Dear colleagues, 

it is exciting to see such an insightful and passionate discussion. I represent CGIAR’s evaluation function and we developed and have implemented EAs with Amy under advisory of Rick Davies. Rationale for conducting EAs in CGIAR is summed up in the blog. Complementing and in response to some items raised here, it is important to note that all contexts are not created equal and level of unquestionable preparedness for an evaluation cannot be assumed in any type and size of intervention in any context. In the evolving contexts, some aspects may not be prioritized in time and to meet the needs of everyone involved. EA thus they have already brought us one step closer to facilitate learning and ensure that accountability mechanisms, you can even call it an evaluative baseline, are in place before an intervention is launched or progresses too far. EAs have helped builds confidence among stakeholders, including MEL professionals (often disempowered) and funders, that the aspirational goals and objectives are not only feasible to implement and measure, but also that MEL colleagues are a key stakeholder for us and towards reconciling accountability and transparency with those who fund. EAs have helped enhance the sense of ownership and credibility of processes and results, and thus can be crucial for securing funding and support. By recommending funders around timing and evaluation scope expectation can be set properly also at which level the evaluation can be funded, to set up expectations on the depth of inquiry and evaluative learning.