Evaluate & Iterate
Step 5: Are We Going Right?
We have determined where we want to go, how to get there, and made a plan. In this stage we evaluate whether the journey, its length, and the places it takes us past are feasible, conform to our goals, and whether we feel confident enough to proceed or need to reconsider.
Reflecting on Goals
Evaluation is a moment to reflect on the goal set in Step 1 and see if the routes plotted align with it. We also determine if the routes are good enough, or if another cycle is needed to refine maps, understanding, and solutions.
Key evaluation questions:
Goal alignment: Do the proposed solutions actually address the system-level goals, or have we drifted toward object-level fixes?
Indicator performance: Do the KPIs show improvement across the full ELSI spectrum, or have we created new externalizations?
Feasibility: Are the proposed interventions realistic given the project's boundary conditions (budget, time, resources)?
Systemic effects: Have we accounted for potential rebound effects, lock-in risks, and unintended consequences?
Stakeholder alignment: Do all key stakeholders support the proposed direction?
The Iterative Cycle
If everything is satisfactory, we can stop the method cycle and begin implementation. More typically, we identify what was good, what to keep, what to improve, and plan the next development cycle.
Each cycle should produce a more refined understanding and more robust solutions. The evaluation phase is where we decide:
Which parts of our analysis need deepening
Which goals need adjusting
Which solutions need strengthening
Whether we are ready for implementation
When to Stop Cycling
There is no fixed number of cycles. We recommend at least three. Stop when:
The solutions are robust enough for the project's needs
Stakeholders are aligned and confident
The indicators show consistent improvement
Additional cycles would produce diminishing returns (recognize this system behavior!)
The evaluation phase is not just about checking boxes. It is about cultivating the discipline to honestly assess whether your solutions are truly systemic, or whether you have unconsciously drifted back to object-level band-aids. This honest reflection is what separates SiD from conventional approaches.