|
Session Title: Understanding Sponsors and Stakeholders' Interests and Values in High Stakes Evaluations
|
|
Panel Session 377 to be held in Huntington B on Thursday, Nov 3, 1:35 PM to 2:20 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Government Evaluation TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| Rakesh Mohan, Idaho State Legislature, rmohan@ope.idaho.gov
|
| Discussant(s):
|
| Rakesh Mohan, Idaho State Legislature, rmohan@ope.idaho.gov
|
| Abstract:
The word fact comes from the Latin factum, meaning something that actually took place or is taking place. In the world of performance evaluations, with their focus on evidence-based findings, uncovering the facts is the first step along the path that ultimately leads to the formulation of recommendations - statements about what should be done. However, as the philosopher David Hume argued, there is no logical, certain or obvious way to make value statements about what should be done based on any set of facts. Whether one agrees with this or not, it is useful to recognize that well-reasoned arguments and fact-based evidence may not be enough to gain acceptance of recommendations.
This panel explores how knowledge and consideration of key stakeholders' interests and values, and how these values influence their interpretation of the facts, can help to inform the conduct and contribute to the success of utilization-focused evaluations.
|
|
Tools for Teasing Out Transparency
|
| Roberta Manshel, Kal Krishnan Consulting Services Inc, roberta.manshel@kkcsworld.com
|
|
This presentation explores emerging evaluation tools designed to measure productivity on transportation infrastructure projects and how these tools are being used to help evaluators navigate through partisan environments and promote the delivery of economical, quality programs. Understanding the policy environment and the ideological drivers is essential to executing a meaningful assessment. Often in the public sector, particularly in the realm of infrastructure investments, budget and policy priorities are driven by opinions and political dogma. The evaluator’s challenge is to provide a fact-based framework that fosters public deliberations that are able to transcend ideology and focus on performance. The presenter will provide examples of emerging evaluation tools used to measure the effectiveness of infrastructure development; focusing on evolving analytical tools that help to tease out the bias, which often leads to unrealistic, politically driven assumptions, schedules, and budgets. The presentation will also provide a case study which reveals how missteps in the characterization and dissemination of findings can result in unintended programmatic consequences. In particular, the presenter will describe the development of the Federal Transit Authority’s project oversight auditing framework including tools such as risk assessments and capability and capacity reviews. It will explore how these tools are being used to effectively evaluate performance, balance competing stakeholder concerns and contribute to the successful delivery of major transit projects (including the $900M East Side Light Rail Extension in Los Angeles) and to prompt improvements in complex and varied environments such as Washington, British Columbia, Idaho and North Carolina.
|
|
|
Changing Political Values and Their Impact on Evaluation
|
| Jim Brock, Avant Infrastructure Management Consulting, jbrock@avantimc.com
|
|
Political values shift according to the prevailing socio-economic circumstances. Because transportation agencies (local, regional, state, and federal) have a variety of stakeholder allegiances and political influences, operating and funding decisions undergo a complex process. Values have changed during recent years, because as states' funds have dried up, stakeholders and evaluation sponsors tend to follow the federal lead (because that's where the money is).
This presentation will discuss the evolution in political values due to significant economic change, and how this change has impacted performance evaluations in recent years. Economic scarcity has raised the visibility of how economically-sound operating decisions are made, and the very nature of best practices. As transportation agencies struggle to adjust to a new operating and funding environment, comparison to "peer" agencies may not be adequate. New "best" practices are being formulated, and comparative-based performance evaluations will need to consider the shift to new operating practices.
| |