Evaluation influence is rarely straightforward. Findings may contribute to public debate, inform reforms or shape subsequent evaluations, with their effects becoming clearer only over time (sometimes decades).
That makes the experience explored by Rob Lloyd and Ida Lindkvist particularly interesting. Their article, “The art of commissioning: lessons from commissioner–evaluator collaboration,” reflects on four evaluations commissioned by Norad’s Evaluation Department between 2014 and 2024, and undertaken by Itad, drawing on their respective perspectives as evaluator and commissioner.
Following evaluation influence over a decade
The four evaluations did not operate in isolation. Each built on and developed the questions and learning generated by the previous work.
The first, in 2014, examined why Norwegian aid partners and grants were struggling to capture useful results data. A 2018 evaluation then looked more broadly at results-based management and how results data were being used. A third evaluation in 2020 examined the practices of portfolio management across the aid administration, before the 2024 evaluation explored how knowledge and evidence were being used within portfolio management.
Looking across the series reveals a striking story of influence.
The 2014 evaluation sparked public debate about results measurement and evidence use, and the following year’s government budget proposal to parliament emphasised the need to strengthen the quality of results information. The 2018 evaluation recommended a stronger portfolio-based approach to results management, which the Norwegian aid administration subsequently committed to taking forward.
The influence became more tangible following the 2020 evaluation which proposed portfolio management standards and capacity building that were adopted by Norad. By 2024, the latest evaluation was finding signs of further progress, including the development of theories of change and knowledge plans across portfolios and stronger leadership support for the use of knowledge. Norad also began acting on some of the emerging findings before that evaluation was complete.
So what made the evaluations influential?
The article argues that commissioning was an important part of the story.
Rather than treating each evaluation as a standalone exercise, the Evaluation Department deliberately built one on another. Continuity among staff helped institutional knowledge and relationships accumulate, while the focus of the evaluations evolved with the organisation’s needs, moving from a stronger emphasis on accountability towards learning and closer collaboration.
The relationship between commissioner and evaluator mattered too. Clear, tightly focused terms of reference gave evaluations a strong sense of purpose while still leaving room for evaluators to propose appropriate and innovative methods. As the collaboration developed, approaches such as co-creating recommendations and using interim findings helped bring users into the process rather than waiting until a final report was published.
Over time, trust also changed the nature of the relationship. The article describes how stakeholders became more willing to engage with difficult findings, while the evaluation team had greater space to challenge, innovate and work constructively with the organisation.
Five lessons for commissioners
Drawing on the decade of experience, Rob Lloyd and Ida Lindkvist identify five lessons for organisations commissioning evaluation:
- Exercise agency while protecting independence: commissioners should actively shape evaluations and remain engaged, without compromising their credibility and independence.
- Draw on external expertise: commissioners cannot be experts in every topic or method.
- Create the conditions for collaboration: mechanisms such as interim deliverables can encourage interaction and build trust.
- Share responsibility for communication: commissioners have an important role in helping findings reach and engage the people who can use them.
- Build on previous evaluations: linking evaluations over time can reinforce organisational learning and increase the chances of change taking root.
The wider message is that commissioning is not simply an administrative step before the “real” evaluation begins. Commissioners are the bridge between an evaluation and the organisation that needs to act on its findings.
The article appears as a chapter in The Power of Commissioning: Enabling Democratic Evaluation, edited by Nicoletta Stame and María Bustelo and published by Routledge, which has been made Open Access.
