Skip to main content
Silva Ferretti

Italy

Silva Ferretti Member since 24/07/2019

Freelance consultant

Silva Ferretti is a freelance consultant with extensive international experience in both development and humanitarian work. She has been working with diverse organizations, committees, networks and consortia (e.g. Agire, ActionAid, CDAC, DEC, ECB project, Handicap International, HAP, Plan International, Save the Children, SPHERE, Unicef, WorldVision amongst many others).

Her work is mainly focused on looking at the quality of programs and on improving their accountability and responsiveness to the needs, capacities and aspirations of the affected populations.

Her work has included impact evaluations / documentation of programs; set up of toolkits, methodologies, standards, frameworks and guidelines; coaching, training and facilitation; field research and assessments.

Within all her work Silva emphasizes participatory approaches and learning. She has a solid academic background, and also collaborated with academic and research institutions in short workshops on a broad range of topics (including: innovations in impact evaluation, Disaster Risk Management, participatory methodologies, protection, communication with affected populations).

She emphasizes innovation in her work, such as the use of visuals and videos in gathering and presenting information.

My contributions

  • Discussion

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

    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 30/03/2026

      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!

      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 25/03/2026

      Thank you for this discussion and for the initial ideas shared!

      As someone who consistently puts "forward-looking evaluation" at the centre of my proposals, I want to offer a provocation.

      The framing here might suggest that what evaluation needs is better foresight tools and more capacity to anticipate the future. I'd like to challenge that, not to dismiss foresight, but to locate the real problem one level up. Because the issue is not technical. It is cultural.

      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?

      Can evaluation be exploration, not verification? That means evaluations that do not just answer questions, but discover better ones, that help people think through the future, not spoon-feed it to them.

      Foresight tools are valuable. I have used them. And when used in a participatory way they can be liberating, revealing that people already carry vision and insights that the very plans they are working on tend to constrain.

      So this is the real issue. It is not "foresight" as a technical fix. It is about the power to adapt, challenge, and explore continuously.... rather than situating evaluation in a world where our assumptions, our theories, our plans are reference points, and not starting ideas.

      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 13/04/2026

      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. 

      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 13/04/2026

      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?

      Read on a separate page
  • Discussion

    Foresight Meets Reality: Using Three Horizons to build a Gender-Responsive, Human Rights-Based, and LNOB Results-Oriented Theory of Change

    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 08/03/2026

      I’m also wary of how easily H1 creeps in through language. Words like “results” or “measurement” are dangerous because they come with a whole logic attached. Maybe we need to experiment with other concepts: unpacking diverse achievements rather than just “checking results”, and talking about how we understand, gauge or sense change – not only how we “measure” it in supposedly objective, quantitative ways. Measurement is not the only, nor necessarily the main, route to accountability – especially in feminist and transformative spaces, where meaning‑making and reciprocity are themselves part of justice.
      So I resonate deeply with your concerns about power and accountability, and I see why you want structure. I feel, instead, that we also need to resist the call to fixed pathways. On this we fully agree: the real value of 3H is precisely to keep those tensions visible so that H3’s transformative intent is not diluted – and, for me, that also means being careful about how far we “design” H3 into a results architecture. 
      I remain interested in seeing where this process leads you! Please keep on sharing!

      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 08/03/2026

      1/2 Thanks so much for sharing this – there is a lot to chew on, and I really see the ambition in re‑imagining the tools. My experience, though, is that H1 has a remarkable capacity to colonise spaces that were meant for change and to re‑domesticate imagination; right now that pull back to “business as usual” feels even stronger than before.
      I totally understand why people want “the plan”. But there is real power, for me, in using the Three Horizons process to hold the tension rather than to fully map the pathway. H2 is a battlefield: a space where we name frictions, contradictions and possibilities and keep them visible, without immediately turning them into a managed trajectory, while still thinking about how we might respond to emerging options as they surface.

