Managing the risk of program failure

Public policy and programs fail for a range of reasons, some preventable and some much harder to treat. Program administrators require methods for managing risk. This article argues that evaluation can be a useful tool for identifying and managing risk. It offers Propositional Evaluation as a cost-effective, risk-based approach to the evaluation of any policy, program, initiative, or simply, plan of action for the public good. Propositional Evaluation treats programs as propositions for action and focuses on developing sound, that is, valid and well-grounded propositions. It begins in the design phase and continues through delivery to provide a means for identifying and managing risks to achieving intended outcomes. This article situates Propositional Evaluation approach in the evaluation theory literature. It reflects on common causes of program failure and identifies those evaluators may help program administrators identify and mitigate. It provides a description of five critical and five residual risks that derive from the propositional approach. Evaluating these risks provides a structure for evaluation and adaptive management. The intended audience is program administrators, and evaluators working to support them who require prospective evaluation and adaptive management or rapid and cost-effective evaluation for program design and re-design

Action (physics · Business · Economics · Management · Management science · Plan (archaeology · Process management · Risk analysis (engineering · Risk management · Complex Systems and Decision Making · Computer Science · Construction Project Management and Performance · Engineering · Evaluation and Performance Assessment

• Lenses and their blind spots

  Open Access•Andrew Hawkins•Evaluation•2026

  Incluir item

• The Super Six Ideas Shaping Evaluation in Australia

  Open Access•Carina Calzoni, Amy Gullickson et al.•Evaluation Journal of Australasia•2026

  Incluir item

• The Student Equity in Higher Education Evaluation Framework (Seheef) and its relevance in the context of the Australian Universities Accord

  Mark Robinson, Wojtek Tomaszewski et al.•Journal of Higher Education…•2025

  Incluir item

• The Shapes of Things

  Open Access•Christopher Phillip Banks•Evaluation Journal of Australasia•2025

  Incluir item

• The Science of Evaluation

  Ray Pawson•The Science of Evaluation•2013

  Incluir item

• Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation

  Open Access•Kathryn E Newcomer, Harry P Hatry et al.•Handbook of Practical Program…•2015

  Incluir item

• The new dynamics of strategy

  Cynthia Kurtz, C F Kurtz et al.•IBM Systems Journal•2003

  Incluir item

• Rameses II reporting standards for realist evaluations

  Open Access•Geoff Wong, Gill Westhorp et al.•BMC Medicine•2016

  Incluir item

• An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method

  Cohen Morris R, l Nage et al.•The Journal of Nervous and Mental…•1934

  Incluir item

• Is Adversary Evaluation Worth a Second Look

  Open Access•Robert Picciotto•American Journal of Evaluation•2018

  Incluir item

• System evaluation theory (SET)

  Open Access•Ralph Renger•Evaluation Journal of Australasia•2015

  Incluir item

• Using formal theory in evaluation – What is it and how is it used

  Open Access•Kim Grey•Evaluation Journal of Australasia•2024

  Incluir item

• Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions

  Russell E Glasgow, Thomas Vogt et al.•American Journal of Public Health•1999

  Incluir item

• Return to Reason

  Stephen Toulmin, Stephen Edelston Toulmin•Return to Reason•2003

  Incluir item