ISO 21513
(Main)Project, programme and portfolio management — Guidance on post-project and post-programme evaluation
Project, programme and portfolio management — Guidance on post-project and post-programme evaluation
This standard gives guidance on the overview of post evaluation for projects and programmes; the stakeholders involved in the post evaluation; the contexts and methods of post evaluation; and the procedures for carrying out post evaluation. This standard is intended to be used by any organization and any group of organizations for projects or programmes of any size and complexity, but might require tailoring to the specific needs of the organization. This standard is also designed to provide guidance for post evaluation bodies and for executive and senior management that have related responsibilities within their organizations. The implementation of the guidance may help record achievements against the project's and programme’s development objectives, and may also promote tracking progress, generalizing results, indicating potential risks, and summarizing lessons learned.
Titre manque
General Information
Standards Content (Sample)
International
Standard
First edition
Project, programme and portfolio
management — Guidance on post-
project and post-programme
evaluation
PROOF/ÉPREUVE
Reference number
© ISO 2025
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, or required in the context of its implementation, no part of this publication may
be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting on
the internet or an intranet, without prior written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address below
or ISO’s member body in the country of the requester.
ISO copyright office
CP 401 • Ch. de Blandonnet 8
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva
Phone: +41 22 749 01 11
Email: copyright@iso.org
Website: www.iso.org
Published in Switzerland
PROOF/ÉPREUVE
ii
Contents Page
Foreword .v
Introduction .vi
1 Scope . 1
2 Normative references . 1
3 Terms and definitions . 1
4 Concepts . 3
4.1 Overview .3
4.2 Purpose .4
4.3 Governance .4
4.4 Benefits .5
4.5 Time frame .5
4.6 Continuous improvement .6
4.6.1 Review and revision of governance .6
4.6.2 Incorporating lessons learned .6
5 Prerequisites for post-project or post-programme evaluations . 6
5.1 Overview .6
5.2 Senior executive support .7
5.3 Organizational capability and capacity .7
5.4 Alignment with organizational governance and systems .7
5.5 Cooperation from contractors or suppliers .7
5.6 Cooperation from customers .7
6 Principles . 8
6.1 Overview .8
6.2 Credibility .8
6.3 Independence .8
6.4 Objectivity .8
6.5 Proportionality .8
6.6 Utility .9
7 Roles and responsibilities . 9
7.1 Overview .9
7.2 Sponsoring organization .9
7.3 Evaluation sponsor .10
7.4 Evaluation team leader .10
7.5 Evaluation team members .10
7.6 Evaluation stakeholders and consultees .11
7.6.1 Overview .11
7.6.2 Internal stakeholders .11
7.6.3 External stakeholders .11
7.6.4 Consultees .11
7.7 Recommendation implementation teams . 12
8 Evaluation themes .12
8.1 Overview . 12
8.2 Governance and management . . 13
8.2.1 Overview . 13
8.2.2 Decision-making . 13
8.2.3 Preparation .14
8.2.4 Implementation .14
8.3 Strategic alignment and objectives .14
8.3.1 Overview .14
8.3.2 Strategic alignment .14
8.3.3 Objectives suitability . 15
8.3.4 Objectives achievement . 15
PROOF/ÉPREUVE
iii
8.4 Outputs and outcomes . 15
8.4.1 Overview . 15
8.4.2 Outputs . 15
8.4.3 Organizational and societal outcomes .16
8.4.4 Environmental outcomes.16
8.5 Benefits .16
8.5.1 Overview .16
8.5.2 Economic and financial benefits .16
8.5.3 Social benefits .17
8.5.4 Environmental benefits .17
8.6 Sustainability .17
8.6.1 Overview .17
8.6.2 Sustainability of outputs .17
8.6.3 Sustainability of outcomes .18
8.6.4 Sustainability of benefits .18
8.6.5 Use as a model for future work .18
9 Evaluation practices .18
9.1 Overview .18
9.2 Defining objectives and scope .19
9.3 Planning .19
9.4 Mobilization . 20
9.5 Implementation . . 20
9.5.1 Overview . 20
9.5.2 Collecting data and evidence . 20
9.5.3 Analysing and concluding .21
9.5.4 Reporting and disseminating . 22
9.6 Reviewing and addressing the results . 22
Bibliography .23
PROOF/ÉPREUVE
iv
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out through
ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical committee
has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International organizations,
governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work. ISO collaborates closely
with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are described
in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular, the different approval criteria needed for the different types
of ISO document should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the editorial rules of the
ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www.iso.org/directives).
ISO draws attention to the possibility that the implementation of this document may involve the use of (a)
patent(s). ISO takes no position concerning the evidence, validity or applicability of any claimed patent
rights in respect thereof. As of the date of publication of this document, ISO had not received notice of (a)
patent(s) which may be required to implement this document. However, implementers are cautioned that
this may not represent the latest information, which may be obtained from the patent database available at
www.iso.org/patents. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation of the voluntary nature of standards, the meaning of ISO specific terms and expressions
related to conformity assessment, as well as information about ISO’s adherence to the World Trade
Organization (WTO) principles in the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), see www.iso.org/iso/foreword.html.
This document was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 258 Project, programme and portfolio
management.
Any feedback or questions on this document should be directed to the user’s national standards body. A
complete listing of these bodies can be found at www.iso.org/members.html.
PROOF/ÉPREUVE
v
Introduction
This document provides principles and guidance on the evaluation of projects and programmes after they
have closed, providing valuable feedback to identify what worked and what did not, while promoting a
culture of continuous improvement and contributing to organizational learning.
The post-project and post-programme evaluation as described in this document is aligned in accordance
with ISO 21502:2020, 6.9.
The audience for this document includes, but is not limited to:
— executives, senior management and sponsors who use evaluation for decision-making;
— governing bodies that oversee the quality of planning, monitoring and evaluation practices;
— individuals who are involved in evaluations, including those:
— commissioning evaluations;
— engaging evaluation team leads and members;
— planning evaluations;
— managing evaluations;
— using the results of evaluations;
— individuals who are involved in the academic study of project, programme and portfolio management;
— developers of national standards, organizational standards, industry standards and public policy.
