DOCUMENT RESUME ED 373 111 TM 022 011 AUTHOR Mayeske, George W. TITLE Life Cycle Program Management and Evaluation: An Heuristic Approach. Parts1 and 2. INSTITUTION Extension Service (DOA), Washington, D.C. PUB DATE Apr 94 NOTE 375p. AVAILABLE FROMU.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Office of Communications, Washington, DC (available also in braille, large print, and audiotape). PUB TYPE Guides Non-Classroom Use (055) Reports Evalua,ive/Feasibility (142) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC15 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Administration; Case Studies; *Heuristics; Life Cycle Costing; Program Development; *Program Evaluation; Program Implementation; Program Improvement; Theories; *Workshops IDENTIFIERS *Cooperative Extension Service; *Life Cycle System Management Model ABSTRACT This monograph is divided into two parts. Part 1is meant to serve as a conceptual guide for those facilitating or conducting life-cycle program-management workshops focused on any of the life-cycle stages of:(1) problem finding; (2) program design; (3) program development;(4) program implementation;(5) program maintenance and improvement; and (6) program redirection. Because the framework will be amended and emended from experiences gained in the workshops and later results, the approach is termed "heuristic." A Life Cycle Guidance Team should be formed to sustain the plausibility of the program through its stages. For these purposes, a program is a theory that relates a set of organized activities and resources to intended results. Life-cycle program management and evaluation is applicable to many situations, but in this monograph it is directed toward educational operations of the Cooperative Extension System, with its many years of experience in providing educational programs. Each aspect of the life cycle is examined in some detail. Forty-one figl-es znd O2 tables illustrate the discussion. Four appendixes give fi,ore detail on workshop conduct, the outline of a case report, and definitions ,IEed in l-r;cle program management. Part 2 of the guide foCUSC:, ;n: (1) iritiativ,: the program and monitoring implementation;(2) nair,taininj 2no imtvi..-,g the program; (3) redirectin7 the p7ora; manag;.ng spe.ii ':)pics in the prol5r1m;(3) vvalu4ting tho life cyc),! 7:-cTrat: '1/46) conductinp in-depL caliaion stu.riieb.; and Gh::sring Gr.d tIL:ng the results uf evaluatinb, Twenty t-ibl.es and 13 figures ill1:7trate tLe discw:1. Four appendies prcvi.le ietails 2bOOL .7onducting w-rkshops and a glossary. (Cchtains 187 refcrance4.) (SLD) ****' *******A;.;.*************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. *********************************************************************** U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATION Ofhca O Ecsucatenar Research end Impfonement EOUCATtONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION Ui CENTER (ERIC) his document has been reProduCecl as Cooperative (*cowed trorn the Oert On Or orgentzetton orprnatIng 0 Minor changes have been mmle 10 improve Extension rocoOduCtrOn (lushly Points of vr or 001mons slated In this c1ocu . men? do not nacesSanly represent othcrat System OERI posmon or pohov PROGRAM AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT UFE CYCLE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT &EVALUATIoN: AN HEURISTIC APPROACH Parts I and II PREPARED FOR USE BY THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SYSTEM PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATIONSTAFF EXTENSION SERVICE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE APRIL 1994 ic) BEST COPY AVAILABLE 2 The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at 202-720-5881 (voice) or 202-720-7909.(TDD). To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, 20250, or call 202-720-7327 (voice) or 202-720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer. Mention or display of a trademark, proprietary product, or firm in text or figures does not constitute an endorsement by the U. S. Department of Agriculture and does not imply approval to the exclusion of other suitable products or firms. LIFE CYCLE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT & EVALUATION: AN HEURISTIC APPROACH by George W. Mayeske Program Evaluation Specialist Planning, Development and Evaluation April,1994 Part if of 2 Extension Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20250-0900 The views expressd herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 4 Foreword Although written by a professional evaluator, this monograph is not aboutevaluation. It is about delivering better programs programs that are not only moreplausible but more impactful and robust as wl.A. It is based on many years of experience inattempting to evaluate educational programs, especially one's that arencn-formal and involve learning- by-doing or, what is often called experiential learning. The CooperativeExtension System is especially prominent and perhaps the foremost organization in theworld, in providing such programs. This monograph is meant to serve as a conceptual guide for thosefacilitating or conducting life-cycle program management workshops focused on any ofthe life-cycle stagesof:problemfinding;programdesign;program development;program implementation; program maintenance and improvement; and, programredirection. It is hoped that these chapters will provide a beginning framework which willbe amended and emended from the experiences gained in the workshops as well asfrom their later result ; - hence theapproach is called "heuristic". It is anticipated that such workshops will focus on topicsthat involve a multiplicity of actors for whom a concerted, coordinated effort is required ordesired. Topics that cut across organizational, disciplinary Worgeographic boundaries and require some special effort are especially suited to such an approach. There is a heavy reliance on the useof visual materials since grapi lie presentations seem to readily facilitate "working in groups" while reliance on printed matter can be an impediment. Although this monograph isnot intended to foster an employment program for professional evaluators they are particularly well suited to serve as the facilitators oflife- cycle workshops. They combine a happy blend of research skills with a practical, user oriented approach reinforced by a high degree of interpersonal skill. In short, they arethe natural heirs to such an approach (albeit not the only heirs). Perhaps they will even pursue a set of standards for programs similar tothose developed for evaluations some years ago (Stufflebeam, 1981). Certainly, Mueller(1991) and Smith (1991) have taken major steps in that direction, at least for Extension programs. The names of my colleagues to whom I am indebted for their help in these efforts is rn riad in number and geographic locale, rangingfrom Maine to the Marianas Islands. In iny work I have found them to be a walking "treasuretrove" of "know-how" and "can-do- ism's". All would be richer by far if much of that experience-based ingenuity could be systematized and documented. It is hoped that this monograph takes a small step in that direction. Special notes of thanks are due to: John S. Bottum, Deputy Administratorfor Manning, Development and Evaluation for his continuing support of this work; "Midge" Smith for her pioneering work in adapting Evaluability Assessment (EA) teetniques to Extension programming; to Joe Wholey for starting EA in the first place (ai d who may be scratching his head in wonderment as to how it could have come to this); to a network of colleagues who helped me carry out a "whole bunch" of EA's while along the way eapting these techniques to design future programs rather than attempting to "resurrect" old ones (Charles Clark, Debbie Kil lam, MichaelLambur, John Michael, Marjorie Mortvedt, Maria Russell, Satish Verma and RandallWorkman) and to my colleague Leon Hunter for getting me started with a graphics packageit has "made my day" many times over. I am especially indebted to the Louisiana4-H Youth Development Design Team for orienting my thinking about local agents ascoordinators of program delivery teams and to the North Carolina A&T AdolescentPregnancy and Parenting Team for allowing me to work with them as they carried theirdesign into the developmental phase - an effort from which I continue to learn much. Thecontinuing work of Mike Lambur and Judy Burtner on devising means to identify programsfor elimination will be especially instructive for all, as it nears fruition. I touched on someof their work in Chapter 13 for it is both excellent and begins to fill a voidin our collective knowledge base about ending programs. Finally a special noteof thanks needs to be given to my SecretaryRosa L. Monroe who has labored for years over manyincarnations of this work (of which this latest will likely also be its last). At times she wasably assisted by Mia Johnson. The illustrative program used as an exampleof a design which is then carried into development and implementation, is actually based on asynthesis of most of the program design and evaluability assessment work donein Extension to date. tt is believed to have wide applicability for Extension programming.There is a great deal of developmental