Mid-term Review of the Diakonia Strategic Peace Building ... - Sida

2
2 M E T H O D O L O G Y
its relevance. As a result, this review cannot draw any conclusion on the relevance
of SA1.
This review shows an important lesson that the evaluator believes Sida should learn
from and possibly replicate in other similar situations: supporting and accompanying
a transition period for a programme whose performance has been severely questioned
by an evaluation is a good investment. The example of Diakonia, which relies to a
large extent on new management, a critical evaluation of previous partnership and
approaches, and on greater support provided by the regional office, shows that such a
process leads to the development of a more relevant and efficient programme.
The use of the same evaluator to perform the 2011 evaluation and this mid-term review
proved to be effective and efficient. We are convinced that the knowledge of the
organisation, of the previous programmes, with its weaknesses, challenges and
strengths, and of the partners, enhanced the credibility and legitimacy of the analysis
and conclusions included in this report. It also allowed for an optimised use of the
time that was allocated for the review.
Apart from making sure that gathered information answers the evaluation questions,
our approach and the focus on utilisation have ensured that the evaluation process
would allow Diakonia, their partners and stakeholders to reflect on their work and,
thus, learn from the evaluation process. The evaluator has shared the initial findings
of the evaluation with Diakonia’s team in Harare, with a representative of Diakonia’s
regional office in Nairobi and with Sida’s staff at the Embassy.
None of the external informants have provided information that might question the
trustworthiness of the information collected through the staff and the partners. This
strengthens our confidence in the credibility of the results of this assessment.
17