      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 08/03/2026

      2/2 Between H1 and H3 there is not a neat sequence of steps but a messy space of competing logics, actors and ideas. In that in‑between space (H2), every innovation can either become “more of the same” (reinforcing H1) or contribute to an alternative. A truly alternative future may require letting go of the idea that all the changes we need are fully measurable and neatly governed in advance through a results framework.
      RBM mostly belongs to Horizon 1. Feminist and transformative spaces require different ways to support change, and a constant awareness of the risk that important ideas and processes like this one (which live in H2, as spaces that shape the future) are captured and domesticated by H1 logics. I am sure that some of this surfaced in your work, and it would be fantastic to see more about the gaps and tensions, rather than mostly the progression

      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 08/03/2026


      1/2 A very useful exercise, and the 3H framework is indeed powerful! Well done for engaging with it!
      I’m not fully convinced, though, that a Theory of Change and measurable results really “belong” in Horizon 3. :-)
      The spirit of Three Horizons is not a gradual improvement trajectory. It helps us see when the world we live in (H1) is intrinsically faulty and calls for a strong shift rather than a better‑managed status quo. H3 is not a “nicer version of today” reached through a linear, incremental pathway. Its role is to name the tension between where we are now and an alternative, desirable future based on different assumptions and a different logic. It is about naming the gap and making the transformation evident, not about designing the pathway.

      Read on a separate page
  • Discussion

    Beyond the final report: What does it take to communicate evaluation well?

    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 24/10/2025

      I would push the bar even higher. Should we really be talking about communicating findings—or about co-generating them? In most evaluations, the richest learning happens not through reports or presentations, but in the moments spent with primary stakeholders: debating, reflecting, and exchanging perspectives.

      It’s less about designing perfect communication plans and more about being alert and opportunistic—recognizing when a conversation, observation, or joint reflection becomes a genuine learning space worth seizing. Those moments are where understanding deepens and ownership grows.

      We often assume that communication happens through formal products, but the people who can truly drive change are usually not the ones reading reports. They are the ones living the realities we’re trying to understand. That’s where communication—and learning—need to start and stay.

      Read on a separate page
  • Discussion

    Evaluability Assessments: An invitation to reflect and discuss

    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 22/08/2024

      Standing ovation, Musa. I completely agree with you.

      Most projects today are already highly structured, incorporating all the elements you mentioned—to the point of straitjacketing them (but that’s a debate for another day!). 

      If substantial issues are still emerging despite these significant M&E investments, perhaps we need to re-evaluate our management and M&E approaches rather than introducing yet another external process.

      Let me reiterate my point: resources spent on evaluability processes - that merely uncover gaps, which should already be apparent - are not the most effective use of our limited evaluation resources. A better investment would be in strengthening organizational capacity and localizing evaluative efforts, rather than continuously paying external consultants.

      Or, instead of perpetually investing in processes that cage us further within the same frameworks we might use resources to ensure evaluations and evaluative processes are tailored, meaningful, and localized—not just 'cut and paste' exercises recycling the same ToRs over and over.

      ---

      BONUS POINT: an Artificial Intelligence (AI) driven twist: 

      I asked AI to take the stance of a proponent of evaluability assessment and critique my response. You know what? I do see the points in the AI generated response and I am aware that proponents are motivated by strong and genuine aspirations. However, I also see how aspirational they are. The reality, as it also surfaced from some posts in this conversation, is that evaluability assessment risks becoming yet another layer of bureaucracy or narrow checks rather than the transformative tool it aspires to. And it is likely to involve short-term stunts by external consultants. The investment in engagement, capacity, and support that this aspirational approach would entail is likely not to be there: if projects are not evaluable it is not often a quick fix that would make it so.  Call me pessimistic but I remain skeptical. And I have plenty of ideas about where money could be spent instead.

      [Below the AI response to my request mentioned above] 

      "While I appreciate the concerns raised about the potential redundancy of Evaluability Assessments (EA) in well-structured projects, I believe it's important to consider the unique value that EA brings to the table—beyond merely filling gaps in existing M&E frameworks.

      First, EA serves as more than just a checklist or audit of what should already be in place; it provides an opportunity to rigorously test the logic and feasibility of a project before significant resources are expended. Even with a sound logframe and M&E framework, projects can sometimes miss critical assumptions or overlook potential risks that only become apparent through a dedicated evaluability process. EA offers a safeguard, ensuring that projects are genuinely ready for evaluation and that the data collected will be meaningful and actionable.

      Moreover, while it's true that most projects today are highly structured, the complexity and scale of many interventions mean that gaps can still emerge despite the best-laid plans. EA allows for a focused examination of these potential gaps, offering a proactive approach to problem-solving rather than waiting for issues to arise during the evaluation phase. This proactive stance can ultimately save time and resources by identifying and addressing issues early on, rather than scrambling to fix them after the fact.

