Short Course on Programme Evaluation

Memo

During his professional career, which has spanned over 30 years, Dr Diaz found that programme evaluation has been one of the most requested assignments on a global scale. Different evaluation criteria, key performance indicators (KPIs), and technical standards, on the one hand, and either quantitative or qualitative methodologies, on the other, are used. There are also different frameworks, log frames, and scorecards to translate data input, facilitate analysis and provide reports that highlight performance, lessons learned, best practices and alternative future paths for programmes and project continuity. Although, as a first step, it is a good idea to break down the assessment by sectors, territories, stakeholders, etc., it is also considered indispensable to provide an integrated analysis that explains the correlations between these components, and possible side-effects. Throughout his career, Dr Diaz has found critical gaps within programme and project evaluation that require further attention, for example: A polarized approach of either Top-Down or Bottom-Up perspectives. Imbalance between Global and Local resources, standards, political context and priorities. Poor Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning management. Lack of connection between; Strategical, Tactical and Operational objectives and target goals. (Short and Long-Term Planning). Need to differentiate the Process from the Results. Need to have a more practical interpretation of results to connect science-based evidences to decision-making. Inter-relatedness of evaluation criteria instead of single criteria assessment. Disconnection between; Cooperation, Coordination, and Communication. To improve project management, tools needs to be made available that can be used to evaluate programmes. In developing countries, especially as there can be a lack of qualified people with a technical background, there is a need for tools that can be used to evaluate programmes. The aim should be to make project management and programme evaluation more appropriate and mainstream.