One of the main objectives of evaluation is to promote organizational learning. However, even a well-used evaluation system does not generate learning automatically. This article discusses learning with reference to experiences in the Norwegian aid administration. It shows that evaluations generate learning in two modes: via involvement and via communication. If an organization wants to maximize its learning, it should pursue strategies to let the two modes supplement each other. Learning must be related to what people know—their knowledge structures—and what they need to know to do their job well. Evaluation systems may be only marginally effective when there is a need to change knowledge structures rapidly, particularly if the organization lacks dominating knowledge structures.

Three phases of development of the subject of evaluation are identified. Up to 1979 it was still in its infancy, with the main impetus coming from the USA (the World Bank and US AID), and from one or two large UN organizations, although the OECD also did some useful work in bringing evaluators together. The second phase (1979‐1984) saw rapid ‘take‐off’, with greatly increased resources going into evaluation work, and a veritable ‘explosion’ of interest worldwide. All the main donors had by now set up evaluation units and were amassing enough material to begin to ‘synthesize’ the findings. The OECD provided a focus and a forum through its Expert Group on Aid Evaluation. The third phase, from 1984 onwards, finds the subject having ‘come of age’, its maturity being marked by the publication of major works such as Cassen's Does Aid Work?. The emphasis now is switching from ex‐post evaluation towards improving project design through such techniques as the logical framework.

This article examines the factors that influence whether the acquisition of knowledge leads on to action. It looks first at the ‘supply’ side, i.e. the kind of knowledge that is being acquired and whether it meets the needs of the intended users and is conducive to action; whether knowledge is a product or a process; the relevance of the positivist and constructivist approaches in this context; and whether participatory methods are required. The article then turns to the ‘demand’ side, and looks at possible reasons why decision‐takers may often seem to ignore new knowledge and evaluation findings. It suggests that evaluators may sometimes have unrealistic expectations of the kind of impact their reports should have. On the other hand there are factors leading to inertia and risk averseness that may stymie action. The importance of a ‘knowledge culture’ is emphasized if knowledge is to be turned into action. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

No abstract