The evaluation phase serves as an important indicator in art organizational operations as it is here where the precise determination of its relative success is measured using parameters set earlier. Event planning benefits from the evaluation phase in the form of additional interventions geared towards the achieving the set objectives while aiding in decision making. Moreover, it is through evaluation that art and culture leaders gain insight into the goals that a particular program seeks to achieve and subsequently serve as a backdrop for a reflection into areas that require specific focus. It also informs those participating on the progress made thus far and whether the project is in line with the objectives. Project managers need to acknowledge its role in a continuous process that lasts throughout the operations. Moreover, the evaluation also crucial in assessing the level of community engagement in the project as it is these members who are meant to benefit most. Experts view community collaboration as vital to the cause as they develop a sense of ownership for the project which is a crucial factor in determining whether it will thrive (Brindle & DeVereaux, 2011). In this essay, I will focus on the method and roles of evaluation in the context of collaboration, participation and community engagement while using it as a measure of success coupled with factors that can be improved.
The methods used in evaluation often entail the use of quantitative, qualitative data or a combination of both. It is possible to use these techniques independently, but a combination of both provides the best results. In the case of the quantitative approach, the information is gathered observation, questionnaires or an appraisal of existing databases. In reality, this data is instrumental in measuring the extent of implementation about the number of persons who actively took part in the project (Brindle & DeVereaux, 2011). The samples collected are a representation of the community’s attitude and level of participation. On the other hand, the qualitative method seeks to interrogate the value that was added to the community, all individuals who took part and the timeline of events. Case studies and focus groups provide this data which is then received through an analysis phase for interpretation (Heagney, 2012). It enables the project leaders to explain the reasons behind the level of community engagement recorded through observing a wide range of complex issues that affect a specific group. These groups aid their facilitators by providing ideas on how best involve individuals from that particular locality in the project using contextual data. A combination of both methods is also a frequent phenomenon as it deals with an assortment of issues that might be affecting the implementation process.
Through evaluation, it is possible to assess the level of community participation through the data that has been collected. It is this information that will allow the major players to find the cause of the recorded level in a bid to seal all the loopholes and ensure all the objectives are met. The problems experienced throughout the implementation of the proposal among members of the community are spelled out and new measures introduced to correct these anomalies. Furthermore, an evaluation process can enable areas where the staff needs additional training resources that will allow them to bring the local community on board in participating fully in the project. The managers of the art project provide the information gathered to various stakeholders in the community who can aid in involving more of community members in the project. The need for additional funding can also be established during this stage as it is these resources that will determine a community’s level of collaboration.