Presentation on theme: "1 Workshop EVALUATION PROCESS – PROGRAMMES AND PROJECTS Waterford 10 TH April 2006. Dr Jim Fitzpatrick Managing Director Fitzpatrick Associates 10 Lad."— Presentation transcript:
1 Workshop EVALUATION PROCESS – PROGRAMMES AND PROJECTS Waterford 10 TH April 2006. Dr Jim Fitzpatrick Managing Director Fitzpatrick Associates 10 Lad Lane Dublin 2 Tel: 01-6763200 Fax: 01-6767972 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org www.fitzpatrick-associates.com
CONTENT 2 Nature/basis of comments Types of evaluation Evaluation as a “process” Key Steps in doing evaluation Methodologies in practice Common problems Specific cross-border issues Some “tips”
NATURE/BASIS OF COMMENTS 3 Wide practical experience, esp. programme-level EU-co financed, other Related work INTERREG and other cross-border All external evaluation
A PROCESS, NOT JUST A TECHNIQUE 6 Managing the team Stakeholder Involvement Research Analysis Time, resources, budget Client, user relations EVALUATION A Balancing Act
TASKS IN TYPICAL EVALUATION PROCESS 7 1.Establish/Understand Context who is the “client”? why being done? any specific use intended? what kind of evaluation is needed? 2.Obtain/Prepare/Agree Brief (ToR) is there one? is it clear? write one? is it agreed? 3.Prepare Work Plan (Proposal) overall approach (i.e. how interpreting brief, how going about it) analytical framework (i.e. overall logic) methodology/techniques (e.g. CBA, CEA, MCA) work programme (i.e. the data, data collection)
8 4.Evaluation Team/Resources (budget) no. of people/person days types of people necessary expertise (e.g. on technical aspects) 5.Doing the Evaluation implement method/work programme client relations manage team deal with unexpected issues 6.The Output/Report/Schedule meet how often, how many, when? nature of report e.g. length? style? nature? presentations? EVALUATION TASKS CONTINUED
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY IN PRACTICE 9 trying to establish if intervention did (or will) make a difference so “with-without” scientific method at its core formal quantitative techniques very desirable, but very different MCA/scoring, weighting and ranking most used others useful are: before v after (time-series) places that do, don’t have (“control group”) “expert” opinion views of stakeholders always need some framework for answering the evaluation questions (samples available)
COMMON PROBLEMS IN PRACTICE 10 poor initial projects/programme design inability to control for external influences poor/unavailable indicators (too few, too many, not really capturing essence of intervention) lack of consensus about purpose of evaluation “scope creep”
PARTICULAR ISSUES IN INTERREG CONTEXT 11 “Evaluation meets cross-border co-operation!” different member state/regional contexts different national attitudes towards evaluation projects/programmes relatively small interventions often “soft” in nature, harder to evaluate cross-border evaluation teams needed language/communication problems more costly (travel, telecoms, translation, time)
SOME PRACTICAL TIPS 12 ensure programme/project planning are good (monitoring, evaluation considered at outset) take time to get shared understanding of what’s happening ensure there is some kind of method/framework being used indicators – use “sensibly”, and note they are the fuel of monitoring/evaluation, they are not it themselves cross-border work needs cross-border teams remember it’s a process, not just a technique
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 13 LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING BOTH THE QUESTIONS AND THE ANSWERS!
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.