- Evaluation Plan:
- 2005-2009, Armenia
- Evaluation Type:
- UNDAF
- Planned End Date:
- 11/2008
- Completion Date:
- 09/2008
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- Yes
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- --
2005-2009 UNDAF Armenia Final Evaluation (In-Depth Review)
| Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 UNDAF__2005-2009__EVALUATION_Armenia_2008.pdf |
report | English | Posted | 1125 | |
| Terms_of_Reference_of_UNDAF_Armenia_2005-2009_Review__Evaluation_.pdf |
tor | Posted | 801 |
| Title | 2005-2009 UNDAF Armenia Final Evaluation (In-Depth Review) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlas Project Number: | |||||||
| Evaluation Plan: | 2005-2009, Armenia | ||||||
| Evaluation Type: | UNDAF | ||||||
| Status: | Completed | ||||||
| Completion Date: | 09/2008 | ||||||
| Planned End Date: | 11/2008 | ||||||
| Management Response: | Yes | ||||||
| Focus Area: |
|
||||||
| Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
||||||
| Evaluation Budget(US $): | -- | ||||||
| Joint Programme: | No | ||||||
| Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||
| Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||
| GEF Evaluation: | No | ||||||
| Key Stakeholders: | |||||||
| Countries: | ARMENIA |
| Lessons | |
|---|---|
| Findings |
| Recommendations | |
|---|---|
| 1 | The Report strongly urges that, whenever it is appropriate, capacity-building components of projects/programmes should be very clearly spelt out, and worked into UNDAF. Appropriate and measurable indicators must also be spelt out. |
| 2 | Too many indicators both for impact and outcome assessments are very likely to end up yielding conflicting results. A few but measurable indicators should be selected with the assurance that such indicators are available readily and timely. In that vein it is recommended that Human Development Report (HDR) may very well be considered as a major source for setting up indicators. HDRs are usually most comprehensive and reliable source and provide time series. If need be some additional sources may also be used. One of the major additional sources would be Armenia Human Development Report. However, care should be taken that collecting and verifying indicators must be especially consistent and cost efficient. It would be good to keep in mind the SMART indicators designed by UNDP. |
| 3 | UNDAF should be viewed as a flexible instrument taking into consideration of the particular mandate of different agencies. Long and detailed outcomes tend to put different agencies in a position that first they design projects and then seek the appropriate outcome category in the UNDAF document for a particular project. This of course goes exactly against the raison d'être of UNDAF. Such practices should be avoided at all cost. |
1. Recommendation: The Report strongly urges that, whenever it is appropriate, capacity-building components of projects/programmes should be very clearly spelt out, and worked into UNDAF. Appropriate and measurable indicators must also be spelt out.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/02/02]
The recommendation will be considered in the new UNDAF by defining clear results and indicators on capacity building.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clearly spell out capacity building components in the UNDAF.
[Added: 2010/02/02] |
RC Unit | 2009/12 | Completed |
2. Recommendation: Too many indicators both for impact and outcome assessments are very likely to end up yielding conflicting results. A few but measurable indicators should be selected with the assurance that such indicators are available readily and timely. In that vein it is recommended that Human Development Report (HDR) may very well be considered as a major source for setting up indicators. HDRs are usually most comprehensive and reliable source and provide time series. If need be some additional sources may also be used. One of the major additional sources would be Armenia Human Development Report. However, care should be taken that collecting and verifying indicators must be especially consistent and cost efficient. It would be good to keep in mind the SMART indicators designed by UNDP.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/02/02]
The recommendation will be considered while developing new UNDAF by defining fewer SMART indicators with clear baselines, targets and means of verifications.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Define SMART indicators for the new UNDAF with clear baselines, targets and means of veryfication.
[Added: 2010/02/02] |
RC Unit M&E Specialist | 2009/12 | Completed |
3. Recommendation: UNDAF should be viewed as a flexible instrument taking into consideration of the particular mandate of different agencies. Long and detailed outcomes tend to put different agencies in a position that first they design projects and then seek the appropriate outcome category in the UNDAF document for a particular project. This of course goes exactly against the raison d'être of UNDAF. Such practices should be avoided at all cost.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/02/02] [Last Updated: 2010/02/02]
Results based approach will be applied while developing the new UNDAF, which will allow to avoid the mentioned issue.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apply RBA principles for the new UNDAF.
[Added: 2010/02/02] |
RC Unit | 2009/12 | Completed |