Developmental Evaluation and Complexity for Breakfast

Two months ago, I attended the national conference of the Canadian Evaluation Society which brought together a number of like-minded people to exchange ideas and promising practices. At a closing session, the audience was asked to use clickers and vote on their main areas of professional concern. When the votes were tallied, topping the list was “complexity and systems thinking”. All I could think about was peanut butter and jelly.

As an audience member (and presenter) at the conference, I could sense that there was a hunger for new approaches aimed at engaging stakeholders in evaluation. One of these, Developmental Evaluation (DE), was featured prominently by Hallie Preskill at FSG in the keynote address and by a number of session presenters. In 1994, when Michael Quinn Patton first brought DE to light, he described it as “an approach to evaluation grounded in systems thinking and that supports innovation by collecting and analyzing real time data in ways that lead to informed and ongoing decision making as part of the design, development and implementation process”. Within complex and dynamic environments, when working with multiple stakeholders, DE is an effective, embedded, continuous process that provides real-time feedback to guide action.

Over time, the J.W. McConnell Family Foundation has supported — and participated in — DE processes that were both effective and not so effective. We’ve found that DE works well when feedback is needed from a critical, supportive observer (the developmental evaluator); the host organization embraces a learning culture; stakeholders are committed to the process; and developmental evaluators are embedded early with authority to act. We’ve also found that DE doesn’t work well when its purposes and goals are misunderstood; developmental evaluators lack key skills; stakeholder egos and power dynamics are overwhelming; organizational readiness and buy-in are missing; and information is not collected and shared quickly.

Here is an example of how DE helped during the Ashoka Changemakers “Inspiring Approaches to First Nations, Métis and Inuit Learning Initiative." In their final report, the developmental evaluators highlighted a powerful lesson-learned: Don’t underestimate the complexity of power and difference. At a key point in the project, the developmental evaluators drew attention to cultural and power dynamics related to working with “white people”, as well as a lack of respect for project management and peoples’ time. Raising these delicate issues made it possible for members of the working group to effectively address these issues in order to move towards success.

DE is gaining traction in the community sector. Demonstrated by an increasing number of people who: a) have actually heard of DE, b) self-identify as developmental evaluators, and c) insist they want to adopt DE in their projects, this evaluation approach is recognized as a significant game-changer.

As I sat in the CES audience last June, reflecting on the results of the vote, it was clear that people realized complexity and DE go hand-in-hand. (Just like peanut butter and jelly.)

In thinking about the potential strengths and weaknesses of DE, how could it have helped in one of your past projects? Does it have a place in your future grantmaking work? Why or why not? Share your answers in the comments.

Additional Resources:

Categories

About the author(s)

Knowledge and Evaluation Officer
J.W. McConnell Family Foundation