PROOF/ÉPREUVE
vi
International Standard ISO 21513:2025(en)
Project, programme and portfolio management — Guidance
on post-project and post-programme evaluation
1 Scope
This document gives guidance on the evaluation of projects and programmes after they have been closed,
including guidance to the reviewers and contributors involved in these evaluations. Post-project or post-
programme evaluations focus on evaluating the achievement of objectives, actual outcomes and actual
realization of benefits, whether the outcomes or benefits are likely to fulfil expectations in future and the
effectiveness of governance and management of the project or programme.
This document includes guidance for setting, planning, organizing and conducting post-project and post-
programme evaluations. It is applicable to any organization, including public, private and charitable, as well
as, to any type of project or programme, regardless of purpose, delivery approaches, life cycle model used,
complexity, size, cost or duration.
This document does not apply to evaluations that occur before projects or programmes have started or
during the implementation of a project or programme.
2 Normative references
The following documents are referred to in the text in such a way that some or all of their content constitutes
requirements of this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references,
the latest edition of the referenced document applies.
ISO 21506, Project, programme and portfolio management — Vocabulary
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions given in ISO 21506 and the following apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminology databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at https:// www .iso .org/ obp
— IEC Electropedia: available at https:// www .electropedia .org/
3.1
benefit
created advantage, value or other positive effect
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.6]
3.2
business case
documented justification to support decision-making about the commitment to a project (3.10), or
programme (3.8)
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.8, modified — The word “portfolio” has been deleted; “portfolio” is not part of
the scope of this document.]
PROOF/ÉPREUVE
3.3
governance
principles, policies and framework by which an organization is directed and controlled
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.27]
3.4
governing body
person, group or entity accountable for the governance (3.3) of an organization, organizations or a part of an
organization
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.28]
3.5
lessons learned
knowledge gained throughout a project (3.10) or programme (3.8) that shows how events were addressed or
should be addressed for the purpose of improving future performance
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.34, modified — The word “portfolio” has been deleted; “portfolio” is not part of
the scope of this document.]
3.6
outcome
change resulting from the use of the output (3.7) from a project (3.10) or programme (3.8)
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.41]
3.7
output
aggregated tangible or intangible deliverables that form the project (3.10) or programme (3.8) result
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.42]
3.8
programme
group of programme components (3.9) managed in a coordinated way to realize benefits (3.1)
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.54]
3.9
programme component
project (3.10), programme (3.8) or other related work
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.56]
3.10
project
temporary endeavour to achieve one or more defined objectives
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.61]
3.11
sponsor
person responsible for obtaining the resources and executive decisions to enable success
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.85]
PROOF/ÉPREUVE
3.12
stakeholder
person, group or organization that has interests in, or can affect, be affected by or perceive itself to be
affected by, any aspect of a project (3.10) or programme (3.8)
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.86, modified — The word “portfolio” has been deleted; “portfolio” is not part of
the scope of this document.]
4 Concepts
4.1 Overview
Post-project and post-programme evaluations can be advantageous for organizations and stakeholders
to assess the achievement of the objectives of a project or programme. Evaluations can also be powerful
tools for organizations to facilitate a culture of learning, continuous improvement and success. Evaluations
should be based on the documented objectives of the project or programme that were set when the project
or programme was first authorized and at any later point when the objectives were formally changed. The
work content of each evaluation can vary according to the specific situation of each project or programme
and needs of those commissioning the evaluation.
Not every project or programme should necessitate an evaluation. When selecting a project or programme
for an evaluation, the following can be considered:
a) strategic importance: criticality of a project’s or programme’s expected outcomes and planned benefits
to overall organizational success;
b) proportionality: the balance between the benefits of the evaluation and its costs;
c) results: the extent of deviation between the objectives and the actual outcomes.
Figure 1 illustrates a context and environment within which post-project and post-programme evaluations
can be conducted. These evaluations focus on evaluating the achievement of objectives, actual outcomes and
benefits encompassed by the projects and programmes highlighted within the figure.
PROOF/ÉPREUVE
NOTE 1 The operations box indicates that operations can stretch into projects, programmes and portfolios.
NOTE 2 The designation of portfolio in the figure exists just to provide context within an organization.
Figure 1 — Example of the context of conducting post-project and post-programme evaluations
4.2 Purpose
The purpose of a post-project and post-programme evaluation is to verify that the beneficial outcomes are
sustainable and that the planned or unplanned benefits are being realized, including determining to what
extent the project or programme:
a) met the defined objectives, and expectations set in the business case;
b) realized the intended benefits;
c) delivered the intended organizational or societal changes or outcomes, such as operational performance.
Post-project and post-programme evaluations can also provide useful information for the sponsoring
organization to:
— learn from the experience by identifying and analysing successes and failures so that the performance of
current and future projects and programmes can be improved;
— deepen understanding by promoting discussion and reflection to attain a greater depth of knowledge
into the assumptions, options and extent of cooperation related to the work;
— improve communication by encouraging collaboration and understanding among and between a project’s
or programme’s stakeholders.
4.3 Governance
The governance of projects and programmes is set by the sponsoring organization’s governing body,
and should include the rules, procedures and policies that determine how projects and programmes are
PROOF/ÉPREUVE
managed, directed and overseen. Post-project and post-programme evaluations can provide the sponsoring
organization’s governing body with needed feedback and assurance that the rules, procedures and policies
for managing and evaluating projects and programmes are operating as intended.
4.4 Benefits
Post-project and post-programme evaluations can offer several benefits to organizations and stakeholders,
including:
a) increasing the likelihood of achieving sustainable results, benefits and enhanced opportunities;
b) reducing organizational and management risks, as well as identifying future risks with respect to
outputs, outcomes and benefits resulting from projects and programmes;
c) identifying improvements to the governance of projects and programmes;
d) improving engagement with stakeholders;
e) improving accountability and transparency;
f) promoting the tracking of outputs, outcomes and benefits;
g) improving clarity regarding the need for evaluations and the principles guiding evaluations.
4.5 Time frame
Post-project and post-programme evaluations should be conducted after a sufficient period of time has
passed for the project’s or programme’s objectives to begin to be accomplished and the expected outcomes
and benefits to start being realized. Post-project and post-programme evaluations can be carried out more
than once, and even long after the project or programme has been closed.
Figure 2 illustrates an example of two evaluations in the context of a programme’s schedule. The first
evaluation is a post-project evaluation undertaken in the context of the overall programme and is shown
taking place a period of time (t ) after project 5 has been closed. The second evaluation is shown taking
place a period of time (t ) after the programme has been closed.
