Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 26 2010, 11:47 AM EDT (current) | Anonymous | |
| Jun 23 2009, 3:23 AM EDT | chachabooth | 368 words added, 143 words deleted |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
1) Outcome Mapping
What is outcome mapping and how does it fit with LPI’s Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning tool?
What is Outcome Mapping?[1]
Outcome Mapping is a specific approach to PMEL that was developed by the International Development Research Center (IDRC) in Canada. It sees development as a process that is basically about relationships between people and therefore takes people- and organization-centered perspective. The approach was developed as a response to fundamental challenges encountered by the Evaluation Unit of IDRC with evaluating development programmes. The key problem encountered relates to the requirement of measuring results of development projects, while sustainable change often happen due to a confluence of events, factors, and agencies. Therefore, Outcome Mapping takes as one of its premises that a programme should not focus on attribution (assuming a cause and effect relationship between programme and change in boundary partner), but on contribution instead (seeing the programme as one influencing factor among many others).
Outcome Mapping focuses on one specific type of result: outcomes as behavioural change, i.e. changes in the behavior, relationships, activities or actions of the people, groups, organizations that the programme works with directly. Instead of trying to prove that a specific change can be attributed to a specific programme (i.e. one actor), Outcome Mapping takes as one of its tenets that one actor can only contribute to outcomes. Outcome Mapping does not assume causal relationships between a programme and changes occurring, they are often linked to a programme but cannot be exclusively explained by it. Another central assumption of the Outcome Mapping approach is that focusing on impact in PME & L does not necessarily provide the information necessary to learn and improve development performance. Nevertheless, the importance of impact is acknowledged, impact remains the ultimate goal of development practice.
A key concept within Outcome Mapping is the one of “boundary partners”. These are those individuals, groups, and organizations with whom the program interacts directly to effect change and with whom the programme can anticipate some opportunities for influence. Below is illustrated how the Outcome Mapping approach sees the relationship with partners and the “real world”.
Outcome Mapping is a participatory methodology as it includes the ones implementing the programmes. Outcome Mapping moves away from the notion that monitoring and evaluation are done to a programme, instead it relies on self-assessment. The main purpose of outcome mapping is not external accountability or reporting, but learning. In this spirit, Outcome Mapping emphasises that every programme has to be prepared to change throughout its implementation, it needs to get better and better at doing its job in order to respond to its boundary partners’ changing needs.
What are the key steps in the Outcome Mapping approach?[2]
Outcome Mapping goes through three stages:
1) Intentional Design:
This can be seen as the “Planning” stage and it looks at the following questions:
Why a programme wants to make a contribution to a specific change (What is the vision to which a programme wants to contribute?) Who are the programmes boundary partners? What changes are being sought? How will the programme contribute to the change process?
2) Outcome & Performance Monitoring
This stage monitors the ongoing programme and provides opportunities for learning. Outcome Mapping defines three distinct but highly interrelated sets of activities and changes, and offers tools to monitor each one. Thus, in addition to monitoring changes in boundary partners (Tool: outcome journal), it also monitors the program’s strategies (tool: strategy journal) and organizational practices (performance journal) to enhance understanding of how the program has contributed to change.
3) Evaluation Planning
This stage helps the programme to identify evaluation priorities and develop an evaluation plan.
Why not Results-Based Management?[3]
Outcome Mapping does not use the RBM approach, such as Logical Frameworks, for a number of reasons:
With the application of Outcome Mapping it is explored to bring both approaches – outcome mapping and results-based management – together and use the merits of both. This is based on the belief that while the Results-based Management/the Logical Framework have limitations, their strengths – such as that they enable a “thinking-through” of projects/programmes – can be brought together with the strengths of Outcome Mapping.
For instance, the logical framework (or results chain) provides a good visualisation of the process of change and can be used to create understanding for the change process among the different stakeholders of a programme.
Working with results-based management, an organisation can aim at increasing the room for reflection and learning. This enables to adapt to changing environments. The LFA/results chain can be reflected and changed if necessary (changing circumstances).
The perspective when working with a logical framework/results-based management can be changed: the programme can focus on contribution instead of attribution, on outcomes instead of impact, on learning as well as accountability and on how and why results are achieved.
2) Most Significant Change technique
The Most Significant Change (MSC) technique is essentially a participatory tool for monitoring and evaluation. It does not focus on the planning stages of a project. It occurs throughoout the implementation of a project and involves/can involve a wide range of stakeholders. In a nutshell, the MSC process involves the collection of significant change stories, which are then reviewed and selected from the bottom to the top level of a project (from beneficiaries, to project field staff, to regional headquarters, to global headquarters). The selection takes place in a group and the choice and reasons for the choice are communicated to the lower levels of the process. The basis of the process is to ask
References:
What is outcome mapping and how does it fit with LPI’s Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning tool?
