Iād welcome comments about the overall method, about whether Iām asking the right questions for any particular organization, or about whether my tentative answers to those questions are correct, and about whether this kind of evaluation seems valuable. For instance, itās possible that I would have done better by evaluating all organizations using the same rubric (e.g., leadership quality, ability to identify talent, working on important problems, operational capacity, etc.)
FWIW:
I think I thought the questions you asked about each org seemed good
I say āI think I thoughtā because I wasnāt actively trying to find questions I thought werenāt useful, come up with more relevant questions, etc.
I think it seems reasonable to use different questions for each org
It seems reasonable for the questions to be guided by what the orgās theory of change is, what seem the major plausible upside scenarios for the org, what seems the major plausible downside risks for the org, what seem the major uncertainties about or potential weaknesses of the org, etc., and these things differ a lot between orgs
It might be useful to also have some questions or rubric that is used across all orgs (Iām not sure), but I think itād still be good to have questions for each org tailored to that specific org
Or perhaps the common questions/ārubric elements could be broad enough that the tailored questions all fit under one question/āelement
Toy example: You have a broad question about each of importance, tractability, and neglectedness for each org, and then tailored sub-questions for each of those factors for each org
FWIW:
I think I thought the questions you asked about each org seemed good
I say āI think I thoughtā because I wasnāt actively trying to find questions I thought werenāt useful, come up with more relevant questions, etc.
I think it seems reasonable to use different questions for each org
It seems reasonable for the questions to be guided by what the orgās theory of change is, what seem the major plausible upside scenarios for the org, what seems the major plausible downside risks for the org, what seem the major uncertainties about or potential weaknesses of the org, etc., and these things differ a lot between orgs
It might be useful to also have some questions or rubric that is used across all orgs (Iām not sure), but I think itād still be good to have questions for each org tailored to that specific org
Or perhaps the common questions/ārubric elements could be broad enough that the tailored questions all fit under one question/āelement
Toy example: You have a broad question about each of importance, tractability, and neglectedness for each org, and then tailored sub-questions for each of those factors for each org