      Regarding the investment in external consultants, it’s worth noting that EA can also be localized and integrated into the existing capacities of organizations. Rather than viewing EA as an additional, external process, it can be an opportunity to build internal capacity and foster a culture of continuous improvement. By embedding evaluability within the organization, we not only reduce reliance on external consultants but also ensure that evaluations are tailored, nuanced, and truly reflective of the project's context.

      In conclusion, while strengthening M&E systems is undoubtedly important, EA should not be dismissed as redundant or unnecessary. Instead, it should be seen as a strategic investment in ensuring that evaluations are effective, relevant, and capable of delivering real insights that drive better outcomes."

      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 20/08/2024

      Hello again...

      is evaluability really about checking
      "can managerial requirements be satisfied" or rather about
      "Understanding what evaluation approach suits the project and its context"?
      I see this tendency of using evaluability as a top-down assessment
      surfacing over and over- 

      further narrowing the scope of the evaluation rather than expanding it.

      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 04/08/2024

      I agree with you [Rick Davies contribution below] on many things, and yes, it's key to have a reality check on what an evaluation should and can do.

      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
      I am with you on this. And too many evaluations go on autopilot (i.e. cut and paste a template with small adaptations at the end of the project). I definitely welcome evaluability as an opportunity to broaden possibilities, such as suggesting real-time evaluations, promoting participatory approaches, or highlighting important questions that need to be addressed or priorities to address. But let's be realistic: most evaluability documents I saw check if the programme had collected preset indicators on an agreed log frame/theory of change and demand to check which OECD⁄DAC criteria can be evaluated. The Austrian Development Agency has interesting points on the utility of the evaluation as perceived by different stakeholders - but the annexe is then missing :-( (is this still a working document?)  
      I dream as an evaluability document that provides a catalogue of possibilities rather than narrowing to conventional approaches. They should suggest that a developmental evaluation is possible, for example, rather than asking for preset theories of change. Otherwise, evaluability will stifle rather than promote innovation.
       
      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 these circumstances. 
      But It would be equally extreme to argue the other way, that the state of design and data availability has no relevance 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
      Of course, we should spend evaluation resources wisely. And, of course, a good evaluability assessment can result in more efficient evaluations (and many evaluation managers are already good at doing that)
      Thinking about cost-effectiveness.... can we really justify spending a lot of money to understand only if a programme can be evaluated without providing any additional learning? I am not discarding this, and yes, it can be useful.
      But, for suitable programmes, it is possible to have a phased evaluation where the first phase assesses the programme and provides some preliminary learning while understanding the best options for the next phases. Of course, you need an evaluator / a team conversant with different methodologies, adaptable, and close to management, but it is very possible to do that. A phased evaluation will not always be suitable, but it is a real possibility that can be overshadowed by conventional evaluability approaches.
       
      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
       
      As I wrote before, the checklist confirms a very conventional understanding of a programme. I reiterate here that I worked on programs that did not have a log frame, or set indicators and baselines (think, for example, about evolving models of work), and where the evaluation helped to systematize approaches. Such programs would simply not have passed the proposed checklists. And to what extent they could have reached important stakeholders that were only identified through snowballing.  Yes. I am referring to special cases, as I tend to work more grassroots and on innovative projects. But these are the ones most at risk of remaining under the radar with a conventional understanding of evaluability.
       
      So I see how evaluability as it is can work for large, relatively standardized projects. But as it is now, it still falls short to become a possibility for novel approaches and for liberating ideas and possibilities, which our sector badly needs.
       
      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 29/07/2024

      The issue I have with "evaluability" is that all programs can (and should) be evaluated.

      Some programs lend themselves to more "rigorous" and mainstream approaches, while others, due to their inherent complexity, require different methodologies.

      These alternative approaches can help build an understanding of dynamics that did not previously exist... which is a GOOD thing. Not all programs need to be preformatted. This can be especially beneficial for participatory and innovative/adaptive programs that need to determine the best way forward as they progress.

      It is crucial that we do not use evaluability as another brick in the wall for making evaluations just about compliance with results or a cheaper process of standard research applied to arbitrary theories of change.
      Instead, we should reclaim evaluation as an opportunity to assess changes in ways that are coherent with the program's intent and context. So the question is not "Can the program be evaluated with a standard toolbox" (which is what evaluability risks becoming) but rather "What evaluative approach is best suited to this context."