What is Outcome Mapping?[1]
Outcome Mapping is a specific approach to PMEL that was developed by the International Development Research Center (IDRC) in Canada. It sees development as a process that is basically about relationships between people and therefore takes people- and organization-centered perspective. The approach was developed as a response to fundamental challenges encountered by the Evaluation Unit of IDRC with evaluating development programmes. The key problem encountered relates to the requirement of measuring results of development projects, while sustainable change often happen due to a confluence of events, factors, and agencies. Therefore, Outcome Mapping takes as one of its premises that a programme should not focus on attribution (assuming a cause and effect relationship between programme and change in boundary partner), but on contribution instead (seeing the programme as one influencing factor among many others).
Outcome Mapping focuses on one specific type of result: outcomes as behavioural change, i.e. changes in the behavior, relationships, activities or actions of the people, groups, organizations that the programme works with directly. Instead of trying to prove that a specific change can be attributed to a specific programme (i.e. one actor), Outcome Mapping takes as one of its tenets that one actor can only contribute to outcomes. Outcome Mapping does not assume causal relationships between a programme and changes occurring, they are often linked to a programme but cannot be exclusively explained by it. Another central assumption of the Outcome Mapping approach is that focusing on impact in PME & L does not necessarily provide the information necessary to learn and improve development performance. Nevertheless, the importance of impact is acknowledged, impact remains the ultimate goal of development practice.
A key concept within Outcome Mapping is the one of “boundary partners”. These are those individuals, groups, and organizations with whom the program interacts directly to effect change and with whom the programme can anticipate some opportunities for influence. Below is illustrated how the Outcome Mapping approach sees the relationship with partners and the “real world”.
Outcome Mapping is a participatory methodology as it includes the ones implementing the programmes. Outcome Mapping moves away from the notion that monitoring and evaluation are done to a programme, instead it relies on self-assessment. The main purpose of outcome mapping is not external accountability or reporting, but learning. In this spirit, Outcome Mapping emphasises that every programme has to be prepared to change throughout its implementation, it needs to get better and better at doing its job in order to respond to its boundary partners’ changing needs.
What are the key steps in the Outcome Mapping approach?[2]
Outcome Mapping goes through three stages:
1) Intentional Design:
This can be seen as the “Planning” stage and it looks at the following questions:
Why a programme wants to make a contribution to a specific change (What is the vision to which a programme wants to contribute?) Who are the programmes boundary partners? What changes are being sought? How will the programme contribute to the change process?
2) Outcome & Performance Monitoring
This stage monitors the ongoing programme and provides opportunities for learning. Outcome Mapping defines three distinct but highly interrelated sets of activities and changes, and offers tools to monitor each one. Thus, in addition to monitoring changes in boundary partners (Tool: outcome journal), it also monitors the program’s strategies (tool: strategy journal) and organizational practices (performance journal) to enhance understanding of how the program has contributed to change.
3) Evaluation Planning
This stage helps the programme to identify evaluation priorities and develop an evaluation plan.
Why not Results-Based Management?[3]
Outcome Mapping does not use the RBM approach, such as Logical Frameworks, for a number of reasons:
- The concepts of impact and attribution may limit the opportunities of programmes to learn.
- Results chains assume a logical cause and effect relationship between the different levels (input, activities, outputs, outcomes, impact). This contradicts the understanding of development as a complex process. It is a simplification of reality, and while this is to a certain extent necessary, one needs to see the contextual reality that development programmes are part of.
- This form of programming contradicts the relationships, vision and values of socially sustainable development. The emphasis on plans, budgets and accounts has implications for: partner selection, ways of programme design and implementation, what kinds of programmes are started, etc. There is a risk that such an approach reduces the potential for establishing strong partnerships and participation of stakeholders. This could harm the potential to achieve sustained results.
- Attribution of impact to donors contradicts the multiple endogenous contributions and conditions necessary for sustainable development. Outcome Mapping looks at contribution instead, seeing the programme as one of many influences on the boundary partners.[4]
- There is a contradiction between the notion of impact and the confluence of initiatives and conditions that lead to positive social change.
- The focus on results bears the risk that the process that lead to their achievement – the how – is not reflected and learned from.
With the application of Outcome Mapping it is explored to bring both approaches – outcome mapping and results-based management – together and use the merits of both. This is based on the belief that while the Results-based Management/the Logical Framework have limitations, their strengths – such as that they enable a “thinking-through” of projects/programmes – can be brought together with the strengths of Outcome Mapping.
For instance, the logical framework (or results chain) provides a good visualisation of the process of change and can be used to create understanding for the change process among the different stakeholders of a programme.
Working with results-based management, an organisation can aim at increasing the room for reflection and learning. This enables to adapt to changing environments. The LFA/results chain can be reflected and changed if necessary (changing circumstances).
