Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
the logic framework - actions, outputs and objectives. This is a different
way of viewing evaluation to the IUCN 5 criteria structure. We suggest
that, while the two approaches are different, they are compatible and can be
merged into a structure that is helpful for water resource plan evaluation.
Considering this, in essence, a full 'summative' evaluation would consider:
1 Whether the plan objectives are appropriate (IUCN relevance, sustainability).
This includes consideration of the relevance and consistency of the objec-
tives, and the relative level of achievement of competing objectives,
with government policies and to community aspirations. It may address
whether the objectives as stated are clear in reflecting what was intended.
It may review changes in government policies and community needs
and aspirations since the plan was made to assess whether these require
adjustment to the objectives.
2 How well the plan outputs are contributing to the objectives (IUCN
effectiveness, impact). This can include confirming assumed causal relation-
ships between outputs and objectives; and confirming whether assumed
external actions and influences have transpired and whether unexpected
external factors have impaired the achievement of the objectives.
3 How well the actions are delivering the outputs (IUCN efficiency, effec-
tiveness). This can include confirming the causal relationships between
actions and outputs; confirming assumptions about climate and water
resource behaviour; and considering whether alternative actions might
have been more efficient.
4 How well the actions are being implemented (IUCN efficiency). This
includes examining the extent and efficiency of implementing the actions
as set out in the plan.
While summative evaluations that consider the plan as a whole would consider
all of these criteria, formative evaluations during plan implementation would
focus on the third and fourth.
Within these four areas, evaluation questions can be determined that are
appropriate to the particular circumstances of the plan from the plan's logic
map. Given that a major source of information for evaluation will be the
plan's performance indicators and corresponding monitoring program, these
questions and the performance indicators should be developed at the time
the plan is made, so the monitoring programme can be designed and imple-
mented around them. Even so, the evaluation questions may be revised and
updated at the time of either formative or summative evaluation to reflect
newer priorities and concerns.
Given limitations on resources, a list of possible evaluation questions
can be reduced to a shorter list of questions that are of most importance,
considering criteria such as whether the question relates to:
O
an area of high uncertainty (e.g. in the assumed causal relationships)