PROOF/ÉPREUVE
NOTE Evaluations happen a sufficient time (t and t ) after the outputs are in use for the outcomes and benefits to
1 2
be evident.
Figure 2 — Example of evaluations in relation to a programme’s components and schedule
4.6 Continuous improvement
4.6.1 Review and revision of governance
To keep evaluation practices aligned with evolving good practices and organizational needs, the
organization’s governing body should establish regular reviews of its post-project and post-programme
evaluation practices and procedures, and revise those procedures when appropriate.
4.6.2 Incorporating lessons learned
When planning for and conducting post-project or post-programme evaluations, lessons learned from
previous evaluations should be reviewed and incorporated into the evaluation plan. Organizations should
maintain a repository of lessons learned and actively apply relevant insights to enhance future evaluations.
Lessons learned should be effectively and efficiently applied where relevant to future business cases and
related projects and programmes focused on continuous improvement.
5 Prerequisites for post-project or post-programme evaluations
5.1 Overview
If evaluations are to be effective, resulting in findings and recommendations that are beneficial for the
sponsoring organization, several factors should be considered as prerequisites:
a) senior executive support (see 5.2);
b) organizational capability and capacity (see 5.3);
c) alignment with organizational governance and systems (see 5.4);
d) cooperation from contractors, suppliers (see 5.5) and customers (see 5.6).
PROOF/ÉPREUVE
5.2 Senior executive support
Senior executive support is needed if evaluations are to be conducted successfully. The attitudes of senior
executives regarding their response to evaluations of the projects and programmes in which they have
an interest or are sponsoring should be assessed. If the attitude is negative or indifferent, evaluations are
unlikely to attract the necessary resources and their findings and recommendations are less likely to be
addressed.
5.3 Organizational capability and capacity
If the results of post-project and post-programme evaluations are to be considered credible (see 6.2), they
should be conducted by a skilled and experienced evaluation team (see 7.4 and 7.5) which has the support
of the evaluation sponsor (see 7.3), the project or programme’s sponsor and stakeholders. Individuals
performing the evaluation can be employees of the organization or contracted external parties. Equally
important for the success of an evaluation is to verify that the organization has the financial capability
to fund the evaluation until it is completed. Preparing the organization for the implementation of formal
evaluations should include identifying and fulfilling personnel needs and, where needed, development of
individuals likely to be involved in evaluations and implementing the necessary organizational changes.
NOTE 1 Development for individuals can include training, mentoring, coaching and work experience.
NOTE 2 Individuals can include those from the social research, economics, statistics, finance, engineering and
operational research professions.
5.4 Alignment with organizational governance and systems
Post-project and post-programme evaluations should be an integral part of an organization’s governance
arrangements. The practices, procedures, methods and tools used in evaluations should interface with those
from which an evaluation is initiated and into which an evaluation feeds. Organizations should have a post-
project and post-programme evaluation methodology.
Post-project and post-programme evaluations should provide evidence-based insights into the performance
and impact of the project or programme being evaluated. This information can be used to guide decision-
making, policy development, continuous improvement and innovation.
5.5 Cooperation from contractors or suppliers
Organizations often rely on contractors and suppliers to undertake all or part of the work or to provide
equipment, materials or advice. The degree of engagement between and among an organization and its
contractors or suppliers can be critical to the success of the project or programme. Cooperation from a
contractor or supplier with a post-project or post-programme evaluation is important for obtaining access to
contract personnel and their information stores, as well as for creating a working relationship. The inclusion
of an obligation in the respective contracts to participate in evaluations should be included as one of the
terms and conditions to provide availability of relevant personnel and information for post-project and post-
programme evaluations.
5.6 Cooperation from customers
The inclusion of a customer’s perspective can be useful for analysing the project or programme’s results,
further evaluating sustainability, and identifying areas for project or programme management improvement.
In supporting evaluations, personnel in the sponsoring organization who have direct engagement with
customers or other stakeholders should understand the reasons for these evaluations and be able to engage
customers in cooperating and participating with the evaluations using appropriate data collection tools and
techniques. Customer perspectives can also be useful in understanding what can potentially be improved in
future work.
PROOF/ÉPREUVE
6 Principles
6.1 Overview
The degree to which a post-project or post-programme evaluation’s objectives can be achieved is influenced
by the rigour of the evaluation. An evaluation should be well-planned, use methods appropriate to the
objectives of the project or programme, and collect applicable verified and validated data, while following
the established procedures for analysing and reporting the findings. Principles for post-project or post-
programme evaluations should include:
a) credibility (see 6.2);
b) independence (see 6.3);
c) objectivity (see 6.4);
d) proportionality (see 6.5);
e) utility (see 6.6).
6.2 Credibility
A credible and impartial analysis can have a higher level of acceptance of the findings and recommendations
from the evaluations are more likely to be acted on.
Elements of credibility include having transparent evaluation practices; involving the relevant stakeholders;
assigning an evaluation team with the appropriate knowledge, experience and behaviours; applying quality
assurance; and taking an ethical and transparent approach to the evaluation.
6.3 Independence
Independence can lead to an evaluation that is not unduly influenced by the project’s or programme’s
stakeholders.
Evaluations should be led and carried out by individuals or entities that are independent of the sponsor and
the team of the work being evaluated. The evaluation team leader and members can come from a qualified
independent third party or from other departments or units within the sponsoring organization.
6.4 Objectivity
Objectivity can lead to an unbiased evaluation, that is not influenced by emotions or needs of any individual,
group or organization involved in the evaluation or designated to receive the results of the evaluation.
Evaluations should involve fact-based analyses that are methodical, and contextually relevant. Statements
of facts should be clearly distinguished from opinions. Different perspectives of the facts and actions should
be considered, as well as risks that can stem from these perspectives. Findings, including both positive
and negative effects, conclusions and recommendations should be objective, unbiased and supported by
evidence.
6.5 Proportionality
Proportionality can lead to an appropriate depth of analysis and the efficient use of funds and resources.
The approach to the evaluation should be commensurate to the scale and impact of the project or
programme. The outcomes and benefits for the project or programme being evaluated should be reviewed to
determine the intensity and depth of the evaluation practices needed. Other areas that can be considered in
determining the type and depth of the evaluation include costs, risks, ongoing consequences resulting from
the transition of the outputs into use, management of organizational and societal change, and constraints to
beneficial outcomes being sustained and future benefits being realized.