      When I read, "*Some project designs are manifestly unevaluable, and some M&E frameworks are manifestly inadequate at first glance. In these circumstances, an Evaluability Assessment would not be needed to decide whether to go ahead with an evaluation. Efforts need to focus on the more immediate tasks of improving project design and/or the M&E framework*."(https://www.betterevaluation.org/methods-approaches/themes/evaluability-assessment)
      I really want to cry....

      We are confusing the project documentation with the reality of the work. In my experience, many projects had sketchy logograms or theories of change, yet were terrific. The evaluation helped systematize them and unpack learning and value. If we keep looking only at what is preformatted, we miss the chance of real transformation.

      Read on a separate page
  • Discussion

    How are development projects affecting the environment and how do we evaluate this impact?

    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 17/04/2024

      Hello Yosi, thanks for this very important question! 

      I am collecting some tips on including environmental issues in evaluation. This is one of them. Hopefully, I will share more.

      See, a "thinking environment" is a mindset. 

      The moment we take a more ecosystemic perspective, we will immediately realize the limitations of our approaches. 

      But we also discover that simple things - as an extra question - can go a long way.  :-)

      cartoon on evaluation tips by Silva Ferretti
      Read on a separate page
  • Discussion

    Can visual tools help evaluators communicate and engage better?

    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 17/07/2023

      Thanks Harriet for sharing all these tools. Really useful!

      However...  a friendly warning. 
      Using visuals is not just about tools. Visuals are an attitude; they are languages with rules and challenges.
      Just as having access to "Word" (and other word processors) does not guarantee you can write effectively, using visual tools does not ensure good visual communication.

      Unfortunately, in our world, visuals are just an add-on. 
      Writing is the default; then, we can add a cute visual.
      And in many cases, such visuals are bad, possibly harmful.

      I remember pointing out to some colleagues that their visuals had challenges and that they could be misinterpreted.
      And they just shrugged their shoulders, not seeing the issue.
      "It is just a graph; why do you worry so much about petty details?"
      These colleagues would be anal about a wrong comma in their text, yet they shared visuals contradicting their messages without caring, without even seeing the point.

      So... by all means, try to become conversant with visuals.
      But take the time to learn the language, ask for feedback, and be humble.
      We do need more languages - beyond the written one - in evaluation.
      But there is a vicious cycle: because now the written word is predominant, experts and practitioners are predominantly "writers and readers" and might resist other languages.
      Visuals are cute, but what matters is a written report. So it is predominantly writing people that will be enrolled.
      This is a major issue, blocking appropriation by people with different communication preferences and leading to ineffectively sharing messages that would be better shared visually, theatrically, or in other languages.

      And, if you think that "nice, but if it is not written in words, it is not reliable, credible, acceptable..."  you are part of the problem! :-)

      So... be inspired by the great tools and resources shared by Harried (thanks!), and explore visuals. But do remember that they are not an add-on.

      They are a needed language to master but challenging to use well! :-)

       

      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 05/07/2023

      great point Ram… may i just suggest that mechanical evaluations serve mechanical compliance, and not accountability? (especially if we aspire to be accountable to the primary stakeholders… and to mindful donors)

      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 05/07/2023

      Evaluations are not "written reports".

      Evaluations are processes to understand if, how, and to what extent the programme produces change (expected and unexpected).

      If you embrace this view, then communication is clearly at the core of it: to communicate purpose, to elicit ideas, and to formulate and share findings.

      Unfortunately, evaluators are most often conversant with written words and not with other forms of communication.

      This greatly limits engaging stakeholders and sharing findings, as other people might prefer other communication methods.

      In my experience, just about anything works better than reports: cartoons, graphs, infographics, theatre, music, multimedia, etc.

      (yes, I tried them all. and they were welcomed by all sorts of stakeholders, including donors)

      Evaluators should not just think "report". They should think about the best combination of different ways of communicating.

      Illiterate people can perfectly understand visuals - if visuals are properly set -

      Participatory toolboxes contain ideas for showing and discussing percentages through visual aids.

      Definitely, they are more likely to understand visuals rather than reports written in English...

      Of course, if we understand "visuals" only as Excel graphs, we miss a whole world of possibilities.

      And visuals cannot be improvised: as there is a grammar to write words, there is also grammar and a style to produce visuals.

      Even looking at the specifics of data charts, there are whole books on data visualizations, offering examples (and also highlighting potential challenges for miscommunications).  A simple visual can go a long way. But a good visual is not simple to do.

