This case study details an evaluation of a sales program within a business services organization, here called XYZ Corporation. Logic models were employed to identify the processes, as well as the short- and long-term outcomes. Twenty-three sales people, 10 implementation specialists, and nine consultants from XYZ were interviewed, along with 40 XYZ clients. In addition, written surveys and archival data were gathered. Although timely evaluation reports were produced and presented, reorganization at XYZ Corporation limited direct instrumental use of the evaluation. The present article focuses on use and non-use of the evaluation results, with particular emphasis on process use, and it discusses factors contributing to use and non-use of this private sector evaluation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bickman, L. (Ed.). (1987). Using program theory in evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation (pp. 33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
2.
Bickman, L. (Ed.). (1990). Advances in program theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation (p. 47). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3.
Carter, R. (1994). Maximizing the use of evaluation results. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 576-589). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Chen, H. T. (Ed.). (1989). The theory-driven perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(4).
5.
Chen, H. T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluation: A comprehensive perspective. Newbury, CA: Sage.
6.
Chen, H. T. (1994a). Theory-driven evaluations: Needs, difficulties, and options. Evaluation Practice, 15, 79-82.
7.
Chen, H. T. (1994b). Current trends and future directions in program evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15, 229-237.
8.
Chen, H. T. (1996). A comprehensive typology for program evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 17, 121-130.
9.
Dixon, N. M. (1990). Organizational learning: A review of the literature with implications for HRD professionals. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3, 29-49.
10.
A dismal record: Life cycles. (1989, January 9). Financial Times (London) p. 11 [Online]. Available at: Lexis-Nexis. Accessed January 9, 1989.
11.
Greene, J. C. (1988). Stakeholder participation and utilization in program evaluation. Evaluation Review, 12, 91-116.
12.
Hedrick, T. E. (1988). The interaction of politics and evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 9(3), 5-14.
13.
Jordan, G. (1996, November). Using the logic chart and performance spectrum in corporate performance management: A DOE case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Atlanta.
14.
Lozano, J. A. (2001). Compaq is changing its focus. Associated Press Wire Service [Online]. Available at: www.wire.ap.org. Accessed June 26, 2001.
15.
Owen, J. M., & Lambert, F. C. (1998). Evaluation and the information needs of organizational leaders. American Journal of Evaluation, 19, 355-365.
16.
Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
17.
Preskill, H. (1991). The cultural lens: Bringing evaluation utilization into focus. In C. L. Larson & H. Preskill (Eds.), Organizations in transition: Opportunities and challenges for evaluation, New Directions for Program Evaluation, 49 (pp. 5-15). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
18.
Preskill, H. (1994). Evaluation’s role in enhancing organizational learning: A model for practice. Evaluation and Program Planning, 17, 291-297.
19.
Preskill, H., & Caracelli, V. (1997). Current and developing conceptions of use: Evaluation Use TIG survey results. Evaluation Practice, 18, 209-225.
20.
Preskill, H., & Torres, R. T. (1999). Evaluative inquiry for learning in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
21.
Rossi, P. H., & Freeman, H. E. (1993). Evaluation: A systematic approach (5th ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage.
22.
Russ-Eft, D. (1986). Evaluability assessment of the adult education program (AEP). Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 39-47.
23.
Russ-Eft, D., & Preskill, H. (2001). Evaluation in organizations: A systematic approach to enhancing learning, performance, and change. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
24.
Schmidt, R. E., Scanlon, J. W., & Bell, J. B. (1979). Evaluability assessment: Making public programs work better. Human Services Monograph Series, 14.
25.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. E. Stake (Ed.). Curriculum evaluation. American Educational Research Association Monograph Series on Evaluation, No. 1 (pp. 39-83). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Scriven, M. (1996). Types of evaluation and types of evaluator. Evaluation Practice, 17(2), 151-161.
28.
Shapiro, B. P., Slywotzky, A. J., & Doyle, S. X. (revised 1998). Strategic sales management: A boardroom issue. Business fundamentals as taught at the Harvard Business School: Sales Management! (pp. 9-34). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, #9164.
29.
Shulha, L. M., & Cousins, J. B. (1997). Evaluation use: Theory, research and practice from 1986. Evaluation Practice, 18, 195-208.
30.
Solomon, C. M. (1998, September). Corporate pioneers navigate global mergers. Workforce9(77) [Online]. Available at: Lexis-Nexis (Information Access Company 21136087). Accessed October 21, 1998.
31.
Torres, R. T., & Preskill, H. (1999). Ethical dimensions of stakeholder participation and evaluation use. In J. L. Fitzpatrick & M. Morris (Eds.), Current and emerging ethical challenges in evaluation, New Directions for Evaluation, 82 (pp. 57-66). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
32.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1994). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systemic change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
33.
Weiss, C. H. (1988). Evaluation for decisions: Is anybody there? Does anybody care?Evaluation Practice, 9(1), 5-19.
34.
Wholey, J. S. (1976). A methodology for planning and conducting project impact evaluation in UNESCO Fields. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
35.
Wholey, J. S. (1979). Evaluation: Promise and performance. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
