What is it?

Many decisions will need to be made in the course of planning and implementing research monitoring and evaluation. To think about and implement effective decisions it is useful consider the following: a) to be explicit about and agree on what structures and processes will be used to make decisions b) which specific participants should be/could be involved in the various decision making processes c) to distinguish between the decision-making group (which might be labelled a steering group or a task force) and an advisory group (which can provide technical or cultural advice, but cannot make decisions) d) to be clear about how decisions will be made, which could be on the basis of consensus (which aims to find decisions which everyone can accept), hierarchical  (on the basis of formal positions of authority) or majority.

General information

This page outlines generalist options in relation to types of decision making structures, processes for exploring issues, and processes for making decisions. Step 1 of the Commissioning Steps on BetterEvaluation guides the development of the follow products:

• Evaluation management plan
• Decision making matrix
• List of responsibilities for the evaluation manager
• List of responsibilities for the evaluator
• Information about Joint Evaluations towards an Evaluation Partnership Agreement

These pages are recommended background reading before considering options to apply to C4D. 

Decision Making Processes and C4D

Applying the C4D principles

Participatory	The C4D Evaluation Framework would encourage participatory decision making processes where possible. This means that stakeholders are actively engaged in decision making about the framing and design of R,M&E. This task is an opportunity to formalise the involvement of stakeholders in decision making.
Critical	Critically reflect on and remove any barriers to participation in decision making (e.g. geography of meeting locations, frequency of the meetings, logistics, language, etc.).
Learning based	Decision making processes and structures (such as an ongoing technical working group) should emphasise leadership and responsibilities for knowledge management, exchange and utilisation to ensure continuous learning, mutual understanding and creative ideas and thinking.
Complex	Decision-making about how the evaluation will be done (including framing its purpose and questions, choosing an evaluation team, approving an evaluation plan and an evaluation report) may need to include different stakeholders. If the key stakeholders change, the decision making structures and processes might need to be flexible. Sometimes we may need to revisit decisions that have already been made.

Recommended options and adaptations for C4D

Advisory and working groups/committees:

Consider the creation of one or more of the following:

• An M&E/evaluation/study steering committee or 'technical working group' to work through decisions and take forward actions (this could include representatives from all stakeholder groups)
• A technical advisory committee or ad hoc technical advisors to provide expert advice and recommendations (this may include local/regional experts)  
• A community jury or consultation committee to review proposals, work through decisions and take forward actions (this may include, for example, local NGOs, Faith-Based Groups, activists, children’s/adolescents/parents/etc. committees.)

Joint Evaluations

The Commissioner's Guide provides useful information for thinking about different kinds of joint evaluations and how this influences decision making processes. Examples include:

 

Decision Making Matrix:

Consider creating a decision making matrix as outlined in the example below. This can be useful to:

• set out the kinds of decisions that will need to be made about the R,M&E (in this case, an evaluation).
• clarify the roles of different groups in the different decisions.

For more see Step 1 of the Commissioning Steps on BetterEvaluation

Example:

Decisions	Technical Working Group (TWG)	Sub-group (expert advisory) TWG	Evaluation team
Focus of evaluation	Consulted   Discusses/ dialogue   Consensus agreement	Proposes	Informed
Selection criteria for evaluator/evaluation team	Consulted   Discusses/ dialogue/   Consensus agreement	Proposes	N/A
Choosing evaluator/evaluation team	Consulted	Consulted   Discusses/ dialogue/   Consensus agreement	N/A
Evaluation design	Consulted	Consulted   Discusses/ dialogue/   Consensus agreement	Proposes Executes
Evaluation report	Consulted	Consensus agreement	Propose Execute
Release of report and data	Approves	Informed	Informed