I posted a comment in response to a post on evaluation.

The post:
Donor priorities for evaluation: learning v the accountability agenda?

 My comment:

Ref - What’s good about the process of asking evaluation questions at the beginning of programme design, and engaging stakeholders throughout it, is that this very engagement with stakeholders may well change that agenda.

I agree. Ongoing dialogue enables the exact details and direction of the project to emerge as things move along. Projects that are tightly defined beforehand can degenerate into box-ticking exercises. Without ongoing communication there can be increasing tension and separation between "what is supposed to happen on paper" and "what people really want".

I hate to see resources wasted through top down projects that don't seem to achieve what they might. In times before we had the Internet and smart phones it wasn't possible to have ongoing dialogue - but now things are different - or at least they can be.

To demonstrate that I am talking about practical reality, not just ideas, here is an example of a project where there was discussion beforehand, so it hit the ground running.  http://www.dadamac.net/projects/ecology-appropriate-technology/ecodome

I am glad to see this topic being addressed by donors as I believe passionately in the importance of better communication between donors (and/or reseachers) and the people they are trying to help and I am actively involved in trying to help them work together more effectively - http://dadamac.posterous.com/dadamac-the-internet-enabled-alternative-to-t