Evaluation Implementation – 2.02 Review and Revise Program Models
At the end of the first evaluation cycle, the working group is likely to have new perspective and insights on how the program works and why. Some of this new knowledge will come directly from the evaluation results themselves, but there will also be new, more informal, information about the program and its outcomes. This step involves revising the program’s logic and pathway models to incorporate these new ideas and insights. Just as they did with the initial planning process, the working group will need to brainstorm, discuss and revise, through trial and error, until updated versions of the models are agreed upon. If necessary, the working group may want to refer to phase 1, stage 2 of this guide for a review of the steps in the logic and pathway model development process.
Another important factor to consider when updating a program’s models is lifecycle. If the program, and its evaluation have co-evolved over the past evaluation cycle – or several cycles – to warrant the reclassification of that program into a new lifecycle phase, this change and designation should be made along with any appropriate revisions to the program models.
Reviewing and revising the program’s models periodically is important for several reasons. First, we expect that, based on evaluation work, the program will continue to change, more in earlier phases and more slightly as it matures through several evaluation cycles . These improvements will reflect new knowledge about the program and how it works. Second, even without any formal evaluation work, we would predict that the context of the program, its participants, environment and motivation, will evolve and change over time. In order to remain useful, and maintain a plausible theory of change, the program and its model must evolve as well to reflect these changes. Last, as the working group begins to view the program from an evaluative perspective, spending significantly more time thinking about how the program’s activities connect to and have an effect on the program’s outcomes, they are likely to see new outcomes and pathways that were implicit all along, but not represented in the previous version of the model.
This process of continuous evolution of the program’s logic and pathway models is firmly rooted in the aspects of systems theory discussed in detail in the first phase. The program, as a system unto itself, will evolve and change over time. But, in addition, the interaction between the program and its context will also motivate changes over time.
As the working group continues to review and modify the working program models, older versions should be kept as a record of the program’s history and life course. A series of program models that show evolution over time can serve as a description of the program’s history that can be powerful for communication and reporting