Theory of Change and Outcome Mapping

1. Simon Batchelor
Interim Impact and Learning Team manager
Date:29/3/10
Monitoring and Evaluation
Some thoughts on Theory
of Change and Outcome
Mapping

2. 2
Theory of Change
Simply put its about writing down what change you expect to
happen?
And how that change might come about?

3. 3
Theory of Change (TOC) vs. Logical
Framework (LF)!
Some people will be familiar with Logical Frameworks
Donors tend to ask for Logical Framework (LF)
Is this the same as a Theory of Change?
Not quite.
Both are suppose to help project design
The idea of “Theory of Change” is growing
People talk about TOCs and LFs but dont mean the same thing
Limited knowledge on how to use TOC
TOC and LFs can “blend” into each other

4. 4
Theories of Change
Outcomes-based
Causal model
Articulate underlying assumptions
“Logical Frameworks graphically illustrate program components,
and creating one helps stakeholders clearly identify outcomes,
inputs and activities”
“Theories of Change link outcomes and activities to explain
HOW and WHY the desired change is expected to come about”
– Ref Clark and Anderson 2004

5. 5
Long-term
Outcome
Necessary
Pre-
condition
Necessary
Pre-
condition
Necessary
Pre-
condition
Necessary
Pre-
condition
Necessary
Pre-
condition
All
outcomes
that must be
achieved
BEFORE
long-term
Explain WHY here
Show activities
here also
Ref Clark and Anderson 2004

6. 6
So explain the HOW and the WHY
Explain how your work will affect people and make a change
Explain why your work will affect people and create a change

7. 7
Clarifying the difference
“Logic Models usually start with a program and illustrate its
components
Theories of Change may start with a program, but are best when
starting with a goal, before deciding what programmatic approaches
are needed
Logic Models require identifying program components, so you can
see at a glance if outcomes are out of sync with inputs and activities,
but they don’t show WHY activities are expected to produce outcomes
Theories of Change also require justifications at each step – you
have to articulate the hypothesis about why something will cause
something else (it’s a causal model, remember!)”
– Ref Clark and Anderson 2004

8. 8
Explaining the outcome
How often do students need to attend the after-school program in
order for their reading tests scores to improve?
A Logic Model would tell you that the after school program is an
activity and improved reading scores is an outcome. It might
tell you that attendance at the after school program is an
intermediate outcome.
But it wouldn’t tell you that:
“students need to attend after-school programs at least 3 days per
week for a minimum of 60 days, and the curricula must focus
on love of reading and literacy, IN ORDER FOR test scores to
rise”
– Ref Clark and Anderson 2004

9. 9
When to Use?
Logical Frameworks are great when you need to:
• Show someone something they can understand at a glance
• Demonstrate you have identified the basic inputs, outputs and
outcomes for your work
• Summarize a complex theory into basic categories
Theories of Change are best when you need to:
• Design a complex initiative and want to have a rigorous plan for
success
• Evaluate appropriate outcomes at the right time and the right
sequence
• Explain why an initiative worked or did not work, and what
exactly went wrong
Ref Clark and Anderson 2004

10. 10
Summary
Logical Frameworks Theories of Change
Representation
List of Components
Descriptive
Critical Thinking
Pathway of Change
Explanatory
Ref Clark and Anderson 2004

11. 11
So how does this apply to I K Mediary Network?
In IDS we found this exercise useful.
You can find our thinking on our own theory of change.
(Note a Google search on Theory of Change will lead you to the
“superwoman” project - It’s a good example to start with.)

12. 12
At IDS we said
Access to information cannot be viewed as an end in itself but as
a contributor to development processes and social change.
Individual stories from users of the MK4D programme have helped
to develop a framework to guide our work and improve planning,
evaluation, analysis and targeting of services.
The resulting theory of change sets out how the programme
contributes to information use in development and the model will
evolve as it is tested, debated and used in planning, evaluation and
research.

13. 13
At its most simplistic, we see our influence as
having a number of layers:

14. 14

15. 15

16. 16
TOC maps out your initiative through 5
stages
Identifying long-term goals and the assumptions behind them
Backwards mapping and connect the preconditions or
requirements necessary to achieve that goal.
Identifying the interventions that your initiative will perform to
create your desired change.
Developing indicators to measure your outcomes to assess the
performance of your initiative.
Writing a narrative to explain the logic of your initiative.

17. 17
Or to put it another way….
What are you trying to achieve?
What changes in people do you expect to see?
How will these changes come about?

