New Page 0

I think what is new about their concept of outcome mapping is the fact that they have recognised that:

· it is more important to achieve changes in behaviours and attitudes of persons- i.e. something where organisations can attribute the change to their intervention/programme. So, it is more important to measure change in who they call “boundary partners”, people you directly work with.

· you cannot attribute or measure easily the long term impacts because the work of many players contributes to it

What is importanti s to identify the “need” of such approaches.

You told me something very relevant about the fact that you are not able to keep track of outcomes because of your system … that you are not able to reward performing teams … you are able to monitor money being spent but … please clarify properly these issues … one will never understand the novelties (supposed or real) unless one does not clarify what was the problem in the old system ….

At IDRC, evaluation is viewed as an integral part of good project and program management. Corporate and program learning and improvement drives evaluation activities, with collegial participation by stakeholders as a key ingredient. IDRC has chosen to use evaluation first as a corporate learning tool, believing this to be the best way to strengthen its accountability function. The following principles, which guide evaluation at IDRC, are embedded in the process of Outcome Mapping and argue for the relevance of evaluation as an integral component of a program's learning system:

·      Evaluation is intended to improve program planning and delivery — It contributes to decision making and strategy formulation at all levels. To increase the likelihood of obtaining useful findings, programs are assessed strategically, based on the client's purpose and information needs.

·      Evaluations are designed to lead to action — To be useful, evaluations need to produce relevant, action-oriented findings. This is fostered by sustained involvement and ownership on the part of the client and stakeholders throughout the process.

·      No single, best, generic evaluation method exists — Each case requires tools and methods appropriate to the data that is to be gathered and analyzed, and appropriate to the client's needs. Credible evaluations interlace quantitative and qualitative data from several sources.

·      Evaluations should enlist the participation of relevant stakeholders — Those affected by the outcome of an evaluation have a right to be involved in the process. Their participation will help them to better understand the evaluation's purpose and process, and will promote stakeholder contribution to, and acceptance of, the evaluation results. This increases the likelihood that evaluation findings will be utilized.

·      Evaluation processes should meet standards for ethical research — Participants in the process should be able to act and share information fully without fear that the information they provide could be used against them at a later time.

·      Monitoring and evaluation planning add value at the design stage of a program — They can make the program more efficient and effective by helping to clarify the results to be achieved. Also, knowing what information will be used will allow people to collect it as it becomes available. This will reduce the amount of financial and human resources required and improve the team's ability to report on, and learn from, its experiences.

·      Evaluation should be an asset for those being evaluated —Evaluation can impose a considerable time and resource burden on recipient institutions. Evaluations should generate information that benefits the recipient institution.

·      Evaluation is both science and art — The art of identifying critical issues to be evaluated, organizing them conceptually, and getting the appropriate people to participate in the collection, interpretation, and utilization of the evaluation information is as important as the systematic collection and analysis of reliable data.

·      Evaluations are a means of negotiating different realities — Evaluations provide opportunities for program stakeholders to reconcile their various perspectives or versions of reality.

·      Evaluations should leave behind an increased capacity to use evaluation findings — Organizations need some level of internal evaluation capacity in order to be able to devise, participate in, or utilize evaluations effectively. Exclusive reliance on external expertise can limit an organization's ability to be clear and specific about its goals and to learn and apply lessons. Specific strategies can be built into evaluations that are aimed explicitly at fostering these organizational characteristics.