From 18 to 20 May 2026, I participated in the 12th Meeting of the Network of Cantonal Development Planning Practitioners, held in Livno and Split. The meeting brought together representatives of public institutions, international organizations, and professionals working in strategic planning, evaluation, sustainable development, and institutional capacity building.
As part of the program, I delivered a presentation titled “Mid-Term Evaluations: Challenges, Opportunities and Methodology.” The session focused on the role of mid-term evaluation within the development planning system of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with particular attention to the difference between fulfilling a formal obligation and conducting an evaluation that can genuinely improve public policy.
The meeting also provided another valuable opportunity to collaborate with Dr. Rijad Kovač, Director of the Development Programming Institute of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and my colleague as a part-time faculty member at the Faculty of Business and Administration of the International University of Sarajevo.
Why Mid-Term Evaluation Matters
A mid-term evaluation should not be understood simply as an assessment of whether predefined targets have been achieved. Its broader purpose is to examine whether the entire implementation system is functioning as intended.
This includes questions such as whether activities are being implemented according to plan, whether institutions are coordinating effectively, whether financial resources are being used appropriately, whether monitoring data are sufficiently reliable, and whether implementation is still likely to produce the expected development results.
In this sense, evaluation is closely connected to governance. It provides public institutions with an opportunity to identify implementation problems before the end of a strategic period, adjust priorities where necessary, and make better-informed decisions about future interventions.
The regulatory framework in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina establishes the basic purpose, timing, institutional responsibilities, and minimum structure of mid-term evaluations. However, the presentation emphasized that a formally defined framework does not automatically produce a consistent or high-quality evaluation practice.
The Gap Between Regulation and Practice
One of the central issues discussed during the session was the existence of a methodological “grey zone.”
The existing framework defines several important elements, including the obligation to conduct evaluations, the general structure of evaluation reports, institutional responsibilities, evaluator independence, and the expected use of results. Nevertheless, a number of operational questions remain insufficiently standardized.
These include:
- the depth of evaluation analysis;
- the minimum analytical standard;
- the quality and structure of recommendations;
- the approach to triangulating findings from different sources;
- the relationship between evaluation findings and future planning decisions;
- the proportional use of evaluation methods across institutions and strategic documents.
Without further operational guidance, institutions may interpret the same regulatory requirements differently. As a result, evaluation practice can vary considerably in terms of methodology, stakeholder participation, analytical quality, reporting, and the practical usefulness of recommendations.
This variation does not necessarily result from a lack of commitment. In many cases, it reflects uncertainty regarding what constitutes a sufficiently rigorous, proportionate, and usable mid-term evaluation.
Operational Risks in the Evaluation Process
The presentation identified several areas in which the absence of more detailed methodological standards can create operational risks.
The first is institutional coordination. Evaluation activities often involve several administrative bodies, coordination structures, data providers, decision-makers, and external evaluators. Unless responsibilities and communication channels are clearly defined, relevant information may be delayed, fragmented, or unavailable.
The second is stakeholder identification and consultation. Evaluations require more than technical data. They also depend on the perspectives of institutions responsible for implementation, beneficiaries, partners, and other affected actors. However, consultation processes may differ substantially unless basic expectations are established in advance.
The third concerns data availability and quality. Strategic documents often contain indicators that are not regularly updated, methodologically consistent, or directly linked to implementation activities. Evaluators may therefore spend considerable time reconstructing the evidence needed to assess progress.
Additional risks relate to the preparation of terms of reference, the selection of evaluators, the quality assessment of evaluation proposals, the comparability of reports, and the connection between evaluation recommendations and the next strategic planning cycle.
These are not merely technical concerns. They directly influence whether an evaluation will support decision-making or remain primarily a reporting exercise.
From the “Grey Zone” to an Operational Evaluation Framework
The main recommendation presented during the meeting was the development of practical guidelines that would translate general regulatory requirements into a common operational framework.
Such guidelines should not introduce unnecessary administrative obligations. Their purpose should be to make evaluations more consistent, credible, proportionate, and useful across institutions.