18. 18
Theory of Change led to talking about
Outcomes
Changes in the behaviour, relationships, activities and/or actions of
our target groups that can be logically linked to our programme
(although they are not necessarily directly and solely caused by it).
Outcomes are changes we would like to see in other people, and
are thus not entirely within our control. We have broadly divided our
theory of change into immediate, intermediate and longer term
outcomes.
Our intermediate outcomes around understanding and influence sit
between access to information and the end use of that information.
It is about both the understanding and knowledge that results from
engaging with information, and the influence that the kinds of
information we promote can bring.
Higher level outcomes are the changes in behaviours of
development actors in which we hope to see information influence
development processes and interventions.

19. 19
And thinking about Outcomes led us to
Outcome mapping
Championed by IDRC, Outcome mapping focuses on outcomes
and fits with the theory of change process.
It challenged the direct causality of the logic model
It recognises the world is a complex place!
And it therefore focuses on a range of possible outcomes
(hence the term map rather than route).

20. 20
Last time on these sessions you discussed
Policy Mapping – lots of questions
What policy, practice or discourse are you seeking to influence by
communicating to this audience?
What attitudes or beliefs might impede influence?
What kind of knowledge can most effectively influence this
audience?
Which are the best mediums for reaching this audience?
What is your objective in engaging with policy?
What kind of policy actors would be most likely to use your
resources?

21. 21
It talked about mapping who talked to who

22. 22
Key messages of Outcome mapping
Seeing yourself as a part of a interconnected web of
relationships and systems
Recognizing that change is Continuous, Complex, Non-linear,
Multidirectional, Not controllable
Keeping your eyes wide open - Being attentive along the journey
is as important as the destination
Contribution not attribution - your influence on a better world
- you can influence but not control change in your partners

23. 23
In other words……
Whatever you are trying to achieve, you have to work with
people?
It would be great to know who those people are – but its not
simple.
You cant control those people – but you might influence them.

24. 24
Focuses on the who
Key concept is « boundary partners »
The individuals, groups, and organizations you work with
directly and anticipate opportunities for influence
boundary partners have boundary partners
Therefore network mapping comes into play

25. 25
Boundary partners are those that engaged
with you
Example
Portal specialising
in NGO issues ?

26. 26
Boundary partners are those that engaged
with you
Example
Portal specialising
in NGO issues ?
Boundary
actors
for the portal

27. 27
Boundary partners are those that engaged
with you
Example
Portal specialising
in NGO issues ?
Boundary
actors
for the
NGOs
engaged
in policy
process

28. 28
In other words…..
You engage with some people (Boundary partners)
They engage with others
Ideas flow from one to the other hopefully creating change
(outcomes)

29. 29
Outcome mapping talks about “progress
markers”
A graduated set of statements describing a progression of changed
behaviours in the boundary partner
Describe changes in actions, activities and relationships leading to
the ideal outcome
Shows story of change by articulating the complexity of the change
process
Can be monitored & observed
Permit on-going assessment of partner’s progress (including
unintended results)
Talks about an Outcome Journal
– Story of change and reasons for change
– Unexpected changes
– The actors and factors that contributed to that change
– How we know the change occurred
– Learnings (what? how? why?)

30. 30
Or to put it another way….
What are you trying to achieve and in who?
What changes do you expect to see in those people (and how
might you “see” them)?
And who might they tell about the new ideas and what changes
might you expect in them.

31. 31
How can Outcome mapping help?
focus more on contribution to outcomes, rather than attribution!
understanding the boundary partners and strategic partners
attitudes and approach is essential
move from boundary partners to outcome challenges to progress
markers to strategy maps in a participatory fashion
use Organisational Practices systematically to ensure strategies
are tailored to existing organisational contexts
use journals to address the crucial M&E gap
use the flexibility of OM to combine with other compatible
methodologies
– Ben Ramalingam 2005

32. 32
Questions for discussion
So do you think you can apply Theory of Change to your
work?
Outcome mapping relies on knowing your Boundary partners
– do you know your users, and do you know what change
you expect in them?
User surveys can seek the outcome stories of change – do
your existing surveys ask about how users used the
information you gave them?

33. 33
Acknowledgements
This was a short training session, not a publication.
For the opening section I rely heavily on Clark and
Anderson 2004, which can be found at
www.theoryofchange.org/ppt/TOCs_and_Logic_
Models_forAEA.ppt
I am grateful for their succinct summary of the Logic/
TOC difference.
And Ben Ramalingam 2005 can be found at
http://www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/11335475941OMandKM_Toron