The perspective when working with a logical framework/results-based management can be changed: the programme can focus on contribution instead of attribution, on outcomes instead of impact, on learning as well as accountability and on how and why results are achieved.
[1] See here: Sarah Earl/Fred Carden/Terry Smutylo, Outcome Mapping. Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programmes, IDRC, 2001. <http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9330-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html> (accessed 29 May 2009); Sarah Earl/Fred Carden/Terry Smutylo, Brochure on Outcome Mapping. The Challenges of Assessing Development Impact, International Development Research Center (IDRC), 2001. <http://www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/10945665201om_pamplet_final.ppt> (accessed 29 May 2009)
[2] Ibid.
[4] Diana Chigas and Peter Woodrow also highlight that there is a need to focus on attribution and linkages in their New Routes article (Diana Chigas/Peter Woodrow, Demystifying Impacts in Evaluation Practice, in: New Routes, Vol. 13, 3/2008, Uppsala (The Life & Peace Institute), pp. 19-22. (http://www.life-peace.org/sajt/filer/pdf/New_Routes/NewRoutes83.pdf).
[5] This is largely based on Outcome Mapping Highlights, Outcome Mapping and the Logical Framework Approach: Can They Share a Space? <http://www.outcomemapping.ca/forum/files/OM-LFA_DRAFT_165.pdf> (accessed 29 May 2009) and Daniel Roduner/Walter Schläppi/Walter Egli, Logical Framework Approach and Outcome Mapping. A Constructive Attempt for Synthesis, Zürich 2008. < http://www.outcomemapping.ca/forum/files/Discussion_Paper_OM_LFA_Synthesis_2008-1_126.pdf> (accessed 29 May) as well as own ideas.
2) Most Significant Change technique
The Most Significant Change (MSC) technique is essentially a participatory tool for monitoring and evaluation. It does not focus on the planning stages of a project. It occurs throughoout the implementation of a project and involves/can involve a wide range of stakeholders. In a nutshell, the MSC process involves the collection of significant change stories, which are then reviewed and selected from the bottom to the top level of a project (from beneficiaries, to project field staff, to regional headquarters, to global headquarters). The selection takes place in a group and the choice and reasons for the choice are communicated to the lower levels of the process. The basis of the process is to ask
"Looking back over the last month, what do you think was the most significant change in [particular domain of change]?"It is a way to gather qualitative monitoring information. The MSC technique is best suited for programmes that are:
- Complex and produce diverse outcomes
- large with numerous organisational layers
- focused on social change
- participatory
- struggling with conventional monitoring systems
- highly customised services to a small number of beneficiaries.
References:
Rick Davies/Jess Dart, The 'Most Significant Change' (MSC) Technique. A Guide to Its Use, April 2005. <http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf> (accessed 8 May 2009).
Outcome Mapping Highlights, Outcome Mapping and the Logical Framework Approach: Can They Share a Space? <http://www.outcomemapping.ca/forum/files/OM-LFA_DRAFT_165.pdf> (accessed 29 May 2009)
Sarah Earl/Fred Carden/Terry Smutylo, Outcome Mapping. Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programmes, IDRC, 2001. <http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9330-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html> (accessed 29 May 2009)
Sarah Earl/Fred Carden/Terry Smutylo, Brochure on Outcome Mapping. The Challenges of Assessing Development Impact, International Development Research Center (IDRC), 2001. <http://www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/10945665201om_pamplet_final.ppt> (accessed 29 May 2009)
Daniel Roduner/Walter Schläppi/Walter Egli, Logical Framework Approach and Outcome Mapping. A Constructive Attempt for Synthesis, Zürich 2008. < http://www.outcomemapping.ca/forum/files/Discussion_Paper_OM_LFA_Synthesis_2008-1_126.pdf> (accessed 29 May 2009)
Outcome Mapping Highlights, Outcome Mapping and the Logical Framework Approach: Can They Share a Space? <http://www.outcomemapping.ca/forum/files/OM-LFA_DRAFT_165.pdf> (accessed 29 May 2009)
Sarah Earl/Fred Carden/Terry Smutylo, Outcome Mapping. Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programmes, IDRC, 2001. <http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9330-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html> (accessed 29 May 2009)
Sarah Earl/Fred Carden/Terry Smutylo, Brochure on Outcome Mapping. The Challenges of Assessing Development Impact, International Development Research Center (IDRC), 2001. <http://www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/10945665201om_pamplet_final.ppt> (accessed 29 May 2009)
Daniel Roduner/Walter Schläppi/Walter Egli, Logical Framework Approach and Outcome Mapping. A Constructive Attempt for Synthesis, Zürich 2008. < http://www.outcomemapping.ca/forum/files/Discussion_Paper_OM_LFA_Synthesis_2008-1_126.pdf> (accessed 29 May 2009)
