Working Papers
PUBLISH
Working Papers
Evaluation Use in Development Cooperation: Assessing Current Utilization and Exploring Methods for Utility Enhancement
평가=ODA Evaluation,
ODA_평가,
Evaluation Methodology
Author Eunsuk Lee, Gee Young Oh, Jisun Jeong, Aila Yoo, and Yerim Lee Series 24-14 Language Korean Date 2024.12.31
The evaluation of international development cooperation has become increasingly institutionalized as Korea’s ODA budget has grown, together with awareness regarding the importance of evaluations, accompanied by a surge in the number of evaluations. This study explores whether this expansion has been matched by a corresponding increase in their practical contribution, as originally intended. It aims to diagnose the current state of evaluation use in Korea’s development cooperation, analyze both the demand for and barriers to such use, and identify practical strategies to enhance evaluation utility. While acknowledging broader structural and institutional constraints that may influence overall evaluation use, the study focuses on “evaluation implementation factors” that can be reasonably adjusted or influenced by evaluators and commissioning bodies during the evaluation process, with a view to proposing realistic and actionable strategies to improve the usefulness of evaluations.
Chapter 2 builds a conceptual foundation for evaluation use and utility by synthesizing relevant theories and international practices. It reviews existing literature on the concepts, types, and influencing factors of evaluation use, and closely examines specific cases and strategic efforts undertaken by major international organizations and donor agencies to strengthen the use of evaluations. Drawing on previous research, this study defines “evaluation use” as the various ways in which evaluation can influence stakeholders through different pathways, and analyzes the characteristics of evaluations with high utility. Rather than focusing on structural constraints that are difficult to change in the short term, the study emphasizes barriers that can be addressed through improvements in evaluation practice. It highlights the importance of providing information that meets user needs and adopting flexible methodologies as key strategies for enhancing the utilization of evaluation results.
Chapter 3 analyzes the current state of evaluation use in Korea’s development cooperation and proposes directions for improving its utility. Despite the institutionalization of evaluations across implementing agencies, actual use remains limited in both scope and depth. Repeated evaluations with unclear objectives, resource constraints, and a focus on compliance-driven feedback mechanisms have contributed to low perceived utility. Survey findings reveal that evaluations are often used symbolically—for promotion or justification —rather than instrumentally or for learning. Stakeholders pointed to persistent mismatches between what the information evaluations provide and what users actually need—such as forward-looking insights for agenda-setting or practical solutions to implementation challenges—as well as limited accessibility and poor readability of evaluation reports. Moreover, evaluations are primarily used by internal managers, while higher-level decision-makers and local stakeholders remain under-engaged. These findings underscore the need to broaden the user base and diversify the forms of evaluation use so that evaluations can more effectively support learning and problem-solving throughout the program cycle. In particular, the results suggest the need for more diversity in methodologies to better accommodate varied information needs.
Chapter 4 highlights the importance of flexible and fit-for-purpose methodologies in enhancing evaluation utility. Building on the conceptual and empirical insights of the previous chapters, it examines five approaches—impact evaluation, economic analysis, outcome mapping, outcome harvesting, and real-time evaluation—and analyzes their characteristics from the perspective of utility. Among these, impact evaluation and economic analysis are suitable for verifying causal links and cost-effectiveness through quantitative methods. These approaches are particularly useful for instrumental use by policymakers and managers in strategic planning and resource allocation, while also enhancing the credibility of project results through rigorous evidence generation. Outcome mapping and outcome harvesting are participatory and qualitative approaches that help capture complex and non-linear changes in dynamic development contexts. Real-time evaluation (RTE), which allows for immediate feedback during implementation, is especially relevant for humanitarian assistance and other time-sensitive projects. Participatory approaches not only improve the responsiveness of evaluations but also strengthen learning and capacity among stakeholders by involving them directly in data collection and analysis—thereby supporting continuous improvement and more effective collaboration.
The analysis concludes that evaluation methods should be selected based on their alignment with the evaluation’s purpose, subject, stakeholder needs, timing, and available resources—and that mixed-method approaches are often necessary in practice. In the Korean context, the study emphasizes the need for more diverse and advanced training programs to strengthen methodological capacity, and recommends a gradual approach to piloting new evaluation methods to assess their feasibility and scalability under practical constraints such as limited time and budget.
The final chapter offers practical policy recommendations for enhancing evaluation utility at both the implementing agency and national coordination levels. For implementing agencies, a strategic approach is needed throughout the evaluation process. The study proposes core checkpoints for each of five key stages of the evaluation process—(1) selection and planning, (2) design and implementation, (3) quality assurance, (4) communication of findings, and (5) follow-up and knowledge management—to ensure that evaluations produce relevant and usable insights.
