Analyzing the Causes of the Failure of the Evaluation of the Implementation of Infrastructure Policies in Iran (Field of Research: Industrial Development Policies)

Objective Experimental evidence and numerous studies suggest that the evaluation of infrastructure policy implementation in Iran over the past few decades has consistently fallen short of achieving its intended goals. These goals include providing constructive feedback to authorities, enhancing accumulated experience and learning, offering recommendations for policy adjustments or improvements in their implementation, and addressing or eliminating environmental obstacles that hinder policy execution. However, the evaluations conducted have not successfully met these objectives. This research aims to identify the challenges contributing to these shortcomings and seeks to answer the critical question of why these evaluations have been ineffective—referred to as "evaluation failure"—with a particular focus on industrial development policies. Methods This research employed a qualitative research method, utilizing thematic analysis to explore the issue in depth. The study involved 48 experts with substantial experience in policy evaluation, selected through targeted and snowball sampling methods. These experts were drawn from four key groups: 1) regulatory organizations (evaluators), 2) universities and research institutes, 3) executive bodies, and 4) policy-making organizations. Through in-depth interviews, data were collected and subsequently analyzed using the thematic analysis method. From these interviews, 564 unique codes were extracted, which formed the basis of the study's findings. Results The analysis of the research data revealed five overarching "mega-challenges" within Iran's evaluation system that have significantly contributed to the failure of effective evaluation of infrastructure policies. Of these five mega-challenges, two—namely, "the creation of a necessary institutional framework for effective evaluation" and "weak governance within the evaluation system"—are issues at the national and macro levels, necessitating corrective measures at these broader levels to address them effectively. The remaining three mega-challenges—"challenges related to evaluation methods and processes," "challenges associated with organizational characteristics," and "challenges related to the presentation of evaluation results"—manifest primarily at the organizational level and can potentially be resolved within that context. Additionally, the study identified 17 sub-macro challenges (overarching sub-themes) and 48 more detailed challenges (organizing themes), which are subsets of these mega-challenges. In total, 136 factors (basic themes) were identified, each representing critical elements contributing to the failure of infrastructure policy evaluations in Iran. Conclusion The research findings indicate that several significant challenges have undermined the effectiveness of infrastructure policy evaluations in Iran. These challenges have resulted in evaluations that are often quantitatively limited, contradictory, vague, overly general, impractical, and disconnected from the needs of policymakers. Overcoming these challenges is essential to improving the evaluation process, thereby enabling it to achieve its primary objectives: facilitating learning, understanding necessary reforms in policy implementation, and improving the content of approved policies. To address these challenges, the research suggests revising and amending laws and regulations related to evaluation, fostering a culture of evaluation, training evaluation specialists, and creating opportunities for private and non-governmental institutions to engage in evaluation. Additionally, it is recommended to reengineer the structure and context of evaluation organizations to align with necessary features, emphasize local evaluation methods and processes, develop appropriate statistical systems, and ensure the timely and free publication of evaluation results.