7.10 As discussed earlier, the technical methodologies used for appraisal and evaluation are similar. Each should identify and measure, where possible, both the direct and indirect benefits of the policy, programme or project. The main difference is that evaluation tends to be based on actual data, and appraisal on forecasts and projections.
7.11 The evaluation should include the following:
❑ An assessment, quantified where possible, of what happened;
❑ A comparison with the target outturn; and
❑ A comparative assessment of one or more counterfactuals (i.e. alternative outturns given different states of the world, or different management decisions).
7.12 Where possible the comparative assessment should include a 'control group', to whom the activity was not applied.
7.13 It is usual to take as a benchmark for comparison, what would have happened if the activity under consideration had not been implemented. It is also useful to consider the consequences of implementing one or more of the alternatives considered during appraisal. Occasionally it may be appropriate to consider an option that was not originally appraised, as long as it was feasible at the time of implementation.
7.14 The evaluation should assess the success of the project, programme or policy in achieving its objectives, and also how this achievement has contributed to the wider outcomes. If the objectives were not achieved, the evaluation should establish why that was the case.