At the national level, institutional improvements are recommended to encourage demand-driven evaluations, promote diverse methodologies, and strengthen evaluation knowledge systems. These include enhancing evaluator capacity, offering flexibility in evaluation mandates, and ensuring that feedback processes lead to meaningful action rather than symbolic compliance. Ultimately, the study calls for a shift from a compliance-oriented approach to a more strategic, user-centered evaluation culture. By aligning evaluations with stakeholder needs, adopting flexible methodologies, and embedding findings into knowledge systems, evaluation can become a more meaningful driver of learning, accountability, and effectiveness in Korea’s development cooperation.
Chapter 2 builds a conceptual foundation for evaluation use and utility by synthesizing relevant theories and international practices. It reviews existing literature on the concepts, types, and influencing factors of evaluation use, and closely examines specific cases and strategic efforts undertaken by major international organizations and donor agencies to strengthen the use of evaluations. Drawing on previous research, this study defines “evaluation use” as the various ways in which evaluation can influence stakeholders through different pathways, and analyzes the characteristics of evaluations with high utility. Rather than focusing on structural constraints that are difficult to change in the short term, the study emphasizes barriers that can be addressed through improvements in evaluation practice. It highlights the importance of providing information that meets user needs and adopting flexible methodologies as key strategies for enhancing the utilization of evaluation results.
Chapter 3 analyzes the current state of evaluation use in Korea’s development cooperation and proposes directions for improving its utility. Despite the institutionalization of evaluations across implementing agencies, actual use remains limited in both scope and depth. Repeated evaluations with unclear objectives, resource constraints, and a focus on compliance-driven feedback mechanisms have contributed to low perceived utility. Survey findings reveal that evaluations are often used symbolically—for promotion or justification —rather than instrumentally or for learning. Stakeholders pointed to persistent mismatches between what the information evaluations provide and what users actually need—such as forward-looking insights for agenda-setting or practical solutions to implementation challenges—as well as limited accessibility and poor readability of evaluation reports. Moreover, evaluations are primarily used by internal managers, while higher-level decision-makers and local stakeholders remain under-engaged. These findings underscore the need to broaden the user base and diversify the forms of evaluation use so that evaluations can more effectively support learning and problem-solving throughout the program cycle. In particular, the results suggest the need for more diversity in methodologies to better accommodate varied information needs.
Chapter 4 highlights the importance of flexible and fit-for-purpose methodologies in enhancing evaluation utility. Building on the conceptual and empirical insights of the previous chapters, it examines five approaches—impact evaluation, economic analysis, outcome mapping, outcome harvesting, and real-time evaluation—and analyzes their characteristics from the perspective of utility. Among these, impact evaluation and economic analysis are suitable for verifying causal links and cost-effectiveness through quantitative methods. These approaches are particularly useful for instrumental use by policymakers and managers in strategic planning and resource allocation, while also enhancing the credibility of project results through rigorous evidence generation. Outcome mapping and outcome harvesting are participatory and qualitative approaches that help capture complex and non-linear changes in dynamic development contexts. Real-time evaluation (RTE), which allows for immediate feedback during implementation, is especially relevant for humanitarian assistance and other time-sensitive projects. Participatory approaches not only improve the responsiveness of evaluations but also strengthen learning and capacity among stakeholders by involving them directly in data collection and analysis—thereby supporting continuous improvement and more effective collaboration.
The analysis concludes that evaluation methods should be selected based on their alignment with the evaluation’s purpose, subject, stakeholder needs, timing, and available resources—and that mixed-method approaches are often necessary in practice. In the Korean context, the study emphasizes the need for more diverse and advanced training programs to strengthen methodological capacity, and recommends a gradual approach to piloting new evaluation methods to assess their feasibility and scalability under practical constraints such as limited time and budget.
The final chapter offers practical policy recommendations for enhancing evaluation utility at both the implementing agency and national coordination levels. For implementing agencies, a strategic approach is needed throughout the evaluation process. The study proposes core checkpoints for each of five key stages of the evaluation process—(1) selection and planning, (2) design and implementation, (3) quality assurance, (4) communication of findings, and (5) follow-up and knowledge management—to ensure that evaluations produce relevant and usable insights.
At the national level, institutional improvements are recommended to encourage demand-driven evaluations, promote diverse methodologies, and strengthen evaluation knowledge systems. These include enhancing evaluator capacity, offering flexibility in evaluation mandates, and ensuring that feedback processes lead to meaningful action rather than symbolic compliance. Ultimately, the study calls for a shift from a compliance-oriented approach to a more strategic, user-centered evaluation culture. By aligning evaluations with stakeholder needs, adopting flexible methodologies, and embedding findings into knowledge systems, evaluation can become a more meaningful driver of learning, accountability, and effectiveness in Korea’s development cooperation.
Sales Info
| Quantity/Size | 258 |
|---|---|
| Sale Price | 10 $ |