|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Process Use of EvaluationsTypes of Use that Precede Lessons Learned and Feedback
Kim Forss
Andante - Tools for Thinking, Sweden, kim.forss{at}mailbox.swipnet.se
Claus C. Rebien
COWI Ltd, Denmark, ccr{at}cowi.dk
Jerker Carlsson
Among practitioners, it is often said that there is much that is useful that takes place during the evaluation process. The literature on the utilization of evaluation, however, mostly refers to lessons learned and recommendations implemented after the evaluation. This article seeks to contribute to the debate by exploring further the process use of evaluations — the evaluation use that takes place before lessons learned are generated and feedback processes are initiated.
Five different types of process use are identified: learning to learn; developing networks; creating shared understanding; strengthening the project; and boosting morale.
Most resources in an evaluation process are spent in preparation and implementation. Very little is spent on feedback. A conventional way of improving evaluation use would be to shift resources from the preparation and implementation stages to the feedback stage. The article argues that in general, shifting resources from preparation and implementation to disseminating results would jeopardize the quality of the entire evaluation because it would ceteris paribus reduce the design, data collection and analytical quality. Instead it is argued that evaluation commissioners and evaluators should work explicitly to increase process use as the most cost-effective way of strengthening the overall utility of an evaluation.
Key Words: empowerment evaluation evaluation utility learning organizational change participatory evaluation
Evaluation, Vol. 8, No. 1,
29-45 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/1358902002008001515

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. C. Suarez-Herrera, J. Springett, and C. Kagan
Critical Connections between Participatory Evaluation, Organizational Learning and Intentional Change in Pluralistic Organizations
Evaluation,
July 1, 2009;
15(3):
321 - 342.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. A. Smits and F. Champagne
An Assessment of the Theoretical Underpinnings of Practical Participatory Evaluation
American Journal of Evaluation,
December 1, 2008;
29(4):
427 - 442.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
T. A. Abma and G. A.M. Widdershoven
Evaluation and/as Social Relation
Evaluation,
April 1, 2008;
14(2):
209 - 225.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. Taut
Studying Self-Evaluation Capacity Building in a Large International Development Organization
American Journal of Evaluation,
March 1, 2007;
28(1):
45 - 59.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. Balthasar
The Effects of Institutional Design on the Utilization of Evaluation: Evidenced Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)
Evaluation,
July 1, 2006;
12(3):
353 - 371.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
K. Forss, S.-E. Kruse, S. Taut, and E. Tenden
Chasing a Ghost?: An Essay on Participatory Evaluation and Capacity Development
Evaluation,
January 1, 2006;
12(1):
128 - 144.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Rolfsen and H. Torvatn
How to 'Get Through': Communication Challenges in Formative Evaluation
Evaluation,
July 1, 2005;
11(3):
297 - 309.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Lehtonen
OECD Environmental Performance Review Programme: Accountability (f)or Learning?
Evaluation,
April 1, 2005;
11(2):
169 - 188.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. Halliday, S. N. M. Asthana, and S. Richardson
Evaluating Partnership: The Role of Formal Assessment Tools
Evaluation,
July 1, 2004;
10(3):
285 - 303.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
H. Alexander
Health-Service Evaluations: Should We Expect the Results to Change Practice?
Evaluation,
October 1, 2003;
9(4):
405 - 414.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|
|