PROOF/ÉPREUVE
6.6 Utility
Utility can lead to findings, conclusions and recommendations, which are useful for taking necessary and
value-added action.
The findings, conclusions and recommendations from an evaluation should be timely and useful for
developing and implementing preventive and corrective actions regarding outcomes and benefits currently
being realized, and for improving the performance of future projects and programmes. Feedback to
decision-makers should be enabled through clear designations of responsibility for the implementation of
the recommendations from the evaluation.
7 Roles and responsibilities
7.1 Overview
Evaluations should involve a number of skilled and technically knowledgeable people to enable the
evaluation to be organized, thorough, and result in recommendations that can be implemented.
Figure 3 illustrates an example of an evaluation team organization structure, together with the stakeholders
who can be consulted during the evaluation.
NOTE The relevant clause numbers are shown within parenthesis.
Figure 3 — Example of an evaluation organization structure with stakeholders typically consulted
7.2 Sponsoring organization
The sponsoring organization acts as the higher-level authority to provide direction and resources for the
projects and programmes within its remit. In respect of evaluations, the sponsoring organization should:
a) confirm the objectives of the evaluation meet their needs;
b) oversee the conduct of the evaluation to verify that the outcomes are sustainable, and the expected
benefits are being realized;
PROOF/ÉPREUVE
c) oversee subsequent reviews and actions resulting from the findings and recommendations from the
evaluation.
7.3 Evaluation sponsor
The evaluation sponsor should be accountable to the sponsoring organization (see 7.2) for initiating,
overseeing and reviewing an evaluation and, if directed, its resulting actions. Responsibilities should include:
a) defining the purpose and objectives of the evaluation;
b) verifying the evaluation aligns with the objectives;
c) allocating resources, such as budget, personnel and tools for the evaluation;
d) appointing the evaluation team leader;
e) confirming the membership of the evaluation team with the team leader;
f) authorizing and overseeing action plans resulting from the evaluation.
NOTE The project or programme sponsor can act as the evaluation sponsor.
7.4 Evaluation team leader
The evaluation team leader should be accountable to the evaluation sponsor for conducting the evaluation.
The evaluation team leader should be familiar with the organizational strategy and objectives under which
the project or programme was authorized and implemented, as well as the objectives to be achieved by the
project or programme. Responsibilities should include:
a) developing an evaluation plan (see 9.3);
b) assigning roles and responsibilities to team members;
c) determining methods and tools to be used in the evaluation;
d) overseeing data collection, analysis and reporting;
e) keeping the evaluation work to plan and meeting the objectives of the evaluation.
A member of a project or programme management office can act as the evaluation team leader, provided
they were not overseeing, directing or participating in the work being evaluated. Alternative members can
be from the organization’s assurance or audit group or external or internal experts, not participating in the
implementation of the project or programme.
7.5 Evaluation team members
The evaluation team members should be accountable to the evaluation team leader for conducting the day-
to-day activities of the evaluation. Responsibilities should include:
a) collecting data using methods and tools, such as surveys, interviews and document analysis;
b) engaging stakeholders to gather feedback and insight;
c) analysing data and preparing findings;
d) developing recommendations based on the findings of the evaluation.
Members of a project or programme management office can act as the evaluation team members, if they
were not participating in the project or programme.
PROOF/ÉPREUVE
7.6 Evaluation stakeholders and consultees
7.6.1 Overview
Evaluation stakeholders are those people or groups who have been impacted, either positively or negatively
by the undertaking of, or outcomes of a project or programme.
Consultees to the evaluation are those individuals or groups, selected from the stakeholders, who provide
the information needed by the evaluation team to undertake the evaluation.
7.6.2 Internal stakeholders
The stakeholders to the evaluation, who are internal to the project or programme can include:
a) the project or programme sponsor;
b) project or programme board members;
c) programme, project and work package managers and control personnel assigned (see ISO 21502:2020,
4.5, and ISO 21503:2022, 5.5);
d) project or programme team members, such as specialists in the work undertaken and those in the
project or programme office.
NOTE If project or programme team members have been reassigned, left the organization or were working under
a contract, they are not always available to be interviewed or consulted.
...
ISO/PRF 21513:2025(en)
ISO/TC 258
Secretariat: ANSI
Date: 2025-10-1011-11
Project, programme and portfolio management — Guidance on post-
project and post-programme evaluation
PROOF
ISO/PRF 21513:2025(en)
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, or required in the context of its implementation, no part of this publication
may be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
or posting on the internet or an intranet, without prior written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO
at the address below or ISO’s member body in the country of the requester.
ISO copyright office
CP 401 • Ch. de Blandonnet 8
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva
Phone: + 41 22 749 01 11
E-mail: copyright@iso.org
Website: www.iso.org
Published in Switzerland
ii
ISO/PRF 21513:2025(en)
Contents
Foreword . v
Introduction . vi
1 Scope . 1
2 Normative references . 1
3 Terms and definitions . 1
4 Concepts . 3
4.1 Overview . 3
4.2 Purpose . 4
4.3 Governance . 5
4.4 Benefits . 5
4.5 Time frame . 5
4.6 Continuous improvement . 6
5 Prerequisites for post-project or post-programme evaluations . 6
5.1 Overview . 6
5.2 Senior executive support . 7
5.3 Organizational capability and capacity . 7
5.4 Alignment with organizational governance and systems . 7
5.5 Cooperation from contractors or suppliers . 7
5.6 Cooperation from customers . 7
6 Principles . 8
6.1 Overview . 8
6.2 Credibility . 8
6.3 Independence . 8
6.4 Objectivity . 8
6.5 Proportionality . 8
6.6 Utility . 9
7 Roles and responsibilities . 9
7.1 Overview . 9
7.2 Sponsoring organization . 9
7.3 Evaluation sponsor . 10
7.4 Evaluation team leader . 10
7.5 Evaluation team members . 10
7.6 Evaluation stakeholders and consultees . 11
7.7 Recommendation implementation teams . 12
8 Evaluation themes . 12
8.1 Overview . 12
8.2 Governance and management . 13
8.3 Strategic alignment and objectives . 15
8.4 Outputs and outcomes . 16
8.5 Benefits . 17
8.6 Sustainability . 18
9 Evaluation practices. 19
9.1 Overview . 19
9.2 Defining objectives and scope . 19
9.3 Planning . 20
9.4 Mobilization . 21
9.5 Implementation . 21
iii
ISO/PRF 21513:2025(en)
9.6 Reviewing and addressing the results . 23
Bibliography . 25
iv
ISO/PRF 21513:2025(en)
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out through
ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical committee has been
established has the right to be represented on that committee. International organizations, governmental and
non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work. ISO collaborates closely with the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are described
in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular, the different approval criteria needed for the different types of
ISO document should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the editorial rules of the
ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www.iso.org/directives).
