Integrating Evaluation Models for Comprehensive Project Assessment: A Case Study of Mae Khri, Patthalung, Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
บทคัดย่อ
Effective project evaluation is crucial for the success of government initiatives. This study investigates the potential of integrating multiple evaluation models into a unified framework for a more holistic assessment. It employs a phased approach, to explore projects within a municipality in Thailand. This study utilizes six evaluation models Needs Assessment, CIRO, CIPP, PDCA, Discrepancy, and Alkin at various stages of the project. In the initial phases, the CIRO and CIPP models are employed for needs assessment and project design, which helps ensure a thorough understanding of community needs and alignment with project objectives. The PDCA cycle is adopted during implementation, facilitating continuous monitoring and iterative adjustments. Discrepancy evaluation is implemented concurrently, identifying deviations from planned outcomes. The Alkin Model takes center stage during the evaluation phase, offering a multifaceted assessment through various tools such as interviews, surveys, and project data.
Findings from each model are integrated, providing a comprehensive understanding of the project’s strengths, weaknesses, and impacts. This integrated approach may require intensive data collection. However, the benefits outweigh the challenges, as the gained insights contribute to improved project planning, implementation, and future iterations. The implications offer valuable guidance for government agencies, highlighting the potential of integrating evaluation models to maximize project success and community development.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
บทความทุกเรื่องจะได้รับการตรวจสอบความถูกต้องทางวิชาการโดยผู้ทรงคุณวุฒิ (peer review) ข้อความและบทความในวารสารหาดใหญ่วิชาการเป็นแนวคิดของผู้เขียน มิใช่ความคิดเห็นของคณะผู้จัดทำ และมิใช่ความรับผิดชอบของมหาวิทยาลัยหาดใหญ่ กองบรรณาธิการวารสารหาดใหญ่วิชาการ ไม่สงวนสิทธิ์การคัดลอกบทความเพื่อใช้ประโยชน์ทางวิชาการ แต่ให้อ้างอิงแสดงที่มาของบทความ
References
Alkin, M. C. (Ed.) (1969). Evaluation as a decision-making tool. Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation, UCLA Graduate School of Education.
Alkin, M. C. (2004). Evaluation roots: Tracing theorists’ views and influences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Anantanatorn, A. (2022). Innovation in Thai government management: A case study of integrated provincial and local administration policies. Annals of Forest Research, 65(1), 4316-4331.
Asian Development Bank. (2019). Thailand: Validation of the country partnership strategy final review, 2013–2016 [Redacted version]. Retrieved from https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/evaluation-document/523471/files/thailand-cpsfrv-redacted.pdf
Brandon, P. R., & Ah Sam, A. L. (2020). Program evaluation. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 704–740). England: Oxford University Press.
Cao, Q., & Hoffman, J. J. (2011). A case study approach for developing a project performance evaluation system. International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), 155-164.
Chawla, V. K., Chandab, A. K., Angra, S., & Chawla, G. R. (2018). The sustainable project management: A review and future possibilities. Journal of Project Management, 3(3), 157-170.
Dyckhoff, H., & Souren, R. (2022). Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis and production theory for performance evaluation: Framework and review. European Journal of Operational Research, 297(3), 795-816.
Ferlie, E., & Lynn, L. E., Jr. (2011). Public management and public services delivery. In E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn Jr., & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 347-371). England: Oxford University Press.
Haass, O., & Guzman, G. (2020). Understanding project evaluation-a review and reconceptualization. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(3), 573-599.
Hanberger, A. (2012). Framework for exploring the interplay of governance and evaluation. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 16(3), 9–27.
Holden, D. J., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2009). Evaluation planning here and now. In D. J. Holden & M. Zimmerman (Eds.), A practical guide to program evaluation planning: Theory and case examples (pp. 7-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Iddi, B., & Nuhu, S. (2018). Challenges and opportunities for community participation in monitoring and evaluation of government projects in Tanzania: Case of TASAF II, Bagamoyo District. Journal of Public Policy and Administration, 2(1), 1-10.
Kaufman, R., & English, F. W. (1979). Needs assessment: Concept and application. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Kumar, A., Patel, S., & Lee, H. (2019). Integrating evaluation models for comprehensive project assessments: A case study approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 40(1), 56-70.
Lloyd, J., & Wait, S. (2005). Integrated care: A guide for policymakers. Alliance for Health and the Future. Retrieved from https://ilcuk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/IntegratedCare.pdf
Mertens, D. M., & McLaughlin, J. A. (2000). The context of evaluation practice. In D. L. Stufflebeam (Ed.), Evaluation models: New directions for evaluation (pp. 35-50). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board Office of the Prime Minister, Thailand. (2017). The twelfth national economic and social development plan (2017-2021). Retrieved from https://www.nesdc.go.th/ewt_dl_link.php?nid=9640 [in thai]
Peck, L. R., & Gorzalski, L. M. (2009). An evaluation use framework and empirical assessment. Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Evaluation, 6(12), 139–156.
Provus, M. M. (1971). Discrepancy evaluation for educational program improvement and assessment. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Rossi, P. H., & Freeman, H. E. (1993). Evaluation: A systematic approach (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yang, W., Hu, Y., Ding, Q., Gao, H., & Li, L. (2023). Comprehensive evaluation and comparative analysis of the green development level of provinces in eastern and western China. Sustainability, 15(5), 3965.