• Like
  • Save
Outcome mapping illustrated by game
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Outcome mapping illustrated by game

on

  • 1,253 views

Presentation outlining the outcome mapping illustrated by game session at the 4th I-K-Mediary workshop in Bangladesh, January 2011.

Presentation outlining the outcome mapping illustrated by game session at the 4th I-K-Mediary workshop in Bangladesh, January 2011.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,253
Views on SlideShare
1,253
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
28
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Outcome mapping illustrated by game Outcome mapping illustrated by game Presentation Transcript

    • Outcome Mapping Illustrated
      • This slide pack is connected to a role play game. Used together the game and slides illustrate the strengths of Outcome Mapping (and Theory of Change) in anticipating behaviour and enabling a view of outcomes.
      • It was first implemented as part of the IK Mediary Workshop Jan 2011, hosted by D-Net in Bangladesh.
      • Author of the Game and slidepack – Dr Simon Batchelor (IDS and Gamos)
    • Introduction
      • The role play game is not described in this slide pack per se. It will be available through the IK Mediary workshop report.
        • As the conference was about the role of Knowledge Intermediaries in the flow of information from Researchers into the Policy environment (the Research Policy Praxis), the creative part of the role game was thought to be a metaphor of that flow. However, the role game can be substantially changed in future use to reflect the subject matter of a workshop.
    • The game....
      • The game was played with 38 people. It took 20 minutes for the game, with a further 10 minutes for people to share their pieces of art.
      • The slides were created before the game started.
      • Immediately after the game the slides were presented, and the match between the expect, like and love to see's compared to what actually happened were discussed.
      • The slide pack starts with a logical Framework
    • Contribute to understanding of Outcome Mapping To recreate the flow of a knowledge product as an illustration of OM 10 pieces of paper art made by participants That by observing and commenting on the way the output was done, people would see the relevance to OM Distribution of coloured paper to 36 participants within 20 minutes Coloured paper and 2 staff
    • Logical Frameworks
      • Have their uses
      • They are a good administrative tool
      • They are suppose to be a living learning document as well, but are rarely used as that
      • However the key difference with Outcome Mapping approach is that they have very big steps in their logic that are not sufficiently explained.
      • How will the creative exercise of a role game illustrate Outcome Mapping?
    • Outcome Mapping (IDRC Toolkit)
      • Introducing the Outcome Mapping steps as advocated by IDRC
      • We note these are a toolkit – not all steps are equally important.
      • However, we will work through them step by step for this role play exercise.
    •  
    • Vision
      • Illustrate the processes behind outcome mapping to stimulate the participants to go away and find out more.
      • Mission
      • By using an example, in a safe place, to rapidly run through the bits of an OM process
    • HOWEVER
      • While the Theory of Change is a foundation of Outcome Mapping, we feel it is absent from the IDRC OM Toolkit, and is a useful step after the vision and mission to explicitly outline what you think will happen.
      • Theory of Change focuses on
      • “ How it might happen” and
      • “ Why it is important”.
    • Theory of Change
      • I think that if I give the resources to only 2 people, but ask a few others to stand around, there will be some spontaneous helping going on. (how will this help?)
      • This will lead to the distribution of paper faster than 2 people could normally do, and we will make rapid progress. (why is this important)
      • The rapid progress will give people more time to create something. (Why is this important)
      • I believe that some people will not like the exercise and willingly hand over their paper to others, while others will be very creative – if they have more time there will be more room for this collaboration.
      • I also believe that if there is more time (and creativity) that we might get something useful (Beautiful). (why is this important)
      • Because if this happened as I have described here, I believe people will have a slightly better understanding of the theory of change, and maybe the components of outcome mapping.
    •  
    • Boundary Actors
      • The 2 resource people – are my personal boundary actors, but within the project
      • The invited “stand arounds” - people I can influence but not control
      • The 2 people I encourage to create, my control is even weaker than standarounds, but I could influence.
    • Boundary Actors
      • The 2 resource people – are staff and will do as they are told?
      • The invited “stand arounds” - I expect them to pass the paper out to others, I would like to see one or two of them fold the paper to speed the process, I would love to see them take over the process and reorganise it to be more efficient.
      • The 2 people I encourage to create – I expect them to have more understanding of what they might create, I would like to see them share with their neighbours what I said, and I would love to see them become animators to other tables.
    •  
    • Progress Markers
      • The 2 resource people – are happy in their work and not signed off sick?
      • The invited “stand arounds” - picking up the paper and folding, sitting down and folding, sitting and changing the system
      • The 2 people I encourage to create – talking to others, getting up and moving to another table
    • Strategy
      • Get 2 on a table working
      • Get others to stand around
      • Explain the creative process
      • Go talk to 2 people about the creative process
      • Watch it crash and burn!!!
    •  
    • Org behaviour
      • Be open to stand arounds taking over
      • Be open to have our systems changed
      • Not be dogmatic or directive
      • Try to be smiley and encouraging
    • Monitoring
      • Watch the flow of resources outward
      • Check the discomfort of the creators
      • Watch the 2 prompts and how they are reacting
      • Recording – watch and timing, and writing down when things happened
      • I wont have time for a strategy journal
    •  
    • Outcome interviews
      • I will interview the Boundary actors (including staff)
      • And take a sample of the creative work, and the story behind their work. (Impact)
    • Outcome interviews
      • I expect some people to have disengaged (10%), 80% to have done it half hearted, and 10% to be Wow! (as defined by the whole group)
      • I would like to see a couple of collaborative wow pictures, where people worked together to create it – and I would like to see people using pens to make it extra special.
      • I would love to see a piece that has grabed a flipchart paper and made a mega piece of art.
    • Postscript
      • This slide pack may not mean much to people not at the workshop.
      • As stated, we will create a guidance pack to recreate the whole game and slides effect.
      • I guess we will update a link here once it is ready.
    • Postscript
        • However, in summary, most of the actions suggested in the OM plan happened in real life. In some case we reached the “love to see” levels, and in other cases only the “like to see” and “expect”. We also had some unexpected outcomes and some behaviours that were unexpected. The monitoring of progress markers was obvious and timed, and the sampling of the final outcomes was humourous and encouraging (some peoples art was fantastic).
        • The slides in the context of the game illustrated how the OM toolkit “explained” the programme of work more than the logical framework, and how it can cope with complexity.