Workshop: Outcome mapping (modified from Outcome Mapping Learning Community)

Editor's Notes

• #4: The reality is … In summary these boil down to 3 main challenges: Establishing attribution Tracking learning along the way – new problems and solutions emerge as you learn Spin and counter-spin (fear of failure and loss of funding rather than desire for feedback) In the face of such complexity: How can we show that we have made a difference with our research / project? Proving causality is difficult, especially when there are several factors and actors at work How can we reduce the unknowns regarding our contribution? How can we share the credit? The tipping point by Malcolm Gladwell and Getting to Maybe by Westley, Zimmerman and Patton
• #6: Main Messages In a results’ chain OM helps you think about the « outcomes » section Definition of Program: A group of related projects and activities with a specific set of resources (human, financial, capital) directed to the achievement of a set of goals within a specified period of time Can be used by projects, organizations, and communities too
• #7: OM does three innovative things that add value to existing PM&E methods: Defines the system borders, roles and responsibilities where the program operates; Identifies the prominent actors who are the ongoing drivers of the changes; and Sets milestones that mark the path of change;
• #8: The way a focus on measuring ‘impact’ plays out is not suitable in the context of many projects and programmes -> we need to recognise the limits of a project’s influence, and shape our planning, learning, and accountability functions around “outcomes”, which are further ‘upstream’ from impacts. Limits depend on time, geography, resources, contacts, politics Looking from the point of view of a project, we see Sphere of control = operational environment Sphere of Influence = Relationships & Interactions Sphere of Interest = social, economical, environmental states & trends DIRECT CONTROL DIRECT INFLUENCE INDIRECT INFLUENCE This relates to concepts you may be familiar with from the log frame, along the results chain through to intended impacts. The premise is -> we can’t control everything we’d like to see change -> this is not something unscientific: complexity theory (and common sense!) tells us that real, sustainable change involves the combination of a number of different factors, and is a product of the interaction of many different actors and stakeholders -> Outcome Mapping is concerned with the level where a programme has direct influence Complexity cross-reference: Systems with multiple actors, inter-related and connected with each other and with their environment Various forces interacting with each other, interdependent (e.g. political and social dimensions) In these situations, change occurs because of the interaction of multiple actors and factors; can’t be controlled by one programme Very difficult to predict what ‘impacts’ might be achieved in advance; SDOIC means inherent unpredictability, that isn’t unscientific but based on careful investigation Common mistakes include trying to deliver clear, specific, measurable outcomes; better to work with inevitable uncertainty than to plan based on flimsy predictions Russell Ackoff : 3 kinds of problems: Mess, problem and puzzle. MESS has no defined form or structure, not a clear understanding of what’s wrong, often involves economic, technological, ethical and political issues. Common mistake is to carve off part of a mess, deal with it as a problem and solve it as if it was a puzzle (as the simple causal chain from inputs to impact tries to do) -> need to recognise messy realities
• #9: The way a focus on measuring ‘impact’ plays out is not suitable in the context of many projects and programmes -> we need to recognise the limits of a project’s influence, and shape our planning, learning, and accountability functions around “outcomes”, which are further ‘upstream’ from impacts. Limits depend on time, geography, resources, contacts, politics Looking from the point of view of a project, we see Sphere of control = operational environment Sphere of Influence = Relationships & Interactions Sphere of Interest = social, economical, environmental states & trends DIRECT CONTROL DIRECT INFLUENCE INDIRECT INFLUENCE This relates to concepts you may be familiar with from the log frame, along the results chain through to intended impacts. The premise is -> we can’t control everything we’d like to see change -> this is not something unscientific: complexity theory (and common sense!) tells us that real, sustainable change involves the combination of a number of different factors, and is a product of the interaction of many different actors and stakeholders -> Outcome Mapping is concerned with the level where a programme has direct influence Complexity cross-reference: Systems with multiple actors, inter-related and connected with each other and with their environment Various forces interacting with each other, interdependent (e.g. political and social dimensions) In these situations, change occurs because of the interaction of multiple actors and factors; can’t be controlled by one programme Very difficult to predict what ‘impacts’ might be achieved in advance; SDOIC means inherent unpredictability, that isn’t unscientific but based on careful investigation Common mistakes include trying to deliver clear, specific, measurable outcomes; better to work with inevitable uncertainty than to plan based on flimsy predictions Russell Ackoff : 3 kinds of problems: Mess, problem and puzzle. MESS has no defined form or structure, not a clear understanding of what’s wrong, often involves economic, technological, ethical and political issues. Common mistake is to carve off part of a mess, deal with it as a problem and solve it as if it was a puzzle (as the simple causal chain from inputs to impact tries to do) -> need to recognise messy realities
• #10: Example...
• #12: The three biggest mistakes when monitoring and evaluating development projects are: Only focussing on outputs (how many meetings, how many publications) Only focussing on impacts (decrease in infant mortality, new legislation, access to water, incidence of malaria) Assuming a causal link between the two
• #13: conclusion: « impact » is a highly politicized concept in development. OM focuses on outcomes not impact there are other methods to do impact assessment at OM African Users Workshop in Niamey, January 2007: OM not only about P,M&E but about the way you conceptulize development
• #14: Important to focus on outcomes… Taking again our simplified results chain, we can map the ownership of our local partners or beneficiaries. We see that this increases. At the level of inputs, our partners don’t have a lot of say – decisions about money, who to work with and where to work are largely made by the program or even the donor. But at the impact level, it all depends on the partners and the beneficiaries. Outcome mapping is focussed at the level of outcomes. This is because the partner ownership is high enough to be able to see an effect, some observe changes and the programme influence is high enough to be able to say with some confidence that those changes originated from the intervention.
• #18: Not a lock step progression Indicate DEPTH of change; signals that change is happening Milestones Spectrum of transformation
• #19: This level of generality is OK for higher level audiences but, for M&E and at the operational level, greater specificity is essential.