      Definitely, let's go beyond the written word. But let's remember that this cannot be improvised.

       

       

       

      Read on a separate page
  • Discussion

    Reporting evaluation results or communicating evaluation results?

    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 05/05/2023

      Very important discussion. It is, however, constrained by a narrow understanding of evaluation: a conventional consultancy. Sticking to this format - i.e.  accepting as a starting point that evaluation is mostly about putting some recommendation in a report - limits possibilities and innovation.

      We should reframe evaluation as a set of thinking processes and practices allowing programme stakeholders to gauge the merit, the achievements, and the learning from a programme. Consultants might have diverse roles within it (and might not even be necessary). The possibilities are endless. If evaluations are designed with users, use, participation in mind, the entire approach to communication and involvement changes from the start.

      It is very unfortunate that we keep on sticking with conventional, routine evaluations and never consider the cost opportunity of missing out on more interesting options. This message goes in the right direction, indicating the urge to shift from reporting to communication. But if we stick to conventional evaluation formats, we might make minor improvements but always miss out on the potential of evaluations, in the broader sense.

      Read on a separate page
  • Discussion

    “Here we go again” - A lack of learning in the monitoring and evaluation of agriculture projects

    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 16/03/2023

      Thanks so much for this post. On top of what you say, to have significant data, each small farmer should have exact data about their production - considering crop variety, quality and current market prices. Getting this data and the systems needed to collect them is a work in itself, requiring technical capacities, discipline, and tools. To do this properly, we should transform each small farmer or extension worker into a mini data collection and management officer, and more is needed (what about crop diseases, type of soil, the workforce in the family, and weather - just to mention a few?).

      The sad part of M&E now is how we impose the burden of (irrelevant) measures on beneficiaries, local actors, and small intermediaries. And to a level, we do not ask ourselves. All this for nothing of a practical impact on change. One day someone should denounce the opportunity cost and the distortion caused by asking for irrelevant metrics just because we need an indicator to put in the log frame.

      Also, we are confusing M&E with research. So we have irrelevant M&E for decision-making. And poor attempts at getting data and evidence, which should be done with other means, competencies resources to be useful and credible.

       

      Read on a separate page
  • Blog

    Evaluators are interpreters. What about ChatGPT?

    Evaluators are interpreters. Conversations with real people, at the grassroots, happen in simple, everyday language. Evaluators translate them into the jargon used in development talks and reports (where people are “empowered”, “aware”, “mobilized”, “create platforms” or “demand their rights”), to make them more fit for analysis and sharing. When I started using videos in my work – capturing soundbites from these conversations – I discovered how development and humanitarian professionals, with little exposure to the grassroots (and too often used to the lingo), may be deceived by the...
    Read more
  • Discussion

    The pervasive power of western evaluation culture: how and in what ways do you wrestle with ensuring evaluation is culturally appropriate and beneficial to those who legitimise development aid?

    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 04/10/2022

      If we accept that evaluation means "results, indicators" we might have killed the possibility of cultural appropriation from the start.

      "Evaluation" means different things for different people. Making it equate to  "documenting results and indicators" undermines many other alternatives.

      As in feminist evaluation (which is not only about "gender" but about rethinking approaches to make them intersectionally inclusive), we should question what an evaluation is for, what ways of seeing change it embraces. Beyond results there are processes, principles, worldviews. The moment you are discussing with local actors: "what matters for you in looking at change?" you are already working to make it culturally appropriate. If it is just about "defining indicators", sorry but this is a non-starter.

      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 01/10/2022

      Hello...

      again I am not really adding here a practical lesson, sorry...

      but I just found quoted this recent paper by USAID, which might be of interest to the people following this thread.

      https://usaidlearninglab.org/resources/report-integrating-local-knowledge-development-practice

      USAID’s Agency Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning (KMOL) function in the Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning, Office of Learning, Evaluation and Research (PPL/LER) facilitated conversations with development practitioners to learn how development organizations are integrating local knowledge into their programs. The report explores three aspects of this topic: Leveraging Best Practices, Addressing Challenges, and Achieving Best Outcomes.

      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 23/09/2022

      I just accessed an interesting article / website, highlighting characteristics of a white supremacy culture.

      Evaluators do risk to - willingly or unwillingly - to embrace them.

      (and the sector really pushes us to do so).

      So... these are not lessons or experiences.

