Suchergebnisse

Computer security is now recognised as an important consideration in modern business, with a variety of guidelines and standards currently available to enable different business environments to be properly protected. However, financial and operational constraints often exist which influence the practicality of these recommendations. New baseline security methods such as Australian and New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS) 4444 and British Standard (BS) 7799 represent minimal standards which organisations can use to improve their security. The aim of the paper is to look at the effectiveness of baseline security standards through the use of an evaluation criteria, which assesses their effectiveness.

AbstractCriteria identify and define the aspects on which what we evaluate is judged and play a central role in evaluation practice. While work on the use of AI in evaluation is burgeoning, at the time of writing, a set of criteria to consider in evaluating the use of AI in evaluation has not been proposed. As a first step in this direction, Teasdale's Criteria Domains Framework was used as the lens through which to critically read articles included in this special issue. This resulted in the identification of eight criteria domains for evaluating the use of AI in evaluation. Three of these criteria domains relate to the conceptualization and implementation of AI in evaluation practice. Five criteria domains are focused on outcomes, specifically those stemming from the use of AI in evaluation. More work is needed to further identify and deliberate possible criteria domains for AI use in evaluation.

One of the most important features of an evaluation is measuring the success of an intervention. In evaluations of development cooperation, this assessment has been guided by the internationally established evaluation criteria of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Development Assistance Committee (OECD DAC) since the early 1990s. The OECD DAC has now updated the evaluation criteria for the first time with the intention of creating "better criteria for better evaluation".

Selecting and justifying relevant criteria is critical to defensible evaluative reasoning, yet there is little advice in the literature to guide practitioners in criteria development. In this article, we introduce a framework that draws on normative ethical perspectives to systematically identify and justify relevant dimensions of value for a public sector–funded program. We illustrate, through an example taken from a recent research project, how evaluators might use the framework to be more thoughtful about identifying and selecting the values against which judgements are made. The potential strengths and limitations of the framework are then discussed.

In this article, we report on an empirical study conducted in the USA to determine the performance measures project managers commonly use to evaluate the success of their projects. Specifically, we identify project managers' orientations toward using internal and/or customer driven measures of performance. We also investigate the priority given to these measures at different stages of a project by identifying the primary objective at those stages. In general we find that project managers' primary success measure is quality and their most important objective is meeting customer needs. The priority given to this objective does not change during various stages of a project regardless of the project type and industry classification. The choice of performance measures, however, is influenced by project type and industry classification.

In the article, authors describe an issue of evaluating the effectiveness of the consolidated groups of taxpayers (CGT). In the context of the work the criteria for the evaluation of the tax system by various authors were described and criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of CGT were identified. The authors proposed the methodology of evaluation activities of CGT on the basis of identified criteria. The results of the evaluation can be used to make changes in Russian legislation, due to which additional finance for the development of the country can be attracted.

AbstractOne of Randall Davies' evaluation students once told him that everything in life can be related to dating. He uses a high school dating story to illustrate the claim that we make informal evaluations regularly. He notes that coming up with good criteria (value‐based quality or success indicators) that are shared across stakeholders in formal evaluations involves balancing what can be easily measured with the more important criteria that can only be discovered over time and deep engagement with all participants. See the interview document here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/ev.20308/suppinfo. Read only. This should not be used in any form without explicit permission from the author.