Compare and Contrast Evaluation Design

Focusing on resource availability, the design selected for evaluation should ensure that the funding allocated for the project covers the whole process from inception to the final development stage. In addition to that, the evaluation design should also consider the time available for the project to run so as to avoid last minute rush and or premature evaluation that does not serve its purpose. Additionally, the nature of evaluation design should fit into the activity being evaluated. The selected evaluation design should consider both internal and external factors that may have an impact on the outcome of the whole event. In this regard, evidence-based description of the value and effects associated with a programme or project should be documented. Quasi-evaluation design, on the other hand, uses propensity score matching (PSM) and regression discontinuity design (RDD) which are aimed at reducing bias.

However, both have weaknesses as well. First, PSM tends to be biased as it disregards characteristics which cannot be observed and matched from the compared individual groups. Additionally, PSM cannot be used by someone with no skills in statistical packages thus limits the scope of users (Kaplan 2011, p. RDD, on the other hand, does not present clear selection threshold for samples thus makes the results to be considered as insufficient (Lee & Thomas 2009, p. Secondly, using quasi-design in an organisation can also prove to be problematic especially when selection criteria for the target group are neither clear nor easy to design. It provides critiques with arguments to base upon. Thirdly, quasi-presents a problem of teamwork problem-solving ability. Based on the full range of activities in an organisation, solving a problem could prove to be more efficient and efficient when performed by individuals rather than groups due to coordination losses.

Finally, with the poor matching quality that quasi-designs present, aggregation of results to a higher level for evaluation may prove to be an organisational problem as it is difficult. With the scale-up limitation presented by randomised design, a better compensation would be evaluating the best available alternative to scale-up which is the willingness to pay for an overhaul or the significant areas that need to be changed in the initial project (Bonell et al. , p. Though the cost may be higher, the benefits will be more enormous and in the long run, the activity will compensate for the losses incurred during the scale-up process. Expert Education and Recommendation on Effective Evaluation Design Different methods have different results as the probability of positive results occurrence change with time.

While educating clients on the various designs, I would base my teachings on economic considerations. 2010, p. I would recommend the use of randomised design for evaluation as it has proved to be more progressive among multilateral and bilateral donors whose emphasis is on results rather than finances thus allowing for better allocation of resources leading to the creation of a real difference. Based on the clients' decision to use the quasi-method which is not befitting, a reason had to be given. The quasi-design does not provide the right balance between discretion and control thus leading to resource constraints and reduced access to information which is relevant to the activity. Implications for the Organization Based on Client Decision Based on the client's decision, consequences for the organisation can be expressed in monetary terms using the cost-benefit analysis.