      But a useful checklist to break the issue down and harvest practices.

      image

      The article is on:

      https://www.whitesupremacyculture.info/

      And I found it mentioned here

      https://aidnography.blogspot.com/2022/09/development-ict4d-digital-communication-academia-link-review-455.html

       

      Read on a separate page
  • Discussion

    Do you have examples on reviewing Theories of Change?

    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 26/06/2022

      My two cents.

      When a "theory of change" (as illustrated in the manual) looks like this - with arrows going in the same direction,  and with a linear outline (IF... THEN),  it is just a logframe in disguise.

      logframe

      A proper "theory of change", fit for complex setups, will have arrows going in many diverse directions, interlinking ideas in ways that are hard to disentangle.

      It is messier, harder to navigate, but... ehy! This is what reality most often looks like.  (this is the "obesity map", in case you wonder)

      TOC

      There is a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE amongst the two.

      You cannot really approach them in the same way and with the same thinking.

      This should be the starting point of any analysis!

      Once you understand if you are dealing with a linear or complex theory of change, then you need to remember

      • In some cases linear thinking has a reason to be.
      • when addressing social change, most often not.

       

      I feel that it is quite unfortunate that the "theory of change" idea - born to appreciate complexity, ended up just being a different way to picture logframe thinking.

      At least we should be able to distinguish what is a logframe on steroids and what is appreciating complexity, and move on from there.

      Read on a separate page
  • Discussion

    Neutrality-impartiality-independence. At which stage of the evaluation is each concept important?  

    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 11/02/2022

      I really enjoyed reading the note and seeing how carefully it was written, taking into consideration all views.

      It is useful to see where the discussion is at. But the subject, "closing remarks" is a bit off-putting.  :-)

      As Malika says, it is more useful to keep the discussion open.

       

      There is an assumption whereby evaluations need to impartial and neutral (and that the evaluator is a guardian of this),

      a tendency to equate evaluations with research (even research cannot always be impartial!):

      The underlying understanding of evaluation is: a product generated by an expert who selects the perfect sample and gets to scientific conclusions.

      Is this really what an evaluation should look like and be?

      Shouldn't an evaluation rather be an opportunity to apply evaluative thinking about a programme?

      An opportunity where different people, with different worldviews get to understand better where a programme is at, what possibilities are ahead, what can be learned?

      I really feel strongly about this: we are presenting ALL evaluations as if they need to be "scientific products", originated by experts, capable of being impartial and wise.

      Some evaluation (or better, some research) might well have this focus.

      But assuming that this should always be the goal for evaluation in general is very problematic.

      Participatory evaluations, for example, are not at all about creating one impartial view.

      They are about the perspectives of diverse people together, to make sense of a situation.

      They might not even get at shared / agreed findings, yet they can be incredibly powerful in injecting needed critical thinking about action.

      The evaluator is not always the scientific expert... s/he can be the facilitator.

      Certainly s/he then needs to think about inclusion, representation, and be very aware of the relationships, position, and power of stakeholders.

      But inclusion, representation are fundamentally different concepts from neutrality / impartiality / independence (which should also not be mixed in the same bag).

      It is about being aware (as much as possible) and honest about what are the dynamics at play, about the choices made...

      rather than pretending that we can achieve objectivity.

      Many of my evaluations, for example, are not neutral BY CHOICE.

      I strive to give more voice to the people who are usually less represented.

      I talk to more women, to more outcasts, to more people with special challenges.

      Yet I truly think that this open choice of being biased, is much more useful than an attempt to neutrality and impartiality.

      With the limited time and resources of an evaluation, which voices are worth listening to, which conversations are worth having?

      Being aware and open of what are our choices is more powerful and honest than pretending we can be unbiased. :-) (and if the point is to have scientific evidence, then let's embark in research... which is something else)

      Thanks again for sharing interesting points so far, and for facilitating the discussion.

      I hope that this interesting discussion can continue.

       

      Best

      SIlva

       

       

       

       

       

      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 04/02/2022

      Accountability is much more than reporting on a work plan (which is, unfortunately, how it is often portrayed).

      Accountability means that we make explicit or implicit promises to other people and groups (in the case of development / humanitarian projects, to MANY other people with different perspectives and priorities) .We are responsible to account for these promises. That means: to make the promises happen - when possible and useful...  but also to change, improve, evolve our promises as needed, *always respecting the bond underpinning these promises*. What matters for accountability is the *relation*.

