Ralf Josef Johanna Beerens and Karin Haverhoek-Mieremet
This paper seeks to overcome the mismatch between evaluation reports and the expectations of the target audience, by identifying crisis management professionals' expectations.
Abstract
Purpose
This paper seeks to overcome the mismatch between evaluation reports and the expectations of the target audience, by identifying crisis management professionals' expectations.
Design/methodology/approach
An adapted stakeholder information analysis was used to survey the expectations of 84 crisis management professionals in the Netherlands. A general inductive analysis was applied to qualitative data, from which five main themes emerged: purpose; object or focus; reasoning and (meta) analysis; result or conclusion, and the overall design of the evaluation.
Findings
Currently, evaluation reports are seen merely as a way to share experience and support thinking about how to avoid repeating mistakes. However, most respondents expected them to contribute to learning and support improvement. They should provide actionable feedback on what could be done differently or better, and indicate how this can be achieved. Respondents emphasised the need to focus on the human factor and not neglect the context. The wide variety of views underlined that it is difficult to create one evaluation product that meets all expectations.
Research limitations/implications
Although some major themes clearly emerged from the data, it is unclear how they relate to each other, and their relative importance. In addition, no distinction is made between evaluations of real events and simulations.
Practical implications
Users should be encouraged to provide input into the evaluation process by clarifying their needs and how they use evaluation reports.
Originality/value
This research is the first attempt to identify user expectations regarding what constitutes an effective evaluation.