Sign in or 
- EasyEdit
- Edit tags
-
(what's this?What are these tools?
People just like you can add or edit the content on this site. If you want to try editing, but aren't ready to add to this site, try our demo area.
Read more about editing pages at Wetpaint Central.
) - Report page
Share this
Results chains as roadmaps to change. An introduction
1) What is a results chain
So-called results chains (or chains of results) are key pillars in results-based management. As the name says, they link results to each other in a specific order. A result can be defined as a measurable change that results from a relationship of cause and effect. (See here CIDA: RBM handbook on developing results chains, p. 10).
The OECD, in 2002, defined results chains as follows: “The casual sequence for a development intervention that stipulated the necessary sequence to achieve desired objectives beginning with inputs, moving through activities, and culminating in outcomes, impacts and feedback…Note: the described chain does not always represent the sole conceivable path to the goal; there may be alternative solutions. However the chain is always assumed to be sufficient for achieving the objectives.”[1]
Put more simple, we can say that a results chain is a logically linked chain where activities lead to planned and desired results. The chain therefore can be understood as a roadmap that shows how change can be brought about, what steps have to be taken. Results at each level aggregate to contribute to the results at the next higher level. Therefore results chains often take the form of a pyramid where many inputs feed into many activities, which lead to outputs that add up to some outcomes that then contribute to one impact. Therefore, the results chain is in fact often a results pyramid. Usually, the elements of the results chain are: Input, Activity, Output, Outcome and Impact. It has to be noted that different terminologies are used by different donors and agencies for the levels of the results chain. (See here the overview in Church/Rogers, Designing for Results, p. 42).
The logic of working with results chains has been illustrated by Church and Rogers:
Illustration taken from: Church/Rogers, Designing for Results, p. 29.
Imagine that you need something that is located on a very high shelf, seemingly far out of reach. Below the shelf is a series of small platforms, which are also out of reach. If we could find a way to get to onto the platforms, we might be able to reach the item we need. We look around to see what is available to climb up to a platform. For instance, we could build a ladder. We could try ropes, we could rent a helicopter. We chose to build a ladder because we want to go up and down repeatedly and because we can get the materials quickly and inexpensively. We then get busy ordering supplies, taking measurements, learning ladder safety, cutting wood, etc. Programme design requires thinking in the same lines: how do we face challenges, how do we get from one place to another, from one result to another, in order to achieve the result on highest level. In this case, the activities involve building a ladder. The output of those activities is the ladder. Our output – the ladder – will provide access to the platforms. The result we plan for is to stand on the platform. Once we have achieved standing on one, two, or more platforms, we can achieve the result on highest level – reaching the item in the shelf. The different levels interact with each other. From the bottom looking up, each higher level explains why we are doing what preceded it on lower level. We are implementing activities to produce outputs, the outputs add up to outcomes. (Adapted from Church and Rogers, Designing for results, p. 29ff)
2) Looking at the different levels of the results chain
Often, the following levels are distinguished:
In the field of peacebuilding, there is a debate about especially about the highest level of the results chain - impact. While it is argued that impact is the long-term effects produced by an intervention, sometimes also referred to as "peace writ large", Diana Chigas and Peter Woodrow assert that "Impact is not an extraordinary event; rather, it can be identifiable everyday occurances. It does not have to be remote or at the level of full peace for a society." (Diana Chigas/Peter Woodrow, Demystifying Impacts in Evaluation Practice, in: New Routes, Vol. 13, 3/2008, Uppsala (The Life & Peace Institute), pp. 19. <http://www.life-peace.org/sajt/filer/pdf/New_Routes/NewRoutes83.pdf> (accessed 30 June 2009).
3) How to define a chain of results?
In order to illustrate what a results chain is and what the different elements are, the following examples are useful:
The fish soup story:
Taken from Wilson-Grau, Ricardo, Outputs, Outcomes and Impact, Powerpoint presentation. < http://www.outcomemapping.ca/resource/resource.php?id=179> (accessed 30 June 2009)
Training of police in Human Rights:
The project takes place in a post-conflict setting with still high incidences of insecurity, especially in urban settings. The police force is just being built up and there are recurrent reports of human rights abuses through police officers.
Source: chachabooth@gmail.com
Note: This example shows that results chain often take the form of pyramides. Neither the outcome nor the impact will be produced by one activity and output, several factors have to work together.
Some more examples from Christoph Spurk:
5) References
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), RBM Handbook on developing results chains, December 2000 <http://www.unssc.org/web1/programmes/rcs/cca_undaf_training_material/teamrcs/file.asp?ID=143> (accessed 29 June 2009)
Church, Cheyanne and Rogers, Mark M. (2006), Designing for Results: Integrating Monitoring and Evaluation in Conflict Transformation Programmes, Search For Common Ground, Alliance for Peacebuilding, United States Institute of Peace (http://www.sfcg.org/documents/manualpart1.pdf)
Diana Chigas/Peter Woodrow, Demystifying Impacts in Evaluation Practice, in: New Routes, Vol. 13, 3/2008, Uppsala (The Life & Peace Institute), pp. 19. <http://www.life-peace.org/sajt/filer/pdf/New_Routes/NewRoutes83.pdf> (accessed 30 June 2009).