      Things, conditions can change. But people are accountable to each other when they keep each other informed of changes, and when they set up strong processes for negotiating the way forward for keeping the promise alive and relevant. And possibly, to improve it.

      If you have this view of accountability, learning is clearly part of it.

      Learning is what improves the promise, and what improves the trust needed to negotiate promises and conditions of accountability.

      Of course we always need to remember that this happens in messy situations, and we are often accountable, as mentioned, to diverse people, with different interests. We might be accountable to many people. But what does accountability really matter to us? The interests of the donors are not always, for example, the interests of the marginalized people we are supposed to serve... or the interests of future generations...

      When we stick to accountability as "sticking to results" we are missing the point.

      And often, rather than accountability, we have bureaucratic control.

      To get back to the question that started the debate, accountability itself is not a neutral word.

      Who we chose to be accountable to has deep consequences on how we act and look at change.

      It is really important to be aware of it, rather than thinking that a larger sample will solve the issue.

      And even the humanitarian discourse is becoming aware of this and reframing the understanding of neutrality...

       

      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 29/01/2022

      Is it really useful to pretent that we can be neutral and impartial?

      Or is it more useful that we are all inherently biased (and that our approaches are)... and it is then better to be open and aware about it, and about the limitations inherent to all our approaches?

      Thinking that we can have the "perfect" information, in contexts that are complex and messy is probably just wishful thinking.... :-)

       

      Read on a separate page
  • Discussion

    Are you considering social and environmental criteria in your evaluations?

    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 07/12/2021

      Isha, you mention that "We, as evaluators, are obliged to execute the TORs duly"

      My take is that, as evaluators, we should also question the TORs and negotiate them!

      One of the main contribution we can offer is to propose alternatives ways to look at change, beyond the "cut and paste" TORs that are offered to us.

      Some organizations and evaluation managers are actually quite open to this.

      Others are not.... and, if it is the case, well... their problem.

      I certainly would not want to work on an evaluation that I feel is missing the point from the start. :-)

       

      See, as cyclo-activists say about car drivers... "you are not IN traffic, you ARE traffic".

      As consultants, we do have a duty to resist TORs which we know are constraining learning and quality of work.

       

      Another point... I was surprised by how the question was presented to us.

      The question says "Major agencies and the UN in particular are considering how to integrate environmental and social impacts in their evaluations"

      "Are considering"? Now... environmental concerns are (unfortunately) relatively new... but social ones, are they really?

      We had all sort of cross cutting themes for ages (gender, disability and the like...).

      I am really scared by how the "triple nexus" (a glorified take of the relief / development continuum - discussed for the past 2 decades) and "social impacts" are presented as if they were a new thing, requiring starting with a blank slate.

      It would be healthier to highlight that these concerns are not at all new, otherwise we just risk going around in circles.

      Best to all

      Silva

      Read on a separate page
  • Discussion

    Reporting and supporting evaluation use and influence

    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 16/09/2021

      Hello

      I practice humility by asking myself a different question:

      If people who have been working on an issue for a long time, with a much better understanding of the context did not find a good solution... how could I, an external evaluator, do so?

      As an evaluator I cannot certainly find solutions but i can - with a facilitative and not an expert approach:

      * help to find "missing pieces" of the puzzle, by bringing, in the same place, the views and ideas of different actors.

      * help articulating and systematizing reality better, so that people can have a better map on which to find solutions

      * capture ideas, lessons that too often are implicit and that - if shared - can help changing the way of working

      * share some ideas about things that I had seen working elsewhere (but, watchout, I would always do this in the evidence gathering phase, as a way to get feedback on these "conversation starters". and people often find quickly a lot of things to be checked and improved)

      * create spaces, within the process, for people to be exposed and react to evidence, as it is shared

      * identify what seem to be the priority concerns to address - linking them to challenges, opportunities, possibilities surfaced.

      This is not research. And these are not solutions.

      There is a whole world of things amongst "problems" and "solutions"... it includes learnings, possibilities, systematized evidence.

      And I see people really interesting and willing to engage with these... Much more than when I used to preach some simple solutions to them. :-)

       

      Also, an evaluation does not always highlight "problems". There are often so many solutions that are just left hidden.

      And evaluations have also a role in finding these and to help valuing the work done, and the many challenges solved, which should never just be given for granted.

      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 12/09/2021

      Clarity... of course, absolutely! Elevator pitch... yes and no.