ISO draws attention to the possibility that the implementation of this document may involve the use of (a)
patent(s). ISO takes no position concerning the evidence, validity or applicability of any claimed patent rights
in respect thereof. As of the date of publication of this document, ISO had not received notice of (a) patent(s)
which may be required to implement this document. However, implementers are cautioned that this may not
represent the latest information, which may be obtained from the patent database available at
www.iso.org/patents. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation of the voluntary nature of standards, the meaning of ISO specific terms and expressions
related to conformity assessment, as well as information about ISO’s adherence to the World Trade
Organization (WTO) principles in the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), see www.iso.org/iso/foreword.html.
This document was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 258 Project, programme and portfolio
management.
Any feedback or questions on this document should be directed to the user’s national standards body. A
complete listing of these bodies can be found at www.iso.org/members.html.
v
ISO/PRF 21513:2025(en)
Introduction
This document provides principles and guidance on the evaluation of projects and programmes after they
have closed, providing valuable feedback to identify what worked and what did not, while promoting a culture
of continuous improvement and contributing to organizational learning.
The post-project and post-programme evaluation as described in this document is aligned in accordance with
ISO 21502:2020, 6.9.
The audience for this document includes, but is not limited to:
— executives, senior management and sponsors who use evaluation for decision-making;
— governing bodies that oversee the quality of planning, monitoring and evaluation practices;
— individuals who are involved in evaluations, including those:
— commissioning evaluations;
— engaging evaluation team leads and members;
— planning evaluations;
— managing evaluations;
— using the results of evaluations;
— individuals who are involved in the academic study of project, programme and portfolio management;
— developers of national standards, organizational standards, industry standards and public policy.
vi
Project, programme and portfolio management — Guidance on post-
project and post-programme evaluation
1 Scope
This document gives guidance on the evaluation of projects and programmes after they have been closed,
including guidance to the reviewers and contributors involved in these evaluations. Post-project or post-
programme evaluations focus on evaluating the achievement of objectives, actual outcomes and actual
realization of benefits, whether the outcomes or benefits are likely to fulfil expectations in future and the
effectiveness of governance and management of the project or programme.
This document includes guidance for setting, planning, organizing and conducting post-project and post-
programme evaluations. It is applicable to any organization, including public, private and charitable, as well
as, to any type of project or programme, regardless of purpose, delivery approaches, life cycle model used,
complexity, size, cost or duration.
This document does not apply to evaluations that occur before projects or programmes have started or during
the implementation of a project or programme.
2 Normative references
The following documents are referred to in the text in such a way that some or all of their content constitutes
requirements of this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references,
the latest edition of the referenced document applies.
ISO 21506:2024, Project, programme and portfolio management — Vocabulary
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions given in ISO 21506 and the following apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminology databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at https://www.iso.org/obp
— IEC Electropedia: available at https://www.electropedia.org/
3.1
benefit
created advantage, value or other positive effect
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.6]
3.2
business case
documented justification to support decision-making about the commitment to a project (3.10), or programme
(3.8)
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.8, modified — The word “portfolio” has been deleted; “portfolio” is not part of
the scope of this document.]
3.3
governance
principles, policies and framework by which an organization is directed and controlled
ISO/PRF 21513:2025(en)
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.27]
3.4
governing body
person, group or entity accountable for the governance (3.3) of an organization, organizations or a part of an
organization
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.28]
3.5
lessons learned
knowledge gained throughout a project (3.10) or programme (3.8) that shows how events were addressed or
should be addressed for the purpose of improving future performance
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.34, modified — The word “portfolio” has been deleted; “portfolio” is not part of
the scope of this document.]
3.6
outcome
change resulting from the use of the output (3.7) from a project (3.10) or programme (3.8)
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.41]
3.7
output
aggregated tangible or intangible deliverables that form the project (3.10) or programme (3.8) result
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.42]
3.8
programme
group of programme components (3.9) managed in a coordinated way to realize benefits (3.1)
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.54]
3.9
programme component
project (3.10), programme (3.8) or other related work
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.56]
3.10
project
temporary endeavour to achieve one or more defined objectives
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.61]
3.11
sponsor
person responsible for obtaining the resources and executive decisions to enable success
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.85]
ISO/PRF 21513:2025(en)
3.12
stakeholder
person, group or organization that has interests in, or can affect, be affected by or perceive itself to be affected
by, any aspect of a project (3.10) or programme (3.8)
[SOURCE: ISO 21506:2024, 3.86, modified — The word “portfolio” has been deleted; “portfolio” is not part of
the scope of this document.]
4 Concepts
4.1 Overview
Post-project and post-programme evaluations can be advantageous for organizations and stakeholders to
assess the achievement of the objectives of a project or programme. Evaluations can also be powerful tools for
organizations to facilitate a culture of learning, continuous improvement and success. Evaluations should be
based on the documented objectives of the project or programme that were set when the project or
programme was first authorized and at any later point when the objectives were formally changed. The work
content of each evaluation can vary according to the specific situation of each project or programme and needs
of those commissioning the evaluation.
Not every project or programme should necessitate an evaluation. When selecting a project or programme for
an evaluation, the following can be considered:
a) strategic importance: criticality of a project’s or programme’s expected outcomes and planned benefits to
overall organizational success;
b) proportionality: the balance between the benefits of the evaluation and its costs;
c) results: the extent of deviation between the objectives and the actual outcomes.
Figure 1 illustrates a context and environment within which post-project and post-programme evaluations
can be conducted. These evaluations focus on evaluating the achievement of objectives, actual outcomes and
benefits encompassed by the projects and programmes highlighted within the figure.
ISO/PRF 21513:2025(en)
NOTE 1 The operations box indicates that operations can stretch into projects, programmes and portfolios.
NOTE 2 The designation of portfolio in the figure exists just to provide context within an organization.