Paffenholz, Thania, Third Generation PCIA. Introducing the Aid for Peace Approach, Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management, April 2005, http://www.berghof-handbook.net/uploads/download/dialogue4_paffenholz.pdf.
Spurk, Christoph, Measuring results – Lessons from recent debates, Presentation given at LPI workshop February 2008.
Spurk, Christoph, Forget Impact: Concentrate on Measuring Outcomes. Lessons from Recent Debates on Evaluation of Peacebuilding Programmes, in: New Routes, Vol. 13, 3/2008, Uppsala (The Life & Peace Institute), pp. 11-14. <http://www.life-peace.org/sajt/filer/pdf/New_Routes/NewRoutes83.pdf> (accessed 29 June 2009).
OECD/DAC Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results-based management, 2002 (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/21/2754804.pdf)
Notes
Source: chachabooth@gmail.com
So-called results chains (or chains of results) are key pillars in results-based management. As the name says, they link results to each other in a specific order. A result can be defined as a measurable change that results from a relationship of cause and effect. (See here CIDA: RBM handbook on developing results chains, p. 10).
The OECD, in 2002, defined results chains as follows: “The casual sequence for a development intervention that stipulated the necessary sequence to achieve desired objectives beginning with inputs, moving through activities, and culminating in outcomes, impacts and feedback…Note: the described chain does not always represent the sole conceivable path to the goal; there may be alternative solutions. However the chain is always assumed to be sufficient for achieving the objectives.”[1]
Put more simple, we can say that a results chain is a logically linked chain where activities lead to planned and desired results. The chain therefore can be understood as a roadmap that shows how change can be brought about, what steps have to be taken. Results at each level aggregate to contribute to the results at the next higher level. Therefore results chains often take the form of a pyramid where many inputs feed into many activities, which lead to outputs that add up to some outcomes that then contribute to one impact. Therefore, the results chain is in fact often a results pyramid. Usually, the elements of the results chain are: Input, Activity, Output, Outcome and Impact. It has to be noted that different terminologies are used by different donors and agencies for the levels of the results chain. (See here the overview in Church/Rogers, Designing for Results, p. 42).
The logic of working with results chains has been illustrated by Church and Rogers:
Illustration taken from: Church/Rogers, Designing for Results, p. 29.
Imagine that you need something that is located on a very high shelf, seemingly far out of reach. Below the shelf is a series of small platforms, which are also out of reach. If we could find a way to get to onto the platforms, we might be able to reach the item we need. We look around to see what is available to climb up to a platform. For instance, we could build a ladder. We could try ropes, we could rent a helicopter. We chose to build a ladder because we want to go up and down repeatedly and because we can get the materials quickly and inexpensively. We then get busy ordering supplies, taking measurements, learning ladder safety, cutting wood, etc. Programme design requires thinking in the same lines: how do we face challenges, how do we get from one place to another, from one result to another, in order to achieve the result on highest level. In this case, the activities involve building a ladder. The output of those activities is the ladder. Our output – the ladder – will provide access to the platforms. The result we plan for is to stand on the platform. Once we have achieved standing on one, two, or more platforms, we can achieve the result on highest level – reaching the item in the shelf. The different levels interact with each other. From the bottom looking up, each higher level explains why we are doing what preceded it on lower level. We are implementing activities to produce outputs, the outputs add up to outcomes. (Adapted from Church and Rogers, Designing for results, p. 29ff)
2) Looking at the different levels of the results chain
Often, the following levels are distinguished:
| Level of results chain | Explanation |
| Impact | Change in larger conflict context/society in the longer-term. |
| Outcome | Change in the immediate intervention context, usually mid-term. Result of the services that the activities provide. |
| Output | Outputs are the direct results of the activities implemented. They are descriptions of the value of the services produced by the project activities. Outputs are actually the short-term effects of completed activities. |
| Activities | Actions undertaken within programme/project implementation. |
| Inputs | The resources that are to be used, e.g. human resources, financial resources, space, technology, equipment and other materials. |
In the field of peacebuilding, there is a debate about especially about the highest level of the results chain - impact. While it is argued that impact is the long-term effects produced by an intervention, sometimes also referred to as "peace writ large", Diana Chigas and Peter Woodrow assert that "Impact is not an extraordinary event; rather, it can be identifiable everyday occurances. It does not have to be remote or at the level of full peace for a society." (Diana Chigas/Peter Woodrow, Demystifying Impacts in Evaluation Practice, in: New Routes, Vol. 13, 3/2008, Uppsala (The Life & Peace Institute), pp. 19. <http://www.life-peace.org/sajt/filer/pdf/New_Routes/NewRoutes83.pdf> (accessed 30 June 2009).
