Le rapport final - ainsi que le rapport technique - de l’étude réalisée par Euréval concernant le programme ’ICT Policy Support programme’ ou programme de politique de soutien aux Nouvelles technologies de l’innovation et de la communication, est désormais disponible sur le site de la Direction Générale INFSO

Sa présentation introductive devant 450 personnes en provenance de tous les États Membres a donné lieu a un débat très nourri notamment sur les limites entre audit de performance et évaluation de politique ou encore, sur les forces et faiblesses des audits faits en interne. Les participants ont manifesté un fort taux de satisfaction selon l’enquête réalisée in situ.

Why wasting time and resources with this evaluation ? (your colleagues)

• Because it will inform on impacts which are the ultimate reason why we are spending public resources. Because the evaluation will help us making sense of our daily work by considering its rationale.

What if the evaluation brings bad news ? (your boss)

• You will be informed first, you will have time to propose corrective measures, you will announce bad news and corrective measures altogether, you will show that you have learnt from experience. If there is an area where nobody can do anything in the event of bad news, then let us put that area out of the evaluation mandate.

... 

Why do you suggest inviting my enemies in the evaluation committee ? (programme manager)

• They will criticise the report anyway and this will undermine the credibility of our evaluation. By inviting them into the group, we will demonstrate impartiality and make the report acceptable for all.

Why should I not chair the reference group ? (top level decision-maker)

• You would have to attend a number of meetings and you are probably too busy.
• To a certain extent, you would have to endorse the conclusions and recommendations of the report. On the contrary, you should rather keep at some distance from the evaluation process in order to feel free to adopt, or not to adopt the recommendations.
• You may escape these inconveniences, and keep an eye at the evaluation process if we involve one of your close collaborators in the evaluation committee.

Why should I not chair the reference group ? (programme manager)

• We agreed that the main intended users of the evaluation are ... [policy-makers, funding institutions, politicians, ...]. We should therefore do our best for making the evaluation credible to them. Our evaluation will be much more credible if it is moderated by somebody who have no personal interest in the programme.

Why is county A invited and not my county ? (or Member State, region, country, municipality, ...)

• We are not inviting county A but just Mrs Smith who will speak the voice of county level interests in the evaluation. We have made it clear that Mrs Smith is invited ‘ad nominem’ and not as representative of county A.

L’assemblée générale de la Société Française de l’Evaluation (SFE) s’est tenue le 4 novembre 2008 à Paris. Lors de cette assemblée générale, Jacques Toulemonde, Directeur associé de Euréval, a été élu au conseil d’administration de la SFE. Il a eu depuis plusieurs années un investissement important à la SFE, notamment en tant qu’animateur du groupe ‘Standards de qualité et déontologie’, membre du Comité de programme du colloque de Strasbourg et parrain du club international des jeunes chercheurs en évaluation. En 2008, il a également récemment initié, au nom de la SFE, le Réseau des Sociétés d’Évaluation en Europe (Network of Evaluation Societies in Europe - NESE), réseau qu’il va co-animer en 2009 avec le président de la Société européenne d’évaluation jusqu’à la fin 2009, date à laquelle le relai sera passé à la DEGeval, société germanophone de l’évaluation

... Perspectives on Impact evaluation organisé par l’Association africaine d’évaluation et Nonie afin de présenter notre expérience de l’Analyse de Contributions.
L’atelier répondait à une demande forte tant et si bien que les organisateurs ont du le programmer trois fois avant la conférence proprement dite.
La présentation faite avec notre partenaire jordanienne est désormais consultable sur notre site en français, en anglais et en arabe.

Test your competencies

This part of your training is to be undertaken in close interaction with your coach

Select a training case study

Preferably among the following ones

• Debate Europe
• ...
• ...

Briefly answer these questions

• What is the main intended use and who are the main intended users ?
• Which legitimisation approach do you suggest and why ?
• Which are the key points to be addressed in the mandate ?
• Who should sign the mandate ?

Your self-assessment

In your own professional context, do you feel capable to ... ?

• Foresee the information needs of policy-makers
• Perceive political risks
• Anticipate future challenges

 Could you do so ... ?

• In a context of multi-level governance
• In a context of political conflict

Test your competencies

This part of your training is to be undertaken in close interaction with your coach

Select a training case study

Preferably among the following ones

• Debate Europe
• ...
• ...

Briefly answer these questions

• Who are the main ultimate beneficiaries?
• Which legitimisation approach do you recommend?
• Who should chair the evaluation committee?

Your self-assessment

In your own professional context, do you feel capable to ...

• Do a stakeholder analysis?
• Set up an evaluation committee or reference group?
• Chair an evaluation committee?

Could you do so ...

• If the evaluation committee involves participants from outside the Commission?
• In case of conflict within the evaluation committee?