
- Make Local Analytical Ecosystem Investments: Funding and collaborating with regional institutions, think tanks, and data science collectives is the most sustainable approach to localizing evidence. This preserves intellectual capital domestically, increases capacity, and guarantees language and cultural nuance.
- Adopt Pluralistic Approaches: RCTs are important, but we also need to give systems mapping, participatory action research, and qualitative approaches with a cultural foundation equal weight. The "gold standard" is the one that provides the most urgent local solution.
- Encouraging UN Reform: A Group "Evidence Compact"
By functioning as a cohesive, system-wide profession, the impact evaluation community can serve as the catalyst for coherence and cost-effectiveness.
- Standardization is not the same as common standards: Create a UN System-wide "Evidence Compact"—a concise consensus on shared platforms for meta-analysis and principles (such as open data, ethics, and quality thresholds). By doing this, we can compare what works across sectors and eliminates repetition.
- Pooled Evaluation Funds: We should establish pooled funds at the regional or thematic level rather than having each agency commission tiny, dispersed studies. Larger, more strategic, cross-mandate assessments that address intricate, system-wide issues like social protection or climate adaptation are made possible by this.
- A "What Works" Knowledge Platform: A single, easily available, and well-curated digital platform that links findings from UNICEF's education RCTs, UNDP's governance evaluations, UNHCR's protection analysis, and WFP's food security research. In doing so, agency-specific evidence becomes a public good of the UN.
- Linking Evidence Throughout the Nexus: Make the Intersections Mandatory
The goal of alignment in humanitarian, development, and peace efforts is to require careful investigation at their intersections rather than to harmonize objectives at their core.
Support and Assess "Triple Nexus" Pilots: Impact evaluations that expressly target initiatives that aim to bridge two or all three pillars must be jointly designed and funded by agencies. The main inquiry is: "Do integrated approaches yield greater sustainability and resilience impact than sequential or parallel efforts?"
Establish Nexus IE Fellowships: Impact evaluation experts should be rotated throughout UN agencies (for example, from FAO to OCHA to DPPA). This creates a group of experts who are proficient in several mandate "languages" and capable of creating assessments that track results along the peace, development, and humanitarian spectrum.
- Adopt a Resilience Lens: Focus evaluation questions on enhancing system and community resilience. This offers a unifying paradigm that is pertinent to peacebuilders (social cohesiveness), development actors (chronic vulnerability), and humanitarian responders (shock absorption).
To sum up, creating evidence partnerships for successful action involves creating a networked learning system. It necessitates changing our investments from isolated research to networked learning infrastructures, from hiring experts to expanding local ecosystems, and from directing group adaptation for common objectives to proving attribution for individual projects.
Instead of calling for additional evidence, let's end this discussion with a pledge to create the channels, platforms, and collaborations necessary to provide the appropriate evidence to decision-makers—from UN country teams to community councils—in a timely manner.
I'm grateful.
Ethiopia
Hailu Negu Bedhane
cementing engineer
Ethiopian electric power
Posted on 24/04/2026
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:
This disconnect has tangible implications. For instance:
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:
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:
Illustrative Examples
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
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:
Application of Foresight
Foresight methodologies can support:
Illustrative Example
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:
Implications for Evaluation Criteria
Applying a foresight perspective reshapes traditional evaluation dimensions:
Moves beyond alignment with past needs toward alignment with anticipated future risks and opportunities
Extends beyond continuity after funding to include resilience under future shocks and uncertainties
Expands from measuring output delivery to assessing adaptability and responsiveness to change
Illustrative Example
In a food processing facility:
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
2. Scenario Planning
Development of multiple plausible future scenarios, such as:
3. Three Horizons Framework
4. Causal Layered Analysis
Multi-level examination of challenges:
Regional Application Areas
Foresight-informed evaluation can be applied to:
Discussion Objectives (Contextualized)
Guiding Questions (East Africa Focus)
Conclusion
Within East Africa, integrating foresight into evaluation is no longer optional—it is a practical necessity.
In sectors defined by uncertainty:
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.
Ethiopia
Hailu Negu Bedhane
cementing engineer
Ethiopian electric power
Posted on 24/04/2026
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:
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:
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:
]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:
However, a future-informed approach would:
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:
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:
A foresight-driven evaluation approach would enable:
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:
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:
Manufacturing (HDPE Pipe Production)
Instead of relying on final product inspection, organizations should:
Food Sector (Agro-Processing and Supply Chain)
Instead of reacting to:
Organizations should:
Result:
7. Strategic Imperatives for Ethiopia
To advance toward future-informed evaluation, the following priorities are essential:
Transition to integrated, real-time data platforms across manufacturing, energy, and food systems
Equip professionals with skills in data interpretation, forecasting, and risk modeling
Ensure evaluation findings directly inform strategic and operational decisions
Encourage openness, accountability, and continuous improvement
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.