Comments for Clear Horizon

Comment on Real Time Evaluation by Doris Wong

Doris Wong — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 11:48:19 +0000

1. By involving the the partners early in the project on the planning of how to evaluate the project is important. It is not only that as said above this will ensure the evaluation is relevant to the project. It will help build the sense of belonging and ownership. Those involved in the project will be so clear all the way how this will be evaluated and therefore paying extra attention to each stage of implementation. This will help people focus more.

2. I completely agree that the real power is the people. They are the driving force in making changes. It is important all partners are involved in the whole process from beginning to end. The learning takes place in the process will be constructed together through inspiration amongst the whole group rather that lots of single points of views. The outcome and learning is more that one plus one equals to two. This inspires a deeper level of reflective thinking. The final outcome will be supported by a deeper level of committment and pride from the partners involved. We need to work with the human nature.

Comment on Theory of change model versus program logic and does it matter? by k fisher

k fisher — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 00:49:23 +0000

I like the way you make distinctions between the different levels for modelling change. I do think it is a little different though from what I have understood by Theory of Change as it is used in Realist Evaluation (Pawson and Tilley etc). My reading is far from deep but I understood they use Theory of Change to refer not so much to a level of change (ie big picture social change) but to the specification of the causal steps/outcomes necessary for change to take place in a specified context. So they often draw on various social science theories to articulate the hypotheses about how change will come about in a particular context (ie they are not only interested in articulating what the program managers have understood about how the program is supposed to work). This Theory of Change could be local and limited to how empowerment occurs at the level of individual transformation or it could be scaled up to encompass the big picture of multiple development interventions (including perhaps empowerment) that eliminate poverty.
I have understood the important difference, or simply addition, they make to program logic is just that they try to eliminate the ‘black boxes’ of change by specifying one (or more) theories of how change it is expected to happen in a particular context. From this perspectiev evaluation doesn’t just test whether something works but how it works - and so it ideally it could or would then test more than one theory of how a particular change is (or is not) coming about, among which people and contexts.

Comment on What is intervention logic? by Carmela ARiza

Carmela ARiza — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 07:40:00 +0000

How different is the intervention logic with the results-based management or results-based monitoring and evaluation (RBM)? Or what are the similarities and what are the differences?

Comment on What is an objective? by Carmela ARiza

Carmela ARiza — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 07:37:09 +0000

Can we also say that an objective or objectives are the changes you want to see, to happen, to observe after some time? Is it also correct to view objectives as changes you desire…?

Comment on What is an objective? by Andi Sebastian

Andi Sebastian — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 04:35:52 +0000

Hi Jess, the International Federation of the Red Cross Red Crescent has evolving definitions. In 2002: Major changes or results that need to be achieved to make an impact on the problem. These are often changes in conditions / behaviour / practices or household resources. Often conceptualised as “stepping stones to achieve the goal”.
( IFRC – Monitoring and Evaluation in a Nutshell 2002)
In 2007: Objective: describes the challenge that the project/programme will resolve, stated in terms of results to be achieved. Outcomes: the likely or achieved short term and medium term effects of an intervention’s outputs. The outcomes are the results of objectives.
In 2010, An objective is an intended result that an intervention sets out to achieve. They also describe an Objectives Hierachy which is the collective name for a pyramid incorporating -
Goal The long term result to which the intervention seeks to achieve, may be contributed to by factors outside the intervention
Outcomes The primary result (s) you are trying to achieve through your intervention
Outputs The tangible services, products, and other immediate changes that lead to the achievement of outcomes
Activities The collection of tasks to be carried out
Inputs Resources needed to implement activities (financial, materials, human).
This would support your notion of a promise to deliver at any stage of the plan

Comment on What is an objective? by nic notarpietro

nic notarpietro — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:01:29 +0000

I find the following distinction useful in practice and in helping others get their head around this(found in an M&E document somwhere in the dim past): (i) objective/s as the intended effect an intervention can plausibly achieve in the timeframe envisaged and (ii) outcomes as the achievement of objectives.- ie objective is effect desired and outcome effect that actually occurs.

This defn is in line with your thinking above about objectives as promises to deliver - the trick as you say is working out where to pitch the objective in the hierarchy of foundational, intermediate and high level outcomes in the TOC. Thinking about what’s achievable within the $$ and time constraints iwe are working with is important in this respect.

Comment on Clear Horizon Launches New Website by Sabina Douglas-Hill

Sabina Douglas-Hill — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:28:27 +0000

Excellent web site guys. Well done!
Crisp, direct and easy to navigate quickly.
Are you taking orders?!
Go well
Sabina

Comment on Conference in Cairo Day 3 by Tony Ghaye

Tony Ghaye — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:22:45 +0000

Hi Jess and everyone,

I absolutely agree that we try to invest as much time as we can in getting the question ‘right’. Sometimes we are a bit too impatient. We are so focused on the need for answers. For others, the natural default position is to advocate a method. Nothing wrong with broadening our toolboxes. But each method has something to offer and also limitations. I feel the question needs to drive everything. All questions are value-laden. Maybe a recognition of this allows us to make wise decisions about what method/s might best help us explore (or even answer) the question. The question might also give us a good reason to be inventive in our design of method/s. As an advocate of strengths-based approaches to improvement, there might be some real benefit in trying to invest in formulating a ‘positive’ question’….and take it from there.
Tony

Comment on Clear Horizon Launches New Website by Luke Bayley

Luke Bayley — Wed, 27 May 2009 05:05:02 +0000

Looks great - things have surely come along way. A great resource to suppport the participatory process.

Luke

Comment on Conference in Cairo Day 4 by mohammed Bashiru Adamu,RN,RPON,ADPA

mohammed Bashiru Adamu,RN,RPON,ADPA — Tue, 19 May 2009 08:47:53 +0000

The impact evaluation success is dependant upon cmmunity themselves because of their intrinsic / physical knowledge of the past and present statusquo and their values are determinant of merit or worth made. Thank you