2 responses

  1. Hemathkumar
    October 19, 2011

    it is very useful.


  2. kay
    February 22, 2012

    After reading this I’m not persuaded that there is such a great difference between audit and evlauation. Many of the differences seem to be synonyms of basically the same thing with perhaps slightly different nuances in cultural practice due to the different genealogies and disciplinary links of evaluation versus auditing practices. But I suspect these differences are increasingly becoming blurred.

    Also, some of this information about evaluation is in error or outdated. Evaluation, for instance, can also be done at any time. “Summative evaluation” refers to end-of-phase evaluation and “formative evaluation” refers to evaluations conducted during the management cycle – usually mid-cycle. Some evaluators also distinguish proactive evaluation which occurs prior to the design of a program/policy etc.

    I am also not aware of any clear cut line in evaluation concern with sustainability rather efficiency. For instnace, in international development the widely-accepted DAC evaluation criteria include: Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and impact. Moreover, it is often commented that in practice management efficiency is usually addressed more effectively by evaluators than sustainability issues (because it is generally easier).

    If I had to distinguish between audit and evlauation I would say that audit could be regarded (though it isn’t historically) as a narrow subset of evaluation practice. Audit specialises in:

    adopting a management/funder stakeholder perspective (hence emphasis on mgt efficiency);

    establishing criteria and standards based on widely accepted / adopted mgt practices;

    steering clear of more overtly political or open-ended criteria, questions or issues such as whose interests are being served or what constitutes good outcome(s); and

    narrowing the evaluative scope to focus primarily on processes – the effectiveness or possibly even just the compliance with processes that are assumed to be or pre-established as ‘effective’.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top
mobile desktop