Evaluation

The term “evaluation” has been in the English language for centuries and it has had diverse functions and meanings during that time. Only in recent decades and, in particular, the latter part of the twentieth century, has more precision been given to the term, including specificity to the basic concepts and more explicit explanations about its aims as a functioning entity (Stufflebeam &. Shinkfield, 2007). Stufflebeam and Shinkfield (2007) have it that one of the earliest and still most prominent definitions states that it means determining whether objectives have been achieved. Another prominent and widely accepted definition by the Joint Committee set up in 1975, comprising members from 15 professional societies in the United States and Canada aimed at improving evaluation in education that defined “...evaluation as the systematic assessment of the worth or merit of an object" (Stufflebeam & Coryn, 2014). Evaluation arguably is society’s most fundamental discipline as it is oriented towards assessing and helping in the improvement of the society at large (Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007). In this context, the construction society comprises the professionals involved in the day-to-day activities on-site and off-site, the equipment and tools used and the products of the industry. It permeates all areas of scholarship, production and service and

Table 2.1 Common types of monitoring

Results Results monitoring merges with an evaluation to determine whether the monitoring project/programme is on target towards its intended results (outputs, outcomes, impact) and whether there may be any unintended impact (positive or negative). For example, a psychosocial project may monitor that its community activities achieve the outputs that contribute to community resilience and ability to recover from a disaster.

Process Process (activity) monitoring tracks the use of inputs and resources, the (activity) progress of activities and the delivery of outputs. It examines how activities monitoring are delivered - the efficiency in time and resources. It is often conducted in conjunction with compliance monitoring and feeds into the evaluation of impact. For example, a water and sanitation project may monitor that targeted households receive septic systems according to schedule.

Compliance Compliance monitoring ensures compliance with donor regulations and monitoring expected results, grant and contract requirements, local governmental regulations and laws and ethical standards. For example, a shelter project may monitor that shelters adhere to agreed national and international safety standards in construction.

Context Context (situation) monitoring tracks the setting in which the project/ (situation) programme operates, especially as it affects identified risks and assumptions, monitoring but also any unexpected considerations that may arise. It includes the field as well as the larger political, institutional, funding and policy context that affect the project/programme. For example, a project in a conflict-prone area may monitor potential fighting that could not only affect project success but endanger project staff and volunteers.

Beneficiary Beneficiary monitoring tracks beneficiary perceptions of a project/ monitoring programme. It includes beneficiary satisfaction or complaints with the project/programme, including their participation, treatment, access to resources and their overall experience of change. Sometimes referred to as beneficiary contact monitoring (BCM), it often includes stakeholder complaints and feedback mechanisms. It should take account of different population groups as well as the perceptions of indirect beneficiaries (e.g. community members not directly receiving a good or service). For example, a cash-for-work programme assisting community members after a natural disaster may monitor how they feel about the selection of programme participants, the payment of participants and the contribution the programme is making to the community (e.g. are these equitable?).

Financial Financial monitoring accounts for costs by input and activity within monitoring predefined categories of expenditure. It is often conducted in conjunction with compliance and process monitoring. For example, a livelihood project implementing a series of micro-enterprises may monitor the money awarded and repaid and ensure implementation is according to the budget and time frame.

Organizational Organizational monitoring tracks the sustainability, institutional monitoring development and capacity building in the project/programme and with its partners. It is often done in conjunction with the monitoring processes of the larger, implementing organization. For example, a national society’s headquarters may use organizational monitoring to track communication and collaboration in project implementation among its branches and chapters.

Source: International Federation of Red Cross, 2011

lias important implications for maintaining and improving services and protecting citizens in all areas of interest to society (Stufflebeam &. Shinkfield, 2007).

According to Tache (2011), evaluation is the objective and systematic assessment of project activities to determine its relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and impact. It looks at the extent to which objectives have been met, drawing on the data and information generated through monitoring (Otieno, 2000). Project evaluation plays a significant role in the implementation of projects; it informs the decision-making process for improvement, ensures organizational learning from experience to help improve future monitoring and evaluation practice and managers of projects also acquire new skills to be better managers in future (Njama, 2015). Evaluation also helps organizations know their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) for effective M&E (Calder, 2013; Spaulding, 2014). Further, evaluation establishes benchmarks to guide the evaluation of other projects through the creation of a knowledge bank for management, thus organizational learning (Calder, 2013). Evaluation provides the basis for concluding on the efficiency, effectiveness and success or failure of projects (Spaulding, 2014).

An evaluation is a systematic investigation of the value of a programme or other evaluand (the object of an evaluation) or evaluee in the case of a person, which could be a project (Chipato, 2016). Stufflebeam and Shinkfield (2007) opined that evaluands might be individuals, programmes, projects, policies, products, equipment, services, concepts and theories or organizations. More specifically, an evaluation is a process of delineating, obtaining, reporting and applying descriptive and judgmental information about some object’s merit, worth, probity and significance (Funnell & Rogers, 2011). Evaluations may involve multiple values of individuals, organizations or societies and these may compete (Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007). Stufflebeam and Shinkfield (2007) further explained evaluation to be a process for giving attestations on such matters as reliability, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, efficiency, safety, ease of use and probity. Stufflebeam and Shinkfield (2007) also submitted that evaluation serves society by providing affirmations of worth, value, improvement (stating when and how it should occur), endorsement, accountability and, when necessary, a basis for terminating bad programmes. In carrying out an evaluation, the evaluator needs to pay attention to evaluation’s root term value in addressing the merit, the worth, the probity and the significance regarding excellence, utility, uncompromising adherence to the basic moral standards, reach, importance and visibility of the project (Frankel & Gage, 2007).

The scope of the evaluation is very wide; it could be personnel evaluation, product evaluation, institutional evaluation, student evaluation and policy evaluation depending on the reason for the evaluation and the variables involved at the particular moment of the evaluation (Frankel & Gage, 2007). The scope of evaluation applications broadens significantly when one considers the wide range of disciplines to which it applies (Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007). One can speak of evaluation, according to Stufflebeam and Shinkfield (2007), to include educational evaluation, social services evaluation, art evaluation, city planning and evaluation, real estate appraising, engineering testing and evaluation, hospital

Overview of project monitoring 17 evaluation, drug testing, manufacturing evaluation, consumer products evaluation, agricultural experimentation and environmental evaluation.