Figure 1 — Example of the context of conducting post-project and post-programme evaluations
4.2 Purpose
The purpose of a post-project and post-programme evaluation is to verify that the beneficial outcomes are
sustainable and that the planned, or unplanned benefits are being realized, including determining to what
extent the project or programme:
a) met the defined objectives, and expectations set in the business case;
b) realized the intended benefits;
c) delivered the intended organizational or societal changes or outcomes, such as operational performance.
Post-project and post-programme evaluations can also provide useful information for the sponsoring
organization to:
— learn from the experience by identifying and analysing successes and failures so that the performance of
current and future projects and programmes can be improved;
— deepen understanding by promoting discussion and reflection to attain a greater depth of knowledge into
the assumptions, options and extent of cooperation related to the work;
— improve communication by encouraging collaboration and understanding among and between a project’s
or programme’s stakeholders.
ISO/PRF 21513:2025(en)
4.3 Governance
The governance of projects and programmes is set by the sponsoring organization’s governing body, and
should include the rules, procedures and policies that determine how projects and programmes are managed,
directed and overseen. Post-project and post-programme evaluations can provide the sponsoring
organization’s governing body with needed feedback and assurance that the rules, procedures and policies for
managing and evaluating projects and programmes are operating as intended.
4.4 Benefits
Post-project and post-programme evaluations can offer several benefits to organizations and stakeholders,
including:
a) increasing the likelihood of achieving sustainable results, benefits and enhanced opportunities;
b) reducing organizational and management risks, as well as identifying future risks with respect to outputs,
outcomes and benefits resulting from projects and programmes;
c) identifying improvements to the governance of projects and programmes;
d) improving engagement with stakeholders;
e) improving accountability and transparency;
f) promoting the tracking of outputs, outcomes and benefits;
g) improving clarity regarding the need for evaluations and the principles guiding evaluations.
4.5 Time frame
Post-project and post-programme evaluations should be conducted after a sufficient period of time has passed
for the project’s or programme’s objectives to begin to be accomplished and the expected outcomes and
benefits to start being realized. Post-project and post-programme evaluations can be carried out more than
once, and even long after the project or programme has been closed.
Figure 2 illustrates an example of two evaluations in the context of a programme’s schedule. The first
evaluation is a post-project evaluation undertaken in the context of the overall programme and is shown
taking place a period of time (t ) after project 5 has been closed. The second evaluation is shown taking place
a period of time (t ) after the programme has been closed.
ISO/PRF 21513:2025(en)
NOTE Evaluations happen a sufficient time (t and t ) after the outputs are in use for the outcomes and benefits to
1 2
be evident.
Figure 2 — Example of evaluations in relation to a programme’s components and schedule
4.6 Continuous improvement
4.6.1 Review and revision of governance
To keep evaluation practices aligned with evolving good practices and organizational needs, the organization’s
governing body should establish regular reviews of its post-project and post-programme evaluation practices
and procedures, and revise those procedures when appropriate.
4.6.2 Incorporating lessons learned
When planning for and conducting post-project or post-programme evaluations, lessons learned from
previous evaluations should be reviewed and incorporated into the evaluation plan. Organizations should
maintain a repository of lessons learned and actively apply relevant insights to enhance future evaluations.
Lessons learned should be effectively and efficiently applied where relevant to future business cases and
related projects and programmes focused on continuous improvement.
5 Prerequisites for post-project or post-programme evaluations
5.1 Overview
If evaluations are to be effective, resulting in findings and recommendations that are beneficial for the
sponsoring organization, several factors should be considered as prerequisites:
a) senior executive support (see 5.2);
b) organizational capability and capacity (see 5.3);
c) alignment with organizational governance and systems (see 5.4);
d) cooperation from contractors, suppliers (see 5.5) and customers (see 5.6).
ISO/PRF 21513:2025(en)
5.2 Senior executive support
Senior executive support is needed if evaluations are to be conducted successfully. The attitudes of senior
executives regarding their response to evaluations of the projects and programmes in which they have an
interest or are sponsoring should be assessed. If the attitude is negative or indifferent, evaluations are unlikely
to attract the necessary resources and their findings and recommendations are less likely to be addressed.
5.3 Organizational capability and capacity
If the results of post-project and post-programme evaluations are to be considered credible (see 6.2), they
should be conducted by a skilled and experienced evaluation team (see 7.4 and 7.5) which has the support of
the evaluation sponsor (see 7.3), the project or programme’s sponsor and stakeholders. Individuals
performing the evaluation can be employees of the organization or contracted external parties. Equally
important for the success of an evaluation is to verify that the organization has the financial capability to fund
the evaluation until it is completed. Preparing the organization for the implementation of formal evaluations
should include identifying and fulfilling personnel needs and, where needed, development of individuals likely
to be involved in evaluations and implementing the necessary organizational changes.
NOTE 1 Development for individuals can include training, mentoring, coaching and work experience.
NOTE 2 Individuals can include those from the social research, economics, statistics, finance, engineering and
operational research professions.
5.4 Alignment with organizational governance and systems
Post-project and post-programme evaluations should be an integral part of an organization’s governance
arrangements. The practices, procedures, methods and tools used in evaluations should interface with those
from which an evaluation is initiated and into which an evaluation feeds. Organizations should have a post-
project and post-programme evaluation methodology.
Post-project and post-programme evaluations should provide evidence-based insights into the performance
and impact of the project or programme being evaluated. This information can be used to guide decision-
making, policy development, continuous improvement and innovation.
5.5 Cooperation from contractors or suppliers
Organizations often rely on contractors and suppliers to undertake all or part of the work or to provide
equipment, materials or advice. The degree of engagement between and among an organization and its
contractors or suppliers can be critical to the success of the project or programme. Cooperation from a
contractor or supplier with a post-project or post-programme evaluation is important for obtaining access to
contract personnel and their information stores, as well as for creating a working relationship. The inclusion
of an obligation in the respective contracts to participate in evaluations should be included as one of the terms
and conditions to provide availability of relevant personnel and information for post-project and post-
programme evaluations.
5.6 Cooperation from customers
The inclusion of a customer’s perspective can be useful for analysing the project or programme’s results,
further evaluating sustainability, and identifying areas for project or programme management improvement.
In supporting evaluations, personnel in the sponsoring organization who have direct engagement with
customers or other stakeholders should understand the reasons for these evaluations and be able to engage
customers in cooperating and participating with the evaluations using appropriate data collection tools and
techniques. Customer perspectives can also be useful in understanding what can potentially be improved in
future work.