       

      An elevator pitch is very useful as an entry point.

      But there should then be a recognition that the purpose of a good evaluation is to unveil the complexity of reality (without being complicated).

      It can give new elements and ideas, but not the solution.

      The elevator pitch is the entry point, it highlights main areas to be addressed, and it can certainly outline some pressure points.

      But I am not so sure that we can always offer a crisp idea of possible solutions.

      As they say, "for each problem there is always a simple solution. And it is wrong".

       

      Solutions are to be found, as Bob so well said - beyond the evaluation.

      (or within it only if it is a participatory one, where key local actors are truly engaging in formulating findings, and truly own the process)

       

      So the tools and messages we need are not just the elevator pitches, but these helping to convey and navigate complexity in simpler, actionable ways.

       

      Being aware that it is not for the evaluator to hammer messages, but for the project stakeholders to own them.

      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 08/09/2021

      Great take-away...

      One point to stress.

      Going beyond the report does not mean "make a visual report".

      A visual report is nicer, but still a report.

      "Going beyond the report" means to consider the evaluation as a process that does not end just one product - being visual or not.

      Communication of findings, sharing of ideas need to happen throughout, in many forms.

      A good evaluation does not need to be a "report".

      I advocate for strategies, options for sharing ideas and findings with different audiences, throughout.

      Which might NOT include a report. Report writing is extremely time consuming, and takes away a big % of evaluation time.

      Is it the best investment? Is it needed? We are so used to think that an evaluation is a report that we do not question it.

      Also... beside real time evaluations there is "real-time information sharing".

      This is something too little explored. Yet it can create big changes in the way evaluation happens.

      It is about sharing preliminary ideas, evidence, so that people involved in the evaluation can contribute to shape findings.

      Again: we are so used to think that we share the "end products" that the possibilities of real-time information sharing are not really understood...

      Thanks again for the great summary, it really help to step up discussion and to generate new ideas

      (and, you know what? It is a good example of "real-time information sharing" of new ideas! :-)

      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 03/09/2021

      Oh, well done!

      Great to see that there is some recognition of the value of pictures and visuals.
      The materials you shared are really helpful and inspirational, thanks.

      Now... as someone who thinks visually and in pictures I consistently tried to sum up findings in a more visual way.
      Graphics, drawings, multimeria are seen as "nice" and cool. Everyone likes them and feel they are useful.

      But, guess what? I then have to produce a normal report, because this is what donors want.
      So, visuals are to be done as an aside. Of course, for free.

      Time for reporting is already usually not enough in a consultancy, so if you want to prove that visuals or other media are better, you basically need to work for free.
      Because, at the end of the day, you will still have to write the proper report.

      The bottom line?

      Until evaluations will be mainly perceived as bureaucratic requirements and reports...we will miss out on fantastic possibilities to learn better.
      And also, to involve people who might have fantastic learning, analytical, communication skills, but who are not report writers.
      It is so unfortunate that we assume that "report writing" alone is the best way to capture and convey evidence and insights...

      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 02/09/2021

      Is there any chance that we could stop thinking that an evaluation is... a report?

      So many possibilities would be unlocked.

      Read on a separate page
  • Discussion

    How useful are theories of change in development programmes and projects?

    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 06/02/2020

      What strikes me is that we all discuss ToCs as if they were "a thing"....

      Talking about a "logframe" is easy: there is standard format to it. 

      It might be slightly adapted, but it is quite clear what it is, how it looks like, how it works.

      The same is not true for ToCs.  What a ToC is can be vastly different.

      I feel we might all use the same word, but having something vastly different in mind...

      Best

      Silva

      Read on a separate page
    • Silva Ferretti

      Italy

      Silva Ferretti

      Freelance consultant

      Posted on 29/01/2020

      It depends on what is a Theory of Change, and how it has been generated/shared.

      If it remains the same as a big logframe, hidden in some proposals... it does not add much value.

      If it is co-generated and owned... possibly EMERGING from the process of change, then it is an added value.

      As an evaluator, I see that staff on the ground welcome discussions at theory of change level when they help to systematize experience.

      But they might be clueless and confused by TOCs as proposal annexes.

      So, if the Theory of Change is just bureaucracy it is actually a complication.

      If it is a process of systematizing experience, owned by these involved in making change, it is super useful.

      Unfortunately, the latter are very rare.

      Read on a separate page