There are many definitions of ownership. Here is what we mean by ownership in the context of evaluation.
Our Definition of Ownership
We define evaluation ownership as a combination of the real option to lead the evaluation, with the real ability to claim the evaluation's outputs.
1) The Option to Lead
Leading the evaluation does not mean doing everything by yourself. It means choosing what you:
Do independently (with as much support as you want)
Do collaboratively (with Eval Design Studio and/or the organization)
Delegate (when it is wise, necessary, or required by ethics or law)
Each of these statements demonstrates leadership:
"We want space to decide on our own and then present our decision once we're done."
"We want you to facilitate a process where we make a decision."
"We want to delegate this task or establish safeguards because it's wise, or because we need to comply with ethics or local laws."
2) Claiming Evaluation Outputs
You should also have the real ability to claim what the evaluation produces, such as:
New knowledge
Recommendations and action items
Public communications
The ability to hold those in power accountable (e.g., organizations or leaders)
Ownership in Practice
Broadly, ownership shows up in three areas: deliberation, closing decisions, and completing tasks.
A) Deliberating Options
Deliberation is the process of thinking through and discussing your options. During this process, you might choose to consult the Studio team, trusted community leaders, spiritual practices, or anything else that helps with your decision making.
To facilitate your deliberation, you can use your own tools if you have them, or have EDS facilitate deliberation using our tools. In most cases, it will make sense if EDS facilitates. When we facilitate, we do not make decisions and we do not offer our opinions unless explicitly asked or ethics/the law requires.
Readiness Reviews
Before some decisions are finalized, EDS may need to conduct a Readiness Review to ensure the decision is:
Safe and ethical (Do No Harm)
Feasible within known constraints (e.g., budget, timeline, procurement rules, evaluation questions)
Consistent with data governance requirements (e.g., privacy, access, sharing)
If a decision does not meet these safeguards, we will flag the issue, explain the challenge, and provide revision options for you to deliberate.
B) Closing Decisions
After decisions have been deliberated and cleared a Readiness Review (if one is necessary), they need to be finalized. In this regard, you will determine two things:
One: The process for closing decisions (e.g., a vote)
Two: Who participates in this process (e.g., whether EDS or the organization also casts votes)
You may use any method of closing decisions that is safe and ethical. Some options that you may already find culturally appropriate and familiar include:
Definition: Each member expresses their support for a given option. The option with enough support wins.
Considerations: What will be your threshold for "enough" support? You might choose a simple majority, super majority, plurality (the option with the most votes wins, regardless of the percent of overall votes cast), or something else. You'll also need to decide a quorum (the minimum number of people who must be present in order for a vote to take place).
Definition: A decision can go forward as long as no one in the group has any reasoned objections. The goal is not for everyone to love the decision but to at least be "okay" with it.
Considerations: What will be considered a reasoned objection? Typically, this includes matters of safety, or violations of ethics or the law.
Definition: Everyone in the group emphatically supports the decision.
Considerations: What will you do if everyone does not emphatically support a decision close to the deadline? Will you fall back on another method (e.g., voting) or something else, such as escalating/deferring to a trusted decision maker?
C) Completing Evaluation Tasks
Most decisions will create tasks. You can choose whether these tasks are done independently, collaboratively, by delegation, or through consultation (though we discourage it — more on why below).
What it means: Leading a task doesn't necessarily mean doing it all alone. It could mean doing it independently with no support, doing it independently with guidance from the Studio or the organization (guides, templates, etc.), or doing it independently and then getting feedback as you go or when you're done.
When it's a good option: You have the time, interest, knowledge, and experience to do the task, or believe that with some support, you'd have what you need.
What it means: You and the Studio team work on the task together, at the same time. When writing interview questions, for example, you might want us to brainstorm and write the questions with you. Alternatively, you might want us to brainstorm with you, but split who writes questions such that you write the ones you find enjoyable, and leave the ones you don't find enjoyable to us. There are lots of ways to collaborate; the distinguishing feature is that you want the Studio team actively involved in leading the task with you.
When it's a good option: You believe working on the task with us would be enjoyable, and/or you want to gain experience, see behind the scenes, or cherry-pick the parts of a task you lead so that you only work on what you might enjoy.
What it means: Giving the task to a specialist. For example, you might decide to communicate data artistically. In that case, it could make sense to delegate all or part of art creation to an artist. Analyzing data is another common case. Ethics and participant safety may require that you delegate analysis to us. Alternatively, you might have no interest in analyzing data. We would understand. In fact, we anticipate this. Rather than encourage you to be involved in data analysis, we strongly encourage your leadership in data interpretation because that's where your power matters most. Data analysis is governed by the laws of math. Data interpretation is shaped by experience and worldviews.
When it's a good option: A task needs specialized talent, credentials, or experience you can't reasonably acquire before the task is due, or you simply have no interest in doing it.
What it means: The Studio works on the task independently until it is nearly complete, then asks for your feedback before finalizing it. Your feedback is expected to materially shape the final product unless there's a documented constraint (ethics, law, feasibility). If we use this option, we'll document how your feedback was incorporated and what, if anything, prevented full incorporation. When constraints make consultation tempting, we'll explore other options first (splitting the task, training, lighter-weight collaboration) before going with it.
When it's a good option: There is a severe constraint around timing, interest, knowledge, or skill that can't be overcome (for example, a wildly unexpected event forces us to expedite part of the evaluation).
Why we discourage it: Even with the best intentions, consultation can reproduce a pattern common in traditional evaluation where individuals — often academics with no real connection to the community — make decisions on that community's behalf. This pattern is rooted in a long history of institutions undervaluing community knowledge, and Eval Design Studio exists specifically to counter that pattern.
Our process is built to work for people with zero background in evaluation. We're happy to train you, share what we know, and support you in taking on tasks that interest you.
Similar to decisions, the output of most evaluation tasks will need to clear a Readiness Review.
Next Steps
Soon, we'll understand how you define ownership in the context of this evaluation, then codify this definition, and how you want to make decisions, in an Ownership Charter.
Throughout the evaluation, we will check in to see if your definition of ownership has changed, whether and to what extent you are experiencing ownership, and what we can do to improve your experience.