ISO/PRF 21513:2025(en)
6 Principles
6.1 Overview
The degree to which a post-project or post-programme evaluation’s objectives can be achieved is influenced
by the rigour of the evaluation. An evaluation should be well-planned, use methods appropriate to the
objectives of the project or programme, and collect applicable verified and validated data, while following the
established procedures for analysing and reporting the findings. Principles for post-project or post-
programme evaluations should include:
a) credibility (see 6.2);
b) independence (see 6.3);
c) objectivity (see 6.4);
d) proportionality (see 6.5);
e) utility (see 6.6).
6.2 Credibility
A credible and impartial analysis can have a higher level of acceptance of the findings and recommendations
from the evaluations are more likely to be acted on.
Elements of credibility include having transparent evaluation practices; involving the relevant stakeholders;
assigning an evaluation team with the appropriate knowledge, experience and behaviours; applying quality
assurance; and taking an ethical and transparent approach to the evaluation.
6.3 Independence
Independence can lead to an evaluation that is not unduly influenced by the project’s or programme’s
stakeholders.
Evaluations should be led and carried out by individuals or entities that are independent of the sponsor and
the team of the work being evaluated. The evaluation team leader and members can come from a qualified
independent third party or from other departments or units within the sponsoring organization.
6.4 Objectivity
Objectivity can lead to an unbiased evaluation, that is not influenced by emotions or needs of any individual,
group or organization involved in the evaluation or designated to receive the results of the evaluation.
Evaluations should involve fact-based analyses that are methodical, and contextually relevant. Statements of
facts should be clearly distinguished from opinions. Different perspectives of the facts and actions should be
considered, as well as risks that can stem from these perspectives. Findings, including both positive and
negative effects, conclusions and recommendations should be objective, unbiased and supported by evidence.
6.5 Proportionality
Proportionality can lead to an appropriate depth of analysis and the efficient use of funds and resources.
The approach to the evaluation should be commensurate to the scale and impact of the project or programme.
The outcomes and benefits for the project or programme being evaluated should be reviewed to determine
the intensity and depth of the evaluation practices needed. Other areas that can be considered in determining
the type and depth of the evaluation include costs, risks, ongoing consequences resulting from the transition
ISO/PRF 21513:2025(en)
of the outputs into use, management of organizational and societal change, and constraints to beneficial
outcomes being sustained and future benefits being realized.
6.6 Utility
Utility can lead to findings, conclusions and recommendations, which are useful for taking necessary and
value-added action.
The findings, conclusions and recommendations from an evaluation should be timely and useful for
developing and implementing preventive and corrective actions regarding outcomes and benefits currently
being realized, and for improving the performance of future projects and programmes. Feedback to decision-
makers should be enabled through clear designations of responsibility for the implementation of the
recommendations from the evaluation.
7 Roles and responsibilities
7.1 Overview
Evaluations should involve a number of skilled and technically knowledgeable people to enable the evaluation
to be organized, thorough, and result in recommendations that can be implemented.
Figure 3 illustrates an example of an evaluation team organization structure, together with the stakeholders
who can be consulted during the evaluation.
NOTE The relevant clause numbers are shown within parenthesis.
Figure 3 — Example of an evaluation organization structure with stakeholders typically consulted
7.2 Sponsoring organization
The sponsoring organization acts as the higher-level authority to provide direction and resources for the
projects and programmes within its remit. In respect of evaluations, the sponsoring organization should:
a) confirm the objectives of the evaluation meet their needs;
ISO/PRF 21513:2025(en)
b) oversee the conduct of the evaluation to verify that the outcomes are sustainable, and the expected
benefits are being realized;
c) oversee subsequent reviews and actions resulting from the findings and recommendations from the
evaluation.
7.3 Evaluation sponsor
The evaluation sponsor should be accountable to the sponsoring organization (see 7.2) for initiating,
overseeing and reviewing an evaluation and, if directed, its resulting actions. Responsibilities should include:
a) defining the purpose and objectives of the evaluation;
b) verifying the evaluation aligns with the objectives;
c) allocating resources, such as budget, personnel and tools for the evaluation;
d) appointing the evaluation team leader;
e) confirming the membership of the evaluation team with the team leader;
f) authorizing and overseeing action plans resulting from the evaluation.
NOTE The project or programme sponsor can act as the evaluation sponsor.
7.4 Evaluation team leader
The evaluation team leader should be accountable to the evaluation sponsor for conducting the evaluation.
The evaluation team leader should be familiar with the organizational strategy and objectives under which
the project or programme was authorized and implemented, as well as the objectives to be achieved by the
project or programme. Responsibilities should include:
a) developing an evaluation plan (see 9.3);
b) assigning roles and responsibilities to team members;
c) determining methods and tools to be used in the evaluation;
d) overseeing data collection, analysis and reporting;
e) keeping the evaluation work to plan and meeting the objectives of the evaluation.
A member of a project or programme management office can act as the evaluation team leader, provided they
were not overseeing, directing or participating in the work being evaluated. Alternative members can be from
the organization’s assurance or audit group or external or internal experts, not participating in the
implementation of the project or programme.
7.5 Evaluation team members
The evaluation team members should be accountable to the evaluation team leader for conducting the day-to-
day activities of the evaluation. Responsibilities should include:
a) collecting data using methods and tools, such as surveys, interviews and document analysis;
b) engaging stakeholders to gather feedback and insight;
ISO/PRF 21513:2025(en)
c) analysing data and preparing findings;
d) developing recommendations based on the findings of the evaluation.
Members of a project or programme management office can act as the evaluation team members, if they were
not participating in the project or programme.
7.6 Evaluation stakeholders and consultees
7.6.1 Overview
Evaluation stakeholders are those people or groups who have been impacted, either positively or negatively
by the undertaking of, or outcomes of a project or programme.
Consultees to the evaluation are those individuals or groups, selected from the stakeholders, who provide the
information needed by the evaluation team to undertake the evaluation.
7.6.2 Internal stakeholders
The stakeholders to the evaluation, who are internal to the project or programme can include:
a) the project or programme sponsor;
b) project or programme board members;
c) programme, project and work package managers and control personnel assigned (see ISO 21502:2020,
4.5, and ISO 21503:2022, 5.5);
d) project or programme team members, such as specialists in the work undertaken and those in the project
or programme office.