A stronger methodological framework should define several core components.
First, it should provide a clearer set of evaluation criteria and questions. These should reflect the purpose of a mid-term evaluation and examine areas such as relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, sustainability, and the functioning of implementation arrangements.
Second, each evaluation should be based on an evaluation matrix linking evaluation questions to indicators, evidence sources, data collection methods, analytical procedures, and expected outputs. This would improve transparency and ensure that conclusions can be traced back to evidence.
Third, the guidelines should establish minimum expectations for data collection and triangulation. Documentary evidence, monitoring data, interviews, consultations, and other sources should not be treated separately. They should be combined to test whether different forms of evidence lead to consistent conclusions.
Fourth, a basic analytical standard should be defined. Evaluation should go beyond describing activities and reporting indicator values. It should explain why implementation has progressed as expected, why delays or weaknesses have occurred, and what institutional or policy changes are needed.
Finally, recommendations should be specific, evidence-based, realistic, and connected to responsible institutions. A recommendation that does not identify what should change, who should act, and how the action relates to the evidence has limited practical value.
The Different Roles of Institutions and Evaluators
A quality evaluation depends on a clear division of responsibilities.
The evaluator is responsible for designing the analytical approach, collecting and assessing evidence, triangulating findings, examining implementation results, and developing conclusions and recommendations. Evaluator independence is essential because evaluation findings must be based on evidence rather than institutional preferences.
However, independence does not mean that institutions have a passive role.
The responsible public authority must create the conditions under which the evaluation can be conducted. This includes preparing a realistic terms of reference, ensuring access to documents and data, organizing institutional cooperation, facilitating consultations, and reviewing whether the report adequately addresses the agreed evaluation questions.
Institutions are also responsible for ensuring that findings are used. The value of evaluation does not end with the submission of a report. Its real contribution begins when findings inform implementation adjustments, budget decisions, institutional coordination, and the preparation of the next generation of strategic documents.
Building Evaluation Capacity
Another important conclusion from the session was that methodological guidance alone is not sufficient.
Institutions need capacity to organize and manage evaluations, prepare operational terms of reference, maintain usable monitoring systems, coordinate stakeholders, and translate findings into managerial and policy decisions.
Evaluators, in turn, need the capacity to apply proportionate methods, reconstruct intervention logic, use evaluation matrices, conduct triangulated analysis, and prepare recommendations that are both methodologically credible and operationally realistic.
Capacity building should therefore address both sides of the evaluation process. Stronger institutions without qualified evaluators will not produce better evaluations. Similarly, highly qualified evaluators cannot compensate for missing data, weak coordination, or unclear institutional expectations.
Evaluation as an Instrument of Better Governance
The broader message of the presentation was that evaluation should not be treated as an isolated technical exercise.
When properly integrated into development planning, mid-term evaluation can strengthen accountability, improve the allocation of public resources, identify institutional weaknesses, and support more realistic policy choices. It can also help public institutions distinguish between problems caused by the design of a strategy and those caused by weaknesses in implementation.
This distinction is important. A strategy may contain appropriate objectives but still produce limited results because responsibilities are fragmented, resources are insufficient, indicators are poorly designed, or implementation mechanisms are not functioning effectively.
Evaluation provides the analytical space in which these differences can be examined systematically.
Continuing the Dialogue on Evaluation and Public Policy
The meeting in Livno and Split confirmed the importance of sustained cooperation between public institutions, development planning practitioners, academic researchers, and evaluation professionals.
I am particularly grateful for the continued collaboration with Dr. Rijad Kovač and the Development Programming Institute of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Dialogue between institutions responsible for development planning and researchers working on evaluation methodology is essential for translating formal planning frameworks into more effective public policies.
Through my academic work at the International University of Sarajevo and my professional engagement in evaluation and public policy, I remain committed to contributing to better governance, stronger accountability, and improved public services for citizens.
At its core, this is what evaluation should achieve: not simply better reports, but better decisions.
