United Nations Evaluation Group - UNEG:
Norms for Evaluation in the UN System, April 2005, Auszug:

N 1 – Definition

1.1 Purposes of evaluation include understanding why, and the extent to which, intended and unintended results are achieved, and their impact on stakeholders. Evaluation is an important source of evidence of the achievement of results and institutional performance. Evaluation is also an important contributor to building knowledge and to organizational learning. Evaluation is an important agent of change and plays a critical and credible role in supporting accountability.

1.2 An evaluation is an assessment, as systematic and impartial as possible, of an activity, project, programme, strategy, policy, topic, theme, sector, operational area, institutional performance etc. It focuses on expected and achieved accomplishments, examining the results chain, processes, contextual factors an causality, in order to understand achievements or the lack thereof. It aims at determining the relevance, impact, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the interventions and contributions of the organizations of the UN system. An evaluation should provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful, enabling the timely incorporation of findings, recommendations and lessons into the decision-making processes of the organizations of the UN system and its members .

1.3 Evaluation feeds into management and decision making processes, and makes an essential contribution to managing for results. Evaluation informs the planning, programme, budgeting, implementation and reporting cycle. It aims at improving the institutional relevance and the achievement of results, optimizing the use of resources, providing client satisfaction and maximizing the impact of the contribution of the UN system.

1.4 There are other forms of assessment being conducted in the UN system. They vary in purpose and level of analysis, and may overlap to some extent. Evaluation is to be differentiated from the following:

1. Appraisal: A critical assessment of the potential value of an undertaking before a decision is made to implement it.  
2. Monitoring: Management’s continuous examination of progress achieved during the implementation of an undertaking to track compliance with the plan and to take necessary decisions to improve performance.
3. Review: The periodic or ad hoc often rapid assessments of the performance of an undertaking, that do not apply the duce process of evaluation. Reviews tend to emphasize operational issues.
4. Inspection: A general examination that seeks to identify vulnerable areas and malfunctions and to propose corrective action.
5. Investigation: A specific examination of a claim of wrongdoing and provision of evidence for eventual prosecution or disciplinary measures.
6. Audit: An assessment of the adequacy of management controls to ensure the economical and efficient use of resources; the safeguarding of assets; the reliability of financial and other information; the compliance with regulations, rules and established policies; the effectiveness of risk management; and the adequacy of organizational structures, systems and processes.
7. Research: A systematic examination designed to develop or contribute to knowledge.
8. Internal management consulting: Consulting services to help managers implement changes that address organizational and managerial challenges and improve internal work processes.

1.5 Evaluation is not a decision-making process per se, but rather serves as an input to provide decision-makers with knowledge and evidence about performance and good practices. Although evaluation is used to assess undertakings, it should provide value-added for decision-oriented processes to assist in the improvement of present and future activities, projects, programmes, strategies and policies. Thus evaluation contributes to institutional policy-making, development effectiveness and organizational effectiveness.

1.6 There are many types of evaluations, such those internally or externally-led, those adopting a summative or formative approach, those aimed at determining the attribution of an organization’s own action or those performed jointly to assess collaborative efforts. An evaluation can be conducted in an ex-post fashion, at the end of phase, mid-point, at the terminal moment or real-time. The evaluation approach and method must be adapted to the nature of the undertaking to ensure due process and to facilitate stakeholder participation in order to support an informed decision-making process.

1.7 Evaluation is therefore about Are we doing the right thing? It examples the rationale, the justification of the undertaking, makes a reality check and looks at the satisfaction of intended beneficiaries. Evaluation is also about Are we doing it right? It assesses the effectiveness of achieving expected results. It examines the efficiency of the use of inputs to yield results. Finally, evaluation asks Are there better ways of achieving the results? Evaluation looks at alternative ways, good practices and lessons learned.  

[...]

N8 – Quality of Evaluation

8.1 Each evaluation should employ design, planning and implementation processes that are inherently quality oriented, covering appropriate methodologies for data-collection, analysis and interpretation.

8.2 Evaluation reports must present in a complete and balanced way the evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations. They must be brief and to the point and easy to understand. They must explain the methodology followed, highlight the methodological limitations of the evaluation, key concerns and evidenced-based findings, dissident views and consequent conclusions, recommendations and lessons. They must have an executive summary that encapsulates the essence of the information contained in the report, and facilitate dissemination and distillation of lessons.

N9 – Competencies for Evaluation

9.1 Each organization of the UN system should have formal job descriptions and selection criteria that state the basic professional requirements necessary for an evaluator and evaluation manager.

9.2 The Head of the evaluation function must have proven competencies in the management of an evaluation function and in the conduct of evaluation studies.

9.3 Evaluators must have the basic skill set for conducting evaluation studies and managing externally hired evaluators. 

© Copyright: Prof. Dr. Burkhardt Krems,
Köln, 2010-11-10

http://www.olev.de/e/evaluation_uneg.htm