The aim of this study is to put forward actionable recommendations on learning lessons in DFID, particularly from evaluation studies and research findings.
Methodology
The study included 38 semi-structured interviews in Palace Street, Abercrombie House, and via video conference or telephone with staff in country offices; an online survey carried out by EVD and answered by 254 respondents; a review of documents obtained on a rolling basis in order to provide further insights, comparisons and triangulation; and analysis and iterations in particular with EVD staff, IACDI members and other DFID experts.
Findings and conclusions
Three perspectives of learning were identified in the study:
First, from the starting point of DFID’s research and evaluation outputs, the question of whether lessons are learned focuses on how influential that work is, whether findings and recommendations are taken up in policy and programming and acted upon.
Second, from the point of view of decision-making and action, the question of lesson learning becomes a matter of looking at the extent to which evidence (and in particular, that emerging from DFID’s research and evaluation) feeds into and informs the process of policy making and programming.
Third, looking at learning from the perspective of DFID as an organisation, the question of lesson learning focuses on how knowledge within DFID is captured, shared and used, as and where it is needed.
The study suggests that DFID is much better (or at least more comfortable) at using the findings of research and evaluation than organisational learning. Similarly, it is much better at using research and evaluation findings during, or as part of a project cycle, than in more complex and emergent decision making processes.
From the analysis of decision-making models and the role that evaluation/research based evidence plays, three main conclusions emerge:
Initiatives that promote a sense of ownership of research and evaluations and those that support the development and strengthening of interpersonal learning networks work well in DFID. In other words, learning in DFID (of the kind that promotes the incorporation of analysis into decision making and the development of a learning organisation) is more akin to a system with fewer intermediaries and more direct relations between users and producers of knowledge.
Formal mechanisms directed at lesson-learning seem to be more useful where it is possible to ‘go with the grain’ of what is required for learning in the circumstances faced; and
In line with this DFID’s systems are not properly set up to deal with the complexity of problems the organisation faces.