Evaluation purpose is sometimes unclear
A TOR should explain why the evaluation is being commissioned and how the findings will be used. Without a clear purpose, evaluators may produce a report that is technically complete but not useful for decisions.
Evaluation questions can be too many or too broad
A long list of questions often leads to shallow analysis. Strong TORs prioritise the most important questions and link them to intended users, available evidence and feasible methods.
Scope and geography may be unrealistic
Some TORs request large geographic coverage, many stakeholder groups and complex methods within a limited budget and timeline. This creates risk for quality. A good TOR aligns scope, methods, timeline and resources.
Data availability is not always explained
Evaluators need to know whether baseline data, monitoring data, project documents, beneficiary lists and indicator definitions are available. This affects design, analysis and pricing.
Expected deliverables may lack detail
The TOR should specify expected outputs such as inception report, tools, cleaned dataset, draft report, validation presentation, final report, executive summary and recommendation matrix. Clear deliverables reduce misunderstanding.