4 pg report - 4 question 1 pg each

Major Arguments

The piece of literature that I read to fulfill the requirement for midterm examination is

entitled Collaborative Evaluations: A Step-by-Step Model for the Evaluator” written by Dr.

Liliana Rodriguez-Campos. This book introduces a model for “transforming evaluations into a

joint responsibility process between the evaluator and specific collaboration members (or CMs)”

(Rodriguez-Campos, 2005). It gives first-hand experiences and insights of the collaboration

evaluation process, which are presented in a clear and precise manner and available for

immediate use. The author begins the book by defining terms such as evaluation, collaboration

and collaboration members and models. Next she introduces the foundation of the book: the

Model for Collaborative Evaluations (MCE), which includes six components. The components

of the model are as follows: (1) identify the situation, (2) clarify the expectations, (3) establish a

shared commitment, (4) ensure open communication, (5) encourage best practices, and (6)

follow specific guidelines. Although these components can be used individually, the author

emphasizes that a more comprehensive collaborative evaluation can be accomplished through the

utilization of these components on a rotating and remixing basis.

The MCE was developed in a way that facilitates feedback that can help in managing the

unintended events that can happen along the way. While establishing a solid basis for auto-

analysis, the MCE encourages evaluators and CMs to “articulate concerns and expectations

about the collaborative evaluation and how to set a plan to best handle the process” (Rodriguez-

Campos, 2005). The author continues discussion on the MCE throughout the book by providing

practical examples of collaborative evaluation as well as makes use of identification tools such as

the SWOT matrix, scheduling tools such as the Gantt and PERT charts, and a final checklist for

the MCE. In the final comments, the author encourages others to share (with her) their

experiences using the model.

How does the content relate to my experience?

I found that this book deeply relates to my current position as a research assistant for the

Human Performance Institute. This division of the Department of Industrial & Manufacturing

Engineering was established to conduct research using human subjects. From the beginning of

work beginning until now, I have always been apart of a research team of three of more people.

This constant use of teamwork has had its’ ups, downs, and (valuable) lessons learned. When

reading this book on collaborative evaluations, I found myself identifying with most of the

components of the MCE. For example, I am currently apart of a research team that has several

CMs who are responsible for their specific part of the entire project. The project was set up to be

objective-oriented with a set of questions that, when answered, would fulfill certain objectives of

the project. There were activity and resources schedules to help facilitate successful completion

of the project. Quarterly meetings were also established to inform (and clarify any issues) the

lead researcher(s) as well as other involved CMs on the progress of each piece of the entire

research project.

As I reviewed the steps (components) of the MCE model, this research project was

progressing smoothly until it was time to begin my piece of the project. From the beginning, I

learned that I was not involved in the initial meeting between the lead person(s) and all the other

CMs. My bosses had agreed that we (my team and I) would be responsible for collecting certain

data. When I became aware of the situation, I began the process of data collection by first

looking at what others had done in the past (literature review). This literature review took a

considerable amount of time and the lead research was disappointed when I had not collected

data in time for the second meeting (despite several correspondence of my progression). This

book on collaborative evaluations suggests that there were some important steps that were

overlooked at the beginning of the project. First, not all collaborative members were identified

(identify collaborative members). I was brought into the project two-three months after it had

already began. Second, since I was not at the initial meeting my input of the capabilities of the

data collection methodology was not regarded (identify the situation). Although the lead person

thought that the data collection could be accomplished in a short time frame, she did not have a

background in research in order to accurately determine the requirements of actual data

collection for section of the project (follow specific guidelines). As this project continued, the

lines of communication began to fail (on their part) which caused a very frustrating situation (on

my part). I went to my bosses and explained the situation, at which time they called a meeting

with the lead person to explain the specific guidelines of data collection and to clarify any of

their questions and/or concerns. In the end, my piece of the project was completed on schedule,

but it cost the funding agency $5,000 to do so.

Does the content make sense (and why)?

The content in Rodriguez’s book makes perfect sense to me. I have always been

involved in research that required collaboration efforts and to finally have a set of collaborative

guidelines to follow, reapply, and learn from is great. From the beginning and throughout the

book key terms are defined and each component of the MCE has clear, step-by-step instructions

for successful implementation. I found that while some of the collaborative research I have

conducted established some key elements such as personnel and financial resources, schedules,

and overall objectives, there were other important components that were missed such as

thoroughly identifying all stakeholders and collaborative members and analyzing risk

assessments and the SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) of the project.

These components as well as the other MCE components are critical to the success of the project

and may alleviate many unintended and/or fatal situations.

The MCE checklist, found in the Appendix A, is very helpful because it provides a visual

aid for each component and tells whether each element has been addressed (fully, partially, or

not at all). If there were any uncertainties and/or discrepancies about any element of the project,

evaluators, CMs, or any of the other stakeholder could use the MCE checklist as a reassurance of

compliance (or non-compliance). This document serves as a record-keeping utensil for the

current project as well as for future projects.

What makes the most sense to me about this book is that the author does not claim that

this book is the “Holy Grail” to all collaborative evaluations. Instead she simply says that from

her many years of experience conducting this type of evaluation; these are the key elements

which made the project(s) successful. In my world of research, where experience and replicate is

essential, this book is a sure fit. It provides a solid foundation to a discipline (evaluation) that I

would consider abstract. After reading this book, I have a better sense of what evaluation entails.

Although the collaborative approach is one of many approaches to follow when conducting an

evaluation, it’s an approach that has been engrained in my work behavior as a researcher.

To conclude, Collaborative Evaluations: A step-by-step model for the evaluator has been

a great motivator in my efforts to becoming a great evaluator and researcher. Although I read

this book over the course of three days, it will always be in arms’ reach. I am sure that I will

continue to use this book as a reference in my current and future projects that requires a

collaborative effort.

Rodriguez-Campos, L. (2005). Collaborative Evaluations: A step-by-step model for the

evaluator. Florida: Llumina Press: