| A basic guide to evaluation for development workers |
Knows the organisation, its programme, ethos, and ways of working.
Understands and can interpret personal behaviour and attitudes.
Because known to staff, less likely to cause anxiety or disruption.
Better able to follow up on recommendations.
Usually less expensive.
Doesn't require lengthy recruitment procedures.
Helps to develop internal evaluation capacity, at country or national level.
Better able to communicate evaluation findings throughout organisation.
Finds it harder to be objective.
May avoid negative conclusions, which reflect badly on individuals or the organisation.
Tends to accept assumptions of organisation uncritically.
May be constrained by demands of existing job (if seconded to an evaluation) and not able to give sufficient time to evaluation.
May be part of authority structure, involved in internal politics or conflicts.
May not be fully trained or experienced in evaluation.
May not have necessary technical expertise.
Not personally involved, so more objective. Free from organisational bias, can contribute fresh perspective. May have broader experience in field. May be trained and experienced in carrying out evaluations. Can act as arbitrator or neutral mediator in cases where evaluation reveals conflicts of interest. May contribute technical knowledge or advice.
May not fully understand the organisation policies, procedures, personalities and ethos.
May not appreciate local political and cultural environment.
May not appreciate constraints on implementing recommendations.
May be seen as critical adversary, arousing anxiety and defensiveness.
May be expensive.
Takes time to recruit, brief, and orientate.
Less likely to be able to follow-up on implementation of recommendations.