Learning and Other Noble Motives

In my previous blog entry I mentioned that staff seemed fairly content with the response to the Jogya earthquake. But don’t get me wrong, contentedness does not mean apathy. In fact, it seems the learning machinery has been put into motion, the agencies already having done some reviews or evaluations and everyone still eager to know “what could we do better next time?” I have to confess that I don’t have much of a point of reference other than hearsay, but I wasn’t expecting such enthusiasm.  I’ve heard a lot about evaluations being executed dutifully and without zest, only as a concession to those unavoidable donor requirements. And then again, after an exhausting emergency response where the most valiant efforts still fell short, why would anyone look forward to an evaluation any more than they would forward to a visit to the dentist?

 

Here are a few theories to explain why Save UK, CARE, WV and CRS in Jogya may feel differently:

 

• Staff here really do want to know what do better for future responses, if not here in Jogya then for others missions (all four agencies would have left Jogya by June 2008).
• A joint evaluation promises a new type of learning, with its more panoramic view of causes and context, and its unveiling of other agencies’ best practices and “what-not-to-dos.”
• Adhong, the steering committee member at CRS, and his colleagues have been very persuasive in touting the benefits of the evaluation and getting the others to join, and our ECB2 colleagues at headquarters have done their fair share of lobbying.  

Staff here have also clearly stated that prior knowledge of ECB has made them more amenable to the evaluation – along with the general acceptance that better coordination is needed in the future.

 

Whatever brought them to this round table, there are many eyes on this evaluation – and thus much reason to hope this joint venture will persuade the skeptics and affirm the believers.

 

Malaika