3) How to define a chain of results?
- Projects should be driven by results and not activities. Activities should be determined by the results you hope to achieve.
- Point of departure is theories of change!
- Theories of change have to be translated into the results chain. Start with the long-term result (what could be called vision of success) that you want to achieve. Then think about outcomes of projects, thereafter outputs, activities and inputs. The logic is backwards!
- Results are best formulated using past tense.
In order to illustrate what a results chain is and what the different elements are, the following examples are useful:
The fish soup story:
Taken from Wilson-Grau, Ricardo, Outputs, Outcomes and Impact, Powerpoint presentation. < http://www.outcomemapping.ca/resource/resource.php?id=179> (accessed 30 June 2009)
Training of police in Human Rights:
The project takes place in a post-conflict setting with still high incidences of insecurity, especially in urban settings. The police force is just being built up and there are recurrent reports of human rights abuses through police officers.
Source: chachabooth@gmail.com
Note: This example shows that results chain often take the form of pyramides. Neither the outcome nor the impact will be produced by one activity and output, several factors have to work together.
Some more examples from Christoph Spurk:
| Public discourse on conflict causes Need: Society needs to discuss openly about conflict. Goal: Balanced information on public agenda Intervention: better reporting (conflict journalism) IMPACT: Government, Parliament, Civil Society and Public interact in order to tackle root causes. OUTCOME (higher level): Listeners/Readers use better media coverage: improved knowledge about conflict causes; start well-informed activities. OUTCOME (lower level): Actual conflict reporting has improved (less stereotypes on ethnicities; more reporting on root causes of conflict; balance of viewpoints; more stories of ordinary people; diversity of sources; sources speak on alternatives to war etc.) OUTPUT: 10 editorial newsrooms better trained. ACTIVITY: Training of 10 editorial newsrooms in conflict journalism. INPUT Changing attitudes towards trust Need: Society needs to stop violence and to prevent future outbreaks Goal: trust and empathy among adversaries to be built up Intervention: Problem solving workshops IMPACT: Cooperative attitude among many adversaries enlarged. Public attitudes change towards cooperation frame. Reforms in political structure. OUTCOME (higher level): Transfer to other people done, initiatives started OUTCOME (lower level): Lasting attitude change. OUTPUT: Participants of 50 workshops have triggered reflection and learning process. ACTIVITY: 50 workshops held INPUT Examples slightly adapted from: Spurk, Christoph, Measuring results – Lessons from recent debates, Presentation given at LPI workshop February 2008. For an explanation of lower and higher level outcomes please see: Spurk, Christoph, Forget Impact: Concentrate on Measuring Outcomes. Lessons from Recent Debates on Evaluation of Peacebuilding Programmes, in: New Routes, Vol. 13, 3/2008, Uppsala (The Life & Peace Institute), pp. 11-14. <http://www.life-peace.org/sajt/filer/pdf/New_Routes/NewRoutes83.pdf> (accessed 29 June 2009). |
5) References
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), RBM Handbook on developing results chains, December 2000 <http://www.unssc.org/web1/programmes/rcs/cca_undaf_training_material/teamrcs/file.asp?ID=143> (accessed 29 June 2009)
Church, Cheyanne and Rogers, Mark M. (2006), Designing for Results: Integrating Monitoring and Evaluation in Conflict Transformation Programmes, Search For Common Ground, Alliance for Peacebuilding, United States Institute of Peace (http://www.sfcg.org/documents/manualpart1.pdf)
Diana Chigas/Peter Woodrow, Demystifying Impacts in Evaluation Practice, in: New Routes, Vol. 13, 3/2008, Uppsala (The Life & Peace Institute), pp. 19. <http://www.life-peace.org/sajt/filer/pdf/New_Routes/NewRoutes83.pdf> (accessed 30 June 2009).
Paffenholz, Thania, Third Generation PCIA. Introducing the Aid for Peace Approach, Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management, April 2005, http://www.berghof-handbook.net/uploads/download/dialogue4_paffenholz.pdf.
Spurk, Christoph, Measuring results – Lessons from recent debates, Presentation given at LPI workshop February 2008.
Spurk, Christoph, Forget Impact: Concentrate on Measuring Outcomes. Lessons from Recent Debates on Evaluation of Peacebuilding Programmes, in: New Routes, Vol. 13, 3/2008, Uppsala (The Life & Peace Institute), pp. 11-14. <http://www.life-peace.org/sajt/filer/pdf/New_Routes/NewRoutes83.pdf> (accessed 29 June 2009).
OECD/DAC Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results-based management, 2002 (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/21/2754804.pdf)
Notes
[1] The OECD/DAC Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results-based management, 2002, p. 34.
Source: chachabooth@gmail.com
chachabooth |
Latest page update: made by chachabooth
, Jun 30 2009, 11:55 AM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by chachabooth
130 words added 1 word deleted 2 images added view changes - complete history) |
|
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