NOTE If project or programme team members have been reassigned, left the organization or were working under a
contract, they are not always available to be interviewed or consulted.
7.6.3 External stakeholders
The stakeholders to the evaluation, who are external to the project or programme can include:
a) users of any outputs and those affected by the outcomes of the project or programme;
NOTE 1 Users can include employees, contractors, suppliers or customers who operate or interact with the
outputs. In the case of government, social and charitable work focused on societal change, the users are those
benefiting from the work.
b) stakeholders impacted by the project or programme work when in progress or by the outputs, outcomes
and benefits;
NOTE 2 Stakeholders impacted can include employees whose working lives changed, banks and funding agencies,
customers, contractors, suppliers, citizens who are affected by social policy implemented through the project or
programme and individuals or groups affected by charitable initiatives implemented through the project or
programme.
c) stakeholders who have an interest in the project or programme and its outputs, outcomes and benefits
but are not directly affected.
NOTE 3 Those stakeholders can include government policy and decision-makers, funding agencies, regulatory
authorities, unions, professional associations, charities, the media and pressure groups.
ISO/PRF 21513:2025(en)
d) senior executives in the organization with an interest in the project or programme and its outputs,
outcomes and benefits;
e) personnel responsible for organization-wide practices, methods and tools;
f) project or programme management office members.
7.6.4 Consultees
Consultees should be identified and selected, by the evaluation team, from the project or programme’s
stakeholders (see 7.6.2 and 7.6.3). They should be selected based on their knowledge and experience relating
to the outcomes, benefits and management of the project or programme. Their involvement can be as
interviewees, as survey respondents, focus group participants or other data and evidence-gathering
approaches (see 9.5.2).
7.7 Recommendation implementation teams
Teams created to implement the recommendations from an evaluation should be accountable to the
evaluation sponsor for planning and implementing those recommendations that are considered beneficial for
the organization. The evaluation sponsor can set up separate teams to evaluate the recommendations and to
implement those recommendations. Responsibilities should include:
a) developing action plans for implementing recommended changes to project or programme management
processes;
b) implementing the action plans and tracking progress;
c) reporting back to the evaluation sponsor and identified stakeholders on the status of implementation.
NOTE Recommendation implementation teams are not necessarily part of the post-project or post-programme
evaluation teams. The recommendation implementation teams are formed after the post-project or post-programme
evaluation is completed and its findings, conclusions and recommendations are presented and accepted. In these cases,
the post-project or post-programme evaluation team has no direct role in the implementation of any recommendations
put forward in the evaluation report.
8 Evaluation themes
8.1 Overview
The detailed content of an evaluation should meet the objectives set by the evaluation sponsor (see 7.3) and
can be influenced by the type and context of the project or programme being evaluated. There are several
common themes that can be used as a framework for evaluating a project or programme:
a) governance and management (see 8.2);
b) strategic alignment and objectives (see 8.3);
c) outputs and outcomes (see 8.4);
d) benefits (see 8.5);
e) sustainability (see 8.6).
An example of the relationship among the themes is shown in Figure 4. The way a project or programme is
governed, directed and managed can impact the degree of strategic alignment, the appropriateness of the
ISO/PRF 21513:2025(en)
outputs delivered, the outcomes that result and the benefits realized. The outputs, outcomes and benefits
evaluations can be used as a basis for the sustainability evaluation.
NOTE The relevant clause numbers are shown within parenthesis.
Figure 4 — Example of the relationship among the evaluation themes
If a project enables another project or programme, it is possible that this project, on its own, has no direct
impact on outcomes, benefits, environmental or the social aspects. In such cases, these themes may be reduced
in scope according to the circumstances.
8.2 Governance and management
8.2.1 Overview
The focus of the governance and management theme should be to identify the extent to which the governance
and management of the project or programme impacted the observed outcomes and benefits, whether
realized or not (see ISO 21505).
NOTE 1 A project or programme closure review assesses the adequacy of the governance and management
framework for the project or programme for managing the work, whereas an evaluation assesses, with hindsight, the
impact that a material aspect of governance and management, such as technical and management decisions, had on the
actual outcomes and benefits realized.
The evaluation team should consider each phase of the project or programme, as defined in the governance
framework, to assess any impacts the management of the work had on activities, such as:
a) decision-making (see 8.2.2);
b) preparation (see 8.2.3);
c) implementation (see 8.2.4).
If aspects of the governance and management framework can be used on future work, these aspects should be
noted (see 8.6.5).
For programme evaluations, the governance and management related to the following should also be
considered:
— the allocation of requirements to the programme components;
— the phasing of the programme components;
— the integration of the outputs from the programme components;
— the contribution of each programme component to the programme’s overall outcomes and benefits.
ISO/PRF 21513:2025(en)
NOTE 2 A project’s or programme’s objective can be fulfilled by a combination of deliverables, outputs, outcomes and
benefits, depending on the project’s or programme’s context.
8.2.2 Decision-making
The evaluation team should consider the decisions made throughout the life cycle of the project or
programme, such as those decisions relating to:
a) the approval of the proposal;
b) the feasibility study;
c) the business case or other similar documentation;
d) the plans;
e) the authorization to start a phase of work, or a new programme component in the case of a programme.
The evaluation should focus on those decisions that had a significant impact on the outcomes and benefits
including:
— the scientific, engineering or management rationale for decision-making conclusions;
— the quality of information provided to the decision-makers;
— the timeliness of the decision;
— the extent of consultation with experts leading to the decision.
NOTE The standardization of decision-making can be defined in documents, such as policies, plans and procedures.
8.2.3 Preparation
The evaluation team should consider the project’s or programme’s strategy, sourcing of funds and the
definition of the governance framework. The evaluation should focus on the standardization and
completeness of the governance framework and the rationality of the project or programme strategy. In
addition, the level of integration of the project or programme management information systems, as
determined by periodic internal or external audits (see ISO 21502:2020, 7.16).
The choice of management approach, the phasing and the decomposition of the work into work components
should be assessed to determine whether it is possible that an alternative approach would have resulted in
improved outcomes and benefits sooner, without undue negative risk consequences.
8.2.4 Implementation
The evaluation team should consider the control measures and analyses used throughout the life cycle of the
project or programme. The evaluation should focus on risks, issues and change requests that were raised that
had significant impact on the project or progr
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.
Loading comments...