BigCat Research

Which assumptions have been verified during the implementation process, and which should be revised?

Determining which assumptions are confirmed and which need to be revised during the implementation process is central to program learning.

Every social program starts with some assumptions: the target group participates, the content matches the need, support turns into behavior, local partnership works, follow-up is possible. The implementation process shows which of these assumptions are strengthened and which are weakened. If the evaluation clearly states this learning, the program will be designed more accurately in the new period.

Seeing which assumptions are confirmed and which need to be revised during the implementation process turns the program into a truly learning structure. The first thing that is mentioned in social programs is often the scope: the number of events, the number of people reached, the number of hours of training provided or the support provided. These show the effort of the program; but it does not explain the change itself. The assessment should show how the initial need changes and under what conditions this change is strengthened.

This reading should be done by considering design assumptions, implementation records, field notes, beneficiary feedback, common opinions and result indicators together. Robust evaluation reads the target group profile and baseline together with result indicators. Quantitative data indicates prevalence, beneficiary voice indicates the cause, and documents and records indicate the durability of the result. When these sources are used together, the report becomes both understandable and defensible.

If the assumption is not written down, it becomes difficult to discuss what was learned at the end of the application. This reading How should the program design, resource allocation or scaling decision change for the next period, What results and social value did the program produce for which stakeholders, With what proxies and assumptions can the financial equivalent of these results be modeled and How do assumptions such as deadweight, attribution, displacement and drop-off affect the SROI result gives a more complete framework; because each one makes another moment of the experience visible. In this context, evaluation does not only describe the past period; It also feeds into the next step of the program. It becomes visible which component will be preserved, which support will change, in which target group additional support will be required and which result will continue to be monitored.

Why should the assumption be in writing?

The written assumption makes visible the logic behind which the program was designed. The evaluation should especially not forget external conditions. If the local economy, family support, institutional capacity or other programs affect the outcome, contribution language should be established accordingly.

In this way, what went right or wrong at the end of the application becomes clearer. The same clarity is required from the funder or management. The evaluation becomes defensible when the outcome is linked to the resource used and the quality of implementation.

If there is a lack of data, the department should not remain silent, it should clearly state what is unknown. Missing data does not invalidate the assessment; It only shows which result will be read more cautiously and which indicator will be collected more regularly in the next period.

What does the verified assumption provide?